doing actions indifferent to himself and it may be knows not or considers not that they are sinning offences unto his weak Brother and then for his own vindication with too great a proportion of height and vehemency next door to Pride and Passion too often the things themselves manageth his case for the satisfaction or conviction of the Weak the good effect whereof is lost by reason of the attending corruption Here prevailing Grace in the Weak will turn the scales and make him appear the Strong if he suppress the 〈…〉 in himself of judging his Brother and carry 〈…〉 him in an eminent measure of love and humility in thâ—â—anifestation of his apprehended just exceptions against any of his Brothers ways or actions and putting the most favourable and candid interpretation upon them that by the rules of Charity in his apprehension they will bear § 8. How contrary then is the walking of some unto this Rule when the Strong will binde up the Weak by humane Laws to do all those actions that to him are indifferent under pain of non-communion or other penalties when he regards no more the strength of the Childe that he is to walk with as that it must run as fast as himself or rather drive it before him not considering the weakness of his parts manifestly wronged and the great hazard of his life how unlike he is to God in this and how contrary he acts to his revealed will let the impartial judge On the other hand when the Weak at least in knowledge if not in power will binde up the hands of the Strong by some Law humane under pain of inevitable bodily Sufferings or Censures publick or private to deny his own Light and Liberty and come down to his Darkness and Bondage it 's as when a blinde man will not be satisfied unless all other mens Eyes be put out too and the lame till other mens Legs be broken This is Tyranny on both hands Christ never substituted one Christian as such a Law-giver unto another in Spirituals and they that pretend to it as strong to give Law to the weak or as weak to give Law to limit and binde up the strong they are so far from the Rules of the Gospel that whatever their profession is of Faith in the greater or lesser measure I fear it will hardly be found in the smallest portion in either of them and therefore from this consideration will arise a necessary distinction between the strong or weak sincere Believer and between the strong and weak hypocritical or pretended Believer § 9. What hath been hitherto spoken mostly concerns the supposed strong or weak sincere Christian we shall speak a word of the Hypocritical pretenders of both sorts The hypocritically Strong is he that apprehends himself to be so and from spiritual Pride and corrupt Interest puts on a pharisaical Vizard whereby he would perswade others that he is so one that thinketh he knoweth much and knoweth nothing as he ought to know 1 Cor. 8.2 and he so thinks of himself as that he is puffed up v. 1. And again the Apostle saith Not he that commendeth himself is approved but whom the Lord commendeth 1 Cor. 10.19 his knowledge is not of the right stamp it 's separated from undoubted concomitants of sanctified Knowledge Charity Humility and spiritual Wisdom and instead thereof he manifests himself with ostentation Lords it tyrannically over the Consciences of others be they strong or weak despising and contemning them in all their doubts rather desiring to confound them with difficulties and impose on them by compulsions than any way to inform their Judgements or to win them to his society by condescention and meekness § 10. The weak Hypocritical Professor little differs from the former not in kinde but in degree onely for a Hypocrite is but so still be he weak or strong i. e. have more or less parts or advantages to hide and conceal himself and set off himself to the world but he differs from the supposed strong Christian in that he hath but little knowledge a few gifts and parts and is not able to manage his affairs to so much advantage for the deceiving of others but yet pretends highly to Conscience and the purest ways of holiness and pleads himself to be weak onely for a Bulwark for himself to defend his Errours Singularity and Censoriousness of others against all the instructions and admonitions whatever forcible arguments and reasons they bring with them He will still say truly this is his weak judgement and that he is but of a mean capacity and cannot understand what you have to say for his information and conviction and if you make him understand he will still hold his Conclusion though his Premises be manifested to be never so weak § 11. The sincere ought to have a watchful eye upon these Professors endeavouring to discover them for at first they cannot and therefore are called Hypocrites because they can obscure and conceal themselves from man for a while and when they are not known the sincere is bound to carry himself towards them by the same rules as he doth to those that are equally sincere with himself but when he is once discovered he hath no reason then to carry himself towards him as towards a sincere but as towards a false-hearted Professor But we should be very wary of judging men Hypocrites it 's the greatest censure in the world upon a Professor there must be very great evidence for it before we can conclude it so for Hypocrisie is properly in the eye of none but God and though Christ who knew men throughout called them as they were I question whether his Example may be followed in this by the best men on earth But we may have great grounds of suspicion of this by their fruits and accordingly we are to be directed in our carriage towards them by the Word of God and we have our Saviour's behaviour to the Pharisees whether strong or weak for our example so far as imitable by us Our Saviour would never gratifie that sort of men whatever shape they appeared under either of weak or strong and notwithstanding all their glosing pretentions our Saviour tells them their Hearts were rotten and their ends wicked and by two eminent characters of this nature he discovers them to the world 1. That they were mighty zealous for some small circumstantial matters in Religion and professed Enemies to the purer and more weighty part wherein the power of Godliness lay Faith Justice Charity c. 2. That they cried up Humane Laws Traditions and Constitutions in the worship of God above the Laws and Institutions of God himself The carriage of Paul also in this kinde is very remarkable that he would not Gal. 2.3 4 5. yield to the circumcision of Titus it being sought for by false Brethren that would have compelled it and endeavoured to betray the Churches liberty and bring them into bondage to whom he saith we gave
to the manifested will and intendment of the Law-giver Therefore the power of Execution is always a secundary and derived Power in respect of the Power of Legislation because it supposeth a Law made and the will of the Law-giver to put it in practice which Will is the ground of Execution but is not actually begun till the promulgation and a positive injunction binding unto practice and is compleated either in performing acts of obedience and receiving the Law-encouragements this is chiefly on the part of the Subject or in case of disobedience by executing the vindicative part of the Law which belongs to the substituted Executioners to do and the Subject to submit unto So that all Laws are satisfied in obedience and giving the stated reward thereunto which satisfaction Ergo partly depends on the Subject partly on the Ruler executing or they are dissatisfied in disobedience therefore righting themselves in executing the minatory part on Offenders Hence all Laws are capable of being satisfied or fulfilled as to their whole intent and purpose one of these ways in Active or Passive Obedience on the part of the Subject and the faithful discharge of the executive Power by Governours in the due distribution of rewards and punishments § 10. Hence Executive Power is Obediential or Judicial Obediential is an executive ability in the Subject bound for by his obedience unto the Law he executes and fulfills the will of the Law-giver most properly as to the first intentions for the first end of the Law and designe of its Maker is actual Obedience and both in the Command and Penalty annexed And in this sence the meanest Subject doth put in execution the Law of his Soverain at lâ—â—st in administration of commutative Justice towards the Magistrate in rendring him his own as well as towards his Fellow-subjects in doing justice to them § 11. Judicial executive Power is when the Law-giver or his Substitutes judging of Obedience or Disobedience as to matter of fact do judicially determine the same by and according to the true intent and meaning of the Law and finding Obedience distribute the due rewards and encouragements thereunto and judging of Disobedience omissive or commissive do inflict all penalties in such cases by the Law provided The faithful discharge of which Trust belongs to Governours and is rightly called Distributive Justice CHAP. III. Of Christ's immediate Legislative Power § 1. THough Christ be King of Kings and Lord of Lords in respect of all the Rulers and Principalities in the world visible and invisible yet there is a special Dominion reserved to himself as peculiar in many respects so in this that he hath not committed the management thereof to others in juridical affairs in two respects viz. in Legislation and in Deputation of executive Ministers This is a Diamond in the Crown of his Prerogative as Mediator and sole head of Conscience and Church which he purchased and cleansed with his Blood § 2. That unlimited Supream Power which is every where ascribed to God is Christ's not onely as God the second person in the God-head but as Mediator God-man constituted by the Father Head over the Church and over all things to the Church see Ephes 1.21 22. Matth. 28 c. Ergo he exerts this power not onely as Creator but as Mediator and as such a Legislative power belongs to him not onely properly and primarily as being the political Head of his Church but secundarily for its sake he exerts such a Power over all Societies in the world and having this supream Legislation in his hands he can make what Laws he please and substitute others to what Law-making-power he pleaseth to entrust them with or determine how far in that kinde they may act at their discretion or arbitrement So that Christ rules his Kingdomes either by his own immediate Legislative administration or mediately by inferiour limited Law-givers he rules by himself or by others § 3. His immediate rule is especially to be considered as more General or more Special as he is Creator or as he is Redeemer God as Creator of all natural Agents he onely can command his Creature what it must do in order to those ends for which it was created and this government of natural Agents is in a sense of a Spiritual nature proceeding in a spiritual manner from a glorious Spirit for spiritual ends viz. the glory of Gods Soverainty Power Wisdom Goodness c. all the Creation praising him and ascribing Glory and Honour unto the Lamb which Glory is subordinated to that which shines forth more resplendidly in his Church and he disposing all things in order to his advancement therein to the highest honour and dignity this Government of Christ may be said to be a spiritual Rule and Government § 4. This General Government may be consider'd as he rules intelligible or non-intelligible Creatures these he rules by the Instincts of Nature which may be and are called his Statutes and Ordinances which are no other than the impression of the Will of him that made them As in a Watch or any piece of curious Mechanism the minde of the Workman is plainly read in all the parts thereof He ruleth intelligible natural Agents such as Angels and Men by higher Laws What the Law of Angels is we shall not discuss now nor determine but that they are Govern'd by a Law I doubt not but may be proved both from the sin of them that fell and otherwise for where there is no Law there is no Transgression The Law ruling Men as rational Agents is a Law of Manners ruling all humane motions that are cum electione for some natural motions in man are per necessitatem Naturae as the running of the Blood in the Veins c. but these are under the Gubernation of natural Instinct And as God fastens his Law of Nature by instinct on the unintelligible Agents so on Agents per electionem he fixeth his Moral Law by Natural Conscience which is a kinde of rational moral Instinct whereby the very Gentiles that have not the written Law are in a great measure convinced of the nature of it and their Duty in obedience thereunto Rom. 2.13 14. and in this sence he enlightneth every man that cometh into the world Joh. 1. and from this Law of moral Light closing with natural Conscience ariseth accusation or excusation according to the obedience or disobedience yielded thereto whereby Christ in a manner rules in all men at least laying a claim to his right of Dominion so much disowned and rejected by the prevailing Law of sin and this may be ascribed to Christs spiritual rule it being his peculiar Prerogative to govern in Conscience and notwithstanding sins rebellion in all natural men yet Christ there retains his seat of Judicature and as he judgeth and condemneth now so he will by the same Law prove them unexcusable at the last day § 5. The more special immediate jurisdiction of Christ is his most proper
indifferent thing to take it up or let it alone but because of the Fathers command he is bound to do it Ans It 's true because there is a command of Christ that enjoyns the Child's Obedience in all lawful things and therefore upon the Fathers command it becomes necessary that the child yield Obedience but this is but a command for one particular action and therefore under Expediency If the Father should make a Law that one child should pick straws all his days and another play at push-pin such Laws would become null in the nature of them but there is nothing more absurd than to affirm that they alter not the nature of the thing for what can alter it more than to lay it under a Law when a thing was indifferent unto practice before to make it necessary as to practice when it was lawful before to make it unlawful We have shewed that Necessities and Indifferencies are but relative in respect of the Law and he makes a Law that gives things contrary relations and respects to what they had before alters the nature of the thing as much as a Law can and makes one Law contrary to another Men do but trifle that plead that things are not made necessary in the Worship of God when the practice of them are enjoyn'd under the greatest Church-penalties what 's greater than Excommunication yea pecuniary Mulcts Imprisonments Deprivations c. yea and Offenders against the Laws persecuted with greater rigour than those who live in the constant and open Transgression of Moral and Gospel-Precepts § 5. I may take another very plain medium to prove the Minor thus He that makes a thing unlawful either to be done or left undone which Christ hath made lawful by his Law doth that which is contrary to the Word of God but he that changes Indifferencies into Necessities doth so There is nothing more plain than the Major for to make a thing unlawful c. Lawful and unlawful being contradicentia and he that by a new Law renders that unlawful for my practice which Christ's Law hath rendred lawful doth a thing e Regione contrary to the Law of Christ For the Minor it s as evident for by the Law of Christ the indifferent action was lawful for me to do or omit as to eat such a sort of Meat or keep such a day or wear such a garment but there is a new Law of the Church comes which now makes it unlawful for me either to do or not to do those things for he that makes a Law binding always to the practice of either part of the indifferency makes the other part unlawful which antecedaneous to this Law was lawful Now the Church of Christ cannot make that unlawful which he hath made lawful for they may as well make that lawful to do or omit Again If the Church may make that unlawful which he hath made lawful then she may take away the Relative Goodness that is in any part of an indifferent action by the Rules of Expediency and stamp upon it a positive evil which is contrary to what Christ hath done c. Again Nothing can be Ecclesiastically and therefore Religiously unlawful which is not made Ecclesiastically and Religiously Evil and nothing can be so Jure but by the Will of Christ no more than any thing can be Ecclesiastically good and necessary without the said revealed Will of Christ § 6. Argum. 4. The Church is not capable of a Law-making Power Ergo. I prove it thus He that cannot jure or de facto annex a Punishment in some measure correspondent to the nature of the Offence that will be committed against that Law cannot make such a Law as if a Corporation under the King makes a Law to hang or burn in the hand for some Offence which they have no power to do then that is null The Major is very plain But the Church cannot de facto or at least de jure Execute such penalties as are correspondent to her Laws for they being Ecclesiastical are of a Spiritual nature belonging to the Worship of God and therefore the Lawmaker will still have the first stroak of his Law fall upon Conscience by binding it under guilt where was ever any truely enlightned Conscience ever bound under guilt for transgressing a mere Church-Law in matters of Ceremony Secondly They cannot de Jure annex and execute the Penalties of Exclusion from communion as Christ never made a mere Ceremony the condition of communion so he never threatned the Non-observation with Non-communion Let any Precept or any Instance be given of this nature that any suffer'd Church-censures under the New-Testament for Non-observation of a Ceremonial Law Thirdly As for other Penalties which we call Secular as Whipping Imprisoning Fining Confiscating we know the Church hath nothing to do with them they were never in the power of the Church nor never will be § 7. Argum. 5. That Law which directly and unavoidably hinders much good and causeth much evil in the obediential Subjection thereto ought not to be made by the Church but to change religious Indifferencies in the worship of God into Necessities doth so Ergo. The Major is undeniable for though a good action may per accidens hinder some other good and cause some evil yet it doth not so directly and in its true constituted nature but good actions produce good effects as evil actions evil So the Tree is known by its Fruits The Minor that such a change works such ill effects is thus proved 1. Because it hinders the most expedient use of an action left by Christ indifferent to be determined by the Judgement of Discretion whereas the Expediency by Christ's prescript may lye in the contrary part of the action wherein a goodness is placed by the Churches Law and an evil placed in that part of the action wherein there is a goodness by Christ's So that the Churches Law cannot have universal Obedience yielded to it without sin because when Christ's expediency falleth on the part contrary to the Law it will be sin to obey the Church As for Example It 's an indifferent thing which way we turn our Faces in the worship of God East West North or South the Church makes a Law the Minister must turn his Face toward the East in such a part of Worship this hinders the expedient use of that posture 1. It hinders from turning that way which is most for Edification and causeth the Minister to turn his back to the people which is very unexpedient It may confirm a Jew Pagan or Papist in their Superstitious Observances to observe us to do thus de industriâ out of a strict observation and therefore then unexpedient 2. It hinders much Good because it frustrates Christs Ends in the management of Religious and Ecclesiastical Affairs For Christ manageth all those by Necessities and Indifferencies in willing and requiring a necessary Obedience to his positive Laws and an indifferent use of indifferent things
it is not to be doubted but that a Christian professing people gathered together in the Name of Christ injoying the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments in purity are a Church of Christ and uniform with all the Churches of Christ without any distinction by this or that Name of Singularity or any Ceremonial Appendixes § 12. And whereas it is pretended that a full and free Conformity in Ceremonies would be the only cure of all our Differences and Divisions Let all Ages witness if any will but impartially enquire what hath been the Grand Cause of all the Factions Breaches Divisions and Schisms in the Church yea and Ecclesiastical Persecutions ever since the Primitive Times it will be found to be the Usurpation of this aforesaid Legislative Power of Christ by some or other and still all the excuse that is made for it is that they assume this Power only in matters of Indifferency and what pretence can any make to a Legislative Power in things necessary already determined by Christ to one part there is no place for a Law in such things unless it be to ratifie or to null the Law so that what Legislative Power is exercised of this kinde must be in matters of Indifferency only i. e. which are so in relation to Christ's Law antecedently to man's Law but by the supervening of such a Church-Law it becomes in kinde Ecclesiastically necessary it being enjoyn'd as to practice under Penalties annexed and it 's no new thing with some sort of men to call necessary things indifferent and indifferent necessary and thereby take occasion to justifie their presumptions when they make Laws even abrogatory to the known Laws of Christ And if weak Brethren as they are apt in derision to call them either take any just exceptions against them pleading their Liberties or it may be from a mistaking judgment are apt to call indifferent things necessary and therefore out of tenderness of Conscience refuse to yield acts of Obedience they are so far from having compassion on their tenderness that they exact the said Law-penalty with greater violence and rigour than they do any that doth directly concern the Glory of Christ established by himself § 13. The greatest Plea that I know can be made for matters of this kinde is the power that Oecumenical Councils have taken upon them especially in the Primitive Times even in the Apostle days and in the first second and third Centuries of the Church especially To which I answer First If the Foundation of this Authority lie in Oecumenical Councels let never any of these Church-Statutes be made and imposed on the world but by them and let not every particular National Independent Church take upon her to make Penal Laws and gull the World into a submission to her Authority by her saying she is The Church as if she were the Catholick Church and Mother-Church Secondly I question whether there were ever any true Oecumenical Council at all much may be said against the best that is pleaded for since the Apostles days and it is easie to prove that Assembly at Jerusalem held by the Apostles and Brethren to be none in the sence intended which is that the chief Officers and Representatives of every particular Church in the World meet together with a determinating Power in matters of Doctrine and with a binding Legislative Power in matters of Discipline and Ceremony Now it will appear that that Assembly was not so though there were more reason for its being so than for any other Assembly being so neither ever was there any Assembly so impowred in the world of that nature § 14. That that Assembly Acts 15.28 was no Oecumenical Council is easie to judge for there were but the Representatives of two Churches Jerusalem and Antioch and they of Antioch came to ask counsel and to be resolved in matter of doubt of the Apostles residing most of them at present in Jerusalem 2. The case in question was argued in foro Ecclesiae particularis and the Apostles making the minde of Christ manifest to that Church have the consent of the Brethren to their determination and sent it forth in and with the Authority of the Holy Ghost 3. The Apostles and Church of Jerusalem changed no Indifferencies into Necessities but enquired after and found out the Will of Christ concerning the present Infant-state of the Gospel-church in some matter of things necessary of two sorts some Absolutely and Morally so others expediently so for that time First Absolutely such as Abstinence from Fornication and things offered to Idols Secondly Respectively only and that in the behalf of the believing Jews coming lately from that Pedagogy that they might not be scandalized or grieved at the freedom of the Gentiles and therefore that the Gentiles should then abstain from things strangled and Blood Now no sound Interpeter will say that this Canon was binding to the Church semper ubique but in behalf only of th Jews who could not so easily at present be brought off from the whole of Judaisme and 't is likely by this concession the Apostles got off the Jewish Believers from many Ceremonious Observations which they stood upon besides or at least abated their edge towards them And therefore the Decree was but as to a necessary Expediency for a time which the Apostle Paul fully explicates who was well acquainted with the Minde of Christ and the Judgments of the Apostles Elders and Brethren in these matters § 15. As we have little evidence for an Oecumenical Council exercising a Legislative Jurisdiction in the Church so we have as little ground for such sorts of Officers as are contended for in the Church of which such Councils as they are pleaded for should principally consist which are Patriarchs Metropolitans Archbishops Bishops Priests and there being not such Officers in the Church by Christ's Institution there is no such Power to be exercised in the said way and manner of Legislation neither may they jure proceed so far as to Execution of any Laws established by Christ being not lawfully commissionated with a Gospel-power If this Assertion be proved I doubt not but it will be granted that there is no Legislation to be exercised in the Church the present Assertors whereof challenging this Power only on the behalf of the said Officers I lay down two things by way of proof 1. That there is no such Officers to be found in the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour as a Pope a Patriarch a Metropolitan an Archbishop a Diocesan Bishop a Parish-Priest no Dean Prebends Canons c. the Scriptures are altogether strangers to all those Ecclesiastical creatures Christ and his Apostles knew nothing of them but prophetically in the foresight of the rise of the Kingdom of Antichrist In this Point I should deal with two sorts of men the Papists and the Protestants As for the Papists the case hath been fully managed over and over against them that there is no such Supreme Officer in
Indifferency which a weak Christian thinks according to his best light from Gods Word to be necessary than the other part which Authority lays a stress upon by a Law the reason is because I must chuse Suffering rather than indanger any Souls salvation in the least Now if I refuse active obedience to the Magistrate I onely run the hazard of suffering the penalty which it may be I can bear and comfort my self under but in case I wrong a Soul by my action I cannot free my self from sin and am an occasion of anothers too either of which are but especially both much heavier than the greatest suffering Lastly if I suffer the penalty of the Law I both fulfil the Law and save my Brother too § 2. Now these Obstacles being removed out of the way I proceed to determine the Question That in case any power Civil or Ecclesiastical shall presume so far as to enact Laws in the concerns of divine Worship so as to change Christian Indifferencies into Necessities that a Christian is bound to refuse active obedience thereto And I make good this Assertion by the following Arguments 1. To yield such obedience is to serve God according to the Will of Man but no Christian ought to serve God according to the Will of Man Ergo. The Major is true because it 's a serving God in such a way as is devised by man and to the obeyer is no other for he in his conscience believes so that it is not the Will of God The Minor is true because that is Will-Worship which is the product only of mans Will Gods Will being the onely Rule of Gods Worship and we must be sure of that Will in all matters of his Worship or else we bring vain Oblations unto him 2. The goodness determined by a humane Law for the sake of mans Will ought not to be preferred before the goodness of Expediency determined by a conscientious Christian for God's sake for such a goodness of Expediency is approved of by God and the contrary to it pro hic nunc is unlawful therefore from this closing with such goodness we are not to be deterred by any humane Law for an expediently necessary action according to the Will of God is to be of far more force with us than an action made absolutely necessary by the Will of man Yea it is to do a thing contrary to the Will of God to do that as necessary which God hath revealed his Will concerning that we should always do in a way of Indifferency and Expediency determinable by the judgment of discretion for to do things by way of Necessity and to do by way of Indifferency is to act by way of Contrariety and therefore to obey such Laws is to act contrary to the Will of God 3. To be brought under the power i. e. a necessity by a Law of any thing religiously indifferent is unlawful 1 Cor. 6.12 but to be brought to constant active obedience to mans Law commanding a necessary performance of an indifferent action is to be brought under the power of a thing i. e. into bondage i. e. under a Yoke which Christ never put us under Now Christ would not have us to make our selves slaves where he hath made us free 4. A Christian is to use his liberty purchased by Christ and to stand fast in it Ergo to practise it constantly notwithstanding all ensnaring and embondaging Laws of men and is bound to use his judgment in all his actions and where there is an Indifferency to chuse by the Rules of Expediency and not walk by an implicite Faith The wise mans eyes are in his head the fool walketh in darkness 5. Such active obedience is a betraying the Prerogative of Christ for if a Legislative power be Christ's Prerogative as hath been proved then the yielding active obedience to an usurping Law is the doing Homage to another Lawgiver in that kind and giving up the power of the Lord Jesus It 's like a Subjects introducing the power of a forreign Prince and doing all that lies in him to subvert that Law and Soveraignty to which he is naturally related and what can be greater Treason to any State 6. If a Christian here obey it must be for Christ's sake or Conscience sake Rom. 13. It cannot be for Christ's sake because it robs him of his Prerogative or betrays it neither can it be for Conscience sake to embondage it self where Christ hath left it free whatever tends to the captivity or slavery of Conscience is not for the good of Conscience for in this they are not Ministers to me for good for the Law tends not to my good in active obedience which if I see and yet yield I become a Minister of evil to my self 7. If it be a sin in the supream Powers to command and impose their said Laws it is a sin in a Christian to obey at Ergo. The consequence is manifest because the most formal reason of an evil Law is the evil obedience required The Minor hath been proved that such a Law is sin in Superiours to make but to confirm the consequence further to be a copartner with another in sin is sin but if the Magistrate command and I obey I am copartner with him A thing commanded can be evil but two ways either materially or circumstantially if it be materially evil there is no pretence for doing it whatever humane power command and if it be circumstantially it must be in the Commanders usurping a false power or there is some circumstantial relation pro hic nunc that makes it unlawful unto me or another It may be the thing may be materially lawful but under both these sorts of circumstances it may be unlawful as that I give away hereby Christ's Prerogative I rob my self of the use of my judgment of discretion by which every Christian is to walk and I it may be offend my brother I do not say a man may never do that part of the Indifferency that is commanded by a humane Law a Christian hath the use of his liberty as well after as before a humane Law and he is to walk by the Rule of Expediency still When he finds it most for Gods glory and his or anothers edification he may take that part of the Indifferency which is commanded sed non ratione praecepti humani but from that Expedient or convenient Goodness which pro hic nunc he finds in it But that obedience which we here declare against is the doing it as a duty constantly or conscientiously sub paenâ reatus by virtue of such a Law 8. A Christian cannot yield the aforesaid obedience but he must offer violence to his Conscience i. e. practically to contradict the dictates and light thereof for every moral action must be approved or reprobated thereby But he must needs know that that which is not commanded or approved by Christ as indifferent things are though not commanded by him
But it 's not all kinde of Intelligence but some only in particular 1. Not a Theoretick Knowledge but a Practick and therefore always referring to some Action or Omission And 2. It is not referred to another mans affairs but his own whose it is And lastly it is not a mere apprehension or suspicion but a knowledge always at least of the fact and often determines by the Rule known of the Legality of the fact and so passeth Judgment and thence is called Judicium but sometimes Conscience is doubtful here and thence it is called a weak doubtful and scrupulous Conscience § 4. It may be therefore thus described Conscientia est modus Intellectus Judicialis practicus Conscience is the Vnderstandings Judicial manner of proceeding concerning our selves and actions A man in Conscience as God's Substitute or Deputy sits in Judgment upon himself first inquires as Jury of the matter of fact whereof according to Self-evidence he is found Guilty or Not-guilty and according to the Law manifested is acquitted or condemned This Judgment of Conscience may be considered in the power and act a man may have a Conscience-power which doth not exert and put forth act as a Man in Infancy or in Sleep Ergo it may be called Potestas intellectiva Intellectual Power reducible into act Again Intellectual Power is either Intuitiva vel ratiocinativa that is the intuitive which is the Vision or Understanding of a Truth Axiomatically or in the Abstract Ratiocinativa which is looking on several Truths compared together and one Truth being laid by another by way of Collation produceth a third Truth which we call a Conclusion or Inference The first and general truth that comes to the knowledge is the Law of God which is brought to us by the light of Nature or by the Word of God which way soever it comes it 's enough to give it a throne in Conscience that it be certainly known to be God's Law Nextly that our actions are laid by this Rule or brought before this Judgment-seat which two being solemnly brought together a third necessary Truth or Judgment according to truth doth result and is accordingly pronounced the certainty of which depends on the certainty of the Premises or at least the exact and just comparing them together The Understanding thus behaving it self puts on the nature of actual Conscience or Conscience in act bringing the habitual or potential Conscience into acts in this manner either concerning a mans state or actions Concerning a mans state The Soul that sins shall die I have sinned Ergo. Or concerning his particular actions He that committeth Idolatry or Adultery c. breaketh God's Law but I have committed such and such an act which is so Ergo § 5. Hence Conscience ruled by Christ's Prerogative is the practical reasoning Vnderstanding or Modus intellectus practicus in man whereby a judgment may be passed concerning a mans self by himself according to his apprehension of the revealed Judgment and Will of God its divine Authority that rules in mans Heart as to the approbation or condemnation of himself or actions The Conscience of the very blinde Heathens admit of no other power to acquit or condemn in this kind but either the convincing light of the moral Law written in them or some supposed false Divine light which by reason of the blindness of their Hearts seduceth them to false Worship and Idolatry § 6. The method of Conscience his acting is thus first there is the general undoubted truth known or assented to as such and it 's either that which is really so or supposedly so only and not so really if it be the latter it 's the main foundation of an erring Conscience It is the prospect of some apprehended Divine Truth or other Moral Levitical or Evangelical which obligeth us to acts of Obedience and this Law-obligation laid by God on man is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Proposition of a practical Syllogisme made by Conscience 2. There is the Application of this Truth to our selves either as to our state or particular actions according to our own knowledge together with God's to judge of our Conformity or Non-conformity to the said Law-obligation and therefore concerning the goodness or evil of our Actions and here we take the Candle of the Lord in our hands to search out and examine our condition and actions in relation to good or evil and herein doth the chief nature of Conscience consist because it 's a submitting ourselves and actions to the judgment of God's Law and is therefore the Assumption of this practical Syllogisme and is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is an Index Record Testimony Witness 3. There is the Crisis Inference or Conclusion necessarily deduced from the Premises and this is called the Judgment passed upon our state or actions Thus we have the whole Syllogisme which the understanding makes in this way of acting The Proposition is de Jure the Assumption de Facto the Conclusion is either a justification of person or action or it 's a condemnation of any of them found guilty § 7. The Synteresis is the light of Truth contained in the Law Nâ—eticè recepta sive practicum Axioma cum assensu intellectivo perceptum A light received into the understanding with assent thereunto or acknowledgment thereof as such A Law may be understood as to the matter of it but not believed as a Truth it may be known as a Truth but not owned as a Law yea it may be acknowledged as a Law but not yielded to as divine and authoritative enough to binde to Obedience yea it may be owned as a Law of God binding some people and at some times but not ourselves or at all times But unless the Truth taken for a Law be thus circumstantiated and so received by us it hath not force enough upon Conscience as a Law binding to Obedience So that Synteresis differs but ratione from the Law itself for it is the Law of God understood and yielded to as obliging unto practice and it 's not only the Law in its Letter and first Principles in its Original positive nature but in its aptitude to particular Cases and in its just Inferences and Consequences deducible from generals thereof all practical Truths pleading Divine Authority justly obliging us to belief § 8. That which stirs up the Understanding to compare Conditions and Actions with the divine Law in the assumption by a practical enquiry is a certain obligation which this Law-light hath the Heart of man under that it doth by a kinde of natural instinct act in the manner above-rehearsed which obligation is a necessity laid on the Understanding of owning and assenting to every known Law of God and thereby to make a practical disquisition and judgment accordingly The reason of this obligation lieth much in the necessity of the object And first the natural inclination the Understanding hath to every known truth as such but this is not
considered according to its internal and its external acting It s internal acting is its believing assenting concurring judging between fact and fact or disbelieving dissenting condemning c. and these are those that are Actus eliciti and they are not without doubt under any humane Law or Power in the world either to force them where they are not or to obstruct them where they are As men may not presume to do it by any external compulsion so there is an impossibility in the nature of the thing that it can never be accomplished 'T is onely God's Prerogative to charge us to believe under a penalty and the light of Truth carries demonstration with it to challenge our assent and call forth our understanding to a free acting unless we be inveloped in the darkness of corrupt nature or captivated in slavery to any Lusts Neither is it in the power of man to remove this vail it 's God onely by the light of Truth working by its prevailing evidence and the mighty operation of the divine Spirit which way it pleaseth that can effect this Hence he that makes a penal Law that this or that thing is a truth and to be believed by me to be assented and consented unto and doth endeavour to compel me to such a belief and assent by the threats and punishments of this Law doth usurp a power that was never given unto him by God neither was ever practicable to effect the end pretended to § 4. Secondly There are external acts Actus imperati of Conscience as professing subscribing declaring doing but these are not properly acts of Conscience but from Conscience as they ought to be under the Rule and Dominion and direction of Conscience and will come to be duely considered in this place whether any man may be thus compelled by any subordinate Power and doubtless there is none that can compel a man to act from Conscience no more than he can compel him to understand or will what he pleaseth for though the acts are external and may be compelled de facto and in some cases de jure the principle of good or evil actions viz. from Conscience cannot be compelled the relation it hath to Conscience is internal as if a man be brought and forc'd upon his Knees before an Idol c. it is no formal act of Conscience for that still resists and opposeth the action though it 's improperly called a forcing of Conscience when a man is thus forced to an action against his Conscience Indeed he is forcibly induced through fear or sense of some evil to do or omit something against his light and conviction and the choice is also free he being attended with such circumstances yet it is said to be compelled because the argument of a Penalty to be incurred upon refusal is very strong to reach flesh to prevent the suffering of which the Will is carried away to chuse that as a comparative good which the enlightned Understanding allows not as lawful nor the Will as absolutely good and this is that compulsion of Conscience which is most usually found in the world And here it will be enquired whether any Subordinate power can lawfully compel us to such imperate acts Ans 1. I say men may make and execute de jure such a Law as many cannot in conscience submit unto by way of active obedience so that it be really such as the great Law-giver hath allowed them to make and it be agreeable to the rules and limits of power committed to their charge and the reason of refusal be the weakness and ignorance or prejudice of the Subject or else no Laws could be made or executed in the world for one or other that should obey would be pretending Conscience against it and here the Subject is to submit either actively if after sufficient illumination he findes the goodness and justness of the Law-giver If he doth not he is to refuse to act if he is perswaded it 's utterly unlawful but if it be doubtfully so he is to suspend his acts till he is better informed and patiently submit to the Magistrates will and pleasure in the Penalty-execution but if any Power endeavour to enforce obedience that no Power enacting may lawfully do and require us and force us with penalties it 's questionless very great Usurpation We must also consider the matter about which this compulsion may be conceived to be No Magistrate may compel to any thing against Conscience quatenus such Scil. under the formality and notion of being against Conscience that were the greatest Tyranny in the world Or we may understand it of compelling under the notion of Truth and so a Faith must be enforced which no man is capable of accomplishing this way Or Thirdly under the notion of Duty not respecting how the Consciences of persons stand affected in relation to it on whom it is urged And thus the Magistrate may compel to the doing of good or avoiding of evil by penal Edicts though accidentally it may be against the Consciences of some on whom it is imposed for the Magistrate being not a competent Judge of mens Consciences he cannot make other mens Consciences the rule of his Laws and Executions but the will of the Lord whose Ministers he is and the good of the Commonweal that is committed to his trust The Magistrate is not to command or forbid any thing under the formality of being with or against Conscience but he supposing that the Consciences of his Subjects are convinced being sufficiently pre-informed may command any thing to be done or forborn according to that latitude of Rule and Government which he hath received from the Lord whose Minister he is for the right knowledge whereof he ought sincerely and impartially to consult the Word of God and his own Conscience and so to take the measures of his own Duty and Actions Neither is his Conscience the Standard to his Subjects for every one must give an account of himself to God the Magistrate for himself as a Magistrate and the Subject for himself as such and therefore the Conscience of the Magistrate doth not binde the Subject to active obedience though his relation to him as such bindes him to Subjection which is abundantly shewed in his quiet and peaceable submitting himself to the Law-penalty if he cannot satisfie himself that the Magistrate acts in his place according to the revealed Minde and Will of God in such cases provided which cases also are always to be of a civil and politick nature for here he hath power compulsory of the outward man mandatory or prohibitory though the Conscience of the Subject is or may be pretended to be against it § 5. And now that all cause of exception may be removed on all hands it will be requisite more explicitely to shew how far a Christians Conscience hath to do with humane Authority and we grant that humane Authority in civil and politick affairs is an Ordinance of God 2. That
if the Law be just and equitable a Christian is bound in Conscience to yield positive active obedience not onely for wrath i. e. fear of threat and punishment but for Conscience sake because the Law of God obligeth us to obedience to all the just Laws of men civil Government being his appointment as much as Oeconomical but it 's not mans Law that nextly and immediately bindes Conscience to obedience but Gods and mans Law bindes onely by vertue of and for the sake of Gods Hence a man that breaks the just Laws of man sins against God and eo nomine wrongs his Conscience As on the other hand he that obeys an unjust Law of man i. e. a Law no way warrantable by the revealed will of God breaks Gods Law and if his Conscience tell him so he sins against his Conscience which always aggravates any sin against God Hence if at any time he hath to do with any such Law he ought rather to run the hazard of mans displeasure than Gods God is to be obeyed rather than man if one must be disobeyed and obeying God indemnifies Conscience from the guilt of sin in our disobeying of man in the same act So if a Law of man lies before us which we doubt concerning the lawfulness of we are here at least to suspend active obedience while we seek for further information for whether the thing in it self be sin or no it 's not so much to us at present as whether we are satisfied of the nature of it and know what it is by the light of Truth shining in our Hearts it will amount to sin in us to do a doubtful action if the Apostles Doctrine be true But if the Precepts of men be found upon the best examination to be contrary to God's a Christian's Conscience is the most certainly disobliged his duty lies plain before him God's Law is to be observed and hence it is that some can joyfully suffer all wrongs from the hands of men in the case of refusal of active obedience unto their Laws because they are perswaded either from a truely-enlightned Conscience or from an erring which is binding as to present action for a man must walk by that light he hath or by none at all that such refusal of active Obedience and the sufferings of theirs is agreeable to the revealed minde of God and therefore most justifiable at God's and Man's Tribunal § 6. Here will fall in a great enquiry That although it be true that all Humane Power both Legislative and Executive be limited by a superiour Power yet there 's but few that have the felicity of keeping within prescribed bounds or having such Subjects that will not be excepting against the Laws of their Superiours as not agreable to God's Laws and this they will make the Plea for their disobedience Both Superiours and Inferiours will plead Conscience though never so unrighteously what should be done in this case Unto this Allegation many things may be said for it 's sufficiently known that though every Law primarily requires active Obedience yet upon a Transgression it is satisfied with the due execution of the Penalty but for the future expects active Obedience and a reiterated refusal of Obedience the Law looks upon as presumptuous and is really so if this continuation at enmity with the Law be voluntary and deliberate after sufficient Information and Conviction And if this refusal be conjoyn'd with resistance it is no better than Rebellion which we explode as unwarrantable for a Christian About Presumption we distinguish there is that which is really so and that which is onely called so by an unjust Law and mistaking Judge Persisting in refusal of obedience after conviction of our duty is presumption and a sin against God whoever the Law-maker is But if such persistance be justified by the light of God's Law in Conscience it is not a presumptuous sin or any sin at all against God however man may term it a presumptuous breach of his Law for a conscientious Christian can no more obey an unrighteous Law after suffering than before § 7. In all cases of voluntary deliberate refusal of active Obedience to a Law there is and must needs be a wrong done to the Law-giver or Subject To the Law-giver if his Power Law and Ends be good and they not answered for the first end of every Law is and ought to be active Obedience as beforesaid the Law of God first obliging us so to the just Laws of man and the end of the execution of punishment is for the reducing the sufferers to active Obedience and the exemplary restraint of others from Disobedience Hence it follows that a deliberate resolved and constant undergoing of Suffering in this way of refusal is a practical charging the Magistrate with the highest Usurpation and Tyranny in imposing Laws of that nature and therefore the greatest disparaging testimony born against his Law a great reputation in the judgement of the world to the Cause pleaded for let it be truth or errour and the most exemplary disappointment of the Magistrates Law-making ends whereby others are greatly emboldened to the same kind of refusal § 8. In all cases where Magistrates abuse their Power they do a wrong to the supream Judge in going beyond his Commission and intrenching on his Prerogative and do apparent injury to the Subject 1. In that an inferiour subordinate Law-giver hath bereaved him by a Law of those just Liberties and Priviledges granted to him by the Charter of his supream Law-giver 2. In afflicting and grieving his Subject by imposing an unjust Law and causing him to suffer by it when he pleads exemption by a Law in full force and a discharge from a higher Court and is praiseworthy for the said refusal not to be condemned no nor reproached as an evil doer or presumptuous for his permanency in non-obedience 3. In laying his Subject under a necessity of continued and reiterated sufferings he being obliged in Conscience or else to answer the default at a higher Tribunal constantly to persist in his refusal to yield such Obedience though he is to pass under renewed and reiterated penalties for a man to return to obedience after a deliberate suffering is a visible practical condemnation of himself for his former refusal which would greatly reflect on his honour both as a man or a Christian unless by the access of further light he findes his Conscience did erre and so be convinced of his duty then it becomes him both as a man and Christian to retract Humanum est errare beluinum in errore persistere § 9. Now seeing such inevitable wrong lights somewhere in cases of these deliberate refusals it will be enquired who or what must determine to the satisfaction of each party both standing highly on their Justification To which I answer An actual reconciliation is utterly impossible rebus sic stantibus because it will be as the greater overswaying earthly power will have it Deo
no place by subjection i. e. yielding to their imposition no not for an hour that the truth of the Gospel i. e. true Gospel-liberty might continue with you whereas before he yielded to the Circumcision of Timothy to gratifie the weak real Believers Whence it plainly follows that whoever they be that endeavour to enthral our Consciences and Practices though in matters in themselves indifferent are not to be yielded to as weak nor subjected to as strong but rejected as false Brethren 2. The strong sincere Christian is not to violate any positive Law of Christ that he is in his Conscience perswaded of to gratifie the weak or any persons whatever Inferiours Superiours or Equals all the concession must be onely in matters in themselves indifferent neither should the weak offer violence to his Conscience in any thing to please the strongest and wisest Christian in the world CHAP. VIII Of Scandals § 1. HAving spoken of the strong and weak Christian and how they should walk one towards another inoffensively it will be necessary to understand a little the nature and kinde of offences which the Gospel gives us so frequent and strict warning to take heed of The Apostles great inference from the advice that he had given to the Strong and weak was by way of advice Rom. 14.13 Let us not therefoee judge one another any more but judge this rather i. e. determine that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his Brothers way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter se differunt sed non semper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leviorem offensam significat quā tamen aliquis non corruat ut supra 11.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vero graviorem declarat ex quā quispiam prolapsus claudicet Beza and most Interpreters go this way but Estius who saith Non disting inter offendiculum scandalum sicut inter lapidem offensionis petram scandali Rom. 9.33 nam hujusmodi repetitiones ad inculcationem eyusdem rei Scripturis familiares sunt Estius There is two words used but both seem to intend the same thing though some make them differ in degree A Scandal is any impediment or obstruction that lies in a mans way over which he may stumble or fall So that we take a Stumbling-block or occasion of falling for the same thing any thing that doth grieve trouble distract or turn aside carries the nature of a scandal with it and those we must distinguish according to degrees There are the greater and more dangerous that hazard falling and there are those of a lesser nature that hazard stumbling onely They differ onely in degree or in respect that they have to our state or particular actions and concerns Some of more dangerous consequence and some of less Some are more easily removed out of the way some more permanent and lasting As if there be any difference in those expressions a stone of stumbling and rock of offence it lieth in that the offending Stone is easily put aside but the Rock is immovable § 2. Offences are said also to be either such as are given and not taken and in this sence some places must be taken as Matth. 16.23 when Christ said to Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou art an offence to me in endeavouring by thy advice and evil counsel to turn me out of the course of exercising my Mediators office Not that Christ was stumbled but there was such a thing in the nature of Peter's advice in relation to Christ's work that he had to do Some offences are taken and not given i. e. it 's not in the nature of them to be offences but by reason of the corruptions of men by their abuse of the greatest good it often becomes a scandal to them so Christ himself was a scandal to the Jews and a Rock of scandal as well as a Stone of stumbling Rom. 9.33 1 Cor. 1.23 How many when he went preaching about were scandalized at him and at his Doctrine Matth. 11.6 ch 15.12 ch 26.31 This is a supposed scandal to him that is offended Thus the doing of the most justifiable action may undergo the disreputation of an offence when men will either perversly call good evil or interpret it as evilly intended or by reason of ignorance and weakness of judgement judge it so and thus Christ himself and no marvel if the best of his Members be not a scandal many times in their most commendable ways of walking unto the men of the world yea unto many weaker Believers their liberty becomes a Stumbling-block to the weak 1 Cor. 8.9 and a mans good is blasphemed or evil spoken of Rom. 14.16 there are many that will be offended captiously and deliberately and they are the profane men of the world that call Christ Beelzebub and his Disciples no better or the pharisaical Professors The Disciples told Christ Knowest thou not that the Pharisees were offended when they heard these sayings Matth. 15.12 Christ answers That every plant that his Father had not planted should be rooted up Let them alone they are blinde c. therefore no marvel if they bark at the Sun c. These unjust and unreasonable offence-takers are the greatest offence-givers who do truely offend Gods Children in all sences more than the prophane world so Joh. 6.60 61. § 3. An offence given is when a man or thing hath an innate just ground of scandal by relation to the moral Law and is no other than sin or sinful per se in se whatever other mens opinion of it be and therefore works objectively upon others by way of stumbling and scandalizing and they are two sorts on whom it operates this way Either those that behold this action with approbation and they stumble or rather fall in the worst manner thereby for they thereby are encouraged to fall into sin or to remain in sin by reason of it because of the great inducements that they take up from the person committing it his Holiness Wisdom Authority Age c. or those that behold it are grieved at it and at the person offending so as to censure his Person or Religion and provoked by some ways or means to manifest their great disgust not onely to the person offending but even to the world Hence I distinguish Offences into Grieving and Sinning or Grief-causing offences or Sin-causing offences § 4. Of the grieving Offence first and it 's that which tends to the afflicting and troubling the Mindes Hearts and Consciences of the Faithful in their Christian course and the offending party either wrongs and injures by acts of violence and oppression whereby he grieves the oppressed or else he does and persists in such actions as the offended judge unlawful And therefore from true principles of the love of God and his Brother and the hatred of sin he is much grieved and walks heavily to see his Brother walk disorderly and complains of this block laid in the
by the occasion or example of it shall thy weak Brother perish so far as he is concerned in thy actions for whom Christ died and so far as thou knowest he being fallen into or confirmed in sin by thy means and when ye sin so against the Brethren and wound their weak Consciences you sin against Christ The Apostle enlarges further and very plainly upon this point 1 Cor. 10.23 to the 9th c. which I shall not detain the reader upon but onely refer him to distinct reading and consideration of the Text and shall conclude this point with that eminent place of John the Apostle 1 Epist ch 2.10 He that loveth his Brother abideth in the Light i. e. the truth of the Gospel and there is no occasion of Stumbling the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in him that is no active scandal i. e. he gives no occasion of falling unto his Brother and there is no passive scandal he is so far enlightned and informed in the truth that he doth not easily take offence at his Brothers actions so as to start from the truth or walk in any ways of sin or errour neither is he soon offended and prejudiced at his Brothers person or profession as to start from the communion of either But he that hateth his Brother i. e. hath little regard to the welfare of his Brothers Soul is in darkness and walketh in darkness and knows not whither he goes because darkness hath blinded his Eyes Ergo will both stumble and fall and lay Stumbling-blocks and Scandals in the way of others that they may fall also CHAP. IX Of Necessities and Indifferences § 1. IN the next place it will follow to consider the things wherein the Consciences of the strong and weak are mostly concerned about the doing or not doing of which Scandals and Offences do arise amongst Christians and those are things necessary and indifferent § 2. The things wherein Conscience is bound to doing or avoiding by some Law are things necessary and if by Christ's Law they are religiously necessary if by Man's Law they are civilly necessary if by the Law of Nature then naturally necessary all things whatever antecedaneous to a Law are in a possibility to necessity or indifferency those things that are doubted of supposing them under a Law or relating to it not appearing to us whether necessary or indifferent are scruples and these are not so much in the nature of the thing as in Conscience § 3. An indifferent thing is generally known by this description Est medium quod ita se habet ad duo extrema ut non magis ad unum quam ad alterum inclinat It 's a middle thing that respects both extreams alike as that which is indifferent in respect of Morality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sine discrimine aut differentiaÌ„ b. e. ratione boni mali determinati ulâ—â lege it 's in it self neither morally good nor morally evil it is as it were the middle of a Line that leaveth so much on both sides Est bonum malum physicum morale civile that it is equally separated from both in that as it is not the one so it is not the other and though good and evil are properly opposita per se sine ullo medio vel adversa for there is nothing in the world but is good or evil in some respect or other but because moral or civil good or evil is additional after the determinations of Nature in genere suo by some further Law there are some things or actions not concerned in the said Laws which things therefore can have no moral or civil goodness or evil in them but remain adiaphorus and so in this consideration necessary good and evil and indifferent are disparata and not contraria those things or actions which directly fall under the Law by positive Command or Prohibition are said to be absolute good and evil though it 's but secundum quid viz. properly in relation to the Law and those things or actions which are not directly concerned in the Law but onely circumstantially indifferent in themselves those are relatively necessary and respectively onely good or evil § 4. Though Good and Evil and Indifferent are disparata yet Necessary and Indifferent are adversa and there is no medium betwixt them for all things in the world are or may be ranked under these two Heads in respect of any Law of God or man whatsoever For either they are concerned in the Law or not if they be concerned they receive a relative constituted good or evil from the said Law if not concerned as to Command or Prohibition they remain indifferent and their indifferency also must be respective as to this or that Law for a thing may be indifferent and unconcerned as to one Law when it 's concerned in and made necessary by another Law § 5. By Laws of Nature in distinction from morality I understand more than meram artem Physicam here must be understood the rules of all Arts which are as so many Laws to direct every thing in its various respects unto its right end and all conformities and agreement of the things or respects to the said rules in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is good and all Irregularities and Falsities are evil though bonum malum is most proper in the moral acceptation yet we must allow it to be in other Arts besides Divinity in Logick there is good and evil consequence reasoning c. verum bomem though they be morally contra-distinct yet they are in Logick convertible terms so there is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of every Art which is its veritas leading to its right end and this is the bonitas thereof There is also a necessity in them and Necessarium quando semper verum est nec falsum esse potest when the Axiome affirmed is always true and never can be false to this is opposed a contingency which indeed is a medium between Truth and Falshood as Indifferency is between Good and Evil and is an Axiomatical indifferency properly as the other is moral and those things that are contingent are indifferently concerned in the rules of Art to Truth or Falshood Sic vera sunt ut aliquando falsa esse possunt sic falsa ut aliquando vera esse possunt § 6. All Necessities respecting Conscience and religious practice are moral and have their good and evil determined by a moral Law and these are of two sorts Absolute or Relative Absolute when the principal substance of the thing or action is determined as to good or evil the moral Law looks directly upon it the duty is called perfectum officium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a perfect or absolute throughout Duty A Relative necessity is when an indifferent thing in itself by a circumstantial respect to another thing falls under some Law and becomes good by way of expediency or evil by way of non-expediency it 's call'd commune
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
of a Gospel-nature cannot be alter'd from their nature by any subsequent Law of man thus appears To change religious Indifferencies into Necessities is to make a Law for Christs Worship that Christ never made nor gave any man power to make but none may make a Law for the Worship of Christ which he never made nor impowred any to make Ergo the Major is without doubt if the indifferency confessed be in the worship of God then when it 's by any Law made necessary it 's still in the worship of God and being appointed so by a Law becomes instituted Worship by a Law which Christ never made The Minor appears in that none may do so i. e. institute Worship or circumstances of Worship by a Law that is not Christ's 1. It 's his Prerogative to exercise a Legislative power in his Church 2. Christ knows onely how he will be worshipped and it must be founded on his revealed will which is our Law 3. None might adde to his Laws under the Old Testament Deut. 4.1 2. much less under the New where there is less of Ceremony and Circumstances Rev. CHAP. XIII Of the power of the Church in matters indifferent § 1. WHen we come to discuss the power of the Church it 's very requisite to unfold the meaning of the word Church there being no word under which lieth more Amphibology Many understand a Church a material building or place of meeting for the worship of God being consecrated and set apart for that use and for the Propriety and Antiquity of this usage and acceptation of Ecclesia learned Mr. Mead very much contends We shall not stay upon this sence because none that will oppose us in the present controversie will insist upon this sence so far as to say that the Legislative Power is to be found here A Church is also in other sences spoken of Some say every Nation where Christian Religion is owned by ruling Authority and by the generality of the people professed is a Church Some call a Province a Church a Diocess a Church a Parish a Church so that it 's more or less extended and comprehensive and it 's usually the sence of Protestants that assert a Churches Legislative Authority in matters indifferent Others say there is no national Churches under the Gospel though there be Churches in every Nation and that properly there are no particular Churches but such who freely and voluntarily combine together in bonds of Society for the worshipping of God according to his revealed will and walk accordingly Various are the Sentiments and Disputes about a Church and the nature of it the consideration of which will not be so much our concern at this time But there is another way of the usage of Church wherein there is greater ambiguity which is very much to the matter in hand that we rightly understand it viz the emphatical use of the word The Church so many mens Writings and Argumentations being filled and confounded with it now a days that who can tell what they mean by The Church The Romanists say the Church hath determined this or that and when we enquire what that Church is they say the Catholick Church which being rightly understood is the true meaning of the Church according to that rule Aequivocum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato the Emphasis putting the word upon the highest and largest signification but when we come to a farther disquision of their meaning they tell us the Church of Rome is the Church and all others that dissent or separate from the Church of Rome are not the Church or of the true Catholick Church Many Protestants also that speak of the Church do not understand the Church of Rome or the Catholick Church but some particular National Church viz. of France England Spain c. but when we enquire what this Church is they will tell us it 's the body of the Clergy met together in a Convocation by a few Representatives to make Laws and Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions the executive power whereof is in the Bishops and their Courts so that when these few men have made Laws or exercise Ecclesiastical power compose Forms of Prayer or establish Ceremonies at their pleasure they say the Church did it These two sorts of men make use of this great commanding Word the Church and by this equivocal term sounding so loud of an uncontroulable Prerogative they suggest unto poor well-meaning people on the one side that all that the Pope and the Church of Rome doth on the other hand that all that the Bishops and their Courts do is done by the Church as if it were the whole Vniversal visible Church It is not my present task here to enquire what is the true meaning of the Church according to the Scripture-acceptation or the most true Logical notion thereof whether it be a Genus or an Integrum or totum Aggregativum I shall onely in the ensuing Discourse apply my self to the most rectified sence of those that do defend the Legislative Authority of the Church and if they will not start from all right Reason and Rules of Logick their sence must be That the Catholick Militant Church is The Church whether it may be Organical according to Scripture-constitution we argue not now constituted of Subordinate parts first National or if you please Patriarchal before that of National made up of Provincial Provincial of Diocesan Diocesan of Parochial and this ought to be the sincere meaning of The Church without prevarication in the sence of those beforementioned § 2. Now the main thing in Debate between the Assertors of the Churches Authority and the Dissentors from it is Whether the Church may exercise such a Power as may change Indifferencies in the Worship of God into Necessities Which we hold in the Negative and say That Christ hath never granted such Power unto the Church he hath granted an Executive Power unto his Church but never a Legislative Power for all lawful power that any Church hath it must have it from the Lord Jesus Christ who hath all power given unto him in Heaven and Earth and is the peculiar King of his Church and hath taken care for the right Ordering and Governance of it in all things necessary as to Salvation so to Order and Discipline And therefore what is not derived from the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to be lawfully exercised 'T is true if it could be shewed where Christ ever granted it by his Charter to his Church that in some particular concerns she might exert a Legislative Power the dispute would soon be ended but no such Charter could ever be shewn § 3. If any such Power be granted by Christ it must be granted to the Catholick Church Militant or to particular subordinate Churches but 't is not granted to either of them Ergo. Not to the Vniversal Church because it is not organized with Officers capable of a Catholick Rule unless we
Subordinate Churches 2. It is not in the capacity of any one or few Supreme Magistrates to convene an Oecumenical Council because no Magistrate can by any civil Authority much less by any Ecclesiastical of which he hath none call forth the Bishops of another Nation to such a Council Whereas an Oecumenical Pastor whose Authority reaches equally to all National Churches and to Magistrates as Members thereof may Authoritatively command the presence of any Reverend Father whatsoever and demand the consent of the Magistrate thereto under the pain of Church-censures and to permit his Bishops to assemble in or out of his Dominions whereas there is no one or more Supreme Magistrate hath any universal tye Ecclesiastical or Civil of other States and Dominions to his Jurisdiction so that they are necessitated under any Law to submit thereunto unless such which they have reduced unto Homage and Vassalage by dint of Sword or such as by voluntary Subjection have yielded themselves 3. Magistrates have not then a Power to call an Oecumenical Council when they please or if there were such an Emperour there never was or will be that could in respect of his civil power do so yet they have no Ecclesiastical power to do it authoritatively but onely by concurrence or consent whereas all Church-Assemblies are authoritatively to be called by the Officers of the said Church or else they cannot act so when called by Assembled unless we reduce Church-government unto a Democracy § 18. Obj. It may be also said that an Oecumenical Council may be convened by the consent of Patriarchs and Bishops among themselves Answ 1. This is no Authoritative way of assembling such as Bishops will always contend for but onely precarious 2. If they assemble this way either it must be no Council till all be agreed which may be long enough first or any few agreeing to assemble and give notice of such resolutions to others who are averse to such Proposals may gather together and call themselves an Oecumenical Council undertake to make Decrees determine matters of consequence and impose on the dissenting Churches And what dangerous consequence would this be of in the Church especially where Heretical Pastors abound as in the times of the Arrian Macedonian and Nestorian Heresies 3. If National Pastors may convene by consent to constitute an Oecumenical Council why may not Bishops and Archbishops convene by consent to make up a National Synod without the Authoritative Call of the Primate which will by no means be allowed 2ly and lastly By whose authority shall a Catholick Assembly have its Sanction if not by the Catholick Pastor for it 's not every Council that calls it self Oecumenical that can or may be allowed to be such neither ever was there or ever will be any so General that all the Pastors were assembled But it is in this as in all other Church-Assemblies if they be called by the Pastor and publick notice given to all the Members of the time and place the absence of some alters not the nature of it Ergo there should be an Oecumenical Pastor for these ends and purposes CHAP. XV. Of the Magistrates Power in matters of Religion § 1. THe power of Magistrates in matters of Religion hath been very much controverted and variously determined by men of Learning and Conscience I shall not fill up these sheets with transcribing other mens Sentiments I shall onely propound what seems to me to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason with as much perspicuity and brevity as I can There are three things for enquiry that will principally lie before us 1. Whether the Civil Magistrate may exercise a Legislative power in matters Evangelically indifferent 2. Whether in the execution of Ecclesiastical Justice the sword of the Magistrate may be used 3. What are the true bounds and limits of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion The first Question is thus to be understood Whether the Civil Magistrate may or can change things religiously indifferent into necessities by a competent Law i.e. by a Law binding Conscience primarily or secundarily by Christ's authority for we have shewed that no authority can reach Conscience so as to binde it or loose it but Christ's alone that being no competent Law that answers not the true nature of the obedience required which is always expected here to be conscientious All Christ's Laws flowing from his peculiar Legislative prerogative over his Church have an immediate influence on Conscience and do primarily binde as such All just humane Laws do secundarily binde Conscience i. e. not quatenus humane but they so far binde Conscience as men have derived such authority from the Lord Christ for the composing and enacting the said Laws Now if the Magistrate cannot make a Law in one of these kinds to binde Christians in matters indifferent he cannot do it by a competent Law § 2. Having thus explained the true meaning of our Enquiry we determine in the Negative and that for these following reasons Arg. 1. It 's Christs peculiar prerogative to be the Lawgiver to his Church i. e. to make such Laws as immediately concerns it He never gave this power to any or commissionated any to exercise a humane authority in this kind as hath been abundantly shewn He onely can do it 1. He is the onely Spiritual King there is no other mediate Spiritual King between him and his Church 2. He knows onely what is fit to be the matter of such a Law He knows onely which way he will be worshipped and no way can be acceptable to him but that which is of his immediate appointment it 's high presumption in any other to prescribe 3. It 's his Glory to reserve this to himself and he gives to Magistrates that power which they have it 's but reasonable he should reserve to himself what he pleaseth 4. If Magistrates can exercise any such power it must be by deputation from Christ If there be any such let them produce their Commission which cannot be pretended to in the New Testament and what is said of Magistrates power from the Old Testaments authority will easily be refuted if the particular cases be duely considered which I shall not now stay upon 5. If Christ hath given such a power to a Christian Magistrate it belongs to him as a Magistrate or as a Christian it doth not belong to him as a Civil Magistrate for then 1. As many sorts of Magistrates as the Church doth militate under so many sorts of Lawgivers in Spiritual things she should be subject to whether Christian Heretical Prophane or Heathenish and as the government of State alters in the Supream Magistracy so the Laws of the Church must according to the several interests and corrupt designes of the sons of men 2. The number and certainty of Ecclesiastical Laws could never be known for as he may make Laws he may repeal Laws where they are of the same kind So that there would be no certain standing Rule for the
any authority granted by Christ challenge to himself a Legistative power in religious matters touching Faith or Worship he cannot null or dispense with one of the Laws of Jesus Christ neither may he make any new Laws to binde us to believe any thing more concerning God than is manifestly by his Word revealed or binde us to practice any alteration or addition in the Worship of God more than what Christ himself hath enacted This we have sufficiently proved in handling the Doctrine of Indifferency § 8. Fourthly No civil Magistrate can by any deputation from Christ claim an Executive power of the Political Laws of Christ in his Church for as Christ hath his own proper Laws in his Church his militant Kingdom distinct from other Laws for the right and exact Gospel-management of all his Political affairs therein and is more faithful than Moses in that very respect so he hath set in his Church his own Ministers and Officers distinct from all other sorts of Officers and Ministers in the world As Christ's Ministers are no civil Magistrates as such so no civil Magistrate is a Church-Minister as such Hence as a civil Magistrate hath no power to execute Christ's Political Laws or Institutions in his Church so he hath no power to execute any moral Laws in the Church i. e. he cannot punish a criminal offence by Ecclesiastical censures The moral Law runs through all Societies as the natural fundamental Rule to discern Good and Evil and Political Laws of all sorts should mainly respect it as the Standard and Magna Charta of all Laws and Justice which in respect of it are derivative though every particular Polity hath its own proper way and manner of distribution of moral Justice The civil State by a civil political Administration and Magistracy Families Oeconomically by the Heads thereof the Churches Ecclesiastically by its Pastors and other Officers all endeavouring by their distinct way and manner of Administration to secure the honour and justice of the Moral Law but none of these are to intermix their governments and political way of distribution seeing the God of Order hath fixed each one to his proper station and limit of jurisdiction Hence the civil State can no more punish the breach of moral Laws Ecclesiastically than the Church can punish them civilly and the Church can no more use the Magistrates Sword than the Magistrate can the Churches and vice versa neither can the Church or civil State punish the breaches of the moral Law Oeconomically any more than a Master of a Family as such can punish them Ecclesiastically or Civilly and upon that account may take upon him to be Magistrate or Pastor And though there was a mixture or rather conjunction of these Authorities in the same person in the infancy of Polities yet they have been separated in distinct persons by God himself for many Ages neither do any persons bearing distinct Offices make the Offices the same or necessarily mingle them in the performance of their several Functions § 9. Fifthly It is not in the power of the civil Magistrate or any humane Laws to binde or loose Conscience As Magistrates cannot reach it directly to charge it with either duty or guilt so it 's the greatest piece of Tyranny to attempt it by Penal Laws whereby Christians may be drawn in to ensnare their Consciences in guilt by sinning against God for fear of Man and a Christian is to obey the just Laws of man for Conscience sake i. e. for the Lords sake It is extrinsick to the Laws of men to binde Conscience it 's God that by his authority gives them a mediate Sanction and binds them on Conscience but where God lends not to humane Laws his binding power they are of no more force unto Conscience than Wit hs to binde Sampson It 's not the wit or strength of all Men and Angels that can binde one Conscience under guilt without a Law of God or divine authority to give force to humane their Penal Laws i.e. corporal Punishments or pecuniary Mulcts are very indirect and vain Mediums to enforce Conscience and very sinfully applied by Magistrates or others for that end in matters of Faith or Worship § 10. Sixthly That the supream Magistrate hath not the determination of Causes meenly Ecelesiastical and these are of two sorts either controverted Doctrinals or Causes disciplinary controverted for by Causes are to be understood here things under dispute and they controverted Doctrinals or under debate and they controverted Causes disciplinary and those Ecclesiastical things which are of this nature fall under one of these heads Doctrinal or Disciplinary First In doctrinal Causes controverted the Magistrate is not appointed by Christ as Judge neither is he a competent Judge 1. If he be quatenus a Magistrate then every Magistrate is a competent Judge and then a Heathen Mahometan or Heretical Magistrate and then you 'll say the determination must needs be very sound and good 2. Again how few Christian Magistrates are studied enough in Polemical Divinity being not bred to that learning or having so many recreations and secular concerns to divert them from it so as to be fit to have the ultimate determination of the most difficult and weighty points that learned Scholars in Divinity yea such as are studious and conscientious Christians after long study scrutiny and prayer cannot attain to a right understanding of so as to demonstrate the truth to the full and clear satisfaction of themselves or others Is it fit to make an Assembly of Divines Judges of a great and difficult case in Law There is the same reason for one as for the other 3. What determination a Magistrate makes dogmatically it 's simpliciter but his private Judgment and Opinion though he be a publick person And why should any mans private opinion be he what he will in the world be a binding Rule to the Faith of another in matters of Religion 4. It 's impossible that it should be so for man cannot make a Law to bound Faith in such things as are not founded on the light of Understanding and where they are so founded no man believes because of the Law of man but because of the evidence of Truth What Law can make any man believe that two and three make six but if it be that we must believe that three and three make six we do believe it but not because of the Penal Law but because of the evidence the Truth carries with it Non lex penalis sed veritas est ratio formalis fidei 5. The Faith of a Christian or the Understanding of a Rational man can no more rest in the opinion or determination of a Christian Magistrate without a sufficient light of Truth to convince him than in the opinion and determination of another man for he that tenders the honour of God and loves Truth cannot receive that which he is convinced of or at least suspects in his most serious judgment to be
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
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