The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate, Chapter 7

The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate · Chapter 7

p. 216CHAP. VII.CHAP. VII. Of the being of the Powers, in that propoſition, the powers that be are ordained of God.

THE only tearm in the Text remaining to be cleared, and vindicated is the being of the powers, in that indefinite affirmative, the powers that be are ordained of God.

I will not inſiſt on that reading of ſome which ſo placeth the words, and putteth the comma, as that it cuts off all pretence to that uſe of them which ſome make from this, or any other of the tearms of this Text, in behalf of the unentitled, or uſurping powers: Which is this, the powers that be of God, are ordain'd; but take them in their ordinary, and to them moſt favourable reading: and ſo the defenders of an obligation to unlawfull powers do much lay hold, and inſiſt on this tearm. For this purpoſe they obſerve the word to be in the participle foreign, which they tranſlate in being; the powers that are in being, putting an high emphaſis upon that word, and urging that the being, or exiſtence in rerum naturâ of any power brings it into this Text, and under this pred c…te of being ordained of God. Whereas foreign is but put for foreign, as it is wont often to be, and therefore tranſlated by our Interpreters be. But however let them enjoy this foreign, let it be the powers that are in being, there would be in this no colour of an argument at all, did they (as was before ſaid) take p. 217the ſubject ſpoken of, the powers in its proper ſenſe;CHAP. VII. SECT. I. but let that be ſet aſide alſo, and try we what they can make of this word.

SECT. I. The queſtion moved, wherein conſiſts the being of the power, or, what it is that makes the power to be.

THe queſtion here will be (in the midſt of all the ſtrong urging of it) what muſt be meant by the being of the power? or, what it is for the power to be? or, wherein the being of the power, the Ratio formalis of it, conſiſts? or, what it is that puts a power in being? There are that tell us the being of a higher power, or that which makes the power to be, or one to be a power, is his actuall prepotency, or his preſent ruling, or his holding the ſword de facto, or his plenary poſſ…ſſion of ſuperiority. In this Text (ſay they) the powers that be are the perſons that occupy the place of rule, that have the Militia in their hand, or prevail with their ſword, or that hold (however they come by them) the reins of G…vernment in their hand. The taking up of this (at firſt ſight or bluſh without further examining) to be the meaning of the words, is that which hath carryed away ſome to a ſtrong imagination, either of a Uſurpers right, or of a duty of obedience to him, as the ordinance of God; and hath ſtaggered others to an unreſolvedneſſe about it. Notwithſtanding to me this ſeems to be an overhaſty, raw, and indigeſted interpretation of the Text.

p. 218CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 1.SECT. II. Reaſons to prove that prevalency, or actuall poſſeſſion of the ſeat of Government doth not make or inferre one to be the power.

TO paſs by what was above noted (Cap. 1. Sect 2.) that in Scripture we finde foreign put for ſuch a power, as doth not neceſſarily import, or depend upon poſſeſſion, but is ſeparable from it, and that ſometimes, not only de facto, but de jure: my Reaſons for what I ſay of this definition of the being of the powers are theſe.

Subſection 1. Argument 1. Taken from the nature of exiſtence.

THe being, or exiſtence of a thing is eductio rei extra cauſas, the putting, or extraction of a thing out of its cauſes. Its cauſes, that is, thoſe proper cauſes, that have a power or faculty to produce that thing. If then actuall poſſeſſion, or prepotency do neceſſarily carry with it the productive act, or acts of thoſe cauſes which are qualified to produce the power in the Text, and that it can be ſaid where ever there is a holding of actuall Rule, or a p. 219maſtering ſword over a people, there muſt needs be the concurrence of thoſe cauſes which conſtitute, or create a civil Magiſtrate, then is it true, that actual prevalency makes, or argues the ſaid power to be in being. But I ask what cauſe, or efficient of the civil power doth actuall regency neceſſarily, and individually import, or put into act? a man might be in that condition of actual prepotency if God had never ordained Magiſtracy to be, or though, having ordained Magiſtracy to be, yet, he ſhould not have given this man any commiſſion to be the Magiſtrate, yea though he ſhould expreſſely have given out a prohibition that he ſhould not be a Magiſtrate, and though the people over whom he bears ſway, and all the world beſides, (only himſelf, and his ſtrong hand by which he carries it excepted) were utterly, and profeſſedly diſſenting, and oppoſite to it.

That its evident that actual rule may be where there is no concurrence of the cauſes intereſted, and capable to produce a civil power, I ſhall need further to alledge no other medium, but the nature, or definition of Uſurpation (as the word hath reference to civil policy.) What is uſurpation, but the aſſumption, and uſe of the preheminencies, and acts peculiar to the office of the Magiſtrate without a lawfull call, title, or admiſſion to that office; which lawfull calling, entitling, or admiſſion to that office is the proper act, or acts of thoſe agents who are competent to conferre this office? If then this be the nature of uſurpation, and there be, or can be ſuch a thing as uſurpation in the world, there may be actuall rule without the concourſe of the cauſes whoſe place, and faculty it is to convey the civil power; and conſequently it is not actuall rule which doth put the civil power in being, or inferre its exiſtence.

p. 220CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 2.Subſection 2. Argument 2. From the abſurdity of admitting Satans, and the Popes uſurped powers upon the ground of actual rule.

2. THe command, and rule of ſome over the Kingdomes of the world actually challenged, and poſſeſſed by them will (I doubt not) be diſclaimed by the very authors, and urgers of this large expoſition of the being of the power, and not admittab…e into this Text; and if ſo, then they muſt confeſſe meer prevalency, or actuall ſway doth not give being to, or hold forth that power of which the Text ſpeaks. The antecedent is proved by a double inſtance, one of Satan, the other of the Pope.

1. Satan we finde claiming to himſelf the poſſeſſion, and diſpoſall of the power, and glory of all the Kingdomes of the world, [Luke 4.6.] and for the reality of his poſſeſſion, or actuall predominancy, when he made this challenge, yea, and ever ſince, certainly it was, and is true, if not of all, yet of many of this worlds Kingdomes: for which reaſon he is ſtiled, the God of this world, and principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkneſſe of this world, the Prince of the power of the aire. Now if he, or any from him ſhould by vertue of this poſſeſſion, and the authority of this Text ſo extended, demand the civil ſubjection of any Kingdome, or perſon, what ſhould be ſaid to this demand? If you ſay, though he have poſſeſſion, yet he hath no right, that is to abandon meer poſſeſſion from being that which makes or proves one to be the p. 221power, and to yield me the queſtion. If you ſay, being not a humane perſon, he is not meant in this T…xt, this puts a limitation on the words beyond the bare being of one in poſſeſſion of rule; and I ſhall require to have proved how a reſtriction in regard of perſon is more impoſeable on the words, then a reſtriction in regard of title or right.

2. The Pope of Rome, and his Doctors, (both Divines, and Canoniſts) in his behalf lay claim to a temporall power, direct, or indirect, over all the Nations, and Potentates in the world, (as ſome of them) over all Chriſtian Kings, and people, (as others ſay:) and as he claims, ſo it muſt not be denyed but he hath generally, over Chriſtendome, poſſeſſed and exerciſed this power, and doth ſtill in many of the European Territories, and elſewhere: and one reaſon alledged for this his claim is this of poſſeſſion, continued poſſeſſion: He preſcribes, and challenges to be the powe…, becauſe he hath obtained, and held it. The Jeſuite Parſons urgeth for the Popes temporall power againſt King James (as appears in his Apology)**K. James his Epiſtle to all Chriſtian Monarchs, &c. pag 32. this reaſon. And it is obſervable, that at this time, now the argument from actuall predominancy is ſo much in requeſt, the Papiſts get hold of, and preſſe it againſt us, in this very point of the Popes Supremacy, as appears by Dr. Hammonds reply to the Catholique Gentlemans Anſwer ††Dr. Hammond his Reply, &c. cap. 4. pag. 45.. Now if meer actuall prevalidity make, or inferre one to be a civil power, authorized by this Text, my demand is, how ſhall we avoid the argument, and reject this pretenſion of the Pope? Either we muſt ſuffer theſe words, the powers that be, to be more confineable then to ſignifie only a bare act of rule, and ſway, or elſe I am fully confident we ſhall be to ſeek for our defence againſt this allegation.

1. If any think to eſcape it by ſaying the Pope claims a power unlawfull in it ſelf, or for matter; or what is unlawfull for any man to have. The reply will be ready: whatever be the exorbitant ex enſions, or preſumptions of his Eccleſiaſticall p. 222power, that temporall power which he ſtandeth for is another diſtinct thing from it (as appears by thoſe Popiſh Doctors who aſſert the one, and deny the other**As Barclay, Widdrington, and others.) and is not in it ſelf unlawfull, it being the ſame for ſubſtance which the Roman Emperour held before him, and the German now holdeth within his preſent precincts in reference to the free Princes and States of that Territory: in which reſpect the Pope is ſuppoſed to be the ſecond Beaſt, which ſucceedeth, reviveth, and exerciſeth the room, and power of the firſt††Mr. Medes Diatrib. To. 4. pag. 450, 451., [Revel. 13.] and if in any thing he aſſumeth an exceſſive power in temporalls, or which is not for matter allowable, this exception would ſeclude him from ſo much of his claim only as were in reſpect of humane competency unwarrantable, and leave him the reſt. For that a Paramont dominion, or an Imperiall power over a multitude of diſtinct Common wealths and Soveraign Princes is lawfull in it ſelf, I take to be an uncontroulable truth.

2. If it be further ſaid, the Pope is a perſon uncapable of civil power; or of being a temporal Lord, as being an Eccleſiaſticall perſon or Clergyman. To let paſſe the queſtion of an Eccleſiaſticall perſons capacity of civil Magiſtracy; and the urging that many now (and perhaps moſt of thoſe that are againſt me in this controverſie) deny the diſtinction of Clergy, and Laity in that very ſenſe wherein this objection intends it. It will ſuffice to reply againſt this evaſion,

1. That it is not ſimply neceſſary to a perſons inveſtiture with the Popedome that he be (as they ſpeak) a Prieſt. One may be choſen and made Pope that is not with them entred into the order of Prieſthood. John the 20. (or, according to ſome the 21.) was of a L…y-man choſen Pope**Chamier, To. 2. l. 16. cap. 16. Sect. 13. Platina in vit. Johan. 21. p. 165. Spondanus ad An Dom. 1024.. Benedict the 9. is ſaid to have been choſen Pope at ten years of age, and it is confeſſed by their own Authors he was no Prieſt††Spondanus ad An. 1033. Onulphrius, An. 1032. Dr. Featly, Roma ruene, p. 18.. I read alſo of Amadeus Duke of Savoy, that he was elected Pope by the Councell of Baſill when he was but a Lay-man, p. 223and that after his election (ſome diſtance of time) he received their ordination**For his election Platina in vita Eugenii 4. p. 310. Onuph. An. 1439. For his unordainedneſſe ſee Fox, Acts &c. To. 1. pag. 903. Roſſes Hiſt. l. 4. c. 4. pag. 350, 351.: And though it be true that it's ſaid before his Coronation he took the order, yet that alters not the caſe as to the reply, their Doctors teaching that a Pope is made, and hath all the rites of his Popedome by his election, and before his inauguration††Tolet. de inſtruct. Sacerdotis, lib. 1. c. 40. Sect. 3. p. 185.. Thoſe Popes therefore that were choſen Laicks had for that time before their Prieſthood none of this objection, lying againſt their competency for a temporall dominion.

2. But ſuppoſe he could not be Pope with them that had not their Prieſthood, yet they that held it a juſt exception againſt a perſons capacity of bearing civil Magiſtracy, that he is a Miniſter of the Goſpel, upon that of our Saviour [Luk. 22 26.] will not (I ſuppoſe) acknowledge the Pope by vertue of his Prieſthood, or any other means to be a Miniſter of the Goſpel.

3. It is commonly acknowledged by our Proteſtant writers (as far as I underſtand) that the Pope in the proper Territories belonging to his Signiory, as Romania, and the reſt in Italy, called the land of the Church (the means of his Inſtalement therein, whether the conſent of the Roman people upon the decay of the Exarchate of Ravenna, or the gifts of King Pepin, and of Charles the great his Son, or of the Counteſſe of Mathilda, or whatever elſe is alleadged**Vide Ch… mier, To. 2. lib. 16. cap. 19. Sect. 7. &c., here is no place to ſearch into) is to be owned, and obeyed as other lawfull Princes are in their dominions, upon the ſuppoſall that he is the lawfull Potentate thereof††See Par. on Rom. 13.1. pag. 246.Rom 13:1. Accordingly then they that hold, that perſon is to be obeyed, and owned as the power in being, and ſo of God, in any Countrey that hath poſſeſſion of the Supream power there, they muſt acknowledge the Pope to be the power in being, (in the Supream temporall Lordſhip) in all the Dominions where he actually prevaileth to have it.

Suppoſe any of us now living had been in the time when the Popes temporall power paramon… p. 224that of the King, was queſtioned, and upon queſtioning aboliſhed by an act of State, and our conſent had been required to the ſaid act, or our oath of abrenunciation of him, what ſhould we in conſcience have done? On the one hand the right was confeſſed to be in the King, on the other poſſeſſion (by a long accuſtomed uſurpation) was in the Pope. If this were the ſenſe of the Text, meer actuall poſſeſſion makes one to be the power, to wi…, that power that is of God, ordained of God, we ſhould have been bound in conſcience by this Text to have oppoſed the King, and State in the ſame act, and ſided with the Pope.

To conclude this argument then, either we muſt refuſe this poſition, actuall domination makes a civill power, or we muſt allow to the Pope his Temporall ſupremacy, both unto the reproof, and condemnation of thoſe Proteſtants who have caſt it off; and to the eſtabliſhing of him in it wherever he yet poſſeſſes it, by the diſallowing of thoſe that are de facto ſtill under it to put it off; and theſe are the fruits of this (truly Popiſh) Doctrine. Shall we ſuppoſe him ſtill to be the Antichriſt, the man of ſin, the Beaſt, and his City to be the whore of Babylon; and profeſſe ſo much to be for the ruine of him under theſe names, and yet make him ſo large a Grant in the matter, and point which is moſt for his promoting, and ſecuring?

p. 225Subſection 3. CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 3.Argument 3. From the cuſtome of hereditary Kingdomes accounting the ſucceeding to be King in the moment of the deceaſe of his predeceſſor, without actual inveſture.

3. I Thus argue. If a government by hereditary ſucceſſion be lawful, and in it the predeceſſor dying, or otherwiſe ceaſing, the ſucceeding heire is immediately the power, or the ſupream Magiſtrate, without, or before actual poſſeſſion, acknowledgment, or inveſture by the Eſtates, or people over whom he is the power; then it is not actual poſſeſſion which puts the power in being. But a government by hereditary ſucceſſion is lawful, and in it the Predeceſſor ceaſing, the heire is the power in being without further act done by him, or paſſed by the people, or any other. The firſt of theſe premiſſes is evident, and the latter will need little proof. The firſt part of it, that an hereditary govergment is lawfull, is atteſted by Scripture, by the generall conſent of Nations, expreſſed both by lawes, and practiſe, by the lawes of this Land, which have not onelyonly ſetled this government, but made it Treaſon to affirme the contrary, and by the votes, and pens (as of other Authors, ſo) of our beſt Proteſtant Writers, Divines, and others unanimouſly aſſerting it. And for the later, that in hereditary government the ſucceſſor is the power in being immediately, and without more adoe, upon the ceaſing of his Predeceſſor, is a poynt alſo generally ſubſcribed unto.**See Hooker his Eccleſiaſt. pol. li. 8. p. 154. Chamier To 2. li. 15. cap. 10 ſect. 19. Treat. of Monarchy, part 1. cap. 3. ſect. 7. Stat. of 1 Jac. 1. King James his Remonſtrance againſt Card. Perron, p. 154.

p. 226CHAP. VII. SECT. III. Subſect. 4.Subſection 4. Argument 4. From the lawfulneſſe and uſefulneſſe of fundamental Lawes, and proviſions for the future continuance of Government by ſuccesſion, and againſt encroachers upon the ſame.

4. IF it be lawful, and neceſſary (as well as it is the univerſal practice of Common-wealths) to make and ordain fundamental lawes, conſtitutions, and proviſions about government, for the upholding and continuing of it, and for the tranſmitting and tranſferring of it from hand to hand, whether by ſucceſſion, election, or otherways upon the death, or other change of the preſent Magiſtrate, and for the preventing, reſiſting, puniſhing, and ſuppreſſing of the violators thereof, then is it not the meer in being, or actual ſeiſing of rule, and command which makes the power. But the aforeſaid courſe is lawful and neceſſary.

This minor (I ſuppoſe) will be unconteſted in all the parts of it**Vide Grot. de jure Bel. lib. 1. cap. 4, ſect. 17.. If the latter part, the lawfulneſſe of ordaining Laws for the riſiſtance, and proſecution of intruders, and incroachers againſt fundamental conſtitutions, be queſtioned, the generality of this Nation, even every one that hath participated actively in the late Wars, (what party ſoever they have led, or followed) have manifeſted their conſent to it. For the true ſtate of the difference was the intruſions upon the fundamental Laws concerning the intereſt of government, which each accuſed other mutually of; which ſuppoſed intruſions, and incroachments were in things lawful in themſelves, as the power of impoſing taxes, diſpoſing of the Militia, and interpreting lawes, and the like; only the intereſt therein which on both ſides the one aſſumed, the other denyed p. 227to belong unto him, or them,CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 4. was that which each of the two oppoſites gave out to be the cauſe of their debate, and war.

For the conſequence of the major that may alſo eaſily appear good. For if the actual poſſeſſor be the power of God, then it muſt needs be both unlawful, and a frivolous thing to make ſuch conſtitutions, and being made to in force, or vindica…e them, either by the civil, or martial ſword from violation: and, vice verſâ, if ſuch Laws be lawful, and neceſſary, then meer actual poſſeſſion doth not conſtitute any one to be the power.

It muſt (I ſay) needs be unlawful to make ſuch lawe… if the Word of God determine the actual poſſeſſor to be the power; for the direct, and proper uſe, and formal reaſon of ſuch conſtitutions is to inhibite all invaſion upon the government, or entrance upon it otherwiſe then according to ſuch conſtitution, and to diſapprove, illegitimate, and condemn it, if it be done; the uſe then, and nature of ſuch conſtitutions, is to croſſe and thwart that which the Word of God enacteth, and therefore they are in their making unlawful, and unjuſt. And it muſt needs be as frivolous, and vain to make them. For let us ſuppoſe the fundamental Laws of a Common-wealth to appoint a Prince, or Senate to the Supream power, but for a limited terme, as for a ſtinted number of dayes, moneths, or years, as the Roman Conſuls, the Carthaginian Kings, and the Theban Boeotarchae were**Greg. Tholoſ. Syntag. Iuris li. 18. cap. 1. ſect. 16, 17.: and at the end of the ſaid terme that Prince, or Senate ſhould declare their will, and reſolution to continue ſtill in the power, and ſhould accordingly hold it, notwithſtanding ſuch fundamental Law to the contrary; by this opinion ſuch perſons being actually poſſeſſed are the power ordained of God; and to what purpoſe then ſhould ſuch laws be made to confine, or diſſolve their power by a prefixed time; & when they are made, of what force, or authority can they be? And if any execution be of ſuch Laws, as if a Senate will, and do ſit beyond the time preſcribed in the fundamental order, and he, or they that are by it impowred p. 228upon the expiration of the time to diſſolve the ſitting,CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 5. do undertake to do it, what juſtifiableneſſe can there be in ſuch an act, ſeeing they are in poſſeſſion of Rule, and therefore (according to this opinion) the ordination of God, and therefore to be owned, let to ſtand, and by no no meanes in or from their power reſiſted, depoſed, or diſſolved.

Subſection 5. Argument 5. From the practiſe of Nations owning them for their Soveraign powers who have not actually ruled.

5. BY the common ſentence, and judgement (both of States and Nations, and of Books, and Authors of policy) authority, or ſupream power is ſeparable from actual regency, or command. In the generall account they are taken, & acknowledged for the higher powers, who doe not at all exerciſe any authority, either by themſelves, or others, perſonally, or by proxie. In the caſe of a P…inces deficiency of the uſe of Reaſon, as through infancy, madneſſe, or dotage, and in caſe of his want of liberty to exerciſe government in his Dominion, being diſ-inabled by captivity, or expulſion; In ſuch caſes, either the ſtanding Lawes of the Kingdome, or the act of the State pro re nata, appoints both the Tutelage of the impotent Prince, if he be with them, and the adminiſtration of his Kingdome, during that his deficiency, or reſtraint unto ſome others, as Curators, Regents, or Protectors in his behalf. Hence they d…ſtinguiſh in this caſe Jus ab uſu juris, the right of Magiſtracy from the uſe of it; and Actum primum ab actu ſecundo, the firſt act of power, which is the being of the power, the eſſe magiſtratus, from the ſecond, which is the act of Rule.**Vide Grot. de jure Bel. lib. 1. cap. 3. ſect. 15. & 24. And the caſe is the ſame in a diſturbed eſtate, whether it be by inteſtine commotion of Subjects againſt their Soveraign, or by forein, hoſtile invaſion, or by competition of divers p. 229titulars to the Throne. In every of theſe caſes the power ſuſpended from exerciſe, either by an inherent, or an adjacent impediment, is yet in being; and though regnancy, or the ſecond act of Magiſtracy be interrupted, yet the firſt act, the relation of Soveraign, and Subjects may ex ſt, and remain.

For inſtances of this nature, I ſhall refer to theſe few more largely to be found in their reſpective hiſtories; The people of Iſrael, who had riſen up with, and for Abſalom againſt King David; at the ſame time when they ſaid, David was fled out of the land, do yet own him for their King, and conſult about his reduction from beyond Jordan into the repoſſeſſion of his Kingdome, as upon that account, or ground: and they that did thus, the Text ſtiles them, all the people throughout all the t…ibes of Iſrael: and all the men of Iſrael (it again ſaith) challenged a part, and right in him, as their King in that condition, yea, ten parts, and more right, in d…ſtinction from the men of Judah; and thereupon they conteſt with them of Judah that their advice was not firſt had in b…inging backe their King.

During the ſeventy yeares captivity of Judah under the Babylonian, we finde ſeverall perſons ſucceſſively named, and noted as the Princes of Judah: and, which is remarkable, they are put in the pedegree of Chriſt, that is drawn down from David: and it is further to be noted, that the line of Chriſts pedegree takes in both them and others, who are generally accounted to follow the immediate predeceſſors to whom they are ſub-joyned, not by natural generation, but by way of legal ſucceſſion; to ſhew (as it is conceived) that Chriſt was deſcended of thoſe who were not only of Davids blood, and ſtock, but of the Royal dignity, though not alwayes in reſpect of poſſeſſion, and enjoyment of the throne, yet in title, and right; and in the acknowledgment of the Jewes, ſo far they could own them: and that the propheſie of Jacob (the ſcepter ſhall not depart, &c. Gen. 49.10.) was fulfilled: For, though they had not always Monarchical Government actually ſwaying in the p. 230line of Solomon, nor in any of Davids ſeed, nor in any of Judah's tribe, yet they had ſtill ſome kinde of politie, and royalty in being in the Jewiſh Nation, and kept up, or ſuſtained either by the Eth…rohs of Davids ſtock, as their chief national Magiſtrates under, & after the captivity, or by ſome of the Jewiſh nation, though of another tribe, as it was by the Maccabean race, and after them by ſome Chieftains of that people, ſtill continuing a dictinct Common-wealth, though in ſubjection to Herod, or the Romans, until Chriſt was born, and ſome time after until the gathering of the Gentiles unto Chriſt, as his Church, & the deſolation of the Jewiſh Church & State by Veſp…ſian.

Accordingly we finde Jehojakim in Babylon, when he had been in priſon there 37 yeares, yet then, and in that condition ſtiled the King of Judah, and withall, ſome ſtate and dignity of a King yielded him by the Babylonian Emperour. [2 Kings 25.27. Jer. 52.31.] of which exaltation of Jehojakim the King muſt (I take it) be underſtood that of the Prophet [Ezek. 29.21.] In that day will I cauſe the horn of the houſe of Iſrael to bud forth. Which phraſe (of the horns budding forth) being interpreted by that of [Pſal. 132.17.] There will I make the borne of David to bud] muſt needs intend the reviving of the royal dignity in Davids family.**See Divines Annotat. on Ezek. 29 21.Ezek 29:21

After him Salathiel ſtill at Babylon is called the captain, or prince of the people. ††Princeps populi. Junius. Dux populi. Uſher. Vide Uſheri Annal. part 1. p. 138.[2 Eſdras 5.16.] and the reaſon is taken to be, for that he was appointed, and declared by Jeconiah his heir, and next ſucceſſor.**Mr. Lightfoot his Harmony of the O. Teſt. part 2. pag. 180. & Harmony of N. Teſt. page 56. This Salathiel (or Shealtiel) is named Jeconiah's ſon [1 Chron. 3 17. Matth. 1.13.] yet he was not his natural ſon, for Jeconiah was childleſſe [Jer. 22.30.] and Salath…el was the natural ſon of Neri, [Luke 3.27.] but he is reckoned as his ſon in regard that Solomons line ended in Jeconiah, and then came in Nathans poſterity in right of legall ſucceſſion to the throne of David, of which the next heir then was this Salathiel.††See D…v. Annot. & Diodat. on 1 Chr. 3.17. Ezr. 10 8. Mat. 1.12. & Luke 3.27.1 Chr 3:17Ezra 10:8Matt 1:12Luke 3:27

In like manner Zorobabel ſucceedeth Salathiel, as the prince of that people, and he was their leader p. 231out of Babylon into Judea, and the governour,CHAP. VI. SECT. II. Subſect. 5. and chiefe actor in the reſtauration there. He is called Shezbazzar the Prince, (for Shezbazzar was his Chaldee name) [Ezra 1.8.2.2.3.2.] and he is ſtiled the ſon of Salathiel, [Ezra 3.2. Matth. 1.12. Luke 3.27.] whereas it appears he was the ſon of Pedaiah, who was Shealtiels brother, [1 Chron. 3.17, 18, 19.] So that naturally he was Shealtiels nephew, yet he is reckoned his ſon, as being his heir, and legal ſucceſſor, in the head-ſhip of the Nation. Thus we ſee theſe three, Jehoiakim, Salathiel, and Zorobabel, ſucceſſively ſuſtaining the Princedome of that people during the 70 yeares captivity, and untill the reduction. Unto all which we may add that David (that is, the houſe and ſucceſſors of David) is ſundry times called the King of Iſrael, and Judah, even then during the captivity, and actual diſpoſſeſſion of the Nation, and Princes of Judah, Jer. 30 9. Hoſ. 3.5.**M. Lightfoot Harmony of N. Teſt. part 1. p. 56.

Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon during his ſeven yeares frenzie, or brutiſhneſs, though then diſpoſſeſſed of the uſe, not onelyonly of his Kingdome, but of his humanity and reaſon, yet he continued King ſtill, and Hiſtorians account thoſe ſeven years as part of his 43. or 44. years reign: And they ſuppoſe that his Wife, or his Son, or his Nobles, or whoever governed the Kingdome during that ſpace, were but as his Vicegerents, and the Protectors of the Realm for him; they expecting the recovery of his reaſon, and his return thereupon unto his Throne at the end of thoſe years, upon the authority of Daniels interpretation of his dream**Vide Chronicon Catha. Edw. Simſoni. part 3. p. 112. An. M. 3437. Sir W. Rawl. Hiſt. li 3. 3. cap. 1. ſect. 13.. And the Text tels us no leſſe, then that the title to the Kingdome remained ſtill to him, and the uſe of it was to be reſerved for him. His dream ſaying, Yet leave the ſtump of the roots thereof in the earth (to wit, of the tree deciphering him in his Kingdome) even with a band of iron and braſſe. The which Daniel interprets thus, Thy kingdom ſhall be ſure unto thee after thou ſhalt have known that th… heavens doe rule.

Alexander the great, at his death, leaving his Queen Roxane great with childe, his Princes at their conſultation p. 232about his ſucceſſor determined to expect Roxane her bringing forth her child, and preſently they elect for it four Protectors, to whom they ſwear obedience.**Juſtin. Hiſtor. lib 13. pag. 145.

Other examples of this kinde the Reader may ſee in Grotius. ††Grot. de jure Bel. li. 1. cap. 3. ſect. 15. & 24.I will onelyonly adde theſe few inſtances coming near to us in place, and time.

In the Kingdome of France, anciently one of the three grand occaſions for which the aſſembly of the three Eſtates was wont to convene (as their Hiſtorian tells us) was when it was neceſſary to provide for the governing of the Realm, during the captivity, or minority of the Kings, or when they wanted the right uſe of their ſenſes.**Hiſtorical collection, &c in the life of H. 3. page 137.

In England the ſoveraign power hath often reſided in them who could not in any one act exerciſe it, by reaſon of their far d…ſtance from home, when the Crown hath deſcended upon them, or of their captivity, or of their childhood; which defect hath been ſupplyed by the advice, and care of the Chieftaines of the Realm: as it was in the caſe of King Richard the firſt, being priſoner to the Emperour of Germany: and in the caſes of King Edward the third, Henry the ſix…h, Edward the fifth, and Edward the ſixth, being but children at their firſt coming to the Crown: and in the caſe of King Edward the fi…ſt, being in War againſt the Sarazens in Aſia, at what time the Kingdome fell to him.††Speeds Hiſtor. Book 9. cap. 7. ſect. 44. cap. 9. ſect. 3. cap. 10. ſect. 6. cap. 16. ſ…t. 1. cap. 22. ſect. 24.

Quum Roma a Gottis capta eſt, …ccupatio fuit violenta, cui ſ…ſe interea imperatores opponebant, quantum patiebatur rerum ſtatus, & pe…ſecerunt denique ut ad ſe rediret. Itaque quemadmodum au… olim Carolus 7. occupata ab Anglis, aut nuper Henricus 4. ab Hiſpanis, Luteria, non d…ſierunt eſſe veri Reges Francorum, nec deſiit eorum juris eſſe Luteria, ſic nec illi quidem d…ſierunt eſſ… Romani imperatores. Chamier panſtrat tom. 2. l. 17. c. 4. ſect. 17.Chamier obſerves, when Rome was taken by the Gothes, there was a violent poſſeſſion, the which in the mean time the Emperours oppoſed as far as the ſtate of things would permit, and at laſt prevailed to a recovery of it to them wherefore as in time paſt, Paris being ſeiſed by the Engl…ſh, or of late by the Spanyards, Charls the ſeventh, and Henry the fourth▪ ceaſed not to be the true Kings of France, neither did Paris ceaſe to be of their Dominion; ſo neither ceaſed thoſe to be Emperou…s of Rome.

p. 233In the late differences betwixt the King,CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 6. and Parliament, it was often affirmed to be Law, That the King in his civil, or politicall capacity cannot be ſevered from his Kingdome, or Parliament, how far ſoever he is diſtant in perſon, or in diſpeſition of minde to act with them.**See fuller anſwer to Dr. Fern, p. 9. Mr. H. Potts his Cordial, p. 15.

And to adde no more, the late Parliament more then once found themſelves fallen under force, yet after recovering their liberty did account themſelves, and were accounted by the King, and Kingdome the Parliament ſtill, and their conſtitution and ſeſſion to have continued both under, and after the ſaid force.

Subſection 6. Argument 6. From another practice of Kingdomes, viz. their admitting ſome to the place of ſupream command whom they acknowledge not to be the ſupream power.

6 AS there are who are generally acknowledged to be the ſupream power that rule not at all, that doe not actually poſſeſſe command, or exerciſe any act of civill authority; ſo there are that doe lawfully exerciſe, and execute the ſame authority, and yet are not acknowledged, or taken to be the ſoveraign power, or Magiſtrate: Such are they who are placed as Protectors, or Vicegerents in the forementioned deficiencies of the Soveraign Prince. One may be the King, another, in regard of that Kings Nonage, abſence, durance, or dotage, may be the Regent; the latter executing the ſupream authority in his behalf, or ſtead. And where the caſe is thus; ſuppoſe the King dye in the ſaid Condition, though the Protector, or Regent, be found in actuall uſe, or ex…cution of the ſoveraign power, (whether there be another legall Inheritor, & Succeſſor of the dead p. 234King,CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 7. or the line faile, and there be none inveſted with right of ſucceſſion) yet is not the ſaid Protector the ſupream power, nor is ſo taken, or acknowledged to be by the Realm; the right, or title to the Crown having never been conveyed, or made over to him: but rather, he having been but Regent in the name and behalfe of the deceaſed Prince; that office which he had legally ceaſeth upon the death of him in whoſe name he ruled, and he is now diveſted of it.

Subſection 7. Argument 7. From the approved cuſtome of determining Controverted titles unto Soveraignty by Arbitration.

7 IT hath been the cuſtome of Princes, and other ſupream States, or Potentates, both ancient and modern, when a Controverſie hath been raiſed betwixt two, or more of them, about the title to the Soveraignty of a Kingdome, or Territory, and each part hath been confident of his right, and bent to vindicate his claim by the ſword to the uttermoſt iſſue, and commonly one of them hath been in poſſeſſion, and the other kept out by him, for the preventing of the miſeries, and uncertain events of War, and for the clearer, and ſafer ending of the difference, to refer the matter to the arbitration of one, or more, as judge, or judges betwixt them. Which way of deciſion is approved, and commended as the moſt equall, wiſe, and moderate, and moſt becoming Chriſtians. For inſtance, Atherbal, and Jugurtha, brought their conteſt about the Kingdome of Numidia unto the Romane Senate to be adjudged**Saluſt. Bel. Iugurth. num. 69. pag. 38.. Tygranes the Father, and Son, referred their ſtrife about the Kingdome of Armenia unto Pompey the Great, for p. 235his deciſion††Uſſer. Annal part. poſter. p. 238.. Hircanus and Ariſtobulus, the two Aſm…nian brethren bring their difference about the dominion of Judea before the ſame Pompey, as the Arbitrator betwixt them**Idem page 248, 249. Roſſe Hiſt. Book 1. Chap. 5. page 20..

Archelaus, and Antipas, the two Sons of Herod the Great, after his deceaſe, repair to Rome, unto Auguſtus Caeſar, to determine their ſeverall claims to their Fathers dominions††Uſſer. Annal part. poſter. p. 537..

Upon the death of Alexander King of Scotland, the Crown of that Kingdome being ſubject to the claimes of many Nobles, the chiefeſt, and probableſt of which were thoſe of John Baliol, and Robert Bruce, the determination of this controverſie was by all the parties referred to Edward the firſt, King of England **Speeds Hiſtory. Book 9. chap. 10, Sect. 18. Roſſe Hiſtory, Booke 5. Chap. 3. page 244..

And more examples of this na-may be ſeeen in Biſhop Ʋſher, Uſſer. Annal. part poſtr. p. 247.and Hugo Grotius. Grotius de jure B. lib. 2. Cap. 23▪ Sect. 8. Et lib. 3. cap. 20. ſect. 46.When the caſe is thus, the thing referred, and adjudged is not who is in poſſeſſion, but in whom is the right: If this were a certaine, and clear principle, that he is the power that is in poſſeſſion, the difference were at an end, and would need no Arbitrator, where either of the litigants is in the place. And when it is thus referred, it were a frivolous proceeding for the Arbitrator to hear the arguments, and pleas of the parties, or to enquire into the grounds of each of their claims, by law, deſcent, election, contract, teſtament, or the like; all that he hath to doe, is to aske which of them is in poſſeſſion, and to judge for him, or at his own free choice to put the one of them in poſſeſſion (if neither be already) and ſo to end the difference. Unto which buſineſſe the parties need not travaile or ſtudy to finde out, and repair to the wiſeſt, juſteſt, and moſ… …different Arbitrator: or he to call in the ableſt Civilians, or Cauſuiſts to aſſiſt him**As the Hiſtorian ſaith, the ſaid K. Edward did in the Scottiſh controve…ſie laſt mentioned.; The firſt perſon p. 236they may light on,CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 8. be he the ſimpleſt man on earth, would ſerve to umpire the cauſe by that principle.

Subſection 8. Argument 8. From the expreſſions of the Holy Ghoſt in Scripture, owning men for Kings, in relation to the Kingdoms of which they have been unpoſſeſſed.

8 THat perſons may be out of the ſeat of rule both perſonally, and virtually, both in regard of reſidence, and in regard of actuall command, and yet be higher powers, that is, Kings, and Soveraigns, may appear to be the dictate, not only of wiſe Statiſts, and Kingdoms, but of the Holy Ghoſt in Scripture, and this in that he mentioneth, enſtyleth, or owneth perſons as Kings, and as reigning, at the time, and in the condition wherein they had no actuall rule over the places, or people, in relation to which they are ſaid to be Kings, or to reigne. There may be found in Scripture divers inſtances for this, viz many perſons mentioned as Kings in ſuch a place, or ſaid to reign in ſuch a Kingdome; at which time they were either carried away, and held captive, or expulſed out of their Kingdomes, or ſhut up, and beſieged in ſome one City of their Dominions, and deſpoyled of the poſſeſſion, and command of all beſides by their invaders, and beſiegers, or lying ſecretly hid, and unknown of their Subjects where they were, or whether they were alive, or no, or otherwiſe excluded, whileſt others in oppoſition to their title, and regency poſſeſſed the Throne, and rule of their Dominions. I ſhall produce ſundry examples for this.

p. 237The ſacred ſtory relating to us Davids diſſeiſure of his Kingdome by his Son, and Subjects, doth nevertheleſſe during that his outing mention, and owne him as King. How full, or in how great a meaſure that diſpoſſeſſion was, both in regard of place, of power, and of the conſent of the people, let the words of the Text ſpeak [2 Sam. 10.12, 13, 14.16. Chap. 15, 16, 17, 18. Chap. 17, 1, 2, 3▪ 4.16.21, 22, 24 27. Chap. 19 9, 10, 11.15.6.

By all which paſſages, it appears that David was wholly ejected, both out of the hearts, and out of the territories of Iſrael; and that both the land, and the wills of the people were totally given up to Abſalom; and yet in this very ſtate of things David is King ſtill, being ſo reckoned, and ſtiled all along the ſtory; and that, not onelyonly in thoſe words of the narration which are ſet down as the Language of them that adhered unto him, as his friends, and followers; not onelyonly in that acknowledgment of the other party, that roſe up againſt him, which they made after the battail was loſt, and Abſalom ſlaine; when they, both in their conſultation among themſelves, and in their addreſſe, as Subjects to David, own him a… their King; of which [Chap. 19, 9, 10.41.43] But in the proper words, and ſentences of the penman of the ſtory (and ſo of the Holy Ghoſt) when he himſelfe makes mention of him in his own perſon, and not in another: In the peruſall of the hiſtory, I have computed David is in this manner 43 times in the narration, betwixt the time of hi… fl…ght from Jeruſalem, and the peoples conſent given for his reduction,**Viz. Chap: 15.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27. Chap. 16.2, 3, 4.5, 6.10, 14. Chap. 17.17.21. Chap. 18.2, 4, 5.25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33. Chap. 19 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, …4. ſtiled King. To this we may add the ſtory of the other revolt by the inſtigation, and under the conduct of Sheba, which followed at the heels of that of Abſalom. This was in like manner very generall (as to the ten Tribes) the Text ſaith, So every man of Iſrael went up from after David, and followed Sheba, [Chap. 20.2.] yet David, during the rejection, is reckoned as King ſtill by the ſacred Hiſtorian, [Verſes 3, 4.]

And there is yet another inſtance for this in David, p. 238he is ſaid to reign over Iſrael, yea over all Iſrael forty yeares; ſeven of which he reigned in Hebron, and the other 33 in Jeruſalem, [2 Kings 2.11. 1 Chr. 29.26, 27.] within which years there intervened, not onelyonly the ſpace of time in which were the afore recounted interruptions by Abſalom's, and Shebah's rebellions, but a fixed confinement of Davids actuall reign to the Tribe of Judah onelyonly, for the firſt ſeven years of the 40. in which he reigned in Hebron, for ſo the Text plainly ſaith. David was thirty yeares old when he began to reigne, and he reigned forty years in Hebron he reigned over Judah ſeven yeares, and ſixe moneths; and in Jeruſalem he reigned thirty-three yeares over all Iſrael and Judah, [2 Sam. 4.5.] Of the means of this confinement of his actual reign for thoſe ſeven yeares to that one Tribe, the ſecond and third Chapters of the ſecond Book of Samuel will inform us, to wit, the wars betwixt the houſes of David and Saul. The ſame ſtory will tell us, that within thoſe ſeven yeares, which were the firſt part of Davids 40 yeares reign over Iſrael, Iſhboſheth was made King over all Iſrael, and reigned two years, [ſee 2 Sam. 2.8, 9, 10, 11.] That Iſhboſheth might well be ſaid to be King, and reign over all Iſrael de facto, though he wanted the actuall obedience of Judah, is eaſie to conceive, and yeeld; both becauſe he had 11 Tribes of the twelve, and for that the name of Iſrael is often put to ſignifie the ten Tribes, in diſtinction from Judah and Benjamin, much more may it be put for 11 Tribes, including Benjamin, as it plainly doth, [2 Sam. 30.10. and 5.5.] but that Iſrael, and all Iſrael in the forecited places [1 Kings 2.11. 1 Chron. 29.26, 27.] ſhould be put for the Tribe of Judah onelyonly, and divided from all the other Tribes, even then when the other 11 Tribes were in fact a diſ-joyned and oppoſite Kingdome to it, and that under the title of Iſrael, I ſee not how it can ſt…nd.

The queſtion then is, how thoſe Texts that reckon to David forty years reign over Iſrael, can be reconci…'d to the other that allot to him ſeven of thoſe 40 to reign over Judah only in Hebron, and give Iſhboſheth p. 239within that time a reigne over all Iſrael, as a diſtinct Kingdome from Judah? I think it can be no otherwiſe done then thus. Iſhboſheth was King, and reigned de facto over, and by actual, & predominate poſſeſſion held from David the 11 Tribes, whilſt David enjoyed onelyonly the Dominion of the Tribe of Judah, but was de jure, or in title and right King over all the reſt, which Iſhboſheth detained: and therefore David at that time, not onelyonly expected, but juſtly waged warre upon Iſhboſheth, and his partakers, for the recovery thereof, and therein accordingly daily grew upon him, and won upon them: and upon this ground might well be that meſſage of Abner to David, ſaying, whoſe is the Land? acknowledging David the Proprietor where he was not the poſſeſſor, [2 Sam. 3.12.] Here then we have two competitory Kings, mentioned as inveſted in the ſame territory at the ſame time (not as joynt partners, but each as claymer in toto, & in ſolid…m:) with this difference, (for we muſt not make a contradiction of it) the one is inveſted with poſſeſſion, the other with the right; the one is the occupant, the other is the proprietor.

Now if we ſhould bring both theſe Kings to this Text of the Apoſtle, and aske which of them during thoſe two yeares of Iſhboſheth might be ſaid in reference to the 11 Tribes to be the power in being of God, ordained of God? would not any conſiderate Reader anſwer, not Iſhboſheth, but David? not the poſſeſſor, but the Proprietor? And whereas both are ſaid to have reigned; not he that is onelyonly ſaid to reigne, but he that is ſaid to reigne, and is likewiſe ſaid to be choſen by God to it, and entred poſſeſſion by his ſpecial direction, as it is ſaid of David **2 Sam. 5.2.2.2.2 Sam 5:2.

Thus we have ſeen this one King, and that, he who in a ſtyle peculiar, and above others is ſaid to be the anointed of the God of Jacob, yeelds us a treble inſtance of a power in being, yet out of poſſeſſion.

Next to David was Solomon; yet when he, as Davids immediate ſucceſſor, ſhould be inſtalled, being thereunto aſſigned both by divine appointment, and p. 240by his Father, [1 Chron. 28.5. 1 Kings 1.17.] Adonijah, his elder brother, got the ſtart of him, in reſpect of poſſeſſion; and the ſaid Adonijah not onelyonly exalted himſelfe, ſaying, I will be King; but raiſed a very ſtrong party, yea obtained (it ſeems) a generall conſent of the State, and thereby got into actual ſeiſure of the Kingdome. There ſtood up for him, and gave him admiſſion to the Kingdome Joab the Generall of the Army, Abiathar the Prieſt, and all his brethren, the Kings ſons, and all the m… of Judah, the Kings ſervants: Whereupon Nathan the Prophet, and Ba…hſheba tell David, Adonijah doth reigne: and himſelfe ſaid afterward, The kingdome was mine, and all Iſrael ſet their faces on me, that I ſhould reigne. [1 King. 1.5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 18.25.2.15.] Yet for for all this the Kingdome in right of ſucceſſion, upon the forementioned title, was Solomons▪ which Adonijah after confeſſed, It was thine from the Lord, [1 Kings 2.15.] and therefore Adonijah's poſſeſſion notwithſtanding, Nathan the Prophet moveth Bathſheba, and they both together move David for Solomons inveſture; and by his order Zadok, Bendiah, and Nathan, with the Kings guard, proclaim, anoynt, and inaugurate him in the Throne. [1 King. 1.32, 33, 38] The which, if Adonijah had been the power, becauſe he was in poſſeſſion, and Solomon had not been the power, becauſe fore-ſtalled, and kept from poſſeſſion, they could not lawfully have done; but both they, and Solomon, yea, and David alſo muſt have acquieſced in the duty of ſubjection to Adonijah, according to the Rule of the Apoſtle in this place, if to be underſtood as aboveſaid. Let us goe on to other examples.

… Chr. 22.9.Ahaziah King of Judah being ſlain by Jehu, the Text ſaith, his houſe had no power to keep ſtill the kingdome; yet Joaſh, his ſon, and heire, being left alive, though he were powerleſſe (both in regard of his own childhood, & Athaliah's ſtrong hand of uſurpation over the Kingdome, ceaſed not therefore to be King. For, whilſt he lay hid with his Aunt in the houſe of the Lord, and was not known abroad ſo p. 241much as to be, being in common repute ſlaughtered amongſt the reſt of Ahaziah's ſons, and Athaliah reigned over the Land; and when Jehoiadah the Prieſt, and thoſe of the Levites, and people that were gathered to him in the Temple, were but privately confederating, conſulting, and preparing to inveſt him in the poſſeſſion of the Kingdome, the Penman of the ſacred Story ſtyleth him the King. I meane, not onelyonly when the ſaid perſons had ſet the Crown on his head, and obſerved the other Ceremonies of his Inauguration (though all that being done, he neither by vertue thereof, nor other ways, had the viſible poſſeſſion of the Kingdome, or the actuall prevalency over, and reception of the people, all the tranſactions hitherto being contained within the Verge of the Temple, and publiſhed through the Land, or City; yea, ſo ſecret as that to Athaliah her ſelfe, vigilant enough doubtleſſe, and who was ſo neer to the Temple, and ſo much concerned to take notice, it was utterly uneſpied, and unheard of untill the cloſing Plaudite of the people brought the confuſed ſound of it to her eares, and ſo occaſioned her looking forth, and knowledge of it) but even while they were yet intending, contriving, and ordering the way how to attempt, and execute their ſaid deſigne. [See 2 Chron. 23.3.5 7.10.] Here then is a King in being before in actuall poſſeſſion or regnancy.

The ſuſpenſions of Rehoboam, Ʋzziah, Hezekiah, Manaſſ…h, Zedechiah, and Hoſhea, from the actuall poſſeſſion, uſe, and command of their reſpect…ve Kingdomes, through the invaſions made upon their Kingdoms by their ſeverall enemies, or by their own incapacities & the conſiſtence thereof with their being Kings, and with the continuance of their Reigns ſtill, as to right, and title, in the computation of Scripture, we ſhall need to do no more but mention curſorily, having already ſeen ſo many examples to this purpoſe.

In the Reigne of Rehoboam, Shiſhak King of Aegypt entereth Judah with a huge hoſt, and overpowers p. 242it, taking the fenced Cities thereof, and ſo coming to Jeruſalem. Into it Rehoboam and his Princes were retreated for their defence, and were ſo incloſed there by him, as that the Lord tells them by his Prophet, for their forſaking him, he left them in the hand of Shiſhak. Yet in this condition the Text ſtill taketh notice of Rehoboam as the King, and his Princes as the Princes of Judah, [2 Chron. 12.6.]

Ʋzziah is reckoned to reign in Jeruſalem 52 years; yet for ſome part of his time, being ſmitten with a Leproſie by an immediate hand of God, he was deprived of all exerciſe of regall power, and ſhut out even from civill communion; and his ſon Jotham adminiſtreth the Realm. [2 Kings 15.2, 5. 2 Chron. 26 3, 21.] For how long time was this deprivation of Ʋzziah the Scripture doth not expreſly relate; but, in regard in one place Jotham is ſaid to reign 16 yeares, and in another we read of his twentieth yeare, [See 2 Kings 15.13, 33.] It may be ſuppoſed that four of thoſe twenty years, Jotham ruled in the life time, and within thoſe 52 years of the reign of his Father, becauſe of his ſaid incapacity.

When Hezekiah was King, Senacherib King of Aſſyria came up againſt all the fenced Cities of Judah, and tooke them, and ſent his Commanders with a great Army againſt Jeruſalem (wherein was Hezekiah) to ſummon it; ſo that he was Maſter of the whole Territory of Judah, Jeruſalem excepted. [2 Kings 18.13.17. Iſa. 36.1.33 8, 9.] yet Hezikiah thus overpowered, and ſhut up is King of Judah ſtill. [2 King. 19 1.5. 2 Chron. 32.9.]

Manaſſeh is computed to reign 55. years, [2 King. 21.1. 2 Chron. 33.1.] yet, The Lord brought upon him, and his people the Captains of the hoſt of the King of Aſſyria, who tooke him, and bound him with fetters, and carryed him to Babylon. [2 Chron. 33.11.] In what time of his reign this fell out, & for how long this his diſpoſſeſſion, and captivity laſted, I finde no certainty: but from his firſt ſeiſing to his recovery (conſidering his journey to Babylon, his affliction there, p. 243the worke it had upon him, his great humiliation before God, and the c…nſequents of it, his prayer, and the Lord working for his releaſe out of the hands of the Babylonian, and his reduction from thence unto Jeruſalem) it muſt needs be taken to have been ſome conſiderable ſpace of time. How much ſoever it was,**See Divines Annot. on 2 Kin. 21.1.2 Kgs 21:1 contained it was (as Expoſitors agree) within the current of thoſe 55 years of his reign.

Zedekiah is accounted to reign as King of Judah 11 yeares; yet for about two yeares††Arch-Biſhop Uſher reckons it 2 years compleat. Annal. part. 1. An. M. 3405. of thoſe 11 years he was mured up by the King of Babylons Army in Jeruſalem; and the reſt of Judea was either poſſeſſed, or in like manner beſieged by the ſaid enemie. [2 Kings 25.4, 5.34.7.]

Hoſhea reigned in Samaria over Iſrael nine yeares: yet, for at leaſt three of thoſe years, he was ſhut up, and bound in priſon, and the whole Land was over-run, and Samaria was beſieged untill it was taken by Shalmanezer King of Aſſyria. [2 Kings 17.4, 5, 6.]

But the number of Scripture precedents already recited is ſufficient for the purpoſe before aſſigned. By all theſe it is (I hope) fully manifeſt, that a Soveraign Prince may be ſhut up in ſome ſtrong hold within his Kingdome, or be carryed away priſoner, or expelled out of it, or be forced to lye hid as one out of the wor…d, or through ſome incapacity be excluded from actual regency, and yet be King ſtill, and his reign (in the being, habit, or firſt act of it) continued. And whereas, during the interruptions of the rule of the ſeverall Princes above mentioned, there were others that, either by the will, & conſent of them, or their reſpective Kingdomes, or againſt it, bare the actual ſway, and command, unto whom the people were ſubject, yet it was either in behalfe of thoſe diſ-inabled Kings, where it was with conſent; or by way of compulſory, and paſſive ſubjectedneſſe, without any moral tie of allegiance, or of the duty of Subjects incumbent on them in reference to ſuch compulſatory rulers. For, where the diſ-inabled Princes power, and reign was yet in being, there muſt needs be a reſervation of the Rel… tive p. 244bond of Allegiance on the peoples part to them: The tye of the Relation, and Liege right being ever mutuall, and recip…ocal, ſo that it remaining in the one, it muſt needs remain in the other; and when ever the obſtruction was removed, there being a poſtliminium or reduction into act of the one, there would be the ſame alſo of the other.

I will ſhut up this argument, and enumeration of Scripture-inſtances with that which is found in Ezek. 21.27. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it ſhall be no more, untill he come whoſe right it is, and I will give it him. Who is that whoſe right the Crown of Judah then was? It is uſually applyed to Chriſt, and I ſhall not gainſay that Expoſition: onelyonly I would ſay that, as the branch of the Cedartree which the Lord ſaith he will ſet and plant in the mountaine of the height of Iſrael, Chap. 17.22, 23. is interpreted firſt of Zerubbabel, in whom the ſoveraign dignity was reſtored at the return from the captivity, and then of Chriſt**So Calvin, Diodate, and the Divines Annotat.: So may this parallel prophecy be underſtood. But whether we apply it to Zerubbabel, or to Chriſt, this muſt needs be granted, that after Zedekiah's removall, and the Lands captivity was conſummate by Nebuchadnezzar, a right there was extant, and remaining ſomewhere, or in ſome perſon to the Crown, and Kingdome of Judah, though for the preſent ſuſpended from actuall exerciſe, both by the hand of Gods providence in the full conqueſt of Nebuchadnezzar, and by his extraordinary direction, and diſpenſation by word of mouth, ſent by his Prophet Jeremiah, as we find, Jer. 27.12, 16.21.8, 9. and that right did not deſcend upon Chriſt till he was born; nor then per ſaltum, or immediately from Zedekiah, or Jehoiakim to him, but by the interpoſal of thoſe pe…ſons in whom the race, and line of blood, or inheritance was continued down to Chriſt.

p. 245Subſection 9. CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 9.Argument 9. Taken from the nature of Magiſtracy.

9 REaſon is to be drawn from the nature of Magiſtracy. It cannot agree thereunto, to ſay that actuall poſſeſſion, or rule, gives being to the power, or is an inſeparable adjunct, or convertible attribute thereof. Magiſtracy is a r…lation of office. Every relation is founded upon ſomething that is abſolute. What ſhould be the foundation of the relat… on of Magiſtrate, and Subject but the act of conſtitution of ſuch a perſon, or perſons in authority, or to be, and ſtand in the office of Magiſtracy to ſuch a people? from this tranſaction as from its foundation reſults this eſtate, or relation: and then from this eſtate or relation reſult the mutual duties, and acts of Magiſtrate, and Subject, his actual ſuperiority, and their ſubjection, his rule, and their obedience.

Well then, actuall ſuperiority, and rule, being acts proper to, and reſulting out of Magiſtracy, they muſt needs preſuppoſe it to be firſt in being, ere they can be educed. Firſt, (I ſay) not onelyonly in order of nature, but of time; for the civill tranſactions whereby Magiſtracy is produced, and the politcall acts which proceed from it are not immanent, or inſtan…aneous, (ſuch as are thoſe whereby the forms of natural beings do produce their facultie…, or properties) but tranſient, and ſuccedaneous, and ſuch as require ſome …l…x… of time to be put forth in. It muſt needs be then an incongruous aſſertion to affi me, that the acts which fl…w from Magiſtracy in tim… d… g…ve being to, or are convertible adjuncts p. 462of it. A man is firſt a man, and then he reaſons. A man is firſt an Artificer, and then he works in his Art. So a man is firſt a power, and then he rules; poſſeſſion of the Throne, or Territory, and Regency, or coercion of the people by the ſword are after, and latter in time then the Creation, or Inveſture of the power. Magiſtracy is the antecedent, the cauſe, the principle, the firſt act; and actual dominion, or coercion is the conſequent, the effect, the effluxe, or the ſecond act thereof. Men firſt are Kings, and then they reign; they rule, becauſe they are the higher powers, and they are not the higher powers, becauſe they rule. As, on the other hand, the ſtate of inferiority in a politicall body is the cauſe, and principle of the Subjects acts of obedience.

Men are firſt in the relation of Subjects, and then they act, or yield obedience. This precept of the Apoſtle [Let every ſoule be ſubject to the higher powers] though delivered in …arms illimitedly univerſall, is onelyonly intended, and given to them that are in the ſtate of Subjects, and becauſe they are in that eſtate, therefore it takes hold on them; they that are either ſupream Magiſtrates, or within no Common-wealth, are not obliged by it. And as every perſon is not involved, ſo every act of ſubmiſſion which may be done to any kind of power in the civill State, is not that which is comprized in this precept, or contained within the matter of it: It is poſſible a man may ſubmit out of a principle of humility, or policy, or be forcibly proſtrated where he oweth no obedience, but it is a ſubmiſſion ex debito, and that ſtricti juris, or proper to the conſcience of him that is in the ſtate of a Subject that is hereby required.

Let Solomon be our inſtance to illuſtrate this. Having been before deſigned, and choſen to be his Father Succeſſor in the Kingdome of Iſrael, he is thereupon firſt anointed, and proclaimed King by Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah; and then after this it is ſaid, He ſate on the throne of the King, in ſtead of David his father, and proſpered, and all Iſrael obeyed p. 247him, and all the Princes, and the mighty men, CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 5.and all the ſons likewiſe of K. David ſubmitted themſelves unto lomon the King. Here Solomons conſtitution precedes his actuall poſſeſſion and rule, and the Subjects ſubmiſſion, and obedience, both in order of nature, and of time, as the ground and reaſon thereof.

And the ſame is exemplified in Joſhua. When Moſes was to dye, he ſpake unto the Lord, ſaying, Let the Lord, the God of the ſpirits of all fleſh, ſet a man … ver the congregation, which may goe out b…fore them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in. Here, in this petition there is firſt deſired the ſetting of one over the Congregation, which is the calling & admitting of him to the Soveraign power, and then follows his leading them out, and bringing them in, his exerciſe of rule. And according to the order of this Petition, is the method of the Lords conceſſion, and direction upon it. The Lord in the next words commands Moſes to take Joſhua, and lay his hand upon him, and ſet him b…fore Eleazar the Prieſt, and before all the congr…gation, and give him a charge in their ſight, and puts ſome of his honour upon him, and then it follows, That all the Congregation of the children of Iſrael may be obedient.

There may be a violent, brutiſh ſubduedneſſ…, but there can be no rational, moral ſubmiſſion, and obedience as of Liege-people to their Liege-Lord in any other courſe. And as to this the caſe is altogether the ſame, and there is no d…fference, whether the Magiſtrate come in by extraordinary aſſignation from God, as Joſhua, and Solomon did, or by the ordin…ry means.

Thoſe commands, and rules that are given in Scripture for the doing of publique, diſtrib…tive j… ſtice, as that, Defend the poor, and fatherleſſe: do j… ſtice to the affl…cted, and needy: and deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked, Pſal… 82.3, 4. and many others**See Levit. 19.15. Deut. 1.16, 17.16.19. 1 Sam. 23.3. 2 Chr. 19.6, &c.Lev 19:15Deut 1:16Deut 1:17Deut 1:191 Sam 23:32 Chr 19:6. I would aske, …o whom they are given? who do they concern? are they ſpoken to all without exception, or onelyonly to them that are Magiſtrates, and Governours? I ſuppoſe p. 248the latter.CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect. 9. By them it doth appear then, that the Scripture ſuppoſeth men Magiſtrates, before they may exerciſe any civill power: they muſt fi…ſt be Governours, and then they are called, and enabled to put forth the acts of rule.

Look upon that law given by God unto Noah, [Gen. 6.9.] Whoſo ſheddeth mans blood, by man ſhall his blood be ſhed. In thoſe words there is both a condemnation of blood-ſhedding, and a commandement for it: here is blood-ſhed ſtrictly forbidden, and capitally judged, to wit, the blood of the innocent; and here is blood-ſhed commanded, to wit, the blood of the murderer. Here is a prohibition of blood-ſpilling to ſome, and a commiſſion for it to others. The power of the Sword, or of capitall puniſhment is neither forbidden to all, nor proſtitute to all; but commanded to ſome, and reſerved from ſome.

The queſtion then is, who are forbidden to ſhed blood, and who are authorized to ſhed that blood that may, and muſt be ſpilt? The Law, though it run in tearms indefinite, yet muſt needs be limited; and as in the former words, whoſo ſheddeth, we muſt take in this reſtriction, whoſo murderouſly ſheddeth, ſo in the latter, by man ſhall his blood be ſh…d, we muſt admit this limitation, not by every man that will, and can; not by any private perſon, but by the Magiſtrate. They that are not in his office may only proſecute by complaint, and teſtimony, but muſt let judgment giving alone**So Willet, & Pareus in Rom. 13. P. Martyr loc. com. claſ. 4. cap. 13 pag. 898 Syropſis pu: Theol. Diſp. 50. Sect. 38.Rom 13. Should we ſay they that get the ſword, can arme themſelves with it, may uſe it, and are the authorized here, this were to ſet the ſtronger over the weaker, and to occaſion (eſpecially where there were any neerneſſe to an equality, or queſtion which part were the ſt…onger) all combuſtion, and confuſion among men, to determine where that authority ſhall be; and in ſtead of preventing, or puniſhing blood-ſhed, it were to open a gap to an univerſal, and endleſſe ove…flow of it, and to make this Law an act of indempnity, and impunity for murder. We muſt therefore neceſſarily diſtinguiſh betwixt them that can, and them that p. 249may, and ought to ſhed the offendors blood:CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subject. 10. and ſay, this warrant of the ſword, or putting to death (the firſt we finde given) is onelyonly made to him that then was, and from thence-forward to him that is the Magiſtrate. A man then muſt firſt be a civill power before he can come by this Scripture-way to the ſword; he cannot by the ſword come to be the civill Power.

Subſection 0. Argument 10. From Gods expreſſe diſallowance of ſome in actual command.

10 THis ſhall be my laſt Argument. If ſome are, or may be in place of actual command, and exerciſe of rule who are not (in the ſenſe of our Text) of God, ordained of God, therein then it is not that, to wit, actual rule which makes, or proves one to be the power that the Text ſaith is of God, ordained of God. But this may be, viz. ſome may be in actual command, and exerciſe of rule, who are not in the ſenſe of the Text of God ordained of God. This is thus proved.

It is before made evident, and therefore muſt be here taken for granted, that, of God, ordained of God, ſignifies appointed, approved, authorized, allowed, or warranted of God. But there may be ſome in actuall rule and command, who are not thereto appointed, approved, &c. of God. This is very manifeſt by ſundry Scriptures, wherein G d doth expp…ſly diſallow, condemn, and threaten with puniſhment perſons that are in actual rule, and command for their ſo doing, or being. [See Amos 6 13.] Ye which ſay, have we not taken to us hornes by our owne ſtrength? [Ezek. 33.26.] Ye… ſtand upon your ſword—and ſhall ye poſſeſſe p. 250the land? CHAP. VII. SECT. II. Subſect 9.Hab. 2.5, 6. He is a proud man, neither keepeth at home; who enlargeth his deſire as Hell, and is as death, and cannot be ſatisfied; but gathereth to him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people. Shall not all theſe take up a parable againſt him, and a taunting proverb againſt him, and ſay, Woe to him that increaſeth that which is not his? &c. Nahum 2.4. Becauſe of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wet-favoured harlot, the miſtreſs of witchcrafts, that ſelleth nations through her whoredomes, and families through her witchcrafts.

By thoſe whoredomes, and witchcrafts of Nineveh, Expoſitors underſtand the arts, and policies, by which ſhe ſubjected the Nations of the earth. But eſpecially would I have obſerved that of our Saviour unto Peter, [Mat. 26.52.] For all they that take the ſword, ſhall periſh with the ſword.

It is not queſtionleſſe his drift by theſe words ſimply to diſallow all uſe of the ſword; but the qualification, or reſtriction of the words lies in that word, Take (as Auguſtine, Cajetan, and Luther (the laſt of whom applies this Text againſt the Boo…s of Swevia then in arms againſt their Magiſtrates, in his anſwer to their Articles) doe obſerve**Auguſtinus Tom. 6. contra Manichaeum. li. 22. cap. 70. Cajetani Jentac. 6. qu. 3. Lutherus apud Jo: Sleid. Com. lib. 5. pag. 120. 122.) by that tearm the Uſurper of the Sword is differenced from the true ownes. The one takes the Sword, the other hath it committed to him.

The one ſnatcheth it to himſelfe, the other hath it coming orderly into his hand. The former it is, and him onelyonly whom our Saviour here condemns, and declares the deſtructive judgement of God againſt. Whence it muſt needs be confeſſed that one may have the ſword in his hand, and be for it diſallowed, and threatned of God, and conſequently cannot poſſeſſe it, as thereunto ordained, appointed, authoriz…d by him.

I will conclude this diſpute, and ſection with that of Saint Auguſtine, wherein he determineth this queſtion to the ſenſe which I have here argued for.

p. 251When the Romane Empire under the Emperours Arcadius, and Honorius, was ſo haraſſed by the Goths under the conduct of Alaricus, and Radagaſus, and ſpecially the Weſtern part by Alaricus, and the City of Rome was taken by him, St. Auguſtine ſaith of it in that condition,

Quanquam Romanum imperium afflictum eſt potius quam mutatum, quod et aliis ante Chriſti nomen temporibus ei con tgit; & ab illâ afflictione recreatum; quod nec iſtis temporibus deſperandum eſt: Quis enim de hâc re novit voluntatem Dei? Auguſtine de Civ. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 7.

Although indeed the Roman Empire be rather afflicted, then changed: the which alſo befell it at other times before Chriſt, and it was again recovered from that affliction; which neither is in theſe times to be deſpaired of; For who knoweth the purpoſe of God in this matter?