Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	law_n	obedience_n	obligation_n	1,036	5	9.4199	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40705	The case of the times discuss'd being a serious exercitation of two cases grounded upon Romans 13, vers. 1,2,3,4,5 : First, how far we are bound to obey, when we are not satisfied that the laws are for our good, 2nd, whether subjection more than not to resist powers : to which is added some remarks upon a late book entituled The Protestant reconciler / by Fr. Fullwood ...	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1683 (1683)	Wing F2497; ESTC R33315	30,137	166

THE Case of the Times DISCUSS'D Being a Serious Exercitation of two Cases grounded upon Romans 13. Vers 1 2 3 4 5. First How far we are bound to Obey when we are not Satisfied that the Laws are for our Good 2 d Whether Subjection implies more than not to Resist the Powers To which is added Some Remarkes upon a late Book Entituled The Protestant Reconciler By Fr. Fullwood D. D. in Exon. LONDON Printed for Jonathan Wilkins at the Starr in Cheapside next Mercers Chappel 1683. To the RIGHT REVEREND Father in God THOMAS Lord Bishop OF EXON My Good Lord YOur Lordship is very sensible that as Policy requires Obedience to the Laws for the Preservation of the Publique Peace So Religion especially the Christian requires That Obedience from a Principle of Conscience And I know your Lordship accounts it Your Honour to be a Minister of that Excellent Religion whose Zeal and Piety is so concern'd both by Your convincing and free Discourses upon all Occasions and by Your exceeding Constant and Exemplary Devotions to promote that Christian and Peaceable Principle into due Practice This also being the Chief End of the following Papers I have made Bold to send them forth under the Countenance of Your Great Name as well as to Acknowledge the many Personal Obligations I stand under by Your Lordships Favours If such a Conscientious Obedience to the Laws could be generally obtained among us how happy a Prospect would it give us However if our Dissenting Brethren cannot be satisfied of the Fitness of every thing that is injoyn'd or of the direct Obligation of Our Laws upon their Consciences my Prayer for them and our Israel is That they would consider and see Reason in the words of their great Friend the Protestant Reconciler p. 177. viz. It seems to be the Duty of Inferiours to Comply rather with the Commands of their Superiours tho' they conceive them Burthensome and Inconvenient then to administer Occasion to all those dreadful Evils both to Church and State of which we have and may have so sad Experience And O that God would grant as our Church prayes that they may both perceive and know what things they ought to do and also may have Grace and Power faithfully to fulfil the same I am My Lord Your Lordship 's Obliged and humbly Devoted Servant Fr. Fullwood THE Introduction DISSENTERS Reasons Not from the SINFULNESS but the INCONVENIENCY of the things required by LAW I Have often wonder'd that so many otherwise Sober and Ingenious Persons continue their Refusal to joyn with us in our Publique Worship and by their Ill Example Encourage Separation in the people to this day I shall not wholly impute it either to their Ignorance or Stubbornness or Interest but am willing to conceive that they have some Latent Principle upon which they imagin they support their Consciences and satisfie themselves in their Way of Disobedience I have studied to find out What this Principle should be It must lie in some Exception they have against our Divine Offices and I cannot imagin it can be any thing but either their supposed Sinfulness or Vnfitness 1. I do not think that they do really and in earnest believe or suspect our publique Worship to be directly Sinful for these Reasons because so many learned and pious Men have frequently and abundantly solved All Objections of that kind both as to Substance and Ceremony which I presume our considering Brethren have well weighed and approved as Satisfactory Especially seeing the old Puritan Nonconformists whose Steps they pretend to follow wrote so well and zealously even for the Necessity of our Peoples communicating in our Parocbial Service Yea consonant hereunto many of the more learned Nonconformists since the happy Restoration have openly and frankly Justified and Vindicated our Ordinary Publick Worship And one of their Great Men in his late Pleas for Peace or rather for Non conformity tho' he offers several Objections against its Lawfulness yet as I take it he Disowns them as for himself and puts them upon Others that do or may so object And indeed at other times he has argu'd strenuously for all parts of our publick Worship to which he Conforms himself tho' some are positive That His Continuing to Preach among the Dissenters is an unaccountable Patronage of their Separation Besides it cannot be unknown and unobserved That most of those Non-conformists that have given us any Reason of their Desertion have said nothing against the Lawfulness of our Communion but have urged only such things as are in the Conditions of our Ministration an nothing to our Peoples Communion Some could not renounce the Covenant Some could not give their Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in the Book meaning some Proposition and Computation of no practical Nature or Concern to the Peoples ordinary Attendance in our Parish Churches Others scrupl'd at Re-ordination some perhaps liked not Canonical Obedience and others some of the Thirty Nine Articles and its possible some were offended at All these things but what are all these to our Lay-Communion And therefore by the way those angry Persons that exclaim against the Hardness of the Terms of our Communion from such things as these are in my Opinion much to blame as well as overseen seeing all these things are extrinsical and not so much as Accidents of our Ordinary Communion and are only Conditions of the Exercise of the Ministry to which no man is bound The Substance and Matter of our Common-Prayers is beyond this Exception of Vnlawfulness and hath ever been so accounted by all but Persons infected by Brownism and indeed almost every Phrase or Sentence in them are either express Scripture or the evident Sence of some Particular Passage in the Word of God If any thing will bear a Dispute 't is the Sign of the Cross at Baptism yet this their great Pleader himself denyeth not the Lawful use of as a Teaching Sign and it is no other by the very words of the Administration in the Common-Prayer-Book Besides What is the Use of the Cross to so many as have No Children Or to others when they have no occasion to be particularly concerned Or indeed to any but to the Administrator What is this to the common or ordinary course of God's Worship amongst us Can any be so weak as to think they are thus Excused for their Constant Absence or Total Separation from us As for Kneeling at the other Sacrament if a Man should tell me That He thinks it Sinful I would not believe him All the Dissenters that had Offices when the late Test came forth requiring them to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Church of England that is Kneeling gave a Plain Experiment That they did not think or suspect them to be Vnlawful for they did certifie That they had So Received it neither did I ever hear That their Friends were much Offended at their such Advantagious Conformity Besides as

before What is this to the Ordinary Use of Common Prayer when there is no Sacrament Administred 2. From the Premises I think I may conclude that it is not any supposed Sinfulness in our Worship but something else that is the true cause of their separating or dividing from us and therefore I cannot but observe that when they are urged to give us their Reason they are backward to give us any muchless to shew the Vnlawfulness of any thing required And truly I cannot apprehend that any thing sticks with them but the bare Inconveniency that is the Unagreeableness of our Worship to their own Notion Apprehension and Desires That is plainly they do not like our Way of Worship tho' perhaps they are not agreed among themselves what they would have in the room of it In general terms the old Brownists were for a purer Worship and in the Modern Language they would serve God better and perhaps they have kept off so long from us in hopes that we might be induced by their Distance and Numbers Clamours to Reform and bring things nearer to their apprehensions Besides what hath been observed to evince this it may be further considered That as the Dissenters to save their Offices did conform as before we noted which could not Consist with an Opinion of the Sinfulness of Conformity so by their Separation before and since the Test they declare plainly they are against our Worship that is In their Opinion 't is not Sinful but Inconvenient viz. They do not like it The same Evidence they gave us in the time of Indulgence When a very great Body of the People called Presbyterians who before joined with their Neighbours in our publick Worship took their Liberty to leave us and went to the Allowed Meetings and being demanded a Reason of that Practice they gave no other but this The Non-conformists Way was more Edifying and they Liked it better and many of them I fear have not yet found the way back again to this day And do not we find daily that the severer Use of the Laws brings in many of the Dissenters to us tho' 't is confess'd that a great Number are yet more hardy and stand it out who we cannot perceive have any better or other Reason for Separation then those that do come in And why did these Continue their Distance from us so long before Charity must answer while they could enjoy their Own Choice without Loss or Trouble they did so but since they cannot now they are content to deny themselves i. e. not to do that which is Sinful but only Displeasing to them rather then Suffer Thus upon the whole I perswade my self that this lies at the bottom of Separation Men like not our Worship Not because they Judge it to be Sinfull but only Inconvenient 'T is not fitted to their private Notion and Idea But how this can satisfie the Consciences of reasonable and considering Christians is the Question Satisfaction in this Case must Depend upon such Propositions as these 1. We are not bound to Obey the Laws that are not good in our Opinion or Perswasion That is tho' they be not Sinful but Inconvenient and we dislike them 2. Or that we have Liberty to run the Hazard of the Penalty and to Refuse or Deny Obedience to such Laws These we find hinted in some late Discourses which indeed give Temptation to the following Exercitations wherein you will find we have at large examined how far these Principles will support and warrant such Disobedience and Separation The First QUESTION Whether we are bound in Conscience to Obey our Rulers when we are not satisfied the Laws are for our Good Seeing the Apostle saies Rom. 13. 4. The Ruler is the Minister of God to thee for Good wherefore we must needs be Subject The Argument for the Negative THe strength of the Argument for the Negative as it is hinted and scattered especially in some late Books seemeth to be thus The Laws of Rulers bind the Conscience only as they are God's Arg. Contr Ministers And they have no Authority from God to make Evil Laws or any Laws that are not for the Good of the Subject being God's Ministers only for our Good Consequently such Laws having none of God's Authority cannot bind the Conscience or we are not in Conscience bound to obey them The Question Stated and the Argument Retorted Rulers may be supposed to be of three sorts First Such as have no stated and known Laws but govern only by Personal Command 2 d Those that have Laws but such as themselves make by their own single and absolute Power 3 d Such as are to Govern by Laws which are first chosen or consented unto by their People Now in case the first sort not regarding either Reason or Equity make their Will their Law to hurt and destroy their People or the second sort impose as Nebuchadnezzar or Pharaoh impious or grievous Edicts or the last sort shall sleight their wholsome Laws the acknowledged Measures of Rule and Right and use only an Illegal Arbitrary Power against publique Safety and to the Injury of their Subjects In all these Cases indeed great Authors speak hard words In Tyranno nihil ordinatum a deo Qui perdendae reipublicae animum gerit rex esse desinit Rex non est Dei sed Diaboli dum declinet in Injuriam that is When he both forsakes the Just Rules of Law and also acts Injustice and Oppression Contrary to Law And in this sence Dr. Taylor acknowledges He is the Minister of God to thee for Good saith St. Paul otherwise he is none of God's Minister Cas lib. 3. pa. 35. Thus men may shew their Learning and Discourse at large but what 's all this to our own Hypothesis if our Case be otherwise as indeed it is what are we concerned in such Suppositions Do our Kings pretend to govern with their Personal Commands or to make Laws without the people's Consent or yet to an Arbitrary Government much less to oppress and destroy us either contrary to or besides the Laws quas vulgus elegerit which our selves have chosen and to which they are sworn according to our antient Constitution wherein is supposed or implyed the universal agreement of the whole Community for many Ages Now is it not hard to say while our King as such acts faithfully to God and Man and in discharge of his Oath and Trust by the just and impartial Execution of those Laws which we our selves have chosen and desired because some of his scrupulous Subjects have gained a dislike of some of these Laws and that only in some small matters is it not hard yea very unconscionable to conclude hence that our King is no Minister of God and such his Laws are No Laws and we are not in Conscience to Obey or Regard them or to transfer the imagined Faults of the Law upon our Rulers or their Faults upon the Law or to charge both or

Who shall Govern the Rulers of the People For certainly they govern that rule practise and finally determine what is fit to be done whether they be Children or Parents Servants or Masters Wives or Husbands or Subjects or Princes If you say The Subject ought to yield for Wrath's sake this placeth Government only in strength but then where is Conscience where is Christianity Is it not like Christian Meekness and Peaceable Subjection and Self-denyal and the Doctrine of the Gospel to conclude that God hath provided for the Order Quiet of the World he hath therefore stated things necessary himself and for things of lesser moment and Expedience he hath ordained Government to prevent or end all Controversie The sum is the Judgment of Discretion about God's and Man's Laws And the Nature End and Use of Government if well considered may effectually convince us that so far as Man's Laws contradict not God's tho' we should imagine something in them not so convenient as we could desire yet they are to be submitted unto as the Rule of our Practice and in Conscience of Gods Ordinance and Command and of the publique Good and our Duty to be obey'd And we are to rest satisfied with this that our Laws are made by the Higher Powers who are of God ordained of God the Ordinance of God and our Rulers and Governours and such as we our selves chose to make Laws for us and the Ministers of God and for our good too viz. for publique Order Safety and Quiet Wherefore we must needs be subject not only for Wrath but Conscience sake SECT VII Inexpediency of Law overballanc'd expedient to Obey YET once more Suppose we could allow the people at large to judge the Laws already constituted and to have power left them to discern their inexpediency and to suspend their Obedience in such a Case This still acknowledgeth the matter it self to be indifferent and the practice only in such Cases not so fit as we would desire Now it is a clear Rule that that is so inconvenient or inexpedit may be found by a considering and discerning Judgment upon the whole to be expedient And the matter to change its quality if over-ballanc'd by a greater Inconvenience on the other side as Lead it self becomes light when a greater weight is in the other Scale This Rule is so undoubted that it sometimes extends to things positively commanded by God himself For when a Matter morally necessary shall be neglected for the practice of a positive Duty of God's own Worship the present Practice of such Duty becomes not necessary yea sinful in the Judgment of our Saviour and great Law-giver Go and learn what that meaneth I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice I prefer Mercy tho' it be but to thy Neighbour's Ox to my own Service yea in that case I prohibit attendance on my self and my own Worship I will not have Sacrifice Apply this seriously and admit the Law requires something that in it self and singly considered is inexpedient Is there nothing in thy refusing Obedience more inconvenient and of more Evil Consequence than that supposed Inconvenience which the Law requires What if our not yielding to an Inexpedient in the Law may indanger if not prevent and frustrate the Real Good of God's Ministry and Government we so much contend for and bring greater positive Mischiefs upon us Now hath not God given us the Judgment of Discretion to ballance Inconveniences to weigh uprightly one against another and to judge and determine what is best and safest to be done And indeed to admit of the less Inconvenience as reasonable and wise men for the prevention of greater 1. To help us in this Comparison let us First consider that the Law is to be understood to be common and general and the Inconvenience to concern all others as well as our selves And if so Why should not all others observe and boggle at the Inconvenience as well as our selves and then judge wisely what will be the Consequence 2. Secondly 'T is a Rule that seems not to be question'd by any that have with any tolerable Learning disputed this Point that when the Law requires that which we judge inconvenient if not forbidden by the Law of God it is not to be disobeyed if that Inconvenience cannot be Omitted sine scandalo vel contemptu without Scandal or Contempt The Reason is because the Scandal of our Brother as St. Paul teacheth us and the Contempt of Authority is more inexpedient than the Practice of a bare Inexpedient required by Law But such Disobedience in a Matter of meer Inexpediency must needs be notoriously guilty of both 1. It cannot be without Scandal to others For such our Disobedience must of necessity Scandalize others especially if Conscience be pretended because it naturally tempts and induceth others at least if we have any influence upon them either by our Parts or Reputation or Interest or Authority or any other Obligation to break the Laws after our Example as is too too manifest by daily Experience 2. And for Contempt of Authority we can hardly be guilty of more or greater than by refusing to Obey the Laws because we judge them Unfit or Inexpedient For if we forbear to speak Evil of Dignities this is certainly to Despise Dominions And declares openly that we account our Rulers Weak or False Ignorant or Malicious i. e. Knaves or Fools that made the Laws 3. Yea this Principle if pursued and practised is so highly injurious to Government it self both wayes both by Scandal and Contempt that it plainly dissolves the Power and Obligations of all Laws for none can secure us that what is said against one or two Laws that they are inconvenient shall not be charged on the rest It makes the Prudence of the People the only Law to themselves for thus a Law to them is no Law if they judge it inexpedient Therefore it sets the Conscience at so wild a Liberty that when it shall be improved a little further by fcrupulous People it must needs end in perfect Ataxy and a general Distraction 4. Nay hath it not already sadly divided us loosned all Duty and Respect to Governments wasted the Conscience of due Obedience and enervated our Laws and disturbed the Order and broken the Quiet and Peace both of our Church and State And do we not see a Black Cloud arising hence and gathering upon the Face of our Prosperity darkning the Age threatning all the Good we expect from God's Ministers and even exposing our Constitution it self to all imaginable Danger Yea which is more sad yet doth it not seem to Ecclipse and Obscure the Brightness and Glory of our Profession and hazard the very Light of our Gospel and the Removal and Loss of the best Religion once restored and often preserved with Wonders of Providence from us and our Posterity forever and the Re-admission of such a Religion as we most fence against and as you will find but untowardly consisting

either without Cause while the Government proceeds according to the Laws of our own choice and yet this is our very Case And in such a Case shew me that Learned Wise or Good Man that ever thundred out his Sentence of Condemnation against the King and Government Bracton indeed is our Ancient and Renowned Lawyer and because his words may be thought pertinent as they are severe and are much insisted on we shall set them down at large and then we shall easily perceive how far they concern our present Circumstances he saith much indeed to magnifie but nothing to question or quarrel the Laws or the Execution of them His words are these besides many more to the same purpose Attribuit rex regi quod lex attribuit ei viz. dominationem potestatem Non est enim rex ubi dominatur voluntas et non lex lib. 1. fol. 5. Potestas sua juris non injuriae exercere igitur debet rex potestatem Juris sicut dei vicarius minister in terra quia illa potestas solius dei est potestas autem injuriae diaboli non dei cujus horum opera fecerit rex ejus minister erit cujus opera fecerit Igitur dum facit Justitiam vicarius est regis aeterni minister autem Diaboli dum declinet ad injuriam Rex Tyrannus dum populum sibi creditum violenta opprimit dominatione temperet igitur potentiam suam per legem quae fraenum est potentiae Nihil proprium imperij quam legibus vivere Lib. 3. fol. 107 108. Perhaps it may be said Nothing more is intended by these Quotations but to secure us against Arbitrary Government Be it so But give us Reason then for the present use of them in such a nick and crisis as this Hath not his Majesty given us sufficient assurance that he will ever govern us by the Laws of the Land or do we find any Cause to Complain of the contrary Is not this an Engine to cast the Waters or rather the Fire of Jealousie upon the Common People Is it not an unseasonable and slye Insinuation not to say an Evil and Scandalous Reflection upon the Government Certainly the present Grievance of such as are dissatisfied with the Government is not Tyranny Oppression and Arbitrary Power Contrary to Law but Government according to Law viz. the Execution of the Laws 2. But let us come a little nearer to the Argument and we shall find it as strong to the Sence of its Author as it is to our Case It doth by no means answer the size of their own Notion and makes the Argument of the Apostle to conclude a great way short or beyond their own Mark They plead to serve another Turn as you will find upon the Second Question that the Apostle requires Subjection and explains his Subjection by Non-resistance and not by Obedience or doing what is required by Law And therefote if we do not resist the Power tho' we do not actually obey we do what the Apostle enjoyns Therefore if when the Laws are not for our Good the Apostle's Inference be of no force his Injunction doth not bind us That is We are not bound to be Subject but we may Reject For the Apostle commands us to be Subject and they say He means by Subjection Non-resistance Now these Objectors themselves confess That Subjection is a necessary Duty and on no hand would be thought to allow Resistance Yet 't is plain this their own Argument from the Apostle's words you see doth first of all and more directly take away Subjection and allows Resistance against their own sense before it can gratifie them with Liberty to Disobey which they contend for And therefore if consonant to themselves they must confess this their great Argument is fallacious This might suffice But lest I should seem only to slur this esteemed Argument and be affraid to encounter it in earnest and the rather that I might vindicate the Apostle and evince the Grounds of Christian Obedience according to his excellent Doctrine satisfactorily I shall apply my self to a direct and more distinct Consideration of this Argument against the Necessity of Obedience and all along endeavour to accommodate my Reason and Discourse as near as I can to our own Case I shall reduce what I have to say against the Argument to two Heads 1. I shall shew that the true Force of the Apostle's Argument is herein Over-seen and made to rest where he never intended it 2. And Secondly That the Sense of the Apostle's words upon which their Argument is grounded is grosly mistaken SECT I. The True Force of the Apostles Argument Over-seen and made to rest where he never intended it THe chief Argument for our Obedience is intended in the first words of the Apostle's Proposition he is the Minister of God as they are distinguished from the Latin words to thee for Good as is more plainly expressed by the Syryac Translation Minister dei sed tibi in bonum But this is little heeded tho' it be congruous to the Scope and Reason of the Apostle's whole Discourse upon this Point We must saies he be Subject Rom. 13 vers 1 2 3 4 5. Why because he is the Higher Power vers 1. Because All Power is of God appointed of God The Ordinance of God Our Ruler and God's Minister i. e. One that wears God's Image God's Name God's Sword Minister vicarius dei as the words of our Law are plainly alluding to these of the Apostle Thus we see the Argument used by the Apostle takes its strength from the Fountain of Humane Authority and not from the End of it as this Argument would insinuate 2. Indeed the Apostle notes also the great End of all Authority and assures us it is appointed for our Good and this is a very great Encouragement of Subjection and Obedience that the Wise and Good Governour of the World has appointed his Ministers to rule us for our Good and worthy of a better Acknowledgment than it usually obtains But who sees not that the Apostle intends this Consideration rather as a Motive to our Obedience and Subjection than a Condition of the Obligation We must needs be Subject partly if you will because he is a Minister ordained for our good but principally and chiefly because he is the Minister of God he is a Minister to us for Good this indeed commends Obedience to us as matter of Prudence rather than Conscience Therefore observe it that he might effectually superside this Sophism and fit his Argument beyond this Quirk and fine Subtilty he repeats the very words for the more direct Obligation of Conscience He is the Minister of God and omits the words before viz. to thee for Good the very words they ground their Argument upon He is saies he in this very same Verse the Minister of God an Avenger c. and thereupon immediately concludes Wherefore we must needs be Subject not only for Wrath but

either with Liherty Property or Piety Consider it sadly for if this should happen both we and the Children unborn may have Cause hereafter and too late to Curse such Unwarrantable Nicenes and Pernicious Scrupulosity 5. Lastly If all these Mischiefs are at too much distance and we cannot see so far off Let me speak home to you that yet indulge to your selves this Groundless Disobedience Methinks your own present Inconveniencies by it should be put into the Scale Doth not it render you obnoxious to Law and Justice You perhaps have hitherto escaped but are you not liable every day to have your Peace and Quiet and Possessions disturbed Doth not your Disobedience to the Law expose your Persons and Families as well as others to the Penalties of Law Neither can you well expect it should be otherwise if you continue Obstinate and refuse to obey it For our Rulers are Ministers of God to us for Good and ordained on purpose to prevent the fore-mentioned Mischiefs and therefore they must be a Terror to Evil-doers that is all that violate and regard not their Laws and Revengers of Wrath upon all that do Evil especially such Evil as if not suppressed may undo all Yea are they not and do they not think themselves bound in Conscience both of their Trust and Duty to God and Men in Conscience of yours and the publique Good not to suffer all to run to Confusion Perhaps you take it to be in your Choice whether you will Obey or Suffer Deceive not your ●elves God Commands you as well as Man and certainly God's Command reacheth the Conscience whatever you dream of Man's And you must answer to God as well as to Man for your groundless Disobedience especially when by it you thro' away or hazard the Blessings and Talents he hath put into your Hands and intrusted you withal This is ungratefully to Despise the Riches of his Goodness God and Nature have given you a Law of Self-preservation and you have no Liberty to destroy your selves by neglecting your Duty to your self and affronting his Providence No Man is so absolutely his own but God the King and Country his Relations and Dependents have some Interest in him Men that have Estates and Families and Parts and Capacities fitting them for their's and the publick Service may not causlesly throw them away or dispose of them but when and as God calls for them And if the Law requires nothing of them which God forbids they cannot for any other Satisfaction suffer their Estates to be wasted their Wives and Children to be distressed their Lives to be sowred and obscured and their Parts and Capacities rendred Useless to God their King and Country by the Choice of Punishment for their Disobedience Active Obedience so far as lawfully you can is necessary even from the Word of God Himself were there no other Argument for it but that of Wrath viz. Escaping Punishment For we must needs be subject even for Wrath's sake and the very Argument from Wrath obligeth the Conscience Now all these considered let me beseech you to reason this Point calmly by your selves You have had the Inconveniencies of your Disobedience laid against some things inexpedient as you suppose required in our Laws And you say you have a Judgment of Discretion hath not God given you this Judgment to weigh these one against another And do you not discern the Difference between them Certainly the Matter being supposed in it self Indifferent that is not any wayes forbidden by God the less inexpedient is eligible and to be chosen before the greater Yea as you have seen 't is comparatively expedient for us to obey the Laws that we think inexpedient for the avoiding those greater Mischiefs of Disobedience And upon the whole I can hardly imagine that you should still think it Fit for a small Satisfaction to a Humour or a Scruple to incur the guilt of so many great and Real Evils both upon your selves and the whole Kingdom Let us therefore so mannage our selves that our Rulers may be Ministers of God to us for Good indeed which must be obtained by a MEAMS contrary to the Cause of the aforesaid Evils our unaccountable DISOBEDIENCE That is By a Peaceable and Cheerful and Conscientious OBEDIENCE to them and to the Laws I speak as unto WISE MEN Judge what I have said and the GOD of PEACE give you Understanding The Sum of the Answer is this The Apostle's Words as here insisted on First allow what your selves condemn RESISTANCE of our Rulers Besides you take little of no Notice of that which is Argumentative in them and place the Force of his Argument where he did not intend it For the Necessity of our Duty lies in the first words of the Proposition HE IS the MINISTER OF GOD and the later words TO THEE FOR GOOD are rather a Motive to our Obedience Further should we yield that if the Laws be not FOR GOOD the Obligation to Obedience ceaseth yet you plainly mistake the Good which the Apostle intendeth for it is not the GOOD of the Matter of the Laws but of the EXECUTION of them and thus his Argument is directly Against and not for Disobedience Again should we yet allow that the GOOD of the Laws themselves is here meant yet 't is only the Good of Publick Convenience of which the RULERS and not Private Men are the proper Judges Lastly Suppose it were fit that Private Men might Finally Judge of the Conveniency Inconveniency of Publick Laws yet they are to Judge equally of the Convenience and Inconvenience of DISOBEDIENCE And if you Judge Righteous Judgment you will certainly find that the Inconveniencies of DISOBEDIENCE do exceedingly overballance the supposed Inconvenience of the Laws And consequently for the avoiding those greater Evils both Publique and Private that follow upon your Disobedience Obedience to the Laws that you judge inconvenient in such a Case becomes E●pedient and Good and even by your own Argument NECESSARY All which I hope hath been sufficiently proved to the Satisfaction of the Sober and Peaceable Dissenters Quest II. Whether to be Subject in Ro. 13. be only not to Resist the Powers or also Actively to Obey their Laws IN their new Politicks some seem to defend their Disobedience after this manner The Apostle say they requires Subjection Arg. indeed but what is that to Active Obedience He tells us he means by Subjection Non-resistance and we abhor Resistance though we do not Obey This is the best Argument of the modest and most moderate Dissenters and I hope they intend it for our Security But certainly more is intended in the Text. I would not be Uncharitable or suppose that the wiser and better sort of our Dissenting Brethren themselves intend it so far as thereby to enervate the Apostle's Obligation to all Active Obedience For indeed some of them seem to explain themselves otherwise Yet because this is often hinted and may prove Prejudicial to Government from