of God universally enacting Civil Government to be but a further specificating act of God whereby be constituteth this special platform for this Common-wealth and cals forth or authorizeth this person or these persons here to bear it and that this he doth either by immediate revelation or by the intervention of men qualified and instructed by his set rule to make the said assignation then it must needs be yeelded that none can be entitled to the plea and priviledge of being Gods ordinance but they that come in by that door or ascend by that scale It will I think be said by all that Gods ordaining the power doth not necessarily import his dâ—signation immediately by his own mouth of the form and persons but that he committeth the doing of this ordinarily to humane arbitration And hereupon it will be to be inferred that either God hath left this determination to men absolutely indefinitly and promiscuously giving way to any that will in any place whatsoever to constitute what Magistracy and whom in it they please and who hath so little understanding either of God or of the matter hereby attributed to him as to say this or else that he hath set a stint and fixed rule to men in this matter appointing certain to constitute the Government and obliging people to the owning of the Government so constituted as from him with exclusion and disallowance of any other to determine these things And if this be the way as to me it seemeth so clear as that no other is imaginable then if in the erecting of government a substantial deviation from it be as when incompetent or unallowed persons be the advancers of themselves or others unto the place of power in as much as in that case there lies the divine disapprobation and men act besides the said prescript it may be said there is no ordinance of God but a contradiction and contraordination to Gods order CHAP. V. SECT IV. Subsect 4. Subsection 4. That Gods ordination is conveyed to the particular Magistrate by the consent of the community BUt then perhaps there will remain one Question viz. where hath God given out his warrant or rule to any to act or proceed in this business and who are they in every State respectively whom God hath authorized or qualified to determine the particulars of it Unto this my Answer is 1. That the said rule or the special way by which men should be called or attain to the place of Soveraign power and expresly defined in Scripture is not necessary or to be as such exacted We all grant that God hath in reference to all the proprietable things of this life and to all transactions about them injoyned a rule of right and equity to be kept and forbidden the transactions about them injoyned a rule of right and equity to be kept and forbidden the transgression of it yet he hath not in his written word particularly stated the several wayes by which the right or title to a thing shall be acquired nor yet the special lawes or rules by which the property of persons to such things may be determined or adjudged This the law and light of nature in mans heart as to many or most things or cases is left to discover and this it hath done in most things indifferent clearly and equally in so much as the affaires of men about them are ordinarily and both by vulgar maxims and customs and by publique laws and judgements regularly composed and determined 2. And yet we are not without some Scripture-light in this particular Even it doth not only prescribe an orderly call to the administration of Civill power and condemn the unorderly and violent assumption of it Num. 27.26 27. Luk. 12.14 Hos 8.4 Jer. 30.21 Ezek. 23.16 Amos 6.13 but doth also direct the way how men should be advanced to it and by whom in case of vacancy of Magistracy This it doth in the particular case of that nation to whom God at first gave his written law which may be a pattern to other Nations in this as in other matters confessedly it is See the direction to them Deut. 17.14 15. 16.18 1.13 In which places the transacting of this affair is by order from God put into the hands of the community over whom the Magistracy is set Judges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee throughout thy tribes and they shall judge the people with just judgement And unto this order seems the speech of that good man and wise Statist to refer 2 Sam. 16.18 Nay but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose his will I be and with him will I abide And according to this prescript runs the promise of God to the people of Israel concerning their state after the return of their Babylonish captivity Jer. 30.21 And their Nobles shall be of themselves and their Governor shall proceed from the midst of them And answerable to this rule we finde instances of the people constituting their Supreme Governour as in the advancement of Jeptha Jud. 10.5 c. of David 1 Chron. 11.1 c. and others And I would ask them who seem willing to deny that in the Bible any commission is given to a prople to choose themselves Governors to what purpose is it that the Lord giveth by Moses directions and rules what manner of person the Israelites should set up to be King over them as it is Deut. 17.14 15 c. if they had no interest or commission given them to set up or choose any for themselves 3. Besides this light of the text the law of Nature is judged to dictate the same thing to wit that the right power or interest to transact this business of the constitution of Magistrates is in the community or people of each Countrey or State in relation to their own Magistracy So that whether we look into the Scriptures or into the Book of Natures law the way which God hath chalkt out the ordinary means he useth for the deputation of persons under himself and over the people in the office of the Supreme Civil power is the vote elective act or consent of the body politique or people to be ruled To testifie the latter viz. that the law of nature dictates this to men 1. I shall in stead of many cite a few learned Authors of best respect that affirm it 2. I shall alledge the original and primitive practise of Nations to have been conform thereto 1. For the affirmation of it to be so de Jure Mr. Richard Hooker Hooker Eccles pol. l. 1. cap. 10. pag. 26 27 29. lib. 8. pag. 150 151. To take away all such mutual grievance injuries and wrongs there was no way but only by growing upon composition and agreement amongst themselves by ordaining some government publique and by yeelding themselves subject thereunto that unto whom they granted authority to rule and govern by them
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
questioning abolished by an act of State and our consent had been required to the said act or our oath of abrenunciation of him what should we in conscience have done On the one hand the right was confessed to be in the King on the other possession by a long accustomed usurpation was in the Pope If this were the sense of the Text meer actuall possession makes one to be the power to wiâ— that power that is of God ordained of God we should have been bound in conscience by this Text to have opposed the King and State in the same act and sided with the Pope To conclude this argument then either we must refuse this position actuall domination makes a civill power or we must allow to the Pope his Temporall supremacy both unto the reproof and condemnation of those Protestants who have cast it off and to the establishing of him in it wherever he yet possesses it by the disallowing of those that are de facto still under it to put it off and these are the fruits of this truly Popish Doctrine Shall we suppose him still to be the Antichrist the man of sin the Beast and his City to be the whore of Babylon and professe so much to be for the ruine of him under these names and yet make him so large a Grant in the matter and point which is most for his promoting and securing Subsection 3. CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 3. Argument 3. From the custome of hereditary Kingdomes accounting the succeeding to be King in the moment of the decease of his predecessor without actual investure 3. I Thus argue If a government by hereditary succession be lawful and in it the predecessor dying or otherwise ceasing the succeeding heire is immediately the power or the supream Magistrate without or before actual possession acknowledgment or investure by the Estates or people over whom he is the power then it is not actual possession which puts the power in being But a government by hereditary succession is lawful and in it the Predecessor ceasing the heire is the power in being without further act done by him or passed by the people or any other The first of these premisses is evident and the latter will need little proof The first part of it that an hereditary govergment is lawfull is attested by Scripture by the generall consent of Nations expressed both by lawes and practise by the lawes of this Land which have not onely setled this government but made it Treason to affirme the contrary and by the votes and pens as of other Authors so of our best Protestant Writers Divines and others unanimously asserting it And for the later that in hereditary government the successor is the power in being immediately and without more adoe upon the ceasing of his Predecessor is a poynt also generally subscribed unto * See Hooker his Ecclesiast pol. li. 8. p. 154. Chamier To 2. li. 15. cap. 10 sect 19. Treat of Monarchy part 1. cap. 3. sect 7. Stat. of 1 Jac. 1. King James his Remonstrance against Card. Perron p. 154. CHAP. VII SECT III. Subsect 4. Subsection 4. Argument 4. From the lawfulnesse and usefulnesse of fundamental Lawes and provisions for the future continuance of Government by succession and against encroachers upon the same 4. IF it be lawful and necessary as well as it is the universal practice of Common-wealths to make and ordain fundamental lawes constitutions and provisions about government for the upholding and continuing of it and for the transmitting and transferring of it from hand to hand whether by succession election or otherways upon the death or other change of the present Magistrate and for the preventing resisting punishing and suppressing of the violators thereof then is it not the meer in being or actual seising of rule and command which makes the power But the aforesaid course is lawful and necessary This minor I suppose will be uncontested in all the parts of it * Vide Grot. de jure Bel. lib. 1. cap. 4 sect 17. If the latter part the lawfulnesse of ordaining Laws for the risistance and prosecution of intruders and incroachers against fundamental constitutions be questioned the generality of this Nation even every one that hath participated actively in the late Wars what party soever they have led or followed have manifested their consent to it For the true state of the difference was the intrusions upon the fundamental Laws concerning the interest of government which each accused other mutually of which supposed intrusions and incroachments were in things lawful in themselves as the power of imposing taxes disposing of the Militia and interpreting lawes and the like only the interest therein which on both sides the one assumed the other denyed to belong unto him or them CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 4. was that which each of the two opposites gave out to be the cause of their debate and war For the consequence of the major that may also easily appear good For if the actual possessor be the power of God then it must needs be both unlawful and a frivolous thing to make such constitutions and being made to in force or vindicaâ—e them either by the civil or martial sword from violation and vice versâ if such Laws be lawful and necessary then meer actual possession doth not constitute any one to be the power It must I say needs be unlawful to make such laweâ— if the Word of God determine the actual possessor to be the power for the direct and proper use and formal reason of such constitutions is to inhibite all invasion upon the government or entrance upon it otherwise then according to such constitution and to disapprove illegitimate and condemn it if it be done the use then and nature of such constitutions is to crosse and thwart that which the Word of God enacteth and therefore they are in their making unlawful and unjust And it must needs be as frivolous and vain to make them For let us suppose the fundamental Laws of a Common-wealth to appoint a Prince or Senate to the Supream power but for a limited terme as for a stinted number of dayes moneths or years as the Roman Consuls the Carthaginian Kings and the Theban Boeotarchae were * Greg. Tholos Syntag. Iuris li. 18. cap. 1. sect 16 17. and at the end of the said terme that Prince or Senate should declare their will and resolution to continue still in the power and should accordingly hold it notwithstanding such fundamental Law to the contrary by this opinion such persons being actually possessed are the power ordained of God and to what purpose then should such laws be made to confine or dissolve their power by a prefixed time when they are made of what force or authority can they be And if any execution be of such Laws as if a Senate will and do sit beyond the time prescribed in the fundamental order and he or they that are
civill politick 2. His private personall and humane capacity And this distinction is grounded upon that of power before given in Chap. 1. to wit that there is 1. A naturall or physical 2. A moral power The difference betwixt those two capacities they have assigned to be that his personall private capacity in it all that he is and doth or may and can do either naturally or ethically that is by vertue of any naturall or morall power distinct from the Civill or Magistratical His politick capacity is conferred on him and exercised by the Law it is still inclusive of the Law both as it is originall and instrument of working and it signifies onely that which he is doth and may doe legally or by the Lawes of the Land The necessiâ—y and use of this distinction is to state the rise and extent of the Magistrates authority and both the ground or reason and the measure or latitude of the Subj cts obligation unto the power This distinction hath been much used by them that have defended the late Parliaments cause See it in the fuller answer to Dr. Ferne pag. 9. 16. And the answer to Dr. Fern's Reply pag. 36. The vindication of the Treatise of Monarchy pag. 27. The Answer to Doubts and Queries upon the Oath and Covenant pag. 6. Mr. Burroughs upon Hos cap. 1. Lect. 4. pag. 111. Yet had it not its effiction from them but was unto the very same sense delivered by our Divines before as Bishop Bilson in his true difference of Christian subjection c pag. 520. Dr. Willer Hexap 〈◊〉 Rom. cap. 3. quest 17. pag. 593. Yea the substance of this distinction hath been owned by both the Parliaments and the Royal party Yea both by Prince and People hence these generally received maximes The King hath no power in him but what is invested in him by Law The Law is the measure and bottome of the Kings power He can claim nothing but what the Law gives him He is our Liâ—ge that is legall Lord we his liege or legall Subjects Whatsoever power is exercised and is not setled by Law it is not authoritative See the Kings Declaration from New-Market March 9. 1641. Judge Jenkins Judge Jenkins saith The Kings prerogative and the Subjects liberty are determined and bounded and measured by the written Law what they are We doe not hold the King to have any more power neither doth his Majestie claime any other but what the Law gives him his vindication pag 19. Treatise of Monarchy pars 3. cap. 1. and sect 2. pag 31 32. and the vindication of that Treatise pag 58 61. This distinction and the import of it if it may passe for good as it is no lesse cleare boâ—h in â—eason and Religion then generally acknowledged doth quit and clean diâ—claim and shut out this potation and title of the possessory power and that so plainly as it is supeâ—fluous fuâ—ther to forme or draw out the argument For how can you distinguish of these two capacities in a meer possessor where is his legall civill politick capacity to wit that which is conferred on or exeâ—cised by him by the Lawes distinct from his naturall private CHAP. IX SECT VIII and personall capacity and consequently where is any ground or rise of the peoples obligation unto obedience to him as their civill power SECT VIII Argueth from the being of civill power by the law of nature 8 UPon supposal of the truth of that Position that civill Magistracy is by the Law of nature for the proof of which I have said something before * Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Subsect 2. I would thus argue If the law of nature doth and from the beginning hath dictated that civil Government be in politick societies it must also be presumed to direct and authorize a way how in particular communities it may be erected and that way which it hath determined is to be practised and no other can unlesse it derive an expresse positive rule from God be admitted especially none that is contradictory or subversive to that now no man can reasonably imagine that meeer possession which must be ever supposed to be against the wills of the community and for the most part is in prejudice and wrong of anothers title yea which alway is by unnatural violent and dishonest meanes introduced and maintained can be by order or law of natur or otherwise then by encroachment upon and violation of it CHAP. IX SECT IX SECT IX Argueth from the generall solemn disclaim of Arbitrary Government 9 ARbitrary rule government is a thing that we to wit this kingdom generally did condemn and decry as a publique evill and in opposition to it we entred into a publique and solemn promise vow and protestation See the Preface to the Protestation of May 3. 1641. I do not in the least reprehend that action but upon it I argue If that were well and justly done then is not Arbitrary government an ordinance of God necessarily to be submitted to and maintained and that which may not be resisted On the other hand if Arbitrary government be an ordinance of God c. then were we externally extreamly out in the said action but then the question is what is Arbitrary government and wherein doth it and that government which we owned and took upon us to assert and stand for differ Doubtless arbitrary is opposed to lawful or legal or that which is setled by National convention pact and constitution The government then we have in that Protestation obliged our selves to is that established by Law and that which is otherwise and without controversie meer possessory dominion is otherwise we bound our selves from and against SECT X. CHAP. IX SECT X. Argueth from the impossibility of determining what measure of possession shall make a power 10 LAstly If possession will serve to make a power and to breed an obligation in the people to it I aske what sort size or degree of possession is it that will do it If you say partial possession will suffice I reply possession of a part cannot give title to the whole For that may at one and the same time be in divers opposite competitors as it hath been in England in our late Wars and is in every Territory where there are wars for Dominion One contrary party may be seised on one City or Province another of another within the same Common-wealth If then the title follow partiall possession it may appertain to many at once But this cannot be The intire title or interest over a Kingdome cannot be wholly in divers contra-distinct and opposite parties neither can the peoples allegiance be owing or yielded to many contrary claimers 1. It hath often come to passe that the forcible occupancy of one part of a Kingdome by one and another by another power hath been the occasion of dividing the same into severall and distinct Kingdoms or Principalities So was the Greek Empire parcelled after the death of Alexander
referred to the Dragon not to the Beast for the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carries it to the agent or giver Now the Dragon might be said to give his power and authority to the Beast two wayes 1. By way of surcease or surrendry The Devill when he saw the authority of the Heathen Emperors come to an end upon the rising up of Constantine he layd down that sway he had held in the use of them in whom he had played the Dragon by instigating them and their people by them to grosse Paganish Idolatry and to open enmity against Christianity and now gave way to the Beast 2. By way of allurement and assistance Satan seeing he must perforce leave that his way of working and leading the world which he had long held by means of the Heathenish Empire he now applies himself to the present Secular powers the Christian Potentates risen up in the room of the former to draw them over to his interest of Idol-worship and Saint-persecution though in another forme and method unto which be makes it his design first to perswade and then to assist them in the promoting and executing thereof In reference to the latter his assistance especially may those words be understood of the Dragons giving his power and authority to the Beast q. d. Satan joyneth his power unto the Roman State or Magistracy become Christian and after a while degenerate in Religion by Heresie and Superstition to further them in their way which was also his own main work of Blasphemous Idolatries and cruel persecutions drawing in also the Nations of the world to follow them therein A like manner of speech to this we have Rev. 17.13 17. where the ten Kings are said to give their power and strength unto the Beast that is by way not of investing it in him but of assisting him with it And thus it may be plain how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used For what is that Power Seat and Authority which Satan hath in humane affairs Verily none properly so called that is he hath no temporal Government no formal professed open and acknowledged rule amongst men either by commanding in word or compulsion in deed as Princes have over their Subjects Masters over their Servants The term therefore cannot here be put to signifie any Civil Empire either lawful or unlawful as to title The Devill hath indeed a physical power or potency in material or elementary things to produce effects in them above the ordinary course of nature and there is in him a properly political or governing Power in relation to his fellows the evill spirits and hence we read of his Angels and him called the prince of Devils But in moral and humane proceedings he hath no more but a suggesting or counselling a tempting or perswasive power the only way he hath to sway men after him that we know is by illusion and enticement When therefore we finde these titles the God and the Ruler of the darkness of this world the prince of this world and the prince of the power of the air ascribed to him and here a power seat and great authority which he lends in assistance to the Beast we must take these attributions figuratively and improperly spoken and to import no more but that as it were and in effect he is and hath these things in as much as by his stratagems or subtile arts he leadeth men both of high and low degree in a manner at his pleasure and by crafty insinuations he is as prevalent and bringeth men as wholly to his bent as if he had a direct Empire over them and they owned him as their Lord. Satans power being then spiritual not temporal perswasive or precarious not imperious his giving his power to the Beast whether by resignation at the Beasts advancement or by way of assistance to him when in authority and in relation to his use thereof as it could no way concern the Beasts temporal title or interest in his civill authority in point of lawfulness or unlawfulness so it affords no instance for the taking in of an unentitled Civil power whether in the Dragon or in the Beast into the signification of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly for those places Eph. 6.12 Col. 2.15 Principalities and Powers are the titles both of good and evill spirits in reference to other spirits there being an order and a distinction of superior and inferior in respect of dignity and rule among them by creation the which the fallen Angels doe still retain among them and this they do in all probability both by virtue of their first ordination the present dispensation of God and their own mutual consent now what power is in any Angel by creation and primitive institution cannot be unlawful Secondly for the observation and judgement of the Learned concerning the notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not detain my Reader so long as to cite to him all that I have found in such to this purpose nor to rehearse the words of any but I shall only mention these following Authors thus interpreting this word and refer him to the places in them Zanchius To. 2. de natura Dei lib. 4. cap. 8. quaest 3. Thes 3. pag. 424. Beza in Marc. 1.27 Piscator Elnathan par in Loc. Jansenius Concord cap. 113. pag. 822. Daniel Heinsius exercit in Mat. 7.28 Gataker Dissertat cap. 43. pag. 457. Ms. Leigh Critic Sacra in voc Subsection 2. Power distinguisht into Natural and Moral BUt it is not the meer notation of a word that will lead to the distinct and adequate conception of the matter or thing thereby signified Wherefore let us proceed to a more reall consideration of this subject Power I will not run through the whole scheme of distinctions upon the word There are many sorts of Power which may easily appear to be of a remote and disparate consideration to what this Text will bear To omit therefore the Explication of those divisions of Power into increate and create of create into active and passive of active into immanently and transiently active That Power which is in a created and corporeal substance and is transiently active or importeth the influx of one body or suppositum upon another may be twofold 1. Natural 2. Moral * Of this Distinction see Mr. Whites Way to the tree of life pag. 45. The Treatise of Monarchy part 1. cap. 3. Sect. 2. pag. 19 20. 1. Natural or physical power is the same which we call more distinctly strength might and vigor It consisteth in an ability to enforce or make impression upon another thing or to cause it to yeeld or give way 2. Moral power is that which we call property or dominion it consisteth in a right title or interest to order dispose or govern This Moral Power as seated in man may be taken either more extensively so the object of it may be things inanimate or brute beasts for over
to ordain or proceed by any laws or to take cognisance of causes by any rule it is but ad libitum without any obligation certainty or constancy only as far as stands with its own humor or interest for as its rise is its own force and appetite so its end is its proper and private accommodation and safety The Moral power to speak of it only as seated in and relating to man and more particularly that of the Civil Magistrate is a special state or function or administration amongst men It s original is not its own inherent or adjacent robiâ— or main strength but positive constitution It consisteth in not only an ability but a right to command It hath indeed de jure and should have de facto a Sword as well as a Scepter a coactive as well as a directive power the Natural power joyned to its Moral but its Moral power lyeth in its word Eccl. 8.4 not in its sword Where the word of a King is there is power Solomon saith It is its reason not its might which gives law and its reason is legislative whereas anothers is not Ratio cujuslibet non est factiva legis saith Aquinas * Aquinas 1. 2a. quast 96. artic 3. Cajetan in quaest 96. artic 5. Selden de Jure Nat. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 46. It s proper primary and genuine act is to prescribe guide and direct the sword is requisite to it but ex accidenti upon occasion of others pravity compulsoriness is not of its essence but an after addition to it for its preservation and efficacy †It 's probably conceived that the sword is a superaddition to the Civil power annext to it Gen. 9.6 See Dr. Hammond of Resisting c. pag. 27. It could not be from the beginning for in the state of integrity there was no use of it It never useth the sword but where equity and dignity are consemned where by reason of the subjects either vitiousness or defect of reason bare authority cannot take place The special reason of its erection by men is the proneness of some to take the advantage of their natural power to invade and the inability of others to defend themselves against such and a prime end of it is to prevent or remedy the â—xorbitances of Natural power in ill disposed persons and thereby to secure the community in order to the general and each ones particular good Again it doth not take the Sword in the sense of our Saviour Matth. 26.25 * Per accipere gladium intelligitur propria authoritate voluntate uti gladio Principes enim judices non accipiunt quasi a seipsis sed concesso sibi gladio a deo utuntur Cajetan Jentac 6. quaest 3. but beareth it as Rom. 13.4 that is it doth not snatch it up or wrest it from another to it self but hath it delivered It hath the Sword not only in its hand but in its commission and the Sword that it hath is not the cause but the consequent of its superiority It doth not assume or hold its authority by vertue of the sword but it assumes and holds the sword by vertue of its authority The Scepter goes before the Sword and is that which legitimates it * Potentia vero debet sequi justitiam non praire Aug. To. 3. de Trinit lib. 13. cap. 13. Observemus jus gladâ—i magistratibus esse a deo datum tanquam necessarium adminiculum nervum suae potestatis Pareus in Rom. 13.4 when it draweth the sword the difference betwixt its Sword and anothers that is armed only by natural strength is that its edge is not meerly backed with mettal or in an arme of flesh and sinews but with warrant and commission and that signed by God Let me add by way of Supplement to what hath been said to demonstrate both that there is a reall difference betwixt Power Natural and Moral and what it is this further That even in God we distinguish betwixt his Power by which we mean his arme of strength and might and his Power by which we signifie his throne of authority or Soveraign rule betwixt his power of command and his power of efficiency betwixt his working power and his legislative or willing power betwixt the power of his right hand and the power of his scepter of righteousness in the Lords-Prayer Kingdom and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power ascribed to God are distinguished and though both be natural that is essential to God yet the one we may call his Physical the other his Moral power †Vide Zanchium de Nat. Dei lib. 4. cap. 8. qu. 3. Thes 3. Arminium Dis priv Thes 22. Sect. 2. Thes 27. Sect. 2. Answerable to this twofold power in Man there is a twofold subjection one of the body only which respecteth the Natural power the other of the body with the minde also relating unto the power wich is Moral * Duplex est servitus corporis animi vis quippe in corpore in externis prohibitio autem Juris animum poâ—issinum cogit Greg. Tholos Synt. Jer. lib. 11. cap. 1 Sect. 4. The Morall power layeth an oblâ—gation upon the conscience to it a man doth or ought to submit as of right and duty It may challenge our obedience though and where it cannot compel to it and we are to subject though there be nothing to overaw us to it and this is the property of this Power in distinction from the natural that which is but natural reacheth not the mind the acts it putteth forth may lay a coaction on the body but not a tie on the conscience What ever be the natural or armed power of one person or party above another no man is under any obligation to obey nor hath he any claim to rule by virtue of it if he had there could be no such thing as Moral power in the world this being as was before said for most part if not ever seated in those persons who in regard of Natural power are inferiour to them whom they should reign over If Natural power could oblige to obedience the Monarch were bound to resign his Crown to the multitude and the Senate or Parliament must receive laws from the community Every heady commotion or rout of a multitude risen up were to be submitted to and were not to be repressed the Town-clerk did not well to check the tumult at Ephesius or to refer the plaintiffs from the present uproare to a court or lawful assembly he should have let them go on and have both submitted to and assisted them But this is absurd enough to appear so to any man the commonly received maxime is By nature men are in regard of Civill jurisdiction all equal no man a Ruler or servant to another * Hooker Eccl. posit lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 26 c. Ascham Discourse c. part 1. cap. 1. Sect. 4. Hobs Elem. part 1. c. â— 1. So that the
besides his allowing or prescribing Government with such and such species of it to be convey authority to individuals or particular persons It must further be acknowledged that this act of God must be such as that by it not only the person authorized but the rest that are concerned in that estate in point oâ— use of it or duty to it may understand that such an one is singled out by God to sustain this authority How else could any in conscience of Gods ordinance either assume such authority over others to themselves rather then yeeld it to others or others attribute it to them rather then to others or to themselves Now can it be imagined how such an act of God so humanely intelligible should be passed but either it must be by his immediate revelation from heaven and thereby indigitating or pointing out as it were such a person or persons to such an authority in such a place or by chalking out a way to men or giving rules in general to them how such and such authorities shall accrew unto men which wayes or rules shall serve in all cases unlesse where himself shall immediately interpose to create superiority or convey power to men and to discover the empowered The former way Gods designation of particular persons unto authority by immediate revelation from heaven is not now exercised or expected neither was it ever in ordinary or constant use The latter therefore is the way remaining to us That there are such wayes stated or rules prescribed by God for mens entry into relations of power over others and those necessary to the being thereof so as without them all ordinary claims to such conditions are null is very evident and confessed in the relations of parents masters husbands pastors of the Church and many others and there is no reason in the earth to me excogitable to think it is not certainly so also in the Magistratical state What those rules or wayes in particular are in reference to Civil Magistracy here is not the fit place to enter upon the set enquiry but I shall for this have fuller opportunity as also for the proving more largely that such rules there are given of God afterward in this discourse But if thus much be admitted as I see not how it will be gainsayed it sufficeth to prove the thing we are about viz. that the essence of Moral power consists in a title or right to rule For if all power be from God not only as appointing the office to be among men but as appointing the person or persons to the office and his ordinary constant way of appointing the person to the office be the prescribing of a rule for mens ingresse into the authoritative relation or accession to power by which way he communicates that power to them which is not in others and which otherwise is not in them it must needs be that as such admittance unto power most certainly gives right and title to it so upon mens having or not having such entrance to it depends the reality or nullity of the power they to themselves challenge We have seen this third kind of lawfulness or warrantableness of power viz. in regard of Title and the necessity of it to the being or constituting of a moral power Fourthly there is yet behind another way wherein power may be said to be lawful or unlawful viz. in regard of use That power which in respect both of matter and of person and of title is lawful is yet to undergoe a further qualification to regulate it which concernes the use or employment of it a power lawful and right for its composure must also be legal and right for its practise its course and processe in government must be altogether just it may decree and do only equal and right things and in this respect that power is unlawful or culpable which doth enact or execute any injustice or wrong So were those ten Kings Rev. 17.13 14. who gave their power up to serve the Beast and to make war with the Lamb. But among these four wayes of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of a power which we have thus distinguished of and explained there is this difference to be noted The three first wayes do concern the being composition habit and constitution of an authority or Moral power the fourth only concerns the act and exercise thereof and consequently the three first conditions of lawfulness are simply necessary to the making of the power the fourth is but accidental and exterior to its making an unlawfulness in any of those three respects is inconsistible with destructive to the nature of a moral power and consequently secludeth the power that is in any of those things peccant from any claim to this text whereas that power which only offends in its use or acts of power may well as to its being and constitution be moral and interested in the text and its universal actings only be accounted forein or disallowed ground therein For this is as far as I have observed yeelded by all and is very certain that every unlawful power so far as it is unlawful must be excluded out of the meaning of this text * See the Authors quoted by Mr. Prinne his third part of the Power of Parliaments p. 14. The power therefore that is unlawful as to its being and constitution is wholly and absolutely secluded the power that is unlawful only as to exercise may be for its habit or being included in it and its irregular acts only discarded from it To make this observation if need be yet more evident as to that lawfulnesse which concerns the being of a power Unto the constitution of a power in its individual essence and existence you must necessary take in these three things 1. The matter of the power 2. A subject or person to sustain it 3. An investure or conveying of that matter of power unto that subject or person If all these three must go to the making of a power then a legitimacy in every of these must go to the making of a Moral power or a power lawful in its constitution or being and an illegitimacy in any of these is an illegitimacy in the very being and so a nullity to the power as moral or a making of it no authority 1. An unlawfulness in the matter of a power destroyes its moral being The Pope assumes to himself a power to dispense with the consciences of Christians in divine Lawes This power we say is unlawful for the matter or in the whole kind of it disallowed to all and every one of mankinde and therefore we say it's null we deny any such power to be in him 2. An unlawfulness in regard of person evacuates the power Korah and his company arrogated to themselves the office of the priesthood this power lawful in it self as for the matte was not lawfull but prohibited to be in them their Prâ—esthood therefore was a nullity they were indeed no priests 3.
Let there be a power lawful for matter and a person capable or induable with it yet if there be not a lawful investure or conveyance of this power to this person there is yet in him no moral power an unlawful entry or tenure nullifies the power in that respect John Becold called John of Leyden takes upon him in Munster to be King and as King acteth and ruleth all at his pleasure this King being destitute of a just call title or tenure was therefore but scenical and nothing as to a moral power or real magistracy he was in truth no King but a traiterous Villain the unlawfulness here is in the constitution of the power that his having and holding the pretended Soveraignty that his being in power was unlawful In any of these three wayes of unlawful power you cannot sever the unlawfulness from the being of the power take away that which is unlawful in any of them take away the matter or take away the person or take away the tenure and you destroy the very being of the power For example in the third which most concerns our purpose where one takes and holds the place of Power without right or title the thing which is here unlawful is the very tenure or holding of power if then you will take away that which is unlawful you must take away the persons tenure or holding of power and so you take away the being of this power No otherwise is an unentitled tenure taken away but either by deposing the unlawful possessor or by creating to him de novo a just title and conferring on him a right now either of these two wayes the power that was unlawfully occupyed ceaseth If then it be granted that from this Text is excluded every unlawful power so far as it is unlawful or whatever in the power is unlawful Seeing the unlawfulness of a rightless or unentitled power is in the being of it not in the exercise meerly and for that reason the unlawfulness is inseparable from the power it must needs be that an unentitled power is utterly and absolutely excluded from the meaning of this Text or in short seeing the being of the power is unlawful the being of the power must be shut out of our text In this respect the reason is the same betwixt an act of injustice of a power lawful as to title or constitution and an unjust occupants act of being in or holding the power betwixt Ahabs seising of Naboths vineyard and Athaliahs intruding into Joash his kingdom the one is an act of Tyranny as to exercise the other is an act of Tyranny as to title You cannot otherwise either give admittance to the Text and to the ordination of God or deny it unto the one then you may do to the other if you say the unlawfulness of oppression excludes Ahabs act from this Text I may with as good reason say the unlawfulness of wrongful occupation excludes Athaliahs act which is her being in power from the same CHAP. II. Of the term of GOD. THese words of God ordained of God are the two Predicates or things which in this sentence are enunciated or spoken of the subject the power And they are the medius terminus or the bottome or ground of the argument the first and principal argument which the Apostle in this his discourse of the subjects duty to the Civil Magistrate bringeth for subjection to the higher powers And they are a medium of a very great force and authority being they offer to consideration the highest descent origination or derivation of the powers here pleaded for viz. that they are of God ordain'd of God These terms then are of a very main and material importance and the defining and clearing of the sense of them cannot but be chiefly necessary and useful It will easily be granted only those Powers are here intended unto which these predicates of God ordained of God are truly and in the sense of the Apostle in this place attributable The business then will be to enquire How these words must be here taken and what is their special meaning in this place Both of these terms refer the subject they are spoken of the pow rs that be unto God as the author of them but the former doth it in a more general word Pareus Tolet. the latter more expresly the latter therefore may be and is by Expositors taken as the explication and limitation of the former We will first examine the former the more general term of God and after descend to the following the more special notification of the powers derivation ordained of God SECT I. The divers Scripture-acceptations of this term of God recited THere is no power but of God This phrase of God is of a divers acceptation and use both in Scripture and in Theology That we may come the more clearly to the meaning of it in this text I shall endevour first to sum up the different uses of it in Scripture as I have collected them In the general all the wayes of the being of things of God may be reduced under two heads that is 1. Of his hand 2. Of his mouth or 1. Of his work 2. Of his word or 1. Of his doing 2. Of his declaring But then each of these may be subdistinguished Of the former the being of a thing of Gods hand work or doing which we ordinarily call his Providence we must again distinguish It may be taken either 1. In a more general and large sense so as to import only that some disposings or proceedings of God are the antecedent or occasion upon which certain things come to passe And thus the sinful actions of the creature are said to be of God Judg. 14.4 Samsons unlawful desire to have to wife a daughter of the Philistims 1 King 12.15 Rehoboams either unjust or imprudent refusal to satisfie the ten tribes in their desire of easement of their former burdens 2 Chron. 25.20 Amaziahs insolent and foolish rejection of the peaceable overture and advice returned him from Joash these sinful courses of these persons are said to be of or from God that is in the same sense wherein God is said to hearden the heart Exod. 7.11 Ezek. 14.9 1 King 22.23 Judg. 9.23 Isa 29.10 Mat. 6.13 2 Thess 2.11 2 Sam. 16.11 1 Kin. 11.14 23 Isai 10.5 Psal 105.25 Rev. 17.17 Zeph. 3.5 Jam. 1.13 to deceive to put a lying spirit in the mouth of some to send an evil spirit between men to powre out upon men the spirit of deep sleep and to close their eyes to lead men into temptation to send men strong delusions that they should believe a lie to bid a wicked man curse a righteous to stir up and to send men when they enterprise and go on sinful atchievements to turn the hearts of men and to put in their hearts to do evil Not as if he positively acted these things or efficaciously infused them into men he will not
after said only this I shall put in upon its mention here If this be so It must needs be affirmed I suppose so to be 1. Either because possession or occupation in every case or in any thing possessible or in every sort of Tenure gives a title But this is so wilde an assertion as I know not who will own it or 2. Because God hath declared in his word or made it a law that it shall be so in this particular matter of Civill authority viz. that whosoever is master shall be the Magistrate or he whom his hand of Providence raiseth up to a domineering prevalency in any place shall have the authority there or be interested in the style or office of this text viz. shall be the higher power the ordinance the Minister of God But unto this 1. If so it were it would be not Providences disposing possession of rule into this hand that of it self constituteth him a power but that declaration of God in his word Providence would be only the determinator or applyer of that general rule to its particular matter 2. But where is this found that God hath so expressed or declared himself or made such a law touching Civill Magistracy We must first see such a declaration produced or proved ere we may grant it so to be I know this text is alledged as the only or main place to imply such a declaration but de hoc quaritur I hope by this treatise it will be manifest that there is not such a thing to be extracted thence and in short I think it will be proved that 1. By power is not meant a meer force or strong hand 2. That by being is not meant a meer act of possession of such a force 3. That by of God ordained of God is not intended a meer being by eventual Providence And to give the Reader here a small earnest of Reason for the improbability of their being either in this or in any other Scripture any such thing declared by God I shall suggest these few things in this place 1. The power of Magistracy may be in one and actual rule by Providence in another Gods word hath owned them for the power that have been out of possession whilest others have had the actual command Take for instance what is in 2 Chron. 22.9 12. with Chap. 23.3 2. God hath expresly disowned for being of him them that have been in present possession of command Hos 8.4 Isa 52.4 5. Joel 3.2 4. Hab. 2.5 6. 3. He hath expresly authorized and owned the act of rising up in armes to expulse them that have been in actual rule in them that have been de facto subject to them the which this text ver 2. expresly and severely forbids in reference to the power here intended Judg. 2.16 18. 3.9 15. 4.6 and in many other places of that book and in other Scriptures 4. We have many examples of unquestionable justifiablenesse in the word of God of persons taking up and employing for the recovery of persons goods and countreyes of the hands of them that have had the Mastery and possession of them which could not be done if dominion were found by God in providential profession Gen. 14.14 c. 2 Sam. 18.1 c. 1 Sam. 7 â— c 13.3 14.1 c. 2 King 11.3 c. CHAP. III. SECT III. Subsect 7. 5. To yeeld this would be to say that usurpatition is no sin or that in the tenure or holding of power or command over others under the name of civill authority is or can be no transgression But this shall serve for a touch on this argument here 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 humane right or positive institution FOr the eviction of the groundlesness of the former position that Providence alone without Scripture evidence or extraordinary appointment and warrant may be in the matters above specified the interpreter of Gods will to us unto the justifying or condemning of a way or unto the signification of Gods approval or disapproval I would offer these reasons 1. That which is in this position attributed to Providence is by Scripture plainly denyed to it Eccl. 9.1 2. No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them â— all things come alike to all there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked c. 2. The putting of any thing to be rule beyond or further then Scripture goes or so as to make out such an approving or disapproving will or law of God as is not delivered in Scripture is to derogate from or deny that sufficiency and perfection of the Scripture which the holy Ghost ascribeth thereto and which we upon his authority maintain against the Papists The written word of God is affirmed to be perfect 2 Tim. 3.15 Psal 19.7 we have very strict prohibitions of adding to or diminishing ought from it Deut. 4.2 Prov. 30.6 Rev. 22.18 19. we finde men are sharply blamed by God for doing that his word gave them no command or commission for Jer. 7.31 19.5 32.35 and persons are challenged for following the appearance or promising face of Providence without recourse to him Isa 30.1 2. with 31.1 Josh 9.14 We upon these and the like authorities conceive that the good the acceptable and perfect will of God is contained in the Scriptures that the word of God hath compleatly and unalterably delivered what is necessary what lawful and therefore that it appears to be high presumption and strong delusion to set up any thing to be a rule either by way of crossing or uttering more then is read in Scripture Either we must say the Scriptures are imperfect or the doctrine therein is repealable by Providence or that there is nothing left for Providence to declare anew And which of these to admit I think is easie to choose 3. Providences are both in themselves so indistinct and various and in relation to mens wayes and the rule by which they are to walk so unanswerable for the most part in this life and disproportionable that it is not I think to any man conceiveable how they should be employed for such a signification 1. They are in themselves so indistinct and various in respect of rise end and manner of proceeding that they appear altogether unapt for such a use 1. Providence is many times the same to persons and wayes directly contrary that is to them that are approved and to them that are disapproved of God the course of Providence in present event is all one the same judgements or evils do befall the same outward benefits to come upon righteous and wicked persons and wayes Ezek. 21 3. Mat. 5.45 2. The same same wayes or proceedings of men may meet with clear contrary Providences either in the same person at divers times or in divers persons at the
what ever couple do accordingly contract are joyned together by God The same may be exemplified in the office of the Ministery of the Gospel Christ hath given commission to certain in the Church to ordain Elders and when such are accordingly ordained they aâ—e then the Ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God and are said to be made by the Holy Ghost * Act. 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 5 22. Tit. 1.5 2 Tim. 2.2 with Act. 20.28 1 Cor. 4.1 In the natural body God is said to have given more abundant honour to that part which lacked 1 Cor. 12.24 How it is said God hath given this honour it is not by his making that part more comely then other parts for contrarily the words are spoken of those parts that by making are more uncomely and lesse honourable then the rest But in as much as we by an instinct of nature do repute some parts naturally lesse honourable and more uncomely then other and thereupon do bâ—stow more abundant artificial honour and comeliness upon them viz. do more cloath and cover them with dressings in this regard what is upon that consideration thought fit by man to be done in the distribution of honour to his natural parts in such an inequality as may fill up the natural disproportion God is said to do viz. by directing us by natures instinct to do it The Judges of Israel for those 450. years mentioned by St. Paul are said to be given them of God and to be raised up to them of God and that he commanded them to feed his people * Act. 13.20 Jud. 2.16 c. 1 Chron. 17.6 and yet we read not of any immediate particular expresse call from God given to them all or to the most of them none of them I take it can upon any evident ground be supposed to have had any such except Deborah Gideon and Sampson but a mediate call from God by men that all of them doubtless had and of Jeptha his call of this nature the text at large informs us †Jud. 10.5 from such an orderly call by men we may therefore take it to have been that they were given raised up commissioned to that people of God We all acknowledge Subordinate Magistrates to be ordained of God and many of our Commentators include them as well as the supreme in this text and Mr. Calvin Calvin in loc Spanhem Dub. Evang. part 3. Dub. 64. pag. 288. Estius in Ro. 13. Spanhemius and Estius takes those words in 1 Pet. 2.13 sent by him to refer not unto the King but to God as the sender yet those inferior Magistrates have their election and deputation from the supreme humane power but they are notwithstanding reckoned to be of God in as much as they are surrogated by them who are empowered by God to do it Our Saviour speaking of all Magistrates saith that unto them the word of God came that is Joh. 10.35 as Expositors interpret these words God hath given out to them a warrant and commission for their offices But how is that the speech certainly can have no reference to an immediate designation from God in relation to the most of them but the word of God comes to or authorizeth them who are advanced to the seat of power by men according to his word We may take this then for clear that the conveying of power from man so man may make a power ordained of God only with this proviso be it said this is not meerly because it is done by men for neither every humane action nor every act of any whomsoever in this matter can entitle this effect to divine ordination but it is because and so far forth as this is done of men by virtue of a rule and warrant from God and therefore hath the authorization and seal of God upon it Wherever therefore such a platform of Magistracy is erected and such persons are invested with it as God hath declared eligible and this by them to whom God hath committed this management and such power placed in the persons as he hath legitimated there is a power enstamped with this of the Apostle of God ordained of God And this is the sentence of Commentators on the text and others that treat on this subjâ—ct As Peter Martyr P. Martyr loc com clas 4. cap. 13. Sect. 5. Sometimes this to wit the creation of the power comes to passe by the consent of the Senate sometime by the suffrages of the people but these are but instruments the proper cause of Magistrates is God himself Pareus Pâ—reus in loc sub dub 3. Neither do second causes exclude the first In old time God by an immedia e call advanced some Magistrates Kings to the throne as Moses c. But the rest as the 70. Elders he by mans act and counsel placed in power and yet ceaseth not so to do and that according to the laws and custom received of every people either by the election and consent of a Senate as now the Roman Empire or by the voices of the people as the Governers of the Cities that are meerly or mixtly democratical c. Tolet in loc Toler Of God as of the first principle and cause the powers proceed although by the intervenient wils of men as heat cold and the like are of God but by intermediate second causes Estius in loc Estius The secular power is mediately of God by men who by the instinct of the law of Nature set over those of whom they may be governed in a community For this instinct is of God so that by reason thereof it may be truly and positively said that this power is not but of God Mr. John Selden Selden â— de Jure Nat. lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 108. But whatsoever by that license is constituted variously betwixt men civilly and duely according to the several formes of Government only by way of determination as the Schoolmen speak so as not to be contrary neither to the natural nor the positive law of God that also receiveth sanction and obligation according to the several qualifications of the constitution from the said law which is both naturall and divinely positive or written Willet upon the place As the fruits of the earth are brought forth by mans labour yet are Gods gifts so is Magistracy c. 2. The negative is Whatever power so named or pretended there may be or whatsoever persons there be that take upon them to be the Power or Magistrate over a State and are not thereto appointed or therein enstated as is abovesaid that is either by special expresse revelation from God or by men proceeding upon and by virtue of a warrant or authority from God they are not a Power ordained of God This will follow upon what is said already For if it be so that to the making of a particular Power or Magistrate to be Gods ordinance there goes not only a law
Monarchy which they presuppose Adam had from God and which or any part whereof none of his posterity could have but by grant or succession from him But let this be supposed what will be gained by it to their purpose 1. Touching the universal Monarchy of Adam it will be questioned how he had or received it Whether by natural right as the Father of all or by an immediate expresse and positive grant from God 2. Besides the way of immediate and expresse grant from God which it may be supposed Adam and after him some other special persons as Moses Saul David had there must be acknowledged a mediate and ordinary way of Gods advancing of persons to authority and power which is standing general and common to all times and places And of this our controversie is I enquire therefore how this universal Monarchy of Adam passed from him unto others 1. Whether distributively and piecemeal to many that is to his sons cach a share or whole and solid to one 2. Whether it passed from him to them or any of them by his arbitrary and positive assignement or by order or law of nature as to the heir or heirs general 3. If by his voluntary assignement it passed to whom and in what proportion he pleased then the natural right of Fatherhood or Primogeniture took no place at his death carryed not the Civil power from him and so cannot challenge to convey it downwards 4. If by order or law of nature it passed from him then the question will be 1. Whether they that succeeded to him had it by right of Progenitorship that is by reason of the Fatherhood which was in them in relation to their posterity who were therefore their subjects so that upon that title every son of Adam was soveraign to the issue that came of him But then it will be said this course of deriving Supreme Magistracy could be but temporary and must needs have a stop for otherwise it would multiply Common-wealths in infinitum according to the multiplication of Fathers and confine Common-wealths to extend no further then to comprise a Father and his children which as was argued before is neither agreeable to the practise of men even from the time of Noah nor to the end of a Common-wealth which is union of a multitude of households for strength and security When therefore this course of Genarchy ceased what was the way of continuing Government 2. Or it passed from Adam by right of inherence to Adams sons as his sons and so as heirs of their Father And this is a way different from that of Progenitorship and upon this point the right of Fatherhood and that of Primogeniture are at odds and prove as to the purpose of conveying power from Adam inconsistible For if the Civil power went by Fatherhood then were all Adams sons joynt successors in it as was before said every one in relation to his posterity if it went by primogeniture but one of them could by that claim the power and this will run as upon the necessi y of having but one Monarchy over all mankind throughout all ages which was above disproved Unless we must say the first-begotten could but claim a double portion of power and then the rest of the sons had each a single part in proportion to his double But this 1. Fals again upon the absurdity even now alleadged of multiplying Common-wealths by the endlesse number of Fathers 2. Out of what or whom would you make the eldest son a double portion without depriving some other of the sons of his single part and so destroying the right of inheritance to it you could make no addition to the single share of the first born or give him dominion over more then he was superiour to by virtue of his own Fatherhood To make an end therefore with this point if the insisting on the meer natural right either of Fatherhood or Primogeniture will not beat us out a clear path for the derivation of Government from Adam or carrying it on with some justifiableness of title among men then we must return to that of voluntary agreement and grant unto which the true natural right of Fatherhood is not repugnant but may very well be reconciled yea and assistant unto the founding and continuing Civil Government Some of them that insist on the Fathers power as the only Civil Power in the world do yet place in him a right to transfer it from himself unto whom he pleaseth If this be granted then I will say the way of setling Civil authority by the agreement or consent of the governed might thus come in Suppose we Adam to have ruled as sole Monarch during his life afterward some one of his sons in succession to him or all his sons each over their own progeny as distinct societies after by the confusion of languages they being forced to sever or when those distinct races of Adam became so numerous and dispersive over many countries that they were too vast to be continued in one society they may be supposed each of them voluntarily to withdraw or part themselves into several Common-wealths and the Fathers of the families in every of these new erected Common-wealths having in them the interest of power each in relation to his children and family and agreeing together for themselves and theirs to some one as their publique civil-head or King and thus cometh in Magistracy to be voluntarily constituted in that way wherein the right of Fatherhood is preserved and continued in subordination to the Civil publique power and this put in such a way as both it and politique societies of convenient amplitude might be kept up and new ones as need should require might be erected whereas by the meer right of Fatherhood holding and exercising the power it had in relation to those only who were natural children to it it could not be no not with the supplement of Primogeniture as was before shewed And with this the Assertors of the sole right of Fatherhood are driven in a sort to comply * See the Anarchy c. p. 11. 2. I come to the second way of attaining a title to Government above proposed to consideration which is that of Conquest The jus gladii as it is understood and qualified by many Grave Learned and approved Authors I shall not here call into question But that the Sword and successe of it unto victory simply and by it self whatsoever the cause or quarrel pursued by it be or taken as it may be separate from or contradictory to the choice or consent of the people can be a sufficient and justificatory title to Civil Government I cannot yield We know how Augustine August de Civ Dei lib. 4. cap. 4. hath branded this claim with the style of Magnum Latrocinium In supply of the halts and defects which at every turn are detected to occurre in the title of Fatherhood and Primogeniture an Author of that way I even now quoted
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
will gain little by this parallel 2. Whereas he saith the Common-wealth is alwayes in pupillage It is but an allusive or comparative speech and is therefore unapt to be argumentative A similitude must not be made run of all four It can only import somethings appertaining to a Pupill may be in way of resemblance attributed to the Common-wealth But it were easie to shew divers things wherein there is also a dissimilitude * Idem lib. 12. cap. 2. Sect. 2. lib. 13. cap. 10. Sect. 1. A Pupil cannot choose his Tutor cannot call him to an account during his pupillage But it s generally confest the Common-wealth may elect its Governours And it 's a publiquely declared principle I assert it not the Supreme Power is accountable to the people And himself breaks the correspondency most of all in saying the Common-wealth pupillage is everlasting whereas the Pupill comes to puberty and out of his pupillage at 14 years old Subsection 6. CHAP. V. SECT IV. Subsect 6. A Solution of some Objections made against the passing of Gods Ordination unto the person of the Supreme Magistrate by the consent of the people HAving examined those other wayes of conveying over unto persons the title unto Magistracy and refuted them It now remains that we take notice of some allegations against the peoples consent being the ordinary medium of Gods ordination of a person unto the soveraign power which some seeing they think them fit to be urged will judge worthy either to be assented to or answered 1. Object The Anarchy c. above cited pag. 8. If no man have power to take away his own life without the guilt of being a murderer of himself how can the people confer such a power as they have not themselves upon any one man without being accessories to their own deaths Answ This Reason seems to ground it self upon that common Axiome Nihil dat quod non habet whence it argues the people cannot give the power of capital punishment over them unto any person because they have it not cannot inflict it each upon himself But it is misgrounded 1. Here is ignoratio clenchi For as we yeeld it true that the people have not a civill authority every one over his own life so we do not say but here deny that they can confer it upon another The concession of a power in the people to nominate or elect their Soveraign doth not infer so much viz. that they in so doing give or confer upon him the Magistratical power They may be subordinate agents and their vote or consent may be the medium or instrument used by God to convey that power to the person but they cannot therefore be said to be the Creators efficients authors or donors of that power for that is the properwork or prerogative of God When the young Prophet came to Jehu and poured the oyle upon his head and said unto him Thus saith the Lord God of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people can we say that Prophet made Jehu King That young man was not the author but the messenger only of that business It is very clear in the conveyance of this and of other powers one may be the vehiculum the hander over of that power to another which he is not the possessor of himself A single woman hath not in her the marital power over her self yet by her consent in marriage she conveyes it to her husband The people of a Christian congregation or Church have not each the power of a Pastor or Minister to Preach administer a Sacrament or the Keyes of Discipline to himself yet by their election they may be instrumentall to convey the same to another When the King in whom the power of life and death is gives commission to a Judge to have and execute it subordinately from and for him and sends his order to the Keeper of his seal required by the Law to make such a Commission authentick to passe and seal the said Commission we cannot say the Keeper gives the Judge the said Commission but it is the King â—hat conferres it by this Officers hand That which the peoples consent doth when they agree that this person shall be their Supreme Governour is to determine the general rule that every Common-wealth shall have a Magistracy with power of capital punishment to the particular person in relation to that people but it makes them not to be conferrers efficients or primary causes of that Magistracy When a power or priviledge is by divine institution annexed to the act of the creature it is not the creatures act properly or efficiently but God by his institution that communicates that power or priviledge 2. This Objection in its proper tendency doth not more argue against he peoples capaciâ—y to câ—nfer the power over life upon any person which is a thing we affirme not then it doth against the peoples giving their consent that such a one shall have the said power over them For upon the same medium it may be argued if no man have power to take away his own life without the guilt of being a self-murderer how can any people consent to such a power in another without being accessories to their own deaths But that the people may very lawfully give their consent to such a power in another I hope the Objector will not deny If he should I would say the people of Israel did lawfully give their consent to such a power in Saul David Solomon and others yea it is the part of every people to consent to the Rulers to have it unless we must say that all Subjects are to be under their Governors against their wils 3. But how then must we avoid the Reason If I may not take away or destroy mine own life I may not agree that another shall have the power to do it I answer This is a very false assertion that power which one hath not and may not himself exercise he may not consent to in another If by power be meant as it must needs be in the Objection a power that is in its own nature lawful Indeed that which is simply or in it self unlawful as for instance Murder because it is so unlawful as I may not do it my self so I may not consent to anothers doing of it But that which is lawful in it self but unlawful to me as many things are because though good in it self yet I am not thereto called or authorized of that I cannot say because I cannot do it my self I may not consent to it in another The Apostle Paul did give his consent to the taking away of his own life conditionally if he deserved death and the objection imports no other consent when he was in question about it before his Judge * Act. 25.11 If I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to die 4. From this antecedent no man hath power to take away his own
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
there is none but is of God that is whereas there are divers species of civil power as Kings and Potentates Aristocraticall and Democraticall and wheras there are divers degrees of powers that is supreme and subordinate in severall graduall distinctions and whereas there are divers sorts of power in regard of the qualifications of their persons and governments as for their Religion some Christian some Jewish some Pagan and for administration some being just and propitious others being unrighteous and persecuting There are none of these kinds degrees or sorts taking the universall to intend genâ—ra singulorum not singula generum but they are of God and this is the very construction which both Beza and Pareus give of these words And this construction moreover best suits with that which the whole stream of Interpreters as far I can observe judge to be the proper occasion and scope of the Apostles discourse of this subject of civil policy in this place to wit that whereas the Christians then or some of them did or might make question of subjection to the higher powers in reference to the Rulers being unchristian unjust and tyrannicall as to exercise of Government his drift is to charge the duty of obedience upon them with relation even to such Magistrates and to argue them unto a submission to it as applyed to such he reasons chiefly from the Divine ordination and warrant of the powers unto their office and plainly averres whatsoever they be for personall qualification or manner of Government yet if they be higher powers indeed they have their place and calling from God and therefore are to be obeyed The Apostle elsewhere bespeaking Christians for one particular duty to these higher powers to wit to pray and give thanks for them he extends this duty universally to all them that are in authority 1 Tim. 2.1 yet as Beza observes this universall must be taken thus indiscriminately that is in reference to all sorts and not distributively to all single persons in authority to wit that heathen as well as Christian misgoverning as well as good Magistrates are to be prayed for Otherwise saith he there may be found some one particular Ruler that may be excepted out of the verge of the Christians prayers such an one as Julian the Apostate was who may have sinned the sin unâ—o death Me thinks there cannot be a place more parallel to these words there is no power but of God ordainâ—d of God both for subject matter and for illimitednesse in tearms or words then that of Solomon Prov. 8.15 By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the earth Whether we understand these words of God as usually they are taken or of Wisdome unto him or if the use exercise and administration of the power is ascribed as generallly and indefinitely as is the being and ordination of the power attributed unto God in this sentence of the Apostle But from that indefinite speech of Solomon no man may gather it was in his intention and drift to own or father every act of every King Prince Noble and Judge upon either God or Wisdome the words must needs be understood only of such acts of those persons as are just righteous and prudentiall Certainly there are acts of rule such as are rehearsed Psal 2.2 the Kings and Rulers of the earth set themselves and consult against God and Christ and a thousand more unlawfull courses of such which must of necessity be excluded from that generall saying Now as from those indefinite words we must not inferre that all acts of Magistrates are from God so neither may we conclude from the like indefinitenesse of these words of the Apostle that simply and universally every power that is in being any way whatsoever is of God by his ordination Whatever any one may judge of the congruity of any of these limitations unto the universall note supposed in this Text yet I think no considerate Reader but will easily grant that some such restriction must be admitted to the words We have before distinguisht of a fourfold lawfulnesse and unlawfulnesse in powers Now it must needs be yeelded that powers in some of those four wayes unlawfull must be debarred the Text and consequently that the propositions in it must receive some limitation unto powers that are lawfull Among other false pretenders to power by vertue of the Text the Pope comes in and he offereth injury to this place more wayes then one Among the rest he and his Doctors for him challenge power to make laws to bind the Consciences of all Christians Bellarmin To. r. Controv. Gen. 3. i. e. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 16. loc 6. Whitaker To. 2. Controv. 4. qu. 7. p. 710 b. Chamier To. 2. lib. 15. cap. 17. Sect. 3. and one warrant pretended to for it by them is this Text and in it they urge the indefinitenesse or unlimitednesse of the words Non est potestas nisi à Deo which they say is equivalent to this universall Omnis potestas est à Deo All power is of God and thence they argue if every power be of God then the said power of the Pope to rule and binde the conscience of all Christians is of God To his claim upon this ground we have no answer if we grant him the words to hold in an absolute universall form But to cut off this his forged pretence we reply the Text asserts not simply of every power that it is of God but of that power which is by other rules of Scripture justifiable and lawfull If then to rid our hands of this corrupt glosse we must be driven to confesse the indefinite or say it be universall form of these words must needs admit of a confinement to lawfull warranted powers it is enough to barre out the argument from the illimitednesse of the proposition And further then it will be said this lawfull must either exclude powers in any sense unlawfull or in some sense only if the latter then some good reason must be given why one sort of unlawfull power should not be shut out of the Text by it as well as another which I expect will never be assigned If the former then is power unlawfull as to title or usurped power chashiered the Text. But this may suffice for the discussion of the universal negative there is no power but of God CHAP. VII CHAP. VII Of the being of the Powers in that proposition the powers that be are ordained of God THE only tearm in the Text remaining to be cleared and vindicated is the being of the powers in that indefinite affirmative the powers that be are ordained of God I will not insist on that reading of some which so placeth the words and putteth the comma as that it cuts off all pretence to that use of them which some make from this or any other of the tearms of this Text in behalf of the unentitled or
to yield me the question If you say being not a humane person he is not meant in this Tâ—xt this puts a limitation on the words beyond the bare being of one in possession of rule and I shall require to have proved how a restriction in regard of person is more imposeable on the words then a restriction in regard of title or right 2. The Pope of Rome and his Doctors both Divines and Canonists in his behalf lay claim to a temporall power direct or indirect over all the Nations and Potentates in the world as some of them over all Christian Kings and people as others say and as he claims so it must not be denyed but he hath generally over Christendome possessed and exercised this power and doth still in many of the European Territories and elsewhere and one reason alledged for this his claim is this of possession continued possession He prescribes and challenges to be the poweâ— because he hath obtained and held it The Jesuite Parsons urgeth for the Popes temporall power against King James as appears in his Apology * K. James his Epistle to all Christian Monarchs c. pag 32. this reason And it is observable that at this time now the argument from actuall predominancy is so much in request the Papists get hold of and presse it against us in this very point of the Popes Supremacy as appears by Dr. Hammonds reply to the Catholique Gentlemans Answer †Dr. Hammond his Reply c. cap. 4. pag. 45. Now if meer actuall prevalidity make or inferre one to be a civil power authorized by this Text my demand is how shall we avoid the argument and reject this pretension of the Pope Either we must suffer these words the powers that be to be more confineable then to signifie only a bare act of rule and sway or else I am fully confident we shall be to seek for our defence against this allegation 1. If any think to escape it by saying the Pope claims a power unlawfull in it self or for matter or what is unlawfull for any man to have The reply will be ready whatever be the exorbitant ex ensions or presumptions of his Ecclesiasticall power that temporall power which he standeth for is another distinct thing from it as appears by those Popish Doctors who assert the one and deny the other * As Barclay Widdrington and others and is not in it self unlawfull it being the same for substance which the Roman Emperour held before him and the German now holdeth within his present precincts in reference to the free Princes and States of that Territory in which respect the Pope is supposed to be the second Beast which succeedeth reviveth and exerciseth the room and power of the first †Mr. Medes Diatrib To. 4. pag. 450 451. Revel 13. and if in any thing he assumeth an excessive power in temporalls or which is not for matter allowable this exception would seclude him from so much of his claim only as were in respect of humane competency unwarrantable and leave him the rest For that a Paramont dominion or an Imperiall power over a multitude of distinct Common wealths and Soveraign Princes is lawfull in it self I take to be an uncontroulable truth 2. If it be further said the Pope is a person uncapable of civil power or of being a temporal Lord as being an Ecclesiasticall person or Clergy-man To let passe the question of an Ecclesiasticall persons capacity of civil Magistracy and the urging that many now and perhaps most of those that are against me in this controversie deny the distinction of Clergy and Laity in that very sense wherein this objection intends it It will suffice to reply against this evasion 1. That it is not simply necessary to a persons investiture with the Popedome that he be as they speak a Priest One may be chosen and made Pope that is not with them entred into the order of Priesthood John the 20. or according to some the 21. was of a Lâ—y-man chosen Pope * Chamier To. 2. l. 16. cap. 16. Sect. 13. Platina in vit Johan 21. p. 165. Spondanus ad An Dom. 1024. Benedict the 9. is said to have been chosen Pope at ten years of age and it is confessed by their own Authors he was no Priest †Spondanus ad An. 1033. Onulphrius An. 1032. Dr. Featly Roma ruene p. 18. I read also of Amadeus Duke of Savoy that he was elected Pope by the Councell of Basill when he was but a Lay-man and that after his election some distance of time he received their ordination * For his election Platina in vita Eugenii 4. p. 310. Onuph An. 1439. For his unordainednesse see Fox Acts c. To. 1. pag. 903. Rosses Hist l. 4. c. 4. pag. 350 351. And though it be true that it 's said before his Coronation he took the order yet that alters not the case as to the reply their Doctors teaching that a Pope is made and hath all the rites of his Popedome by his election and before his inauguration †Tolet. de instruct Sacerdotis lib. 1. c. 40. Sect. 3. p. 185. Those Popes therefore that were chosen Laicks had for that time before their Priesthood none of this objection lying against their competency for a temporall dominion 2. But suppose he could not be Pope with them that had not their Priesthood yet they that held it a just exception against a persons capacity of bearing civil Magistracy that he is a Minister of the Gospel upon that of our Saviour Luk. 22 26. will not I suppose acknowledge the Pope by vertue of his Priesthood or any other means to be a Minister of the Gospel 3. It is commonly acknowledged by our Protestant writers as far as I understand that the Pope in the proper Territories belonging to his Signiory as Romania and the rest in Italy called the land of the Church the means of his Instalement therein whether the consent of the Roman people upon the decay of the Exarchate of Ravenna or the gifts of King Pepin and of Charles the great his Son or of the Countesse of Mathilda or whatever else is alleadged * Vide Châ—mier To. 2. lib. 16. cap. 19. Sect. 7. c. here is no place to search into is to be owned and obeyed as other lawfull Princes are in their dominions upon the supposall that he is the lawfull Potentate thereof †See Par. on Rom. 13.1 pag. 246. Accordingly then they that hold that person is to be obeyed and owned as the power in being and so of God in any Countrey that hath possession of the Supream power there they must acknowledge the Pope to be the power in being in the Supream temporall Lordship in all the Dominions where he actually prevaileth to have it Suppose any of us now living had been in the time when the Popes temporall power paramonâ— that of the King was questioned and upon
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
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
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
interpreted first of Zerubbabel in whom the soveraign dignity was restored at the return from the captivity and then of Christ * So Calvin Diodate and the Divines Annotat. So may this parallel prophecy be understood But whether we apply it to Zerubbabel or to Christ this must needs be granted that after Zedekiah's removall and the Lands captivity was consummate by Nebuchadnezzar a right there was extant and remaining somewhere or in some person to the Crown and Kingdome of Judah though for the present suspended from actuall exercise both by the hand of Gods providence in the full conquest of Nebuchadnezzar and by his extraordinary direction and dispensation by word of mouth sent by his Prophet Jeremiah as we find Jer. 27.12 16.21.8 9. and that right did not descend upon Christ till he was born nor then per saltum or immediately from Zedekiah or Jehoiakim to him but by the interposal of those peâ—sons in whom the race and line of blood or inheritance was continued down to Christ Subsection 9. CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 9. Argument 9. Taken from the nature of Magistracy 9 REason is to be drawn from the nature of Magistracy It cannot agree thereunto to say that actuall possession or rule gives being to the power or is an inseparable adjunct or convertible attribute thereof Magistracy is a râ—lation of office Every relation is founded upon something that is absolute What should be the foundation of the relatâ—on of Magistrate and Subject but the act of constitution of such a person or persons in authority or to be and stand in the office of Magistracy to such a people from this transaction as from its foundation results this estate or relation and then from this estate or relation result the mutual duties and acts of Magistrate and Subject his actual superiority and their subjection his rule and their obedience Well then actuall superiority and rule being acts proper to and resulting out of Magistracy they must needs presuppose it to be first in being ere they can be educed First I say not onely in order of nature but of time for the civill transactions whereby Magistracy is produced and the politcall acts which proceed from it are not immanent or instanâ—aneous such as are those whereby the forms of natural beings do produce their facultieâ— or properties but transient and succedaneous and such as require some â—lâ—xâ— of time to be put forth in It must needs be then an incongruous assertion to affi me that the acts which flâ—w from Magistracy in timâ— dâ— gâ—ve being to or are convertible adjuncts of it A man is first a man and then he reasons A man is first an Artificer and then he works in his Art So a man is first a power and then he rules possession of the Throne or Territory and Regency or coercion of the people by the sword are after and latter in time then the Creation or Investure of the power Magistracy is the antecedent the cause the principle the first act and actual dominion or coercion is the consequent the effect the effluxe or the second act thereof Men first are Kings and then they reign they rule because they are the higher powers and they are not the higher powers because they rule As on the other hand the state of inferiority in a politicall body is the cause and principle of the Subjects acts of obedience Men are first in the relation of Subjects and then they act or yield obedience This precept of the Apostle Let every soule be subject to the higher powers though delivered in â—â—arms illimitedly universall is onely intended and given to them that are in the state of Subjects and because they are in that estate therefore it takes hold on them they that are either supream Magistrates or within no Common-wealth are not obliged by it And as every person is not involved so every act of submission which may be done to any kind of power in the civill State is not that which is comprized in this precept or contained within the matter of it It is possible a man may submit out of a principle of humility or policy or be forcibly prostrated where he oweth no obedience but it is a submission ex debito and that stricti juris or proper to the conscience of him that is in the state of a Subject that is hereby required Let Solomon be our instance to illustrate this Having been before designed and chosen to be his Father Successor in the Kingdome of Israel he is thereupon first anointed and proclaimed King by Zadok Nathan and Benaiah and then after this it is said He sate on the throne of the King in stead of David his father and prospered and all Israel obeyed him and all the Princes and the mighty men CHAP. VII SECT II. Subsect 5. and all the sons likewise of K. David submitted themselves unto lomon the King Here Solomons constitution precedes his actuall possession and rule and the Subjects submission and obedience both in order of nature and of time as the ground and reason thereof And the same is exemplified in Joshua When Moses was to dye he spake unto the Lord saying Let the Lord the God of the spirits of all flesh set a man â—ver the congregation which may goe out bâ—fore them and which may lead them out and which may bring them in Here in this petition there is first desired the setting of one over the Congregation which is the calling admitting of him to the Soveraign power and then follows his leading them out and bringing them in his exercise of rule And according to the order of this Petition is the method of the Lords concession and direction upon it The Lord in the next words commands Moses to take Joshua and lay his hand upon him and set him bâ—fore Eleazar the Priest and before all the congrâ—gation and give him a charge in their sight and puts some of his honour upon him and then it follows That all the Congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient There may be a violent brutish subduednessâ— but there can be no rational moral submission and obedience as of Liege-people to their Liege-Lord in any other course And as to this the case is altogether the same and there is no dâ—fference whether the Magistrate come in by extraordinary assignation from God as Joshua and Solomon did or by the ordinâ—ry means Those commands and rules that are given in Scripture for the doing of publique distribâ—tive jâ—stice as that Defend the poor and fatherlesse do jâ—stice to the afflâ—cted and needy and deliver the poor and needy rid them out of the hand of the wicked Psalâ— 82.3 4. and many others * See Levit. 19.15 Deut. 1.16 17.16.19 1 Sam. 23.3 2 Chr. 19.6 c. I would aske â—o whom they are given who do they concern are they spoken to all without exception or onely to them that are Magistrates and Governours I suppose
principe gentium populo bella servorum quis crederet Siciliam multo cruentius servili quam Punito bello esse vastatam Quum servi militaverint Oladiatores imperaverint illi iâ—fimae sortis homines hi pessimam auxere ludibâ—io calamitatem Florus lib 3. cap. 19 20. Vide Stadium in loca ista Flori. August deciv Dei lib. 4. cap. 5. this last is also mentioned by St. Augustine and it was thus A few slaves imployed in sword-playing perswaded by one Spartacus a Thracian rather to fight for their owne liberty then the spectators pleasure and their own mutuall destruction break out from that bloody sport raise great Forces and not only free themselves from their slâ—very but under three Captains Spartacus Chrysus and Oenomaus over-run all Italy acquire great victories and rule all at their pleasure as Kings and could not be overcome by some Roman Generalls these mock-mock-kings did for a time absolutely command a great part and much afflicted and endangered the whole Roman Empire when it was grown to its greatnesse and had subdued many Natitions to it selfe But could these succesful irruptions of those gladiatory slaves entitle them to the style and dignity of powers ordained of God in the Countreys which they had got the mastery of And will any man say that the Roman people within those bounds were obliged to subject to them with a subjection of that sizâ— and qualification namely that they were in their hearts to consent to to love and honour them as their civill Lords that they were not onely to acquiesce and stoop quietly under their prevalency but be at their beck to fulfill their commands not in their own nature vitious that they were to continue under to assist uphold and maintain them in that seat of rule with all their abilities and that they were to give over and refrain all correspondency and intell gence with the Roman State and disclose to those their new and strange Conquerours whatsoever might preserve them from and impeach the designes of the Roman Consul Senate and Armies against them and all this not only for the terror of their potency and cruell violence but out of conscience of their duty to God and them as placed by heaven in the obliging office of Magistratical administration over them That the subjection of every soule to the higher powers comprehendeth as much as is above-said I need not make labour to prove in this pâ—ace the termes of expressing it used by the Apostle in the subsequent verse and the explication which not only Commentators and other Divines but other Scriptures give of this duty deliver us all those particulars as parcels of the nature of it And if any man doubt whether all those may not be due to a Spartacus or to an Hordonius Eunus or Athenio that is to an upstart slave by a tumult gotten to overtop a Nation Let him consider that if such an ones tenure of head-ship be injurious to assist him therein cannot but be so also and that not only Absalom is by Scripture manifestly disapproved in his rising up against King David but also those Israelites that joyned to maintain him Psal 3.1 7. Mr. Burroughes in his fourth Lecture on Hosea Chap. 1. ver 10. pag. 111. teacheth us in reference to the diversity of powers that may be to distinguish betwixt obedience out of conscience and obedience out of prudence Take his own words that are very plain to the present purpose Not to the commands and meere wills of men till it be brought to a law are we bound in conscience to submit no way neither actively nor passively though it be a good thing that is commanded conscience doth not binde to it eâ ratione to yeeld to it because it is commanded till it be brought to a law Now when things are brought into a law and be according to the agreements and covenants of the place and countrey wherein we live and then suppose this authority be abused and there be an ill law made then I confesse if the Law be of force we must either quit our selves of the Countrey or else submit or suffer When then it comes to be a power to be a law it is authority though abused and we must yeeld obedience to it either actively or passively But we must enquire whether it be a power c. otherwise we are not bound in conscience bound we may be in regard of prudence and in regard of preventing other distuabrnces but conscience doth not bind us to wils of men but bindes to lawes Melancthon Melancthon in loc upon this Text distinguisheth also betwixt the extent of subjection to a predatory power and that which is to a Magistrate If thou canst escape from the hands of a robber thou offendest not but and if thou canst escape the punishment of the Magistrate yet thou ought not with-draw from his Government that is that which he saith not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake He that is a Magistrate indeed and in authority the Subjects are to pray and to give thanks for him not as a man meerly but as a Magistrate that is for his preservation and prospering in his Government accordingly Tertull. in his Apologeticks gives account of the constant publique practice of Christians We constantly pray for all the Emperours that they may have a long life Precantes sumus semper pro omnibus imperatoribus vitam illis prolixam imperium securum domum tutam exercitus fortes senatum fidelem populum probum orbem quietum quaecunque hominis Caesaris vota sunt Tertul. Apologet. a secure dominion a safe family valiant armies a faithful Senate a good people a quiet world about them and whatsoever may be desired by or for them either as men or as Caesars But a possessor of power by meere force the people of God may complain and cry out of in prayer not for his misgovernment only but for that he governs and may pray to be delivered from him This if it be doubted of may be evident by many Scripture examples of the practice thereof being of undoubted warranty for imitation For instance let these be taken 2 Chron. 6.38 39. Psal 79.1.89.42 44.106.47.126.3 Lam. 5.2 8. unto which I shall adde that passage of the Prophet Habakkuk cap. 2. vers 6. He is a proud man neither keepeth at home c. Wo to him that increaseth that which is not his How long c. together with Mr. Calvins words upon them Quousque quousque omnes clamant quousque clamor iste quia nascitur ex naturae sensu regula aquitatu ideo exauditur tandem a deo Vnde fit ut taedio affecti omnes clamant quousque CHAP. VIII SECT II. nisi quia agnoscunt non esse tolerabilem hanc perturbationem ordinis justitiae sensus autem ille nonne inditus est nobis a deo perinde est igitur ac si Deus seipsum audiret cum ita exaudit clamores
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
the Great and so hath the Roman Empire since been shared into a multitude of distinct soveraignties Now this could not be if possession of a part gave a title to the whole for then notwithstanding such distinguished possessions and denominations the bodie politique would as when it was united under one Soveraign be one still and would remaine entitled to one Soveraign though but partiall possessor and how inconsistent would this be and therefore we in Europe account that claim of the Turkish Emperour frivolous and absurd challenging a right to all the Dominions of the Western Roman Empire as successor of Constantine because he succeeded him in that of Constantinople which was in Constantines time one Empire with this of the West * Keckermani logic lib. 1. cap. 23. pag. 203. the Turkish history in SolymaÌ„ pag. 615. 2 If it be said that it must be plenary possession that can give a title and oblige the people to the possessor I return This is so tickle and momentaneous a ground as no civill authority can any while stâ—nd by it For how often how easily is plenary possession interrupted If a sorein enemy or an intestine insurrection or a small seditious Rout or a band of Pirates or Robbers seise but on one Towne or Village in a whole Kingdome in opposition to the supream Lord thereof this breakes off his plenary possession and so by this opinion annuls his Title and disobeyeth his Subjects There are few Dominions of any great extent but are often infested in some part or other with so much of commotion or invasion as may abate of plenary possession in the Soveraign Witnesse the long continuing or frequently renewed troubles of all or most of the larger-Principalities of Europe in this age Have the Emperours Kings and Princes of Germany Fâ—ance Spaine Italy c. been so long divested and deprived of their said Dominions as their plenary possession hath been impeached in them respectively But this conceit is utterly rejected by the generall voâ—e and use of Nations who do universally and constantly reckon their government to stand and their Allegiance to hold notwithstanding partial counter-seisures yea or the dismembâ—ing of some particles You can scarce finde in Scripture story a King whose reign is historified but at some time or other if not often CHAP. X. and for much of his time he was by some or other occupant imped of plenary possession yet did not that cut off his reign or diminish his computed time CHAP. X. Answers to some Objections and Doubts concerning that sense of the Text which the aforegoing Chapters have stated and confirmed THis last Chapter is to return answer unto such Objections and Questions the solution whereof may seeme necessary to the further clearing of that interpretation of this Text which this Treaâ—ise hath hitherto held forth and assâ—rted CHAP. X. SECT I. SECT I. The objection that this Text commandeth the Roman Christians obedience to the then Roman Emperour as the supream power of God ordained in that Empire and that he was a usurper answered Object 1. WHen the Apostle wrote this to the Christians in Rome the Roman Emperour that then was in the Throne was an usurper yet the Apostle in willing them to subject to the higher powers in this Teâ—t looks upon him as the higher supream or Soveâ—aign power of the Roman State and meaneth him to be the power of God ordained of God Answ There are two things which make up the substance of this Argument the which could they be evidenced would make this objection unanswerable and carry the sense of this Text quite contrary to the whole Discourse I have hitherto made of it But if either of them be left inevident or doubtfull the objection failes and the sense given stands notwithstanding it The two things that must be certain to make the argument good are 1 That the Apostle in this exhortation unto subjection to the higher powers and this affirmation of the power to be of God ordained of God intendeth or hath his eye upon the Roman Emperour as the supreame power of the Roman State 2 That the said Emperour was then an usurper As for the former who so looks into the Roman Histories of those times will understand that there was then to wit in the time of the Emperours Cajus Claudius and Nero a Roman Senate in being aâ—d exercising authority and that not meerly subordinate but Soveraign sometimes without sometimes against and sometimes in conjunction with the Emperour Sometimes I say without sâ—metimes against him Without him as upon the death of Cajus and Claudius and ere their respect ve successors were invested against him as about the depesall and death of Nero. Yea Mr. Prin hath undertaken to make good and hath collected a plentifull store of testimonies out of antiquity sufficient to render it more then p obable to any Reader that in the Roman State from the fiâ—st continually and par icularly after the Emperours came in the supream power resided in the Senate and people and not in the Kings Câ—nsuls or Emperours Unto whom I refer the Reader in his fâ—urth part of the Soveraign power c. the Appendix pag 2 c. and his third part pag. 109 110 111. See also Grotius de jaâ—e belli lib. 2. cap. 9 sect 11. and his Annotat. on that Section If H storians observe there was any debate at any time stâ—rted betwixt the Senate and the Empâ—rou s about the title or exercise of the soveraignty in a y point or if the Emperou s overtopping the S na e in some things be set against the Senaâ—es acting without or against the Emperour in oâ—hers tâ—â— at the most will cause but the more uncertainty in this poinâ— and leave both the precise matter of fact or the then constitution of the Roman power and the question whom the Apostles reflection or intention was upon as the supream power there the moâ—e to us dubitable in medio or rather will induce us to conclude this as certain that what ever dispute or alternatenesse of prevailing there might then be or may now seem to us by what the Authors now extant hold forth of th se times then to have been betwixt the Emperour and Senate about the supremacy the Apâ—stle relates not to that matter meddles not with the stating or determining of it that being a question of civill right which either might have little matter of doubt in it as to the Christians practice or might not be so doubtfull to them that lived in those times as it is now to us at this distance or might have other ways of clearing it in so far as the Christians conscience was concerned then by the Apostles expresse writ in this Epistle But taking the government that then was in complexo as just and therefore necessary to be subjected to he exhorts to that duty towards it and that with this reason because of God ordained of God Indeed the
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
sufficient to legitimate it to the present rulers that is either an expresse or a tacit consent eit er a reall consent or such as was to be presumed having been continued by immemorial usage 2 To this title of the Romans the confession of the Jewes themselves made at this time seems to astipulate They said It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death We have no King but Caesar In the former sentence they disavow to be in them the power of capitall punishment and consequently the supream authority civill not onely the naturall or compulsory but the legall and Justifiâ—ble power In the latter they own Caesar as their King with an exclusive negation or abrenunciation of all other 3 To this also that appeal of the Apostle Paul unto Caesar adds some strength When the Chieftains of the Jewes had challenged his tryall to belong to them and Fâ—stus also had moved him to agree to have had the cognisance of his Cause taken at Jerusalem in return to them both he asserteth that both his person and his cause appertained to Caâ—sars Tribunall and that not onely in fact but oâ— right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where I ought to be judged But there is one the Answerer to the exercitation above dealt with that pretendeth to some more matter of reason to evict the Roman usurpation He opposeth to the lawfulnesse of their title two other titles which by reason of the venerablenesse of their names to whom they are affixed will seem to deserve an examination ere that of the Romans can passe for indubitable 1 He alledges the title of the house of David and that promise that there shall not want a man to sit on his Throne Unto this I say There was indeed such a promise given to David 2 Sam 7.12 1 Kings 2 4. which was the basis of the title of that house But it is to be observed that the same promise was made Jer. 33.17 with relation to the times after the seventy years captivity Now let the objâ—ctor of this promise shew when and in what sort this in the Prophet did or was to receive accomplishment after the captivity and it will easily appear that the civill dominion either of the Roman now or of the Maccabees before or of any other person was or would have been no impeachment to that promise taking place or to that title built upon it but the one and the other might weâ—l consist togeâ—her The event sheweth that the said promise was applicable to a two-fold fulfilling 1 Temporall or literal in the natural posterity of David and with relation to Israel that dwelt in Canaan 2 Spiritual or mystical in the supernatural seed of David that is Christ and with relation to Israel in all Nations viz. the Church of Christ And that the time was now come that the latter impletion was to take place the which superseded not but rather made way for the civill title of any who might have a faire call to the Throne over that Nation 2 So far as the promiâ—e and title was made to David and his carnall seed with relation to the Israelitish Nation it was made with an expresse proviso condition and limitation of which see 1 King 2.3 4 Jer. 22 2 3 4 5. the which having been long ere this entry of the Romans often and wholly broken the promise and title as to that sense of it was void and so could not stand as a bar to any other families capacity of that Crowne * Vide Montacut Apparat. sect 26 pag. 88. 3 It is evident what ever had become of that condition that promise was made concerniâ—g the worldly K ngdome of that Nation to continue no longer in force then to the coming of Christ in and by whom the Kingdome of David and his seed was to be changed from an earthly to an heavenly Kingdom which was meant by Iohn Baptists Christs and his Apostles preaching the kingdome of hâ—aven Matth. 3.2.4.17.10.7 By the prophecy of Jacob the Scepter to wit the temporall power was assured unto Judah but untill Shiloh's coming 2 The other title he brings to nullifie that of the Roman is of the great son of David Christ himselfe who as Mr. Perkins acknowledgeth Gen 49.10 was right heire to the Crowne and kingdome of the Jewes Let that passe fâ—r cuâ—rant which is the commâ—n opinion that Christ was in a direct line Davids next naâ—ural heir yet what ever right might descend upon him a civil or temporall title to the Crown and Kingdome of the Iewes cannot be concluded to passe unto him thereby His succession to David though he took upon him his nature was not of a civill or earthly interest as was before noted from the tenor of his preaching and is further evident by his own denying the title and exercise of a worldly Kingdome to belong unto himselfe * John 18.36 Luke 12.14 And this our Divines insist on denying there was any civill dominion residing in him in answer to the Popes advocates who for the maintaining of a temporall power in their Pope alledge there was a civill title to the Kâ—ngdome of Judea in Christ but this ours impugne †Vide Mont. Apparat 2. sect 47. pag. 9. Chamier Tom. 2. lib. 15. cap. 4. Sect. 7 c. cap. 16. sect 3 4.10 2 Suppose any right had accrued to him to the temporall Kingdome yet this could not remain as a bâ—t unto the Roman in as much as he waved and receded from it voluntarily taking upon him a staâ—e of poverty and servitude and shunning the offers of the Kingdome * Ioh 6.15 12 36. compared with vers 18 19. Which he doing either we must say that he assigned his title to some other certaine person or persons whereby all other were excluded from it CHAP. X. SECT II. Subsect 2. or that he so declined the use of it himselfe as that none other might assume it though by the Iewes agreement but that they were necessarily and of duty to be thenceforth headlesse or without civill government either of which there is no ground to affirme Subsection 2 Of Christs paying tribute Matth. 17. HAving thus disproved the imputation of usurpation to the Roman Government over Judea upon which the strength of this second Objection lyes I have yet something to say to the other part of the argument the particulars brought to confirme the Romanes power to have been of God and the ordinance of God although in truth the matter thus confirmed is not by me denyed 1. Christ himself paid tribute Matth. 17.14 1 It is a question much agitated for whom that tribute was gathered whether by Caesars Tribute-gatherers for his use or by the officers of the Temple for its service There are very learned men for each of these wayes That it was for Caesar say those two great Antiquaries Montacut Orig Eccles part post pag. 196. Selden de jure Nat lib. 6. c. 18.
simplicity of heart judge a thing to be his owne when it is not upon the dictate of his conscience he may and ought to enjoy it as his owne If a man in the same manner judge one to be his Soveraign who is a Tyrant or him to be the lawfull Magistrate who falsly claimes that title to himself he is bound to yeeld him due obedience To the last branch of the objection the tainture of most ancient Governments by history with violence at their first erection and yet that they may well now be accounted the ordinance of God I have returned answer sufficient above * Chap. 5. sect 4. subsect 6. in Answer to objection the last and shall therefore to spare my Reader forbear repetition here SECT IV. The examples of the Jews submitting to the Babylonian Persian and Grecian Kings and of the Christians to others and the command the Jewes had of submitting to the Babylonian objected and answered Objection 4. BUt have we not going before us the examples of the people of God the Jewes submitting themselves to the Babylonian first then to the Persian then to the Grecian powers this appears in the Prophecies of Ieremiah and Ezekiel and in the histories of Daniel Ezra Nehemiah Esther and the Maccabees And were not these usurpers over them As also the ancient Christians when there were at sundâ—y times those that by no better wayes then murther force and bribery ascended to the Roman Empire â—hey yeilded obedience to such Yea CHAP. X. SECT IV. Subsect 1. we finde sâ—verall commands and exhortations which the Jews with them also other neighbouring Nations had from God for submission to the Babylonian Monarch And doe not these Instances imply the present possessor to be the power Subsection 1. Of the examples of the Jewes and Christians submission to these supposed usurpers over them Answer THis objection must be answered by paâ—ts 1. For the examples of the Jewes submitting to those Kings of Babylon Persia and Gâ—eece which the Histories mention and of the Christians so doing to certain violent intruders into the Roman imperiall dignity 1 Some submission may be yielded and necessary to the present possessor when he is not the power of God ordained of God yea and when another is that power of which divers precedents have been before given out of Scripture * Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Subsect 5. 8. As there may be actual rule without authority so there may be actual subjection and no allegiance But this submission is of another nature different from that which is proper and peculiar to divinely constituted powers Of which difference somewhat ere I conclude 2 That the Jewes were Subjects by League and dedition to the Babylonian Peâ—sian Grecian and Roman Empires successively was above testified by Mr. Selden and others in answer to the second objection And if so then they were subject to them of right as to their Magistrates authorized by God And wheâ—eas some have objected that rule of Deut. 17.14 15. enjoyning the Israelites to set to be King over them one of their brethren and not a stranger To hinder the justnesse of their title or to illegitimate the said submission of the Jewes to those Rulers 1 If it did so then is not that their submission to be urged as presidential to others or as a proof that those they submitted to were powers over them of Gods ordaining 2 But I take that of Moses to be no disallowance of the Jewes owning the Babylonian c. 1 That rule in Moses seems to point at no other time but their first establishment or erection of their Kingdome 2 It respecteth them onely in the condition of the free possession of their owne Land 3 For their submission to the Babylonian the Scriptures referred to in the objection expresly deliver a command from God the which if that of Moses were still and in that condition binding was a Supersedeas to what was before given 3 No particular instances are brought when or who were the Christians that subjected or to whom or who the Emperours that usurped if any be to be given either the like answer as is now made to those of the Jewes may suffice or a further may be to be rendred But somewhat of the Christians carriage to some of the Roman usurpers will be said anon Subsection 2. CHAP. X. SECT IV. Subsect 2. Of the commands the Jewes had of submitting to the Babylonian 2 FOr the commands and exhortations which the Jewes had to yield to Nebuchadnezzar 1. Those commands Jer. 27.1 to the 18.28 14 16.38.17 c. 21.8 9. seem not to have been delivered untill after the King and people of Judah had first of their own accord yielded up themselves to Nebuchadnezzar Compare the said passages which reduce themselves within Zedekiah's reign with 2 King 24.1 Jer. 37.2 Ezek. 17.13 c. 2. If those commands be extended to others besides to whom they were then personally given they do directly contradict that which they are brought to prove viz. That a present possessor is to be submitted to as Gods power and ordinance For when these commands were directed out who was the present pâ—ssessor of rule over the Jewes not Nebuchadnezzar for Zedekiah and his people had rebelled against him after they had sworn allegiance to him * King 24.20 2 Chron. 36.13 Jer. 52.3 Ezek. 17.13 14 15. and Zedâ—kiah was now in fact the supream Governour yet are these commands given and urged again and again by the Prophet from the Lord both to Zedekiah to subject himself and to the Priests and people in case Zedekiah would not to surrender themselves to Nebuchadnezzar For which he is therefore complained of to Zedekiah as an author of defection * Jer. 38.4 These commands have been much of late alledged but they make little for the alledgers purpose they holding forth one as pâ—oprietor of Dominion to wit Nebuchadnezzar another as possessor Zedekiah and enjoyning the Iewes to desert the possessor and yield themselves to the proprietor then out of possession 2. For that command Jer. 29.7 1. The matter commanded is no more but that the Jewes captives in the City of Babylon should seek the publique peace of that City and pray unto the Lord for it Which may be a duty ordinarily incumbent on the people of God in relation to any City or Territory whether themselves reside within and be actually under the government of it or not and upon whatsoever termes the governmâ—nt thereof might stand according to the Apostles rule * 2 Tim. 2.1 But observe the interest of the present government is not put into into that command nominately nor otherwise implyed then as it might conduce to the Cities peace neither is the said interest implyed to be necessary to the said publique peace 2 Such as that precept is it is apparent to have been but of a temporary nature and given upon a speciall occasion of their being captives in
Answer Here are two positions delivered as the judgement of such Authors 1. For the former viz. That obedience is as lawfull and in many cases necessary to be yielded in lawful things to a possâ—ssory power for which are cited Peter Martyr and Gualter in loc I have no dispuse against it It may be a position allowable in it selfe though not built upon this Text unto which I conceive it forein There are other grounds besides Gods ordination of the powers that are and the supposall of a reall Magistracy in him that governeth upon which to found and warrant such an obedience 2. For the latter that whoever s in actuall rule is the power of God ordained of God and is manifâ—sted so to be by such his command though iâ— may seem to have the judgement and a thority of Buâ—er Calvin and Pareus as they are alledged for it and perhaps of some others yet it is not the â—â—ore to pass But I shall for reverence sake to those Divines recite their words and offer that which is I think sufficient to take off the strength which this argument would borrow from their authority Bucâ—rs wordâ— are When therefore it is questioned whom thou must obey thou must not look what a one he is that exerciseth power nor by what right or wrong any hath entred into the power nor how hâ— doth use it but onely whether he have power Fâ—r if any be possessed of power it is without doubt he hath received that power from God * Quum igitur quaeritur cui parendum non est spectandum qualis sit qui potestatem exercet nec quo jure vel injuria quis potestatem invaserit quavè ratione eaÌ„ administret sed tantum si potestatem habeat Si enim quis potestate pollet jam indubitatum est illum a deo eam potestatem accepisse Bucer in loc Calvin saith Whereas men often enquire by what right they have obtained their power who have the rule It should be enough to us that are in Rule For they have nor ascended to this height by their owne power but are imposed by the hand of â—he Lord †Saepe solent inquirere quo jure adeptifuerint potestatem qui rerum potiuntur Satis autem nobis esse debet quòd praesunt non enim conscenderunt sua ipsi virtute in hoc fastigium sed manu Domini sunt impositi Calv. in loc Pareus hath it thus He that hath shed mans blood by man shall his blood be shed but not by any man for the prohibition is thou shalt not kill but by a Magistrate ordained of God Neither matters it by what meanes or arts Nimâ—od Jerobâ—am or others have gotten them Kingdomes For the power which is of God is one thing the acquisition and use of the power is another * Qui sanguinem hominis fuderit ejus sanguis etiam fundetur ab homines non utique à quovis prohibuit etenim non occides sed a Magistratu divinitus ordinato Nec refert quibus modis vel artibus Nimrod Jeroboam vel alii regna sibi paraverint nam aliud est potestas quae a Deo est aliud acquisitio usus potestatis Paraeus in loc I shall not controvert the sense of these sentences or enquire whether they will beare aequivalence with the position Neither will I take upon me to comment upon these Commentators but having bestowed so much labour upon the Text it selfe which is both their and my subject I shall leave the Reader to judge of what is said by either as he shall finde reason Onely somewhat to the weight of their authority 1. The opinion or averment of man of the best for learning and piety in a case of conscience or in an enquiry what is the sense of such a Scripture or such a divine precept is not an oracle neither will it passe for such in any controversie The truth is we are very prone to attribute some authority to it and urge it upon others so far as we finde it concurrent with our owne perswasion But who is he that will be pre-judged or concluded by it contrary to the opinion he hath received or in what he is otherwlse doubtfull when we look upon it with an impartial eye that is in the case wherein we are not pâ—e-possessed it bears no other value with us then what is allayed with the imperfections of fallibility in it selfe and variablenesse from it selfe and moreover is ordinarily contradicted by other humane testimony or sentence as considerable 2. This pâ—sition asserting the power that occupyeth his place by unjust acquisition and tenure to be ordained of God understanding by Gods ordination his institutive or preceptive will Bucer stands charged for it by Pererius and other Expositors of the best note of that party as making God the author of Sinne * See Dr. Willet in loc quest 5. and Mr. Prin his third part of the Supreme Power c. pag. 114. The assoyling the position of that chaâ—ge I leave to them that may concurre with him in it 3. This argument from humane authority though of such persons in this case can signifie little being far from universall or having the generall yea or as far as I have observed the common or the major vote of such Authors For the satisfaction of those that may lay great weight on the judâ—ement of those above cited or may suspect my sense of singularity I shall here set downe the sentences of other Authors in greater store and of speciall esteem who gainsay that which is said by Calvin Bucer and Pareus In bringing in my Authors I shall reduce them to two heads 1 Those that speak particularly to this Text. 2 Those that speak to the thing without reference to it 1 Those that speak to the Text denying it to include every possessory power and limiting it to the lawfully entitled I begin with Chrysostome Chrysostom in loc who commenting upon the Text hath these words What sayest thou is therefore every Prince made of God this saith he I say not for I doe not speake of this or that Prince but of the thing it selfe Wherefore he saith not The Prince is not but of God but discourseth of the thing it selfe saying the power is not but of God My next is Theophylact Theophylact. in loc upon the Text who repeating the words of Châ—ysostome saith further He speaks of the Princes office not of the Prince as when a wise man shall say a wise is joyned to her husband of God he doth not say that what man soever lyeth with a wife hath her for his wife of God but God hath joyned her to him that is marryed Next I shall bring out of the harmony of the confessions of the Christian and reformed Churches Harmony of Confess in English Sect. 19. pag. 588. 592 593. the confessions of the Protestant Princes and States of Germany viz. Those of Auspurge and Saxony That of
Saxony saith Although there be many horrible confusions which grow from the Devill and the madnesse of men yet the lawful government and society of men is ordained of God As it is said Rom. 13. That of Auspurge hath it thus Such civill ordinances as be lawfull are the good works and ordinances of God as Paul witnesseth The powers that be are ordained of God Gods wisdome is declared by order which is in the discerning of vertues and vices and in the society of man-kinde under lawful government To these I shall adjoyne these Protestant Writers Musculus upon the Text. It is to be noted he doth not say theâ—e is not a Prince or King who is not of God but their power is not but of God For he speaks not of the abuse of power and the tyranny which many Princes exercise nor y t of those who by force break into powers but of the power it selfe divinely ordained Although every power be of God Notandum quod non dicit non est princeps vel Rex qui non sit a Deo sed non est potestas nisi a deo non enim loquitur de abusu potestatis ac tyrannide quam plerique exercent neque de iis qui vi iâ—rumpunt in potestates sed de ipsa potestate divinitus ordinata Licet omnis potestas a Deo sit non tamen mox omnis princeps est a Deo Scriptum est de quibusdam ipsi regna verunt non est a me Musculus in loc Officium subditorum erga Magistratus est obedientia ut illi si legitimus est omnes pareant Rom. 13.1 Nulla potestas c. Becanus loc 49. qu. 13. pag. 853. yet every Prince is not presently of God It is written of some They â—ave reigned and it is not of me Becanus The duty of Subjects towards the Magistrate is obedience that if he be a lawfull Magistrate they all obey him Rom. 13.1 There is no power but of God Dr. Mayer upon the place He moveth the question whether the subjection of the Text be due to any power once up either by right or wrong His answer is The conscience is not bound to usurpers but they may be removed againe as Jehoiada removed Athaliah and set up the right King A King by birth by election or by law of Armes through conquest is to be served though he be wicked and tyrannicall as being given in Gods anger for punishment but a Vsurper may be resisted and deposed again Dr. Hammond upon the place in his paraphrase interpreteth it of obedience to the supream powers rightly established and constituted And that every person under government of what ranke soever he be is to yeeld subjection to the supream Governour legally placed in that Kingdome And elsewhere he saith obedience to Superiours is extended indefinitely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most heathen provoking oppressiâ—g as long as thâ—y be lawfull powers And again By the words he beareth not the Sword in vaine c. is intimated that the sword for vengeance c. is put into the hands of the lawfull Magistrate with commission to use it as the constitution of the Kingdome shall best direct The Author of the fuller Answer to Dr. Ferne. Fuller Answer c. pag. 17 18. Mr. Prin his 3d part of the Soveraign power c. pag. 104. The powers that be i. e. so or so establisht by consent of man are ordained of God to be obeyed or it 's Gods ordinance that men should live under some government and submit without resistance to that kinde of Government they have by consent established That other kinde of tyranny viz. of usurpation it hath no right no ordination at all and so no subjection due to it There is in every ordained power as well Gods institution of it injunction of obedience to it as mans constitution of it Mr. Prinne saith The whole scope of this Text in sum is onely this that Christians ought in conscience to be subject to all lawfull higher powers c. and not resist them in the execution of their just authority Mr. Burroughs Mr. Burroughs on Hos Chap. 1. Lect. 6. pag. 157. Lect. 4. pag. 111. Lect. 3. pag 65. You must observe that every one is subject to the higher powers Mark it is not to man first but it is to the power Let every soule be subject to the higher power where-ever this power lyeth It is not to the will of man that hath power but it is to the power of that man Now the power the authority is that that a man hath in a legall way He elsewhere tells us There is no authority we are subject to now but according to the Lawes and Constitutions of the Countrey where we live When things are brought into a Law and be according to the agreements and covenants of the place and Countrâ—y wherein we live c. then the power of God is in it though it be abused viz. by an ill law made and we are to be subject to all powers When it once comes to be a power to be a Law it is authority though abused and we must yeâ—ld obedience to it either actively or passively But we must enquire whether it be a power To these Authors may be added those others whom I cited before who hold the resistance forbidden to be made against the power of God Vers 2. to be lawfull against an un-entitled or usurping power to whom as they are before quoted * Chap 8 sect 4. I refer my Reader And unto all these I may super-add the judgement of diverse Commentators of the Popish party yet of best note of that sort among us Estius I shall recite An usurped power Potestas usurpata cujusmodi est latronum tirannorum non est absolute potestas nec superioritas sicut leges inutiles mala non sunt leges Estius in loc such as is that of Tyrants and Robbers is not a power absolutely neither a superiority As unprofitable and evill Lawes are no Laws Dominicus Soto Cajetan and Pererius I omit to cite in their words They may be found in Mr. Prinn and Dr. Willet 2. And for those that speake to the thing though not referring to this Text expresly to wit the nullity of a meer possessory power or his no authority I will for brevities sake but name my Authors who fully enough speake it whom my Reader may peruse or pretermit as he pleaseth Mr. Prin his third part of the Soveraign Power c. p. 114. Dr. Willet in loc qu. 2. 1 That a Usurper hath no authority in him is a meer private person see Alsted Theolog. Cas cap. 17. Reg. 8. pag. 34. Grot. de Jure B. lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect 11. Arnisaeus de Author principis cap. 4. sect 12. pag. 124. 2 That no obedience is due to an un-entitled or illegal power Aquinas 22a qu. 104. artic 6. ad 3. Burroughes on Hosea
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