THE LAWFULNESS Of obeying the Present Government.  
Proposed By one that loves all Presbyterian lovers of Truth and Peace, and is of their Communion.  JOHN 7.24. 
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.  
Printed at London for John Wright, at the King's Head in the Old Bailey. 1649.   

The lawfulness of obeying the present Government.  
A Declaration hath been lately published, wherein the grounds are expressed of settling 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.  
THe Apostle entreating of purpose upon the duty of submission and obedience to Authority, lays down this precept; 
Rom. 13.  Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that are, are ordained of God; and hereupon infers, Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. And that he speaks not in this place merely of power or authority abstracted from persons, 
Potestatis nomine, intelligo Magistratum, qui est cum potestate & autoritate, maluit tamen Apostolus ipsam potestatem nominare quàm hominem etc. Rolloc. in locum. 1. Tim. 2.2.  but of persons clothed with that authority, appears in that he saith; For, rulers are not a terror to good works. So that he speaks of persons ruling, as well as of the power by which they rule. And again, He is the Minister of God, and they are Gods Ministers; & accordingly he directs Timothy, to pray for a blessing upon those that are in authority. Now if the Powers, Rulers, and those that were in authority in that time were ordained of God, and were to be obeyed for conscience sake, let us consider how lawfully they came into that power, rule, and authority. This Epistle most probably, if not certainly, was written in the time of Claudius Caesar, or Nero, 
Acts 18.1, 2.  the former of which banished the Jews out of Rome, upon which occasion Aquila and Priscilla came out to meet with Paul at Corinth: and by the sentence of the latter, Paul having made his appeal to Caesar finished his course, and passed unto a crown of righteousness. And now, behold the lawfulness by which these two persons came to be invested in their power and authority. 
Timore caedis exterritus prorepsit ad solarium proximum, interque praetenta foribus velase abdidit; latentem, discurrens forte gregarius ●●iles animadversis pedibus, è studio sciscitandi quisnam esset, agnovit, extractumque & praemetu ad genua sibi accidentem, Imperatorem, salutavit. Hinc ad alios commilitones fluctuanies, nec quio quam adhuc quàm frementes perduxit. Ab his lecticae impositus, & quia servi diffugerant, vicissim succollantibus, in castra delatus est, tristis ac trepidus miserante obvia ●u●ba, quasi ad paenam raperetur insons. Receptus intra vallum, inter excubias militum pernoctavit, aliquanto minore spe quàm fiducia. Name Consul cum Senatu, & cohortibus urbanis forum capitoliumque occuparunt, asseriuri comunem libertatem, accitusq, & ipse per Tribunum plebis in curiam ad suadenda quae viderentur, vi se & necessitate teneri respondit. Verum postero die Senatu segriore in exequendis conatibus per raedium ac dissentionem diversa censentium, & multitudine quae circumstabat, umum rectorem jam & nominatim exposcente, armator pro concione jurare in nomen suum passus est, promisitque singulis quinadena H.S. primus Casarum fidem militis, etiam praemio pigneratus. Sueton in Claudio. Agrippina velut dolore victa, & solatia conquirens, tenere amplexu Britannicum veram paterni oris effigiem appellare, etc. Antoniam quoque & Octaviam attinuit, & cunctos aditus custodiis clauserat, crebroque vulgabat ire in melius valetudinem principis, quò miles bona in spe ageret, tempusque prosperum ex monitis Chaldaeorum attentaret. Tunc medio dici, tertio ante idus Octobr. foribus palatii repente diductis, comitante Burrho, Nero egreditur ad cohortem, quae more militia excubiis adest, ubi monente praefecto, festis vocibus exceptus, inditur lecticae. Dubitavisse quosdam ferunt respectantes rogitantesque ubi Britannicus esset? Mox nullo in diversum auctore, quae offerrebantur secuti sunt. Illatusque castris Nero, & congruentia tempori praefatus, promisso donativo ad exemplum paternae largitionis Imperator consalutatur. Sententiam militum secura patrum consulta, nec dubitatum est apud provincias. Tacit. Annal. Lib. 12.   
Of Claudius Caesar the Story tells us this; After the death of Caius Caligula, the Consuls and Senate of Rome entered into a consultation, how they might restore the Commonwealth to her ancient freedom, which by the Caesars had been taken from them. So that the taking in of an Emperor, and consequently of Claudius for Emperor, was directly against the wills and resolution of the Consuls and Senate; yet these anciently for many hundred years had the chief power of Government; But see the way of Claudius his coming to the Empire; during the Interregnum, Claudius being frighted with the news of Caligula's death, and fearing himself might be enquired for upon suspicion withdrew, and hid himself behind the Hang, or covering of a door; where a Soldier seeing his feet, and desirous to know what he was drew him forth, and upon knowledge of him saluted him Emperor, though even then for fear falling down low before him. This one Soldier brought him forth to his fellow Soldiers, who lifted him up as Emperor; and thus while the Senate was slow in executing their purposes, and differences grew among them, Claudius, who was sent for by the Senate to give in his council concerning the common freedom, undertook the Empire. Thus in one Soldier at first, and then in more, was the foundation of Claudius his Imperial power, against the will, consultations, and endeavours of Consuls and Senate. And for Nero (his Successor) Britannicus, who was nearer of kin to Claudius, being his Son, was kept in by the cunning of Nero's mother, and by the same craft Nero being brought forth to the Soldiery, was first saluted Emperor by them. This sentence of the Soldiers was followed with the consent of the Senate, and then it was not scrupled in the Provinces; so that the Soldiery was also the foundation of Nero's Empire. Thus we see Rulers put by Soldiers into that power which is said by the Scripture to be ordained of God; and even to these Rulers men must be subject for conscience.  
But passing from the Roman state to our own; sure we are that in this Nation many persons have been settled in supreme power and authority by mere force without title of inheritance, or just conquest. And it hath been observed by some that accurately have looked into our story, that not any three immediately succeeding each other, came to the Crown by true lineal succession and order of blood. Neither is there any great difficulty in finding it, until we come to Queen Mary, whose title being by an incestuous marriage, these observers say that Queen Elizabeth should have reigned in her stead; However, we are clearly told by story, that five Kings on a row (of which the Conquer was the first) had no title at all by lineal descent and proximity of blood. The first came in by force; The second and third had an elder Brother living when they came to the Crown; The fourth reigned when his Predecessor had a Daughter, and Heir living which was Maud the Empress; The fifth being the Son of that Empress, reigned while his Mother was alive, by whom his Title came. But leaving these, and Edward the third who reigned in his Father's life time, and the three Henries; fourth, fifth, and sixth, who reigned upon the Lancastrian (that is a younger Brothers) Title, Let us more particularly consider Henry the seventh; 
See Speed in H. 7. ●. 1. & Seq.  This Henry came in with an Army, and by mere power was made King in the Army, and by the Army; so that in the very field where he got the Victory, the Crown was set upon his head, and there he gave Knighthood to divers; And upon this foundation of military power, he got himself afterwards to be solemnly Crowned at Westminster. And soon after upon authority thus gotten, he called a Parliament, and in that Parliament was the Crown entailed upon him and his Heirs. Thus both his Crown and his Parliament were founded upon power; As for any right Title, he could have none; for he came from a Bastard of John of Gaunt, which though legitimated by Parliament for common Inheritances, yet expressly was excluded from right to the Crown. And for his wife's Title, that came in after his Kingship, and his Parliament, which before had settled the Crown upon him and his Heirs. And he was so fare from exercising authority in her right, that her name is not used in any Laws as Queen Maries was, both before and after her marriage with the Spanish King. Now this and the rest who came in by mere power without Title of inheritance, being in their opinion who are now unsatisfied, to be held unlawful, yet the main body of this Nation did obey them, whilst they ruled, yea doth yield subjection to their Laws to this very day. And the learned in the Laws do continually plead, judge, justify, and condemn according to these Laws; So that herein the very voice of the Nation with one consent seems to speak aloud; That those whose Title is held unlawful, yet being possessed of authority may lawfully be obeyed.  
And hereunto Divines and Casuists give their concurrence; among them one that is resolute both for Monarchy and lineal Succession, thus expresseth his judgement, both for seeking of right and justice from an usurper (whom he calleth a Tyrant, in regard of an unjust Title, not in respect of Tyrannical oppression) and for obeying his commands. 

Dicendum est, licitè subditos ab eo (qui tyrannus jure & titulo est) jus petere, quià quamvis jus & titulum non habeat, respublica tamen tacitè consentit in hoc ut civibus ipsi Tyranno, Facto, non jure subditis, jus dicat, acsi esset competens judex & legitimus superior. Item, si mandata tyranni sint aqua, & justa, parendum est. Azor. Inst. Mor. Par. 2. Lib. 10. Cap 4. Non peccat subditus tyranni, qui dominium & jurisdictionem alicujus ditienis usurpavit, petendo ab eo justitia administrationem, etc. Siquidem dat operam ut qui peccat jurisdictionem usurpando, non peccet etiam justitiae administrationem praetermittendo; Ex Navarrie manual. cap. 14. ●. 41.  
Si mandata principis, alioqui Tyranni, sint aequa et justa, parendum est. Alsted, Theol. Cas. Cap. 17.   First, that Subjects may lawfully seek justice of him; And secondly, that if his commands be lawful and just, they must be obeyed. And another well esteemed in the Reformed Churches, is of the same judgement.  
Paraeus saith, 

Civilem & herilem expresso verbo sancit. Gen. 9  
Qui sanguinem hominis fuderit, ejus sa guis etiam fundetur ab homine. Non utique à quovis; prohiburt enim, non occides: Sed à Magistratu divinitus ordinato. Nec refert quibus modis vel artibus Nimrod, Jeroboam, aut alii regna sibi paraverint. Nam aliud est potestas quae à Deo est; aliud acquisitio et vius potestatis. Parae. in Rom. 13.  
Posestatis Himrodi initrium fuit quidum malum etc. Quum igitur quaeritur cui parendum, non est spectandum qualis sic qui potestarem exercei, nec quo jure vel injuriâ, quis potestatam in●serit, quave ratione cam administres, sed tantum si potestatem habeat. Si enim quis potestate po●et iam i●●●bilatum est illum a deo cem potestatem accepisse, unde sine onmi exceptione illi te permittat oportes, & pareas ex animo.   That it matters not by what means or craft Nimrod, Jerobeam, got Kingdoms to themselves; For the power is one thing which is of God, and the getting and the use of the power is another; And after: The beginning of Nimrods' power was indeed evil, as to the getting and usurping power, because abusing his strength, force, & wealth, he violently subdued others, and compelled them to obey; but not the power or force wherewith he seemed to be indeed by God, above others; And another more plainly. When a question is made whom we should obey; it must not be looked at what he is that exerciseth the power, or by what right or wrong he hath invaded the power, or in what manner he doth dispense it, but only if he have power. For if any man do excel in power, it is now out of doubt, that he received that power of God; wherefore without all exception thou must yield thyself up to him, and hearty obey him.  
And indeed how can it be otherwise? for when a person or persons have gotten Supreme power, and by the same excluded all other from authority, either that authority which is thus taken by power must be obeyed, or else all authority and government must fall to the ground; & so confusion (which is worse than tituler Tyranny) be admitted into a Commonwealth; And (according to the doctrine of King James) the King being for the Commonwealth, and not the Commonwealth for the King, the end should be destroyed for the means, the whole for a part. If a Master's mate had thrown the Master over Board, and by power would suffer no other to guide the Ship but himself; if the Mariners will not obey him commanding aright for the safe guiding of the Ship, the Ship must needs perish and themselves with it. And whereas some speak of a time for setlement, they indeed do rather speak for a time of unsetlement; for they will have an unsetlement first, and a setlement after. And whereas like doth produce its like; yet they would have an unsetlement to beget a setlement. They would have confusion, distraction, destruction to bring forth order and safety. But the former Scriptures speak not of the future, but of the present time; not of obeying those that shall be powers, and shall be in authority; but the powers that are, and those that are in authority. Neither do the Casuists and Divines speak of obedience to those that shall be settled but those that are in actual possession of authority. Neither did our Ancestors in the former examples defer obedience to the Kings that came in by power without Title; but gave it presently, being presently vested and possessed of authority. Besides, let it be considered whether that may not be called a setlement, how soon soever it is when there is such a way settled that men may have Justice if they will, and may enjoy that main end of Magistracy, to live a peaceable life in godliness and honesty.  
And indeed when one is in possession by power, and another pretends a Title, what can the main body of a Nation, which consists of the Common-people do in this case? 
What Right had William surnamed the Conqueror? what Right (we speak of a Right of equity) had his Sons William the second, and Henry the first, while their elder brother lived, etc. Parliaments as Kingdoms, give their voice with power; & he who hath the force doth commonly carry the effect of Right. Speed in H. 4. The King (H. 7.) made speed to London as to the chief seat and Epitome of the English Monarchy etc. The Mayor of London and his Fellowship received him in Violet at Hornesey Park; but his entrance (which was at Shoreditch) was honoured with a very great troop of the Peers and Nobles in his Train, etc. The whole House of Parliament concurring finally in establishing by a solemn Act, the Crown upon him and his Heirs for ever. Id. in H. 7.  They cannot judge of Titles; but thy see who doth visibly and actually exercise power and authority. Yea even Learned men, and States men have been found ignorant of the former observations, of the not succeeding three in order of blood since the Conquest; and then how should the Common people know it? Yet further, even Peers, chief Cities, Parliaments, and all having to one in every three, thus subjected themselves upon terms of power and not of right; what can be expected but that what hath been done, may or should be done hereafter? especially when in this present age obedience is given to the Laws and Commands of those Princes? But some say that there are Oaths that justify disobedience to the present Government. Surely Oaths are sacred bonds and reverend obligements, and where they do not themselves leave or make us free, we are not to cut or break them in pieces; Yet concerning these there are faults on both hands: On the one side the slighting of an Oath, (and such is the comparing it with an Almanac) which is a light aswell as an unproper comparison; except it were such an Oath as was made only for a year; But we find some part of the Vow and Covenant to speak of all the days of our lives, which doubtless may lie on many of the takers for many years; True it is that the obligation of some things may end, because they can no longer be kept, as that of the King's person; 
Regula juris. In ssibilium nulla est obligatio.  for to impossible things there is no obligation: but will any man that understands, and savours Religion and Piety, say that the clauses which concern Religion and Piety are expired? Did we promise to God in our several places and callings, to extripate Profaneness, Heresy, and Blasphemy, and to endeavour a reformed life in ourselves and ours; only till our Enemies were overcome, and then to make an end? What were this but to say unto God, If thou wilt deliver us, we will be bound to thee till we are delivered and no longer? Would this invite God to deliver us from our enemies, or rather to keep our Enemies still in strength against us? least we being delivered from our Enemies should not serve him in righteousness and holiness all our lives. Surely this is too like that course of carnal Israel, of whom it is written, 
Psal. 78.34.  When he slew them, than they sought him, and they enquired early after God; but their heart, was not right with him, neither were they stestfad in his Covenant. Much more piously and faithfully a reverend and truly spiritual Divine; A well grounded Covenant is a sure, 
Mr. Carill in his Sermon upon Nehe. 9.38. concerning the Covenant. Octob. 6. 1643.  a firm and an irrevocable Act. When you have such an All This (and such you have) as is here concentred in the Text, to lay into, or for the foundation of the Covenant; the superstruction (as aeternitati sacrum and) must stand for ever.  
But on the other side there are other faults; such are the urging of an Oath or Covenant against enemies, and not against friends in one and the same Action; and if not altogether so, yet a slight and diminishing charge of it upon one, and a vehement and aggravating charge of it upon the other. Another fault may be, a stiff insisting on one part, and a neglect, or at least silence in another part; as likewise when by event two parts of it come to be inconsistent, to choose and enforce the keeping of the lighter or less necessary part, and to give way to the loss and not keeping of the greater. There is another, in racking an Oath or Covenant, to make it speak that which it meant not. And here it were good to consider, whether there be any clause in any Oath or Covenant, which in a fair and common sense forbids obedience to the commands of the present Government and Authority, much less when no other can be had, and so the Commonwealth must go to ruin. 
Quando res illa, quam quis juramento confirmavit, est nimis ard●a; aut quando quis qui j●●●vit, ex muta●●● virium vel fortuna, effectus est pa●um aptus ad id exequendum; aut denique quando res juramento confirmata est jucanti, impedimenio, ne bo●● publico consulat, tunc est legitima cause dispensanti in juramento. Sayr. lib. 5. c. 8. n. 12.  And whether it forbids obedience to the present Authority more than to Laws that have been formerly enacted, by those which came into Authority merely by power? 
Si id quod juramus, primò fuerit licitum, posteà causis aliis intervenientibus illicitum fiat, aut etiam impossibile, tum nullo modo conscientiam obligat. Alsted. Theol. Cas. cap. 15.  If it be said that in the Oath of Allegiance, Allegiance is sworn to the King, his Heirs, and Successors, if His Heirs be not His Successors, how doth that Oath bind? either the word Successors must be superfluous, or else it must bind to Successors as well as to Heirs; and if it binds not to a Successor, that is not an Heir, how can it bind to an Heir that is not a Successor? And if you will know the common and usual sense (which should be the meaning of an Oath) of the word Successors, 
Jusjurandum in foro conscientiae semper est interpretandum juxta mentem jurantis; at in foro exteriori seu judiciali semper est judicandum secundum communem sensum, quem ipsa verbae reddunt, & secundum communem hominum usum. Alsted. cap. 15. n. 13.  you need not so much ask of Lawyers and learned persons, as of men of ordinary knowledge, and demand of them, Who was the Successor of William the Conqueror, and see whether they will not say, William Rufus; and who succeeded Richard the third, and whether they will not say Henry the seventh? and yet (as it appears before) neither of them was Heir. So it seems in the ordinary acception, the word Successor is taken for him that actually succeeds in Government, and not for him that is actually excluded. And as in Language the ordinary acception of a word is to be taken for the meaning, so that meaning is to be understood as most proper to have been taken in an Oath.  
Yet withal this Quaere may be added; While the Son is in the same posture in which the Father was, how comes this Oath at this time to stand up and plead for disobedience in regard of the Son, that was asleep and silent in regard of the Father?  
Thus have I gone towards peace (as I believe) in the way of truth; and as fare as it is truth, and no further, I desire it may be received. I also wish that those who read and examine it, may do it (as I profess sincerely myself to have endeavoured) with a calm, clear, and peaceable spirit, without prejudice or partiship. And I doubt not but to such upright seekers of Truth, Truth will appear in a true shape; whereas partial and prejudiced minds speak unto Truth what they would have her speak unto them, and do not hear her what she saith of herself.  
FINIS.