scandal Now these two do so widely differ that the one is true and proper scandal and the other is not To offend a weak Brother by an uncharitable use of our liberty by doing such things as prove a stumbling-block and occasion of falling to him is scandal in the Apostle's notion of the word and the onely scandal of which he treats in this 14th Chapter to the Romans but thus it seems we do not scandalize the Dissenters who are not concerned not offended in the Apostle's sence at what we do so they might enjoy their own liberty and therefore neither the Church nor Dissenters are concerned in what the Apostle discourses about Scandal in this Chapter And as for that offence and scandal they take at the exercise of Discipline and Government which restrains their wild and fanatick pretences to liberty it is no other offence than what all Criminals take at Laws and publick Government which is so far from being such a scandal as the Governours of the Church ought to avoid that there is not a greater scandal to Religion than the neglect of it But I shall think nothing impossible if our Reconciler can prove out of this Chapter that the Governours of the Church should prescribe no Rules of Worship nor lay any Restraint upon the giddy and enthusiastick fancies of men for fear of giving offence to them 4. The last Argument the Apostle uses to represent the reasonableness of this forbearance is this that though the Gentile Christians without sin or without any injury to their own liberty might comply with their weak Jewish Brethren yet these Jewish Christians who believed it unlawful to eat any meats forbidden by the Law of Moses could not comply with the believing Gentiles without sinning against their own Consciences which brings judgment and condemnation upon them And he that doubteth which does not signifie what we commonly call a scrupulous Conscience for that was not the case of the Jews who did not doubt but certainly believe that it was unlawful for them to eat such meats but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I observed before signifies him who makes a distinction between meats and so believes it unlawful to eat any meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses he who thus doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatever is not of faith is sin Now here our Reconciler thinks he has us fast for if this were a good Argument in the case of the Jewish Christians it must be also in the case of the Dissenters If the Gentile believers were not by any means to compel the believing Jews to eat those meats which they believed unlawful because how lawful soever it was in it self yet it was unlawful for them to do it while they believed it unlawful to be done by the same reason the Governours of the Church must not compel Dissenters to Conformity which they believe unlawful or at least greatly doubt of the lawfulness of it For he that doubteth is damned if he conforms as well as if he eats This looks most like a parallel case of any thing yet and if this fails him I doubt his Cause is desperate and yet I am pretty confident that this will do him no service 1. For first this is not a good Argument in all cases to grant such an indulgence and forbearance that men act according to their Consciences as I have already proved at large for this would subvert all Order and Government in Church and State and supersede the Authority and Obligation of all other Laws but every mans private judgment and opinion of things 2. Let us then consider in what cases this Argument is good for certainly it is good in the case to which the Apostle applies it Now I know of but one general case to which this Argument can be reasonably applied and that is where every man 's own Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule The Laws of God and the Laws of our Superiours when they do not contradict the Laws of God are the Rule of Conscience that Rule whereby all men ought to act and it is a senseless thing to say that when men are under the government of Laws they must have liberty to act according to their own Consciences that is according to their own judgment and opinions of things which is to say that though men are under Laws yet they must be governed by none that Magistrates may make Laws but they must not execute them but must suffer every man when his Conscience serves him to break both the Laws of God and of the Church or Kingdom wherein he lives But where we are under no obligation of divine or humane Laws in such cases every mans own Conscience is his onely Rule and in these cases it is fit to leave every man to the direction and government of his own mind because they concern onely every mans private liberty and have no influence at all upon the Publick And if in such cases any man should fancy himself to be under the obligation of a divine Law when indeed he is not it would be barbarously uncharitable by Censures and Reproaches and such kind of rude and ungentile Arts to force him to a compliance contrary to the sense and judgment of his own mind for when there is no other Rule of our Actions every mans Conscience is his onely Rule and if he does that which he believes to be forbidden by the Law of God though indeed it is not yet he sins in it and if we force him to such a compliance we are very uncharitable in it and are guilty of offending a weak Brother This was the very case of which the Apostle speaks The Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats was now out of date and did no longer oblige them and therefore it was lawful both for Jews and Gentiles to eat what meat they pleased but the Jews still thought that Law to be in force and therefore though the Law did not oblige them to abstain from such meats yet their own Consciences which is always a Law when there is no other did still oblige them to abstain and therefore it was very uncharitable in the Gentile Christians to judge and censure and reproach them for this for though they who understood their liberty might use it yet a believing Jew could not do this without sin And there may be a great many cases in â—ome degree parallel to this As suppose a man scruples the use of Lots and consequently all Games which depend upon Lots or thinks it unlawful to drink a Health or to see a Play or apprehends himself obliged to a stricter observation of the Lords day than the Christian Church has in former Ages thought necessary though we should suppose that there were no Law of God about these matters yet this mans Conscience is a Law to him and whiles he thinks any
A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING AN ANSWER To the First Part OF THE Protestant Reconciler By WILL. SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for Abel Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. who exclude so many Labourers for things indifferent p. 212 His fourth Argument from our Saviour's command not to scandalize little ones p. 213 What is meant by little ones p. 214 What it is to scandalize them p. 215 His fifth Argument from the Woe denounced against those who shut up the Kingdom of Heaven p. 216 How the Pharisees shut the Kingdom of Heaven ibid. What is meant by heavy burdens p. 218 And what it is our Saviour condemns under that notion p. 219 His sixth Argument that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid that man who wrought miracles in his Name but did not follow him and therefore dissenting Preachers who renounce the Communion of the Church must not be forbid to preach p. 220 His seventh Argument from Christ's laying down his life for his Sheep to prove that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for them p. 223 His last Argument from Christ's Prayer for the Vnity of the Church ibid. CHAP. V. The Answer to our Reconciler's Argument drawn from the 14 of Rom. p. 225 There may be some cases wherein forbearance is reasonable others wherein it is neither prudent nor reasonable ibid. And therefore we cannot argue from the case of the Iews to the case of the Dissenters unless they appear to be the same ibid. St. Paul in the 14 Rom. onely exhorts the Iewish and Gentile Converts to mutual forbearance in such cases which had already been determined by the highest authority in the Church 226 And therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Ceremonies which are scrupled by Dissenters 227 The Decree of the Council at Jerusalem the foundation of this Apostolical forbearance ibid. Private charity may be exercised in such cases where publick authority can make no determination in favour of the scrupulous 231 The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters of a different nature from that between the Iews and Gentiles the one concerns indifferent things the other the observation of the Law of Moses 235 No Dispute about the use of indifferent things in Scripture nor any exhortation to forbearance in such matters 236 An Answer to the Reconciler's Argument which he alleadges to make it probable that St. Paul in this Chapter does not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses ibid. So that this Chapter does not concern the Dispute about indifferent things 243 The Apostle did not plead for indulgence to the Iews in the observation of the Law of Moses under the notion of an indifferent thing ibid. The reason of his different treatment of the Churches of Rome and Galatia 244 Whether though the case of the Iews and Dissenters be different yet by a parity of Reason the same indulgence ought to be granted to both 247 The nature of such Arguments from a parity of Reason ibid. That there is no parity of Reason between these two cases 249 The Arguments the Apostle uses in this 14 Chap. very proper to the case of the Iews but not applicable to the case of our Dissenters proved at large ibid. c. What the Apostle means by receiving one another and Dr. Falkner vindicated from the Reconciler's Objections The Apostles first Arg. That God has received them the meaning of it that it is peculiar to that case of Iews and Gentiles and not applicable to Dissenters 257 c. 2 Arg. that they must not judge another mans servant 262 That this Arg. relates onely to such matters as God has determined by his own immediate authority 264 3 Arg. that they acted out of conscience towards God 265 Whether every man must be permitted to act according to his own Conscience 266 God will judge the Consciences of men and therefore grants no such liberty as this 267 Civil Magistrates ought not to regard mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the publick good 268 Nor is there any obligation on the Governours of the Church to do this 269 What St. Paul means by regarding a day to the Lord 270 To do any thing to the Lord does not meerly signifie a private perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it 272 The Apostles Exhortation not to offend a weak Brother 274 What the scandal was of which the Apostle speaks 275 Who this weak Brother is and whether this be applicable to Dissenters 276 The offence which was given was a supposed violation of an express Law of God 277 The nature of a criminal scandal 279 The danger of offending these weak Iewish Brethren which the Apostle warns them against was lest they should renounce the Christian Faith and fall back into Iudaism 282 The weak in Faith who are to be indulged signifies those who are not well confirmed in the truth of Christianity 284 The same indulgence not to be granted to Schismaticks though ignorant and weak in understanding ibid. The Reasons whereby the Apostle disswades them from giving scandal 287 A Paraphrase on the 14 15 c. verses of the 14 Rom. ibid. These Arguments to avoid scandal concern onely the exercise of every mans private liberty 292 That this compliance must be in such matters wherein Religion and religious Worship is not concerned 293 Meat and Drink does not signifie the Externals of Religious Worship 294 Nor does Righteousness and Peace c. signifie all the Essentials of Religion 296 The mistake of Reconcilers that the Externals of Religion are nothing worth and of small account with God 297 This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith 298 The meaning of Hast thou Faith have it to thy self 299 What is meant by Him that doubteth 302 How far the Apostle allows that every man must be left to the conduct of his own Conscience This extends onely to such cases where every mans Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule 303 Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us 306 This proved to be the meaning of the Apostle ibid. The Case of liberty of Conscience briefly stated 304 A short Recapitulation of this Discourse by comparing the case of the Iews with the case of Dissenters 311 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the Vniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church what the Reconciler pleads for must do one or both 321 Dr. Stillingfleet vindicated 322 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was in order to prevent Schisms which our Reconciler's forbearance cannot do 333 This indulgence to the Iews was
God has not determined by his own Authority whereas the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles was actually determined by God that the Jews should be indulged in the observation of the Law but that it should not be imposed upon the Gentiles and therefore when they judged and censured one another upon this account they exceeded their authority they judged over Gods judgment and judged another mans Servant which the Church cannot be charged with when she judges and censures her own refractory and dissenting Members for their disobedience in such things as are subject to her authority 3. The Apostle perswades both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another to Christian communion because though they differed in their practice yet both of them acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jew knew that the Law of Moses was given by God and could not be satisfied that it was repealed and therefore still observed the Law in reverence to the Authority which first gave it The converted Gentiles knew that the Law was never given to them and were assured by the same persons upon whose authority they embraced the Gospel that they were not under the obligation of the Law and therefore they thankfully accept that liberty which Christ had purchased for them And therefore since both of them at that time could truly plead a divine authority for what they did and not meerly some unaccountable humour and prejudice they ought not to judge and censure one another for such different practices One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and he that regardeth not a day to the Lord he doth not regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks which would be a profane and impudent mockery of God did he not believe that God had given him liberty to eat indifferently of any thing and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Our Reconciler represents the Apostles Argument thus These persons saith the Apostle ought to be received into communion although they differ in practice and in judgment about these matters because it was from conscience towards God and a desire to do what was most pleasing to him that some did eat and others not that some did regard a day and others not If charity therefore will teach us to conclude of such as do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters that as they outwardly profess so do they really observe or not observe them out of conscience towards God which they who cannot know mens Consciences but by their own professions cannot well deny then must they both by the Apostles Rule receive each other to communion and not reject each other on the accounts of differences in judgment or in practice in these lesser matters Let us then consider what the consequence of this Doctrine would be if it were true viz. that the Consciences of men are under no Government and when we consider what is usually meant by Conscience viz. mens private Opinions and Judgments of things the plain English of it is that every man must do as he list and thus all the Authority of Government is over-ruled by the more soveraign Authority of Conscience This is so extreamly absurd that it is wonderful to me that men of common understanding should not blush to own it For 1. It is plain that God will judge the Consciences of men and condemn them too if they be erroneous and wicked The Jews crucified our Saviour and persecuted his Apostles out of zeal for God as St. Paul witnesses but God destroyed their City Temple and Nation for it I suppose our Reconciler will not charge all the Heathen Idolaters even after the Empire was turned Christian with being a pack of damned Hypocrites Many of them no doubt very sincerely followed their Consciences and yet were damned not for Hypocrites but for conscientious Idolaters All the Laws of God oblige the Consciences of men whatever their particular Perswasions may be and if mens Consciences will not comply with the Laws of God the Law will judge and condemn them and yet it seems as hard a thing that God should condemn men who act out of conscience and a desire to do what is most pleasing to him as that Earthly Governours should condemn and punish them No you 'll say God is the sole Lord and Judge of Conscience and he alone has authority to give Laws to the Consciences of men which no humane power can but all this is senseless Cant for what is it to be the Lord of Conscience and to give Laws to Conscience Does it signifie any more than a Soveraign Authority to command under the guilt of sin if we disobey And have not all Governours then who have received authority from God to command the government of mens Consciences too as far as their authority reaches But this is not the Question Who has authority to give Laws to Conscience for whoever has authority to make Laws has authority to make Laws for Conscience unless they have authority to make Laws without obliging any body to obey them But the Question is Whether after Laws are made either by God or men every man may equitably challenge a liberty to follow the guidance of his own Conscience though his Conscience mistake its rule Now it is plain that God does not grant this liberty for he punishes such erroneous Consciences and will eternally damn those who do wicked actions out of a mistaken Zeal for his glory and yet if there were any reason or equity in the case it would more oblige God than any Earthly Governours because such misguided Zealots are supposed to intend Gods glory in what they do And if God will not indulge such men in the breach of his Laws though they intend to please him by it what reason have Earthly Governours to do it who receive their authority from God and cannot imitate a better Example in the exercise of it than God himself 2. Civil Magistrates ought to take no notice at all of mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the good government of the Nation If the Saints should think it their priviledge and prerogative to rob and plunder and murder the ungodly if they should think themselves bound in conscience to pull down earthly Princes to set up King Jesus on his Throne should Magistrates be afraid of hanging such Villains as these as commit such horrid Outrages from a Principle of Conscience Nay if men refuse to give security to the Government or a legal testimony in any civil cause out of a scruple about the lawfulness of Oaths is the Government to take notice or to make any allowance for this If God does not Magistrates have less reason to do it because God knows what mens Consciences
are which Magistrates can never know Hypocrites may pretend conscience as well as the sincere and Government could never be secure if Justice must be administred not by known and standing Laws but in compliance with every mans Conscience which is or may be no body knows what 3. The onely doubt then is about the Governours of the Church whether they in making Laws and in the exercise of Discipline ought not to have great regard to the Consciences of men Now I would fain know a reason why they are more bound than either God or civil Magistrates to suffer men to do what they please according to their various and different pretensions of Conscience If there be any equity in it that every man should enjoy the liberty of his own Conscience it holds in other matters as well as these I suppose our Reconciler will not say that the Governours of the Church are bound to suffer every man to be of what Religion he pleases to believe what he will to deny the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour to worship an Image or the Host or the Virgin Mary c. and therefore the most considerable things in Religion are not left at liberty and yet of the greater moment any thing is the greater imposition it is upon Conscience I had rather submit to twenty Ceremonies than to be required to subscribe to one new Article of Faith But our Reconciler pretends onely to this Indulgence in inferiour matters Let us then consider his reason for that for certainly the less the things are the less need there is and the less reason to humour mens Consciences about them The onely reason he assigns for it is this That those who do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters do really observe them or not observe them out of Conscience towards God And if this be a good reason why every man should be left to the government of his own Conscience it is good in all other cases as well as in such inferiour matters for why should we impose upon men in any thing which they observe or not observe in conscience towards God But you 'll say this is St. Paul's Argument not the Reconciler's No say I it is the Reconciler's Argument not St. Paul's But does not St. Paul say He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and he that regardeth not a day to the Lord he doth not regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Yes I grant that these are St. Paul's words And does not this signifie that they who did eat and they who did not eat acted out of conscience towards God Yes I grant that too The converted Gentiles did eat indifferently of all sorts of meats and thanked God for that liberty he had granted them the converted Jews abstained from all meats forbidden by their Law and thanked God for their Law which preserved them from all legal pollutions but this is peculiar to this case and cannot be applied to our Dissenters that they refuse to observe our Ceremonies out of conscience towards God God had given a positive Law to the Jews by the hands of Moses which enjoyned the observation of new Moons and Sabbaths and other Festivals and made a distinction between clean and unclean meats and though this Law was now out of date yet it was not repealed in as publick a manner as it was given and God had no way declared that they should observe this Law no longer and therefore those Jews who embraced the Faith of Christ durst not renounce the Law of Moses out of reverence to the Authority of God who gave it and therefore these believing Jews might well be said to observe days and not to eat to the Lord that is out of reverence to the authority of God who gave that Law The believing Gentiles were never under the obligation of the Law of Moses and therefore were more easily instructed in their Christian liberty which God declared by sending his holy Spirit on them in their uncircumcision and by the Decrees of the Apostolical Synod at Ierusalem and they were very well assured by these divine Testimonies that God had delivered them from the Jewish observation of days and meats and therefore they did eat and they did not observe days to the Lord out of reverence to the divine authority which had delivered them from the Mosaical Law But where there is no positive Law nor any publick Declaration of Gods Will whatever our particular Perswasions and Opinions may be we do not act out of conscience towards God For no man can be said to do any thing to the Lord or out of conscience towards God in such cases wherein God has not interposed his authority And therefore unless our Reconciler can shew any positive Law either against Ecclesiastical Ceremonies in general or against the Cross in Baptism the Surplice or Kneeling at the Sacrament in particular how much soever his beloved Dissenters pretend to Conscience it is absurd to say that they do not observe these things out of conscience towards God nor do Conformists observe them out of conscience towards God any otherwise than as they obey that Authority which God hath set in his Church For there can be no other foundation for Conscience but either the express Laws of God or obedience to that Authority which God hath set over us But you 'll say may not that man also be said to act out of conscience toward God who does or forbears doing any thing out of a perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it though he should be mistaken in it and he can produce no Law of God to that purpose While men designe to please God in what they do surely they may be said to act out of conscience towards God I answer I will not contend about words and phrases with any man but let them call things by what names they please All that I say is this That St. Paul does not use it in this sence nor is any man in Scripture said to do any thing to the Lord who cannot produce a plain Law for what he does Other men may intend Gods glory in what they do but they may miss of their aim when they have no Rule and incur the divine displeasure instead of pleasing God and neither God nor men can grant any Indulgence to such a Conscience as this But when both contending Parties can produce a divine authority for doing or not doing the same thing which never did and never can happen but in this case concerning the obligation of the Law of Moses there is great reason for them to receive one another because they both act out of reverence to the divine Authority In a word two contrary Parties as the Jews and Gentiles were in this Controversie can never both of them
of these things unlawful they are unlawful to him and it would be very uncharitable by any Arts to force him to do such things as are contrary to the dictates of his own Conscience This is onely a restraint of their own private liberty and therefore they ought to be indulged in it especially while they are so modest as not to censure those who use their innocent liberty innocently In such cases as these there is no other Rule to guide us but what the Apostle gives Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind which is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us for this must not be extended to all cases as St. Chrysostom observes upon the place for if in all cases we must suffer every man to act according as he is perswaded in his own mind this would subvert all Laws and Government but this is reasonable in such cases as onely concern mens private liberty and are under the restraint and government of no Laws but what men make or fancy to themselves It is true all men who act upon any Principles will in all cases do as they are fully perswaded in their own minds yet this is not a Rule to be given in all cases It can be a Rule onely in such cases wherein let a mans judgment and opinion be what it will he acts safely while he acts according to his own judgment which can never be where there is any other Law to govern us besides our own judgment of things for though we act with never so full a perswasion of our own minds if we break the divine Laws we sin in it and shall be judged for it And that this is the true sence of the Apostle's Argument appears in this that he urges the danger a weak Brother is in of sin if he should be perswaded or forc'd to act contrary to the judgment of his own mind which supposes that he is in no danger of sin if he follow his own judgment for if there were an equal danger of sin both ways this Argument has no force at all to prove the reasonableness of such an indulgence and forbearance For if this weak Brother will be guilty of as great a sin by following his judgment if we do forbear him as he will by acting contrary to his own judgment if we do not the danger being equal on both sides can be no reason to determine us either way and therefore this must be confined to such cases wherein there is no danger of sinning but onely in acting contrary to our own judgment and perswasions that is onely to such cases where there is no other Law to govern us but onely our own private Consciences And therefore this danger of scandal cannot affect Governours who have authority to command nor extend to such cases which are determined by divine or humane Laws and therefore not to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship for whatever our own Perswasions are if we break the Laws of God or the just Laws of men by following a misguided and erroneous Conscience we sin in it And the same thing appears from this consideration that the Apostle perswades them to exercise this forbearance out of charity to their weak Brother but what charity is it to suffer our Brother to sin in following a misguided Conscience If our Brother sin as much in following a misguided Conscience as in acting contrary to his Conscience he is as uncharitable a man who patiently suffers his Brother to sin in following his Conscience as he who compels him to sin by acting contrary to his Conscience or rather by not suffering him to act according to his Conscience Nay since external force and restraint may and very often does make men consider better of things and help to rectifie their mistates it is a greater act of charity to give check to men than to suffer them to go quietly on in sin And here I shall take occasion to speak my mind very freely and plainly about that perplext Dispute of liberty of Conscience It seems very contrary to the nature of Religion to be matter of force for Religion is a voluntary Worship and Service of God and no man is religious who is religious against his will and therefore no man ought to be compelled to profess himself of any Religion which was plainly the sence of the Primitive Christians when they suffered under Heathen Persecutions as is to be seen in most of their Apologies And yet on the other hand it is monstrously unreasonable that there should be no restraint laid upon the wild fancies of men that every one who pleases may have liberty to corrupt Religion with Enthusiastick Conceits and new-fangled Heresies and to divide the Church with infinite Schisms and Factions The Patrons of Liberty and Indulgence declaim largely on the first of these heads those who are for preserving Order and Government in the Church on the second and if I may speak my mind freely I think they are both in the right and have divided the truth between them No man ought to be forc'd to be of any Religion whether Turk or Jew or Christian though Idolatry was punishable by the Law and that with very good reason for though men may not be forc'd to worship God yet they may and ought to be forc'd not to worship the Devil nor to blaspheme or do any publick dishonour to the true God And this was all the restraint that Christian Emperours laid upon the Pagan Idolaters they demolished their Temples and forbad the publick exercise of their Idolatrous Worship But though no man must be compelled to be a Christian yet if they voluntarily profess themselves Christians they become subject to the Authority and Government of the Christian Church The Bishops and Pastors of the Church have authority from Christ and are bound by vertue of their Office to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Decency and Uniformity of Christian Worship and if any Member of the Church either corrupt the Faith or Worship of it or prove refractory and disobedient to Ecclesiastical Authority they ought to be censured and cast out of the Communion of the Church which is as reasonable as it is to thrust a Member out of any Society who will not be subject to the Orders and Constitutions of it This distinction St. Paul himself makes between judging those who are without and those who were within the Church They had no authority to force men to be Christians but they had authority over professed Christians to judge and censure them as their actions deserved and this is properly Ecclesiastical Authority to condemn Heresies and Schism and to cast Hereticks and Schismaticks and all disorderly Christians out of the Communion of the Church and no governed Society can subsist without so much authority as this comes to As for temporal restraints and punishments they belong to the Civil Magistrate and if we