{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_79107/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_79107","id":"gutenberg_79107","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79107","summary":null,"tags":["Church and state -- Early works to 1800","Freedom of religion -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"A TREATISE OF CIVIL POWER IN ECCLESIASTICAL CAUSES:\n\nSHEWING THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY POWER ON EARTH TO COMPEL IN\nMATTERS OF RELIGION.\n\nTHE AUTHOR JOHN MILTON.\n\nFIRST PRINTED ANNO M.D.C.LIX.\n\nLONDON:\n\nRE-PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON, ST. PAUL\u2019S CHURCH-YARD. MDCCXC.\n\n\nTO THE\n\n\nREV. RICHARD PRICE, D.D.LL.D.F.R.S.\n\nFELLOW OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETIES AT PHILADELPHIA AND\nBOSTON.\n\nTHIS MANUAL of John Milton is now most justly inscribed, as the\nassertor and protector of the civil and religious rights of mankind.\nWho, with dangers compassed round, yet undismayed by the terrors of\nabsolute power, the frowns of fortune, and the malignity of the\ntimes, never relinquished his principles; but, with consistency and\nfortitude, maintained those principles which at present enlighten\nthe world, and give assurances that human nature will be improved to\nthe utmost of its faculties, resting with deity alone to fix their\nboundary.\n\nTHE EDITOR,\n\nAN ENGLISHMAN, A LOVER OF LIBERTY, HIS COUNTRY, AND ITS\nORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, AS MOST NOBLY CONFIRMED AT THE GLORIOUS\nREVOLUTION.\n\n\nTO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF ENGLAND. WITH\nTHE DOMINIONS THEREOF.\n\nI HAVE prepared, supreme council, against the much expected time of\nyour sitting, this treatise; which, though to all christian\nmagistrates equally belonging, and therefore to have been written in\nthe common language of christendom, natural dutie and affection hath\nconfined, and dedicated first to my own nation: and in a season\nwherein the timely reading thereof, to the easier accomplishment of\nyour great work, may save you much labour and interruption: of two\nparts usually proposed, civil and ecclesiastical, recommending civil\nonly from whom it takes both that name and nature. Yet not for this\ncause only do I require or trust to finde acceptance, but in a\ntwofold respect besides: first, as bringing clear evidence of\nscripture and protestant maxims to the parliament of England, who in\nall their late acts, upon occasion, have professed to assert only\nthe true protestant christian religion, as it is contained in the\nholy scriptures: next, in regard that your power being but for a\ntime, and having in yourselves a christian libertie of your own,\nwhich at one time or other may be oppressed, thereof truly sensible,\nit will concern you while you are in power, so to regard other mens\nconsciences, as you would your own should be regarded in the power\nof others; and to consider that any law against conscience is alike\nin force against any conscience, and so may one way or other justly\nredound upon yourselves. One advantage I make no doubt of, that I\nshall write to many eminent persons of your number, alreadie perfect\nand resolved in this important article of christianitie. Some of\nwhom I remember to have heard often for several years, at a council\nnext in authoritie to your own, so well joining religion with civil\nprudence, and yet so well distinguishing the different power of\neither, and this not only voting, but frequently reasoning why it\nshould be so, that if any there present had been before of an\nopinion contrary, he might doubtless have departed thence a convert\nin that point, and have confessed, that then both commonwealth and\nreligion will at length, if ever, flourish in christendom, when\neither they who govern discern between civil and religious, or they\nonly who so discern shall be admitted to govern. Till then nothing\nbut troubles, persecutions, commotions can be expected; the inward\ndecay of true religion among ourselves, and the utter overthrow at\nlast by a common enemy. Of civil libertie I have written heretofore\nby the appointment, and not without the approbation of civil power:\nof christian libertie I write now; which others long since having\ndone with all freedom under heathen emperors, I should do wrong to\nsuspect, that I now shall with less under christian governors, and\nsuch especially as profess openly their defence of christian\nlibertie; although I write this not otherwise appointed or induced\nthan by an inward persuasion of the christian dutie which I may\nusefully discharge herein to the common Lord and Master of us all,\nand the certain hope of his approbation, first and chiefest to be\nsought: In the hand of whose providence I remain, praying all\nsuccess and good event on your publick councels to the defence of\ntrue religion and our civic rights.\n\nJOHN MILTON\n\n\nA TREATISE OF CIVIL POWER IN ECCLESIASTICAL CAUSES.\n\nTwo things there be which have been ever found working much mischief\nto the church of God, and the advancement of truth; force on the one\nside restraining, and hire on the other side corrupting the teachers\nthereof. Few ages have been since the ascension of our saviour,\nwherein the one of these two, or both together have not prevailed.\nIt can be at no time therefore unseasonable to speak of these\nthings; since by them the church is either in continual detriment\nand oppression, or in continual danger. The former shall be at this\ntime my argument; the latter as I shall find God disposing me, and\nopportunity inviting. What I argue, shall be drawn from the\nscripture only; and therein from true fundamental principles of the\ngospel, to all knowing Christians undeniable. And if the governors\nof this commonwealth since the rooting out of prelates have made\nleast use of force in religion, and most have favoured christian\nlibertie of any in this island before them, since the first\npreaching of the gospel, for which we are not to forget our thanks\nto God, and their due praise, they may, I doubt not, in this\ntreatise find that which not only will confirm them to defend still\nthe christian libertie which we enjoy, but will incite them also to\nenlarge it, if in ought they yet straighten it. To them who perhaps\nhereafter, less experienced in religion, may come to govern or give\nus laws, this or other such, if they please, maybe a timely\ninstruction: however, to the truth it will be, at all times, no\nunneedful testimonie; at least some discharge of that general dutie\nwhich no christian but, according to what he hath received, knows is\nrequired of him, if he have ought more conducing to the advancement\nof religion than what is usually endeavoured, freely to impart.\n\nIt will require no great labour of exposition to unfold what is here\nmeant by matters of religion; being as soon apprehended as designed,\nsuch things as belong chiefly to the knowledge and service of God:\nand are either above the reach and light of nature without\nrevelation from above, and therefore liable to be variously\nunderstood by human reason; or such things as are enjoined or\nforbidden by divine precept, which else by the light of reason would\nseem indifferent to be done or not done; and so likewise must needs\nappear to every man as the precept is understood. Whence I here mean\nby conscience or religion, that full persuasion whereby we are\nassured that our belief and practice, as far as we are able to\napprehend and probably make appear, is according to the will of God\nand his holy spirit within us, which we ought to follow much rather\nthan any law of man, as not only his word every where bids us, but the\nvery dictate of reason tells us. (Acts iv. 19.) \u201cWhether it be right\nin the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge\nye.\u201d That for belief or practice in religion according to this\nconscientious persuasion no man ought to be punished or molested by\nany outward force on earth whatsoever, I distrust not, through God\u2019s\nimplored assistance, to make plain by these following arguments.\n\nFirst, it cannot be denied, being the main foundation of our\nprotestant religion, that we of these ages, have no other divine\nrule or authoritie from without us, warrantable to one another as a\ncommon ground but the holy scripture; and no other within us, but the\nillumination of the holy spirit so interpreting that scripture as\nwarrantable only to ourselves, and to such whole consciences we can\nso persuade, can have no other ground in matters of religion but\nonly from the scriptures. And these being not possible to be\nunderstood without this divine illumination, which no man can know\nat all times to be in himself, much less to be at any time for\ncertain in any other, it follows clearly, that no man or body of man\nin these times can be the infallible judges or determiners in\nmatters of religion to any other mens consciences but their own. And\ntherefore those Bereans are commended, (Acts xvii. 11.) who after\nthe preaching even of St. Paul, \u201csearched the scriptures daily,\nwhether those things were so.\u201d Nor did they more than what God\nhimself in many places commands us by the same apostle, to search,\nto try, to judge of these things ourselves: and gives us reason\nalso, (Gal. vi. 4, 5.) \u201clet every man prove his own work, and then\nshall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another: for\nevery man shall bear his own burden.\u201d If then we count it so\nignorant and irreligious in the papist to think himself discharged\nin God\u2019s account, believing only as the church believes, how much\ngreater condemnation will it be to the protestant his condemner, to\nthink himself justified, believing only as the state believes?\n\nWith good cause therefore, it is the general consent of all sound\nprotestant writers, that neither traditions, counsels, nor canons of\nany visible church, much less edicts of any magistrate or civil\nsession, but the scripture only can be the final judge or rule in\nmatters of religion, and that only in the conscience of every\nchristian to himself. Which protestation made by the first publick\nreformers of our religion against the imperial edicts of Charles the\nfifth, imposing church-traditions without scripture, gave first\nbeginning to the name of PROTESTANT; and with that name hath ever\nbeen received this doctrine, which prefers the scripture before the\nchurch, and acknowledges none but the scripture sole interpreter of\nitself to the conscience. For if the church be not sufficient to be\nimplicitly believed, as we hold it is not, what can there else be\nnamed of more authoritie than the church but the conscience; than\nwhich God only is greater? (1 John iii. 20.) But if any man shall\npretend, that the scripture judges to his conscience for other men,\nhe makes himself greater not only than the church, but also than the\nscripture, than the consciences of other men; a presumption too high\nfor any mortal; since every true christian able to give a reason of\nhis faith, hath the word of God before him, the promised holy\nspirit, and the mind of Christ within him. (1 Cor. ii. 16.) A much\nbetter and safer guide of conscience, which as far as concerns\nhimself he may far more certainly know, than any outward rule\nimposed upon him by others whom he inwardly neither knows nor can\nknow, at least knows nothing of them more sure than this one thing,\nthat they cannot be his judges in religion. (1 Cor. ii. 15.) \u201cThe\nspiritual man judgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no\nman.\u201d\n\nChiefly for this cause do all true protestants account the pope\nantichrist, for that he assumes to himself this infallibilitie over\nboth the conscience and the scripture; \u201csitting in the temple of\nGod,\u201d as it were opposite to God, \u201cand exalting himself above all\nthat is called God, or is worshiped,\u201d (2 Thess. ii. 4.) That is to\nsay, not only above all judges and magistrates, who though they be\ncalled gods, are far beneath infallible, but also above God himself,\nby giving law both to the scripture, to the conscience, and to the\nspirit itself of God within us. Whereas we find, (James iv. 12.)\n\u201cthere is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art\nthou that judgest another?\u201d That Christ is the only lawgiver of his\nchurch and that it is here meant in religious matters, no well\ngrounded christian will deny. Thus also St. Paul, (Rom. xiv. 4.)\n\u201cwho art thou that judgest the servant of another? To his own lord\nhe standeth or falleth: but he shall stand; for God is able to make\nhim stand.\u201d As therefore, of one beyond expression bold and\npresumptuous, both these apostles demand, \u201cwho art thou\u201d that\npresumest to impose other law or judgment in religion than the only\nlawgiver and judge Christ, who only can save and can destroy, gives\nto the conscience? And the forecited place to the Thessalonians by\ncompared effects resolves us, that be he or they who or wherever\nthey be or can be, they are of far less authoritie than the church,\nwhom in these things as protestants they receive not, and yet no\nless antichrist in this main point of antichristianism, no less a\npope or popedom than he at Rome, if not much more; by setting up\nsupreme interpreters of scripture either those doctors whom they\nfollow, or, which is far worse, themselves as a civil papacie\nassuming unaccountable supremacie to themselves not in civil only\nbut ecclesiastical causes.\n\nSeeing then that in matters of religion, as hath been proved, none\ncan judge or determine here on earth, no not church-governors\nthemselves, against the consciences of other believers, my inference\nis, or rather not mine but our saviour\u2019s own, that in those matters\nthey neither can command nor use constraint; lest they run rashly on\na pernicious consequence, forewarned in that parable, Matt. xiii.\nFrom verse 26, to 31: \u201cleast while ye gather up the tares, ye root\nup also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the\nharvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers\u2014Gather\nye together first the tares, &c.\u201d whereby he declares that this work\nneither his own ministers, nor any else, can discerningly enough or\njudgingly perform without his own immediate direction, in his own\nfit season; and that they ought till then not to attempt it. Which\nis further confirmed 2 Cor. i. 24. \u201cnot that we have dominion over\nyour faith, but are helpers of your joy.\u201d If apostles had no\ndominion or constraining power over faith or conscience, much less\nhave ordinary ministers. (1 Pet. v. 2, 3.) \u201cFeed the flock of God\nnot by constraint, &c. neither as being lords over God\u2019s heritage.\u201d\n\nBut some will object, that this overthrows all church discipline,\nall censure of errors, if no man can determine. My answer is that\nwhat they hear is plain scripture; which forbids not church sentence\nor determining, but as it ends in violence upon the conscience\nunconvinced. Let who so will interpret or determine, so it be\naccording to true church-discipline; which is exercised on them only\nwho have willingly joined themselves in that covenant of union, and\nproceeds only to a separation from the rest, proceeds never to any\ncorporal inforcement or forfeiture of monie; which in spiritual\nthings are the two arms of antichrist, not of the true church; the\none being an inquisition, the other no better than a temporal\nindulgence of sin for monie, whether by the church exacted or by the\nmagistrate; both the one and the other a temporal satisfaction for\nwhat Christ hath satisfied eternally; a popish commuting of\npenaltie, corporal for spiritual; a satisfaction to man, especially\nto the magistrate, for what and to whom we owe none: these and more\nare the injustices of force and fining in religion, besides what I\nmost insist on, the violation of God\u2019s express commandment in the\ngospel, as hath been shewn. Thus then if church governors cannot use\nforce in religion, though but for this reason, because they cannot\ninfallibly determine to the conscience without convincement, much\nless have civil magistrates authoritie to use force, where they can\nmuch less judge; unless they mean only to be civil executioners of\nthem who have no civil power to give them such commission, no nor\nyet ecclesiastical to any force or violence in religion. To sum up\nall in brief, if we must believe as the magistrate appoints, why not\nrather as the church? If not as either without convincement, how can\nforce be lawful?\n\nBut some are ready to cry out, what shall then be done to\nblasphemie? Them I would first exhort not thus to terrifie and pose\nthe people with a greek word: but to teach them better what it is;\nbeing a most usual and common word in that language to signifie any\nslander, any malicious or evil speaking, whether against God or man\nor any thing to good belonging: blasphemie or evil speaking against\nGod maliciously, is far from conscience in religion according to\nthat of Mark ix. 39. \u201cthere is none who doth a powerful work in my\nname, and can lightly speak evil of me.\u201d If this suffice not, I\nreset them to that prudent and well deliberated act of August 9,\n1650; where the parliament defines blasphemie against God, as far as\nit is a crime belonging to civil judicature, \u201cplenius ac Melius\nChrysippo and Crantore;\u201d in plain English, more warily, more\njudiciously, more orthodoxally, than twice their number of divines\nhave done in many a prolix volume: although in all likelihood they,\nwhose whole studie and profession these things are, should be most\nintelligent and authentic therein, as they are for the most part,\nyet neither they, nor these, unerring always or infallible.\n\nBut we shall not carry it thus; another Greek apparition stands in\nour way, \u201cheresie\u201d and \u201cheresie,\u201d in a manner also railed at to the\npeople as in a tongue unknown. They should first interpret to them,\nthat heresie, by what it signifies in that language, is no word of\nevil note; meaning only the choice or following of any opinion good\nor bad in religion or any other learning: and thus not only in\nheathen authors, but in the new Testament itself without censure or\nblame. (Acts xv. 5.) \u201cCertain of the heresie of the pharisees which\nbelieved,\u201d and xxvi. 5. \u201cafter the exactest heresie of religion I\nlived a pharisee.\u201d In which sense, presbyterian or independent may\nwithout reproach be called a heresie. Where it is mentioned with\nblame, it seems to differ little from schism; (1 Cor. xi. 18. 19.)\n\u201cI hear that there be schisms among you, &c. ;\u201d though some who\nwrite of heresie after their own heads, would make it far worse than\nschism; whereas on the contrarie, schism signifies division, and in\nthe worst sense; heresie, choice only of one opinion before another,\nwhich may be without discord. In apostolic times, therefore, ere the\nscripture was written, heresie was a doctrine maintained against the\ndoctrine by them delivered: which, in these times, can be no\notherwise defined than a doctrine maintained against the light,\nwhich we now only have, the scripture.\n\nSeeing therefore that no man, no synod, no session of men, through\ncalled the church, can judge definitively the sense of scripture to\nanother man\u2019s conscience, which is well known to be a general maxim\nof the protestant religion, it follows plainly, that he who holds in\nreligion that belief or those opinions which to his conscience and\nutmost understanding appear with most evidence or probability in the\nscripture, though to others he seem erroneous, can no more be justly\ncensured for a heretic than his censurers; who do but the same thing\nthemselves while they censure him for so doing. For ask them or any\nprotestant, which hath most authoritie, the church or the scripture?\nThey will answer, doubtless, that the scripture: and what hath most\nauthoritie, that no doubt but they will confess is to be followed.\nHe then who to his best apprehension follows the scripture, though\nagainst any point of doctrine by the whole church received, is not\nthe heretic; but he who follows the church against his conscience\nand persuasion grounded on the scripture.\n\nTo make this yet more undeniable, I shall only borrow a plain\nsimilie, the same which our own writers, when they would demonstrate\nplainest that we rightly prefer the scripture before the church, use\nfrequently against the papist in this manner. As the Samaritans\nbelieved Christ, first for the woman\u2019s word, but next and much\nrather for his own, so we the scripture; first on the church\u2019s word,\nbut afterwards and much more for its own, as the word of God; yea\nthe church itself we believe then for the scripture. The inference\nof itself follows; if by the protestant doctrine we believe the\nscripture not for the church\u2019s saying, but for its own, as the word\nof God, then ought we to believe what in our conscience we apprehend\nthe scripture to say, though the visible church with all her doctors\ngainsay; and being taught to believe them only for the scripture,\nthey who so do are not heretics, but the best protestants: and by\ntheir opinions, whatever they be, can hurt no protestant, whose rule\nis not to receive them but from the scripture: which to interpret\nconvincingly to his own conscience none is able but himself, guided\nby the holy spirit and not so guided, none than he to himself can be\na worse deceiver.\n\nTo protestants therefore whose common rule and touchstone\nis the scripture: nothing can with more conscience, more equitie,\nnothing more protestantly can be permitted than a free and lawful\ndebate at all times by writing, conference, or disputation of what\nopinion soever, disputable by scripture: concluding, that no man in\nreligion is properly a heretic at this day, but he who maintains\ntraditions or opinions not probable by scripture; who, for ought I\nknow, is the papist only; he the only heretic, who counts all\nheretics but himself. Such as these, indeed, were capitally punished\nby the laws of Moses, as the only true heretics, idolaters, plain\nand open deserters of God and his known law: but in the gospel such\nare punished by ex-communion only; (Tit. iii. 10.) \u201can heretic,\nafter the first and second admonition, reject.\u201d\n\nBut they who think not this heavy enough, and understand not that\ndreadful awe and spiritual efficacie which the apostle hath expressed\nso highly to be in church-discipline, (2 Cor. x.) of which anon; and\nthink weakly that the church of God cannot long subsist but in a\nbodily fear, for want of other proof, will needs wrest that place of\nS. Paul, (Rom. xiii.) to set up civil inquisition, and give power to\nthe magistrate both of civil judgment and punishment in causes\necclesiastical. But let us see with what strength of argument. \u201cLet\nevery soul be subject to the higher powers.\u201d First, how prove they\nthat the apostle means other powers than such as they to whom he\nwrites were then under; who meddled not at all in ecelesiastical\ncauses, unless as tyrants and persecutors; and from them, I hope,\nthey will not derive either the right of magistrates to judge in\nspiritual things, or the duty of such our obedience. How prove they\nnext, that he intitles them here to spiritual causes, from whom he\nwithheld, as much as in him lay, the judging of civil. (1 Cor. vi.\n1, &c.) If he himself appealed to Caesar, it was to judge his\ninnocence, not his religion. \u201cFor rulers are not a terror to good\nworks, but to the evil;\u201d then are they not a terror to conscience,\nwhich is the rule or judge of good works grounded on the scripture.\nBut heresie, they say, is reckoned among evil works; (Gal. V. 20.)\nas if all evil works were to be punished by the magistrate; whereof\nthis place, their own citation, reckons up besides heresie a\nsufficient number to confute them; \u201cuncleanness, wantonness,\nenmitie, strife, emulations, animosities, contentions, envyings;\u201d all\nwhich are far more manifest to be judged by him than heresie, as\nthey define it; and yet I suppose they will not subject these evil\nworks, nor many more such like, to his cognisance and punishment.\n\n\u201cWilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good\nand thou shalt have praise of the same.\u201d This shews that religious\nmatters are not here meant; wherein from the power here spoken of\nthey could have no praise. \u201cFor he is the minister of God to thee\nfor good.\u201d True; but in that office, and to that end, and by those\nmeans, which in this place must be clearly found, if from this place\nthey intend to argue. And, how for thy good by forcing, oppressing,\nand insnaring thy conscience? Many are the ministers of God, and\ntheir offices no less different than many; none more different than\nstate and church-government. Who seeks to govern both, must needs be\nworse than any lord prelate or church-pluralist: for he in his own\nfacultie and profession, the other not in his own, and for the most\npart not thoroughly understood, makes himself supreme lord or pope\nof the church as far ash is civil jurisdiction stretches, and all\nthe ministers of God therein, his ministers, or his curates rather\nin the function only, not in the government: while he himself\nassumes to rule by civil power things to be ruled only by spiritual:\nwhen as this very chapter, v. 6. Appointing him his peculiar office,\nwhich requires utmost attendance, forbids him this worse than\nchurch-plurality from that full and weighty charge, wherein alone he\nis \u201cthe minister of God, attending continually on this very thing.\u201d\n\nTo little purpose will they here instance Moses, who did all by\nimmediate divine direction; no, nor yet Asa, Jehoshaphat, or Josiah,\nwho both might when they pleased receive answer from God, and had a\ncommonwealth by him delivered them, incorporated with a national\nchurch exercised more in bodily than in spiritual worship, so as\nthat the church might be called a commonwealth and the whole\ncommonwealth a church: nothing of which can be said of\nchristianitie, delivered without the help of magistrates, yea in the\nmidst of their opposition; how little then with any reference to\nthem or mention of them, save only of our obedience to their civil\nlaws, as they countenance good and deter evil: which is the proper\nwork of the magistrate, following in the same verse, and shews\ndistinctly wherein he is the minister of God, \u201ca revenger to execute\nwrath on him that doth evil.\u201d But we must first know who it is that\ndoth evil: the heretic they say among the first. Let it be known\nthen certainly who is a heretic: and that he who holds opinions in\nreligion professedly from tradition, of his own inventions, and not\nfrom scripture but rather against it, is the only heretic; and yet\nthough such, not always punishable by the magistrate, unless he do\nevil against a civil law, properly so called, hath been already\nproved without need of repetition.\n\n\u201cBut if thou do that which is evil, be afraid.\u201d To do by scripture\nand gospel according to conscience is not to do evil; if we thereof\nought not to be afraid, he ought not by his judging to give cause.\nCauses therefore of religion are not here meant. \u201cFor he beareth not\nthe sword in vain.\u201d Yes altogether in vain, if it smite he knows not\nwhat; if that for heresie, which not the church itself, much less\nhe, can determine absolutely to be so; if truth for error, being\nhimself so often fallible, he bears the sword not in vain only, but\nunjustly and to evil. \u201cBe subject not only for wrath, but for\nconscience fake.\u201d How, for conscience fake against conscience? By\nall these reasons it appears plainly that the apostle in this place\ngives no judgment or coercive power to magistrates, neither to those\nthen, nor these now, in matters of religion; and exhorts us no\notherwise than he exhorted those Romans.\n\nIt hath now twice befallen me to assert, through God\u2019s assistance,\nthis most wrested and vexed place of scripture; heretofore, against\nSalmasius and regal tyrannie over the state; now, against Erastus\nand state-tyrannie over the church. If, from such uncertain or\nrather such improbable grounds as these, they endue magistracie\nwith spiritual judgment, they may as well invest him in the same\nspiritual kind with power of utmost punishment, excommunication; and\nthen turn spiritual into corporal, as no worse authors did than\nChrysostom, Jerome and Austine, whom Erasmus and others, in their\nnotes on the new Testament, have cited to interpret that cutting\noff, which S. Paul wished to them who had brought back the Galatians\nto circumcision, no less than the amercement of their whole\nvirilitie; and Grotius adds that this concising punishment of\ncircumcisers became a penal law thereupon among the Visigothes: a\ndangerous example of beginning in the spirit to end so in the flesh:\nwhereas that cutting off much likelier seems meant a cutting off\nfrom the church, not unusually so termed in scripture, and a zealous\nimprecation, not a command. But I have mentioned this passage to\nshew how absurd they often prove who have not learned to distinguish\nrightly between civil power and ecclesiastical.\n\nHow many persecutions, then imprisonments, banishments, penalties\nand stripes! How much bloodshed have the forcers of conscience to\nanswer for, and protestants rather than papists! For the papist,\njudging by his principles, punishes them who believe not as the\nchurch believes, though against the scripture: but the protestant,\nteaching every one to believe the scripture, though against the\nchurch, counts heretical and persecutes, against his own principles,\nthem who in any particular so believe as he in general teaches them;\nthem, who most honor and believe divine scripture, but not against\nit any human interpretation, though universal; them, who interpret\nscripture only to themselves, which by his own position none but\nthey to themselves can interpret; them who use the scripture no\notherwise by his own doctrine to their edification, than he himself\nuses it to their punishing; and so, whom his doctrine acknowledges a\ntrue believer, his discipline persecutes as a heretic. The papist\nexacts our belief as to the church due above scripture; and by the\nchurch, which is the whole people of God, understands the pope, the\ngeneral councils prelatical only, and the surnamed fathers: but the\nforcing protestant though he deny such belief to any church\nwhatsoever, yet takes it to himself and his teachers, of far less\nauthoritie than to be called the church, and above scripture\nbelieved: which renders his practice both contrarie to his belief,\nand far worse than that belief which he condemns in the papist. By\nall which well considered, the more he professes to be a true\nprotestant, the more he hath to answer for his persecuting than a\npapist. No protestant therefore, of what sect soever, following\nscripture only, which is the common sect wherein they all agree, and\nthe granted rule of every man\u2019s conscience to himself, ought, by the\ncommon doctrine of protestants, to be forced or molested for\nreligion.\n\nBut as for poperie and idolatrie, why they also may not hence plead\nto be tolerated, I have much less to say. Their religion the more\nconsidered, the less can be acknowledged a religion; but a Roman\nprincipalitie rather, endeavouring to keep up her old universal\ndominion under a new name and mere shadow of a catholic religion;\nbeing indeed more rightly named a catholic heresie against the\nscripture; supported mainly by a civil, and, except in Rome, by a\nforeign power: justly therefore to be suspected, not tolerated by\nthe magistrate of another country. Besides, of an implicit faith,\nwhich they profess, the conscience also becomes implicit; and so by\nvoluntarie servitude to man\u2019s law, forfeits her christian libertie.\nWho then can plead for such a conscience, as being implicitly\nenthralled to man instead of God, almost becomes no conscience, as\nthe will, not free, becomes no will. Nevertheless, if they ought not\nto be tolerated, it is for just reason of state more than of\nreligion; which they who force, though professing to be protestants,\ndeserve as little to be tolerated themselves, being no less guilty\nof poperie in the most popish point. Lastly, for idolatrie, who\nknows it not to be evidently against all scripture both of the old\nand new Testament, and therefore a true heresie, or rather an\nimpietie; wherein a right conscience can have nought to do; and the\nworks thereof so manifest, that a magistrate can hardly err in\nprohibiting and quite removing at least the public and scandalous\nuse thereof.\n\nFrom the riddance of these objections, I proceed yet\nto another reason, why it is unlawful for the civil magistrate to\nuse force in matters of religion; which is, because to judge in\nthose things, thought we should grant him able, which is proved he\nis not, yet as a civil magistrate he hath no right. Christ hath a\ngovernment of his own, sufficient of itself to all his ends and\npurposes in governing his church, but much different from that of\nthe civil magistrate: and the difference in this very thing\nprincipally consists, that it governs not by outward force, and that \nfor two reasons. First, because it deals only with the inward man, and\nhis actions, which are all spiritual, and to outward force not\nliable. Secondly, to shew us the divine excellence of his spiritual\nkingdom, able without worldly force, to subdue all the powers and\nkingdoms of this world, which are upheld by outward force only.\n\nThat the inward man is nothing else but the inward part of man, his\nunderstanding and his will, and that his actions thence proceeding;\nyet not simply thence, but from the work of divine grace upon them,\nare the whole matter of religion under the gospel, will appear\nplainly by considering what that religion is; whence we shall\nperceive yet more plainly that it cannot be forced. What evangelic\nreligion is, is told in two words, faith and charitie; or belief and\npractice. That both these flow either the one from the\nunderstanding, the other from the will, or both jointly from both,\nonce indeed naturally free, but now only as they are regenerate and\nwrought on by divine grace, is in part evident to common sense and\nprinciples unquestioned, the rest by scripture: concerning our\nbelief, (Matt. xvi. 17.) \u201cflesh and blood hath not revealed it unto\nthee, but my father which is in heaven: concerning our practice, as\nit is religious and not merely civil, Gal. V. 22. 23. and other\nplaces declare it to be the fruit of the spirit only. Nay our whole\npractical duty in religion is contained in charitie, or the love of\nGod and our neighbour, no way to be forced, yet the fulfilling of\nthe whole law; that is to say, our whole practice, which comprehend\nour whole religion, flow from faculties of the inward man, free and\nunconstrainable of themselves by nature, and our practice not only\nfrom faculties indued with freedom, but from love and charitie\nbesides, incapable of force; and all these things by transgression\nlost, but renewed and regenerated in us by the power and gift of\nGod-alone, how can such religion as this admit of force from man, or\nforce be any way applied to such religion, especially under the free\noffer of grace in the gospel, but it must forthwith frustrate and\nmake of no effect both the religion and the gospel. And that to\ncompel outward profession, which they will say perhaps ought to be\ncompelled though inward religion cannot, is to compel hypocrisie,\nnot to advance religion, shall yet, though of itself clear enough,\nbe ere the conclusion further manifest.\n\nThe other reason why Christ rejects outward force in the government\nof his church, is, as I said before, to shew us the divine\nexcellence of his spiritual kingdom, able without worldly force to\nsubdue all the powers and kingdoms of this world, which are upheld\nby outward force only; by which to uphold religion otherwise than to\ndefend the religious from outward violence, is no service to Christ\nor his kingdom, but rather a disparagement, and degrades it from a\ndivine and spiritual kingdom to a kingdom of this world: which he\ndenies it to be, because it needs not force to confirm it: (John\nxviii. 36.) \u201cIf my kingdom were of this world, then would my\nservants fight, that I should not be delivered to the jews.\u201d This\nproves the kingdom of Christ not governed by outward force; as being\nnone of this world, whose kingdoms are maintained all by force only:\nand yet disproves not that a christian commonwealth may defend\nitself against outward force in the cause of religion as well as in\nany other; though Christ himself, coming purposely to die for us,\nwould not be so defended. (1 Cor. i. 27.) \u201cGod hath chosen the weak\nthings of the world to confound the things which are mighty.\u201d Then\nsurely he hath not chosen the force of this world to subdue\nconscience and conscientious men, who in this world are counted\nweakest: but rather conscience, as being weakest, to subdue and\nregulate force, his adversarie, not his aid or instrument in\ngoverning the church. (2 Cor. x. 3. 4. 5. 6.) \u201cFor though we walk in\nthe flesh, we do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our\nwarfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down\nof strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing\nthat exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into\ncaptivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ: and having in a\nreadiness to avenge all disobedience.\u201d It is evident by the first\nand second verses of this chapter, that the apostle here speaks of\nthat spiritual power by which Christ governs his church, how all\nsufficient it is, how powerful to reach the conscience and the\ninward man, with whom it chiefly deals, and whom no power else can\ndeal with. In comparison of which, as it is here thus magnificently\ndescribed, how uneffectual and weak is outward force with all her\nboistrous tools, to the shame of those Christians, and especially\nthose churchmen, who to the exercising of church discipline never\ncease calling on the civil magistrate to interpose his fleshly\nforce; an argument that all true ministerial and spiritual power is\ndead within them: who think the gospel, which both began and spread\nover the whole world for above three hundred years under heathen and\npersecuting emperors, cannot stand or continue, supported by the\nsame divine presence and protection to the world\u2019s end, much easier\nunder the defensive favour only of a christian magistrate, unless it\nbe enacted and settled, as they call it, by the state, a statute or\na state-religion: and understand not that the church itself cannot,\nmuch less the state, settle or impose one tittle of religion upon\nour obedience implicit, but can only recommend or propound it to our\nfree and conscientious examination: unless they mean to set the\nstate higher than the church in religion, and with a gross\ncontradiction give to the state in their settling petition that\ncommand of our implicit belief, which they deny in their settled\nconfession both to the state and to the church. Let them cease then\nto importune and interrupt the magistrate from attending to his own\ncharge in civil and moral things, the settling of things just,\nthings honest, the defence of things religious settled by the\nchurches within themselves; and the repressing of their contraries\ndeterminable by the common light of nature; which is not to\nconstrain or to repress religion, probable by scripture, but the\nviolators and persecutors thereof: of all which things he hath\nenough and more than enough to do, left yet undone; for which the\nland groans and justice goes to wrack the while: let him also\nforbear force where he hath no right to judge; for the conscience is\nnot his province: least a worse woe arrive him, for worse offending,\nthan was denounced by our saviour, (Matt. xxiii. 23.) against the\npharisees: ye have forced the conscience, which was not to be\nforced; but judgment and mercy ye have not executed: this ye should\nhave done, and the other let alone. And since it is the counsel and\nset purpose of God in the gospel by spiritual means which are\ncounted weak, to overcome all power which resists him; let them not\ngo about to do that by worldly strength, which he hath decreed to do\nby those means which the world counts weakness, lest they be again\nobnoxious to that saying, which in another place is also written of\nthe pharisees, (Luke vii. 30.) \u201cthat they frustrated the counsel of\nGod.\u201d The main plea is, and urged with much vehemence to their\nimitation, that the kings of Judah, as I touched before, and\nespecially Josiah, both judged and used force in religion; (2 Chr.\nxxxiv. 33.) \u201che made all that were present in Israel to serve the\nLord their God.\u201d An argument, if it be well weighed, worse than that\nused by the false prophet Shemaiah to the high priest, that in\nimitation of Jehoiada he ought to put Jeremiah in the stocks, (Jer.\nxxix. 24, 26, &c.) for which he received his due denouncement from\nGod.\n\nBut to this besides I return a three-fold answer: first, that\nthe state of religion under the gospel is far differing from what it\nwas under the law; then was the stare of rigour, childhood, bondage\nand works, to all which force was not unbefitting; now is the state\nof grace, manhood, freedom and faith; to all which belongs\nwillingness and reason, not force: the law was then written on\ntables of stone, and to be performed according to the letter,\nwillingly or unwillingly; the gospel, our new covenant, upon the\nheart of every believer, to be interpreted only by the sense of\ncharitie and inward persuasion: the law had no distinct government\nor governors of church and commonwealth, but the priests and levites\njudged in all causes not ecclesiastical only but civil, (Deut. xvii.\n8, &c.) which under the gospel is forbidden to all church ministers,\nas a thing which Christ their master in his ministerie disclaimed,\n(Lu. xii. 14.) as a thing beneath them; (1 Cor. vi. 4.) and by many\nof our statutes, as to them who have a peculiar and far differing\ngovernment of their own. If not, why different the governors? Why\nnot church ministers in state affairs, as well as state ministers in\nchurch affairs? If church and state shall be made one flesh again as\nunder the law, let it be withal considered, that God who then joined\nthem hath now severed them; that which he so ordaining, was then a\nlawful conjunction; to such on either side as join again what he\nhath severed, would be nothing now but their own presumptuous\nfornication.\n\nSecondly, the kings of Judah, and those magistrates\nunder the law, might have recourse, as I said before, to divine\ninspiration; which our magistrates under the gospel have not, more\nthan to the same spirit, which those whom they force have oft times\nin greater measure than themselves: and so, instead of forcing the\nchristian, they force the holy ghost; and, against that wise\nforewarning of Gamaliel, fight against God.\n\nThirdly, those kings and magistrates used force in such things only\nas were undoubtedly known and forbidden in the law of Moses,\nidolatrie and direct apostacie from that national and strict\nenjoined worship of God; whereof the corporal punishment was by\nhimself expressly set down: but magistrates under the gospel, our\nfree, elective and rational worship, are most commonly busiest to\nforce those things which in the gospel are either left free, nay\nsometimes abolished, when by them compelled, or else controverted\nequally by writers on both sides, and sometimes with odds on that\nside which is against them. By which means they either punish that\nwhich they ought to favour and protect, or that with corporal\npunishment and of their own inventing, which not they but the church\nhath received command to chastise with a spiritual rod only. Yet\nsome are so eager in their zeal of forcing, that they refuse not to\ndescend at length to the utmost shift of that parabolical proof,\nLuke xiv. 16, &c. \u201ccompel them to come in:\u201d therefore, magistrates\nmay compel in religion. As if a parable were to be strained through\nevery word or phrase, and not expounded by the general scope\nthereof: which is no other here, than the earnest expression of\nGod\u2019s displeasure on those recusant jews, and his purpose to prefer\nthe gentiles on any terms before them; expressed here by the word\n\u201ccompel.\u201d\n\nBut how compels he? Doubtless no otherwise than he draws, without\nwhich no man can come to him, (John vi. 44.) and that is by the\ninward persuasive motions of his spirit, and by his ministers; not\nby the outward compulsions of a magistrate or his officers.\n\nThe true people of Christ, as is foretold, (Psalm cx. 3.) \u201care a\nwilling people in the day of his power.\u201d Then much more now when he\nrules all things by outward weakness, that both his inward power and\ntheir sinceritie may the more appear. \u201cGod loveth a cheerful giver:\u201d\nthen certainly is not pleased with an uncheerful worshipper; as the\nvery words declare of his evangelical invitations. (Isa. lv. i.)\n\u201cHo, every one that thirsteth, come.\u201d (John vii. 37.) \u201cIf any man\nthirst.\u201d (Rev. iii. 18.) \u201cI counsel thee.\u201d and (xxii. 17.)\n\u201cwhosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.\u201d And in that\ngrand commission of preaching to invite all nations (Mark, xvi. 16.)\nas the reward of them who come, so the penaltie of them who come not\nis only spiritual.\n\nBut they bring now some reason with their force, which must not pass\nunanswered; that the church of Thyatira was blamed, (Rev. ii. 20.)\nfor suffering the false \u201cprophetess to teach and to seduce.\u201d I\nanswer, that seducement is to be hindered by fit and proper means\nordained in church discipline; by instant and powerful demonstration\nto the contrary; by opposing truth to error, no unequal match; truth\nthe strong, to error to the weak though fly and shifting. Force is\nno honest confutation; but uneffectual, and, for the most part,\nunsuccessful, ofttimes fatal to them who use it: sound doctrine\ndiligently and duly taught, is of herself both sufficient, and of\nherself (if some secret judgment of God hinder not) always prevalent\nagainst seducers. This the Thyatirans had neglected, suffering,\nagainst church discipline, that woman to teach and seduce among\nthem: civil force they had not then in their power; being the\nchristian part only of that city, and then especially under one of\nthose ten great persecutions, whereof this, the second, was raised\nby Domitian force, therefore, in these matters could not be required\nof them, who were then under force themselves.\n\nI have shewn that the civil power hath neither right nor can do\nright by forcing religious things: I will now shew the wrong it\ndoth; by violating the fundamental privilege of the gospel, the new\nbirthright of every true believer, christian libertie. (2 Cor. iii.\n17.) \u201cWhere the spirit of the Lord is, there is libertie.\u201d (Gal. iv.\n26.) \u201cJerusalem which is above, is free; which is the mother of us\nall;\u201d and (31.) \u201cwe are not children of the bondwoman, but of the\nfree. It will be sufficient in this place to say no more of\nchristian libertie, than that it sets us free, not only from the\nbondage of those ceremonies, but also from the forcible imposition\nof those circumstances, place and time, in the worship of God,\nwhich, though by him commanded in the old law, yet in respect of\nthat veritie and freedom which is evangelical, St. Paul comprehends\nboth kinds alike, that is to say, both ceremonie and circumstance,\nunder one and the same contemptuous name of \u201cweak and beggarly\nrudiments,\u201d (Gal. iv. 3, 9, 10. Col. ii. 8. with 16.) conformable to\nwhat our saviour himself taught, (John iv. 21.) \u201cneither in this\nmountain nor yet at Jerusalem. In spirit in truth: for the Father\nseeketh such to worship him.\u201d That is to say, not only sincere of\nheart, for such he sought ever, but also, as the words here chiefly\nimport, not compelled to place, and by the same reason, not to any\nset time, as his apostle by the same spirit hath taught us, (Rom.\nxiv. 6, &c.) \u201cone man esteemeth one day above another, another, &c.\u201d\n(Gal. iv. 10.) \u201cYe observe days and months, &c.\u201d (Col. ii. 16.)\n\nThese, and other such places of scripture, the best and learnedest\nreformed writers have thought evident enough to instruct us in our\nfreedom, not only from ceremonies, but from those circumstances\nalso, though imposed with a confident persuasion of moralitie in\nthem, which they hold impossible to be in place or time. By what\nwarrant then our opinions and practices are of late turned quite\nagainst all other protestants, and that which is to them orthodoxal,\nto us become scandalous and punishable by statute, I wish were once\nagain better considered; if we mean not to proclaim a schism, in\nthis point, from the best and most reformed churches abroad.\n\nThey who would seem more knowing, confess that these things are\nindifferent, but for that very cause by the magistrate may be\ncommanded. As if God of his special grace in the gospel had to this\nend freed us from his own commandments in these things, that our\nfreedom should subject us to a more grievous yoke, the commandments of\nmen. As well may the magistrate call that common or unclean which God\nhath cleansed, forbidden to St. Peter; (Acts x. 15.) as well may he\nloosen that which God hath straitened, or straiten that which God\nhath loosened, as he may enjoin those things in religion which God\nhath left free, and lay on that yoke which God hath taken off. For\nhe hath not only given us this gift as a special privilege and\nexcellence of the free gospel above the servile law, but strictly\nalso hath commanded us to keep it and enjoy it. (Gal. v. 13.) \u201cYou\nare called to libertie.\u201d (1 Cor. vii. 23.) \u201cBe not made the servants\nof men.\u201d (Gal. v. 14.) \u201cStand fast, therefore, in the libertie\nwherewith Christ has made us free; and be not entangled again with\nthe yoke of bondage.\u201d Neither is this a mere command, but for the\nmost part, in these foresighted places, accompanied with the very\nweightiest and inmost reasons of the christian religion. (Rom. xiv.\n9. 10.) \u201cFor to this end, Christ both died, and rose and revived,\nthat he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou\njudge thy brother, &c?\u201d how presumest thou to be his lord, to be\nwhose only lord, at least in these things, Christ both died, and\nrose and lived again? \u201cWe shall all stand before the judgment seat\nof Christ.\u201d Why then dost thou not only judge, but persecute in\nthese things for which we are to be accountable to the tribunal of\nChrist only, our Lord and lawgiver? (1 Cor. vii. 23.) \u201cYe are bought\nwith a price; be not made the servants of men.\u201d Some trivial price\nbelike, and for some frivolous pretences paid in their opinion, if\nbought and by him redeemed who is God, from what was once service of\nGod, we shall be enthralled again, and forced by men to what now is\nbut the service of men. (Gal. iv. 31, with v. 1.) \u201cWe are not\nchildren of the bondwoman, &c. stand fast therefore, &c.\u201d (Col. ii.\n8.) \u201cBeware lest any man spoil you, &c. after the rudiments of the\nworld, and not after Christ.\u201d Solid reasons whereof are continued\nthrough the whole chapter. Verse 10, \u201cYe are complete in him, which\nis the head of all principalitie and power.\u201d Not completed\ntherefore, or made the more religious, by those ordinances of civil\npower, from which Christ their head hath discharged us; \u201cblotting\nout the hand-writing of ordinances, that was against us, which was\ncontrary to us; and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;\nver. 14. blotting out ordinances written by God himself, much more\nthose so boldly written over again by men: ordinancies which were\nagainst us, that is, against our frailtie, much more those that are\nagainst our conscience. \u201cLet no man therefore judge you in respect\nof, &c. ver. 16. (Gal. iv. 3, &c.) \u201cEven so we, when we were\nchildren, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when\nthe fulness of time were come, God sent forth his son, &c. to redeem\nthem that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of\nsons, &c. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son, &c. But\nnow, &c. how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly rudiments,\nwhereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, &c.\u201d\n\nHence it plainly appears, that if we be not free we are not sons,\nbut still servants unadopted; and if we turn again to those weak and\nbeggarly rudiments, we are not free; yea, though willingly, and with\na misguided conscience, we desire to be in bondage to them; how much\nmore then if unwillingly and against our conscience? Ill was our\ncondition changed from legal to evangelical, and small advantage\ngotten by the gospel, if for the spirit of adoption to freedom,\npromised us, we receive again the spirit of bondage to fear; if our\nfear which was then servile towards God only, must be now servile in\nreligion towards men: strange also and preposterous fear, if when\nand wherein it hath attained by the redemption of our saviour to be\nfilial only towards God, it must be now servile towards the\nmagistrate. Who, by subjecting us to his punishment in these things,\nbrings back into religion that law of terror and satisfaction,\nbelonging now only to civil crimes; and thereby in effect abolishes\nthe gospel, by establishing again the law to a far worse yoke of\nservitude upon us than before.\n\nIt will, therefore, not misbecome the meanest christian to put in\nmind christian magistrates, and so much the more freely, by how much\nthe more they desire to be thought christian, (for they will be\nthereby, as they ought to be in these things, the more our brethren\nand the less our lords,) that they meddle not rashly with christian\nlibertie, the birthright and outward testimonie of our adoption:\nlest, while they little think it, nay think they do God service,\nthey themselves, like the sons of that bondwoman, be found\npersecuting them who are freeborn of the spirit; and, by a sacrilege\nof not the least aggravation, bereaving them of that sacred libertie\nwhich our saviour with his own blood purchased for them.\n\nA fourth reason why the magistrate ought not to use force in\nreligion, I bring from the consideration of all those ends which he\ncan likely pretend to the interposing of his force therein: and\nthose hardly can be other than, first the glory of God; next, either\nthe spiritual good of them whom he forces, or the temporal\npunishment of their scandal to others. As for the promoting of God\u2019s\nglory, none, I think, will say that his glory ought to be promoted\nin religious things by unwarrantable means, much less by means\ncontrarie to what he hath commanded. That outward force is such, and\nthat God\u2019s glory in the whole administration of the gospel according\nto his own will and counsel ought to be fulfilled by weakness, at\nleast so refuted, not by force; or if by force, inward and\nspiritual, not outward and corporeal, is already proved at large.\n\nThat outward force cannot tend to the good of him who is forced in\nreligion, is unquestionable. For in religion whatever we do, under\nthe gospel, we ought to be thereof persuaded without scruple; and\nare justified by the faith we have, not by the work we do. (Rom.\nxiv. 5.) \u201cLet every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.\u201d The\nother reason which follows necessarily, is obvious, (Gal. ii. 16.)\nand in many other places of St. Paul, as the groundwork and\nfoundation of the whole gospel, that we are \u201cjustified by the faith\nof Christ, and not by the works of the law.\u201d If not by the works of\nGod\u2019s law, how then by the injunctions of man\u2019s law? Surely force\ncannot work persuasion, which is faith; cannot therefore justify,\nnor pacify, the conscience; and that which justifies not in the\ngospel, condemns; is not only not good, but sinful to do. (Rom. xiv.\n23.) \u201cWhatsoever is not of faith, is sin.\u201d It concerns the\nmagistrate then to take heed, how he forces in religion\nconscientious men: left, by compelling them to do that whereof they\ncannot be persuaded, that wherein they cannot find themselves\njustified, but by their own consciences condemned, instead of aiming\nat their spiritual good, he force them to do evil; and while he\nthinks himself Asa, Josiah, Nehemiah, he be found Jeroboam, who\ncaused Israel to sin; and thereby draw upon his own head all those\nsins and shipwrecks of implicit faith and conformitie, which he hath\nforced, and all the wounds given to those little ones, whom to\noffend he will find worse one day than that violent drowning\nmentioned Matt. xviii. 6.\n\nLastly, as a preface to force, it is the usual pretence, that\nalthough tender consciences shall be tolerated, yet scandals thereby\ngiven shall not be unpunished, prophane and licentious men shall not\nbe encouraged to neglect the performance of religious and holy\nduties, by colour of any law giving libertie to tender consciences.\nBy which contrivance, the way lies ready open to them hereafter who\nmay be so minded, to take away by little and little, that libertie\nwhich Christ and his gospel, not any magistrate, hath right to give:\nthough this kind of his giving be but to give with one hand and take\naway with the other, which is a deluding not a giving.\n\nAs for scandals, if any man be offended at the conscientious\nlibertie of another, it is a taken scandal, not a given. To heal one\nconscience, we must not wound another: and man must be exhorted to\nbeware of scandals in christian libertie, not forced by the\nmagistrate; lest while he goes about to take away the scandal, which\nis uncertain whether given or taken, he take away our libertie,\nwhich is the certain and the sacred gift of God, neither to be\ntouched by him, nor to be parted with by us. None more cautious of\ngiving scandal than St. Paul. Yet, while he made himself \u201cservant to\nall, that he might gain the more,\u201d he made himself so of his accord,\nwas not made so by outward force, testifying at the same time that\nhe \u201cwas free from all men:\u201d (1 Cor. ix. 19.) and thereafter exhorts\nus also, (Gal. V. 13.) \u201cYe were called to libertie, &c. but by love\nserve one another:\u201d then not by force.\n\nAs for that fear, lest prophane and licentious men should be\nencouraged to omit the performance of religious and holy duties, how\ncan that care belong to the civil magistrate, especially to his\nforce? For, if prophane and licentious persons must not neglect the\nperformance of religious and holy duties, it implies, that such\nduties they can perform; which no protestant will affirm. They who\nmean the outward performance, may so explain it, and then it will\nappear more plainly, that such performance of religious duties,\nespecially by prophane and licentious persons, is a dishonouring,\nrather than a worshiping of God, and not only by him not required,\nbut detested: (Pro. xxi. 27.) \u201cThe sacrifice of the wicked is an\nabomination: how much more when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?\nTo compel, therefore, the prophane to things holy in his\nprophaneness, is all one under the gospel, as to have compelled the\nunclean to sacrifice in his uncleanness under the law.\n\nAnd I add withal, that to compel the licentious in his\nlicentiousness, and the conscientious against his conscience, comes\nall to one; tends not to the honour of God, but to the multiplying\nand the aggravating of sin to them both. We read not that Christ\never exercised force but once; and that was to drive prophane ones\nout of his temple, not to force them in: and if their being there was\nan offence, we find, by many other scriptures, that their praying\nthere was an abomination: and yet to the jewish law that nation, as\na servant, was obliged; but to the gospel, each person is left\nvoluntary, called only, as a son, by the preaching of the word; not\nto be driven in by edicts and force of arms. For, if by the apostle,\n(Rom. xii. 1) \u201cwe are beseeched, as brethren, by the mercies of God,\nto present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God,\nwhich is our reasonable service\u201d or worship, then is no man to be\nforced by the compulsive laws of men, to present his body a dead\nsacrifice, and so, under the gospel, most unholy and unacceptable,\nbecause it is his unreasonable service, that is to say, not only\nunwilling, but unconscionable. But if prophane and licentious\npersons may not omit the performance of holy duties, why may they\nnot partake of holy things? Why are they prohibited the lord\u2019s\nsupper; since both the one and the other action may be outward; and\noutward performance of duty may attain at least an outward\nparticipation of benefit? The church denying them that communion of\ngrace and thanksgiving, as it justly doth, why doth the magistrate\ncompel them to the union of performing that which they neither truly\ncan, being themselves unholy, and to do, seemingly is both hateful\nto God, and perhaps no less dangerous to perform holy duties\nirreligiously, than to receive holy signs or sacraments unworthily.\nAll prophane and licentious men, so known, can be considered but\neither so without the church as never yet within it, or departed\nthence of their own accord, or excommunicate: if never yet within\nthe church, whom the apostle, and so consequently the church, have\nnought to do to judge them, (as he professes 1 Cor. v. 12.) by what\nauthoritie doth the magistrate judge, or, which is worse, compel, in\nrelation to the church? If departed of his own accord, like that\nlost sheep Luke xv. 4, &c. the true church either with her own, or\nany borrowed force, worries him not in again, but rather in all\ncharitable manner sends after him; and if she find him, lay him\ngently on her shoulders; bears him, yea bears his burdens, his\nerrors, his infirmities any way tolerable, \u201cso fulfilling the law of\nChrist:\u201d (Gal. vi. 2.) if excommunicate, whom the church hath bid go\nout, in whose name doth the magistrate compel to go in? The church\nindeed hinders none from hearing in her public congregation, for the\ndoors are open to all: nor excommunicates to destruction, but as\nmuch as in her lies, to a final saving. Her meaning therefore must\nneeds be, that as her driving out brings on no outward penaltie, to\nno outward force or penaltie of an improper and only a destructive\npower, should drive in again her infectious sheep; therefore sent\nout, because infectious, and not driven in, but with the danger not\nonly of the whole and sound, but also of his own utter perishing.\n\nSince force neither instructs in religion, nor begets repentance or\namendment of life, but, on the contrarie, hardness of heart,\nformalitie, hypocrisie, and, as I said before, every increase of\nsin; more and more alienates the mind from a violent religion\nexpelling out and compelling in, and reduces it to a condition like\nthat which the Britons complain of in our story, driven to and\nfro between the Picts and the sea. If, after excommunion he be found\nintractable, incurable, and will not hear the church, he becomes as\none never yet within her pale, \u201ca heathen or a publican,\u201d (Matt\nxviii. 17.) not further to be judged, no not by the magistrate,\nunless for civil causes; but left to the final sentence of that\njudge, whose coming shall be in flames of fire; that *Maran-ath\u00e0*,\n(1 Cor. xvi. 22) than which to him so left, nothing can be more\ndreadful, and ofttimes to him particularly nothing more speedy, that\nis to say, the Lord cometh: In the meanwhile, delivered up to satan,\n(1 Cor. v. 5. 1 Tim. i. 20.) that is, from the fold of Christ and\nkingdom of grace, to the world again, which is the kingdom of\nsatan: and as he was received \u201cfrom darkness to light, and from the\npower of satan to God,\u201d (Acts xxvi. 18;) so now delivered up again\nfrom light to darkness, and from God to the power of satan; yet so,\nas is in both places manifested, to the intent of saving him,\nbrought sooner to contrition by spiritual, than by any corporal\nseverity.\n\nBut grant it belonging any way to the magistrate, that prophane and\nlicentious persons omit not the performance of holy duties, which in\nthem were odious to God even under the law, much more now under the\ngospel, yet ought his care both as a magistrate and a christian, to\nbe much more that conscience be not inwardly violated, than that\nlicence in these things be made outwardly conformable: since his\npart is undoubtedly as a christian, which puts him upon this office\nmuch more than as a magistrate, in all respects to have more care of\nthe conscientious than of the prophane; and not for their sakes to\ntake away, (while they pretend to give,) or to diminish the rightful\nlibertie of religious consciences.\n\nOn these four scriptural reasons, as on a firm square, this truth,\nthe right of christian and evangelic libertie, will stand immovable\nagainst all those pretended consequences of license and confusion,\nwhich, for the most part, men most licentious and confused\nthemselves, or such as whose severity would be wiser than divine\nwisdom, are ever aptest to object against the ways of God: as if God\nwithout them, when he gave us this libertie, knew not of the worst\nwhich these men in their arrogance pretend will follow: yet, knowing\nall their worst, he gave us this libertie, as by him judged best.\n\nAs to those magistrates who think it their work to settle religion,\nand those ministers or others, who so oft call upon them to do so, I\ntrust, that having well considered what hath been here argued,\nneither they will continue in that intention, nor these in that\nexpectation from them: when they shall find that the settlement of\nreligion belongs only to each particular church by persuasive and\nspiritual means within itself, and that the defence only of the\nchurch belongs to the magistrate. Had he once learnt, not further to\nconcern himself with church affairs, half his labour might be\nspared, and the commonwealth better tended. To which end, that which\nI premised in the beginning, and in due place treated of more at\nlarge, I desire now concluding, that they would consider seriously\nwhat religion is: and they will find it to be in sum, both our\nbelief and our practice depending upon God only. That there can be\nno place then left for the magistrate, of his force, in the\nsettlement of religion, by appointing either what we shall believe\nin divine things, or practice in religious, (neither of which things\nare in the power of man either to perform himself, or to enable\nothers,) I persuade me, in the christian ingenuitie of all religious\nmen, the more they examine seriously, the more they will find\nclearly to be true: and find, how false and deceivable that common\nsaying is, which is so much relied upon, that the christian\nmagistrate is \u201ccustos utriusque tabulae,\u201d keeper of both tables;\nunless is meant by keeper, the defender only: neither can that maxim\nbe maintained, by any proof or argument which hath not in this\ndiscourse, first or last, been refuted. For the two tables, or ten\ncommandments, teach our duty to God and our neighbour, from the love\nof both; give magistrates no authority to force either: they seek\nthat from the judicial law; though on false grounds, especially in\nthe first table, as I have shewn; and both in first and second\nexecutes that authoritie, for the most part, not according to God\u2019s\njudicial laws, but their own.\n\nAs for civil crimes, and of the outward man, which all are not, no\nnot of those against the second table, as that of covering; in them\nwhat power they have, they had from the beginning, long before Moses\nof the two tables were in being. And whether they be not now as\nlittle in being to be kept by any christian, as they are two legal\ntables, remains yet as undecided, as it is sure they never were yet\ndelivered to the keeping of any christian magistrate. But, of these\nthings, perhaps more some other time; what may serve the present\nhath been above discoursed sufficiently out of the scriptures; and\nto those produced, might be added testimonies, examples, experiences\nof all succeeding ages to these times, asserting this doctrine but\nhaving herein the scripture so copious and so plain, we have all\nthat can be properly called true strength and nerve; the rest would\nbe but pomp and incumbrance.\n\nPomp and oftentation of reading is admired among the vulgar: but\ndoubtless, in matters of religion, he is learnedest who is plainest.\nThe brevity I use, not exceeding a small MANUAL, will not,\ntherefore, I suppose, be thought the less considerable, unless with\nthem, perhaps, who think that great books only can determine great\nmatters. I rather chose the common rule, not to make much ado, where\nless may serve; which, in controversies, and those especially of\nreligion, would make them less tedious, and by consequence read\noftener, by many more, and with more benefit.\n\n\nTHE END.","title":"A treatise of civil power in ecclesiastical causes : $b Shewing that it is not lawful for any power on earth to compel in matters of religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":11839}