Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	ordinance_n	power_n	resist_v	1,861	5	9.7674	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40710	The grand case of the present ministry whether they may lawfully declare and subscribe, as by the late Act of vniformity is required and the several cases, thence arising (more especially about the Covenant) are clearly stated and faithfully resolved / by the same indifferent hand ; with an addition to his former Cases of conscience, hereunto subjoyned.	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1662 (1662)	Wing F2505; ESTC R21218	59,550	206

of the Covenanters plea would faine say something to weaken this Conclusion of the Bishop supposing the matter of the Oath to be lawful in it self and onely appearing to be evill to him that swears it but though he make a flourish towards it if we apply his discourse to our present Case of the Covenant it vanishech into aire 19. For though it be true that an erring Conscience doth not obligare it cannot be denied but it doth ligare and consequently suspend the performance of the thing sworn so long as the party apprehends the matter to be sinful whether it be indeed so or not That is no one is bound by the Covenant to endeavour to extirpate the Government of the Church by Prelacy while he is perswaded that so to do is sinful and to the injury of the Church 20. And it is all one whether the Conscience of the party as I have said did thus judge the thing unlawful when he swore it or is since so convinced for we may not aggravate a rash Oath with unlawfull practice that is against Conscience 21. But if the matter of the Covenant be unlawful in it self as hath amply appeared in such a Case truly there is no dispute for here Conscience dictates nothing but Truth and Duty and it were sad adventure for a King himself to second Herod and to fulfill a wicked Oath by a more wicked Act against his Conscience and his Brother and his God too Si facere intendit bis peccat ex Tolet. Cas Con. intentione quam habet peccandi ex Juramento supra rem injustam The Case of Abbots in Henry the Eights time is too weakly compared with the Case of the Bishops in ours unlesse it be proved that the Abbots were as usefull in the Church as the Bishops c. That the Bishops c. are declared to have run into a proemunire as the Abbots were That the Abbots had none to represent them in the Parliment as the Bishops had not and especially that the King was not Active or any way consenting to the Act for the destruction of the Abbots as he was not to the Covenant for the Extirpation of the Bishops which are not to be undertaken CASE XVII Whether the matter of the second Article of the Covenant be not against former Obligations and consequently sinfull Resol THe first Spring of all Obligation is in God Laws bind us Love binds us Oathes and Covenants bind us but how as God in Nature or Scripture binds us he requires us to love our Neighbour as our selves and not to wrong him To obey Authority and observe their commands to pay our vows and fulfill the Oath that is gon out of our Lipps 2. It is a sure Rule that as God himself is ever the same so his Moral Obligations upon us change not Neither can any Act of ours take off or weaken our Obligations to him 3. Hence it eternally follows that a latter Obligation against a former is of no force but void of it self because the former Obligation being from God and of a Moral Nature it is eternal as God is and fixt and not to be broken 4. There seem to be three Bonds or Cords of God to have had force upon us before the Covenant was taken or thought of all which the Covenant is against and endeavours to break in the Second Article of it to Obey Authority to keep our Oathes and Promises and to serve the Church in our Generation 1. First God hath first both by Law of Nature and holy Scripture bound us by his Soveraigne indispensable command to honour our parents to obey them that have the Rule over us to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether to the King as supreame or to those that are sent and Commission'd by him and of necessity to be subject not only for wrath but Conscience sake because the powers that be are ordained by God ordained to be Ministers of God whosoever therefore resisteth resisteth the Ordinance of God and consequently God himself 2. Were not these Obligations upon us even on our very Consciences before the Covenant was taken did not the Covenant find these barrs within us was not the Conscience thus prepossessed against it and lock't up from it 3. But how was the Covenant contrary to these Obligations yea rather how was it not it being imposed and taken against the Kings Lawes and the matter of it as we have shew'd being against the Rights both of King and Parliament and the Government of the Church set over us by the King and Laws made both before and since the Covenant 4. More particularly God first obligeth us to be subject and obey our Governours and the Covenant would engage to disobey disown and destroy them I mean our Governours in the Church it would discharge us of our Obedience and oblige us to resistance contrary to Gods express Obligati●● upon us which cannot be 5. Again the Civil Authority requires us to obey our Ecclesiastical Governours The Civil Authority by Acts of Parliament requires us to declare that we are not obliged to resist them to endeavour to extirpate them to this also we oppose the Covenant though God first hath bound us to obey our Rulers which cannot be 6. I have spoken to this under another Argument before I shall here therefore onely add the plain but very weighty and Authentick testimony of Mr. Perkins who very distinctly foresaw Cases of Conse our Case 7. He laies down two Rules among others that methinks might decide our Controversie 1. If an Oath be taken against the Laws of the Land or Country whereof a man is member it binds not he doth not say that it was sinfully taken onely but it binds not at all he gives the very reason for it which I am now improving because on the contrary Gods Commandement binds us to keep the good Lawes of men 8. Therefore the Covenant so far as it is against the just Laws of the Kingdom that is such Laws as are not unjust or evil in the matter of them can not bind at all because God hath first commanded us and bound us to the contrary 9. 2. Again saith Mr. Perkins if at the first the matter of the Oath were lawful and afterwards by some means becomes either impossible or unlawful it binds not the conscience when it begins to be unlawful it ceaseth to bind saith he because the binding virtue is only from the word of God 10. Thus also had there been no Law to render the matter of the Covenant unlawful when it was taken yet it being now unlawful to endeavour to change the Government sworn against yea it being a duty to declare that we hold our selves not bound by the Covenant so to do the Covenant cannot oblige either thus to endeavour which is forbidden or not thus to declare which is required for the one is a sin of Omission the other of Commission but

without question O that we may find it so 18. But there is a Notable Evasion that I must needs take notice of so many are crowding for an escape at it they say rather then break our Covenant we will submit to the penalty of the Law and thus we suppose we fulfil the Law and obey Authority That we may take the more steady view of it we will put the Case CASE XIII Whether a submitting to the penalty annexed be a due fulfulling or obeying the Law in point of Conscience Resol CArminus tells us that this Opinion De potest 1. leg Hum. p. 2. c. 2. that if we undergo the penalty of the Law we do not sin in the breach of it was the Opinion of some Schoolmen who thought it a glorious matter and fit to raise them a Name to leave the common and beaten wayes having perchance a delight sawcily to provoke to gnaw calumniate and to draw into hatred those Powers and Authorities which made those Laws 2. The ground of this grosse mistake partly respects the Law-makers partly the Nature of the Law it self and partly the end of punishment as annex'd to the Law 3. The mistake arises very much from an unjust apprehension of Governours that make the Laws we have not that Reverence and Conscience of them as is meet for such Ministers of God not considering whose Authority they have and execute in their Legislation if we did we should learn to submit unto them for the Lords sake and obey them out of Conscience for they make Laws and if they be not sinful God commands us to obey them 2. We are also very apt to mistake about the Nature of Humane Laws as if all such as have a penalty annex'd were therefore penal onely or purely penal Lawes and left the Subjects in a perfect Indifferency whether to yield Active or Passive Obedience to do or to suffer what the Law requires or provides 4. 'T is granted that some Laws are penal purely and if that occasion any doubt about the present Law I cannot give them safer advice then seriously to peruse the excellent paines of Bishop Lectur of Consc Sanderson drawn out to so much length upon his observation of the sad effects of this Mistake in a most clear discourse about the Nature of penal Laws and of such as bind the Conscience 5. I believe there is the more to be studied in this point because I find the Learned Author of the Covenanters plea asserting also that how far Humane Laws bind the Conscience is the main question in the present Controversie 6. The said Author of the Covenanters plea seems to be a great admirer of that Excellent Bishop and no question but he is acknowledged on both sides for Learning Piety Prudence Experience all parts requisite for a perfect Casuist as credible as any other the Generation affordeth and from his mouth what person doth not snatch at satisfaction let us then hear what he saith in the Case 1. He expresly affirmes that no Law that hath a Command expressed is purely penall 2. That all Humane Laws that are not purely penal do in a sort oblige the Conscience in generall immediately and in particular ex Consequenti from the Word of God 3. If the matter of the Law be not sinful we are bound to Active Obedinece neither may we wittingly violate much lesse oppose them or be bound so to do without sin 7. To apply this if the Government be not in it self unlawfull if it be commanded to be submitted to if we are required to declare that we are not bound to endeavour against it And lastly these Laws be not purely penal we are not left indifferent by God or the Law whether we will obey or suffer but are bound in Conscience to own the Authority and submit unto the Government and declare we are not bound by the Covenant to extirpate or alter it 8. Indeed to stick at a particular Law of more private concern so far as to suffer the penalty and not do the thing commanded might in some Cases for private satisfaction be held more tolerable but to hold our selves notwithstanding Law expresse to the contrary bound by Oath not to own a Government founded or confirmed by Law or Governours commissionated by the King is such a thing as cannot be excused without expresse warrant from Scripture which affords it none by any Rules of sober reasoning before God or Conscience 9. Indeed if the Covenant have such force as to bind the Conscience against Law still to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy I cannot see but as it now obligeth not to own or to Act under it will also compell to resist and fight against it if occasion were offered 10. Neither can I see any possible means of tying the hands and hearts of Covenanters to duty and peace I speak as a Divine but this onely that they suffer their Consciences to be satisfied from Reason and Scripture that they first owe such obedience even in Conscience to the lawful Commands of Humane Authority as no future Oath can discharge them from it And that it is not in their liberty whether to do what is commanded or to suffer what is threatned seeing God interposeth and decides the question by determining us to the first and requiring our Active Obedience to the Commands of his Deputies where himself hath not required the contrary in his Word before Submit your selves therefore unto every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supream or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him Lastly the mistake ariseth from a false opinion of the end of punishment which is properly in all Laws not purely penal the punishment of disobedience and not obedience at all Indeed God requires us to suffer rather then to do evil but Man commands not to suffer but to do whom we must obey in lawfull things I shall put a period to my Argument which was the second in order from the Laws of the Land having found the matter of the Covenant in the second Article contrary to them we may conclude it sinful and so far not binding 11. Yet before I take off my pen I cannot but acknowledge that some Popish Casuists do say that an Oath may bind against the Civil Law in some Cases if it be not against the Divine Law the Law of Nature or the Canon Law The Author of the Covenanters plea would suppose that these Casuists put in the Canon Law to save their Infallibility But may not we upon as good grounds suspect the like partiality in excluding the Civil Law We are sure Obedience in things lawful is with severity enough required in Scripture unto Civil Authority 12. But we must observe that these Casuists instance generally in such oaths as are concerning Contracts betwixt Man and Man the performance of which hurts not the publick and indeed the Covenanters plea mentions no other 13. But is