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
A85885	An exercitation concerning usurped powers: wherein the difference betwixt civill authority and usurpation is stated. That the obedience due to lawfull magistrates, is not owing, or payable, to usurped powers, is maintained. The obligation of oaths, and other sanctions to the former, notwithstanding the antipolitie of the latter is asserted. And the arguments urged on the contrary part in divers late printed discourses are answered. Being modestly, and inoffensively managed: by one studious of truth and peace both in Church and state.	Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656.; Gee, Edward, 1613-1660, attributed name.	1650 (1650)	Wing G449; Thomason E585_2	84,100	90

for it We must needs grant there are things which may be done upon the Usurpers command or injunction though not because or by vertue of it for the command of him that unwarrantably assumeth power cannot by it self make that unlawfull which were lawfull if that were not For instance the performance of acts of common equity charity order publick utility and self-preservation is requisite suppose it be in concurrence with a Usurpers command and in thus doing we do materially but not formally obey him the ground of acting in such things being not at all any relation or principle of subjection to him but conscience of obedience to the will of God and due respect to others and our own safety and good Under this sort of actions I comprehend 1. Taking up Arms for the preservation of our selves and the Countrey against a common Enemy upon the Usurpers summons the which we might do of our selves were there no Authority or if a just Authority were in being yet if it could not or did not maturely enough call us forth to it 2. Payment of taxes and bearing other impositions for the usurping Power where and while we are under his compulsive power because such contributions may and will be taken whether I will pay them or not and I yeeld them under his enforcement as a ransome for my life or liberty or somewhat else that is better to me then the payment and consequently I am to choose the parting with it as the lesse evil rather then with that which is better which to loose is to incur a greater evill for the avoidance of a lesse In this point Mr. Ascham the afore named Author Part. 2. Chap. 1. page 35. determineth well had he not contradicted as I understand him that he delivers in this and the next Chap. with that assertion of his part 1. cap. 6. page 25. distinguishing rightly betwixt that which cannot be had nor the value of it unlesse I actually give it and that which may be taken whether I contribute it or no. Of this latter kinde is paying of Taxes in this case a Nolite igitur fortunam in culpam convertere neque regis injuriam hujus crimen putare nec consilium ex necessitate nec voluntatem ex v● interpretari Cicero Orat. 39. pro C. Rabino postumo So he defendeth Posthumus his changing his Romane gown for a cloak at Alexandria as compelled by K Ptolomie herein I am but morally passive as a man that is fallen into the hands of a pack of bloodie theeves and being demanded it takes his purse out of his pocket and delivers it to them though with his own hand saith that Author he puts his purse into their hands yet the Law cals not that a gift nor excuseth the thief for taking it but all contrary Or a man apprehended by a party of the invading Enemies or Usurpers Army walks or rides along with them to their muster or battell when as he cannot escape them and otherwise they would draw him But it is commonly objected thus Obj. This payment or other charge is taken and will be used to an evill use as to maintain Usurpation R But that 's beyond my deliberation not in my power to prevent it will not be avoided by putting them to force it from me but rather more gain will accrue to them and damage to me if I stand out my denying will be made an occasion by them to take more this case is like that of entering into a Covenant with those that in covenanting we know before hand will swear by a false god wherein Divines b Augustinus ad publicolam Epist 15 4. Gen. 21.31.31.31 resolve the partie swearing by the true God participateth not in his sin that swears by a false one in as much as he communicates with him in the Covenant not in the oath taken on his part and provides thereby for his necessarie security and thus did Abraham and Jacob in their respective Covenants with Abimelech and Laban 3. Complaining petitioning or going to Law before the Magistrates or Courts authorized by the Usurpers Provided you give not the Usurpers to whom you petition such Titles as you give to the lawfull Magistrate In thus doing I seek my necessary self preservation neither do I yeeld Excusantur à peccato inducendi tyrannum ad actum opus illicitum petentes ab illo iustitiam quia non petunt actum illicitum sed justitiam illius actus illiciti pre interpretandae sunt petitiones tam iustitiae quam honestae gratiae quae esterantur Tyrannis scilicer si vis seu ex quo vis detinere exercere hoc deminium utere illo iuste utere honeste utere pie utere ad utilitatem publicam privatorum prout deceret dominium nec intendunt nec petunt actum usurpatum sed qualitatem sanctam inactu usurpato exercendo Ca●etan summula Tit. Remp. tyrannice c. or ascribe to them to whom I have recourse any just power of judicature or participate in their sin of usurping it onely I acknowledge they have might and ability in their hand to right me which though they ought not to assume yet I may take the benefit of their unjust use of it as a poore man may receive relief at the hands of him that hath gotten those goods he distributeth unjustly and I may receive my money with a good conscience from the hands of a thief that is willing to return it to me though he took it by robbery from another thief that robbed me of it and if the party with whom I have a controversie for my right will agree to refer the matter betwixt us to a private person as an Arbitrator and stand to his arbitrement that is a lawfull means of coming by my own though by his help and award that hath not claim of Authority over me my submitting therefore my private right to the judgement of an usurping Magistracy is no placing or owning a publick power of judicature to be in him It hath been ordinary and there is no doubt of the lawfulnesse of it for a Souldier to ask quarter a prisoner liberty a man his plundered goods of his Enemy yet in all this there is no concession of a legall power in that Enemie to be a Judge over the said Petitioners either in case of life goods or liberty onely in the form of addresse to the Usurper we had need be cautelous that such a style be not used as will be a plain concession of his title to the power which he usurps But in granting liberty of concurrence with some commands of an usurped Authority we neither yeeld any obedience at all to be due or performable to it nor can we allow a correspondence with it in divers things and therefore we are to put a difference First betwixt things that are in themselves necessary and those that are of a middle or an indifferent nature in themselves considered In the latter

them clearly plainly and in terminis to an Allegiance over-living his Majesties person and pitched upon his Heirs and Successors so that he is not tree from the Oaths at his Majesties decease or then left at randome to pay his allegiance to whom he will choose 2. Do they not intend by His Majesties Heirs and Successors the same persons joyning them together with the copulative and and not using the discretive or and the former Oath twice comprizing both in the following clauses under the same terme or pronoune viz them theirs so that according to these Oaths His Heirs are of right his successors and none can be his Successor whilest he hath an Heir and longer the Oath lasts not but his Heir and if any conspiracy or attempt should be made to prevent his Heir from being and continuing his successor or to make any one his successor that is not his heir if he hath one is not the Subject sworn by vertue of this Oath to continue his allegiance to his Heir as the right successor and to defend him in that his right to his uttermost 3. And doth not the tearm lawfull annexed to Successors in the Oath of Supremacy manifestly exclude all cavill of a distinction betwixt Heirs and successors the word lawfull whether you interpret it of legitimation of birth or proximity of succession in regard of line according to the Law of the Land entailing the Crown upon his Majesties issue or rather both the latter including the former restraining successors from meaning any other then his heirs 4. And do not both these Oathes binde the swearer to assist and defend to his uttermost power against all attempts Monarchy or the Kingly Office and Government in the race of his Majestie cleerly expressed by many tearms to wit Their Crown or dignity all jurisdictions priviledges preheminences and Authorities granted to the Kings Highnesse his heirs and successors or united and annexed to the Imperiall Crown of this Realm How then can he yeeld obedience to them that are not his heirs nor lawfull successors nor do so much as wear his Crown or sway the Regall Scepter How can he not oppose and withstand them in the assistance and defence of the right of his Majesties heirs and lawfull successors 2. Concerning the Vow and Protestation of the 5. of May 1641. and the Solemn League and Covenant 1. How can any that hath taken the said Protestation according to it maintain and defend the true Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery and Popish innovations within this Realm contrary to the same Doctrine and yet yeeld obedience to an usurping authority coming in and holding in derogation of and opposition to the lawfull Prince when as the publick doctrine of that Church layed down in the 2. Tome of Homilies and the last Homily thereof approved of by the 35. Article of Religion fully and flatly refuteth and condemneth any Subjects removing or disposing their Prince upon any pretence whatsoever 2ly How can any man according to the Protestation maintain and defend the power and privileges of Parliament and according to the Covenant preserve the rights and privileges of Parliament and yet yeeld obedience to a small party of one of the Houses of Parliament as the Supreame Power the said party excluding the rest of that House and the other House wholly and deposing the lawfull Prince and abolishing the Office of the King whose presence personall or legall and politicall hath been declared inseparable from the Parliament and joyning with an Army that with force hath demanded and carried on these things 3. How can be according to the Protestation maintain and defend the lawfull rights and liberties of the Subject and according to the Covenant preserve the liberties of the Kingdom and yet obey and own a meerly usurped power Whereas the most fundamentall civill Liberty of a Kingdom and Subjects is to have a Government over them set up by the constitution or consent of the people not obtruded on them by those who of their own will and power without any calling from them assume it to themselves 4. How can he according to the Covenant preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority c. and yet yeeld obedience to those usurpers who after his death cast down his Authority and place themselves instead thereof as the Supreame Power whereas his Authority in the plain intention of the Covenant is to be preserved and defended beyond the tearme of his life and in his posterity as it appears from this clause compared with those words in the preface Having before our eyes the glory of God the honour and happinesse of the Kings Majestie and his posterity 5. Lastly how doth he according to the Protestation to his power and as far as lawfully he may oppose and by all good wayes and means endevour to bring to condigne punishment all such as shall either by force practise counsels plots conspiracies or otherwise do any thing to the contrary of any thing in this present Protestation contained and according to the Covenant not suffer himself directly or indirectly by whatsoever combination perswasion or terror to be divided or withdrawn from this blessed Vnion and conjunction whether to make defection to the contrary part or give himself to a detestable indifferencie or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of God the good of the Kingdome and honour of the King but all the dayes of his life zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promote the same according to his power against all lets and impediments whatsoever that yeeldeth allegiance and obedience to a party standing and leading all those that agree to obey them in so palpable contradiction and opposition to some materiall points and concernments of Religion divers most fundamentall rights of the Parliament and people and all the Authority and whole being of the King contained and covenanted for in the aforesaid Protestation and Covenant respectively CHAP. III. The question discussed Whether submission to and acting under a usurped Power for the time be lawfull with a reservation of Allegiance to the lawfull Power supposed to be expulsed I Now come to enquire into the other opinion before mentioned viz That one may submit and act under a usurped Power for the time and during the intervall of its prevalency with reservation of allegiance as due and cordially devoted to the lawfull Power expulsed And about this we shall not insist long because we finde not much contestation or difficulty In regard of the justnes and necessity of some things which may be the subject or matter of the Usurpers command and the Arbitrarinesse of others and the lawfulnesse of either not depending upon the command or warrant of a superior but resulting out of the nature of the action it self so that a private man might do it were there no Magistrate to command it or no command from the Magistrate

they are thereby supposed to be somewhat competent to judge of those titles or it was both vainly and irreligiously done to lead them into such sacred bonds which we may neither take nor cause others to take but in judgement Jer. 4.2 3ly Although they yea the primest Statesmen may finde it difficult enough to judge of titles in some nice and intricate cases that may happen yet the present case is not so deep or doubtfull the right of title in this question is written with clear and capitall letters in Laws Oaths and actions open before all Yea this Author in the title and current of his book as doth Mr. Ashcam in his plainly enough grants where the right of title is This Author in the latter end of a second Edition of his book viz beginning at pag. 15. addeth some things upon the question of active obedience and acting under this present power and government Although this Edition come in late and in some passages is but an amplification in tearms not in matter of what he had said before yet I shall take a brief notice whether sufficient let the Reader judge of the things in it that may seem materiall First he premiseth That the present Power is in possession of the whole Land and no visible force to oppose and so it is not like that between David and Absolom when David had an Army in view Consult the text and you shall finde the case exactly parallel 1. The present Power is in possession of the whole Land you say you mean of this side the Sea not of Ireland also sutable hereunto Absolom was possest of all the Land unto Jordan yea and he went over Jordan and pitched in Gilead and all the people throughout all the Tribes of Israel had anointed him King over them on the other hand David and his men fled out of Jerusalem and out of the Land beyond Jordan and stayed not till he came to Mahanaim by the ford Jabock 2 Sam. 15.14 c. 17.22.24 25 26.19.9 10. 2ly You adde And no visible Force to oppose whereas David had an Army in view David had no Army in view within that land before spoken of all that he had was at Mahanaim And though there be no visible Force to oppose in England yet there is said to be a considerable Force in Ireland and it may appear by the Preparations sent thither Besides there is one thing indeed wherein Davids condition and his whom the present Power excludeth differ but not to the advantage of this Authors Reason which is that David had no other Kingdom to own and declare for him which yet he hath Secondly You come with Arguments 1. Obedience to such a Power in good things is lawfull But acting for Justice and order is a good thing Ergo I have before distinguisht betwixt morall acts which are for private men to do though there were no Authority and politicall acts which flow from magistracy The latter sort of acts may not be done in obedience to an usurped Power for the Reasons given before The execution of justice is a good act in it self but it is not good to be done by every man nor upon every mans command but is onely good in him that is lawfully authorized to it 2ly You say what reason is it that those that will not act because they hold it unlawfull should expect that others should do an unlawfull act to benefit them To this let Cajetan an Author cited by you and that in the place you cited from him answer you They are excused from the sin of inducing the Tyrant to an act unlawfull for him that ask Justice of him because they do not petition him for the unlawfull act but for the justice of that unlawfull act it is honestly done to perswade him to use his power lesse sinfully This Petition is in effect thus much Seeing thou wilt-hold and exercise this power use it justly use it honestly use it religiously use it to the benefit of the publick and of private men as it would become the Power It is plain such Petitioners intend not to ask the Tyrant to usurp the act of Judicature because they had rather he would give it over but seeing he doth usurp dominion and judgement they intend he should use justly and honestly his usurped Power and Judgement and that which they intend that they petition for so that they neither intend nor petition for and usurped act but an holy quality in the exercising of that usurped act * Excusatur à peccato inducendi Tyrannum ad actum opus sibi illicitum petentes ab illo iustitiam quia non petunt actum illicitum sed justitiam illius actus illiciti Sanctè suadetur quod minus mase utatur dominio illo scil si vis seu ex quo vis detinere exercere hoe dominium utere illo iuste utere honestè utere pie utere ad utilitatem public●m privatorum prout deceret dominium Constat ●●mque quod non intendunt ipsi petere ut tyrannus utatur tyrannide ut usurpet actum Judicis ●quoniam mallent ut cederant tyrannidi iudicio sed ex quo usurpat libi dominium ac iudicium intendune ut iuste ut pi● utatur usurp●to dominio usurpato iudicio qu●d intendunt hoc petunt ita quod nec intendunt non petunt actum usurpatum sed qualitatem sanctum in actu usurpato exercendō Caietan Summul Tit. Remp. Tyranni●e c. Again Why should others give right to them that will not give right to others A fallacious and frivolous interrogation in the true meaning of it In commutative justice wherein the rule of doing as we would be done unto onely holds with reference to persons that are to do it they who refuse magistraticall acts are ready to render every mans right to him But this question would have a private man such as they are to have no distributive justice or right by the Magistrate done him even when the Magistrate is lawfull because he cannot and therfore will not vicissim administer distributive justice to the Magistrate Every common Judgement knows that a private subject is to receive judiciall right but not to give it 3ly It is cleared before in this Discourse that those who have gotten to be Powers though by force ought to give justice to those whose government they have undertaken but supposing them to be but one or a few this they cannot do without subordinate agents to disallow acting under them then is to say in effect they shall not give justice 1. Suppose them but one or a few and they cannot get or keep the place by force Suppose them many they have no need in that respect of others to be their under-agents 2ly If this that you say be cleared or so much as said before I have forgotten it though I have read all that is before and rest confident there is no such thing When you

though in some cases I may act upon the Usurpers injunction as our Saviour payed tribute where he was not bound to it to avoid scandall yet I must be cautious 1. of owning justifying or upholding the usurpation or injustice of the party commanding the very appearance whereof I must as much as I can avoid So did our Saviour in paying the tribute gatherers their demand by declaring his freedome and the consideration upon which he payed viz not the equity of the demand but his willingnesse to prevent scandall And therefore in the observing of a duty of Religion necessary in it self and appointed by unjustifiable Authority to be kept on such a set day which is in it self arbitrary the best way is to take another day for it for the shunning of the appearance of the evill of obeying an unjust power 2. Of doing any thing that I may foresee will bring a worse scandall being acted then the omission of it would it being required of a Christian where scandall-takeing lyes both wayes as not seldome it doth to shun the offence that is of worse consequence which is usually that which is more generally taken or by persons more considerable or worthy of tender respect The Apostle Paul condemning Judaisme in Peter and others at Antioch practised in favour of a few where the most part were Gentile Christians Gal. 2.11 c. but admitted it at Jerusalem where the greater sort were beleeving Jews Act. 21.20 c. 2. Betwixt morall or prudentiall acts competible to private men or subjects and politicall acts or judiciall proceedings that flow from power and Authority inherent in the person that acts them or are the issues of distributive justice and either come forth from a person clothed with Government or unto which is requisite a stamp of Authority to make them lawfull and justifiable as to bear the office of a Magistrate or Commander in Civill or Military affairs or to be any under Agent or servant in carrying on or assisting the Government An Usurper in giving out Commissions Commands or Warrants for proceedings of this nature I conceive may not in this kinde be obeyed Men are not to act as subordinate rulers or agents under such a power or as sent by him as supreame in the Apostles sense 1 Pet. 2.14 For 1. The Usurpers authority being indeed null and of no effect he being in truth but in a private mans capacity as to the power he assumes he cannot communicate or derive any authority unto me whereby I may act that which before I could not so that those actions which require the seal of Authority to make them lawfull and which without it would be irregular and sinfull it must needs be clearly unlawfull for me to do by vertue of his Commission Conscientious advised men will generally judge it presumption violence oppression bloodshed respectively for a private man to take upon him of himself to imprison chastise amerce or put to death any supposed or really manifested malefactor and if I have no other humane warrant but the Usurpers it leaving me but in a private mans capacitie will leave my actions of that nature under no better a character If I should being about such undertakings be asked that question of our Saviour Luk. 12.14 Man who made thee a judge or a divider over us What satisfaction would it be to him that so enquireth or to mine own conscience to alledge the name of the Usurper who as to supreme Authority and consequently to the making of a competent Officer of Justice is as good as no body 2ly So to act would make me a usurper also and bring me in to be a partner in the supreame usurpers sins in as much as politicall or State instruments to wit their subordinate agents share together with the superior in the morall qualification of the work of Government 3ly This were manifestly to uphold and maintain Usurpation thus I should contribute assistance and support to the unjust power and oppose the right of him or them against whom he holds it they that favour this kinde of acting as requisite in regard of the subjects protection and safetie seem not to consider that a subordinate officers acting looketh upward as well as downward and he that is such a one to the Usurper serves his turn of subsistence in an unlawfull possession as much or more then the subjects benefit For first he acknowledgeth and justifieth his authority as sufficient and valid by officiating under and by it 2. He keeps up that authority and extends it to as many as he hath to do with 3. He gives an example and encouragement to others to embrace and propagate it as he himself doth 4. He layes an ingagement upon himself to stand or fall with the Usurper and so to do his utmost for him 5. He involves himself either wittingly or blindfoldly in a concurrence with those counsels and actions which both in their own nature and in the intention and projection of the Usurper directly tend to the Usurpers establishment and the impeachment of the lawfull Governors claim and re-advancement Upon these grounds and the like the secluded and the sejoyned members in the case stated Chap. 1. had need be advised well before they enter or act among the presupposed Usurpers though they might be admitted by them without questioning or purging I question how they can enter amongst them without self-soyling though they should in going in resolve to act honestly yet I see not how they can be untainted in a concession with those who in their present comprehension or totality assume a power not legally in them and act legislatively and otherwise in the highest sphere of Supreamacie a force being upon the House and the majority of Members and the Authority of the King and the Lords-House being professedly excluded by them They that are out may do well to resolve before they joyn how it can be lawfull for them that sit to act at all though never so just things the whole or body to which they belong being so mangled in its Members and manacled in its freedome And if at all they may act how according to Law conscience and their Oaths and Covenants they can govern in that solitarinesse of supreamacie and deposition of their compeers if they think these things unjustifiable in them that sit have they not cause to be warie how they involve themselves in such mens actings whilest they stand in that posture Besides that they in coming in help to strengthen the usurpers by increasing their number and giving them countenance in the eye of the Kingdom as much as if they in all things concurred with them for without the House who knows how men sway or give their votes And on the other hand they weaken and much prejudice the claim of the lawfull Power by appearing on the contrary party putting themselves into an incapacity to act for it as otherwise they might and ingaging themselves to assist or at

least not to oppose the Usurpers Finally let them recollect before they enter that doore what they have sworn to his late Majestie his Heirs and lawfull Successors what to the Parliaments Power rights and priviledges and what to the Kingdom Et magnum sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veniendumne sit in Consilium tyranni si i● aliqua de re bona deliberaturus sit Quare si quid ejusmodi evenerit ut accersamur quid censea● mihi faciendum utque scribito Nihil enim mihi adhuc accidit quod majoris consilii est M. T. Cicero epist ad T. Pomp. Atticum l. 10 ep 1. and Subjects lawfull rights and priviledges and deliberate how they keeping of those things and sitting down with these men will be reconciled I finde that even wise Heathens have scrupled at this without the supposition of such Oaths CHAP. IIII. The obligatorinesse of the Oaths and Covenant urged in the 2d Chap against obedience to Vsurpers made good against divers late Authors BEfore I take in hand to answer Arguments that are brought for the confirmation of those two opinions for obedience to Usurpation and against which I have argued in the preceding Chapters it will be convenient in this place to take notice of such allegations and Exceptions as are made against the obligation of the Oaths and Covenants before urged as binding out from that obedience sundry late Authors having pleaded that the Oaths and Covenant either are not now in force but expired or do not extend too and binde in the case to which they are applyed I begin with the Remonstrance presented to the House of Commons Novemb 20. 1648. which unto the clause in the Solemn League and Covenant Art 3. obliging to endevour to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdom alledgeth divers things some of which concern onely the obligation to the preservation of the Kings person those are past consideration other reflect upon it in relation to his Authority as unto which I have urged it to be still in force and therefore shall examine what the Remonstrance saith for the invalidating of it as unto that bringing in onely so much of its argumentation as can be construed to tend to this purpose and of this nature I observe two Allegations 1. The words in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms are a restriction to the engagement for preservation of the Kings person and Authority so as to oblige them to no further nor in any other way then shall be consistent with the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms but if by reason and experience we finde the preservation and defence of his person to be not safe but full of visible danger if not certainly destructive to Religion or publick interest then surely by the Covenant itself the preservation of his person or authority is not to be endevoured so far or in such a way or at least the Covenant obligeth not to it but against it page 55 56. 1. It is not necessary nor proper to take the words in the preservation c. as restrictive to the engagement either way that is either for the preservation and defence of the Kings person and Authority on the one hand or of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms on the other It is not necessarie I say for those words in the Article in our severall vocations are an expresse and fully sufficient restriction taking in and binding to all lawfull and just wayes of preserving and defending each of them and excluding all unlawfull Neither is it proper in there being clearly conjunctive and as much as with and equally looking both wayes that is both to the preservation and defence of that which goes before and that which follows unto the preservation and defence of all which though they be not of equall worth or intrest so that one of them must come behinde the other in the order of our endevours of their preservation and defence yet the Covenant binds equally in regard of the firmnesse of the obligation yet if any shall still contend that clause to be restrictive in that manner which the Remonstrance saith I will not strive in a verball contention with him for the taking of it so no more lesseneth our obligation to the preservation of the Kings Authority then if it had not been inserted we being tyed notwithstanding it to all just wayes of preservation therof and no more had been involved if it had been left out 2. But the sinews of this Argument lyeth in the pretended or implyed inconsistency betwixt the preservation and defence of Religion and the Kingdoms liberties unto which I say 1. There is doubtlesse a fair consistencie non-opposition or agreement betwixt the safetie of every one of these the being of each of them may and can stand with the other it is a groundlesse surmise and grosse absurditie to imagine an inconsistency betwixt the just intrests of any of them our taking of them together into the Covenant yeeldeth thus much if there were any incoexistency amongst them we could not have sworn to their joynt preservation or if we did the Oath was of impossibles and so as to this branch both unlawfull and void or non-obliging in the making of it a Regula juris rei impossibilis nulla obligatio 2. An endevour to preserve the one and the other will well enough stand together a lawfull power indeed actually and effectually to preserve them all may happen to be wanting and any one of them may fall under danger and I may want just means to relieve it but an endevour which can onely import a doing what is within power and warrant may be yeelded still to the preservation of every of them 3. Seeing then that an inconsistibility either of the things one with another or of the endevouring their preservation cannot be pleaded as possibly incident or occurrent evident it is that there cannot at any time lye a necessitie of taking a way of any of them and that the obligation of the Covenant to the endevour of preserving every of them continually stands in force during their respective existence and consequently it bindeth out from intending seeking attempting or prosecuting the abolishing or destruction of any of them for that is indeed truly inconsistent with the said endevour and therefore a palpable violation of the Covenant It must here be granted that the lawfull and necessary defence and preservation of one of them sometimes may so imploy me that I cannot at that time by the same means act for the others safety ye● what I act for one may put the other in hazard and in the issue not onely be accompanied with but though against my will and endevours to the utmost of my lawfull capacity contingently and besides my intention prove the losse and

fals to the ground for it subsists onely perforce and a clear way is open for the right Government to take place which will be so much the more readily entertained by how much it hath been interrupted * Arciores autem morsus sunt intermissae libertatis quam tetentae Cicero de offic lib. 2. 2ly However things succeed evill of sin must not be done that good of profit may be attained It must first be proved lawfull to obey before this Reason can be heard which will onely plead its expediencie if it be honest Though commodum may be consulted especially publicum yet we must first be satisfied of the justum of it It was not long ago pleaded Fiat justitia ruat coelum And we were not told thus when the late wars for Laws and Liberty were first begun If this be a cogent reason now it was to have been so then and we might better have prevented the miseries of a war by he●ning to it then by refusing it have by so dear a means purchased to our selves an harder condition and now be bound to bide under it for that very reason 3ly If Government fall and Confusion come let them bear the guilt that have wrought these effects we that detract from obedience shall onely bear the misery of it which will be lighter to us it may be hoped then their greatnesse with the guilt it is gotten and kept by will be to them Fifthly he addes Otherwise the King being for the Common-wealth and not the Common-wealth for the King the end should be destroyed for the means the whole for a part First the King as a man yea as a royall person or most noble part of the Common-wealth is not the prime matter to be layed on the ballance but if the King may be lookt at as ours and so as we are in piety and justice bound to him to seek his preservation and yeeld him our obedience thus considering him equity and a good conscience are the things stood for as the end which although they may undergo the notion of means in reference to the Common-wealths good yet they are desirable and to be sought absolutely and for themselves and the subordinate means of the Common-wealths politicall good must be subordinated or submitted to them and that end is onely so far and by such means to be pursued as will consist with these 2ly The Parliament and the Army also a● no more then a means or a part in relation to the collective Common-wealth Must not the rights of these therefore be stood for with the hazard of the whole If this rule might have guided men in relation to their claims such courses and events as have been had been prevented 3ly Though certain destruction of the end or whole must not be run upon for the means or part yet those may be hazarded for the saving of these from certain destruction As we see it ordinarily men do adventure their lives and liberties for the preservation or recovery of their estates by war and their whole bodies for the regaining of their healths or one wounded or festered member by Physick or Chyrurgery 4ly We are not active in the destroying of the end or whole if they be destroyed and we were better both to suffer their destruction and suffer in it then sinfully to concur in destroying the means or a part or in substituting an unlawfull means or part for the legitimate that we might preserve them Sixthly If a masters mate had thrown the master over-board and by power would suffer no other to guide the ship but himself if the marriners will not obey him commanding aright for the guiding of the ship the ship and themselves must needs perish 1. I conceive the marriners may in this case obey the Masters Mate for self-preservation till they come to shore in like manner that we may obey an Usurpers power that is act according to his command in a thing which is not onely lawfull but simply necessarie both to be done and to be done by us as in the case of self-preservation by repelling a forrain Enemy or common danger of certain and important consequence but shall it be inferred from hence that the marriners are bound to obey the Mate or we an Usurper in all other things of his own concernment or separable from self-preservation and every other necessary duty I am bound to submit my selfe to the wholesome and necessary direction of my Pastor and Physician in their respective ordering touching my soul and body must I say therefore I must resigne up my self in obedience to them in all other matters 2ly The case is not parallel For 1. The mariners without respect to their exigence in that posture are bound to obey none the Master being dead and so are conscience free But the people in the case have a Magistrate surviving and challenging power over them to whom they have sworn Allegiance 2ly The Mariners are supposed without obedience to the Mate to be sure of destruction but by what hath been above said it cannot be pleaded that the Nation or the scruplers at obedience without obeying are sure to perish Seventhly you quote a saying out of Cajetan x Summula Tit. Rempub. Tyrannice c. but it suits not with the obedience you stand for he in all that Discourse speaks nothing at all for any obedience to Tyrants in respect of title his subject being the point of going to such Tyrants for Law and Justice y Nunquid gubernanto Tyranno peccent illi qui recurrunt ad ipsum pro justitia of which I have spoken Chap. 3. and his whole speech being confined to it Eightly lastly for I will not follow you in repeating again what you had said before and I have answered above What can the common people do in this case they cannot judge of titles but they see who doth visibly and actually exercise Authority 1. Bruit beasts do indeed onely see him that actually leads or drives them and therefore they follow without making difference betwixt the owner and a thief but are men though but common people so stupid The people you speak of are not altogether so bruitish they themselves disprove you if you observe as it is easie to discern whom they generally abhor from and whom they look towards and whoso shall compare their visible bent with your present book they whom you make but like Balaams dumb Asse yet in this case do speak with mans voice and forbid the madnesse c. 2ly If they be so incapable of discerning of titles wherefore hath not onely the late King but the Parliament published so many Declarations and Appeals to the people wherein they plead for the justnesse of their title to what they stood and fought for yea why hath the Parliament drawn the people into the Protestation the 2d Vow and Oath and the Solemne League and Covenant all which concern the severall claims and rights of King and Parliament either