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
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
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-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
for that were to fall on the Rock of Presbytery therefore they must say and do say That every ordinary Protestant Priest receives his power from Christ thorough the hands of some superiour Pastor not co-ordinate and then we must needs finde out the derivation of that superiour power from one above him in Order and Dignity and at last must needs arrive at Peter's Chair and his Successors who first received this power from Christ and so it 's handed down through his respective subordinate Officers to those of the lowest rank and degree For if the Parish-Priest receive his Office from the Diocesan then he from the Provincial and he from the Primate and he from the Oecumenical If they the Primates receive their power mediately by the hands of some others besides the Oecumenical Pastor it must be from the co-ordinate power of some National Pastor or Pastors and consequently it will infer a Presbytery of Primates which may prove of as ill and more dangerous Aspect on the Church Catholick than the Presbyterian Assembly on the Church National or it must be that he receive his Dignity from the Suffrage of his inferiour Clergy Then it follows that a Metropolitan is invested with power in a meaner and more despicable way than a Diocesan or Parish-Priest § 6. To avoid splitting on the Romish Church they finde another way of deriving their power from Christ and that is by the Civil Magistrate without the Church as it is practically at least granted To which I say That although he is or may be a Member of the Church yet quatenus a Magistrate he is a Member of another State and therefore in an Office extrinsecal to the Church and hence cannot extend Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Church nor invest an Officer in the Church which is Christ's dominion with Office Power Legislative or Executive the Civil and Ecclesiastical States being distinct from each other as they are such Moreover for an Officer in Christ's state to derive his power from Earthly Potentates is to subject the Kingdom of Christ as such to the Kingdoms of men and make it subordinate thereto in those things which Christ hath reserved to himself as his Prerogative Again if Church-Officers as such must be invested with power from Secular Princes the Church must stand or fall as to its right and orderly manner of Government at the will and disposition of Princes Whence Christs Oeconomy will seem not compleat in it self but lame deficient and headless in that it must be beholding to an Exotick Power for its principal Officers and Rulers and Christ was wanting in not providing for the due governance of his Church under heathenish or heretical Magistrates yea such Magistrates would undoubtedly establish Church-Officers ejusdem farinae with themselves And besides it would follow that the Primitive Churches after our Saviour's ascention could have no due derivation of Church-power unto it for some Ages for want of Christian Magistrates the grand Mediums of Conveyance There is also as much reason that Civil Officers should be at the disposition of the Church as that Church-Officers should be at the disposition of the State And the Oecumenical Bishop may upon as good grounds claim a power of enthroning Emperors as the other claim an Ecclesiastical power of setting a Head over the Church Christ having made Church and State Co-ordinate Lastly if Ecclesiastical Officers derive their power from Civil Authority as their visible Church-head sure the Vitals and the whole Animation must needs be Secular much like the Beast spoken of Rev. 13.4 § 7. Arg. 5. I argue from the chief ends of Subordination of Pastors in the Church It 's to redress Heresie or male Administration of discipline that there may be place for Appeals in case of Injustice determination of Controversies c. Now what end would there be of Appeals if there should not be some Pastor supream to all the rest from whom there could be no Appeal And it 's necessary there be still room for Appeal till a man comes to the Church in its greatest Vnity and Superiority and there is Mother-Church in her Grandeur Ecclesia in Cathedrâ if the resort be made for Appeal or resolution of difficult cases to the Church in her Pastoral multiplicity there will be such variety of Judgments and Interests that there will be no final determination but ye may hear the Catholick body speaking one thing in its Catholick Pastor and Head for if you will know a mans minde and determination of any thing you will go to the Head not to the Arms or Legs and what you have by Signes from them you know is by the influence of the Head So if we will know the minde of the Church in its ultimate Results and Determination you must not go to a Diocesan Primate c. of France c. England c. where you will have but a partial or weak resolution not having a Catholick Interest Intilligence Influence and Concernment but we must go to the Body speaking in the Head who hath a common Concern and Fellow-feeling with the least Finger or Toe complaining or appealing to it § 8. Hence see the reason why the attribute of Infallibility is ascribed to the Church thus speaking in its Head or Supream Pastor 1. Because of his universal Relation and Interest and therefore speaks infallibly the sense of the whole or of any particular part as the Head feels and cannot be deceived in declaring the pain of the Toe and can most infallibly of all the members prescribe a Remedy 2. It 's most probable that he that hath his authority by immediate conveyance from Jesus Christ should have also the most immediate discovery of his Minde and Will so that the infallibility of an Oecumenical Pastor is founded on the Principles of Episcopal government viz. subordination of Pastors in the Church for if in all our Appeals from Pastor to Pastor from Church to Church for determination in matters of controversie and resolution in points of weight and difficulty we do at last arrive at as fallible a Church and Pastor as at first to what purpose is all our Appeals And if it be granted that a Bishop is less fallible than a Parish-Priest and an Archbishop less fallible than a Bishop and a Primate than an Archbishop then upon this account onely it must be that he hath a greater share by his place in the common interest of the Body by the comprehensiveness of his power and relation and being farther removed by his dignity from particular small interests and private passions and therefore more likely to be more impartial universal and less fallible in his judgment than other his inferiour and more limited Pastors And Ergo upon the same reason it will follow that an Oecumenical Bishop is least of all fallible not but that St. Peter and his Successors may err and have but that as Supream Head in the most Catholick capacity he is comparatively to all
other Pastors subordinate infallible And it is the greatest reason that he that hath the greatest Charge should have the best understanding to know how to manage it And to what purpose is it for us to seek after further light by going to those that the Church hath further entrusted if they be not holier wiser and juster men than our selves yea than all their inferiour Officers And what is it we aim at most in such Enquiries is it Fallibility or Infallibility Would any one in his best wits be deceived and would the Church deceive any but use the best ways and means for enlightning mens Understandings and reducing them from darkness and errour § 9. Arg. 6. I argue from the nature of the Church in which this Subordination is required That Church must be understood to be the universal visible Church and not any particular Church 1. From the usual acceptation of Church in the like sence when we say The Church with an Emphasis 2. There is no more reason the Church should be understood of one kind of particular Church more than another a Provincial Church or Diocesan may be called the Church by way of eminency as well as the National and if there be more reason because the National is comprehensive of them then much more that the Catholick should be understood by it because it comprehends Nationals and is most comprehensive of all Churches on Earth So that it will unavoidably follow that if there be a Subordination of Pastors in the Church it is in the Catholick Church and the more large the Church is the more extensive is the power of the Pastor and the most comprehensive Church hath a supream Pastor to the Pastors of all other Churches subordinate to it Obj. But the universal Church Visible is not Organical and therefore not capable of an Oecumenical Pastor Answ It is Organical for it 's made up according to our present Phainomena of a Church of visible organized or organical parts comprehending each other and therefore must needs have a visible organical Head principium sensus motus animating all the parts in their respective Subordinations and Relations It 's absurd to say that the hand organized with fingers and joynts the feet with toes and all its parts and so of the other members that these united in one body make not up an organized body and have not one Head common to the totum to communicate respective vigor to each of these members So to say that in the Church there is National Churches organized c. so Provincial c. Diocesan organized and not that the universal Church visible is organized with and influenced by a visible Head is most absurd Again there is the same and greater reason upon the forementioned grounds for the Organization of the Catholick Church than for the organizing of a National Provincial or of any of the inferiour Subordinate Churches for if Order and Uniformity and due administration of Government cannot be maintained in one but by Organization how can they by any other means be obtained in the other And if Order Uniformity c. be not onely comely and beautiful but most necessary to the well-being of a National Church and that the more because it is so comprehensive of other Churches subordinated to it how much more requisite is it to the well-being of the Catholick Church which comprehends National and all others § 10. Arg. 7. That this Catholick Headship is inseparable from a co-ordination of Pastors in the Church may be evinced from these following Necessities 1. A necessity of a Catholick judgment of Schism 2. Of a Catholick interpretation of Scripture it being not of private interpretation 3. Of a Catholick determination of Decencies and Order 4. A Catholick composure of the Prayers of the Church 5. A Catholick Canonization of Saints 6. A Catholick convention or call of Oecumenical Councils § 11. The first Necessity is for a Catholick judgment of Schism for if it be not determined by a Catholick judgment these absurdities will follow 1. National Churches may be Schismatical and no competent judge of them it being not fit that one National Church should judge another they being co-ordinate equally concerned of equal authority latitude and fallibility Neither may a Provincial be judge of National Schism they being subordinate to the National and included in it for they are bound up in the determination of the National and is accountable to it and if it declares against the National as guilty of Schism and upon that account separates from it she shall be judged as Schismatical from the National and so Schism will be committed on Schism and none healed 2. If there be no Catholick determination of Schism there can be no Catholick punishment of Schism from the Catholick Church for the punishment must be preceded by a Law-determination And hence if a National Church be Schismatical from the Catholick it cannot receive any Catholick punishment and it will follow that such a sin may be committed in the Church on which she is not capable to inflict a punishment in any measure proportionate to it 3. If a National Church hath power to judge of the Schism of a Provincial Church and a Provincial Church of the Schism of a Diocesan and a Diocesan of the Schism of a Parochial then by the same reason may the Catholick Church judge of the Schism of a National Church otherwise Schisms will be equally multiplied with National Churches and no redress to be made of them 4. If there be not a Catholick determination of Schism all Churches will not be agreed about Schism so that whilst there is a perpetual controversie in the Church what Schism is and what is not Schism perpetually remains and false judgment still passed upon some Churches these calling that a Schismatical Church which is not so others owning another Church as not Schismatical which is really so All which tends to a necessary and unavoidable confusion for want of a Catholick determination whereas if it may determine by its visible Head all those Controversies would be ended for if the members of the Body complain one of another the whole Body must determine the matter by the Head where there is a concurrence of all parts for the good of the whole § 12. Secondly From the necessity of a Catholick determination of dubious places of Scripture This can be done by none but the Church Catholick on Earth for no Scripture being of private interpretation where shall such an interpretation be found that is not private but in such as is of the Catholick Church where the concurrent judgment and faith of all Churches may be heard 2 Pet. 1.20 the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of private Solution i. e. not of particular persons or Churches private Solution but such as is universal and commonly received by all Churches and Christians according to the analogy of faith Now where can this be found and rested in as
Catholick unless it be in the visible universal Head and if it be said that a National Church may positively determine in this kind then why not a Provincial as well the one being a subordinate Church as well as the other But if the Decree be onely National as many various interpretations and sences may be put on a place of Scripture as there are Nations which will lay an ample foundation for variety of Sects Schisms Heresies c. Whereas if all National Churches were bound to one Catholick determination there must needs therehence ensue the admirable effect of Uniformity in Doctrine and Practice all Churches believing as the Vniversal Church believes and that as the Head doth Besides if it be of such dangerous consequence for Christians as private persons to put their interpretation on Scripture in laying the foundation of variety of Sects Schisms Heresies c. how much more dangerous for particular Churches because the determination of a Church reacheth further and is more attended unto and more become seduced and leavened with errour thereby if it be erroneous Hence to believe as the Catholick Church believes hath more concern in it than those imagine that endeavour to blast it with the ridicle of the Colliers Faith for it 's not as the National Church believes but as the Catholick Church believes Neither is it an implicit Faith in any things but controversal and dubious matters above ordinary scrutiny and vulgar capacity and therein we had better rest satisfied in Catholick Authority than run the risk of adhering to the Opinion of private persons and Churches which must be done also by an implicite Faith and who is likely to have the most unerring Spirit a Church or particular Person and if a Church the most Catholick is the most unerring § 13. Thirdly From the Necessity of a Catholick determination of Decency and Order That is decent which by the Universality is reputed and judged so for one Countrey doth usually call that decent which others repute undecent And there are no Protestant Prelates but have do and will say That Christ hath left it to the Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order and 't is absurd to say that this or that Church may do it when no such is the Church eminently When 't is said the Church determines Decencies What Church is that Is it a Parish-Church Nay then Parish-Churches should rule Diocesan by a Law Again if Diocesan Churches should have power to determine their Decencies either Provincials must be subject to some one Diocesan which might regulate all the rest or else Diocesan Churches would differ so much in their decencies that there would be no Uniformity in the Provincial Church And if Provincials might determine each one its Decencies and Order it must needs break Vniformity in National Churches But I know where the Protestant Prelate will be he will say presently it 's the National Church that he means when he speaks of the Churches determination of Decency and Order To which I reply that he may with as good ground say that he means a Parish-Church and that by giving this power to a National Church he gives a greater advantage to Schism and lays a greater bar against Vniformity For the more comprehensive the Church is in which the Schism is the greater it is and the more uniform the Schismatical Church is of the more dangerous consequence it is to the Catholick Church In vain do men plead for Vniformity in the Church who in asserting the principles of Vniformity in a National Church do thereby extirpate Vniformity in the Catholick for National Vniformity unless it be Catholick is but Vniformity in a Schism For if every National Church may determine of Decency and Order there will be as great a diversity if not contrariety in several Churches affairs as in the affairs of several States one Nation determining that Ceremony to be decent which another determines to be undecent absurd and disorderly and so Churches will be as divers in their Fashions as English Dutch Spaniard c. And there will be no end of Ceremonies and new-fangled Garbs in the Church if a Nation may of themselves and when they will constitute ordain and appoint them at their pleasure alter and null old Ceremonies and invent new and shall have as great difficulty intricacy and multiplicity of Church-Laws as State-Laws if at every Convocation Decency and Order may be determined § 14. From the necessity of a Catholick composure of Church-Prayers the more private and singular the conception of Church-prayers are the more Schismatical And divers Liturgies in one and the same National Church may not be allowed neither that every Province and Diocess compose their own Liturgy as being a matter of dangerous consequence to the National Church How then comes it to pass that our National Church may compose its own Liturgy distinct from another Is not this of as dangerous consequence to the Catholick Church And is' t not more conducing to the Peace Beauty Uniformity and Honour of the Church to have a Catholick Liturgy Whereas otherwise every Nation will be setting up the price of their own prayers above others whence ariseth heart-burning Divisions and Schisms National in the Catholick Church were it not much better that all Nations should bring their Liturgies and lay them down at the feet of Mother-Church and submit them to her Judgment in the Supreme Head from whose blessed hands she may receive one of such Catholick composure that might produce a perfect Harmony in the affections and petitions of all the Churches in the world in good assurance of a Catholick Amen attending the conclusion of all Besides if a National prayer be more available than a Provincial or Diocesan Why should not a Catholick Church-prayer be most of all available § 15. Fifthly The necessity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints For supposing the Necessity of the Observation of Saints days as the Protestant Prelates zealously assert it is requisite to enquire who or what Church Canonized the Saints which are already honoured with Saintship Titular and Days devoted to their remembrance and who dedicated and consecrated Churches on the same account was it not the Catholick Church by her Catholick Pastors If every Church suppose National should have the like liberty to canonize Saints at their pleasure all the days in the Year yea in an Age would be little enough for All Hollan-tide And if the observation must be Anniversary there would be a necessity of robbing Peter to pay Paul which would be doing evil that good may come of it it being as great a sin to rob Peter of his fishing-nets as to rob Paul of his cloak and parchments Besides this Absurdity would fall in that one Nation would canonize that for a Saint which another would anathematize to the Devil As for Example Michaelmas-day is devoted to St. Michael the Archangel which Feast was instituted by Felix the Third the 48th Oecumenical
Bishop Now the Church of England hath presumed to alter this Title and Institution making it a Festival to St. Michael and all Angels which hath these gross Absurdities in it 1. That St. Michael is greatly detracted from in that all other Angels are introduced as sharers in the Solemnity of the day and all Angels may be understood of Bad as well as Good so that the Devils hereby become Canonized Saints Now whereas it may be alledged that there be some Saints-days not of Catholick Observation but only National as St. Denis for France St. George for England St. Taffy or Wales and St. Patrick for Ireland it bears no weight against us for the Canonization is Catholick and questionless the Observation ought to be so also though there is a more peculiar and more proper Remembrance and Honour due from those Nations to which the Saints are appropriate which peculiar Homage is enjoyn'd by the Church catholick Moreover it is meet that so solemn a matter should be ratified by Catholick Authority as the canonizing a Saint and instituting a Festival day to be sacred to his Remembrance because the Catholick Church as she will be most impartial and wise in such appointments so her Authority will make deeper impressions on the minds of men to oblige them to the consciencious observance whereas particular Nations are liable to Errour and Partiality each one being apt to be byassed by proper Interests and to prefer the products of their own Soyl. Besides the gross Schism that it causeth in the Catholick Church dividing the Churches in their Prayers at the same time when one Nation shall observe that day to one Saint and another to another and a third to none at all Whereas nothing is more honourable and necessary than Vniformity in this kinde That as all say the same Prayers they should do it at the same Hours canonically appointed use the same Ceremonies observe the same Holidays and such as are Anniversary should at least be of Catholick Appointment And though some Saint-days are more appropriate to one Nation than to another by reason of the relation of this or that Saint to this or that Nation in particular by Nativity by Heroick Actions or Meritorious Sufferings therein yet is it not meet that all Churches should rejoyce and keep Holy-day with one that rejoyceth If the Rule of rejoycing with them that rejoyce reach particular Christians then much more Churches And how can an Englishman but be mightily ravished with an holy Sympathy to see a Welshman zealously affected with the honour of St. Taffy strutting up and down with a green feather in his Cap can he forbear the plucking up all the Leeks in his Garden and calling all the Fidlers in the Town about him And is it not fit that St. Thomas à Becket's day should be honourably observed by all other Churches as well as England who engaged in and suffered for the common Catholick Cause opposed in this Church If the Devoted day be peculiar to a Nation as an Anniversary Memorial of some great Deliverance supposed it 's fit it should have its Sanction from the Catholick Church otherwise National Churches may run into absurd and Schismatical Observation of days under such pretences to the great Scandal and Injury of the Catholick Church as for instance the Fifth of November a day Annually observed by a National Church to the great Scandal and Blemish of the Catholick Church and Oecumenical Pastor in the sence of the Romanists § 16. But some I hear will be ready to say in order to these necessary establishments there will be no need of a Catholick Pastor they may be done well enough by Oecumenical Councils To which I reply That then the Church acteth not as a Body Politick subordinately knit together but as totum aggregatum or as an Assembly of Independent Pastors by way of Association whence many Absurdities will follow 1. That all the convened Pastors of what Order or Degree soever are co-ordinate at least in the power pleaded for and a Primate or Patriarch's Vote is no more than a Diocesan's 2. That the Church in the utmost resolution of its power is but Aristocratical which undermines Episcopal Principles 3. If because matters of greatest concern in the Catholick Church are managed by an Oecumenical Council therefore there needs no Oecumenical Pastor then by the same reason all matters of the greatest concern in a National Church being handled in a National Synod there should be no need or use of a Primate and sic deinceps to Provinces and Diocesses and so all Church-power would consequently become co-ordinate in the hands of particular Pastors 4. What course could be taken in the Intervals of Councils for the Churches Government in its Catholick state 5. Divisions and Schisms have and will follow hereupon in the Church for suppose the Council be equally divided in their voting about Scripture Interpretation Tradition Ceremonies or Decencies who shall determine in such case 6. Suppose the lesser part divide from and declare against the greater and its proceedings What Supreme Power is there Authoritatively to conclude them Ecclesiastically to admonish and reduce the Erring part 7. Oecumenical Councils cannot easily and presently be convened in case of emergent Church-difficulties as in the sudden Defection of a National Church or Pastor to Schism or Heresie in the starting up of new Sects Canonization of new Saints c. An Errour may spread itself soon over a whole Nation before such a Council can be called and any remedy applied 8. It is needful every Church do exercise its power in an unity and not in a multiplicity therefore there are National Provincial and Diocesan Pastors Therefore there should be a Catholick Pastor to the Church catholick for the avoiding the like Rocks and Precipices that other Churches would split upon if they had not their particular Heads and Pastors § 17. Sixthly We argue from the Necessity of calling and convening of Ecclesiastical Councils In whose power is it to call an Oecumenical Council if there be no Oecumenical Pastor in the Church For first the Assemblies of every Church are to be convened only by the Pastor of the said Church as in a Diocess Who can authoritatively convene the Clergy but the Bishop of the Diocess In a Province Who can convene the Diocesan Bishops but the Archbishop In a Nation Who hath power Ecclesiastically to convene a National Synod besides the Metropolitan or Patriarch so in the Catholick Church who hath power Ecclesiastically to convene an Oecumenicul Council but the Oecumenical Pastor It being a Pastoral charge to convene or dismiss Church-Assemblies and it is done by an Office-power Object Supreme Magistrates may call Oecumenical Councils Answ They cannot by any Ecclesiastical Right for considered as such they cannot exercise any Pastoral Office And an Oecumenical Council being the most eminent Church-Assembly it is not to be convened in a more irregular or exotick way than the inferiour Assemblies of
not onely to the power of Godliness but to common Honesty and Morality 2. If it had been Political Wisdom or Justice to annex such Penalties to Ecclesiastical Laws of any kind sure Christ in whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom would not have been wanting in annexing Penalties of that kind to his own Laws of the greatest and weightiest concern to his Church 3. We judge of the greatness and weighty concern of any Law usually by the greatness of the Penalty annexed in case of transgression and therefore herein we may apprehend that the Churches own Laws challengeth a preheminency before the Laws of Christ's own composure and would this King of kings make onely Laws of lesser concern and substitute others to make the greater this is absurd to believe 4. It is a great piece of pride in Mother-Church to advance her self so far above the Civil State that the Magistrate should become the Executioner of her Laws for the Law-maker hath always a great priority and dignity above the Executioner If it be replied That the Church onely craves the Magistrates assistance to compleat her Ecclesiastical censures and make them stick closer on upon the backs of Offenders Answ Herein the Church bewrays her own weakness in that she confesseth she is not a compleat Polity neither hath power enough to reform her self or effectually enough to execute her own Laws without being beholding to an Exotick power As if a Master of a Family had not power enough to execute Domestick Laws in correcting a Child or Servant without asking his neighbours leave and calling for his assistance But in case the Church saith as indeed she doth that she goeth to the civil Magistrate by way of Appeal and the said Magistrate hath power at his pleasure to supersede her proceedings This is to set the State above the Church in Ecclesiasticks whereas the civil State is Subordinate to the Ecclesiastick ecclesiastically and the Ecclesiastical to the Civil civilly and both in respect of the exercise of Jurisdiction in each particular Orb parallel or co-ordinate § 9. Lastly such Penalties that cannot answer the natural end and designe of Church-censures may not be annexed or used by the Church but such a Penalty answers not c. The Major is undoubted the Minor thus appears 1. Because the Sword of the Magistrate reacheth but the outward man whereas the end of Church-censures is to reach the Conscience 2. The natural use of Church-censures is the exercise of them in foro Ecclesiae but the Coercive power of the Magistrate may not be exercised in foro Ecclesiae upon any allowable pretence whatsoever CHAP. XVII Of the Limits of Magistratical Power in matters of Religion § 1. THe third Enquiry propounded is concerning the true bounds and limits of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion a great and difficult Question but of very great concern to us that it be rightly resolved I do not expect to be so happy as to give others full satisfaction in it I being not able to do it to my self so far as I would I shall onely go as far as I can and is convenient for this undertaking with all possible brevity and demonstration We spake before in the two former Questions concerning the Magistrates power in matters of Indifferency both Legislative and Executive on the behalf of the Church This Question is of larger extent concerning his whole power in matters of Religion and enquire how far he may and ought to go and how far he may not go i. e. he cannot go without Usurpation § 2. Matters of Religion is a large word and it comprehends not onely Religion it self but all circumstances and attendances thereof which are Indifferencies in themselves neither moraly good or evil but in regard of their tendency and respect they are so Concerning the Magistrates Legislative power in these things we have spoken somewhat already I shall speak no more here of the nature of Religion than to make way for my present Undertaking Religion is usually understood to comprehend all moral Duties and all instituted Worship to which if we adde the aforesaid attending circumstances we use a larger way of expression and call them matters of Religion § 3. The Moral Law is a general standing Rule to all sorts of Actions Persons and Societies of the children of men whereby God himself hath challenged the first right of dominion as of particular men so of all necessary Fabricks of Rule and Government in the world So that all Actions Persons and Societies duely measured and squared thereby are rightly called Religious and the contrary Irreligious Hence particular Domestick Ecclesiastick and Civil Jurisdictions in a Christian Commonwealth are in proper sence called all of them Religious § 4. Religion taken in a stricter and more limited sence is understood of a holy life and conversation of particular Persons and Societies not onely according to the general Rules of moral Obedience but according to the more particular and special appointments and Gospel-institutions of our Lord Jesus Christ whereby he separates unto himself the most choice and peculiar Societies in the world under his proper and more immediate Rule and Government which are called his Church § 5. Therefore 1. The civil Christian Magistrate hath no power in the strict sence in matters of Religion quatenus Magistrate no more than a Heathen hath for though the embracing the Christian Religion doth much capacitate the civil Magistrate as to his inclinations and endeavours for the improvement of his Magistratical power toward the advantage of Religion yet it adds no new power or jurisdiction to him over Churches Families Christians or others for a Heathen Magistrate is as much in his place the supream Head and Governmnour of the Church considered in a civil capacity under his Government as the most Faith-defending Christian or Catholick Prince in the world Neither by his embracing Christianity doth he attain any augmentation of his Magistratical Power Headship or Supremacy A Christian is no more bound as a Subject by the Rules of the Gospel to a Christian Magistrate than to a Heathen or Heretical Magistrate The Rules are indefinite to a Magistrate as such though a Christian Subject will be the better man and Subject and a Christian Magistrate the better man and Magistrate Christianity making every one the better man and better qualified for the performance of the relative Duty of his place that he is set in § 6. Secondly No civil Magistrate can be an Ecclesiastical Head and Governour of the Church as such It 's Christ's Prerogative to be the Supream and to constitute what other Heads and Governours he in his wisdom thinks best But I finde not that he ever made any Magistrate a constitutive Ecclesiastical Head or Governour to his Church virtute Officii for if so in every Christian Dominion the Prince should be the Metropolitan and the true Pastor to that National Church § 7. Thirdly No civil Magistrate can by virtue of
3. He never ordained that force of Arms and Penal Laws should be the way of propagating his Faith 4. Forced Faith is neither pleasing to Christ nor profitable to us for indeed it 's no Faith at all A force may lay hold of the Outward man but it cannot make the Understanding to believe that which it sees no reason for to believe no more than the Senses in the natural state can be forced to own things to be contrary Objects as the Eye to own white to be black the Taste to own that for sweet which is bitter c. § 15. Eighthly No civil Magistrate can impose a form of the Worship of God by a Penal Law 1. Because he cannot receive into the Church nor cast out of it at his pleasure 2. If he could then the Subjects form of Worship must be such as the Magistrates for if it be justifiable in one Magistrate to enforce his Subjects to a form of divine Worship because he thinks it best then it 's justifiable in another If the Episcopal Magistrate may jure enforce his form of divine Worship then the Popish Magistrate may enforce his form and the Presbyterian Magistrate his form and an Anabaptist his form and every form must become lawful and necessary to be practised because the civil Magistrate commands it for we must not suppose any one Magistrate as such to be more infallible than another and so upon every change of the supream Magistrate of a differing Perswasion the Peace and Consciences of the most religious people must be wracked and torn in pieces Again it 's the most irrational thing in the world to force a man to serve his God in such a way as he conscientiously judgeth or supposeth to be displeasing unto him Likewise if the form of Worship imposed by the Magistrate be pleasing to Christ his imposition cannot because there cannot be a readier way to the prophanation of the holiest things than to force them to come to them that are not onely wicked and prophane in their lives and corrupt in their hearts but such as are professed Enemies unto them and would have nothing to do with them but to save themselves from the smart of Penal Laws and the best of such persons that make a more plausible compliance can be no Better than Hypocrites that the Law being removed their Religion would be dissolved § 16. Ninthly As the civil Magistrate cannot enforce his Subjects to Particular forms of real or supposed instituted Worship so he cannot enforce them to positive acts of moral divine Worship As 1. We finde no Precept or Example for forcing a poor Pagan to the Worship of the true God and for whipping imprisoning or any other way afflicting his carcase by a Penal Law because of his not worshipping the true God To punish a poor Jew till he would acknowledge Christ and worship him would seem hard 2. And among such as do own the true God the Magistrate cannot punish omissions or refusals of acts of positive Worship As for instance in Prayer the Magistrate cannot enforce a man to pray to his God and punish him for not doing it These are things though sins and that of the highest rank yet such as God intended the Sword of civil Justice should never reach There is in every Command of God a prohibiting and prescribing part The sins against the prohibiting part is the doing some act forbidden by the Moral Law and here usually is the place for the execution of a Penalty by the hands of humane Justice Punishable sins by man are commonly acts of Commission and such acts must be apparent not secret brought before the Judge per allegata probata and they are usually criminal direct breaches not consequential dubious and small I know there lies an Objection against this which is That a Father may correct a childe for not doing his command and so a Master a servant Answ It 's granted and so will God punish the children of men for all omissions of their duty He that knew his masters will and did it not should be beaten with many stripes Then there is a great difference between the constitution of a State-government and of a Family-government In a Family a Father being a natural Relation hath so far as his power goes a more Arbitrary way for the management of it as he can correct his childe upon his mere suspicions of evil in him or refusal of good without positive proof so for omissions in not doing his duty and so for servants the reason is because it 's supposed children and servants are under tutorage as well as bare government and therefore must be kept up to positive acts of duty being under education of Parents and Masters But it 's not so with Subjects they are subjected to a Magistrate for another end viz. in order to the maintaining the due execution of Commutative Justice and in case of the failure thereof of distributive and all things are to be brought before the Magistrate by evidence of matter of mere fact and accessories thereunto God hath not required that Laws should be so distinct and express in a Family as in a State the government of a Family being for the most part discretionary if an eye be had chiefly to the general Rules of God's Word though Omissions of some kind come under the cognizance of the Magistrate it 's principally in cases of commutative Justice when such Omissions are injurious to our Neighbours right but those are not reckoned criminals § 17. Having had some short view of what we judge upon good grounds comes not under his inspection as a Magistrate we would consider a little in the next place how far a Magistrate may go in using his Magistratick Sword in matters of Religion We have shewed that matters of Religion taken in a more limited sence of Faith and instituted Worship in the Church of Christ are not within the circumference of the Magistrates Penal Laws But if we understand matters of Religion in a larger sence then we mean that all States and Societies of men ought in a Christian Commonwealth to be religious i. e. the Moral Rules of Justice should be the foundation of all Justice administred in the Church Civil State and Family and each of them ought to have a main respect to every branch of the Moral Law and adjudge the breaches thereof to be sin and each Polity to punish it according to its merit so far as is allowed by the Charter of Jurisdiction from the Lord Jesus Christ Exemp gra Suppose Theft be the sin the Parent can correct his child with the Rod the Church punish him with a Censure and the State by some Corporal Exemplary suffering Though the Transgression be the same and justly punishable in all yet the punishment is not of the same kinde but various under the different Jurisdictions § 18. We say then if religious matters be understood of that moral goodness fundamentally necessary to
any bondage that she is freed from by Christ she being not a competent Judge of her own bondage or freedom The Church of the Jews were not so for they are condemned by the Spirit of God for not laying aside that bondage to ceremonies which Christ would have eased them of Hence in judgment her Ear is bored and she is become a professed Vassal thereto until the time of the fulness of the Gentiles and would account it her greatest felicity might she but have opportunity to return to the full enjoyment and exercise of the old obsolete Rites of the ceremonial Law Hence nothing can be a more unquestionable truth than that a Gospel-Church may not return her self or members to a subjection to a ceremonial Yoke for 1. If a Christian or Church may return to one Yoke that Christ hath redeemed them from then as well to another if to that of a ceremonial Law then to that of the covenant of Works also 2. Again if they may return to bondage then they may stay in bondage as the Jews did for both ways Christ equally profits them nothing as a Redeemer profits not a Slave that will remain a captive or return into it 3. There 's nothing can be more displeasing to a Redeemer than so to overthrow his whole designe of redemption § 3. That Christ hath freed his Churches and Christians from ceremonies as a yoke of bondage viz. from all not instituted and ratified by himself I thus prove 1. If Christ hath not freed the Church of the New Testament from all ceremonies besides his own the condition of the Gospel-church would be much worse than the Mosaical whose bondage was under a Law of ceremonies of God's own promulgation and sure if a Christian must be under the plague of ceremonies it is far better to fall into the hands of God than Man and the Jewish Church must needs be more happy than the Christian who lie at the mercy of mens vain Imaginations and tyrannical Will It was known to them of the Old Testament how great their burden was though prescribed by God and circumscribed exactly as to the latitude and extent and bulk of them so that they could not easily be imposed upon by man and yet we see they could not escape the Traditions of the Elders and superstitious Observations of the Pharisees But what a miserable condition are Churches of the New Testament in who are so liable to so heavie and intolerable a bulk of ceremonies without bounds or measure arbitrarily to be increased by men of corrupt minds and interest calling themselves the Church and were there a tythe of the ceremonies in the Jewish Church of what is in the Romish which the Papists have accumulated upon this ground And Christ hath given leave to the Church under the Gospel to devise and impose what ceremonies she in her wisdom thinks meet 2. Unless Christ hath freed the Gospel-church from ceremonial bondage how is the Gospel-church the free Woman Was not the bondage-state of the Jewish Church very much yea most in this respect But is not the Gospel-church in far greater servitude for the Jews were in bondage to God's ceremonies the Christian to mans And if Christ allows us not to return to ceremonial bondage of God's imposition sure he allows us not a return unto such of mans phanatick devising and merciless imposition 3. To be in bondage under ceremonies for divine Worship is to be in bondage under the Elements of the world but the Gospel-church is delivered by Christ from bondage to the Elements of the world Gal. 4.3.9 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elements or Principles of the world Coloss 2.8 they are described to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the tradition of men and vers 20. they are those that Christ hath redeemed us from and weak and beggarly Gal. 4.9 and if the ceremonies of the Jews once instituted by God himself were such how much more are the ceremonious Relicts of heathenish Idolatry or any other that are products of mens Brains and corrupt Wills What poor wretched and abominably beggarly things are they for the members of Christ to be enslaved to What pitiful Ornaments are old rotten Hangings to put up in Christ's house that excellent Fabrick of his own building If they I say Jewish were worldly much more those which are originally from the world of worldly contrivance and interest for all such must be of God or the world but they are not from God either immediately or mediately not immediately because not instituted by him not mediately because he never deputed any authority to institute them Ergo of the world Hence the Church and Christians should be dead with Christ to the Rudiments of the world and not live in the world subject to such Elements Col. 2.20 c. 4. The ceremonies spoken of Gal. 4. 5. which the Galatians returned to were but humane commandments though Jewish for they ceased now to be commanded of God yea were forbidden by him and all the Sanction which now they had was from man And the Apostle doth convincingly prove the unlawfulness of Resanction of Jewish ceremonies by doing of which he doth sufficiently cast down all humanely-instituted ceremonies in divine Worship and by the Prelates practice many Jewish ceremonies as Musick Altars Ephods c. are not onely lawful as things indifferent but required as things not to be dispensed with therefore necessary 5. Christ hath freed his Church and Members from being servants unto men in the Worship of God Ergo from humane ceremonial Laws That place 1 Cor. 7.23 must be understood of servitude unto men in an Ecclesiastical or at least Religious sence for he saith Let every man abide in the Calling wherein he is called servants in obedience to their Masters children to their Parents subjects to their governours c. For the Corinths thought that there was a necessity on their conversion to alter their Callings which they had before as if a man were called being a servant to be a Christian that thereby he became his brother and ought not any longer to ow◠him as Master But the Apostle clears up this doubt and saith Thou being a servant do not think thy relation to thy Master is dissolved ever the more because of thy conversion thou art as much a servant as before and therefore he saith being called do not presently renounce thy relation and refuse subjection to thy Master upon pretence that thou art Christ's freeman but abide in the place of a servant as before thou art nevertheless God's freeman thy Conscience free for God's Worship to serve him according to his revealed Will and therefore in this kind be not a servant to men or any sort of men though thou mayst lawfully remain a Family-servant yet be not a Conscience-vassal unto any men § 4. Arg. 2. If it be lawful for the Church or other power to enact and impose Laws for Ceremonies whereby Churches and