Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	house_n	king_n	parliament_n	16,262	5	7.0122	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85515	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.	Ward, Nathaniel, 1578-1652.	1649 (1649)	Wing G1486C; Thomason E530_45; ESTC R205686	19,127	24

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

so modest else I should fear that this fault was purposely argued the more secretly to insinuate another though not under the name of a fault Pag. 10. It is said We finde some part of the Covenant to speak of all the daies of our lives as if some part had been but of a temporary engagement but if I mistake not the Covenant did in every part of it oblige us to a continued observance of it we did not swear constantly to keep this part or that clause but all our lives to keep this Covenant which is known to comprehend every part of it True it is that the obligation of some things end because they can no longer be kept Pag. 10. as that of the Kings person c. I grant that the obligation of a people to any thing ends when that thing obliged to necessarily and in its own nature ends but if men shall by violence put an end to the thing that thereby the obligation may end too I doubt such will be esteemed by God as Covenant breakers I do not think that he breaks his Covenant that doth not preserve the Kings person when he is dead but I think he is guilty that did not endeavour to preserve it while he was living had the Covenant in that part been observed then for all that I know it might have obliged now A woman promiseth to be faithfull to her husband so long as he lives but if she out of love to another man shall lay violent hands on her husband to end his life that thereby she might marry another I beleeve she would scarcely be thought to have performed her promise A Tenant bargains with his Land-lord to pay him rent for his house so long as he lives in it but if he through malice shall pull down the house that he cannot live in it and thereby to extinguish his bargain it may be easily thought what determination the Law would make in such a case What is spoken here of the Kings person might as well have been spoken of any other part of the Covenant It is Covenanted to preserve Religion but if those that made the Covenant should by force extirpate or by deceit undermine Religion would the Authour think himself or others disingaged from that part of the Covenant or rather look upon himself as bound to preserve it while it hath a being If this liberty should be given no man would keep any Oath any longer than he saw good if it were in his power to put an end to that thing to which he is obliged But let 's see what faults are found on the other hand But on the other side there are other faults such are the urging of an Oath or Covenant against enemies and not against friends in one and the same action In this I am wholly of his judgement and could wish that he had instanced in some things whereby I might have guessed what aim he had taken and against what he had levelled it As I would not have any unequally excused who are equally guilty so I would not have him free from blame who imputes guilt to one when another shall be connived at or incouraged in the same thing In that clause of bringing Delinquents to condigne punishment If the Covenant engage to bring one to punishment that raised arms against the Parliament in Kent and Essex why not another that raised arms against the Parliament in Oxon shiere and Berks shiere If according to our Covenant we should preserve the priviledges of Parliament against a malignant party that would have taken away but Five Members why not against an Haereticall party that took away above two Hundred If one party be charged as guilty in not obeying Orders of but offering violence to the Parliament why should another be excused as faultlesse whose disobedience was more manifest and whose violence was more palpable or if not altogether so Pag. 11. yet as the Authour a slight and diminishing charge of it upon one and a vehement and aggravating charge of it upon the other Pag. 11. Another her fault may be a stiffe insisting on one part and a neglect or at least silence in another part This is not alwaies a fault for when there is no occasion given to speak silence is no evil One part may be in more danger to be broken than another when a more violent asserting and stiffe contending for that part is more necessary If I h●d two children the one at home in safety the other in imminent danger that I were more earnest and industrious for the saving and preserving of this doth not at all argue lesse love or care to the other But to take it in the best sense to pretend much care in the keeping of one part and in the mean time to neglect another I think a fault As when men are seemingly violent against Popery and Prelacy yet very indulgent to Heresie and profanesse When men shall plead Covenant in the preservation of subjects liberties yet forget their Oath for the safety of the Kings person in the preservation of Religion which in respect of the Covenant are or equall concernment for although it be pleaded by some and granted by all that Religion yea asserted by others that the subjects liberties are of greater concernment than the Kings person it must be ratione materia not ratione juram●nti for in that regard we are equally obliged to one as the other Pag. 11. As also when by event two parts of it came to be inconsistent to choose and inforce the keeping of the higher and lesse necessary part and to give way to the losse and not keeping of the greater Here is to me a falsum suppositum I think it a sinne in any to enjoin and wickednesse in any to take a Covenant for the doing of two things that are or may be inconsistent nor do I know what parts of our Covenant are such when the Authour makes such appear I shall bewail my sinne in taking it If it be by him meant what is talked by others viz. That the safety of the Kings person and the preservation of Religion are inconsistent I must declare my dissent in this for I am yet convinced that both the truth and honour of Religion might have better been preserved by the safety of his person and the continuance of our Government than hitherto it hath been or for all I see like to be by the altering of the one or taking away of the other Pag. 11 There is another in racking an Oath or Covenant to make it speak that which it meant not I will adde there is another fault to stop the mouth of a Covenant and denying it to speak what it would Nay there is yet one more when men shall put what interpretation upon Covenants they please or reserve to themselves a power to make any other interpretation upon them than what the common and naturall sense of the words in