PLENARY POSSESSION MAKES A LAWFUL POWER: OR SUBJECTION To Powers that are in being Proved to be lawful and necessary, In a Sermon Preached before the Judges in Exeter March 23. 1650.  
By RICHARD SANDERS, Preacher of the Gospel at Kentisbeer in Devon.  
Concordiae patrono convenit defendere statum Reipublicae qui quoque tempore sit.  Cic. 
This ISOCRATES terms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Optimum, quemque praesenti statu gaudere.  Liv. Tit. 3.1. 
Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers. etc.  
LONDON: Printed for William Adderton, and are to be sold at his shop at the three Golden Falcons in Duck-lane. 1651.   

To the READER.  
Christian READER,  
I Have here presented thee with a short discourse on a Question, not very fit I confess by modest Christians in a private capacity to be moved, but being moved very necessary to be answered, viz. Whether we may acknowledge, and submit unto the Parliament as the Supreme Power of this Commonwealth in being. I delivered the greatest part of what thou findest here, in a Sermon, and upon the desire of those Honourable Personages (the Judges) before whom among others I spoke, I have adventured to expose the same to public view.  
In preaching of it, my drift was to satisfy conscience, in a thing of general concernment to all persons belonging to this Commonwealth; and this is mine end in printing of it. I confess I was silent for a while (not wholly suspending my duty of endeavouring occasionally to acquaint men with their duty in this change of things) but waving so public and professed an engagement in this great controversy, waiting for some more choice parts to undertake the same: But finding too great a silence in this thing, and many consciences by this means ensnared, I could not hold my peace.  
If thou ask me why I handled this in the City, rather than in the Country where I live; I answer,  
1. I have not been wanting unto mine own people, in satisfying them, so far as was needful, according to my talon; so that I dare say, there are hardly any among them (especially of those that carry any face of religion) that did as much as question the thing that is here disputed, at the time when I did preach this.  
2. I conceived that there was greatest need of such a discourse, where I found most dissenters: and besides I could not have had a better advantage of satisfying all sorts, than at such a public meeting.  
I have taken liberty, in printing, to add some things to what I delivered by mouth, because the small time I had to deliver my thoughts, upon so large a subject, made me out many things too short. Something that I spoke I have forborn to print, viz. A short exhortation to the Judges in the close of my Sermon; The substance of which, with some enlargement, I had inserted in an Epistle Dedicatory to them, but that I thought good to decline the writing of any Dedicatory Epistle, among other reasons, for that I would avoid the suspicion of intending, or aiming at the favour of great men.  
I have laboured a little the more in collecting the testimonies of the learned, that witness to what I speak all along, not that the truth asserted needs humane testimony to support it; but that those that are dissenting, may see how passion, or affection, or prejudice, (or what I know not) hath carried them in this cause quite out of the way of those, whose authority in other matters they make much of. I wonder what should make those that condemn singularity, and new notions and conceits in others, (as I myself also do, so far as they agree not with sound doctrine) to go such a new and singular way themselves, contrary to the sense of the learned in the things discoursed of in this tract. The Kings of the earth, in particular the Kings of this Nation, would have given a man but little thank for teaching or suggesting (as now some do) that usurped powers may not lawfully be submitted to, or acknowledged; such a doctrine without doubt would have shaken their Crowns. That such are to be submitted to, in this Sermon, I have (I hope) made plain: the which I have done, not that we need fly to such an argument to justify subjection to the present Power, The Parliament; as thou wilt or mayest see by that time thou hast read through this book; but that I, supposing the worst, may let men see how slender the grounds of non-subjection are.  
Seek God, lay aside prejudice and jealousies, examine impartially what thou findest. Opinions that relate either to the settling or unsettling of Nations are weighty. Be serious, and the God of truth direct thee. If thou findest any satisfaction by the Authors weak attempts and endeavours, this is all he begs of thee, to remember him at the throne of grace, that he may become more strong to do thee, or any of the elect of God service; which is all that is the desire of him, who is  
Thine, in the advancement of truth and peace. RICHARD SAUNDERS. From my study in Kentisbeer May 19 1651.   

SUBJECTION TO POWERS IN BEING ASSERTED AND PROVED, IN A Sermon Preached before the Judges at the last Assize held in Exeter being on March 23o. Anno Dom. 1650.  On ROM. 13.1. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
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.  
THE main body of this Epistle consists of certain Theological Conclusions, tending to the clearing up of the Doctrines of Justification by Faith, Sanctification, and particular Election. This we find to be the principal matter of the eleven first chapters.  
The latter part contains many particular, moral Exhortations, reaching home to the last Chapter, which is spent in brotherly salutations.  
Among those particular Exhortations which the Apostle gives unto the Saints at Rome (the persons he directs his Epistle to) we find this 13 chapter laying down one, holding forth a rule for them to walk by, in their carriage towards the Powers and Rulers of the Earth, under which the Lord had fixed them: That so they might be directed to walk inoffensively both before God and men.  
The Gospel meddles little with State-matters; we find the Apostles very sparing in them: And what Paul speaks here, he speaks as a Divine, not disputing of the Powers that were in Being, whether they were lawful, or usurped (though there was room enough for such a dispute, if it had been proper for him) but only exhorting the Saints, according to the law and rule of Civil and Political Order, (which God himself hath for common good ratified and fixed in the world) to submit unto them. Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers, etc.  
They that are well acquainted with my Ministry, and way of Preaching, know, I seldom engage in State-Divinity, the work of a Gospel-Minister being to win souls to Christ, and to reveal a spiritual Kingdom which is not of this world: but where Scripture speaks, though but sparingly, there may we speak too, so that we remember still what our main work is; especially when some emergent reasons provoke unto the same.  
Upon this account have I endeavoured to speak something unto this Scripture, in opening of which, we shall, I hope, find somewhat fatisfying some scruples to this day on foot amongst us.  
The former part of my Text is an Exhortation, grounded on a Doctrinal Conclusion laid down and illustrated in the latter part.  
The Exhortation in these words, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers.  
The Doctrine, There is no power but of God. The which is amplified, or illustrated in the next, or last words, The Powers that be, are ordained of God.  
The Text being such an express Doctrine and Use, I shall not affect to draw forth any other Conclusions out of it, but labour to give you the true sense of the terms and expressions as they lie, and apply the whole to our present occasion.  
As for the first words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every soul, which comprehends the persons whom this exhortation concerns; there is no difficulty in them, nor controversy about them, that I know, save between us and the Papists, who following the interpretation of Origen, understand by [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Every soul [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] every natural man, so excluding their Clergy from any subjection to Civil Powers, because they are not [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] natural, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] spiritual men. But this is so frivolous, that I need not to take any pains to furnish any with an argument to refute it. Clergymen, as well as others, Every soul, that is, every man and woman, is most certainly, and indisputably here intended.  
And Christ himself gave an example of this, in that he himself paid Tribute by way of acknowledgement of the Civil Order established. Mat. 17.27. Not that he himself was to be accounted subject to any earthly power; for, being made heir of all things, he had a pre-eminence above all Kings and Princes of the earth: But this he did to give us an example of subjection unto those that are over us.  
But that which is most considerable in this Scripture, and to be looked into, is, that there is mention made in it of Powers, and higher Powers. And concerning these Powers, we find expressions, 1. Of Subjection to them. 2. Of, and concerning their Being. 3. Of their Ordination and Institution by God. All which particulars, or most of them, have difficulty and dubiousness in them. Therefore my work shall be to open them to you, and that by giving an answer to these four Questions.  

1. What is meant by Powers, and higher Powers?  
2. What it is to be Subject to them? Or, What is the Subjection that is required?  
3. When Powers may be said to be? Or, What Powers may be said to be?  
4. How they are said to be ordained of God?   
A word or two to the first of these, which will be necessary by way of introduction to give light to what followeth.  
By Powers we are to understand Civil Magistrates. All, I think agree in this, and if any should doubt of it, we have one Scripture where we find this word Powers joined with Magistrates as Synonimous. It is Luke 12.11. where Christ says, When they shall bring you unto the Synagogues, and unto Magistrates, and Powers, take no thought, etc. Here Magistrates and Powers are set down as expressing one and the same thing.  
Paul in the fourth verse of this 13 Chap. to the Romans, calls a Magistrate, One that beareth the sword, i. e. the sword of power and justice. viz. Such a one as is in rule and power, 
Par. in loc.  over others. So Pareus. Qui potentia & potestate sunt armati in alios; Such as are invested with power and authority over others. And the reason why he says Powers, rather than Kings, Princes, 
Nam omnes complectitur Paulus, cùm ait, non esse potestatem nisi a Deo. Cal. Inst. l. 4. cap. 20.  Emperors, Senates, Parliaments, or the like, is twofold, either, First, Because this is a more comprehensive word taking in Rulers and Governors of what kind soever, and doth denote any in power under what form of Government soever, whether Monarchical, Aristocratical, or democratical. Secondly (which is the reason Pareus gives) That he may be understood to speak, not of the persons so much, as de ordine ipso, of the Order itself fixed and set up by God. 
Pareus in Loc.  For if we should look upon the persons of men in authority and eminency, we may espy many times failings, and corruptions, and causes of non-Submission: whereas if we have respect unto that Civil Order that is set up and fixed by God, for Common good and safety, we may see greater reason for submitting.  
Whereas the Apostle here says higher Powers, 'tis not as I conceive comparing Powers one with the other, as if the meaning of Higher Powers were, such Powers as are uppermost of all: I say that is not the meaning of the word. But Higher in relation to the people they are over. 
Rather to be rendered high Powers then higher Powers.  The words are [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Powers that are set above others. Such as have the people under them. Quae praesunt nobis, Such as be over us.  
There hath been some controversy touching this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of in the text: Some being of the mind that it signifies in Scripture only a lawful Power and Authority, in opposition to a power usurped: which: though it be a new notion and conceit form on purpose to take off the edge of this Scripture, yet finds it entertainment with some. I suppose I do not misname it in calling of it a new conceit; for sure, the limiting and confining the word unto that strict sense is both new, and having little ground, either in Scripture, or the proper genuine 
* We read in Dio. Hist. Rom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which could not be if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by itself, with that Greek Author, did signify a lawful Power. Plutarch & Herodianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 copularunt. Scap. Lex. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. AEmil. Port. Annot. in Thucyd. de Bello Pelop.  signification of the word itself.  
'tis true that learned men the better to express their conceptions, do take liberty sometimes to put some senses upon certain words more than they had originally in them; not with an intent to confine the words to the new created or imposed significations, but only the better to make out to the apprehensions of others a distinction between things that differ. So some have made use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distinguish between lawful and unlawful or usurped Powers, as they do the latin of Potestas and Potentia, which yet I think every man will confess, import one and the same 
* Potestas posse Potentia Cum significatio vocabulorum quaeritur, fit plerumque ut aliud in sermone vulgate, aliud apud eos qui disciplinas tradunt significare inveniuntur. Estius in scent.  thing.  
Is it not most absurd to argue thus? Because some have used the word in this strict sense, that therefore we must expound it so in Scripture. Some of the Fathers and Ancients have made use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. a Mystery, to signify a Sacrament; now because St. Paul Ephes. 5.32. says marriage is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great mystery, do the Papists sound conclude, or may they infer that marriage is a Sacrament? I hope not.  
But I having heard some (of such as else would hug such a nicety and Criticism as this in this cause) ingenuously to confess, that the contrary hath been sufficiently cleared by some others that have written of it, I shall pass it by. Though I could tell you that the Devils are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers too, as Ephes. 6.12. And yet I hope their rule, and dominion, and power, 
* Non est ille (viz. Satan) princeps mundi legitimus, sed per rapinam, etc. Wolf. Musc. in joh. 12.31. See Annot. on the bible on Ephes. 6.12.  is usurped and intruded into, and not of right belonging to them And you shall find that in Heb. 2.14. that power which the Devils have is expressed by another word which signify mere 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sign. Robur. vis, potentia  might, force, or strength: So that lay those two Scriptures together, and you may infer from them, that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used indifferently to express one and the same thing.  
But that I may decline logomachy or strife of words, I grant the meaning of the Apostle here to be a lawful Power, that is such a Power or Magistrate as may lawfully be obeyed, yea such a Power as hath right to be obeyed and submitted to: Though I do withal deny, that he intends such Powers only as came lawfully and inoffensively unto that height, eminency, and authority in which they stand: And that upon these grounds.  
1. Because (to omit this that the signification of the word imports no such thing) if this should be the Apostles meaning, Let every soul be subject to the Powers that are over him, that is, if they came lawfully and regularly by the power they have, and were not usurpers and intruders: He had said as much as nothing at all to the Saints he writes to, 
Caesares qui tunc rerum potiebantur Monarchiam vi Tyrannica ad se rapuerant. Cal. in 1. Pet. 2.13. See more in my answer to the third objection.  for they lived under the Roman Emperors, whose power was a power forcibly wrested out of the hands of the Senate and people, as will appear more clearly anon. They must needs have conceived, sure Paul doth not mean the Emperor, for if he be a lawful power, than none is unlawful.  
2. Or else, secondly if it were otherwise, that is, if Nero's power were not an unlawful power, yet how imperfect and unsatisfactory is the Apostles advice notwithstanding if we be to interpret him in that limited sense before mentioned? 'tis true understand him so, and he gives satisfaction in one thing which has but little difficulty in it, viz. That lawful Powers, such as are rightly and regularly introduced, are to be submitted to; but he leaves us to seek about that which is far more difficult, yea even impossible in some cases for us to find out, and that is, what Powers are lawful, what not? How can Christians give judgement of those supreme Powers that they live under? What a work should a Christian have to do, if he were to seek out the original Right of Supreme Governors by which they hold their power? Where should they have recourse for satisfaction? what rule should they proceed by? Truly a man may see with half an eye that this cannot be Paul's meaning: 'twas never his intent to put Christians upon such a task. His meaning is then nakedly what the words express, Let every soul be subject to the Powers that are, of what kind soever, and by what means soever fixed over us: we ought not to perplex ourselves with needless, endless questions concerning their Right, but fit down satisfied in this that they are such as are in power, and have the rule and Government of us.  
This may suffice to be spoken to the first Question. What is meant by Powers and higher Powers here. The second Question follows.  
Quest. 2 What 'tis to be Subject? or what is the Subjection that is here required?  
Sol. It is the manner of men where they would not be bound themselves, there to bound and limit God's command, shutting it up into a narrow compass that themselves may have the more scope and elbow-room: So do some here, who when they can not avoid the force of this command, do labour to shut it up within their own bounds  
They will be subject to the Powers that are over them, that is, they will not oppose, they will not draw the sword against them, and this is all (say they) the Apostle here calls for.  
I confess this is more than all will acknowledge themselves bound to, in relation to the Powers we have now over us. But surely the bounds of this command reach further than this; pray weigh it well. The Lord pronounces a curse Deut. 27.17. against such as remove their neighbour's landmark, or 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 terminus a limit or boundary from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Terminavit which the Sept. render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  boundary as the word signifies: and is it not worse to remove the bounds that God hath set to his commands? Well let us consider what is the true latitude of Paul's expression here.  
The Greek word is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which some render, and that very aptly as I conceive [Su● ordinetur] let every soul be set in order under the higher Powers. For the word hath respect unto Civil order, opposed to Ataxie, or Confusion, and is very significant. 'tis as much as Let every soul be posited or placed 
* The word is compounded of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sign. Sub, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordine distribui, word for word in English, To be placed in order under.  orderly, or according to the rules of Civil and Political Order, under the Powers that are over. So that it is more than Honour, Obey, or Oppose not; for it comprises all these in it, and what ever else is requisite unto an Eutaxie, or good Order in a body Politic.  
And if so, 'tis not then barely to be patiented under them, as one would be under a judgement, plague or affliction, (Though I confess they that are in authority, by the abuse and maladministration of their Power, are no less than plagues unto those that are godly sometimes) as was the Power under which the Apostle lived, and I may say that Power under which we formerly lived. I say 'tis not barely to be patiented under, or not to speak against, or act against them forcibly; though this be included: but this same Emphatical expression implies, what ever is requisite unto Civil Order, or human society, what ever is requisite and suitable unto, and becoming that proportion that is, or aught to be between head and members, the Rulers and Ruled; in short, what ever is necessary to prevent the dissolving of the frame of Government or Civil Order established, and what may preserve and perfect and secure the same, all this is intended by subjection here: And to give any straighter bounds to its meaning & signification is to do injury to the word made use of in the text, than which, the Apostle could not have pitched upon one more significant.  
In particular I conceive these three things are employed in the subjection here enjoined.  

1. Honor.  1. To have a reverend esteem of those that are in power, if not for any personal perfections which we can see in them, yet at least in respect of their eminency in power, in respect of which they represent God's Soveraingty to us, and are his vicegerents. This Paul makes mention of a little after my text in ver. 7. Bidding us to give honour to whom honour is due, meaning Honour to all those that are in power; the which implies a sincere and Candid estimation of them, as men bearing the image of God's Sovereignty. Surely Contempt of men in power, and true Christianlike subjection, can never consist and stand together.  

2. Obedientia  2. To obey them, that is, in all things that are not unlawful and against the divine will; for otherwise, in case men in power command things unlawful, we must take up Peter's speech, Acts 4.19. Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto men rather than unto God, judge ye. But in things that are lawful before God, yea in all such things as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of an indifferent or middle nature, we are bound to Obey: As in paying Tribute or Custom, etc. Which Paul makes mention of in particular, ver. 7. And if it be so, then much more ought we to obey them in things unquestionably good and laudable. Surely such as refuse (as some do) to perform lawful Duties upon this account, that they are enjoined by a Power that they presume to conceive unlawful, discover much Zeal and Affection, but little judgement, or Christian discretion, as far as I can judge. I know not what is the mystery of it, but surely if this should go for a Rule, that a Christian might not do lawful things commanded by an unlawful Power, we might soon be commanded out of all our Religion.  

3. Fidelitas.  But Thirdly, this implies to be true and faithful unto them, viz. In labouring to defend them that defend and protect us from confusion, and that in discovering any designs on foot against them, and the like. This must needs be implied in the subordination spoken of in the Text; for 'tis that which knits the very joints of a Commonwealth. There can never be any Civil order preserved in a Nation, without mutual resolutions and endeavours in Rulers and ruled of protecting one the other. And if Christians ought to be true and faithful, without doubt they may promise to be so.  
You see what Subjection means: no less than all this is due from you unto what ever Power you are to be subject to. The distinction of Active and Passive subjection hath no place here, for [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Paul's expression in the Text, signifies both, in the latitude before expressed.  
The Third Question inquirable into is,  
Quest. 3 When Powers are said to Be? Or, What Powers may be said to Be?  
Sol. 'Tis requisite this should be enquired after, in that the Doctrinal conclusion in the Text runs thus: There [is] no Power but is of GOD, and the Powers that be are ordained of GOD. The Apostle disputes up Subjection to the Civil Powers from the bare existence and being of them. And therefore 'tis of the greater concernment to know when they may be said to Be?  
To satisfy you as to this Question, I answer, that there is not much difficulty or dubiousness in this matter; for the Being of Powers, ruling Powers, is no such insensible thing; our very senses will teach us who are in power over us, we see and feel the influences of their power good or evil, sweet or bitter. But in a word to this also.  
When the Apostle says, The Powers that be.  

1. He means the Powers that are over [us] not the Powers of another Nation or people: All Powers have right unto the subjection of the people, that is, of the people over which they are. We have nothing to do with the Princes and Rulers of another Nation, nor they with us.  
2. In that he says the Powers that be, he excludes such as pretend Right to Government and Power, Quando non praesunt, when they are not actually in power over us. Christians are not required to inquire after the pretended Rights of any, they are to look to those that [are] in Power.  
3. In this expression the Apostle excludes Powers that are, or may be expected, or looked for, or hoped for: Hope is of things that are not, but these must be of Powers that [are.]  
4. By these words he gives us to understand, that he means, not Powers that have been, though for never so long continuance, but only such as are now in being: And therefore he says expressly the Powers that be.   
But if any will be further curious to ask of me, when Powers are said to be, I answer,  
1. When they take upon them to protect and govern the people, and have an uncontroleable power to back their undertaking. When the people are involved in their power, and they in eminency over them. This the Learned consent to. Calvin says, Satis nobi● sse debet quod praesunt; 'Tis sufficient that they be above us. And Bucer on Rom. thus, Potestates hae sunt, quibus est merum imperium, & potestas vitae & necis; They are Powers, in whose hands is mere Mastery or Dominion, and the power of life and death. And again, he describes them to be such as bear the sword, and so are Supreme: and such as are invested with mere Mastery or Dominion; see his own words in the Margin 
* Cumque unius corporis non possit nisi unum caput esse: Vnius Reipub. nisi una potestas. In quaque Republica, potestati quae gladium gestat atque ideo suprema est, meroque imperio pollet, subjici debet Omnis anima. Bucer. in Rom. 13.1.  Many more such like expressions of the Learned might I insert, but that I would not be tedious. You will find more anon in the clearing of what is yet behind.  
2. Powers then [are], when they give Laws to the people, and the people receive Law from them. This is a most visible, and undoubted symtome of the Life and Being of a Governing Power: When we see this, we may say a Government is, or a Power is, as safe as we may say, there is life where we see breathing. The administration of Law is the very soul and breath of a body Politic, and it can no more be without it, than a natural body can live without breath, and without a soul. And are not such then to be accounted Powers in Being unto a people, as do give (under God) life and breathing to them in a political sense?  
3. And lastly, Then Powers may be said to be most undoubtedly and unquestionably, when the people, or the greatest part of them have by any means consented to them as Rulers, and Governors over them.  
1. I say, When the people, or the greatest part of the people, have consented: For what is an act of the major part of the people, is taken for the whole.  
2. I say, When they have by any means consented upon this account: Because though their consent or choice be not voluntary elicitiuè but subjectiuè only (as the Schoolmen distinguish) it is enough. That is, though it be not drawn forth by the will as the first and sole productive principle of it: Yet il it be with the will, moved; and acted by some necessity apprehended, or the like; this is sufficient to make it voluntary, and so valid; yea and fully as voluntary as any people have been in choosing, or consenting to their Kings or Princes.  
I cannot conceive any thing more that can be added, as necessary to the being of an authority.  
To say (as I have heard some do) that time, or duration gives, or may give a being to the lawfulness of a supreme Power, seems to me very irrational; for as says Grotius, Tempus suapte natura vim nullam effectricem habet: Nilenim fit à tempore, quanquam nihil non fit in tempore; Time makes nothing to be, though every thing be made in time. The duration or continuance of things cannot make them to be what they are not in themselves. Quod ab initio vitiosum est, etc. says 
* Quod ab initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere. Ulp. L. 29.  Ulpian; That which is vicious in its rise, cannot become valid by its continuance.  
'Tis true, Prescription and Custom make things to be deemed right, which might not be so in themselves originally: And yet, I hope, 'tis not Time or Duration that is the ground of this right, but a presumption of right still to have been, because the same never known to be questioned. For lapse of time undoubtedly cannot change the morality of a thing, so as that that which is unjust, should become just by continuance. Time may alter the quality of actions, or things, à minore ad majus, that is, so as to make that which is evil, to become more evil; or that which is good, to become better: This tract of time may do; but that a thing that is unlawful (as a Civil Power) should become lawful by continuance, seems to me a Paradox.  
Surely this seems to me to be the judgement of such, as are not willing to join hands with any Supreme Power that comes in upon the change of Government, till time hath worn out all danger of adhering to the same, and till the Power hath outlived (in likelihood) the hazard of shaking. Surely 'tis not becoming Christians to suspend their obedience unto a Divine Rule, upon such a carnal ground. But I pass to the last Question, and that is this.  
Quest. 4 How the Powers that be, are said to be Ordained of God?  
Sol. I answer. Things are said to be of God, or to be ordained of God, in a twofold sense, viz. Either by manifest will and command, or by secret providence.  
The one I call a Preceptive ordination, the other providential.  
1. Such are ordained by God to rule by manifest will, or preceptive ordination, as are by God himself nominated, and commanded to be set up over the people, by express word; as were the Kings of Israel: When Israel would have a King, according to the mode of the Nations round about them, the Lord points out by express word who it should be, and then who should be his successor, etc. But any such way of ordaining Rulers in a State, I hope, we may not expect or look for now; because such appearances of God, as then were, are ceased: We have no Prophets, to whom God now speaks (as of old) Go Anoint such a person King; Go tell the people, such a Person, or such a Family, will I have to reign over them: he doth not ordain any then, now, after this first way, by manifest will, or express word.  
2. Now in the second place, as for God's providential ordaining of Rulers or Powers, such are Powers ordained of God, into whose hands Providence hath cast Authority and Dominion: Such as Providence hath placed in eminency. This is the way after which all Rulers and Powers in the earth are now established, and fixed by God: And 'tis that which Paul means in the Text, and makes the reason of Christian subjection. Doth not Scripture speak of that Sovereignty that the Lord makes use of in disposing of the Empires of this world? See Dan. 2.21. And he changes the times and the seasons, he removeth Kings, and setteth up Kings. And, Chap. 4.17. The most high ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the lowest or humblest of men, as the word 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Humilis, submissus.  signifies. And again, Jer. 27.5. I have made the earth, the man, and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by mine outstretched arm; and have given it to whom it seemed meet unto me. And the Psalmist speaks to the same purpose. Psal. 75.6, 7. Promotion cometh neither from the East, nor from the West, nor from the South. But God is the judge; he putteth down one, and setteth up another. The Lord owns these changes to be from himself, not by permission only, as you see, but by divine disposition, and ordination, viz. providential. So that 'tis enough to satisfy us touching a Power that 'tis ordained of God, when Providence hath set it up.  
Neither am I alone in this: 'tis that which the learned and judicious agree to. As Calvine speaking on these words, There is no power but is of God, says 
(a) Ratio cur debeamus esse subjecti Magistratibus est, quod Dei ordinatione sunt constituti. Quod si ita placet Domino mundum gubernare, Dei ordinem invertere nititur adeoque Deo ipsi resistit quisquis potestatem aspernatur, quando ejus, qui juris politici author est, providentiam contemnere, bellum cum eo suscipere est. Calv. in Rom 13.  that to slight providence, is to wage war with God himself; intimating (as you may find by reading him at large) that the ordaining of Powers in the Text is by providence, which ought to be binding to Christians. And Bucer affirms that 
(b) Summum jus omnium potestatum, Regum etc. in eo situm est, quod a Deo Ordinatae sunt & hisjus ordinationis unum & indubitatum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est esse Potestates: Nam nulla potestas nisi certa dei dispensatione esse potest. Buc. in Rom. 13.  the chief right of all Powers consists in this, that they are ordained of God: And of this ordination there is this one most sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or evidence, viz. That they are Powers, i. e. that providence hath set them up: for no power can Be but by Gods ordering of it to be.  
Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.  Sen. 
And indeed there is nothing by which we may judge of a Power whether it be of God or no, but only this, that it actually [is.] If you say, yes, the consent and choice of the people; I say, that demonstrates what is the people's will, not what is Gods will: We are commanded 〈◊〉 be subject to Powers, in the text, not because the people choose them, but because God ordains them. Now by what 〈◊〉 we know that a Power is ordained of God, unless we ●ake providences putting men in possession of power, to 〈◊〉 God's way of ordaining Powers? I say by what shall we judge whether a Power be ordained of God or no? God doth 〈◊〉 now reveal himself by express word concerning the thing, how shall we know his will then? why, Promotion cometh neither from the East, nor West, etc. God giveth the Empires of the world to whom he wil Thou canst not know who is ordained of God, but only by considering whom providence hath exalted as supreme; For as says Calvin, 
* Atque simulac in regium fastigium quempiam evehit dominus testatum nobis facit suamvoluntatem quod regnare illum velit Cal. Inst. l. 4. Chap. 28.  As soon as ever the Lord hath lifted up any unto the Height of a supreme power, he doth witness to us, that it is his will that he should reign.  
So then, the particulars being thus cleared, consider what the whole text speaks out. Let every soul be subject, i. e. [orderly or according to the Law and Rules of Civil Order placed under] the Powers that are [above or in Eminency] for there is no power on earth [be it what it will be] that hath an actual being, but is [Providentially] ordained by God, and hath validity and Authority from him. So that (as 'tis in the verse following) he that resisteth the Power [Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] he that doth any thing against the Order, resi sts the Ordinance of God.  
I have met with one objection that seems to carry some weight in it, which I shall here insert; and give an answer to it.  
The objection is made against what hath been given out as the sense and scope of my text, viz. That those that are actually Supreme, and in Plenary possession of Power, are to be submitted to as Powers, or as a Power Ordained of God.  
Object. 1 Against this is argued from 2 Kings 11. thus: If possession makes a lawful Power, then Athalia was a lawful Power, and they did ill who did rise against her, and crown Joash King. It had questionless been rebellion in them to thrust out her, that had been in full possession for six years together; but we find not that they did amiss in putting her off, though she had been actually supreme for so long time, that the right heir might be anointed King, therefore her being in actual possession did not make her a lawful power, or a power to which the people were bound to be subject: and so by consequence, the like doth not now constitute a power to which the people own subjection.  
Ans. To which I answer, 1 Jehojada who contrived the deposing of Athaliah after six year's reign, was no private man, but the chief Priest, to whom it did belong (as says Peter Martyr speaking very well to this very Question) non modo judicare res Ecclesiasticas, verum etiam Civiles, to judge not only Church matters, but State affairs too; he was custos Legum, and had power to look to the laws, to keep them from violation and infringement; if he, and they that acted in this business, had been private men, it had been rebellion in them, according to Peter Martyr, who says, (upon this very case) that 'tis not lawful for private men to cast down him, qui rerum potitur, that is in plenary possession.  
2. God then ordained rulers by manifest word, and command, and therefore such were only to be acknowledged for lawful Powers then, as were thus appointed by God; in respect of which, Athaliah was not, but joash was, the rightful Prince. But now to us there is no such express way afforded to determine who should govern, but there is an express way teaching us whom we should acknowledge, and Submit to, even the powers that are: therefore we are not bound to, neither may we, look any further back than the Powers in being, though the Israelites might, and perhaps ought, according to a rule which they had more than we have.  
Object. 2 But its said Hosea 8.4 by the Lord: They have set up Kings, but not by me, they have made Princes, and I knew it not, speaking of the people's following and setting up of Jeroboam as their King. Therefore all Powers that get up into actual Domination, are not ordained of God.  
Ans. I answer, the Lord speaks thus, in respect of the indirect course the Ten tribes took in setting up jeroboam to be King over them: not as if he were not a lawful Power after he was in the throne, or as if God had no hand in setting of him up: God himself says he made him King, as you shall see in the answer to the next objection. But however the people were disorderly, and rebellious in what they did, which is that which this Scripture hath respect to: and to this agree Peter Martyr, Pareus, and divers others. See the margin. 
* Quod autem non promoti fuerint (speaking of the Kings mentioned Host 8.4.) ad regnum deo volente, cum tota fermè Scriptura pugnat. Pet. Marrv. Loc. Com. A Deo fuit illa regni, a Roboamo ad jeroboamum, translatio, etc. Quod vero hic dicit Deus, Jeroboamum Regem non fuisse ex se, de modo, & circumstantiis facti quas Deus minime probavit, est intelligendum. Par. in Rom. & plura in Ose. 8.4.   
1. They did not ask counsel of God; therefore he says 'twas not by him, that is, his advice.  
2. They were not backed with any authority, but were private men: And though the Lord had appointed Jeroboam to be King, yet this was more than they knew: In this respect the Lord says, he knew it not, that is, approved it not.  
Object. 3 But you'll say, What, are all tyrannical and usurped Powers of God? This is the way to make God the Author of all the violence, in jury, and oppression, which Tyrants and Usurpers of Government fall under.  
Answ. To this I answer, that 1. It is most clear, that Scripture speaks of all in Power, whether Usurpers, or not, to be from God himself.  
Do not all call Jeroboam an Usurper, in taking off the Ten Tribes from Rehoboam? And yet the Lord says, this was of him, and that he would cut off the Kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and give the ten Tribes to Jeroboam. See 1 Kings 12.15. 1 Kings 11.31, 35, 37. We know what Nabuchadnezzar was, strenuus aliorum invasor & populator, a mighty invadour and waster of others, (as Calvin styles him) and yet God says, he set him over Egypt, though for his part he tyrannically usurped power over them to their undoing. See Ezek. 29.19. And as for that Power under which the Apostle was when he writ this Text, the Emperor Nero, we may easily understand by History what he was, and how he, and his predecessors got their power.  
1. He was a professed enemy to the Truth, a Persecutor of the Saints; all know this. The first of the Ten Persecutions began in his time. Christians were not then clamorous, or refusing to submit unto him, because he would not establish their Ecclesiastical Government, and Church order by a Law; they would have been glad if they could but have had their lives preserved, so as that they might have professed Christ without danger of dying for it, and could not enjoy this.  
2. And besides, for his power, we know it was taken forcibly and unjustly out of the hands of the Senate and people. I know some deny this to be an usurped power, but therein they are by themselves, I think, however they condemn singularity in others. Peter Martyr says, Romanam Tyrannidem vel Imperium ei (viz. Caesari) non contulerunt, sed vi atque potentia usurparat; The people gave not the Roman Power to Caesar, but he usurped it by force and might. And Calvin says, 
a Calv. in 1 Pet. 2.13.  Caesares qui tunc rerum potiebantur, Monarchiam vi tyrannica ad se rapuerant; The Caesars that then were in possession of power, did by a tyrannical force take the Monarchy to themselves. Many more testimonies I could add; I have fixed some in the margin. 
b Legiones veteranae fortes sed feroces, & ad suam vim omnia nostra consilia revocantes. Sleid. de. 4 Sum. Imper. Sermo. Cic. Caesare, rerum potiente contra leges & consuetudinem patriae. Dio. Hist. Rom. Quamvis multi existimant Julium Caesarem occupato imperio, hoc sibi jus (i. e. regnandi) potius rapuisse quam ex S. C. accepisse. Balth. Meisn. S. S. Th. D. de Leg. Nam ipsorum (Caesarum) dignitas omnisatque salus erat non in Senatus aut populi, sed in. Legionum atque militum potestate. Sleid. de. 4 Sum. Imp. lib. 2 pag. 304. & pag. 305. Sic. Caesarem metuebat Senatus, ipse vero Caesar ab impuri militis voluntate propemodum, atque nutu, pendebat. A brave Government. Afterwards he citys Erasmus speaking of the unhappiness of the Roman Empire thus. O miserum illorum temporum statum. Oppressa Senatus authoritate, oppressis legibus, oppressa populi Romani libertate: Sic ereato principi serviebat orbis, princeps ipse serviebat eyes, qualem, nemo vir bonus domi vellet habere servum, etc. Ibid.   
In short it is thus: 
c Heylyn's Georg. p. 147.  Julius Caesar (the first of the Caesars) after many successes abroad, which he got being a servant of Rome, of her servant made himself her master. His Successor Augustus set up the Praetorian Guard of 10000 men, pretending for the safety of his person, but, as History says, to awe the Senate and people. Then after the death of Caligula, the Senate had hopes of recovering their Liberty, and when they were contriving the restoring of the same, these same Praetorian Soldiers 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (viz. Claud.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dio. Hist. Rom.  saluted Claudius' Emperor, and forced the Senate to consent to them. The next to him was this Nero, who came by the Sceptre after the same fashion 
e Inter horam sextam septam jue processit (viz. Nero) ad excubitores, cum ob totius diei diritatem non aliud auspicandi tempus accommodatius videretur: proque Palatii gradibus Imperator salutatus, lecticâ in castra, & inde raptim appellatis militibus in curiam delatus. Suet. de 12. Caesaribus. . And yet this Power also among others, is said to be of God.  
And yet in the second place, this is not to make God the Author of Tyrant's usurpations and violence; for, their 
* Aliud est potestas quae à Deo est, aliud acquisitto & usus potestatis. Par. Rom.  Power is one thing, the acquisition or administration of that power is another thing: Their Power is of God, and by his disposal; but the male administration or acquisition of the Power, is not of God, save only by permission; as in Jeroboams case, his advancement unto the Throne was of God, he made him King (as before) but the indirect course of the people was not of him.  
Neither is this my judgement alone, but the general vote of the Learned, as you may perceive by their testimonies before produced, and by those that I shall now annex. Calvin upon my Text affirms, that 'tis 
a Etsane hoc verbo mihi videtur Apostolus voluisse tollere frivolam hominum curiositatem, qui saepe solent inquirere quo jure adepti fuerint potestatem qui rerum potiuntur: satis autem nobis esse debet quod praesunt: non enim conscenderunt sua ipsi virtute in hoc fastigium, sed manu Domini sunt impositi. Calv in Rom. 13.  frivolous curiosity to examine by what right, those that are in possession, did get their power; for it ought to be enough to us that they are over us: for they could not come to eminency by their own strength, but by God, placing them in it with his own hand. And again, speaking of Gods enjoining subjection to the King of Babel, he says, 
b Videmus quanta obedientia Dominus tetrum illum ferocemque Tyrannum coli voluerit, non alia ratione nisi quia regnum obtinebat. Cal. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 20.  the Lord commands men to be subject to that cruel Tyrant, for no other reason but because he had got the Kingdom; though we know without any right: The same say Peter Martyr, Bucer, and others. See the Margin. 
c Cum enim quaeritur cui parendum, non est spectandum qualis sit qui potestatem exercet, nec quo jure vel injuria quis potestatem invaserit, quave ratione eam administret, sed tantum si potestatem habeat. Bucer in Rom. 13. Cùm tamen principatum obtinuerint, (viz. Tyranni & qui usurpant) atque imperant, privatorum esse non videtur illos moliri. Pet. Mart. Loc. Com.   
Object. 4 But may not Christians resist an Usurper?  
Ans. They may resist an Invadour or Usurper while he is invading and usurping his power; Yea I may say they ought: for so much do Christians owe unto the Powers in being over them, that they ought to oppose any that shall endeavour to dispossess them of that power which God hath put into their hands, so violating & disturbing the Civil Order that is established & fixed: But for Tyrants & Usurpers when they are in plenary possession, Christians may not oppose themselves against them. So 
d Deus, ut Daniel testatur, imperia & regna transfert, & quamvis fas est tyrannis invadentibus principatum resistere; cum tamen obtinuerint, atque imperant, privatorum esse non videtur illos moliri. Pet. Mart. Loc. Com.  Peter Martyr, and others.  
Object. 5 But if this be so, how is it possible that there can be any change of Government without sin?  
Ans. I answer, this rule reaches to Christians in a private capacity only: But as for such Magistrates as are appointed ad mode randum Regum libidinem, as Calvine speaks, 
(b) Cal. Instit. lib. 4. chap. 28.  to curb and check the exorbitancy of supreme Powers, here the case is altered. They may do that which private men may not. They may 
(c) Eyes profecto licet, si princeps pactis & promissis non steterit, cum in ordinem cogere, ac vi redigere, etc. idque vel armis, etc. Among others he instances in the English as having such a power in their Parliaments. Pet. Mart. Loc. Com.  regulate, restrain, reform, and, if need be, remove too, Pours that are abusive in the administration of their Authority: Paul in my Text, and so I in this discourse speak of private Christians. I hope I have sufficiently removed these blocks.  
I shall say but little as to the application of this truth: 
Use.  only I shall address myself in a word or two unto those gracious souls, who, having tasted of Divine love, have given themselves up unto the will of Jesus Christ, to be wholly acted by it: for others whose wills must be their Laws, I have nothing to say to them here. Let as many as follow the Lamb, and know his voice, consider what Christ willeth, what the spirit of truth directs to, concerning their duty to those Powers that Providence hath set over them. The rule is plain: Be subject, or subordinate to the Powers that are: Be not a cause (negatively by not doing what thou shouldst, or positively, by doing what thou shouldest not) of interrupting the Civil Order established: unite with them that are in Power, as members with the head. Surely if Chrstians in a private capacity may suspend, or deny subjection to Powers actually supreme, and dispute their right and fittedness to rule, than race out this scripture, this Text, out of the Bible: yea and all that you find in 1. Pet. 2.13. Tit. 3.1. parallel places: Surely these must stand for nought, or else such a course is unlawful.  
Doth not my Text say, Let every soul be subject to the Powers that are, for they are of God? To come home then to our case. Is not the Parliament the supreme power of this Nation? Are not they that now sit in Parliament, the Powers that are? Pray examine this well.  
1. Are not they over us? have not they undertaken to Govern and protect us? Are we not involved in their power?  
2. Do they not give laws to the people, and the people receive, and seek law from them? Else what mean our Judges riding in circuit? and such a great confluence and concourse of people in all counties seeking for justice from them? Let your own eyes be witnesses this 
* There being then present the Judges with great numbers of the Country whose coming from their home was for Law.  day.  
Object. Yea, thirdly may not I say also now, that the people, or the greatest part of them have consented to them by engagement? How is it then that Christians, with whom a Gospel-command should be more prevalent than all the private interests in the world, are averse from an engaged subordination?  
Ans. Say not, the Engagement hath been forced on the people, or else they would not have taken it. For that's not true: for it is evident that the people First, have freely thosen to engage rather than to be out of the Parliaments protection. The engagement was and is proposed to them upon no other terms but only thus, will you engage, and live under the protection of the Parliament? or will you refuse, and wait for your protection from some other person or persons? choose whether of these two you like. The people finding no safety, or possibility of good to them, but under the wing of the Parliaments power, did engage. Is this forced? Can a man be said to be forced to an action which he doth upon this reason, that 'tis the only safe way for him to do it? Surely if they be forced to this, 'tis by their reason, and nothing else. Secondly the people have taken this engagement upon the same terms that former Oaths to Princes have been taken.  
This were (me thinks) convincing and satisfying enough, if the Parliaments power were merely usurped in respect of its original, and corrupt and wicked in its administration, and yet its plain enough that neither of these is so. for  
1. Is it not more than evident the Power of this Commonwealth was fairly cast into their hands, after a full debate of the matter before the tribunal of heaven (The only tribunal at which controversies between supreme Powers are to be decided) in a lawful war? And do not the learned agree, and is it not suitable to reason, that when there is a breach between supreme powers, or such as share in Government, one labouring to invade the rights of the other, & it come to war, wherein God is immediately appealed to, there being no judicature on earth to judge between them; if one overcometh the other, he that overcometh hath right to dispose of the whole power? Was not the case even thus between the late King and the Parliament? And did not the House of Lords, who are also laid by as useless, resuse the protection of the people (in the time of the Hamiltonian invasion) and so nulled their own power, before any body else made it void? Me thinks this should sway with  judgements.  
2. As for the administration of their Power, since God hath (after a fair trial) cast it upon them (to speak the least, and to avoid all suspicion of flattery which I abhor) hath it not been hitherto with much lenity towards those that have suspended obedience to them; and with no slender testimony of their hatred of injustice, and profaneness? What power in England (if I go no further) ever witnessed so fully against vice and ungodliness as they have? I bless God I am not so void of modesty, civility, and ingenuity, as to be so uncharitable (as some are) as to censure their end in it, whose lesson is it (I pray) to judge amiss of men's intentions, when their actions speak well? I am sure 'tis none of Christ's.  
There are none have much reason to object the great burdens yet lying on the nation, let them bare the blame of it, that occasion the keeping up of Armies, by their not acknowledging of, and submitting to the Authority that God hath set up: I see no reason any have to put this upon the Parliaments score.  
Besides, I might show you the singular benefits of this form of Government above either of the other two: but that would make this discourse to swell up to a great bigness. 'tis easy, I confess, to show some inconveniences that may spring up in it, but what form of Government is without some danger of corruption? And yet (if it were needful in this controversy) I should easily make it appear, that there is no form of Government more likely to continue free from corruption than this which is established, by a succession of Parliaments to be chosen by the people themselves.  
Wherefore let this make honest hearts the more ready to submission, I am sure it should.  
Object. 7 But I here some say, we are bound by former Oaths and Covenants to the contrary; and we may not break the Oath of God that is upon us.  
Ans. 1. Beloved I know no Oath or Covenant that ever was given to the people of England, that binds them from ever submitting to any other form of Government than was formerly in being, but only such as bound them unto fidelity unto such Powers as were in being. I wish you would impartially look them all over again, and see whether it be otherwise than I say. You might be obliged to preferving, but there is not a word that mentions the restoring of the Powers that were, if they should be taken away. And if any of the Covenants should contain that which should bind Christians, in a private capacity, to endeavour such a thing, they were clearly unlawful: for private Christians may not attempt the setting up of what is put down by public power.  
Secondly I confess an Oath ought to be very sacred unto Christians, who are acquainted with the glorious name of God: But observe, 'tis only Durante ejus Obligatione, as long as its Obligation remains, and no longer. We know that though God, before whom we convenant and swear, be eternal, and unchangeable, yet the matter of our Covenants is not so, and therefore the obligation of them may cease and expire. Now the obligation of an oath or Covenant expires several ways, as  
1. If we swear to one, as under such a capacity, when that capacity ceases, the Oath itself, and the Obligation of it ceases. So says Grotius expressly. Non tenebitur si cesset qualitas sub qua alicui juravit; A man is not bound when that quality, 
Grotius de jure Belli & Pacis lib. 2. Cap. 13.  under which he swore to, or with, once ceases As if a Magistraet ceases to be a Magistrate, as says he. As, if we bind ourselves to a King, and he ceases to be a King: or if to his successors, and they do not succeed in the throne, but are ejected from so much as the privilege of Subjects; here the obligation must needs be at at an end If I promise to restore a sword lent me, at such a time, to a person that in the interim grows mad, the obligaion of this promise must needs be void. He is not the man he was when I made the engagement to him. If a Tenant, farming a Tenement, promises to pay such a rent, to such a Lord, during such a term, and before half the term be up, the power and right of this Tenement be transferred to another, suppose by means of the Lords forfeiting his right and interest from him and his heirs for ever by treason; doth not this promise and the obligation of it immediately expire? is he bound think you to what he did promise to the Lord? or hath the heir of the said Lord any right to call for his rent? or if he should, is the tenant bound by his promise to give it him? I hope not.  
And is not this our case? are the persons sworn to and covenanted with in that capacity or quality under which we engaged to them? Is not the power of government put by God into other hands? by God, I say, according to the rule in the Text, There is no power but is of God. Is not the late King, with his heirs, and successors dispossessed by God, who gives, and takes away rights of government according as seems good to him, by putting down one and setting up another?  
The Parliament have declared the supreme power to be in themselves, exclusively without a King or house of Lords, and they are the Powers that now are, as hath been cleared: therefore Kingly Government, both in the late King, and in his heir must needs be extinct, as to England, for.  
Non capit regnum Duos. Sen.  
One people cannot have two supreme Powers at once.  
2. When by the intervening of some unexpected case, the matter of the Oath or promise becomes unlawful, then doth its obligation expire. 
(a) Satis est quando juramus nos habere hanc voluntatem illa ex equendi quae pollicemur: quod si Deus secus ostenderit faciendum, nobisque declararatum fuerit, id quod promisimus Divinae voluntati adversari: Jam neque ille cui juramus ea à nobis debet exigere, quod si forte faciat, jus ejus nullum esse censetur. Pet. Mart. Loc. Com.  As, if a man should promise to marry a certain woman, before such a time, and she in the interim be married to another, he is not any longer bound by his promise. And is not this our case? hath not this State another head? is there not another Power over us? and is there not a Gospel-command enjoining subjection to the Powers that are? either the obligation of former engagements must be at an end, or we must be bound to the violation of a Divine law; which can not be.  
3. The Obligation of an Oath or engagement expires, when there is a ceasing of some express, or tacit condition of the same. In all promisory Oaths and Covenants there must be some 
(b) A subdiditis obedientiae & obsequiorum promissio fit sub conditione vel tacitavel expressa. jun. Brut. de vi●d. Tyr. Dicimus si promissio fundata sit in praesumptione quadam rei quae non ita se habeat, naturaliter nullam ejus esse vim, quia omnino promissor non consentit in promissium, nisi sub quadam conditione quae reipsa non exstitit. Grot. de jure Belli & pacis.  conditions expressed, or employed, or both; for else they could not be lawful, being the futuro, of the future, which is not in our Power.  
Now 1. Judicious men say, that engagements made to Political and public persons, are to be understood in this Political sense, even with the tacit condition of holdiug their possessions, and no further; if that fail, or when it doth, than the obligation ceases: and therefore upon this account the dipossessing of the Powers formerly engaged to, doth free us from the tie that was upon us.  
And secondly I am sure this must needs be a condition employed in all covenants. So far as my holding to the matter of the same do not prove sinful and evil. But it doth now in our case, 
Non valent promissa facti illiciti quia ad illa nemo jus habet nec potest habere. Grot. de jure Belli & pacis.  as before; you can not stick to your former Covenants (at least in the sense that some conceive) without sin, for to hold to what is conceived to be contained in former Engagements, carries in it non-subjection to this Power that is now in being; which (if we will believe Paul) is unlawful and sinful.  
4. The obligation of an Oath or Engagement ceases, when there is such a change in the state of things, between the making, and fulfilling of the Oath, that if at the time of making, the state and change of things, that afterward followed, had been known, the oath had not, or could not have been taken. 
Si candid agit, tum non astringitur ad servandum nisi ea quae cogitavit, in foro Conscientiae. Pet Martyr. Loc. Com.  So Sanderson as I take it, in a tract of his. In such a case, if a man be candid, and sincere in taking the Oath, he is bound to no more than what he apprehended in taking the same. And if certain notable and unexpected changes, quite alter the case, a man is free from his promise. As, in case I promise to do this or that in order to common peace and welfare, and then find, that (by reason of some change in affairs) I shall ruin the public by doing that which I promised to do in order to public good: surely this promise must needs be void, or if it bind to any thing, 'tis to a desisting from what was promised to be done, because destructive to the chief end and intent of my promise. This is our very case; were not all former Oaths and Govenants taken in order to public Peace, welfare, and good, as the chief end? And will not the keeping of them (as the Adversaries of the present Power would have it, in maintaining the pretended Right of the late King's Son) be the only way to war, disorder, confusion, blood?  
Wherefore Christians, I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, learn your duty in reference to the Powers that are over you. Sedition was an old blemish cast upon the professors of truth, but without cause: Oh let it not now be justly cast upon you. Let it not be said, truly professors of religion are now the greatest State-incendiaries. Ah! do not your hearts tremble to think of blood again? can you hope for it, or look for it? sure I can hardly think it. But Ah! Whether will not passion, and blind affection transport and carry men? We find such folly prevailing as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dio. Hist. Rom.  Dion the Historian says, that men are greedy after small matters that they count good, though they usher in necessarily much more evil with them; like Nero's mother, who, when the Astrologers told her that her son should reign, & with all that he should put her to death, said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let him kill me; only let him reign. O furor! O madness! Let him reign (say some) though the Nation die for it Let christians be more meek, more sober. Do not prosecute a particular private right (as you may suppose) against public welfare; I am sure that is not the course of a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dio. Hist. Rom.  modest, discreet, & wise Christian. I intent this discourse only, or chief, for honest hearts that yet are dissenting and unsatisfied. God I hope hath more mercy in store for you, than to give you your desires and expectations, in this thing. Learn your duty; shake off the yoke of earthly Powers, and you shake off God's yoke too, and so run yourselves into the flames of divine displeasure, as well as humane, and invite the justice both of God and men to take hold of you: for they that resist receive to themselves Damnation.  
FINIS.