form of church government, electing church officers, punishing with
church censures; but to see that the church doth her duty herein. And
on the other side, the churches, as churches, have no power, though as
members of the commonweal they may have power, of erecting or altering
forms of civil government, electing of civil officers, inflicting
civil punishments—no, not on persons excommunicated—as by deposing
magistrates from their civil authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the
people against them, to their laws, no more than to discharge wives, or
children, or servants, from due obedience to their husbands, parents,
or masters: or by taking up arms against their magistrates, though they
persecute them for conscience: for though members of churches, who are
public officers, also of the civil state, may suppress by force the
violence of usurpers, as Jehoiada did Athaliah, yet this they do not as
members of the church, but as officers of the civil state.”
_Truth._ Here are divers considerable passages, which I shall briefly
examine so far as concerns our controversy.
First, whereas they say, that the civil power may erect and establish
what form of civil government may seem in wisdom most meet: I acknowledge
the proposition to be most true, both in itself, and also considered
with the end of it, that a civil government is an ordinance of God, to
conserve the civil peace of people so far as concerns their bodies and
goods, as formerly hath been said.
[Sidenote: Civil power originally and fundamentally in the people.]
But from this grant I infer, as before hath been touched, that the
sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power, lies in the
people—whom they must needs mean by the civil power distinct from the
government set up: and if so, that a people may erect and establish what
form of government seems to them most meet for their civil condition. It
is evident that such governments as are by them erected and established,
have no more power, nor for no longer time, than the civil power, or
people consenting and agreeing, shall betrust them with. This is clear
not only in reason, but in the experience of all commonweals, where the
people are not deprived of their natural freedom by the power of tyrants.
[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton and the New English ministers, give the government
of Christ’s church, or spouse, into the hands of the people, or
commonweal.]
And if so—that the magistrates receive their power of governing the
church from the people—undeniably it follows, that a people, as a people,
naturally considered, of what nature or nation soever in Europe, Asia,
Africa, or America, have fundamentally and originally, as men, a power to
govern the church, to see her do her duty, to correct her, to redress,
reform, establish, &c. And if this be not to pull God, and Christ, and
Spirit out of heaven, and subject them unto natural, sinful, inconstant
men, and so consequently to Satan himself, by whom all peoples naturally
are guided, let heaven and earth judge.
[Sidenote: The very Indian Americans made governors of the church by the
authors of these positions.]
_Peace._ It cannot, by their own grant, be denied, but that the wildest
Indians in America ought (and in their kind and several degrees do) to
agree upon some forms of government, some more civil compact in towns,
&c., some less. As also, that their civil and earthly governments be
as lawful and true as any governments in the world, and therefore
consequently their governors are keepers of the church, of both tables,
if any church of Christ should arise or be amongst them: and therefore,
lastly, if Christ have betrusted and charged the civil power with
his church, they must judge according to their Indian or American
consciences, for other consciences it cannot be supposed they should
have.
CHAP. XCIII.
_Truth._ Again, whereas they say that outward civil peace cannot stand
where religion is corrupted; and quote for it 2 Chron. xv. 3, 5, 6, and
Judges viii.—
[Sidenote: Many civil states in flourishing peace and quiet where the
Lord Jesus is not sounded.]
I answer, with admiration, how such excellent spirits, as these authors
are furnished with, not only in heavenly but earthly affairs, should so
forget, and be so fast asleep in things so palpably evident, as to say
that outward civil peace cannot stand where religion is corrupt. When so
many stately kingdoms and governments in the world have long and long
enjoyed civil peace and quiet, notwithstanding their religion is so
corrupt, as that there is not the very name of Jesus Christ amongst them.
And this every historian, merchant, traveller, in Europe, Asia, Africa,
America, can testify: for so spake the Lord Jesus himself, John xvi.
[20,] The world shall sing and rejoice.
Secondly, for that scripture, 2 Chron. xv. 3, &c., relating the miseries
of Israel and Judah, and God’s plagues upon that people for corruption of
their religion, it must still have reference to that peculiar state unto
which God called the seed of one man, Abraham, in a figure, dealing so
with them as he dealt not with any nation in the world, Ps. cxlvii., Rom.
ix.
The antitype to this state I have proved to be the Christian church,
which consequently hath been and is afflicted with spiritual plagues,
desolations, and captivities, for corrupting of that religion which hath
been revealed unto them. This appears by the seven churches; and the
people of God, now so many hundred years in woful bondage and slavery to
the mystical Babel, until the time of their joyful deliverance.
_Peace._ Yea; but they say that “such laws as are conversant about
religion may still be accounted civil laws, as on the contrary an oath
doth still remain religious, though conversant about civil matters.”
_Truth._ Laws respecting religion are twofold.
[Sidenote: Laws concerning religion, either religious or civil.]
First, such as concern the acts of worship and the worship itself,
the ministers of it, their fitness or unfitness, to be suppressed or
established: and for such laws we find no footing in the New Testament of
Jesus Christ.
[Sidenote: The very Indians abhor to disturb any conscience at worship.]
Secondly, laws respecting religion may be such as merely concern the
civil state, bodies, and goods of such and such persons, professing these
and these religions; viz., that such and such persons, notorious for
mutinies, treasons, rebellions, massacres, be disarmed: again, that no
persons, papists, Jews, Turks, or Indians, be disturbed at their worship,
a thing which the very Indians abhor to practise toward any. Also, that
immunity and freedom from tax and toll may be granted unto the people of
such or such a religion, as the magistrate pleaseth, Ezra vii. 24.
These and such as are of this nature, concerning only the bodies and
goods of such and such religious persons, I confess are merely civil.
[Sidenote: Canons and constitutions pretended civil but indeed
ecclesiastical.]
But now, on the other hand, that laws restraining persons from such and
such a worship, because the civil state judgeth it to be false:—
That laws constraining to such and such a worship, because the civil
state judgeth this to be the only true way of worshipping God:—
That such and such a reformation of worship be submitted unto by all
subjects in such a jurisdiction:—
That such and such churches, ministers, ministries, be pulled down, and
such and such churches, ministries, and ministrations, set up:—
That such laws properly concerning religion, God, the souls of men,
should be civil laws and constitutions, is as far from reason as
that the commandments of Paul, which he gave the churches concerning
Christ’s worship (1 Cor. xi. and 1 Cor. xiv.), were civil and earthly
constitutions: or that the canons and constitutions of either œcumenical
or national synods, concerning religion, should be civil and state
conclusions and arguments.
[Sidenote: Laws merely concerning spiritual things must needs be
spiritual.]
To that instance of an oath remaining religious, though conversant
about civil things; I answer and acknowledge, an oath may be spiritual,
though taken about earthly business; and accordingly it will prove, and
only prove, what before I have said, that a law may be civil though it
concern persons of this and of that religion, that is, as the persons
professing it are concerned in civil respects of bodies or goods, as I
have opened; whereas if it concern the souls and religions of men, simply
so considered in reference to God, it must of necessity put on the nature
of religious or spiritual ordinance or constitution.
Beside, it is a most improper and fallacious instance; for an oath, being
an invocation of a true or false God to judge in a case, is an action of
a spiritual and religious nature, whatever the subject matter be about
which it is taken, whether civil or religious: but a law or constitution
may be civil or religious, as the subject about which it is conversant is
either civil, merely concerning bodies or goods; or religious, concerning
soul and worship.
CHAP. XCIV.
_Peace._ Their fifth head is concerning the magistrates’ power in making
of laws.
“First, they have power to publish and apply such civil laws in a state,
as either are expressed in the word of God in Moses’s judicials—to wit,
so far as they are of general and moral equity, and so binding all
nations in all ages—to be deducted by way of general consequence and
proportion from the word of God.
“For in a free state no magistrate hath power over the bodies, goods,
lands, liberties of a free people, but by their free consents. And
because free men are not free lords of their own estates, but are only
stewards unto God, therefore they may not give their free consents to
any magistrate to dispose of their bodies, goods, lands, liberties, at
large as themselves please, but as God, the sovereign Lord of all, alone.
And because the word is a perfect rule, as well of righteousness as of
holiness, it will be therefore necessary that neither the people give
consent, nor that the magistrate take power to dispose of the bodies,
goods, lands, liberties of the people, but according to the laws and
rules of the word of God.
“Secondly, in making laws about civil and indifferent things about the
commonweal,
“First, he hath no power given him of God to make what laws he please,
either in restraining from or constraining to the use of indifferent
things; because that which is indifferent in its nature, may sometimes
be inexpedient in its use, and consequently unlawful, 1 Cor. ii. 5, it
having been long since defended upon good ground, _Quicquid non expedit,
quatenus non expedit, non licet._
“Secondly, he hath no power to make any such laws about indifferent
things, wherein nothing good or evil is shown to the people, but only on
principally the mere authority or will of the imposer, for the observance
of them, Col. ii. 21, 22; 1 Cor. vii. 23, compared with Eph. vi. 6.
“It is a prerogative proper to God to require obedience of the sons of
men, because of his authority and will.
“The will of no man is _regula recti_, unless first it be _regula recta_.
“It is an evil speech of some, that in some things the will of the law,
not the _ratio_ of it, must be the rule of conscience to walk by; and
that princes may forbid men to seek any other reason but their authority,
yea, when they command _frivola et dura_. And therefore it is the duty
of the magistrate, in all laws about indifferent things, to show the
reasons, not only the will: to show the expediency, as well as the
indifferency of things of that nature.
“For we conceive in laws of this nature, it is not the will of the
lawgiver only, but the reason of the law which binds. _Ratio est rex
legis, et lex est rex regis._
“Thirdly, because the judgment of expedient and inexpedient things is
often difficult and diverse, it is meet that such laws should not proceed
without due consideration of the rules of expediency set down in the
word, which are these three:
“First, the rule of piety, that they may make for the glory of God, 1
Cor. x. 31.
“Secondly, the rule of charity, that no scandal come hereby to any weak
brother, 1 Cor. viii. 13.
“Thirdly, the rule of charity, that no man be forced to submit against
his conscience, Rom. xiv. 14, 23, nor be judged of contempt of lawful
authority, because he is not suddenly persuaded of the expediency
of indifferent things; for if the people be bound by God to receive
such laws about such things, without any trial or satisfaction to the
conscience, but must judge them expedient because the magistrate thinks
them so, then the one cannot be punished in following the other, in case
he shall sin in calling inexpedient expedient; but Christ saith the
contrary, _If the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall._”
[Sidenote: The authors’ large confession of the liberty of conscience,
from the laws of civil authority in spiritual cases.]
_Truth._ In this passage these worthy men lay down such a ground as the
gates of hell are not able to shake, concerning the magistrates’ walking
in indifferent things: and upon which ground that tower of Lebanon may
be raised, whereon there hang a thousand shields and bucklers, Cant. iv.
4, to wit, that invincible truth, that no man is to be persecuted for
cause of conscience. The ground is this, “The magistrate hath not power
to make what laws he please, either in restraining or constraining to the
use of indifferent things.” And further they confess, that the reason of
the law, not the will of it, must be the rule of conscience. And they add
this impregnable reason, viz. “If the people be bound to receive such
laws without satisfaction to conscience, then one cannot be punished for
following the other, in case he shall sin contrary to Christ Jesus, who
saith, _If the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall._”
[Sidenote: Civil magistrates confessed not to have power to urge the
conscience in indifferent things.]
Hence I argue, if the civil magistrate have no power to restrain or
constrain their subjects in things in their own nature indifferent, as
in eating of meats, wearing this or that garment, using this or that
gesture; but that they are bound to try and examine his commands, and
satisfy their own reason, conscience, and judgment before the Lord,
and that they shall sin, if they follow the magistrate’s command, not
being persuaded in their own soul and conscience that his commands
are according to God: it will be much more unlawful and heinous in
the magistrate to compel the subjects unto that which, according to
their consciences’ persuasion, is simply unlawful, as unto a falsely
constituted church, ministry, worship, administration, and they shall not
escape the ditch, by being led blindfold by the magistrate; but though he
fall in first, yet they shall [fall] in after him and upon him, to his
greater and more dreadful judgment.
In particular thus, if the magistrate may restrain me from that gesture
in the supper of the Lord which I am persuaded I ought to practise, he
may also restrain me by his commands from that supper of the Lord itself
in such or such a church, according to my conscience.
If he cannot, as they grant, constrain me to such or such a garment
in the worship of God, can he constrain me to worship God by such a
ministry, and with such worship, which my soul and conscience cannot be
persuaded is of God?
If he cannot command me in that circumstance of time to worship God, this
or that day, can he command me to the worship itself?
[Sidenote: A threefold guilt lying upon civil powers commanding the
subject’s soul in worship.]
_Peace._ Methinks I discern a threefold guilt to lie upon such civil
powers as impose upon and enforce the conscience, though not unto the
ministration and participation of the seals,[208] yet either to depart
from that worship which it is persuaded of, or to any exercise or worship
which it hath not faith in.
First. Of an appearance of that Arminian, popish doctrine of free-will,
as if it lay in their own power and ability to believe upon the
magistrate’s command, since it is confessed that what is submitted to by
any without faith it is sin, be it never so true and holy, Rom. xiv. 23.
Secondly. Since God only openeth the heart and worketh the will, Phil.
ii. [13,] it seems to be a high presumption to suppose, that together
with a command restraining from or constraining to worship, that God
is also to be forced or commanded to give faith, to open the heart, to
incline the will, &c.
Thirdly. A guilt of the hypocrisy of their subjects and people, in
forcing them to act and practise in matters of religion and worship
against the doubts and checks of their consciences, causing their bodies
to worship when their souls are far off, to draw near with their lips,
their hearts being far off, &c.
[Sidenote: Persons may with less sin be forced to marry whom they cannot
love, than to worship where they cannot believe.]
With less sin ten thousand-fold may a natural father force his daughter,
or the father of the commonweal force all the maidens in a country to the
marriage-beds of such and such men whom they cannot love, than the souls
of these and other subjects to such worship or ministry, which is either
a true or false bed, Cant. i. 16.
_Truth._ Sweet Peace, your conclusions are undeniable, and oh! that they
might sink deep into those noble and honourable bosoms it so deeply
concerns! But proceed.
CHAP. XCV.
_Peace._ In that fifth head they further say thus:—
“Thirdly. In matters ecclesiastical we believe, first, that civil
magistrates have no power to make or constitute laws about church
affairs, which the Lord Jesus hath not ordained in his word for the
well-ordering of the church; for the apostle solemnly chargeth Timothy,
and in him all governors of the church, before God and the Lord Jesus
Christ, _who is the only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords_,
that the commandment given by him for the ordering of the church be kept
_without spot, unrebukeable, to the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ_,
1 Tim. vi. 14, 15. And this commandment given in the word, the apostle
saith, _is able to make the man of God perfect in all righteousness_, 2
Tim. iii. 17. And, indeed, the administration of all Christ’s affairs,
doth immediately aim at spiritual and divine ends, as the worship of God,
and the salvation of men’s souls: and, therefore, no law nor means can
be devised by the wisdom or wit of man that can be fit or able to reach
such ends; but use must be made of such only as the divine wisdom and
holy will of God hath ordained.
“Secondly. We believe the magistrate’s power in making laws about church
affairs, is not only thus limited and restrained by Christ to matters
which concern the substance of God’s worship and of church government,
but also such as concern outward order: as in rites and ceremonies for
uniformity’s sake. For we find not in the gospel, that Christ hath
anywhere provided for the uniformity of churches, but only for their
unity.
“Paul, in matters of Christian liberty, commendeth the unity of their
faith in the Holy Spirit, giving order that we should not judge nor
condemn one another, in difference of judgment and practice of such
things where men live to God on both sides, even though there were some
error on one side, Rom. xiv. 1-6. How much less in things indifferent,
where there may be no error on either side.
“When the apostle directeth the church of Corinth, that _all things
be done decently and in order_, he meant not to give power to church
officers or to civil magistrates, to order whatever they should think
meet for decency and order; but only to provide that all the ordinances
of God be administered in the church decently, without unnatural or
uncivil uncomeliness, as that of long hair, or women’s prophesying, or
the like; and orderly, without confusion or disturbance of edification,
as the speaking of many at once in the church.
“Thirdly. We do nevertheless willingly grant, that magistrates, upon
due and diligent search what is the counsel and will of God in his word
concerning the right ordering of the church, may and ought to publish
and declare, establish and ratify, such laws and ordinances as Christ
hath appointed in his word for the well ordering of church affairs: both
for the gathering of the church, and the right administration of all
the ordinances of God amongst them, in such a manner as the Lord hath
appointed to edification. The law of Artaxerxes, Ezra vii. 23, was not
usurpation over the church’s liberty; but a royal and just confirmation
of them: _Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven:—for why should
there be wrath against [the realm of] the king and his sons?_”
_Truth._ Dear Peace, methinks I see before mine eyes a wall daubed up,
of which Ezekiel speaks, with untempered mortar. Here they restrain the
magistrate from making laws, either concerning the substance or ceremony
of religion, but such only as Christ hath commanded; and those, say they,
they must publish and declare after the example of Artaxerxes.
I shall herein perform two things: first, examine this magistrate’s
duty to publish, declare, &c., such laws and ordinances as Christ hath
appointed.
Secondly, I shall examine that proof from Artaxerxes, Ezra vii. 23.
[Sidenote: God’s Israel desirous of Saul’s arm of flesh.]
In the first, methinks I hear the voice of the people of Israel, 1 Sam.
viii. 5, _Make us a king_, that may rule over us after the manner of the
nations: rejecting the Lord ruling over them by his holy word, in the
mouth of his prophets, and sheltering themselves under an arm of flesh;
which arm of flesh God gave them in his anger, and cut off again in his
wrath, after he had persecuted David, the figure of Christ Jesus, who
hath given his people the sceptre and sword of his word and Spirit, and
refused a temporal crown or weapons in the dispensation of his kingdom.
Where did the Lord Jesus or his messengers charge the civil magistrate,
or direct Christians to petition him, to publish, declare, or establish
by his arm of flesh and earthly weapons, the religion and worship of
Christ Jesus?
I find the beast and false prophet, whose rise and doctrine is not from
heaven, but from the sea and earth, dreadful and terrible, by a civil
sword and dignity, Rev. xiii. 2.
I find the beast hath gotten the power and might of the kings of the
earth, Rev. xvii. 13.
[Sidenote: The seven-headed beast and the Lamb differ in their weapons.]
But the Lamb’s weapons are spiritually mighty, 2 Cor. x. [4.] &c.,
his sword is two-edged, coming out of his mouth, Rev. i. [16.] His
preparations for war are white horses and white harness, which are
confessed by all to be of a spiritual nature, Rev. xix.
[Sidenote: Naboth’s case typical.]
When that whore Jezebel stabbed Naboth with her pen, in stirring up the
people to stone him as a blasphemer of God and the king, what a glorious
mask or veil of holiness she put on? _Proclaim a fast_, set a day apart
for humiliation; and for confirmation, let all be ratified by the king’s
authority, name, and seal, 1 Kings xxi. 8, 9.
Was not this recorded for all God’s Naboths, standing for their spiritual
interests in heavenly things—typed out by the typical earth and ground of
Canaan’s land—that they _through patience and comfort of the scriptures
might have hope_? Rom. xv. 4.
Again, I demand, who shall here sit [to] judge, whether the magistrate
command any other substance or ceremony but what is Christ’s?
By their former conclusions, every soul must judge what the magistrate
commandeth, and is not bound, even in indifferent things, to the
magistrates’ law, further than his own soul, conscience, and judgment
ascends to the reason of it. Here, the magistrate must make laws for that
substance and ceremony which Christ appointed. But yet he must not do
this with his eyes open, but blindfold and hoodwinked; for if he judge
that to be the religion of Christ, and such to be the order therein,
which their consciences judge otherwise, and assent not to, they profess
they must submit only to Christ’s laws, and therefore they are not bound
to obey him.
[Sidenote: Civil powers abused as a guard about the bed of spiritual
whoredoms.]