§ 1. THat there is such a thing as Christian Liberty, none pretending to a true information in the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, I suppose, will deny; neither need I make it my pre­sent task for to prove. But the great Contest for many Ages hath been, about the true Na­ture and Extent of this Liberty: Some stretching the bounds thereof larger than Christ ever did, intrenching on Civil and Moral Laws; opening thereby a gap to Licentiousness, and the violation of the bonds of Humane Societies, in Magistratical Rule and Government. Others curtalizing and abridging the said Liberty, not allowing it those lawful extents allotted thereto by Christ; audaciously depriving his poor Members of many Gospel-Priviledges and Advantages, granted them by Charter from the Supreme King and Lawgiver. Civil and Antichristian Powers still making it their business to spy out this Liberty, and their great de­signe to bring them into Bondage.

§ 2. Calvin observes, Duplex esse Regimen in Homine; alterum Spirituale, quo Conscientia ad pietatem & cultum divinum instituitur: alterum Politicum, quo ad Humanitatis & Civilitatis officia, quae inter homines servanda sunt, homo eruditur, Jurisdictio Spiritualis & Tempo­ralis. i. e. There is in Man a twofold Government; the one Spiritual, whereby the Conscience is instructed unto Piety and the Worship of God: The other Political, whereby a man is taught the Duties of Humanity and Civility, which are to be observed between man and man, a spiritual Jurisdiction and a temporal. Which Observation hath Moral founda­tion, and an Evangelical ratification; the whole of a Christian being comprehended under these two Heads of Duty (charged upon us by the Old and New Testament,) towards God and towards our Neigh­bour. On the first of which Christ hath, by his peculiar Legislative Power over his Church, established the whole Oeconomy thereof: On the latter he hath chiefly raised the edifices of Civil States and Hu­mane [Page 2]Societies, where he hath allowed a latitude of Legislative Power unto the Sons of men, as unto his Delegates and Substitutes in earthly Rule and Government. Unto both of these Jurisdictions he hath laid on man a firm Obligation, by planting his Moral Light in Conscience; so that he cannot start from either of these Duties, without starting from himself, as our first Parents did in their Transgression; and all others, in putting forth the poyson of that original blot in actual sins of Omission or Commission; all which are but irregularities, or nonconformities to this Moral obligation laid on Conscience, either manifestly so, or easily reducible there­unto. For whatever is a trespass against the revealed Will of God, for Duty in Moral Obedience, or instituted Worship, is a sin; not but that Instituted Worship is fundamentally Moral Obedience, but is therefore in some sense distinguished from it, (the serving of God according to his own appointment, being the principal part of the Moral Law) because God hath, according to the several states of his Church, altered the mode and manner of his Worship, as he hath thought it best in his Wisdom, and as hath bin most suitable to the several ages and states of his Church; which alterable or al­tered Circumstances, being the product of Christ's Prerogative alone, are called his Instituted Worship.

§ 3. Hence both these Jurisdictions are Primarily and Morally subjected to the King of Kings; he orders, disposeth of, and rules in the Kingdoms of men, as well as in his Church and hearts of men: yea, by ruling Heart and Conscience, as well as by disposing Provi­dence, he rules Civil States, and subordinate Societies; but the ma­nifest difference is here, that God's political Rule in the Kingdoms of the Earth, and humane States, is more remote and mediate: but that of Church and Conscience being Spiritual, is more proximate and immediate. He only gives general Laws to Civil Societies, and leaves a limited Legislative Power, as to particular, collateral, and incident cases, to humane Governours, substituted providentially by him. To these he leaves the immediate administration of Rule and Government, as to an Executive Power altogether, and as to a Legislative Power in a great measure; but hath reserved the imme­diate administration of Rule in his Spiritual Dominions, to himself alone, as to Legislation in his Church, and both Legislation and Execution as to Conscience.

§ 4. These two Modes or Degrees of Administration, must not be confounded together: Man must have no greater share in Rule and [Page 3]Government, than God hath deputed him to; he is not to rob Christ of one jot of that Glory, which he hath reserved to himself, under any pretence whatever; neither doth Christ permit, that by a plea of being under his more spiritual and immediate Jurisdiction, we should exempt ourselves from the equal Laws and Jurisdiction of man; for by Christs Laws all his Members are firmly bound upon both accounts: Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things that are Gods. Fear God, Honour the King.

§ 5. Lest we should be mistaken in the true nature of either of these, it is needful that they be both distinctly spoken unto; first of Christ's immediate Jurisdiction, and then of his more mediate, cal­led Regimen Politicum vel Temporale, to which a Christian is sub­jected; the other Spirituale. But to make way to them, we shall speak briefly first to the nature of the two Administrations of Power, that will be so often mentioned, Legislative and Executive.

§ 1. DIvine Power is exerted, either in giving being, which is Creation; or disposing of that being, suitable to the ends of Creation, and that is Providence: This latter consists in Preser­vation or Gubernation of created Beings to their respective ends. The latter of which being a ruling of the Creature by certain Laws, according to the Will of God the Creator, is either Legislative or Executive.

§ 2. A Legislative Power is a Power of making and giving a Law. To compose and draw up a Law is not enough, [...], Potestas Legislativa, vel Legislatio, Rom. 9.4. [...], Le­gislator, Jam. 4.12. [...]; Leges sancire, Act. & accipitur Pas. Heb. 7.11. & cap. 8.6. though with the greatest exactness, and holding proportion with the ends designed; yet here the glorious Wisdom of God is most resplendent: but to give a Law, is to stamp an authoritative obliging Impression upon it, whereby it tyes up the Subject to Du­ty, and upon his failure unavoidably lays him under guilt.

§ 3. A Legislative Power is either Sovereign and Ʋnlimited, or Sub­ordinate and Limited. A Sovereign unlimited Legislative Power, is a [Page 4]Power in making and giving a Law, (pro placito vel arbitrio Legisla­toris) both for the matter and manner of it. In this there is nothing but Placitum Legislatoris, which gives him any Limitation; he doth whatever he will, in constituting the nature and parts of this Law, and ordaining the Subjects to it, and how far obliged by it: So that here the Legislators Will and Pleasure, is a Law unto himself, and nothing else. Hence it must be supposed that this Lawgiver must have as much Power over the Subject, as it's possible for a Cre­ator to have over a Creature; else he cannot put him under what Law and Limits of Obligation he pleaseth: And thence it is that this Lawgiver must not be accountable to any other for his doings, he is Supreme to all, Subordinate to none; renders no account of his matters, and therefore most irresistible: So as none can demand an account of him, nor none can oppose him; he hath strength to impose this Law where he sees good. For those Laws are very in­significant, that have not some kinde of imposing force going along with them, to fasten on the inward man a Conscience of Duty; or on the outward man, by respect to Rewards or Punishments.

§ 4. Hence he must be most wife, to will such a Law as is most suitable to his own nature, and agreeing to that way of Govern­ment which is determined by himself, as to the created nature of the Subject to be governed: And that it may be so, it is requisite he should be most good; and that not only in himself, but relatively so; i. e. to have the greatest obligation to distribute Bounty and Goodness to his Subjects, of which there can be none greater, than of the Creator to the works of his own hands: Neither must this Distribu­tion flow from any other than a Fountain of freedom and liberty to act more or less this way or another, as he shall please, for the mani­festation of his fore-determined Glory. And then lastly, which way soever the glory of this best being, Legislative, Executive, or other, be demonstrated on the Subject (so much at his disposal) it must needs be granted, that this is the best and wisest way for the manifestation of that Glory fore-intended in the disposal of the Creature: His will and pleasure being certainly the most exquisite and absolute prime Rule of all goodness; therefore, as it is unque­stionably the most absurd and irrational presumption in man, to assume to himself, or lay the least pretended claim to this Supremacy or Soveraignty of Law-giving; so it may not be attributed in the least to any but God alone, the first, absolutest, wisest, best, and most independent Being.

§ 5. A Legislative Power may be also such as is limited by, and subordinated to the will of a superior Legislator; and therefore the power of such an one is not of himself and primitive, but de­rived from some other: Neither is it bounded by his own Pleasure, but by that of another, to whom he is accountable; because he himself is liable to a Law, which Law he may transgress, in gi­ving such Laws to his Subjects, which he is not commissionated by his Superior Law-giver to give; and Ergo must not make Laws Pro arbitrio sine limitibus, his arbitrium being received from another, and the bounds allotted it, as to all Jus agendi pro beneplacito; he may act indifferently this way, or that way, in such a compass; but if he pass the Line of his Circumference, he becomes a transgressing Ruler. He sins against his Superiour, and wrongs his Subject.

§ 6. Hence (this subordinate Legislator thus trangressing) the Subject being conscious and clearly convinced thereof, he is disobli­ged from all active obedience unto any such usurping or transgres­sing Laws. A Christian's first and greatest obligation being to the Supream and Soverain Power, as a Citizen in a Town-corporate is first bound in obedience to his Prince, before he is to the Mayor or Bayliff of the Town. An Officer substitute by the Prince, and re­movable at his pleasure, (it's not so in natural and contracted Re­lations) knowing his obedience to the King, will sufficiently justifie his non submission to the will of the Mayor.

§ 7. Again, the Subject is obliged to obey the Laws which the inferiour Law-giver makes lawfully, ( i. e. according to his depu­tation) not Simpliciter & gratiâ illius, but primarily and most pro­perly for the sake of the supream Law-giver whose Substitute and Representative he is, Rom. 13.1, 4. 1 Pet. 2.13. and they are so far to be obeyed, but no farther to be owned as lawful Gover­nours.

§ 8. Thus much of a Legislative Power in general. An Executive Power is a Power of putting in Execution a Law made, or the practical Application thereof according to the manifested will and intendment of the Law-giver. Therefore the power of Execu­tion is always a secundary and derived Power, in respect of the Power of Legislation; because it supposeth a Law made, and the will of the Law-giver to put it in practice; which Will is the ground of Execution, but is not actually begun till the promulga­tion, and a positive injunction binding unto practice: and is com­pleated [Page 6]either in performing acts of obedience, and receiving the Law-encouragements; (this is chiefly on the part of the Sub­ject;) or in case of disobedience, by executing the vindicative part of the Law, which belongs to the substituted Executioners to do, and the Subject to submit unto. So that all Laws are sa­tisfied in obedience, and giving the stated reward thereunto; which satisfaction, Ergo, partly depends on the Subject, partly on the Ruler executing; or they are dissatisfied in disobedience, & therefore right­ing themselves in executing the minatory part on Offenders. Hence all Laws are capable of being satisfied or fulfilled, as to their whole intent and purpose, one of these ways, in Active or Passive Obe­dience on the part of the Subject; and the faithful discharge of the executive Power by Governours in the due distribution of rewards and punishments.

§ 10. Hence Executive Power is Obediential or Judicial. Obediential is an executive ability in the Subject bound; for by his obedience unto the Law, he executes and fulfills the will of the Law-giver, most properly as to the first intentions; for the first end of the Law, and designe of its Maker, is actual Obedience, and both in the Command and Penalty annexed. And in this sence the meanest Subject doth put in execution the Law of his Soverain, at l [...]st in administration of commutative Justice towards the Magistrate, in rendring him his own, as well as towards his Fellow-subjects, in do­ing justice to them.

§ 11. Judicial executive Power is when the Law-giver or his Sub­stitutes, judging of Obedience or Disobedience, as to matter of fact, do judicially determine the same, by and according to the true intent and meaning of the Law; and finding Obedience, di­stribute the due rewards and encouragements thereunto; and jud­ging of Disobedience omissive or commissive, do inflict all penalties in such cases by the Law provided: The faithful discharge of which Trust, belongs to Governours, and is rightly called Distributive Ju­stice.

§ 1. THough Christ be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, in re­spect of all the Rulers and Principalities in the world visible and invisible, yet there is a special Dominion reserved to himself, as peculiar in many respects, so in this, that he hath not committed the management thereof to others in juridical affairs, in two respects, viz. in Legislation and in Deputation of executive Mini­sters. This is a Diamond in the Crown of his Prerogative as Medi­ator and sole head of Conscience and Church, which he purchased and cleansed with his Blood.

§ 2. That unlimited Supream Power which is every where as­cribed to God, is Christ's; not onely as God the second person in the God-head, but as Mediator God-man, constituted by the Father Head over the Church, and over all things to the Church; see Ephes. 1.21, 22. Matth. 28, &c. Ergo, he exerts this power not onely as Creator, but as Mediator, and as such a Legislative power belongs to him, not onely properly and primarily, as being the political Head of his Church; but secundarily (for its sake) he exerts such a Power over all Societies in the world: and having this supream Legislation in his hands, he can make what Laws he please, and substitute others to what Law-making-power he pleaseth to en­trust them with, or determine how far in that kinde they may act at their discretion or arbitrement. So that Christ rules his King­domes either by his own immediate Legislative administration, or me­diately by inferiour limited Law-givers; he rules by himself, or by o­thers.

§ 3. His immediate rule is especially to be considered as more General or more Special, as he is Creator, or as he is Redeemer. God as Creator of all natural Agents, he onely can command his Crea­ture what it must do in order to those ends for which it was created; and this government of natural Agents, is in a sense of a Spiritual na­ture, proceeding in a spiritual manner from a glorious Spirit for spi­ritual ends, viz. the glory of Gods Soverainty, Power, Wisdom, Good­ness, &c. all the Creation praising him, and ascribing Glory and Honour [Page 8]unto the Lamb; which Glory is subordinated to that which shines forth more resplendidly in his Church; and he disposing all things in order to his advancement therein to the highest honour and dignity, this Government of Christ may be said to be a spiritual Rule and Government.

§ 4. This General Government may be consider'd, as he rules intel­ligible or non-intelligible Creatures; these he rules by the Instincts of Nature, (which may be and are called his Statutes and Ordinances) which are no other than the impression of the Will of him that made them: As in a Watch, or any piece of curious Mechanism, the minde of the Workman is plainly read in all the parts thereof. He ruleth intelligible natural Agents, such as Angels and Men, by higher Laws. What the Law of Angels is, we shall not discuss now, nor determine; but that they are Govern'd by a Law, I doubt not but may be proved, both from the sin of them that fell, and other­wise; for where there is no Law, there is no Transgression. The Law ruling Men, as rational Agents, is a Law of Manners, ruling all hu­mane motions that are cum electione; for some natural motions in man are per necessitatem Naturae, as the running of the Blood in the Veins, &c. but these are under the Gubernation of natural Instinct. And as God fastens his Law of Nature by instinct on the unintelligible Agents; so on Agents per electionem, he fixeth his Moral Law by Na­tural Conscience, which is a kinde of rational moral Instinct, where­by the very Gentiles that have not the written Law, are in a great measure convinced of the nature of it, and their Duty in obedience thereunto, Rom. 2.13, 14. and in this sence he enlightneth every man that cometh into the world, Joh. 1. and from this Law of moral Light closing with natural Conscience, ariseth accusation or excusation, ac­cording to the obedience or disobedience yielded thereto, whereby Christ in a manner rules in all men, at least laying a claim to his right of Dominion, so much disowned and rejected by the prevailing Law of sin; and this may be ascribed to Christs spiritual rule, it being his peculiar Prerogative to govern in Conscience; and notwithstanding sins rebellion in all natural men, yet Christ there retains his seat of Judicature, and as he judgeth and condemneth now, so he will by the same Law prove them unexcusable at the last day.

§ 5. The more special immediate jurisdiction of Christ, is his most proper spiritual, mediatorly administration of rule towards his purcha­sed ones; and this is twofold, in or over persons particularly, or in and over bodies politick. In and over particular persons his Throne is the [Page 9]same ( viz. Conscience) in the regenerate and unregenerate, onely he rules these legally, and the other evangelically; these by a Law of Fear, them by a Law of Love: merely natural men, by a dispensa­tion of the Covenant of Works; Believers, by a dispensation of the Covenant of Grace: And here the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ rules in a Christians Heart, and the Conscience according to rule acquits or condemns. Neither is the true regulating force of the Moral Law any way extinct, but the terrifying embondaging nature of it removed, or at least abated, any remainder of which is called the Spirit of Bondage; neither is there therefore two Laws in a Believer, Moral and Evangelical; but the Moral Law is evangeliz'd to him by his new relation to Christ, the Curse being taken away due to the sinner, and he coming under another obligation to an obedi­ential conformity to the Law, viz. the greatest ties of love and thankfulness; and hence his Obedience is called New Obedience.

§ 6. Another part of his special and immediate Government con­sists in his giving Laws to his Church Militant, and deputation of Ministers for execution thereof; and therefore he is called The Head of his Church, Eph. 1.22. Hence his Apostles and Prophets durst not teach any thing but what they had immediately from him either by word or tradition, Matth. 28. and we may boldly as­sert, as James 4.12. there is but one Law-giver; and though it be so plain and indisputable a truth, yet because men of corrupt mindes, by practice and argument, have made it their great aim to rob Christ of this Prerogative; we shall make it the principal part of the ensuing Discourse to illustrate and confirm this position against all humane Ʋsurpations.

§ 7. Christ's immediate Government of his Church Militant, is not to be understood as if he had not appointed the executive administra­tion to be by Pastors and other Officers deputed by himself, as ap­pears from 1 Cor. 12.28. Ephes. 4.11, 12. but the meaning is, that it is immediate, these two manner of ways. 1. In that he hath not authorized or commissionated any such Officers or Governours on earth, who may compose and enact new Laws for the disciplining of his Church in the order and manner of his instituted Worship; his own Laws here are onely binding. 2. In that all Church-offi­cers receive their executive power from Christ immediately (nullo Pa­pa aut Episcopo mediante) neither have any of them any power of deputation or substitution of others to execute that Office or Power committed to themselves by Christ. And herein lieth the opposi­tion [Page 10]between Christ's immediate reign in his Church, and his mediate in the Kingdoms of men; and for this, amongst other differences which Amesius makes between the Magistratical and Ministerial ju­risdiction, he saith, Magistratus jurisdictionem habet cum Imperio, atque adeo (si summus sit) justâ ratione possit leges condere & abolere, atque jurisdictionem aliis mandare. Sed Ministri Ecclesiastici in sese conside­rati, sunt mandatorii meri, qui proprii nihil habent, sed quiequid legi­time agunt, id omne vice Christi mandantis agunt, atque adeo neque le­ges possunt ferre, neque aliis mandare potestatem illam quam acceperunt, Medul. lib. 2. cap. 17. § 48.

§ 8. The chief of our assertion about the immediate Govern­ment of Christ concerns his Legislative power, that where-ever he governs in this manner, he hath reserved the Law-giving-power to himself, as his peculiar Prerogative as to natural Agents. Who can give and prescribe Laws, for such orderly and natural direction of them to their several places and ends, but the Creator alone? Who can give Ordinances to the Sun, Moon, and Stars; set a bound to the Seas; command the former and latter Rain; appoint the vicissitudes of Day and Night, Summer and Winter, Spring and Autumn? &c. and would not such a Creature be justly chargeable with the greatest folly and presumption, that should pretend to such a Power? and therefore God challengeth Job on this account, Job 38. As for Conscience, all are witnesses that will deal but impartially in the acknowledgment of the truth, that there is nothing lays a true obligation thereon, but a Divine Law; neither do Humane Laws any farther binde Conscience, than they are dependent upon, or reducible unto some Divine Law; and therefore all true obedience to them is for the Lords sake. As for the Church, he always pre­scribed what Law and Rule he would have the affairs thereof ma­naged by. The Church of the Jews had her Laws from Christ, though under a more legal and typical Dispensation, executed in the ministration of Moses, and of other Ministers of his own appoint­ment in that Levitical Oeconomy. So in the New Testament he sent forth his Ministers to teach onely such Laws and Orders of his House as he himself had instituted and appointed; and he is com­pleat in that respect in his House, which in some respect is more properly his, (the Old Testament-Church being called Moses's house) because the will of Christ is here more plainly and fully dispensed, and administred more immediately; Christ acting there by the ministration of Moses, for the delivery of Levitical Laws, and for [Page 11]constituting and ruling the Body Politick of his Church: but in the latter days of the Gospel, God spake to us by his Son Christ im­mediately himself, delivering the order and manner of the Gospel-Church when he was here on earth; and after his Ascention, by his Spirit inspiring his Apostles and such as were extraordinarily quali­fied in the primitive times, since which he hath managed that Go­vernment by his ordinary Ministers, acting according to the Rules and Prescripts left behinde him in his holy Word.

§ 1. HAving somewhat treated of the immediate Jurisdiction of Christ, it's needful to speak a little of his Mediate, viz. how far he rules Bodies Politick by the mediation of man, or hath com­mitted a power of law-making and executing unto him; and to shew that mans power cannot be indefinite and unlimited, but deri­vative and limited: and for the illustrating hereof, we are to examine whence man hath his Civil Power, and how far it ex­tends.

§ 2. All Civil Powers have their just Authority from Christ the King of Kings, the Head of all Principalities, Powers, Body Politicks, So­cieties, as is manifested by the following Scriptures and such others, Prov. 8.15, 16. Dan. 4.25. Rom. 13.1, 2, 4. wherefore it is the manifest will of Christ, 1. That there should be Civil Govern­ment in the world. 2. That the personal possession of it be recei­ved by the all-disposing Providence of God. 3. That it's an Or­dinance and appointment of Christ, that such execute distributive Ju­stice for the encouragement of Well-doers, and discouragement of Evil­doers. 4. That in the faithful discharge of this trust, they are Gods Ministers attending his work.

§ 3. As the King of Kings hath given Magistrates their power, so he hath set them their bounds of Government, insomuch that they be not Plenipotentiary, but are liable to the Law of the supream Law-giver; which they may transgress, in respect either of the Laws themselves, or of persons subjected to them. In respect of the Laws two ways, in Law-making, or Executing. In Law-making [Page 12]these ways. 1. When they presume to enact such Laws, as directly cross any of Christ's Laws, either the Law of Nature, to enjoyn un­natural things; or when he by his Law shall contradict the Moral Law, or any Appendix thereunto. Or lastly, controul the Laws of Christ for the Oeconomy of his Church, i. e. in making any Laws to obstruct the execution of Christs Laws, according to his revealed Will. 2. He may transgress in Law-making, by entrenching on the Legislative Prerogative of Christ, either in respect of Moral Obedience, or Instituted Worship, or any Forms or Rites thereto belonging. 3. In failing to Enact such useful and necessary Laws, as are needful and requisite for the right ordering or management of the Common­weal, or particular Subjects under his Dominion. He may fail and transgress in Law Executing, either in a slack or careless execution of good Laws, or undue application of them, or partial distribution of Justice by them, all which is Injustitia: or he may fail in too vi­gorous and extreme prosecution, and so be guilty of Summum Jus, which since the Fall is Maxima Injuria, because there is no allowance or abatement for the natural failings and weaknesses of the Subjects obeying.

§. 4. As he is liable to transgress as to Laws, so also as to persons; 1. By a partial Execution of Justice, with respect of persons. 2. In pressing the power of his Law further on persons than Christ ever permitted, as in endeavouring to impose on Conscience, and bring it into thraldom, by forcing men to ambiguous Oaths, Declarations, or Subscriptions. 3. When he useth his Power for the obstructing and hindering the Members of Christ in the use of those Priviledges, or lawful Liberties, granted them by Christ himself.

§ 5. Whence it appears, That the Civil Magistrates Jurisdiction is limited to the Civil State, and to all persons and things considered in a Civil capacity. And thus far he hath Power over the persons of Christians, and particular Churches whilst Militant; so far as they are persons and Societies laying claim to Civil Rights and Privi­ledges, or capable of doing or receiving wrong and injury, being men subject to Passions and Failures with the rest of Mankinde. A Christian is subjected (as hath been said) to a twofold Jurisdiction, Internal and External: Internal respects the Jurisdiction of Con­science, or God's ruling man by it; and here is an impossibility of any third persons interposing between God and us. The External Regiment to which a Christian is subjected is Political, and that by God's Ordination is twofold; viz. Of the Body Civilly Politick, and [Page 13] Spiritually or Ecclesiastically Politick; this is subjected immediately to the Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Gubernation of Christ alone; the other i [...]mediately under the Rule of the Civil Magistrate. Now the con­test between these two Polities, hath been the Original of most of the Trouble in the Christian World. Since Christ's presence here on Earth, it hath always been mans presumptuous Ambition to sit in his Throne, more or less. Sometimes Secular Dignities assuming to themselves Legislation in matters of Divine Worship, whence hath arose so great Persecutions from Magistrates; because Christ's Fol­lowers refused to betray or deliver his Prerogative into their hands, and judged themselves bound to obey God rather than man. Again, sometimes usurping Officers in the Church, pretending to a derived Power from Christ, have assumed the place of Christ himself, in and over his Church, justling him (as much as in them lay) out of his Throne; hence hath arose the Antichristian Ʋsurpation, tyrannizing not only over Bodies Politick, but over Conscience it self: and (as a just Judgment on Civil Powers, which will not kiss the Son, but break his bonds, and abuse his Churches and Members) have bin per­mitted by Christ to set their feet on the necks of Kings and Gover­nours of the Earth; the intolerable burthen the Earth groans under, and hath done for many Ages: and were they but removed each in­to its proper sphere, i. e. were but the Churches of Christ eased of Civil Usurpations in some Nations and Commonwealths, from Ec­clesiastical in other, and Conscience delivered from the rapes, wrongs and injuries insolently offer'd to it from both, the Christian World would become such a Paradise of Felicity, that scarce yet hath bin since the Infancy of the Gospel-Church; and without such reduce­ment of the World to the due Liberties of Church and State, we cannot enjoy that worldly Felicity which a good man is capable of.

§ 1. Having thus far briefly enquired concerning the Jurisdictions a Christian is bound in Duty to submit unto, viz. Christ's, [Page 14]and Caesars; and though he is conscientiously to subject himself unto both, yet Christs Authority is to be preferred, and he is to have his due in the first place; because all others who derive all just and rightful Authority from him, are limited by him, and must give an account unto him: Therefore we say with the Psalmist, Give unto the Lord, O ye mighty; give unto the Lord the Glory due unto his Name. And as commanded by Christ, Seek first the Kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof, &c.

§ 2. The first thing then here to be done, is to vindicate the So­veraignty of Christ, both in the persons of particular Christians, and in Ecclesiastick Bodies Politick, in both which he hath reserved the Legislative Power to himself, and never yet committed it to any o­ther. And first of his Power in Conscience; and that it may the more clearly appear, that Christ only rules in Conscience, it is needful we a little explain the Nature of Conscience, and then pro­ceed to prove, that the Jurisdiction of it belongs to Christ alone

§ 3. Conscience taken strictly (secundum notationem nominis) is a Knowledge together; i. e. A mans knowledg of himself and his acti­ons, together with another who knows the same with him; or as some think, the knowledge of his Actions, together with the Rule by which they ought to be squared and directed; which knowledge must be placed in the Understanding of a rational Creature. Mr. Per­kins saith, It's a part of the Ʋnderstanding. I had rather say, it is Modus Intellectus; for the Understanding acts per totum, non per par­tes. This is that Spirit of a man, which knows the things that are in a man, 1 Cor. 2.11. But it's not all kinde of Intelligence, but some only in particular. 1. Not a Theoretick Knowledge, but a Practick; and therefore always referring to some Action, or Omission. And 2. It is not referred to another mans affairs, but his own whose it is. And lastly, it is not a mere apprehension or suspicion, but a know­ledge, always at least of the fact, and often determines by the Rule known of the Legality of the fact, and so passeth Judgment, and thence is called Judicium; but sometimes Conscience is doubtful here, and thence it is called a weak, doubtful, and scrupulous Conscience.

§ 4. It may be therefore thus described: Conscientia est modus Intellectus Judicialis practicus. Conscience is the Ʋnderstandings Judi­cial manner of proceeding concerning our selves and actions. A man in Conscience, as God's Substitute or Deputy, sits in Judgment upon himself; first inquires as Jury of the matter of fact, whereof accor­ding to Self-evidence, he is found Guilty or Not-guilty, and ac­cording [Page 15]to the Law manifested, is acquitted or condemned. This Judgment of Conscience may be considered in the power and act; a man may have a Conscience-power, which doth not exert and put forth act; as a Man in Infancy or in Sleep; Ergo, it may be called Potestas intellectiva, Intellectual Power reducible into act. Again, Intellectual Power is either Intuitiva vel ratiocinativa; that is, the intuitive, which is the Vision or Understanding of a Truth Axioma­tically, or in the Abstract. Ratiocinativa, which is looking on several Truths compared together, and one Truth being laid by another by way of Collation, produceth a third Truth, which we call a Con­clusion or Inference. The first and general truth that comes to the knowledge, is the Law of God, which is brought to us by the light of Nature, or by the Word of God; which way soever it comes, it's enough to give it a throne in Conscience, that it be certainly known to be God's Law. Nextly, that our actions are laid by this Rule, or brought before this Judgment-seat; which two being so­lemnly brought together, a third necessary Truth or Judgment ac­cording to truth, doth result, and is accordingly pronounced; the certainty of which depends on the certainty of the Premises, or at least the exact and just comparing them together. The Understanding thus behaving it self, puts on the nature of actual Conscience, or Con­science in act, bringing the habitual or potential Conscience into acts in this manner, either concerning a mans state or actions. Concerning a mans state, The Soul that sins shall die: I have sinned, Ergo. Or concerning his particular actions: He that committeth Idolatry or Adultery, &c. breaketh God's Law; but I have commit­ted such and such an act which is so, Ergo,

§ 5. Hence Conscience ruled by Christ's Prerogative, is the pra­ctical reasoning Ʋnderstanding, (or Modus intellectus practicus) in man, whereby a judgment may be passed concerning a mans self by himself, according to his apprehension of the revealed Judgment and Will of God; its divine Authority that rules in mans Heart, as to the approbation or condemnation of himself or actions. The Con­science of the very blinde Heathens admit of no other power to ac­quit or condemn in this kind, but either the convincing light of the moral Law written in them, or some supposed false Divine light which by reason of the blindness of their Hearts seduceth them to false Worship and Idolatry.

§ 6. The method of Conscience his acting is thus; first, there is the general undoubted truth known or assented to as such; and it's either [Page 16]that which is really so, or supposedly so only, and not so really; if it be the latter, it's the main foundation of an erring Conscience. It is the prospect of some apprehended Divine Truth or other, Moral, Levitical, or Evangelical, which obligeth us to acts of Obedience; and this Law-obligation laid by God on man, is called [...], i. e. the Proposition of a practical Syllogisme made by Conscience. 2. There is the Application of this Truth to our selves, either as to our state or particular actions, according to our own knowledge, (together with God's) to judge of our Conformity or Non-conformity to the said Law-obligation, and therefore concerning the goodness or evil of our Actions: and here we take the Candle of the Lord in our hands to search out and examine our condition and actions, in re­lation to good or evil; and herein doth the chief nature of Con­science consist: because it's a submitting ourselves and actions to the judgment of God's Law, and is therefore the Assumption of this practical Syllogisme, and is called [...], and is an Index, Record, Testimony, Witness. 3. There is the Crisis, Inference, or Conclusion necessarily deduced from the Premises, and this is called the Judg­ment passed upon our state or actions. Thus we have the whole Syllogisme which the understanding makes in this way of acting. The Proposition is de Jure; the Assumption de Facto: the Con­clusion is either a justification of person or action, or it's a condem­nation of any of them found guilty.

§ 7. The Synteresis is the light of Truth contained in the Law (N [...]eticè recepta) sive practicum Axioma cum assensu intellectivo per­ceptum; A light received into the understanding with assent thereunto, or acknowledgment thereof as such. A Law may be understood as to the matter of it, but not believed as a Truth; it may be known as a Truth, but not owned as a Law; yea, it may be acknowledged as a Law, but not yielded to as divine and authoritative enough to binde to Obedience; yea, it may be owned as a Law of God binding some people, and at some times, but not ourselves, or at all times. But unless the Truth taken for a Law be thus circumstantiated, and so received by us, it hath not force enough upon Conscience, as a Law binding to Obedience. So that Synteresis differs but ratione from the Law itself; for it is the Law of God understood and yielded to as obliging unto practice, and it's not only the Law in its Letter and first Principles, in its Original positive nature; but in its aptitude to particular Cases, and in its just Inferences and Consequences dedu­cible from generals thereof, all practical Truths pleading Divine Au­thority, justly obliging us to belief.

§ 8. That which stirs up the Understanding to compare Condi­tions and Actions with the divine Law in the assumption by a practi­cal enquiry, is a certain obligation which this Law-light hath the Heart of man under, that it doth by a kinde of natural instinct act in the manner above-rehearsed; which obligation is a necessity laid on the Understanding of owning and assenting to every known Law of God, and thereby to make a practical disquisition and judg­ment accordingly. The reason of this obligation lieth much in the necessity of the object: And first the natural inclination the Under­standing hath to every known truth as such: but this is not all; for truth that obligeth to credence from the evidence of it, obligeth not to Practice and Obedience, having not a sufficient authority from whence it comes, or not laying on us a necessity of obeying, and therefore it must binde as a Law-truth, challenging its ends by promises of rewards, or threats of punishment. Again, 'tis from a principle of self-love and preservation. Seeing our selves liable to a Law, and such a Law that can do us good or hurt, we are bound by this first principle of nature to make an impartial enquiry into our conformity, that we may be satisfied of our own safety and danger, every one being desirous in this case to know the worst of himself. Moreover, seeing that all Law that bindes is backed with sufficient power to put it into vigorous and impartial execution; and that which prevails so much with Conscience, is the Law-givers absolute power to save and destroy. He can punish the whole man, Body and Soul, which no humane Power can: So that the Penalty being great, and the power of the Law-giver infinite, it must needs lay the Conscience under a very strict bond of enquiry. Likewise if we consider, that 'tis not onely a sufficient power for Execution, but an unlimited power of law-making, wherein his Soverainty doth chiefly consist; which Soverainty, as it is most supream, so it is most just and good; and therefore this obligeth, because God can make what Law he will, and he cannot will to make any Law that is not fit for his Creature to obey. Hence his Laws have always a necessary innate goodness in them, because they flow from him who is primarily, absolutely, and independently good, Ergo must be, cannot but be, holy, just, and good Laws. Wherefore the impression of the goodness of a Divine Law is firmly fixed on mans natural Con­science; however corruption may attempt the blotting it out it can­not totally do it; but those who are renewed by Grace, must needs see anotherguess lustre in it, seeing not onely Divine goodness [Page 18]stamped on God's Law, but Gospel-goodness: Not onely the suitableness of his Commands to his Creature, but to a sinner, viz. the love of God so evidenced in giving and requiring his Law in such a way of Grace and compassion, that it engageth them in the highest measure to Obedience, yea, new Obedience, and their Consciences to a diligent and narrow disquisition thereof accordingly. Lastly, there is an innate reverence unto Divinity, which the Creator hath placed in the Heart of man, whereby the Law of God hath more command than any Laws in the world besides; because there can be no greater distance than between the Creator and the Creature; and Creation, or giving us being, is such an obligation as none but a Creator can lay upon the Creature; and consequently our greatest good either in being or well-being, is certainly hazzarded by the displeasure of our Creator. Thus much of the practical pro­positions of Conscience, from which of necessity follows the par­ticular Conclusion, as hath been said.

§ 9. It remains to speak something of the diversities of Conscience, which admits of no difference from Divine Law simply considered, but from the Information or Illumination which the Understan­ding receives more or less therefrom. The less enlightned Conscience, is either the mere natural Conscience illuminated onely by the Light of Nature without a written Law, such as the Apostle speaks of, Rom. 2. Or the legal Conscience, though enlightned by the written Law, yet tasting nothing of Gospel-freedom and delivery by Jesus Christ, and therefore in bondage to Moses, and not yet sub­jected to the mediatorly Authority of Christ in Justification, Sanctifi­cation, or rules of spiritual walk. The more enlightned Conscience, is that which hath received Gospel-light, and subjected thereunto from a true sence of the love of God in Christ, hath submitted his self and ways to the guidance and conduct thereof in his whole progress to Life and Salvation. The Conscience admits also of Magis & Minus: the more evangelically enlightned Conscience is that which is firmly ratified and confirmed in Gospel-truths, and a due appli­cation thereof by Faith for comfort and practice; and this is a firm stable Conscience, and of such an one is rightly said that he is a strong Christian, one that is rightly informed in his Duties and Pri­viledges by the Law of Christ. The less Evangelically-enlightned Con­science is one that hath but a small information in the Minde and Will of Christ, hath a sincere faith, but little knowledge, is not so well ac­quainted with the rules of Gospel-obedience, nor with his Privi­ledges [Page 19]purchased by Jesus Christ; and hence ariseth a doubting and scrupulous Conscience: a doubting Conscience or Opinans is in re­spect chiefly of the will and minde of Christ, is not fully resolved concerning it, and therefore at best acts but from Opinion, is un­setled, and unresolved, whether the Light directs him this way, or that way; and therefore is unstable in all such ways, is not car­ried on with a Plerophory and full resolution to persist; and this may be according to some Truths and Duties, but not according to others. A Christian may be strong in respect of some Truths, but weak in respect of others; so that the same Conscience may be strong or weak, as it is clearly informed in some things, and darkly in others; yea, it may be weak at one time, and strong at another, as it re­ceives more or less Light. A scrupulous Conscience is chiefly in respect of action, concerning which he is needlesly and frivolously doubtful, and therefore fearful and starting upon all occasions.

§ 10. Thus far of the differences of Conscience, taken from Synteresis; briefly a few words of its differences also from Syneidesis. Conscience may be distinguished from Syneidesis, into a good or a bad Conscience. The good Conscience is that which makes a diligent, just, and impartial enquiry into our condition and actions, by a due applica­tion of them to the Rule or Law-light received by us. An evil Conscience, is such an one as from its enslavery to a lust doth not per­form its duty aright towards the Law of God or ourselves, but is either sloathful, and will not take pains to search and examine our Hearts and ways: Or it is partial, and will be more strict in some respects, and less in others of the same weight and concernment. Or it is fallacious, and deals not plainly and fully concerning the mat­ter of fact, but mincingly and equivocally, feigning it to be better than it is in substance or circumstance: or 'tis stupid and blockish, not valuing the weight of the Law, or inspecting the nature of the Action. It may be also troublesomely evil (as well as negligently, &c.) when it brings in too aggravating a Testimony, in accusing beyond the nature of the Transgression, representing the matter of fact more hainous and heavy than it ought to be represented. Such a Conscience may be Honestè bona, but Molestè mala.

§ 11. Lastly, we distinguish Conscience from the Crisis or Con­clusion; and 'tis 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. [Page 20]Or it is Ʋnjust, 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.

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 'tis 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, [Page 21]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 [Page 22]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 considered ac­cording to its internal and its external acting. Its internal acting, is its believing, assenting, concurring, judging between fact and fact; or, disbelieving, dissenting, condemning, &c. and these are those that are Actus eliciti; and they are not (without doubt) under any hu­mane Law or Power in the world, either to force them where they are not, or to obstruct them where they are. As men may not pre­sume to do it by any external compulsion, so there is an impossibili­ty in the nature of the thing, that it can never be accomplished. 'Tis onely God's Prerogative to charge us to believe under a penalty, and the light of Truth carries demonstration with it to challenge our assent, and call forth our understanding to a free acting, unless we be inveloped in the darkness of corrupt nature, or captivated in sla­very to any Lusts. Neither is it in the power of man to remove [Page 23]this vail; it's God onely by the light of Truth, working by its prevai­ling evidence, and the mighty operation of the divine Spirit, which way it pleaseth, that can effect this. Hence he that makes a pe­nal Law, that this or that thing is a truth, and to be believed by me, to be assented and consented unto, and doth endeavour to com­pel me to such a belief and assent by the threats and punishments of this Law, doth usurp a power that was never given unto him by God, neither was ever practicable to effect the end pretended to.

§ 4. Secondly, There are external acts, (Actus imperati) of Con­science, as professing, subscribing, declaring, doing; but these are not properly acts of Conscience, but from Conscience, as they ought to be under the Rule and Dominion and direction of Conscience, and will come to be duely considered in this place, whether any man may be thus compelled by any subordinate Power; and doubtless there is none that can compel a man to act from Conscience, no more than he can compel him to understand or will what he pleaseth: for though the acts are external, and may be compelled de facto, and in some cases de jure, the principle of good or evil actions, viz. from Con­science, cannot be compelled: the relation it hath to Conscience is internal; as if a man be brought and forc'd upon his Knees before an Idol, &c. it is no formal act of Conscience, for that still resists and opposeth the action; though it's improperly called a forcing of Conscience, when a man is thus forced to an action against his Con­science: Indeed he is forcibly induced through fear, or sense of some evil, to do or omit something against his light and conviction; and the choice is also free, he being attended with such circumstan­ces; yet it is said to be compelled, because the argument of a Penal­ty to be incurred upon refusal, is very strong to reach flesh, to pre­vent the suffering of which, the Will is carried away to chuse that as a comparative good, which the enlightned Understanding allows not as lawful, nor the Will as absolutely good; and this is that com­pulsion of Conscience which is most usually found in the world. And here it will be enquired whether any Subordinate power can lawfully compel us to such imperate acts? Ans. 1. I say men may make and execute de jure, such a Law as many cannot in conscience submit unto by way of active obedience, so that it be really such as the great Law-giver hath allowed them to make, and it be agreeable to the rules and limits of power committed to their charge, and the reason of refusal be the weakness, and ignorance, or prejudice of [Page 24]the Subject, or else no Laws could be made or executed in the world; for one or other that should obey, would be pretending Conscience against it: and here the Subject is to submit either active­ly, if after sufficient illumination he findes the goodness and justness of the Law-giver. If he doth not, he is to refuse to act, if he is perswaded it's utterly unlawful; but if it be doubtfully so, he is to suspend his acts till he is better informed, and patiently submit to the Magistrates will and pleasure in the Penalty-execution: but if any Power endeavour to enforce obedience, that no Power ena­cting may lawfully do, and require us and force us with penalties, it's questionless very great Usurpation. We must also consider the matter about which this compulsion may be conceived to be. No Magistrate may compel to any thing against Conscience, quatenus such, Scil. under the formality and notion of being against Conscience, that were the greatest Tyranny in the world. Or we may understand it of compelling under the notion of Truth, and so a Faith must be enforced, which no man is capable of accom­plishing this way. Or, Thirdly, under the notion of Duty, not re­specting how the Consciences of persons stand affected in relation to it on whom it is urged: And thus the Magistrate may compel to the doing of good, or avoiding of evil, by penal Edicts, though accidentally it may be against the Consciences of some on whom it is imposed; for the Magistrate being not a competent Judge of mens Consciences, he cannot make other mens Consciences the rule of his Laws and Executions, but the will of the Lord, whose Mini­sters he is, and the good of the Commonweal that is committed to his trust. The Magistrate is not to command or forbid any thing un­der the formality of being with or against Conscience; but he sup­posing that the Consciences of his Subjects are convinced, being sufficiently pre-informed, may command any thing to be done or forborn, according to that latitude of Rule and Government which he hath received from the Lord whose Minister he is; for the right knowledge whereof, he ought sincerely and impartially to consult the Word of God and his own Conscience, and so to take the mea­sures of his own Duty and Actions: Neither is his Conscience the Standard to his Subjects; for every one must give an account of himself to God; the Magistrate for himself, as a Magistrate; and the Sub­ject for himself, as such; and therefore the Conscience of the Magistrate doth not binde the Subject to active obedience, though his relation to him as such bindes him to Subjection, which [Page 25]is abundantly shewed in his quiet and peaceable submitting himself to the Law-penalty, if he cannot satisfie himself that the Magi­strate acts in his place according to the revealed Minde and Will of God in such cases provided; which cases also are always to be of a civil and politick nature, for here he hath power compulsory of the outward man mandatory, or prohibitory though the Conscience of the Subject is or may be pretended to be against it.

§ 5. And now that all cause of exception may be removed on all hands, it will be requisite more explicitely to shew how far a Christians Conscience hath to do with humane Authority; and we grant that humane Authority in civil and politick affairs is an Ordi­nance of God. 2. That if the Law be just and equitable, a Chri­stian is bound in Conscience to yield positive active obedience, not onely for wrath, i. e. fear of threat and punishment, but for Conscience sake, because the Law of God obligeth us to obedience to all the just Laws of men, civil Government being his appointment as much as Oeconomical; but it's not mans Law that nextly and immediately bindes Conscience to obedience, but Gods, and mans Law bindes onely by vertue of, and for the sake of Gods. Hence a man that breaks the just Laws of man, sins against God, and, eo nomine, wrongs his Conscience. As on the other hand, he that obeys an unjust Law of man, i. e. a Law no way warrantable by the revealed will of God, breaks Gods Law; and if his Conscience tell him so, he sins against his Conscience, which always aggravates any sin against God. Hence, if at any time he hath to do with any such Law, he ought rather to run the hazard of mans displeasure than Gods. God is to be obeyed rather than man, if one must be disobeyed; and obeying God indemnifies Conscience from the guilt of sin in our disobeying of man in the same act. So if a Law of man lies before us, which we doubt concerning the lawfulness of, we are here at least to su­spend active obedience while we seek for further information; for whether the thing in it self be sin or no, it's not so much to us at pre­sent, as whether we are satisfied of the nature of it, and know what it is by the light of Truth shining in our Hearts: it will amount to sin in us to do a doubtful action, if the Apostles Doctrine be true: But if the Precepts of men be found upon the best examination to be contrary to God's, a Christian's Conscience is the most certainly disobliged, his duty lies plain before him. God's Law is to be ob­served; and hence it is that some can joyfully suffer all wrongs from the hands of men in the case of refusal of active obedience [Page 26]unto their Laws, because they are perswaded either from a truely-en­lightned Conscience, or from an erring; (which is binding as to pre­sent action; for a man must walk by that light he hath, or by none at all) that such refusal of active Obedience, and the sufferings of theirs, is agreeable to the revealed minde of God, and therefore most justifiable at God's and Man's Tribunal.

§ 6. Here will fall in a great enquiry, That although it be true that all Humane Power, both Legislative and Executive, be limited by a superiour Power, yet there's but few that have the felicity of keeping within prescribed bounds, or having such Subjects that will not be excepting against the Laws of their Superiours, as not a­greable to God's Laws; and this they will make the Plea for their disobedience. Both Superiours and Inferiours will plead Con­science, though never so unrighteously: what should be done in this case? Unto this Allegation many things may be said; for it's sufficiently known, that though every Law primarily requires active Obedience, yet upon a Transgression it is satisfied with the due exe­cution of the Penalty; but for the future expects active Obedience: and a reiterated refusal of Obedience, the Law looks upon as pre­sumptuous; and is really so, if this continuation at enmity with the Law be voluntary, and deliberate, after sufficient Information and Conviction; And if this refusal be conjoyn'd with resistance, it is no better than Rebellion, which we explode as unwarrantable for a Christian. About Presumption we distinguish, there is that which is really so, and that which is onely called so by an unjust Law and mistaking Judge. Persisting in refusal of obedience after conviction of our duty, is presumption, and a sin against God, whoever the Law-maker is. But if such persistance be justified by the light of God's Law in Conscience, it is not a presumptuous sin, or any sin at all against God, however man may term it a presumptuous breach of his Law: for a conscientious Christian can no more obey an unrighteous Law after suffering than before.

§ 7. In all cases of voluntary deliberate refusal of active Obedi­ence to a Law, there is, and must needs be, a wrong done to the Law-giver or Subject. To the Law-giver, if his Power, Law, and Ends be good, and they not answered; for the first end of every Law is, and ought to be active Obedience, as beforesaid; the Law of God first obliging us so to the just Laws of man; and the end of the execution of punishment is for the reducing the sufferers to active Obedience, and the exemplary restraint of others from Diso­bedience. [Page 27]Hence it follows, that a deliberate, resolved, and constant undergoing of Suffering in this way of refusal, is a practical charging the Magistrate with the highest Usurpation and Tyranny in impo­sing Laws of that nature; and therefore the greatest disparaging te­stimony born against his Law, a great reputation (in the judgement of the world) to the Cause pleaded for, let it be truth or errour, and the most exemplary disappointment of the Magistrates Law-ma­king ends, whereby others are greatly emboldened to the same kind of refusal.

§ 8. In all cases where Magistrates abuse their Power, they do a wrong to the supream Judge, in going beyond his Commission, and intrenching on his Prerogative, and do apparent injury to the Sub­ject. 1. In that an inferiour subordinate Law-giver hath bereaved him by a Law of those just Liberties and Priviledges granted to him by the Charter of his supream Law-giver. 2. In afflicting and grie­ving his Subject, by imposing an unjust Law, and causing him to suffer by it, when he pleads exemption by a Law in full force, and a discharge from a higher Court, and is praiseworthy for the said re­fusal, not to be condemned, no nor reproached as an evil doer, or presumptuous for his permanency in non-obedience. 3. In laying his Subject under a necessity of continued and reiterated sufferings, he be­ing obliged in Conscience (or else to answer the default at a higher Tribunal) constantly to persist in his refusal to yield such Obedi­ence, though he is to pass under renewed and reiterated penalties; for a man to return to obedience after a deliberate suffering, is a visible practical condemnation of himself for his former refusal, which would greatly reflect on his honour both as a man or a Christian, unless by the access of further light he findes his Conscience did erre, and so be convinced of his duty; then it becomes him both as a man and Christian to retract: Humanum est errare, beluinum in errore per­sistere.

§ 9. Now seeing such inevitable wrong lights somewhere in cases of these deliberate refusals, it will be enquired who or what must determine to the satisfaction of each party, both standing highly on their Justification? To which I answer, An actual reconciliation is utterly impossible, rebus sic stantibus, because it will be as the grea­ter overswaying earthly power will have it (Deo permittente) on the commanding part; his Will will carry it; Sic volo, Sic jubeo, &c. and the Subject is liable to errour on his part, in Rashness, Stubbornness, Wilfulness, Singularity, &c. But if both parties do (notwithstan­ding [Page 28]all Imperfections and Frailties attending) endeavour to approve themselves to the King of Kings, there is a determination which to each party must satisfactorily binde, and is thus manifest. 1. Both are bound to the supream Law-giver; the one to make just and equal Laws, and righteously to distribute them; the other to a free delibe­rate active obedience thereunto; both or either of which failing in their duty, shall be judged by the supream Law-giver according to the respective Laws whereby they are bound to the said duties. 2. So long as darkness and corruption attends the mindes of men, there will be different apprehensions concerning the Duties and Pra­ctices they are to walk in, according to the degrees of Light recei­ved; there will never be a perfect agreement; neither is any one mans Conscience a Standard to another to walk by, no further than there is a concurrent emanation of convincing light from the truth to both; the Conscience of the Magistrate, as such, is no binding rule to the Subject, neither ought the Conscience of the Subject to be swallowed up in the Magistrates, and thereby seduced to an implicite Faith. Every man is to see with his own Eyes, to believe with his own Faith, and act to the satisfaction of his own Conscience, using all means for the right information of his own Minde and Under­standing in the Will of God for his walking. Whatever men say of a Publick Conscience, and that commands of Superiours are e­nough to indemnifie Inferiours in all active Obedience thereto, though the Laws be evil: The Word of God knows no such thing, neither will any man that is acquainted with conscientious walking in the approvement of himself to God in all his ways and actions, ever give credence to any of those wilde assertions; neither did I ever see any probable Argument produced to enforce those Senti­ments on the mindes of rational men, much less on such as have their Senses exercised in the knowledge of Truth. 4. Hence it will follow, that the present Conscience or practical Understanding impar­tially fixed, must be the onely Expositor of Law and Duty, by which every one is bound to walk in his respective place that God hath set him in, whether Magistrate or Subject: whether a man be in a publick or private capacity, he is to be accountable to God for all his absolute and relative duties, he shall not be judged for either of them by another mans Conscience. The Spirit of a man is the Can­dle of the Lord, &c. to this determination must the Law-giver stand as to the righteousness or unrighteousness of his Law, and the Subject as to his active or passive obedience: And here we speak not by what [Page 29]measures Children in nonage and Fools are from infirmity of nature necessitated to walk, but of such as have the due use of reason and understanding; neither can it be helped if some men will surrender themselves and Consciences (from slothfulness, interest, or flattery) to be slaves to men, they shall sufficiently smart for it here, and severely answer for it hereafter. But if any plead that men of Reason, Ʋn­derstanding, Judgement, and Conscience, ought to quit and abandon all light and dominion of their own Consciences, (being inferiours) and be at the disposition wholly of their Superiours; this we say can have no ground in Nature, Politicks, or Beligion. It's just as if all Subjects were bound to pluck out their Eyes, and see onely by their Governour's. A Childe is to obey his Parent, but it is in the Lord; he is not bound to obey him in unlawful things, and so a Servant his Master: If such obey their Superiours in such things as the Law of God makes unlawful, in so doing they must needs dis­obey God. Now it's most absurd to think that Gods Law should require it's own violation; if this Command (Children, obey your Parents) be taken without limitation, and the Parent commands the Childe to commit Idolatry, or to steal, and the Childe by that Precept is bound to active Obedience, then God's Law here over­throws it self: for by yielding obedience to one Precept, another is necessarily broken. We have Joseph's practice (and Scriptural commands) to justifie us in this Assertion.

§ 10. Moreover, if Conscience is to determine (after the best information that we can have) between God and us, as to our pre­sent practice, much more it's to determine in case of difference be­tween subordinate Law-givers and us. Though there is a difference in the determination, ( i. e. supposing it be God's Law, his authori­ty to make such a Law is not to be disputed by the Creature; but the question or case of Conscience is usually of the meaning and extent of his Law, as to variety of practices referrable thereunto: Whereas mans Law may be disputed whether he may de jure, by ver­tue of his Commission from God, make and enjoyn such a Law) yet the Argument holds good, that in case of doubt about Pra­ctice, and Dispute between God and us, if he requires us to be regulated by the verdict of Conscience enlightned from the Word, then much more in such cases of dispute betwixt Man and us: and although we may sin in obeying the dictates of an erring Conscience, (guided by the Word of God misunderstood) yet that sin (after our impartial endeavours for information) appearing to us to be a [Page 28]Duty, (though it ceaseth not therefore to be a sin in its own na­ture) it would be a greater sin in us to disobey the Dictate of the present supposedly enlightned Conscience, because it must be ranked amongst the sins against Light and Conscience; whereas now the Act is but a sin of ignorance at worst. Again, God will at the last day judge according to the Verdict of Conscience rightly informed; If our Conscience condemn us, God is greater, &c. 1 Joh. Rom. 2. but if our present Conscience be erring, either as to the meaning or na­ture of the Law or Fact, and brings in an impartial Verdict, accor­ding as it hath found upon its best information and enquiry; but not true (as after it appears) according to Law or Fact, its duty is to pass again and again upon the same inquisition, till it speaks as it shall speak before Gods Tribunal: So the last Verdict (called present Conscience) stands binding to us, till by further light in the Law, or Evidence concerning the Fact, another be brought more agreeable to Law and Justice. And if upon frequent and impartial search, the same return be still made (after earnest and sincere seeking of God to discover our errours) it is a great confirmation unto us that it's truth that hath been spoken; and that we should greatly sin against God to swerve from it, what ever the Edicts and Pre­cepts of men say to the contrary. Magna est vis Conscientiae in utram­que partem, ut neque timeant qui nihil commiserint, & poenam semper ante occulos versari putent qui peccaverint. Cic. Orat. pro Milione.

§ 1. HAving evidenced that the Jurisdiction of Conscience belongs to the Lord Christ as his peculiar Prerogative, it follows that doubting, weak, scrupulous Consciences may challenge this priviledge, as well as the knowing, confirmed, strong Consciences; and neither the weak subjected to the strong, nor the strong to the weak. And be­cause the Spirit of God hath distinguished Christians according to [Page 13]their Consciences into strong and weak, and shewed how they ought to walk in love towards each other under one and the same Law­giver and Law, though diversly apprehended (especially as to some circumstances and consequences thereof) by them; and that they ought not to judge, justle, wrong, and despise each other: It will be very requisite in this Conscience-abusing age to speak something di­stinctly on this subject.

§ 2. The whole revealed will of Christ for the Government of his militant Kingdom, and management of all affairs therein, as to publick Ecclesiastical concernments, so to all particular Duties, Rela­tions and Behaviours conscientiously to be performed to God and man, is fully and sufficiently manifest under the notions of things necessa­ry and indifferent; under which two Heads all Christian Duties po­sitive and negative are comprehended: Although there is a sup­position of a third, (because of our blindness, ignorance, and weak­ness of Judgement and Affections, as to a clear discerning and de­termining between Gospel-necessities and indifferences how stated by Christ) and that is of dubious controverted matters between Church and Church, Christian and Christian, whether they be ab­solutely enjoyned or prohibited, or indifferently lawful and unlaw­ful, called by the Apostle [...].

§ 3. This supposed Third causeth a distinction of two sorts, or rather degrees of Believers, both one in Christ the Head, and in con­scientious ender respect to his Glory. The one is the weak, scru­pulous doubtful Christian, not so fully informed in the revealed will of Christ for his walking; but because of his great love to Christ, and tender respect to his Glory, is very zealous thereof, and suspi­tious of himself and his ways; and it may be doubts and questions many things which are not doubted of, nor need not by the strong, because they are clearly enough revealed; but the weak, by reason of the great darkness of his Understanding, is at a loss about them; such are called [...], i. e. he wants that due light and infor­mation that the Conscience ought to have in the truths of the Go­spel, especially of such as are usually of a more disputable nature, (so Beza and Piscator Fides hoc loco declarat Christiandm ipsam Doctrinant in quâ sit adhuc aliquis rudu ac proin [...]è discrimen ciborum & dierum, nondum in elligit Christi beneficio puisse sublarum, Bez. Fides hic significat de usu rerum indifferentium per synecdoch. generis.) to distin­guish between things necessary and indifferent, but accounts some things indifferent which are neces­sary, and some necessary which are indifferent, and therefore doth not rightly distinguish between his [Page 32] duty and liberty. The stronger Believer is he who hath a clearer and fuller discerning of the minde and will of Christ revealed, touching things absolutely or relatively necessary by the Law of Christ, and things left in indifferency; and this is the Christian that hath least doubt and scruple in Conscience, Circa agenda & non agenda, necessa­rio agenda & indifferenter, and therefore of licita & non licita, and hath that plerophory of Judgement spoken of Rom. 14.13.

§ 4. The Apostle in that Chapter, and elsewhere, doth fully shew the difference between these Believers; the one sort are [...], weak in Faith. The other sort are [...], strong, and confirmed in Principles, Knowledge, and Judgement: All indeed have some Know­ledge which have any Faith of a true nature, [...], all have knowledge, 1 Cor. 8.1. but all have not such a degree of Knowledge as to denominate them strong, [...], v. 7. this eminent know­ledge is not in all; therefore some are weaker in Faith and Con­science, and therefore have not a good judgement of discretion, or of determination of doubtful points to which he is not to be taken by other Christians; for he having a zeal to the honour of God, [...] is rendred by Steph. Certamen, & disceptatio by the Vulgar, to which Beza ad­heres; but by Erasmi [...]s D [...] judicaiio, whom Grotius and Hammond follow, and seems to me to be most genuine: For though [...] is sometimes taken for Doubting, yet it is oftener taken for Discerning and Judg­ing; and besides, [...] the Noun is else­where still taken in this sence of Discerning, 1 Cor. 12.10. Heb. 5.14. and but little knowledge, is supersti­tiously observant of many things, which the strong looks not up­on himself at all obliged in con­science to. The Apostle gives an instance, v. 2. One believeth that he may eat all things, another that, is weak eateth Herbs, i. e. the strong knoweth his liberty, that Christ hath not confined him in so narrow a compass for the sober and convenient use of any creature-comfort; whereas the weak he looks upon himself bound to Ceremonies to observe many things, as to meats, drinks, days, &c. and this was the great dispute be­tween the Professors in the Apostles times, whether all the Jewish Observations were abolished or not by Christ: The strong Profes­sors said, they were (according to Peter's Vision;) the weak said they were yet to be observed. And as there were weak Jewish Christians, so there were weak Gentiles Professors, who did eat [...], 1 Cor. 8.7. which doth eat with Conscience ( i. e. of respect) towards the Idol: this is illu­strated v. 10. for the weak seeing the strong eat things sacrificed to Idols, or sitting in the Idol-Temple, he saith the Conscience of the [Page 33]weak [...] edified to eat things sacrificed unto Idols as such: Whereas the strong hath no such respect at all, but the poor indiscreet weak Believer judges so, and therefore encourageth himself in his own Superstition; he walks by a dimmer light, therefore his Con­science is more apt to be defiled. The stronger hath a greater degree of light and knowledge, and therefore is not so apt to trip and stum­ble in the way that he walks, his Conscience is more clean and free from pollution. The Apostle, Heb. 5.14. opposeth these two sorts of Believers as Children and grown men, v. 13. every one that useth Milk is unskilful in the word of Righteousness; for he is a Babe, v. 14. but strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, ( i. e. have attained a measure of skill and understanding in the word of Righteousness) even those that by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern (the word is [...]) both good and evil; to determine between things truely lawful and unlawful. The weak walks by a dimmer light, either by his own opinion, or tradition of his Predecessors, or by the example or opinion of others; and therefore more apt to fall upon such actings whereby his Conscience is wronged and defiled, by doing such things as absolutely, or cir­cumstantially prove sin unto him; he is as a Candle newly lighted, a bruised Reed, a smoaking Flax, soon extinguished, or having at best but a smoaky dim light that none can walk by, and he him­self is confused by in his Christian conversation: he is called a Babe that hath very tender Bones and Sinews, which are soon wrenched and put out of Joynt; hence depends sometimes, on the guidance of others which he takes to be stronger than himself, and it may be casts himself on the judgement of the blinde, and so they fall both together: And sometimes presumes to go by his own strength further than he is able, whereby he is precipitated into many incon­veniencies, difficulties, and dangers.

§ 5. These two sorts of Believers differing onely in strength, are both the same in Specie, (as a Childe and grown man) having both Faith, v. 1. both received by Christ, v. 3. and Christ died for them, v. 15. both walking conscientiously according to their light towards God. The Apostle's great care, is to warn them both to be very wary and circumspect how they walk towards each other, according to those degrees of light which they have received, with all charity and wisdom: That which he insists most on (in this Chapter of Rom. 14.) is charitable walking. 1. He would not have them walk at a distance one with another, but the strong to re­ceive [Page 34]the weak to communion without making doubtful things the terms of it; [ [...]] the Syr. Arah. and Aethiop. render in the sence of Helping, date manum, adjuvate, sublevate; but that's the signif. of [...], as is plain where it's used; and this word by the opinion of the best Interpreters is fitter rendred by assumite, receive, viz. into your society, and so used most frequently in the New Testament, Matth. 16.22. Act. 17.5. ch. 18.26. Philem. 12 and 17. So for taking meat, Act. 27.33, 34, 36. receive them, but not to the judgement of contro­versal points or disputable mat­ters ( [...] signifies Reaso­nings or disputings, and so ought in most places where it's used to be rendred; and though it's of­ten rendred thoughts, yet there it's to be understood of arguing and reasoning thoughts) such the Apostle would not have them received to; i. e. he would not have your or their [...] or judgement of disputable points to be the terms of your receiving of them: Whatever your opinion or theirs is in these matters, receive them, say not that they must be of this or that judgement and practice in these things, or else they are not to be of your communion; the strong (or he that reputes him­self so, whether he be so or no, the rule of charity for the strong, is to receive him that he reputes weak) is to receive the weak as Christ hath, v. 4. [...] is used there for Christ's receiving. As Christ receives them with all love, tenderness, and condescention, so ought every stronger Believer not to hurry and worry them beyond their strength of Knowledge and Judgement, by rigorous procee­dings of Magisterial injunctions and compulsions; but carry them as Lambs, and gently lead them (as God Isai. 40.11. doth) by the illuminations of the Word, in the exercise of much patience and forbearance towards them, condescending in all things possible for their good and edification, Rom. 14.19. in whatever he may not offend Christ, he ought rather to please his Brother than him­self. As for Example, one that calls himself the strong, (it may be he is Magistrate or Minister, and by his place ought to be so) saith it would be much more contentment to him, if one of his Subjects or Hearers would yield to conform to some few little things which he affirms to be but indifferent in themselves, &c. and the Subject and Parishioner says, No, to obey you is Will-worship. God's own Ordinances are but little indifferent things in themselves, but by vertue of his Commands they become great and weighty; so your Commands about small indifferences makes them great and weighty to my Conscience: And therefore I desire to be excused in coming up to any such Commands; lay aside these, and I am willing to enjoy the benefit of your Communion. Suppose them to be meats, [Page 35]gestures, or Garments, &c. I say, he ought much rather to lay aside the pressing of this or that indifferent thing, for the communion with, and edification of, his poor Brother: But for him to retain his re­solution of pressing this (as he calls it, indifferent action) on the Conscience and practice of his Brother, not admitting any other terms of communion, and upon his refusal to call him Heretick, Schismatick, Rebel, &c. can be accounted nothing less than delibe­rately and studiously to lay a Stumbling-block in his Brothers way for him to fall over; (at least in the true sence of falling) and then when he is down, to beat him and trample upon him. Secondly, In this charitable walking the Apostle saith, after they are in commu­nion there ought not to be judging or despising each other, Rom. 14.10. The weak they are very apt to judge the strong for taking too much power upon himself, or liberty to himself; and to say he walks not according to his Light; and that his actions are not agreeable to the rule of the Gospel; that he is a scandal to Religion, &c. when indeed it may be he useth but that lawful liberty in in­different things which Christ hath granted him, and the other un­derstands not. Such judging as this is ought not to be in the weak; and remarkable it is, that the judging part is put upon the weaker side: the weak Christian is usually the most censorious, and many live with such weakness as this, almost all their days. But the strong is also apt to trespass on the rule of Charity in de­spising his weak Brother, i. e. he that is strong in gifts and parts, or in respect of place and dignity, and advantages in the world; he is apt to think slightly of him, and to speak so, and call him a simple froward Fanatick, a man humoursome, and a contentious Fellow; a weak-brain'd Coxcomb, one that makes Conscience and Preciseness onely a pretence to carry on rebellious Designes against Church and State; and though he pretend Conscience so much in some few things, yet he will play the Hypocrite and lie fast enough in others. To such an one the Apostle saith [...], and take such an one out of the huff of his Pride and Passion, he cannot but acknowledge that this person which he hath thus much contemned and despised is one truely fearing God, though he hath many weaknesses and incongruities attending of him. Thirdly, Another piece of Charity is to help, succour, and assist one another in the bearing any evil of affliction, coming out of any evil of sin, and attaining any good desired, Rom. 15.1. We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak; to put our Shoulders under the [Page 36]burthen, [...], not to aggravate their weakness, and lay greater burthen upon them, but to help them with com­forts under afflictions, resolutions in doubts, good counsel for their recovery when they are under sin and guilt, and not please your selves, our pride, corrupt passions and affections: as self must be denied in following Christ, so in associating with his Mem­bers.

§ 6. We have spoken of the Charity the Apostle requires in the walking of strong and weak towards one another; it remains to adde something concerning the rules of Wisdom whereby they are to walk. 1. The Strong is not to do any indifferent action which he foresees may be a real sinning offence unto his Brother, Rom. 14.19, 20, 21. It's of the greatest transgression of the rule of Charity in the Apostles sence; and therefore it's wisdome for the Strong to chuse such times and circumstances for the use of indifferent things, as may not scandalize the weak, and give him occasion either sin­ningly to judge him, or embolden him to imitate him in an action which his own Conscience cannot bear; for that meat which the Strong can eat without conscience of the Idol, the Weak cannot: Therefore some things must be wisely avoided by a Christian for the sake of another mans Conscience in matters of indifferencies, though he findes no reason for it in his own. I need make no far­ther proof of this than that full place, 1 Cor. 8.10. 1 Cor. 10.27, 28, 29. Here the judgement of discretion must be managed by the rules of Expediency, All things that are lawful are not expedient; and if it be a sin against Christian Charity and Wisdome to do that action that may really scandalize a weak Brother, it is much more a transgression of a hainous nature to impose this action, and compel the Weak to the doing of it. 2. The wisdom of the Weak should be, to be so far from judging and condemning the Strong, as rather to suspect his own Judgement, and lay aside Pride, Preju­dice, and Partiality, and sincerely endeavour after more light, be­lieving still that it's most probable that a Christian that hath more Knowledge, Experience, Gifts, and Parts and Advantages, may know much more than himself; and though he cannot reach Light e­nough to see so far as to practise with him, yet at least to believe that his stronger Brother hath walked according to the best of his light and knowledge in that thing, when he sees no eminent moral swaying reason to the contrary. And though the Conscience or Example of the Strong is not the rule that the Weak must walk by, [Page 37]unless it's manifest to the Weak that the Strong walks agreeable to the Minde or Example of Christ: It's not any mans Place, Dignity, Learning, Piety, barely and absolutely considered, that renders him a Standard and Rule of Christian walking; yet he is to learn so much pious Wisdom, as to remember all those relations that he stands to him by, and to violate none of them upon this account, and rather come to him as a Scholar, than as a Master to teach him, or Judge to condemn him. It were great folly in a man that's blinde, or hath but one Eye, to condemn all men for Cheats and Knaves that have two Eyes and stronger sighted than themselves. Besides, it's most agreeable to the rules of equity, that the strong man should be allowed the same liberty as to his own practice, which the weak chal­lengeth, viz. of walking by the light of his own Conscience, be it more or less than anothers; though I confess, if there be any bar of Liberty in indifferent things in the Law of Christ, it's on the part of the Strong; i. e. of him that hath the over-ruling, govern­ing, or exemplary power over others, for the sake of the Weak: for that is an undoubted Law of Christ, that the Strong, or he that thinks or pretends himself so to be, may not do an indifferent a­ction with offence unto the Weak. And whereas the Strong may object and say, that the Weak is as much bound to conform to an indifferent thing for the sake of the Strong, as the Strong to for­bear it for the sake of the Weak; I [...] there can be no sin in forbearing an indifferent act to [...] upon it as such, when there is unavoidable sin in doing it [...] that esteems it in his Conscience so to be; so that the reason is not the same in this kinde for the Strong and Weak. The Weak cannot walk with the Strong in all matters of indifferency, but the Strong may with the Weak by receiving of them, as the Apostle saith, without the con­sideration of those differences; because the Weak should sin in do­ing a thing absolutely indifferent which he judgeth unlawful; but the Strong doubting not the indifferency, can never think that he sins in forbearing it, and therefore should prize his Brothers com­munion before pleasing himself in such actions.

§ 7. The sum of all is this, that notwithstanding the real dis­proportion (or supposed) between the Strong and Weak, and the disputes in the world who is one, and who is the other, the will of Christ is, that they should walk brotherty and inoffensively towards each other, each one as strong and weak; as strong, in respect of his Wisdom and Charity; as weak, in respect of his Humility; Teach­ableness, [Page 38]and Suspicion of himself, Every one esteeming another better than himself; for the same Christian may be strong and weak; strong in the knowledge and experience of some Truths, and in respect of some Temptations, weak in his apprehension and judgement of o­thers; strong at one time, and weak at another: And besides, at­tending infirmities must be considered on both parts; for it cannot be but sometimes it will fall out, that the Weak will manifest his weakness, by Peevishness, Prejudice, Passion, or Bewraying his manifest ignorance, for which the Strong is not to despise him or reject him, but rather help him under this burthen, and endeavour to win him nearer unto him by a spirit of forbearance and meekness; for men in manifest weaknesses are to be pitied and supported, not to be in­sulted over and trampled upon. So the Strong will sometimes shew his strength (though it be his sin, and therefore a weakness rela­tively) in doing actions indifferent to himself, and it may be knows not, or considers not, that they are sinning offences unto his weak Brother; and then for his own vindication, with too great a pro­portion of height and vehemency, next door to Pride and Passion, (too often the things themselves) manageth his case for the satis­faction or conviction of the Weak, the good effect whereof is lost by reason of the attending corruption. Here prevailing Grace in the Weak will turn the scales, and make him appear the Strong, if he suppress the [...] in himself of judging his Bro­ther, and carry [...] him in an eminent measure of love and humility in th [...] [...]anifestation of his apprehended just excep­tions against any of his Brothers ways or actions, and putting the most favourable and candid interpretation upon them that by the rules of Charity in his apprehension they will bear.

§ 8. How contrary then is the walking of some unto this Rule? when the Strong will binde up the Weak by humane Laws to do all those actions (that to him are indifferent) under pain of non-communion, or other penalties, when he regards no more the strength of the Childe that he is to walk with, as that it must run as fast as himself, or rather drive it before him, not considering the weakness of his parts manifestly wronged, and the great hazard of his life: how unlike he is to God in this, and how contrary he acts to his revealed will, let the impartial judge. On the other hand, when the Weak, at least in knowledge, if not in power, will binde up the hands of the Strong by some Law humane, under pain of inevitable bodily Sufferings, or Censures publick or private, to deny his own [Page 39]Light and Liberty, and come down to his Darkness and Bondage; it's as when a blinde man will not be satisfied unless all other mens Eyes be put out too; and the lame, till other mens Legs be bro­ken. This is Tyranny on both hands; Christ never substituted one Christian as such a Law-giver unto another in Spirituals: and they that pretend to it as strong, to give Law to the weak; or as weak, to give Law to limit and binde up the strong, they are so far from the Rules of the Gospel, that whatever their profession is of Faith in the greater or lesser measure, I fear it will hardly be found in the smallest portion in either of them; and therefore from this consideration will arise a necessary distinction between the strong or weak sincere Believer, and between the strong and weak hypocriti­cal or pretended Believer.

§ 9. What hath been hitherto spoken mostly concerns the suppo­sed strong or weak sincere Christian; we shall speak a word of the Hypocritical pretenders of both sorts. The hypocritically Strong, is he that apprehends himself to be so, and from spiritual Pride and corrupt Interest, puts on a pharisaical Vizard, whereby he would perswade others that he is so; one that thinketh he knoweth much, and knoweth nothing as he ought to know, 1 Cor. 8.2. and he so thinks of himself, as that he is puffed up, v. 1. And again the Apo­stle saith, Not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth, 1 Cor. 10.19. his knowledge is not of the right stamp, it's separated from undoubted concomitants of sanctified Knowledge, Charity, Humility, and spiritual Wisdom, and instead thereof he manifests himself with ostentation, Lords it tyrannically over the Consciences of others, be they strong or weak; despising and contemning them in all their doubts, rather desiring to confound them with difficulties, and impose on them by compulsions, than any way to inform their Judgements, or to win them to his society by condescention and meekness.

§ 10. The weak Hypocritical Professor little differs from the for­mer, not in kinde, but in degree onely; for a Hypocrite is but so still, be he weak or strong; i. e. have more or less parts or advantages to hide and conceal himself, and set off himself to the world; but he differs from the supposed strong Christian, in that he hath but little knowledge, a few gifts and parts, and is not able to manage his af­fairs to so much advantage for the deceiving of others, but yet pre­tends highly to Conscience, and the purest ways of holiness, and pleads himself to be weak onely for a Bulwark for himself to de­fend [Page 40]his Errours, Singularity and Censoriousness of others, against all the instructions and admonitions, whatever forcible arguments and reasons they bring with them: He will still say, truly this is his weak judgement, and that he is but of a mean capacity, and cannot understand what you have to say for his information and conviction; and if you make him understand, he will still hold his Conclusion, though his Premises be manifested to be never so weak.

§ 11. The sincere ought to have a watchful eye upon these Pro­fessors, endeavouring to discover them, for at first they cannot, and therefore are called Hypocrites, because they can obscure and conceal themselves from man for a while; and when they are not known, the sincere is bound to carry himself towards them by the same rules as he doth to those that are equally sincere with himself: but when he is once discovered, he hath no reason then to carry him­self towards him as towards a sincere, but as towards a false-hearted Professor. But we should be very wary of judging men Hypocrites; it's the greatest censure in the world upon a Professor; there must be very great evidence for it before we can conclude it so: for Hypo­crisie is properly in the eye of none but God; and though Christ (who knew men throughout) called them as they were, I question whether his Example may be followed in this, by the best men on earth. But we may have great grounds of suspicion of this by their fruits, and accordingly we are to be directed in our carriage to­wards them by the Word of God, and we have our Saviour's be­haviour to the Pharisees, whether strong or weak, for our example, so far as imitable by us. Our Saviour would never gratifie that sort of men, whatever shape they appeared under, either of weak or strong; and notwithstanding all their glosing pretentions, our Sa­viour tells them, their Hearts were rotten and their ends wicked; and by two eminent characters of this nature he discovers them to the world. 1. That they were mighty zealous for some small circum­stantial matters in Religion, and professed Enemies to the purer and more weighty part wherein the power of Godliness lay, Faith, Justice, Charity, &c. 2. That they cried up Humane Laws, Traditions and Constitutions in the worship of God, above the Laws and Institu­tions of God himself. The carriage of Paul also in this kinde is very remarkable, that he would not ( Gal. 2.3, 4, 5.) yield to the circumcision of Titus, it being sought for by false Brethren that would have compelled it, and endeavoured to betray the Churches liberty, and bring them into bondage; to whom (he saith) we [Page 41]gave no place by subjection, (i. e. yielding to their imposition) no not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel (i. e. true Gospel-liberty) might continue with you; whereas before he yielded to the Circum­cision of Timothy to gratifie the weak real Believers. Whence it plainly follows, that whoever they be that endeavour to enthral our Consciences and Practices, though in matters in themselves in­different, are not to be yielded to as weak, nor subjected to as strong, but rejected as false Brethren. 2. The strong sincere Christian is not to violate any positive Law of Christ that he is in his Conscience perswaded of, to gratifie the weak, or any persons whatever, Infe­riours, Superiours, or Equals; all the concession must be onely in mat­ters in themselves indifferent; neither should the weak offer violence to his Conscience in any thing to please the strongest and wisest Chri­stian in the world.

§ 1. HAving spoken of the strong and weak Christian, and how they should walk one towards another inoffensively, it will be necessary to understand a little the nature and kinde of offences which the Gospel gives us so frequent and strict warning to take heed of. The Apostles great inference (from the advice that he had given to the Strong and weak) was by way of advice, Rom. 14.13. Let us not therefoee judge one another any more, but judge this rather, (i. e. determine) that no man put a stumbling-block or an oc­casion to fall in his Brothers way. [...], & [...], inter se differunt, sed non semper: [...] leviorem offensam significat, quā tamen aliquis non corruat, ut supra, 11.11. [...] vero graviorem declarat, ex quā quispiam prolapsus claudicet. Beza and most Interpreters go this way, but Estius, who saith, Non disting, inter offendiculum & scandalum, sicut inter lapidem offensionis & petram scandali, Rom. 9.33. nam hujusmodi repetitiones ad inculcationem eyusdem rei Scri­pturis familiares sunt. Estius. There is two words used, but both seem to intend the same thing, though some make them differ in degree. A Scandal is any impediment or obstruction that lies in a mans way, over which he may stumble or fall: So that we take a Stumbling-block or oc­casion of falling for the same thing, any thing that doth grieve, trouble, distract, or turn aside, [Page 42]carries the nature of a scandal with it, and those we must distin­guish according to degrees: There are the greater and more dange­rous, that hazard falling; and there are those of a lesser nature, that hazard stumbling onely. They differ onely in degree, or in respect that they have to our state or particular actions and concerns. Some of more dangerous consequence, and some of less. Some are more easily removed out of the way, some more permanent and lasting. As if there be any difference in those expressions, a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, it lieth in that the offending Stone is easily put aside, but the Rock is immovable.

§ 2. Offences are said also to be either such as are given and not taken; and in this sence some places must be taken, as Matth. 16.23. when Christ said to Peter, [...], Thou art an offence to me, in endeavouring by thy advice and evil counsel to turn me out of the course of exercising my Mediators office: Not that Christ was stumbled, but there was such a thing in the nature of Peter's ad­vice, in relation to Christ's work that he had to do. Some offen­ces are taken and not given; i. e. it's not in the nature of them to be offences, but by reason of the corruptions of men by their abuse of the greatest good, it often becomes a scandal to them; so Christ himself was a scandal to the Jews, and a Rock of scandal, as well as a Stone of stumbling, Rom. 9.33. 1 Cor. 1.23. How ma­ny, when he went preaching about, were scandalized at him and at his Doctrine, Matth. 11.6. ch. 15.12. ch. 26.31. This is a sup­posed scandal to him that is offended. Thus the doing of the most justifiable action may undergo the disreputation of an offence, when men will either perversly call good evil, or interpret it as evilly in­tended, or by reason of ignorance and weakness of judgement judge it so: and thus Christ himself, and no marvel if the best of his Members be not a scandal many times in their most commenda­ble ways of walking, unto the men of the world, yea unto many weaker Believers, their liberty becomes a Stumbling-block to the weak, 1 Cor. 8.9. and a mans good is blasphemed, or evil spoken of, Rom. 14.16. there are many that will be offended captiously and deliberate­ly, and they are the profane men of the world that call Christ Beel­zebub, and his Disciples no better, or the pharisaical Professors. The Disciples told Christ, Knowest thou not that the Pharisees were of­fended when they heard these sayings, Matth. 15.12. Christ an­swers, That every plant that his Father had not planted should be rooted up: Let them alone, they are blinde, &c. therefore, no marvel if they [Page 43]bark at the Sun, &c. These unjust and unreasonable offence-takers are the greatest offence-givers, who do truely offend Gods Children in all sences more than the prophane world: so Joh. 6.60, 61.

§ 3. An offence given, is when a man or thing hath an innate just ground of scandal, by relation to the moral Law, and is no other than sin or sinful per se & in se, whatever other mens opinion of it be; and therefore works objectively upon others by way of stumbling and scandalizing; and they are two sorts on whom it operates this way: Either those that behold this action with approbation; and they stumble, or rather fall, in the worst manner thereby; for they thereby are encouraged to fall into sin, or to remain in sin, by reason of it, because of the great inducements that they take up from the person committing it, his Holiness, Wisdom, Authority, Age, &c. or those that behold it are grieved at it, and at the person offending, so as to censure his Person or Religion, and provoked by some ways or means to manifest their great disgust, not onely to the person of­fending, but even to the world. Hence I distinguish Offences into Grieving and Sinning, or Grief-causing offences, or Sin-causing offences.

§ 4. Of the grieving Offence first; and it's that which tends to the afflicting and troubling the Mindes, Hearts, and Consciences of the Faithful in their Christian course; and the offending party ei­ther wrongs and injures by acts of violence and oppression, whereby he grieves the oppressed; or else he does and persists in such actions as the offended judge unlawful: And therefore from true principles of the love of God and his Brother, and the hatred of sin, he is much grieved, and walks heavily to see his Brother walk disorderly, and complains of this block laid in the way of his Charity and Christian Communion, Rom. 14.15. If thy Brother be grieved ( [...]) with thy meat, thou walkest not charitably.

§ 5. There be two sorts of grieving Offences. 1. All absolutely unlawful actions that are seen by the offended party to be sins by Christ's Law, and these he is bound by Christ's Law to be offended at, and at the persons committing them, as not onely sinners against God, but against the Members of Christ; and such offenders are the prophane men of the world or Pharisaical Professors, Matth. 13.41. chap. 18.7. the world is full of these offences, and miserable and woful by reason of them. 2. All actions that though they are lawful in themselves, yet circumstantially respected according to time and place, they have an unexpediency, and therefore carry an offensiveness with them, or they become offences by the sinister [Page 44]interpretation of the offended, and then are not justly taken: all things indeed are pure, but it is evil for that man that eateth with of­fence, Rom. 14.20. and though the offence may be but a reputed or supposed one ( v. 14.) by the offended party, yet it may be really given by the offending party, and the offence be unjustly taken as to the thing or action, yet it may be just and equal as to the party offen­ding, who is as well acquainted with the weakness of his Brother, as the indifferency of the action.

§ 6. The sinning offence is such a thing or action in one man, that becomes an occasion of sin in another, whether it work upon him by way of Example, Advice, Compulsion, &c. if it force or allure him into sin, it's a scandal, and of the grossest and most hainous nature; and a man is offended here many times, when he is pleased as to the carnal part, as he always seems to be when they close with him by way of encouragement, because sinning is most properly spiritual stumbling and falling, and those things that occasion it are meta­phorically called Traps, Gins, Snares, Stumbling-blocks, in Scripture­phrase; and in that sence is [...] most frequently used. This Scandal, or occasion of falling into sin, is diversly taken; it's some­times ascribed unto Gods judicial proceeding with the sons of men, when he lays such Providences before them which he knows will become a scandal by reason of their corruptions, viz. of further more visible and exemplary sinning unto them, Ezeek. 3.20. Jer. 6.21. in this sence Christ became a sinning scandal unto a great part of the world: To the Jews, a Stumbling-block, and to the Greeks, Foolishness. The sufferings and falls of Gods people, intended for the humbling, proving, and doing good unto them, have their bardning effects upon the wicked: The same Sun-beams harden the Clay, and soften the Wax; Quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis. Many Creature-comforts used by some for nourishment and com­fort of life, become no better than Poyson unto others by their in­temperate and sinful abuse of them, and are called a Snare, Trap, Gin, Scandal, Rom. 11.9. It's attributed to any subtile enticement or insinuation to the commitment of sin, either of our own inherent Lusts and Affections, James 1. and in this sence the right Eye, or Hand is said to scandalize us, Matth. 5.29. and 18.9. Mark 9.47. Or it's taken for another's insinuations or allurements to sin, by Words or Actions, by Words and Perswasions; that of Peter to our Saviour, Matth. 16.23. By alluring Actions and Practices: so Balac laid a Scandal before the Children of Israel, Rev. 2.14. Moreover, [Page 45]it's attributed to any thing sinfully hurtful, or as a fruit of sin, no­xious unto man, especially all sinful incorrigible men; all which scan­dals Christs Angels shall gather out at the end thereof, Matth. 13.41. But the use of the word mostly in our sence, is such a kinde of Stumbling-block as one Brother may put in another's way; or more largely, such a kinde of Stumbling-block as is an occasion of sinning to any of Christ's Members. 1. Such as is laid by the malicious World and Pharisees, who are plotting and contriving entrappers of Gods people, like Balaam and Balack, and rejoyce over them as E­nemies when they have brought any of those little ones into sin; our Saviour's Wo belongs to them, Matth. 18.6. 2. When one Believer offends another, the strong doing an action (to him indif­ferent) whereby the weak by misunderstanding becomes seduced to, and entrapped, or established in sin.

§ 7. There are these ways whereby the indifferent act of the Strong becomes a sinning scandal unto the Weak. 1. When it encourageth the Weak to an implicite Faith, taken upon the practice of the Strong ( i. e. of one eminent for Grace, Gifts, Exemplary sufferings, or pla­ces of dignity and trust) to do those things which he doubts to be lawful and warrantable by the Word of God, and then this weak Be­liever [...] is condemned in Conscience (not absolutely dam­ned, as some understand the use of that ambiguous word in the translation) the reason added is demonstration enough, because whatever is not of Faith is sin, and all sin condemns by a concomitant or subsequent guilt attending. 2. When the actions of the strong, lawful in his performance of them, is a confirmation of the weak in his unlawful practice of the same thing, as in the Apostles instance of eating things sacrificed to Idols: The strong eats it as other meat, without any conscience of, or respect to the Idol; but the weak is confirmed in his idolatrous or superstitious use of it, 1 Cor. 8.4. and the same thing being but an indifferent lawful action to one; is Superstition or Idolatry to the other, eating with some respect to the Idol, or with a Conscience checking upon that consideration; and so their Conscience being weak is defiled ( i. e. becomes accusing of sin, and therefore polluted with guilt, Heb. 10.12.) but meat commen­deth us not to God, v. 8. i. e. an indifferent thing in it self, we are never the worse for it, provided no sinful circumstances do attend it; but take heed lest your meat ( i. e. an indifferent thing) and your liberty in the use of it, become not a scandal, i. e. an occasion of sin to the weak: For if any that is weak see thee which hast knowledge sit at [Page 46]meat in an Idol-temple, (and think that thy carriage be with some civil or religious respect) shall not such a mans Conscience be embol­dened? ( [...]) or edified? i. e. confirmed in his Judgement and practice in eating such things. If he that is weak see thee use an indifferent action (such as bowing, kneeling, &c.) in the ser­vice of Idolatry or Superstition, will it not embolden him to the like practices? i. e. either encourage him to venture on a practice which he was affraid before was sin, or embolden him confidently to per­severe in that practice which he went on in before with a doubting or scrupling Conscience; so that by thy knowledge ( i. e. by the occasion or example of it) shall thy weak Brother perish, so far as he is concerned in thy actions, (for whom Christ died) and so far as thou knowest, he being fallen into, or confirmed in sin by thy means; and when ye sin so against the Brethren, and wound their weak Conscien­ces, you sin against Christ. The Apostle enlarges further and very plainly upon this point, 1 Cor. 10.23. to the 9th, &c. which I shall not detain the reader upon, but onely refer him to distinct reading and consideration of the Text; and shall conclude this point with that eminent place of John the Apostle, 1 Epist. ch. 2.10. He that loveth his Brother abideth in the Light, ( i. e. the truth of the Gospel) and there is no occasion of Stumbling (the word is [...]) in him; that is, no active scandal, i. e. he gives no occasion of falling unto his Brother; and there is no passive scandal, he is so far enlightned and informed in the truth, that he doth not easily take offence at his Brothers actions, so as to start from the truth, or walk in any ways of sin or errour; neither is he soon offended and prejudiced at his Brothers person or profession, as to start from the communion of either. But he that hateth his Brother (i. e. hath little regard to the welfare of his Brothers Soul) is in darkness, and walketh in dark­ness, and knows not whither he goes, because darkness hath blin­ded his Eyes; Ergo, will both stumble and fall, and lay Stum­bling-blocks and Scandals in the way of others, that they may fall also.

§ 1. IN the next place, it will follow to consider the things wherein the Consciences of the strong and weak are mostly concern­ed, about the doing or not doing of which, Scandals and Offences do arise amongst Christians; and those are things necessary and indif­ferent.

§ 2. The things wherein Conscience is bound to doing or avoi­ding by some Law, are things necessary; and if by Christ's Law, they are religiously necessary; if by Man's Law, they are civilly necessary; if by the Law of Nature, then naturally necessary: all things what­ever antecedaneous to a Law, are in a possibility to necessity or in­differency; those things that are doubted of, (supposing them under a Law, or relating to it) not appearing to us whether necessary or indifferent, are scruples; and these are not so much in the nature of the thing, as in Conscience.

§ 3. An indifferent thing is generally known by this description, Est medium quod ita se habet ad duo extrema, ut non magis ad unum quam ad alterum inclinat: It's a middle thing that respects both ex­treams alike: as that which is indifferent in respect of Morality, [...], Sine discrimine aut dif­ferentiā, b. e. ratione boni & mali determinati ul [...]â lege. it's in it self nei­ther morally good, nor morally evil; it is as it were the middle of a Line that leaveth so much on both sides, Est bonum & malum physicum mora­le civile. that it is equally separated from both, in that as it is not the one, so it is not the other; and though good and evil are properly opposita per se sine ullo medio, vel adversa, (for there is no­thing in the world but is good or evil in some respect or other) but because moral or civil good or evil is additional after the de­terminations of Nature, in genere suo, by some further Law: there are some things or actions not concerned in the said Laws, which things therefore can have no moral or civil goodness or evil in them, but remain adiaphorus; and so in this consideration necessary, good, and evil, and indifferent, are disparata, and not contraria; those things or actions which directly fall under the Law by positive Command [Page 48]or Prohibition, are said to be absolute good and evil, though it's but secundum quid, viz. properly in relation to the Law; and those things or actions which are not directly concerned in the Law, but onely circumstantially, (indifferent in themselves) those are relatively necessary, and respectively onely good or evil.

§ 4. Though Good, and Evil, and Indifferent, are disparata, yet Necessary and Indifferent are adversa, and there is no medium betwixt them; for all things in the world are or may be ranked under these two Heads, in respect of any Law of God or man whatsoever: For either they are concerned in the Law, or not; if they be concerned, they receive a relative constituted good or evil from the said Law; if not concerned as to Command or Prohibition, they remain indif­ferent, and their indifferency also must be respective, as to this or that Law; for a thing may be indifferent and unconcerned as to one Law, when it's concerned in and made necessary by another Law.

§ 5. By Laws of Nature in distinction from morality, I understand more than meram artem Physicam; here must be understood the rules of all Arts, which are as so many Laws to direct every thing, in its various respects, unto its right end; and all conformities and agree­ment of the things, or respects to the said rules in [...], is good; and all Irregularities and Falsities are evil: though bonum & malum is most proper in the moral acceptation, yet we must allow it to be in other Arts besides Divinity; in Logick there is good and evil consequence, reasoning, &c. verum & bomem, though they be morally contra-distinct, yet they are in Logick convertible terms; so there is the [...] of every Art, which is its veritas leading to its right end, and this is the bonitas thereof. There is also a necessity in them, and Necessarium, quando semper verum est, nec falsum esse potest, when the Axiome affirmed is always true, and never can be false; to this is opposed a contingency, which indeed is a medium between Truth and Falshood, as Indifferency is between Good and Evil, and is an Axio­matical indifferency properly, as the other is moral; and those things that are contingent are indifferently concerned in the rules of Art to Truth or Falshood. Sic vera sunt ut aliquando falsa esse possunt, & sic falsa ut aliquando vera esse possunt.

§ 6. All Necessities respecting Conscience and religious practice, are moral, and have their good and evil determined by a moral Law; and these are of two sorts, Absolute, or Relative; Absolute, when the principal substance of the thing or action is determined as to good or evil, the moral Law looks directly upon it; the duty is called [Page 49] perfectum officium, [...], a perfect or absolute throughout Duty. A Relative necessity is, when an indifferent thing (in itself) by a circumstantial respect to another thing, falls under some Law, and becomes good by way of expediency, or evil by way of non-expediency; it's call'd commune, [...], or medium off cium, quod cur factum sit ratio pro­babilis reddi potest, Cic. off. [...], 1 Cor. 10.23. an indifferency may become a necessity per accidens, pro hic & nunc, and this is an expediency, or non-expediency, which cannot be properly a medium between a necessary thing and indifferent, because every moral expediency is necessary in genere boni moralis, pro hic & nunc, though not pro semper & ubique.

§ 7. Things have a Necessity of nature in them, when they are so ordained of God the Creator of all things, that they should be, or do this or that to the compleating their being or welbeing, in order to the accomplishment of that end for which he first introduced them; and his command unto them (the proper catholick rule of every art) so to be and do, is the law of nature which all natural agents under the conduct of respective Arts and Sciences do receive, viz. what they should be, what they should do, and to what end they should tend; all which are undispensable (rebus secundum natucam aut regulas artis, positis) and unalterable by any but God alone; and they are his Ordinances for the rule of Sun, Moon, and Stars, &c. given by God, and cannot depart from before him, Jer. 31.35, 36. [...] if these Statutes be removed from be­fore me; hence all Creatures and things should according to their first constitution, have kept their regular Motions to the best ends Supream and Subordinate; and so all good, though since the brea­king in of the Curse upon the Creature for mans moral transgression, there's entred thousands of natural evils into the world, so that na­ture hath swerved from its primitive course in many things, and run in the crooked channels of disorder and confusion. Hence natu­ral indifferencies are such natural Actions, Modes, and Tendencies of the created beings, which may be or not be without any prejudice to the common course of nature, without any destruction to the esse, bene esse, or last end of the Creature. As a man may be Tall, or Short, Fat, or Lean; of a fair or black Complexion: So a Sheep, black, or white. It may Rain or be fair Weather on this or that day. The fuel of Fire may be Hay, Straw, Coal, or Wood: The Eye may look on this or that Object: The Understanding contem­plate this or that truth: The Will chuse this or that good; and [Page 50]infinite other varieties that nature sports itself in, without any di­straction, or so much as wrong to the necessities of nature, or breach of any of the Laws or Rules thereof.

§ 8. Things or Actions are politically necessary, or indifferent, when they become necessary by subjection to some Law of Polity, or indif­ferent by being void of limitation by that Law. Political Necessities and Indifferences are either Civil or Ecclesiastical: Civilly necessary are either when the things or actions themselves have an innate tenden­cy to the order of civil Societies, or the exercise of distributive or commutative justice, flowing from the influence of the moral Law diffusing itself through all natural Consciences, and becoming the very Veins and Sinews of Societies; or when according to the dis­cretion or prudential arbitrament of the civil Magistrate (agreeing to the constitution of the Government) a civil Law is enacted, where it bindes, is civilly necessary, and that which it leaves unbound is civilly indifferent, and neither good nor evil in respect of that Law. Unto this Head may be referred Oeconomical necessities and indifferen­ces, of which we may have some such analogical understanding which I shall not now stay upon.

§ 9. Some things and actions fall under a spiritual political consi­deration, and are Ecclesiastical, pertaining to instituted Worshp, to the Government and Discipline of Christ's Body-politick, which is his Church, and these are Levitical or Evangelical. Levitically neces­sary, where such things which were commanded by the Ceremonial Law, the revealed Will of God for the order and manner of his instituted worship in the Jewish Church under the Pedagogy of Moses. Levitically indifferent, where those things that were left undetermi­ned by the ceremonial Law, might be lawfully done or not be done according to discretion.

§ 10. Things or actions Evangelically Ecclesiastical are also necessary or indifferent. Necessary, when they have a determination of political good or evil laid on them by the Law of Christ, for the management of the affairs of his Church under the Gospel. Things in respect to the Church-constitutions are also indifferent, when they are not de­clared by the Law of Christ to be of any necessary concernment to the being or well-being of the Ecclesiastical Polity. All Ecclesiastical Institutions are founded on the Moral Law, but are distinguished from the Moral Precepts by the name of Instituted Worship; because God ordained the Moral Law to be a rule of Obedience under all the ages of his Church; but Christ hath reserved to himself the [Page 51]prerogative of altering instituted Worship at his pleasure, as it shall appear to his wisdom to be more agreeable to those several ages and great ends that he designes the attaining of, by the Oeconomy of his Church Militant in the world; and the great and principal change that he thought good to make, was when he changed his Church-discipline from Oeconomical to National, and from National in one Nation, to particular Congregations in all Nations whither his Gospel should be dispersed. This last change of instituted Worship we are under, and it stands constituted by the Laws of his own pro­mulgation by himself immediately when here on earth, and by his Apostles after his Ascention inspired with his Spirit, extraordinarily commissionated by his Authority. From under this last Ecclesiastical Constitution we must not, we dare not start till his second coming, the date of its continuance being fixed by himself.

§ 1. HAving thus briefly described and unfolded all sorts of Ne­cessities and Indifferences requisite to our purpose, and ranked them to several Heads, that we might not be mistaken in the fol­lowing Discourse when we speak of any of them distinct from the other; We judge it now convenient in the first place, before we come to argue the matter in controversie, to lay down a few general Propositions to the intelligent Reader, whereby the nature of these things will further and more clearly appear.

1. No created beings or actions had any thing of moral necessi­ty or indifferency antecedent to a moral Law: for where there is no Law, things cannot respect it as good or evil; and if the two ex­treams cannot be without a Law, neither can the middle be in re­spect to the said Law; and if some things are not made morally good or evil by commanding or forbidding, other things cannot be morally indifferent as to good or evil.

2. Though things have no indifferency antecedaneous to a Law, and without respect thereto, yet they have a possibility of necessary goodness, evil, or indifferency; and those things that are good or [Page 52]evil by one Law, may be left indifferent by another, & vice versa.

3. The same Law that ordains things or actions necessarily good or evil, doth exclusivè & implicitè determine things indifferent in re­ference to its self; for such things as are neither commanded or for­bidden, are neither good or evil, and therefore may be done or not done without sin, being indifferent.

4. There is none can loose or absolve from a binding Law, but he that hath the Legislative power, or one superiour to him; men may by alteration of Statutes, change their necessities into indifferences, & vice versa; or God by his supremacy may do this in mans Laws, but no man can abolish God's Laws, or make new ones of the same kinde by changing things that he hath left indifferent into necessities, it is his Prerogative onely.

5. All appearances of things to be what they really are not, by the several respects they have to the Law they are under, are errours and hallucinations of the Understanding; for good sometimes ap­pears evil, and evil good; necessary things indifferent, and indifferent things necessary: And though our walking must be and can be but according to the illumination of our Understanding, yet doth not our Judgement or Consciences alter the true respect that things have in themselves.

6. All religious actions, as such, practically circumstantiated, whe­ther moral or ceremonial, are good or evil, and cannot be called in­different, unless in an abstract consideration from all religious respects.

7. Absolute good and evil are not of the same extent with lawful and unlawful; for an indifferent action is lawful which hath no de­termination by a Law to good or evil, because not onely the Pre­cept, but even the permission of the Law makes a licitum, but it's onely the Prohibition that makes it unlawful. Hence indifferent things are not media inter Licita & illicita, for they are contradicen­tia, and indifferent things are licita, and upon that account referred to the Law, and confirms that indifferent things cannot be said to be so but in reference to some Law, lawfulness being an essential pro­perty of an indifferent thing.

8. To say that an indifferent thing is a mean between commanded and forbidden, is all one as to say it is a mean between good and evil; for there is nothing good or evil, but by vertue of something carrying the force of a Law in it, that by a Command or Prohibition puts the nature of good or evil upon it correspondent to the said Law: As the Law of the Creation makes things naturally good or evil, the [Page 53]Law moral makes them morally so, &c. and that which is prohibited as not answering the ends of the one or other, is necessarily evil. That which is commanded as answering the ends, and requisite, is good necessarily. That which in itself may or may not answer, and is not absolutely commanded or forbidden, is neither good nor evil, (in respect of that Law, though it may be in respect of another) and therefore indifferent.

§ 1. UPon the true stating of Necessities and Indifferences depends the right understanding of Christian Liberty: concerning the genuine meaning and extent thereof, it's needful that something be subjoyned.

That there is such a thing as Christian Liberty, many places in the New Testament will evince: we shall briefly explain how the word [...] is taken. 1. For freedom from the impurities of sin, because the ways of sin are bondage; so the Word of God directing to holiness, is called the Law of Liberty, Jam. 1.25. ch. 2.12. 2. Sometimes taken for Liberty or freedom from the Curse due to sin, or lying upon the Creature for it in its effects, Rom. 8.21. 3. It's taken for Freedom from the darkness of, and bondage to the Mosaical Vail of Ceremonies, 1 Cor. 3.17. 4. For a free use of indifferent things [...], 2 Cor. 3.17. Gal. 2.4. In all places I finde Liberty hath a respect to some Law whereby men are bound either under duty, or unto punishment. We are freed from the punishment of the moral Law by Christ, but not from duties required by it, Gal. 5.1. It is a freedom purchased for us, Christ having satisfied the Law in respect of [...] 1. It's taken for a Liberty from sins dominion, which is a transgression of the Law, Rom. 6.18, 22. Joh. 8.32. 2. It's opposed to the bondage of expectation of Justification by the works of the Law, Gal. 4.22, to the 30. Rom. 7.3. Now Christian Liberty as it respects indifferent things, it flows from the Law of Christ two ways, either by way of release from the bondage of some Law, by the repeal of it, as of the Ceremonial Law, which consisted in many observations of Days, Meats, Habits, and [Page 54]many Rites and Ceremonies, and is liberatio; or by allowing us and entrusting us with a Latitude in the use of many things, notwith­standing all supervening Laws and impositions, and therefore this is that Liberty which we are commanded by Christ to maintain, Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. we are to take heed that we be not entangled again in the Yoak of bondage; that place is comprehensive of all the Liberty pur­chased for us by Christ, in respect of the moral and all ceremonial Laws; and so far as we have a Liberty by Gospel-charter, we are to stand fast in it, avoiding all re-intanglements of Conscience by the Children of men, that spy out our lawful Liberties, and would deprive us of them; Ye are bought with a price, be ye not the servants of men, 1 Cor. 7.23. which place must be understood in religious service, such as is done in obedience to the immediate commands of Christ, as ap­pears v. 22, and 24. for Christ doth not prohibit service to men in Domestick and Civil affairs, but a flavery to the wills of men in the matters of Religion and instituted Worship; be ye not time-servers or men-servers: So that by Christ's Law we are bound to refuse homage to mens Usurpations in matters of Religion.

§ 2. As what Christ's Law to us determines (for our practice) to good and evil in all things and actions comprehended under that Law is definite; so what he hath not there determined some way or other, either explicitely or implicitely, is indefinite, and a Christian hath there­in his Liberty to do or to forbear without sin, as in such matters as relate to religious observations in Meats, Drinks, Days, and Circum­stances attending instituted Worship, not commanded or forbidden by Christ, but are left by Christ to our Liberty to do or not to do by the judgement of discretion, as it hath most tendency to the glory of God and edification of our selves and others: As for ex­ample; to sit or stand in hearing the Word, to kneel or stand, or lie prostrate in Prayer; for a man to turn his face to the East or 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 [Page 55]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 [Page 56]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 [Page 57]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 in their circumstances, and therefore can­not be determined but pro hic & nunc, and must be liable still to no other judgement than that of Discretion: Those things that Christ hath left under it, cannot by humane Laws be removed from it; therefore indifferent things may be agreed on by common con­sent in Congregations, or by the Officers thereof, according as the expediency or conveniency appears unto them, and for so long, and no longer. Hence they cannot undergo the Title or Denomination of a Law, but onely of prudential Rules, which have no binding rea­son for observation, but the continuance of the agreeing circumstances; as it may be judged most convenient by the Church to assemble at such an hour, so long as the days are of such a length; but when that circumstance alters, then it may be more convenient at another. Ma­ny such instances may be given, and no Church can walk comfor­tably as long as any Authority undertakes to prohibit them of this liberty of their Prudentials in all such matters of circumstance and alterable appendixes to the worship of God.

§ 1. THe first Question that seems to offer itself to be so, this: Whether a religious Gospel-Indifferency ceaseth to be so, when any thing is positively and certainly determined as to its practice by humane Authority? Explic. By religious Gospel-Indifferency, I under­stand, as before-mentioned, any thing or action which circumstan­tially adheres to the worship of God, and may be used or omitted, or altered, according to the judgement of discretion, without any transgression of a Law of Christ. Again, this we acknowledge, that a thing may be determined as to Expediency by a Society or lawful Authority, but not imposed as a standing and binding Law; but being commended by the judgements of many concurring, con­scientiously studious of the minde and will of Christ, it carries the more force along with it, to perswade us at least to present acting, till by further and greater illumination we be otherwise enclined. Nay if any thing be determined by those that are in Authority, and proposed as their judgement according to their light received, not Magisterially, but Demonstratively onely, convincingly enough as to the Expediency, it carries with it the force of a Law unto Consci­ence, (not of man, but of God, man being a Candlestick onely to hold forth that Light) and binds it to submit thereunto. But otherwise, if men in authority undertake to make a Law that a thing (in itself by Christ's Law left indifferent, i. e. to Christian discretion to do or omit) shall become an absolute necessity, or an expedient necessity, and according to their will and opinion binde Inferiours to the constant practice of this by a penalty: We affirm that a religious Gospel-Indifferency (notwithstanding all humane authoritative determination changing it into a necessity) keeps its pristine indifferency, and remains the same to a Christians Consci­ence and practice. The proof of this Assertion follows.

§ 2. Argum. 1. That power that can change Gospel-indifferencies into Gospel-necessities, can also change Gospel-necessities into Gospel-in­differencies; but no humane Authority can do the latter, Ergo, not [Page 59]the former. The Assumption will not be denied by any Protestant, it being a presumption of the highest nature for humane authority to pre­tend to dispense with or null any of the manifest Laws of Christ. The Major is also evident, because it must be an Authority of the same kind to make and null a Law of the same kinde. If it be said a humane authority may make a Gospel-indifferency necessary, genere civili, the Answer falls far short; for we speak of Laws of the same kinde, ha­ving equal force upon the Conscience: for a Civil Legislative power can as well null any Law of a civil nature onely, as it can make it. So if Man could make Moral Laws, he might as well null those which he hath made, or dispense with them at pleasure, as make new. We must always allow a Soveraign Prerogative to Supream Law-givers in any kinde, as to promulgate, so to abrogate or dispense with their own Laws at pleasure: And if it be said that those Laws that man makes concerning the use of indifferent things necessarily in the worship of Christ, are civil onely, being onely for decency, splendor, &c. I reply, that it cannot be so in the nature of them; for it's the respect and end of a thing that gives it its specifical deno­mination, when it hath none such absolutely considered: that which respects and aims at the Gospel-worship of Christ, or pretends so to do, is or should be a part of Gospel-worship; as kneeling is an indiffe­rent gesture; a man may kneel when he doth other things besides acts of Worship; or according to the Law of Christ, he may kneel, or stand, or use another posture in Worship: but when this or that gesture is applied to Worship, it's religious by its Respect, Ʋse, and Application, but still of an indifferent nature under the Laws of Christ, till by some binding Law the Conscience becomes bound up to the use of it in this or that part of Worship. Now he that undertakes to binde Conscience here, undertakes to make a Law for Christ, and to entrench upon the Prerogative of Christ; and that such that make such Laws do claim such a power, is manifest, because they make obedience unto such Laws necessary by vertue of a Law of Christ: Let every Soul be subject to the higher power.

§ 3. Argum. 2. If the nature of an Evangelical Indifferency may be changed jure into an Evangelical Necessity, by any power besides Christ's, then it must be because it's Evangelically evil, that this or that should remain indifferent which Christ hath left so, or at least better for the honour of Christ and good of his Church, that it should become a necessity (i. e. a commanded good, or prohibited evil) than indifferent, to be disposed by the discretion of particular [Page 60]Churches or Christians; but there is no true Evangelical Indifferency that hath such a reason for the change of it into a necessity; Ergo, the reason of the Consequence is this, because whatever is altered by a Law, is supposed to be altered from worse to better; and what is altered by a Law for Christ, is or should be made more for the honour of Christ, and therefore far better than it was before; but it cannot be supposed that any thing that this wise Law-giver left in indifferency to practice or omit according to the judgement of dis­cretion, should be more for his honour if it were converted into a necessity by a Law; for to say so, would be a high impeachment of the wisdom of Christ, as it is of a King and Parliament, when any shall presume to say they have not made such Laws as are need­full to be made, and have left the Subject under a greater liberty than is for the good of the Commonweal, or honour of the King. To say 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 [Page 61]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, [Page 62]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 of a Gospel-nature cannot be al­ter'd from their nature by any subsequent Law of man, thus appears. [Page 63]To change religious Indifferencies into Necessities, is to make a Law for Christs Worship that Christ never made, nor gave any man pow­er to make; but none may make a Law for the Worship of Christ which he never made, nor impowred any to make; Ergo, the Ma­jor is without doubt: if the indifferency confessed be in the worship of God, then when it's by any Law made necessary, it's still in the worship of God, and being appointed so by a Law, becomes institu­ted Worship: by a Law which Christ never made. The Minor ap­pears, in that none may do so, i. e. institute Worship or circumstances of Worship by a Law that is not Christ's. 1. It's his Prerogative to exercise a Legislative power in his Church. 2. Christ knows onely how he will be worshipped, and it must be founded on his revealed will, which is our Law. 3. None might adde to his Laws un­der the Old Testament, Deut. 4.1, 2. much less under the New, where there is less of Ceremony and Circumstances, Rev.

§ 1. WHen we come to discuss the power of the Church, it's very requisite to unfold the meaning of the word Church, there being no word under which lieth more Amphibology. Many understand a Church a material building, or place of meeting for the worship of God, being consecrated and set apart for that use: and for the Propriety and Antiquity of this usage and acceptation of Ecclesia, learned Mr. Mead very much contends. We shall not stay upon this sence, because none that will oppose us in the present controversie will insist upon this sence so far as to say that the Legislative Power is to be found here.

A Church is also in other sences spoken of: Some say, every Na­tion where Christian Religion is owned by ruling Authority, and by the generality of the people professed, is a Church. Some call a Province a Church, a Diocess a Church, a Parish a Church; so that it's more or less extended, and comprehensive; and it's usually the sence of Protestants that assert a Churches Legislative Authority in matters indifferent. Others say there is no national Churches under the Go­spel, though there be Churches in every Nation; and that properly [Page 64]there are no particular Churches, but such who freely and volunta­rily combine together in bonds of Society for the worshipping of God according to his revealed will, and walk accordingly. Various are the Sentiments and Disputes about a Church and the nature of it, the consideration of which will not be so much our concern at this time.

But there is another way of the usage of Church, wherein there is greater ambiguity, which is very much to the matter in hand that we rightly understand it, viz, the emphatical use of the word, The Church; so many mens Writings and Argumentations being filled and confounded with it now a days, that who can tell what they mean by The Church? The Romanists say, the Church hath deter­mined this or that; and when we enquire what that Church is, they say the Catholick Church, which being rightly understood, is the true meaning of the Church according to that rule, Aequivocum per se po­situm, stat pro famosiori significato, the Emphasis putting the word up­on the highest and largest signification; but when we come to a far­ther disquision of their meaning, they tell us, the Church of Rome is the Church, and all others that dissent or separate from the Church of Rome, are not the Church, or of the true Catholick Church. Ma­ny Protestants also that speak of the Church, do not understand the Church of Rome, or the Catholick Church, but some particular Na­tional Church, viz. of France, England, Spain, &c. but when we en­quire what this Church is, they will tell us, it's the body of the Clergy, met together in a Convocation by a few Representatives, to make Laws and Canons, and Ecclesiastical Constitutions; the execu­tive power whereof is in the Bishops and their Courts; so that when these few men have made Laws, or exercise Ecclesiastical pow­er, compose Forms of Prayer, or establish Ceremonies at their plea­sure, they say the Church did it. These two sorts of men make use of this great commanding Word the Church: and by this equivocal term, sounding so loud of an uncontroulable Prerogative, they sug­gest unto poor well-meaning people on the one side, that all that the Pope and the Church of Rome doth; on the other hand, that all that the Bishops and their Courts do, is done by the Church, as if it were the whole Ʋniversal visible Church. It is not my present task here to enquire what is the true meaning of the Church according to the Scripture-acceptation, or the most true Logical notion thereof, whe­ther it be a Genus, or an Integrum, or totum Aggregativum. I shall onely in the ensuing Discourse apply my self to the most rectified sence of [Page 65]those that do defend the Legislative Authority of the Church, and if they will not start from all right Reason, and Rules of Logick, their sence must be, That the Catholick Militant Church is The Church, (whether it may be Organical according to Scripture-constitution, we argue not now) constituted of Subordinate parts, first National, (or if you please Patriarchal before that of National) made up of Pro­vincial, Provincial of Diocesan, Diocesan of Parochial: and this ought to be the sincere meaning of The Church, without prevari­cation in the sence of those beforementioned.

§ 2. Now the main thing in Debate between the Assertors of the Churches Authority, and the Dissentors from it, is, Whether the Church may exercise such a Power, as may change Indifferencies in the Worship of God, into Necessities? Which we hold in the Negative, and say, That Christ hath never granted such Power unto the Church; he hath granted an Executive Power unto his Church, but never a Legislative Power; for all lawful power that any Church hath, it must have it from the Lord Jesus Christ, who hath all power given unto him in Heaven and Earth, and is the peculiar King of his Church, and hath taken care for the right Ordering and Governance of it in all things necessary as to Salvation, so to Order and Discipline. And therefore what is not derived from the Lord Jesus Christ, can­not be allowed to be lawfully exercised. 'Tis true, if it could be shewed where Christ ever granted it by his Charter to his Church, that in some particular concerns she might exert a Legislative Power, the dispute would soon be ended; but no such Charter could ever be shewn.

§ 3. If any such Power be granted by Christ, it must be granted to the Catholick Church Militant, or to particular subordinate Churches; but 'tis not granted to either of them, Ergo. Not to the Ʋniversal Church, because it is not organized with Officers capable of a Catholick Rule; unless we will (upon false supposition) allow the Popish Con­stitution, or something like it: As for Oecumenical Councils, we see what insuperable difficulties have attended the calling of them in all Ages, the just grounds of Exceptions in many things, of the Determination of doubtful cases in Doctrine, and in almost all they have done in their pretences to a Law-making Power, in matters of Church-Order and Discipline. We have not any ground to be­lieve that Christ hath entrusted any Officers of his Church with a Catholick Power since the Apostes days; and such as have pretended to it, have always bin opposed by the purest and most reformed part [Page 66]of the Church: and whatever mens attempts be, or may be, they will never finde a Catholick Ecclesiastcal Power here on Earth (with­out a new manifestation of the Son of Man) which can exercise such a power of changing Indifferencies into Necessities by a Law, wherein the Minds and Consciences of particular Churches and Christians will or may rest satisfied, to submit unto, in active Obedience. It's as irrational to affirm, that Christ hath committed such a power to particular Churches, i. e. of making binding Laws Sub poenâ for other Churches, or for their own Members, or Churches subordinate to them: not for other coordinate Churches, will they say, Christ never gave coordinate Churehes a coercive Power one over another, for then all would aspire to Rule, and none be Ruled, for the power would belong to one as well as another. And if any say (as the Papists do) that Christ hath advanced one Church in Dignity and Jurisdiction over all the rest, let them prove it to the conviction of any intel­ligent Christian, and they will do more than the Papists have done, ever since their pretence thereunto. But it will be pleaded by the Protestant party, that Christ hath entrusted every particular Church with this power, whereby it may determine of indifferent things of her own practice. To which we answer, 1. That Christ hath given no Legislative Power to any Church. 2. A Judgment of Discretion to walk by the Rules of Expediency, is no more to be denied to particular Churches, than to particular Christians. But for all this Judgment of Discretion, Indifferencies loose not their nature, (though they may be necessary pro hic or nunc, in these or those circumstances) and are and must stand capable of dayly Altera­tions, as the case shall require; and a particular Church may deter­mine of this or that part of the Indifferency, as most expedient; and so long as the Reasons thereof last, it may be in some measure bin­ding unto particular mens consciences; but the Reasons ceasing, the continuance of the Canon in force in foro Ecclesiae, will binde no mans Conscience; yea, every one will complain of it as a needless Imposition: neither will any noble-minded Christian be a Servant to the Wills and Humours of Man, or sell the Birth-right (the Li­berty that Christ hath purchased) for Pins and Points; neither is it a sufficient Rule for Discretion to walk by, because the Church commands, and gives no Reason from the Law of Christ for it. Be­sides, What Church hath this power committed to them? a Parish, a Diocess, a Province? No, 'twill not be granted of either of them. The great Assertors of this Power will say, That it belongs to every [Page 67]National Church to make Laws in matters of Indifferency, and so ordain their own Ceremonies. This is an Assertion that introduceth a whole herd of Absurdities with it; For first, What is the great end pretended of such Laws, but the making of Ʋniformity in the Church? What is more destructive to it than this, that every particular Church should be Independent, and make Laws within themselves? whereas one will ordain Ceremonies of one kinde, and another of another, and there will be as many sorts of Ceremonies as there are particular Chur­ches: Is not this the great exception against the Dissenters from Pre­latical Churches, that the particular Pastors of each Congregation set up for themselves, and Exercise Jurisdiction within themselves, without dependence upon any Superiour Power? There is no avoiding it upon this Hypothesis, but National Churches must be reckon'd Independent Churches. 2. Did Christ commit any such power to any such Churches on Earth? 3. Again, If National Churches may exert such a power, then they may make binding Laws to all Sub­ordinate Churches, viz. Provincial, Diocesan, Parochial; and if so, then for this Reason, because they are more comprehensive Churches, in­cluding the less: Then by the same Reason, the most comprehensive Church, viz. the Catholick, should give Laws to the National, and for a greater and more eminent end, viz. to promote an Ʋniformity Ca­tholick; for if a National Ʋniformity be so splendid, and so much conducing to the bene esse of the Church, then a Catholick much more.

§ 4. Argum. 3. To make a Law contrary to the revealed Will of Christ, is unlawful and Sinful; But for the Church by a Law to change Indifferencies into Necessities, is to make a Law contrary to the revealed Will of Christ; Ergo. The Major is granted: for these Law­makers, say they, do not by their Laws establish any thing contrary to the revealed Will of Christ; for hath he any where forbidden such Ceremonies? We proceed therefore to the proof of the Minor. If all Necessities in the Worship of Christ be made so by Christ's Will re­vealed, and all Indifferencies become such, because they are not re­strained under Christ's Law; then they are so, because Christ would have them to be so: For a Christian can take no measure of Indif­ferencies, but by the Law of Christ; for he cannot know them but by knowing the Law binding unto Necessities by Commands or Prohi­bitions. So that Indifferencies are made so by the revealed Will of Christ, as well as Necessities; and the same Law that makes the one thing a Necessity, makes another an Indifferency; and Christ in his [Page 68]Wisdome sees it best for his Gospel-church, that it should be so: and he that undertakes to make these indifferent things necessary, enters upon a high presumption, no less than the altering the moral Na­ture of a thing, constituted by the revealed Will of Christ; and what is this less than making Laws contrary to the said Will of Christ? That is only necessary in the Worship of Christ, which he hath made so, and that indifferent which he hath left so by his Will; an Indifference in his Worship is no other than something not necessary in his Worship, for there is no medium, they are adversa. Therefore he that wills something to be necessary, which Christ willed not necessary, doth will something contrary to the Will of Christ, by all Rules of Logick and right Reason in the world. I know it will be answered, That they do not alter the nature of the thing, it remains as it was; but this or that determination for practice is to be obeyed when it is commanded; as the Father commands a Child to take up a Pin, it's an indifferent thing to take it up or let it alone; but because of the Fathers command he is bound to do it. Ans. It's true, because there is a command of Christ, that enjoyns the Child's Obedience in all lawful things, and therefore upon the Fathers command it becomes necessary that the child yield Obedi­ence; but this is but a command for one particular action, and therefore under Expediency: If the Father should make a Law, that one child should pick straws all his days, and another play at push­pin, such Laws would become null in the nature of them: but there is nothing more absurd, than to affirm that they alter not the na­ture of the thing; for what can alter it more, than to lay it under a Law? when a thing was indifferent unto practice before, to make it necessary as to practice; when it was lawful before, to make it un­lawful. We have shewed that Necessities and Indifferencies are but relative in respect of the Law; and he makes a Law, that gives things contrary relations and respects to what they had before, alters the nature of the thing as much as a Law can, and makes one Law contrary to another. Men do but trifle, that plead that things are not made necessary in the Worship of God, when the practice of them are enjoyn'd under the greatest Church-penalties, (what's greater than Excommunication?) yea, pecuniary Mulcts, Imprisonments, De­privations, &c. yea, and Offenders against the Laws persecuted with greater rigour, than those who live in the constant and open Trans­gression of Moral and Gospel-Precepts.

§ 5. I may take another very plain medium to prove the Minor; [Page 69]thus: He that makes a thing unlawful, either to be done or left un­done, which Christ hath made lawful by his Law, doth that which is contrary to the Word of God; but he that changes Indiffe­rencies into Necessities doth so. There is nothing more plain than the Major: for to make a thing unlawful, &c. Lawful and unlawful be­ing contradicentia, and he that by a new Law renders that unlawful for my practice, which Christ's Law hath rendred lawful, doth a thing e Regione, contrary to the Law of Christ: For the Minor, its as evident, for by the Law of Christ, the indifferent action was lawful for me to do or omit, as to eat such a sort of Meat, or keep such a day, or wear such a garment; but there is a new Law of the Church comes, which now makes it unlawful for me, either to do or not to do those things; for he that makes a Law binding always to the practice of either part of the indifferency, makes the other part unlawful, which antecedaneous to this Law was lawful. Now the Church of Christ cannot make that unlawful, which he hath made lawful; for they may as well make that lawful to do or omit. Again, If the Church may make that unlawful which he hath made lawful, then she may take away the Relative Goodness that is in any part of an indifferent action, by the Rules of Expediency, and stamp upon it a positive evil; which is contrary to what Christ hath done, &c. Again, Nothing can be Ecclesiastically and therefore Religiously unlawful, which is not made Ecclesiastically and Religiously Evil; and nothing can be so Jure, but by the Will of Christ, no more than any thing can be Ecclesiastically good and necessary without the said revealed Will of Christ.

§ 6. Argum. 4. The Church is not capable of a Law-making Po­wer, Ergo. I prove it thus; He that cannot jure or de facto annex a Punishment in some measure correspondent to the nature of the Of­fence that will be committed against that Law, cannot make such a Law; as if a Corporation under the King makes a Law to hang or burn in the hand for some Offence, which they have no power to do, then that is null. The Major is very plain. But the Church cannot de facto, or at least de jure, Execute such penalties as are correspondent to her Laws; for they being Ecclesiastical, are of a Spiri­tual nature, belonging to the Worship of God: and therefore the Lawmaker will still have the first stroak of his Law fall upon Con­science, by binding it under guilt: where was ever any truely en­lightned Conscience ever bound under guilt for transgressing a mere Church-Law in matters of Ceremony? Secondly, They cannot de [Page 70]Jure annex and execute the Penalties of Exclusion from communion; as Christ never made a mere Ceremony the condition of communion, so he never threatned the Non-observation with Non-communion: Let any Precept or any Instance be given of this nature, that any suffer'd Church-censures under the New-Testament, for Non-observa­tion of a Ceremonial Law. Thirdly, As for other Penalties, which we call Secular, as Whipping, Imprisoning, Fining, Confiscating, we know the Church hath nothing to do with them; they were never in the power of the Church, nor never will be.

§ 7. Argum. 5. That Law which directly and unavoidably hinders much good, and causeth much evil in the obediential Subjection there­to, ought not to be made by the Church; but to change religious Indifferencies in the worship of God, into Necessities, doth so: Ergo. The Major is undeniable; for though a good action may per accidens hinder some other good, and cause some evil, yet it doth not so di­rectly, and in its true constituted nature; but good actions produce good effects, as evil actions evil. So the Tree is known by its Fruits. The Minor, that such a change works such ill effects is thus proved. 1. Because it hinders the most expedient use of an action left by Christ indifferent, to be determined by the Judgement of Discretion; whereas the Expediency by Christ's prescript, may lye in the contrary part of the action wherein a goodness is placed by the Churches Law, and an evil placed in that part of the action wherein there is a goodness by Christ's. So that the Churches Law cannot have uni­versal Obedience yielded to it without sin, because when Christ's expediency falleth on the part contrary to the Law, it will be sin to obey the Church; As for Example, It's an indifferent thing which way we turn our Faces in the worship of God, East, West, North, or South; the Church makes a Law the Minister must turn his Face toward the East, in such a part of Worship, this hinders the expe­dient use of that posture. 1. It hinders from turning that way which is most for Edification, and causeth the Minister to turn his back to the people, which is very unexpedient. It may confirm a Jew, Pagan, or Papist in their Superstitious Observances, to observe us to do thus de industriâ, out of a strict observation, and therefore then unexpedient. 2. It hinders much Good, because it frustrates Christs Ends in the management of Religious and Ecclesiastical Af­fairs. For Christ manageth all those by Necessities and Indifferencies, in willing and requiring a necessary Obedience to his positive Laws, and an indifferent use of indifferent things, according to the Rules of [Page 71] Expediency and Judgment of Discretion: And this proceeding in Spi­ritual affairs, is that which is most conducing to the Glory of his Name, and the Beauty of his Church. How great a presumption is it in any Church to attempt the altering this course of Government, which Christ the Head hath settled, and frustrate his ends in Neces­sities and Indifferencies, by causing those things which he hath made necessary to become indifferencies, and what he hath made in­different to be done necessarily; and hindring that conscientious, di­screet, occasional use, which he hath determined and required, as most conducing to his own Glory, and the good of his Body the Church?

§ 8. Now whereas the End of exercising this Juridical Power (so much pleaded for in the late Centuries of the Church) is Ʋnity and Ʋniformity; without doubt, this principally and primarily belongs to the Catholick Church, that the whole visible Body of Christ may be one and the same in Discipline and Ceremonies. For if it be so desirous, and to be maintain'd with such a great curiosity and ex­actness of Ceremony in a particular Church, how much rather ought it to be in the Catholick; a Catholick Good being much more de­sirable, and of far greater concernment than a particular Good? But as we have shewed, that there is no such Catholick Power in the Catholick visible Church practicable, so it's easie to make manifest, that a Catholick Ʋniformity in matters of Indifferency, will never be attained among Churches, or particular Christians; nor never was intended by the Lord Jesus Christ, any more than that all his Members should wear the same Cloaths, or dwell in the same shaped Houses; for had it been necessary that there should have been no difference in indifferent things, but all should have gone the same way in the use of them, and none varied according to the judgment of Discretion: then Christ would have made it necessary, and then in­deed all those things would have been Necessities, and there would have been no Indifferencies at all; but we see that Christ designed it for the Benefit and Edification of his Church, that there should be Varieties in the use of Indifferencies; and so far from the disparage­ment of it (as some men would have it) that it's as conducible to the Splendour and Beauty of his Workmanship, as the Variety of complexions and dispositions of Men to the old Creation. Now for men to place the Ʋniformity of the Church in those things that Christ never placed it in, is no small reflection on his Wisdome and Prerogative; for nothing carries more Evidence with it, than [Page 72]that those things that he left indifferent, he intended neither Con­science or Church should be determined ad unum in, by any, in mat­ters of Worship; but that they should be varied at the discretions of particular Churches and Christians, and that such variety should be of advantage to Edification, and not that it should be bespattered with the foul names of Faction and Schism, when such use their Liberty in this kinde.

§ 9. But suppose such a thing had any probability to be the minde of Christ: Was it ever attained, or is it attainable, that there should be an Ʋniformity in the use of Indifferencies, that all Churches and particular Christians had the same Sentiments, and went the same way in the use of indifferent things; or is it possible to bring men to it? Or if they were brought to it, what advantage would accrue? Would it not prove a great disadvantage? But some men plead, That some indifferent things should be made necessary, as the very terms of Communion, and in conformity unto these should consist Ʋniformity. To which I answer; 1. That this is but a hu­mane Project. 2. That if Christ had approved such a way (he be­ing the Author of Peace in his Church, and not of confusion) he would have allotted it, and told us what the Indifferencies should be, and who should have had a deputation to make them Necessities and Conditions of Communion for Ʋniformity. But 3ly. He hath ap­pointed Ordinances enough of this nature, and chosen out those things himself wherein the Uniformity of his Church should consist, the Word, Sacraments and Prayer; and all Churches that do walk in these according to Gospel-Rules, are Uniform, have Ceremonies enough, and have no need of setting a new Mint on work.

§ 10. And suppose that such a thing were attainable, that there were an agreement in the whole Catholick Church about some little External Ceremonies, what they should be, and how used; Would this abundantly answer the nature and end of a right Uniformity in the Church? Would it cure all Schisms, or prevent them? Would it keep the mindes of men in a due proportion to each others? Would it maintain Purity of Doctrine and Worship, and expel all Pollutions and Corruptions in both? I say, Nothing less. For we see by dayly Experience, it doth not do this in those Churches where 'tis most zealously pursued: if we look but into the Church of Rome, and in­to Protestant-Prelatick Churches, we see what great Errors and Heresies in Doctrine, and Corruptions in Worship do abound, accompanied with irreconcileable Differences, and irreparable Breaches [Page 73]of communion in the highest and weightiest matters wherein it is concerned; notwithstanding the common consent and agreement in the stress that they lay upon those small and trifling observances, and not on aberrations from sound Doctrine, or defection from purity in that Worship which Christ himself hath instituted, which are to be bewailed as the great Schisms in the Church, notwithstanding all External Conformities.

§ 11. But we must enquire out a better way of setling Ʋniformity in the Church, more agreeing to the mind of Christ, and practicable in the nature of it; and therefore zealously to be pursued by all that love the Name and Kingdom of Jesus Christ; and that is, That all Churches walk by the same rule of the revealed Will of Christ, and subject themselves to his Laws and Government; that they be uniform in all that he hath made necessary to be believed and practised, as in all things necessary to Salvation, and a Christians edification in matters of Communion, as in the word, Sacraments, Prayer, singing Psalms, &c. by all these, in worshipping God in the Spirit, and not to trouble and distract their walk, and interrupt their Worship, with the New­fangled, Multifarious, Brain-sick Laws of Men, in instituted Worship, nor placing Uniformity in a heap of huskie, nauseous Ceremonies. For the Rule being one, and the Law-giver one, all the true Churches of Christ will agree in substance, submitting to one King, and conforming to one sort of Laws; and though there may be some small differences in their Interpretation of those Laws determining things necessary, and the Exercise of discretion in things Expedient, because of dubious and difficult circumstances attending; yet all agree in the main things re­quired by Christ, for the way of Salvation, and the main conditions of Communion. And it is not to be doubted, but that a Christian pro­fessing people, gathered together in the Name of Christ, injoying the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments in purity, are a Church of Christ, and uniform with all the Churches of Christ, without any distinction by this or that Name of Singularity, or any Ceremonial Appendixes.

§ 12. And whereas it is pretended, that a full and free Conformity in Ceremonies would be the only cure of all our Differences and Divisions; Let all Ages witness, if any will but impartially en­quire what hath been the Grand Cause of all the Factions, Breaches, Divisions and Schisms in the Church, yea and Ecclesiastical Persecu­tions ever since the Primitive Times, it will be found to be the U­surpation of this aforesaid Legislative Power of Christ, by some or [Page 74]other; and still all the excuse that is made for it is, that they assume this Power only in matters of Indifferency: and what pre­tence can any make to a Legislative Power in things necessary already determined by Christ to one part? there is no place for a Law in such things, unless it be to ratifie or to null the Law; so that what Le­gislative Power is exercised of this kinde, must be in matters of Indif­ferency only, i. e. which are so in relation to Christ's Law antece­dently to man's Law; but by the supervening of such a Church-Law, it becomes in kinde Ecclesiastically necessary, it being enjoyn'd as to practice under Penalties annexed: and it's no new thing with some sort of men to call necessary things indifferent, and indifferent necessary; and thereby take occasion to justifie their presumptions, when they make Laws even abrogatory to the known Laws of Christ: And if weak Brethren (as they are apt in derision to call them) either take any just exceptions against them pleading their Liberties, or it may be from a mistaking judgment, are apt to call indifferent things necessary, and therefore out of tenderness of Conscience re­fuse to yield acts of Obedience; they are so far from having com­passion on their tenderness, that they exact the said Law-penalty with greater violence and rigour, than they do any (that doth directly concern the Glory of Christ) established by himself.

§ 13. The greatest Plea that I know can be made for matters of this kinde, is the power that Oecumenical Councils have taken upon them, especially in the Primitive Times, even in the Apostle days, and in the first, second, and third Centuries of the Church especially. To which I answer; First, If the Foundation of this Authority lie in Oecumenical Councels, let never any of these Church-Statutes be made and imposed on the world but by them, and let not every particular National Independent Church take upon her to make Penal Laws, and gull the World into a submission to her Authority, by her saying she is The Church; as if she were the Catholick Church and Mother-Church. Secondly, I question whether there were ever any true Oecumenical Council at all: much may be said against the best that is pleaded for since the Apostles days; and it is easie to prove that Assembly at Jerusalem, held by the Apostles and Brethren to be none, in the sence intended; which is, that the chief Officers and Representatives of every particular Church in the World meet to­gether, with a determinating Power in matters of Doctrine, and with a binding Legislative Power in matters of Discipline and Ceremony. Now it will appear, that that Assembly was not so (though there were [Page 75]more reason for its being so, than for any other Assembly being so) neither ever was there any Assembly so impowred in the world of that nature.

§ 14. That that Assembly Acts 15.28. was no Oecumenical Council, is easie to judge, for there were but the Representatives of two Churches, Jerusalem and Antioch; and they of Antioch came to ask counsel, and to be resolved, in matter of doubt, of the Apostles re­siding most of them at present in Jerusalem. 2. The case in que­stion was argued in foro Ecclesiae particularis, and the Apostles making the minde of Christ manifest to that Church, have the consent of the Brethren to their determination, and sent it forth in and with the Authority of the Holy Ghost. 3. The Apostles and Church of Jerusalem changed no Indifferencies into Necessities; but enquired after, and found out the Will of Christ concerning the present In­fant-state of the Gospel-church, in some matter of things necessary of two sorts; some Absolutely and Morally so, others expediently so for that time. First, Absolutely such, as Abstinence from Fornica­tion, and things offered to Idols. Secondly, Respectively only, and that in the behalf of the believing Jews, coming lately from that Peda­gogy, that they might not be scandalized or grieved at the freedom of the Gentiles; and therefore that the Gentiles should then abstain from things strangled and Blood: Now no sound Interpeter will say, that this Canon was binding to the Church semper & ubique; but in behalf only of th Jews, who could not so easily at present be brought off from the whole of Judaisme; and 'tis likely by this con­cession the Apostles got off the Jewish Believers from many Cere­monious Observations which they stood upon besides, or at least abated their edge towards them. And therefore the Decree was but as to a necessary Expediency for a time, which the Apostle Paul fully ex­plicates, who was well acquainted with the Minde of Christ, and the Judgments of the Apostles, Elders and Brethren, in these mat­ters.

§ 15. As we have little evidence for an Oecumenical Council exer­cising a Legislative Jurisdiction in the Church, so we have as little ground for such sorts of Officers as are contended for in the Church, of which such Councils (as they are pleaded for) should principally consist, which are Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests; and there being not such Officers in the Church by Christ's Institution, there is no such Power to be exercised in the said way and manner of Legislation, neither may they jure proceed so far as to [Page 76]Execution of any Laws established by Christ, being not lawfully commissionated with a Gospel-power. If this Assertion be proved, I doubt not but it will be granted, that there is no Legislation to be exercised in the Church, the present Assertors whereof challenging this Power only on the behalf of the said Officers. I lay down two things by way of proof; 1. That there is no such Officers to be found (in the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour) as a Pope, a Patriarch, a Metropolitan, an Archbishop, a Diocesan Bishop, a Parish-Priest, no Dean, Prebends, Canons, &c. the Scriptures are altogether strangers to all those Ecclesiastical creatures; Christ and his Apostles knew nothing of them but prophetically in the foresight of the rise of the Kingdom of Antichrist. In this Point I should deal with two sorts of men, the Papists and the Protestants. As for the Papists, the case hath been fully managed over and over against them, that there is no such Supreme Officer in or over the Catholick Church, as the Pope; and if there be no such Monarchical Substitute of Jesus Christ here on Earth, it will appear that all the rest will fall to the ground. Therefore as to them I shall not actum agere; my principal part will be with the Protestants, that do assert such Officers in the Church, and yet deny the Popes Supremacy. To whom I say in the second place, and anon shall prove, that there cannot be any such Officers (as above-mentioned) in the Church, without a Supreme Pastor; those Pastors being Subordinate Pastors of Subordinate Churches. And that this Question may be cleared to every rational Protestant, that is not fanatically blinded with Pride, Ignorance and Interest, I shall crave leave of my Reader, in a short Digression, to handle this Question, Whether a Subordination of Pastors in the Church, doth not necessarily infer a Supreme Pastor.

§ 1. AMong the many Difficulties and inevitable Rocks that the Protestant Prelacy is necessitated upon, (by casting off the Headship of the Oecumenical Pastor) not only in asserting, but ex­erting their Episcopal Jurisdiction, or Pastoral Power, in the Le­gislation [Page 77]and Execution Ecclesiastical pretended unto; I thought it not amiss to debate one main Question, wherein some part of the greatest stress of difficulty in that kinde doth consist, and that is this;

Whether the asserting the Subordination of Pastors in the Church, doth not by all good consequence infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenical, or Ʋniversal Pastor? We understand the word, Church, here, as before explained, i. e. when we say (The Church) by way of eminency, we understand not (or should not at least) any Individual, Parochial, Diocesan, Provincial, National, Congregational, or Classical Church, but the Ʋniversal Church comprehensive of all these, and enfolding them, as the outmost skin of an Onion involves all the other sub­ordinately one within another. By an Oecumenical Pastor is meant a Pastor of the highest degree here on Earth, related in his Pastoral charge to the whole visible Church, by whatsoever Names, Titles, or Dignities he is known, and is a Bishop in the highest pre­heminence of Ecclesiastical Rule and Jurisdiction here on Earth, from whom there can be no Appeal to any Earthly Bishop or Gover­nour; and this is the Militant Pastor of the Church-Catholick Mili­tant, to which (according to their supposition of Subordinated Pa­stors, all the other Degrees and Orders must be subjected. By [Subordination] is meant the substituting or subjecting one under another; the terms of which is the Supreme, Highest, and most Ʋni­versal on one side, and the most particular Priest or Pastor on the other. The Question being stated, and the Terms explained, the Truth will by necessary Consequence appear on the Affirmative part, that Subordination of Pastors in the Church, doth necessarily infer [...] the Supremacy of an Oecumenical Pastor or Bishop. And I prove it thus:

§ 2. There is the same Political Reason for an Ʋniversal Pastor, or Supreme Head on Earth over all other Pastors and Churches, that there is for any Subordinate Pastor that hath other Pastors subjected unto him. Instance in a Diocesan Bishop, ruling his Parish-priests, or Parochial Pastors (if they may be allowed any higher title than the Bishops Curates) the chief end of the said Bishop being Jurisdiction, Determination of Ecclesiastical Causes, Regulation and Ordination of his Clergy, Unity, Order, Uniformity, &c. By the same poli­tical Reason, though in a higher Sphere of Government, is an Arch­bishop, or Provincial Pastor, required for regulation of Bishops of Diocesses committed to his charge, maintaining the Unity of the [Page 78] Provincial Church, Order and Ʋniformity therein, that every weak giddy-headed Bishop may not govern after the Fancies of his own brain; but that every one should be (notwithstanding all their Lord­like Grandeur) accountable to the Archbishop, for any male-admi­nistration of Government, or neglect of charge committed to their care. The reason holds good in like sort for a National Pastor, the Metropolitan, Primate, or Patriarch; that the whole National Church consisting of Provinces, divided into Diocesses, and they into Pa­rishes, be maintained Ʋniform in Worship, and Ʋnited under one National Ecclesiastical Head and Governour, to whom the supreme Administration of Pastoral Function in the Church National should belong, as to oversee nextly and more immediately the Provincial Pastors and Churches; and more remotely, all other Pastors and Churches in the Nation, that there be no Divisions, Schisms, Here­sies, Contempts, disorderly Conversation, irregular proceedings a­mong Pastors and People, but an harmonious concatenation from the highest to the lowest, to whom and his Commission-courts all Appeals from Inferiour Provincials and Diocesans may be made. The Subordination of Pastors thus far allowed and granted, an U­niversal Pastor must be inferred by unavoidable consequence. For as yet there is the like necessity of uniting National Churches, in one Universal Church under one Catholick Pastor, as was for uniting Provincial Churches in a Nation, and subjecting them to a National Pastor or Primate, or subjecting Diocesses and their respective Bishops to an Archbishop, or Provincial Pastor, & sic deineeps. For by how much the more universal the Church is, by so much the more univer­sal the Pastoral Charge and Jurisdiction must be: And as the National is to the Ʋniversal Visible Church, so the National Pastor to the Catholick Pastor, by a Mathematical Proportion. And the like ground of relation as is betwixt a National Pastor and a National Church, consisting nextly of Provinces, is also betwixt an Oecume­nical Pastor and an Oecumenical Church consisting nextly of Nations. And if Unity, Uniformity, and regular Administration of Church-Government be indispensably necessary in a National Church, and the care of these things to be committed primarily and principally to a National Pastor; how much more is it necessary in the Catho­lick Church, constituted and made up of National Churches nextly, the care of which to be committed to an Oecumenical Pastor? And if the Schisme of a Province or Diocess be of so dangerous conse­quence, to a National Church; of how much more dangerous will [Page 79]the Schisme of a National from the Catholick Church be?

§ 3. Secondly, I prove that they that maintain the Government of the Church by Bishops, Archbishops and Primates, must also own an Universal Visible Pastor, from the nature of the Catholick Visible Church. 1. It must be either an organized or unorganized Body, and made up of partes similares only; the latter will not be owned by such Assertors, by reason of the gross Absurdities, tending to Sepa­ration and Phanaticisme, that must necessarily be inferred on such a concession. If they say, it is an Organized Body, which is most suitable to the Grandeur and Splendour of Mother Church, that she should be made up of the most curious texture, and the most propor­tionate adaptation of parts; it is by no means to be supposed, that a visible Body, eminent in all other parts, should be Corpus vi­vum animatum, and yet want a Visible Head; an Invisible Headship to a visible, organized, living Body, cannot be in this sence allowed, nor a Secular Headship to this Spiritual Body. But more of this anon. Again, The Catholick Church must be such, either quatenus Integrum, or quatnus Genus: it cannot have any other due Logical consideration, though to adapt words to some novel apprehensions, we speak of totum aggregatum, & totum comprehensivum, both of which are reducible to the other Terms. I shall prove that both these acceptations of a Catholick Church do of necessity enforce an Universal Visible Pastor. 1. As Catholicum integrum, and quatenus tale, is to be considered as divisible, or divided into parts, and ac­cording to that Nation of Subordination, the greater parts into the next lesser, and them into lesser or least of all; wherefore the Ca­tholick Visible Church is divided into National Churches, as the next and greatest constituting parts, National into Provincials, Provincial into Diocesan, and they into Parochial; if there be a Subordination of Pastors in the Church, it's according to the fubordination of the integral parts of the said Church. For in Division and Subdivision of parts, there must be a continuance till we come to minimum quod sic on the descending part, and maximum quod sic in the ascending part. But there can be no such Subordination of Pastors, according to the Subordination of Membra totius, without an Ʋniversal Pastor; Ergo. For as there is the same Reason of the Catholick to the National Church, (respectu saltem integrationis) which is of the National to the Provincial, and thence downward: So there is the same reason for an Oecumenical Pastor to the National, as of the National to the Pro­vincial, or that to the Diocesan Pastor. As the National is the totum [Page 80]in respect of the Provinces, and as such hath a Pastor; so it's but an Integral part in respect of the Catholick Church, which by the same reason is to have a Pastor, else this concatenation by Subordina­tion will be headless, and visibly deficient in the polity of its Ʋniform Constitution, for pretended establishment of Uniformity. Now if they plead that the Catholick Church is but totum aggregatum; Ergo Nati­onal Churches are coordinate, hence individual, thenceforward for their defence they must plead for Independency, and it will be coincident with the notion of Congregational Churches. But how inconsistent these Principles are, to deny a Subordination of National Churches and Pastors to a Catholick Church and Pastor, when they allow and maintain a Subordination of Churches and Pastors within the Natio­nal, and utterly disown an Independency of Pastors of particular Congregations on superiour Pastors and Churches.

If the Catholick Church be understood to be Genus Generalissimum divisible into Species, the same Inference will accrue; for the Sub­ordination stands thus: the National is subalternum Genus, the Pro­vincial subalterna Species, the Diocesan Species specialissima (according to some Logick) but Species specialior (according to others,) and Pa­rochial Churches Species specialissima; after this consideration the Argument stands thus: If a Pastor is to be set over a Church subal­terni Generis, because it comprehends Churches under it as Species, by the same reason a Pastor is to be set over the Catholick compre­hending also its Species, viz. National Churches. For though the National Church be related to the provincial as Genus, it is related to the Catholick as Species. But because according to the best Logical and Theological Notions, the application of Genus doth not well suit to the nature of the Catholick Church, it being more properly a totum Integrale, I stay not on this part of the Argument.

§ 4. Argum. 3. I Argue from the nature of Subordination, which always supposeth a Supremum and Infimum; a Supreme higher than which is none, and a Lowest lower than which is none; otherwise it would be unlimited. And if in the Church there be a Subordi­nation of Pastors, then as there is a Lowest, viz. a Parish-Priest, so there must be also a Supreme Pastor for the highest Round of the Ladder, viz. an Oecumenical Pastor: For as every Subordination is to be continued to a nè plus ultra, so Subordination of Pastors must be continued to the largest acceptation of a Church on Earth, for the maintaining Unity and Uniformity of the National Churches, which are next in constitution to the Catholick. If it be said, that Christ [Page 81]is the onely Pastor of the universal Church; It will be granted that he is Pastor of the Church in the most Catholick acceptation, as it comprehends the Church visible and invisible; but for the visible Church, he leaves it perfect, as to parts, with a visible Head, as well as other parts visible: for it must be ejusdem naturae cum caeteris mem­bris, and how can visible Ʋniformity be attained in the Catholick Church, but by a government of a visible Pastor, who visibly rules all Churches, and in whom they are all politically knit together, as in a Central or rather Circumferential Knot? Besides, if a National Pa­stor be Supream among Pastors, next under Christ, then it follows that this Subordination terminates at least in a co-ordination of Pa­stors; and if so, it's because there is a co-ordination of Churches: and if one sort of Churches, and Pastors of particular Churches, are co­ordinate next under Christ the Head, why are not all? And why may not a Schismatical Provincial or Diocesan use the like plea to throw off the jurisdiction of the National; or why may not particular Parochial Assemblies and their Pastors, argue on the same grounds their Co-ordination and freedom from Subordination to any Pastor be­sides Christ alone? So that this National Co-ordination of Pastors, in the highest Ecclesiastical Supremacy, is the making a hundred Popes instead of one, and laying the foundation of Independency unavoi­dably to all judicious understandings. The sum of this whole Ar­gument is, That there can be no plausible reason given why the Subordination of visible Pastors should not extend as far as visible Chur­ches; and if Christ hath set Orb within Orb, Church within Church, & every one its Planet to rule it for the maintaining Order, Unifor­mity, &c. why should the Supream Planetary Orb be without a Pla­net?

§ 5. Arg. 4. The necessity of this inference is further proved from the derivation or original of Pastoral power: every Pastor receives his Pastoral power from Christ, mediately or immediately. If Subordinate Pastors, they receive their power mediately; then mediante populo vel Superiori quodam. The Assertors of Prelacy will never grant a deriva­tion of power from Christ mediante populo; for that were to fall into the Congregational way. If they say they receive their power through the hands of some Superiour, it must be by some Ecclesiastical or Civil Officers; if by some Ecclesiastical, then thorow some Pastor or Pastors, and they either co-ordinate, or of some superiour Rank and Dignity. They will not say they receive their power from co-ordi­nate Pastors; for that were to fall on the Rock of Presbytery: there­fore [Page 82]they must say, and do say, That every ordinary Protestant Priest receives his power from Christ, thorough the hands of some supe­riour Pastor not co-ordinate; and then we must needs finde out the derivation of that superiour power from one above him in Order and Dignity, and at last must needs arrive at Peter's Chair and his Successors, who first received this power from Christ; and so it's handed down through his respective subordinate Officers, to those of the lowest rank and degree. For if the Parish-Priest receive his Office from the Diocesan, then he from the Provincial, and he from the Primate, and he from the Oecumenical. If they the Primates receive their power mediately by the hands of some others besides the Oecumenical Pastor, it must be from the co-ordinate power of some National Pastor or Pastors; and consequently it will infer a Presbytery of Primates, which may prove of as ill and more dange­rous Aspect on the Church Catholick, than the Presbyterian Assembly on the Church National; or it must be that he receive his Dignity from the Suffrage of his inferiour Clergy. Then it follows, that a Metropolitan is invested with power in a meaner and more despica­ble way than a Diocesan or Parish-Priest.

§ 6. To avoid splitting on the Romish Church, they finde another way of deriving their power from Christ; and that is, by the Civil Magistrate, without the Church, as it is practically at least granted. To which I say, That although he is or may be a Member of the Church, yet quatenus a Magistrate he is a Member of another State, and therefore in an Office extrinsecal to the Church; and hence cannot extend Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Church, nor invest an Officer in the Church (which is Christ's dominion) with Of­fice, Power Legislative or Executive; the Civil and Ecclesiastical States being distinct from each other as they are such. Moreover, for an Officer in Christ's state to derive his power from Earthly Potentates, is to subject the Kingdom of Christ, as such, to the King­doms of men, and make it subordinate thereto in those things which Christ hath reserved to himself, as his Prerogative. Again, if Church-Officers, as such, must be invested with power from Secular Princes, the Church must stand or fall, as to its right and orderly manner of Government, at the will and disposition of Princes: Whence Christs Oeconomy will seem not compleat in it self, but lame, deficient, and headless, in that it must be beholding to an Exotick Power for its principal Officers and Rulers; and Christ was wanting in not pro­viding for the due governance of his Church under heathenish or [Page 83]heretical Magistrates; yea, such Magistrates would undoubtedly e­stablish Church-Officers ejusdem farinae with themselves: And be­sides, it would follow, that the Primitive Churches, after our Saviour's ascention, could have no due derivation of Church-power unto it for some Ages, for want of Christian Magistrates, the grand Me­diums of Conveyance. There is also as much reason that Civil Offi­cers should be at the disposition of the Church, as that Church-Offi­cers should be at the disposition of the State: And the Oecumenical Bishop may upon as good grounds claim a power of enthroning Em­perors, as the other claim an Ecclesiastical power of setting a Head over the Church, Christ having made Church and State Co-ordinate. Lastly, if Ecclesiastical Officers derive their power from Civil Authority, as their visible Church-head, sure the Vitals and the whole Animati­on must needs be Secular; much like the Beast spoken of, Rev. 13.4.

§ 7. Arg. 5. I argue from the chief ends of Subordination of Pastors in the Church. It's to redress Heresie, or male Administra­tion of discipline, that there may be place for Appeals, in case of Injustice, determination of Controversies, &c. Now what end would there be of Appeals, if there should not be some Pastor supream to all the rest, from whom there could be no Appeal? And it's ne­cessary there be still room for Appeal, till a man comes to the Church in its greatest Ʋnity and Superiority; and there is Mother-Church in her Grandeur, Ecclesia in Cathedrâ: if the resort be made for Ap­peal, or resolution of difficult cases to the Church in her Pastoral multiplicity, there will be such variety of Judgments and Interests, that there will be no final determination, but ye may hear the Ca­tholick body speaking one thing in its Catholick Pastor and Head: for if you will know a mans minde and determination of any thing, you will go to the Head, not to the Arms or Legs; and what you have by Signes from them, you know is by the influence of the Head. So if we will know the minde of the Church in its ultimate Results and Determination, you must not go to a Diocesan, Primate, &c. of France, &c. England, &c. where you will have but a partial or weak resolution, not having a Catholick Interest, Intilligence, In­fluence, and Concernment; but we must go to the Body, speaking in the Head, who hath a common Concern and Fellow-feeling with the least Finger or Toe complaining or appealing to it.

§ 8. Hence see the reason why the attribute of Infallibility is a­scribed to the Church, thus speaking in its Head or Supream Pastor. 1. Because of his universal Relation and Interest; and therefore [Page 84]speaks infallibly the sense of the whole, or of any particular part; as the Head feels and cannot be deceived in declaring the pain of the Toe, and can most infallibly, of all the members, prescribe a Remedy. 2. It's most probable that he that hath his authority by immediate conveyance from Jesus Christ, should have also the most immediate discovery of his Minde and Will: so that the infallibility of an Oecu­menical Pastor is founded on the Principles of Episcopal government, viz. subordination of Pastors in the Church; for if in all our Ap­peals from Pastor to Pastor, from Church to Church, for determi­nation in matters of controversie, and resolution in points of weight and difficulty, we do at last arrive at as fallible a Church and Pa­stor as at first, to what purpose is all our Appeals? And if it be granted that a Bishop is less fallible than a Parish-Priest, and an Arch­bishop less fallible than a Bishop, and a Primate than an Archbishop, then upon this account onely it must be that he hath a greater share by his place in the common interest of the Body, by the comprehen­siveness of his power and relation, and being farther removed by his dignity from particular small interests and private passions; and there­fore more likely to be more impartial, universal, and less fallible in his judgment, than other his inferiour and more limited Pastors: And Ergo, upon the same reason it will follow, that an Oecumenical Bishop is least of all fallible; not but that St. Peter and his Successors may err, and have, but that as Supream Head in the most Catholick capacity, he is ( comparatively to all other Pastors subordinate) infallible. And it is the greatest reason, that he that hath the greatest Charge, should have the best understanding to know how to manage it: And to what purpose is it for us to seek after further light by going to those that the Church hath further entrusted, if they be not holier, wiser, and juster men than our selves; yea, than all their inferiour Officers? And what is it we aim at most in such Enquiries? is it Fallibility, or Infallibility? Would any one in his best wits be deceived? and would the Church deceive any, but use the best ways and means for enlightning mens Understandings, and reducing them from darkness and errour?

§ 9. Arg. 6. I argue from the nature of the Church, in which this Subordination is required. That Church must be understood to be the universal visible Church, and not any particular Church. 1. From the usual acceptation of Church in the like sence, when we say, The Church, with an Emphasis. 2. There is no more rea­son the Church should be understood of one kind of particular [Page 85]Church more than another; a Provincial Church or Diocesan may be called the Church, by way of eminency, as well as the National: and if there be more reason because the National is comprehensive of them, then much more that the Catholick should be understood by it, because it comprehends Nationals, and is most comprehensive of all Churches on Earth. So that it will unavoidably follow, that if there be a Subordination of Pastors in the Church, it is in the Catho­lick Church; and the more large the Church is, the more extensive is the power of the Pastor: and the most comprehensive Church hath a supream Pastor to the Pastors of all other Churches subordinate to it.

Obj. But the universal Church Visible, is not Organical; and therefore not capable of an Oecumenical Pastor. Answ. It is Organical; for it's made up (according to our present Phainomena of a Church) of visible, organized or organical parts comprehending each other; and therefore must needs have a visible organical Head, principium sensus & motus, animating all the parts in their respective Subordinations and Relations. It's absurd to say, that the hand organized with fingers and joynts, the feet with toes and all its parts, and so of the other members, that these united in one body make not up an orga­nized body, and have not one Head common to the totum, to com­municate respective vigor to each of these members. So to say that in the Church there is National Churches organized, &c. so Pro­vincial, &c. Diocesan organized, and not that the universal Church visible is organized with, and influenced by a visible Head, is most ab­surd. Again, there is the same and greater reason upon the fore­mentioned grounds, for the Organization of the Catholick Church, than for the organizing of a National, Provincial, or of any of the in­feriour Subordinate Churches: for if Order, and Uniformity, and due administration of Government cannot be maintained in one▪ but by Organization, how can they by any other means be obtained in the other? And if Order, Uniformity, &c. be not onely comely and beautiful, but most necessary to the well-being of a National Church, and that the more, because it is so comprehensive of other Churches subordinated to it, how much more requisite is it to the well-being of the Catholick Church, which comprehends National and all others?

§ 10. Arg. 7. That this Catholick Headship is inseparable from a co-ordination of Pastors in the Church, may be evinced from these following Necessities. 1. A necessity of a Catholick judgment of Schism. [Page 86]2. Of a Catholick interpretation of Scripture, it being not of private in­terpretation. 3. Of a Catholick determination of Decencies and Order. 4. A Catholick composure of the Prayers of the Church. 5. A Catho­lick Canonization of Saints. 6. A Catholick convention or call of Oecu­menical Councils.

§ 11. The first Necessity is for a Catholick judgment of Schism: for if it be not determined by a Catholick judgment, these absurdities will follow: 1. National Churches may be Schismatical, and no com­petent judge of them, it being not fit that one National Church should judge another, they being co-ordinate, equally concerned, of equal authority, latitude, and fallibility: Neither may a Provincial be judge of National Schism, they being subordinate to the National, and included in it; for they are bound up in the determination of the National, and is accountable to it: and if it declares against the National, as guilty of Schism, and upon that account separates from it, she shall be judged as Schismatical from the National; and so Schism will be committed on Schism, and none healed. 2. If there be no Catholick determination of Schism, there can be no Catholick punishment of Schism from the Catholick Church; for the punish­ment must be preceded by a Law-determination. And hence, if a National Church be Schismatical from the Catholick, it cannot re­ceive any Catholick punishment; and it will follow, that such a sin may be committed in the Church, on which she is not capable to in­flict a punishment in any measure proportionate to it. 3. If a Na­tional Church hath power to judge of the Schism of a Provincial Church, and a Provincial Church of the Schism of a Diocesan, and a Diocesan of the Schism of a Parochial, then by the same reason may the Catholick Church judge of the Schism of a National Church; otherwise Schisms will be equally multiplied with National Churches, and no redress to be made of them. 4. If there be not a Catholick determi­nation of Schism, all Churches will not be agreed about Schism: so that whilst there is a perpetual controversie in the Church what Schism is, and what is not, Schism perpetually remains, and false judg­ment still passed upon some Churches: these calling that a Schis­matical Church, which is not so; others owning another Church as not Schismatical, which is really so. All which tends to a necessary and unavoidable confusion, for want of a Catholick determination; whereas if it may determine by its visible Head, all those Controver­sies would be ended: for if the members of the Body complain one of another, the whole Body must determine the matter by the Head, [Page 87]where there is a concurrence of all parts for the good of the whole.

§ 12. Secondly. From the necessity of a Catholick determination of dubious places of Scripture. This can be done by none but the Church Catholick on Earth: (for no Scripture being of private inter­pretation, where shall such an interpretation be found that is not private,) but in such as is of the Catholick Church, where the con­current judgment and faith of all Churches may be heard? 2 Pet. 1.20. the word is [...], of private Solution, i. e. not of particular persons, or Churches private Solution, but such as is universal and commonly received by all Churches and Christians, according to the analogy of faith. Now where can this be found and rested in as Catholick, unless it be in the visible universal Head? and if it be said that a National Church may positively determine in this kind, then why not a Provincial as well, the one being a subordinate Church as well as the other? But if the Decree be onely National, as many various interpretations and sences may be put on a place of Scripture, as there are Nations; which will lay an ample foundation for variety of Sects, Schisms, Heresies, &c. Whereas if all National Churches were bound to one Catholick determination, there must needs there­hence ensue the admirable effect of Uniformity in Doctrine and Pra­ctice; all Churches believing as the Ʋniversal 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 [Page 88]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 'tis ab­surd to say, that this or that Church may do it, when no such is the Church eminently. When 'tis 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 Ʋniformity 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 Ʋniformity: 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 Ʋniformity in the Church, who in asserting the principles of Ʋniformity in a National Church, do thereby extirpate Ʋniformity in the Catholick; for Na­tional Ʋniformity unless it be Catholick, is but Ʋniformity 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: [Page 89]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 Church­prayer be most of all available?

§ 15. Fifthly. The necessity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints. For supposing the Necessity of the Observation of Saints days, (as the Protestant Prelates zealously assert) it is requisite to enquire, who or what Church Canonized the Saints which are already honoured with Saintship Titular, and Days devoted to their remembrance; and who dedicated and consecrated Churches on the same account, was it not the Catholick Church, by her Catholick Pastors? If every Church (suppose National) should have the like liberty to canonize Saints at their pleasure, all the days in the Year, yea in an Age, would be little enough for All Hollan-tide; And if the observation must be Anniversary, there would be a necessity of robbing Peter to pay Paul, which would be doing evil, that good may come of it; it be­ing as great a sin to rob Peter of his fishing-nets, as to rob Paul of his cloak and parchments. Besides, this Absurdity would fall in, that one Nation would canonize that for a Saint, which another would ana­thematize to the Devil; As for Example, Michaelmas-day is devoted to St. Michael the Archangel, which Feast was instituted by Felix the Third, the 48th Oecumenical Bishop. Now the Church of England hath presumed to alter this Title and Institution, making it a Festival [Page 90]to St. Michael and all Angels; which hath these gross Absurdities in it. 1. That St. Michael is greatly detracted from, in that all other Angels are introduced as sharers in the Solemnity of the day; and all Angels may be understood of Bad, as well as Good, so that the De­vils hereby become Canonized Saints. Now whereas it may be al­ledged, that there be some Saints-days not of Catholick Observation, but only National, as St. Denis for France, St. George for England, St. Taffy or Wales, and St. Patrick for Ireland, it bears no weight against us; for the Canonization is Catholick, and questionless the Observation ought to be so also: though there is a more peculiar and more proper Remembrance and Honour due from those Nations, to which the Saints are appropriate; which peculiar Homage is enjoyn'd by the Church catholick. Moreover, it is meet that so solemn a matter should be ratified by Catholick Authority, as the canonizing a Saint, and instituting a Festival day to be sacred to his Remembrance; be­cause the Catholick Church, as she will be most impartial and wise in such appointments, so her Authority will make deeper impressions on the minds of men, to oblige them to the consciencious obser­vance: whereas particular Nations are liable to Errour and Partia­lity, each one being apt to be byassed by proper Interests, and to prefer the products of their own Soyl. Besides the gross Schism that it causeth in the Catholick Church, dividing the Churches in their Prayers at the same time, when one Nation shall observe that day to one Saint, and another to another, and a third to none at all. Whereas nothing is more honourable and necessary than Ʋnifor­mity in this kinde, That as all say the same Prayers, they should do it at the same Hours canonically appointed, use the same Ceremonies, observe the same Holidays; and such as are Anniversary should at least be of, Catholick Appointment: And though some Saint-days are more appropriate to one Nation than to another, by reason of the relation of this or that Saint to this or that Nation in particular, by Nativity, by Heroick Actions, or Meritorious Sufferings therein, yet is it not meet that all Churches should rejoyce and keep Holy-day with one that rejoyceth? If the Rule of rejoycing with them that rejoyce reach particular Christians, then much more Churches. And how can an Englishman but be mightily ravished with an holy Sym­pathy, to see a Welshman (zealously affected with the honour of St. Taffy) strutting up and down with a green feather in his Cap? can he forbear the plucking up all the Leeks in his Garden, and calling all the Fidlers in the Town about him? And is it not fit, that St. [Page 91] Thomas à Becket's day should be honourably observed by all other Churches, as well as England, who engaged in and suffered for the common Catholick Cause opposed in this Church? If the Devoted day be peculiar to a Nation, as an Anniversary Memorial of some great Deliverance supposed, it's fit it should have its Sanction from the Catholick Church; otherwise National Churches may run into absurd and Schismatical Observation of days, under such pretences, to the great Scandal and Injury of the Catholick Church; as for in­stance, the Fifth of November, a day Annually observed by a Natio­nal Church, to the great Scandal and Blemish of the Catholick Church and Oecumenical Pastor, in the sence of the Romanists.

§ 16. But some I hear will be ready to say, in order to these ne­cessary establishments, there will be no need of a Catholick Pastor, they may be done well enough by Oecumenical Councils. To which I reply, That then the Church acteth not as a Body Politick subor­dinately knit together, but as totum aggregatum, or as an Assembly of Independent Pastors by way of Association; whence many Absur­dities will follow. 1. That all the convened Pastors, of what Order or Degree soever, are co-ordinate at least in the power pleaded for, and a Primate or Patriarch's Vote is no more than a Diocesan's. 2. That the Church, in the utmost resolution of its power, is but Aristocratical, which undermines Episcopal Principles. 3. If because matters of greatest concern in the Catholick Church are managed by an Oecumenical Council, therefore there needs no Oecumenical Pastor; then by the same reason, all matters of the greatest concern in a National Church, being handled in a National Synod, there should be no need or use of a Primate; and sic deinceps to Provinces and Diocesses, and so all Church-power would consequently become co-ordinate in the hands of particular Pastors. 4. What course could be taken in the Intervals of Councils for the Churches Govern­ment in its Catholick state? 5. Divisions and Schisms have and will follow hereupon in the Church; for suppose the Council be equally divided in their voting about Scripture- Interpretation, Tradition, Ce­remonies, or Decencies, who shall determine in such case? 6. Suppose the lesser part divide from and declare against the greater and its proceedings, What Supreme Power is there Authoritatively to con­clude them, Ecclesiastically to admonish and reduce the Erring part? 7. Oecumenical Councils cannot easily and presently be convened, in case of emergent Church-difficulties, as in the sudden Defection of a National Church or Pastor to Schism or Heresie, in the starting up [Page 92]of new Sects, Canonization of new Saints, &c. An Errour may spread itself soon over a whole Nation, before such a Council can be called, and any remedy applied. 8. It is needful every Church do exercise its power in an unity, and not in a multiplicity; therefore there are National, Provincial, and Diocesan Pastors. Therefore there should be a Catholick Pastor to the Church catholick, for the avoiding the like Rocks and Precipices that other Churches would split upon, if they had not their particular Heads and Pastors.

§ 17. Sixthly. We argue from the Necessity of calling and conve­ning of Ecclesiastical Councils. In whose power is it to call an Oecu­menical Council, if there be no Oecumenical Pastor in the Church? For first, the Assemblies of every Church are to be convened only by the Pastor of the said Church; as in a Diocess, Who can authori­tatively convene the Clergy, but the Bishop of the Diocess? In a Province, Who can convene the Diocesan Bishops, but the Arch­bishop? In a Nation, Who hath power Ecclesiastically to convene a National Synod, besides the Metropolitan or Patriarch? so in the Catholick Church, who hath power Ecclesiastically to convene an Oecumenicul Council, but the Oecumenical Pastor? It being a Pa­storal charge to convene or dismiss Church-Assemblies, and it is done by an Office-power. Object. Supreme Magistrates may call Oecu­menical Councils. Answ. They cannot by any Ecclesiastical Right; for considered as such, they cannot exercise any Pastoral Office. And an Oecumenical Council being the most eminent Church-Assembly, it is not to be convened in a more irregular or exotick way, than the inferiour Assemblies of 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 [Page 93]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.

§ 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 [Page 95]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 worship of God, all being alterable in Addition or Sub­straction, by the will and pleasure of man. He may alter the Modes and Dresses of the Church in all matter of Ceremony at least, that the Church will be liable to as many new fashions as an English man: as one Magistrate may change his own Laws, so many will change one anothers; one, it may be, being Popish, another Episcopal, a third a Presbyterian. So that if the Magistrates Laws must binde the Church Ecclesiastically, it may be bound and unbound a hundred times in a few years, and put on as many Shapes as Proteus: for still as there is new Lords, so new Laws. But where there is a perma­nency and unchangeableness of Lords and Lawgivers, there will be a certainty and stability of Laws, as always under Christs immediate Legislation. 3. If this power be allowed to a Magistrate as such, [Page 96]then to a Heathen Magistrate, and he may make Laws according to his Religion, viz. that Christians should eat Meat sacrificed to Idols; which eating in it self is an indifferency, 1 Cor. 10. But I would fain know whether any of the strenuous Protestant-contenders for the Magistrates power in this kind, would not think it a great sin both for the Magistrate to make such a Law, and for any Subject knowing of it to obey him in it. Again, a Jewish Magistrate may make a Law that all should be circumcised, because Paul deter­mined it to be but an Indifferency: after the abolition of the Jewish Law, a man might cut off his Foreskin or let it alone; Circumci­sion was nothing, and Ʋncircumcision nothing; it was but the taking away or keeping a little fleshie skin. But I would ask whether if any Magistrate should make such a Law that all the Males in his dominion should be circumcised, whether every conscientious Chri­stian would not then suffer much, before he would be circumcised? saying as Paul, That if they were circumcised by virtue of such an Imposition, Christ would profit them nothing: And this is the Do­ctrine preached by him to the Galatians.

§ 3. Christ hath not granted any such power to a Christian Ma­gistrate as a Christian merely; if so, it will follow, 1. That one Christian may institute a way or mode of Worship for another. 2. That a strong Christian being a Magistrate, may force the weak to use all those things that he calls indifferent, though the other call them and reputes them unlawful and sinful. 3. If the Scales of Providence turn, and the weak Christian be made the Magistrate, he may pay home the strong, and make a Law for him to punish him, if he use that as an Indifferency which he esteemed so; and so binde him up in many things from walking by the Rules of Expediency. 4. Every Magistrate that calls himself a Christian, must be allowed the Chri­stian's power, though never so prophane, erroneous, or heretical: for who dare controul him so far as to say he is no Christian? or to wrest the Ecclesiastical Sword in this kind out of his hands, if it belong to him quâ Christian? Or how dare any to say, he is not a Christian so and so qualified, and therefore hath not such a power? Neither is it fit any exception should be taken in this manner; for we know nothing lies more open to censure than Magistrates Religion: and if every Subjects humour must be a Standard to the Magistrates Reli­gion, all things would fall as certainly to confusion on that side. If you allow such a power to him as Christian, so he professeth him­self, and so he takes it; and it's too late to dispute with him about [Page 97]his Sincerity and Qualifications▪ under that denomination he took the Sword by your allowance, and hath now more wit than to part with it upon every humoursome exception made against the strict­ness or modality of his Christianity. 5. If as a Christian, then such a power is a proper adjunct of a Christian, and every Christian should have it; but nothing is more false and absurd than this.

§ 4. Arg. 2. That which destroys Ʋniformity in the Church, ought not to be allowed; but for the Magistrate to exercise such a Legislative power, destroys Uniformity in the Church, Ergo not to be allowed. The Major will be granted by our Contenders for Ʋni­formity in Ceremonies. The Minor is evinced thus: it certainly hin­ders and destroys Ʋniformity in the Catholick Church; and that which destroys Uniformity in a Ʋniversality, is the most universal enemy to it: for if every Supream Legislator in each Nation may dress up the National Church in a suit of Ceremonies shred out of Indifferencies, according to the imaginations of his own brain, (in which Ceremonies the great Uniformity contended for, doth consist) there can never be an universal concord of all Nations, of the English, Greeks, Romanists, &c. to perfect and compleat the most beautiful and necessary Ʋniformity: All other ceremonial Uni­formity which men undertake to plead for, is but Ʋniformity in In­dependency, Disunion, Disagreement, if not Schism it self: for though it be National, yet if it be not Ʋniversal, it's but a particular Church in a way of separation from other Churches; as an Independent Congregation in a Parish that is Uniform within it self in judg­ment and practice, but disunited and separated from the Parish and all other sorts of Churches whatsoever. Now if the stress of Ʋniformity lie here (as these men plead) it cannot stand upon this basis of the magistrates power: for there will never be the sameness of Cere­monies in all places; Rulers being so adverse to each other, that they glory rather in a contrariety of Laws and Customs, than are ambi­tious of having the same. And let it be considered, whether the giving this power to him, doth not cut the very Throat of Ʋnifor­mity in the Catholick Church, and lay the very Seed-plot of Schism and Division. Hence those Principles that lay the undoubted ground of Uniformity in a universal Head Ecclesiastical, do go upon far su­rer grounds of Reason for the effecting it, than those that pretend and designe to effect it by the Magistrates power, as we have shewed before.

§ 5. Arg. 3. He that may not assume to himself the Executive [Page 98]power of Ecclesiastical Laws, cannot enact Laws of the same kind. But the Civil Magistrate may not assume to himself an Executive power, &c. Ergo, The Major is evident, because he that maketh Laws, may undertake also the Executive part, or dispose of it by de­putation. And the Argument of the Major is from the less to the greater; for the Executive power is primitively in the Law-maker, and cannot become anothers but by derivation from him. Minor: but the Civil Magistrate hath no such power conveyed to him, &c. I mean, Judicial Ecclesiastical Execution, according to the true intent of the Law for Christ's instituted Worship. It is true; so far as Ci­vility and Morality is to be maintained in Religion and in the Chur­ches, as well as Families, and other Societies therein, they 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. [Page 99]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 [Page 100]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.

§ 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 [Page 101]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 Transgressions falling under the cognizance of both States, though under divers respects; but a Man is not ea ratione to be punished by the Magistrate, because censured by the Church, nor vice versa. 3. Hence we assert, That the Civil Magi­strate cannot punish any Ecclesiastically, virtute Officii; neither doth any one meerly upon that account deserve a punishment from the Ma­gistrate, because he is apprehended to remain under a Church-censure; neither can the Church Appoint or Depute the Magistrate to use his Coercive power to reduce any one to Ecclesiastical obedience.

§ 2. The Question (on supposition that the Church will presume to take on her the enacting and executing more Laws than ever Christ did or impowred her to do) hath two parts: 1. That in execution of Ecclesiastical Justice, of Christ's own Institution, it is not agreeable to Christ's mind and will, that she should use the Magistrates Sword. 2. That the Church is not to use it in requiring her own Laws. I prove the first as follows.

§ 3. Arg. 1. Christ hath not annexed any Corporal punishments, or Pecuniary Mulcts to his Laws, which he hath enacted for the due governance of his Church; if he hath, let the Asserters shew where our Saviours Law is, If thy Brother offend, tell of it privately; if he hear not thee, take two or three more and admonish him; if he bear not them, tell the Church; if he bear not the Church, let him be as a Heathen and as a Publican unto thee; i. e. in respect of Christian Communion and Society: and this is called by the Apostle, the delivering up un­to Satan; there being but two sorts of Communions in the world in this fence, in the Church, and out; in the Church is in Christs King­dom; out of the Church, is Satans; and when he is cast out of the vi­sible Society of the Saints, it's for the humbling of him, and bring­ing him to godly sorrow and Repentance; which is called there by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. the destruction of the flesh. But here is no far­ther degree of punishment, this being the highest the Church is ca­pable of executing: he says not, If he comes not in and submits in so many days, let the Pastor certifie to the Secular Powers, and let them seize his Body and Imprison it, or his Estate and Confiscate it: This is a new way of bringing Men into Gospel-Repentance for Church-Offences, which Christ and his Apostles never practised or prescribed. Will the Assertors say, that the meaning of delivery of an Offender to Satan, is the delivery of him to the Magistrate to be [Page 102]punished? this were to cast a great odium on Civil Government, as if the Spirit of God did there represent the Magistrate under so con­temptible a Character. 2. It were to conclude, that Church-Mem­bers were not under the Magistrates power, to punish them for any Offences, till they were delivered up by the Church thereunto; and therefore, that he cannot take immediate cognizance of his Subjects Of­fences; so fat as concerns Moral or Civil Justice, but must proceed still according to the Churches appointment and determination. 3. That the Church hath a binding or loosing hand on the Magistrates Sword, to draw it out or put it up at her pleasure and the Magistrate should be Armor-bearer to the Church.

§ 4. If Christ had annexed any such penalties to his Ecclesiasti­cal Laws, he had left his Church very lame in its Polity; for in most Ages it hath been Hated, Persecuted, and Maligned, by Civil Powers under whom it hath Militated, and the point of the Magistrates Sword hath been turned against her, and not the Hilt put into her hand: now in such a state, how should the poor Church obtain the said Sword to cut off a perishing Member? and how should she be able to execute any Censure effectually, according to Christ's Law, if there be such a penalty annexed which no Church of Christ in some Ages hath been in the least capacity of executing? If the Church were in capacity of doing it, it must be capacitated from within, or from without; if from within, then Christ hath empowered it with a Magistratical authority, and every Church, as such, may use it: and if so, she must shew Christ's Commission for it. And if she pre­tend to it, it's a question whether Civil States will allow it; she had need have good power and strength to maintain it, as the Pope hath. And where the challenge of such Right hath been made, hath it not always been the occasion of the greatest Civil Broils in Kingdoms and States through Christendom? And if it should be made under Heathen States, and such Churches should presume to inflict corpo­ral Punishments, or pecuniary Mulcts on offending Brethren, they must certainly expect the loss of any Liberties they do enjoy, and be adjudged for Sedition, Treason, and Usurpation. But if it be said, that it's not from any Intrinsick power that the Church useth this Sword, then it will follow, that it belongs not to the Church as such, neither is her inseparable propriety. 2. She must onely borrow it; and suppose it will not be lent, doth the true execution of Christ's Laws fall to ground? and cannot Ecclesiastical Justice be distri­buted? 3. Again, if we must borrow the Magistrates Sword upon [Page 103]all occasions of Reformation, then she is not sufficiently empowered by Christ to reform her self; and Ergo, left more imperfect than any State or Society in the world; as civil Corporations and Families, yea, and particular Persons, they have power intrinsick sufficient for Self-reformation, if Vertue prevail, and the greater ruling part be not corrupt. The Sword of the Magistrate is no more Essential to the being or reforming a Church, than of a Family; a man may cor­rect a child, or turn away a servant, without a Magistrates power, or offending it, so he keep within the sphere of Domestick Justice: So may a Church inflict the greatest Ecclesiastical punishments without the Magistrate, or without intrenching upon him, so as the true bounds of Ecclesiastical Justice which Christ hath set, be observed. And this brings me to the second Argument.

§ 5. Arg. 2. If the Church may and ought to inflict Ecclesiastical punistments to the full satisfaction of the Laws of Christ, without the use of the Sword of the Civil Magistrate, then they may not use the said Sword, &c. nay, it's the highest Injustice to use it, it being severity beyond Summum jus. But the Church may inflict punish­ments to the full satisfaction of Christ's Laws; Christ hath put an Ecclesiastical Sword into the hands of the Church, to be managed against Offenders (distinct from the Civil Sword,) the just manage­ment whereof is as much as he requires from the Church, and the undergoing the pains whereof, is as much as he requires that Eccle­siastical Offenders should sustain in a Church-way. Neither doth the political Laws of his Church demand any such satisfaction from Church-offenders, as Fines, Whippings, Imprisonment, though the Of­fence be such, as under the cognizance of the civil Magistrate, by his Laws, and in his State, are deservedly punished so: As if a Church-member be drunk, the Magistrate may take him up in the street and set him by the heels; but if the Pastor of the Church see him so, he hath no such power as to punish his outward man, but to administer Admonition, or Excommunication, as the matter requires, till the person offending is brought to true godly Remorse and Reformation; but the Church hath nothing to do to imprison him, put him in the Stocks, &c. or deliver him to the Magistrate by their Sentence so to be dealt with.

§ 6. Arg. 3. If the Church can and ought to use the Sword of the Magistrate, it's surely to correct for the most gross and criminal Transgressions; as for Drunkenness, Swearing, Lying-Theft, Fornication, &c. for all just Laws inflict the most Exemplary Punishments on the [Page 104]most hainous and scandalous Offenders. But it's most evident the Church cannot use the Sword of the Magistrate, in case of the most criminal and hainous Transgression; because, 1. Christ nowhere em­powers a Church, or so much as allows it, as such, to fine, imprison, hang, &c. for offences deserving the same at the hands of the civil Magistrate. 2. He nowhere requires the Churches to become In­formers unto civil Magistrates; it belongs to the Magistrate to look after the observation of his own Laws; the Church is not to be his Constable to seize Offenders for him, neither is the State to be the Churches Hangman to execute for her; each State is to look after the execution of their own Laws, in their own way and manuer. 3. Where Paul is distinct in each particular of the censure to be de­nounced upon the incestuous person, 1 Cor. 5.4. requiring them to execute it in a strict and sharp manner in the Name and Power of the Lord Jesus; and although Incest is a crime to be punished by the Judge, and with death by the Law of God, he writes not to the Church to inflict any corporal punishment on him; neither doth he certifie the civil Magistrate against him, or command the Corinthians to inform. What Peter did in the case of Ananias, was extraordinary and miraculous, and not presidential in the least to any succeeding Church-Officers; neither did he assume any civil Authority in so doing.

§ 7. Neither doth the National Church (notwithstanding all her severity used towards Non-conformists) execute any such punish­ments on the like sort of gross Offenders, or by the highest censures turn them over to Civil Powers for that end, though she saith that all men and women inhabiting within her Precincts, at least all such as are christened, are actually Church-members; and although it's a confessed Principle of all Protestants, that all openly scandalous Church-members incorrigible, ought by censure to be cut off from Communion; and although her self affirms that the ultimate means to be used in cases of obstinacy, persisted in (which she calls Con­tempt) after Church-censures, is the application of the Magistrates Coercive power. Now how well she doth apply these Church-Reme­dies to the scandalous Church-members, let the impartial judge. Is it not requisite that she should wait upon all her Tyburn and Goal-bird Sons and Daughters a little more than she doth? and en­deavour first by Admonition to bring them to Remorse; and in case of obstinacy to excommunicate them, and not suffer obstinate Fe­lons and Traitors to be hang'd within the Pale of the Church? [Page 105]Indeed there needs no certifying to the Magistrate, and taking them by a Writ de Excom. cap. because the Magistrate hath secured them already: but I will tell you where there is need, viz. for the picking up of obstinate contumacious Drunkards, Swearers, and fornicating Church-members, which the Land swarms with. And what a blessed Reformation would there be, if Mother-Church did do her duty in this kinde so strictly as she deals with Non-confor­mists! viz. in admonishing them; and in case of contumacy, to excommunicate them; and upon their perseverance in the said sins, to take them all up with Writs de Excom. cap. and send them to Prison, there to abide till they repent. If the Church proceeded thus with the generality of scandalous and loose Parish-members, the major part left at liberty would be Non-conformists; and if they were secured too for Non-conformity, the old Woman might know where to finde most of her children of both adventures. But who is so blinde as not to see the unspeakable Partiality of the Church in this kind, in crying out against the conscientious Dissen­ters, and persecuting of them in so merciless and outrageous a man­ner, and in letting all the rest of the ranting debauched Church-mem­bers go Scot-free, yea, and encouraging them to persecute the rest more serious and conscientious, under the name of Separatists and Schismaticks? Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas. Juven.

§ 8. The second part of the Question about the use of the Magi­strates Sword in execution of Ecclesiastical Justice, is built upon a sup­position that the Church might make Laws, besides what Christ hath made, i. e. supposing she might change Indifferencies into Necessities by positive Laws. The Question is, Whether it be agreeable to her Justice and Wisdom, to annex to her Laws the said corporal or pecuniary Punishments, or cause the Magistrate so to do? We answer in the Negative, for these reasons. 1. Because to annex or cause to be an­nexed the severest punishments, or at least most smarting to Offen­ders of Laws of least concernment to the Publick weal of Church and State, and of the least necessity in respect of the Observers, is neither Justice nor Wisdom; but for the Church to annex Excom­munication, or cause to be annexed corporal Punishments, or pecu­niary Mulcts, to Laws of her own making, in matters of Indifferen­cy, is to put the severest Penalties to Laws of least concernment. The Major is most evident, because Wisdom and Justice always requires that there be a due proportion between the weight of Obedience required, and the Punishment of the Disobedience forbidden. The [Page 106] Minor is granted by the Imposers and Composers of Ecclesiastical Laws of this kind, and (as they think) a plausible defence of themselves in so doing, viz. that they exercise this Legislation onely in matters of smaller concern, not necessary to salvation, left by Christ indifferent; and what necessary goodness they pretend to be in them, is the shewing our obedience to our Superiours, and satisfying the Will of man, and some little external Decency and superficial Uniformity: And for offending in this kind, her children m [...]st be stript of Priviledges, and laid open to all injuries of Church and State. Doth this consist of Christian Prudence and Justice? Is it not to tythe Mint and Annice with the greatest zeal, and not onely to neglect the weighty Laws, but to encourage the violation of them, by taking into her bosome and dandling on her knee the most auda­cious Transgressors, and the greatest and most professed Enemies not onely to the power of Godliness, but to common Honesty and Morality? 2. If it had been Political Wisdom or Justice to annex such Penal­ties to Ecclesiastical Laws of any kind, sure Christ (in whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom) would not have been wanting in an­nexing Penalties of that kind to his own Laws of the greatest and weightiest concern to his Church. 3. We judge of the greatness and weighty concern of any Law, usually by the greatness of the Penalty annexed, in case of transgression: and therefore herein we may ap­prehend that the Churches own Laws challengeth a preheminency before the Laws of Christ's own composure; and would this King of kings make onely Laws of lesser concern, and substitute others to make the greater? this is absurd to believe. 4. It is a great piece of pride in Mother-Church to advance her self so far above the Civil State, that the Magistrate should become the Executioner of her Laws; for the Law-maker hath always a great priority and dignity above the Executioner. If it be replied, That the Church onely craves the Magistrates assistance to compleat her Ecclesiastical cen­sures, and make them stick closer on upon the backs of Offenders, Answ. Herein the Church bewrays her own weakness, in that she confesseth she is not a compleat Polity, neither hath power enough to reform her self, or effectually enough to execute her own Laws, without being beholding to an Exotick power: As if a Master of a Family had not power enough to execute Domestick Laws in corre­cting a Child or Servant, without asking his neighbours leave, and calling for his assistance. But in case the Church saith, (as indeed she doth) that she goeth to the civil Magistrate by way of Appeal, [Page 107]and the said Magistrate hath power at his pleasure to supersede her proceedings; This is to set the State above the Church in Ecclesi­asticks; whereas the civil State is Subordinate to the Ecclesiastick ec­clesiastically, and the Ecclesiastical to the Civil civilly; and both in respect of the exercise of Jurisdiction in each particular Orb parallel or co-ordinate.

§ 9. Lastly, such Penalties that cannot answer the natural end and designe of Church-censures, may not be annexed or used by the Church; but such a Penalty answers not, &c. The Major is un­doubted; the Minor thus appears: 1. Because the Sword of the Magistrate reacheth but the outward man; whereas the end of Church-censures is to reach the Conscience. 2. The natural use of Church-censures, is the exercise of them in foro Ecclesiae; but the Coercive power of the Magistrate may not be exercised in foro Ecclesiae, upon any allowable pretence whatsoever.

§ 1. THe third Enquiry propounded, is concerning the true bounds and limits of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion; a great and difficult Question, but of very great concern to us that it be rightly resolved. I do not expect to be so happy as to give o­thers full satisfaction in it, I being not able to do it to my self so far as I would; I shall onely go as far as I can, and is convenient for this undertaking, with all possible brevity and demonstration.

We spake before in the two former Questions concerning the Magi­strates power in matters of Indifferency, both Legislative and Exe­cutive, on the behalf of the Church. This Question is of larger ex­tent concerning his whole power in matters of Religion, and enquire how far he may and ought to go, and how far he may not go, i. e. he cannot go without Usurpation.

§ 2. Matters of Religion is a large word, and it comprehends not onely Religion it self, but all circumstances and attendances thereof; which are Indifferencies in themselves, neither moraly good or evil; but in regard of their tendency and respect, they are so. Concer­ning [Page 108]the Magistrates Legislative power in these things, we have spoken somewhat already.

I shall speak no more here of the nature of Religion, than to make way for my present Undertaking. Religion is usually understood to comprehend all moral Duties and all instituted Worship; to which if we adde the aforesaid attending circumstances, we use a larger way of expression, and call them matters of Religion.

§ 3. The Moral Law is a general standing Rule to all sorts of Actions, Persons, and Societies of the children of men, whereby God himself hath challenged the first right of dominion; as of particular men, so of all necessary Fabricks of Rule and Government in the world: So that all Actions, Persons, and Societies, duely measured and squared thereby, are rightly called Religious, and the contrary Irreligious. Hence particular, Domestick, Ecclesiastick, and Civil Jurisdictions in a Christian Commonwealth, are in proper sence called all of them Religious.

§ 4. Religion, taken in a stricter and more limited sence, is un­derstood of a holy life and conversation of particular Persons and Societies, not onely according to the general Rules of moral Obedi­ence, but according to the more, particular and special appointments and Gospel-institutions of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby he separates un­to himself the most choice and peculiar Societies in the world, under his proper and more immediate Rule and Government, which are called his Church.

§ 5. Therefore, 1. The civil Christian Magistrate hath no power (in the strict sence) in matters of Religion, quatenus Magistrate, no more than a Heathen hath: for though the embracing the Christian Religion doth much capacitate the civil Magistrate, as to his inclina­tions and endeavours for the improvement of his Magistratical power toward the advantage of Religion; yet it adds no new power or jurisdiction to him over Churches, Families, Christians, or others: for a Heathen Magistrate is as much in his place the supream Head and Governmnour of the Church (considered in a civil capacity under his Government) as the most Faith-defending Christian, or Catholick Prince in the world: Neither by his embracing Christianity doth he attain any augmentation of his Magistratical Power, Headship, or Supremacy. A Christian is no more bound, as a Subject, by the Rules of the Gospel, to a Christian Magistrate, than to a Heathen or Heretical Magistrate. The Rules are indefinite to a Magistrate as such, though a Christian Subject will be the better man and Subject, [Page 109]and a Christian Magistrate the better man and Magistrate; Chri­stianity making every one the better man, and better qualified for the performance of the relative Duty of his place that he is set in.

§ 6. Secondly, No civil Magistrate can be an Ecclesiastical Head and Governour of the Church, as such: It's Christ's Prerogative to be the Supream, and to constitute what other Heads and Governours he in his wisdom thinks best. But I finde not that he ever made any Ma­gistrate a constitutive Ecclesiastical Head or Governour to his Church virtute Officii: for if so, in every Christian Dominion the Prince should be the Metropolitan and the true Pastor to that National Church.

§ 7. Thirdly, No civil Magistrate can by virtue of any authority granted by Christ, challenge to himself a Legistative power in reli­gious matters touching Faith or Worship: he cannot null or dispense with one of the Laws of Jesus Christ; neither may he make any new Laws to binde us to believe any thing more concerning God, than is manifestly by his Word revealed; or binde us to practice any alteration or addition in the Worship of God, more than what Christ himself hath enacted. This we have sufficiently proved in handling the Doctrine of Indifferency.

§ 8. Fourthly, No civil Magistrate can by any deputation from Christ, claim an Executive power of the Political Laws of Christ in his Church: for as Christ hath his own proper Laws in his Church, his militant Kingdom, distinct from other Laws for the right and exact Gospel-management of all his Political affairs therein, and is more faithful than Moses in that very respect; so he hath set in his Church his own Ministers and Officers, distinct from all other sorts of Officers and Ministers in the world: As Christ's Ministers are no civil Magi­strates as such, so no civil Magistrate is a Church-Minister as such. Hence, as a civil Magistrate hath no power to execute Christ's Political Laws or Institutions in his Church; so he hath no power to execute any moral Laws in the Church, i. e. he cannot punish a criminal offence by Ecclesiastical censures. The moral Law runs through all Societies, as the natural fundamental Rule to discern Good and Evil; and Political Laws of all sorts should mainly respect it as the Standard and Magna Charta of all Laws and Justice which in re­spect of it are derivative; though every particular Polity hath its own proper way and manner of distribution of moral Justice; The civil State by a civil political Administration and Magistracy; Fami­lies Oeconomically, by the Heads thereof; the Churches Ecclesiastically, [Page 110]by its Pastors and other Officers; all endeavouring by their distinct way and manner of Administration, to secure the honour and justice of the Moral Law: but none of these are to intermix their govern­ments and political way of distribution, seeing the God of Order hath fixed each one to his proper station and limit of jurisdiction. Hence the civil State can no more punish the breach of moral Laws Ecclesi­astically, than the Church can punish them civilly; and the Church can no more use the Magistrates Sword, than the Magistrate can the Churches, and vice versa; neither can the Church or civil State punish the breaches of the moral Law Oeconomically, any more than a Master of a Family, as such, can punish them Ecclesiastically or Civilly, and upon that account may take upon him to be Magistrate or Pastor. And though there was a mixture or rather conjunction of these Au­thorities in the same person, in the infancy of Polities, yet they have been separated in distinct persons by God himself for many Ages; neither do any persons bearing distinct Offices, make the Offices the same, or necessarily mingle them in the performance of their se­veral Functions.

§ 9. Fifthly, It is not in the power of the civil Magistrate or any humane Laws, to binde or loose Conscience. As Magistrates cannot reach it directly to charge it with either duty or guilt, so it's the grea­test piece of Tyranny to attempt it by Penal Laws; whereby Chri­stians may be drawn in, to ensnare their Consciences in guilt, by sin­ning against God for fear of Man, and a Christian is to obey the just Laws of man for Conscience sake, i. e. for the Lords sake. It is extrin­sick to the Laws of men, to binde Conscience; it's God that by his authority gives them a mediate Sanction, and binds them on Con­science; but where God lends not to humane Laws his binding power, they are of no more force unto Conscience, than Withs to binde Sampson. It's not the wit or strength of all Men and Angels that can binde one Conscience under guilt, without a Law of God, or di­vine authority to give force to humane: their Penal Laws, i.e. corporal Punishments or pecuniary Mulcts, are very indirect and vain Mediums to enforce Conscience, and very sinfully applied by Magistrates or others for that end, in matters of Faith or Worship.

§ 10. Sixthly, That the supream Magistrate hath not the deter­mination of Causes meenly Ecelesiastical; and these are of two sorts, either controverted Doctrinals, or Causes disciplinary controverted: for by Causes are to be understood here, things under dispute (and they controverted Doctrinals) or under debate (and they controverted [Page 111]Causes disciplinary;) and those Ecclesiastical things which are of this nature, fall under one of these heads, Doctrinal or Disciplinary. First, In doctrinal Causes controverted, the Magistrate is not appointed by Christ as Judge, neither is he a competent Judge. 1. If he be quatenus a Magistrate, then every Magistrate is a competent Judge, and then a Heathen, Mahometan, or Heretical Magistrate; and then you'll say the determination must needs be very sound and good. 2. Again, how few Christian Magistrates are studied enough in Po­lemical Divinity (being not bred to that learning, or having so many recreations and secular concerns to divert them from it) so as to be fit to have the ultimate determination of the most difficult and weighty points, that learned Scholars in Divinity, yea, such as are studious and conscientious Christians, after long study, scrutiny, and prayer, cannot attain to a right understanding of, so as to demonstrate the truth to the full and clear satisfaction of themselves or others? Is it fit to make an Assembly of Divines, Judges of a great and difficult case in Law? There is the same reason for one as for the other. 3. What determination a Magistrate makes dogmatically, it's simpli­citer but his private Judgment and Opinion, though he be a publick person: And why should any mans private opinion (be he what he will in the world) be a binding Rule to the Faith of another in matters of Religion? 4. It's impossible that it should be so; for man cannot make a Law to bound Faith in such things as are not founded on the light of Understanding; and where they are so founded, no man believes because of the Law of man, but because of the evidence of Truth. What Law can make any man believe that two and three make six? but if it be, that we must believe that three and three make six, we do believe it; but not because of the Penal Law, but because of the evidence the Truth carries with it: Non lex penalis, sed veritas est ratio formalis fidei. 5. The Faith of a Chri­stian, or the Understanding of a Rational man, can no more rest in the opinion or determination of a Christian Magistrate, without a sufficient light of Truth to convince him, than in the opinion and determination of another man: for he that tenders the honour of God, and loves Truth, cannot receive that which he is convinced of (or at least suspects in his most serious judgment) to be contrary to the truth of the Word of God. 6. The Magistrate cannot be conteded to be such a Judge, nor is useful as such, unless he may be acknowledged to be infallible. A supream Judge in our sence, and that which must be here understood, is one into whose judgment our [Page 112]Faith hath its last and utmost resolution; but we cannot acquiesce in a humane fallible determination. And besides, what Prerogative hath the Magistrates judgment above another mans? and what ease and advantage is it to us, if our minds lie open to doubt as much after as before the determination? No Christians minde can rest sa­tisfied in a humane fallible opinion of divine things; the authority causing Belief, must have the same original that the Revelation hath: therefore Faith built upon a Testimony, must be onely on his own fidelity as one infallible; as we believe that Truth also which car­ries its own Evidence with it axiomatically delivered, or evinceth it self from the light of another Truth dianoetically.

§ 11. The second Case consists in Causes disciplinarily debated, be­ing Differences arising within one particular Church, or between Church and Church, or between Pastors and Churches, &c. All Causes usually handled and determined in Ecclesiastical Courts. The Question is, Whether the civil Magistrate be the supream Judge, or Head and Governour? By Causes Ecclesiastick, are without doubt meant in the Oath of Supremacy, all disciplinary Causes handled in Spiritual Courts, the supream Head and Governor whereof was the Pope; in whose name and authority those Courts were called and managed, and to whom it was lawful for any grieved party to ap­peal, before the reign of King Henry the 8th; who by the Oath of Supremacy cut off the Popes Supremacy, and established his own. Now I thus resolve, as followeth.

§ 12. If Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Courts be not jure divino, nor held jure divino (Episcopacy as it's setled in the Hierarchy, and all its Offices and Appurtenances, being onely a humane politick device, as hath been abundantly by the Opposers thereof proved, and by many of the Asserter; and Defenders confessed;) then, I say, it's fitter that man should be supream Head there; and if any man, the supream civil Magistrate, within whose Realm or Dominion their Courts and Causes Ecclesiastical be. The nature of this Supremacy is or should be, that 1. That all Ecclesiastical Courts be called and kept in the Kings Magisties name. 2. That the Sentence denounced should be also grounded on some penal Law of the King; for all the Kings Courts should judge by his Laws. 3. That any party grieved may appeal to a superiour Court of the Kings, or to himself, from whom there is no Appeal. 4. That the King hath power by himself or Judges, to prohibit or supersede the proceedings of the said Court at his pleasure. This is the true sence of the Oath of [Page 113]Supremacy, which the Bishops, notwithstanding all the noise they make against Dissenters from their Church, will least subscribe unto; whereas most others of the Kings Subjects that refuse to own the divine right of Episcopal government, will willingly swear the Kings Supremacy in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Causes in the largest extent. And though that sort of ruling men use all endeavours to suggest the disloyalty of the said Dissenters, yet I doubt not but most Puritans in England would rather refer themselves to the Kings judg­ment, and stand or fall at his Tribunal, than at the Churches; and have generally found more relief from under the severities of Ex­communication in the Kings Courts, than in the Ecclesiastical. Sup­posing that all Ecclesiastical proceedings in Spiritual Courts of Judi­cature, and the whole Fabrick of Church-government, as now it stands, is a humane Polity, as is not denied by the most ingenious, I know not why any Puritan or Papist should refuse for to take the Oath of Supremacy, for it is no more than to acknowledge the King to be supream Head and Governour in his own Courts; which is but Reason, Justice, and Religion, that he should be.

§ 13. But if Ecclesiastical Causes be understood of disciplinary Controversies, such as follow upon the execution of Laws, and admi­nistration of the Institutions of the Lord Jesus in the visible Gospel-churches; of such Ecclesiastical Causes it is not the Magistrates part to be the determinating Judge of: for, 1. To judge and determine a Cause in the Church of Christ, is to judge Ecclesiastically; and such an act of Judicature is a Church-act, which is always preceded by a Church-Officer, and no other, in foro Ecclesiae; and if the agrieved party appeal, it must be to an Officer of the same kind, it's not to an Officer of another State. 2. He that is supream Judge of a Church-cause on Earth, must be an Officer substituted by Christ; for none can hold any Place or Office in the Church, but by Subrogation from Christ, much less the highest Authority: but none can shew that Christ hath substituted the Magistrate his Church-Vicar on Earth. 3. If the civil Magistrate be supream Head to the Church Ecclesiasti­cally, then, because he was always so since Christ was on Earth, then there was times when Heathen Magistrates, in whose jurisdicti­on the Churches was, were his Vicars: and Christ himself, when on Earth, was subject Ecclesiastically, though Head of his Church, to Heathen Church-Officers; for he was no civil Magistrate, disclaim'd it, nor could be appeal'd unto as such. 4. If the civil Magistrate be supream Judge, he is the supream Church-Officer; for he cannot be [Page 114]denied to be an Officer of that state wherein he doth acts of Judi­cature as his right: And if a Church-Officer, then the civil State hath power to chuse and constitute a Church-Officer, and that of the highest rank; for if he become a Church-Officer, his Calling and Constitution must needs be Civil, and not Ecclesiastical: So that the civil State hath the power of Peter's Keys both to dispose of them and give them to whom she will, and the Church cannot be entrusted with them; they must still be kept in the Magistrates pocket. Hence it will follow, that Christ hath not left power enough in the Church for the management of its own political affairs, nor wisdom enough for the determining her own Controversies.

§ 14. Seventhly, No civil Magistrate can imposse Articles of Faith on any of his Subjects, to be owned, subscribed, or sworn to by a Penal Law: for quatenus a Magistrate he is not an universal compe­tent Judge; for it's not necessary that he should be religious, un­derstanding, found in his principles, because he is a Magistrate. 1. If he can do it as a Church-Officer, we have shewed that Christ hath made no such Officers in his Church. 2. If he were, Christ never empowered any Church-Officer to use a Magistratical Sword; he never put Temporal Crowns on their heads, nor Scepters into their hands: if any of them, out of ambition, have got Miters and Crosier Staffs, they had them from Antichrist, and not from Christ. 3. He never ordained that force of Arms and Penal Laws should be the way of propagating his Faith. 4. Forced Faith is neither plea­sing to Christ, nor profitable to us; for indeed it's no Faith at all. A force may lay hold of the Outward man, but it cannot make the Understanding to believe that which it sees no reason for to believe, no more than the Senses in the natural state can be forced to own things to be contrary Objects; as the Eye to own white to be black, the Taste to own that for sweet which is bitter, &c.

§ 15. Eighthly, No civil Magistrate can impose a form of the Worship of God by a Penal Law. 1. Because he cannot receive into the Church nor cast out of it at his pleasure. 2. If he could, then the Sub­jects form of Worship must be such as the Magistrates; for if it be justifiable in one Magistrate to enforce his Subjects to a form of di­vine Worship, because he thinks it best, then it's justifiable in ano­ther: If the Episcopal Magistrate may jure enforce his form of divine Worship, then the Popish Magistrate may enforce his form, and the Presbyterian Magistrate his form, and an Anabaptist his form, and every form must become lawful and necessary to be practised, because [Page 115]the civil Magistrate commands it: for we must not suppose any one Magistrate, as such, to be more infallible than another; and so upon every change of the supream Magistrate of a differing Perswasion, the Peace and Consciences of the most religious people must be wrac­ked and torn in pieces. Again, it's the most irrational thing in the world to force a man to serve his God in such a way as he conscien­tiously judgeth or supposeth to be displeasing unto him. Likewise if the form of Worship imposed by the Magistrate be pleasing to Christ, his imposition cannot, because there cannot be a readier way to the prophanation of the holiest things, than to force them to come to them that are not onely wicked and prophane in their lives, and corrupt in their hearts, but such as are professed Enemies unto them, and would have nothing to do with them, but to save them­selves from the smart of Penal Laws; and the best of such persons that make a more plausible compliance, can be no Better than Hypo­crites, that the Law being removed, their Religion would be dissol­ved.

§ 16. Ninthly, As the civil Magistrate cannot enforce his Subjects to Particular forms of real or supposed instituted Worship, so he can­not enforce them to positive acts of moral divine Worship. As 1. We finde no Precept or Example for forcing a poor Pagan to the Wor­ship of the true God; and for whipping, imprisoning, or any other way afflicting his carcase by a Penal Law, because of his not wor­shipping the true God. To punish a poor Jew till he would acknow­ledge Christ and worship him, would seem hard. 2. And among such as do own the true God, the Magistrate cannot, punish omissions or refusals of acts of positive Worship. As for instance in Prayer, the Magistrate cannot enforce a man to pray to his God, and punish him for not doing it. These are things, though sins, and that of the highest rank, yet such as God intended the Sword of civil Ju­stice should never reach. There is in every Command of God a prohibiting and prescribing part: The sins against the prohibiting part, is the doing some act forbidden by the Moral Law; and here usual­ly is the place for the execution of a Penalty by the hands of humane Justice. Punishable sins by man are commonly acts of Commission, and such acts must be apparent, not secret, brought before the Judge per allegata & probata; and they are usually criminal direct breaches, not consequential, dubious, and small. I know there lies an Obje­ction against this; which is, That a Father may correct a childe for not doing his command; and so a Master a servant. Answ. It's [Page 116]granted, and so will God punish the children of men for all omissions of their duty: He that knew his masters will and did it not, should be beaten with many stripes. Then there is a great difference between the constitution of a State-government and of a Family-govern­ment: In a Family a Father, being a natural Relation, hath (so far as his power goes) a more Arbitrary way for the management of it, as he can correct his childe upon his mere suspicions of evil in him, or refusal of good, without positive proof; so for omissions in not doing his duty; and so for servants: the reason is, because it's supposed children and servants are under tutorage as well as bare government, and therefore must be kept up to positive acts of duty, being under education of Parents and Masters. But it's not so with Subjects; they are subjected to a Magistrate for another end, viz. in order to the maintaining the due execution of Commutative Justice, and in case of the failure thereof, of distributive; and all things are to be brought before the Magistrate by evidence, of matter of mere fact, and accessories thereunto. God hath not required that Laws should be so distinct and express in a Family, as in a State, the govern­ment of a Family being for the most part discretionary: if an eye be had chiefly to the general Rules of God's Word, though Omissions of some kind come under the cognizance of the Magistrate, it's principal­ly in cases of commutative Justice, when such Omissions are injurious to our Neighbours right; but those are not reckoned criminals.

§ 17. Having had some short view of what we judge (upon good grounds) comes not under his inspection as a Magistrate, we would consider a little in the next place how far a Magistrate may go in using his Magistratick Sword in matters of Religion. We have shewed that matters of Religion, taken in a more limited sence of Faith and in­stituted Worship in the Church of Christ, are not within the cir­cumference of the Magistrates Penal Laws. But if we understand matters of Religion in a larger sence, then we mean that all States and Societies of men ought in a Christian Commonwealth to be religi­ous, i. e. the Moral Rules of Justice should be the foundation of all Justice administred in the Church, Civil State, and Family; and each of them ought to have a main respect to every branch of the Moral Law, and adjudge the breaches thereof to be sin, and each Polity to punish it according to its merit, so far as is allowed by the Charter of Jurisdiction from the Lord Jesus Christ. Exemp. gra. Suppose Theft be the sin, the Parent can correct his child with the Rod, the Church punish him with a Censure, and the State by some Corporal [Page 117]Exemplary suffering. Though the Transgression be the same, and justly punishable in all, yet the punishment is not of the same kinde, but various under the different Jurisdictions.

§ 18. We say then, if religious matters be understood of that mo­ral goodness, fundamentally necessary to all actions becoming a Chri­stian Commonwealth, then so far the Christian Magistrate hath power more or less, so far as may conduce to the due maintaining of the being or well-being of a Christian State; and therefore is to be con­servator unriusque Tabulae, he hath the conservation of the second Table committed to his care, that it may be a civil State; of the first, that it may be a Christian State. And therefore as a Family is to preserve the honour and justice of the Moral Law by an Oeconomick Sanction, and the Church by an Ecclesiastick, so the civil State by Civil San­ction; each according to their just derived Laws whereby they are respectively to govern, and distinctly to administer.

§ 19. The great Question here is, How far the Magistrates power extends in the making and execution of Penal Statutes? We have shewed that the Lord Jesus hath not reserved to himself so neer a propriety in the government of civil States, as of his Church; ha­ving taken it as his peculiar Prerogative to give Laws unto his Church: and presides there as the only Legislator. But unto States he hath onely given them the Magna Charta of the Moral Law, and hath allowed unto them a Legislative power in all matters concerning the various Exigences, and divers Requisites, with attending Circum­stances in the due management of State-jurisdiction; so as the said Laws are promoting of the common Peace and Justice of their Do­minions, and deducible from and founded on the said Rules of Di­stributive and Commutative Justice.

§ 20. The Laws of men that are just and reasonable, may take place in all things conducing to the being and well-being of a Chri­stian Commonwealth, both as to the matters of the first and second Ta­ble, so far as is necessary to the managing of it under the due qualifi­cations of a civil State; and therefore may not onely punish crimes committed against the second Table, but such as are against the first also. And there are these especially that they are concerned in: 1. Blaspheming of the true God, under which is comprehended com­mon profane swearing, transgression especially of the third Command. 2. Worshipping of false Gods; a sin against the first Commandment. 3. Idolatry, or the worshipping of God by Images; a sin against the se­cond Commandment. 4. Prophanation of such times as is by God [Page 118]appropriated to himself for publick Worship; a sin against the fourth. So that these are palpable as to matter of fact, clear as to the na­ture of the offence, and of dangerous consequences, tending to the eminent ruine and apparent danger of a civil State.

§ 21. In the concernments of the second Table, God hath left the civil Magistrate more Arbitrary in making or executing civil Laws, as the necessity of the State doth require, laying the general Rules of Moral Justice, and the particular and relative benefit of the Com­monwealth and Subject before his eyes. Now in the matters of the first Table (being the moral Rule of duty towards God) he onely requires the Magistrate to punish and restrain those Vices in this kind that are notorious, infectious, and pestilent to a Christian Com­monwealth, in matters of natural Worship; reserving instituted Wor­ship, built fundamentally on the same precepts, to another manner of dispensation, wherein the civil Magistrate is not to intermeddle as such, neither as to Legislation, nor Execution of Penalties, nor deliga­tion of Officers.

§ 22. As Murthers, Rapines, Adulteries, Perjuries, &c. are destru­ctive to Properties, Communities, and Relations, and so to all civility in a State where such Vices predominate, and are not generally sup­pressed by Justice, it cannot be denominated a civil State, but rather a Pagan Salvage nation. So, where false Gods are multiplied and worshipped, the true God is blasphemed openly and notoriously, and all times for publick Worship of him by his own appointment, pro­phaned publickly and generally: And such Vices not suppressed by Magistrates, such a State cannot be called a Christian civil State, but Heathenish, whatever moral Justice there is between man and man.

§ 23. Though all sins be alike breaches of Gods Law, yet none but those of a more gross, external, and exemplary nature, fall under the cognizance of mans Justice. The Blasphemy, Profaneness, and Concupiscence of the heart, are not punishable by man; it must come to the Magistrate per allegata & probata, that such an one blasphemed God, worshipped an Idol, prophaned the Name of God by swearing, &c. and that openly, either in contempt of that God that is worshipped, or that Worship set up, or in order to the delusion and seduction of others: for it would seem very hard to break into the private hou­ses or appartments of Idolaters that may dwell in the land, and pro­ceed judicially against them for that Religion which they are peacibly retired to, without any endeavour to publish or prvpagate to the di­sturbance [Page 119]of the publick, or infection of others. But no Magistrate ought to suffer that God to be openly blasphemed, which he worships: If Heathens in a false Worship are zealous upon this account, how much more ought Christians? Though no Magistrate can enforce any Subject to worship his God, or ought to do it by a Penal Law, as hath been said, yet he may punish him for blaspheming him, or for seducing any from the Worship of the true God; yea, for Apostati­zing from the Worship of the true God, after he hath owned it. Pre­cepts and Persidents, in the Old Testament, are pregnant to these purposes, which I need not enlarge on; those that read the Scri­ptures are acquainted with them: But we finde no Precept nor Ex­ample for endeavouring to reduce a poor Heathen from bare Idolatry to the Worship of the true God, by pecuniary Mulcts and corporal Pu­nishments; and I am sure Christ never practised it nor commanded it in the New Testament.

§ 24. The great difficulty that yet attends this case (allowing the Magistrate a power, as such, in some matters concerning our duty directly to Godward) what are adaequate and proportionate Pe­nalties in such cases as these: for the Magistrates power is always insignificant, whatever the Law is, if there be not a Penalty annexed to it, and vigour in the just execution thereof. Now the Enquiry is, Of what kind and degree of punishments of such Transgressions, ought to be? Answ. I apprehend it is a hard thing to determine to all mens satisfaction; I know some have recourse to the proceedings of the Judicial Law, which was but the reduction of the Moral Law into Civil Practice for the State of the Jews, and look upon them as binding to Christian Magistrates. But I suppose the Judicial Laws to be rather presidential onely, that Christian Magistrates may take a measure thereby for the degree of Penalty, setting aside their different Emergencies of State, and extraordinary cases, when God would make one sinner in a case exemplary to all ages, by his Prerogative and special Command; as in Achans theft, and the prophanation of the Sabbath by picking up of sticks: And setting aside much of the severity which appeared in that more legal Dispensation, which was both Typical and Temporal, and much of it in special cases, and by special command by God; It would be accounted very severe now to put a man to death for prophaning the Name of God, though it were by repeated acts of such horrid cursing and swearing as is frequent now-a-days; or for prophanation of the Sabbath, &c. Then setting aside the relation the Judicial Law had to the Levitical, and [Page 120]necessary dependance on it, which is ceased; and considering that our Judicial Laws cannot so much depend upon Evangelical institu­ted Worship, Christ having not so strictly tyed Church and State under a necessity of the same Emergencies as he did the Jewish Oe­conomies; I conceive likewise the just proportionating of Penalties in this kind, ought to be done with great caution, and depends much on the Magistrates prudent management of the Helm of Go­vernment, for the safety and preservation of the Christian State; and Penalties cannot be positive and unalterable, because cases do so fre­quently differ in the aggravating circumstances.

§ 25. The Christian civil State ought to be very neighbourly and cherishing to the Ecclesiastical; and the civil Magistrate is to improve his Magistratick capacity to the utmost, for the interest of Christ's Church, and advantage of the Gospel. 1. By subordinating as much as is possible, all State-interest to the interest of Christ in his Church. 2. By giving all possible encouragement to the purer Wor­shippers of God, and to the embracers of the Christian Religion. 3. By encouraging the faithful preaching of the Gospel, and propagation thereof by able Ministers duely called thereto by the Church, and affording them external helps and supports in so doing. 4. By maintaining the Churches in the due execution of the Laws of Christ, and in the enjoyment of their Ecclesiastical and Civil Liber­ties, defending them from invasions and disturbances in Gods Wor­ship, from the rage of professed Enemies, from tyrannizing usurping Imposers. 5. By being a nursing Father to the Church, both as a Christian in an eminent capacity, going before others in the exemplary practice of Piety, and calling upon all others of all ranks and degrees whatever, to discharge their places in the fear of God, as Hezekiak and Jehosaphat did, 1 Chron. 29.25, 26, 27, &c. 2 Chron. 19.8, 9, 10. and as a Magistrate defending them by his power, as hath been said.

§ 1. IN the next place it will be necessary to speak something to a Question of no less weight than any of the former: for [Page 121](it is said) that though it should be granted that no power, Civil or Ecclesiastical, can (Jure) convert Indifferencies in Worship into Necessities by a Law, yet it's inquired in case any humane power as­sume so much to it self as to do it, Whether a Christian is not bound to yield active Obedience unto the said Laws? and those that affirm it, produce these Reasons to enforce it. 1. That every one is bound to be subject to their highest powers, Rom. 13.1. 2. That such Laws are not contrary to the Law of God, because God hath nowhere declared him­self against one part of the indifferency more than the other, but hath left both equally lawful to be practised, according to the rules of discretion. And why may not the Church or Magistrates discre­tion binde a Christian to obedience to his command, as most expedient, the Church or Magistrate being better able to judge of an Expedien­cy than a private Christian? 3. Because if in a thing indifferent the least offensive part is to be chosen, then surely that part which fulfils the Civil or Ecclesiastick Law; for it is a greater offence to offend the Church or Magistrate, or both, than to offend a particular pri­vate Christian, or company of Dissenters.

To the first I answer, by way of concession, That a Christian is so bound, as Rom. 13.1. but 1. That place is to be understood of Civil, not Ecclesiastical powers, as the Context shews. 2. If it be under­stood of Church-power, as that Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you; it's to be understood of such, as Christ hath consti­tuted Church-Officers; and of obedience to an Executive power committed to them, not of a new assumed Legislative power never allowed to them.

To the second I answer, That such Laws are contrary to the Word of God: for 1. Essentially they are contrary to the Word of God, it being the revealed Will of God in his Word, that they should be Indifferencies, and remain so, not to be made otherwise by any Law: for where God hath granted a Liberty or Latitude in the use of any Creatures or Actions, there to make or prescribe a religious limitation by a Law, is absolutely unlawful, and directly contrary to the Word of God. It's express, Acts 10.13, 14, 15. where Peter, though an Apostle, is charged not to put a religious difference where God hath sanctified things to our indifferent use, much less might he prohibit the Church from using any Creatures or Actions made by God indifferently holy: therefore when it's the Will of God that a thing be indifferent, it's contrary to the Will of God to impose it as necessary. 2. Such Laws are circumstantially evil, and [Page 122]contrary to the Word of God, because they hinder the free use of Christian discretion where God would have it used; and Ergo, hindreth an Ordinance of Christ. Besides, it necessarily obligeth to evil, whenas the expedient good is found by a Christian to be in that part of the Indifferency which is contrary to the humane Law: And besides, God having left both parts of the Indifferency equally lawful, and declared it so in his Word, for man to declare one part unlawful, or make it so by a Law, is to make a Declaration or Law contrary to the Word of God. Neither may a Magistrate or Churches judg­ment binde a Christian to practise any further than it brings light with it: for no man must walk by an implicit Faith in the matters that concern the Worship of God, and the salvation of his Soul.

To the third Alleg. That part which fulfils the Civil or Ecclesiasti­cal Law for Will-worship, is not the least offending part, but the most: for the yielding free active obedience to sinful Laws, is not onely sin in the person obeying, but the highest degree of scandal to the person commanding, it being the edification of him in sin; whereas the re­fusal of active obedience in such a case, is no offence given, but onely a just cross of a perverse Judgment and Will. Again, if any action be such as will offend justly the least of Christ's members, it must needs be contrary to Gods Word; and I may not grievingly or sinningly offend any of Gods children, that I may gratifie and fulfil the Will of man. We must rather chuse that part of the Indifferency which a weak Christian thinks (according to his best light from Gods Word) to be necessary, than the other part which Authority lays a stress upon by a Law: the reason is, because I must chuse Suffering rather than indanger any Souls salvation in the least. Now if I re­fuse active obedience to the Magistrate, I onely run the hazard of suffering the penalty, which it may be I can bear and comfort my self under; but in case I wrong a Soul by my action, I cannot free my self from sin, and am an occasion of anothers too; either of which are, but especially both, much heavier than the greatest suffering. Lastly, if I suffer the penalty of the Law, I both fulfil the Law, and save my Brother too.

§ 2. Now these Obstacles being removed out of the way, I pro­ceed to determine the Question. That in case any power Civil or Ec­clesiastical, shall presume so far as to enact Laws in the concerns of divine Worship, so as to change Christian Indifferencies into Necessities, that a Christian is bound to refuse, active obedience thereto. And I make good this Assertion by the following Arguments.

[Page 123]1. To yield such obedience, is to serve God according to the Will of Man; but no Christian ought to serve God according to the Will of Man: Ergo. The Major is true, because it's a serving God in such a way as is devised by man, and to the obeyer is no other; for he in his conscience believes so, that it is not the Will of God. The Minor is true, because that is Will-Worship which is the product only of mans Will, Gods Will being the onely Rule of Gods Worship; and we must be sure of that Will in all matters of his Worship, or else we bring vain Oblations unto him.

2. The goodness determined by a humane Law for the sake of mans Will, ought not to be preferred before the goodness of Expe­diency determined (by a conscientious Christian) for God's sake; for such a goodness of Expediency is approved of by God, and the con­trary to it pro hic & nunc, is unlawful: therefore from this closing with such goodness, we are not to be deterred by any humane Law; for an expediently necessary action, according to the Will of God, is to be of far more force with us, than an action made absolutely necessary by the Will of man. Yea, it is to do a thing contrary to the Will of God, to do that as necessary which God hath revealed his Will concerning that we should always do in a way of Indiffe­rency and Expediency, determinable by the judgment of discretion: for to do things by way of Necessity, and to do by way of Indiffe­rency, is to act by way of Contrariety; and therefore to obey such Laws, is to act contrary to the Will of God.

3. To be brought under the power (i. e. a necessity by a Law) of any thing religiously indifferent, is unlawful, 1 Cor. 6.12. but to be brought to constant active obedience to mans Law, comman­ding a necessary performance of an indifferent action, is to be brought under the power of a thing, i. e. into bondage, i. e. under a Yoke which Christ never put us under. Now Christ would not have us to make our selves slaves where he hath made us free.

4. A Christian is to use his liberty purchased by Christ, and to stand fast in it; Ergo, to practise it constantly, notwithstanding all ensnaring and embondaging Laws of men, and is bound to use his judgment in all his actions; and where there is an Indifferency, to chuse by the Rules of Expediency, and not walk by an implicite Faith. The wise mans eyes are in his head; the fool walketh in darkness.

5. Such active obedience is a betraying the Prerogative of Christ: for if a Legislative power be Christ's Prerogative, as hath been pro­ved, then the yielding active obedience to an usurping Law, is the [Page 124]doing Homage to another Lawgiver in that kind, and giving up the power of the Lord Jesus. It's like a Subjects introducing the power of a forreign Prince, and doing all that lies in him to subvert that Law and Soveraignty to which he is naturally related; and what can be greater Treason to any State?

6. If a Christian here obey, it must be for Christ's sake, or Con­science sake, Rom. 13. It cannot be for Christ's sake, because it robs him of his Prerogative, or betrays it; neither can it be for Conscience sake, to embondage it self where Christ hath left it free: whatever tends to the captivity or slavery of Conscience, is not for the good of Conscience; for in this they are not Ministers to me for good, for the Law tends not to my good in active obedience; which if I see, and yet yield, I become a Minister of evil to my self.

7. If it be a sin in the supream Powers to command and impose their said Laws, it is a sin in a Christian to obey; at. Ergo. The consequence is manifest, because the most formal reason of an evil Law, is the evil obedience required. The Minor hath been proved, that such a Law is sin in Superiours to make: but to confirm the consequence further, to be a copartner with another in sin, is sin; but if the Magistrate com­mand, and I obey, I am copartner with him. A thing commanded can be evil but two ways; either materially, or circumstantially: if it be materially evil, there is no pretence for doing it, whatever humane power command; and if it be circumstantially, it must be in the Com­manders usurping a false power, or there is some circumstantial rela­tion pro hic & nunc, that makes it unlawful unto me or another. It may be the thing may be materially lawful, but under both these sorts of circumstances; it may be unlawful, as that I give away hereby Christ's Prerogative, I rob my self of the use of my judgment of discretion, by which every Christian is to walk, and I (it may be) offend my brother. I do not say a man may never do that part of the Indifferency that is commanded by a humane Law; a Christian hath the use of his liberty as well after as before a humane Law, and he is to walk by the Rule of Expediency still. When he finds it most for Gods glory, and his or anothers edification, he may take that part of the Indifferency which is commanded, sed non ratione praecepti humani, but from that Expedient or convenient Goodness which pro hic & nunc he finds in it. But that obedience which we here declare a­gainst, is the doing it as a duty constantly or conscientiously, sub paenâ reatus, by virtue of such a Law.

8. A Christian cannot yield the aforesaid obedience, but he must [Page 125]offer violence to his Conscience, i. e. practically to contradict the di­ctates and light thereof; for every moral action must be approved or reprobated thereby. But he must needs know that that which is not commanded, or approved by Christ (as indifferent things are, though not commanded by him) in the matters of his Worship, (no others approbation being enough to justifie my actions, and therefore to satisfie my Conscience) is but Innovation, and there­fore vain Worship, and Ergo, rejected by Christ, and sinful, Mat. 15.9. Now that which a Christian is perswaded of to be thus in his own Conscience, and yet doth, he offers manifest violence to his Conscience in doing.

9. If such Compulsions do by Rules of Expediency necessarily re­quire a man to refuse active obedience, then it's a duty at least some­times to refuse; but Ergo. The Minor is proved beyond all contro­versie, from Paul's Doctrine and practice concerning the use of Cir­cumcision, Gal. 2.5. & Coloss. 2.19, 20, 21, 22.

§ 1. THe usual grand Evasion of what hath been said, That al­though the Church cannot make Laws contrary to the Word, yet she may make Laws besides the Word, i.e. new Laws which Christ never made: and if she make such Laws which are not contrary to the Word, (i.e. directly and materially) she is to be obeyed by every conscientious Christian. For Answer, I premise these things.

1. All Laws for divine Worship are enacted by Christ, or not: if enacted, we question not the obeying of them; if not, let any one shew by virtue of what divine Authority we must obey them, for we cannot obey them without.

2. As Christ never deputed any humane Legislative Authority in his Church, so he never allowed any to rectifie and correct his Laws by adding to their penalties, and making them more severe, and giving such express and explicite Authority, which he hath left implicite and consequentially onely; and those things more necessary, which he hath [Page 126] left less: Christ blamed the Pharisees for so doing, and not allowed any Churches or Christians so to do.

3. It would be grosly impudent if the Church should pretend to a power of making Laws contrary to the Word of God, though they should be so; therefore they cannot pretend to this Law-making power in any thing but what she saith is in it self indifferent: there­fore she can pretend onely to the making a new additional Law for Christ, such as he never made, and for and in such things which he thought best in his wisdom to leave indifferent. But the Church finds a mistake in that first Constitution, and thinks best to make such things necessary; thinks that Christ left too few ceremonies and significant signes: and therefore enacts more Laws besides the Word, not contrary to what he hath enacted and established already.

§ 2. But I shall now prove that all humane Laws and Constitutions in matters of divine Worship, besides the Word, are contrary to the Word.

1. That which is not the revealed Will of God for his Worship in his Word, is contrary to the Word of God; but humane Constitutions and Laws for divine Worship, are not the revealed Will of God in his Word: Ergo. The Major is true, because the Word is the revealed Will of God; and that Rule of Worship which is not the revealed Will of God, is contrary to the revealed Will of God for his Wor­ship; for Revealed and not Revealed, are contradicentia, as justus & non justus, honestum & non honestum; and contradicentia will never be de­nied (by any good Logicians) to be contraria: therefore the revea­led Will of God in his Word, and not the revealed Will of God in his Word, are contraries, or there is no contraries in the world. The Minor carries its evidence from the very terms: for what is beside the Word, is beside the Will of God in the Word, and not to be found there; for whatever is found to be the Will of God in the Word, positively or consequentially, so obligeth as a Law of God to obedience, according to the true intent and meaning thereof.

2. Whatever be humane Laws for the Worship of God besides the Word, are at the best but the Will of man, that those things should be necessary in the Worship of God, which Christ hath willed indifferent, and revealed in his Word so to be; but for man to will those things to be necessary in the Worship of God, which Christ hath willed and revealed in his Word to be indifferent, is to will or make a Law contrary to the revealed Will of Christ in his Word, i. e. for the matter of the Law; for necessary and indifferent are adversa, and there­fore also contraria: if the opposites be necessary and not necessary, they are contradicentia, and they are contraria as before.

[Page 127]3. Whatever is not according to the Will of God in the Word, is contrary to the Will of God in his Word; but all such humane Laws besides the Word, are not according to the Word: Ergo. The Major is true, because all actions are agreeable to the Word by being according to the Word, and disagreeing by not being according to the Word; and so are contrary to the Word, and are really contradicentia: for ac­cording to, and not according to, referring to the same subject, are con­tradicentia, every action being according or not according, and so contrary or not contrary to the Word of God. Minor: I prove such Laws besides the Word are not according to the Word; the mea­ning (of besides the Word) is, that there is no ground for it in the Word, and therefore that cannot be according to the Rule laid down in the Word; for that were to be built upon, and to be justified by it: a man cannot sit upon a seat and sit besides it at the same time; the same water poured cannot fall in the Cup and besides it too: what­ever Law cannot claim a Sanction from the Word, is not according to it, therefore besides it, or against it; as Christ saith, Whoever is not for me, is against me. The Word doth either justifie or condemn all actions; and those Laws that are not justified at least by Christ's ap­probation, are condemned by the Word of God.

§ 3. 4. Whatever is contrary to the Legislative Prerogative of Christ maintained in his Word, is contrary to the Word; but such humane Laws and Constitutions besides the Word, are contrary to the Legislative Prerogative of Christ: Ergo. The Major is clear, because every truth maintained and defended by the Word, is the Word; and whatever is contrary to that truth, is contrary to the truth of the Word. And what truth is more clearly attested, and firmly ratified, than this Prerogative of Christ? The Minor is clear, because nothing can detract more than a Ʋsurpation in this kind: What can detract more from the Legislative power of King and Parliament, than for a Cor­poration or any inferiour combination of men, to assume this power to themselves?

5. To adde any thing to the revealed Will of Christ, in matters of spiritual concern, is contrary to the Word of the Old and New Testaments, Deut. 4.1, 2. Rev. 22.18. but to make such Laws, is to adde, &c. because such Laws (by our supposition) being besides the Word, we have proved to be no parts of it; and Ergo, additions to his Laws and institutions in the Word, which are perfect and entire in them­selves for Doctrine and Discipline in divine Service and Worship; and these Laws of humane enaction (whatever pretences are put upon [Page 128]them) being for the same end and use, must needs be additional.

6. To teach for Doctrines the commands of men, is contrary to the Word of Christ; but all humane Constitutions of this kind specified besides the Word, are but Commands of men taught for Doctrines. The Major is true and undeniable, from Mat. 14.9. where such Do­ctrines and Commands are charged by Christ for the intolerable sin of the Pharisees. Compare with this place that in the Old Testa­ment, quoted and applied to them by our Saviour, Isai. 29.14. Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men; or which our Saviour (the best Interpreter of Scripture) saith, In vain do they worship me; producing this from the Prophet, Their fear is taught by the Command­ments of men; not but that they observed also Moses his Commands, but because they set up their Posts with Gods, their Laws with Gods Laws: and this is that which Christ condemns. This Argument is cleared, and fully prosecuted by another very lately, (in a learned Exerc. on Mat. 15.9. and Mark 9.13.) And therefore I shall not actum agere. As to the Minor, it's evident that such Legislators teach for Doctrine their own Laws: for they press them doctrinally on the people, and charge it as their duty to walk in the practice of active obedience unto such Laws, and condemn all such as refuse such obe­dience (upon any pretence whatsoever) as disobedient to Gover­nours, and Schismaticks.

§ 1. LEst it should be replied to our preceding Discourse, That although the civil Magistrate cannot of himself be a com­petent Compiler or Establisher of Ecclesiastical Laws, Canons, or Con­stitutions, unless they be first compiled, approved, and propounded by the Church to the Magistrate, to compleat their Sanction and Law-rati­fication with the impress of his Authority; yet the Church and civil Magistrate both together, have a compleat Legislative power in Ecclesi­astical Affairs. The Church is supposed to act by its Representatives in a Convocation, Assembly of Divines, or Synod, or Council, lawfully assembled by the call of the Magistrate. The Question is, Whether after they have agreed on Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions, the [Page 129]civil Magistrate may give Sanction to them, by making them Penal Sta­tutes? The Question in brief is, Whether Ecclesiastical Laws may be­come Penal Statutes by Magistratick Sanction?

§ 2. In order to the right resolving of this Question, it's fit to en­quire first concerning the nature or subject-matter of the said Canons and Constitutions, whether the Composers and Proposers thereof do believe them to consist of such things as Christ hath left indifferent, and they would have to be necessiary? or do they consist of such things as they have by disquisition found to be necessary by virtue of the Will of Christ? for the end of such Assemblies is to confer a­bout the Will of Christ in the great and weightier matters of the Church, for the clearing up of what is dark and dubious before. Now if the mind of Christ be discovered, there needs no more San­ction; where the word of a King is, there is power. Make it but out by the clearest demonstrations, that this or that is the mind of Christ, there needs none of the Magistrates penalties to be annexed; it hath force enough of it self to reach the Conscience, which is the end of Christ's Laws, and to charge guilt upon it in case of disobedience; and that is more than all the Penal Laws of men can do. It's need­ful to enquire whether the Magistrates Sanction be by way of appro­bation onely, or by way of eminent commendation of the said Laws to his Subject; not annexing or executing any Penalty himself, but al­lowing onely some spiritual Penalty annexed by Christ or his Church, to be executed by Church-Officers? or whether he will annex or cause to be executed any external Penalty by his civil Officers, as oc­casion shall serve? The matter being thus stated, I proceed in the Negative.

§ 3. 1. We have abundantly evidenced, that in the matters of Indifferencies in Religion, no power on Earth may make any Laws, changing them into things religiously necessary. 2. Where did Christ ever joyn Magistrates and Ministers together in joynt Commission in the government of his Church? 3. If so, why may not Magistrates joyn in the judicial proceedings of the Church, and fit as due Judges in all Spiritual Courts, and excommunicate and absolve? He that hath a share in Legislation, may reserve to himself the executive part at his own pleasure. 4. If such Church-Laws are invalid without the Magistrates Sanction, then he hath a negative voice over the Church to stop any Church-proceedings in Legislation or Execution; and indeed it's happy for some people that it is so, else the Clergie (that call themselves the Church) would make mad work, were [Page 130]not the civil State wiser and more moderate, and by its power able to put a stop sometimes to their mad Carreers. 5. The Decrees of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren (being only a declaration of the mind of Christ in a difficult case) became a Law to the Churches, with­out any such Magistatick ratification, or annexation of Penalty. 6. Christ never annexed any corporal or estate-Penalties to any of his Laws that he setled his Church with at the first. 7. Christ provided so for the due government of his Churches, that nothing might be wanting for the administration of Government and Ordinances, in the worst of times, when most persecuted and opposed by those Magistrates in whose Dominions they did militate. The Church of Christ would be but in a very weak and lame condition in most Kingdoms and Ages, if the Magistrates countenance and concurrence were an Essential Com­plement of its due state of Ecclesiastick government; and that can never be accounted a right Model of Church-government, that can­not be erected without the Kings and Princes of the Earth set their hands to it: For if it were so, Christ should have few duely govern'd Churches on Earth, that sort of men being oftner found pulling down than setting up the Kingdom of Christ. Lastly, we having already proved that neither Church-Officers nor Civil have any Legislative power in the said matters, and therefore being put together, they are but as two Cyphers that make not so much as an Ʋnite: for ex nihilo nihil fit, and therefore I need not enlarge any further on this matter.

§ 1. THe great Plea that is made for the Magistrates and Chur­ches Legislative power in Spirituals, is, that there might be Decency and Order in the Church, which is most meet to be, espe­cially because Christ hath advised it (and his Advice hath the force of a Command in it) 1 Cor. 14.40. [...]. The Apostles designe in this Chapter, is to exort to love and peace, as appears from vers. 1. and 33. and that he may effect it, he reproves several things amiss in the Church of Corinth: 1. Their Prophesying in strange Tongues. 2. Their speaking so many together. 3. The im­modest [Page 131]boldness of women to presume to speak in the Church. 4. Their Pride, being puffed up with their gifts, &c. For Remedies he advi­seth in general, 1. That all things be done to edification, vers. 26.2. That all things be done with decency and order. 3. In particular, how and what things are to be done so to attain these ends. First, speaking with Tongues should be with interpretation, vers. 27, 28. Secondly, Prophesying should be one by one, with submission to the judgments of the Church, vers. 30, 31, 32, 33. 4. That the wo­men should neither use Tongues, nor prophesie, but be silent in the Church, vers. 34. Now lest this reprehension should be a discouragement to them from striving after the best Gifts, and improvement of them, he would have them to understand, that his designe was onely to rectifie Disorders, not to suppress or discourage from their Exercise of Gifts, that might be to Edification: and therefore saith, vers. 39. Covet to prophesie, or be zealous for prophesying, as the word is, (sup­posing it a very profitable Exercise in the Church) and forbid not to speak with Tongues (that being an extraordinary Gift among their Primitive Disciples, for the propagation of the Gospel) but let that be exercised also. The things in themselves are materially good, but your way of managing them is not good, there is so much confusion and unseemliness attends it: therefore do the things, but be careful that they be done with Decency and Order for the present. And now behold here is the Text that the whole Babel of ceremonious trash is built upon by the abusive Interpretations both of Papists and Prote­stants; and therefore let us examine a little, whether there be so much in it to give countenance to the endless Inventions and Supersti­tions of the sons of men in the Worship of God.

§ 2. We shall first open the words, that things may be the clearer: [...] [H. Stev. compositè, decenter, honestè] It's rendred onely de­cently in this place; it's used in two other places, where it's rendered honestly, Rom. 13.13. 1 Thess. 4.12. and [...], 1 Cor. 12.23. is aptly rendered Decor, Comeliness. [...] the adj. is read by H. St. Hone­stus, Decens, Mark 15.43. Honourable. Joseph of Arimathea (is said to be) an honourable Counsellour; and Acts 13.50. ch. 17.20. Trem. honourable: but 1 Cor. 7.35. [...], I speak for—that which is decent or comely, &c. 1 Cor. 12.24. our comely parts. So that the sence of the Text seems to be, Let all things be done with such a comeliness as is honourably beseeming the Gospel, or that seemly Reverence that becomes the Assemblies of the Saints. Tremelius's Interpreta­tion seems much adapted to the Context, cum modestiâ, in opposition [Page 132]to womens immodest boldness in presuming to speak in publick, and in opposition to that pride and confidence that abounded among them in the exercising of their Gifts. Let things be done with mo­desty: Wherefore the Decency here meant, may signifie these three things in the Worship of God: 1. A Comeliness; 2. A Reverence; 3. Modesty.

§ 3. [...], Secundum ordinem fiant; the Word is but in the signification here given onely: it's sometimes taken for an Office-Order, as an Office of Priesthood, Heb. 5.6. & 5.10. Luke 1.8. Heb. 7.11. but we have nothing to do with the Word in that sence here; the acceptation here is of such Order as is opposed to Confusion, in which sence it's used, Coloss. 2.5. [...], The Apostle would have them exercise Gifts, administer Sacraments, and do all things in the Church in the due place and season, that one Ordinance might not hinder the edification of another, and nothing might be done confusedly; they might speak all one by one, and the spirit of the Prophets subject to the Prophets. He would not have Church-Assem­blies to be tumultuous, by many preaching, reading, or praying au­dibly together, (for all may be understood here of prophesying) as it's the custom in some Churches; but there should be but one at a time speaking in the Congregation, and not that any one might start up (as the Quakers do) and speak at pleasure to interrupt one ano­ther; but the spirit of the Prophets should be subject to the Prophets. Let every one speak as he is appointed and approved of by the Church-Officers.

§ 4. Hence we may gather, that Decency is a necessary external part of God's Worship, consisting in a reverend deportment and come­ly management of the Ordinances of Christ, as becomes the Gospel. 1. It's externally opposed to the inward Worship of the heart, a great part of that which is called a form of Godliness. 2. It's an ex­ternal necessary part; there are internal Necessaries, and external: I do not say it's an essential part of God's Worship, but it's a necessary Accidental, it belonging to it in its kind, by virtue of a Law of Christ; and all things (we have shewed) commanded by him, are necessary: therefore this Decency is no Indifferency, and determinable by any humane Law. 3. Consisting in a reverend Deportment, i. e. such an one as is morally requisite, as signes to express Holiness, awful appre­hensions of God, Humility, Modesty, &c. for moral Vertue or Grace ought to be visible and manifest in our external gestures and beha­viours. Hence the behaviour here mentioned, is opposed to all irre­verent, [Page 133]immodest, unnatural, idolatrous gesture in God's Worship; all such as either denote prophaneness of our hearts, disrespect of God's Presence or Ordinances, or alienation of heart, or wandring of spirits.

§ 5. Things done according to Order, is according to best under­standing of the ordination and appointment of Jesus Christ, from that place Coloss. 2.5. [...], rejoycing in seeing your Order (to which the following words seem exegetical) and your firmness of the Faith towards Christ; if the Conjunction be Copulative, making the parts contra­distinct, its rejoycing to see your stability of Faith in your closing with Christ and your Order, i. e. in walking in all his Commandments ac­cording to the Rule that he hath given: for the whole of a Chri­stian is comprized in Faith and Order; and therefore doing things [...], is [...], 2 Cor. 10.13. ac­cording to the measure of the Rule or Canon which God hath mea­sured or distributed to us. The word is Canon; the same word is Gal. 6.16. Philip. 3.16. and in both places signifies the Rule of the Gospel by which we are 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 [Page 134]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, [Page 135]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. [Page 136]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 few words more.

§ 13. First, If it be lawful for the Church to annex new decencies and order to the decencies and order appointed by Christ, then these must be necessary or unnecessary; but it's not lawful, Ergo. 1. It's not lawful to annex unnecessary: for this were to trifle, and would infer the greatest absurdities imaginary; therefore none will insist upon that. 2. Not to annex any thing necessary: for they must then judge something necessary which Christ hath not declared so, (as something belonging to the esse or bene esse of the Church;) and this were a high affront to Christ, and impeachment of his wisdom, as not perfect and compleat in his House; as likewise it's implicitely to condemn Christ's Worship and Ordinances (as left by him) for undecent and disorderly, and so naked and unfit to come to publick view, till they be anew dressed up and trimed by the Church in her Poppet-play Robes and Attire.

§ 14. Secondly, And then she might re-establish any old absolete Jewish decencies, so she use them Evangelically, upon as good or bet­ter ground than she hath brought in Heathenish practices into use in the Church. Thirdly, Decency and Order in the Church, is no In­differency, but necessary in its kind, (as hath been shewed) because commanded and enjoyned by Christ; and Ergo, if the Church hath power to enact Laws in matters of Indifferency, it follows not that she hath power to do the like in matters of Decency and Order, be­cause they are not indifferent things, but necessary, if we understand either Moral or Evangelical decency and order.

§ 15. It is fallacious and false to assert that the Church prescribes onely decencies in the Worship of God; for they are the smallest part of her Ceremonies: for what are Holy-days, Cross in Baptism, Musick in Divine Service? And besides, most or all her Ceremonies respect other Objects, and are for other significancy and ends, than for decency; some being chiefly gratiâ divinâ, as all reverential Gestures and Postures, viz. bowing at the Name of Jesus, bowing to the Altar, [Page 137]kneeling at the Sacrament, standing up at the Gospel. These are signes of divine honour, and Latrical, and can be no otherwise understood than respecting a Divinity: and therefore there can be no pretence to call it civil Worship, because in all civil Worship man is the Object; and were the same or like actions, which for the matter are neither civil or divine, but indifferent as to both, but a peculiar Adaptation to a singular end or object, they receive their distinct denomination there­from. Some are chiefly gratiâ humanâ, in order to the due preparing and qualifying us for Spiritual Services; Surplices to make us appear more pure, & an Emblem of Purity, and mind us of it; Musick to raise the Spirits: and others more mixt in their intention, tàm gratiâ divinâ, quàm humanâ, as Saints days, wherein God is blessed for Saints, where­by God is honoured and the Saint too; the Cross in Baptism, and the Ring in Matrimony; which are Seals of obligation religiously made use of, (therefore more than significant signes) and can be no less than Sacraments. There are also divers Responses and Salutations be­twixt Ministers and People; in all which it's easie to perceive that there is some weightier matters respected than meer civil decencies and order, whatever pretences are made to the contrary.

§ 16. We have before hinted what we apprehend true canonical obedience to be, viz. that it's not a submission to a certain body of Laws made by any Church challenging a Legislative power, neither to those feigned Canons of the Apostles; but it is obedience to the Canons or Rules of Gospel-communion laid down in the Scriptures: those that are acquainted with the true Churches of Christ, know no other Canons, nor no other canonical Obedience they are obliged unto. Now those that call for canonical obedience (under that term) they tell us that it is obedience to the Laws, Rules, and Constitutions of the Church; but I could never rightly understand any reason for their plea from the Church, viz. of the authority pleaded for: for if it be a National Church that requires the said obedience, we say, 1. That that Church cannot pretend to challenge obedience, that is not capacitated to make or execute any Law; but the National is not: Ergo. The Minor appears, in that there is no such thing as a National organized Church constituted by Christ under the Gospel; for if there were, there must be National Officers and Ordinances by the same appointment: but Christ hath constituted no National Officers, i. e. whose Office-power in the Church is of such extent; nor no National Ordinances, i. e. such Ordinances that the whole Nation may partake of in one Assembly for communion. The same [Page 138]Argument will hold against Diocesan Churches. 2. How is any one Na­tional Church the Church, more than another that hath such a Ruling power, if all hath it alike? how various will Church-canons be, and how little Uniformity in canonical obedience? 3. If this obedience belongs to any Church, it seems most consonant to right reason that it should belong to the Catholick Church: for 1. That may be as organical as a National can be by virtue of any institution of Christ. 2. That's most comprehensive; therefore challengeth the preheminence of all others in respect of extent, and by way of eminency may most properly be stiled the Church. 3. This is the likeliest way to attain a Ʋniformity; for it's pleaded as the great reason why Christ gives a Legislative Compulsive power to a National Church, viz. Ʋniformitatis gratiâ. Now it's but a partial Uniformity obtained thereby, of an Independent nature; but if true Uniformity be reached, it must be that which is Catholick; which can be no otherwise than by Catholick canonical obedience.

§ 1. NExt to the consideration of decencies and order, it may be meet to enquire a little into the lawfulness of imposition 1. of Ceremonies, 2. of a form of Prayer.

Whether a Ceremony uncommanded by God, may be used in the Wor­ship of God, is not our present Undertaking to discuss; for in some cases it may be lawful, so it be such as is duely qualified, and be used as indifferent and occasionally, by the Rules of discretion: but our pre­sent Enquiry shall be,

Whether the Church is liable to the imposition of such Ceremonies as Christ hath not made necessary by any Law of his? Many Arguments before urged against the Churches Legislative power, might be here of equal force. I shall onely adde something proper upon this state of the Question, to prove that such an imposition is not in the Churches power.

§ 2. Arg. 1. Because the Church by such imposition doth subjugate herself in her Members to a yoke of bondage, which Christ hath freed her and them from. That Christians are freed from such yokes, see [Page 139] Gal. 4.31. ch. 5.1. and the Church is not to return to any bondage that she is freed from by Christ, she being not a competent Judge of her own bondage or freedom. The Church of the Jews were not so; for they are condemned by the Spirit of God for not laying aside that bondage to ceremonies which Christ would have eased them of. Hence in judgment her Ear is bored, and she is become a professed Vassal thereto, until the time of the fulness of the Gentiles; and would ac­count it her greatest felicity, might she but have opportunity to re­turn to the full enjoyment and exercise of the old obsolete Rites of the ceremonial Law. Hence nothing can be a more unquestionable truth, than that a Gospel-Church may not return her self or members to a subjection to a ceremonial Yoke: for, 1. If a Christian or Church may return to one Yoke that Christ hath redeemed them from, then as well to another; if to that of a ceremonial Law, then to that of the cove­nant of Works also. 2. Again, if they may return to bondage, then they may stay in bondage as the Jews did: for both ways Christ equally profits them nothing, as a Redeemer profits not a Slave that will remain a captive, or return into it. 3. There's nothing can be more displeasing to a Redeemer, than so to overthrow his whole designe of redemption.

§ 3. That Christ hath freed his Churches and Christians from ce­remonies as a yoke of bondage, viz. from all not instituted and ratifi­ed by himself, I thus prove. 1. If Christ hath not freed the Church of the New Testament from all ceremonies besides his own, the con­dition of the Gospel-church would be much worse than the Mosaical, whose bondage was under a Law of ceremonies of God's own pro­mulgation; and sure if a Christian must be under the plague of cere­monies, it is far better to fall into the hands of God than Man; and the Jewish Church must needs be more happy than the Christian, who lie at the mercy of mens vain Imaginations and tyrannical Will. It was known to them of the Old Testament how great their burden was, though prescribed by God, and circumscribed exactly as to the latitude, and extent, and bulk of them; so that they could not easily be imposed upon by man: and yet we see they could not escape the Traditions of the Elders, and superstitious Observations of the Pharisees. But what a miserable condition are Churches of the New Testament in, who are so liable to so heavie and intolerable a bulk of ceremo­nies, without bounds or measure, arbitrarily to be increased by men of corrupt minds and interest, calling themselves the Church: and were there a tythe of the ceremonies in the Jewish Church of what is in [Page 140]the Romish, which the Papists have accumulated upon this ground. And Christ hath given leave to the Church under the Gospel, to de­vise and impose what ceremonies she in her wisdom thinks meet? 2. Unless Christ hath freed the Gospel-church from ceremonial bon­dage, how is the Gospel-church the free Woman? Was not the bon­dage-state of the Jewish Church very much, yea most in this respect? But is not the Gospel-church in far greater servitude? for the Jews were in bondage to God's ceremonies, the Christian to mans. And if Christ allows us not to return to ceremonial bondage of God's impo­sition, sure he allows us not a return unto such of mans phanatick devising, and merciless imposition. 3. To be in bondage under ceremonies for divine Worship, is to be in bondage under the Ele­ments of the world; but the Gospel-church is delivered by Christ from bondage to the Elements of the world, Gal. 4.3.9. for [...] Elements or Principles of the world, Coloss. 2.8. they are de­scribed to be [...], according to the tradition of men; and vers. 20. they are those that Christ hath redeemed us from, and weak and beggarly, Gal. 4.9. and if the ceremonies of the Jews, once instituted by God himself, were such, how much more are the ceremonious Relicts of heathenish Idolatry, or any other that are products of mens Brains and corrupt Wills? What poor, wret­ched, and abominably beggarly things are they, for the members of Christ to be enslaved to? What pitiful Ornaments are old rotten Hangings to put up in Christ's house, that excellent Fabrick of his own building? If they, I say, (Jewish) were worldly, much more those which are originally from the world, of worldly contrivance and interest: for all such must be of God or the world; but they are not from God either immediately or mediately; not immediately, because not instituted by him; not mediately, because he never deputed any authority to institute them: Ergo, of the world. Hence the Church and Christians should be dead with Christ, to the Rudiments of the world, and not live in the world subject to such Elements, Col. 2.20. &c. 4. The ceremonies spoken of, Gal. 4. & 5. which the Gala­tians returned to, were but humane commandments, though Jewish; for they ceased now to be commanded of God, yea, were forbidden by him; and all the Sanction which now they had, was from man: And the Apostle doth convincingly prove the unlawfulness of Re­sanction of Jewish ceremonies; by doing of which, he doth suffi­ciently cast down all humanely-instituted ceremonies in divine Wor­ship: and by the Prelates practice, many Jewish ceremonies, as Mu­sick, [Page 141]Altars, Ephods, &c. are not onely lawful as things indifferent, but required as things not to be dispensed with, therefore necessary. 5. Christ hath freed his Church and Members from being servants unto men in the Worship of God; Ergo, from humane ceremonial Laws: That place 1 Cor. 7.23. must be understood of servitude unto men, in an Ecclesiastical, or at least Religious sence: for he saith, Let every man abide in the Calling wherein he is called; servants in obedience to their Masters, children to their Parents, subjects to their go­vernours, &c. For the Corinths thought that there was a necessity on their conversion to alter their Callings which they had before; as if a man were called, being a servant, to be a Christian, that thereby he became his brother, and ought not any longer to ow [...] him as Ma­ster. But the Apostle clears up this doubt, and saith, Thou being a servant, do not think thy relation to thy Master is dissolved ever the more because of thy conversion; thou art as much a servant as be­fore; and therefore he saith, being called, do not presently renounce thy relation, and refuse subjection to thy Master, upon pretence that thou art Christ's freeman, but abide in the place of a servant as be­fore; thou art nevertheless God's freeman, thy Conscience free for God's Worship, to serve him according to his revealed Will: and therefore in this kind be not a servant to men, or any sort of men; though thou mayst lawfully remain a Family-servant, yet be not a Conscience-vassal unto any men.

§ 4. Arg. 2. If it be lawful for the Church or other power to en­act and impose Laws for Ceremonies, whereby Churches and Chri­stians are liable to such Laws, then it's lawful to erect a ceremonial Law under the Gospel: for what is a Law of, or for a body of Cere­monies, but a ceremonial Law? But Christ would never pull down one ceremonial Law by his death, for man to erect another; and pull down one Jewish, and leave it lawful for man to erect one more heathenish; would he abolish one ceremonial Law of divine In­stitution, and leave it to man to establish a new one of his own devi­sing; yea, a thousand ceremonial Laws of as many sorts as there are several Churches and Ages in the world? It's a most absurd and untheological conceit, that a ceremonial Law is consistent with the state of the Gospel, wherein all Vails whatever is removed from the Lord Jesus, besides the vail of his flesh; neither is the Spirituality of his Ordinances to be clogged with such a bulkie mass of fleshly In­stitutions.

§ 5. Arg. 3. If we be not liable to an imposition and enforcement of [Page 142]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; [Page 143]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.

§ 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 as to use any indifferency) to binde himself, or suffer himself to be obliged to a prescribed Form of Prayer? which Enquiry falls into two parts. 1. Whether a Chri­stian may come under an obligation, by vow or resolution, to use a Set-form of Prayer, as before explained? 2. Whether he may suffer himself to come under any such obligation by virtue of a Law made by any preten­ding Authority thereunto?

§ 2. As to the first, we shall assert and confirm the Negative, That it's not lawful for a Christian to put himself under any such obliga­tion by his own Vow or Covenant, or I may adde, by his customary and constant abiding therein; which doth in effect amount to a Covenant-tye. If such a Tye were lawful, it's either as a thing ne­cessary, or indifferent; for all lawful things are so. 1. It's not law­ful as a thing necessary (will be easily granted) because none will say, that are Protestants, that a Christian is necessarily bound to a Form of Prayer by the positive command of Christ; if they do, let it be shewn where Christ doth require any so to oblige himself, or condemn any for not doing it; or let him alleadge any Scriptural Example where any hath done it, especially in the New Testament. I suppose we need not stay on that part. The second part of the Disjunction, that it's not lawful for him, as an indifferency, to binde up himself to such a Form, I prove thus: All Christian indifferent actions of concern in the Worship of Christ, ought to be determined by the judgment of discretion, according to the Gospel-rules of Expe­diency, pro hic & nunc; but to lay ones self under such an Obligation, [Page 145]would hinder him from walking by such Rules, and by such a Judg­ment; Ergo, to use it as an Indifferency, and to come under such an Obligation, are most inconsistent; but if it be said that it's expedient for him to come under such an Obligation, the ratio formalis must be because he cannot compose another Prayer, or pray by present con­ception: But that is not a justifiable reason; for though he cannot at present, he may afterwards be able so to do. It's just as if a man be­ing lame and useth crutches, makes a vow never to go without them, though he shall be never so well. Or it may be another Form may be offered more suitable to his condition (we meeting with dayly al­terations on that account;) it's not fit therefore that we should be bound up always to the same Expressions, Petitions, Confessions, and Thanksgivings; our Necessities, Temptations, Sins, and Mercies received, dayly changing. Besides, though a man have not at present the gift of Prayer, or assistance of the Spirit thereunto, yet he ought to seek and wait for it; and therefore ought not to binde himself up to such a Form, though he may use it for present necessity.

§ 3. Arg. 1. It's not an indifferent thing for any man to stint him­self in Religion where God hath not stinted him: Where Christ hath allotted to us a Freedom, the contrary to it is Bondage; and no Chri­stian ought to put himself into bondage where Christ hath made him free. Whereas stinted Forms bound to, brings a man into Bondage to Words, or these and those Petitions, Confessions, &c. which though it may be suitable for one state and season, may not be at another, neither so much to Christ's glory, and his own edification: for Christ hath foreseen a necessity of freedom in this kind, as to the use of words and sentences in Prayer, i. e. to be regulated by Gospel-rules of Expe­diency, as all Christian liberty is. 1. Because of the various Cases, Occurrences, and Exigences that a Christian is liable to, that it's im­possible any one can suit fore-prescribed Forms unto them; and we are enjoyned in all things to make our Requests known unto God. 2. Be­cause of the divers helps and assistances of the Spirit in expression of our wants, Rom. 8.26. even sometimes in Sighs and Groans, unutte­rable in words, and unreducible into any Forms; yea, often not knowable before we come to ask, because discovered to us by the Spirit, searching our hearts while we are waiting upon God in the duty. 3. Because of the divers frame of a Christians own spirit that he is subject unto, sometimes of deadness and despondency, sometimes of enlargement (that for the most times those are strangers to, who keep up in the road of words) that the same words and sentences [Page 146]cannot in Faith be uttered, without the sameness of heart-frame, which cannot always be; which they abundantly know, who have their senses exercised by reason of use. There are the frequent ebbings and flowings of particular Graces in a Christian's heart, as of Faith, Repentance, Joy, Patience, &c. according to which he is always to pro­portion his expressions in Prayer as neer as may be, in order to his own comfort, and power against prevailing corruptions. Besides, I might instance in the various assaults Satan makes upon us, his manifold wiles, as also the divers workings of our hearts towards or against corruption; as lastly, the various and unexpected Mercies that we be daily partakers of. Examples we have many in Scripture of suiting Prayers in this manner, if we consider how it was with the Saints of old, as David, Heman, Hezekiah, &c. 4. Because Christ hath onely given us general Rules in the Gospel for particular Prayers, and hath not bound or limited us to any particular Form.

§ 4. Obj. But Christ hath prescribed us a Form of Prayer, viz. that commonly called the Lord's Prayer; for he saith, Luke 11.2. When you pray, say, &c. Answ. It's most absurd to think that Christ bound his Disciples to those words and sentences, and bound us up from all others; and one Scripture must explain another, Mat. 6.9. it's after this manner, i.e. for sence and meaning. 2. If Luke 11.2. were to be understood strictly, then we must neither adde to or diminish from, nor alter the Form. Hence it were unlawful to use the Doxo­logie mentioned Mat. 6. 3. If it were so, Christ's Disciples (this Prayer being primarily directed to them upon their request) should never have used any other Prayer; but we finde not that they ever used the very Prayer in identity of words and sentences. 4. In an­swer to their request, it was most probable to be a Rule for Matter and Method; for they desired our Saviour to teach them to pray as John taught his Disciples. Now we finde not any prescribed Form left by John to his, neither I suppose did our Saviour in this leave a­ny more than a Pattern or a standing Rule of Prayer to his people un­der the Gospel. 5. He never used it himself, because he had no sin, need not say, Forgive me my sins. 6. All expressions are in the plural number, shewing that we have onely the most general Rules; secret Prayer, is to be referred to it, and particular cases, but not here men­tioned in words and syllables. 7. If Christ had bound us to this Form, then we were to use no other; neither might the Church pre­scribe any other; neither might particular Christians use their gifts in Prayer, nor various Forms of their own or others prescription: which would be too grosly absurd for any to assert.

§ 5. But fifthly, to infer that Christ (by prescribing this Form as imitable by us, or by propounding and commending this to us as a Rule or Form) did thereby tye us up to other Forms, or gave pow­er to the Church to binde us to Forms, or that we might binde our selves to other Forms, is as great an inconsequence as any in the world; for we have shewed there's more reason to judge that he left it as a Rule than Form: If he left it as a Form, it's no ground for o­ther men to make Forms, but rather a ground to the contrary, it be­ing his Prerogative as our Lord and Master. And besides, if he hath given us a Form, and we are thereby bound to words and sentences, we ought not to take up other Forms, and multiply thousands of mens prescriptions; for the sence of Christ must needs be one of these two, when you pray, say, i. e. use this as the onely Form of Prayer, and stick to it for words and sentences, and never trouble your selves a­bout any other: for if it be taken in the other sence, it's universal. Take this as a standing general rule of Prayer, to which all sorts of Petitions, Deprecations, Confessions, Thanksgivings, are referrable. If he had authorized any to compose other teaching Forms, he would have said, You, Apostles and your Successors, thou Catholick Church, or National Church, or particular Congregation; do you compose a Form of divine Service, and I will set my hand to it.

§ 6. The second part of the Question is, Whether a Christian may suf­fer himself to be bound to a Form of Prayer by humane Authority preten­ding thereunto? The Answer to this Enquiry will be double: 1. That whatever Authority, Ecclesiastical or Civil, doth pretend to such an imposing power, a Christian is not to subject himself by active submis­sion. 2. That no powers beneath Christ, can pretend justly to such Authority. The reasons of the first hath been largely enough insisted on before; therefore I shall here but touch upon them. 1. Because Christ hath not left it indifferent to a Christian to be bound in matters of his Worship, where he hath left him at liberty; for thereby the use of discretion, in conveniencies, is lost. 2. All those reasons why he may not binde himself to a Form of Prayer, do formally prove that he is not to permit himself to be imposed upon in this kind by ano­ther. 3. None but Christ may prescribe Set-forms of his own Wor­ship; and we are not allowed obedientially to submit to any Legislative power in this kind, as hath been shewed. 4. If a Christian suffer himself in this to be imposed upon, he parts with one of the most emi­nent priviledges that he is capable of, viz. that of speaking his minde to God in Prayer, and not to be bound to the Dictates and Suggestions of [Page 148]another. Who can know our own case in respect of Sins, Wants, Temptations, Mercies, &c. better than our selves? What is more unrea­sonable, than that a Childe (though he cannot speak plainly) should not be suffered to speak his mind to his Parents, as well as he can, but must be always prescribed to it in the Servants or elder Brothers words and expressions? To deal thus with God's Children, is to go about to abandon the Spirit of Adoption, which God's Children are led by, Rom. 8.2.14, 15. which Spirit they have for this end, that they cry Abba Father, that they may speak the language of the Spirit in Prayer (though their utterance be in broken and abrupt Sentences, even in sighs and groans) which God knows the meaning of. Wherefore to put our selves under humane set Forms, is to put ourselves into the greatest spiritual Bondage of this nature.

§. 7. Secondly, No Power Ecclesiastical or Civil can pretend justly to Au­thority from Christ, to impose on Minister or Christian a set Form of Prayer.

Argum. 1. If any can pretend to such Authority, it must be to impose a set Form of Christs composing, or of humane composition: But they cannot pretend justly to impose any Prayer of Christs composing, because Christ hath neither required nor allowed the imposing the use of that which is called the Lord's Prayer by penal Laws. What corporal or pecuniary Mulcts are to be inflicted on a man that doth not use the very words of that Prayer, by virtue of any Law of Christ? Is he to be Whipped, or Fined for it by the Magistrate, or Excom­municated by the Church? Again, they cannot pretend to impose a Form of humane composition; for if there be no ground to impose a Form of Prayer of Christ's composition, by a penal Law, much less to impose one of Mans: And for any to undertake, either Church or State, to prescribe the worship of Christ, and to enforce it by punishments, where Christ never deputed or allowed such Autho­rity, is the greatest presumption and insolency in the world.

§. 8. Argum. 2. He or they that impose a Form of Prayer, must do it, because it is necessarily or indifferently requisite so to do, accor­ding to the revealed Will of Christ: But none can impose a Form of Prayer for any of these reasons. Ergo. 1. None can, because a Form of Prayer is necessarity requisite, 1. Because Christ hath no where required the Church or Magistrate to impose. 2. If a Set­form of Prayer were absolutely necessary, it could not be to any person or season dispensed with. 3. If the necessity be pleaded for publick Prayers, that there should be a set Form, there is as little ne­cessity of that, can be proved from the Word of God, as of private [Page 149]Set-Forms. 4. If there be need of a Form for help in some cases, in respect of present weakness of Ministers or Christians, it's no reason therefore it should be imposed as necessary to all it's pleaded for up­on the account of Uniformity; but if some of his Majesties Sub­jects wear Spectacles, because of the weakness of their Eyes, must all do so too for Uniformity sake, though their Eyes be never so good? We are to strive after perfection and conformity to Christ therein, but are not to endeavour to conform to the weaknesses and imper­fections of his Members, and take our measures thereby; though we are to bear with and condescend to them as much as may be with­out sin.

§ 9. Secondly, A Form of Prayer cannot be imposed as indiffe­rently requisite to the worship of Christ; because 1. If any thing be indifferently ( i. e. conveniently) requisite to the worship of Christ, it is because Christ hath willed it indifferently requisite: for all matters of his Worship take their first reason from his Will. 2. There is no reason from the indifferency of any thing, to impose it as necessary: But in Spiritual concerns the indifferency of any thing is a reason against the imposition of it as necessary; because such an imposition takes away the Formal use as an indifferency, 3. What Christ hath revealed as indifferently requisite, he hath required a Chri­stian to use indifferently by the judgment of discretion; for every action concerning Christ's worship, is to be performed as Christ hath prescribed the nature of it; necessary things to be done necessarily by us, (but not to be imposed on us) and indifferent things indifferently. Therefore an Imposition to enforce the use of indifferent things neces­sarily, and necessary indifferently, is unlawful, as contrary to the Will of Christ. 4. We have before proved, that neither Church nor State can change an Evangelical Indifferency in the Worship of Christ into a Necessity.

§ 10. Arg. 3. To exercise Dominion over Mens Faith, is unlawful: but for Church or Magistrate to impose a set Form of Prayer, is to exercise Dominion over Mens Faith, Ergo. The Major is without questi­on; and to exercise such a Dominion, is to prescribe what we shall believe and practice, or to enforce us to practice in Sacred things without believing. The Minor is true, because there can be no greater exer­cise of Dominion over Faith, than in imposing on us a Form of Pray­er; for every Prayer is to be prayed in Faith, or else it is sin. Now to impose a Form on me, (being to enforce me to that Prayer that I be not satisfied in) is to impose on my Faith, i.e. to prescribe what [Page 150]I should believe for practice in Prayer; or to enforce me to practice that which I do not believe; i. e. to pray that Prayer, and that con­stantly, in such a part of Worship which I cannot do believingly.

§ 11. Arg. 4. If one Church may enforce a Form of Prayer by a Penal Law, then another may; i. e. if a National Church may enforce a Form of Prayer on all her Subordinate Churches and Members, then the Ʋniversal visible Church may on the National which are her Mem­bers; and if the National can punish the Diocesan, or Parochial, for Non-conformity in this kind, why may not the Catholick punish the National for the same fault? i. e. for using a Form of Prayer not sufficiently allowed or prescribed by the Catholick: and if the Natio­nal can interdict an inferiour Church, or Excommunicate a particular per­son, for refusal of such Obedience, why may not the Catholick deal with the National in the same kind? This must needs be conceded, but that it will be said, we do not know Where to find the Catholick Church; and though the Church of Rome calls herself so, yet she is not to be believed; she bears witness of herself, and that witness is not true. I only reply, We can as easily, and more, find the Catholick Church, as a National; for there hath been always a Catholick Church, but there never hath been, nor will be, a National Gospel organized Church in the world. And we may as well believe a pretending Church calling herself Catholick, as a pretending Church calling her­self National; when as they are equally to be accounted as no Churches of Christs Ordination, as I can easily manifest when time shall serve. Well then, the National Church lyes liable to the censure of the Church Catholick, for using a distinct set Form of publick Prayers established by her self, whereby she renders herself a gross Non-Con­formist to the Catholick Church, and an Independent in respect of all other National, her Form of Prayer being not Uniform with theirs. If it be said the Church may compose and impose a Form of Prayer, we must know what Church that is, and not be deluded with a Name. Is it the Catholick Church? if so, why have we not a Catholick set Form of publick Prayers, and all National Churches bound to the use of it? And why, on the contrary, doth every National Church make and use Forms of their own? And if it be said, The National is the Church, it's false; for it's not the Church by way of Eminency, it's not the most Generical Church, because it's not the only Church, there are many National, and there are many other sort of Churches, that will put in for as good a right as the National: and if every Natio­nal under the Name of the Church may do this, and have a distinct [Page 151]Form of Prayer, what will become of Catholick Ʋniformity? And if the Church as Provincial or Diocesan, what will become of Natio­nal Ʋniformity? And if this power be granted to any, or all these sub­ordinate Churches, Actum erit de Ʋniformitate Catholicâ.

§ 12. But the great plea for a Form of Prayer in the Church, is Ʋniformity, for this cannot be (say some Men) without it. Answ. U­niformity in the Church cannot be by particular National Forms, it must be by a Form Catholick. 2. Can there be no Ʋniformity in the Church without a sameness in Words and Sentences in prayer, there scarcely being two Scripture-Prayers that are altogether the same in Words and Sentences? Doth not Uniformity consist rather in agree­ment in Principles, and the Analogie of Faith, submission to, and closing with the same King, Priest and Prophet, conforming to, and walking by the same rule of the Gospel, an influence and guidance by the same Spirit? 3. If Uniformity of the Church lyeth in such Externals, why is not a set Form of Preaching established, that none shall use any other besides such Homilies? 4. If a set Form of some Prayers be necessary to Ʋ ­niformity, why not of all, as well of private as publick? for if the Church be not close tyed in bond of Ʋniformity, by uniting Families and Individuals, it will break to pieces for all a publick Form. The first and main Union in the Church, is that which knits every pur­ticular Member to the whole by joynts and bonds; and that there may be true Uniformity, this must be carefully maintained, but it's [...] which the great contenders for a pretended Uniformity least [...] themselves about.

§ 13. Another great plea for publick Forms of Prayer, is, the [...] ness, ignorance, and laziness of many Ministers. Rep. The [...] holds for set Forms of publick Sermons, the necessity of which for a time was well considered, at our first coming out of Anti [...] ­an darkness; and any one that could read but a Chapter, Prayer, and Homily in the Mother-Tongue, did a great deal of service to God and the people. But there is not the same reason now the Church is better provided with able Labourers; or at least might be, if she would. 2. It is the ready way to fill the Church with this sort of Cattle, those lazy, ignorant, scandalous Priests, for Mother-Church not only to connive at them, but to countenance them, and maintain them in their pride and sloth, and by making their Exercis [...]s for them, whilst they be idle, debauched, and prophane, minding nothing but the profits, pleasures, and Honours of this Life. 2. The only way (Igna­vum fucos pecus a praecipibus arcent) is to banish these droans from the [Page 152]Church, and not to turn all the Church unto droans; and nothing starves them sooner, than to leave them to their own stock for Pray­ing and Preaching; and it's best that their Ignorance be bewrayed, that they may be ashamed, and get better instruction and exercise in Spiritual things, which are to be guides to other Mens Souls; or if they be not ashamed, the people may have a full knowledge of them, and be wiser than to entrust their Souls in their hands. Therefore it's good that the Props be taken away, and it will soon appear whe­ther such pretended Church-pillars be sound or rotten.

§ 14. What is alleadged about Ministers abuse of parts in publick Prayers, or want of sufficiency, is no forcing Argument for imposing a Form; for the abuse of good things, is no argument against the use; we may as well say, Because some will be Drunk, therefore none must drink Wine or Beer. 2. Insufficient Ministers are to be removed, or further instructed, if they be capable and willing, as Apollo was. 3. Are not Church-Prayers lyable also to abuse, when used by sot­tish Priests, in a formal, customary, slovingly, and prophane [...] and a hundred times more wrong done thereby to the honour of Re­ligion, and the poor Souls of the people, than by some weak ex­pressions and sentences or words struck out of joynt, by the laborious, faithful, and zealous Ministers, that conscientiously endeavour to use and improve the Talents given them, to the service of Christ, the conversion and edification of the Souls of the people.