retain with good discretion and sense what is so usefull as rather then be without we shall still use though with none And by this distinction it does appear how all that danger which hitherto this man hath fancyed consequent to my determination does fall away as the leaves from the trees in summer For so long as we do all acknowledge the authority of the present Magistrate in his person with our subjection thereunto that in no case it is lawfull to resist whereby the outward man comes to be bound so that if he will and when he will he can force it to obey by his sword there is not so much as any certain disobedience and much less is there any danger to his Government through Insurrection or Rebellion that follows from my opinion If in Religious things or moral when the Magistrate commands any thing against a mans conscience and the Subject does not obey his authority nevertheless is preserved though he cannot force them in that case to obedience if he would how shall we think but in things which are secular where be can force them to obey if he will that there is any danger to his Government for their obeying such and such a Law only because they dare not to resist I mean for Gods sake that they dare not and not out of conscience else I would have this worthy and intelligent but at this time over engaged person who yet sees not all the removes which are to be seen in this business for all his anger at me for my thinking so to consider whether there be not many learned Men Writers and others who hold that the Laws of Men do not obleige the Conscience at all and that they cannot seeing Conscience is Gods Throne but the external man only and does he think that all such must be so shallow that they are not able to avoid his extemporanous consequences or that they see not the weakness of such a Gamester seeing he calls himself so for it was not I used that word who hath not come yet so far here as to consideration with himself For I say is there any Men of parts or learning thinks he that fear God and are Christians who hold it lawful to rebel or to destroy all Society and Government 〈◊〉 And if not how comes it to pass he should not resolve with himself that certainly if such consequences which he would fasten on me will be avoided and denyed by those that hold that human Laws do never bind the Conscience they may and must be denyed by me with more facility who have determined that human Laws do with a distinction bind it but not indefinitely as he does And what is that distinction then which after these two other not comprehended by the Debater does determine the question in hand That we are to be always subject as to the Authority of the Magistrate himself I have said and yet that we are not bound always to obey his commands that is we are not bound always in Conscience when yet we are bound in the outward Man This being said the determining distinction concerning his Laws or Commands which do bind and which do not bind the Conscience is this The commands of the Magistrate are either such as are agreeable to Gods will or not agreeable to his will Those that are bind it Those that are not bind it not The Reason is because the authority the Magistrate hath to command is derived from and to be founded in Gods will In the way The Casuist sayes this benign Debater seems to have no low opâ—nion of his own performance but rather thinks we may chance to be beholding to him for a new Invention Here sayes he is that very mean indeed for ought I know which is wanting A great discovery and for ought I know may any body reply that which is not wanting but the very dangerous extream into which the people are apt to run as he is to follow those with whom I have had to deal As for those with whom he hath been dealing I presume it will be found there is nothing of this determination in what they have said if I did not esteem it uncommon I should I must confess have restrained it Or if I did not think it considerable I should have held my peace also But after this scornfulness of his why did he not present us with that mean which follows in the words of the Case that the Reader might judge whether it be any discovery indeed or none or whether it deserves this Mans contempt or not For as Cato said of Cicero when he played upon the Stoicks opinions which another hath noted Cicero makes others laugh but is himself ridicuculous So say I this person strives here to offer me and my determination to contempt but the things I have said will bear themselves out and he does but discover hereby his own desert What is that mean then which follows The words in the Case are these That the Laws or Commands of the Magistrate even in Political and indifferent things does no less then bind the Conscience when he is the executioner of Gods will but though the outward man out of the Case of sin may be bound if you will the conscience cannot be obleiged and ought to be still kept free when he is the executioner only of his own It may be the Debater will not yet be beholding to me for this and he may choose when perhaps others will and take it never the less kindly for that It fares with those that beat their heads about notions as it doth with Miners they are the condemned Men and the Gold they dig becomes others Never the less the Man that hath been digging finds a Veine may say what he hath found is Gold as well as another and without pride He doth not commend himself for his commending the Gold I think verily that that which I I have here digged is the mean the Golden mean we are to find in this case and not an extream wherein I follow any as he sayes but the avoiding both extreams The one is of those who hold that human Laws do not bind the Conscience at all and the other such as hold as this Man did when he first unadvisedly set out and therefore will continue of the mind still that they bind indefinitely without discrimination at least so far by all means as Dr. Manton his good Neighbor and every one such as he whatsoever the breakers of other Laws may be might be none of Christs Ministers or good Christians on that account Well! The will of God which determines the commands of Man to be obligatory or not upon the Conscience must be considered in the concerns of Religion in things morall and in things civil or Political The rule or Law of God in things Religious is the Scripture The rule or Law of God in things moral is the Light of Nature which also is the will
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
This meaning is not certain but some have believed thus and some otherwise In the upshot then this is that I have been brought in my last thoughts to conclude that if a Man after the best means he can use for the understanding the Imposers meaning can take what is imposed in that sence which he verily believes in his own heart to be their meaning he shall do well and ought to take it if he cannot he must for bear and choose to suffer Being thus prepared in order to the determining a mans own act about the taking an imposition when the question lyes upon the meaning of the Law-giver and the subject I count being changed only into his generall end in this I had no cause to stick here where there is but one and the same answer to be given to all such questions To wit that notwithstanding there may be severall good cautions of thinking reverendly of our superiours judgments and not leaning too much on our own with the like words used in the way we must come to this result at last that according as every man for his own part after the best enquiry or exercise of his reason he can make does believe in his very Conscience whether the thing commanded in a Law be for the publick good or no I mean it in reference to his own doing it that is most plainly according as he believes in his own soul that the doing the thing which is commanded by his example or otherwise is conducive to the publick good or not so must he account it agreeable or not to Gods will and his Conscience accordingly be bound or loosed in regard to the performance I will convince the Debater from his own mouth and from the thing it self From his own mouth we have a Case hath fallen very luckily before mentioned What if Magistrate mistake in a Law and the matter be not conducive to that end for the publick he ordained it He answers he is not bound to be of the Magistrates opinion but may judge it better the Law were otherwise yet thinks he is bound to obey it But if this man and so another may be and is of a contrary opinion to the Magistrate that the thing commanded is not for the publick benefit as he acknowledges in that Case of his own putting then hath he acknowledged in effect all that for which he cavills so much at me upon my answer to this question For the thing it self In the first place no mortal man on Earth can have power to make me or him or any understand to think or believe otherwise then we do If I do think then that such a thing commanded be not for the common good so I shall think and must think do what the Magistrate can or my self either And it 〈◊〉 do believe so then do I judge or believe that iâ— is not according to Gods will and consequently that I am not bound in Conscience 〈◊〉 If you say I should not think so it is unlawful to judge so you contradict this man who says he is not bound absolutâ—ly to be of the Law-givers opinion that all such things are for the publick good as he decrees which is as truly as stoutly said against himself for the matter will not bear it to be otherwise In the second place Conscience is a faculty which God hath put into Man to judge of his own actions in reference to his approving or condemning him for them Whatsoever actions then are accountable unto God at the great day are to be judged at present by Conscience We are accountable now no doubt to God for our civil actions as well as others and when in matters that are civil those things have or have not his approbation as they do or do not conduce to the common good it follows that every man must judge of the things commanded him whether they be or they be not to the common good that he may be accountable unto God according to what he is bound or not bound in Conscience by them In the third place our Protestant Divines in their cont oversy which the Papist Do judice do allow to every man a judgement of private discretion which is the same with this judgement of Conscience that what means soever we use for our information we must be the last judges our selves of the things we do whether they are agreeable to Gods will or not and according to our own belief must resolve upon the practise or forbearance of them It seems to me now a thing unreasonable and injurious unto mankind if we shall take away from the subject this judgement of private discretion in things that are political which we cannot but allow them in all other their morall and religious actions If there be an infallible judge in Civils we may expect one in religions matters But if there be no Pope nor Counsels but may erre in their Canons there are no Law-givers but may erre in their Laws and there is no cause why any should indeed be more shy of granting the subject this judgement of discretion in reference to what the Prince hath Enacted any more then what the Church hath declared but only that they could not so well tell the rule to judge of things Civill as they could to judge of Doctrines and morall Precepts As God therefore hath given us the Scriptures for a rule of religion that when any thing is required of us to believe or practise as necessary to Gods worship or our salvation we may and are to try it by this rule and can be obliged thereby no farther then we do judge it agreeable to this rule and as in morals he hath given the law of nature for our rule so hath the Almighty given to man his rule also in things politicall which he hath written in his fleshly tables as sure as there is any law of nature and that is Gods will as the scripture is whereby the Laws of every Common-wealth are to be tryed and judged the Law-giver being accountable to God according as he acts by it and the People obliged in Conscience so far to obey his will as he commands agreeably to it and this Rule or Law as I have before said is the common good Things are religiously good or evill as they agree or agree not with the Scriptures Things are moraly good or evill as they agree or agree not with the Law of nature Things politically good or evill as they agree or agree not to the publick advantage If I am commanded any thing about my religion I will go to the Scripture if that commands me otherwise I cannot obey it I will go to the morall Law in matters of vertue and vice In politicall things or things required by human Laws I must go to this rule I have proposed I must judge of them as good or evill in their kind by that If my doing the thing will not answer the rule I am not bound
but little dry light in the World For let this Debater set himself to read as many books as he can yet I suppose he may find but few if any that determine this case altogether as I do I know the same Light hath shone in on Dr. Taylor in several passages when yet it is mixed with such abundance of other matter that if this Man may be judge he would be ready to cite him as of opinion against me in it There is lumen siccum therefore and lumen maceratum indeed I remember the distinction well my Lord Bacon hath it in his advancement And I will say yet that the Light which this Debater pretends is macerated Light Light steeped in a prejudiced mind and fetchâ— from the conceptions of others and mostly perhaps from that Dr. whose clearest rayes he wont receive When the determination which I have offered hath been beaten out from my own thoughts and will be found that lumen siccum notwithstanding his abuse which is to be attended in this matter I am become a fool inâ—glorying says the Apostle ye have compelled me In the next place he produces two places of Scripture that to the Romans Wherefore you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake and that of Peter Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake I answer these Texts speak of subjection and not of obedience subjection to the Authority residing in the persons of the Magistrate and if you will in the Government it self not obedience which is proper to their commands I his appears from the first and second Verses Be subject to the powers that be He that resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God The Powers no doubt are but the Laws and Commands of men be not I hope the ordinance of God with this Man VVherefore you must needs be subject It is the same word and spoken in respect to the resistance before and in reference to their persons it is not wherefore you must needs obey all their particular commands for Conscience sake when for Conscience sake we must suffer rather then obey some of them So likewise in Peter every ordinance of Man is every human creature in the Original that is submit to every sort of Governor or Government whether to the King as supream or others under him This is plain Out of these Texts therefore may obedience arise from the conscience of not resisting but no direct obligation on the Conscience to obey actively can be deduced from hence Again the Apostle tells us in these places that the Magistrate is Gods Minister for our good a terror to evil doers and encourager to well doing with the like expressions Upon this account he can be supposed to command only for the common good and when a Law or Command of the supream Magistrate is such I deny not but it binds the Conscience no less then he This is sufficient between us that no Argument possible can be drawn from either of these places to serve his turn seeing a Law must be supposed to be against the common good and yet to bind the conscience according to him Moreover this I must say agâ—in is most evident that obedience indefinite cannot be proved by these Texts because some commands of the Magistrate may be evil morally evil as hath been intimated and we must not obey them or civily evil and then though we do obey for the Swords sake and because we must not resist the Conscience is not bound in such a Case It is therefore a pievish obstinacy in this person to persist in these following words VVe are no considering when and in what cases a Law may cease to obleige and quite alter its Nature but whether while it doth obleige and is in force it lays a tye on the Conscience or no and to this we say yes Laws while they are obligatory bind the Conscience Because the Scripture faith so and we say so indefinitely because that is the Scriptures language also First it 's certainly false that all Laws of Men do indefinitely tye the Conscience and therefore the Scripture doth not say so nor can say so which must be granted by him in the case of moral evil Secondly this Debater is utterly lost that he would not learn of me to distinguish between the obligation of the outward man and the Conscience an obligation in foro extertori sive politico in foro interiori sive conscientiae For it is false again that he sayes we are not considering when and in what cases a Law doth cease to obleige for this is the very thing we are considering in respect to the Conscience and as for the obligation of the outward Man he hath not yet thought of it And I say as Dr. Taylor hath again and again that such a Law as is not for the common good hath none of Gods authority and so ceases to be any Law as to the Conscience when yet we being not to resist as is and must be often said the outward man by the Sword may be brought to obey Thirdly the speaking that Laws while they do obleige or are of force do tye the Conscience in this Man who hath not received yet the distinction of the obligation of the outward Man Politically and the inward Man which is morally is extreamly senslâ—s and consequently false if he understood the sense For Laws that are obligatory or do obleige the outward man that is are Politically in force may yet be morally null as to the Conscience that is obleige it not when being not for the common good I say they are without the authority of Gods will Fourthly there is a manifest bar and contradiction in these words to his own determination after if he durst been plain in it For here he will be so obstinate to say still that human Laws bind indefinitely nay and suborn the Scripture to false witnessing in affirming that they say so when they say only be subject indefinitely while he makes all Laws that is Universally and indefinitely aequivalent here least he come off upon that word which we must not do and yet in the end he is forced to come to confession and acknowledge seeing Dr. Taylor will tell him so from whom he will borrow that he has that moral Divines and Lawyers and I had hoped he were one of the first do determine that human Laws bind not in the case of intollerable grievance I have cited these words in the way something more acrimoniously then any other passage hitherto not that I have cause to be angry at them as I have at others but to shew occasionally how I might take up this Gentleman likewise in the rest of these raw Sheets if I had a mind to exagitate that weakness which hitherto till his eyes be opened farther by this controverting the point is such as may have that epithite given to it at present which the Scriptures does in one place
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
order to our civil happiness but our everlasting salvation VVhen God says Thou shalt have no other Gods but me a Roman or a Greek might not say no it is son the good of our Country that many Gods be worshipped and the common good must take place of other Laws For besides that it is false to think it for the good of any state to have more then one God The Law of the common good is to take place over the Common wealths Law or is the supream Law I say to all human Laws but not to Gods Laws which comes not under any subordination to such good but do concern the salvation of Mens souls Now it is the Law or command of God that Magistracy be set up that we be in subjection to the powers that are that is the present Magistrate that we have and that we resist not This is no less his Commandment then that we have no other Gods but him If there be any then will argue we are not obleiged in Conscience to obey a Law which is not for the common good upon the account of this maxime Therefore we are not obleiged in Conscience to subjection to the Magistrate if he rule not for the common good upon account of the same he is greatly mistaken Because this maxime as we are to know was Originally intended so is to be understood on necessity in reference to the Laws of men or the Common wealths Laws only and not in reference to the Commandments of God Again when a human Law passes for the good of the community the common good being the supream rule and measure of all every one judges and ought to judge upon the pinch of the question whether the thing commanded be for the common good that is whether it be agreeable to the supream Law and according as he judges and believes it to be or no so is he obliged in Conscience or not to it But when a Magistrate rules not as he ought and so we are free as to his inordinate commands there is no man may judge whether he himself or the Government it self be for the good or no. You will say why Because the powers that be are of God and his Ordinance and whether the Ordinance of God be for our good or no there is no mortal may question or is to iudge God hath himself declared this that he is the Minister of God for our good even Nero was and no man may once offer to determine contrary to Gods declared word or tell the Almighty he sayes not truth Consequently when a Law sometimes doth pass that is not for the common good and a man judging of it according to truth is not obliged in Conscience to obedience vet the Magistrate himself being for our good God having determined so and mans judgement being confined by his even by this maxime it self that the common good is the supream Law he must be still bound to subjection And what now is become of this mans reproach which he hath laid to my charge with so much falshood and little judgement as if Dr. Saunderson and he were for this maxime in the right sense and I was for it in the perverse meaning when it is plain that indeed neither he nor Dr. Saunderson how worthy soever in their pacts otherwise understood this maximâ— in the full import of it seeing else he would have determined the main case no otherwise then I do And this brings me to another passage of this Debater which I was willing to reserve â—ill now both for the agreement of it here â—nd for making a discovery of some of this â—uthours strong reasonings who counts mine â—o weak It is resolved by the Casuist that if the Magistrate command any thing for the Peoples hurt there lies no obligation upon the Conscience to obey and they are made judges of what â—s for their hurt If then he require them not â—o resist and they find this is for their hurt they are not bound in Conscience not to resist Is not this very goodly Does not the Gentleman shew us here indeed what a fathome it is that he has as he speaks somewhere why this can be no less sure then Bonaventures Son or Bradwardines brother What if the Magistrate should require us not to resist If it were the Magistrate only required this there were no doubt but we might resist if he hurt or wrong us as well as not obey his Laws if they be for our hurt But it is Gods Commandment that we resist not and if he shall do us wrong or hurt we must bear it upon that account It is but suffering according to his well and that is the reason why the Magistrate and Government it self safe when the Conscience is yet at liberty 〈◊〉 avoid if we can any unjust unreasonabâ—â— noxious or unprofitable Law for the peopâ—â— You will say are we not bound to obey hâ—â— Laws as well as not to resist his authorityâ— I answer there is this difference we haâ—â— no command from God that sayes you mâ—â— obey this or that particular Law of the Common-wealth or that you must indefiniteâ— obey them all seeing some may be unjust some wicked some vain But there is a Laâ— or command from God to be subject to the powers that are whatsoever they are and 〈◊〉 whatsoever they are that is rightful power for else the devil may come in and thâ— we must net resist I say moreover that to be ruled by the common good in civil affairs designed by his Minister I take to be a Law of God of the same Nature as to be subject to the Magistrate and to fear himself After this there is one passage more I will not pass because it looks lightly and is a concession against himself but does not satisfie if the word may nto offend without a farther remove upon it It is this It is supposed when a case of intollerable inconvenience happens that it being not the intention of a Prince to make his Subjects miserable he would not have made that Law if he could have foreseen such a mischeif and upon that account it ceases to be a Law and looses its obligation I remember well that some indeed speak thus and when any take a Latitude in applying it to an individual case it will come to this that supposing the Law-giver to consider the circumstances that this or that particular man is in it is presumed that he would consent to the breach of his Law by that person and upon this presumption there may be many perhaps that absolve themselves from several peices of obedience That which may be said for this is that if the Law-giver is to be supposed not to intend to make his subjects miserable by a Law he is to be supposed not to intend to make any one miserable for he cannot simply do the one any more then the other Eadem est ratio unius cujusque Universorum If such a Law makes
this or that particular man miserable if he keep it he will judge it to be the Law-givers intention that he be dispensed with that those should observe it who are made happy or at least not so distressed as he by it There is something I suppose of solidity in this if we can find out for it a right bottom There is no particular person can say if the Law-giver had foreseen this or the particular mans inconvenience he would no have made the Law because Laws in the nature are confinements and streightninâ— to particular persons for the good of the community But this he must say thâ— notwithstanding the will of the Law-giver is indeed that the generality should keep the Law being for their good yet it is to be understood with exception to such a caâ—â— or cases as his is If he can give a reason now for this that will hold it is well The saying he made not his Law to make anâ— simply miserable is true but in Relation to the publick he passed it though some should be distressed by it He cannot say therefore that he made not this Law to make him miserable but this he may say that he made not this Law to make him or any man miserable but for the advantage of the community seeing for the benefit of the publick 〈◊〉 any one may be made to suffer dammage whereas to make a Law that any might suffer it without advantage to the publick is unjust There is necessity then to come here to my foundation and that is this That the general end of every Law and Law-giver is or ought to be and so is supposed to be the publick advantage VVhen any case then general or particular is such that it is not for the publick benefit that a Law be observed or that it is more for the publick good that it be not observed rather then observed the Law-givers intention is to be supposed from the general end that it should not be obligatory to the Subject His intention is to oblige us to such a thing for the publick good But if such a thing in such a case be not for the publick good the obligation ceases being forsaken of his intention There is much may be said here beside what we insist on before from the will of God At the close he presents us with the testimonies of two or three learned men for obedience to all lawful commands of our superiours He might have taken the harmony of confessions or most Diuines common places and added as many more as he pleased of greater authority He might find expressions too as strict as any from some of our Nonconformist Divines But that which is to be answered to all is this that we are to apprehend such passages to be still spoken upon supposition that the Laws or commands of the superiours be good and wholesome Laws They may put in the word lawfull only but under it this must also be implyed The honest and learned Mr. Perkins therefore when he speaks of our duty to the Magistrate does judiciously use such terms VVe are bound to observe the good and wholesome Laws of the Nation wheâ—ein we live When he and others speaks thus it is plain that in the bottom of their minds they apprehend that if the Laws and commands of men be not good and wholesome Laws or commands they are not accordingly bound to them that is not in Conscience bound though the outward man be at the Magistrates service And this I take it is that Light which does even almost Universally flow into the Souls of men at the first consideration of these matters and as it is of Nature it is from God But who shall judge whether a Law be a good or wholesome Law or no This I know may be again askt It is a good and wholesome Law I account when the thing commanded be for the common good And I reply who shall judge whether that which be commanded be lawful or not It will be a thing most foolish to say that he who hath passed the Law as good already must be judge for then it might be no question You will say that every man must indeed be judge of that I say then that if every man must judge whether the thing commanded him in a Law be according to Gods word or not which is a matter of so much more difficulty and concernment to his Soul and where of the most of men are so much more indeed uncapable to judge with soundness and yet every one must judge for himself according to his ability in reference to his own practice why should any scruple to have the same said in the question whether it be for the common good being what is easier done and a less matter The sum of the whole sheets will come to this The most both of Religious and Learned men are at a loss through their dispute and jangling I suppose when the matter else perhaps were more plain in their conceptions about the obligation of human Laws Two extreams we hear The one that they bind not the Conscience at all the other that they bind indefinitely that is all bind under pain of sin A middle path I have effered in resolving the case We see where it is the opposer does pinch They will not allow the subject to be a reasonable agent in Politicals when they cannot deny him to be so in Morals and things Religious If they will allow us a judgement of discretion in Civils They must be ignorant or consider not that the common good is the supream Law That the supream must over-rule the subservient So long as any know not this they are in darkness and bondage But the Scintillations of this truth and Doctrine that I here have brought are the feeds of Light and Liberty to the World In which liberty the considering Christian will stand fast and the tender will rejoyce in consolation THE END Reader BEfore I sent these Sheets to the Press at first I shewed them a Learned Dr. a person of note as of ability and I received his thoughts of them in the words which you find in the beginning Being returned from the Printer I had opportunity to shew them to another of the like eminency and I received presently a full Sheet from him upon the subject I will make bold to set down thus much of it which follows The Office to wit of the Magistrate and exercise or administration being distinguished you truly say that he that is not bound in a particular case to obey yet may be a Subject still which is the relation of one bound to ordinary obedience and Rebellion which is the casting off this subjection iâ— forbidden notwithstanding a particular Law may be disobeyed A Law made against God or the safety of the Common-wealth is no Law in sensu uni voco but it is in sensu aeâ—â—â—vâ—â—o vel analogico and does not pâ—â—perly bind the Subject All men in their wits that are masters of such discourse are agreed that judicium est vel publicum vel provatum Publicum est vel civile Magistratus per gladium exe quendum Vel ecclesiastum Pastorum per verbum clares exequendum Et privatum discretionis est omnium No Man ever obeyed without it for authoritas imperantis agnita is the objectum formale obedientiae and answereth the question Quare obedis The Magistrate being by Office intrusted with the bonum pubeicum the Subject is not called to try every one of his Laws whether they are suited to the bonum publicum or not much less to be critical and busie out of his place But being not bound to be blind or or careless in a notorious case or such of which he hath full and lawful cognizance he may and must discern what command is against the common good R. B.