A discourse concerning the pretended religious assembling in private conventicles wherein the unlawfullness and unreasonableness of it is fully evinced by several arguments / by John Norris ...

ARGUMENT. I.

THat cannot be the Ordinance of God, or means of grace, that is, ipso facto, a sinfull act. For God, whose words and ways are all of them holy, just and good, hath appointed, ordained, or allowed nothing that hath any thing of sin in it: And it were no less than blasphemy to say the contrary. God doth not warrant any man to doe evil, that good may come by it, no not the least evil, for the procurement of the greatest good, either to our own, or the souls of others. The Apostle re∣jects the very thought of such a thing, with horror and detestation, as know∣ing * 1.1 damnation to be the just reward of it. It is a good saying of Cajetan upon that place; Secundum sanam veramque doctrinam, peccata non sunt eligenda, ut media ad quemcunque bonumfinem; Ac∣cording to sound and true doctrine, sins are not to be chosen as means to procure any good end whatsoever. And mark his reason; Quia suapte naturâ re∣pugnat peccato, quod sit eligibile; It is contrary to, and disagreeable with the

nature of sin, to be at all matter of our choice; Propterea nec propter se, nec propter aliud bonum, est eligibile; And therefore it is not to be chosen, either for it self, or for any good that comes by it. They are neither good intents, nor good events, that make good acti∣ons. All 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Will-worship is abominable to God. His express Pre∣cept is,* 1.2 Ye shall diligently keep the Commandments of the Lord your God, his testimonies and statutes, and doe that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord. And his Prohibition,† 1.3 Ye shall not doe every man what is right in his own eyes. The Commandments of God would soon be made of none effect, if every one in the Church should doe what best likes him. Shall the Master's will depend on the pleasure of the Ser∣vant, or the Servant's upon the ma∣ster's? He cannot be approved by him that employs him, who busies himself in a work most sutable to his own hu∣mour, with neglect of what is given him in Command. Had a good inten∣tion been enough to have justified an action, Saul had done very well in spa∣ring Agag, and the best of the spoils of

the Amalekites; and the kingdom of Israel might have continued to him and his house. And Saint Peter had never been call'd* 1.4 Satan, by our Saviour, as not savouring the things of God, but of men. for dissuading his Master from go∣ing up to Ierusalem. The means, as well as the intention, must be good, if we would have our actions pleasing to God. We grant God may, and doth often, bring good out of evil; but that is no thanks to those that doe it. Evil can naturally produce nothing but evil: It must be no lese than the infinite Wis∣dom and Almighty power of God, that must over-rule it into good.† 1.5 As good Ends cannot justifie Evil means, so nei∣ther will evil beginnings ever bring forth good conclusions, unless God by a miracle of mercy create light out of darkness, order out of confusion, and peace out of our passions. And as he hath not al∣lowed us to doe any evil, for the ob∣taining or procuring of the greatest good, so he needs it not.‖ 1.6 Wilt thou speak wickedly for God, and talk deceit∣fully for him? q. d. his cause, his glory, needs not any ••in of ours to promote it. He will never thank any man for

seeking his honour by sinfull means; he can get himself glory, and save mens souls otherwise. He will say as Achish,* 1.7 Have I need of mad-men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad-man in my presence? The way God hath taught us to gorifie him by, in seeking or procuring the salvation of our own, or the souls of others, is al∣ways to doe that which is good; and though he can bring good out of evil, yet he never Commands, ordains or allows our evil for that end.

But such Preaching and Meetings as are in question, are sinfull acts. Which will appear (as by other reasons which shall be shewed hereafter, so in this place onely) because they are done in disobedience and opposition to the known Laws of the Church and King∣dom wherein we live, and which we stand bound in Conscience towards God, to observe and obey. I begin with the Laws of the Church.

The Eleventh Canon of the Church of England saith,

Whosoever shall affirm or maintain that there are in this Realm other Meetings,

Assemblies or Congregations of the King's born-subjects, than by the Laws of this Realm are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themselves the names of true and lawfull Churches, Let him be excommunicated, and not restored, but by the Arch-bishop, after his repentance and revocation of such his wicked errour.

The sense of this Canon is large and comprehensive, and contains in it, vir∣tually, a prohibition of all Meetings, Assemblies or Congregations whatso∣ever which are not allowed by the Laws of the Land: as the Meetings in question will, and (God willing) shall be made appear to be. Neither can it be restrained onely (if at all) to any other Meetings, than such as are un∣der pretence of joyning in religious worship, not authorized by the Laws of the Land, which (according to the title of the Canon) are called Conventicles; for there can be no o∣ther unlawfull Meetings, so called, for any other end, but onely these two, viz.

First for Ministers and Lay-men, or either of them, to joyn together, to

make Rules, Orders or Constitutions in Causes Ecclesiastical, without the King's authority. And that is censu∣red and forbidden as unlawfull in the twelfth Canon. Or else,

Secondly, to consult about a course to be taken, to impeach or deprave the Doctrine of the Church of Eng∣land, the book of Common Prayer, or any part of the Government or Disci∣pline established in the Church: And this is forbidden under pain of Excom∣munication in the 73 Canon. Any o∣ther end, for any other unlawfull Meet∣ing or Assembly, other than what is aforesaid, cannot easily be imagined. therefore (unless we will make the Reverend, Pious and Learned Authors and Composers of those Canons and Constitutions which are so solemnly e∣stablished by Supreme authority, guilty of a gross tautology) this Canon flat∣ly prohibits all Meetings, Assemblies or Congregations (except the publick, which are commanded and allowed by the Laws of the Land) of any manner of persons, in private houses, or else∣where, which under pretence of reli∣gious worship, take upon them to be called Churches.

Besides, it is expressed in such terms, as are commonly competible to none, but such Meetings, as are under pre∣tence of religious worship. What other Meetings are commonly called Congre∣gations, or do challenge to themselves the name of Churches, but such Meet∣ings as are in question?

The place and order of the Canon, do prove the same; for immediately after the impugners of the King's Supre∣macy, the publick worship of God, Arti∣cles of Religion, Rites and Ceremonies, Government established in the Church of England, the Authours of Schism, and maintainers of Schismaticks in the Church, are censured; is subjoyned this Canon censuring Conventicles, as being the Nursery of all the former.

In the 71 Canon; all Ministers what∣soever are forbidden to preach or admi∣nister the holy Communion in any private house (except in be in time of necessity, when any is either so impotent, as that he cannot go to the Church, or very dange∣rously sick) under pain of Excommuni∣cation.

In the 72 Canon it is ordained, that no Minister whatsoever shall without li∣cence

from the Bishop of the Diocese, first obtained and had under his hand and seal, presume to appoint any meetings for Ser∣mons or Exercises, in Market-Towns or other places, either publickly or in pri∣vate houses, under pain of Suspension for tho first fault, Excommunication for the second, and Deposition for the third.

Now if a Minister may not doe this in his own Parish, but onely in a case of necessity, much less may a stranger intrude himself into another man's Pa∣rish, where there is a Preaching Mini∣stry established by Law, and there set up a course of private house-preaching, administring of Sacraments, and per∣formance of all Ministerial acts, where there can be no need of his so doing, so much as pretended.

But is will be thought by some that the Laws and Constitutions of the Church, are not so greatly to be re∣garded, as that the breach of them should be sinfull; and that her Canons lay no such obligation on Conscience, as that the neglect of their observation and contrary practice should be crimi∣nal. Nay such is the state and condi∣tion of our times, that is is rather

thought a vertue to despise them, than any fault to disobey them: And they are reputed most pure and holy, who with greatest boldness quarrel and ca∣vil against the Authority, Government, and Lawfull Precepts of the Church.

Yet certainly the judgment and practice of Christians in former ages, was otherwise. When vertue and true piety did more abound, they made more conscience of observing the Pre∣cepts and Constitutions of the Church, which were made for decency, order, and good government. And if any frowardly, wilfully, or constantly li∣ved in any opposition, or contrariety thereunto, they were adjudged as evil doers.* 1.8 Nec his quisquam contradicit, quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est, quae sunt jura Ecclesiastica. And truly I see not why the same regard and re∣spect ought not to be shew'n in the ob∣servation of the Laws of our Church now, as hath been to the like Laws and Canons in former and purer times.

Especially if we enquire into these four things:

1. What Power the Church hath to make Laws, Canons and Con∣stitutions?

2. Who were the Authours and Com∣posers of these, of our Church?

3. What is the subject matter of them?

4. What hath been the judgment of Divines, of unquestionable learning, judgment and piety, concerning Laws, Canons and Constitutions of this nature?

Concerning the first. That the Church hath a maternal power to de∣cree, and make Laws to bind all her children, is such a clear truth, as no sober person (I think) will que∣stion.

By [Church] I understand not all the number of the faithfull, but those, that have the lawfull rule and govern∣ment of the Church. Which is the sense, that our Saviour Christ useth it in, when he saith,* 1.9 Dic Ecclesiae, tell the Church; for, there is Ecclesia col∣lectiva, and Ecclesia representativa. I take it in the latter sense.

By [Laws] I understand not any new Article of faith,* 1.10 or any thing con∣trary to what God hath commanded in the holy Scriptures. For it is a true maxim (whoever was the Authour of it) Potestas descendit, non ascendit. None have power in those things that are above them, but in those things which are beneath them. So the Church hath no power in those things, which are above her, but in those things which are below her. Now all Doc∣trines of faith, and other things alrea∣dy commanded of God, are above the Church, and out of her reach, so that the cannot meddle with them, by any Law de novo, otherwise than to see them duly obeyed and observed.

But as for things of an indifferent and adiaphorous nature, serving to ex∣ternal order and decency, in these she hath power, to ordain and make Laws and Constitutions, though not contra∣ry to, yet other than what are already made in God's word, holding still, as near as the can, to the general rules of Scripture. The doctrine of Salvation is always, in all places, the same, and can never be changed: But external

rites and order, are alterable and vari∣able according to the diversity of time and place, and the variety of the minds and manners of men. The Church of the Jews had power of ordaining o∣ther things, than what were expresly set down in God's word, and that for perpetual observation. She ordained the two days of* 1.11 Purim as perpetual festivals.† 1.12 Moreover, Iudas and his bre∣thren, with the whole congregation of Is∣rael, ordained, that the days of the de∣dication of the Altar should be kept in their season, from year to year, by the space of eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, with mirth and gladness. This feast was in∣stituted by Iudas Machabeus and his brethren, when Antiochus Epiphanes was expelled out of Ierusalem, the wor∣ship of God restored, and the Temple (prophaned by the Heathen) again consecrated, which was about 167 years before the Coming of Christ. Which feast was yearly kept ever af∣ter, and our Saviour Christ himself ‖ 1.13 honoured it with his own presence. And if the Jewish Church had that power, why then hath not the Chri∣stian

the like? And that the Primi∣tive Church of Christians had, and did exercise the like power, is plain to any that shall reade Act. 15. and 1 Cor. 11.

Secondly, The Authours and Com∣posers of these Canons and Constitu∣tions Ecclesiastical, were the reverend, learned and godly Bishops, Deans, and Arch-Deacons, and other Clergy-men of every Diocesee, within the Province of Canterbury; met together* 1.14 neither with multitude nor with tumult, but lawfully and duly call'd and summoned, by vir∣tue of the King's Majesties Writ, and receiving legal confirmation of that which was done by them. So then, the composers of those Canons, were such persons as were ordained of God to rule the Church, and to order what in their Wisedom should be thought convenient, to whom in all things (not contrary to God's will revealed in his word) we are commanded obedience, Luk. 12. 42. Heb. 13. 7, 17, 24. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14.

Thirdly, The subject matter of these Canons and Consitutions is of such things as concern External order, de∣cency

and edification, which God hath not particularly determined in Scrip∣ture, but hath left to the rulers and governours of the Church, to ordain and appoint within the compass of that general rule of the Apostle,* 1.15 Let All things be done unto edifying, and in or∣der. In which place, those things that concern the external polity of the Church, are generally expressed, but the particulars are not mentioned, but left to the wisedom and liberty of the Church.

Fourthly, What have been the judg∣ment of Divines (of whose learning and piety and Church of God never yet since their times, made the least doubt or question) concerning Laws, Canons and Constitutions of this na∣ture? They have always thought them sacred and venerable; and their observation an act of Religion and O∣bedience to the general commands of God. Instead of many, take a few testimonies of Divines of the highest rank, both foreign and domestick. Two I shall quote out of learned Zan∣chy, † 1.16 Quatenus hae leges consentaneae sunt cum Sacris Literis, aut saltem non sunt

dissentaneae; Eatenus & verae sunt Ec∣clesiasticae, eoque admittendae, & nos illis obedientiam debemus ac reverentiam; So far forth as these Constitutions are agreeable with the Scriptures, or at least, not disagreeing with them, so far forth they are truly Ecclesiastical, and to be received, and we owe reve∣rence and obedience to them. And he gives his reason in these words: Si Con∣sentaneae sunt hae leges verbo Dei, qui illas rejicit, verbum Dei rejicit. Si non repugnant, contemnit Ecclesiam Dei qui illas contemnit; Contemptus autem Ec∣clesiae, quam Deo ingratus sit, apparet, cum aliis ex locis Sacrarum Literarum, ubi illam magnificat; tum maxime ex Evan∣gelio, Mat. 18. 17. If those Laws are agreeable with the word of God, he that rejecteth them, rejecteth the word of God; if they are not contrary to the word of God, he that rejecteth them despiseth the Church of God; and how odious a thing unto the Almighty it is, that any should despise his Church, as it appears in many places of Scripture, where the Church is magnified, so espe∣cially in Mat. 18. 17. whrere God hath commanded that that person should be

accounted as an heathen man and a Pub∣lican, who hears and obeys not the Church.

Hear the same Learned Authour a∣gain. ‖ 1.17 Credo ea, quae a piis patribus in nomine Domini congregatis, communi om∣nium Consensu, citra ullam Sacrarum Li∣terarum Contradictionem definita & re∣cepta fuerunt: Ea etiam (quanquam haud ejusdem cum Sacris Literis authoritatis.) A SPIRITV SANCTO ESSE. Those things (saith he) which have been concluded and received by the Holy Fathers, gathered together in the Name of God, agreed on by Common-consent, and without any Contradiction of the Scripture (although they are not of the same Authority with the Scriptures,) Yet, I beleive even those things to be from THE HOLY GHOST. Hinc fit, ut quae sunt hujusmodi, &c. Hence it comes to pass, that those things which are of this nature, I neither will disal∣low, nor dare I with a good Conscience. Quis enim ego sum, &c. For who am I that I should dissallow that which the whole Church approves of? So far that worthy Authour.

The next, whose judgment in this

case I shall produce, is Mr. Calvin, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Corinthians.† 1.18 Quinetiam hinc colligere promptum est, has posteriores (scilicet Ecclesiae) Leges, non esse habendas pro humanis traditionibus; quandoquidem fundatae sint in hoc generali mandato, & liquidam approbationem habent, quasi ex ore CHRISTI IPSIVS. Where shew∣ing the difference betwixt the tyranni∣cal Edicts of the Pope, and the Laws of the true Church, in which, discipline and order are contained, he saith; Whence it is easie to be gathered, that the Laws of the Church, are not to be accounted humane traditions, seeing they are foun∣ded upon the general precept of the Apostle, and have as clear an approba∣tion, as if they had been delivered from the mouth of Christ Himself. For, saith he elsewhere,‖ 1.19 Dico sic esse huma∣nam traditionem, ut simul sit divina. It is so an humane tradition, as that it is also divine. Dei est, quatenus est pars de∣eoris illius, cujus cura & observatio no∣bis per Apostolum commendatur: hominum autem, quatenus simpliciter designat, quod in genere fuit indicatum magis quam ex∣positum. It is of God fo far forth as it

is a part of that order and decency, the care and observation whereof is com∣manded, and commended to us by the Apostle: It is of men so far forth, as it simply names or signifies that, which was in general uttered, rather that par∣ticularly expounded.

Take a third testimony from that burning and shining Light of the French Church.* 1.20 Licet quae a regia & aliis Legitimis petestatibus rite prae∣cipiuntur, sunt de jure positivo: quod tamen illis postquam ita constitutae sunt, pareatur, est de jure divino; cum Legi∣timae potestates omnes a Deo sint, Deique vices in suo ordine teneant; dumque illis obedimus, eorumque praecepta observa∣mus, Deo pariter in illis paremus, Deique praeceptum & voluntatem exequimur. Although those things which are com∣manded by the King's Authority, or other lawfull Powers under him, are of positive right: Yet it is of divine insti∣tution that we should obey them in those things, which they command; seeing all lawfull Powers are of God, and supply the place of God in their se∣veral orders: Therefore while we obey them, and keep their Commandments,

we obey God in them, and so fulfill the Will and Command of God.

Learned Beza shall be the next that shall give in his verdict to this truth; † 1.21 Nam etsi Conscientias proprie solus Deus ligat, &c. For although God alone can properly bind the Conscience; yet so far as the Church with respect to or∣der and decency, and thereby to Edi∣fication, doth rightly enjoyn, or make Laws, those Laws are to be observed by all pious persons; and they do so far bind the Conscience, as that no man wittingly and willingly, with a pur∣pose to disobey, can either doe what is so forbidden, or omit what is so com∣manded, without Sin.

To these above named add we in the last place the verdict of our own learned and judicious Mr. Hooker.‖ 1.22 To the Laws (saith he) thus made id est according to the general Law of Nature, and without contradiction to the posi∣tive Law of Scripture) and received by a whole Church, they which live with∣in the bosome of that Church, must not think it a matter of indifference, either to yield, or not to yield obedience.* 1.23 Is it a small offence to despise the Church

of God?† 1.24 My son keep thy Father's Com∣mandments (saith Solomon) and for∣get not thy Mothers instructions, bind them both always about thine heart. It doth not stand with the duty we owe to our heavenly Father, that to the or∣dinance of our Mother the Church we should shew our selves disobedient. Let us not say we keep the Commandments of one, when we break the Laws of the other: For unless we observe both, we obey neither. And what doth let, but that we may observe both, when they are not one to the other in any sort re∣pugnant? Yea, which is more, the Laws of the Church thus made, God himself doth in such sort authorize, that to de∣spise them, is to despise in them, him. Thus far that most judicious Authour.

Yea one of the reformed Churches have put it into their very Confession, ‖ 1.25 That those Laws of the Church deserve to be esteemed divine, rather than humane Constitutions.

From all which it appears, that Ec∣clesiastical Canons and Constitutions are not merely man's Laws, but God's also; both because they are composed and framed by those Fathers, by divine Au∣thority,

and have their general founda∣tion in Scripture; and also because they are ordained for the Glory of God, for Edification, order and decency of the Church, and the better fulfilling and keeping the Laws of God. For as we have a Command from Christ, to tell the Church when any one is refractary and perverse: So have they which are complained of to the Church, that Com∣mand from Christ also, to hear the Voice of God in the Church, and in disobeying the Church, they disobey God. And if Children and Servants, are bound by the Law of God, to obey their Parents and Masters in all things that are reasonable, honest and just, and in their obedience, they obey and serve God himself (Eph. 6. 1. Col. 3. 20. 24. Tit. 2. 9. 10.) then it can be no less plea∣sing to God, that Christians, who live in the bosome of the Church, should be obedient and conformable unto the law∣full Precepts and Constitutions of their spiritual Mother, the Church of Christ, and the Rulers thereof. It is very tru∣ly said by Calvin, Semper nimia morosi∣tas est ambitiosa. A frowardness and aptness to quarrell with the proceedings

of the Church, is accompanied with ambition and pride. It is not because the Church takes too much power on her, but because they would be under none. It is ambition, to have all Go∣vernment in their own hands, that is the Cause, why some will not be subject to any.

All which hath been said of this mat∣ter is agreeable with the Doctrine of the Church of England; who in her twen∣tieth Article saith, The Church hath pow∣er to decree and make Laws. So in her 34th Article: That whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and pur∣posely, doth break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God,* 1.26 offendeth against the Common order of the Church, hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the Conscience of the weak Brethren. Where, by (traditions) I suppose is meant the Laws and Canons of the Church, as the words following do intimate, which speak of the Com∣mon order of the Church, and Authority of the Magistrate.

Thus much of the Laws of the Church.

Neither are such meetings onely a∣gainst the Laws of the Church, but a∣gainst sundry statute Laws of the King∣dom also, in that behalf made and pro∣vided.

In the Statute of 35 Eliz. 1.* 1.27 It is pro∣vided; that if any person or persons a∣bove 16 years old, shall refuse to repair to some Church, Chapel or usual place of Common-prayer, to hear divine Service, and receive the Communion; or come to, and be present at, any Assemblies, Con∣venticles, or Meetings, under Colour or pretence of any Exercise of Religion, con∣trary to the Laws and Statutes: And if any person shall obstinately refuse to repair to some Church, Chapel or usual place of Common-prayer; or by any motion, per∣suasion, inticement, or allurement of any other, willingly joyn in, or be present at, any such Assemblies, Conventicles, or Meetings, under Colour or pretence of any such Exercise of Religion, contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, as is a∣foresaid (which refers to other Statutes formerly made, and yet of force against Conventicles, as well as this one) shall be committed to prison, and there remain without bail, untill be conform, and un∣till

he make an open Submission in the words set down in the Statute. viz.

I. A. B. do humbly acknowledge and confess, that I have grievously offended God, in contemning her Majesties Godly and lawfull Government and Authority, by absenting my self from Church, and from hearing divine Service, contrary to the godly Laws and Statutes of this Realm, and in using and frequenting un∣lawfull and disorderly Conventicles and Assemblies, under Colour and pretence of Exercise of Religion: And I am hearti∣ly sorry for the same, &c. And I do pro∣mise and protest without any dissimulati∣on, that from henceforth I will from time to time obey and perform her Majesties Laws and Statutes in repairing to Church, and hearing divine Service, and doe my utmost endeavour to maintain and defend the same.

Neither can it be pretended (as it is by some) that this Statute was made, or stands in force, against any other sort of People, than those in questi∣on, viz. against Popish recusants onely

and not against Protestant dissenters, as they call themselves: The answer is easie out of the words of the said Statute. For in the beginning of the Statute, the Per∣sons that are concerned in obedience to it, are expressed in these general and large words. Any person or persons whatsoever above the Age of 16 which shall refuse to repair to Church, and willingly join in and be present at any Conventicle or Meeting, &c. Which words comprehend and take in Per∣sons of all Religions, Sects and Persua∣sions whatsoever.

And whereas the penalty of the Sta∣tute to all that shall refuse Obedience and Conformity to it, is abjuration of the Realm, or to be proceeded against as Felons. There is a Proviso toward the End of the Statute, that sixeth the penalty altogether upon Protestant re∣cusants, and not on Popish; In these words: Provided that no Popish recusant, or feme Covert shall be compelled or bound to abjure by virtue of this Act. And lest the Popish recusants should be the one∣ly Persons therein meant or intended, the Conventiclers of our Age make themselves more perfect Recusants than

that Statute supposeth: For whereas that makes absence from the Prayers of the Church, for one Month together, a Crime sufficient to render them ob∣noxious to the penalties of that Act; these men (for the most part) with∣draw themselves for many Years toge∣ther, and, for ought I see, if they are let alone, resolve so to doe all the days of their lives.

In Anno 22. Caroli 2di Regis, there was a Statute made to prevent and sup∣press seditious Conventicles (as the Ti∣tle of that Statute truly calls them) wherein Every Person of the Age of 16 years and upward, that shall be present at any Assembly. Conventicle or Mee∣ting, under Colour or pretence of any Exercise of Religion, in other manner that according to the Liturgy and Prac∣tice of the Church of England, in any place within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, and Town of Ber∣wick upon Tweed, at which Conventi∣cle or meeting there shall be 5 persons or more assembled together, is made li∣able to suffer the penalties of 5s for his first fault, and for his second 10s (and so onward) the Preacher to suffer the pe∣nalty

of 20ll. And the owner of the house or ground, that shall wittingly and willingly suffer such Conventicle, Meeting, or unlawfull Assembly to be held, to suffer the penalty of 20ll.

In the late Act for Uniformity,* 1.28 all Non-conformist Ministers and disabled and prohibited from preaching any Ser∣mon or Lecture indefinitely, either pub∣lick or private. And for as much as the King's Majesty by the Law of God and the Land, of right is, and ought to be master of all the assemblings to∣gether of any of his Subjects; therefore what Meetings soever, are not allowed and authorized by the Laws of the Realm, are adjudged by the Learned in the Laws, to fall within the compass of those Statutes, that forbid and pu∣nish Riots and unlawfull Assemblies; and are, or may justly be presumed to be, in terrorem populi, and in the Event it is to be feared, will prove to be contra∣ry to the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King. And by the* 1.29 Law, all the King's Liege-people are commanded to assist in the suppressing of them, upon pain of imprisonment, and to make fine and ransome to the King.

Notwithstanding all which good Laws, this practice hath continued in the Church these several years, and still doth (notwithstanding His Majesties reinforcement of their execution by his late Proclamation) in open defiance and contempt of all Authority, as if the Laws of the Church and Realm were but fulmen inane, a shadow of a Cloud, that vanisheth as soon as it is made; and as if obedience to Magistracy were no part of Christian duty.

Concerning these Laws of the Realm (to silence clamour) I will touch lightly at five things.

I. That the King being next under God, within his Dominions, supreme in the Church on Earth, hath Power and Authority over the Persons of Mi∣nisters, as well as of any other his Sub∣jects. He being Custos utriusque tabulae, having both tables committed to him, as well the first that concerns our re∣ligious duties to God, as the other that concerns our civil duties to men, may and ought to make such laws as con∣duce as well to† 1.30 the peace and order in the Church, as as godliness and honesty. ‖ 1.31 Pertinet hoc ad reges seculi Christianos,

ut temporibus suis pacatam velint matrem suam Ecclesiam, unde spiritualiter nati sint; (Saith St. Augustine.) He may upon just Cause depose, discharge, and put to silence, any Minister whatsoe∣ver within his Dominions, as to the Execution of his Ministerial function, either in publick or private. Ministers, as well as others, are under civil juris∣diction. for* 1.32 Every Soul is bound to be subject to the higher powers. And† 1.33 St omnis anima, cur non est vestra? Quis vos excepit ex universalitate? If every soul, then the Souls of Ministers as well as others: For who excepted them from the universality? Qui dicit omnem, ex∣cludit nullam. He that saith every Soul, excludeth no Soul. It was impiously said of‖ 1.34 That the Clergy ought not for any cause to be cited before the civil Magistrate, or to be judged by him; it being absurd that the sheep should judge the shepherd. Christ himself taking up∣on him man's nature, was subject to humance Authority, submitting himself to Caiaphas and Pilate, so far as to be apprehended, arraigned, condemned and executed.

True (saith Bellarmine) de facto, Christ was subject to Pilate, but de ju∣re, he ought not to have been so: And that power over him which he did ac∣knowledge, was given to Pilate from above, Iohn 19. 11.) was onely a bare permission.

To which we answer;* 1.35 if we simply respect the Dignity of Christ's person, being the Son of God, then we acknow∣ledge that he neither was, nor could be subject to any man. But if we con∣sider the dispensation of his incarnation, and that form of a Servant which he took on himself, whereby he became Man and under the Law, then de jure, as he was a Jew, he was a Subject to that power, which at that time had the rule. And what Pilate unjustly did against Christ, that, we grant, God did onely permit; But he had a lawfull Jurisdiction over his person, not by God's permission onely, but by his ef∣fectual will.

But suppose it were true which Bel∣larmine saith;* 1.36 yet the Example of Christ maketh never the less for the Confir∣mation of the truth, for which I allege it. For if he submitted himself to a pow∣er

over him that was usurped onely, and not approved of by God, but bare∣ly permitted; then certainly they are very far from the Humility that was in Christ Jesus, that refuse to be obedient and subject to just and lawfull powers, which are ordained of God and set over them. And therefore when Christ said, date quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, give un∣to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, he spake as well to the high Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, as to the People.

St. Paul, whose apostolical authori∣ty and spiritual Weapons, were able to bring down every opposition, yet ac∣knowledged that he must* 1.37 be judged by Caesar, as his lawfull Superiour. Bellarmine's distinction of de facto, and de jure, will stand him in no more stead here, than it did before; for to say, the Roman Emperour was St. Paul's Judge de facto, but not de jure, is to doe St. Paul a manifest injury. For if the em∣perour had no right to judge him, why would he then make use of the benefit of an appeal to Caesar† 1.38 when no body compelled him so to doe? and why did he at another time shelter himself under the Privilege‖ 1.39 of a Citizen of

Rome? By his very professing himself to be a Roman, he doth acknowledge himself to be subject to the same Laws, and to the same Lord, that other Ro∣mans were; and that he had no more exemption or immunity from subjecti∣on and obedience to the Roman Laws, than that Tribune who said* 1.40 with a great sam have I obtained this freedom.

The Scriptures do give us an instance of King Solomon's deposing Abiathar from the Priesthood. The text saith † 1.41 that King Solomon did thrust out Abi∣athar from being Priest before the Lord. Neither doth the Holy Ghost mention this historically onely, as thing done; but by way of approbation, as a thing well and rightly done. This the Iesu∣ites themselves (who are the onely men, I know, who question the Sove∣reign power in this Case) confess. Re∣markable to this purpose are the words of one of them.‖ 1.42 Alii non dubitant di∣cere Solomonem in eo facto injuste egisse, usurpando potestatem, quam non habebat; ego vero id affirmare non audeo, propter verba Scripturae quae ex Cap. 3. allega∣vi: Et quia apud antiquos patres & ex∣positores non invenio factum illud inter

peccata Solomonis numeratum, sive in culpam tributum. Some (saith he) doubt not to say that Solomon in that Act did unjustly, in usurping more power than did belong to him: But I dare not say so, both for the words of the Scripture, which I have before alleged out of the third Chapter; and also, because among the ancient Fathers and Expositours, I find not this Act of his, reckoned for a∣ny of Solomon's sins, or him blamed for it. The words which he saith he alle∣ged out of the third Chapter, are these. * 1.43 And Solomon loved the Lord his God, walking in the ways of David his Father, onely he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. Which exception (saith he) shews that Kings Solomon untill that time, had kept the Commandments of God, and consequently sinned not in that fact in deposing Abiathar. And if the Kings of Israel might execute such power, why not the Kings of England also? Who will say that the Power of Christian Kings and Princes is shorter now, than that of the Kings, of Iudah, and the religious Princes of the Primi∣tive Christian Church was? That the nursing Fathers under the Gospel are a∣bridged

in Authority, of what they were under the Law?

And the reason, and wisedom of this Nation in Parliament, hath adjudged this to be a just Cause of such depositi∣on and silencing of any, when he shall refuse to submit, and be obedient and conformable to such Laws and Con∣stitutions, as they have declared to be † 1.44 Very comfortable to all good People de∣sirous to live in Christian Conversation; most profitable to the State of the Realm, upon which the Mercy, Favour and Bles∣sing of Almighty God is in no-wise so rea∣dily and plentifully powered, as by Com∣mon-Prayer, due using of the Sacraments, and often preaching of the Gospel with devotion of the hearers. And‖ 1.45 that no∣thing conduceth more to the setling the peace of this Nation (which is desired of all good men) nor the honour of our Reli∣gion and the Propagation thereof, than an universal Agreement in the publick Wor∣ship of Almighty God. Which is a thing so amiable and excellent in it self, that it hath extracted an acknowledgment and commendation of it from the Mouths of the Divines of the Presbyte∣rian persuasion themselves. For in a

Book of theirs entitled, A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government, published by the Ministers and Elders met together in a provincial Assembly, November 2d. 1649. They have these words.* 1.46 It is the Duty of all Christians to study to en∣joy the Ordinances of Christ, in unity and uniformity as far as is possible. (Which our Liturgy sets up, by prescribing the manner of it. Whereas otherwise all will be left to the chance of mens wills; which (saith Doctour Hammond)† 1.47 can no more be thought like to concur in one form, than Democritus's Atomes to have met together into a world of beau∣tifull Creatures, without any kind of providence to dispose them.) For the Scriptures call for unity and uniformity, as well as purity and verity. And surely it is not impossible to obtain this so much desired unity and uniformity, because that God hath promised that his Children shall serve him with one heart, and with one way, and with one shoulder. And that in the days of the Gospel, there shall be one Lord, and his Name one. And Christ hath prayed, that we may be all one, as the Father is in him, and he in the Fa∣ther. And he adds a most prevalent rea∣son,

That the World may believe that thou hast sent me. Nothing hinders the propagation of the Gospel so much as the division and separation of Gospel-profes∣sours. If it be God's promise, and Christ's prayer, it is certainly a thing possible to be obtained, and a duty incumbent upon all good Christians to labour after.

Secondly, as it cannot be denyed that the Civil Magistrate hath autho∣rity over the persons of Ministers, so 'tis as true, that he hath power to act for the regulation of all their Ecclesi∣astical meetings and assemblies; though not to act in sacris, Yet circa sacra, non ad docendum, quod est sacerdotale, yet, ad jubendum, quod est regale. As‖ 1.48 Con∣stantine the Emperour told the Bi∣shops whom he invited to a banquet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ye are Bishops within the Church, and I am ordained by God's Grace a Bishop without the Church. That the King of England (saith Sir Henry Spel∣man) * 1.49 is persona mixta, endowed as well with Ecclesiastical authority, as with temporal, is not onley a solid po∣sition of the Common Law of this

Land, but confirmed unto us by the continual practice of our ancient Kings, ever since and before the Conquest, even in hottest times of Popish fer∣vency: For this cause at their Corona∣tion, they are not onely Crowned with the Diadem of the Kingdom, and girt with the Sword of justice to signisie their temporal authority, but are a∣nointed also with† 1.50 the oil of Priest∣hood, and cloathed stola Sacerdotali and veste Dalmatica, to demonstrate this their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; where∣by the King is said to be in Law, the Supremus ordinarius, and in regard thereof among other Ecclesiastical rights and prerogatives belonging to him, is to have all the tithes (through the King∣dom) in the places that are not of any Parish, for some such there be, and namely, divers Forests. Magistrates (we grant) can neither preach the word, nor administer the Sacraments, any more than Vzziah could burn in∣cense, or offer Sacrifice to God: Yet they are nursing Fathers of the Church, not to give the milk of the word and Sacraments, but of disclipline and Go∣vernment. During the old Testament

times, the King's power extended‖ 1.51 to the instituting and commanding of such Religious meetings, as do no where appear to be either instituted, or com∣manded of God, or his Servant Moses. v. g. The solemnity of the Passover, which was to be kept by the Law of Moses but seven days, by a special Command of* 1.52 King Hezekiah, with the con∣sent of the people, was commanded to be kept other seven days. The Feast of Purim, in Commemoration of the deliverance of the Nation of the Iews, under Ahasuerus the Persian King, was instituted by† 1.53 Hester and Mordecai. Moses onely Commanded one day of Fasting to be yearly observed, (viz.) in the seventh month; But the Kings and Magistrates of the people instituted other yearly solemn Fasts: So that in the times of the latter Prophets, there were four yearly Fasts observed, (viz.) besides that yearly in the seventh month, three others‖ 1.54 in the fourth, fifth, and tenth month. Now if they may by their authority institute and enlarge, why not then as well abridge and restrain; Provided the publick as∣sembling

together of God's people, ac∣cording to Divine appointment, be no-way prejudiced or infringed. If the Magistrate may appoint, then he may forbid too: Law, reason and sense teach, that appointing and forbidding belong to one power.

Thirdly, neither can there be any ground of quarrell made against the justness of these Laws forbidding Con∣venticles. For (as it is well observed by* 1.55 a worthy Divine before me) that Law is undoubtedly just, in which there is a concurrence of the justice of these four causes of Law, wherein the whole of a Law doth consist, (viz.) the justice of the final, efficient, formal and ma∣terial causes of Laws.

1. The final Cause of End of a just Law, is that it tend to the common and publick good. And of this the Lawgivers are to be Judges, and not the Subjects. And most unreasona∣ble it were that what the Lawgivers shall adjudge to be for the publick good, should be made to yeild to private and particular mens interests.

2. The efficient Cause of a just Law, is the lawfull power of the person, or

persons in authority, that made the Law. Otherwise Laws are onely so in name, and not indeed. And as A∣quinas,† 1.56 Violentiae magis quam leges, They are rather acts of violence than Laws. And it is a sure rule in Logick, Causa aequivoca non infert effectum; a sentence passed by one that is no Judge, binds not the party.

3. The right form of a Law, is that it be a rule of rectitude for hu∣mane actions, according to the gui∣dance of distributive justice, giving to every one according to his demerits.

4. The matter of a Law, must be a thing that is good according to the rule of universal justice, at leait indif∣ferent.

A Law wherein these 4 things con∣cur must needs be good and obliga∣tory to all persons that are concern∣ed in it.

Now in which of these the aforesaid Laws against Conventicles are faulty, I know not. Perhaps some will say, in the latter; the Matter of it is not good, to lay a restraint on Religious Assemblies and Meetings.

It were so indeed,* 1.57 if Religious Assem∣blies and Meetings were forbidden. But I think it will appear in the sequel, that these in question are not such, whatsoever some conceive them to be.

It were so,* 1.58 if all Religious Meetings or Assemblies were forbidden: But (blessed be God) 'tis otherwise. We have still‖ 1.59 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. the pub∣lick, ancient, lawfull and orderly as∣semblies allowed, commanded and en∣couraged by Authority, in all places of the Kingdom; and onely such meet∣ings by the Law forbidden, as are pri∣vate, new and disorderly, and tend to Faction and Schism, and such other evils as are not without trembling to be mentioned.

Lastly I answer,* 1.60 with that learned Casuist Dr.* 1.61 Sanderson, that it is not necessarily requisite, that whatsoever is established by Law, should be bonum positive, that it should be an act of ver∣tue; but it is sufficient if it be bonum negative, that is, nothing sinfull or mo∣rally evil, as all vices are. Other∣wise there should be no room for Laws about middle and indifferent things. And suppose a Law should be

defective in regard of the efficient, final, or formal cause; yet if the matter of it be such, as may be done without sin, ••t binds the Subject to obedience. And that the forbearance of such ille∣gal meetings as are in question, may be done without sin; and that those dissenting brethren, who have been e∣jected for their non-compliance in Uni∣formity to the present legal establish∣ment, being under a legal restraint as to the use of their Ministerial Functi∣on, may without sin forbear the irre∣gular use of their gifts and labours in the said private meetings, to the un∣dermining and confronting of the Laws, the increase of Sedition, Schism, and divers other Horrid Evils, I think is out of question. Learned Beza thought so, or else he had never returned such an answer, as he did, to that Case of Conscience which was proposed to him, by certain English Ministers, who in the Reign of Q. Eliz. were silenced for non-conformity. The case pro∣posed being, Whether they might, or ought not to preach, notwithstanding their being prohibited by man's law? His answer verbatim is,† 1.62 Tertium il∣lud,

nempe ut contra Regiam Majesta∣tem, & Episcoporum voluntatem Ministe∣rio suo fungantur magis etiam exhorre∣scimus propter eas causas, quae tacenti∣bus etiam nobis, satis intelligi possunt. He was so far from thinking it law∣full, that he trembled at the thought of such a thing, that they should ex∣ercise their Ministry contrary to the Queen's Laws, and the will of the Go∣vernours of the Church. And the same hath been the judgment of Anti∣quity in the like case. The ancient and orthodox Fathers of the Church, being met together in Council at An∣tioch, in the first year of the Reign of Aurelianus the Emperour, and in the year of Christ (according to Eusebius) 269. decreed‖ 1.63 Non licere Episcopo vel Clerico si exauthorizatus fuerit mi∣nistrare;

That if any Bishop, being condemned by a Council, or any Presbyter or Deacon by his Bishop, should presume to Preach, or med∣dle with any thing of, or belonging to the Sacred Office of the Ministry, there should never be any hope for him, ever to be restored again by any other Council or Synod: And all

that Communicated with him, should be cast out of the Church.

As may be seen more at large in that Canon.

Of the like judgment were the Di∣vines of the Presbyterian-way touching those learned, Godly, and orthodox Ministers, who suffered ejection out of their livings, and deprivation of all they had, in the late times of trou∣bles, by a pretended authority of Par∣liament, for their adherence to his late Majesty of ever Blessed memory. When the Earl of Northumberland discoursing with Mr Calamy about the supplying of above fifty Churches in London, void of Ministers, told him, That they must restore some of the sequestred Clergy of London, and admit them to preach again, for unless they did so, the Parliament could not find men of a∣bility to preach in London: Mr Calamy replied, God Forbid. As it is recorded and published to the world, in a Book called Persecutio undecima, Printed in the year 1648. page 42. And if the thought of the Restauration of those worthies to their Office, how unjustly soever they were suspended from it, was (in the judgment of that person) rejected with

indignation, as a thing offensive and either forbidden, or wished to be forbid∣den of God; how much more execrable and abominable a thing would he have thought it to be, if they should have taken upon them (as some now do under a lawfull power) to preach again, without any readmission by that pow∣er that silenced them, yea in oppositi∣on and defiance of it?

And because no testimony is so fit to convince any party as that which pro∣ceeds from their own Mouths; Let there∣fore the Judgment of a* 1.64 Non-conformist (otherwise a Person in Learning, So∣briety and Solidity inferiour to few of his generation,) be heard and weighed in this case. He writes in defence of our Church assemblies, against those who being silenced for Non-conformi∣ty, (as he was) yet (not as he did) separated themselves from the publick Congregations; and not enduring to have their Mouths stopped, or to sit down in silence, thought themselves bound (according to the Example of the Apostles, Act. 4. 19. and 5. 29.) to exercise their Ministry, though not in publick, yet in private Meetings, not∣withstanding

any Legal prohibition to the contrary.

First he distinguisheth betwixt the calling of the Apostles, and that of the Ministers now. The former, as they had their ministry immediately from God, so had they the designation of that ministry to their persons immediately from God also. And therefore the ex∣ercise of it was not restrainable, or to be forborn at the Commandment of men. The latter, though their ministry be from God also, yet have their Cal∣ling to that ministry or the designation of that office to such and such particu∣lar persons, from men in God's ordina∣ry way, and cannot exercise that func∣tion, but by virtue of that Calling wch they have from men.

And there∣fore (saith he) in common sense they ought to obey man, forbidding them the exercise of a Calling, which they do exercise by virtue of a Calling from men. Otherwise there should be no power so to depose a man from his Ministry, but that notwithstanding any Command from the Church or State, he is still to continue in the ex∣ercise of his ministry, and should be

bound to give that example, which the Apostles did, which is not onely absurd, but a conceit tending plain∣ly to manifest Sedition and Schism.

Afterwards he hath these words.

Neither were some of the Apostles onely forbidden, so as that others should be suffered to preach the same Gospel in their places; but the utter abolition of the Christian Religion was manifestly intended, in silencing them. But over Churches, whereof we are Ministers, are no private and secret Assemblies, such as hide themselves from the face of a persecuting Ma∣gistrate; but are publick, professing their worship, and doing their Religi∣on in the face of the Magistrate•• and State; yea and by his Countenance, Authority and Protection: And we Are set over those Churches, not onely by a calling of our People, but also by Authority from the Magistrate, who hath an armed power, to hin∣der such publick actions; who is also willing to permit and maintain other

true Ministers of the Gospel, in those places where he forbiddeth some.

And thereupon the said Authour makes this threefold Conclusion.

1. If after our publick Calling to minister in such a known and publick Church, not by the Church onely, but by the Magistrate also; the Ma∣gistrate shall have matter against us (just, or unjust, as to our obedience it matters not) and shall in that re∣gard forbid us to minister to our Church, I see not by what warrant in God's word, we should think our selves bound notwithstanding, to ex∣ercise our Ministry still; except we should think such a Law of Ministry to lie upon us, that we should be bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate, or oppose Sword to Sword, which I am sure Christia∣nity abominates.

2. Yea, suppose the Magistrate should doe it unjustly and against the Will of the Church, and should there∣in sin; yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Church, nor

ought she therein resist the Will of the Magistrate; nor doth she stand bound in regard of her affection to her Mi∣nister (how great and deserved so∣ever) to deprive her self of the pro∣tection of the Magistrate, by leaving her publick standing, to follow her Minister in private, and in the dark; refusing the benefit of other publick Ministers, which with the good leave and liking of the Magistrate, she may enjoy.

3. Neither do I know, what War∣rant any ordinary Minister hath by God's word, in such a case, so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministry, that thereby they should hazard their outward Estate and quiet in the Common-wealth, where they live; when in some com∣petent measure, they may publickly, with the grace and favour of the Ma∣gistrate, enjoy the ordinary means of salvation by another. And except he hath a Calling to minister in some other Church, he is to be content to live as a private member untill it shall please God, to reconcile the Magi∣strate unto him, and to call him again to his own Church.

From which words of this learned Non-conformist, it may easily be gathe∣red, that those persons who are now, by the unquestionable Legitimate powe∣r of the Kingdom, for their Non-com∣pliance with the present legal Establish∣ment in the Church, deposed from their Ministry,* 1.65 if they contain not themselves in quietness and silence, as other pri∣vate Christians; do, and ought; but will without a Call of Authority, un∣dertake still to preach the word, and draw People after them to their private Ministry;* 1.66 they are condemned by the most sober, and judicious of their own party;* 1.67 and the case of them and their followers, is adjudged to be far diffe∣rent from that of the Apostles, and pri∣mitive Christians; their practice un∣warrantable by the word of God,* 1.68 and manifestly tending to Sedition and Schism.

But what speak I of the single Testi∣mony and Judgment of one man of that way and perswasion (though a learned and judicious one) whenas we have extant to the World the like verdict agreed upon long since by the joint consent of sundry Godly and learned Ministers

of this Kingdom, then standing out and suffering in the cause of inconformity, and published by Mr. William Rathband for the good of the Church, and the better setling of mens unstable minds in the truth, against the subtile insinuations and plausi∣ble pretences of that pernicious evil of the Brownists or Separatists. For in the 4^th. page of that Book; First, they justifie themselves against the objection of that faction, in yeilding to the suspensions and deprivations of the Bishops, ac∣knowledging their Power to depose, who did ordain them; and their own duty to acquiesce therein, and in qui∣etness and silence to subject themselves thereunto, in expressions so full to my present purpose that I should have tran∣scribed them for the Reader's satisfacti∣on, were it so that I had not been pre∣vented by the reverend and worthy Authour of the* 1.69 Continuation of the Friendly Debate. As to that place of Scripture. Act. 4. 19. 20. which they acknowledge to be very unskilfully al∣ledged by the adversary, they make this threefold answer, to shew the diffe∣rence betwixt the Apostles case and theirs.

First (they say) they that inhi∣bited the Apostles were known and professed Enemies of the Gospel.

Secondly, the Apostles were char∣ged not to teach in the Name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the Doctrine of the Gospel; Which Commandment might more hardly be yeilded unto, than this of our Bishops, who are not onely content that the Gospel should be preached, but are also preachers of it themselves.

Thirdly, the Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from † 1.70 men, nor by the hands of men, but immediately from God himself, and therefore also might not be restrained nor deposed by men; whereas we, though we exercise as function, where∣of God is the Authour, and we are also called of God to it, yet are we also called and ordained by the hands and ministry of men, and may there∣fore by men be also deposed and re∣strained from the exercise of our Mi∣nistry.

I cannot think that any of the Lear∣ned sort of the Non-conformists now are ignorant of these things, nor, that (if

their hearts were known) their Judg∣ments differ (in this case) from that of their ancient brethren; but I fear the busie upholders and promoters of Con∣venticles in our Age, notwithstanding their prohibition by Law, to preach at all, sin against their own light and con∣science in so doing. But I proceed.

4. Now Laws being thus made a∣gainst all such unlawfull Meetings, and all such His Majestie's Laws being no way contrary to God's word; all his Subjects stand bound in the obligation of obedience to them, and that for con∣science sake (Rom. 13. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Tit. 3. 1.) And under pain of Damna∣tion if they wilfully resist and disobey, Rom. 13. 2. And therefore it is, that in the Schools, they call disobedience to the King's Laws, Sacrilege: for though the trespass seem to be directed but a∣gainst a man, yet in that man whose Office (and consequently his person) is sacred, God is opposed, and his ordi∣nance violated. The King's Laws though in themselves, in regard of their par∣ticular Constitution, they put no speci∣al obligation upon us under pein of sin and damnation; yet in a general relati∣on

to that God, who is the original of all Power, and hath commanded us to obey Authority, their neglect or dis∣obedience involves us in guilt, and ex∣poseth us to Sin, and consequently to Damnation.‖ 1.71 Civilibus legibus quae cum pietate non pugnant, eo quisque Christia∣nus paret promptius, quo fide Christi est imbutus plenius; Every Christian, by how much the more he hath of the grace of faith, by so much the more rea∣dy he is to conform to the Laws of men, which are not contrary to the Laws of God. All power is of God; That there∣fore which▪ Authority enjoins us, God enjoins us by it, the Command is me∣diately his, though passing through the hands of men.* 1.72 Hoc jubent imperatores, quod jubet & Christus; quia cum bonum jubent, per illos non nisi Christus jubet; When Kings command what is not dis∣agreeable with Christ's Commands, Christ commands by them, and we are called to obey not onely them, but Christ in them.

But is not suffering,* 1.73 obedience? And if men are willing to submit to the Pe∣nalty of the Law, is not that sufficient to discharge the Conscience from the guilt of disobedience?

Casuists,* 1.74 that are of that Judgment, say, it holds true onely in those Laws (whereof there are but very few in the World) that are purely penal: And the Laws which we now speak of are not such, for these are partly Moral, bin∣ding to doe, or to leave undone some moral Act;* 1.75 and partly Penal, in case of Omission of what the Laws command, or Commission of what the Laws forbid, then to undergoe the Punishment the Laws inflict. Now in these mixt Laws, suffering the Penalty doth not discharge the Conscience from the guilt of sin. For it is a rule of sure truth which Casuists give in such cases, Omnis prae∣ceptio obligat ad culpam; Every just Command of those who have lawfull Authority to command, leaves a guilt of sin upon those mens Consciences who do not obey. The reason is, because where a Law made by lawfull Authority re∣quires active obedience, and imposeth a Penalty in case of disobedience, the Conscience of the subject stands bound primarily and intentionally to the performance of the duty therein en∣joined. As for the Penalty threatned, that is a secondary and accidental thing

to the Law, added to keep up the re∣putation and esteem thereof, in the minds of those who are concerned in it, and to affright them from the neglect and disobedience of it. So that, though the suffering the Penalty of the Law, in case of the transgression of it, be as much as can be required of the Law∣giver, yet God, by whom Kings reign, and who requires subjection to Autho∣rity, and that for Conscience sake, will not hold such persons guiltless, that doe not the things commanded in the Law.

The malefactour satisfies the Law at the time of his execution, but who will say, that without repentance of his fact, the guilt of sin remains not still upon his Conscience, or that he shall be ac∣quitted at God's tribunal?

5. Neither are they the Laws of the Church and Kingdom of England one∣ly, that are against such Meetings and Ministry as are in question; But the godly Kings and Princes of the primi∣tive Christian-Church have ever made the like.† 1.76 Eusebius tells us, that Con∣stantine the Great made a Law, that no Separatists or Schismaticks should meet

in Conventicles; and commanded that all such places, where they were wont to keep their Meetings, should be de∣molished; and that they should not keep their factious Meetings either in publick places, or private houses, or remote places, but that they should re∣pair to their parochial Churches. And in the next Chapter he saith, that by that Law, the memory of most of those Sectaries was forgotten and extin∣guished.

Sozomen reports‖ 1.77 that Theodosius the great, decreed that the Sectaries (whose petition for liberty he had first torn in pieces) should not assemble together, but all of them repair to their own pub∣lick Congregations, otherwise to be ba∣nished their Country, to be branded with some infamy, and not to be par∣takers of Common privileges and fa∣vours with others. And our neigh∣bours and brethren of Scotland of the Presbyterian judgment, did in one of their late general Assemblies, since the enacting of their solemn League and Co∣venant, make a special Canon against all private Meetings; the direct ten∣dency there of being to the overthrow

of that Uniformity by them covenan∣ted, to be endeavoured in all the Chur∣ches of the three Kingdoms.

The very Heathens themselves, by their Laws have made all such As∣semblies illegitimate which the highest Authority did not cause to meet, though they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to doe solemn Sacrifice to their Gods (as may appear by Solon's Laws) and in their practice, they have shewed themselves ready to yeild obedience to their Governours, in desisting from such irregular Con∣ventions when they have been requi∣red.

Though Demetrius his Assembly came together disorderly, and of their own heads* 1.78 rushed into the Theatre, and there kept a shouting and Crying two hours together, some one thing, some another, not knowing, most of them, where∣fore they came together: Yet when the Town-clark (who had Authority) did dismiss them; they added not one fault to another, but broke off their disor∣derly Meeting presently. And they shew themselves more refractary than Demetrius himself, who doe otherwise.

And, if it be well considered, the

practice in question will be found to in∣terfere with it self; and to carry in the very face of it a convincing Testimony of its evil and unwarrantableness. For if it be lawfull for these men to preach in private Meetings (as they do, and have a long time done) why do they not take upon them to adventure to preach in the publick and Church-assemblies also? What is it that makes them abstain from the latter, and yet take liberty in the former?

Is it in obedience to the Law of the Land, which forbids them to preach in publick? The same Law forbids them to preach in private also. It cannot be denied but that one is forbidden as well as the other. Then this must needs be turned upon them, why do they not obey in the one as well as in the other, since they cannot but acknow∣ledge that both are forbidden in the same Law? surely if it were the Care and Conscience, and desire to obey law∣full Authority, according as Christian duty binds them, that makes them si∣lent in publick; the same Conscience, the same care and desire would make them sit down in silence in private also.

If it be said, that they therefore ab∣stain from publick preaching, because it more exposeth them to the danger and penalty of the Law, than private doth: Then this must be retorted up∣on them also, that their obedience is not such as God requireth, for Consci∣ence, but for wrath. Good men obey for Conscience; but those that obey for wrath, have not the fear of God before their Eyes. For, none contemns the power of man, unless he hath first de∣spised the Power of God.

And shall that be accounted by any sober Christian, to be the ordinance of God, or means of his appointment to beget grace in mens souls, that is so re∣pugnant to good Laws, both of Church and State, which we all stand bound in Conscience to observe and obey; is contradictory to it self, and hath in it that, which proclaims to all that will open their Eyes to look into it, its un∣lawfulness and sin? God forbid.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rom. 3. 8.
• * 1.2

  Deut. 6. 17▪ 18.
• † 1.3

  Deut. 12. 8.
• * 1.4

  Mat. 16. 23.
• † 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 10••.
• ‖ 1.6

  Job 13. 7.
• * 1.7

  1 Sam. 21. 15.
• * 1.8

  Basil. de Spir. Sanct. c. 27.
• * 1.9

  Mat. 18. 17.
• * 1.10

  Nihil eui∣quam largiri potest humana indulgentia, ubi intercedit & legem tri∣buit divina praescriptio. Cyp. Epist. 4.
• * 1.11

  Esth. 9. 20, 21.
• † 1.12

  1 Mac. 4. 59.
• ‖ 1.13

  Joh. 10. 22.
• * 1.14

  Act. 24. 18.
• * 1.15

  1 Cor. 14 26, 40.
• † 1.16

  Hier. Zanch. T. 4. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ Thes. 4. p. 202.
• ‖ 1.17

  Hier. Zanch. T. 8. obs. in Confess. suam cap. 25. Aph. 10. 11.
• † 1.18

  Calv. Com. in 1 Cor. 14. 40.
• ‖ 1.19

  Calv. Instit. L. 4. c. 10. sect. 30.
• * 1.20

  Molin. de just. tr. 2. disp. 27.
• † 1.21

  Beza Epist. 20.
• ‖ 1.22

  Hooker Ec∣cles. polit. L. 5. Sect. 9.
• * 1.23

  1 Cor. 11. 22.
• † 1.24

  Prov. 6. 20.
• ‖ 1.25

  Confess. Suev. in Harm Con∣fess. 8. 17. p, 290.
• * 1.26

  St. Paul cal∣leth Ecclesi∣astical Laws and Constitu∣tions of the Church of Co∣rinth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, traditi∣ons. 1 Cor. 11. 2.
• * 1.27

  35 Eliz. 1.
• * 1.28

  This treatise was written and composed before the Sta∣tute to prevent and suppress seditious Con∣venticles Car. 2. 22 was made.
• * 1.29

  2. H. 5. 8.
• † 1.30

  1 Tim. 2. 2.
• ‖ 1.31

  Aug. tract. 11. in Johan.
• * 1.32

  Rom. 13. 1.
• † 1.33

  Bern. Epist. 4. 2. ad Archi∣epis. Senoven∣sem.
• ‖ 1.34

  Bellarm. de clericis. c. 28.
• * 1.35

  Ans. 1.
• * 1.36

  Ans. 2.
• * 1.37

  Act. 25. 10. 11.
• † 1.38

  Act. 25. 11.
• ‖ 1.39

  Act. 16. 37.
• * 1.40

  Act. 22. 28.
• † 1.41

  1 King. 2. 27.
• ‖ 1.42

  Suarez. de∣fens. fid. Cath. l. 3. c. 26. num. 7.
• * 1.43

  1 King. 3. 3.
• † 1.44

  Act. of uni∣form. p. 68.
• ‖ 1.45

  Ibid. pag. 71.
• * 1.46

  Vindicat. of Presbyt. p. 119. 120.
• † 1.47

  View of the Directory. p. 23.
• ‖ 1.48

  Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. 4. c. 24.
• * 1.49

  Sir H. Spel∣man de non tem••r. Eccl. p. 21, 22.
• † 1.50

  Reges sacro oleo uncti sunt spiritualis ju∣risdictionis ca∣paces. 33 Ed. 3. Tit. Aid de Roy. 103. ex Dom. Cook Rep. part 5.
• ‖ 1.51

  Sanderson de oblig. Consc. Lect. 6. Sect. 31.
• * 1.52

  2 Chron. 30.
• † 1.53

  Esther 9.
• ‖ 1.54

  Zach. 8. 19.
• * 1.55

  Mr. Jo. Mart. in Serm. on Deut. 17. 12.
• † 1.56

  Aquin. 1, 2. quest. 96.
• * 1.57

  Answ. 1.
• * 1.58

  Answ. 2.
• ‖ 1.59

  Act. 19. 39.
• * 1.60

  Answ. 3.
• * 1.61

  Sand. de ob∣ligat. Consc. Lect. 6. Sect. 15.
• † 1.62

  Bez. Epist. ad quosdam Eccles. Anglic. fratres. p. 97.
• ‖ 1.63

  Concil. An∣tioch. Can. 4.
• * 1.64

  Mr. William Bradshaw un∣reasonableness of separation. pag. 90, &c.
• * 1.65

  Firmum est genus probati∣onis quod eti∣am ex adver∣sario sumitur, & veritas eti∣am ab inimi∣cis veritatis probetur.
• * 1.66

  Novatian. de Trin.
• * 1.67

  Amici contra amicum; & inimici pro inimico in∣vincibile testi∣monium est.
• * 1.68

  L. Vives de instrument. probabilit.
• * 1.69

  Pag. 345. vide. the last page of this Treatise. 156. where the words are to be seen.
• † 1.70

  Gal. 1. 1.
• ‖ 1.71

  Confess. Suev. cap. 14.
• * 1.72

  Aug.
• * 1.73

  Object.
• * 1.74

  Ans.
• * 1.75

  Sanderson de obligat. Consc. p. 304. &c.
• † 1.76

  Euseb. de vit.. Constant. L. 3. c. 63.
• ‖ 1.77

  Sozom. L. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.78

  Act. 19. 29.