living in the defiance of it The instance I have says he is of the defiance of a law in which some men live This word defiance therefore he hath up three or foure times besides the cotation in the margent and bidding us mark the word But I pray why must the Waggoner that every day transgresses the law concerning his Waggon or any other the like instance be accounted with this man only to live in the transgression of that law and the Non-conformist in his non observance of the Oxford act be adjudged to live in the defiance of it Alas who does not see here into what a pitiful shifting case he is driven or who does not perceive what is worse that is the animosity pevishness or overbeâ—tness to speak with candour of the manâ— mind against the Non-conformist which does hinder him the coming off here with that ingenuity as he should do which is by confession of several of his imprudent speeches and craving pardon for the intemperance he hath used But in the last place there are still degrees of sin and the man that breaks other laws may not be so deeply guilty as he that lives in the breach of the act at Oxford Let us see then what he can alledge for this The more needful a Magistrate judges a thing to be done or avoided or the more his will is set upon it the greater or less is the sin of him who breaks such a Law Now he argues from the Preface and the Penalty of the Oxford act how much the will of the law-giver is set upon the observation of that act unto which I answer besides that Dr. Taylor doth toll us that the greatness of the penalty doth sometimes show the smalness of a thing that is forbidden as thaâ— which else would not be regarded and not the haniousness of the transgression it does appear that the will of the law givers in that act was set upon the Non-conformist taking the oath there prepared as that they would have enforced them to by so great and present a danger and was the thing which seemed to them so apt to prevent the evil supposed in the preface when as for their living within five miles of a corporation otherwise we cannot think the minds of the Majority to be at all engaged in it Now this Debater should have endeavoured to give the Non-conformist satisfaction in referrence to his taking the Oath if he would have served the State according as the will of the law-givert were then set but this was a task which he hath declined although he was put upon it and directed to their objections in the defence of the proposition There is somthing after this which may be said that though this distinction or degrees of sins will stand him in no advantage for the opposing my determination or justifying his censure of the Non-conformist to be no good Christian yet may it be of use to him to alleviate the harshness of his judgement in the main that human laws do oblige the Conscience so as without discrimination he that observes them not does sin Hence when he proposes the case of a law-giver enjoyning a thing to some particular good for the publick and it appears that he is mistaken this Debater does continue still such an obedient Soul has he above others that though he be not bound to be of the lawgivers judgement yet does he take himself bound he means bound in Conscience to follow his will even while it were better for the publick it were other wife or dained There are casts we know sometimes wherein by the change of things and occasions as in Seiges that which was for the publick good does suddenly turn to its hurt In such instances we are not to obey a law sayes Aquinas which Dr. Taylor hath noted and there is no doubt to me in the Case where the lawgiver is mistaken in a matter the like reason ought to prevaile But if he be thus resolved let us know how the degrees of sin will help him out at a need Let me suppose a poor man who is render in his Conscience and fears God coming to this reverend Person and telling him this case His Grand-father got aâ—â—â—â—ttle mony and built him a small Cottage on such a waste ground his Father lived in it and bestowed more cost of it and hath left it him where he and his wife and children have lived comfortably uppon his labour but now it hath so hapned that being the other day at his Masters where he wrought he heard one read a certain book called the Friendly Debate where he perceived about the very begining that the Author was of the mind that a man could not live in the breach of the Law of the Land and be a good Christian and he hath understood long by his Father that it is against the Law for any cottage to be erected withot four acres of ground belonging to it Upon this he being afraid of his condition in regard of his open living in a known wilful transgression of a statute of the Realm wherein he cannot think but that it is a very plain defiance of a-Law as that book speaks he is come to him to see what he can offer for the reâ—eiving his Conscience If this author here deal roundly and plainly with the man he must tell him that there is no remedy but he must pull down his house and he and his wife and children be turned to beging rather then by his living in a known sin without amendment he should be damned It he deal otherwise then he may tell him that though indeed every transgression of a human Law be sin yet there are degrees of sin and this sin of his is a lesse sin then that of the Non-Conformist living in the breach of the Oxford Act and therefore he should be of good comfort and go home in peace I pray now will this indeed serve a Conscientious man It is nothing to him that another's sin is greater then his he is to look to his own soul and if he lives in the least sin with full knowledge and consent and hardens his heart in it he cannot see how he should be saved So that unless you satisfie him and that upon good ground that every transgression of a Law is not sin and then shew him how his transgression is but such a one you are not able to stand him in any stead in his Case I remember a text of our Lord which I haue often thought upon that by a mans words he shall be justified and by his words he shall be condâ—mâ—ed The â—harises were men very holy in their profession and did tye very heavy burthens upon others but when they were to perform the same themselves they were it is like backward enough our saviour Christ therefore meets with them for these shews without reality and words without performance Verily I say unto you that for every Idle word a man shall
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
give unto darkness though I acknowledge his sufficiency otherwise even weakness that may be felt In the third place he wont allow my little comment on Paul The Scripture sayes the Magistrate is Gods Minister to us for good Very true and the Apostle makes that an argument why we should be obedient to him because it is for our benefit But this Casuist turns the words another way and makes them an outlet to disobedience by taking that to include an exception to the general precept of subjection which is in truth nothing but a reason to enforce it By this passage and such as this I take my conjecture of the happiness of this mans expression which makes what he sayes very often to look considerable when if it be reflected upon with more thoughts but that this Man himself tells the Apologist somewhere that he is no melancholly Man it signifies nothing If there be any thing substantial in these words it must hold if it he put into others and then must this be denyed that when the Apostle tells us the authority the Magistrate hath from God is for the peoples good we may not argue thence that he hath no auâ—hority from God for their hurt But this arguing is good and therefore this passage is but words For indeed is there any man that serves not Leviâ—than but God will maintain that the Magistrate hath any auâ—hority committed to him of God but for the publick benefit Let this person take heed he turns not God into the Devil and destroyes all If he dare not maintain that then whatsoever is commanded against the publick benefit hath no authority to bind the conscience and it will be in vain for him to talk idly of the danger he apprehends from my determination which hath none in it when if he look not better to himself he must be upon the justifying Tyrannâ— and bring ruine upon the World Again suppose we build nothing on the very Text this is a principle in the law of nature as câ—eaâ—ly written in mans heart as that he is a sociable creature to wit that the end of Government and Laws are for the good of the community and consequently that there should be none but for that end From hence then that the good of the community being the supream Law as the general and ultimate end of whatsoever is commanded it must irrefragable follow that whatsoever Law is made or is to be made it must be over ruled by this supream and have its obligatory power originally from thence We know in all Laws or any other things in the world the inferior must give place to the greater or to the chief God requires sacrifices and mercy both are his Laws it these interfare mercy must be exercised and sacrifice binds not It is no plainer in the earth that the elements give way from their own natures to serve the World then that the greater or chief obligation must vacate the less I might fill a side with instances if any else could not do it Whereas this matter then is written with a sunbeam on the heart of man and the Apostle hath an intimation of it it is but very sit and agreeable to reason that we fetch a comment on the sex from that book he hath touched that is the book of nature or this natural Light which will convince every man that the publick good being the end of society there can be no power from God but for that end Again it is true the Apostle from hence argues for subjection and he may say that he does not argue for any thing else But what then when Paul argues one thing from this truth may not another argue from thence also something too St. Paul argues well the Magistrate is the Minister of God for our good therefore we must be subject And Dr. Taylor argues well and therefore he hath none of his authority for other purposes or that Law that conduceth not to the publick good cannot bind the conscience because it hath none of Gods authority Moreover the Apostle argues for subjection and that indefinite but I say he argues not nor may be construed to argue for obedience indefinite and therefore howsoever these words tinckle there is no doubt but we may and must make an outlet from these and the like Texts that in some cases of the Magistrates commands we may not think our selves bound to obey in point of Conscience though in regard of non-resistance and subjection there is no disobedience does follow in the case We say not that this passage of the Apostle doth include an exception to subjection for that is Universall and indefinite but we can say it must include an exception to indefinite or Universal obedience that is as to all the Magistrates commands because there may be many of them wicked unjust or morally evil unto which we are not bound and consequently say I nor to such as are civilly so In the fourth place we have this passage wherein appears the greatest weight A Law is not meerly the signification of the Magistrates judgement what is good but the declaration of his will that we do it and God having given him his authority to command us this declaration carries with it an obligatory vertue to bind us to the execution of his will under the pain of sin As for this The declaration of the will of the Law-giver does indeed immediately bind the outward Man against disobedience by resisting or to whatsoever is contrary to subjection that is it binds us Politically but as for doing the thing out of conscience that is to be bound morally I like well that this learned Man hath delivered himself so judiciously as to put in that which is the true only ground of all the obligation that the Conscience can be capable of under the command of Man and which does administer therefore the solution to what he offers I answer then to that branch which he hath of Gods having given the Magistrate his authority and we say that God hath given the Magistrate no authority to command any thing but for the common good which is a truth for which I need not again quote Taylor or Hooker as I remember well that I might or twenty learned Schoolmen perhaps and others to this purpose but that it were not worth my time and trouble to go to their books Seeing there is indeed scarce any truth can shine more clearly from the Light of Nature and the end of policy And the Law of nature must be acknowledged the foundation of all Laws and the measure of their obligation I do therefore advance here this argument which I think is a stone that cannot be removed and it is the Sum of my determination Whatsoever is not agreeable to the will of God or carries not with it Gods authority cannot bind the Conscience because the Conscience hath an absolute and immediate dependence on the will of God and his will is the
〈◊〉 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
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
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