Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	command_n	command_v	lawful_a	2,968	5	9.4987	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57696	The lawfulnes of obeying the present government and acting under it with some other additions to a former edition / by one that loves all presbyterian lovers of truth and peace and is of their communion.	Rous, Francis, 1579-1659.	1649 (1649)	Wing R2021; ESTC R28815	21,204	27

Parliaments and all having to one in every three thus subjected themselves upon termes of power and not of right what can be expected but that what hath been done may or shall be done hereafter especially when in this present age obedience is given to the Lawes and Commands of those Princes But some say that there are Oathes that justifie disobedience to the present Government Surely Oathes are sacred bonds and reverent obligements and where they doe not themselves leave or make us free we are not to cut or breake them in pieces Yet concerning these there are faults on both hands On the one side the slighting of an Oath and such is the comparing it with an Almanack which is a light aswell as an unproper comparison except it were such an Oath as was made onely for a yeare But we finde some part of the Vow and Covenant to speake of all the dayes of our lives which doubtlesse may lye on many of the takers for many years True it is that the obligation of some things may end because they can no longer be kept as that of the Kings person for to impossible things there is no obligation but will any man that understands and savours Religion and Piety say that the clauses which concerne Religion and Piety are expired Did we promise to God in our severall places and callings to extripate Profanenesse Heresie and Blasphemy and to endeavour a reformed life in our selves and ours onely till our Enemies were overcome and then to make an end What were this but to say unto God If thou wilt deliver us we will be bound to thee till we are delivered and no longer Would this invite God to deliver us from our enemies or rather to keepe our Enemies still in strength against us least we being delivered from our Enemies should not serve him in righteousnesse and holinesse all our lives Surely this is too like that course of carnall Israel of whom it is written When he slew them then they sought him and they enquired early after God but their heart was not right with him neither were they stedfast in his Covenant Much more piously and faithfully a reverend and truly spirituall Divine A well grounded Covenant is a sure a firme and an irrevocable Act. When you have such an All This and such you have as is here concentred in the Text to lay into or for the foundation of the Covenant the superstruction is aeternitati sacrum and must stand for ever But on the other side there are other faults such are the urging of an Oath or Covenant against enemies and not against friends in one and the same Action and if not altogether so yet a slight and diminishing charge of it upon one and a vehement and aggravating charge of it upon the other Another fault may be a stiffe insisting on one part and a neglect or at least silence in another part as likewise when by event two parts of it come to be inconsistent to chuse and inforce the keeping of the lighter or lesse necessary part and to give way to the losse and not keeping of the greater There is another in racking an Oath or Covenant to make it speake that which it meant not And here it were good to consider whether there be any clause in any Oath or Covenant which in a faire and common sence forbids obedience to the commands of the present Government and Authority much lesse when no other can be had and so the Common-wealth must goe to ruine And whether it forbids obedience to the present Authority more then to Lawes that have beene formerly enacted by those which came in Authority meerely by power If it be said that in the Oath of Allegiance Allegiance is sworne to the King his Heires and Successors if His Heires be not his Successors how doth that Oath binde either the word Successors must be superfluous or else it must binde to Successors as well as to Heires and if it binds not to a Successor that is not an Heire how can it binde to an Heire that is not a Successor And if you will know the common and usuall sense which should be the meaning of an Oath of the word Successors you need not so much aske of Lawyers and learned persons as of men of ordinary knowledge and demand of them Who was the Successor of William the Conqueror and see whether they will not say William Rufus and who succeeded Richard the third and whether they will not say Henry the seventh and yet as it appeares before neither of them was Heire So it seemes in the ordinary acception the word Successor is taken for him that actually succeeds in Government and not for him that is actually excluded And as in Language the ordinary acception of a word is to be taken for the meaning so that meaning is to be understood as most proper to have been taken in an Oath Yet withall this Quaere may be added While the Son is in the same posture in which the Father was how comes this Oath at this time to stand up and plead for disobedience in regard of the Son that was asleep and silent in regard of the Father But now let us enter into the question of active obedience and Acting under this present power and Government But first let this be premised That this present power is in possession of the whole Land and no visible force to oppose or overbeare it and so it is not like that betweene David and Absalom where David had an Army in veiw that might and did overcome And next That a course of Justice or giving right is opened at Westminster and through the whole Nation And this being the present state of the Nation let us examine whether it be lawfull to Act in such a State True it is that some hold it wisedome and some hold it duty to be quiet and not to Act. But first it hath bin proved before that obedience to such a power in good things is lawfull Now if obedience in good things be law full then Acting for Justice and Order being good things and commanded it is lawfull to obey that command Secondly if all should not Act I think the not Actors would fall short of their supposed and intended quietnesse and the wisedome they placed in it For by non-Acting in the way of justice the whole and themselves among the rest would lye open to Injustice spoyle and destruction and so be far from quietnesse And indeed what reason is it that those that will not Act because they hold it unlawfull should expect that others should doe an unlawfull Act to benefit them And why should others give right to them that will not give right to others Thirdly It is cleared in this discourse that those who have gotten to be powers though by force yet ought to give justice to those whose Goverment they have undertaken And againe That

the people may lawfully demand it But is it possible that one or a few persons in supreme power can distribute justice to a whole Nation without subordinate Agents So that to say None may lawfully Act under the supreme power in distributing of Justice and Government were to say upon the matter That he should give no justice and that the people should have no justice at all And then how absurd is it to teach that the people may lawfully seeke justice of him which they cannot receive and that he is bound to give justice but none are allowed by whom he may give it Fourthly This Doctrine of not Acting is the very Doctrine of Levelling For when no man may Act to give justice may not every man take freely from his Neighbour what he list and so levell the Rich with the Poor unlesse this make it unlike because worse then Levelling That those who have most force will have most yea some all and others nothing and so to avoid Acting under a supposed Tyrannical Government unto justice and order there shall be Tyrants in every place or parish who shall Act to disorder and oppression and no property justice nor Government at all left amongst us And surely I thinke David out of his love to Israel would not have wished such an Estate to Israel under Absalom had he the whole in possession and himselfe no force on foote to recover it nor would he have desired such an unsettlement to procure his settlement And hence ariseth that which they call an Interpretative consent of the people because it is understood and supposed that every rational man doth consent that there should be order property and right given to every Member of a Common-Wealth under a Tyrant rather then all to be under confusion oppression Robberies Murders Fifthly how could Ezra and Nehemiah justifie their Acting under the Persian Monarch who had no right to the Crown of Iudah either by blood or just conquest Yet Ezra was authorized by him to set Magistrates fine and imprison and put to death And he exerciseth authority in making the people of Israel to sweare and to enter into a Covenant in sending forth a Proclamation to all the Children of the captivity that they should gather themselves together to Jerusalem And that whosoever would not come within three dayes all his substance should be forfeited Nehemiah also Acts as Governour and rebuketh the Nobles and Rulers and sets a great assembly against them because of their usury He also called the Priests and took an Oath to performe the promise of leaving that Vsury He acknowledgeth also that he was Governour there about twelve yeares and he gave his Brother Hanani and Hanaiah Ruler of the Palace charge over Jerusalem So he did both Act himselfe and others Acted under him We finde also that at that time there were Rulers of the people that dwelt at Jerusalem and Nehemiah contended with the Rulers and Nobles made Treasurers commanded the Gates●to be shut before the Sabbath threatned to lay hands on the Merchants that lay at the Gates smote certaine of the Jewes and pluckt of their haire because having married wives of Ashdod their Children spake halfe in the language of Ashdod Sixthly Let us heare what before these times and before our case was in being hath bin taught in point of Acting and upon what grounds it hath bin aproved An author eminently learned and skilfull in the doctrine of lawgiving saith thus No man may punish or condemn another even with a just punishment except he have publique power which a Tyrant cannot give But in this there must be a consideration or subdistinction For in rigor this is true as to the Tyrants part yet it so happens that the Common-wealth because it cannot resist him doth tolerate him and suffers it selfe to be Governed by him and doth tacitely consent and will that justice be administred by him for the reason already touched because it is a lesse evill to be Governed by him then altogether to want just coaction and direction and then it shall not be a sin to obey even in the things aforesaid because the consent of the Common-wealth doth supply the defect of the Tyrants power Another thus That his sentences are valid is proved Because his sentences and just commands although they have not force from a Tyrannicall power yet they have it from elsewhere First and inchoatively from the law of nature which such a State of things being supposed doth dictate that obedience must be given for the Common good otherwise all will be full of Thefts and Roberies Secondly and compleately from the Common-wealth and that either because while that State endures it gives authority to him by a tacite consent while it will's that he administer justice and use his usurped Office in a due maner or rather because it doth tacitely approve his commands and Acts being agreeable to the Lawes and Common good and will's that his just sentences whereby the suites of the people are decided and the guilty are punished shall be valid and binde the subjects for except they were valid and did binde no man would obey but onely in shew but every man would secretly doe the contrary with a great inconvenience to the Common-wealth Now the Common-wealth may give this force to the sentences and Acts of a Tyrant because it is superiour to all single persons though it be opprest with Tyranny and may account the just sentence of a Tyrant as its owne Thou wilt aske whether a Tyrant doe sinne the sin of murder and be bound to restitution if he put to death guilty persons or deprive them of their goods according to Law I answer negatively Because the Common-wealth doth tacitely give him authority hereunto while it doth consent and desire that this should be done by him Thus is the authority of Acting in this case grounded upon a tacite or implyed consent which consent is the very dictate of nature or common reason because it is better to have some justice then none at all some coercive power and Government then that all be left to disorder violence and confusion I will shut up all with the result of a disputation more full and comprehensive then most I have met with on this subject And therein I present to consideration First The moment and weight of the Authors reasons Secondly The probability and likely-hood of the clearenesse of his reasons bebause they seeme to proceed from a judgement cleare and free from the Byas of affection Yea his judgement herein did swim against the streame of his affection for he perswades an obedience to the Government of a Governor that he loved not And I wish this Ingenuity and clearenesse were at least no lesse amongst us He wrote in the raigne of Queene Elizabeth to whom in the language of Rome he gives the terme of impious c. and takes notice of her as a Tyrant and