The Lawfulness of Obeying the Present Government

The lawfulness of obeying the present Government.

And acting under it

T He Apostle entreating of purpose upon the duty of submission and obedience to Authority, lays 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 be subject not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. And that he speaks not in this place merely of power or authority abstracted from persons, but of persons clothed with that authority, appears in that he saith; For, rulers are not a terror to good works. So that he speaks of persons ruling, as well as of the power by which they rule. And again, He is the Minister of God, and they are God's 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, 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 appeal to Caesar finished his course, and passed unto a crown of righteousness. And now, behold the lawfulness by which these two persons came to be invested in their power and authority.

Of Claudius Caesar the Story tells us this; After the death of Gaius Caligula, the Consuls and Senate of Rome entered into a consultation, how they might restore the Common-wealth to her ancient freedom, which by the Caesar's had been taken from them. So that the taking in of an Emperor, and consequently of Claudius for Emperor, was directly against the wills and resolution of the Consuls and Senate; yet these anciently for many hundred years had the chief power of Government; But see the way of Claudius his coming to the Empire; during the Inter-regnum, Claudius being frighted with the news of Caligula's death, and fearing himself might be inquired for upon suspicion with-drew, and hid himself behind the Hangings, or covering of a door; where a Soldier seeing his feet, and desirous to know what he was drew him forth, and upon knowledge of him saluted him Emperor, though even then for fear falling down low before him. This one Soldier brought him forth to his fellow Soldiers, who lifted him up as Emperor; and thus while the Senate was slow in executing their purposes, and differences grew among them, Claudius, who was sent for by the Senate to give in his council concerning the common freedom, undertook the Empire. Thus in one Soldier at first, and then in more, was the foundation of Claudius his Imperial power, against the will, consultations, and endeavors of Consuls and Senate. And for Nero (his Successor) Britannicus, who was nearer of kin to Claudius, being his Son, was kept in by the cunning of Nero's mother, and by the same craft Nero being brought forth to the Soldiery, was first saluted Emperor by them. This sentence of the Soldiers was followed with the consent of the Senate, and then it was not scrupled in the Provinces; so that the Soldiery was also the foundation of Nero's Empire. Thus we see Rulers put by Soldiers into that power which is said by the Scripture to be ordained of God; and even to these Rulers men must be subject for conscience.

But passing from the Roman state to our own, sure we are that in this Nation many persons have been settled in supreme power and authority by mere force without title of inheritance, or just conquest. And it hath been observed by some that accurately have looked into our story, that not any three immediately succeeding each other, come to the Crown by true lineal succession and order of blood. Neither is there any great difficulty in finding it, until we come to Queen Mary, whose title being by an incestuous marriage, these observers say that Queen Elizabeth should have reigned in her stead; However, we are clearly told by story, that five Kings on a row (of which the Conqueror was the first) had no title at all by lineal descent and proximity of blood. The first came in by force; The second and third had an elder Brother living when they came to the Crown; The fourth reigned when his Predecessor had a Daughter, and Heir living which was Mawd the Empresse; The fifth being the Son of that Empresse, reigned while his Mother was alive, by whom his Title came. But leaving these, and Edward the third who reigned in his Fathers life time, and the three Henries; fourth, fifth, and sixth, who reigned upon the Lancastrian (that is a younger Brothers) Title, Let us more particularly consider Henry the seventh; This Henry came in with an Army, and by mere power was made King in the Army, and by the Army; so that in the very field where he got the Victory, the Crown was set upon his head, and there he gave Knight-hood to divers; And upon this foundation of military power, he got himself afterwards to be solemnly Crowned at Westminster. And soon after upon authority thus gotten, he called a Parliament, and in that Parliament was the Crown entailed upon him and his Heirs. Thus both his Crown and his Parliament were founded upon power; As for any right Title, he could have none; for he came from a Bastard of John of Gaunt, which though legitimated by Parliament for common Inheritances, yet expressly was excluded from right to the Crown. And for his wives Title, that came in after his Kingship, and his Parliament, which before had settled the Crown upon him and his Heirs. And he was so far from exercising authority in her right, that her name is not used in any Laws as Queen Mary's was, both before and after her marriage with the Spanish King. Now this and the rest who came in by mere power without Title of inheritance, being in their opinion who are now unsatisfied, to be held unlawful, yet the main body of this Nation did obey them, whilst they ruled, yea doth yield subjection to their Laws to this very day. And the learned in the Laws do continually plead, judge, justify, and condemn according to these Laws; So that herein the very voice of the Nation with one consent seems to speak aloud; That those whose Title is held unlawful, yet being possessed of authority may lawfully be obeyed.

And hereunto Divines and Casuists give their concurrence; among them one that is resolute both for Monarchy and lineal Succession, thus expresseth his judgment, 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, that Subjects may lawfully seek justice of him; And secondly, that if his commands be lawful and just, they must be obeyed. And another well esteemed in the Reformed Churches, is of the same judgment.

Pareus saith, That it matters not by what means or craft Nimrod, Jeroboam, got Kingdoms 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 evil, 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 endued by God above others; And another more plainly. When a question is made whom we should obey; it must not be looked at what he is that exerciseth the power, or by what right or wrong he hath • nvaded the power, or in what manner he doth dispen •• it, but only if he have power. For if any man doth excel in power, it is now out of doubt, that he received that power of God; Wherefore without all exception thou must yield thyself up to him, and heartily obey him.

And the same Author again; When a question is made to whom obedience should be given: A Christian is taught out of the Apostle, that he should look only to this, who hath the power in that place where he lives.

Another thus, It often comes to pass, that Alians or Natives by seditions or force invade the Common-Wealth. But in any of these cases Subjects may not when they list go about to change the form of the Common-Wealth 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, The Apostle seems here to go about to take away the frivolous Curiosity of men, who often use to inquire by what right those which have command did get their authority; But it ought to be sufficient to us, that they are in preeminence. For they did not get up to his height by their own strength, but they are set over by the hand of God. Yet another, (And all these chief 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 Romans had now gotten the Empire of the world, which we know they did possess by force; and that afterwards the Emperors by policies nothing better drew to themselves an universal power. Yet Paul doth command that Magistrates without all exception must be obeyed.

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 a Common-wealth; And (according to the doctrine of King James ) the King being for the Commonwealth, and not the Common-wealth for the King, the end should be destroyed for the means, the whole for a part. If a Masters mate had thrown the Master over Board, and by power would suffer no other to guide the Ship but himself; if the Mariners will not obey him commanding aright for the safe guiding of the Ship, the Ship must needs perish and themselves with it.

So that whereas some speak of ill consequences, if this Doctrine be received, 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 appear upon obeying, they appear at more distance, but confusion and destruction come in presenty upon disobeying. The Common-Wealth is presently put unto Ungovernment and Confusion by inobedidience; or into sedition, civil war, yea destruction, by striving against a prevalent power. Therefore as that which hath the less ill consequences, not ours only, but generally all Nations have given obedience to power; and both sought and received Laws and Government from those, that have overpowered them. But indeed the question is properly here what is lawful, and not what ill consequences the corruption of man may work upon that which is lawful. And as to the lawfulness, we have seen before what Scripture, Divines, Reason, and general practice have resolved, and taught.

And whereas some speak of a time for settlement, they indeed do rather speak for a time of unsettlement; for they will have an unsettlement first, and a settlement after. And whereas like doth produce its like; yet they would have an unsetlement to beget a settlement. They would have confusion, distraction, destruction to bring forth order and safety. But the former Scriptures speak not of the future, but of the present time; not of obeying those that shall be powers, and shall be in authority; but the powers that are, and those that are in authority. Neither do the Casuists and Divines speak of obedience to those that shall be settled but those that are in actual possession of authority. Neither did our Ancestors in the former examples defer obedience to the Kings that came in by power without Title; but gave it presently, being presently vested and possessed of authority. Besides, let it be considered whether that may not be called a settlement, how soon soever it is, when there is such a way settled that men may have Justice if they will, and may enjoy that main end of Magistracy, to live a peaceable life in godliness and honesty.

And indeed when one is in possession by power, and another pretends a Title, what can the main body of a Nation which consists of the Common-people do in this case? 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 been found ignorant of the former observations, of the not succeeding three in order of blood since the Conquest; and then how should the Common people know it? Yet further, even Peers, chief Cities, Parliaments, and all having to one in every three, thus subjected themselves upon terms of power and not of right; what can be expected but that what hath been done, may or shall be done hereafter? especially when in this present age obedience is given to the Laws and Commands of those Princes. But some say that there are Oaths that justify disobedience to the present Government. Surely Oaths are sacred bonds and reverent obligements, and where they do not themselves leave or make us free, we are not to cut or break them in pieces; Yet concerning these there are faults on both hands: On the one side the slighting of an Oath, (and such is the comparing it with an Almanac) which is a light as well as an unproper comparison; except it were such an Oath as was made only for a year; But we find some part of the Vow and Covenant to speak of all the days of our lives, which doubtless may lie on many of the takers for many years; True it is that the obligation of some things may end, because they can no longer be kept, as that of the Kings person; for to impossible things there is no obligation: but will any man that understands, and savors Religion and Piety, say that the clauses which concern Religion and Piety are expired? Did we promise to God in our several places and callings, to extripate Profaneness, Heresy, and Blasphemy, and to endeavor a reformed life in ourselves and ours; only till our Enemies were overcome, and then to make an end? What were this but to say unto God, If thou wilt deliver us, we will be bound to thee till we are delivered and no longer? Would this invite God to deliver us from our enemies, or rather to keep our Enemies still in strength against us? least we being delivered from our Enemies should not serve him in righteousness and holiness all our lives. Surely this is too like that course of carnal Israel, of whom it is written, When he slew them, then they sought him, and they inquired early after God; but their heart was not right with him, neither were they steadfast in his Covenant. Much more piously and faithfully a reverend and truly spiritual Divine; A well grounded Covenant is a sure, a firm and an irrevocable Act. When you have such an All This ( and such you have) as is here concentred in the Text, to lay into, or for the foundation of the Covenant; the superstruction (is aeternitati sacrum and) must stand forever.

But on the other side there are other faults; such are the urging of an Oath or Covenant against enemies, and not against friends in one and the same Action; and if not altogether so, yet a slight and diminishing charge of it upon one, and a vehement and aggravating charge of it upon the other. Another fault may be, a stiff insisting on one part, and a neglect, or at least silence in another part; as likewise when by event two parts of it come to be inconsistent, to choose and enforce the keeping of the lighter or less necessary part, and to give way to the loss and not keeping of the greater. There is another, in racking an Oath or Covenant, to make it speak that which it meant not. And here it were good to consider, whether there be any clause in any Oath or Covenant, which in a fair and common sense forbids obedience to the commands of the present Government and Authority, much less when no other can be had, and so the Commonwealth must go to ruin. And whether it forbids obedience to the present Authority more then to Laws that have been formerly enacted, by those which came in Authority merely by power? If it be said that in the Oath of Allegiance, Allegiance is sworn to the King, his Heirs, and Successors, if His Heirs be not his Successors, how doth that Oath bind? either the word Successors must be superfluous, or else it must bind to Successors as well as to Heirs; and if it binds not to a Successor, that is not an Heir, how can it bind to an Heir that is not a Successor? And if you will know the common and usual sense (which should be the meaning of an Oath) of the word Successors, you need not so much ask of Lawyers and learned persons, as of men of ordinary knowledge, and demand of them, Who was the Successor of William the Conqueror, and see whether they will not say William Rufus, and who succeeded Richard the third, and whether they will not say Henry the seventh? and yet (as it appears before) neither of them was Heir. So it seems in the ordinary acception the word Successor is taken for him that actually succeeds in Government, and not for him that is actually excluded. And as in Language the ordinary acception of a word is to be taken for the meaning, so that meaning is to be understood as most proper to have been taken in an Oath.

Yet withal this Quaere may be added; While the Son is in the same posture in which the Father was, how comes this Oath at this time to stand up and plead for disobedience in regard of the Son, that was asleep and silent in regard of the Father?

But now let us enter into the question of active obedience, 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 between David and Absalom, where David had an Army in view 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 lawful to Act in such a State? True it is that some hold it wisdom, and some hold it duty, to be quiet, and not to Act. But, first, it hath been proved before that obedience to such a power in good things is lawful. Now if obedience in good things be law full, then Acting for Justice and Order being good things, and commanded, it is lawful to obey that command.

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

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 again, 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 seek 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 Neighbor, what he list, and so level the Rich with the Poor? unless 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 think 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 himself no force on foot 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 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, how could Ezra and Nehemiah justify their Acting under the Persian Monarch, who had no right to the Crown of Judah either by blood or just conquest? Yet Ezra was authorized by him to set Magistrates, fine and imprison and put to death; And he exerciseth authority, in making the people of Israel to swear, 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 days, all his substance should be forfeited. Nehemiah also Acts as Governor, 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 perform the promise of leaving that Usury. He acknowledgeth also that he was Governor there about twelve years, and he gave his Brother Hanani and Hanaiah Ruler of the Palace charge over Jerusalem. So he did both Act himself, and others Acted under him. We find also that at that time there were Rulers of the people that dwelt at Jerusalem, and Nehemiah contended with the Rulers and Nobles, made Treasurers, commanded the Gates • to be shut before the Sabbath, threatened to lay hands on the Merchants, that lay at the Gates, smote certain of the Jews, and plucked of their hair, because having married wives of Ashdod, their Children spake half in the language of Ashdod.

Sixthly, Let us hear what before these times and before our case was in being hath been taught in point of Acting; and upon what grounds it hath been aproved. An author eminently learned and skillful in the doctrine of lawgiving saith thus: No man may punish or condemn another even with a just punishment, except he have public 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 self to be Governed by him; and doth tacitly consent, and will that justice be administered by him, for the reason already touched, because it is a less evil 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, 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 tacit consent, while it will's that he administer justice, and use his usurped Office in a due manner, or rather because it doth tacitly approve his commands, and Acts being agreeable to the Laws 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 bind the subjects; for except they were valid and did bind, no man would obey, but only in show but every man would secretly do 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 superior to all single persons, though it be oppressed with Tyranny, and may account the just sentence of a Tyrant as its own.

Thou wilt ask, whether a Tyrant do sin 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 tacitly 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 tacit or implied 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 Authors reasons. Secondly, The probability and likely-hood of the clearness of his reasons; bebause they seem to proceed from a judgment clear and free from the Byas of affection. Yea his judgment herein did swim against the stream of his affection; for he persuades an obedience to the Government of a Governor that he loved not. And I wish this Ingenuity and clearness, were at least no less amongst us.

He wrote in the reign of Queen Elizabeth to whom in the language of Rome he gives the term 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 previous Assertions concerning this subject, he comes to

A fourth Assertion.

To a Tyrant in facto esse (or possession) by Tyrannicall usurping a Kingdom, or tyrannical 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, he proceeds thus; As Christians dwelling in Asia, are bound to obey the just laws of the Turk, and the Catholics in England, the just laws of that Impious Queen; This is thus proved; 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 lawful 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 powerful in strength, and now peaceably ruling, there would follow an extreme 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, Because to the good Government of a Common-wealth, especially when things are so desperate and deplorable, it is requisite, as an only 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 Neighbor from his Neighbor: But at such a time no other judge may be had that may perform this but the Tyrant. Therefore when he commands just things, the people are bound not only outwardly, but even in conscience to obey him.

Thirdly, When a Tyrant doth now peacebly govern and cannot be repelled, it would be a great scandal 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 between an express consent of the Common-wealth and an interpretative, that an express 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 public 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 plain) 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 perform and obey his just and honest commands.

All these things are confirmed; First, out of the sacred Scriptures, out of which and Histories it is manifest that the Romans by Tyranny did possess Judea 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. John the Baptist, Luk. 3, when the Soldiers (which no doubt were the Soldiers of the Romans) did ask of him what they should do, he did not command them to quit their Soldiery as servants of a Prince that was a Tyrant, but this only that they should do violence to no man a • d be content with their wages. Wherein he did rather persuade 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 supreme, 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, to an Argument objecting that the judgment of a Tyrant is of his part usurped and void because his authority is usurped he saith: That nevertheless on the people's part they ought in conscience to obey him, if his sentence were Just and his Judgment lawful, because the people are bound to choose a less temporal evil to avoid a greater. By the less evil which is obeying him, they avoid the perturbation of the Common-wealth, which would be a much greater evil▪ And again, because his judgments may in some reason be called the judgments of a true judge inasmuch as he is tolerated 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 only the people ought to obey him in conscience, but that the Tyrant himself which giveth such judgments 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 means, that by the Common-wealth he may be chosen for their Prince.