Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	commandment_n	law_n	love_v	7,725	5	6.9269	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86678	The divine right of government: [brace] 1. naturall, and 2. politique. More particularly of monarchie; the onely legitimate and natural spece of politique government. VVherein the phansyed state-principles supereminencing salutem populi above the Kings honour: and legitimating the erection of polarchies, the popular elections of kings and magistrates, and the authoritative and compulsive establishment of a national conformity in evangelical and Christian dutyes, rites, and ceremonies, are manifested to be groundlesse absurdities both in policy and divinity. / By Mich: Hudson.	Hudson, Michael, 1605-1648.; Stent, Peter, fl. 1640-1667, engraver.	1647 (1647)	Wing H3261; Thomason E406_24; ESTC R201931	147,691	220

new Evangelical sanction from God the Redeemer who as he renewed the nature of man so did he also renew the same law of nature for a new Evangelicall law and rule whereby to measure these new Evangelicall duties which are as necessarie to Salvation now under the Gospel as S. Paul proves 1 Cor. 13. as the Legal duties were under the Law and old Covenant of works which severall duties are the same in substance being measured by the same Law and Rule but different in circumstances First in their Objects For whereas under the old Covenant of works God the Creator was the adaequate and Immediate object of our love and duty Now the Immediate and adaequate object thereof is Christ the Redeemer 2. Circumstance wherein they differ is in the manner of performance which under the old Covenant was to be proportioned to the utmost exactnesse of a most perfect Law but now under the new to the utmost exactnesse onely of our most Imperfect abilities And this new Evangelical Law is that whereupon Christ will pronounce that fatal sentence of Eternal life or death upon all men at the day of judgement as himself affirmeth Mat. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdome prepared for you will Christ say to them on his Right hand Not because they were Wise or valiant or Rich or Noble nor yet because they had preached and wrought Miracles and cast out Devils and prophesied in Christs name but because they had fed the hungry clothed the naked comforted the sick relieved the stranger fatherlesse and widow And therefore because this new Commandment of Charity which is the ground of these duties is of so necessary concernment for the Salvation of all men The Holy Ghost did alwayes expresse those practical truths which relate to Charity in plain Grammatical words and precepts as wel before as after Christs Incarnation whereas these speculative truths which are the Object of our Faith and these blessings also which are the proper Object of our Hope were commonly represented unto the Church in the old Testament by Types and Figures Ob. S. Paul in disputing this point of Faith and works in his Epistles to the Romanes and the Galatians concludes Faith alone to be sufficient to Salvation and excludes works as Impediments rather then helpes thereunto Sol. There be three sorts of works grounded upon three severall Lawes 1. Ceremoniall works which were grounded upon the Ceremoniall Law which was abrogated by Christ and these S. Paul utterly excludes as altogether unprofitable 2. Legal workes which were grounded upon the Law of Nature which was the ground of the old Covenant of works And these S. Paul excludes as altogether Impossible 3. Evangelicall works which are grounded upon that new Law which Christ prescribed Iohn 13.34 A new Commandment give I you that you love one another Which new Commandment cannot be understood of that Love which was the complement of that law which was the ground of the old Cov. of works for that was an old Commandment given by God at the first Creation before Christ was thought on either by man or Angels but must necessarily concern this Evangelical love and Charity which relateth to Christ the Redeemer and is the Complement of this new Evangelical Law whereupon this new Covenant of Grace is grounded And these Evangelicall works are as necessary to Salvation as either Faith or Hope from which it cannot possibly be separated as is evident in the converted Thief For I am sure the Salvation of that Thief was atchieved by as great a mercy from God and as little merit in himselfe as could be expected in any man that is saved For we never read of any grace that he had or any good work that he did till he was upon the Gallows when the shortnesse of his life could not afford opportunity for many and yet in that short historie of his short life we shall find a record of his Charity as well as of his Faith and Hope For in the first place he rebuked his blasphemous companion there was an act of his Charity Secondly he justified Christs innocencie and acknowledged his power and donimion there was an act of his Faith Thirdly he prayed to receive the blessing of life by Christ there was an act of his Hope Luk. 13.39 And therefore by reason of the inseparable connexion of these three Evangelicall Graces the holy Ghost doth sometimes attribute salvation to one of them alone but that is in opposition to all Ceremonies or legall duties and perfections but never in opposition to any one of the other two concomitant graces of the Gospel Before I passe from this point of Charity I shall crave the Readers leave to digresse a little in the recommendation of her results arising from the circumstances observable in Christs new Commandment of Charity to the observation of our new Pharisaicall Gospellers who disdaine all men of a different perswasion from themselves as Heathens and Publicans 1. That the Traitor Judas was amongst the twelve when Christ gave them this new Commandment to love one another therfore it was never Christs intent to prohibit communication in publique and Christian duties with any who did publiquely professe themselves members of Christs Church unlesse where the parties obstinately either persevere in such hereticall opinions as are manifestly destructive to the grounds and principles of Christian faith Or else obstinately persist in such notorious and scandalous courses of life as publickly declare them void of Christian Charity For after this Commandement Christ himselfe did administer the Sacrament of his bodie and blood to Judas as appeares Luk. 22. although Christ himselfe was not then ignorant that Judas intended to betray him that night 2. That Saint Paul was not amongst the twelve when Christ commanded them to love one another though he was then a Chosen vessell and Judas then a Reprobate And therefore Christ did never priviledge us to Judge or Condemne any man much lesse to injure or defraud any man under pretence that he is a Reprobate and an Enemy to God for such presumptuous Intrusions into the Councells and secrets of God is an Idolatrous Arrogancie which the very Angells of God dare not adventure upon For what man could have judged Saint Paul to be a member of Christ at eleven of the clock that day which was the day of his conversion when he was posting to Damascus with strong Commission from the high Priest and a stronger Resolution in himselfe to persecute all people of all sexes who professed Christ Acts 9. And when Christ told the twelve of that abominable treason which should be acted that night against himselfe by one of them the eleven no more suspected Judas then they did one another as appeares John 13 2● And therefore seeing these high Saints could not determine either of the salvation of Paul or damnation of Judas no not six houres before the Lord himself publickly declared his own determinations concerning

same unto diverse objects as First that part of his will which concerneth Angels is termed the law of Angels Secondly that which concerneth men I meane in their naturall duty towards God and their neighbour for man never received Law but that before his Redemption and those Lawes which relate to Redemption are not properly naturall but supernaturall Lawes is termed the Law of Nature i. e. humane or the Law of the rationall nature Thirdly that part of Gods will which concerneth naturall Agents is termed the Law of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Law of the corporeall Nature Againe this second sort of Law which is the Law of humane or rationall Nature and is grounded upon the will of God concerning mankind is divided by Christ himselfe into two parts which he termes two Commandements Mat. 22.27 Which two are differenced by two different Objects and two different sorts of love required of us for the due performance of our different duties unto these two different Objects The first Commandement relates to God whom we must love above our selves and all that we call ours for God doth not allow any man to value either life limbe liberty or estate above himselfe Mat. 10.37 39. Luke 14.33 Marke 8.35 and of this nature are all the particular Commandements of the first Table which are comprehended under this generall and great Commandement the duties whereof are grounded upon a love exceeding the love of our selves The second Commandement relates unto our Neighbour whom wee are not obliged to love either above our selves or equally with our selves but onely like our selves so that the love of our selves in this second part of the Law of Nature is allowed the first place and wee may lawfully value our owne life limbs estates and liberties above our neighbours and preferre the indempnity of our selves before the indempnity of our neighbour in each of these severall respects when they chance to come in competition And therefore no Law either of God or man doth make homicide capitall no nor culpable where it is necessitated se defendendo And of this nature are all the particular Commandements of the second Table which Christs exposition comprehends under this second generall Commandement Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe the duties whereof are grounded upon a love not exceeding but inferiour unto the love of our selves Now the Kings Honour being grounded upon the fifth Commandement which they take pro concesse to be a Precept of the second Table and therefore grounded upon a love which must not exceed the love of our selves the people are obliged by the Law of God and Nature in all their duties towards the King in the first place to looke upon their owne safety and by consequence the Kings Honour is not a superiour but a subordinate end to salus populi so that the people may resist yea and kill the King also if they be necessitated se defendendo Argum. 2 A second Argument which they urge for a further confirmation of this is the instance of a Generall or Governour of a city who though his Commission be never so large extending to life liberty and estate yet if he shall contrary to his trust reposed in him for defence of that city turne the Canon against the city to destroy it may lawfully be resisted by the city and Souldiery and that by armes and violence as a traitour to his trust and therefore if the King shall breake the trust reposed in him by God the people may like this city and souldiery lawfully resist him as a a traitour to his trust and provide for their owne safety before his honour Argum. 3 Lastly they alledge out of Scripture severall instances of Kings that have beene resisted by the people in order to their owne safety wherein the actions of the people have beene sometimes expresly approved by God as in the deposition of Rehoboam from his dominion over the ten Tribes 1 King 12.24 And sometimes countenanced by holy men of God which themselves have been the principall actors therein as David in the defence of himselfe from the rage and fury of Saul 1 Sam. 22.1 2. and Chap. 23.7 8. And Elisha in his advise to the Elders to resist the messengers sent by King Jehoram to take away his head 2 King 6.32 and yet neither of them reproved by God for preferring their owne safety before their obedience to the Kings commands And therefore the Subjects may provide for and regard their owne safety rather then his Honour That Doctrine which I shall here premise as a ground for the solution of these Arguments and to evidence the preheminence of the Kings Honour above the peoples welfare is such a principle in Divinity as I presume will prima facie hazzard the repute of a Paradox being directly opposite to the opinions of all Christian Authors who write of the Morall Law who distinguishing the Ten Commandements into two Tables according to Christs rule Mat. 22.37 doe generally conclude the fift Commandement prescribing honour to parents to be a Commandement of the second Table which containeth our duty towards our neighbour as if Kings and parents related to their Subjects and children as neighbours and not as Gods And that the duties therefore to be performed to Kings and parents are grounded onely upon such a love which must not exceed the love of our selves which being granted for truth the Argument taken from the Law of Nature to prove the preheminence of the peoples welfare above the Kings Honour and thereby to legitimate the resistance of Kings as well as of any other men when the people doe judge their commands to be destructive to their owne safety and welfare is altogether unanswerable For Christ in that prementioned division of the Morall Law Mat. 22.37 makes but two objects of mans duty one superiour whom wee are obliged to love and respect above our selves and that is God another inferiour object whom wee are obliged to respect onely as our selves that is in the respect of the degrees of extension of our love equally to our selves for wee must have a regard unto our neighbour in his person and life chastity goods and good name as well as our owne but yet we are not obliged to an equality in reference to the degrees of the intension of our love to our neighbour in any of these particulars for we may and ought to love and respect our own life goods and good name above our neighbours so that every man is set in the middle betweene these two objects to the one hee lookes upward as an object above him to the other downeward as an object below him So that if Kings and parents relate to us only as neighbours and not as Gods for there is no other third object of mans duty then they are not our superiours but inferiours nor may we respect their persons goods or good name above our owne as things sacred but beneath and after our owne and so to

preserve our owne may destroy theirs which Doctrine doth plainly legitimate rebellion by the Law of Nature And therefore to prevent both this and many other dangerous and damnable inferences which may be deduced from this fundamental errour placing this fift Commandement under a wrong genus of the Morall Law and thereby putting a wrong construction upon all the duties therein prescribed I shall endeavour to rectifie this Epidemicall errour by twelve Reasons or Arguments demonstrating this fift Commandement to be a Precept not of the second but of the first Table of the Morall Law Whereof The first foure doe conclude the Negative part that it is not a Precept of the second Table The latter eight the Affirmative part that it is a Precept of the first Table The Negative part that it is no Precept of the second Table appeares 1. By Saint Pauls exposition of that lesser Commandement whereby Christ divides the second Table from the first viz. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe under which Commandement saith the Apostle are comprehended all the Precepts of the second Table relating to our neighbour and particularizing them mentions onely the last five Rom. 13.9 Ob. You will say though he specifie no other but the five last Precepts of the Decalogue yet he intimateth in that verse that some other Commandement is also comprehended in this saying Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe which other Commandement must needs be this of obedience to parents Sol. By other Commandement the Apostle doth not mean any of the other five which are specifically distinct from these five but other particular branches of these five Negative Commandements of the second Table each of which comprehends many particulars under them and that hee doth not thereby understand this fift Commandement which is an Affirmative Precept is manifest from the Reason alledged by the Apostle in the subsequent verse shewing why and how this love of our neighbour is the fulfilling of the Law of the second Table For saith he love worketh no ill to his neighbour therefore is love the fulfilling of the Law Ver. 10. Where you may observe that all the duties of the second Table relating to our neighbour are grounded primarily upon the Negative effects of our love which is the not doing ill to our neighbour for not our neighbour but our selves are the immediate object of the positive effects of our love and so the Precepts are all exprest by way of negation But the duties of the fift Commandement are of a different nature and consists primarily in the positive effects of our love and therefore this Precept is exprest by way of affirmation both in the Decalogue Exod. 20. and by Saint Paul in the first verse of this Chapter For first he commands us to submit our selves to higher Powers that is to perform and execute their commands when they are not contrary to Gods Precepts and this is the immediate and primary duty of this fift Commandement and in the next verse hee prohibits all resistance though their commands be such as we judge to be contrary to Gods Precepts and this is the consequentiall and secondarie duty of the same Commandement A second Reason why this fift Commandement cannot be a precept of the second Table is because such a Commandement would be superfluous in the second Table for if the honour and obedience due to Kings and parents were duties of the second Table then they should be grounded upon such a love as is inferiour unto and to be measured by the love of our selves and wee should yeeld our obedience and submission to their commands onely when we judged them to conduce unto our own good and benefit whereupon it would follow that the honour due to Kings and parents should be no other then what is due to our friend or servant or any other neighbour for nature teacheth us to obey and execute their commands when we conceive them to conduce unto our owne advantage and so this fift Commandement should be altogether superfluous And therefore cannot be a Precept of the second Table The third reason why this fift Commandement cannot be a Precept of the second Table is because God doth not permit us to accuse or testifie against our parents upon any occasion no not in case of Idolatry wherein wee were not to pity or spare any neighbour how neare and dear soever they were unto us whether it were brother childe wife or friend but were to accuse them and testifie against them and to execute the sentence of death upon them with our owne hands Deut. 13.6 7 8 9 10. yea if it were a whole city that were guilty of this sinne it was to be destroyed Ver. 15. Yet in this strict charge concerning Idolatrous neighbours of so neere relation the Text doth not mention any man or woman who hath the relation of a father or mother to us thereby differencing them from all neighbours whatsoever And Solomons exposition of this fift Commandement makes this more cleare and evident Eccles 10.20 where he extends the honour and reverence due to Kings unto the very thoughts and imaginations of the heart notwithstanding they were both Fooles Tyrants and Idolaters for when Solomon prohibited the cursing of the King yea even in the thought he was not ignorant that Saul had beene a Tyrant himselfe an Idolater and that his sonne Rehoboam who should succeed him was a Fool. But it was never prohibited to speake or think evill of any friend or neighbour who was guilty of these crimes nay we are commanded to accuse them of evill Ob. You will say What must men then thinke and beleeve manifest lies Must we neither say nor thinke that those Kings are evill and wicked which manifest themselves to be such in all their actions such as Jeroboam Ahab Manasses Nebuchadnezzar whom the Scriptures record for most infamous and notorious sinners and may not we speake or thinke that for which we have the warrant of Scripture Sol. Kings in reference to their duty towards God may be more wicked then any other men because they may offend in a double capacity 1. In their naturall as men and professores fidei by transgressing of Gods Commandements which doe oblige them equally as they do other men 2. In their Politick as Gods Deputies and propugnatores fidei by breach of that trust which God hath reposed in them for ruling and judging of the people committed to their care and protection according to Justice and Equity But in reference to their duty towards us though themselves may be wicked yet they cannot doe wicked things as I shewed in the last Chapter that is they cannot inflict any thing upon us but that which God hath decreed to fall upon us for our sinnes as the Holy Ghost testifieth of Pilates sentence against Christ Acts 4. so that the evill which they doe to us is just in respect of us though it be never so unjustly executed by them So that

the words of Solomon are to be understood onely of Kings in reference to the exercise of their power upon us which whether it be for good or hurt is still from God whose Deputies all Kings are and whose heart the Lord ruleth either for our benefit or prejudice Prov. 21.4 And therefore we may not thinke them evill or unjust to us for the Judgement is not theirs but Gods Prov. 26.29 who cannot be unjust And if we looke in Esay 3. you shall finde that God owneth all the grievous oppressions and violences which Tyrants exercise upon their Subjects for judgements and punishments sent upon that people or nation by his owne selfe and to demonstrate that all Kings act by his immediate direction he hath made the decrees and ordinances of Heathen Kings subservient to his glory and his peoples good not onely on accidenti by his providence but ex proposito in their owne purposes as is apparent in the decrees of Cyrus and Darius to build the Temple of God whom they knew not and of Nebuchadnezzar to honour his name all which three were meere Heathens The fourth and last Reason why this fift Commandement cannot be a Precept of the second Table is because it doth not enjoyne such a retaliation of love as every Commandement of the second Table doth for every Commandement of the second Table doth enjoyne our neighbour to returne the like respects and measure of love to us as we doe give to him but this fift Commandement doth not enjoyne our parents to honour and reverence us as we are bound thereby to honour and reverence them therefore it cannot be a Commandement of the second Table And if you doe observe it you shall finde this rule of Retaliation to be a perfect note of difference betweene the duties of the first and of the second Table for no duty of the first Table doth oblige God to returne the same respects to us which we are obliged to exhibite to him for wee are bound to worship him and love him above all and to expresse this love in every faculty both of soule and body but God is not obliged to worship us nor to love us after such a manner but our neighbour is obliged to returne the same measure of love to us which wee are bound to exhibite unto him either in his body goods or good name I confesse indeed that parents are engaged to performe duties to their children as well as children are to parents but those are onely such paternall duties of protection and provision as God himselfe is also obliged to performe unto his dutifull children by his Covenant for conferring blessings upon them when they truely honour him Deut. 28. and 29. for performance of the externall part of which Covenant God doth substitute Kings and parents as his instruments to convey these blessings unto Subjects and children but these duties are not so much as intimated in the fift Commandement but are enjoyned onely in that generall Covenant betweene God and his people who therefore doth make Kings and parents indulgent to subjects and children whereby to expresse his care for performance upon his part when Subjects and children are obedient unto God and his Deputies and thereby carefull to performe upon their part The Reasons concluding the Affirmative part that this fift Commandement is a Precept of the first Table are eight The first is grounded upon our Saviours answer to the young man Mat. 19.18 Marke 10.17 Luke 18.20 In all which places this Precept Honour thy father and thy mother is intended by Christ to enjoyne all the duties of the first Table of the Morall Law for God you know is often in Scripture stiled Father as in Mat. 6. wee finde him stiled Father twelve times but we never finde him stiled Neighbour in all the Scripture for to love God but in the same manner which wee are bound to love our neighbour that is like our selves were selfe Idolatry And besides our duty to God is oftentimes enjoyned in this very expression of Honour as 1 Sam. 2.30 where this word Honour importeth the whole duty of man towards God in which sense this word Honour is also used by our Saviour John 8.49 And therefore it is manifest seeing God is capable of the title of Father and that this expression of Honour may be properly extended to all the duties due unto God which are the duties of the first Table that this Precept of Honour thy father and mother may comprehend all the duties of the first Table and that it doth so in this place I doe prove thus Christ in his answer must needs mention all those duties which are necessary to salvation for else his rule were not perfect but the duties of the first Table are equally if not more necessary to life then the duties of the second Table and cannot be included in any other Precept which Christ reciteth in those Texts therefore all the duties of the first Table must necessarily be comprehended in this Precept Honour thy father and mother upon which premised grounds it doth necessarily follow that this fift Commandement is a Precept of the first Table For That Precept which comprehendeth all the duties of the first Table must needs be a Precept of the first Table but this very Precept comprehendeth all the duties of the first Table as the premises demonstrate ergo The second Reason is grounded upon the nature of God which is being and existence for in Exod. 3. he defineth himself by this expression I am and upon this ground both David Psal 1●0 Isaiah Chap. 44. and Saint Paul Acts 17. proves the Lord alone to be God because no creature no not the Angels themselves are able to give a life or motion or being unto man but onely God whose essence life and being is and therefore communicable onely from him so that whatsoever hath a power to communicate a being doth supply the place of God but parents have a power to communicate a being unto their children ergo they relate unto their children as Gods and not as men and by consequence the duties performed by children unto parents must be duties of the first Table and so likewise the Precept which enjoynes them must be a Precept of the same Table The third Reason as likewise all the five following alledged by Saint Paul Rom. 13. for motives to perswade submission to higher Powers every one of which Reasons doe demonstrate Kings and Magistrates who are Politick parents to have the relation of Gods unto the people is taken from the Author of the Kings power and that is God Ver. 1. For there is no power but of God Though the men invested with that power be as unjust and wicked as Pilate whose power Christ himselfe acknowledged to flow from that sacred fountaine John 19.11 upon which ground the King in the exercise of his power is alwayes stiled the Minister of God Ver. 4. yea and oftentimes also a very God as Psal

The Argument is this To whomsoever the power of vengeance and recompence pertaineth he is a God for God himselfe affirmeth those prerogatives to be peculiar to himselfe Deut. 22.35 36. But both these prerogatives pertaine unto the King as Saint Paul affirmeth in this Text ergo Kings are Gods and by consequence the fift Commandement which prescribeth our duty to them must be a Precept of the first Table The seventh Reason is grounded upon the nature of that obligation which the commands of Kings doe impose upon their Subjects which binde the conscience Ver. 5. which is Saint Pauls fift motive to obedience Wherefore ye must needs be subject not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake Which reason Saint Peter alledgeth also to perswade this kind of submission to Kings 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves for the Lords sake because the submission is not to man but to God Ephes 6.7 whose Majesty and Authority the King doth represent and in the latter part of this second Chapter Saint Peter presseth this kind of submission for conscience sake and the Lords sake by Christs example who needed not to have submitted to Pilate or the Jewes for wrath for he was able to overthrow them all with a blast of the breath of his mouth as he did the officers John 18.6 and shall doe Antichrist at the last day 2 Thes 2. Or to have obtained twelve legions of Angels from his Father for that purpose Mat. 26.53 whereof one single Angell was able to destroy 185000. Assyrians in one night but yet to honour the Substitute and Deputy of his Father he submitted to their power knowing it was his Fathers will and that the judgement was not theirs but Gods Acts 4.28 which is the ground of Nazianzens advise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We must submit to good Kings as to the Lord himselfe to bad Kings for the Lords sake Upon which grounds it is easie to prove the King to have the relation of a God to his subjects For he that can command the conscience is a God but the commands of the King doe oblige the conscience i. e. in licitis politicis whereunto his Commission doth extend and therefore in reference to all those matters the King is a God to his Subjects And by consequence this fift Commandement prescribing the Subjects duty must be a Precept of the first Table The eight and last Reason is taken from the nature of those acts whereby Subjects ought to expresse their obedience to Kings Ver. 6 7. which is Saint Pauls fixt motive to obedience which acts doe referre either unto the Kings power or else to his maintenance 1. The acts of obedience relating to power are Feare and Honour which are due onely to God Deut. 6.13 Mat. 4.10 Mal. 1.6 But Saint Paul commandeth us to performe these duties unto the King in this Text to which Solomon addeth another precept Prov. 24.21 My sonne feare God and the King And David likewise commanded the people to worship God and King Solomon 1 Chron. 29.20 so that God and the King are made a joynt object of these duties which are peculiar to God ergo the King must supply the place of God in reference to his Subjects and by consequence the fift Commandement must be a Precept of the first Table Ob. Christ forbids us to feare them that can kill the body onely but cannot kill the soule Mat. 10.28 but Kings can onely kill the body and not the soule ergo wee may not feare Kings Sol. That command of Christs is not Positive but Comparative as appeares in the Text and onely prohibits us to feare the King more then God Repl. Then when the Kings commands are contrary to Gods we may resist Sol. We may resist his commands but not his power for in those cases we must obey God by an active the King onely by a passive obedience for which wee have the president of the Apostles themselves Acts 4. and 5. who did refuse to obey the commands of the Rulers prohibiting them to preach in the name of Jesus but yet submitted to their power in yeelding themselves to be imprisoned and beaten according to the commands of the Rulers so that they obeyed both God and the Magistrate the first by doing the latter by suffering 2. The acts of obedience relating to the Kings maintenance are Tribute and Custome whereof I spoke at large in the ninth Chapter of this Booke in the point of Secondary Honour due to the King where I demonstrated these to be due to God onely Primarily and to the King onely Secondarily as he supplies the place of God in Ruling and Judging his people And therefore seeing we are to performe those acts of submission and obedience to the King whereof God himselfe is the proper and immediate object it followeth necessarily that the fift Commandement which prescribeth those acts must be a Commandement of the first Table Now upon these grounds it is easie to frame an answer to the three Arguments alledged for the preheminency of the peoples safety above the Kings Honour whereby to legitimate the resistance of Kings in order to the peoples safety To the first Argument taken from the Law of nature Answ 1 I answer that it is grounded upon a false supposition for the fift Commandement which is the ground of the Kings Honour is not a Precept of the second Table but of the first the duties whereof are grounded upon a love exceeding the love of our selves for the Law of God and Nature teacheth us to love God above our selves Deut. 5.6 Mat. 22.37 and therefore though the King be a man in his naturall capacity and therefore in that sense hath the relation of a neighbour yet in his Politick capacity in which sense onely he is the object of the duties of the fift Commandement he hath the relation of a God to us and not of a neighbour and therefore we ought to regard his Honour above our owne safety and rather to suffer the losse both of our estates friends and life then dishonour him To the second Argument grounded upon the instance of a Generall I answer Answ 2 that the case is farre different For I presume the Argument presupposeth that Generall to be trusted by the King for the safety and protection of that city and not for the destruction of it and that upon this supposition they doe resist him as a Traitor to his trust and in this case the resistance is lawfull because his Commission doth not extend to that act and he is onely a Magistrate so farre as his Commission doth authorize him But suppose the King should have judged that city to be destroyed and authorize that Generall to execute that judgement in this case it were absolutely unlawfull to resist and all acts of opposition in the city or souldiery being the Kings Subjects were absolute treason and rebellion because the Kings Commission from God doth extend absolutely both to our estates and persons nor doth he

of some doubts arising from this Doctrine of Gods Internall Regiment Dub. THE subject of that Polemical discourse which I mentioned in the last Chapter to be grounded upon the premises is a quaere concerning the causality of sinne which our former proofes and assertions do seem to fasten altogether upon God by investing him with the sole and total power and authoritie over both the understanding and will of man in reference to all their Intrinsecall acts of what sort or kind soever they be or in what manner or by what meanes soever they be performed from whence undoubtedly do proceed all manner of sinnes whether they be sinnes against the truth and verity of God as Errours and Heresies which are acts of the Infatuated understanding or against the justice and Sanctity of God which are acts and effects of the vitated and obdurate will Sol. The Schoolmen are much perplexed to steer an equall course in the solution of this doubt between the goodness and the Omnipotency of God And out of a seeming solicitude to avoid the Charibdis of impiety which makes God accessory to the least circumstance of sinne they fall into that Scylla of Heresie which makes man master of his own will conceiving that without such freedome of will man could not be capable of sufficient guilt to render God sufficiently innocent and so out of an ignorant and impious zeal to defend and Vindicate the Honour of God in relation to his goodness and Sanctity they dangerously wound the same in derogating from his Power Omnipotency But the examination and confutation of these Scholastical Impertinencies would be too great a digression from my purpose and therefore I shall seek no other solution for this doubt then what the Scriptures themselves suggest which presents all Moral actions under a capacity of the two opposite qualifications of good and evill the former proceeding from the principal the latter from the Instrumentall Agent and therefore the former must of necessity be a Positive and Essentiall propertie of every humane action whether i● relate to the understanding or the wil because as we have already prooved both of them are wholly guided and ordered by the wisdome and providence of God the principall Agent For which cause even the most sinfull and wicked actions are good in their substance and essence and effectually tend to the manifestation of Gods glory either as acts of mercy to the Godly in whom sinne produceth punishment punishment repentance repentance Faith Faith the favour of God and the favour of God life and Salvation or as acts of justice to the wicked in whom sinne produceth punishment punishment hardnesse of heart hardnesse of heart Incredulity Incredulity hatred of God and hatred of God death and destruction all which is manifest in the different effects which sinne produced in Godly David and in wicked Pharaoh Davids murder and adultery occasioned many reproofes and corrections from God 2 Sam. 12 Psa 6. Psa 22. And these corrections and punishments wrought sorrow and repentance in Davids heart Psa 5. that repentance faith and trust in God Psa 30. Psa 31. Psa 52. Psa 23. That faith and trust obtained love and favour from God Psa 27. And that love and favour an assured hope of life and Salvation Psa 12. Again Pharaohs oppressions provoked God to send his judgements and plagues upon him Those plagues and judgements hardened Pharaohs heart That hardness of heart caused incredulity And that incredulity the hatred of God and that hatred occasioned Pharaohs ruine and destruction in the Red Sea All which appeares in the first fourteen Chapters of the book of Exodus Yea the goodness of God made the very drunkeness and incest of Lot the ensuing Incest of Iudah the malice of the Jewes the treason of Judas and the injustice of Pilate the happy and blessed meanes of life and salvation to man Yea even Adams fall the Original cause and fountaine of epidemicall corruption sinne and misery in man was by the wisdome and providence of God made a meanes of greater glory and happiness to the godlie Seotus then his perseverance and continuance in innocencie could have been For as the wittiest of the Scoolmen most wittilie argueth if life had been given as a reward of our just works the reward must have been proportioned according to the work and our works being finite could not have merited the infinite joyes of Heaven for their reward the injoyment and fruition whereof for one minute would have farr exceeded the proportion of the merits of our works whereas life Eternall and the Infinite joyes of Heaven being now conferred upon the faithfull and elect children of God not by way of debt or recompense of merits but by the free grace and mercy of God this Infinite gift is proportioned not according to the meane and invalid merits of the receiver but according to the Infinite and unvaluable grace and mercy of the Donor Nay it is most certaine that all sinnes in the Saints do through Gods wisdome and providence become a meanes to increase their sanctification and glory in the wickd to increase their woe and condemnation in both to increase the glory of God and are in all these respects perfectly and purely good But yet we do not deny but the Scriptures do record all these for transgressions of the Law of God and do thereupon pass sentence of death and damnation upon all those who do such things or are the Authors of such evils But then we affirme all this obliquity and irregularity which addes this secondary and accidentall qualification to these actions not to be any thing Essentiall to the action but a casuall and Extrinsecall defect occasioned by some malignity in the meanes whereby or some imperfection in the object whereupon God doth work in these irregular actions All which the Apostle maketh more plain James 1.13 God saith the Apostle is not tempted of evill all his intentions and actions are good But then comes the evill when mans lust or wrath by the temptation and instigation of the Devill interveneth and entiseth man to filthinesse and superfluity of naughtinesse And from this malignity in the Devill and corruption in our selves proceeds a constant deficiencie in respect of some circumstance which entitles all our actions even the most upright and best unto some Degree of sinfulness and irregularity Repl. But then hence again you will inferre that the actuall administration of Gods Power over the understanding and will of man is not absolute in relation to every circumstance For that which is already spoken makes it plain out of Saint James that partly the Devill and partly our own lusts have a share in the guidance and government of all our actions Sol. It is true they have a share but not in the substance of the action but in some accidentall and Extrinsecall circumstance and in that also not as principal but as instrumentall Agents onely being ordered and regulated by a