Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	common_a	prayer_n	rite_n	2,290	5	10.0209	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45145	The obligation of human laws discussed. By J.H.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1671 (1671)	Wing H3696; ESTC R224178	62,408	149

judgdement of each particular when the law is made there depends no concern but a mans own and that respecting his inward man only Now its certain that the Magistrate in regard of such an effect as depends upon his judgement hath need indeed of the greatest wisdome and the ablest Councel and he cannot be too cautions in his proceeding seeing if he be mistaken and the Consciences of the Subjects be not obliged by such a law yet are their persons liable to be compelled and they must not resist which may prove a vast inconvenience and to be avoided only by a right information at first about the matter But as for a private person who judges not what is best for the peoples good as he speaks right in regard to the Magistrate but onely judges of the thing commanded whether it be agreeable or not to the will of God or the rule of his which he hath given to the world about Politicals if they forget not to minde it to wit that it be in ●eneral for their good the effect which I have said does attend such a judgement is of that nature onely as requires no greater understanding or discretion then every man hath for himself to act by in all the rest of his life and conversation He judges here according to his Rule in these things as he doth in other of his actions according to the word whether he be bound or not bound in Conscience to them And God requires of him to judge and act but according to his talent in all business whatsoever He will acknowledge the outward man to be bound and in a matter of his soul which concerns no body but him or the inward obligation of his Conscience you must leave him to God and his own Judgement His next reason is That when Men know what is conducing to their good they are not apt to do it without a Law And what does this prove or contradict It proves it good therefore that the people have a Law-giver or Governor and that he should be wiser and better then they as Plato may urge it But does it follow they may not therefore judge whether the thing commanded be for their good Surely this will be a good reason why the people should judge of it For if the good they conceive in it is the reason they admit to have any Law and the argument to press them to obey it then must they judge of that good and whether it be conducive to that good or not In the mean while the difference of the reason and ends which is distinguished in the Magistrates judging of a thing to be for the common good or not and the peoples does sufficiently declare the weakness and vanity of such speeches as this Man hath several of He that makes every Man judge of what is for the peoples good takes away the principal power of the Magistrate And why so as if it were an act of power and that usurped for any but the Prince to have a judgement of discretion over his civil actions Again if the people be able to judge of that there is no need of any Law or Law-giver As if when men knew their duty they needed no Magistrate to make them do it and that while himself too is telling us the need of Laws because men a●e not like to prefer the publick good though they comprehend it before that of their own particular persons I cannot I perceive be throughly intent to answer what is insignificant but the substance in the main of these two reasons comes to this that every man is not able to bring the thing commanded by the Magistrate to the rule so as to judge whether it be for the common good or not and therefore they must act only upon the judgement of the Law-giver and consequently be no reasonable agents in their Political obedience For satisfaction therefore to this Let us conceive the Magistrate commanding something moral or Religious there are no Protestants but do hold that every man for himself must bring here what is commanded to the rule of the moral Law and Scripture and according as himself believes it consonant or not to the rule he judges it so is he bound to obey it or not to to obey it Now let any man who hath but the heart to think and speak with integrity consider whether a rude and illiterate man that never could read a word in the Bible be more able to judge whether a thing commanded by the Magistrate be agreeable or not to the word of God or whether it be conducive or not to the common good suppose the Waggoner as unlearned as any man I will ask whether such a man be not more able to judge of the Law concerning Waggons that is whether it be good for the high wayes and consequently whether he had best or not observe the act then to judge whether the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England or whether whatsoever is contained in the whole Book of Common Prayer with the Rites and Ceremonies be agreeable or not to the Scriptures of the old and New Testament I suppose there is no man will have the hardi●sse to oppose such a manifest conviction And if in regard to his practice this man and every other that uses the common-Common-prayer must judge as well as he can of the lawfulness of it or else he cannot act in faith and so likewise of all those doctrines or practises he yields unto them then will there I hope be no stumbling block left here upon this account I do advance therefore and rest upon this one argument if the incapacity unfitness or little ability that some men have to judge of what is required by the Magistrate whether it be agreeable or no to the common good be a reason sufficient for the denying to the subject such a judgement then must the lesser ability of such to judge whether that which is required be agreeable to the word of God be a reason sufficient to discharge them from judging of it by the word But the consequent is false and therefore the antecedent By the way observe if any man distinguish between judging of a Law whether it be for a common good and judging of the thing commanded by a law or rather of a mans own doing the thing commanded whether it be for the publick good or not I am to be understood of the last when I say the Magistrate judges of the thing in reference to his passing it into a law and we judge of it so passed in reference to our obedience or obligation by it His third reason is the same with the first The people are so far from being able to judge that the wisest Princes find it difficult only we have more words for the enlargement which consist partly in a grave kind of discourse from a passage of a Bishop Bramhall of the severall things and circumstances that the Law-giver is to weigh in

give unto darkness though I acknowledge his sufficiency otherwise even weakness that may be felt In the third place he wont allow my little comment on Paul The Scripture sayes the Magistrate is Gods Minister to us for good Very true and the Apostle makes that an argument why we should be obedient to him because it is for our benefit But this Casuist turns the words another way and makes them an outlet to disobedience by taking that to include an exception to the general precept of subjection which is in truth nothing but a reason to enforce it By this passage and such as this I take my conjecture of the happiness of this mans expression which makes what he sayes very often to look considerable when if it be reflected upon with more thoughts but that this Man himself tells the Apologist somewhere that he is no melancholly Man it signifies nothing If there be any thing substantial in these words it must hold if it he put into others and then must this be denyed that when the Apostle tells us the authority the Magistrate hath from God is for the peoples good we may not argue thence that he hath no au●hority from God for their hurt But this arguing is good and therefore this passage is but words For indeed is there any man that serves not Levi●than but God will maintain that the Magistrate hath any au●hority committed to him of God but for the publick benefit Let this person take heed he turns not God into the Devil and destroyes all If he dare not maintain that then whatsoever is commanded against the publick benefit hath no authority to bind the conscience and it will be in vain for him to talk idly of the danger he apprehends from my determination which hath none in it when if he look not better to himself he must be upon the justifying Tyrann● and bring ruine upon the World Again suppose we build nothing on the very Text this is a principle in the law of nature as c●ea●ly written in mans heart as that he is a sociable creature to wit that the end of Government and Laws are for the good of the community and consequently that there should be none but for that end From hence then that the good of the community being the supream Law as the general and ultimate end of whatsoever is commanded it must irrefragable follow that whatsoever Law is made or is to be made it must be over ruled by this supream and have its obligatory power originally from thence We know in all Laws or any other things in the world the inferior must give place to the greater or to the chief God requires sacrifices and mercy both are his Laws it these interfare mercy must be exercised and sacrifice binds not It is no plainer in the earth that the elements give way from their own natures to serve the World then that the greater or chief obligation must vacate the less I might fill a side with instances if any else could not do it Whereas this matter then is written with a sunbeam on the heart of man and the Apostle hath an intimation of it it is but very sit and agreeable to reason that we fetch a comment on the sex from that book he hath touched that is the book of nature or this natural Light which will convince every man that the publick good being the end of society there can be no power from God but for that end Again it is true the Apostle from hence argues for subjection and he may say that he does not argue for any thing else But what then when Paul argues one thing from this truth may not another argue from thence also something too St. Paul argues well the Magistrate is the Minister of God for our good therefore we must be subject And Dr. Taylor argues well and therefore he hath none of his authority for other purposes or that Law that conduceth not to the publick good cannot bind the conscience because it hath none of Gods authority Moreover the Apostle argues for subjection and that indefinite but I say he argues not nor may be construed to argue for obedience indefinite and therefore howsoever these words tinckle there is no doubt but we may and must make an outlet from these and the like Texts that in some cases of the Magistrates commands we may not think our selves bound to obey in point of Conscience though in regard of non-resistance and subjection there is no disobedience does follow in the case We say not that this passage of the Apostle doth include an exception to subjection for that is Universall and indefinite but we can say it must include an exception to indefinite or Universal obedience that is as to all the Magistrates commands because there may be many of them wicked unjust or morally evil unto which we are not bound and consequently say I nor to such as are civilly so In the fourth place we have this passage wherein appears the greatest weight A Law is not meerly the signification of the Magistrates judgement what is good but the declaration of his will that we do it and God having given him his authority to command us this declaration carries with it an obligatory vertue to bind us to the execution of his will under the pain of sin As for this The declaration of the will of the Law-giver does indeed immediately bind the outward Man against disobedience by resisting or to whatsoever is contrary to subjection that is it binds us Politically but as for doing the thing out of conscience that is to be bound morally I like well that this learned Man hath delivered himself so judiciously as to put in that which is the true only ground of all the obligation that the Conscience can be capable of under the command of Man and which does administer therefore the solution to what he offers I answer then to that branch which he hath of Gods having given the Magistrate his authority and we say that God hath given the Magistrate no authority to command any thing but for the common good which is a truth for which I need not again quote Taylor or Hooker as I remember well that I might or twenty learned Schoolmen perhaps and others to this purpose but that it were not worth my time and trouble to go to their books Seeing there is indeed scarce any truth can shine more clearly from the Light of Nature and the end of policy And the Law of nature must be acknowledged the foundation of all Laws and the measure of their obligation I do therefore advance here this argument which I think is a stone that cannot be removed and it is the Sum of my determination Whatsoever is not agreeable to the will of God or carries not with it Gods authority cannot bind the Conscience because the Conscience hath an absolute and immediate dependence on the will of God and his will is the