the propriety of taking office under what he deemed a usurped
power.

The process of argument by which he overcame the difficulty, simple as
it may seem, is worthy of all heed. Its very simplicity may be
regarded as demonstrating the soundness of the understanding that
originated and then acted upon it as a firm first principle,
especially when we take into account the exquisitely nice character of
the conscience which it had to satisfy. It is absolutely necessary for
the wellbeing of society, argued Sir Matthew, that justice be
administered between man and man; and the necessity exists altogether
independently of the great political events which affect the sources
of power, by changing dynasties or revolutionizing governments. The
claim of the supreme ruler _de facto_ may be a bad one; he may owe his
power to some act of great political injustice--to an iniquitous
war--to an indefensible revolution--to a foul conspiracy; but the flaw
in his title cannot be regarded as weakening in the least the claim of
the people under him to the administration of justice among them as
the ordinance of God. The _right_ of the honest man to be protected by
the magistrate from the thief--the right of the peaceable man to be
protected by the magistrate from the assassin--is not a conditional
right, dependent on the title of the ruler: it is as clear and certain
during those periods so common in history, when the supreme power is
illegitimately vested, as during the happier periods of undisputed
legitimacy. And to be a minister of God for the administration of
justice, if the office be attainable without sin, is as certainly
right at all times as the just exercise of the magistrate's functions
is right at all times. If it be right that society be protected by the
magistrate, it is as unequivocally right in the magistrate to protect.
But it is wrong to recognise as legitimate the supreme ruler of a
country if his power be palpably usurped. English society, under
Cromwell, retains its right to have justice administered, wholly
unaffected by the flaw in Cromwell's title; but it would be wrong to
recognise his title, contrary to one's conviction, as void of any
flaw. In short, to use the simple language of Burnet, Sir Matthew,
'after mature deliberation, came to be of opinion, that as it was
absolutely necessary to have justice and property kept up at all
times, it was no sin to take a commission from usurpers, if there was
declaration made