or becomes a Father he becomes a Supreme Civil Power begins a new Common-wealth and he and his children are exempt from his Fathers if living and all other Civil superiority and the Fathers power and the Common-wealth he is over shall be dissolved by his having Nephews or by his childrens fatherhood and this will make every family though but of two persons to be a Civil State and that no Common-wealth can consist of more then the children of one Father and for ever prevent or deny the compounding a Common-wealth of many families and the distinction of the Common-wealth from the Family And by this multiplication of the number and abridgement of the extent of civil societies you disappoint mankind of that union strength security and comfortable commerce that nature hath guided men to seek and the experience of all ages and nations have found in large and populous societies Or 2. The political power must be said to be in or to be the right of every Father that is not Pater patratus or that hath no Father and this doth dissolve and divide the Common-wealth at the death of such a Father into so many parts as there are left persons fatherlesse whether they be Wife Sons or Daughters and into so many new Common-wealths as there are left Fathers in it that have not a Father 3. The right or power of the Father can relate only to the children and only to his own Out of the extent then of this dominion and consequently out of the Common-wealth it belongeth unto upon this score you must exclude 1. The Wife and Servants of this supposed Monarch though he be their superiour and they in a subordination to him yet he is not their Father 2. All other persons of any other stock there can be no mixture of races or linages in this Common-wealth 4. If Civil power be the right of the Father then it must necessarily be in him in reference to all his children wherever placed or dispersed So that how far soever Adams progeny must be disseminated or spread upon the face of the earth during his life or Noahs during his life or any of the long lived Patriarchs during their respective lives all the posterity that sprang from such a head must belong to and be shut up within one Common-wealth while that common parent lasted And how will this stand with that distribution of Noahs race into severall Countreys and Nations in his life time as also with that of Shems he being living of which in the 10 and 12 Chapters of Genesis and with Abrahams sending away the sons he had by his Concubines into another Countrey while he yet lived Gen. 25.6 Unless it will be said such a Father hath a faculty or warrant to strip himself of this his paternal Civill Dominion and to transfer it or any part of it to others during his life But 1. Thus you unsettle and change the basis and cause of civil dominion you had laid in the Fathers natural right and make it separable from it by humane choice and will and if you put it once upon arbitrary constitution you make it alienable for ever from that subject and from that bottom 2. This cannot be supposed at the confusion of languages Gen. 11.6 7. when as they were one immediately before it and the end of their building Babel was to prevent their dispersion and upon that confusion they were scattered from thence upon the face of the whole earth by which confusion and dispersion the consent or act of their common head for the divesting of himself and for the investing of those who should succeed him in being the respective Soveraign powers of those several divided Countries and nations was prevented Secondly But the inconveniencies of fixing Civil power in the paternal relation alone they endevour to salve by eeking it out with that of primogeniture Unto this I say 1. Primogeniture can never be supposed to derive any thing to the childe but what was in the Father if the Father be a Supreme power a Monarchy may by it be conveyable to his Son and not otherwise Thus primogeniture is not the rise of civil power but supposeth it to be in being and is only the mean of continuation and transmission of it from person to person 2. The natural right of the first born in succession from the Father as we finde it in Scripture seems only to be a better or double portion of what was his Fathers in copartnership with his Brethren If then you go by that you must upon the death of every royal father that hath a plurality of Sons divide the Common-wealth among them according to that proportion whereby it would come to passe that a Kingdom by many descents probably shall be divided into numberlesse minute principalities and every of them still new to be divided by every new succession The conveying of a Kingdom whole and entire to one of many Sons is not from the law of the first born in Scripture but is doubtless from positive institution And this is to me a stâ—ong argument and unanswerable to them that allow the transferring of Kingdoms undivided from Father to Childe that Supreme power is in a person by arbitrary constitution not by natural right as in a Father or first-born for if it were that right by it self would infer a division of Common-wealths according to the multiplication of the Regal stock and so in time an easie dissolution of them 3. If Primogeniture must carry it then the right of Fatherhood aâ—ore insisted on went on no farther then the first man Adam and was never in any after him and upon his decease you put an end to and destroy for ever your paternal right to Political power For upon his death either the power must descend upon every one of his children distributively as Fathers in reference to their respective children as their subjects and then where is that you call the right of primogeniture and what politicall power is accrewed by it or it must descend upon his first-born only and then what becomes from thenceforth of the right of fatherhood 4. If you set the Civill power upon the first born in succession from Adam and so downward then you must either set it upon every fiâ—st-born of every Father and this will bring the absurdities argued to follow upon setting it upon every father or you must fixe it but on one first-born only at once that is the eldest Son of the eldest house and then you make it necessary that all men be kept within one Common-wealth and that there be but one Monarch for that primogeniture can but be in one race and in one person still and how opposite is this not only to the practise of all ages even from Noahs time when the race of mankinde was divided as into divers regions so into several Nations or politique bodies but to the state of mankind so far diâ—persed over the whole earth as it is
findeth this shift The obedience which all Subjects yeeld to Kings is but the paying of that duty which is due to the supreme Fatherhood Many times by the act either of usurper himself or of those that set him up the true heir of a Crown is dispossessed In such cases the subjects obedience to the Fatherly power must go along and wait upon Gods providence who only hath right to give and to take away Kingdoms and thereby to adopt subjects into the obedience of another Fatherly power †The Anarchy c. pag. 12. Hereby the Fatherly right and power are made a meer Equivocum or to signifie power entitled or coming in any way whatsoever though it do not only not derive from the right of Fatherhood but be privatively opposed to or destructive of it and thus he confounds and makes to meet together in one name and title the thing that he had argued against with the thing that he had asserted And the saying that Providence in dispossessing of a Crown him that is the true heir and so hath the right and disposing it to the hands of an unjust invader doth put a fatherly power in that invader and adopt the subjects to an obligation to it is to deny the right both of paternity and birth-right and of the consent of the people and of every other special way of conveying a title to Government and to make the right thereof only to follow come by and consist in possession and to die forthwith in the Father and heir upon dispossession And to what purpose then is all his plea for Fatherhood and primogeniture or any other mans for any other title what a void distinction is that of his when he distinguisheth of a natural and an a usurped right According to him now there is no Power but Fatherhood no Fatherhood but possession But let us passe by this laxe and wide claim to dominion by the sword which swalloweth up all other titles and look into that which I noted to be qualified and cautioned and so admitted by learned authors ancient and modern as it is distinguishable from this and reconcileable with that of the consent of the ruled Two wayes I observe the Sword is admitted to conduce or have influence into the disposal or placing of Government but by neither is it made the sole or the immediate ground or cause of a right or title to it or any otherwayes then as concordant with that political constitution I have asserted 1. Conquest or the Conquerour rather is admitted to be interested in Government where it is the effect of a reall and just war And so it makes no exception against my assertion That Victory which is acknowledged justly to lay claim to a Crown is the issue of such a war as supposeth the equity and necessity of the war to be on the victors part and the default and provocation to be on the part of the conquered and moreover that the default of the conquered is so high as either to detain from the Conqueror his right or to forfeit into his hands by wrong offered their power or liberty in the enjoyment or disposal of the throne and that there is a necessity on the part of the Conqueror in reference to his attaining and enjoying of his own right and just security therein that he take and use that forfeiture * Vide Groâ—a Jure â—elli lib. 3. ca. 15. Sect. 1. In this case conquest is only a means to the conquerers seising and holding of that power or rule which was his own before he prevailed and which the cause and state of the war before the successe obtained entitled him unto By which it is evident that his right is not founded on his victory but was in being before it and had its rise from an antecedent investure or trespass Upon this ground it is that the title of the sword is alledged not by it self alone but in subjunction to another title A late Historian tels us that our King Henry the sevenâ—h at his coronation was proclaimed with these titles Henâ—icus Rex Angliae Buckes History of Richard the Third lib. 2. pag. 54 55. Jure Divino Jure Humano Jure belli And that the Pope Innocent the 8. in his bull to the said King Anno 1486. hath theâ—â— words Hic Rex Angliae de domo Lancastriae originem trahens ac qui notorio Jure indubitato proximo successionis Titulo praelatorum procerum Angliae electione successione c. etiam de Jure belli est Rex Angliae And this way of ingresse into the seat of Authority as it is not grounded on conquest as its title so it is not privative of or altogether another from that which was before affirmed to be the only ordinary way viz. the consent of the people Forfeiture as it is a singular exception that lies in many cases so it presupposeth a law or constitution that ordains it and so in a sort involveth their consent of whom it is taken Though there be no explicite and present act of will in the conquered that the Conquerer shall reign over them but an utter averseness and all possible reluctancy against and that brings the war yet it is so allowed to be when that case is put which is presupposed as the cause of the war by the law of Nations yea of Nature and being so their wils have antecedently originally and implicitely subscribed to it as such and are therefore in this manner concluded in it In like manner as we account that to be by a mans will or consent which his Predecessors in whom he is virtually included have willed or himself hath formerly granted though now he be quite of another minde He that gives his vote personally or by proxie to any penal law or act to be binding to the community of which he is though he do not formally and absolutely will his own punishment yet he doth it interpretatively consequentially and conditionally if he himself shall fall under the provision of that Act and his will so passed is upon his offending after it sufficient to make his punishment not only just in it self but just ex ore proprio and to have his own consent 2. As Conquest may interest a person in Government by being an attainment of possession in pursuance of an antecedent right so the other sort of conquest to wit that which is a seasing of anothers right or the setting of a man in meet possession may have some tendency thereto though not so directly and that is thus It may be an inducement to the conquered if they be indeed free and unengaged to any other to a submission and delivery up of themselves to be the subjects of the victor and to take him for their Soveraign The former way conquest is postnate and subsequent to the right of the Conquerer and so doth not give him his title but only introduce his possession this latter way
this objection doth not more lie against this of their agreement of Government then against any other I say therefore a civill society having in it persons lying under all those occasions of absence or non acting and add to them one more viz. that some list not to come 't is not thereby rendred actionlesse to this or other purposes But how are the exceptions removed 3. Thus. 1. They that are absent are either incapable of giving a consent to any thing that concernes them as are infants and such as want the use of reason or they are capable 2. Of these latter some are not personally interested in passing or giving a vote in matters political but are involved as to these in their Husbands Parents Masters or Guardians others have an interest personally to concurre in them 3. Of these some may be necessarily absent as the sick lame decrepit others are away volun arily 1. For the necessarily absent This is the case ordinarily but of a few single persons in a great body upon whom nature it self laying a present impediment must needs be taken to lay a present suspense upon their interest of personal presence and consent in the publique business and rather to will the divolving of it upon the other that can meet then that they and the whole community should be suspended from attaining or effecting the dispatch of their publique necessary affaires As they to whom nature denies the use of reason so they from she withholds the opportunity of bringing it to political exercise for want of bodily integrity may be comprehended by her in the actings of others in those things that appertain to the whole community they are of 2. For the voluntarily absent if some yea many that may and should concur will not come this must not prevent the whole or the priviledge of others but rather by their default they put off their right as to the present act and invest it in the rest * Vide Grot. de Jure lib. 2. cap. 5. Sect. 20. We account and justly that a countrey-meeting aâ— which we choose our Parliament men to which the people therein are called though the twentieth part of them that are called do not appear 2. Suppose all present or the absence of those that are not dispensed with how can mary thous nds or some millions of peoplâ— so mâ—et in one place as to communicate their minds to one another and joyntly deliberate and come to a resolution in any thing R. 1. Common-wealths are usually very small at their beginning which is the time of setling their Government for succession 2. When they are come to growth they have another way of acting besides personal presence and cognisance viz. that of meeting and transacting their concernments in and by their Deputies or representees 3. As it is not very convenient so it is not altogether impossible for the collective body I mean those who make a collective assembly to wit grown men and Masters of families and especially so many of them as are disposed to come to meet and treat in an assembly We have divers instances for it in the nation of Israel and among the rest one that was upon occasion of the Levites Concubine mentioned in the history of the book of Judges Cap. 20 21. for the numerousness of and universal accurrence to which assembly let the Text be observed Cap. 20. v. 1 2 12. Cap. 21. v. 5 8. And the people of Rome when come to a very large and populous Common-wealth had their meetings of this nature often in campo Martio 4. And besides the Roman state found out wayes of accommodating the difficulties of so vest an assemblies treating in one by distributing themselves one way into distinct classes and centuries another way into several tribes and giving their votes in those distinct partitions * Vide Tullium de legibus lib. 3. prope finem 3. Object It 's said In case of a Common-wealths want of a supreme Magistracy Idem qui supra pag. 11 12. as when a King dies without heir the power shall not escheat to the whole people but to the supreme heads and fathers of families not as they are the people but quatenus they are Fathers of people over whom they have a Supreme power divolved unto them after the death of their Soveraign Ancestor and if any have a right to choose a King it must be these Fathers by conferring their distinct Fatherly powers upon one man alone Resp It is well he acknowledgeth thus much and we are so far agreed that in case of a Kingdoms destituteness of a head there is an escheature of the power to some and that it is to the heads and Fathers of families so as the right is in them to choose a King only then upon this he thinks good to cast a thin shadow or mist to make it seem as if this were not the same with our tenent as it were to suborne another different way of introducing of Magistracy which in truth hath no reality in it but what is borrowed from and built upon that our position But 1. What means he by that Epithet Supreme added to the heads and fathers of families as if he meant that all heads and families are not interested in that Escheature and election but some only distinguish by that title And if this be his sense I leave him to clear first how he differenceth those he cals Supreme from other heads and Fathers 2. Why he makes such a distinction and limits the said power to some only of the Fathers under that notion of Supreme 2. When he saith The power escheates to the heads and fathers of families I ask what power the power which was before in the King viz. a politicall Supreme Regall power and how escheates or descends it upon them unitedly or conjunctly as copartners and joint heirs of that whole solid power in relation to the Community or body politick This indeed is the power of which the Question is and which wants a lineal heir or subject to bear it upon the supposed death of the King And if that descend upon them it must either be in that manner specified or else so as each person of them is the adequate possessor of the whole and solid power which I suppose will not be said If that then be his meaning lo here a Democracy yielded and set up by him who elsewhere holds there is no ground for any such or any other polarchical forme of Government and that Monarchy is the only warranted form Or In his observations on Aristotles Polit. doth be mean a private Domestical paternall power of each of those heads and Fathers not over the Common-wealth but over their families severally and respectively But for this 1. This is not the power which was in the King and now by his decease without Lineal heir can be said to Escheat or passe from him to any 2. This cannot be
said to come anew to them then but must be acknowledged to have been in them whilest they had their King to remain in them after they have chosen another in his place 3 Where 's he seems as if he would explain how there comes in this sense a supremeness into those persons viz. They have a Supreme Power divolved unto them after the death of their Soveraign Still it remains that he tell us what was above asked viz. what that power is whether Political or Oeconomical and how the power of either of those sorts can accrue De novo to them by such death Indeed that domestical power which was in each of them before in relation to his particular and private family they being left destitute of a Superior or Political head hath another habitude then it had before being become negatively Supreme that is it hath none actually above it but it is the same power still or if we shall say the power of the Pater familias in this vacancy may be put forth unto some acts in relation to the persons in his house which he might not exercise while the Common-wealth had a Magistrate I shall not dispute that but only say though the Oeconomicall power be somewhat larger in actu exercito when unsubordinate to a Political Soveraign then it is being subordinate yet it is within the compasse of Oeconomical still and the same it was in actu signato And that which he cals a Power divolved upon the head of the family by the Soveraigns death is but the drawing forth into act of that which was in him before but was suspended by the politicall relation and subjection That which then can be said to Escheat to the heads of families by such death of their King is a power to dispose of themselves in subjection to another and of their votes for the election of him to be their Soveraign together if you will with a larger compass for the exercise of their paternal power in their families during their want of Magistracy 3. Whereas he saith This power accrues to the heads and fathers of families not as they are the people but quatenus they are Fathers of people 1. They are not Fathers neither is any one of them a Father of a people that is a Common-wealth or body politique but they are Fathers only of their respective families and of the persons therein respectively what power therefore is in them as in that relation can be but Domestical and that which is in every Father 2. What if those persons where no Fathers but were single and unsociate as to such a relation that is what if they were not over any other or if they had no families or children sprung from or belonging to them would not then the said power in the said case Eschear or belong to them If he say no I demand his reason if he say it would then he must say it doth not Escheate to them as they are Fathers of people but as persons and people of that Common-wealth 3. Men that are Fathers of families cannot as such be in a capacity of choosing a King over them they must besides that relation be moreover united and confederate in one Common-wealth or else they cannot put forth that act of election Persons that are either non cives or extraneae civitatis have nothing to do in it Whereby it is very manifest the reason why men have that power of Election of a Magistracy to this or that Common-wealth is not because they are Fathers but because they are Denisons or freemen of that Common-wealth and not comprehended or represented by any Domestical Superior but immediately concerned to act for themselves in the common interests of the people of that Common-wealth 4. Where he saith The Power shall not escheat to the whole people but to the Supreme heads and Fathers of families I say in that it escheats to them who are every one a part in his own family the Supreme head or Father that is having none in this case above him in the Civil State and to such as being without Domestical head are capable of heading a family whom I think he will not exclude it escheates to the whole people for who are the whole people to this effect but they that are Masters of families with them who are Masters of themselves As was before shewed in answer to the second Objection and the latter branch of it and they choosing the whole people choose their Soveraign they being all the people either personally or representatively 5. In that he sayes These Fathers choose a King by conferring their distinct fatherly power upon one This is quite mistaken for 1. They do not put off or part with their Fatherly powers but retain each their own still when they have chosen their King 2. The power which upon their election passeth into the hands of the Elected King is more then all their Fatherly powers laid together that is a Supreme Political Civil or Common-wealth power which is a power of a higher Sphere and differs not only in measure but toto genere or in kinde from that of the Fathers and unto which the paternall still continuing in the Masters of families is subordinate 6. Lastly As this Author cannot exempt these his words if they must bear any sound sense from a confession of that which he contends against both in this Treatise against Mr. Hunton and in his other of Observations upon Aristotles Politicks viz. the rise of Government from the peoples consent so can he not excuse himself think from down right self-contradiction in some other particulars As 1. How will his arguing against the peoples capacity to choose their Soveraign by this Argument That no man hath power to take away his own life and therefore the people cannot confer this power upon another consist with the right of the Fathers of families to choose their King whereas the power to take away their lives is a part of the power to which they choose him 2. How will this Escheature of the power to the heads of families and their right thereby to choose their King stand with what he saith presently after viz. That all Kings are either Fathers of the people or heirs of such Fathers or usurpers of the right of such Fathers And that when the true heir of a crown is dispossessed by a usurper the subjects obedience of the Fatherly power must go along and wait upon Gods Providence who only hath right to give and take away Kingdoms and thereby to adopt subjects to the obedience of another fatherly power For if the power in defect of a right heir escheat to the Fathers of families then it passeth not to an usurper and if those have a right to choose their King he that is chosen by them hath the right to be their King and not the Usurper neither can the subjects be adopted to the obedience of another fatherly power supposed to be in him
7. From the approved custome of determining Controverted titles unto Soveraignty by Arbitration 7 IT hath been the custome of Princes and other supream States or Potentates both ancient and modern when a Controversie hath been raised betwixt two or more of them about the title to the Soveraignty of a Kingdome or Territory and each part hath been confident of his right and bent to vindicate his claim by the sword to the uttermost issue and commonly one of them hath been in possession and the other kept out by him for the preventing of the miseries and uncertain events of War and for the clearer and safer ending of the difference to refer the matter to the arbitration of one or more as judge or judges betwixt them Which way of decision is approved and commended as the most equall wise and moderate and most becoming Christians For instance Atherbal and Jugurtha brought their contest about the Kingdome of Numidia unto the Romane Senate to be adjudged * Salust Bel. Iugurth num 69. pag. 38. Tygranes the Father and Son referred their strife about the Kingdome of Armenia unto Pompey the Great for his decision †Usser Annal part poster p. 238. Hircanus and Aristobulus the two Asmâ—nian brethren bring their difference about the dominion of Judea before the same Pompey as the Arbitrator betwixt them * Idem page 248 249. Rosse Hist Book 1. Chap. 5. page 20. Archelaus and Antipas the two Sons of Herod the Great after his decease repair to Rome unto Augustus Caesar to determine their severall claims to their Fathers dominions †Usser Annal part poster p. 537. Upon the death of Alexander King of Scotland the Crown of that Kingdome being subject to the claimes of many Nobles the chiefest and probablest of which were those of John Baliol and Robert Bruce the determination of this controversie was by all the parties referred to Edward the first King of England * Speeds History Book 9. chap. 10 Sect. 18. Rosse History Booke 5. Chap. 3. page 244. And more examples of this na-may be seeen in Bishop Vsher Usser Annal. part postr p. 247. and Hugo Grotius Grotius de jure B. lib. 2. Cap. 23 Sect. 8. Et lib. 3. cap. 20. sect 46. When the case is thus the thing referred and adjudged is not who is in possession but in whom is the right If this were a certaine and clear principle that he is the power that is in possession the difference were at an end and would need no Arbitrator where either of the litigants is in the place And when it is thus referred it were a frivolous proceeding for the Arbitrator to hear the arguments and pleas of the parties or to enquire into the grounds of each of their claims by law descent election contract testament or the like all that he hath to doe is to aske which of them is in possession and to judge for him or at his own free choice to put the one of them in possession if neither be already and so to end the difference Unto which businesse the parties need not travaile or study to finde out and repair to the wisest justest and mosâ—â—â—different Arbitrator or he to call in the ablest Civilians or Causuists to assist him * As the Historian saith the said K. Edward did in the Scottish controveâ—sie last mentioned The first person they may light on CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 8. be he the simplest man on earth would serve to umpire the cause by that principle Subsection 8. Argument 8. From the expressions of the Holy Ghost in Scripture owning men for Kings in relation to the Kingdoms of which they have been unpossessed 8 THat persons may be out of the seat of rule both personally and virtually both in regard of residence and in regard of actuall command and yet be higher powers that is Kings and Soveraigns may appear to be the dictate not only of wise Statists and Kingdoms but of the Holy Ghost in Scripture and this in that he mentioneth enstyleth or owneth persons as Kings and as reigning at the time and in the condition wherein they had no actuall rule over the places or people in relation to which they are said to be Kings or to reigne There may be found in Scripture divers instances for this viz many persons mentioned as Kings in such a place or said to reign in such a Kingdome at which time they were either carried away and held captive or expulsed out of their Kingdomes or shut up and besieged in some one City of their Dominions and despoyled of the possession and command of all besides by their invaders and besiegers or lying secretly hid and unknown of their Subjects where they were or whether they were alive or no or otherwise excluded whilest others in opposition to their title and regency possessed the Throne and rule of their Dominions I shall produce sundry examples for this The sacred story relating to us Davids disseisure of his Kingdome by his Son and Subjects doth neverthelesse during that his outing mention and owne him as King How full or in how great a measure that dispossession was both in regard of place of power and of the consent of the people let the words of the Text speak 2 Sam. 10.12 13 14.16 Chap. 15 16 17 18. Chap. 17 1 2 3 4.16.21 22 24 27. Chap. 19 9 10 11.15.6 By all which passages it appears that David was wholly ejected both out of the hearts and out of the territories of Israel and that both the land and the wills of the people were totally given up to Absalom and yet in this very state of things David is King still being so reckoned and stiled all along the story and that not onely in those words of the narration which are set down as the Language of them that adhered unto him as his friends and followers not onely in that acknowledgment of the other party that rose up against him which they made after the battail was lost and Absalom slaine when they both in their consultation among themselves and in their addresse as Subjects to David own him aâ— their King of which Chap. 19 9 10.41.43 But in the proper words and sentences of the penman of the story and so of the Holy Ghost when he himselfe makes mention of him in his own person and not in another In the perusall of the history I have computed David is in this manner 43 times in the narration betwixt the time of hiâ— flâ—ght from Jerusalem and the peoples consent given for his reduction * Viz. Chap 15.15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 27. Chap. 16.2 3 4.5 6.10 14. Chap. 17.17.21 Chap. 18.2 4 5.25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33. Chap. 19 1 2 4 5 8 11 â—4 stiled King To this we may add the story of the other revolt by the instigation and under the conduct of Sheba which followed at the heels of that of Absalom This
was in like manner very generall as to the ten Tribes the Text saith So every man of Israel went up from after David and followed Sheba Chap. 20.2 yet David during the rejection is reckoned as King still by the sacred Historian Verses 3 4. And there is yet another instance for this in David he is said to reign over Israel yea over all Israel forty yeares seven of which he reigned in Hebron and the other 33 in Jerusalem 2 Kings 2.11 1 Chr. 29.26 27. within which years there intervened not onely the space of time in which were the afore recounted interruptions by Absalom's and Shebah's rebellions but a fixed confinement of Davids actuall reign to the Tribe of Judah onely for the first seven years of the 40. in which he reigned in Hebron for so the Text plainly saith David was thirty yeares old when he began to reigne and he reigned forty years in Hebron he reigned over Judah seven yeares and sixe moneths and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three yeares over all Israel and Judah 2 Sam. 4.5 Of the means of this confinement of his actual reign for those seven yeares to that one Tribe the second and third Chapters of the second Book of Samuel will inform us to wit the wars betwixt the houses of David and Saul The same story will tell us that within those seven yeares which were the first part of Davids 40 yeares reign over Israel Ishbosheth was made King over all Israel and reigned two years see 2 Sam. 2.8 9 10 11. That Ishbosheth might well be said to be King and reign over all Israel de facto though he wanted the actuall obedience of Judah is easie to conceive and yeeld both because he had 11 Tribes of the twelve and for that the name of Israel is often put to signifie the ten Tribes in distinction from Judah and Benjamin much more may it be put for 11 Tribes including Benjamin as it plainly doth 2 Sam. 30.10 and 5.5 but that Israel and all Israel in the forecited places 1 Kings 2.11 1 Chron. 29.26 27. should be put for the Tribe of Judah onely and divided from all the other Tribes even then when the other 11 Tribes were in fact a dis-joyned and opposite Kingdome to it and that under the title of Israel I see not how it can stâ—nd The question then is how those Texts that reckon to David forty years reign over Israel can be reconciâ—'d to the other that allot to him seven of those 40 to reign over Judah only in Hebron and give Ishbosheth within that time a reigne over all Israel as a distinct Kingdome from Judah I think it can be no otherwise done then thus Ishbosheth was King and reigned de facto over and by actual predominate possession held from David the 11 Tribes whilst David enjoyed onely the Dominion of the Tribe of Judah but was de jure or in title and right King over all the rest which Ishbosheth detained and therefore David at that time not onely expected but justly waged warre upon Ishbosheth and his partakers for the recovery thereof and therein accordingly daily grew upon him and won upon them and upon this ground might well be that message of Abner to David saying whose is the Land acknowledging David the Proprietor where he was not the possessor 2 Sam. 3.12 Here then we have two competitory Kings mentioned as invested in the same territory at the same time not as joynt partners but each as claymer in toto in solidâ—m with this difference for we must not make a contradiction of it the one is invested with possession the other with the right the one is the occupant the other is the proprietor Now if we should bring both these Kings to this Text of the Apostle and aske which of them during those two yeares of Ishbosheth might be said in reference to the 11 Tribes to be the power in being of God ordained of God would not any considerate Reader answer not Ishbosheth but David not the possessor but the Proprietor And whereas both are said to have reigned not he that is onely said to reigne but he that is said to reigne and is likewise said to be chosen by God to it and entred possession by his special direction as it is said of David * 2 Sam. 5.2.2.2 Thus we have seen this one King and that he who in a style peculiar and above others is said to be the anointed of the God of Jacob yeelds us a treble instance of a power in being yet out of possession Next to David was Solomon yet when he as Davids immediate successor should be installed being thereunto assigned both by divine appointment and by his Father 1 Chron. 28.5 1 Kings 1.17 Adonijah his elder brother got the start of him in respect of possession and the said Adonijah not onely exalted himselfe saying I will be King but raised a very strong party yea obtained it seems a generall consent of the State and thereby got into actual seisure of the Kingdome There stood up for him and gave him admission to the Kingdome Joab the Generall of the Army Abiathar the Priest and all his brethren the Kings sons and all the mâ—â— of Judah the Kings servants Whereupon Nathan the Prophet and Baâ—hsheba tell David Adonijah doth reigne and himselfe said afterward The kingdome was mine and all Israel set their faces on me that I should reigne 1 King 1.5 6 7 9 11 18.25.2.15 Yet for for all this the Kingdome in right of succession upon the forementioned title was Solomons which Adonijah after confessed It was thine from the Lord 1 Kings 2.15 and therefore Adonijah's possession notwithstanding Nathan the Prophet moveth Bathsheba and they both together move David for Solomons investure and by his order Zadok Bendiah and Nathan with the Kings guard proclaim anoynt and inaugurate him in the Throne 1 King 1.32 33 38 The which if Adonijah had been the power because he was in possession and Solomon had not been the power because fore-stalled and kept from possession they could not lawfully have done but both they and Solomon yea and David also must have acquiesced in the duty of subjection to Adonijah according to the Rule of the Apostle in this place if to be understood as abovesaid Let us goe on to other examples â— Chr. 22.9 Ahaziah King of Judah being slain by Jehu the Text saith his house had no power to keep still the kingdome yet Joash his son and heire being left alive though he were powerlesse both in regard of his own childhood Athaliah's strong hand of usurpation over the Kingdome ceased not therefore to be King For whilst he lay hid with his Aunt in the house of the Lord and was not known abroad so much as to be being in common repute slaughtered amongst the rest of Ahaziah's sons and Athaliah reigned over the Land and when Jehoiadah the Priest and those of the Levites and people that were
time The which he compriseth bâ—iefly as his manner is in one short sentence and he remembers the same twice in his works viz. in his Bâ—ok ad Scapulam cap. 2. Nanquam Albiniani nec Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani The Christians could never be found to be Albinians or Nigrians or Cassians And again in his Apologeticus cap. 35. unde Cassii Nigri Albini c. de Romanis ni fullâ—r i e. de non Christianis Whence arose the Cassu the Nigri the Albini c of the Romans I take it that is of they who were not Christians The Scholiasts upon Tertullian viz. Zephyrus Rhenanus and Junius doe agree that these sayings of his do refer to Avidiâ—â— Cassius Pescenius Niger and Clodius Albinus their respective standings up at severall times as Emperours and each obtaining to be so named and to have under their command a vast Territory of the Roman Dominions but their assumption of the same being violent as in opposition to other Emperours who were chosen invested and received by the Senate and people of Rome which was then the legall entry to the Empire * For this Title see Grot. de Jure Bel. lib. 2. cap. 9. Sect. 11. as Cassius against Marcus Antoninus Niger and Albinus against Septimius Severus Tertullians drift in those sentences is to vindicate the Christians from disloyalty by assoyling them of joyning having any hâ—nd with or aiding any of those possessors and titular Emperours in the Countreys where they were generally followed and maintained by the Roman Legions and Subjects against the right and lawfull Emperours of Rome †Albinianos Nigrianos Cassianos vocat Tertullianus defectionum istorum conscios Rhenanus in loc ad Scap. He that shall consult those above named Annotators with the Historians of those times shall finde That Avidius Cassius a Nobleman of Rome of the Fâ—mily of that Cassius who was a Conspirator against Julius Caesar whilest Marcus Antoninus was in his wars in Germany and the bordering Countreys those wars where the famous victory and relief of water was obtained for him by the prayers of his Christian Souldiers called upon that the Thundering Legion gives out that Antoninus was dead by which means the forces and people of the East within the Mountain Taurus generally supposing the Empire vacant set up Cassius to be Emperour After this Antonine to shew himself alive and to recover his Empire in the East marcheth thither against Cassius whose souldiers perceiving the error they had been caught in by his lye kill him with his son and presenting their heads to Antonine the sedition is appeased * Vide ZephyruÌ„ Rhenanum in loc Tertulliani Rosse Histor Book 2. Chap. 2. Also that Pescenius Niger Proconsul of Syâ—ia and Governour of the whole Eastern part upon the people of Romes generall discontent at the corrupt entrance and male-administration of the Empire by Didius Julianus is wished for by them to come and take the Empire and is thereto made choice of and even sued to accept of it by the Roman Legions and Subjects of the East and is by them as far as in them lay made Emperour at Antioch But in competition for it Septimius Severus arises in Pannonia being the praefect there and by the souldiery and people at Illyricum is set up as their Emperour and being so whiles Niger taken up with sport and jollity looseth his time in the East he marcheth to Rome and obtains the election of the Senate there and having so sped he goes up into the East against Niger overthrowes his power at Cyzicum and so suppresseth and slayeth him †Vide praeter Zephyr Rhenan in Tertull. Herodianum Hist lib. 2. sect 21 22 23 25 c. et lib. 3. sect 3.12 13 14. Item Sum. Herod ex Photii Biblioth Epist Herod praefix et Brev. lib. 2. Herod praefix Speeds Hist Book 6. Chap. 22. Sect. 3. And that Severus the Emperour being upon his enterprise against Niger as aforesaid and conceiving jealousie of Clodius Albinus the Proconsul of Britain his stirring against him in the West during his absence to make him the surer to him he creates him Caesar and after that his co-partner in Government but having overc me Niger his jealousie against Albinus is made good or retorted by Albinus his rising up in Arms against him This brings the difference to an open warre which is ended by Severus his vanquishment and dest uction of Albinus * Vide Herod Hist lib. 2. Sect. 48. lib. 3. Sect. 16 c. Speeds Hist Book 6. Chap. 23. Sect. 2. c. Of the possession of the East by Cassius first against Antonine and then by Niger against Severus and of the West by Albinus against the same Severus and by their respective accomplices in such manner as hath been related Tertullian saith None of the Christians were ever found to be Albinianes Nigrianes or Cassianes That is they none oâ— them interested themselves in the causes of Albinus Niger or Cassius or were partakers with upholders of or sticklers for them which yet it had been their duty to have bin had their respective Titles been as good as their possession was full in those Territories or had their possession made them the powers of God ordained of God But contrarywise these three having none of them any legall investure and there being lawfull Emperours claiming those Dominions against them the Christians declined the possâ—ssâ—rs in a duty belonging to those who are powers of Gods ordaining in recognition of the rightfull câ—aimers against them It is likewise to be remembred that at what time John of Leyden ruled as King in Munster and stood out in defence of his pretended Kingdome against the Bishop the Temporall Pâ—ince thereof and his assistants the Princes of Germany as was above related there were some good men in that City who would have no hand with him in the maintaining thereof in that manner and cause †See Rosse of Religions in John of Leydens life pag. 18 19. Jo. Sleiden Comment l. 10. pag. 258. 259. These examples produced may be both for number and pregnancy sufficient to satisfie the query unto which they are returned For a conclusion of my answer to it I shall observe that with these examples of them of the true faith and religion afore-given some even of the prudenter Heathen have comported To this purpose I shall remember two one of M ssala Corvinus and his Heroicall reply to Augustus He being Colleague with Caesar Octavian in the Roman Conâ—ulship Plutarchus in vita Bruti sub finem and Caesar after his famous victory at Actium over Antony the which raised him up to his Imperial Throne taking occasion to give him a publique encomium hat although in the cause of B utus in the Philippick warre he had been a stout enemy against him yet now in the battel at Actium he had been his speciall fautor and aider he to wit
or that hope to prevail with them which I should promise my self in the undertaking Deo laus omnis FINIS The Contents THE entry and partition of the work pag. 1. CHAP. I. Of the subject here spoken of power the powers p. 3. Sect. 1. An enquiry wâ—â—ther power be put for the person invested who power or for the abstract the office seated in him p. 3. Sect. 2. The main enquiry to wit what kind of power it is which the Apostle intends in those words power powers p. 5. Subsection 1. Of the force of the woâ—d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 5. Subsection 2. Power distinguisht into Naturall and Morall p. 15. Subsection 3. That Moâ—all power oâ—ly is intended in this woâ—d power in this place p. 23. Subsection 4. What is required to the making of a Morall power p. 29. CAHP. II. Of the Tearm of God p. 40. Sect. 1. The diverse Scripture-acceptations of this tearm of God p. 41. Sect. 2. For the clearing of the Question which of these acceptations are proper for this Text divers things discussed p. 46. Subsection 1. The difference betwixt the Narrative and the Legislative word of God and that Scripture predictions are not a warrant for us to act upon in the things predicted p 46. Subsection 2. Certain propositions to explain those severall wayes wherein things are said to be of God p. 49. Subsection 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 p 51. Subsection 4. How the hand of God is clear from the sin of man when it actâ—th in mans sinfull action and from injustice in punish him for that action p. 57. CHAP. III. A Digressive enquiry concerning the voice or declarative use of Divine providence p. 61. Sect. 1. The usefulnesse of the said enquiry p. 62. Sect. 2. In what sense the word providence is taken in this enquiry p. 63. Sect. 3. The question discussed whether Divine providence be and wherein it is regulating or declarative of the will of God to be done by us p. 63. Subsection 1. That providence doth declare something of God p. 64. Subsection 2. That providence doth declare somewhat of Gods counsels p. 65. Subsection 3. That providence doth declare to us that God is and what he is p 67. Subsection 4. Certain distinctions premised for the discovery how far providence is declarative of the wil of God which we are to doe p. 68. Subsection 5. Five propositions explaining wherein providence is and wherein it is not declarative of Gods will to be done by us and how providence where it deâ—ivers not the rule may yet determine its obligation to the particular matter p. 69. Subsection 6. That Dominion is not founded in eventual providence p. 89. Subsection 7. That providence alone or without the Rule of Gods word doth not signifie to us the allowing or disallowing will of God in matters either of human right or positive institutim p. 92. CHAP. IV. The Question how the text saith thâ— power is of God stated and resolved p. 97. CHAP. V. Of the tearm ordained of God p. 101. Sect. 1. Of the severall acceptions of the word ordained being put for an action of God p. 102. Sect. 2. What the speciall and proper acception of the Term ordained of God is in this Text p. 107. Sect. 3. Reasons to prove that Gods ordination of the power is preceptive or warrantive not meerly providential p. 109. Sect. 4. Gods preceptive ordination of the power explained particularly how it is communicated to this or that particular Magistrate p. 120. Subsection 1. Ordination contains institution and constitution and what each of these signifies p. 121. Subsection 2. That institution of the power is of God and whether by the law of nature in man innocency p. 123. Subsection 3. That constitution of the power or putting in of the particular Magistrate is of God and how or by what means he doth it p. 124. Subsection 4 That Gods ordination is conveyd to the particular Magistrate by the consent of the community p. 136. Subsection 5. Three other wayes of conveying into persons a title to Soveraign Magistracy examiâ—ed viz. 1. That of Father-hood and primogeniture 2. That of Conquest 3. That of voluntary benefiâ—iallnesse by protection p. 144. Subsection 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 p. 167. Sect. 5. That distinction which some give betwixt the power and the acquisition or assumption of the power and its aptnesse to resolve the question Whether a violent intruder into Dominion be among the powers in this Text that are of God ordained of God considered p. 191. CHAP. VI. Of the universal negative note in the words there is no power but of God p. 204. Sect. 1. The originall is not in those words no power but of God expressely universall p. 205. Sect. 2. The severall qualifications which sentences in terms universall do admit p. 207. Sect. 3. The sutablenesse of some of those qualifications of universalls to this supposed universall in the Text p. 210. CHAP. VII Of the being of the powers in that proposition the powers that be are ordained of God p. 216. Sect. 1. The question moved wherein consists the being of the power or what it is that makes the power to be p. 217. Sect. 2. Reasons to prove that prevalency or actual possession of the seat of Government doth not make or inferre one to be the power p. 218. Subsection 1. Argument 1. Taken from the nature of 〈◊〉 p. 218. Subsection 2. Argument 2. From the absurdity of admitting Satans and the Popes usurped powers upon the ground of actual rule p. 220. Subsection 3. Argument 3. From the custome of hereditary Kingdomes accounting the succeeding to be King in the moment of the death of his predecessor without actual investure p. 225. Subsection 4. Argument 4. From the lawfulnesse and usâ—fulnesse of fundamental Lawes and provisions for the future continuance of Government by succession and against encroachers upon the same p. 226. Subsection 5. Argument 5. From the practice of Nations owning them for their Soveraign powers who have not actually ruled p. 228. Subsection 6. Argument 6. From another practice of Kingdomes their admitting some to the place of Supreme command whom they acknowledge not to be the Supreme power p. 233. Subsection 7. Argument 7. From the approved custome of determining controverted Titles unto Soveraignty by arbitration p. 234. Subsection 8. Argument 8. From the expressions of the holy Ghost in Scripture owning men for Kings in relation to the Kingdomes of which they have been unpossessed p. 236. Subsection 9. Argument 9. Taken from the nature of Magistracy p. 245. Subsection 10. Argument 10. From Gods expresse disallowance of some in actual command p. 249. CHAP. VIII Some Arguments to prove that by the power in the Text is to be
Chapters I shall reserve the proof of this sense that I here give of this clause to wit that it imports the being of the power of Gods mouth or word not excluding the disposur◠of providence but taking it in being understood of such a procedure of Providence as is conjoyned and concurrent with the authorizing word of God and is the execution or effectuating thereof and that a bare possessory act or a persons occupancy of the seat of power by a meer eventual Providence is not the true and proper importance of the words Only here to give some light to the discerning of the difference betwixt those two and to shew a little the necessity of understanding the words as I have expressed take a view of both in a Scripture example It is the case as is stood betwixt those two Brothers Solomon and Adonijah in relation to the Kingdom of Israel The case may well be stated in the words of Adonijah himself unto Solomons Mother as they are set down 1 King 2.15 thou knowest that the kingdom was mine and that all Israel set their faces on me that I should reign Howbeit the Kingdom is turned about and become my Brothers for it was his from the Lord. Here are two persons represented as having been claimers and competitors of the same kingdom at one and the same time Now let me ask in as much as both could not be which of these two must we say was the power which was of God in the sense of our Text The one Adonijah he hath to alledge for himself a being in it by eventual Providence All Israel set their faces on me that I should reign This was as much as if he had said he was gotten into the throne and had full admission and possession by the people And so by the story it appears he had see 1 King 1.5 7 9 11 18 25. and upon this ground he built to himself a Title The Kingdom was mine saith he On the other hand there was for Solomon the Lords designation of him by word of mouth to David before-hand 1 Chron. 28.5 6 7. 22.9 10. and an ordinative Providence of God disposing David first to promise and to swear to Bathsheba his Mother and after to decree and give out command to Zadok Nathan and Benaiah to anoint him King though even then Adonijah stood seised of the Kingdom 1 King 1.17 32 c. and therefore Adonijah himself having surceased and become a private person again upon this ground acknowledgeth that Solomon had the better of him in point of title for it was his from the Lord. Of these two different pleas if we lake the eventuall Providence by which Adonijah was possessed of the Kingdom to bear the sense of this Text of a being of God by virtue whereof every soul is to be subject to the person so being then must we lay aside Solomon from being the power of God and the enterprise of David Bathsheba Nathan and the rest of seating him in the throne must be disallowed as contrary to the rule of this Text and settle Adonijah when he was in but this were to null and disallow the expresse direction and donation of God appointing the Kingdom to Solomon and the lawfull proceeding upon it before cited out of the story On the other hand if we take that warrant of Gods word unto David seconded by that his ordinative Providence which moved the persons above mentioned who in that case were interested to advance Solomon to the Crown to answer this phrase in our text of the powers being of God then must we say that a meer eventual Providence is not the right and proper importance of the words But this shall be more at large discussed in the next Chapter wherein I shall proceed to the opening of the next phrase in the Text viz. Ordained of God CHAP. V. CHAP. V. Of the term Ordained of God HAving in the last Chapter treated of and explicated the former attribute or predicate which in this Text is spoken of the Powers expressing their author and original viz. of God I am now to proceed to the other which saith The Powers that be are ordained of God answerably unto which in the second verse the power is denominated the ordinance of God This word Ordained I take to be a term somewhat more specifical and definite and to bring the matter intended by the Text unto a clearer view Yet because they that seem to have a minde to widen the sense of it and to make it comprehensive of the power that I suppose to be alien to it choose rather to bring this clause to the formers indefiniteness if simply and by it self taken then to contract that by any limit which may appear in this or in the rest of the text and context I must therefore proceed by steps 1. Delivering the force of this word ordained and distinguishing of the several acceptions which it is capable any were to bear 2. Laying down then positively and particularly the sense I understand the phrase here to intend and the reasons to confirm and conclude that to be the sense 3. And then explicating to prevent further doubts that speciall sense which I ascribe to this clause in this place CHAP. V. SECT I. SECT I. Of the several acceptions of the word Ordained being put for an action of God THe first thing to be done for the investigation of the meaning of this clause ordained of God is to take notice of the force and use of the word Ordained and the different use of it The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to ordain constitute or appoint It is commonly applyed 1. Either to matter of business 2. Or to persons To matter of business or action and then it is usually put to signifie the appointment or alotment of the circumstances of a thing to be done as the certain time or place for it as Act. 28.23 Matth. 28.16 2. To persons and then it imports the ordering or setting apart of a person to some special benefit office work or ranke among others as Act. 13.48 22.10 Luk. 7.8 1 Cor. 16.15 Here it hath respect to persons for Powers are put for the persons invested with power the Powers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ordained of God or ordered set apart appointed to their office work and dignity by him In the next verse the Apostle saith the power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ordinance of God or as the word bears his edict sanction or constitution To them that are conversant in Scripture and other books of Divinity it is at first sight evident that there is a sense wherein all things that be or fall out in the world even the sins of men are said to be ordered or disposed by God and there is a sense whereby it is peculiar to some things to be disposed or ordered by him If we here take the word in the former sense
there is nothing peculiar no more spoken of or for the powers here argued and pleaded for then is universally extensible to every other matter and in special to all humane occurrences or affaires be they in themselves never so inordinate and irregular The Magistrate that is here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained or ordered of God and the Rebel that is said vers 2. to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a resister or opposer of himself to this order of God in the Power both are in this large acception ordained of God Wherefore to me it seems necessary that we think of a more restrained sense of this word and discern what that is and for this purpose thus to distinguish of it There is a twofold order ordination or disposition to be ascribed unto God as set down by him 1. The order of his counsel and working or of his purpose and proceeding in Providence 2. The order of his word or law or the order which he instituteth for his creature particularly for man Of the former the order of his own counsel way and working we read Act. 13.48 Psal 119.91 8.2 Jer. 31.35 36. Isa 30.33 Of the latter the order of his word revealed will or law given to man 1 Cor. 9.14 14.30 Col. 2.5 Heb. 7.11 Psal â—1 5 Of the former we may again distinguish By the order of his purpose and providence God ordereth 1. Things either effectively or operatively when by his working will and concourse he positively and immediately acteth to or in upon them thus he ordereth all positive effects in their natural beings 2. Or privatively or by way of permission or non impedition and so he is said to order that is decree and dispose the being of sin in that he leaves his reasonable creature to himself under an objective temptation And the former of these two his effective operative ordination is again distinguishable He effectually orders things 1. Either productively or to the causing of a thing to be 2. Or directively that is by prescribing to the thing that already is or disposing of its state and course And thus he is said even to order sin to wit in its progress and consequents for although as to the being of sin his ordination be only permissive or non-impeditive yet as to its progress end and consequents his Providence is effective * Aliud est facieus aliud factum aliud utrumque ordinans Qui facit malum facinus is auctor est mali qui ordinem disponit in faciente facto malo is non auctor est mali sed mali ordinator bonus ad bonum Malum non vult Deus sed ordinem vult servat in malo A voluntate hominis accessit malum a Deo ordinatio est universalis atque singularis providentiae ipsius etiam quae summe mala sunt disponens in ordinem cogens sapientissimè Junius in Collat cum Arminio in Arminii oper pag. 385 386. These two the order of Gods counsel and hand of Providence and the order of his word law or institution given to man are manifestly different and in reference to the present subject necessary to be distinguisht The difference may be taken thus 1. The former order is the rule model or platform of Gods own wayes the latter is to be the rule and patern of mans doings 2. The former extends to all creatures and beings the latter only to the reasonable creature and his moral acts as being only capable of a law 3. The former ordination is alwayes accomplished and takes place without fail the latter is not seldom put back and contradicted †See Mr. Caryl on Job c. 11. v. 10. pag. 67. 4. The former orders all actions and things the latter alwayes appoints that which is good and acceptable in the sight of God and onely that In a word to illustrate this matter by some instances sutable to the subject we have in hand By the latrer kinde of ordinance Israel should have continued under Samuels government when they rejected him and desired a King Absalom should have been subject to his father and Soveraign David when he rose up against him to seise his kingdom Jeroboam and the ten tribes should have kept in allegiance to Rehoboam when they cast him off Athaliah should have yeelded obedience to the posterity of Ahaziah when she took the Kingdom from them into her own hands The Kings rulers and people of the earth of whom Psal 2.1 Act. 4.25 should have payed homage unto Christ when they conspired against him and by it the Angels that sinned should have kept their first estate or principality when as they left their own habitation Jude 6. For so God had ordained to each of these respectively by the order of his law precept or institution Unto this ordinance or order of God is opposed all that atáxie confusion and dislocation which any sin brings into the world And in reference unto this order it is that all indecorum or sedition in any relation or society among men is disclaimed of God and said not to be of him 1 Cor. 14.33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace Whereas by the former the ordination of Gods counsel and providence the contrary to the order of his law and will revealed to man for his rule often cometh to passe even the things which in respect of Gods ordinance given to man to observe are most disordered confused and preposterous are done * See Mr. Caryl on Job c. 9. v. 24. pag. 331. By this order of God the Israelites rejection of Samuel Absaloms rebellion against David Jeroboams and the ten tribes defection from Rehoboam Athaliahs usurpation to the dethroning of Ahaziahs children the confederacieâ— of the â—â—lers and people against Christ yea the Apostasie of the evill Angels and all other irregularities are as above was said ordered and disposed by God Who knoweth not saith Job of such events in all those Job 12.9 10. see also vers 17 18 19 20 21. that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this in whose hand is the soul of every living thing and the breath of all mankind For although these considered in their own nature being obliquities and depravements are most crosse to the order of his word and to the rectitude and holiness of his nature and therefore as such we cannot without blasphemy attribute them to his working will or hand yet in as much as his wisdom and power can extract excellent things out of them when once they are occurrent his justice and goodness may will their sufferance and when they are emergent his wise and powerful hand may direct bound terminate and with other ingredients so can temperate them that much good may be educed from them and therefore so he orders or ordains them Take for instance of the divine ordination about the evill acts of the creature and also of the difference betwixt the order of Gods
the peace tranquillity and happy estate of the rest might be procured without which consent there was no reason why one man should take upon him to be Lord or Judge over another Over a whole grand multitude having no such dependency as is in the family upon the Father upon any one and consisting of so many families as every politique society in the world doth impossible it is that any should have compleat lawful power but by consent of men or immediate appointment of God because not having the natural superiority of fathers their power must needs be either usurped and then unlawfull or if lawful then either granted or consented unto by them over whom they exercise the same or else given extraordinarily from God Of this point therefore we are to note that sith men naturally have no full and perfect power to command whole politique multitudes of men therefore utterly without our consent we could in such sort be at no mans commandement living Mr. Perkins Perkins To. 1. pag. 762. A. Treat of Callings Every lawful King is placed by God and by men that are appointed under God to set up Princes over them according the laws and customs of several Kingdoms Mr. John Selden Selden de Jure Nat. lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 106 107. Among these viz. the acts of the permissive law of nature every man seeth that the acts of making constitutions entring into covenants introducing of Customs and forms of Government and of rescinding revoking or altering all these by the choice of those Societies of men whom it concerned where likewise permitted In like manner it hath still been granted that by the said permission whatsoever it by men joyned in Society limited forbidden or constituted that they are bound to keep who have so consented according to the conditions and qualification with which it is prescribed even as many as have and so far as they have given their consent But whence is it that they are so bound from the authority of a deity that is of mans superior even in these things the rise of the obligation is to be derived and therefore from some heads of the obligative law of nature For the acts whereof we speak were allowed to men so as either they might use them at their pleasure or they might by joynt consent prohibit them and confine their own liberty in them either by covenant naturally plighted or by Princes constituted to govern in those matters which thing seemeth not sufficiently conceivable how it should be whilst we alway lock at right and owing of duty unlesse then joyn this also to it that the obligation to the said inhibition or confinement of liberty doth accrew from his authority and command who as being mans superiour gives warrant to it Mr. Jeremiah Burroughes Burroughes on Hos 1. Lect. 4. pag. 111. see also Lect. 3. pa. 65. and on cap. 3. Lect. 2. pag. 704. There is no authority that we are subject to now but according to the laws and constitutions of the Countrey where we live We must require whether it be a power It is not because the man that is in authority commandeth it except he commandeth it by virtue of that authority which is according to the nature and condition of the foundamental constitutions of the Countrey where he liveth Otherwise we are not bound in conscience bound we may be in regard of prudence and in regard of preventing other disturbances but conscience doth not bind to wils of men but binds to laws The Author of the treatise of Monarchy Treatise of Monarchy chap. 1. Sect. 1. chap. 3. Sect. 2. 5. Vindication of that Treatise chap. 3. Sect. 6. called by one in print Mr. Hunton God by no word binds any people to this or that form till they by their own act bind themselves They to wit Soveraigns attain this determination of authority to their persons by the tacit and virtual or else expresse and formal consent of that society of men they govern either in their own persons or the root of their succession I do conceive that in the first original all monarchy yea any individual frame of Government whatsoever is elective that is is constituted and draws its force and right from the consent and choice of that community over which it swayeth My reason is because man being a voluntary agent and subjection being a moral act it doth essentially depend on consâ—nt so that a man may by force and extremity be brought under the force and power of another as unreasonable creatures are to be disposed of and trampled on whether they will or no but a bond of subjection cannot be put on him nor a right to claim obedience and service acquired unlesse a man become bound by some act of his own will I am perswaded it will appear an uncontrouleable truth in policy that the consent of the people either by themselves or their ancestors is the only mean in ordinary Providence by which Soveraignty is conferred on any persons or family neither can Gods ordinance be conveyed and people engaged in conscience by any other means The author of the fuller answer to Dr. Ferns Fuller Answer to Dr. Ferne â—ag 17 18. Treatise c. The meaning of the place Rom. 13. then must be this The powers that be i. e. so or so established by consent of man are ordained of God to be obeyed or it is Gods ordinance that men should live under some government and submit without resistance to that kinde of government they have by consent established just as St. Peter follows him to the ordinance of man for the Lords sake There are two kinds we use to say of Tyranny regiminis usurpationis that which is only of government though never so heavy must be endured That other kinde of usurpation it hath no right no ordination at all and so no subjection due to it In all power of government Divinity tels us there are four things the institution the constitution the acquisition and the use The constitution alwayes from mans consent the institution alwayes from God Mr. Thomas Hobs. Hobs Elements part 1. chap. 6. Sect. 6 7. part 2. chap. 10. Sect. 3. That this may be done viz. the erection of a common power there is no way imaginable but only union which is the involving or including the wils of many in the will of one man or of one counsel The making of union consisteth in this that every man by covenant oblige himself to some one and the same man or to some one and the same counsel by them all named and determined Lastly Polybius as cited by Gregory Tholosanus Greg. Tholos Syntag. Juris lib. 47. cap. 15. Sect. 22. Neither yet ought every Government of one be presently called a kingdom but that only which is granted by the subjects consent 2. Besides these testimonies to confirm that of right and by the law and light of nature so it is viz.
neither is he that is chosen upon the fail of an ancient Royal line or stock truly reducible to any of these three sorts viz. Either a Father of the people or an heir of such a Father or an Vsurper of the right of such a Father 4. Object The last objection I shall hold up being the remainder of what I meet with is But this way of setling Government by the peoples consent cannot be proved ever to have been held or practised All powers that have reigned have entred by the sword or rule by virtue of such entrance Resp This is a very broad allegation and the prejudice therein câ—st upon all powers seems to proceed from partiality to sâ—me But 1. The way of subjects election of their Government to have been practised and that antiently or from the first I have above brought testimonies unto from Authors of the best note to wit Aristotle Cicero Justin Juvenal Ludovicus Vives Polydore Virgil and Mr. Calvin Viz in this Sect. Subsect 4. To these I shall only here add the witness of one of our English Historians giving a threefold instance of the subjects choice of their Soveraign to wit of three Kings One of the antient British another of the Saxon another of the Norman race Mr. Speed Speed Hystory Book 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Book 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. Book 8. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Book 9. Chap. 2. Sect. 54. Chap. 3. Sect. 1 2. tels us that when Julius Caesar first enterprised the conquâ—st of this land among the many Reguli or petty Kings that then ruled in the several parts thereof Cassibilan was by a universal vote chosen the Chieftain and supreme That upon the death of Hardicanute the third Danish King Edward the Confessor was by a general consent elected King And that William the Conquerour appointing no heir at his death his son William Rufus was by the consent and voices of the States made King 2. When learned Authors tell us of fundamentall laws and constitutions of nations and when the late Parliament so often mentioned â—nd insisted on the fundamental laws and the antient fundamental constitution frame aad government of this Kingdom in opposition to an arbitrary and Tyrannical government in their publique votes declarations and remonstrances particularly in their preamble to the Protestation taken by them and the whole Kingdom of May the 3. 1641. and in the Declaration of the House of Commons of April 17. 1616. ordered to be published set up and fixâ—d in every Parish Chuâ—ch what other thing do they mean thereby but this to wit the oâ—igiâ—al establishment of policy and government by the mutual contention CHAP. V. SECT V. Subsect 6. capitulation and agreement of Governours and people Aristotle Aristotelis Polit lib. 3. num 87. lib. 5. num 112. often in his Politicks delivers it as the difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant a Kingdom and a Tyranny that the one is founded upon the will of the Subjâ—cts the other is against their wils and held over them by force Mr. Gregory of C. C. observes upon those words Act. 11.26 And the Disciples were called Christians first at Antioch that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called is borrowed from a Roman custom viz. when the Provinces submitted themselves to the imperial Government the use was to cause a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publique edict to be drawn up and proclaimed upon the place And particularly there was such an one at Antioch when the City yeelded up it self into the subjection of the Roman Empire in the time of Julius Cesar In memory whereof that City fixed their aera or reckoning of time upon the date of that action which they therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Emperour did then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 publiquely entitle them to all the priviledges immunities c. Here is a famous instance which the said Author brings out of Johannes Antiochenus of the mutual agreement and close betwixt Prince and People at the first entrance into that relation And I would aske further how it could be otherwayes then by mutuall consent that Government was erected in the several Nations at the confusion of languages when the several parties were in an instant rent asunder from that one community they were of and from under that one head which perhaps had been untill then over them and left to themselves to associate each party into a distinct community and under a new Government as they were severally languaged there being no reason or ground to conclude that to each of them there was still appropriate one natural Grandsire and that he was by natural right to be the Soveraign or that in defect thereof there was one eldest house CHAP. V. SECT IV. Subsect 6. and one Parent thereof that was entitled to the regiment of all the other collateral and younger branches of the same stock The which supposals have been above refuted And again how can it be otherwise at the plantation of a new Colonie at the extinction of a Royall race or at the Cession of Kings or States that is when a people are deserted of their former Supreme Governors as the Britains of this Island sometime were by the Roman State to wit then when their prefect Aetius withdrew himself and his legions from this Countrey upon the decay of the Roman greatness and exposed the rule of it unto who so might get it * See Speeds History Book 7. Chap. 1. Sect. 1 2 3. And thus it was some authors tell us at the translation of the Roman Empire to Germany †Widdringtons Theolog. Disput in Admon to his Reader Sect. 4. 3. The Governments that either now are or heretofore have been 1. Many of them are known to have been established by the peoples consent as was even now shewed 2. Of many of them the original first rise or bottom like the head of Nilus is not known Of these because nothing to the contrary appears we have no just reason to think but they stand upon this basis In all matters of tenure immemorial possesion inculpably held leads men to take the beginning to have been right 3. Many are known to have a violent and unjust beginning Of these 1. Some though the entrance of them was such yet they have after come to be setled upon a better foundation Thus it was saith Fr. Junius Junius Animadv in Bellarminum Controv 3. lib. 5. cap. 8. Sect. 18. ca 9. Sect. 20. Mr. Perkins To. 1. Tract of Callings pa. 762. A. in the Empire of Charles the first as also in that of Julius Caesar Ex post facto jus invaluit cujus non ita fuerunt principia justa Accordingly saith Mr. Perkins A Prince enters into a Kingdom by war and bloudshed Now by the bad entrance be is no lawful King Yet if the people do willingly submit themselves to this usurper and be content to yield subjection and the
Theft Drunkennesse which he had been naming but a little before verses 9 10. and condemned but all things of naturall use for nourishment to which point he in this and in verse 13. is speaking 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is spirituall judgeth all things Not all things in generall but all revealed spirituall things of which things his discourse in that Chapter proceedeth And again in the same verse he himself is judged of no man not simply denying the spirituall man to be subjâ—ct to any humane judgement or cognisance whatsoever but meaning that negation solely in reference to his spirituall inward estate 1 King 19 10. There is no Nation or Kingdome under heaven whither my Lord hath not sent to seek thee Not as if Ahab had sent to seek that Prophet in every Countrey on the earth but the meaning of it must be there was no neighbouring nation or place whither it could be probably thought Elijah to have betaken himself but he had sent to make enquiry for him Mat. 9.10 No man putteth a peece of new cloth c. not intending absolutely to say that was never done by any but no man useth to do it or no man doth it that goeth wisely or with common advisednesse to work 2 Tim. 2.4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life Doubtlesse of every one that is a Souldier this cannot be denyed this age hath seen enough of the contrary but it is denyed only of the just and faithfull Souldier no man that warreth regularly or as he ought behaves himself after the manner that is here denyed CHAP. VI. SECT III. SECT III. The suteablenesse of some of those qualifications of universalls to this supposed universall in the Text. IN this variâ—ty of limitations to which propositions universall whether affirmative or negative are subject we may reflect upon this sentence under debate and consider supposing it to be indeed an universall negative and that the subject to which it is appendant the tearm power as here it is used neither doth carry in it self its own limitation neither were by any other thing in the Text restrayned to one certain and peculiar acception whether some of these restrictions may not fitly be put upon it I doubt nor but looking upon the words under that supposall the universall note added to them may well yea must needs admit of the second or third qualification When therefore it is urged in behalf of a power that meerly standeth by forcible possession and is destitute of all just title and call to authority that this power is by vertue of this Text to be subjected unto inasmuch as here it saith there is no power but of God It may be answered Scripture universalls oftentimes will not brook to be taken in the largâ—st extent to which the word or thing spoken of doth sometimes reach but must be understood with some qualification Particularly as the universall is to be taken in many Texts so in this here it doth not contain simply all power nor doth it intend to assert that any sort of power whatsoever that can be named or put forth in any creature or in any man is of God in the sense wherein the Apostle here meaneth but all that can be thought necessarily to be imported in it is either 1. That every lawfull or which is all one every morall power in the civil State is of God is ordained of God And for the congruity of taking this universall not simply but secundum quid or for this one sort or species of power only I shall besides the Scripture instances alâ—eady given here bring two more which are for form and matter of speciall affinity with this The first is a universall negative of a parallel subject or matter an office of superiority or rule wherein though the words run as these are supposed to do in the generall without any limitation expressed yet they must be taken in this manner It is that of Heb. 5 4 No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron This universall must not be construed to be an absolute or illimited negation of the fact as if no man at all doth or ever did take unto himself the honour of the Priesthood uncalled of God For Korah with his company and Jeroboams Priests and King Vzziah and Amaziah the Priest of Bethel did it But we must take it as intended to be said with this restriction no man man that legally rightly or warrantably proceedeth takes this honour unto himself but he that is as Aaron was called of God So here there is no power but of God not as if there was never any Dathan or an Abiram to invade the Magistrates office as well as there was a Korah to usurp the Priests or as if though there were yet the usurping Dathan and Abiram were powers of God in the Apostles sense here though Korah and such like presumers were not Priests of God but taking these two places to run very parallel for likenesse both of matter and of universall negativeness we may say as that of the Priesthood so this of the Magistrate must be construed to intend there is no power legally warrantably or regularly set up but it is of God The Divines Annotations upon that of Heb. 5.4 give us a good rule to understand many such universalls by to wit Verbs active in the phrase of the Scripture sometimes import not the act it self but duty or office no man taketh that is ought to take this honour upon himself but he that is called of God So here though every particular power de facto be not of God yet de jure there is none but that is The power that is as it ought to be as the high Priest that is in his office of right is of God ordained of God The other Scripture instance is in the words that lie next to our Text in the same Verse with it to wit the antecedent precept Let every soul be subject to the higher powers This universall imperative must not be taken absolutely or to stretch to all men without restriction for if every soul without exception were to be subject there could be none left to be the higher powers and besides there are or may be some that are not of or within any Common-wealth and perhaps some Common-wealths may be for some time destitute of rulers over them as Hab. 1.11 but every soul must be limited within this circumscription every person that is a member of a body politick and is in the relation and state of a subject every such soul must be subject So in these words there is no power but of God that is there is none in the relation or state of a Magistrate no morall authorized or lawfull power but it is of God set up and ordained to it by him 2. Or indiscriminately in reference to the diverse species sorts and degrees also of lawfull power of them
by it impowred upon the expiration of the time to dissolve the sitting CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 5. do undertake to do it what justifiablenesse can there be in such an act seeing they are in possession of Rule and therefore according to this opinion the ordination of God and therefore to be owned let to stand and by no no meanes in or from their power resisted deposed or dissolved Subsection 5. Argument 5. From the practise of Nations owning them for their Soveraign powers who have not actually ruled 5. BY the common sentence and judgement both of States and Nations and of Books and Authors of policy authority or supream power is separable from actual regency or command In the generall account they are taken acknowledged for the higher powers who doe not at all exercise any authority either by themselves or others personally or by proxie In the case of a Pâ—inces deficiency of the use of Reason as through infancy madnesse or dotage and in case of his want of liberty to exercise government in his Dominion being dis-inabled by captivity or expulsion In such cases either the standing Lawes of the Kingdome or the act of the State pro re nata appoints both the Tutelage of the impotent Prince if he be with them and the administration of his Kingdome during that his deficiency or restraint unto some others as Curators Regents or Protectors in his behalf Hence they dâ—stinguish in this case Jus ab usu juris the right of Magistracy from the use of it and Actum primum ab actu secundo the first act of power which is the being of the power the esse magistratus from the second which is the act of Rule * Vide Grot. de jure Bel. lib. 1. cap. 3. sect 15. 24. And the case is the same in a disturbed estate whether it be by intestine commotion of Subjects against their Soveraign or by forein hostile invasion or by competition of divers titulars to the Throne In every of these cases the power suspended from exercise either by an inherent or an adjacent impediment is yet in being and though regnancy or the second act of Magistracy be interrupted yet the first act the relation of Soveraign and Subjects may ex st and remain For instances of this nature I shall refer to these few more largely to be found in their respective histories The people of Israel who had risen up with and for Absalom against King David at the same time when they said David was fled out of the land do yet own him for their King and consult about his reduction from beyond Jordan into the repossession of his Kingdome as upon that account or ground and they that did thus the Text stiles them all the people throughout all the tâ—ibes of Israel and all the men of Israel it again saith challenged a part and right in him as their King in that condition yea ten parts and more right in dâ—stinction from the men of Judah and thereupon they contest with them of Judah that their advice was not first had in bâ—inging backe their King During the seventy yeares captivity of Judah under the Babylonian we finde severall persons successively named and noted as the Princes of Judah and which is remarkable they are put in the pedegree of Christ that is drawn down from David and it is further to be noted that the line of Christs pedegree takes in both them and others who are generally accounted to follow the immediate predecessors to whom they are sub-joyned not by natural generation but by way of legal succession to shew as it is conceived that Christ was descended of those who were not only of Davids blood and stock but of the Royal dignity though not alwayes in respect of possession and enjoyment of the throne yet in title and right and in the acknowledgment of the Jewes so far they could own them and that the prophesie of Jacob the scepter shall not depart c. Gen. 49.10 was fulfilled For though they had not always Monarchical Government actually swaying in the line of Solomon nor in any of Davids seed nor in any of Judah's tribe yet they had still some kinde of politie and royalty in being in the Jewish Nation and kept up or sustained either by the Ethâ—â—rohs of Davids stock as their chief national Magistrates under after the captivity or by some of the Jewish nation though of another tribe as it was by the Maccabean race and after them by some Chieftains of that people still continuing a dictinct Common-wealth though in subjection to Herod or the Romans until Christ was born and some time after until the gathering of the Gentiles unto Christ as his Church the desolation of the Jewish Church State by Vespâ—sian Accordingly we finde Jehojakim in Babylon when he had been in prison there 37 yeares yet then and in that condition stiled the King of Judah and withall some state and dignity of a King yielded him by the Babylonian Emperour 2 Kings 25.27 Jer. 52.31 of which exaltation of Jehojakim the King must I take it be understood that of the Prophet Ezek. 29.21 In that day will I cause the horn of the house of Israel to bud forth Which phrase of the horns budding forth being interpreted by that of Psal 132.17 There will I make the borne of David to bud must needs intend the reviving of the royal dignity in Davids family * See Divines Annotat. on Ezek 29 21. After him Salathiel still at Babylon is called the captain or prince of the people †Princeps populi Junius Dux populi Usher Vide Usheri Annal. part 1. p. 138. 2 Esdras 5.16 and the reason is taken to be for that he was appointed and declared by Jeconiah his heir and next successor * Mr. Lightfoot his Harmony of the O. Test part 2. pag. 180. Harmony of N. Test page 56. This Salathiel or Shealtiel is named Jeconiah's son 1 Chron. 3 17. Matth. 1.13 yet he was not his natural son for Jeconiah was childlesse Jer. 22.30 and Salathâ—el was the natural son of Neri Luke 3.27 but he is reckoned as his son in regard that Solomons line ended in Jeconiah and then came in Nathans posterity in right of legall succession to the throne of David of which the next heir then was this Salathiel †See Dâ—v Annot Diodat on 1 Chr. 3.17 Ezr. 10 8. Mat. 1.12 Luke 3.27 In like manner Zorobabel succeedeth Salathiel as the prince of that people and he was their leader out of Babylon into Judea and the governour CHAP. VI. SECT II. Subsect 5. and chiefe actor in the restauration there He is called Shezbazzar the Prince for Shezbazzar was his Chaldee name Ezra 1.8.2.2.3.2 and he is stiled the son of Salathiel Ezra 3.2 Matth. 1.12 Luke 3.27 whereas it appears he was the son of Pedaiah who was Shealtiels brother 1 Chron. 3.17 18 19. So that naturally
he was Shealtiels nephew yet he is reckoned his son as being his heir and legal successor in the head-ship of the Nation Thus we see these three Jehoiakim Salathiel and Zorobabel successively sustaining the Princedome of that people during the 70 yeares captivity and untill the reduction Unto all which we may add that David that is the house and successors of David is sundry times called the King of Israel and Judah even then during the captivity and actual dispossession of the Nation and Princes of Judah Jer. 30 9. Hos 3.5 * M. Lightfoot Harmony of N. Test part 1. p. 56. Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon during his seven yeares frenzie or brutishness though then dispossessed of the use not onely of his Kingdome but of his humanity and reason yet he continued King still and Historians account those seven years as part of his 43. or 44. years reign And they suppose that his Wife or his Son or his Nobles or whoever governed the Kingdome during that space were but as his Vicegerents and the Protectors of the Realm for him they expecting the recovery of his reason and his return thereupon unto his Throne at the end of those years upon the authority of Daniels interpretation of his dream * Vide Chronicon Catha Edw. Simsoni part 3. p. 112. An. M. 3437. Sir W. Rawl Hist li 3. 3. cap. 1. sect 13. And the Text tels us no lesse then that the title to the Kingdome remained still to him and the use of it was to be reserved for him His dream saying Yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth to wit of the tree deciphering him in his Kingdome even with a band of iron and brasse The which Daniel interprets thus Thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee after thou shalt have known that thâ— heavens doe rule Alexander the great at his death leaving his Queen Roxane great with childe his Princes at their consultation about his successor determined to expect Roxane her bringing forth her child and presently they elect for it four Protectors to whom they swear obedience * Justin Histor lib 13. pag. 145. Other examples of this kinde the Reader may see in Grotius †Grot. de jure Bel. li. 1. cap. 3. sect 15. 24. I will onely adde these few instances coming near to us in place and time In the Kingdome of France anciently one of the three grand occasions for which the assembly of the three Estates was wont to convene as their Historian tells us was when it was necessary to provide for the governing of the Realm during the captivity or minority of the Kings or when they wanted the right use of their senses * Historical collection c in the life of H. 3. page 137. In England the soveraign power hath often resided in them who could not in any one act exercise it by reason of their far dâ—stance from home when the Crown hath descended upon them or of their captivity or of their childhood which defect hath been supplyed by the advice and care of the Chieftaines of the Realm as it was in the case of King Richard the first being prisoner to the Emperour of Germany and in the cases of King Edward the third Henry the sixâ—h Edward the fifth and Edward the sixth being but children at their first coming to the Crown and in the case of King Edward the fiâ—st being in War against the Sarazens in Asia at what time the Kingdome fell to him †Speeds Histor Book 9. cap. 7. sect 44. cap. 9. sect 3. cap. 10. sect 6. cap. 16. sâ—â—t 1. cap. 22. sect 24. Quum Roma a Gottis capta est â—ccupatio fuit violenta cui sâ—se interea imperatores opponebant quantum patiebatur rerum status peâ—secerunt denique ut ad se rediret Itaque quemadmodum auâ— olim Carolus 7. occupata ab Anglis aut nuper Henricus 4. ab Hispanis Luteria non dâ—sierunt esse veri Reges Francorum nec desiit eorum juris esse Luteria sic nec illi quidem dâ—sierunt essâ— Romani imperatores Chamier panstrat tom 2. l. 17. c. 4. sect 17. Chamier observes when Rome was taken by the Gothes there was a violent possession the which in the mean time the Emperours opposed as far as the state of things would permit and at last prevailed to a recovery of it to them wherefore as in time past Paris being seised by the Englâ—sh or of late by the Spanyards Charls the seventh and Henry the fourth ceased not to be the true Kings of France neither did Paris cease to be of their Dominion so neither ceased those to be Emperouâ—s of Rome In the late differences betwixt the King CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 6. and Parliament it was often affirmed to be Law That the King in his civil or politicall capacity cannot be severed from his Kingdome or Parliament how far soever he is distant in person or in dispesition of minde to act with them * See fuller answer to Dr. Fern p. 9. Mr. H. Potts his Cordial p. 15. And to adde no more the late Parliament more then once found themselves fallen under force yet after recovering their liberty did account themselves and were accounted by the King and Kingdome the Parliament still and their constitution and session to have continued both under and after the said force Subsection 6. Argument 6. From another practice of Kingdomes viz. their admitting some to the place of supream command whom they acknowledge not to be the supream power 6 AS there are who are generally acknowledged to be the supream power that rule not at all that doe not actually possesse command or exercise any act of civill authority so there are that doe lawfully exercise and execute the same authority and yet are not acknowledged or taken to be the soveraign power or Magistrate Such are they who are placed as Protectors or Vicegerents in the forementioned deficiencies of the Soveraign Prince One may be the King another in regard of that Kings Nonage absence durance or dotage may be the Regent the latter executing the supream authority in his behalf or stead And where the case is thus suppose the King dye in the said Condition though the Protector or Regent be found in actuall use or exâ—cution of the soveraign power whether there be another legall Inheritor Successor of the dead King CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 7. or the line faile and there be none invested with right of succession yet is not the said Protector the supream power nor is so taken or acknowledged to be by the Realm the right or title to the Crown having never been conveyed or made over to him but rather he having been but Regent in the name and behalfe of the deceased Prince that office which he had legally ceaseth upon the death of him in whose name he ruled and he is now divested of it Subsection 7. Argument
gathered to him in the Temple were but privately confederating consulting and preparing to invest him in the possession of the Kingdome the Pen-man of the sacred Story styleth him the King I meane not onely when the said persons had set the Crown on his head and observed the other Ceremonies of his Inauguration though all that being done he neither by vertue thereof nor other ways had the visible possession of the Kingdome or the actuall prevalency over and reception of the people all the transactions hitherto being contained within the Verge of the Temple and published through the Land or City yea so secret as that to Athaliah her selfe vigilant enough doubtlesse and who was so neer to the Temple and so much concerned to take notice it was utterly unespied and unheard of untill the closing Plaudite of the people brought the confused sound of it to her eares and so occasioned her looking forth and knowledge of it but even while they were yet intending contriving and ordering the way how to attempt and execute their said designe See 2 Chron. 23.3.5 7.10 Here then is a King in being before in actuall possession or regnancy The suspensions of Rehoboam Vzziah Hezekiah Manassâ—h Zedechiah and Hoshea from the actuall possession use and command of their respectâ—ve Kingdomes through the invasions made upon their Kingdoms by their severall enemies or by their own incapacities the consistence thereof with their being Kings and with the continuance of their Reigns still as to right and title in the computation of Scripture we shall need to do no more but mention cursorily having already seen so many examples to this purpose In the Reigne of Rehoboam Shishak King of Aegypt entereth Judah with a huge host and overpowers it taking the fenced Cities thereof and so coming to Jerusalem Into it Rehoboam and his Princes were retreated for their defence and were so inclosed there by him as that the Lord tells them by his Prophet for their forsaking him he left them in the hand of Shishak Yet in this condition the Text still taketh notice of Rehoboam as the King and his Princes as the Princes of Judah 2 Chron. 12.6 Vzziah is reckoned to reign in Jerusalem 52 years yet for some part of his time being smitten with a Leprosie by an immediate hand of God he was deprived of all exercise of regall power and shut out even from civill communion and his son Jotham administreth the Realm 2 Kings 15.2 5. 2 Chron. 26 3 21. For how long time was this deprivation of Vzziah the Scripture doth not expresly relate but in regard in one place Jotham is said to reign 16 yeares and in another we read of his twentieth yeare See 2 Kings 15.13 33. It may be supposed that four of those twenty years Jotham ruled in the life time and within those 52 years of the reign of his Father because of his said incapacity When Hezekiah was King Senacherib King of Assyria came up against all the fenced Cities of Judah and tooke them and sent his Commanders with a great Army against Jerusalem wherein was Hezekiah to summon it so that he was Master of the whole Territory of Judah Jerusalem excepted 2 Kings 18.13.17 Isa 36.1.33 8 9. yet Hezikiah thus overpowered and shut up is King of Judah still 2 King 19 1.5 2 Chron. 32.9 Manasseh is computed to reign 55. years 2 King 21.1 2 Chron. 33.1 yet The Lord brought upon him and his people the Captains of the host of the King of Assyria who tooke him and bound him with fetters and carryed him to Babylon 2 Chron. 33.11 In what time of his reign this fell out for how long this his dispossession and captivity lasted I finde no certainty but from his first seising to his recovery considering his journey to Babylon his affliction there the worke it had upon him his great humiliation before God and the câ—nsequents of it his prayer and the Lord working for his release out of the hands of the Babylonian and his reduction from thence unto Jerusalem it must needs be taken to have been some considerable space of time How much soever it was * See Divines Annot. on 2 Kin. 21.1 contained it was as Expositors agree within the current of those 55 years of his reign Zedekiah is accounted to reign as King of Judah 11 yeares yet for about two yeares †Arch-Bishop Usher reckons it 2 years compleat Annal. part 1. An. M. 3405. of those 11 years he was mured up by the King of Babylons Army in Jerusalem and the rest of Judea was either possessed or in like manner besieged by the said enemie 2 Kings 25.4 5.34.7 Hoshea reigned in Samaria over Israel nine yeares yet for at least three of those years he was shut up and bound in prison and the whole Land was over-run and Samaria was besieged untill it was taken by Shalmanezer King of Assyria 2 Kings 17.4 5 6. But the number of Scripture precedents already recited is sufficient for the purpose before assigned By all these it is I hope fully manifest that a Soveraign Prince may be shut up in some strong hold within his Kingdome or be carryed away prisoner or expelled out of it or be forced to lye hid as one out of the worâ—d or through some incapacity be excluded from actual regency and yet be King still and his reign in the being habit or first act of it continued And whereas during the interruptions of the rule of the severall Princes above mentioned there were others that either by the will consent of them or their respective Kingdomes or against it bare the actual sway and command unto whom the people were subject yet it was either in behalfe of those dis-inabled Kings where it was with consent or by way of compulsory and passive subjectednesse without any moral tie of allegiance or of the duty of Subjects incumbent on them in reference to such compulsatory rulers For where the dis-inabled Princes power and reign was yet in being there must needs be a reservation of the Relâ—tive bond of Allegiance on the peoples part to them The tye of the Relation and Liege right being ever mutuall and recipâ—ocal so that it remaining in the one it must needs remain in the other and when ever the obstruction was removed there being a postliminium or reduction into act of the one there would be the same also of the other I will shut up this argument and enumeration of Scripture-instances with that which is found in Ezek. 21.27 I will overturn overturn overturn it and it shall be no more untill he come whose right it is and I will give it him Who is that whose right the Crown of Judah then was It is usually applyed to Christ and I shall not gainsay that Exposition onely I would say that as the branch of the Cedar-tree which the Lord saith he will set and plant in the mountaine of the height of Israel Chap. 17.22 23. is
And the parallel precepts of duty to the power in other like Scriptures do involve all Magistrates and some of them nominate the subordinate as 1 Tim. 2.2 Tit. 3.1 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Now in the subordinate Magistrate we require a commission as a qualification to our receiving owning yeelding him any duty of subjection Otherwise we reject him CHAP. VIII SECT IV. if we understand he hath no authority from a superior power If one come to us of his owne accord meerly and do but take upon him the style place and office of a Constable Justice of the Peace Sheriffe Judge and command our persons demand our purses or exact our oaths we thinke and that rightly we may deny him And if he have strength to extort his demands yet either we obey him not or we comply only out of feare and prudential self-consultation not taking our selves to owe him any subjection not owning any bond of conscience to him as to a higher power ordained of God And why is this by reason he hath no lawfull calling warrant or commission Now if we require this qualification in the subordinate why not in the Supream Magist aâ—e also If the Text admit of this caution and restriction in reference to one sort of higher powers will it not also admit it in relation to every one SECT IV. Of the Resistance of the power concluded under the penalty of Damnation vers 2. 4 THe fourth thing in the Context offering it selfe to consideration is in Vers 2. to wit the unlawfulnesse of resisting that power which our Text holds forth This unlawfulnesse is asserted in as much as the resister of that power is charged with the sin of resisting the ordinance of God and concluded under the penalty of Damnation Mine observation upon it shall be this That resistance which undoubtedly is by this place intended to be disallowed towards the power spoken of in our Text is generally acknowledged to be warrantable and lawfull to be used towards an invasive or meer possessory power and consequently it must be as generally acknowledged that a meer possessory power cannot be intended in the text A resistance unto or for the deposition repulsing or removal out of place and rule and a rescue of persons and places out of the possession and command of him that occupieth them will I doubt not be concluded to be here forbidden towards or in relation to that power which the text meaneth But such resistance is generally admitted to be just and lawful towards an invesor or a forcible occupant of command and rule This may be made evident 1. By sufficient testimony which I shall produce I will begin with King James K. James his Remonst p. 216. his words in his Remonstrance for the Right of Kings against the Oration of Cardinal Perron The publique Laws make it lawfull and free for any private person to enterprise against an usurper of the Kingdome Every man saith Tertullian is a Souldier enrolled to beare Arms against all Traytors and publique enemies St. Augustine Aug. de Civ Dei li. 5. cap. 26. highly commendeth the piety and fidelity of Theodosius in that he took into his protection young Valentinian the brother Sozomen Hist lib. 7. cap. 14. 24. heire and successor of Gratian slain by Maximus the usurper the Governour of Britain against whom Theodosius though the said usurper was grown terrible by successe yet he undertook the cause of Valentinian Socrates Hist li 5. cap. 11 12.24 and destroying Maximus restored Valentinian to his Empire in the West and in his enterprise he had encouragement and certain promise of victory from one John an Anachoret endued with a prophetick spirit in Aegypt And that Valentinian being shortly after eiâ—her by treachery or some other accident taken away another usurper Eugenius starting up in his place Theodosius Ruffin Hist li. 2. cap. 17. 31. Theod. Hist li. 5. cap. 14 24. with the encouragement of the said Prophet surprised him against whose â—xceeding strong Army he fouâ—ht rather by prayers then strokes A mighty winde snatching the weapons of his enemies out of their hands and driving their own darts together with the darts of their Assailants upon them on which occasion was that written by the Poet Claudian O nimium dilecte Deo cui militat aether Et conjurati veniunt ad classica venti Chamier At Cives omnes jus habent insurgendi contra Tyrannos qui vi apertâ regna occupant Chamier Tom. 2. lib. 15. cap. 12. sect 19. saith All Citizens or free Subjects have a right or warrant to rise up against Tyrants who by open force possess the Kingdome Dr. Willet Dr. Willet his Hexap on Rom. pag. 592. upon the place in answer to this question How far the Civill State may pâ—oceed in resisting a Tyrant affirmeth that where the Kingdome is usurped without any right as by Athaliah or where the land is oppressed by forein invaders as in the time of the Maccabees in these cases there is lesse question to be made of resistance by the generall consent of the States Mr. Richard Hooker Hooker Eccles polit Book 8. pag. 155. In kingdomes hereditary birth giveth right unto Soveraign Dominion c. therefore in case it doth happen that without right of blood a man in such wise be possessed all these new elections and investings are utterly voyd they make him no indefeasible estate the Inheritor by blood may dispossesse him as an usurper Alstedius Alsted Caf. Consc cap. 16. Reg 8. pag. 341. A Tyrant without title who is an invader every private person may and ought to remove for he is not a King but a private man who doth invade the countrey as an Enemie Groâ—ius Grot. de jure Bel. lib. 1. cap. 4. sect 16.18 Si bello injusto cui juris gentium requisita non adsint imperium artipuerit sc Raptor imperit neque pactio ulla sequuta sit aut fides illi data sed solâ vi retineatur possessio videâ—ur manere belli jus ac proinde in eum licere quod in hostem licet qui a qualibet etiam privato jure potest interfici c. Nec minus licebit invaso em imperii interficere si deserta authoritas accedat ejus qui jus verum imperandi habet Arnisaeus Arnisaeus de authorit principis cap. 4. sect 12 Of the former to wit he who is called a Tyrant in title the matter is plaine and determined by all without any difficulty that he may be lawfully repulsed or if by force he be gotten into the throne he may be waâ—rantably thence removed because he hath not any â—oâ— of power which is legitimate and unto which resistance is forbidden for the feare of God and for conscience sake and therefore he is no further to be looked at then as an enemy The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy Treatis of Mon. part 1. cap. 3. sect 5. Be they to
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
on the other hand whereas it cannot be denyed to be a good work orderly to endeavour the prevention redressâ— or giving a stop to those evils he that should attempt any thing of that nature cannot look to have praise that is impunity defence and reward of the same but must expect him to be to such enterprises the highest terrour The greatest interest and therefore the constant course of such a power is in those good and evill works which touch the continuance or disposall of the seaâ—e whereon he is to be directly and wholly crosse and contradictory to this Character and rule of the Apostle And it is not possible he should in every point conforme to it and yet continue still his rule upon the basis of usurpation Furthermore the fourth verse asserteth and requireth the Magistrate to be the Minister of God to thee for good To thee that is to every person or member in the Common-wealth For good that is for his natural moral civil and spiritual good saith Paraeus however for his civil or temporal good without controversie let it be But it is imp ssible he that beares the Sword in an usurping hand should in every thing procure the civill good of all that is either of the whole joynt community or of all single persons in their private state This good hath within it involved the vindication and restoring of the publique and of every persons rights and the satisfying and rectifying of all wrongs Now this and usurpation are together inconsistible Moses his rule for the Magistrate is Deut. 16.20 That which is altogether just shalt thou follow but this an unjustly possessed power cannot doe and stand It s owne State will not afford i. Yea the truth is the violation of Justice in which the foundation of this power is laid and the root of it is planted will and is ordinarily seen to beget a cacexia or ill disposition to justice and propension to unrighteâ—us administration in all causes and proceedings whatsoever If a common gift hath such an influence as to blinde the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous Vers 19. as Moses in that place what respect of persons and wresting of judgâ—ment will the dishonâ—st interest of a Kingdome breed in all judiciall administrations Scarce a man shall bring a cauâ—e before the Tribunal but he will appear under the character either of a friend or foe to that interest of jealousie and accordingly be looked at with the eye of partiality or prejudice What a generall depravement of Justâ—ce is the ordinary sequell of violent acquisition and possession of Dominion the words of the Prophet Amos will tell us To have turned judgement into gall Amos 6.12 13. and the fâ—uit of righteousnâ—sse into hemlocke But who hath done thus Ye which rejoyce in a thing of naught which say have we not taken to us horns by our own strength The Magistratâ—s office is to procure that the Subjects may lead a life in all godlinesse and honesly The Subjects cannot possibly be upon termes mutually honest either with him or with the instruments of his supportance whose very being in power is injurious and so they are barred out from living in all honesty And for living in all godlinesse both Scripture and common experience gives that defection of Religion is the individuall consequent of defection in civill Government Usurpation in State and corruption in Religion are like a couple of Twins you can seldome or never take the former without the latter Let the kingdom of Israel or of the ten Tribes rent from the house and Throne of David for all the while of its standing and the reign of every King thereof be the instance for this Of whom in this behalfe not only do perusers of the story observe that as they were wholly and all along out in their civill policy they were qâ—ite and constantly wrong and depraved in their Religion but the Lord himselfe makes the same observation giving us this short but universall account Hosea 8.4 They have set up Kings but not by me they have made princes and I knew it not Of their silver and their gold have they made them Idols that they may be cut off Here we have an Epitome of the whole history of that Kingdome Sâ—ate-usurpation breeds and brings in Idolatry in Religion and as this is the genuine product and issue of that so are they both con-causes of that peoples ruine * The same observation makes the sacred historian 2 Kin 17 21. And they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat King And Jeroboam dâ—ove Israel from foll wing the Lord c. Let me but add one word more of the incongruability of this Character to an un-authorized power The power in this Text is appointed to be the Minister of God to thee for good Now see how the contrary is to be said of the Usurper He is appointed of God to thee for evill The Scripture holding â—orth usurpation or violent inforced dominion as a judgment 2 Kings 17.20 11. and threaâ—ning it as the punishment of a Nation for their transgressions against God CHAP. VIII SECT VII and ranking it with the penalties of plague famine sword wilde beasts c. As on the other side the removing of usurpation is promised as a mercy Isa 10 27.14.25 And the taking away of Magistracy is threatned as a judgement Isa 1.1 2 3 4 5. Zech. 11.6 Deut. 28.43 44 48. Psal 106.41 42. Now the giving sending of a thing to be for the good advantage benefit of a people and to be for their harm punishment and suffering and the removall of a thing to be promised as a mercy and to be threatned as a judgement and these per se naturally primarily and directly so meant and not per accidens both these are such opposites as cannot be praedicates of the same thing Thus much I have observed from the Texts description of the Magistrates work and duty SECT VII Of the Magistrates style the Minister of God vers 4.6 7 THere is besides another thing to the present purpose observable in this description of the Magistrate and of his office to wit the speciall Title given him denoting his peculiar relation to and derivation from God He is called the Minister of God and that thrice over viz. vers 4 6. this style imports not onely the office and work of the Magistrate to be a special service and imployment performed unto God nor onely it to be instituted ordered and imposed to be done in his behalf But that the authority of managing it is by him invested in the certain person that may intermeddle with it none can truly assume or be taken to be in this office but he that hath received a commission call or warrant from God for it The title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely signifies action and labour but directly strictly refers to God as the Author of the persons mission and deputation to
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
Josâ—phus That all the whole Nation were against both Hircâ—nus and Aristobulus for bâ—inging them under the servitude of a Kingdome for they said their custome was to be governed by Gods High Priest but I hope saith the Answerer Pompey was no Priest and ther fore they did not choose him for theiâ— Governour To this the answer is easie The exception of the people in this narration of Josephus was not against the government of both those brothers For the same Author relateth the peoples acception of Hircanus to the Dominion immediately upon the death of Alexandra And when he being of an over-slâ—w and modest temper had given way to the turbulent spirit of Aristobulus his younger brother to reigne they rose up in assistance of Aretas the Arabian King for his restoring to the government * Joâ—eph Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 3. Usseri Annal. pag. 141. But they were ill content with their government under the title pomp majestie and expensivenesse of a Kingdome or they blamed the annexing of a Crown to the moderate Dominion of the ancienter Asmoneans This was indeed an innovation and so displeasing first introduced by the Father or Unckle or Hircanus 2 This complaint of the people against those brethren is no argument to precâ—ude the peoples consent to Pompey afterward had he taken upon him to be a King over them That which a people now disliketh they doe not ever continue to disaffect or refuse Who knows not the mutability of a multitudes mindes Sed quid turba Remi siquitur fortunam c. 3 But as Pompey was no High-priest so he was no King Neither doth the Exercitator say they chose him for their King Neither doth the matter of this complaint make any thing against the complainers Dedition to the Romans But in truth it did further it For they affecting rather Hircanus his indulgent rule then Aristobulus an imperious and warlike man and not being able to keep down the latter or enjoy the quiet of their Countrey under him they submitted to the Romans whereby they recovered Hircanus freed themselves of the other brother and had their desire of the Romans of being rid of a Crowned High-priest Pompey gratifying them in leaving Hircanus to govern them but secluso Diademate say Histâ—râ—ans expâ—esly and in association with Antipater as Procurator * Usser Annal. pag. 261. Montacut Apparatus 6. Sect. 26. pag. 229. And when about six years after Alexander the Son of Aristobulus infested Judea with new broyls in his Fathers quarrell Gabinius the Roman President of Syria having subdued him restored Hircanus to the Hâ—gh Priest-hood onely and set over the Countrey certaine prefects in distinct circuits wherewith the people rested very well satisfied †Joseph Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 10. de Bel. lib. 1. cap. 6. Ussâ—r Annal. p. 281. 5. Whereas to prove the Jewish dedition the Exercitator had brought out of Josephus the words of Antipater to Caesar concerning Antigonus the son of the aforesaid Aristobulus his craving ayd of Caesar against Hircanus he falls foul upon the Exercitator and charge h him with a false construction of the Latine sentence for the Greek he had not of Josephus In defence of that Exercitator I shall but 1 Present the Reader with the words which the Exercitator had truly cited out of the printed Latine version of Josephus which are Non propter inopiam desiderare facultates sed ut in eos qui dedissent Judaeorum seditiones accenderet and with the Exercitators Englishing of them That he sought not reliefe of Caesar because he was poor but that he might kindle Jewish seditions against those which had made a dedition of themselves I leave the Reader to judge if there be any such fault in the construction And whether the Answerer hath dealt fairly either with the Exercitator in challenging him of very untruly alledging those words of Antipater or with Josephus in his undertaking to correct the Exercitators version by translating him thus He that is Antigonus craved not maintenance for that he wanted but that he might raise a rebellion among the Jews and against them who would bestow any thing upon him Which of these two have more faithfully translated the Latine above set I need not take the umpirage of 2 Propose betwixt them that the concernment of the quotation in the point of validity lyes in the congruity of the matter for which it is brought viz. to prove a dedition of the Jewes to the Romans to the Greek of Josephus which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It may be the Latine about the englishing of which the answerer quarrels with the Exercitator follows not the original overstrictly but the main question is whether Josephus his owne words do not beare a dedition as clearly as the Exercitators English That this is their importance I will not seem to obtrude my assertion upon the Reader now he hath the words before him Onely I shall let him know I am very much confirmed to take it so to be having found an Antiquary and Greek Critick of so great sufficiency quoting this very passage for the same purpose to which the Exercitator had done I meane the singularly learned Dr. Hammond Dr. Hammond Annot on Math. 22. Note B. who in his Annotations asserts of the Jewes that they had made a dedition of themselves to the Romans and for it citeth the same place in Josephus viz. de Bel. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 8. in which place there is nothing to be found that sounds to that purpose if these words do not The same Doctors testimony to the thing I am arguing for which should have been given above I have referred to this place upon this occasion as being very pertinent He affirmes in the same Annotation That the Jewes those of them that were of Hircanus party came under the Roman power by consent and not by force by a choice which the factious among themselves put them upon and by way of dedition while they of Aristobulus party looked upon the Râ—mans as usurpers and forcible possessors and that this difference conntinued till our Saviours time When of the Jewes some part acknowledged and adhered to the Caesarean or Roman authority some part looked upon it as an usurpation and of this generally were the Pharisees And that Christs answer is punctually in favour of the Roman Emperour especially to those who tooke the tribute to be his right Having thus weighed and I think sufficiently counterpoised the opinion of those who are for the Romans to have been usurpers over Judea in the time of our Saviour by humane testimony I have only to add 2. Somewhat of reason against their said opinion 1 Had not so many learned men stood up for the justificâ—tion of the Roman dition over the Jews by their dedition and agreement yet it is not with probability supposeable that their Dominion in Judea having now been continued above 90. yeares could have been exercised so long without some consent
that City and of their being declared to be sure so to be and there to serve the Kings of Babylon untill the end of seventy years and it being declared they were sent from Judea thither by God for the better place and their own peace to be bound up in that of Babylon †See this Text it selfe and Jer. 24.5 c. 25.11.21.8 9.38.2 17 c. For after the terme of that captivity expâ—â—ed they are called out thence again and are taught the contrary carriage towards towards that City to wit not onely to depart out of but to pray against it use imprecations upon it and exultations in its ruine * Jer. 50.8 28.51.35 Psal 137.8 9. 3. It is in like manner to be said of all those forementioned commands of God to the Jewes and to the other Nations for their submission to Nebuchadnezzar that they were of an extraordinary and peculiar nature and not binding to others in like condition They were such speciall Declarations of Gods will and disposall as do not impose upon any but hose unto whom they were particularly made I may leave it to the determination of any considerate man whether if now the Turk Tartar Chinaois or any other Mahometan oâ— Pagan Pâ—ince yea or any one of the Princes of Europe of a warlike spirit and growing more potent in Armes then the rest should discover his designes make preparations and give out threatnings for the conquest of the Nations about as then did Nebuchadnâ—zzar in reference to the Kingdomes of Palestina and others were the said Princes and States of Europe bound to surrender themselves as servants or tributaries to him and his posterity either for the definite space of 70 yeares or for the alwayes of his or their standing up under payn of destruction from God if they should not by vertue of that which God declareth to the Kings and people of Judah and other Nations concerning Nebuchadnezzar by the Prophet Jeremiah * Jer. 27. per totum Or if a Kingdome be invaded by a forein Potentate and the chiefe City and strength of it be by him besieged is the supream Commander or the people without him necessarily bound to yield to their Invader and besieger because of what is declared and denounced to Zedekiah and them of Hierusalem †Jer. 21.8 9.38.17 c. Or let the urgers of these instances themselves be judges whether because Zedekiah with his people having been formerly the subjects of Nebuchadnezzar and sworn to him and lately revolted from him and now summoned by him to re-deliver themselves up to him and they being reproved by the Prophets Jeremiah and Ezâ—kiel for their revolt and call'd upon for the said rendition were thereupon obliged to submit to Nebuchadnezzar therefore in like manner others that have been under the like obligations to a Prince and have cast him off are in conscience bound upon summons to render themselves to him by force of those Texts CHAP. X. SECT V. SECT V. The Objection from the supposed goodnesse which may be in the administration of a meere possessory power answered Object 5. BVt though the ingresse the possession of a power be evill yet the acts and effects of that power viz. The lawes judiciall proceedings administrations counsels and designes thereof may be good Answ 1. What good of profit may be expected from such a power hath been discoursed of above 2 A government that is unlawfull as to possession cannot but be unlawful and injurious as to exercise and action The act cannot be good if the principle be bad A government for constitution good may for the acts it puts forth be bad but a government for constitution bad cannot for the acts it puts forth be good The act which such a power puts forth may be good for matter or in specie or in the universall nature of it abstract from it's circumstances but it 's bad in individuo or as done by him The act may be good i. e. profitable to the person to whom it 's done but it 's not good morally or politically it 's still evill to the agent It may be good to him too comparatively that is it 's better if he will govern to exercise his power to act what is materially and to others good then what is per se vicious and to others pernicious * Vide Cajetan Summul Tit. Remp. Tyran Et Navarri Compendium Tit. Tyran but it 's not good to him absolutely and in it selfe for it were simply his duty if a just title will not be made out to him to desist To make a politicall action good to wit just and legall there must goe 1. The warrantablenesse of the matter done 2. A warrantable calling of the person to do it The former may be and often is in the actions of men without the latter by which meanes it comes to passe those actions are sinfull yea and often or for the most part are more banefull then beneficial to others The note of Sculietus upon that saying of our Savour Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousnesse Decet nos implere omnem justitiam h. e. decet me implere meam justitiam te implere tuam justitiam Intelligit autem justitiam particularem i. e. operas ministerii uniuscujusque quemadmodum Plato justitiam hanc definivit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justitia est facere quae sui sunt muneris non curiosum esse in al enis negotiis Sculâ—et Delic Evang. cap. 28. pag. 107. See also this point well discoursed in Mr. Symonds his Case and Cuâ—e c. cap. 23. pag. 279. Vide etiam Aquinat 22 ae qu. 60. artic 2. may be here pertinently remembred We must understand this distributively that is it becomes me to fulfill mine thee to fulfill thy righteousnesse He meanes of praticular justice that is the deed of every ones place respectively even as Plato hath defined this justice to be every mans doing his own and not medling with anothers office 3. This allegation may be an inducement to the Subject to beare and improve to the best what he cannot remedy but it breeds no obligation on him to take such a Ruler to be a power ordained of God neither gives him a warrant of engaging to the said Ruler as such in all tyes and duties refeâ—ring to a Magistrate CHAP. X. SECT VI. SECT VI. Of the sayings of some Protestant Authors interpreting this Text not only to require obedience to present Rulers what ever their title be but to justifie their being ordained of God Object 6. BVt some of our Protestant Divines of chiefe note commenting upon this Text have given their sâ—nse to be That obedience in lawfull things is to be yeelded to the present Rulers without respecting by what right or wrong they have gotten into power and that who ever is in actuall rule is the power of God ordained of God and that it appears he is so by his seisure or possession
Cap. 1. Lect. 4. p. 111. and Lect. 3. pag. 65. Vindication of Treatise of Monarchy Cap. 3. Sect. 6. 3 That the Sword is peculiar to a Magistrate lawfully called Becanus Instit Theol. loc 49. qu. 16. pag. 854. 4 That to the being of a Magistrate is required a lawfull call See those quoted before in this Treatise Cap. 1. Sect. 2. Subsect 3. 5 That to the making of a supream Magistrate is to go to the vote or consent of the people Take those cited Cap. 5. Sect. 4 Subsect 4. To which I will here put in Mr. John Goodwin as swaying much with some In his Obstruct of Justice Sect. 25. pag. 27. SECT VII CHAP. X. SECT VII Many examples given of persons of good account who have disowned or opposed meer possessory powers in such Recognitions or rights as are due to the powers that are ordained of God 7 IN the next place is asked But can any instances be given of any of the people of God or of such persons whose examples are of any commendable or imitable note who at any time have professedly detrected or denyed to those in actuall dominion any duty or acknowledgement due unto Magistrates or that have practised the contrary to what this or any other Text confessedly delivers to be observed in relation to those who are here entitled to be the powers ordained of God Answ A multitude doubtlesse of such examples there have been as may be evident by the no small number of remarkable instances of this kinde which my short observation and memory hath here recollected 1. Of such as have practised the contrary to what is a plain and confessed duty or rule to be observed towards those who are the powers ordained of God 1 And first examples of such as being under the present predominancy of meer possessory powers and being private persons have either deserted such and gone over to their opposites or remaining under them have acted or assisted against them We finde a large list of Câ—ptains and their men of severall Tribes of Israel who being actually seated under the Dominion of the house of Saul fell from it and turned to David both during the Reign of Ishbosheth and upon his death although there were then many heires left of Sauls line See for this 1 Chron. 12.22 unto v. 39. We read of Hushai the Archite of Zadok and Abiathar the Priests and of their two sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan who after Davids flight out of Jerusalem and the maine of the Kingdome both in respect of places and people seised by Absalom and themselves being fully under the territory and command of Absalom yet acted for David in his state of ejâ—ction and against Absalom 2 Sam. 15.32 to the end 16.16 17 18 19.17.6 to the 23. vers When the men of Israel in distinction from Judah generally had cast off David and followed Sheba the son of Bichri upon that variance which fell out betwixt the Judabites and the Israelites about Davids return to his Kingdom and in his way betwixt Jordan and Jerusalem the wise woman of Abel and after the people in that City by her perswasion though they were of those that had deserted David and set up Sheba and though he then had the supream command there consulted and executed a rendition of themselves and City to David and the destruction of Sheba upon Joabs pacificatory offer to them 2 Sam. 20.1 2.14 16 c. Upon Jeroboams usurpation and the ten Tribes revolt from the Kingdome of the house of David the Priests and Levites that were in all Israel and other people out of all the Tribes of Israel which adhered to the true God and his worship upheld in the Kingdome of Judah forsook Jeroboam and his Dominions and joyned themselves to Rehoboam and so strengthened the Kingdome of Judah and Râ—hoboam in it 2 Chr. 11.13 16 17. In like mâ—nner did multitudes out of Israel fall from Baasha King of Israel unto Asa King of Judah Although Baasha was an enemy to the Kingdome of Judah and to that their revolt and endeavoured by force to prevent it 2 Chron. 15.9 1 King 15.17 To this I shall add that the Prophet Jeremiah exhorts the people of Judah from God to relinquish Zedekiah the present supream Gâ—vernor over them and to yeeld up themselves to Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon Jer. 27.16 c. 21.8 9. And the ground of that appears to be 1. Zedekiah and his Kingdome had lately beene subject and tributary to the Babylonian Ezek. 27. â— to 16. and Zedekiah's and their present standing up against him by their own force of Armes and the assistance of the Aegyptian was but rebellion Ezâ—k 17.6 2 Kings 24.28 2 The Lord had given unto the Babylonian the command of that Territory and people for 70 years by his express order and declaration Jer. 27.12.28.14 16. And the said seventy yeares were ere this that is in the fourth yeare of Jehoiakim begun according to the computation of our best Chronologers * To wit Archbishop Usher Dr. John Reynolds Hugh Broughton Mr. Mede The Divines Annot. and Mr. Light who all of them begin the 70. years the 4. of Jehoiakim And unto these exhortations it 's probable some hearkned and those might be they who fell to the Chaldeans mentioned Jer. 38.19 To these Scripture-instances I shall adjoyne one or two observable ones out of other Histories Ambrose being Bishop of Millain in Italy at what time Maximus the Tyrant of whom before †Chap. 8. sect 4 had deprived Valentinian of possession of his Empire of the West he contested with Maximus about his said act and that very sharply and twice went Ambassadour to him unto Triers and pleaded the right of young Valentinian in that Empire against him the present possessor And when he could not so prevaile he discommunioned Maximus to his owne mighty perill for Maximus threatned him with death Upon which he was forced to to flie to Aquileia whence he returned not untill the said Maximus was repressed and slain by Theodosius * Proximum ei sc Ambrosio certamen cum Maximo fuit Tyranno apud quem legarum pro Valentiniano juniore quem ex Galliis Maximus expulerat bis egit in Urbe Trovirorum Apud quem cùm acerrimè primum contendisser ne adolescentem cui successionis haereditatis jure deberetur regnuÌ„ impâ—rii justa possessione pelleret deinde communione etiam ei interdixit non sine ingenti sui periculo caedem enim ei Maximus minatus est ob quam Aquileiam Ambros secedere coactus est ex quo loco rediit Mediolanum post cum a Theodosio interfectus Maximus esset Magdebur Câ—nt 4. cap. 10 pag. 1163. It is also observed of the same Ambrose that when that Maximus to ingratiate himselfe by an office so just and good offered to interpose his power in the defence of Ambrose against Justina the Arrian Empresse the mother of Valentinian whom Maximus dispossessed she
being about to banish him from Millain Ambrose would not accept of the help of Maximus whose power he disallowed and gainsayed * Grot. de jure Belli lib. 1. cap. 4. sect 5. Another is of no long distance from our own time It is that of the Suffolk men who were zealous confessors of the Gospel and Protestant faith and were the first that joyned themselves to the Lady Mary after the death of King Edward the sixth and the advancement to the Crown of the Lady Jane The sum of the Story I shall give out of Mr. Fox and Mr. Speed in their own expressions King Edward did by his Testament or Letters Patent signed with his own hand and sealed with the great Seale saith the Letter of the Lords to the Lady Mary in the presence of the most part of the Nobles Counsellors Judges with divers other grave and sage Personages assenting and subscribing to the same appoint the Lady Jane to be Inheritrix unto the Crown of England To this order subscribed all the Kings Councell and the chiefe of the Nobility the Mayor and City of London and almost all the Judges and chiefe Lawyers of this Realm When King Edward was dead the Lady Jane was established in the Kingdome by the Nobles consent and was forthwith published Queen by Proclamation at London and in other Cities where was any great resort and was there so taken and named The Lord Maior of London sixe of the Aldermen and twelve Commoners Merchants being sent for by the Nobility take their Oaths for the Lady Jane and unto her obedience they promise to secure the City The Lords of the Councell write to the Lady Mary in answer to her Letter wherein she had required their owning and proclaiming her as Queen telling her that the Lady Jane is after the death of Edward the sixâ—h invested and possessed with the just and right Title in the Imperiall Crown of this Realm c. The Lady Mary upon this Letter of refusall speedeth her secretly away far off from the City The Councell hearing of her sudden departure gather speedily a power of men appoint an Army and â—end forth the Duke of Northumberland with it Mary in the meane time tossed with much travail up and down c w th-drew her selfe into the quarters of Norfolk and Suffolkâ— and there gathering to her such ayd of the Commons as she might keepeth her selfe close for a space in Fremingham Castle To her first of all resorted the Suffolk-men who being alwayes forward in promoting the proceedings of the Gospell promised her their ayd so that she would not attempt the alteration of the Religion which her brother King Edward had before established c. Thus Mary being guarded by the power of the Gospe lers did vanquish the Duke and all those that came against her The Lords after this proclaimed for Queen the Lady Mary eldest daughter to King Henry the 8th and appointed by Parliament to succeed King Edward dying without issue The brief of this story as to our present scope is this Here we have the Lady Jane in possession of the Crown by her immediate Predecessors testament by proclamation and by the consent and actual reception of the Chieftains of the Land and having the first Military power on foot to uphold her therein And the Lady Maâ—y claiming the Crown by vertue of lineall succâ—ssion the Act of Parliament and the Tâ—stâ—ment of King Henry the 8 h which laid the ground of her title antecedent to as well as more speciously to say no more here then any thing the other could challenge or be invested by And notwithstanding the said possâ—ssion of the other the Suffolke Gospellers are the fiâ—st comers in to Mary and undertakers of her assistance for the vindication of her Title and the gâ—ining her possession of the Throne and this before she had any acknowledgment or reception of the Nobles or Commons or other ayd appearing for her 2. Another sort of examples may be of such as being Princes or communities have cast off or by Armes repulsed the domination of them who have had present command over them Scripture examples in this kinde I have given before * Chap. 8. Sect. 4. and shall therefore here but name them Such are those of Othniel Ehud Deborah and the rest of the Judges with the Israelites rising up against Chusanrishathaim Eglon Jabin and the other invaders and captivers of them respectively of which in the book of Judges In like manner were the wars of the same people for their liberty against the Philistines and the Syrian Kings in the times and under the conducts of Eli Samuel Saul and David in the stories of both the Books of Samuel and of the Kings of the same sort were the recuperative Armes of David and Jehoiada against Absalom Sheba and Athaliah in the said Books As also were the stirrings of the Kings and people of Judah from Solomon unto the time of their Babylonish captivity against the Kings of Israel Syria Assyria and other encroachers related in the second Book of Chronicles And such lastly were the conflicts of the Jewes under the Asmonean government against diverse of the Selencian Kings Of all these I will make particular narrative but of one that is that good King Hezekiah and of him but shortly thus 2 King 18.7 It is said That he rebelled against the King of Assyria and served him not Expositors observe the reason of these words to be The kingdome was left to Hezekiah by his father Ahaz in a subjection to Shalmantzar King of Assyria but he being no way bound to serve at his father did because he used his liberty and cast that yoke from him he is said to rebell Mr. Lightfoot Divines Annotat in loc and Mr. Lightfoot his Harmon of the old Test pag 117. observes further that not onely had Ahaz his father but himselfe reigned as an Homager to the Assyrian who subdued and deposed Ahaz and set up Hezekiah on the Thâ—one in his stead and that Hezekiah being thus under the Assyrian for a time he would beare it no longer c. A multitude of instances of this sort out of other stories are produceable Among others those of the Christian Princes and Nations on the Eastern confines of Christendome who bordering upon the Turkish Sultan have been by him subdued and held under and being in that condition have at several times attempted and sometimes prosperously effected a recovery from that subjection As for instance have done sundry Princes of Hungary of Macedon and of Greece and the State of Venice Amongst them the atchievements of George Castriot surnamed Scanderbeg in his regaining of the Countreys of Epirus and Albania from which his Father had been oured and himselfe was excluded by Amurath the sixth and of John Huniades the Vayvod of Transylvania under the shiâ—ld of whose valour and successe the Countreys of Moldavia and Valachia rose up for and recovered their freedome from
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