command from the Magistrate yet no man can exact an Oath but the Magistrate It is free in private cases to give or refuse an Oath but when lawful Authority pleases it may extort an Oath from another for the manifestation of truth and to end differences which no private man ought or can do any mor without a mans consent that he can take away his purse Lastly This Right in private Persons to determine differences by private Oaths appears from the tacite consent of such as openly deny it For they generally practise it themselves and it is altogether unavoidable by them that have any commerce or controversies in the world it being natural unto all men to appeal to God when they have truth and justice on their sides not so appearing to others What is more necessary for the gaining of belief and giving satisfaction to doubters than to say God is my witness I call God to witness God he knows and such like all which are forms of swearing though not after the manner of Judicial proceedings And who doth not fall into these unless we chance to except a sullein and superstitious Sect whose Religion is of their own making For an Oath is 〈◊〉 qui adâ—â—bet Testem Deum Aug. l. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Mon. Jarame â—um cave qu intum potes the bringing God in as a witness saith St. Augustine in his first Sermon of Christs Sermon on the Mount And in another place he advises thus Avoid swearing as much as you can For it is better not to swear when a thing is true For by customary swearing men often fall into a precipice and come near to Perjury But they so far as I have heard some of them do not know what it is to swear For they think they do not swear when they have in their mouths God he knows and God is my witness c. I call God to witness upon my Soul because they say not BY GOD These are Austins words in his Eighty ninth Epistle where he writes against the Pelagians who held an opinion it should seem by St. Austin there that men should not swear at all and yet used such manner of speeches as these By God is no more than to say God punish me if it be not so saith Thomas Nihil est autem aliud dicere Per Deum ita est nisi quod Deus puniâ—â— me si non ita est Thomas in Decem Praecepta Opuscul pag. 100. Now in answer to the places of Scripture and also some of the Ancients declaring against Swearing we may inâ—erpret them to imply in their general words only a restraint in two things The matter and the manner The matter is expresly forbidden by Christ when he instanceth in the Heavens the Earth the Temple the Gold of the Temple the Altar or a mans Head all which as any other thing inferiour to God Almighty are forbidden expresly by Christ as derogatory to God part of whose Prerogative it is to be the Decider and Judge of Controversies in such cases and of whose worship to be invoked in that manner The manner is to do this lightly upon a mans own head and for his pleasure rather than for any use or necessity of an Oath The Fourth Commandment is Remember thou keepest holy the Seventh §. IV. day Six dayes c. of which we have spoken what may suffice our ends where we discoursed of the Circumstance of Time of Gods worship And to determine the doubts of late about the morality or ceremonialness of this Precept would require a distinct Volume It may only here be noted that Nothing in this Precept doth directly and immediately bind Christians but only Reductively according to the opinions of such who hold that All Evangelical Acts are reducible to the Decalogue as well as Natural and Moral Acts. But if the whole Law of Moses sufficed not to advise us directly and plainly of our duty towards God and our Neighbour can we think that so small a Segment so few Lines as the Decalogue are sufficient If the Law had been sufficient according to St. Paul The Gospel had been in Gal. 2. 21. 3. 21. vain Yet do we acknowledge a natural equity and justice contained in the Fourth Commandment which may give grounds to found other Doctrines of the Gospel than are there expressed And some of the Jewish Doctours whom Grotius citeth and much approveth do distinguish Grotius in Decalogum this Commandment from it self For they say That part of it is Moral not as is not amiss held by many that it hath thorow out a Moral and a Mosaical or Ceremonial sense and part Judaical as they would demonstrate by the reason of it given expresly and implicitely For they say That these words Remember that thou keep holy the Seventh day do bind from the reason of the Creation and Gods making the World but that the Jews were enjoyned to rest from all labour on that day was from the consideration of their particular deliverance from the servitude of Egypt So that they were obliged to remember to sanctifie the Seventh day in commemoration of the Creation of the World but so to sanctifie it as to rest from all Labours in commemoration of their hard labours in Egypt from which they were delivered Of which interpretation we may say thus much That it very well agrees with the reason given in Deuteronomy of the Sabbath which is Deut. 5. 14 15 omitted in Exodus For there the Command is enforced thus immediately after the Precept of Rest And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and stretched-out arm therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day In the fifth place it is said Honour thy Father and thy Mother that thy §. V. dayes may be long c. which words have two Parts The Precept and the Motive or Reason of the Precept In the Precept is to be observed the Ground of it and the Form of it And what is the Ground and Original of Childrens Duty and Obedience to their Parents and of Servants to their Masters and of Subjects to their Soveraign but a preventing benefit which they receive from them And surely one if not the onely next to his own glory end of Gods requiring here obedience of Inferiour to Superiour is the natural and moral benefits derived by them to their Inferiours and that by Gods will and appointment too So though it is scarce to be supposed that Parents or Governours should so unnaturally fail of their duty and design God had in setting them over others as to acquit these from rendring honour to them yet the better to facilitate and to oblige more strongly Inferiours to do their duties God doth in this Command also require that Parents of all sorts should conscionably discharge their part to their Children For there
being two general motives to all duties Love and Ingenuity and fear of evil and necessity it is not so prudent nor so powerful to hang all upon one as on both 'T is true God hath put power into the hands of Parents and Princes and Governours to constrain and exact the duty of Obedience from their respective Subjects but he hath put a natural principle of Love into their hearts also inclining them to goodness towards them which notwithstanding is neither so general nor effectual but many fail egregiously in it wherefore God by his holy Word advertiseth and exhorteth to the exercise of it and as it were the better to dispose and bow those in subjection to them to perform their duty with cheerfulness And therefore St. Paul after the duty of Obedience imposed upon Children layeth a duty upon Parents on their Children saying And ye Fathers provoke not your Children but bring them up in the admonition Ephes 6. 4. of the Lord That is Exercise not imperiously and impertinently that power God hath given you over your Children rather be known ye can do it and so when it is discerned that it is rather the Lust of a tyrannous nature than of natural care love or kindness which urges them to rule with vain rigour the Children be provoked to break their bonds and pass the bounds which otherwise might have been observed to the glory of God and comfort of both Yet doth not the Apostle justifie such excess in children more than the extream of Parents but only foretels the evil event of such unchristian rigour And the like may be said of Servants and Masters mentioned next by the Apostle who having prescribed an Evangelical principle of demeanor Ephes 6. of Servants towards their Masters doth subjoyn the like Precept to Masters And ye Masters do the same things unto them forbearing threatning knowing that your Master also is in Heaven neither is there respect of persons with him Intimating the ground of hearty ingenuous and faithful service of Children and Servants to proceed commonly from the Fountain of love and kindness in the Parents and Masters and therefore if they would be well served they should first serve God themselves in educating them according to Gods gentle Law and be careful to instruct them in the fear of God And so where the Apostle stateth the mutual obligation between Eph. 5 21 25. Man and Wife he tempereth his counsel with reciprocal kindnesses that as the Wife is to submit her self to her own Husband the Husband is to love his Wife and that by vertue of this Commandment which can never be well kept according to Gods mind where there is a faileur on either hand though St. Peter tells us like a true Evangelical Preacher that with good Christians and true Believers it is no exemption from duty and proper subjection that our Superiours transgress the laws of modesty sobriety and moderation towards us But Servants and by the same rule Subjects and Children ought to be subject with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward and that for reasons immediately following And the 1 Pet. 2. 18 19 20. Titus 2. 9. same requireth St. Paul to Titus But here it is queried by some Why St. Paul having taken occasion to adjust the duties between Masters and Servants Parents and Children Husbands and Wives omitteth wholly to restrain and regulate the power of Princes towards their Subjects leaves no Rules for them as if they might offend or offending might not be informed of their duty by Christian Doctrine To this we say First what some have well observed and affirmed before us The reason hereof is because in St. Pauls dayes there were no Soveraign Powers of the Christian Religion and therefore it might have seemed unseasonable and vain to offer counsel and rules to them who were not capable of them For had there been such Princes no doubt is to be made but he would have seasoned them and sanctified them with his wholsome documents And yet Secondly He doth not absolutely dismiss them without advice who may be well reduced to the Head of Parents of Countries and Masters of their Subjects And thus much for the principle of honouring our Superiours from the benefit of their duties towards us Now the Principles of Obedience more immediately obliging us unto them are in brief The Fear and Honour of God whose Image Representatives and Instruments they are for our Good No man after so many Reasons and Precepts given us in holy Luke 10. 16. Scripture of faithful and conscionable submission to our Superiours can be said to fear God who doth not honour his Superiours For of all Civil Parents or Governours St. Paul saith They are the Ministers of God to thee Rom. 13. 4. Eccles 7. 27 28. for good And of our Natural Parents well admonisheth the Wise-man Honour thy Father with thy whole heart and forget not the sorrows of thy Mother Remember that thou wast begot of them and how canst thou recompence them the things they have done for thee And of our Ecclesiastical Parents Hebr. 13. 17. 1 Thess 5. 12 13. to the Hebrews Now the Act Honour doth imply all inward affection and proper humility of mind and all outward demonstrations of the same by sober modest humble respect and reverence unto them As also service assistance obedience attendance relief in straits feeding clothing and comforting them in their wants weaknesses and distresses and finally contributing all we are able to their well being who next under God were the Causes of our Beings in the world But of the manner or extent of our Obedience especialâ—y to our Civil Parents and of the contrary evil Resistance we have spoken before The last motive to this duty is expressed in the Reason annexed to this Commandment viz. That thy dayes may be long in the Land which the Lord thy God shall give thee Intimating a signal blessing of God upon them that so reverence his Deputies whether Natural Civil or Ghostly and a malediction Ephes 6. 2. unto such as deny the same upon false wicked fleshly or vain pretences See Part 1. Book 1. ch 26 But of the vertue and duty of Obedience we have spoken before The Sixth Commandment followeth Thou shalt do no murder as it is well §. VI. rendred in our English Translation For Murder is that which imports the killing of Man only and so doth the Hebrew word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition as it were to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common to all killing whether of Man or Beast Which though it might not be an argument to the Superstitious Heathens of the Pythagorean or rather Indian strain the Gymnosophists from whom Pythagoras borrowed his opinion denying it lawful to take away the life of any thing in so much as Aristotle tells us that Empedocles the ancient Aristotel Rhetor. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plin.
danger not much less as hath been shewed And the Devil most busily and eagerly seeks to impel to those sins which are most notorious How many have with little wit and great impudence professed they could love their own Wives above all women were it not for the reason that God and Nature requires they should prefer them so that they are their wives and that they are tyed to them their liberty is destroyed thereby And may not as good an argument be made from hence against all Votal Ties in marriage as from marriage And whereas it is said a Vow casts a man divers times into a greater temptation it is meerly accidental and personal according to the particular humour of some men who knowing their disease of contradiction and renitencie to what is imposed on them may with prudence avoid such a snare as they call it But we all know things are not to be estimated or concluded from such contingencies and personal irregularities but from the nature of the things themselves And none can deny but the nature of a Vow is to bind and not to loose and to prevent and not to lead into temptations or snares and withal he that Vows the thing or the effect doth implicitly vow the means conducing thereunto and against the occasions and temptations tending to the contrary It is farther objected against a Vow that it is taken to be part of the worship of God And this Being made part of the worship of God is a general Battering Ram whereby most ill Reforming Divines endeavour to beat down all things they like not For first they religiously hold that nothing must be part of Gods worship which he hath not commanded in his word which is not altogether true nor false no more then the contrary That every thing commanded in his Word is part of his worship And again they hold that every thing that is done in the worship of God is part of the worship of God and from hence set themselves with great animosity against all forms and actions and Ceremonies in order to the service of God as so many parts of the worship of God of humane invention and therefore to be utterly rejected And such say they are Vows Bellarm. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 16. To. 2. The Popish writers do grant and go about to prove that they are Acts of Gods worship but very unluckily to themselves holding that they are Counsels and not Precepts The Puritan Writers that they are so far from that that they are unlawful but in those things that are commanded of God and therefore in the Instances before given of single and separate life unlawful But Peter Martyr it should seem goes by himself denying the use of all Vows under the New Testament but approving of them under the Old as commanded many times and being uncommanded worship under the New Testament And that with men of such principles is bad enough But I suppose a mean way is best in this case which holdeth Vows lawful even in uncommanded worship and Secondly that of themselves they are no part nor so much as act of Gods service but the manner only of his service And Thirdly that it is no less lawful and expedient to Vow under the state of the Gospel than under the Law And to begin with the last That which deceived Peter Martyr and divers others seems to be an erroneous supposition made by them that Vows were under precept and command under the Law in certain cases but it is not so For though many Rules and Precepts are found in Moses his Law about governing and regulating them that had freely made Vows there is no precept given that men should vow but that was left free Secondly those Precepts of paying Vows found in Scriptures do not at all concern the taking of Vows simply So David Vow and pay unto the Lord Psalm 76. 11. meaneth no more than Vowing pay unto the Lord which is the meaning of the Prophet Esay also saying The Egyptians shall vow a vow unto the Lord Esaiah 19. 21. and perform it And in no place of Scripture is there any injunction simply to vow And therefore the case being alike as to the Vow it self though different as to the matter if it were lawful for the Jews to do this uncommanded act as they call it it is also lawful for Christians whom they acknowledge to be no more but rather less bound up from uncommanded worship than the Jews And from hence are easily and better answered Peter Martyrs arguments against Vows of Christians then by Bellarmine For we deny that Vows were instituted Ceremonies under the Law which Martyr supposeth for they were not instituted at all And that he saith That we have no mention of Vows in the New Testament as there is in the Old is not altogether true as shall be seen afterward but if it were true as hath been said those things which we know by the light and law of nature the Scriptures are not so solicitous simply to institute as to prescribe Rules concerning the due execution of them But common reason hath instructed Gentile Jew and Christian upon occasion to vow to God and therefore whatever is peculiar to Christians is provided for by the New Testament in determining the matter consistent with Christian Faith and common equity and the manner First that it be made by a Person who hath power over himself For no man can make a lawful Vow to do any thing to the prejudice of the right of another And therefore children under the power of their Parents cannot bind themselves firmly in any such Vow which tendeth to the disobliging them from their known duty to their Parents neither can Subjects vow any thing to the disservice of their Soveraign or Country Nor can Clergy-men vow any thing contrary to the subjection and obedience of their Superiours or detriment of the Church in general unless it be ratified by them but all is void or may be made void by them in lawful power over them And the Arguments of Peter Martyr taken from Christian Liberty have been answered already Now to return to the first That Vows are lawful to Christians is shewed already from the natural reason of Vows And that it was not an invention of Moses or introduced by God first under him appears from the general consent of all religious persons who never knew any thing of the Law of Moses or if as in later times some nations did yet regarded it not And from the practise of Jacob long before Moses who we read vowed unto the Lord a vow It appears likewise from the many moral precepts in Genes 28. 20. the Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes which concern themselves very little in the Law of Moses And the Predictions in the Prophets of Vows to be made at the time of the Gospel are not well put off by saying the Prophets spake figuratively But it may be here noted as a
reason together with their rejecting of so eminent a Servant of God as was Samuel that God 1 Sam. 8. 10. said of the People they had rejected him rather than Samuel From Saul to the Captivity it is manifest what their Government was and from thence it matters not as to our present purpose how they governed themselves seeing they were ruled by the Regal Power of Foreign Princes until shaking off that yoke they were brought under that form by their own Deliverers which was again extorted from them by usurping Tyrants So that when Philo-Judeus and Josephus seem to write of an Aristocratical Government instituted by Moses they can no otherwise be understood to write faithfully but in reference to Ecclesiastical Courts and Cases of Religion purely wherein the Counsel of many was to take place but not to the administration of Civil Justice unless as is above-said when they were themselves subject to Forrain Princes The Objections against this Form thus asserted I leave to be answered from the positive grounds thus laid down And commend the Reader to the learned Disputations of others which are many concerning the excellencie and benefits of one Form above another But as to Hereditary and Elective Governments what is convenient may be gathered from the general discourse now made Now we proceed to the Third thing in Government the mutual Obligation of Governour and Governed CHAP. XXVI Of the mutual Relations and Obligations of Soveraigns and Subjects No Right in Subjects to resist their Soveraigns tyrannizing over them What Tyranny is Of Tyrants with a Title and Tyrants without Title Of Magistrates Inferiour and Supream the vanity and mischief of that distinction The Confusion of Co-ordinate Governments in one State Possession or Invasion giveth no Right to Rulers The Reasons why THAT we read not in the New Testament of any Rules or Advice given to Kings and Princes how to govern the people under them the reason is plain viz. Because in those dayes there were none Christian and St. Paul says What 1 Cor. 5. 12. have I to do to judge them that are without the Church For doubtless had any been of the Society of Christians they had fallen under the Christian Discipline and Precepts of the Apostles But that occasion of instructing Kings in the due administration of their power failing we are to seek for satisfaction from the old Testament where not much is found besides general moral Precepts of Sobriety Temperance Justice and the like enjoyned Solomon by David his Father and left by Solomon in his Book of Proverbs for Rules to succeeding Princes Moses likewise not without Gods appointment hath drawn up some special Precepts for Kings to follow in the real and cordial embracing of Gods word and worship and taking the defense and protection thereof Of which to speak it little behoves us at present Neither purpose we out of Humane Arguments and Autority to prescribe to Supreams what they ought to do or how to govern any farther than the known Rules of Justice in common do require For no doubt there is a mutual Obligation between Soveraign and Subject and that he is tyed and circumscribed in the exercise of his power by God as really as this is in his Obedience to him and that upon the common duties expressed by St. Paul of Masters to Servants and Husbands to Wives and Parents to Children For it doth not at all follow That because Princes are not subject to their Subjects therefore they are free from all subjection Ephes 6. 8. No St. Paul's Rule holds good to Kings as well as to Masters viz. That they should know that their King and Master is in heaven and that Kings are to be subject as well to the Laws of God as their Subjects are to the Laws of Man And though Children ought to obey their Parents in all things yet there is tacitly understood certain Laws of Limitation restraining the boundless tyranny of both civil and natural Parents For Subjects and Children are to know that they have a higher Lord and a more powerful Father to whom in the first place obedience must be paid And we must withdraw our selves from the commands of our Earthly Soveraign when our Heavenly who is his Soveraign doth require it as all rational Kings do grant as well as People But neither ought we to restrain the will of Princes to the literal and express will of God only but even to the most just and reasonable Laws of Humane Authority but only we must distinguish the vast difference between the obligation of Subjects to the just and equal Laws prescribed and imposed on them and that of Princes in relation to those Laws concerning their governing For all Laws contain two special causalities in them The one Exemplary whereby a Form and Rule is prescribed directing such as are to be guided thereby to the observation of Justice Equity and Reason as well to the publick as private good And to this so far as it is reasonable Kings are no less bound than Subjects they ought to observe entirely and religiously these sound and profitable Laws and that under pain of Gods displeasure The other causality which Laws have is Efficient and Compulsive whereby a Civil penalty being denounced and impending over the head of the infringers thereof they are better guarded from transgressions by either loss of outward good or life it self according to the merit of the Offense It cannot either consist with the Law of God or Nations to inflict punishments on Princes Soveraign Not but that for instnace murder adultery unjust spoil and robbery of the Subjects may no less considering the nature of the Crime deserve such punishment of Princes as they do of People but because there is none in such cases that can or ought duly and regularly to execute such Laws because there can be no such execution without the power of the Sword and there can be but one proper subject of that power in any one Republick Every man must not put to death him that is a notorious offender no not though he be justly and legally condemned to dye but he or they only who are thereunto rightly impowred and authorized by the Supream And though every man may in his own mind and judgment sentence a malefactour whose crime is high and apparent to death yet cannot he in civil judicature render him obnoxious to it And the reason hereof is plain because Justice must be done justly or else there is incurred no less guilt than is sought and intended to be revenged And of all guilt I know not whether any be greater than the assuming of such a power which no wayes belongs to a man For better it were to take away ones horse or to ravish another mans wife or to extort unjustly anothers estate than to devest a Prince of his Right of Rule and usurp it to himself and that first because no mans estate or any thing that is his doth descend
the Church before they departed this life but not so far as to remit the offences against God or that without actual demonstrations of their hearty sorrow for their sins and steadfast purposes and professions of future amendment they should have pronounced over them the Absolution of all their sins and that perhaps when they could no more desire than deserve such a Sentence CHAP. XIX A Preparation to the Explication of the Decalogue by treating of Laws in General What is a Law Several kinds of Laws Of the obligation of Laws from Justice not Force only Three Conditions required to obliging Of the Ten Commandments in special Their Authour Nature and Use BUT because a general Opinion as well amongst Christians as Exod. 34. 28. Deut. 4. 13. according to the Hebr. and Septuag And Josephus Antiquit l. 4. c. 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellat Jews hath prevailed that those Ten Commandments or as they are otherwise called Ten Words which God spake to the Children of Israel by Moses on Mount Sinai are an absolute Compendium and Rule of Obedience to God as well in our immediate Service towards him as our mediate in our duty towards our Neighbour a brief inquiry into the Decalogue will neither be unseasonable nor impertinent and the better to accomplish this first to speak of Laws in General before we treat of these more signal and eminent Laws of God A Law then to begin with the Definition seems to be nothing else but The rational and just will of a Soveraign Power declared and manifested to its Subjects for the better informing directing and regulating them according to truth and justice This Description though I find not entirely and absolutely in others yet is found in its several parts of which it consisteth in divers Authours and comprehends not only Humane but Divine Laws equally and not only written but unwritten also For it were a very fond and weak imagination in a man to conceive that the Writing Printing or Graving in Stone as the Ten Commandments are said to be can contribute any thing toward the force and due vigour of a Law any further than that thereby it becomes better known to all therein concerned Promulgation indeed is essential to all Laws but the Promulgation or Publication by the foresaid means is not so but any other notice given thereof may suffice But while a thing lyes hid in the mind and breast only of the proper Legislatours or Governours it cannot in reason obtain the nature or force of a Law but then only it doth when it either is known or might and ought to be known according to the manner of publication And this declared will must not be the act of any inferiour or subordinate person who of himself hath no right to will or require the observation of his Dictates or Orders but of the Supream originally at least though not immediately The universal and absolute Soveraign of all things is God alone and his Power alone and right of Dominion of which we have spoken in the beginning abundantly suffices to justifie all demands of service and obedience from his Creatures and that according to his absolute will without any exception or limitation it being intrinsecally good whatever shall appear to be the Will of God even because it is the Will of God who is nothing but Goodness in the most absolute sense And hence it is that notwithstanding Laws are divided into Divine Humane and Ecclesiastical yet in truth and upon due search it will be found that they all are Divine really though not formally and mediately though not immediately as Tully excellently and little less than divinely hath defined Lex est nihil aliud nise recta à numine deorum tracta ratio imperans honesta prchibens contraria Cicero Philipp 11. Clem. Alex Strom. l. 1. p. 350. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles in Carm. Pyth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demosthen in Anst The Law of Man which sometimes is called the Law Positive is derived by reason as a thing which is necessarily and probably following of the Law of Reason and of the Law of God And therefore in every Law Positive well made is somewhat of the Law of Reason and of the Law of God and to discern the Law of God and the Law of Reason from the Law Positive is very hard Dâ—ctâ—ur and Student cap 4. saying A Law is nothing else but right Reason drawn from the Gods themselves commanding honest things and forbidding the contrary And to the same effect writeth Clemens Alexandrinus and Hierocles saying Law is that Operative mind and Divine will which perpetually advances and preserves all things So that whatever Law be it Civil or Ecclesiastical which can not draw in some remote manner at least its descent from Heaven and God Almighty is not just or reasonable and by consequence not properly a Law but the private Lust of Tyrants But then in deducing Laws of Humane birth from God there must not be such a rigorous course taken as that whatever is not contained expresly in his revealed Word or obvious to the eye of Nature should be condemned as spurious and illegitimate and having no right to oblige men to observance and submission thereunto For some things are more clearly and some more obscurely some things more nearly and some more remotely deducible from their first fountain some Laws natural and the like may be said of Divinely revealed and Ecclesiastical are sufficiently apparent to all or most intelligent men as just and reasonable others as Thomas hath observed are evident so to be to the more understanding and searching Wits this being to be received as a plain and undoubted Rule in doubtful Cases that the professed Authours and Interpreters of Laws are generally better seen into the Natural Divine and Moral reason and obligation of a Law and the common benefit and expediencie thereof than inferiour and ignorant persons who are prone to judge of the reasonableness and usefulness of it as it best agrees with their own private judgments none of the certainest or Interests none of the justest many times not considering which is most necessary the common good claiming prerogative above particular So that there can be no more unnatural Rule than that which would have every man a Law and Rule and Reason to himself or definitively and finally to judge for and of himself in all things what is just and reasonable This is altogether lawâ—ess and repugnant to the revealed Will of God which hath ordained several orders and ranks of men whereof some are to be in Power and Authority others in subjection and obedience And from hence it proceedeth that Magistrates who are the only Law-givers and true Interpreters of Laws given have had somewhat more of the Image of God ascribed to them than other common men because as it is Gods primary power and prerogative to give Laws to all the world as his Subjects so is it the