West or wear this or that Colour in the Worship of God c. thousands of instances may be given We speak not here of natural civil or moral Liberty there 's no doubt but a Christian as a man may claim as much of that as another and hath as much Law-obligation as to precepts of practice but the matter under debate is what the Evangelical Liberty of a Christian is in the transaction of the affairs of Christ's Kingdom § 3. A Christian's Liberty is not a boundless and lawless Liberty in those things wherein he is most free but hath its special limits and bounds set unto it by Christ in certain Rules and Precepts generally prescribed by him to which all his actions may be reduced either as to the substance of them and so fall directly under that Law or to the general circumstances and so are subject more remotely Hence there are no actions that a Christian doth of religious concernment that are compleatly indifferent but hath aliquatenus rationem boni aut mali § 4. The Spirit of God if I mistake not sets a double bound to Christian Liberty viz. Moral and Evangelical 1. Moral in that Christs Law allows none the liberty of committing moral transgressions it owns ratifies and confirms all moral Precepts Prohibitions or Permissions and none may use Christian Liberty as occasion of licentiousness Gal. 5.13 1 Pet. 2.16 2. The Evangelical bound to Liberty in matters left by Christ indifferent is Expediency by which a thing that is substantially indifferent may be relatively and circumstantially necessary pro hic nunc and becomes bonum aut malum contingens aut respectivum and that is medium officium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when a thing lawful in itself becomes unlawful the rule is plain 1 Cor. 10.23 28 29. therefore 1. All actions and therefore indifferent must be directed to the great and general moral end of Gods Glory 1 Cor. 10.31 Rom. 14.6 a man may eat or drink or wear this or that thing indifferently so that it be to God's glory keep a day or not keep it chuse this or that time to pray in for the same ends And hence Election is to be made of indifferencies according to their more or less tendency or aptness to accomplish that great end 2. A second end but subordinate in expediency to be respected is edification of our selves or others 1 Cor. 10.23 and that which respects neither of these ends with at least some tendency is religiously vain as wearing one colour more than another religiously in the worship of God and in one part of worship more than another what doth this conduce to edification by which way if any it should be sublimed to God's glory and to bring vain oblations to God in his worship is abominable to him in all ages of the Church § 5. God hath not by Laws determined particularly all the cases of a Christians Conversation but left many to the management of the judgement of discretion by the rules of expediency which is a skill of discerning between good and evil Heb. 5.12 and between good and better Discretion is the highest pitch of practical Judgement which although it be guided by general rules for attaining the great end yet it takes its particular measures very much from former experiences and the sight of various circumstances and occurrences and accordingly it judgeth what may be more or less expedient in all actions and though in themselves they are indifferently referrable this way or that way yet by that time they are reduced into practice by a Christian's spiritual Reason and Discretion acting from senses exercised Heb. 5.12 there is manifest good or evil at least relative discovered in them or at least put upon them by the said general ends and rules of walking § 6. As strength appears most in the management of a man's self according to the rules and observances of discretion so weakness in the failure hereof is most discoverable and by an accumulation of these little failures a Christian doth exceedingly miscarry and Profession becomes very much disparaged § 7. Hence indifferent actions may become offending grieving and scandalizing unto others by reason of some external accident temporal or local respect and so may be unlawful by the rules of expediency for that which certainly is not expedient is unlawful though degrees are to be admitted in this case § 8. As the scandalizing others is a mischief that makes an indifferent action unexpedient so also the betraying our own Liberty Paul in his acting kept a watchful eye here when he found that some designed by an indifferent thing to bring him into bondage he gave not the least place to them as in the matter of the Circumcision of Titus Gal. 2.3 4. We are to stand fast in our Liberty and not to be enthral'd in bondage though it be but by the doing an action in itself adiaphorous § 9. Whatever is not of Faith is sin and the necessity of every action or forbearance must appear to every mans Conscience that he may do or forbear believingly in all religious concernments therefore all absolute necessities must be bound on his Conscience by the knowledge of some Law positively commanding or forbidding And all relative necessities i. e. indifferencies circumstantial must arrive at Conscience with their Expediencies which must be the ballance of Election in things equally good in themselves their comparative goodness must be respective or evil must make some appearance to the judgement of discretion and a Christians freedom in the exercise of the said judgement according to the several cases he meets withal is his Liberty which Christ hath purchased and a Christian cannot be deprived of jure by any Exotick Law § 10. Where things are absolutely indifferent and there is no apparent respective difference between adiaphorous things it 's a Christians liberty to take the one or the other he sins not against any rules of Expedience in taking either for both are lawful and expedient enough neither do I know why any additional Law should make him a Transgressor in chusing or refusing of either in matters of Religion for an action or thing may be equally lawful and expedient morally which for some other reasons may not arising from Nature his own inclinations or some other small attending circumstances of which it may not be fit to give an account to any humane Authority as the Transgressor of any Law § 11. As particular persons by the rules of Expediency may judge of things indifferent to prefer one before another according to their respect to know precepts or to chuse one before another arbitrarily where there is no difference in compared respects So particular Churches and Congregations have the liberty of using their judgement of discretion in matters of indifferency and are to walk by rules of Expediency for Time Place and external Accommodations but cannot make any binding Law to themselves or others because those things are alterable
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
to walk In Gal. 6. he speaks in the verse before of indifferent things Circumcision availeth nothing nor uncircumcision but the new creature and as many as walketh according to this Rule What Rule is that It 's this To put no stress on things indifferent but upon those that Christ hath made necessary to salvation for preserving the life of the new Creature So in Phil. 3.16 so far as we have attained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it 's to be understood of the one Rule of the Gospel or System of Rules in things necessary for our practice by the special appointment of Christ and so far as Christians have attained to the knowledge of this Canon we are to walk Whence I gather that walking according to Order is in the practice of Canonical Obedience to the Rules of the Gospel that is in a due submission to and practice of all the Ordinances of the Gospel without distraction and confusion God being the God of Order and not of Confusion § 6. Decency and Order is either Civil or Religious by Civil I mean such as are of civil use merely or such rites and modes of action as are used in civil affairs Though these may have a moral and therefore religious foundation yet their Objects Intendments and Circumstances being chiefly Civil and the moral foundation from the second Table we call them Civil and distinguish them from religious Decencies And these are such as have their foundation on the first Table and have God for their Object immediately and manifest End being ordained for spiritual intendments and purposes and therefore external Notes of internal seriousness reverence and consideration of God's Presence Honour and Worship according as revealed and required of us in the Canon of his holy Word And though the mode and order of Actions and Gestures may be the same materially that we use in civil Decencies and Order yet the appropriation being to contradistinct Objects and their purport and designe of the said Actions and Modes thereof they are justly reputed of another nature and receive contradistinct Denominations § 7. Religious Decency and Order is either of merely Moral or of instituted Original Moral and therefore called Natural and instituted Worship are usually and aptly opposed for such as are of Moral Original are comprehended in or directly deducible from the precepts of the Moral Law as all reverent and humble gestures of the Creature before the Creator such as standing kneeling prostration c. which for the most part are onely generally propounded so far as they may hold forth a proportionate external indication of the solemnity of our Undertakings neither may they become any more definite by mans Law than God himself hath determied As for Example No man can make a Law to tye us up to any particular gesture in Prayer as to kneeling standing c. because God hath left it indifferent to a Christians election to govern himself by the Rules of Expediency so he have a respect to the general Obligation viz. that it be such as is reverent and becoming our attendance on God in such an Ordinance § 8. Decencies and Order belonging to instituted Worship are separable from merely moral Worship and required by some more special Commandment of Christ in the disciplining of his Church and they differ as the Oeconomy of the Church doth The Levitical Oeconomy made Levitical Decencies and Order necessary in mode and manner of the Jewish Worship then required in those of Offerings Sacrifices Buildings Gestures Vestures Washings all which as shadows vanished and were actually abolished with the whole substance of the Ceremonial Law when the Body approached And therefore to introduce into Gospel-worship Modes proportionate and adapted to Mosaical Services viz. Priests Ephods Altars Sacrifices c. is contrary to the revealed Will of Christ and an implicite denial of his being come in the Flesh § 9. The Levitical Oeconomy with all its Appendixes being abolished the Evangelical takes place which are determined by the Law of Christ as to the more and less substantial parts of Worship And that we may be distinct about Gospel Decencies and Order we must know 1. That all merely moral Decencies are in force under the Gospel and needs no other Law to ratifie them than the Law of Christ which hath always continued the moral Law and its due circumstantial Attendments under all changes of instituted Worship 2. All Levitical Decencies and Order are abolished by Christ's coming when his Ecclesiastical Oeconomy was changed 3. All Evangelical Decencies and Order as womens being covered and keeping silence in publick Assemblies and such as concern the Word and Sacraments are sufficiently determined by Christ by the precepts or practice of himself Apostles and Primitive Church that we need not betake our selves to Rome or any other pretended Law-making Church to fetch new Prescriptions in order to the compleating of the Worship of Christ And whereas present Innovations of our Pretenders are pleaded for from the Primitive practice I say no more but this that when the Evidence of that Practice appears from God's Word we will not scruple the imitation but being imposed upon us by Tradition mostly through Antichristian hands or at best by very fallible and inconsistent History and if in many things true as to matter of fact yet we finde them not justified by Sacred Authority we dare not assent and consent unto them § 10. Now if the Church knows of any more Decencies and Orders needful to be used under the New Testament and those that are of moral intent confirmed by Christ or Evangelical of his last Institution then let her plead and use her Legislative power if she have any jure in establishing the same and if any shall or doth think notwithstadding that it 's needful to establish new decencies of humane invention by Church-Laws we shall still proceed further to evince the contrary § 11. If decency and order be strained to the largest acceptation in the New Testament's sence they cannot be pretended to be any other than Evangelical decency and order comprehending all moral and instituted decency and order which Christ hath appointed to be used in his Gospel-Church else how should it come to be so for that onely is Evangelical which Christ makes so and calls so every mimical Gesture and antick Vesture that any brainsick Church-man or carnal Priests and Prelates or any Convention of them shall devise and christen with the name of Decency and Order is not Evangelical The Rules and Forms of Worship and Discipline which Christ hath left to his Church are comely grave decent and orderly enough without any additaments and amendments proceeding from mens corrupt fancy and interest § 12. And that it 's not lawful for the Church to make Laws to establish more decencies in the Worship of God than Christ hath appointed or allowed we have proved already if they undergo the lowest consideration as matters of Indifferency I shall onely adde a
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
so therefore is to make a double reflexion on Christ First that his Laws are defective for the accomplishment of those ends for which they were established and that the liberty granted by Christ unto his Members in indifferent things hath too great a latitude to be consistent with that exact Gospel-worship which we should honour him by And if it be said that which Christ hath left Evangelically indifferent may be unlawful in respect of other Laws we say that all the true jus of other Laws must be founded on Christ's and his is precedaneous to them and therefore as in authority or practice it must take place before them Moreover we say that Christ hath not so ill establish'd Christian Liberty as that thereby we are licensed to violate any natural or civil bonds § 4. Argum. 3. That which by Christ's Authority hath left a Character impressed on Conscience cannot by any authority be abrogated without removal of the said Character but as the Laws so the Liberty by Gospel-Charter granted by Christ hath left such a Character impressed indelibly on Conscience as cannot be removed by any other Authority therefore Christian Liberty cannot be abrogated c. Ergo a religious Gospel-indifferency cannot be taken away or cease by the determination of mere humane Laws i. e. humane Laws that Christ never allowed man to make The Major is evident in that the revealed will of Christ when it shines into the Heart fixeth an indelible Character upon Conscience for positive obedience and also as to indifferent things for he that knows not one by the Law knows not the other nor can never tell when he sins and when he doth not and if any other could interpose and make a Law to binde Conscience sub reatu by new Laws or release it by new Liberties either to make additional Characters or delete Christ's Christian Religion would thereby become no other than an undigested heap of uncertainties and confusions It 's true Characters are sometimes removed from Conscience as in case of Justification of a sinner by Faith Rom. 8. So in case of an erring Conscience that supposeth this to be his duty which is not and that to be indifferent which is necessary all errour when entertained lays hold on Conscience Sub pretextu authoritatis Christi under pretence of Christ's Authority and so do all humane usurping Laws when they insinuate themselves into Conscience and when by a farther informing light the Errour is expell'd from the Judgement and Conscience the Authority of Christ still remains expelling the Errour which no humane Authority could do and confirming the Conscience in the truth maugre all the opposition of any humane power so that where Christ's Laws hath once prevailed so far as to fix his Authority there it was never known that whatever mens external practices or conformities were that ever any humane Power could blot out the Characters of Christ's Prerogative and fix another Supremacy there for that is but a vain Law in religious things that cannot binde the Conscience under guilt in case of transgression I shall never conscienciously observe that for my duty the omission of which doth not make me conscious of a Transgression As to the Minor that the liberty granted by Christ leaves a Character on Conscience as well as the Laws of Christ is manifest 1. Because Laws are the bounds of Liberty and one must be known and acted as well as the other as hath been said before 2. Because their liberty is not the will of Christ permissive onely but in some measure positive i. e. so far as that Christians should walk in it he having but two paths to walk in either of positively directed obedience or of Liberty under the judgement of discretion regulated by the rules of Expediency for either in matters of instituted Worship Christ hath by a manifestation of his will limited our Actions or hath left Churches and Christians in the Equilibrio of indifferency to poise themselves according to Conscience-Light as to respective differencies by discretion and where there is an equality to chuse pro arbitrio Again our assurance is not onely negative but positive that it is Christ's will that we should maintain our liberty in Religious things stand fast in that liberty c. Neither can any take it away without intruding on Conscience and entrenching on his Prerogative which for us to yield to were to betray his Crown and Scepter § 5. Argum. 4. Hence if such a Law be made it ought not to be made and ergo the thing retains its pristine nature That Law which directly puts a Christian on a necessity of sinning in obeying it ought not to be made but a Law that changeth Evangelical indifferencies into necessities doth directly put a Christian on a necessity of sinning if he obeys Ergo it ought not to be made That the Major may be universal I adde directly because many good Laws are occasions of sinning indirectly but when the Law requires such obedience which in the very substance of it is sin because the obedience directly aimed at is the formal reason of the Law such a Law must needs be sinful The Minor doth thus appear because such a Law bindes a man up in obedience to it in one part of the indifferency whereas that part of the indifferency according to Christ's rules of expediency may be unlawful to be done and then the humane Law and the said Gospel-rules contradict one another Expediencies altering daily as to attending circumstances at some times it 's lawful to do that thing which at another is more agreeable to the honour of Christ and the good of others to avoid As for Example the Apostle reckons eating this or that sort of meat sold in the Shambles as an indifferent thing if I make no question whether it be Jewishly unclean or Heathenishly sacrificed to Idols 1 Cor. 10.25 27. but if I am enforced by Law to eat this or that sort of meat in the Shambles which is sacrificed to Idols I am necessitated to sin 1. I offend my Brother that makes this Law confirming him in sin for the sake of whose Conscience I ought by the Apostles rule to forbear this act and therefore sin against all such as idolatrously eat this sacrificed meat For what can tell me more plainly than the Law that this or that meat by its attending circumstances is sacrificed to Idols Again to hear the Word of God in this or that publick place is an indifferency to hear it to my edification as near as possible is the Precept of Christ but if I am bound by a humane Law to hear always in my own Parish-church and thereby debarred of my liberty of hearing there where I can most profit and whereas the Parish-minister is ignorant prophane or erroneous whom to hear constantly must needs be sin to me I am certainly by this Law put upon a necessity of sinning in yielding active obedience unto it § 6. Argum. 5. That Indifferencies
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
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