which is our duty in opposition to resistance or rebellion and Obedience which lyes in the doing what he commands It is apparent in the last passage how he confounds these two things when the making conscience of subjection to Princes and obligation to the Law is belike all one with him in his present conception But that there is a difference to be put between these two it does appear undeniably from one consideration that we are always bound in conscience to the one that is subjection but we are not always so bound to the other to obedience The things that are commanded may be sometimes sinful or hurtful to the Common-wealth and then it will be our duty not to obey them or they may be idle vain frivolous which we may choose therefore to do out of prudence for fear of wrath and to avoid contempt and scandal when we are not otherwise to hold our selves bound in conscience Sect. 4. To begin with the former By me Kings Reign says Wisdom and if they rule by God it is fit they should also rule for him He is the Minister of God for our good says the Apostle The Minister is to look to his Lords will and the good of the Subject is not only their Temporal but Spiritual good And if he be Gods Minister for our good there can be no exemption of Sacred things any more then Civils from his Authority under God for the good of his People And hence are we taught to pray for Magistrates that we may lead peaceable lives under them in all Godliness as well as Honesty Kings and Emperors says Grotius from some other are equally to take care of Sacred and Secular things but onely when we come to particulars it must be confessed that the jus imperii is more narrow in matters of Religion then in other matters upon this one account that the Divine Law does appoint or determine more things concerning Religion and so takes them out of the Magistrates liberty then it does concerning other matters In hoc Reges sicut cis Divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in suo regno bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam sicietatem verum etiam quae ad Divinam Religionem says Augustine Contra Cresco nium l. 3. c 51. The affairs of Religion I must say again are of the greatest concernment and it is not fit Gods Minister should neglect his greater affairs to take care only of the less Besides there are no matters in the Earth which have so great an influence on Mens spirits to put them in agitation as the matters of Religion and if they were exemted wholy from the authority of the Supreme Governour it would be a very hard thing for any mortal to govern at all The Non-Conformists therefore deny not the authority of the King in matters Ecclesiastical No they may perhaps be rather accused shortly for acknowledging it too much as hath been intimated seeing they do accept of his Declaration nor do they scruple his Title of Supreame Head We distinguish indeed between a Civil head of the Church and the Constitutive head The King we acknowledge the civil Head or Governour of the Church of England as well as the State that is in whom the only Supream Coercive authority does lye over all persons in Ecclesiastical as well as other matters But as to the constitutive head of our Church as an Ecclesiastical organical body it will be hard for those who own not be Bishops jure Divino to assign The National Church hitherto I took to be the Integrum of our Parochial Congregations and the Pastors of all the Parish Churches in England virtually associated for they are not actually are I think the constitutive head of the Church of England under Christ in that external formal Government of it he hath committed to them There is the internal Government of the Church which belongs only to Christ and his Spirit who alone can rule mens hearts or the external Government of it This external regiment is either formal which belongs to the Ministers or Objective which belongs to the Magistrate The Magistrate cannot therefore by vertue of his Office enter into the function of the Priest to do his work though he can make the Minister himself do it and punish him if he neglect his duty He can give a call to the Pastoral Rulers to meet and frame Ecclesiastical constitutions and when himself cannot make them they shall not yet be obligatory to the subject unless they have his Sanction This external authority over the Church which is Objective that is which is conversant about Ecclesiastical affairs but does not exercise them which is Circa Sacra not in Sacris according to Constantine of old Episcopus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does differ from the formal which is from Christ to us as his Stewards and Embassadors and so to be put in execution no otherwise then as it is prescribed by him in the word in this mainly that the one is Declarative that can direct what is Gods will and perswade to it and threaten only with reference to another world but the other is a power to make that our duty which it requires and enforce it to be done by present punishments that is a power which is juris Constitutinum and Coercive There are two sorts then of things which are subject to the Magistrates Power or Government Things or actions determined by God himself in his word or things that are less undetermined by him as neither commanded nor forbidden For the former the Magistrates power does lye in his being made the Keeper of the Tables having no authority to change a title of Gods Law so that his work in respect of such things consists in protecting those that observe them and encouraging such by removing what will hinder and promoting what will further them in their duty as also in his discouraging the Transgressour by withdrawing the occasions of their sin and punishing them for it For the latter the power of the Magistrate does lye in his liberty to determine all such things as being before not determined so as by that determination to make them our duty which were indifferent before to make it our duty I say to avoid or do such things according as he requires or prohibits them for the common edification Haes sive Sacra sive profana sint says Grotius determinare in alterum partem jus est summae potestatis Provided always that such commands as these do indeed answer that end For seeing power in the original is derived from God as Supreame Lord Thou couldst have no power says Christ to Pilate unless it were given thee of God and it is given of God to none but for the common good we are to conceive that the things that are commanded in Civils are for the good of the Common-wealth and in Ecclesiasticals for our Spiritual edification or else though
such where the Superiour commands what he ought I will express it if you will in other words When the Superiour commands any thing which he ought we are obliged for conscience sake and the fifth Commandment requires us to do the thing or else we break that command because this thing bears in it the authority of both Commanders when he commands any thing which he ought not we are obliged for wrath's sake and the fifth Commandment requires only that we do not resist so that if we resist not we give that honour and pay that duty to the Magistrate which we owe in this case If we suffer with submission or obey rather then suffer or avoid both the grievance and suffering with prudence neither bringing contempt on his Authority or inducing our Brethren to sin we are to account that we answer the intent of this Commandment I must add still that this is as much too as the Magistrate himself need desire in the Earth seeing if he be strict upon it and the thing be not sinful he may take any body do what he please upon this account As for our Prefacer it must be yet a greater reproof to his undertaking that in this endeavour of his to set up an Authority in the Magistrate over the Conscience in all matters External he is certainly fallen in with Mr Hobs whom yet to avoid the odium he is fain himself to confute For when that more considerable person according to his principles of Government makes all men by nature before they come into society to be in a state of War that gives every man right to every thing which right upon their agreement into a Common-wealth is given up he counts into the hands of the Soveraign to determine Propriety so that his will thenceforth becomes the measure of right and wrong to the Community he proceeds so far upon the conceit as to condemn these two positions That every man is judge of good and evil Doctrine That whatsoever a man does against his conscience is sin See his Leviathan C. 29. Now let us compare this ingenuously as we ought seeing else it is so bad with other places in his Book That Subjects owe to Soveraigns simple obedience in all things wherein their obedience is not repugnant to the Laws of God I have proved C. 31. Again It is manifest enough that when a man receiveth two contrary commands and knows that one of them is Gods he ought to obey that and not the other though it be the command of his lawful Soveraign or his Father C. 43. It does appear then when the Ecclesiastical Polititian does confine the authority he gives the Magistrate over the conscience to external and indifferent things allowing the authority of the conscience over the Magistrates in things intrinsecally sinful and expresly forbidden by God he does but the same which Mr. Hobs does also if you compare them equally taking one place with another But herein are they wicked companions both that they should once offer to take away from reasonable Agents a judgement of private discretion in any concernment of conscience whatsoever One may easily indeed perceive what the Contents of this young mans papers do amount unto He dare not take off all obligations of good and evil from mens consciences antecedent to humane Laws as Hobs in that one place though otherwhere as it seems he intended not so far hath done because this were not only the way to ruine Religion but his name and to bring all Government also to ruine which he engages to assert But he would take off all obligations from mens consciences in the whole business of Conformity antecedent to the will of the Parliament and Bishops so as their Acts must be the rule of good and evil to us as to these matters He does tell us indeed of a liberty to our Judgments and to our Faith but when he will allow us to judge and believe of these things as we do and would yet have us account that the publick conscience the Laws and not the private dictates of our own must govern our outward actions it does bring to my mind one passage more in his Friend What if a Soveraign forbids his Subjects to believe in Christ I answer says Mr. Hobs it is no effect because belief or unbelief never follow mans Commands But what if we be commanded to confess with our Tongues It is an external thing and no more then any other gesture whereby we signifie our obedience and a Christian holding firmly in his heart the Faith of Christ hath the same liberty herein with Naaman Leviathan C. 42. There are no passages but this and that one before cited that in my reading over that Book I observed to be so extream bad as folks ordinarily talk but this I noted for a Devilish Doctrine seeing it is offered thus indefinitely for it is directly contrary to all the Holy Martyrs belief and practise and the express institution of our Lord that he that confesses him before men he will acknowledge and he that denieth him he will deny before his Heavenly Father Yet if any will be so kind to the old Gentleman as I have been before to produce some passages otherwhere that may confine hâ—s meaning here to such compliances of the Tongue and Knee only as are required in the impositions of Vniformity and no other but such then shall the old Leviathan and the young Leviathan agree very throughly in their opinion And why the young one should fall upon his Sire so foully as he hath done whom above all men being alone of his side he should have rather endeavoured to excuse unless out of shew onely and for a coulour or out of invenility and vanity he shall for me have the Tripos or be the eighth man who can give me a good reason I perceive indeed that two points and both of which I have had long in my thoughts are harled together through the skein of this Prefacers Discourse that is the Magistrates Authority in Religion and the Obligation of human Laws It will be expedient for me to dispatch the one quite out of my hands being already done in another Book to be at liberty to attend the other presently altogether By what hath been then laid down it may appear that the right and relation of a Subject to his Soveraign may be held good when yet there are it may be some of his Laws not obeyed Some Laws there are which a man must rather suffer or dye then obey as the Roman Emperors commanding Sacrifice to their Gods Some we are to obey out of conscience such are all the wholesome Laws of a mans Countrey Some there are that we obey out of prudence rather then suffer which yet we do not judge our selves bound to obey for fear of sin or of Gods displeasure The great question then arises what is that rule according to which the Laws of men are to be measured that we may
command and oblige the Conscience as human law does bind it which how and how far it does is stated in my other book he cannot justly punish the man for not doing that which he was not bound to do So that we see here where the Magistrate must not use his Sword even while he is using it and acts not as a Magistrate but by it He acts by his authority or sword in seeing the means used helps administred obstacles removed He can and may force others whose duty it is not to be wanting in this when he cannot then enforce the end to which he causes these means to be used He cannot I mean he ought not punish any man only because his Conscience is not wrought upon by the means which he has used and so does not what he would have him In this case it is not he or the man either can help it and he may as well beat his Dog for not whistling Upon this account there is very good reason that regard be had so much the more to things that are not attainable without supernatural help that they be not enforced as other things So that we are to understand well after this that the distinctions between the Religious and Secullar things in reference to the Magistrates Authority or using his Sword is for all what is before said to be held so far as it will reach but that is only to a majus minus of his Care not to the specification of the state of our business My meaning is that in things not Religious but Moral only or Civil the Magistrate is more free as to his commands and using his Sword than in matters of Religion or he is to take more care of what he imposes in the one than he need to do in the other but that will not advance to the stating the point hereupon that he hath Authority and may use his Sword in Civil and not in Sacred concerments The King under the Law was to have the Book of God by him to this end that he might govern the people according to it and consequently use his Authority in the things of Religion And so Jehoshaphat to name no other appoints his Officers for the doing justice in the matters of God as in the Kings matters This Proposition The Magistrate may use his Sword in Civil but not in Religious affairs is not a true Proposition and therefore can determine nothing And this Proposition The Magistrate is to take more heed how he uses his Sword in supernatural than in natural or civil concerns is a true Proposition but not a sufficient determination The main Question still remains What are those things wherein the Magistrate indeed hath no power or may not use his Sword Upon the knowledg of this must the stating the business depend for when we know in what things he may and in what he may not use his Authority the matter is at an end Here are we now therefore to think upon it what are those reasons why the Magistrate is to be more careful in the use of his power in Religious than in other matters and if it be any where it is like to be there that we shall find a bottom to determine the main issue To know these reasons look whatsoever difference there are to be made between Religious and Civil matters in respect to the Magistrates using his Sword about them and they must be these reasons The first difference then between Religious and Civil things that may be offerred as a reason why the Magistrate is to take more care of using his Sword in the one than the other is That Religious things are supposed to be of supernatural Revelation which cannot therefore be known and done without Gods grace and it is not fit the Magistrate should punish a man for the want of that which God does not give him When in Moral and Civil things he hath the knowledg of them only by Nature and the practise of the Realm Now then if this will serve to determine the Question the Proposition drawn from it must be this That in all matters that are of supernatural Revelation the Magistrate may not use his Sword but in all other he may use it But this Proposition is alike false with the first That in all Religious he may not and in all Civil he may The Law given by Moses was by Revelation but the Magistrates might punish the breakers of that Law The Gospel is by Revelation but the Magistrate may punish those that keep from Church out of Irreligion The example of the man that was put to death for gathering Sticks on the Sabbath is a president uncontroulable that a man may be punished for his Presumption when he may not for his Conscience in the matters of Religion The second difference between Sacred and Civil affairs which may be another reason why the Magistrate is to take more heed as to the one than to the other is That the World cannot be governed without the exercise of his Authority in Civils when if the world were without all that which is of supernatural Revelation and consequently if he meddles not at all with those things it might It appears then reasonable that in what the government of the World can be without the Magistrate should not be so pressing when in that which it cannot subsist without he must Let us then again draw out what is here and try if it will do In matters which the world may be governed without the Magistrate must not use his Sword but in matters without which it cannot be governed he may This Proposition labours with the same failing for the Magistrate may use his Authority in things which the world may be governed if it were without because he can use it in religious matters as hath been instanced already from Scripture A third difference between Sacred and Civil things and which is a reason why the Magistrate is to be more careful of his injunctions and using his Sword in the one above the other is Because it is more like that the things he imposes in Religious concerns should be against mens consciences than in Civil or Moral matters and the Magistrate hath no Authority over the Conscience of any It is the commandment of the most High that no man should ever do any thing against his Conscience and the Magistrate cannot use his Authority but for God Now let us see if this at last will serve for the determining the question and if it will then must this proposition be true That in all matters that are against mens Consciences the Magistrate hath no authority and cannot use his Sword but in all matters that are not against their Consciences or that are according to them he may use it And this proposition I count is true and certain and to be maintained even in Religious and Civil matters and so is the foundation concluded upon by me to establish our Determination SECT
constituted thereby parts of the Church National whereof he is Head no less then the Parish assemblies The matter is all one as if a Parish onely which was too big should be divided into two where I say there is Separation no Schism I will undertake to make it good that the Bishops Consecration of a Church is not necessary to the making the Society that Assembles therein to be a particular Church or part of the National but that the Kings Authority alone is enough for that Relation Nay I know not but the King upon the same account might constitute unmaintenanced Bishops over those particular Congregate Churches if he pleased as well as he hath maintained Bishops over those that have Livings if it were to any purpose at all and for his peoples edification Well now then if any Licensed person shall gather their Congregations in a way of opposition to the Parish Churches which he hath also establisht by denial of them to be true Churches I do account still that all such partaking thereby with the Novatian and the Donatist of old must come under the condemnation of the Fathers and Councels passed upon their error and that is that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we call Separation If any again shall gather a people in a way of strife pride vain-glory envy contention which are breaches of Christianity when the end of the Commandment is Charity I will account this also being sinfull it does make those conventions Schismatical But if a man shall come honestly and peaceably in the fear of God with prudence and innocency as becomes a Christian to set up one of these Meetings by vertue of the same Authority as the Parish Priest hath his I will desire any that can to shew me now where the sin is to be found If he can shew it me I will consent to him that he shall call all these Meetings Schismatical still upon condition that if he cannot he will pardon them henceforth who do go to these particular Churches by the Kings appointment now parts of the National with the same veneration and regard as to the Parish Congregations We will thank the late ingenuous Author who advised us to take heed that Toleration be not abused and we do shew wherein that care is to be taken that we may not abuse it but when he would have had the Non-Conformist under pretence of not abusing his liberty to take such a course only as not to use it at all though the generality of us do judge they should most glorifie God this way he deserved to be blamed who upon the conviction will perhaps as soon as any be ready to thank God with us if a door so effectual be opened then we may without offence and without Schism joyn our strength in a mutual love and concord for the carrying on the great work of mans Salvation throughout the Nation But are not these Presbyterians very Knaves who stood before on Christs Authority for their Preaching and now take Licenses of the King While their plea was the same with the Apostles that they ought to obey God rather then Man we could bear with them but now we shall never abide them more I pray Sirs good words As Charity always thinketh the best I see this all will still thinketh nothing but evil If it were the duty of the Non-Conformist Minister to Preach before his Majesties Declaration it must be his duty still and if when we have obtained such grace as this is the Presbyterian should not accept it when there is no more doubt of prejudicing our Ministry thereby then the Apostles did theirs when they had leave of the Masters of the Synagogues to say on who would have fallen on the whole party so foully for refractory and perverse fellows as these men It is true we look on Christs Commission to be enough for our Preaching when we judge it for Gods Glory but to Preach in such a place and in such circumstances is we count in the dispose of the Magistrate The Magistrate hath the power of external order and may forbid a man to Preach I say in such a place when he cannot forbid him to Preach or else our Pulpits were our own still for all the Act of Uniformity The Presbyterians take Licenses of the King in reference to the place of their Assemblies Nay this authority of the King in slating these places and Meetings for them does incorporate them as integral parts or particular fellow congregations with those of the Parochial constitution into the Church National united under him as the Supreme Head which is a matter of that great weight and consequence as we have not yet looked about us to bless God enough for it Hereby can the Non-Conformist make his publick acknowledgement which he would have of the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals no less then the Bishop and yet his conscience not be burdened with the Diocesan Truely I know not but his Majesty really hath discerned more for the hitting the business of coagulating his whole people into one Ecclesiastical National society or body under him hereby then any of us were a warre of who could not see before any reason for such proceedings as are taken in this Declaration which we shall approve henceforth with a great deal of satisfaction But did not these men in the late Wars take part with the Parliament and now they submit to the Kings Declaration against an Act of Parliament Be it so The Act of Parliament is against the command of God The King permits what God bids Who should the subject obey but God and the King As for the War I perceive it will still be ript up though against the Act of Oblivion It was not upon the account of Religion it must be first known that it will be owned In the cause of Religion if we be persecuted we may fly Christ allows us but we may not resist The case then I account a singular case It was upon the Militia they began the old King said The King and Parliament was divided that is certain and the question was where the Authority or the most of it did lye some thought in the one some in the other and so were engaged I will speak now once for all that the mouths of these men may be stopped with reason for nothing else will do it There are some have thought thus The Government of this Nation is mixt A mixt Government is where the supreme Authority is not placed purely in the People or the Nobles or the Monarch but mixtly in them all The supreame Legislative power in this Nation lies in the King and his two Houses joyntly not severally as one Corporation says Judge Jenkins or to speak surely as one Parliament The Parliament which is to be one in Law being divided the constitution is broken that being broken the Government is dissolved and the power returned at that season to the people The people being at liberty
of the question with some more mature thoughts and peculiar notion which affording me a ground work for further disquisition hath given me both the rise and ability to carry the point on to a full Determination And this Gentleman I count hath given too little to the Magistrate on the other hand in the matters of Religion but hath gone to make it up with giving him too much in Moral and Civil matters I must be forced to tell this to my ordinary Reader who else would perhaps hardly believe that it is I who stand for Liberty of Conscience that grant the Magistrate his due power in things Sacred as well as Civil and it is he is not tender enough of it when denying him what is his due the use of his Sword or power in things Religious he hath left him without a rule or bounds to his commands in other matters If I appear to drive on my purpose in this and other of my Books more dryly and scantily then in a Subject or Subjects so capacious might be expectted let not the Judicious Reader impute that to me as a fault which is a thing so much to be wished in the writings of others that I do single out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the main thing altogether which is to be sought and I do by no means deflect from it leaving whatsoever else the matter may lead to as more copious and where none of the knot lyes to the Volums of others Sect. 8. The first of these Books then is A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity the design whereof as to the substance consists in the giving a Superiority to the Magistrate over the Conscience that in all doubtful or disputable cases viz. in all matters in their nature indifferent he means according to his Scope in all matters now in difference between the Conformist and Non-Conformist a man must account according to that Authors opinion that if he act against the dictates of his conscience out of obedience to the lawful Magistrates commands he does but as a Christian and is justifyed by him in the doing A Doctrine that I take to be not only new and Heterodox but dangerous to Religion and the opening a door to the pleasing of man and seeking preseâ—ment above keeping a good conscience before God In things apparently and intrinsecally evil he grants that the Magistrate is not to be obeyed But how can this stand on its foundation if conscience had not certainly an authority over the commands of the Magistrate and the authority of the Magistrate not over conscience as he speaks There need no more proof that conscience must have the superiority in every thing then to yeild it in any thing seeing it is the conscience of every particular person is the judge to him of what God has forbidden and the command of God must take place of the command of men in all things alike whatsoever If this eminently accomplished young Divine then be not too proud to take it kindly I would help him out here according to the best that I think can be done There is the conscience of the universality and of particular persons When he says the Magistrates Authority is over the conscience let us understand his meaning to be onely as to the conscience of such particulars which in some sense may be granted while he passes any Law upon the account that it is according to the consciences of the Generality notwithstanding it proves against theirs And then whereas he speaks often to this purpose that the conscience being in doubt a man should in all matters indifferent make the Law or will of the Magistrate his rule Let us understand him favourably that he means onely when a man is satisfied in the main of the thing that it is lawful and there remains only some scruples that are fit to be shaken off in which case Divines I think do ordinarily advise it to be safest to obey the Law But this is to be known also that the conscience is not to be accounted doubtful in this case but satisfied and troubled only as the Travellour is with the Scrupuli the gravel in his Shooe which he throws out and walks on whereas if his feet be really wounded and he does so he may be undone That this may be the better relished I will entreat this person to take good heed onely to a certain Book which is another such a one as his and came out then and I suppose he likes well a Book entituled Toleration discussed where he may read these passages for his instruction Am I to believe every thing to be indifferent which the Magistrate tells me is so though it be wicked No he answers Sect. 21. You are bound there by a Superiour Law and to your self you are Judge Again I am so far in another place from advising you to renounce your reason that on the contrary I would have you absolutely guided and concluded by it and only to obey for quiets sake so far as you can possibly obey in conscience Again The Magistrate is a publick Minister and his Commission reaches not to particular consciences On the other side there is as little reason for any ones private opinion to operate on a publick Law So that if I mistake not we are upon accord thus far That every particular is to look to one and the King to the whole Again The King is accountable to God for the welfare of his people and you are accountable to God for the good of your little particular If you cannot obey the Law do not but abide the penalty And finally when he hath balanced all the interest he can for the Law with this alone of Conscience he hath the same cloze And yet I say stick to your conscience I do cite these passages with pleasure to see a reverence to conscience in the heart of the Gentleman who wrot that Book and that meerly out of conviction when the Divine who wrot this Discourse of Ecclesiastical polity hath so carried it as if in the whole matters which are now in agitation between all parties in the Nation the Magistrates Authority alone should satisfie every body When the Dictates of a private conscience says he happen to thwart the determinations of the publick Laws they in that case loose their binding power with several passages to that purpose which is certainly a fair beginning as is intimated for the making the Rulers favour and a mans own advancement very quickly all his Religion The Magistrate then which I offer as what himself and this Gentleman intends in the passing any Law the matter whereof is against any of his Subjects consciences is to be conceived to go by a Judgement on the Generality and those Laws to be supposed according to conscience because they are according to his own and those of the generality when else they could not be passed without sinning against God In the mean time every particular man for himself is
to obey onely with subordination to his conscience and is not to have Ghostly encouragement to go against the Dictates of it upon any score Which as it may serve for the information of the Divine who will receive it perhaps from such a hand when he would not else from mine so may it give me occasion to ask the Gentleman two questions The one is what if any such things should again come to be put in a Bill at the House which the King does believe really is against the conscience of the Generality or of such a particular number at least as is fit and necessary for him to take cognezance of them Can he pass such a Bill in point of conscience The other then follows whether the pressing this Nation in the main to Conformity is not really such a thing at this season when the generality are so divided in their opinions I require here no more candour in the Gentleman then what he hath shewen in that last work Who as I found him a lover of learning and reading in these present deboshed times should not escape my praise notwithstanding others odium for his industry and sufficiency especially as one of the Laity if the design of his writings had been but as commendable as the example Sect. 9. The other Book is those papers entituled Liberty of Conscience which are of another complexion and moulded with no less ingenuity of matter then the other in expression I am very well satisfied with the fulness aptness and conviction of the arguments for that Liberty I read there nevertheless I do apprehend the main state of the very point does require farther ventilation If I do provoke that Learned and excellingly worthy person by this means to write again on this Subject I shall I think do the World some service and perhaps bring more light to my own understanding The substance of the whole in his stating this business I take it comes to this The Magistrate is the Officer of God to see his will executed which unâ—er the Gospel he must do in that manner God hath appointed and therefore he must not use the Temporal Sword in the concerns of Religion In this Position thus â—aid down I must confess I judge there are some clouds but not without Truth under them The clouds are to be removed the truth maintained and that liberty which is irrefragable to the conscience must not be lost In the first place therefore There is a distinction among Dâ—vines which is the foundation this Gentleman goes upon that he hath drawn beyond the Staple This distinction if you consult their common places on that Head De Magistratu you shall find made by these two questions Whether the Magistrate is to take care of Religion Whether he is to compel his Subjects to it And when the former generally is granted the latter is denyed This studious person it is like meeting with this hint in some of his Books hath suffered a deception into these thoughts that the Magistrate therefore hath indeed something to do about Religion but he is not to use his Sword about it For the making his conceptions out after he hath ingenuously offâ—red three opinions as extremes in some that make the Magistrate the sole judge of all matters Spiritual and Temporal in others that affirm the like power but to be exercised in Spirituals in a perfect subserviency to the Clergy in a third that make him have nothing to do but in civil matters only he does endeavour to find himself a middle way wherein the Magistrate shall have his something to do a he speaks and not all to do in these matters then offering his notion of what has something he hath to do is which is to be the great Officer or Minister of God upon Earth to see his will which in Religion be accounts onely what he hath revealed to be put in executive he does put in for the reskâ—ing that Liberty which he would assert for the Conscience that under the Gospel he must do this in the manner also that Christ hath appointed and so not by the temporal Sword A great mistake The office it self of the Magistrate is to bear the Sword and by that to act or effect what it has to do Where a person hath no power of Coercion he acts not as a Magistrate but as another man and to say he may not use his Sword in the concerns of the Gospel is all one as to deny him any Authority any care any concernment about Religion at all The Sword says Bracton does signifie potestatem Regni and this must be laid down for a truth undeniable that unto whatsoever the Power or Government of the Magistrate extends his Sword must What he can command he may compel and where he cannot compel he cannot command It is in vain I mean to talk of rule if he have not power to punish when his command is not fulfilled The meaning then of our Divines by their distinction at first is that Faith indeed cannot be constrained and so men are not to be driven into Religion by force but yet that the care which the Magistrate is to have for maintaining the true Religion being received is Authoratative and to be mannaged not precario but by his Sword is with them also out of question In the second place Here is a difference seems to be put between the Law and the Gospel as to the Magistrates seeing Gods will executed in the manner he hath appointed whereas that manner God hath appointed in seeing his will performed is only that his Officer should act agreeably to the light of nature or right reason in applying such means as are proper to that end whether under the Law or Gospel For magistracy it self and the manner of its actings both so far as concerns Gods appointment we are to consider does derive from Nature and not from Positive Institution By the manner which Christ hath appointed under the Gospel he must either mean something in opposition to the use of the Sword or not in opposition to it If something in opposition it must be as much as if he had said that the Magistrate must see Christs will executed by some other way then the use of his Sword whereas there is no other way or manner quâ Migistrate he can see any thing done The use of his Sword is nothing but the using his Authority or Office which I have said just now and that he cannot act as a Magistrate any otherwise If he mean something not in opposition hereunto then cannot his consequence be valid that the Magistrate must see Christs will done onely in the manner he hath appointed and therefore not by the use of his Sword seeing the causing it to be done in Christ manner and the use of the Sword will stand together And what is it then indeed he means by this manner Christ hath appointed I turn to his Book and apprehend by this manner he
whatsoever he does according to his conscience yet he requires not in every thing that is according to his conscience he should act His conscience may be Erroneous or the thing not expedient if lawful to be done Again the Magistrates conscience and his are two He may think he is bound in conscience to act suppose in preaching seditious Doctrine yet if upon restraint he acts not his conscience cannot accuse him of sin because he cannot help it and the Magistrates restraining him is good and thereupon the does it for avoiding the evil that would follow if he should suffer him As to the latter question which is the case of constraint viz. the constraining of men to do any thing which is against their conscience I say the Magistrate hath in that case no Authority and that for this one reason which is to be insisted on to the last breach of these Papers viz because this is manifestly against his Office or work who being to see Gods Will performed does hereby directly endeavour the contrary His will is the man should never act against his conscience whatsoever comes of it he is forcing him hereunto Let me add Either the conscience of a man is in an error or it is in the right If it erre not a mans conscience is as God to him who can say a word against it If it be erroneous I say Gods will lyes in both these things that a man should not do against his conscience because it is his conscience and that he should not do according to his conscience because it erres but that he should lay down his error and so act And this is the meaning of that which Divines do say that such a conscience does ligare not obligare The Magistrate accordingly may not compel him to that which is positive to act against his conscience but to that which is negative viz. not to act according to it and if he do and do wickedly no doubt but he may punish him for it And so having offered you my Determination I am glad I can confirm it and that with two testimonies likewise most of sufficient credit The one is St. Austin in his second Book and Chapter 83. against Petilian who pleading the unlawfulness of compelling them to Religion Austin answers Ad fidem quidem nullus est cogendus invitus sed per severitatem solet perfidia castigari Si quae erga vos leges constitutae sunt non eis benefacere cogimini sed malefacere prohibemini nam benefacere nemo potest nisi elegerit The other is Grotius who letting nothing almost escape him which is momenâ— us in any Author hath fallen in upon this very quotation Suspenso pede hic incedendum ut illi qui Divinae Humanaeque ordinationi resistant non tam cegantur benefacere quam malefacere prohibeantur Quae duo in hoc ipso argumento Augustinus olim provide distinxit De Imperio summarum potestatum circa Sacra C. 6. S. 10. There are two Notes I must leave farther The one is that when I have laid down my two distinctions for the determining this point you must take beed of going away with one of them I know S. Augustins seventeenth Chapter in his second Book against the second Epistle of Gaudentius hath this Title quod ad veritatem cogendi sint etiam inviti which he makes good with these two instances of the King of Ninives commanding his people to repent and the Servants compelling them to come in to the Feast under the Gospel But neither of these Commands I hope and as I have said are to be supposed against the consciences of the one or the other but only they were unwilling and negligent and so had need of importunity and enforcement I deny not therefore but the Magistrate hath power N.B. of Constraint and Restraint in the matters of Religion but I say he hath not power of Constraint in matters Religious or other matters which are against a mans conscience The other Note is that when I have distinguished between Restraint and Constraint in the matter of Conscience not in the general matters only of Religion it does not seem to me safe to descend to particulars what is and what is not to be restrained but in general the Magistrate may use a due restraint when he hath reason and it is not fit he should restrain any when he hath none There is reason the Magistrate should restrain a John of Leyden and Knipperdoling when he hath indeed none against a peaceable Owen and honest Kiffin The Roman Emperour may have cause in general to take heed of innovation and yet have no cause to disturb the Christian of whom Pliny wrot to Traian By this means shall it not follow either that Christianity should be ever kept out of the World or that when Religion is established it must be overturned again by faction but that such a liberty only be allowed to conscience as is consistent with the Articles of Faith a good Life and the Government of the Nation SECT 10. Suppose we now then a Magistrate desirous to bring his People to a Religion or to a Uniformity in that way of worship he himself best approves What may he do therein The first thing he may and is to do is doubtless to take care that the people have Instruction that the Word be preached and such means used which are proper to convince their understandings and satisfie their consciences that they may submit to it This is the chief I count he is to do In the next place he may and is to cause all those impediments to be removed which may obstruct them in the reception of this Religion So Cyrus by his authority repressed the Jews enemies and made the way open for their return and rebuilding Jerusalem In the last place the Magistrate may tender all the encouragements and advantages with a restraint of the same to the refusers that he can possible to win them over to the way he conceives good for them When he hath gone thus far he must make a stand and consider in good earnest whether that which he would impose be against their Consciences or no. If it be not he may proceed to lay his Injunctions upon them whereby an obligation does fall upon the conscience supposing the thing reasonable and for the common good to do what his will is and if they do it not hereupon he may by the infliction of punishment that is by his Temporal Sword enforce them to a due obedience In summ He may do all and the very same in the concerns of Religion as he may do in the other concerns of his Kingdom upon that supposition But if it be against their Consciences he can proceed no farther He cannot lay any obligation on the Conscience which is contrary to that wherein it stands bound already and where he can lay no obligation on the conscience he cannot ex imperio command and where he cannot
doing or does a thing which is evil or destructive to the Government and common good though it be according to his own Conscience or judgment but what he ought to do I think the Magistrate may punish him with comfort and may restrain him more comfortably from what he would do but I do not think he may punish him with any such content for not doing that which yet were good so long as it is against his Conscience My reason I give is this Because in the one the man does what God would not have him in the other he does what God would have God would not have him do evil because of his erroneous Conscience but that he should lay down his error and do good but God will have every man so regard his Conscience though erroneous that he must not do any thing against it for any fear or advantage in the world Again as for what cause I will ask For what end could you punish him Is it for the most ordinary end of punishment the parties amendment that is the making the man do what he now leaves undone I answer Then your distinction here becomes void when you say you would not force him to any thing against his Conscience but you can punish him for the Magistrates forcing a man to any thing against his Conscience is to punish him for not doing the thing to make him do it Or is it only for example sake to others If so Then must these others be either such as the thing is also against their Consciences and then I say you are no more to punish one man to enforce others thereby to do against their Consciences than to force himself to act against it Or these others must be such as it is not against their Consciences though against his and in such a case if their be indeed a punishment can be inflicted so as will not be inductive either to the man himself or others to do the thing which is against their Consciences but will only induce others who can do it according to theirs to the doing I am not careful though it be executed upon any yet cannot say steadily that you may execute it because the very nature of punishment is such as unless it be for a fault and that wich deserves it there is no other end without this can justifie the infliction of it You see at last still unto what all will be reduced Things are or things are not against mens Consciences And there is a forcing positively or negatively Understand these terms as I have unfolded my self and so judg of the weight or insufficiency of my Undertaking SECT 14. I remember in the life of Josephus when some of the Trachonites came in for rescue to the Jews where himself was Governor and the Jews would thereupon constrain them to be circumcised or else let them not abide with them he would not permit that injurious zeal alledging That every man ought according to his own mind and not by mans compulsion to serve God In our English story to suit this when Ethelbert the first Prince that received Christianity of the Sexon Heptarchy was converted by Austine sent hither by Gregory and many thereupon came into the Church it is said He specially embraced those that came in but compelled none for he had learned that the faith and service of Christ ought to be voluntary and not of constraint It helpeth much to establish the publick Tranquility says the Imperial Edict of Constantine and Licinius for every man to have liberty to use and choose what kind of worshipping himself pleases And for that intent is this done of us to have no man enforced to one Religion more than another A Prince who would draw his Subjects divided into Sects and Factions to his Religion should not in my opinion use force says Bodin Which he enhaunses more particularly from the example of Theodosius toward the Arrians John Barclay not William that wrote adversus Monarchomachos hath a Discourse on purpose to this effect about the Calvinists as it is thought under the name of the Hyperephanians in one Chapter of his Argenis It was observed by the Popes Councel says Guiccardine that the prosecution of Luther since it was not accompanied with their own Reformation did encrease his Reputation and that it had been a less evil to dissemble the knowledg of such a matter which would perhaps have dissolved of its self than by blowing at the brand to make the fire burn the more There may be some Notes conferred with this out of Davilah upon the deliberations of the Politick Katharine Regent of France about the Pacification in her Son Henry the Thirds time I will rest in one after Henry the Fourth succeeded That great Prince thought good to declare himself Catholick but gets that same Edict for Liberty to the Hugonats to be renewed and passed the Parliament of Paris By which means endeavouring to remove suspition from their minds and confirming them by good usage together with some gifts and promises to the chief Heads he insensibly took away says the Historian the pulse and strength of that Party so that those that are versed in the Kingdom believe that a few years of such sweet poyson if he had not been disabled in this course through want of money would have extinguished that Faction which so many years of desperate War had not with the effusion of so much blood been able to weaken Violent courses says my Lord Cook are like hot waters that may do good in an extreamity but the use of them doth spoil the stomack and it will require them stronger and stronger and by little and little they will lessen the operation They that love this Commonwealth says Judg Jenkins will use means together with the restitution of the King to procure an Act of Oblivion and tender Consciences a just and reasonable satisfaction else we must all perish first or last I will crown the rest of these Testimonies with that experienced advice of our late King to his Son our now consenting Soveraign Beware of exasperating any Faction by the crosness and asperity of some mens passions humours or private opinions employed by you grounded only upon the differences in lesser matters which are but the skirts and suburbs of Religion wherein a charitable Connivance and Christian Toleration often dissipates their strength whom a rougher opposition fortifies and puts their despised and oppressed party into such combinations as may most enable them to get a full revenge on those they count their Persecutors who are commonly assisted by that vulgar commiseration which attends all that are said to suffer under the notion of Religion I set down these passages which my self occasionally have noted I may add many more out of others It is not like in the three first Centuries of the Church that any thing is to be found in the Christian Writings for the use of the Sword in Religion while themselves