the material Cause of which we do now discourse if the Law doth command any thing that is base dishonest or any wayes unlawful the said Law is unjust for the defect of that Justice which is called Universal which requireth a due rectitude in every Action And this alone is so far from obliging the Subject to obedience that it doth altogether oblige him to render no obedience to it XV. It is demanded in the fifth place What Justice is required and how much of it will suffice as to this that a Law may be said to be just and esteemed obligatory For answer I say in the first place It is not necessarily required that what by the Law is commanded should be just positively which the Philosophers call Honest that is that it may be an Act of some Virtue but it doth suffice if it be just negatively that is if it be not unjust or shameful as are the Acts of all Vices Otherwise there could no Laws be made of things of a middle nature or of things indifferent which notwithstanding as by and by shall be manifest are the most apt matter of Laws I say in the second place Grant that some Law be unjust in regard of the Cause efficient or the final or the formal Cause in any of those respects newly mentioned yet if there be no defect of Justice in respect of the material Cause that is If by the force power of the Law the Act to be performed by the Subject be such that he may put it in Execution without any sin of his own that Justice of it is sufficient to induce the obligation XXVI But lest the Subject too licentiously to withdraw himself from the yoak of the Law should give some pretence for his disobedience as it is a wonder to see how many men do suffer themselves to be deceived by this paralogism and should allege that the Law doth seem too unjust unto him and which with a good Conscience he cannot obey therefore ought not to obey for this they say were to obey with a doubting Conscience which cannot be without Sin as the Apostle teacheth Rom. 14. 23. For whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin It is necessary therefore in the sixth place to inquire farther and to demand What certainty is required to know whether any Law be unjust or not that so a Subject may be secure in his Conscience whether he be bound or not bound to the observation of it I answer in the first place If the Law be manifestly notoriously unjust it is certain that the Subject is not bound to the observation of it which is also to be affirmed if by any moral certainty after some due diligence in searching out the Truth he judgeth it to be simply unjust I say in the second place If out of any confirmed Error of his Judgement which it is not easy for him to leave he thinks the Law to be unjust when indeed it is not yet for all that Error in his mind the obligation of the Law doth still remain insomuch that he is guilty of Sin if he doth not obey it but should Sin more grievously if that Error not yet left off he should obey it Of this Case we shall have a greater opportunity to speak when if God shall permit we shall come to the Comparison of both the sorts of obligations I say in the third place If out of some light doubt or scruple he suspects it may be so that the Law is unjust that scruple is to be contemned the Law altogether to be obeyed And no man under the pretence of his tender Conscience is to excuse him self from the necessity of giving obedience to it XVII I say in the fourth place And I would to God that those whose Custom it is to defend their grosse disobedience under the pretence of their tender Consciences would give due attention to it If because of some probable Reasons appearing on both sides the Subject cannot easily determine with himself whether the Law be right or not insomuch that his mind is in a great incertainty and knows not which way to incline he is bound in this case actually to obey it so that he sinneth if he obeyeth it not and doth not sin if he obeyeth it My reason is First Becaâ—se by the Rule of Equity In dubiis potior est conditioâ—â—ossidentis In doubtful things the Condition of the Possessor is the better Therefore when there is a Case at Law betwixt the Law-maker and the Citizen unlesse there be some apparent reason to the contrary it is presumed alwayes to be on the side of the Law-maker against the Citizen as being in the Possession of Right But if there appears any sound reason to the contrary the Case is altered because it is against the supposition of Reason for we then suppose that they contend in Law one having as much Right as the other The second Reason ariseth from another Rule of Law In re dubia tutior pars est eligenda In a doubtful Case the safer part is to be chosen And its safer to obey the Conscience doubting than the Conscience doubting not to obey Because it is safer in the honor due unto Superiors to exceed in the mode that is due unto them than to be defective in it The third Reason proceedeth from the same Rule for generally it is safer for a Man to suppose himself to be obliged when he is free than to suppose himself free when he is indeed obliged For seeing by the inbred depravation of the Heart of Man we sin oftner by too much Boldnesse than by too much Fear and are more prone than it becomes us to the licentiousnesse of the Flesh and lesse patient to bear the burthen unlesse we were throughly before hand resolved to obey those Laws which are not apparently unjust the Wisdom of the flesh the Craft of the old Serpent would suggest unto us excuses enough which would retard and hinder us from the performance of our Duties And so much of the fourth doubt XVIII The fifth followeth Of the permissive Law of Evil Wether it be lawful and how far lawful And whether it be obligatory and how far obliging Where in the first place we are to observe That an evil thing may three wayes be admitted by the Law that is to say privatively negatively and positively Privatively to be permitted is the very same which is pretermitted by the Lawgiver And in this sense all those things are permitted concerning the forbidding of which or the Punishing of which the Laws do determine nothing That negatively is permitted the excercise whereof the Lawes do define and limit with certain bounds within which those are safe and without fault who do contain themselves but those who do exceed them are to be punished by the Law And in this sense the Laws of most Nations do permit of Usury Thirdly that is permitted positively the excercise whereof is tolerated under a
any good end VIII Moreover it is opposite to the nature of sin to produce of it self any good effect as an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit Mat 7. 18. nor darknesse produce light of it self 2 Cor. 4. 6. but the same great and glorious God who out of his omnipotence brought forth light out of darknesse can also out of our sins take an occasion to illustrate his infinite wisdome his righteousnesse and his goodnesse But these are the effects of a divine power as of a cause working properly and of it self to the production whereof there needs no assistance nor strength from our sins which as to those effects are but meerly contingent and but by accident Those words therefore of David Psalm 5. which St. Paul alleageth Rom. 3. 4. I have sinned against thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou mayest be justified when thou speakest are not so to be understood that David for that end committed murder and adultery or that it was lawfull for him so to do that God might be justified in his words but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some other Greek particles of the same signification in many places of Scripture are to be understood according to the interpretation of St. Chrysostome not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote and inferre the event only and not the true cause of the thing For as he who is in a serious argumentation can inferr a true conclusion from the false praemises which before were granted by another and yet the same Disputant would show himself ridiculous if to prove a true conclusion should willingly make use of some salse assumptions for Truth doth not stand in need of the patronage of Falshood so Almighty God and we also in some respect may do the like can dispose of things that are ill done into good but it is neither congruous to the divine Justice and Goodness neither is it any ways lawfull for us to will and to do evil that good may come thereby IX The third argument is taken a naturâ boni Actus from the nature of a good Act to the complement whereof the concurse of all requisite conditions is so necessary that if one be but absent amongst so many of them although all the other be present and subservient yet that Act shall not be morally good Most remarkable is that Axiom Bonum ex causa integra malum ex quolibet defectu Good proceeds from an upright and an entire cause but evil from any defect And it is besides manifest in all kind of things that there are more required to raise up than to throw down or to destroy The defect of a good Intention is enough to prove any Action evil for that the end whereof is evil must of necessity be evil it self but it is not enough it is not sufficient that a good end or a good Intention should prove the Action good unless all the other requisite conditions be conjoyned Now that any Action whether the internall of the will or the externall of the work may approve themselves to be good we are to understand that there are three distinct goodnesses viz. the goodness of the object the goodnesse of the end and the goodness of the circumstances The quality of every Act doth first of all and principally depend on the quality of the object or of the matter about which it is conversant so that from thence every Act may indefinitely and according to the whole species of it be denominated either good or evil in this respect we affirm that Theft and Adultery are evil in the whole Species of them and that Prayer and the giving of Alms are good in all their severall respects and the acceptations of them but with this difference that things which in themselves are simply evil are so evil that neither upon the account of the end although good nor yet on the account of their circumstances although never so promising they can ever be made truly good But things which are good in their own nature may yet be so corrupted by the end or by undue circumstances that they may leave off to be good and become evil The pravity therefore of the object being presupposed we are altogether to abstain from the Acts of Theft or of adultery as being simply evil in themselves But the goodnesse of the object being presupposed it is not safe for any one at the first either to undertake to do it or to approve it being done unless he hath diligently weighed before hand the end to which it is directed and the severall circumstances with which it is attended and cloathed In these things therefore in which it is said that the Goodness of the Act doth depend on the end and that the end doth discriminate and crown the actions they may be said so for to be true if the Acts be good in consideration to the object or the matter or at the last if they be of a middle nature and indifferent but not if they are evil For the goodness of the object being supposed the Act doth chiefly take its goodness or its evilnesse from the end For examples sake the Act of giving a poor man an alms though it be a good Act in respect of the matter or the object yet if it be done for vain-glory it is morally an evil Act because it is not ordinated to a good end The same Act if it be to relieve the necessities of a neighbour is an Act so far good that it hath a lawfull matter and a right Intention and so partaketh of both the goodnesses above mentioned to wit of the object and the end but it cannot yet be affirmed to be simply good unlesse it be moreover duely circumstanced for to this complement of a good work besides that goodness of the object and the end there is required the goodnesse of circumstances And from hence it is that commonly it is spoken that the goodnesse of the Act doth depend upon its circumstances not primarily and principally but ultimately and for the accomplishment of it the goodness of the object and the end being first laid down seeing therefore these three things are required to the goodness of every moral Act and they are all to be conjoyned to wit the matter lawfull the intention right and the circumstances due it is most manifest that a right intention cannot alone suffice by it self and by consequent that nothing can be performed out of a good Conscience whatsoever the Intention be that is either unlawfull in the object or defective in the circumstances X. But some there are who peradventure will object unto this those words of our Saviour Mat. 6. 22. If thy eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light but if thy eye be evil thy whole body shall be full of darkness Where if the intention be undesstood by the eye which is the judgment of almost all the Interpreters upon
it it seemeth that the goodnesse of the Act doth altogether depend on the goodness of the Intention that adaequately so that what power an evil intention hath to corrupt an Act although otherwise good the same power a good intention hath to approve and to render an Act good which otherwise is evil for a good or a single eye is as efficatious to inlighten the whole body as an evil eye is to infuse darkness on it To adde more strength to this opinion much may be alledged from the Fathers and other Divines of this nature is that in the Glosse As much good as you do intend so much you do perform And that verse in the mouth of every Scool-boy Quicquid agunt homines Intentio judicat illud It is th' Intention judgeth true Of whatsoever things we do XI But in the way of answer as to that place in the 6 of St. Mat. I am not ignorant in the first place that some learned men of this age do give an interpretation to it far different from that of the antient Fathers and not consonant to that we have now in hand But in reverence to those antient Doctors be it granted that those words of our Saviour had a proper relation to the Intentions of men I make answer that the intention when it is a motion of the Will tending to some ends by certain mediums is taken into a twofold consideration first whether it be for the intention of that good into which the Will is finally and precisely carryed being taken from all consideration of the mediums to attain it As if a man should say he intends the glory of God or his own profit and pleasure or secondly whether it be for an entire ordination of the whole progresse of the work from the beginning of the work unto the end including also the mediums or the means to attain it As if a man should say that he intends the glory of God by building a Temple or staining an Idolater or that he intends his own profit by getting riches by his honest labour or by theft and plunder And as he may be said that he intends a journey to Rome who only thinks of going thither and hath not yet resolved with himself which way or upon what accounts he will go as well as he who hath resolved with himself when to go which way and upon what occasions We speak in this whole discourse of the Intention taken the first way viz. on the intention which looks altogether upon the end and not on the means which is so taken in the common use of speaking but those words of the Fathers and other Divines which seem by the intention alone to measure the goodness or the badnesse of mens actions and which are grounded on those words of our Saviour in relation to a single eye and to an eye that is evil do receive their intention in the latter signification as they include the means with the end observable is that of St Bernard That the eye saith he be single two things are necessary viz. that truth be in the election and Charity in the intention That is that our intention be absolutely right both are required that so we may not propound unto our selves such an end which is averse unto the love of God and of our neighbour and that we make not choice of any means that are not joyned with honesty righteousness In every work therefore we must not only look to propound unto our selves a good end but we must withall endeavour to the end so propounded by apt lawful honest means for seeing that the election of the means or the mediums do arise from the intention of the end is so necessarily joyned to it that in the respect thereof it hath the place of an accident inseperable or a necessary circumstance Animum laudô Consilium reprehendâ—â— Cic. 9. ad Attic 11. the School-men do almost all of them conclude that an evil election doth corrupt an intention that is otherwise good by rendring that evil which before was good in the very same manner as evil circumstances do corrupt those Actions to which they are retayners XII The fourth argument is taken from the perfection and obligation of the Law of God For there is a Law propounded from God to men a most perfect Law which commandeth things to be done and forbiddeth those things which are not to be done It hath shewed unto thee O man what is good what the Lord requireth of thee Mich. 6. 8. This is the Law which we must obey if we will fulfil our duties by this Law we are commanded as the Scriptures every where do declare to do good and to eschew evil But if we on the contrary without the least regard to the law of God shall measure out unto our selves things to be avoyded or performed according to our own profit and as we shall think good and shall either omit those good things which God commandeth to be done for the fear of some following evil or shall commit those evil things which God forbiddeth for the vain hope of some good to come what is this but worms as we are to preferre our own Counsels above the expresse will of Almighty God and the wisdome of the flesh above the Authority of the most holy Spirit Farre otherwise did that holy man David By thy precepts saith he have I gotten understanding therefore have I hated all unjust wayes Psal 119. 104. As if he should say being instructed by thy Law which both night and day is in my heart my mouth before mine eyes I do plainly understand what I have to do and what I have to eschew wherefore I do not only decline but hate every way which is not consentaneous to thy Law whither soever it may seem to lead me Therefore since every sin is forbidden by the Law of God and that Law of his containeth not the least exception of any good Intention or Event and we ought not to distinguish where the Law maketh no distinction nor to except where the Law maketh no exception it is most manifest that he whosoever he is who for what Intention or what cause soever it be doth knowingly and willingly do that which is evil he doth sin against the Law of God XIII The fifth argument followeth drawn from the examples of those who under the pretence of a good end being so bold as to disobey the express Commandment of God have satisfied his anger by the just punishment of their rashness and disobedience The Prophet Samuel being sent to Saul the King of Israel who saved some of the cattle of the Amalekites which God had commanded should be totally destroyed for no other end as he pretended than by the bulk and fatness of his sacrifice to make it the more acceptable the said Prophet did lay before his eyes the grievousness of his sin and for the punishment of so great a disobedience did prophesy
Duty so from a double Duty there ariseth a double Obligation for every Duty doth infer an Obligation and every Obligation doth suppose a Duty Therefore one kind of the Obligation of Humane Laws is that by which Subjects are bound to obey the precepts of the Law it self and the other by which they are bound to submit themselves to the power of the Law-giver one of the Obligations belongeth to Active Obedience the other unto that Obedience which is called passive and to which we give the Name of Submission III. If it be here demanded how farr Humane Laws can oblige the Consciences of the Subject It is to be said in the first place that all Laws made by one invested by a lawful Power do oblige to Subjection so that it is not lawful for a Subject to resist the Supreme Power by force of Arms whether things just or unjust be commanded This wâ—â— evermore the mind and practice of the Christians in the first Age of the Church living under the most grievâ—us Tyranny of the greatest Enemies to the name of Christ to make no mention herein of the Conduct and the instinct of Nature and the light of right Reason this is most manifest by the Doctrine of the two chiefest of the Apostles For so Peter the Apostle of Circumcision doth diligently instruct the Jews And so Paul the Doctor of the Gentiles doth as carefully instruct the Gentiles St. Peter in the first book and second chapter commands Servants to be subject to their Masters not only good and gentle Masters but those severer ones who would punish them with Scourges when they had not deserved it Saint Paul Rom. 13. doth urge in many words the necessity of Subjection but granteth unto none the Liberty of Resistance be their case or their pretence never so good In the second place I say That although this Subjection is simply necessary yet it is not satisfactory as to Duty unlesse the command of the Law be obeyed where it can be done without Sin And therefore the Subject is bound to Obedience in Conscience in all things that are lawful and honest Hence it is that this word be Obedient is so often and so expressely inculcated by the Apostle Eph. 6. Col. 3. and in other places In the third place I say Where the precept of the Law cannot be observed without sin if the Subject shall patiently submit himself to the Power of the Law-giver he hath satisfied his Duty and is not obliged in Conscience to perform that which the Law commandeth nay he is obliged not to do it for there can be no Obligation to things unlawful It is alwayes necessary therefore to be subject but not alwayes necessary to obey IV. Furthermore seeing both are certain that the Consciences of Men are free Servitus in totum hominem uon descendit Sen. de Bencf 20. and ought to be so which Liberty no Humane Power can or may infringe And that an Obligation is a kind of a Bond and doth induce a necessity which seemeth to be opposite and to fight with just Liberty for neither is he any wayes free who is bound neither can he be free to both who by some necessity is bound to either that it plainly may appear that this Obligation of Conscience of which we now do treat may consist with the just Liberty of Conscience we must necessarily in this place give you another distinction which is that the Precepts of Humane Law may be taken two wayes either formally for the Act it self of giving the precepts or materially for the thing precepted If the Law-giver therefore should intend an Obligation or impose on the Subject a necessity of obeying from giving the Precept of his Law taken materially that is from the necessity of the thing it self which is precepted which notwithstanding in the truth of the thing was not necessary before that Law was made he in that very fact should lay a force upon the Conscience of the Subject which should be repugnant to the Liberty of it But if he should derive his Obligation from giving the precept of his Law taken formally thâ—â— is from the legitimate Authority with w ch he himself is invested that gives it a moral indifferency of the thing precepted in the mean time remaining and in the same state in which it was before the Law was made although the obligation followeth which imposeth on the Conscience a necessity of obeying yet the inward Liberty of the Conscience remaineth uninjuried and intire V. If this seems obscure to any I will illustrate it unto him by an Example A Civil Law being made that no man should eat flesh during all the time of Lent if the Law-giver either in the preface or in the body of that Law should signify that he laid this Command upon his Subjects because it were ungodly and unlawful for them in that time to eat flesh This were to throw a Snare on the Consciences of his Subjects as much as in him lay to weaken their Liberty But if expressely he should signify that the thing being otherwise free in it self he did so ordain it for the profit of the Commonwealth that his Subjects according to the Example of the antient Church should thereby take an occasion to exercise a more abstemious and severer Discipline or if by the words of the Law it self or elsewhere it might appear that the Law-giver intended not by that Law to fasten any opinion of necessity on the thing so commanded there would on this account no injury be done to the Consciences of the Subjects and the liberty thereof For there is a great difference when one thing is commanded by the Magistrate because it is thought to be necessary oris prohibited because it is conceived to be unlawful And when another thing begins then only to be thought necessary and lawful after that it is commanded by the Magistrate and unlawful because it is forbidden by him The first Necessity which anteceded the Law and is supposed by it to be some cause of it is contrary to the liberty of the Conscience but the other which followeth the Law and proceedeth from it as an essect thereof is not repugnant to it The reason of this difference is because the antecedent necessity which the Law supposeth doth necessarily require some assent of the practical judgement but to the following necessity which proceedeth from the Law the consent of the will is sufficient to the performance of that outward work which by the Law is commanded Now an Act of the Will cannot prejudice the liberty of Conscience as an Act of the judgment doth for the Act of the Will doth follow the dictates of the Conscience as the effect followeth its cause but the Act of the Judgment doth precede those Dictates as the Cause goeth before its effect VI. These distinctions being premised I proceed unto the Doubts where in the first place those which we meet with concerning the material Cause
be the better or the worse As if a man should partake of the Supper of the Lord to that end to put himself in remembrance of the death of Christ the more entirely that he applyes the mind to the remembrance of his death the better he performes the duty of a true Communicant Again if a man should slander his neighbour intending the ruine of him by how much the more violently he intends it by so much the worse is his Act of Calumnation The quantity therefore of a good or an evil Act is correspondent to the quantity of the goodnesse or the evilnesse of the Intention and is commensurate with it if the Intention be understood according to the Act of intending and not as to the thing intended But the intention taken either way doth not suffice to prove this that any Act which otherwise is evil should be made good V. This conclusion is proved by many and most strong arguments first by the words of the sacred Text in the third Chapter of the Romans where the Apostle not without indignation doth detest that grievous slander by which it was said to be taught That evil may be done that good should come thereof That the sence the scope and the force of this place may be the better understood that St. Paul amongst all the Apostles was abundantly the most copious in asserting every where the mercy of God by Grace making a Covenant of grace with sinfull men and faithfully fulfilling the Evangellical promises notwithstanding all that unrighteousnesse and unbelief of men which lyeth within their hearts and openly and abundantly doth declare it self in their dayly lives and conversations which he professeth to be so far from making these promises of God by Grace to be in vain that on the contrary they do render the glory of his grace and truth to be far more illustrious Rom. 5. 2. for where that the offence abounded there it is manifest that Grace superabounded From hence the Sophisters and Imposters took on one side to themselves an advantage to slander and to diminish if they could the authority of the Apostle On the other side the Hypocrites and profane did take an occasion to live more licentiously and to sin more securely For if that be true said they which is preached by Paul that the sins of men do redound to the greater glory of God there is no reason that God should punish sins or be angry with sinners There is no reason that a man or woman should abstain from sinning nay they should sin more abundantly that God might receive the more abundant glory and evil things are altogether to be done that good things may come thereby The other objections the Apostle confuteth but to this let us do evil that good may come of it he doth not vouchsafe any answer at all he only cryeth out that it is a manifest slander and near of kin unto blasphemy and unless they repent the just judgment of God is threatened to such importunate slanderers as if this Sophism was of that kind of arguments which Aristotle adjudged not to deserve an answer but rather a reproof It is hence manifest and all Interpreters do acknowledge it that the Apostle most constantly denyeth that any evil ought to be done for any intention be it never so good It much availeth saith St. Augustine to consider what Aug. contra meudaciam what end what intention such a thing is done but those things which are manifest sins ought not to be done under any pretence of a good cause or a good end or of a good Intention This is the first argument VI. The second it is taken from the nature of evil or of sin which of its own nature is not first to be chosen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hiercl pag. 78. neither is it secondly ordinate to a good end neither is it thirdly apt of it self to produce any good first it is not eligible or it is not to be chosen by reason of its own nature qua tale as it is of such a nature for there is nothing eligible which is not also Expitible and all things that are desired are desired under the account of good Neither is evil of its own nature ordinable to any good end for if it were it were also to be desired for the appetite in Philosophy is not only carryed to the end propounded by the Agent but to those things also which seem to conduce for the obtaining of that end If you object God doth dispose of our evils into a good end of his own and therefore it is not against the nature of evil to be ordinated to a good end I answer in the first place that the ways of Almighty God who is the Lord of Nature and according to his good pleasure can produce good out of evil are farre different from ours who have not the same right or the same power neither is it for us either too curiously to enquire or too magisterially to pronounce any thing of the Providence of God concerning evil In the second place I answer that God indeed is able and accustomed to make use of our sins to serve his Glory Grace and Providence and that it is lawfull for us also as opportunity shall serve to follow his example and to make use of the sins of other men for our spirituall or temporall advantage Notwithstanding as God although he maketh use of the evil of others and produceth Good out of it yet he never doth evil himself that from thence he might abstract good so neither is it lawfull for us to do evil that good might proceed from it It is one thing to make use of the evil of others and turn it into good and another thing to do evil with an intent of good Thirdly I answer a thing may be said to be ordinated in a twofold respect either improperly in the same manner as a thing which way soever it is made use of by the Agent doth notwithstanding tend to its end being so done by the wisdome and power of the supremer Agent contrary to the will and intention of him that did it or it is taken more restrictly and properly and so that only is said to be ordinated to its end which antecedently is chosen by the Agent as a medium that by the nature of it is convenient and conducible to such an end In the first sence that is to be understood when we say that God doth ordinate and dispose of evil to a good end that is when God Non coâ—venire homo viro Vitiis uti Quint 6. Instit 1. out of his infinite mercy and power either abstracts good from evil or turneth evil into good But we must above all things take heed that these expressions be not understood in the latter and proper sence as if God antecedently did well approve or make choice of any evil as a medium convenient by the nature of it to the assecution of
and proceed XXIII The fourth argument is taken from the end and proper use of examples for we must duely confesse that examples in themselves are of great use both for the institution of our manners and for the amendment of our lives And certainly otherwise so many precepts had not been left us in the word of God for whatsoever is there written is written for our instruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom 15 4. And for our admonition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither would the Apostles otherwise have so constantly inclucated them My brothers take the Prophets for an example of patience you have heard of the patience of Job Elias prayed James 5. 19 11. 17. Again Be you followers of me as I am of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 1. What you have heard and seen in me do those things Philip. 4. 9. Observe those who so do walk as you have us for an example Phil. 3. 17. And the like in many places But the use and end of examples are not to be rules unto us for good liveing but only as helps and as it were spurs to shake off our dulness and to rouze our sloth when we are more heavy and dull in the performance of our duties than indeed we ought to be For humane frailty especially upon some great temptations and violent suggestions of the Devil and the World is commonly attended with many murmurings and complaints against the security of the Law of God and the difficulty of giving obedience to it nay oftentimes it is heard to cry out that there are Lyons in our way and that there are snares and stumbling blocks laid under our feet to cause us to trip and fall that we must endure injuries contumelies and calumnies the plundring of our goods the sequestering of our Estates the loss of our dear parents and of those dearer pledges our Wives and Children and that with the losse of our friends that we must lose our Countrey nay even life it self and become a hatred even to those who most of all are obliged to love us How unpleasing are these discourses How unsupportable is the burden of this oppression As often as these thoughts and the like do invade our minds so that we even begin to despond all hope and even to abandon the care of all our duties as of things impossible which in vain we do endeavour to perform our languishing spirits are revived and raysed by the seasonable authority of examples Tuâ—â—iter desperatur quicquid fieri potest Quint. 1. Instit 10. cum quid difficile videtur difficiliora alios obeuntes reâ—â—â— amus Tert. 1. ad uxor â— and are by degrees encouraged and armed to despise all difficulties overcome all temptations and to endure all contumelies whatsoever when I say we seriously thus do consider that pious godly men and obnoxious to the same troubles and temptations with us being assisted by the grace of God which will not be wanting unto us if we wholy depend upon it and faithfully adde our endeavours thereunto have performed and endured all those things which by the help of God are to be performed and to be endured by us our spirits will begin to return and our brests grow warm with a godly emulation the fire will burn within ns as we are musing and in the fulnesse of the heart these or the like expressions will break forth Behold Lord I am ready to perform what thou commandest and to undergo what thou layest upon me The same cloud of witnesses that which way soever we look doth every where surround us will perswade us also that all revenge distemper of spirit being cast away as also the importunity of sin which as it doth closely embrace us so if we use our best endeavours by the grace of God will with no great difficulty abandon us we couragiously constantly and patiently do run the race that is set before us XXIV St. James the Apostle in his fifth Chapter doth exhort us to a fervency in prayer after the example of Elias who by the importunity of his prayer did as it were at his pleasure lock and unlock the Gates of Heaven And that no man might conceive that it was to be imputed rather to the sanctity and the merits of Elias than to the promise of God to the prayers of the faithfull by the Covenant of Grace The Apostle in the very begining of this narration doth take away all occasion of suspition Elias saith he was a man the same passions with us verse 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was a man not a God or an Angell nor made of better clay but out of the same masse out of which all other men are fashioned This here urged is the most proper the most profitable use of examples we ought therefore to bear in our minds that examples are not the rule it self neither do they carry with them the weight or estimation of a rule nay if any doubt be made of the uprightness or the pravity of the act they are themselves to be brought and diligently to be examined by the Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith St. James in his fifth Chapter and the 〈◊〉 verse where I know not well if that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth carry with it a special force of signification Certainly it seemeth unto me to imply that the acts of the holy Prophets are no◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the principal coppy and example which is to be observed by us but as it were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the second example which is not of authority of it self or for it self but so far to be believed and received as it agreeeth with the original From what hitherto hath been spoken it may be now made manifest that it doth not suffice to prove the goodness of any humane act that it is comformable to the example of some good and holy man and therefore no mans Conscience can securely and safely acquiesse therein unless the example it self be comformable to the rule XXV Again that we may now come to the other part of our proposition The account is almost the same of another mans judgment as of his example and that almost for the same Causes so that we need not to make many words to enlarge our selves upon this Subject I will therefore run it over in as few as I can And in the first place all men though godly and learned are no less lyable unto errours than they are to sins nay peradventure much more and therefore we ought to have a more acute investigation of the mind to discover the difference betwixt Truth and Falshood then betwixt Good and Evil First by reason of that natural ignorance with which our minds are darkened and vaild as with a cloud Secondly by reason of our education which fashione and formeth our minds as yet but tender and doth imprint certain notions on them which it is no easy task to expunge Thirdly by reason of
Democraty the chief and Soveraign power consisteth in many Magistraâ—es yearly chosen by popular Suffrages or by certain other Intervalls of time and this heretofore was the state of the people of Rome when they were governed by Consulls Praetors Tribunes of the people Aedils and other yearly Magistrates and from hence proceed those Expressions which oftentimes we find in Tully Populi Romani Majestas laesa populi Majestas Visum est Senatui populoque Romano The Majesty of the Romane people The injured Majesty of the people it seemed good to the Senate and the people of Rome c. In a state Aristocratical the same Majesty resideth amongst some of the Lords and Nobles whom in some places they call Illustrissimoes in others the Peers of the Land and in other places again they receive other titles and appellations according to the custom of the Nation Amongst whom although peradventure but one as in the Common-wealth of Venice or more of them may have a preheminence of place and dignity above the rest being as it were a certain Primacy of Order which heretofore was the Honour of the Bishops of Rome and some Patriarchs in their Councils yet no man was so superiour above the rest in power that by his own authority he could judge any one of them neither could he himself be judged unlesse it were by all of them altogether Some form of this Government is still retained by our Mayors and Aldermen in our Cities and by the Heads and Fellows of Colleges in our Universities and although as it were but in a shadow yet in some manner they do represent it to us But in a Monarchial Government as the Name it self implies the chief Power is resident in the Person of the King alone whereupon St. Peter a most excellent Interpreter of St. Paul doth admonish the Christian People to obey the King as their superior that no man might any more doubt of whom St. Paul speaketh when he maketh mention of the higher Powers Ro. 1. 3. 1. Samuel also the Prophet of God doth so propound unto the people the fulness of the Kingly Power to be considered of by them 1 Sam. 8. That if a King the supreme in his Kingdom should act all those things which in that Chapter it is manifest that it is lawful for him to do upon no just Cause but upon the meer desire of Domination and to show himself a Tyrant and not a King although he wanted not Sin before God yet he ought not to have any force to be put upon him by the People nevertheless he may justly be said to have abused his Power but his own Power Amongst us English what more certainly or more cleerly can appear unless at noon we choose rather to be blind than open our eyes than that the supreme Power of the three Kingdoms doth intirely appertain to the Kings most excellent Majesty whom we are accustomed to render more remarkable by the title of Majesty not only according to the common use of speaking but in our solemn Ordinances and in all our forms actions of Law in the taking of an oath laying our hands upon the Gospel of the eternal God we acknowledg him the supreme yea the only supreme Governour of all persons and Causes in his Kingdoms VIII In the fourth place we are to understand That when we say the Power of making Lawes is in the King alone It is not so to be understood as if we meant that whatsoever the King is pleased to command shall immediatly obtain the force of a Law for by and by I will show unto you that some Consent of the People themselves and many other things are required to the Constitution of Law but this is that which I would hold forth unto you that the Counsels of the People Senate and other Demands of the Peers People or any whomsoever doe not oblige the Subjects nor do carry with them the Power of a Law unlesse they are strengthened and established by the Authority of the King to which being maturely and duely prepared as soon as the Consent of the King accedeth they immediatly receive the Name the Form and Authority of a Law and forthwith begin as soon as they are published to oblige the Subjects Therefore seeing that only is to be esteemed to be the Principal and the efficient Cause of any thing which by it self and immediatly produceth and into a prepared matter introduceth that Form which giveth to that Thing both the Name and the Being although other things ought to concurre to the production of that Effect or to go before it as so many praevious dispositions that so the matter may be rendred more apt to receive the Form intended by the Agent It is most manifest whatsoever those things are which antecedently are required to the Constitution of a Law yet the will of the Prince from whose Arbitration and Command alone all Rogations of Lawes are either established or made void is the only adaequate and efficient Cause of Publick Laws IX These things being premised The Position is confirmed by many Arguments And first by the Testimony of Holy Scripture First Gen. 49. 10. in that remarkable Testament of the Patriarch Jacob being about to dye The Scepter shall not be taken away from Judah nor a Law-giver from his Thigh is a Prophecy of the future Royal Dignity of that Tribe which the holy old man doth periphrastically describe and to the Confirmation of it he mentioned the Scepter the most remarkable witnesse of Kingly Authority and the Legislative Power the chiefest Perogative of it Secondly Deut. 33. 4 5. Moses was said to be a King in Israel because having gathered together all the Tribes of the People he gave them a Law to observe Thirdly Psal 60. 7. Judah is my Law-giver that is King And the vulgar Interpretation reads it Judah is my King In the Text now in hand Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign and the makers of Laws do decree just things where which is usual with Solomon in the whole Book of the Proverbs that the latter part of the verse doth contain an Amplification or Antithesis the very same Persons who in the beginning of the verse are called Kings in the latter part by way of Amplification are called Makers of Lawes Fiftly In the new Testament St. James also maketh mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Royal Law X. Secondly It is confirmed by the Testimonies of Philosophers and Historians and by the Authority of the Civil Laws and the municipal Laws of our Nation The thing being so manifest we shall be content to give you but few Examples Aristotle Plutarch and almost an infinit Number of other Authors of great Estimation do all affirm that we must have a Law and the Law of the Prince But that of Ulpian is very remarkable which he hath in his Book of the Roman Laws Quod principi placuit Legis vigorem habet What pleaseth the Prince hath the
should still retain the Lands and Houses upon such a condition bequeathed to her in the Will and should not restore them to the Heir The reason of both the examples is the same because in both of them the obligation was not pure simple and absolute but only conditinal For always a condition of its own nature doth suspend the obligation so that the condition being kept the obligation immediately as if the Bonds were loosed doth fall to the Ground The Case is the very same in Laws that are purely penal as to the manner and measure of obliging which they will easily understand who have the will and the leisure to compare these considerations amongst themselves so that we need not any longer to insist in the explication of them XX. But peradventure some one may yet instance that no man can be obliged to the Punishment but he must be obliged to the Fault also for a Penalty cannot justly be imposed on any unless for some antecedent Fault according to that of St. Augustin Omnis poena si justa est peccati poena est Every punishment if it be just is the punishment of some sin The second objection is derived from the Nature of the Law they urge which is to command something therfore that Law which we have said is purely penal hath not the Nature of a Law if it commands nothing or if implicitly at least it containeth some Command it must also oblige unto the Fault for a fault is nothing else but a Transgression or a Violation of a just Command XXI To the first objection we may answer several ways For in the first place it may truly be said that indeed eternal Punishment as it is under the absolute Notion of Punishment and cannot otherwise be considered but in the true Nature of Punishment must therfore necessarily suppose some antecedent fault which hath deserved it and for which without any other respect whatsoever he who is guilty of that Fault is afflicted with the Punishment but there is not the same consideration in all spiritual Punishments much more in temporal Punishments For although both of them as it is a Punishment doth suppose some precedent fault worthy of such a Punishment for otherwise it would not be just yet because they may be otherwise considered than under the bare notion of a punishment viz. In respect to the End â—ntended by the party punishing that is not so much as ordinated to revenge a fault past as to prevent a fault to come it comes thereupon to passe that neither God himself when he afflicts a man either with a spiritual or a temporal punishment neither man when he inflicts upon a man a temporal punishment doth always precisely respect their Sins or offences but very often they do propound other ends unto themselves To this purpose belongeth that answer of our Saviour when his Disciples asked him concerning the blind man whether it were for his Sins or his Fathers that he was born blind Joh. 9. 3. His answer was that neither his Sins nor his Fathers were the occasion of his blindnesse but that the works of God might be manifested in him The reason is because in morals the Estimation of things and the Denomination of them is taken rather from the final than from the efficient and meritorious Cause XXII Secondly it may be said that the relation of a temporal punishment to a Sin doth properly consist only in that punishment which relatively is opposed to the Sin and not in that punishment which only contrarily is opposed to it which is the looser and more improper signification of the word We have heretofore made use of this distinction and explained it in the second Praecognisance to this Doubt therefore there needs no repetition of it It may suffice to put you in mind that the punishment affixed to the Law that is purely penal is not called a punishment strictly and properly but improperly and more largely as it signifies another kind of Evil diverse from the Evil of the Fault which kind of punishment may be infflicted on a person without any legal injustice and for a profitable end as to avoid some publick Inconvenience without the delinquency of the person suffering for the word punishment so taken doth contain all losses mâ—â—fortunes or adversities or whatsoever befalls a man which he desireth might never have to come to pass XXIII If these things shall not satisfie the Reader yet this will be very remarkable which here in the third place I shall propound unto you and which will quite remove all this Doubt and very aptly meet with another objection which is that the Intent of a penal Law of which we now speak being to oblige the Subject and yet but conditionally to oblige him may be considered two or three ways First precisely as to that to which it intendeth to oblige under such a condition to be done Secondly as precisely to the condition it self by which it intendeth to oblige the one whereof containeth the ordination of the Law and the other the punishment annexed to it Thirdly as to the whole aggregate that is the whole Law it self which at once consisteth of the complexion of them both This distinction being laid down I say in the first place that that part of the Law which containeth only the condition or the punishment doth not of it self oblige unto the fault for a bare condition is of no prevalence as all do grant and it is manifest of it self He doth not therefore transgress nay rather he very well performs his office who avoids the penalty of the Law provided he performeth that which the Law ordaineth Secondly I affirm that that part of the Law which contains the ordination doth not of it self oblige unto the fault for no Law obligeth beyond the intention of the Law-giver certain it is that the Legislator by that part of the Law did not intend per se or by it self to oblige the Subject to the fault for then it had intended to have obliged him simply â—r that part taken precisely and by it self doth contain no condition in it but by the condition of the Law added in the other part it is manifest that he did not intend simply to oblige to the doing of that which the Law ordaineth but under a condition in that Law expressed I say thirdly that a penal Law taken wholy and joyntly doth oblige to the Fault in this sense that he is guilty of the Fault and sinneth against the Law who when he ought to observe both parts performeth neither For as amongst Logicians the truth of a disjunctive proposition depends upon the truth of some one part of it so that it is all of it true if either of the parts of it be true and not false unless both parts of it be false So in morals he observeth a disjunctive Law and every Law purely penal is disjunctive or formally or equivalently who performeth one of the two parts
of the Laws is the good of the Commonalty or the publick peace and tranquillity This is proved first from those very words of the Apostle that we may live a quiet a peaceable life The Apostle doth here exhort that both privately but especially in publick Congregations for so I conceive this place to be understood and the best Interpreters are of the same opinion with me Requests Prayers and Supplications with thanksgivings may be made as first for all men in general out of Charity and in order to a Spiritual end viz. Eternal happiness in the life to come as they are men and either in Act or in Power Members of the mystical Body of Christ so more especially for Kings and others invested with supreme Authority and this out of Prudence and in order to a Temporal end to wit external felicity in this present life as they are the chief Members of the body politicks from whose legislative and executive power accordingly as they have administred it whether rightly or unjustly either the chief happiness or unhappiness of the rest of the Members and by consequence of the whole Body doth depend Therefore the making of Laws being the chief Act of the supreme political Jurisdiction that which is the supreme End of that supreme Jurisdiction is also the supreme End of the making of Laws to wit the good of the Commonalty It is proved secondly from the Nature of the End as by a Demonstration a priori That in its order is the ultimate End of everything to which all the Acts of that thing are reduced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist 8. Ethic. 11. as to their first regulative principle and to which they are referred as to that for whose sake they are ultimately ordained Therefore the Final Cause is commonly called by Aristotle That for which But all the Acts of Laws are regulated by the Common good as by their first Rule and Principle and are referred to the Common good as to that for whose sake they are made as may appear by running over the several Acts Therefore c. For wherefore are good things commanded or evil ones forbidden and things indifferent and of a middle Nature permitted Or wherefore are Rewards decreed to men that have deserved well of the Common-wealth or wherefore are punishments appointed to the Violators of Laws or wherefore are the Laws in the Courts indifferently pleaded unto both of which those are the first Acts of Laws and by the way of Form and the other more remote and by the way of Effect Is it not for that end that the Common-wealth may flourish in peace and safety and that private men according to their measure and degrees may partake rejoyce in the publick happinesse in a word that they may be all inservient to the Common good Thirdly it is proved a posteriori from the posterior by the sence and consent of all men For the Law-makers who do decree just judgements do indeed appear and those who meditate on Evil as a Law do notwithstanding desire to seem to have an Eye to the Common good and profit in the making of their Laws and to preferr the publick interest above their own Whether they sincerely intend or craftily pretend they all professe that in the making of their Laws their chiefest Intention was the publick Good II. This foundation of the present discourse being laid to wit That the End of Laws is the good of the Common-wealth I proceed to the Doubts whereof let this be the first Whether there be any necessary use at least of Humane Laws And indeed we should not have needed to have made any Doubt of it did not the mad errors of the Anabaptists and some others of their faction make this businesse for us from whose Principles seeing they affirm it is not lawful for a man that is a Christian to be a Magistrate or to contend by war or by sutes in Law to swear or to administer an oath to any one it seems to follow that there is no need at all of Humane Laws For take away but Jurisdiction there will be no man to make Laws and take away the Seats and Courts of Justice there will be no man that will fear them What need sad complaints if the offence be not redressed by punishment what will vain Laws profit without the execution of them The Directive power of the Law must of necessity fall unto the ground if the Coactive power doth not assist it The reason of this Doubt is for the Law of Nature may suffice to leave the Gentiles inexcusable which dictates to them to eschew all Sins and trespasses to injure no man and the like But if that be defective the Christian hath at hand a more sublime and a more perfect Law to wit the Law of Faith Justice and Charity made by our Saviour Jesus Christ whom St. James acknowledgeth to be the only Judge and Law-giver James 4. 12. This place in my Judgement doth neerly touch our Innovatours who have derived and drawn most of their opinion from the unclean wells of the Anabaptists whilst they collect from that place of the Apostle that it is lawful for no man besides Christ alone to make Ecclesiastical Laws for it no wayes appeareth either by the force of the words or by the scope and order of the whole perioch that the Apostle hath spoke more there of Ecclesiastical Laws then of Civil And unless they had rather deal unfaithfuly and deceitfuly with us than be ruled by reason they must do one of these two things which they please either turn absolute Anabaptists and take away altogether from mankind all the power of making Laws or grant unto supreme Magistrates as it is fit they should the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws III. But how these our Brethren can disintangle themselves from the snares of the Anabaptists it doth not much concern us let them look unto it themselves We easily do answer that the Law of Nature is written in our hearts and the Law of Christ is revealed in the Gospel and that both of them in their kind are most perfect but so that for all that it is most manifest that the profit of humane Lawes is very great and their use as necessary Because those divine Laws do contain only general Principles of things to be done From which as Conclusions from their Principles more special Rules are to be deduced accommodated to the right Institution of publick Societies of the manners of single persons Neither is it any way to be feared that it may derogate at all from the perfection of the Law of God For the makers of humane Laws do not go about to add any new stock to the most rich Treasure of the divine Law but they rather take from thence what they judge most profitable to themselves and to their people and the good of the Common-wealth Humane Laws therfore if they are just are nothing else but the Relicts of