from the Crisis or Conclusion and 't is either just or unjust Just when it denounceth Sentence according to the true intent of the Law and the true nature of the Fact whereby it proves to be justly peaceable or justly troublesome and tormenting to us and when it acquits is pacatè bona Or it is Vnjust when the Sentence is pronounced otherwise than the premises do require and when it thus acquits it 's pacatè mala And when it thus condemns leading many to the very brink of Despair it is Iniquè crudeliter mala The former is often a bribed Conscience captivated and carried away with the favour of some base beloved Lust and Affection and a brutish blind heathenish Conscience Jud. 10.2 Pet. 2.12 Joh. 8.44 Or a judicially seared Conscience such as is spoken of 1 Tim. 4.10 If it be iniquè mala injuriously and cruelly evil it will condemn where Christ hath acquitted and this usually from too much embondagement to the Law which may be for a time in Saints and true Believers and is called the Spirit of bondage Rom. 8. A just peaceable Conscience makes a happy man A just tormenting or condemning Conscience makes a miserable man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. The greatest Pleasure he hath got That on his Conscience hath no spot What sore disease Orestes thee hath prest It 's wounded Conscience sure within thy brest CHAP. VI. Concerning the Dominion of Conscience THus far of the nature of Conscience next of the Dominion and Regiment who it is that hath the immediate Rule and Government of it I shall shew therefore that the Government of Conscience is the peculiar prerogative of God alone and that 't is Usurpation for any to enter into that Jurisdiction and the highest presumption to attempt it it belonging to none other by right nor possible for any other to attain There being none able effectually to enjoyn Conscience to do its duty in making judicial trials of our persons and actions but God alone If at any time Satan or humane Authority set Conscience on work it 's in nomine Dei sub praetextu divinae Authoritatis And all humane Laws conscientiously obeyed are obeyed for the Lords sake such obedience being commanded of God § 2. That it's Gods onely Prerogative to rule in Conscience doth appear by many reasons 1. God onely knows the Heart and Conscience and therefore is onely able to give a Law to it and rule in it if the one be his prerogative above men and Angels the other must be also 2. It 's in Gods power onely to inflict punishment on Conscience in case of transgression Men may punish the outward man but cannot touch the inward man Conscience is not within the reach of his stroak and they pretend in vain to a power of Law-making who cannot execute it on the Subject for whom it is made 3. The Conscience is accountable to none but God it being his immediate Substitute in man he is Creator of it and he never subjected it to any Law but for his sake all sin as such is against God and no trangression of humane Law becomes morally a sin but by its relation some way or other to Gods Law by vertue of some of his general or particular Precepts or Commissions 4. There is nothing but the most universal or chiefest good or evil can oblige Conscience to Obedience or deter from Disobedience which none can make us partakers of or sufferers under but God alone Mens Stipitulations are never more than temporal Rewards and Punishments these Conscience doth not will not it 's not in the nature of it to stoop to them The concerns of Conscience are principally fixed on the Spiritual and Eternal Estate which none but the God of Spirits can bereave it of Again as God onely can lay down the first Rules of Truth and Errour to the Understanding so he determines good and evil as a rule of the Will and limitation of man in his Election suitable to the nature of a free Agent having an arbitrary Power over the Arbitrium of mans will as well as over other things For as he hath created the Will so he hath determinated the Object that is most adequate to it and not onely in genere boni but in specie moralis boni Ergo God is the proper and immediate Ruler of the Understanding and Will of man in genere morali Likewise no trangression of the Laws of man brings any truely-enlightned Conscience under guilt without consulting the Minde and Will of God A Childes not doing a Parents command is not a sin as such neither will it lay the Conscience under guilt any farther than it is a transgression of Gods Law i. e. disobedience to them in those things that God hath enjoyned obedience in Childrens obedience to Parents is in the Lord so Subjects to Magistates for both Parents and Magistrates do sometimes command such things that it 's a virtue and not a vice in Children or Subjects not to obey so that their refusal be accompanied with all submission reverence and modesty towards their Superiours No man hath a moral Legislative power over another but all men in respect of moral Laws at least fundamentally understood are liable and subject to the same King and Governour and to his Tribunal will every Conscience appeal before it will lie under true guilt whatever the judgement of man is And though men may torment or kill the outward man and vex the Spirits because of temporal Sufferings yet the Conscience will stand or fall onely by the Judgement of God I may adde also upon what authority we receive a truth of a Spiritual nature so as to believe it by the same authority onely shall we suffer if we disobey it but Conscience believes no spiritual truth but upon Gods authority Ergo it's by his authority onely that we shall suffer in Conscience and this is the reason that when men would impose their usurpations they still bring a blinde along with them viz. a pretence to God's Authority Thus the Pope and his imitators in spiritual things as also Secular Powers will endeavour by casting a noose upon Conscience as it stands in relation unto God to make it serve their politick and carnal ends by tying men up by Oaths indefinite to all their lawless Laws and Constitutions in Church and State Lastly by the same authority and no other by which men shall be judged at last by the same is Conscience ruled now Those that shall be judged by the Light of Nature have God ruling and judging in them by the Light of Nature onely so those that shall be judged by the written Law and by the Gospel of Jesus Christ § 3. Now lest there should be any mistake of our true meaning about this Dominion of Conscience let us take notice of a few distinctions concerning Conscience Conscience is to be
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-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
Legislative Power Chap. 5. Concerning the nature of Conscience Chap. 6. Concerning the dominion of Conscience Chap. 7. Of the strong and weak Christian Chap. 8. Of Scandals and their natures Chap. 9. Of Necessities and Indifferencies Chap. 10. Certain Propositions concerning Necessities and Indifferencies Chap. 11. Of Christian Liberty Chap. 12. The first Question handled about things indifferent Chap. 13. Of the Power of the Church in things indifferent Chap. 14. A Digression concerning Subordination of Pastors in the Church Chap. 15. Of Magistrates power in matters of Religion Chap. 16. Of the use of the Magistrates Sword in the execution of Ecclesiastical Justice Chap. 17. Of the limits of the Magistratical power in matters of Religion Chap. 18. Of a Christians duty in case of humane Laws in matters religiously indifferent Chap. 19. Of Humane Constitutions in the Worship of God besides the Word Chap. 20. Of the united Power Legislative of Church and State Chap. 21. Of Decency and Order Chap. 22. Of Imposition of Ceremonies Chap. 23. Of Obligation to a Form of Prayer ERRATA PAge 12. line 3. for when he by his Law read when man by his Law P. 13. l 3. for immediately r. mediately Ibid. l. 30. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. l. 31. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 24. l. 9. for obedience r. such obedience Ibid. l. 26. for Masters r. Master P. 25. l. 37. dele The in the most certainly P. 35. l. 13. dele They. P. 36. l. 4. for our r. your P. 44. l. for just and equal r. justly charged P. 45. l. 3. dele thereof P. 48. l. 20. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 53. l. 27. for duty r. guilt Ibid. l. 12. for in religious service r. religious service P. 85. l. 24. for c. r. and. Ibid. l. 39. for Co-ordination r. Subordination P. 88. l. 35. for Nation r. Nations P. 93. l. 8. for by Assemblies r. assembled P. 100. l. 21. r. unlawful in the Worship of God P. 112. l. 33 dele therefore that P. 114. l. 16. r. and sound in his principles P. 125. l. 19. r. of what hath been said is Ibid. l. ult for consequentially r. consequential P. 128. l. 11. for thught r. taught P. 140. l. 2. for and Christ hath r. and hath Christ P. 152. l. 17. for prophane use of them r. prophane manner CHAP. I. Of the Twofold Jurisdiction which a Christian by the Law of Christ is subjected unto § 1. THat there is such a thing as Christian Liberty none pretending to a true information in the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ I suppose will deny neither need I make it my present task for to prove But the great Contest for many Ages hath been about the true Nature and Extent of this Liberty Some stretching the bounds thereof larger than Christ ever did intrenching on Civil and Moral Laws opening thereby a gap to Licentiousness and the violation of the bonds of Humane Societies in Magistratical Rule and Government Others curtalizing and abridging the said Liberty not allowing it those lawful extents allotted thereto by Christ audaciously depriving his poor Members of many Gospel-Priviledges and Advantages granted them by Charter from the Supreme King and Lawgiver Civil and Antichristian Powers still making it their business to spy out this Liberty and their great designe to bring them into Bondage § 2. Calvin observes Duplex esse Regimen in Homine alterum Spirituale quo Conscientia ad pietatem cultum divinum instituitur alterum Politicum quo ad Humanitatis Civilitatis officia quae inter homines servanda sunt homo eruditur Jurisdictio Spiritualis Temporalis i. e. There is in Man a twofold Government the one Spiritual whereby the Conscience is instructed unto Piety and the Worship of God The other Political whereby a man is taught the Duties of Humanity and Civility which are to be observed between man and man a spiritual Jurisdiction and a temporal Which Observation hath Moral foundation and an Evangelical ratification the whole of a Christian being comprehended under these two Heads of Duty charged upon us by the Old and New Testament towards God and towards our Neighbour On the first of which Christ hath by his peculiar Legislative Power over his Church established the whole Oeconomy thereof On the latter he hath chiefly raised the edifices of Civil States and Humane Societies where he hath allowed a latitude of Legislative Power unto the Sons of men as unto his Delegates and Substitutes in earthly Rule and Government Unto both of these Jurisdictions he hath laid on man a firm Obligation by planting his Moral Light in Conscience so that he cannot start from either of these Duties without starting from himself as our first Parents did in their Transgression and all others in putting forth the poyson of that original blot in actual sins of Omission or Commission all which are but irregularities or nonconformities to this Moral obligation laid on Conscience either manifestly so or easily reducible thereunto For whatever is a trespass against the revealed Will of God for Duty in Moral Obedience or instituted Worship is a sin not but that Instituted Worship is fundamentally Moral Obedience but is therefore in some sense distinguished from it the serving of God according to his own appointment being the principal part of the Moral Law because God hath according to the several states of his Church altered the mode and manner of his Worship as he hath thought it best in his Wisdom and as hath bin most suitable to the several ages and states of his Church which alterable or altered Circumstances being the product of Christ's Prerogative alone are called his Instituted Worship § 3. Hence both these Jurisdictions are Primarily and Morally subjected to the King of Kings he orders disposeth of and rules in the Kingdoms of men as well as in his Church and hearts of men yea by ruling Heart and Conscience as well as by disposing Providence he rules Civil States and subordinate Societies but the manifest difference is here that God's political Rule in the Kingdoms of the Earth and humane States is more remote and mediate but that of Church and Conscience being Spiritual is more proximate and immediate He only gives general Laws to Civil Societies and leaves a limited Legislative Power as to particular collateral and incident cases to humane Governours substituted providentially by him To these he leaves the immediate administration of Rule and Government as to an Executive Power altogether and as to a Legislative Power in a great measure but hath reserved the immediate administration of Rule in his Spiritual Dominions to himself alone as to Legislation in his Church and both Legislation and Execution as to Conscience § 4. These two Modes or Degrees of Administration must not be confounded together Man must have no greater share in Rule and Government than
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-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
Transgressions falling under the cognizance of both States though under divers respects but a Man is not ea ratione to be punished by the Magistrate because censured by the Church nor vice versa 3. Hence we assert That the Civil Magistrate cannot punish any Ecclesiastically virtute Officii neither doth any one meerly upon that account deserve a punishment from the Magistrate because he is apprehended to remain under a Church-censure neither can the Church Appoint or Depute the Magistrate to use his Coercive power to reduce any one to Ecclesiastical obedience § 2. The Question on supposition that the Church will presume to take on her the enacting and executing more Laws than ever Christ did or impowred her to do hath two parts 1. That in execution of Ecclesiastical Justice of Christ's own Institution it is not agreeable to Christ's mind and will that she should use the Magistrates Sword 2. That the Church is not to use it in requiring her own Laws I prove the first as follows § 3. Arg. 1. Christ hath not annexed any Corporal punishments or Pecuniary Mulcts to his Laws which he hath enacted for the due governance of his Church if he hath let the Asserters shew where our Saviours Law is If thy Brother offend tell of it privately if he hear not thee take two or three more and admonish him if he bear not them tell the Church if he bear not the Church let him be as a Heathen and as a Publican unto thee i. e. in respect of Christian Communion and Society and this is called by the Apostle the delivering up unto Satan there being but two sorts of Communions in the world in this fence in the Church and out in the Church is in Christs Kingdom out of the Church is Satans and when he is cast out of the visible Society of the Saints it 's for the humbling of him and bringing him to godly sorrow and Repentance which is called there by the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. the destruction of the flesh But here is no farther degree of punishment this being the highest the Church is capable of executing he says not If he comes not in and submits in so many days let the Pastor certifie to the Secular Powers and let them seize his Body and Imprison it or his Estate and Confiscate it This is a new way of bringing Men into Gospel-Repentance for Church-Offences which Christ and his Apostles never practised or prescribed Will the Assertors say that the meaning of delivery of an Offender to Satan is the delivery of him to the Magistrate to be punished this were to cast a great odium on Civil Government as if the Spirit of God did there represent the Magistrate under so contemptible a Character 2. It were to conclude that Church-Members were not under the Magistrates power to punish them for any Offences till they were delivered up by the Church thereunto and therefore that he cannot take immediate cognizance of his Subjects Offences so fat as concerns Moral or Civil Justice but must proceed still according to the Churches appointment and determination 3. That the Church hath a binding or loosing hand on the Magistrates Sword to draw it out or put it up at her pleasure and the Magistrate should be Armor-bearer to the Church § 4. If Christ had annexed any such penalties to his Ecclesiastical Laws he had left his Church very lame in its Polity for in most Ages it hath been Hated Persecuted and Maligned by Civil Powers under whom it hath Militated and the point of the Magistrates Sword hath been turned against her and not the Hilt put into her hand now in such a state how should the poor Church obtain the said Sword to cut off a perishing Member and how should she be able to execute any Censure effectually according to Christ's Law if there be such a penalty annexed which no Church of Christ in some Ages hath been in the least capacity of executing If the Church were in capacity of doing it it must be capacitated from within or from without if from within then Christ hath empowered it with a Magistratical authority and every Church as such may use it and if so she must shew Christ's Commission for it And if she pretend to it it 's a question whether Civil States will allow it she had need have good power and strength to maintain it as the Pope hath And where the challenge of such Right hath been made hath it not always been the occasion of the greatest Civil Broils in Kingdoms and States through Christendom And if it should be made under Heathen States and such Churches should presume to inflict corporal Punishments or pecuniary Mulcts on offending Brethren they must certainly expect the loss of any Liberties they do enjoy and be adjudged for Sedition Treason and Usurpation But if it be said that it 's not from any Intrinsick power that the Church useth this Sword then it will follow that it belongs not to the Church as such neither is her inseparable propriety 2. She must onely borrow it and suppose it will not be lent doth the true execution of Christ's Laws fall to ground and cannot Ecclesiastical Justice be distributed 3. Again if we must borrow the Magistrates Sword upon all occasions of Reformation then she is not sufficiently empowered by Christ to reform her self and Ergo left more imperfect than any State or Society in the world as civil Corporations and Families yea and particular Persons they have power intrinsick sufficient for Self-reformation if Vertue prevail and the greater ruling part be not corrupt The Sword of the Magistrate is no more Essential to the being or reforming a Church than of a Family a man may correct a child or turn away a servant without a Magistrates power or offending it so he keep within the sphere of Domestick Justice So may a Church inflict the greatest Ecclesiastical punishments without the Magistrate or without intrenching upon him so as the true bounds of Ecclesiastical Justice which Christ hath set be observed And this brings me to the second Argument § 5. Arg. 2. If the Church may and ought to inflict Ecclesiastical punistments to the full satisfaction of the Laws of Christ without the use of the Sword of the Civil Magistrate then they may not use the said Sword c. nay it 's the highest Injustice to use it it being severity beyond Summum jus But the Church may inflict punishments to the full satisfaction of Christ's Laws Christ hath put an Ecclesiastical Sword into the hands of the Church to be managed against Offenders distinct from the Civil Sword the just management whereof is as much as he requires from the Church and the undergoing the pains whereof is as much as he requires that Ecclesiastical Offenders should sustain in a Church-way Neither doth the political Laws of his Church demand any such satisfaction from Church-offenders as Fines Whippings Imprisonment though the Offence be such as under the
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-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
being besides the Word we have proved to be no parts of it and Ergo additions to his Laws and institutions in the Word which are perfect and entire in themselves for Doctrine and Discipline in divine Service and Worship and these Laws of humane enaction whatever pretences are put upon them being for the same end and use must needs be additional 6. To teach for Doctrines the commands of men is contrary to the Word of Christ but all humane Constitutions of this kind specified besides the Word are but Commands of men taught for Doctrines The Major is true and undeniable from Mat. 14.9 where such Doctrines and Commands are charged by Christ for the intolerable sin of the Pharisees Compare with this place that in the Old Testament quoted and applied to them by our Saviour Isai 29.14 Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men or which our Saviour the best Interpreter of Scripture saith In vain do they worship me producing this from the Prophet Their fear is taught by the Commandments of men not but that they observed also Moses his Commands but because they set up their Posts with Gods their Laws with Gods Laws and this is that which Christ condemns This Argument is cleared and fully prosecuted by another very lately in a learned Exerc. on Mat. 15.9 and Mark 9.13 And therefore I shall not actum agere As to the Minor it 's evident that such Legislators teach for Doctrine their own Laws for they press them doctrinally on the people and charge it as their duty to walk in the practice of active obedience unto such Laws and condemn all such as refuse such obedience upon any pretence whatsoever as disobedient to Governours and Schismaticks CHAP. XX. Of the Vnited Power Legislative of Church and Civil State § 1. LEst it should be replied to our preceding Discourse That although the civil Magistrate cannot of himself be a competent Compiler or Establisher of Ecclesiastical Laws Canons or Constitutions unless they be first compiled approved and propounded by the Church to the Magistrate to compleat their Sanction and Law-ratification with the impress of his Authority yet the Church and civil Magistrate both together have a compleat Legislative power in Ecclesiastical Affairs The Church is supposed to act by its Representatives in a Convocation Assembly of Divines or Synod or Council lawfully assembled by the call of the Magistrate The Question is Whether after they have agreed on Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions the civil Magistrate may give Sanction to them by making them Penal Statutes The Question in brief is Whether Ecclesiastical Laws may become Penal Statutes by Magistratick Sanction § 2. In order to the right resolving of this Question it 's fit to enquire first concerning the nature or subject-matter of the said Canons and Constitutions whether the Composers and Proposers thereof do believe them to consist of such things as Christ hath left indifferent and they would have to be necessiary or do they consist of such things as they have by disquisition found to be necessary by virtue of the Will of Christ for the end of such Assemblies is to confer about the Will of Christ in the great and weightier matters of the Church for the clearing up of what is dark and dubious before Now if the mind of Christ be discovered there needs no more Sanction where the word of a King is there is power Make it but out by the clearest demonstrations that this or that is the mind of Christ there needs none of the Magistrates penalties to be annexed it hath force enough of it self to reach the Conscience which is the end of Christ's Laws and to charge guilt upon it in case of disobedience and that is more than all the Penal Laws of men can do It 's needful to enquire whether the Magistrates Sanction be by way of approbation onely or by way of eminent commendation of the said Laws to his Subject not annexing or executing any Penalty himself but allowing onely some spiritual Penalty annexed by Christ or his Church to be executed by Church-Officers or whether he will annex or cause to be executed any external Penalty by his civil Officers as occasion shall serve The matter being thus stated I proceed in the Negative § 3. 1. We have abundantly evidenced that in the matters of Indifferencies in Religion no power on Earth may make any Laws changing them into things religiously necessary 2. Where did Christ ever joyn Magistrates and Ministers together in joynt Commission in the government of his Church 3. If so why may not Magistrates joyn in the judicial proceedings of the Church and fit as due Judges in all Spiritual Courts and excommunicate and absolve He that hath a share in Legislation may reserve to himself the executive part at his own pleasure 4. If such Church-Laws are invalid without the Magistrates Sanction then he hath a negative voice over the Church to stop any Church-proceedings in Legislation or Execution and indeed it 's happy for some people that it is so else the Clergie that call themselves the Church would make mad work were not the civil State wiser and more moderate and by its power able to put a stop sometimes to their mad Carreers 5. The Decrees of the Apostles Elders and Brethren being only a declaration of the mind of Christ in a difficult case became a Law to the Churches without any such Magistatick ratification or annexation of Penalty 6. Christ never annexed any corporal or estate-Penalties to any of his Laws that he setled his Church with at the first 7. Christ provided so for the due government of his Churches that nothing might be wanting for the administration of Government and Ordinances in the worst of times when most persecuted and opposed by those Magistrates in whose Dominions they did militate The Church of Christ would be but in a very weak and lame condition in most Kingdoms and Ages if the Magistrates countenance and concurrence were an Essential Complement of its due state of Ecclesiastick government and that can never be accounted a right Model of Church-government that cannot be erected without the Kings and Princes of the Earth set their hands to it For if it were so Christ should have few duely govern'd Churches on Earth that sort of men being oftner found pulling down than setting up the Kingdom of Christ Lastly we having already proved that neither Church-Officers nor Civil have any Legislative power in the said matters and therefore being put together they are but as two Cyphers that make not so much as an Vnite for ex nihilo nihil fit and therefore I need not enlarge any further on this matter CHAP. XXI Of Decency and Order in God's Worship and Canonical Obedience § 1. THe great Plea that is made for the Magistrates and Churches Legislative power in Spirituals is that there might be Decency and Order in the Church which is most meet to be especially because
few words more § 13. First If it be lawful for the Church to annex new decencies and order to the decencies and order appointed by Christ then these must be necessary or unnecessary but it 's not lawful Ergo. 1. It 's not lawful to annex unnecessary for this were to trifle and would infer the greatest absurdities imaginary therefore none will insist upon that 2. Not to annex any thing necessary for they must then judge something necessary which Christ hath not declared so as something belonging to the esse or bene esse of the Church and this were a high affront to Christ and impeachment of his wisdom as not perfect and compleat in his House as likewise it 's implicitely to condemn Christ's Worship and Ordinances as left by him for undecent and disorderly and so naked and unfit to come to publick view till they be anew dressed up and trimed by the Church in her Poppet-play Robes and Attire § 14. Secondly And then she might re-establish any old absolete Jewish decencies so she use them Evangelically upon as good or better ground than she hath brought in Heathenish practices into use in the Church Thirdly Decency and Order in the Church is no Indifferency but necessary in its kind as hath been shewed because commanded and enjoyned by Christ and Ergo if the Church hath power to enact Laws in matters of Indifferency it follows not that she hath power to do the like in matters of Decency and Order because they are not indifferent things but necessary if we understand either Moral or Evangelical decency and order § 15. It is fallacious and false to assert that the Church prescribes onely decencies in the Worship of God for they are the smallest part of her Ceremonies for what are Holy-days Cross in Baptism Musick in Divine Service And besides most or all her Ceremonies respect other Objects and are for other significancy and ends than for decency some being chiefly gratiâ divinâ as all reverential Gestures and Postures viz. bowing at the Name of Jesus bowing to the Altar kneeling at the Sacrament standing up at the Gospel These are signes of divine honour and Latrical and can be no otherwise understood than respecting a Divinity and therefore there can be no pretence to call it civil Worship because in all civil Worship man is the Object and were the same or like actions which for the matter are neither civil or divine but indifferent as to both but a peculiar Adaptation to a singular end or object they receive their distinct denomination therefrom Some are chiefly gratiâ humanâ in order to the due preparing and qualifying us for Spiritual Services Surplices to make us appear more pure an Emblem of Purity and mind us of it Musick to raise the Spirits and others more mixt in their intention tà m gratiâ divinâ quà m humanâ as Saints days wherein God is blessed for Saints whereby God is honoured and the Saint too the Cross in Baptism and the Ring in Matrimony which are Seals of obligation religiously made use of therefore more than significant signes and can be no less than Sacraments There are also divers Responses and Salutations betwixt Ministers and People in all which it 's easie to perceive that there is some weightier matters respected than meer civil decencies and order whatever pretences are made to the contrary § 16. We have before hinted what we apprehend true canonical obedience to be viz. that it 's not a submission to a certain body of Laws made by any Church challenging a Legislative power neither to those feigned Canons of the Apostles but it is obedience to the Canons or Rules of Gospel-communion laid down in the Scriptures those that are acquainted with the true Churches of Christ know no other Canons nor no other canonical Obedience they are obliged unto Now those that call for canonical obedience under that term they tell us that it is obedience to the Laws Rules and Constitutions of the Church but I could never rightly understand any reason for their plea from the Church viz. of the authority pleaded for for if it be a National Church that requires the said obedience we say 1. That that Church cannot pretend to challenge obedience that is not capacitated to make or execute any Law but the National is not Ergo. The Minor appears in that there is no such thing as a National organized Church constituted by Christ under the Gospel for if there were there must be National Officers and Ordinances by the same appointment but Christ hath constituted no National Officers i. e. whose Office-power in the Church is of such extent nor no National Ordinances i. e. such Ordinances that the whole Nation may partake of in one Assembly for communion The same Argument will hold against Diocesan Churches 2. How is any one National Church the Church more than another that hath such a Ruling power if all hath it alike how various will Church-canons be and how little Uniformity in canonical obedience 3. If this obedience belongs to any Church it seems most consonant to right reason that it should belong to the Catholick Church for 1. That may be as organical as a National can be by virtue of any institution of Christ 2. That 's most comprehensive therefore challengeth the preheminence of all others in respect of extent and by way of eminency may most properly be stiled the Church 3. This is the likeliest way to attain a Vniformity for it 's pleaded as the great reason why Christ gives a Legislative Compulsive power to a National Church viz. Vniformitatis gratiâ Now it 's but a partial Uniformity obtained thereby of an Independent nature but if true Uniformity be reached it must be that which is Catholick which can be no otherwise than by Catholick canonical obedience CHAP. XXII Of the Imposition of Ceremonies § 1. NExt to the consideration of decencies and order it may be meet to enquire a little into the lawfulness of imposition 1. of Ceremonies 2. of a form of Prayer Whether a Ceremony uncommanded by God may be used in the Worship of God is not our present Undertaking to discuss for in some cases it may be lawful so it be such as is duely qualified and be used as indifferent and occasionally by the Rules of discretion but our present Enquiry shall be Whether the Church is liable to the imposition of such Ceremonies as Christ hath not made necessary by any Law of his Many Arguments before urged against the Churches Legislative power might be here of equal force I shall onely adde something proper upon this state of the Question to prove that such an imposition is not in the Churches power § 2. Arg. 1. Because the Church by such imposition doth subjugate herself in her Members to a yoke of bondage which Christ hath freed her and them from That Christians are freed from such yokes see Gal. 4.31 ch 5.1 and the Church is not to return to
and discouragement of Evil-doers 4. That in the faithful discharge of this trust they are Gods Ministers attending his work § 3. As the King of Kings hath given Magistrates their power so he hath set them their bounds of Government insomuch that they be not Plenipotentiary but are liable to the Law of the supream Law-giver which they may transgress in respect either of the Laws themselves or of persons subjected to them In respect of the Laws two ways in Law-making or Executing In Law-making these ways 1. When they presume to enact such Laws as directly cross any of Christ's Laws either the Law of Nature to enjoyn unnatural things or when he by his Law shall contradict the Moral Law or any Appendix thereunto Or lastly controul the Laws of Christ for the Oeconomy of his Church i. e. in making any Laws to obstruct the execution of Christs Laws according to his revealed Will. 2. He may transgress in Law-making by entrenching on the Legislative Prerogative of Christ either in respect of Moral Obedience or Instituted Worship or any Forms or Rites thereto belonging 3. In failing to Enact such useful and necessary Laws as are needful and requisite for the right ordering or management of the Common-weal or particular Subjects under his Dominion He may fail and transgress in Law Executing either in a slack or careless execution of good Laws or undue application of them or partial distribution of Justice by them all which is Injustitia or he may fail in too vigorous and extreme prosecution and so be guilty of Summum Jus which since the Fall is Maxima Injuria because there is no allowance or abatement for the natural failings and weaknesses of the Subjects obeying § 4. As he is liable to transgress as to Laws so also as to persons 1. By a partial Execution of Justice with respect of persons 2. In pressing the power of his Law further on persons than Christ ever permitted as in endeavouring to impose on Conscience and bring it into thraldom by forcing men to ambiguous Oaths Declarations or Subscriptions 3. When he useth his Power for the obstructing and hindering the Members of Christ in the use of those Priviledges or lawful Liberties granted them by Christ himself § 5. Whence it appears That the Civil Magistrates Jurisdiction is limited to the Civil State and to all persons and things considered in a Civil capacity And thus far he hath Power over the persons of Christians and particular Churches whilst Militant so far as they are persons and Societies laying claim to Civil Rights and Priviledges or capable of doing or receiving wrong and injury being men subject to Passions and Failures with the rest of Mankinde A Christian is subjected as hath been said to a twofold Jurisdiction Internal and External Internal respects the Jurisdiction of Conscience or God's ruling man by it and here is an impossibility of any third persons interposing between God and us The External Regiment to which a Christian is subjected is Political and that by God's Ordination is twofold viz. Of the Body Civilly Politick and Spiritually or Ecclesiastically Politick this is subjected immediately to the Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Gubernation of Christ alone the other iâ—mediately under the Rule of the Civil Magistrate Now the contest between these two Polities hath been the Original of most of the Trouble in the Christian World Since Christ's presence here on Earth it hath always been mans presumptuous Ambition to sit in his Throne more or less Sometimes Secular Dignities assuming to themselves Legislation in matters of Divine Worship whence hath arose so great Persecutions from Magistrates because Christ's Followers refused to betray or deliver his Prerogative into their hands and judged themselves bound to obey God rather than man Again sometimes usurping Officers in the Church pretending to a derived Power from Christ have assumed the place of Christ himself in and over his Church justling him as much as in them lay out of his Throne hence hath arose the Antichristian Vsurpation tyrannizing not only over Bodies Politick but over Conscience it self and as a just Judgment on Civil Powers which will not kiss the Son but break his bonds and abuse his Churches and Members have bin permitted by Christ to set their feet on the necks of Kings and Governours of the Earth the intolerable burthen the Earth groans under and hath done for many Ages and were they but removed each into its proper sphere i. e. were but the Churches of Christ eased of Civil Usurpations in some Nations and Commonwealths from Ecclesiastical in other and Conscience delivered from the rapes wrongs and injuries insolently offer'd to it from both the Christian World would become such a Paradise of Felicity that scarce yet hath bin since the Infancy of the gospel-Gospel-Church and without such reducement of the World to the due Liberties of Church and State we cannot enjoy that worldly Felicity which a good man is capable of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Menand A good man aiming at Felicity Would either dye or at his home live free CHAP. V. Concerning the Nature of Conscience § 1. Having thus far briefly enquired concerning the Jurisdictions a Christian is bound in Duty to submit unto viz. Christ's and Caesars and though he is conscientiously to subject himself unto both yet Christs Authority is to be preferred and he is to have his due in the first place because all others who derive all just and rightful Authority from him are limited by him and must give an account unto him Therefore we say with the Psalmist Give unto the Lord O ye mighty give unto the Lord the Glory due unto his Name And as commanded by Christ Seek first the Kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof c. § 2. The first thing then here to be done is to vindicate the Soveraignty of Christ both in the persons of particular Christians and in Ecclesiastick Bodies Politick in both which he hath reserved the Legislative Power to himself and never yet committed it to any other And first of his Power in Conscience and that it may the more clearly appear that Christ only rules in Conscience it is needful we a little explain the Nature of Conscience and then proceed to prove that the Jurisdiction of it belongs to Christ alone § 3. Conscience taken strictly secundum notationem nominis is a Knowledge together i. e. A mans knowledg of himself and his actions together with another who knows the same with him or as some think the knowledge of his Actions together with the Rule by which they ought to be squared and directed which knowledge must be placed in the Understanding of a rational Creature Mr. Perkins saith It 's a part of the Vnderstanding I had rather say it is Modus Intellectus for the Understanding acts per totum non per partes This is that Spirit of a man which knows the things that are in a man 1 Cor. 2.11
Righteousness for he is a Babe v. 14. but strong meat belongs to them that are of full age i. e. have attained a measure of skill and understanding in the word of Righteousness even those that by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both good and evil to determine between things truely lawful and unlawful The weak walks by a dimmer light either by his own opinion or tradition of his Predecessors or by the example or opinion of others and therefore more apt to fall upon such actings whereby his Conscience is wronged and defiled by doing such things as absolutely or circumstantially prove sin unto him he is as a Candle newly lighted a bruised Reed a smoaking Flax soon extinguished or having at best but a smoaky dim light that none can walk by and he himself is confused by in his Christian conversation he is called a Babe that hath very tender Bones and Sinews which are soon wrenched and put out of Joynt hence depends sometimes on the guidance of others which he takes to be stronger than himself and it may be casts himself on the judgement of the blinde and so they fall both together And sometimes presumes to go by his own strength further than he is able whereby he is precipitated into many inconveniencies difficulties and dangers § 5. These two sorts of Believers differing onely in strength are both the same in Specie as a Childe and grown man having both Faith v. 1. both received by Christ v. 3. and Christ died for them v. 15. both walking conscientiously according to their light towards God The Apostle's great care is to warn them both to be very wary and circumspect how they walk towards each other according to those degrees of light which they have received with all charity and wisdom That which he insists most on in this Chapter of Rom. 14. is charitable walking 1. He would not have them walk at a distance one with another but the strong to receive the weak to communion without making doubtful things the terms of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Syr. Arah and Aethiop render in the sence of Helping date manum adjuvate sublevate but that 's the signif of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is plain where it 's used and this word by the opinion of the best Interpreters is fitter rendred by assumite receive viz. into your society and so used most frequently in the New Testament Matth. 16.22 Act. 17.5 ch 18.26 Philem. 12 and 17. So for taking meat Act. 27.33 34 36. receive them but not to the judgement of controversal points or disputable matters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Reasonings or disputings and so ought in most places where it 's used to be rendred and though it 's often rendred thoughts yet there it 's to be understood of arguing and reasoning thoughts such the Apostle would not have them received to i. e. he would not have your or their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or judgement of disputable points to be the terms of your receiving of them Whatever your opinion or theirs is in these matters receive them say not that they must be of this or that judgement and practice in these things or else they are not to be of your communion the strong or he that reputes himself so whether he be so or no the rule of charity for the strong is to receive him that he reputes weak is to receive the weak as Christ hath v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used there for Christ's receiving As Christ receives them with all love tenderness and condescention so ought every stronger Believer not to hurry and worry them beyond their strength of Knowledge and Judgement by rigorous proceedings of Magisterial injunctions and compulsions but carry them as Lambs and gently lead them as God Isai 40.11 doth by the illuminations of the Word in the exercise of much patience and forbearance towards them condescending in all things possible for their good and edification Rom. 14.19 in whatever he may not offend Christ he ought rather to please his Brother than himself As for Example one that calls himself the strong it may be he is Magistrate or Minister and by his place ought to be so saith it would be much more contentment to him if one of his Subjects or Hearers would yield to conform to some few little things which he affirms to be but indifferent in themselves c. and the Subject and Parishioner says No to obey you is Will-worship God's own Ordinances are but little indifferent things in themselves but by vertue of his Commands they become great and weighty so your Commands about small indifferences makes them great and weighty to my Conscience And therefore I desire to be excused in coming up to any such Commands lay aside these and I am willing to enjoy the benefit of your Communion Suppose them to be meats gestures or Garments c. I say he ought much rather to lay aside the pressing of this or that indifferent thing for the communion with and edification of his poor Brother But for him to retain his resolution of pressing this as he calls it indifferent action on the Conscience and practice of his Brother not admitting any other terms of communion and upon his refusal to call him Heretick Schismatick Rebel c. can be accounted nothing less than deliberately and studiously to lay a Stumbling-block in his Brothers way for him to fall over at least in the true sence of falling and then when he is down to beat him and trample upon him Secondly In this charitable walking the Apostle saith after they are in communion there ought not to be judging or despising each other Rom. 14.10 The weak they are very apt to judge the strong for taking too much power upon himself or liberty to himself and to say he walks not according to his Light and that his actions are not agreeable to the rule of the Gospel that he is a scandal to Religion c. when indeed it may be he useth but that lawful liberty in indifferent things which Christ hath granted him and the other understands not Such judging as this is ought not to be in the weak and remarkable it is that the judging part is put upon the weaker side the weak Christian is usually the most censorious and many live with such weakness as this almost all their days But the strong is also apt to trespass on the rule of Charity in despising his weak Brother i. e. he that is strong in gifts and parts or in respect of place and dignity and advantages in the world he is apt to think slightly of him and to speak so and call him a simple froward Fanatick a man humoursome and a contentious Fellow a weak-brain'd Coxcomb one that makes Conscience and Preciseness onely a pretence to carry on rebellious Designes against Church and State and though he pretend Conscience so
it is not to be doubted but that a Christian professing people gathered together in the Name of Christ injoying the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments in purity are a Church of Christ and uniform with all the Churches of Christ without any distinction by this or that Name of Singularity or any Ceremonial Appendixes § 12. And whereas it is pretended that a full and free Conformity in Ceremonies would be the only cure of all our Differences and Divisions Let all Ages witness if any will but impartially enquire what hath been the Grand Cause of all the Factions Breaches Divisions and Schisms in the Church yea and Ecclesiastical Persecutions ever since the Primitive Times it will be found to be the Usurpation of this aforesaid Legislative Power of Christ by some or other and still all the excuse that is made for it is that they assume this Power only in matters of Indifferency and what pretence can any make to a Legislative Power in things necessary already determined by Christ to one part there is no place for a Law in such things unless it be to ratifie or to null the Law so that what Legislative Power is exercised of this kinde must be in matters of Indifferency only i. e. which are so in relation to Christ's Law antecedently to man's Law but by the supervening of such a Church-Law it becomes in kinde Ecclesiastically necessary it being enjoyn'd as to practice under Penalties annexed and it 's no new thing with some sort of men to call necessary things indifferent and indifferent necessary and thereby take occasion to justifie their presumptions when they make Laws even abrogatory to the known Laws of Christ And if weak Brethren as they are apt in derision to call them either take any just exceptions against them pleading their Liberties or it may be from a mistaking judgment are apt to call indifferent things necessary and therefore out of tenderness of Conscience refuse to yield acts of Obedience they are so far from having compassion on their tenderness that they exact the said Law-penalty with greater violence and rigour than they do any that doth directly concern the Glory of Christ established by himself § 13. The greatest Plea that I know can be made for matters of this kinde is the power that Oecumenical Councils have taken upon them especially in the Primitive Times even in the Apostle days and in the first second and third Centuries of the Church especially To which I answer First If the Foundation of this Authority lie in Oecumenical Councels let never any of these Church-Statutes be made and imposed on the world but by them and let not every particular National Independent Church take upon her to make Penal Laws and gull the World into a submission to her Authority by her saying she is The Church as if she were the Catholick Church and Mother-Church Secondly I question whether there were ever any true Oecumenical Council at all much may be said against the best that is pleaded for since the Apostles days and it is easie to prove that Assembly at Jerusalem held by the Apostles and Brethren to be none in the sence intended which is that the chief Officers and Representatives of every particular Church in the World meet together with a determinating Power in matters of Doctrine and with a binding Legislative Power in matters of Discipline and Ceremony Now it will appear that that Assembly was not so though there were more reason for its being so than for any other Assembly being so neither ever was there any Assembly so impowred in the world of that nature § 14. That that Assembly Acts 15.28 was no Oecumenical Council is easie to judge for there were but the Representatives of two Churches Jerusalem and Antioch and they of Antioch came to ask counsel and to be resolved in matter of doubt of the Apostles residing most of them at present in Jerusalem 2. The case in question was argued in foro Ecclesiae particularis and the Apostles making the minde of Christ manifest to that Church have the consent of the Brethren to their determination and sent it forth in and with the Authority of the Holy Ghost 3. The Apostles and Church of Jerusalem changed no Indifferencies into Necessities but enquired after and found out the Will of Christ concerning the present infant-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
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
Subordinate Churches 2. It is not in the capacity of any one or few Supreme Magistrates to convene an Oecumenical Council because no Magistrate can by any civil Authority much less by any Ecclesiastical of which he hath none call forth the Bishops of another Nation to such a Council Whereas an Oecumenical Pastor whose Authority reaches equally to all National Churches and to Magistrates as Members thereof may Authoritatively command the presence of any Reverend Father whatsoever and demand the consent of the Magistrate thereto under the pain of Church-censures and to permit his Bishops to assemble in or out of his Dominions whereas there is no one or more Supreme Magistrate hath any universal tye Ecclesiastical or Civil of other States and Dominions to his Jurisdiction so that they are necessitated under any Law to submit thereunto unless such which they have reduced unto Homage and Vassalage by dint of Sword or such as by voluntary Subjection have yielded themselves 3. Magistrates have not then a Power to call an Oecumenical Council when they please or if there were such an Emperour there never was or will be that could in respect of his civil power do so yet they have no Ecclesiastical power to do it authoritatively but onely by concurrence or consent whereas all Church-Assemblies are authoritatively to be called by the Officers of the said Church or else they cannot act so when called by Assembled unless we reduce Church-government unto a Democracy § 18. Obj. It may be also said that an Oecumenical Council may be convened by the consent of Patriarchs and Bishops among themselves Answ 1. This is no Authoritative way of assembling such as Bishops will always contend for but onely precarious 2. If they assemble this way either it must be no Council till all be agreed which may be long enough first or any few agreeing to assemble and give notice of such resolutions to others who are averse to such Proposals may gather together and call themselves an Oecumenical Council undertake to make Decrees determine matters of consequence and impose on the dissenting Churches And what dangerous consequence would this be of in the Church especially where Heretical Pastors abound as in the times of the Arrian Macedonian and Nestorian Heresies 3. If National Pastors may convene by consent to constitute an Oecumenical Council why may not Bishops and Archbishops convene by consent to make up a National Synod without the Authoritative Call of the Primate which will by no means be allowed 2ly and lastly By whose authority shall a Catholick Assembly have its Sanction if not by the Catholick Pastor for it 's not every Council that calls it self Oecumenical that can or may be allowed to be such neither ever was there or ever will be any so General that all the Pastors were assembled But it is in this as in all other Church-Assemblies if they be called by the Pastor and publick notice given to all the Members of the time and place the absence of some alters not the nature of it Ergo there should be an Oecumenical Pastor for these ends and purposes CHAP. XV. Of the Magistrates Power in matters of Religion § 1. THe power of Magistrates in matters of Religion hath been very much controverted and variously determined by men of Learning and Conscience I shall not fill up these sheets with transcribing other mens Sentiments I shall onely propound what seems to me to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason with as much perspicuity and brevity as I can There are three things for enquiry that will principally lie before us 1. Whether the Civil Magistrate may exercise a Legislative power in matters Evangelically indifferent 2. Whether in the execution of Ecclesiastical Justice the sword of the Magistrate may be used 3. What are the true bounds and limits of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion The first Question is thus to be understood Whether the Civil Magistrate may or can change things religiously indifferent into necessities by a competent Law i.e. by a Law binding Conscience primarily or secundarily by Christ's authority for we have shewed that no authority can reach Conscience so as to binde it or loose it but Christ's alone that being no competent Law that answers not the true nature of the obedience required which is always expected here to be conscientious All Christ's Laws flowing from his peculiar Legislative prerogative over his Church have an immediate influence on Conscience and do primarily binde as such All just humane Laws do secundarily binde Conscience i. e. not quatenus humane but they so far binde Conscience as men have derived such authority from the Lord Christ for the composing and enacting the said Laws Now if the Magistrate cannot make a Law in one of these kinds to binde Christians in matters indifferent he cannot do it by a competent Law § 2. Having thus explained the true meaning of our Enquiry we determine in the Negative and that for these following reasons Arg. 1. It 's Christs peculiar prerogative to be the Lawgiver to his Church i. e. to make such Laws as immediately concerns it He never gave this power to any or commissionated any to exercise a humane authority in this kind as hath been abundantly shewn He onely can do it 1. He is the onely Spiritual King there is no other mediate Spiritual King between him and his Church 2. He knows onely what is fit to be the matter of such a Law He knows onely which way he will be worshipped and no way can be acceptable to him but that which is of his immediate appointment it 's high presumption in any other to prescribe 3. It 's his Glory to reserve this to himself and he gives to Magistrates that power which they have it 's but reasonable he should reserve to himself what he pleaseth 4. If Magistrates can exercise any such power it must be by deputation from Christ If there be any such let them produce their Commission which cannot be pretended to in the New Testament and what is said of Magistrates power from the Old Testaments authority will easily be refuted if the particular cases be duely considered which I shall not now stay upon 5. If Christ hath given such a power to a Christian Magistrate it belongs to him as a Magistrate or as a Christian it doth not belong to him as a Civil Magistrate for then 1. As many sorts of Magistrates as the Church doth militate under so many sorts of Lawgivers in Spiritual things she should be subject to whether Christian Heretical Prophane or Heathenish and as the government of State alters in the Supream Magistracy so the Laws of the Church must according to the several interests and corrupt designes of the sons of men 2. The number and certainty of Ecclesiastical Laws could never be known for as he may make Laws he may repeal Laws where they are of the same kind So that there would be no certain standing Rule for the
cognizance of the civil Magistrate by his Laws and in his State are deservedly punished so As if a Church-member be drunk the Magistrate may take him up in the street and set him by the heels but if the Pastor of the Church see him so he hath no such power as to punish his outward man but to administer Admonition or Excommunication as the matter requires till the person offending is brought to true godly Remorse and Reformation but the Church hath nothing to do to imprison him put him in the Stocks c. or deliver him to the Magistrate by their Sentence so to be dealt with § 6. Arg. 3. If the Church can and ought to use the Sword of the Magistrate it 's surely to correct for the most gross and criminal Transgressions as for Drunkenness Swearing Lying-Theft Fornication c. for all just Laws inflict the most Exemplary Punishments on the most hainous and scandalous Offenders But it 's most evident the Church cannot use the Sword of the Magistrate in case of the most criminal and hainous Transgression because 1. Christ nowhere empowers a Church or so much as allows it as such to fine imprison hang c. for offences deserving the same at the hands of the civil Magistrate 2. He nowhere requires the Churches to become Informers unto civil Magistrates it belongs to the Magistrate to look after the observation of his own Laws the Church is not to be his Constable to seize Offenders for him neither is the State to be the Churches Hangman to execute for her each State is to look after the execution of their own Laws in their own way and manuer 3. Where Paul is distinct in each particular of the censure to be denounced upon the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5.4 requiring them to execute it in a strict and sharp manner in the Name and Power of the Lord Jesus and although Incest is a crime to be punished by the Judge and with death by the Law of God he writes not to the Church to inflict any corporal punishment on him neither doth he certifie the civil Magistrate against him or command the Corinthians to inform What Peter did in the case of Ananias was extraordinary and miraculous and not presidential in the least to any succeeding Church-Officers neither did he assume any civil Authority in so doing § 7. Neither doth the National Church notwithstanding all her severity used towards Non-conformists execute any such punishments on the like sort of gross Offenders or by the highest censures turn them over to Civil Powers for that end though she saith that all men and women inhabiting within her Precincts at least all such as are christened are actually Church-members and although it 's a confessed Principle of all Protestants that all openly scandalous Church-members incorrigible ought by censure to be cut off from Communion and although her self affirms that the ultimate means to be used in cases of obstinacy persisted in which she calls Contempt after Church-censures is the application of the Magistrates Coercive power Now how well she doth apply these Church-Remedies to the scandalous Church-members let the impartial judge Is it not requisite that she should wait upon all her Tyburn and Goal-bird Sons and Daughters a little more than she doth and endeavour first by Admonition to bring them to Remorse and in case of obstinacy to excommunicate them and not suffer obstinate Felons and Traitors to be hang'd within the Pale of the Church Indeed there needs no certifying to the Magistrate and taking them by a Writ de Excom cap. because the Magistrate hath secured them already but I will tell you where there is need viz. for the picking up of obstinate contumacious Drunkards Swearers and fornicating Church-members which the Land swarms with And what a blessed Reformation would there be if Mother-Church did do her duty in this kinde so strictly as she deals with Non-conformists viz. in admonishing them and in case of contumacy to excommunicate them and upon their perseverance in the said sins to take them all up with Writs de Excom cap. and send them to Prison there to abide till they repent If the Church proceeded thus with the generality of scandalous and loose Parish-members the major part left at liberty would be Non-conformists and if they were secured too for Non-conformity the old Woman might know where to finde most of her children of both adventures But who is so blinde as not to see the unspeakable Partiality of the Church in this kind in crying out against the conscientious Dissenters and persecuting of them in so merciless and outrageous a manner and in letting all the rest of the ranting debauched Church-members go Scot-free yea and encouraging them to persecute the rest more serious and conscientious under the name of Separatists and Schismaticks Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas Juven § 8. The second part of the Question about the use of the Magistrates Sword in execution of Ecclesiastical Justice is built upon a supposition that the Church might make Laws besides what Christ hath made i. e. supposing she might change Indifferencies into Necessities by positive Laws The Question is Whether it be agreeable to her Justice and Wisdom to annex to her Laws the said corporal or pecuniary Punishments or cause the Magistrate so to do We answer in the Negative for these reasons 1. Because to annex or cause to be annexed the severest punishments or at least most smarting to Offenders of Laws of least concernment to the Publick weal of Church and State and of the least necessity in respect of the Observers is neither Justice nor Wisdom but for the Church to annex Excommunication or cause to be annexed corporal Punishments or pecuniary Mulcts to Laws of her own making in matters of Indifferency is to put the severest Penalties to Laws of least concernment The Major is most evident because Wisdom and Justice always requires that there be a due proportion between the weight of Obedience required and the Punishment of the Disobedience forbidden The Minor is granted by the Imposers and Composers of Ecclesiastical Laws of this kind and as they think a plausible defence of themselves in so doing viz. that they exercise this Legislation onely in matters of smaller concern not necessary to salvation left by Christ indifferent and what necessary goodness they pretend to be in them is the shewing our obedience to our Superiours and satisfying the Will of man and some little external Decency and superficial Uniformity And for offending in this kind her children mâ—st be stript of Priviledges and laid open to all injuries of Church and State Doth this consist of Christian Prudence and Justice Is it not to tythe Mint and Annice with the greatest zeal and not onely to neglect the weighty Laws but to encourage the violation of them by taking into her bosome and dandling on her knee the most audacious Transgressors and the greatest and most professed Enemies
any authority granted by Christ challenge to himself a Legistative power in religious matters touching Faith or Worship he cannot null or dispense with one of the Laws of Jesus Christ neither may he make any new Laws to binde us to believe any thing more concerning God than is manifestly by his Word revealed or binde us to practice any alteration or addition in the Worship of God more than what Christ himself hath enacted This we have sufficiently proved in handling the Doctrine of Indifferency § 8. Fourthly No civil Magistrate can by any deputation from Christ claim an Executive power of the Political Laws of Christ in his Church for as Christ hath his own proper Laws in his Church his militant Kingdom distinct from other Laws for the right and exact Gospel-management of all his Political affairs therein and is more faithful than Moses in that very respect so he hath set in his Church his own Ministers and Officers distinct from all other sorts of Officers and Ministers in the world As Christ's Ministers are no civil Magistrates as such so no civil Magistrate is a Church-Minister as such Hence as a civil Magistrate hath no power to execute Christ's Political Laws or Institutions in his Church so he hath no power to execute any moral Laws in the Church i. e. he cannot punish a criminal offence by Ecclesiastical censures The moral Law runs through all Societies as the natural fundamental Rule to discern Good and Evil and Political Laws of all sorts should mainly respect it as the Standard and Magna Charta of all Laws and Justice which in respect of it are derivative though every particular Polity hath its own proper way and manner of distribution of moral Justice The civil State by a civil political Administration and Magistracy Families Oeconomically by the Heads thereof the Churches Ecclesiastically by its Pastors and other Officers all endeavouring by their distinct way and manner of Administration to secure the honour and justice of the Moral Law but none of these are to intermix their governments and political way of distribution seeing the God of Order hath fixed each one to his proper station and limit of jurisdiction Hence the civil State can no more punish the breach of moral Laws Ecclesiastically than the Church can punish them civilly and the Church can no more use the Magistrates Sword than the Magistrate can the Churches and vice versa neither can the Church or civil State punish the breaches of the moral Law Oeconomically any more than a Master of a Family as such can punish them Ecclesiastically or Civilly and upon that account may take upon him to be Magistrate or Pastor And though there was a mixture or rather conjunction of these Authorities in the same person in the infancy of Polities yet they have been separated in distinct persons by God himself for many Ages neither do any persons bearing distinct Offices make the Offices the same or necessarily mingle them in the performance of their several Functions § 9. Fifthly It is not in the power of the civil Magistrate or any humane Laws to binde or loose Conscience As Magistrates cannot reach it directly to charge it with either duty or guilt so it 's the greatest piece of Tyranny to attempt it by Penal Laws whereby Christians may be drawn in to ensnare their Consciences in guilt by sinning against God for fear of Man and a Christian is to obey the just Laws of man for Conscience sake i. e. for the Lords sake It is extrinsick to the Laws of men to binde Conscience it 's God that by his authority gives them a mediate Sanction and binds them on Conscience but where God lends not to humane Laws his binding power they are of no more force unto Conscience than Wit hs to binde Sampson It 's not the wit or strength of all Men and Angels that can binde one Conscience under guilt without a Law of God or divine authority to give force to humane their Penal Laws i.e. corporal Punishments or pecuniary Mulcts are very indirect and vain Mediums to enforce Conscience and very sinfully applied by Magistrates or others for that end in matters of Faith or Worship § 10. Sixthly That the supream Magistrate hath not the determination of Causes meenly Ecelesiastical and these are of two sorts either controverted Doctrinals or Causes disciplinary controverted for by Causes are to be understood here things under dispute and they controverted Doctrinals or under debate and they controverted Causes disciplinary and those Ecclesiastical things which are of this nature fall under one of these heads Doctrinal or Disciplinary First In doctrinal Causes controverted the Magistrate is not appointed by Christ as Judge neither is he a competent Judge 1. If he be quatenus a Magistrate then every Magistrate is a competent Judge and then a Heathen Mahometan or Heretical Magistrate and then you 'll say the determination must needs be very sound and good 2. Again how few Christian Magistrates are studied enough in Polemical Divinity being not bred to that learning or having so many recreations and secular concerns to divert them from it so as to be fit to have the ultimate determination of the most difficult and weighty points that learned Scholars in Divinity yea such as are studious and conscientious Christians after long study scrutiny and prayer cannot attain to a right understanding of so as to demonstrate the truth to the full and clear satisfaction of themselves or others Is it fit to make an Assembly of Divines Judges of a great and difficult case in Law There is the same reason for one as for the other 3. What determination a Magistrate makes dogmatically it 's simpliciter but his private Judgment and Opinion though he be a publick person And why should any mans private opinion be he what he will in the world be a binding Rule to the Faith of another in matters of Religion 4. It 's impossible that it should be so for man cannot make a Law to bound Faith in such things as are not founded on the light of Understanding and where they are so founded no man believes because of the Law of man but because of the evidence of Truth What Law can make any man believe that two and three make six but if it be that we must believe that three and three make six we do believe it but not because of the Penal Law but because of the evidence the Truth carries with it Non lex penalis sed veritas est ratio formalis fidei 5. The Faith of a Christian or the Understanding of a Rational man can no more rest in the opinion or determination of a Christian Magistrate without a sufficient light of Truth to convince him than in the opinion and determination of another man for he that tenders the honour of God and loves Truth cannot receive that which he is convinced of or at least suspects in his most serious judgment to be
contrary to the truth of the Word of God 6. The Magistrate cannot be conteded to be such a Judge nor is useful as such unless he may be acknowledged to be infallible A supream Judge in our sence and that which must be here understood is one into whose judgment our Faith hath its last and utmost resolution but we cannot acquiesce in a humane fallible determination And besides what Prerogative hath the Magistrates judgment above another mans and what ease and advantage is it to us if our minds lie open to doubt as much after as before the determination No Christians minde can rest satisfied in a humane fallible opinion of divine things the authority causing Belief must have the same original that the Revelation hath therefore Faith built upon a Testimony must be onely on his own fidelity as one infallible as we believe that Truth also which carries its own Evidence with it axiomatically delivered or evinceth it self from the light of another Truth dianoetically § 11. The second Case consists in Causes disciplinarily debated being Differences arising within one particular Church or between Church and Church or between Pastors and Churches c. All Causes usually handled and determined in Ecclesiastical Courts The Question is Whether the civil Magistrate be the supream Judge or Head and Governour By Causes Ecclesiastick are without doubt meant in the Oath of Supremacy all disciplinary Causes handled in Spiritual Courts the supream Head and Governor whereof was the Pope in whose name and authority those Courts were called and managed and to whom it was lawful for any grieved party to appeal before the reign of King Henry the 8th who by the Oath of Supremacy cut off the Popes Supremacy and established his own Now I thus resolve as followeth § 12. If Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Courts be not jure divino nor held jure divino Episcopacy as it 's setled in the Hierarchy and all its Offices and Appurtenances being onely a humane politick device as hath been abundantly by the Opposers thereof proved and by many of the Asserter and Defenders confessed then I say it 's fitter that man should be supream Head there and if any man the supream civil Magistrate within whose Realm or Dominion their Courts and Causes Ecclesiastical be The nature of this Supremacy is or should be that 1. That all Ecclesiastical Courts be called and kept in the Kings Magisties name 2. That the Sentence denounced should be also grounded on some penal Law of the King for all the Kings Courts should judge by his Laws 3. That any party grieved may appeal to a superiour Court of the Kings or to himself from whom there is no Appeal 4. That the King hath power by himself or Judges to prohibit or supersede the proceedings of the said Court at his pleasure This is the true sence of the Oath of Supremacy which the Bishops notwithstanding all the noise they make against Dissenters from their Church will least subscribe unto whereas most others of the Kings Subjects that refuse to own the divine right of Episcopal government will willingly swear the Kings Supremacy in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Causes in the largest extent And though that sort of ruling men use all endeavours to suggest the disloyalty of the said Dissenters yet I doubt not but most Puritans in England would rather refer themselves to the Kings judgment and stand or fall at his Tribunal than at the Churches and have generally found more relief from under the severities of Excommunication in the Kings Courts than in the Ecclesiastical Supposing that all Ecclesiastical proceedings in Spiritual Courts of Judicature and the whole Fabrick of Church-government as now it stands is a humane Polity as is not denied by the most ingenious I know not why any Puritan or Papist should refuse for to take the Oath of Supremacy for it is no more than to acknowledge the King to be supream Head and Governour in his own Courts which is but Reason Justice and Religion that he should be § 13. But if Ecclesiastical Causes be understood of disciplinary Controversies such as follow upon the execution of Laws and administration of the Institutions of the Lord Jesus in the visible Gospel-churches of such Ecclesiastical Causes it is not the Magistrates part to be the determinating Judge of for 1. To judge and determine a Cause in the Church of Christ is to judge Ecclesiastically and such an act of Judicature is a Church-act which is always preceded by a Church-Officer and no other in foro Ecclesiae and if the agrieved party appeal it must be to an Officer of the same kind it 's not to an Officer of another State 2. He that is supream Judge of a Church-cause on Earth must be an Officer substituted by Christ for none can hold any Place or Office in the Church but by Subrogation from Christ much less the highest Authority but none can shew that Christ hath substituted the Magistrate his Church-Vicar on Earth 3. If the civil Magistrate be supream Head to the Church Ecclesiastically then because he was always so since Christ was on Earth then there was times when Heathen Magistrates in whose jurisdiction the Churches was were his Vicars and Christ himself when on Earth was subject Ecclesiastically though Head of his Church to Heathen Church-Officers for he was no civil Magistrate disclaim'd it nor could be appeal'd unto as such 4. If the civil Magistrate be supream Judge he is the supream Church-Officer for he cannot be denied to be an Officer of that state wherein he doth acts of Judicature as his right And if a Church-Officer then the civil State hath power to chuse and constitute a Church-Officer and that of the highest rank for if he become a Church-Officer his Calling and Constitution must needs be Civil and not Ecclesiastical So that the civil State hath the power of Peter's Keys both to dispose of them and give them to whom she will and the Church cannot be entrusted with them they must still be kept in the Magistrates pocket Hence it will follow that Christ hath not left power enough in the Church for the management of its own political affairs nor wisdom enough for the determining her own Controversies § 14. Seventhly No civil Magistrate can imposse Articles of Faith on any of his Subjects to be owned subscribed or sworn to by a Penal Law for quatenus a Magistrate he is not an universal competent Judge for it 's not necessary that he should be religious understanding found in his principles because he is a Magistrate 1. If he can do it as a Church-Officer we have shewed that Christ hath made no such Officers in his Church 2. If he were Christ never empowered any Church-Officer to use a Magistratical Sword he never put Temporal Crowns on their heads nor Scepters into their hands if any of them out of ambition have got Miters and Crosier Staffs they had them from Antichrist and not from Christ
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
all actions becoming a Christian Commonwealth then so far the Christian Magistrate hath power more or less so far as may conduce to the due maintaining of the being or well-being of a Christian State and therefore is to be conservator unriusque Tabulae he hath the conservation of the second Table committed to his care that it may be a civil State of the first that it may be a Christian State And therefore as a Family is to preserve the honour and justice of the Moral Law by an Oeconomick Sanction and the Church by an Ecclesiastick so the civil State by Civil Sanction each according to their just derived Laws whereby they are respectively to govern and distinctly to administer § 19. The great Question here is How far the Magistrates power extends in the making and execution of Penal Statutes We have shewed that the Lord Jesus hath not reserved to himself so neer a propriety in the government of civil States as of his Church having taken it as his peculiar Prerogative to give Laws unto his Church and presides there as the only Legislator But unto States he hath onely given them the Magna Charta of the Moral Law and hath allowed unto them a Legislative power in all matters concerning the various Exigences and divers Requisites with attending Circumstances in the due management of State-jurisdiction so as the said Laws are promoting of the common Peace and Justice of their Dominions and deducible from and founded on the said Rules of Distributive and Commutative Justice § 20. The Laws of men that are just and reasonable may take place in all things conducing to the being and well-being of a Christian Commonwealth both as to the matters of the first and second Table so far as is necessary to the managing of it under the due qualifications of a civil State and therefore may not onely punish crimes committed against the second Table but such as are against the first also And there are these especially that they are concerned in 1. Blaspheming of the true God under which is comprehended common profane swearing transgression especially of the third Command 2. Worshipping of false Gods a sin against the first Commandment 3. Idolatry or the worshipping of God by Images a sin against the second Commandment 4. Prophanation of such times as is by God appropriated to himself for publick Worship a sin against the fourth So that these are palpable as to matter of fact clear as to the nature of the offence and of dangerous consequences tending to the eminent ruine and apparent danger of a civil State § 21. In the concernments of the second Table God hath left the civil Magistrate more Arbitrary in making or executing civil Laws as the necessity of the State doth require laying the general Rules of Moral Justice and the particular and relative benefit of the Commonwealth and Subject before his eyes Now in the matters of the first Table being the moral Rule of duty towards God he onely requires the Magistrate to punish and restrain those Vices in this kind that are notorious infectious and pestilent to a Christian Commonwealth in matters of natural Worship reserving instituted Worship built fundamentally on the same precepts to another manner of dispensation wherein the civil Magistrate is not to intermeddle as such neither as to Legislation nor Execution of Penalties nor deligation of Officers § 22. As Murthers Rapines Adulteries Perjuries c. are destructive to Properties Communities and Relations and so to all civility in a State where such Vices predominate and are not generally suppressed by Justice it cannot be denominated a civil State but rather a Pagan Salvage nation So where false Gods are multiplied and worshipped the true God is blasphemed openly and notoriously and all times for publick Worship of him by his own appointment prophaned publickly and generally And such Vices not suppressed by Magistrates such a State cannot be called a Christian civil State but Heathenish whatever moral Justice there is between man and man § 23. Though all sins be alike breaches of Gods Law yet none but those of a more gross external and exemplary nature fall under the cognizance of mans Justice The Blasphemy Profaneness and Concupiscence of the heart are not punishable by man it must come to the Magistrate per allegata probata that such an one blasphemed God worshipped an Idol prophaned the Name of God by swearing c. and that openly either in contempt of that God that is worshipped or that Worship set up or in order to the delusion and seduction of others for it would seem very hard to break into the private houses or appartments of Idolaters that may dwell in the land and proceed judicially against them for that Religion which they are peacibly retired to without any endeavour to publish or prvpagate to the disturbance of the publick or infection of others But no Magistrate ought to suffer that God to be openly blasphemed which he worships If Heathens in a false Worship are zealous upon this account how much more ought Christians Though no Magistrate can enforce any Subject to worship his God or ought to do it by a Penal Law as hath been said yet he may punish him for blaspheming him or for seducing any from the Worship of the true God yea for Apostatizing from the Worship of the true God after he hath owned it Precepts and Persidents in the Old Testament are pregnant to these purposes which I need not enlarge on those that read the Scriptures are acquainted with them But we finde no Precept nor Example for endeavouring to reduce a poor Heathen from bare Idolatry to the Worship of the true God by pecuniary Mulcts and corporal Punishments and I am sure Christ never practised it nor commanded it in the New Testament § 24. The great difficulty that yet attends this case allowing the Magistrate a power as such in some matters concerning our duty directly to Godward what are adaequate and proportionate Penalties in such cases as these for the Magistrates power is always insignificant whatever the Law is if there be not a Penalty annexed to it and vigour in the just execution thereof Now the Enquiry is Of what kind and degree of punishments of such Transgressions ought to be Answ I apprehend it is a hard thing to determine to all mens satisfaction I know some have recourse to the proceedings of the Judicial Law which was but the reduction of the Moral Law into Civil Practice for the State of the Jews and look upon them as binding to Christian Magistrates But I suppose the Judicial Laws to be rather presidential onely that Christian Magistrates may take a measure thereby for the degree of Penalty setting aside their different Emergencies of State and extraordinary cases when God would make one sinner in a case exemplary to all ages by his Prerogative and special Command as in Achans theft and the prophanation of the Sabbath by picking up of
sticks And setting aside much of the severity which appeared in that more legal Dispensation which was both Typical and Temporal and much of it in special cases and by special command by God It would be accounted very severe now to put a man to death for prophaning the Name of God though it were by repeated acts of such horrid cursing and swearing as is frequent now-a-days or for prophanation of the Sabbath c. Then setting aside the relation the Judicial Law had to the Levitical and necessary dependance on it which is ceased and considering that our Judicial Laws cannot so much depend upon Evangelical instituted Worship Christ having not so strictly tyed Church and State under a necessity of the same Emergencies as he did the Jewish Oeconomies I conceive likewise the just proportionating of Penalties in this kind ought to be done with great caution and depends much on the Magistrates prudent management of the Helm of Government for the safety and preservation of the Christian State and Penalties cannot be positive and unalterable because cases do so frequently differ in the aggravating circumstances § 25. The Christian civil State ought to be very neighbourly and cherishing to the Ecclesiastical and the civil Magistrate is to improve his Magistratick capacity to the utmost for the interest of Christ's Church and advantage of the Gospel 1. By subordinating as much as is possible all State-interest to the interest of Christ in his Church 2. By giving all possible encouragement to the purer Worshippers of God and to the embracers of the Christian Religion 3. By encouraging the faithful preaching of the Gospel and propagation thereof by able Ministers duely called thereto by the Church and affording them external helps and supports in so doing 4. By maintaining the Churches in the due execution of the Laws of Christ and in the enjoyment of their Ecclesiastical and Civil Liberties defending them from invasions and disturbances in Gods Worship from the rage of professed Enemies from tyrannizing usurping Imposers 5. By being a nursing Father to the Church both as a Christian in an eminent capacity going before others in the exemplary practice of Piety and calling upon all others of all ranks and degrees whatever to discharge their places in the fear of God as Hezekiak and Jehosaphat did 1 Chron. 29.25 26 27 c. 2 Chron. 19.8 9 10. and as a Magistrate defending them by his power as hath been said CHAP. XVIII Of a Christians Duty in case of Humane Laws in matters religiously indifferent § 1. IN the next place it will be necessary to speak something to a Question of no less weight than any of the former for it is said that though it should be granted that no power Civil or Ecclesiastical can Jure convert Indifferencies in Worship into Necessities by a Law yet it 's inquired in case any humane power assume so much to it self as to do it Whether a Christian is not bound to yield active Obedience unto the said Laws and those that affirm it produce these Reasons to enforce it 1. That every one is bound to be subject to their highest powers Rom. 13.1 2. That such Laws are not contrary to the Law of God because God hath nowhere declared himself against one part of the indifferency more than the other but hath left both equally lawful to be practised according to the rules of discretion And why may not the Church or Magistrates discretion binde a Christian to obedience to his command as most expedient the Church or Magistrate being better able to judge of an Expediency than a private Christian 3. Because if in a thing indifferent the least offensive part is to be chosen then surely that part which fulfils the Civil or Ecclesiastick Law for it is a greater offence to offend the Church or Magistrate or both than to offend a particular private Christian or company of Dissenters To the first I answer by way of concession That a Christian is so bound as Rom. 13.1 but 1. That place is to be understood of Civil not Ecclesiastical powers as the Context shews 2. If it be understood of Church-power as that Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the rule over you it 's to be understood of such as Christ hath constituted Church-Officers and of obedience to an Executive power committed to them not of a new assumed Legislative power never allowed to them To the second I answer That such Laws are contrary to the Word of God for 1. Essentially they are contrary to the Word of God it being the revealed Will of God in his Word that they should be Indifferencies and remain so not to be made otherwise by any Law for where God hath granted a Liberty or Latitude in the use of any Creatures or Actions there to make or prescribe a religious limitation by a Law is absolutely unlawful and directly contrary to the Word of God It 's express Acts 10.13 14 15. where Peter though an Apostle is charged not to put a religious difference where God hath sanctified things to our indifferent use much less might he prohibit the Church from using any Creatures or Actions made by God indifferently holy therefore when it 's the Will of God that a thing be indifferent it 's contrary to the Will of God to impose it as necessary 2. Such Laws are circumstantially evil and contrary to the Word of God because they hinder the free use of Christian discretion where God would have it used and Ergo hindreth an Ordinance of Christ Besides it necessarily obligeth to evil whenas the expedient good is found by a Christian to be in that part of the Indifferency which is contrary to the humane Law And besides God having left both parts of the Indifferency equally lawful and declared it so in his Word for man to declare one part unlawful or make it so by a Law is to make a Declaration or Law contrary to the Word of God Neither may a Magistrate or Churches judgment binde a Christian to practise any further than it brings light with it for no man must walk by an implicit Faith in the matters that concern the Worship of God and the salvation of his Soul To the third Alleg. That part which fulfils the Civil or Ecclesiastical Law for Will-worship is not the least offending part but the most for the yielding free active obedience to sinful Laws is not onely sin in the person obeying but the highest degree of scandal to the person commanding it being the edification of him in sin whereas the refusal of active obedience in such a case is no offence given but onely a just cross of a perverse Judgment and Will Again if any action be such as will offend justly the least of Christ's members it must needs be contrary to Gods Word and I may not grievingly or sinningly offend any of Gods children that I may gratifie and fulfil the Will of man We must rather chuse that part of the
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-Gospel-church from ceremonial bondage how is the gospel-Gospel-church the free Woman Was not the bondage-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
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
in words and syllables 7. If Christ had bound us to this Form then we were to use no other neither might the Church prescribe any other neither might particular Christians use their gifts in Prayer nor various Forms of their own or others prescription which would be too grosly absurd for any to assert § 5. But fifthly to infer that Christ by prescribing this Form as imitable by us or by propounding and commending this to us as a Rule or Form did thereby tye us up to other Forms or gave power to the Church to binde us to Forms or that we might binde our selves to other Forms is as great an inconsequence as any in the world for we have shewed there 's more reason to judge that he left it as a Rule than Form If he left it as a Form it 's no ground for other men to make Forms but rather a ground to the contrary it being his Prerogative as our Lord and Master And besides if he hath given us a Form and we are thereby bound to words and sentences we ought not to take up other Forms and multiply thousands of mens prescriptions for the sence of Christ must needs be one of these two when you pray say i. e. use this as the onely Form of Prayer and stick to it for words and sentences and never trouble your selves about any other for if it be taken in the other sence it 's universal Take this as a standing general rule of Prayer to which all sorts of Petitions Deprecations Confessions Thanksgivings are referrable If he had authorized any to compose other teaching Forms he would have said You Apostles and your Successors thou Catholick Church or National Church or particular Congregation do you compose a Form of divine Service and I will set my hand to it § 6. The second part of the Question is Whether a Christian may suffer himself to be bound to a Form of Prayer by humane Authority pretending thereunto The Answer to this Enquiry will be double 1. That whatever Authority Ecclesiastical or Civil doth pretend to such an imposing power a Christian is not to subject himself by active submission 2. That no powers beneath Christ can pretend justly to such Authority The reasons of the first hath been largely enough insisted on before therefore I shall here but touch upon them 1. Because Christ hath not left it indifferent to a Christian to be bound in matters of his Worship where he hath left him at liberty for thereby the use of discretion in conveniencies is lost 2. All those reasons why he may not binde himself to a Form of Prayer do formally prove that he is not to permit himself to be imposed upon in this kind by another 3. None but Christ may prescribe Set-forms of his own Worship and we are not allowed obedientially to submit to any Legislative power in this kind as hath been shewed 4. If a Christian suffer himself in this to be imposed upon he parts with one of the most eminent priviledges that he is capable of viz. that of speaking his minde to God in Prayer and not to be bound to the Dictates and Suggestions of another Who can know our own case in respect of Sins Wants Temptations Mercies c. better than our selves What is more unreasonable than that a Childe though he cannot speak plainly should not be suffered to speak his mind to his Parents as well as he can but must be always prescribed to it in the Servants or elder Brothers words and expressions To deal thus with God's Children is to go about to abandon the Spirit of Adoption which God's Children are led by Rom. 8.2.14 15. which Spirit they have for this end that they cry Abba Father that they may speak the language of the Spirit in Prayer though their utterance be in broken and abrupt Sentences even in sighs and groans which God knows the meaning of Wherefore to put our selves under humane set Forms is to put ourselves into the greatest spiritual Bondage of this nature § 7. Secondly No Power Ecclesiastical or Civil can pretend justly to Authority from Christ to impose on Minister or Christian a set Form of Prayer Argum. 1. If any can pretend to such Authority it must be to impose a set Form of Christs composing or of humane composition But they cannot pretend justly to impose any Prayer of Christs composing because Christ hath neither required nor allowed the imposing the use of that which is called the Lord's Prayer by penal Laws What corporal or pecuniary Mulcts are to be inflicted on a man that doth not use the very words of that Prayer by virtue of any Law of Christ Is he to be Whipped or Fined for it by the Magistrate or Excommunicated by the Church Again they cannot pretend to impose a Form of humane composition for if there be no ground to impose a Form of Prayer of Christ's composition by a penal Law much less to impose one of Mans And for any to undertake either Church or State to prescribe the worship of Christ and to enforce it by punishments where Christ never deputed or allowed such Authority is the greatest presumption and insolency in the world § 8. Argum. 2. He or they that impose a Form of Prayer must do it because it is necessarily or indifferently requisite so to do according to the revealed Will of Christ But none can impose a Form of Prayer for any of these reasons Ergo. 1. None can because a Form of Prayer is necessarity requisite 1. Because Christ hath no where required the Church or Magistrate to impose 2. If a Set-form of Prayer were absolutely necessary it could not be to any person or season dispensed with 3. If the necessity be pleaded for publick Prayers that there should be a set Form there is as little necessity of that can be proved from the Word of God as of private Set-Forms 4. If there be need of a Form for help in some cases in respect of present weakness of Ministers or Christians it 's no reason therefore it should be imposed as necessary to all it 's pleaded for upon the account of Uniformity but if some of his Majesties Subjects wear Spectacles because of the weakness of their Eyes must all do so too for Uniformity sake though their Eyes be never so good We are to strive after perfection and conformity to Christ therein but are not to endeavour to conform to the weaknesses and imperfections of his Members and take our measures thereby though we are to bear with and condescend to them as much as may be without sin § 9. Secondly A Form of Prayer cannot be imposed as indifferently requisite to the worship of Christ because 1. If any thing be indifferently i. e. conveniently requisite to the worship of Christ it is because Christ hath willed it indifferently requisite for all matters of his Worship take their first reason from his Will 2. There is no reason from the
indifferency of any thing to impose it as necessary But in Spiritual concerns the indifferency of any thing is a reason against the imposition of it as necessary because such an imposition takes away the Formal use as an indifferency 3. What Christ hath revealed as indifferently requisite he hath required a Christian to use indifferently by the judgment of discretion for every action concerning Christ's worship is to be performed as Christ hath prescribed the nature of it necessary things to be done necessarily by us but not to be imposed on us and indifferent things indifferently Therefore an Imposition to enforce the use of indifferent things necessarily and necessary indifferently is unlawful as contrary to the Will of Christ 4. We have before proved that neither Church nor State can change an Evangelical Indifferency in the Worship of Christ into a Necessity § 10. Arg. 3. To exercise Dominion over Mens Faith is unlawful but for Church or Magistrate to impose a set Form of Prayer is to exercise Dominion over Mens Faith Ergo. The Major is without question and to exercise such a Dominion is to prescribe what we shall believe and practice or to enforce us to practice in Sacred things without believing The Minor is true because there can be no greater exercise of Dominion over Faith than in imposing on us a Form of Prayer for every Prayer is to be prayed in Faith or else it is sin Now to impose a Form on me being to enforce me to that Prayer that I be not satisfied in is to impose on my Faith i.e. to prescribe what I should believe for practice in Prayer or to enforce me to practice that which I do not believe i. e. to pray that Prayer and that constantly in such a part of Worship which I cannot do believingly § 11. Arg. 4. If one Church may enforce a Form of Prayer by a Penal Law then another may i. e. if a National Church may enforce a Form of Prayer on all her Subordinate Churches and Members then the Vniversal visible Church may on the National which are her Members and if the National can punish the Diocesan or Parochial for Non-conformity in this kind why may not the Catholick punish the National for the same fault i. e. for using a Form of Prayer not sufficiently allowed or prescribed by the Catholick and if the National can interdict an inferiour Church or Excommunicate a particular person for refusal of such Obedience why may not the Catholick deal with the National in the same kind This must needs be conceded but that it will be said we do not know Where to find the Catholick Church and though the Church of Rome calls herself so yet she is not to be believed she bears witness of herself and that witness is not true I only reply We can as easily and more find the Catholick Church as a National for there hath been always a Catholick Church but there never hath been nor will be a National Gospel organized Church in the world And we may as well believe a pretending Church calling herself Catholick as a pretending Church calling herself National when as they are equally to be accounted as no Churches of Christs Ordination as I can easily manifest when time shall serve Well then the National Church lyes liable to the censure of the Church Catholick for using a distinct set Form of publick Prayers established by her self whereby she renders herself a gross Non-Conformist to the Catholick Church and an Independent in respect of all other National her Form of Prayer being not Uniform with theirs If it be said the Church may compose and impose a Form of Prayer we must know what Church that is and not be deluded with a Name Is it the Catholick Church if so why have we not a Catholick set Form of publick Prayers and all National Churches bound to the use of it And why on the contrary doth every National Church make and use Forms of their own And if it be said The National is the Church it 's false for it 's not the Church by way of Eminency it 's not the most Generical Church because it 's not the only Church there are many National and there are many other sort of Churches that will put in for as good a right as the National and if every National under the Name of the Church may do this and have a distinct Form of Prayer what will become of Catholick Vniformity And if the Church as Provincial or Diocesan what will become of National Vniformity And if this power be granted to any or all these subordinate Churches Actum erit de Vniformitate Catholicâ § 12. But the great plea for a Form of Prayer in the Church is Vniformity for this cannot be say some Men without it Answ Uniformity in the Church cannot be by particular National Forms it must be by a Form Catholick 2. Can there be no Vniformity in the Church without a sameness in Words and Sentences in prayer there scarcely being two Scripture-Prayers that are altogether the same in Words and Sentences Doth not Uniformity consist rather in agreement in Principles and the Analogie of Faith submission to and closing with the same King Priest and Prophet conforming to and walking by the same rule of the Gospel an influence and guidance by the same Spirit 3. If Uniformity of the Church lyeth in such Externals why is not a set Form of Preaching established that none shall use any other besides such Homilies 4. If a set Form of some Prayers be necessary to Vniformity why not of all as well of private as publick for if the Church be not close tyed in bond of Vniformity by uniting Families and Individuals it will break to pieces for all a publick Form The first and main Union in the Church is that which knits every purticular Member to the whole by joynts and bonds and that there may be true Uniformity this must be carefully maintained but it 's 〈◊〉 which the great contenders for a pretended Uniformity least 〈◊〉 themselves about § 13. Another great plea for publick Forms of Prayer is the 〈◊〉 ness ignorance and laziness of many Ministers Rep. The 〈…〉 holds for set Forms of publick Sermons the necessity of which for a time was well considered at our first coming out of Antiâ—â—â—â—an darkness and any one that could read but a Chapter Prayer and Homily in the Mother-Tongue did a great deal of service to God and the people But there is not the same reason now the Church is better provided with able Labourers or at least might be if she would 2. It is the ready way to fill the Church with this sort of Cattle those lazy ignorant scandalous Priests for Mother-Church not only to connive at them but to countenance them and maintain them in their pride and sloth and by making their Exercisâ—s for them whilst they be idle debauched and prophane minding nothing but the profits pleasures and Honours of this Life 2. The only way Ignavum fucos pecus a praecipibus arcent is to banish these droans from the Church and not to turn all the Church unto droans and nothing starves them sooner than to leave them to their own stock for Praying and Preaching and it 's best that their Ignorance be bewrayed that they may be ashamed and get better instruction and exercise in Spiritual things which are to be guides to other Mens Souls or if they be not ashamed the people may have a full knowledge of them and be wiser than to entrust their Souls in their hands Therefore it 's good that the Props be taken away and it will soon appear whether such pretended Church-pillars be sound or rotten § 14. What is alleadged about Ministers abuse of parts in publick Prayers or want of sufficiency is no forcing Argument for imposing a Form for the abuse of good things is no argument against the use we may as well say Because some will be Drunk therefore none must drink Wine or Beer 2. Insufficient Ministers are to be removed or further instructed if they be capable and willing as Apollo was 3. Are not Church-Prayers lyable also to abuse when used by sottish Priests in a formal customary slovingly and prophane 〈…〉 and a hundred times more wrong done thereby to the honour of Religion and the poor Souls of the people than by some weak expressions and sentences or words struck out of joynt by the laborious faithful and zealous Ministers that conscientiously endeavour to use and improve the Talents given them to the service of Christ the conversion and edification of the Souls of the people FINIS
are as liable to the Judicial proceedings of Magistrates as any others be but in these Evangelical parts of Worship annexed by Christ in substance or ceremony which distinguisheth the Oeconomy of the Church from that of the Commonweal here the Magistrate cannot execute by himself or depute another to administer the Executive part of Christ's Laws The reason is because all such Laws changing Indifferencies into Necessities in the Worship of God are of a Spiritual nature and Ecclesiastical and therefore must be executed spiritually in foro conscientiae or Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae but he cannot do either of these for the first he cannot because Christ hath absolutely reserved Conscience to himself nor the latter because Execution in the Church is peculiar to the Officers of Christ as his Deputies and Officers of his own appointment § 6. Arg. 4. They that are not to make Laws for the terrour of them that do well are not to make such Laws as change Evangelical Indifferencies into Necessities at Ergo. The Minor is undeniable The Major appears thus to be true because to make such Laws is to terrifie Christians in the use not onely of their lawful liberty but also to shake them from their standing in that liberty that Christ hath purchased and commanded them to stand fast in besides the abridging them the free use of Christian discretion which is good from which they should not be terrified § 7. Arg. 5. The Magistrate cannot take away the Rights and Priviledges granted to the Church by Jesus Christ which he purchased for it c. by last Will and Testament bestowed and is his peoples right of Inheritance But the liberty of the use of the judgment of Discretion in matters of Indifferency is a great and valuable priviledge so granted and bestowed on his Church and People Now the Magistrate should be so far from bereaving the Church of these that 1. He is to maintain and defend the Church in the free use of its Liberties and to be as a Nursing Father to her therein 2. The Magistrate should be ready to punish the bereaving of the Church of her just Rights as Sacriledge which is robbing a Church a Sacred Body politick under the Civil Magistrates jurisdiction The Magistrate should be far from doing that action which he is to punish in another as Sacriledge and if a Christian's Liberty be a Sacred thing the taking of it away is Sacriledge That it is Sacred I prove thus That which is of sacred use and peculiarly related to the Worship of God and to the Members and Church of Christ as their Priviledge allotted to them by Christ's special procurement and appointment is Sacred and the taking it away is no better than Sacriledge As for other lawful Liberties common to them with others in Morals and Civils others may use them that are not related to the Gospel but a Christian Liberty is in things pertaining unto Christ and his ways of Worship and Service § 8. Arg. 6. He that can make those things necessary to the Worship of Christ which Christ hath onely made indifferent can make the Kingdom of Christ to consist in those things that he never did the Kingdom of God stands not in meats c. and the Kingdom of God stands in that which is necessary to it and if the Magistrate will make things necessary which Christ never did he goes about to make the Kingdom of God stand in that which Christ never did And this is a great usurpation of a power not belonging unto him for Christ never empowered the Magistrate to determine what his Kingdom should consist in and make it to consist in that which he never did § 9. Arg. 7. A Magistrate is not capable of exercising such a Coercive power as will make me believe in my conscience that to be necessary for the Worship of Christ which I am convinced that he hath left indifferent onely that Law for the Worship of Christ that lays no obligation on Conscience is of no concern therein Now Christ having bound Conscience by his Law as far as is necessary there is no room left for Man to come in with his Laws Whatever is Evangelically necessary to the Conscience of a Christian is so because he is convinced it is the Will of Christ that it should be necessary Now can the mere Coercive power of any one on Earth make a man believe that is not necessary which Christ hath made Conscience to submit to as necessary If so then may the same authority make a man believe that to be necessary which Christ hath made us believe not to be necessary but onely indifferent for as no Law of man can absolve a Christian from the conscientious observation of any one Law of Christ so no Law of Man can binde a Christian in Conscience to the practice of that in religious matters which Christ never bound him to but he will be still perswaded that Christ hath left it to him as an indifferency and it 's his duty to walk in it by discretion and that must be a Churches or Christian's own as the matter requires relating to a Community or private Person Obj. But the Magistrates Judgment can best determine of Expediency being greatest and wisest Ans In matters of that nature men may advise and the greater and wiser men are its likely the more forcible Arguments they may produce but there is no force to be in the case men are not to be forced by a Law to do that which is most expedient in the Worship of God For 1. the Magistrate may be mistaken and that which is expedient to him may not be to another 2. That which is expedient one time may not be another therefore in the doing Expediencies we are not to be determined to act always one way by a Law Object But the Magistrate may punish for not practising Answ None is to be punished for not practising what they believe unlawful CHAP. XVI Of the Vse of the Magistrates Sword in the Execution of Ecclestastical Justice § 1. THe Second Enquiry propounded about the Magistrates power is this Whether in the Execution of Ecclesiastical Justice the Sword of the Civil Magistrate may or ought to be used i. e. Whether for the punishing and reforming Offendors against Church-Laws the Magistrate may inflict such penalties on the outward Man as he and the Church shall agree upon as Pecuniary Mulcts Scourgings Imprisonments Confiscations yea death it self in some cases as in matters of Heresie and Seduction And to prevent mistakes we shall premise these things 1. That Church-Members offending Civil Laws may and ought to suffer the penalties thereof from the hands of Magistrates as such as stand subjected to them in a civil capacity equal with other Subjects 2. That a Church-Member as of the Church of England or any other may justly suffer for the same Offence from the Church and Civil Magistrate as for Drunkenness Swearing Fornication c. Moral