breake Gods trust when he destroyes a city because as Solomon witnesseth Prov. 16. that judgement is Gods and the King is sent by God to destroy those cities for the Tyrannicall Prince is Gods servant for the execution of his judgements and hath his heart guided by God Prov. 21.1 as well as the good Prince is for the dispensation of Gods mercies And therefore to resist a Tyrannicall King is to resist God from whom that Tyrant doth derive his power as Christ testifieth of Pilates power John 19.11 which we may not doe to save either our lives or estates To the third Argument I answer Answ 3 that ten thousand instances are not sufficient to legitimate one act expresly prohibited by the Law of God for even the Holy Ghost himselfe doth record the failings of the most holy men and that in the most notorious manner as in Abrahams lie to the Egyptians Gen. 12. Davids Murder and Adultery Solomons Idolatry and Peters Perjury Yea and sometimes we finde their sins passed over without reproofe as in the Polygamie of Jacob David many of the Kings and others yet the silence of the Holy Ghost in passing by this sinne of Polygamie without reproofe did not make it lawfull But for the instances of resistance in David and Elijah they are all particularly answered by severall Authors who have writ of this subject Only the resistance and deposition of Rehoboam is legitimated by Gods expresse approbation but if you observe the Text you shall finde that approbation relates to Rehoboams punishment and losse of the tenne Tribes and not to the peoples act of resistance For saith the Lord this thing is from me that is the renting the ten Tribes from Rehoboam according to his owne words to Solomon 1 King 11.11 but for the peoples act of resistance it is termed a Rebellion 1 Kin. 12.19 For though the deposition of Rehoboam and exaltation of Jeroboam was good and just in it selfe in regard it was the decree of God and accordingly declared to be his will 1 Kin. 11.31 yet in regard the people had no warrant to execute that decree and in regard Jeroboam did not act in order to Gods decree looking upon the execution of that decree against Rehoboam but upon the satisfaction of his ambitious desires it was sinfull both in Jeroboam and the people And that this was Jeroboams end appeares plainly because he durst not trust God for the preservation of his Honour and Dignity although God had promised the perpetuation thereof in the same Chapter Ver. 38 as well as the donation but runne to the Devill for the security of his Crowne erecting two Calves for the people to worship lest if the people should goe up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord should not be able to continue their affections to him nor performe his promise Chap. 12.28 So that God did never approve the act of resistance against the King unlesse by those who had a particular warrant from himselfe as well for the manner as the matter as in Jehu's case 2 King 10.30 without which it is not lawfull for any man to endeavour his owne safety by any resistance or opposition of the Kings power or any other acts of dishonour to the King CHAP. XII What influence Oathes and Covenants ought to have upon the duties either of King or Subjects Quaere SUppose the King have consented to the making of Lawes destructive to his owne Honour which preferre the peoples Safety before it and have also obliged himselfe by Oath for the observance of those Lawes whether may the King breake that Oath and Rule contrary to those Laws for the support and vindication of his owne Honour Sol. This was the case of the Israelites with the Gibeonites with whom the Israelites made a Covenant Josh 9.15 contrary to a former expresse command from God Exod. 23.32 Cha. 34.12 Deut. 7.1 which Covenant therefore was not oney prejudiciall to the Israelites but also unlawfull in it selfe yet after it was confirmed with an Oath by the Israelites they might not breake it Josh 9.19 although it was gained by fraud and subtilty as appeares in the Text For when Saul did ignorantly out of zeale to the children of Israel and Judah imagining the former command of God to lay an higher obligation upon them then their own Oath so fraudulently procured breake that Covenant and destroy the Gibeonites 2 Sam. 21.1 2 3. the Lord revenged that perjurious act of Sauls upon the whole land of Israel by a constant famine yeare after yeare till the Honour of God was vindicated by the satisfaction of the Gibeonites in the bloud of seven of Sauls sonnes Ver. 9. And the Prophet David further resolves this case in expresse words Psal 15.5 Attesting Gods regard of that mans happinesse who doth regard Gods honour being thus engaged above all selfe-respects by performing what he hath sworne though it be to his owne hinderance and therefore the King may not breake a Law confirmed by an Oath although it be destructive to his owne Honour The reason whereof is Because Gods Honour by that Oath is made an hostage for the Kings fidelity and therefore the King is bound to regard the performance of that Law as he regards the Honour of Gods Name which must have the preheminence above his owne Honour Although all other Lawes not ratified with this high sanction may and ought to be revoked by the King if they be prejudiciall to his owne Honour for all such Lawes are supposed to be fraudulently procured like the grant of Mephibosheth's estate to Ziba 2 Sam. 16.1 for no man would willingly dishonour himself for that were against the Law of Nature and therefore may be revoked as that Law of Davids was by himselfe upon better information 2 Sam. 19.19 But a Law confirmed by Oath though fraudulently procured may not be revoked upon better information for that Joshua received concerning the Gibeonites Josh 9.16 yet all this must be understood of matters capable of this sanction that is such as are not destructive to the Honour of God formerly engaged by himselfe even from all eternity for Holinesse is the very Nature and Essence of God and all wicked Lawes which are opposite to this are destructive to his eternall Honour and therefore not capable of this sanction of an Oath for thereby Gods Honour is opposed to itselfe but where these two doe come in competition the lesse evill is to be made choice of we must rather breake our Oath though that be destructive to Gods temporary and adventitious Honour then act a wicked thing which is destructive to his essentiall and eternall Honour But in all matters of indifference which are capable of this sanction of an Oath that is the highest temporary sanction and therefore ought to be regarded above all former promises or resolutions of our owne although they be grounded upon a temporary command from God which is manifest in this case of the Gibeonites Quaere Seeing the Lawes preferring salus populi before the Kings Honour being confirmed by the Kings Oath doe oblige the King to act accordingly whether doe not they likewise priviledge the people to act things prejudiciall to the Kings Honour in order to their owne safety especially if the people have covenanted and sworne the same Lawes Sol. The acts of the King and the acts of the people in this case are of a farre different nature For the acts of the King in observance to those Lawes are onely prejudiciall to himselfe and his owne Honour and so are onely mala poenae and therefore capable of this sacramentall sanction from him But as for the acts of the people in this case they are destructive to the Honour both of God and the King which are sinnes prohibited in the fift Commandement which enjoynes us to regard their Honour above all selfe-respects as I have formerly declared and therefore all acts of the people either in the procurement or observance of such Lawes are mala culpae For it is a sacriledge of an high nature to violate and invade the sacred Power and Prerogative of Kings and therefore incapable of this sacramentall sanction from them For all Associations and Covenants against any of Gods Commandements are directly Covenants with Death and agreements with Hell and all the Oathes Vowes and Statutes made and framed thereupon are directly mischiefes framed by a Law and Obligations sealed to serve the Devill And whether it be safer for us to continue in the service of such a Master by acting according to such hellish Oathes and Covenants or to forsake his service by renouncing our sacriledge and giving Caesar his sacred right and due is not a case of any great difficulty to those who value God and salvation above the Devill and the damnation of their owne soules FINIS
Jerusalem and the Jewes were destroyed And these acts of the people are sinful and rebellious and so declared by Gods judgements thereupon For wheresoever the Scriptures mention the constitution of a King after this manner you shal find that they likewise record not onely the frustrations of the peoples endeavours but also that they were frustrated by some heavy and suddaine judgements from God both upon the usurper whereby he was degraded from his undue honour and the people who presumed to conferre that honour upon him without a warrant from God and so by that meanes to obtrude a deputy upon God of their own and not of Gods election And you may further observe for satisfaction in this point that these acts of the peoples in a King and anointing of Kings are onely mentioned where some of these occasions happened that is where there was an Interruption of the ordinary meanes of conferring this Supreamacy by Birth-right and Hereditary succession either by the Interposition of Gods just Prerogative in the advancement of some person by extraordinary and Immediate Revelation or else by the usurpation of some who had no right or Title at all but force and violence either private of themselves and some few partners wherein God stirred up the people to Vindicate the Kings Right or publique of the people but where the Supreamacy and Soveraign Power with all the appendages descended by Birth-right there is no mention at all made of the people though the acts of duty and homage was as necessary to be performed to such Kings and were also actually performed to all who enjoyed the Crown by Hereditary succession as Abijah Asa Iehosaphat Iehoram and the rest to whom the people were no lesse subject and obedient then to those who were appointed by God but yet I say in those cases the peoples act of submission and homage are not expressed but presupposed as known acts of duty to those Kings who attained the Supreamacy by those ordinary and known meanes of Birth-right and Hereditary succession 2. To the reason alledged for the peoples Right to this Royal Investiture I answer that the honour and submission which the people exhibit to their King are not acts of favour to be conferred and disposed voluntarily at their own will and pleasure but acts of duty whereunto they are obliged by the Law of God And therefore must be performed to such as God esteems worthy of the honour to be his Deputies and not upon such as themselves judge worthy to be their Ruler For as it was not necessary that God should require our consent to make us so neither is it necessary that he should require our consent to govern us For though the Angels be Invested with a Supreamacy over men and men over natural Agents yet neither did the natural Agents elect or constitute men their Lords and superiors nor men the Angels And therefore that God who did constitute and ordain these degrees of superiority and subordination amongst the species of the Universe without their consent may by the same right and justice constitute the like degrees of distinction amongst the particulars of any species without any concurrent Act of theirs For you know the people are obliged to exhibit acts of honour and reverence to the Judge but it doth not therefore follow that the people make that man a Judge but he is made such by letters Patents from the King without asking any consent from the people 3. To S. Peters testimony I answer that the Apostles expression there doth relate partly unto the subject of soveraignty that is the King who in his natural capacity is properly a man and patrly to the object of Royal power which is the people upon whom that power is exercised In both which respects it may be properly termed an ordinance of man But it doth not at all relate unto the Originall and Efficient cause of that power which is God himself and neither King nor people 3. To that former inference that though the King be Major singulis yet he is minor Vniversis I answer that it is a distinction 1. Absurd and ridiculous in nature 2. Sencelesse and destructive in Policy 3. Groundlesse and damnable in Divinity 1. In Nature for a Kings Power must needs be the same with a Fathers in substance onely the Kings is more absolute and more obligatory as I shall shew hereafter both being grounded upon the same precept and exprest in the same words And can any believe that if a Father have thirteen sons seven of those mayby joynt consent renounce their Father and depose him from all Authority either over themselves or their other six brethren seize his estate and lock him up in a close rooms I believe if the observator the Author of this Corollarie should be so served by his own sonnes he would not commend them for dutyful children 2. In Policy It is sencelesse and destructive For if the Major part of the people be superior to the King then the Government is not Monarchicall but Democraticall and that also a Democracy of the basest sort For every species of Policy derives its denomination and nature from those who are Invested with the Supreamacy And that confusion and destruction is alwayes the conclusion of such a Government both experience and the generall consent of Polititians doth declare 3. In Divinity It is groundless and damnable being directly contrary to that express Rule which God himself hath prescribed in this case Exod. 23.2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evill nor speak in a cause to decline after many Where God plainly declares that the universality of the offenders cannot legitimate the fault as appeares also in the sinne of erecting the golden Calf Absaloms conspiracy and the forecited Instances For though it be a maxime in Policy that multitudo peccaâ—tium tellit peccatum i. e. poenam pecâ—ati It is as true a Maxime in Divinity that multitudo peccantium aggravat peccatum i. e. culpam the guilt of sinne and the more I seduce the more guilt I contract and though the multitude of partakers may secure me from punishment in foro Judicii humani yet I am sure to receive the just reward of that sin at Gods Tribunal from which the whole society both of men and Devils cannot secure me 4. To return a direct answer to the second Corollary we must distinguish the parts of that stipulation or Covenant which are three viz Materia Finis Forma 1. The matter of the Covenant is two-fold 1. Ex qua and that is the Lawes and Rules of justice 2. Circa quam and that is the people who are the objects of al Acts of justice grounded upon these Lawes 2. The end of that Covenant is two-fold 1. Principalis which is either primus and that is Gods glory or à primo-ortus and that is the Kings honour who is Gods Deputy 2. minus principalis and that is salus populi 3. The form of
power to prescribe Laws for to enforce the practise of such duties upon other persons to whom God hath not vouchsafed that understanding knowledge concerning these duties But now for a further illustration of the premises and to frame a more direct full and satisfactory answer to the Quaere concerning the due limitation and extent of the Kings power I will here set downe a briefe Analysis of the whole duty of man the regulation whereof is the very designe of that Power and Dominion which God hath either delegated unto the King or reserved unto himselfe and conscience touching humane affaires And from thence demonstrate 1. Unto what duties the Kings power doth properly and directly extend so that he may lawfully exercise the same over all persons within his Dominions whether Ecclesiasticall or Civill for the regulation of such duties 2. Unto what duties the Kings Power doth extend onely indirectly and per accidens so that he may lawfully exercise his power over some persons within his Dominions of both sorts but not over other some of either sort for the regulation of those duties 3. Unto what duties the Kings Power doth no way extend neither derectly nor indirectly so that he may not exercise the same over any person within his Dominions whether Ecclesiasticall or Civill for the regulation of those duties The duty of man is twofold 1. Naturall which is the duty of man quà homo rationalis and is expressed in the law of nature divided by Christ Mat. 22. into two parts or tables 1. Containes the duty of man towards God and consists in a love exceeding all selfe-love Ver. 37. And this duty is twofold 1. Internall consisting in the service and worship of God by the inward acts of the soule i. e. of the understanding will and affections of man and in a due returne of the bona animi which God hath conferted upon man And this part of mans duty is prescribed in the first Commandement 2. Externall which consists in honouring God by outward actions and in a due returne of those hona corporis fortuna which God hath conferred upon man And this is twofold 1. Originall and Primarie which is that honour worship and service which both Moses Deut. 6.13 and Christ Mat. 4.10 â—mits solely unto God And is twofold 1. Private consisting in personall honour and worship of God which is twofold 1. Corporall consisting in the outward gestures of the body Prescribed Commandement 2. 2. Vocall consisting in reverent speeches praises of God Prescribed Commandement 3. 2. Publick consisting in the practise of these duties at solemne times and in solemne assemblies Prescribed Commandement 4. 2. Representative and Secondarie which is the honour worship and service due unto Parents Kings and Magistrates as Gods Deputies and Lieutenants Prescribed Commandement 5. which I shall fully demonstrate in the next Chapter to be a Precept of the former Table of the Morall Law and that Kings and Parents in that capacity as Kings and Parents doe relate unto their children and Subjects as Gods and not as Neighbour 2. Containes the duty of man towards his neighbour and consists in a love inferiour unto the love of our selves And is twofold 1. Externall which consists in the performance of externall offices of love and restraint of externall injuries to our neighbour 1. In his owne person Commandement 6. 2. In his second selfe Commandement 7. 3. In his god's Commandement 8. 4. In his good name Commandement 9. 2. Internall consisting in the inward inclination and desire to perform these duties and in the restraint of all inward motions to the sinnes prohibited in these precepts Commandement 10. 2. Evangelicall which is the duty of man quà homo Christianus And is expressed in the Gospel or Law of Christ Which duty is twofold 1. Meerly Evangelicall which consists in the right use of Evangelicall and supernaturall blessings conferred upon particular men for the advancement of the Gospell of Christ as the power of working miracles of prophecying and the like mentioned by Saint Paul 1 Cor. 12. 2. Mixtly Evangelicall which consists in the right use of those naturall blessings which enable men for the performance of the law of nature And therefore these mixtly Evangelicall duties are the same in substance as I shewed before with naturall duties and are differenced after the same manner and regulated by the same precepts of the Moral Law but the difference consists as to our present purpose in the Object and terminus ad quem whereunto these Evangelicall duties do referre which is Christ the Redeemer whereas naturall duties do relate unto God the Creatour both as their object and erd Now from these premises I shall returne a direct answer to the Quaere concerning the extent and limitation of Regall power in three briefe Theses or Corollaries shewing 1. What are omnimodò Regalia 2. What are partìm Regalia and partim extra-regalia 3. What are omnimodò extra-regalia Onely by the way I shall premise another briefe praecognitum to facilitate the understanding of these ensuing Corollaries Note viz. That in regard the opinions of Heathens Jewes and Christians doe generally concenter in the due extent and limitation of Regall power in order to the duties of the second Table my present discourse shall onely referre unto the duties of the first Table of the Morall Law for two reasons 1. Because the people are most subject to offend in these duties and that two wayes 1. Through errour because these duties do most transcend their naturall reason 2. Through zeale because they conceive these duties most neerly to concerne their eternall and spirituall happinesse and welfare 2. Because Kings and Magistrates are or at least wise ought to be most diligent in the reformation and punishment of offences which immediately concerne God and Religion because the promotion of Gods honour worship and service is the principall part of the office and calling of Kings and Magistrates the direction of whose precipitate zeale in this point is the absolute designe of this Chapter The first Thesis declaring what are omnimodò Regalia is this Thesis 1. All Externall duties prescribed in the foure last precepts of the first Table of the Morall Law are directly and properly of Politicall Cognizance so that the King may lawfully exercise his Legislative power in the composure of Lawes and Statutes for direction of honour worship and service both to God and himselfe and that concerning both publike and private acts of honour and worship whether of the body or of the tongue and here the disposall and ordering of our estates i. e. the bona fortunae as well as bona corporis must be presupposed to be directly of the same cognizance and to pertaine to the same power For Solomon commands to honour the Lord with our substance Prov. 3.9 and God ordained parents and Kings to be his instruments in the impartment of these outward blessings of fortune as well as the blessings of the
be Orthodox and what Hereticall neither may he under the sanction of any personall or pecuniarie mulct or penalty enjoyne his Subjects to professe and sweare such Creeds and Articles of Faith and Religion as those Lawes shall make Orthodox or by virtue of those Lawes punish any of his Subjects who out of conscience doe professe themselves of another different Faith and Religion The Reasons for confirmation hereof are three The first whereof appeares partly in the premises declaring no humane power or authority to extend unto the acts of the soule because the soule doth derive its being immediately from God himselfe and not from our parents Ob. Saint Paul exhorteth not every body but every soule to be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13.1 thereby importing the Kings power to extend unto the acts of the soule as well as the acts of the body so that not onely the Externall but also the Internall duties of the Morall Law must come within the sphere of Politicall Cognizance Sol. That exhortation of Pauls is not directed unto Kings but unto Subjects and therefore doth not relate unto the Kings power but unto the Subjects obedience For though the King cannot judge the acts of the soule or punish the thoughts of the heart how unjust impious or Atheisticall soever yet doth not that priviledge the Subjects to performe their acts of obedience out of hypocrisie and dissimulation and with eye-service as the Apostle speaketh Ephes 6.6 And not out of sincerity and singlenesse of heart for wrath and not for conscience sake The Reason is because this duty of obedience and subjection to Kings is not meerly a service to Kings but principally to God himselfe whose person the King doth represent who seeth and judgeth the secrets of our soules and measureth the merits of our duty not by our outward worke but by our inward faith and love And therefore though the Kings power cannot yet our obedience must be extended even to the acts of the soule that it may be an acceptable sacrifice to God as well as the King but this doth not authorize the King to exercise his power over the acts of the soule The second Reason is grounded upon Christs ordinance for the plantation and promulgation of the Gospell and faith of Christ Marke 16.15 Goe ye into all the world and preach the Gospell This is all the commission which the Apostles had and which other Ministers still have for the conversion of men to the Faith and Religion of Christ And yet they were sent to convert the Gentiles a people who neither understood or beleeved any thing at all either of Christ or Scripture or any principles of that Faith and Religion nor were any way inclined to seeke after such knowledge It 's true indeed that Christ endowed his Apostles with a power farre beyond the power of Magistrates for it was a power to worke miracles but that was not for the punishment or destruction of any but for the benefit and preservation of all such upon whom they were shewed which was a fit meanes to perswade and convince their understandings but wee never read that Christ did delegate any Legislative or Judiciarie power unto his Apostles to punish any mis-beleevers or enforce the profession of those truths and points of faith which they could not perswade nay indeed he peremptorily inhibited them the affectation of any such power Mat. 20.25 whereupon Saint Peter chargeth Presbyters not to demeane themselves in the execution of their office as lords over Gods heritage And yet it is the duty of Ministers and not of Magistrates to reforme errours in matters of Faith and Doctrine for we doe not read that ever Christ gave any rule or command to Kings or Magistrates to plant or propagate his Faith and Gospell and therefore in relation to these duties the Ministers and not the Magistrates are stiled Fathers because it is the duty and office of Ministers and not of Magistrates to beget men in Christ Jesus through the Gospell 1 Cor. 4.15 Ob. Esay prophecying of the flourishing estate of Christs Church among the Gentiles under the Gospell reciteth this for a speciall meanes of the encrease thereof that Kings shall be the nursing fathers and Queenes the nursing mothers of the Church in those dayes Esay 49.23 whose office it is by power to compell and not by preaching to perswade men to forsake the errour of their wayes And therefore Kings being fathers to the Church of Christ may execute the duties of their calling over the members thereof and by consequence may exercise both their Legislative and Judiciarie power in matters of Christian Faith and Doctrine which is that which constitutes men members of this Church and gives the nomen esse to a Christian quà talis Sol. The attribute which this Text giveth unto Kings doth admirably expresse the duty of Christian Kings towards their Subjects in reference to their Christian and spirituall vocation and profession For Kings are not here simply stiled fathers as in other places of Scripture which relate directly to their power and soveraignty over their Subjects but with the addition of this Epithet of Nursing they shall be saith the Text Nursing fathers now a Nurse you know doth not beget a child but onely protect and nourish it after it is both begotten and borne And such a power indeed a Christian King may and ought to exercise over his Subjects that is after they are begotten and borne children of the Faith and Church of Christ by the preaching of the Gospell he both may and ought to use his power to protect them from the wolvish enemies of Christs Church and to nourish them by gracious expresses of his Royall favour But I cannot finde any warrant for the King in that Text to enact any Lawes or Statutes to compell men of another Faith and Religion to become such as himselfe or to punish them that will not nor can I beleeve it to be any part of his commission or calling Repl. It may be replied against this first That such a liberty for every man to professe and beleeve what his owne phantasie doth suggest and judge Orthodox in such high and sacred mysteries will fill the Church with absurd and blasphemous errours and heresies and by consequence the Common-wealth with distractions and divisions For it is a probatum of daily experience that when the people are madded and instigated by mad Sheba's and Sectaries they will adventure upon any mischiefe sparing neither Scepter nor Mitre Ephod nor Diadom fancying the cause to be Gods and that themselves doe God good service when they rage against his Anointed and kill his Prophets with the sword in the furious pursuit of their fanaticke opinions And therefore there is a necessity that Kings should exercise their power to settle an Uniformity in matters of Faith and Doctrine because the peace and unity and preservation of the Common-wealth doth so directly depend thereupon Secondly The Primitive Church hath
82.6 And Moses is stiled Aarons God Exod. 4.16 And of these Gods Saint Paul meant when he affirmed many Gods to be in earth 1 Cor. 8.8 Now in regard the King doth represent the person of God he is to be honoured not according to what he is in himselfe and in his naturall capacity that is as a man but according to what the person is whom hee represents and that is God For you know the respects which we exhibite to the Mayor of a towne which happily may be a Cobler are not proportioned according to the worth and honour of that Cobler but according to the worth and honour of the King whom he represents and therefore within those limits where that Cobler doth represent this Majesty and exercise this power derived from the King he is in all respects preferred above all other men of what quality soever though Knights or Lords and therefore our duties to the King cannot relate to him in his naturall capacity as a man but in his Politick as he represents the person of God and by consequence this fift Commandement must be a Precept of the first Table Some Jewish Writers upon this very ground and reason do concurre in this opinion that this fift Commandement pertaineth to the first Table because Kings are stiled Gods Psal 82. and Ministers of God whereunto that learned and reverend Divine * In his Tract upon the Morall Law p. 105. Bishop Andrewes returneth this answer That not onely superiours but also inferiours are included in that Commandement which excludes it from the first Table But with reverence to his great learning and humble submission to better reason I cannot in this particular captivate my assent either to his answer opinion or reason for if that were sufficient to seclude the fift the same reason would exclude also the fourth Commandement out of the first Table because both son and daughter and maid and man-servant yea even oxe and asse also are therein expresly mentioned But that which distinguisheth the two Tables is the object of the duty to whom it is to be performed and not the subject who is to performe it And wee doe not finde that the duties of the fift Commandement are to be performed to any inferiours but onely to superiours And besides this judicious Divine himselfe who is deservedly honoured both for piety and knowledge although he dissent from this opinion and in his division of the Commandements doth make this fift Commandement a Precept of the second Table yet in that Argument which he alledgeth to perswade the sincerity of submission and obedience to Princes he proves it directly to be a Precept of the first It pleased God a In his exposition of the fift Commandement saith hee to give this Commandement roome before our goods yea before our life to shew that obedience to Princes must be preferred before either our estate or life Now if Princes must be dearer to us then our selves how can they have the relation of neighbours upon whom the law of God doth not enjoyne us to set any such estimate The fourth reason is taken from the nature of the sinne which is the breach and transgression of this Commandement which is a sinne immediately against God For he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God Ver. 2. and therefore Rebellion against the Prince is termed a Rebellion against God as appeares Numb 14.2 3 4. where the Lord doth threaten the punishment of the peoples Rebellion upon the report of the ten spies not as a sinne against Moses but against himselfe And so likewise the Rebellion of Korah is tearmed a Rebellion not against Moses but against God Numb 27.3 And Christ saith those that despise his Messengers despise him Luke 11.16 And the Prodigall acknowledgeth his disobedience to his father to be a sinne first against heaven Luke 15. And Saint Paul saith that he that despised the Apostles despised not man but God 1 Thes 4.8 because their calling was Gods ordinance as also the Kings is And this was the ground of Gamaliels Argument whereby he disswaded the Councell from using violence to the Apostles because if their power were from God in fighting against the Apostles they should fight against God Acts 5. And therefore the transgression of this Commandement being a sinne properly against God as the immediate object this fift Commandement must needs be it Precept of the first Table The fift Reason is taken from the nature of the punishment due to the sinnes against this fift Commandement and that is damnation Rom. 13.2 which is Saint Pauls third motive to obedience for that punishment is generally due to all the sins against the first Table but not to all the sins against the second For by damnation here in this Text the Apostle must needs understand the punishment of temporall death which the Judiciall Law ordained to be inflicted for every trespasse against God and the offences against the law of the first Table which were judged not according to the dammage which ensued upon the offence like the offences against our neighbour where a man was to loose eye for eye tooth for tooth and the like but according to the quality of the person against whom they were committed for he that transgrest the fourth Commandement by gathering onely a few sticks was commanded to be stoned to death Levit. 24.15 And hee that blasphemed or cursed God was to die the death Numb 15.35 Now all transgressions against our parents were to be punished after the same manner and not according to the dammage which ensued for he that did smite his father or mother was to be put to death though no dammage ensued Exod. 21.15 Nay if he did but curse them he was to suffer death Ver. 17. which punishments were not due by the Law for any such offences against our neighbour but onely against God and sinnes of the first Table and therefore this fift Commandement must be a Precept of the first Table And the reason why I doe judge this damnation to be meant of a temporall punishment which is inflicted by the Magistrate and not of eternall which is inflicted by God is because in reference to Gods eternall punishments all sinnes are alike damnable and punishable with eternall damnation and so Saint Pauls reason should not be any motive more proper to perswade this duty then any other but in reference to temporall punishments inflicted by the Magistrate the sinnes onely against God and the first Table are made generally and universally capitall by the Law of Moses and the same were also made capitall by the lawes of other Nations for mens words against the King may render them guilty of treason and so of death which mens words against their neighbours doe not doe The sixt reason is grounded upon those acts which are said to be the duties of the King which are to revenge and recompence Ver. 3 4. which is Saint Pauls fourth motive to obedience
The Argument is this To whomsoever the power of vengeance and recompence pertaineth he is a God for God himselfe affirmeth those prerogatives to be peculiar to himselfe Deut. 22.35 36. But both these prerogatives pertaine unto the King as Saint Paul affirmeth in this Text ergo Kings are Gods and by consequence the fift Commandement which prescribeth our duty to them must be a Precept of the first Table The seventh Reason is grounded upon the nature of that obligation which the commands of Kings doe impose upon their Subjects which binde the conscience Ver. 5. which is Saint Pauls fift motive to obedience Wherefore ye must needs be subject not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake Which reason Saint Peter alledgeth also to perswade this kind of submission to Kings 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves for the Lords sake because the submission is not to man but to God Ephes 6.7 whose Majesty and Authority the King doth represent and in the latter part of this second Chapter Saint Peter presseth this kind of submission for conscience sake and the Lords sake by Christs example who needed not to have submitted to Pilate or the Jewes for wrath for he was able to overthrow them all with a blast of the breath of his mouth as he did the officers John 18.6 and shall doe Antichrist at the last day 2 Thes 2. Or to have obtained twelve legions of Angels from his Father for that purpose Mat. 26.53 whereof one single Angell was able to destroy 185000. Assyrians in one night but yet to honour the Substitute and Deputy of his Father he submitted to their power knowing it was his Fathers will and that the judgement was not theirs but Gods Acts 4.28 which is the ground of Nazianzens advise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We must submit to good Kings as to the Lord himselfe to bad Kings for the Lords sake Upon which grounds it is easie to prove the King to have the relation of a God to his subjects For he that can command the conscience is a God but the commands of the King doe oblige the conscience i. e. in licitis politicis whereunto his Commission doth extend and therefore in reference to all those matters the King is a God to his Subjects And by consequence this fift Commandement prescribing the Subjects duty must be a Precept of the first Table The eight and last Reason is taken from the nature of those acts whereby Subjects ought to expresse their obedience to Kings Ver. 6 7. which is Saint Pauls fixt motive to obedience which acts doe referre either unto the Kings power or else to his maintenance 1. The acts of obedience relating to power are Feare and Honour which are due onely to God Deut. 6.13 Mat. 4.10 Mal. 1.6 But Saint Paul commandeth us to performe these duties unto the King in this Text to which Solomon addeth another precept Prov. 24.21 My sonne feare God and the King And David likewise commanded the people to worship God and King Solomon 1 Chron. 29.20 so that God and the King are made a joynt object of these duties which are peculiar to God ergo the King must supply the place of God in reference to his Subjects and by consequence the fift Commandement must be a Precept of the first Table Ob. Christ forbids us to feare them that can kill the body onely but cannot kill the soule Mat. 10.28 but Kings can onely kill the body and not the soule ergo wee may not feare Kings Sol. That command of Christs is not Positive but Comparative as appeares in the Text and onely prohibits us to feare the King more then God Repl. Then when the Kings commands are contrary to Gods we may resist Sol. We may resist his commands but not his power for in those cases we must obey God by an active the King onely by a passive obedience for which wee have the president of the Apostles themselves Acts 4. and 5. who did refuse to obey the commands of the Rulers prohibiting them to preach in the name of Jesus but yet submitted to their power in yeelding themselves to be imprisoned and beaten according to the commands of the Rulers so that they obeyed both God and the Magistrate the first by doing the latter by suffering 2. The acts of obedience relating to the Kings maintenance are Tribute and Custome whereof I spoke at large in the ninth Chapter of this Booke in the point of Secondary Honour due to the King where I demonstrated these to be due to God onely Primarily and to the King onely Secondarily as he supplies the place of God in Ruling and Judging his people And therefore seeing we are to performe those acts of submission and obedience to the King whereof God himselfe is the proper and immediate object it followeth necessarily that the fift Commandement which prescribeth those acts must be a Commandement of the first Table Now upon these grounds it is easie to frame an answer to the three Arguments alledged for the preheminency of the peoples safety above the Kings Honour whereby to legitimate the resistance of Kings in order to the peoples safety To the first Argument taken from the Law of nature Answ 1 I answer that it is grounded upon a false supposition for the fift Commandement which is the ground of the Kings Honour is not a Precept of the second Table but of the first the duties whereof are grounded upon a love exceeding the love of our selves for the Law of God and Nature teacheth us to love God above our selves Deut. 5.6 Mat. 22.37 and therefore though the King be a man in his naturall capacity and therefore in that sense hath the relation of a neighbour yet in his Politick capacity in which sense onely he is the object of the duties of the fift Commandement he hath the relation of a God to us and not of a neighbour and therefore we ought to regard his Honour above our owne safety and rather to suffer the losse both of our estates friends and life then dishonour him To the second Argument grounded upon the instance of a Generall I answer Answ 2 that the case is farre different For I presume the Argument presupposeth that Generall to be trusted by the King for the safety and protection of that city and not for the destruction of it and that upon this supposition they doe resist him as a Traitor to his trust and in this case the resistance is lawfull because his Commission doth not extend to that act and he is onely a Magistrate so farre as his Commission doth authorize him But suppose the King should have judged that city to be destroyed and authorize that Generall to execute that judgement in this case it were absolutely unlawfull to resist and all acts of opposition in the city or souldiery being the Kings Subjects were absolute treason and rebellion because the Kings Commission from God doth extend absolutely both to our estates and persons nor doth he
own dear Sonne with this Royall Prerogative giving all things and all power over all creatures into his hands and such a Kingdome and Dominion as should have no end Esai 9.6 Psa 2. Luke 1 32.33 Iohn 13.3 Which places as likewise all other places of Scripture which attribute any Sovereignty or Dominion unto Christ are to be understood onely of this Internall government for of all externall and worldly power and authority Christ utterly declined and disclaimed the administration and exercise reproving the giddiness and precipitancy of the peoples affections who would have obtruded the honour of a King upon him when they were transported with admiration of his miracles feeding of five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes John 6.15 For his kingdome as himself acknowledged to Pilat was not of this world and therefore he taught his Disciples by his own example to eschew the affection of that kind of power and domination which the Kings of the Gentiles exercised over their people leaving them a perfect president of meeknesse and humility in himself by taking upon himself the form and practising the duties of a servant not disdaining to wash the very feet of his Disciples John 13. Whereby it is evident to whom the propriety of Interest and title to this Internall Regiment of Right appertaineth and upon a further scrutiny and inquisition concerning particulars it will appear that the practise thereof hath alwaies gone accordingly and the actuall administration and exercise of all power and authority over the Intrinsecall Acts and Effects of the soul hath alwaies been the peculiar priviledge and prerogative of God But for an Introduction hereunto it will be requisite to premise the severall sorts of divisions and Subdivisions which are Incident to this Internall Regiment by reason of the various circumstances whereunto it doth relate with one Objectum modus media finis 1. The first Circumstance is the object or matter whereupon God doth exercise his power and that is upon the Intrinsecall acts and effects of the soul 2. Circumstance is the manner how God doth exercise his power upon these acts and effects of the soul 3. The meanes whereby God doth exercise his power upon these acts and effects of the soul 4. The end for which God doth in this or that manner by this or that meanes exercise his power upon these Intrinsecall acts and effects of the soul 1. The first division then of this Internall Regiment is taken from the diversitie of the object or matter thereof viz the Intrinsecall acts and effects of the soul which are differenced by vertue of the different faculties from whence they proceed which are the understanding and the will each of whose acts do likewise admit of a Subdivision by reason of the diversitie of the subordinate object or matter whereunto they relate which may be either Spirituall or temporall matters So that from this first division and Subdivision do arise these four kinds of Internall Regiment 1. That kind which respects the understanding in reference to Spiritual matters 2. That which respects the same in reference to temporall matters 3. That kind which respects the will in reference to Spirituall matters 4. That which respects the same in reference to temporall matters 2. Againe every one of these four sorts of Internall Regiment being considered in relation to the manner how God doth exercise his power upon the Intrinsecall acts and effects of the Soul are capable of a second Subdivision for God doth work upon the severall acts and effects both of the will and understanding after a two-fold manner upon the understanding either by way of Illumination or by way of Infatuation upon the will either by way of Obduration or by way of Mollification and conversion by vertue of which severall sorts of operation upon the understanding and will These four kinds of Internall Regiment above mentioned may be Subdivided into eight subalternate species 3. Againe every one of these eight sorts of Internall Regiment may yet be Subdivided in reference to the meanes whereby God doth work upon all these severall objects after all those severall wayes for either God doth operate immediately by the speciall and extraordinary meanes of his Spirit or mediately by the common and ordinary meanes of the Creature Each of which meanes being applicable to every one of the eight species of Internall Regiment before recited may branch out those eight species into sixteen particulars 4. As for the last Circumstance to which this Internall Regiment doth relate viz. The end for which God doth exercise his power upon the Intrinsecall acts and effects of the soul I conceive it doth rather qualify then multiply the seveall species or kinds of Internall Regiment for the end is the very reason and cause wherefore and the very rule and square whereby God doth by this or that meanes in this or that manner exercise his power upon the severall acts and effects either of the understanding or the will whether it be in Spirituall or in temporall matters And this end being primarily his own glory It is the very Primum Mobile which giveth motion and action to all the wheeles of Gods providence for as in all other reasonable Agents so in God the most reasonable The end is Primum Intentione though ultimum executione and that which incites his will to every action Now Gods glory as it respects humane creatures of which we now speak as being the object wherein both the nature and parts of Gods internall Regiment are made most conspicuous to us is manifested two waves First by his mercy Secondly by his justice which two do constitute two severall ends of Gods internall Regiment viz. First the manifestation of his mercy and goodnesse in the exhibition of blessings and benefits to the godly Secondly The manifestation of his power and greatnesse in the accumulation of curses and judgements upon the wicked And therefore wheresoever we find any particular acts of Gods internall Regiment in any of all the forementioned kinds thereof recorded in Scripture as indeed there is no one kind amongst all the sixteen severall sorts whereinto it is distinguished but God hath upon some one or other occasion left us an expresse from his own Spirit to evidence his Right and Title thereunto materia modo medijs predictis as I shall demonstrate in the next place there we shall find likewise one of these two ends recorded for the ground and cause of that particular act of Government and providence in God But least the reader should imagine these divisions and Subdivisions of Internall Government to be some meer Logicall or Metaphysicall Notions it will not be Impertinent by instances in particular acts of Gods providence relating to every perticular kind of Internall Government to demonstrate all the foresaid divisions to be expresly grounded upon the word of God And because the first eight of the foresaid species of Internall Regiment relate unto the understanding the latter
superior Agent even in that very vitiousness whereby they work and from whence all evil actions derive their denomination God so restraining or permitting the course and fury of their vitiousness and irregularity that it shall work its effects in the action onely to such a Degree of evil as may serve best for Gods own end and purpose therein As we may observe in the Devils malice against Iob Ch. 1. And Labans and Esaus against Jacob Gen. 32. None of which could effect the intended destruction either of Iob or Jacob So in Absaloms against David which did not ruine David but himself 2 Sam. 18. And in the malice of the Jewes against Christ which could not with all their care in watching and sealing the sepulchre detain Christs dead body in the grave one minute beyond the appointed time of the resurrection So that as Austin and Thomas Aquinas rightly observe All actions even those which are most vitious and irregular in regard of their deviations from and their inconformity unto the particular Law of Gods precepts yet are righteous and regular in respect of their conformity unto the generall Law of Gods providence And the same Deviations Father in his confessions summes up all this in these few words Deus non est causa efficiens positiva peccati operando malitiam sed causa sine quae non permissiva non Impertiende miseriâ—ordiam Which answer suits directly with Christs own words Mat. 18.7 where he fully stateth this very question It m*st needs be that offences do come There is a necessity that God should permit such enormities in the world in regard of that Essentiall goodnesse which ariseth from Gods ends in all these offences and evils But woe be to that man by whom the offence cometh Mark it woe to the man who is the author of the sinne There lies the blame thence comes the evill and there fals the curse and punishment Repl. But this answer occasioneth yet a further doubt concerning the sinne of the Apostate Angels for though the vitiousness and irregularity of humane actions might proceed from humane corruptions And those corruptions from Adams sinne occasioned likewise through the lyes temptations of the Devil yet we cannot possibly find any precedent evill whereunto to impute the sinne and Apostacy of the Angels but the very Innate and Originall imperfection and vitiousness of their own proper wils and inclinations which must needs be the sole and Immediate work of the Creator for if God had made their understandings and wils Originally good and perfect the fruits thereof could not have been corrupt and vitious Mat. 7.18 Sol. God made all sorts of creatures whatsoever absolutely good and perfect in their kind and according to such a Degree and measure of perfection as was most sutable to their own natures and those ends for which God created them And therefore the Angels as they exceeded all other creatures in the excellency of their Nature eminency of those high offices to which God had appointed them so did they also far exceed all others in the excellency and eminency of their perfection and goodness But yet all this was but a created and dependant perfection in Angels it was not such an absolute Essentiall and inseperable perfection as God himself is possest of and which should exempt them from the acts of Gods continuall and everlasting providence For all creatures because creatures have still a dependancie upon their Creator not onely in their actions but even in their very being and existence And therefore the wisdome of God to demonstrate his own perfection and glory to be absolute and Essentiall the creatures onely dependant and of an accidentall continuance durante suo beneplacito left both men and Angels at the instant of their fall unto themselves not absolutely for then they must have been absolutely Annihilated But in such a measure as God himselfe thought fit to proportion the greatness of their fall even as a Nurse doth sometimes partly let slip the childes sleeve purposely to make it understand the better who supports it that it may not grow too proud and confident of its own strength for no sooner had God thus deserted the Angels but their Universal self-insufficiency impotency appeared For whereas a principal part of their office and service appointed them by God was the Admiration and praise of the Excellency and Omnipotency and Glory of God in all his works these Angels Immediately upon this desertion diverting their thoughts from Gods glory and excellency fixed the same upon their own And forgetting God their Creator began to Deifie themselves his creatures which was their sinne which caused their ruine Which ought to be an Everlasting Caution both to men and Angels not to Deifie or place any idolatrous trust or confidence in any created Entitie although beautified and enriched with Angelicall and Celestiall perfection and glory CHAP. IV. Of Externall Regiment wherein First of Miraculous Regiment HAving finished the tract of Internall Regiment my method in the next place presents the delineation of Externall wherein I shall not varie from my former Order declaring first the nature and Originall Secondly the parts thereof 1 Externall Regiment is the opposite species to Internall being distinguished from Internall by the difference of its object for whereas the object of Internall Regiment was the Intrinsecall acts of the soul the object of Externall is the Extrinsecall acts of the body or Externall substance so that Externall Regiment may be appositely thus defined Externall Regiment is the exercise and Administration of that Power and Authority which the Superior Agent hath over the Externall actions and motions of the substance or Externall members of the Inferior Which Externall actions and motions are guided and Governed immediately by the intrinsecall acts of the soul in man and of that intrinsecall form in other creatures which is Analogicall to the soul in man for it is an Infallible rule in Philosophy that no free or voluntary Agent doth move or act in any appetible object but what the understanding first presents and the will receives as good and elegible nor in any Inimicitious detestable object but which the understanding first presents and the will resents as noxious and avoidable and in naturall Agents it is more manifest that their Externall motions do proceed from the Intrinsecall acts of their form and nature as in the ascent of light things and the descent of heavy And therefore in regard these Intrinsecall acts are the proper and peculiar Right and Prerogative of God as is already proved it followes by the rules of Logick that God must needs have a principal share and interest in the guidance and Government of the Extrinsecall actions and motions which are onely fruits and effects of the former But this wil be made more plain in the species or parts of this Externall Regiment Which by reason of the various manner after which God doth exercise his power in
very foundation of the people because the subduction of the King produceth necessarily the ruine and destruction of the people And this Jus Divinum Implicitum which relateth to these internall blessings or bona animi and particularly to this habit of Prudence the fountain of all Morall acts is that which directly and properly claimes a place in Monarchie in its Morall Capacity 2. Externall blessings are those which Aristotle termes bona corporis fortunae the blessings of the body are temporal life health and beauty the blessings of Fortune Riches and Honour Whereof one particular is a Royal descent and another part of that honour is Primogeniture which doth entitle a man to that supremacie which is the material cause and ground of Monarchie Now this Jus Divinum Implicitum which relateth to Externall blessings and particularly to the blessing of Primogeniture in a Royall Progenie is that which doth properly claime a place in Monarchie in its Naturall capacity 2. Explicite Divine Right is that which is grounded upon the will of God revealed in the Scriptures concerning those duties which we are to performe to God as returnes of the former expreses of his love to us the Revelation of which duties is contained in express precepts and Commandments Which sanction doth make a truth absolutely and Essentially Divine excluding all humane option and prudence and admitting of no case wherein Conscience may dispence with the performance thereof without the guilt of Eternal death and Damnation the least deviation from such a precept being malum culpae that is an evill of sinne And therefore this sanction imposeth an obligation upon every mans conscience for the performance of such duties as are thus precisely commanded in what estate or condition soever he be whether Rich or poor sick or healthfull bond or free in time of warre or in time of peace And these truths which are capable of this preceptive sanction are such whose entire perfection both Immediate and ultimate consists in action and are the returnes of Gods love to us and the very expresses of our love to him Of which truths Christ meant when he said If you know these things happy are ye if ye do them For knowledge of these truths without performance doth but aggravate our guilt it being onely our performance of them which can make us happy And these are the dutyes of every mans calling wherein he is obliged in conscience so to demean himself that every action which relateth thereunto may be a Testimony of his love to God and his neighbour by squaring it according to that Rule which God hath prescribed for the Regulation thereof But for the further Illustration of this Jus Divinum explicitum you must observe that there are two sorts of express precepts and Commandments recorded in Scripture which do impose two sorts of Explicite and Essential Divine sanctions upon these practical truths 1. Are absolute and Generall precepts of the Moral Law which concern the duty of man towards God and his neighbour which is still the same in Essence both under the Law and Gospel and do Generally oblige all men in all places at al times this kind of precepts it is which adds an absolute general sanction unto those duties which are the end of Monarchie 2. are particular Circumstantial precepts which are not Universally obligatory but do concern either some men at al times as the judicial Ceremoniall Lawes did the Jewish Nation Jewish Profelites or some men onely and at some times onely as all personal Commands given upon particular occasions As that to Saul for destruction of the Amalekites with all their substance 1 Sam. 18. And that to Jonas for Proclaiming the destruction of Nineveh Jonah Cha. 1. And that to the Prophet which God sent to Bethel for abstinence both from meat and drink in that place 1 Kin. 13. Now though these precepts be temporally or personally obligatory and therefore the contempt or neglect thereof a sinne which strikes at the very face of God in his prerogative Royal yet in regard the performance of them is not a natural but onely a preternatural duty they are not equally obligatory to the Conscience as the precepts of the Moral Law are nor doth the transgression of such Commands render a man equally guilty or liable to those punishments of Eternal death and Damnation which the transgression of Moral precepts doth and therefore the severest punishments which any Scripture doth annex to such offences is that the transgressour shall be cut off from his people As it fel out in that disobedient Prophet slain by a Lion 1 Kin. 13. But I have no warrant of Scripture to judge him damn'd for that offence A confirmation whereof we have from Gods expresse declaration of his different regard to the dutyes of the Moral and of the Ceremonial Law 1 Sam. 15.22 Hos 6.6 Where God preferres Mercy and Obedience before sacrifice and burnt-offerings Querae Seeing the precepts of the Morall law are more absolutely obligatory then any other and the transgressions of those precepts more severely punishable then any other Whether ought Gods particular and Extraordinary Commands to be obeyed when they enjoyn an Act contrary to the precepts of the Moral Law as in Abrahams offering of Isaac for a sacrifice to God sol The wil of God being the ground of all Law when it is declared concerning any particular Act doth dispence with the obligation of any Law as to that particular and exempt the party commanded both from the guilt and punishment And therefore the Lord Commended Abrahams Resolution to kil his sonne in obedience to his particular Commands although the very thought and resolution of homicide be directly a transgression against the Moral Law Querae But is not God then the Author of sinne in such commands for seeing there is a transgression of the Moral Law which must necessarily be a sinne and seeing that sinne is not imputed to the man that acts the transgression because Gods Commands do exempt him Must not this sinne then be imputed to God sol God in such cases is a Judge which passeth the deserved sentence of death upon that person who is to suffer for neither Isaak nor the justest man that liveth is innocent in the eyes of God the party who obeyes these Commands is the executioner And therefore as neither Judge nor Hangman is guilty of murther in the homicide of a Malefactor deserving death so neither was God nor Abraham guilty of sinne in that resolution of Abrahams to kil his son at the particular Command of God And this Jus Divinum Explicitum doth properly claime a place in Monarchie in its Theologicall capacity in Relation to those dutyes which are the proper and Native ends of Monarchie which are Gods glory the Kings honour and salus populi or the peoples good and welfare And thus you see of what sort of Jus Divinum Monarchie is capable 1. In its Moral
two former answers 2. They are guilty of most notorious Ingratitude and unthankfulness to God in despising his blessings and preferring those curses before them which are the badges of their sinn and of Gods wrath and vengeance for the same Just like the murmuring and ungrateful Israelites who whilst they were fed with bread from Heaven cryed out for returning to the fish garlick onyons and cucombers of Egypt Num. 11.5 2. Quaere Whether both Polarchs that is the Governours and Rulers in a Polarchy and Polarchists that is the subjects who live under such Rulers be joyntly and severally obliged in conscience to endeavour the Reducement of that Government to a Monarchie Sol. To frame a resolution to this question we must premise some distinctions of Polarchy For though all Polarchies in their proper constitution be mala poenae and curses for sinne yet do they admit of diverse qualifications in relation to their Institution and Original For some sorts are erected upon a more Legal and warrantable or rather indeed a less sinfull ground then others are The safer and more warrantable grounds are two 1. First Plantation where there are no Inhabitants nor former kind of Government but the Election and Resolution of any kind is free and Arbitrary to that society who consent for the population of the place and the Institution of a Policy without the dissent or prejudice of any other in Authority 2. Consent of the Monarch or Governour in Authority to chang that Government either in part as when any City Province or Kingdome under the command of some great King or Monarch doth obtaine either by composition or donation a freedome from all subjection unto the jurisdiction of that King and thereupon do conferre the Supream Power over that society upon moe then one or in whole as when both Monarch and subjects by joynt consent do change a Monarchie into a Polarchy In all which sorts of Polarchy both Polarchs and Polarchists are obliged in conscience to endeavour the reducement of that Government to a Monarchie by all lawful meanes But in this case all endeavours are not lawful For 1. First indeed all Polarchs which are interested in the active part of Government are obliged in conscience to endeavour this transmutation by any meanes which are conducent and effectuall thereunto because first their actions are not liable to the guilt of rebellion 2. They are Intrusted by the people who are their Electors to councel and act those things wherein they may best provide for the peace and safety of the people Notwithstanding happily those things which they resolve and councel sometimes may not arride the Major part of the ignorant multitude Ob. Every man is bound in conscience in the first place to regard his own honour and benefit and therefore these Governours cannot be obliged to endeavour this mutation thereby to devest themselves of the honour and benefit of such a Government out of a care to provide for the good and benefit of the people rather then of themselves Sol It must be in things lawful and warrantable that men must seek honour and benefit for no man ought in pursuance of those ends to make a vocation and calling of any thing which is in it self a curse and punishment as Polarchy is already demonstrated to be neither ought any man to endeavour a private good out of that which is a publique and National damage and mischief 2. The endeavours of all Polarchists who are Interested onely in the Passive part of Government For such a Reducement must be onely prayers to God and petitions to Superiors and such meanes as do not transgresse the rules of obedience For all Polarchists are equally engaged to the obedience of all those Polarchs as the subjects of a Monarch are to their King they all being Invested with a supremacy of Power in which respect they represent the Majesty of God and therefore all acts of resistance or dishonour to them are dishonourable to God damnable to the resisters Rom. 13.2 Now all such acts being Mala Culpae and Essentially evil And Polarchy which we seek to avoid being but Malum poenoe and accidentally evil nor the blessing of Monarchie which we seek to attain but accidentally good we ought not to endeavour the attaining of any such good or deliverance from any such evil by acting any thing which may be prejudicial to our neighbour or dishonourable to God For we may not do evil that good may come thereof Quaere But put the case that there happen a division and dissention between the Polarchs about this Reducement of such a Polarchy to a Monarchie some consenting to it others not Ought not the subjects in such a case to assist that party whose endeavours they judge to tend to the good of the Common wealth against those Governours who Impede and oppose it Sol. These divisions and dissentions are the very calamities which our Saviour himself affirmeth to be the Inseparable accidents and individual concomitants of Polarchy Mat. 6.24 But for the subjects assistance of such divided parties in a Polarchy whether the dissentions spring from that or any other occasion it is utterly unlawful and contrary to the commands of God For though both parties be our Superiours and we obliged to the obedience of both yet not to the active obedience of either party where both their Commands enjoyn a sinful action Now that assistance of one party cannot be free from the resistance and opposition of others who are invested with an equal Power and Authority over us and by consequence not free from sinne And therefore we may not assist in such a case by any other endeavours then our prayers nor is any way safe and free from sinne in such a case but a passive obedience to both by suffering with patience as from the hand of God whatsoever shal be inflicted upon us by either party amongst such divided Powers 2. The most unwarrantable and wicked grounds for the erection of a Polarchy are Rebellion and injustice when subjects revolt and renounce their alleigance to their lawful King and Monarch either in part by the rebellion and disloyalty of some particular City Province or Kingdome under his command or in whole by the violent deposition of the King or Monarch from his total Power and Authority and the absolute deprivation of him of all his Rights and Dominions In both which the case is the same Again a Polarchy which is thus erected may be considered three wayes 1. In order to those Polarchs and Polarchists who are the Original Authors thereof in all and every one of which that foundation is wicked and sinful proceeding from a transgression of a precept comprehended within the first Table of the Moral Law which is not capable of Legitimation by any pretence se defendi as I shall fully demonstrate in the eleventh Chapter of this Book from whence I conclude that all those Polarchs and Polarchists are joyntly and severally obliged to
Gilgal to make him King 1 Sam. 11.15 And David which all the men of Judah anointed King at Hebron 2 Sam. 2.4 And who afterwards was anointed King over Israel at Hebron by all the Tribes of Israel 2.5.3 And Solomon who was likewise anointed by the people 1 Chron. 29.22 And Jeroboam whom the people made King over Israel 1 Kings 12 20. And Vzziah whom the people of the land made King 2 Kin. 14.21 And Iehoahaz who though he was but the second sonne of Iosiah younger then Eliakim was made King by the people in his fathers stead 2 Chron. 23.20 And Christ whom the people intended to have made a King Ioh. 6. And it must needs be presupposed they had a power to do so otherwise their attempts had been ridiculous And to adde further weight to this Argument we find this act of the peoples in making and anointing of Kings to be mentioned sometimes with an expresse approbation thereof from God as upon Sauls Investiture 1 Sam. 11.14 And David received this honour from the people by the Lords expresse Command enjoyning David to go to Hebron there to be anointed King by the people 2 Sam. 2.2 And David himself called all the people to the anointing of King Solomon 1 Chron. 29. 2. The reason alledged for the ground of this opinion is that the honour and submission which Kings receive is Originally in the people for honor est in honorante non in honorato according to Aristotles principles and from them derived unto the King And therefore they do not conceive it just or reasonable that the people should be obliged to yeeld honour and submission and performe dutyes of obedience to any person but him whom themselves shall judge worthy of it And so attest their judgement of his worth by their election of him to be their King and Soveraign 3. To these we may adde Saint Peters testimony who termes Regality an Ordinance of men 1 Pet. 2.13 which were false if it did proceed from God and not from the people for then it were an ordinance of God and not of man And therefore though God be the Vniversal cause of Royal Power as he is of all things else yet the people must be the Immediate and particular cause Now from these gounds they deduce two damnable and detestable Inferences and Corollaries to justifie Rebellion and Dethronement of Kings 1. That though the King be Major singulis yet he is minor Vniversis and therefore that it is no Rebellion but duty in the people meaning the Major part to resist or depose the King where the people judge it necessary in relation to the defence of their own safety which according to their Doctrine is Suprema Lex 2. That the King doth receive and enjoy this honour onely by virtue of a stipulation or Covenant between himself and the people the sole ground whereof they conclude to be salus populi And therefore if the King doth violate this Covenant and break the trust reposed in him by the people by any acts which are destructive ad salutem populi whereof they presuppose the people to be the Judges that then the people are absolved from their Alleagance grounded upon that trust and Covenant and may lawfully provide for their own safety and welfare either by resistance deposition dethronement or any such meanes as themselves judge to be most conducent to their owne security Before I returne particular answers to these Instances and the reason alledged for the peoples right to confer this supremacy which doth preheminence the King above all others in the same society and is the ground of the Monarchs title to his Crown and the two damnable Inferences thence I will premise those grounds and reasons which enunciate the errour and absurdity of this opinion And thereupon frame answers to all that is or I suppose can be alledged for the support of that popular prerogative The Arguments declaring the errour and absurdity of this opinion are partly Instantial partly Rational The Instances of Scripture are of two sorts the first manifest the peoples disprobations not to be Authentick to Illegitimate the title of a lawful King or Monarch For the Books of Exodus and Numbers record ten several disprobations and murmurings of the people against Moses yet did not all these disannul Moses his Title For we see with what fearful judgements upon the people the Lord himself did Vindicate the same Exod. 32. Num. 12. and Ch. 14. and Ch. 16. And all the people of the land from Dan to Beersheba rejected David upon Absaloms conspiracy yet did not that nullifie Davids Right and title to the Crown for he was justly and truly King when he fled but with six hundred of his servants and the Lord did afterwards Vindicate his Right and title thereunto by a mighty destruction of his enemies 2 Sam. 18. Neither did the peoples disprobation of his just Power when the ten tribes forsook David and followed Sheba the sonne of Bichri unking David or Illegitimate his Right and title to the Kingdome of Israel For the Lord did quickly judge his cause by a suddaine vengeance upon that traitor 2 Sam. 20. The second sort of Instances manifest the peoples approbation and endeavours not to be Authentick or effectual to create a lawful title to the Crown for the golden Calf was honoured and received and proclaimed a God and guide in Moses stead by Aaron and all the Israelites Yet did not that popular election legitimate that Calfs power and title Exod. 32. Absalom was proclaimed King by all the thousands of Israel yet did not that act of the peoples legitimate Absaloms title to the Crown For the holy Ghost termeth it but a conspiracy when it was in the very height 2. Sam. 15.12 Sheba had ten Tribes for him when David had but one for him and yet was he never termed a King but a man of Belial 2 Sam. 20. Adonijah confesseth that although the faces of all Israel were set on him to make him King yet he never had any just Right or title to the Kingdome because the Lord had designed it for his Brother Solomon 1 Kings 2.15 2. The reasons evincing the errour and absurdity of this opinion are four 1. The first is taken from the nature of Monarchie to which this opinion is absolutely destructive For it is the very Essence of Monarchie that one man should enjoy the supremacy but if the supremacy be delegated to the King from the people and may be resumed by the people at pleasure upon their own judgements then the supremacy is absolutely and primarily in the people and but derivatively and secondarily in the King and by consequence all Government is virtually Democratical nay indeed every Government is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is generally acknowledged to be the worst kind of Government the end and conclusion whereof all Statists even the most zealous for Polarchy agree to be confusion and desolation 2. The second reason
is taken from the Relations which persons invested with Regal Honour have unto God by virtue whereof they are styled in Scripture the children of God Psa 82. Ministers and servants of God Rom. 13.4 Jer. 27.6 But we have no warrant or ground either in nature reason or Religion to priviledge the people to elect and appoint children or deputies and servants unto God or to consecrate a person for the person of the King is sacred And therefore the election of Kings cannot pertain unto the people For a sacred effect cannot proceed from a prophane cause The third reason is taken from the nature of the Kings office which is to judge the people for no Judge ought to receive any gift or benefit from those who are to be judged by him because all engagements occasion partiality in the judgements even of the wisest men Deut. 16.19 But he that receives a Crown receives a gift 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore no King ought to receive his Crown from the people nor be elected by them Nay and for this very reason Moses appointed all the officers who were to judge the people under him Deut. 1. And David those who were to judge them under him either in Ecclesiastical or civil affaires 1 Chron. 23. unto the 27. The fourth reason is taken from the peoples Incapacity unfitnesse to manage such a prerogative manifested by God himself in three particulars First in their Ignorance Secondly their Seditiousnesse Thirdly their Inconstancy 1. Their ignorance and want of judgement to discerne between good and evil and that also in this particular point of Government A manifest whereof is exhibited in Solomon who though he was an Idolater and so grievously peccant in his duty towards God yet doth receive an ample testimony from the holy Ghost of his justice and munificence towards his people which was the ground of that Panagyrick pronounced by the Queen of Sheba concerning Solomons Government In which particular he was also a Type of Christ And the object of the Jewes expectation til this very day concerning the Messias is the enjoyment of a happinesse under his Government Paralel to that of Solomons Yet were not the people in the dayes of Solomon contented with his Government but desired an alteration complaining of his Tyranny and oppression 1 Kin. 12.4 2. Their factiousnesse a constant effect and consequence of their Ignorance For there was never any pretence against a present Government and men in Authority so absurd and unjust which did not relish with and obtain support from the multitude Witnesse the conspiracy of Korah against Moses Numb 16. Of Absalom against David 2 Sam. 15. Of the High Priests and Rulers against our Saviour Christ Mat. 26. Of Thoudas and Judas against Cesar Acts 5. And indeed the innumerable and horrid mischiefes which ensued upon the peoples tumultes about the election of their Bishops which in the Primative times was for some reasons permitted to the people were the very cause for which the Emperour a. Novel Constit 123. Justinian translated that priviledge from the people to the Priests some few of the Citizens which afterwards for the like and some other reasons the Monarchs assume to themselves For he that reads b. In Epitaph Patris Nazianzene concerning the peoples absurdities about the election of Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea Or c. Lib. 1. Cap. 24. Eusebius concerning the peoples outrage about the election of a Bishop at Antioch which sea was eight yeares together vacant by reason the peoples differences could not be reconciled in all that space Or d. Lib. 2. Cap. 5. Euagrius concerning the horrible murders committed by the people of Alexandria about the election of a Bishop to that sea upon the deposition of Dioscorus Or e. Eccles Hist l. 2. C. 1◠Ruffinus concerning the bloody Intestine warres amongst the people of Rome about the election of Damascus where the places of prayer overflowed with the blood of men wil never Judge it safe nor convenient that any such prerogative as the election and constitution of Kings and Monarchs should pertaine to the people whose factions and distempers occasioned such horrid and barbarous mischiefs and murders about the elections onely but of their own Bishops 3. Their inconstancie an inseparable effect and consequence of the two former For God himself could never please the people long with any of his blessings though he gave them bread from Heaven yet their soules soon loathed it Numb 11.6 Though the Lord appointed the weakest man upon the earth for their Ruler and Judge yet they complained of his Tyranny Numb 16.3 And you see what great joy they expressed upon the desertion of Moses and the exaltation of the golden Calf which f. Loc. Com. Class 4. Ca. 20. Peter Martyr makes the ground of his result concerning the Illegality and Injustice of the placing such a Power in the people in the collation and arbitrary reassumption of this Supreamacy For saith he If any such Power were in the people the most just and gratious Kings could not be safe For though they Rule never so well yet they shall never long satisfie the people And now to compleat the confutation of this opinion concerning the peoples right unto and power in this Royal investiture I shal return an answer to the Arguments alledged for the propugnation thereof and to those damnable and execrable Inferences grounded thereupon 1. To these Instances of Scripture mentioning the peoples making and anointing of Kings I answer that these acts of the people were performed two wayes 1. Sometimes as acts of homage and duty by way of acknowledgement and testification of the Supreamacy already Legally confirmed upon the person to whom these dutyes are performed And such acts are expressed upon two several occasions 1. Where God did conferre this Supreamacy and Regal honour by any extraordinary wayes and means as in Saul David Solomon and Jeroboam 2 Where God used their meanes for the Vindication of the Kings just Title against an usurper As in Joas whom Jehoiada the Priest and the Captaines and people crowned and anointed King in the Temple restoring him to his just Rights which had been usurped by his Grand-Mother Athaliah 2 Kin. 11.12.13 And in Vzziah the son of Amaziah whom the people restored to his just Power which the conspirators who flew his Father had usurped And in both these cases the acts of the people are good and lawful and approved by God being declared to be the wil of God upon the former occasion extraordinarily upon the latter ordinarily 2. These acts of the people are sometimes acts of power and Authority collating this Supreamacy and Regal power upon some person who hath no other right or Title thereunto neither of Birth-right nor of Revelation from God As upon Absalom Adonijah Jehoahaz Judas Theudas and Barchozba who professed himself the Messiah and drew the people into rebellion against the Romane Emperor which occasioned those warres wherein
the Covenant which is the obligatory part and as they truly alledged implyeth a mutual engagement of the parties therein concerned Now the parties Primarily and Originally concerned in this Covenant are two viz God upon the one party and the people upon the other party as Moses declareth when he reciteth that Original and general Covenant which is indeed the ground of all other particular Covenants Lev. 26. Deut. 28. And therefore Solomon maketh this Covenant a ground why people should obey the Kings Commandments not as the Kings but as Gods Commandment which he termeth the oath Eccles 8.4 is not so much between the King and people as between God and the people For the King is onely the Deputative party assigned by God and entrusted by him for the performance of this Covenant upon Gods part And therefore the Lord doth make the King gracious or Tyrannical to the people according to their own deserts and their regard to this Covenant upon their own part as Solomon declares Prov. 21.1 The Kings heart saith he is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water he turns it which way soever he will viz either for a vengeance or recompence to the people as the Lord himself judgeth of their merits And though the King may spare the wicked and persecute the Righteous even unto death as Pilate did our Saviour yet even in that the King doth but execute Gods decrees as the holy Ghost declareth concerning that unjust judgement of Pilates Acts 4.28 For Pilate did nothing but what God had determined before to be donne And therefore when the King passeth a judgement which we imagine to be unrighteous we must not look upon the Kings judgement and consider that it commeth from him and still refrain both our mouths and hearts from cursing the King Eccles 10.20 For when the King doth that which by the publique law is not warrantable and just he is not therein unjust to us but to himself For though he do not observe the Rule which God hath set for him to judge by and therefore must account to God for the breach of the trust received from him yet he cannot transgresse the Rule of Gods Eternal Decrees which God hath appointed us to be judged by According to which Law God by the Kings mouth and sentence doth punish even our most secret sinnes For every mans judgement is from the Lord and not from the Judge or Ruler Prov. 29.26 So that in a word the King may do male that s a wrong to himself for which he is accomptable to God but he cannot do malum that is any wrong to us by inflicting any thing upon us which is not just and according to our deserts from God whose place the King supplyes in judgement which is the ground of Solomons assertion that The Kings lips do pronounce Divine sentences and that his mouth transgresseth not in judgement Prov. 16.10 Now therefore upon these grounds of Solomons it is manifest that there is no sense why the people should claim any power over the King by vertue of this Covenant 1. Because he is not their Deputy but Gods and every man must account to him for his actions who doth constitute and depute him As when the King doth depute a Judge for any Province or City the people under his command have no power to question him for any act which they conceive unjust but either by petition to that Judge or else by their addresses to the King his Master whose trust all corrupt Judges do deceive and not the trust of the people For they never received any Power or Authority from the people but from the King And in like maner the people for redresse of their grievances from the kings oppressions must address themselves to the King by petition and if that prevail not then to God by prayer who is the Kings Lord and Master and from whom he receives his power and whose trust he breaks by acts of injustice which is ultimum Refugium as Samuel declares when he prophesieth of Sauls Tyranny whereby the people should be grievously oppressed as the Prophet foresheweth for redress whereof the people when the King would not hear them should cry unto the Lord. 1 Sam. 8.18 Other meanes of remedy then which the prophet Samuel did not dream of nor could not prescribe to the people to make use of and whereas if he had conceived resistance to be lawful he might soon have found out that way and have advised the people so to provide for their own security 2. Because the people never received injustice from the King if they look upon themselves for the judgement is the Lords who cannot do injustice nor break the Covenant upon his part although the minister or Deputy may fail and offend in the execution of his office in his own particular which is his own guilt As a Hangman that executes the just sentence of death upon a malefactor if in doing his office his intentions have not reference to the sentence of justice but the satisfaction of some private grudge or some covetous design or the like that officer is guilty of murder although the Malefactor receive from his hands nothing but his due deserts And thus much I hope may be sufficient to declare the errour and vanity of that opinion that the peoples consent and approbation are the ordinary and Instrumental meanes and causes of that supremacy and Soveraign power which doth preheminence the Monarch above all others within the same society and from whence he derives his title to the Regal Diademe I shall in the next place proceed to speak of the just efficacy and virtue of birth-right as to this purpose CHAP. VII Of the Title of Birth-right THE second opinion concerning the efficient cause and meanes of this Supremacy and Regal Dignity is that which Imputes it to Birth-right and Hereditary succession The efficacy whereof as to this purpose the Scriptures do set forth in five pâ—â—ticulars 1. In the prerogatives of the first-born who were hoâ—◠〈◊〉 by God with a double fanction 1. Ceremonial which did meerly Typical and common to man and beast Exod. 13 2◠〈◊〉 this sanction did not qualifie a man in relation to any temporal honour but prefigured onely the Spiritual prerogatives of Christ the first-born amongst many brethren 2. Natural which sanction did preheminence the first-born above all his brethren in honours and possessions as the Lord declared to Cain Gen. 4.7 And Isaac to Jacob who although he was younger then Esau yet obtained that prerogative by promise from God Gen. 25.23 Which by composition was confirmed from Esau himself Gen. 25.33 which was the ground and cause why those prerogatives of honour Soveraignty and possessions were confirmed unto him by his fathers blessing Gen. 27.28.29 And Jacob acknowledged the same honour and Supremacy to pertain unto Reuben his eldest sonne but because Reuben had forfeited that honour by defyling his fathers bed and Simeon and Levi the
of Custome and Tribute for their owne private patrimonies could not be sufficient for maintaining such Kingly magnificence nor doe we finde any particular Law or Statute for the particular endowment of these Kings but onely that generall Right and Prerogative which they derive from God investing them with a power over both our estates and persons which was the cause that God prescribed not in the Law any settled or certaine maintenance for Kings as he did for Priests For though both were his anointed Servants and Deputies and Kings also in a higher degree for they had power over the Priests as well as the people for Moses was not onely a god to the people but to Aaron Exod. 4. And Moses David Solomon Jehoshaphat and other godly Kings exercised this power over both Priests and Levites yea even over the high Priests themselves and that in the highest manner deposing one and advancing another to that Pontificall honour 1 King 2.26 Yet in regard Kings had power to provide for themselves in that manner as themselves judged requisite for their own honour and the peoples safety whereas the Priests had no power at all in any secular matters but what the King did delegate unto them by Commission therefore it pleased God to consigne a set portion for the Priests maintenance and not for the Kings Ob. The Lord blamed the Kings of Judah for imposing taxes upon the people Ezek. 45.8 9. And when Moses prescribed the Kings duty Deut. 17. he prohibited the multiplication of horses and of gold and silver whereby to spoile and oppresse the people Sol. The Lord both in these and many other places prohibiteth the imposition of all Illegall taxes and exactions such as Tyrannicall and wicked Kings usually laid upon the people for the support of their owne insatiate lusts and vanities and such as Samuel told the Israelites would be imposed upon them by Saul in his Tyrannicall government 1 Sam. 8.10 But never prohibited such as were intended for the honour of himselfe and the King and the benefit and welfare of the people though they seemed never so heavy and grievous as that tax was which Pharaoh by Joseph's advise imposed upon the Egyptians for seven yeares together which use and end is not to be determined by the people's discretion but the Kings as appeares in that instance concerning Pharaoh's act And therefore though it be unlawfull for the King to demand such taxes for any other intent but the honour of himselfe and the good of his Subjects yet is it not lawfull for the people to deny them or resist the Kings authority when they suppose and judge them to be demanded for other wicked ends as appeares by those addresses which Samuel told the people they should make unto the Lord for redresse of Sauls Tyranny by prayers and teares 1 Sam. 8.18 For neither Samuel nor the people in those dayes dreamed of these means of resistance and dethronement of Kings which the Devill hath since suggested unto his disciples For surely had those ancient Statists understood these new redresses of Tyranny to be just and lawfull they would never have enslaved and subjected themselves unto such pressures as are recorded in that Text. Repl. Naboth did justly deny his vineyard unto Ahab 1 King 21.3 and therefore the peoples disobedience to the Kings unjust demands of any part of their estate is not unlawfull but commendable Sol. That deniall of Naboth's was grounded upon a particular law of Gods concerning Inheritances in Israel as Naboth there declareth God forbid saith Naboth that I should give the Inheritance of my fathers unto thee For God had prohibited by his Law that any man should alienate the hereditary possessions of his family which by his appoitntment were to be reserved entire to continue the distinction of the families in Israel Numb 36. And againe Ahab did not command that vineyard from Naboth as a King but as a private purchaser intreated Naboth to exchange or sell it to him for a private conveniency and not for any publike use in which case Naboth might justly deny it For though a King be alwayes a King yet he doth not alwayes act as a King in his Politicke capacity but sometimes as a private person in his naturall capacity as in the scholasticall discussion of any point in question or in any contentious recreations as in Wrastling or Tennis and the like in which cases it is not unlawfull to oppose the King both in words and actions And of this nature also are such private bargaines for private uses and conveniencies as Ahab desired to make with Naboth and as David did make with Araunah for his threshing-floore which he would not take by his power but bought with his monie 2 Sam. 24. because it was to pacifie God for his owne private offence and not for the peoples Ver. 17. For though the people were punished it was David alone that offended Delirant Reges plectuntur Achivi But in whatsoever the King acts in his Politicke capacity as a King he may not be resisted or opposed either in words or actions or denied any service either from our estates or persons because in that capacity he is a God over us and may claime the same obedience from us which is due to God himselfe in all Politicall matters whereunto his Commission doth extend as the eleventh Chapter of this Booke shall more fully manifest So that if Ahab had demanded this vineyard of Naboth for any publicke use concerning the Kings honour and the peoples safety Naboth's pretence of Inheritance could not have warranted and justified his deniall thereof to Ahab For inheritances might be sold in Israel till the year of Jubilee in case of private necessity as appeares Lev. 25.25 and therefore much more might be commanded by the King in case of publike necessity For a publicke necessity must needs be a stronger super sede as for any Law then a private can be As also the description of Sauls Government by Samuel doth further evidence 1 Sam. 8.10 for what that Tyrant did to satisfie his lusts a good King may do to preserve the publike And it is not improbable that the pretence of such a deniall was the blasphemy whereof Jezabell caused Naboth to be falsly accused for the Text doth not say that it was blasphemy immediately against God but against God and the King which argueth that those witnesses accused Naboth of some disloyall speeches not consistent with the duty of a Subject which for ought appeares in the Text might relate to Naboth's deniall of that vineyard which the false witnesses might pretend to have beene demanded for such uses and in such a manner as that the deniall thereof might render Naboth guilty of a capitall dishonour and disobedience to the King And thus much briefly of the nature and spece's of Fundadamentall Honour the other spece of Honour opposite to this is Symbolicall whereof in a word 2. Symbolicall Honour is the signall exhibition
100.2 And the reason why the Holy Ghost prohibited the exhibition of any honour or reverence unto Idols is because they cannot give any being unto man nor frame any man in the womb Esay 44.24 so that the primarie and originall ground of Politick Government is the power to communicate a being and existence which power God delegated unto man immediately upon his first creation by that propagatorie benediction Crescite multiplicamini Gen. 1.28 From which fountaine did flow the other secondarie and immediate ground of Politick Government 2. The Secondarie ground is the graduall and distinctive Herauldry of Sub Supra above mentioned supereminencing one man above another For as God did ordaine parents to be his instruments in the communication of a being unto their children so did he likewise ordaine that children should be so farre forth subject and inferiour unto their parents from whom they doe derive their being as they doe depend upon their parents for the same For whereas God himselfe by way of creation did communicate unto Adam the entire being both of soule and body in both which respects Adam is stiled the sonne of God Luke 3. last so did he thereupon ordaine that Adam should be subject and obedient unto himselfe in all the actions and motions both of soule and body and whereas God did ordaine Adam and all his descendents to be Gods instruments by virtue of that propagatorie benediction in the communication of the corporeall part of being unto their children so did God likewise ordain the subjection and obedience of children unto their parents to be extended unto all the extrinsecall actions and motions of the body God reserving still the power and command over the intrinsecall acts of the soule of every man entire to himselfe because every soule doth still derive its being immediately from God and not from our parents Whence it is manifest in the second place that those Native Fundamentals and Essentials which are the proper and adaequate Object of Politicall Cognizance are only the Externall duties of the Morall law consisting in the right use of the Externall blessings of nature viz. bona corporis fortunae which are the onely blessings hereditarily descendable and communicable unto children from their parents For seeing all Politick Government is grounded upon paternall as a Policy is upon an Oeconomie which are not essentially but only circumstantially different both of them regulating the same duties and actions onely whereas an Oeconomy doth regulate the actions of one family a Policy doth regulate the actions of many families And seeing all paternall Government is grounded upon this Herauldry of Sub Supra established betweene Parents and Children by the fifth Commandement and this graduall and distinctive Herauldry upon the power to communicate a being and existence delegated unto parents by Gods propagatory benediction Gen. 1 28. which benediction reacheth onely the corporall and not the spirituall part of man It doth necessarily follow that no Politicall or Monarchicall power can be directly extended to any other matters but onely the corporeall and externall duties of the Morall Law Ob. If the communication of a being and existence were the ground of this Herauldry of Sub Supra then all children should be subject and inferiour unto their parents but Asa King of Judah was not subject to his grandmother Maacha but did depose her and yet was not reproved but commended for that act 2 Chron. 15.16 And so was Joash for the deposition of Athaliah his fathers mother 2 Chron. 23. and therefore the communication of a being cannot be the primarie ground either of that subordination or of the institution of Government Sol. All men as men and in their naturall capacity are inferiour and ought to be subject unto their parents but men as Kings and in their Politick capacity cannot be children unto any man nor have any father but God and therefore are stiled by the Holy Ghost the children of God Psal 82.6 I have said Ye are children of the most high and therefore in this sense they cannot be inferiour or subject unto any but God alone and so by consequence must be above their owne naturall parents in Rule Dominion and Power and in case of justice must not respect that naturall relation no more then Asa did respect it in his grandmother Maacha who in this Politick relation was not a Parent or Judge but a subject and child to her owne naturall grandchild and so was Athaliah to Joash And the Virgin Mary to her sonne Christ Jesus who rebuked his own mother when she presumed to command in matters above her sphere for a miraculous supply of the defect of wine Iohn 2 Woman what have I to do with thee He doth not here give her the stile of Mother but of Woman as if she had no relation of a parent and governour to him because that command or desire which she transmitted to him could not be performed by him as he was a man and her naturall sonne but onely as he was a God and so a spirituall father to his owne naturall mother And thus much briefly of the Native Fundamentals and Essentials of Politick Government the next point to be spoken of is the Preternative 2. The Preternative Fundamentals and Essentials of Politick Government are those matters which fell directly within the sphere of Politicall Cognizance upon the restitution of that Government when that blessing amongst others which are the ground and object thereof was renewed unto man by the mercy of God in Christ after Adams sinfull prevarication had devested both himselfe and his posterity of all those blessings wherewith God had inriched his created nature which blessings of nature were not renewed unto man in their native integrity and perfection but onely in such a measure as the wisdome of God saw most expedient to immind man of his owne infirmity and selfe-insufficiency whereby to occasion the application of himselfe to seeke for happinesse in the mercy of God in Christ and not in any naturall perfections worth or excellency of his owne For which purpose God was pleased to leave the understanding of man in statis suo restituto so much obnubilated that his naturall knowledge is not sufficient for direction of such naturall duties as are requisite to peace and unity the meanes to preserve humane society which is one of the ends of Politick Government which defect therefore in naturall knowledge God ordained to be supplied by the exercise of the Kings Legislative power in the composure of Lawes and Statutes for mans direction both in Ecclesiasticall and Civill affaires And for the same purpose did likewise leave the will of man so much depraved that his naturall inclination is not sufficient to excite him to the performance of such naturall duties as are requisite unto the preservation peace and unity of humane societies though hee did know and understand them but rather unto those opposite sins and transgressions which tend to the dissolution
the words of Solomon are to be understood onely of Kings in reference to the exercise of their power upon us which whether it be for good or hurt is still from God whose Deputies all Kings are and whose heart the Lord ruleth either for our benefit or prejudice Prov. 21.4 And therefore we may not thinke them evill or unjust to us for the Judgement is not theirs but Gods Prov. 26.29 who cannot be unjust And if we looke in Esay 3. you shall finde that God owneth all the grievous oppressions and violences which Tyrants exercise upon their Subjects for judgements and punishments sent upon that people or nation by his owne selfe and to demonstrate that all Kings act by his immediate direction he hath made the decrees and ordinances of Heathen Kings subservient to his glory and his peoples good not onely on accidenti by his providence but ex proposito in their owne purposes as is apparent in the decrees of Cyrus and Darius to build the Temple of God whom they knew not and of Nebuchadnezzar to honour his name all which three were meere Heathens The fourth and last Reason why this fift Commandement cannot be a Precept of the second Table is because it doth not enjoyne such a retaliation of love as every Commandement of the second Table doth for every Commandement of the second Table doth enjoyne our neighbour to returne the like respects and measure of love to us as we doe give to him but this fift Commandement doth not enjoyne our parents to honour and reverence us as we are bound thereby to honour and reverence them therefore it cannot be a Commandement of the second Table And if you doe observe it you shall finde this rule of Retaliation to be a perfect note of difference betweene the duties of the first and of the second Table for no duty of the first Table doth oblige God to returne the same respects to us which we are obliged to exhibite to him for wee are bound to worship him and love him above all and to expresse this love in every faculty both of soule and body but God is not obliged to worship us nor to love us after such a manner but our neighbour is obliged to returne the same measure of love to us which wee are bound to exhibite unto him either in his body goods or good name I confesse indeed that parents are engaged to performe duties to their children as well as children are to parents but those are onely such paternall duties of protection and provision as God himselfe is also obliged to performe unto his dutifull children by his Covenant for conferring blessings upon them when they truely honour him Deut. 28. and 29. for performance of the externall part of which Covenant God doth substitute Kings and parents as his instruments to convey these blessings unto Subjects and children but these duties are not so much as intimated in the fift Commandement but are enjoyned onely in that generall Covenant betweene God and his people who therefore doth make Kings and parents indulgent to subjects and children whereby to expresse his care for performance upon his part when Subjects and children are obedient unto God and his Deputies and thereby carefull to performe upon their part The Reasons concluding the Affirmative part that this fift Commandement is a Precept of the first Table are eight The first is grounded upon our Saviours answer to the young man Mat. 19.18 Marke 10.17 Luke 18.20 In all which places this Precept Honour thy father and thy mother is intended by Christ to enjoyne all the duties of the first Table of the Morall Law for God you know is often in Scripture stiled Father as in Mat. 6. wee finde him stiled Father twelve times but we never finde him stiled Neighbour in all the Scripture for to love God but in the same manner which wee are bound to love our neighbour that is like our selves were selfe Idolatry And besides our duty to God is oftentimes enjoyned in this very expression of Honour as 1 Sam. 2.30 where this word Honour importeth the whole duty of man towards God in which sense this word Honour is also used by our Saviour John 8.49 And therefore it is manifest seeing God is capable of the title of Father and that this expression of Honour may be properly extended to all the duties due unto God which are the duties of the first Table that this Precept of Honour thy father and mother may comprehend all the duties of the first Table and that it doth so in this place I doe prove thus Christ in his answer must needs mention all those duties which are necessary to salvation for else his rule were not perfect but the duties of the first Table are equally if not more necessary to life then the duties of the second Table and cannot be included in any other Precept which Christ reciteth in those Texts therefore all the duties of the first Table must necessarily be comprehended in this Precept Honour thy father and mother upon which premised grounds it doth necessarily follow that this fift Commandement is a Precept of the first Table For That Precept which comprehendeth all the duties of the first Table must needs be a Precept of the first Table but this very Precept comprehendeth all the duties of the first Table as the premises demonstrate ergo The second Reason is grounded upon the nature of God which is being and existence for in Exod. 3. he defineth himself by this expression I am and upon this ground both David Psal 1â—0 Isaiah Chap. 44. and Saint Paul Acts 17. proves the Lord alone to be God because no creature no not the Angels themselves are able to give a life or motion or being unto man but onely God whose essence life and being is and therefore communicable onely from him so that whatsoever hath a power to communicate a being doth supply the place of God but parents have a power to communicate a being unto their children ergo they relate unto their children as Gods and not as men and by consequence the duties performed by children unto parents must be duties of the first Table and so likewise the Precept which enjoynes them must be a Precept of the same Table The third Reason as likewise all the five following alledged by Saint Paul Rom. 13. for motives to perswade submission to higher Powers every one of which Reasons doe demonstrate Kings and Magistrates who are Politick parents to have the relation of Gods unto the people is taken from the Author of the Kings power and that is God Ver. 1. For there is no power but of God Though the men invested with that power be as unjust and wicked as Pilate whose power Christ himselfe acknowledged to flow from that sacred fountaine John 19.11 upon which ground the King in the exercise of his power is alwayes stiled the Minister of God Ver. 4. yea and oftentimes also a very God as Psal