THe Question is this, whether though the change of a Go­vernment were beleeved not to be lawfull, yet it may law­fully be obeyed?

A late Treatise proposeth proofs for the affirmative; which before we come to examine, it will not be amisse to consider some things by way of premise towards the clearing of the point in question.

And here in the first place let it be considered, whence it is, that this or that particular person, comes to be a Subject to this or that particu­lar Government or Governour? and this may be foure wayes.

1. In regard of originall or naturall descent and inferiority. Thus in the first age of the World, Cain, Abel, Seth, and t [...]e rest of Adams Children and their Of-spring, were under the government o [...] Adam by naturall right; and this is founded upon the primitive tearms of the 5th. Commandement, Honour thy Father.

And to this head we may referre the subjection of the younger Brother to the elder as being in ordinary course the Heir of his Fa­thers government. And thus, with Chrysostom, Musculus, and others, I understand that as spoken by God, to Cain the elder Brother, con­cerning Abel. Gen. 4 7. Vnto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him. The like Phrases are used in the 3d. chapter v. 16. con­cerning the subjection of the Wife to the government of the Husband.

2. In regard of some speciall precept or institution of God. So when­soever God doth expresly assigne a person to government over a Kingdom, the Subjects of that Kingdome are thereupon bound to o­bey that person. So David was taken from feeding of Sheep to be Ruler over Israel. 1 Sam. 16. 1. The Lord said unto Samuell, fill thine Horn with Oyle, & go, I wil send thee to Jesse the Bethlemit [...] for I have provided me a King among his Sons. The like we read concerning Iesu, who was in particular appointed by God to be King over Israel. These cases are extraordinary, and the ground of obeying in these ca­ses is, that Soveraignty of God whereby he bestows authority on whom he pleases; exprest by some speciall word, whereby in such ca­ses [Page 6] the title of government may be known to be by divine donation. Ier. 27 5. 6. I have made the Earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my out-stretched Arm; and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me; and now have I given all these Lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezer the Ki [...]g of Babylon my servant.

3. In regard of place. Suppose a man, with his family, goes into some place which hath neither owner nor Inhabitant: he pla [...] and possesses that place, and hath by right of primitive possession, aut [...]ority to govern in that place; and if afterward any other come to dwell within compasse of that Plantation he ought to be subject to the Go­vernour and government of the place; and so ordinarily, whatso­ever Kingdome a man comes into; he is during his abode there subject to the authority of the place; and here is the proper roome for that saying, persona sequitur locum. And upon this account it is, that the fourth Commandement enjoynes the governour of a Family or City, to see that the Sabbath be not prophaned by the stranger that is with­in their gates; for whilst he is within their bounds, he is within their jurisdiction; and thus the patriarks by soj [...]urning in AEgypt, became subjects to Pharaoh.

4. In regard of consent. When those that are free to dispose of themselves or others under a Government or Governour, do by such consent constitute or lay a foundation for Government. Thus was the originall of the Romans under Romulus, [...]s the learned Author of the Treatise; de jure Magistratum in subditos informs us. A Romulo populus Romanus creatus fuisse dicitur, quia prius originalis populus non fuerit sed multitudo quaedam ex varijs gentibus & populis col­lecta. Romulus in has gentes collectitias, non nisi ex ipsarum consen­su dominatus est. The Scripture gives many instances of the right of government founded in consent or agreement: amongst others the case of Iepthath is cleer. Iudg. 11. 8. 11. The Elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah go with us and fight against the Children of Ammon, and be our head over all the Inhabitants of Gilead, and the people made him head and Captaine o [...]er them.

Againe it is considerable, in what respect the change of a Govern­ment is beleeved to be unlawfull, whether it be:

1. Only in regard of the end, that those aime at, which do alter the government. And in this case I conceive, if there be nothing to viti­ate the change but a bad end in the changers; this doth not make it un­lawfull to be obeyed.

[Page 7] Or 2. In regard of the comparative badnesse of the Government brought in by change. As if instead of a well regulated monarchy, a more turbulent democrasie were brought in. In this case I conceive, if there be no exception against the change, but the bringing in of a lesse commendable government, this doth not make it unlawfull to obey it.

Or 3 in regard of the Commission that those have that do alter the Government. For, if they be not plenipotentiaryes as to such an act of instituting a new government; that new fabrick will want au­thority which is the soul of government, & therefore I do not see how it may be obeyd.

As put case, in Eutopia the Majestas or supreme authority lies in 3. Estates; a Prince, Nobles, and Representers of the Communalty in Se­nate assembled if these by their joynt authority do make very consi­derable alterations in erecting or abolishing Courts, enlarging or re­straining power of state-Officers. I make no question but in this case the Eutopians may as well without seruple comply with these acts, as with the other Statute-laws of that Kingdome; because these alterati­ons are acts within the compasse of the supreme authority.

Again put case: these 3 Estates in Eutopia undertake to overthrow the Fundamentall government, and set up one of those 3 to be the su­preme and instead of the whole fundamental government, if the que­stion were put whether the inhabitants of Eutopia might obey that single estate as the sole supream, upon a Declaration or act of the 3. estates to that effect: this I conceive a very difficult case: and the clear stating of it wil require a man welg inshih [...]ed in the history of the Eutopian Government, and well studied in that grand question in Po­liticks, an jura Majestatis sint communicabilia?

But put case, one of those 3. Estates in Eutopia will undertake to ex­clude the other 2, and to set up it self solely as supreme; and to Null laws made by all 3 estates: if one that is not able to comprehend how this act is within compasse of the commission of that one estate; doth thereupon beleeve that change of Government not to be lawfull. If the Question be put, whether one so beleeving may obey that change, I must confesse I am not satisfyed in the Affirmative, and my reason is this; Because if that change be not an act of authority it may not be obeyed, and that it is not an act of authority, seems to me rational up­on obvious inferences from these grounds. Par in parem non habet authoritatem. Totum aggregatum est maius qualibet sui parte. Ejus­dem est leges abolere cuius est condere. The English of all which may [Page 8] be summed up in this: a lesser authority hath no authority over a greater.

Again put case, that estate in Eutopia was under a force when it did decree that change of Governmenr: by reason of which force many Members were kept away: and one that doth not question the ordina­ry power of that estate, doth yet beleeve that the change being made by that Estate, under that disadvantage of force, is not lawfull. If the question be put, whether in this case, he that so beleeves the unlawfull­nesse of that change, may, till he be otherwise informed, obey that change: I say as in the former case, I am not satisfyed in the Affirma­tive. I shall illustrate this case by a supposition nearer home, there is in the first leaf of the B [...]eif Memento, the copy of an ordinance, wher­in is exprest, That all Votes, Orders, Ordinances passed in either or both houses of Parliament, between the 26 of July and the 6 of Au­gust 1647. were null and voyd at the making thereof, the Parliament being under a force and not free. Now suppose that in this space of time there had passed, in either or both houses of Parliament, a decree for the chang of Government: suppose further that one that truly ho­nours the Parliament, and is of the same judgement with that Ordi­nance of the 20 of AVGVST 1647. and knew of the force mentioned therein; doth thereupon beleeve that change of government to be un­lawfull, if it be asked whether he, so beleeving, may lawfully obey that change of government, I would answer, no, And my reason is this; positive precepts do imply negative duty: I mean thus; that com­mand that sayes Honor thy Father and thy Mother, doth as well for­bid obeying that which is not authority, as command obeying that which is authority: now that chang of Government (being (according to the supposition) decreed, the Parliament being under a force) ha [...]h nothing at all of authority in it: because the decree is null and voyd at the time of the making there of.

Now Reader take the right state of the question along with you▪ the question is not concerning the forbearing of resistance, or concer­ning some kinde of occasionall compliance, but only concerning obe­dience which is a duty of the 5 Commandement. Nor is the question in general whether a change of Government may be obey'd, but whe­ther it may be obeyed by one that beleeves the unlawfulnesse of the change, nor shall it be questioned for me, whether though a change of government were beleeved to be in some respect not lawfull, it may yet lawfully be obeyed, but that which I hold is this, that if the [Page 9] change of a government be beleeved not to be lawfull, for want of sufficient authoriry in that change, then he that so beleeves may not lawfully obay it. For this I could produce proofes; But I wave them; and come now to consider, what the presbyterian proposer offers by way of proofe.

And in the first place that Scripture Rom. 13. is alledged. Which Scripture if cleerely opend, and rightly appl [...]ed, would state the present and many other controversies. And here I grant that Scrip­ture requires subjection both to authority, and to persons clothed with that authority, Neither doe I deny, but that Scripture proves sub­jection due to Claudius and Nero when they were invested in autho­rity. But here the proposer queries the lawfulnesse of their coming to be invested in their authority, and sayes, that the Souldiers was the foundation of Claudiuse's and of Neroes empire: and here I grant that the Souldiery was the occasion or means by which they came to be Emperours: But I deny that they received authority from the soul­diery; they received it from the people or Senat; and they had power to give it. I toucht before the originall of the Roman Power. Romu­lus was the first King, and he raigned by consent of those who had power to give up their consent. This Romulus did institute as the great councell a Senate consisting of 100 men; Which number afterwards encreased. The power of the Senate to confirme a supreame Gover­nour, may be proved out of Livius and other authors. And that Nero had the consent of the Senate is cleere, by what the proposer p. 3. cites out of Tacitus, in these words. The Sentence of the Souldiers was followed with the consent of the Senate, and then it was not scrupled in the provinces. And that Claudius had also the consent of the Senate, may be gathered out of approved authors, and is not denyed by the proposer. I say then that, though the Souldiers could not give them a legall title, yet the Senate both could and did. That an unlawfull means and a legall title may meet together, I shall illustrate by a similitude in an other kind. The Usurer lends a man 100 pound, and has his bond for the principal and 8 pound interest; the borrow­er dyes; the Executor may pay that 8 pound above the principal: be­cause though the Usurer hath not a morall right to that 8 l. by lending upon usury, yet he hath a legall title to it by the bond of the decea­sed. So he that by usurpation encroaches upon a Crowne; if besides this, he gaines also a legall title; may be obayed upon that legall title, though not upon the ground of Usurpation. To this purpose is that [Page 10] De jure Magistratuum p. 22. vitium quod ab initio usurpationi inerat potest postea emendari: adeo ut qui ab initio tyrannus fuit, possit legi­timus et inviolabilis magistratus offici, si videlicet postea liber et le­gitimus accesserit eorum consensus, qui verum et legitimum magistra­tum creare et constituere possunt. The like answer to what I have gi­ven to that text Rom 13 doth Mr. Burroughs give to Dr. Ferne, his words are these p. 7. The apostle requires them not to resist their power, their [...] he doth not charge them not to resist their Ty­ranny. Certainly they could have no power but that which was given them by some agreement; if they challengd further it was no autho­rity at all. And afterward p. 8. what they got and held meerely by force without any consent or agreement, was no power, no authori­ty at all but might be resisted notwithstanding that prohibition.

From the Scripture argument the proposer passes to historicall obser­vasions about the interruption of lineall succession to the Crowne in England.

To which I might Answer that, a facto ad jus non valet argumentum. Whatsoever title others have had in former ages, if the title since be cleere, wee neede not trouble our selves with those observations, which the proposer sayes, Learned men and states-men have been ig­norant of. I shall therefore here only cite some passages out of a par­liamentary acknowledgment. Anno 1. Iacobi Regis. Your most hum­ble and loyall Subjects, the Lords spirituall and temporall, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in most humble and lowly manner doe beseech your most Excellent Majesty, that (as a memoriall to all posterities, amongst the records of your high court of Parliament for ever to endure, of our loyalty, obedience, and hearty humble affection) it may be published and declared in this high court of Parliament, and enacted by authority of the same, that wee (being bounden thereunto both by the lawes of God and Man) doe recognize and acknowledge, that immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth late Queene of England, the imperiall Crown of the realme of England, and of all the Kingdomes, Dominions, and rights belong­ing to the same, did by inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted succession, descend and come to your most Excellent Majesty, as being lineally, justly, and lawfully, next and sole heir of the blood royall of this realme, as is aforesaid, and that by the goodnesse of God almighty and lawfull right of descent, under one imperiall Crowne, your Majesty is of the Kingdomes of England &c. King—And [Page 11] thereunto we most humbly and faithfully do submit, and obleige our selves our heirs, and posterities for ever, untill the last drop of our blouds be spent. And doe beseech your Majesty to accept the same, as the first frnits in this high court of Parliament, of our loyaltie and faith to your Majesty, and your Royall Progeny, and Posterity for ever.

The Proposer likewise cites the judgement of a few divines and ca­suists for obeying the commands of an Vsurper. And I beleeve those that abound with books may meet with far more of the contrary judgement. But because our faith must not stand in the wisdome of men; and we are upon a case of conscience, wherein the opinions of men are of smal weight; I judge it superfluous to multiply Authors: take therefore only 2. for a tast, Mr. Burroughs answer to Dr. Ferne. p. 7. there is no body here that yet hath attempted to take any power away from the King that law hath given him. Howsoever the point of inheritance of conquest can not hinder; for first, none inherits but that which his Progenitors had, and his Progenitors had no more originally then by eonsent was given them; therefore the difference between Kings by Inheritance, and Kings by election, in this case is not much. And for conquest, that only settles former right, or makes way to some farther agreement, to adde to what was former; the right comes not from power to conquer, or act of conquering, but from some agreement, precedent, or consequent. de jure Magistratu­um p. 27. is qui alienos invadit nullo modo sibi subditos, et si cupiat juste et ex bono et aequo dominari (sicut de Pisistrato et Demetrio Pha­laraeo apud Athenienses legimus) potest tamen jure impediri, etiam ar­mata manu, et a quibusvis vel infimae sortis, quibus vim inferre volu­erit, quum nullo jure illi obstringantur.

From the alledging of Authors the Proposer comes again to argu­ing, and urging the former Scripture, tells us, it speaks not of obeying those that shall be powers, but the powers that are, and those that are in authority.

I grant it is spoken of the present powers: but who are those? surely those which are constituted powers, not those which are preten­ders to power. Whatsoever force rises up to hinder the Parliament, yet the Parliament is a power in being, because it has a legall being. To this purpose is that which we read in Mr. Burroughs book, intituled The glorious Name of God the Lord of Hosts, which book was printed by order from a Committee of the House of Commons. In that book [Page 12] p. 47 he tels us, the Kingdome hath a Parliament in being, untill both Houses have agreed to disolve it. And in his answer to Doctor Ferne p. 3 He places the Emphasis upon the word power; for thus he writes; We distinguish between the man that hath the power, and the power of that man, and say although the power must not be resisted accor­ding to the letter and sence of the Text, yet the illegal will and wayes of the Man, may be resisted without the least offending against the Text.

To what the proposer demands concerning the covenant, I will on [...] only tell you what is lately publisht by Mr. Canne a great patron of the late proceedings, in his booke against the Covenant p. 7. his words are these. It is not possible that ever this Common wealth should be setled according to what the Parliament hath lately declared, and the Covenant duly observed; so incompatible is the one with the other.

To the proposers passage concerning heirs and successors in the Oath of allegiance. I say (with submission to better information) whereas the office of a King may outlive the race of a King, there are therefore mentioned not only heirs but successours; that in case heirs faile, yet Kingship might not dy, and therefore heirs is set first, and successours after. But of this enough, and it may be also this may seeme superfluous; for if the proposed alteration goe on, it will ex­clude both heirs and successours.

To the last Quere of the proposer (if I understand the meaning of it) there may be a sufficient answer pickt out of the last passage which I cited out of Mr Burroughs.

I shall therefore here conclude with the councell of the most wise God, given by the wisest of Men. prov. 24. 21. 22. My Son, feare thou the Lord, and the King: and meddle not with them that are gi­ven to change. For their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who know­eth the ruine of them both.