The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.CHAP. VI. Of the univerſal negative note, in the words, there is no power but of God.
THey that contrary to the ſenſe I have endeavoured to give, and make good, of thoſe tearms in this Text I have hitherto handled, would take the ſubject of this propoſition the word power in the largeſt ſenſe, ſo as to compriſe any ſtrong hand that by its force lifteth up it ſelf over a community; and by the predicates, of God, ordained of God, would underſtand any being of God, in what generall, and large acception ſoever can be imaginable, ſo as to include whatſoever comes to paſſe, or occurreth in the world, or hath exiſtence by eventual providence; they alſo endeavour to improve this univerſal negative annexed to that ſubject, no power; and the verb ſubſtantive, or rather its participle, in the other propoſition, the powers that he, to the ſame purpoſe, of making way for their broad ſenſe of the tearm power: arguing, that if there be no power but of God, then is an Uſurper of God; and if the powers that be, or are in being be ordained of God, then whoſoever gets a Kingdome into his hands, by whatſoever unjuſt means, yet he, ſeeing he is a power in being, is ordained of God to be the Soveraign there. Wherefore ſomewhat I ſhall alſo ſay to theſe minute particles, no power, the powers that be. Would they be content to let thoſe words (of which already) the power, of God, ordained of God, CHAP. VI. SECT. I.paſſe in their genuine and proper acceptions, which I ſuppoſe I have manifeſted to belong to them in this place; I ſhould let paſſe the ſtretch which they alſo put upon theſe particles, and not diſpute at all their ſenſe: ſeeing that, take them as generally, and widely as they …an, yet applying them to thoſe main tearms, the ſubjects and the predicates already opened, in the conſtruction before ſtated, they could not thereby alter or wrong the ſenſe of the whole ſentence, or gain any advantage by it to that large extenſion of the words. But ſuppoſing there were not evidence enough for that ſtricter, and cloſer acception of the Apoſtles ſaying, which I have offered, I will examine, whether thoſe other terms, which yet remain to be ſpoken to, muſt neceſſarily be taken as widely as they urge them, or as to be any thing complyant to their larger interpretation, and uſe of this place.
The next thing then to be conſidered is that univerſall negative, no power.
Here we are to enquire what weight there is in this univerſall particle, no, in the propoſition, there is no power but of God.
SECT. I. The Originall is not in thoſe words, [no power but of God] expreſsely univerſall.
THe Originall is ſomewhat leſſe favouring their wider ſenſe then is the tranſlation: for it doth not in terminis ſound ſo fully to an univerſall negative. It is, foreign. Which word for word ſignifies thus, The power is not but of God. It ſaith not abſolutely, and ſimply, there is no power, but relatively, the power is not; looking back to the powers immediately before mentioned in the precept, the higher powers, willed to be ſubjected unto. Whatſoever power in the civil State can be involved in …at ſtyle, the higher powers, of it the Apoſtle ſaith; it is not but of God. And if every power imaginable is to be ſo ſtyled, then may the words better paſſe in an equivalency to an univerſall, and might be all one as if the Apoſtle had ſaid, there is no power but of God. But if there be any peculiarity in that phraſe, the higher powers (of which ſomething below*Chap. 8. Sect. 2.) then muſt we ſtick to the relative reading of them, (which in truth is more literally conſonant to the Greek, and is followed by thoſe Latin Tranſlations I have to peruſe, to wit, thoſe of Beza, Montanus, Tremel…us, and the vulgar) and lay aſide that univerſall note. However needs it muſt be granted the ſafeſt, and cleareſt rendring is that which is word for word to the originall, which expreſly amounts not to an univerſall, but is, for its extent, formally indefinite; and being ſo, our Logick rule will tell us, that its quantity muſt be determinate (that is, whether it ſhall be taken equivalent to an univerſall, or to a particular propoſition) by the matter, to wit, by the neceſſity, or contingency thereof; and the matter, to wit, the ſubject, and predicate, being in controverſie, in what ſenſe (whether in a larger, or a ſtricter) they ſhall be taken, it cannot be (untill the ſenſe of thoſe tearms, be concluded to be neceſſarily thus, or thus) determined thereby. Only thus I take it to underſtand by the power a morall power, and by the tearms, of God, ordained of God, a proceeding of God by way of authorization, commiſſion, call or warrant, and then this indefinite may be anſwerable to an univerſall: but caſt off thoſe reſtrictions, (which yet I apprehend naturall, and proper to the Text) and then it cannot be ſpoken univerſally, but will amount only to a particular propoſition.
SECT. II. CHAP. VI. SECT. II.The ſeverall qualifications which ſentences in tearms univerſall do admit.
BUt admit the propoſition to be formally univerſall, and that the Apoſtle had in terminis ſaid, there is no power, but of God, or, every power is of God.
Yet we know that each ſentence that hath a note of univerſality put to it muſt not be underſtood in the utmoſt bounds that ſuch a note may ſound, or reach unto, at any time, or in any other ſentence; words univerſally ſpoken muſt be conſtrued with caution. It is a rule, dicta quantumvis univerſalis aequitatem recipiunt intepretem. It will behoove us for this purpoſe to conſider a little how univerſall propoſition (whether affirmative, or negative) as in ordinary diſcourſe, ſo in Scripture very frequently, and familiarly muſt from the ſenſe intended be qualified, and reſtrained within a ſhorter compaſſe then the univerſal note would of it ſelf bear*Vide Bezam in 1 Tim. 2.1. Mr. Needler his notes, p. 262..
1. Sometimes the univerſall affirmative, or negative meaneth not ſimply all, and every one under the ſubject contained, but only the more part, or many, as [Mark 1.5.] there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and were all baptized of him. All, that is, many, not all to a man; [Phil. 2.21.] all ſeek their own, &c. that is, many, or the moſt do ſo. [John 12.32.] I will draw all men unto me: that is, a great number.
2. Sometimes it ſignifies indiſcriminately, in reference to a multiplicity of perſons, or things, all, that is, every ſort, or of one ſort as well as another; and not diſtributively every ſingle perſon, or thing without exception, or not collectively all ſingulars, ſo as to leave out none under thoſe ſorts comprehenſible. [1 Sam. 20.26.] Saul ſpake not any thing that day; not as if he were quite mute all the day from all diſcourſe, but he ſpake nothing concerning that matter of Davids abſence; [Acts 2.17.] I will pour out of my Spirit upon all fleſh; that is, not upon all and every perſon in the world, but upon all without diſtinction of nation, Jew as well as Gentile; [1 Tim. 2.1.] That ſupplications, &c. be made for all men; that is, for men of all ranks, and ſtates, [ver. 6.….] Who gave himſelf a ranſome for all. That men pray every where. Chriſt gave himſelf for all, that is, for all ſorts and conditions of men, and of ſingulars under all thoſe ſorts for ſome of each, but not for all Individuals, or particular perſons unto all thoſe ſorts reducible. And men muſt pray every where, that is, in one place as well as an…ther, importing the ceaſing of that peculiarity of place, which was under the Law; yet they might not play ſimply every particular where without exception, they might not goe and pray before an Idoll, or amidſt an aſſembly of Idolaters in the Idols Temple; [1 Cor. 10.25.] Whatſoever is ſold, &c. that eat, &c. [1 Tim. 4.4.] Every Creature of God is good, and nothing to be refuſed. That is, any kind of thoſe Creatures that are good for food might then be eaten; yet if any individuall of thoſe was ſtrangled, or the bloud of any they might not eat*Act. 15.29.; [Mat. 4.23.] Jeſus went about, &c. healing every ſickneſſe, and every diſeaſe. [and ver. 24.] They brought unto him all ſick people; Every, and all, that is, ſome of each ſort, for every diſeaſe of every perſon he healed not†Mark 6.5..
3. The univerſall Note ſometimes ſignifies every particular, or ſingular, but not of the Genus, or ſubject ſpoken of generally taken, but of one ſpecies, or ſpecial kinde only contained under that genus; and ſo the univerſality muſt not be ex…ended abſolutely, but ſecundum quid, or to one Claſſis, or ſort only of the things, or perſons named. [1 Cor. 6.12.] All things are lawfull unto me; —all things are lawfull for me, all things here means not ſimply all, not Idolatry, Adultery, 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 ſubj…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 vari…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 larg…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 al…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 Ʋzziah, 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 there is none but is of God; that is, whereas there are divers ſpecies of civil power, as Kings, and Potentates, Ariſtocraticall, and Democraticall; and wheras there are divers degrees of powers, that is, ſupreme, and ſubordinate, in ſeverall graduall diſtinctions, and whereas there are divers ſorts of power in regard of the qualifications of their perſons, and governments; as for their Religion, ſome Chriſtian, ſome Jewiſh, ſome Pagan; and for adminiſtration, ſome being juſt and propitious, others being unrighteous and perſecuting. There are none of theſe kinds, degrees, or ſorts (taking the univerſall to intend gen…ra ſingulorum, not ſingula generum) but they are of God; and this is the very conſtruction which both Beza, and Pareus give of theſe words. And this conſtruction, moreover, beſt ſuits with that which the whole ſtream of Interpreters (as far I can obſerve) judge to be the proper occaſion, and ſcope of the Apoſtles diſcourſe of this ſubject, of civil policy, in this place, to wit, that whereas the Chriſtians then, or ſome of them did, or might make queſtion of ſubjection to the higher powers, in reference to the Rulers, being unchriſtian, unjuſt, and tyrannicall as to exerciſe of Government, his drift is to charge the duty of obedience upon them with relation even to ſuch Magiſtrates: and to argue them unto a ſubmiſſion to it as applyed to ſuch, he reaſons chiefly from the Divine ordination, and warrant of the powers unto their office, and plainly averres, whatſoever they be for perſonall qualification, or manner of Government, yet, if they be higher powers, indeed, they have their place, and calling from God, and therefore are to be obeyed.
The Apoſtle elſewhere beſpeaking Chriſtians for one particular duty to theſe higher powers, to wit, to pray, and give thanks for them, he extends this duty univerſally to all them that are in authority, [1 Tim. 2.1.] yet, as Beza obſerves, this univerſall muſt be taken thus indiſcriminately, that is, in reference to all ſorts, and not diſtributively to all ſingle perſons in authority, to wit, that heathen as well as Chriſtian, miſgoverning as well as good Magiſtrates are to be prayed for. Otherwiſe (ſaith he) there may be found ſome one particular Ruler that may be excepted out of the verge of the Chriſtians prayers (ſuch an one as Julian the Apoſtate was) who may have ſinned the ſin un…o death.
Me thinks there cannot be a place more parallel to theſe words, there is no power but of God, ordain…d of God, both for ſubject matter, and for illimitedneſſe in tearms, or words then that of Solomon, Prov. 8.15. By me Kings reign, and Princes decree juſtice: By me Princes rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the earth. Whether we underſtand theſe words of God, (as uſually they are taken) or of Wiſdome, unto him, or if the uſe, exerciſe and adminiſtration of the power is aſcribed as generallly, and indefinitely, as is the being, and ordination of the power attributed unto God in this ſentence of the Apoſtle. But from that indefinite ſpeech of Solomon, no man may gather it was in his intention, and drift to own, or father every act of every King, Prince, Noble, and Judge, upon either God or Wiſdome; the words muſt needs be underſtood only of ſuch acts of thoſe perſons as are juſt, righteous, and prudentiall. Certainly there are acts of rule (ſuch as are rehearſed, Pſal. 2.2. the Kings, and Rulers of the earth ſet themſelves, and conſult againſt God, and Chriſt, and a thouſand more unlawfull courſes of ſuch) which muſt of neceſſity be excluded from that generall ſaying. Now as from thoſe indefinite words we muſt not inferre that all acts of Magiſtrates are from God, ſo neither may we conclude from the like indefiniteneſſe of theſe words of the Apoſtle, that ſimply, and univerſally every power that is in being (any way whatſoever) is of God, by his ordination.
Whatever any one may judge of the congruity of any of theſe limitations unto the univerſall note ſuppoſed in this Text, yet I think no conſiderate Reader but will eaſily grant that ſome ſuch reſtriction muſt be admitted to the words. We have before diſtinguiſht of a fourfold lawfulneſſe, and unlawfulneſſe in powers. Now it muſt needs be yeelded that powers in ſome of thoſe four wayes unlawfull muſt be debarred the Text, and conſequently that the propoſitions in it muſt receive ſome limitation unto powers that are lawfull.
Among other falſe pretenders to power by vertue of the Text, the Pope comes in; and he offereth injury to this place more wayes then one. Among the reſt, he, and his Doctors for him, challenge power to make laws to bind the Conſciences of all Chriſtians;Bellarmin, To. r. Controv. Gen. 3. i. e. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 16. loc. 6. Whitaker, To. 2. Controv. 4. qu. 7. p. 710 b. Chamier To. 2. lib. 15. cap. 17. Sect. 3. and one warrant pretended to for it by them, is this Text; and in it they urge the indefiniteneſſe, or unlimitedneſſe of the words. Non eſt poteſtas niſi à Deo, (which they ſay) is equivalent to this univerſall, Omnis poteſtas eſt à Deo. All power is of God: and thence they argue, if every power be of God, then the ſaid power of the Pope to rule, and binde the conſcience of all Chriſtians is of God. To his claim upon this ground we have no anſwer if we grant him the words to hold in an abſolute univerſall form. But, to cut off this his forged pretence, we reply, the Text aſſerts not ſimply of every power, that it is of God, but of that power which is by other rules of Scripture juſtifiable, and lawfull. If then to rid our hands of this corrupt gloſſe we muſt be driven to confeſſe the indefinite, (or ſay it be univerſall) form of theſe words muſt needs admit of a confinement, to lawfull, warranted powers; it is enough to barre out the argument, from the illimitedneſſe of the propoſition. And further, then it will be ſaid this lawfull, muſt either exclude powers in any ſenſe unlawfull, or in ſome ſenſe only, if the latter, then ſome good reaſon muſt be given why one ſort of unlawfull power ſhould not be ſhut out of the Text by it as well as another; which I expect will never be aſſigned: If the former, then is power unlawfull as to title, or uſurped power chaſhiered the Text.
But this may ſuffice for the diſcuſſion of the univerſal negative, there is no power but of God.