The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate, Chapter 10 · Section 2

The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate · Chapter 10 · Section 2

p. 311SECT. II. CHAP. X SECT. II. Subſect. 1.Object. Of Chriſts paying, and commanding Tribute-paying to Caeſar: of his owning Pilates power: Of Souldiers ſerving the Romans without the diſallowance of the Baptiſt, Chriſt, &c.

Object. 2. CHriſt himſelfe payed, and commanded the Jewes to pay Tribute to Caeſar; acknowledged Pilates power, which was the Romans, to be of God: and we read of diverſe ſouldiers, and officers under the Romans, with whom John the Baptiſt, Chriſt, and his Apoſtles had to do, and none of them that we read of ever reprehended any of them for, or diſſwaded them from that ſervice. But the Romans were uſurpers over Judea.

Subſection 1. The queſtion, whether the Romans were uſurpers over Judea? diſcuſſed, and concluded negatively.

Anſwer. 1. IF the Romans were uſurpers over Judea, there is ſomething of an argument, otherwiſe there is none in all this. But how will this p. 312be proved? Moſt of the Authors of this objection do no more for this then cite the names of ſome learned and good Authors affirming it, and ſo they take it f…r granted. But for their full anſwer, and the clearing of this I ſhall

1. Scan a little this their common proof by ſuch humane aſſertion.

2. Then conſider what reaſon may ſuggeſt to us in this matter.

3. And then remove ſome other reaſons pretending the conviction of the Romans of uſurpation.

For the former, the aſſertion of ſundry learned Authors, that ſo it was: though ſuch do in tranſitis, & aliud agentes, affirme the Romanes, in the dayes of our Saviour upon earth, to have been uſurpers over Judea…, yet is not their bare affirmative to be taken for an evidence in ſuch a buſineſſe, viz. ſufficient to ſtate the ſenſe of a Scripture in controverſie, or to extend, or limit a Scripture rule of practice, ſuch as this is. Their ground for ſo ſaying would be ſeen to ſuch an end, and untill then I ſhall with as good authority (I think) deny it. Not that I oppoſe mine own negation, as to be as firm, and credible as the aſſertion of any ſuch learned men: but becauſe I have the authority of (I deeme) as learned, and good Authors denying the ſame, and aſſerting the lawfulneſs of the Roman government over the Jewiſh Nation, by conſent ere this given to it, whereby it ſtood cleared of uſurpation.

There is a little Treatiſe (printed about 7 yeares ſince) called An exercitation concerning uſurped powers; which (pag. 87, 88.) hath cited ſome paſſages out of Joſephus to prove the Jewes giving up themſelves to the Roman Dominion antecedently to this time which the objection concerns. I ſhall refer the Reader to theſe, adding here one or two more out of the ſame Author (whoſe teſtimony in this matter is abſolutely the greateſt of humane) and then produce the atteſtation of others of beſt note; and after that ſubjoyn a ſh…rt vindica i…n of what that exercta ion had before given.

p. 313A further teſtimony out of Joſephus is in theſe words of Agrippa, in his oration to the Jewes at Jeruſalem, a little before their ſiege, and deſtruction by the Romans for their rebellion.

For ſervitude is grievous, when new, Joſeph. de Bel. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 16.and it ſeems juſt to ſtrive to avoid it; but he that is once brought under it, and then makes defection, appears to be rather a rebellious ſervant then a lover of liberty. Therefore it behoved, when Pompey entred into this Province, to have uſed all meanes againſt the Romans entry: but yee that have received an hereditary obedience, and are far inferiour in meanes to thoſe who firſt ſubmitted, how can ye now thinke of making reſiſtance to the whole Roman Empire?

This paſſage is clear enough for the Jewes reception of the Roman Rule, under Pompey.

Another may be that which the ſame Author hath in the relating of an occurrence which happened about ſeven yeares after this firſt cloſe of this Nation with the Roman in ſubjection; which was this.

Alexander the ſon of Ariſtobulus (who was the head of that party that fell under the force of the Roman ſword, and ſtill repined at their government) beginning to make inſurrection againſt the Romans, was ſuppreſt by Gabinius the Governour of Syria, and upon that ſuppreſſion Gabinius ſetled the government of the Jewiſh Common-wealth in another forme, diſtributing the Province of Judea into five equall parts, and appointing ſo many ſeveral Cities in each of them for the people reſpectively to belong, and repair unto for juſtice; the which courſe of government took ſo well with the Jewes, that the remaining grudges at the Roman Dominion were removed. The words of Joſephus upon it are,Joſeph. de Bel. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 6. The Jewes being delivered from the government of one alone, were willingly governed by ſeverall Chieftaines, or A…iſtocratically. I am to adjoyne now ſome other W…iters teſtimonies, one of the moſt learned Antiq…aries, eſpecially in the Jewiſh affairs we have, is Mr. John Selden. And he hath purpoſely enquired p. 314into, and profeſſedly debated this queſtion: and he reſolves it for us thus.

It is not obſcure to be ſeene that in the times of the Empires of the Babylonians, the Perſians, the Grecians, and the Romans, the Jewes, upon their reſpective victories over them, were (ſoedere, ſeu deditione ſubditi) ſubjects to them by covenant, or ſurrendring up of themſelves: that by vertue of the ſaid covenants, or deditions, they payed tribute, and they ſerved as Souldiers under Alexander the Great. And particularly in reference to the Romans, he ſaith, concerning the publique acknowledgement of the Right of the Romans by Warre, and armes over this Nation (the Jewes) there is cleare evidence from the leagues, and charters of Princes, which both Joſephus, and Philo (in the Book de legatione) do hold forth. And that that Nation was received of the Romans by dedition, or by that league which is betwixt unequals. And that the tribute, which Judas the Galilean ſtood up to free that people from, was impoſed by Auguſtus, by the law of victory and dedition. And that the ſedition of thoſe Jewes (mentioned, Acts 5 37.) who mutinied upon occaſion of that tribute taxed upon them by Auguſtus, by the law of victory, and dedition, was according to Ga…aliels ſpeech diſallowed of by that Sanhedrim or Councell of the Jewes, as St. Luke relates in that ſtory (Acts 5.40.) as being by the deluſion of a ſeditious incendiary, and not of God. And that the Jewes had yeelded themſelves unto, and owned the Roman Dominion in Pompey, Caeſar, Auguſtus, and Tiberius, ere this queſtion about tribute-paying was propoſed to our Saviour. And that be, from the inſpection of that Denarius, the coyne which upon the moving of this queſtion, and his demand to have it ſh…wen, was produced, raiſed an irrefragable argument of that dedition, and from thence of their d bt of tribute-paying. And that they who ex animo, and really ſtuck at the payment of it, were a ſeditious party, diſſenting from the Body of that Nation. All this may be ſeene more at large delivered by Mr Selden **Io. Selden de jure Naturae, &c. lib. 6. cap. 17. pag. 751, &c.. What an act dedition is, let Gro…ius inform††Deditio ſponte permittit quod alioqui vis eſſet ereptura. Grot. de jure Bel. lib. 3. cap. 8. ſect. 4. Dedition is a p. 315yeelding voluntarily to that which otherwiſe force would extort.

That there was on the part of the Jewiſh Nation a rendring of themſelves up to the Roman government, yea, and a covenant of fealty, or ſubjection entred into by them upon Pompeys coming to Jeruſalem in aſſiſtance to Hircanus, and his beſieging and taking the Temple from Ariſtobulus his party (the oppoſites of Hircanus, and of the greater part of that nation) another of our moſt learned, and judicious ſearchers of Antiquity, Arch-biſhop Ʋſher, hath furniſhed us with divers teſtimonies out of Hiſtory. One is of Eutropius, viz. Pompey paſſing into Jury, tooke Jeruſalem, the Metropolis of that Nation, in the third monethmonth, killing 12 thouſand of the Jewes, and receiving the reſt into fealty **Ad Judaeos tranſgreſſus (Pompeius) Hieroſolymam caput gentis tertio menſe cepit; duodecim milibus Judaeorum occiſis, caeteris in fidem acceptis. Eutropius.. Another of Oroſius, who ſpeaking of Pompey, ſaith, He ſendeth to the City of Jeruſalem Gabinius with his Army, himſelfe preſently following, and being received of the Fathers into the City, but repulſed by the common ſort from the walls of the Temple, he begins to beſiege it; and hardly tooke it in three moneths. Thirteen thouſand of the Jewes are reported there to be ſlaine. The reſt of the people entred into a league of ſubjection ††Ad Hieroſolymam urbem eorum Gabinium cum exercitu mittit: ipſe continuò ſubſecutus, & a patribus u…be receptus, ſed a plebe muro Templi repulſus, oppugnationem ejus intendit, &c. vix tertio menſe expugnavit. Tredecim millia Judaeorum ibi caeſa narrantur. Caetera multitudo in fidem venit. Oroſius. Uſſeri Annal. part 2. pag. 262, 263.. Another teſtimony of the Jewes conſent to the Roman authority, the ſame Arch-biſhop gives us out of Joſephus, which is that I cited even now, of their willing embracement of an Ariſtocraticall government ſetled over them by Gabinius **Uſſeri Annal. pert 2. pag. 281..

Another witneſſe ſhall be Calvin, who upon the Text mainly referred to in the Objection, ſaith, The authority of the Romane Empi…e was by common uſe approved, and received among the Jewes; p. 316whence it was manifeſt that the Jewes had now of their owne accord impoſed on themſelves a law of paying the tribute, becauſe they had paſſed over to the Romans the power of the ſword **Romani Imperii authoritas communi uſu probata, receptaque erat, unde conſtabat Judaeos ipſos jam ſibi ſponte legem impoſuiſſe ſolvendi Tributi, quia Romanis gladii poteſtatem conceſſerant. Calv. in Matth. 22.19.Matt 22:19.

For this voluntarineſſe of the Jewiſh ſubjection to the Romans, and conſequently the freedome of theſe from uſurpation in relation to them, at what time our Saviour converſed on Earth among them, I have more teſtimony, of primeſt worth, but will ſpare the citing of their words, and ſhall refer my Reader to Weems, Weems Expoſition of the Judic. Law, pag. 52, 53.Grotius, Gro…. de Jure Bel. lib. 2. cap. 4. ſect. 14.and Dr. Hammond, Dr. Hammond Annot. on Matth. Chap. 22. note B.the laſt of whom I ſhall have occaſion to bring in by and by; and unto theſe may be put Chamier, before cited in anſwer to the firſt Objection.

Let us n…xt ſee what is ſaid in this matter againſt the exercitation above cited, and the Romans Title to Judea therein aſſerted, by the Book called, The Exercitation anſwered.

He (page 51.) objects againſt the Maccabean title by the conſent of one of which (Hircanus) the Romans came into the Dominion of Jew…y. But what if none of them of that race that ruled, what if the laſt of them Hircanus had not any good title? yet, if the Romans had the peoples conſent (as the exercitation aſſerteth they had) their claim might be good. But let us ſee how he avoids the Maccabean title.

Firſt, he obj…cts, That the Maccabees came in by force into the Kingdome, when there was another King, a ſucceſſor of Alexander. He ſaith, but proves it not; I anſwer him.

1 It is no concluding argument of the unlawfulneſſe of any power that they come in by force. The queſtion is, whether that force be juſt, or unjuſt? whether it be a meer force, or a force b…cked with a juſt title at its entrance? or, if it had no…, a queſtion p. 317will be further, whether it had none ſubſequently conferred, by which meanes, though the force were unjuſt in its entry, yet it might be abſolved in its continuance from uſurpative tenure? But the juſtifiableneſſe of the Maccabean armes againſt the Syrian Kings is commonly yeelded, and aſſ…rted, although there may be ſome diverſity in the way of making it out, of which the Reader may ſee in Grotius **Grot. de jure B…l lib 1. cap. 4. ſect. 7.. For them there are rendred theſe reaſons.

1 The allowedneſſe of the Subjects defenſive arms againſt their lawful Soveraign in caſe of ex…ream neceſſity, as was that of the Jewes under Antiochus. This is a ground undenyable by that anſwer.

2 But it is further to be ſaid, that at what time Mattathias the Father of the Maccabean brethren, and after him his ſon Judas, and the other in ſucceſſion raiſed armes againſt, and repelled the Seleucian oppreſſions, be that was then reigning of that race (Antiochus Epiphanes) was an uſurper, the right of ſucceſſion being in Demetrius the ſon of Seleucus, the ſon of Antiochus the G eat, and elder brother to this Antiochus. And that Demetrius being now an hoſtage at Rome, and by the Senate there detained from ſucceeding in the Kingdom, the Jews had ſome occaſion given them to aſſume the adminiſtration of the aff…irs of their own nation, eſpecially they being now under Tyran… not onelyonly as to title, but as to his imm…ne, (or Epimane, as his ſtyle is in Athenaeus **Uſſeri Annal. part 2. pag. 1. Ro…e his hiſt. lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 2.) government. And it may be noted alſo, that this Antiochus at his end vowed to God to grant the Jewes an Autonomie, that they might thence forward uſe their own Laws, and conſtitutions, and moreover wrote ſupplicatory Letters in behalfe of himſelfe, and his ſon Antiochus, whom he left to ſucceed him, to pray, and beſeech their fidelity to them both††Vide Uſſeri Annal. part 2. pag. 47. and 2 Macc. 9 13, &c.2 Macc 9:13.

2 As for the freedome of the Maccobeans Dominion in reference to their own Nation, Joſephus gives very clear teſtimony of the J wes election, and admiſſion of them, and in particular of the fore-leaders of them, Mattathias, and his ſons**Ioſ…ph. de Bel. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 1. Et Antiqu. lib. 13. cap 1, & 11..

p. 3182. He queſtions, whether the High Prieſt were capable both of a Crown, and Mitre, wherein ſome ſay he was a pattern of Antichrist.

To this blur of typifying Antichriſt, it may be replyed, Antichriſtianiſme is now grown a very common, and ſtale imputation, many having applyed it to any thing which they pleaſe to aſperſe.

2 It's ſtrange that under the Law not only Chriſt, but Antichriſt ſhould have his types.

3 How will he make it apppeare, that to weare both a Crown, and a Mitre is a property of Antichr…ſt, that is, that it doth competere to him, and to him (with his types) alone.

4 It is certain Chriſt is both King, and Prieſt, and ſo, in their modell are all Chriſtians. The Maccabees then, if in this they muſt be typicall, being they were ſuch faithful, and pious, as well as magnanimous perſons, might rather be conſtrued preſidentiall in this good, then in ſo ſoule an application.

2 But to his queſtion, let the examples of Melchiſedech, Eli, Samuel, and Jehoiada (who ſure were no patterns of Antichriſt) be conſidered, as to the lawfulneſſe of the conjunction of civill regiment with the Prieſthood. Yea, I preſume upon better enquiry it will be found that temporall power, to wit, the judgement of civill cauſes was the ordinary inveſture of the Prieſthood of Aaron by inſtitution**See Deut. 17.8, 9, 10, 11. & 19.17. 2 Chr. 19.8, 9, 10.Deut 17:8Deut 17:9Deut 17:10Deut 17:11Deut 19:172 Chr 19:82 Chr 19:92 Chr 19:10. And certainly the Prieſts that were either preſidents, or members of the Jewiſh ſupream Councel, or Sanhedrim were intereſted in ſuch a power.

3 As for the pomp, or honour of a Crown, or Kingdome, the former Maccabees never aſſumed it. The firſt that did it was Ariſtobulus, ſay ſome, Alexander his brother, and next ſucceſſor, ſay others; the latter was father to Hircanus, from whoſe hand the power paſſed upon Pompeys victory to the Romans; and the ſaid Hircanus ſate High Prieſt nine years ere the Kingdome came to him, which he had not enjoyed three moneths (ſay ſome††Monta…us. Apparatus 6. Sect. 24, 25, 26. pag. 229. Lightfoot of Temple cap. 4. ſect. 3. pag. 29.) when the difference brake out betwixt him, and his brother Ariſtobulus, p. 319which was the occaſion of calling in the Romans by Hircanus, and his party, and ſo of their ſoveraignty there.

2. He alledgeth, The covenant made betwixt Hircanus, & Ariſtobulus importing that the latter ſhould command the Kingdom; the which diſinabled Hircanus forgiving away the Kingdome after to Pompey.

Anſw. 1. Hircanus indeed forced by Ariſtobulus, yielded him up the Kingdome by ſuch a covenant; but the Chieftaines of Judea not conſen…ing, after ſet up Hircanus again upon d ſlike of Ariſtobulus, and by the aſſiſtance of Aretas the Arabian King firſt, and then of Pompey recovered it from him**Vide I…ſeph. Antiqu. lib. …4. cap. 1, 2 7, 8.. And Pompey, before his coming in, was ſought unto by both thoſe parties to determine the controverſie betwixt them††Vide Uſſe…i Annal. part 2. pag. 249, 250. 163.. Upon which he adjudging for Hircanus, and taking up his cauſe joyned with him, and his party in the oppugning and ſuppreſſing of Ariſtobulus.

3. He excepteth againſt the Roman Title by ſurrend…y of Hircanus to Pompey, upon that maxime, a King cannot paſſe away his Kingdome without their conſent. This poſition is a truth acknowledged by Sta…eſmen**See K. Iames his Remonſtr. &c. p. 207, 208. The …rraignment of the powd…r-Tr…tytors in the Earl of Nor…hampt. ſpeech, pag. 273, 309, 314. Widd…ing. Theolog. Diſput. adm. to Reader. ſect. 10., and others (ſave that ſome diſtinguiſh of a conſtitutive, and a patrimonial Kingdome, and deny it of the latte…) and from thence is voided his n…xt preceding objection of Hircanus his covenant; which for this reaſon could be no obligation to the people, or bar to the Romans title, coming in againſt Ariſtobulus. Neither doth the exe…citation at all inf inge that maxime, by founding the Roman claim upon Hircanus his ſole act; for it expreſly takes in, and brings proof of the conſent of the Nation. Which proof now comes in to be defended againſt this Anſwerer.

4. He alledgeth the words of Joſ…phus, That all the whole Nation were againſt both Hirc…nus, and Ariſtobulus for b…inging them under the ſervitude of a Kingdome, for they ſaid their cuſtome was to be governed by Gods High Prieſt, but I hope (ſaith the Anſwerer) Pompey was no Prieſt, and ther fore they did not chooſe him for thei… Governour.

p. 320To this the anſwer is eaſie. The exception of the people in this narration of Joſephus was not againſt the government of both thoſe brothers; For the ſame Author relateth the peoples acception of Hircanus to the Dominion immediately upon the death of Alexandra. And when he being of an over-ſl…w, and modeſt temper, had given way to the turbulent ſpirit of Ariſtobulus his younger brother to reigne, they roſe up (in aſſiſtance of Aretas the Arabian King) for his reſtoring to the government**Jo…eph. Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 3. Uſſeri Annal. pag. 141.. But they were ill content with their government under the title, pomp, majeſtie, and expenſiveneſſe of a Kingdome, or they blamed the annexing of a Crown to the moderate Dominion of the ancienter Aſmoneans. This was indeed an innovation (and ſo diſpleaſing) firſt introduced by the Father, or Unckle or Hircanus.

2 This complaint of the people againſt thoſe brethren is no argument to prec…ude the peoples conſent to Pompey afterward, had he taken upon him to be a King over them.

That which a people now diſliketh, they doe not ever continue to diſaffect or refuſe. Who knows not the mutability of a multitudes mindes? Sed quid turba Remi? ſiquitur fortunam, &c.

3 But as Pompey was no High-prieſt, ſo he was no King. Neither doth the Exercitator ſay they choſe him for their King. Neither doth the matter of this complaint make any thing againſt the complainers Dedition to the Romans. But in truth it did further it; For they affecting rather Hircanus his indulgent rule then Ariſtobulus an imperious, and warlike man; and not being able to keep down the latter, or enjoy the quiet of their Countrey under him, they ſubmitted to the Romans, whereby they recovered Hircanus, freed themſelves of the other brother, and had their deſire of the Romans of being rid of a Crowned High-prieſt; Pompey gratifying them in leaving Hircanus to govern them, but (ſecluſo Diademate, ſay Hiſt…r…ans exp…eſly) and in aſſociation with Antipater, p. 321as Procurator**Uſſer. Annal. pag. 261. Montacut. Apparatus, 6. Sect. 26. pag. 229.. And when about ſix years after Alexander the Son of Ariſtobulus infeſted Judea with new broyls, in his Fathers quarrell, Gabinius, the Roman Preſident of Syria, having ſubdued him, reſtored Hircanus to the H…gh Prieſt-hood onelyonly, and ſet over the Countrey certaine prefects in diſtinct circuits, wherewith the people reſted very well ſatisfied††Joſeph. Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 10. & de Bel. lib. 1. cap. 6. Uſſ…r. Annal. p. 281..

5. Whereas to prove the Jewiſh dedition the Exercitator had brought out of Joſephus, the words of Antipater to Caeſar concerning Antigonus (the ſon of the aforeſaid Ariſtobulus) his craving ayd of Caeſar againſt Hircanus, he falls foul upon the Exercitator, and charge h him with a falſe conſtruction of the Latine ſentence (for the Greek he had not) of Joſephus.

In defence of that Exercitator I ſhall but

1 Preſent the Reader with the words which the Exercitator had truly cited out of the printed Latine verſion of Joſephus, which are [Non propter inopiam deſiderare facultates; ſed ut in eos qui dediſſent Judaeorum ſeditiones accenderet.] and with the Exercitators Engliſhing of them; That he ſought not reliefe (of Caeſar) becauſe he was poor; but that he might kindle Jewiſh ſeditions againſt thoſe which had made a dedition of themſelves. I leave the Reader to judge if there be any ſuch fault in the conſtruction: And whether the Anſwerer hath dealt fairly, either with the Exercitator, in challenging him of very untruly alledging thoſe words of Antipater; or with Joſephus, in his undertaking to correct the Exercitators verſion by tranſlating him thus, He, that is, Antigonus, craved not maintenance for that he wanted, but that he might raiſe a rebellion among the Jews, and againſt them who would beſtow any thing upon him. Which of theſe two have more faithfully tranſlated the Latine above ſet, I need not take the umpirage of.

2 Propoſe betwixt them, that the concernment of the quotation in the point of validity lyes in the congruity of the matter for which it is brought (viz. to p. 322prove a dedition of the Jewes to the Romans) to the Greek of Joſephus, which is, [foreign.] It may be the Latine (about the engliſhing of which the anſwerer quarrels with the Exercitator) follows not the original overſtrictly, but the main queſtion is, whether Joſephus his owne words do not beare a dedition as clearly as the Exercitators Engliſh. That this is their importance I will not ſeem to obtrude my aſſertion upon the Reader, now he hath the words before him. OnelyOnly I ſhall let him know I am very much confirmed to take it ſo to be, having found an Antiquary, and Greek Critick of ſo great ſufficiency quoting this very paſſage for the ſame purpoſe to which the Exercitator had done, I meane the ſingularly learned Dr. Hammond; Dr. Hammond Annot on Math. 22. Note B.Matt 22who in his Annotations aſſerts of the Jewes, that they had made a dedition of themſelves to the Romans, and for it citeth the ſame place in Joſephus (viz. de Bel. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 8.) in which place there is nothing to be found that ſounds to that purpoſe, if theſe words do not. The ſame Doctors teſtimony to the thing I am arguing for, which ſhould have been given above, I have referred to this place upon this occaſion, as being very pertinent.

He affirmes in the ſame Annotation, That the Jewes, thoſe of them that were of Hircanus party, came under the Roman power by conſent, and not by force; by a choice which the factious among themſelves put them upon, and by way of dedition: while they of Ariſtobulus party looked upon the R…mans as uſurpers, and forcible poſſeſſors, and that this difference conntinued till our Saviours time: When of the Jewes ſome part acknowledged, and adhered to the Caeſarean, or Roman authority: ſome part looked upon it as an uſurpation, and of this generally were the Phariſees. And that Chriſts anſwer is punctually in favour of the Roman Emperour, eſpecially to thoſe who tooke the tribute to be his right.

Having thus weighed, and I think ſufficiently p. 323counterpoiſed the opinion of thoſe who are for the Romans, to have been uſurpers over Judea, in the time of our Saviour, by humane teſtimony, I have only to add,

2. Somewhat of reaſon againſt their ſaid opinion.

1 Had not ſo many learned men ſtood up for the juſtific…tion of the Roman dition over the Jews by their dedition, and agreement, yet it is not with probability ſuppoſeable, that their Dominion in Judea having now been continued above 90. yeares, could have been exerciſed ſo long, without ſome conſent ſufficient to legitimate it to the preſent rulers; that is, either an expreſſe, or a tacit conſent; eit er a reall conſent, or ſuch as was to be preſumed, having been continued by immemorial uſage.

2 To this title of the Romans, the confeſſion of the Jewes themſelves made at this time, ſeems to aſtipulate.

They ſaid, It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death. We have no King but Caeſar. In the former ſentence they diſavow to be in them the power of capitall puniſhment, and conſequently the ſupream authority civill; not onelyonly the naturall, or compulſory, but the legall, and Juſtifi…ble power. In the latter, they own Caeſar as their King, with an excluſive negation, or abrenunciation of all other.

3 To this alſo, that appeal of the Apoſtle Paul unto Caeſar, adds ſome ſtrength. When the Chieftains of the Jewes had challenged his tryall to belong to them, and F…ſtus alſo had moved him to agree to have had the cogniſance of his Cauſe taken at Jeruſalem; in return to them both, he aſſerteth that both his perſon, and his cauſe appertained to Ca…ſars Tribunall; and that not onelyonly in fact, but o… right, foreign, where I ought to be judged.

But there is one (the Anſwerer to the exercitation above dealt with) that pretendeth to ſome more matter of reaſon to evict the Roman uſurpation. He oppoſeth to the lawfulneſſe of their title, two other p. 324titles, which by reaſon of the venerableneſſe of their names to whom they are affixed, will ſeem to deſerve an examination ere that of the Romans can paſſe for indubitable.

1 He alledges the title of the houſe of David, and that promiſe, that there ſhall not want a man to ſit on his Throne. Unto this I ſay, There was indeed ſuch a promiſe given to David, 2 Sam 7.12. 1 Kings 2 4. which was the baſis of the title of that houſe. But it is to be obſerved that the ſame promiſe was made, Jer. 33.17. with relation to the times after the ſeventy years captivity. Now let the obj…ctor of this promiſe ſhew when, and in what ſort this in the Prophet did, or was to receive accompliſhment after the captivity: and it will eaſily appear, that the civill dominion, either of the Roman now, or of the Maccabees before, or of any other perſon was, or would have been no impeachment to that promiſe taking place, or to that title built upon it: but the one, and the other might we…l conſiſt toge…her. The event ſheweth, that the ſaid promiſe was applicable to a two-fold fulfilling.

1 Temporall, or literal, in the natural poſterity of David, and with relation to Iſrael that dwelt in Canaan.

2 Spiritual, or myſtical in the ſupernatural ſeed of David, that is, Chriſt; and with relation to Iſrael in all Nations, viz. the Church of Chriſt. And that the time was now come that the latter impletion was to take place; the which ſuperſeded not, but rather made way for the civill title of any who might have a faire call to the Throne over that Nation.

2 So far as the promi…e, and title was made to David, and his carnall ſeed, with relation to the Iſraelitiſh Nation, it was made with an expreſſe proviſo, condition, and limitation, [of which ſee 1 King. 2.3, 4 Jer. 22 2, 3, 4, 5.] the which having been long ere this entry of the Romans often, and wholly broken, the promiſe, and title as to that ſenſe of it, was void, and ſo could not ſtand as a bar to any other families capacity of that Crowne**Vide Montacut. Apparat. ſect. 26 pag. 88..

p. 3253 It is evident (what ever had become of that condition) that promiſe was made concerni…g the worldly K ngdome of that Nation to continue no longer in force then to the coming of Chriſt, in, and by whom the Kingdome of David, and his ſeed was to be changed from an earthly, to an heavenly Kingdom: which was meant by Iohn Baptiſts, Chriſts, and his Apoſtles preaching the kingdome of h…aven. Matth. 3.2.4.17.10.7.Matt 3:2Matt 3:4Matt 3:17Matt 3:10Matt 3:7By the prophecy of Jacob, the Scepter (to wit, the temporall power) was aſſured unto Judah, but untill Shiloh's coming.

2 The other title he brings to nullifie that of the Roman is, of the great ſon of David, Chriſt himſelfe, who, as Mr. Perkins acknowledgeth, Gen 49.10.Gen 49:10was right heire to the Crowne, and kingdome of the Jewes. Let that paſſe f…r cu…rant, which is the comm…n opinion, that Chriſt was in a direct line Davids next na…ural heir: yet, what ever right might deſcend upon him, a civil, or temporall title to the Crown, and Kingdome of the Iewes, cannot be concluded to paſſe unto him thereby. His ſucceſſion to David (though he took upon him his nature) was not of a civill, or earthly intereſt: as was before noted from the tenor of his preaching: and is further evident by his own denying the title, and exerciſe of a worldly Kingdome to belong unto himſelfe**John 18.36. Luke 12.14.John 18:36Luke 12:14. And this, our Divines inſiſt on, denying there was any civill dominion reſiding in him; in anſwer to the Popes advocates; who for the maintaining of a temporall power in their Pope, alledge there was a civill title to the K…ngdome of Judea in Chriſt: but this ours impugne††Vide Mont. Apparat 2. ſect. 47. pag. 9. Chamier Tom. 2. lib. 15. cap. 4. Sect. 7, &c. & cap. 16. ſect. 3, 4.10.

2 Suppoſe any right had accrued to him to the temporall Kingdome, yet this could not remain as a b…t unto the Roman, in as much as he waved, and receded from it: voluntarily taking upon him a ſta…e of poverty, and ſervitude, and ſhunning the offers of the Kingdome**Ioh 6.15, 12 36. compared with verſ. 18, 19.John 6:15John 6:12. Which he doing, either we muſt ſay, that he aſſigned his title to ſome other certaine perſon, or perſons whereby all other were excluded p. 326from it:CHAP. X. SECT. II. Subſect. 2. or that he ſo declined the uſe of it himſelfe, as that none other might aſſume it though by the Iewes agreement, but that they were neceſſarily, and of duty to be thenceforth headleſſe, or without civill government; either of which there is no ground to affirme.

Subſection 2 Of Chriſts paying tribute, Matth. 17.

HAving thus diſproved the imputation of uſurpation to the Roman Government over Judea, upon which the ſtrength of this ſecond Objection lyes; I have yet ſomething to ſay to the other part of the argument, the particulars brought to confirme the Romanes power to have been of God, and the ordinance of God, although in truth, the matter thus confirmed, is not by me denyed.

1. Chriſt himſelf paid tribute, Matth. 17.14.

1 It is a queſtion much agitated for whom that tribute was gathered; whether by Caeſars Tribute-gatherers for his uſe; or by the officers of the Temple for its ſervice. There are very learned men for each of theſe wayes. That it was for Caeſar ſay thoſe two great Antiquaries,Montacut. Orig. Eccleſ. part poſt pag. 196. Selden de jure Nat lib. 6. c. 18. Baronius ad An. 33. Num. 31. Caſaub…n Exe…cit. 15. Sect. 19. Cameron Myroth in Matth. 27.24. Weems Expoſ. of judic. Law. pag. 51. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Mat. 17 24. Selden ut ſupra.Num 31Matt 27:24Matt 17:24 Biſhop Montague, and Mr. Selden. That it was not at all for him, but for the Temple, is the reſolution of Baronius, Cameron, Caſaubon, Mr. Weems, and Dr. Hammond: beſides thoſe whom Mr. Selden citeth in his diſpute upon it, to wit, Hillary, Beza, Hottaman, Villalpandus, and Lipſius.

p. 3272 That payment was made by our Saviour with ſuch cau…ion (expla…ning the conſideration upon which it was done, to have been,CHAP. X SECT. I. Subſect. 3. not any ſtrict right acknowledged to be in the thing, as from him, but to avoid offence in an act in it ſelfe unobliging) as leaveth the title of them that claimed it (ſuppoſing it was for Caeſar) unſtated as to civill dominion over the place, or as it would have been if ſuch a thing never had been moved to, or performed by Chriſt.

Subſection 3. Of Chriſts commanding tribute-paying to Caeſar.

2 CHriſts anſwer to the Queſtion concerning the Iewes payment of tribute to Caeſar, was, Render unto Caeſar the things that are Caeſars, Matth. 22.21.

1. Some are of opinion that the words of Chriſt do not beare a command in them of that payment to that Emperour of Rome, but a generall precept only, that, whereas the matter in queſtion was a payment by the Law of God due to the ſerv…ce of the Temple, but were now alienated from it by the Roman State**Vide Calvin in Matth. 22.15. Dioda…e in verſ. 17. Dietericus in Evang. Tom. 2. pag. 601.Matt 22:15; and the Phariſees, and Herodians came in ſeditiouſly, and captiouſly upon our Saviour with this queſtion, on purpoſe to render him by his poſitive anſwer to it, obnoxious, either to the Roman State, if he ſhould deny††See Luke 20.20, 26. with cap. 23, 2Luke 20:20Luke 20:26; or to the Iewes, as an enemy to their Religion, and freedome, if he ſhould grant it: Our Saviour Chriſt, being well aware of their conſpiracy, and that he might both ſolve their queſtion, and evade their ſnare, frames his anſwer by way of a generall rule, of giving to God, and to Caeſar, each their own, without defining, what this in any particular in relation to either of them was, or which of them had the right to the payment in p. 328queſtion**For this interpretation ſee Marlor. in loc. Toſtat. in loc. q. 104. Selden de jure Nat. lib. 6. c. 17. pag. 756.. And if it be granted that the tribute was uſurped indeed from the ſervice of the Temple to Caeſars ſecular uſe, this (me thinks) appears the moſt probable Expoſition: and the Text ſeems to incline to it, making the iſſue of this anſwer in them that moved the query to be [Luk. 20.26.] And they could n…t take hold of his words before the people: and they marvailed at his anſwer, and held their peace.

If they had underſtood in his words an expreſſe, and poſitive declaration (to the hypotheſis, or particular caſe) of an obligation to make that payment to Caeſar; why? whence did they wonder? in ſtead of admiration, and ſilence, they would have broke out into exultation, as having obtained their end; and they had not been prevented of a hold upon his words before the people, but had that very handle they wiſhed for, in reference to the ſtirring up an odium in the multitude againſt him.

2. They that think otherwiſe, and ſuppoſe that our Saviours ſpeech in theſe words, accompanied with a demand of a ſight of the tribute-money, and an exact taking notice of the image, & ſuperſcription upon it to be Caeſars, and with his finger (as it were) pointing at the portraicture, and ſtyle of Caeſar upon the coyne, doth hold forth a preciſe determination for the payment of the tribute in queſtion unto Caeſar; withall do, and muſt underſtand this his deciſion to be given in terms, not expreſſing the affirmative of the queſtion, but wrapt up in a general reaſon for it, the giving to Caeſar what-ever is due to Caeſar, which laid down, and an aſſumption made out, from the inſpection of the coyn, the engraved name, and figure of the perſon upon it, with the conſideration of the adjunct of it, the Nations act of reception of that coyn, and that which by that act was ſignified, their entertainment of, and ſubmiſſion to the Roman Soveraignty, would m ke a compleat, and concluding argument for the tribute to be paid to Caeſar. Now the proſyllogiſme, or proof of the aſſumption of this a…gument (which is that which makes it beare a pa… ticular p. 339determination of the caſe) doth no leſſe expreſly aſſoyl the Roman Emperour from uſurpation,CHAP. X. SECT. II. Subſect. 4, 5. and aſſert this title to the Iewiſh dominion by that Nations conſent given, then it doth infer their duty of yielding that tribute, and is ſo a clear diſſolving of the objection we are upon**And ſo it is adjudged to be by Calv. in loc. verſ. 18. & 21. by Mr. Selden de jure Nat. lib. 6. cap. 17. pag. 761. 763. 765. and by Doctor Hammond in loc..

Subſection 4. Of Chriſts acknowledging Pilates power to be of God.

3 WHereas the Objectors ſay, Chriſt acknowledged Pilates power to be of God, Iohn 19.11. This were ſometing indeed for them, if it could be proved, that the Romans power over the Iewes was uſurped. But the evincing of this I think is foreſtalled above: And I ſhall onelyonly adde, as a further teſtimony of the contrary, the paraphraſe of Dr. Hammond upon the words of Chriſt to Pilate, here cited, which is, All power of the lawfull Magiſtrate is from God: and ſuch I acknowledge thine to be.

Subſection 5. Of the Souldiers ſerving the Roman without the diſallowance of John the Baptiſt, of Chriſt, or of his Apoſtles.

4 LAſtly, for our Saviours, his Apoſt…es and John B…ptiſts, not reprehending their followers that were officers or ſouldiers of the Romans, for their being ſo. It may make an argument (though but p. 330ſuch a one as is from teſtimony in matter of fact negativè) for the lawfulneſſe of Chriſtians to war,CHAP. X. SECT. III. and to ſerve, and acknowledge, yea, and to beare civill Magiſtracy; but this doth not come up to any advantage of the objection: for it neither carryieth in it, or hath added to it any evidence againſt the Romans title to Judea: neither doth it juſtifie any act but what might have been done if the Romans had been indeed uſurp…rs.