A
Peaceable
Resolution
OF
CONSCIENCE
Touching
our
Present
Impositions
,
&c.
CHAP.
I.
The
Original
of
Civil
Power
,
and
our
Subjection
to
it
,
in
this
Nation
,
established
.
IT
is
the
usual
infirmitie
of
men
of
the
greatest
parts
,
in
their
undertaking
the
satisfaction
of
Conscience
in
any
matter
of
practice
,
which
is
of
moment
,
to
offer
so
many
Reasons
and
Considerations
upon
the
Subject
,
that
their
strength
being
divided
into
many
things
,
there
are
few
of
their
Intelligent
Readers
but
see
the
insufficiency
of
what
they
urge
,
and
thereby
judging
of
the
rest
,
they
do
not
know
where
to
find
the
bottom
which
they
are
to
set
their
Foot
upon
,
and
so
are
left
unresolved
in
the
case
.
There
is
one
Famous
Text
therefore
,
I
shall
lay
down
,
for
the
resolution
of
the
Judgment
and
Conscience
,
in
that
grand
matter
which
in
this
discourse
is
undertaken
.
{αβγδ}
.
Let
every
Soul
be
subject
to
the
higher
Powers
,
for
there
is
no
Power
but
of
God
.
The
powers
that
be
,
are
ordained
of
God
.
Whosoever
therefore
resisteth
the
Power
,
resisteth
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
and
they
that
resist
shall
receive
to
themselves
Damnation
.
From
this
piece
of
holy
Writ
,
I
will
lay
down
my
Stone
,
and
Build
upon
it
,
That
the
Powers
that
are
,
that
is
the
present
Powers
as
they
are
(
I
suppose
them
{αβγδ}
,
Rightful
Powers
)
whatsoever
they
be
,
quas
tenus
they
be
,
must
be
submitted
unto
,
upon
this
ground
,
that
they
are
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
who
disposes
of
all
Powers
that
are
,
to
be
as
they
are
.
We
must
distinguish
here
upon
necessity
.
There
is
the
Power
it self
,
and
the
Constitution
,
form
,
or
the
Qualification
(
as
Dr.
Ferne
expresses
it
)
of
that
Power
as
it
is
specificated
in
the
kind
,
individuated
in
the
Persons
,
and
cloathed
with
Customs
and
Laws
in
any
Community
or
Nation
.
Again
there
is
{αβγδ}
,
the
ordinance
or
ordination
of
Gods
Precept
,
instituting
or
commanding
such
or
such
a
thing
in
the
law
of
Nature
,
or
his
Sacred
Word
:
and
the
ordination
of
his
Providence
,
which
Ruleth
,
Ordereth
,
and
Disposeth
the
Affairs
of
this
World
,
and
more
especially
the
Kingdoms
and
Dominions
thereof
according
to
his
Council
and
Pleasure
.
This
thing
Power
it self
;
that
there
should
be
an
Authority
in
some
person
or
persons
,
to
Rule
and
Govern
for
the
ends
of
Society
and
the
common
Good
(
without
which
,
neither
Family
,
nor
City
,
nor
Kingdom
,
nor
the
World
it self
(
as
Cicero
,
de
legibus
,
has
it
)
could
subsist
)
and
consequently
that
others
should
be
in
Subjection
to
that
Power
,
is
the
ordination
of
Gods
Precept
,
the
institution
of
God
in
the
Law
of
Nature
,
and
so
of
Moral
and
Everlasting
obligation
,
the
very
ground
and
reason
it self
of
the
fifth
Commandment
.
The
Constitution
or
Form
of
Government
,
as
this
power
is
qualified
by
the
Laws
or
Customs
,
that
are
established
in
any
place
or
people
,
according
to
their
interests
and
concernments
,
we
must
know
as
being
that
which
cannot
be
gain-said
,
is
,
and
must
be
of
Humane
device
altogether
,
arising
I
say
from
mans
invention
,
consultation
,
institution
;
and
so
is
called
a
Humane
creature
by
St.
Peter
,
{αβγδ}
{αβγδ}
,
the
Ordinance
of
man
,
which
is
doubtless
the
only
impartial
Interpretation
of
that
expression
.
Let
a
Government
be
Monarchical
,
Aristocratical
,
Democratical
,
there
is
not
any
(
the
Commonwealth
of
the
Jews
only
excepted
)
of
God
in
this
sense
,
but
are
left
by
him
indifferent
to
the
Nations
.
As
for
that
dispute
in
the
way
which
of
thcse
is
best
,
it
does
not
conccrn
us
who
are
to
be
subject
to
that
which
is
.
Where
the
publick
interest
does
become
each
mans
single
Interest
,
and
all
preferment
lies
in
accomodating
himself
unto
that
,
there
methinks
the
end
of
Society
is
Originally
like
most
to
be
attained
.
I
will
not
speak
falsly
for
favour
.
There
is
now
and
then
a
line
about
the
Venetian
State
in
Bocaline
,
does
touch
me
more
to
the
quick
,
than
the
arguments
for
his
Pope
in
Bellarmine
.
Nevertheless
in
regard
that
differences
will
arise
among
men
;
and
from
differences
dissention
and
division
among
equalls
;
and
from
division
tumults
,
wars
and
ruine
:
for
a
blessed
mouth
hath
said
it
,
that
A
Nation
divided
cannot
stand
,
it
is
very
likely
in
my
Judgment
,
that
Monarchy
came
into
the
World
as
Episcopacy
into
the
Church
,
according
to
St.
Hierom
,
that
is
Remedij
loco
,
as
the
best
expedient
against
this
inconvenience
,
and
upon
that
reason
is
preferred
.
Now
the
great
question
will
be
,
how
the
Powers
that
are
,
which
comprehend
the
constitution
of
Government
,
with
the
person
or
persons
who
are
Governours
,
as
well
as
the
power
it self
under
the
same
,
are
to
be
said
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
which
is
made
the
ground
of
the
precept
,
Be
Subject
.
I
will
take
here
some
line
in
speaking
to
this
.
Potestas
est
jus
imperandi
,
says
Arnisaeus
.
Take
the
word
imperandi
at
large
.
A
Right
to
Order
,
Dispose
or
Govern
,
say
other
Politicks
.
There
is
Potestas
I
count
,
that
goes
to
the
making
a
Commonwealth
,
as
to
the
Ruling
it
.
A
right
now
,
in
or
to
a
thing
,
a
man
cannot
have
,
but
by
the
grant
of
him
that
hath
the
propriety
.
The
great
and
chief
proprietor
of
all
things
is
God
,
by
creation
.
Upon
this
his
Dominion
is
Founded
.
Mans
Dominion
arises
from
Gods
.
Dominion
is
either
private
,
which
is
a
right
to
have
or
use
a
thing
:
or
publick
which
is
to
rule
.
Publick
Dominion
then
or
Government
,
which
is
a
right
to
order
or
rule
a
Society
of
men
(
the
principal
of
Gods
earthly
Creatures
)
must
be
derived
from
a
grant
of
his
,
in
the
Original
of
it
.
This
grant
is
an
Act
of
his
will
,
passed
in
the
Law
of
Nature
,
or
his
Word
;
and
this
Act
we
call
the
Institution
.
The
institution
of
Magistracy
then
,
is
Gods
general
Rule
or
Command
,
Grant
,
or
Charter
;
which
does
require
and
authorize
all
Communities
in
the
World
to
agree
and
come
together
into
Government
,
leaving
them
to
their
liberty
for
the
framing
their
own
constitution
(
consisting
of
the
kind
of
Government
and
individuation
of
it
in
the
persons
)
as
it
shall
conduce
most
to
the
common
Good
.
The
providence
of
God
now
comes
in
wholly
,
and
disposes
,
orders
,
and
determines
of
the
minds
and
resolutions
of
the
Community
herein
,
unto
this
and
that
person
as
it
pleases
him
,
who
is
the
Alpha
and
Omega
of
all
his
creatures
,
and
all
their
actions
.
By
this
we
see
how
Gods
institution
,
and
Gods
providence
do
go
both
to
the
Powers
that
be
Ordained
of
God
:
Yet
must
this
ordination
of
his
,
in
reference
to
the
objects
intended
,
have
its
distinct
explication
to
resolve
what
is
proposed
.
The
Powers
that
are
do
necessarily
comprehend
these
two
things
,
the
Power
it self
which
denominates
the
Recipient
,
Subject
,
or
Subjects
wherein
it
resides
to
be
Powers
:
and
the
Persons
or
subjects
themselves
that
are
denominated
Powers
,
which
includes
the
sort
of
Government
with
the
same
.
The
words
,
of
God
,
ordained
of
God
,
do
likewise
contain
two
things
according
to
their
common
sense
in
other
Scriptures
,
to
wit
,
Gods
Decree
,
Counsel
,
or
Providence
,
and
his
Law
,
Word
,
or
Precept
.
Let
us
but
adjust
these
matters
now
as
we
ought
.
The
abstract
,
thing
,
Power
it self
,
which
in
the
Nature
of
it
is
nothing
but
a
right
(
a
right
to
Govern
,
as
was
even
now
said
)
must
proceed
necessarily
from
that
will
of
God
which
is
grantive
or
institutive
,
that
is
,
from
his
Law
,
Word
or
Preceptive
ordination
.
The
persons
,
denominated
Powers
,
together
with
the
kind
of
Government
included
in
the
same
,
being
not
determined
by
Gods
Word
or
Law
,
but
left
to
the
liberty
and
choice
of
men
themselves
,
are
of
God
by
his
decree
,
dispose
,
or
Providential
ordination
.
The
Powers
then
that
are
in
the
Text
,
that
is
,
the
Powers
concretively
taken
,
are
of
God
by
his
Providence
,
and
are
of
God
by
his
Institution
.
The
concrete
contains
the
abstract
in
it
.
They
are
of
God
by
his
institution
in
regard
of
the
abstract
,
because
the
abstract
thing
is
wholly
from
thence
:
and
they
are
of
God
by
his
providence
in
regard
of
the
kind
of
Government
,
and
the
Person
.
And
thus
far
may
the
arguments
of
Mr.
Gee
in
his
elaborate
discourse
of
The
divine
Original
of
the
Magistrate
(
c
.
5.
§
.
3
)
.
take
place
.
The
thing
Power
it self
wheresoever
it
resides
,
derives
it self
from
Gods
grant
,
and
the
Concrete
hath
divine
warrant
on
that
account
.
That
will
answer
what
he
brings
,
which
though
he
seems
to
strain
higher
then
so
,
untill
I
shall
hear
some
Minister
in
stead
of
Charles
by
the
Grace
and
Appointment
of
God
,
to
say
,
Charles
by
the
Law
or
Word
of
God
,
of
England
King
,
I
shall
be
pretty
sure
,
where
his
cast
must
be
pitched
.
And
when
I
have
said
already
that
the
Constitution
of
the
Government
and
persons
governing
(
simply
considered
in
themselves
)
are
not
of
God
imaginably
by
way
of
institution
(
but
for
the
sake
of
the
abstract
thing
,
Power
it self
)
,
they
must
be
the
ordination
of
his
Providence
.
They
are
what
God
hath
appointed
,
ordered
,
determined
to
be
where
they
are
,
and
that
is
the
respect
,
I
judg
,
wherein
these
Humane
creatures
or
Ordinance
of
man
in
St.
Peter
,
are
the
{αβγδ}
the
ordination
of
God
in
St.
Paul
,
upon
which
we
see
our
Subjection
is
Founded
.
It
is
certain
that
the
abstract
thing
,
Authority
it self
,
is
that
alone
which
is
of
Divine
necessity
.
Now
shall
a
man
hereupon
plead
thus
?
As
for
our
Rulers
and
Laws
,
they
are
all
nought
,
we
like
not
any
thing
of
the
very
constitution
,
and
if
we
combine
to
endeavour
the
extirpation
of
the
whole
,
we
will
not
meddle
with
what
is
Sacred
.
That
which
he
hath
appointed
is
,
that
there
should
be
Authority
and
Subiection
which
we
intend
in
Rulers
and
Laws
that
shall
be
better
,
but
as
for
the
form
of
Government
,
the
persons
Governing
,
and
laws
Established
,
these
are
humane
every
jot
,
and
not
at
all
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
which
we
resist
not
.
God
forbid
that
any
should
presume
to
argue
thus
,
for
it
is
not
only
the
Power
it self
,
but
the
Powers
that
are
,
whether
the
King
as
Supreme
,
and
those
sent
by
him
,
the
Power
and
the
Qualification
of
it
,
which
are
to
be
submitted
to
by
this
Text
,
and
that
upon
this
ground
,
that
they
are
the
Ordinance
of
God
.
There
is
no
Christian
goes
to
his
prayers
,
but
he
is
to
pray
that
the
will
of
God
be
done
.
How
far
this
will
may
be
extended
,
Christ
hath
taught
us
in
that
passage
in
his
Agony
,
when
Flesh
and
Bloud
would
willingly
have
had
that
Cup
to
pass
,
he
adds
,
not
my
Will
,
but
thy
Will
be
done
.
What
will
was
that
?
Not
his
Preceptive
will
;
the
Jews
were
not
bound
sure
to
put
to
death
the
Lord
of
Glory
and
shed
innocent
bloud
:
but
his
Decretive
Will
,
what
Gods
hand
had
determined
before
permissively
to
be
done
.
Let
the
will
of
Gods
good
providence
be
what
it
will
,
when
man
does
not
know
it
he
may
submit
to
it
;
and
when
he
knows
it
,
must
not
he
do
it
?
The
Powers
that
are
,
as
they
are
,
are
the
ordinance
of
his
decretive
Will
,
and
the
Institution
presupposed
,
that
is
the
ground
we
are
not
to
resist
them
(
the
ground
of
the
command
not
to
resist
)
upon
pain
of
Damnation
.
I
mean
not
as
if
the
Will
of
God
in
the
rightful
constitution
of
Kingdoms
were
but
permissive
only
,
for
so
there
is
no
agreement
of
Thieves
and
Robbers
to
steal
and
kill
,
that
is
not
by
the
Will
of
God
,
not
hindering
what
they
act
,
which
yet
he
doth
forbid
and
punish
:
but
I
understand
it
as
that
which
doth
both
concur
effectually
to
the
doing
as
in
all
acts
that
are
good
,
and
by
his
command
of
our
Subjection
approves
and
conserves
the
same
being
done
.
Si
ordinationis
voce
res
intelligeretur
quam
Deus
tantum
non
vult
impedire
quo
modo
se
Deus
habet
circa
vitiosos
actus
nulla
sequeretur
inde
honoris
obligatio
,
nec
tantopere
hanc
potestatem
predicaret
;
Sequitur
ergo
ut
ordinata
haec
potestas
voluntate
Dei
approbante
intelligatur
.
Nor
will
I
be
understood
after
this
to
exclude
the
universal
Law
of
Magistracy
,
or
institution
of
the
Office
,
from
Gods
Ordination
,
for
that
indeed
is
to
be
presupposed
to
the
Apostles
precept
.
He
could
not
bid
us
Be
subject
,
if
that
command
had
not
its
rise
and
Foundation
in
Nature
,
and
so
is
to
be
fore-conceived
I
account
,
or
presumed
to
the
same
.
In
sum
,
the
powers
that
be
then
,
are
of
God
,
by
his
providence
,
by
his
approbation
,
by
his
law
.
By
his
providence
as
I
have
already
shewn
.
By
his
approbation
,
as
all
wholsome
Laws
which
men
do
make
,
ut
humana
et
humano
modo
,
are
approved
of
him
.
By
his
law
,
as
there
is
an
universal
ordinance
for
government
,
from
whence
,
a
Commonwealth
being
framed
and
the
Person
or
Persons
designed
,
the
Power
does
immediatly
come
,
and
in
regard
of
the
abstract
thing
,
Power
is
self
being
immediatly
from
God
,
the
Powers
in
the
concrete
are
said
thus
to
be
ordained
of
him
.
Well
,
to
go
on
where
I
left
(
not
excluding
the
second
and
third
in
the
first
)
God
does
think
fit
the
powers
should
be
as
they
are
,
thou
art
discontent
and
wouldest
endeavour
to
alter
them
;
who
art
thou
O
man
,
that
wouldst
intrude
inro
Gods
Seat
?
Dost
thou
know
when
thou
comest
to
the
bottom
of
this
,
what
it
is
thou
comest
to
?
Thou
wouldest
be
wiser
than
God
,
thou
wouldest
Usurp
his
providence
,
and
have
things
otherwise
.
Thou
wouldest
indeed
be
God
in
his
place
.
But
are
we
here
at
the
Root
?
And
is
this
firm
?
There
is
nothing
comes
to
pass
,
but
it
is
the
Will
of
God
,
and
must
I
submit
to
every
thing
,
that
is
,
so
as
not
to
desire
and
endeavour
it
be
otherwise
?
May
I
not
desire
and
strive
to
remove
those
evils
that
oppress
me
,
because
Gods
Will
is
they
should
fall
on
me
?
I
say
,
no
doubt
of
it
,
It
is
Gods
Will
,
the
Will
of
his
purpose
,
that
you
should
have
these
aflictions
,
and
suffer
as
you
do
:
and
it
is
Gods
Will
,
the
Will
of
his
precept
,
that
you
should
use
the
means
to
free
your self
if
you
can
,
and
upon
this
account
you
act
and
endeavour
warrantably
.
But
if
God
bring
on
you
any
evil
,
and
command
you
to
bear
it
with
that
vertue
as
becomes
that
condition
,
and
not
go
about
to
change
it
,
for
it
is
his
will
,
then
is
the
case
otherwise
.
When
the
people
of
Judah
had
their
City
and
Land
ransacked
by
Nebuchadnezzar
,
and
they
were
afraid
of
tarying
in
the
Land
,
and
so
thought
of
going
to
Egypt
,
this
was
doing
no
more
then
the
Law
of
self-preservation
might
warrant
;
but
when
God
had
brought
on
them
that
calamity
,
and
commands
them
to
stay
in
the
Land
,
under
these
Governours
that
were
there
,
and
obey
them
,
then
could
they
not
go
about
to
fly
,
but
they
resist
the
Will
of
God
,
and
must
expect
a
punishment
suitable
to
their
disobedience
.
Such
is
the
case
here
,
the
governments
that
are
,
are
appointed
of
God
:
There
is
the
institution
of
the
Office
,
by
the
universal
Law
of
Nature
always
standing
;
there
are
these
actual
disposals
of
providence
,
making
over
the
power
to
the
individual
persons
;
and
such
as
they
are
therefore
being
once
established
,
that
ordination
of
God
,
is
the
ground
upon
which
the
Apostle
builds
this
precept
,
Be
subject
to
them
;
and
the
precept
once
taking
place
,
makes
our
endeavour
of
alteration
to
be
evil
without
any
more
adoe
.
Thou
shouldest
apply
thy self
to
faith
,
and
patience
,
and
prayers
,
and
thou
thinkest
of
defence
,
and
arms
,
and
change
of
thy
state
.
When
the
Nation
of
the
Jews
had
been
under
a
Theocracy
(
God
raising
up
Judges
under
him
for
their
deliverance
on
all
occasions
)
and
they
would
needs
have
a
King
as
other
people
,
whereby
they
cast
off
God
and
so
sinned
(
or
else
we
might
be
tempted
easily
to
think
it
no
sin
at
all
to
cast
off
any
man
)
Samuel
tells
them
the
Manner
of
their
King
,
thus
and
thus
he
should
do
unto
them
,
which
was
all
grievous
God
knows
:
but
let
him
do
what
he
will
,
this
in
fine
becomes
their
duty
,
they
must
submit
to
him
,
and
nothing
else
can
be
done
.
Not
that
the
doing
thus
and
thus
there
mentioned
,
was
lawful
in
a
Moral
sense
,
the
King
was
to
be
accountable
for
the
use
of
his
power
;
nor
that
it
is
meant
only
,
thus
and
thus
he
would
do
against
Right
:
but
thus
and
thus
he
might
do
in
a
Political
sense
,
so
that
if
he
did
,
according
to
the
jus
Regis
of
that
State
,
they
might
not
rise
against
him
for
it
.
There
was
no
weight
otherwise
in
his
diswasive
from
a
King
;
fo
they
might
say
,
if
the
King
will
do
as
you
threaten
,
we
will
turn
him
off
presently
and
choose
another
,
or
change
our
Government
again
at
pleasure
.
No
,
they
might
have
recourse
to
God
,
and
cry
unto
him
(
as
the
text
says
)
but
help
themselves
they
could
not
,
Where
the
word
of
a
King
is
,
there
is
Power
,
and
who
can
say
unto
him
,
what
dost
thou
?
Not
but
that
we
are
to
distinguish
between
Subjection
and
Obedience
,
if
I
may
use
Dr.
Fields
words
,
and
the
sense
of
all
Divines
whatsoever
.
We
are
not
to
do
always
whatsoever
the
Magistrate
commands
;
for
he
may
command
what
is
evil
,
and
when
God
forbids
what
man
requires
,
the
greater
Authority
must
take
place
of
the
less
,
according
to
the
known
decision
of
the
Apostle
in
that
case
.
Nevertheless
we
are
to
be
in
Subjection
still
,
not
disowning
his
Authority
,
but
being
ready
to
suffer
his
will
(
understanding
that
readiness
aright
)
when
we
are
not
able
to
do
it
.
Tum
in
sacris
tum
in
profanis
rebus
neque
iubentia
neque
vetantia
precepta
obligant
ad
agendum
omittendumve
aliquid
contra
legem
Dei
,
sive
naturalem
sive
positivam
,
sed
duntaxat
ad
patiendum
,
idque
tum
demum
ubi
paena
evitari
nisi
vi
opposita
non
potest
,
Grotius
de
imperio
summarum
potestatum
circa
Sacra
,
p.
98.
It
follows
not
then
neither
,
that
any
man
from
hence
may
set
the
Text
of
St.
Paul
at
variance
with
himself
,
and
with
St.
Peter
,
and
acknowledging
that
so
long
as
the
Magistrate
is
Gods
Minister
indeed
,
a
terrour
to
those
that
do
Evil
,
and
a
praise
to
those
that
do
Well
,
he
is
to
be
obeyed
,
but
when
he
shall
do
contrary
,
and
be
an
encourager
to
vice
and
a
terrour
to
the
good
,
he
is
then
not
Gods
Minister
for
our
weal
,
and
to
be
submitted
to
no
longer
then
till
we
can
get
power
to
deliver
our selves
out
of
his
hands
.
God
forbid
!
The
title
of
the
Epistle
and
the
time
when
the
Apostle
wrote
,
will
be
a
good
refutation
of
this
conceit
.
The
Epistle
is
to
the
Romans
,
and
the
Emperour
of
Rome
was
then
one
of
the
vilest
Monsters
upon
Earth
.
There
is
the
Magistrate
,
and
there
is
his
Acts
,
and
Laws
,
and
Courses
he
takes
.
The
Acts
and
Commands
of
a
Magistrate
,
as
his
courses
,
may
be
such
,
as
are
not
for
the
common
good
:
and
the
Laws
of
a
Superiour
which
are
not
just
and
good
,
do
not
oblige
the
Conscience
,
Dr.
Taylor
tells
us
Cas
.
l.
3.
c
.
1.
r
.
3.
Quod
necessariam
non
habet
conjunctionem
cum
fine
publici
commodi
(
according
to
Suarez
)
non
potest
praecipi
lege
humana
.
See
him
de
legibus
l.
1.
c
.
7.
The
Magistrate
nevertheless
,
and
his
Government
,
and
other
Laws
which
he
conserves
,
are
for
the
common
good
,
and
not
to
be
resisted
,
but
upheld
.
If
Nero
be
Gods
Minister
for
their
good
,
and
those
governours
sent
by
him
were
for
the
punishment
of
evil
doers
and
praise
of
them
that
do
well
:
If
Nebuchadnezzar
be
Gods
Servant
,
and
to
be
submitted
to
on
that
account
,
then
may
not
the
wickedness
of
a
Ruler
,
or
the
abuse
of
his
power
,
priviledge
us
from
our
duty
.
If
he
does
not
his
,
yet
must
we
do
ours
,
and
rely
upon
God
.
It
appears
then
(
as
is
suggested
)
there
is
a
difference
between
the
Magistrate
and
his
Command
,
as
to
the
Authority
they
bear
.
Wheresoever
there
is
the
thing
Power
or
Authority
,
it
must
,
I
will
account
,
be
obeyed
,
for
Power
is
a
ray
of
divine
Majesty
:
But
there
is
no
man
,
the
very
truth
of
all
lies
there
,
can
indeed
have
any
power
in
things
that
are
unlawful
.
For
power
being
a
right
to
command
,
which
derives
from
the
grant
or
will
of
the
Supreme
Majesty
,
as
hath
been
said
:
and
there
being
no
will
of
God
,
or
any
grant
of
his
,
that
any
person
should
command
that
which
he
has
forbidden
,
it
follows
directly
that
such
a
command
which
does
so
,
is
devoid
of
power
,
and
that
,
that
is
the
reason
at
the
bottom
of
our
Non-obedience
thereunto
,
when
subjection
to
the
person
and
his
Authority
,
is
due
still
,
by
the
precept
of
the
text
.
I
will
yet
distinguish
,
There
is
the
end
of
the
power
,
and
the
ends
of
those
that
are
in
power
,
Isa
.
10.7
.
Whatsoever
the
ends
of
those
who
are
in
power
be
to
the
fulfilling
their
own
wills
,
the
end
of
the
power
is
for
the
common
good
;
and
so
long
as
that
power
,
with
the
ends
of
it
,
are
committed
to
such
a
person
,
we
are
concluded
;
insomuch
that
when
we
have
the
courage
not
to
obey
him
in
evil
(
if
he
errs
de
fine
)
for
wrath
sake
,
we
must
have
the
patience
to
suffer
in
well
doing
for
Conscience
sake
,
and
be
in
subjection
still
to
the
ordination
of
God
.
Distinguendum
est
inter
Imperij
actum
qui
subditum
ad
agendum
movet
,
&
vim
quae
patiendi
aliquid
necessitatem
illi
imponit
.
Cum
Imperii
actus
effectu
suo
,
hoc
est
,
obligatione
caret
,
vis
tamen
eo
nomine
illata
effectum
quendam
habet
,
non
tantum
Physicum
sed
&
moralem
,
non
ex
parte
agentis
,
sed
ex
parte
patientis
,
hunc
scilicet
,
ut
eam
vim
vi
repellere
non
liceat
.
He
is
the
Minister
of
God
for
our
wealth
(
says
the
Apostle
)
therefore
he
must
judg
what
conduces
to
our
wealth
.
I
know
in
mix'd
States
,
as
ours
,
the
whole
people
,
at
least
in
their
Representatives
,
do
judg
of
their
own
weal
,
and
so
choose
and
preferr
their
Laws
:
yet
seeing
the
King
has
a
negative
vote
,
there
must
be
a
judgment
which
is
absolute
in
some
kind
(
as
is
agreeable
to
the
nature
of
the
State
)
committed
to
him
de
fine
&
mediis
what
is
for
his
peoples
safety
,
and
what
is
for
their
destruction
.
Which
yet
is
to
be
understood
in
reference
to
the
Universality
,
not
destroying
that
Judgment
of
private
discretion
,
which
every
particular
man
must
have
,
as
to
the
lawfulness
and
expedience
of
his
own
actions
.
I
will
shut
up
this
with
a
saying
of
Tacitus
,
much
made
of
I
find
,
by
Writers
,
on
this
Subject
.
I
took
it
up
last
from
Dr.
Hakewel
in
his
Scutum
Regium
.
Bonos
principes
voto
expetere
debemus
,
qualescunque
pati
,
&
quomodo
sterilitatem
,
aut
nimios
imbres
,
&
caetera
naturae
mala
,
sic
luxum
&
avaritiam
dominantium
tolerare
.
You
may
say
if
here
indeed
be
the
ground
of
our
subjection
,
then
must
many
good
people
in
the
World
be
in
a
sad
condition
;
for
let
their
Government
and
Governours
belike
,
be
as
evil
as
they
will
,
they
must
bear
it
,
and
have
no
remedy
.
God
hath
ordained
them
as
they
are
,
and
if
they
submit
not
thereunto
,
what
is
it
,
but
they
will
not
have
Gods
Will
to
be
done
?
They
resist
his
Ordinance
,
and
shall
incurr
his
Judgment
.
I
answer
,
let
this
seem
as
hard
a
condition
to
the
subject●
〈…〉
can
,
it
is
to
be
received
as
the
tru●●●nd
the
Religion
that
is
Christian
;
as
th●
very
intent
of
the
Apostle
in
the
place
.
If
Christ
command
thee
to
turn
thy
Cheek
to
the
Smiter
,
and
receive
one
blow
after
another
,
rather
then
to
revenge
thy self
and
strike
again
,
Resist
not
evil
,
is
there
any
towards
whom
this
is
to
be
exercised
like
unto
our
Rulers
?
Here
is
one
part
of
a
disciples
denying
himself
,
and
taking
up
his
Cross
;
of
that
Meekness
,
Humility
,
Faith
,
and
Patience
,
with
the
like
Christian
Graces
he
is
to
actuate
all
his
life
.
The
Lord
his
God
knows
what
is
best
for
him
,
and
such
a
submission
,
though
unto
death
,
is
better
for
him
in
the
everlasting
Issue
,
then
to
be
freed
from
it
;
or
else
his
Father
would
never
have
appointed
him
to
it
,
as
he
did
all
his
fellow
Servants
,
during
the
first
Persecutions
,
which
made
so
many
to
suffer
,
and
lay
down
their
lives
,
when
their
Towns
and
Cities
were
so
full
of
Christians
,
when
particularly
a
whole
Legion
of
6666
(
if
that
Story
be
true
)
could
yeild
to
a
decimation
twice
over
,
upon
an
injunction
to
Sacrifice
to
Idols
,
while
the
Sword
was
in
their
hands
,
rather
then
resist
,
and
incurr
the
danger
of
this
Text
,
by
a
defence
so
just
,
that
you
perhaps
are
tempted
to
have
lik'd
them
better
,
if
they
had
done
it
.
But
the
Weapons
of
their
Spiritual
Warfare
,
were
more
mighty
then
their
Carnal
,
which
made
them
lay
down
these
,
and
fly
only
to
their
Prayers
and
Tears
,
to
their
believing
and
suffering
,
and
the
Will
of
God
be
done
.
Nevertheless
,
as
for
our
State
,
God
be
blessed
our
condition
is
not
so
hard
in
this
Nation
under
the
Powers
that
are
,
but
if
there
be
any
thing
that
is
grievous
to
the
people
,
it
may
be
altered
in
a
way
agreeable
to
the
same
.
that
is
,
by
the
way
of
Parliament
,
with
consent
of
the
King
:
So
that
to
endeavour
any
alteration
that
way
,
is
no
resisting
the
ordinance
of
God
;
for
Gods
Ordination
with
us
is
such
,
as
allows
such
an
endeavour
when
it
is
needful
,
in
the
ground-work
of
the
Land
.
To
this
purpose
I
observe
,
in
the
Act
for
preservation
of
his
Majesty
,
where
it
is
made
a
Premunire
to
affirm
,
there
lies
an
obligation
on
any
from
the
Covenant
,
to
endeavour
a
change
of
Government
in
Church
or
State
,
and
highly
criminal
to
speak
against
the
same
as
now
established
;
there
is
a
Provided
,
that
the
Act
deprive
not
the
Houses
of
Parliament
their
priviledg
,
of
debating
any
matter
touching
the
repeal
or
alteration
of
any
old
,
or
preparing
any
new
Laws
,
or
the
redressing
any
publick
grievance
:
Now
we
must
take
consideration
therefore
,
of
persons
in
a
publick
,
or
in
a
private
capacity
.
Let
a
man
who
is
in
a
publick
capacity
,
as
a
Clerk
of
the
Convocation
,
or
Member
in
Parliament
offer
any
thing
of
alteration
(
I
speak
as
to
the
Administration
,
not
Constitution
of
the
State
,
which
they
are
not
to
alter
or
dissolve
)
that
is
commodious
to
the
Church
or
State
,
and
prosecute
it
with
vigour
according
to
his
Conscience
,
this
is
to
be
look'd
upon
,
as
a
part
of
Subjection
,
which
the
Powers
that
are
do
require
of
him
in
his
place
,
not
any
resistance
of
it
.
But
let
a
man
who
is
only
in
a
private
capacity
go
about
to
make
any
alteration
,
that
is
,
in
a
way
not
allowed
by
the
Powers
that
are
(
whereas
if
it
be
in
a
way
appointed
,
he
may
be
reckoned
to
act
in
a
capacity
political
,
though
a
private
person
)
this
mans
endeavour
is
a
resisting
Gods
Ordinance
in
the
most
intimate
sense
that
the
thing
does
import
.
For
what
is
resistance
here
?
It
is
not
the
refusing
Obedience
to
what
the
power
commands
,
seeing
that
may
be
done
in
case
of
sin
,
without
blame
:
but
it
is
refusing
Subjection
,
and
not
yielding
to
the
Power
that
is
,
when
a
man
cannot
bear
with
it
,
but
will
have
the
ordinance
of
God
to
be
otherwise
then
it
is
,
and
so
goes
about
,
whether
by
Arms
or
other
means
not
appointed
,
to
undoe
what
by
his
providence
is
established
;
that
is
,
endevours
it
be
not
,
so
much
as
in
him
lies
,
and
what
is
resisting
more
directly
then
this
is
?
Take
heed
,
will
you
dispossess
God
of
his
dispose
of
things
according
to
〈◇〉
●wn
Will
,
as
if
he
did
not
know
what
w●●●●ter
for
the
World
and
for
your self
then
y
〈…〉
If
you
go
the
way
before
,
you
follow
Prov●●●nce
,
if
you
go
any
other
,
you
resist
it
.
And
he
that
resists
,
receives
to
himself
damnation
.
Having
purposed
here
the
end
of
this
chapter
,
a
rub
stays
me
,
There
are
some
very
likely
,
may
be
apt
to
think
,
that
those
persons
who
have
a
title
to
the
Government
in
any
Land
according
to
the
constitution
thereof
,
have
more
then
providence
to
plead
for
their
being
the
Powers
ordained
of
God
in
the
Text
of
the
Apostle
,
and
so
may
find
fault
with
something
here
that
is
passed
.
I
answer
,
If
any
Ruler
have
indeed
more
to
plead
for
his
being
of
God
then
providence
,
then
hath
he
providence
to
plead
for
it
,
and
what
I
have
sa
d
on
that
score
,
will
do
him
no
hurt
:
Nevertheless
the
constitution
it self
,
and
so
the
title
any
have
according
to
that
constitution
,
and
the
persons
to
whom
the
Government
belongs
according
to
that
title
,
are
of
God
,
we
are
to
know
really
,
no
otherwise
,
then
by
his
providence
,
which
hath
ordered
and
disposed
the
hearts
of
men
to
agree
so
,
that
according
to
such
a
constitution
,
such
a
person
,
should
have
such
a
title
,
and
so
being
designed
for
the
Government
there
is
nothing
else
but
the
institution
of
the
Office
with
it
,
that
goes
to
the
making
him
the
power
ordained
of
him
.
That
there
should
be
some
to
bear
the
Sword
for
the
punishment
of
Vice
,
and
encouragement
of
Virtue
;
or
that
some
should
be
the
Ministers
of
God
for
the
common
good
,
which
is
that
I
call
the
power
in
the
abstract
(
that
is
abstracted
from
the
Qualification
put
on
it
by
the
constitution
)
is
the
Precept
of
God
expressed
in
the
Apostle
,
and
in
the
light
of
Nature
,
and
so
of
divine
institution
:
But
what
the
person
or
persons
shall
be
who
bear
the
Sword
,
what
the
form
of
Government
,
what
the
constitution
,
what
that
which
shall
give
title
according
to
it
,
what
the
terms
upon
which
the
Government
must
be
held
,
and
the
several
particular
customs
and
laws
which
are
convenient
to
be
observed
,
according
to
the
diversity
of
place
and
Nation
,
These
are
all
(
if
they
may
be
called
all
,
which
come
in
effect
into
one
,
to
wit
,
the
Qualification
of
the
Power
,
as
I
call
it
otherwhere
)
left
to
the
liberty
of
man
:
and
to
go
about
the
thinking
out
any
other
Ordination
of
God
,
then
this
of
his
Wisdom
and
Providence
in
these
things
,
will
quit
no
cost
,
because
it
cannot
put
any
barre
to
the
Usurper
,
nor
bring
any
more
advantage
to
the
rightful
Governour
then
this
does
.
For
how
shall
that
man
who
usurps
the
Government
plead
any
title
from
providence
,
when
it
is
the
Ordination
of
Gods
Providence
in
the
Nation
,
which
is
directly
contrary
to
his
claim
?
The
Act
of
providence
,
productive
of
Civil
power
,
is
that
,
which
disposeth
of
the
right
and
title
,
and
not
of
the
meer
possession
,
says
Mr.
Gee
herein
very
well
,
p.
129.
And
which
security
is
greater
to
the
Prince
,
to
make
a
resisting
of
him
to
be
a
resisting
of
Gods
Precept
only
,
or
to
be
a
resisting
Gods
Providence
also
,
a
{αβγδ}
,
and
entring
Gods
Throne
?
Nevertheless
,
in
regard
that
there
are
few
or
no
Dominions
Hereditary
,
but
there
will
now
and
then
step
up
one
out
of
his
rank
,
and
it
is
very
dangerous
to
make
the
people
judges
of
their
Princes
titles
;
and
in
regard
that
the
command
of
God
and
Nature
for
Government
it
self
,
or
the
necessity
thereof
in
general
,
is
so
far
to
be
prefered
before
the
singular
interest
of
any
person
or
persons
therein
concerned
,
there
is
a
determination
to
be
attributed
to
Providence
over-ruling
the
Title
in
some
case
;
which
,
if
I
may
deliver
my
opinion
,
in
short
will
come
to
this
,
that
though
no
person
,
as
to
himself
,
does
become
the
Power
ordained
in
the
Text
meerly
for
his
possession
,
yet
does
he
become
so
to
us
upon
his
reception
,
and
good
Administration
.
I
distinguish
here
,
between
the
part
of
the
Usurper
,
and
the
Subject
;
Between
the
Usurpation
,
and
Gods
Providence
ordering
and
disposing
the
wills
and
consent
of
the
people
to
his
admission
.
The
occupant
,
I
judg
,
cannot
hold
what
he
has
got
,
with
a
good
conscience
toward
God
and
his
Neighbour
whom
he
hath
wronged
,
but
he
is
bound
to
restore
it
to
him
that
hath
the
right
Title
:
yet
I
think
(
I
say
)
when
Providence
hath
precluded
him
from
any
possibility
of
returning
to
enjoy
it
,
and
hath
enclined
the
hearts
of
the
generality
to
a
dedition
,
the
particular
Subject
for
his
part
is
concluded
in
point
of
Subjection
.
And
this
I
suppose
our
Law
does
favour
,
which
will
own
the
wholsome
Statutes
of
a
Richard
the
3d
.
or
Henry
the
4th
.
as
of
an
Henry
the
2d
.
and
Richard
the
1st
.
And
if
it
were
not
so
,
then
might
the
thirteenth
to
the
Romans
for
several
if
not
the
most
part
of
our
Kings
,
from
the
Conquerour
to
Henry
the
Seventh
,
be
laid
by
,
and
signifie
nothing
,
and
we
to
reckon
no
higher
Powers
during
their
Reigns
,
ordained
of
God
in
our
Nation
.
CHAP.
II
.
The
Ground
upon
which
all
Lawfulness
for
any
People
to
endeavour
the
change
of
Government
when
it
proves
grievous
to
them
is
Founded
,
rendered
insufficient
and
dissolute
to
our
State
.
NOt
that
we
live
without
Intelligence
from
daily
History
of
the
lubricity
and
common
mutations
of
this
World
,
both
as
to
persons
and
States
or
Kingdoms
;
Nor
can
it
be
hid
from
the
considerate
how
deep
a
root
and
footing
there
is
in
Politicks
for
the
same
;
which
do
receive
a
diverse
Measure
and
Judgment
according
to
the
condition
of
Time
,
Place
,
Person
and
Constitution
,
where
they
are
made
.
There
is
no
Authority
(
it
is
pleaded
)
one
man
could
have
over
another
,
who
by
Nature
are
equall
,
but
he
must
Cedere
de
jure
suo
,
and
let
him
have
it
by
consent
:
so
that
all
Power
Originally
was
given
to
their
Rulers
by
the
people
,
and
to
the
common
good
,
and
if
they
use
it
therefore
to
their
hurt
,
they
may
take
it
away
again
.
For
demolishing
those
strong
Towers
of
Liberty
and
Insurrection
,
which
have
been
,
or
may
be
built
on
this
Foundation
,
I
am
not
Ignorant
of
the
more
ancient
device
,
promoted
afresh
by
a
late
great
name
,
that
would
do
it
effectually
,
if
the
difficulty
of
that
way
were
not
so
apparent
and
inextricable
as
a
man
cannot
abide
by
it
,
and
that
is
,
by
deriving
all
Government
from
Paternity
or
Genarchy
.
But
besides
that
,
a
man
can
hardly
be
content
to
have
that
made
the
Basis
and
proper
Title
to
Magistracy
,
as
will
leave
us
never
a
Magistrate
of
the
right
Stamp
in
the
Universal
World
,
since
Noah
and
his
Sons
deceased
:
It
is
manifest
,
as
Authors
do
distinguish
their
Oeconomicks
and
Politicks
,
so
is
the
Power
of
a
Father
and
the
Magistrate
really
different
,
in
the
kind
,
and
foundation
of
the
Relation
;
the
one
being
of
Choice
,
the
other
of
Nature
.
Quasi
vero
nihil
intersit
inter
magnam
domum
,
&
parvam
civitatem
,
says
Aristotle
in
his
Pol
.
l.
1.
at
the
beginning
.
Over
a
Multitude
(
says
Hooker
Ec.
Pol
.
l.
1.
§
.
10.
)
consisting
of
many
Families
having
no
dependency
on
one
,
as
the
Family
or
the
Father
,
impossible
it
is
that
any
should
have
compleat
lawful
Power
but
by
consent
,
of
men
,
or
immediate
appointment
of
God
.
These
words
(
though
but
a
few
of
many
)
are
directions
enough
in
this
point
.
I
am
perswaded
(
says
a
sober
Writer
for
Monarchy
,
in
the
late
distractions
)
it
will
appear
an
uncontrollable
truth
in
Policy
,
that
the
consent
of
the
people
,
either
by
themselves
or
Ancestors
,
is
the
only
mean
in
ordinary
Providence
,
by
which
Sovereignty
is
conferred
on
a
person
or
family
.
It
is
not
for
me
therefore
,
to
go
here
against
the
Stream
of
so
much
light
.
I
must
acknowledg
that
a
Community
of
men
are
not
a
Herd
,
to
be
driven
into
Government
;
but
as
subjection
is
a
Moral
act
,
and
they
free
agents
,
they
do
come
into
the
same
by
agreement
,
and
that
through
a
kind
of
Potestative
act
,
as
I
am
apt
to
conceive
of
it
,
unto
which
,
as
they
are
commanded
,
they
must
be
Authorized
by
the
Will
of
God
.
We
must
know
therefore
,
where
there
is
a
Company
of
Persons
and
Families
in
a
Vicinity
fitted
for
receiving
a
form
of
Government
not
yet
introduced
,
this
is
called
a
Community
;
who
though
they
have
a
propriety
of
what
they
possess
,
and
liberty
of
person
,
and
consequently
an
equality
in
respect
of
one
another
,
yet
is
there
,
according
to
Nature
,
a
Superiority
in
the
Universal
over
each
Singular
person
;
that
the
giving
place
of
all
distributively
,
to
the
good
of
all
collectively
,
is
not
free
in
soro
interiori
,
in
regard
of
Conscience
,
when
it
is
free
from
any
,
in
foro
exteriori
,
in
regard
of
Compulsion
.
It
is
a
question
whether
a
Community
(
as
just
now
defined
)
be
obliged
to
enter
Society
for
the
common
end
of
Government
,
or
no
?
That
is
,
whether
Sponte
adducti
,
or
Dei
praecepto
they
do
coire
into
a
Commonwealth
?
I
see
what
has
passed
from
Grotius
,
but
if
it
be
not
a
duty
from
the
light
of
Nature
(
which
is
Gods
precept
)
then
is
not
a
Commonwealth
from
Nature
(
which
the
Bees
teach
us
)
and
Government
from
divine
institution
,
when
yet
the
Text
tells
us
,
it
is
the
Ordinance
of
God
.
If
it
be
,
then
must
the
same
Law
of
Nature
,
that
requires
men
to
enter
Societies
,
require
that
some
should
follow
,
and
some
lead
in
the
doing
.
Those
that
lead
are
the
prevalent
part
,
whether
by
Wisdom
,
Riches
,
Valour
,
Goodness
,
or
bare
Majority
.
The
providence
of
God
that
designs
the
persons
in
all
Governments
,
designs
these
to
the
leading
the
rest
unto
Government
.
These
act
as
they
represent
the
Universal
,
and
in
that
name
they
have
right
.
Now
a
right
to
lead
from
God
is
Potestas
.
There
may
be
Potestas
(
as
potestas
ordinis
)
which
is
not
coercive
.
This
power
in
the
Community
is
not
to
all
purposes
,
but
to
this
purpose
.
It
is
their
Office
to
consider
and
determine
what
Government
is
best
for
them
,
and
so
to
frame
their
constitution
and
appoint
their
Governour
.
If
they
have
not
Authority
from
God
to
do
this
,
how
comes
the
constitution
to
be
binding
to
Posterity
,
and
have
the
preheminence
over
all
the
Laws
that
succeed
?
If
no
Law
can
be
made
but
by
Authority
,
can
a
Constitution
be
made
without
any
?
A
right
to
frame
the
Constitution
,
and
to
bind
others
,
must
be
Power
.
If
the
least
Law
be
from
a
higher
Power
,
the
greatest
must
be
the
highest
;
and
Maxima
potestas
is
Sovereignty
.
What
then
can
be
more
ingenuous
upon
this
,
when
in
a
Community
,
as
a
Community
,
there
are
no
persons
yet
chosen
in
whom
the
Power
shall
reside
,
to
distinguish
with
Bisoldus
and
other
Politicks
in
this
manner
.
There
is
Majestas
duplex
,
realis
and
personalis
.
Real
Sovereignty
is
in
the
Community
for
the
Constituting
a
Commonwealth
,
Personal
in
the
Magistrate
to
administer
it
.
Suppose
a
company
of
Families
together
under
no
mans
jurisdiction
.
Frame
we
our
Politicks
.
What
are
these
people
here
to
do
?
The
Natural
answer
I
think
is
,
they
are
to
do
what
is
best
for
them
.
There
are
some
of
them
think
it
best
for
them
to
remain
Independent
,
but
if
it
be
not
best
for
the
generality
to
enter
Society
,
Society
shall
not
be
of
Nature
,
for
therefore
it
is
of
God
and
Nature
because
it
is
best
.
Here
the
first
thing
that
appears
in
Policy
,
is
this
,
that
there
is
a
Good
arising
from
their
being
or
living
together
,
unto
which
they
all
of
them
have
right
.
If
Society
be
not
best
to
some
of
them
,
as
they
think
,
in
regard
of
their
particular
interest
,
there
does
appear
next
a
right
in
the
Universal
that
must
take
place
of
that
right
in
the
Singulars
,
as
to
the
aforesaid
good
.
This
good
however
lies
in
the
mutual
help
and
assistance
which
by
God
they
are
bound
,
and
able
,
to
yield
one
another
,
if
they
do
their
Duty
.
To
fetch
this
good
out
it
is
necessary
they
agree
to
an
order
of
Superiority
and
Inferiority
(
which
is
a
Commonwealth
)
wherein
some
may
be
appointed
to
see
that
men
do
this
duty
by
compelling
the
refractory
,
and
encouraging
the
willing
,
that
the
good
be
obtained
,
which
they
as
a
Community
,
while
the
Families
are
equal
,
are
not
capable
to
do
.
And
these
are
Gods
Ministers
(
says
the
Apostle
)
attending
continually
upon
this
very
thing
.
Here
then
appears
these
two
Powers
,
the
real
and
the
personal
;
a
Power
to
constitute
a
Governour
,
and
a
Power
to
Govern
.
The
right
vnto
the
good
,
which
is
the
end
of
the
Government
and
Governour
,
belongs
not
to
any
one
,
but
to
every
one
,
not
to
the
Governour
,
but
Community
,
and
to
him
as
one
of
them
only
.
The
Sovereignty
then
radically
is
in
the
Community
,
but
the
life
and
activity
of
it
cannot
be
exerted
but
by
a
personal
Sovereign
,
whose
power
begins
where
theirs
stops
,
to
the
attainment
of
the
same
very
thing
in
their
behalf
for
them
.
There
is
power
therefore
in
the
Community
to
its
proper
purpose
,
and
there
is
power
in
the
Governour
.
The
power
of
the
Community
is
not
Governing
as
the
Magistrates
is
,
and
the
Governours
power
is
not
to
make
the
Constitution
,
as
is
that
of
the
Community
.
These
powers
mingle
not
,
nor
hurt
one
another
.
The
jura
Regalia
or
prerogatives
indicate
a
Sovereign
;
The
prime
Regalia
are
making
Laws
,
and
constituting
Officers
:
the
Community
makes
the
constitution
&
constitutes
the
Governour
.
Is
not
that
real
Sovereignty
?
The
Universality
is
the
end
of
the
commonwealth
,
the
finis
cui
for
whose
good
it
is
framed
,
and
the
efficient
under
God
that
frames
it
,
and
in
this
respect
it
is
{αβγδ}
a
humane
creature
;
what
title
then
can
be
attributed
less
hereunto
then
Sovereignty
on
that
account
?
Suppose
me
in
a
Community
where
I
have
propriety
of
Goods
and
Liberty
of
Person
,
Does
not
the
law
of
Nature
bind
me
to
consent
to
my
own
loss
in
particular
for
the
benefit
of
the
many
?
Charity
I
know
barely
,
requires
me
not
to
mind
my
own
things
onely
,
but
the
things
of
others
,
but
doth
Charity
bind
me
to
prefer
other
mens
?
Charity
begins
at
home
,
and
requires
me
to
love
my
Neighbour
as
my self
,
not
above
my self
,
and
how
then
could
this
really
be
,
unless
the
Universi
did
virtually
&
eminenter
praeesse
singulis
,
and
the
singuli
a
Deo
&
Natura
universis
subderentur
?
In
the
collective
body
(
says
Hooker
)
that
hath
not
derived
as
yet
the
principality
of
power
into
some
one
,
or
few
,
the
whole
of
necessity
must
be
head
over
each
part
,
otherwise
it
could
not
have
power
possibly
to
make
any
one
certain
head
;
inasmuch
as
the
power
of
making
a
head
,
belongeth
unto
head-ship
.
If
there
be
not
potestas
in
the
Community
,
then
is
the
constitution
of
a
Nation
no
Law
,
the
grand
Law
,
the
very
Law
of
the
Land
no
Law
,
which
methinks
is
ill
.
If
it
be
not
Law
before
,
but
made
so
by
the
Princes
subsequent
act
,
then
may
he
by
a
Sovereign
act
reverse
it
again
,
which
will
be
worse
.
If
it
be
no
Law
,
then
it
is
a
Covenant
,
or
Contract
,
but
how
shall
that
be
a
Contract
which
is
made
by
one
party
,
to
wit
,
the
Community
about
a
Sovereign
,
while
yet
they
have
none
?
Nay
what
if
the
constitution
be
to
have
their
Sovereign
by
Vote
or
Lot
,
how
shall
that
be
a
contract
between
the
Sovereign
and
Subject
,
when
the
Sovereign
is
not
yet
chose
?
A
contract
,
I
think
farther
,
binds
not
a
Successour
,
but
by
virtue
of
its
being
Law
.
And
that
which
is
yet
worst
to
the
main
business
,
if
one
party
breaks
a
meer
Covenant
,
the
other
is
disobliged
.
After
this
unto
the
great
Plea
in
hand
,
I
shall
put
in
my
doubt
,
and
answer
.
I
doubt
here
,
that
those
golden
days
which
Writers
of
Politicks
have
Fancied
in
all
Nations
,
supposing
them
to
have
Model'd
their
own
Government
(
as
a
body
at
first
without
a
form
)
and
chose
their
Governours
according
to
it
,
may
deceive
us
:
seeing
the
first
Lords
and
Rulers
of
the
Earth
(
as
Nimrod
)
got
their
Dominions
by
violence
,
and
the
people
we
may
conceive
after
obtained
such
exemptions
and
liberties
they
could
from
them
,
in
their
Successions
.
Let
us
distinguish
therefore
between
these
two
questions
,
what
is
de
jure
in
Politicks
,
and
what
hath
been
,
or
is
de
facto
?
We
discourse
ordinarily
on
this
Subject
,
and
I
think
ought
to
do
,
as
we
conceive
of
things
de
jure
,
when
if
we
enquire
thereof
strictly
de
facto
,
we
shall
find
some
little
matter
that
is
near
or
like
to
what
our
Politicians
do
write
,
and
that
is
virtually
to
go
for
the
same
.
The
more
solemn
though
,
a
Government
is
in
forming
,
and
the
nearer
to
such
principles
it
comes
,
the
more
desirable
is
it
by
man
,
and
the
more
approved
by
God
.
In
that
Government
therefore
wherein
God
hath
been
himself
an
Author
to
us
in
Politicks
(
who
knows
the
best
Rules
to
go
by
)
when
the
people
would
have
a
King
,
and
set
up
another
Government
,
he
directs
this
course
.
Samuel
is
to
tell
them
first
the
Manner
of
their
King
,
or
Kingdom
(
so
it
is
express'd
in
two
places
)
that
is
,
the
Constitution
of
their
Government
,
unto
which
they
consent
,
and
then
is
their
King
introduced
,
and
this
constitution
wrote
in
a
Book
,
and
laid
up
before
the
Lord
.
There
is
but
a
resemblance
of
this
happily
in
the
constitution
of
most
Kingdoms
in
the
World
,
yet
is
the
agreement
of
the
people
mediate
or
immediate
,
tacite
or
express
,
so
necessary
,
that
a
people
who
are
Conquered
cannot
be
Governed
as
men
by
the
Victor
,
without
their
consent
;
and
his
Victory
tends
only
to
give
him
a
right
by
inducing
them
to
a
dedition
,
which
being
done
upon
saving
their
lives
,
his
grace
and
protection
,
there
remains
some
shaddow
yet
of
a
Constitution
.
I
answer
then
,
if
the
supposition
were
true
,
that
the
power
of
the
Ruler
was
given
by
the
people
,
as
well
as
their
consent
is
required
to
it
,
and
it
came
indeed
Originally
from
them
,
then
were
the
consequence
perhaps
not
irrational
.
But
our
Text
tells
us
otherwise
,
The
Powers
that
be
,
are
ordained
of
God
.
Let
me
understand
my
own
answer
.
If
when
a
Community
set
up
Government
and
made
them
a
Ruler
,
they
were
at
their
own
liberty
,
and
might
choose
whether
they
would
or
no
,
so
that
the
Will
alone
of
the
people
was
the
Original
of
the
Rulers
Power
,
and
that
be
a
Foundation
to
bear
it
,
then
would
this
double
consequence
I
take
it
be
good
.
The
one
,
that
They
who
were
willing
before
to
have
such
a
one
for
their
Governour
,
to
the
end
of
Government
,
that
is
,
for
the
common
good
,
and
he
abuses
his
Authority
to
their
hurt
,
must
needs
be
willing
no
longer
;
for
,
the
End
which
was
the
reason
of
their
Will
failing
,
their
Will
must
cease
also
.
The
other
is
,
that
they
ceasing
to
be
willing
,
and
their
Will
being
the
prime
cause
and
fountain
of
the
Power
,
the
Cause
ceasing
,
the
Power
,
which
is
the
Effect
,
must
cease
with
it
.
But
the
matter
is
not
indeed
so
,
There
are
no
people
I
apprehend
are
at
their
own
liberty
,
but
under
the
command
of
God
to
enter
Society
,
and
yield
to
government
for
his
glory
;
so
that
it
is
not
the
Will
of
the
people
but
the
Sovereign
Will
of
Almighty
God
that
is
the
Original
of
Power
,
and
can
be
alone
a
Basis
sufficient
for
it
.
For
Dominion
being
founded
in
propriety
,
and
God
alone
being
the
proper
Lord
of
his
creatures
(
as
hath
been
expressed
in
the
former
chapter
)
there
is
no
mortal
can
have
right
to
use
,
or
rule
over
,
any
of
them
,
but
by
a
grant
of
his
.
This
grant
,
I
have
said
farther
,
does
lie
in
an
Act
of
his
Will
,
which
is
passed
in
his
Word
,
and
the
light
of
Nature
.
I
add
now
,
this
Note
.
Government
in
the
Ruler
may
be
look'd
upon
as
his
Office
and
Duty
,
and
so
this
Act
of
Gods
Will
may
be
called
his
Precept
;
or
as
a
Right
and
Dignity
,
and
so
it
is
to
be
styled
a
Grant
or
Commission
:
But
whether
you
call
it
one
or
the
other
name
,
this
Will
of
God
is
the
thing
from
whence
all
Power
in
the
World
is
derived
and
owed
.
It
follows
not
therefore
that
when
a
Governour
abuses
his
Power
,
and
the
people
cease
their
consent
,
that
his
Authority
ceases
:
because
the
Authority
which
is
not
received
without
their
consent
,
does
not
depend
upon
that
consent
as
the
cause
and
root
of
it
,
but
on
the
standing
Will
of
God
.
I
will
borrow
a
Simile
from
a
late
Writer
,
whereby
he
would
shew
how
the
Ministerial
power
does
not
flow
from
man
in
Orders
,
but
immediately
from
Christ
.
It
is
applicable
as
well
here
.
In
Cities
or
Corporate
Towns
they
have
a
Charter
,
which
does
allow
them
to
choose
such
or
such
a
person
,
to
swear
him
,
and
perform
such
ceremonies
;
but
when
these
things
are
done
as
appointed
,
the
Power
or
Authority
he
hath
to
be
Mayor
for
that
year
,
flows
immediately
from
the
Charter
,
or
grant
of
the
King
.
Thus
it
is
with
the
Supreme
Power
,
in
reference
to
its
Original
.
There
is
an
institution
or
Charter
from
God
,
writ
in
the
Law
of
Nature
and
the
Word
,
that
there
shall
be
Authority
in
some
,
and
Subjection
in
others
,
which
allows
men
liberty
to
form
what
Government
is
best
for
them
:
but
when
the
Constitution
is
made
,
and
the
designation
of
the
person
or
persons
to
govern
according
to
that
constitution
,
the
power
of
the
Supremacy
flows
immediately
not
from
that
Constitution
,
Election
,
Coronation
(
though
by
the
Constitution
it
is
qualified
't
is
true
,
)
but
from
that
Charter
which
is
Divine
.
And
that
this
is
indeed
so
,
it
may
appear
from
those
titles
God
takes
of
King
of
Kings
,
and
Lord
of
Lords
.
By
me
Kings
reign
,
and
the
like
.
That
is
,
a
Universal
Sovereignty
is
attributed
to
him
,
of
whom
the
whole
Family
in
Earth
and
Heaven
is
named
;
so
that
as
there
is
no
Subject
can
have
any
Rule
in
a
Land
(
as
in
the
instance
before
mentioned
)
but
he
must
derive
it
from
the
King
or
the
Supreme
there
:
so
is
there
no
King
or
Potentate
in
the
Earth
can
hold
his
Supreme
Authority
over
any
one
single
Nation
,
but
he
must
hold
it
both
from
and
under
him
who
is
the
Sovereign
of
the
World
.
And
hence
it
is
that
Gods
representation
they
bear
,
I
have
said
,
ye
are
Gods
,
and
it
is
recorded
,
They
worshipped
God
,
and
their
King
.
You
may
say
what
does
this
inferr
,
The
Power
of
the
Magistrate
which
is
Temporary
,
or
Pactionary
,
is
from
God
and
immediately
,
as
much
as
that
of
any
Hereditary
absolute
Prince
,
Does
it
follow
therefore
that
his
Power
cannot
be
taken
away
again
?
I
answer
,
it
follows
that
it
cannot
be
taken
away
but
on
the
terms
it
was
received
.
If
a
Government
be
Pactionary
,
and
the
Magistrate
breaks
with
the
people
,
it
is
true
that
he
must
forfeit
notwithstanding
his
Power
is
immediately
from
God
:
But
if
it
be
not
so
,
the
deriving
the
Power
from
God
immediately
,
does
render
it
inviolable
from
that
consent
that
was
yet
at
first
required
to
its
possession
.
The
reason
of
both
being
,
because
the
Power
passes
from
God
with
the
Qualification
it
hath
put
on
it
by
man
in
the
Constitution
,
if
that
hath
rendered
it
conditional
,
so
God
will
have
it
to
pass
:
if
there
be
no
such
Qualification
put
on
it
thereby
at
the
passing
,
it
once
being
passed
,
cannot
be
revoked
by
man
to
be
qualified
otherwise
,
because
it
is
not
from
him
that
it
comes
.
Unto
Government
there
goes
something
of
Divine
and
something
of
Humane
institution
.
That
which
is
Divine
flows
from
God
immediatly
that
which
is
Humane
mediately
.
To
flow
immediately
from
God
is
to
flow
so
from
him
as
that
nothing
comes
as
a
cause
between
his
Will
and
the
Effect
.
To
flow
from
him
mediately
is
when
there
are
second
causes
concurr
to
the
same
.
The
Quailfication
of
all
Government
is
from
God
mediately
,
because
he
hath
referred
that
to
mans
liberty
for
good
reasons
regarding
humane
Nature
and
consent
,
and
the
will
of
man
comes
between
God
and
it
,
so
that
,
that
is
immediately
according
to
Mans
will
,
and
mediately
according
to
Gods
.
But
the
Power
it self
is
from
God
immediateiy
,
because
there
is
nothing
comes
between
the
grant
or
warrant
,
and
the
right
,
as
any
cause
of
it
else
;
there
is
only
a
disposition
of
the
Subject
,
which
being
put
,
the
form
flows
as
into
the
matter
immediately
from
that
Will
.
From
whomsoever
the
form
of
any
Government
and
the
qualification
of
the
Power
according
to
that
form
does
arise
,
the
Power
it self
comes
from
above
.
Aliud
est
imperium
(
says
Grotius
)
aliud
habendi
modus
.
Power
in
the
Community
is
Native
,
or
belongs
to
the
universal
over
the
singulars
without
Concession
.
Power
personal
in
Commonwealths
orderly
framed
is
Conventional
,
upon
consent
,
but
that
consent
comes
between
only
as
Conditio
,
that
is
,
Causa
sine
qua
non
(
the
Constitution
must
first
be
framed
)
but
it
concurrs
not
per
modum
causae
efficaciter
operantis
,
to
conferr
or
give
the
same
.
It
is
Gods
Will
,
not
Mans
does
that
.
They
are
Gods
Ministers
says
the
Text
.
You
could
have
no
Power
unless
it
were
given
you
of
God
.
You
may
say
if
there
be
a
real
Sovereignty
in
the
people
,
and
they
may
choose
what
Commonwealth
they
please
,
and
have
what
Supreme
Governour
they
please
;
and
he
shall
have
no
more
Power
,
nor
no
otherwise
then
they
allow
and
appoint
,
nay
and
he
shall
keep
his
Power
no
longer
,
and
be
lyable
to
be
turned
out
of
Power
for
mal-administration
,
if
they
at
first
so
agree
(
all
which
is
certain
in
their
liberty
only
to
frame
their
own
Constitution
)
:
how
shall
we
deny
but
the
people
give
the
Power
,
or
how
shall
we
say
he
derives
the
same
from
God
?
I
answer
,
In
the
first
place
,
when
I
call
that
right
in
the
Community
to
frame
their
Constitution
real
Sovereignty
,
this
expression
makes
nor
marrs
any
thing
as
to
the
main
business
,
only
in
regard
the
Constitution
is
the
highest
Law
,
and
Legislation
is
the
chief
Right
of
Majesty
,
and
the
Community
have
that
right
from
God
to
make
their
Constitution
,
here
is
that
thing
I
count
certainly
which
Sovereignty
is
,
and
to
give
it
that
name
hereupon
that
others
have
done
,
will
,
I
hope
,
offend
no
body
:
But
as
for
the
substance
of
the
Objection
,
it
is
forelaid
and
prevented
already
.
There
is
the
Power
it self
,
and
the
Qualification
of
it
.
The
qualification
,
ordering
,
or
disposition
of
the
Power
in
what
form
of
Government
or
Governours
,
as
it
may
conduce
best
to
the
end
appointed
of
God
,
that
is
,
the
Common
good
,
is
left
to
the
liberty
of
man
,
and
so
is
immediately
from
him
,
or
as
he
appoints
,
but
the
Power
it self
,
I
say
,
is
immediately
from
God
.
I
have
likewise
presented
you
my
understanding
hereof
.
There
is
one
and
the
same
Charter
or
Institution
of
God
in
Nature
,
whereby
he
commands
or
wills
a
double
Power
,
in
a
double
Subject
,
and
as
two
distinct
rights
in
those
two
Subjects
,
the
one
is
a
right
or
Power
to
constitute
a
Commonwealth
,
the
other
is
to
Govern
it
.
The
Constitution
is
one
thing
,
the
Administration
another
.
To
argue
that
the
Power
of
the
Community
is
not
such
a
Power
as
the
personal
Sovereign's
is
,
which
is
coercive
,
therefore
there
is
no
Potestas
in
a
Community
,
is
all
one
as
to
say
,
there
is
no
Power
in
the
Prince
to
make
the
Constitution
,
and
that
being
the
highest
point
of
Law-making
,
and
Legislation
makes
a
Sovereign
,
Ergo
,
he
has
not
Maximam
Potestatem
,
which
is
Sovereignty
,
These
are
two
rights
then
distinct
,
yet
as
they
agree
sub
eodem
genere
and
are
both
Power
,
they
equally
flow
from
the
same
institution
of
God
.
God
wills
that
a
Community
should
frame
their
constitution
,
this
gives
them
right
to
do
it
;
A
right
of
making
any
law
or
laws
to
bind
others
(
even
the
governour
and
governed
)
is
not
Power
only
,
I
take
it
,
but
Sovereign
Power
.
It
is
Gods
will
also
,
that
according
to
the
Constitution
made
,
a
Commonwealth
should
be
Defended
from
enemies
,
by
making
Warand
Peace
:
and
Governed
in
making
Lawsand
Officers
for
the
administration
,
and
doing
Justice
to
the
Subjects
,
in
rewards
and
punishments
.
This
gives
the
Governour
his
right
,
and
from
thence
he
will
derive
it
.
It
is
true
also
that
the
Constitution
puts
an
extension
or
limits
upon
these
rights
of
the
Governour
according
to
the
consent
of
the
Community
,
because
it
is
Gods
Will
also
it
should
be
so
,
that
no
man
may
lift
up
himself
above
his
Bretheren
but
for
their
good
:
Yet
is
the
Power
in
the
abstract
(
when
the
Qualification
thereof
,
I
say
still
,
is
from
man
)
only
and
immediately
from
God
.
I
will
renew
the
Simile
before
.
Suppose
a
Prince
should
grant
a
Charter
to
any
City
not
only
to
choose
them
a
Magistrate
which
he
hath
appointed
,
but
to
appoint
what
Magistrate
they
please
for
themselves
,
to
prescribe
Laws
and
Rules
for
him
to
Act
by
,
and
that
they
may
choose
him
absolutely
for
his
time
,
or
conditionally
,
and
upon
his
Misdemeanour
actually
depose
him
,
and
then
being
in
statu
quo
,
constitute
another
kind
of
Governour
,
and
other
rules
which
they
judg
better
,
holding
still
under
the
King
,
who
is
there
will
not
say
this
is
Authority
?
and
yet
if
they
do
not
put
him
down
,
or
choose
him
conditionally
,
the
jus
or
right
from
the
Charter
(
seeing
they
might
if
they
would
)
is
the
same
thing
.
If
they
shall
choose
him
absolutely
,
and
he
break
their
Rules
and
his
own
Engagements
,
they
may
repent
they
chose
him
not
conditionally
at
first
,
and
they
may
complain
to
the
King
,
they
may
cry
to
him
,
and
he
may
punish
him
or
remove
him
,
but
they
themselves
cannot
,
the
remedy
now
is
out
of
their
hands
.
The
reason
is
(
what
has
been
given
)
because
that
neither
the
Power
by
which
they
acted
in
constituting
of
him
was
their
own
,
nor
that
Power
he
received
upon
that
constitution
,
theirs
,
but
both
of
them
derived
to
them
from
that
Charter
of
the
King
.
I
need
make
no
application
,
only
I
would
here
shew
that
there
is
Potestas
in
a
Community
,
and
that
this
Potestas
,
when
a
Government
is
absolute
,
can
do
the
Governour
no
hurt
.
In
Marriage
the
consent
of
the
Man
and
the
Woman
makes
the
Husband
and
Wife
,
but
their
consent
will
not
dissolve
the
Marriage
again
,
because
the
authority
the
Husband
has
over
the
Wife
,
flows
not
from
that
consent
,
but
from
the
Law
and
Institution
of
God
.
So
may
there
be
in
some
Commonwealths
a
consent
of
the
people
peculiar
to
them
,
that
is
,
necessary
to
their
making
the
Supreme
Magistrate
,
but
the
authority
flowing
from
God
and
not
them
,
it
is
not
in
their
power
to
reverse
what
they
have
done
.
Provided
though
,
it
be
not
fore-agreed
to
the
contrary
in
the
fundamental
coagulation
of
any
State
,
for
when
the
imperium
ipsum
is
aliunde
,
the
modus
habendi
must
follow
that
agreement
.
Indeed
if
a
Marriage-contract
be
broken
,
and
a
Woman
become
an
Adulteress
,
the
Man
may
withdraw
his
consent
and
put
her
away
:
when
if
the
Prince
who
is
absolute
break
his
promise
,
the
people
cannot
depose
him
for
all
that
.
The
reason
I
would
assign
is
,
because
that
Marriage
is
in
the
nature
of
a
Contract
only
,
and
so
one
party
breaking
it
,
the
other
is
loosed
:
but
the
constitution
of
a
Land
which
makes
the
Prince
and
Subject
,
is
a
Law
,
and
if
one
person
neglect
to
perform
his
duty
which
a
Law
requires
of
him
,
that
does
not
priviledge
another
under
the
same
to
do
so
also
.
Whither
this
drives
then
,
you
may
begin
now
to
conjecture
.
You
are
ready
to
say
perhaps
,
But
is
not
this
notion
of
Real
Sovereignty
in
the
Community
,
that
,
that
should
be
Law
which
they
at
first
agree
and
conclude
upon
,
something
dangerous
to
Anointed
Majesty
?
And
why
do
you
not
fall
in
with
those
that
oppose
it
,
rather
then
with
Hooker
and
the
Stream
that
runs
ordinarily
in
the
sense
or
purport
of
it
?
I
answer
,
you
may
judg
by
the
sequel
as
to
the
one
,
and
I
will
offer
you
a
reason
why
,
as
to
the
other
.
I
do
apprehend
by
some
opposition
which
is
made
against
this
notion
(
wherein
there
is
little
fear
of
what
was
done
so
many
hundred
or
thousand
years
ago
)
that
those
who
leave
the
light
and
benefit
of
this
,
must
receive
other
notions
,
which
if
they
be
not
more
dangerous
to
Government
,
they
are
more
irrefragably
destructive
to
the
Doctrine
here
undertaken
.
The
Constitution
is
that
which
makes
the
King
,
Lex
facit
Regem
say
the
Lawyers
.
What
Law
?
not
that
Law
which
he
makes
,
for
that
cannot
make
him
,
that
was
made
by
him
,
but
the
fundamental
Law
,
or
Laws
of
the
Constitution
,
and
the
Law
in
our
Books
,
as
declarative
of
that
.
Now
if
the
Constitution
of
a
Nation
do
not
proceed
from
Power
in
the
Community
,
that
is
,
from
such
an
authority
from
God
,
given
at
first
to
them
for
this
purpose
,
as
shall
be
obligatory
as
a
Law
,
then
must
it
have
the
virtue
of
a
Contract
only
,
which
must
be
supposed
originally
to
be
made
between
the
people
not
yet
Subjects
,
but
free
,
and
the
Sovereign
;
And
then
whatsoever
rights
are
found
to
be
exempted
in
the
fundamental
Laws
of
this
Contract
from
the
Princes
power
,
they
must
be
kept
inviolable
to
the
people
,
or
else
the
Constitution
is
dissolv'd
,
and
they
shall
be
free
from
their
Allegiance
.
Thus
shall
the
Cause
in
the
late
Wars
,
and
those
of
the
Barons
be
full
Stated
.
Thus
can
there
no
right
orderly
framed
Government
in
the
Earth
,
be
an
absolute
Government
.
Thus
must
there
be
no
fundamental
liberties
of
the
people
of
this
Land
,
or
of
one
,
above
others
,
but
the
King
must
be
Pactionary
,
and
the
Prince
no
absolute
Prince
.
Thus
the
Parliament
representing
the
people
as
Trustees
to
secure
their
liberties
upon
the
violation
of
any
of
them
,
shall
be
justified
if
they
raise
a
new
Warr
to
our
endless
confusion
.
But
if
we
make
the
Constitution
of
a
Land
an
Act
of
the
highest
Sovereignty
(
which
we
call
real
,
as
virtually
being
such
)
that
being
Authorized
by
God
,
does
therefore
become
the
standing
Law
to
Posterity
,
(
as
the
ancient
Land-marks
set
by
the
Elders
,
)
never
to
be
removed
,
then
must
the
Power
which
is
absolutely
derived
on
any
person
and
his
Successors
,
continue
inviolable
against
this
assault
,
which
is
the
strongest
I
suppose
that
can
be
made
at
any
time
for
Rebellion
.
For
seeing
it
pleased
Almighty
God
at
first
to
leave
the
Real
Sovereign
(
who
goes
down
I
will
account
when
the
Personal
ariscs
,
leaving
us
but
one
Sun
in
our
State
at
once
)
at
perfect
liberty
to
its
proper
Power
(
to
wit
the
Qualification
of
the
Government
)
so
that
the
Community
might
make
what
Laws
for
the
Constitution
they
pleased
,
and
put
a
condition
on
them
if
they
would
,
to
wit
that
if
the
Prince
broke
them
,
or
any
of
them
,
he
should
forfeit
and
loose
his
Dignity
,
but
they
thought
best
that
their
Prince
should
be
absolute
and
his
Oath
only
taken
,
leaving
him
,
if
he
break
it
,
to
the
Almighty
:
this
Constitution
being
made
,
and
the
Power
flowing
to
him
from
God
immediately
with
no
other
qualifications
then
is
put
on
it
by
the
Costitution
,
it
must
remain
irrevokeable
,
against
all
future
contradiction
.
I
am
therefore
very
little
offended
with
the
Politica
of
Mr.
Lawson
,
that
dexterous
person
in
this
sort
of
Learning
,
whose
book
considering
the
time
it
came
out
,
both
for
its
Light
into
Civil
Government
,
and
his
peculiar
notion
of
Ecclesiastical
,
as
Nationally
Independent
,
whereby
in
his
capacity
he
strewed
the
way
at
that
season
,
for
return
of
King
and
Bishop
,
is
not
to
be
envied
its
due
praise
,
and
cautious
use
to
be
made
of
it
.
There
is
a
question
or
two
,
you
may
yet
ask
me
.
The
Power
of
a
Commonwealth
lies
in
its
Sovereign
;
The
Commonwealth
virtually
is
in
the
Community
,
The
Power
consequently
must
virtually
be
there
also
;
Yet
is
not
the
Power
of
the
Sovereign
the
same
with
the
Communities
,
yea
,
nor
conferred
by
it
,
but
given
of
God
.
How
will
you
make
these
agree
?
How
is
it
then
?
Ans.
Why
thus
.
All
Power
is
from
above
,
That
which
is
from
above
,
is
Gods
Will
,
a
grant
,
passed
in
the
divine
Law
concerning
Man
.
The
grant
is
not
to
the
Sovereign
but
to
the
Community
:
The
Charter
in
the
Simile
before
,
is
the
Cities
Charter
not
the
Mayors
.
If
there
be
something
granted
then
to
the
Community
that
the
Sovereign
has
not
,
and
to
the
Sovereign
,
that
which
the
Community
is
not
capable
of
,
then
is
there
distinct
Powers
;
And
the
Powers
being
so
,
it
appears
that
,
although
what
is
done
by
the
Community
in
order
to
the
Power
of
the
personal
Sovereign
be
acts
of
a
preceding
Power
in
them
,
that
power
of
theirs
does
not
make
them
Donours
or
intermediate
causes
of
the
personal
Power
,
because
his
and
theirs
doth
both
flow
,
as
hath
been
said
,
from
the
same
grant
.
Indeed
they
are
causes
of
the
qualification
(
as
is
inculcated
)
which
comprizes
the
Manner
of
their
Kingdom
with
the
particular
person
or
persons
Reigning
,
and
upon
that
account
are
the
people
said
truly
to
make
their
King
,
but
as
for
the
Power
it self
(
the
qualification
being
put
)
nothing
is
able
to
come
between
it
and
God
.
De
Regum
authoritate
,
quod
ex
jure
Divino
non
sit
,
quod
immediate
a
Deo
non
descendat
—
sed
mediante
corpore
collectivo
—
Tortus
probat
;
Asseri
enim
Scriptorum
sententia
communi
—
De
regno
etiam
in
Rempublicam
interdum
mutato
apponit
—
Acutus
Homo
non
distinguit
inter
f●rmam
,
atque
Authoritatem
Regiminis
.
Forma
de
hominibus
esse
potest
,
de
Caelo
semper
Authoritas
.
Bishop
Andrews
.
Ad
M.
Torti
librum
Responsio
.
p.
384
,
385.
One
thing
more
and
that
is
the
last
.
But
what
if
a
man
cannot
distinguish
between
the
Concrete
and
the
Abstract
,
the
Qualification
and
the
Power
,
and
so
holds
only
in
grosse
that
God
is
the
prime
Cause
,
and
Men
the
second
Causes
or
Instruments
(
which
is
a
Cause
)
of
the
Power
of
the
Magistrate
.
Suppose
their
conceptions
thus
.
Pilate's
Power
(
says
Christ
)
was
given
him
of
God
,
yet
did
he
hold
it
by
Commission
from
Caesar
.
Gods
Will
is
,
that
Caesar
should
be
Emperour
,
Caesar's
Will
is
,
that
Pilate
should
be
Governour
of
the
Jews
;
Thus
Pilate
hath
his
Power
from
God
.
Real
Sovereignty
in
a
Community
is
Native
and
Immediate
from
God
;
The
personal
Sovereign
is
constituted
by
the
Community
;
Under
Officers
by
the
Prince
;
Thus
all
Power
is
of
God
.
It
may
be
ask'd
then
,
What
prejudice
is
it
,
would
come
to
our
Cause
in
hand
by
this
?
I
answer
,
I
think
the
Nail
is
driven
closer
by
more
blows
,
but
if
it
have
no
more
.
I
suppose
it
will
,
hold
so
long
only
as
we
resolve
Civil
Power
into
the
Will
Institutive
of
God
,
and
not
into
the
Will
of
Man
.
Indeed
we
cannot
(
I
think
)
do
that
cleerly
but
by
this
distinction
,
something
being
left
to
Mans
Will
in
it
,
and
something
not
;
but
if
any
list
to
confound
them
,
and
hold
the
same
thing
more
confusedly
,
or
to
disprove
this
,
and
be
contentious
,
I
am
no
Dogmatical
Opinatour
in
my
conceptions
.
There
is
this
benefit
(
I
will
add
rather
)
may
arise
upon
their
supposition
,
that
the
Original
of
Magistracy
will
lie
more
easy
for
the
common
understanding
then
it
does
.
Civil
Power
hereby
shall
be
Potestas
a
naturali
Orta
,
though
not
Naturalis
;
Neither
shall
there
need
be
for
any
in
the
deriving
the
Power
of
a
Prince
from
God
to
Sweat
so
much
as
to
make
him
a
pedigree
from
Noah
,
that
holds
only
the
Community
have
Potestatem
in
what
they
do
.
God
empowers
the
Community
to
make
the
Constitution
;
The
Constitution
empowers
(
they
may
say
,
designs
I
say
)
the
Magistrate
;
Thus
the
Power
is
of
God
.
Deus
Author
,
Populus
instrumentum
says
Barclay
.
Dicitur
etiam
constituere
Regem
Deus
cum
a
populo
fieri
praecipit
,
quod
potentiam
dominationis
instituto
regi
delatam
ita
confirmat
,
ut
infringi
a
populo
,
aut
infirmari
amplius
,
nulla
ratione
possit
.
l.
2.
c
.
2.
As
there
is
no
more
certain
argument
that
Lands
are
held
under
any
as
Lords
,
then
if
we
see
that
such
Lands
in
defect
of
Heirs
fall
unto
them
by
●●scheat
:
In
like
manner
it
doth
follow
rightly
,
that
seeing
Dominion
when
there
is
none
to
inherit
returneth
to
the
Body
;
therefore
they
which
before
were
Inheritors
thereof
did
hold
it
with
dependency
on
the
Body
,
so
that
by
comparing
the
Body
with
the
Head
as
touching
Power
,
it
seemeth
always
to
reside
in
both
;
Fundamentally
and
Radically
in
the
one
,
in
the
other
Derivatively
;
in
the
one
the
Habit
,
in
the
other
the
act
of
Power
,
says
Mr.
Hooker
,
aptly
well
I
take
it
according
to
other
Political
Writers
,
but
not
perfectly
well
I
think
,
according
as
it
ought
.
It
is
certain
(
to
summ
up
all
this
)
that
this
great
person
and
others
that
write
on
Politicks
and
Laws
as
well
as
he
,
do
seem
●o
give
too
much
to
the
people
when
they
make
the
Power
which
the
Magistrate
hath
,
to
flow
from
them
,
and
revert
to
them
.
Dicendum
est
Potestatem
leges
condendi
ex
sola
rei
natura
in
nullo
singulari
homine
existere
,
sed
in
hominum
collectione
.
Conclusio
est
communis
&
certa
.
Suarez
.
De
Legibus
.
l.
3.
c
.
2.
Again
,
c
.
24.
Cum
immediate
sit
in
Communitate
per
illam
derivata
est
ad
Reges
.
But
we
must
be
allowed
here
to
distinguish
in
their
behalf
.
And
that
first
(
as
I
have
done
)
between
the
Power
it self
,
and
the
Manner
of
the
Government
.
Licet
haec
potestas
absolute
sit
de
jure
naturae
,
determinatio
ejus
ad
certum
modum
potestatis
&
regiminis
est
ex
arbitrio
humano
,
says
the
same
Author
.
For
the
Manner
of
the
Government
they
are
in
the
right
then
,
That
is
,
from
the
people
undoubtedly
.
For
the
Power
it self
,
Distinguish
next
,
between
the
Cause
of
it
:
and
the
Means
through
which
,
or
Condition
upon
which
,
it
flows
.
That
the
peoples
consent
or
agreement
is
the
Condition
which
must
be
first
put
before
the
Power
is
given
,
or
that
there
is
no
ordinary
Means
else
,
whereby
Power
is
conveyed
to
a
person
who
has
no
right
before
,
I
do
hold
also
for
undeniable
:
but
that
the
peoples
Will
is
therefore
the
Cause
efficient
or
Author
of
the
Magistrates
Authority
we
deny
.
By
me
Kings
reign
.
The
Powers
that
be
,
are
of
God
.
When
the
Power
does
then
flow
immediately
from
Gods
Institution
upon
the
consent
of
the
people
being
put
as
the
condition
,
Distinguish
we
again
of
this
consent
or
agreement
,
which
we
may
suppose
to
be
made
by
way
of
Contract
with
the
Prince
:
or
between
themselves
by
way
of
Constitution
.
I
do
apprehend
it
no
less
dangerous
in
Politicks
to
suppose
the
Power
of
the
Prince
derived
to
him
by
way
of
Contract
,
than
to
make
the
people
the
Original
of
it
.
For
if
Power
concredited
to
these
and
these
individuals
be
the
Ordinance
of
men
upon
such
conditions
,
then
the
Prince
breaking
those
conditions
looses
his
Power
,
or
the
Obligation
of
our
Subjection
must
cease
.
Pacta
conventa
legibus
Dei
&
naturae
nituntur
,
a
quibus
nemo
sanus
unquam
reges
exemit
says
Serravia
himself
,
l.
4.
c
.
9.
The
only
thing
therefore
which
is
safe
and
agreeable
,
is
,
to
suppose
this
consent
among
themselves
,
and
to
be
,
that
the
Government
shall
be
Absolute
.
And
so
distinguish
we
lastly
between
a
Power
Constitutive
,
and
Governing
;
a
Power
of
making
Laws
for
the
Administration
,
or
the
Constitution
.
The
people
have
no
Power
which
is
Governing
Power
,
they
can
make
no
Laws
to
Govern
,
or
for
the
Administration
of
the
Government
,
in
rewards
and
punishments
:
but
they
have
Power
and
Liberty
to
choose
their
Government
,
and
Governour
,
and
their
agreement
herein
is
the
Constitution
.
If
they
agree
that
the
Governour
shall
not
be
accountable
to
any
for
his
actions
,
the
Authority
coming
immediately
from
God
according
to
their
Constitution
,
it
must
be
inviolable
,
and
who
can
have
a
word
to
say
for
Resistance
,
Non-Subjection
,
or
Rebellion
?
CHAP.
III
.
The
grand
,
and
more
difficult
Cases
in
point
of
Subjection
as
to
this
Land
,
discussed
freely
,
and
resolved
.
IT
must
be
known
,
if
it
be
not
already
,
that
the
person
,
or
persons
,
in
whom
the
Supreme
authority
does
reside
(
let
it
be
where
it
will
)
has
an
Absolute
and
Universal
power
supposed
to
them
by
the
Word
of
God
,
which
if
it
receive
any
restraint
or
limitation
,
it
is
from
the
Constitution
,
Laws
,
or
original
Agreement
only
of
the
Nation
where
they
are
.
This
must
be
understood
rightly
,
not
in
materiâ
Indefinitâ
(
for
Kings
by
Conquest
that
make
their
own
Charter
(
or
own
Terms
)
are
set
in
the
line
of
the
Law
of
God
and
Nature
,
says
Hooker
)
but
in
materia
Politica
.
And
indeed
that
is
so
necessary
●n
the
nature
of
the
thing
,
that
we
cannot
conceive
a
Power
Supreme
unto
whom
no
man
can
say
What
doest
thou
?
that
is
,
which
is
unaccountable
to
any
other
,
but
it
must
be
free
and
unlimited
.
Not
but
the
Office
is
limited
(
to
use
Dr.
Taylor's
words
)
,
the
Prince
hath
his
duty
set
him
as
well
as
we
,
and
the
Laws
of
God
oblige
him
equally
,
and
that
from
the
penalty
(
he
being
alike
obnoxious
to
it
)
as
the
meanest
person
;
but
the
Power
is
unlimited
(
says
he
)
that
is
any
otherwise
then
by
his
duty
,
and
the
Laws
which
are
Civil
cannot
oblige
him
from
(
or
through
)
the
penalty
,
but
upon
the
account
of
Ingenuity
and
Equity
.
Licet
non
teneatur
ipsius
legis
vi
coactiva
,
tenetur
vi
tamen
quadam
directiva
;
Ratio
siquidem
naturalis
dictat
Principem
legem
istam
servare
quam
is
tulerit
,
says
Coveruvias
.
To
this
agrees
Suarez
De
Legibus
l.
3
c
.
ult
.
And
,
Quae
ex
jure
naturae
dependent
ijs
princeps
etiam
tenetur
,
quia
licet
sit
Dominus
aliorum
,
subditus
tamen
est
Naturae
&
civis
Mundanus
,
is
solidly
spoken
by
Arnisaeus
De
Jur
.
Ma.
l.
1.
c
.
3.
The
Power
is
unlimited
,
I
say
,
as
to
the
word
of
God
(
Take
it
in
its
Proper
matter
,
and
that
Negatively
,
not
Possitively
,
for
Christianity
in
things
of
this
nature
does
not
,
de
novo
ponere
,
but
rather
supponere
)
,
but
it
receives
limits
from
the
Constitution
.
How
far
the
Power
of
Kings
may
extend
says
Mr.
Hooker
(
not
altogether
to
my
thoughts
)
the
Articles
of
Compact
between
them
and
the
people
is
to
shew
,
not
only
those
at
the
beginning
,
which
for
the
most
part
are
worn
out
of
knowledg
,
but
whatsoever
hath
been
after
in
a
voluntary
manner
condescended
to
,
by
positive
Laws
,
or
custom
reaching
beyond
the
Memory
of
Man
.
I
know
to
this
purpose
,
there
is
more
then
one
sort
of
Government
;
and
that
of
Monarchy
,
is
either
Despotical
(
or
Arbitrary
)
according
to
Will
:
Or
Regal
according
to
Law
.
In
the
one
there
is
no
propriety
of
the
Subject
,
therefore
called
Imperium
herile
.
But
the
other
is
of
free
Subjects
,
who
have
propriety
in
their
Estates
and
Goods
.
Such
is
ours
,
when
this
allay
is
so
eminent
,
that
neither
the
Purse
nor
the
Laws
,
is
in
the
Power
of
the
King
but
by
the
Parliament
,
and
that
freely
chosen
by
the
people
.
Upon
this
account
,
there
are
some
great
Laws
in
a
Nation
such
as
Magna
Charta
,
and
Petition
of
right
(
Augustissima
illa
libertatum
Anglicarum
diplomata
&
Sacrae
anchorae
)
in
this
Land
,
which
do
oblige
the
King
more
particularly
,
and
ought
to
be
preserved
inviolable
.
Now
what
if
a
Prince
intrench
upon
these
Laws
,
Put
the
Case
at
the
highest
,
what
if
he
should
violate
them
?
May
the
Subject
take
Arms
,
or
rise
against
him
for
that
?
I
answer
,
if
I
may
distinguish
here
between
the
Kings
own
person
and
government
,
and
those
that
act
under
him
or
are
his
Instruments
,
it
were
more
easy
for
me
to
know
what
to
say
:
But
if
I
must
speak
indiscriminately
,
I
will
speak
as
a
Foole
,
I
think
not
;
seeing
such
Laws
themselves
are
with
us
,
not
Conditio
regnandi
,
but
Sponsiones
prineipis
,
and
who
hath
right
to
ask
him
What
doest
thou
,
or
call
him
to
account
for
it
?
Regum
timendorum
in
proprios
greges
,
Reges
in
ipsos
imperium
est
Jovis
.
Pacta
conventa
no
doubt
(
says
Seravia
)
by
the
Laws
of
God
and
Nature
are
to
be
kept
.
l.
4.
c
.
9.
Quae
vero
si
violari
contingat
ab
eo
cui
summum
Deus
commisit
imperium
,
nullum
esse
supra
supremum
judicem
alium
hic
in
terris
,
qui
eum
judicet
cogatque
in
ordinem
.
l.
4.
c
.
11.
De
Imperandi
authoritate
,
&
Christiana
obedientia
.
It
is
true
there
are
certain
things
the
King
swears
to
in
his
Coronation
Oath
,
but
if
these
be
Conditions
of
his
Reign
or
Crown
,
how
comes
he
to
be
King
,
and
to
Reign
before
he
be
Crowned
?
If
the
Coronation
it self
be
no
condition
(
that
is
causa
sine
qua
non
)
,
how
shall
any
thing
done
at
his
Coronation
?
Coronation
gives
not
the
King
his
Kingdome
,
which
he
hath
jure
haereditario
before
.
Unctio
Regem
factum
significat
,
non
ad
Regnum
jus
addit
,
says
the
Author
Deus
&
Rex
.
If
there
be
conditions
of
Reigning
,
then
may
he
make
a
forfeiture
,
and
be
called
to
account
,
and
how
then
shall
the
great
prerogative
of
the
King
(
as
Lawyers
speak
)
be
,
that
he
can
do
no
wrong
?
The
meaning
whereof
is
,
that
his
Officers
and
those
whom
he
imploys
,
must
see
they
act
according
to
Law
,
or
they
must
answer
for
it
,
but
the
King
himself
is
accountable
to
none
but
God
.
Who
doubts
but
a
Master
may
promise
some
things
to
his
Family
,
and
they
have
a
right
thereby
to
his
dealing
with
them
accordingly
,
whose
Authority
over
his
house
cannot
be
Conditional
,
out
of
question
?
By
the
way
I
gather
,
there
can
be
a
right
which
may
not
be
defended
(
I
mean
by
force
,
if
one
could
do
it
)
.
The
Persian
King
was
most
absolute
,
{αβγδ}
,
and
yet
that
he
took
an
Oath
with
his
Diadem
,
so
that
he
might
not
change
their
Laws
,
we
may
not
only
have
Xenophon
and
Diodorus
,
but
the
Scripture
in
part
to
assure
us
.
And
that
the
Kings
of
Epyre
were
wont
to
take
an
Oath
{αβγδ}
,
to
Govern
by
law
,
as
ours
do
,
Plutarch
may
be
consulted
in
the
life
of
Pyrrhus
.
But
suppose
Conditions
,
and
they
be
broken
,
unto
whom
does
he
make
forfeiture
,
or
who
shall
take
it
?
There
are
in
some
States
Powers
which
are
Coordinate
,
and
there
the
Less
may
joyn
and
bring
the
Greater
to
question
;
and
what
some
Divines
have
said
on
the
13th
.
to
the
Romans
will
be
current
in
those
States
.
But
is
there
any
such
with
us
,
that
derive
not
from
one
that
is
Supreme
?
Who
then
is
it
shall
do
this
?
Not
the
Parliament
,
because
they
are
called
by
the
Kings
Writ
,
and
when
the
Authority
by
which
they
sit
is
from
him
,
they
cannot
be
Empowred
by
that
in
any
act
that
is
over
him
.
Nay
,
will
they
derive
the
Power
from
the
Constitution
with
himself
,
though
he
calls
them
?
if
he
forfeits
yet
,
and
ceases
to
be
King
,
they
must
cease
also
,
and
be
no
Parliament
with
him
.
The
Parliament
then
cannot
do
this
as
a
Parliament
.
Nor
can
any
Magistrate
or
Officer
,
as
so
,
for
the
same
reason
.
Nor
yet
any
subject
,
as
Subjects
,
for
that
is
contrary
to
all
Order
and
Duty
,
and
a
destruction
of
the
fifth
Commandment
.
What
then
can
be
said
?
Why
this
only
,
that
the
forfeiture
is
made
to
the
Community
(
which
is
properly
the
Matter
of
a
Commonwealth
before
they
have
●orm
)
not
under
any
other
relation
,
but
as
a
Community
,
and
they
must
take
it
.
If
this
be
said
,
then
cannot
any
part
,
or
party
,
take
Arms
against
the
King
,
it
must
be
confessed
,
not
only
because
that
he
is
Major
singulis
will
be
granted
,
but
because
that
is
not
the
Community
.
And
if
it
must
be
the
whole
,
as
he
is
held
Minor
Universis
,
then
can
I
conceive
of
what
is
said
very
easily
,
in
the
notion
;
but
really
it
is
a
thing
indeed
never
to
be
done
.
For
if
there
must
be
at
least
the
Major
vote
or
consent
of
the
Community
,
how
shall
this
consent
be
given
?
who
shall
gather
them
together
,
or
take
their
votes
?
If
any
undertake
it
,
they
must
be
men
in
Power
,
others
cannot
:
But
the
present
Power
that
any
have
in
their
hands
is
derived
from
him
,
and
they
cannot
use
it
against
him
.
Nay
they
cannot
act
by
it
,
but
they
justify
it
.
It
is
unjust
to
act
by
his
Authority
,
if
it
be
forfeit
.
How
!
Act
by
it
,
to
the
denial
of
it
?
They
cannot
act
then
by
any
Authority
they
have
to
rise
against
him
,
the
Cause
of
it
,
and
they
have
no
other
to
act
by
;
and
consequently
they
cannot
act
at
all
.
Again
,
whosoever
they
be
rise
first
they
are
but
single
persons
,
a
part
,
a
party
,
or
at
most
a
multitude
,
and
as
a
part
or
single
multitude
they
cannot
do
it
,
will
be
granted
.
The
Sword
does
signifie
defensionem
Regni
&
patriae
,
says
Bracton
,
and
no
man
as
a
private
person
bears
that
.
As
the
whole
,
they
cannot
rise
together
,
as
a
part
they
may
not
;
and
so
is
the
thing
never
to
be
done
.
I
will
add
,
if
there
be
any
thing
yet
,
you
may
conceive
kept
in
;
That
,
there
are
the
Oaths
of
Allegiance
and
Supremacy
have
passed
over
the
Nation
;
the
tenour
of
these
Oaths
runs
absolute
,
which
will
hold
those
that
have
taken
them
under
the
State
and
Capacity
of
Subjects
:
and
consequently
neither
can
the
Sovereign
make
a
forfeit
,
nor
the
inferiour
judg
the
superiour
according
to
the
light
of
Nature
.
What
then
may
the
King
act
Arbitrarily
?
God
forbid
?
I
say
first
,
Let
him
take
heed
,
he
is
therefore
Sworn
to
the
Laws
,
that
being
not
lyable
to
man
,
he
should
stand
bound
toward
God
.
I
can
say
next
,
that
no
Subject
but
may
choose
if
he
command
contrary
to
Law
to
obey
him
,
as
he
must
not
rise
against
him
And
that
is
perhaps
bridle
enough
to
Sacred
Majesty
that
if
any
do
serve
his
Arbitrary
Will
,
he
shall
suffer
for
it
as
against
the
Kings
Royal
Crown
and
Dignity
,
though
it
be
by
personal
command
.
The
Case
of
Empson
and
Dudley
is
known
in
the
Law
and
our
Chronicles
.
It
is
the
Kings
Legal
,
not
Personal
command
in
point
of
inconsistency
,
binds
the
Subject
.
But
what
if
any
regard
not
that
,
and
he
persist
in
his
Will
?
We
must
wait
for
a
Parliament
,
and
there
we
are
provided
of
redress
against
such
men
.
But
what
if
he
shall
not
hearken
to
his
Parliament
?
Then
may
they
with-hold
the
Subjects
Purse
in
supply
of
his
wants
.
And
thus
far
hath
the
Constitution
of
our
State
put
the
reins
into
the
Subjects
hands
toward
the
bridling
personal
Majesty
to
his
Laws
.
But
what
if
he
shall
thereupon
dissolve
the
Parliament
,
and
take
by
Force
what
he
cannot
have
by
Law
?
I
will
premise
here
,
that
some
(
and
not
the
unlearned
)
who
have
handled
this
question
,
and
maintain
that
the
people
are
not
upon
any
cause
to
take
Arms
against
their
lawful
Sovereign
,
do
come
in
the
stating
the
matter
to
distinguish
between
a
King
and
a
Tyrant
;
a
Tyrant
in
Title
and
Act
;
and
Tyranusin
exercitio
they
will
account
does
exuere
personam
Regis
,
and
excidere
de
jure
,
etsi
haereditario
.
Legitimae
potestati
propter
Deum
&
conscientias
obligamur
,
in
Tyranno
verò
nihil
ordinatum
a
Deo
,
sed
omnia
Deo
adversa
&
reipublicae
detrimentosa
,
says
Heningus
Arnisaeus
.
Regimen
tyrannicum
(
says
Aquinas
)
non
est
justum
quia
non
ordinatum
ad
bonum
Commune
,
&
ideo
perturbatio
huj●s
non
habet
rationem
seditionis
,
nisi
sic
inordinate
fiat
quod
majus
detrimentum
sequatur
.
22ae
q.
42.
Art.
2.
De
isto
tyranno
qui
justum
habet
titulum
,
sed
exercitio
apparet
tyrannus
incidit
in
legem
Juliam
de
vi
publica
.
Bartolus
Consil
.
lib
.
trac
.
6.
Quod
scribis
(
says
Barclay
to
Boucher
)
rempublicam
posse
eum
occidere
qui
in
ipsam
hostiliter
agit
(
si
intelligatur
de
illo
qui
hostili
animo
,
sive
animo
perdendi
rempublicam
agit
)
verissimum
est
;
sed
non
ea
ratione
quia
populus
principe
superior
sit
,
publicaque
penes
populum
potestas
resideat
:
Sed
ea
solum
ratione
,
quod
quia
perdendae
reipublicae
animum
gerit
,
is
semet
dominatu
&
principatu
omni
exuit
,
atque
ipso
jure
,
sive
ipso
facto
,
Rex
esse
desinit
.
In
that
noted
Book
Adversus
Monarchomacos
.
Num
igitur
obstrinxit
se
scelere
(
says
Cicero
)
si
quis
tyrannum
occidit
?
Populo
quidem
Romano
non
videtur
,
qui
ex
omnibus
praeclaris
factis
illud
pulcherimum
factum
existimat
.
In
that
Classick
Book
of
his
De
Officiis
.
Enim
verò
maximas
injurias
inferunt
homines
propter
cupiditates
im
moderatas
,
&
non
propter
res
necessarias
:
Verbi
gratia
tyrannidem
occupant
,
populumque
impio
dominatu
opprimunt
,
non
ut
ne
algeant
,
sed
ut
suas
libidines
impune
expleant
.
Idcircò
magna
praemia
praeposita
sunt
,
non
ei
qui
furem
,
sed
ei
qui
Tyrannum
occideret
,
(
says
Aristotle
in
his
Politicks
)
l.
2.
c
.
5.
He
is
the
Minister
of
God
for
thy
good
saith
St.
Paul
,
otherwise
he
is
not
Gods
Minister
,
and
hath
to
other
purposes
none
of
Gods
Power
.
Dr.
Taylor
Cas
.
l.
3.
p.
35.
As
for
them
(
says
Hooker
accordingly
)
that
exercise
Power
altogether
against
order
(
or
more
then
ever
they
did
receive
)
although
the
kind
of
Power
which
they
have
may
be
of
God
,
yet
is
their
exercise
thereof
against
God
,
and
therefore
not
of
God
,
otherwise
then
by
permission
,
as
all
injustice
is
:
and
cannot
in
Conscience
(
at
the
end
of
the
same
page
)
bind
any
man
to
Obedience
.
I
will
not
here
cite
the
famous
Bilson
,
I
shall
have
occasion
to
do
it
after
,
nor
Bishop
Jewel
,
which
two
are
noted
by
the
late
King
in
his
papers
to
Henderson
:
But
I
will
return
to
that
learned
French
man
at
first
named
,
who
besides
two
other
books
of
Politicks
,
hath
writen
one
on
purpose
.
De
authoritate
principum
in
populum
semper
inviolabili
,
and
yet
does
thus
determine
.
Traditur
Respublica
principi
in
eum
finem
ut
illi
praesit
in
salutem
omnium
,
a
quo
si
prorsus
desciverit
,
etiam
de
potestate
cadit
,
quam
non
alio
sine
sibi
commissam
habebat
.
I
speak
this
,
and
produce
these
Testimonies
thus
liberally
,
for
the
sake
of
some
peaceable
Spirits
(
and
it
may
be
over-strict
Consciences
)
who
are
,
or
have
been
haply
,
look'd
upon
as
refractory
persons
,
in
forbearing
compliance
to
certain
late
Impositions
,
only
because
they
having
read
more
,
could
not
Swallow
some
unlimited
Words
so
easily
as
others
did
that
considered
less
of
them
.
But
then
,
as
for
my self
,
I
say
first
to
the
question
,
This
is
never
to
be
supposed
of
our
King
;
and
next
I
have
spoken
before
,
that
Majesty
in
our
State
I
conceive
such
,
as
can
make
no
forfeiture
.
It
is
not
Potestas
sub
conditione
,
and
if
the
Prince
might
excidere
de
jure
,
he
cannot
excidere
de
possessione
,
where
there
is
none
to
take
the
forfeit
,
or
call
him
to
account
for
his
doings
.
Omnes
quidem
sub
eo
,
&
ipse
sub
nullo
(
says
Bracton
)
nisi
tantum
sub
Deo
.
Si
ab
eo
peccatur
(
so
one
reads
it
,
not
petatur
)
,
locus
erit
supplicationi
quòd
factum
suum
corrigat
&
emendet
,
quod
quidem
si
non
fecerit
,
satis
erit
ei
ad
paenam
quod
Dominum
expectet
Ultorem
:
Nemo
enim
de
factis
suis
praesumat
disquirere
,
multó
minus
contra
factum
suum
venire
.
I
will
add
in
reference
to
the
Drs
,
the
Divines
I
have
named
,
leaving
the
Heathen
Orator
and
Philosopher
to
their
higher
sayings
.
As
in
Divinity
they
say
of
Natural
Power
which
is
properly
{αβγδ}
or
potentia
,
that
posse
malum
,
non
est
posse
(
it
is
not
the
Power
,
which
is
Strength
or
Ability
,
but
Impotence
)
So
may
we
affirm
as
rightly
of
Civil
Power
,
which
is
{αβγδ}
or
Potestas
,
The
Powers
that
be
,
are
ordained
for
our
good
:
That
Power
which
is
not
for
our
good
,
(
that
is
the
exercise
of
it
,
for
the
Powers
themselves
are
of
God
and
cannot
be
otherwise
)
is
not
Power
but
Violence
;
It
is
not
the
Power
which
is
jus
Imperandi
,
or
which
God
grants
.
It
is
unlawful
,
injustum
and
not
jus
,
and
so
in
foro
interiori
truly
unobligatory
.
But
when
I
say
and
yeild
this
,
I
apprehend
here
some
distinction
.
It
is
unlawful
,
to
wit
,
Morally
,
as
null
,
and
accountable
to
God
:
but
not
Politically
,
as
to
be
resisted
by
the
people
.
Bodin
de
Republica
lib
.
2.
thus
states
this
whole
matter
.
There
is
the
Usurper
of
Sovereignty
,
and
the
lawful
Sovereign
,
whether
by
Succession
,
Election
,
Conquest
,
Lot
,
or
especial
Vocation
.
The
lawful
Sovereign
is
either
Absolute
or
not
.
And
there
is
the
Stranger
,
or
the
Subject
.
For
the
Usurper
he
will
have
him
slain
,
so
that
the
prescription
of
a
hundred
years
shall
hardly
save
him
.
For
the
Lawful
Sovereign
,
if
he
tyrannizes
over
his
Subjects
and
is
not
absolute
,
he
may
be
proceeded
against
by
Justice
,
or
Force
,
as
the
States
of
the
Empire
have
done
by
the
Emperour
,
and
so
Rome
and
Venice
.
If
the
Sovereign
be
absolute
and
perverts
the
Laws
of
God
and
Man
,
there
is
the
Stranger
,
who
is
of
Force
,
as
some
Neighbour
Potentate
,
and
he
(
he
counts
)
may
come
Heroically
to
chastize
such
a
person
,
by
the
example
of
Hercules
,
Dion
,
Timolen
,
Tamerlan
,
and
the
like
.
But
for
the
Subject
,
where
the
Sovereign
is
absolute
and
a
true
Monarch
,
such
as
(
he
says
)
in
Spain
,
France
,
and
England
,
it
is
not
lawful
to
attempt
any
thing
against
them
,
their
Life
and
Dignity
,
be
they
never
so
Wicked
.
The
conclusion
comes
to
our
purpose
,
yet
will
I
put
in
some
exceptions
.
1.
For
the
Usurper
,
This
great
Lawyer
it
seems
had
not
learned
to
distinguish
the
Power
it self
which
is
of
God
,
and
his
righteous
dispose
for
the
deserts
and
iniquities
of
men
,
from
mans
Usurpation
.
A
Submission
to
the
one
under
due
Circumstances
,
is
no
approbation
of
the
other
.
Probantur
arma
sumpta
in
tyrannos
in
titulo
(
says
Arnisaeus
)
sed
non
a
subditis
,
verum
ab
extraneis
,
aut
injustè
oppressis
.
2.
For
the
Stranger
I
make
a
stand
,
what
has
he
to
do
,
who
hath
neither
Interest
nor
Authority
,
to
come
and
meddle
with
anothers
Kingdom
?
{αβγδ}
is
forbidden
.
3.
This
volumnious
French
man
had
taken
up
what
he
says
of
our
Government
from
discourse
only
(
as
he
tells
himself
)
with
one
of
our
Countreymen
,
and
when
he
makes
England
an
absolute
Monarchy
,
he
does
yet
lay
down
his
marks
or
rights
of
Sovereignty
so
,
as
will
make
it
not
absolute
.
For
the
first
and
chief
is
,
the
making
Laws
,
which
he
will
not
have
enough
,
unless
it
be
without
consent
of
others
,
either
greater
,
equal
,
or
lesser
then
himself
;
when
we
all
know
,
there
passes
no
Laws
with
us
,
but
they
are
Enacted
by
the
King
,
with
the
consent
of
both
Houses
,
and
Authority
of
the
same
.
4.
Though
he
treats
of
a
Government
Lordly
and
Regal
,
and
puts
the
difference
right
as
to
the
Subjects
,
that
in
the
one
they
have
their
Natural
liberty
and
propriety
,
and
in
the
other
not
:
Yet
,
as
it
seems
to
me
,
does
he
not
touch
the
chief
string
;
The
Royal
Monarch
,
he
says
,
is
one
that
yeilds
Obedience
to
the
Laws
of
God
and
Nature
,
as
he
expects
his
Subjects
should
to
him
:
But
so
may
the
Despotical
Monarch
.
The
String
that
should
be
touched
(
if
the
Harp
of
their
French
Commonwealth
were
not
set
too
high
)
is
the
Law
of
the
Land
,
Will
he
have
his
Monarch
to
be
subject
to
,
or
over
that
?
We
are
not
so
shy
perhaps
as
he
.
Omne
Imperium
sub
Deo
.
Rex
sub
Deo
&
sub
Lege
.
Princeps
est
ubi
dominatur
Lex
,
Dominus
ubi
voluntas
.
The
Courts
of
Chancery
or
Law
can
avoid
his
Majesties
Charters
which
are
passed
against
Law
;
for
the
King
is
subject
to
the
Law
and
sworn
to
maintain
it
,
says
Judg
Jenkins
.
In
his
works
.
p.
48.
And
yet
though
we
hold
the
King
is
bound
to
Govern
,
as
we
to
obey
him
,
according
to
Law
,
that
hinders
him
not
from
being
an
absolute
Prince
,
because
we
make
not
that
a
condition
of
his
being
King
,
but
a
necessity
of
his
Kingdom
;
that
is
the
Manner
of
our
Constitution
will
hold
him
to
it
,
but
takes
no
forfeit
on
him
upon
de
failure
.
There
is
the
Constitution
it self
of
any
State
,
and
the
Laws
built
upon
it
.
As
for
the
Constitution
it self
,
there
is
no
personal
Sovereign
whatsoever
but
he
is
sub
Lege
in
that
respect
;
The
Constitution
prescribes
to
him
how
he
shall
Govern
.
But
as
for
the
Laws
hereupon
for
the
administration
which
are
nothing
else
indeed
but
the
Will
of
the
Supreme
about
the
people
so
Governed
,
it
must
be
acknowledged
that
when
a
Government
is
Despotical
,
or
the
State
a
pure
State
,
the
absolute
Monarch
in
Politicks
is
over
the
Laws
,
because
every
Man
is
Lord
of
his
own
Will
:
When
in
a
mixt
State
,
as
ours
,
where
the
Laws
are
not
the
Will
of
one
solely
,
but
All
,
in
the
consent
of
their
Representatives
,
the
Monarch
here
must
be
sub
Lege
,
as
to
these
Laws
also
,
which
is
in
it self
clear
.
Neither
does
it
follow
because
a
Prince
is
not
absolute
with
an
absoluteness
proper
to
Lordly
Rule
,
or
a
pure
State
,
which
is
hurtful
both
to
Prince
and
People
(
when
he
may
do
what
he
please
with
the
Laws
,
)
that
he
is
not
absolute
with
an
absoluteness
proper
to
a
mixt
State
,
which
is
so
equally
attempered
to
the
safety
of
the
Prince
and
people
,
that
he
can
neither
violence
them
,
while
he
is
to
Rule
by
the
Laws
which
themselves
have
chosen
:
Nor
can
he
be
violenced
by
them
,
while
his
Officers
are
obnoxious
(
that
they
may
not
dare
to
act
under
him
but
according
to
Law
only
)
but
in
himself
left
unaccountable
to
any
but
God
for
the
transgression
.
I
must
not
pass
over
this
yet
.
The
case
put
is
about
Arbitrariness
of
Power
.
We
own
Absoluteness
,
not
Arbitrariness
.
This
requires
our
care
.
Let
our
forreign
Writers
plead
to
us
Tyranni
&
Regis
parem
esse
licentiam
,
illud
solum
interesse
—
To
wit
,
that
between
a
King
and
a
Tyrant
there
is
no
difference
but
in
their
Title
,
and
end
of
governing
.
Tyrannus
erit
qui
negligit
&
subvertit
bonum
publicum
habitâ
tantum
ratione
sui
commodi
.
Arnisaeus
in
his
Doctrina
politica
c
.
9.
{αβγδ}
,
is
Tyrannis
in
Arist
.
Pol
.
l.
4.
c
.
10.
We
shall
grant
them
,
this
indeed
is
one
thing
,
wherein
they
ordinarily
differ
,
to
wit
in
their
ends
.
The
one
regardeth
the
Wealth
of
his
Commons
,
the
other
the
advancement
of
himself
,
his
Faction
and
Kindred
,
as
Sr.
Thomas
Smith
speaks
.
But
the
formal
reason
of
Tyranny
as
it
differs
from
Royalty
in
a
mixed
State
,
I
must
place
herein
,
that
the
one
does
govern
by
Law
,
so
as
therein
he
is
Subject
to
it
(
which
is
Hooker's
Doctrine
as
the
Judges
before
)
or
under
it
:
the
other
breaketh
Laws
already
made
,
at
his
pleasure
,
and
maketh
other
without
advice
and
consent
of
his
people
,
as
the
named
Secretary
to
two
of
our
Princes
(
and
thereby
fitted
to
suite
his
definition
to
our
State
)
does
express
it
;
and
accordingly
does
add
,
One
may
be
a
King
in
his
entry
of
the
Government
,
and
a
Tyrant
in
the
administration
.
De
Rep.
Ang.
l.
1.
c
.
7.
Happier
that
people
(
are
the
words
of
Hooker
from
Archytas
)
whose
Law
is
their
King
in
the
greatest
things
,
then
that
,
whose
King
is
himself
their
Law
.
Out
of
the
same
Author
he
adds
,
where
this
order
is
not
,
a
King
groweth
to
be
a
Tyrant
.
Indeed
there
will
be
a
ground
laid
by
us
,
both
of
danger
and
error
if
we
distinguish
not
of
places
.
In
a
Government
truly
Regal
,
to
become
Arbitrary
is
Tyranny
:
In
a
Government
that
is
Lordly
,
Tyranny
it
is
certain
,
must
be
somewhat
else
.
Let
it
be
what
Bodin
or
any
of
these
mentioned
will
make
it
.
We
have
this
advantage
in
our
Temperature
,
that
when
in
a
Lordly
government
the
people
may
call
any
Prince
of
theirs
Tyrant
,
whensoever
they
are
in
effect
but
disaffected
,
and
have
strength
,
they
cannot
do
so
in
ours
.
It
is
easie
surely
for
them
to
say
their
Prince
regards
only
himself
,
his
pleasure
and
profit
,
and
neglects
the
common
Good
,
and
so
expose
him
to
the
hate
and
consequences
of
that
Name
.
But
it
will
be
hard
for
any
ever
to
affirm
of
a
Prince
of
ours
,
that
the
Habitual
,
Constant
,
Predominant
,
tenour
of
his
Rule
and
Government
here
is
not
according
to
the
Law
of
the
Realm
,
by
,
and
under
regulation
of
it
.
In
this
definition
then
of
Tyranny
,
I
consult
the
safety
of
my
Prince
,
Quod
adprimè
est
utile
,
and
ought
to
be
well
taken
.
I
know
moreover
such
Writers
who
are
concerned
especially
in
the
French
State
do
speak
high
,
that
there
is
no
true
absolute
Monarch
,
who
is
not
above
his
whole
people
and
the
Laws
also
;
and
they
cite
Aristotle
to
this
effect
.
Ubi
Leges
Dominantur
negat
,
Aristoteles
verum
&
absolutum
Regem
esse
.
But
the
learned
in
the
Customs
and
Laws
of
our
Nation
will
speak
just
contrary
.
Non
est
Rex
ubi
dominatur
voluntas
non
Lex
.
The
Sr.
Thomas
before
mentioned
and
Buddeus
(
which
is
but
the
same
book
in
Latin
)
do
tell
us
of
a
double
Government
a
{αβγδ}
,
and
{αβγδ}
,
The
last
he
Englishes
a
Royal
Power
regulated
by
Laws
,
which
he
mentions
I
apprehend
as
a
Portraiture
de
industria
of
ours
.
If
Aristotle
then
speaks
as
he
is
cited
(
which
I
have
found
not
at
once
looking
)
I
do
suppose
he
means
it
of
the
former
of
these
Governments
a
{αβγδ}
,
and
so
I
will
take
the
words
of
Austin
,
Imperatorem
non
esse
subjectum
legibus
qui
habet
in
po●estate
alias
leges
ferre
,
cited
by
Barclay
when
he
is
contending
that
a
King
cannot
be
subject
to
the
Laws
,
meaning
so
as
to
be
compelled
by
them
.
But
as
for
a
{αβγδ}
,
where
the
Leges
ferre
does
not
lie
in
Potestate
of
one
solely
(
as
it
does
not
with
us
)
I
must
by
this
Counsellour's
leave
,
take
the
boldness
upon
me
to
distinguish
between
sub
Lege
esse
,
and
cogi
posse
;
Legibus
astringi
,
and
a
populo
judicari
.
As
there
is
a
difference
between
a
pure
and
a
mixt
State
:
So
is
there
(
as
is
before
intimated
)
in
the
absoluteness
of
the
Monarch
,
according
to
one
,
and
the
other
.
A
mixt
(
mollis
gentle
)
absoluteness
will
think
it
enough
to
be
Soluta
(
free
)
from
the
one
,
when
a
pure
(
rigid
)
absoluteness
will
be
Soluta
from
both
of
them
.
Let
Bodin
and
Henningus
who
are
French
,
and
the
learned
Scot
mentioned
,
being
a
Consilijs
to
that
King
,
advance
their
Monarch
to
a
Power
so
absolute
that
he
may
say
what
our
Richard
the
Second
was
accused
of
his
Nobles
for
saying
,
that
the
Law
was
on
his
head
,
it
shall
be
the
glory
of
our
Nation
,
that
we
live
not
under
such
a
torrid
,
but
more
temporate
Zone
of
Absoluteness
,
while
our
Monarch
is
contented
to
yeild
himself
to
an
astringi
legibus
,
and
sub
lege
esse
,
so
long
as
he
is
yeilded
by
us
to
be
Solutus
from
a
Cogi
posse
,
and
a
populo
indicari
.
Et
quod
sub
Lege
esse
debeat
,
cum
sit
Dei
vicarius
,
enidcnter
apparet
,
ad
similitudinem
Jesu
,
qui
cum
ad
reparandum
humanum
genus
in
effabiliter
ei
multa
suppeterent
,
hanc
potissimùm
elegit
viam
,
quasi
ad
destruendum
opus
Diaboli
,
non
virtute
uteretur
potentiae
sed
justitiae
ratione
;
&
sic
Voluit
esse
sub
lege
(
Here
strech
not
the
Simile
beyond
the
Staple
(
ut
eus
qui
sub
lege
erant
redimerit
.
Noluit
enim
uti
viribus
sed
ratione
&
judicio
.
Bracton
.
If
any
then
will
still
press
me
with
the
French
Politicks
,
and
what
I
have
noted
in
my
third
exception
to
Bodin
,
who
holds
that
no
Prince
is
absolute
but
he
who
hath
the
sole
Power
of
Legislation
,
and
yet
that
our
Prince
is
an
absolute
Prince
,
I
will
make
an
end
with
him
at
once
.
An
absolute
Monarch
accipiatur
dupliciter
.
Either
we
may
understand
by
it
,
One
in
whom
the
Sovereignty
is
solely
and
fully
,
wholly
and
altogether
placed
:
or
One
whose
Dominion
is
not
held
upon
Condition
.
In
the
first
sense
there
is
no
Prince
in
a
mixt
Government
can
be
an
absolute
Monarch
,
for
the
constitution
of
a
mixt
State
does
place
the
Supreme
Power
or
rights
of
Majesty
in
him
with
others
.
The
most
high
and
absolute
Power
of
the
Realm
of
England
consisteth
in
the
Parliament
,
says
Smith
,
l.
2.
c
.
2.
But
that
our
Princes
of
England
are
absolute
in
the
second
sense
,
to
wit
,
that
no
Mortal
can
take
Arms
against
them
upon
pretence
of
non-performance
of
the
conditions
of
their
reigning
,
it
is
that
we
stand
upon
,
as
what
pro
virili
,
tam
Mercurio
,
quam
Marte
,
is
to
be
maintained
.
To
proceed
.
But
what
think
we
of
the
great
case
between
the
King
and
Parliament
in
the
late
War
?
Is
it
not
lawful
to
take
Arms
in
such
a
case
?
For
the
scanning
hereof
indifferently
,
The
ground
of
this
Case
hath
been
placed
I
suppose
by
most
of
the
Sober
,
in
their
apprehension
of
a
Co-ordination
of
Powers
,
not
well
understood
.
They
have
supposed
the
Government
to
be
a
mixt
Government
in
regard
of
division
of
Power
;
As
if
the
Tres
ordines
hujus
Regni
,
were
tres
Potestates
,
as
the
several
States
united
in
the
Netherlands
:
Or
at
least
as
if
one
part
thereof
lay
in
the
King
,
another
in
the
Peers
,
another
in
the
Commons
,
and
each
party
were
to
defend
his
own
.
Now
when
in
some
forreign
States
there
are
petty
Powers
who
depend
not
on
those
that
are
greater
,
but
are
distinct
,
and
so
have
jus
gladij
(
if
they
dare
use
it
)
in
case
of
wrong
against
the
greater
:
Many
have
been
apt
to
judg
likewise
,
that
the
Lords
,
or
Commons
,
or
inferiour
Magistrates
may
do
the
like
here
,
when
they
concluded
the
people
,
of
themselves
(
bearing
not
the
Sword
)
might
not
.
Upon
such
a
conception
perhaps
as
this
,
the
Wars
were
not
the
first
of
that
Nature
which
have
been
in
this
Nation
.
But
there
is
an
handsomer
conception
of
our
Government
,
as
a
mixt
Government
then
this
.
The
three
usual
sorts
of
Government
being
found
to
degenerate
ordinarily
from
pure
into
their
extrams
,
a
mixt
Government
hath
been
invented
as
better
then
any
one
of
the
other
,
called
a
Free-State
.
A
Government
is
mixt
in
regard
of
placing
the
Supreme
Power
.
There
are
three
Estates
in
our
Land
.
Suppose
these
as
some
would
have
it
,
the
King
,
Lords
and
Commons
Let
these
three
then
,
as
thus
conceived
(
though
without
any
stress
at
all
on
the
word
Estates
)
be
look'd
on
as
one
person
,
and
the
Supreme
Power
to
reside
in
them
joyntly
as
one
.
The
King
is
a
chief
part
(
says
Lawson
)
and
may
not
any
more
be
divided
from
his
Parliament
than
from
himself
.
The
Supreme
Power
according
to
this
is
but
one
and
indivisible
,
and
the
jura
Majestatis
shews
where
it
lies
.
Legislation
,
the
Dominium
eminens
as
to
the
Subjects
purse
we
know
lies
not
in
the
King
alone
.
Where
the
last
Appeal
too
lies
we
know
;
and
if
the
Militia
were
layn
with
its
fellows
,
it
would
do
the
King
not
a
jot
of
hurt
in
this
notion
,
wherein
he
and
his
two
Houses
make
but
one
,
and
when
they
are
dissolv'd
it
rests
in
him
altogether
for
Execution
.
Now
if
the
Supreme
Power
be
in
these
three
identified
not
several
,
(
that
is
,
not
in
King
,
Lords
,
and
Commons
apart
,
but
in
the
Corporation
together
)
then
cannot
they
be
co-ordinate
Powers
,
and
the
Parliament
consequently
can
do
nothing
without
him
,
which
resolves
the
case
.
A
Parliament
(
says
Judg
Jenkins
,
is
a
Body
composed
of
a
King
their
Head
,
the
Lords
and
Commons
the
Members
;
all
three
together
make
one
Body
,
and
that
is
the
Parliament
,
and
no
other
.
p.
80.
There
is
such
an
incorporation
as
cannot
be
dissolved
without
the
destruction
of
both
,
saith
Mr.
Pym
in
his
charge
.
This
agrees
with
our
Laws
,
and
the
Law
of
the
Land
.
p.
168.
Again
.
The
two
Houses
can
make
no
Court
without
the
King
.
Before
the
Norman
Conquest
and
since
to
this
day
the
King
is
Principium
,
Caput
,
&
Finis
Parliamenti
.
It
appears
by
the
treatise
de
modo
tenendi
Parliamenta
in
the
Confessors
days
;
By
the
Writ
of
Summons
,
whereby
the
Treaty
or
Parler
in
Parliament
is
to
be
had
with
the
King
only
;
By
the
Oath
of
Supremacy
taken
at
every
Parliament
,
It
doeth
appear
manifestly
that
without
the
King
there
can
be
no
colour
of
a
Parliament
.
p.
148.
It
is
objected
by
Mr.
Prin
,
The
Parliament
can
enlarge
the
Kings
Prerogative
,
and
therefore
it
is
above
him
.
The
Judg
answers
,
If
the
King
assent
,
otherwise
not
.
p.
48
,
This
I
apprehend
short
.
Yea
,
it
must
not
be
the
Power
of
the
Parliament
quâ
Parliament
,
that
is
,
of
King
and
both
Houses
together
,
either
to
shorten
or
enlarge
Sovereignty
,
because
the
rights
of
the
personal
Sovereign
,
or
Qualification
of
the
Power
,
does
derive
from
the
Constitution
of
a
Nation
,
which
is
the
only
standing
,
grand
,
original
Act
of
the
Community
:
And
the
Constitution
must
be
above
the
Parliament
,
being
that
,
by
Vertue
whereof
,
we
must
suppose
them
to
act
,
and
to
be
.
Indeed
the
King
in
Parliament
is
in
some
sense
above
himself
,
and
above
the
Laws
made
by
them
,
but
not
above
the
Constitution
,
which
is
the
predominant
Law
(
a
thing
at
least
that
is
still
to
be
supposed
as
though
it
were
extant
)
and
must
controul
all
.
Upon
this
account
,
or
bottom
,
is
there
a
Solidity
in
the
Lawyers
advancing
ancient
Usage
to
that
pitch
they
do
,
when
otherwise
,
Dies
diem
docet
,
and
latter
reasons
,
have
the
more
years
.
The
Opponent
and
Defendant
therefore
,
both
of
them
in
earnest
,
are
out
here
in
their
Law
,
if
they
think
a
Parliament
though
with
consent
of
the
King
can
do
so
.
By
this
answer
,
or
by
nothing
,
is
Majesty
rendred
fixt
,
permanent
,
and
indeed
inviolable
;
beyond
the
reach
of
yesterday
,
and
not
obnoxious
to
any
Mortal
or
Mortals
,
but
to
the
Will
and
Power
of
God
only
.
You
may
say
A
Parliament
with
the
King
may
do
any
thing
,
they
can
do
this
therefore
,
and
if
they
please
set
up
a
new
Government
.
I
answer
,
I
deny
it
.
You
,
may
persist
,
The
whole
people
may
set
up
what
Government
they
please
,
and
consequently
cast
off
any
.
But
the
Parliament
are
Representatives
of
the
whole
People
:
I
reply
,
the
people
may
be
considered
as
a
Community
,
or
as
a
Commonwealth
.
The
People
in
the
capacity
of
a
Community
may
indeed
at
first
agree
upon
what
form
of
Government
they
will
,
but
in
the
capacity
of
a
Commonwealth
they
can
do
no
such
matter
.
The
reason
is
,
because
as
a
Community
they
are
supposed
to
be
in
a
State
of
liberty
:
but
when
they
are
brought
under
an
order
of
Superiority
and
Inferiority
,
that
is
to
be
a
Commonwealth
,
they
are
supposed
to
have
contracted
one
with
another
,
and
must
stand
to
their
agreement
.
The
Parliament
now
are
Representatives
of
the
people
as
a
Commonwealth
,
not
as
a
Community
.
The
people
are
here
Pars
subdita
,
and
cannot
meddle
with
Government
:
Their
Representarives
(
who
with
the
King
are
Pars
imperans
)
are
chosen
for
Commonwealth
purposes
,
and
when
they
can
make
Laws
,
for
the
Administration
,
they
can
make
none
(
as
Waters
can
never
arise
higher
then
the
Spring
from
whence
they
come
)
but
in
subordination
to
the
Constitution
.
If
the
whole
Nation
therefore
with
the
King
would
change
the
Government
.
He
with
his
two
Houses
must
give
up
the
Supreme
Authority
,
and
when
they
have
declared
a
Dissolution
of
the
State
,
the
people
are
turned
into
a
Community
,
and
may
come
to
a
new
Agreement
.
The
King
then
and
the
Forty
Counties
,
indeed
might
do
this
,
but
not
the
King
and
Parliament
.
Thus
much
from
that
Judg
occasionally
,
to
this
purpose
,
though
not
on
this
account
.
But
if
our
Government
be
a
mixt
Government
(
which
is
the
thing
we
are
upon
)
not
really
in
the
Constitution
,
but
nominally
,
in
regard
of
some
Acts
of
Administration
,
it
is
another
matter
.
I
know
there
may
be
a
dispute
held
about
the
three
Estates
in
Parliament
,
whether
the
King
is
to
be
reckoned
as
one
of
those
Estates
or
no
?
That
he
is
,
there
is
a
Royal
precedent
,
and
the
transactions
of
the
late
times
,
as
is
known
,
in
the
late
Kings
answer
to
the
Parliaments
19
Propositions
.
There
is
perhaps
to
the
reason
of
the
thing
it self
;
The
three
Estates
assembled
in
Parliament
may
possibly
be
nothing
else
but
the
three
States
of
Government
there
assembled
,
or
comprized
in
that
assembly
.
The
three
States
of
Government
are
Monarchy
,
Aristocracy
,
Democracy
:
How
shall
the
first
of
these
three
be
represented
but
in
his
Majesty
?
And
how
shall
our
Government
be
mixt
of
the
three
,
if
he
be
not
one
of
them
?
The
Laws
of
this
Kingdom
are
made
by
a
King
,
a
House
of
Peers
,
and
a
House
of
Commons
.
These
three
Estates
makeing
one
incorporate
Body
are
they
in
whom
the
Sovereignty
and
Supreme
Power
is
placed
,
says
the
King
,
in
those
papers
mentioned
.
Besides
,
who
hath
the
hardiness
to
say
,
if
the
Spiritual
Lords
were
absent
from
the
House
,
there
could
no
Act
of
Parliament
pass
,
or
that
when
they
were
removed
of
late
from
thence
by
an
Act
,
the
three
Estates
were
then
dissolv'd
,
and
our
Constitution
Parliamentary
at
an
end
?
Nevertheless
Dr.
Heylin
I
remember
,
in
his
Quodlibetical
paper
does
prove
out
of
the
words
of
a
Statute
in
one
of
the
Richards
,
and
another
of
Queen
Elizabeth
,
and
out
of
my
Lord
Coke
,
unto
whom
Judg
Jenkins
refers
,
that
the
three
Estates
of
the
Realm
are
the
Lords
Spiritual
,
Temporal
,
and
Commons
.
Let
me
turn
to
my
Lord
Coke
my self
.
The
high
Court
of
Parliament
consisteth
of
the
Kings
Majesty
,
and
the
three
Estates
—
These
three
Estates
,
and
the
King
,
are
the
great
Corporation
or
Body
politick
of
the
Nation
,
and
do
sit
in
two
Houses
—
But
in
ancient
times
both
Houses
together
.
Part
4.
c
.
1.
Sr.
Thomas
Smith
after
he
hath
distinguished
the
King
(
as
it
seemeth
)
from
the
people
,
he
hath
these
words
:
The
people
(
says
he
)
I
call
those
that
the
word
Populus
doth
signifie
(
viz.
)
the
whole
Body
and
three
Estates
of
the
Commonwealth
,
B.
1.
c
.
7
Again
,
The
Barons
for
the
higher
,
the
Knights
,
Esquires
,
Gentlemen
and
Commons
for
the
lower
part
of
the
Commonwealth
,
the
Bishops
for
the
Clergy
be
present
to
shew
what
is
good
B.
2.
c
.
2.
I
have
passages
by
me
out
of
Rawleigh's
prerogatives
of
Parliament
,
and
others
(
I
think
)
asserting
this
,
which
are
needless
to
transcribe
,
seeing
there
are
two
passages
express
in
the
Thanksgiving
for
the
fift
of
November
inserted
for
the
nonce
in
our
Book
of
Common
Prayer
.
However
this
be
,
If
the
Community
of
England
when
they
set
up
this
mixt
form
of
Government
we
have
(
let
it
be
mixt
in
what
regard
it
will
)
were
indeed
so
Wise
and
Reserved
as
to
agree
that
no
Laws
shall
pass
,
Money
be
raised
,
or
War
undertaken
,
without
their
consent
given
by
their
Representatives
,
called
first
to
advise
about
the
same
,
I
admire
they
should
leave
the
King
at
perfect
liberty
as
to
his
negative
Voice
,
and
dissolving
their
Representative
at
his
pleasure
.
The
consideration
of
the
last
of
these
alone
makes
me
suspect
that
these
jura
Majestatis
supposedly
reserved
by
them
,
owe
their
derivation
to
the
grants
of
Princes
,
gotten
from
them
by
Contests
,
rather
then
to
that
original
agreement
.
And
if
Parliaments
as
they
are
called
by
the
Writ
of
the
King
do
sit
and
Act
by
that
Authority
alone
which
having
called
can
dissolve
them
at
Will
,
and
by
no
higher
(
preserved
for
them
by
the
Constitution
)
from
the
Community
,
then
cannot
the
Parliament
take
Arms
against
the
King
,
any
more
then
the
Subjects
,
as
hath
been
spoken
.
Parliamentum
est
solemne
colloquium
omnium
ordinum
Regni
authoritate
Regis
,
ad
consulendum
sttatuendumque
de
negotijs
Regni
indictum
,
says
Spelman
.
Neither
may
any
argue
here
as
against
me
,
If
the
Parliament
hath
its
Power
from
the
King
,
then
the
Purse
and
Legislation
also
is
in
his
Power
.
He
hath
himself
all
that
he
can
give
.
The
argument
is
from
that
Topick
,
Causa
causae
est
causa
causati
,
which
must
be
understood
de
causis
necessarijs
,
not
de
contingentibus
:
The
King
indeed
may
call
a
Parliament
at
his
Will
,
but
he
cannot
command
their
consent
when
he
hath
called
them
.
Nevertheless
I
determine
not
but
this
Power
which
lies
in
the
Parliament
joyntly
with
the
King
,
does
flow
to
them
immediately
from
the
Constitution
of
the
Land
when
called
,
rather
then
from
that
writ
that
called
them
to
consult
upon
such
an
end
.
To
go
on
then
where
I
was
last
.
The
Powers
that
are
,
are
only
the
Supreme
or
Subordinate
.
If
the
Supreme
Power
be
in
the
Parliament
,
it
must
be
in
them
as
one
with
the
King
,
and
as
one
with
him
,
they
cannot
take
Arms
against
him
:
If
their
Power
be
Subordinate
,
they
cannot
rise
up
against
the
causc
of
their
being
,
out
of
question
.
The
summ
of
all
is
:
I
suppose
the
summum
imperium
of
England
,
is
Regale
,
not
Despoticum
;
but
Regale
absolutum
,
not
pactionatum
.
Absolutum
,
that
is
,
solutum
legibus
.
Not
so
,
but
the
King
is
to
govern
according
to
the
Laws
(
while
I
say
it
is
Regale
,
)
but
he
is
not
Judged
by
them
.
CHAP.
IIII
.
One
peculiar
case
farther
arising
out
of
several
late
Acts
[
wherein
that
Position
of
taking
Arms
by
the
Kings
Authority
against
his
Person
,
or
any
Commissionated
by
him
,
is
required
to
be
renounced
and
abjured
as
Trayterous
and
to
be
abhored
]
taken
into
consideration
,
in
regard
of
the
Consciences
of
so
many
that
are
concerned
.
HAving
ventured
thus
far
,
I
proceed
to
what
follows
.
The
Laws
of
this
Realm
,
it
is
to
be
acknowledged
according
to
what
hath
been
spoken
,
are
made
by
mutual
consent
,
by
the
King
and
Parliament
,
and
the
Authority
of
both
;
and
hence
it
is
,
that
the
King
singly
is
sub
lege
,
when
some
other
absolute
Monarchs
in
a
pure
State
,
and
Despotical
Government
,
are
Lords
over
their
Laws
,
as
over
their
own
Wills
.
Upon
this
Foundation
it
follows
,
that
if
the
Law
,
and
the
Kings
grants
or
Commissions
clash
,
the
Law
must
take
place
,
because
the
one
is
but
his
single
Will
,
but
the
other
is
his
Will
joyntly
,
with
his
whole
people
in
their
Representatives
the
Parliament
.
Put
then
this
case
:
The
Sheriff
in
execution
of
the
Law
,
hath
Power
to
raise
the
County
against
any
that
resist
him
;
The
King
in
some
concernment
,
upon
some
cause
forbids
the
execution
,
yet
he
proceeds
;
The
King
Commissionates
some
Officers
to
withstand
his
proceedings
;
he
raises
the
County
upon
them
,
and
for
all
that
executes
his
charge
.
The
question
will
be
,
whether
he
be
justifiable
herein
or
no
?
How
deep
this
draws
,
I
leave
to
the
Considerate
and
Wise
.
If
he
be
justifiable
,
then
is
there
a
taking
Arms
according
to
Law
,
that
is
in
the
Kings
name
,
or
by
his
Authority
,
against
those
that
are
Commissionated
by
him
:
and
how
then
shall
such
an
Oath
be
sworn
,
or
Subscription
be
subscribed
,
which
yet
is
imposed
upon
the
Lievtenants
and
their
Deputies
of
the
Counties
in
one
Act
;
on
the
Aldermen
or
Burgesses
of
Corporations
in
another
:
on
all
Deans
,
Canons
,
Prebendaries
,
Ministers
,
School-masters
,
or
others
,
that
have
any
Ecclesiastical
promotion
,
in
the
Act
of
Uniformity
;
and
on
the
Non-Conformists
that
live
within
5
miles
of
a
Corporate
Town
,
in
the
Act
of
Oxford
?
It
is
not
for
me
,
here
to
be
peremptory
and
definitive
,
in
a
positive
determining
the
Sheriff
justifiable
or
not
:
but
upon
supposing
of
either
(
to
wit
,
that
it
may
be
he
is
not
,
it
may
be
he
is
,
)
I
shall
be
more
sure
and
safe
in
the
resolution
of
the
matter
.
The
reasons
to
justifie
the
Sheriff
do
lie
in
the
foundation
mentioned
:
But
there
appears
against
him
the
Militia
Acts.
An
Act
declaring
the
sole
right
of
the
Militia
to
be
in
the
King
.
An
Act
for
ordering
the
Forces
in
the
several
County
of
this
Kingdom
.
For
asmuch
as
the
sole
command
and
disposition
of
the
Militia
,
is
,
and
by
the
Laws
of
England
,
ever
was
,
the
undoubted
right
of
his
Majesty
,
and
that
both
,
or
either
of
the
Houses
of
Parliament
,
cannot
,
nor
ought
to
pretend
to
the
same
,
nor
can
,
nor
lawfully
may
raise
,
or
levy
any
War
offensive
or
defensive
against
him
,
and
yet
the
contrary
hath
of
late
been
practiced
,
Be
it
declared
and
Enacted
.
In
these
Acts
,
and
another
as
I
remember
,
the
sole
Power
,
Command
and
Disposition
of
the
Arms
of
the
Nation
is
placed
in
his
Majesty
;
and
the
word
Sole
as
well
as
Supreme
is
used
purposely
for
exclusion
of
the
Parliament
,
that
it
lies
solely
in
him
,
and
not
in
the
Parliament
,
or
any
deriving
from
them
.
It
seems
then
,
that
the
Law
,
which
is
the
Act
,
or
Acts
of
Parliaments
,
is
not
the
Fountain
of
Power
in
the
business
of
the
Militia
.
It
seems
then
(
I
say
by
way
of
reasoning
,
it
seems
)
that
a
man
who
acts
herein
,
is
not
to
be
Governed
by
the
Law
,
but
he
must
be
justified
by
the
Kings
command
.
It
seems
then
,
that
the
Power
which
the
Sheriff
has
in
raising
Forces
for
execution
of
the
Law
,
must
be
under
the
check
and
controul
of
the
King
,
seeing
in
his
hands
the
sole
command
and
disposition
of
those
Forces
,
as
all
else
in
the
Realm
do
lie
.
It
seems
then
,
that
the
Personal
Will
of
the
King
,
which
must
indeed
(
according
to
the
Foundation
mentioned
)
give
place
to
his
Legal
Will
in
other
things
,
in
the
matter
of
Arms
must
have
the
predominance
,
ot
rather
it
must
be
held
,
to
be
all
one
with
his
Law
,
and
absolutely
to
be
obeyed
.
This
I
shall
suppose
first
.
It
may
be
Objected
,
There
are
some
Statute
,
or
Statutes
,
which
in
the
late
times
were
pleaded
for
resisting
evil
Cousellours
,
and
Commissioned
Officers
,
and
the
bringing
Delinquents
to
punishment
,
notwithanding
any
Letters
under
the
Great
Seal
or
Little
Seal
,
in
the
like
or
the
same
words
.
I
Answer
,
I
dare
not
take
upon
me
so
much
skill
in
these
Statute
books
,
as
I
desire
caution
,
and
refer
such
Statutes
to
the
more
Learned
in
the
Law
,
and
what
was
said
to
them
,
by
the
eminent
of
the
Kings
party
.
It
suffices
me
to
produce
these
Militia
Acts
,
wherein
the
sole
right
of
Arms
is
declared
to
be
in
the
King
,
and
consequently
the
latter
Statutes
taking
place
of
all
former
(
whereof
yet
they
are
made
but
the
interpreters
)
the
Conscience
is
I
take
it
in
point
of
Law
to
rest
satisfied
therein
;
for
whatsoever
might
be
pretended
or
supposed
to
be
Law
before
,
this
is
declared
to
be
Law
now
,
and
what
,
ought
ever
(
as
the
Acts
account
)
to
have
been
held
so
to
be
.
It
is
a
Maxime
in
the
Law
of
Parliament
(
says
my
Lord
Coke
)
quod
leges
posteriores
,
priores
contrarias
abrogant
.
I
will
not
conceal
where
indeed
does
lie
the
most
grievous
difficulty
.
I
A.
B.
do
swear
,
or
subscribe
,
it
is
not
lawful
to
take
Arms
against
the
King
;
and
I
abhorr
the
Position
of
taking
Arms
by
the
Kings
Authority
against
his
Person
,
or
any
Commissionated
by
him
.
It
is
absolutely
unlawful
I
apprehend
to
take
Arms
against
the
King
himself
,
or
against
any
Commissionated
by
him
for
the
execution
of
the
Laws
,
or
his
Legal
Will
:
but
if
he
should
Commissionate
any
to
execute
his
pleasure
or
Private
Will
against
the
Law
,
here
will
be
the
question
that
is
sore
.
Put
the
cases
over
I
pray
,
as
to
them
,
put
before
as
to
the
King
,
What
if
any
Commissionated
Officers
should
come
to
destroy
Magna
Charta
,
or
the
peoples
Liberty
,
to
kill
the
Country
and
take
their
goods
,
might
neither
Courts
,
Justices
,
Sheriffs
,
or
People
,
resist
defensively
,
yea
and
bring
those
Subjects
to
punishment
?
I
will
not
give
a
positive
answer
to
this
question
,
there
is
no
need
always
to
do
so
.
Nevertheless
I
will
offer
so
much
readily
to
it
,
as
may
give
the
conscience
satisfaction
in
reference
to
the
words
premised
,
which
here
alone
is
that
I
make
my
task
.
I
will
suppose
then
,
that
it
is
not
lawful
on
any
pretence
whatsoever
to
take
Arms
against
the
Kings
own
Person
,
his
Government
,
or
Laws
:
so
that
the
first
part
of
the
words
may
be
admitted
on
the
account
of
what
hath
been
said
.
And
as
for
those
Commissionated
by
him
,
it
is
in
a
second
part
,
or
clause
,
where
the
position
to
be
renounced
,
is
the
taking
Arms
by
the
Kings
Authority
against
such
.
Now
I
will
suppose
likewise
,
when
the
command
and
disposition
of
the
Militia
is
declared
to
lie
solely
in
the
King
,
that
it
is
not
justifiable
by
Law
to
take
Arms
against
those
that
bring
his
command
in
their
Commissions
,
because
according
to
the
express
words
,
as
they
appear
,
it
is
a
flat
contradiction
thereunto
.
If
it
were
lawful
then
for
the
whole
people
,
when
not
for
a
part
,
to
rise
defensively
,
when
not
invasively
,
against
any
Subject
or
Subjects
,
when
upon
no
terms
against
the
King
himself
,
in
case
of
extremity
for
necessary
preservation
:
this
was
not
to
be
done
by
the
Kings
Authority
,
as
justifiable
by
the
Law
of
the
Land
(
when
the
Militia
Acts
have
declared
the
Law
to
be
otherwise
,
)
but
if
it
were
warrantable
to
be
done
,
it
must
be
by
the
Law
of
Nature
,
upon
which
they
were
to
stand
.
I
say
not
the
point
so
stated
is
justifiable
by
the
light
of
Nature
,
I
meddle
not
with
it
,
I
need
not
:
But
I
say
if
it
were
,
I
should
the
rather
discard
the
unsound
pretence
of
taking
Arms
by
the
Kings
Authority
,
or
by
his
Laws
,
which
would
not
hold
against
such
,
when
there
was
the
Authority
of
God
in
the
Law
of
Nature
,
to
justifie
the
same
.
You
may
say
to
all
this
,
It
is
not
in
the
Power
of
the
Parliament
to
give
away
the
Militia
to
the
King
,
but
it
must
remain
where
it
is
placed
by
the
Constitution
of
the
Nation
.
I
answer
,
If
the
Constitution
of
the
Land
be
such
that
it
places
the
Militia
in
the
Parliament
,
and
not
in
the
King
alone
,
there
are
few
I
think
read
in
Politicks
,
will
affirm
that
any
Act
of
Parliament
can
rise
higher
then
the
Constitution
.
Nay
,
if
any
Law
or
Laws
be
made
by
a
Personal
Sovereign
which
do
overthrow
the
Constitution
,
by
vertue
whereof
,
or
rather
according
to
which
,
he
holds
the
Power
he
hath
from
God
,
such
a
Law
,
or
Laws
are
destitute
of
Authority
,
and
ipso
facto
null
and
void
.
The
whole
business
therefore
lies
in
this
,
whether
the
Constitution
of
our
Land
hath
placed
the
right
of
the
Militia
in
the
King
alone
,
or
not
?
And
here
I
know
I
am
on
the
safer
side
.
I
confess
according
to
the
principles
of
Policy
,
it
is
a
thing
very
agreeable
,
that
where
the
Power
of
Legislation
is
lodged
,
there
should
be
the
Power
of
the
Militia
,
that
the
Laws
may
be
rendered
of
force
;
and
where
the
Militia
is
placed
,
there
should
be
the
Power
of
the
Purse
,
because
the
one
can
command
the
other
,
This
is
therefore
the
handsomer
notion
I
have
said
before
,
yet
if
it
hath
so
pleased
any
Community
in
their
framing
their
Constitution
,
for
reasons
to
themselves
,
to
place
these
matters
otherwise
,
who
can
say
to
these
Potters
,
why
have
you
framed
your
Clay
thus
?
And
what
if
the
Founders
of
our
State
have
seen
it
good
that
they
would
not
have
their
Laws
made
,
nor
Estates
touched
,
without
their
own
consent
in
their
Representatives
,
and
yet
in
the
business
of
making
Peace
and
War
(
where
present
Counsels
and
Expedition
is
necessary
often
times
,
that
it
cannot
wait
such
a
preparation
as
that
)
they
thought
it
best
to
dispose
the
Power
thereof
altogether
in
the
Prince
,
who
can
say
any
thing
to
contradict
the
same
?
I
confess
it
is
not
in
the
Power
of
the
King
and
Parliament
to
make
our
Constitution
,
no
nor
to
alter
it
;
they
are
the
peoples
Representative
to
Parliament-purposes
,
not
to
that
purpose
,
but
it
is
in
their
Power
to
declare
it
;
this
is
not
only
in
their
Power
,
but
this
I
take
it
,
is
their
Office
.
And
though
there
be
no
declaration
can
be
valid
in
apparent
falshood
,
because
truth
is
greatest
,
and
must
overcome
all
things
:
Yet
when
its
impossible
to
evince
the
contrary
,
the
declaration
of
our
Superiours
that
are
in
Authority
over
us
,
must
be
obligatory
,
both
because
of
the
fifth
Commandment
,
and
also
because
otherwise
we
must
be
at
an
endless
loss
in
the
case
.
There
be
some
to
this
purpose
will
tell
us
that
the
division
of
the
Regaliae
in
our
State
,
to
wit
,
the
placing
the
Militia
in
the
King
,
the
Purse
in
the
Parliament
,
and
Legislation
in
them
both
,
is
agreeable
to
the
Lawyers
.
I
undertake
not
that
,
but
I
may
be
apter
to
believe
,
then
disprove
them
;
and
when
I
suppose
as
readily
as
any
,
that
in
the
Constitution
of
a
State
,
it
is
very
suitable
to
Politicks
to
lay
these
jura
Majestatis
or
prerogatives
together
,
and
make
them
inseparable
,
and
consequently
that
those
persons
who
have
placed
the
Sovereignty
of
our
State
in
King
and
Parliament
joyntly
on
that
account
,
have
spoken
tightly
according
to
the
rules
and
reason
of
those
who
write
of
such
things
:
Yet
when
we
come
to
the
point
of
fact
,
whether
it
be
so
in
the
Constitution
of
our
State
indeed
,
or
no
,
this
is
certainly
another
matter
;
and
I
may
not
argue
,
this
or
that
seems
most
agreeable
to
my
reason
to
have
been
done
,
seeing
the
question
is
only
what
is
done
?
Wherein
we
must
at
last
either
have
recourse
to
some
records
which
are
authentick
to
the
contrary
,
or
else
sit
down
in
that
which
is
next
of
credit
hereunto
,
the
declaration
of
Parliament
about
the
same
.
I
will
add
,
if
it
could
be
proved
that
this
was
part
of
the
Constitution
of
the
Realm
,
that
the
people
might
defend
their
rights
against
any
that
invaded
them
,
saving
harmless
the
Kings
person
,
yet
must
this
Position
(
in
the
words
expressed
)
be
discarded
still
.
I
make
it
good
.
The
Constitution
of
a
Nation
we
are
to
know
once
for
all
(
whatsoever
the
Civil
or
Common
Lawyer
may
call
Constitution
)
is
in
Politicks
nothing
else
but
this
,
to
wit
the
Original
agreement
of
the
people
,
how
,
and
in
what
manner
,
they
would
be
Governed
,
when
at
first
they
framed
their
Commonwealth
:
and
if
it
could
be
proved
then
,
that
the
Community
of
England
agreed
or
consented
not
to
be
Governed
by
King
,
or
by
a
King
and
Parliament
,
but
on
these
terms
,
that
they
would
defend
their
rights
against
either
,
if
they
were
invaded
by
them
,
then
must
not
their
taking
Arms
in
that
case
be
by
the
Kings
Authority
or
Parliaments
either
,
or
by
vertue
of
any
Law
proceeding
from
them
,
but
by
the
Authority
of
the
Community
who
framed
the
Constitution
,
and
by
vertue
of
that
Mother-law
,
upon
which
,
as
above
theirs
,
the
personal
Sovereignty
of
King
and
Parliament
both
depends
.
But
now
in
regard
this
is
not
a
thing
possible
to
be
proved
,
seeing
we
have
not
a
Coppy
of
that
original
agreement
,
so
as
what
is
essential
and
naturally
consequential
to
Parliaments
we
may
suppose
to
belong
thereunto
,
but
otherwise
we
have
nothing
but
the
footsteps
of
the
Laws
which
have
successively
passed
in
our
Parliaments
to
insist
upon
,
and
they
having
now
declared
the
right
of
the
Militia
,
not
barely
to
be
,
but
ever
to
have
been
in
the
Prince
alone
,
we
are
to
conceive
of
this
Grand
Charter
,
which
is
Magna
Major
,
(
and
time
hath
eaten
the
words
out
)
to
have
been
accordingly
;
and
not
to
have
been
contrary
without
Testimony
or
probation
.
If
we
look
over
our
Nation
,
the
first
time
we
hear
of
it
with
any
truth
is
under
the
Romans
.
Then
came
the
Saxons
and
divided
it
into
an
Heptarchy
;
then
one
of
those
Kings
prevails
over
the
rest
and
reduces
it
into
one
Kingdom
;
afterwards
came
the
Danes
for
a
lesser
season
;
and
then
William
the
Conquerour
,
and
so
we
continue
.
Now
where
I
pray
,
or
in
whose
time
shall
we
lay
the
Constitution
of
our
Nation
,
I
mean
,
when
was
it
,
or
at
what
time
,
that
we
are
to
account
that
it
was
formed
?
Shall
we
lay
it
in
William
?
I
think
not
,
because
though
he
was
called
the
Conquerour
,
he
pretended
a
good
title
,
and
altered
not
the
Foundation
of
our
State
,
but
only
added
some
Laws
,
which
any
Prince
in
an
orderly
way
may
do
.
For
Canutus
,
or
the
Danes
,
they
did
less
as
to
any
alteration
of
the
Constitution
then
the
Norman
.
As
for
Egbert
,
who
I
think
it
was
that
reduced
the
Heptarchy
,
he
did
I
account
but
restore
the
ancient
Monarchy
,
and
though
he
changed
the
name
into
England
,
the
Government
in
the
kind
none
can
suppose
but
the
same
.
For
the
Romans
they
left
us
in
a
Monarchy
,
and
found
Princes
here
,
and
if
we
look
beyond
them
,
we
must
come
up
to
those
persons
who
at
first
in
our
Island
resolved
upon
Government
,
and
that
they
would
have
a
King
.
The
Government
of
this
Kingdom
by
a
royal
Sovereign
hath
been
as
ancient
as
History
is
,
That
usage
so
practiced
(
says
Jenkins
)
makes
a
fundamental
Law
.
And
here
indeed
does
the
prime
constitution
take
his
root
:
but
who
will
say
this
is
ours
,
or
that
ours
is
this
?
Who
can
tell
us
this
first
British
agreement
;
and
declare
us
the
Instrument
of
it
?
If
you
will
have
it
laid
by
Egbert
,
we
are
as
much
in
ignorance
also
,
what
the
Nation
consented
to
when
they
came
in
entirely
to
him
.
If
we
had
that
perfect
body
of
Law
Edward
the
Confessor
drew
up
,
it
might
happily
tell
us
something
.
But
if
then
you
desceud
below
the
time
of
the
Conquerour
to
find
our
Constitution
out
,
where
shall
it
be
placed
?
Will
you
have
it
lie
in
Magna
Charta
?
That
must
not
be
,
because
Magna
Charta
,
and
charta
de
Forest
or
the
like
,
were
the
grants
of
our
Kings
,
and
the
Constitution
is
that
supposed
Law
of
Laws
and
greater
charter
from
whence
the
Prince
himself
holds
his
rights
as
the
people
their
liberties
,
and
must
be
therefore
another
matter
.
Shall
we
go
then
to
the
Statutes
of
the
Realm
?
Nay
,
these
are
all
Acts
of
the
personal
Sovereign
,
which
suppose
the
Sovereign
before
,
and
consequently
they
do
not
give
the
royal
Power
,
or
make
the
State
,
but
they
declare
that
Power
.
The
Lex
that
made
him
is
long
agoe
out
of
books
,
the
Lex
that
declares
him
supposedly
according
to
that
Lex
that
made
him
,
does
as
it
seems
,
in
two
or
three
Acts
(
which
are
the
latest
,
and
therefore
must
stand
,
till
contraried
or
reversed
)
declare
so
much
to
be
and
ever
to
have
been
the
right
of
the
King
(
I
mean
the
Militia
acts
cited
)
as
no
person
can
take
Arms
upon
any
pretence
whatsoever
against
him
,
or
on
pretence
of
his
Authority
against
such
as
are
Commissionated
by
him
,
without
contradiction
(
I
suppose
)
to
that
declaration
,
and
consequently
the
Constitution
,
as
it
stands
now
declared
,
is
for
the
premises
,
and
prays
to
have
costs
.
It
is
time
for
me
after
this
to
come
to
the
supposition
on
the
contrary
in
the
case
proposed
.
Suppose
the
Lawyers
should
determine
that
the
Sheriff
were
to
be
justified
notwithstanding
the
Militia
Acts.
There
is
an
harmony
,
or
reason
of
Law
in
general
,
to
wit
of
all
the
Laws
together
which
concern
the
Government
in
its
administration
,
which
have
a
mutual
habitude
and
relation
as
they
consist
with
one
another
,
that
may
be
very
near
a
definition
of
the
Constitution
in
some
mens
apprehensions
.
The
Sheriff
in
our
Land
according
to
his
office
hath
the
Authority
for
executing
the
Law
in
his
County
,
and
so
may
in
the
name
of
the
King
raise
the
force
of
it
to
that
end
.
If
the
Militia
now
does
so
lie
in
the
King
,
that
he
may
command
off
those
Forces
and
dispose
them
at
his
pleasure
,
then
is
his
Authority
frustrate
,
and
insufficient
to
its
end
.
Consequently
that
harmony
,
which
I
take
it
,
they
mean
,
by
reason
of
Law
,
is
broke
,
and
the
Law
is
made
inconsistent
with
it self
,
because
the
office
of
the
Sheriff
,
and
the
sole
command
of
the
Militia
in
the
King
,
cannot
both
stand
together
(
as
it
seems
)
in
this
point
.
I
must
confess
moreover
I
am
very
tender
in
this
matter
.
Here
is
a
Position
of
taking
Arms
by
the
Kings
Authority
against
his
Person
,
and
against
those
that
are
Commissionated
by
him
,
is
to
be
abjured
.
It
is
not
(
I
know
)
for
serious
persons
to
wallow
any
words
in
so
solemn
a
thing
as
an
Oath
without
chewing
,
and
much
less
to
be
willingly
ignorant
of
what
the
considerate
have
against
it
,
who
in
pondering
the
matter
will
I
suppose
see
quickly
,
that
by
the
Kings
Authority
,
is
all
one
as
,
by
the
Law
:
and
when
they
are
content
perhaps
to
subscribe
that
they
abhorr
taking
Arms
in
the
name
of
the
King
,
or
upon
pretence
of
the
Law
,
against
his
Person
,
because
the
Law
is
conceived
to
preserve
still
his
Sacred
person
inviolable
,
yet
they
may
not
be
able
to
say
so
as
to
those
Commissionated
by
him
,
because
they
conceive
their
Commission
maybe
illegal
and
that
the
Kings
Authority
issued
out
according
to
Law
is
to
be
preferred
before
that
which
is
issued
out
only
by
Commission
.
For
my
part
I
believe
it
could
not
be
the
intent
of
the
Parliament
as
to
the
Major
part
,
in
these
Oaths
or
Subscriptions
,
to
advance
the
personal
command
or
Commission
of
the
King
,
above
Law
,
I
mean
in
genere
to
do
so
,
which
were
to
change
the
Government
,
from
Royal
or
Regal
,
into
Lordly
or
despotical
.
I
shall
offer
it
therefore
as
a
matter
of
special
verdict
at
the
Bar
of
the
most
skilful
in
reason
and
Law
,
whether
there
be
any
case
possible
of
taking
Arms
by
the
Kings
Authority
in
his
Commissions
(
Note
,
I
speak
only
in
the
matter
of
Arms
)
can
be
put
so
,
as
that
the
Authority
of
the
Law
,
may
be
said
thereby
to
be
opposed
?
If
it
may
,
the
Case
in
conscience
remains
to
be
answered
.
But
I
question
it
,
because
the
Will
alone
of
the
King
in
the
whole
business
of
the
Militia
(
the
sole
Power
thereof
being
in
him
by
these
Acts
)
as
it
seems
,
must
be
Law
,
or
equivalent
with
Law
,
when
in
all
other
cases
,
not
of
the
Militia
,
the
Law
is
certainly
above
,
and
more
then
his
single
Will
,
and
consequently
hath
place
of
his
Commissions
.
Power
is
a
right
to
command
;
That
right
in
any
Subject
,
does
lie
only
in
the
Will
of
the
Supreme
.
Well
,
if
the
sole
Power
of
Arms
lies
in
the
King
,
then
must
the
Sheriff's
Power
to
raise
Arms
in
such
and
such
cases
he
is
authorized
to
,
be
nothing
else
but
the
Kings
Will
that
he
should
do
it
.
The
Sheriff
now
raises
Arms
in
his
name
,
one
comes
and
forbids
him
in
his
name
,
and
shews
his
Commission
.
Here
,
is
not
the
Sheriff
gon
,
seeing
the
King
is
Master
of
his
own
Will
,
and
can
reverse
it
?
If
you
say
it
is
not
his
Will
alone
,
but
the
Law
that
gives
him
his
Power
to
act
in
the
case
,
I
ask
,
how
then
does
the
sole
Power
of
the
Arms
lie
in
the
King
,
when
it
seems
that
it
is
the
Law
he
pleads
for
his
taking
Arms
,
which
is
not
the
Kings
Will
alone
(
or
his
sole
Will
,
which
he
opposes
,
)
but
the
Will
and
Act
of
his
Parliament
with
him
?
I
will
come
to
a
conclusion
therefore
,
and
leave
the
question
.
It
is
enough
for
me
in
the
issue
,
if
the
Conscience
be
resolved
as
to
a
lawful
submitting
to
the
injunction
,
though
the
question
be
unresolved
.
I
say
thus
then
,
either
the
Sheriff
is
to
be
justified
,
or
he
is
not
.
Let
these
determine
that
will
and
can
.
If
he
be
not
,
then
is
all
objection
vanished
at
the
Militia
Acts
,
the
doubt
and
scruple
is
over
,
and
we
have
done
.
If
he
be
to
be
justified
,
then
do
I
say
that
the
Militia
Acts
must
on
necessity
receive
such
a
construction
as
that
we
are
to
conceive
that
the
King
and
Parliament
who
passed
them
intended
not
to
include
any
consequences
of
such
a
Nature
as
the
disabling
the
Sheriff
from
executing
the
Law
in
the
case
supposed
would
come
to
,
when
they
thought
only
of
preventing
illegal
practices
in
all
Insurrection
and
Rebellion
.
That
is
as
much
as
to
say
,
they
intended
to
prevent
any
future
War
between
King
and
Parliament
,
by
declaring
the
sole
Power
of
the
Militiato
be
in
the
King
,
but
they
never
intended
it
should
be
destructive
in
the
least
(
in
any
case
supposed
or
to
be
supposed
)
to
the
good
and
wholsome
Laws
of
the
land
,
which
do
empower
any
Officers
for
the
execution
of
law
and
justice
,
or
preservation
of
the
liberties
of
the
Kingdom
.
And
if
this
be
their
meaning
(
which
removes
all
that
is
grieveous
)
and
we
may
so
interpret
them
,
then
must
they
in
the
imposing
these
Oaths
and
Subscriptions
mentioned
be
construed
also
in
the
same
,
and
no
other
meaning
,
and
according
to
their
meaning
are
they
to
be
taken
.
I
draw
this
up
,
either
it
was
then
their
meaning
by
the
repeated
declaration
of
their
Acts
to
exempt
all
cases
of
the
Militia
,
even
that
of
the
Sheriff
insisted
on
(
supposing
it
put
)
from
the
dispose
of
any
but
the
Kings
personal
Will
:
or
it
was
not
their
meaning
.
If
it
was
their
meaning
,
then
is
that
to
be
held
for
Law
,
and
the
Conscience
hath
nothing
left
to
object
in
these
Oaths
or
Subscriptions
mentioned
:
If
it
be
not
their
meaning
,
these
Oaths
and
subscriptions
must
be
taken
(
that
is
sworn
,
and
subscribed
)
only
according
to
their
meaning
,
and
so
the
difficulty
is
resolved
.
I
pass
with
this
advertizement
.
There
is
a
strict
,
scrupuled
sense
(
N.
B.
)
of
the
impositions
of
our
Superiours
,
wherein
if
a
man
be
extreme
to
mark
every
word
or
thing
that
can
be
thought
or
said
according
to
the
rigour
of
it
,
there
is
no
flesh
living
able
to
abide
any
of
them
:
or
there
is
a
larger
,
customary
,
allowed
sense
of
such
words
or
things
,
when
not
only
those
that
conform
to
them
do
take
them
in
the
same
,
but
those
that
are
scrupuled
at
them
do
suppose
and
verily
believe
that
the
meaning
of
the
Imposers
was
no
more
then
they
can
currantly
together
with
others
yield
unto
.
And
in
this
construction
I
profess
(
where
there
is
any
such
)
both
that
the
Conscience
ought
to
lay
down
her
scruples
,
and
all
impositions
that
were
,
are
,
or
shall
be
,
must
be
taken
.
Talis
interpretatio
in
ambiguis
eligenda
est
,
ut
evitetur
inconveniens
&
absurdum
.
And
Excessivum
omne
(
says
Sr.
Edward
Coke
)
in
jure
,
reprobatur
.
CHAP.
V.
The
Solution
of
an
Objection
,
That
Majestas
imperij
and
Salus
populi
may
not
be
rendered
inconsistent
with
one
another
.
FOr
the
impugning
the
Doctrine
of
indefinite
Subjection
there
are
several
things
I
know
alledged
,
which
might
swell
my
Book
more
then
is
needful
.
Some
instances
(
as
of
David
and
the
Macchabees
)
are
brought
out
of
the
Old
Testament
;
and
many
things
in
reference
to
Religion
have
been
said
in
the
late
times
.
But
forasmuch
as
we
have
so
much
Scripture
against
Resistance
as
there
is
in
the
New
,
and
so
many
precepts
there
,
of
Patience
,
of
Suffering
,
of
Faith
,
of
the
Cross
:
I
shall
commend
these
Texts
ensuing
,
Mat
.
5.39
.
Luk
.
6.29
.
Ro
.
12.17
.
Mat
.
5.10
,
11
,
12.
2
Cor
.
4.17
.
Ja.
5.10
,
Heb
.
10.32
,
33
,
34.
Heb
.
11.35
,
36
,
37.
Mat
.
16.24
.
Mark
8.34
,
35.
Heb
.
3.1
,
2
,
3.
Phil
.
2.6.8
.
1
Pet
.
2.18
,
19
,
20
,
21
,
to
the
Consciences
of
every
sober
Christian
,
as
in
the
sight
of
God
,
and
content
my self
with
that
of
Grotius
for
this
place
.
Illa
questio
gravior
,
an
quantum
Davidi
,
an
quantum
Machabaeis
licuit
,
liceat
&
Christianis
,
quorum
Magister
crucem
subire
toties
jubens
,
exactiorem
patientiam
videtur
requirere
.
Certe
ubi
Superiores
ob
religionem
mortem
inteutant
Christianis
,
Christus
fugam
concedit
,
ultra
fugam
nihil
.
And
unto
this
Dr.
Hammond
in
his
papers
between
him
and
Mr.
Marshal
gives
his
suffrage
.
But
there
is
an
Objection
of
an
higher
moment
,
wherein
I
see
not
that
they
come
off
so
easily
;
An
objection
of
another
Topick
then
from
Example
,
which
indeed
enters
the
very
Nature
and
End
of
Government
it self
,
and
cannot
be
waved
with
faithfulness
to
this
cause
.
It
is
this
.
If
there
be
such
a
Power
attributed
to
Princes
,
then
may
they
not
only
oppress
any
of
their
particular
Subjects
according
to
their
unbrideled
Wills
,
but
they
may
take
such
courses
as
are
destructive
to
the
whole
,
and
if
we
may
not
then
take
Arms
against
them
,
there
shall
be
more
care
had
for
the
Means
,
that
is
the
Governours
,
then
for
the
End
(
unto
which
they
are
Ministers
,
)
the
common
good
and
safety
of
the
people
.
I
must
acknowledg
,
I
am
encouraged
to
venture
on
this
Objection
by
the
learned
Primate
Usher
in
his
Book
of
the
Power
of
Princes
,
or
else
I
should
be
startled
,
when
I
find
those
two
great
Champions
for
the
same
Power
,
Barclay
and
Grotius
at
a
stand
here
.
Barclaius
ait
amitti
Regnum
si
Rex
verè
hostili
animo
in
totius
populi
exitium
feratur
.
Quod
concedo
,
consistere
enim
simul
non
possunt
voluntas
imperandi
,
&
voluntas
perdendi
.
Grotius
De
jur
.
Bel
l.
1.
c
.
4.
What
then
does
he
say
if
he
yield
this
?
Why
in
Rege
mentis
compote
,
vix
videtur
id
accidere
posse
.
To
frame
such
a
case
then
,
under
this
double
circum●●ance
,
that
it
must
be
animo
perdendi
,
and
in
exitium
totius
is
not
to
be
conceived
a
thing
in
the
World
ever
likely
to
be
,
and
so
not
to
come
into
the
thought
,
to
stumble
any
on
that
account
.
Quid
ergo
?
Nulline
casus
incidere
possunt
(
says
Barclay
)
quibus
populo
in
Regem
arma
capere
jure
suo
liceat
?
Nulli
certe
quamdiu
Rex
manet
.
Duos
autem
casus
invenio
quibus
Rex
ex
rege
non
Regem
se
facit
.
Adversus
Mon.
l.
3.
c
.
16.
In
such
a
case
as
this
then
(
and
he
instances
in
Nero
and
Caligula
)
a
King
ceases
to
be
King
with
him
.
Nevertheless
I
shall
not
so
leave
the
Objection
,
nor
yet
trust
too
much
to
the
notion
of
the
prince
being
Unking'd
in
this
case
,
seeing
if
he
willingly
prosecute
those
ways
which
will
ruine
the
Commonwealth
,
whatsover
his
mind
,
purpose
or
intention
be
in
it
,
as
we
cannot
tell
,
so
it
were
little
odds
as
to
the
main
.
I
answer
therefore
in
the
first
place
from
Scripture
,
the
Apostle
hath
set
down
our
duty
which
is
Subjection
indefinitely
,
and
we
are
not
to
break
Gods
command
for
earthly
advantage
,
but
we
must
do
our
duty
,
that
is
perform
his
command
,
and
leave
the
issue
to
him
,
who
can
turn
all
things
to
the
best
.
We
must
not
do
evil
that
good
may
come
of
it
.
And
must
we
not
do
good
,
though
evil
succeeds
?
We
are
to
be
subject
not
only
for
Wrath
but
Conscience
sake
;
If
we
resist
,
we
resist
the
ordinance
of
God
,
that
is
,
we
do
not
only
break
his
precept
,
but
as
I
must
inculcate
,
we
would
not
in
effect
have
him
to
be
the
Orderer
of
things
,
we
would
dethrone
him
of
his
providence
,
and
be
our selves
in
his
room
.
Now
when
there
is
such
evil
as
this
at
the
root
,
how
can
we
think
that
the
possibility
of
the
evil
of
misery
,
can
warrant
us
the
evil
of
sin
?
In
the
next
place
,
as
to
the
reason
of
the
thing
,
I
shall
offer
this
consideration
.
To
wit
,
As
there
is
no
mischief
can
befal
a
private
person
,
that
can
stand
in
competition
with
the
safety
of
the
Commonwealth
,
or
the
whole
Government
it self
,
that
for
the
prevention
thereof
,
this
should
be
endangered
:
So
is
there
no
mischeif
or
ruine
on
one
whole
Government
but
it
must
give
place
to
the
safety
of
all
.
I
pray
weigh
it
,
Upon
the
truth
of
this
proposition
,
Quod
nulla
ex
causa
(
in
Arnisaeus's
words
)
subditis
fas
sit
contra
legitimum
principem
arma
sumere
,
does
the
safety
of
not
one
,
but
all
the
Governments
upon
Earth
depend
:
and
there
is
no
mischeif
from
the
ill
courses
of
any
Prince
,
but
is
to
be
held
better
then
such
an
inconvenience
as
the
infrindgment
of
the
verity
of
this
Doctrine
is
,
which
were
a
Womb
of
far
greater
and
ampler
evils
.
If
there
be
any
case
wherein
a
Subject
may
take
Arms
(
says
Dr.
Taylor
)
there
may
be
some
other
like
it
,
and
who
shall
be
judg
hereof
?
If
we
our selves
be
judges
,
Lo
what
a
gap
is
opened
to
Disorder
,
Warrs
,
Ruine
,
ruine
of
all
,
ruine
with
out
end
.
It
is
true
our
doctrine
dos
provide
for
the
security
of
Governers
,
even
when
the
comon
good
is
accidentally
left
open
to
oppression
:
yet
in
regard
it
is
the
concern
not
of
one
Government
but
all
,
and
many
Governours
are
good
,
the
most
but
indifferently
bad
,
and
none
at
the
worst
so
bad
,
but
it
is
better
,
or
more
conducive
to
the
common
good
,
that
we
should
have
such
as
they
are
,
rather
then
none
at
all
,
the
security
at
root
is
not
greater
for
the
Means
then
the
End.
And
now
I
pray
let
this
I
have
spoken
so
royally
,
have
its
due
grains
of
understanding
.
When
I
plead
for
subjection
to
Governours
,
I
plead
for
them
as
{αβγδ}
,
as
the
Powers
that
are
,
which
comprehends
the
Constitution
whereby
they
Govern
with
their
Persons
;
{αβγδ}
I
say
chiefly
,
and
{αβγδ}
as
from
{αβγδ}
distinguished
.
The
Constitution
of
Nations
hath
provided
for
the
good
of
the
Community
,
or
the
Community
,
hath
provided
for
the
good
of
themselves
(
that
is
the
publick
)
in
their
Constitution
;
{αβγδ}
.
What
is
not
profitable
to
the
Bee-hive
,
is
not
profitable
to
the
Bee
,
says
Antoninus
.
Potest
,
quod
inutile
Republicae
sit
,
id
cuiquam
civi
utile
esse
?
says
Cicero
accordingly
in
his
Book
De
Officijs
often
.
If
Rulers
rule
not
according
to
their
Constitution
,
they
are
not
the
Powers
that
be
(
not
{αβγδ}
,
)
for
the
Powers
that
be
,
are
the
the
Powers
so
constituted
.
Those
persons
who
get
into
Rule
without
the
title
which
is
required
to
the
Ruler
in
the
Constitution
,
may
not
be
held
the
Powers
that
be
,
upon
the
same
account
.
Indeed
the
Ordinance
or
Will
of
God
is
a
complex
thing
,
which
contains
more
then
one
matter
in
it
;
It
contains
in
it
that
there
shall
be
a
Government
and
Subjection
,
and
that
those
that
rule
should
be
rightful
and
right
Governours
,
to
wit
,
that
they
should
have
a
due
title
,
and
act
duely
,
according
to
the
Constitution
.
But
if
any
shall
not
have
a
right
title
,
I
dare
not
say
that
this
Will
is
(
as
to
us
)
there
should
then
be
no
subjection
For
this
Will
of
God
objectively
taken
being
an
aggregate
thing
,
some
of
the
things
it
contains
in
it
must
be
greater
and
some
less
,
and
God
Almighty
we
are
to
know
(
and
then
suppose
)
does
Majus
&
Minus
velle
,
according
to
the
condition
of
the
things
he
would
have
,
or
wills
.
It
is
a
greater
matter
now
(
or
a
matter
of
far
greater
concern
)
that
there
be
Government
,
then
that
the
Governour
have
a
right
title
,
and
the
greater
matter
then
in
the
case
I
judg
must
take
place
of
the
less
.
The
resolution
of
this
will
draw
in
its
fellow
.
If
a
Prince
hath
a
right
title
,
but
acts
in
some
things
contrary
to
the
Constitution
,
those
acts
of
his
are
to
be
esteemed
indeed
with
out
Power
,
and
if
the
Subject
does
not
obey
him
in
them
he
resists
not
the
Power
,
which
Hooker
may
tell
us
clearly
,
if
he
tell
us
no
more
:
But
when
the
Subject
may
forbear
to
act
,
he
may
not
resist
;
As
the
word
in
the
original
is
opposed
to
Subjection
,
undoubtedly
he
may
not
.
The
Subject
is
here
to
be
restive
(
if
I
may
so
speak
,
)
not
resistive
,
I
mean
it
as
the
people
in
the
case
of
Jonathan
was
,
they
would
not
act
,
which
was
the
right
course
they
were
to
take
,
when
they
were
never
the
less
under
due
Subjection
unto
Saul
for
that
.
The
reason
for
this
is
the
same
here
as
before
.
The
right
the
Prince
hath
to
the
Government
is
a
greater
thing
then
the
right
●o
such
or
such
a
particular
act
.
When
I
do
then
not
obey
him
in
such
an
act
or
thing
unto
which
he
has
no
right
,
upon
the
ground
(
which
he
perhaps
may
plead
for
my
doing
,
to
wit
)
of
being
subject
to
the
Power
that
is
,
I
may
not
take
Arms
and
rise
against
him
for
that
act
(
or
for
the
imposing
of
that
,
or
any
such
act
,
)
because
the
right
(
I
say
)
he
hath
to
the
ruling
Power
in
general
being
a
greater
thing
then
this
,
I
must
give
way
in
the
less
for
Gods
Ordinance
sake
.
I
return
to
what
I
was
saying
.
The
command
of
God
does
bind
us
to
the
Powers
that
be
.
The
Powers
thus
and
thus
constituted
are
the
Powers
that
be
.
We
must
make
no
more
,
nor
no
less
of
it
then
the
Apostle
.
Whatsoever
be
the
Powers
then
,
whether
limited
or
unlimited
,
arbitrary
or
regal
,
conditional
or
absolute
,
the
inconveniencies
that
may
arise
upon
the
Subject
thereby
,
will
not
dissolve
their
Allegiance
,
so
long
as
they
are
the
Powers
that
be
,
according
to
the
Constitution
.
Thus
much
I
must
declare
and
acknowledg
once
for
all
,
that
the
Word
of
God
meddles
not
with
the
bounds
and
limits
of
the
Sovereign
Power
in
any
States
or
Kingdoms
,
but
taking
them
as
it
finds
them
,
it
requires
Subjection
to
the
Power
that
is
.
Chemnitius
from
Luther
hath
turned
this
into
an
Axiom
.
Evangelium
non
obolet
Politias
.
Not
but
indeed
there
are
diversities
of
Powers
(
or
States
)
which
must
be
considered
according
to
their
several
conditions
.
The
Magdeburgenses
who
were
men
of
great
learning
and
pains
are
noted
for
this
opinion
.
Imperatores
&
Reges
esse
primarios
vassallos
imperij
&
Regni
,
&
proinde
si
feloniam
contra
imperium
aut
Regnum
committant
feudo
privari
,
perinde
ut
alios
vassallos
.
The
ground
hereof
I
take
it
is
laid
in
the
nature
of
other
States
which
are
diverse
from
ours
;
and
we
may
see
,
the
Empire
being
the
chiefest
State
of
any
perhaps
with
these
persons
,
how
they
judg
of
other
States
thereby
,
when
the
German
Empire
is
not
an
absolute
Monarchy
,
it
is
prov'd
out
of
Bodin
at
large
,
and
granted
by
others
.
When
Luther
agreeably
had
taught
that
the
Magistrate
should
not
be
resisted
,
and
some
Lawyers
proved
to
him
that
the
Laws
of
the
Empire
permitted
resistance
,
he
then
held
they
might
make
a
League
to
defend
themselves
.
Sleidan
.
Lib
.
8.
The
reason
of
this
satisfaction
,
was
,
because
the
Gospel
(
said
he
before
Chemnitius
)
abolishes
not
the
Laws
of
any
Commonwealth
.
Under
this
fit
construction
,
what
Paraeus
hath
wrote
upon
the
Romans
may
find
its
favourable
allowance
:
whose
careful
Son
excuses
his
pious
Father
,
that
what
he
had
said
of
a
pactionary
State
or
Government
,
ought
not
to
have
been
drawn
unto
an
absolute
.
And
to
this
effect
it
will
not
be
hard
I
suppose
,
to
find
Divines
of
the
Germane
States
speaking
as
Zwinglius
(
quoted
to
me
by
him
who
shall
next
be
named
,
)
When
Kings
rule
unfaithfully
they
may
be
deposed
.
Which
we
need
not
wonder
at
,
when
that
eminent
Prelate
Bilson
in
his
Book
of
the
true
difference
between
Christian
Subjection
and
Unchristian
Rebellion
,
wherein
he
does
so
stoutly
defend
the
Authority
of
the
Prince
against
the
Pope
,
and
all
private
Rebellion
,
he
does
yet
(
as
it
seems
out
of
conviction
)
express
himself
with
care
,
yet
very
plainly
.
There
may
fall
extremities
(
says
he
,
speaking
of
Chilperick
deposed
for
insipiency
)
wherein
Princes
are
not
able
to
guide
themselves
,
and
much
less
their
Realms
,
p.
420.
Again
,
defending
the
Protestants
in
their
stirrs
in
Germany
,
Flauders
,
France
,
and
Scotland
,
I
will
not
(
says
he
)
pronounce
all
that
resist
Rebels
.
Cases
may
fall
out
even
in
Christian
Kingdoms
where
the
people
may
plead
their
right
against
the
Prince
and
not
be
charged
with
Rebellion
.
I
pray
let
us
hear
those
cases
.
If
a
Prince
should
go
about
to
subject
his
Kingdom
to
a
forreign
Realm
,
or
change
the
form
of
a
Commonwealth
from
impery
to
tyranny
,
or
neglect
the
Laws
established
by
common
consent
of
Prince
and
People
to
execute
his
own
pleasure
:
In
these
and
other
cases
that
might
be
named
,
If
the
Nobles
and
Commons
joyn
together
to
defend
the
ancient
and
accustomed
Liberty
,
Regiment
,
and
Laws
,
they
may
not
be
accounted
Rebells
,
p.
520.
In
short
,
the
Pope
may
not
meddle
,
but
the
whole
Realm
may
defend
their
rights
by
Arms
against
Princes
.
Let
us
have
his
Foundation
.
I
denyed
that
Bishops
had
Authority
to
prescribe
conditions
to
Kings
when
they
Crowned
them
,
but
I
never
denyed
that
the
people
might
preserve
the
Foundation
Freedome
,
and
Form
of
their
Commonwealth
,
which
they
fore-prized
when
they
first
consented
to
have
a
King
,
p.
521.
Here
I
will
joyn
issue
with
him
,
according
to
what
we
have
had
before
.
While
a
people
are
yet
in
forming
their
Government
,
singular
persons
(
as
well
the
Eminenter
as
Formaliter
Cives
)
must
be
subject
to
he
universal
;
In
the
universal
then
(
when
States
arise
thus
,
at
least
while
they
are
rising
)
does
lie
a
real
Sovereignty
,
whose
rights
are
to
agree
upon
what
form
of
Government
the
Community
thinks
best
,
and
to
appoint
the
Manner
(
to
borrow
that
comprehensive
phrase
of
Samuel
)
of
their
personal
Sovereign
,
as
hath
been
before
.
If
they
be
so
cautious
now
as
not
to
consent
(
which
consent
is
causa
sine
qua
non
,
or
necessary
condition
,
not
efficient
of
Power
)
to
be
governed
but
upon
terms
,
and
their
Governours
shall
be
accountable
upon
Mal-administration
,
ordering
some
Officer
(
deriving
from
them
)
to
that
purpose
,
who
can
gainsay
,
but
the
case
is
all
one
as
when
Princeps
and
subditi
are
obliged
ex
contractu
?
Arnisaeus
will
hold
Rex
pactionatus
ubi
pactum
non
servat
deponi
potest
.
De
jur
.
Ma.
l.
1
c
.
6.
Upon
this
account
what
Luther
,
Zuinglius
,
and
the
Magdcburgenses
say
,
is
as
good
as
what
is
said
by
Bilson
.
But
here
then
does
lie
the
question
,
whether
there
were
indeed
any
such
terms
fore-prized
(
to
use
that
most
Reverends
own
words
)
in
the
constituting
our
Commonwealth
of
England
,
that
the
Prince
should
be
called
to
account
by
the
Sword
in
any
case
whatsoever
?
That
the
people
have
their
rights
is
out
of
question
,
why
else
is
the
King
Sworn
when
he
is
Crowned
?
The
sum
of
which
comes
to
this
,
that
they
shall
be
Governed
only
according
to
Law
.
But
whether
this
be
one
of
their
rights
that
they
may
take
Arms
against
the
Prince
if
wronged
,
is
,
id
quod
restat
probandum
,
I
read
indeed
in
our
Chronicles
in
King
John's
time
and
Henry
the
third's
,
what
a
stirr
the
Barons
kept
for
their
rights
in
those
Warrs
,
but
though
I
think
the
Subject
is
beholden
to
them
for
the
Effect
,
I
do
not
know
how
to
justifie
them
in
their
Cause
.
If
any
shall
say
Bilson
does
hold
indeed
that
the
whole
people
may
defend
their
liberti●s
when
a
Prince
goes
about
to
destroy
them
,
and
so
take
Arms
,
but
he
says
not
they
may
take
Arms
against
the
King
,
his
Person
,
Authority
,
Government
,
or
Laws
:
Let
him
that
will
so
distinguish
,
make
me
that
difference
clear
and
sound
,
I
shall
honour
Bilson
,
and
thank
him
,
and
come
to
this
end
with
both
.
That
it
is
possible
for
some
Doctrine
to
be
good
(
at
least
well-accepted
)
under
Queen
Elizabeth
,
which
was
hardly
approved
by
King
James
,
became
dangerous
under
King
Charles
and
is
now
razed
by
Acts
of
the
late
Parliament
under
his
Son
.
There
is
indeed
one
question
lies
at
the
heart
of
all
,
and
that
is
,
whether
the
whole
people
,
or
their
Sovereign
be
greater
?
Which
question
if
it
may
not
be
baulk'd
,
I
dispatch
thus
.
Distinguish
we
of
the
people
as
a
Community
,
or
as
a
Commonwealth
;
and
of
the
greater
,
quoad
finem
,
and
quoad
authoritatem
.
That
the
whole
people
,
as
a
Commonwealth
,
are
greater
then
the
Magistrate
,
quoad
finem
,
I
think
manifest
,
because
he
is
appointed
for
their
Weal
.
But
that
the
people
,
as
a
Commonwealth
,
are
greater
quoad
authoritatem
,
I
suppose
it
so
farr
from
truth
that
the
people
as
they
are
under
a
Commonwealth
have
indeed
no
Power
at
all
.
The
whole
Power
of
the
Commonwealth
(
quâ
Commonwealth
)
lies
in
the
Sovereign
,
who
is
the
pars
imperans
,
and
the
people
pars
subdita
only
.
Nevertheless
take
the
people
as
a
Community
it
must
be
acknowledged
that
the
original
Grant
or
Charter
from
God
is
conveyed
immediately
to
them
,
and
the
Power
of
their
Magistrate
comes
from
that
Charter
.
Consequently
,
if
there
happens
any
such
case
as
that
by
the
act
of
God
or
Man
,
the
Commonwealth
comes
to
a
dissolution
,
so
that
the
Prince
and
Subject
(
to
make
something
of
Barclay
)
does
indeed
cease
,
then
may
the
Universality
challenge
(
if
they
will
)
the
greatest
authority
,
and
take
Arms
for
their
defence
against
any
that
shall
go
to
oppress
them
:
But
while
the
Legal
Constitution
,
and
Order
of
Prince
and
People
abides
,
this
Doctrine
of
Subjection
(
and
that
indefinite
)
must
hold
good
even
against
the
whole
Body
.
Quando
agitur
de
principe
supremo
non
habente
Superiorem
,
non
potest
ullo
modo
occidi
a
subditis
,
etiam
si
tyrannice
vixerit
.
Tholosanus
de
Rep.
l.
26.
c
.
6.
Quamdiu
Rex
est
(
says
Barclay
)
Superior
semper
populo
est
,
alioqui
Rex
non
esset
,
&
superiorem
ab
inferiore
judicari
posse
,
contra
rationem
est
,
contraque
naturam
.
Against
him
there
is
no
rising
up
,
says
a
greater
Authority
.
CHAP.
VI
.
The
general
Case
or
Cases
of
Conformity
,
which
respect
the
Church
as
well
as
civil
Obedience
,
proposed
and
weighed
with
candour
and
indifferency
,
that
the
rigid
of
those
that
Conform
not
may
not
censure
others
that
have
Conformed
,
and
those
that
are
willing
to
Conform
,
and
are
able
,
may
have
peace
in
it
.
THere
are
two
parts
of
this
Discourse
intended
in
the
Title
,
The
one
of
Loyalty
against
Resistance
,
which
is
dispatched
:
The
other
of
Obedience
for
Conformity
or
Compliance
with
the
present
Establishment
,
so
farr
I
could
wish
really
as
may
possibly
be
without
offending
their
Consciences
,
to
all
whatsoever
.
There
is
a
State-Conforming
,
and
a
Church-conforming
;
The
Act
of
Uniformity
,
and
the
Oxford
Act
,
with
other
Acts.
A
Conformist
to
the
State
may
be
a
Non-conformist
.
The
Non-conformist
is
not
all
one
with
the
Refractory
.
A
Christian
must
conform
to
God
,
and
to
his
Ordinance
,
the
Powers
that
are
,
when
he
cannot
conform
(
in
every
thing
at
least
)
to
the
Church
,
and
will
not
to
the
World
.
As
for
Ecclesiastical
Conformity
,
all
are
not
alike
easie
.
There
was
a
time
the
Nation
had
the
overture
of
a
Concord
between
the
sober
of
two
parties
,
and
lo
,
in
stead
of
that
composition
(
which
must
still
be
implored
as
equal
)
a
streight
injunction
of
assent
and
consent
to
all
things
New
and
Old
,
or
one
of
them
must
put
up
and
be
gone
.
How
can
those
here
whose
judgments
are
perhaps
,
and
have
been
for
Moderation
in
times
before
,
as
now
,
come
over
thus
to
one
party
altogether
on
such
terms
?
This
hath
moved
some
to
no
good
Will
.
Again
,
It
is
God
rules
mens
inclinations
;
They
whose
conversations
show
them
most
faithful
,
whose
Zeal
to
the
life
and
power
of
Holiness
is
most
serious
,
whose
faces
are
toward
Zion
,
have
ordinarily
no
heart
here
,
they
go
another
way
.
This
enters
into
many
a
mans
Soul
.
Moreover
,
There
are
strange
things
in
the
Revelations
,
the
rise
of
two
Beasts
,
whereof
the
one
seems
to
be
the
Power
Ecclesiastical
;
and
there
is
a
Babylon
spoken
of
,
out
of
which
we
are
to
come
.
I
would
to
God
we
were
sure
what
this
Babylon
and
Beast
are
,
that
we
could
know
where
to
be
safe
.
I
am
sure
our
Protestant
Divines
have
spoken
so
seriously
of
these
things
that
they
have
frighted
our
people
of
this
Nation
so
far
from
Popery
,
that
we
have
run
almost
out
of
our
Wits
,
and
can't
tell
yet
when
we
are
farr
enough
,
least
we
be
still
in
Babylon
,
and
the
Beast
have
us
.
Such
a
Constitution
of
things
,
as
,
whether
by
Romish
Idolatry
,
or
other
way
of
external
Worship
or
form
of
Religion
,
undermines
and
persecutes
the
Life
,
Power
,
and
Spirituality
of
it
,
is
the
Beast
,
Babylon
,
and
Antichrist
for
ought
some
know
.
And
consequently
there
may
be
a
great
difference
to
such
,
between
joyning
with
the
Bishops
,
Cranmer
,
Ridly
,
Latimer
,
Hooper
,
in
those
things
they
imposed
then
,
when
they
were
coming
out
of
Babylon
,
and
conforming
to
them
now
when
their
faces
seem
to
be
towards
it
.
What
?
Toward
Popery
?
No
,
perhaps
they
believe
no
such
matter
,
but
to
such
a
way
of
Discipline
and
Worship
,
as
carrying
a
countenance
of
either
,
but
being
rather
only
a
kind
of
Idols
thereof
,
by
the
shew
pomp
and
formality
of
these
things
they
indeed
contain
not
in
them
,
the
Life
,
Power
,
and
Efficacy
of
both
,
is
undermined
and
lost
.
This
where
it
lights
sinks
in
deepest
.
Nevertheless
in
regard
our
dwellings
in
flesh
are
dark
;
and
Pride
and
Superstition
are
two
close
sins
;
we
cannot
tell
but
Separation
may
be
the
Child
of
one
of
those
two
Mothers
.
For
as
there
is
a
placing
Religion
in
those
things
wherein
there
is
none
,
that
is
Superstition
on
one
hand
:
So
is
there
a
placing
Evil
and
danger
in
those
things
wherein
there
is
none
,
that
is
Superstition
on
the
other
:
more
weak
,
and
perhaps
more
pernicious
,
as
more
against
the
goodness
of
God
,
and
the
conversation
of
Mankind
one
with
another
.
I
am
you
see
impartial
,
God
knows
the
truth
on
both
sides
.
But
were
it
not
for
these
secret
,
deep
impressions
upon
the
hearts
of
good
Men
,
that
we
can't
tell
what
they
be
(
unless
aliquid
{αβγδ}
,
)
more
then
the
objections
only
in
their
mouths
and
pens
,
the
business
of
Conformity
and
Grace
might
come
to
farther
parley
.
To
cary
on
this
task
then
,
there
are
three
things
that
require
our
distinction
and
due
consideration
.
The
matter
of
Conformity
,
or
the
matters
themselves
imposed
.
The
forms
of
Words
,
Composure
,
or
manner
wherein
those
matters
are
drawn
up
into
such
and
such
impositions
.
The
scandal
from
without
,
unto
which
the
tender
Christian
is
to
have
such
regard
that
what
is
lawful
in
its
self
,
may
not
yet
be
done
by
him
with
sin
to
another
.
For
the
middlemost
of
these
(
to
begin
there
as
most
commodious
to
the
rest
)
I
must
needs
enter
this
pre-admonition
,
that
I
cannot
but
think
it
a
reasonable
thing
that
those
who
prepare
such
doses
as
are
enjoyned
in
late
Acts
,
for
others
,
should
consult
with
the
Stomach
of
the
Patients
,
to
wrap
them
up
in
such
expressions
,
as
would
go
down
best
with
them
.
There
are
the
Compilers
therefore
of
these
Pills
,
and
the
Takers
.
I
distinguish
the
parts
of
these
in
the
point
of
their
justification
.
For
the
Compilers
I
say
nothing
,
For
the
Taker
,
I
apprehend
,
he
is
to
look
to
the
sence
and
import
of
what
is
prescribed
,
and
if
he
be
satisfied
in
that
,
he
is
to
impute
the
form
and
words
to
the
Compiler
,
and
not
charge
their
oversights
to
the
guilt
of
his
Soul
.
It
is
true
,
the
interpretation
of
an
Oath
(
say
Casuists
)
is
stricti
juris
;
and
we
are
to
think
no
otherwise
of
every
solemn
Declaration
imposed
in
our
Acts
:
Nevertheless
,
as
there
are
certain
restrictions
allowed
to
the
obligation
of
an
Oath
it self
,
such
as
Quantum
possibile
,
Quoad
licet
,
Rebus
sic
stantibus
,
when
taken
:
So
in
the
taking
,
and
consequently
in
all
these
injunctions
,
there
are
some
conditions
that
are
common
to
all
Words
and
Speeches
,
necessary
to
be
understood
and
granted
,
or
else
there
is
nothing
can
be
spoken
,
promised
,
or
sworn
by
any
man
,
that
he
can
assent
unto
,
but
what
is
spoken
,
promised
or
sworn
to
,
in
his
own
Words
.
Such
a
common
condition
now
,
I
suppose
this
,
that
whatsoever
is
declared
promised
or
sworn
in
these
matters
,
as
in
all
things
in
the
World
besides
,
the
words
must
have
an
Equal
interpretation
.
There
is
the
very
letter
,
and
there
is
the
meaning
of
Laws
,
and
so
of
these
impositions
.
The
meaning
is
the
mind
of
the
Lawgiver
or
the
imposer
.
His
Will
is
t●●
Law
,
and
his
Meaning
is
his
Will
.
In
the
general
then
we
must
take
up
here
,
That
whatsoever
the
form
of
words
be
,
wherein
any
matter
is
enjoyned
,
those
that
submit
to
that
matter
,
must
take
it
in
the
supposed
sense
of
the
King
and
Parliament
who
passed
the
same
according
to
their
declared
words
,
receiving
and
bearing
an
equal
interpretation
.
Indeed
the
sense
of
a
Parliament
being
not
single
,
yet
the
declared
words
not
varying
,
there
is
a
latitude
must
go
to
an
Equal
meaning
;
Neither
is
it
material
what
two
or
three
or
more
of
the
harder-grained
aimed
at
in
passing
an
injunction
,
for
so
long
as
a
man
is
to
take
it
only
in
that
sense
which
he
verily
believes
was
intended
by
the
Major
part
,
there
is
nothing
but
what
is
candid
,
or
at
least
nothing
that
is
unreasonable
is
to
be
attributed
to
it
.
If
you
say
the
Major
part
do
differ
in
their
meaning
,
and
so
we
cannot
go
by
the
meaning
of
the
Major
part
,
you
may
cavil
as
well
,
the
Parliament
have
no
meaning
at
all
to
go
by
,
because
they
have
not
all
one
meaning
.
I
answer
that
that
meaning
wherein
more
do
agree
then
in
any
other
,
is
to
be
judged
the
Major
parts
meaning
,
and
that
,
that
is
lyable
to
no
more
difficulty
to
go
by
,
then
if
the
Lawgiver
(
who
is
not
actually
to
be
consulted
)
was
but
one
person
.
This
interpretation
yet
farther
which
is
equal
must
be
left
in
its
decision
to
the
Conscience
of
every
single
person
,
as
it
is
in
the
case
of
Scripture
.
Not
to
put
what
sense
on
the
injunction
he
will
,
or
can
,
as
if
a
man
might
use
his
Wit
here
,
as
his
Weapon
,
to
defend
his
living
:
but
to
judg
what
was
indeed
the
Imposers
meaning
;
Neither
wronging
them
in
straining
their
words
to
any
harsh
or
injurious
Construction
,
nor
giving
himself
liberty
to
serve
his
turn
of
the
most
reasonable
,
which
he
believes
not
they
intended
.
Every
man
is
to
judg
what
is
the
Holy
Ghost's
meaning
in
this
or
that
text
,
and
from
that
he
may
not
recede
,
without
sin
,
in
his
actions
.
Upon
this
account
are
the
Scriptures
not
of
private
interpretation
(
N.
B.
)
when
yet
we
are
still
bound
in
the
practice
of
them
to
a
judgment
of
private
discretion
.
We
must
hold
the
same
of
all
Laws
,
and
these
Impositions
.
As
for
the
Mediums
,
whereby
we
gather
the
mind
of
the
Imposers
,
they
are
various
,
some
taking
the
common
sense
of
the
Many
,
some
the
sense
of
the
Impartial
and
Wise
,
some
the
judgment
of
the
Law
,
some
the
declaration
only
of
themselves
to
be
the
sense
of
the
words
imposed
.
But
let
the
Mediums
be
what
they
will
,
whereby
a
man
comes
to
the
resolution
of
his
belief
of
the
Imposers
meaning
,
when
he
is
once
brought
to
a
setled
perswasion
and
conviction
,
that
this
or
that
and
no
other
was
their
meaning
,
if
he
can
submit
to
the
words
in
the
full
latitude
of
that
meaning
as
he
is
fully
perswaded
in
his
Conscience
is
all
they
intended
in
such
or
such
an
injunction
then
is
he
free
to
his
own
determination
.
There
is
a
strict
,
or
allowed
sense
of
words
therefore
,
I
said
in
one
Chapter
before
;
I
will
say
it
over
here
more
fully
.
There
is
a
sense
which
a
man
is
perswaded
in
his
Conscience
if
he
should
ask
the
Imposers
they
would
allow
,
as
what
in
these
things
was
their
meaning
:
and
there
is
a
sense
they
would
not
allow
him
.
A
Christian
,
I
apprehend
,
is
to
take
the
injunctions
of
his
Superiours
in
the
sense
he
believes
they
allow
him
.
If
he
makes
such
scruples
and
yields
himself
to
them
,
which
his
Conscience
tells
him
the
sense
which
they
allow
him
does
satisfie
,
he
wrongs
them
and
trespasses
on
the
fifth
Commandment
.
If
he
on
the
other
side
receives
their
injunctions
without
any
regard
at
all
of
their
sense
,
or
in
such
or
such
a
sense
which
his
Conscience
tells
him
is
larger
then
they
allow
him
,
he
is
profane
in
his
Conscienae
,
and
sins
in
the
matter
against
God
.
There
is
a
Court
then
is
setup
for
every
one
in
his
own
Breast
,
Let
him
go
to
his
Conscience
and
ask
what
think
I
really
,
as
in
the
presence
of
God
,
if
I
could
ask
the
Imposers
of
these
things
whether
it
is
their
Will
that
he
should
be
of
another
mind
in
these
particulars
that
cross
his
assent
,
or
leave
his
station
?
If
his
Conscience
tells
him
it
is
verily
perswaded
it
was
their
intention
in
the
injunction
,
he
is
to
honour
God
in
his
patient
suffering
their
pleasure
.
But
if
he
is
perswaded
in
his
Soul
that
this
is
utterly
against
their
wills
(
and
was
)
and
that
the
things
he
scruples
at
,
or
as
he
scruples
them
,
never
came
into
their
minds
unles
to
admit
them
,
only
they
passed
them
in
the
gross
,
never
intending
that
they
should
put
a
barr
in
Conscience
unto
any
,
and
if
he
could
ask
them
,
he
believes
they
would
certainly
allow
him
in
them
,
Here
he
is
(
I
suppose
)
to
put
such
a
sense
or
meaning
then
upon
the
injunction
,
as
may
be
favourable
to
his
scruples
,
and
yield
it
his
submission
.
Leges
satis
habent
id
quod
plerunque
accidit
respicere
(
said
Theophrastus
,
)
quae
autem
rarius
contingunt
,
communibus
tamen
regulis
constringenda
sunt
,
quia
etsi
ratio
legis
in
isto
speciali
facto
specialiter
locum
non
habeat
,
maneat
tamen
ratio
in
sua
generalitate
,
cui
specialia
subjici
fas
est
.
They
that
please
may
read
Suarez
de
Legibus
l.
6.
c
.
1.
For
my
part
though
I
could
use
more
words
,
I
see
no
cause
to
alter
any
thing
for
my
reading
of
him
.
For
the
Matter
it self
of
Conformity
,
the
chief
stumbling
Stones
may
be
reduced
to
these
heads
.
The
renunciation
of
the
Covenant
.
Approbation
of
the
Liturgy
.
Episcopal
Orders
.
The
last
is
the
threshold
to
Conforming
,
and
there
is
a
first
and
second
discourse
abroad
about
Re-ordination
,
which
as
the
Authors
of
the
Grand
Case
and
Peace
Offering
referred
their
Readers
to
,
for
satisfaction
:
So
the
deceased
Bishop
Worth
once
told
me
he
had
actually
himself
satisfied
all
he
met
with
in
Ireland
but
three
Scots
with
the
arguments
of
the
first
of
those
Books
.
For
my
own
part
,
I
dispair
really
of
proving
any
uncommon
thing
ever
by
Scripture
if
re-ordaining
as
to
the
work
of
a
new
charge
is
not
exemplified
in
the
instances
that
are
pressed
in
those
Papers
:
and
I
must
yet
say
freely
,
I
am
satisfied
that
the
repetition
of
Orders
upon
the
said
account
is
lawful
,
when
I
cannot
methinks
be
satisfied
with
it
upon
any
account
else
for
my
life
,
for
this
slippery
Ice
after
tryal
no
where
else
will
bear
.
Let
a
man
produce
St.
Paul
,
the
eleven
Disciples
and
Barnabas
receiving
commission
more
then
once
,
they
will
say
this
is
still
{αβγδ}
.
Be
that
exception
then
provided
against
,
and
forasmuch
as
this
is
the
general
case
(
for
it
is
to
a
new
charge
if
any
now
be
ordained
)
let
a
man
declare
him self
freely
to
the
Bishop
and
others
(
those
especially
that
have
to
do
with
him
in
it
)
that
there
is
this
account
he
has
(
whatsoever
satisfaction
he
hath
besides
)
upon
which
he
can
do
it
,
and
there
is
no
scruple
that
I
know
otherwise
,
but
he
may
find
his
ease
for
it
(
if
he
take
heed
)
in
that
second
,
of
those
Discourses
.
In
short
,
There
is
Re-ordination
ad
Officium
,
or
ad
Exercitium
particulare
.
Though
the
one
of
these
be
condemned
by
Divines
generally
,
Ancient
and
Modern
,
School-men
,
Councels
,
and
Fathers
:
the
other
is
justifiable
and
justified
(
as
I
remember
)
by
Mason
and
as
good
Divines
as
any
we
have
.
And
this
expedient
I
will
commend
from
the
practice
of
the
Primitive
times
.
Justin
Martyr
in
his
questions
and
responses
(
if
his
)
the
Orthodox
(
Quest
.
14
)
asking
why
the
Church
did
not
Baptize
,
and
ordain
the
Hereticks
again
,
whose
Baptism
or
Orders
before
was
faulty
,
thus
answers
.
{αβγδ}
.
That
is
,
The
error
of
the
Heretick
who
becomes
Orthodox
is
thus
amended
.
The
error
of
his
Opinion
by
the
change
of
his
mind
;
the
error
of
his
Baptism
by
the
annointing
of
the
Holy
Chrism
;
the
error
of
his
Ordination
by
the
Imposition
of
hands
.
The
next
thing
is
the
Renunciation
of
the
Covenant
;
And
here
it
is
not
for
any
to
deceive
themselves
and
think
that
less
then
this
was
intended
in
the
Subscription
of
the
Act
of
Uniformity
,
the
Oath
of
the
Oxford
Act
,
and
the
like
Declarations
.
They
that
took
the
Covenant
swore
they
would
in
their
place
endeavour
the
extirpation
of
Prelacy
,
that
is
the
change
of
Church-government
,
when
in
these
late
Acts
they
are
required
to
declare
,
subscribe
,
and
swear
the
direct
contrary
,
that
they
will
not
endeavour
any
alteration
of
Government
in
Church
or
State
,
and
that
there
lies
no
obligation
on
me
then
from
the
Covenant
so
to
do
.
This
is
a
manifest
renouncing
of
it
,
and
to
be
justified
too
only
upon
the
account
that
this
particular
matter
covenanted
(
at
least
according
as
it
was
covenanted
)
was
unlawful
,
and
so
is
it
likewise
expressed
in
the
Subscription
.
In
an
Oath
then
(
that
every
one
may
see
before
him
what
he
does
)
there
are
two
things
to
be
distinguished
,
the
Actus
jurandi
,
and
the
Res
jurata
;
The
act
of
Swearing
,
and
the
thing
Sworn
;
The
Covenanting
,
and
the
matter
Covenanted
.
It
is
not
enough
that
the
actus
jurandi
,
the
act
of
Swearing
or
Covenanting
was
unlawful
,
to
make
an
Oath
to
be
said
unlawful
in
it self
,
so
as
upon
that
account
to
be
renounced
,
unless
the
Res
jurata
,
the
thing
Sworn
,
or
matter
Covenanted
,
be
found
so
too
.
This
matter
Covenanted
,
what
it
was
,
we
see
:
And
the
alteration
of
Episcopacy
as
now
established
which
is
that
matter
,
may
be
considered
then
,
either
Simply
and
Precisely
,
without
regard
to
the
Covenant
it self
or
them
that
Covenanted
,
and
so
we
are
not
to
suppose
this
matter
in
se
to
be
unlawful
(
in
favour
to
the
concerned
)
but
that
it
lies
at
the
pleasure
of
the
Power
which
is
Supreme
,
directed
by
the
word
of
God
:
or
else
this
matter
Covenanted
may
be
considered
Relatively
and
Complexly
,
as
incarnated
in
the
Covenant
,
and
with
regard
to
the
persons
that
took
the
same
,
in
their
capacity
of
acting
,
and
way
of
prosecution
,
and
this
Res
jurata
as
to
them
who
were
in
no
capacity
political
,
and
acting
not
in
order
to
the
Will
of
the
Supreme
,
but
by
force
,
and
against
his
Will
,
must
be
unlawful
and
as
against
the
Ordinance
of
God
may
be
renounced
.
To
pursue
this
a
little
as
clearly
and
honestly
as
I
can
.
Whatsoever
Government
(
to
keep
on
my
ground
at
first
laid
)
it
pleases
God
that
men
upon
reasons
seeming
best
to
them
do
set
up
in
any
Nation
and
comes
to
be
established
,
it
is
to
be
look'd
on
as
set
up
by
the
providence
of
God
,
and
so
his
Ordinance
according
to
our
Apostle
,
upon
which
the
command
of
Subjection
falling
in
immediately
it
is
not
for
any
single
man
,
or
party
,
to
endeavour
the
disanulling
of
it
.
There
is
a
Resistance
of
the
Governours
that
are
,
which
we
understand
easily
,
and
there
is
a
resistance
of
the
Government
that
is
,
and
that
I
take
to
be
in
the
highest
degree
an
endeavour
it
be
not
,
and
in
the
lower
,
an
endeavour
it
be
otherwise
then
it
is
;
which
consequently
being
unlawful
,
we
must
distinguish
of
the
Constitution
of
a
Government
,
and
the
Administration
.
Alterations
in
the
administration
of
Government
,
are
made
we
know
ordinarily
in
repealing
Old
,
and
making
New
Statutes
:
But
the
fundamental
Constitution
whereby
and
according
to
which
they
are
made
,
remains
standing
as
the
settled
Ordinance
of
Gods
Providence
in
the
Nation
.
Now
the
way
of
any
alteration
according
to
the
Constitution
of
our
Government
,
is
not
forgotten
,
in
the
first
Chapter
to
be
premised
;
It
must
be
by
the
King
and
Parliament
,
which
being
chosen
by
the
people
,
the
people
thereby
in
their
Representatives
do
concurr
to
these
alterations
.
A
thing
we
are
to
know
so
true
that
there
are
no
Laws
that
pass
,
but
in
this
sense
are
said
to
be
Quas
vulgas
Elegerit
.
All
the
Commons
in
the
Realm
are
represented
in
Parliament
by
the
Knights
and
Burgesses
says
Sr.
Edward
Coke
Inst.
part
4.
p.
158.
And
are
called
tout
le
comminaltie
de
la
terre
illonque
Summones
in
the
preface
of
Westminster
the
first
.
Every
English
man
is
intended
to
be
there
present
either
in
person
or
by
procuration
,
and
the
consent
of
the
Parliament
is
taken
to
be
every
mans
consent
,
says
Sr.
Thomas
Smith
,
l.
2.
c
.
2.
Nay
while
the
King
consilio
&
assensu
Baronum
leges
olim
imposuit
universo
Regno
consentire
inferior
quisque
visus
est
in
persona
Domini
sui
capitalis
,
prout
hodie
per
procuratores
comitatus
says
Sr.
Henry
Spelman
.
There
is
a
Uniform
kind
of
Endeavour
therefore
after
the
common
good
,
wherein
every
man
that
hath
a
vote
in
choosing
Burgesses
,
may
be
looked
on
,
though
private
persons
,
in
a
sense
,
to
act
in
a
capacity
that
is
political
or
publick
,
so
long
as
it
is
in
order
only
to
a
Parliamentary
proceeding
in
subordination
to
the
highest
Authority
:
when
if
he
shall
act
out
of
that
way
,
not
in
order
thereunto
,
such
an
acting
cannot
come
under
the
score
of
a
capacity
political
,
but
private
,
being
against
the
Constitution
,
which
is
the
Publick
(
or
the
thing
wherein
the
Res
publica
or
populi
does
mainly
lie
,
)
and
consequently
against
the
Ordination
of
God
.
There
are
two
suppositions
upon
this
that
are
contrary
,
yet
have
both
some
truth
in
them
,
and
must
be
set
at
rights
.
The
one
is
,
that
it
is
the
duty
of
every
one
to
endeavour
the
reformation
of
the
Church
as
highly
pleasing
unto
God
;
which
when
some
words
of
caution
and
tenderness
were
put
in
for
the
avoiding
Sedition
and
breach
of
Peace
,
such
as
in
their
place
and
calling
be
,
it
is
no
wonder
if
the
hearts
of
a
great
many
of
the
most
serious
in
the
Land
were
won
by
so
good
an
End
and
tender
Words
,
so
as
to
enter
into
a
Covenant
for
the
extirpatien
of
Prelacy
in
order
to
it
.
The
other
is
,
that
the
business
of
Reformation
which
includes
an
altering
of
the
present
Government
,
does
belong
to
the
Power
which
is
Supreme
,
and
for
any
to
go
about
it
in
a
way
that
was
,
or
is
not
in
order
to
the
consent
of
the
King
,
in
and
together
with
his
Parliament
,
is
so
far
from
being
his
duty
,
that
it
is
a
thing
contrary
to
subjection
,
that
opposes
Gods
Ordination
,
that
will
not
be
content
that
Gods
Will
should
stand
,
but
would
have
the
Powers
that
are
to
be
otherwise
then
they
are
,
and
so
entring
into
Gods
Seat
,
as
if
a
man
could
order
things
better
then
God
does
,
as
hath
been
spoken
.
To
the
former
supposition
then
I
answer
,
there
was
two
things
put
together
that
could
not
stand
together
,
taking
the
Covenant
truly
as
it
ought
,
in
its
complex
consideration
.
To
wit
,
An
endeavour
to
alter
the
Government
,
and
according
to
every
man's
place
and
calling
.
It
is
indeed
according
to
the
place
and
calling
of
the
Supreme
Magistrate
,
of
the
King
and
Parliament
to
endeavour
reformation
of
the
Church
and
State
as
there
is
need
.
And
it
is
according
to
the
place
and
calling
of
private
persons
to
desire
and
seek
the
same
to
be
done
by
them
.
They
may
choose
their
Burgesses
,
Petition
them
,
Advise
with
them
,
and
Pray
to
God
for
them
to
that
End
:
But
to
desire
or
seek
it
,
and
much
more
to
swear
to
endeavour
a
change
in
the
Administration
of
the
Church
(
even
so
far
as
the
extirpation
of
the
persons
therein
governing
)
in
a
way
that
was
not
to
proceed
politically
,
by
the
act
of
the
Supreme
(
for
whether
the
Supreme
Power
lies
in
the
King
,
or
in
the
King
and
his
two
Houses
joyntly
as
one
,
nothing
could
pass
while
he
was
divided
from
them
)
is
not
according
to
our
place
nor
calling
.
So
that
the
saying
I
will
endeavour
it
,
but
according
to
my
place
and
calling
,
was
an
inconsistency
in
the
Lenitive
,
with
the
matter
undertaken
.
To
the
latter
supposition
I
distinguish
.
There
is
an
Endeavour
of
Reformation
(
or
of
altering
what
is
convenient
in
the
Government
)
that
is
consistent
with
the
Constitution
,
to
wit
by
the
way
of
Parliament
with
consent
of
the
King
,
which
appears
to
be
lawful
before
God
and
man
,
and
that
must
therefore
be
maintained
and
held
:
when
there
is
an
Endeavour
,
Not
in
this
way
,
and
so
not
consisting
with
the
Constitution
,
which
(
let
it
be
in
what
way
else
it
will
)
is
pleaded
to
be
Resistance
,
forbidden
of
God
and
men
,
and
consequently
liable
to
be
quitted
or
renounced
.
In
our
late
Acts
when
a
man
is
put
to
profess
,
subscribe
,
or
swear
that
he
will
not
endeavour
any
alteration
of
Government
,
he
is
not
to
conceive
that
it
is
intended
he
should
bind
himself
to
lay
down
his
subjection
to
the
Laws
,
and
much
less
to
the
Constitution
it self
of
our
Nation
,
which
provides
for
the
former
Endeavour
,
so
that
if
a
Parliament
be
called
,
he
is
to
act
in
their
Choice
,
and
consequently
Endeavour
in
his
place
(
for
there
he
has
place
)
the
promoting
the
common
good
according
to
the
constant
practice
of
the
Realm
:
But
he
is
to
conceive
that
he
renounces
the
latter
Endeavour
,
that
is
that
endeavour
which
was
carried
on
in
the
late
times
(
unto
which
no
doubt
but
these
Acts
have
their
respect
)
in
a
way
not
allowed
by
the
Constitution
,
and
consequently
against
Gods
Ordination
,
where
the
unlawfulness
of
the
War
and
Covenant
by
me
is
placed
.
To
wit
,
the
Constitution
of
our
Land
is
such
,
that
whatsoever
alterations
of
Government
there
be
(
which
as
to
the
Administration
may
,
and
are
fit
sometimes
to
be
,
)
they
must
be
made
only
by
the
King
and
Parliament
;
and
Here
was
an
endeavour
of
alteration
by
the
Parliament
without
the
King
,
and
against
him
;
An
endeavour
by
Arms
to
force
the
King
to
consent
,
in
stead
of
that
free
joynt
and
mutual
content
in
Parliament
,
the
endeavour
whereof
alone
it
is
,
that
our
Constitution
allows
.
And
if
the
other
be
not
allowed
,
we
see
how
the
late
Parliament-cause
may
be
relinquish'd
,
when
yet
all
lawful
endeavour
for
the
publick
good
either
of
Church
or
State
is
upheld
.
There
was
the
End
of
that
cause
let
me
say
,
and
the
Means
.
The
Means
were
covenanting
without
the
King
,
and
War
against
him
.
The
End
was
Reformation
.
The
Means
I
apprehend
appears
lyable
to
renunciation
,
when
the
End
is
still
by
other
means
(
that
is
according
to
the
way
our
Constitution
provides
)
to
be
sought
.
To
conclude
,
The
Impositions
that
are
,
must
be
taken
in
the
sense
of
the
Imposers
I
have
said
before
.
In
these
late
Acts
,
when
the
Parliament
do
require
that
a
man
should
renounce
all
obligation
from
the
Covenant
of
Endeavouring
any
alteration
in
Church
or
State
,
their
sense
is
plainly
he
should
not
do
as
they
did
formerly
;
that
is
,
their
meaning
lies
certainly
in
opposition
to
former
proceedings
,
to
what
of
late
hath
been
practised
,
to
use
their
own
words
before
cited
in
the
Militia
Acts.
He
is
to
renounce
all
Endeavour
which
is
Resistance
,
forbidden
by
the
Apostle
:
but
he
renounces
not
not
any
Endeavour
which
is
Subjection
to
the
ordination
of
God
i●
the
Nation
.
I
will
●onfirm
this
,
with
one
only
clear
reason
.
The
grea●
thing
intended
by
the
renunciation
of
the
Covenant
in
our
late
Acts
,
is
the
preservation
of
the
Government
in
the
present
Constitution
against
all
alteration
.
But
the
Constitution
of
our
Government
being
such
in
the
fonndation
that
whatsoever
is
needful
or
convenient
to
be
altered
,
may
be
proposed
to
that
End
in
Parliament
:
to
take
away
that
which
is
universally
radicated
in
the
whole
Nation
in
order
thereunto
,
were
a
piece
of
the
greatest
alteration
that
could
be
,
and
consequently
never
to
be
understood
as
intended
by
the
Parliament
.
After
this
,
it
may
be
said
haply
,
This
determination
were
well
,
if
it
were
Authorized
:
but
how
shall
we
turn
universals
into
particulars
without
Authority
?
I
answer
,
He
that
ploweth
plows
in
hope
,
and
I
am
not
one
out
of
hope
but
that
these
injunctions
may
yet
come
in
due
time
under
some
revisory
Explanation
;
and
then
may
what
I
write
(
I
mean
the
Contents
)
become
serviceable
.
In
the
interim
,
There
is
a
concent
of
Reason
to
be
understood
in
the
Laws
one
with
another
,
and
of
all
with
the
Constitution
,
and
Reason
of
Law
is
my
Authority
.
It
is
a
general
rule
allowed
by
all
Laws
(
says
my
Lord
Coke
)
in
the
construction
of
Statutes
.
Quamvis
Lex
generaliter
loquitur
,
restringenda
tamen
est
,
ut
cessante
ratione
,
&
ipsa
cesset
;
Cum
enim
ratio
sit
anima
vigorque
ipsius
Legis
,
non
videtur
Legislator
id
sensisse
quod
ratione
careat
,
etiamsi
generalitas
prima
facie
aliter
possit
suadere
Inst.
part
4.
c
.
74.
The
third
thing
in
the
matter
of
Conformity
is
an
agreement
to
the
Liturgy
.
And
here
may
be
included
the
old
difference
about
our
Rites
and
Ceremonies
:
and
the
new
Declaration
in
the
Act
of
Uniformity
.
For
our
old
Rites
.
That
the
Church
hath
a
Power
to
appoint
Ceremonies
I
do
not
question
,
but
how
far
this
Power
doth
extend
,
is
not
perhaps
so
easy
of
decision
.
There
is
the
Worship
of
God
,
and
the
Circumstances
of
it
.
The
Worship
of
God
it self
cannot
be
instituted
by
Man
,
but
God
only
,
because
there
is
none
can
know
what
will
please
him
unless
he
reveal
it
.
Besides
,
Will-worship
is
forbidden
by
the
Apostle
;
To
add
or
diminish
by
Moses
;
And
this
is
the
substance
of
the
second
commandment
.
Circumstances
of
Worship
are
its
appendages
or
accidents
which
when
they
go
not
into
the
essence
of
that
honour
,
which
we
give
unto
God
according
to
his
excellence
(
the
School-definition
of
Worship
)
do
appertain
as
necessary
to
the
person
in
the
performance
.
Those
Ceremonies
consequently
which
are
not
necessary
to
the
person
who
acts
in
a
thing
which
God
hath
commanded
for
his
immediate
honour
thereby
,
are
more
then
circumstances
of
the
same
(
I
will
speak
surer
,
are
in
my
account
or
according
to
this
adjustment
I
make
,
more
then
circumstances
,
or
more
then
belongs
to
man
to
prescribe
in
Gods
Worship
,
)
and
let
them
that
impose
them
,
or
use
them
,
look
to
it
My
reasons
are
,
because
this
is
a
peculiar
branch
of
Christian
liberty
to
be
freed
from
the
Ordinances
of
men
.
Also
●argue
,
That
which
is
unlawful
and
forbidden
the
Church
hath
no
Power
in
,
for
our
Doctors
say
her
Power
lies
in
indifferent
things
that
are
neither
commanded
nor
forbidden
.
But
it
is
forbidden
by
the
Apostle
to
enjoyn
any
thing
that
is
not
to
Edification
.
Ergo
,
In
things
that
are
unnecessary
and
unprofitable
I
apprehend
the
Church
hath
no
Power
(
that
is
,
hath
no
right
from
the
Will
of
Christ
)
to
put
Impositions
upon
us
as
to
Gods
Worship
,
and
consequently
there
can
be
no
subjection
due
in
Conscience
to
such
things
.
Things
now
that
are
necessary
to
him
that
acts
in
the
Worship
of
God
are
so
either
in
genere
,
or
in
specie
.
In
things
that
are
necessary
any
way
I
am
willing
the
Churches
Authority
be
owned
,
and
I
think
one
ought
to
submit
his
private
judgment
very
much
to
hers
in
judging
a
thing
edifying
or
not
.
When
things
in
genere
are
necessary
and
not
determined
by
God
in
specie
,
these
are
matters
we
suppose
,
wherein
our
Church
or
Rulers
Power
doth
lie
;
And
here
we
must
distinguish
of
the
Imposition
,
and
the
peoples
Submission
.
As
for
our
Submission
,
I
apprehend
that
whensoever
our
Rulers
do
act
in
their
own
Sphere
,
and
the
things
they
command
be
lawful
,
we
are
concluded
under
obedience
by
the
fift
Commandment
.
For
the
Imposition
there
is
need
of
a
double
distinction
.
The
one
is
concerning
those
things
which
are
necessary
in
genere
and
not
determined
by
God
in
specie
,
and
they
are
either
such
as
are
needful
to
be
so
determined
;
or
not
needful
so
to
be
.
For
instance
,
Time
and
Place
are
cirumstances
of
Worship
●ecessarie
in
genere
,
for
there
must
be
some
time
and
place
,
and
this
in
specie
is
needful
to
be
determined
,
for
else
cannot
the
Worship
of
God
be
performed
.
On
the
other
hand
,
there
is
the
Habit
and
Gesture
,
which
are
in
genere
also
necessary
:
No
Minister
can
come
to
Church
but
som
habit
he
must
have
on
,
and
he
must
use
some
gesture
:
but
the
determination
whether
it
be
of
this
or
that
Colour
,
in
the
Pulpit
Black
,
in
the
Pew
White
,
or
the
like
,
this
is
not
needful
to
be
determined
,
because
the
Service
may
be
performed
though
that
be
not
appointed
.
Now
it
is
a
question
to
me
whether
it
be
lawful
for
our
Superiours
to
determine
of
things
that
concern
Gods
Worship
which
in
specie
are
not
necessary
to
be
determined
.
For
two
reasons
.
The
one
from
the
analogy
of
that
text
,
It
seemeth
good
to
the
Holy
Ghost
and
us
,
to
lay
upon
you
no
greater
burden
then
those
necessary
things
.
The
other
from
those
I
Rules
unto
which
the
Church
is
tyed
in
her
injunctions
,
to
wit
,
that
she
do
nothing
to
eay
a
stumbling-block
before
the
weak
brother
,
nothing
but
what
is
fit
and
decent
and
to
edification
.
But
it
is
impossible
according
to
the
condition
of
our
Nation
,
to
determine
such
things
in
Gods
Worship
as
need
not
be
determined
,
but
it
will
scandalize
many
,
and
so
cannot
be
to
edification
,
when
it
is
to
their
destruction
.
Nevertheless
the
other
distinction
is
here
also
to
take
his
room
,
to
wit
,
between
the
Matter
imposed
and
the
Act
of
imposing
.
Though
the
Act
of
imposing
were
unlawful
(
which
yet
I
peremptorily
say
not
,
yet
is
the
matter
imposed
,
so
long
as
it
is
about
that
which
in
genere
is
necessary
,
no
other
then
what
does
belong
to
the
Sphere
of
our
Superiours
,
and
consequently
obliges
the
outward
man
in
point
of
Submission
.
The
outward
man
I
say
de
industria
,
for
whatsoever
the
commands
of
our
Superiours
in
indifferent
things
be
,
rather
then
resist
,
we
must
do
them
:
though
those
commands
in
Ecclesiasticals
must
be
for
our
Edification
,
and
in
Civils
for
the
Common
good
,
when
they
carry
the
Authority
of
God
to
bind
the
Conscience
.
See
Suarez
De
Legibus
.
l.
1.
c
.
7
and
Dr.
Field
on
the
Church
.
B.
4.
c
.
34.
Nor
am
I
ignorant
here
of
the
quarrel
most
have
at
these
Ceremonies
,
meerly
for
their
being
Significative
(
which
must
be
confess'd
in
the
stated
account
of
them
,
)
when
if
they
were
not
indeed
so
,
the
Compilers
of
the
Common
Prayer
would
have
accounted
them
unprofitable
and
relinquish'd
them
.
It
is
one
thing
therefore
(
I
account
)
to
make
a
Rite
to
be
Exhibitive
of
Grace
,
and
another
to
make
it
Significative
of
Duty
.
A
Sacrament
I
know
in
the
Catechisme
after
Austine
,
is
defined
an
outward
and
visible
Sign
of
an
inward
and
invisible
Grace
,
and
some
of
our
Rites
you
may
say
are
made
to
be
such
.
But
this
is
not
all
the
definition
,
we
must
not
cut
off
there
.
A
Sacrament
is
an
outward
sign
of
invisible
Grace
(
such
as
remission
of
sins
)
given
to
us
,
&c.
Note
that
.
Now
if
any
Rite
of
the
Church
be
made
a
sign
of
invisible
grace
given
,
or
to
be
given
to
us
upon
the
use
thereof
,
I
shall
see
good
reason
for
a
mans
dissent
from
her
Liturgy
till
that
be
removed
.
For
let
me
offer
a
little
light
here
.
To
say
the
Church
in
such
and
such
Rites
makes
a
kind
of
new
Sacraments
,
Take
the
word
Sacrament
in
a
common
usage
among
the
Ancients
,
and
this
is
nothing
if
you
understand
not
where
the
evil
of
so
doing
would
lie
.
And
where
is
that
?
Why
a
Sacrament
being
a
sign
of
Grace
given
to
us
(
that
is
of
the
grace
of
Gods
part
which
he
gives
)
thereby
,
there
is
none
can
be
the
ordainer
of
such
a
thing
but
God
only
,
because
it
is
he
alone
that
can
promise
that
Grace
and
give
the
same
by
it
.
If
any
mortal
then
should
bring
in
such
a
Rite
into
the
Church
,
and
make
it
an
exhibitive
sign
,
that
is
a
sign
of
the
Grace
of
God
given
by
the
same
,
it
were
a
most
strange
presumption
in
imposing
upon
the
Almighty
,
manifestly
,
as
if
he
should
be
tyed
to
exhibit
his
Grace
according
to
the
Will
of
Man
,
or
upon
an
institution
of
his
,
the
evil
and
horrour
whereof
must
appear
in
the
mention
of
it
.
But
to
make
any
circumstance
of
Worship
,
any
piece
of
Decency
,
Ceremony
or
Rite
to
be
significative
only
in
puting
us
in
mind
of
that
Grace
which
is
our
duty
(
not
as
what
on
Gods
part
is
given
hereby
,
but
what
is
)
incumbent
on
us
to
exercise
and
stir
up
our selves
unto
,
at
all
times
,
whether
we
use
this
Rite
or
no
,
and
whereof
it
is
good
to
be
still
put
in
mind
,
I
apprehend
not
my self
the
harm
therein
,
at
least
not
such
as
that
this
signification
should
make
such
Rites
to
be
Sacraments
any
more
then
the
Fringes
were
made
so
on
the
Jews
Garments
for
keeping
them
in
mind
of
Gods
commandments
.
In
ritubus
,
si
materia
sit
ductilis
,
nihil
tutius
quam
ea
restituere
quae
primis
post
Apostolos
saeculis
observata
apparent
.
In
hoc
autem
rerum
genere
quippe
per
legem
divinam
indefinito
,
recte
fecerit
summa
potestas
,
si
imperia
sua
subditorum
affectubus
attemperaverit
.
Grotius
De
imp
.
sum
.
pot
.
c
.
6.
§
.
11.
For
the
new
Delaration
of
unfeigned
assent
and
consent
to
all
and
every
thing
contained
in
,
and
prescribed
by
,
the
Book
of
Common
Prayer
,
and
Orders
,
I
must
confess
it
is
to
me
,
too
much
methinks
of
all
Conscience
to
be
imposed
under
that
strait
prescription
of
those
Words
and
no
other
.
The
design
of
the
Act
seems
only
to
intend
a
compliance
to
the
use
of
the
Liturgy
,
and
what
need
such
a
precise
form
of
Words
as
this
,
or
that
of
the
Canon
,
in
the
old
Subscription
?
What
if
a
man
would
use
the
Common
Prayer
and
consent
to
it
in
other
Words
?
Why
might
not
that
serve
?
It
is
a
hard
thing
to
be
forc'd
to
bear
ones
Testimony
to
the
Book
of
Common
Prayer
in
those
terms
as
a
man
cannot
declare
to
the
Bible
it self
,
or
any
Book
in
the
World
.
If
we
turn
to
the
Books
of
the
Chronicles
,
and
the
Kings
,
we
shall
find
it
is
said
of
the
same
man
in
one
Book
he
was
two
and
twenty
years
old
when
he
began
to
Reign
,
and
in
the
other
he
was
two
and
forty
.
That
these
places
are
reconcileable
,
and
reconciled
in
the
Hebrew
,
we
will
suppose
:
But
if
I
were
put
upon
an
attestation
to
the
English
translation
,
which
is
our
present
Bible
,
in
these
Words
and
no
other
,
that
I
assent
to
every
particular
thing
and
passage
contained
in
it
,
I
must
refuse
,
or
pause
at
least
,
till
I
have
made
my
interpretation
.
We
must
therefore
have
our
recourse
here
to
what
was
said
before
as
to
the
forms
and
composure
of
late
injunctions
,
and
in
regard
the
intendment
of
the
Lawgiver
or
the
Imposers
is
to
be
attended
in
all
Laws
,
we
may
consider
in
the
first
place
whether
any
man
can
seriously
imagine
for
himself
,
that
the
Majority
of
Parliament
could
ever
intend
that
he
should
give
such
an
approbation
to
the
Book
of
the
Liturgy
as
is
more
then
he
can
give
to
the
Book
of
the
Scriptures
?
Or
rather
whether
he
is
not
assured
that
if
he
give
such
a
testimony
to
the
one
as
he
can
to
the
other
,
he
does
come
up
to
the
utmost
of
their
meaning
,
and
performs
as
much
as
possibly
they
can
be
thought
in
reason
to
desire
of
him
?
We
may
consider
then
in
the
next
place
,
there
being
some
Mitigation
proving
here
to
be
necessary
,
that
when
this
man
cannot
declare
to
the
Bible
in
those
precise
terms
of
assent
to
every
particular
thing
in
it
,
yet
can
he
consent
to
the
use
of
the
whole
,
or
to
the
reading
of
all
and
every
thing
therein
without
scruple
.
For
instance
,
I
cannot
assent
to
the
Words
in
both
the
Translation
of
the
Bible
and
Psalter
of
that
one
verse
of
the
Psalm
where
it
is
read
in
the
one
,
they
were
not
disobedient
,
or
they
rebelled
and
in
the
other
,
they
rebelled
not
against
his
Word
,
seeing
they
are
contrary
:
but
I
can
consent
to
have
both
translations
read
in
the
Church
,
so
long
as
a
good
construction
may
be
(
as
Hooker
shews
)
made
of
Either
.
So
in
the
Liturgy
,
I
assent
not
to
that
passage
of
Athansius's
Creed
that
whosoever
holds
not
that
Faith
entire
is
undoubtedly
damn'd
,
for
I
doubt
not
but
many
of
the
Greek
Church
may
be
saved
that
dissent
in
one
Article
of
it
:
Yet
who
would
not
readily
consent
to
have
that
Excellent
Creed
used
as
the
judgment
of
the
ancient
Church
,
for
the
curbing
loose
Wits
from
the
danger
of
swerving
about
such
Mysteries
?
To
proceed
upon
this
,
Thus
much
I
hold
to
be
good
,
that
whosoever
could
make
this
Declaration
,
if
the
word
Use
were
put
in
,
I
A.
B.
do
declare
my
assent
and
consent
to
the
use
of
all
and
every
thing
in
the
Book
,
he
may
make
it
no
less
now
though
it
be
left
out
.
For
though
it
may
seem
a
hard
Chapter
to
give
ones
consent
thus
to
the
use
,
in
such
a
form
of
Words
as
declares
to
the
things
,
and
not
at
all
to
the
use
,
that
word
being
left
out
:
Yet
in
regard
the
preceding
words
of
the
Act
which
enjoyns
this
Declaration
on
on
the
persons
there
concerned
,
are
express
,
He
shall
declare
his
assent
and
consent
to
the
use
of
the
things
in
the
said
Book
in
these
Words
and
no
other
,
this
Declaration
in
these
Words
(
though
they
be
in
no
other
)
must
be
understood
to
be
to
the
use
.
We
can
have
no
greater
evidence
of
what
is
the
Imposers
meaning
then
their
own
interpreting
themselves
,
which
they
have
also
confirmed
in
the
preamble
of
the
Oxford
Act.
Neither
may
their
Words
be
taken
but
according
to
their
Meaning
.
Indeed
I
apprehend
it
not
my self
,
proper
to
say
Assent
to
the
use
,
nor
do
I
believe
it
easie
for
every
one
to
give
his
Consent
(
which
word
is
proper
)
to
the
use
of
every
particular
prescribed
in
the
Rubrick
and
Orders
,
so
that
,
as
I
do
not
know
what
advantage
,
or
how
much
,
may
be
made
hereof
,
I
must
needs
say
moreover
,
that
it
cannot
be
thought
by
any
that
are
considerate
but
that
in
an
imposition
which
contains
so
many
things
in
it
as
this
,
thereis
and
may
be
several
exceptions
picked
up
and
pressed
so
to
the
quick
,
that
no
body
shall
be
able
to
say
any
thing
to
the
purpose
,
but
thatt
here
is
a
tacit
general
allowance
to
be
given
to
all
these
draughts
of
Men
,
and
Humane
things
,
as
subject
to
oversight
,
diversity
,
and
imperfection
:
and
that
as
we
have
a
refuge
from
the
rigour
of
the
Words
of
any
Law
,
to
the
Meaning
of
the
Lawgiver
,
so
are
we
to
pass
a
righteous
judgment
on
their
Meaning
,
that
we
burden
it
not
with
any
thing
that
is
intollerable
,
or
not
comporting
with
our
Equal
,
and
Believed
interpretation
.
We
must
consider
therefore
in
the
third
place
more
nearly
.
There
is
a
Consent
,
Let
us
understand
,
that
is
External
,
if
I
may
use
the
Words
of
Bishop
Bramhal
,
and
I
be
not
mistaken
;
and
there
is
a
subscribing
to
the
Doctrines
of
a
Church
as
Articles
of
our
Faith
,
or
as
matters
of
Concord
,
in
the
Words
of
Bishop
Usher
.
When
a
man
is
required
in
the
old
Subscription
,
and
this
new
Declaration
to
assent
and
consent
to
all
and
every
thing
in
the
Liturgy
,
it
is
sufficient
I
apprehend
that
there
be
this
Consent
which
is
External
,
and
such
an
Assent
which
is
proportionable
to
things
required
only
for
Agreement
,
and
not
such
as
is
requisite
to
points
of
our
Creed
:
So
that
if
a
man
will
submit
to
the
practice
of
these
things
established
,
and
will
not
oppose
any
of
them
,
this
in
short
is
as
much
(
he
is
to
account
)
as
is
expected
of
him
in
these
Impositions
.
This
is
certain
that
no
Laws
which
are
Humane
,
can
meddle
with
the
internal
Acts
of
Man
,
and
consequently
that
his
assent
and
consent
can
be
no
otherwise
,
or
no
farther
concerned
herein
,
then
is
necessary
to
the
resolution
of
the
outward
man
and
external
Obedience
.
It
is
true
also
,
There
is
a
diversity
of
Faith
,
at
least
as
to
the
Majus
and
Minus
of
it
,
to
be
allowed
to
the
matters
even
of
Scripture
,
and
much
more
to
the
Contents
of
any
other
Book
whatsoever
.
I
will
add
,
that
I
dare
not
deny
but
that
it
may
be
consistent
with
the
Integrity
of
a
Christian
,
in
relation
to
many
particulars
,
to
speak
and
act
sometimes
with
the
Many
,
yet
reserve
ones
inward
thoughts
in
their
native
Ingenuity
and
Liberty
with
the
Wise
and
fewer
number
.
What
may
be
gathered
from
hence
farther
I
leave
:
But
there
are
few
or
no
Churches
that
have
not
their
Rites
,
and
Confessions
,
and
the
like
,
unto
which
they
require
the
signified
approbation
of
their
Ministers
,
especially
when
they
first
enter
that
Office
,
that
they
may
stick
the
faster
to
them
for
the
time
to
come
;
and
it
is
not
possible
that
all
,
if
any
who
are
men
of
Free
and
Searching
judgments
,
should
inwardly
,
and
with
conviction
,
perfectly
accord
in
every
point
,
words
and
all
,
with
the
same
.
There
is
a
submission
therefore
of
ones
private
judgment
and
belief
(
especially
I
say
while
a
man
is
yet
green
)
in
some
point
to
our
Superiours
,
to
the
Church
,
or
Common
judgment
,
as
Learners
yield
to
their
Teachers
,
and
the
Client
to
his
Consellour
,
which
is
an
External
kind
of
Assent
(
as
I
spoke
now
of
a
Consent
to
what
they
prescribe
in
like
manner
)
serving
to
Concord
,
when
there
is
no
less
than
an
internal
experimental
knowledg
and
faith
in
necessary
points
will
serve
unto
Salvation
.
I
must
confess
it
were
a
happy
thing
I
judg
when
the
most
of
our
serious
Fathers
and
Brethren
are
not
unwilling
to
take
a
latitude
themselves
in
their
sense
of
the
things
they
Impose
,
or
are
Imposed
on
them
,
that
they
would
come
once
to
make
the
business
of
Conformity
to
lie
no
longer
in
any
forms
of
Words
,
but
in
agreement
to
the
general
design
only
of
those
Acts
which
prescribe
such
or
such
Impositions
:
Nevertheless
while
those
ordinarily
who
are
in
Power
are
so
apt
t●
look
upon
it
as
a
piece
of
Wisdome
,
that
they
may
not
bring
any
guilt
upon
their
cause
,
or
the
Church
appear
inconstant
,
or
for
the
like
reasons
,
to
keep
up
still
unto
that
which
hath
been
,
there
is
a
necessity
that
men
must
be
ready
to
bend
a
little
and
find
out
something
to
satisfie
their
Consciences
,
wherein
they
act
,
or
else
retire
and
give
off
for
this
World
.
I
remember
there
was
a
time
when
Cato
himself
by
the
contrivance
of
his
enemies
was
brought
to
such
a
streight
that
either
he
must
swear
to
a
Law
,
and
give
his
consent
against
his
judgment
,
or
else
from
the
example
of
old
Metellus
,
be
like
to
be
Banished
;
and
he
was
perswaded
by
Cicero
from
his
stiffness
for
the
service
of
the
Commonwealth
,
to
temporize
for
once
,
rather
then
be
rendred
useless
for
ever
after
by
his
refusal
.
I
cannot
say
that
any
man
who
is
a
Christian
,
may
do
so
in
a
case
of
Confession
,
when
he
cannot
save
his
Conscience
:
but
if
he
can
save
it
in
this
business
of
Conformity
,
I
shall
not
blame
him
after
Cato
,
for
a
little
condesention
.
And
I
think
I
may
apply
here
the
Wise
Man's
saying
.
Be
not
Righteous
overmuch
,
Why
shouldest
thou
destroy
thy self
?
For
the
matter
of
Scandal
.
That
now
remains
,
and
does
deeply
concern
this
Argument
.
There
are
two
Cases
of
it
momentous
in
Scripture
.
The
one
is
,
when
a
man
is
satisfied
himself
of
the
lawfulness
of
a
thing
,
but
by
his
doing
the
same
he
shall
induce
some
others
to
it
,
that
are
either
not
under
the
same
Circumstances
,
or
not
satisfied
in
Conscience
about
the
doing
,
and
to
them
it
is
sin
,
which
when
a
man
shall
reffect
on
afterwards
,
he
knows
not
what
a
Wound
it
may
be
to
him
.
If
you
sin
against
the
weak
brethren
and
wound
their
Consciences
,
you
sin
against
Christ
.
The
other
is
,
when
a
man
shall
use
that
liberty
he
hath
himself
in
a
thing
which
is
so
abhorrent
to
some
of
his
brethren
,
that
they
be
ready
thereupon
to
fall
away
from
the
true
Religion
,
and
so
perish
inevitably
.
This
made
the
matter
of
meats
(
I
apprehend
)
to
be
of
so
much
danger
in
reference
to
the
Jews
.
For
meat
destroy
not
him
for
whom
Christ
dyed
.
It
must
be
acknowledged
therefore
by
me
here
,
that
when
a
man
is
indeed
in
such
a
case
as
that
he
shall
certainly
give
either
of
these
two
scandals
to
others
,
he
hath
need
to
look
to
himself
.
It
is
not
enough
(
I
fear
)
to
say
,
The
matter
of
scandal
does
lie
in
indifferent
things
,
but
when
Authority
hath
commanded
them
,
they
cease
to
be
indifferent
,
and
then
cessante
materia
,
the
scandal
ceases
.
For
besides
that
if
it
were
not
for
this
command
and
danger
of
the
penalty
,
a
man
should
not
at
all
be
scandalized
herein
,
having
no
temptation
otherwise
to
do
the
thing
which
is
against
his
Conscience
,
and
whatsoever
is
so
,
we
know
is
not
to
be
done
for
all
that
command
:
Besides
this
I
say
,
such
a
solution
as
this
,
is
so
easie
a
way
of
dispatch
,
that
Christianity
I
am
perswaded
,
requires
more
care
,
and
carries
in
it
more
difficulty
then
that
comes
to
.
A
man
(
as
my
mind
does
give
me
)
must
yield
an
account
unto
God
for
that
opinion
that
will
loosen
his
awe
toward
him
,
and
tenderness
toward
his
brethren
,
more
then
he
does
allow
.
God
commands
,
Thou
shalt
not
do
that
thing
which
will
stumble
thy
brother
so
as
to
wound
his
Conscience
,
or
destroy
his
Soul
.
Man
commands
,
Thou
shalt
do
this
or
that
thing
which
will
wound
his
Soul
and
destroy
him
.
Who
must
be
obeyed
,
God
or
Man
?
If
I
say
to
this
,
God
does
not
command
,
Thou
shalt
not
do
that
thing
that
will
wound
thy
brother
,
but
thou
shalt
not
do
that
indifferent
thing
that
will
wound
him
,
and
when
it
is
commanded
by
the
Magistrate
it
is
necessary
,
and
a
duty
,
this
answer
will
not
serve
.
For
besides
that
this
limitation
is
Mans
gloss
and
not
in
the
text
,
the
bottom
I
think
lies
here
,
Where
there
is
a
former
Obligation
,
as
there
is
from
that
command
,
Thou
shalt
not
kill
,
on
the
Conscience
before
,
it
cannot
be
taken
away
by
a
later
as
that
of
the
Magistrates
must
needs
be
which
yesterday
was
not
.
Moreover
,
That
the
Magistrate
be
obeyed
is
a
duty
of
an
affirmative
precept
which
binds
not
ad
semper
:
But
that
thou
shalt
not
kill
,
or
that
thou
shalt
not
scandalize
thy
brother
in
these
senses
which
is
in
earnest
the
murdering
of
his
Soul
,
is
the
duty
of
a
Negative
precept
,
which
binds
semper
and
ad
semper
,
and
so
must
take
place
of
the
other
.
There
is
another
way
of
satisfaction
then
,
that
a
man
must
find
here
in
his
practice
,
when
he
cannot
be
help'd
by
his
Brain
.
It
is
this
.
The
objection
from
scandal
against
any
thing
in
the
point
of
obedience
,
does
not
nullifie
the
Duty
which
is
commanded
by
the
Magistrate
,
but
it
puts
a
barr
to
the
Action
,
so
that
a
man
must
first
remove
the
scandal
,
and
then
do
his
duty
.
Whosoever
thou
art
that
readest
these
lines
,
take
this
with
thee
,
remember
it
for
thy
occasion
,
and
bless
God
.
Now
then
as
to
the
first
Case
.
Are
there
any
likely
in
anothers
conforming
unto
this
or
that
matter
enjoyned
,
to
be
induced
by
him
to
the
same
,
who
are
not
under
his
circumstances
for
it
,
or
not
yet
satisfied
in
Conscience
about
it
,
and
so
shall
be
wounded
by
his
fact
?
Then
let
him
go
to
such
persons
,
If
he
satisfie
them
with
his
reasons
,
they
are
edified
not
scandaliz'd
by
him
:
If
they
are
not
,
he
may
charge
them
not
to
do
as
he
does
,
by
his
example
.
For
the
second
case
likewise
,
Let
a
man
set
him
down
impartially
,
and
neither
overweeningly
of
himself
,
nor
unconcernedly
toward
others
,
consider
whether
his
doing
this
or
that
thing
is
like
indeed
to
have
such
an
effect
upon
any
,
as
that
they
shall
be
ready
to
think
all
Religion
hereupon
to
be
nothing
,
and
so
cast
off
all
care
of
their
Souls
for
the
future
,
or
at
least
depart
from
that
holy
way
of
profession
wherein
they
have
entred
,
insomuch
that
he
verily
believes
it
may
be
an
occasion
to
their
everlasting
perdition
,
then
let
him
in
the
name
of
God
forbear
the
thing
.
I
dare
not
judg
otherwise
then
so
.
It
is
beter
that
a
Mill-stone
were
about
his
Neck
,
and
he
thrown
into
the
Sea
,
then
that
he
should
thus
offend
any
:
and
there
is
nothing
so
bad
I
hope
as
that
,
like
to
befall
him
in
the
forbearing
.
But
if
the
matter
comes
only
to
this
,
that
folks
will
be
displeased
,
some
grieved
,
some
angry
,
some
triumph
,
so
that
he
shall
lose
his
credit
haply
with
a
great
many
,
some
will
count
him
a
Knave
,
and
others
a
cold
man
,
and
many
will
revile
all
the
Sect
for
his
sake
:
I
do
not
think
any
thing
of
this
,
nor
all
this
can
stand
in
competition
with
Obedience
to
Authority
.
That
the
name
of
God
and
good
Men
are
reviled
,
is
a
thing
't
is
true
,
not
to
be
made
light
of
:
but
it
is
a
mans
doing
evil
,
in
the
causing
it
,
makes
him
culpable
,
Ro
.
2.24
.
Mat
.
15.12
.
In
fine
,
Do
thou
thy
Duty
with
an
upright
heart
,
and
God
will
take
care
of
the
issue
.
The
business
of
this
Chapter
thus
being
dispatch'd
,
there
comes
into
my
mind
for
the
close
a
certain
prank
of
a
Minister
in
Somersetshire
a
very
laborious
pious
Servant
of
Christ
that
wrote
for
the
Morality
of
the
Sabbath
,
and
was
very
Zealous
in
that
point
,
who
when
the
Book
of
Liberty
came
out
,
took
this
course
.
He
read
the
Book
in
the
Pew
(
as
his
theme
)
in
Obedience
to
the
injunction
,
and
then
went
into
the
Pulpit
immediately
,
and
Preach'd
up
the
observation
of
the
Sabbath
with
all
his
vehemency
,
so
satisfying
his
Conscience
about
it
.
I
do
believe
many
good
men
who
left
their
Ministry
rather
then
they
would
read
that
Book
being
against
their
Consciences
(
though
in
the
judgment
of
the
point
I
meddle
not
)
did
glorifie
God
at
that
time
,
witnessing
a
good
confession
:
and
I
dare
not
say
but
this
eminently
godly
man
(
it
was
Mr.
Bernard
of
Batcomb
)
did
bear
his
testimony
as
well
to
the
honour
of
God
,
and
kept
his
Ministry
.
I
say
not
neither
assuredly
that
his
action
was
laudable
,
but
I
say
the
best
of
the
dead
.
The
one
might
glorifie
God
in
an
act
of
prudence
and
faithfulness
to
his
Flock
,
as
the
other
in
self-denyal
and
abrenunciation
.
I
let
this
instance
pass
on
purpose
in
regard
this
difficult
case
may
happen
.
A
Minister
is
put
to
read
a
thing
that
in
his
Conscience
is
unlawful
;
He
must
obey
the
Magistrate
,
and
he
must
be
true
to
his
Conscience
.
If
he
cannot
obey
man
,
but
he
must
offend
God
,
he
must
choose
to
suffer
.
But
if
he
can
obey
,
and
be
true
also
to
God
,
if
he
see
the
way
clear
to
do
both
,
that
methinks
were
to
be
chosen
.
When
an
act
is
evil
in
it
self
,
it
must
be
avoided
,
but
if
it
be
evil
only
in
the
Consequences
of
it
(
as
reading
in
this
case
seems
to
be
,
)
let
those
consequences
be
prevented
,
and
the
act
is
free
.
Where
a
testimony
for
God
does
preponderate
the
service
of
man
,
much
methinks
may
be
done
.
After
I
had
wrote
this
,
I
light
on
Dr.
Taylor
in
his
Cases
l.
3.
p.
243.
with
176.
Mauritius
commands
Gregory
to
hand
an
Edict
to
the
Churches
,
that
no
Souldier
should
turn
Monk
without
his
leave
;
This
in
his
Conscience
is
wicked
;
Hereupon
he
admonishes
the
Emperour
of
it
,
Prays
,
Preaches
,
declaims
against
it
,
yet
withal
upon
the
command
publishes
the
Edict
,
giving
this
account
of
it
.
Utrobique
quae
debui
exolvi
,
qui
imperatori
obedientiam
praebui
,
&
pro
Deo
quod
sensi
,
minime
tacui
.
The
Dr.
hereupon
resolves
the
case
very
boldly
.
The
unlawful
Proclamations
or
Edicts
of
a
true
Prince
may
be
published
by
the
Clergy
in
their
several
Charges
,
yet
they
must
not
conceal
from
the
people
any
part
of
their
duty
,
nor
from
the
Prince
,
if
they
can
declare
it
.
My
thoughts
here
you
may
see
are
something
parallel
,
but
more
fearfull
in
coming
on
to
the
main
entendment
.
There
are
many
at
this
day
of
those
they
call
Non-conformists
have
left
their
Livings
and
Station
in
the
publick
Ministry
upon
the
Act
of
Uniformity
.
I
suppose
the
most
have
done
it
very
honestly
and
to
God's
glory
,
though
some
of
them
the
Lord
knows
not
without
Humane
frailty
.
I
know
not
whether
the
same
persons
might
again
find
out
some
way
of
doubling
the
service
of
his
name
,
in
resuming
their
Ministry
,
with
the
preservation
of
their
Consciences
,
which
(
how
much
or
little
so
ever
this
Mite
of
mine
may
conduce
unto
)
are
not
perhaps
incompatible
to
those
that
will
use
search
and
entreaty
in
the
matter
.
They
have
born
their
Testimony
for
Reformation
against
present
Impositions
,
now
they
may
bear
their
Testimony
also
for
Peace
against
Schism
,
obstinacy
,
and
faction
.
They
have
exercised
self-denial
,
let
them
exercise
Humility
,
Charity
,
toleration
.
St.
Paul
who
withstood
Peter
against
the
Ceremonies
,
did
upon
occasion
after
conform
himself
to
them
.
A
good
Christian
may
have
more
ways
then
one
to
glorifie
God
in
his
generation
.
I
will
acknowledg
there
are
twenty
things
and
more
,
which
,
if
they
be
severely
pressed
on
tender
and
reflective
minds
,
are
enough
to
stumble
them
;
and
I
am
not
the
man
who
am
like
to
go
about
the
answering
all
particulars
of
that
kind
:
Nevertheless
,
if
there
be
any
persons
fearing
God
shall
receive
that
enlargement
of
heart
by
the
Rule
I
have
laid
them
down
,
or
any
consideration
else
which
I
offer
them
in
the
general
only
,
so
as
they
can
retain
their
Ministry
,
and
submit
to
these
Impositions
which
otherwise
they
could
not
,
or
others
cannot
,
I
shall
have
no
cause
I
hope
but
that
I
may
bless
God
for
it
,
who
does
ordinarily
according
to
his
manifold
Wisdom
and
Goodness
toward
his
Church
,
in
such
turns
of
his
Providence
as
these
,
provide
some
persons
to
be
his
Confessors
,
and
to
lay
down
all
they
have
rather
then
offend
their
Consciences
:
and
some
to
carry
on
the
publick
work
without
deserting
their
Station
,
and
yet
maintaining
their
integrity
in
what
they
do
.
Neither
may
that
Author
be
less
studious
of
charity
toward
his
brethren
,
and
of
the
honour
of
God
thereby
,
who
does
industriously
endeavour
to
heal
the
scruples
of
those
that
out
of
Conscience
do
Conform
,
then
another
who
offers
his
Apology
for
such
who
out
of
Concience
also
,
dare
not
.
I
confess
if
a
man
can
by
no
means
save
his
Conscience
I
have
done
,
or
if
his
heart
cannot
bear
it
.
If
he
may
enter
again
into
the
Vineyard
without
cloggs
,
and
his
Soul
be
in
frame
for
it
,
it
is
what
he
should
desire
of
God
.
But
if
he
cannot
,
why
should
he
become
a
burden
to
himself
?
God
will
have
Mercy
I
hope
,
and
not
Sacrifice
in
this
case
.
After
all
,
I
have
yet
one
thing
methinks
which
I
must
also
offer
.
Suppose
a
man
who
hath
been
a
Non-conformist
hitherto
,
should
come
to
this
resolution
;
To
wit
,
to
be
ready
to
conform
,
in
declaring
,
subscribing
,
and
yielding
to
whatsoever
is
imposed
,
so
far
,
or
to
so
much
as
ever
he
can
according
to
his
Conscience
,
and
if
that
will
not
serve
his
turn
,
to
be
fixt
,
not
to
go
a
jot
farther
,
for
any
thing
,
or
any
body
:
but
if
it
will
serve
him
,
and
they
wink
at
the
rest
,
to
be
contented
to
do
so
,
and
to
try
.
Suppose
farther
,
that
such
a
one
should
publish
this
,
so
that
it
being
known
as
far
,
how
he
does
it
,
as
what
he
does
,
he
shall
not
thereby
become
guilty
of
active
scandal
unto
any
,
seeing
if
others
do
as
he
does
,
and
but
so
,
they
will
do
no
more
then
according
to
their
Consciences
,
as
he
resolves
as
to
his
,
and
so
shall
they
not
be
wounded
by
the
example
:
If
they
be
troubled
only
,
that
another
does
(
if
he
could
,
or
if
he
can
)
what
they
can't
or
won't
,
That
I
count
must
give
place
to
edification
.
I
ask
,
what
may
be
said
unto
this
?
Let
the
Prudent
give
judgment
.
It
may
be
possible
some
may
scruple
,
or
object
,
that
the
fear
of
God
which
requires
our
obedience
to
Superiors
will
not
stand
at
any
time
with
such
a
prefunctory
or
unfaithful
performance
of
their
commandments
.
I
answer
,
As
the
commands
which
are
divine
reach
but
to
a
mans
Natural
Can
,
that
if
he
does
what
he
is
able
,
God
accepts
of
the
Will
,
for
that
which
he
Cannot
:
So
the
commands
which
are
Humane
,
reach
only
to
our
Moral
Can
,
that
when
a
man
hath
done
so
much
of
them
as
his
Conscience
will
let
him
without
sin
,
or
is
able
to
render
a
sufficient
reason
why
he
does
no
more
,
this
is
to
be
accepted
of
him
,
as
perfect
in
its
kind
.
Leges
humanae
(
says
Grotius
)
vim
obligandi
tum
demùm
habent
,
si
latae
sint
ad
humanum
modum
,
non
si
onus
injungant
,
quod
a
ratione
&
natura
plané
abhorreat
.
Humane
Laws
(
says
Dr.
Taylor
)
bind
the
Conscience
of
the
Subjects
,
but
yet
give
place
to
just
and
charitable
causes
;
which
are
competent
and
sufficient
,
is
not
expresly
and
minutely
declared
,
but
it
is
to
be
defined
by
the
moderation
and
prudence
of
a
good
man
.
Too
rigorous
it
were
(
says
Mr.
Hookeo
)
that
the
breach
of
every
Law
should
be
held
a
deadly
sin
:
A
mean
there
is
between
these
extremities
if
so
be
we
could
find
it
out
.
His
last
Book
,
and
his
last
Words
.
CHAP.
VII
.
The
Conclusion
for
Peace
.
HAving
asserted
the
inviolable
authority
of
the
present
Powers
over
us
,
and
our
Subjection
to
them
as
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
against
all
principles
,
inclinations
,
and
pretences
of
future
disturbance
in
this
Nation
,
and
offered
some
endeavours
for
a
universal
compliance
(
so
far
as
may
be
,
and
as
I
can
)
of
the
Consciencious
with
their
injunctions
:
I
do
think
it
but
seasonable
that
regard
be
had
now
to
the
reciprocal
duty
and
pious
affection
which
the
Magistrate
ought
to
bear
toward
his
subjects
,
that
seeing
their
fidelity
to
him
,
and
so
his
security
does
hang
so
much
as
it
does
on
Religion
and
Conscience
,
he
may
be
exceeding
tender
of
their
Consciences
in
the
matters
of
Religion
:
wherein
,
as
he
is
to
take
heed
he
doeth
not
exceed
,
we
are
not
to
desire
he
should
neglect
the
Commission
he
hath
from
God
about
it
.
If
any
expect
some
Determination
on
this
point
,
it
must
suffice
the
judicious
,
if
I
offer
him
here
only
this
contraction
.
There
is
a
difference
to
be
held
in
the
first
place
,
between
the
Magistrates
taking
care
of
Religion
:
and
his
compelling
people
to
it
.
No
body
can
force
another
to
believe
any
thing
which
he
does
not
,
and
consequently
not
to
practice
any
thing
which
is
not
to
be
done
but
upon
that
Faith
.
There
is
a
difference
again
next
,
between
the
compelling
men
to
their
duty
even
in
Religion
,
which
is
according
to
their
Consciences
:
and
the
compelling
them
to
any
thing
against
their
Consciences
whatsoever
it
be
in
the
World
,
especially
in
matters
of
supernatural
Revelation
.
To
act
against
a
mans
Conscience
is
sin
.
But
the
Magistrate
cannot
command
a
man
to
sin
.
There
is
a
difference
lastly
between
the
not
forcing
any
to
a
thing
against
their
Consciences
,
which
the
Magistrate
must
take
heed
to
do
:
and
the
restraining
men
from
doing
things
according
to
their
Consciences
,
when
they
are
erroneous
,
and
when
if
he
let
them
alone
,
they
may
bring
themselves
the
Church
,
or
State
to
ruine
.
There
is
no
Toleration
to
be
desired
of
the
Non-conformist
that
is
sober
,
but
one
Stated
,
and
so
far
agreed
to
in
the
general
,
that
the
Articles
of
Religion
,
a
good
Life
,
and
the
Government
of
the
Nation
be
secured
.
We
know
it
hath
pleased
his
Majesty
to
express
his
gracious
inclinations
to
Moderation
on
several
opportunities
:
and
diverse
Papers
have
been
published
for
the
advancement
of
so
blessed
a
design
.
It
would
be
no
good
News
to
hear
that
the
hopes
of
something
of
that
nature
should
have
put
any
at
a
farther
distance
then
they
were
in
before
to
Unity
.
Upon
which
account
it
seems
to
me
but
an
honest
thing
to
let
these
Sheets
go
abroad
for
Obedience
,
among
others
that
have
been
sent
out
for
Condescention
and
Indulgence
.
I
would
fain
indeed
do
what
I
could
equally
on
both
sides
,
that
one
party
should
come
up
as
far
as
ever
they
can
,
and
the
other
in
what
they
really
cannot
,
might
yield
to
them
.
I
would
not
be
partial
to
my
own
intentions
,
which
being
displayed
thus
indifferently
,
I
shall
hope
for
Candour
from
the
concerned
,
and
that
the
Integrity
of
my
Endeavour
shall
compound
for
the
Meaneness
of
the
Performance
.
There
are
Objections
or
Arguments
against
Conformity
in
some
Papers
,
particularly
in
regard
to
the
Oxford-Oath
and
the
Subscription
,
which
cannot
(
as
I
believe
)
receive
solution
by
any
but
one
way
only
,
intimated
in
the
fourth
and
Sixt
Chapters
preceding
,
that
is
by
a
Mitigated
Construction
of
such
Impositions
.
And
forasmuch
as
they
who
were
concern'd
hitherto
to
answer
them
,
either
would
not
,
or
could
not
tell
how
to
do
it
,
when
yet
there
are
no
Ministers
that
are
Conformists
but
do
Subscibe
,
and
several
of
the
eminent
Non-conforrmists
have
took
that
Oath
:
it
is
no
little
nor
unnecessary
piece
of
Charity
and
Righteousness
to
both
these
sorts
of
persons
,
that
I
have
proposed
such
a
Rule
to
walk
by
under
the
injunctions
of
our
Superiours
,
as
that
they
who
Conform
to
them
,
and
those
that
cannot
,
may
see
reason
to
retain
a
fair
opinion
of
one
another
,
and
to
believe
that
neither
have
departed
from
a
good
Conscience
in
what
they
do
.
I
will
instance
in
that
Oath
for
Example
.
Let
us
in
the
first
Clause
of
it
,
understand
by
taking
Arms
the
raising
an
Army
,
or
a
Warr
(
which
is
truly
the
proper
meaning
,
)
and
by
the
King
,
the
King's
own
sacred
Person
,
and
I
see
nothing
but
one
may
subscribe
these
Words
I
A.
B.
Do
swear
that
(
I
hold
,
or
believe
,
which
is
to
be
understood
)
it
is
not
lawful
to
take
Arms
against
the
King
upon
any
pretence
whatsoever
.
In
the
second
Clause
let
us
understand
by
those
Commissionated
by
him
such
as
have
a
due
Authority
from
him
,
and
exercise
it
only
according
to
Law
(
which
is
likewise
the
true
meaning
)
and
I
see
no
more
difficulty
in
this
Clause
neither
.
And
I
do
abhor
(
that
is
disown
,
or
disclaim
)
that
trayterous
Position
of
taking
Arms
by
his
Authority
against
his
Person
,
or
against
any
Commissionated
by
him
,
in
the
pursuit
of
any
such
Commissions
,
that
is
Legally
Commissionated
by
him
,
and
in
the
Legal
pursuit
of
such
Commissions
.
In
the
third
Clause
let
us
distinguish
an
Endeavour
to
Change
or
Reform
any
thing
in
the
Church
or
State
which
we
think
conducive
to
the
good
of
the
Nation
in
a
Parliamentary
way
only
as
is
allowed
by
the
fundamental
Law
and
Course
of
the
Realm
,
from
an
Endeavour
(
as
before
)
in
any
other
way
that
is
not
so
warranted
,
to
wit
,
in
a
seditious
way
,
or
in
such
a
manner
as
they
did
in
the
late
t●mes
,
when
they
endeavoured
the
extirpation
of
Prelacy
by
force
,
against
,
and
without
the
Kings
Consent
in
Parliament
,
and
let
us
take
this
to
be
the
sense
(
as
I
think
it
was
)
of
the
Majority
of
those
that
passed
the
Act
,
and
then
is
the
offence
over
in
the
last
part
of
the
Oath
also
.
And
that
I
will
not
endeavour
any
alteration
of
Government
,
either
in
Church
or
State
,
To
wit
,
in
any
manner
not
warranted
by
the
Constitution
of
the
Land
,
or
any
otherwise
then
by
Act
of
Parliament
.
Not
but
I
am
highly
sensible
of
one
evil
and
inconvenience
in
our
late
Impositions
more
then
heretofore
,
which
is
,
that
they
make
matters
of
Government
to
become
Cases
of
Conscience
,
and
so
engage
the
poor
Divine
upon
the
work
of
the
States-man
and
the
Lawyer
.
If
there
be
no
other
benefit
then
comes
by
this
Book
there
shall
be
this
however
,
that
the
Wise
will
see
of
what
nature
and
difficulty
Conformity
indeed
is
,
while
such
points
as
you
find
here
are
brought
into
dispute
,
and
so
into
doubt
and
danger
by
the
occasion
:
and
consequently
what
reason
there
is
for
the
withdrawing
such
Acts
which
(
to
say
no
more
then
so
)
do
put
so
slender
a
person
as
I
,
upon
the
Argument
of
these
Papers
.
It
is
not
for
a
man
to
be
lead
to
an
Oath
,
as
a
Bruit
to
a
Stake
,
before
he
hath
considered
what
he
Swears
or
Subscribes
.
And
it
is
in
vain
to
talk
of
considering
any
thing
,
if
we
dare
not
look
into
it
to
the
bottom
.
Thou
shalt
Swear
says
the
Scripture
,
so
say
I
,
Thou
shalt
Declare
,
thou
shalt
Subscribe
,
thou
shalt
Conform
(
if
thou
doest
at
all
)
in
Judgment
,
in
Truth
,
and
in
Righteousness
.
It
hath
been
always
a
grievous
thing
to
me
,
I
must
profess
,
to
see
any
troubled
for
their
Consciences
,
who
am
solicitous
for
them
lest
that
trouble
should
hurry
them
to
the
doing
some
things
they
are
unsatisfied
to
do
,
and
wound
their
Souls
.
If
they
are
wounded
,
I
methinks
am
wounded
,
afflicted
,
and
suffer
with
them
.
My
heart
longs
for
some
Accomodation
,
and
stated
rest
for
the
Land
:
for
Accomodation
with
the
Sober
,
and
Moderation
towards
all
men
.
Yet
am
I
wary
also
least
in
seeking
moderation
,
we
should
forget
to
be
moderate
,
and
by
falling
into
that
fault
my
Lord
Bacon
accounts
incident
to
men
who
find
things
better
in
their
Books
then
in
the
Practice
be
apt
to
contend
too
far
to
bring
things
to
perfection
,
and
loose
the
beginnings
that
otherwise
might
be
made
.
There
is
this
one
thing
alone
I
am
apt
to
think
might
do
much
.
If
all
Declarations
that
are
required
to
be
Made
,
Subscribed
,
or
Sworn
,
were
Imposed
only
as
to
the
Matter
and
End
,
leaving
those
who
submit
to
them
free
to
the
use
of
their
own
Expressions
.
I
have
now
done
,
after
I
have
given
warning
that
no
man
presume
to
take
occasion
from
this
Discourse
to
act
any
farther
in
the
case
of
Conformity
then
he
is
fully
perswaded
in
his
own
mind
about
it
.
If
he
does
so
,
I
must
protest
he
hath
not
me
for
his
Example
.
I
have
purposed
from
my
heart
for
my
part
,
by
God's
grace
,
not
to
stirr
a
step
farther
then
I
find
my
judgment
to
go
along
with
me
,
who
though
I
write
liberally
in
regard
to
others
,
and
believe
that
many
honest
and
discreet
men
may
take
up
with
it
,
yet
must
I
be
sparing
in
what
I
do
my self
.
I
cannot
,
I
dare
not
,
but
act
methinks
by
the
Peny
,
when
it
is
by
Talents
that
I
speak
.
And
for
my
own
practice
,
if
any
desire
to
know
that
,
I
refer
the
Reader
to
a
few
Sheets
,
Entituled
,
The
Healing
Paper
,
which
came
out
some
little
time
before
the
end
of
the
Methuselah-Parliament
.
Recordare
mei
Deus
mi
,
nec
sinito
deleri
benignitates
meas
seu
potius
desideria
&
conatus
debiliores
,
quos
exercui
erga
domum
dei
mei
,
&
erga
observationes
ejus
.
Sed
dele
mihi
peccata
omnia
mea
,
&
dolores
per
sanguinem
Filii
tui
.
Et
fac
,
ut
ex
omni
carnis
vitioso
affectu
,
&
Conscientiae
insidiante
laqueo
,
mentisque
atra
bile
superfaetantis
gravedine
ereptus
,
tibi
inserviendo
,
toto
corde
,
&
fideli
&
alacri
,
quae
superest
vitae
partem
impendam
:
Recordare
mei
Deus
mi
in
bonum
.
THE
END
.