So Calvin, Beza, and among the Pontificians, Gerson and many other Casuists (c)have determined. In Civil Matters the Laws of men are to be complied with when they are not repugnant to any Law of God. But in Religious or Ecclesiastical matters, we are not to consider so much what men say, as what the Lord says. Isa. 33.22. The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Law-giver, the Lord is our King. Jam. 4.12. There is one Law giver. In matters relating to the Worship of God, the Negative argument is sufficient. What is not commanded ought not be practised. Jer. 7.31. Heb. 7.14. All sound Protestants agree, that Christ is the only Head of the Church. It does therefore belong to him alone to appoint Laws for the Government of his Church. If men, let them be never so Superior, suppose Pope or Emperor shall take upon them to make Ecclesiastical Laws which the Lord Christ has ⟨p. 5⟩never made, no man is bound in Conscience to submit to them, but may with a good conscience refuse to Conform thereunto, and will be a Martyr in case he suffers for that his Non Conformity. Some of •a•e have taught, that a mans private Conscience must be ruled by the public Conscience, viz. The will of Superiors, which (as one says) is a Solecism in Divinity. •ouner used to object Rom: 13.5. against the Martyrs. All the time of Popery Protestants were reproached as disobedient to Authority. Celsus reflects on Christians after the same manner. Conformists in their disputes with Nonconformists, wonderfully extol the Authority of the Church. But when they have to do with Papists, that argument is of no validity. This proved a• great temptation to a Great man to change his Religion. Mr. K. designing to exalt the Churches Authority, allegeth, Heb. 1: 17. Doubtless his meaning is, that in things •ot forbidden by the Divine Law, the Commandments of Bishops must be obeyed. There was a man (Dr. Richard Smith) that Preached such Doctrine in the days of King Edward VI But he was said to make a public Recantation of his Error at Pauls Cross in London, May 15, 1547. In which he says, that whereas he had taught, that it is more convenient that the people obey their Bishops Commandments and Decrees, although it be but •• thing indifferent of it self, and not commanded by God, then that ⟨p. 6⟩Servants should obey their Masters, or Children their Fathers.
So Calvin, Beza, and among the Pontificians, Gerson and many other Casuists (c)have determined. In Civil Matters the Laws of men are to be complied with when they are not repugnant to any Law of God. But in Religious or Ecclesiastical matters, we are not to consider so much what men say, as what the Lord says. Isa. 33.22. The Lord is our Iudge, the Lord is our Law-giver, the Lord is our King. Jam. 4.12. There is one Law giver. In matters relating to the Worship of God, the Negative argumen• is sufficient. What is not commanded ought not be practised. Ier. 7.31. Heb. 7.14. All sound Protestants agree, that Christ is the only Head of the Church. It does therefore belong to him alone to appoint Laws for the Government of his Church. If men, let them be never so Superiour, suppose Pope or Emperour shall take upon them to make Ecclesiastical Laws which the Lord Christ has ⟨p. 5⟩never made, no man is bound in Conscienc• to submit to them, but may with a good conscience refuse to Conform thereunto, and will be a Martyr in case he suffers for that his Non Conformity. Some of •a•e have taught, that a mans private Conscience must be ruled by the publick Conscience, viz. The will of Superiours, which (as one says) is a Solecism in Divinity. •ouner used to object Rom: 13.5. against the Martyrs. All the time of Popery Protestants were reproached as disobedient to Authority. Celsus reflects on Christians after the same manner. Conformi•ts in their disputes with Nonconformists, wonderfully extol the Authority of the Church. But when they have to do with Papists, that argument is of no validity. This proved a• great temptation to a Great man to change his Religion. Mr. K. designing to exalt the Churches Authority, alleadgeth, Heb. 1: 17. Doubtless his meaning is, that in things •ot forbidden by the Divine Law, the Commandments of Bishops must be obeyed. There was a man (Dr. Richard Smith) that Preached such Doctne in the days of King Edward VI But he was said to make a publick Recantation of his Error at Pauls Cross in London, May 15, 1547. In which he says, that whereas he had taught, that it is more convenient that the people obey their Bishops Commandments and Decrees, although it be but thing indifferent of it self, and not commanded by God, then that
- (c)v. Ames Gas. Cons• lib. 5 cap 25.
