Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	according_a	judge_v	law_n	4,033	5	5.2533	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40705	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, 2nd, whether subjection more than not to resist powers : to which is added some remarks upon a late book entituled The Protestant reconciler / by Fr. Fullwood ...	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1683 (1683)	Wing F2497; ESTC R33315	30,137	166

Law be Evil per se at least so evidently against God's Law as the Command of Obedience therein is evident the Subject is bound to judge it Evil and against God's Law and to Obey God rather than Man As Tol. in loc Ut si aliud jubet proconsu sic si aliud Imperator aliud Imperator obediendum est Imperatori aliud Deus jubeat c. Man's Laws whose Matter is against God's Law as St. Aug. are really No Laws and cannot obliege us but the Reason of it ought to be weighed It is not properly or immediately because such Laws are against the publick good as the Argument supposeth this indeed ought to be the End of all Laws but the Formality of the Evil of Laws lies in their Contrariety to God's Laws That chiefly makes them sinful And they are therefore void and not binding because God hath a prior Obligatiou upon us by his own Law contrary thereunto who is in the first place to be obey'd But if the Law of our Prince upon the reason of a prior Obligation cannot bind us much less can a Law we unwarrantably put upon our selves though it be the Solemn League and Covenant 3. As to the second kind 't is also agreed that God doth not allow any Legislators to impose and require any thing in their Laws that is inexpedient and not conducing really to publique good tho' it be not directly contrary to the Word of God for they are intrusted with Salus Populi and the good of the publique is the only End of all Government Quod necessarium non habet conjunctionem cum fine publici comodi non potest praecipe lege humana Suarez But impious and inconvenient have not the same Latitude neither can we safely argue from one to the other Indeed every thing that is impious is inconvenient but not e contra Laws whose Matter is impious cannot bind us are indeed No Laws But it doth not follow that Laws in some respect inconvenient are not to be observed when made tho' they ought not to have been made or ought to be altered The Reason is because the Matter of such inconvenient Laws may not be against the Law of God God may not have before concerned himself with it in specie one way or other but hath left it to his Ministers amongst indifferent things undetermined And tho' they are Men and may err in the Application of them and not observe exactly Isidore's Rule Lex erit conveniens c. Yet it doth not follow these Laws lose their Force or the Ruler his Office but that he is the Minister of God still 4. Now we are arrived at the very Question Who is to be the Determining Judge in the Case of meer Expediency and in this case how far the Subject is bound to acquiesce and obey Indeed some have objected the Unlawfulness and others the Doubtfulness of some Matters in our own Laws But these have been abundantly answered and baffled over and over again by very many Pious and Learned Men especially Bishop Sanderson and Dr. Faukner therefore in those two Cases I refer my Reader that desires Satisfaction to those Excellent Authors The only considerable Doubt that I find amongst some of our subtilest Dissenters is touching things Inexpedient and as I said our Question here is who shall finally Judge of these To which I betake my self SECT IV. Who is the Proper Judge of the Expediency of the Laws THE Question is Who shall Judge whether the Laws be Expedient or not the Rulers or the People I mean so to Judge as to determine whether they are fit to be observed or not Obj. On the Peoples behalf it is urged That they have a Iudgment of Discretion by which they ought to judge of the Reasonableness of their own Actions and consequently of the Laws that require their Obedience Answ 'T is confess'd a Judgment of Discretion is the Right and Liberty of all Mankind Yet this Liberty of Judgment is two-fold either Natural and at large or Civil as bounded and restrain'd and limited by our relation to our Rulers and Society and their Concern and Interest in us I have a Liberty at large to go to LONDON or not to go thither when I please but if I have promised to come thither at such a day and not before my Liberty of going thither is restrained by that Civil Obligation I have put upon my self To apply it Every man doubtless hath Liberty Reason and Power to judge of the Law as it is or as he apprehends it and indeed it seems impossible he should do otherwise i. e. he must think as he thinks So that if the Law be Evil and he know it to be so he must so judge of it if it be only inexpedient and not otherwise Unlawful he must judge it to be just so And thus he may use his Judgment or Discretion about the Matter of the Law as a Reasonable Creature and of Common and Natural Right Yet he hath a Judgment of Discretion too in a Politick and Civil Sence as he is a Reasonable Citizen and Subject And here he hath not the like extensive and unhounded Liberty For his Reason is now limited by his State and Relation by which he is concerned with his Relatives and they in him And he may thence see Reason to make another Judgment of Expediency at least both of the Laws and the Necessity of Obedience Now he ought to judge that he is in a State of Subjection and Communion That publick Order and Peace ought to be valued beyond a little private Satisfaction That God's Ministers are the proper Judges of what is fit and expedient with respect to the Publique Advantage that may sometimes disagree with his private Interest That God himself Commands our Obedience and hath not limitted us to things Expedient And that while we Obey his Ministers we obey God himself And that tho' we see no Convenience in the things required yet our Governours may and in that Case the less Reason we discern in the Matter of the Law if not against God's Word the purer is the Honour and Obedience we yield to our Rulers and to God himself and it need not be stiled implicit blind and bruitish Obedience that hath all this Light and Reason to guide it Lex nullo privato commodo sed pro communi utilitate conscripta ideo in ipsa Constitutione ista Consideranda sunt Quia cum leges institutae sunt non erit liberum arbitrium judicare de ipsis sed oportebit judicare secundum ipsas Isidor 2 Stymol Which my Lord Coke highly applauds Whence we find the Judgment of the People touching Laws is distinguisht When they are once publisht we may not judge of them but we must judge according to them as more anon So likewise their Discretion is altered or at least limitted by the definition which our Law books give of it discretio est decernere per legem quid sit justum

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

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 ●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 E●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

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

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