The second part of The nonconformists plea for peace being an account of their…

46. And if the Magistrates commands be against our duty to God, and the subject think them to be lawful, his errors will not make them or his obedience to them to be lawful.

47. Those persons who make it the principle of their obedience, that [we must obey the Magistrate when we are ⟨p. 43⟩uncertain, whether it be sin which he commandeth or not; because we are certain that obedience is a duty, and the certain part must be preferred before the uncertain] I hope do not err with the flagitious aggravations (villainy, pious-wickedness, impudency &c.) which the Non-conformists errors are charged with; But rather only the dust of worldly business and contention may have confounded and sullied Natures tables, or the heat of passion may have melted down its tender Characters.

47. Those persons who make it the principle of their obedience, that [we must obey the Magistrate when we are ⟨p. 43⟩uncertain, whether it be sin which he commandeth or not; because we are certain that obedience is a duty, and the certain part must be preferred before the uncertain] I hope do not err with the flagitious aggravations (villanie, pious-wickedness, impudency &c.) which the Non-conformists errors are charged with; But rather only the dust of worldly business and contention may have confounded and sullied Natures tables, or the heat of passion may have melted down its tender Characters.

48. Were this universally and formally true, it would follow, that a mans blindness, error, ignorance, and so his doubtfulness, and uncertainty would justify him in any villainy against God and nature, that man can command: For instance, An Indian may be certain that it is his duty to obey his King, and yet uncertain whether it be a sin to murder his parents, to eat his enemies, to be adulterous, perjured, &c. A Turk may know that it is his duty to obey his Prince, but be uncertain whether it be a sin to curse Jesus Christ and renounce him, and to believe in Mahomet &c. A Papist may know that it is his duty to obey his King, and yet not know whether it be a sin to worship the bread as God, and to torment those that are called Heretics, or to worship Images, or suppress the Scriptures, &c. And all this should be done according to this rule, if Rulers be but bad enough to command it. Nay if the Popes own subjects at Rome do but doubt whether it be a sin when he commandeth them, to go and murder a foreign Prince; must they do this think you, because of their uncertainty of the matter?