Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	high_a	power_n	resist_v	1,057	5	9.4839	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92823	A second part of the religious demurrer; by another hand. Or, an answer to a tract called The lawfullnesse of obeying the present government. / By a lover of truth and peace.	Lover of truth and peace.; Ward, Nathaniel, 1578-1652.	1649 (1649)	Wing S2314; Thomason E530_31; ESTC R203433	11,345	8

6. A Tyrant in regard of an unjust Title or in respect of Tyrannicall oppression when his Title is good Now the question is whether a Tyrant by an unjust Title not only may but must be obeyed when he commands lawfull things And whether as when a lawfull power commands unlawfull things he may justly yea must be disobeyed so when an unlawfull power commands lawfull things he must be obeyed 4. Obedience is differenced into active and passive The latter may be yeelded when the former may not at least needs not As when a lawfull power commands unlawfull things a man must suffer not doe so when an unlawfull power commands lawfull things a man perhaps may obey but not necessarily must at least this is the question now in hand 5. Because we have occasion to look at impossibility in this discourse we must difference it also here it is either Present as when there is at present an over-ruling power which we cannot withstand or else Absolute when there is a totall cessation of all hopes of recovery of the former Government the heirs and lawfull successors being either all naturally dead or unnaturally extinct and slain as it was supposed to be in Athalia's case the people thought she had slain all the Royall seed and perhaps upon that ground knowing of none surviving they submitted to her Government but as soon as they knew Ioash one of that Line was alive they shook off their obedience to her These things being thus premised we consider the strength of his Arguments The first basis of all his building is taken from the Scripture Rom. 13.1 c. The Apostle saies he treating of purpose upon the duty of obedience to Authority laies down this precept Let every soul be subject to the higher powers c. and hereupon infers wherefore you must needs be su●ject not only for wrath but for conscience sake c. In answer to this Let it first be observed that he concludes more then he undertook to prove His question was of the lawfullnesse but his proof is for the necessity of obedience active as well as passive Now I would gladly know what difference there is in our obedience to lawfull powers and to unlawfull powers The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawfull authority not usurped power Script Reas pag. 5 6. Pag. 4. if it be necessary to both Secondly The question is in this Text of what power the Apostle speaks of Lawfull or Tyrannicall and if of Tyranicall whether of a Tyrant by a● u●ju● Title or a Tyrant in regard of oppression and the judgement of very able Divines is that the Apostle speaks of a legall power not of a Tyrannicall in either sense This latter is learnedly and largely discussed by the Authour of that Tract called Scripture and Reason for Defensive Arms who asserts and proves the text is not meant of any powers whatever but of Legall powers not Tyrannicall at all His Arguments are these from the context 1. If I be bound to be subject to Tyranny by vertue of the commandment here then Tyranny is the Ordinance of God for the Apostle argues for subjection from Gods ordaining the power But this is false Therefore so is that that I should be subject to Tyranny 2. He brings many Arguments against this Gentlemans Interpretation Pag. 9. 1. The Magistrate that must be obeyed is the Ordinance of God 2. Not a terrour to good works but to evil 3. The Minister of God to thee for good But a Tyrant is not the Ordinance of God is a terrour to good works is not the Minister of God for good Therefore not to be obeyed I confesse he carries it all along of a Tyrant by oppression whose Title is lawfull and just and he speaks more then we argue for of Resistance of such a Tyrant whereas we plead only for non-obedience or against necessity of obedience to a Tyrant in regard of unlawfull Title We say then the Gent. misinterprets and so misapplies the text which speaks only of a lawfull power not of an unlawfull But he goes on to prove his assertion that the Apostle meant it of a power unlawfully gotten by applying it to the then present Roman powers It was either Claudius or Nero that then ruled who were both made Emperours by the Souldiery against the Wills and Resolutions of the Consuls and Senate c. Where first he takes it for granted which cannot well be proved that because the Apostle writ in their times therefore he meant it of those powers that they were ordained of God not by his permission only but approbation also Whereas the Apostle might mean it and we have heard did so mean it of any legall power abstractedly from the Roman or any particular State 2. But grant it meant of them yet it is known that Caesar had gotten the consent of the Senate and people and they succeeded upon the same Title and so might be lawfull powers 3. This Argument is of no force in our case for though it hold parallell in the Instruments of setling or rather changing of the Government the Souldiery yet not in the Ratification of it by Senate and people Mark the words of the Historian englished by the Gent. pag. 3. This sentence of the Souldiers was followed with the consent of the Senate and then it was not scrupled in the provinces That is it was consented to by the Generality of the people But ours hath neither consent of Senate in its true and full Authority nor people but the Renitency yea Abhorrency of both for the far greater part If indeed the two Houses freely and fully sitting had consented to it and the people Generally submitted to it the case might seem easier to resolve Butstill this scruple would remain whether both Senate and people could consent without sin to the change of Government lying under so many bonds and engagements to another Power of which more hereafter The Roman State then will not help him let us see our own Many persous saies he have been setled in Supreme power by meer force without Title of Inheritance or just Conquest and obeyed by the people of this land and Laws made by forced Parliaments are still in force and obeyed so that the voice of the Nation with one consent seems to speak aloud that those whose Title is held unlawfull may lawfully be obeyed There are many answers to be given to this 1. Those times were very dark in prevailing of Popery and therefore no presidents for a Reformed State to imitate 2. Those people were not perhaps precluded by so many Oaths and Covenants from alteration of the former Government as we of this Generation are 3. The question is not de facto but de jure whether they did will in so doing The scruple is justly made Whether they ought not rather to assert as far as in them lay the right of the true Heir than to close with the

usurper especially if under our engagements It they ought in conscience to assert the Right of the true Heir they ought not to obey actively any other commanding in his prejudice If they were not bound by want of power to assert that right yet the question is Whether they might either directly or indirectly do any act which might affirm the right of the usurper or deny but so much as interpretatively the just Title of the Heir without being guilty of the sins of lying treachery and falsenesse if not of perjury and Vow-breaking In suffering I confesse if a thief take my purse I cannot help it if I must part with that or my life I choose to lose my purse not for fear least I break the filth or eighth Commandment but least I break the sixth and be guilty of self-murder yet rather than say he hath authority to take it I must lose my life In point of protection If I be in the hands of theeves I will desire some of them to preserve me from the violence of some others yet must I not to obtain that protection say that their robbery is just or good much lesse join with them in robbing others or be an abetter to their actions though the deniall of such abetting indanger my life 4. As for our present submitting to those Laws first made by usurpers and forced Parliaments we say they have been often ratified being thought wholsome Laws by succeeding lawfull Parliaments and so make nothing to the case in hand and perhaps till then not to be judged valid Acts. See that Ordinace of Aug. 20 1647. Declaring such Votes passed to be null at the time of the passing because the House was the under a force And hereunto saies he Divines and Casuists give their concurrence Azorius Navarr Alsted Paraeus c. In answer to these we say 1. It s one thing to claim justice of a Tyrant for necessary subsistence by established Laws not yet repealed which perhaps may justifie those that are forced to prosecute suits under the present Courts wherein we consent to the power of the former Laws which are our birthright not properly but by accident to the power that manages them at present 2ly The reason given by the first is this The Commonwealth tacitely consents in this that though he have no right or Title yet he may administer Law to Citizens subjected facto not jure as if he were a Competent Judge and lawfull Superiour But this varies the question two waies 1. That there is a tacite consent of all 2. That he administers the old Laws established not any new ones of his own to the overthrow of the old which we have sworn and covenanted to maintain 3ly The reason given by the second is scarcely sound because saies he they that seek the administration of justice do endeavour to free him from a greater sin that he that sind by usurping jurisdiction may not also sin by pretermitting the administration of Justice This perhaps is but a popish nicety for the question is Whether in so doing he be not guilty of his former sin of usurpation by complying so far with him as to stablish his jurisdiction thus usurped and whether he ought not rather to suffer losse than sinupon himself 4ly But Paraeus is of most credit and so of most weight It matters not saies he by what waies or acts Nimrod or Jeroboam or others got Kingdoms for the power is one thing which is of God and the getting and the use of the power is another Another more plainly when a question is made whom we should obey it must not be looked at what he is that exerciseth the power or by what right or wrong he hath invaded the power c. To this we say first Paraeus may be understood to speak of an usurpation over a free people engaged by no Oathes or Covenants to another Government such I beleeve was Nimrods case or if otherwise the question is Whether a people do not sin in submitting to such a power as in Ieroboams case the people revolting from Rehoboam 2. I see not how that others words can well be justified is it not to be looked at whether it be Jack Cade or John of Leyden that exercises the power Is not this if literally taken a way to open a doer as to insurrections and seditions if men can but get power to suppresse the Legall Authority so to dispense with Oaths c when such an usurpation is made not only that such may but must be obeyed heartily and for conscience sake may we or must we obey every one that hath gotten power though never so wrongfully might not some infer from this ground Satan the prince of this world having usurped power over the sons of disobedience must be obeyed as the ordinance of God forasmuch as there is no power but of God c. But he gives his own reason for it And how saies he can it be otherwise for when a person or persons have gotten supreme power and by the same excluded all other from authority either this authority must be obeyed or else all authority fall to the ground and so confusion be admitted worse than Titular Tyranny I confesse this is a very hard case to naturall reason but perhaps it is not hard to a Christian whose rule is Ye must not do the least evil to prevent the greatest misery But is there no remedy in the whole body of a people to prevent this If they would all in conscience of their Oaths and Covenants be constant to their duty either in resisting or not complying or suffering what could that power do whereas if they willingly and readily comply with every usurped power do they not confirm Tyrants and fasten Tyranny upon themselves and by such compliance make themselves guilty of that usurpation If as is asserted we may lawfully nay must necessarily obey such usurped power in all acts materially good then is it impossible that any one whose Title is once wronged can ever be lawfully righted for it will be alwaies sinfull to help the weaker party and it cannot without help be other then such And supposing it lawfull and our duty to obey such usurpers it will be unlawfull to rescue our selves out of their hands for it being lawfull to submit and we bound in conscience to obey in what is lawfull we are bound in conscience so to submit without endeavouring to get our liberty or to become the stronger party which without endeavouring it can never be and so we are bound to be perpetuall slaves That of the Masters Mate throwing the Master over-board c. is not every way parallell with ours in hand The necessity not alike absolute But if the Mate would command the Mariners by any word or act to acknowledge his violence to be just and his Government lawfull ought they not rather to die then sin But when we comply actively to the ratifying and setling of an usurped