A Case of Conscience of a Non-Conformist, Text 1
A Caſe of Conſcience, Whether a Nonconformist, who hath not taken the Oxford Oath, may come to live at London, or at any Corporate-Town, or within five miles of it, and yet be a good Chriſtian?
Stated briefly, and publiſhed, In reference to what is offered to the contrary, in a Book intituled, A Friendly Debate betwixt a Conformiſt and a Nonconformiſt.
Together with Animadverſions on a new Book, entituled, Eccleſiaſtical Polity; the general Heads and Subſtance whereof are taken under conſideration.
AS ALSO A Peaceable Diſſertation. By way of Compoſition with ſome late Papers, entituled, Liberty of Conſcience, in order to the determining the Magiſtrates Power in matters of Religion.
London, Printed in the Year. 1669.
The Caſe.
BEing importuned to make ſome Animadverſions on the Friendly Debate, I had finiſhed ſeveral ſheets, and intended but two or three more, when I was certified that an Anſwer was in the Preſs and prevented me; which together with the unliklihood of getting an Imprimatur for it when I had done, hath given me a ſuperſedeas at preſent to what remains; and made me think what I cannot do in the whole, may be effected perhaps in parts. I ſhall begin therefore upon this Point, which ſeems to me the moſt material of any in that Book to be conſidered, both in regard of the loſs the moſt are at what to Anſwer, and the neceſſity of their ſatisfaction, ſeeing if they act not in Faith in what they do, they cannot acquit themſelves from ſin.
How can that man be a Miniſter of Christ, who is diſobedient to his Soveraign? And that, even in thoſe things wherein Christ and his Laws are not concerned. The Law of the Land forbids the Nonconformiſt to live in London, or within five miles of it. But that is not repugnant to the Command of Christ, and therefore he is not a good Subject, and conſequently not a good Chriſtian; much leſs ſuch a Miniſter of Chriſt as he ought to be.
By this one paſſage in that Book, I do take my conjecture of the Author, to be a Perſon happy in his Expreſſion, and ingenuous in his Diſpoſition, rather than deep in the things he delivers, or ſtudious and reflective on thoſe more Removes than one he ought to ſee, who will play ſuch a Game as this, with all his fellows at once, that are in the Miniſtry, of a contrary party. To bind the obſervation of all human Laws (not ſinful in the fact) upon the Conſcience without diſtinction, is the doing he does not know what. An unmerciful determination! which being paſſed too upon that particular Oxford Act, hath drawn from the reſt, this Animadverſion (as it lyes there) out of my Papers.
I am ſorry that any Perſon of ſo much candour, latitude, and ingenuity, as I believe the Writer of this Book to have, ſhould be ſo unkind to his Brethren, ſo unconſcionably untender (to expreſs the thing as it is) as to account, That no man who tranſgreſſes an Act of Parliament (ſuch as for the Nonconformiſt to come within five miles of London) can be a good Chriſtian. Alas! how preciſe are ſome men as to the Law of the Land, who are yet ſo angry at others for being ſtrict to the Laws of God? But does this Reverend Perſon indeed think that every tranſgreſſion of a Statute of the Realm is no leſs than a deadly ſin! Or dare he wilfully judge here, any otherwiſe than himſelf would be judged? What then if a man ſhall-live and die in the breach of many Statutes, which he knows, and yet thinks nothing of it, muſt ſuch a one be certainly damned? What if a man ſhould live and die in a Cottage of his own erecting, that hath not four Acres of Ground to it? Or may a man live and die in a wilful known ſin, without Repentance, and be ſaved? Too rigorous were it (ſayes Mr. Hooker, that underſtood himſelf here no doubt a little better) that the breach of every Law ſhould be ſo held; a Mean there is between theſe extremities, if ſo be we could find it out. I muſt confeſs I have not read any, to my remembrance, that have ventured on the chalking out this Mean that I ſhould gather ſatisfaction from it; ſo that I muſt content my ſelf with my own Sentiments, which I ſhall readily deliver, being glad at my heart if I can unlooſe any burden, which many that are tender may be apt to bind on their Conſciences, when ſome that tye the ſame, would be loth to touch them with their little fingers.
The Magiſtrate I account with the Apoſtle, is the Miniſter of God for the Peoples good. If he command in order to that end, I think his Commands ought to be obeyed, not only for fear of his Sword, but for Conſcience ſake: But if he command any thing for the Peoples hurt, or that which evidently is not for their good, I think his Command (if the matter be not ſin) is yet to be obeyed for Wrath ſake, and ſo not to be contemned; but I think not any obligation lyes on the Conſcience, if it can be avoided without contempt or ſcandal, that it ſhould be done. We muſt diſtinguiſh here between the authority that reſides in the Perſon, and the authority of this or that his particular Command. I do apprehend that when any Command or Law does require that, which is Morally or Civilly evil, every ſuch Command or Law, is really diveſted of authority, and ſo may be left undone without breach on a man's Conſcience; yet if a man be brought to queſtion about it, he muſt ſuffer, becauſe the authority which reſides ſtill in the Perſon muſt be ſubmitted to, as to the Ordinance of God. He muſt not reſist, that is expreſs; and rather than reſist, he muſt ſuffer; whereas if he could avoid it without reſiſtance, he was not bound in good earneſt, either to do, or ſuffer. Where we are not obliged ad agendum, ad patiendum, ſayes Grotius, tum demum ubi poena evitari niſi vi oppoſita non poteſt. De Imp. ſum. pot. circa ſac. p. 98.
The reaſon of this at the bottom lyes here, and is firm. Power in the Magiſtrate, or Civil power, which is the ground of ſubjection, does not lye in might, ſtrength, or force, but in right. Poteſtas (ſay Political writers) is jus imperandi. 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 from any. Now that grant or will of God which conſtitutes any to Rule, or to be his Miniſter, being for the Peoples weale (He is the Miniſ… …f God for our weale, ſayes the text;) it muſt follow that whatſoever … not indeed for the Peoples weale; the Magiſtrate is not to command, becauſe it is God's will be commands only for their weale. And if 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 God's will. This is ſuch Doctrine, which is plain, bottom'd and irrefragable; He is the Miniſter of God for thy good, ſaith St. Paul, otherwiſe he is not God's Miniſter, and hath to other purpoſes none of God's power; Dr. Taylor in his Caſes, l. 3. p. 35. Quod neceſſariam non habet conjunctionem cum fine publici commodi non potest praecipi lege humana, ſayes Suarez from the Schools.
One difficulty onelyonly there is, which is this: Who ſhall judge whether a Law be for the peoples Weal, or not? I anſwer, The Magiſtrate muſt judge as to the making the Law, and we muſt judge as to our obedience to it: My Reaſon I give as readily, Becauſe God hath made every man the Judge of his own Actions, and conſequently of all the Circumſtances, whether they are agreeable, or not agreeable to his will, for his forbearance, or doing of them: So that it is not according to the reſolution of any others Conſcience, but of his own, or the Judgement of Private Diſcretion, he ſhall be juſtified, or not juſtified in his walking before him. Let a Law then be promulgated wherein a man is concerned, I thus determine: If he deal uprightly, that is, as a Christian, (to uſe induſtriouſly this perſons word) and in his Conſcience does judge that the Law is good; I mean good for the general, (whether their ſpiritual or temporal good) I do apprehend he is obliged in Conſcience to the obeying that Law, (at leaſt ſo far as his particular obedience is conducive to that good) though the keeping of it otherwiſe be to his own diſadvantage or private loſs. If he judges it not good, I do ſuppoſe he may do well in prudence to be wasy, and do perhaps as others do, and not run himſelf into harm's way: But really if he obſerves it not, he is to make no Conſcience of it, as if the thing offended God, whether he does it, or leaves it undone. And here is that very Mean indeed it ſelf, for ought I know, quod deſideratur. To wit, That the Laws or Commands of the Magiſtrate (even in political and indifferent things) does no leſs than bind the Conſcience, when he is the Executioner of Gods-Will: But though the outward man (out of the caſe of ſin) may be bound, if you will; the Conſcience cannot be obliged, and ought to be ſtill kept free, when he is the Executioner onelyonly of his own. Humans Laws (ſays the fore-mentioned excellent Doctor and Biſhop) bind the Conſcience of the Subjects, but yet give place to juſt and charitable Cauſes: Whi… competent and ſufficient, is not expreſly and minutely declared, but … to be defined by the moderation and prudence of a good man▪
I know not how this Author may receive this, from whom I expect more ingenuity than from many others; that is, to yield to ſecond conſiderations: But methinks, if he had not thought at firſt (when he wrote) of any thing beſides, he might at leaſt have conſidered that there be Laws, which of themſelves grow out of date; and that it is not Time ſo much that brings on them their decay, as the apprehenſion of them to be unreaſonable, unfit, or unprofitable to the Land. When a Law therefore is by general tasit allowance and practiſe of the Nation, had no longer in regard, it is to be accounted as virtually obſolete, and ſo it binds not. There was a Law made this Parliament about Carts and Waggons, for the better keeping the High-wayes; which being found quickly inconvenient to the Waggoners, and unanſwerable we may ſuppoſe to the End, it was ſcarce a Month or two, but they heard no more of it. I will put a Caſe now of Conſcience to this Perſon; Suppoſe a man whoſe living conſiſts in his Waggon, and unleſs he puts more Horſes in his Team, in his coming up to London, than this Law will allow, he muſt give off his Trade, or be undone. I ask, What ſhall this fellow do? By the Doctrine of this Book, for ought I can ſee, he can be no good Subject, and conſequently no good Chriſtian, if he goes on. I will ask again; What thinks the Author of thoſe that die and are buried in the iniquity of Linnen? Whether the Women generally of this Nation, who cannot abide to have the dead wrapt in Flannel; but being uſed ſo much to controul their Husbands at home, will not be ruled by both Houſes, to do any otherwiſe herein than what they think is handſomest for all them, are in capacity, without their amendment in this point, to be ſaved? For my own part, I think verily the latter of theſe Laws being intended, & tending directly to the particular good of the Nation, it ought in Conſcience to have been kept; yet ſeeing the very humour only of the Women hath diſcountenanc'd it, ſo that in the general uſage it is annull'd; I dare not ſay that any man does ſin, that obſerves it not. I dare not ſay that Wife can be no good Chriſtian that buries her Husband in his ſhirt.
As for the Act it ſelf of Oxford, I cannot paſs methinks, without the obſervation of God's providence, toward that great Perſon, who in his Speech that Seſſion, ſo induſtriouſly declared himſelf the Deſigner: Since the Parliament at Oxford, it hath been viſible (ſayes he) that my credit hath been very little. He who had contrived the Baniſhment of others from their houſes by that Act, leaves this paſſage in his Letter, at his own departure out of the Realm. But though he might be forgetful in his proſperity, and unſenſible of thoſe inconveniencies which he was bringing thoſe into, who had done nothing againſt him; Yet do not thou, O God, for all he hath done againſt thee, deprive him in his adverſity of the favour of thy Houſe, nor forget to bring his ſoul out of trouble, when thou ſhalt firſt have brought it in, with the ſenſe of what has been amiſs, in ſuch doings.
For the Oath impoſed, as the condition of the Nonconformiſts lawful coming to this City, or any other Corporation, by that Oxford Act; there are the Nonconformiſts Exceptions againſt it propoſed in that Book entituled, A Defence of the Propoſition. If the Author of this Debate, or that ingenious Perſon, who (they ſay) is writing ſomething about Eccleſiaſtical Policy, for the juſtifying preſent Impoſitions; or that worthy Perſon his aſſociate, who is particularly engaged to it, can Anſwer them, let them try. This I muſt ſay, that I ſuppoſe the chief of thoſe things which ſtick in good earneſt upon the ſober Nonconformist, and which others do not, or dare not ſpeak out, are there offered, againſt that Oath, and againſt Ʋniformity. If they ſhall ſet down the words fairly and candidly, and anſwer them ſatisfactorily, they ſhall do well: But if they do not (after this notice) the world ſhall account indeed they cannot; and what they ſay otherwiſe, muſt ſignifie nothing. I will conclude with Grotius, and return to my Theme; Leges humanae vim obligandi tum demum habent, ſi latae ſint ad humanum modum, non ſi onus injungant quod à ratione & natura plane abhorreat.
If you ask at laſt, How this Sheet comes out thus alone without the reſt againſt this Debate with it? I muſt ſay, What ſhall a man do, when the Preſs is become ſo like the Hedge-hog's Den, that when they have one door open ſtill for themſelves, they will be ſure to ſtop the other, where the leaſt wind can but blow upon them.
FINIS.