The Catholick HIERARCHIE OR The Divine Right of a SACRED DOMINION IN CHURCH AND CONSCIENCE Truly Stated Asserted and Pleaded Put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers to obey Magistrates and to be ready to every good work Tit. 3.1 Give none offence to Jews nor Gentiles or to the Church of God 1 Cor. 10.32 The spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord searching all the inward parts of the belly Prov. 20.27 LONDON Printed for Sam. Crouch at the Princes Arms in Popes-head-Alley in Cornhil and Tho. Fox at the Angel in Westminster-hall 1681. TO A WORTHY GENTLEMAN SIR WHen the mindes of men are blinded with Interest and Errour or vitiated with Prejudice and Partiality the wonted manner of opposing Truth is fortiter calumniari being not able any longer to defend themselves by subtile Sophistry and cunning Evasions from the convincing evidence and demonstration thereof Hence it must be either stigmatized with terms of Opprobry and Contempt or its right names exposed by a proverbial and malicious abuse to the scorn and derision of the Ignorant and unstable Vulgar most easily by artificial pious Fraud inspired with a fond Opinion and through the enchantment of that Opinion transported into a furious Zeal for or against such things as they never weighed in any balances of right Reason or duely examined the goodness or evil of and hence are carried this way or that way as designing men shall lead them or as the wind of Popularity raises the swelling Surges of boundless Passions and Affections verifying the Saying of the old Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Menand Opinion more than Truth impression makes On th' Vulgar and as more perswasive takes And truely Sir among good words perverted from the right meaning and abused to Reproach none have been more than those two which the Author of this small Treatise hath dignified his Title-page with A Catholick in our days is become as contemptible as a Puritan formerly or a Phanatick now whenas every good Christian is really a Catholick and doth approve himself so in his Principles and Practice is a Member of the Catholick Church hopes to be saved by the common i. e. the Catholick Faith exerciseth Catholick Holiness in his life and conversation holding a Catholick Communion with all visible Catholicks And this is the Christian that is likeliest to contribute most to the healing the manifold heart and Church-divisions among us And as for Hierarchy it 's well known how our Age hath delivered it up to the infamous usage of scurrilous Tongues and Pens notwithstanding its venerable and never-enough to be admired significancy that the very naming it calls for Reverence and Devotion yea it s very letters and syllables will be a Monument of Renown maugre all the designes of ill-minded men to abandon the Churches glory and to convert all Ecelesiastical Decency and Order into a confused Chaos of phantastical Imaginations or a miscelany of private Humours and Interests And do men know what Hierarchy is that speak so irreverently of it is it not a Sacred Jurisdiction and where is it seated and exercised is it not in the Church and Conscience seats of its dominion so sacred that no Secular Power can aspire unto without the highest usurpation And there is no true Church and sound Conscience in which the Hierarchy doth not exert its power and is not as freely submitted unto with all due homage and obedience And whatever some licentious Protestants may pretend to and raise so much dust of contention about or of whatever Churches of unquoth names and worse natures they profess themselves Members if ever they intend to be saved they must notwithstanding all their religious Huffs at last be found Members of the Catholick Church and be subjected to the Catholick Hierarchy thereof And till this professed subjection become more universal among Christians Religion will still be splitting on the Rocks of Faction Schism and Phanaticism Sir you will finde the principal designe of those few sheets submitted to your judgment is to recommend this Panacaea or Catholick Remedy for the sound healing of of our morbid Church which seems to labour under some Disease not unlike the Microcosmick Scorbet being according to the account of late Physicians a complication of all Distempers or transforming it self Symptomatically into the shapes of all diseases of the Body natural Without doubt our Remedy being prepared and applied S. Artem Spiritualem may contribute towards the recovery of our thrice-honoured but languishing Mother more than all the essential or golden purging Spirit of Cochlear in London can do to the restoring of one Scorbutick body neither is it prepared in every Elaboratory He saith there is one at Westminster can do more towards it than any in England besides He tells me also of one admirable Vertue that it doth wonderfully pacifie the disquieted Archeus of a Body Politick and if it be so I will assure you it 's to be preferred beyond all compare for the plain truth of it is the old Remedies of purging and bleeding do but scurvily agree with it and it 's very apt to Relapses after those rugged Medicines as we finde by sore experience Sir my Friend hath taken some pains out of love to his Country to clear up the nature and demonstrate the necessity of a Catholick Hierarchy though you must not expect to finde that word often mentioned the Vulgar being so apt to start at it as a hard dangerous word pregnant with a Pope Sir I had not obtained leave of my Friend to present these Papers to your view but upon condition that I would apologize on his behalf for the plainness of his Stile saying that he is naturally a stranger to the smooth dresses or high strains of Rhetorick indeed it 's my judgment that the plain truth especially when it acts polemically requires it not but is usually delighted in a garb most like it self and thereby is rendered most acceptable to every good man and solid judgment He likewise humbly desires that you will deliberately read and not suddenly censure any thing as dissonant to truth till you have duely weighed it in it self as in its dependencies and suppositions on which it is built Sir to conclude I humbly crave pardon for the trouble I have given you though I am fully satisfied the subject will not be unpleasant to you whom I know to be an Ecclesiastical Adeptus In respect of your Catholick spirit superlative love to the Church and singular devotion towards the Hierarchy That you may long live and continue in the same minde and practice and many follow your worthy Example is the devout Prayer of SIR Your most humble Servant Catholicus Verus The CONTENTS Chap. 1. OF a Twofold Jurisdiction which a Christian by the Law of Christ is subjected unto Chap. 2. Of a Legislative and Executive Power Chap. 3. Of Christ's immediate Legislative Power Chap. 4. Of Christ's mediate
other Pastors subordinate infallible And it is the greatest reason that he that hath the greatest Charge should have the best understanding to know how to manage it And to what purpose is it for us to seek after further light by going to those that the Church hath further entrusted if they be not holier wiser and juster men than our selves yea than all their inferiour Officers And what is it we aim at most in such Enquiries is it Fallibility or Infallibility Would any one in his best wits be deceived and would the Church deceive any but use the best ways and means for enlightning mens Understandings and reducing them from darkness and errour § 9. Arg. 6. I argue from the nature of the Church in which this Subordination is required That Church must be understood to be the universal visible Church and not any particular Church 1. From the usual acceptation of Church in the like sence when we say The Church with an Emphasis 2. There is no more reason the Church should be understood of one kind of particular Church more than another a Provincial Church or Diocesan may be called the Church by way of eminency as well as the National and if there be more reason because the National is comprehensive of them then much more that the Catholick should be understood by it because it comprehends Nationals and is most comprehensive of all Churches on Earth So that it will unavoidably follow that if there be a Subordination of Pastors in the Church it is in the Catholick Church and the more large the Church is the more extensive is the power of the Pastor and the most comprehensive Church hath a supream Pastor to the Pastors of all other Churches subordinate to it Obj. But the universal Church Visible is not Organical and therefore not capable of an Oecumenical Pastor Answ It is Organical for it 's made up according to our present Phainomena of a Church of visible organized or organical parts comprehending each other and therefore must needs have a visible organical Head principium sensus motus animating all the parts in their respective Subordinations and Relations It 's absurd to say that the hand organized with fingers and joynts the feet with toes and all its parts and so of the other members that these united in one body make not up an organized body and have not one Head common to the totum to communicate respective vigor to each of these members So to say that in the Church there is National Churches organized c. so Provincial c. Diocesan organized and not that the universal Church visible is organized with and influenced by a visible Head is most absurd Again there is the same and greater reason upon the forementioned grounds for the Organization of the Catholick Church than for the organizing of a National Provincial or of any of the inferiour Subordinate Churches for if Order and Uniformity and due administration of Government cannot be maintained in one but by Organization how can they by any other means be obtained in the other And if Order Uniformity c. be not onely comely and beautiful but most necessary to the well-being of a National Church and that the more because it is so comprehensive of other Churches subordinated to it how much more requisite is it to the well-being of the Catholick Church which comprehends National and all others § 10. Arg. 7. That this Catholick Headship is inseparable from a co-ordination of Pastors in the Church may be evinced from these following Necessities 1. A necessity of a Catholick judgment of Schism 2. Of a Catholick interpretation of Scripture it being not of private interpretation 3. Of a Catholick determination of Decencies and Order 4. A Catholick composure of the Prayers of the Church 5. A Catholick Canonization of Saints 6. A Catholick convention or call of Oecumenical Councils § 11. The first Necessity is for a Catholick judgment of Schism for if it be not determined by a Catholick judgment these absurdities will follow 1. National Churches may be Schismatical and no competent judge of them it being not fit that one National Church should judge another they being co-ordinate equally concerned of equal authority latitude and fallibility Neither may a Provincial be judge of National Schism they being subordinate to the National and included in it for they are bound up in the determination of the National and is accountable to it and if it declares against the National as guilty of Schism and upon that account separates from it she shall be judged as Schismatical from the National and so Schism will be committed on Schism and none healed 2. If there be no Catholick determination of Schism there can be no Catholick punishment of Schism from the Catholick Church for the punishment must be preceded by a Law-determination And hence if a National Church be Schismatical from the Catholick it cannot receive any Catholick punishment and it will follow that such a sin may be committed in the Church on which she is not capable to inflict a punishment in any measure proportionate to it 3. If a National Church hath power to judge of the Schism of a Provincial Church and a Provincial Church of the Schism of a Diocesan and a Diocesan of the Schism of a Parochial then by the same reason may the Catholick Church judge of the Schism of a National Church otherwise Schisms will be equally multiplied with National Churches and no redress to be made of them 4. If there be not a Catholick determination of Schism all Churches will not be agreed about Schism so that whilst there is a perpetual controversie in the Church what Schism is and what is not Schism perpetually remains and false judgment still passed upon some Churches these calling that a Schismatical Church which is not so others owning another Church as not Schismatical which is really so All which tends to a necessary and unavoidable confusion for want of a Catholick determination whereas if it may determine by its visible Head all those Controversies would be ended for if the members of the Body complain one of another the whole Body must determine the matter by the Head where there is a concurrence of all parts for the good of the whole § 12. Secondly From the necessity of a Catholick determination of dubious places of Scripture This can be done by none but the Church Catholick on Earth for no Scripture being of private interpretation where shall such an interpretation be found that is not private but in such as is of the Catholick Church where the concurrent judgment and faith of all Churches may be heard 2 Pet. 1.20 the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of private Solution i. e. not of particular persons or Churches private Solution but such as is universal and commonly received by all Churches and Christians according to the analogy of faith Now where can this be found and rested in as
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
Legislative Power Chap. 5. Concerning the nature of Conscience Chap. 6. Concerning the dominion of Conscience Chap. 7. Of the strong and weak Christian Chap. 8. Of Scandals and their natures Chap. 9. Of Necessities and Indifferencies Chap. 10. Certain Propositions concerning Necessities and Indifferencies Chap. 11. Of Christian Liberty Chap. 12. The first Question handled about things indifferent Chap. 13. Of the Power of the Church in things indifferent Chap. 14. A Digression concerning Subordination of Pastors in the Church Chap. 15. Of Magistrates power in matters of Religion Chap. 16. Of the use of the Magistrates Sword in the execution of Ecclesiastical Justice Chap. 17. Of the limits of the Magistratical power in matters of Religion Chap. 18. Of a Christians duty in case of humane Laws in matters religiously indifferent Chap. 19. Of Humane Constitutions in the Worship of God besides the Word Chap. 20. Of the united Power Legislative of Church and State Chap. 21. Of Decency and Order Chap. 22. Of Imposition of Ceremonies Chap. 23. Of Obligation to a Form of Prayer ERRATA PAge 12. line 3. for when he by his Law read when man by his Law P. 13. l 3. for immediately r. mediately Ibid. l. 30. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. l. 31. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 24. l. 9. for obedience r. such obedience Ibid. l. 26. for Masters r. Master P. 25. l. 37. dele The in the most certainly P. 35. l. 13. dele They. P. 36. l. 4. for our r. your P. 44. l. for just and equal r. justly charged P. 45. l. 3. dele thereof P. 48. l. 20. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 53. l. 27. for duty r. guilt Ibid. l. 12. for in religious service r. religious service P. 85. l. 24. for c. r. and. Ibid. l. 39. for Co-ordination r. Subordination P. 88. l. 35. for Nation r. Nations P. 93. l. 8. for by Assemblies r. assembled P. 100. l. 21. r. unlawful in the Worship of God P. 112. l. 33 dele therefore that P. 114. l. 16. r. and sound in his principles P. 125. l. 19. r. of what hath been said is Ibid. l. ult for consequentially r. consequential P. 128. l. 11. for thught r. taught P. 140. l. 2. for and Christ hath r. and hath Christ P. 152. l. 17. for prophane use of them r. prophane manner CHAP. I. Of the Twofold Jurisdiction which a Christian by the Law of Christ is subjected unto § 1. THat there is such a thing as Christian Liberty none pretending to a true information in the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ I suppose will deny neither need I make it my present task for to prove But the great Contest for many Ages hath been about the true Nature and Extent of this Liberty Some stretching the bounds thereof larger than Christ ever did intrenching on Civil and Moral Laws opening thereby a gap to Licentiousness and the violation of the bonds of Humane Societies in Magistratical Rule and Government Others curtalizing and abridging the said Liberty not allowing it those lawful extents allotted thereto by Christ audaciously depriving his poor Members of many Gospel-Priviledges and Advantages granted them by Charter from the Supreme King and Lawgiver Civil and Antichristian Powers still making it their business to spy out this Liberty and their great designe to bring them into Bondage § 2. Calvin observes Duplex esse Regimen in Homine alterum Spirituale quo Conscientia ad pietatem cultum divinum instituitur alterum Politicum quo ad Humanitatis Civilitatis officia quae inter homines servanda sunt homo eruditur Jurisdictio Spiritualis Temporalis i. e. There is in Man a twofold Government the one Spiritual whereby the Conscience is instructed unto Piety and the Worship of God The other Political whereby a man is taught the Duties of Humanity and Civility which are to be observed between man and man a spiritual Jurisdiction and a temporal Which Observation hath Moral foundation and an Evangelical ratification the whole of a Christian being comprehended under these two Heads of Duty charged upon us by the Old and New Testament towards God and towards our Neighbour On the first of which Christ hath by his peculiar Legislative Power over his Church established the whole Oeconomy thereof On the latter he hath chiefly raised the edifices of Civil States and Humane Societies where he hath allowed a latitude of Legislative Power unto the Sons of men as unto his Delegates and Substitutes in earthly Rule and Government Unto both of these Jurisdictions he hath laid on man a firm Obligation by planting his Moral Light in Conscience so that he cannot start from either of these Duties without starting from himself as our first Parents did in their Transgression and all others in putting forth the poyson of that original blot in actual sins of Omission or Commission all which are but irregularities or nonconformities to this Moral obligation laid on Conscience either manifestly so or easily reducible thereunto For whatever is a trespass against the revealed Will of God for Duty in Moral Obedience or instituted Worship is a sin not but that Instituted Worship is fundamentally Moral Obedience but is therefore in some sense distinguished from it the serving of God according to his own appointment being the principal part of the Moral Law because God hath according to the several states of his Church altered the mode and manner of his Worship as he hath thought it best in his Wisdom and as hath bin most suitable to the several ages and states of his Church which alterable or altered Circumstances being the product of Christ's Prerogative alone are called his Instituted Worship § 3. Hence both these Jurisdictions are Primarily and Morally subjected to the King of Kings he orders disposeth of and rules in the Kingdoms of men as well as in his Church and hearts of men yea by ruling Heart and Conscience as well as by disposing Providence he rules Civil States and subordinate Societies but the manifest difference is here that God's political Rule in the Kingdoms of the Earth and humane States is more remote and mediate but that of Church and Conscience being Spiritual is more proximate and immediate He only gives general Laws to Civil Societies and leaves a limited Legislative Power as to particular collateral and incident cases to humane Governours substituted providentially by him To these he leaves the immediate administration of Rule and Government as to an Executive Power altogether and as to a Legislative Power in a great measure but hath reserved the immediate administration of Rule in his Spiritual Dominions to himself alone as to Legislation in his Church and both Legislation and Execution as to Conscience § 4. These two Modes or Degrees of Administration must not be confounded together Man must have no greater share in Rule and Government than
to the contrary Magna est vis Conscientiae in utramque partem ut neque timeant qui nihil commiserint poenam semper ante occulos versari putent qui peccaverint Cic. Orat. pro Milione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sophoc Egregious Witness Conscience To good men is of innocence CHAP. VII Of Strong and Weak Christians and how far they are obliged to submit to each other § 1. HAving evidenced that the Jurisdiction of Conscience belongs to the Lord Christ as his peculiar Prerogative it follows that doubting weak scrupulous Consciences may challenge this priviledge as well as the knowing confirmed strong Consciences and neither the weak subjected to the strong nor the strong to the weak And because the Spirit of God hath distinguished Christians according to their Consciences into strong and weak and shewed how they ought to walk in love towards each other under one and the same Law-giver and Law though diversly apprehended especially as to some circumstances and consequences thereof by them and that they ought not to judge justle wrong and despise each other It will be very requisite in this Conscience-abusing age to speak something distinctly on this subject § 2. The whole revealed will of Christ for the Government of his militant Kingdom and management of all affairs therein as to publick Ecclesiastical concernments so to all particular Duties Relations and Behaviours conscientiously to be performed to God and man is fully and sufficiently manifest under the notions of things necessary and indifferent under which two Heads all Christian Duties positive and negative are comprehended Although there is a supposition of a third because of our blindness ignorance and weakness of Judgement and Affections as to a clear discerning and determining between Gospel-necessities and indifferences how stated by Christ and that is of dubious controverted matters between Church and Church Christian and Christian whether they be absolutely enjoyned or prohibited or indifferently lawful and unlawful called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 3. This supposed Third causeth a distinction of two sorts or rather degrees of Believers both one in Christ the Head and in conscientious ender respect to his Glory The one is the weak scrupulous doubtful Christian not so fully informed in the revealed will of Christ for his walking but because of his great love to Christ and tender respect to his Glory is very zealous thereof and suspitious of himself and his ways and it may be doubts and questions many things which are not doubted of nor need not by the strong because they are clearly enough revealed but the weak by reason of the great darkness of his Understanding is at a loss about them such are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he wants that due light and information that the Conscience ought to have in the truths of the Gospel especially of such as are usually of a more disputable nature so Beza and Piscator * Fides hoc loco declarat Christiandm ipsam Doctrinant in quâ sit adhuc aliquis rudu ac proinâ—è discrimen ciborum dierum nondum in elligit Christi beneficio puisse sublarum Bez. Fides hic significat de usu rerum indifferentium per synecdoch generis to distinguish between things necessary and indifferent but accounts some things indifferent which are necessary and some necessary which are indifferent and therefore doth not rightly distinguish between his duty and liberty The stronger Believer is he who hath a clearer and fuller discerning of the minde and will of Christ revealed touching things absolutely or relatively necessary by the Law of Christ and things left in indifferency and this is the Christian that hath least doubt and scruple in Conscience Circa agenda non agenda necessario agenda indifferenter and therefore of licita non licita and hath that plerophory of Judgement spoken of Rom. 14.13 § 4. The Apostle in that Chapter and elsewhere doth fully shew the difference between these Believers the one sort are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 weak in Faith The other sort are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strong and confirmed in Principles Knowledge and Judgement All indeed have some Knowledge which have any Faith of a true nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all have knowledge 1 Cor. 8.1 but all have not such a degree of Knowledge as to denominate them strong 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. this eminent knowledge is not in all therefore some are weaker in Faith and Conscience and therefore have not a good judgement of discretion or of determination of doubtful points to which he is not to be taken by other Christians for he having a zeal to the honour of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Steph. Certamen disceptatio by the Vulgar to which Beza adheres but by Erasmiâ—s Dâ— judicaiio whom Grotius and Hammond follow and seems to me to be most genuine For though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for Doubting yet it is oftener taken for Discerning and Judging and besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Noun is elsewhere still taken in this sence of Discerning 1 Cor. 12.10 Heb. 5.14 and but little knowledge is superstitiously observant of many things which the strong looks not upon himself at all obliged in conscience to The Apostle gives an instance v. 2. One believeth that he may eat all things another that is weak eateth Herbs i. e. the strong knoweth his liberty that Christ hath not confined him in so narrow a compass for the sober and convenient use of any creature-comfort whereas the weak he looks upon himself bound to Ceremonies to observe many things as to meats drinks days c. and this was the great dispute between the Professors in the Apostles times whether all the Jewish Observations were abolished or not by Christ The strong Professors said they were according to Peter's Vision the weak said they were yet to be observed And as there were weak Jewish Christians so there were weak Gentiles Professors who did eat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 8.7 which doth eat with Conscience i. e. of respect towards the Idol this is illustrated v. 10. for the weak seeing the strong eat things sacrificed to Idols or sitting in the Idol-Temple he saith the Conscience of the weak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 edified to eat things sacrificed unto Idols as such Whereas the strong hath no such respect at all but the poor indiscreet weak Believer judges so and therefore encourageth himself in his own Superstition he walks by a dimmer light therefore his Conscience is more apt to be defiled The stronger hath a greater degree of light and knowledge and therefore is not so apt to trip and stumble in the way that he walks his Conscience is more clean and free from pollution The Apostle Heb. 5.14 opposeth these two sorts of Believers as Children and grown men v. 13. every one that useth Milk is unskilful in the word of
West or wear this or that Colour in the Worship of God c. thousands of instances may be given We speak not here of natural civil or moral Liberty there 's no doubt but a Christian as a man may claim as much of that as another and hath as much Law-obligation as to precepts of practice but the matter under debate is what the Evangelical Liberty of a Christian is in the transaction of the affairs of Christ's Kingdom § 3. A Christian's Liberty is not a boundless and lawless Liberty in those things wherein he is most free but hath its special limits and bounds set unto it by Christ in certain Rules and Precepts generally prescribed by him to which all his actions may be reduced either as to the substance of them and so fall directly under that Law or to the general circumstances and so are subject more remotely Hence there are no actions that a Christian doth of religious concernment that are compleatly indifferent but hath aliquatenus rationem boni aut mali § 4. The Spirit of God if I mistake not sets a double bound to Christian Liberty viz. Moral and Evangelical 1. Moral in that Christs Law allows none the liberty of committing moral transgressions it owns ratifies and confirms all moral Precepts Prohibitions or Permissions and none may use Christian Liberty as occasion of licentiousness Gal. 5.13 1 Pet. 2.16 2. The Evangelical bound to Liberty in matters left by Christ indifferent is Expediency by which a thing that is substantially indifferent may be relatively and circumstantially necessary pro hic nunc and becomes bonum aut malum contingens aut respectivum and that is medium officium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when a thing lawful in itself becomes unlawful the rule is plain 1 Cor. 10.23 28 29. therefore 1. All actions and therefore indifferent must be directed to the great and general moral end of Gods Glory 1 Cor. 10.31 Rom. 14.6 a man may eat or drink or wear this or that thing indifferently so that it be to God's glory keep a day or not keep it chuse this or that time to pray in for the same ends And hence Election is to be made of indifferencies according to their more or less tendency or aptness to accomplish that great end 2. A second end but subordinate in expediency to be respected is edification of our selves or others 1 Cor. 10.23 and that which respects neither of these ends with at least some tendency is religiously vain as wearing one colour more than another religiously in the worship of God and in one part of worship more than another what doth this conduce to edification by which way if any it should be sublimed to God's glory and to bring vain oblations to God in his worship is abominable to him in all ages of the Church § 5. God hath not by Laws determined particularly all the cases of a Christians Conversation but left many to the management of the judgement of discretion by the rules of expediency which is a skill of discerning between good and evil Heb. 5.12 and between good and better Discretion is the highest pitch of practical Judgement which although it be guided by general rules for attaining the great end yet it takes its particular measures very much from former experiences and the sight of various circumstances and occurrences and accordingly it judgeth what may be more or less expedient in all actions and though in themselves they are indifferently referrable this way or that way yet by that time they are reduced into practice by a Christian's spiritual Reason and Discretion acting from senses exercised Heb. 5.12 there is manifest good or evil at least relative discovered in them or at least put upon them by the said general ends and rules of walking § 6. As strength appears most in the management of a man's self according to the rules and observances of discretion so weakness in the failure hereof is most discoverable and by an accumulation of these little failures a Christian doth exceedingly miscarry and Profession becomes very much disparaged § 7. Hence indifferent actions may become offending grieving and scandalizing unto others by reason of some external accident temporal or local respect and so may be unlawful by the rules of expediency for that which certainly is not expedient is unlawful though degrees are to be admitted in this case § 8. As the scandalizing others is a mischief that makes an indifferent action unexpedient so also the betraying our own Liberty Paul in his acting kept a watchful eye here when he found that some designed by an indifferent thing to bring him into bondage he gave not the least place to them as in the matter of the Circumcision of Titus Gal. 2.3 4. We are to stand fast in our Liberty and not to be enthral'd in bondage though it be but by the doing an action in itself adiaphorous § 9. Whatever is not of Faith is sin and the necessity of every action or forbearance must appear to every mans Conscience that he may do or forbear believingly in all religious concernments therefore all absolute necessities must be bound on his Conscience by the knowledge of some Law positively commanding or forbidding And all relative necessities i. e. indifferencies circumstantial must arrive at Conscience with their Expediencies which must be the ballance of Election in things equally good in themselves their comparative goodness must be respective or evil must make some appearance to the judgement of discretion and a Christians freedom in the exercise of the said judgement according to the several cases he meets withal is his Liberty which Christ hath purchased and a Christian cannot be deprived of jure by any Exotick Law § 10. Where things are absolutely indifferent and there is no apparent respective difference between adiaphorous things it 's a Christians liberty to take the one or the other he sins not against any rules of Expedience in taking either for both are lawful and expedient enough neither do I know why any additional Law should make him a Transgressor in chusing or refusing of either in matters of Religion for an action or thing may be equally lawful and expedient morally which for some other reasons may not arising from Nature his own inclinations or some other small attending circumstances of which it may not be fit to give an account to any humane Authority as the Transgressor of any Law § 11. As particular persons by the rules of Expediency may judge of things indifferent to prefer one before another according to their respect to know precepts or to chuse one before another arbitrarily where there is no difference in compared respects So particular Churches and Congregations have the liberty of using their judgement of discretion in matters of indifferency and are to walk by rules of Expediency for Time Place and external Accommodations but cannot make any binding Law to themselves or others because those things are alterable
in their circumstances and therefore cannot be determined but pro hic nunc and must be liable still to no other judgement than that of Discretion Those things that Christ hath left under it cannot by humane Laws be removed from it therefore indifferent things may be agreed on by common consent in Congregations or by the Officers thereof according as the expediency or conveniency appears unto them and for so long and no longer Hence they cannot undergo the Title or Denomination of a Law but onely of prudential Rules which have no binding reason for observation but the continuance of the agreeing circumstances as it may be judged most convenient by the Church to assemble at such an hour so long as the days are of such a length but when that circumstance alters then it may be more convenient at another Many such instances may be given and no Church can walk comfortably as long as any Authority undertakes to prohibit them of this liberty of their Prudentials in all such matters of circumstance and alterable appendixes to the worship of God CHAP. XII Wherein is handled the first Question about things Indifferent § 1. THe first Question that seems to offer itself to be so this Whether a religious Gospel-Indifferency ceaseth to be so when any thing is positively and certainly determined as to its practice by humane Authority Explic. By religious Gospel-Indifferency I understand as before-mentioned any thing or action which circumstantially adheres to the worship of God and may be used or omitted or altered according to the judgement of discretion without any transgression of a Law of Christ Again this we acknowledge that a thing may be determined as to Expediency by a Society or lawful Authority but not imposed as a standing and binding Law but being commended by the judgements of many concurring conscientiously studious of the minde and will of Christ it carries the more force along with it to perswade us at least to present acting till by further and greater illumination we be otherwise enclined Nay if any thing be determined by those that are in Authority and proposed as their judgement according to their light received not Magisterially but Demonstratively onely convincingly enough as to the Expediency it carries with it the force of a Law unto Conscience not of man but of God man being a Candlestick onely to hold forth that Light and binds it to submit thereunto But otherwise if men in authority undertake to make a Law that a thing in itself by Christ's Law left indifferent i. e. to Christian discretion to do or omit shall become an absolute necessity or an expedient necessity and according to their will and opinion binde Inferiours to the constant practice of this by a penalty We affirm that a religious Gospel-Indifferency notwithstanding all humane authoritative determination changing it into a necessity keeps its pristine indifferency and remains the same to a Christians Conscience and practice The proof of this Assertion follows § 2. Argum. 1. That power that can change Gospel-indifferencies into Gospel-necessities can also change Gospel-necessities into Gospel-indifferencies but no humane Authority can do the latter Ergo not the former The Assumption will not be denied by any Protestant it being a presumption of the highest nature for humane authority to pretend to dispense with or null any of the manifest Laws of Christ The Major is also evident because it must be an Authority of the same kind to make and null a Law of the same kinde If it be said a humane authority may make a Gospel-indifferency necessary genere civili the Answer falls far short for we speak of Laws of the same kinde having equal force upon the Conscience for a Civil Legislative power can as well null any Law of a civil nature onely as it can make it So if Man could make Moral Laws he might as well null those which he hath made or dispense with them at pleasure as make new We must always allow a Soveraign Prerogative to Supream Law-givers in any kinde as to promulgate so to abrogate or dispense with their own Laws at pleasure And if it be said that those Laws that man makes concerning the use of indifferent things necessarily in the worship of Christ are civil onely being onely for decency splendor c. I reply that it cannot be so in the nature of them for it 's the respect and end of a thing that gives it its specifical denomination when it hath none such absolutely considered that which respects and aims at the Gospel-worship of Christ or pretends so to do is or should be a part of Gospel-worship as kneeling is an indifferent gesture a man may kneel when he doth other things besides acts of Worship or according to the Law of Christ he may kneel or stand or use another posture in Worship but when this or that gesture is applied to Worship it 's religious by its Respect Vse and Application but still of an indifferent nature under the Laws of Christ till by some binding Law the Conscience becomes bound up to the use of it in this or that part of Worship Now he that undertakes to binde Conscience here undertakes to make a Law for Christ and to entrench upon the Prerogative of Christ and that such that make such Laws do claim such a power is manifest because they make obedience unto such Laws necessary by vertue of a Law of Christ Let every Soul be subject to the higher power § 3. Argum. 2. If the nature of an Evangelical Indifferency may be changed jure into an Evangelical Necessity by any power besides Christ's then it must be because it 's Evangelically evil that this or that should remain indifferent which Christ hath left so or at least better for the honour of Christ and good of his Church that it should become a necessity i. e. a commanded good or prohibited evil than indifferent to be disposed by the discretion of particular Churches or Christians but there is no true Evangelical Indifferency that hath such a reason for the change of it into a necessity Ergo the reason of the Consequence is this because whatever is altered by a Law is supposed to be altered from worse to better and what is altered by a Law for Christ is or should be made more for the honour of Christ and therefore far better than it was before but it cannot be supposed that any thing that this wise Law-giver left in indifferency to practice or omit according to the judgement of discretion should be more for his honour if it were converted into a necessity by a Law for to say so would be a high impeachment of the wisdom of Christ as it is of a King and Parliament when any shall presume to say they have not made such Laws as are needfull to be made and have left the Subject under a greater liberty than is for the good of the Commonweal or honour of the King To say
so therefore is to make a double reflexion on Christ First that his Laws are defective for the accomplishment of those ends for which they were established and that the liberty granted by Christ unto his Members in indifferent things hath too great a latitude to be consistent with that exact Gospel-worship which we should honour him by And if it be said that which Christ hath left Evangelically indifferent may be unlawful in respect of other Laws we say that all the true jus of other Laws must be founded on Christ's and his is precedaneous to them and therefore as in authority or practice it must take place before them Moreover we say that Christ hath not so ill establish'd Christian Liberty as that thereby we are licensed to violate any natural or civil bonds § 4. Argum. 3. That which by Christ's Authority hath left a Character impressed on Conscience cannot by any authority be abrogated without removal of the said Character but as the Laws so the Liberty by Gospel-Charter granted by Christ hath left such a Character impressed indelibly on Conscience as cannot be removed by any other Authority therefore Christian Liberty cannot be abrogated c. Ergo a religious Gospel-indifferency cannot be taken away or cease by the determination of mere humane Laws i. e. humane Laws that Christ never allowed man to make The Major is evident in that the revealed will of Christ when it shines into the Heart fixeth an indelible Character upon Conscience for positive obedience and also as to indifferent things for he that knows not one by the Law knows not the other nor can never tell when he sins and when he doth not and if any other could interpose and make a Law to binde Conscience sub reatu by new Laws or release it by new Liberties either to make additional Characters or delete Christ's Christian Religion would thereby become no other than an undigested heap of uncertainties and confusions It 's true Characters are sometimes removed from Conscience as in case of Justification of a sinner by Faith Rom. 8. So in case of an erring Conscience that supposeth this to be his duty which is not and that to be indifferent which is necessary all errour when entertained lays hold on Conscience Sub pretextu authoritatis Christi under pretence of Christ's Authority and so do all humane usurping Laws when they insinuate themselves into Conscience and when by a farther informing light the Errour is expell'd from the Judgement and Conscience the Authority of Christ still remains expelling the Errour which no humane Authority could do and confirming the Conscience in the truth maugre all the opposition of any humane power so that where Christ's Laws hath once prevailed so far as to fix his Authority there it was never known that whatever mens external practices or conformities were that ever any humane Power could blot out the Characters of Christ's Prerogative and fix another Supremacy there for that is but a vain Law in religious things that cannot binde the Conscience under guilt in case of transgression I shall never conscienciously observe that for my duty the omission of which doth not make me conscious of a Transgression As to the Minor that the liberty granted by Christ leaves a Character on Conscience as well as the Laws of Christ is manifest 1. Because Laws are the bounds of Liberty and one must be known and acted as well as the other as hath been said before 2. Because their liberty is not the will of Christ permissive onely but in some measure positive i. e. so far as that Christians should walk in it he having but two paths to walk in either of positively directed obedience or of Liberty under the judgement of discretion regulated by the rules of Expediency for either in matters of instituted Worship Christ hath by a manifestation of his will limited our Actions or hath left Churches and Christians in the Equilibrio of indifferency to poise themselves according to Conscience-Light as to respective differencies by discretion and where there is an equality to chuse pro arbitrio Again our assurance is not onely negative but positive that it is Christ's will that we should maintain our liberty in Religious things stand fast in that liberty c. Neither can any take it away without intruding on Conscience and entrenching on his Prerogative which for us to yield to were to betray his Crown and Scepter § 5. Argum. 4. Hence if such a Law be made it ought not to be made and ergo the thing retains its pristine nature That Law which directly puts a Christian on a necessity of sinning in obeying it ought not to be made but a Law that changeth Evangelical indifferencies into necessities doth directly put a Christian on a necessity of sinning if he obeys Ergo it ought not to be made That the Major may be universal I adde directly because many good Laws are occasions of sinning indirectly but when the Law requires such obedience which in the very substance of it is sin because the obedience directly aimed at is the formal reason of the Law such a Law must needs be sinful The Minor doth thus appear because such a Law bindes a man up in obedience to it in one part of the indifferency whereas that part of the indifferency according to Christ's rules of expediency may be unlawful to be done and then the humane Law and the said Gospel-rules contradict one another Expediencies altering daily as to attending circumstances at some times it 's lawful to do that thing which at another is more agreeable to the honour of Christ and the good of others to avoid As for Example the Apostle reckons eating this or that sort of meat sold in the Shambles as an indifferent thing if I make no question whether it be Jewishly unclean or Heathenishly sacrificed to Idols 1 Cor. 10.25 27. but if I am enforced by Law to eat this or that sort of meat in the Shambles which is sacrificed to Idols I am necessitated to sin 1. I offend my Brother that makes this Law confirming him in sin for the sake of whose Conscience I ought by the Apostles rule to forbear this act and therefore sin against all such as idolatrously eat this sacrificed meat For what can tell me more plainly than the Law that this or that meat by its attending circumstances is sacrificed to Idols Again to hear the Word of God in this or that publick place is an indifferency to hear it to my edification as near as possible is the Precept of Christ but if I am bound by a humane Law to hear always in my own Parish-church and thereby debarred of my liberty of hearing there where I can most profit and whereas the Parish-minister is ignorant prophane or erroneous whom to hear constantly must needs be sin to me I am certainly by this Law put upon a necessity of sinning in yielding active obedience unto it § 6. Argum. 5. That Indifferencies
will upon false supposition allow the Popish Constitution or something like it As for Oecumenical Councils we see what insuperable difficulties have attended the calling of them in all Ages the just grounds of Exceptions in many things of the Determination of doubtful cases in Doctrine and in almost all they have done in their pretences to a Law-making Power in matters of Church-Order and Discipline We have not any ground to believe that Christ hath entrusted any Officers of his Church with a Catholick Power since the Apostes days and such as have pretended to it have always bin opposed by the purest and most reformed part of the Church and whatever mens attempts be or may be they will never finde a Catholick Ecclesiastcal Power here on Earth without a new manifestation of the Son of Man which can exercise such a power of changing Indifferencies into Necessities by a Law wherein the Minds and Consciences of particular Churches and Christians will or may rest satisfied to submit unto in active Obedience It 's as irrational to affirm that Christ hath committed such a power to particular Churches i. e. of making binding Laws Sub poenâ for other Churches or for their own Members or Churches subordinate to them not for other coordinate Churches will they say Christ never gave coordinate Churehes a coercive Power one over another for then all would aspire to Rule and none be Ruled for the power would belong to one as well as another And if any say as the Papists do that Christ hath advanced one Church in Dignity and Jurisdiction over all the rest let them prove it to the conviction of any intelligent Christian and they will do more than the Papists have done ever since their pretence thereunto But it will be pleaded by the Protestant party that Christ hath entrusted every particular Church with this power whereby it may determine of indifferent things of her own practice To which we answer 1. That Christ hath given no Legislative Power to any Church 2. A Judgment of Discretion to walk by the Rules of Expediency is no more to be denied to particular Churches than to particular Christians But for all this Judgment of Discretion Indifferencies loose not their nature though they may be necessary pro hic or nunc in these or those circumstances and are and must stand capable of dayly Alterations as the case shall require and a particular Church may determine of this or that part of the Indifferency as most expedient and so long as the Reasons thereof last it may be in some measure binding unto particular mens consciences but the Reasons ceasing the continuance of the Canon in force in foro Ecclesiae will binde no mans Conscience yea every one will complain of it as a needless Imposition neither will any noble-minded Christian be a Servant to the Wills and Humours of Man or sell the Birth-right the Liberty that Christ hath purchased for Pins and Points neither is it a sufficient Rule for Discretion to walk by because the Church commands and gives no Reason from the Law of Christ for it Besides What Church hath this power committed to them a Parish a Diocess a Province No 't will not be granted of either of them The great Assertors of this Power will say That it belongs to every National Church to make Laws in matters of Indifferency and so ordain their own Ceremonies This is an Assertion that introduceth a whole herd of Absurdities with it For first What is the great end pretended of such Laws but the making of Vniformity in the Church What is more destructive to it than this that every particular Church should be Independent and make Laws within themselves whereas one will ordain Ceremonies of one kinde and another of another and there will be as many sorts of Ceremonies as there are particular Churches Is not this the great exception against the Dissenters from Prelatical Churches that the particular Pastors of each Congregation set up for themselves and Exercise Jurisdiction within themselves without dependence upon any Superiour Power There is no avoiding it upon this Hypothesis but National Churches must be reckon'd Independent Churches 2. Did Christ commit any such power to any such Churches on Earth 3. Again If National Churches may exert such a power then they may make binding Laws to all Subordinate Churches viz. Provincial Diocesan Parochial and if so then for this Reason because they are more comprehensive Churches including the less Then by the same Reason the most comprehensive Church viz. the Catholick should give Laws to the National and for a greater and more eminent end viz. to promote an Vniformity Catholick for if a National Vniformity be so splendid and so much conducing to the bene esse of the Church then a Catholick much more § 4. Argum. 3. To make a Law contrary to the revealed Will of Christ is unlawful and Sinful But for the Church by a Law to change Indifferencies into Necessities is to make a Law contrary to the revealed Will of Christ Ergo. The Major is granted for these Law-makers say they do not by their Laws establish any thing contrary to the revealed Will of Christ for hath he any where forbidden such Ceremonies We proceed therefore to the proof of the Minor If all Necessities in the Worship of Christ be made so by Christ's Will revealed and all Indifferencies become such because they are not restrained under Christ's Law then they are so because Christ would have them to be so For a Christian can take no measure of Indifferencies but by the Law of Christ for he cannot know them but by knowing the Law binding unto Necessities by Commands or Prohibitions So that Indifferencies are made so by the revealed Will of Christ as well as Necessities and the same Law that makes the one thing a Necessity makes another an Indifferency and Christ in his Wisdome sees it best for his Gospel-church that it should be so and he that undertakes to make these indifferent things necessary enters upon a high presumption no less than the altering the moral Nature of a thing constituted by the revealed Will of Christ and what is this less than making Laws contrary to the said Will of Christ That is only necessary in the Worship of Christ which he hath made so and that indifferent which he hath left so by his Will an Indifference in his Worship is no other than something not necessary in his Worship for there is no medium they are adversa Therefore he that wills something to be necessary which Christ willed not necessary doth will something contrary to the Will of Christ by all Rules of Logick and right Reason in the world I know it will be answered That they do not alter the nature of the thing it remains as it was but this or that determination for practice is to be obeyed when it is commanded as the Father commands a Child to take up a Pin it 's an
according to the Rules of Expediency and Judgment of Discretion And this proceeding in Spiritual affairs is that which is most conducing to the Glory of his Name and the Beauty of his Church How great a presumption is it in any Church to attempt the altering this course of Government which Christ the Head hath settled and frustrate his ends in Necessities and Indifferencies by causing those things which he hath made necessary to become indifferencies and what he hath made indifferent to be done necessarily and hindring that conscientious discreet occasional use which he hath determined and required as most conducing to his own Glory and the good of his Body the Church § 8. Now whereas the End of exercising this Juridical Power so much pleaded for in the late Centuries of the Church is Vnity and Vniformity without doubt this principally and primarily belongs to the Catholick Church that the whole visible Body of Christ may be one and the same in Discipline and Ceremonies For if it be so desirous and to be maintain'd with such a great curiosity and exactness of Ceremony in a particular Church how much rather ought it to be in the Catholick a Catholick Good being much more desirable and of far greater concernment than a particular Good But as we have shewed that there is no such Catholick Power in the Catholick visible Church practicable so it 's easie to make manifest that a Catholick Vniformity in matters of Indifferency will never be attained among Churches or particular Christians nor never was intended by the Lord Jesus Christ any more than that all his Members should wear the same Cloaths or dwell in the same shaped Houses for had it been necessary that there should have been no difference in indifferent things but all should have gone the same way in the use of them and none varied according to the judgment of Discretion then Christ would have made it necessary and then indeed all those things would have been Necessities and there would have been no Indifferencies at all but we see that Christ designed it for the Benefit and Edification of his Church that there should be Varieties in the use of Indifferencies and so far from the disparagement of it as some men would have it that it 's as conducible to the Splendour and Beauty of his Workmanship as the Variety of complexions and dispositions of Men to the old Creation Now for men to place the Vniformity of the Church in those things that Christ never placed it in is no small reflection on his Wisdome and Prerogative for nothing carries more Evidence with it than that those things that he left indifferent he intended neither Conscience or Church should be determined ad unum in by any in matters of Worship but that they should be varied at the discretions of particular Churches and Christians and that such variety should be of advantage to Edification and not that it should be bespattered with the foul names of Faction and Schism when such use their Liberty in this kinde § 9. But suppose such a thing had any probability to be the minde of Christ Was it ever attained or is it attainable that there should be an Vniformity in the use of Indifferencies that all Churches and particular Christians had the same Sentiments and went the same way in the use of indifferent things or is it possible to bring men to it Or if they were brought to it what advantage would accrue Would it not prove a great disadvantage But some men plead That some indifferent things should be made necessary as the very terms of Communion and in conformity unto these should consist Vniformity To which I answer 1. That this is but a humane Project 2. That if Christ had approved such a way he being the Author of Peace in his Church and not of confusion he would have allotted it and told us what the Indifferencies should be and who should have had a deputation to make them Necessities and Conditions of Communion for Vniformity But 3ly He hath appointed Ordinances enough of this nature and chosen out those things himself wherein the Uniformity of his Church should consist the Word Sacraments and Prayer and all Churches that do walk in these according to Gospel-Rules are Uniform have Ceremonies enough and have no need of setting a new Mint on work § 10. And suppose that such a thing were attainable that there were an agreement in the whole Catholick Church about some little External Ceremonies what they should be and how used Would this abundantly answer the nature and end of a right Uniformity in the Church Would it cure all Schisms or prevent them Would it keep the mindes of men in a due proportion to each others Would it maintain Purity of Doctrine and Worship and expel all Pollutions and Corruptions in both I say Nothing less For we see by dayly Experience it doth not do this in those Churches where 't is most zealously pursued if we look but into the Church of Rome and into Protestant-Prelatick Churches we see what great Errors and Heresies in Doctrine and Corruptions in Worship do abound accompanied with irreconcileable Differences and irreparable Breaches of communion in the highest and weightiest matters wherein it is concerned notwithstanding the common consent and agreement in the stress that they lay upon those small and trifling observances and not on aberrations from sound Doctrine or defection from purity in that Worship which Christ himself hath instituted which are to be bewailed as the great Schisms in the Church notwithstanding all External Conformities § 11. But we must enquire out a better way of setling Vniformity in the Church more agreeing to the mind of Christ and practicable in the nature of it and therefore zealously to be pursued by all that love the Name and Kingdom of Jesus Christ and that is That all Churches walk by the same rule of the revealed Will of Christ and subject themselves to his Laws and Government that they be uniform in all that he hath made necessary to be believed and practised as in all things necessary to Salvation and a Christians edification in matters of Communion as in the word Sacraments Prayer singing Psalms c. by all these in worshipping God in the Spirit and not to trouble and distract their walk and interrupt their Worship with the New-fangled Multifarious Brain-sick Laws of Men in instituted Worship nor placing Uniformity in a heap of huskie nauseous Ceremonies For the Rule being one and the Law-giver one all the true Churches of Christ will agree in substance submitting to one King and conforming to one sort of Laws and though there may be some small differences in their Interpretation of those Laws determining things necessary and the Exercise of discretion in things Expedient because of dubious and difficult circumstances attending yet all agree in the main things required by Christ for the way of Salvation and the main conditions of Communion And
Catholick unless it be in the visible universal Head and if it be said that a National Church may positively determine in this kind then why not a Provincial as well the one being a subordinate Church as well as the other But if the Decree be onely National as many various interpretations and sences may be put on a place of Scripture as there are Nations which will lay an ample foundation for variety of Sects Schisms Heresies c. Whereas if all National Churches were bound to one Catholick determination there must needs therehence ensue the admirable effect of Uniformity in Doctrine and Practice all Churches believing as the Vniversal Church believes and that as the Head doth Besides if it be of such dangerous consequence for Christians as private persons to put their interpretation on Scripture in laying the foundation of variety of Sects Schisms Heresies c. how much more dangerous for particular Churches because the determination of a Church reacheth further and is more attended unto and more become seduced and leavened with errour thereby if it be erroneous Hence to believe as the Catholick Church believes hath more concern in it than those imagine that endeavour to blast it with the ridicle of the Colliers Faith for it 's not as the National Church believes but as the Catholick Church believes Neither is it an implicit Faith in any things but controversal and dubious matters above ordinary scrutiny and vulgar capacity and therein we had better rest satisfied in Catholick Authority than run the risk of adhering to the Opinion of private persons and Churches which must be done also by an implicite Faith and who is likely to have the most unerring Spirit a Church or particular Person and if a Church the most Catholick is the most unerring § 13. Thirdly From the Necessity of a Catholick determination of Decency and Order That is decent which by the Universality is reputed and judged so for one Countrey doth usually call that decent which others repute undecent And there are no Protestant Prelates but have do and will say That Christ hath left it to the Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order and 't is absurd to say that this or that Church may do it when no such is the Church eminently When 't is said the Church determines Decencies What Church is that Is it a Parish-Church Nay then Parish-Churches should rule Diocesan by a Law Again if Diocesan Churches should have power to determine their Decencies either Provincials must be subject to some one Diocesan which might regulate all the rest or else Diocesan Churches would differ so much in their decencies that there would be no Uniformity in the Provincial Church And if Provincials might determine each one its Decencies and Order it must needs break Vniformity in National Churches But I know where the Protestant Prelate will be he will say presently it 's the National Church that he means when he speaks of the Churches determination of Decency and Order To which I reply that he may with as good ground say that he means a Parish-Church and that by giving this power to a National Church he gives a greater advantage to Schism and lays a greater bar against Vniformity For the more comprehensive the Church is in which the Schism is the greater it is and the more uniform the Schismatical Church is of the more dangerous consequence it is to the Catholick Church In vain do men plead for Vniformity in the Church who in asserting the principles of Vniformity in a National Church do thereby extirpate Vniformity in the Catholick for National Vniformity unless it be Catholick is but Vniformity in a Schism For if every National Church may determine of Decency and Order there will be as great a diversity if not contrariety in several Churches affairs as in the affairs of several States one Nation determining that Ceremony to be decent which another determines to be undecent absurd and disorderly and so Churches will be as divers in their Fashions as English Dutch Spaniard c. And there will be no end of Ceremonies and new-fangled Garbs in the Church if a Nation may of themselves and when they will constitute ordain and appoint them at their pleasure alter and null old Ceremonies and invent new and shall have as great difficulty intricacy and multiplicity of Church-Laws as State-Laws if at every Convocation Decency and Order may be determined § 14. From the necessity of a Catholick composure of Church-Prayers the more private and singular the conception of Church-prayers are the more Schismatical And divers Liturgies in one and the same National Church may not be allowed neither that every Province and Diocess compose their own Liturgy as being a matter of dangerous consequence to the National Church How then comes it to pass that our National Church may compose its own Liturgy distinct from another Is not this of as dangerous consequence to the Catholick Church And is' t not more conducing to the Peace Beauty Uniformity and Honour of the Church to have a Catholick Liturgy Whereas otherwise every Nation will be setting up the price of their own prayers above others whence ariseth heart-burning Divisions and Schisms National in the Catholick Church were it not much better that all Nations should bring their Liturgies and lay them down at the feet of Mother-Church and submit them to her Judgment in the Supreme Head from whose blessed hands she may receive one of such Catholick composure that might produce a perfect Harmony in the affections and petitions of all the Churches in the world in good assurance of a Catholick Amen attending the conclusion of all Besides if a National prayer be more available than a Provincial or Diocesan Why should not a Catholick Church-prayer be most of all available § 15. Fifthly The necessity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints For supposing the Necessity of the Observation of Saints days as the Protestant Prelates zealously assert it is requisite to enquire who or what Church Canonized the Saints which are already honoured with Saintship Titular and Days devoted to their remembrance and who dedicated and consecrated Churches on the same account was it not the Catholick Church by her Catholick Pastors If every Church suppose National should have the like liberty to canonize Saints at their pleasure all the days in the Year yea in an Age would be little enough for All Hollan-tide And if the observation must be Anniversary there would be a necessity of robbing Peter to pay Paul which would be doing evil that good may come of it it being as great a sin to rob Peter of his fishing-nets as to rob Paul of his cloak and parchments Besides this Absurdity would fall in that one Nation would canonize that for a Saint which another would anathematize to the Devil As for Example Michaelmas-day is devoted to St. Michael the Archangel which Feast was instituted by Felix the Third the 48th Oecumenical
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
are as liable to the Judicial proceedings of Magistrates as any others be but in these Evangelical parts of Worship annexed by Christ in substance or ceremony which distinguisheth the Oeconomy of the Church from that of the Commonweal here the Magistrate cannot execute by himself or depute another to administer the Executive part of Christ's Laws The reason is because all such Laws changing Indifferencies into Necessities in the Worship of God are of a Spiritual nature and Ecclesiastical and therefore must be executed spiritually in foro conscientiae or Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae but he cannot do either of these for the first he cannot because Christ hath absolutely reserved Conscience to himself nor the latter because Execution in the Church is peculiar to the Officers of Christ as his Deputies and Officers of his own appointment § 6. Arg. 4. They that are not to make Laws for the terrour of them that do well are not to make such Laws as change Evangelical Indifferencies into Necessities at Ergo. The Minor is undeniable The Major appears thus to be true because to make such Laws is to terrifie Christians in the use not onely of their lawful liberty but also to shake them from their standing in that liberty that Christ hath purchased and commanded them to stand fast in besides the abridging them the free use of Christian discretion which is good from which they should not be terrified § 7. Arg. 5. The Magistrate cannot take away the Rights and Priviledges granted to the Church by Jesus Christ which he purchased for it c. by last Will and Testament bestowed and is his peoples right of Inheritance But the liberty of the use of the judgment of Discretion in matters of Indifferency is a great and valuable priviledge so granted and bestowed on his Church and People Now the Magistrate should be so far from bereaving the Church of these that 1. He is to maintain and defend the Church in the free use of its Liberties and to be as a Nursing Father to her therein 2. The Magistrate should be ready to punish the bereaving of the Church of her just Rights as Sacriledge which is robbing a Church a Sacred Body politick under the Civil Magistrates jurisdiction The Magistrate should be far from doing that action which he is to punish in another as Sacriledge and if a Christian's Liberty be a Sacred thing the taking of it away is Sacriledge That it is Sacred I prove thus That which is of sacred use and peculiarly related to the Worship of God and to the Members and Church of Christ as their Priviledge allotted to them by Christ's special procurement and appointment is Sacred and the taking it away is no better than Sacriledge As for other lawful Liberties common to them with others in Morals and Civils others may use them that are not related to the Gospel but a Christian Liberty is in things pertaining unto Christ and his ways of Worship and Service § 8. Arg. 6. He that can make those things necessary to the Worship of Christ which Christ hath onely made indifferent can make the Kingdom of Christ to consist in those things that he never did the Kingdom of God stands not in meats c. and the Kingdom of God stands in that which is necessary to it and if the Magistrate will make things necessary which Christ never did he goes about to make the Kingdom of God stand in that which Christ never did And this is a great usurpation of a power not belonging unto him for Christ never empowered the Magistrate to determine what his Kingdom should consist in and make it to consist in that which he never did § 9. Arg. 7. A Magistrate is not capable of exercising such a Coercive power as will make me believe in my conscience that to be necessary for the Worship of Christ which I am convinced that he hath left indifferent onely that Law for the Worship of Christ that lays no obligation on Conscience is of no concern therein Now Christ having bound Conscience by his Law as far as is necessary there is no room left for Man to come in with his Laws Whatever is Evangelically necessary to the Conscience of a Christian is so because he is convinced it is the Will of Christ that it should be necessary Now can the mere Coercive power of any one on Earth make a man believe that is not necessary which Christ hath made Conscience to submit to as necessary If so then may the same authority make a man believe that to be necessary which Christ hath made us believe not to be necessary but onely indifferent for as no Law of man can absolve a Christian from the conscientious observation of any one Law of Christ so no Law of Man can binde a Christian in Conscience to the practice of that in religious matters which Christ never bound him to but he will be still perswaded that Christ hath left it to him as an indifferency and it 's his duty to walk in it by discretion and that must be a Churches or Christian's own as the matter requires relating to a Community or private Person Obj. But the Magistrates Judgment can best determine of Expediency being greatest and wisest Ans In matters of that nature men may advise and the greater and wiser men are its likely the more forcible Arguments they may produce but there is no force to be in the case men are not to be forced by a Law to do that which is most expedient in the Worship of God For 1. the Magistrate may be mistaken and that which is expedient to him may not be to another 2. That which is expedient one time may not be another therefore in the doing Expediencies we are not to be determined to act always one way by a Law Object But the Magistrate may punish for not practising Answ None is to be punished for not practising what they believe unlawful CHAP. XVI Of the Vse of the Magistrates Sword in the Execution of Ecclestastical Justice § 1. THe Second Enquiry propounded about the Magistrates power is this Whether in the Execution of Ecclesiastical Justice the Sword of the Civil Magistrate may or ought to be used i. e. Whether for the punishing and reforming Offendors against Church-Laws the Magistrate may inflict such penalties on the outward Man as he and the Church shall agree upon as Pecuniary Mulcts Scourgings Imprisonments Confiscations yea death it self in some cases as in matters of Heresie and Seduction And to prevent mistakes we shall premise these things 1. That Church-Members offending Civil Laws may and ought to suffer the penalties thereof from the hands of Magistrates as such as stand subjected to them in a civil capacity equal with other Subjects 2. That a Church-Member as of the Church of England or any other may justly suffer for the same Offence from the Church and Civil Magistrate as for Drunkenness Swearing Fornication c. Moral
not onely to the power of Godliness but to common Honesty and Morality 2. If it had been Political Wisdom or Justice to annex such Penalties to Ecclesiastical Laws of any kind sure Christ in whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom would not have been wanting in annexing Penalties of that kind to his own Laws of the greatest and weightiest concern to his Church 3. We judge of the greatness and weighty concern of any Law usually by the greatness of the Penalty annexed in case of transgression and therefore herein we may apprehend that the Churches own Laws challengeth a preheminency before the Laws of Christ's own composure and would this King of kings make onely Laws of lesser concern and substitute others to make the greater this is absurd to believe 4. It is a great piece of pride in Mother-Church to advance her self so far above the Civil State that the Magistrate should become the Executioner of her Laws for the Law-maker hath always a great priority and dignity above the Executioner If it be replied That the Church onely craves the Magistrates assistance to compleat her Ecclesiastical censures and make them stick closer on upon the backs of Offenders Answ Herein the Church bewrays her own weakness in that she confesseth she is not a compleat Polity neither hath power enough to reform her self or effectually enough to execute her own Laws without being beholding to an Exotick power As if a Master of a Family had not power enough to execute Domestick Laws in correcting a Child or Servant without asking his neighbours leave and calling for his assistance But in case the Church saith as indeed she doth that she goeth to the civil Magistrate by way of Appeal and the said Magistrate hath power at his pleasure to supersede her proceedings This is to set the State above the Church in Ecclesiasticks whereas the civil State is Subordinate to the Ecclesiastick ecclesiastically and the Ecclesiastical to the Civil civilly and both in respect of the exercise of Jurisdiction in each particular Orb parallel or co-ordinate § 9. Lastly such Penalties that cannot answer the natural end and designe of Church-censures may not be annexed or used by the Church but such a Penalty answers not c. The Major is undoubted the Minor thus appears 1. Because the Sword of the Magistrate reacheth but the outward man whereas the end of Church-censures is to reach the Conscience 2. The natural use of Church-censures is the exercise of them in foro Ecclesiae but the Coercive power of the Magistrate may not be exercised in foro Ecclesiae upon any allowable pretence whatsoever CHAP. XVII Of the Limits of Magistratical Power in matters of Religion § 1. THe third Enquiry propounded is concerning the true bounds and limits of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion a great and difficult Question but of very great concern to us that it be rightly resolved I do not expect to be so happy as to give others full satisfaction in it I being not able to do it to my self so far as I would I shall onely go as far as I can and is convenient for this undertaking with all possible brevity and demonstration We spake before in the two former Questions concerning the Magistrates power in matters of Indifferency both Legislative and Executive on the behalf of the Church This Question is of larger extent concerning his whole power in matters of Religion and enquire how far he may and ought to go and how far he may not go i. e. he cannot go without Usurpation § 2. Matters of Religion is a large word and it comprehends not onely Religion it self but all circumstances and attendances thereof which are Indifferencies in themselves neither moraly good or evil but in regard of their tendency and respect they are so Concerning the Magistrates Legislative power in these things we have spoken somewhat already I shall speak no more here of the nature of Religion than to make way for my present Undertaking Religion is usually understood to comprehend all moral Duties and all instituted Worship to which if we adde the aforesaid attending circumstances we use a larger way of expression and call them matters of Religion § 3. The Moral Law is a general standing Rule to all sorts of Actions Persons and Societies of the children of men whereby God himself hath challenged the first right of dominion as of particular men so of all necessary Fabricks of Rule and Government in the world So that all Actions Persons and Societies duely measured and squared thereby are rightly called Religious and the contrary Irreligious Hence particular Domestick Ecclesiastick and Civil Jurisdictions in a Christian Commonwealth are in proper sence called all of them Religious § 4. Religion taken in a stricter and more limited sence is understood of a holy life and conversation of particular Persons and Societies not onely according to the general Rules of moral Obedience but according to the more particular and special appointments and Gospel-institutions of our Lord Jesus Christ whereby he separates unto himself the most choice and peculiar Societies in the world under his proper and more immediate Rule and Government which are called his Church § 5. Therefore 1. The civil Christian Magistrate hath no power in the strict sence in matters of Religion quatenus Magistrate no more than a Heathen hath for though the embracing the Christian Religion doth much capacitate the civil Magistrate as to his inclinations and endeavours for the improvement of his Magistratical power toward the advantage of Religion yet it adds no new power or jurisdiction to him over Churches Families Christians or others for a Heathen Magistrate is as much in his place the supream Head and Governmnour of the Church considered in a civil capacity under his Government as the most Faith-defending Christian or Catholick Prince in the world Neither by his embracing Christianity doth he attain any augmentation of his Magistratical Power Headship or Supremacy A Christian is no more bound as a Subject by the Rules of the Gospel to a Christian Magistrate than to a Heathen or Heretical Magistrate The Rules are indefinite to a Magistrate as such though a Christian Subject will be the better man and Subject and a Christian Magistrate the better man and Magistrate Christianity making every one the better man and better qualified for the performance of the relative Duty of his place that he is set in § 6. Secondly No civil Magistrate can be an Ecclesiastical Head and Governour of the Church as such It 's Christ's Prerogative to be the Supream and to constitute what other Heads and Governours he in his wisdom thinks best But I finde not that he ever made any Magistrate a constitutive Ecclesiastical Head or Governour to his Church virtute Officii for if so in every Christian Dominion the Prince should be the Metropolitan and the true Pastor to that National Church § 7. Thirdly No civil Magistrate can by virtue of
sticks And setting aside much of the severity which appeared in that more legal Dispensation which was both Typical and Temporal and much of it in special cases and by special command by God It would be accounted very severe now to put a man to death for prophaning the Name of God though it were by repeated acts of such horrid cursing and swearing as is frequent now-a-days or for prophanation of the Sabbath c. Then setting aside the relation the Judicial Law had to the Levitical and necessary dependance on it which is ceased and considering that our Judicial Laws cannot so much depend upon Evangelical instituted Worship Christ having not so strictly tyed Church and State under a necessity of the same Emergencies as he did the Jewish Oeconomies I conceive likewise the just proportionating of Penalties in this kind ought to be done with great caution and depends much on the Magistrates prudent management of the Helm of Government for the safety and preservation of the Christian State and Penalties cannot be positive and unalterable because cases do so frequently differ in the aggravating circumstances § 25. The Christian civil State ought to be very neighbourly and cherishing to the Ecclesiastical and the civil Magistrate is to improve his Magistratick capacity to the utmost for the interest of Christ's Church and advantage of the Gospel 1. By subordinating as much as is possible all State-interest to the interest of Christ in his Church 2. By giving all possible encouragement to the purer Worshippers of God and to the embracers of the Christian Religion 3. By encouraging the faithful preaching of the Gospel and propagation thereof by able Ministers duely called thereto by the Church and affording them external helps and supports in so doing 4. By maintaining the Churches in the due execution of the Laws of Christ and in the enjoyment of their Ecclesiastical and Civil Liberties defending them from invasions and disturbances in Gods Worship from the rage of professed Enemies from tyrannizing usurping Imposers 5. By being a nursing Father to the Church both as a Christian in an eminent capacity going before others in the exemplary practice of Piety and calling upon all others of all ranks and degrees whatever to discharge their places in the fear of God as Hezekiak and Jehosaphat did 1 Chron. 29.25 26 27 c. 2 Chron. 19.8 9 10. and as a Magistrate defending them by his power as hath been said CHAP. XVIII Of a Christians Duty in case of Humane Laws in matters religiously indifferent § 1. IN the next place it will be necessary to speak something to a Question of no less weight than any of the former for it is said that though it should be granted that no power Civil or Ecclesiastical can Jure convert Indifferencies in Worship into Necessities by a Law yet it 's inquired in case any humane power assume so much to it self as to do it Whether a Christian is not bound to yield active Obedience unto the said Laws and those that affirm it produce these Reasons to enforce it 1. That every one is bound to be subject to their highest powers Rom. 13.1 2. That such Laws are not contrary to the Law of God because God hath nowhere declared himself against one part of the indifferency more than the other but hath left both equally lawful to be practised according to the rules of discretion And why may not the Church or Magistrates discretion binde a Christian to obedience to his command as most expedient the Church or Magistrate being better able to judge of an Expediency than a private Christian 3. Because if in a thing indifferent the least offensive part is to be chosen then surely that part which fulfils the Civil or Ecclesiastick Law for it is a greater offence to offend the Church or Magistrate or both than to offend a particular private Christian or company of Dissenters To the first I answer by way of concession That a Christian is so bound as Rom. 13.1 but 1. That place is to be understood of Civil not Ecclesiastical powers as the Context shews 2. If it be understood of Church-power as that Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the rule over you it 's to be understood of such as Christ hath constituted Church-Officers and of obedience to an Executive power committed to them not of a new assumed Legislative power never allowed to them To the second I answer That such Laws are contrary to the Word of God for 1. Essentially they are contrary to the Word of God it being the revealed Will of God in his Word that they should be Indifferencies and remain so not to be made otherwise by any Law for where God hath granted a Liberty or Latitude in the use of any Creatures or Actions there to make or prescribe a religious limitation by a Law is absolutely unlawful and directly contrary to the Word of God It 's express Acts 10.13 14 15. where Peter though an Apostle is charged not to put a religious difference where God hath sanctified things to our indifferent use much less might he prohibit the Church from using any Creatures or Actions made by God indifferently holy therefore when it 's the Will of God that a thing be indifferent it 's contrary to the Will of God to impose it as necessary 2. Such Laws are circumstantially evil and contrary to the Word of God because they hinder the free use of Christian discretion where God would have it used and Ergo hindreth an Ordinance of Christ Besides it necessarily obligeth to evil whenas the expedient good is found by a Christian to be in that part of the Indifferency which is contrary to the humane Law And besides God having left both parts of the Indifferency equally lawful and declared it so in his Word for man to declare one part unlawful or make it so by a Law is to make a Declaration or Law contrary to the Word of God Neither may a Magistrate or Churches judgment binde a Christian to practise any further than it brings light with it for no man must walk by an implicit Faith in the matters that concern the Worship of God and the salvation of his Soul To the third Alleg. That part which fulfils the Civil or Ecclesiastical Law for Will-worship is not the least offending part but the most for the yielding free active obedience to sinful Laws is not onely sin in the person obeying but the highest degree of scandal to the person commanding it being the edification of him in sin whereas the refusal of active obedience in such a case is no offence given but onely a just cross of a perverse Judgment and Will Again if any action be such as will offend justly the least of Christ's members it must needs be contrary to Gods Word and I may not grievingly or sinningly offend any of Gods children that I may gratifie and fulfil the Will of man We must rather chuse that part of the
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
few words more § 13. First If it be lawful for the Church to annex new decencies and order to the decencies and order appointed by Christ then these must be necessary or unnecessary but it 's not lawful Ergo. 1. It 's not lawful to annex unnecessary for this were to trifle and would infer the greatest absurdities imaginary therefore none will insist upon that 2. Not to annex any thing necessary for they must then judge something necessary which Christ hath not declared so as something belonging to the esse or bene esse of the Church and this were a high affront to Christ and impeachment of his wisdom as not perfect and compleat in his House as likewise it 's implicitely to condemn Christ's Worship and Ordinances as left by him for undecent and disorderly and so naked and unfit to come to publick view till they be anew dressed up and trimed by the Church in her Poppet-play Robes and Attire § 14. Secondly And then she might re-establish any old absolete Jewish decencies so she use them Evangelically upon as good or better ground than she hath brought in Heathenish practices into use in the Church Thirdly Decency and Order in the Church is no Indifferency but necessary in its kind as hath been shewed because commanded and enjoyned by Christ and Ergo if the Church hath power to enact Laws in matters of Indifferency it follows not that she hath power to do the like in matters of Decency and Order because they are not indifferent things but necessary if we understand either Moral or Evangelical decency and order § 15. It is fallacious and false to assert that the Church prescribes onely decencies in the Worship of God for they are the smallest part of her Ceremonies for what are Holy-days Cross in Baptism Musick in Divine Service And besides most or all her Ceremonies respect other Objects and are for other significancy and ends than for decency some being chiefly gratiâ divinâ as all reverential Gestures and Postures viz. bowing at the Name of Jesus bowing to the Altar kneeling at the Sacrament standing up at the Gospel These are signes of divine honour and Latrical and can be no otherwise understood than respecting a Divinity and therefore there can be no pretence to call it civil Worship because in all civil Worship man is the Object and were the same or like actions which for the matter are neither civil or divine but indifferent as to both but a peculiar Adaptation to a singular end or object they receive their distinct denomination therefrom Some are chiefly gratiâ humanâ in order to the due preparing and qualifying us for Spiritual Services Surplices to make us appear more pure an Emblem of Purity and mind us of it Musick to raise the Spirits and others more mixt in their intention tà m gratiâ divinâ quà m humanâ as Saints days wherein God is blessed for Saints whereby God is honoured and the Saint too the Cross in Baptism and the Ring in Matrimony which are Seals of obligation religiously made use of therefore more than significant signes and can be no less than Sacraments There are also divers Responses and Salutations betwixt Ministers and People in all which it 's easie to perceive that there is some weightier matters respected than meer civil decencies and order whatever pretences are made to the contrary § 16. We have before hinted what we apprehend true canonical obedience to be viz. that it 's not a submission to a certain body of Laws made by any Church challenging a Legislative power neither to those feigned Canons of the Apostles but it is obedience to the Canons or Rules of Gospel-communion laid down in the Scriptures those that are acquainted with the true Churches of Christ know no other Canons nor no other canonical Obedience they are obliged unto Now those that call for canonical obedience under that term they tell us that it is obedience to the Laws Rules and Constitutions of the Church but I could never rightly understand any reason for their plea from the Church viz. of the authority pleaded for for if it be a National Church that requires the said obedience we say 1. That that Church cannot pretend to challenge obedience that is not capacitated to make or execute any Law but the National is not Ergo. The Minor appears in that there is no such thing as a National organized Church constituted by Christ under the Gospel for if there were there must be National Officers and Ordinances by the same appointment but Christ hath constituted no National Officers i. e. whose Office-power in the Church is of such extent nor no National Ordinances i. e. such Ordinances that the whole Nation may partake of in one Assembly for communion The same Argument will hold against Diocesan Churches 2. How is any one National Church the Church more than another that hath such a Ruling power if all hath it alike how various will Church-canons be and how little Uniformity in canonical obedience 3. If this obedience belongs to any Church it seems most consonant to right reason that it should belong to the Catholick Church for 1. That may be as organical as a National can be by virtue of any institution of Christ 2. That 's most comprehensive therefore challengeth the preheminence of all others in respect of extent and by way of eminency may most properly be stiled the Church 3. This is the likeliest way to attain a Vniformity for it 's pleaded as the great reason why Christ gives a Legislative Compulsive power to a National Church viz. Vniformitatis gratiâ Now it 's but a partial Uniformity obtained thereby of an Independent nature but if true Uniformity be reached it must be that which is Catholick which can be no otherwise than by Catholick canonical obedience CHAP. XXII Of the Imposition of Ceremonies § 1. NExt to the consideration of decencies and order it may be meet to enquire a little into the lawfulness of imposition 1. of Ceremonies 2. of a form of Prayer Whether a Ceremony uncommanded by God may be used in the Worship of God is not our present Undertaking to discuss for in some cases it may be lawful so it be such as is duely qualified and be used as indifferent and occasionally by the Rules of discretion but our present Enquiry shall be Whether the Church is liable to the imposition of such Ceremonies as Christ hath not made necessary by any Law of his Many Arguments before urged against the Churches Legislative power might be here of equal force I shall onely adde something proper upon this state of the Question to prove that such an imposition is not in the Churches power § 2. Arg. 1. Because the Church by such imposition doth subjugate herself in her Members to a yoke of bondage which Christ hath freed her and them from That Christians are freed from such yokes see Gal. 4.31 ch 5.1 and the Church is not to return to
any bondage that she is freed from by Christ she being not a competent Judge of her own bondage or freedom The Church of the Jews were not so for they are condemned by the Spirit of God for not laying aside that bondage to ceremonies which Christ would have eased them of Hence in judgment her Ear is bored and she is become a professed Vassal thereto until the time of the fulness of the Gentiles and would account it her greatest felicity might she but have opportunity to return to the full enjoyment and exercise of the old obsolete Rites of the ceremonial Law Hence nothing can be a more unquestionable truth than that a Gospel-Church may not return her self or members to a subjection to a ceremonial Yoke for 1. If a Christian or Church may return to one Yoke that Christ hath redeemed them from then as well to another if to that of a ceremonial Law then to that of the covenant of Works also 2. Again if they may return to bondage then they may stay in bondage as the Jews did for both ways Christ equally profits them nothing as a Redeemer profits not a Slave that will remain a captive or return into it 3. There 's nothing can be more displeasing to a Redeemer than so to overthrow his whole designe of redemption § 3. That Christ hath freed his Churches and Christians from ceremonies as a yoke of bondage viz. from all not instituted and ratified by himself I thus prove 1. If Christ hath not freed the Church of the New Testament from all ceremonies besides his own the condition of the Gospel-church would be much worse than the Mosaical whose bondage was under a Law of ceremonies of God's own promulgation and sure if a Christian must be under the plague of ceremonies it is far better to fall into the hands of God than Man and the Jewish Church must needs be more happy than the Christian who lie at the mercy of mens vain Imaginations and tyrannical Will It was known to them of the Old Testament how great their burden was though prescribed by God and circumscribed exactly as to the latitude and extent and bulk of them so that they could not easily be imposed upon by man and yet we see they could not escape the Traditions of the Elders and superstitious Observations of the Pharisees But what a miserable condition are Churches of the New Testament in who are so liable to so heavie and intolerable a bulk of ceremonies without bounds or measure arbitrarily to be increased by men of corrupt minds and interest calling themselves the Church and were there a tythe of the ceremonies in the Jewish Church of what is in the Romish which the Papists have accumulated upon this ground And Christ hath given leave to the Church under the Gospel to devise and impose what ceremonies she in her wisdom thinks meet 2. Unless Christ hath freed the Gospel-church from ceremonial bondage how is the Gospel-church the free Woman Was not the bondage-state of the Jewish Church very much yea most in this respect But is not the Gospel-church in far greater servitude for the Jews were in bondage to God's ceremonies the Christian to mans And if Christ allows us not to return to ceremonial bondage of God's imposition sure he allows us not a return unto such of mans phanatick devising and merciless imposition 3. To be in bondage under ceremonies for divine Worship is to be in bondage under the Elements of the world but the Gospel-church is delivered by Christ from bondage to the Elements of the world Gal. 4.3.9 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elements or Principles of the world Coloss 2.8 they are described to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the tradition of men and vers 20. they are those that Christ hath redeemed us from and weak and beggarly Gal. 4.9 and if the ceremonies of the Jews once instituted by God himself were such how much more are the ceremonious Relicts of heathenish Idolatry or any other that are products of mens Brains and corrupt Wills What poor wretched and abominably beggarly things are they for the members of Christ to be enslaved to What pitiful Ornaments are old rotten Hangings to put up in Christ's house that excellent Fabrick of his own building If they I say Jewish were worldly much more those which are originally from the world of worldly contrivance and interest for all such must be of God or the world but they are not from God either immediately or mediately not immediately because not instituted by him not mediately because he never deputed any authority to institute them Ergo of the world Hence the Church and Christians should be dead with Christ to the Rudiments of the world and not live in the world subject to such Elements Col. 2.20 c. 4. The ceremonies spoken of Gal. 4. 5. which the Galatians returned to were but humane commandments though Jewish for they ceased now to be commanded of God yea were forbidden by him and all the Sanction which now they had was from man And the Apostle doth convincingly prove the unlawfulness of Resanction of Jewish ceremonies by doing of which he doth sufficiently cast down all humanely-instituted ceremonies in divine Worship and by the Prelates practice many Jewish ceremonies as Musick Altars Ephods c. are not onely lawful as things indifferent but required as things not to be dispensed with therefore necessary 5. Christ hath freed his Church and Members from being servants unto men in the Worship of God Ergo from humane ceremonial Laws That place 1 Cor. 7.23 must be understood of servitude unto men in an Ecclesiastical or at least Religious sence for he saith Let every man abide in the Calling wherein he is called servants in obedience to their Masters children to their Parents subjects to their governours c. For the Corinths thought that there was a necessity on their conversion to alter their Callings which they had before as if a man were called being a servant to be a Christian that thereby he became his brother and ought not any longer to ow◠him as Master But the Apostle clears up this doubt and saith Thou being a servant do not think thy relation to thy Master is dissolved ever the more because of thy conversion thou art as much a servant as before and therefore he saith being called do not presently renounce thy relation and refuse subjection to thy Master upon pretence that thou art Christ's freeman but abide in the place of a servant as before thou art nevertheless God's freeman thy Conscience free for God's Worship to serve him according to his revealed Will and therefore in this kind be not a servant to men or any sort of men though thou mayst lawfully remain a Family-servant yet be not a Conscience-vassal unto any men § 4. Arg. 2. If it be lawful for the Church or other power to enact and impose Laws for Ceremonies whereby Churches and
Christians are liable to such Laws then it 's lawful to erect a ceremonial Law under the Gospel for what is a Law of or for a body of Ceremonies but a ceremonial Law But Christ would never pull down one ceremonial Law by his death for man to erect another and pull down one Jewish and leave it lawful for man to erect one more heathenish would he abolish one ceremonial Law of divine Institution and leave it to man to establish a new one of his own devising yea a thousand ceremonial Laws of as many sorts as there are several Churches and Ages in the world It 's a most absurd and untheological conceit that a ceremonial Law is consistent with the state of the Gospel wherein all Vails whatever is removed from the Lord Jesus besides the vail of his flesh neither is the Spirituality of his Ordinances to be clogged with such a bulkie mass of fleshly Institutions § 5. Arg. 3. If we be not liable to an imposition and enforcement of Christ's own by a temporal Penal Law much less liable to such imposition of ceremonies by Ecclesiastick or other authority for all imposition is by a Penal Law but we know Christ never made any Penal Law to be Ecclesiastically administred thereby to enforce men to Baptism and receive the Supper His people that submit to his Ordinances must be willing and free whereunto they are brought by enlightning the Understanding and perswading the Will as the great end of the Gospel preached Those that will say otherwise must justifie the Spaniards in America in bringing the poor Indians to their baptism by force The claim that any make to the use of the Magistrates Sword or force of Arms to prevail with men to submit to any things pretended to be spiritual is of like nature and will fall under the like condemnation And how much worse by the Rule of Proportion must that needs be to enforce ceremonies of humane institution than those of divine Would not Christ give such a power to the Church to enjoyn his own institution under Corporal or Penal Mulcts how much less will he bear so great an usurpation for any to erect a body of ceremonial Laws with Penalties annexed thereby to enforce them on the Consciences and practices of others The Argument stands very fair and forcing from the greater to the less That power that cannot justifie the imposing any of Christ's own Ordinances on men even on unregenerate and no visible Members cannot justifie the imposing humane Ordinances on the visible Members of Jesus Christ but no Power can justifie the imposing any of Christ's Institutions by a Penal Law c. Ergo there is none can pretend to defend any such proceedings by any plausible Argument from Scripture or right Reason § 6. Arg. 4. If the Church is liable to the imposition of Ceremonies not instituted by Christ it 's either to the imposition of insignificant or of significant It 's not subjected to the imposition of insignificant i. e. of childish or irrational empty ceremonies of no signification for this were to mock God and imitate the Heathens in a gross manner to use antick gestures and actions in God's solemn Worship of which there can be no plausible reason pretended therefore such things are absolutely vain and unlawful 2. For significant Ceremonies Church-powers cannot impose them 1. Because none may devise and enact such into a Law at pleasure 2. None can pretend sufficiently to the signe and thing necessarily requiring signification thereby in Christ's Worship but Christ himself A significancy in divine service must be such as Christ would have no other he will not have such things signified as are heterogenious to his service and homogenious things onely may be represented by homogenious signes and who can determine such but the most wise Legislator and King of his Church 3. Significant Ceremonies are so by virtue of adaptation of a signe by some Law to the thing signified and they are either Moral or Instituted Moral and natural are such wherein there is a natural or moral relation between the signe and thing signified or at least acquired by use and custom as bowing the body and uncovering the head of reverence and subjection c. and there is nothing in this kind necessary to be done in the Worship of God which is not already done for if Christ had seen a necessity of any more ceremonies of that kind he would have annexed them Again ceremonies of limited Institution are not to be imposed for such are either Typical or Sacramental 1. There can be no Typical Ceremonies under the New Testament because the Body is come and the Shadows must flie away 2. Nor can there be any Sacramental Ceremonies instituted for herein lies the exercise of Christ's Prerogative to institute Sacraments neither doth he enforce the use of any by corporal or pecuniary Penal Laws 3. A Sacrament according to the Church of England is a visible signe of an invisible Grace in which sence all significant ceremonies should be Sacraments as the Surplice a signe of inward Purity but they that have not power to give the thing signified as well as the signe have no power to make a Sacrament which Christ does in all his 4. A Sacrament is not every significant sign in divine things but such a ceremony as is a federal signe and seal such was Circumcision and the Passover of old Baptism and the Lords Supper under the New Testament such though humane Innovatious is the Cross in Baptism and the Ring in Marriage for they are consecrated Ceremonies significant and federally obligatory which appears by the Churches institution of them But there may be no Sacramental ceremony instituted by the Church this would be a gross addition to Christ's Sacraments annexed to the New Covenant which must not be altered nor have any new ones superadded for if any humane power may increase the number of Sacraments viz. to three or four they may go to seven with the Papists and why not as well to seventy Those two additional which some Protestant Churches retain they are beholding to Rome for the institution of them Mr. Bradshaw and others hath sufficiently proved that no Church can institute ceremonies of Sacramental significancy and intent and therefore I need not enlarge here upon it CHAP. XXIII Of Obligation to a Form of Prayer § 1. HAving discussed that Question whether a Church or Christian is liable to imposition of Ceremonies it remains now to enquire How far a Church or Christian may be obliged to a Form of Prayer A Form of Prayer is such a Prayer as is premeditated and prescribed by our selves or others as to the matter and form of Petitions and Words constantly and unalterably to be used on times and occasions suiting the matter form and drift of the said Prayer The Question here will not be Whether a Christian may not use a Form of Prayer but Whether it be lawful for a Christian as much
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