THe Apostle intreating of purpose upon the duty of submission and obedience to Authority, layes down this precept; Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that are, are ordained of God; and hereupon infers, Wherefore ye must needs [Page 2] be subject not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. And that he speakes not in this place meerly of po­wer or authority abstracted from persons, Potestatis no­mine, intelligo Magistratum, qui est cum po­testate & auto­ritate, maluit tamen Aposto­lus ipsam pote­statem nominare quàm hominem &c. Rolloc. in locum. 1. Tim. 2.2. 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. Now if the Powers, Rulers, and those that were in authority in that time were ordained of God, and were to be obeyed for conscience sake, let us consider how lawfully they came into that power, rule, and authority. This Epistle most probably, if not certainly, was written in the time of Claudius Caesar, or Nero, Acts 18.1, 2. the former of which banished the Jews out of Rome, upon which occasion Aquila and Priscilla came out to meet with Paul at Corinth: and by the sentence of the latter, Paul having made his 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. ‘Timore caedis exterritus pro­repsit ad solari­um proximum, inter (que) praeten­ta foribus vela­se abdidit; la­tentem, discur­rens forte gre­garius [...]iles animadversis pedibus, è studio sciscitandi quis­nam esset, agno­vit, extractum (que) & praemetu ad genua sibi acci­dentem, Impe­ratorem, saluta­vit. Hinc ad alios commili­tones fluctuanies, nec quio quam ad­huc quàm fre­mentes perdux­it. Ab his lecti­cae impositus, & quia servi dif­fugerant, vi­cissim succollan­tibus, in castra delatus est, tristis ac trepi­dus miserante obvia [...]u [...]ba, quasi ad paenam raperetur insons. Receptus intra vallum, inter excubias mili­tum pernocta­vit, aliquanto minore spe quàm fiducia. Nam Consule cum Senatu, & co­hortibus urbanis forum capito­lium (que) occupa­runt, asseriuri comunem liber­tatem, accitusq, & ipse per Tribunum plebis in curiam ad suadenda quae viderentur, vi se & necessitate teneri respondit. Verum postero die Senatu segriore in exequendis conatibus per raedium ac dissentionem diversa censentium, & multitudine quae circumstabat, umum rectorem jam & nominatim exposcente, armator pro concione jurare in nomen suum passus est, promisit (que) singulis quinadena H.S. primus Casa­rum fidem militis, etiam praemio pigneratus. Sueton in Claudio. Agrippina velut dolore victa, & solatia conquirens, tenere amplexu Britannicum veram paterni oris effigiem ap­pellare, &c. Antoniam quo (que) & Octaviam attinuit, & cunctos aditus custodiis clauserat, crebro (que) vulgabat ire in melius valetudinem principis, quò miles bona in spe ageret, tempus (que) prosperum ex monitis Chaldaeorum attentaret. Tunc medio dici, tertio ante idus Octobr. foribus palatii repente diductis, comitante Burrho, Nero egreditur ad cohortem, quae more militia ex­cubiis adest, ubi monente praefecto, festis vocibus exceptus, inditur lecticae. Dubitavisse quos­dam ferunt respectantes rogitantes (que) ubi Britannicus esset? Mox nullo in diversum auctore, quae offerrebantur secuti sunt. Illatus (que) castris Nero, & congruentia tempori praefatus, pro­misso donativo ad exemplum paternae largitionis Imperator consalutatur. Sententiam militum secura patrum consulta, nec dubitatum est apud provincias. Tacit. Annal. Lib. 12.’

Of Claudius Caesar the Story tells us this; After the death of Caius Caligula, the Consuls and Senate of Rome 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 Interregnum, Claudius being frighted with the newes of Caligula's death, and fearing himselfe might be enquired for upon suspicion 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, came 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 Conquer 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. [...]. 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 John 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. Dicendum est, licitè subditos ab eo (qui tyrannus jure & titulo est) jus petere, quià quamvis jus & titulum non habeat, res­publica tamen tacitè consentit in hoc ut civibus ipsi Tyranno, Facto, non jure subditis, jus di­cat, acsi esset competens judex & legitimus superior. Item, si mandata tyranni sint aqua, & justa, parendum est. Azor. Inst. Mor. Par. 2. Lib. 10. Cap 4. Non peccat subditus ty­ranni, qui dominium & jurisdictionem alicujus ditienis usurpavit, petendo ab eo justitia admini­strationem, &c. Siquidem dat operam ut qui peccat jurisdictionem usurpando, non peccet etiam ju­stitiae administrationem praetermittendo; Ex Navarrie manual. cap. 14. [...]. 41. Si mandata principis, alioqui Tyranni, sint aequa et justa, parendum est. Alsted, Theol. Cas. Cap. 17. First, that Subjects may lawfully seek justice of him; And secondly, that if his commands be 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 & herilem expresso verbo sancit. Gen. 9. Qui sanguinem hominis fuderit, ejus sa guis eti­am fundetur ab homine. Non uti (que) à quovis; prohiburt enim, non occides: Sed à Magistratu divinitus ordi­nato. Nec refert quibus modis vel artibus Nimrod, Jero­boam, aut alii regna sibi para­verint. Nam a­liud est potestas quae à Deo est; aliud acquisitio et uius potesta­tis. Parae. in Rom. 13. Posestatis Himrodi initrium fuit quidum malum &c. Quum igitur quaeritur cui parendum, non est spectandum qualis sic qui potestarem exercei, nec quo jure vel injuriâ, quis potestatam in­ [...]serit, quave ratione cam administres, sed tantum si potestatem habeat. Si enim quis potestate po [...]et iam i [...]bilatum est illum a deo cem potestatem accepisse, unde sine onmi exceptione illi te permittat oportes, & pareas ex animo. That it matters not by what means or craft Nimrod, Jerobeam, got Kingdomes to them­selves; For the power is one thing which is of God, and the getting and the use of the power is another; And after: The beginning of Nimrods power was indeed evill, as to the getting and usurping power, because abusing his strength, force, & wealth, he vio­lently subdued others, and compelled them to o­bey; but not the power or force wherewith he see­med to be indeed by God, above others; And ano­ther more 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 invaded the power, or in what man­ner he doth dispence it, but onely if he have power. For if any man doe excell in power, it is now out of doubt, that he received that power of God; where­fore without all exception thou must yield thy selfe up to him, and heartily obey him.

And indeed how can it be otherwise? for when a person or persons have gotten Supreme power, and by the same excluded all other from authority, ei­ther that authority which is thus taken by power must be obeyed, or else all authority and govern­ment must fall to the ground; & so confusion (which is worse then tituler Tyranny) be admitted into [Page 8] a Common-wealth; And (according to the doctrine of King James) the King being for the Common-wealth, 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. And whereas some speake of a time for setlement, they indeed do rather speak for a time of unsetlement; for they will have an un­setlement first, and a setlement after. And whereas like doth produce its like; yet they would have an unsetlement to beget a setlement. They would have confusion, distraction, destruction to bring forth or­der and safety. But the former Scriptures 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 setlement, 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 9] 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 Conquerour? what Right (we speake of a Right of equi­ty) had his Sons 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 carry 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 Hornesey Parke; but his entrance (which was at Shorditch) 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 thy see who doth visibly and actually ex­ercise power and authority. Yea even Learned men, and States men have been found ignorant of the former observations, of the not succeeding three in order of blood since the Conquest; and then how should the Common people know it? Yet further, even 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 should 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 peices; Yet concer­ning these there are faults on both hands: On the [Page 10] 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. Im ssibilium nulla est obliga­tio. for to impossible things there is no obligation: but will any man that understands, and savours Religion and Piety, say that the clauses which 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, of whom it is writ­ten, Psal. 78.34. 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 stestfad in his Covenant. Much more piously and faithfully a reverend and truly spirituall Divine; A well groun­ded [Page 11] Covenant is a sure, Mr. Carill in his Sermon up­on Nehe. 9.38. concerning the Covenant. Octob. 6. 1643. 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 (as aeternitati sacrum and) must stand for ever.

But on the other side there are other faults; such are the urging of an Oath or Covenant against ene­mies, and not against friends in one and the same Action; and if not altogether so, yet a slight and diminishing charge of it upon one, and a vehement and aggravating charge of it upon the other. Ano­ther fault may be, a 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 Common-wealth must goe to ruine. Quando res illa, quam quis jura­mento confirma­vit, est nimis ard [...]a; aut quando quis qui j [...]vit, ex muta [...] virium vel fortuna, effectus est pa [...]um aptus ad id exequendum; aut deni (que) quando res juramento confirmata est jucanti, impedimenio, ne bo [...] publico consulat, tunc est legitima cause dispensanti in juramento. Sayr. lib. 5. c. 8. n. 12. And whether it forbids obedience to the present Authority more then to Lawes that have beene formerly enacted, by [Page 12] those which came into Authority meerly by power? Si id quod jura­mus, primò fue­rit licitum, posteà causis aliis in­tervenientibus illicitum fiat, aut etiam impos­sibile, tum nullo modo conscien­tiam obligat. Alsted. Theol. Cas. cap. 15. If it be said that in the Oath of Allegiance, Allegi­ance is 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 sence (which should be the meaning of an Oath) of the word Successors, Jusjurandum in foro conscien­tiae semper est interpretandum juxta mentem jurantis; at in fo­ro exteriori seu judiciali semper est judicandum secundum com­munem sensum, quem ipsa verbae reddunt, & se­cundum commu­nem hominum usum. Alsted. cap. 15. n. 13. you need not so much aske of Lawyers and learned persons, as of men of ordinary knowledge, and de­mand of them, Who was the Successor of William the Conquerour, 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, so that meaning is to be understood as most proper to have been taken in an Oath.

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?

[Page 13]Thus have I gone towards peace (as I beleeve) in the way of truth; and as farre as it is truth, and no further, I desire it may be received. I also wish that those who read and examine it, may doe it (as I professe sincerely my selfe to have endea­voured) with a calme, cleare, and peaceable spi­rit, without prejudice or partiship. And I doubt not but to such upright seekers of Truth, Truth will appeare in a true shape; whereas partiall and prejudiced mindes speake unto Truth what they would have her speake unto them, and doe not heare her what she saith of her selfe.