The Nonconformists Plea for Peace Part 2, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The Conformity of our Doctrine of obedience to the Conſtitution of this Kingdom, the Doctrine and Canons of the Church, and the judgement of the moſt Learned and Loyal Prelates.
§. 1. IF I own that political doctrine which is juſtified by theſe three: I. The conſtitution of this Monarchy, II. The Articles of Religion and Canons of the Church, III. And the judgment of thoſe Prelates who have been accounted the moſt Loyal and Learned of their order, and the moſt hot and ſtrong defenders of it, I ſuppoſe ſuch doctrine will be vindicated from the charge of Nonconformity.
§. 2. But I find that the firſt is a point not agreed on by all, viz. what the conſtitution of the Kingdom is; while Parliaments have claimed that as their Power and priviledge which the King hath denyed to be theirs; and the King hath claimed that as his power and prerogative which Parliaments have denyed to be ſuch. Therefore I (that am very unfit to judge between them) muſt take up with that which is on both hands agreed on. And that I will take only as in the Kings own words, in his anſwers to the Parliament 1641 in ſeveral of his Declarations.
§. 3. In his Majeſties anſwer to the 19. Propoſitions he thus deſcribeth the Conſtitution.
There being three kinds of Government amongſt men, Abſolute Monarchy, Ariſtocracy and Democracy, and all theſe having their particular conveniencies, and inconveniencies; the experience and wiſdom of your anceſtors hath ſo molded this out of a Mixture of theſe, as to give to this Kingdom (as far as humane prudence can provide) the conveniencies of all three without the inconveniencies of any one, as long as the ballance hangs even between the three Eſtates, and they run joyntly on in their proper Channel (begetting Verdure and fertility in the meadows on both ſides) and the over…lowing of either on either ſide raiſe no deluge or inundation. The ill of Abſolute Monarchy is Tyranny: The ill of Ariſtocracy is faction and diviſion: The ills of Democracy are tumults, violence and licentiouſneſs. The good of Monarchy is the Uniting of a Nation under one head to reſiſt invaſion from abroad, and inſurrection at home: The good of Ariſtocracy is the conjunction of Council of the ableſt perſons of a State for the publick benefit. The good of Democracy is Liberty, and the Courage and Induſtry which Liberty begets.
In this Kingdom the Laws are joyntly made by a King, by a houſe of Peers, and by a houſe of Commons choſen by the people, all having free Votes and particular priviledges: The Government according to theſe Laws is truſted to the King; power of Treaties of war and peace; of making Peers, of chooſing Officers and Counſellors for State, Judges for Law, Commanders for Forts and Caſtles, giving Commiſſions for raiſing men to make war abroad, or to prevent or provide againſt invaſions or inſurrections at home, benefit of confiſcations, power of pardoning, and ſome more of the like kind, are placed in the King: And this kind of regulated Monarchy, having this power to preſerve that authority, without which it would be diſabled to preſerve the Laws in their force, and the Subjects in their Liberties and proprieties, is intended to draw to him ſuch a reſpect and relation from the great ones, as may hinder the ills of diviſion and faction, and ſuch a fear and reverence from the people as may hinder tumults, violence and licentiouſneſs.
Again, that the Prince may not make uſe of this high and perpetual Power to the hurt of thoſe for WHOSE GOOD HE HATH IT, and make uſe of the name of Publick neceſſity for the gain of his Private favorites and followers to the detriment of his people, the houſe of Commons (an excellent conſerver of Liberty, but never intended for any ſhare in Government, or the chooſing of them that ſhould govern) is ſolely intruſted with the firſt Propoſitions concerning the Levies of moneys (which is the ſinews as well of peace as war) and the impeaching of thoſe who for their own ends though countenanced by any SURREPTITIOUSLY GOTTEN COMMAND of the KING, have violated the Law which HE IS BOUND (when he knows it) to protect, and to the protection of which they were bound to adviſe him; at leaſt not to ſerve him in the contrary.
And the Lords being truſted with a Judicatory power are an excellent Skreen and bank between the Prince and people, to aſſiſt each againſt any incroachments of the other, and by juſt judgments to preſerve that Law, which ought to be the Rule of every one of the three.
For the better enabling them in this, beyond the examples of any of our anceſtors, we were willingly contented to oblige our ſelf, both to call a Parliament every three years, and not to diſſolve it in fifty daies.]
We told you in our firſt Declaration printed by the advice of our Privy Council, that for differences among our ſelves for matters indifferent in their own nature concerning religion, we ſhould in tenderneſs to any number of our loving Subjects, very willingly comply with the advice of our Parliament, that ſome Law might be made for the exemption of tender Conſciences from puniſhment or proſecution for ſuch ceremonies, and in ſuch caſes which by the judgment of moſt men are held to be matters indifferent, and of ſome to be abſolutely unlawfull. Provided that this caſe ſhall be attempted and purſued with that modeſty, temper and ſubmiſſion, that in the mean time, the peace and quiet of the Kingdom be not diſturbed, the decency and comelineſs of Gods ſervice diſcountenanced, nor the pious, ſober, devout actions of thoſe reverend perſons who were the firſt Labourers in the bleſſed reformation of that time, be ſcandalized and defamed]. And becauſe his Majeſty obſerveth great and different troubles to ariſe in the hearts of his people concerning the Government and Liturgy of the Church, His Majeſty is willing to declare that he will refer the whole conſideration to the wiſdom of his Parliament.] See the reſt in the Declaration.
§. 4. In his Declaration of Jun. 3. 1642. [For the Law, it being the Common inheritance of our people, we ſhall never enforce any prerogative of ours beyond it; but ſubmit our ſelves to it; and give you and all our Subjects the fulleſt latitude of it, both for the liberty of your perſons, and the propriety of your eſtates. And for an inviolable confidence and aſſurance hereof, as we take God the ſearcher of all hearts to witneſs our real intention herein, ſo we ſhall no longer, deſire you to ſtand for the defence of our perſon, honour, and juſt prerogatives, than we ſ…all maintain the Laws of the land, the liberty of your perſons, and the propriety of your goods.
§. 5. In his Declaration of Jun. 13. 1642. to the Lords [We do declare that we will not require nor expect any obedience from you, but what ſhall be warranted by the known Laws of the land: as we do expect that you ſhall not yield to any commands, NOT LEGALLY GROUNDED, or impoſed by any other. We will defend the true Proteſtant Religion eſtabliſhed by the Law of the Land; the lawful liberties of the Subjects of England, and juſt priviledges of all the three Eſtates of Parliament; and ſhall require no further obedience from you than as accordingly we ſhall perform the ſame.
§. 6. Aug. 12. 1642. Declaration [The High Commiſſion Court had proceeded with too much ſtrictneſs in many caſes; where the tender Conſciences of many of our weak Subjects were concerned; and had ſo far outgrown the power of the Law, that it would not be limited and guided by it, but cenſured, fined and impriſoned our people, for matters not puniſhable by the Law.
§. 7. In this great and full Declaration Aug. 12. 1642. [What our opinion and reſolution is concerning Parliaments, we have fully expreſſed in our Declarations: We have ſaid and will ſtill ſay, They are ſo ESSENTIAL A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION of this Kingdom, that we can attain to no happineſs without them, nor will we ever make the leaſt attempt (in our own thought) againſt them. We well know that OUR SELF and our two Houſes make up the Parliament, and that we are like Hippocrates Twins, we muſt laugh and cry, live and die together; That no man can be a friend to one and an enemy to the other].
§. 8. The Kings Proteſtation Sept. 19. 1642. between Stafford and Wellington. [I do promiſe in the preſence of Almighty God, and as I hope for his bleſſing and protection, that I will to the utmoſt of my power defend and maintain the true Reformed Proteſtant Religion eſtabliſhed in the Church of England, and by the grace of God in the ſame will live and die.
I deſire to Govern by the known Laws of the land, and that the Liberty and Property of the Subject may be by them preſerved, with the ſame care as my own juſt rights: And if it pleaſe God by his bleſſing upon this Army raiſed for my neceſſary defence, to preſerve me from this rebellion, I do ſolemnly and faithfully promiſe in the ſight of God to maintain the juſt priviledges and freedom of Parliament, and to govern by the known Laws of the land to my utmoſt power; and particularly to obſerve inviolably the Laws conſented to by me this Parliament.]
§. 9. How far our preſent King hath declared himſelf for the ſame principles, it is needleſs to recite, while his frequent Profeſſions of them, and his Declarations for juſt Liberty of Conſcience, and his Gracious Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, and his profeſſed reſolution to draw the Biſhops to meet us and make neceſſary abatements for concord, &c. are in our remembrance or before our eyes.
And we diſclaim their cenſures, who ſay All this was done but for a time to draw us into what hath followed: And when others ſay, It was by a—Parliament that it was fruſtrated, and that all was long of the Biſhops and Clergy whoſe Reverence prevailed with them to do all againſt us which they did, though we cannot confute them, we leave all to the approaching judgment of the all-knowing God.
§. 10. II. The Article of Religion for the power of Kings and obedience of Subjects we need not tranſcribe, but do conſent to it: ſo do we to the Canons which require the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacie, and anſwerable obedience, and to all the Homilies againſt Rebellion and for obedience, and all that ever we found to be for this the publick doctrine of the Church.
§. 11. III. The judgment of Biſhop Jewel, Biſhop Bilſon, Mr. Richard Hooker I have elſewhere cited, and confuted ſome of Mr. Hookers miſtakes, who putteth the peoples power to give Authority, inſtead of their power to chooſe the family or perſon that ſhall receive it immediately from the Law of God.
The words of Barclay and Grotius the two moſt eminent defenders of Monarchy (as I ſaid before) I will not recite in their words (how far and when Kings may be reſiſted, ſpecially by thoſe that have part in the Legiſlative power which is part in the ſupremacy) leſt I be miſtaken as approving all that they ſay: It may be ſeen at large in Grot. de Jure Belli & Pacis li. 1. c. 4. pag. 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91. And de Imperio ſum. Poteſt. cap. 1. pag. 7, 8. much leſs will I cite the common writers of Politicks, who are more for popular power a great deal than I am (of which after).
§. 12. At this time I will take up with the words of Biſhop Jer. Taylor, in his notable Ductor Dubitantium about both Civil and Church Power, becauſe he is a very ingenious writer, and of great authority even with thoſe of the Clergy who follow Archbiſhop Laud, whom Abbots followers accuſed.
§. 13. Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 130. Rul. 1. That in every Commonwealth there is a ſupream power, is without all queſtion—It matters not whether this ſupream power be ſubjected in one or many, that's as to the Goodneſs or badneſs—not the abſoluteneſs of it.—He that hath the ſupream power is only under God—ſuppoſe a King that hath Power of the Militi, and his Senate of making Laws, and his people by their Committees of raiſing money, This power of making war, and Laws and Levies is the ſupream Power, and is that which can do all things: And though one be accountable for monies, and the other ſubject to Laws, and two of them under the power of the Sword, yet this is but the Majeſty or ſupremacy parted, and whether well or ill I diſpute not, but when it is parted and when it is united, it is all.—
P. 133. But then it muſt be conſidered that the abſolute power of the Prince, is but an abſolute power of Government, not of Poſſeſſion. It is a power of doing right; but not a power of doing wrong; And at the worſt, it is but the power of doing private violences for the ſecurity of the publick. He is Princeps Regni, but not Dominus; a Prince, not a Lord; and the diſtinction is very material. For to be Lord ſignifieth more than the ſupream power of Government; It means an Abſolute power to diſpoſe of all lives and all poſſeſſions; which is beyond the power of the King or Prince: He that is a King, rules over a free people, but a Lord rules over Slaves, Tacitus, according to the popular humour of the Romans, ſuppoſed the power of a King to be too great a Violation of Liberty: but Domination was intolerable —The ſupream power of Government is at no hand a ſupream power or an arbitrary diſpoſer of life and fortunes; but according to Law, or according to extream neceſſity which is the greateſt Law of all. In the ſenſe of Honour and moderate power the King is a Lord: but not in this ſenſe of law: By a Lord is meant He that hath power to diſpoſe of the goods of the Vaſſals, but that a King or Prince hath not. This is not the ſupream power of Government: A King is not the Lord of his Kingdom; of the Territories of his Subjects.—
P. 134. The ſupreme Power muſt defend every mans right, but muſt uſurp no mans—A King is to Govern all things; but to poſſeſs nothing but what is his own. Only of the neceſſity, if the queſtion be Who ſhall be judge; it is certain that it ought to be ſo notorious that every man might judge—if ever there be a diſpute who ſhall be judge of the neceſſity, it is certain the neceſſity is not extreme.—p. 137. The plenitude of power of all things ought the leaſt to be feared, becauſe it never is to be uſed but for the greateſt good—p. 142. All that he hath been pleaſed to promiſe, the forms and Laws of Government, and to whatſoever himſelf hath conſented, by all thoſe Laws he is bound—when he hath bound himſelf, there is the ſame neceſſity upon him as on his Subjects.—
P. 144. The cuſtome of ſupreme Princes ſwearing to govern by Laws was very ancient—And indeed abſtracting from the Oath and promiſe, Kings are bound by natural juſtice and equity to do ſo: For they are not Kings unleſs they govern; and they cannot expect obedience unleſs they tell the meſaures by which they will be obeyed; and theſe meaſures cannot be any thing but Laws;—Now this is the natural way of all good government. There is no other: And to govern otherwiſe is as unnatural as to give children meat at their ears, and hold looking-glaſſes at their elbows that they may ſee their faces. If Kings be not bound to govern their people by their Laws, why are they made? by what elſe can they be governed? By the will of the Prince?—The Laws are ſo: Only he hath declared his will and made it regular and certain, and ſuch as wiſe men can walk by, that the Prince may not Govern as fools Govern.]
Of Church Government and Ceremonies and Subſcriptions, the ſame Author, ibid.
§. 14. Lib. 3. c. 4. p. 217. [The uſe of the Keys differeth from proper juriſdiction in this great thing, that if the Keys be rightly uſed, they do bind or looſe reſpectively; but if they err they do nothing on the ſubject; they neither bind nor looſe. In proper juriſdiction it is otherwiſe: for right or wrong if a man be condemned he ſhall die for it; and if he be hanged he is hanged: But the Church gives nothing but the ſentence of God, and tells upon what terms God will or will not pardon. If the Prieſt miniſter rightly, and judge according to the will and Laws of God, the ſubject ſhall find that ſentence made good in heaven by the real events of the other world:—But if the prieſt be deceived, he is deceived for himſelf and no body elſe—He alters nothing of the ſtate of the Soul by his quick abſolution or unreaſonable binding. The power of remitting ſins given to the Church is nothing but an authority to miniſter that pardon which God gives by Jeſus Chriſt—Eccleſiaſtical authority is a power of Juriſdiction, juſt as Excommunication is a Sword. But ſo is the word of God ſharper than a two-edged ſword, and ſo is a ſevere reproof— But how little there is of proper juriſdiction in excommunication we can demonſtrate but by too good an argument (citing many inſtances of its uneffectualneſs) —Only the obſtinate and incorrigible are to be proceeded againſt by that extreme remedy: And to them who need that extreme it is no remedy: for they that need it care not for it, and what compulſion then can this be?—It muſt work only by opinion, and can affright them only who are taught to be afraid of it. It can only do effort on them who are willing to be good in the way of the Church; for it is a ſpiritual puniſhment, and operates only on the ſpirit, that is, on the will and underſtanding which can have no coercion—] That which Eccleſiaſticks can do, is a ſuſpenſion of their own act; not any power over the actions of other men: and therefore is but an uſe of their own liberty, not an exerciſe of juriſdiction. He doth the ſame thing in Sacraments which he doth in preaching: In both he declares the guilty perſon to be out of the way to heaven, to be obnoxious to the Divine anger, to be a debtor of repentance; and refuſing to baptize an ill Catechumen, or to Communicate an ill living Chriſtian, does but ſay the ſame thing. He ſpeaks in one by ſigns, and in the other he ſignifies by words.— The other effects are the caution and duty of the Church to abſtain from the ſociety of the Criminal.
§. 15. Rule 2. p. 220. &c. The Church hath power to make Laws &c. By the Church I muſt firſt mean the Church Catholick, or all the Governours of the Chriſtian aſſemblies in the world—But becauſe all did never meet ſince the Apoſtles days, who being few and united and abſolute and ſupreme could then do what never could be done ſince, it is neceſſary that the Legiſlation be ſubjected in ſome more particular ſubject, and therefore I ſhall inſtance in the leaſt. By the Church I mean every particular Church joyned to the Head of Union; and by the particular Church I mean the Angel of that Church the Bp.—A Dioceſs is the leaſt circuit of Government, but it is an intire body ſubject to diſtinct commands— whether the Dioceſs be little or great, allowed or diſallowed, in City or Countrey, divided into Pariſhes or not divided, under Metropolitans or not under, of many Churches or but of one, it matters not: where there is a Biſhop and a Congregation, there is a Dioceſs —As for Pariſhes in the late ſenſe of the word, that is, the charge of a ſingle Presbyter, it is no body politick of Apoſtolical or Divine appointment. For the Presbyters were called in part in ſolicitudinis into the help of the Miniſtry, but they had NO CURE OF SOULS ſave only by delegation and ſpecial temporary appointment for ſome whole ages in the Church. And therefore the Governing and Commanding authority cannot be extended to Pariſhes and their Curats, which are of late date*1. Note that elſewhere he ſaith, A man cannot be anſwerable for the ſouls that he cannot know. 2. Note that he maketh a Biſhop eſſential to a Church (in the proper political ſenſe) And ſo our Pariſhes are all unchurched by the Biſhops way. 3. One Congregation with a Biſhop is a Dioceſane Church. 4. Pariſh Curats have no Government. 5. All this fully proveth that Dioceſſes in thoſe ages that he ſpeaks of were no bigger than one man could govern, that is, than our Pariſhes. 6. Quer. By what right were the changes in ſpecie made.] p. 222. If we go higher (than a Biſhop) we can never come to a ſociety of Apoſtolical or Divine inſtitution in the Church, becauſe between the whole Catholick Church either in diffuſion or repreſentation, and a ſingle Dioceſs, all the intermedial unions, as of Metropolitans, Primates, Patriarchs, Councils Provincial or OECUMENICAL are by conſent and poſitive and humane inſtitution, but they directly eſtabliſh no Divine Government: This only is properly ſuch—A Biſhop and his charge more or leſs is an intire ſociety or Common-wealth, that is, an intire Government, and Prelate and people make the parts of the integral conſtitution*This with Dr. Hammonds denying that there were any ſubject Presbyters in Scripture times, make up pure Independency.. (What Laws he meaneth ſee him after.)
§. 16. But this (Commanding power) is not to be extended to ſuch Decencies as are only Ornament, but is to be limited to ſuch as only reſcue from Confuſion: The reaſon is, becauſe the Prelates and ſpiritual Guides cannot do their duty, unleſs things be ſo orderly that there be no confuſion, much leſs can they do it with joy: and ſo far their power does extend.—But if it can go beyond this limit, then it can have no natural limit; but may extend to ſumptuouſneſs,☜ to Ornaments of Churches, to rich utenſils to ſplendour, to Majeſty—But becauſe this is too ſubject to abuſe, and gives a ſecular power into the hands of Biſhops, and an authority over mens fortunes and eſtates, and is not neceſſary for ſouls, and no part of the ſpiritual government, it is more than Chriſt gave to his Miniſters.
§. 17. This is to be added, that becauſe this power is—ſuch—it is only left to the people to do it or not, under the pain of ſin, but they are not to incur ſpiritual cenſures upon the ſtock of non complyance in things not ſimply neceſſary or of eſſential duty.Nonconformity.
§. 18. P. 233. Beyond this, the Biſhops can directly give no Laws that properly and immediately bind the tranſgreſſours under ſin: my Reaſons are, 1. Becauſe we never find the Apoſtles uſing their Coercion on any man but the expreſs breakers of a Divine commandment, or the publick diſturbers of the peace of the Church, and the eſtabliſhed neceſſary order. 2. Becauſe even in thoſe things which were ſo convenient that they had a power to make injunctions, yet the Apoſtles were very backward to uſe their authority of commanding, much leſs ſeverity, but intreating. 3. In things where God had interpoſed no command, though the rule they gave contained in it that which was fit and decent, yet if men would reſiſt, they gently admoniſht or reproved them, and let them alone. 4. If the Biſhops power were extended further, it might extend to Tyranny, and there could be no limits beyond this preſcribed to keep him within the meaſures of ſweetneſs of the Government Evangelical—yet the power of ſpiritual Rulers may extend further by fame, conſent, reputation, opinion of his wiſdom, voluntary ſubmiſſion, avoiding ſcandal.
§. 19. P. 258. [It is certainly unlawful to excommunicate any man for not paying the fees of Courts: For contumacy there is an offence againſt the Civil power, and he hath a ſword of his own to avenge that. But excommunication is a ſword to avenge the contumacy of them who ſtubbornly offend againſt the diſcipline of the Church in that wherein Chriſt hath given her authority; and that is in the matters of Salvation and damnation immediate; in ſuch things where there is no ſecular intereſt; where there can be no diſpute; where the offender doth not ſin by conſequence and interpretation, but directly and without excuſe.
§. 20. I add one thing of great uſe and conſideration, and that is, That when a Law is made that whoever ſhall commit ſuch a fact ſhall be ipſo facto excommunicate, it muſt never be underſtood of the Greater and proper excommunication: for if it be, it is unlawful, and it is ridiculous: for the abſciſſion from the Church is not to be uſed but after all other remedies; when the Crime is delated and notorious, and when he hath been admoniſhed and reproved and called to repentance, if after all he refuſeth and rebels, then he is to be cut off, elſe not: And therefore no man is cut off ipſo facto—If it be enquired whether all ſuch ſentences in Law which declare a man in certain caſes ipſo facto excommunicate, be unlawful, the Arch-Biſhop of Spalato (Lib. 5. de Rep. Eccleſ. c. 9. n. 23, 24.) who is fierce againſt them,Honeſt Dr. you made not our Canons which ipſo facto excommunicate the profeſſed Nonconformiſts: Yet I will venture to give one exception: viz. He that openly and deliberately renounceth God or Chriſt or any eſſential part of his Baptiſmal Covenant, or Chriſtianity, thereby ipſo facto cuts off himſelf; And therefore the Law may juſtly ſay that he is ipſo facto excommunicate, and declare him ſo. Doubtleſs our Canon meaneth the proper excommunication, when it addeth, let him not be reſtored but by the Archbiſhop, and till he publickly repent & renounce his wicked error. anſwers affirmatively and confidently, and diſputes well againſt them.
§. 20. Pag. 262. The Church intends not to forbid any ſuch entercourſe or Communion to which we ſtand preobliged by the Law of Nature or any Law of God—Even the King cannot command a wife not to pay her duty to her husband, nor a child to his mother: To theſe they are bound by God though they die for it.*So a Miniſter to his office. When (an action of) piety is neceſſary, and not under choice and Counſel, but under a commandment, the King and the Biſhop ſingly or conjunctly have no power to forbid it. p. 264. In this there is no other Rule of Conſcience, but that we firſt attend to the Laws of God concerning our other duties, and then to the Laws of the King in this.
§. 21. p. 275. The Lent faſt is not a Tradition or Canon Apoſtolical, proved at large and unanſwerably, to pag. 285. and again after.
§. 22. P. 285. The Authority of a General Council in matters of Government and Diſcipline, is no greater, no more obligatory, than the authority of a provincial Council to thoſe that are under it.—It is an Union of Government; a conſent of Princes and Biſhops—the conſent of opinions adds moment to the Laws; Thoſe Princes which are there, and Biſhops which conſent are bound by their own act,— till reaſon alters—but the Prince can as much alter that Law when the caſe alters—as he can abrogate any other. But thoſe Princes who were not there, whatever the cauſe of their abſence be, are not obliged by that General Council; and that Council can have no authority but what is given them by conſent; And therefore they who have not conſented are free as ever.
I mention this that thoſe religious and well meaning perſons who are concluded by the Canon of an ancient Council, and think that whatever was there commanded it layeth ſome obligation on the Conſciences of us at this day, and by this means enter into infinite ſcruples, and a reſtleſs unſatisfied condition, may conſider that the ancient Doctors of the Church had no juriſdiction over us who were born ſo many ages after them—Intereſts and manners are infinitely altered ſince that time—Their authority could not be longer than their lives; It's certainly not greater than that of Kings, which muſt die with their perſons, that their ſucceſſors may be Kings as well as they and not ſubjects of the dead—If the thing be good we may uſe it—and we may chooſe —That the fathers met at Liodicei, Antioch, Nice, &c. 1000, 1100 or 1300 years ago, ſhould have authority over us in England ſo many ages after, is ſo infinitely unreaſonable, that none but the fearful and unbelievers, the ſcrupulous and thoſe which are foreign of a ſlaviſh nature, and are in bondage by their fear, and know not how to ſtand in that liberty by which Chriſt hath made them free, will account themſelves in ſubjection to them. The Canon for being in the old Codes of the Church, binds us no more than the Laws of Conſtantine.
§. 23. P. 290. [An Eccleſiaſtical cuſtome muſt be reaſonable or uſeful, or it cannot oblige the Conſcience, except to avoid ſcandal (for that is in all things carefully to be obſerved, right or wrong, ſo it be not ſin) for no man is bound to be a fool, or to do a fooliſh action. Now a Cuſtome in the Canon Law is concluded to be reaſonable, if it tend to the good of the ſoul.
§. 24. P. 301. &c. [Eccleſiaſtical Laws muſt be impoſed ſo as to leave our liberty unharmed; that is, that the Law be not Univerſal; not with an intent to oblige all Chriſtendom; except they will be obliged, that is, conſent.—The Catholick Church never met ſince the Apoſtles days in any Aſſembly to make a Law that ſhall bind all Chriſtians whether they conſent or no: And becauſe one Church hath not by any word of Chriſt's, authority over another Church, and one King is not ſuperior to another King— therefore no Eccleſiaſtical Law can be made with a power of paſſing neceſſary obligation on all Chriſtians: —When Chriſt had made us free from the Law of ceremonies which God appointed—it would be intolerable that the Churches ſhould ſubmit themſelves to a Yoke of ordinances, which men ſhould make.—
§. 25. P. 303. [Eccleſiaſtical Laws are made relative to time and place, to perſons and occaſions, ſubject to all changes, fitted for uſe and the advantage of the Churches, miniſtring to edification, and complying with Charity: Whatſoever Eccleſiaſtical Law hath not theſe conditions, the Churches ought not to receive, becauſe they are impediments, not advantages to the ſervice of God: If they be thus qualified, no good man will refuſe them: If they be not, they are the Laws of Tyrants, not of ſpiritual Fathers.—1. Whatever had its foundation in the opinion of men, and not ſomewhat certainly derived from God, if brought into Religion, &c. 2. If what is deduced only by probable interpretation be obtruded as matter of faith, 3. If what is piouſly counſelled be turned into a perpetual and abſolute Law, 4. If that which was left to the choice and conduct of the Governors, be handled not as matter of Liberty, but of neceſſity; in all theſe caſes the commandments of men are taught for doctrines. P. 305. Under this they are involved who perſecute for opinions and doubtful diſputations. And They are guilty of the 4th. kind who perſecute the breakers of an Eccleſiaſtical Law with a ſeverity greater than the Violators of a Divine Commandment.—For they that do ſuch things muſt needs at leaſt ſay that ſuch humane injunctions are as neceſſary as the Divine commandments: for elſe why are they more ſeverely puniſhed? Not only they that expreſsly teach that what they have invented is a commandment of God—but all they that—preſs indifferent things up to the height and neceſſity of Religion and a Divine commandment, are guilty of this Phariſeiſme,—and bind themſelves but not the Conſciences of their ſubjects—An Eccleſiaſtical Law which doth in any degree break this Law of our Saviour (Teaching for doctrines the commands of men) is therefore void and become intolerable— As the Roman Law of keeping Lent—Bellarmine prevaricateth one of the moſt glorious propoſitions of Chriſtianity, placing the Kingdom of God in meat and drink, not in righteouſneſs and peace and joy in the Holy Ghoſt.—
If a Law were made that every man at a certain time of the year uſe a certain diſcipline to mortifie his luſt, it were a fooliſh Law.
§. 26. p. 310. Laws of burden are always againſt Charity.—
P. 312. If there be a juſt cauſe to omit the obſervation, the omiſſion is not diſobedience.—
Rule 18. p. 313. Eccleſiaſtical Laws of Ceremonies and Circumſtances do not bind the Conſcience beyond the caſe of contempt and ſcandal—P. 314. Nothing can be religion but that ſervice which God hath choſen of himſelf, &c. Ceremonies oblige no longer than they miniſter to the end of their deſignation. P. 315. The Canons of the Church oblige only for their Reaſon and Religion, for Edification and for Charity, when the thing is uſeful to others, or good in it ſelf: But the Authority it ſelf being wholly a Miniſtry for theſe purpoſes, is a Miniſtry of Religion, but hath in it nothing of Empire, and therefore doth not oblige for it ſelf or by it ſelf, but for the doing good and avoiding evil.
§. 27. Eccleſiaſtical Laws muſt be charitable and eaſie, and when they are not, they oblige not. P. 316. When the Eccleſiaſtical Law is indicted by the ſpiritual power, the Civil power only conſenting and eſtabliſhing the Canon, that Corroboration adds no other band to the Canon, than that it be obeyed according to the intention of the ſpiritual power; only ſo it becomes a Law indeed; but it is a Law only as the Church can intend a Law, or deſire it to be impoſed; that is, what the Church might reaſonably perſwade, and fitly enjoyn, ſo much and no more, in that manner and no other, the Civil power doth corroborate it—It muſt be ſuch as is fit to be perſwaded: ſuch which men can be WILLING to, and eaſie under, and of which they ſhall have no cauſe to complain: For the Church in theſe things hath no Power but to exhort and perſwade, and therefore can enjoyn nothing, but what can be reaſonably perſwaded; ſhe muſt not by the aid of the temporal power enjoyn thoſe things which are cruel and vexatious, and ſuch to which no argument but FEAR can make the ſubject willing*The ſumm is, The Church governeth only Volunteers by conſent procured by Reaſon and Love.— When ſhe makes judgments, ſhe meddles not with blood—and when ſhe is admitted to a Legiſlative, ſhe enjoyns an eaſie and gentle yoke, And when ſhe does not, the Subject is concerned to avoid the temporal evil threatened by the Civil power, but not to give obedience to the intolerable Law of the Church as in that capacity. For unleſs the Law of the Church be ſuch that good men may willingly obey it, it cannot be injoyned by the Church; and the Church ought not to deſire the Civil power to do it for her. For ſince ſhe hath no power to command in ſuch things where the Divine authority doth not intervene, all the reſt is but PERSWASION; and he that hath power ONLY TO PERSWADE cannot be ſuppoſed to perſwade againſt our wills: and therefore matters of intolerable burden are not the matter of Eccleſiaſtical Laws, becauſe they are certainly againſt the will of all men, who can ſerve God and go to heaven without them.
§. 28. Rule 20. p. 323. Eccleſiaſtical Laws muſt ever promote the ſervice of God and the good of ſouls, but muſt never put a Snare or Stumbling-block to Conſciences —The authority which the Lord hath given is for edification and not for deſtruction, 2 Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. And this is not only ſo to be underſtood, that if the Church makes Laws which are not for edification, ſhe does amiſs; but that ſhe OBLIGETH NOT, HER LAWS ARE NULL, and do not bind in Conſcience—When the Church does any thing beyond her Commiſſion, ſhe does no way oblige in Conſcience, neither actively nor paſſively— All this is greatly to be obſerved in all caſes of Conſcience about Eccleſiaſtical Laws. If we can underſtand where the ſpiritual power can command, and where ſhe can exhort and ought to prevail, we have found out all the meaſures of our obedience: But if ſhe goes beyond her Commiſſion, ſhe hurts none but her ſelf: for ſhe hath nothing to do with our bodies, and our ſouls are in ſafe hands. And the caſe is much alike if the ſpiritual Law be bound by the Civil power: For the King when he makes Laws of Religion, is tyed up to the Evangelical meaſures; and if he prevaritates, he does indeed tye us to a paſſive obedience, but the Conſcience is no otherwiſe bound: and he is to govern Chriſts Church by the ſame meaſures with which the Apoſtles did, and the Biſhops their ſucceſſors did and ought to do before the Civil power was Chriſtian: For he hath no more power over Conſciences than they had, and ought not by the afflictions of the body to invade the ſoul. But if he does, foreign, he hath only power over bodies, but no authority over the Conſcience.]
§. 29. P. 325. I inſtance in the inſtitution of ſignificant Ceremonies, that is, ſuch which are not matters of order and decency, but meerly for ſignification and the repreſentment of ſome truth or myſtery— (as pictures in the Greek and Lutheran Churches)— Becauſe theſe can and do often degenerate into abuſe and invade religion, to make a Law of theſe is not ſafe; and when that Law does prevail to any evil that is not eaſily by other means cured, it does not prevail upon the Conſcience: And indeed to make a Law for the uſe of them, is not directly within the Commiſſion of the Eccleſiaſtical power.]
But there is more in it than thus. For though ſignificant Ceremonies can be for edification to the Church in ſome degree, and in ſome perſons, yet it's to be conſidered whether the introducing of ſuch things doth not DESTROY THE CHURCH, not only in her Chriſtian Liberty, but in the ſimplicity and purity and ſpirituality of her religion, by inſenſible changing it into a Ceremonial and external ſervice. To the Ceremonial Law of the Jews, nothing was to be added. —And in Chriſtianity we have leſs reaſon to add any thing of Ceremony, except the circumſtances and advantages of the very Miniſtry, as time and place, and Veſſels and Ornaments and neceſſary appendages. When we ſpeak of Rituals or Ceremonies, that is, exterior actions or things beſides the inſtitutions and commands of Chriſt, either we intend them as part of the Divine ſervice, and then they are unlawful and intolerable; or if only for ſignification, that is ſo little a thing, and of ſo inconſiderable uſe in the fulneſs and clarity of the revelation Evangelical, that beſides that it keeps Chriſtians ſtill in the ſtate of infancies and minority, —it ought not to ſtand againſt any danger or offence that can by them be brought to ANY WISE and GOOD CHRISTIANS.
In ſome ages—and Churchs they gave perſons to be baptized, milk and hony, to ſignifie, &c. As this was not uſual to give Hieroglyphicks where they had plain precepts—it was of ſo very little uſe, that all Churches that I know of have laid it aſide—And indeed if the Church might add things or rituals of ſignification, then the walls might be covered with the figures of Doves, Lambs, Serpents, Birds, and the Communion Table with Bread, Wine, Herbs, Tapers, Pigeons, Hony, milk or whatever the wit of man—might invent.
To prepare the figure of the Crucifix and to buy an Image to deſcribe the Sacrifice of the Croſs— are things to no purpoſe, not only for the levity and theatrical gaieties and repreſentments unbefitting the gravity and purity and ſpirituality of the Chriſtian religion, but alſo the manner of teaching theſe truths by ſymbolical things and actions, is too low, too ſuſpicious, too dangerous to be mingled with the Divine Liturgies —A Symbolical rite of humane invention to ſignifie what it does not effect, and then introduced into the ſolemn worſhip of God, is ſo like thoſe vains imaginations and repreſentments forbidden in the ſecond Commandment, that the very ſuſpicion is more againſt edification, than their uſe can pretend to.—
§. 30. p. 353. Nothing can oblige to a Divine faith but Divine authority, to which Councils can no more pretend for being General, than for being Provincial, and to which great Aſſemblies have no other title or pretence of promiſe than the private Congregations of the faithful, who though but two or three, ſhall be aſſiſted by the Divine preſence. But General Councils are ſo wholly of humane inſtitution, that though by the dictate of right reaſon and natural wiſdom they are to be convened, *That is, ſuch as are called General, as many as can well meet.yet to make them a formal Judicatory, and to give them a Legiſlative power or a dominion and Magiſtracy in faith, there are ſo many conditions required both to their indiction and convention, to their conſtitution and integity, to their conduct and proceeding, to their concluſion and determination, that men are not to this day agreed about any one of them; and therefore they cannot be a legal Judicatory obliging any but them that do conſent, and ſo oblige themſelves.
§. 31. P. 356. &c. Rule 23. Subſcription to Articles and forms of Confeſſion in any particular Church, is wholly of Political conſideration.—Subſcription ought to be ſo intended, that he who hath ſubſcribed may not perceive himſelf taken in a ſnare: but yet he that ſubſcribes muſt do it to thoſe purpoſes, and in that ſence and ſignification of things, which the ſupreme power intends in commanding it; that is, at leaſt, that he that ſubſcribes do actually approve the Articles overwritten: that he does at that time believe them to be ſuch as it's ſaid they are; i. e. true, if they only ſay they are true; uſeful, if they pretend to uſefulneſs; neceſſary, if it be affirmed that they are neceſſary. For if the ſubſcriber believes not this, he by hypocriſie ſerves the ends of publick peace and his own preferment.
When Articles are eſtabliſhed without neceſſity, ſubſcription muſt be required without Tyranny and imperiouſneſs. That is, it muſt be left to the liberty of the ſubject to profeſs or not profeſs that doctrine— To bring evil on men that do not believe the Article and dare not profeſs to believe what they do not, is injuſtice and oppreſſion; it is a law of iniquity, and therefore it is not obligatory to Conſcience, and no humane authority is ſufficient for the Sanction and impoſition.—
Queſt. Can it be lawful for any man to ſubſcribe what he does not believe to be true, giving his hand to publick peace, and keeping his Conſcience for God?
Anſw. No, if ſubſcription ſignifie approbation; for in that caſe it is hypocriſie, &c. But if ſubſcription were no more than the office of a Clerk of the Sig…e or Council, who in form of Law is to ſign all the Acts of the Council, it were different, For it is not as an account of his own opinion, but as a formality of the Court: all the world looks on it as none of his perſonal Act—▪ But in ſubſcription to Articles of Confeſſion every Eccleſiaſtick that ſubſcribes, does it for himſelf— …ubens & ex animo ſubſcripſi, is our form in the Church of England—If the intention of our Superior be to require our Aſſent—he that ſubſcribes does profeſs his aſſent; and whatever he thinks himſelf, it is the intention of the Impoſer that qualifieth the ſubſcription. —No particular Church ought with rigour to require ſubſcriptions to Articles not evidently true, and neceſſary to be profeſſed: becauſe in the diviſion of hearts that is in the world, it is certain that ſome good men may diſſent, and then either they ſhall be afflicted or tempted to hypocriſie: of either of which if Eccleſiaſtick Laws be guilty, they are not for edification, they are neither juſt nor pious; and therefore oblige not.]
§. 32. P. 358, 359. At leaſt let the Articles be made with as great latitude of ſence as they can, and ſo that ſubſcriptions be made to the form of words, let the ſubſcribers underſtand them in what ſence they pleaſe, which the truth of God will ſuffer and the words can be capable of. This is the laſt remedy; but it is the worſt: It hath in it ſomething of Craft, but very little of ingenuity; and if it can ſerve the ends of peace, or of external Charity, or of Phantaſtick concord, yet it cannot ſerve the ends of truth and holineſs, and Chriſtian ſimplicity.
LEt it be noted that yet this Doctor largely pleadeth for the Lawfulneſs of Lying, when it is not injurious but profitable: And if ſuch a man condemn the hypocriſie of ſuch ſubſcriptions, who can juſtifie them? when that medium of Lawful profitable Lying ſeemeth the likelieſt to do it in the world.
Note alſo that I profeſs not Aſſent to every word in the foregoing Citations; But how far they juſtifie me and ſuch others, I leave the Reader to judge, deſiring him to read all fullyer in the book, leſt he think I wrong the ſence by my omitting any thing, which leſt I be tedious I am forced to paſs by.