Selected quad for the lemma: world_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45152
|
A plea for the non-conformists tending to justifie them against the clamorous charge of schisme. By a Dr. of Divinity. With two sheets on the same subject by another Hand and Judgement.
|
Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing H3703A; ESTC R217013
|
46,853
|
129
|
matter of Conscience to obey Good and Profitable Laws so farr as we are perswaded our Obedience is profitable Moreover General and Long continued Disuse is and Justly may be thought an Abolishing and Abrogating of Humane Laws For seeing Lex institutitur cum promulgatur vigorem habet cum moribus utentium approbatur On the Church Pag. 4. l. 34. I must remember my Antogonist to take Notice that What he goes to oppose in me as some singular Opinion of mine which yet is not mine but he mistakes me in it is Presented by this Great Dr. of the Church as the received Doctrine of Protestants As also that the Doctrine which in deed is mine this Dr agrees so much with me does require his better Consideration J. H's Second Principle is that Human Powers may not lawfully Command or Inforce any thing against the Conscience even in Civil Concernes He should have said in things that are materially Civil yet under some Consideration unto some Religious What the Magistrate cannot Command I say indeed he cannot Inforce The Magistrate cannot Command what God forbids God forbids every Man to do any thing against his Conscience And what hath any Mortal to oppose against this Why he has one Argument only which he takes from my Concession in the stating my Matter I Distinguish between a Man's doing according to his Conscience and his doing against It and of Restraint and Constraint accordingly in the Magistrate I grant that the Magistrate may Restraine a man from doing according to his Conscience when he is doing hurt to Church or State through his errour and may Punish him for the Evil he does He argues from hence that he may Constraine him to doe that which is Good for the Church or State though it be against his Conscience upon the same account But I say not There is a Difference I give my Reason Because in the one the Man does what God would not have him In the other he does what God would have God would not have him to do Evil because of his erroneous Conscience but that he should lay down his Errour and do Good But God will have every Man so to regard his Conscience though Eerroneous that he must not do any thing against it for any Fear or Advantage in 〈◊〉 Eaerth Author of the Mag. Pag. 12â—… And what answer makes he to this Reason Why not a word So overly aâ—… men ordinarily to speak at the first sight against that which others have thought long upon The substance of the Distinction and so of my Detemination I cited out of Augustine and confirmed it with Grotius his Approbation I might add to them the Learned Rutherford who are Judicious mighty Men all three but this Gentle Dean hath not Pondred the Matter For thus he proceeds The Law of God is the Rule of Concience This Law is Negative as well as Affirmative and binds the Conscience equally in both respects So far we are Agreed Hold Sir A mistake again He forgets the known Rule in the Schools that Affirmations bind Semper not ad Semper not to all times or in all Cases but Negatives do bind Semper and ad Semper alwayes and against all Exceptions He remembers not himself therefore when he saies they Bind equally and so thinks not how the Decision of the Point must resolve into this Issue In the affirmative Case I say it is true that God requires the Man to lay down his Errour and not to do the thing and therefore the Magistrate may Restrain or Punish him In the Negative case he urges likewise God commands him the Same as to laying down his Errour and to do the thing and therefore he may Constraine or make him But I reply no still the difference remains Though in the Negative case that is when the Conscience which is Erroneous sayes they must not do such a thing God requires this Joyntly to lay down his Erroneous Conscience or be other-wise informed and to do the thing yet does not he require this Separately that while he is so informed he should do it When in the affirmative Case that is when the Conscience which is erroneous saies thou must do such or such a thing God requires he should lay down his Errour not do the thing both Joyntly and Separately so that even while he is Perswaded in his Conscience that it is his Duty God's Negative Command is Obligatory against that Perswasion The reason is from what is Said because Affirmatives do not bind ad Semper or in all Cases but Negatives do This is one of those Cases Thou shalt not do against thy Conscience is a Negative Indispensable Thou shalt do according to it holds not in this Case when the Conscience is in an Errour I will conclude with the History of this little I have written There is a Book call'd the Friendly Debate which when it came out was received every where with diversity of acceptation and censure There are many things in it I am perswaded in my heart fit to be spoken yet do I not know nor the Authour himself perhaps know from what manner of Spirit they are spoken It is in appearance a Spirit elated contemptuous engaged if not imbitterd against a party and so far un-Catholick which does through the sides of that party oftentimes make Religion her self feel entrenching upon it almost all the way in regard to those weaknesses and follies which Human reason is ever ready to impute to it But God hath chosen the foolish things of the World to confound the Wise and the things that are despised hath he chosen Among other matters against the Non-Conformists that Authour brings this that they observe not the Lawes the Oxford Act and others and that therefore they cannot be good Subjects nor good Christians nor Ministers of Christ A heavy charge and a necessary case of Conscience Upon this occasion I presented to the publick a sheet called the Case under this Title Whether a Non-Conformist who hath not taken the Oxford Oath might come to live at London or any Corporate Town or within Five miles of it and yet be a good Christian To this Sheet the Authour was pleased to give me an Answer That Answer drew me forth to write my Book by way of reply of the Obligation of human Lawes To this reply the learned Debater answered no more After the Debate another peice comes forth of Ecclesiastical Polity exceeding the former both in Pomp and Design in Lustre and the Attempt that was for asserting an Authority in the Magistrate over the Conscience to end all Disputes which being a thing not to be endured though but in the matter of Conformity as the Authour I think only meant I wrote also my other Book of the Authority of the Magistrate about Religion Unto this Book I had no answer from that Authour neither Only having caused those few Copies which were left of the Obligation in Quires to be bound up with this and Printing so many on purpose of the Sheet called The Case over again to fit and joyn to both and then Entituled it Two points of great moment Discussed I do observe that it hath pleased this Reverend Dean to step in with these Two exceptions of his which I have answered and one thing more in the close must not pass unregarded which he brings in under the head of the former of the Two This Obligation of I. H. is only from necessity of the thing commanded But in all other cases you need not obey only for wraths sake that is no farther then you are forced and therefore when you are got above fears you will not or need not regard Authority This principle will hardly prove the Non-Conformists the only Loyalists Besides the mistake before noted It is nothing but want of the present knowledge in this Dr as it was in the Debater of the distinction I offered them out of Dr Field between Subjection and Obedience or the sense of it that made them fall into so slender sort of reasoning as this is Though there be many cases wherein we are not bound in Conscience to Obey yet are we alwayes bound in Conscience to be Subject or never to Resist and upon that ground is our Loyalty maintained This I have said I know most effectually in my first Book of the Two Points unto which therefore when that which is brought to its Assistance in the Second and this little in these Two Sheets now more is added which I would by no means have those who have the other be without there is nothing besides as I can find in my mind unless to tell the Reader least he be at a loss that there are a few of these Two Poynts so bound up yet to be had at the Golden Lyon in Paul's Church-yard that is lacking to my full satisfaction on those Subjects Vale Lector fruere Deo gloria I. H.
A PLEA FOR THE NON-CONFORMISTS TENDING To Justifie them against the Clamorous Charge of SCHISME By a Dr. of Divinity With two Sheets on the same Subject by another Hand and Judgment Vexatio dat intellectum LONDON Printed in the Year 1674. A PLEA for the Nonconformists tending to justifie them against the Clamourous Charge of Schisme § 1. IT was doubtless one of the greatest infelicities which ever befel the whole body of people in these three Nations considering them as universally professing the Doctrine of Christ that in the year 1662. the Settlement of the affairs of Religion with relation to Worship Government was made to no more universal satisfaction but that some thousands of Ministers many of whom their greatest Adversaries being judges were men of no inconsiderable worth and usefulness took themselves obliged rather to lay down the publick exercise of their Ministry then to do what was by Law required of them if they would preserve it and that such a rigid interpretation was at that time in practice put upon the Act of Uniformity as they were not only incapacitated to hold or take Livings but also to Preach occasionally in the publick Temples Whether the Act will necessitate any such sense may deserve the second thoughts of our Superiours § 2. Whether this was Originated in the anger resting in the bosom of some Church-men at that time who had been Sufferers Or in their zeal to continue some Bishops the repute of Martyrs who had suffered for the rigorous enforcing of some of the things now enjoyned or in the desire of some of that filthy lucre which ariseth from pluralities of Livings Dignities sine curare or in their desire to propagate some Doctrines to which they knew the persons who would be ejected would be no more friends then are the Articles of the Church of England as interpreted by King James former all Professors of Divinity in our Universities very many eminent Bishops and once and again by the whole Parliament of England or from one or all of these causes is uncertain to be determined a better Original is hard to fancy while the things required are by our most knowing Eccles Superiours granted not necessary antecedaneously to the Superiors command § 3. Nor could they ever have been made necessary as is now said by the King and Parliament of England had they not been suggested to them as things that in themselves might lawfully be done Nor probably would that suggestion have prevailed with our civil Superiours who in things meerly lawful know sufficiently that they are to govern themselves in their commands by Prudence had they not been also told that the Numbers both of Ministers and People that would refuse were very inconsiderable Their persons and circumstances very invaluable that if once the things were enjoyned the Generality would do them notwithstanding all their pretences of Conscience c. § 4. How true these suggestions were quickly appeared to our Prudent States-men which made the then Lord Chancellour a sufficient friend to Conformity and a Prudent Person before ever the Act took place send for some very valuable persons and propound a Medium to them that they might yet abide in their stations foreseeing the gap would be made the Parishes only providing some who might read the Liturgy but this was too late and the Act would not when it came out admit any such thing § 5. With that rigour the Act was pressed is sufficiently known and how soon after fortified with another Act against private Meetings and with another when that but a probationer for a few years was expired more severe than the former nor did there want those in all parts of the Nation that executed all the Acts with severity so far beyond what those Acts Authorised that they saw need of Indemnity for their actions by further Acts of Grace and Favour How many Godly Ministers and People were during these years not only publickly reviled in Pamphlets and Pulpits but Imprisoned and how many dyed in their imprisonments spoiled of their Livelihoods driven from their Habitations and Trades is but an unpleasant story to reflect upon and with how little success as to the bringing them to conform is abundantly known § 6. In the mean time it pleased his most Excellent Majesty as a tender Father of his People and he who considered his interest lay not in the Division and Ruine of his People but in their Peace and Freedom to attend their several Trades Professions and Callings the King himself as Solomon saith being nourished from the Field to inspect the state of Ecclesiastical affairs and hearing so many Crys from his People with the Advice of his Counsel to direct means for his or their better information about the numbers of Ministers and People dissenting for which purpose Letters were directed in the ordinary course from the Arch-Bishop to the Bishops who by their Registers were to inform themselves and then his most Sacred Majesty of the Number of dissenting Ministers c. § 7. How imperfect the information must be in this method is obvious enough to every one the Return could only be made of those who being possest of Livings Aug. 24. 1662. left them for not Subscribing into which number came not a 5th part of Ministers dissenting 1. None came which 1661 were turned out to give room to others who had a praevious Title to their Livings and were not possest so soon of any other which were very many 2. No Congregational Ministers who had no Legal Titles to Churches 3. None that fore-seeing they could not conform the Act being out did chuse rather to resign their Livings than abide a turning out 4. No young men not possest of Livings though ready for them To say nothing of Anabapt c. To advantage this imperfect account the Author of the Ecclesiastical Polity tells the World of but an hundred Ministers that hindred all Uniformity § 8. But our Wise and Prudent States-men quickly saw through these Fallacies and from their more perfect information of his most Sacred Majesty and the meltings of his own bowels towards the distresses of his People the sound of which came almost from every Court of Judicature and corner of the Nation his most Excellent Majesty and his Privy Counsel took a fuller estimate of the Number both of Ministers and private Christians dissenting from the publick modes of worship § 9. Upon this it was that his Majesty conceiving himself empowred thereto by his Prerogative and a liberty reserved to him by the last Act against Conventicles was pleased to issue out his Gracious Declaration for Indulgence date Mar. 17. § 10. What Power his Majesty had or what was reserved by that Act to him we are no Judges to determine It is enough for us That as his most Sacred Majesty hath asserted to himself such a power so the denial of it to him hath been by no publick Act made known to us much less his Majesties