permittente on the commanding part his Will will carry it Sic volo Sic jubeo c. and the Subject is liable to errour on his part in Rashness Stubbornness Wilfulness Singularity c. But if both parties do notwithstanding all Imperfections and Frailties attending endeavour to approve themselves to the King of Kings there is a determination which to each party must satisfactorily binde and is thus manifest 1. Both are bound to the supream Law-giver the one to make just and equal Laws and righteously to distribute them the other to a free deliberate active obedience thereunto both or either of which failing in their duty shall be judged by the supream Law-giver according to the respective Laws whereby they are bound to the said duties 2. So long as darkness and corruption attends the mindes of men there will be different apprehensions concerning the Duties and Practices they are to walk in according to the degrees of Light received there will never be a perfect agreement neither is any one mans Conscience a Standard to another to walk by no further than there is a concurrent emanation of convincing light from the truth to both the Conscience of the Magistrate as such is no binding rule to the Subject neither ought the Conscience of the Subject to be swallowed up in the Magistrates and thereby seduced to an implicite Faith Every man is to see with his own Eyes to believe with his own Faith and act to the satisfaction of his own Conscience using all means for the right information of his own Minde and Understanding in the Will of God for his walking Whatever men say of a Publick Conscience and that commands of Superiours are enough to indemnifie Inferiours in all active Obedience thereto though the Laws be evil The Word of God knows no such thing neither will any man that is acquainted with conscientious walking in the approvement of himself to God in all his ways and actions ever give credence to any of those wilde assertions neither did I ever see any probable Argument produced to enforce those Sentiments on the mindes of rational men much less on such as have their Senses exercised in the knowledge of Truth 4. Hence it will follow that the present Conscience or practical Understanding impartially fixed must be the onely Expositor of Law and Duty by which every one is bound to walk in his respective place that God hath set him in whether Magistrate or Subject whether a man be in a publick or private capacity he is to be accountable to God for all his absolute and relative duties he shall not be judged for either of them by another mans Conscience The Spirit of a man is the Candle of the Lord c. to this determination must the Law-giver stand as to the righteousness or unrighteousness of his Law and the Subject as to his active or passive obedience And here we speak not by what measures Children in nonage and Fools are from infirmity of nature necessitated to walk but of such as have the due use of reason and understanding neither can it be helped if some men will surrender themselves and Consciences from slothfulness interest or flattery to be slaves to men they shall sufficiently smart for it here and severely answer for it hereafter But if any plead that men of Reason Vnderstanding Judgement and Conscience ought to quit and abandon all light and dominion of their own Consciences being inferiours and be at the disposition wholly of their Superiours this we say can have no ground in Nature Politicks or Beligion It 's just as if all Subjects were bound to pluck out their Eyes and see onely by their Governour 's A Childe is to obey his Parent but it is in the Lord he is not bound to obey him in unlawful things and so a Servant his Master If such obey their Superiours in such things as the Law of God makes unlawful in so doing they must needs disobey God Now it 's most absurd to think that Gods Law should require it 's own violation if this Command Children obey your Parents be taken without limitation and the Parent commands the Childe to commit Idolatry or to steal and the Childe by that Precept is bound to active Obedience then God's Law here overthrows it self for by yielding obedience to one Precept another is necessarily broken We have Joseph's practice and Scriptural commands to justifie us in this Assertion § 10. Moreover if Conscience is to determine after the best information that we can have between God and us as to our present practice much more it 's to determine in case of difference between subordinate Law-givers and us Though there is a difference in the determination i. e. supposing it be God's Law his authority to make such a Law is not to be disputed by the Creature but the question or case of Conscience is usually of the meaning and extent of his Law as to variety of practices referrable thereunto Whereas mans Law may be disputed whether he may de jure by vertue of his Commission from God make and enjoyn such a Law yet the Argument holds good that in case of doubt about Practice and Dispute between God and us if he requires us to be regulated by the verdict of Conscience enlightned from the Word then much more in such cases of dispute betwixt Man and us and although we may sin in obeying the dictates of an erring Conscience guided by the Word of God misunderstood yet that sin after our impartial endeavours for information appearing to us to be a Duty though it ceaseth not therefore to be a sin in its own nature it would be a greater sin in us to disobey the Dictate of the present supposedly enlightned Conscience because it must be ranked amongst the sins against Light and Conscience whereas now the Act is but a sin of ignorance at worst Again God will at the last day judge according to the Verdict of Conscience rightly informed If our Conscience condemn us God is greater c. 1 Joh. Rom. 2. but if our present Conscience be erring either as to the meaning or nature of the Law or Fact and brings in an impartial Verdict according as it hath found upon its best information and enquiry but not true as after it appears according to Law or Fact its duty is to pass again and again upon the same inquisition till it speaks as it shall speak before Gods Tribunal So the last Verdict called present Conscience stands binding to us till by further light in the Law or Evidence concerning the Fact another be brought more agreeable to Law and Justice And if upon frequent and impartial search the same return be still made after earnest and sincere seeking of God to discover our errours it is a great confirmation unto us that it's truth that hath been spoken and that we should greatly sin against God to swerve from it what ever the Edicts and Precepts of men say
all for truth that obligeth to credence from the evidence of it obligeth not to Practice and Obedience having not a sufficient authority from whence it comes or not laying on us a necessity of obeying and therefore it must binde as a Law-truth challenging its ends by promises of rewards or threats of punishment Again 't is from a principle of self-love and preservation Seeing our selves liable to a Law and such a Law that can do us good or hurt we are bound by this first principle of nature to make an impartial enquiry into our conformity that we may be satisfied of our own safety and danger every one being desirous in this case to know the worst of himself Moreover seeing that all Law that bindes is backed with sufficient power to put it into vigorous and impartial execution and that which prevails so much with Conscience is the Law-givers absolute power to save and destroy He can punish the whole man Body and Soul which no humane Power can So that the Penalty being great and the power of the Law-giver infinite it must needs lay the Conscience under a very strict bond of enquiry Likewise if we consider that 't is not onely a sufficient power for Execution but an unlimited power of law-making wherein his Soverainty doth chiefly consist which Soverainty as it is most supream so it is most just and good and therefore this obligeth because God can make what Law he will and he cannot will to make any Law that is not fit for his Creature to obey Hence his Laws have always a necessary innate goodness in them because they flow from him who is primarily absolutely and independently good Ergo must be cannot but be holy just and good Laws Wherefore the impression of the goodness of a Divine Law is firmly fixed on mans natural Conscience however corruption may attempt the blotting it out it cannot totally do it but those who are renewed by Grace must needs see anotherguess lustre in it seeing not onely Divine goodness stamped on God's Law but Gospel-goodness Not onely the suitableness of his Commands to his Creature but to a sinner viz. the love of God so evidenced in giving and requiring his Law in such a way of Grace and compassion that it engageth them in the highest measure to Obedience yea new Obedience and their Consciences to a diligent and narrow disquisition thereof accordingly Lastly there is an innate reverence unto Divinity which the Creator hath placed in the Heart of man whereby the Law of God hath more command than any Laws in the world besides because there can be no greater distance than between the Creator and the Creature and Creation or giving us being is such an obligation as none but a Creator can lay upon the Creature and consequently our greatest good either in being or well-being is certainly hazzarded by the displeasure of our Creator Thus much of the practical propositions of Conscience from which of necessity follows the particular Conclusion as hath been said § 9. It remains to speak something of the diversities of Conscience which admits of no difference from Divine Law simply considered but from the Information or Illumination which the Understanding receives more or less therefrom The less enlightned Conscience is either the mere natural Conscience illuminated onely by the Light of Nature without a written Law such as the Apostle speaks of Rom. 2. Or the legal Conscience though enlightned by the written Law yet tasting nothing of Gospel-freedom and delivery by Jesus Christ and therefore in bondage to Moses and not yet subjected to the mediatorly Authority of Christ in Justification Sanctification or rules of spiritual walk The more enlightned Conscience is that which hath received Gospel-light and subjected thereunto from a true sence of the love of God in Christ hath submitted his self and ways to the guidance and conduct thereof in his whole progress to Life and Salvation The Conscience admits also of Magis Minus the more evangelically enlightned Conscience is that which is firmly ratified and confirmed in gospel-Gospel-truths and a due application thereof by Faith for comfort and practice and this is a firm stable Conscience and of such an one is rightly said that he is a strong Christian one that is rightly informed in his Duties and Priviledges by the Law of Christ The less Evangelically-enlightned Conscience is one that hath but a small information in the Minde and Will of Christ hath a sincere faith but little knowledge is not so well acquainted with the rules of Gospel-obedience nor with his Priviledges purchased by Jesus Christ and hence ariseth a doubting and scrupulous Conscience a doubting Conscience or Opinans is in respect chiefly of the will and minde of Christ is not fully resolved concerning it and therefore at best acts but from Opinion is unsetled and unresolved whether the Light directs him this way or that way and therefore is unstable in all such ways is not carried on with a Plerophory and full resolution to persist and this may be according to some Truths and Duties but not according to others A Christian may be strong in respect of some Truths but weak in respect of others so that the same Conscience may be strong or weak as it is clearly informed in some things and darkly in others yea it may be weak at one time and strong at another as it receives more or less Light A scrupulous Conscience is chiefly in respect of action concerning which he is needlesly and frivolously doubtful and therefore fearful and starting upon all occasions § 10. Thus far of the differences of Conscience taken from Synteresis briefly a few words of its differences also from Syneidesis Conscience may be distinguished from Syneidesis into a good or a bad Conscience The good Conscience is that which makes a diligent just and impartial enquiry into our condition and actions by a due application of them to the Rule or Law-light received by us An evil Conscience is such an one as from its enslavery to a lust doth not perform its duty aright towards the Law of God or ourselves but is either sloathful and will not take pains to search and examine our Hearts and ways Or it is partial and will be more strict in some respects and less in others of the same weight and concernment Or it is fallacious and deals not plainly and fully concerning the matter of fact but mincingly and equivocally feigning it to be better than it is in substance or circumstance or 't is stupid and blockish not valuing the weight of the Law or inspecting the nature of the Action It may be also troublesomely evil as well as negligently c. when it brings in too aggravating a Testimony in accusing beyond the nature of the Transgression representing the matter of fact more hainous and heavy than it ought to be represented Such a Conscience may be Honestè bona but Molestè mala § 11. Lastly we distinguish Conscience
considered according to its internal and its external acting It s internal acting is its believing assenting concurring judging between fact and fact or disbelieving dissenting condemning c. and these are those that are Actus eliciti and they are not without doubt under any humane Law or Power in the world either to force them where they are not or to obstruct them where they are As men may not presume to do it by any external compulsion so there is an impossibility in the nature of the thing that it can never be accomplished 'T is onely God's Prerogative to charge us to believe under a penalty and the light of Truth carries demonstration with it to challenge our assent and call forth our understanding to a free acting unless we be inveloped in the darkness of corrupt nature or captivated in slavery to any Lusts Neither is it in the power of man to remove this vail it 's God onely by the light of Truth working by its prevailing evidence and the mighty operation of the divine Spirit which way it pleaseth that can effect this Hence he that makes a penal Law that this or that thing is a truth and to be believed by me to be assented and consented unto and doth endeavour to compel me to such a belief and assent by the threats and punishments of this Law doth usurp a power that was never given unto him by God neither was ever practicable to effect the end pretended to § 4. Secondly There are external acts Actus imperati of Conscience as professing subscribing declaring doing but these are not properly acts of Conscience but from Conscience as they ought to be under the Rule and Dominion and direction of Conscience and will come to be duely considered in this place whether any man may be thus compelled by any subordinate Power and doubtless there is none that can compel a man to act from Conscience no more than he can compel him to understand or will what he pleaseth for though the acts are external and may be compelled de facto and in some cases de jure the principle of good or evil actions viz. from Conscience cannot be compelled the relation it hath to Conscience is internal as if a man be brought and forc'd upon his Knees before an Idol c. it is no formal act of Conscience for that still resists and opposeth the action though it 's improperly called a forcing of Conscience when a man is thus forced to an action against his Conscience Indeed he is forcibly induced through fear or sense of some evil to do or omit something against his light and conviction and the choice is also free he being attended with such circumstances yet it is said to be compelled because the argument of a Penalty to be incurred upon refusal is very strong to reach flesh to prevent the suffering of which the Will is carried away to chuse that as a comparative good which the enlightned Understanding allows not as lawful nor the Will as absolutely good and this is that compulsion of Conscience which is most usually found in the world And here it will be enquired whether any Subordinate power can lawfully compel us to such imperate acts Ans 1. I say men may make and execute de jure such a Law as many cannot in conscience submit unto by way of active obedience so that it be really such as the great Law-giver hath allowed them to make and it be agreeable to the rules and limits of power committed to their charge and the reason of refusal be the weakness and ignorance or prejudice of the Subject or else no Laws could be made or executed in the world for one or other that should obey would be pretending Conscience against it and here the Subject is to submit either actively if after sufficient illumination he findes the goodness and justness of the Law-giver If he doth not he is to refuse to act if he is perswaded it 's utterly unlawful but if it be doubtfully so he is to suspend his acts till he is better informed and patiently submit to the Magistrates will and pleasure in the Penalty-execution but if any Power endeavour to enforce obedience that no Power enacting may lawfully do and require us and force us with penalties it 's questionless very great Usurpation We must also consider the matter about which this compulsion may be conceived to be No Magistrate may compel to any thing against Conscience quatenus such Scil. under the formality and notion of being against Conscience that were the greatest Tyranny in the world Or we may understand it of compelling under the notion of Truth and so a Faith must be enforced which no man is capable of accomplishing this way Or Thirdly under the notion of Duty not respecting how the Consciences of persons stand affected in relation to it on whom it is urged And thus the Magistrate may compel to the doing of good or avoiding of evil by penal Edicts though accidentally it may be against the Consciences of some on whom it is imposed for the Magistrate being not a competent Judge of mens Consciences he cannot make other mens Consciences the rule of his Laws and Executions but the will of the Lord whose Ministers he is and the good of the Commonweal that is committed to his trust The Magistrate is not to command or forbid any thing under the formality of being with or against Conscience but he supposing that the Consciences of his Subjects are convinced being sufficiently pre-informed may command any thing to be done or forborn according to that latitude of Rule and Government which he hath received from the Lord whose Minister he is for the right knowledge whereof he ought sincerely and impartially to consult the Word of God and his own Conscience and so to take the measures of his own Duty and Actions Neither is his Conscience the Standard to his Subjects for every one must give an account of himself to God the Magistrate for himself as a Magistrate and the Subject for himself as such and therefore the Conscience of the Magistrate doth not binde the Subject to active obedience though his relation to him as such bindes him to Subjection which is abundantly shewed in his quiet and peaceable submitting himself to the Law-penalty if he cannot satisfie himself that the Magistrate acts in his place according to the revealed Minde and Will of God in such cases provided which cases also are always to be of a civil and politick nature for here he hath power compulsory of the outward man mandatory or prohibitory though the Conscience of the Subject is or may be pretended to be against it § 5. And now that all cause of exception may be removed on all hands it will be requisite more explicitely to shew how far a Christians Conscience hath to do with humane Authority and we grant that humane Authority in civil and politick affairs is an Ordinance of God 2. That
But it 's not all kinde of Intelligence but some only in particular 1. Not a Theoretick Knowledge but a Practick and therefore always referring to some Action or Omission And 2. It is not referred to another mans affairs but his own whose it is And lastly it is not a mere apprehension or suspicion but a knowledge always at least of the fact and often determines by the Rule known of the Legality of the fact and so passeth Judgment and thence is called Judicium but sometimes Conscience is doubtful here and thence it is called a weak doubtful and scrupulous Conscience § 4. It may be therefore thus described Conscientia est modus Intellectus Judicialis practicus Conscience is the Vnderstandings Judicial manner of proceeding concerning our selves and actions A man in Conscience as God's Substitute or Deputy sits in Judgment upon himself first inquires as Jury of the matter of fact whereof according to Self-evidence he is found Guilty or Not-guilty and according to the Law manifested is acquitted or condemned This Judgment of Conscience may be considered in the power and act a man may have a Conscience-power which doth not exert and put forth act as a Man in Infancy or in Sleep Ergo it may be called Potestas intellectiva Intellectual Power reducible into act Again Intellectual Power is either Intuitiva vel ratiocinativa that is the intuitive which is the Vision or Understanding of a Truth Axiomatically or in the Abstract Ratiocinativa which is looking on several Truths compared together and one Truth being laid by another by way of Collation produceth a third Truth which we call a Conclusion or Inference The first and general truth that comes to the knowledge is the Law of God which is brought to us by the light of Nature or by the Word of God which way soever it comes it 's enough to give it a throne in Conscience that it be certainly known to be God's Law Nextly that our actions are laid by this Rule or brought before this Judgment-seat which two being solemnly brought together a third necessary Truth or Judgment according to truth doth result and is accordingly pronounced the certainty of which depends on the certainty of the Premises or at least the exact and just comparing them together The Understanding thus behaving it self puts on the nature of actual Conscience or Conscience in act bringing the habitual or potential Conscience into acts in this manner either concerning a mans state or actions Concerning a mans state The Soul that sins shall die I have sinned Ergo. Or concerning his particular actions He that committeth Idolatry or Adultery c. breaketh God's Law but I have committed such and such an act which is so Ergo § 5. Hence Conscience ruled by Christ's Prerogative is the practical reasoning Vnderstanding or Modus intellectus practicus in man whereby a judgment may be passed concerning a mans self by himself according to his apprehension of the revealed Judgment and Will of God its divine Authority that rules in mans Heart as to the approbation or condemnation of himself or actions The Conscience of the very blinde Heathens admit of no other power to acquit or condemn in this kind but either the convincing light of the moral Law written in them or some supposed false Divine light which by reason of the blindness of their Hearts seduceth them to false Worship and Idolatry § 6. The method of Conscience his acting is thus first there is the general undoubted truth known or assented to as such and it 's either that which is really so or supposedly so only and not so really if it be the latter it 's the main foundation of an erring Conscience It is the prospect of some apprehended Divine Truth or other Moral Levitical or Evangelical which obligeth us to acts of Obedience and this Law-obligation laid by God on man is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Proposition of a practical Syllogisme made by Conscience 2. There is the Application of this Truth to our selves either as to our state or particular actions according to our own knowledge together with God's to judge of our Conformity or Non-conformity to the said Law-obligation and therefore concerning the goodness or evil of our Actions and here we take the Candle of the Lord in our hands to search out and examine our condition and actions in relation to good or evil and herein doth the chief nature of Conscience consist because it 's a submitting ourselves and actions to the judgment of God's Law and is therefore the Assumption of this practical Syllogisme and is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is an Index Record Testimony Witness 3. There is the Crisis Inference or Conclusion necessarily deduced from the Premises and this is called the Judgment passed upon our state or actions Thus we have the whole Syllogisme which the understanding makes in this way of acting The Proposition is de Jure the Assumption de Facto the Conclusion is either a justification of person or action or it 's a condemnation of any of them found guilty § 7. The Synteresis is the light of Truth contained in the Law Nâ—eticè recepta sive practicum Axioma cum assensu intellectivo perceptum A light received into the understanding with assent thereunto or acknowledgment thereof as such A Law may be understood as to the matter of it but not believed as a Truth it may be known as a Truth but not owned as a Law yea it may be acknowledged as a Law but not yielded to as divine and authoritative enough to binde to Obedience yea it may be owned as a Law of God binding some people and at some times but not ourselves or at all times But unless the Truth taken for a Law be thus circumstantiated and so received by us it hath not force enough upon Conscience as a Law binding to Obedience So that Synteresis differs but ratione from the Law itself for it is the Law of God understood and yielded to as obliging unto practice and it 's not only the Law in its Letter and first Principles in its Original positive nature but in its aptitude to particular Cases and in its just Inferences and Consequences deducible from generals thereof all practical Truths pleading Divine Authority justly obliging us to belief § 8. That which stirs up the Understanding to compare Conditions and Actions with the divine Law in the assumption by a practical enquiry is a certain obligation which this Law-light hath the Heart of man under that it doth by a kinde of natural instinct act in the manner above-rehearsed which obligation is a necessity laid on the Understanding of owning and assenting to every known Law of God and thereby to make a practical disquisition and judgment accordingly The reason of this obligation lieth much in the necessity of the object And first the natural inclination the Understanding hath to every known truth as such but this is not
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