Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	ordinance_n	power_n	resist_v	1,861	5	9.7674	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81741	The northern subscribers plea, vindicated from the exceptions laid against it by the non-subscribing ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire, and re-inforced by J. Drew. Published according to order.	Drew, John, fl. 1649-1651.	1651 (1651)	Wing D2165; Thomason E638_11; ESTC R206635	62,703	75

but surely no man can be so irrationall as to deny the latent veine of a ‖ Vide Ames Cas Cons l. 4. cap. 22. Quest 8. condition running through every promise or Covenant where the contrary is not exprest if therefore we Covenanted for the preservation of his person conditionally 't is all one as if we had not covenanted at all the condition proving apparently impossible and inconsistent with what we promised streines upon the promise and revokes it if absolutely and in expresse termes excluding all condition as surely we never did the Covenant were unlawfull setting man up above Gods Ordinance and so has no obligatory power at all in it but enough of this seeing these Ministers in this page call the Kings death an impertinency we shal now be content to let it passe for one after this forreigne velitation anent it which we could have wav'd likewise very contentedly had we not been charg'd as having said little in our Plea to render it approveable besides fiat justitia ruat coelum They tell us pag. 26. That they will only touch upon what we say is and they judge it not to be approv'd in order to the change of Government yet here forgetting themselves surely they bring in somewhat as introductory to it and charge the maintaining of it as approveable upon us which we neither grant properly introductory but forinsecum quid being not done by those who chang'd the Government nor yet that we touch upon it as approveable for the contrary might be seene in the page immediatly preceding where we presume that the Parliament end Army might doe some things in order to the change which themselves hold only justifyable upon the plea of necessity this it seems could put no stop to their fury but they will needs have the Engagement from what cogency of Reason we cannot see to draw in the Engagers to a necessary approbation of the supposed miscarriage viz. The breach of Parliaments priviledges by forcing the House excluding the Members c. for that which I promise to be true and faithfull to I must needs suppose and avow to be just and good but we say that by this rule all our forefathers that sware Allegiance to the Conquerour must be supposed to avow his Authority just and good which these Gentlemen will implead unlesse their consent made it so 2 That the authority may be owned as just and good the Lord himselfe owning it we have prov'd before notwithstanding the meanes of attaining it as to mans acting in them be justly disavow'd and abhor●'d a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys we can distinguish the Powers that be from the sinfulnesse of their introduction therefore fupposing the truth of what followes That our present Rulers entrance into and continuance in power depends upon these two con-causes their owne and the Armies force what is this to the submitting conscience who knowes of no other powers that be however these came to be and therefore concludes If he resists the power he resists the Ordinance of God unlawfull introductions neither taking away the being of the Powers nor dis-obliging conscience from obedience But let us examine their assertion a little 't is strange that the Parliament and Army should act as they did without the consent and concurrence of any men besides themselves if their Authority depends meerly upon their owne and the Armies force it should needs be thus but we can tell them of a great number that concurr'd with and consented to what they did antecedentià and of many more that gave their subsequent consent which was sufficient they say to make Leah Jacobs Wife to the change of Government and so espoused the present Authority Peradventure few did or doe consent to it in Lancashire what then sure the Classis of Ministers there is not like the Frogge who thought the Ditch hee liv'd in was all the World thus the fire-edge of their assertion is taken off 3 Suppose a man gets that which he hath a right to and keeps possession of it by force does this denude him of his title Is it unjust in him after this force which before he used any force he had a just claime to especially if it be no otherwise recoverable as it is usually with publique liberties where Prerogative has once fastned its clawes in them making that its free-hold or inheritance which was originally in the peoples power to dispose of now let us minde you of a pretty Allusion Two Sons of a loving Mother heare her cry out in her Bed-chamber as likely to be abused by vile Fellowes one of these Sons strives to unlocke the doore and cannot the key having contracted a seaven yeares rust the other unhinges or breakes open the doore and comes in timely to rescue her is be justifiable yea or no certainly though force he not the arbitor of right yet it followes not that whatsoever is gotten by force is vainely gotten the possession of our powers may depend upon force and their cause be never the worse for all this 3 It would be knowne what these men meane by that which they terme their owne force If the prevalency of our present Rulers Judgements it is an allowable force but an improper one if we indulge them not the liberty of Voting their sence they must be all as the Lord Faulkland said of Finch silent Speakers if we allow thus much to them then what is this force still A power or competency for the managing and carrying on their Votes and Orders if we gratifie them not with this force the freest Parliament that ever shall sit in England will be Vox praeterea nihil therefore 4 It must needs be the Armies Force which adnuls or makes our present Authority base-borne if any force doe it the former force say they could give no just title See the Declar●t Febr. 17. 1648. pag 15. Declarat March 17. 1648. pag. 22. and without this could not availe to their advancement But Sirs if the Army acted gratis or without command in this heavie businesse of secluding some Members this being an extrinsicall force could not possibly denude the remaining numbers of a right to act authoritatively the Kings routing of five Members did not breake the House and if five doe it not an hundred and fifty will not if the Army in this doing acted the Houses pleasure or by the call of the House they acted as servants and is this that which unauthorized the House Suppose the Parliament had called Sir William Waller Stapleton or Balfore to their doore upon the refusall of many to swear the vow 1643. and had commanded them to seculde those who then were secluded for disgusting that Engagement and their renitency to the worke of that season would this have vacated the power of that remnant Surely no the House it is granted may prescribe conditions to it selfe and the Members which refuse them are ipso facto unmembred so that the outing or

Oathes of Allegiance aske the Elders and they will tel you could these Ministers make the contrary appeare they might plead a difference in the case we know of none in Authority that receded from their owne rights to give way or place to the Conquerour in England therefore if engaging in our case would be a participation in sinne by consenting to and establishing the change theirs could not be without such an accessarinesse But wel may the Ghosts of our Grand-fathers rest till such a change as this finde them out they knew if this Governour or Government was dis-enabled from giving them protection they were free for another Supremacy being ambulatory Salus Populi but the supreame Law fast fixed 3 Who can beleeve that the Dukes of Braganre ‖ Philippus secundus qui neque ex Lusitanorum voluntate neque ex justo bello poterat in Lusitania regnare c. D. Anton. de Sousa Hist li. 2. c. 3. consented to their owne dethronement Ingens telum necessitas to this they gave way or that the Portugoes approved Castiles usurpation over him and them if the present King of Portugals Grand-father had given away his right to the Crowne by swearing Allegiance to the Spaniard as these rejoynders intimate how could here-assume it as he did about 1640 and yet be justified surely in both these cases wrong was not done only to those who of right were possest of power which wrong they might release the usurpers of but to the Nations in generall over which the pre-authorized persons could not transferre any right of power to those who conquered and vassaliz'd them so that our parallel yet holds good to goe on therefore we insist that Powers irregularly and disorderly changed may be lawfully and conscientiously subscribed to and owned as powers ordained of God And here the whole Classes Votes with us We say so too if they have besides that disorderly entrance say they a lawfull calling or title conveyed to them Answ We conceive a perfect implicancy in what they here would seeme to grant us for the condition which they annext to their grant makes submission to powers disorderly changed an absolute impossibility saving their owne principles this we prove thus To submit or give any countenance to persons irregularly possest of the seat of Authority brings men under a participation of their sinne for say they pag. 22. anent engaging to a changed power We doe insist that it doth necessarily carry in it an expresse consent to the essentials or executive acts of the change t is impossible therefore that men thus perswaded should furnish disorderly intruders with a postuentionall power and not sinne against conscience to countenance them at all levels their principles they cannot call any to authority without sinning who have no Basis for their Authority before their call and by this meanes Gods supreame right to a disposall of the Kingdomes of the world becomes altogether null and vacated and by consequence the very Ordinance of Magistracy when we cannot perswade our selves of mans right as the case now happens for if this power be by the providence of God dis-enabled from affording us protection no other power unlesse of the same right constitution and formality with that to which we were pre-engaged may be lawfully by these principles submitted to as his Ordinance Homo jam Deo propitius esto no doubt Sirs but yee are the people and wisdome shall dye with you Job 12.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diog. Laerr de Gysip To this one perswasion viz. That neither Gods commands touching subjection nor the Parliaments Act for subscription puts the submitting conscience either upon the approbation or dis-approbation of the equity or iniquity of this change of Government wrought amongst us c. They say Here is a strange confused Divinity a conscientious acknowledgement of a thing and yet no act of conscience exercised either by way of approbation or dis-approbation c. ye that built this labyrinth lend your clue to lead us out Answ In returne to this wonderment of theirs we must say that had these smart Casuists but taken notice of the sentence immediately preceding that they here alledge they might happily have avoyded the charging confusion upon us or of confounding themselves and have driven this case of conscience to a cleare and more satisfying issue then they have done but seeing they have intricated themselves we shall endeavour to extricate them as they desire us step by step 1 The first step is this Governing Powers may be irregularly changed and yet conscienciously submitted to this is their owne acknowledgement at the top of the Page if therefore they know the print of their owne feet this step they may safely take without our conduct 2 The second step it belongs not to persons of a private spheare in times of contest about Soveraignty decisively to determine of the right that pretenders to supreame power in the world have over us conscience cannot be supposed to demand that of every man which is beyond the abilities and helps of most men to attaine unto any certainty or exactnesse in viz. the knowledge of every parties pretention to Government or the grounds of their claime 3 The third step if the title or tenure of Magistrates concerne not private consciences then the innovation and antiquation of this or that order in publique Government or the change of persons in power with the equity or iniquity of either concernes them as little 4 The fourth step wher-ever men live and enjoy protection the proper fruit of Magistracy there the Ordinance of God is in being 5 The fifth step this Ordinance of God which they see ministring to their good they are bound to acknowledge and in whatsoever persons it is seated to pay homage unto it Rom. 13.1 c. Tit. 3.1 1 Pet. 2.13 c. this bindes Consciences to a changed power and yet puts it not upon the examination of the equity or iniquity of the change as out of duty much lesse upon the approvall or dis-approvall thereof where we see the end of Magistracy performed there Magistracy is in being we conclude and where this power resides we cannot be long ignorant if we see who they are that minister to our good in this nature But let us heare what they say against these things Where God commands subjection beyond all doubt he requires the conscience to approve or dis-approve the assent of conscience must be of faith and this cannot be without its inquiry into the equity or iniquity of the thing propos'd this is the substance Answ The assent of Conscience as to submission is of faith when we see those over us are Ministers for our good in a judiciary irreprovable orderly way if we finde this inquisition after the titles of men in power to doe us good or to command us in order thereto is not necessary for the binding of Conscience we heare very much of duty prest by the Apostles upon