Laws and constitutions of the Church ought to be banisht the Commonwealth 'T is sufficient to the ends of Government they be banisht that Society only whose Laws and Constitutions they submit not unto and so this Answerer says well Non opus est habere civem qui parere nescit neither Church nor Commonwealth have need of those persons who know not how to obey But till there be a due distinction made between the Church and State between civil and religious Societies and that liberty in Religion allowed unto all men which the Law of Nature and positive Law of God allows and requires the exercise of we can never hope to see Religion flourish nor Peace and Quiet in Christendome Query VI. Whether is there any visible living Judge in Doubts and Controversies of Religion to whose determinations any man is bound to yield his assent and obedience against the Dictates of his own Conscience guided according to the best of his light and knowledge by the rule of Gods word Reply to the Answer to this Query A Clear and positive Answer to this Query would go far towards the ending our greatest differences and Disputes in Religion For either there is or there is not such a Judge as is here inquired after if such an one there be let him be produc'd and his determinations in all Controversial points be made known that they may be submitted to or if there be no such Judge why are any molested and troubled for going according to their own Judgements and Consciences when it is their duty so to do what is said of a Churches being a Society and that every Society may agree upon the means by which all differences arising in it may be determin'd that may probably violatate the Peace and Vnity thereof is not to the present Question which is only concerning such a Judge in Doubts and Controversies of Religion to whose determinations every one is bound to yield his Assent and obedience against his own Judgement We have already acknowledg'd That they who submit not to the Laws and Constitutions of a Church ought to be cast out of that Church which is a sufficient means and the only means of preserving the Peace and Unity thereof And if the Church of England assumes no other Power or Priviledge there is no ground of quarrel or exceptions against her for that But whereas he says She does not like the Papists own any Judge of Controversies in Religion If he means Infallible Judge like the Papists none says She does Or if his meaning be That She owns no such Judge of Controversies as to oblige any to acquiess in her Determinations against their own Judgements as it seems to be by his saying She requires none of her Members to yield obedience to her Determinations against the Dictates of their Consciences why does he molest and trouble any for not yielding such obedience And if all she demands as he says be but That obedience be given to those Laws which are undoubtedly Divine An acquiescence yielded to some disputable points c. which are not against a mans Conscience and a conformity to some indifferent Rites c. which all judge to be indifferent no rational man can sure except against any of this nor deny the Governours of the Church of England to be as much Umpires and Judges in these matters as the Pastors and Elders in any of the Separated Congregations It is as he very well says A vain thing for men to plead that they make Conscience their guide unless they take Scripture for their rule Nor can any plead Conscience for disobeying Lawful Authority in things innocent and indifferent where they judge the things commanded to be so but what some may count indifferent others may judge sinful The Scripture commanding obedience and to be Subject for Conscience-sake does sufficiently manifest that none ought to obey or comply in any thing against Conscience since none against Conscience can be Subject for Conscience-sake It cannot be denyed but that horrid Impieties and Immoralities have been acted under pretence of Conscience though they can never be justified upon the account of Conscience and where any plead Conscience against all sense of duty it is but just with God to leave them to a reprobate state of mind but some mens abandoning or abusing Conscience will never justifie others dispising and deriding of it Whether Dissenters endeavour after the best Information they are able to attain unto and in other things do their duties is no part of this Query But if they do not they are too blame and will have the more to answer for another day and cannot with that satisfaction bear their present sufferings which otherwise they might do As for the grounds of their Seperation Whether sufficient to justifie it or excuse them of Schism will be more seasonably argued when this Answerer or his Adherents shall tell us of such a Judge as in the Query is inquired after to determine who is in the right and who in the wrong who keeps to and who swerves from the rule of the Gospel Query VII Whether to inflict Corporal punishments upon any as transgressors in those matters which no man or Society of men whatever have Authority to pronounce a Judicial difinitive Sentence in so as to make it any mans duty to yield his Assent or obedience thereunto Be not to Execute before Judgement And whether to do so be not against all Rules and Forms of Justice both Divine and humane and such a violation of the Law and light of Nature as no sober or judicious Heathen was ever yet guilty of Reply to the Answer to this Query HAd not this officious person taken on him the answering Questions before he understood them he might have spar'd his pains in all he hath here said having only beaten the Air and fought with his own Shadow 'T is not therefore the Gentlemans being meanly read as he says but the Clergy-mans not understanding what he reads that obtrudes upon the World the errors and absurdities we here meet with the Query not being so impertinent as his ignorance apprehends it nothing being more evidently unjust then that any should suffer as transgressors in those matters wherein in none are authorised to pass a judicial definitive Sentence whether they have therein transgressed or not in which case to punish is to Execute before Judgement and that we say is such a violation of the Law and light of Nature as no sober or judicious Heathen was ever yet guilty of Have we not then to do with an Ingenious and Pleasant person who having spent above twenty pages to no purpose being wholly from the Question hath at last the face or folly rather to tell us He hopes now it appears to be no violation of the Law or light of Nature to inflict punishments in matters of Religion when every Child that could but read English would have told him That not to inflict punishments in
all the words of the Book of the Covenant that was found in the House of the Lord was it not by convincing them it was their duty so to do for it reacht no farther then to those who were present And who denies the like Power unto Christian Magistrates Nor needs there any great search in the Annals of time and History of Ages to know that Princes and People never more prosper'd then when Religion was countenanc't Idolatry punisht and the great Causes and occasions of Schism the requiring other Terms and Conditions of Church-Fellowship and Communion then God requires were unknown or removed Nor is there ought in the Instances before mentioned That needs any such constructions or evasions as this Answerer speaks of to reconcile them to the liberty in Religion pleaded for For who did ever deny unto Magistrates Power to command and require their People to serve God as God hath exprest and declar'd he will be serv'd or to remove such outward appearances and Monuments of worship as are evidently and apparently false and Idolatrous which in both instances was but the Case of the before-mentioned Kings of Judah But that which is excepted against Is the prohibiting any to worship God in such a way as none can say to be against the mind and will of God or displeasing unto him or the compelling any to worship God in such a way as they Judge sinful or are not satisfied in the lawfulness of And though the State of Religion under the Gospel be far differing from what it was under the Law yet surely Princes are not as he says in a worse condition by the coming of Christ then they were in the Jewish Commonwealth where they had no power to command ought in Religion but what God willed or commanded and so they may do still by all the ways and means appointed by God and useful thereunto But what is it this Answerer hath found in the 49 chap of Isaiah to prove the Magistrates Coercive Power in Religion Gods affectionate answer to his peoples complaint promising never to forget them will not do it neither his promise of delivering them from their Enemies and adding to their numbers nor yet that Kings should be nursing Fathers and Queens nursing Mothers to his Church For Nurses do not use to force and coerce their Children but nourish and cherish them But this place does indeed imply or promise that there should be Soveraign Princes who should nourish and cherish the People of God and take care that no hurt or violence be offer'd unto them or to his Church which is as much as the Metaphor will bear since true Religion cannot be forc't or upheld by Secular power 'T is Antichristianism that is so supported and maintain'd by those who give their power and strength unto the Beast And they carry the Metaphor too farr who would have Princes like Nurses to feed their Children Christ having appointed other Overseers of his flock for that works whom the Magistrate ought indeed to protect and defend in the performance thereof but not to dictate nor prescribe to them therein There may not be wanting expositors who as he says may conceive this Prophesie to have been fulfilled when Emperours and Kings became Christians and enacted Laws to secure the Faith of Christ from all Enemies c. though they have no great Reason for it it being but too well known that Christian Religion hath suffer'd more then ever it gain'd by pretended Christian Magistrates For if Constantine protected the Truth his Successor Constantius with divers others after him persecuted it Yea the generality of Christian Magistrates for above a thousand years together by the instigations of the Bishop of Rome were its great opposers and oppressors and though for several years past God hath blessed this Nation beyond most of the Nations of the Earth with Kings and Queens who have protected and defended the Truths of the Gospel and the people of God from the Tyranny and opprssieon of that great Enemy to both yet in respect of Christendom there is little cause to say that this Prophesie was fulfilled when Kings and Emperours became Christians As there have been Laws enacted by Kings and States in behalf of the Truth so there have been infinitely more enacted against it error too soon and generally prevailing over the Christian world which for a Protestant to Question were to deny his Faith He cannot be thought a Friend to Truth who shall oppose any means conducive unto its promotion But whoever shall consider how few of the Mighty and Noble of the Earth to whom wordly Power and Authority is committed are called unto the knowledge thereof must acknowledge likewise that where one Law bath been enacted in behalf of the Truth hundreds have been enacted to its prejudice It is not therefore in opposition to Truth but for the Truths sake that we plead for its standing upon its own Bottom and prevailing by its own strength and efficacy For as the Truths of the Gospel were at first planted and propagated throughout the world by the Ministry of the Gospel and influence of the Divine Spirit without the aid and assistance of the secular Power so by the same means and methods they are best secured and preserved nor is secular force and power a means by God appointed or in its nature conducive to the promoting of Truth since 't is conviction and not force must induce assent And though some Hereticks may have seem'd to retract their opinions upon the severity of penal Laws against them there is little reason to believe that any of them thereby became real converts for though force may make an Hypocrite it can never make a true Believer If we believe not the Donatists and Independants so nearly related as this Answerer tells us having but his say so without other proof and if we are not Convinc't That Austins changing his mind proves second thoughts to be always best it will not we hope be thought any violation of the Law or light of Nature 't is not unknown how that Pious Father was molested by that petulant Faction no wonder therefore he should approve of what ever delivered him from them But would it not be very pleasant for Magistrates to change their Laws as oft as Doctors change their minds and that every new opinion should be the ground of a new Statute And yet I fully approve of what this Learned and Pious Father That Kings as is commanded them from Heaven serve God in that Office when in their Kingdoms they Command what is good and Prohibit what is evil and that not only in things that belong unto humane Society but also unto Divine Religion So they command but what is known and allowed to be good and in mens power to do and Prohibit no more then what is by the light of Nature or some positive Law of God apparently evil And if there be more passages to the same purpose as this
all those Acts flow from Conscience It were indeed a very strange thing if it should be so But who tells him that no Coercieve Power must be used against those Criminals whose actions flow from Conscience or who Questions the Magistrates Authority to punish such as blaspheme God or Christ or Religion or that they who speak lyes in the name of God and Preach and Teach them in Hypocrasie may not be punisht for it when prov'd against them But we still say That to Execute before Conviction and Judgement is against all Rules and Forms of Justice both Divine and Humane and such a violation of the Law and light of Nature as no Sober or Judicious Heathen was ever yet guilty off But the whole of this discourse is grounded on this absurdity which the Query gives not the least countenance unto viz. That none ought to be punisht for what they do according to their Consciences which no man sure in his senses ever affirm'd every man being to be proceeded against by the Civil Magistrateâ— according to the Nature and quality of his offence be it never so much according to his Conscience if it be that which ought not to be But he tells us every Christian is to act out of a Principle of Conscience in the duties of the second Table as well as in those of the first which no man sure ever doubted off Nor did any rational man ever say That Conscience was a sufficient plea against the Coercive Power of Kings The Magistrate may certainly Enact Penal Laws against Murther Felony and the like moral evils whatever he may do against Infidelity Schism Heresie or errors in Religion and yet may not force or compel any in the Worship and Service of God to act against their Light and Consciences The Question here is not whether the Magistrate may use his Coercive Power to punish for sin but whether he may compel men to sin as most certainly they do who compel them to worship God in any other way or manner then they are perswaded God will be worship't and requires of them Query XV. Whether to require conformity in Practice where there is difference in Judgement be not to command a man to act against light and Conscience and consequently to sin Reply to the Answer to this Query TO the Question he proposes I answer The Superiour not only may but ought to take care to act according to the Dictates of his Conscience as well as the Inferiour to practice according to his which is yet no answer to this Query For as it is the Magistrates duty to cause as much as in him lyes those under his charge to serve God acceptably so it is not his duty to command them to serve God in such a way or manner as they judge sinfull or not according to Gods Institution and appointment He ought indeed to endeavour their Conviction by all due and just means whom he Judgeth in any kind to err but not to force them to any thing in the Worship and Service of God against their Judgements since as hath been often inculcated whatever is not of faith is sin But if there be any who as he says conceive it their duty to serve God in such ways and methods as are Diametrically contrary to Gods will and subversive to the Magistrates Government let them be Impleaded and punisht after due Conviction and Judgement but not before 'T is not impossible but a Governour may think himself bound in Conscience to command what an Inferiour may be perswaded he ought not to obey The Superiours Conscience being as certain a Rule in commanding as the Inferiours can be to him in disobeying but with our Answerers good leave this is not as he says the case between the King of England and the present Dissenters from the Church His Majesty having sufficiently declared in his late gracious Declaration of Indulgence that it is not against his Conscience to give liberty to Dissenters But how flily would he insinuate here That it is against his Coronation Oath so to do in that he says His Majesty swears That he will defend and preserve to the Clergy all Canonicall Priviledges c. And how this Oath can be performed unless the Clergy have now the like Priviledge as heretofore to Burn Masacre and Destroy the faithfull Servants and Disciples of Jesus Christ and true worshippers of God under pretence of their being Hereticks and Schismaticks may possibly as he says be past his Power to conceive and determine For nothing less it seems will satisfie him Then all the Canonicall Priviledges and Free-Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious St. Edward and other Kings and what they were may deserve consideration But as he very well says every Prince owes a strict account to God of his Crown and Government and the Dignity of his place obliges him to promote the happiness of his people which certainly he does not who permits a Generation of men under the pretext of the Power of the Gospel to trample by the Power of the world mankind under their feet even Princes themselves where they are able which if seemly in their eyes is not so I hope in others Whether differnce in Judgement will justifie any man from Inconformity in Practice He advises his Reader to consider the strict account Christ called the Angel of the Church in Thyatira to for suffering that woman Jezabel to teach and seduce his Servants and would be resolved whether the Bishop or Angel might not have excused his own neglects by pleading for Jezabel That her Judgement differ'd from his and to make her practice things quite contrary to her Judgement was that Christ never did in the days of his flesh It was an Invasion of the freedom of mens wills and the Liberty of their Consciences It was a constraining of them to act against their own Light and consequently to sin Risum tenaatis Amici can any forbear laughter at such ridiculous reasonings is not this Answerer able to distinguish between commanding to sin and restraining from sin Had the Angel of the Church in Thyatira been call'd to an account for Jezabels non-conformity such a Plea might have been pertinent but his Crime was not the making her practice things contrary to her Judgement which yet to have done might have been a Crime but the suffering her to Teach and Seduce without controle without contending for the Truth and opposing it to her Errors which would not have been a constraining her to act against her light but the enlighting her sound Doctrine diligently and duly taught being sufficient against Seducers We had not else heard of many Truths of the Gospel at this day there being neither in the days of Jezabel nor long after any Christian Magistrate in the World to protect or defend them What the Reverend Mr. Perkings says of restraining error is nothing to this Query which opposes only the compelling to sin yet we would as much as any
be circumcised Christ shall profit them nothing So far were the Apostles from commanding the Observation of the abrogated Ceremonies of the Jewish Law which is indeed a contradiction interminis for if they had Apostoâ—ical warrant and command they were not abrogated but we must bear with small slips if we will not Create to our selves endless trouble But 't is at length acknowledg'd That Gods will is to be the Rule of his worship and our Answerer hopes to salve all in saying That it were the most sacrilegious Invasion of Gods Prerogative to make humane Inventions the essentials of his worship But for Rites and Ceremonies the Governours of the Church may it seems Institute such and so many as they shall think good And if so let him tell us why the Church of Rome hath not the same Authority as other Churches to Institute such Ceremonies as she also shall think good and how comes he to censure hers as vain and foolish ridiculous and superstitious while she exercises but the Authority he allows her Instituting no other Ceremonies then she judges conducive to so high and generous an end as the propogation of the Christian Faith and which render Religion amiable by its external Ornaments and Beauty But what may this Answerer mean by the essentialls of worship A dear friend of his tells us The essence of Religious worship consists in nothing else but a gratefull sense and temper of mind towards the Divine goodness and as for all that concerns external worship 't is no part of Religion it self and if this be his Judgement also he may tell us 'T is the most sacrilegious Invasion of Gods Prerogative to make humane Inventions the Essentials of his worship and yet retain a liberty of introducing all the vain and foolish ridiculous superstitious Ceremonies now in use in the Roman Church when ever he shall change his thoughts of them and judge them to render Religion amiable and beautifull But certainly nothing is more evident in Scripture than that the due observance of the outward Institutions in Religion come under the notion of the worship of God So did the Sacrifices of old and so do the present Sacraments of the Church which were and are parts of outward worship and I suppose of Religion too and whatever is made so necessary to be observ'd in the worship of God that without it the worship is not to be perform'd is thereby made an essential of worship for that which is so the matter of a thing that without it the thing cannot be is of the essence of that thing But he tells us All that is pleaded is but that the Church of England may be allowed the same priviledge which all Sects and Parties assume to themselves viz. To determine the circumstances of Religion which is so reasonable that it cannot either in Reason or Justice be denyed Then he tells us There is no Sect but the Authority of their Teachers prevails in those Instances and Rites where there is no word of God to warrant the things that are practis'd by them Instancing in the worship perform'd as he says by Independents asking what Scripture they have to prove their Covenant which the Members of their Churches swear to before they are admitted by their Pastors and Elders Though he finds no mention of any such Covenant sworn to in the declaration of the Faith and Order owned and Practis'd in their Churches wherein as well their Order as common Faith is declar'd Neither of which do they or did they ever that I have heard of impose upon any and yet are able I presume to give an Answer unto every man that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them To them therefore I shall refer him for farther satisfaction in the particulars he mentions if he desires it And for the present shall only tell him There is some difference between a confession of Faith and imposing Articles of Faith Yea or Rites and Ceremonies And will he now say In verbo Sacerdotis or upon his Reputation That the Church of England in appointing of her Rites and Ceremonies does no more then appoint circumstances concerning the worship of God common to humane Actions which are to be order'd by the light of nature and Christian Prudence according to the general Rules of the word Or why does he thus impose upon his credulous and unwary Reader But he tells us If the Governours of the Church of England did command such and such things then Dissenters had some reason to separate from its Communion which is but a copy of his countenance he elsewhere telling us That the Governours of the Church have Power to Institute such Ceremonies as they shall think good and that it is the peoples duty to obey Yea he advises them to resign up themselves to the Fathers of the Church rather than attend to 〈◊〉 the Dictates of their own dark minds which takes away not only the liberty of separating but even of examining the commands of their Spiritual guides And having thus reduced them to an implicit Faith he may be bold to tell them There were as many or more Ceremonies made use of in the very Age of the Apostles and then Instituted by them than are now in the Church of England and instance in half a score not one of which were ever Instituted by the Apostles Yet after all his boldness he speaks but faintly in saying If he be mistaken in his conjecture about this matter yet 't is no way injurious to the present Power of the Church of England in appointing symbolical or significative Ceremonies in Gods worship for that the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperours were much like the Israelites in their Egyptian Bondage rather concern'd to maintain the life and being of Religion then to be curious about the Apparel and Ornament thereof And would to God there were no pretended Christians in these days more concern'd about the Apparel and Ornament as they term them of Religion then to maintain the life and being thereof And how unhandsomly does he reflect here on the Primitive Christians in saying When Kings and Emperours became Christian then they began to glorifie God with their bodies and to honour him with their substance and Estates c. As if till then they had been unmindful of the Apostles precept of glorifying God in their bodies and in their spirits or what thinks he of those who before that sold their Possessions and goods and parted them to all men as every man had need Did not they as much honour God with their substances and Estates as those who adorn Temples But such gross and carnal thoughts have some of the most High Who dwelleth not in Temples made with Hands as to think him still delighted and pleased with mens Erecting Dedicating and Adorning of Temples in which they generally place more of their Religion than in the performance of the most spiritual and