THe Apostle intreating of purpose upon the duty of submission and obedience to Authority, Rom. 13. layes down this precept; 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 [Page 2] be subject not only for wrath, Potestatis no­mine, intelligo Magistratum, qui est cum po­restate & auto­ritate; maluit [...]amen Aposto­lus ipsam pote­statem nominare quàm hominem, &c. R [...]lloc. in locum. but for conscience sake. And that he speakes not in this place meerly of po­wer or authority abstracted from persons, but of persons cloathed with that authority, appeares in that he saith; For, rulers are not a terrour to good workes. So that he speakes of persons ruling, as well as of the power by which they rule. And againe, 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. 1 Tim. [...]. [...]. 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 and met with Paul at Corinth: and by the sentence of the latter, Paul having made his appeale to Caesar finished his course, and passed unto a crowne of righteousnesse. And now, behold the lawfulnesse by which these two persons came to be invested in their power and authority.

Of Claudius Caesar the Story tells us this; Timore cadis exterritus pro­repsit ad solari­ [...]m pr [...]ximum, inter (que) praetenta foribus vela se abdidit; la­ [...]entem, discur­rens sorte gre­garius miles [...]im [...]dversis pedibus, èstudio sciscitandi quis­nam esset, agno­vit, extractum (que) & prae metu ad gen [...]a sibi acci­dentem Impe­ratorem saluta. vit. Hinc ad alios commili­tones fl [...]ctuantes, nec quic quam ad huc quàm fre­mentes perdux­it. Ab his lecti­cae impositus, & quia servi dif­fugerant, vi­cissim succollan­tibus, in castra delatus est. tristis ac trepi­dus miserante obvia turba, quasi ad paenam raperetur insons. Receptus intrae vallum inter excubias mili­tum pernoctavit, aliquanto minore spe quàm fiducia. Nam Consule cum Senatu, & co­horribus urbanis forum capito­lium (que) occupa­runt, asser [...]uri comunem liber­ [...]atem, accitus (que) & ipse per Tribunum plebis in curiam ad suadenda quae viderenter, vi se & necessitate teneri respondit. Verum postero die Senatu segniore in exequendis c [...]natibus per taedium ac dissentionem diversa censentium & multitudine quae circumstabat, unum rectorem jam & nominatim exposcente, a [...]matus pro­conciene jurare in nomen suum passus est, promisit (que) singulis q [...]i [...]adena H. S. primus Caesarum fi [...]em militis, etiam premio pigneratus. Sueton in Claudio. Agrippina velut dolore victa, & solatia conquirens, tenere amplexu Britannicum, veram paterni o [...]is effigiem ap­pellare, &c. & Antoniam quo (que) & Octaviam atti [...]uit, & cunctos aditus cust [...]diis clouserat, crebro (que) vulgaba [...] ire in melius valetu dinem principis, quò miles bo [...]a in spe [...]ge [...]et, tem us (que) prosperum ex monitis Chaldaeorum attentaret. Tunc medio die [...], tertio ante idus Octobr. foribus pala [...]ii repente diductis, comitante Burrho Nero egreditur ad cohortem, quae more mili [...]i [...] ex­cubiis adest, ubi monente praefecto, festis vocibu [...] exceptus, inditur lecticae. Dubitavisse quos­dam ferunt resp [...]ctantes rogitanes (que) ubi Britannicus esset? Mox [...]nullo in diversum auctore, quae offerrebantur secuti sunt. Illatus (que)castris Nero, & congruen [...]ia tempori praefatus, pro­misso donativo ad [...] exemplum paternae largitionis Impe [...]ator consalu [...]atur. Sententiam militum ecuta patrum cousul [...]a, nec dubita [...]um est apud provi [...]cias. Tacit. Annal. Lib. 12. After the death of Caius Caligula, the Consuls and Senate of Rome entred into a consultation, how they might re­store the Common-wealth to her ancient freedom, which by the Caesars had been taken from them. So that the taking in of an Emperour, and consequent­ly of Claudius for Emperour, was directly against [Page 3] the wills and resolution of the Consuls and Senate; yet these anciently for many hundred yeares had the chiefe power of Government; But see the way of Claudius his coming to the Empire; during the Inter-regnum, Claudius being frighted with the news of Caligula's death, and fearing himselfe might be enquired for upon suspition with-drew, and hid himselfe behind the Hangings, or covering of a doore; where a Souldier seeing his feet, and desi­rous to know what he was drew him forth, and up­on knowledge of him saluted him Emperour, though even then for feare falling downe low be­fore him. This one Souldier brought him forth to his fellow Souldiers, who lifted him up as Empe­rour; 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 councell concerning the common free­dome, undertooke the Empire. Thus in one Soul­dier at first, and then in more, was the foundation of Claudius his Emperiall 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 Neroes mother, and by the same craft Nero being brought forth to the Soul­diery, was first saluted Emperour by them. This sentence of the Souldiers was followed with the consent of the Senate, and then it was not scrupled in the Provinces; so that the Souldiery was also the foundation of Neroes Empire. Thus we see Rulers [Page 4] put by Souldiers 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 Romane state to our owne, sure we are that in this Nation many persons have beene setled in supreame power and authority by meere 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, come to the Crowne by true lineall succession and order of blood. Neither is there any great difficulty in find­ing it, untill we come to Queene Mary, whose title being by an incestuous marriage, these observers say that Queene Elizabeth should have raigned in her stead; However, we are cleerly told by story, that five Kings on a row (of which the Conqueror was the first) had no title at all by lineall descent and prox­imity of blood. The first came in by force; The [Page 5] second and third had an elder Brother living when they came to the Crowne; The fourth raigned when his Predecessor had a Daughter, and Heire living which was Mawd the Empresse; The fifth being the Son of that Empresse, raigned while his Mother was alive, by whom his Title came. But leaving these, and Edward the third who raigned in his Fathers life time, and the three Henries; fourth, fifth, and sixt, who raigned upon the Lan­castrian (that is a younger Brothers) Title, Let us more particularly consider Henry the seventh; See Speed in H. 7. n. 1. & Seq. This Henry came in with an Army, and by meere power was made King in the Army, and by the Ar­my; so that in the very field where he got the Victory, the Crowne was set upon his head, and there he gave Knight-hood to divers; And upon this foundation of military power, he got himselfe afterwards to be solemnely Crowned at Westminster. And soone after upon authority thus gotten, he called a Parliament, and in that Parliament was the Crowne entailed upon him and his Heires. Thus both his Crowne and his Parliament were founded upon power; As for any right Title, he could have none; for he came from a Bastard of Iohn of Gaunt, which though legitimated by Parliament for com­mon Inheritances, yet expressely was excluded from right to the Crowne. And for his wives Title, that came in after his Kingship, and his Parliament, which before had setled the Crowne upon him and his Heirs. And he was so farre from exercising au­thority in her right, that her name is not used in any [Page 6] Lawes as Queene Maries was, both before and after her marriage with the Spanish King. Now this and the rest who came in by meere power without Title of inheritance, being in their opinion who are now unsatisfied, to be held unlawfull, yet the maine body of this Nation did obey them, whilst they ru­led, yea doth yield subjection to their Lawes to this very day. And the learned in the Lawes doe con­tinually plead, judge, justify, and condemne accor­ding to these Lawes; So that herein the very voyce of the Nation with one consent seemes to speake aloud; That those whose Title is held unlawfull, yet being possest of authority may lawfully be o­beyed.

And hereunto Divines and Casuists give their concurrence; among them one that is resolute both for Monarchy and lineall 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 Ty­ranicall oppression) and for obeying his commands. First, Dicendum est, licitè subditos ab eo (qui [...]y rannus jure & titulo est) jus pe [...]ere, quià quamvis jus & titulum non habeat, res­publica tamen tacitè consemit in hoc ut civibus ipsi Tyranno, Facto, non jure subditis, jus di­cat, a [...]si esset competens j [...]dex & [...]legitimus superior. Item, si mandat [...] tyranni sint aequa, & justa, parendum est. Azor. Inst. Mor. Par. 2. Lib. 11. Cap. 5. Non peceat subditus ty­ranni, qui dominium & jurisdictionem alicujus di [...]ionis usurpavit, petendo ab eo justitiae admini­strationem, &c. Si quidem dat operem ut qui pe [...]at jurisdictionem usurpando, non peccet etiam justitiae administrationem praetermittendo; Ex Navarri manual. cap. 1 [...]. n. 41. Si mandata principis, alioqui Tyanni, sint aequa & justa, parendum est. Alsted. Theol. Cas. Cap. 17. that Subjects may lawfully seek justice of him; And secondly, that if his commands be lawfull and just, they must be obeyed. And another well e­steemed in the Reformed Churches, is of the same judgement.

[Page 7] Paraeus saith, Civilem & [...]erilem expresso verbo sanxit. Gen. 9. That it matters not by what meanes or craft Nimrod, Qui sanguiuem hominis fuderit, ejus sanguis eti­am fundetur a [...] homine. Non u [...]i (que) à quovis; prohibuit enim, non occides: Sed à Magistratu divin [...]us ordi­nato. Nec refert quibus modis vel ar [...]ibus Nimrod, Iero­b [...]am, ou [...] alii regna sibi para­verint. Nam a­liud est po [...]estas quae à Deo est; aliud acquisitio et usus potesta­tis. P [...]rae. in Rom. 13. Potestatis Nimrodi initium fuit quidem malum, &c. Quum igitur quaeritur cui parendum, non est spectandum qualis sit qui potestatem exercet, nec quo jare vel in injuriâ, quis potestatem in vaso [...]it, quave ratione eam administret, sed tantum si potestatem habeat. Si enim quis potestate [...]lle [...], [...]am in dubitatum est illum adeo cam potestatem accepisse, unde si [...]e omni exce [...]tio ne illite permi [...]as opertet & pareas exanimo. Bucer in Rom. 13. Jeroboam, got Kingdomes to them­selves; For the power is onething which is of God, and the getting and the use of the power is another; And after: The beginning of Nimrods power was, indeed evill, as to the getting and usurping power, because abusing his strength, force, and wealth, he violently subbued others, and compelled them to obey; but not the power or force wherewith he seemed to be indued by God above others; And another more plainely. When a question is made whom we should obey; it must not be lookt at what he is that exerciseth the power, or by what right or wrong he hath [...]nvaded the power, or in what manner he doth dispen [...] it, but onely if he have power. For if any man doth excell in power, it is now out of doubt, that he received that power of God; Wherefore without all exception thou must yield thy self up to him, and heartily obey him.

And the same Author againe; Ex Apostolo estensum christi­an [...]cum quaeritur cui parendum, in hoc unum re­spiciend [...]m esse, quisnam ibi, u [...]bi ipse agit, potesta­tem habeat. id. Ibid. When a question is made to whom obedience should be given: A Christian is taught out of the Apostle, that he should looke onely to this, who hath the power in that place where he lives.

Another thus, It often comes to passe, that Alians or Natives by seditions or force invade the Common-Wealth. But in any of these cases Subjects may not when they list goe about to change the forme of the Common-Wealth Fit frequenter ut, vel alieni vel in [...]igene, [...] se­ditiones aut vi operta Remp in­vadant. At quic­quid horum sit, non est sub di­torum vel Reip. forman mutare velle pro suo arbitrio, vel de sui principis jure seditiosius distu­ [...]a [...], sed simpliciter Praesentibus Magistratibus obe [...]ire debeut in omnibus quae illaesa con [...]cien [...]i [...], & salvâ pietate fieri possant, Gaulter in Rom. 13. [Page 8] nor dispute seditiously of the Right or authori­ty of their Ruler, but should singly obey the PRESENT Magistrates in all things which may be done without wrong to Conscience and Piety.

And another thus, Vide [...]ur Apo­stolus voluisse tollere frivol [...]m hominum curi­ositatem, qui saepe solent inquirere, quo jure adepti fuerint potesta­tem, qui rerum potinatur. Satis qutem nobis esse debit quod prae­sum. Non enim cons [...]enderunt sua ipsi virtute ad hoc fa [...]igium sed monu domi [...]i sunt impositi. Calvin in Ro. 13. The Apostle seemes here to goe a­bout to take away the frivolous Curiosity of men, Nihil hic auxie dispu [...]andum est quo jure, quive injuriâ principes adepti sint pote­statem suam Illud potius agendum est, ut Magistatus Praesentes revereamur, Haec enim Epi­stola scribebatur, cum Romani jam adepti [...]ssen [...] imperium ocbis terrarum, quod eos per vim sci­mus occupasse, & posteà Imperatores a [...]ib [...]s [...]ihilo melio [...]ibus rerum summam ad se pertrax­isse. Paulus tamen sine omni exceptione praecipit obedie d [...]m esse magistratibus. Pet. Martyr in Rom. 13. who often use to enquire by what right those which have command did get their authority; But it ought to be sufficient to us, that they are in preheminence. For they did not get up to his height by their owne strength, but they are set over by the hand of God. Yet another, (And all these chiefe pillars of the reformed Churches) It shall not here be scrupulously disputed by what right or by what wrong Princes have gotten their power. This rather is to be done that we reverence the PRESENT Magi­strates. For this Epistle was written when the Ro­manes had now gotten the Empire of the world, which we know they did possesse by force; and that afterwards the Emperours by policies nothing better drew to them­selves an universall power. Yet Paul doth command that Magistrates without all exception must be o­beyed.

And indeed how can it be otherwise? for when a [Page 9] 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 then tituler Tyranny) be admitted into a Common-wealth; And (according to the doctrine of King Iames) the King being for the Common­wealth, and not the Common-wealth for the King, the end should be destroyed for the meanes, the whole for a part. If a Masters mate had throwne the Master over Board, and by power would suffer no other to guide the Ship but himselfe; if the Marri­ners will not obey him commanding aright for the safe guiding of the Ship, the Ship must needs perish and themselves with it.

So that whereas some speake of ill consequences, if this Doctrine be received, Ad pauca re­spicien [...]es è fa­cili judicant. they may here see worse consequences if it be not received; and wise men should see the consequences on all sides, and judge up­on the whole.

And surely whatsoever ill consequences may ap­peare upon obeying, they appeare at more distance, but confusion and destruction come in presenty up­on disobeying. The Common-VVealth is presently put unto Ungovernment and Confusion by inobedi­dience; or into sedition, Attestatur hoc esse lici [...]um c [...] ­n unis usus Om­nium qui sub Tyrannis & du­bjis dominus de­gunt dum abs (que) conscientiae scru­pulo passim om, nes ad [...]yrannos & dubios dominos recurrunt, acsi essent Domini. Caje [...]. Sum. Verbo Tyrannus. civill warre, yea destruction, by striving against a prevalent power. Therefore as that which hath the lesse ill consequences, not ours only, but generally all Nations have given obedience to power; and both sought and received Lawes and [Page 10] Government from those, that have overpowred them. But indeed the question is properly here what is lawfull, and not what ill consequences the cor­ruption of man may worke upon that which is law­full. And as to the lawfulnesse, we have seen before what Scripture, Divines, Reason, and general practice have resolved, and taught.

And whereas some speake of a time for set­tlement, they indeed doe rather speake for a time of unsettlement; for they will have an un­settlement 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 speake 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 doe the Casuists and Di­vines speake of obedience to those that shall be set­led but those that are in actuall 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 settlement, how soone soever it is, when there is such a way setled that men may have Justice if they will, and may enjoy that maine end of Ma­gistracie, [Page 11] to live a peaceable life in godlinesse and ho­nesty.

And indeed when one is in possession by power, and another pretends a Title, what can the maine body of a Nation which consists of the Common-people doe in this case? What right had William surnamed the Conqueror? what right (we speake of a Right of equi­ty) had his Son William the se­cond, and Hen­ry the first, while their el­der brother li­ved, &c. Par­liaments as Kingdomes, give their voice with power; & he who hath the force doth commonly carryed the effect of Right Speed in H. 4. The King ( H 7.) made speed to London as to the chiefe seate and Epitome of the English Monarchy, &c. The Mayor of London and his Fellowship received him in Violet at Ho [...]nesey Parke; but his entrance (which was at Shordi [...]ch) was honoured with a very great troope of the Peeres and No­bles in his Trayne, &c. The whole House of Parliament concurring finally in establishing by a solemne Act, the Crowne upon him and his Heires for ever. Id. in H. 7. They cannot judge of Ti­tles; but they see who doth visibly and actually ex­ercise power and authority. Yea even learned men, and States men have beene 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 Peeres, chiefe Cities, Parliaments, and all having to one in every three, thus subjected them­selves upon termes of power and not of right; what can be expected but that what hath been done, may or shall be done hereafter? especially when in this present age obedience is given to the Lawes and Commands of those Princes. But some say that there are Oathes that justifie disobedience to the present Government. Surely Oathes are sacred bonds and reverent obligements, and where they doe not themselves leave or make us free, we are not to cut or breake them in pieces; Yet concer­ning these there are faults on both hands: On the [Page 12] one side the slighting of an Oath, (and such is the comparing it with an Almanack) which is a light aswell as an unproper comparison; except it were such an Oath as was made onely for a yeare; But we finde some part of the Vow and Covenant to speake of all the dayes of our lives, which doubt­lesse may lye 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 Kings person; Regula juris. Impossibilium [...]ullaest oblgatio for to impossible things there is no obligation: but will any man that understands, and savours Religion and Piety, say that the clauses which concerne Religion and Piety are expired? Did we promise to God in our severall places and callings, to extripate Profanenesse, Heresie, and Blasphemy, and to endeavour a reformed life in our selves and ours; onely 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 keepe our Enemies still in strength against us? least we being delivered from our Enemies should not serve him in righte­ousnesse and holinesse all our lives. Surely this is too like that course of carnall Israel, Psal. 78. 34. of whom it is writ­ten, When he slew them, then they sought him, and they enquired early after God; but their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his Covenant. Much more piously and faithfully a reverend and truly spirituall Divine; A well groun­ded [Page 13] Covenant is a sure, Mr. Carill in his Sermon up­on Nehe. 9. 38 concerning the Covenant. a firme 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 (is aeternitati sacrum and) must stand for ever. Octob. 6. 1643

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 stiffe 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 chuse and inforce the keeping of the lighter or lesse necessary part, and to give way to the losse and not keeping of the greater. There is another, in racking an Oath or Covenant, to make it speake 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 faire and com­mon sence forbids obedience to the commands of the present Government and Authority, much lesse when no other can be had, and so the Common­wealth must goe to ruine. Quando res illa quam quis jura­me [...]o confirma­vit, est nimis ardua; aut quando quis qui juravit, ex mutatione virium vel for [...]ae effectu [...] est parum a [...]us ad id exequendum; aut deniq, quando res juramen [...]o confirmata est juranti impedime [...]o, n [...] bono pub­lico consulat, tunc est legitima caus [...] dispensandi in jur [...]mento. Sayr. lib. [...]. c. 8. n. 12. And whether it forbids obedience to the present Authority more then to Lawes that have beene formerly enacted, by [Page 14] those which came in Authority meerely by power? If it be said that in the Oath of Allegiance, Si id quod jura mus primò fue­ri [...]li ci [...]um, po­ste [...] causis aliis intervenienti­bus illicitum [...]i at, aut etiam impossibile, tum nullo modo con­scientiam obli­gat. Alsted. cap: 15. n. 13. Allegi­ance is sworne to the King, his Heires, and Succes­sors, if His Heires be not his Successors, how doth that Oath binde? either the word Successors must be superfluous, or else it must binde to Successors as well as to Heires; and if it binds not to a Successor, that is not an Heire, how can it binde to an Heire that is not a Successor? And if you will know the common and usuall sense (which should be the meaning of an Oath) of the word Successors, you need not so much aske of Lawyers and learned persons, Iusjurandum in foro conscien­tiae semper est interpretandum juxta mentem jurantis; at info­ro exteriori seu ju diciali semper est judicandum secundum com­munem sensum, quem ipsa verba reddunt, & se­cundum commu­nem hominum usum. 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 appeares before) neither of them was Heire. So it seemes 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, Alsted. cap. 15 n. 13. so that meaning is to be understood as most proper to have been taken in an Oath. And one who hath lately written for infant Baptisme, according to our Saviours rule of salt, and peace, with sharp reasons and milde language, hath these words. If one of our late Kings Sons should be crowned King of Scotland or Ireland onely, he could not be said to succeed the King of England; be­cause the subject of his Government in regard of latitude, is changed, and he comes not in his Fathers roome as King of England. Mr. Drew. page. 32.

[Page 15] Yet withall 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?

But now let us enter into the question of active obe­dience, See Master As­chams Dis­course (that hath in it both judgement and learning) concerning possession, part. 1. chap. 6. & sequ. & part 2. ch. 4. pa. 88. and Acting under this present power and Go­vernment. But first let this be premised, That this pre­sent power is in possession of the whole Land, and no vi­sible force to oppose or overbeare it, and so it is not like that betweene David and Absalom, where David had an Army in veiw that might, and did overcome. And next, That a course of Justice, or giving right is o­pened at Westminster, and through the whole Nati­on; And this being the present state of the Nation, let us examine whether it be lawfull to Act in such a State? True it is that some hold it wisedome, and some hold it duty, to be quiet, and not to Act. But, first, it hath bin proved before that obedience to such a power in good things is lawfull. Now if obedience in good things be law full, then Acting for Justice and Order being good things, and commanded, it is lawfull to obey that com­mand.

Secondly, if all should not Act, I think the not Actors would fall short of their supposed and intended quiet­nesse, and the wisedome they placed in it: For by non-Acting in the way of justice the whole (and themselves among the rest) would lye open to Injustice spoyle and destruction, and so be far from quietnesse. And indeed what reason is it, that those that will not Act, because they hold it unlawfull, should expect that others should doe an unlawfull Act to benefit them? And why should others give right to them that will not give right to o­thers?

[Page 16] Thirdly, It is cleared in this discourse, that those who have gotten to be powers (though by force) yet ought to give justice to those whose Goverment they have undertaken. And againe, That the people may lawfully demand it. But is it possible that one or a few persons in supreme power can distribute justice to a whole Nation without subordinate Agents? So that to say, None may lawfully Act under the supreme power in distributing of Justice, and Government, were to say upon the matter, That he should give no ju­stice, and that the people should have no justice at all. And then how absurd is it to teach that the people may lawfully seeke justice of him, which they cannot receive? and that he is bound to give justice, but none are allowed by whom he may give it?

Fourthly, This Doctrine of not Acting is the very Doctrine of Levelling. For when no man may Act to give justice, may not every man take freely from his Neighbour, what he list, and so levell the Rich with the Poor? unlesse this make it unlike, because worse then Levelling, That those who have most force, will have most; yea some all, and others nothing; and so to avoid Acting under a supposed Tyrannical Government unto justice and order; there shall be Tyrants in every place or parish, who shall Act to disorder and oppressi­on, and no property, justice, nor Government at all left amongst us. And surely I thinke David out of his love to Israel would not have wished such an Estate, to Israel un­der Absalom, had he the whole in possession, and himselfe no force on foote to recover it; nor would he have desir­ed such an unsettlement to procure his settlement. And hence ariseth that which they call an Interpretative con­sent of the people; because it is understood and supposed that every rational man doth consent, that there should [Page 17] be order, property and right given to every Member of a Common-Wealth under a Tyrant, rather then all to be under confusion oppression, Robberies, & Murders.

Fifthly, Ezra 7. 25. how could Ezra and Nehemiah justifie their Acting under the Persian Monarch, who had no right to the Crown of Iudah either by blood or just conquest? Yet Ezra was authorized by him to set Magistrates, Ezra 10. 7, 8. fine and imprison and put to death; And he exerciseth au­thority, in making the people of Israel to sweare, and to enter into a Covenant, & in sending forth a Proclama­tion to all the Children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together to Jerusalem; And that who­soever would not come within three dayes, all his sub­stance should be forfeited. Nehemiah Neh. 5. [...]. &c. also Acts as Gover­nour, and rebuketh the Nobles, and Rulers, and sets a great assembly against them, because of their usury. He also called the Priests and took an Oath to performe the promise of leaving that Vsury. He acknowledgeth also that he was Governour there about twelve yeares, and he gave his Brother Hanani and Hanaiah Ruler of the Palace charge over Jerusalem. Neh. 7. 2. So he did both Act him­selfe, and others Acted under him. We finde also that at that time there were Rulers of the people that dwelt at Jerusalem, and Nehemiah Neh. 13. contended with the Rulers and Nobles, made Treasurers, commanded the Gates [...]to be shut before the Sabbath, threatned to lay hands on the Merchants, that lay at the Gates, smote certaine of the Jewes, and pluckt of their haire, because having mar­ried wives of Ashdod, their Children spake halfe in the language of Ashdod.

Sixthly, Let us heare what before these times and be­fore our case was in being hath bin taught in point of Acting; and upon what grounds it hath bin aproved. An author eminently learned and skilfull in the doctrine of [Page 18] lawgiving saith thus: Nullus potest exequi vel condemnare alium etiam in poena justa, nisi habe at publicam po­testatem quam Tyrannus dare non potest. Sed in hoc etiam advertendum seu subdis [...]in guendum est. Nam hoc in ri­gore verum est, quantum ex par­te Tyranni; contingit autem ut Resp. quia non potest illi resistere, toleret illum & ab eo se gubernari sinat, & tacitè consentiat, ac veli [...] justi­tiam per ipsum administrari propter rationem tactam, quia minus malum est per illum gubernari, quàm omnino carere justa coactione, & directio e, & [...]u [...]c non erit peccatum obedire etiam in dictis rebus, quia Reip. consensus supplet defectum, potestatis Tyranni. Suarez. de Leg. lib. 3. cap. 10. No man may punish or condemn ano­ther even with a just punishment, except he have publique power, which a Tyrant cannot give. But in this there must be a consideration or subdistinction. For in rigor this is true as to the Tyrants part; yet it so happens that the Common-wealth because it cannot resist him, doth tolerate him, and suf­fers it selfe to be Governed by him; and doth tacitely con­sent, and will that justice be administred by him, for the reason already touched, because it is a lesse evill to be Go­verned by him, then altogether to want just coaction and direction; and then it shall not be a sin to obey even in the things aforesaid, because the consent of the Common-wealth doth supply the defect of the Tyrants power.

Another thus, Sententias ejus esse validas probatur. Quia ejus sententiae & justa man­data et si non habent vim à Tyrannica pote­state, habent tamen aliunde primò & in­choative à jure Naturali, quod supposito tali rerum statu, di­ctat esse obtem­perandum pro­pter bonum commune; alio­qui omnia essent plena furtis e [...] latro [...]i [...]ijs. Se­cu [...] & com­pletè à repub­lica, idque vel quia durante il­lo statu, tacito quodam consen­su dai ei autho­ritatem, dum vult ut ille ju­stitiam admini­stret, & officio usurpato debito medo fungatur, vel potius quia tacite approbat ejus mandata, & acta, legibus & utilitati communi consentanea, & vul [...] sententias justas quibus lites civium dirimuntur, & sontes plectantur, esse valida [...], & subditos obligare nisi enim validae essent & obligarent, ne­mo nisi in speciem ob [...]emperaret sed quis (que) occulte faceret contrarium, cum magno Reipublicae incommodo potest autem Republica hanc vim sententiis & actis Tyranni dare, quia est singulo­rum superior, etiamsi Tyrannide sit oppressa, & justas Tyranni sententias pro suis habere. That his sentences are valid, is proved. Because his sentences, and just commands although they have not force from a Tyrannicall power, yet they have it from elsewhere. First, and inchoatively from the law of na­ture, which such a State of things being supposed, doth di­ctate that obedience must be given for the Common good, otherwise all will be full of Thefts and Roberies. Secondly, and compleately from the Common-wealth; and that either because while that State endures, it gives authority to him by a tacite consent, while it will's that he ad­minister justice, and use his usurped Office in a due maner, or rather because it doth tacitely approve his com­mands, and Acts being agreeable to the Lawes and Com­mon good, and will's that his just sentences, whereby the suites of the people are decided, and the guilty are punished, shall be valid and binde the subjects; for except they were valid and did binde, no man would obey, but onely in shew [Page 19] but every man would secretly doe the contrary with a great inconvenience to the Common-wealth. Now the Common-wealth may give this force to the sentences, and Acts of a Tyrant, because it is superiour to all single persons, though it be opprest with Tyranny, and may account the just sentence of a Tyrant as its owne.

Thou wilt aske, Petes, utrum Tyrannus peccet peccato homici­dii, & tenea­tur ad restituti­onem, si s [...]ntes secundum ordi­nem juris inter­ficiat aut bonis spolier? Re­spondeo, negamus; Quia Respublica tacitè ad hoc tribuit illi authoritatem dum consentit & cupi [...] ut hoc faciat. Le [...]ius de Justitia & Jure, lib. 2. cap. 25. Dubitat. 9. whether a Tyrant doe sinne the sin of murder, and be bound to restitution, if he put to death guilty persons, or deprive them of their goods accor­ding to Law? I answer negatively; Because the Common-wealth doth tacitely give him authority here­unto, while it doth consent, and desire, that this should be done by him.

Thus is the authority of Acting in this case groun­ded upon a tacite or implyed consent, which con­sent is the very dictate of nature or common reason, because it is better to have some justice then none at all, some coercive power and Government, then that all be left to disorder, violence, and confusion. I will shut up all with the result of a disputation more full and comprehensive, then most I have met with on this subject. And therein I present to consi­deration, First, The moment and weight of the [Page 20] Authors reasons. Secondly, The probability and likely-hood of the clearenesse of his reasons; be­bause they seeme to proceed from a judgement cleare and free from the Byas of affection. Yea his judgement herein did swim against the streame of his affection; for he perswades an obedience to the Government of a Governor that he loved not. And I wish this Ingenuity and clearenesse, were at least no lesse amongst us.

He wrote in the raigne of Queene Elizabeth to whom in the language of Rome he gives the terme of impious, &c. and takes notice of her as a Tyrant, and by sentence of the Church turned out of all right to princely authority, yet after some praevious Assertions concerning this subject, he comes to

A fourth Assertion. Quarta assertio.

To a Tyrant in facto esse (or possession) by Tyran­nicall usurping a Kingdome, Tyrann [...] in fa­cto esse, sive quia tyrannicè regnum usurpa­vit, sive quia Ty­ranniceillud reti [...]et, quo jam per sententiam Ec­clesiae expoliatus est, regnat au­tem quia à sub­ditis non potest repelli, tenentur cives in foro animae si justa pr [...]cipiat & judicet, [...]bedire. or tyrannicall hol­ding it, being by the sentence of the Church deposed from it, but yet governing because he cannot be repel­led by the subjects, The people are bound in Conscience to give obedience, if he command and decree things that are just.

Having laid down this Assertion, Vt Christiani degen [...]es Asiae tenentur justis Turcae, & Ca­tholici agentes Angliae, legibus justis illius im­piae Reginae o­bedire: Proba­tur. Tenentur Cives in consci­entia consentire & servare ea quae sunt omnino necessaria suae Reip. vel sim­pliciter & ab­solute, vel sal­tem pro tali sta­tu: sed obedire Tyranno justa praecipienti quandiu repelli non potest, & haberi legiti­mus princeps, est pro tali statu & tempore om­nino necessari­um Rei [...] ▪ ad ejus conservationem. Ergò tenentur cives illi obedire. Maior cum consequentia aper [...]a est▪ Minor probaiur. Primò quia cum Tyrannus ille sit poten [...] viribus, & jam pacifi­cè dominetur, sequeretur maxima perturbatio, & confusio in Republicâ non obediendo illi, & plus no [...]erent cives suae Reip. non obediendo quam ipsemet Tyrannus cum justa praecipiat, sua Tyrannide. he proceeds thus; As Christians dwelling in Asia, are bound to obey the just lawes of the Turke, and the Catholikes in England, the just lawes of that Impious Queene; This is thus pro­ved; [Page 21] The people are bound in conscience to agree unto, and observe those things which are altogether necessary, to their Common-wealth, either simply and absolutely, or at least for that State wherein they are. But to obey a Tyrant, commanding just things as long as he cannot be repelled, and a lawfull Prince obtained, is for that State and Time altogether necessary to the Common-wealth, for the preservation of it. Therefore the peo­ple are bound to obey him. The Major with the conse­quences is manifest. The minor is proved: First, be­cause that a Tyrant being powerfull in strength, and now peaceably ruling, there would follow an extreame perturbation, and confusion in the Common-wealth by not obeying him; and the people should more hurt their Common-wealth by not obeying then the Tyrant himself, when he commands just things, by his Tyranny.

Secondly, Secundò, quia ad bonam Reip. gubernationem maxime in re­bus tam despe­ratis & deplo­ratis, expedit tanquam unicum remedium ut sit aliquis Iudex qui componat lites & contro­versi as inter ci­ves, & cui [...]uno omnes obediant aliter non pos­sent homines tunc civiliter vivere, nec se­curi esse in domibus suis, non esset hospes, ab hospite tutus, n [...]e vicinus a vicino; At tunc n [...] potest haberi alius judex qui i [...] praeste [...] nisi ille Tyrannus. Ergo cum justa praecipiat, non solum exterius, verum etiam in conscientia tenentur, cives obedire illi. Because to the good Government of a Common-wealth, especially when things are so desperate and deplorable, it is requisite, as an onely remedy, that there be a judge which should compose strifes and con­troversies among the people, and to whom all then should give obedience; otherwise men in such a time could not live civilly, nor be secure in their Houses; a lodger could not be safe from him, with whom he lodgeth, nor a Neighbour from his Neighbour: But at such a time no other judge may be had that may performe this but [Page 22] the Tyrant. Therefore when he commands just things, the people are bound not onely outwardly, but even in conscience to obey him.

Thirdly, Tertio quan­do Tyrannus jam pacifice guber­nat nec potest repel [...] esset grave sca [...]dalum, & perturba [...]io Rep. illi non o­bedire. Et con­firm. Hoc in­terest ex com­muni sententia D. D. inter con­sensum exp es­sum Riep, et in­terpretativum, quod expressus requiritur ut quis eligatur & instituatur ve [...]us princeps, at ut subditi [...] [...]antur obedi re etiam non ve­ro principi, suf­ficit interpreta­tivus, quandoita exigit b [...]num commune suae Rep. quia rationaliter▪ & prudenter judicantur cives consentire in necessaria suae Reip. Sed. in hoc casu (u [...]constat) maxime expedit ad [...] & bonum Reip. cives tali Tyranno obedire: Ergo per [...] sa [...]m interpretativum [...] in conscientia justis & honestis praecepis illius stare & [...] When a Tyrant doth now peacebly govern and cannot be repelled, it would be a great scandall and perturbation to the Common-wealth not to obey him. And it is thus proved; In the common opinion of Doctors there is this difference betweene an expresse consent of the Common-wealth and an interpretative, that an expresse consent is required to choose a person, and make him a true Prince; But that Subjects be bound to obey, even one that is not a true Prince, an interpretative consent is sufficient, because the pub­lique good of their Common-wealth doth require it. For rationally and prudently people are judged to con­sent to those things that are necessary for their Com­mon-wealth; But in this case (as it is plaine) it is most expedient for the peace and good of the Common-wealth that people should obey such a Tyrant. Therefore at le [...]st by an interpretative consent they are bound in conscience to performe and obey his just and honest commands.

All these things are confirmed; First, Con [...]rman [...]r haec omnia pri­m [...] ex sacrascrip tura, ex qua & historiis constat Romanos per Tyrannidem oc­cupasse Iudaeam eo tempore quo Christus, & [...] Iohannes Bap­tista praedica­bant; at neque Christus, neque Iohannes neque, Apostoli docue­runt, ne illis o­bedirent, imò ip­se & reddidit, nec asseruit se liberiū, quia non esset obediendum Tyrannice imper­anti; sed quia erat Filius dei & Davidis. Joan Bap. Luc. 3. militibus quaerentibus ab ips [...] (quos du­bium non est quin essent mi­lites Romano­rum) quid fa­cerent non praecepit ut militiam desererent quasi ministri principis Tyranni, sed hoc tantum [ut neminen concuterent, & contenti essent stipendijs suis] ubi potius suasit stare in mili [...]ia Caesa [...]is. Pilato etiam qui nullam authoritatem habebat nisi a Caesare, dixit Christus [non ha­beres in me potestatem, &c.] Et. 1. Pet. 2. [subjecti estote sive Regi tamquā praeexcellenti, sive ducibus tanquam ab eo missis [...]] Nullus autem Rex tunc erat nisi Caesar, ne (que) ullus Dux nisi constitutus ab eo. out of the sacred Scriptures, out of which and Histories it is ma­nifest [Page 23] that the Romans by Tyranny did possesse Iudea in that very time wherein Christ and John Baptist did preach; But neither Christ nor John nor the Apo­stles did teach that the people should not obey them, but the contrary. Christ, Matthew 22. did teach that Triubte was to be given to Caesar, yea himself did give it. Neither did he say, that he was free, because obedience should not be given to one that Tyrannically Reigned, but because he was the Son of God, and of David. Iohn Baptist, Luk. 3, when the Souldiers (which no doubt were the Souldiers of the Romanes) did aske of him what they should doe, he did not com­mand them to quit their Souldiery as servants of a Prince that was a Tyrant, but this onely that they should doe violence to no man a [...]d be content with their wages. Wherein he did rather perswade them to con­tinue in the service of Caesar. Moreover, Christ said un­to Pilate who had no authority but from Caesar, thou shouldst have no power of me, &c. and 1 Pet. 2. Be ye subject either to the King as supreame, or unto Gover­nors as those that are sent by him. Now there was no King then but Caesar, nor any Governor but such as was appointed by him.

Lastly, Ad argumen [...]um in appositum dico judicium Tyranni ex par­te judicantis esse reverà usurpa­tum, & senten­tiame jus nul­lam, quia prox­im [...] causa talis judicij & sen­tentiae, nempe authoritas ejus est reverà usurpata & nulla, ex par­te veriò civium esse illi obedi­ [...]ndum in con­scientia tan­quam justae sen­tentiae, & legiti­mo judicio, quia tenentur cives eligere minus malum tempo­rale, ad vi [...]an­dum majus, & per minus ma­lum, quod est o­bedire illi, vi­tant perturbationem suae Rep. quae esset multo majus mal [...]m. Tum enim quia judicia hujus possunt quadam ratione dici judicia veri judicis, qua [...]enus tolerantur a Rep. per consensum interpreta­vum, qui suffcit ut tenantur cives obedire illi in conscientiá. Ex quo etiam sequitur, non modo [...]ives debere il [...]i in conscienti [...] obedire, ve [...]um etiam tyrannum ferentem tales sententias non peccare, quini [...]o peccaret nisi i [...]tas f [...]rret, quandu mu [...]us principis retinet, quamvis teneatur in conscientià principatum relinquere, aut eni [...]i medijs honestis ut a Rep. in suum principem eligatur. Michael Salon de justitia. [...] jure. Quaest. 60 Art. 6. to an Argument objecting that the judge­ment of a Tyrant is of his part usurped and void be­cause his authority is usurped he saith: That nevertheles [Page 24] on the peoples part they ought in conscience to obey him, if his sentence were Iust and his Iudgement lawfull, because the people are bound to chuse a lesse temporall evill to avoid a greater. By the lesse evill which is obeying him, they avoid the perturbation of the Common-wealth, which would be a much greater evill▪ And againe, because his judgements may in some reason be called the judgements of a true judge inas­much as he is tollerated of the Common-wealth by an interpretative consent, which is sufficient that the people are bound to obey him in conscience, whence also it doth follow that not onely the people ought to obey him in conscience, but that the Tyrant himselfe which giveth such judgements doth not sin, yea rather he should sin if he did not give them, as long as he retain­eth the Office of a Prince, though he be bou [...]d in con­science to leave his principality, or endeavor by honest meanes, that by the Common-wealth he may be chosen for their Prince.