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
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
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.
Officers should cast any out of the fellowship of their Church who are yet resolved to have fellowship with him He thinks he hath read some rule of the ancient Church that none ought to be Excommunicated sine plebis consensu without the consent of the body of the Church But was this to say Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches 1. The Author said they were all true parts of the Catholick Churches and so true Churches 2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the second sense 3. He plainly says there were many so in the third and most perfect sense What pittiful disingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schisme thus to represent his Adversary Indeed from the Authors discourse it plainly appears That he did not believe 1. That Parishes that had no proper Minister or faithful Minister were true Organical Churches but only true parts of the Catholick Church he grants them 2. That no Parochial Societies as such were true Organical Churches 3. Though some Parishes had able and painful Ministers yet if they never chose them as their Pastors nor submitted to them as such They were not true Organical Churches or those who had not so submitted were not true Members ever united to them § 44. 4. That if persons living in those Societies had chosen and submitted to a Minister as their Pastor believing him able and faithful and professing to press after a perfection in order they afterwards found the contrary that he proved negligent in his work leud in his Life corrupt in his Doctrine unfaithful in his Administrations and there were no visible hope of a Reformation that in this case they might peaceably and charitably with-draw from that communion and joyn with a better These seem to be that Authors principles which amount to this that all Parochial Societies either are no true Governing Churches or the parties concerned were never united to them or if they were once united to them yet their secession from them was just and necessary and therefore could not be a sinful separation § 45. Now what says the Author to this Will he say that Parochial Societies are all True Governing Churches Surely he will not say so if he own Episcopacy for men of that persuasion must maintain That the Bishop is the sole Pastor of the Diocess that Government belongs only to him that Parish-Ministers are but his Curates according to this Model surely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church do they say so we say so too So we are agreed and not chargeable with gathering Churches out of true Churches Will he say that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Pastor or none that resides with his Flock are true Ministerial Churches Surely this in the first part is a contradiction to talk of a Ministerial Church without a Minister And the second part contrary to our Authors judgment if consistent to it self for if the cohabitation of Members be necessary Doctrine of Schism p. 85. and that as he tells us by the Law of Nature and so Divine the cohabitation of the head with those Members must be necessary too by the same Law § 46. No but he will say They were united to them those of them that were true Ministerial Churches And 2. Being united they have no just and necessary cause of separation These are the two things to be tried for the tryal of this issue we must enquire Quest What is a sufficient Union of a person to a true Ministerial Church The Author seems not to think meer cohabitation doth it though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine which I do not understand that the Members of a Church should cohabitate I think it very expedient and necessary that they should live so near together that ordinarily they may meet for worship together in one place and be able mutually to perform the dutys of exhortation and admonition one to another yet the Author will not say this makes their Union in a Church Organical besides many questions would arise as How near they must live Whither none may live betwixt them What if a Jew Turk or Pagan hires an House betwixt them c What the Author doth say I will candidly transscribe as I find it in his Doctrine of Schisme ch 13. p. 89. They were Baptized unto these particular Churches Doctrine of Schism chap. 13.89 as well as into the Universal and the known Laws both of Church and State oblige their Consciences to communion with them Their ordinary attending upon the publick Worship as they generally do or have done concludes them by their own consent c. Here now are three things brought to prove the Union 1. Baptisme 2. The Laws of men 3. Their own consent implicitely by their ordinary attendance upon the Worship in Parochial Temples Let us candidly examine whether any of these will do it § 47. That men are Baptized into a particular Church and by it made compleat Members of it is what I cannot yeeld Baptisme indeed admitts into the Universal Church If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more I must understand their Reasons before I subscribe their Opinions besides that hardly one of twenty Christians were Baptized in that Parochial Society wherein they live when at years of discretion Baptisme indeed gives a Christian a claim to a Membership in some particular Church but makes no Union with it 2. As to the second it can have no truth in it till he hath proved That it is the will of Christ that Christians should be Members of that particular Organized Church where their Superiours in Church or State will command As this is no civil thing but Spiritual and such wherein the Souls of Christians as to their Eternal concerns are highly concerned So neither is it a thing indifferent but let the Author prove what I say he must prove in this case and we will say more We think though God hath expresly no where told Christians in his Word which had been almost impossible what particular Church they should be of yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Consciences they judg and upon experience they find the most propable and effectual means for their Instruction Holiness and Eternal Salvation not expecting he should work miracles for them God hath no where told every Man what Woman he should Marry yet surely he hath not left Magistrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives Yet we think this concern of Souls is much higher and that there is as much difference in Ministers as in Wives 3. The last therefore is all for which there can be any pretence consent indeed will do it And we will grant that this consent may be either Explicit or Implicit Explicit when Christians have either first chosen or upon recommendation accepted a truly sent able faithful Minister to be their Pastor to administer the Ordinances of God to them
l. 9. r. he Preach some p. 75. l. ult r. probably ERRATA in the Two last Sheets PAge 10. l. 14. after the word Apology I pray add this That which is of Divine is undeniably greater than that which is of Humane Institution p. 4. l. 10. f. act r. acts p. 27. l. 19. f. page 4. l. 34. r. B. 4. c. 34. p. 29. l. 22. f. Affirmations r. Affirmatives AN Account of the Non-Conformists Meetings for Divine Worship by Mr. H. according to his Middle-Way against Dean F's charge of Schisme and of the freedome of Conscience from unusefull Laws and the power of constraint against his Exceptions HAving written four Papers which being bound together I call Mediocria and finding in the end of one of them an Advertisement about a Book Entituled Two Points of great Moment which was the Obligation of humane Laws and the Authority of the Magistrate in the matters of Religion by me discussed I think it but civill to take an opportunity while it is in my mind of returning my acknowledgments to the Reverend and worthy Dr. Dean the Author of Tolleration not to be abused for his respectful Animadversions in referrence I count to both these Points in his Advice to Conformists and Non-Conformists I confess my self obliged to him for it and to requite the obligation I will present him with two things my answer to what he hath put in against me and an Apology according to my Middle Temper for the Non-Conformist in the matter above named I will begin with the Last first both because it is of most present import and it is also fit I should preferr that of the Publick before my Private Vindication There are diverse sorts of the Non-Conformists and they have their Meetings we know not all on the same Reasons There are some who have been and are for our Parochial Churches who are satisfied with their Constitution and if they might have freedome would still choose them And there are others that are in their inclinations for the Congregationall way only For my part I profess my Self of the former Sort and do here declare in the behalf of my Self and many others of my Brethren that we do not go from our Parish Church or Minister in opposition to them as if such Congregations were not Churches No we are sensible when our Lord hath commanded that the Tares should not be pluckt up for fear of endangering even but Some of the Wheat what a grievous displeasure it may like to be to him if we should go to Root up all the Wheat for fear of the Tares which to Unchurch whole Parishes were to do Nor is it out of Pride Vanity Ostentation Faction or Self-advantage that we do it We could not answer a lesser Man s then a Dean's charge against us if we did so Two things therefore I will acknowledg That our Parish-Churches are true Churches And that it is our Duty consequently to desire and endeavour their Union and Prosperity And what would any Conformist have of me more unless it be also to joyn with them there in the Participation of the Ordinances which I refuse not neither upon convenient occasion Well! Upon what ground then shall I offer my Apology for the Cause I have here undertaken Why I will give it very impartially As I grant these two things to be our duty so must I assume that which will not and cannot be denied me that it is the duty likewise of those who are set apart to the office of the Ministry supposing them in every respect fit for the Work to have a call to it and prudent Sincerity does not at present otherwise direct to preach the Gospel by way of discharge of that office We have the Apostles express authority and example for this who when they where Threatned and Commanded by the Magistrates to Speak no more in Christ's name they have left us their answer on record Whether it be meet to obeâ— Goâ— or You judgâ—â—e Now I must lay down this rule that when two duties come together so that we cannot perform the one but we must omit the other the greater duty must take Place of the less The rule appears in it's own light and also from Scripture I will have Mercy sayes God and not Sacrifice What is the meaning but that when act of Righteousness and Mercy fall in such duties as that of Sacrifice which are less must give way Here then is our case plainly which of these is the greater duty We are to seek Unity and to Preach the Gospel If we keep our Parish Churches we must not Preach the Gospel If we Preach the Gospel we must go to these Private Meetings Which of these is indeed of greatest concernment to the glory of God and the Peoples Salvation In General which is the greatest Matter that the Gospel of Christ Jesus be Preached Or the Union of our Parish-Churches be promoted In Particular whether shall I or any other Non-Conformist who have a call upon occasion to Preach at such a time place or Company do more Service unto God by going doing it or by refusing and going to my Parish-Church for the sake of Unity for which I have still other Seasons And which is the greater Evil to have a people of a Parish divided into several places to hear the Ministers of both Perswasions Preach to them when this too shall not hinder them being parts still or Members of the same Church Or that all the Preachers or Ministers in the Nation but those only who Conform should have their Mouths stopped or their Talents buried How when there is so many of them So many of them truly serious and painful Labourers So many of them that actually do so much good and the ever-lasting welfare of thousands of men's Souls depend upon it What is Parochial Vnion in comparison I will appeal to the Conscience of every upright equal man whether Conformist or Non-Conformist that fears God to give Judgment For the charge then of this Dean which he seems to have managed so strenuously I answer Schisme is a Causless Breach of the Churches Vnion or a causless separation from her Communion the Communion of a Church whereof we are Members or should be Let this learned man or any other that hath read any thing about Schisme tell me if I do not define it right by a Separation that is Causless for if there be a cause the Separation will be justified as it is between us and the Church of Rome Now when the case between the Conformist and us is so open and in the face of the Sun that unless we Countenance or allow of those Meetings which are Locally Distinct from our Parish-Congregations the whole generation of the Non-Conformist Ministers must be laid by from the exercise of their office for ought I see as long as these men do hold whatsoever becomes in the mean time of the Souls of so many multitudes what apology defence
or Account do we need more but this only Is there not a cause They are the words of David to his surly Elder Brethren that are offended only for his being about the business he was sent And David said what have I done Is there not a Cause I am very sensible that there is much more may be said or that there are other Pleas which may be made by the Non-Conformist for their Meetings then this I offer I have I know proposed my self a little in another Paper towards some Catholick Healing of us even under our stated Separations if they cannot be helpt If they can or if this be enough it is this Plea I choose as the most indifferent between the Conformist and us the most fair and conducive to our Uniting again if God give that Grace to the Nation And this under pardon I will be so bold as to name my Plea Mr. H's Plea Of Greater Duty The Church is a number of such as own or believe in the Lord Jesus and joyn in Society for the glorifying his Name in submission to his Ordinances These Societies are either Particular or that which consists of them all the Church Vniversal Of the Church as Vniversal Christ is the Head from whom we have these Ordinances when the Congregations which are Parochial others that meet separately from them do both consent or unite in his Ordinances that is in the same Doctrine so far as is necessary to Salvation and in the same Worship required in the Word who can deny them to be both Parts of the Universal Church Visible and so true Churches As for going to diverse places if there be no breach of the great Commandement which is Charity in other respects it is a matter of indifferency can be no ground to charge Schisme upon one more then the other There must be some other consideration than of the Church found out if they will accuse us of Schisme And that is not as it is Vniversal or Particular but as it is National and Parochial As it is Vniversal and Particular it is ex praecepto of Divine as it is National and Parochial it is ex providentia of Humane and prudential institution There are some things required to the Church ad esse and some things ad bene esse That which is required ad esse is named a due administration of the Word Sacrament and Prayer and we divide not in it That which is required ad bene esse is either necessary to that bene or melius esse being of Divine Authority and that is some Discipline in general though for the Sort I will not say which is such or that which is accidental and accumulative from man as to have the Supreme Magistrat Christian and a Nursing Father to it with his People generally of that Religion The one of these I say is of God's Praeceptive we speak it not simpliciter but in regard to the Constitution of the Church of Christ the other of his Providential will only In this accidental regard as the Church is National do we acknowledg that the King is head of it and hath his Ordinances in respect thereunto to be obeyed as Christ hath in regard to the Vniversal That the Magistrate hath Authority to Protect the Church of Christ by seeing that Christ's Ordinances be observed in every Congregation according to their way and in looking to the whole that they do nothing but what shall make to the Peace of the Nation is out of question The King here governs by his Laws and the Laws of this Land have appointed the constitution of particular Churches to be of Parishes as most convenient to that purpose If we consent not to these Laws we break the Vnion which is of Humane institution though we preserve that which is Divine Disobedience to the wholesome commands of our Superiours is sin and when that separation therefore which is a thing indifferent otherwise does become sinful through that disodedience unless we have somthing to justify the disobedience such separation by Analogy is Schisme And here do I verily think must the bottom of all that can be charged upon us about Schisme be placed If the Parliament should Legitimate these separate Meetings by an Act they would immediately become parts of the National Church no less then our Parishes and that would put an end to the Schisme the Evil chargeable upon us any otherwise being like to be found the Fault of the Persons not of our meetings or of the Thing But so long as they are against Law it is the Obligation of humane Laws I perceive and the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion are the points must come into Plea These have been treated and put together in a Book entituled Two points of great Moment Discussed The substance whereof as to my present purpose will resolve into this Distinction Laws which are Wholesome Laws that is for the Common Good in Civil's and for Edification in Spiritualls do bind us under Pain of Sin Such is the law I count for Parochial Union but there are two Cases wherein we are exempted from such Laws and which justify the Non-Obedience One is when that which is commanded is against a man's Conscience The other is when that which is commanded cannot be done but some other Duty which is of greater Concern must be thrust out and in this Case I say the omitting that which is the lesser Duty is no sin In this Point ye see before I have placed our Apology I must add that forasmuch as it is no Sin to omit a lesser Duty for doing a greater when both cannot be done but to omit the greater Duty consequently must be sin it follows that supposing it to be Schisme to refuse Communion when we may come to Church without sin it must be no Schisme to wave it or not to come when if we come we should sin as we must when we shall omit a greater Duty by coming Schisme is a Voluntary Departure without cause given from that Christian Church whereof he was a Member or a Breach of that Communion wherein a man might have continued without Sin sayes that late Author of a Serious and Compassionate Enquiry into the causes of men's contempt of the Church and the remedies A Book two fine I count to bear a Dispute or uphold so large a design he undertakes I would fain know sayes another by what Authority this separating practise can be justified from the guilt of the most Horrible Schisme that ever was heard of in the Christian World A sober Answer to the new Separatists Pa. 156. again Pa. 157. Distinguishing of a Voluntary desertion of ones Ministry and choosing silence in case of Non-Conformity The second says he is the Illustration of four Cardinal Vertues Humility Meekness Selfe-denial Obedience I cannot but quote these Passages as pleasant to my Humor nor can I forbear Laughter at the Reading of them Not because that worthy
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