Cap. 1. Lect. 4. p. 111. and Lect. 3. pag. 65. Vindication of Treatise of Monarchy Cap. 3. Sect. 6. 3 That the Sword is peculiar to a Magistrate lawfully called Becanus Instit Theol. loc 49. qu. 16. pag. 854. 4 That to the being of a Magistrate is required a lawfull call See those quoted before in this Treatise Cap. 1. Sect. 2. Subsect 3. 5 That to the making of a supream Magistrate is to go to the vote or consent of the people Take those cited Cap. 5. Sect. 4 Subsect 4. To which I will here put in Mr. John Goodwin as swaying much with some In his Obstruct of Justice Sect. 25. pag. 27. SECT VII CHAP. X. SECT VII Many examples given of persons of good account who have disowned or opposed meer possessory powers in such Recognitions or rights as are due to the powers that are ordained of God 7 IN the next place is asked But can any instances be given of any of the people of God or of such persons whose examples are of any commendable or imitable note who at any time have professedly detrected or denyed to those in actuall dominion any duty or acknowledgement due unto Magistrates or that have practised the contrary to what this or any other Text confessedly delivers to be observed in relation to those who are here entitled to be the powers ordained of God Answ A multitude doubtlesse of such examples there have been as may be evident by the no small number of remarkable instances of this kinde which my short observation and memory hath here recollected 1. Of such as have practised the contrary to what is a plain and confessed duty or rule to be observed towards those who are the powers ordained of God 1 And first examples of such as being under the present predominancy of meer possessory powers and being private persons have either deserted such and gone over to their opposites or remaining under them have acted or assisted against them We finde a large list of Câ—ptains and their men of severall Tribes of Israel who being actually seated under the Dominion of the house of Saul fell from it and turned to David both during the Reign of Ishbosheth and upon his death although there were then many heires left of Sauls line See for this 1 Chron. 12.22 unto v. 39. We read of Hushai the Archite of Zadok and Abiathar the Priests and of their two sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan who after Davids flight out of Jerusalem and the maine of the Kingdome both in respect of places and people seised by Absalom and themselves being fully under the territory and command of Absalom yet acted for David in his state of ejâ—ction and against Absalom 2 Sam. 15.32 to the end 16.16 17 18 19.17.6 to the 23. vers When the men of Israel in distinction from Judah generally had cast off David and followed Sheba the son of Bichri upon that variance which fell out betwixt the Judabites and the Israelites about Davids return to his Kingdom and in his way betwixt Jordan and Jerusalem the wise woman of Abel and after the people in that City by her perswasion though they were of those that had deserted David and set up Sheba and though he then had the supream command there consulted and executed a rendition of themselves and City to David and the destruction of Sheba upon Joabs pacificatory offer to them 2 Sam. 20.1 2.14 16 c. Upon Jeroboams usurpation and the ten Tribes revolt from the Kingdome of the house of David the Priests and Levites that were in all Israel and other people out of all the Tribes of Israel which adhered to the true God and his worship upheld in the Kingdome of Judah forsook Jeroboam and his Dominions and joyned themselves to Rehoboam and so strengthened the Kingdome of Judah and Râ—hoboam in it 2 Chr. 11.13 16 17. In like mâ—nner did multitudes out of Israel fall from Baasha King of Israel unto Asa King of Judah Although Baasha was an enemy to the Kingdome of Judah and to that their revolt and endeavoured by force to prevent it 2 Chron. 15.9 1 King 15.17 To this I shall add that the Prophet Jeremiah exhorts the people of Judah from God to relinquish Zedekiah the present supream Gâ—vernor over them and to yeeld up themselves to Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon Jer. 27.16 c. 21.8 9. And the ground of that appears to be 1. Zedekiah and his Kingdome had lately beene subject and tributary to the Babylonian Ezek. 27. â— to 16. and Zedekiah's and their present standing up against him by their own force of Armes and the assistance of the Aegyptian was but rebellion Ezâ—k 17.6 2 Kings 24.28 2 The Lord had given unto the Babylonian the command of that Territory and people for 70 years by his express order and declaration Jer. 27.12.28.14 16. And the said seventy yeares were ere this that is in the fourth yeare of Jehoiakim begun according to the computation of our best Chronologers * To wit Archbishop Usher Dr. John Reynolds Hugh Broughton Mr. Mede The Divines Annot. and Mr. Light who all of them begin the 70. years the 4. of Jehoiakim And unto these exhortations it 's probable some hearkned and those might be they who fell to the Chaldeans mentioned Jer. 38.19 To these Scripture-instances I shall adjoyne one or two observable ones out of other Histories Ambrose being Bishop of Millain in Italy at what time Maximus the Tyrant of whom before †Chap. 8. sect 4 had deprived Valentinian of possession of his Empire of the West he contested with Maximus about his said act and that very sharply and twice went Ambassadour to him unto Triers and pleaded the right of young Valentinian in that Empire against him the present possessor And when he could not so prevaile he discommunioned Maximus to his owne mighty perill for Maximus threatned him with death Upon which he was forced to to flie to Aquileia whence he returned not untill the said Maximus was repressed and slain by Theodosius * Proximum ei sc Ambrosio certamen cum Maximo fuit Tyranno apud quem legarum pro Valentiniano juniore quem ex Galliis Maximus expulerat bis egit in Urbe Trovirorum Apud quem cùm acerrimè primum contendisser ne adolescentem cui successionis haereditatis jure deberetur regnuÌ„ impâ—rii justa possessione pelleret deinde communione etiam ei interdixit non sine ingenti sui periculo caedem enim ei Maximus minatus est ob quam Aquileiam Ambros secedere coactus est ex quo loco rediit Mediolanum post cum a Theodosio interfectus Maximus esset Magdebur Câ—nt 4. cap. 10 pag. 1163. It is also observed of the same Ambrose that when that Maximus to ingratiate himselfe by an office so just and good offered to interpose his power in the defence of Ambrose against Justina the Arrian Empresse the mother of Valentinian whom Maximus dispossessed she
being about to banish him from Millain Ambrose would not accept of the help of Maximus whose power he disallowed and gainsayed * Grot. de jure Belli lib. 1. cap. 4. sect 5. Another is of no long distance from our own time It is that of the Suffolk men who were zealous confessors of the Gospel and Protestant faith and were the first that joyned themselves to the Lady Mary after the death of King Edward the sixth and the advancement to the Crown of the Lady Jane The sum of the Story I shall give out of Mr. Fox and Mr. Speed in their own expressions King Edward did by his Testament or Letters Patent signed with his own hand and sealed with the great Seale saith the Letter of the Lords to the Lady Mary in the presence of the most part of the Nobles Counsellors Judges with divers other grave and sage Personages assenting and subscribing to the same appoint the Lady Jane to be Inheritrix unto the Crown of England To this order subscribed all the Kings Councell and the chiefe of the Nobility the Mayor and City of London and almost all the Judges and chiefe Lawyers of this Realm When King Edward was dead the Lady Jane was established in the Kingdome by the Nobles consent and was forthwith published Queen by Proclamation at London and in other Cities where was any great resort and was there so taken and named The Lord Maior of London sixe of the Aldermen and twelve Commoners Merchants being sent for by the Nobility take their Oaths for the Lady Jane and unto her obedience they promise to secure the City The Lords of the Councell write to the Lady Mary in answer to her Letter wherein she had required their owning and proclaiming her as Queen telling her that the Lady Jane is after the death of Edward the sixâ—h invested and possessed with the just and right Title in the Imperiall Crown of this Realm c. The Lady Mary upon this Letter of refusall speedeth her secretly away far off from the City The Councell hearing of her sudden departure gather speedily a power of men appoint an Army and â—end forth the Duke of Northumberland with it Mary in the meane time tossed with much travail up and down c w th-drew her selfe into the quarters of Norfolk and Suffolkâ— and there gathering to her such ayd of the Commons as she might keepeth her selfe close for a space in Fremingham Castle To her first of all resorted the Suffolk-men who being alwayes forward in promoting the proceedings of the Gospell promised her their ayd so that she would not attempt the alteration of the Religion which her brother King Edward had before established c. Thus Mary being guarded by the power of the Gospe lers did vanquish the Duke and all those that came against her The Lords after this proclaimed for Queen the Lady Mary eldest daughter to King Henry the 8th and appointed by Parliament to succeed King Edward dying without issue The brief of this story as to our present scope is this Here we have the Lady Jane in possession of the Crown by her immediate Predecessors testament by proclamation and by the consent and actual reception of the Chieftains of the Land and having the first Military power on foot to uphold her therein And the Lady Maâ—y claiming the Crown by vertue of lineall succâ—ssion the Act of Parliament and the Tâ—stâ—ment of King Henry the 8 h which laid the ground of her title antecedent to as well as more speciously to say no more here then any thing the other could challenge or be invested by And notwithstanding the said possâ—ssion of the other the Suffolke Gospellers are the fiâ—st comers in to Mary and undertakers of her assistance for the vindication of her Title and the gâ—ining her possession of the Throne and this before she had any acknowledgment or reception of the Nobles or Commons or other ayd appearing for her 2. Another sort of examples may be of such as being Princes or communities have cast off or by Armes repulsed the domination of them who have had present command over them Scripture examples in this kinde I have given before * Chap. 8. Sect. 4. and shall therefore here but name them Such are those of Othniel Ehud Deborah and the rest of the Judges with the Israelites rising up against Chusanrishathaim Eglon Jabin and the other invaders and captivers of them respectively of which in the book of Judges In like manner were the wars of the same people for their liberty against the Philistines and the Syrian Kings in the times and under the conducts of Eli Samuel Saul and David in the stories of both the Books of Samuel and of the Kings of the same sort were the recuperative Armes of David and Jehoiada against Absalom Sheba and Athaliah in the said Books As also were the stirrings of the Kings and people of Judah from Solomon unto the time of their Babylonish captivity against the Kings of Israel Syria Assyria and other encroachers related in the second Book of Chronicles And such lastly were the conflicts of the Jewes under the Asmonean government against diverse of the Selencian Kings Of all these I will make particular narrative but of one that is that good King Hezekiah and of him but shortly thus 2 King 18.7 It is said That he rebelled against the King of Assyria and served him not Expositors observe the reason of these words to be The kingdome was left to Hezekiah by his father Ahaz in a subjection to Shalmantzar King of Assyria but he being no way bound to serve at his father did because he used his liberty and cast that yoke from him he is said to rebell Mr. Lightfoot Divines Annotat in loc and Mr. Lightfoot his Harmon of the old Test pag 117. observes further that not onely had Ahaz his father but himselfe reigned as an Homager to the Assyrian who subdued and deposed Ahaz and set up Hezekiah on the Thâ—one in his stead and that Hezekiah being thus under the Assyrian for a time he would beare it no longer c. A multitude of instances of this sort out of other stories are produceable Among others those of the Christian Princes and Nations on the Eastern confines of Christendome who bordering upon the Turkish Sultan have been by him subdued and held under and being in that condition have at several times attempted and sometimes prosperously effected a recovery from that subjection As for instance have done sundry Princes of Hungary of Macedon and of Greece and the State of Venice Amongst them the atchievements of George Castriot surnamed Scanderbeg in his regaining of the Countreys of Epirus and Albania from which his Father had been oured and himselfe was excluded by Amurath the sixth and of John Huniades the Vayvod of Transylvania under the shiâ—ld of whose valour and successe the Countreys of Moldavia and Valachia rose up for and recovered their freedome from
Chapters I shall reserve the proof of this sense that I here give of this clause to wit that it imports the being of the power of Gods mouth or word not excluding the disposur◠of providence but taking it in being understood of such a procedure of Providence as is conjoyned and concurrent with the authorizing word of God and is the execution or effectuating thereof and that a bare possessory act or a persons occupancy of the seat of power by a meer eventual Providence is not the true and proper importance of the words Only here to give some light to the discerning of the difference betwixt those two and to shew a little the necessity of understanding the words as I have expressed take a view of both in a Scripture example It is the case as is stood betwixt those two Brothers Solomon and Adonijah in relation to the Kingdom of Israel The case may well be stated in the words of Adonijah himself unto Solomons Mother as they are set down 1 King 2.15 thou knowest that the kingdom was mine and that all Israel set their faces on me that I should reign Howbeit the Kingdom is turned about and become my Brothers for it was his from the Lord. Here are two persons represented as having been claimers and competitors of the same kingdom at one and the same time Now let me ask in as much as both could not be which of these two must we say was the power which was of God in the sense of our Text The one Adonijah he hath to alledge for himself a being in it by eventual Providence All Israel set their faces on me that I should reign This was as much as if he had said he was gotten into the throne and had full admission and possession by the people And so by the story it appears he had see 1 King 1.5 7 9 11 18 25. and upon this ground he built to himself a Title The Kingdom was mine saith he On the other hand there was for Solomon the Lords designation of him by word of mouth to David before-hand 1 Chron. 28.5 6 7. 22.9 10. and an ordinative Providence of God disposing David first to promise and to swear to Bathsheba his Mother and after to decree and give out command to Zadok Nathan and Benaiah to anoint him King though even then Adonijah stood seised of the Kingdom 1 King 1.17 32 c. and therefore Adonijah himself having surceased and become a private person again upon this ground acknowledgeth that Solomon had the better of him in point of title for it was his from the Lord. Of these two different pleas if we lake the eventuall Providence by which Adonijah was possessed of the Kingdom to bear the sense of this Text of a being of God by virtue whereof every soul is to be subject to the person so being then must we lay aside Solomon from being the power of God and the enterprise of David Bathsheba Nathan and the rest of seating him in the throne must be disallowed as contrary to the rule of this Text and settle Adonijah when he was in but this were to null and disallow the expresse direction and donation of God appointing the Kingdom to Solomon and the lawfull proceeding upon it before cited out of the story On the other hand if we take that warrant of Gods word unto David seconded by that his ordinative Providence which moved the persons above mentioned who in that case were interested to advance Solomon to the Crown to answer this phrase in our text of the powers being of God then must we say that a meer eventual Providence is not the right and proper importance of the words But this shall be more at large discussed in the next Chapter wherein I shall proceed to the opening of the next phrase in the Text viz. Ordained of God CHAP. V. CHAP. V. Of the term Ordained of God HAving in the last Chapter treated of and explicated the former attribute or predicate which in this Text is spoken of the Powers expressing their author and original viz. of God I am now to proceed to the other which saith The Powers that be are ordained of God answerably unto which in the second verse the power is denominated the ordinance of God This word Ordained I take to be a term somewhat more specifical and definite and to bring the matter intended by the Text unto a clearer view Yet because they that seem to have a minde to widen the sense of it and to make it comprehensive of the power that I suppose to be alien to it choose rather to bring this clause to the formers indefiniteness if simply and by it self taken then to contract that by any limit which may appear in this or in the rest of the text and context I must therefore proceed by steps 1. Delivering the force of this word ordained and distinguishing of the several acceptions which it is capable any were to bear 2. Laying down then positively and particularly the sense I understand the phrase here to intend and the reasons to confirm and conclude that to be the sense 3. And then explicating to prevent further doubts that speciall sense which I ascribe to this clause in this place CHAP. V. SECT I. SECT I. Of the several acceptions of the word Ordained being put for an action of God THe first thing to be done for the investigation of the meaning of this clause ordained of God is to take notice of the force and use of the word Ordained and the different use of it The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to ordain constitute or appoint It is commonly applyed 1. Either to matter of business 2. Or to persons To matter of business or action and then it is usually put to signifie the appointment or alotment of the circumstances of a thing to be done as the certain time or place for it as Act. 28.23 Matth. 28.16 2. To persons and then it imports the ordering or setting apart of a person to some special benefit office work or ranke among others as Act. 13.48 22.10 Luk. 7.8 1 Cor. 16.15 Here it hath respect to persons for Powers are put for the persons invested with power the Powers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ordained of God or ordered set apart appointed to their office work and dignity by him In the next verse the Apostle saith the power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ordinance of God or as the word bears his edict sanction or constitution To them that are conversant in Scripture and other books of Divinity it is at first sight evident that there is a sense wherein all things that be or fall out in the world even the sins of men are said to be ordered or disposed by God and there is a sense whereby it is peculiar to some things to be disposed or ordered by him If we here take the word in the former sense
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
gemitus eorum qui ferre nequeunt in justitiam SECT II. Of the terme higher annexed to the powers vers 1. 2 THe second observation shall be upon the Epithite higher given to the powers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza renders super-eminent the vulgar more sublime Expositors generally note that this word here signifies a superiority of calling office or function One may be said to be higher over or above another two wayes 1. He is higher or above that hath the upper hand or prevaileth and is in strength above another 2. He is higher that is superior to another in regard of place calling or office There is a superioriâ—y or celsitude in respect of meer sight and might and a superiority in regard of dignity and authority the former any one may get over a person or people the latter is proper to the Magistrate This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used occurreth also 1 Pet. 2.13 Phil. 2.3.4.7 And from it come the substantives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. 3.8 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 2.1 1 Tim. 2.2 And the use of the words in every of those places is to signifie not an over-powering act of posture but a morall excellency of one person or thing above another or such a precellency as draweth towards it a Recognition of honour or an hâ—gh repute veneration or valuation of the minde And this precellency is 1. Either that of vertue or absolute worth As where Christians are required in lowlinesse of minde to esteem each others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 better then themselves Phil. 2.3 And where the peace of God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passing all understanding Phil. 4.7 So also the Apâ—stle when he came to the Corinthians came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with excellency of speech or of wisdome 1 Cor. 2.1 And he counted all things but losse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ Phil. 3.8 2. Or that of office or relative State as when Christians are willed to submit themselves to the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supream or superior in reference to the Governours Presidents or subordinate Rulers that are commissioned from or placed under him Though they be more and stronger in naturall force then he yet he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superiour to them in regard of order authority rank and dignity 1 Pet. 2.13 And Magistrates are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in authority 1 Tim. 2.2 By comparing of those other places with this as to the use of this word it may appear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for description and discrimination sake and to adde some weight to the exhortation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the Magistrate and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the honour and eminent dignity which is annexed to him and which is a proper and inseparable adjunct to the true magistracy by which it is distinguisht from meer prepotency or a predatory power And in this I have the observation of Expositors going before me Aretius upon the place saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to excell in dignity and right Dr. Willet citeth it as Cajetans observation That this word is added to exclude tyrants who are not excelling Lords taking the Apostle to speake de legitimis potestatibus Mr. Prin in his third part of the power of Parliaments pag. 114. tells us Dominicus Soto Cajetan Pererius and other Popish Commentators of this place observe that Paul adds this Epithite of higher or excelling powers of purpose to exclude Tyrants CHAP. VIII SECT IV. who are not excelling Lords nor lawful powers Dr. Whitaker Controver de Rom. Pontif. Quaest 4. and 7. pag. 648. a. 720. b. insisteth on this terme to prove against Bellarmine who would finde a ground in this Text for the exorbitant power which the Pope pretends to and usurpeth that the words of the Apostle can only be understood of a politicall or civill power and not simply of any power whatsoever which he could have no advantage for from this word if it did leave the terme power to signifie superiority at large so as to take in any predominancy and did not contain its importance within the bounds of such a superiority as really deserves to be adorned with and hath of due and right belonging to it civill honour and veneration unto which sense agreeth St. Austins explanatory paraphrase upon this term sublimioribus potestatibus in this place viz. hominibus res humanas cum aliquo honore administrantibus * August Tom. 4. part 2. p. 727. Higher powers that is men that administer humane affaires with some degrees of honour The actuall administration of humane affairs and the degree of honour are two distinct things the former may bâ— without the latter but both put together make and define a higher power Honour is the attendant or shadow of reall vertue and of relative authority but not of meer predominant force Unto this Epithite of super-eminent or more sublime seems to be answerable that phrase of Solomon styling the seate of Magistracy the place of the Holy Eccles 8.10 the throne of Majesty is sacred in that it is peculiar to the Magistrate and sacred in that it is authorized by God agreeable whereunto the seat of the lawful Magistrate is called The Throne of God 1 Chron. 29.23 2 Chron. 9.8 And his kingdome the kingdome of the Lord 2 Chron. 13. â— 1 Chr. 28.5.17.14 and the Magistrate is said to be King for the Lord his God to bâ— anointed unto the Lord 2 Chr. 9.8 1 Chr. 29.22 And this judgment is said to be the judgement of God and he judges not for man but for the Lord. Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 And God is said to be with them in the judgement and to stand in their congregation CHAP. VIII SECT III. and to judge among them 2 Chron. 19.6 Psal 82.1 All these are the high and holy and distinguishing prerogatives of the Magistrates state Whereas there is a throne of iniquity contradistinct to this place of the holy this throne of God which hath no fellowship with God Psal 94.20 SECT III. Of the whole style Higher Powers Vers 1. 3 FRom the Epithite higher I will passe to a consideration of the whole title higher powers By higher powers Expositors understand Magistrates of every degree or rank and not onely the supream So that they understand higher not to refer by way of contra-distinction to lower powers but to the people to them that are to be subject to them So Calvin Beza Marlorat Pareus P. Martyr Methusius Dr. Mayer and Par upon the place And Chamier Panstrat Tom. 3. li. 15. cap. 11. sect 8. And indeed the description of the Magistrate with all the Reasons given in the following words unto vers 8. for subjection to him do as truly and necessarily appertain to the inferiour and subordinate Magistrate as to the highest
which it hath upon this seat for the observing of which as pertinent to our purpose I make this reflexion upon this place will easily follow The effect is that his Kingdome is or the people anciently of the Beasts Empire are full of darknesse and they gnaw their tongues for pain and blaspheme the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores and repent not of their deeds This Kingdom-filling darknesse may import a delusive obfuscation erroneousnesse giddinesse and dotage which shall at the time and in the place of this Vials pouring forth and may not its time and place be the present possesse and prevail over the mindes and judgements of men about the matter of Power and Authority Civill in the first place and Ecclesiasticall consequently and by way of participation And this darknesse must needs cause a Chaos of confusion commotion and contention The tongue-gnawing pain and that which followes blaspheming and impenitency I interpret of worldly griefs and dolours arising from all sorts of sufferings and dangers upon bodies estates and other temporall interests and of conscience-tortures by deceptions scruples and guilt which the said obscurity will breed unto people and which being incumbent on them will especially in the faeces the worse the more hardned sort of them boile up unto extreme vexation and anguish yea unto rage and fury whence they will break forth into blasphemy against God by casting in their spite and madnesse the blame and scandall of all their sufferings and distempers upon the Gospell Religion and Reformation and upon the faithfull and zealous friends and followers of the same accusing them of Rebellion and bringing ruine upon Church and State and charging them as the causes of the publique Commotions and Convulsions and of their own private adversities and agonies flowing from them which indeed are the fruits of their own error and the recompences of their own sins and which should have wrought on them for their repentance but prove ineffectuall to that and occasionall to the contrary the continuation and heightning of their sin and an addition to their judgements Having upon the occasion of observing this effect gone so far in looking into this Viall I cannot well let passe the noting but it shall be in one word the correspondency which is betwixt this and the next foregoing Viall and the apt sequency of the one upon the other That fourth Viall I suppose to bear this sense The Sun upon which it is powred out is the Soveraign or Royall dignity residing in the severall Princes or Estates signified by those ten hornes Rev. 17.12 It s effect to wit that upon it power is given to the Sun to scorch men with fire may signifie the passions of those Princes their inordinate and boundlesse appetite of rule their emulations and jealousies transporting them above it their immeasurable aspiring ambitions and avarices from which they are in speciall stimulated and enflamed to an exorbitant stretching and heightning of their power and prerogative over their people for the advancing enlarging and maintaining whereof they proceed to those precipitate counsels and violent courses which do exceedingly wast and crush and in so doing discontent exasperate and enrage their subjects And these are the heats and flames by which men under this Viall as by a Zenith Sun are scorched Upon that effect of the fourth Viall this of the fifth very sutably and even naturally ensues As the Summer-sun-beames by their glowing heat having a good while together penetrated and even tosted the earth thereupon the earth comes to send up many grosse fumes and vapors to the bemisting and enveloping of the aire by which means the Sun being overcast the earth it self is deprived both of its shine and light so it is betwixt Potentates and people The abuses and excesses of Princes by which they overtop gall and excruciate their Subjects raise and retort cloudes upon themselves and their own power and dignity their people thence conceiving and venting many blinde inconsiderate and grosse mistakes many heady and mutinous contestations about their Soveraigns power and prerogative and this to the reciprocall mighty prejudice both of Prince and Subjects the one coming thereby to be eclipsed if not disorbed and the other while they by such reflexions seek to allay and cool the heat darted upon them by the too great elevation and verticall influence of their Sun having thereby changed their day into darknesse are overwhelmed with confusions night-wandrings and horrors and do pine away in black pensive and hopelesse obscurity To this that hath been said of these Vials portending the more then ordinary inclination of the times allotted to them unto disceptations and clashings about Government I shall add a touch upon another Prophesie looking somewhat the same way the rather because much looked upon now by some men It is part of the matter of the third woe and seventh Trumpet Rev. 11.15 in those words There were great voices in heaven saying the Kingdomes of the world are become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ 1 Cor. 15.24 To which may be joyned that of the Apostle Then cometh the end when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power There is much recourse had to these and the like prenunciations now-a-dayes and strange use made of them I am none of those that have the confidence to define either the time when or the means or manner how these passages shall be accomplished Much lesse do I sort with those who upon presumption that they shall receive their completion before the worlds end or while time is yet current and in a worldly and temporall manner and by humane means and force do thence conclude it a necessary and prime duty of Christians to lend their assistance to the bringing of them to effect by laying their heads and conserting their hands together to plot and act the pulling down of all Civil Powers humanely constituted and so to the making way and entry to that Kingdom of God and of Christ But this may be said with sobriety who knowes what prelude or preparative may be in what use the unsearchable wisdome of God may make of the many unsatisfiable and unappeasable stirrings and jarrings both of the men of this and of divers other spirits and principles about Government to the bringing about of his own counsels predeclared in those Prophetique passages One thing may be affirmed without pretence of supernaturall light either from Scripture prediction or from private Enthusiasme as that which comes within common experience and reason that debates and competitions about authority especially when so multiplyed and obstinate do bode and tend to its downfall The more discussions and stirs are raised about it the more climbings up to and corrivalships for it the more still the Majesty and lustre of Authority is defaced the foundations and strength of it are shaken the more it tottereth and inclineth unto ruine Moreover as this
them man hath a dominion given him of God * Gen. 1 2â— Psal 8.5 or more strictly as it respecteth man only and this Power this related we peculiarly call Authority And this again is distinguishable according to the diversity of humane societies some whereof are private and domestical and some are more publique But as it is found in or related to a publique civill community or body politique it's tearmed Magistracy or political power That there is a reall difference to be found betwixt those two powers the Natural and the Moral as in general so as they may be seated in man as the subject and respect man as the object and particularly as they are competible to a body politique and that the difference lies as was said herein that the one consists in a meer impetus or prepotency or a sufficiency of strength to impose or make impression on another the other in a right or imerest to bear sway may be easie to feâ— 1. The reality of the difference is evident Natural power is found not only in man but in brute beasts yea in inanimates Moral is proper to reasonable creatures Again although reasonable creatures be enduable with both yet among men the natural and the moral might and right to rule may be and for the most part are distinct or separate each from other in regard of the subject of inherence * Potestas in populo Authoritat in Senatu Cicero de leg lib. 3. The Natural power is ordinarily in them that do not ought nor to rule but to obey and be in subjection There is a Moral power or right to rule in Man over the other Creatures yet in natural power he is inferiour to many of them And amongst men in Natural power that is strength or might of body the family in greater then the Master the Subjects excelâ— their Soveraign the Souldiert overmatch their Leaders whereas the Moral power in relation to each of these is in the Master the Soveraign the Leader It is very seldom seen if ever in any humane Society that Natural and Moral power do meet in the same persons as the subjects of inhesion Suppose a City or Nation ruled by some strong hand or a military force even in that force there must needs be some one head or councel of a few to guide and command it some Pretorian Magistracy to govern the Army and in that head or Pretorian office far inferior in Natutal power to the Army as the Army possibly is to the City or Nation under its beck would the supreme Power lie and the military force would but be subordinate and ministerial to that command in like manner as the unarmed people are to that force And although it be both right and necessary to the well-being of a political Society that the Natural and Moral power do concur the former to serve and support the other and the discord of these is the high way to the ruine of both yet it is not simply necessary to the being either of the Moral power or of the community Every sudden mutiny or temporary Sedition which is the Insurrection and prevalency of the Natural power against the Moral doth not dissolve the present Society or Magistracy Political or Military The uproar at Ephesus Act. 19. was within a few houres quelled and the City remained in its former state Although upon the death of Ahaziah 2 Chron. 22.9 his house had no power viz. natural to keep still the Kingdom but Athaliah usurped it yet within a few years it removed the usurpresse and repossessed both Power and Kingdom as in its former right 2. And that the difference twixt those two Powers lies as was said in the meer forciblenesse or prevalidity of the one and the right or legitimacy to command of the other that the one can the other only may or ought to rule the one possibly hath the appetite and act of governing the other hath only the commission and warrant should me thinks easily be conceived Natural power we oppose to impotency weakness Moral power we oppose to illicitness or wrong Thence that saying Id tantum possumus quod jure possumus whereby it appears that Natural power consists in strength Moral in rightfulness And indeed wherein else should the difference be placed What difference is there to be made betwixt the power of one Brute prevailing over another or over a Man and that of the owners ruling over that Brute or betwixt that of a Man-stealer that hath gotten anothers childe into his hand by stealth and that of the true father over his childe or betwixt that of a Rout or Band of Rogues or drunken companions that may have assaulted and beaten the Magistrates officers and perhaps himself too and that of the Civil Magistrate each of these may de facto be Master each of them may be found assuming and exercising rule they cannot therefore be distinguished by their acts The d stinction then betwixt them must be taken from the ground rise or principle from which the acts of rule are put forth which in the one and the other are divers In the one those acts are from meer force and will in the other they are from authority or a will authorized to prescribe or command Each of these Powers I say may be found exercising rule for we cannot call any power morall meerly because it acteth in or manageth those we call Moral or Civil affairs for that a Natural power in a subject endued with reason may do there may be an intermedling with Civill matters where there is no moral power as in case of Sedition where they that are to obey will needs rule as on the other hand there may be a Moral power that is a right to command or dispose where the object is not moral or civil such is the power of man given him of God over other creatures animate and inanimate of disposing according to his reason and will of their natural acts of feeding generating labouring c. But that is a moral power in relation to any of these objects or matters about which power is exercised which hath a moral rise or deduction viz. an authorization and right and what hath not so is meerly natural The proper character then or formall difference of each of these two Powers is that the Natural power is no other then a brutish predominancy or violence * Potentia est id quod per si est effican Vit est majoris rei impetus qui repelli vel saltem ex arbitrio commode non potest Greg. Tholos Synt. Juris lib. 11. cap. 2. Sect. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 4. the reason of its superiority is its own might and will it knows nothing of any civil liberty order or right its proper act is ruere impetere or impellere to rush in upon assault or bear down before it what stands in its way if it use reason so far as to give out commands
distinguish betwixt the being of the power from God and the acquisition of the power from God so as to affirm the one and deny the other In my dull conceit the acquisition of a thing is no more nor no other thing but the way whereby that thing is had or received and if the question be how such a thing is acquired and it be said it is of such a person or such an author this is to describe the acquisition of it To me then in those two propositions whereby the distinction is applyed the power is of God the acquisition of the power is not of God but of the Devil the subject of them is one and the same in sense and â—e and the predicates are contradictory and so they praedicate contradictories de eodem of the same thing If they again make a refuge from this absurdity of the generall institution and say in the former proposition they mean the Usurper is of God his power is of God in as much as God hath ordained Magistracy and Magistrates to be I answer What is the Usurper the neerer for this that God hath ordained Magistrates to be if he receive not his power from God can it be said neverthelesse his power is of God by vertue of that generall institution We have forestalled this plea in our last Section and say again there is no consequence or dependency of the one of these upon the other Gods ordaining Magistrates to be inferres not this or that man that is in the place of command whether justly or unjustly to be a Magistrate of God Nothing can be more weakly or groundlesly said then to argue this or that man is a power of Gods ordaining because God hath ordained that there shall be a power and that some body or other shall be it We have I take it proved before that to the making of a Magistrate to be of God and to be his ordinance in actu exercito there goes not only the law of God appointing Government to be in each community but that a person or persons for his or their particular be put into that office of God that is in Gods way or by his warrant and this is to say the persons acquisition of the power must be of God It must be said of them as Adonijah said of Solomons Kingdom it was his from the Lord. The former puts not any Government or Governors in being makes no man actually either a Prince or a Subject notwithstanding it all the Common-wealths in the world may be headlesse or without Ruler If a man should start up in the midst of a Kingdome or a City or of a Senate or Parliament and proclaim himself to be the Supreme power over that community and being asked upon what he grounds his claim he should alledge but this God hath ordained a Supreme power to be in every State and that some be Rulers and now I actually challenge it how ridiculous would this man and his claim be In the time when prophecy and prophets were sent out of God into the world and into his Church there were true Prophets and there were false the difference betwixt them was that the one were Prophets indeed were of God ordained of God the other indeed were no Prophets were not of God Zech. 23.5 Jer. 23.16 21 26. It would have been a senselesse plea for the latter to have said for themselves We are Prophets of God because God hath ordained prophecy and hath set in his Church some to be Prophets And as reasonlesse an allegation it is to say the Usurper or the Usurpers power is of God because God hath instituted powers to be in the Common-wealth Suppose a couple be suspected to live together in whoredome and being brought before the Magistrate under that accusation they shall pretend for their defence that they are in a marryed estate and being required to prove their marriage they should alleadge that marriage is Gods ordinance God hath ordained men and women to marry and they cohabite together as man and wife Would this passe for truth that these two are in the state and relation they pretend to Much lesse would it serve if the one of the parties only should make this pretence and plea and the other quite disclaim it and what 's the reason this allegation would not passe but because there is required besides the generall rule ordaining marriage to be and the exercise of conjugall acts that there be an entrance into this estate and admittance unto these matrimoniall acts by such a covenant or consent of the parties as God hath appointed to be the way and means of contracting this Relation But some of the Authors of this distinction thus argue Riches gotten by usury extortion c. cease not to be good in themselves yea and the gifts of God and as the owner of these unjustly procured riches may be said to be a rich man and he that hath Learning though procured by unlawfull means may be said to be a Learned man so the possessor of a most justly obtained authority may be said to be a Magistrate and in authority Unto this Reasoning I have this to say 1. Riches gotten by usury and extortion cease not to be good in themselves Say they It 's true but what is this to the usurer or extortioner or to his possession of them or to his denomination of being rich by them Let it be distinctly observ'd what the goodnesse of those riches is which ceaseth not by their ill getting That goodnesse which is in them as considered absolutely and in themselves without respect to this or that owner or getter and which was therefore attributable to them before they came into the usurers or extortioners hands they still retain that is a goodnesse in genere entis or as Creatures and a goodnesse in genere utilis which is an aptnesse to serve unto a naturally or civilly profitable use but those Goods which taken apart from such or any other particular owners possession have that goodnesse inherent in them are moreover susceptible by way of relative denomination of another goodnesse which is not inherent in them or in their nature or necessary and fixed to them but is to them adventitious or extrinsecall and therefore is mutable so that they are as well capable of an evilnesse opposite to it as of that goodnesse This goodnesse and evilnesse is morall and it comes or is imputable to them by means of their adjacency or relation to their possessor In this respect riches are said to be sometimes just sometimes unjust or to be honest or dishonest according as they are gotten well or ill in this morall or relative consideration of riches wherein alone the similitude betwixt them and the matter in hand is pertinent it is not true that riches gotten by usury and ex ortion are good Ezâ—k 22.13 Prov. 10.2 The H. Ghost calls them dishonest gain and treasures of wickednesse 2. Neither are unjustly gotten
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
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
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
their assault of the p ssessing power they enter within the bounds of the Common-wealth he is over and so were there indeed a reall Magistracy in the actuall possessor they would come wiâ—hin the obligation of subjection to him For this is certain whosoever are upon any account within a Territory whether as fixed Inhabitants or as strangers whether as friendly guests or hostile invaders yea though they be Soveraign Princes in another Countrey yet being there they owe submission to the lawfull power of that Countrey they enter into they are subditi there though not cives 3 They that are actually under the command of another perforce and they that assist them are involved in the same act So that if the former be bound to the duty of Subjects then it is unlawfull for any though Foreiners yea though Forein Princes to ayd them in the violation or casting off of any such subjection or the rescue or restoring of anothers right to it 2. But enough of exemplification in the point of opposition In the second place I am to produce some examples of such as have professedly disowned or denyed to those that have had no more but their actual domination to claim by any of the duties of Subjâ—cts belonging to their civill Magistrates It is a known duty of Subjects to their Soveraigns to stand by them to their power in defence of them and their possession of the Dominions and Territories which they hold against whosoever would deprive them thereof Jo. 18.36 Our Saviours acknowledgment to Pilate was My kingdome is not of this world If my kingdome were of this world then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jewes But the contrary to this I finde practised in reference to meer possessors When the Jewish Nation had before the destruction of Jerusalem made a generall defection from the Romans and had under the conduct of their own Leadeâ—s possessed themselves of the Forts and strength of all Judea and held them against the Romans and by that meanes had the ruling power then in that Region the Christians that were in Jerusalem deserted the defence of the Jewes and of their City and cause and removed out both of Jerusalem and of Judea so that Historians observe there was at the time of the last siege by Titus not one good Christian left in the City * Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 4. Epiphanius de mensuris cap. 15. Joseph de Bâ—l. Jud lib. 2. cap. 22. c. Dr. Simson Chron. Cathol lib. 7. An. Christi 67. pag. 46. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Matth 24 Note G. and on Revel 7. Note G. Indeed the grand Sectaries among the Christian professors the Gnosticks as one noteth †Dr. Hammond on 2 Thes 2. Note K. sided with and adhered to the Jewes aginst the Romans in that war and by that meanes perished with them But the Orthodox wholly relinquished them Yea it is observed that many of the more advised and honest sort of the Jewish both Nation and Religion among them deserted their Nations defence against the Romans yea and went over to their enemies and with them took part against the Desendants * Usser Annal. part post pag. 691. 693. and Dr. Simson ut supra The Jewes that remained after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus made a City called Bitter in Arabia the chiefe seate of their Kingdome and made a Jew one Barcochebas or Barcochab or Barcochah as he is generally styled their King Under him they rise up in sedition against Hadrian the Roman Emperour and over all Judea and every where else they cast off the Roman government and slaughter and destroy whosoever stands against them To them also joyne very many other Nations and for that cause almost all the world are in an uproar Hadrian sending out his Forces against them a great and continued War thereof ariseth They say this Barchochebas reigned thirâ—y yeares and a halfe and that at the last he endured in the siege of Bitter three years and a halfe against the Romans to their great losse ere he and his Jewes were vanquished That which we chiefly observe in the story is that this Barcochebas being now the possessing and ruling power over Judea and many other parts the Christians that were in his precincts refused notwithstanding to owne or joyn with him against the Romans yea though for this refusall he slew them with all kind of tortures Insomuch that Hugo Grotius and Dr. Hammond tâ—ke him to be the beast that ascendeth out of the boâ—tomlesse pit and maketh war against the two witnesses and overcometh and killeth them Rev. 11. and answerably the two witnesses to be the Bishops and Chrâ—stians of the Jewish and Gentile Churches which were at this time at Jerusalem Some say indeed that he moreover gave himselfe out to be the Messiâ—h others that he pretended to be that Star in Balaams vision Num. 24.24 and true it is that Justin Martyr relateth who himself was an eye-witness of those Wars and on that occasion fled the Countrey he persecuted the Christians because they would not deny Christ But his imposture and enmity to Christianity was not the sole matter in which the Christians deserted him or upon which he persecuted them For both Mr. Mede Dr. Hammond and Spondanus observe out of Eusebius that the Christians denyed to ayd him in his defence against the Romans whose qâ—arrell against him was about civill dominion and laâ— downe that their refusall as a distinct cause by it selfe of his persecuting them * Mr. Mede in Apocalyp Com. part 1. pa. 43. Dr Hammond in Revel 11.3 7. and Note B. c. Mâ— Calvert his Jew of Morocco pag. 220. Mr. Bogan of Threats p. 372. Spondanus Epitome Baron Ann. 130. sect 4 He being the present actuall Ruler over them what-ever his Religion or his enmity to their Religion was they were bound to assist him in upâ—olding his civilâ— possession and authority if indeed the actual possessor alwayes be and conseqâ—ently he by vertue of present possession then was the power of God ordained of God The then Roman Emperour and State were no lesse distant in Religion no nor enemies to the Christian then were Barcochebas and his Jewes For under this Hadrian some reckon the continuation of the third others begin the fourth of the ten persecutions †See Mr. Fox Acts. Vol. 1. Prideaux of Hist. pag. 199. Mr. Clarks Martyrol p. 36. The reason then of the Christiâ—ns refusall of the Jewes assistance against the Romans câ—n be deemed no other then the civill right of the Roman though disseised and the nullity and illegitimacy of the Jew though the present All-commander Our next example shall be out of Tertullian who gives us a very remarkable testimony to our purpose in a threefold instance of the Christians practâ—se in relation to three possessors of the style and power of the Roman Emperours all of them in or neer about his