A26865:154
An apology for the nonconformists ministry containing I. the reasons of their preaching, II.…
An apology for the nonconformists ministry containing I. the reasons of their preaching, II. an answer to the accusations urged as reasons for the silencing of about 2000 by Bishop Morley ..., III. reasons proving it the duty and interest of the bishops and conformists to endeavour earnestly their restoration : with a postscript upon oral debates with Mr. H. Dodwell, against his reasons for their silence ... : written in 1668 and 1669, for the most of it, and now published as an addition to the defence against Dr. Stillingfleet, and as an account to the silencers of the reasons of our practice / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for T. Parkhurst and D. Newman, 1681
AN APOLOGY FOR THE SILENCED MINISTERS, Especially for their not cea… › Part 3
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
3. Conscience is no King, no Competitor with the King, no Ruler of any man at all (in a true proper sense.) It is but only a discerner of our duty, and not a maker of it; a knower and applier of the Law, and not a Law-giver. And is it not fine reasoning to say, If a man must be the discerner of his duty to God and the King, he can be no good subject?
4. And Conscience discerning duty to God, is it that is here to be orderly distinguished from Conscience discerning duty to man? God and man are our Governors; if we are not agreed which of them is the greater, stay a while, and we shall be agreed. Conscience is but a discerner of our respective duty to each of them; (or taken ⟨p. 42⟩strictly and Theologically, of our duty to God only) so that this is the question, Whether when a man is conscious of his duty to God, he may omit it, because that man forbiddeth it? Or when a man is conscious what God forbiddeth, he may do it if man command it? so that for man to bind Conscience (if you will speak ineptly) to duty, is one thing; and for man to bind us to go against conscience is another thing. For that's all one as to bind us to do that which, as far as we can discern, is against Gods Law; and so the issue of all is whether conscience of Gods command, or conscience of mans command, is to be preferred? And this being the plain English of the case, is it not a blessed time and land think you, when confident raw confused wits shall by such questions as, Whether the King or Conscience be supreme, deceive and mislead poor people in a maze, and confound them as to all Religion; when an ordinary wit that had been but preserved by Humility and Catholicism, (or freedom from faction) might easily have distinguished, and set them in the open light?
4. And Conscience discerning duty to God, is it that is here to be orderly distinguished from Conscience discerning duty to man? God and man are our Governours; if we are not agreed which of them is the greater, stay a while, and we shall be agreed. Conscience is but a discerner of our respective duty to each of them; (or taken ⟨p. 42⟩