Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	humane_a	law_n	obligation_n	1,134	5	9.8189	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40050	Four grand questions proposed, and briefly answered wherein is discoursed, the authority and duty of the magistrate in the matters of religion, the unlawfulness of a toleration and general liberty of conscience, the divine right of Christian liberty in things indifferent, the unlawfulness of repealing the laws against Popery and idolatry.		1689 (1689)	Wing F1655; ESTC R20387	25,185	33

known and profest not only to provide that the Ignorant and Erroneous People may be well instructed in the True Religion but also to prohibit and suppress the publick Profession and Practice of Idolatry Heresie Blasphemy and such-like as being so repugnant and prejudicial to the True Religion which he is obliged to promote and maintain But to give a Toleration of these and of all Religions whatsoever is so far from suppressing it that 't is not only an Allowance of it but a kind of setting it up Secondly It may be further proved Unlawful from the Command of God on the Magistracy of the Old Testament to suppress all false Prophets Teachers and Idolaters Deut. 13. 2 6 10. Thirdly From the Example of all good Kings and Magistrates that did so and are approved for so doing And Lastly From the great injury and hurt that the Cause of True Religion and the Church of God is like to receive by such a Toleration by giving occasion to Satan by false Teachers to infest the Church with the Seeds of False Doctrines and to corrupt the pure Worship of God with Idolatry and Superstition which the Christian Magistrate as a Watchman over the Church should labour to prevent This in short might serve sufficiently to demonstrate the unreasonableness and great impiety of such a Toleration but because a general Toleration under the specious pretence of Liberty of Conscience hath been and is a matter so vehemently argued for by many I shall a little enquire into the nature and ground of this Liberty of Conscience pleaded for by which I presume most understand nothing else but an Exemption from the Obligation of all humane Laws in the matters of Religion therefore I shall in the first place examine those Grounds upon which such a Liberty of Conscience seems to be claimed and pleaded for which being found rotten and unsound such a Toleration will then further appear unlawful to be given by the Christian Magistrate And then Secondly I shall further examin what that lawful Liberty is in the matters of Religion which of Divine Right ought to be allowed by the Magistrate to every Christian First Concerning such a Liberty of Conscience as is opposed to all human Laws in matters of Religion I shall enquire into these things First What Obligation of humane Laws there is upon the Conscience in the things of Religion Secondly Whether an Erroneous Conscience do exempt from the Obligation of Just Laws Thirdly Whether the consideration of an Erroneous Conscience under the infliction of a Penalty on such a Person to be Unjust Of these very briefly First As to the Obligation of humane Laws upon the Conscience we acknowledge that 't is only the Law of God that doth immediately bind the Conscience because the Conscience is only subject to God and under his Authority alone the Magistrate hath only power over the Body and outward practice but yet nevertheless the Conscience is bound by the Law of God to obey all lawful and just Commands of the Magistrate Now those Laws of the Magistrate about Religion that are but the Inforcement of God's own Commands and Institutions have a double Obligation upon the Conscience both by Vertue of the immediate Divine Authority appointing them as also from the Command of God requiring Obedience to humane Authority chiefly in such things Secondly Neither doth an Erroneous Conscience exempt from the Obligation of Just Laws for tho' every man have a Judgment of private discretion in and about what he ought to do in Religion yet if he judge erroneously of what is justly required by Laws to be done his Judgment and erroneous Conscience therein doth not exempt him from the Obligation of those Commands for tho' 't is true that he sins in acting against an erroneous Conscience yet he ought to lay it down and then to act and if it be a necessary Duty he sins if he do not Thirdly Neither will the infliction of a Penalty be unjust that is laid on a Person for doing or omitting that which he is led to by an erroneous Conscience This is the grand mistake about Liberty of Conscience that because every man hath a liberty to judge for himself what he ought to do in Religion that therefore if he judge erroneously yet he ought to be tolerated in so doing No he ought to lay down his erroneous Conscience or else as he sins so he justly suffers from Authority in following the Dictates of it But that he sins in following an erroneous Conscience I think no one of sense will deny for if it be lawful for a man to act in Religion according to the Dictates of his own Conscience when 't is erroneous then 't is lawful for him to commit Idolatry speak Blasphemy c. if his Conscience lead him to it Therefore if the Plea of an erroneous Conscience will not free a Man from the Guilt of those Sins that he is led into by it then certainly it will not exempt a Man from the Just Obligation of Punishment from the Magistrate for those Sins who is the Avenger of God against all evil Doers And the Magistrate doth offer no Violence to Conscience by either requiring Obedience or exacting the Penalties for Disobedience to Just and Righteous Commands for if Mens erroneous Consciences will not suffer them to Obey 't is no force upon Conscience for the outward Man to bear the Penalty But besides If such a Liberty of Conscience be due to every man as shall exempt him from the Obligation of all humane Laws in the matters of Religion it will then follow that the Magistrate hath no Authority in the matters of Religion and so it will null the chiefest part of his Office for where there is no Obligation to Obedience there can be no Authority to Command those being Correlatives and cannot be one without the other But to conclude this particular If it be so as we have proved that the Conscience be bound by such humane Laws the matter of which is the Inforcement of God's own Commands and Institutions and that if an erroneous Conscience doth not exempt a Man from the Obligation of such Laws nor render the Penalty inflicted for breaking of them to be Unjust then certainly there is no such Liberty of Conscience as an Exemption from all humane Laws about Religion due to any Christian and therefore ought not to be granted by the Christian Magistrate Secondly I proceed now to the second thing proposed to wit What that lawful Liberty is in the matters of Religion which of Divine Right ought to be Allowed by the Magistrate for tho' we have asserted and proved the Duty and Power of the Magistrate to make Laws for the promotion and maintenance of True Religion yet we may not think that the Magistrate can by Laws intrench upon any of the Rights Liberties and Priviledges which of Divine Right do belong to the Christian Religion which he is obliged to maintain every Christian

Peoples Judgment of private discretion doth not disoblige them from Obedience nor render them inculpable when they judg erroneously of what is required Therefore each party both Ruler and Subject should be very careful to judge aright namely the Ruler in judging nothing fit to be commanded in Religion but what is evidently lawful and necessary and then their Commands are binding And the Subjects should be very careful not to judge erroneously of the Commands of Authority for then they justly suffer for Disobedience Each party indeed must judge for so much as concerns themselves and their own Duty both Authority in commanding and the People in obeying but the Judgment of neither doth change the nature of the things themselves so as to make that lawful and necessary or unlawful and not necessary that are not really so in themselves But we find that this Argument of enforcing Obedience in the matters of Religion meerly from the Judgment of Authority is never made use of but when men want sufficient force of Argument from the matter of the things themselves then they flee to the Judgment and Obligation of Authority-commanding which indeed will equally hold in Popery it self upon supposition that the Authority either Civil or Ecclesiastical be a lawful Authority that commands But this Objection is of no force in such things wherein 't is acknowledg'd That there is no necessity in the nature of the things themselves why they should be imposed besides the will of Authority commanding it there the obligation to Obedience is urged meerly from the will of Authority requiring it and not their Judgment of the necessary usefulness of such things But what force and obligation the meer will of Authority hath in the matters of Religion without sound Reason from the Matter required we shall have occasion to say somewhat unto under the next Question Thus I have endeavoured with all possible Brevity to demonstrate what that lawful Liberty in the Matters of Religion is which the Christian Magistrate should justly allow to every man but to allow an unlimited Toleration in the practice of Religion is to run into the contrary Extream of imposing unnecessary and doubtful things and 't is to be supposed that much of that mistake that hath been about a Toleration hath come to pass by not duly considering this Golden Mean of Liberty only in unnecessary things in Religion between the two Extreams of unnecessary Impositions and an unlimited Toleration but as the former is bad being against Christian Liberty and Charity yet the latter is much worse because it tends to subvert the Christian Faith and to overthrow all Government in the Matters of Religion QUEST III. Whether it be lawful for Subjects to give their Actual Consent to a general Toleration Answ TO which I answer in the Negative That they may not And indeed there will be occasion to say but little in answer to this Question for having before proved in Answer to the foregoing Question That the Magistrate may not lawfully allow such a Toleration it will thence follow That the Subject may not consent to it for by consenting to that which is unlawfully done by others we become partly Guilty of the Evil so done But yet it may be proper for us under this Question to enquire Whether it may come under the Charge of an Assent to such a Toleration to practise some Liberty in the Exercise of Religion that is restrained by Laws when 't is allowed by such a Toleration I shall answer this in these Three Particulars 1. That such a liberty in Religion as consists only in an Exemption from the Obligation of things in their own nature unnecessary doubtful or scandalous may lawfully be practised though the same be restrained by Laws 2. That there is no Scandal given by the practice of such a Liberty 3. Nor any Assent thereby to a general Toleration 1. That such a Liberty in Religion as consists only in an exemption or omission of things in their own nature unnecessary doubtful or scandalous may lawfully be practised tho' the same be restrained by Laws because the matter of such Laws cannot be Obligatory upon the Conscience by vertue of any Law of God there being no Divine Law upon which to bottom authorize such Laws which is necessary in all Laws about Religion as we have before noted And wherein there is no Authority to require therein can be no obligation from the Command to obey and the meer will of Authority can lay no Obligation in the matters of Religion but much more when any humane Laws about Indifferent things do interfere with the Law of God of avoiding Scandal in such Indifferent things there certainly such Laws do lose their force and obligation because the obligation from humane Authority ceaseth and becomes void when a previous and greater obligation to the Law of God is to take place by which we are obliged not to do that about Religion which being in it self not necessary is in its use scandalous to many And indeed such Laws that enforce the observation of such things doubtful and scandalous in Religion seem to lose the force of Laws and to be void in themselves having not the proper Matter nor answering the end of Law and therefore a liberty in omitting such things tho' injoined by Laws is lawful to be practised 2. And that there is no Scandal given by the practice of such a Liberty for it may be said That tho' there be no obligation either from the matter of the things required or from Authority requiring it to use some Indifferent things yet they being Indifferent we are bound to use them to avoid Scandal to Authority and to others that will be scandalized by our omitting them And therefore upon this ground divers learned Conformists have thought it lawful to omit the Ceremonies injoined by Laws when Scandal doth not follow being neither necessary in themselves nor from the Command of Authority any further than in the case of Scandal Here we may observe That such as esteem such things not meerly Indifferent but Doubtful in themselves if not Unlawful cannot be obliged to use them to avoid Scandal to others But if they are but meerly Indifferent in their own nature yet proving Scandalous to many and upon supposition of the Truth of what we have proved that there is no Obligation from Authority in such Indifferent things when they become scandalous it will then follow that there can be no scandal given by omitting them tho' Scandal be taken or tho' in the use of an unnecessary thing in Religion we really give Scandal yet by the omission of it is now given tho' Scandal may be taken thereupon because Scandal given ariseth either out of the omission of something necessary to be done or doing something either unlawful or unnecessary tho' lawful Now if the Command of Authority doth not make that in Religion not necessary in it self to become necessary when Scandal follows as