<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2010-03-02</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Megan Marion</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist:
x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate
xAdd DIV TYPEs, validate
xReview structure, use FRONT,BODY, BACK or rarely GROUP
xCheck PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N=""
xProof title page(s)
xCheck HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE
xCheck ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c.
xCheck # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE
xCheck q; startq endq Q
xCorrect illegibles from proofsheet
xCheck illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
Final validate

Corrected [  ] illegible groups out of [  ].
Converted [  ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible".
DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A92823">
<STC T="W">S2314</STC>
<STC T="T">E530_31</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99863390</BIBNO>
<VID>115589</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="half title">
<PB N="1" REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A &s;econd Part of the Religious DEMURRER; By another Hand. Or, an ANSWER to a Tract called <HI>The Lawfullne&s;&s;e of obeying the pre&s;ent Government.</HI></P>
<P>By a lover of Truth and Peace.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<HEAD>To the READER;</HEAD>
<P>_IT is the unhappine&s;&s;e, of the&s;e la&s;t times e&s;pecially, that men are apt to run, from one extreame to another. As in matter of Religion, we &s;ee it evident; we are fallen from &s;uper&s;tition, to prophane&s;&s;e: So in the State, from Mi&s;s-Government, to Change of Government; and &s;ometimes, from one kinde of Tyranny, to another; from Re|gall, to Popular; from Tyranny under a lawfull power, to Tyranny under an unlawfull power. And, which is wor&s;t, is not hard to de|termine, ina&s;much as a &s;ingle Tyrant, is better then many; Regall Tyranny, better then Martiall. And this is the yoke, that at pre&s;ent, people mo&s;t com|plain of; which, it were well, if wi&s;e men would &s;tudy how to remove; not how to fasten it, unavoidably, upon the necks of this Nation. But this is mo&s;t ju&s;t with God (we hum|bly acknowledge it,) that &s;eeing, we would not bear the ea&s;ie, &s;ilken yoke of Je&s;us Chri&s;t; he is now putting on us, an iron yoke; which, neither our fathers were, nor we are, nor our posterity will be able to bear. Among&s;t tho&s;e that a&s;&s;i&s;t to the effecting of this (whether ignorantly or intentionally,) this Gent. is one of the fir&s;t, that undertakes, to per&s;wade this people, to bear this yoke as if we were <HI>populus ad &s;ervitutem non nati, &s;ed de&s;tinati;</HI> and with our own hands, &s;hould help to put this yoke, upon our own necks, and rivet it fa&s;t for falling off: which certainly we doe, if once we can be per&s;waded, that not only we may voluntarily (becau&s;e &s;inle&s;ly, as we are made beleeve,) but al&s;o, mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily, for con|&s;cience &s;ake (not meer coaction) obey an unlawfull power, by the command of God. It is a very &s;ad thing, and dangerous, for a man to be engaged once, in any &s;infull de&s;igne, or act; in that, <HI>&s;cel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">re tuendum e&s;t &s;celus,</HI> one engagement draws on another: And it is a very great &s;nare (we &s;ee,) for men to be po&s;&s;e&s;t of great e&s;tates, and places of profit, by that power, which can as ea&s;ily dive&s;t them of it, if they oppo&s;e or a&s;&s;i&s;t not their wicked de&s;ignes. If the world be not mi&s;taken in the Authour of this Tract, they fear him intangled in &s;uch a &s;nare: otherwi&s;e (&s;ay they) he would never undertake the patronage of &s;o bad a cau&s;e; or countenance it, by acting, or a&s;&s;i&s;ting the Authours of this change, especially being en|gaged to the contrary (as they yet think) by &s;o many Oaths and Covenants. What mi&s;chief
<PB N="2" REF="2">this Tract may doe (the rather for the worth, and authority of the man,) with per&s;ons fearfull, or loath to &s;uffer lo&s;&s;e, or puni&s;hment, is not ea&s;ie to &s;ay: If this An&s;wer may give him any light, to &s;ee his error; his Retractation of it, by writing or his Retreat from the pre|&s;ent power, and actors in it, may (if &s;peedily done) help to Antidote, or expell the pre&s;cribed poi&s;on. Which that it it may be done, is the de&s;ire of a friend of his. The Lord give it a good I&s;&s;ue.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<HEAD>Que&s;tion.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether, Tho&s;e who&s;e Title is held unlawfull, yet being po&s;&s;e&s;t of Authority may lawfully be obeyed.</HI></P>
<P>THere are two great que&s;tions now in cha&s;e and agitation, 1. <HI>Whether the pre&s;ent power be ju&s;t and lawfull?</HI> 2. <HI>Whether, &s;uppo&s;ing them unlawfull, they may not law|fully be obeyed?</HI> The fir&s;t of the&s;e is waved by this Gentleman, as undertaken by o|thers; with what &s;trength or weakne&s;&s;e, let others judge. The &s;econd is the &s;ubject of the pre&s;ent debate. The Gentleman &s;peaks of a Declaration publi&s;hed, wherein the grounds of &s;etling the pre&s;ent Government are expre&s;t. But for ought I hear, few rationall, con&s;cientious men are &s;atisfied with that Declaration; con&s;idering tho&s;e Vowes, Oaths, Covenants, whereby the Authors of it, &s;tood before engaged. And whatever the people may do, in &s;ubmitting to obey this power of the new Go|vernment, I fear they that altered it, and tho&s;e that act it on, or they that abet it, can|not be innocent. But let them look to that; We &s;hall not, at pre&s;ent, di&s;cu&s;&s;e the lawfullne&s;&s;e or the unlawfullne&s;&s;e of their power, and proceedings, but con&s;ider how far we our felves may &s;ubmit unto them, without &s;in. For this purpo&s;e we &s;hall fir&s;t con&s;ider how the Gent. hath &s;tated the que&s;tion. And we ob&s;erve that he laies it on|ly upon the Lawfullne&s;&s;e, not upon the nece&s;&s;ity of our obedience; For &s;o he &s;aies, <HI>Though the change of a Government were beleeved unlawfull, yet it may lawfully be obey|ed.</HI> Not it <HI>mu&s;t</HI> nece&s;&s;arily, but <HI>may</HI> lawfully be obeyed; and yet his text produced, <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.1, &amp;c. is pre&s;&s;ed with this inference, <HI>Wherefore ye mu&s;t be &s;ubject, not only for wrath, but for con&s;cience &s;ake.</HI> Now &s;ome there are, who are of opinion, that though &s;uch an unlawfull power may be obeyed, yet it need not for con&s;cience &s;ake be obey|ed. if a man will hazard the puni&s;hment annexed, and &s;ubmit him&s;elf to &s;uffer it. But it is otherwi&s;e in a lawfull power in lawfull things; a man is bound to active obe|dience unto them, and it &s;ufficeth not, to &s;atisfie con&s;cience, to &s;uffer the penalty, but is a re&s;i&s;tance of the ordinance of God, which in lawfull commands, requires active obedience, in unlawfull, pa&s;&s;ive. What then is the difference between a lawfull power and an unlawfull, both commanding lawfull things? but this, That a man may, if he will, obey the one, but mu&s;t obey the other; not only pa&s;&s;ively, by &s;uffering, if by ignorance, or weakne&s;&s;e he neglect the command, but al&s;o actively, in acting that command, or el&s;e he &s;ins. And to this purpo&s;e the Gent. adds, <HI>page.</HI> 2. <HI>If the powers in that time were ordained of God, and were to be obeyed for con&s;cience &s;ake,</HI> &amp;c. where he takes it for granted (as well he may, if the powers were ordained of God) that be the powers never &s;o unlawfull; yet they mu&s;t be obeyed for <HI>con&s;cience &s;ake.</HI> Yet the que&s;tion runs only of the lawfullne&s;&s;e. That's fir&s;t.</P>
<P>Secondly, For the clearer &s;tating of the que&s;tion, we mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily di&s;tingui&s;h, in many particulars, which the Gent. hath either omitted, or confounded.</P>
<P N="1">1. We mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h of a Government: A State may be con&s;idered, either as <HI>con&s;tituta,</HI> long &s;etled, or <HI>constituenda,</HI> as yet in &s;etling: A people may perhaps, law|fully obey a Government, when there is no probability of recovering their lo&s;t Go|vernment;
<PB N="3" REF="2">whereas while it is yet in &s;etling, they may &s;u&s;pend obedience.</P>
<P N="2">2. A people al&s;o may be con&s;idered, either as <HI>free</HI> to &s;ettle upon what Government they will, as having no Government yet &s;etled, or the line of &s;ucce&s;&s;ion being expi|red: or as <HI>bound</HI> by Oathes and Covenants to a former Government, or Governours, who are oppre&s;&s;ed in their right, by violent u&s;urpation. In the fir&s;t, a people may obey an u&s;urping power; but the que&s;tion is of the latter.</P>
<P N="3">3. A Tyrant al&s;o who is an u&s;urping power is of two &s;orts; Fir&s;t, by Title, or ra|ther without a Title; Secondly, by oppre&s;&s;ion; or as the Gent. him&s;elf expre&s;&s;eth it, <HI>pag.</HI> 6. <HI>A Tyrant in regard of an unju&s;t Title, or in respect of Tyrannicall oppre&s;&s;ion, when his Title is good.</HI> Now the que&s;tion is, whether a Tyrant by an unju&s;t Title, not only may, but mu&s;t be obeyed, when he commands lawfull things; And whether, as when a lawfull power commands unlawfull things, he may ju&s;tly, yea mu&s;t be di&s;|obeyed; &s;o, when an unlawfull power commands lawfull things, he mu&s;t be obeyed?</P>
<P N="4">4. Obedience is differenced, into active and pa&s;&s;ive. The latter may be yeelded, when the former may not, at lea&s;t needs not: As when a lawfull power commands unlawfull things, a man mu&s;t &s;uffer, not doe: &s;o when an unlawfull power com|mands lawfull things, a man perhaps may obey, but not nece&s;&s;arily mu&s;t; at lea&s;t this is the que&s;tion now in hand.</P>
<P N="5">5. Becau&s;e we have occa&s;ion to look at impo&s;&s;ibility, in this di&s;cour&s;e, we mu&s;t difference it al&s;o here, it is either Pre&s;ent, as when there is at pre&s;ent an over-ruling power which we cannot with&s;tand: or el&s;e Ab&s;olute, when there is a totall ce&s;&s;ation of all hopes of recovery of the former Government; the heirs, and lawfull &s;ucce&s;|&s;ors, being either all naturally dead, or unnaturally extinct, and &s;lain; as it was &s;uppo|&s;ed to be, in <HI>Athalia's</HI> ca&s;e: the people thought &s;he had &s;lain all the Royall &s;eed, and perhaps upon that ground, knowing of none &s;urviving, they &s;ubmitted to her Go|vernment; but as &s;oon as they knew <HI>Ioa&s;h,</HI> one of that Line, was alive, they &s;hook off their obedience to her. The&s;e things being thus premi&s;ed, we con&s;ider the &s;trength of his Arguments.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t ba&s;is of all his building, is taken from the Scripture, <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.1, &amp;c. <HI>The Apostle</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>treating of purpo&s;e, upon the duty of obedience to Authority, laies down this precept; Let every &s;oul be &s;ubject to the higher pow|ers,</HI> &amp;c. and hereupon infers; <HI>wherefore you mu&s;t needs be &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ject, not only for wrath, but for con&s;cience &s;ake,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>In an&s;wer to this; Let it fir&s;t be ob&s;erved, that he concludes more then he under|took to prove: His que&s;tion was of the lawfullne&s;&s;e, but his proof is for the nece&s;&s;ity of obedience, active, as well as pa&s;&s;ive; Now I would gladly know, what difference there is, in our obedience, to lawfull powers, and to unlawfull powers,<NOTE PLACE="marg">The word is <GAP DESC="foreign"> not <GAP DESC="foreign"> lawfull authority not u&s;urp|ed power. Script. &amp; Rea&s;. pag. 5, 6. Pag. 4.</NOTE> if it be nece&s;|&s;ary to both.</P>
<P>Secondly, The que&s;tion is, in this Text, of what power the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks; of Lawfull, or Tyrannicall; and if of Tyranicall, whether of a Tyrant by a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ju<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> Title, or a Tyrant in regard of oppre&s;&s;ion; and the judgement of very able Divines is, that the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks of a legall power; not of a Tyrannicall, in either &s;en&s;e: This latter, is learnedly and largely di&s;cu&s;&s;ed by the Authour of that Tract; called, <HI>Scripture and Rea&s;on for Defen&s;ive Arms:</HI> who a&s;&s;erts, and proves, the text is not meant of any powers whatever, but of Legall powers, not Tyrannicall at all. His Arguments are the&s;e from the context: 1. If I be bound to be &s;ubject to Tyranny by vertue of the commandment here; then Tyranny is the Ordinance of God (for the Apo&s;tle argues
<PB N="4" REF="3">for &s;ubjection, from Gods ordaining the power) But this is fal&s;e: Therefore &s;o is that, that I &s;hould be &s;ubject to Tyranny. 2. He brings many Arguments again&s;t this Gentlemans Interpretation.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 9.</NOTE> 1. The Magi&s;trate that mu&s;t be obeyed is the Or|dinance of God. 2. Not a terrour to good works, but to evil. 3. The Mini&s;ter of God to thee for good. But a Tyrant is not the Ordinance of God; is a terrour to good works: is not the Mini&s;ter of God for good; Therefore not to be obeyed. I confe&s;&s;e he carries it all along, of a Tyrant by oppre&s;&s;ion, who&s;e Title is lawfull and ju&s;t; and he &s;peaks (more then we argue for) of Re&s;i&s;tance of &s;uch a Tyrant; where|as we plead only for non-obedience; or again&s;t nece&s;&s;ity of obedience, to a Tyrant, in regard of unlawfull Title. We &s;ay then the Gent. mi&s;interprets, and &s;o mi&s;applies the text, which &s;peaks only of a lawfull power, not of an unlawfull.</P>
<P>But he goes on, to prove his a&s;&s;ertion, that the Apo&s;tle meant it of a power un|lawfully gotten; by applying it to the then pre&s;ent Roman powers: It was either <HI>Claudius,</HI> or <HI>Nero,</HI> that then ruled: who were both made Emperours by the Souldiery, again&s;t the Wills, and Re&s;olutions of the Con&s;uls, and Senate, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Where fir&s;t, he takes it for granted (which cannot well be proved) that becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle writ in their times, therefore he meant it of tho&s;e powers, that they were ordained of God: not by his permi&s;&s;ion only, but approbation al&s;o. Whereas the Apo&s;tle might mean it (and we have heard, did &s;o mean it) of any legall power; ab|&s;tractedly, from the <HI>Roman,</HI> or any particular State. 2. But grant it meant of them, yet it is known, that <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> had gotten the con&s;ent of the Senate, and people: and they &s;ucceeded upon the &s;ame Title, and &s;o might be lawfull powers. 3. This Ar|gument is of no force in our ca&s;e; for though it hold parallell, in the In&s;truments of &s;etling, or rather changing of the Government, the Souldiery; yet not in the Ratifi|cation of it by Senate, and people. Mark the words of the Hi&s;torian, engli&s;hed by the Gent. <HI>pag.</HI> 3. <HI>This &s;entence of the Souldiers, was followed with the con&s;ent of the Senate; and then it was not &s;crupled in the provinces: That is, it was con&s;ented to by the Genera|lity of the people.</HI> But ours hath neither con&s;ent of Senate (in its true and full Autho|rity) nor people, but the Renitency, yea Abhorrency of both, for the far greater part. If indeed the two Hou&s;es freely and fully &s;itting, had con&s;ented to it, and the people Generally &s;ubmitted to it, the ca&s;e might &s;eem ea&s;ier to re&s;olve. But&s;till this &s;cru|ple would remain, whether both Senate and people could con&s;ent, without &s;in, to the change of Government, lying under &s;o many bonds and engagements, to another Power: of which more hereafter.</P>
<P>The Roman State then will not help him: let us &s;ee our own: <HI>Many per&s;ous</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>have been &s;etled in Supreme power, by meer force, without Title of Inheritance, or ju&s;t Conque&s;t, and obeyed by the people of this land: and Laws made by forced Parliaments are &s;till in force and obeyed: &s;o that the voice of the Nation, with one con&s;ent, &s;eems to speak aloud, that tho&s;e, who&s;e Title is held unlawfull, may lawfully be obeyed.</HI></P>
<P>There are many an&s;wers to be given to this: 1. Tho&s;e times were very dark, in prevailing of Popery, and therefore no pre&s;idents for a Reformed State to imitate. 2. Tho&s;e people were not perhaps precluded, by &s;o many Oaths and Covenants, from alteration of the former Government, as we of this Generation are. 3. The que&s;tion is not <HI>de facto,</HI> but <HI>de jure,</HI> whether they did will, in &s;o doing. The &s;cruple is ju&s;tly made, Whether they ought not rather to a&s;&s;ert (as far as in them lay) the right of the
<PB N="5" REF="3">true Heir; than to clo&s;e with the u&s;urper; e&s;pecially if under our engagements: It they ought in con&s;cience to a&s;&s;ert 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 a&s;&s;ert that right, yet the que&s;tion is, Whether they might either directly, or indirectly, do any act, which might affirm the right of the u&s;urper, or deny, but &s;o much as interpretatively, the ju&s;t Title of the Heir, without being guilty of the &s;ins of lying, treachery and fal&s;ene&s;&s;e; if not of perjury and Vow-breaking: In &s;uffering, I confe&s;&s;e, if a thief take my pur&s;e, I cannot help it; if I mu&s;t part with that, or my life, I choo&s;e to lo&s;e my pur&s;e; not for fear lea&s;t I break the filth or eighth Commandment, but lea&s;t I break the &s;ixth, and be guilty of &s;elf-murder: yet rather than &s;ay, he hath autho|rity to take it, I mu&s;t lo&s;e my life. In point of protection, If I be in the hands of theeves, I will de&s;ire &s;ome of them, to pre&s;erve me from the violence of &s;ome others: yet mu&s;t I not (to obtain that protection,) &s;ay, that their robbery is ju&s;t, or good, much le&s;&s;e, join with them in robbing others, or be an abetter to their actions, though the de|niall of &s;uch abetting, indanger my life. 4. As for our pre&s;ent &s;ubmitting to tho&s;e Laws, fir&s;t made by u&s;urpers, and forced Parliaments; we &s;ay, they have been often ratified (being thought whol&s;ome Laws) by &s;ucceeding lawfull Parliaments, and &s;o make nothing to the ca&s;e in hand: and, perhaps, till then, not to be judged valid Acts.<NOTE PLACE="marg">See that Ordinace of <HI>Aug.</HI> 20 1647. Declaring &s;uch Votes pa&s;&s;ed, to be null at the time of the pa&s;|&s;ing, be|cau&s;e the Hou&s;e was the under a force.</NOTE></P>
<P><HI>And hereunto</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>Divines and Ca&s;ui&s;ts give their concurrence,</HI> Azorius, Navarr, Al&s;ted, Paraeus, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>In an&s;wer to the&s;e we &s;ay, 1. Its one thing to claim ju&s;tice of a Tyrant (for nece&s;|&s;ary &s;ub&s;i&s;tence,) by e&s;tabli&s;hed Laws not yet repealed (which perhaps may ju&s;tifie tho&s;e that are forced to pro&s;ecute &s;uits under the pre&s;ent Courts,) wherein we con|&s;ent to the power of the former Laws, which are our birthright, not properly, but by accident, to the power that manages them at pre&s;ent. 2^l^y The rea&s;on given by the fir&s;t, is this, <HI>The Commonwealth tacitely con&s;ents in this, that though he have no right or Title, yet he may admini&s;ter Law, to Citizens &s;ubjected,</HI> facto, <HI>not</HI> jure, <HI>as if he were a Competent Judge, and lawfull Superiour:</HI> But this varies the que&s;tion two waies; 1. That there is a tacite con&s;ent of all. 2. That he admini&s;ters the old Laws e&s;tabli|&s;hed, not any new ones of his own, to the overthrow of the old, which we have &s;worn and covenanted to maintain. 3^l^y The rea&s;on given by the &s;econd, is &s;carcely &s;ound; <HI>becau&s;e</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>they that &s;eek the admini&s;tration of ju&s;tice, do endeavour to free him from a greater &s;in; that he that &s;ind by u&s;urping juri&s;diction, may not al&s;o &s;in, by pre|termitting the admini&s;tration of Ju&s;tice.</HI> This perhaps, is but a popi&s;h nicety; for the que&s;tion is. Whether in &s;o doing, he be not guilty of his former &s;in of u&s;urpation, by complying &s;o far with him, as to &s;tabli&s;h his juri&s;diction thus u&s;urped; and whether he ought not rather to &s;uffer lo&s;&s;e, than &s;inupon him&s;elf. 4^l^y But <HI>Paraeus</HI> is of mo&s;t credit, and &s;o of mo&s;t weight: <HI>It matters not</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>by what waies or acts</HI> Nimrod, <HI>or</HI> Jeroboam, <HI>or others, got Kingdoms; for the power is one thing which is of God, and the getting, and the u&s;e of the power is another.</HI> Another more plainly, <HI>when a que|&s;tion is made whom we &s;hould obey, it mu&s;t not be looked at, what he is that exerci&s;eth the power, or by what right or wrong he hath invaded the power,</HI> &amp;c. To this we &s;ay, fir&s;t, <HI>Paraeus</HI> may be under&s;tood, to &s;peak of an u&s;urpation over a free people; engaged by no Oathes or Covenants, to another Government: &s;uch I beleeve was <HI>Nimrods</HI> ca&s;e; or if otherwi&s;e, the que&s;tion is, Whether a people do not &s;in, in &s;ubmitting to &s;uch a power, as in <HI>Ieroboams</HI> ca&s;e; the people revolting from <HI>Rehoboam.</HI> 2. I &s;ee not how that others words can well be ju&s;tified: is it not to be looked at, whether
<PB N="6" REF="4">it be <HI>Jack Cade,</HI> or <HI>John</HI> of <HI>Leyden,</HI> that exerci&s;es the power? Is not this (if literally taken) a way, to open a doer, as to in&s;urrections and &s;editions, if men can but get power to &s;uppre&s;&s;e the Legall Authority: &s;o to di&s;pen&s;e with Oaths, <HI>&amp;c,</HI> when &s;uch an u&s;urpation is made? not only, that &s;uch may, but mu&s;t be obeyed, heartily, and for con&s;cience &s;ake? may we, or mu&s;t we obey every one that hath gotten power, though never &s;o wrongfully? might not &s;ome infer from this ground, Satan, the prince of this world, having u&s;urped power, over the &s;ons of di&s;obedience, mu&s;t be obeyed, as the ordinance of God, fora&s;much as there is no power but of God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>But he gives his own rea&s;on for it. <HI>And how</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>can it be otherwi&s;e? for when a per&s;on, or per&s;ons have gotten &s;upreme power, and by the &s;ame exclu|ded all other from authority, either this authority, must be obeyed, or el&s;e all authority fall to the ground, and &s;o confu&s;ion be admitted (wor&s;e than Titular Tyranny.</HI></P>
<P>I confe&s;&s;e this is a very hard ca&s;e, to naturall rea&s;on: but perhaps, it is not hard to a Chri&s;tian; who&s;e rule is, Ye mu&s;t not do the lea&s;t evil, to prevent the greate&s;t mi&s;ery. But is there no remedy, in the whole body of a people, to prevent this? If they would all, in con&s;cience of their Oaths and Covenants, be con&s;tant to their duty; either in re|&s;i&s;ting, or not complying, or &s;uffering; what could that power do? whereas if they willingly, and readily comply, with every u&s;urped power, do they not confirm Ty|rants, and fa&s;ten Tyranny upon them&s;elves? and by &s;uch compliance make them|&s;elves guilty of that u&s;urpation? If, as is a&s;&s;erted, we may lawfully; nay mu&s;t nece&s;|&s;arily, obey &s;uch u&s;urped power in all acts materially good, then is it impo&s;&s;ible, that any one, who&s;e Title is once wronged, can ever be lawfully righted; for it will be al|waies &s;infull, to help the weaker party, and it cannot, without help, be other then &s;uch. And &s;uppo&s;ing it lawfull, and our duty, to obey &s;uch u&s;urpers, it will be unlawfull to re&s;cue our &s;elves out of their hands, for it being lawfull to &s;ubmit, and we bound in con&s;cience to obey, in what is lawfull, we are bound in con&s;cience &s;o to &s;ubmit, with|out endeavouring to get our liberty, or to become the &s;tronger party; which without endeavouring it can never be, and &s;o we are bound to be perpetuall &s;laves.</P>
<P>That of the Ma&s;ters Mate, throwing the Ma&s;ter over-board, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> is not every way parallell with ours in hand: The nece&s;&s;ity not alike ab&s;olute: But if the Mate would command the Mariners, by any word, or act, to acknowledge his violence to be ju&s;t, and his Government lawfull, ought they not rather to die then &s;in? But when we comply, actively, to the ratifying and &s;etling of an u&s;urped power, with wrong to the right Heir, we &s;in; and &s;o much the more, if bound by Oathes and Covenants, not to a&s;&s;i&s;t, or comply with any others, neither for fear, nor favour, de&s;erting our engage|ments (which are the words of the &s;olemne Covenant,) <HI>Not &s;uffering our &s;elves, di|rectly, or indirectly, by what&s;oever combination, per&s;wa&s;ion or terrour, to be withdrawn from this ble&s;&s;ed union</HI> &amp;c. <HI>but &s;hall all the daies of our lives, zealou&s;ly &amp; con&s;tantly con|tinue therein again&s;t all oppo&s;ition, and promote the &s;ame, according to our power, again&s;t all lets and impediments what&s;oever,</HI> &amp;c. All which, whether it can &s;o ea&s;ily be di&s;pen|&s;ed with, as this Gent. &s;eems to hold forth, I leave to every con&s;cience to con&s;ider.</P>
<P><HI>And whereas</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>&s;ome speak of a time for &s;ettlement, they indeed do rather speak for a time of un&s;ettlement,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>They mean, if a Government be once &s;etled, by the generality of the people, and no power appears to bring it back to the former &s;tate, they may better comply with it; <HI>In repub, con&s;tituta,</HI> not <HI>con&s;tituenda:</HI> And this is no un&s;ettlement, unle&s;&s;e it be an
<PB N="7" REF="4">un&s;etling of an u&s;urped Government, which men in Covenant, ought to endeavour to their utmo&s;t power; and however, to be rather pa&s;&s;ive in, than active to the &s;ettle|ment of it; which if it were generally done, might (by the ble&s;&s;ing of God upon faithfullne&s;&s;e to a right Heir, and to our Oaths and Covenants,) perhaps prevail, to make the u&s;urpers think of &s;ome better way, of reducing the Government to the an|cient channell: Whereas this way of compliance, fa&s;tens and &s;ettles them, in their &s;in and Government together: And whereas he &s;aith, <HI>that may be called a &s;ettlement, when there is &s;uch a way &s;etled, that men may have ju&s;tice, if they will; and may enjoy the main end of Magi&s;tracy, to live a peaceable life, in godline&s;&s;e and honesty.</HI> I an&s;wer, Such a &s;ettlement as is pleaded for, is not the way to enjoy the main end of Magi&s;tra|cy, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> For how can a people, con&s;enting readily together, to a violation of &s;o &s;acred a Covenant, and Oath, ever be like to live a peaceable life, in godline&s;&s;e or hone&s;ty?</P>
<P><HI>And indeed</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>when one is in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion by power, and another pretends a Title, what can the body of a Nation do, in this ca&s;e? they cannot judge of Titles,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>True, in &s;ome doubtfull ca&s;es they cannot; but in our ca&s;e, who is &s;o &s;imple that he cannot judge of the Title, where it is, and where it is not? who hath not, or may not hear, of the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy? who hath not heard of Parlia|mentary Declarations for the right and Title? Whatever it was in former times, the Title is now clear to every eye; and if it were doubtfull, our engagements are gone out into all the world.</P>
<P>To that he an&s;wers: <HI>Surely Oathes are &s;acred bonds, and reverend obligements,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>yet there are faults on both hands: on the one &s;ide, the &s;lighting of an Oath: But we finde &s;ome part of the Vow and Covenant, to speak of all the daies of our lives</HI> &amp;c. <HI>True it is, the obligation of &s;ome things may end, as that of the Kings Per&s;on,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>To which and the re&s;t we &s;ay; the Kings Per&s;on in <HI>England</HI> never dies, &s;aies the Law; &s;uch a King we are bound to pre&s;erve. Suppo&s;e the King had died in wars, or a naturall death, and his Son had been in Arms at his death, would not our Covenant have reached, to binde us to the pre&s;ervation of the Sons per&s;on, as well as of the Fathers? whatever men think now, I am confident, two or three years ago, mo&s;t men would have been of this minde. 2. It is indeed impo&s;&s;ible, to pre&s;erve that Kings per&s;on, yet (&s;aies the Gent.) <HI>We finde &s;ome part of the Vow and Covenant, to &s;peak of all the daies of our lives, as to extirpate profanene&s;&s;e, here&s;ie, bla&s;phemy, and for Reformation.</HI> All which it were well if the Covenanters would remember to ob&s;erve. But I &s;hall remember him of more. <HI>To pre&s;erve the rights and priviledges of Parliament, and the Liberties of the Kingdom,</HI> &amp;c. Are the&s;e things impo&s;&s;ible now to be pre&s;erved? and if not, do they not &s;till binde us, to endeavour them? 2. His words are worthy to be printed, and printed again, <HI>Will any man that under&s;tands, and favours Religion and piety, &s;ay, that the clau&s;es, which concern Religion and piety, are expired? Did we promi&s;e to God, in our &s;e|verall places and callings, to extirpate profanene&s;&s;e, here&s;ie, bla&s;phemy, and to endeavour a Reformed life, in our &s;elves and ours, onely till our enemies were overcome, and then to make an end?</HI> (Say the &s;ame of our promi&s;es, to pre&s;erve the rights and priviledges of Parliament, and liberties and Laws of the Kingdom,) <HI>What were this, but to &s;ay unto God, if thou wilt deliver us, we will be bound to thee, till we are delivered, and no longer,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Surely this is too like that cour&s;e of carnall</HI> I&s;rael, <HI>P&s;.</HI> 78.14, &amp;c.</P>
<P>But he goes on; <HI>Here it were good to con&s;ider, whether there be any clau&s;e, in any Oath or Cove|nant, which, in a fair and common&s;ence, forbids obedience to the commands of the pre&s;ent Go|vernment: much le&s;&s;e, when no other can be had, and &s;o the Commonwealth mu&s;t go to ruine?</HI></P>
<P>We an&s;wer, yes, there is, by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence: that clau&s;e in the Oath or Covenant, that com|mands obedience, and faith, to the King, his Heirs and Succe&s;&s;ors, and to the Laws e&s;tabli&s;hed, forbids obedience to any other power or Authority, rai&s;ed up again&s;t them. Nor will that &s;alve it which he adds <HI>(when no other can be had)</HI> for another may be had, and might perhaps have been had, ere this, if &s;ome men in place had not complied with that force put upon the Hou&s;es and Kingdom. If they did it upon antecedent con&s;ent, they are deeply and hainou&s;ly guilty; if upon per&s;wa&s;ion, or terrour (con|trary to their engagements in the Covenant,) yet are they too guilty, to be excu&s;ed, as acce&s;&s;aries <HI>po&s;t factum,</HI> to &s;ay no more.</P>
<PB N="8" REF="5">
<P>But &s;aies he, <HI>If the Kings Heirs be not his Succe&s;&s;ors, how doth that Oath binde? either the word Succe&s;&s;ors, mu&s;t be &s;uperfluous, or el&s;e it mu&s;t binde to Succe&s;&s;ors, as well as to Heirs. And it hindes not to a Succe&s;&s;or, that is not an Heir, how can it binde to and Heir that is not a Suc|ce&s;&s;or?</HI></P>
<P>In an&s;wer we &s;ay, 1. Who keeps the Heir from being a Succe&s;&s;or? They that made the Act again&s;t &s;ucce&s;&s;ion; to which this Gent. perhaps gave his Vote; or at lea&s;t, complies and acts with tho&s;e, that did &s;o Vote; in acting for a Republike in oppo&s;ition to it. 2. The word Succe&s;&s;or, is not &s;uperflu|ous: for it is put, by way of expo&s;ition of the word Heir; who ought to be the Succe&s;&s;or. And it mat|ters not, how Succe&s;&s;or is &s;ometime taken; In the Oath of Supremacie or Allegiance; it is not meant of any Succe&s;&s;or, but a lawfull Succe&s;&s;or; as the words expre&s;&s;y are. If then, any force debar the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of the right and lawfull Heir, let him con&s;ider, whether they that took that Oath, are not bound to re&s;i&s;t that force, if they have any power, and to help to &s;ettle the Heir: or if they want pow|er, yet not to &s;ubmit willingly to that force, in oppo&s;ition to that right, and in violation of that Oath. Though the Covenant &s;peaks not of the Allegiance to Heirs and Succe&s;&s;ors, yet the Prote&s;ta|tion refers unto it, <HI>in terminis.</HI> And that (we &s;uppo&s;e,) binds us, to endeavour the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of the Heir: El&s;e how could the Lady <HI>Iane</HI> be a Traitor again&s;t Qu <HI>Mary?</HI> who&s;e claim of the Crown, an tecedent to the others enjoyment, could only be a crime, becau&s;e it prejudiced the Heir, in hindering, as much as in her was, the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion. Nor could any thing be Trea&s;on, which is only derogatory to the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion. And if &s;uch, as at any time have power, debar a rightfull Heir, they mu&s;t not be puni&s;hed afterward, when the other is &s;tronger, becau&s;e the &s;trength of the former made it no crime, at the time when it was done. However, the many obligations to Monarchy, as well as to the partia<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="4 letters"> Monarch, are obligatory though there were a doubt, concerning the per&s;on. We cannot clo&s;e with &s;uch a party (we think,) but we become acce&s;&s;aries, <HI>po&s;t &s;ac&s;um,</HI> to what perhaps it is impo&s;&s;ible, at pre&s;ent, to be helped.</P>
<P>At la&s;t he puts a quaerie, <HI>While the Son is in the &s;ame po&s;ture with the Father, how comes this Oath to plead for di&s;obedience in regard of the Son; that was a&s;leep, and &s;ilent, in regard of the Father?</HI></P>
<P>The an&s;wer is, 1. The Son is not altogether in the &s;ame po&s;ture with the Father: for the Father was in Arms again&s;t a lawfull, and coordinate Authority of the Kingdom; but the Son, now, is claiming his own right, as Heir to the Crown; hath a good cau&s;e (&s;o far) and a ju&s;t claim; oppo|&s;ing, not the &s;ame power (as &s;ome think) but unlawfull Martiall u&s;urpation, over his own per&s;onall rights, and over the three E&s;tates (the &s;undamentall Authority of this Kingdom.) the King, Lords and Commons. 2. The Father him&s;elf was under tho&s;e pretended crimes (for which he was put to death) then, and before the Covenant was taken, to pre&s;erve his per&s;on: and the King, the Law <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> never dies, 3. Di&s;obedience was not pleaded, to his Authoritative will, but his per&s;onall will: and &s;o the objection was neither &s;ilent nor a&s;leep in regard of the Father; but all things being acted is the name of the King and Parliament, his Title was both acknowledged and a&s;&s;erted; which is now o|therwi&s;e, when in regard both of the Son, and of Monarchy it &s;elf, it is di&s;claimed. 4 If the Son were in any crime, equall with the Father; yet the right or Title to the Crown, upon his Father dea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters"> doth quit him from all &s;tain, by the Laws of the Land. Therefore obedience may be due to him, and the Oath may &s;tand up, to plead for di&s;obedience to u&s;urped power, in regard of the Son, which was a&s;leep, and &s;ilent, in regard of the father,</P>
<P>For a conclu&s;ion of all: If men were as &s;en&s;ible of duty, as they are of danger, and more af<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="4 letters"> to &s;in, than to &s;uffer; I am very confideut, that &s;uch weak &s;hifts, as large con&s;ciences can finde, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> help them &s;wallow a Cammell, who hereto&s;oth &s;trained at a gnat; and &s;uch con&s;ulting with <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> and bloud, would have no place with them: I &s;hall only make two reque&s;ts; One, that the Auth<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="3 letters"> of the Tract, would con&s;ider &s;eriou&s;ly, whether the maintaining, and abetting tho&s;e, that <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> with the fi&s;t of wickedne&s;&s;e, be the way to peace? The Other, That the Lord would guide all L<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="4 letters"> of truth and peace, into the way of peace (which is Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e,) and that be would grant <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> all the people of the Land, faithfullne&s;&s;e to their Oathes and Covenants, and &s;incerity and upright|ne&s;&s;e of heart, that they may have no fellow&s;hip with the unfruitfull works of darkne&s;&s;e, but rather reprove them.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>EPHESIANS 5.11.</BIBL>
<P>Have no fellow&s;hip with the unfruitfull works of darkne&s;&s;e, but rather reprove them.</P></Q>
<Q><BIBL>1 TIMOTHY 5.22.</BIBL>
<P>Neither be partaker of other mens &s;innes.</P></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
