same unto diverse objects as First that part of his will which concerneth Angels is termed the law of Angels Secondly that which concerneth men I meane in their naturall duty towards God and their neighbour for man never received Law but that before his Redemption and those Lawes which relate to Redemption are not properly naturall but supernaturall Lawes is termed the Law of Nature i. e. humane or the Law of the rationall nature Thirdly that part of Gods will which concerneth naturall Agents is termed the Law of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Law of the corporeall Nature Againe this second sort of Law which is the Law of humane or rationall Nature and is grounded upon the will of God concerning mankind is divided by Christ himselfe into two parts which he termes two Commandements Mat. 22.27 Which two are differenced by two different Objects and two different sorts of love required of us for the due performance of our different duties unto these two different Objects The first Commandement relates to God whom we must love above our selves and all that we call ours for God doth not allow any man to value either life limbe liberty or estate above himselfe Mat. 10.37 39. Luke 14.33 Marke 8.35 and of this nature are all the particular Commandements of the first Table which are comprehended under this generall and great Commandement the duties whereof are grounded upon a love exceeding the love of our selves The second Commandement relates unto our Neighbour whom wee are not obliged to love either above our selves or equally with our selves but onely like our selves so that the love of our selves in this second part of the Law of Nature is allowed the first place and wee may lawfully value our owne life limbs estates and liberties above our neighbours and preferre the indempnity of our selves before the indempnity of our neighbour in each of these severall respects when they chance to come in competition And therefore no Law either of God or man doth make homicide capitall no nor culpable where it is necessitated se defendendo And of this nature are all the particular Commandements of the second Table which Christs exposition comprehends under this second generall Commandement Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe the duties whereof are grounded upon a love not exceeding but inferiour unto the love of our selves Now the Kings Honour being grounded upon the fifth Commandement which they take pro concesse to be a Precept of the second Table and therefore grounded upon a love which must not exceed the love of our selves the people are obliged by the Law of God and Nature in all their duties towards the King in the first place to looke upon their owne safety and by consequence the Kings Honour is not a superiour but a subordinate end to salus populi so that the people may resist yea and kill the King also if they be necessitated se defendendo Argum. 2 A second Argument which they urge for a further confirmation of this is the instance of a Generall or Governour of a city who though his Commission be never so large extending to life liberty and estate yet if he shall contrary to his trust reposed in him for defence of that city turne the Canon against the city to destroy it may lawfully be resisted by the city and Souldiery and that by armes and violence as a traitour to his trust and therefore if the King shall breake the trust reposed in him by God the people may like this city and souldiery lawfully resist him as a a traitour to his trust and provide for their owne safety before his honour Argum. 3 Lastly they alledge out of Scripture severall instances of Kings that have beene resisted by the people in order to their owne safety wherein the actions of the people have beene sometimes expresly approved by God as in the deposition of Rehoboam from his dominion over the ten Tribes 1 King 12.24 And sometimes countenanced by holy men of God which themselves have been the principall actors therein as David in the defence of himselfe from the rage and fury of Saul 1 Sam. 22.1 2. and Chap. 23.7 8. And Elisha in his advise to the Elders to resist the messengers sent by King Jehoram to take away his head 2 King 6.32 and yet neither of them reproved by God for preferring their owne safety before their obedience to the Kings commands And therefore the Subjects may provide for and regard their owne safety rather then his Honour That Doctrine which I shall here premise as a ground for the solution of these Arguments and to evidence the preheminence of the Kings Honour above the peoples welfare is such a principle in Divinity as I presume will prima facie hazzard the repute of a Paradox being directly opposite to the opinions of all Christian Authors who write of the Morall Law who distinguishing the Ten Commandements into two Tables according to Christs rule Mat. 22.37 doe generally conclude the fift Commandement prescribing honour to parents to be a Commandement of the second Table which containeth our duty towards our neighbour as if Kings and parents related to their Subjects and children as neighbours and not as Gods And that the duties therefore to be performed to Kings and parents are grounded onely upon such a love which must not exceed the love of our selves which being granted for truth the Argument taken from the Law of Nature to prove the preheminence of the peoples welfare above the Kings Honour and thereby to legitimate the resistance of Kings as well as of any other men when the people doe judge their commands to be destructive to their owne safety and welfare is altogether unanswerable For Christ in that prementioned division of the Morall Law Mat. 22.37 makes but two objects of mans duty one superiour whom wee are obliged to love and respect above our selves and that is God another inferiour object whom wee are obliged to respect onely as our selves that is in the respect of the degrees of extension of our love equally to our selves for wee must have a regard unto our neighbour in his person and life chastity goods and good name as well as our owne but yet we are not obliged to an equality in reference to the degrees of the intension of our love to our neighbour in any of these particulars for we may and ought to love and respect our own life goods and good name above our neighbours so that every man is set in the middle betweene these two objects to the one hee lookes upward as an object above him to the other downeward as an object below him So that if Kings and parents relate to us only as neighbours and not as Gods for there is no other third object of mans duty then they are not our superiours but inferiours nor may we respect their persons goods or good name above our owne as things sacred but beneath and after our owne and so to
enormities as are destructive to peace and unity and by consequence to all Politick Association 2. The second spece of the Object of Politicall Cognizance is Objectum per accidens which is the indirect and mediate Object of Politick Government consisting in the Contingentials thereof being such causes and matters wherein the King may exercise both his Legislative and Judiciarie power over some persons both Ecclesiasticall and Civill but not over other some of either sort And these are those supernaturall and Evangelicall duties which were never knowne nor any way usefull upon the first institution of Politick Government under the old Covenant of Workes but were instituted afterward and made ordinances of the new Covenant of Grace not directly for helps of Politick Government but for the immediate meanes and helps to life and salvation by Christ and the advancement of his mysticall kingdome Such as were the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament which were symbolicall ordinances instituted by God meerely as seales and confirmations of this new Covenant of Grace and also all Evangelicall formes of Worship Government and Discipline relating immediately unto Christ All which are supernaturall duties wherein the light of nature though it were restored to its native and pristine purity is no way conducent to guide or direct us without particular revelations of the Spirit of God declared either by Scripture or some other extraordinary and supernaturall meanes which duties therefore cannot be knowne to Heathens to which God never vouchsafed the benefit of such revelations nor be possibly capable of any legall sanctions from the most prudent and intelligent Legislator that ever sate at sterne in any Heathenish Common-wealth And yet though Heathens cannot be good Christians they may be good Kings as the Holy Ghost testifieth of Cyrus whose Government is much magnified Esay 45. although he understood nothing of these Evangelicall duties which relate to Christ the like Panegyricks are recorded not onely by the Heathenish but also by Christian Authors of the government of Solon of Athens Lycurgus of Lacedemon and Servius Tullius of Rome And this is further manifested by that judicious and rationall answer which Gallio the Romane Deputy returned to the complaints of the Jewes against Paul for preaching against the Jewish Ceremonies and the outward form of worship prescribed by Moses Acts 18.14 15. If it were a matter of wrong or injustice saith Gallio which importeth sins against the law of the second Table or of wicked lewdnesse which importeth sinnes against the law of the first Table of the Morall law then reason would O ye Jewes that I should bear with you But if it be a Question of your law looke ye to it for I will be no Judge of such matters Whence it is observable that though this wise Heathen was perswaded that it was a part of his office and duty to judge of offences against the law of nature whether they were transgressions of the first Table and so immediately against God or of the second Table and so immediately against our neighbour ye he did conclude from the principles of sound reason that the judgement of these Jewish Ceremonies which were not naturall but Evangelicall duties did not pertaine to his Office or Calling So that these Evangelicall duties cannot be directly and per se the Object of Politicall Cognizance or the subject of any positive Law or Statute generally obligatory unto all persons But yet these Evangelicall duties may and doe fall within the sphere of Politicall Cognizance indirectly and per accidens that is in such persons to whom God doth vouchsafe the benefit of these supernaturall revelations for in regard the service and worship of God ought to be the first and principall care of all Kings as well Heathen as Christian according to the Maxime of that * Arist pol. lib. 7 c. 8. knowing Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religion must be the foundation of all Policy being the most important businesse amongst the affaires of State cementing all societies and energating all lawes as Plutarch well observeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in regard also that they to whom God hath vouchsafed the knowledge of these Evangelicall and supernaturall duties cannot with a safe conscience serve and worship God after any other manner but that which in their opinion is most consonant to his word and will therefore it is both lawfull and expedient for Kings to exercise both their Legislative power in composure of Lawes and Statutes for directing a laudable conformity amongst these persons in the religious observation and practise of these Evangelicall and supernaturall duties of the Religion and piety whereof they are already sufficiently perswaded and satisfied in their consciences and also their Judiciary power in punishing the contempt or neglect thereof because to such persons there is no medium betweene the practise of these duties and that wicked lewdnesse or profanenesse the restraint and reformation whereof Gallio did acknowledge to be directly a part of the duty of the Magistrates office and calling But for other persons who are not of the same perswasion concerning the Religion of these Evangelicall duties but beleeve the practise thereof to be superstitious and dishonourable to God and another forme of worship to be the onely acceptable service unto him in regard the practise of Evangelicall duties in such persons cannot proceed from faith and trust in God whereby they may expect a blessing from him upon their service and devotion but rather that curse and damnation which Saint Paul affirmeth to be the just merits of all acts of worship which are not of faith but either of doubtfulness or which is worse of perfect hypocrisie and dissimulation Rom. 14. last The enforcement of such a conformity by the Magistrate in Evangelicall worship and service in such persons contrary to their consciences must necessarily render him guilty not onely of their sinnes and thereby liable to that curse and damnation which is due to their hypocrisie and dissimulation whereof hee is in some sense the efficient cause but also of sacrilegious intrusion upon those sacred prerogatives which God hath reserved wholly unto himselfe that is the command and power over mens consciences over which he never appointed any lord or master besides himselfe as the expressions and exhortations both of our Saviour Mat. 23.8 9. and of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 8.6 doe purposely insinuate and whereunto the Kings Commission did never extend Whence it is manifest that Christian Kings may exercise their Legislative power in the composure of Lawes and Statutes to direct a conformity of Evangelicall worship and service in those persons unto whom God hath vouchsafed the true understanding thereof and thereby satisfied their consciences of the Legality and Religion thereof and also his Judiciarie power in rewarding the pious and due observance and punishing the impious contempt and neglect of such duties in the same persons But may not exercise either his Legislative or Judiciary
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
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
preserve our owne may destroy theirs which Doctrine doth plainly legitimate rebellion by the Law of Nature And therefore to prevent both this and many other dangerous and damnable inferences which may be deduced from this fundamental errour placing this fift Commandement under a wrong genus of the Morall Law and thereby putting a wrong construction upon all the duties therein prescribed I shall endeavour to rectifie this Epidemicall errour by twelve Reasons or Arguments demonstrating this fift Commandement to be a Precept not of the second but of the first Table of the Morall Law Whereof The first foure doe conclude the Negative part that it is not a Precept of the second Table The latter eight the Affirmative part that it is a Precept of the first Table The Negative part that it is no Precept of the second Table appeares 1. By Saint Pauls exposition of that lesser Commandement whereby Christ divides the second Table from the first viz. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe under which Commandement saith the Apostle are comprehended all the Precepts of the second Table relating to our neighbour and particularizing them mentions onely the last five Rom. 13.9 Ob. You will say though he specifie no other but the five last Precepts of the Decalogue yet he intimateth in that verse that some other Commandement is also comprehended in this saying Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe which other Commandement must needs be this of obedience to parents Sol. By other Commandement the Apostle doth not mean any of the other five which are specifically distinct from these five but other particular branches of these five Negative Commandements of the second Table each of which comprehends many particulars under them and that hee doth not thereby understand this fift Commandement which is an Affirmative Precept is manifest from the Reason alledged by the Apostle in the subsequent verse shewing why and how this love of our neighbour is the fulfilling of the Law of the second Table For saith he love worketh no ill to his neighbour therefore is love the fulfilling of the Law Ver. 10. Where you may observe that all the duties of the second Table relating to our neighbour are grounded primarily upon the Negative effects of our love which is the not doing ill to our neighbour for not our neighbour but our selves are the immediate object of the positive effects of our love and so the Precepts are all exprest by way of negation But the duties of the fift Commandement are of a different nature and consists primarily in the positive effects of our love and therefore this Precept is exprest by way of affirmation both in the Decalogue Exod. 20. and by Saint Paul in the first verse of this Chapter For first he commands us to submit our selves to higher Powers that is to perform and execute their commands when they are not contrary to Gods Precepts and this is the immediate and primary duty of this fift Commandement and in the next verse hee prohibits all resistance though their commands be such as we judge to be contrary to Gods Precepts and this is the consequentiall and secondarie duty of the same Commandement A second Reason why this fift Commandement cannot be a precept of the second Table is because such a Commandement would be superfluous in the second Table for if the honour and obedience due to Kings and parents were duties of the second Table then they should be grounded upon such a love as is inferiour unto and to be measured by the love of our selves and wee should yeeld our obedience and submission to their commands onely when we judged them to conduce unto our own good and benefit whereupon it would follow that the honour due to Kings and parents should be no other then what is due to our friend or servant or any other neighbour for nature teacheth us to obey and execute their commands when we conceive them to conduce unto our owne advantage and so this fift Commandement should be altogether superfluous And therefore cannot be a Precept of the second Table The third reason why this fift Commandement cannot be a Precept of the second Table is because God doth not permit us to accuse or testifie against our parents upon any occasion no not in case of Idolatry wherein wee were not to pity or spare any neighbour how neare and dear soever they were unto us whether it were brother childe wife or friend but were to accuse them and testifie against them and to execute the sentence of death upon them with our owne hands Deut. 13.6 7 8 9 10. yea if it were a whole city that were guilty of this sinne it was to be destroyed Ver. 15. Yet in this strict charge concerning Idolatrous neighbours of so neere relation the Text doth not mention any man or woman who hath the relation of a father or mother to us thereby differencing them from all neighbours whatsoever And Solomons exposition of this fift Commandement makes this more cleare and evident Eccles 10.20 where he extends the honour and reverence due to Kings unto the very thoughts and imaginations of the heart notwithstanding they were both Fooles Tyrants and Idolaters for when Solomon prohibited the cursing of the King yea even in the thought he was not ignorant that Saul had beene a Tyrant himselfe an Idolater and that his sonne Rehoboam who should succeed him was a Fool. But it was never prohibited to speake or think evill of any friend or neighbour who was guilty of these crimes nay we are commanded to accuse them of evill Ob. You will say What must men then thinke and beleeve manifest lies Must we neither say nor thinke that those Kings are evill and wicked which manifest themselves to be such in all their actions such as Jeroboam Ahab Manasses Nebuchadnezzar whom the Scriptures record for most infamous and notorious sinners and may not we speake or thinke that for which we have the warrant of Scripture Sol. Kings in reference to their duty towards God may be more wicked then any other men because they may offend in a double capacity 1. In their naturall as men and professores fidei by transgressing of Gods Commandements which doe oblige them equally as they do other men 2. In their Politick as Gods Deputies and propugnatores fidei by breach of that trust which God hath reposed in them for ruling and judging of the people committed to their care and protection according to Justice and Equity But in reference to their duty towards us though themselves may be wicked yet they cannot doe wicked things as I shewed in the last Chapter that is they cannot inflict any thing upon us but that which God hath decreed to fall upon us for our sinnes as the Holy Ghost testifieth of Pilates sentence against Christ Acts 4. so that the evill which they doe to us is just in respect of us though it be never so unjustly executed by them So that
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
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