〈◊〉 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
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
adaeqâ—ate rule of Conscience But for the Magistrate to command any thing that is against the common good is disagreeable to Gods will or such a law carries not with it Gods authority Eâ—go whatsoever is commanded or what law soever is not conducive to the common good can not obleige the Conscience So that it must not be under the pain of sin but under the sence of wrath and necessity that we must not resist that we actively obey in such a case In the last place he quotes Dr. Saunderson and I must confess I shall put the less trust hereafter on this man for any matters of controversie or cases of weight for this presumption he seems to have upon one great name when nothing else for ought appears but Dr. Saunderson having resolved this case hath given him the confidence to write in such an Imperious fashion as he hath done these sheets upon a subject whereof he seems to have had so few thoughts before As for that Dr. I have read his Lectures de obligatione conscientiae and dejuramento and the first body of his Sermons I do believe him an excellent Casuist and to speak freely wherein that excellence lyes a man of a clear head but yet not for all that of so searching a head nor quite so learned as such a one as Rutherford in his way and by no means on the Earth of so large a head so great a wit and incomparable sufficiency as Dr. Taylor Well Dr. Saunderson in his ninth prelection puts this case what if a Magistrate intends only his own profit or ambition in a law does that bind he answers yes Because that though the Law-giver may have an ill intention the Law may tend to the common good This is well resolved In a case or two farther then he puts this other what if a law be unprofitable to the publick and something noxious he answers it doth oblige if the thing may be done without sin This resolution is ill for if the reason of the obligation in the former case was good and the true right reason then when there is not that reason a law obliges not If we must obey out of Conscience when a law does tend to the common good though the Law-givers intention be bad then though the Law-givers intention be good if the thing commanded tend not to the publick advantage the Conscience must not be obliged upon the same account And thus Dr. Taylor resolves them both it is in some transient passages which I will not stand here to find out But let us hear Dr. Saundersons reasons The first is Because every man ought to mind what belongs to his part and duty and not trouble himself about other mens But what reason is this it does belong to every man to mind yea and to consider and determine whether his Conscience be obliged by a law or no. His second is Because our duty is to obey not to command or ordain And what reason is this our duty is to obey if what is commanded be agreeable to Gods will else we cannot be obliged to it in Conscience though we do it These two reasons indeed are twins both Stillborn and say nothing The resolution is ill and nothing is to be said for it But what means he by these reasons The subject is to obey the Law not make the Law and he troubles not himself to judge whether a thing be good in reference to the Magistrates act but his own If the law pass he may obey it in the outward man whether it be civilly good or no and not trouble himself But if he come to the point whether it bind his Conscience or no he must consider whether it hath the authority of God in it and consequently whether both it be Lawfull and conducive to the publick advantage I may add says the Debater himself though the Magistrate ought not to ordain any thing but what is for the peoples good yet when he doth otherwise it will be more for their good to obey him then refuse obedience I answer if the Magistrate ought not to ordain any thing but what is for the peoples good then must the ordaining any thing not such be against Gods will But the Conscience cannot be obliged by any thing against Gods will or the Conscience is obleiged by nothing but by Gods will only Ergo no Law or thing commanded us which is against the common good can obleige the Conscience and so hath he cut his own throat here out of self conviction Nevertheless as to what he sayes else there is one remove yet this Debater sees not and that is we distinguish between non obligation of Conscience and disobedience it may be that prudence and such considerations as he urges or others may prevail with a man in the outward action to oâ—ey when yet he accounts himself free from any obligation on his Conscience There is one thing after this I feel upon my own mind I find it not in these papers but I cannot hardly be faithful if I omit it It is this Suppose a Father or a Master bids me do a thing I conceive it like to prejudice his affaires and eâ—ve it undone If this Father or Master be discreet he will commend me for my care and be so far from charging me with disobedience as that he will account I have done his will better then he declared it Upon this I have been apt to determine that the commands of men and Gods do thus differ The one binds unless I can give a reason which is more considerable for the forbearance then that which appears for obedience the other binds both as the rule and reason it self for my action I think again suppose I tell this reason to this Father or Master and they will not admit it but require the thing to be done notwithstanding the prejudice which shall acrue If it be in heat I may do well yet to forbear upon my belief that they will take it well when their thoughts have cooled and the Wisdom herein of many faithful servants have been proved But if I be perswaded fully that they will be displeased presently and not pleased after it seems to me here I am bound to obedience in things not sinful though they be commanded to my own and their hurt I answer to this In the first place it is sufficient that a Child or a Servant is not indefinitely bound to do every thing they are bid but that when they have such a reason as they judge their Parent or Master will be satisfied and better pleased that they forbear the command they may leave it undone If their reason does not satisfie they may be reckoned in the case of such as have no reason In the second place when they have better reason to forbear it then do it I may hold that they are bound to doing only by vertuâ— of the Authority residing in the Parent or Masters person and that they may not
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
Gods In morals the case is not thus whatsoever is not according to Gods will is against it But in civil and indifferent things a thing may not be against his will that is against any moral precept as our obedience I speak of to some human Laws and yet have none of his Authority for it Thus prudence the preservation of my self and the Magistrates honour may prevail with me to do a thing which I think otherwise I have no obligation to do in my Conscience I will yet add I distinguish my obediénce and my obedience out of Conscience or my obedience out of other generall rersons and my obedience out of Conscience to this particular command I do not resolve my obedience into a judgement of private discretion whether a Law be for the common good or no for I can apprehend easily that when God hath required the Magistrate to make no Law but according to this rule no unjust or unprofitable Law he hath not yet commanded that I should never obey such a Law I may obey out of a generall implicit apprehension of duty or a singular love to my superiors person for fear of his displeasure to avoid the danger of the Law or out of severall prudentiall considerations regarding the Magistrate my self or others when yet If I come to the point whether I am bound in Conscience to do the particular thing commanded that is whether there lyes a divine obligation on me as well as that from the Law to do it I am on necessity then to examine it by the rule which God hath set me and that being no other but the common good in politicalls I must resolve my obedience out of Conscience into this judgement when I resolve my prudentiall obedience otherwise It may suffice me therein so long as the thing is not sinfull that I am obliged by man It may be but very rare if I question my Rulers commandment which is like to be only perhaps in some grievous pressure If the Law be bad my obedience yet and my example may do good nor does the Magistrates abuse of his office I hope take away my liberty to endure it if I please The true ends moreover hapily of obedience may be obtained when the end of Ruling is neglected Nay the common good may be promoted possibly by my yeilding to a Law when the Law it self does cross it And farther my disobedience may do more hurt to the common good then the obeying that hurtfull command would do So farre am I from discouraging any from obedience to human Laws as a thing generally good and prudentiall when I would keep the Conscience free and not have it burdened with sin for every want of their performance I see indeed by this and other learned persons what an immagination they have got that if I resolve the question whether I am in Conscience obliged to obey such a Law by my private judging of the thing commanded whether it be agreeable or not to the common good I do usurpe the place of the Ruler and make myself only my own Law-giver as they are apt to speak But this is a mistake for besides that when I judge of the thing commanded by its Rule this judgement of mine is not the maker of my duty but the discerner of it and so I do not become any Law-giver to my self in the business I distinguish the obligation of a human Law and the obligation of Conscience formaliter simpliciter by that Law If I resolved the whole obligation of human Laws into this Ruâ—e and my judgement of the Law by it so that I held it must never be obeyed on other reasons or that if I were punished for not obeying I was not bound to submit then did I offer injury indeed to my Ruâ—er and usurped his Government But if I resolve only the obligation of my Conscience by that Law into this rule and my judgement of it accordingly I usurpe no power of the Magistrates which I leave him still over the exterior man but I keep God only as I ought in his own feat of the Conscience And verily if the Conscience of man be concerned in every human law I would fain know how any of our great Clerks can say that human laws bind not in the case of intollerable griveance If God does command me to do the thing it is not any griveance of minde can excuse me but if it be man indeed commands it only and not God the griveance will be reason enough for me to call it in question and to avoid it if I may but the reason of my non-obedience must not have this foundation that it is my grievance or that I cannot endure it but that consideratis considerandis I am not obliged to it in Conscience CAP. VII THus far his exceptions are but words let us pass now to his reasons against my answer His first reason is It is no easy thing to judge what is best for the Peoples good Kings themselves find it necessary to have their Councets to advise about it To judge what is best for the Peoples good is indeed a high matter To judge only whether a thing be for the common good or not is another matter The judgement of every one is free and any body may judge of any thing as he is able and as he will The Cock may pass his judgement on the Pearl he scraped up That which comes to carry any stress upon judging is the consideration of the effect that depends upon that judgement The judging of a thing which a Man himself hath to do hath this effect depending on it the doing his duty every one is to judge of all those things and circumstances which belong to his own acts whether or no they be agreeable to Gods will that he may do as he ought and the rule of this will in politicals I have declared There is the act now of the Magistrate and the act of the Subject There is a great difference of the concern or moment that lies on a judgement of the same thing when the act of the one depends upon it and when there depends upon it the act only of the other The act of the Magistrate is to make the law and see it executed the act of the People is to obey it By this first reason of his against my answer do I see good reason for it and the sufficiency of it The Magistrate judges whether a thing be for the common good or according to our supream rule in reference to his passing it into a law and then to cause it to be executed The People and every particular person does judge whether the thing commanded be for the common good in reference only to the obligation of their Consciences to obedience Upon the judgement of the Magistrate there does depend an effect of universal concernment that is the obligation of a whole Nation to live according to the Law he makes upon the
enforce the thing to be done if he will whether a man does do it out of Conscience or out of discretion only out of fear of God or fear of the law or his sword The Magistrate cannot take any cognizance out of what principle a man acts the judgement is not within his jurisdiction and if a man doth not act out of Conscience he cannot make him It is sufficient so long as a man acknowledges his authority from God that he must therefore be subject and must not resist and consequently if in good earnest he stand upon it and will have obedience from him let it be in any thing but sin there is no help for him that is he may not help himself by resistance but he must yield to it whether he will or no. This is that which secures government and Governors Let every man be held bound in Conscience but thus far and as for the rest it is a matter concerns each ones own soul only and his private peace and it will become those that are prudent to be very tender what they determine in the business It is true this reverend Person thought I believe he had spoken well in his saying that it is hard to write any thing more inconsiderate and dangerous then that I have but if a man should write any word against subjection to Magistracy or his own present Magistrate or that it were lawful to resist if the Magistrate should impose any law against the common good when yet it is not sin I account many times not to obey it and escape if we can without resistance this let me tell him were dangerous I cannot say more dangerous because the other is not dangerous that the man may receive some shame and conviction for his own being so inconsiderate in his censure of what he understood no better This Debater shall not have I will warrant him a breath or Title of this nature from me Nay if a law be good I mean politically good and a law is politically good where it is for the common good I am ready to believe and hold it is obliging obliging to the Conscience not only that we must obey rather then resist which we must do if the thing be politically evil unless we count suffering to be better but if we could escape with man we must yet do it I count least we offend God if a law be not politically good I say we must not resist for all that and upon that account rather then suffer we are lyable to obedience And what is there now or what reason is there that any should desire more Let us here our man of Proverbs A man must not resist sayes our Casuist that is express and rather then resist he must suffer but this is to steal a goose and stick a feather I thank him first for this that he hath not left out this passage wholly in this place least his Reader else might have thought me indeed some dangerous person whereas these words have acquitted me and I answer that this Goose he speaks of my stealing is the thing ought to be stolen or removed and that which he makes so light of is to be brought in the Room of it to wit this man is of opinion that human laws even all laws indefinitely bind the Conscience so that a man must sin if he break any of them This is his Goose that is his foolish opinion an opinion intollerable and instead of this that which I would bring in is that though we conceive there be some laws which if a man sometimes observes not he is not to charge himself with sin yet if he be compelled by the lawful Magistrate rather then resist he must suffer and rather then suffer obey But why must he sayes he when he is already perswaded that he need not unless he be forced this is strange where is this Debaters reason I say he must though he should not sin else by neglect because he is forced and cannot help it but for avoiding of suffering he does it But wrath or suffering is not to be feared when the multitude is agreed not to be injured I answer here is the want of the distinction which this author would not take from me between the authority which is in the Magistrates Person and that of his commands The one is from God immediately the other mediately by vertue of the things commanded being for the common good and so particulars of that generall morall duty which is required of God Some may use other words to express this distinction by the Magistrates authority it self and the exercise of it in his commands or laws but this must be known that distinguish we must here to the same sense I intend and be very careful too of the distinction or we shall be lost If the multitude be agreed not to do a thing that is ill it is well I take it and as they ought it was manifestly Jonathans case But if they agree together not to suffer if the Magistrate will enforce the thing let there be but the least Officer will act in it then they resist and sin against God and it is not justify able upon any terms suppose a whole army and but two men in it will stand by the Prince he may I must affirm to speak strictly on the point of Conscience by these two men alone punish a whole army for any thing they refuse to do and they must bear it and cannot help themselves but with sin which they must not do For he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and receiveth to himself damnation We know the case under Maximinian when a whole legion of Christians were commanded to sacrifice and they chose rather to suffer decimation twice over being executed man by man rather then defend themselves while their lives were at stake and the sword was in their hands Such a Conscience ought we to have of our subjection and so much does the concern of government and the whole World lye upon it when of obedience as to some particular commands we need to have none In short there lyes no obligation upon Conscience sometimes to obey but there does alwayes not to resist and that both serves the Magistrate turn and suffices when he pleases to have a civil thing done CAP. VIII I will not yet leave his last reason seeing he layes so much stress on it and his strength of all comes to this I do not take here his very words but matter which he may express as he will otherwise The People must not be allowed to judge of their own actions which are commanded by the Magistrate about civil things because they will be swayed by their own interests and judge those Laws against the publick good which are not for their private profit by which means unless they be taught and hold that all Laws indefinitely do bind their Consciences they will notwithstanding the Magistrates power absolve
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
who speaks so slightly as if we should then care for the Princes commands not a straw when we our selves have known while we were boyes and made no conscience of the command of any yet did we observe what we were bid more certainly through coâ—rtion then the most of us God knows doe now the divine precepts through the due conscience we owe to them And if so there is the more reason for this Author to be considerate how he bends thus to this other extream wherein he brings us into that open perplexity which himself sees but cannot find the way out either with his distinction of sins or caâ—uâ—ons which will not suite his resolution of the question Obedience is not to be denyed sayes he in the first of these cautions but when a law is against the publick good This is the prime indeed of all the Drs. cautions what alone perhaps is enough to be regarded For when the Dr. and I do both make this to be the determining distinction though he hath not spoken indeed so dryly of it through his large invention and multitude of matter as I do between what does and what does not oblige the conscience in the matter of human laws if a man does but observe this caution the main of his care is over in this busines he neither will for the saving of his own damage dare to neglect the publick interest nor will he omit obedience but when he can render a reason The rest of his cautions I will not concern my self in who have the same power to alter these or frame others to the over ruling truth I offer as they had who at first did frame them but as for this which I have named the very proposing of it in the first place when the Dr. brings it in after others doth seem to carry in it some conviction on this person when otherwise it no wayes serves his purpose that if a thing be not for the common good it cannot in good earnest bind the conscience For his distinction or degrees of sin the main design of opposing my determination thereby being frustrate let us see to what use else he can put it That may stand him perhaps in some stead for his own excuse which will not stand his reader in any for his satisfaction This Debater then we know in his late books having designed to expose the Nonconformist to derision and contempt as much as he could for the withdrawing the people from Schism and recalling them to Church to speak honestly of his end hath thought it fit in his first book to bâ—gin his charge of these men with the breach of the Oxford Act the charge is very high upon this that they are not good Christians not Ministers of Christ To this end persisting in the same mind through his books even to this Postscript of his appendix he gives us these notes for the discovering of the greatness of a sin against human Laws the Issue whereof comes to this that though there may be several Instances of persons besides living in the breach of other statutes the sin of the Nonconformist against this act must come under thosâ— more hainouâ— aggravations that when such are excused yet as for thâ—se we may find he had reason to say what he did not to use any other then his own words And what is that then he will acknowledge â—e hath said I never said that no man can be a good Christian that transgresseth an Act of Parliament nor that every transgression of a statute is a deadly sin Those are inventions of his own upon occasion of a single Instance which I gave of defyance to a Law wherein some men live mark my words from whence he draws as Uninersall proposition And does â—e say so Let me turn to his book and see how he can come of thus The Nonconformist speaking of his Minister the matter is thuâ— Ushered in How can he be a Minister of Christ says the Conformist who is disobedient to his Sovereign whom Christ blas to obey And then Instancing wherein he urges this Oxford Act and concludes therefore he is not a good subject and consequently no good Christian or Minister of Christ Let any man judge here whether these words How can he be a Minister of Christ who is disobedient to his Sovereign be not aequivalent with this proposition No man that is disobedient to his Sovereign is a Minister of Christ With what face then can he accuse me with drawing an Universal proposition from his words when there is one express in the book and from thence this conclusion is deduced I never said does he mean these are not his very words away I nor do I say they are but does not what he sayes amount plainly to this very sence I prove it Therefore sayes he he is not a good subject and consequently not a good Christian I argue with him from hence this person is a man of Reason and Logick Here then is a conclusion no conclusion can be good but from an Universal proposition This Universal proposition must be this that whosoever iâ— disobedient to his Soveraign or transgresses an Act of Parliament is no good Christian And the Universal proposition in his book is this which howsoever we understand to help him out that he means whosoever transgresses any act of Parliament in such a high and hanious manner as the Non-conformist does the Oxford act yet still is a Universal proposition either this person therefore must renounce the words in his book as illogically or falsly concluded which yet he cannot do neither but by acknowledging the universallty and the denying the truth of the proposition or else he must be ashamed here of this unjust accusation of me who have done but right to him But if this denial will not serve him he is noâ— destiâ—ute of other shifts There is no occasion says he for thiâ— question whether every transgression of a Statute be no less then a deadly sin unless he is of opinion that all sins are equal By these words he does seem manifestly here to make some escape upon that term deadly sin and then he must distinguish between sin and deadly sin which no Protestant will allow him to do who say that all siâ— is mortal there was nothing else intended by a deadly sin but a sin that deserves or makes one guilty of death Indeed if this Person can tell me of any little sin in opposition to a greater which a man may knowingly and willfully live in without repentance unto death and it shall not damne him or do him hurt then I shall like well of his comming off here upon this term but if he cannot then will not this serve he must seek another shift And what is that in the next place for he is brought here into a shuffling condition that is plain why we must distinguish between a wilful living only in the transgression of a law and the
really whether according to his opinion it does not lye in the power of such a Divel as this is to carry a whole Nation to Hell with him In the sixth place let us suppose the Consciences of men were bound indefinitely to all Laws does this Author think really that the belief of this would make the world to observe them and so maintain Government more then the Magistrates sword I doubt me he is here more wide we see too well that when the worldly or carnal interest of men is concerned what little regard Conscience has It were happy indeed for the Earth if the fear of God Almighty did but prevail more with the Generality then the fear of a suite at Law or a Penalty of twenty shillings If interest will prevail with a man to judge a thing commanded him to be against the common good when it is for it the same interest of his it is like with such a man would prevaile still upon him not to observe the Law though he were bound in Conscience to it In the seventh place then those few honest persons that would observe a Law if they thought themselves bound in Conscience to it not withstanding their private interest be against it will likewise make the like Conscience in their judging of a Law so as not to be byassed by their particular concernment to think otherwise of it then does comport with the publick advantage And this in effect will come to the same issue In the last place I will offer you one president to pinne the basket It pleased God in the late times that this case became Dr. Saundersons own case The Act of Uniformity bound the Minister to read Common Prayer This Law the Dr. acknowledges to be of force for all the Times but if he observes the Law he must loose his living Upon this he considers of the Act and when he looks on the immediate particular end of it he can find nothing but that their remains obliged to it He then looks on the general and ultimate end and that he conceives right to be the publick good wch is intended or is to be supposed to be intended in all laws Upon this end he comes to the consideration whether all circumstances being weighed it be conducive for the common good for him to observe this Law or not and being in the result fully perswaded in his own mind that the benefit to the publick could no wayes countervail his particular loss and suffering he concludes it lawful by the neglect of that Law to retain his living There is a sober person having read my Case shewed me a Manuscript of the Doctors but would not let me write any thing out of it for the confirmation of my judgement I cannot relate either the whole matter or words of it but these two things I affirm for truth in it That be comes off upon the consideration of the general end of the Law the publick benefit and judges himself whether his observing that Law were conducive to that end in reference to the determining his own practice And here I have I account my full weight for my self and think I had best to fetch the poor man before also who finding no sufficient relief from this Authour about his Cottage may meet with it from this instance to his satisfaction and it will come to this whitâ— seems a little more then I have yet quite saiâ—â— that not only when a Law is politically â—â—vil but when it is good in regard of its general observation yet if a man be perswaded fully in his Conscience upon such duâ—â— considerations and cautions as he ought to take that his particular keeping of it under the present circumstances he lyes is not so much for the common good really as his not keeping of it is which I will take to be plainly this poor mans case instanced who if he holds not his house must with his Family presently fall on the Parish he is not to charge his soul with sin for his wholesome breach of it After this I will yet subjoyn a little more in reference also to some others When the Apostle gives us this precept obey those that have the rule ovér you though there be no words added by way of exception it is to be supposed the things they command are for our edification this being a condition necessarily implyed to all rightful obedience that the Ruler hath authority in what he injoynes But the Minister hath authority only for mens edification and hath none in things against their spiritual good according to our authority sayes the Apostle for edification not destruction The Case is the same with the Magistrate His commands that have authority must be to our civil good It is a mistake therefore how ingenious and ordinary soever it may seem in some that say the people have liberty to judge indeed whether a thing commanded be lawful but not at all whether it be convenient That by all means they count it to be denyed as if the allowing any such thing would presently as this author fancies too subvert all Government I hese Persons I perceive therefore distinguish not between judging what is sit for the general or universality which judgment indeed is proper to the supream Magistrate and judging what is fit for a mans self only to doe All things are lawful for our sayes the apostle But all things are not expedient I will not be brought under the power of any a Christian judges for himself of both these of the lawfulness and of the expedience of his own actions If this be not granted then must he be brought under the power of indifferent things which he ought not to be and then does he submit himself unto the Ordinance of man or the human Creature as his servant and not as free and as the Servant of God Again these persons have not yet considered what I have been telling still in these papers that this liberty is assumed of us in reference only to the Conscience or to our obligation in for interiori and that while the outward man iâ— still acknowledged to be bound there is nâ— danger at all to Government in the matter On the contrary side there is this intollerable snare or evil consequence does follow on the denyal hereof that every time any human Law the matter whereof is not for bidden of God is not observed the subject must sin and consequently if he live and dyes knowingly and wilfully in his neglect he must be damned I will yet propose therefore one or two instances There is a Statute in Henry the eights time if I mistake not which remains unrepealed that no man shall brew with Hopps I do ask hereupon whether there be any Brewer in this Nation knowing of this that can be saved I do not find my Debator can answer me this question and I do not doubt but there are many Brewers that are honest men and good Christians as well
as I believe he is If you will say that this Law now is antiquated through disuse I will ask then what think you of those Brewers that disused it at first was they all damned necessarily who willfully brought it into disuse the Case is a frequent Case as to all the like Laws and you must come at length to this that those who observed not this Law at first did judge it was not good for the Nation or not fit to be kept and upon that judgement are to be justified It follows then both that a Law against the common good binds not the Conscience and that every man for himself may judge whether it be so or no in reference to his own acting Another instance shall be this suppose a Father or a Master lays some strict charge on his Son or Servant to lay out a Thousand pounds on a Commodity which is more perhaps but for his Credit then he is worth by half This Son or Servant in going to do it bears of the growing or coming in of this Commodity by great quantities in some parts of the Kingdome and upon his own discretion alone and good consideration of what may fall our forbears his Father or Master perhaps now at present is grievously chased but within few days the price of the Commodity falls half and then he sees that if he had been obeyed he had been undone From hence doe there appear not only the necessity but benefit of allowing a judgement of discretion unto Persons of capacity under the commands of their Superiours and that I say not meerly to judge whether the thing commanded be lawful or unlawful in reference unto God whereof there is no question but whether it be convenient or inconvenient to that end or outward good which by that command is designed It appears also from both these instances that the commands of men do not by vertue of the fifth Commandement it self bind the Conscience immediately and absolutely but mediately and ex hypothesi to wit upon supposition those commands are good human laws Dr. Taylor will have it bind the Conscience directly and properly I do not love to dispute about terms but if any think he intends immediately he is out for they do bind only by the intervention of Gods will he argues the authority of the Magistrate is Gods authority I answer the authority which is in the person of the Magistrate as Gods Minister is Gods authority and binds directly and immediatly to subjection but the commands of the Magistrate have not Gods authority unless the things commanded be agreeable to his will and then it is by the intervention of his will I say that the Conscience is bound to obedience A third thing appears that the Conscience of man is not bound by vertue of Gods authority unto every command of our Superiors though the thing commanded be in a matter sometimes which of it self or its own Nature is indifferent because the consideration then of the external commodity or discommodity only could not justifie the breaker of any of them If as soon as a Father or Master had forbidden any thing the Commandment of God took place immediatly and he thereby is to be reckoned to forbid it too this Son or Servant might not break such a command though he did gain a thousand pounds or though either that Master or Father should be undone by it There be several examples might be fech't from Histories of great Commanders and Embassadors that to a chieve some great exploits have been forc't to leave the instructions of their Princes for which though at their return they have begged their pardon out of form as being obnoxious to the Law yet have they had that Conscience of their own fact towards them and toward God as not only to be free from sin in that disobedience but to expect some signal reward for the service of such transgressions CAP. VLT. THus much for his grand exception I must now look out for others or any passage else that requires Animadversion At the first there comes to my view in General the cavilling way which he uses toward me as if when a Man wanted a good answer he should shew an ill Spirit which I would not believe in this Author I perceive he pretends often that the Apologist doth wrong him and so accuses him of falsifyings and impertinences which are his frequent words But in the mean while I wonder he should not see how notoriously he is guilty of both these fine things himself It would be no great matter says he if the Casuist imitated not these men only in their phrase and not in their weak reasonings and then produces an observation I have of providence in transitu as if I argued something from thence which if he could tell what he would confute no doubt and he well might wherefore it is manifest I lay that passage down and make no reasoning at all upon it neither do I imitate any bodies phrase nor tye my self to any part And if this then be not falsifying neither shall his four or five sides after about Image worship be any impertinency nor his six or seven pages in another place about the Taxes and Insurrections there has been in this Nation no though he should tell you the whole Life and Death of Wat Tyler and Jack Straw with a more perfect Narration yet of that Dr. Standish unto whom John Lincoln the Broker came when he was to preach at the Spittle on a Monday in Easter week This should also be no impertinency but a forceable confutation of whatsoever is said by the Apologist or me He may next tell us any other story as well out of the Chronicles Of Jack Cadâ— and his Cozen Mortimer Of Lambert Simuel and the Lady Margret his Aunt How might he have mauld us with the Relation of Perkin Warbâ—ck and Thomas Plammâ—ck and Robert Ket with his Oak of Reformation and then kil'd us quite dead with an arrow our of Robin Hoods bow In the Reign of Richard the first there was the noble Earl Robin Hood and one little John and an hundred stout Fellows more robbed the Passengers upon the High way And what indeed is it that we may well think of such a Roving faculty we see in this Authors last books but that the Mans pen hath got a leoseness and that is the reason he hath so be spattered the poor Apologist whose ill luck and my good one it was that he came between him and me This is the reason that makes him come abroad so often in a Debate a continuation of that debate a continuation of that continuation an appendix to that continuations continuation and a Post-script to that appendix to that continuation of the continuation of the Friendly Debate Nec dum finiâ—us Orestes I must needs say here I have been tempted to use some expressions that perhaps might be grateful to many who are willing to have a person as they are