AN ENQUIRY After further satisfaction concerning obeying a change of Government believed to be unlawful.  
Tendered to the Presbyterian Proposer, by way of Reply to his Book Entitled; The lawfulness of obeying the present Government. By a dissenting Brother  ROM. 14.23. He that doubteth, is damned if he eat, because not of faith: for whatsoever is not faith, is sin. 
LONDON, Printed for G. T. Anno Dom. 1649.   

To the Author of a Book entitled, The lawfulness of obeying the present GOVERNMENT  
Honoured Sir,  
HAving seen your treatise, and being in the number of those to whom your discourse is directed, I do in my own and others behalves return you thanks, for your offer and endeavour to hold forth somewhat for the satisfaction of those who desire to walk by rule, and cannot comply with alterations, great, sudden, and of public concernment upon such grounds, as peradventure take with some others.  
In the argument you express yourself thus, a declaration hath been lately published, wherein the grounds are expressed of se●ling the present government, with which if any be not so far satisfied as to think that settlement lawful, yet even to such is this discourse directed, which proposeth proofs, that though the change of a government were believed not to be lawful, yet it may lawfully be obeyed.  
I hope you will not take offence, if I (having many times read over, and as I was able weighed your treatise) do acknowledge, that I am not yet satisfied in that which is made the business of your book. I suppose also that I shall not in this writing giv● offence to any of different Judgement, and I am apt to believe that those that are true to the principles of Liberty of Conscience, will not take offence at me for proposing in a peaceable way the grounds of my scruples, to such a casuist, as if the work itself be feasable, may be a probable instrument of clearing that case wherein he hath appeared, and therein both satisfy the spirits of many that truly fear the Lord, and be serviceable to the establishing of the new fabric, in a more honourable and lasting way, than the greatest penalties can encompass. For myself I shall only add thus much, that I am persuaded; if you knew, how much unbeleef lodges in my heart, and how great inconveniencyes I must wrestle with, in case my scruples be not satisfied; you would not much doubt, but that I would be as willing to receive satisfaction, as you have expressed yourself to give it. Thus leaving the following lines to your consideration I rest,  
SJR, Yours obliged and to be obliged.   

An Enquiry after further satisfaction concerning obeying a change of government believed to be unlawful.  
THe Question is this, whether though the change of a Government were believed not to be lawful, yet it may lawfully be obeyed?  
A late Treatise proposeth proofs for the affirmative; which before we come to examine, it will not be amiss to consider some things by way of premise towards the clearing of the point in question.  
And here in the first place let it be considered, whence it is, that this or that particular person, comes to be a Subject to this or that particular Government or Governor? and this may be four ways.  
1. In regard of original or natural descent and inferiority. Thus in the first age of the World, Cain, Abel, Seth, and t●e rest of Adam's Children and their Offspring, were under the government of Adam by natural right; and this is founded upon the primitive terms of the 5th. Commandment, Honour thy Father.  
And to this head we may refer the subjection of the younger Brother to the elder as being in ordinary course the Heir of his Father's government. And thus, with Chrysostom, Musculus, and others, I understand that as spoken by God, to Cain the elder Brother, concerning Abel. Gen. 4.7. Unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him. The like Phrases are used in the 3d. chapter v. 16. concerning the subjection of the Wife to the government of the Husband.  
2. In regard of some special precept or institution of God. So whensoever God doth expressly assign a person to government over a Kingdom, the Subjects of that Kingdom are thereupon bound to obey that person. So David was taken from feeding of Sheep to be Ruler over Israel. 1 Sam. 16.1. The Lord said unto Samuel, fill thine Horn with Oil, & go, I, will send thee to Jesse the Bethlemit: for I have provided me a King among his Sons. The like we read concerning jesus, who was in particular appointed by God to be King over Israel. These cases are extraordinary, and the ground of obeying in these cases, is, that Sovereignty of God whereby he bestows authority on whom he pleases; expressed by some special word, whereby in such cases the title of government may be known to be by divine donation. Jer. 27 5.6. I have made the Earth, th● man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my outstretched Arm; and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me; and now have I given all these Lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezer the King of Babylon my servant.  
3. In regard of place. Suppose a man, with his family, g●●● into som● place which hath neither owner nor Inhabitant: he pla●●● and p●ssesses that place, and hath by right of primitive possession, authority to govern in that place; and if afterward any other come to dwell within compass of that Plantation he ought to be subject to the Governor and government of the place; and so ordinarily, whatsoever Kingdom a man comes into; he is during his abode there subject to the authority of the place; and here is the proper room for that saying, persona sequitur locum. And upon this account it is, that the fourth Commandment enjoins the governor of a Family or City, to see that the Sabbath be not profaned by the stranger that is within their gates; for whilst he is within their bounds, he is within their jurisdiction; and thus the patriarches by sojourning in Egypt, became subjects to Pharaoh.  
4. ●n regard of consent. When those that are free to dispose of themselves or others under a Government or Governor, do by such consent constitute or lay a foundation for Government. Thus was the original of the Romans under Romulus, ●s the learned Author of the Treatise; de juro Magistratum in subditos informs us. A Romulo populus Romanus creatus fuisse dicitur, quia prius originalis populus non fuerit sed multitudo quaedam ex varijs gentibus & populis tollecta. Romulus in has gentes collectitias, non nisi ex ipsarum consensu dominatus est. The Scripture gives many instances of the right of government founded in consent or agreement: amongst others the case of jepthath is clear. judg. 11.8.11. The Elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah go with us and fight against the Children of Ammon, and be our head over all the Inhabitants of Gilead, and the people made him head and Captain o●er them.  
Again it is considerable, in what respect the change of a Government is believed to be unlawful, whether it be.  
1. Only in regard of the end, that those aim at, which do alter the government. And in this case I conceive, if there be nothing to vitiate the change but a bad end in the changers, this doth not make it unlawful to be obeyed.  
Or 2. In regard of the comparative badness of the Government brought in by change. As if instead of a well regulated monarchy, a more turbulent democracy were brought in. In this case I conceive, if there be no exception against the change, but the bringing in of a less commendable government, this doth not make it unlawful to obey it.  
Or 3 in regard of the Commission that those have that do alter the Government. For, if they be not plenipotentiaryes as to such an act of instituting a new government; that new fabric will want authority which is the soul of government, & therefore I do not ●●e how it may be obeyed.  
As put case, in Utopia the Majestas or supreme authority lies in 3. Estates; a Prince, Nobles, and Representers of the Communality in Senate assembled, if these by their joint authority do make very considerable alterations in erecting or abolishing Courts, enlarging or restraining power of state-Officers. I make no question but in this case the Eutopians may as well without scruple comply with these acts, as with the other Statute-laws of that Kingdom; because these alterations are acts within the compass of the supreme authority.  
Again put case: these 3 Estates in Utopia undertake to overthrow the Fundamental government, and set up one of those 3 to be the supreme and instead of the whole fundamental government, if the question were put whether the inhabitants of Utopia might obey that single estate as the sole supreme, upon a Declaration or act of the 3. estates to that effect: this I conceive a very difficult case: and the clear stating of it will require a man welg●●s●●ed in the history of the Eutopian Government, and well studied in that grand question in Politics, an jura Majestatis sint communicabilia?  
But put case, one of those 3. Estates in Utopia will undertake to exclude the other 2 and to set up itself solely as supreme; and to Null laws made by all 3 estates: of one that is not able to comprehend how this act is within compass of the commission of that one estate▪ doth thereupon believe that change of Government not to be lawful. If the Question be put, whether one so believing may obey that change, I must confess I am not satisfied in the Affirmative, and my reason is this; Because if that change be not an act of authority it may not be obeyed, and that it is not an act of authority, seems to me rational upon obvious inferences from these grounds. Pa● inp●rem non habet authoritatem. Totum aggregatum est mains qualib●t sui parte. Ejusdem est leges abol●re cuius est condere. The English of all which may be summed up in this: a lesser authority hath no authority over a greater.  
Again put case, that estate in Utopia was under a force when it did decree that change of Government: by reason of which force many Members were kept away: and one that doth not question the ordinary power of that estate, doth yet believe that the change being made by that Estate, under that disadvantage of force, is not lawful. If the question be put, whether in this case, he that so believes the unlawfulness of that change, may, till he be otherwise informed, obey that change: I say as in the former case, I am not satisfied in the Affirmative. I shall illustrate this case by a supposition hearer home, there is in the first leaf of the Brief Memento, the copy of an ordinance, wherein is expressed, That all Votes, Orders, Ordinances passed in either or both houses of Parliament, between the 26 of July and the 6 of August 1647. were null and void at the making thereof, the Parliament being under a force and not free. Now suppose that in this space of time there had passed, in either or both houses of Parliament, a decree for the change of Government: suppose further that one that truly honours the Parliament, and is of the same judgement with that Ordinance of the 20 of AUGUST 1647. and knew of the force mentioned therein; doth thereupon believe that change of government to be unlawful, if it be asked whether he, so believing, may lawfully obey that change of government, I would answer, no. And my reason is this; positive precepts do imply negative duty: I mean thus; that command that says Honour thy Father and thy Mother, doth as well forbidden obeying that which is not authority, as command obeying that which is authority: now that change of Government (being (according to the supposition) decreed, the Parliament being under a force) ha●h nothing at all of authority in it: because the decree is null and void at the time of the making thereof.  
Now Reader take the right state of the question along with you. the question is not concerning the Forbearing of resistance, or concerning some kind of occasional compliance, but only concerning obedience which is a duty of the 5 Commandment. Nor is the question in general whether a change of Government may be obeyed, but whether it may be obeyed by one that believes the unlawfulness of the change, nor shall it be questioned for me, whether though a change of government were believed to be in some respect not lawful, it may yet lawfully be obeyed, but that which I hold is this, that if the change of a government be believed not to be lawful, for want of sufficient authority in that change, than he that so believes may not lawfully obey it. For this I could produce proofs; But I wave them; and come now to consider, what the presbyterian proposer offers by way of proof.  
And in the first place that Scripture Rom. 13. is alleged Which Scripture if dear opened, and rightly applied, would state the present and many other controversies. And here I grant that Scripture requires subjection both to authority, and to persons clothed with that authority. Neither do I deny, but that Scripture proves subjection due to Claudius and Nero when they were invested in authority. But here the proposer queries the lawfulness of their coming to be invested in their authority, and says, that the Soldiery was the foundation of Claudiuse's and of Nero's empire: and here I grant that the Soldiery was the occasion or means by which they came to be Emperors. But I deny that they received authority from the soldiery; they received it from the people or Senate; and they had power to give it I touched before the original of the Roman Power. Romulus was the first King, and he reigned by consent of those who had power to give up their consent. This Romulus did institute as the great council a Senate consisting of 100 men; Which number afterwards increased. The power of the Senate to confirm a supreme Governor, may be proved out of Livius and other authors. And that Nero had the consent of the Senate is clear, by what the proposer p. 3. citys out of Tacitus, in these words. The Sentence of the Soldiers was followed with the consent of the Senate, and then it was not scrupled in the provinces. And that Claudius had also the consent of the Senate, may be gathered out of approved authors, and is not denied by the proposer. I say then that, though the Soldiers could not give them a legal title, yet the Senate both could and did. That an unlawful means and a legal title may meet together, I shall illustrate by a similitude in an other kind. The Usurer lends a man 100 pound, and has his bond for the principal and 8 pound interest; the borrower dies; the Executor may pay that 8 pound above the principal: because though the Usurer hath not a moral right to that 8 l. by lending upon usury, yet he hath a legal title to it by the bond of the deceased. So he that by usurpation encroaches upon a Crown; if besides this▪ he gains also a legal title; may be obeyed upon that legal title, though not upon the ground of Usurpation. To this purpose is that De jure Magistratuum p. 22. vitium quod ab initio usurpationi inerat petest postea emendari: adeo ut quî ab initio tyrannus fuit, possit legitimus et inviolabilis magistratus effici, si videlicet postea liber et legitimus accesserit corum consensus, qui verum et legitimum magistratum creare et constituere possunt. she like answer to what I have given to that text Rom 13 doth Mr. Burroughs give to Dr. Ferne, his words are these p. 7. The apostle requires them not to resist their power, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth not charge them not to resist their Tyranny. Certainly they could have no power but that which was given them by some agreement; if they challengd further it was no authority at all. And afterward p. 8. what they got and held merely by for●e without any consent or agreement, was no power, no authority at all but might be resisted notwithstanding that prohibition.  
From the Scripture argument the proposer passes to historical observesions about the inter uption of lineal succession to the Crown in England.  
To which I might Answer that, a facto ad jus non valet argumentum. Whatsoever title others have had in former ages, if the title since be clear, we need not trouble ourselves with those observations, which the proposer says, Learned men and statesmen have been ignorant of. I shall therefore here only cite some passages out of a parliamentary acknowledgement. Anno 1. Jacobi Regis. Your most humble and loyal Subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in most humble and lowly manner do beseechy ur most Excellent Majesty, that (as a memorial to all posterities, amongst the records of your high court of Parliament for ever to endure, of our loyalty, obedience, and hearty humble affection) it may be published and declared in this high court of Parliament, and enacted by authority of the same, that we (being bounden thereunto both by the laws of God and Man) do recognize and acknowledge, that immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England, the imperial Crown of the realm of England, and of all the Kingdoms, Dominions, and rights belonging to the same, did by inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted succession, descend and come to your most Excellent Majesty, as being lineally, justly, and lawfully, next and sole heir of the blood royal of this realm, as is aforesaid, and that by the goodness of God almighty and lawful right of descent, under one imperial Crown, your Majesty is of the Kingdoms of England etc. King— And thereunto we most humbly and faithfully do submit, and oblige ourselves our heirs, and posterities for ever, until the last drop of our blonds be spent. And do beseech your Majesty to accept the same, as the first fruits in this high court of Parliament, of our loyalty and faith to your Majesty, and your Royal Progeny, and Posterity for ever.  
The Proposer likewise citys the judgement of a few divines and casuists for obeying the commands of an Usurper. And I believe those that abound with books may meet with far more of the contrary judgement. But because our faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; and we are upon a case of conscience, wherein the opinions of men are of small weight; I judge it superfluous to multiply Authors: take therefore only 2. for a taste, Mr. Burroughs answer to Dr. Ferne. p. 7. there is no body here that yet hath attempted to take any power away from the King that law hath given him. Howsoever the point of inheritance or conquest can not hinder; for first, none inherits but that which his Progenitors had, and his Progenitors had no more originally then by consent was given them; therefore the difference between Kings by Inheritance, and Kings by election, in this case is not much. And for conquest, that only settles former right, or makes way to some farther agreement, to add to what was former; the right comes not from power to conquer, or act of conquering, but from some agreement, precedent, or consequent. de jure Magistratuum p. 27 is qui alienos invadit nullo modo sibi subditos, et si cupiat juste et ex bono et equo dominari (sicut de Pisistrato et Demetrio Phalaraeo apud Athenienses legimus) potest tamen jure impediri, etiam armata manu, et a quibusvis vel infimae sort is, quibus vim infer voluerit quum nusto jure illi obstringantur.  
From the alleging of Authors the Proposer comes again to arguing, and urging the former Scripture, tells us, it speaks not of obeying those that shall be powers, but the powers that are, and those that are in authority.  
I grant it is spoken of the present powers: but who are those? surely those which are constituted powers, not those which are pretenders to power. Whatsoever force rises up to hinder the Parliament, yet the Parliament is a power in being, because it has a legal being. To this purpose is that which we read in Mr. Burroughs book, entitled The glorious Name of God the Lord of Hosts, which book was printed by order from a Committee of the House of Commons. In that book p. 47 he tells us, the Kingdom hath a Parliament in being, until both Houses have agreed to dissolve it. And in his answer to Doctor Ferne p. 3 He plates the Emphasis upon the word power; for thus he writes; We distinguish between the man that hath the power, and the power of that man, and say although the power must not be resisted according to the letter and sense of the Text, yet the illegal will and ways of the Man, may be resisted without the least offending against the Text.  
To what the proposer demands concerning the covenant, I will on only tell you what is lately publish: by Mr. Can a great patron of the late proceed, in his book against the Covenant p. 7. his words are these. It is not possible that ever this Common wealth should be settled according to what the Parliament hath lately declared, and the Covenant duly observed; so incompatible is the one with the other.  
To the proposers passage concerning heirs and successors in the Oath of allegiance. I say (with submission to better information) whereas the office of a King may outlive the race of a King, there are therefore mentioned not only heirs but successors; that in case heirs fail, yet Kingship might not die, and therefore heirs is set first, and successors after. But of this enough, and it may be also this may seem superfluous; for if the proposed alteration go on, it will exclude both heirs and successors.  
To the last Quere of the proposer (if I understand the meaning of it) there may be a sufficient answer picked out of the last passage which I cited out of Mr Barroughs.  
I shall therefore here conclude with the council of the most wise God, given by the wisest of Men. prov. 24.21.22. My Son, fear thou the Lord, and the King: and meddle not with them that are given to change. For their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them both.  
FINIS