will not execute the judgement of the Lord Those who made him supreme Magistrate under God who have under God soveraigne libertie to dispose of crownes and kingdomes are to execute the judgement of the Lord when wicked men make the law of God of none effect 1 Sam. 15.32 so Samuel killed Hagage whom the Lord expresly commanded to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord. I deny not but there is necessitie of a cleere warrant that the Magistrate neglect his duty either in not conveening the States or not executing the judgement of the Lord. 3. I see not how the conveening of a Parliament is extraordinarie to the States for none hath power ordinary when the King is dead or when he is distracted or captive in another land to conveene the Estates and Parliament but they only and in their defect by the law of Nature the people may conveene But 4. If they be essentially Iudges no lesse then the King as I have demonstrated to the impartiall Reader in the former Chapter I conceive though the State make a positive law for Orders cause that the King ordinarily conveene Parliaments Yet if we dispute the matter in the court of Conscience the Estates have intrinsecally because they are the Estates and essentially Iudges of the Land ordinary power to conveene themselves 1. Because when Moses by Gods rule hath appointed seventie men to be Catholike Iudges in the Land Moses upon his sole pleasure and will hath not power to restraine them in the exercise of judgment given them of God for as God hath given to any one Iudge power to judge righteous judgement though the King command the contrary so hath he given to him power to sit down in the gate or the bench when and where the necessitie of the oppressed people calleth for it For 1. the expresse commandement of God which saith to all Iudges Execute judgement in the morning involveth essentially a precept to all the Physicall actions without which it is impossible to execute judgement As namely if by a divine precept the Iudge must execute judgement ergo he must come to some publique place and he must cause partie and witnesses come before him and he must consider cognosce examine in the place of judgement things persons circumstances and so God who commandeth positive acts of judgeing commandeth the Iudges locomotive power and his naturall actions of compelling by the sword the parties to come before him even as Christ who commandeth his servants to preach commandeth that the Preacher and the People goe to Church and that he stand or sit in a place where all may heare and that he give himselfe to reading and meditating before he come to preach And if God command one Iudge to come to the place of judgement so doth he command seventie and so all Estates to conveen in the place of judgement It is objected That the Estates are not Iudges ordinary and habitually but only Iudges at some certaine occasions when the King for cogent and weighty causes calleth them and calleth them not to judge but to give him advise and counsell how to judge Ans. 1. They are no lesse Iudges habitually then the King when the common affaires of the whole Kingdome necessitateth these Publique Watchmen to come together for even the King judgeth not actually but upon occasion 2. This is to beg the question to say that the Estates are not Iudges but when the King calleth them at such and such occasions for the Elders Princes and Heads of families and Tribes were Iudges ordinarie because they made the King And 2. the Kingdome by God yea and Church Iustice and Religion so far as they concerne the whole Kingdome are committed not to the keeping of the King only but to all the Iudges Elders and Princes of the Land And they are rebuked as evening wolves lyons oppressors Ezech. 22.27 Zaca 3.3 Esa. 3.14 15. Mic. 3.1 2 3. when they oppresse the people in judgement So are they Deut. 1.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19.6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother Cain ought in his place to be the keeper of Abel his brother So hath God committed the keeping of the Commonwealth by a positive law not to the King only because that is impossible Num. 11.14 17. 2 Chron. 19.1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Chron. 27. 4. If the King had such a power as King and so from God he should have power to breake up the meeting of all Courts of Parliament Secret Councell and all inferior Iudicatures And when the Congregation of gods as Ps. 82. in the midst of which the Lord standeth were about to pronounce just judgement for the oppressed and poere they might be hindred by the King and so they should be as just as the King maketh them and might pervert judgement and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Esa. 5.23 because the King commandeth And the cause of the poore should not come before the Iudge when the King so commandeth And shall it excuse the Estates to say We could not judge the cause of the poore nor crush the Priests of Baal and the idolatrous Masse-Preltes because the King forbad us So might the King breake up the meeting of the Lords of Session when they were to decerne that Naboths vineyard should be restored to him and hinder the States to represse Tyranny And this were as much as if the States should say We made this man our King and with our good will we agree he shall be a Tyrant For if God gave it to him as a King we are to consent that he enjoy it 5. If Barclay and other flatterers have leave to make the Parliament but Counsellers and Advisers of the King and the King to be the only and sole Iudge 1. The King is by that same reason the sole Iudge in relation to all Iudges the contrary whereof is cleere Num. 11.16 Deut 1.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19.6 Rom. 13.1 2. 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Yea but say they the King when he sendeth an Ambassadour he may tye him to a written Commission and in so far as he exceedeth that he is not an Ambassadour and cleare it is that all inferiour Iudges 1 Pet. 2.13 14. are but sent by the King ergo they are so Iudges as they are but messengers and are to adhere to the Royall pleasure of the Prince that
Civill sword should be drawn against the King 3. This law of man should be produced by this profound Iurist the P. Prelate who mocketh at all the Statists and Lawyers of Scotland It is not a covenant betwixt the King and People at his Coronation for though there were any such covenant yet the breach of it doth binde before God but not before man nor can I see or any man else how a law of man can lay a restraint on the Kings power of two degrees to cancell it within a Law more then on a power of ten or fourteene degrees If the King of Spaine the lawfull Soveraigne of those over-European people as Royalists say have a power of foureteene degrees over those conquered Subjects as a King I see not how he hath not the like power over his own Subjects of Spaine to wit even of Foureteen for what agreeth to a King as a King and Kingly power from God he hath as King he hath it in relation to all Subjects except it be taken from him in relation to some Subjâ—cts and given by some law of God or in relation to some other Subjects Now no man can produce any such law 4. The nature of the goodnesse and grace of the Prince cannot lay bonds on the King to cancell his power that he should not usurpe the power of the King of Spaine toward his over-Europeans 1. Royalists plead for a power due to the King as King and that from God such as Saul had 1 Sam. 8.9 11. 1 Sam. 10.25 But this power should be a power of grace and goodnesse in the King as a good man not in the King as a King and due to him by law And so the King should have his Legall power from God to be a Tyrant But if he were not a Tyranâ— but should lay limits on his own power through the goodnesse of his own nature No thankes to Royalists that he is not a Tyrant For actu primo and as he is a King as they say he is a Tyrant having from God a Tyrannous power of ten degrees as Saul had 1 Sam. 8. and why not of foureteen degrees as well as the Great Turke or the King of Spaine if he use it not it is his own personall goodnesse not his officiall and Royall power 4. The rastraint of Providence laid by God upon any power to doe ill hindreth only the exercise of the power not to breake forth in as Tyrannous acts as ever the King of Spaine or the great Turke can exercise toward any Yea Providence layeth Physicall restraint and possibly morall sometimes upon the exercise of that power that Devils and the most wicked men of the world hath but Royalists must shew us that Providence hath laid bounds on the Kings power and made it fatherlie and not masterly so that if it the power exceed bounds of fatherly power and passe over to the dispoticall and masterly power it may be resisted by the Subjects But that they will not say 4. This paternall and fatherly power that God hath given to Kings as Royalists teach it trencheth not upon the libertie of the Subjects and propertie of their goods but in and by lawfull and just acts of Jurisdiction saith the P. Prelate Well Then it may trench upon the libertie of soule and body of the Subjects but in and by lawfull and just acts of of jurisdiction But none are to judge of these acts of Iurisdiction whether they be just or not just but the King the only Iudge of supreme and absolute authoritie and power And if the King command the idolatrous service in the obtruded Service-booke it is a lawfull and a just act of jurisdiction For to Royalists who make the Kings power absolute all acts are so just to the Subject though he command Idolatrie and Turcisme that we are to suffer only and not to resist 5. The Prelate presumeth that Fatherly power is absolute But so if a father murther his childe he is not comptable to the Magistrate therefore but being absolute over his children only the Judge of the World not any power on earth can punish him 6. We have proved that the Kings power is paternall or fatherly only by analogie and improperly 7. What is this Prerogative Royall we shall heare by and by 8. There is no restraint on Earth laid upon this fatherly power of the King but Gods law which is a morall restraint If then the King challenge as great a power as the Turke hath he oâ—ly sinneth against God but no mortall man on earth may controll him as Royalists teach and who can know what power it is that Royalists plead for whether a dispoticall power of Lordly power or a fatherly power If it be a power above law such as none on earth may resist it it is no matter whether it be above law of two degrees or of twenty even to the Great Turkes power These goe for Oracles at Court Tacitus Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt subditis obsequii gloria relicta est Seneca Indigna digna habenda sunt Rex quae facit Salustius Impunè quidvis facere id est Regem esse As if to be a King and to be a God who cannot erre were all one But certainly these Authors are taxing the Licence of Kings and not commanding their power But that God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a King above the law is evident by this Arg. 1. He who in his first institution is appointed of God by office even when he sitteth on the throne to take heed to read on a written copie of Gods law that he may learne to feare the Lord his God and keep all the words of this law c. He is not of absolute power above law But Deut. 17.18 19. the King as King while he sitteth on the Throne is to doe this Ergo the Assumption is cleare for this is the law of the King as King and not of a man as a man But as he sitteth on the Throne he is to read on the booke of the Law and ver 20. Because he is King his heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren And as King v. 16. he is not to multiply horses c. So Polititians make this argument good They say Rex est lex viva animata loquens lex The King as King is a living breathing and speaking Law And there be three reasons of this 1. If all were innocent persons and could doe no violence one to another the Law would rule all and all men would put the Law in execution agendo sponte by doing right of their own accord and there should be no need of a King to compell men to do right But now because men are by nature averse to good lawes therefore there was need of a Ruler who by office should reduce the Law into practice and so is the King the Law reduced in practice 2. The Law is
Aaron to deliver the people as is clear Exod. 4.1 2 3 4. compared with Chap. 7. vers 8 9 10. And that the Lord might get to himself a name on all the earth Rom. 9.17 Exod. 9.16 and 13.13 14. and 15. 1 2 3. seq But of the Prelates conjecturall end the Scripture is silent and we cannot take an excommunicated mans word What I said of Pharaoh who had not his Crown from Israel that I say of Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of Persia keeping thâ— people of God captive P. Prelate So in the Book of the Judgeâ— when the people were delivered over to the hand of their enemies because of their sins hâ— never warranted the ordinary Iudges or Communitie to be their own deliverers but when they repented God raised up â— Iudge The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon God effected it by Cyrus immediately and totally Is not this a reall proof God will not have inferiour Iudges to rectifie what is amisse but we must waite in patience till God provide lawfull means some Soveraign power immediately sent by himself in which course of his ordinary providence he will not be deficient Answ. All this is beside the question and proveth nothing lesse then that Peers and Communitie may not resume their power to curbe an Arbitrary power For in the first case there is neither Arbitrary nor lawfull supreme Iudge 2. If the first prove any thing it proveth That it was rebellion in the inferiour Iudges and Communitie of Israel to fight against forraign Kings not set over them by God and that offensive wars against any Kings whatsoever because they are Kings though strangers are unlawfull Let Socinians and Anabaptists consider if the P. Prelate help not them in this and may prove all wars to be unlawfull 3. He is so Malignant to all inferiour Iudges as if they were not powers sent of God and to all Governours that are not Kings and so upholders of Prelates and of himself as he conceiveth that by his arguing he will have all deliverance by Kings onely the onely lawfull means in ordinary providence and so Aristocracy and Democracy except in Gods extraordinary providence and by some divine dispensation must be extraordinary and ordinarily unlawfulh 2. The Acts of a State when a King is dead and they choosâ— another shall be an Anticipating of Gods providence 3. If the King be a childe a captive or distracted and the Kingdom oppressed with Malignants they are to waite while God immediately from Heaven create a King to them as he did Saul long ago But have we now Kings immediately sent as Saul was 1. How is the spirit of Prophecie and Government infused in them as in King Saul Or are they by propheticall inspiration anointed as David was I conceive their calling to the throne on Gods part do differ as much from the calling of Saul and David in some respect as the calling of ordinary Pastors who must be gifted by industry and learning and called by the Church and the calling of Apostles 4. God would deliver his people from Babylon by moving the heart of Cyrus immediately the people having no hand in it not so much as supplicating Cyrus Ergo The People and Peers who made the King cannot curb his Tyrannicall power if he make captives and slaves of them as the Kings of Chaldea made slaves of the people of Israel What Because God useth another mean Ergo This mean is not lawfull It followeth in no sort If we must use no means but what the captive people did under Cyruâ— we may not lawfully flie nor supplicate for the people did neither P. Prelate You read of no Covenant in Scripture made without the King Exod. 34. Moses King of Iesurum neither Tables nor Parliament framed it Joshua another Iosh. 24. and Asa 2 Chron. 15. and 2 Chron. 34. and Ezra 10. The Covenant of Iehojada in the non-age of Ioash was the High Priests Act as the Kings Governour There is a covenant with Hell made without the King anâ— a false Covenant Hos. 10.3 4. Answ. We argue this negatively This is neither commanded nor practised nor warranted by promise Ergo It is not lawfull But this is not practised in Scripture Ergo It is not lawfull It followeth it Shew me in Scripture the killing of a Goaring Ox who killed a man the not making battlements on an house the putting to death of a man lying with a Beast the killing of seducing Prophets who tempted the people to go a whoring and serve another God then Jehovah I mean a god made by the hand of the Baker such a one as the excommunicated Prelate is known to be who hath Preached this Idolatry in three Kingdoms yet Deut. 13. This is written and all the former Laws are divine Precepts shall the Precept make them all unlawfull because they are not practised by some in Scripture By this I ask Where read yee that the people entered in a Covenant with God not to worship the Golden Image and the King and these who pretend they are the Priests of Iehovah the Church-men and Pelates refused to enter in Covenant with God By this argument the King and Prelates in non-practising with us wanting the precedent of a like practice in Scripture are in the fault 2. This is nothing to prove the conclusion in question 3. All these places prove it is the Kings dutie when the people under him and their fathers have corrupted the worship of God to renew a Covenant with God and to cause the people to do the like as Moses Asa Iehoshaphat didâ— 4. If the King refuse to do his dutie where is it written That the people ought also to omit their dutie and to love to have it so because the Rulers corrupt their wayes Ierem. 5.31 To renew a Covenant with God is a point of service due to God that the people are obliged unto whether the King command it or no. What if the King command not his people to serve God or What if he forbid Daniel to pray to God Shall the people in that case serve the King of Kings onely at the nod and Royall command of an earthly King Clear this from Scripture 5. Ezra ch 5. had no commandment in particular from Artaxerxes King of Persia or from Darius but a generall that Ezr. 7.23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven let it be diligently done for the house of the God of Heaven But the Tables in Scotland and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland who renewed the Covenant and entered in Covenant not against the King as the P. P. saith but to restore Religion to its ancient Puritie have this expresse Law from King James and King Charles both in many Acts of Parliament that Religion be kept pure Now as Artaxerxes knew nothing of the Covenant and was unwilling to subscribe it and yet gave to Ezra and the Princes a warrant in generall to do
God 6. If the Estates of a Kingdome give the power to a King it is their own power in the fountaine and if they give it for their own good they have power to judge when it it used against themselves and for their evill and so power to limit and resist the power that they gave Now that they may take away this power is cleare in Athaliahs case It is true she was a Tyrant without a Title and had not the right of Heaven to the Crown yet she had in Mens Court a title For supposing all the seed Royall to be killed and the peoples Consent we cannot say That for these sixe yeares or thereabout she was no Magistrate 2. That there were none on the Throne of David at this time 3. That she was not to be obeyed as Gods Deputie But grant that she was no Magistrate yet when Iehoash is brougbt forth to be crowned it was a controversie to the States to whom the Crown should belong 1. Athaliah was in possession 2. Iehoash himselfe being but seven yeares old could not be Iudge 3. It might be doubted if Ioash was the true sonne of Ahaziah and if he was not killed with the rest of the blood Royall Two great Adversaries say with us Hugo Grotius de jur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. He saith He dare not condemne this if the lesser part of the People and every one of them indifferently should defend themselves against a Tyrant ultimo necessitatis praesidio The case of Scotland when we were blocked up by Sea and Land with Armes The case of England when the King induced by Prelates first attempted to bring an Army to cut off the Parliament and then gathered an Army and fortified Yorke and invaded Hull to make the Militia his own sure is considerable Barclay saith The People hath jus se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiem Advers Monarchomach l. 3. c. 8. A power to defend themselves against prodigious crueltie The case of England and Ireland now invaded by the bloody Rebels of Ireland is also worthy of consideration I could cite hoasts more QUEST XXIX Whether in the case of Defensive warre the distinction of the person of the King as a man who can commit acts of hostile Tyrannie against his Subjects and of the Office and Royall power that he hath from God and the People as a King can have place BEfore I can proceed to other Scripture-proofes for the lawfulnesse of Resistance this Distinction rejected by Royalists must be cleered This is an evident and sensible distinction The King in concreto the Man who is King And the King in abstracto the Royall office of the King The ground of this distinction we desire to be considered from Rom. 13. we affirme with Buchanan that Paul Rom. 13 speaketh of the office and duty of good Magistrates and that the text speaketh nothing of an absolute King nothing of a Tyrant and the Royalists distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not against the Law l. pret 10. gl Bart. de pub in Rem and therefore we move the question here Whether or no to resist the illegall and Tyrannicall will of the man who is King be to resist the King and the ordinance of God we say no Nor doe we deny the King abusing his power in unjust acts to remaine King and the Minister of God whose person for his royall office and his Royall Office both are to be honoured reverenced and obeyed God forbid that we should doe so as the sonnes of Belial imputing to us the doctrine of Anabaptists and the doctrine falsely imputed to Wicliffe That Dominion is founded upon supernaturall grace and that a Magistrate being in the state of mortall sin cannot be a lawfull Magistrate we teach no such thing The P. Prelate sheweth us his sympathy with Papists and that he buildeth the Monuments and Sepulchres of the slaine and murthered Prophets when he refusing to open his mouth in the Gates for the righteous professeth he will not purge the Witnesses of Christ the Waldenses and Wicliffe and Husse of these notes of disloyalty but that these acts proceeding from this roote of bitternesse the abused power of a King should be acknowledged with obedience active or passive in these unjust acts we deny 1. Assert It is evident from Rom. 13. That all subjection and obedience to higher powers commanded there is subjection to the power and office of the Magistrate in abstracto or which is all one to the person using the power lawfully and that no subjection is due by that text or any Word of God to the abused and Tyrannicall power of the King which I evince from the Text and from other Scriptures 1. Because the Text saith Let every soule be subject to the higher powers But no powers commanding things unlawfull and killing the innocent people of God can be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 higher powers but in that lower powers 1. He that commandeth not what God commandeth and punisheth and killeth where God is personally and immediatly present would neither command nor punish is not in these acts to be subjected unto and obeyed as a superiour power though in habit he may remaine a superiour power for all habituall all actuall superiority is a formall participation of the power of the most high 2. Arnisaeus well saith That of Aristotle must be true It is against nature that better and worthier men should be in subjection to unworthier and more wicked men but in this when Magistrates command wickednesse and killeth the innocent the non-obeyers eatenus in so far are worthier the commanders whatever they be in habite and in office actually or in these wicked acts are unworthier and inferiour and the non-obeyers are in that worthier as being zealous adherents to Gods Command and not to mans will I desire not to be mistaken if we speake of habituall excellency godly and holy men as the Witnesses of Christ in things lawfull are to obey wicked and Infidell Kings and Emperours but in that these wicked Kings have an excellency in respect of office above them but when they command things unlawfull and kill the innocent They doe it not by vertue of any office and so in that they are not higher powers but lower and weak ones Laertius doth explain Aristotle well who defineth a Tyrant by this That he commandeth his subjects by violence and Arnisaeus condemneth Laertius for this Because one Tyrannicall action doth no more constitute a Tyrant then one unjust action doth constitute an unjust man But he may condemne as he doth indeed for this also Covarruvias pract quest c. 1. and Vasquez Illustr quest l. 1. c. 47. n◠1.12 for this is essentiall to a Tyrant to command and rule by violence If a lawfull Prince doe one or more acts of a Tyrant he is not a Tyrant for that yet his action in that is Tyrannicall and he doth not that as a King but in
of injuries 21. It is false that Presbyteries usurp both swords because they censure sins which the civill Magistrate should censure and punish Elias might be said then to mix himselfe with the civill businesse of the Kingdom because he prophecied against Idolators killing of the Lords Prophets which crime the civill Magistrate was to punish But the truth is the Assembly of Glasgow 1637. condemned the Prelates because they being Pastors would be also Lords of Parliament of Session of Secret Counsell of Exchequer Judges Barons and in their lawlesse High Commission would Fine Imprison and use the sword 22. It is his ignorance that he saith A provinciall synod is an associate body chosen out of all judiciall Presbyteries for all Pastors and Doctors without delegation by vertue of their place and office repaire to the Provinciall Synods and without any choice at all consult and voice there 23. It is a lye That some Leading men rule all here indeed Episcopall men made factions to rent the Synods and though men abuse their power to factions this cannot prove that Presbyteries are inconsistent with Monarchie for then the Prelate the Monarch of his Diocesian rout should be Anti-Monarchiall in a higher manner for he ruleth all at his will 24. The prime men as Mr. R. Bruce the faithfull servant of Christ was honoured and attended by all because of his Suffering Zeal Holinesse his fruitfull Ministery in gaining many thousand souls to Christ So though King James cast him off and did swear By Gods name he intended to be King the Prelate maketh Blasphemy a vertue in the King yet King James sware he could not find an honest Minister in Scotland to be a Bishop and therefore he was necessitated to promote false knaves but he said sometimes and wrote it under his hand that Mr. R. Bruce was worthy of the half of his kingdom but will this prove Presbyteries inconsistent with Monarchies I should rather think that Knave Bishops by King James his judgement were inconsistent with Monarchies 25. His lyes of Mr. R. Bruce excerpted out of the lying Manuscript of Apostat Spotswood in that he would not but preach against the Kings recalling from exile some Bloody Popish Lords to undo all are nothing comparable to the Incests Adulteries Blasphemies Perjuries Sabbath-breaches Drunkennesse Prophanity c. committed by Prelates before the Sun 26. Our Generall Assembly is no other then Christs Court Act. 15. made up of Pastors Doctors and Brethren or Elders 27. They ought to have no negative vote to impede the conclusions of Christ in his servants 28. It is a lye that the King hath no power to appoint time anâ— place for the Generall Assembly but his power is not privative to destroy the free Courts of Christ but accumulative to ayd and assist them 29. It is a lye That our generall Assembly may repeal Laws command and expect performance of the King or then excommunicate subject to them force compell King Judges and all to submit to them They may not force the conscience of the poorest begger nor is any Assembly infallible nor can it lay bounds upon souls of Iudges which they are to obey with blind obedience their power is ministeriall subordinate to Christs Law and what civill Laws Parliaments make against Gods word they may Authoritatively declare them to be unlawfull as though the Emperour Act. 15. had commanded Fornication and eating of blood might not the Assembly forbid these in the Synod I conceive the Prelates if they had power would repeal the Act of Parliament made An. 1641. in Scotland by his Majestie personally present and the three Estates concerning the anulling of these Acts of Parliament and Laws which established Bishops in Scotland Eâ—g Bishops set themselves as independent Monarchs above Kings and Laws and what they damne in Presbyteries and Assemblies that they practise themselves 30. Commissioners from Burroughs and Two from Edinbrough because of the largenesse of that Church not for Cathedrall supereminence sit in Assemblies not as sent from Burroughs but as sent and Authorized by the Church Session of the Burrough and so they sit there in a Church capacity 31. Doctors both in Accademies and in Parishes we desire and our Book of Discipline holdeth forth such 32. They hold I beleeve with warrant of Gods word if the King refuse to reform Religion the inferior Iudges and Assembly of Godly Pastors and other Church Officers may reform if the King will not kisse the Sun and do his duty in purging the House of the Lord may not Eliah and the people do their duty and cast out Baals Priests Reformation of Religion is a personall act that belongeth to all even to any one private person according to his place 33. They may swear a Covenant without the King if he refuse and Build the Lords House 2 Chron. 15.9 themselves and relieve and defend one another when they are oppressed For my acts and duties of defending my self and the oppressed do not tye my conscience conditionally so the King consent but absolutely as all duties of the Law of nature doe Jer. 22.3 Prov. 24.11 Esa. 58.6 Esa. 1.17 34. The P. P. condemneth our Reformation because it was done against the will of our Popish Queen This sheweth what estimation he hath of Popery and how he abhorreth Protestant Religion 35. They deposed the Queen for Her Tyranny but Crowned her Son all this is vindicated in the following Treatise 36. The killing of the monstrous and prodigious wicked Cardinall in the Castle of St. Andrews and the violence done to the Prelates who against all Law of God and man obtruded a Masse service upon their own private motion in Edinbrough An. 1637. can conclude nothing against Presbyteriall Government except our Doctrine commend these acts as lawfull 37. What was preached by the servant of Christ whom p. 46. he calleth the Scottish Pope is Printed and the P. P. durst not could not cite any thing thereof as Popish or unsound he knoweth that the man whom he so slandereth knocked down the Pope and the Prelates 38. The making away the fat Abbacies and Bishopricks is a bloody Heresie to the earthly minded Prelate the Confession of Faith commended by all the Protestant Churches as a strong bar against Popery and the book of Discipline in which the servants of God laboured twenty yeares with fasting and praying and frequent advice and counsell from the whole Reformed Churches are to the P. P. a negative faith and devote imaginations it s a lye that Episcopacie by both sides was ever agreed on by Law in Scotland 39. And was it a heresie that M. Melvin taught that Presbyter and Bishop are one function in Scripture and that Abbots and Priors were not in Gods book dic ubi legis and is this a proof of inconsistency of Presbyteries with a Monarchie 40 It is a heresie to the P. P. that the Church appoynt a Fast when King James appoynted an unseasonable
super-intending power on earth in King or people infallible nor is the last power of taking order with a Prince who inslaveth his Kingdome to a forraigne power placed by us in the people because they cannot erre Court flatterers who teach that the will of the Prince is the measure of all right and wrong of Law and no Law and above all Law must hold that the King is a temporall Pope both in Ecclesiasticall and Civill matters but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves the law of Nature having given to them a contrary internall principle of selfe preservation as a Tyrant who doth care for himselfe and not for the people 3. And because Extremis morbis extrema remedia in an extraordinary exigent when Achab and Iezabell did undoe the Church of God and Tyrannize over both the bodies and consciences of Priest Prophet and people Elias procured the convention of the States and Elias with the peoples helpe killed all Baals Priests the King looking on and no question against his heart In this case I thinke it s more then evident that the people resumed their power 4. We teach not that people should supply all defects in Government nor that they should use their power when any thing is done amisse by the King no more then the King is to cut off the whole people of God when they refuse an Idolatrous service obtruded upon them against all Law the people is to suffer much before they resume their power but this Court slave will have the people to doe what he did not himselfe for when King and Parliament summoned him was he not obliged to appeare Non-compearance when lawfull royall and Parliamentory power summoneth is no lesse resistance then taking of Forts and Castles P. Prelate Then this super-intending power in people may call a King to accompt and punish him for any misdemeanour or act of injustice Why might not the people of Israels Peeres or Sanedrin have convented David before them judged and punished him for his Adultery with Bathsheba and his murther of Uriah but it is holden by all that Tyranny should be an intended universall totall manifest destruction of the whole Common-wealth which cannot fall in the thoughts of any but a mad man What is recorded in the Story of Nero his wish in this kind may be rather judged the expression of transported passion then a fixed resolution Ans. The P. Prelate contrary to the scope of his booke which is all for the subject and seat of Soveraigne power against all order hath plunged himselfe in the deep of Defensive armes and yet hath no new thing 1. Our law of Scotland will warrant any subject if the King take from him his heritage or invade his possession against Law to resist the invaders and to summon the Kings intrudors before the Lords of Session for that act of injustice Is this against Gods Word or Conscience 2. The Sanedrim did not punish David Ergo it is not lawfull to challenge a King for any one act of injustice from the practice of the Sanedrim to conclude a thing lawfull or unlawfull is logick we may resist 3. By the P. Prelates doctrine the law might not put Bathshebah to death nor yet Joab the neerest agent of the murthering of innocent Vriah because Bathshebaes adulterie was the Kings adulterie she did it in obedience to King David Ioabs murther was Royall murther as the murther of all the Cavaliers for he had the Kings hand-writing for it Murther is Murther and the murtherer is to dye though the King by a secret Let alone a private and illegall warrant command it Ergo the Sanedrim might have taken Bathshebaes life and Joabs head also and consequently the Parliament of England if they be Judges as I conceive God and the Law of that ancient and renowned Kingdome maketh them may take the head of many Joabs and Jermines for murther for the command of a King cannot legitimate murther 4. David himselfe as King speaketh more for us then for the Prelate 2 Sam. 12.7 And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man the man was himselfe v. 7. Thou art the man and he said to Nathan as the Lord liveth the man that hath done this shall surely dye 5. Every act of injustice doth not un-King a Prince before God as every act of uncleannesse doth not make a wife no wife before God 6. The Prelate excuseth Nero and would not have him resisted if all Rome were one neck that he might cut it off with one stroke I read it of Caligula If the Prelate see more in Historie then I doe I yield 7. He saith the thoughts of totall eversion of a Kingdome must only fall on a mad man The King of Britaine was not mad when he declared the Scots Traytors because they resisted the service of the Masse and raised an Army of Prelaticall cut-throats to destroy them if all the Kingdome should resist Idolatry as all are obliged The King sleeped upon this Prelaticall resolution many moneths passions in fervor have not a dayes raigne upon a man And this was not so cleare as the sun but it was as cleare as written printed Proclamations and the pressing of Souldiers and the visible marching of Cut-throats and the blocking of Scotland up by sea and land could be visible to men having five senses Covaruv a great Lawyer saith 1. that all Civill power is penes remp in the hands of the Common-wealth 1. Because Nature hath given to man to be a sociall creature and impossible he can preserve himselfe in a societie except he being in communitie transforme his power to an head 2. He saith Hujus vero civilis societatis resp rector ab alio quam ab ipsamet repub constitui non potest justè absque Tyrannide Siquidem ab ipso Deo constitutus non est nec electus cuilibet civili societati immediatè Rex aut Princeps Arist. polit 3. c. 10. saith It is better that Kings got by election then by birth because Kingdomes by succession are verè regia truly Kingly these by birth are more Tyrannicall masterly and proper to Barbarous Nations And Covarruvias tom 2. pract quest de jurisd Castellan Reip. c. 1. n. 4. saith Hereditary Kings are also made hereditary by the tacit consent of the people and so by law and consuetude Spalato Let us grant saith he that a societie shall refuse to have a Governour over them shall they be for that free in no sort but there be many wayes by which a people may be compelled to admit a governour for then no man might rule over a Communitie against their will But nature hath otherwise disposed ut quod singuli nollent universi vellent that which every one will not have a Communitie naturally desireth And the P. Prelate saith God is no lesse the author of Order then he is the author of Being for the Lord who createth all conserveth all and without
Britaine whether I say doth conquest in such a violent way speake that it is Gods revealed Will called Voluntas signi the will that is to rule us in all our Morall duties to cast off the just Heires of the blood Royall and to sweare homage to a conquerour and so as that conquerour now hath as just right as the King of Britaine had by birth This cannot be taken off by the wit of any who 1. maintaine that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne and 2. that royall birth without the peoples election speaketh Gods regulating Will in his Word that the first borne of a King is a lawfull King by birth for God now a daies doth not say the contrary of what he revealed in his Word If birth be Gods regulating Will that the Heire of the King is in Gods Court a King no act of the conquerour can anull that Word of God to us and the people may not lawfully though they were ten times subdued sweare homage and allegiance to a conquerour against the due right of birth which by Royalists Doctrine revealeth to us the plaine contradictory Will of God It is I grant often Gods Decree revealed by the event that a conquerour be on the Throne but this Will is not our rule and the people are to sweare no Oath of Allegiance contrary to Gods Voluntas signi which is his revealed Will in his Word regulating us 4. Things transferrible and communicable by birth from father to sonne are onely in Law those which Heathen call bona fortunae riches as lands houses monies and heritages and so saith the Law also These things which essentially include gifts of the mind and honour property so called I meane honour founded on vertue as Aristotle with good reason maketh honour praeminum virtutis cannot be communicated by birth from the father to the sonne for royall dignity includeth these three constituent parts essentially of which none can be communicable by birth 1. The royall faculty of governing which is a speciall gift of God above nature is from God Solomon asked it from God and had it not by generation from his father David 2. The royall honour to be set above the people because of this royall vertue is not from the wombe for then Gods spirit would not have said Blessed are thou O Land when thy King is the sonne of Nobles Eccles. 10.17 this honour springing from vertue is not borne with any man nor is any man borne with either the gift or honour to be a Iudge God maketh high and low not birth Nobles are borne to great estates if judging be heritage to any it is a municipall positive law I now speake in point of conscience 3. The externall lawfull title before men come to a Crowne must be Gods Will revealed by such an externall signe as by Gods appointment and warrant is to regulate our will but according to Scripture nothing regulateth our will and leadeth the people now that they cannot erre following Gods rule in making a King but the free suffrages of the States choosing a man whom they conceive God hath endued with these royall gifts required in the King whom God holdeth forth to them in his Word Deut. 17. now there be but these to regulate the people or to be a rule to any man to ascend lawfully in foro Dei in Gods Court to the Throne 1. Gods immediate designation of a man by Propheticall and Divinely inspired unction as Samuel annoynted Saul and David this we are not to expect now nor can Royalists say it 2. Conquest seeing it is an act of violence and Gods revenging Justice for the sinnes of a people cannot give in Gods Court such a just title to the Throne as the people are to submit their consciences unto except God reveale his regulating will by some immediate voice from Heaven as he commanded Iudah to submit to Nebuchadnezer as to their King by the mouth of Ieremiah now this is not a rule to us for then if the Spanish King should invade this Iland and as Nebuchadnezer did deface the Temple and instruments and meanes of Gods Worship and abolish the true worship of God it should be unlawfull to resist him after he had once conquered the Iland neither Gods Word nor the Law of nature could permit this I suppose even by grant of adversaries now no act of violence done to a people though in Gods Court they have deserved it can be a testification to us of Gods regulating Will except it have some warrant from the Law and testimony it is no rule to our conscience to acknowledge him a lawfull Magistrate whose sole law to the Throne is an act of the bloody instrument of divine wrath I meane the sword That therefore Iudah was to submit according to Gods Word to Nebuchadnezer whose conscience and best warranted calling to the Kingdome of Judah was his bloody sword even if we suppose Ieremiah had not commanded them to submit to the King of Babylon I thinke cannot be said 3. Naked birth cannot be this externall signification of Gods regulating Will to warrant the conscience of any to ascend to the Throne for the Authors of this opinion make royall birth equivalent to divine unction for David anoynted by Samuel and so anoynted by God is not King Saul remained the Lords anoynted many yeares not David even anoynted by God the peoples making him King at Hebron founded upon divine unction was not the only externall lawfull calling that we read of that David had to the Throne then royall birth because it is but equivalent only to divine unction not superiour to divine unction it cannot have more force to make a King then divine unction And if birth was equivalent to divine unction what needed Ioash who had royall birth be made King by the people and what needed Saul and David who had more then royall birth even divine unction be made Kings by the people and Saul having the vocall and infallible testimony of a Prophet needed not the peoples election the one at Mizpeh and Gilgall and the other at Hebron 5. If royall birth be as just a title to the Crowne as divine unction and so as the peoples election is no title at all then is it unlawfull that there should be a King by election in the world now but the latter is absurd so is the former I prove the Proposition because where conquerours are wanting and there is no King for the present but the people governing and so much confusion aboundeth they cannot lawfully appoint a King for his lawfull title before God must either be conquest which to me is no title and here and in this case there is no conquest or if the title must be a Propheticall word immediatly inspired by God but this is now ceased or thirdly the title must be royal birth but here there is no royall birth because the government is popular except you imagine that
3. It is not to be thought that that is Gods just Title to a Crowne which hath nothing in it of the essence of a King but a violent and bloody purchase which is in its prevalency in an oppressing Nymrod and the cruellest tyrant that is hath nothing essentiall to that which constituteth a King for it hath nothing of Heroick and Royall wisedome and gifts to governe and nothing of Gods approving and regulating will which must be manifested to any who would be a King but by the contrary cruelty hath rather basenesse and witlesse fury and a plaine reluctancy with Gods revealing Will which forbideth murther Gods Law should say Murther thou and prosper and raigne and by the act of violating the sixt Commandement God should declare his approving Will to wit his lawfull call to a Throne 4. There be none under a Law of God who may resist a lawfull call to a lawfull Office but men may resist any impulsion of God stirring them up to murther the maniest and strongest and cheife men of a Kingdome that they may raigne over the fewest the weakest and the young and lowest of the people against their will therefore this call by the sword is not lawfull If it be said that the Divine impulsion stirring up a man to make a bloody conquest that the ire and just indignation of God in Iustice may be declared on a wicked Nation is an extraordinary impulsion of God who is above a Law and therefore no man may resist it Ans. then all bloody Conquerors must have some extraordinary revelation from Heaven to warrant their yeelding of obedience to such an extraordinary impulsion And if it be so They must shew a lawfull and immediate extraordinary impulsion now but it is certaine the sinnes of the people conquered and their most equall and just demerit before God cannot be a just plea to legitimate the Conquest for though the people of God deserved vastation and captivitie by the Heathen in regard of their sinnes before the throne of Divine Iustice yet the Heathen grievously sinned in conquering them Zach. 1.15 And I am very sore displeased with the Heathen that are at ease for I was but a little displeased and they helped forward the affliction So though Iudah deserved to be made captives and a conquered people because of their idolatry and other sinnes as Ieremiah had prophecied yet God was highly displeased at Babylon for their unjust and bloody Conquest Jer. 50.17 18 33 34. c. 51.35 The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon shall the inhabitants of Zion say and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea shall Jerusalem say And that any other extraordinary impulsion to be as lawfull a call to the Throne as the peoples free election we know not from Gods word and we have but the naked word of our Adversaries that William the Conquerour without the peoples consent made himselfe by blood the lawfull King of England and also of all their posteritie And that King Fergus conquered Scotland 5. A King is a speciall gift of God given to feed and defend the people of God that they may lead a godly and peaceable life under him Psal. 78. v. 71 72. 1 Tim. 2.2 as it is a judgement of God that Israel is without a King for many dayes Hos. 3.4 and that there is no Iudge no King to put evill doers to shame Iudg. 19.1 but if a King be given of God as a King by the acts of a bloody Conquest to be avenged on the sinfull land over which he is made a King he cannot be given actu primo as a speciall gift and blessing of God to feed but to murther and to destroy for the genuine end of a Conqueror as a Conqueror is not peace but fire and sword If God change his heart to be of a bloody Vastator a father Prince and feeder of the people ex officio now he is not a violent Conquerour and he came to that meeknes by contraries which is the proper worke of the omnipotent God and not proper to man who as he cannot worke miracles so neither can he lawfully worke by contraries and so if Conquest be a lawfull title to a Crown and an ordinary calling as the opponents presume every bloody Conquerour must be changed into a loving father Prince and feeder and if God call him none should oppose him but the whole Land should dethrone their own native Soveraigne whom they are obliged before the Lord to defend and submit to the bloody invasion of a strange Lord presumed to be a just Conqueror as if he were lawfully called to the Throne both by birth and the voyces of the people And truly they deserve no wages who thus defend the Kings Prerogative royall for if the sword be a lawfull title to the crown suppose the two Generals of both Kingdomes should conquer the most and the chiefest of the Kingdome now when they have so many forces in the field by this wicked reason the one should have a lawfull call of God to be King of England and the other to be King of Scotland which is absurd 6. Either conquest as conquest is a just title to the crown or as a just conquest If as Conquest then all conquests are just titles to a Crown then the Ammonites Zidonians Canaanites Edomites c. subduing Gods people for a time have just title to reigne over them and if Absolom had been stronger then David he had then had the just title to be the Lords Anointed and King of Israel not David and so strength actually prevailing should be Gods lawfull call to a Crown But strength as strength victorious is not law nor reason it were then reason that Herod behead John Baptist and the Roman Emperors kill the witnesses of Christ Iesus If Conquest as just be the title and lawfull claime before Gods court to a Crown then certainly a stronger King for pregnant nationall injuries may lawfully subdue and reigne over an innocent posteritie not yet borne But what word of God can 1. warrant a posteritie not borne and so accessarie to no offence against the Conquerour but only sin originall to be under a Conquerour against their will and who hath no right to reigne over them but the bloody sword for so Conquest as Conquest not as just maketh him King over the posterity But 2. the fathers may ingage the posterity by an oath to surrender themselvos as loyall subjects to the man who justly and deservedly made the fathers vassals by the title of the sword of justice I answer the fathers may indeed dispose of the inheritance of their children because that inheritance belongeth to the father as well ar to the sonne but because the liberty of the sonne being borne with the sonne all men being borne free from all Civill subjection the father hath no more power to resigne the libertie of his children then their lives and the
father as a father hath not power of the life of his child as a Magistrate he may have power and as something more then a father he may have power of life and death I heare not what Grotius saith Those who are not borne have no accidents and so no rights Non entis nulla sunt accidentia then Children not borne have neither right nor liberty and so no injury may some say can be done to Children not borne though the fathers should give away their liberty to the conquerour those who are not capable of Law are not capable of injury contrary to Law Ans. There is a virtuall alienation of rights and lives of children not borne unlawfull because the children are not borne to say that children not borne are not capable of law and injuries virtuall which become reall in time might say Adam did not an injury to his posterity by his first sin which is contrary to Gods Word so those who vowed yearely to give seven innocent children to the Minotaure to be devoured and to kill their children not borne to bloody Molech did no acts of bloody injury to their children nor can any say then that fathers cannot tye themselves and their posterity to a King by succession but I say To be tyed to a lawfull King is no making away of liberty but a resigning of a power to be justly governed protected and awed from active and passive violence 7. No lawfull King may be dethroned nor lawfull Kingdome dissolved but Law and reason both saith Quod vi partum est imperium vi dissolvi potest Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence Censetur enim ipsa natura jus dare ad id omne sine quo obtineri non potest quod ipsa imperat It is objected that the people of God by their sword conquered seven nations of the Canaanites David conquered the Ammonites for the disgrace done to his Embassadours So God gave Egypt to Nebuchadnezar for his hire in his service done against Iudah had David no right over the Ammonites and Moabites but by expecting their consentâ— yee will say A right to their lands goods and lives but not to challenge their morall subjection well we doubt not but such conquerours will challenge and obtain their morall consent but if the people refuse their consent is there no way for providence giveth no right So D. Ferne so Arnisaeus Ans. A facto ad jus non valeâ— consequentia God to whom belongeth the world and the fulnesse thereof disponed to Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan for their inheritance and ordained that they should use their bow and their sword for the actuall possession thereof and the like divine right had David to the Edomites and Ammonites though the occasion of Davids taking possession of these Kingdoms by his sword did arise from particular and occasionall exigences and injuries but it followeth in no sort That therefore Kings now wanting any word of promise and so of divine right to any Lands may ascend to the Throns of other Kingdoms then their own by no better title then the bloody sword That Gods will was the chief patent here is clear in that God forbad his people to conquer Edom or Esau's possession when as he gave them command to conquer the Ammorites I doubt not to say if Joshua and David had had no better title then their bloody sword though provoked by injuries they could have had no right to any kingly power over these Kingdoms and if onely successe by the sword be a right of providence it is no right of precept Gods providence as providence without precept or promise can conclude a thing is done or may be done but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully and warrantably done else you might say the selling of Joseph the crucifying of Christ the spoiling of Job were lawfully done 2. Though Conquerors extort consent and oath of Loyaltie yet that maketh not over a Royall right to the Conquerour to be King over their posterity without their consent 3. Though the Children of Ammon did a high injury to David yet no injury can be recompensed in justice with the pressure of the constrained subjection of Loyaltie to a violent Lord if David had not had an higher warrant from God then an injury done to his messengers he could not have conquered them But 1. the Ammonites were the declared enemies of the Church of God and raised forces against David when they themselves were the injurer's and offenders and if Davids Conquest will prove a lawfull title by the sword to all Conquerours then may all Conquerours lawfully do to the conquered people as David did that is they may put them under saws and under harrows of iron and under axes of iron and cause them passe through the Brick-kilne But I beseech you will Royalists say that Conquerours who make themselves Kings by their sword and so make themselves fathers heads defenders and feeders of the people may use the extreamest Tyranny in the world such as David used against the children of Ammon which he could not have done by the naked title of sword-conquest if God had not laid a Commandment of an higher nature on him to serve Gods enemies so I shall then say if a conquering King be a lawfull King because a Conquerour then hath God made such a lawfull King both a father because a King and a Tyrant and cruell and lyon-hearted oppressour of these whom he hath conquered for God hath given him Royall power by this example to put these to whom he is a father and defender by office to torment and also to be a torturer of them by office by bringing their backs under such Instruments of crueltie as saws and harrows of iron and axes of iron QUEST XIII Whether or no Royall dignitie have its spring from nature and how that is true every man is born free and how servitude is contrary to nature I Conceive it to be evident that Royall dignity is not immediately and without the intervention of the peoples consent given by God to any one person 2. That conquest and violence is no just title to a Crown Now the question is If Royalty flow from nature if Royalty be not a thing meerly naturall neither can subjection to Royall power be meerly naturall but the former is rather civill then naturall and the question of the same nature is Whether subjection or servitude be naturall I conceive that there be divers subjections to these that are above us some way naturall and therefore I rank them in order thus 1. There is a subjection in respect of naturall being as the effect to the cause so though Adam had never sinned this morality of the fifth command should have stood in vigour that the son by nature without any positive Law should have been subject to the father because from him he hath his being as from a second cause But I much
King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodier and more tyrannous man then Saul Any Tyrant standeth in titulo so long as the People and Estates who made him King have not recalled their grant so as neither David nor any single man though six hundred with him may unking him or detract obedience from him as King So many acts of disloyaltie and breachcs of lawes in the Subjects though they be contrary to this Covenant that the States make with their Prince doth not make them to be no Subjects and the Covenant mutuall standeth thus 3 Arg. If the people as Gods instruments bestow the benefit of a Crown on their King upon condition that he will rule them according to Gods word then is the King made King by the people conditionally but the former is true Ergo so is the latter The assumption is proved thus because to be a King is to be an adopted father tutor a Politick servant and Royall watchman of the State and the Royall honour and Royall maintenance given to him is a reward of his labours and a Kingly hire And this is the Apostles argument Rom. 13.6 For this cause pay you tribute also there is the wages for they are Gods ministers attending continually upon this very thing There is the worke Qui non implet conditionem à se promissam cadit beneficio It is confirmed thus The people either maketh the man their Prince conditionally that he rule according to Law or absolutely so that he rule according to will or lust or 3. without any vocall transactions at all but only brevi manu say Reigne thou over us and God save the King And so there be no conditions spoken on either side Or 4. The King is obliged to God for the condition which he promiseth by oath to performe toward the people but he is to make no reckoning to the people whether he performe his promise or no for the people being inferiour to him and he solo Deo minor only next and immediate to God the people can have no jus no law over him by vertue of any covenant But the first standing we have what we seeke The second is contrary to Scripture He is not Deut. 17.15 16. made absolutely a King to rule according to his will and lust for Reigne thou over us should have this meaning Come thou and play the Tyrant over us and let thy lust and will be a law to us which is against naturall sense nor can the sense and meaning be according to the third That the people without any expresse vocall and positive covenant give a Throne to their King to rule as he pleaseth because 1. it is a vain thing for the Prelate and other Mancipia Aulae Court-bellies to say Scotland and England must produce a written authentick covenant betwixt the first King and their People because say they it s the Lawes word De non apparentibus non existentibus eadem lex that covenant which appeareth not it is not For in positive covenants that is true and in such contracts as are made according to the Civill or Municipall lawes or the secondary law of Nations But the generall covenant of nature is presupposed in making a King where there is no vocall or written covenant if there be no conditions betwixt a Christian King and his people then those things which are just and right according to the law of God and the rule of God in moulding the first King are understood to regulate both King and People as if they had been written and here we produce our written covenant Deut. 17.15 Josh. 1.8 9. 2 Chr. 31 32.1 Because this is as much against the King as the people and more for if the first King cannot bring forth his written and authentick tables to prove that the Crown was given to him and his heires and his successors absolutely and without any conditions so as his will shall be a law cadit causa he loseth his cause say they The King is in possession of the Royall power absolutely without any condition and you must put him from his possession by a law I answer this is most false 1. Though he were in mala fide and in unjust possession the law of Nature will warrant the people to repeal their right and plead for it in a matter which concerneth their heads lives and soules 2. The Parliaments of both Kingdomes standing in possession of a nomothetick power to make lawes proveth cleerely that the King is in no possession of any Royall dignitie conferred absolutely and without any condition upon him and therefore it is the Kings part by law to put the Estates out of possession And so though there were no written covenant the standing law and practice of many hundreth acts of Parliament is equivalent to a written covenant 2. When the people appointeth any to be their King the voyce of Nature exponeth their deed though there be no vocall or written covenant For that fact of making a King is a morall lawfull act warranted by the word of God Deut. 17.15 16. Rom. 13.1.2 and the law of Nature and therefore they having made such a man their King they have given him power to be their father feeder healer protector and so must only have made him King conditionally so he be a father a feeder and tutor Now if this deed of making a King must be exponed to be an investing with an absolute and not a conditionall power this fact shall be contrary to Scripture and to the law of Nature for if they have given him Royall power absolutely and without any condition they must have given to him power to be a father protector tutor and to be a tyrant a murtherer a bloody lyon to waste and destroy the people of God 3. The Law permitteth the bestower of a benefit to interpret his own mind in the bestowing of a benefit even as a King and State must expone their own Commission given to their Ambassadour so must the Estates expone whether they bestowed the Crown upon the first King conditionally or absolutely For the 4th if it stand then must the people give to their first elected King a power to wast and destroy themselves so as they may never controle it but only leave it to God and the King to reckon together but so the condition is a Chimera We give you a Throne upon condition you swear by him who made heaven and earth that you will govern us according to Gods Law and you shall be answerable to God only not to us whether you keep the covenant you make with us or violate it but how a covenant can be made with the people and the King obliged to God not to the people I conceive not 2. This presupposeth that the King as King cannot doe any sin or commit any act of tyranny against the people but against God only because if he be obliged to God only as a
D. Ferne M. Simmons the P. Prelate when they draw arguments from the head do but dream as the members should not resist the head Naturall members should not or cannot resist the head though the hand may pull a tooth out of the head which is no small violence to the head But the members of a Politique body may resist the Politique head 2. This or that King is not the adequate and totall Politique head of the Common-wealth and therefore though you cut off a Politique head there 's nothing done against nature If you cut off all Kings of the Royall line and all Governors Aristocraticall both King and Parliament this were against nature And a Common-wealth which would cut off all Governors and all Heads should goe against nature and run to ruine quickly I conceive a societie of reasonable men cannot want Governours 6. The naturall head communicateth life sense and motion to the members and is the seat of externall and internall senses the King is not so Hence Assert 5. the King is not properly the head of a family for 1. as Tholossa saith well de Rep. l. 5. c. 5. Nature hath one intention in making the thumbe another intention in making the whole hand another in forming the body so there is one intention of the God of nature in governing of one man another in governing a Familie another in governing a Citie nor is the thumbe King of all the members so domestick government is not Monarchicall properly 1. The mother hath a parentall power as the father hath Prov. 4.5 10.3 31.17 so the 5. Command saith Honour thy father and thy mother 2. Domestick government is naturall Monarchicall politique 3. Domestick is necessary Monarchicall is not necessary other governments may be as well as it 4. Domestick is universall Monarchicall not so 5. Domesticall hath its rise from naturall instinct without any farther instruction a Monarchicall government is not but from election choosing one Government not another Hence that is a fiduciarie power or a power of trust wherein 1. the thing put in trust is not his own proper either heritage or gift so as he may dispose of it as he pleaseth as men dispose of their goods or heritage But the King may not dispose of men as men as he pleaseth nor 2. of Lawes as he pleaseth nor 3. of governing men killing or keeping alive punishing and rewarding as he pleaseth 2. My life and Religion and so my Soule in some cases are committed to the King as to a publick Watchman even as the flock to the feeder the Citie to the Watchmen And he may berray it to the Enemy Ergo he hath the trust of Life and Religion and hath both tables of the Law in his custodie ex officio to see that other men then himselfe keep the Law But the Law is not the Kings own but given to him in trust 3. He who receiveth a Kingdom conditionally may be dethroned if he sell it or put it away to any other is a fiduciarie Patron and hath it only in trust So Hottoman quest ill 1. Ferdinand Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 4. Althusius polit c. 24. n. 35. so saith the law of every Factor or Deputy l. 40. l. 63. procur l. 16. C. dict 1. Antigonus dixit Regnum esse nobilem servitutem Tyberius Caesar called the Senate Dominum suum his Lord. Suetonius in vita Tiberii c. 29. QUEST XVIII What is the law of the King and his Power 1 Sam. 8.11 This will be the manner of the King who shall reigne over you c. THis place 1 Sam. 8 9. and v. 11. The law or manner of the King is alleadged to prove both the absolute power of Kings and 2. the unlawfulnesse of resistance therefore I crave leave here to vindicate the place and to make it evident to all that the place speaketh for no such matter 1. Hug. Grotius argueth thus that by this place the people oppressed with injuries of a Tyrannous King have nothing left them but prayers and cries to God and therefore there is no ground for violent resisting Barclay will have us to distinguish inter officium Regis potestatem between the Kings office and the Kings power And he will have the Lord here speaking not of the Kings office what he ought to doe before God but what power a King hath beside and above the power of Judges to tyrannize over the people so as the people hath no power to resist it He will have the Office of the King spoken of Deut. 17. and the Power of the King 1 Sam. 8. and that power which the People was to obey and submit unto without resisting But I answer 1. It is a vaine thing to distinguish betwixt the office and the power for the power is either a power to rule according to Gods law as he is commanded Deut. 17. and this is the very office or officiall power which the King of Kings hath given to all Kings under him and this is a power of the Royall office of a King to governe for the Lord his maker or this is a power to doe ill and tyrannize over Gods people but this is accidentall to a King and the character of a Tyrant and is not from God and so the Law of the King in this place must be the Tyranny of the King which is our very mind 2. Barclay Reges sine dominatione ne concipi quidem possunt Iudices dominationem in populum minimè habebant Hence it is cleare that Barclay saith that the Iudges of Israel and the Kings are different in essence and nature so that domination is so essentiall to a King that you cannot conceive a King but he must have domination whereas the Iudges of Israel had no domination over the people Hence I argue that whereby a King is essentially distinguished from a Iudge that must be from God but by domination which is a power to oppresse the subject a King is essentially distinguished from a Iudge of Israel Ergo Domination and a power to do Acts of Tyranny as they are expressed Verse 11 12 13. and to oppresse a subject is from God and so must be a lawfull power but the conclusion is absurd the assumption is the doctrine of Barclay The major proposition I prove 1. Because both the Iudge and the King was from God for God gave Moses a lawfull calling to be a Iudge so did he to Eli to Samuel and Deut. 17.15 the King is a lawfull Ordinance of God If then the Judge and the King be both lawfull Ordinances and if they differ essentially as Barclay saith then that specifice forme which distinguisheth the one from the other to wit Domination and a power to destroy the subject must be from God which is blasphemous for God can give no morall power to do wickedly for that is licence and a power to sin against a Law of God which is absolutely
argument from fact 1. A wicked Magistracie may permit perjurie and lying in the Common-wealth and that without punishment and some Christian Commonweales he meaneth his own Synagogue of Rome spirituall Sodome a cage of uncleane birds suffereth Harlotrie by Law and the whores pay so many thousands yearely to the Pope and are free of all punishment by Law to eschew homicides adulteries of Romish Priests and other greater sinnes Therefore God hath given power to a King to play the Tyrant without any feare of punishment to be inflicted by man But 1. if this be a good argument The Magistrate to whom God hath committed the sword to take vengeance on evill doers Rom. 13.3 4 5 6. such as are perjured persons professed whores and harlots hath a lawfull power from God to connive at sinnes and grosse scandals in the Commonwealth as they dreame that the King hath power given from God to exercise all acts of Tyranny without any resistance But 1. this was a grievous sinne in Eli that he being a father and a Iudge punished not his sonnes for their uncleannesse and his house in Gods heavy displeasure was cut off from the Priesthood therefore Then God hath given no such power to the Iudge 2. The contrary duty is lying on the Iudge To execute judgement for the oppressed Iob 29.12 13 14 15 16 17. Ier. 22.15 16. and perverting of judgement and conniving at the heynous sinnes of the wicked is condemned Num. 5.31 32. 1 Sam. 15.23 1 King 20.42 43. Esa. 1.17 10.1 5.23 and therefore God hath given no power to a Iudge to permit wicked men to commit grievous crimes without any punishment As for the Law of Divorce it was indeed a permissive law whereby the husband might give the wife a bill of divorce and be free of punishment before men but not free of sinne and guiltinesse before God for it was contrary to Gods institution of Mariage at the beginning as Christ saith and the Prophet saith that the Lord hateth putting away But that God hath given any such permissive power to the King that he may doe what he pleaseth and cannot be resisted This is in question 3. The Law spoken of in the Text is by Royalists called not a consuetude of Tranny but the divine law of God whereby the King is formally and essentially distinguished from the Judge in Israel Now if so a power to sinne and a power to commit acts of Tyranny yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the people of God must be a lawfull power given of God for a lawfull power it must be if it commeth from God whether it be from the King in his own person or from his servants at his commandement and by either put forth in acts as the power of a bill of Divorce was a power from God exempting either the husband from punishment before men or freeing the servant who at the husbands command should write it and put it in the hands of the woman I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by Law to one Man to command twenty thousand Cut-throats to kill and destroy all the Children of God and that he hath commanded his Children to give their necks and heads to Babels sonnes without resistance This I am sure is another matter then a Law for a bill of Divorce to one woman maried by free election of a humorous and unconstant man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from heaven like the law of Divorce for the hardnesse of the heart not of the Iewes only but also of the whole Christian and Heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch that one Emperour may by such a Law of God as the Law of Divorce kill by bloody Cut-throats such as the Irish Rebels are all the Nations that call on Gods name men women and sucking infants And if Providence impede the Catholike issue and dry up the seas of Blood it is good but God hath given a law such as the law of Divorce to the King whereby he and all his may without resistance by a legall power given of God who giveth Kings to be fathers nurses protectors guides yea the breath of nostrils of his Church as speciall mercies and blessings to his people he may I say by a law of God as it is 1 Sam. 8.9 11. cut off Nations as that Lyon of the world Nebuchadnezzar did So Royalists teach us Barclaius l. 2. cont Monarchoma pag. 69. The Lord spake to Samuel the Law of the King and wrot it in a book◠and laid it up before the Lord. But what Law That same law which he proposed to the people when they first sought a King but that was the Law contemning Precepts rather for the peoples obeying then for the Kings commanding for the people was to be instructed with those precepts not the King Those things that concerned the Kings duty Deut. 17. Moses commanded to be put into the Arke but so if Samuel had commanded the King that which Moses Deut. 17. commanded he had done no new thing but had done againe what was once done actum egisset but there was nothing before commanded the people concerning their obedience and patience under evill Princes Ioseph Antiq. l. 6. c. 5. he wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evills that were to befall them Ans. It was not that same Law for though this Law was written to the people yet it was the Law of the King and I pray you did Samuel write in a booke all the Rules of Tyranny and teach Saul and all the Kings after him for this book was put in the Ark of the Covenant where also was the booke of the Law how to play the Tyrant And what instruction was it to King or people to write to them a book of the wicked waies of a King which nature teacheth without a Doctor Sanctius saith on the place These things which by mens fraud and to the hurt of the publick may be corrupted were kept in the Tabernacle and the booke of the Law was kept in the Arke Cornelius a Lapide saith It was the Law common to King and people which was commonly kept with the booke of the Law in the Arke of the Covenant Lyra contradicteth Barclay he exponeth Legem legem regni non secundum usurpationem supra positam sed secundum ordinationem Dei positam Deut. 17. Theodat excellently exponeth it the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome inspired by God to temper Monarchy with a liberty befitting Gods people and with equity toward a Nation to withstand the abuse of an absolute power 2. Can any beleeve Samuel would have written a Law of Tyranny and put that booke in the Arke of the Covenant before the Lord to be kept to the posterity seeing he was to teach both King and people the good and the right way 1 Sam. 12.23 24 25. 3. Where is the Law of the Kingdome called a Law of
be sent of the King and appointed by him to be Iudges and so have their externall call from Gods deputy the King yet because judging is an act of conscience as one mans conscience cannot properly be a deputy for another mans conscience so neither can an inferior Iudge as a Iudge be a deputy for a King therefore the inferiour Iudges have designation to their office from the King but if they have from the King that they are Iudges and be not Gods deputies but the Kings they could not be commanded to execute judgement for God but for the King and Deut. 1.17 Moses appointed Iudges but not as his deputies to judge and give sentence as subordinate to Moses For the judgement saith he is the Lords not mine 6. If all the inferiour Iudges in Israel were but the deputies of the King and not immediately subordinate to God as his deputies then could neither inferiour Iudges be admonished nor condemned in Gods word for unjust judgement because their sentence should be neither righteous nor unrighteous judgement but in so far as the King should approve it or disapprove it and indeed that Royalist Hugo Grotius saith so That an inferiour Iudge can do nothing against the will of the supreme Magistrate if it be so When ever God commandeth inferiour Iudges to execute righteous judgement it must have this sense Respect not persons in judgement except the King command you crush not the poor oppresse not the fatherlesse except the King command you I understand not such policie Sure I am The Lords commandments rebukes and threats oblige in conscience the inferiour Iudge as the superiour as is manifest in these Scriptures Jerem. 5.1 Isai. 1.17 21. and 5.7 and 10.2 and 59.14 Jere. 22.3 Ezek. 18.8 Amos 5.7 Micah 3.9 Habak 1.4 Levit 19.15 Deut. 17.11 and 1.17 Exod. 23.2 Grotius saith It is here as in a Categorie the middle Spece is in respect of the Superiour a Spece in respect of the inferiour a Genus so inferiour Magistrates in relation to these who are inferiour to them and under them they are Magistrates or publike persons but in relation to superiour Magistrates especially the King they are private persons and not Magistrates Answ. Jehoshaphat esteemed not Iudges appointed by himself private men 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Yee judge not for men but for the Lord. 2. We shall prove that under Iudges are powers ordained of God 3. In Scotland the King can take no mans inheritance from him because he is King But if any man possesse Lands belonging to the Crown the King by his Advocate must stand before the Lord-Iudges of the Session and submit the matter to the Laws of the Land and if the King for propertie of Goods were not under a Law and were not to acknowledge Iudges as Iudges I see not how the subject in either Kingdoms have any proprietie 4. I judge it blasphemie to say That a sentence of an inferiour Iudge must be no sentence though never so legall nor just if it be contrary to the Kings will as Grotius saith He citeth that of Augustine If the Consul command one thing and the Emperour another thing you contemn not the power but you choose to obey the highest Peter saith He will have us one way to be subject to the King as to the supreme sine ulla exceptione without any exception but to these who are sent by the King as having their power from the King Answ. When the Consull commandeth a thing lawfull and the King that same thing lawfull or a thing not unlawfull we are to obey the King rather then the Consull so I expone Augustine 2. We are not to obey the King and the Consull the same way that is with the same degree of reverence and submission for we owe more submission of spirit to the King then to the Consul but magis minus non variant speciem more or lesse varieth not the natures of things but if the meaning be that we are not to obey the inferiour Iudge commanding things lawfull if the King command the contrary this is utterly denyed But saith Grotius The inferiour Judge is but the Deputie of the King and hath all his power from him therefore we are to obey him for the King Answ. The inferiour Iudge may be called the Deputy of the King where it is the Kings place to make Iudges because he hath his externall call from the King and is Iudge in foro Soli in the name and authority of the King but being once made a Iudge in foro poli before God he is as essentially a Iudge and in his officiall acts no lesse immediately subjected to God then the King himself Argum. 2. These powers to whom we are to yield obedience because they are ordained of God these are as essentially Iudges as the supreme Magistrate the King but inferiour Iudges are such Ergo Inferiour Iudges are as essentially Iudges as the supreme Magistrate The proposition is Rom. 13.1 For that is the Apostles Arguments whence we prove Kings are to be obeyed because they are powers from God I prove the assumption Inferiour Magistrates are powers from God Deut. 1.17 and 19.6 7. Exod. 22.7 Jere. 5.1 and the Apostle saith The powers that are are ordained of God 3. Christ testified that Pilate had power from God as a Iudge say Royalists no lesse then Caesar the Emperour Iohn 19.11 and 1 Pet. 2.12 We are commanded to obey the King and these that are sent by him and that for the Lords sake and for conscience to God and Rom. 13 5. We must be subject to all powers that are of God not onely for wrath but for conscience 4. These who are rebuked because they execute not just judgement as well as the King are supposed to be essentially Iudges as well as the King but inferiour Iudges are rebuked because of this Ierem. 22.15 16 17. Ezek. 45.9 10 11 12. Zeph. 3.3 Amos 5.6 7. Eccles. 3.16 Micah 3.2 3 4. Jerem. 5.31 Ierem. 5.1 5. He is the Minister of God for good and hath the sword not in vain but to execute vengeance on the evil doers no lesse then the King Rom. 13.2 3 4. He to whom agreeth by an Ordinance of God the specifick acts of a Magistrate he is essentially a Magistrate 6. The resisting of the inferiour Magistrate in his lawfull commandments is the resisting of Gods Ordinance and a breach of the fifth Commandment as is disobedience to parents and not to give him tribute and fear and honour is the same transgression Rom. 13.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 7. These stiles of Gods of Heads of the people of Fathers of Physicians and healers of the sonnes of the most High of such as Raign and Decree by the wisedome of God c. that are given to Kings for the which Royalists make Kings onely Iudges and all inferiour Iudges but deputed and Iudges by participation and at the second hand or
beleeve certainly that he would breake his oath he hath no illimited and absolute power from God or the People for faedus conditionatum aut promissio conditionalis mutua facit jus alteri in alterum A mutuall conditionall Covenant giveth law and power over one to another But from that which hath been said The King sweareth to the three-Estates to be regulated by Law He accepteth the Crowne upon the tenor of a mutuall covenant c. for if he should as King sweare to be King that is one who hath absolute power above a Law and also to be regulated by a Law he should sweare things contradictorie that is that he should be their King having absolute power over them and according to that power to rule them and he should sweare not to be their King and to rule them not according to absolute power but according to Law If therefore this absolute power be essentiall to a King as a King no King can lawfully take the oath to governe according to Law for then he should sweare not to reigne as King and not be their King For how could he be their King wanting that which God hath made essentiall to a King as a King QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath any Royall prerogative or a power to dispence with Lawes And some other grounds against absolute Monarchie A Prerogative Royall I take two wayes 1. Either to be an act of meere will and pleasure above or beside Reason or Law Or an act of dispensation beside or against the letter of the Law Assert 1. That which Royalists call the Prerogative Royall of Princes is the salt of Absolute Power and it is a supreme and highest power of a King as a King to doe above without or contrary to a Law or Reason which is unreasonable 1. When Gods word speaketh of the power of Kings and Iudges Deut. 17.15 16 17. Deut. 1.15 16 17. and elsewhere there is not any footstep or ground for such a power and therefore if we speake according to conscience there is no such thing in the world And because Royalists cannot give us any warrant it is to be rejected 2. A Prerogative Royall must be a power of doing good to the people and grounded upon some reason or law but this is but a branch of an ordinarie limited power and no prerogative above or beside law Yea any power not grounded on a reason different from meere will or absolute pleasure is an irrationall and brutish power and therefore it may well be jus personae the power of the man who is King it cannot be jus coronae any power annexed to the Crown for this holdeth true of all the actions of a King as a King Illud potest Rex illud tantum quod jurâ— potest The King as King can doe no more then that which upon right and law he may doe 3. To dispute this question Whether such a Prerogative agree to any King as King is to dispute whether God hath made all under a Monarch slaves by their own consent which is a vaine question 2. Those who hold such a Prerogative must say the King is so absolute and illimited a God on earth that either by law or his sole pleasure beside law he may regularly and rationally move all wheeles in Policie and his uncontrolled will shall be the axeltree on which all the wheeles are turned 4. That which is the garland and proper flower of the King of Kings as he is absolute above his creatures and not tyed to any law without himselfe that regulateth his will That must be given to no mortall man or King except we would communicate that which is Gods proper due to a sinfull man which must be idolatrie But to doe Royall acts out of an absolute power above Law and Reason is such a power as agreeth to God as is evident in positive lawes and in acts of Gods meere pleasure where we see no reason without the Almightie for the one side rather than for the other as Gods forbidding the eating of the tree of knowledge maketh the eating sinne and contrary to reason but there is no reason in the object for if God should command eating of that tree not to eat should be also sinne So Gods choosing Peter to glory and his refusing Judas is a good and a wise act but not good or wise from the object of the act but from the sole wise pleasure of God because if God had chosen Judas to glory and rejected Peter that act had been no lesse a good and a wise act then the former For when there is no law in the object but only Gods will the act iâ— good and wise seeing infinite wisdome cannot be separated from the perfect will of God but no act of a mortall King having sole and only will and neither law nor reason in it can be a lawfull a wise or a good act Assert 2. There is something which may be called a Prerogative by way of dispensation There is a threefold dispensation one of power another of justice and a third of grace A dispensation of power is when the will of the Law-giver maketh that act to be no sinne which without that will would have been sinne As if Gods commanding Will had not interveened the Israelites borrowing the eare-rings and jewels of the Egyptians and not restoring them had been a breach of the 8 Commandement and in this sense no King hath a Prerogative to dispence with a Law 2. There is a dispensation of law and justice not flowing from any Prerogative but from the true intent of the Law And thus the King yea the inferiour Judge is not to take the life of a man whom the letter of the Law would condemne because the Justice of the Law is the intent and life of the Law and where nothing is done against the intent of the Law there is no breach of any Law The Third is not unlike unto the Second when the King exponeth the Law by Grace and this is twofold 1. Either when he exponeth it of his wisdome and mercifull nature inclined to mercy and justice yet according to the just intent native sense and scope of the Law considering the occasion circumstances of the fact and comparing both with the Law and this dispensation of grace I grant to the King As when the tribute is great and the man poor the King may dispense with the custome 2. The Law saith In a doubtfull case the Prince may dispense because it is presumed the Law can have no sense against the principall sense and intent of the Law But there is another dispensation that Royalists doe plead for and that is a power in the King ex mera gratia absolutae potestatis regalis Out of meere grace of absolute Royall power to pardon crimes which Gods law saith should be punished by death Now this they call a power of Grace but it is
not a power of meere Grace But 1. Though Princes may doe some things of Grace yet not of meere Grace because what Kings doe as Kings and by vertue of their Royall office that they do ex debito officii by debt and right of their office and that they cannot but do it not being arbitrarie to them to doe the debtfull acts of their office But what they doe of meere grace that they doe as good men and not as Kings and that they may not doe As for example Some Kings out of their pretended prerogative have given foure pardons to one man for foure murthers Now this the King might have left undone without sinne But of meere grace he pardoned the murtherer who killed foure men But the truth is the King killed the three last because he hath no power in point of Conscience to dispute with blood Num. 35.31 Gen. 9.6 These pardons are acts of meere grace to one man but acts of blood to the Communitie 2. Because the Prince is the Minister of God for the good of the subject and therefore the Law saith He cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him Contra l. quod favore F. de leg l. non ideo minus F. de proc l. legata inutiliter F. de lega 1. And the reason is cleare He is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill And if the Judgement be the Lords not mans not the Kings as it is indeed Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 he cannot draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guiltie except he would take on himselfe to carve and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now certaine it is God only univocally and essentially as God is the Judge Ps. 75.7 and God only and essentially King Ps. 97.1 Ps. 99.1 and all men in relation to him are meere ministers servants legates deputies and in relation to him equivocally and improperly Iudges or Kings and meere created and breathing shadowes of the power of the King of Kings And looke as the Scribe following his own device and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the Court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Iudge so are Kings and all Iudges but forged intruders and bastard Kings and Iudges in so far as they give out the sentences of men and are not the very mouthes of the King of Kings to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himselfe would doe if he were sitting on the Throne or Bench. 3. If the King from any supposed prerogative Royall may doe acts of meere grace without any warrant of Law because he is above Law by office then also may he doe acts of meere rigorous Iustice and kill and destroy the innocent out of the same supposed Prerogative For Gods word equally tyeth him to the place of a meere minister in doing good as in executing wrath on evill doers Rom. 13.3 4. And reason would say he must be as absolute in the one as in the other seeing God tieth him to the one as to the other by his office and place yea by this acts of Iustice to ill-doers and acts of reward to well-doers shall be arbitrary morally and by vertue of office to the King and the word Prerogative Royall saith this for the word Prerogative is a supreme power absolute that is loosed from all Law and so from all reason of Law and depending on the Kings meer and naked pleasure and will and the word Royall or Kingly is an Epithete of office and of a Iudge a created and limited Iudge and so it must tye this supposed Prerogative to Law Reason and to that which is debitum legale officii and a legall duty of an office and by this our masters the Royalists make God to frame a rationall creature which they call a King to frame acts of Royalty good and lawfull upon his own meer pleasure and the super-dominion of his will above a Law and Reason And from this it is that deluded Counsellours made King James a man not of shallow understanding and King Charls to give pardons to such bloody murtherers as James a Grant and to go so far on by this supposed Prerogative Royall that King Charls in Parliament at Edinburgh 1633. did command an high point of Religion That Ministers should use in officiating in Gods service such Habits and Garments as he pleaseth that is all the Attire and Habits of the idolatrous Masse-Priests that the Romish Priests of Baal useth in the oadest point of idolatry the adoring of Bread that the earth has and by this Prerogative the King commanded the Service Book in Scotland An. 1637. without or above Law and Reason And I desire any man to satisfie me in this If the Kings Prerogative Royall may over-leap Law and Reason in two degrees and if he may as King by a Prerogative Royall command the body of Popery in a Popish Book If he may not by the same reason over-leap Law and Reason by the elevation of twenty degrees And if you make the King a Iulian God avert and give the spirit of revelation to our King may he not command all the Alcaron and the Religion of the Heathen and Indians Royalists say The Prerogative of Royalty excludeth not reason and maketh not the King to do as a brute beast without all reason but it giveth a power to a King to do by his Royall pleasure not fettered to the dictates of a Law for in things which the King doth by his Prerogative Royall he is to follow the advice and counsell of his wise counsell though their counsell and advice doth not binde the Royall will of the King I answer it is to me and I am sure to many Learneder a great question If the will of any reasonable creature even of the damned angels can will or chose any thing which their reason corrupted as it is doth not dictate hic nunc to be good For the object of the will of all men is good either truely or apparently good to the doer for the devill could not suite in marriage souls except he war in the cloths of an Angel of light sin as sin cannot sell or obtrude it self upon any but under the notion of good I think it seemeth good to the great Turk to command innocent men to cast themselves over a precipie two hundreth fadom high in the Sea and drown themselves to pleasure him So the Turks reason for he is rationall if he be a man dictateth to his vast pleasure that that is good which he commandeth 2. Counsellours to the King who will speak what will please the Queen are but naked empty Titles for they speak que placent non que prosunt what may please the King whom they make glad with their lies not what law and reason dictateth 3. Absolutenesse of an unreasonable Prerogative doth not deny
all in one day to his sword were they obliged by this Oath to prayers and â—eares and only to suffer and was it against the Oath of God to defend themselves by Armes I beleeve the Oath did not oblige to such absolute subjection and though they had taken Armes in their owne lawfull defence according to the Law of Nature they had not broken the Oath of God The Oath was not a tye to an absolute subjection of all and every one either to worship Idols or then to sly or suffer death Now the Service-booke commanded in the Kings absolute authority all Scotland to commit grosser Idolatry in the intention of the work if not in the intention of the Commander then was in Babylon We read not that the King of Babylon pressed the consciences of Gods people to Idolatry or that all should either sly the Kingdome and leave their inheritances to Papists and Prelates or then come under the mercy of the sword of Papists and Atheists by sea or land 3. God may command against the Law of Nature and Gods Commandement maketh subjection lawfull so as men may not now being under the Law of God defend themselves What then Ergo we owe subjection to absolute Princes and their power must be a lawfull power it no waies is consequent Gods Commandement by Ieremiah made the subjection of Iudah lawfull and without that Commandement they might have taken Armes against the King of Babylon as they did against the Philistines and Gods Commandement maketh the Oath lawfull As suppone Ireland would all rise in Armes and come and destroy Scotland the King of Spain leading then we were by this Argument not to resist 4. It is denyed that the power Rom. 13. as absolute is Gods ordinance And I deny utterly that Christ and his Apostles did sweare non-resistence absolute to the Roman Emperour Obj. 2. It sesmeth 1 Pet. 2.18 19. if well doing be mistaken by the reason and judgement of an absolute Monarch for ill doing and we punished yet the Magistrates will is the command of a reasonable will and so to be submitted unto because such a one suffereth by Law where the Monarches Will is a Law and in this case some power must judge Now in an absolute Monarchy all judgement resolveth in the Will of the Monarch as the supreame Law and if Ancestors have submitted themselves by Oath there is no repeale or redresment Ans. Who ever was the Author of this Treatise he is a bad defender of the defensive warres in England for all the lawfulnesse of warres then must depend on this 1. Whether England be a conquered Nation at the beginning 2. If the Law-will of an absolute Monarch or a Nero be a reasonable Will to which we must submit in suffering ill I see not but we must submit to a reasonable will if it be reasonable will in doing ill no lesse then in suffering ill 3. Absolute Will in absolute Monarches is no Iudge De jure but an unlawfull and a usurping Iudge 4. 1 Pet. 2.18 19. Servants are not commanded simply to suffer I can prove suffering formally not to fall under any Law of God but only patient suffering I except Christ who was under a peculiar commandement to suffer But servants upon supposition that they are servants and buffeted unjustly by their Masters are by the Apostle Peter commanded v. 20. to suffer patiently But it doth not bind up a servants hand to defend his owne life with weapons if his Master invade him without cause to kill him otherwise if God call him to suffer he is to suffer in the manner and way as Christ did not reviling not threatning 4. To be a King and an absolute Master to me are contradictory a King essentially is a living Law An absolute man is a creature that they call a Tyrant and no lawfull King yet doe I not meane that any that is a King and usurpeth absolutenesse leaveth off to be a King but in so far as he is absolute he is no more a King then in so far as he is a Tyrant But further the King of England saith in a Declaration 1. The Law is the measure of the Kings Power 2. Parliaments are essentially Lord Iudges to make Lawes essentially as the King is ergo the King is not above the Law 3. Magna Charta saith the King can doe nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law 4. Prescription taketh away the title of conquests Obj 3. The King not the Parliament is the Anoynted of God Ans. The Parliament is as good even a Congregation of Gods Psalme 82.1 Obj. 4. The Parliament is the Court in their Acts they say with consent of our Soveraigne Lord. Ans. They say not at the Commandement and absolute pleasure of our Soveraigne Lord. 2. He is their Lord materially not as they are formally a Parliament for the King made them not a Parliament but sure I am the Parliament had power before he was King and made him King 1 Sam. 10.17 18. Obj. 5. In an absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any will as will but to the reasonable will of the Monarch which having the law of reason to direct it is kept from injurious acts Ans. If reason be a sufficient restraint and if God hath laid no other restraint upon some lawfull King yee reason Then is Magistracy a lame a needlesse ordinance of God for all Mankind hath reason to keepe themselves from injuries and so there is no need of Iudges or Kings to defend them from either doing or suffering injuries But certainly this must be admirable If God as Author of nature should make the Lyon King of all beasts the Lyon remaining a devouring beast and should ordaine by nature all the sheepe and Lambs to come and submit their corps to him by instinct of nature and to be eaten at his will and then say The nature of a beast in a Lyon is a sufficient restraint to keepe the Lyon from devouring Lambs Certainly a King being a sinfull man and having no restraint on his power but reason he may thinke it reason to allow rebells to kill drowne hang torture to death an hundred thousand Protestants men women infants in the wombe and sucking babes as is clere in Pharaoh Manasseh and other Princes Obj. 6. There is no Court or Iudge above the King ergo he is absolutely supreame Ans. The Antecedent is false The Court that made the King of a private man a King is above him and here are limitations laid on him at his Coronation 2. The States of Parliament are above him to censure him 3. In case of open Tyranny though the States had not time to conveen in Parliament if he bring on his people an hoast of Spaniards or forraine Rebells his owne conscience is above him and the conscience of the people farre more called conscientia terrae may judge him in so farre as they may
fundamentall in that notion Some object The three Estates as men and looking to their owne ends not to Law and the publick good are not fundamentalls and are to be judged by the King Ans. By the people and the conscience of the people they are to be judged Obj. But the people also doe judge as corrupt men and not as the people and a Politique Body providing for their owne safety Ans. I grant all when God will bring a vengeance on Jerusalem Prince and people both are hardened to their owne destruction Now God hath made all the three in every Government where there is Democracy there is some chosen ones resembling an Aristocracy and some one for order presiding in Democraticall courts resembling a King In Aristocracy as in Holland there is somewhat of Democracy the people have their Commissioners and one Duke or Generall as the Prince of Orange is some umbrage of Royalty and in Monarchy there are the three Estates of Parliament and these containe the three Estates and so somewhat of the three formes of Government and there is no one Government just that hath not some of all three powre and absolute Monarchy is Tyranny unmixed Democracy is confusion untempered Aristocracy is factious Dominion and a limited Monarchy hath from Democracy respect to publick good without confusion From Aristocracy safety in multitude of Counsells without factious emulation and so a barre laid on Tyranny by the joynt powers of many and from Soveraignty union of many children in one father and all the three thus contempered have their owne sweet fruits through Gods blessing and their owne diseases by accident and through mens corruption and neither reason nor Scripture shall warrant any one in its rigid purity without mixture And God having chosen the best government to bring men fallen in sinne to happinesse must warrant in any one a mixture of all three as in mixt bodies the foure Elements are reduced to a fit temper resulting of all the foure where the acrimony of all the foure first qualities is broken and the good of all combined in one The King as the King is an unerring and living Law and by grant of Barclay of old was one of excellent parts and noble through vertue and goodnesse and the goodnesse of a father as a father of a tutor as a tutor of a head as a head of a husband as a husband doe agree to the King as the King so as King he is the Law it selfe commanding governing saving 2. His Will as King or his Royall Will is reason conscience Law 3. This Will is politickly present when his person is absent in all Parliaments Courts and inferiour Iudicatures 4. The King as King cannot doe wrong or violence to any 5. Amongst the Romanes the name King and Tyrant were common to one thing 1. Because de facto some of their Kings were Tyrants in respect of their Dominion rather then Kings 2. Because he who was a Tyrant De facto should have been and was a King too de jure 6. It is not lawfull to either disobey or resist a King as a King no more then it is lawfull to disobey a good Law 7. What violence what unjustice and excesse of passion the King mixeth in with his Acts of Government are meerely accidentall to a King as King for because men by their owne innate goodnesse will not yea Morally cannot doe that which is lawfull and just one to another and doe naturally since the fall of man violence one to another therefore if there had not been sin there should not have been need of a King more then there should have beene need of a Tutor to defend the child whose father is not dead or of a Physitian to cure sicknesse where there is health for remove sinne and there is neither death nor sicknesse but because sinne is entered into the world God devised as a remedy of violence and unjustice a living rationall breathing Law called a King a Iudge a Father now the aberrations violence and oppression of this thing which is the living rationall breathing Law is no Medium no meane intended by God and nature to remove violence How shall violence remove violence Therefore an unjust King as unjust is not that genuine ordinance of God appointed to remove unjustice but accidentall to a King So we may resist the unjustice of the King and not resist the King 8 If then any cast off the nature of a King and become habitually a Tyrant in so farre he is not from God nor any ordinance which God doth owne If the Office of a Tyrant to speake so be contrary to a Kings Offices it is not from God and so neither is the power from God 9. Yea Lawes which are no lesse from God then the Kings are when they begin to be hurtfull Cessant materialiter they leave off to be Lawes because they oblige Non secundum vim verborum sed in vim sensus not according to the force of words but according to sense l. Non figura literarum F. de actione obligatione l. ita stipulatus But who saith the Royalists shall be judge betwixt the King and the people when the people alledge that the King is a Tyrant Ans. There is a Court of necessity no lesse then a Court of Justice and 2. The fundamentall Lawes must then speake and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no Ruler Obj. 1. But if the Law be doubtsome as all humane all Civill all municipall Lawes may endure great dispute the peremptory person exponing the Law must be the supreame Iudge This cannot be the people ergo it must be the King Ans. 1. As the Scriptures in all fundamentalls are cleare and expone themselves and Actu primo condemne Heresies so all Lawes of men in their fundamentals which are the Law of Nature and of Nations are cleare And 2. Tyranny is more visible and intelligible then Heresie and it s soone decerned If a King bring in upon his native subjects twenty thousand Turks armed and the King lead them It is evident they come not to make a friendly visite to salute the Kingdom and depart in peace the people have a naturall throne of policie in their conscience to give warning and materially sentence against the King as a Tyrant and so by nature are to defend themselves Where Tyranny is more obscure and the thred small that it escape the eye of men the King keepeth possession but I deny that Tyranny can be obscure long Object 2. Doct. Ferne. A King may not or cannot easily alter the frame of fundamentall Laws he may make some actuall invasion in some transient and not fixed acts and it is safer to bear these then to raise a civill Warre of the Body against the Head Answ. 1. If the King as King may alter any one wholesome Law by that same reason he may alter all 2. You give short wings to
positive covenant made with him To finde out the essentiall difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant We are to observe that it is one thing to sin against a man another thing against a Stat◠David killing Vriah committed an act of murther But on this supposition that David is not punished for that murther he did not so sin against the State and Catholike good of the State that he turneth Tyrant and ceaseth to be a lawfull King A Tyrant is he who habitually sinneth against the Catholike good of the Subjects and State and subverteth Law Such a one should not be as Jason of whom it is said by Aeneas Silvius Graviter ferebat si non regnaret quasi nesciret esse privatus When such as are monstrous Tyrants are not taken away by the Estates God pursueth them in wrath Domitian was killed by his own Family his wife knowing of it Aurelianus was killed with a thunder-bolt Darius was drowned in a River Dioclesian fearing death poysoned himself Salerius died eaten with Worms The end of Herod and Antiochus Maxentius was swallowed up in a standing River Iulian died being stricken through with a Dart thrown at him by a man or an Angel it is not known Valens the Arian was burnt with fire in a little Village by the Gothes Anastasius the Eutychian Emperour was stricken by God with thunder Gundericus Vandalus when he rose against the Church of God being apprehended by the Divell died Some time the State have taken order with Tyrants The Empire was taken from Vitellius Heliogabalus Maximinus Didius Iulianus So was the two Childerici of France served So were also Sigebertus Dagabertus and Lodowick the 11. of France Christiernus of Denmark Mary of Scotland who killed her husband and raised Forces against the Kingdom So was Henricus Valesius of Pol for fleeing the Kingdom Sigismundus of Pol for violating his faith to the States QUEST XXV What force the Supreme Law hath over the King even that Law of the Peoples safetie called Salus Populi THe Law of the 12. Tables is Salus populi Suprema lex The safetie of the People is the supreme and Cardinall law to which all Lawes are to stoope And that from these Reasons 1. Originally Because if the People be the first Author Fountaine and Efficient under God of Law and King then their own safetie must be principally sought and their safetie must be farre above the King as the safetie of a Cause especially of an universall Cause such as is the People must be more then the safetie of one as Aristotle saith l. 3. polit alias l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The part cannot be more excellent then the whole nor the effect above the cause 2. Finaliter This Supreme law must stand for if all Law Policie Magistrates and Power be referred to the peoples good as the end Rom. 13.4 and to their quiet and peaceable life in godlinesse and honestie then must this Law stand as of more worth then the King as the end is of more worth then the meanes leading to the end for the end is the measure and rule of the goodnesse of the meane and finis ultimus in influxu est potentissimus The King is good because he conduceth much for the safetie of the People Ergo the safetie of the people must be better 3. By way of limitation Because no Law in its letter hath force where the safetie of the Subject is in hazard and if Law or King be destructive to the people they are to be abolished This is cleare in a Tyrant or a wicked man 4. In the desires of the most holy Moses a Prince desired for the safetie of Gods people and rather then God should destroy his people that his name should be razed out of the booke of life And David saith 1 Chron. 21.17 Let thine hand I pray thee O Lord my God be on me and on my fathers house but not on thy people that they should be plagued This being a holy desire of these two publick Spirits the object must be in it selfe true and the safetie of Gods people and their happinesse must be of more worth then the salvation of Moses and the life of David and his Fathers house The Prelate borroweth an answer to this for he hath none of his own from D. Ferne. The safetie of the Subjects is the prime end of the constitution of Government but it is not the sole and adequate end of government in Monarchie for that is the safetie of both King and People And it beseemeth the King to proportion his lawes for their good and it becommeth the People to proportion all their obedience actions and endeavours for the safetie honour and happinesse of the King It 's impossible the people can have safetie when Soveraigntie is weakened Ans. The Prelate would have the other halfe of the end why a King is set over a People to be the safetie and happinesse of the King as well as the safetie of the People This is new Logick indeed that one and the same thing should be the meane and the end The question is For what end is a King made so happy as to be exalted King The Prelate answereth He is made happy that he may be happy and made a King that he may be made a King Now is the King as King to intend this halfe end that is Whether or no accepteth he the burden of setting his head and shoulders under the Crowne for this end that he may not only make the people happy but also that he may make himselfe rich and honorable above his brethren and enrich himselfe I beleeve not but that he feed the people of God For if he intend himselfe and his own honour it is the intention of the man who is King and intentio operantis but it is not the intention of the King as the King or intentio operis The King as a King is formally and essentially the Minister of God for our good Rom. 13.4 1 Tim. 2.2 and cannot come under any notion as a King but as a mean not as an end nor as that which he is to seeke himselfe I conceive God did forbid this in the moulding of the first King Deut. 17.18 19 26. He is a minister by office and one who receiveth honour and wages for this worke that ex officio he may feed his people But the Prelate saith the people are to intend his riches and honour I cannot say but the people may intend to honour the King but that is not the question whether the people be to referre the King and his government as a meane to honour the King I conceive not But that end which the people in obeying the King in being ruled by him may intend is 1 Tim. 2.2 That under him they may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie And Gods end in giving a King is the good and safetie of
suffer of wicked men falleth under no Commandement of God except in our Saviour A Passion as such is not formally commanded I meane a Physicall Passion such as to be killed God hath not said to me in any Morall Law Be thou killed tortured beheaded but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked mens hands to suffer these things 3. There is not a stricter Obligation Morall betwixt King and people then betwixt Parents and Children Master and servant Patron and Clients Husband and Wife the Lord and the Vassell between the Pilot of a Ship and the Passengers the Physitian and the sick the Doctor and the schollars but the Law granteth l. Minime 35. De Relig. sumpt funer If these betray their trust committed to them they may be resisted if the father turne distracted and arise to kill his sonnes his sonnes may violently apprehend him and bind his hands and spoile him of his Weapons for in that he is not a father Vasquez Lib. 1. Illustr question c. 8. n. 18. Si dominus subditum enormiter atrociter oneraret princeps superior vassallum posset ex toto eâ—imere a sua jurisdictione etiam tacente subdito nihil petente Quid papa in suis decis Parliam grat decis 62. si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari possunt The servant may resist the Master if he attempt unjustly to kill him so may the Wife doe to the Husband if the Pilot should wilfully run the ship on a Rock to destroy himselfe and his Passengers they might violently thrust him from the Helme Every Tyrant is a furious man and is morally distracted as Althusius saith Politi c. 28. n. 30. seq 4. That which is given as a blessing and a favour and a Scrine betweene the peoples liberty and their bondage cannot be given of God as a bondage and slavery to the people But the power of a King is given as a blessing and favour of God to defend the poore and needy to preserve both Tables of the Law and to keepe the people in their liberties from oppressing and treading one upon another But so it is that if such a power be given of God to a King by which Actu primo he is invested of God to doe acts of Tyranny and so to doe them that to resist him in the most innocent way which is selfe defence must be a resisting of God and Rebellion against the King his Deputy then hath God given a Royall power as incontrollable by mortall men by any violence as if God himselfe were immediatly and personally resisted when the King is resisted and so this power shall be a power to wast and destroy irresistably and so in it selfe a plague and a curse for it cannot be ordained both according to the intention and genuine formall effect and intrinsecall operation of the power to preserve the Tables of the Law Religion and Liberty Subjects and Lawes and also to destroy the same but it is taught by Royalists that this power is for Tyranny as well as for peaceable Government because to resist this Royall Power put forth in Acts either waies either in acts of Tyranny or just Government is to resist the Ordinance of God as Royalists say from Rom. 13.1 2 3. And we know to resist Gods ordinances and Gods Deputy formaliter as his Deputy is to resist God himselfe 1 Sam. 8.7 Mat. 10.40 as if God were doing personally these Acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these Acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to thinke or say that when a King is drinking the blood of innocents and wasting the Church of God that God if he were personally present would commit these same acts of Tyranny God would avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King as his lawfull Deputy and Vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poore Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of Tyranny he is not Gods formall Vicegerent but only in good and lawfull acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his Royall Person Yet this must provâ— that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lords Deputy though not as the Lords Deputy what absurd is there in that more then to disobey him refusing active obedience to him who is the Lords Deputy but not as the Lords Deputy but as a man commanding beside his Masters Warrant 5. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now Gods end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding safetie preservation the peaceable and quiet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2.2 Esa. 49.23 Psal. 79.71 But God should crosse his own end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressors and wasters in his holy Mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a thousand thousand Protestants for their Religion in an ordinary Providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say The King will not be so cruell I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possibly in his power to be so cruell 2. We owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the nature and genuine intrinsecall end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistance made by any mortall man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemie to Gods ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no barre upon the illimited power of a man inclined to sinne and abuse his power to so much crueltie Some may say the same absurditie doth follow if the King should turne Papist and the Parliament all were Papists in that case there might be so many Martyrs for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power then more then now and yet in that case the King and Parliament should be Iudges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in Peace and Godlinesse But I answer If God gave a lawfull officiall power to King and Parliament to worke the same crueltie upon millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawfull for them by armes to defend themselves I should then think that King and Parliament were both ex officio by vertue of their office and actu primo Iudges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and Butchers Which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted Providence of
concreto yet the principium quo ratio qua the principles of these operations in Sun and fire be light heate and we ascribe illuminating of dark bodies heating of cold bodies to Sun and fire in concreto yet not to the subjects simply but to them as affected with such accidents so here we honour and submit to the man who is King not because he is a man that were treason not because he useth his sword against the Church that were impiety but because of his Royall Dignity and because he useth it for the Lord. It is true Arnisaeus Barclay Ferne say That Kings leave not off to be Kings when they use their power and sword against the Church and Religion And also it is considerable that when the worst of Emperors bloody Nero did raigne the Apostle presseth the duty of subjection to him as to a power appointed of God and condemneth the resisting of Nero as the resisting of an ordinance of God And certainely if the cause and reason in point of duty-Morall and of conscience before God remaine in Kings to wit that while they are enemies and persecutors as Nero was their Royall Dignity given them of God remaineth then subjection upon that ground is lawfull and resistance unlawfull Ans. It is true so long as Kings remaine Kings subjection is due to them because Kings but that is not the question But the question is if subjection be due to them when they use their power unlawfully and Tyrannically What ever David did though he was a King he did it not as King he deflowred not Bathsheba as King and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted King David though Kingly Power remained in him while he should thus attempt to commit Adultery else David might have said to Bathshba Because I am the Lords Anoynted it is rebellion in thee a subject to oppose any bodily violence to my act of forcing of thee it is unlawfull to thee to cry for helpe for if any shall offer violently to rescue thee from me he resisteth the ordinance of God Subjection is due to Nero as an Emperour but not any subjection is due to him in the burning of Rome and torturing of Christians except you say that Nero's power abused in these acts of cruelty was 1. A power from God 2. An ordinance of God 3. That in these he was the Minister of God for the good of the Common-wealth Because some beleeved Christians were free from the yoake of Magistracy and that the dignity it selfe was unlawfull And 2. because ch 12. he had set downe the lawfull Church Rulers and in this and the following chapter the duties of brotherly love of one toward another So here ch 13. he teacheth that all Magistrates suppose Heathen are to be obeyed and submitted unto in all things so far as they are Ministers of God Arnisaeus objecteth to Buchan If we are by this place to subject our selves to every power in abstracto then also to a power contrary to the truth and to a power of a King exceeding the limits of a King for such a power is a power and we are not to distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not Ans. The Law clearely distinguisheth we are to obey Parents in the Lord and if Nero command Idolatry this is an excessive power are we obliged to obey because the Law distinguisheth not 2. The text saith we are to obey every power 1. from God 2. That is Gods ordinance 3. by which the man is a Minister of God for good but an unjust and excessive power is none of these three 3. The text in words distinguisheth not obedience active in things wicked and lawfull yet we are to distinguish Mr. Symmons Is authoritie subjected solely in the Kings Law and no whit in his Person though put upon him both by God and Man Or is Authoritie only the subject and the Person exercising the Authoritie a bare accident to that being in it only more separably as pride and folly are in a man Then if one in Authoritie command out of his own Will and not by Law if I neithr actively nor passively obey J doe not so much as resist abused Authoritie and then must the Prince by his disorderly Will have quite lost his authoritie and become like another man and yet his Authoritie has not fled from him Ans. If we speake acurately neither the Man solely nor his Power only is resisted but the Man clothed with lawfull habituall power is resisted in such and such acts flowing from an abused power 2. It is an ignorant speech to ask Is Authoritie subjected solely in the Kings Law and no whit in his Person for the Authoritie hath all its power by Law not from the Mans person The Authoritie hath nothing from the Person but a naked inherencie in the Person as in the subject and the Person is to be honored for the Authoritie not the Authoritie for the Person 3. Authoritie is not so separable from the person as that for every act of lawlesse Will the King loseth his Royall authoritie and ceaseth to be King no but every act of a King in so far can claime subjection of the inferiour as the act of commanding and ruling hath law for it and in so far as it is lawlesse the Person in that act repugnant to Law loseth all due claime of actuall subjection in that act and in that act power actuall is losed as is cleare Act. 4.19 5.29 The Apostles say to Rulers It is safer to obey God than Men. What were not these Rulers lawfull Magistrates armed with power from God I answer habitually they were Rulers and more then men and to obey them in things lawfull is to obey God But actually in these unlawfull commandements especially being commanded to speake no more in the name of Iesus the Apostles doe acknowledge them to be no more but Men and so their actuall authoritie is as separable from the person as pride and folly from men Symmons The distinction holdeth good of inferior Magistrates That they may be considered as Magistrates and as Men because their authoritie is only sacred and addeth veneration to their persons and is separable from the person The Man may live when his Authoritie is extinguished but it holdeth not in Kings King Sauls person is venerable as his authoritie and his authoritie commeth by inheritance and dyeth and liveth inseparably with his person and Authoritie and Person adde honour each one to another Ans. 1. If this be true Manasseh a King did not shed innocent blood and use â—orcerie he did not these great wickednesses as a man but as a King Salomon played the Apostate as a King not as a man if so the man must make the King more infallible then the Pope for the Pope as a man can erre as a Pope he cannot erre say Papists But Prophets in their persons were anoynted of God as Saul and David were then must we
when Nero commandeth unjust punishment because Nero commanding so remaineth Gods Minister Why But when Nero commandeth me to worship an Heathen God I am upon the same ground to obey that unjust will in doing ill For Nero in commanding Idolatry remaineth the Lords Minister his person is sacred in the one commandment of doing ill as in inflicting ill of punishment And do I not resist his person in the one as in the other His power and his person are unseparably conjoyned by God in the one as in the other 2. In bodily thrusting out of Vzzah from the Temple these fourscore valiant men did resist the Kings person by bodily violence as well as his power 3. If the power of killing the Martyrs in Nero was no power ordained of God then the resisting of Nero in his taking away the lives of the Martyrs was but the resisting of Tyranny And certainly if that power in Nero was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power ordained of God and not to be resisted as the place Rom. 13. is alleaged by Royalists then it must be a lawfull power and no Tyranny and if it cannot be resisted because it was a power ordained and settled in him it is either setled by God and so not Tyranny except God be the Author of Tyranny or then settled by the devill and so may well be resisted but the Text speaketh of no power but of that which is of God 4. We are not to be subject to all powers in concreto by the Text for we are not to be subject to powers lawfull yet commanding active obedience to things unlawfull Now subjection includeth active obedience of honour love fear paying tribute and therefore of need force some powers must be excepted 5. Pilates power is meerly a power by divine permission not a power ordained of God as are the powers spoken of Rom. 13. Gregori mor. l. 3. c. 11. expresly saith This was Satans power given to Pilate against Christ. Manibus Satanae pro nostra redemptione se traddit Lyra. A Principibus Romanorum ulterius permissum a Deo qui est potestas superior Calvin Bâ—za Diodâ—tus saith the same and that he cannot mean of Legall power from Gods regulating will is evident 1. Because Christ is answering Pilate John 19.10 Knowest thou not that I have power to crucifie thee This was an untruth Pilate had a command to worship him and beleeve in him and whereas Ferne saith Sect. 9. pag. 59. Pilate had power to judge any accused before him It is true but he being obliged to beleeve in Christ he was obliged to be perswaded of Christs innocency and so neither to judge nor receive accusation against him and the power he saith he had to crucifie was a Law-power in Pilates meaning but not in very deed any Law-power because a Law-power is from Gods regulating will in the fifth Commandment but no creature hath a lawfull or a Law-power to crucifie Christ. 2. A Law-power is for good Rom. 13.4 A power to crucifie Christ is for ill 3. A Law-power is a terrour to ill works and a praise to good Pilates power to crucifie Christ was the contrary 4. A Law-power is to execute wrath on ill-doing a power to crucifie Christ is no such 5. A Law-power conciliateth honour fear and veneration to the person of the Judge a power to crucifie Christ conciliateth no such thing but a disgrace to Pilate 6. The Genuine Acts of a lawfull power are lawfull Acts for such as is the Fountain-power such are the Acts flowing therefrom good Acts slow not from bad powers neither hath God given a power to sin except by way of permission QUEST XXX Whether or no Passive Obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement and what a meane Resistance is That Flying is Resistance MUch is built to commend patient suffâ—ring of ill and conâ—emne all râ—sistance of Superiors by Royalists on the place 1 Pet. 2.18 Where we are commanded being servants to suffer buffets not onely for ill doing of good masters but also undeservedly and when we doâ— well we aâ—e to suffer of these masters that are eviâ—l and so much more are we patiently without Resistance to suffer of Kings Bâ—t it is cleare the place is nothing against Resistance as in these Assertions I cleare Assertion 1. Patiâ—nt suffâ—ring of wicked men and violent resisting are not incompatible but they may well stand together So this consequence is the basis of the argument and it is just nothing To wit Servants are to suffâ—r uâ—jâ—stly wounds and â—uâ—â—â—ting of their wicked Masters and they aâ—e to bear iâ— patiently Ergo Servants are in conscience obliged to non-resistance Now Scripture maketh this clâ—ar The Church of God is to bear with all patience the 〈◊〉 of the Lord because she hath sinned and to suffer of wicked enemies which were to be troden as mire in the streets Micah 7.9 10 11 12. but withall they were not obliged to non-resistance and not to fight against these enemies yea they were obliged to fight against them also If these were Babilon Iudah might have resisted and fought if God had not givâ—n a speciall commandement of a positive law that they should not fight if these were the Assyrians and other enemies or rather both the people were to resist by fighting and yet to endure patiently the indignation of the Lord. David did bear most patiently the wrong that his own son Absolon and Achitophel and the people inflicted on him in pursuing him to take his life and the kingdom from him as is cleare by his gracious expressions 2 Sam. 15.25 26. chap. 16. ver 10 11 12. Psal. 3.1 2 3. Yea he prayeth for a blessing on the people that conspired against him Psal. 3.8 Yet did he lawfully resist Absalom and the conspiratours and sent out Ioab and a huge army in open battel against them 2. Sam. 18.1 2 3 4 c. and fought against them And were not the people of God patient to endure the violence done to them in the wildernes by Og king of Bashan Sihon king of Heshbon by the Ammorites Moabites c I think Gods law tyeth all men especially his people to as patient a suffering in wars Deut. 8.16 God then trying and humbling his people as the servant is to endure patiently unjustly inflicted buffets 1 Pet. 2.18 And yet Gods people at Gods command did resist these Kings and people and did fight and kill them and possesse their land as the history is cleare See the like Iosh. 11. ver 18 19. 2. One act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another Resistance is in the Children of God an innocent act of self-preservation as is patient suffering and therefore they may well subsist in one And so saith Amasa by the spirit of the Lord. 1 Chro. 12.18 Peace peace be unto thee and peace to thy helpers for God helpeth thee Now David in that and all
obedience is no where commanded but onely modus rei the manner of suffering and the occasion of the commandement here it is thought that the Iewes converted under this pretext that they were Gods people beleeved that they should not be subject to the Romans A certaine Galilean made the Galileans beleeve that they should not pay tribute to Strangers and that they should call none Lord but the God of heaven as Ioseph saith Antiq. Iudaic. l. 20. c. 2. and De bell Iudaic. l. 7. c. 29. yea and Hieron Com. in 3. Tit. saith At this time the sect of the Galileans were on foot It is like the Jews were thought to be Galileans and that their liberty purchased in Christ could not consist with the order of master and servant King and subject And to remove this Paul establisheth Magistracie and commandeth obedience in the Lord and he is more to prove the office of the Magistrate to be of God then any other thing and to shew what is his due then to establish absolutenesse in Nero to be of God yea to me every word in the Text speaketh limitednesse of Princes and cryeth downe absolutenesse 1. No power of God 2. No ordinance of God 3. Who is a terror to evill but a praise to good works 4. No miniâ—ter of God for good c. can be a power to which we submit our selves on earth as next unto God without controlment 5. That passive obedience falleth formally under no commandement of God I prove thus All obedience lyable to a divine commandement doth commend morally the performer of obedience as having a will conformed to Gods morall Law and deformity betwixt the will of him who performeth not obedience involveth the non-obedient in wrath and guiltinesse But non-passive subjection to the sword of the Judge doth not morally commend him that suffâ—reth not punishmâ—nt for no man is formally a sinner against a morall law because he suffereth not the ill of puâ—ishment nor is he morally good or to be commended becâ—use hee suffereth ill of punishment but beâ—ause he doth the ill â—f sin And all evil of punishment uâ—justly inflicted hath Gods volunâ—as beneplaciti the instrumenâ—all and hidden dâ—cree oâ— God which orderâ—th both good and ill Ephes. 1.11 for its rule and cause and hath not Gods will of approbation called voluntas signi for its rule both is contrary to that will I am sure Epiphanius li. 1. tom 3. heres 40. Basilius in Psal. 32. Nazianzen Orat. ad subd imperat Hilar. li. ad Constant. August citeth these words and saith the same If then passive subjâ—ction be not commanded non subjâ—ction passive cannot be forbidden and this text Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2. cannot a whit help the bad cause of Royalists All then must be reduced to some action of resisting arguments for passive subjection though there were ship-fulls of them they cannot help us Assert 3. By the place 1 Pet. 2. The servant unjustly buffeted is not to buffet his master again but to bear patiently as Christ did who when he was reviled did not revile again Not because the place condemneth resistance for self-defence but because buffeting again is formally re-offending not defending defending is properly a warding of a blow or stroak if my neighbour come to kill me and I can by no means save my life by flight I may defend my self and all Divines say I may rather kill ere I be killed because I am nearer by the law of naturâ— and dearer to my self and my own life then to my brother but if I kill him out of malice or hatred the act of defending by the unlawfull manner of doing becometh an act of offending and murther whence the mind of the blood-shedder will vary the nature of the action from whence this corolarie doth naturally issue that the physicall action of taking away the life maketh not murther nor homicide and so the physical action of offending my neighbour is not murther Abraham may kill his son he for whom the cities of refuge were ordained and did kill his brother yet not hating him he was not by Gods law judged a murtherer And 2. It necessarily hence followeth that an act which is physically an act of offending my brother yea even to the taking away of his life is often morally and legally an act of lawfull self-defence an offending of another necessitated from the sole invention of self-defence is no more but an act of innocent self defence if David with his men had killed any of Sauls men in a set battel David and his men onely intending self defence the war â—n Davids part was meere defensive for physicall actions of killing indifferent of themselves yet impâ—rated by a principle of naturall self-defence and clothed with this formall end of self-defence or according to the substance of the action the act is of self-defence If therefore one shall wound me deadly and I know it is my death after that to kill the killer of my selfe I being onely a private man must be no act of self-defence but of homicide because it cannot be imperated by a sinlesse dictate of a naturall conscience for this end of self-defence after I know I am killed Any mean not used for preventing death must be an act of revenge not of self-defence for it is physically unsuâ—able for the intended end of self-defence And so for a servant buffeted to buffet againe is of the same nature the second buffet not being a conducible meane to ward the first buffet but a meane to procure heavier stroakes and possibly killing it cannot be an act of self defence for an act of self defence must be an act destinated ex natura rei onely for defence and if it be known to be an act of sole offending without any known necessary relation of a mean to self-defence as the end it cannot be properly an act of self-defence Assert 4. When the matter is lighter as in paying tribute or suffering a buffet of a rough master though unjustly we are not to use any act of re-offending For though I be not absolute Lord of my owne goods and so may not at my sole pleasure give tribute and expend monies to the hurting of my children where I am not by Gods Law or Mans Law obliged to pay tribute and though I be not an absolute Lord of my members to expose face and cheeks and back to stripes and whips at my owne meere will yet have we a comparative dominion given to us of God in matters of goods and disposing of our members I think I may except the case of mutilation which is a little death for buffets because Christ no doubt to teach us the like would rather give of his goods and pay tribute where it is not due then that this scandall lay on the way of Christ that Christ was no loyall subject to lawfull Emperors and Kings And 1 Cor. 9. Paul would rather not take stipend though it was
due to him then hinder the course of the Gospel And the like is 1 Cor. 6. where the Corinthians were rather to suffer losse in their goods then to goe to Law before Infidel Judges and by the like to prevent greater inconveniences and mutilation and death the Christian servant hath that dominion over his members rather to suffer buffâ—ts then to ward off buffets with violent resistance But it is no consequent that innocent subjects should suffer death of tyrants and servants be killed by masters and yet that they shall not be allowed by the law of nature to defend themselves by re-offending when onâ—ly self-defence is intended because we have not that dominion over life and death And therefore as a man is his brothers murtherâ—r who with froward Cain will not be his brothers keeper and may preserve his brothers life without losse of his owne life when his brother is unjustly preserved so when he may preserve his owne life and doth not that which Natures Law alloweth hâ—m to doe rather to kill ere he be killed he is guilty of self-murther because he is deficient in the duty of lawfull self-defence But I grant to offend or kill is not of the nature of defensive warre but accidentall therâ—unto and yet killing of cut-throats sent forth by the illegal commandement of the King may be intended as a mean and a lawfull mean of self-defence 2. Of two ills of punishment we have a comparative dominion over our selves a man may cast his goods in the sea to redeeme his life So for to redeeme peace we may suffer buffets but because death is the greatest ill of punishment God hath not made it eligible to us when lawfull self defence is at hand But in defending our own life against Tyrannicall power though we do it by offending and killing we resist no ordinance of God onely I judge killing of the King in self-defence not lawfull because self-defence must be national on just causes Let here the reader judge Barcley l. 3. c. 8. pag. 159. con Monar If the King saith he shall vex the Common-wealth or one part thereof with great and intollerable cruelty what shall the people do they have saith he in that case a power to resist and defend themselves from injury but onely to defend themselves not to invade the Prince nor to resist the injury or to recede from reverence due to the Prince I answer 1. Let Barclay or the prelate if he may carry Barclayes books or any difference these two the people may resist a Tyrant but they may not resist the injuries inflicted by a Tyrants officers cut-throats I cannot imagine how to conciliate these two for to resist the cruelty of a King is but to hold off the injurie by resistance 2. If this Nero waste the Common-wealth unsufferably with his cruelty and remaine a lawful King to be honoured as a King who may resist him according to Royalists way but from Rom. 13. they resist the Ordinance of God 3. Resisting is not a meere suffering nor is it a morall resisting by alledging lâ—wes to be broken by him We had never a question with Royalists about such resisting 2. Nor is this resisting non-obedience to unjust commandements that resisting was never yet in question by any except the Papists who in good â—arnest by consequent say It is better to obey men then God 3. It is then resisting by bodily violence but if the King have such an absolute power given him by God as Royalists fancie from Rom. 13.1 2. 1 Sam. 8 9 11. I know not how Sujects have any power given them of God to resist the power from God and Gods Ordinance And if this resisting extend not it selfe to defensive wars how shall the people defend themselves from injuries and the greatest injuries imaginable from an Armie of Cut-throats and Idolaters in war comming to destroy Religion set up Idolatry and root out the name of Gods people and lay waste the mountaine of the Lords house And if they may defend themselves by defensive wars how can wars be without offending 3. The law of Nature teacheth to repell violence with violence when one man is oppressed no lesse then when the Common-wealth is oppressed Barclay should have given either Scripture or the law of Nature for his warrant here 4. Let us suppose a King can be perjured how are the Estates of the Kingdome who are his Subjects by Barclays way not to challenge such a Tyrant of his perjurie He did swear he should be meek and clement and he is now become a furious Lyon shall the flock of God be committed to the keeping of a furious Lyon D. Ferne p. 3. sect 2. pag. 9. addeth Personall defence is lawfull against sudden and illegall invasion such as Elisha practiced even if it were against the Prince to ward blowes and to hold the Princes hand but not to returne blowes but generall resistance by Armes cannot be without many unjust violences and doth immediatelie strike at the order which is the life of the Common-wealth Answ. If it be naturall to one man to defend himself against the personall invasion of a Prince then is it naturall and warrantable to ten thousand and to a whole Kingdome and what reason to defraud a Kingdome of the benefit of self-defence more then one man Neither grace nor policy destroyeth nature and how shall ten or twenty thousand be defended against Cannons and Musquets that killeth afar off except they keepe Townes against the King which D. Ferne and others say had beene treason in David if he had kept Keilah against King Saul except they be armed to offend with weapons of the like nature to kill rather then be killed as the Law of nature teacheth 3. To hold the hands of the Prince is no lesse resisting viâ—lence then to cut the lap of his garment which Royalists think unlawfull and is an opposing of externall force to the Kings person 4. It is true warres meerely defensive cannot be but they must be offâ—nsive but they are offensive by accident and intended for meere defence and they cannot be without warres sinfully offensive nor can any warres be in rerum naturâ now I except the warres commanded by God who onely must have beene sinfull in the manner of doing but some innocent must be killed but warres cannot for that be condemned 5. Neither are offensive warres against these who are no powers and no ordinances of God such as are cut-throate Irish condemned Prelates and Papists now in Armes more destructive to the order established by God then acts of lawfull war are or the punishing of robbers and by all this Protestants in Scotland and England should remaine in their houses unarmed while the Papists and Irish come on them armed and cut their throats and spoyle and plunder at will Nor can we think that resistance to a King in holding his hands can be naturall if he be stronger it is not a
because of Saul the son of Kish And they were amongst the mighty men helpers of the warre It is a scorne to say that their might and their helping in warre consisted in being meere patients with David and such as fled from Saul for they had beene on Sauls side before and to come with armour to flee is a mocking of the word of God 2. It is cleare the scope of the Spirit of God is to shew how God helped his innocent servant David against his persecuting Prince and Master King Saul in moving so many mighty men of warre to come in such multitudes all in Armes to help him in warre Now to what end would the Lord commend them as fit for Warre men of might fit to handle shield buckler whose faces are as the faces of Lyons as swift as the Roes on the Mountaines ver 8. and commend them as helpers of David if it were unlawfull for David and all those mighty men to carry Armes to pursue Saul and his followers and to doe nothing with their armour but flee Judge if the Spirit of God in reason could say All these men came armed with bowes ver 2. and could handle both the right hand and the left in slinging stones and shooting of arrowes and that ver 22. all these came to David being mighty men of valour and they came as Captains over hundreds and thousands they put to slight all them of the valleyes both toward the East and toward the West ver 14 15. and that David received them and made them Captains of the band if they did not come in a posture of warre and for hostile invasion if need were For if they came onâ—ly to suffer and to flee not to pursue Bowes Captaines and Captaines of Bands made by David and Davids helpers in the warre came not to help David by â—lying that was a hurt to David not a help It is true M. Symmons saith 1 Sam. 22.2 Those that came out to David strengthened him but he strengthened not them and David might easily have revenged himselfe on the Ziphites who did good will to betray him to the hands of Saul if his conscience had served him Answ. 1. This would inferre that these armed men came to help David against his conscience and that David was a patient in the businesse the contrary is in the Text 1 Sam. 26.2 David became a Captaine over them and 1 Chron. 12.17 If ye come peaceably to help me my heart shall be knit to you ver 18. Then David received them and made them Captains of the band 2. David might have revenged himselfe upon the Ziphites True but that Conscience hindred him cannot be proved To pursue an enemie is an act of a Councell of Warre and he saw it would create more enemies not help his Cause 3. To David to kill Saul sleeping and the people who out of a mis-informed consciencâ— came out many of them to help their lawfull Prince against a Traitor as was supposed seeking to kill their King and to usurp the throne had not been wisdome nor justice because to kill the enemie in a just self-defence must be when the enemie actually doth invade and the life of the defendant cannot be otherwise saved A sleeping enemie is not in the act of unjust pursuit of the innocent but if an Armie of Papists Philistims were in the fields sleeping pursuing not one single David onely for a supposed personall wrong to the King but lying in the fields and campe against the whole Kingdome and Religion labouring to introduce arbitrary Government Popery Idolatry and to destroy Lawes and Liberties and Parliaments then David were obliged to kill these murtherers in their sleep If any say The case is all one in a naturall self-defence what ever be the cause and who ever be the enemy because the self-defender is not to offend except the unjust Invader be in actuall pursuit now Armies in their sleep are not in actuall pursuit Answ. Whâ—n one man with a multitude invadeth one man that one man may pursue as he seeth most conducible for self-defence Now the Law saith Threatnings and terror of Armour maketh imminent danger and the case of pursuit in self-defence lawfull iâ— therefore an Armie of Irish Rebels and Spanyards were sleeping in their Camp and our King in a deep sleep in the midst of them and these Râ—bâ—ls actually in the Camp besieging the Parliament and the Citie of London most unjustly to take away Parliament Laws and Liberties of Religion it should follow that Generall Essex ought not to kill the Kings Majesty in his sleep for he is the Lords Anointed but 1. will it follow that Generall Essex may not kill the Irish Rebels sleeping about the King and that he may not rescue the Kings Person out of the hands of the Papists and Rebels ensnaring the King and leading him on to Popery and to employ his Authority to defend Popery and trample upon Protestant Parliaments and Lawes Certainly from this example this cannot be concluded For Armies in actuall pursuit of a whole Parliament Kingdome Lawes and Religion though sleeping in the Camp because in actuall pursuit may be invaded and killed though sleeping And David useth no argument from conscience why hee might not kill Sauls Armie I conceive he had not Armes to doe that and should have created more enemies to himselfe and hazard his owne life and the life of all his men if he had of purpose killed so many sleeping men yea the inexpedience of that for a private wrong to kill Gods mis-led people should have made all Israel enemies to David But David useth an Argument from Conscience onely to prove it was not lawfull for him to stretch forth his hand against the King and for my part so long as he remaineth King and is not dethroned by those who made him King at Hebron to put hands on his person I judge utterly unlawfull one man sleeping cannot be in actuall pursuit of another man so that the self-defender may lawfully kill him in his sleep but the case is farre otherwise in lawfull wars the Israelites might lawfully kill the Philistims encamping about Jerusalem to destroy it and Religion and the Church of God though they were all sleeping even though we suppose King Saul had brought them in by his Authority though he were sleeping in the midst of the uncircumcised Armies and it is evident that an hoast of armed enemies though sleeping by the law of self-defence may be killed lest they awake and kill us whereas one single man and that a King cannot be killed 2. I think certainly David had not done unwisely but hazarded his owne life and all his mens if he and Ahimelech and Abâ—shai should have killed an host of their enemies sleeping that had been a work as impossible to three so hazard some to all his men D. Ferne as Arnisaeus did before him saith The example of David was extraordinary
Levit. 24.16 â—xcepteth none See Deut. 13.6 the dearest that nature knoweth are not excepted Obj. 6. Vengeance pursued Core Dathan and Abiram who resisted Moses Ans. From resisting of a lawfull magistrate in a thing lawfull it followeth not it must be unlawfull to resist Kings in Tyrannous acts Obj. 7. Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of the people Exod. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thought nor the rich in thy bed-chamber Ans. 1. The word Elohim signifieth all judges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasi signifieth one lifted up above the people saith Rivetus in loc whether a monarch or many rulers All cursing of any is unlawfull even of a private man Rom. 12.14 Ergo we may not resist a private man by this the other text readeth contemne not the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in scientiâ tuâ Aria Mon. or in thy conscience or thought and it may prove resisting any rich man to be unlawfull Nothing in word or deed tending to the dishonour of the King may be done now to resist him in self-defence being a commandment of God in the law of nature cannot fight with another commandment to honour the King no more then the fift commandement can fight with the sixâ—h for all resistance is against the judge as a man exceâ—ding the limits of his office in that wherein he is resisted not as a judge Obj. 8. Eccles. 8.3.4 Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him what dost thou Ergo the King cannot be resisted Ans. 1. Tremel saith well that the scope is that a man go not from the Kings lawfull command in passion and rebellion Vatab. If thou go from the King in disgrace strive to be reconciled to him quickly Cajetan Vse not Kings too familiarly by comming too quickly to them or going too hastily from them Plutarch Cum rege agendum ut cum rogo neither too neere this fire nor too farre off Those have smarted who have been too great in their favour Ahasuerus slew Haman Alexander so served Clitus and Tiberius Sejanus and Nero Seneca But th◠〈◊〉 is cleare rebellion is forbidden not resistance so the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stand not in an evil matter or in a rebellion And he dehorteth from rebellion against the King by an argument taken from his power 3. For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him 4. Where the word of a King is there is power And who may say unto him What doest thou The meaning is in way of justice he is armed with power that cannot be resisted other wayes Samuel said to King Saul 1 Sam. 13.13 Thou hast done foolishly Eliah said more to Ahab then What hast thou done And the Prophets were to rebuke sinne in Kings 2 King 3.14 Ier. 1.28 Chap. 22.3 Hos. 5.1 2. And though Solomon here give them a power he speaketh of Kings as they are de facto but de jure they are under a Law Deut. 17.18 If the meaning be as Royalists dreame he doth whatsoever hee will or desireth as a Prince by his royall that is his legall will by which he is lex animata a breathing law we shall owne that as truth and it is nothing against us But if the meaning be that De jure as King he doth whatsoever he will by the absolute supremacie of Royall will above all law and reason then Ioram should by law as King take Elisha's head away and Elisha resisted God in saying What doth the King and he sinned in commanding to deal rougbly with the Kings messenger and hold him at the doore then the foureâ—core valiant Priests who said to King Vzziah What dost thou resisted him in burning incense which he desired to doe sinned Then Pharaoh who said Ezech. 29.3 The river Nilus is mine I have made it for my selfe and the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28.2 I am God I sit in the seat of God should not be controlled by the Prophets and no man should say to them What sayest thou Did Cyrus as a King with a Royall power from God and jure regio be angry at the river Gyndes because it drowned one of his horses and punish it by dividing it in 130. Channels Sen. l. 3. de ira c. 21. And did Xerxes jure regio by a Royall power given of God when Hellespontus had cast downe his bridges command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea and that it should be cast in fetters And our Royalists will have these mad fooles doing these acts of blasphemous insolencie against heaven to be honoured as Kings and to act those acts by a regall power But heare flatterers a Royall power is the good gift of God a lawfull and just power A King acting and speaking as a King speaketh and acteth Law and Justice A power to blaspheme is not a lawfull power they did and spake thesâ— things with a humane and a sinfull will if therefore this be the Royaliâ—ts meaning as Kings 1. They are absolute and so the limited and elected King is no King 2. The King as King is above Gods Law put on him by God Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill 4. It were unlawfull to say to the King of Cyrus What sayest thou Thou art not God according to this vaine sense of Royalists Obj. 9. Elihu saith Iob 34.18 Is it fit to say to a King Thou art wicked and to Princes Ye are ungodly Ergo You may not resist Kings Ans. 1. This Text no more proveth that Kings should not be resisted then it proveth that rich men or liberall men or other Judges inâ—eriour should not be resisted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth all that and it signifieth liberall Isa. 32.5 And ver 8. the same word is 2. Deodat and Calvin say the meaning is Learne from the respect that is due to earthly princes the reverence due to the Soveraign Lord Mal. 1.8 for it is not convenient to reproach earthly Kings and and to say to a Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beliel a word of reproach signifying extreme wickednesse And you may not say to a man of place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an extreamly wicked man so are the words taken as signifying most vile and wicked men 1 Sam. 2.12 1 Sam. 10.27 2 Sam. 24.6 Psal. 1.1 6. Psal. 11.5 Psal. 12.8 Prov. 16.4 Psa. 146.9 and in infinite places For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word of extreme reproach comming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine non and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profuit Iud. 19.22 a most naughtie and a lewd man or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jugum a lawlesse man who hath cast off all yokes of Gods or Mans Law So then the meaning is It is unlawfull to reproach earthly Princes and men of place farre more is it unlawfull to reproach the Judge of the whole earth with injustice And what then We may
not reproach the King as Shimei cursed King David Ergo it is unlawfull to resist the King in any tyrannous act I shall deny the consequence Nay as Pineda observeth if the Royalist presse the words literally it shall not be lawfull for Prophets to reprove Kings of their sins Christ called Herod a Fox Elias Ahab one that troubled Israel Obj. 10. Act. 23. Paul excuseth himselfe that he called Ananias the High-priest a whited wall Answ. Rivetus Exo. 22. learnedly discussing the place thinketh Paul professing he knew him not to be the High-Priest speaketh ironically that he could not acknowledge such a man for a Judge Piscator answereth he could not then cite Scripture It is written Exod. c. Ans. But they may well consist in that act of smiting Paul unjustly he might be reproached otherwise it is not lawfull to reproach him and surely it is not like that Paul was ignorant that he was a Judge Yea it is certain he knew him to be a Judge 1. He appeared before him as a Judge to answer for himselfe 2. Paul saith expresly he was a Judge ver 3. Sittest thou to judge me after the Law c. and therefore the place is for us for even according to the mind of all the fault was if there were any in calling him a whited wall and he resisted him in judgement when he said Commandest thou me to be smitten against the Law 2. Though Royalists rather put a fault on the Apostle Paul now in the act of prophecying judgement against Ananias which after fell out then upon their God the King yet the consequence amounteth but to this We may not revile the High Priest Ergo we may not resist the Kiâ—g in his illegall commandments It followeth not Yea it should prove if a Prelate come in open war to kill the innocent Apostle Paul the Apostle might fly or hold his hands but might not re-offend Now the Prelate is the High Priests successor and his base person so is as sacred as the person of the Lords Anointed the King Hence the Cavalliers had in one of their Colours which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston Iul. 2. An. 1644 the Crowne and the Prelates Mitre painted with these words Nolite tangere Christos meos as if the Antichristian Mitre were as sacred as the lawfull Crowne of the King of Britaâ—ne Obj. 11. Ferne sect 9.56 If the Senate and people of Rome who a little before had the supreme Government over the thâ—n Emperors that of Subjects had made them Lords might not resist their Emperours much lesse can the peoplâ— of England have power of resistance against the succession of this Crowne descending from the Conqueror who by force of Armes but in justice conquered the Kingdom Answ. 1. Though the Roman Emperours were absolute of which I much doubt and thâ—ugh the Senate had made them absolute I deny that therefore they cannot be resisted Tâ—e unlawfull resistance condemned by Paul Rom. 13. is not upon the ground of Absolâ—tenesse which is in the Court of God nothing being never ordained of God but upon reasons of conscience bâ—cause the powers are of God and ordained of God But some may say Volenti non fit injuria If a people totally resigne their power and swear non-resistance to a Conqueror by compact they cannot resist I answer neither doth this follow because it is an unlawfull compact and none is obliged to what is unlawfull For 1. it is no more lawfull for me to resigne to another my power of naturall self-defence then I can resigne my power to defend the innocent drawne to death and the wives children and posterity that God hath tyed me unto 2. The people can no more resigne power of self-defence which Nature hath given them then they can be guilty of self-murther and be wanting in the lawfull defence of Kingdome and Religion 3. Though you make one their King with absolutenesse of power yet when he use that transcendent power not for the safety but for the destruction of the State it is knowne they could not resigne to another that power which neither God nor nature gave them to wit a power to destroy themselves 2. I much doubt if the Roman Emperour was absolute when Paul wrote this Iustinian saith so Digest l. 2. tit 2. but he is partiall in this cause Bodine de repub l. 2. c. 5. pag. 221. proveth that the Roman Emperours were but Princes of the Common-wealth and that the Soveraignty remained still in the Senate and people Marius Salamon writeth sixe Books De Principatu on the contrary How could they make their Emperours absolute Livie saith The name of a King was contrary to a Senate liberty Florus Nomen Regis invidiosum They instituted a yearly Feast February 23. called Regifugium Cicero as Augustine observeth Regem Romae post haec nec Dii nec homines esse patiantur The Emperours might doe something de facto but Lex Regia was not before Vespasians time Augustus took on him to be Tribune of the people from ten yeares to ten Suetonius and Tacitus say The succeeding Kings encroached by degrees upon the peoples liberty For speedier execution of Law the Kings in time of Warre were forced to doe many things without the Senate and after the reigne of Emperours though there were no Plebescita yet there were Senatusconsulta and one great one is that the Senate declard Nero to be an enemie to the State It is thought Iulius Caesar in the warre against Pompey subdued the Romans and the Senate and they were subdued againe in the battaile of Octavius against Cassius and Brutus But Tacitus saith that was de facto not de jure Anal. l. 1. s. 2. Rome ruere in servitium Consules Patres Eques Caligula intended to assume Diadema the Ensigne of a King but his friends disswaded him 3. England is obliged to D. Ferne who maketh them a subdued Nation The contrary of which is known to the world Obj. M. Simmons Loyall Subj Beliefe sect 6. pag. 19. God is not honoured by being resisted no more is the King Answ. I deny the consequence Those who resist the Kings personall will and will not suffer him to ruine his Crowne and posterity in following Papists against his Oath at the Coronation do honour him and his Throne and Race as a King though for the time they displease him 2. Vzzâ—ah was not dishonoured in that he was resisted 3. Nor doe we honour the King when we flee from him and his Law Yet that resistance is lawfull according to the way of Royalists and in truth also Object 12. Supreme power is not to be resisted by subordinate powers because they are inferiour to the supreme Answ. The bloody Irish Rebels then being inferiour to the Parliament cannot resist the Parliament 2. Inferiour Judges as Judges are immediately subordinate to God as the King and must be guilty of blood before God if they use not the sword against bloody
Cavalliers and Irish cut-throats except you say inferiour Judges are not obliged to execute judgement but at the Kings commandment Object As the Irish Rebels are armed with the Kings power they are superiour to the Parliament Answ. So an Armie of Turks and Spaniards armed with the Kings power and comming against the two Kingdomes at the Kings commandement though they be but Lictors in a lawlesse cause are superiour to the highest Courts of Parliament in the two Kingdomes But the King and the Law gave power to the Parliament first to resist Rebels now he giveth power to Rebels to resist the Parliament here must be contradictory wils and contradictory powers in the King Which of them is the Kings will and his power the former is legall and Parliamentary Then because Law is not contrary to Law the latter cannot be legall also nor can it be from God and to resist it then is not to resist God Object 13. If resistance bee restrained to legall commandements What shall we say to these arguments that Paul forbiddeth resistance under these tyrannous governours and that from the end of their government which is for good and which their subjects did in some sort enjoy under them Answ. 1. This proveth nothing but that we are to cooperate with these governours though tyrannous by subjecting to their Laws so farre as they come up to this end the morall good and peace of their government but Paul no where commandeth absolute subjection to tyrannous governours in tyrannous actâ— which is still the question Object 14. Hee that hath the supreme trust next to God should have the greatest security to his person and power but if resistance be lawfull he hath a poore security Answ. He that hath the greatest trust should have the greatest security to his person and power in the â—â—eping his power and using it according to his trust for its owne native end for justice peace and godlinesse God alloweth security to no man nor that his Angels shall guard them but onâ—ly when they are in their wayes and the service of God else There is no peace to the wicked 2. It is denyed that one man having the greatest trust should have the greatest security the Church and people of God for whose safety he hath the trust as a meanes for the end should have a greater security the City ought to have greater security then the watchers the Armie then the leaders The good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheepe 3. A power to doe ill without resistance is not security Object 15. If God appoint Ministers to preach then the sheep cannot seeke safety elsewhere Ergo. Answ. The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband but not if she feare he will kill her in the bed The obedience of positive duties that subjects owe to Princes cannot loose them from Natures law of self-preservation nor from Gods Law of defending Religion against Papists in Armes nor are the sheep obliged to intrust themselves but to a saving shepherd Object 16. If self-defence and that by taking up Armes against the King he an unlawfull duty how is it that you have no practise no precept no promise for it in all the word of God 1. You have no practise Ahab sold himselfe to do evill he was an Idolater and killed the Prophets and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse stirred him up to great wickednesse Elias had as great power with the people as you have yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church Arnisaeus de autho Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled Nebuchadnezer Ahab Manassah Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters the people never raised an Armie against them B. Williams of Ossorie p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother son daughter wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods kill them not a word of the father Children are to love Fathers not to kill them Christ saith John P.P. in the cradle taught by practise to flee from Herod and all Christs acts and sufferings are full of mysteries and our instructions Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him but would rather worke a miracle in curing Malchus eare as use the sword against Caesar If Sectaries give us a new Creed it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell and the communion of Saints to raze out this He suffered under Pontius Pilate My resolution is for this sin of yours to dissolve in teares and Prayers and with my Master say daylie and hourely Father forgive them c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans because they refused him lodging 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry blasphemy murther adultery c. and all sins never against the sin of neglect and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word Answ. It is a grâ—at non-consâ—quence this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word Ergo. It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith Shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she inticed him to follow strange Gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13.6 when a man lying with a beast is put to death Yet it is a Law Exod. 22.19 infinite more Lawes are the practise of which we finde not in Scripture 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry and if Iehu out of sincerity and for the zeale of God had done what God commanded he should have beene rewarded for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu that he should kill Ahab yet there was an expresse Law for it that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death Deut. 13.6 and there is no exception of King or Father in the Law and to except father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeale of God Deut. 33.9 And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King and in killing King Nabad and smiting all the house of Iereboam for his Idolatry they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty according to Gods expresse Law Deut. 13.6 7 8 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary 3. Ahab and Iezabelâ—aisâ—d â—aisâ—d not an Armie of Idolaters Malignants such as are Papists Prelates and Cavalliers against the three Estates to destroy Parliaments Lawes and Religion and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry to forsake the Covenant throw dowwe the Altars of God and slay his Prophets so as in the estimation of Elias 1 King 19.9 10 11. there was not one man but they were Malignant Cavalliers and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves and to shew them it is their duty
to make warre against the King and themselves in the defence of Religion when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people that they sinned in joyning with the King what place was there to shew them their sin in not using their owne lawfull defence And in reason any may judge it unreasonable for Elias to exhort of thousand thousands in Israel poore seven thousand of which many no doubt were women aged weake young to rise in Armes against Ahab and all Israel except God had given a positive and extraordinary Commandement and with all miraculous courage and strength in war against the whole Land and God worketh not alwayes by miracles to save his Church and therefore the naturall mandate of self-preservation in that case doth no more oblige a few weake ones to lawfull resistance then it obliged one Martyre to rise against a persecuting Nero and all his forces Arnisaeus should remember wee are not to tye our Lord to miracles 2. Elias did not onely flee but denounced wrath against the King and Cavalliers who joyned with them in Idolatry and when God gave oportunity he shewed himself and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seducing idolatours when the Idolatrous King refuâ—ed to do it and Eliah with his own hand took them not but all Israel being gathered together 1 King 18.19 The Princes and Judges did apprehend them ver 40. which is a warrant when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists that other judges are to do it 2. For Nebuchadnezzer Ieremiah from the Lord expresly forbad to fight against him shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cut-throats for that example may as well prove if it be a binding law to us that our King should not raise his Subjects to fight against a Spanish Armado and a forraigne Priâ—ce for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27.1 In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim ver 12 13 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon I hope this will not tye us and our King not to fight against forraigne Princes or against the great Turk if they shall injustly invade us and our King and this example is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him as much as against us for Nebuchadnezzar was a Tyrannous invader and the King of Iudah the Lords Annoynted 3. The people also conspired with Manasseh as with Ahab Ier. 15.4 4 Of Empâ—rours persecuting Christians we shall heare anon 5. Deut. 13. None are excepted by a synecdoche the dearest are expressed sonne daughter brother the friend that is as thine own soul. Ergo fathers also And husbands are to love their lives Ephes. 5.25 Yet to execute judgement on them without pitty Deut. 13.8.9 The father is to love the son yet if the son prophecy falsely in the name of the Lord to kill him Zach. 13.3 Hence love fear reverence toward the King may be commanded and defensive warres also 6. Christ fled from Herod and all his actions and sufferings are mysteries and instructions saith the poor Prelate 1. Christ kissed the man that to his knowledge came to betray him Christ fled not but knowing where and when his enemy should apprehend him came willingly to the place Ergo we should not flee 2. His actions are so mysterious that Iohn P. P. in imitation of Christs fourty dayes fast will fast from flesh in lent and the Prelate must walk on the sea and work miracles if all Christs actions be our instructions 7. He might with more then twelve Lâ—gions of Angels defend himself but he would not not because resistance was unlawfull no shadow for that in the text but because it was Gods will that he should drink the cup his Father gave him because to take the sword without Gods warrant subjecteth the usurper of Gods place to perish with the sword Peter had Gods revealed wil that Christ behoved to suffer Math. 26.52 53. Math. 16.21 22 23. Gods positive command that Christ should die for sinners Iohn 10.24 may well restraine an act of lawfull sâ—lf-preservation hic nunc and such an act as Christ lawfully used at another time Luk. 4.29 30. Ioh. 11.7 8. we give no new creed but this apostate hath forsaken his old creed the religion of the Church of Scotland in which he was Baptised 9. Nor do we expuâ—ge out of the Creed Christs descension into hell the communion of Saints as the apostate saith but the Popish locall descension of Christ the Popish advancing of the Churches power above the Scriptures the intercession prayers to the saints or of the saints for us we deny this Prelate though he did swear the doctrine of the Church of Scotland preached expresly all these many other poynts of Popery in the Pulpits of Edenburgh 10. We beleeve that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilat but that Pilat had any legal power to condemne Christ but onely a power by a permissive Decree Act. 4.27 28. Such as Devils had by Gods permission Luke 22.53 we utterly deny 11. The Prelat saith it is his resolution for our sin of naturall selfe defence to dissolve in tears because his Bishopricke I conceive by which he was wont to dissolve in cups being drunk on the Lords day after he with other Prelates had been at the Lords Supper while the Chamber wherein they were was dissolved in vomitting was taken from him 12. The prophets cry against all sins but never against the sin of non-resistance and yet they had very Tyrannous and Idolatrous Kings 1. This is but a weak argument 1. The Prophets cry not out against all sins they cry not out against men-stealers and killers of father and mother in expresse tearmes yet do they by consequence condemne all these sins and so do they condemne non-resistance in wars by consequence when they cry out Ier. 5.31 The Prophets prophesie falsly and the Priests beare rule by their meanes and my people love to have it so And when they complaine Ezek. 22.26 27 28. That the Prophets and Priests violate the Law her Princes are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood and the people use oppression and exercise robbery and vexe the poore And when they say Ier. 22.2 not to the King onely but also to his servants and the people that enter in by the gates 3. Execute judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour I pray you who are the oppressors I answer The murthering Judges Esa. 1.21 And Esa. 3.12 As for my people children are their oppressors and women rule over them And ver 14 15. The ancients of the people grind the faces of the poore and when they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth And Prov. 24.11 the Loâ—d shal render to
saith he non est actio aut poena one may not have action of law against his brother who refuseth to help him yet saith he as man he is obliged to man nexu civilis societatis by the bond of humane society Others say one nation may indirectly defend a neighbour nation against a common enemie because it is a self-defence and it is presumed that a forraigne enemie having overcome the neighbour nation shall invade that nation it selfe who denyeth help and succour to the neighbour nation this is a self-opinion and to me it looketh not like the spiritâ—aâ—l law of God 3. Some say it is lawfull but not alwayes expedient in which opinion there is this much truth that if the neighbor nation have an evil cause neque licet neque expedit it is neither lawfull nor expedient But what is lawful in the case of necessity so extreame as is the losse of a brothers life or of a nation must be expedient because necessity of non-sinning maketh any lawfull thing expedient As to help my brother in fire or water requiring my present and speedy help though to the losse of my goods must be as expedient as a negative commandement Thou shalt not murther 4. Others think it lawfull in the case that my brother seek my help only other wayes I have no calling thereunto to which opinion I cannot universally subscribe it is holden both by reason and the soundest divines that to rebuke my brother of sinne is actus misericordiae charitatis an act of mercy and charity to his soul yet I hold I am obliged to rebuke him by Gods law Levit. 19.17 otherwise I hate him 1 Thes. 5.14 Col. 4.17 Math. 18 15. Nor can I think in reason that my duty of love to my brother doth not oblige me but upon dependency on his free consent but as I am to help my neighbours oxe out of a ditch though my neighbour know not and so I have onely his implicit and virtuall consent so is the case here I go not farther in this case of conscience if a neighbour nation be jealous of our help and in an hostile way should oppose us in helping which blessed be the Lord the honourable houses of the Parliament of England hath not done though Malignant spirits tempted them to such a course what in that case we should owe to the afflicted members of Christs body is a case may be determined easily The fift and last opinion is of those who think if the King command Papists and Prelates to rise against the Parliament and our dear brethren in England in warres that we are obliged in conscience and by our oath and covenant to help our native Prince against them to which opinion with hands and feet I should accord if our Kings cause were just and lawfull but from this it followeth that we must thus far judge of the cause as concerneth our consciences in the matter of our necessary duty leaving the judiciall cognizance to the honourable Parliament of England But because I cannot returne to all these opinions particularly I see no reason but the Civil Law of a Kingdom doth oblige any Citizen to help an innocent man against a murthering robber that he may be judicially accused as a murtherer who faileth in his duty that Solon said well beatam remp esse illam in quâ quisque injuriam alterius suam estimet It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother as an injury done against himself As the Egyptians had a good law by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that suffered wrong and if he was not able to help he was holden to accuse the injurer if not his punishment was whips or three dayes hunger it may be upon this ground it was that Moses slew the Egyptian Ambrose commendeth him for so doing Assert We are obliged by many bands to expose our lives goods children c. in this cause of religion and of the unjust oppression of enemies for the safety and defence of our deare brethren and true religion in England 1. Prov. 24.11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken as captives to be killed and those that are ready to be slaine 12. If thou say behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it and he that keepeth thy soul doth he not know it and shall he not render to every man according to his work Master Iermin on the plâ—ce is too narrow who coâ—menting on the place restricteth all to these two that the priest should deliver by interceding for the innocâ—nt and the King by pardoning only But 1. to deliver is a word of violence as 1 Sam. 30.18 David by the sword rescued his wives Hos. 5 14. I will take away and none shall rescue 1 Sam. 17.35 I rescued the lambs out of his mouth out of the Lyons mouth which behovâ—d to be done with great violence 2 King 18.34 They have not delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samaria out of my hand So Cornel. à Lapidâ— Charitas suadâ—t ut vi armis eruamus injuste ductos ad mortem Amâ—ros lib. 1. offic c. 36. citeth this same text and commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man 2. It is an act of Charity and so to be done though the judge forbid it when thâ— innocent is unjustly put to death Object But in so doing private men may offer violence to the lawfull magistrate when he unjustly putteth an innocent man to death and rescue him out of the hands of the magistrate and this were to bring in anarchy and confusion for if it be an act of charity to deliver the innocent out of the hand of the Magistrate it is homicide to a private man not to do it for our obedience to the law of nature tyeth us absolutely though the Magistrate forbid these acts for it is known that I must obey God rather then man Answ. The law of nature tyeth us to obedience in acts of charity yet not to perfâ—rme these acts after any way and manner in a meere naturall way impetu naturae but I am to performe acts of naturall charity in a rationall and prudent way and in looking to Gods law else if my brother or father were justly condemned to die I might violently deliver him out of the Magistrates hand but by the contrary my hand should be first on him without naturall compassion As if my brother or my wife have been a blasphemer of God Deut. 13.6 7 8. and therefore am I to do acts naturall as a wise man observing as Solomon saith Eccles. 8.5 both time and judgement Now it were no wisdom for one private man to hazard his own life by attempting to rescue an innocent brother because he hath not strength to do it and the law of nature
power and therefore nomine juris by the word law here he understandeth a power granted by law jure or right to the King but pernitious to the people which Gregory calleth jus regium Tyrannorum the Royall law of Tyrants So Seneca 1 de clem c. 11. hoc interest inter regem Tyrannum Species ipsa fortunae ac licentiae par est nisi quod Tyranni ex volutate saeviunt Reges non nisi ex causa necessitate quid ergo non Reges quoque accidere solent sed quoties fieri publica utilitas persuadet Tirannis saevitia cordi est A Tyran saith Arnisaeus in this differeth from a King Qui ne ea quidem vult quae sibi licent that a King will not do these things which are lawfull a Tyran doth quae libet what he pleaseth to do Answ. Arnisaeus bewrayeth his ignorance in the Scriptures for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a custome and a wicked custome as by many Scriptures I have proved already his reasons are poor It is the manner of inferiour judges as we see in the sons of Eli and Samuel to pervert judgment as well as King Saul did but the King may more oppresse and his Tyranny hath more colour and is more catholick then the oppression of inferiour judges it is not Samuels purpose thus to distinguish the judges of Israel and the kings in that the judges had no power granted them of God to oppresse because the people might judge their judges and resist them and there was power given of God to the king so far to play the Tyrant that no man could resist him or say what dost thou the text will not beare any such difference for it was as unlawfull to resist Moses Ioshua Samuel as Royalists prove from the judgement of God that came upon Core Dathan and Abiram as to resist King Saul and King David Royalists doubt not to make Moses a King It was also no lesse sin to resist Samuels sons or to do violence to their persons as judging for the Lord and sent by the supreme judge their father Samuel then it was sin to resist many inferiour Judges that were Lyons and even Wolves under the Kings of Israel and Iudah so they judged for the Lord and as sent by the Supreme Magistrate But the difference was in this that judges were extraordinarily raised up of God out of any tribe as he pleased and were beleevers Heb. 11.32 Saved by faith and so used not their power to oppresse the people though inferiour judges as the sons of Eli and of Samuel perverted judgment and therefore in the time of the judges God who gave them saviours and judges was their King but Kings were tied to a certaine tribe especially the line of David to the Kingdom of Iudah 2. They were hereditary judges not so 3. They were made and chosen by the people Deut. 17.14.15 1 Sam. 10.17 18 19 20. 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. as were the Kings of the nations and the first King though a King be the lawfull ordinance of God was sought from God in a sinfull imitation of the nations 1 Sam. 8.19 20. and therefore were not of Gods peculiar election as the judges and so they were wicked men and many of them yea all for the most part did evil in the sight of the Lord and their law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their manner and custome was to oppresse the people and so were their inferiour judges little Tyrants and lesser Lyons Leopards evening Wolves Ezech. 22.27 Mic. 3.1 2 3. Esa. 3.14 15. And the Kings and inferiour judges are onely distinguished de facto that the King was a more Catholick oppressour and the old Lyon and so had more art and power to catch the prey then the inferiour judges who were but whelps and had lesse power but all were oppressors some few excepted and Samuel speaketh of that which Saul was to be de facto not de jure and the most part of the Kings after him and this Tyranny is well called jus regis the manner of the King and not the manner of the jugdes because it had not been the practice custome and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the beleeving judges before Sauls Reigne and while God was his peoples King 1 Sam. 8.7 to oppresse 3. We grant that all other inferiour judges after the people cast off Gods government and in imitation of the nations would have a King were also lesser Tyrants as the King was a greater Tyrant and that was a punishment of their rejecting God and Samuel to be their King and judge 4. How shall Arnisaeus prove that this manner or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the King wâ—s potestas concessa a power granted I hope granted of God and 〈…〉 abuse of Kingly power for then he and Royalists must say that all the acts of Tyranny ascribed to King Saul 1 Sam. 8.11 12 13 14. by reason of which they did cry out and complaine to God because of their oppression was no abuse of power given to Saul Ergo it was an use and a lawfull use of power given of God to their King for there is no medium or mids betwixt a lawfull power used in morall acts and a lawfull power abused and indeed Arnisaeus so distinguisheth a King and a Tyrant that he maketh them all one in nature and spece He saith a Tyrant doth quod licet that which by Law he may do and a King doth not these things quae licent which by Law he may do but so to me it is clear a Tyrant acting as a Tyrant must act according to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 law of the King and that which is lawfull and a King acting as a King and not doing these things that are lawfull must sin against his office and the power that God hath given to him which were to commend and praise the Tyrant and to condemne and dispraise the King 3. If this Law of the King be a permissive Law of God which the king may out of his absolutenesse put in execution to oppressâ— the people such as the law of a bill of divorcement as Arnisaeus Barcklay and other Royalists say then must God have given a Law to every King to play the Tyrant because of the hardnesse of the Kings heart but we would gladly see some word of God for this The Law of a bill of Divorcement is a meere positive Law permitted in a particular exigent when a husband out of levity of heart and affection cannot love his wife therefore God by a Law permitted him out of indulgence to put her away that both he might have a seed the want whereof because of the blessed seed to be borne of woman was a reproach in Israel and though this was an affliction to some particular women yet the intent of the Law and the soul thereof was a publique benefit to the Common-wealth of Israel of which sort of Lawes I judge the
not before then they were more Absolute These who can adde Absolutenesse must have it in themselves Nemo dat quod non habet if it be said King James had that before the Act the Parliament legally declared it to be his power which before the Declaration was his power I answer All he had before this Declaration was to govern the people according to Law and Conscience and no more and if they declare no other Prerogative Royall to be due to him there is an end we grant all But then this which they call Prerogative Royall is no more then a power to govern according to Law and so you adde nothing to King James upon the ground of his personall vertues onely you make an oration to his praise in the Acts of Parliament 4. If this Absolutenesse of Prerogative be given to the King the subjects swearing obedience swear That he hath power from themselves to destroy themselves this is neither a lawfull oath nor though they should swear it doth it oblige them 6. A Supreme Iudge is a supreme father of all his children and all their causes and to be a supreme Father cannot be contrary to a supreme Iudge but contrary it must be if this supremacy make over to the Prince a power of devouring as a Lyon and that by a regall priviledge and by office whereas he should be a father to save or if a Iudge kill an ill-doer though that be an act destructive to one man yet is it an act of a father to the Common-wealth An act of supreme and absolute Royaltie is often an act of destruction to one particular man and to the whole Common-wealth For example when the King out of his Absolute Prerogative pardoneth a murtherer and he killeth another innocent man and out of the same ground the King pardoneth him again and so till he kill twenty for by what reason the Prerogative giveth one pardon he may give twenty there is a like reason above Law for all This act of Absolute Royaltie is such an act of murther as if a shepherd would keep a Woolf in the fold with the sheep he were guilty of the losse of these sheep Now an act of destroying cannot be an act of judging far lesse of a supreme Iudge but of a supreme Murtherer 7. Whereas he is called Absolute Prince and Supreme Judge in all Causes Ecclesiasticall and Civill It is to be considered 1. That the Estates professe in these acts not to give any new Prerogative but onely to continue the old power and that onely with that amplitude and freedom which the King and his Predecessors did enjoy and exerce of before the extent whereof is best known from the Acts of Parliament Histories of the time and the Oaths of the Kings of Scotland 2. That he is called Absolute Prince not in any relation of freedom from Law or Prerogative above Law whereunto as unto the norma regula ac mensura potestatis suae ac subjectionis meae He is tyed by the Fundamentall Law and his own Oath but in opposition to all forraign Iurisdiction or principalitie above him as is evident by the Oath of Supremacie set down for acknowledging of his power in the first Act of Parliament 21. K. Iam. 6. 3. They are but the same expressions giving onely the same power before acknowledged in the 129. Act. Parl. 8. K. Iam. 6. And that onely over Persons or Estates considered Separatim and over Causes but neither at all over the Laws nor over the Estates taken Conjunctim and as convened in Parliament as is clear both by the two immediately subsequent Acts of that Parliament 8. K. Iam. 6. Establishing the Authority of Parliaments equally with the Kings and discharging all Iurisdictions alâ—eit granted by the King without their Warrant as also by the Narrative Depositive words and certification of the Act it self otherwayes the Estates convened in Parliament might by vertue of that Act be summoned before and censured by the Kings Majestie or His Councell a Iudicatory substitute be subordinate to and censurable by themselves which were contrary to sense and reason 4. The very termes of Supreme Iudge and in all Causes according to the nature of Correlates presupposeth Courts and judiciall Proceedings and Laws as the ground work and rule of all not a freedom from them 5. The sixth Act of the twenty Parliament K. Iac. 6. Cleerly interpreteth what is meant by the Kings Iurisdiction in all Spirituall and Ecclesiastick Causes to wit to be onely in the Consistoriall Causes of Matrimony Testaments Bastardy Adulteries abusively called Spirituall Causes because handled in Commissary Courts wherin the King appoints the Commissary his Deputies and makes the Lords of the Session his great Consistory in all Ecclesiasticall Causes with reservation of his Supremacy and Prerogative therein 7. Supreame Iudge in all causes cannot be taken Quoad actus elicitos as if the King were to judge between two Sea-men or two Husband-men or two Trades-men in that which is proper to their Art or between two Painters certainly the King is not to Iudge which of the two draweth the fairest Picture but which of the two wasteth most gold on his Picture and so doth interest most of the Common-wealth So the King cannot judge in all Ecclesiasticall Causes that is he cannot Quoad actos elicitos prescribe this Worship for example the Masse not the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Therefore the King hath but Actus imperatos some Royall Politicall Acts about the Worship of God to command God to be Worshipped according to his Word to punish the superstitions or neglectors of Divine Worship therefore cannot the King be sole Iudge in matters that belong to the Colledge of Iudges by the Lawes of Scotland the Lords of Session onely may judge these maters K. Iames 1. Parl. 2. Act. 45. K. Iames 3. Par. 8. Act 62. K. Iames 3. Par. 4. Act. 105. K. I. 1. Parl. 6. Act. 83. K. I. 1. Par. 6 Act. 86. K. I. 5. Par. 7. Act. 104. and that only according to Law without any remedy of appellation to King or the Parliament Act 62 and 63. Par. 14. K. I. 2. And the King is by Act of Parliament inhibited to send any private letter to stay the Acts of Iustice or if any such letter be procured the Iudges are not to acknowledge it as the Kings Will for they are to proceed unpartially according to Iustice and are to make the Law which is the King and Parliaments publick revealed will their rule King I. 5. Parl. 5. Act. 68. K. Ia. 6. Part. 8. Act. 139. and K. I. 6. Par. 6. Act. 92. most lawfull Nor may the Lords suspend the course of Iustice or the sentence or execution of Decrees upon the Kings private letter King I. 6. Parl. 11. Act 79. and K. Iam. 6. Par. 11. Act 47. and so if the Kings Will or desire as he is a man be opposite to his Law and his Will as King it is not to
Confession of Faith being ratified in Acts made by the three Estates that the Kings must sweare at their Coronation In the presence of the eternall God that they shall maintaine the true Religion right Preaching and administration of the Sacraments now received and preached within this Realme and shall abolish and gain-stand all false Religions contrary to the same and shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will of God laudable Lawes and Constitutions of the Realme c. The 1. Parl. of K. Iames the 6. 1567. approveth the Acts Parl. 1560. conceived only in name of the States without the King and Queen who had deserted the same So saith the Act 2.5.4.20.28 And so this Parliament wanting the King and Queenes authoritie is confirmed Parl. 1572. Act. 51. K. Ia. 6. and Parl. 1581. Act. 1. and Parl. 1581. Act. 115. in which it is declared That they have been Common lawes from their first Date and all are ratified Parl. 1587. and Parl. 1592. Act. 1. and stand ratified to this day by K. Charles his Parliament An. 1633. The Act of the Assemblie 1566. commendeth that Parliament 1560. as the most lawfull and free Parliament that ever was in the Kingdome Yea even Parl. 1641. King Charles himselfe being present an Act was passed upon the occasion of the Kings illegall imprisoning of the Laird of Langtoune That the King hath no power to imprison any Member of the Parliament without consent of the Parliament Which Act to the great prejudice of the libertie of the Subject should not have been left unprinted for by what Law the King may imprison one Member of the Parliament by that same reason he may imprison two and twenty and a hundreth and so may he clap up the whole Free Estates and where shall then the highest Court of the Kingdome be All Polititians say The King is a limited Prince not absolute where the King giveth out Lawes not in his own name but in the name of himselfe and the Estates judicially conveened Pag. 33. of the old Acts of Parliament Members are summoned to treat and conclude The duty of Parliaments and their power according to the Laws of Scotland may be seen in the Historie of Knox now printed at London An. 1643. in the Nobles proceeding with the Queen who killed her Husband and maried Bodwell and was arraigned in Parliament and by a great part condemned to death by many to perpetuall imprisonment King Charles received not Crown Sword and Scepter while first he did sweare the Oath that King Iames his Father did sweare 2. He was not crowned till one of every one of the three Estates came and offered to him the Crown 3. With an expresse condition of his duty before he be crowned After King Charles said I will by Gods assistance bestow my life for your defence wishing to live no longer then that I may see this Kingdome flourish in happinesse Thereafter the King shewing himselfe on a Stage to the people the P. Archbishop said Sir I doe present unto you King Charles the right descended inheritor the Crown and dignitie of this Realme appointed by the Peeres of the Kingdome And Are ye not willing to have him for your King and become subject to him The King turning himselfe on the stage to be seen of the People They declare their willingnesse by crying God save King Charles Let the King live QUEST XLIV Generall results of the former Doctrine in some few Corollaries or straying Questions fallen off the Road-way answered briefly QUest 1. Whether all Governments be but broken Governments and deviations from Monarchie Answ. It is denyed There is no lesse somewhat of Gods authoritie in Government by many or some of the choisest of the People than in Monarchie nor can we judge any Ordinance of Man unlawfull for we are to be subject to all for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2.13 Tit. 3.1 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3.2 Though Monarchie should seeme the rule of all other Governments in regard of resemblance of the supreme Monarch of all Yet is it not the morall rule from which if other Governments shall erre they are to be judged sinfull deviations Quest. 2. Whether is Royaltie an immediate issue and spring of Nature Answ. No For man fallen in sinne knowing naturally he hath need of a Law and a Government could have by reason devised Governors one or moe and the supervenient institution of God comming upon this Ordinance doth more fully assure us that God for mans good hath appointed Governours but if we consult with Nature many Iudges and Governors to fallen Nature seeme nearer of blood to Nature then one only for two because of mans weaknesse are better then one Now Nature seemeth to me not to teach that one onely sinfull man should be the sole and onely Ruler of a whole Kingdome God in his Word ever joyned with the Supreme Ruler many Rulers who as touching the essence of a Iudge which is to rule for God were all equally Iudges some reserved Acts or a longer cubite of power in regard of extent being due to the King Quest. 3. Whether Magistrates as Magistrates be naturall Answ. Nature is considered as whole and sinlesse or as fallen and broken In the former consideration that either man should stand in need of any to compell him with the sword to doe his duty and not oppresse was no more naturall to man than to stand in need of Lictors and Hangmen or Physitians for the body which in this state was not in a capacitie of sicknesse or death And so Government by Parents and Husbands was only naturall in the latter consideration Magistrates as Magistrates are two wayes considered 1. According to the knowledge of such an Ordinance 2. According to the actuall erection of the practice of the office of Magistrates In the former notion I humbly conceive that by Natures light Man now fallen and broken even under all the fractions of the powers and faculties of the soule doth know that promises of reward feare of punishment and the coactive power of the Sword as Plato said are naturall meanes to move us and wings to promote obedience and to doe our duty And that Government by Magistrates is naturall But in the second relation it is hard to determine that Kings rather then other Governours are more naturall Quest. 4. Whether Nature hath determined that there should be one supreme Ruler a King or many Rulers in a free Commnitie Answ. It is denyed Quest. 6. Whether every free Commonwealth hath not in it a supremacie of Majestie which it may formally place in one or many Answ. It is affirmed Quest. 6. Whether absolute and unlimited power of Royaltie be a ray and beame of Divine Majestie immediately derived from God Answ. Not at all Such a creature is not in the world of Gods creation Royalists and flatterers of Kings are parents to this prodigious birth There is no shadow of power to doe ill in God An