the Intention of the Argument if not of the Persons that so familiarly use it I have given them my following thoughts about it and Answer to it Answ 1. Every Fallacy hath its Verisimilitude or Likeness to Truth otherwise it could not be a Fallacy that is apt to deceive I take the colour of the present to lie in this That when the higher powers requires any thing that is Impious even then we must be subject that is we must not resist the powers yet we must not actively obey their Wicked Commands And this is so plain and great a truth that if we are Christians we must Joyn in the Concession of it And in this Case our only duty is patiently to Suffer in Obedience to God But if this may be termed Passive Obedience it must be so termed with respect only to Gods Law which thus we do Observe and not to Mans which for Gods sake we do not dare Obey but plainly Disobey Yet if well considered the Strength of this Objection rejects the too common Abuse of it We must in this Case it is said OBEY GOD and not Man But in what Case When if we Obey Man we should DISOBEY our God And why then should we Disobey God but because God hath declared his Will to the contrary that is Hath Commanded we should not do that thing which Man requires For consider how do we in this Case Disobey Man but by doing Contrary to Man's Laws Even so in the same Case we Obey God only by doing and observing God's Laws For Sin is the Transgression of the Law And 't is Convertible where there is no Law there is no Transgression Shew us therefore that Law of God which forbids any thing which our humane Laws require and in that case but no further content your selves with Non-resistence without Active Obedience If you cannot you do not obey God but plainly Disobey him by refusing on any other pretence whatsoever Actively and Conscientiously to observe the Laws both of our Church and State herein Non-resistance or passive OBEDIENCE cannot excuse you 2. For Subjection is the Duty here expresly required and the Apostle doth not tell us that by Subjection he intends Non-resistance only or Exclusive of Active Obedience Yea he assures us otherwise and that he intends it in its due Latitude Subjection is denyed two wayes by Opposition and by simple Disobedience and the Apostle strikes at both these expresly And Active Obedience being more properly and the best Expression of Subjection he is more ample and express in his Argument against Disobedience Indeed he mentions Resistance in Vers 2. but not exclusively for he insists upon Obedience and Disobedience in the several following Verses which he stiles EVIL-DOING and WELL-DOING as will appear presently 3. As for the Penalty of Damnation or Judgment it yields us no Argument to the contrary whether we suppose it to be God's or Man's Judgment or both but clearly confirms it No doubt Resistance whose parts are Sedition Rebellion or any kind of Opposition merits the Damnation or Judgment of God for he that Resisteth resisteth God's Ordinance and yet he that Causlesly Disobeyes God's Ministers provokes God too and cannot be secure from Divine Judgment For Subjection as such and in its full Latitude is to be yielded to God's Ministers even for Conscience sake that is as opposed to Resistance and Disobedience as the Apostle Argues Vers 5. after he had so explained himself and therefore if denyed in any due part of it we wound the Conscience and are guilty before God and incur his Judgment But if it be Man's Judgment that is here threatned this is more expresly directed against Disobedience under the Terror of the Sword the Wrath and Vengeance of God's Ministers who bear not the Sword in vain but are Revengers to execute Wrath upon all that do Evil Ver. 4. or are Disobedient as truly if not as severely as on those that resist God's Ordinance 4. But if Simple Disobedience be found a Degree or part of this Subjection the Argument hath no colour from the Text And indeed it is so very plainly both in the Reason of the thing and the Apostle's Intention First one kind of Resistance is to Refuse to be Subject as the Aethiop renders the word in the Text. Resistance saith Grotius is a Military word And Tol. reasons upon it thus Sicut Miles qui locum sibi a duce destinatum duci resistit ipsiusque ordinationi adversatur as a Soldier which keeps not his place resists his Captain and opposeth his Command And consequently Pisc and Paraeus in loc Qui resistit i. e. se subdure renuit qui recusat obedire legi edicto quod a potestate procedit modo lex sit justa He which resists i. e. refuseth to obey the Law or Edict of the Power c. 5. Accordingly the Apostle explains it himself after the same manner For otherwise what is the meaning of such Expressions as these are which immediately follow He that Resists for Rulers are not a Terror to Good Works but to the Evil Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power Do that which is Good But if thou do that which is Evil be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vain Thus the Apostle tells us what he means by Resistance a Doing Evil and a not doing Good What Evil but that which the Law forbids What Good but that which the Law requires For Rulers as such take notice of no other Good or Evil. Neither did the Apostle so much as question those Laws that then forbad those Evils and required that Good which he supposeth for there was then no occasion for it as one saith upon the place as yet non saeviebatur Romae in Christianos And Agrippa in Josephus notes Nullos a Romanis Magistratibus missos ut bonis noceat And agreeable hereunto is the Apostle's whole Discourse wherein he doth not observe the least Reason of scrupling Obedience from the Matter of the Law or of Suspition that their Obedience must be Unwarrantable Besides you see what it was that alone could secure them from Punishment namely the Doing Good And is not that something positive if we must do good must not something be done and if we do the good that will secure us from the Power must it not be the very good thing which the Law of the Power requires And he must have certainly an extraordinary Logick that can conclude that this Doing Good here is a doing Nothing i. e. a not doing the Evil of Resistance Again If thou do that which is Evil be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vain What Evil that of Resistance only No certainly but that Evil which the Law forbad For the Sword would be born very much in vain if it should be drawn only against such as Resist the Power in their sence that is by Violence and Opposition or Rebellion thus the Minister of God should rather Revenge himself than
At least it is our Discretion not to judge the Laws themselves unjust without very evident Proof and not at all Inconvenient so as to refuse to observe them if they be not evidently unjust But of this also more distinctly in the following Sections SECT V. If we may Judge of Lawfulness yet not of Expediency Objection THE strongest Argument on the Peoples behalf now follows to be examin'd 'T is grounded upon our Concession and is this You allow the Subject Liberty to judge of the Lawfulness of things required by Law what Reason can be given why they should not equally judge of the Expediency of them Ans The Reason of the Difference is plain God is Lord Paramount to whom all both King and Subject owe undoubted Obedience Now in his Laws he hath antecedently determin'd what is Virtue and Vice what is Duty and what is Sin and hath so publisht his Mind and Will therein that all may and ought to know it and take notice of it at their Peril But he hath not pleased to deal so with us in matters of meer Expediency These he hath left undetermin'd and devolved them upon the determination of Human Prudence in the course of his Ordinary Providence So that when Man commands what God forbids we must not do it because God hath forbidden it But when Man commands that which we judge inexpedient if not forbidden by God we must do it because God hath not forbidden it and because our Superiour commands it whom God hath requir'd we should obey next to himself Now that we may speak more plainly to this great Point let us consider Laws in Act and already made and constituted and Laws in Power and not yet enacted but to be made SECT VI. The Liberty of Judgment in the People with respect to the Making of Laws The Writ Convenes them Ad Faciendum Consentiendum IN our most excellent Constitution 't is granted That the People of ENGLAND have a very great Liberty of Judgment for the Prevention of Evil or Inexpedient Laws But this Province being above my Sphear I should not have aspired to touch it had I not been somwhat provoked to vindicate my self against the Charge of Impeaching the Liberty of the Subject in this kind I hope that will excuse a small Adventure upon it And I shall come off well if I have not need of Pardon both for medling with this politick Point and not for straitning but too much enlarging the People's Priviledge as to the making of Laws This Priviledge belongs to our People both at large and in their Representatives in Parliament 1. It is the Natural and Civil Right of all English Men being liberi homines to use their Judgment of Discretion for the Choice of Wise and Good Men to represent them in Parliament in order to our having Good and Wholsom Laws free from Evil or Inconvenience yea and to inform them when assembled and chosen what they conceive may be fit to be made a Law And by the same Reason what is Inconvenient in any Law already in being in order to the Altering or Repealing of it And no doubt these things require a great deal both of Judgment and Discretion too both about Laws either to be made or already constituted And lastly perhaps the Laws have allowed the People within the Bounds of Law to make Petitions at least by their Representatives as well as private Significations to the foresaid purposes If that be a good Rule in Law which my Lord Coke mentions Extra Parliamentum nulla petitio est grata licet necessaria in parliamento nulla petitio est ingrata si necessaria 2. But this Priviledge is more perspicuous and ample in the People as they are represented in Parliament They are called together ad faciendum consentiendum touching Laws to be made ordinari de negotijs ante dictis of weighty Matters Concerning the King the State and Defence of the Kingdom and Church of England as the Writ speaks And the Sheriff is therein strictly charg'd to do his Duty lest through defect or by an improvident Choice dicta negotia infecta remanerent The greater Matters of the King Church and Kingdom remain undone Hence 't is necessary that a Wise Election be made and Discreet Knights Citizens and Burgesses be sent to Parliament where they are to use all their Judgment and Discretion in order to such Laws as may be beneficial to the Publick and consequently good and expedient And as none but Discreet Persons are therefore to be chosen so unless when chosen they may exert their Discretion and Judgment in Parliament they seem to be chosen to no great purpose I know the Learned Knight Sr. R. F. would improve those words ad faciendum consentiendum in Diminution of the Power of the House of Commons But if they be not expresly and in terminis called to Consult they seem to be so plainly enough in the consequence of these very words I dare not affirm what the Extent or Meaning of the word Faciendum is If the Meaning of it be only that they shall put the Laws in Practice methinks the word is mis-placed For should not they Consent to the Laws before they Do them Besides their sending Home again rather than their Calling to sit in Parliament seems rather to be fitted for that purpose viz. the Execution of the Laws Yea if they had nothing to do about making the Laws why should they be chosen or called up at all Why might not the whole Kingdom without so much Ceremony and Solemnity be obliged ad faciendum in this sence by a general Publication or Appointment of the Laws to be read in several parts of the Country as was anciently done Or lastly How comes it to pass that the KING in the Writ of Summons intimates that the dicta negotia the great Affairs for which they are called will remain undone if due Elections and Returns be not made But they are called also ad consentiendum to Consent to the Laws that shall be made Well but must not usually something be done by them in order to the making those Laws to which they are thus to consent whether it be the framing of Bills or Petitions I shall not determin But I have heard that our Laws are Ld-Coke usually grounded upon such Bills or Petitions and I have greater Authority for it than Sr. R. F. However they are called to Consent and if this be not in terminis to Consult it sufficeth if their Consent be necessary to the making of our Laws for then their Consent here doth not suppose the Laws already made but to be made For I know not that their Consent is ever signified as they are a House after the Laws are made they are usually Prorogu'd or Dissolved upon passing the Bills It is bold to say that ever the English Laws were made without the previous Consent of the People some way or other sufficiently expressed Leges
The same learned Author observes with me pag. 3. of his Book That the Dissenters are very prone on all Occasions to cry out against Imposing of these things as the Conditions of Communion but they say little of any weight or moment to shew it is utterly Vnlawful under the present Circumstances to yield Obedience or Submission to the things imposed But here I cannot forbear to wonder that the same Author that makes this Observation useth the same Weapon in Favour of Dissenters His main Point is this That Things Indifferent which may he changed and alter'd without Sin especially under our present circumstances ought not to be Impos'd by our Superiours as Conditions of Communion c. This is the Subject which he makes the Scope and Business of his Treatise Now tho' I intend not to enter upon this Argument yet I must note the unseasonable pressing it under our present Circumstances And I am bold to say it seems to be rather Clamour then Scruple Clamour without Reason and a plain abetting the Error he observes in others and all to draw on his Designed Condescention which yet no Body can grant him 1. For even those that made the Law for Conformity are themselves sub lege under that Law And none have Power out of Parliament not now in being to Alter the Law And tho' the same Persons that made the Law be still our Superiours they are not now our Legislators but only Doers or at most but Administrators of the Law already made and have no Power to Condescend in these Matters as his Phrase is Of this the Learned RECONCILER himself was aware tho' the Design of his Book would perswade to the contrary I therefore wonder saith he at the Wickedness and Injustice of those Men who clamour so much against them because such Condescentions are not immediately made i. e. because they do not change the Law which 't is not in their Power to do p. 9. 2. Yea as the Conformist cannot Condescend to the Dissenter by Altering the Laws so neither can he Meet him in the Abatement of his Conformity according to them without Breach of his Duty and becoming a Dissenter himself and a Transgressor of the Laws yea a Violator of his Engagements Promises and Oaths And if this Sentence be true what would our Dissenting Brethren have us to do The Case is plain If the things required be not sinful They may and Ought to come to us but we cannot there is a Great Gulf fixed I say we cannot come to them Certainly in our present Circumstances this is worthy their saddest Meditations 3. Hence give me leave to observe That supposing as our late Pleas for Condescention do suppose that the things required are Indifferent tho' Unnecessary the Face of the Controversie seemeth to look Otherwise than it did heretofore for indeed the great Argument betwixt us is quite inverted Before it was thus on their side when the Pretence was That they could not have Communion with us Without Sin You acknowledge the Things in Controversie are in themselves Indifferent alterable we believe they are Sinful Therefore we cannot Ascend to you but you May and Ought to Condescend to us and remove the Difference But now 't is quite otherwise on the Conformists side He now pleads You acknowledge the Matters struck at to be Indifferent though you like them not We say Tho' they are so in themselves yet the Use of them is by the Law c. made Necessary You may come to Us Without Sin We cannot Without Sin come to You. Let the Fault the Breach the Schism and all the Dread Consequences of it and Fears attending it be laid no more at the Conformists Door 4. To Conclude Let me beseech the Protestant-Reconciler seriously to reflect upon his late Book and consider Whether he hath pursued the True Point whereon our present Duty and Peace and Safety depends He hath very industrously labour'd to lay Grounds for a Happy Accommodation when we shall have a Parliament and Convocation But in the mean time where are we Our Condition is deplorable But what is the present Remedy Would not half this pains have bin better bestow'd to Perswade Dissenters that Vnion Submission to Authority and the doing of our duty is alwaies necessary and that we are bound in Conscience to attend Gods Publick Worship among us Established by Law seeing there 's nothing there required but what we may Lawfully Practice and that this is the only probable means in Reason Policy and Divinity to Scatter our fears defeat our Enemies and Secure us from Destruction Especially Considering we know not Certainly when we shall have a Parliament and we know less whether when we have a Parliament they will see reason in all that he hath said to Alter the Law for their Satisfaction And lastly that the question what the King and Parliament ought to impose doth not so much Concern us as what is our Duty to do 5. Yet I must not charge this our Reconciler with a total Omission of that necessary Point I have noted something already And in his pag. 58 59. we find him asking some Pious Seasonable and Argumentative Questions of our Dissenting Brethren which I heartily pray they would seriously weigh and then answer not in Word but in Deed and in Truth Thus he accosts them in the midst of his Many Arguments on their Behalf Here let it be noted saith he that those Arguments propounded from the Example and Sayings of our Saviour against the Imposing of Indifferent Things I say these Arguments fall many of them with more weight on the Dissenters provided they can shew no Law of God plainly Forbidding their Submission to these things For let me ask them in the Spirit of Meekness these few Questions Do they prefer Mercy before Sacrifice who will not submit to Rites and Circumstances or to the use of things no where forbidden in the Word to prevent Schism and all the Dreadfull Consequences of it but rather will cause their Superiours to judge them Scandalous Resisters of Authority and pertinatious Disturbers of the Church's Peace Are they Compassionate towards the Sheep according to our Lord's Example who rather will Refuse to become Labourers in the Harvest than Suhmit to these Little Things in order to their regular Performance of this Blessed Work Do they not Scandalize and Contribute unto the Ruin of CHRIST's Little Ones who do involve them in a wretched SCHISM on the Account of things which They may Lawfully Submit unto Do they not shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men who Forbid them to ENTER IN when they may Do they not Impose Heavy Burdens also who say to their Disciples Hear Not the COMMON PRAYER Receive not the SACRAMENT Kneeling suffer not your Children to be signed with the Sign of the CROSS communicate not with that Minister who wears a SURPLICE or with the Church which Imposeth any Ceremonies or any Constitutions but concerning the Time
THE Case of the Times DISCUSS'D Being a Serious Exercitation of two Cases grounded upon Romans 13. Vers 1 2 3 4 5. First How far we are bound to Obey when we are not Satisfied that the Laws are for our Good 2 d Whether Subjection implies more than not to Resist the Powers To which is added Some Remarkes upon a late Book Entituled The Protestant Reconciler By Fr. Fullwood D. D. in Exon. LONDON Printed for Jonathan Wilkins at the Starr in Cheapside next Mercers Chappel 1683. To the RIGHT REVEREND Father in God THOMAS Lord Bishop OF EXON My Good Lord YOur Lordship is very sensible that as Policy requires Obedience to the Laws for the Preservation of the Publique Peace So Religion especially the Christian requires That Obedience from a Principle of Conscience And I know your Lordship accounts it Your Honour to be a Minister of that Excellent Religion whose Zeal and Piety is so concern'd both by Your convincing and free Discourses upon all Occasions and by Your exceeding Constant and Exemplary Devotions to promote that Christian and Peaceable Principle into due Practice This also being the Chief End of the following Papers I have made Bold to send them forth under the Countenance of Your Great Name as well as to Acknowledge the many Personal Obligations I stand under by Your Lordships Favours If such a Conscientious Obedience to the Laws could be generally obtained among us how happy a Prospect would it give us However if our Dissenting Brethren cannot be satisfied of the Fitness of every thing that is injoyn'd or of the direct Obligation of Our Laws upon their Consciences my Prayer for them and our Israel is That they would consider and see Reason in the words of their great Friend the Protestant Reconciler p. 177. viz. It seems to be the Duty of Inferiours to Comply rather with the Commands of their Superiours tho' they conceive them Burthensome and Inconvenient then to administer Occasion to all those dreadful Evils both to Church and State of which we have and may have so sad Experience And O that God would grant as our Church prayes that they may both perceive and know what things they ought to do and also may have Grace and Power faithfully to fulfil the same I am My Lord Your Lordship 's Obliged and humbly Devoted Servant Fr. Fullwood THE Introduction DISSENTERS Reasons Not from the SINFULNESS but the INCONVENIENCY of the things required by LAW I Have often wonder'd that so many otherwise Sober and Ingenious Persons continue their Refusal to joyn with us in our Publique Worship and by their Ill Example Encourage Separation in the people to this day I shall not wholly impute it either to their Ignorance or Stubbornness or Interest but am willing to conceive that they have some Latent Principle upon which they imagin they support their Consciences and satisfie themselves in their Way of Disobedience I have studied to find out What this Principle should be It must lie in some Exception they have against our Divine Offices and I cannot imagin it can be any thing but either their supposed Sinfulness or Vnfitness 1. I do not think that they do really and in earnest believe or suspect our publique Worship to be directly Sinful for these Reasons because so many learned and pious Men have frequently and abundantly solved All Objections of that kind both as to Substance and Ceremony which I presume our considering Brethren have well weighed and approved as Satisfactory Especially seeing the old Puritan Nonconformists whose Steps they pretend to follow wrote so well and zealously even for the Necessity of our Peoples communicating in our Parocbial Service Yea consonant hereunto many of the more learned Nonconformists since the happy Restoration have openly and frankly Justified and Vindicated our Ordinary Publick Worship And one of their Great Men in his late Pleas for Peace or rather for Non conformity tho' he offers several Objections against its Lawfulness yet as I take it he Disowns them as for himself and puts them upon Others that do or may so object And indeed at other times he has argu'd strenuously for all parts of our publick Worship to which he Conforms himself tho' some are positive That His Continuing to Preach among the Dissenters is an unaccountable Patronage of their Separation Besides it cannot be unknown and unobserved That most of those Non-conformists that have given us any Reason of their Desertion have said nothing against the Lawfulness of our Communion but have urged only such things as are in the Conditions of our Ministration an nothing to our Peoples Communion Some could not renounce the Covenant Some could not give their Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in the Book meaning some Proposition and Computation of no practical Nature or Concern to the Peoples ordinary Attendance in our Parish Churches Others scrupl'd at Re-ordination some perhaps liked not Canonical Obedience and others some of the Thirty Nine Articles and its possible some were offended at All these things but what are all these to our Lay-Communion And therefore by the way those angry Persons that exclaim against the Hardness of the Terms of our Communion from such things as these are in my Opinion much to blame as well as overseen seeing all these things are extrinsical and not so much as Accidents of our Ordinary Communion and are only Conditions of the Exercise of the Ministry to which no man is bound The Substance and Matter of our Common-Prayers is beyond this Exception of Vnlawfulness and hath ever been so accounted by all but Persons infected by Brownism and indeed almost every Phrase or Sentence in them are either express Scripture or the evident Sence of some Particular Passage in the Word of God If any thing will bear a Dispute 't is the Sign of the Cross at Baptism yet this their great Pleader himself denyeth not the Lawful use of as a Teaching Sign and it is no other by the very words of the Administration in the Common-Prayer-Book Besides What is the Use of the Cross to so many as have No Children Or to others when they have no occasion to be particularly concerned Or indeed to any but to the Administrator What is this to the common or ordinary course of God's Worship amongst us Can any be so weak as to think they are thus Excused for their Constant Absence or Total Separation from us As for Kneeling at the other Sacrament if a Man should tell me That He thinks it Sinful I would not believe him All the Dissenters that had Offices when the late Test came forth requiring them to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Church of England that is Kneeling gave a Plain Experiment That they did not think or suspect them to be Vnlawful for they did certifie That they had So Received it neither did I ever hear That their Friends were much Offended at their such Advantagious Conformity Besides as
cum fuerint approbatae consensu utentium sacramento Regum confirmatae mutari non possunt nec distrui sine communi consensu consilio eorum c. Bracton li. 1. c. 2. Whence the Name Parliament implies Parlizing as J. Jenkins notes And accordingly Spelman's Definition of a Parliament is Parliamentum est solemne colloquium omnium ordinum Regni Authoritate Regis ad consulendum statuondumque de negotijs Regni indictum There is no Act of Parliament but must have the Consent of the Lords the Commons and the Royal Assent as it appeareth by Records and our Books Coke of Parliaments 'T is certainly now too late to say Laws may be made Without the Consent of the Commons in Parliament Is it not affirmed to be the Glory of the English Liberty that no Laws bind us but what are made by our selves See over the Stile of our Statutes anciently they seem to have been made upon the Petition and of late with the Advice and Authority of Parliament In Ancient Time all Acts of Parliament were in the Form of Petitions as my Lord Coke observeth but both imply an Antecedent Consent in the People Yet tho' I like not the mentioned Knight's Reasoning or Design very well give me leave by the way to remark that his Learned Smart and Bold Antagonist seem'd somewhat transported to another Extream when his Argument tempted him to make a Bill of Exclusion of the King and the Bishop out of the Fifth Commandment For the Decalogue hath been hitherto taken as the Summary of the Moral Law to which as to their Fountain-Heads all Moral Duties are reducible and consequently all the Moral Parts and Precepts in the Scriptures besides are but Expositions of those Ten Words And I cannot remember that any other Person doth and I am sure I cannot my self reduce Honour and Obedience to the King or the Priest so often injoyned in the Word of God to any of the Ten Commandments but to the Fifth at least so directly and intelligibly as to that But to return and apply this Discourse If the Consent of the Commons be necessary in order to the making our Laws this Consent is supposed to be rational and to be expressed with due Liberty therefore they must Debate and at least Consult with themselves and if occasion require Confer also and as it were Consult with the Lords And consequently 't is confest they are to use their Judgments about the Lawfulness and Fitness of the Matter of Laws And they are therefore intrusted from all parts of the Kingdom to see that such Laws and no other are to be made but what are expedient and for the publique Good or as they are excellently described and limitted by Isidor in the place so much celebrated by my Lord Coke and commended as a Rule for all Parliaments to follow Erit lex honesta justa possibilis secundum naturam secundum consuetudinem patriae temporique conveniens necessaria utilis manifesta quoque ne aliquid per obscuritatem incautum captione contrudat nullo privato commodo sed pro communi civium utilitate conscripta ideo in ipsa constitutione ista consideranda sunt quia cum leges institutae fuerint non erit liberum arbitrium judicare de ipsis sed oportebit judicare secundum ipsas SECT VI. When Laws are once made we ought to rest satisfied with their Conveniency Many Reasons for it I Know not that any thing can be added to the Conditions of Good Laws which are given us by Isidore These we see are to be considered in ipsa constitutione while the Laws are making that is by the Legislators Whether they be convenient pro commune civium utilitate or for the publique good But when they are once instituted there is left no liberum arbitrium no liberry to judge of them but it behoves every one to judge according to them and how to observe them When the Laws are once made the People at large among whom the Parliament Men themselves when dissolv'd are to be numbred are to acquiesce in them and the Conveniency of them and to put them in practice else they are made to no purpose And whatever Liberty men may naturally assume to judge of the Fitness of such Laws as they are Citizens and Subjects in this their Civil Capacity they are not to be Judges but Doers of the Law Do not we choose Discreet and Wise Men and send them to Parliament for this very purpose to consider what is Expedient to be made a Law Do not we devolve our own Power of Judgment in this Case upon our Representatives and trust them with it by our very Election If we give them not this we give them nothing Yea we have thereby put them into the Place and made it their Office and Duty to Judge for us And the Wise men of the Kingdom by our Act and Consent are together to consult what is best and have thereby infinite Advantages to judge of publique Conveniencies beyond the rest of the people scattered up and down the Kingdom Besides it is an evident part both of the Natural and Civil Honour due to our Law-makers and Rulers to submit our Judgments to their Determinations in matters of meer Order and Conveniency and an absolute Necessity for Peace and the publick Good obligeth us to it As to our Case When the Laws are made our Law-makers whom we intrusted for that purpose have already judged them Convenient Now what Reason have we to except against them if they be not against the Law of God If you say as some do the Civil Authority hath made Laws in the Matters of Religion 't is well known they are also injoyn'd by the Spiritual Power If others are offended at the Ecclesiastical the same things are required by the Civil Laws And if one of these Powers be not thought Sufficient you have both and indeed in each of them you have your selves For according to our excellent Constitution you your selves have determined in your Representatives both in the Parliaments and in the Convocation what is Convenient both in Church and State And if any are dissatisfied with the Constitution and would have that Altered to please a Humour they are scarce tolerable All the Commons in the Realm are represented in Parliament by the Knights and Burgesses Coke's Instit p. 4 158. And Sr. Thom. Smith saith Every English Man is intended to be there present either in Person or by Procuration and the Consent of the Parliament is taken to be every Man's Consent And no Laws are made but in this sence they are said to be Quas vulgus elegerit according to the Old Law If you say The Rulers ought to judge what is expedient in making the Laws this is nothing if the Subject hath Power yet to judge them inexpedient and to refuse to obey Say what shall give the binding Sentence as to practice the Law or private Opinion That is plainly
Who shall Govern the Rulers of the People For certainly they govern that rule practise and finally determine what is fit to be done whether they be Children or Parents Servants or Masters Wives or Husbands or Subjects or Princes If you say The Subject ought to yield for Wrath's sake this placeth Government only in strength but then where is Conscience where is Christianity Is it not like Christian Meekness and Peaceable Subjection and Self-denyal and the Doctrine of the Gospel to conclude that God hath provided for the Order Quiet of the World he hath therefore stated things necessary himself and for things of lesser moment and Expedience he hath ordained Government to prevent or end all Controversie The sum is the Judgment of Discretion about God's and Man's Laws And the Nature End and Use of Government if well considered may effectually convince us that so far as Man's Laws contradict not God's tho' we should imagine something in them not so convenient as we could desire yet they are to be submitted unto as the Rule of our Practice and in Conscience of Gods Ordinance and Command and of the publique Good and our Duty to be obey'd And we are to rest satisfied with this that our Laws are made by the Higher Powers who are of God ordained of God the Ordinance of God and our Rulers and Governours and such as we our selves chose to make Laws for us and the Ministers of God and for our good too viz. for publique Order Safety and Quiet Wherefore we must needs be subject not only for Wrath but Conscience sake SECT VII Inexpediency of Law overballanc'd expedient to Obey YET once more Suppose we could allow the people at large to judge the Laws already constituted and to have power left them to discern their inexpediency and to suspend their Obedience in such a Case This still acknowledgeth the matter it self to be indifferent and the practice only in such Cases not so fit as we would desire Now it is a clear Rule that that is so inconvenient or inexpedit may be found by a considering and discerning Judgment upon the whole to be expedient And the matter to change its quality if over-ballanc'd by a greater Inconvenience on the other side as Lead it self becomes light when a greater weight is in the other Scale This Rule is so undoubted that it sometimes extends to things positively commanded by God himself For when a Matter morally necessary shall be neglected for the practice of a positive Duty of God's own Worship the present Practice of such Duty becomes not necessary yea sinful in the Judgment of our Saviour and great Law-giver Go and learn what that meaneth I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice I prefer Mercy tho' it be but to thy Neighbour's Ox to my own Service yea in that case I prohibit attendance on my self and my own Worship I will not have Sacrifice Apply this seriously and admit the Law requires something that in it self and singly considered is inexpedient Is there nothing in thy refusing Obedience more inconvenient and of more Evil Consequence than that supposed Inconvenience which the Law requires What if our not yielding to an Inexpedient in the Law may indanger if not prevent and frustrate the Real Good of God's Ministry and Government we so much contend for and bring greater positive Mischiefs upon us Now hath not God given us the Judgment of Discretion to ballance Inconveniences to weigh uprightly one against another and to judge and determine what is best and safest to be done And indeed to admit of the less Inconvenience as reasonable and wise men for the prevention of greater 1. To help us in this Comparison let us First consider that the Law is to be understood to be common and general and the Inconvenience to concern all others as well as our selves And if so Why should not all others observe and boggle at the Inconvenience as well as our selves and then judge wisely what will be the Consequence 2. Secondly 'T is a Rule that seems not to be question'd by any that have with any tolerable Learning disputed this Point that when the Law requires that which we judge inconvenient if not forbidden by the Law of God it is not to be disobeyed if that Inconvenience cannot be Omitted sine scandalo vel contemptu without Scandal or Contempt The Reason is because the Scandal of our Brother as St. Paul teacheth us and the Contempt of Authority is more inexpedient than the Practice of a bare Inexpedient required by Law But such Disobedience in a Matter of meer Inexpediency must needs be notoriously guilty of both 1. It cannot be without Scandal to others For such our Disobedience must of necessity Scandalize others especially if Conscience be pretended because it naturally tempts and induceth others at least if we have any influence upon them either by our Parts or Reputation or Interest or Authority or any other Obligation to break the Laws after our Example as is too too manifest by daily Experience 2. And for Contempt of Authority we can hardly be guilty of more or greater than by refusing to Obey the Laws because we judge them Unfit or Inexpedient For if we forbear to speak Evil of Dignities this is certainly to Despise Dominions And declares openly that we account our Rulers Weak or False Ignorant or Malicious i. e. Knaves or Fools that made the Laws 3. Yea this Principle if pursued and practised is so highly injurious to Government it self both wayes both by Scandal and Contempt that it plainly dissolves the Power and Obligations of all Laws for none can secure us that what is said against one or two Laws that they are inconvenient shall not be charged on the rest It makes the Prudence of the People the only Law to themselves for thus a Law to them is no Law if they judge it inexpedient Therefore it sets the Conscience at so wild a Liberty that when it shall be improved a little further by fcrupulous People it must needs end in perfect Ataxy and a general Distraction 4. Nay hath it not already sadly divided us loosned all Duty and Respect to Governments wasted the Conscience of due Obedience and enervated our Laws and disturbed the Order and broken the Quiet and Peace both of our Church and State And do we not see a Black Cloud arising hence and gathering upon the Face of our Prosperity darkning the Age threatning all the Good we expect from God's Ministers and even exposing our Constitution it self to all imaginable Danger Yea which is more sad yet doth it not seem to Ecclipse and Obscure the Brightness and Glory of our Profession and hazard the very Light of our Gospel and the Removal and Loss of the best Religion once restored and often preserved with Wonders of Providence from us and our Posterity forever and the Re-admission of such a Religion as we most fence against and as you will find but untowardly consisting
either with Liherty Property or Piety Consider it sadly for if this should happen both we and the Children unborn may have Cause hereafter and too late to Curse such Unwarrantable Nicenes and Pernicious Scrupulosity 5. Lastly If all these Mischiefs are at too much distance and we cannot see so far off Let me speak home to you that yet indulge to your selves this Groundless Disobedience Methinks your own present Inconveniencies by it should be put into the Scale Doth not it render you obnoxious to Law and Justice You perhaps have hitherto escaped but are you not liable every day to have your Peace and Quiet and Possessions disturbed Doth not your Disobedience to the Law expose your Persons and Families as well as others to the Penalties of Law Neither can you well expect it should be otherwise if you continue Obstinate and refuse to obey it For our Rulers are Ministers of God to us for Good and ordained on purpose to prevent the fore-mentioned Mischiefs and therefore they must be a Terror to Evil-doers that is all that violate and regard not their Laws and Revengers of Wrath upon all that do Evil especially such Evil as if not suppressed may undo all Yea are they not and do they not think themselves bound in Conscience both of their Trust and Duty to God and Men in Conscience of yours and the publique Good not to suffer all to run to Confusion Perhaps you take it to be in your Choice whether you will Obey or Suffer Deceive not your â—elves God Commands you as well as Man and certainly God's Command reacheth the Conscience whatever you dream of Man's And you must answer to God as well as to Man for your groundless Disobedience especially when by it you thro' away or hazard the Blessings and Talents he hath put into your Hands and intrusted you withal This is ungratefully to Despise the Riches of his Goodness God and Nature have given you a Law of Self-preservation and you have no Liberty to destroy your selves by neglecting your Duty to your self and affronting his Providence No Man is so absolutely his own but God the King and Country his Relations and Dependents have some Interest in him Men that have Estates and Families and Parts and Capacities fitting them for their's and the publick Service may not causlesly throw them away or dispose of them but when and as God calls for them And if the Law requires nothing of them which God forbids they cannot for any other Satisfaction suffer their Estates to be wasted their Wives and Children to be distressed their Lives to be sowred and obscured and their Parts and Capacities rendred Useless to God their King and Country by the Choice of Punishment for their Disobedience Active Obedience so far as lawfully you can is necessary even from the Word of God Himself were there no other Argument for it but that of Wrath viz. Escaping Punishment For we must needs be subject even for Wrath's sake and the very Argument from Wrath obligeth the Conscience Now all these considered let me beseech you to reason this Point calmly by your selves You have had the Inconveniencies of your Disobedience laid against some things inexpedient as you suppose required in our Laws And you say you have a Judgment of Discretion hath not God given you this Judgment to weigh these one against another And do you not discern the Difference between them Certainly the Matter being supposed in it self Indifferent that is not any wayes forbidden by God the less inexpedient is eligible and to be chosen before the greater Yea as you have seen 't is comparatively expedient for us to obey the Laws that we think inexpedient for the avoiding those greater Mischiefs of Disobedience And upon the whole I can hardly imagine that you should still think it Fit for a small Satisfaction to a Humour or a Scruple to incur the guilt of so many great and Real Evils both upon your selves and the whole Kingdom Let us therefore so mannage our selves that our Rulers may be Ministers of God to us for Good indeed which must be obtained by a MEAMS contrary to the Cause of the aforesaid Evils our unaccountable DISOBEDIENCE That is By a Peaceable and Cheerful and Conscientious OBEDIENCE to them and to the Laws I speak as unto WISE MEN Judge what I have said and the GOD of PEACE give you Understanding The Sum of the Answer is this The Apostle's Words as here insisted on First allow what your selves condemn RESISTANCE of our Rulers Besides you take little of no Notice of that which is Argumentative in them and place the Force of his Argument where he did not intend it For the Necessity of our Duty lies in the first words of the Proposition HE IS the MINISTER OF GOD and the later words TO THEE FOR GOOD are rather a Motive to our Obedience Further should we yield that if the Laws be not FOR GOOD the Obligation to Obedience ceaseth yet you plainly mistake the Good which the Apostle intendeth for it is not the GOOD of the Matter of the Laws but of the EXECUTION of them and thus his Argument is directly Against and not for Disobedience Again should we yet allow that the GOOD of the Laws themselves is here meant yet 't is only the Good of Publick Convenience of which the RULERS and not Private Men are the proper Judges Lastly Suppose it were fit that Private Men might Finally Judge of the Conveniency Inconveniency of Publick Laws yet they are to Judge equally of the Convenience and Inconvenience of DISOBEDIENCE And if you Judge Righteous Judgment you will certainly find that the Inconveniencies of DISOBEDIENCE do exceedingly overballance the supposed Inconvenience of the Laws And consequently for the avoiding those greater Evils both Publique and Private that follow upon your Disobedience Obedience to the Laws that you judge inconvenient in such a Case becomes Eâ—pedient and Good and even by your own Argument NECESSARY All which I hope hath been sufficiently proved to the Satisfaction of the Sober and Peaceable Dissenters Quest II. Whether to be Subject in Ro. 13. be only not to Resist the Powers or also Actively to Obey their Laws IN their new Politicks some seem to defend their Disobedience after this manner The Apostle say they requires Subjection Arg. indeed but what is that to Active Obedience He tells us he means by Subjection Non-resistance and we abhor Resistance though we do not Obey This is the best Argument of the modest and most moderate Dissenters and I hope they intend it for our Security But certainly more is intended in the Text. I would not be Uncharitable or suppose that the wiser and better sort of our Dissenting Brethren themselves intend it so far as thereby to enervate the Apostle's Obligation to all Active Obedience For indeed some of them seem to explain themselves otherwise Yet because this is often hinted and may prove Prejudicial to Government from
God 6. Sixthly This Argument is repugnant to the very Nature and End of all Law and Government Was it ever the Intention or Reason of a Law either Negative or Positive that it should not or need not be observed Yea the very Threats and Penalties of the Law that we pretend to submit unto intend we should fulfil the Law and not suffer the Punishment and for that very purpose they are annexed to the Law And to the same purpose are the Rewards of Obedience proposed in a Law and the Ministers of it are sent for the Punishment of Evil Doers and the Praise of those that do Well That is those that perform what the Law accounts WELL and avoid what the Law reckones EVIL-DOING or DISOBEDIENCE And as this is the End of the Sanction of the Law in the Threats and Promises so 't is the very Reason of the preceptive part or the Command it self thus When God himself gave forth his own Laws his first and chief Intention was that Men should Obey those Laws by doing what he requires and not doing what he forbids therein and certainly not only by Not Resisting him in this strict Sense of Resistance the Argument insists upon And thus doubtless the Ministers of God after his Example in all their Laws intend primarily to have them observed and God that enjoyns our Subjection to them requires that we Obey them as his Ministers in the same method that he requires Obedience to Himself That is By Doing what their Laws require and not only by not Resisting or REBELLING against them 7. The Argument also prevents or frustrates the great use and benefit of all Government That is as the Apostle notes the Publique Good He is the Minister to us for Good But now suppose we should do all the Evil that is forbidden in the Laws neglect to do all the Good towards God the King our Neighbour and our selves That the Laws require only we do not resist Authority what Good do you think shall we reap from Gods Ministry Will Non-resistance only will that secure us from all that Evill and Compensate for all that good 't is beyond the Sphear of Imagination 8. But to put the matter quite out of Countenance the Apostle hath sufficiently explain'd himself in the very Text. And we are assured from his own words that he required more by Subjection than this Non-resistance for he hath given some plain instances even of Active Obedience and they are prescribed also as parts of that Subjection which he obligeth us unto Wherefore saith he we must needs be subject for this cause pay you tribute also Yea render to all their dues especially to Authority Trihute Custom Fear Honour and owe no man especially to Authority Tribute Custom Fear Honour and owe no man any thing and are not these more then bare Non-resistance 9. Therefore lastly we must conclude this is but a Novell phancy and refuge of Figg-leaves to hide the Naked And that by Subjection here we must understand Active Obedience in the primary sence of the word and intention of the Text as Beza's note is Subjici i. e. Obedire Magistratui ejusque legibus edictis to be subject that is to Obey the Magistrate and his Laws and Edicts And as Grotius adds usque ad aras Another learned man upon the place as fully to our Purpose glosseth non dicit Obediat honorem exhibeat c. hae partes quidein sunt sed totum est Subjectio Paraeus i. e. The Apostle doth not say Obey and Honour c. These are parts indeed but the whole is Subjection And the Apostle himself in another place expresly explains his Subjection by Obedience Be Subject to Principality's c. and Obey Magistrates Tit. 3. 1. Put them in mind or Admonish them to be Subject to Principalities and Powers and to Obey Magistrates that is to shew their Subjection by their Obedience Ut imperata faciant Grot. And shewing their Obedience by doing the things that are commanded being ready or disposed as it follows to every good work or Duty required by their Governours For as that great Man infers q. d. qui bene honesti vivere non recusant libenter parebunt Magistratibus quippe qui ad humani generis conservationem ordinati sunt that is those that do not refuse to live well and Honestly will freely and readily Obey Magistrates seeing they are ordained for the conservation of Mankind i. e. are Ministers of God to us for Good THE Postscript REFLECTION UPON THE Protestant-Reconciler SInce these Papers were in the Press a Great Friend of the Dissenters was brought to me called The Protestant Reconciler The Book is a pleading for Condescention in things Indifferent And indeed 't is written with more Exactness Sobriety and Strength then any that I have met with upon that Argument In this Book I find some Passages let fall by the By that are pertinent to my purpose and of Present Use and Advantage to both sides These we should take notice of But for the main Drift and Scope of it we need not at present be much concerned about it for it seems calculated for another Time and perhaps for other Persons viz. a Parliament First He assures us he intends to plead more stiffly and he hopes with more Conviction for Submission to the Constitutions of the Church of England then he hath done here for Condescention pa. 59. Preface He further telleth them roundly That tho' it could be Lawful for the Dissenter to Refuse Obedience to thâ— things imposed yet if it be not absolutely his Duty so to do he cannot be Excused for neglecting what is so expedient for the Peace Unity and Welfare of the Church and therefore highly Edifying pag 149. of the Book Yea he adds If Dissenters do not think it better that all the Evils of Disobedience and Schism should ensue then that they should Comply or bear with these Few Ceremonies then must they in these matters Submit to the commands of their Superiours p. 22. Thus we have his Testimony that if we know no Sinfulness in the things required as he doth not we are in Conscience and Prudence Bound to Conform And that the moderate Dissenters do not believe any such Sinfulness he observes also as I have done at least of late that is not insisted on I hope they are better satisfied in the Point now then formerly for the Unreasonableness and Danger of Imposing indifferent and unnecessary Things bears the great stress of all their modern Pleas and Arguments as my Author witnesseth I am perswaded saith he in my Conscience that such Considerations which He had noted out of Mr Baxter's Book taken from heads distinguished from Sinfulness do more alienate the Minds of Men from that Submission which is due to our Governours and from communion with them then all the Arguments they have or can produce against the Lawfulness of any of the Rites now practised in the Church pag. 329. Again