then the Duty of Magistrates even when they were Enemies to Christ both to believe in him and to imploy their Power for the Advancement of God's True Religion and VVorship for this they were morally oblig'd to do from the nature of their Office. And therefore Christ's imploying the Gospel-ministers in a Ministerial way doth not dissolve those Obligations that lie upon tho Magistrate by the moral Law of God to take care for the Advancement and Security of True Religion for seeing the Office of Magistracy is contiuned under the Gospel we need no New Testament-Precepts to inforce his Duty in this respect which is incumbent on him not immediately by any Gospel-precept but by a previous Obligation antecedent to the Gospel-Ministry which is moral and perpetual inherent in his very Office and Dignity that having Authority from God and being in his Stead in the world should imploy his power best for God's service and glory And as the Magistrate is not disoblig'd to promote and preserve True Religion under the Gospel from the office of the Gospel-Ministry imployed to that end neither is it disagreeable with the Gospel Dispensation that he should do so more than formerly under the Law for the difference between the Law and the Gospel doth not lie in any of the moral Obligations of Religion but chiefly in the Positive and Typical and Ceremonial part which is now fulfilled by the Coming of Christ and so done away but the moral part is still the same as under the Old Testament and those few positive Doctrines and Institutions that are peculiar to the Gospel are all included in the moral Law for the First-Table Commandments do comprehend all the Doctrines and Ordinances of the Gospel and require belief of them and obedience to them and indeed the moral Law doth comprehend the whole Duty of man for it requireth Belief in whatsoever God shall reveal and Obedience to whatsoever He shall command Now I argue thus That if the whole Law of God be the Foundation and Rule of Laws and Magistracy as we noted before then certainly the Magistrate is Keeper of both Tabâ—es of the Law or else he is Keeper of neither Hence it will then follow that all the Gospel Institutions thus included in the First-Table-Commands are under the care of the Magistracy as well as those Duties that respect the Second-Table-Commands Thus 't is very clear That the Magistrate under the Gospel is bound by the Law of God to imploy his power and care for true Religion and the VVorship of God. And if so then he ought no doubt to make Laws for the promotion and support of it for that the power and office of Magistracy is exerted by Laws to which Laws 't is necessary that there be a Sanction of Penalties upon the Breach of them for if the Magistrate have only a mandative and preceptive power in the matters of Religion and not power to inflict Penalties for the Violation of Laws he may be said to bear the Sword in vain in that respect And 't is necessary to Laws that they be backed with Penalties not only to further obedience but also to maintain the honour of the Law and the authority of the Magistrate But as to the Magistrates forcing persons to believe in Christ this he cannot do because Faith is an Act of the Understanding and the VVill but where the Faith of Christ is not generally professed he may both require the Attendance of the Person on the publick preaching of the Word and also prohibit and suppress all publick profession and practice of Idolatry and false Religion But this is not the Case in such Governments where all have taken up the profession of Christ and his true Religion at least in the speculative and doctrinal part of it and have vowed by Baptism to adhere to that Religion both in profession and practice Also where some have taken on them the Ministerial Function in the Church and thereby have obliged themselves to the Duties of the same In these cases doubtless the Christian Magistrate may according to the example of good Kings under the Old Testament require and cause by good Laws both Ministers and People to do their respective Duties in Religion and impose penalties for defections or neglects agreeable to the merit of the fault and for grievous Offences against Religion as Idolatry Heresie Blasphemy c. when they are certain and apparent may doubtless inflict corporal punishments after the example of God's own Laws And that the infliction of corporal punishments for great Offences against Religion is not disagreeable with the Gospel Dispensation appears plainly by the Examples of St. Peter Act. 5. 10. who using an extraordinary Authority above that of the Ministry did wonderfully put Ananias and Saphira to death for Sacril dge and Lying and Paul strook Elymas the Sorcerer with Blindness for opposing the Gospel Act. 13. 11. which miraculous waies of punishments were accommodated to that present state of the Church in the want of Christian Magistrates to succour and desend it who were then so far from maintaining the Interest of the Church that they were the greatest Enemies to it and Persecuters of it But yet nevertheless those Examples prove that corporal punishments for great Offences against Religion are consistent with the Gospel Dispensation Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved the power and duty of the Magistrate under the Gospel to promote and maintain by Laws the True Religion and so pass on to the Second Question QUEST II. Whether it be lawful for the Christian Magistrate to give a general Toleration of all Religions or what Liberty in Religion he ought to allow Answ TO this I answer in the Negative That he may not give a general Toleration of all Religions Put what hath been laid down aâ—d proved in Answer to the former Question may indeed serve for an Answer likewise in part both to this and the following Questions which will be easily and plainly answered in the Negative upon supposition of the Truth of the former Hypothesis namely That 't is the Duty of the Magistrate to promote and maintain the True Religion From thence it will follow that he may neither give a general Toleration of all Religions nor the Subjects Consent to such a Toleration or to the repealing the Laws that establish and preserve the True Religion That he may not give a general Toleration of all Religions I urge therefore First From the Inconsistency of giving such a Toleration with his Duty to promote and maintain the True Religion for thence it will follow that he ought not willingly at least to tolerate any but the True Religion and that he ought also to endeavour by all expedient and lawful means to suppress and exterminate all Idolatry False Religion And tho' as we noted before the Magistrate cannot force any without the Visible Church to believe in Christ yet no doubt 't is his Duty where the True Religion is not generally
Peoples Judgment of private discretion doth not disoblige them from Obedience nor render them inculpable when they judg erroneously of what is required Therefore each party both Ruler and Subject should be very careful to judge aright namely the Ruler in judging nothing fit to be commanded in Religion but what is evidently lawful and necessary and then their Commands are binding And the Subjects should be very careful not to judge erroneously of the Commands of Authority for then they justly suffer for Disobedience Each party indeed must judge for so much as concerns themselves and their own Duty both Authority in commanding and the People in obeying but the Judgment of neither doth change the nature of the things themselves so as to make that lawful and necessary or unlawful and not necessary that are not really so in themselves But we find that this Argument of enforcing Obedience in the matters of Religion meerly from the Judgment of Authority is never made use of but when men want sufficient force of Argument from the matter of the things themselves then they flee to the Judgment and Obligation of Authority-commanding which indeed will equally hold in Popery it self upon supposition that the Authority either Civil or Ecclesiastical be a lawful Authority that commands But this Objection is of no force in such things wherein 't is acknowledg'd That there is no necessity in the nature of the things themselves why they should be imposed besides the will of Authority commanding it there the obligation to Obedience is urged meerly from the will of Authority requiring it and not their Judgment of the necessary usefulness of such things But what force and obligation the meer will of Authority hath in the matters of Religion without sound Reason from the Matter required we shall have occasion to say somewhat unto under the next Question Thus I have endeavoured with all possible Brevity to demonstrate what that lawful Liberty in the Matters of Religion is which the Christian Magistrate should justly allow to every man but to allow an unlimited Toleration in the practice of Religion is to run into the contrary Extream of imposing unnecessary and doubtful things and 't is to be supposed that much of that mistake that hath been about a Toleration hath come to pass by not duly considering this Golden Mean of Liberty only in unnecessary things in Religion between the two Extreams of unnecessary Impositions and an unlimited Toleration but as the former is bad being against Christian Liberty and Charity yet the latter is much worse because it tends to subvert the Christian Faith and to overthrow all Government in the Matters of Religion QUEST III. Whether it be lawful for Subjects to give their Actual Consent to a general Toleration Answ TO which I answer in the Negative That they may not And indeed there will be occasion to say but little in answer to this Question for having before proved in Answer to the foregoing Question That the Magistrate may not lawfully allow such a Toleration it will thence follow That the Subject may not consent to it for by consenting to that which is unlawfully done by others we become partly Guilty of the Evil so done But yet it may be proper for us under this Question to enquire Whether it may come under the Charge of an Assent to such a Toleration to practise some Liberty in the Exercise of Religion that is restrained by Laws when 't is allowed by such a Toleration I shall answer this in these Three Particulars 1. That such a liberty in Religion as consists only in an Exemption from the Obligation of things in their own nature unnecessary doubtful or scandalous may lawfully be practised though the same be restrained by Laws 2. That there is no Scandal given by the practice of such a Liberty 3. Nor any Assent thereby to a general Toleration 1. That such a Liberty in Religion as consists only in an exemption or omission of things in their own nature unnecessary doubtful or scandalous may lawfully be practised tho' the same be restrained by Laws because the matter of such Laws cannot be Obligatory upon the Conscience by vertue of any Law of God there being no Divine Law upon which to bottom authorize such Laws which is necessary in all Laws about Religion as we have before noted And wherein there is no Authority to require therein can be no obligation from the Command to obey and the meer will of Authority can lay no Obligation in the matters of Religion but much more when any humane Laws about Indifferent things do interfere with the Law of God of avoiding Scandal in such Indifferent things there certainly such Laws do lose their force and obligation because the obligation from humane Authority ceaseth and becomes void when a previous and greater obligation to the Law of God is to take place by which we are obliged not to do that about Religion which being in it self not necessary is in its use scandalous to many And indeed such Laws that enforce the observation of such things doubtful and scandalous in Religion seem to lose the force of Laws and to be void in themselves having not the proper Matter nor answering the end of Law and therefore a liberty in omitting such things tho' injoined by Laws is lawful to be practised 2. And that there is no Scandal given by the practice of such a Liberty for it may be said That tho' there be no obligation either from the matter of the things required or from Authority requiring it to use some Indifferent things yet they being Indifferent we are bound to use them to avoid Scandal to Authority and to others that will be scandalized by our omitting them And therefore upon this ground divers learned Conformists have thought it lawful to omit the Ceremonies injoined by Laws when Scandal doth not follow being neither necessary in themselves nor from the Command of Authority any further than in the case of Scandal Here we may observe That such as esteem such things not meerly Indifferent but Doubtful in themselves if not Unlawful cannot be obliged to use them to avoid Scandal to others But if they are but meerly Indifferent in their own nature yet proving Scandalous to many and upon supposition of the Truth of what we have proved that there is no Obligation from Authority in such Indifferent things when they become scandalous it will then follow that there can be no scandal given by omitting them tho' Scandal be taken or tho' in the use of an unnecessary thing in Religion we really give Scandal yet by the omission of it is now given tho' Scandal may be taken thereupon because Scandal given ariseth either out of the omission of something necessary to be done or doing something either unlawful or unnecessary tho' lawful Now if the Command of Authority doth not make that in Religion not necessary in it self to become necessary when Scandal follows as
known and profest not only to provide that the Ignorant and Erroneous People may be well instructed in the True Religion but also to prohibit and suppress the publick Profession and Practice of Idolatry Heresie Blasphemy and such-like as being so repugnant and prejudicial to the True Religion which he is obliged to promote and maintain But to give a Toleration of these and of all Religions whatsoever is so far from suppressing it that 't is not only an Allowance of it but a kind of setting it up Secondly It may be further proved Unlawful from the Command of God on the Magistracy of the Old Testament to suppress all false Prophets Teachers and Idolaters Deut. 13. 2 6 10. Thirdly From the Example of all good Kings and Magistrates that did so and are approved for so doing And Lastly From the great injury and hurt that the Cause of True Religion and the Church of God is like to receive by such a Toleration by giving occasion to Satan by false Teachers to infest the Church with the Seeds of False Doctrines and to corrupt the pure Worship of God with Idolatry and Superstition which the Christian Magistrate as a Watchman over the Church should labour to prevent This in short might serve sufficiently to demonstrate the unreasonableness and great impiety of such a Toleration but because a general Toleration under the specious pretence of Liberty of Conscience hath been and is a matter so vehemently argued for by many I shall a little enquire into the nature and ground of this Liberty of Conscience pleaded for by which I presume most understand nothing else but an Exemption from the Obligation of all humane Laws in the matters of Religion therefore I shall in the first place examine those Grounds upon which such a Liberty of Conscience seems to be claimed and pleaded for which being found rotten and unsound such a Toleration will then further appear unlawful to be given by the Christian Magistrate And then Secondly I shall further examin what that lawful Liberty is in the matters of Religion which of Divine Right ought to be allowed by the Magistrate to every Christian First Concerning such a Liberty of Conscience as is opposed to all human Laws in matters of Religion I shall enquire into these things First What Obligation of humane Laws there is upon the Conscience in the things of Religion Secondly Whether an Erroneous Conscience do exempt from the Obligation of Just Laws Thirdly Whether the consideration of an Erroneous Conscience under the infliction of a Penalty on such a Person to be Unjust Of these very briefly First As to the Obligation of humane Laws upon the Conscience we acknowledge that 't is only the Law of God that doth immediately bind the Conscience because the Conscience is only subject to God and under his Authority alone the Magistrate hath only power over the Body and outward practice but yet nevertheless the Conscience is bound by the Law of God to obey all lawful and just Commands of the Magistrate Now those Laws of the Magistrate about Religion that are but the Inforcement of God's own Commands and Institutions have a double Obligation upon the Conscience both by Vertue of the immediate Divine Authority appointing them as also from the Command of God requiring Obedience to humane Authority chiefly in such things Secondly Neither doth an Erroneous Conscience exempt from the Obligation of Just Laws for tho' every man have a Judgment of private discretion in and about what he ought to do in Religion yet if he judge erroneously of what is justly required by Laws to be done his Judgment and erroneous Conscience therein doth not exempt him from the Obligation of those Commands for tho' 't is true that he sins in acting against an erroneous Conscience yet he ought to lay it down and then to act and if it be a necessary Duty he sins if he do not Thirdly Neither will the infliction of a Penalty be unjust that is laid on a Person for doing or omitting that which he is led to by an erroneous Conscience This is the grand mistake about Liberty of Conscience that because every man hath a liberty to judge for himself what he ought to do in Religion that therefore if he judge erroneously yet he ought to be tolerated in so doing No he ought to lay down his erroneous Conscience or else as he sins so he justly suffers from Authority in following the Dictates of it But that he sins in following an erroneous Conscience I think no one of sense will deny for if it be lawful for a man to act in Religion according to the Dictates of his own Conscience when 't is erroneous then 't is lawful for him to commit Idolatry speak Blasphemy c. if his Conscience lead him to it Therefore if the Plea of an erroneous Conscience will not free a Man from the Guilt of those Sins that he is led into by it then certainly it will not exempt a Man from the Just Obligation of Punishment from the Magistrate for those Sins who is the Avenger of God against all evil Doers And the Magistrate doth offer no Violence to Conscience by either requiring Obedience or exacting the Penalties for Disobedience to Just and Righteous Commands for if Mens erroneous Consciences will not suffer them to Obey 't is no force upon Conscience for the outward Man to bear the Penalty But besides If such a Liberty of Conscience be due to every man as shall exempt him from the Obligation of all humane Laws in the matters of Religion it will then follow that the Magistrate hath no Authority in the matters of Religion and so it will null the chiefest part of his Office for where there is no Obligation to Obedience there can be no Authority to Command those being Correlatives and cannot be one without the other But to conclude this particular If it be so as we have proved that the Conscience be bound by such humane Laws the matter of which is the Inforcement of God's own Commands and Institutions and that if an erroneous Conscience doth not exempt a Man from the Obligation of such Laws nor render the Penalty inflicted for breaking of them to be Unjust then certainly there is no such Liberty of Conscience as an Exemption from all humane Laws about Religion due to any Christian and therefore ought not to be granted by the Christian Magistrate Secondly I proceed now to the second thing proposed to wit What that lawful Liberty is in the matters of Religion which of Divine Right ought to be Allowed by the Magistrate for tho' we have asserted and proved the Duty and Power of the Magistrate to make Laws for the promotion and maintenance of True Religion yet we may not think that the Magistrate can by Laws intrench upon any of the Rights Liberties and Priviledges which of Divine Right do belong to the Christian Religion which he is obliged to maintain every Christian