〈◊〉 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
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
it from the Conscience The will is wrought upon under both obligations through fear of mans law and through fear of Gods If you divide the outward man from the will you cannot bind it but Physically by putting it in Bonds and Fetters But the obleiging it by the will is binding it with an human obligation and that I account too is not morally but politicaly as I have intimated to wit as human laws are norma humani judicij the man who breaketh a bad law is according to that law to be adjudged to its penalty and in sensu politico humano is an offendor of the law so that if he be punished by the judge who judgeth by that law he must submit yet seeing the Law is no other then such he is not made a sinner by that breach or to be condemned by God To sum up my opinion then without the terms that those that will may assaile me fairly in my sence I am perswaded as Gods will is not mans so every command of man in indifferent things is not the command of God but that when there is no declaration of the magistrates will but it does make the thing he would have to be due from us so as he may punish us by his law for the not doing if he please and we must bear it without defending our selves by force and consequently he may compell us to any thing not sinful by that means yet does not every declaration of his will make the thing he requires to be our duty so that we are necessarily guilty of sin if it be not done but contraily though many a man lives and dyes in the breach of some laws and statutes of the realm so long as they offer no contempt to the Ruler nor scandal to their brethren nor resist if they be brought to suffer they may be good Christians for all that to come to our first lock which our debater and servants of Christ And here I have no more that I know needfull to be supplyed but onely to do this to produce what I have in my Case it self that the main notion I offer here and there may appear to be the same and to vindicate that authority which alone sufficed me then and shall now for my confirmation The words which I offer in my Case are these Power say I is a right to rule or command This right in the nature of the thing must arise from the grant or will of the supream Lord which is God without whose will or that grant or Charter which is an act of his will no power can be derived to any Now that grant or will of God which constitutes any to rule or to be his Minister being for the Peoples good He is the Minister of God for our good sayes the text it must follow that whatsoever is not indeed for the peoples good the Magistrate is not to command because it is Gods will that he commands only for their good And it he do command any matter that is otherwise that command hath no authority as to the Conscience at all as being without the warrant of Gods will I know I have set down this in a few lines but it hath been the fruit of severall thoughts and years I thought good to confirm it with one testimony of Dr. Taylor and I perceive this debater seems offended and to accuse me of disingenuity for it as if I had done him wrong It is necessary therefore that I turn again to that Dr. and see only I must say that I am glad I must confess that I have here such an authority as this Dr. so full for me nevertheless Dr. Taylor is not as farr as I know in a tittle the author to me but a witness to the light I offer In the third Book of his Cases and the first chapter he comes to treat of human laws and what obligation they pass on the Conscience In his first rule he tells us the Conscience is obleiged directly and actively to obey the Laws of Man Several learned Authors together with Nine Arguments to the contrary are proposed which he having very hardly assayled comes to his next Rule that human Laws bind not when there is any intollerable or grievous evil in the obedience To make out this be proceeds to a third Rule that the Laws of our superiour that are not just and good do not obleige the Conscience and then shewing what Laws are such he tells us that a Law is unjust that contributes not to the publick advantage What can be more orderly and desireable to my purpose Only yet to be more sure it is fit I cite also some few of his expressions This is the limit of a Princes power so far as he relates to conscience for beyond this the conscience is not bound Again If a Prince make a Law that is not for the publick good it hath no sanction but fear and no tye upon the Conscience Again all such things as are against the good of the subjects the Law it self declares it to be no Law that is to be more then the superiour hath right or leave to do Again Laws that are made to purposes beyond those measures do no ways obleige the conscience He is the Minister of God for good saith St. Paul otherwise he is not Gods Minister and hath to other purposes none of Gods authority and therefore cannot obleige the conscience to an active obedience in such where his power is in incompetent to command CAP. III. IT will be time now to come to see what he hath objected against this Determination The proposition I am to maintain and he to oppose is this That the laws of a common wealth and particularly an act or the acts of Parliament in this nation that are nor for the common good do not obleige the Conscience of the subject Though we acknowledge in the mean time our alleadgiance and subjection to his Majesty as the executioner of the laws that our outward man is bound still and spared through his clemency It is true that there is a question fallen in who shall be judge whether that which is commanded in a law be for the common good and I shall be ready to speak with the Debator about it in its order but in the mean while if it were not for that what would this reverend man have had to say against the main determination In the first place he tells us that I am a notable instance of my Lord Bâ—â—â—ns observation that there is a little dry Light in the World I remember Plutarch hath a tract of self praise and among several things he hath against it one thing he sayes for it that there is some cases and particularly in the case of a just defence a man may speak of himself or any thing of his own as of another Vnder Plutarchs Apology I will say I do believe this that in this particular I am indeed an instance that there is
his making of a law which the people cannot consider and attend unto and then in an idle descant upon this that it is not fit therefore that laws should be suspended till the subjects be agreed they are for their good with the like words as if there were any indeed ever dream'd that a Law-giver who is with us the Parliament could not make a law untill they had consulted the people first whether they all of them judged the matter such that if it were passed into a law they should be bound in Conscience to the performance and before they had an affirmative answer from them who must be made loath too to be satisfied about it they could pass no act or statute of the Realm This is the sense in which this man let his pen run here and then concludes The Prince is in an ill case who hath such subjects and he is not in very good whose Divines begin to instill such doctrine into them If there be any thing in those more words and the same reason that seems of moment it is already answered I count by distinguishing the part of the Law-giver the subject whose judgement of a thing commanded in a law already passed for the satisfiying himself whether he be obliged in Conscience to the doing can by no means prejudice the act of the Law-giver in the passing the law as is manifest nor does it throw it down being passed For this is a mistake in this person very palpable as if a human law could not be of force unless a mans Conscience be obliged by it I observed this in him before where he said Laws while they do oblige tye the Conscience and that the cause of his error was the want of present knowledge to distinguish between Political and morall obligation The obligation which is on the Conscience is morall and can be no other and passes on it I have said from Gods institution of our generall duty but the obligation which is Political belongs to the outward man and may stand good when the morall ceases and for as much as this obligation of the outward man it self does so arise from the commandment of God for subjection and that we should not resist it may appear to the impartial that will consider aright of what is said that the question or single point between this man and I concerning the obligation of human Laws in reference only to the conscience is really and in good earnest very little or not at all material to the Magistrate or the civill Government which way soever it is determined And when there are so many learned men of divers sorts who exercise their liberty in maintaining the opinion of either extream without controle or prejudice to the world it s a thing hardly becomming either a temperate minde or modest Learning or that I should have most expected from this Authour a free Theology to express himself in this manner as if a man could not endeavour the finding out a middle way that is so needfull in such a controversie but he must be adjudged one that is broaching of something against the State and deserved correction His fourth reason is Grant the subjects such a power that is a power only of judgeing of their own civill acts and in a little time no law shall be observed He proceeds Taxes will not be paid He goes on There will be Insurrections and Rebellion Upon this he brings in certain narrations of the Subsidy of Head money in Richard the Seconds time and what followed of the aid granted to Henry the Seventh in his third year and the Northern Rebellion then of a subsidy in his thirteenth year when the Cornish-men took up arms then of the case of Henry the eight about Aliens and of one John Lincoln a Broaker that was hanged See more in a certain dialogue between a Couceellor of state and a Justice he has in his study for this it is for the man to light on a new book he must by all means be teling us of what he was reading last And thus had we at the begining of these Papers from the tenth argument of Bellarmine against Image worship the relation of the Iconomachi and what befell them in the time of Leo Isaurus in the time of Constantinus Copronomus in the time of the horrible cold and freezing of the Pontick Sea the drought after and the death of the Emperour The man hath a strange fruitful application This brings to my remembrance an advice once I received from an ingenious and prudent Woman who seeing me over ingaged in dispute sometimes with an Anabaptist who was a man of much talk and being not willing I should be so much concerned you must not says she argue with these men in the way you do you lay down the subject and speak upon that and then think to hold them to it and are moved when they speak from the point and so are confounded but you should sayes she give them leave to speak so long until you can lay hold on something that they say and whatsoever it is you must speak of that and by this means while you take them up still upon their last words whether it be to the point or not you will never want matter no more then they do and by the use of their own weapon may deal with them I must profess if this man who hath so apt an expression do come to get this knack of it as he appears to have in these continuations and apendix he may continue his continuations while he lives and I know no body able to dispute with him unless I could light on the fellow that would preach with any body but it should be he said in a Negative way And Peter went to Antioch He went not to be drunk here he speaks of drunkenness gluttony and all manner of excess He went not to lye with women there he speaks of fornication and uncleanness and all other deadly sin But he went to preach there he speaks of the Scriptures from Genesis to the Revelation of the Fathers the Schoolemen the Councels and all the books that ever he read to this day For the reason it self without its appurtenance I have I account prevented it in the state of my opinion The state alone of what I have said will wipe off any such mistaken consequence which he would injuriously bring upon it It is one question whether we are to observe a law another whether we are bound in Conscience to observe it The question between us in the bottom of the point is not concerning outward observation but the inward obligation of Consciences And the truth is as I was saying at the close of the other reason that this business does not really concern the Magistrate or the Common-wealth directly at all though indirectly and ex consequenti any thing may concern any body for what is it to the Magistrate or the community so long as he can