WHether a Non conformist, be­fore the KINGS DECLARATION, who hath not taken the Oxford Oath, might come to Live at London, or at any Corpo­rate Town, or within Five Miles of it, and yet be a good Christian?

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. The Friendly De­bate between the Conformist and Non­conformist.

By this one Passage in that Book, I did take my Conjecture of the Author, to be a person happy in his Expression, and in­genious in his Disposition, rather then [Page 6]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 at once with all the Non-conformist Ministers in the Nation. To bind the observation of all human Laws (not sinful in the Fact) upon the Con­science, without distinction, is the doing he knew not what. An unmerciful De­termination! which being passed too upon that particular Oxford Act, engaged me upon this point, as seeming to me the most material to be considered of any in the Book, both in regard of the loss the most were at what to Answer, and the necessity of their Satisfaction: seeing if we act not in Faith in what we do, we sin. The Paper, besides some little more in the preamble then this, was as follows.

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 [Page 7]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? 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 Sentiment, 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 A­postles [Page 8]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 [Page 9]earnest, either to do or suffer. Where we are not obliged ad agendum, ad patiendum sayes Grotius, tum demum ubi poena evitari­nisi vi opposita non potest. De Imp. sum. pot. c [...]rou 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 imperands. 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 weale (He is the Minister of God for our weale, sayes the text), it must follow, that whatsoever is not indeed for the Peoples weale, the Magistrate is not to command, because it is God's will that he commands only for their weal. 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 [Page 10]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 onely 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 [Page 11]does judg 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 wary, 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 only of his Own-Humane Laws (says the fore-mentioned excellent Doctor and Bishop) bind the Con­science of the Subjects, but yet give place to just and charitable Causes: Which are com­petent [Page 12]and sufficient, is not expresly and minutely declared, but it is 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 tacit 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 & Waggons, for the better keeping the High-wayes; which being found quickly inconvenient to the Waggo­ners, & 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 [Page 13]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, and 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 Christians that buries here 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 [Page 14]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.

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 Polity, 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, [Page 15]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 on us injungant quod a ratione & natura plane abhorreat.

If you ask at last, How this Sheet comes out thus alone without others 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 come in to blow upon them.