enforce the thing to be done if he will whether a man does do it out of Conscience or out of discretion only out of fear of God or fear of the law or his sword The Magistrate cannot take any cognizance out of what principle a man acts the judgement is not within his jurisdiction and if a man doth not act out of Conscience he cannot make him It is sufficient so long as a man acknowledges his authority from God that he must therefore be subject and must not resist and consequently if in good earnest he stand upon it and will have obedience from him let it be in any thing but sin there is no help for him that is he may not help himself by resistance but he must yield to it whether he will or no. This is that which secures government and Governors Let every man be held bound in Conscience but thus far and as for the rest it is a matter concerns each ones own soul only and his private peace and it will become those that are prudent to be very tender what they determine in the business It is true this reverend Person thought I believe he had spoken well in his saying that it is hard to write any thing more inconsiderate and dangerous then that I have but if a man should write any word against subjection to Magistracy or his own present Magistrate or that it were lawful to resist if the Magistrate should impose any law against the common good when yet it is not sin I account many times not to obey it and escape if we can without resistance this let me tell him were dangerous I cannot say more dangerous because the other is not dangerous that the man may receive some shame and conviction for his own being so inconsiderate in his censure of what he understood no better This Debater shall not have I will warrant him a breath or Title of this nature from me Nay if a law be good I mean politically good and a law is politically good where it is for the common good I am ready to believe and hold it is obliging obliging to the Conscience not only that we must obey rather then resist which we must do if the thing be politically evil unless we count suffering to be better but if we could escape with man we must yet do it I count least we offend God if a law be not politically good I say we must not resist for all that and upon that account rather then suffer we are lyable to obedience And what is there now or what reason is there that any should desire more Let us here our man of Proverbs A man must not resist sayes our Casuist that is express and rather then resist he must suffer but this is to steal a goose and stick a feather I thank him first for this that he hath not left out this passage wholly in this place least his Reader else might have thought me indeed some dangerous person whereas these words have acquitted me and I answer that this Goose he speaks of my stealing is the thing ought to be stolen or removed and that which he makes so light of is to be brought in the Room of it to wit this man is of opinion that human laws even all laws indefinitely bind the Conscience so that a man must sin if he break any of them This is his Goose that is his foolish opinion an opinion intollerable and instead of this that which I would bring in is that though we conceive there be some laws which if a man sometimes observes not he is not to charge himself with sin yet if he be compelled by the lawful Magistrate rather then resist he must suffer and rather then suffer obey But why must he sayes he when he is already perswaded that he need not unless he be forced this is strange where is this Debaters reason I say he must though he should not sin else by neglect because he is forced and cannot help it but for avoiding of suffering he does it But wrath or suffering is not to be feared when the multitude is agreed not to be injured I answer here is the want of the distinction which this author would not take from me between the authority which is in the Magistrates Person and that of his commands The one is from God immediately the other mediately by vertue of the things commanded being for the common good and so particulars of that generall morall duty which is required of God Some may use other words to express this distinction by the Magistrates authority it self and the exercise of it in his commands or laws but this must be known that distinguish we must here to the same sense I intend and be very careful too of the distinction or we shall be lost If the multitude be agreed not to do a thing that is ill it is well I take it and as they ought it was manifestly Jonathans case But if they agree together not to suffer if the Magistrate will enforce the thing let there be but the least Officer will act in it then they resist and sin against God and it is not justify able upon any terms suppose a whole army and but two men in it will stand by the Prince he may I must affirm to speak strictly on the point of Conscience by these two men alone punish a whole army for any thing they refuse to do and they must bear it and cannot help themselves but with sin which they must not do For he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and receiveth to himself damnation We know the case under Maximinian when a whole legion of Christians were commanded to sacrifice and they chose rather to suffer decimation twice over being executed man by man rather then defend themselves while their lives were at stake and the sword was in their hands Such a Conscience ought we to have of our subjection and so much does the concern of government and the whole World lye upon it when of obedience as to some particular commands we need to have none In short there lyes no obligation upon Conscience sometimes to obey but there does alwayes not to resist and that both serves the Magistrate turn and suffices when he pleases to have a civil thing done CAP. VIII I will not yet leave his last reason seeing he layes so much stress on it and his strength of all comes to this I do not take here his very words but matter which he may express as he will otherwise The People must not be allowed to judge of their own actions which are commanded by the Magistrate about civil things because they will be swayed by their own interests and judge those Laws against the publick good which are not for their private profit by which means unless they be taught and hold that all Laws indefinitely do bind their Consciences they will notwithstanding the Magistrates power absolve
of God as the word is The Rule and supream Law which God hath appointed for things Political is the common good If the Magistrate command any thing in Religion and it be not according to Gods word then Conscience cannot be bound to it as Religious though the outward Man I think therein also is bound if it be not against Gods word It the Magistrate command any thing of moral concern if it be against the Law of nature or common principles of Light in Man that is the moral Law in the heart the Conscience cannot be bound but must refuse it If he command any thing which is civil or Political and it be against the common good then is it not agreeable to Gods will being not consonant to the rule he hath commanded for civils and consequently the Conscience cannot be obleiged by it upon that accompt In the mean while so long as it is not against conscience otherwise that is so long as it is not sin the outward man is bound and if the Magistrate will constrain a person to it rather then suffer he will obey There are several books and Sermons of Ministers about Religion which do bind the Readers and Hearers by vertue of Gods will but the supream Rule is Gods Word unto which consequently if what they have said or writ be not consonant the Conscience is not bound and according as the Conscience of a Man is convinced whether that which the Minister says be agreeable to the word or not so is it bound or not bound by it The case is the same in Laws The Magistrate doth give us such and such particular commands or Laws His authority he hath from God The will of God as the supream Law or Rule in Politicalls is that the common good be attended and advanced They are Gods Ministers a sending continually upon this very thing So far as his Laws or commands then are agreeable to the common good so far is his Authority good and must obleige the Conscience being from God And so long as a man is convinced in Conscience that they are agreeable thereunto he must be in Conscience obleiged but if he be sincerely perswaded that such or such a thing commanded be not for the publick good the case is but the same with what I said in Religion when the Ministers exhortation disagrees with the word The Magistrate is but Gods Minister in Politicals and his commands disagreeing with the supream Law the common good the Conscience cannot be obleiged in this Case Nevertheless so long as the outward Man is in the Magistrates power and the Subject may not resist he can command obedience out of the case of sin when he pleases to exert his Sword Before I pass off I am made a little sensible how apt our question may be wrested into a dispuâ—e about Terms It is hardly proper to say this or that Law binds the Conscience for Conscience is the discerner of my duty and it were more proper to say my conscience binds me to this Law then that this Law binds it It is scarce proper neither to say the Conscience is bound seeing it is the person is bound Conscience is placed in the understanding and when a thing becomes a Mans duty the will is obleiged rather then the understanding It is not easie likewise to apprehend how the outward man is bound with distinction to the Conscience considering that this obligation hath it's rise and vertue from our duty of not resisting unto which we are always bound in Conscience The term Resisting likewise is liable to diversity of acceptation It is convenient therefore for me in my way to give the sense of my Terms if it be not yet done enough to prevent needless contention By human Laws I understand the declaration of the will of the rightful Governor what he would have his Subjects do I will not also put in the end of Laws in order to the common good because that will presently spoyl the question For where the efficient is our rightful Ruler and the Law serves indeed for that end or hath it's right final cause also there is no question of its obligation Yet if I leave out the end the question indeed may be whether such a declaration be a Law rather then whether it binds Nevertheless as I make a case of conscience of it and count all our Acts of Parliament Laws it is all one in effect to me whether you say such a Law binds not or such an Act or Law is no Law and binds not Ex quo intelliges eos qui perniciosa et injusta populis jussa descripserius cum contra feceriut quod polliciti pro fessique slatâ— quoduis potius tulisse quam leges Cicero de legious By Conscience I understand a faculty in Man of descerning Gods Judgement concerning himself and Actions It is more proper to say a faculty is obleiged then an habit or an Act and that faculty which man hath hereunto is charged whilst himself is to judge whether such a thing commanded be his duty in relation to God or not By obligation I understand the constitution of a due Obligare est jus constituere By obligation of the Conscience I understand the constituting a thing to bedue from me so that if I do it not I must account or judge that God will condemn me for the neglect or the making a thing my duty so that if I leave it undone I sin The obligation of the outward man I account the constituting a thing to be due from me so as if I do it not I may not resist though I be punished or I may be punished and ought not to resiâ—t though I could avoid both the thing and punishment by resistance The word lacere says Grotius from one line of whom a man shall have more Instruction sometimes then from anothers book is distinguished in id quod impune fiâ— and in id quod vâ—tio caret So must we say the word obligare is distinguished into that which if we do not the thing makes us liable to punishment in foro humano or according to the law or that which if we do it not makes us liable to sin That is there is an obligation human only which we have had before that tyes us to obedience upon the penalty of the law or an obligation divine also which ties us to the duty upon the pain of Gods displeasure eternal condemnation The one of these we call the obligation of the outward man and the other of the Conscience By resistance lastly I understand the repelling force with force The word resistance may be taken largely or strictly Resistitur contra Imperium agendo aut vim vi reprimâ—ndo I take it in the last and strict sence Let me yet note one thing more when we distinguish in the obligation of human laws between the outward man and the Conscience we do not distinguish the outward man from the will when we distinguish
but little dry light in the World For let this Debater set himself to read as many books as he can yet I suppose he may find but few if any that determine this case altogether as I do I know the same Light hath shone in on Dr. Taylor in several passages when yet it is mixed with such abundance of other matter that if this Man may be judge he would be ready to cite him as of opinion against me in it There is lumen siccum therefore and lumen maceratum indeed I remember the distinction well my Lord Bacon hath it in his advancement And I will say yet that the Light which this Debater pretends is macerated Light Light steeped in a prejudiced mind and fetchâ— from the conceptions of others and mostly perhaps from that Dr. whose clearest rayes he wont receive When the determination which I have offered hath been beaten out from my own thoughts and will be found that lumen siccum notwithstanding his abuse which is to be attended in this matter I am become a fool inâ—glorying says the Apostle ye have compelled me In the next place he produces two places of Scripture that to the Romans Wherefore you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake and that of Peter Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake I answer these Texts speak of subjection and not of obedience subjection to the Authority residing in the persons of the Magistrate and if you will in the Government it self not obedience which is proper to their commands I his appears from the first and second Verses Be subject to the powers that be He that resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God The Powers no doubt are but the Laws and Commands of men be not I hope the ordinance of God with this Man VVherefore you must needs be subject It is the same word and spoken in respect to the resistance before and in reference to their persons it is not wherefore you must needs obey all their particular commands for Conscience sake when for Conscience sake we must suffer rather then obey some of them So likewise in Peter every ordinance of Man is every human creature in the Original that is submit to every sort of Governor or Government whether to the King as supream or others under him This is plain Out of these Texts therefore may obedience arise from the conscience of not resisting but no direct obligation on the Conscience to obey actively can be deduced from hence Again the Apostle tells us in these places that the Magistrate is Gods Minister for our good a terror to evil doers and encourager to well doing with the like expressions Upon this account he can be supposed to command only for the common good and when a Law or Command of the supream Magistrate is such I deny not but it binds the Conscience no less then he This is sufficient between us that no Argument possible can be drawn from either of these places to serve his turn seeing a Law must be supposed to be against the common good and yet to bind the conscience according to him Moreover this I must say agâ—in is most evident that obedience indefinite cannot be proved by these Texts because some commands of the Magistrate may be evil morally evil as hath been intimated and we must not obey them or civily evil and then though we do obey for the Swords sake and because we must not resist the Conscience is not bound in such a Case It is therefore a pievish obstinacy in this person to persist in these following words VVe are no considering when and in what cases a Law may cease to obleige and quite alter its Nature but whether while it doth obleige and is in force it lays a tye on the Conscience or no and to this we say yes Laws while they are obligatory bind the Conscience Because the Scripture faith so and we say so indefinitely because that is the Scriptures language also First it 's certainly false that all Laws of Men do indefinitely tye the Conscience and therefore the Scripture doth not say so nor can say so which must be granted by him in the case of moral evil Secondly this Debater is utterly lost that he would not learn of me to distinguish between the obligation of the outward man and the Conscience an obligation in foro extertori sive politico in foro interiori sive conscientiae For it is false again that he sayes we are not considering when and in what cases a Law doth cease to obleige for this is the very thing we are considering in respect to the Conscience and as for the obligation of the outward Man he hath not yet thought of it And I say as Dr. Taylor hath again and again that such a Law as is not for the common good hath none of Gods authority and so ceases to be any Law as to the Conscience when yet we being not to resist as is and must be often said the outward man by the Sword may be brought to obey Thirdly the speaking that Laws while they do obleige or are of force do tye the Conscience in this Man who hath not received yet the distinction of the obligation of the outward Man Politically and the inward Man which is morally is extreamly senslâ—s and consequently false if he understood the sense For Laws that are obligatory or do obleige the outward man that is are Politically in force may yet be morally null as to the Conscience that is obleige it not when being not for the common good I say they are without the authority of Gods will Fourthly there is a manifest bar and contradiction in these words to his own determination after if he durst been plain in it For here he will be so obstinate to say still that human Laws bind indefinitely nay and suborn the Scripture to false witnessing in affirming that they say so when they say only be subject indefinitely while he makes all Laws that is Universally and indefinitely aequivalent here least he come off upon that word which we must not do and yet in the end he is forced to come to confession and acknowledge seeing Dr. Taylor will tell him so from whom he will borrow that he has that moral Divines and Lawyers and I had hoped he were one of the first do determine that human Laws bind not in the case of intollerable grievance I have cited these words in the way something more acrimoniously then any other passage hitherto not that I have cause to be angry at them as I have at others but to shew occasionally how I might take up this Gentleman likewise in the rest of these raw Sheets if I had a mind to exagitate that weakness which hitherto till his eyes be opened farther by this controverting the point is such as may have that epithite given to it at present which the Scriptures does in one place
adaeqâ—ate rule of Conscience But for the Magistrate to command any thing that is against the common good is disagreeable to Gods will or such a law carries not with it Gods authority Eâ—go whatsoever is commanded or what law soever is not conducive to the common good can not obleige the Conscience So that it must not be under the pain of sin but under the sence of wrath and necessity that we must not resist that we actively obey in such a case In the last place he quotes Dr. Saunderson and I must confess I shall put the less trust hereafter on this man for any matters of controversie or cases of weight for this presumption he seems to have upon one great name when nothing else for ought appears but Dr. Saunderson having resolved this case hath given him the confidence to write in such an Imperious fashion as he hath done these sheets upon a subject whereof he seems to have had so few thoughts before As for that Dr. I have read his Lectures de obligatione conscientiae and dejuramento and the first body of his Sermons I do believe him an excellent Casuist and to speak freely wherein that excellence lyes a man of a clear head but yet not for all that of so searching a head nor quite so learned as such a one as Rutherford in his way and by no means on the Earth of so large a head so great a wit and incomparable sufficiency as Dr. Taylor Well Dr. Saunderson in his ninth prelection puts this case what if a Magistrate intends only his own profit or ambition in a law does that bind he answers yes Because that though the Law-giver may have an ill intention the Law may tend to the common good This is well resolved In a case or two farther then he puts this other what if a law be unprofitable to the publick and something noxious he answers it doth oblige if the thing may be done without sin This resolution is ill for if the reason of the obligation in the former case was good and the true right reason then when there is not that reason a law obliges not If we must obey out of Conscience when a law does tend to the common good though the Law-givers intention be bad then though the Law-givers intention be good if the thing commanded tend not to the publick advantage the Conscience must not be obliged upon the same account And thus Dr. Taylor resolves them both it is in some transient passages which I will not stand here to find out But let us hear Dr. Saundersons reasons The first is Because every man ought to mind what belongs to his part and duty and not trouble himself about other mens But what reason is this it does belong to every man to mind yea and to consider and determine whether his Conscience be obliged by a law or no. His second is Because our duty is to obey not to command or ordain And what reason is this our duty is to obey if what is commanded be agreeable to Gods will else we cannot be obliged to it in Conscience though we do it These two reasons indeed are twins both Stillborn and say nothing The resolution is ill and nothing is to be said for it But what means he by these reasons The subject is to obey the Law not make the Law and he troubles not himself to judge whether a thing be good in reference to the Magistrates act but his own If the law pass he may obey it in the outward man whether it be civilly good or no and not trouble himself But if he come to the point whether it bind his Conscience or no he must consider whether it hath the authority of God in it and consequently whether both it be Lawfull and conducive to the publick advantage I may add says the Debater himself though the Magistrate ought not to ordain any thing but what is for the peoples good yet when he doth otherwise it will be more for their good to obey him then refuse obedience I answer if the Magistrate ought not to ordain any thing but what is for the peoples good then must the ordaining any thing not such be against Gods will But the Conscience cannot be obliged by any thing against Gods will or the Conscience is obleiged by nothing but by Gods will only Ergo no Law or thing commanded us which is against the common good can obleige the Conscience and so hath he cut his own throat here out of self conviction Nevertheless as to what he sayes else there is one remove yet this Debater sees not and that is we distinguish between non obligation of Conscience and disobedience it may be that prudence and such considerations as he urges or others may prevail with a man in the outward action to oâ—ey when yet he accounts himself free from any obligation on his Conscience There is one thing after this I feel upon my own mind I find it not in these papers but I cannot hardly be faithful if I omit it It is this Suppose a Father or a Master bids me do a thing I conceive it like to prejudice his affaires and eâ—ve it undone If this Father or Master be discreet he will commend me for my care and be so far from charging me with disobedience as that he will account I have done his will better then he declared it Upon this I have been apt to determine that the commands of men and Gods do thus differ The one binds unless I can give a reason which is more considerable for the forbearance then that which appears for obedience the other binds both as the rule and reason it self for my action I think again suppose I tell this reason to this Father or Master and they will not admit it but require the thing to be done notwithstanding the prejudice which shall acrue If it be in heat I may do well yet to forbear upon my belief that they will take it well when their thoughts have cooled and the Wisdom herein of many faithful servants have been proved But if I be perswaded fully that they will be displeased presently and not pleased after it seems to me here I am bound to obedience in things not sinful though they be commanded to my own and their hurt I answer to this In the first place it is sufficient that a Child or a Servant is not indefinitely bound to do every thing they are bid but that when they have such a reason as they judge their Parent or Master will be satisfied and better pleased that they forbear the command they may leave it undone If their reason does not satisfie they may be reckoned in the case of such as have no reason In the second place when they have better reason to forbear it then do it I may hold that they are bound to doing only by vertuâ— of the Authority residing in the Parent or Masters person and that they may not
〈◊〉 hath been said about the Magistrate will that otherwise they were free towards God in their Consciences who accepts of no other but a reasonable â—â—â—vide In the third place I offer this there is a diversity of Authority The Government of Parents and Masters is not the same with that of the Magistrates over the People The Soverainnity in some Common wealths is in a single Person in others it may be in the Nobles in others in the Common body That Government which iâ—â—y a Monarchy is either Despotical or Royal. The Government of this Nation is a Royal Monarchy regulated by laws These laws are 〈◊〉 by a Corporation of King Lords and â—â—â—mâ—nds called the Parliament wherein the three Estates are assembled to consult what is for the common good now though we may suppose without granting that the subjects of a despotical Government who have no propriety of goods nor liberty of person as children and servants are in the house may be bound to do what the Law-giver commands though it be to their common disadvantage because he may command any thing for his will and pleasure onely and not their goods yet cannot we in our nation be so bound because it is not to be supposed that the law-giver does require any thing for his own will and pleasure but for the common good altogether To suppose otherwise is to suppose a change of the Government from Royal to Despotical which is a supposition to be abhorred The three Estates are assembled says Sr. Tho. Smith de Rep. Ang. to consult what is good that is what is for the common good as before and so long as this is their general end and intention and the Law is the will of the Law-giver it appears that if any thing really be not for the common good it hath none of their will and intention and consequently does lay no obligation on the consciences of the people CHAP. IV. I Proceed to that determination which he brings in opposition to mine if I can find it and know what to make of it when it is found The case says he about the begining depends on this single point whether human Laws bind the Consciences In resolving this he acknowledgeth a difficulty For if on the one side we say saith he the Conscience 〈◊〉 not concerned I beseech you what is nothing but our common discreton to help our selves out of the reach of the Princes Sword So says Dr. Taylor If Conscience be not obliged then nothing is concerned but prudence and care that a man be safe from Rods and Axes If on the other side we say that Consciâ—nce is obliged then there may follow great perplexities when any thing is commanded that proves an intollerable grievance And this is also from Dr. Taylor who does determine thereupon that in danger of death and intollorable grievance human Laws oblige not the Conscience to obedience And what does this Debater determine why truly when he comes to it at the end The morall Divines and Lawyers says he do grant so Well! These Divines and Lawyers are such as Dr. Taylor knows but what says this Evangellicall Divine and no Lawyer himself why he has said already that human Laws bind indefinitely and he cannot find in his heart to go from it Let me ask him then how comes it to pass that he pretends to some better Medium then I have propounded in this Case Those that say human Laws bind not the Conscience at all and those that say they bind it indefinitely without distinction are both in an extream I and Dr Taylor have a Medium and what mean is that which this man will set up in opposition to us Here I turn to the place in his sheets and I find his words come to these I think good briefly to direct him in a better Medium then any that he hath propounded to find out the severall degrees of sin against human Laws Ridiculous if this person would have offered us a better Medium to determine the Case in hand we ought to have thankt him but as for a Medium to this purpose what is it to me Is there any question or undertaking of mine about this in the least throughout the Case If I had a mind to know the difference or degrees of sin against human Laws I need not come to his I think good briefly Dr. Taylor hath laid down at large Rules of distinction or the measures by which we shall prudently conjecture at the gravity or lessening of the sin of disobedience to human Laws The truth is if a man may guess at such a thing this person as it is like upon the quotation gets Dr. Taylor where in one place there being those Rules of distinction and in another he finds cautions for those that reduce into practise the rule he had laid down that human Laws not good oblige not the Conscience he apprehends these to be both good materials for the building something against me but when he hath brought them here together into his books there is no work for ought I see will come of them and he may return them back where he had thâ—m Here are a parcell of cautions and notes of degrees of sin against laws his cautions in the Dr. who giving liberty to the Conscience in some cases as not bound by human laws are very significant that we may yet walk unblameably in such cases but as for him who gives none but makes the law of man to bind indefinitely he hath nothing to do but to require Universal obedience upon the pain of sin and can admit of no transgression under any caution what soever His rules of distinction likewise or of the degrees of sin against human laws may have good use in the Dr. but how will they serve his purpose the case says he depends on this single point whether human laws â—ind the conscience that is whether we sin if we be not obedient to them It follows then when this single point or question is resolved that they do bind the conscience indefinitely and that we do sin if we obey not the point determined and as for the discourse of the degrees of sin it is another point that never comes between us in controversy In the mean while if this be the determination of the point which is single what is become of the pretended difficulty There is not the least difficulty in this case at all if that be all the determination Let us suppose the Negative extream to what he holds that the conscience were never concerned in human laws and that to his words I beseech you what then it were replyed tho outward man which politickly is bound and may not resist it were a question might require more consideration whether every man 's own security and consequently the common discretion alone of all men to keep themselves only from the danger they threaten would not be a sufficient preservative of them so far is this person wide
judgdement of each particular when the law is made there depends no concern but a mans own and that respecting his inward man only Now its certain that the Magistrate in regard of such an effect as depends upon his judgement hath need indeed of the greatest wisdome and the ablest Councel and he cannot be too cautions in his proceeding seeing if he be mistaken and the Consciences of the Subjects be not obliged by such a law yet are their persons liable to be compelled and they must not resist which may prove a vast inconvenience and to be avoided only by a right information at first about the matter But as for a private person who judges not what is best for the peoples good as he speaks right in regard to the Magistrate but onely judges of the thing commanded whether it be agreeable or not to the will of God or the rule of his which he hath given to the world about Politicals if they forget not to minde it to wit that it be in â—eneral for their good the effect which I have said does attend such a judgement is of that nature onely as requires no greater understanding or discretion then every man hath for himself to act by in all the rest of his life and conversation He judges here according to his Rule in these things as he doth in other of his actions according to the word whether he be bound or not bound in Conscience to them And God requires of him to judge and act but according to his talent in all business whatsoever He will acknowledge the outward man to be bound and in a matter of his soul which concerns no body but him or the inward obligation of his Conscience you must leave him to God and his own Judgement His next reason is That when Men know what is conducing to their good they are not apt to do it without a Law And what does this prove or contradict It proves it good therefore that the people have a Law-giver or Governor and that he should be wiser and better then they as Plato may urge it But does it follow they may not therefore judge whether the thing commanded be for their good Surely this will be a good reason why the people should judge of it For if the good they conceive in it is the reason they admit to have any Law and the argument to press them to obey it then must they judge of that good and whether it be conducive to that good or not In the mean while the difference of the reason and ends which is distinguished in the Magistrates judging of a thing to be for the common good or not and the peoples does sufficiently declare the weakness and vanity of such speeches as this Man hath several of He that makes every Man judge of what is for the peoples good takes away the principal power of the Magistrate And why so as if it were an act of power and that usurped for any but the Prince to have a judgement of discretion over his civil actions Again if the people be able to judge of that there is no need of any Law or Law-giver As if when men knew their duty they needed no Magistrate to make them do it and that while himself too is telling us the need of Laws because men aâ—e not like to prefer the publick good though they comprehend it before that of their own particular persons I cannot I perceive be throughly intent to answer what is insignificant but the substance in the main of these two reasons comes to this that every man is not able to bring the thing commanded by the Magistrate to the rule so as to judge whether it be for the common good or not and therefore they must act only upon the judgement of the Law-giver and consequently be no reasonable agents in their Political obedience For satisfaction therefore to this Let us conceive the Magistrate commanding something moral or Religious there are no Protestants but do hold that every man for himself must bring here what is commanded to the rule of the moral Law and Scripture and according as himself believes it consonant or not to the rule he judges it so is he bound to obey it or not to to obey it Now let any man who hath but the heart to think and speak with integrity consider whether a rude and illiterate man that never could read a word in the Bible be more able to judge whether a thing commanded by the Magistrate be agreeable or not to the word of God or whether it be conducive or not to the common good suppose the Waggoner as unlearned as any man I will ask whether such a man be not more able to judge of the Law concerning Waggons that is whether it be good for the high wayes and consequently whether he had best or not observe the act then to judge whether the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England or whether whatsoever is contained in the whole Book of Common Prayer with the Rites and Ceremonies be agreeable or not to the Scriptures of the old and New Testament I suppose there is no man will have the hardiâ—sse to oppose such a manifest conviction And if in regard to his practice this man and every other that uses the Common-prayer must judge as well as he can of the lawfulness of it or else he cannot act in faith and so likewise of all those doctrines or practises he yields unto them then will there I hope be no stumbling block left here upon this account I do advance therefore and rest upon this one argument if the incapacity unfitness or little ability that some men have to judge of what is required by the Magistrate whether it be agreeable or no to the common good be a reason sufficient for the denying to the subject such a judgement then must the lesser ability of such to judge whether that which is required be agreeable to the word of God be a reason sufficient to discharge them from judging of it by the word But the consequent is false and therefore the antecedent By the way observe if any man distinguish between judging of a Law whether it be for a common good and judging of the thing commanded by a law or rather of a mans own doing the thing commanded whether it be for the publick good or not I am to be understood of the last when I say the Magistrate judges of the thing in reference to his passing it into a law and we judge of it so passed in reference to our obedience or obligation by it His third reason is the same with the first The people are so far from being able to judge that the wisest Princes find it difficult only we have more words for the enlargement which consist partly in a grave kind of discourse from a passage of a Bishop Bramhall of the severall things and circumstances that the Law-giver is to weigh in
themselves from what they please no Laws will be observed and all Government come to the ground Unto this as his substance besides my answer I have already given I shall crave leave to offer a few considerations In the first place this is certainly a shalâ—â—w apprehension which must suffer a conviction from the constant experience of the world For how is the world governed there is not one of a hundred that observes the Laws out of Conscience if they did then must they for ought I know be careful to gâ—t the Statutes and read them as their bibles which one of a thousand never do But men understand it they do such or such things they are lâ—able to be sued or to be bound to the Sessions or the like and to avoid the danger of the Law they observe it Now it is a foolish thing to say the Laws will not be observed or the world will not be governed unless by another means then that by which it is governed and the Law are observed Our Nations and Heathen Nations and those Nations which never had the fear of God to believe a judgement to come have been kept under the observation of the Laws of their Country by these means In the second place this is not only against universal experience but it confronts the very institution of God the appointment of the Magistracy God hath made the Magistrate his Minister and put the sword into his hand for the ordering and governing Societies and Common wealths and if this indeed will not serve that purpose then you render his institution insufficient and make his Minister to bear the sword in vain The Law sayes the Apostle is not made for the righteous but the disobedient and unrighteous If all were righteous and would of themselves make Conscience of doing what they should do there would be no need of Magistrate or Law but when the Law and Magistrate is appointed for this end to bring the refractory to order and those that make no Conscience of what they do to be ruled how fond must the imagination be which conceits unless men do first beleive themselves bound in Conscience to obey they will not observe the Laws In the third place if it be for some persons particular interest to break the Laws it will be the concern of others that they be forced to keep them if they be indeed for the common good so shall they joyn with the Magistrate in his causing the execution of them This indeed is that which upholds all Laws that are good The publick interest being greater then the private does uphold them Whereas if a Law be not really for the publick good this is one certain reason at the bottom of its invalidity and decay because it hath not root enough upon the publick utility to maintain it self against particular enchroachments If a Non-conformist come within five miles of a Corporation there is no body hurt by it and no body like to be concerned at it were this a thing truly conducing to the publick good then must the publick be disadvantaged in their breach of that Law and if the publick then must some more eminently and those should be as much concerned that they obey as themselves to avoid the observation By the way when the advantage for the publick does not countervaile and exceed the private loss or dammage that particular persons shall suffer by a Law such a Law I take to be unjust or at least Politically evil and binds not the Conscience However that which I here affirm is that whether men make a Conscience of a Law or not if the Law be good the publick advantage will prevail when the Magistrate is minded or cause it to be observed In the fourth place it is a thing very unpolitick to offer to the world any principle upon which it should be governed which is other then that which does govern it If the world be governed by the Magistrates sword and the Conscience only that we must not rebell and is governed as well as ever it is like to be governed it is but an unhinging the world to pretend they must receive this principle that human laws bind the Conscience or else there will be no need to obey seeing the People may joyn and chuse not to be forced as he speaks It is a saying if a Horse knew his strength what might he not do he would not let man ride him and use him as he does If the world knew their strength that the Magistrate indeed could not punish them whatsoever they did unless they joyned with him one against another when there is just cause for it they might shake off every yoke but as the whole body of the People cannot be made to know this so as at once to agree upon it any more then the Horse can though every particular man does know it so were it an utterly ruinous thing to speak of it if they could It is true if the people did agree together which agreement is their strength and they cannot know one anothers present minds all that they would not be forced they might choose but then when they made no Conscience to resist how should this man think upon his principle that they would make such Conscience to obey In the first place it does seem to me a pernicious thing to the souls of pious and tender Christians to lay any such load upon the Conscience which is more then it can bear I say there is no temptation hardly more dangerous to the undoing of a soul then to press it upon such things as goes beyond it and over sets it If a man does believe he is bound to make Conscience of every command of his superiour and Law of the Realm or else he doth sin it is enough to make him cast off all the Laws and when his duty is made so grevious to him that it seems impossible for him but to live in sin to be ready for resistance next and then all Magistracy is gon The way to have some Laws obeyed out of Conscience is to take off its obligation from others and if a Magistrate indeed might choose whether his Subjects Consciences should be bound by all his Laws or not there is good reason for him to be content that the matter should be as it is They are bound in Conscience not to resist and he knows not his own strength if he desire any more although when a Law is for the common good then is there Gods command also which takes place There is one thing I cannot but add which might make another consideration what if a despotical Prince was so wicked as resolving to be damned himself to seek the damnation of all his people and should thereupon make so many Laws and about such trivial things on purpose that none of his Subjects might regard to keep them but live and die in the wilful breach of them I pray let this Debater tell me
really whether according to his opinion it does not lye in the power of such a Divel as this is to carry a whole Nation to Hell with him In the sixth place let us suppose the Consciences of men were bound indefinitely to all Laws does this Author think really that the belief of this would make the world to observe them and so maintain Government more then the Magistrates sword I doubt me he is here more wide we see too well that when the worldly or carnal interest of men is concerned what little regard Conscience has It were happy indeed for the Earth if the fear of God Almighty did but prevail more with the Generality then the fear of a suite at Law or a Penalty of twenty shillings If interest will prevail with a man to judge a thing commanded him to be against the common good when it is for it the same interest of his it is like with such a man would prevaile still upon him not to observe the Law though he were bound in Conscience to it In the seventh place then those few honest persons that would observe a Law if they thought themselves bound in Conscience to it not withstanding their private interest be against it will likewise make the like Conscience in their judging of a Law so as not to be byassed by their particular concernment to think otherwise of it then does comport with the publick advantage And this in effect will come to the same issue In the last place I will offer you one president to pinne the basket It pleased God in the late times that this case became Dr. Saundersons own case The Act of Uniformity bound the Minister to read Common Prayer This Law the Dr. acknowledges to be of force for all the Times but if he observes the Law he must loose his living Upon this he considers of the Act and when he looks on the immediate particular end of it he can find nothing but that their remains obliged to it He then looks on the general and ultimate end and that he conceives right to be the publick good wch is intended or is to be supposed to be intended in all laws Upon this end he comes to the consideration whether all circumstances being weighed it be conducive for the common good for him to observe this Law or not and being in the result fully perswaded in his own mind that the benefit to the publick could no wayes countervail his particular loss and suffering he concludes it lawful by the neglect of that Law to retain his living There is a sober person having read my Case shewed me a Manuscript of the Doctors but would not let me write any thing out of it for the confirmation of my judgement I cannot relate either the whole matter or words of it but these two things I affirm for truth in it That be comes off upon the consideration of the general end of the Law the publick benefit and judges himself whether his observing that Law were conducive to that end in reference to the determining his own practice And here I have I account my full weight for my self and think I had best to fetch the poor man before also who finding no sufficient relief from this Authour about his Cottage may meet with it from this instance to his satisfaction and it will come to this whitâ— seems a little more then I have yet quite saiâ—â— that not only when a Law is politically â—â—vil but when it is good in regard of its general observation yet if a man be perswaded fully in his Conscience upon such duâ—â— considerations and cautions as he ought to take that his particular keeping of it under the present circumstances he lyes is not so much for the common good really as his not keeping of it is which I will take to be plainly this poor mans case instanced who if he holds not his house must with his Family presently fall on the Parish he is not to charge his soul with sin for his wholesome breach of it After this I will yet subjoyn a little more in reference also to some others When the Apostle gives us this precept obey those that have the rule ovér you though there be no words added by way of exception it is to be supposed the things they command are for our edification this being a condition necessarily implyed to all rightful obedience that the Ruler hath authority in what he injoynes But the Minister hath authority only for mens edification and hath none in things against their spiritual good according to our authority sayes the Apostle for edification not destruction The Case is the same with the Magistrate His commands that have authority must be to our civil good It is a mistake therefore how ingenious and ordinary soever it may seem in some that say the people have liberty to judge indeed whether a thing commanded be lawful but not at all whether it be convenient That by all means they count it to be denyed as if the allowing any such thing would presently as this author fancies too subvert all Government I hese Persons I perceive therefore distinguish not between judging what is sit for the general or universality which judgment indeed is proper to the supream Magistrate and judging what is fit for a mans self only to doe All things are lawful for our sayes the apostle But all things are not expedient I will not be brought under the power of any a Christian judges for himself of both these of the lawfulness and of the expedience of his own actions If this be not granted then must he be brought under the power of indifferent things which he ought not to be and then does he submit himself unto the Ordinance of man or the human Creature as his servant and not as free and as the Servant of God Again these persons have not yet considered what I have been telling still in these papers that this liberty is assumed of us in reference only to the Conscience or to our obligation in for interiori and that while the outward man iâ— still acknowledged to be bound there is nâ— danger at all to Government in the matter On the contrary side there is this intollerable snare or evil consequence does follow on the denyal hereof that every time any human Law the matter whereof is not for bidden of God is not observed the subject must sin and consequently if he live and dyes knowingly and wilfully in his neglect he must be damned I will yet propose therefore one or two instances There is a Statute in Henry the eights time if I mistake not which remains unrepealed that no man shall brew with Hopps I do ask hereupon whether there be any Brewer in this Nation knowing of this that can be saved I do not find my Debator can answer me this question and I do not doubt but there are many Brewers that are honest men and good Christians as well
order to our civil happiness but our everlasting salvation VVhen God says Thou shalt have no other Gods but me a Roman or a Greek might not say no it is son the good of our Country that many Gods be worshipped and the common good must take place of other Laws For besides that it is false to think it for the good of any state to have more then one God The Law of the common good is to take place over the Common wealths Law or is the supream Law I say to all human Laws but not to Gods Laws which comes not under any subordination to such good but do concern the salvation of Mens souls Now it is the Law or command of God that Magistracy be set up that we be in subjection to the powers that are that is the present Magistrate that we have and that we resist not This is no less his Commandment then that we have no other Gods but him If there be any then will argue we are not obleiged in Conscience to obey a Law which is not for the common good upon the account of this maxime Therefore we are not obleiged in Conscience to subjection to the Magistrate if he rule not for the common good upon account of the same he is greatly mistaken Because this maxime as we are to know was Originally intended so is to be understood on necessity in reference to the Laws of men or the Common wealths Laws only and not in reference to the Commandments of God Again when a human Law passes for the good of the community the common good being the supream rule and measure of all every one judges and ought to judge upon the pinch of the question whether the thing commanded be for the common good that is whether it be agreeable to the supream Law and according as he judges and believes it to be or no so is he obliged in Conscience or not to it But when a Magistrate rules not as he ought and so we are free as to his inordinate commands there is no man may judge whether he himself or the Government it self be for the good or no. You will say why Because the powers that be are of God and his Ordinance and whether the Ordinance of God be for our good or no there is no mortal may question or is to iudge God hath himself declared this that he is the Minister of God for our good even Nero was and no man may once offer to determine contrary to Gods declared word or tell the Almighty he sayes not truth Consequently when a Law sometimes doth pass that is not for the common good and a man judging of it according to truth is not obliged in Conscience to obedience vet the Magistrate himself being for our good God having determined so and mans judgement being confined by his even by this maxime it self that the common good is the supream Law he must be still bound to subjection And what now is become of this mans reproach which he hath laid to my charge with so much falshood and little judgement as if Dr. Saunderson and he were for this maxime in the right sense and I was for it in the perverse meaning when it is plain that indeed neither he nor Dr. Saunderson how worthy soever in their pacts otherwise understood this maximâ— in the full import of it seeing else he would have determined the main case no otherwise then I do And this brings me to another passage of this Debater which I was willing to reserve â—ill now both for the agreement of it here â—nd for making a discovery of some of this â—uthours strong reasonings who counts mine â—o weak It is resolved by the Casuist that if the Magistrate command any thing for the Peoples hurt there lies no obligation upon the Conscience to obey and they are made judges of what â—s for their hurt If then he require them not â—o resist and they find this is for their hurt they are not bound in Conscience not to resist Is not this very goodly Does not the Gentleman shew us here indeed what a fathome it is that he has as he speaks somewhere why this can be no less sure then Bonaventures Son or Bradwardines brother What if the Magistrate should require us not to resist If it were the Magistrate only required this there were no doubt but we might resist if he hurt or wrong us as well as not obey his Laws if they be for our hurt But it is Gods Commandment that we resist not and if he shall do us wrong or hurt we must bear it upon that account It is but suffering according to his well and that is the reason why the Magistrate and Government it self safe when the Conscience is yet at liberty 〈◊〉 avoid if we can any unjust unreasonabâ—â— noxious or unprofitable Law for the peopâ—â— You will say are we not bound to obey hâ—â— Laws as well as not to resist his authorityâ— I answer there is this difference we haâ—â— no command from God that sayes you mâ—â— obey this or that particular Law of the Common-wealth or that you must indefiniteâ— obey them all seeing some may be unjust some wicked some vain But there is a Laâ— or command from God to be subject to the powers that are whatsoever they are and 〈◊〉 whatsoever they are that is rightful power for else the devil may come in and thâ— we must net resist I say moreover that to be ruled by the common good in civil affairs designed by his Minister I take to be a Law of God of the same Nature as to be subject to the Magistrate and to fear himself After this there is one passage more I will not pass because it looks lightly and is a concession against himself but does not satisfie if the word may nto offend without a farther remove upon it It is this It is supposed when a case of intollerable inconvenience happens that it being not the intention of a Prince to make his Subjects miserable he would not have made that Law if he could have foreseen such a mischeif and upon that account it ceases to be a Law and looses its obligation I remember well that some indeed speak thus and when any take a Latitude in applying it to an individual case it will come to this that supposing the Law-giver to consider the circumstances that this or that particular man is in it is presumed that he would consent to the breach of his Law by that person and upon this presumption there may be many perhaps that absolve themselves from several peices of obedience That which may be said for this is that if the Law-giver is to be supposed not to intend to make his subjects miserable by a Law he is to be supposed not to intend to make any one miserable for he cannot simply do the one any more then the other Eadem est ratio unius cujusque Universorum If such a Law makes
speak he shall give on account for it at the day of judgement The word Idle in the Original as without work says Causabone de verborum usu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is contracted of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Idle word is every word without deed and must import thus much whatsoever it does more that when men make strict professions and determine so rigidly in points of duty and do not answer their own dictates and sayings let them take heed lest by their words least ex ore tuo as being Idle words they bring not themselves into a just condemnation I will therefore advise this worthy person and all men in resolving Cases of Conscience that they take heed of setting down any matter for the binding of others then according to which in their own practise they dare be content to be judged by The determining the obligation of human Laws Indefinitely on the Conscience is more then any mortall can bear For my own part I will protest that whilst I allow the Conscience to be bound by the Law of men when those Laws tend to the common good yet do I not hereby cut my self of from the reserve of any liberty that may arise to me from a farther disquisition although I count it but necessary both to give my reason why in sincerity I hold so and to deliver my conception of that obligation It is a saying of the Antients a man is not born for himself only but for his Country which is not writ only in Cicero but in the heart of all men for this is a truth throughout the earth and delivered by God all along his word while he makes our own selves to be the rule of our carriage towards our Neighbours that we mind not our own things only but every one the things of others Though we study and seek the tranquillity and peace of those with whom we live and consequently in all Societies and Communities we should regard the publick concern even above our particular advantage These are general moral precepts which are writ I say in the heart of man and to be proved in Gods word The Magistrate I account now is Gods Minister to consider of and then design and appoint the particular things or instances wherein every one in their several places are serviceable in these duties and ends and upon that designation of the particular things the obligation flows from those general precepts of God upon the Conscience for their observation I say there is the general Institution of God for Societies and that men in society shall mind and endeavour in their place the publick concern and not their own only The Magistrate is his commissiâ—ted Officer to design appoint or set apart and so declare the instances or particular things which are conducive to this good of the community which they all are bound to intend upon the designation appointment or declaration of these things the obligation flows immediately from the general institution of God upon the Conscience for the observing of them when there could flow none else from these particulars themselves The particular laws or things themselves we know are not the precepts of God and the Conscience is obliged only by Gods will but the general institution of society and that we should seek and endeavour in our place the good of the Publick as our own and above our own in such particulars as be conducive truly to that end is of God and the Magistrate I say according to his office designing these particulars we come not ratione consequentis or absoluté only because such things commanded but ratione conseqâ—â—ntiae or ex hypothesi because such things commanded do come under the divine institution to have the Conscience bound to their performance From hence it follows likewise that if these instances or particulars do not indeed come under the service of these general duties or end such a law is to be lookt upon as cut off from Gods institution and so can have no authority derived to it from God for the obliging the Conscience of any when yet the outward man out of the case of sin is still acknowledged to be bound The particular commands of the Magistrate does I say bind the outward man but the general institution or the moral duty in general of seeking the welfare of the Publick and not our own only is that which binds the Conscience which otherwise were not bound As for the fifth Commandement which requires honor and obedience such as is meet to our superiours I do not here distinguish it from but include it in this general institution for that command must be understood as a comprehensive thing containing in it the whole commission the superiour hath from God which granting him his power to command doth also set the bounds and limitations to that power that he command no other things or no otherwise then as he hath appointed and upon supposition that the superior acts only according to his commission that is according to his prescribed duty or rule in civil things this Commandement of God doâ—â— lay an obligation on the subject to obey him out of Conscience If you will say upon this that the Magistrate hath a derived authority from God for this very act of determining the material objâ—ct of our obedience and therefore besides the obligation which flows from his institution when the matter is determined the Conscâ—ence must be obliged from the Magistrats determination it self by vertue of that derived authority from him I have no need to gain say it and whether you will make it a double obligation or an obligation from a double causality or a mixt obligation divine and human it matters nothing to our dispute so long as Gods authority in the things commanded or his allowance that they be commanded be first acknowledged before we look upon the Conscience to be indeed concerned in them This is certain every authority that is derived must be limited and that according to the will of him from whence it is derived The authority God reserves in his own hands is that alone which is unlimimited and infinite Now the limits God hath set the Magistrate as to the determining the particulars of his subjects duty which is his power of making laws comes to this that he choose them only out of that general matter that is conducive to the end of government the publick good that is to observe the rule of things political If he shall therefore appoint any particular things for his own profit pleasure or humour which come not under this general matter to wit quae habet rationem publici commodi as God hath prescribed it is manifest that he acts not according to his commission and so can have no power derived from thence for those acts or laws and consequently however such laws do bind us in his courts they are of no validity in the court of Conscience We will acknowledge in whatsoever he
commands an authority divine for his Office and so if he will inflict the penalty we must not resist But we can not acknowledge Gods authority in this or that exercise of his office that we should do the thing out of Conscience In short we are indeed bound upon the penalty of his law if you will but we are not bound upon the pain of sin to obey the Magistrate in every case I must profess here in the words of truth and soberness that so far as so mean a person as I am can diâ—cernâ— there is a great deal of darkness hath spread it self upon the face of the earth and more especially over many learned men who when they have forsaken that light which they have flowing immediately from God on their hearts to to seek unto the Cisterns of others works and books they have been not only misled themselves but bereft us of many truths of the clearest evidence and greatest concernment such as this particularâ—y concerning the obligation of human laws how when and how far the Conscience of man which belongs directly only to the Regiment of Gods its or can be bound by them If we will therefore but go as near as we can to the fountain and look into our own minds into all which God shines according to a several measure with his light though he influence but some with his saving grace we may find that as we are instructed in matters of Religion to seek unto supernatural revelation and so to account that whatsoever is agreeable to the rule of Gods word is obliging to the Conscience and what is not cannot oblige us as worship and as in matters of morality what is and what is not agreeable to the law of nature does or does not oblige us as virtue or vice so in these matters which are of a cival or political concern only we do find that the rule which God â—lmighty hath written in the heart for us to judge by and is the supream law in such matters which in words also is famously acknowledged is the common good so that according as any thing commanded in human laws is agreable or not to that rule which is Gods rule for these things the Conscience is bound or not bound by the same Nay as things are not only religiously or morally good and evil according as they agree and not agree with the word of God and the moral law in the heart but the more or less they agree with the rule the more or less good or evil are they so the more or less any thing commanded in a law doth agree with the supream rule of God or law in these political things by so much the greater or less is the sin of not observing them So short indeed is this Person and others in their notes of the degrees of sin against human laws that the formal difference it self of these aggravations or diminutions in respect to the conscience whereof alone Divines should speak when this mans differences from the will of the law giver belongs to the Lawyer is not considered And now when it hath pleased God Almighty by so inconsiderable a vessel and in such a kind of careless and unregarded expression which others may mend that the exellency of the truth may appear to be the more from him to deliver to the world this law of his to govern and resolve men in these cases I do not know how few or how many there be that will receive it When Moses went up to God into the Mount and brought down the law of the two Tables it was a glorious matter there is no man can go up to God now in that manner but every one may go to him if we search after him who is not far from any of us as Paul speaks as he dwels in that light which he hath put into our hearts and from thence as one who hath been conversing there rather then with the videturs of men have I brought you down this law or rule of his will in Politicalls which though the generation of men no where even amongst the most savage is without yet have they taken notice of it so little hitherto that waxing vain in their own imaginations they have not understood when they have acknowledged that this indeed is the supream law to all others that are human by which they must be tryed approved overruled and according to which and to which alone can the Conscience of any be obliged in their obedience which they yield to these maters CA. V. THere remains the last thing I have to do which is the surveigh of this Debaters exceptions or other passages not yet considered and to say something to them according as they are of moment This general does contain the principle thing the Debater stands upon and which requirers the larger field for my debate with him I shall devide that one business therefore into three succeding Chapters and leave a last for the rest CAP. VI. THe great and principal exception he hath and which will deserve the pains is upon a question which comes in as necessary to be askt upon my determination and it is this It being supposed and to be granted that the will of God is that alone which does oblige the Conscience and that according as a thing commanded in human Laws does conduce to the pubâ—ick good or not so is it agreeable or not to his will the question is who shall be judge whether a thing commanded by a Law be for the common good or no and consequently agreeable to Gods will and obligatory to the Conscience I answer every Man must be Judge on necessity himself in reference to his own action I prove this Every Man must judge of his own actions whether they be agreeable to the will of God or no. But to judge whether a thing commanded by a Law be agreeable to Gods will is to judge whether it be conducive to the common good or not Therefore every Man is judge himself whether a thing commanded be for the publick good or no in reference to his own action Again to judge whether we are bound in Conscience to any thing commanded in a Law is to judge whether it have Gods authority or not But a Law or any thing commanded by a Law hath Gods authority or not according as it is conducive to the common good Therefore a Man must judge whether that which is commanded him in a Law be for the common good or not to judge whether he be bound or not bound to it in Conscience I must needs say there are some have had occasion to be more ready to resolve this question then otherwise they have desired We have had late impositions and thought many times in what sense they might be taken We have come quickly to see if they be taken it must not be in any sense of our own we can frame which were most loose but it must be in the imposers meaning