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
honest Citizen hath not read Ethicks in calling these Cardinal Vritues whereof we know indeed there are Four but neither of these is One of them But for the Spirit or present Assurance where-with he Writes I could never be so Confident when I wrote against Separation Nor can I look on this Separation only from the Churches of the Nation not from Christ's Church or Churches that is a Schisme of mans Denomination our Parishes being of Humane Contrivance out of Question to be such a Horrible Creature as he makes it The great Bear hath been led so long about the streets that the very Children are no longer afraid of it Neither can I think it any such Vertue for a man to give over Preaching I am mightily Flattered methinks in this Passage who if this good man be in the right should be one of the most Vertuous Non-Conformists among all our Brethren I pray God to for-give me that Vertue with my Manifold Aberations I declare my Self with the Old Non-Conformist a Conformist Parishioner though a Non-Conforming Minister and refuse not to joyn in the Ordinances of Doctrine Breaking Bread and Prayers in our Parochial Congregations Laws which are not Wholesome Laws that is not for the Spiritual or Temporal good of the Community such as our Ceremonies the like things I count be may I Presume entangle the Mind and Oblige the outward Man to suffering or to doing rather then Suffer if they be not Sinful to us as well as Vnprofitable but they do not I have maintained and must desend still what I have determined as of necessary import to tender Christians oblige the Conscience of the Subject And so I descend to my Proper Concernment J. H. sâ—ith that unless thâ— matter of the Princes Command be antecedently necessary in Judgment of the Subject it obliges not the Conscience Sir This is a mistake I say not so I say indeed that unless a Law be for the common Good it binds not in point of Conscience and I give these two reasons for it The one because the Magistrate hath no Authority from God but for our Weale nor the Bishop but for our Edification The other because we are to suppose the Superiours will or intention is measured by his Authority And when the thing commanded is not for our Good or Edification as it is destitute of God's Authority it must be supposed void also of his Ministers intention See my Obligation of humane Laws Pa. 139. with pa. 25. But that I should be made upon this to hold therefore and that for a Principle that the Conscience is only Obliged from the Matter of the thing Commanded and not from the Command of the Magistrate is such an abuse and weakness as the modesty of those Words You seem to Say will not excuse There are a Thousand things good for the Publick which being not commanded are not necessary nor Oblige any Body The controversie between Conformist and Non-Conformist is supposed to be about things indifferent in which the Conscience is Free and not bound till our Superiours Command comes It is by the Authority then of our Superiour I say derived from God that the Conscience is obliged Insomuch as that before the Command there is no Obligation and when he commands the matter of the command must be such as he hath Power to Command in or it is void It is Authoritas imperantis agnita I have noted it some-where is the Objectum formale obedientiae and answereth the question Qûare obedis But I am not aware saith the kind Dean That obedience to man in things indifferent is commanded of God in Scripture Yes I am aware that Things indifferent by which we mean whatsoever is neither commanded nor for-bidden in the Word are either for the Common good and so the subject matter of the Superiours Authority and Obedience to men in such things is commanded by God in Scripture Or they are not for the common Good but against it and in such matters neither hath the Superiour Authority I say from God to command them nor can such commands for that reason be obligatory to the Conscience But Obedience to them is also required in the Law of Nature for the common Good How Is Obedience required by the law of Nature for the common Good to things which I suppose not for the common Good Why It is for the security of the Publick peace and God's own Vicegerency on Earth I answer The Honour of the Magistrate and security of the Government is preserved and the common good thereby concern'd in our obedience when the Laws are wholesome Laws in our suffering when they are sinful Laws in our avoiding contempt and scandal when they are unprofitable Laws in our subjection to the Authority residing in the Person under all Laws so that when he will he can enforce them Upon this account there is a difference ordinarily between the Command of a Master or Parent and the Laws of a Nation A Command to a Child or Servant does suppose a do it or I 'le make you If the Magistrate sets himself to have a Law obeyed by a particular person the case is the same and seeing the honour of the Governour and the Government it self is still I count concern'd in this that he should be able to make his Subjects obey if he put his power out and the thing be no Sin Obedience being for the common good in such a case a man is obliged to it in Conscience but if he do not a Law supposes only the common good mainly to be entended prudence to be used no contempt offered and the will of the Magistrate is done When our Obedience then I say does indeed serve those ends he mentions and greater be not served or the same otherwise better served we are obliged But what if it serves them not What if my impertinent Obedience shall but disturb the Peace or the peaceable and reflect dishonour on the Law-giver what if it should do more hurt than good taking one thing with another when it is not for the common good I say and then only that we are not obliged in Conscience There are a few more words here needful because we are at the bottom How far the Laws of man do bind the Conscience was the question That the Conscience is not bound at all by humane Constitutions hath been the opinion of no few Doctors nor mean persons for in the Act for the VVednesday fast it seems to have been the received judgment at that time of the whole Nation I say these fasts or the like appointments are to be observed yet shall not the breaking them make a man to do deadly sin except in his mind be some other malicious affection therewith annexed as rashness of mind despite or such like for so much as no positive Law of man made without foundation of Scripture may bind any person so that in breaking such he shall therefore sin deadly John Lambert the
Martyr So Luther and the Protestants I suppose ordinarily after Gerson See Downam see Field They do impiously Vsurp and assume to themselves that which is proper to God who will have their Lawes bind the Conscience and threaten Damnation to the Offendors sayes that learned Dr for our Currant Doctrine who does therefore quote also two Papists Human Lawes binds the Conscience not Ex voluntate Legislatoris sed ex ipsa legum utilitate ratione Stapleton Cont. 5. De pot Ec circa leges Mor. Quaest 7. Art 2. Quamvis peccet quis transgrediendo leges humanas non tamen ligant conscientiam patet per simile de praeceptis medicorum quae despicere quis non potest sine peccato tamen non ligant conscientiam Gerson De vita spir anim Lect. 4. If you think this too large that the Lawes of Man however should not be made to oblige the Conscience in equality with the Lawes of God is but most reasonable That they do oblige therefore only so far as to the avoiding contempt and scandal hath been our most constant determination I think against the Papists Now I would willingly know here upon what bottom such a Determination is laid and that which offers it self is this That whereas all Lawes do oblige only but according to the will of the Law-giver it is supposed that he entends we should be obliged so far only But I pray why do we set these limits to his will why may we not suppose as well that he entends his obligation with other limits to wit that his Lawes shall bind us so far as stands with our convenience or so far as the hurt or damage to us does not exceed the good we shall do the Community by our Obedience If our Superiour entends not to bind us so far as God does by his Lawes but so far as the supream Law of Charity requires See Davinants Determinations Quaest 20. p. 100. why may we not suppose other limits I say as well as these mentioned The truth is there is no bottom in the business till we come to that I have laid which is this that forasmuch as God hath entrusted no Authority with any to give Lawes but for the Peoples welfare and this is the end therefore of all Lawes there are no Men in capacity of Law-givers especially a Parliament that represent the Community but are to be supposed to entend this altogether and consequently if a Law prove otherwise or is against the common good it must be supposed also that such a Law is devoid of their intention or is not according to their will and so does not bind the Conscience even upon this double ground both because it is destitute of the Authority it should have from God and its Authority from the will of Man also upon the account declared That the will of the Law-giver should be measured by his Authority is but meet I hope to be supposed and this last ground therefore having been but once touched in my Book before quoted I do imprint it now more sensibly in this Paper I must confess I have heard it said to me by One or Two sometimes thus When a thing is indeed destructive to the publick good we will grant you what you say but not so when a thing is only against it or not for it I reply Sirs I pray let us come to a bottome This is not to go to the bottome Why shall not a command destructive to the common good bind the Conscience If it be sin to disobey we must not sin to avoid mischief we must say therefore it is not sin And why is it not sin but because such a Command hath none of God's Authority I must assume so hath no Command that is not for the common good for the Authority that any Man hath from God is only for our Good for our Edification Here is the bottome if it be firm it must hold throughout if not it must not hold at all He is the Minister of God for our good According to the power given to us of God for Edification To the Dean's Texts I have answered Subjection is to be owned alwayes out of Conscience Obedience is supposed to be required in Scripture in matters wherein the Superiour hath Authority that is a right from God to Command Such matters being only what is for the publick good those Lawes or Commands which are besides that end are no Lawes or Commands God bids us obey that is are in sensu univoco no Lawes and when 〈◊〉 obey in all others but in those which are Lawes only secundum nomen I do obey him I count in all things because those I disobey are none secundum nominis rationem It may be perhaps thought upon this that I should have made a quicker dispatch of my Work then I do to say that all Lawes do indeed bind the Conscience it is properer to say do bind in Conscience but such Lawes as are not for the common good are no Lawes To which purpose may Cicero and Suarez be consulted Omnium commune axioma est de ratione substantia legis esse ut pro communi bono feratur Suarez De legibus l. 1. c. 7. You may find Authorities enough there quoted to read at your leasure I will transcribe thus much out of Cicero my self Principem legem mentem esse dicebant omnia ratione aut cogentis aut vetantis dei ex qua illa lex quam dij humano generi dederunt recte est laudata Est enim ratio mensque sapientis ad inbendum ad deterrendum idonea Constat profecto ad salutem civium civitatumque incolumitatem vitamque omnium quietam beatam conditas esse leges eosque qui primum ejusmodi scita sanxerunt populis ostendisse ea se scripturos atque laturos quibus illi ad scriptis susceptisque honeste beateque viverent quaeque ita composita sanctaque essent eas leges videlicet nominarunt Ex quo intelligi par est eos qui perniciosa injusta populis jussa descripserint cum contra fecerint quam polliciti professique sint quidvis potius tulisse quam leges The sum of both comes to this The chief Law is the Divine reason The Lawes of Men must be agreeable to that God's Commands are to make Men happy by living vertuously Mens Lawes accordingly that are not for the Peoples welfare are nothing less than what they are called To these I will joyn Augustine Istas leges injustas vel potius nullas dicemus Nam mihi lex esse non videtur quae justa non fuerit August de lib. arb l. 1. c. 5. If you ask me then why I did not go this way I will tell you that besides it looks not safe fit or civil to say that any thing which is once passed into an Act of Parliament is no Law there is a necessity you may perceive here that we must come to some distinction at
matter of Conscience to obey Good and Profitable Laws so farr as we are perswaded our Obedience is profitable Moreover General and Long continued Disuse is and Justly may be thought an Abolishing and Abrogating of Humane Laws For seeing Lex institutitur cum promulgatur vigorem habet cum moribus utentium approbatur On the Church Pag. 4. l. 34. I must remember my Antogonist to take Notice that What he goes to oppose in me as some singular Opinion of mine which yet is not mine but he mistakes me in it is Presented by this Great Dr. of the Church as the received Doctrine of Protestants As also that the Doctrine which in deed is mine this Dr agrees so much with me does require his better Consideration J. H's Second Principle is that Human Powers may not lawfully Command or Inforce any thing against the Conscience even in Civil Concernes He should have said in things that are materially Civil yet under some Consideration unto some Religious What the Magistrate cannot Command I say indeed he cannot Inforce The Magistrate cannot Command what God forbids God forbids every Man to do any thing against his Conscience And what hath any Mortal to oppose against this Why he has one Argument only which he takes from my Concession in the stating my Matter I Distinguish between a Man's doing according to his Conscience and his doing against It and of Restraint and Constraint accordingly in the Magistrate I grant that the Magistrate may Restraine a man from doing according to his Conscience when he is doing hurt to Church or State through his errour and may Punish him for the Evil he does He argues from hence that he may Constraine him to doe that which is Good for the Church or State though it be against his Conscience upon the same account But I say not There is a Difference I give my Reason Because in the one the Man does what God would not have him In the other he does what God would have God would not have him to do Evil because of his erroneous Conscience but that he should lay down his Errour and do Good But God will have every Man so to regard his Conscience though Eerroneous that he must not do any thing against it for any Fear or Advantage in 〈◊〉 Eaerth Author of the Mag. Pag. 12â—… And what answer makes he to this Reason Why not a word So overly aâ—… men ordinarily to speak at the first sight against that which others have thought long upon The substance of the Distinction and so of my Detemination I cited out of Augustine and confirmed it with Grotius his Approbation I might add to them the Learned Rutherford who are Judicious mighty Men all three but this Gentle Dean hath not Pondred the Matter For thus he proceeds The Law of God is the Rule of Concience This Law is Negative as well as Affirmative and binds the Conscience equally in both respects So far we are Agreed Hold Sir A mistake again He forgets the known Rule in the Schools that Affirmations bind Semper not ad Semper not to all times or in all Cases but Negatives do bind Semper and ad Semper alwayes and against all Exceptions He remembers not himself therefore when he saies they Bind equally and so thinks not how the Decision of the Point must resolve into this Issue In the affirmative Case I say it is true that God requires the Man to lay down his Errour and not to do the thing and therefore the Magistrate may Restrain or Punish him In the Negative case he urges likewise God commands him the Same as to laying down his Errour and to do the thing and therefore he may Constraine or make him But I reply no still the difference remains Though in the Negative case that is when the Conscience which is Erroneous sayes they must not do such a thing God requires this Joyntly to lay down his Erroneous Conscience or be other-wise informed and to do the thing yet does not he require this Separately that while he is so informed he should do it When in the affirmative Case that is when the Conscience which is erroneous saies thou must do such or such a thing God requires he should lay down his Errour not do the thing both Joyntly and Separately so that even while he is Perswaded in his Conscience that it is his Duty God's Negative Command is Obligatory against that Perswasion The reason is from what is Said because Affirmatives do not bind ad Semper or in all Cases but Negatives do This is one of those Cases Thou shalt not do against thy Conscience is a Negative Indispensable Thou shalt do according to it holds not in this Case when the Conscience is in an Errour I will conclude with the History of this little I have written There is a Book call'd the Friendly Debate which when it came out was received every where with diversity of acceptation and censure There are many things in it I am perswaded in my heart fit to be spoken yet do I not know nor the Authour himself perhaps know from what manner of Spirit they are spoken It is in appearance a Spirit elated contemptuous engaged if not imbitterd against a party and so far un-Catholick which does through the sides of that party oftentimes make Religion her self feel entrenching upon it almost all the way in regard to those weaknesses and follies which Human reason is ever ready to impute to it But God hath chosen the foolish things of the World to confound the Wise and the things that are despised hath he chosen Among other matters against the Non-Conformists that Authour brings this that they observe not the Lawes the Oxford Act and others and that therefore they cannot be good Subjects nor good Christians nor Ministers of Christ A heavy charge and a necessary case of Conscience Upon this occasion I presented to the publick a sheet called the Case under this Title Whether a Non-Conformist who hath not taken the Oxford Oath might come to live at London or any Corporate Town or within Five miles of it and yet be a good Christian To this Sheet the Authour was pleased to give me an Answer That Answer drew me forth to write my Book by way of reply of the Obligation of human Lawes To this reply the learned Debater answered no more After the Debate another peice comes forth of Ecclesiastical Polity exceeding the former both in Pomp and Design in Lustre and the Attempt that was for asserting an Authority in the Magistrate over the Conscience to end all Disputes which being a thing not to be endured though but in the matter of Conformity as the Authour I think only meant I wrote also my other Book of the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion Unto this Book I had no answer from that Authour neither Only having caused those few Copies which were left of the Obligation in Quires to be bound up with this and Printing so many on purpose of the Sheet called The Case over again to fit and joyn to both and then Entituled it Two points of great moment Discussed I do observe that it hath pleased this Reverend Dean to step in with these Two exceptions of his which I have answered and one thing more in the close must not pass unregarded which he brings in under the head of the former of the Two This Obligation of I. H. is only from necessity of the thing commanded But in all other cases you need not obey only for wraths sake that is no farther then you are forced and therefore when you are got above fears you will not or need not regard Authority This principle will hardly prove the Non-Conformists the only Loyalists Besides the mistake before noted It is nothing but want of the present knowledge in this Dr as it was in the Debater of the distinction I offered them out of Dr Field between Subjection and Obedience or the sense of it that made them fall into so slender sort of reasoning as this is Though there be many cases wherein we are not bound in Conscience to Obey yet are we alwayes bound in Conscience to be Subject or never to Resist and upon that ground is our Loyalty maintained This I have said I know most effectually in my first Book of the Two Points unto which therefore when that which is brought to its Assistance in the Second and this little in these Two Sheets now more is added which I would by no means have those who have the other be without there is nothing besides as I can find in my mind unless to tell the Reader least he be at a loss that there are a few of these Two Poynts so bound up yet to be had at the Golden Lyon in Paul's Church-yard that is lacking to my full satisfaction on those Subjects Vale Lector fruere Deo gloria I. H.
where the High-Priests Office was to be Executed at Hierusalem and to confine him to Anathoth where he could not execute the Office of the High-Priest and so he was in effect turned from the High-Priests Office 4. And Zadoc to whom that Office was due is invested with it But Abiathar remains a Priest still is so called after and joyned next to Zadoc but the High Priesthood could not truly belong to him but to the Elder House from Aaron and besides God had declared his Will that this should be done he is said to have done it that he might fulfil the Word of the Lord and he that did it was a man inspired by God and a Pen-man of Holy Writ What will follow from hence think we therefore Kings and Magistrates may remove 1. The chiefest Priests from their Preferments Dignities and their own Courts 2. That in case they have deserved death and the Magistrate thinks fit to shew mercy but yet to punish them with Banishment to remote places where their flock cannot come he may thus in effect turn them out from their Pastoral Relation 3. That in case he finds them no true Ministers of Christ he may forbid them to Minister 4. That if God from Heaven by a revelation or by any plain Scripture commands them to turn true Ministers out of Office they may do it I can see nothing more let the Author make his best of this § 55. But he had thought the distinction of the Office and the exercise of it had been uncontrouled by the Presbyterians and that they had granted that though the Magistrate could not degrade them yet as to the exercise of their Office he might and that he had power to silence such as he judged unmeet to Preach Presbyterians can without the help of this Authors Logick distinguish betwixt the Office and the exercise of the Office and make one distinction more between the exercise of the Office in publick places undoubtedly in the Magistrates disposal and in their own private Houses or in the private Houses of others They do believe it in the power of the Magistrate though not to take away their Office or Relation to their Flock Yet to hinder the exercise of it and that they ought to obey him commanding them to forbear the exercise of it in publick places belonging to the Magistrates and accordingly have generally been so obedient though the Law so far be not so plain that any are prohibited to Preach except such as are disabled which is the case of very few They know Paul Preached in his hired House at Rome Act. 28. and in the School of Tirannus when the Jewish Rulers forbad them the Synagogues the Office not taken away nor to be taken away they conclude the Relation attending the Office abiding But hitherto we have only justified our first Plea It is no separation because there never was an Union nor could be of very many of us to a Parochial Ministerial Governing Church And considering it only as a part of the Catholick Church we are in all points one with it § 56. But we will suppose that this is not the case of all our Brethren but some have been United to the Parochial Societies wherein they lived and implicitly consented to be one body with them by not only hearing the Ministers there but receiving the Communion with them What shall be said for them We say they are not sinfully separated 1. Are they separated They now indeed meet for worship in other places and that statedly but do they condemn the Ministers or Churches from which they are come do they not own them as true Ministers and such Churches as true Churches Do they not pay to the Ministers love the Brethren where 's the Schisme then For when men have said all they can Schisme is a sin against the command of Love to our Neighbour It is no command of God you shall be of this Congregation or another other then it falls under general precepts commanding us to use the best means for our Souls Now cannot I love my Neighbour except I dwell in his Family or chuse her for my Wife or him for my Husband Besides it is most certain I am bound to love my own Soul in the first place and as an Evidence to that I am tied to use the best means I can not contradicted by God's Word according to my own Conscience which certainly must judg for me in my highest concern for the Salvation of it § 57. I am a-ware of what this Author hath said That a man may not depart from a Congregation to which he was United either to enjoy the Ordinances of God more powerfully or purely or perfectly administred in another convenient enough for me to joyn with This is the substance of what he hath said and quoted from others as their Opinion But this will never enter into my thoughts Let them speak plainly to this Is it not the duty of every Christian to use what appears to his Conscience the best and most probable means for his Salvation The light of Nature as well as Scripture will evince this Now I would fain know of any person what it is under Heaven except the bare Word and Sacraments that God hath appointed as means for the Instruction Edification and Salvation of my Soul but the gifts of his Ministers or People with which in order to these ends his holy Spirit works not miraculously but in a national orderly way secundum quae nactus est Organa There is nothing more evident than that in Ministers there is a great diversity of Gifts and as much a diversity of Wills Humours and Fancies and also a great variety of peoples Capacities There 's nothing more evident than that our Ministers parts method of Preaching c. is really more fitted to the Instruction and Edification of some people than the Gifts and Methods of others are as we say every good Man makes not a good Husband for every good Woman so it is demonstrably true that every able and good Minister is not a fit and good Instructor for every good Christian they possibly understand not his language nor cannot learn his method possibly 't is Cryptick and requires a Schollar to understand it Shall these people be perpetually staked down in the case that let their Souls be never so much concerned they must not ordinarily joyn with another Minister and hear him though their habitations be convenient enough for it or must these persons possibly to the loss of their Trade and Livelihood which in Towns lyes much upon their habitation be forced to remove into that other Parish where hath God required any such thing § 58. Besides that I understand not much those of my Brethren that are so Zealous in this point In my little dealings in the World I use always to be afraid of that Trades-man whom I perceive using arts to tye me to his Shop and upon that Work-man that I see
endeavouring to oblige me to none but himself I fear always they have no good meaning toward me and I should fear my self that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to stake them to my Ministry I should suspect my self of Pride or Self-interest or some other scurvy Lust or Passion If I think none so able as my self 't is Pride if I would have them to fill my Congregation it is Self-interest If I would save their Souls so may another and possibly be a better instrument for it at least he is more likely if sound in the Faith able and painful because they have a more fancy to him In short I have for some good time been an unworthy Minister of the Gosel I thank God I can say that as I never denyed any Christian desirous to leave me my License to do it so I never had an ill thought of any that did it but said with my self The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge the lesser my account will be And that which much confirm'd me in this was my reading Chrysostom's expressing a fear that but a few Ministers would be saved because their work and charge was so great which if well considered would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory and rather make us rejoyce I have a number not inconsiderable under my charge now and I can say I dearly love them and should think I did not if I should not declare my free leave for them to leave my Ministry and joyn with any other of sound faith and holy life under whom they should think they could profit more than by me and I do think this the duty of every Minister I do not think this is any sinful separation which Schisme doth import § 59. But lastly Supposing such a departing from a Church to which we are united be to be called Separation yet it is not sinful in the judgment of all Divines if it be necessary or if it be not causeless now possibly this may be the case of many I remember in the case of Marriage Divines distinguish between Repudiation and Divorce Divorce they say can only be for Adultery but Repudiation may be lawful and necessary in several other cases in short in all cases where it appears there ought to have been no Union had it been known as suppose 1. One had Married another through deceit of his or her own Sex 2. His very near Relation as Mother Sister c. 3. or 3dly One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage c. I think the same is to be said in this case Let us try a little Suppose Christians by an error had chosen a man to be their Pastor and ordinarily heard him and communicated in the Lords Supper with him whom at last they found to be no Minister And when they discover it should leave him This I hope were no sinful separation If any shall say it is he should complain and have him orderly removed We will suppose the case so that it could not be obtained Of this the late times gave us some instances 2. Secondly Suppose Christians by an errour and through ignorance had done the like to one whom after they discover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine suppose some points of Popery Arminianisme Socinianisme which they in their Consciences judge false and makes a trade of this Is it a sin for them to go to another Minister not being able to get this removed 'T is plain they ought not to have chosen him as their Pastor 3. Suppose Christians by an error have so chosen and joyned with one whom they then judged of a very sober life but they find him a notorious Drunkard Swearer c. Such a one ought not to have been chosen but doth factum valet here must they not leave him If any say they may have him removed I desire to know by what Law of England if he be neither Jew nor Schismatick I am mistaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other cases or very few of Deprivation 4. Suppose Christians by the like Errour to have chosen one who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock and to that end cohabiting with them the thing of the Law of Nature saith our Author and that is Divine for Members of the same Church but they find he rarely comes near them or rarely Preacheth to them if amongst them possibly once a moneth hardly more seldom or never administring other Ordinances In this case may Christians depart to another yea or no will any say No still then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for ought I know § 60. But lastly Must it appear demonstratively or is it enough for it to appear to the Christian probably that is so far as his Conscience can discern or judge sinful to Communicate with a Church before he separates from it If any say Demonstratively let him prove it will any say it is enough as to his practice if it propably appears so then why are we so boldly called Schismaticks before our probable Arguments be made appear to us to have no probability to But They are the people and have said Wisdom shall dye with them We must be Schismaticks and sinful Separatists and for no other reason but because they say so § 61. Once more If it be Schismatical for the Members of a Chuch to separate from the Minister and Congregation to which they are united Then it is Schismatical for Ministers also to separate from the Congregations to which they were once so united unless at least commanded by the Governours of the Church for the publick good If any say No he will I hope give us a Reason is not the Minister United Doth not he break the Union yea destroy the Organical Church by removing which private Christians do not I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schisme from Parochial Societies than grant us the consequence to the prejudice of if not himself yet of so many of his Friends One of them he must do if I understand sense Will our Author think to excuse this by saying It is no Schisme in them because they but remove to Churches of the same Communion which he said before for peoples removing from one Parish to another It lyes upon him to prove that persons agreeing in the same Doctrine and in the same acts of Worship though they differ in the words and syllables and forms of mere humane constitution be of a different communion from their Brethren otherwise the Presbyterians do not separate and are but Sister-Churches of the same Communion with their Brethren not separated from them § 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author That themselves with us had separated from Rome which yet they or some of them acknowledg a True Church Therefore we might separate from a True Church The sum of