will gain little by this parallel 2. Whereas he saith the Common-wealth is alwayes in pupillage It is but an allusive or comparative speech and is therefore unapt to be argumentative A similitude must not be made run of all four It can only import somethings appertaining to a Pupill may be in way of resemblance attributed to the Common-wealth But it were easie to shew divers things wherein there is also a dissimilitude * Idem lib. 12. cap. 2. Sect. 2. lib. 13. cap. 10. Sect. 1. A Pupil cannot choose his Tutor cannot call him to an account during his pupillage But it s generally confest the Common-wealth may elect its Governours And it 's a publiquely declared principle I assert it not the Supreme Power is accountable to the people And himself breaks the correspondency most of all in saying the Common-wealth pupillage is everlasting whereas the Pupill comes to puberty and out of his pupillage at 14 years old Subsection 6. CHAP. V. SECT IV. Subsect 6. A Solution of some Objections made against the passing of Gods Ordination unto the person of the Supreme Magistrate by the consent of the people HAving examined those other wayes of conveying over unto persons the title unto Magistracy and refuted them It now remains that we take notice of some allegations against the peoples consent being the ordinary medium of Gods ordination of a person unto the soveraign power which some seeing they think them fit to be urged will judge worthy either to be assented to or answered 1. Object The Anarchy c. above cited pag. 8. If no man have power to take away his own life without the guilt of being a murderer of himself how can the people confer such a power as they have not themselves upon any one man without being accessories to their own deaths Answ This Reason seems to ground it self upon that common Axiome Nihil dat quod non habet whence it argues the people cannot give the power of capital punishment over them unto any person because they have it not cannot inflict it each upon himself But it is misgrounded 1. Here is ignoratio clenchi For as we yeeld it true that the people have not a civill authority every one over his own life so we do not say but here deny that they can confer it upon another The concession of a power in the people to nominate or elect their Soveraign doth not infer so much viz. that they in so doing give or confer upon him the Magistratical power They may be subordinate agents and their vote or consent may be the medium or instrument used by God to convey that power to the person but they cannot therefore be said to be the Creators efficients authors or donors of that power for that is the properwork or prerogative of God When the young Prophet came to Jehu and poured the oyle upon his head and said unto him Thus saith the Lord God of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people can we say that Prophet made Jehu King That young man was not the author but the messenger only of that business It is very clear in the conveyance of this and of other powers one may be the vehiculum the hander over of that power to another which he is not the possessor of himself A single woman hath not in her the marital power over her self yet by her consent in marriage she conveyes it to her husband The people of a Christian congregation or Church have not each the power of a Pastor or Minister to Preach administer a Sacrament or the Keyes of Discipline to himself yet by their election they may be instrumentall to convey the same to another When the King in whom the power of life and death is gives commission to a Judge to have and execute it subordinately from and for him and sends his order to the Keeper of his seal required by the Law to make such a Commission authentick to passe and seal the said Commission we cannot say the Keeper gives the Judge the said Commission but it is the King â—hat conferres it by this Officers hand That which the peoples consent doth when they agree that this person shall be their Supreme Governour is to determine the general rule that every Common-wealth shall have a Magistracy with power of capital punishment to the particular person in relation to that people but it makes them not to be conferrers efficients or primary causes of that Magistracy When a power or priviledge is by divine institution annexed to the act of the creature it is not the creatures act properly or efficiently but God by his institution that communicates that power or priviledge 2. This Objection in its proper tendency doth not more argue against he peoples capaciâ—y to câ—nfer the power over life upon any person which is a thing we affirme not then it doth against the peoples giving their consent that such a one shall have the said power over them For upon the same medium it may be argued if no man have power to take away his own life without the guilt of being a self-murderer how can any people consent to such a power in another without being accessories to their own deaths But that the people may very lawfully give their consent to such a power in another I hope the Objector will not deny If he should I would say the people of Israel did lawfully give their consent to such a power in Saul David Solomon and others yea it is the part of every people to consent to the Rulers to have it unless we must say that all Subjects are to be under their Governors against their wils 3. But how then must we avoid the Reason If I may not take away or destroy mine own life I may not agree that another shall have the power to do it I answer This is a very false assertion that power which one hath not and may not himself exercise he may not consent to in another If by power be meant as it must needs be in the Objection a power that is in its own nature lawful Indeed that which is simply or in it self unlawful as for instance Murder because it is so unlawful as I may not do it my self so I may not consent to anothers doing of it But that which is lawful in it self but unlawful to me as many things are because though good in it self yet I am not thereto called or authorized of that I cannot say because I cannot do it my self I may not consent to it in another The Apostle Paul did give his consent to the taking away of his own life conditionally if he deserved death and the objection imports no other consent when he was in question about it before his Judge * Act. 25.11 If I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to die 4. From this antecedent no man hath power to take away his own
interpreted first of Zerubbabel in whom the soveraign dignity was restored at the return from the captivity and then of Christ * So Calvin Diodate and the Divines Annotat. So may this parallel prophecy be understood But whether we apply it to Zerubbabel or to Christ this must needs be granted that after Zedekiah's removall and the Lands captivity was consummate by Nebuchadnezzar a right there was extant and remaining somewhere or in some person to the Crown and Kingdome of Judah though for the present suspended from actuall exercise both by the hand of Gods providence in the full conquest of Nebuchadnezzar and by his extraordinary direction and dispensation by word of mouth sent by his Prophet Jeremiah as we find Jer. 27.12 16.21.8 9. and that right did not descend upon Christ till he was born nor then per saltum or immediately from Zedekiah or Jehoiakim to him but by the interposal of those peâ—sons in whom the race and line of blood or inheritance was continued down to Christ Subsection 9. CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 9. Argument 9. Taken from the nature of Magistracy 9 REason is to be drawn from the nature of Magistracy It cannot agree thereunto to say that actuall possession or rule gives being to the power or is an inseparable adjunct or convertible attribute thereof Magistracy is a râ—lation of office Every relation is founded upon something that is absolute What should be the foundation of the relatâ—on of Magistrate and Subject but the act of constitution of such a person or persons in authority or to be and stand in the office of Magistracy to such a people from this transaction as from its foundation results this estate or relation and then from this estate or relation result the mutual duties and acts of Magistrate and Subject his actual superiority and their subjection his rule and their obedience Well then actuall superiority and rule being acts proper to and resulting out of Magistracy they must needs presuppose it to be first in being ere they can be educed First I say not onely in order of nature but of time for the civill transactions whereby Magistracy is produced and the politcall acts which proceed from it are not immanent or instanâ—aneous such as are those whereby the forms of natural beings do produce their facultieâ— or properties but transient and succedaneous and such as require some â—lâ—xâ— of time to be put forth in It must needs be then an incongruous assertion to affi me that the acts which flâ—w from Magistracy in timâ— dâ— gâ—ve being to or are convertible adjuncts of it A man is first a man and then he reasons A man is first an Artificer and then he works in his Art So a man is first a power and then he rules possession of the Throne or Territory and Regency or coercion of the people by the sword are after and latter in time then the Creation or Investure of the power Magistracy is the antecedent the cause the principle the first act and actual dominion or coercion is the consequent the effect the effluxe or the second act thereof Men first are Kings and then they reign they rule because they are the higher powers and they are not the higher powers because they rule As on the other hand the state of inferiority in a politicall body is the cause and principle of the Subjects acts of obedience Men are first in the relation of Subjects and then they act or yield obedience This precept of the Apostle Let every soule be subject to the higher powers though delivered in â—â—arms illimitedly universall is onely intended and given to them that are in the state of Subjects and because they are in that estate therefore it takes hold on them they that are either supream Magistrates or within no Common-wealth are not obliged by it And as every person is not involved so every act of submission which may be done to any kind of power in the civill State is not that which is comprized in this precept or contained within the matter of it It is possible a man may submit out of a principle of humility or policy or be forcibly prostrated where he oweth no obedience but it is a submission ex debito and that stricti juris or proper to the conscience of him that is in the state of a Subject that is hereby required Let Solomon be our instance to illustrate this Having been before designed and chosen to be his Father Successor in the Kingdome of Israel he is thereupon first anointed and proclaimed King by Zadok Nathan and Benaiah and then after this it is said He sate on the throne of the King in stead of David his father and prospered and all Israel obeyed him and all the Princes and the mighty men CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 5. and all the sons likewise of K. David submitted themselves unto lomon the King Here Solomons constitution precedes his actuall possession and rule and the Subjects submission and obedience both in order of nature and of time as the ground and reason thereof And the same is exemplified in Joshua When Moses was to dye he spake unto the Lord saying Let the Lord the God of the spirits of all flesh set a man â—ver the congregation which may goe out bâ—fore them and which may lead them out and which may bring them in Here in this petition there is first desired the setting of one over the Congregation which is the calling admitting of him to the Soveraign power and then follows his leading them out and bringing them in his exercise of rule And according to the order of this Petition is the method of the Lords concession and direction upon it The Lord in the next words commands Moses to take Joshua and lay his hand upon him and set him bâ—fore Eleazar the Priest and before all the congrâ—gation and give him a charge in their sight and puts some of his honour upon him and then it follows That all the Congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient There may be a violent brutish subduednessâ— but there can be no rational moral submission and obedience as of Liege-people to their Liege-Lord in any other course And as to this the case is altogether the same and there is no dâ—fference whether the Magistrate come in by extraordinary assignation from God as Joshua and Solomon did or by the ordinâ—ry means Those commands and rules that are given in Scripture for the doing of publique distribâ—tive jâ—stice as that Defend the poor and fatherlesse do jâ—stice to the afflâ—cted and needy and deliver the poor and needy rid them out of the hand of the wicked Psalâ— 82.3 4. and many others * See Levit. 19.15 Deut. 1.16 17.16.19 1 Sam. 23.3 2 Chr. 19.6 c. I would aske â—o whom they are given who do they concern are they spoken to all without exception or onely to them that are Magistrates and Governours I suppose
do iniquity he tempteth not any man but in as much as he leaveth men to themselves and to Satan he layeth no impediments upon their power or active restraint upon their wils yea he so ordereth outward occurrences as that they meet with fit occasion and suiteable inducements to those evils which his carriage to men he predetermineth before to use for holy ends and most righteously and foreseeth infallibly what men will thereupon do hence therefore their running into those sins is in a large and lesse proper sense said to be of God 2. Secondly things are said to be of God providentially or of his hand worke and doing more directly or in a more proper and positive acception that is so as he is the author or efficient cause of them or so as they are not meerly from his working providence as the hint or occasion only but from him as the worker or agent producing them or putting them in rerum naturâ Thus all positive beings are of God Rom. 11.36 1 Cor. 8.6 Heb. 2.10 that is the existence of all individuals or singulars with all their motions effluxes or actions Act. 17.28 whether the agents be irrational Mat. 10.29 or moral rational and free Isa 28.29 Prov. 16.1 9. 20.24 21.1 and all the conditions and events all the evil and all the good that befals any creature Psal 75.7 8. 2 King 6.33 Ia. 1.17 and these whether they be from second causes advisedly and intendedly or they be meerly casual and contingent in respect of them Prov. 16.33 1 King 22 34. 2 Chron. 22.7 Gen. 50.20 And things are this way of God viz. of his direct and positive proceeding two wayes 1. By his ordinary providence or as he worketh in and by natural causes and in a natural course as in the aforegiven instances 2. In a way of supernatural efficiency or working of Grace So persons are of him in their estate of Grace 1 Joh. 5.19 3 Joh. 11. and so the gracious effects that are in persons are of him 2 Cor. 5.18 2.17 1 Chron. 29.14 the former way the Schools call his general the latter his special concourse Secondly of God signifies of Gods mouth word or declaring a thing is said to be of God that proceedeth out of his mouth or is spoken or uttered by him Now we must note the things that proceed out of the mouth of God are more principally of two sorts in as much as the mouth or word of God is a declaration of his will and the will of God is distinguisht by a twofold acceptation 1. The first is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will of Decree or that will which himself purposeth to execute or have to be 2. The second is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or his Legislative or preceptive will which delivereth the rule or law which man is to do or walk by Hence it is that the declarations of the mouth of God are sutably twofold and of two sorts of things 1. Narrative or manifesting 2. Imperative or regulating Under the first sort are comprised all the discoveries of Gods own wayes and works or of what God himself hath done doth or will do all the revelations or prophesies of Gods proceedings past present and to come all Divine histories promises threatnings or other predictions That saith the Prophet which I have heard of the Lord of hosts the God of Israel have I declared unto you Isa 21.10 Under the latter head the declarations of his Imperative or regulating will are contained all his Commandements or concessions unto men whatsoever God injoynes or allowes man to do or not to do all divine warrants commissions precepts or permissions touching humane actions and affairs According to this last acception that is of God that is authorized by him unto men that is not of God which he disapproveth prohibiteth or warranteth not unto men Let us in reference to the latter the being of a thing of Gods mouth by way of declaring his approving or authorizing will observe for explications sake some instances of both sorts viz. both Positive and Negative out of Scripture 1. According to this sense both persons and things are affirmed to be of God 1. Persons are owned thus to be of God that is to be authorized and approved of him to be in their respective states and places Rabbi we know that thou art a teacher come from God saith Nicodemus unto Jesus Joh. 3.2 and Christ saith He that is of God he hath seen the Father Joh. 6.46 If this man were not of God he could do nothing saith the blind man of Christ Joh. 9.33 And the Apostle John often hath this phrase Try the spirits whether they are of God every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God Ye are of God little children we are of God 1 Joh. 4.1 2 4 6. 5.19 2. As persons so wayes doctrines and practises are in this acceptation said to be of God If any man saith our Saviour will do his will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of my self Joh. 7.17 If this counsel or this work be of God ye cannot overthrow it quoth the Doctor in the councel at Jerusalem Act. 5.38 39. And David said of his enterprise of bringing up the Ark of God to his Câ—ty If it seem good unto you and that it be of the Lord our God Let us send c. 1 Chron. 13.2 A parallel phrase to this of being of God is that of being from Heaven in distinction from that which is of men As in that question of our Saviour to the chief Priests Mat. 21.25 The baptism of John whence was it from heaven or of men 2. Negatively in this sense many both persons and things are denyed to be of God 1. Persons are said not to be of God Whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God He that is not of God heareth not us 1 Joh. 3.10 4.3 6. This man is not of God because he keepeth not the Sabbath Joh. 9.16 2. Wayes are denyed to be of God All that is in the world the lust of the flesh c. is not of the Father but is of the world 1 Joh. 2.16 I have thus endevoured to gather together and lay down distinctly the several wayes wherein persons and things may be said to be of God and so the various senses of this phrase of God The sum is of God is first either of his hand and providence and so a thing may be of God 1. Either occasionally 2. or casually And this latter way things are of God either 1. By his general or 2. By his special concourse Or secondly of his mouth and word and so a thing may be of God 1. Either Narratively 2. or Legislatively and by way of authorization approbation or warrant to men And this last way
Subsection 2. Certain Propositions to explain those several wayes wherein things are said to be of God BUt the question will be concerning the being of a thing of Gods hand by way of efficiency and the being of a thing of Gods mouth by way of warrant rule or precept whether both of these or but one of them and if but one then which of them is it which is intended by this clause of God Before I come to determine this question as it lies betwixt these two in particular it may be somewhat conducible to compare them together and to explain them a little more and the reduceableness of things to both or each of them For the which observe 1. Sometimes a thing is both these wayes of God viz. both of his mouth authorizing and of his hand working it That which his mouth enjoynes his hand sometimes effects 2 Chron. 30.12 In Judah the hand of God was to give them one heart to do the commandement of the King and the Princes by the word of the Lord. The like see 1 Chron. 29.14 Phil. 2.13 2 Cor. 5 5 18. 2. Sometimes a thing is of Gods mouth commanding but not of his hand working God shews injoynes to men their duty mâ—ny times when as it is not performed in them see Jer. 7.23 24. 3. A thing is sometimes of Gods hand but not of his mouth Many things come to passe by divine providence or working which though himself effect and that by mans agency yet he allowes not of that agency of man in them Take for instances Gods sending of Joseph into Egypt by his Brethrens selling of him Gen. 45.5 7 8. 50.20 the expulsion of David out of his Kingdom and the ravishment of his Wives by Absolom 2 Sam. 12.11 12. The destruction and captivity of Judah by Nebuchadnâ—zar Isa 10.5 6 15. Jer. 51.7 25.9 compared with Chap. 47.6 Jer. 50.17 18. 51.24 34 35 36. The sufferings of Christ by the Jews Act. 2.13 4.28 with many other things as 1 King 11.14 23. 1 Sam. 26.19 Judg. 2.14 15. Hab. 1.6 13. 4. Some things are neither of Gods mouth approving nor of his hand acting So are the sins of men in their formal precise or abstract consideration Jam. 1.13 Gal. 5.8 1 Joh. 2.15 Subsection 3. CHAP. II. SECT II. Subsect 3. Of Gods working in humane actions whether good or evill and the difference betwixt the being of the one of God and of the other FOr the better understanding of these four particulaâ—s especially the two last of them upon which there may lie some obscurity let these Propositions be thereto added 1. All beings or things whatsoever hath subsistence or existence all events effects and productions as to their matter or positive entity are of Gods hand and working Rom. 11.36 1 Cor. 8.6 Ephes 1.11 2. Of those things that are of Gods hand of working 1. Some are of him as the sole efficient of them So are those things which receive their being by creation regeneration or other such like supernatural or miraculous production 2. Others are so of God as to be also the work and effect of second agents So are all those things which come to passe here below and in the order of nature or the ordinary course of providence 3. In the causing of the latter sort of effects viz. those wh ch are both of God and the creature these two are not coordinate agents or set collaterally or in parity or equality of order for that would import that both were first and but partial sociall causes and as well the one as the other to be independent or to have their causality in and from themselves alone But the one is subordinate to the other that is God is the supreme and first the creature is the inferior and second cause and is dependent on and receive its physical efficiency or attingency of the effect from God and that not partially or by way of addition or supply but wholly Act. 17.25 28. Isa 54.16 Ezek. 30.24 32.3.11 12. and this holdeth in all acts of the creature whether holy or sinful good or evill as to the natural being of the action That which the Apostle saith of his gracious workings Not I but the grace of God which was with me 1 Cor. 15.10 the same Joseph saith of his brethrens sinful deed It was not you that sent me hither but God Gen. 45.8 The creature acteth yet not it but the power of God with it The creature hath truly and really in it an active principle and that principle truly and really exerteth or putteth forth acts but it hath both the principle and the activenesse put into it of God His influence not only toucheth the effect but the second cause and moveth it * Contrary to this some of the Schoolmen Molina de lib. Arbitrio qu. 14. Disp 26. pa. 111. Disp 32. pag. 133 He worketh not only with but by it and that though in some sense mediately in regard of his elevation and use of the second cause yet immediately also in regard of his nearest attingency and that both by immediety of person and of virtue 4. It behoves us to consider the subordinacy of the second to the fiâ—st cause of the creature to God somewhat more distinctly Observe therefore it is twofold 1. Physicall 2. Morall The former simply and absolutely concernes the being of every reall effect and the virtue or power by which it is produced by any second cause The latter respecteth the manner of the procedure of an effâ—ct fâ—om a rational agent and the relation and correspondency it bears to the revealed and preceptive will of God given unto him All creatures in all their actions are physically subordinate to God but reasonable creatures moreover are and particularly man is morally subordinate to him viz. as he receives all his activity from him so he is to act by his Commission and in a conformity to his direction or command given forth by word the ground and reason of the former subordination is his being a creature for as such he totally depends on God for his being and operation the latter is from his being a creature endued with reason and will and therefore working with deliberation and free volition thence his person and actions are qualifiable with a moral goodness and evilness and are capable of being regulated by a law and prosecuted with rewards and punishments Man therefore in respect of his moral actions stands in this twofold subordination unto God physical and moral 5. There are divers differences twixt these two subordinations of man unto God some of which it is to our present purpose to consider They are different 1. In the formall respect or term to which they refer the physical subordination respecteth Gods will of purpose and hand of providence the moral respecteth Gods revealed will or word of precept 2. In point of necessity the physical subordination is certain and immutable so necessary as
wit a conquered people captived or possessed at pleasure they owe no duty neither do they sin in not obeying nor do they resist Gods Ordinance if at any time of advantage they use force to free themselves from such a violent possession Mr. Bridge Mr. Bridge against Dr. Fern sect 4. pag. 42. his Answer to Doctor Ferne. Which opinion of the Doctors of the right of conquest for my owne part I must abhor from what danger will it not expose our Dread Soveraign unto Did not Athaliah remain as a Conqueresse six yeares and who knows not that she was lawfully thrust from the Throne againe by a stronger hand then her owne meer conquest being nothing else but an unjust usurpation and if the Conquerour rule the whole Kingdome and keep them under by conquest onely why may not the Subject rise and take up arms to deliver themselves from that slavery Thus doth the Doctor open the doore to greater resistance then those that he disputes against Roger Widdrington Widdrington Theol. Disput in Admon to his Reader sect 6. in his defence of the supremacy of Princes against the Popes claim of a superiority in temporalls over them thus argueth against Schulkenius who will needs maintain Athaliah to have been a lawfull Queen notwithstanding Joas his survivall and claim to the Crown Tell me O Schulkenius may not every faithfull Subject lawfully and ought he not in the like case that is not by his own private authority but by the publique authority of the true King and who is certainly known to be true King the Common-wealth also consenting thereunto kill an Vsurper who is not onely reputed but also certainly known to be such a one and who plotteth Treason against the true King Lastly I observe to this purpose that the Author or Authors of Ladensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Catalogue of Canterburian maximes of tyranny do charge this position unto that Party as one tyrannical maxime That all this to wit absolute subjection must be used not onely to our Native King but to any forein usurper who can get footing among us and it were the Kings of Spain As also that the title unto this Kingdome by conquest attributed by Doctor Ferne unto our late Kings See vindic of a Treat of Mon. chap. 3. sect 6. is disavowed by the Authors defending the Parliaments cause against him as unreasonable and null and that which exposeth Princes to the offensive Armes of the Subject 2 They that state and determine the question what is a just ground or cause of War lay downe the quarrell de rebus repetendis or for the recovery of what is injuriously invaded or occupyed as one good justifiable and necessary occasion of the taking up of armes by a Prince or people for this see Augustine Quaest super Josue lib. 6. cap. 10. in Tom. 4. part 2. operum P. Martyr loc com clas 4. cap. 16. sect 2. pag. 935. Bucani Theolog. loc 49. quaest 46. pag. 873. Grotium de jure Bel. lib. 2. cap. 1. sect 2 But if title followed possession and all they were the true Proprietors or Lords or the powers ordained of God that have the occupation or actuall command of persons and places it could not be so there could be no war just for recovery to dispossess men of what they hold or to out them of what they are without present or actuall superiority of any over them in it seised on could be no lawfull enterprize or warrantable cause of War 3 Neither is it onely the common Tenent of sound and learned Writers that the injurious invader and possessor may be resisted unto deposition and that recuperative arms are just and lawfull but we have many instances of the practice hereof in Scripture not onely of undoubted warrantablenesse to the persons so acting in the story but of a cleer exemplarinesse and imitablenesse to others as having no other ground or rise laid for them in the Text but that which is of a common morall extention The mention of these may serve Upon the warlike conquest captivity and spoile of Sodome Geneses 14. and Gomorrah by the King of Elam and his partakers and their departure and carrying away of what they had there gotten Abraham together with his confederates Aner Eshcol and Mamre make out with their Forces in pursuit of their Conquerors and coming upon they smite and chase them and rescue the people and goods of Sodome and Gomorrah which they had so taken conveyed away and held in custody The people of Israel during the government of the Judges did many times under their conduct rise up in armes to cast off and deliver themselves and their Countrey from the power of several neighbouring Princes and Nations who had one after another invaded and for some time held them under their Dominion * Of whom in general see Jud. 2.16 17. in particular through the rest of that book Neither as far as my observation goes can any immediate or extraordinary command or word for what they so did be pretended to or pleaded from the Text for many of them or for any save Barak and Gideon The same did they in the times and under the commands of Eli Samuel Saul David and many of their following Kings from to time untill the Babylonish captivity And in particular did Hezekiah against the King of Assyria The Text saith he rebelled against the King of Assyria and served him not †See 2 Kings 18.7 As also did some of the Kings of Judah in resistance of the Kings of Israel as Abijah and Asa * 2 Kings ch 11.2 Chr. ch 23 the latter of which was reproved by God for the meanes he used the Syrian Auxiliaries but not for his standing up against Baasha Yea the same did David and Jehoiadah the Priest with some of Judah combining with them the one against Absalom the other against Athaliah the wrongfull possessors of the Crown and Kingdome of Israel CHAP. VIII SECT V. and of Judah And thus also did the Jewes under the Asmâ—nean government against many of the Seleucian Kings * See the Books of the Maccabees SECT V. The opposition and distance which the Text puts betwixt him that is the power and him that is the resister of the power 5 ANother thing to be observed in the words neighbouring and coherent to the Text is the difference and contra-distinction which this Scripture makes betwixt him that is the power that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained of God and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the resister of the power which is such as he that is the one cannot at the same time and in respect of the same place be the other The Apostle puts them at so wide a distance and direct opposition one to another that it is not possible that they should meet in one person In relation to one and the same seate or station of Magistracy he that is the power
let us see how he avoids the Maccabean title First he objâ—cts That the Maccabees came in by force into the Kingdome when there was another King a successor of Alexander He saith but proves it not I answer him 1 It is no concluding argument of the unlawfulnesse of any power that they come in by force The question is whether that force be just or unjust whether it be a meer force or a force bâ—cked with a just title at its entrance or if it had noâ— a question will be further whether it had none subsequently conferred by which meanes though the force were unjust in its entry yet it might be absolved in its continuance from usurpative tenure But the justifiablenesse of the Maccabean armes against the Syrian Kings is commonly yeelded and assâ—rted although there may be some diversity in the way of making it out of which the Reader may see in Grotius * Grot. de jure Bâ—l lib 1. cap. 4. sect 7. For them there are rendred these reasons 1 The allowednesse of the Subjects defensive arms against their lawful Soveraign in case of exâ—ream necessity as was that of the Jewes under Antiochus This is a ground undenyable by that answer 2 But it is further to be said that at what time Mattathias the Father of the Maccabean brethren and after him his son Judas and the other in succession raised armes against and repelled the Seleucian oppressions be that was then reigning of that race Antiochus Epiphanes was an usurper the right of succession being in Demetrius the son of Seleucus the son of Antiochus the G eat and elder brother to this Antiochus And that Demetrius being now an hostage at Rome and by the Senate there detained from succeeding in the Kingdom the Jews had some occasion given them to assume the administration of the affâ—irs of their own nation especially they being now under Tyranâ— not onely as to title but as to his immâ—ne or Epimane as his style is in Athenaeus * Usseri Annal. part 2. pag. 1. Roâ—â—e his hist lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 2. government And it may be noted also that this Antiochus at his end vowed to God to grant the Jewes an Autonomie that they might thence forward use their own Laws and constitutions and moreover wrote supplicatory Letters in behalfe of himselfe and his son Antiochus whom he left to succeed him to pray and beseech their fidelity to them both †Vide Usseri Annal. part 2. pag. 47. and 2 Macc. 9 13 c. 2 As for the freedome of the Maccobeans Dominion in reference to their own Nation Josephus gives very clear testimony of the J wes election and admission of them and in particular of the fore-leaders of them Mattathias and his sons * Iosâ—ph de Bel. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 1. Et Antiqu. lib. 13. cap 1 11. 2. He questions whether the High Priest were capable both of a Crown and Mitre wherein some say he was a pattern of Antichrist To this blur of typifying Antichrist it may be replyed Antichristianisme is now grown a very common and stale imputation many having applyed it to any thing which they please to asperse 2 It 's strange that under the Law not only Christ but Antichrist should have his types 3 How will he make it apppeare that to weare both a Crown and a Mitre is a property of Antichrâ—st that is that it doth competere to him and to him with his types alone 4 It is certain Christ is both King and Priest and so in their modell are all Christians The Maccabees then if in this they must be typicall being they were such faithful and pious as well as magnanimous persons might rather be construed presidentiall in this good then in so soule an application 2 But to his question let the examples of Melchisedech Eli Samuel and Jehoiada who sure were no patterns of Antichrist be considered as to the lawfulnesse of the conjunction of civill regiment with the Priesthood Yea I presume upon better enquiry it will be found that temporall power to wit the judgement of civill causes was the ordinary investure of the Priesthood of Aaron by institution * See Deut. 17.8 9 10 11. 19.17 2 Chr. 19.8 9 10. And certainly the Priests that were either presidents or members of the Jewish supream Councel or Sanhedrim were interested in such a power 3 As for the pomp or honour of a Crown or Kingdome the former Maccabees never assumed it The first that did it was Aristobulus say some Alexander his brother and next successor say others the latter was father to Hircanus from whose hand the power passed upon Pompeys victory to the Romans and the said Hircanus sate High Priest nine years ere the Kingdome came to him which he had not enjoyed three moneths say some †Montaâ—us Apparatus 6. Sect. 24 25 26. pag. 229. Lightfoot of Temple cap. 4. sect 3. pag. 29. when the difference brake out betwixt him and his brother Aristobulus which was the occasion of calling in the Romans by Hircanus and his party and so of their soveraignty there 2. He alledgeth The covenant made betwixt Hircanus Aristobulus importing that the latter should command the Kingdom the which disinabled Hircanus forgiving away the Kingdome after to Pompey Answ 1. Hircanus indeed forced by Aristobulus yielded him up the Kingdome by such a covenant but the Chieftaines of Judea not consenâ—ing after set up Hircanus again upon d slike of Aristobulus and by the assistance of Aretas the Arabian King first and then of Pompey recovered it from him * Vide Iâ—seph Antiqu. lib. â—4 cap. 1 2 7 8. And Pompey before his coming in was sought unto by both those parties to determine the controversie betwixt them †Vide Usseâ—i Annal. part 2. pag. 249 250. 163. Upon which he adjudging for Hircanus and taking up his cause joyned with him and his party in the oppugning and suppressing of Aristobulus 3. He excepteth against the Roman Title by surrendâ—y of Hircanus to Pompey upon that maxime a King cannot passe away his Kingdome without their consent This position is a truth acknowledged by Staâ—esmen * See K. Iames his Remonstr c. p. 207 208. The â—rraignment of the powdâ—r-Trâ—tytors in the Earl of Norâ—hampt speech pag. 273 309 314. Widdâ—ing Theolog. Disput adm to Reader sect 10. and others save that some distinguish of a constitutive and a patrimonial Kingdome and deny it of the latteâ— and from thence is voided his nâ—xt preceding objection of Hircanus his covenant which for this reason could be no obligation to the people or bar to the Romans title coming in against Aristobulus Neither doth the exeâ—citation at all inf inge that maxime by founding the Roman claim upon Hircanus his sole act for it expresly takes in and brings proof of the consent of the Nation Which proof now comes in to be defended against this Answerer 4. He alledgeth the words of
the same Turkish Signior are very notable and easie to be remembred 3. There may be under this head another sort of examples given to wit of such as have not been under the command and actuall subjectednesse of the meer possessory power but have assailed and come in upon him from abroad upon the quarrell of the disseisure of a just title and for the reinvesting of it the cause being either their owne or others whom they have thought it just and requisite to assist therein The instance of Abrahams arming pursuing and fighting in the rescue of his brother Lot and the people of Sodome and Gomorrah and their goods taken and carryed away by and remaining wholly in the possession of Chederlaomer c. went before onely I shall observe here upon it that Mr. Calvin in his Sermons on Gen. 14.13 c. transâ—â—â—ed out of French into English page 5 6 7 8. moving this question Whether these aâ—mes of Abraham were lawfull or no being he was neither King nor Prince but dwelt in the Land of Canaan as a stranger Anâ—wers thus Howbeit here is one thing fiâ—st to be noted of us that he had been already constituted and ordained to be Lord and Master of this Countrey and although the pâ—ssâ—ssion thereof was not yet given him yet for all thaâ— the right and title thereof belonged to him By which woâ—ds Mr. Ca lt in pl inly teacheth that the possâ—ssion of a Countrey mâ—y be in one the right thereof in another and that the person in whom the right is may lawfully war upon the possâ—ssor for the recovery of his said right We had also before the instance of Theodosius the Emperour of the East his coming in the quarrell of Valentinian fiâ—st upon Maximus who had took the Western Empire and held it from Valentinian and after the suppression of him upon Eugenius who had a while after injuâ—iously seâ—sed the same Empire * See before Chap. 8. Sect. 4. I will here add one more out of Scripture and a few more out of other Hâ—stories The Scripture instance is this 2 King 3.4 Mâ—sha King of Moab rebelling against Jehoram King of Israel not onely doth Jehoram make an invasive War upon him for the recovery of his Dominion over Moâ—b but Jehoshaphat that good King of Judah assists him therein in his owne peâ—son yea and Elisha the Prophet was with them in that Expedition and in their great distresse for lack of water enquired of the Lord for them and from the Lord gave them a promise and direction for their obtaining both of water and of victory in their present War The examples out of other Hâ—stori s shall be set down but by way of b iefe remembrance As first the enterp ize of the Eastern Emperâ—ur Coâ—stantius his invading and destâ—oying Magnentius who had usurped the West by the murther of Constance the Emperour there †Sâ—e Rosse his History Book 3. chap 1. p. 82. To this may be annexed the examples of many of the Western or Italian Christian Emperours as Honorius Theodosius Junior Martian Leo and other their Successoâ—s who b ing disseised of whole Countreys and Naâ—ions by the breaking in of the Goâ—bes c. into Italy Spain and Africa and sometimes of Rome it self yet they c aimed after such their dispossession their right to those Teâ—ritories and prosecuted the same by force of Armes wherein they some-while prevailed to a recovery * Idem pag. 92 c. I shall refer also to the proceedings of Elubean the Christian King of the Ethiopians against Dunaan the Jew the usurper of Nargan a City in Arabia whom in behalf of the Christian people of that Region Elisbâ—an invaded and â—j cted * Vide Bâ—ron Annal. ad An. Christi 522 523. As also to the severall wars undertaken by the Christian Princes of Europe for the recovery of Palistine from the Saracens Here may be also remembred that when the Anabaptists of Munst r had dispossessed the Bishop who was the civill Lord thereof and taking into their own hands the rule of all did after some time of their p pular disorder put themselves under the absolute soveraignty of John Becold the Protestant Pâ—inces of Germany as the Duke of Saxony the Lantgrave of Hessen c. joyned in assistance to the said Bishop a Papist against the said pretended King in Munster and his partakers for the supprâ—ssion of them then the possessory power there by the Sword and for the re-investing of the Bishop as the rightfull Lord. And that both they and the Protestant Divines as Luther c. condemned and declared against them as violaters of the civill order of that place †Jo. Sleiden Comment lib. 10. pag. 255. As also that upâ—n the death of Henry the third of France when the Kingdome was generally possessed by the Leaguers the Guisians the Spanish and the Popes party under the command of the Dâ—ke of Maine who with the pretence of the title of the Cardinall of Bouâ—bon by him proclaimed King by the style of Charls the tenth ruled all and throwded his owne usurpation Henry King of Navar and with him all the Protestant Nobility and peopâ—e â—f France stood up for the recovery of that Kingdome out of the hands of those confederates the possessors in as much as the Crown of France lineally descended upon the said King of Navar and Henry the Third had immediately before his last breath nomina ed him his lawfull Heir and Successor And unto his ayd in that cause did out Queen Elizabeth send assistance of men arms and money * Speeds Hist in Q. Eliz. Sect. 259. The taking up of the cause of the Prince Elector the Count Paâ—atine both the Father and the Son by many Protestant Princes as of England Swethland Germany when they were outed of the Palatinate and it possessed by the Emperour and the Bavarian for their re-investing therein is well known and shall be the last example I will mention of this sort For besides examples we have it generally acknowledged that the recovery of a disseised title to Dominion is a just cause of wa◠†Vide August Tâ— 4. part 1. quest 10. super Josua Grot. de Jur. B. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 2. If it be objected against the alledging of these examples that being their acts are the acts of persons who are not in actuall subjection to the meer possessory power but such as assaile him ab entra they come not up to the purpose for which they are brought I answer 1. Resistance of that power which is the ordinance of God is in this place veâ—s 2. disallowed in all without restriction whosoever resisteth the power c and may therefore be exâ—ended to any as well Foreiners in regard of State-relation or of residence as those who are Members of or residing in the Common wealth so possessed 2. Though these be residers other-where yet in their attempt or in the act of
their assault of the p ssessing power they enter within the bounds of the Common-wealth he is over and so were there indeed a reall Magistracy in the actuall possessor they would come wiâ—hin the obligation of subjection to him For this is certain whosoever are upon any account within a Territory whether as fixed Inhabitants or as strangers whether as friendly guests or hostile invaders yea though they be Soveraign Princes in another Countrey yet being there they owe submission to the lawfull power of that Countrey they enter into they are subditi there though not cives 3 They that are actually under the command of another perforce and they that assist them are involved in the same act So that if the former be bound to the duty of Subjects then it is unlawfull for any though Foreiners yea though Forein Princes to ayd them in the violation or casting off of any such subjection or the rescue or restoring of anothers right to it 2. But enough of exemplification in the point of opposition In the second place I am to produce some examples of such as have professedly disowned or denyed to those that have had no more but their actual domination to claim by any of the duties of Subjâ—cts belonging to their civill Magistrates It is a known duty of Subjects to their Soveraigns to stand by them to their power in defence of them and their possession of the Dominions and Territories which they hold against whosoever would deprive them thereof Jo. 18.36 Our Saviours acknowledgment to Pilate was My kingdome is not of this world If my kingdome were of this world then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jewes But the contrary to this I finde practised in reference to meer possessors When the Jewish Nation had before the destruction of Jerusalem made a generall defection from the Romans and had under the conduct of their own Leadeâ—s possessed themselves of the Forts and strength of all Judea and held them against the Romans and by that meanes had the ruling power then in that Region the Christians that were in Jerusalem deserted the defence of the Jewes and of their City and cause and removed out both of Jerusalem and of Judea so that Historians observe there was at the time of the last siege by Titus not one good Christian left in the City * Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 4. Epiphanius de mensuris cap. 15. Joseph de Bâ—l. Jud lib. 2. cap. 22. c. Dr. Simson Chron. Cathol lib. 7. An. Christi 67. pag. 46. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Matth 24 Note G. and on Revel 7. Note G. Indeed the grand Sectaries among the Christian professors the Gnosticks as one noteth †Dr. Hammond on 2 Thes 2. Note K. sided with and adhered to the Jewes aginst the Romans in that war and by that meanes perished with them But the Orthodox wholly relinquished them Yea it is observed that many of the more advised and honest sort of the Jewish both Nation and Religion among them deserted their Nations defence against the Romans yea and went over to their enemies and with them took part against the Desendants * Usser Annal. part post pag. 691. 693. and Dr. Simson ut supra The Jewes that remained after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus made a City called Bitter in Arabia the chiefe seate of their Kingdome and made a Jew one Barcochebas or Barcochab or Barcochah as he is generally styled their King Under him they rise up in sedition against Hadrian the Roman Emperour and over all Judea and every where else they cast off the Roman government and slaughter and destroy whosoever stands against them To them also joyne very many other Nations and for that cause almost all the world are in an uproar Hadrian sending out his Forces against them a great and continued War thereof ariseth They say this Barchochebas reigned thirâ—y yeares and a halfe and that at the last he endured in the siege of Bitter three years and a halfe against the Romans to their great losse ere he and his Jewes were vanquished That which we chiefly observe in the story is that this Barcochebas being now the possessing and ruling power over Judea and many other parts the Christians that were in his precincts refused notwithstanding to owne or joyn with him against the Romans yea though for this refusall he slew them with all kind of tortures Insomuch that Hugo Grotius and Dr. Hammond tâ—ke him to be the beast that ascendeth out of the boâ—tomlesse pit and maketh war against the two witnesses and overcometh and killeth them Rev. 11. and answerably the two witnesses to be the Bishops and Chrâ—stians of the Jewish and Gentile Churches which were at this time at Jerusalem Some say indeed that he moreover gave himselfe out to be the Messiâ—h others that he pretended to be that Star in Balaams vision Num. 24.24 and true it is that Justin Martyr relateth who himself was an eye-witness of those Wars and on that occasion fled the Countrey he persecuted the Christians because they would not deny Christ But his imposture and enmity to Christianity was not the sole matter in which the Christians deserted him or upon which he persecuted them For both Mr. Mede Dr. Hammond and Spondanus observe out of Eusebius that the Christians denyed to ayd him in his defence against the Romans whose qâ—arrell against him was about civill dominion and laâ— downe that their refusall as a distinct cause by it selfe of his persecuting them * Mr. Mede in Apocalyp Com. part 1. pa. 43. Dr Hammond in Revel 11.3 7. and Note B. c. Mâ— Calvert his Jew of Morocco pag. 220. Mr. Bogan of Threats p. 372. Spondanus Epitome Baron Ann. 130. sect 4 He being the present actuall Ruler over them what-ever his Religion or his enmity to their Religion was they were bound to assist him in upâ—olding his civilâ— possession and authority if indeed the actual possessor alwayes be and conseqâ—ently he by vertue of present possession then was the power of God ordained of God The then Roman Emperour and State were no lesse distant in Religion no nor enemies to the Christian then were Barcochebas and his Jewes For under this Hadrian some reckon the continuation of the third others begin the fourth of the ten persecutions †See Mr. Fox Acts. Vol. 1. Prideaux of Hist. pag. 199. Mr. Clarks Martyrol p. 36. The reason then of the Christiâ—ns refusall of the Jewes assistance against the Romans câ—n be deemed no other then the civill right of the Roman though disseised and the nullity and illegitimacy of the Jew though the present All-commander Our next example shall be out of Tertullian who gives us a very remarkable testimony to our purpose in a threefold instance of the Christians practâ—se in relation to three possessors of the style and power of the Roman Emperours all of them in or neer about his