not the Laws of England once tye us to them Were we not United to the Governours Worship Members and Assemblies of that Church Did not our Fore-fathers shew their consent by ordinary attendance upon their Devotions c. This is all our Author saith for our Vnion to the National and Parochial Church or Churches of England § 68. Again they have proved it he saith that Communion in that Church is corrupt How Because we cannot communicate with it without sin How have they proved it Demonstratively so as the Adversaries cannot deny it Nothing less they do deny it and yet dispute it but so as we probably judg it sinful We grant this is proved and so we think we have proved it too though it may be more sinful to communicate with the Romish Church But we know Magis minus non variant speciem But we think we ought not to do the least sin § 69. But we do not say it is sinful to communicate with them in all Ordinances Why do we not communicate with them so far as we can without sin Presbyterians indeed do generally acknowledg so much But Communion is either stated and fixed or Occasional They conceive themselves obliged statedly and fixedly if they can to communicate to their proper Congregations where they can enjoy all the Ordinances of God For occasional Communion they neither have denied it nor shall deny it to their Brethren in such actions wherein their Consciences will allow them so to communicate without sin as occasion offers it self they acknowledg many of their Ministers and of their Churches true Churches true Ministerial Churches they many of them hear them Preach and Pray and bring their Children to them to be Baptized especially if any of them will abate what in that administration none judgeth by Divine precept Originally necessary and they judg sinful what would the Author have more unless a perfect communion § 70. As to which though I do not much value Arguments from Authority of men because they never touch the Conscience nor ad homines because they are single Bullets and hit but one person yet once let me use one Because our Author in his Doctrine of Schisme p. 28. assures us he is much of Mr. Fulwoods mind I know not that Reverend Person but I take him to be the same Mr. Fulwood that was sometimes Minister at Staple Fitzpane in Somerset-shire and anno 1652. published a Book called The Churches and Ministry of England true Churches and a true Ministry if he be not the man intended I beg his pardon if it be he he saith thus of the Church of England For matters of Government indeed of late we were under Episcopacy all whose appurtenances savoured of Antichrist and in the same page a little after our Episcopal Courts Service Tyranny c. were very gross This was Mr. Fulwoods judgment I think we may easily argue according to his principles It is Mr. Fulwoods assertion not ours From a Church all whose appurtenances as to Government savour of Antichrist Fulwoods Churches Ministry of England true c. p. 12. and whose service is very gross Christians may and ought to separate so far as to that Government all whose appurtenances so savour and whose service is gross But saith Mr. Fulwood Ergo. When the Reverend Author hath found out an answer for his Friend Mr. Fulwood we will further examin it But there is no end of these things § 71. In the mean time I must mind the Author of too little candor as to his Adversary who wrote the Reflexions in saying the sum of what he offered was reducible to these two propositions 1. That the Conformists held the Church of Rome to be a true Church yet did separate 2. That our Parochial Churches are no true Churches when as he never said the latter at all but the clean contrary and had acknowledged 1. All of them true Churches that is true parts of the Catholick Church 2. Many of them true Ministerial Churches 3. Some of them true Organical Churches Besides this He that reads the Authors chap. 1. will see these two things were not the sum of what he said and that how little soever Reason was in those Reflections there was yet more then this Author in his Remarques was pleased to take notice of for that Author had then insisted on their not being united to Parochial Churches § 72. To shut up this discourse I from my Soul wish all the Lords Ministers and People of England were of one heart and mind I am not of Gravity or Learning sufficient to Advise either Conformists or Non-conformists but shall only propose my own thoughts and not mine alone The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hornbeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Dissertations de Episcopatu hath these passages which I shall translate The learned may read them in the Printed Copies If men were every where as sollicitous for forming and reforming men and fitting them for the sacred Ministry to which they profess to give up themselves the disputation about the form of Sacred Order and Government would be more easie and less evil need be feared from that which we judge not so good Here saith he We must begin that men may be made worthy for the work and Parag. 4. Here we must lay on our help We see the Apostles in their Writings were more sollicitous about the Vertues than the degrees of Ministers Parag. 9. Before saith he we divide into parties about other things we should joyntly agree about these things A confession of common Doctrine according to truth and piety should be either set forth or confirmed then exact Canons should be made about the whole life and manners of Ministers and then a disputation about the form of Church Government should follow Thus far he § 73. I shall conclude with delivering my Opinion That if 1. All the ancient Canons of Councils were executed which concern Ministers Lives and Office And the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as expounded by King James and the Parliament of England were avowed and those men might have nothing to do in the debate Who are dead in Law according to those Canons that is such as ought to be Excommunicated or deprived and who had declared or should declare themselves contrary to the Doctrine so expoundâ—d and declared The remaining part would quickly so well agree with other things as we should be no more troubled with clamours of Schisme and Separation and tell somthing of that Nature be I see no medium but either Dissenters must be indulged and Schisme clamour'd and never proved or suffering for Conscience-sake must be imposed and patiently endured Fiat Voluntas Dei ERRATA PAge 2. l. 23. f. curare r. curaes p. 32. l. 14. f. Arminians r. Arminius p. 33. l. 4. f. 130. r. 13th p. 36. l. 12. f. generatibus r. Generalibus p. 42. l. 12. f. Jundical r. Juridical p. 70. l. 2. r. one Ministers parts p. 74.
to worship God at Westminster in the same acts of worship is a Schisme from that part of this Church which meet for that end in London § 42. Nor is he helped at all by saying Our Churches are not of the same constitution Doctrine of Schisme 55. which he says was Mr. Cawdrys answer to Dr. Owen let Mr. Cawdry or who will say so Dolus versatur in Generatibus What is the difference did Christ constitute theirs We trust he hath constituted ours that is by the Rules given in his Word Were theirs constituted by Parliament that will be hard to prove as to the first constitution Parishes in England were first made by a Popish Arch-Bishop the Parliament afterwards or Custom rather might confirm them Doth it then make a Schismatick to depart to a Church not established by humane Law or Custom How else are we of another constitution Is not the same Doctrine Preached the same Sacraments administred the same acts of Worship performed Where 's the difference In the Modes Rites and Ceremonies only And these all of humane institution This is that which the Church of God never before called Schisme which the Apostles never thought of Do not we agree in the same Government That concerns us not yet while we are clearing our selves only from a Church which the Author must shew us capable of any such Government as Christ hath appointed intrinsecal to his Church In the mean time as to the National Church of England we deny that we are guilty of any Schisme either in it or from it so that the whole charge must rest upon particular Churches and our pretended separation from them § 43. This is that other Church-state mentioned by Mr. Caudry and quoted by our Author ch 9. p. 57. these he calls Parochial Congregations We are he saith guilty of Schisme from them we all agree that these are capable of the name of Churches 1. As they are lesser parts of the Catholick Church and so capable of the name of the whole thus we were indeed united to them as we were united to the Catholick Church and united still to them as unto that owning the Lord Jesus Christ his Word and Ordinances and professing a subjection to them But this is not the other state he speaks of by which he can mean nothing but a governing state 2. Secondly therefore These Parochial Societies may be considered as perfectly or more imperfectly Organized furnished with all Church-Officers requisite and walking in Gospel order or not so furnished or so walking The Author tells his Reader in a latter Book called Advice to the Conformists and Nonconformists That the sum of what the Author of the short Reflections offered lay in two things the latter of which he delivered thus Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches Advice to Conformists c. p. 72. or at lest they are so faulty as they may be lawfully separated from We have read over the Book and good Reader at thy leisure do but read over that Pamplet the second chapt particularly the 13 14 15. pages and see whether this Author hath or no dealt ingeniously with him p. 14. He speaks of these Societies as parts of the Catholick Churches and saith Short Reflections p. 14. In this Notion we cannot deny that every Parish yea Family of Christians is a true Church But he indeed concludes that out of such particular Churches it must be lawful to gather a Church for all particular Churches in the world are gathered out of the Catholick Visible Church even Heathens when converted must be of the Catholick Visible Church before they can form a particular Church In this state and no other must all Parochial Societies be that have no Minister unless we will have Organical Governing Churches without any Governours which we think is a contradiction P. 15. He takes notice of another Notion of them as Ministerial by which he saith he underst ands a competent number of Christians who have either first chosen or after submitted to A. B. as their Pastor he might indeed have spared this Notion I do not remember I have met with it in any Author but Mr. Rutherford and the truth is if it be a single Minister I do not understand how he Preacheth otherwise to them than as he is so far an Officer of the Catholick Church and they a part of that vast body He considers these people Either as living in the use of all Gospel-Ordinances or as at present living without some Ordinances or having them so unduly administred as may offer just cause of doubt to some Christians whether they may lawfully communicate with them or no He adds we do believe that from such a Church as is furnished with a duely sent able painful Minister regularly administring the Ordinances of Christ so as people may communicate with them without sin and pressing forward to that perfection in order which in all things they have not attained Christians as before united to them may not separate without sin He did not indeed say but I dare say for him he believed there were many such Parochial Societies in England and he hints it when he saith This was that indeed which some Presbyterians reflected upon our Brethren of the Congregational persuasion and these were those Parochial Churches which they contended for as true Churches Was this to say Parochial Societies were no true Churches Reader judge in his 15. page He tells us There is yet a more perfect Notion of a particular Church as perfectly Organical and furnished with all its affairs and walking in all points of Gospel Order He adds such particular Churches were in many Parochial Societies in England and there is no doubt but such Parochial Churches were True Churches from which causeless and unnecessary separation is sinful Indeed he says How far other Parochial Churches were true Churches avowed so by Presbyterians he was yet to learn And his Answer is for any thing I see in his Remarques yet to teach him and I believe will so continue For his guesses at what the Author meant by Perfection of Order He I am sure will tell him he means no more Than a capacity to administer all the Ordinances of Christ proper to a particular Church The Word Sacraments and Censures of Jundical Admonition Suspension and Excommunication which they cannot do till they have Officers I believe it must be a case of Extraordinary necessity must justifie a single Minister in Suspending or Excommunicating but that those that help him must needs be persons not ordained to the Ministry I do not think he believes but that there may be more Ministers if the Parochial Society hath more than one or others chosen by that Church And if any will contend that the body of the people must joyn with him in those acts though he reserves his private judgment in the case yet he will not contend especially as to Excommunication because he understands not to what purpose
Commissions given for a succession of National Officers but we find none of this we find indeed a general commission to Ministers to go and Preach and Baptize but this referred as well to the Heathens as to professed Christians If any will say that the Apostles were General Officers and from thence will argue for a succession of them it will better serve the Papists to prove an Universal Organical Church than it will serve any to prove a National Organical Church and we think that is what our Brethren will not be very free of granting If any urge the Example of the Jewish National Church which was Organical they will be also obliged to find our Saviours directions for the Hereditary discent of an High-Priest or the Election of one into his place We always thought the Jewish H. Priest was a type and Christ the Antitype whose coming abolished the type besides that that also will prove an Universal Organical Church for the Jewish High Priest govern'd the whole Visible Church which God in his days had upon the Earth besides we must have found some rules and laws left us by Christ for this High Priest Finally who so will erect a stated National governing or Organical Church in England must find us an Officer cloathed with Authority to Excommunicate from Michaels Mount in Cornwall to Carlile and Berwick Such a one we suppose there neither is nor ever was in England since the reformation § 29. But if we could allow such a Creature of God as a National governing Church in England we should have put Governours being certainly one of the Essential parts of such a Church into the description of it as well as into the Notion of Schisme from it Nor should we have so straitned the Notion of it as to necessitate all the members of it to be united in Doctrine Worship and Government without saying how far they must in these things be united Whether in every point of Doctrine delivered in the 39. Articles and Homilies so far as to approve and embrace all And in every point of Government according to the Canons or in every mode rite or ceremony according to the Liturgy or if not in what and how far they must be thus united And for the Laws as distinguished from the Canons we should have left them quite out being but civil constitutions about the affairs of the Church not properly Laws of the Church or in the more intrinsick matters of it but Impetus cuncta male ministrat this is the unlucky effect of long Definitions and too great eagerness to prove all Nonconformists Schismaticks The Author should have done well to have considered what he as well as we long since learned at the University 1. Definitiones debent esse breves It is the length of this description that spoils it and makes it by no art defensible 2. Debet constare ex attributis preoribus notioribus simpliciter had this been thought of the 39 Articles Homilies Liturgy Canons Laws had been quite left out nor certainly did our Author consider what would follow upon this description § 30. Let us but a little shew what inferences follow his Description of the National Governing Church of England 1. All Arminians without bail or mainprise must be Hereticks They are none of the Community of professed Christians in England united in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles will they tell us they are Let us ask King James once the very learned Head of this Church He tell us That Arminians was an Enemy to God Reg. Jacobi Dec. contra Vorstium p. 12. 14. that his Disciples are Pests Hereticks Arrogant persons Sectaries Atheists That the very Title of Bertius his Book concerning the Apostacy of the Saints required the fire Shall we be judged by the Parliament they make the Laws put into the description of this Church they confirmed the Articles We find them Anno 1628. crying aloud We Claim Protest and avow for Truth the sense of the Articles of Religion which were established by Parliament Mr. Rushworths Collections p. 650. 130. Eliz. which say they by the Publick Act of the Church of England and by the general and currant exposition of the Writers of our Church have been delivered to us and we reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians and all others wherein they differ from us Shall we ask the Professors of Divinity forty years since and upward in either University They joyntly agreed these points contrary to the 39 Articles one Dr. Baro only excepted and we know who was the first Doctor of that Divinity knowingly created at Oxford and the Professors course complement to him at his Creation after he had defended one of them Hujus te Theologiae creo Doctorem meaning the Arminian Divinity whence ever after to his Death possibly he took the liberty to Profess it as the Doctrine of our Church yea and they must be Schismaticks too though not from yet in the National Church and that 's the worst sort of Schisme because that which the Scripture chiefly if not only taketh notice of 2. Those who will sing no Psalms must be Schismaticks too for surely that 's an act of Worship in the Church of England and owned by her yea and those that do not ordinarily conform to all Rites and Ceremonies and Formes in the Liturgy do they approve of them The worse they still according to this description make a Shisme in the Church Quaery Whether none of the Conformists do this I could tell him of some nay One and he no mean One neither that openly told the People singing of Psalms was one of the Idols of the Church of England there were three Preaching and keeping the Sabbath were the two other § 40. Now if the Author could have been content to have described the National Church of England the number of professed Christians in it united in the same Doctrines necessary to Salvation and in the same Acts of Worship the Definition had been shorter many of these had been included and we had all been agreed But to be sure to make all the Nonconformists Shismatick he first Describes a thing not in being and which never was since Christ came and then describes it in such a manner as if he could create it would do very many of his own friends far more hurt than us § 41. In the mean time we must freely yeild him such a National Church as we before described and the King the Supreme Head of it not in a capacity to Preach or administer the Sacrament or exercise any act in it strictly an Ecclesiastical by Divine institutions but to Protect it to enjoyn the fulfilling in it what God hath commanded to do as much in it in short as any King of Israel and Judah as a King might do and to make rules and constitutions about it But we deny that our Meetings are any more Schismes in or from this Church then the Meeting of Christians
Or more Implicit when though they have not first called him nor so explicitly declared their consent to him yet they have ordinarily and statedly walked with him in the fellowship of all Ordinances But here must be considered 1. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt desiring consenting to and accepting of one as a Minister of the Gospel to Preach to the Parochial Society where a Christan lives as it is a part of the Catholick Church and consenting to such a one to be his or their Pastor in order to a Church Organical It must be a consent of the latter Nature I may consent and desire one to Preach to the people in the precinct where I live and yet have no thoughts of consenting to him as my Pastor 2. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt an occasional hearing and it may be receiving the Sacrament with a Minister and a slated ordinary fixed doing of it If a Christian that is of a particular Church at London goeth down to York and be to stay there 6 or 9 moneths and ordinarily hears and receives the Sacrament there while he is there this will indeed prove his owning the Church of York as a true Church having communion with it but not that he is a Member of it Suppose many Christians who were formerly stated Members of Churches but for 10 or 12 years last past have not been able to walk with their Pastors and Brethren in all Ordinances meeting in the same place to worship God have in the time ordinarily or often heard a Parochial Minister nay sometimes received the Lords Supper This indeed proves their Charity that they lookt upon that Society as a true Church but it doth not prove them Members of it nor their consent to such a Membership no not to such a Minister as their Pastor though it may be they consented to him for the good of the place where they lived as a Preacher of the Gospel to them If indeed they were of no other stated particular Church before and did ordinarily joyn in Sacramental Communion with such a Minister it goes far to prove an Union by implicit consent and we think such cannot plead They were not United § 48. It is true these Notions about particular Churches Worship and Government especially the first and last were very dark and little understood by many good men Anno 1641. and no wonder if it be considered 1. How very few Books were then wrote of them on the Presbyterian side 2. And how poenal it was made to have or read them and how little hope before that time appeared of reducing any thing had been said to practice Some of our Congregational Brethren having had more rest and freedom and opportunity of exercise in N. England and Holland were better studied in them As also our Brethren of Scotland This for a few years occasioned great animosities Yet I could never read nor hear quoted that even then any judicious Presbyterians ever granted 1. That all Parochial Societies were true Organized Churches 2. Nor that living in a Parish did more than give the Christian a liberty to claim admission into that Society But some few years passing and mens heats abating and peaceable converse each with other better advantaging them to understand one another than at first they did they began to be far more clear and unanimous in their Notions and more charitable in their practices § 40. I cannot speak for all but I can speak for a very competent number so many as in one County would be perswaded to meet in 1657. 58. They agreed in the following Character of a person fit for Church-fellowship in all Ordinances and Priviledges I have by me also the Scriptures affixed to prove this 1. One that is indued with some competent knowledge in the principles of Religion 2. Whose life conversation is free from all gross and scandalous evils both of Omission and Commission 3. Who maketh such a profession of Faith and Holiness as may give unto the Church a probable hope in the judgment of true Christian Charity that there are some seeds of some spiritual work of God in his soul 4. Who professeth a willing subjection to the Gospel and all the Ordinances of Jesus Christ and so giveth up himself to the Lord and his Church to walk in all duties of Obedience and Love according to the Will of God To which they added and then subscribed We acknowledge such Churches to be true Churches as consist of such persons coming together as are here described and such to be true Ministers as are called by and unto such a people And we further acknowledge such to be Churches and their Ministers to be true Ministers though some bad with the good agreed to the call of those Ministers or to own and embrace them and although there were some disorder and failing in the Ordination and coming in of such Ministers By this these Presbyterians judgments easily appeared what Parochial Societies they judged True Churches and also what they judged necessary to make up the Union of a Member with a particular Organical Church § 50. I think I can from a Friend also assure the Author that the person whom this Author doth somewhere declare not only a Presbyterian but one of great judgment and Worth as indeed he was I mean Mr. Brinsley of Yarmouth was the man drew up this Writing recommended it to his Brethen himself agreed in it and they also and made it a great foundation for an Agreement betwixt them and their Congregational Brethren For my own part I am much of his mind We say many of the Ministers and people he reflects upon as Schismaticks neither were actually thus united to Parochial Societies nor we in capacity so to be because formally Pasters and Members else-where § 51. But the Author thinks the Law forbidding Ministers to Preach in the Parochial Temples hath dissolved this Relation In this we differ from him and desire a better proof of it both de facto then he hath given us and de jure Then Solomons putting Abiathur from the Priests Office who had deserved to dye as Solomon tells him first but more of that by and by I do not profess strictly to Answer the Authors Book about Schisme It is directed against an Author able enough to speak for himself but something I must say to this and some other passages only as they come athwart me in maintaining the Negative part of my Question and justifying my self and others from the clamour of Schisme Therefore in Doctrine of Schisme p. 75. I find these words What if a man hath a mind to be Friends with him that we desire for we are for peace c. and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded discommissioned he should have said or unordained as to their Ministry within the Church of England and that those Churches were not dissolved by having new Pastors he forgets the
or Account do we need more but this only Is there not a cause They are the words of David to his surly Elder Brethren that are offended only for his being about the business he was sent And David said what have I done Is there not a Cause I am very sensible that there is much more may be said or that there are other Pleas which may be made by the Non-Conformist for their Meetings then this I offer I have I know proposed my self a little in another Paper towards some Catholick Healing of us even under our stated Separations if they cannot be helpt If they can or if this be enough it is this Plea I choose as the most indifferent between the Conformist and us the most fair and conducive to our Uniting again if God give that Grace to the Nation And this under pardon I will be so bold as to name my Plea Mr. H's Plea Of Greater Duty The Church is a number of such as own or believe in the Lord Jesus and joyn in Society for the glorifying his Name in submission to his Ordinances These Societies are either Particular or that which consists of them all the Church Vniversal Of the Church as Vniversal Christ is the Head from whom we have these Ordinances when the Congregations which are Parochial others that meet separately from them do both consent or unite in his Ordinances that is in the same Doctrine so far as is necessary to Salvation and in the same Worship required in the Word who can deny them to be both Parts of the Universal Church Visible and so true Churches As for going to diverse places if there be no breach of the great Commandement which is Charity in other respects it is a matter of indifferency can be no ground to charge Schisme upon one more then the other There must be some other consideration than of the Church found out if they will accuse us of Schisme And that is not as it is Vniversal or Particular but as it is National and Parochial As it is Vniversal and Particular it is ex praecepto of Divine as it is National and Parochial it is ex providentia of Humane and prudential institution There are some things required to the Church ad esse and some things ad bene esse That which is required ad esse is named a due administration of the Word Sacrament and Prayer and we divide not in it That which is required ad bene esse is either necessary to that bene or melius esse being of Divine Authority and that is some Discipline in general though for the Sort I will not say which is such or that which is accidental and accumulative from man as to have the Supreme Magistrat Christian and a Nursing Father to it with his People generally of that Religion The one of these I say is of God's Praeceptive we speak it not simpliciter but in regard to the Constitution of the Church of Christ the other of his Providential will only In this accidental regard as the Church is National do we acknowledg that the King is head of it and hath his Ordinances in respect thereunto to be obeyed as Christ hath in regard to the Vniversal That the Magistrate hath Authority to Protect the Church of Christ by seeing that Christ's Ordinances be observed in every Congregation according to their way and in looking to the whole that they do nothing but what shall make to the Peace of the Nation is out of question The King here governs by his Laws and the Laws of this Land have appointed the constitution of particular Churches to be of Parishes as most convenient to that purpose If we consent not to these Laws we break the Vnion which is of Humane institution though we preserve that which is Divine Disobedience to the wholesome commands of our Superiours is sin and when that separation therefore which is a thing indifferent otherwise does become sinful through that disodedience unless we have somthing to justify the disobedience such separation by Analogy is Schisme And here do I verily think must the bottom of all that can be charged upon us about Schisme be placed If the Parliament should Legitimate these separate Meetings by an Act they would immediately become parts of the National Church no less then our Parishes and that would put an end to the Schisme the Evil chargeable upon us any otherwise being like to be found the Fault of the Persons not of our meetings or of the Thing But so long as they are against Law it is the Obligation of humane Laws I perceive and the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion are the points must come into Plea These have been treated and put together in a Book entituled Two points of great Moment Discussed The substance whereof as to my present purpose will resolve into this Distinction Laws which are Wholesome Laws that is for the Common Good in Civil's and for Edification in Spiritualls do bind us under Pain of Sin Such is the law I count for Parochial Union but there are two Cases wherein we are exempted from such Laws and which justify the Non-Obedience One is when that which is commanded is against a man's Conscience The other is when that which is commanded cannot be done but some other Duty which is of greater Concern must be thrust out and in this Case I say the omitting that which is the lesser Duty is no sin In this Point ye see before I have placed our Apology I must add that forasmuch as it is no Sin to omit a lesser Duty for doing a greater when both cannot be done but to omit the greater Duty consequently must be sin it follows that supposing it to be Schisme to refuse Communion when we may come to Church without sin it must be no Schisme to wave it or not to come when if we come we should sin as we must when we shall omit a greater Duty by coming Schisme is a Voluntary Departure without cause given from that Christian Church whereof he was a Member or a Breach of that Communion wherein a man might have continued without Sin sayes that late Author of a Serious and Compassionate Enquiry into the causes of men's contempt of the Church and the remedies A Book two fine I count to bear a Dispute or uphold so large a design he undertakes I would fain know sayes another by what Authority this separating practise can be justified from the guilt of the most Horrible Schisme that ever was heard of in the Christian World A sober Answer to the new Separatists Pa. 156. again Pa. 157. Distinguishing of a Voluntary desertion of ones Ministry and choosing silence in case of Non-Conformity The second says he is the Illustration of four Cardinal Vertues Humility Meekness Selfe-denial Obedience I cannot but quote these Passages as pleasant to my Humor nor can I forbear Laughter at the Reading of them Not because that worthy
last and I did choose to distinguish of the Obligation and to shew in what sense we are not obliged rather then of the Law and to say in what sense it is no Law Let Law be defined outright according to these and Law is the Declaration of the will of the Law-giver what the Subject is to do for the publick good If a Law now be not for the publick utility it is no Law according to this definition it hath not that in it which is de ratione legis as the Schools speak It is a Law therefore in sensu aequivoco which agrees in the name but not in sensu univoco which participates of the nature or the definition To avoid the using these terms therefore and in regard such an Act is Law still in some sense in the common sense and Vote of the Nation and in some respect more than aequivocally so because proceeding from a rightful Authority it does in part agree in the definition as well as in the name and consequently in part must be Obligatory it does appear how the distinction does as it were naturally devolve upon the Obligation and so spares this upon the Law seeing if we will truly explicate what we mean when we deny such a Law to be law this we must say in good earnest and nothing else is our meaning that it is a Law so far as to be obeyed for fear of the penalty for never to resist I count in my Book is still pre-required but not so far as that every omission of it is sin or that we are obliged to it in Conscience And thus by going the farther way about we are but brought the nearer home to the true decision we entend Only one thing I find wanting yet in the explanation of the terms of this distinction I use between the Outward Man and the Conscience I have been at a good deal of pains to make those received terms currant Compare my Obligation of human Lawes p. 24. with my Authority of the Magistrat p. 50. and all I see will not serve till I distinguish also of Conscience it self which is taken Physically or Theologically Conscience Naturally taken is any knowledge of my self or my concernments Conscience taken Theologically is the knowledge of what I have to do with Reference to the will and judgement of God Judicium de semet ipso prout subjicitur judicio dei When Divines in this point therefore do distinguish the Outward Man and the Conscience by the Conscience we must understand Conscience in the Theological sense only That is we Separate not â—he Reason Will Understanding or Naâ—ural Conscience it Self from the Outward Man but Conscience only Theologically taken And the Meaning is plainly that though a Man in Reason understands and is Conscious in regard to his own concernement that such a Law is to be Observed if he will avoid this or that Penalty or Inconvenience Yet so long as he Believes God does not Command him to do it and that he shall incurr no Displeasure from him though he omits it this is to be Obliged in the Outward Man only and not in Conscience or â—n the Conscience taken Naturally not Theologically in Conscience After I had wrote this and all the rest only somthing I hereupon inserted before I had Dr. Field on the Church accidentaly brought me It was many years since I read him and I had forgot every thing in him on this Subject but only his Distinction between Subjection and Obedience which I like and ever retained I am well pleased to find my genius agreeing so much as it does with one of so great Note and Learning especially seeing that Tenet which Dean F. opposes as mine is that alone in effect wherein our Sentiments meet not You say sayes Dean F. when a thing is Commanded of God or we think it tends to the Publick good then only Conscience is Obliged But this Obligation is only from the necessity of the thing Commanded because you approve it to be a Duty before and consequently in Obedience to your own Reason and not at all out of Conscience of the Command or in Obedience to the King Well! Let us then hear Dr. Field a greater Dean deliver his judgment Which I will set down in his words at large for the Readers Edification The question should not be proposed whether Humane Laws bind the Conscience This he takes up in the Negative as not to be questioned but whether binding the outward Man to the performance of outward things by force and fear of outward Punishment to be inflicted by men the not performance of such things or the not pâ—rformance of them with such affections as were fit be not a Sin against God of which the Conscience will accuse us he having Commanded us to Obey the Magistrates and Rulers he hath set over us For answer hereunto there are three sorts of things sayes he Commanded by Magistrates First Evil and against God Secondly Injurious in respect of them to whom they are Prescribed or at least Vnprofitable to the Common-Wealth in which they are Prescribed Thirdly such as are Profitable and Beneficial to the Society of Men to whom they are Prescribed Touching the First Sort of things We must not Obey Touching the second Sort of things all that God requireth of us is that we shew no contempt of Sacred Authority though not rightly used that we Scandalize not others and that we he Subject to such Penaltyes as they that Command such things do lay upon us In the Third Sort of things it is only that God requires our Willing and ready Obedience The Breach and Violation of this kind of Laws is Sin not for that humane Laws have Power to Bind the Conscience or that it is simply and absolutely sinful to break them but because the things they Command are of that Nature that not to perform them is contrary to Justice Charity and the desire we should have to procure the Common-Good of them with whom we Live We are bound then somtimes to the Performance of things prescribed by Humane Laws in such Sort that the not Performance of them is Sin not ex sola Legislatoris voluntate sed ex ipsa legum utilitate as Stapleton Rightly observed But some Man will say what do the Laws then effect seeing it is the Law of Justice and Charity that doth bind us and not the Particularity of Laws newly Made To this we answer that many things are God and Profitable if they be generally Observed which without such general Observation will do no Good The Law procureth a general Observation Bellarmine objects Be subject for Conscience Sake To this we answer First That it is a matter of Conscience to be Subject in all things for Subjection is required Generally and Absolutely where Obedience is Not. Secondly We say that it is a matter of Conscience to Seek and Procure the Good of the Common-Wealth and that therefore it is a