The Grand CASE OF CONSCIENCE STATED about Submission to the new and present Power OR An impassionate ANSWER to a modest BOOK concerning the lawfullnesse of submitting to the present Government By one that professeth himself a friend to Presbytery a lover and embracer of Truth wheresoever he find's it ALthough I love not contention yet I desire satisfaction that whilst I live amidst a tumultuous generation and unquiet times I may be delivered from a troubled spirit and discalm'd minde A wounded spirit who can bear I was willing to have sate down in silence resolving to have kept my conscience as void of offence to others so free from disturbance in it self chusing rather quietly to suffer for not doing what was commanded than knowingly to act what is at least to me unlawfull such a Liberty of Conscience I conceive none will deny me But since that Book came to mine hands I although unwillingly undertook this task not only out of an earnest desire I had to finde out truth but for the unusuall modesty of the Tract it self knowing that the fowlest corn is best winnowed in a gentle gale a tempestuous winde blowes away chaffe and corn too I shall take a brief view of the book Pag. 1. and submit what I shall speak to the Authours judgement A Declaration hath been lately published c. Indeed there was such a Declaration published which I desired with much earnestnesse and read with some deliberation expecting to have found the very quintessence of reason and strength of argument whereby judicious men might have been wholly convinced and abundantly satisfied but my scruples were not answered by it For suppose that had been proved which was there much argued That the government of a free State were in some respects more convenient than that of Monarchy that might have been a prevalent argument to an irregulated people who were de novo to constitute a Government not to those who had before an antient form suited to the people established by Law confirmed by Oath and engaged to by the severall Declarations of them who are so sollicitous for the altering of it Surely if convenience or inconvenience only can break a promise and disingage an Oath David was much mistaken in the 15th Psalm and others may be easily cheated who expect ready performance of not needlesse disputing about Oaths in which men stand bound to them Pag. 21. Of the Declaration What is there said concerning Declararions That the Lords and Commons were of that minde when they made them may serve their turns for the present but would equally serve others turns for the future For by the same reason when those that penned and published that Declaration shall borrow money of men and declare to pay them imploy Souldiers with an engagement to satisfie them people may suspect that their mindes may alter and then by this rule their former Declarations will be of no strength What is further spoken in the Preface for a lawfull obedience to an unlawfull change of Government will be touched on in the further prosecution of this discourse It is said The Apostle commands obedience to higher powers Rom. 13. and thence it is inferred that he speaks not in that place meerly of power or authority abstracted from persons Pag. 1 2. but of persons cloathed with that authority The Apostle speaks there directly of Authority of men only in subordination to that Authority no further than as the executioners of that power because it is impossible Authority should be exercised but where men are to manage it The Apostle in that place requires submission to legall Authority It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whomsoever executed not to any men commanding by an illegall power Higher powers are there expressed indefinitely not pointing at any particular government In a Monarchy an Aristocracy a Democracy the people under the severall constitutions may yea must by the Apostles command obey the higher powers those who by their legall constitution are in Authority not in power over them there is a law of nature that will make man obey a power if he cannot resist but the injunction of the Apostle there is only to lawfull Authority I beleeve the Authour of that Book knows that those only can be the higher powers or legall Authority of any Kingdom which the constitution of that Kingdom makes such and that only can exact obedience according to the Scripture rule Now what the Higher powers of England are by the constitution of this Kingdom is sufficiently known The Apostle commands wives to submit to their husbands Ephes 5.22 surely the injunction is for obedience to husbands quà husbands not quà men indeed not abstracted from their persons Eph. 5.22 because it is impossible the authority of an husband should be submitted to where a man is not to exercise it But should a stranger come to anothers wife and call himself husband having before either imprisoned or slain the rightfull husband and require submission I scarce think the Authour himself especially if he be married would presse for obedience to such an usurped power such a woman may be forced and overpowr'd but to submit to him as an husband were a sinne What is there urged as the great argument to prove the lawfullnesse of obedience to the present Government hath been my main deswasive viz. the Apostles command to obey higher powers for conscience sake Had I been convinced that the King in his person had been the higher powers of England and that his personall command had by the Apostles rule exacted undeniable obedience although he had been visibly acting what we suspected and palpably introducing what we feared I should have submitted for conscience sake The great inducement I had to adhere to the Parliament was besides the hopes of better reformation that thorow conviction that lay upon me both by mine own reason and Parliamentary practices that the two Houses of Parliament in case of the Kings absence weaknesse or refusall had in them such a part of the higher powers and supream authority as to defend and preserve the people without yea against the King doing commanding or exacting any thing besides or against the law And this is that main block at which I stumble in yeelding obedience to this new power because I am yet convinced that they are not the higher powers of our Kingdom to which the Apostle requires obedience I acknowledge a government may be altered although I think it not safe but upon urgent and evident necessity to which being altered obedience is required but it must be done by the higher powers still whom we ought equally to obey in submitting to an altered as a continued form but for any party by force to lay low the higher powers and to exact obedience as to the legall Authority is to me a sinne I am not ignorant what pleas there may be from inconvenience in such a doctrine but
by the Senate I confesse should these Rulers now in our Kingdom command submission to them as to a conquering party and acknowledge they did by power exercise what by force they had gotten I should in that sense submit to them because not able to defend my self against them but they call themselves the legall Authority and higher powers of England under which notion I cannot submit because positively to obey what is thus commanded whatsoever secret reservation I may have I doe and must assert their power as lawfull and their Authority as the legall Authority By this I shall fitly descend to those instances of our Nation Pag. 4 5. to which what hath been already spoken will give me judice sufficient answer For 1. What submission was given to the Conquerour was yeelded as to a forc'd power untill by after-compact it was acknowledged and made legall 2. What was practised by the successors mentioned besides the acknowledged force in their unrightfull acquisitions and violent exercise of power it was only upon difference of Title which people may not be able to judge of as the Authour saies Pag. 9. pag. 9. but amongst us here is an alteration of government where a change only seems to be asserted no Title at all pretended 3. What is spoken of Hen. 7. Pag. 5. may be enough to answer the argument drawn from him and the rest too Although the Title might be unjust and the power illegally gotten yet when the Title was acknowledged at least confirmed by Parliament and the Laws whereby he or they should rule were enacted in a Parliament that did engage the people to an unquestionable obedience the constituted higher powers then commanding to whom the Apostle requires obedience for although a Parliament such I mean which by the known law and continued usage of the Kingdom as a Parliament should acknowledge or do any thing civilly evill I mean in reference to the State it is lawfull and just in respect of the people and engageth obedience which I think will be a sufficient excuse for peoples yeelding obedience to their laws not only because then enacted but since confirmed by the higher powers of our Nation Pag. 6. although in the mean time upon the same ground they rest unsatisfied in the lawfullnesse of submission to the present power Pag. 6. Pag. 6. I might adde that what the whole body of a Nation did if illegall doth not engage our practice for we know Papists and such they were all who submitted to the fore-mentioned Rulers make no conscience of denying a rightfull Title nor yeelding to an illegall power when they may but probably carry on their own design but what is spoken already will satisfie and I had rather give a rationall answer then question the wisdome or honesty of Ancestors where it may be avoided What is urged from the Casuists and Paraeus although I am not bound jurare in verba being of Dr Moulins his minde Pag. 6 7. rather to like one argument then ten Authours I shall agree to in that sense in which I conceive they delivered it to submit to such power as forced not to their Authority as legall unlesse it be such an Authority which by constitution and usage are the higher powers of our Kingdom The Authour after the example of others proceeds now to give some reason of his own which I shall also endeavour to examine and so far as they carry strength and truth as least to me shall submit where otherwise I shall give mine on the contrary Pag. 7. Indeed how can it be otherwise For when a person or persons have gotten supream power and by the same excluded all other from Authority either that Authority which is thus taken by power must be obeyed or else all Authority must fall to the ground Persons may indeed get themselves the greatest strength and in that sense may be submitted to but they cannot illegally get themselves the legall power nor can they exclude others from their Authority although by force they may keep them from the exercise of it A man may be a man yea a living man although by the violence of disease he may be kept from outward actings An husband may be a husband still although imprisoned and thereby kept from the exercise of his duty to his wife A Parliament may be a Parliament still although by violence kept from sitting and executing their Authority I am so far from thinking that disobedience to such power will make all Authority and government fall to the ground that I beleeve submission to such will quickly lay all Authority waste for by the same reason that we obey this altered government and usurped authority now we must obey any other suddenly if another party get more strength and what an unsetled state and unknown Authority we should then have may easily be judged nor do I think the Authour himself would be of the same minde should the Prince with a potent army get the power into their hands Surely were this doctrine true those renowned men shall be rased out of the Calendar for Saints that opposed the Kings power in Ship-money nor must such be sequestred who under the Kings power formerly did lend or give whatsoever he required whether men money horse or arms nor these put out of the Parliament who obeyed him in sitting at Oxon nay nor himself neither put to death for doing what was urged against him if men in power howsoever they come by it are Rulers ordained by God and to be obeyed for conscience sake Pag. 7. If Confusion be worse then titular Tyranny I wish that seeing we had no titular tyranny we had had no confusion neither and I should be glad that confusion may befall if any only such who in this Kingdome have been the greater introducers of it either those who acquire and assert or those who cannot receive or submit to an usurped government Pag. 8. for although the end must not be destroyed for the means yet he that destroies the means in it's tendency to the end will scarcely preserve the end at last Pag. 8. 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 mariners will not obey him commanding aright for the safe guiding of the ship the ship must needs perish and themselves with it I doubt here is a fallacy and this case will not concern our question for I suppose although I am not so well skilled in the discipline of marriners as to know that a Masters mate hath a kinde of Title to the government of the ship in case of the Masters miscarriage which suits not our condition But suppose him to have no title or state the question somewhat nearer our case That if a party of the Sea-men should throw the Master over-board and assume to themselves the government of the Ship I shall then answer That if
according to the light I have where lawfull or unlawfull are in question Rom. 13.1 Pag. 2. Discernendum est inter potestateÌ„ quoe semper est a Deo inter acquisitionem usurpationem Paraeus in Roâ— 13. Hos 8 4. Subditis merè privatis si Tyrannus tanquâ— latro in ipso faciat impetum ipsi nec potestatem ordinariam implorare nec aliâ ratione effugâ—re periculum possint in praâ—senti periculo â— suos contrâ— Tyrannum sicâ— contra privatâ— grassatorem dâ—fendere licet Paraeus in Râ— 1â— their convenience and inconvenience must keep silence It is to be observed what is spoken by the Apostle in the same place the powers that are are ordained by God to which in the second page of the book is a little addition viz. Rulers and those that were in authority were ordained of God the Scripture enjoins obedience to powers to men only as intitled to those powers the authorithy was ordained by God not the Rulers they were constituted by men the power may be Gods Ordinance when the deputing of persons to the exercise of that power may be at most but Gods permission nay that men in Authority Rulers in the Apostles expression are to be obeyed no further then as acting according to that Authority is the judgement of one much used by the composer of that book When a Tyrant shall offer violence to his private Subjects which they can by no other means avoid they may defend themselves and theirs against that Tyrant as against a thief when are men properly called tyrants but when they either usurp or exercise a power contrary to the law and usage of those places where they rule when a consciencious obedience is required to the Authority but not to those who by their own will or procured force either usurp or exercise a power besides that Authority Should we grant that men assuming to themselves the place and power of Magistrates by what right or means soever they came by it must be obeyed surely it would be the greatest inlet to tyranny in the world and the speediest means of destroying states that could be invented for then should none govern in any Kingdome any longer then their swords and their strength could bear them up Thus much I shall yeeld That when any shall usurp Authority by whatsoever title or force he procures it such may be obeyed in reference to their power while they command lawfull things but not in reference to Authority A man being overpower'd may yeeld for his own safety but to submit to that usurp'd power as to the legall Authority of that Kingdome where it is Rev. 22.15 is to assert that as lawfull which is but usurp'd and in the Scripture language to make a lie From this I shall take a just occasion to speak to those instances there urged from obedience to whom the argument is drawn to prove the lawfullnesse of our submission now Pag. 2 3. Concerning Claudius Caesar and Nero which are mentioned pag. 2 3. how they came in by force yet were obeyed by the people I shall not trouble my self nor the Reader with any taedious search into or large recitall of the story but take it as there laid down and give a brief answer to it But before I fall upon a plain answer to what is there fallaciously urged and shew the insufficiency thereof to prove that for which it is asserted I conceive there will appear such a disproportion between the quoted instances and our present case that should we grant all the premises yet the conclusion would not directly follow to prove the question The most that can be asserted from those examples is That people did obey a supream power as exercised by those who had no true at least but a dubitable title when the same form of government was still continued for so it had been for many years before during the reign of a Iulius Caesar Augustus Tiberius Caius Caligula 4 Emperours yea such a government which was the pristine constitution of that place it being Monarchicall for above b Principio Reâ—es ibi septem â—mperarunt aâ—â—iâ— ducentiâ—â—uaâ—raâ—inta â—uatuor Slâ—i â—an de 4. Moâ—arch 440. years till Tarquinius about the businesse of his son with Lucretia was rejected Whether party had or pretended most right and the best ends in their changing of the goverment either J. Brutus from or Julius Casar to Monarchy I shall not dispute nor shall I decide whether God might not justly give them to see the evill of a change who it may be chiefly out of a desire of change would wholly alter a constituted form But this is not our case The insubmission of people now is not grounded upon a suggested scruple of a dubious title to the same but upon an apprehended illegality of the new and needlesse establishment of another government It is one thing and as in it self more lawfull so to people lesse scrupulous upon a pretended title to usurp the exercise of an established Authority another and as in it self lesse just so to people more doubtfull upon pretended apprehensions to eradicate a lawfull Authority and illegally to lay low those which legally are the higher powers of a Kingdome In the one people lesse able to examine titles submit to the established government of that Kingdom where they are and this is sufficient to yeeld obedience that they know not who hath the right In the other they must give themseves up to a new-fashioned modell illegall to them because not the constituted powers of that place and this is enough to withold Allegiance that they know such have not nor pretend a Title Pag. 1. Now to the instances themselves to see how farre they prove the lawfullnesse of our submission to a change of government although the change be beleeved unlawfull â—ag 2 3. After the death of Caius Caligula the Consuls and Senate of Rome entred into to a consultation how they might restore the Common-wealth to her ancint freedom I think this argument will take in all that is therein spoken if the people of the Roman Empire did submit to the power of Claudius and Nero who by force were put upon them then the people of England may lawfully submit to a change of government though beleeved unlawfull but they did submit therefore these may I will finde no fault with the Syllogisme because it is of mine own making although it be the very summe of what is urged what aequivocall terms there are whereby a spirituall eye would quickly see four terms at least in it I shall discover in mine answer to the severall propositions In the first Proposition it being hypotheticall I shall deny the consequence For 1. A People may possibly do what is not in it self lawfull either for themselves or others to do a facto ad jus non valet argumentum had the author proved their submission legall it had been more urgent Indeed it is said
at the end of that paragraph Pag. 4. We see Rulers put by souldiers into that power which is said by the Scripture to be ordained of God and even to these Rulers men must be subject for conscience sake But the Apostle doth not command obedience to these men but to the powers nay not to any men but as commanding according to those powers as was said before nor is it materiall who put men in nor what men are put into powers if they are the powers that are ordained of God those that command according to that Authority must be obeyed and whatsoever the souldiery of Rome did had the souldiery of England in this tacitely pleaded for observed that doctrine before we had not been I think disputing this question now But 2. What might be lawfull for the people in the Roman Empire may not be lawfull for the people of this Kingdome I finde not in any History that ever they were sworn to a particular government as we have been Things in themselves indifferent are made necessary when by an oath engaged to But of that more afterward To the Minor proposition I shall say 1. That those mentioned had at least seeming titles to the Empire Indeed it is agreed by all Historiars I have met withall that they were first encouraged by souldiers but what iniquity is in that if they might pretend a Title The very end of power and strength is or should be to conserve and recover just right we have alwaies acknowledged it lawfull and expedient by force of Arms to acquire a rightfull possession illegally detained But I could wish that this story had been printed and read by the sword-men in this kingdome five moneths agoe that they might but have thought whether it had been greater honour to be recorded as men that should guard a King of a doubtfull title to the Crown or to be storied as men that should bring a King of an indubitable right to the Scaffold I will not here dispute by what title or according to what law Julius Caesar nor yet his successour Octavius assumed the Empire but when that government and those governours were received and acknowledged by the Senate it became lawfull to that people Although Conquest be no true Title nor durable tenure any longer then strength can keep it yet compact upon that Conquest gives a title to the Conquerour and engageth submission from the other party to those rules resolved on at or given out according to that agreement Tiberius from whom indeed both Claudius and Nero had their government Tacitus Anna. lib. 1. did not only for a great part of his time do all he did by the advise of the Senate but would at least seemingly be chosen by the Senate as not contented secretly to step into a government either by the earnest engagement of his mother Tiberius Augusti Octaviij privignus gener filius adoptivus admodum invitus ut prae se ferebat vix tandem exoratus a supplice Senaâ—u principatum accepit Slerdam de 4. Monarch Tiberius maximos dolores gemitus simula vit principatuÌ„ tanquam onerosam servitutem recusans Pezel Mel. Histor par 2â— Pezel Mel. Hist part 2â— Tacitus Annal. lib. 12. Pag. 3. or by the fond adoption of Augustus but would have the call and election of the Common-wealth too now here surely was a lawfull title if the consent of the people could make it lawfull although it may be not in it's first acquisition yet in it 's after establishment and Claudius deriving his title from him why should not people obey it yea me thinks the Authour of that book intimates a title that Claudius had where he saith pag. 3. Claudius being frighted with the news of Caligula's death and fearing himself might be enquired for upon suspicion withdrew had not he been the heir apparent to the Empire what ground of fear or what cause of withdrawing nay if he had not been looked on as the rightfull successour why should the souldier primo intuitu salute him by the name of Emperour For Nero he descended in a direct line on the mothers side from Livia Augustus his wife and although Brittanicus was the naturall son of Claudius yet Nero by Agrippina's means was his adopted son for the Empire and brought to the Senate where it was consented unto that he should have his togam virilem and he called Prince of youth it being their usage as far as I have observed in the story that an Adoptive title assented to by the Senate hath commonly been acknowledged when a lineall succession hath been rejected yea the Authour seems to grant a kinde of title to Nero too where it is said pag. 3. that the sentence of the souldiers was followed by the consent of the Senate if the Senate had any share in either constituting or declaring a King Nero's title was hereby established But what is this to our case A rightfull or doubtfull heir was brought by souldiers to the Senate who among themselves were contriving to alter their government This heir was received by the Senate and upon that submitted unto by the people But doth the Authour think that if the Senate had declared and acknowledged yea promised to preserve the Title of a rightfull Prince and the souldiers by the advice counsell or assistance of some party in this Senate should imprison or slay their Prince and take away the Major part of the Senate only because against their actings and this minor part relict should alter their government yea make themselves without the consent of the people their Rulers that then the people would or lawfully could have submitted to them as their legall and rightfull governours nay would not rather have resisted them as not being those higher powers whom they ought for conscience sake to obey Indeed had the King for some reason hid himself as Claudius or for other reasons absented himself and the two Houses of Parliament legally elected and freely sitting at such a time esteemed the higher powers contrived a way for the altering the government although I should not have proclaimed their wisdome yea should have bewailed their sin in respect of the many ties and bonds of Declarations and Oaths upon them I think I should have submitted to their power yet I would not for my Oath 's sake had I liked the thing have acted in it In which I think I yeeld more then many Anti-Malignant men in England will do yet how far from our case this is what hath been spoken will testifie But 2. Had the instance been of Julius Casar who by meer force and violence without the least pretence of Title acquired the government which had better suited our businesse yet I should say that what submission the people yeelded and what commands he gave were in relation to a power which he by force had gotten and did exercise without any pretence to a legall constituted power till received and acknowledged
which they are taken doe afford Oathes ought to be their own interpreters we may deceive men but God is not mocked Pag. 1 1. But to come to what I conceive is the main end of what hath been hitherto asserted about Oathes To consider whether there be any clause in any Oath or Covenant which in a fair and common sense forbids obedience to the commands of the present Government and Authority There is in the solemne League and Covenant that which engageth to another Government and then what forbids obedience to this In one clause we solemnly Covenant to preserve the Person and not to diminish the just Rights of the King had his Person and just Rights been preserved this Government could never have been attempted but seeing that card is broken unhappy blow that strook it asunder is there yet no bond will hold us yea we do in the same clause faithfully promise to preserve the Law of the Kingdom and surely to change the Government is to alter the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdom if we are bound to preserve our Law then that Government that is established by Law nay yet further In the same place we doe swear yea and call the world to witnesse it that we will not diminish the just Rights and greatnesse of the King Is not a mans right as much concerned in his Heirs inheriting as in his own enjoying what legally belong'd to him Is it not a mans undoubted right to have his lawfull Heirs succeed him in his lawfull enjoyments But now by this Government the Kings Heirs are wholly divested of any possession and absolutely debarred of that right which by the usage of the Kingdom belongs to them Much lesse when no other can be had as the Authour I do not yet see impossibility in having another truly I think if the Covenant had been strictly observed Pag. 11. we had never had this and if it were yet carefully performed we might quietly have another Government such under which godly people might live with more comfort and losse scruple If it be said that in the Oath of Allegiance Allegiance is sworn to the King Pag. 12. his Heirs and Successors If his Heirs be not his Successours how doth that Oath binde either the word Successours must be superfluous or else it must binde Successours as well as Heirs c. If I should grant that the word Successours were superfluous it would not be the only superfluous word in things of that nature or that it is an â—â—â—geticall expression which is not unusuall in all writings both Divine and profane the more fully to expresse the same thing by two words His Heirs and Successours are conjunctive which must necessarily imply that his Heirs according to the usage of this Kingdom ought to be his Successours so that it can binde to no Successours besides the Heir Indeed should the Line extinguish then the legall Successour were to be obeyed by that Oath and yet that too in the continuance of the Government for he is not properly a Successour unlesse in the same form of Government for without asking Lawyers and Learned men Pag. 12. he is properly a Successor that succeede any man in the place where he was If the Agitators in the Army should depose the Generall and order the Army according to their wills would they be justly called his Successours when the frame of their Discipline were altered This seems partly to be acknowledged by the Authour in the same page where he instanceth only in those for Successours which succeeded in the same Government and saith that the word Successour is taken for him that actually succeeds in Government I conceive it must be meant when the same form still is continued else what he asserts and the instances he names would hold no proportion But there is one engagement to the former Government yet lies upon us in reference to our Oaths which is mentioned either in that before named or in the Oath of Supremacy That no power on earth shall deter or absolve us from the keeping of it If so I would but humbly begge the Authour conscienciously to judge whether the force or fear of any party were they stronger than they are should affright a people into a submission to any other Government then that to which they have thus sworn I may take the same liberty to propose a few short yet considerable Quaeres While the Son is in the same posture in which the Father was how comes this Oath at this time to stand up Pag. 12. and plead for disobedience in regard of the Son that was asleep and silent in regard of the Father I do not know in what one title this Oath is more urged for the Son then it might have been and was for the Father unlesse that now there is more need of pressing it because in the Sons daies the Government is altered in the Fathers it was at least promised to be continued Those who were against the irregular actings the Court-faults the wicked Counsels of the Father were for the safety of his person the preservation of his Rights and the continuance of his Government And now the same persons that are for the Rights of the Son and the continuance of the Government are as much against the vices and counsels in and about him as about the Father Besides it might be said that the Father was not opposed untill there was a Parliament that being the legall means in our Kingdom of resisting Arbitrary and extra-legall power the King in the intervalls of Parliaments being the chief officer not to be resisted by private subjects And certainly I think were there now a Parliament sitting according to the constitution of England and the Received to the Crown should act any thing against the known Law and the kingdoms safety those who are now for the reception of the Son and for the performance of their Oaths would as truly and conscienciously according to their Covenant join with them against the exorbitancies of the Son as they did against the evil of the Father only I beleeve they would expect some security that his Person and rights parts of the Covenant should be better preserved and lesse diminished then his Fathers were Besides what hath been spoken to the book I might adde also one small Quaere about altering the government Whether in such an alteration there is not necessarily required either the generall consent of the major part of the people or at least the major part of their trustees if so what right have these men to do who now act in it some of them being the Trustees of no people having no election others who were legally chosen denied their liberty May not any number of people there being no known Law nor constituted rule for this transaction by the like reason conceive and if they have strength alter it again to morrow But if they will which is but equall give them liberty of
that Mate or this party having the greater strength should by power enforce and exact obedience of the rest theâ—e ought for the safety of their own lives although not to obey the Authority yet to do the commands of the enforcing party and if ever they come ashoâ—r to doe what they can to bring such unworthy persons to condigne punishment who besides the murder of the Master would so basely hazard the ship too But if thâ—◠〈◊〉 or party should command the Sea-men to obey them as the rightfull Master I think although with submission to better judgements they ought nor although for the safety of their lives thus to obey them It is better to lose a naturall life then a quiet conscience and a spirituall soul The greatest advantage will not warrant the least evil In such a case it would easily be judged both by God and men to whose fault the losse of the ship should be imputed either to them that did unjustly require or those who dared not unwarrantably to do an unlawfull thing I know not what the sodain fear of unavoidable death might make such men de facto do and I can easily think what harsh censures their hazarding or â—â—sing their lives upon such refusall may bear from rash and lesse considerate men as an empty product of meer peevishnesse but I am confident that a Synod of religious and intelligent Divines would conclude that de jure they ought rather to adventure the losse of all than call him a lawfull who is but an usurped master which they must by yeelding to his or their commands under that notion Whereas some speak of a time for settlement Pag. â— they indeed do rather speak for a time of unsettlement for they will have an unsettlement first and a settlement after If I mistake not the desires of those who withhold submission to the present power the Authour of that Book is mistaken in his apprehensions of them That they desire a settlement I think is true but that they desire an unsettlement first is besides my thoughts of them I know it is the grief of their souls and causeth sad searchings of heart that ever they were brought into such unsettlements and thereby put upon such racks of conscience as these are It is not unsettlement but a deliverance from unsettlement they long for I scarce see how we can be more unsetled then now we are Indeed being unsetled we would use my means for a settlement although for it's procurement our unsettlednesse were more unsetled If a man be at the rivers brink I would advise him to keep out of the water but if at once he leap into the middle of the river I should perswade him to come to the bank although he wade through much water to come thither I would counsell a man to prevent distempers but when the disease is already contracted I should prescribe some Physick for the safety of his life although for the present it should more disease him What is spoken of the former Scriptures and Casuists in the same Page I shall refer to what was before answered But it is asked Whether that may not be called a settlement Pag. â—â— how soon 〈◊〉 it is when there is such a way setled that men may have justice if they will and may â—â—joy that main end of Magistracy to live a peaceable life in godlinesse and 〈◊〉 To speak of what justice some have had at Westminster since the unsettlement of our times or what to be expected when Colonels appear as parties with their arguments by their sides before Committees an argument too often used in the House too as I beleeve the Gentleman knows where to engage a bustling daring Colonell is to carry a cause as also what peaceable lives men live when the souldiers having put other men in power in the State put themselves in command in mens houses and what godlinesse and honesty may be looked for when blasphemy must be tolerated Vt judicium sit actus justitiae requiritur ut procedat ex authoritate praesidentis quando homo judicet de his de quibus non habet authoritateÌ„ dicitur judiciuÌ„ usurpatum Aquin. 22. Q. 60 cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wickednesse must not be punished when in the mean time godly men if but of a contrary judgement a liberty of conscience formerly pleaded for are made offendors for a word would be too large a field to walk in and besides the swelling of this tract but give too wide an occasion to further contests But this shall suffice that the gentleman a little begs the question in calling it justice for although men may have or might expect what he cals justice viz. things in themselves just yet if he grant as I have proved that Authority illegall by which they act what they do or is done by any under that Authority although in it self just yet is not properly justice Judgement for I conceive the Authour means justitiam distributivam is then only just where it is exercised by the higher powers the legall Magistracy of that Kingdome where it is acted The Hebrews expresse justice by that word which they likewise use for the usage and custome of that people that are concerned in it Exod 21.9 Josh 6. â—â— Another argument the Authour useth is because People cannot judge of Titles when they cannot judge then an usurped Title is true to them and will exact obedience but if this be an Argument then for contrariorum eadem est ratiâ— when Titles are visibly unlawfull people are disingaged from obedience This is our case where there is not any pretence of Title Pag. 9. But some say There are Oaths that justifie disobedience to the present government There are indeed severall Oaths that engage us to the continued observance of our formerly established government and then how far they justifie disobedience to this let the Authour judge That Oaths are sacred bonds and reverend obligements and where they do not themselves leave or make us free we are not to cut or break them in peeces I shall equally assert and could heartily wish it had been as truly practised in the Kingdome as plainly spoken in the book But seeing there are indeed as the Authour affirms concerning these Pag 9. faults on both hands let us a little examine the faults he mentions and see whether there are not other faults too that he speaks not of On the one side the slieghting of an Oath c. This is a fault indeed Oaths and Covenants are the strongest engagements whereby we can binde our selves either to God or man if these come once to be sleighted and no longer observed then they may conduce to the palpable advantage of those that made them I am afraid that may justly be written upon the door-posts of England Isa 11.1 2. what was set in the front of Davids song Psa 12.1 2. I am loth to misjudge any person whom I finde