the divers and contrary affirmations, even of the most godly reformers.]
_Truth._ Unto all this I willingly subscribe: yet can I not pass by
a most injurious and unequal practice toward the civil magistrate:
ceremonies, holy days, common prayer, and whatever else dislikes their
consciences, _that_ the magistrate must not bring in. Others again, as
learned, as godly, as wise, have conceived the magistrate may approve or
permit these in the church, and all men are bound in obedience to obey
him. How shall the magistrate’s conscience be herein (between both) torn
and distracted, if indeed the power either of establishing or abolishing
in church matters be committed to him!
[Sidenote: The authors of these positions deal with the civil magistrate
as the soldiers dealt with the Lord Jesus.]
Secondly, methinks in this case they deal with the civil magistrate as
the soldiers dealt with the Lord Jesus: First, they take off his own
clothes, and put upon him a purple robe, plat a crown of thorns on his
head, bow the knee, and salute him by the name of King of the Jews.
They tell him that he is the keeper of both tables, he must see the
church do her duty, he must establish the true church, true ministry,
true ordinances, he must keep her in this purity. Again, he must abolish
superstition, and punish false churches, false ministers, even to
banishment and death.
[Sidenote: The rise of high commissions.]
Thus indeed do they make the blood run down the head of the civil
magistrate, from the thorny vexation of that power which sometimes
they crown him with; whence in great states, kingdoms, or monarchies,
necessarily arise delegations of that spiritual power, high commissions,
&c.
[Sidenote: Pious magistrates and ministers’ consciences are persuaded for
that which other magistrates’ consciences condemn.]
Anon again they take off this purple robe, put him into his own
clothes, and tell him that he hath no power to command what is against
their conscience. They cannot conform to a set form of prayer, nor to
ceremonies, nor holy days, &c., although the civil magistrate (that
most pious prince, Edw. VI., and his famous bishops, afterwards burnt
for Christ) were of another conscience. Which of these two consciences
shall stand? if either, [the] magistrate must put forth his civil power
in these cases: the strongest arm of flesh, and most conquering, bloody
sword of steel can alone decide the question.
[Sidenote: To profess the magistrate must force the church to her duty,
and yet must not judge what that is, what is it but to play in spiritual
things?]
I confess it is most true, that no magistrate, as no other superior,
is to be obeyed in any matter displeasing to God: yet, when in matters
of worship we ascribe the absolute headship and government to the
magistrate, as to keep the church pure, and force her to her duty,
ministers and people, and yet take unto ourselves power to judge what
is right in our own eyes, and to judge the magistrate in and for those
very things wherein we confess he hath power to see us do our duty, and
therefore consequently must judge what our duty is: what is this but to
play with magistrates, with the souls of men, with heaven, with God, with
Christ Jesus? &c.
CHAP. CXXVI.
[Sidenote: An apt similitude discussed, concerning the civil magistrate.]
_Peace._ Pass on, holy Truth, to that similitude whereby they illustrate
that negative assertion: “The prince in the ship,” say they, “is governor
over the bodies of all in the ship; but he hath no power to govern the
ship or the mariners in the actions of it. If the pilot manifestly err
in his action, the prince may reprove him,” and so, say they, may any
passenger; “if he offend against the life or goods of any, the prince may
in due time and place punish him, which no private person may.”
_Truth._ Although, dear Peace, we both agree that civil powers may not
enjoin such devices, no nor enforce on any God’s institutions, since
Christ Jesus’s coming: yet, for further illustration, I shall propose
some queries concerning the civil magistrate’s passing in the ship of the
church, wherein Christ Jesus hath appointed his ministers and officers as
governors and pilots, &c.
[Sidenote: First query: what if the prince command the master or pilot
to steer such a course, which they know will never bring them to the
harbour?]
If in a ship at sea, wherein the governor or pilot of a ship undertakes
to carry the ship to such a port, the civil magistrate (suppose a king
or emperor) shall command the master such and such a course, to steer
upon such or such a point, which the master knows is not their course,
and which if they steer he shall never bring the ship to that port or
harbour: what shall the master do? Surely all men will say, the master of
the ship or pilot is to present reasons and arguments from his mariner’s
art, if the prince be capable of them, or else in humble and submissive
manner to persuade the prince not to interrupt them in their course and
duty properly belonging to them, to wit, governing of the ship, steering
of the course, &c.
[Sidenote: 2. Query, If the master of the ship command the mariners thus,
and the prince command the contrary, who is to be obeyed?]
If the master of the ship command the mariners thus and thus, in cunning
the ship, managing the helm, trimming the sail, and the prince command
the mariners a different or contrary course, who is to be obeyed?
It is confessed that the mariners may lawfully disobey the prince, and
obey the governor of the ship in the actions of the ship.
[Sidenote: 3. If the prince have as much skill as the master or pilot,
&c.]
Thirdly, what if the prince have as much skill, which is rare, as the
pilot himself? I conceive it will be answered, that the master of the
ship and pilot, in what concerns the ship, are chief and above, in
respect of their office, the prince himself, and their commands ought to
be attended by all the mariners: unless it be in manifest error, wherein
it is granted any passenger may reprove the pilot.
[Sidenote: 4. Query, Whether the meanest sailor (in respect of his skill
and service) be not to be preferred before the prince himself?]
Fourthly, I ask, if the prince and his attendants be unskilful in the
ship’s affairs, whether every sailor and mariner, the youngest and
lowest, be not, so far as concerns the ship, to be preferred before
the prince’s followers, and the prince himself? and their counsel and
advice more to be attended to, and their service more to be desired
and respected, and the prince to be requested to stand by and let the
business alone in their hands?
[Sidenote: 5. Query.]
Fifthly, in case a wilful king and his attendants, out of opinion of
their skill, or wilfulness of passion, would so steer the course, trim
sail, &c., as that in the judgment of the master and seamen the ship and
lives shall be endangered: whether, in case humble persuasions prevail
not, ought not the ship’s company to refuse to act in such a course, yea,
and, in case power be in their hands, resist and suppress these dangerous
practices of the prince and his followers, and so save the ship?
[Sidenote: 6. Query, Whether, if the master of the ship gratify the
prince to the casting away of the ship and prince, &c., he be not guilty,
and liable to answer?]
Lastly, suppose the master, out of base fear and cowardice, or covetous
desire of reward, shall yield to gratify the mind of the prince, contrary
to the rules of art and experience, &c., and the ship come in danger, and
perish, and the prince with it: if the master get to shore, whether may
he not be justly questioned, yea, and suffer as guilty of the prince’s
death, and those that perished with him? These cases are clear, wherein,
according to this similitude, the prince ought not to govern and rule the
actions of the ship, but such whose office, and charge, and skill it is.
[Sidenote: The application in general of the ship to the church, &c.]
The result of all is this: the church of Christ is the ship, wherein the
prince—if a member, for otherwise the case is altered—is a passenger.
In this ship the officers and governors, such as are appointed by the
Lord Jesus, they are the chief, and in those respects above the prince
himself, and are to be obeyed and submitted to in their works and
administrations, even before the prince himself.
[Sidenote: The meanest Christian according to his knowledge and grace to
be preferred before the highest, who have received none or less grace of
Christ.]
In this respect every Christian in the church, man or woman, if of more
knowledge and grace of Christ, ought to be of higher esteem, concerning
religion and Christianity, than all the princes in the world who have
either none or less grace or knowledge of Christ: although in civil
things all civil reverence, honour, and obedience ought to be yielded by
all men.
[Sidenote: A true minister of Christ ought to walk by another rule than
the command of civil authority in spiritual causes.]
Therefore, if in matters of religion the king command what is contrary
to Christ’s rule, though according to his persuasion and conscience, who
sees not that, according to the similitude, he ought not to be obeyed?
Yea, and (in case) boldly, with spiritual force and power, he ought to
be resisted. And if any officer of the church of Christ shall out of
baseness yield to the command of the prince, to the danger of the church
and souls committed to his charge, the souls that perish, notwithstanding
the prince’s command, shall be laid to his charge.
[Sidenote: Former positions compared with this similitude, and found to
contradict each other.]
If so, then I rejoin thus: how agree these truths of this similitude
with those former positions, viz., that the civil magistrate is keeper
of both tables, that he is to see the church do her duty, that he ought
to establish the true religion, suppress and punish the false, and so
consequently must discern, judge, and determine what the true gathering
and governing of the church is, what the duty of every minister of Christ
is, what the true ordinances are, and what the true administrations of
them; and where men fail, correct, punish, and reform by the civil sword?
I desire it may be answered, in the fear and presence of Him whose eyes
are as a flame of fire, if this be not—according to the similitude,
though contrary to their scope in proposing of it—to be governor of the
ship of the church, to see the master, pilot, and mariners do their duty,
in setting the course, steering the ship, trimming the sails, keeping
the watch, &c., and where they fail, to punish them; and therefore, by
undeniable consequence, to judge and determine what their duties are,
when they do right, and when they do wrong: and this not only to manifest
error, (for then they say every passenger may reprove) but in their
ordinary course and practice.
[Sidenote: The similitude of the magistrate prescribing to the physician
in civil things, but the physician to the magistrate concerning his body.]
The similitude of a physician obeying the prince in the body politic,
but prescribing to the prince concerning the prince’s body, wherein
the prince, unless the physician manifestly err, is to be obedient
to the physician, and not to be judge of the physician in his art,
but to be ruled and judged as touching the state of his body by the
physician:—I say this similitude and many others suiting with the former
of a ship, might be alleged to prove the distinction of the civil and
spiritual estate, and that according to the rule of the Lord Jesus in
the gospel, the civil magistrate is only to attend the calling of the
civil magistracy concerning the bodies and goods of the subjects, and is
himself, if a member of the church and within, subject to the power of
the Lord Jesus therein, as any member of the church is, 1 Cor. v.
CHAP. CXXVII.
_Peace._ Dear Truth, you have uprightly and aptly untied the knots of
that eleventh head; let me present you with the twelfth head, which is,
Concerning the magistrates’ power in the censures of the church.
[Sidenote: The twelfth head examined.]
“First,” say they, “he hath no power to execute, or to substitute any
civil officer to execute, any church censure, under the notion of civil
or ecclesiastical men.
“Secondly, though a magistrate may immediately civilly censure such an
offender, whose secret sins are made manifest by their casting out to be
injurious to the good of the state, yet such offences of excommunicate
persons, which manifestly hurt not the good of the state, he ought not
to proceed against them, sooner or later, until the church hath made her
complaint to him, and given in their just reasons for help from them.
For to give liberty to magistrates, without exception, to punish all
excommunicate persons within so many months, may prove injurious to the
person who needs, to the church who may desire, and to God who calls for
longer indulgence from the hands of them.
“Thirdly, for persons not excommunicate, the magistrate hath no power
immediately to censure such offences of the church members by the power
of the sword, but only for such as do immediately hurt the peace of the
state: because the proper end of civil government being the preservation
of the peace and welfare of the state, they ought not to break down those
bounds, and so to censure immediately for such sins which hurt not their
peace.
“Hence, first, magistrates have no power to censure for secret sins, as
deadness [or] unbelief, because they are secret, and not yet come forth
immediately to hurt the peace of the state; we say immediately, for every
sin, even original sin, remotely hurts the civil state.
“Secondly, hence they have no power to censure for such private sins in
church members, which being not heinous may be best healed in a private
way by the churches themselves. For that which may be best healed by
the church, and yet is prosecuted by the state, may make a deeper wound
and greater rent in the peace both of church and state: the magistrates
also being members of the church, are bound to the rule of Christ, viz.,
not to produce any thing in public against a brother, which may be best
healed in a private way.
“Now we call that private,
“First, which is only remaining in families, not known of others: and
therefore a magistrate to hear and prosecute the complaint of children
against their parents, servants against masters, wives against their
husbands, without acquainting the church first, transgresseth the rule of
Christ.
“Secondly, that which is between members of the same church, or of divers
churches: for it was a double fault of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. vi.,
first to go to law, secondly, to do it before an infidel, seeing the
church was able to judge of such kind of differences by some arbitrators
among themselves. So that the magistrates should refer the differences
of church members to private healing, and try that way first: by means
whereof the churches should be free from much scandal, and the state from
much trouble, and the hearts of the godly from much grief in beholding
such breaches.
“Thirdly, such offences which the conscience of a brother dealing with
another privately, dares not as yet publish openly, coming to the notice
of the magistrate accidentally, he ought not to make public as yet, nor
to require the grand jury to present the same, no more than the other
private brother, who is dealing with him, until he see some issue of the
private way.
“Thirdly, hence they have no power to put any to an oath, _ex officio_,
to accuse themselves, or the brethren, in case either _criminis
suspecti_, or _prætensi_, because this preserves not, but hurts many ways
the peace of the state, and abuseth the ordinance of an oath, which is
ordained to end controversies, not to begin them, Heb. vi. 16.
“Fourthly, hence they have no power to censure any for such offences as
break either no civil law of God, or law of the state published according
to it: for the peace of the state being preserved by wholesome laws, when
they are not hurt, the peace is not hurt.”
_Truth._ In this passage, as I said before, I observe how weakly and
partially they deal with the souls of magistrates, in telling them they
are the guardians of both tables, must see the church do her duty,
punish, &c.; and yet in this passage the elders or ministers of the
churches not only sit judges over the magistrates’ actions in church
affairs, but in civil also, straitening and enlarging his commission
according to the particular interests of their own ends, or at the best
their consciences.
[Sidenote: To give the government of the church to the civil magistrate
(as before), and yet to abridge his conscience, what is it but to sport
with holy things? &c.]
I grant the word of the Lord is the only rule, light, and lantern in all
cases concerning God or man, and that the ministers of the gospel are to
teach this way, hold out this lantern unto the feet of all men; but to
give such an absolute power in spiritual things to the civil magistrate,
and yet after their own ends or consciences to abridge it, is but the
former sporting with holy things, and to walk in contradictions, as
before I noted.
Many of the particulars I acknowledge true, where the magistrate is a
member of the church; yet some passages call for explication, and some
for observation.
First, in that they say the civil magistrate ought not to proceed against
the offences of an excommunicate person, which manifestly hurt not the
good of the state, until the church hath made her complaint for help from
them, I observe two things:—
[Sidenote: An evident contradiction. An excellent confession of the
proper end of civil government. When civil laws are not broken, it is
confessed that civil peace is not hurt.]
First, a clear grant that when the church complaineth for help, then the
magistrate may punish such offences as hurt not the good of the state:
and yet in a few lines after they say, the magistrates have no power to
censure such offences of church members by the power of the civil sword,
but only such as do immediately hurt the peace of the civil state; and
they add the reason, because the proper end of the civil government being
the preservation of the peace and welfare of the state, they ought not
to break down those bounds, and so to censure immediately for such sins
which hurt not their peace. And in the last place, they acknowledge the
magistrate hath no power to punish any for any such offences as break no
civil law of God, or law of the state published according to it: “for the
peace of the state,” say they, “being preserved by wholesome laws, when
they are not hurt, the peace is not hurt.”
CHAP. CXXVIII.
_Peace._ Dear Truth, here are excellent confessions, unto which both
truth and grace may gladly assent; but what is your second observation
from hence?
[Sidenote: A grievous charge against the Christian church, and the King
of it.]
_Truth._ I observe secondly, what a deep charge of weakness is laid
upon the church of Christ, the laws, government, and officers thereof,
and consequently upon the Lord Jesus himself: to wit, that the church
is not enabled with all the power of Christ to censure sufficiently an
offender—on whom yet they have executed the deepest censure in the world,
to wit, cutting off from Christ, shutting out of heaven, casting to the
devil—which offender’s crime reacheth not to hurt the good of the civil
state; but that she is forced to make complaint to the civil state, and
the officers thereof, for their help.
Oh! let not this be told in Gath, nor heard in Askelon! and oh! how dim
must needs that eye be, which is bloodshot with that bloody and cruel
tenent of persecution for cause of conscience!
_Peace._ But what should be meant by this passage, viz., “That they
cannot give liberty to the magistrate to punish without exception all
excommunicate persons, within so many months?”
[Sidenote: A strange law in New England formerly, against excommunicate
persons.]
_Truth._ It may be this hath reference to a law made formerly in New
England, that if an excommunicate person repented not within, as I have
heard, three months after sentence of excommunication, then the civil
magistrate might proceed with him.
[Sidenote: A dangerous doctrine against all civil magistrates.]
These worthy men see cause to question this law upon good reasons
rendered, though it appears not by their words that they wholly condemn
it, only they desire a longer time, implying that after some longer time
the magistrate may proceed: and indeed I see not, but according to such
principles, if the magistrate himself should be cast out, he ought to
be proceeded against by the civil state, and consequently deposed and
punished, as the pope teacheth: yea, though happily [haply?] he had not
offended against either bodies or goods of any subject.
[Sidenote: Many sins prohibited to be punished by the magistrate, and yet
they also charge him to punish all sin, Rom. xiii.]
Thirdly, from this confession, that the magistrate ought not to punish
for many sins above-mentioned, I observe how they cross the plea which
commonly they bring for the magistrates punishing of false doctrines,
heretics, &c., (viz., Rom. xiii., The magistrate is to punish them that
do evil); and when it is answered, True, evil against the second table,
which is there only spoken of, and against the bodies and goods of the
subject, which are the proper object of the civil magistrate, as they
confess: it is replied, Why? is not idolatry sin? heresy, sin? schism
and false worship, sin? Yet here in this passage many evils, many sins,
even of parents against their children, masters against their servants,
husbands against their wives, the magistrate ought not to meddle with.
[Sidenote: Original sin charged to hurt remotely (but falsely) the civil
state.]
Fourthly. I dare not assent to that assertion, “That even original [sin]
remotely hurts the civil state.” It is true some do, as inclinations
to murder, theft, whoredom, slander, disobedience to parents, and
magistrates; but blindness of mind, hardness of heart, inclination to
choose or worship this or that God, this or that Christ, beside the true,
these hurt not remotely the civil state, as not concerning it, but the
spiritual.
[Sidenote: Magistrates strangely forbidden to hear civil complaints.]
_Peace._ Let me, in the last place, remind you of their charge against
the magistrate, and which will necessarily turn to my wrong and
prejudice: they say, the magistrate, in hearing and prosecuting the
complaints of children against their parents, of servants against their
masters, of wives against their husbands, without acquainting the church
first, transgresseth the rule of Christ.
_Truth._ Sweet Peace, they that pretend to be thy dearest friends, will
prove thy bitter enemies.
First, I ask for one rule out of the Testament of the Lord Jesus, to
prove this deep charge and accusation against the civil magistrate?
[Sidenote: Thousands of commonweals where no true church of Christ.]
Secondly, this is built upon a supposition of what rarely falls out in
the world, to wit, that there must necessarily be a true church of Christ
in every lawful state, unto whom these complaints must go: whereas, how
many thousand commonweals have been and are, where the name of Christ
hath not (or not truly) been founded!
[Sidenote: The complaints of families properly fall into the cognizance
of the civil magistrate.]
Thirdly, the magistrates’ office, according to their own grant, properly
respecting the bodies and goods of their subjects, and the whole body of
the commonweal being made up of families, as the members constituting
that body, I see not how, according to the rule of Christ, Rom. xiii.,
the magistrate may refuse to hear and help the just complaints of any
such petitioners—children, wives, and servants—against oppression, &c.
[Sidenote: They who give to magistrates more than is due, are most apt to
disrobe them of what is theirs.]