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
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
is a King by an act of Royall Iustice and by a power that he hath from the people who made himself supreme Iudge p. 163 164 165. The Kings making of inferiour Iudges hindereth not but they are as essentially Iudges as the King who maketh them not by fountain-power but by power borrowed from the people p. 165 166. The Iudges in Israel and the Kings differ not essentially p. 167. Aristocracy as naturall as Monarchie and as warrantable p. 168 169. Inferiour Iudges depend some way on the King in fieri but not in facto esse p. 169 170. The Parliament not Iudges by derivation from the King p. 170. The King cannot make nor unmake Iudges ibid. No heritable Iudges ibid. Inferiour Iudges more necessary then a King p. 171 172. QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament hath over the King and in the State p. 172. The Elders appointed by God to be Iudges p. 173. Parliaments may conveen and judge without the King p. 173 174. Parliaments are essentially Iudges and so their consciences neither dependeth on the King quoad specificationem that is That they should give out this sentence not this nec quoad exercitium That they should not in the morning execute judgement p. 174 175. Vnjust judging and no judging at all are sins in the States p. 175. The Parliament coordinate Iudges with the King not advisers onely By eleven Arguments p. 176 177 Inferior Iudges not the Kings Messengers or Legates but publike Governours p. 176. The Jews Monarchie mixt p. 178. A Power executive of Laws more in the King a Power legislative more in the Parliament p. 178 179. QUEST XXII Whether the power of the King as King be absolute or dependent and limited by Gods first mould and patern of a King Negatur Prius Affirmatur Posterius p. 179. The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk p. 180. The King not absolute in his power proved by nine Arguments p. 181.182 183 seq Why the King is a living Law p. 184. Power to do ill not from God ibid. Royalists say power to do ill is not from God but power to do ill as punishable by man is from God p. 186. A King actu primo is a plague and the people slaves if the King by Gods institution be absolute p. 187. Absolutenesse of Royaltie against Iustice Peace Reason Law p. 189. Against the Kings relation of a brother p. 190. A Damsel forced may resist the King ibid. The goodnesse of an absolute Prince hindereth not but he is actu primo a Tyrant p. 189. QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath a Prerogative Royall above Laws Negatur p. 192. Prerogative taken two wayes ibid. Prerogative above Laws a Garland proper to infinite Majestie ibid. A threefold dispensation 1. Of power 2. Of justice 3. Of Grace p. 194. Acts of meer grace may be acts of blood p. 195. An oath to the King of Babylon tyed not the people of Judah to all that absolute power could command ibid. The absolute Prince is as absolute in acts of crueltie as in acts of grace p. 196. Servants are not 1 Pet. 2.18 19. interdited of self-defence p. 199 200. The Parliament materially onely not formally hath the King for their Lord p. 202. Reason not a sufficient restraint to keep a Prince from Acts of tyranny ibid. Princes have sufficient power to do good though they have not absolute to do evil p. 203. A power to shed innocent blood can be no part of any Royall power given of God p. 204. The King because he is a publike person wanteth many priviledges that subjects have p. 205 206. QUEST XXIV What relation the King hath to the Law p. 207. Humane Laws considered as reasonable or as penal ibid. The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power p. 208. Whether the King be above Parliaments as their Iudge p. 208 p. 209 210 211. Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordination both consistent p. 210 211. Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other and they cannot any one of them be in its prevalency conveniently without the mixture of the other two p. 211 212. The King as a King cannot erre as he erreth in so far he is not the remedie of oppression and Anarchie intended by God and nature p. 212. In the court of necessitie the people may judge the King p. 213. Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernable p. 213 214. It s more requisite that the whole people Church and Religion be secured then one man p. 215. If there be any restraint by Law on the King it must be physicall for a morall restraint is upon all men p. 214 215. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath eatenus in so far unlawfull and not obligatory p. 215. QUEST XXV Whether the supreme Law the safetie of the people be above the King Affirmed p. 218. The safetie of the people to be preferred to the King for the King is noâ— to seek himself but the good of the people p. 218 219. Royalists make no Kings but Tyrants p. 222. How the safetie of the King is the safetie of the people p. 223. A King for the safetie of the people may break through the Letter and paper of a Law p. 227. The Kings prerogative above Law and Reason not comparable to the blood that has been shed in Ireland and England p. 225 226 228. The power of Dictators prove not a Prerogative above Law p. 229 230. QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law p. 230 231. The Law above the King in four things 1. In constitution 2. Direction 3. Limitation 4. Coaction p. 231. In what sense the King may do all things p. 231 232. The King under the moralitie of Laws 2. Vnder Fundamentall Laws not under punishment to be inflicted by himself nor because of the eminency of his place but for the physicall incongruity thereof p. 232 233. If and how the King may punish himself p. 233. That the King transgressing in a hainous manner is under the Coaction of Law proved by seven Arguments p. 234 235 seq The Coronation of a King who is supposed to be a just Prince yet proveth after a Tyrant is conditionall and from ignorance and so unvoluntary and in so far not obligatory in Law p. 234 235. Royalists confesse a Tyrant in exercise may be dethroned p. 235 236. How the people is the seat of the power of Soveraigntie p. 239 240. The place Psal. 51. Against thee onely have I sinned c. discussed p. 241 242. Israels not rising in arms against Pharaoh examined p. 245 246 247 248 249. And Judahs not working their own deliverance under Cyrus p. 248 249. A Covenant without the Kings concurrence lawfull p. 249 250 251. QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall Interpreter of the Law Negatur p. 252. He is not the supreme and peremptor
cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the Iudges because they execute not judgements for the oppressed p. 365 366. seq Iudahs subjection to Nebuchadnezar a conquering Tyrant no warrant for us to subject our selves to tyrannous acts p. 363 364 365. Christs subjection to Caesar nothing against defensive warrs p. 365 366. QUEST XXXV Whether the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church Militant be against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs p. 369 370. Tertullian neither ours nor theirs in the question of defensive warrs p. 370 371 372. QUEST XXXVI Whether the King have the power of warre only Negatur p. 372 373. Inferiour Iudges have the power of the sword no lesse then the King p. 372 373. The people tyed to acts of charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forraigne enemy though the King forbid p. 373 374. Flying unlawfull to the States of Scotland and England now Gods Law tying them to defend their Country p. 374. Parliamentary Power a fountain-power above the King p. 376 377. QUEST XXXVII Whether the Estates of Scotland are to help their Brethren the protestants in England against Cavaliers Affirmatur proved by 13. Arg. p. 378. seq Helping of neighbour Nations lawfull divers opinions concerning the point p. 378 379. The Law of Aegypt against those that helped not the oppressed p. 380. QVEST. XXXVIII Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments Affir p. 384. Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments hath divers considerations in which each one may be lesse or more convenient p. 384 385. Absolute Monarchy is the worst of Governments p. 385. Better want power to doe ill as have it ibid. A mixture sweetest of all Governments p. 387. Neither King nor Parliament have a voyce against Law and reason ibid. QUEST XXXIX Whether or no any Prerogative at all above the Law be due to the King Or if jura majestatis be any such Prerogative Negatur p. 389. A threefold supreme power ibid. What be jura regalia p. 390 391. Kings confer not honours from their plenitude of absolute power but according to the strait line and rule of Law justice and good deserving ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. p. 392 393. Difference of Kings and Judges ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. No permissive Law such as the Law of divorce p. 394. What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subjects p. 395 396 397. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his Oath Covenant or any other way Affirmed p. 398 399. The people have power over the King by reason of his Covenant and Promise ibid. Covenants and promises violated infer Coaction de jure by Law though not de facto p. 399 400. Mutuall punishments may be where there is no relation of superioritie and inferioritie p. 399 400 401. Three Covenants made by Arnisaeus ibid. The King not King while he swear the oath and be accepted as King by the people ibid. The oath of the Kings of France ibid. Hu. Grotius setteth down seven cases in which the people may accuse punish or dethrone the King p. 403 404. The Prince a noble Vassal of the Kingdom upon four grounds p. 405. The covenant had an oath annexed to it ibid. The Prince is but as a private man in a contract p. 406. How the Royall power is immediately from God and yet conferred upon the King by the people p. 407 408 409. QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. P. with reason ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in the Question of lawfull defence Negatur p. 410 411 412. That Soveraignty is originally and radically in the people as in the Fountain was taught by Fathers ancient Doctors sound Divines Lawyers before there was a Jesuite or a Prelate whelped in rerum natura p. 413. The P. P. holdeth the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ p. 414 415. Iesuites tenets concerning Kings p. 415 416 417. The King not the peoples Deputie by our doctrine it is onely the calumnie of the P. Prelate p. 417 418. The P. P. will have power to act the bloodiest tyrannies on earth upon the Church of Christ the essentiall power of a King ibid. QUEST XLII Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vicegerents Negatur p. 422. Why God as God hath a man a Vicegerent under him but not as Mediator p. 422 423. The King not head of the Church ibid. The King a sub-mediator and an under redeemer and a sub-priest to offer sacrifices to God for us if he be a Vicegerent p. 423. The King no mixt person ibid. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel p. 426 427. By no Prerogative Royall may the King prescribe religious observances and humane ceremonies in Gods worship p. 424 425. The P. P. giveth to the King a power Arbitrary supreme and independent to govern the Church p. 429 430. Reciprocation of subjections of the King to the Church of the Church to the King in divers kindes to wit of Ecclesiasticall and civill subjection are no more absurd then for Aarons Priest to teach instruct and rebuke Moses if he turne a tyrannous Achab and Moses to punish Aaron if he turn an obstinate Idolator p. 430 4â—3 QVEST. XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having prerogatives above Laws and Parliaments Negatur p. 433 434. The King of Scotland subject to Parliaments by the fundamentall Lawes Acts and constant practises of Parliaments ancient and late in Scotland p. 433 434 435 436. seq The King of Scotlands Oath at his Coronation p. 434. A pretended absolute povver given to K. Iames 6. upon respect of personall indowments no ground of absolutenesse to the King of Scotland p. 435 436. By Lawes and constant practises the Kings of Scotland subject to Lawes and Parliaments proved by the fundamentall Law of elective Princes and out of the most partiall Historicians and our Acts of Parliament of Scotland p. 439 440. Coronation oath ibid. And again at the Coronation of K. James the 6. that oath sworn and again 1 Par. K. Jam. 6. ibid. seq p. 452 453. How the King is supreme Iudge in all causes p. 437. The power of the Parliaments of Scotland ibid. The confession of the faith of the Church of Scotland authorized by divers Acts of Parliament doth evidently hold forth to all the reformed Churches the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars when the supreme Magistrate is misled by wicked Counsell p. 440 441 442. The same proved from the Confessions of Faith in other reformed Churches ibid. The place Rom. 13. exponed in our Confession of Faith p. 441 442 443. The Confession not onely Saxonick exhibited to the Councell of Trent but also of Helvetia France England Bohemia prove the same p. 444 445. William Laud and other Prelates enemies to Parliaments to States and to the Fundamentall Laws of the
hath no influence in making a King for the people are worthier more excellent then the King and they have an active power of ruling and directing themselves toward the intrinsecall end of humane policie which is the externall safety and peace of a societie in so far as there are morall principles of the Second Table for this effect written in their heart and therefore that royall authoritie which by Gods speciall providence is united in one King and as it were over-gilded and lustered with Princely grace and royall endowments is diffused in the people for the people hath an after-approbative consent in making a King as Royalists confesse water hath no such action in producing grace QUEST IX Whether or no Soveraigntie is so from the people that it remaineth in them in some part so as they may in case of necessitie resume it THe Prelate will have it Babylonish confusion that we are divided in opinion Jesuites saith he place all Soveraigntie in the communitie Of the Sectaries some warrant any one subject to make away his King and that such a worke is no lesse to be rewarded then when one killeth a wolfe Some say this power is in the whole Communitie some will have it in the collective body not conveened by warrant or writ of Soveraignty but when necessitie which is often fancied of reforming State and Church calleth them together Some in the Nobles and Peeres some in the three Estates assembled by the Kings writ some in the inferour Iudges I answer If the Prelate were not a Iesuite himselfe he would not bid his brethren take the mote out of their eye but there is nothing here said but which Barclaius said better before this Plagarius To which I answer We teach that any private man may kill a a Tyrant voyd of all title and a great Royalist Barclaius saith so also And if he have not the consent of the people he is an usurper for we know no externall lawfull calling that Kings have now or their familie to the Crown but only the call of the people all other calls to us are now invisible and unknown and God would not command us to obey Kings and leave us in the darke that we shall not know who is the King the Prelate placeth his lawfull calling to the Crown in such an immediate invisible and subtile act of omnipotencie as that whereby God conferreth remission of sinnes by sprinkling with water in baptisme and that whereby God directed Samuel to annoint Saul and David not Eliab nor any other brother It is the Devill in the P. P. not any of us who teach that any private man may kill a lawfull King though tyrannous in his government For the subject of Royall power we affirme the first and ultimate and native subject of all power is the Communitie as reasonable men naturally inclining to a societie but the ethicall and politicall subject or the legall and positive receptacle of this power is various according to the various constitutions of the policie In Scotland and England it is the three Estates of Parliament in other Nations some other Iudges or Peeres of the Land The Prelate had no more common sense for him to object a confusion of opinions to us for this then to all the Common-wealths on earth because all have not Parliaments as Scotland hath all have not Constables and Officials and Churchmen Barons Lords of Councell Parliaments c. as England had But the truth is the Communitie orderly conveened as it includeth all the Estates civill have hand and are to act in choosing their Rulers I see not what priviledge Nobles have above Commons in a Court of Parliament by Gods law but as they are Iudges all are equally Iudges and all make up one congregation of Gods But the question now is if all power of governing the Prelate to make all the people Kings saith if all Soveraignty be so in the people that they retaine power to guard themselves against Tyranny And if they reteine some of it habitu in habit and in their power I am not now unseasonably according to the Prelates order to dispute of the power of lawfull defence against tyranny but I lay down this maxime of Divinitie Tyranny being a worke of Sathan is not from God because sinne either habituall or actuall is not from God the power that is must be from God the Magistrate as Magistrate is good in nature of office and the intrinsecall end of his office Rom. 13.4 for he is the Minister of God for thy good and therefore a power ethicall politick or morall to oppresse is not from God and is not a power but a licentious deviation of a power and is no more from God but from sinfull nature and the old serpent then a license to sinne God in Christ giveth pardons of sinne but the Pope not God giveth dispensations to sinne 2. To this adde If for nature to defend it selfe be lawfull no Communitie without sin hath power to alienate and give away this power for as no power given to man to murther his brother is of God so no power to suffer his brother to be murthered is of God and no power to suffer himselfe à fortiori far lesse can be from God Here I speake not of physicall power for if free will be the creature of God a physicall power to acts which in relation to Gods law are sinfull must be from God But I now follow the P. Prelate Some of the adversaries as Buchanan say that the Parliament hath no power to make a law but only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the approbation of the Communitie Others as the the Observator say that the right of the Gentry and Communalty is intirely in the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons and will have their Orders irrevocable If then the common people cannot resume their power and oppose the Parliament how can Tables and Parliaments resume their power and resist the King Answ. The ignorant man should have thanked Barclaius for this Argument and yet Barclaius need not thanke him for it hath not the nerves that Barclaius gave it But I answer 1. if the Parliament should have been corrupted by fair hopes as in our age we have seene the like the people did well to resist the Prelates obtruding the Masse Booke when the Lords of the Counsell pressed it against all Law of God and man upon the Kingdome of Scotland and therefore it is denyed that the Acts of Parliament are irrevocable the observator said they were irrevocable by the King he being but one man the P. Prelate wrongeth him for he said onely they have the power of a Law and the King is obliged to consent by his Royall Office to all good Lawes and neither King nor people may oppose them Buchanan said Acts of Parliament are not Lawes obliging the people till they be promulgated and the peoples silence when they are
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
above the Master But by this reason the shepherd should be inferior to bruit beasts to sheep And the master of the familie is for the familie and referreth all that he hath for the entertaining of the familie but it followeth not therefore the familie is above him The forme is for the action therefore the action is more excellent then the forme and an accident then the subject or substance And Grotius saith Every government is not for the good of another but some for its own good as the government of a master over the servant and the husband over the wife Ans. I take the answer thus Those who are meere meanes and only meanes referred to the end they are inferior to the end but the King as King hath all his officiall and relative goodnesse in the world as relative to the end All that you can imagine to be in a King as a King is all relative to the safety and good of the people Rom. 13.4 He is a minister for thy good He should not as King make himselfe or his own gaine and honour his end I grant the King as a man shall dye as another man and so he may secondarily intend his own good and what excellencie he hath as a man is the excellencie of one mortall man and cannot make him amount in dignitie and in the absolute consideration of the excellencie of a man to be above many men and a whole Kingdome for the moe good things there be the better they are so the good things be multiplicable as a hundred men are better then one Otherwise if the good be such as cannot be multiplied as one God the multiplication maketh them worse as many Gods are inferiour to one God Now if Royalists can shew us any more in the King then these two we shall be obliged to them and in both he is inferiour to the whole The Prelate and his followers would have the Maxime to lose credit for then say they the shepherd should be inferior to the sheep But in this the Maxime faileth indeed 1. Because the shepherd is a reasonable man and the sheep bruit beasts and so must be excellenter then all the flocks of the world Now as he is a reasonable man he is not a shepherd nor in that relation referred to the shâ—ep and their preservation as a mean to the end but he is a shepherd by accident for the unrulinesse of the creatures for mans sinne withdrawing themselves from that naturall dominion that man had over the creatures before the fall of man in that relation of a meane to the end and so by accident is this officiall relation put on him and according to that officiall relation and by accident man is put to be a servant to the bruitish creature and a meane to so base an end But all this proveth him through mans sinne and by accident to be under the officiall relation of a meane to baser creatures then himselfe as to the end but not as a reasonable man But the King as King is an officiall and Royall meane to this end that the people may lead a godly and peaceable life under him And this officiall relation being an accident is of lesse worth then the whole people as they are to be governed And I grant the Kings sonne in relation to blood and birth is more excellent then his Teachers but as he is taught he is inferiour to his Teacher but in both considerations the King is inferior to the people for though he coÌ„mand the people and so have an executive power of law above them yet have they a fountain power above him because they made him King and in Gods intention he is given as King for their good according to that Thou shalt feed my people Israel that I gave him for a leader of my people 4. Saith the P. Prelate The constituent cause is excellenter then the effect constituted where the constitution is voluntary and dependeth upon the free act of the will as when the King maketh a Vice-Roy or a Iudge durante beneplacito during his free will but not when a man maketh over his right to another for then there should be neither faith nor truth in covenants if people might make over their power to their King and retract and take back what they have once given Ans. This is a begging of the question for it is denyed that the people can absolutely make away their whole power to the King It dependeth on the people that they be not destroyed They give to the King a politique power for their own safetie and they keepe a naturall power to themselves which they must conserve and cannot give away and they doe not breake their covenant when they put in act that naturall power to conserve themselves for though the people should give away that power and sweare though the King should kill them all they should not resist nor defend their own lives yet that being an oath against the sixth Command which enjoyneth naturall selfe-preservation it should not oblige the conscience for it should be intrinsecally sinfull and it 's all one to sweare to non-self-preservation as to sweare to selfe-murther 5. If the people saith the Prelate begging the answer from Barclay the constituent be more excellent then the effect and so the people above the King because they constitute him King Then the Counties and Corporations may make voyd all the Commissions given to the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons and send others in their place and repeal their Orders therefore Buchanan saith that Orders and Lawes in Parliament were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preparatorie consultationis and had not the force of a Law till the people give their consent and have their influence authoritative upon the Statutes and Acts of Parliament But the observator holdeth that the legislative power is whole and intire in the Parliament But when the Scots were preferring Petitions and Declarations they put all power in the collective body and kept their distinct tables Ans. There is no consequence here the Counties and Incorporations that send Commissioners to Parliament may make voyd their Commissions and anull their Acts because they constitute them Commissioners if they be unjust acts they may disobey them and so disanull them but it is presumed God hath given no morall power to doe ill nor can the Counties and Corporations give any such power to evill for they have not any such fâ—om God if they be just acts they are to obey them and cannot retract Commissions to make just Orders Illud tantum possumus quod â—ure possumus and therefore as power to governe justly is irrevocably committed by the three estâ—tes who made the King to the King so is that same power committed by the Shires and Corporations to their Commissioners to decree in Parliament what is just and good irrevocably and to take any jâ—st power from the King which
sent them Ans. 1. The Ambassadour is not to accept an unjust Ambassage that fighteth with the Law of nature 2. The Ambassadour and the Iudge differ the Ambassadour is the King and States Deputy both in his call to the Ambassage and also in the matter of the Ambassage for which cause he is not to transgresse what is given to him in Writ as a Rule but the inferiour Iudges and the high Court of Parliament though they were the Kings Deputies as the Parliament is in no sort his Deputy but he their Deputy Royall yet it is only in respect of their call not in respect of the matter of their Commission for the King may send the Iudge to judge in generall according to the Law and Iustice and Religion but he cannot depute the sentence and command the conscience of the Judge to pronounce such a sentence not such the inferiour Iudge in the act of judging is as independent and his conscience as immediatly subject to God as the King therefore the King owes to every sentence his approbative suffrage as King but not his either directive suffrage nor his imperative suffrage of absolute pleasure 6. If the King should sell his Country and bring in a forraigne Army the estates are to convene to take course for the safety of the Kingdome 7. If David exhort the Princes of Israel to helpe King Solomon in governing the Kingdome in building the Temple 2 Chron. 32.3 Ezechiah tooke counsell with his Princes and his mighty men in the matter of holding off the Assyrians who were to invade the Land if David 1 Chron. 13.1 2 3 4. consult with the Captaines of thousands and hundreds to bring the Arke of God to Kireath joarim if Solomon 1 King 8.1 Assemble the Elders of Israel and all the Heads of the Tribes and the chief of the fathers to bring the Arke of the Tabernacle to the congregation of the Lord. And Achab gather together the States of Israel in a matter that nearely concerned Religion If the Elders and people 1 King 20.8 counsell and decree that King Achab should hearken to Benhadad King of Syria and if Ahasuerus make no Decrees but with consent of his Princes Ester 1.21 nor Darius any Act without his Nobles and Princes if Hamor and Schechem Genes 34.20 would not make a Covenant with Iacobs Sons without the consent of the men of the City and Ephron the Hittite would not sell Abraham a buriall place in his Land without the consent of the children of Heth Gen. 23.10 Then must the estates have a power of judging with the King or Prince in matters of Religion Iustice and Government which concerne the whole Kingdome but the former is true by the Records of Scripture ergo so is the latter 8. The men of Ephraim complaine that Iephtah had gone to warre against the children of Ammon without them and hence rose warre betwixt the men of Ephraim and the men of Gilead Iud. 12.1 2 3. and the men of Israel fiercely contend with the men of Iudah because they brought King David home againe without them pleading that they were therein dispised 2 Sam. 19.41 42 43. which evinceth that the whole States have hand in matters of publick government that concerne all the Kingdome and when there is no King Iudg. 20. The chiefe of the people and of all the Tribes goe out in battell against the children of Benjamin 9. These who make the King and so have power to unmake him in the case of Tyranny must be above the King in power of Government but the Elders and Princes made both David and Saul Kings 10. There is not any who say that the Princes and people 1 Sam. 14. did not right in rescuing innocent Ionathan from death against the Kings Will and his Law 11. The speciall ground of Royalists is to make the King the absolute supreame giving all life and power to the Parliament and States and of meere grace convening them So Ferne the Author of Ossorianum p. 69. but this ground is false because the Kings power is fiduciary and put in his hand upon trust and must be ministeriall and borrowed from these who put him in trust and so his power must be lesse and derived from the Parliament but the Parliament hath no power in trust from the King because the time was when the man who is the King had no power and the Parliament had the same power that they now have and now when the King hath received power from them they have the whole power that they had before That is to make Lawes and resigned no power to the King but to execute Lawes and his convening of them is an Act of Royall Duty which he oweth to the Paliament by vertue of his Office and is not an act of grace for an act of grace is an act of free Will and what the King doth of free Will he may not doe and so he may never convene a Parliament But when David Salomon Asa Ezekiah Iehosaphat Achas convened Parliaments they convened Parliaments as Kings and so Ex debito virtute officii out of debt and Royall Obligation and if the King as the King be Lex animata a breathing and living Law the King as King must doe by obligation of Law what he doth as King and not from spontaneous and Arbitrary grace 2. If the Scripture holds forth to us a King in Jsrael and two Princés and Elders who made the King and had power of life and death as we have seene then is there in Israel Monarchy tempered with Aristocracy and if there were Elders and Rulers in every City as the Scripture saith here was also Aristocracy and Democracy And for the warrant of the power of the Estates I appeale to Iurists and to approved Authors Argu. l. aliud 160. § 1. De Iur. Reg. l. 22. Mortuo de fidei l. 11.14 ad Mum. l. 3.1.4 Sigonius De Rep. Iudaeor l. 6. c. 7. Cornelius Bertramo c. 12. Iunius Brutus Vindic. contra Tyran § 2. Author Libelli de jur Magistrat in subd q. 6. Althus Politic. c. 18. Calvin Institut l. 4. c. 20. Pareus Coment in Rom. 13. Pet. Martyr in Lib. Iudic. c. 3. Ioan. Marianus de rege Lib. 1. c. 7. Hottoman de jure Antiq. Regni Gallici l. 1. c. 12. Buchanan De jure Regni apud Scotos Obj. The King after a more noble way representeth the people then the Estates doth for the Princes and Commissioners of Parliament have all their power from the people and the peoples power is concentricated in the King Ans. The Estates taken collectively doe represent the people both in respect of Office and of persons because they stand Iudges for them for many represent many ratione numeri officii better then one doeth The King doth unproperly represent the people though the power for actuall execution of Lawes be more in the King yet a legislative power is more in the
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
of Motion be larger in compasse in the one then in the other and if the King cannot give himself Royall Power but God and the people must do it how can he communicate any part of that power to inferiour Judges except by trust Yea he hath not that power that other men have in many respects 1. He may not marry whom he pleaseth for he might give his body to a Leper woman and so hurt the Kingdom 2. He may not do as Solomon and Achab marry the daughter of a strange god to make her the mother of the heir of the Crown He must in this follow his great Senate 2. He may not expose his person to hazard of Warres 3. He may not go over Sea and leave his Watch-Tower without consent 4. Many Acts of Parliament of both Kingdoms discharge Papists to come within ten miles of the King 5. Some pernicious Counsellours have been discharged 〈◊〉 company by Laws 6. He may not eat what Meats he pleaseth 7. He may not make Wasters his Treasurers 8. Nor Delapidate the Rents of the Crown 9. He may not dis-inherit his eldest son of the Crown at his own pleasure 10. He is sworn to follow no false gods and false religions nor is it in his power to go to Masse 11. If a Priest say Masse to the King by the Law he is hanged drawn and quartered 12. He may not write Letters to the Pope by Law 13. He may not by Law pardon seducing Priests and Iesuites 14. He may not take Physick for his health but from Physitians sworn to be true to him 15. He may not educate his heir as he pleaseth 16. He hath not power of his children nor hath he that power that other fathers have to marry his eldest son as he pleaseth 17. He may not befriend a Traytor 18. It is high Treason for any woman to give her body to the King except she be his married wife 19. He ought not to build sumptuous Houses without advice of his Councell 20. He may not dwell constantly where he pleaseth 21. Nor may he go to the Countrey to Hunt farlesse to kill his subjects and desert the Parliament 22. He may not confer honours and high places without his Councell 23. He may not deprive Iudges at his will 24. Nor is it in his power to be buried where he pleaseth but amongst the Kings Now in most of these twenty four points private persons have their own liberty far lesse restricted then the King QUEST XXIV What power hath the King in relation to the Law and the people And how a King and a Tyrant differ Mr. Symmons saith That Authoritie is rooted rather in the Prince then in the Law for as the King giveth Being to the inferiour Iudge so he doth to the Law it self making it authorizable for propter quod unum-quodque tale id ipsum magis tale and therefore the King is greater then the Law others say That the King is the Fountain of the Law and the sole and onely Law-giver Assert 1. The Law hath a twofold consideration 1. Secundum esse paenale in relation to the punishment to be inflicted by man 2. Secundum esse legis as it is a thing legally good in it self In the former notion it is this way true Humane Laws take life and being inway to be punished or rewarded by men from the will of Princes and Law-givers and so Symmons saith true Because men cannot punish or reward Laws but where they are made and the will of Rulers putteth a sort of stamp on a Law that it bringeth the Common-wealth under guiltinesse if they break this Law But this maketh not the King greater then the Law for therefore do Rulers put the stamp of relation to punishment on the Law because there is intrinsecall worth in the Law Prior to the Act of the will of Law-givers for which it meriteth to be inacted and therefore because it is authorizable as good and just the King puteth on it this stamp of a Politique Law God formeth Being and morall Aptitude to the end in all Laws to wit the safetie of the people and the Kings will is neither the measure nor the cause of the goodnesse of things 2. If the King be he who maketh the Law good and just because he is more such himself then as the Law cannot crook and erre nor sin neither can the King sin nor break a Law This is blasphemy Every man is a lyer a Law which deserveth the name of a Law cannot lie 3. His ground is That there is such majesty in Kings that their will must be done either in us or on us A great untruth Achabs will must neither be done of Elias for he commandeth things unjust nor yet on Elias for Elias fled and lawfully we may flie Tyrants and so Achabs will in killing Elias was not done on him Assert 2. Nor can it be made good that the King only hath power of making Lawes because his power were then absolute to inflict penalties on Subjects without any consent of theirs and that were a dominion of Masters who command what they please and under what paine they please And the people consenting to be ruled by such a man they tacitely consent to penaltie of laws because naturall reason saith An ill-doer should be punished Florianus in l. inde Vasquez l. 2. c. 55. n. 3. Therefore they must have some power in making these lawes 2. Jer. 26. It is cleare The Princes judge with the people A nomothetick power differeth gradually only from a judiciall power both being collaterall meanes to the end of Government the peoples safetie But Parliaments judge ergo they have a nomothetick power with the King 3. The Parliament giveth all supremacie to the King ergo to prevent Tyrannie it must keep a coordinate power with the King in the highest acts 4. If the Kingly line be interrupted if the King be a Childe or a Captive they make Lawes who make Kings Ergo this nomothetick power recurreth into the States as to the first subject Obj. The King is the fountaine of the law and Subjects cannot make Lawes to themselves more then they can punish themselves He is only the Supreme Answ. The People being the fountaine of the King must rather be the fountaine of Lawes 2. It is false that no man maketh lawes to himselfe Those who teach others teach themselves also 1 Tim. 2.12 1 Cor. 14.34 though Teaching be an act of authoritie But they agree to the penaltie of the Law secondarily only and so doth the King who as a father doth not will evill of punishment to his children but by a consequent will 3. The King is the only Supreme in the power ministeriall of executing lawes but this is a derived power so as no one man is above him but in the fountaine-power of Royaltie the States are above him 5. The Civil law is cleare that the laws of the Emperor have force
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
make unmake Parliaments and all Parliamentary power what more absurd Obj. 1. Symmons Loyall Subj Pag. 57. These phrases 2. Sam. 9.1 When Kings goe forth to warre and Luk. 14.31 What King going forth to warre speak to my conscience that both offensive and defensive warre are in the Kings hand Answ. It is not much to other men what is spoken to any mans conscience by Phrase and customes for by this no States where there be no Kings but government by the best or the people as in Holland or in other Nations can have power of war for what time of yeare shall Kings goe to war who are not Kings and because Christ saith A certaine housholder delivered talents to his servants will this infer to any conscience that none but a housholder may take usurie And when he saith If the good man of the house knew at what houre the thiefe would come he would watch shall it follow the sonne or servant may not watch the house but onely the good man Obj. 2. Ferne pag. 95. The naturall Bodie cannot move but upon naturall Principles and so neither can the Politique Bodie move in Warre but upon Politique reasons from the Prince which must direct by Law Answ. This may well be retorted the Politique Head cannot then move but upon politique reasons and so the King cannot move to wars but by the Law and that is by consent of Parliament and no Law can principle the head to destroy the members 2. If an Armie of cut-throats rise to destroy the Kingdome because the King is in lacking in his place to doe his duty how can the other Judges the States and Paâ—liament be accessorie to murther committed by them in not raising armies to suppresse such robbers Shall the inferiour Judges be guilty of innocent blood because the King will not doe his duty 3. The politique body ceaseth no more to renounce the principles of sinlesse nature in self-defence because it is a politique body and subject to a King then it can leave off to sleep eat and drink and there is more need of politique principles to the one then the other 4. The Parliaments and Estates of both Kingdoms move in these wars by the Kings Lawes and are a formall politique body in themselves Obj. 2. The ground of the present wars against the King saith D. Ferne sect 4. pag. 13. is false to wit that the Parliament is coordinate with the King but so the King shall not be supreme the Parliaments consent is required to an act of supremacie but not to a denyall of that act And there can no more saith Arnisaeus de jure majestatis c. 3. in quo consistat essen majest c. 3. n. 1. and c. 2. an jur majest separ c. n. 2. be two equall and coordinate supreme powers then there can be two supreme Gods and multitudo deorum est nullitas deorum many gods infer no gods Ans. 1. If we consider the fountaine-power the King is subordinate to the Parliament and not coordinate for the constituent is above that which is constituted If we regard the derived and executive power in Parliamentarie acts they make but a totall and compleat soveraigne power yet so as the soveraigne power of the Parliament being habitually and underived a prime and fountaine power for I doe not here separate people and Parliament is perfect without the King for all Parliamentarie acts as is cleare in that the Parliament make Kings 2. Make Lawes raise Armies when either the King is minor captived tyrannous or dead but Royall power Parliamentarie without the Parliament is null because it is essentially but a part of the Parliament and can work nothing separated from the Parliament no more then a hand cut off from the body can write and so here we see two supremes coordinate Amongst infinite things there cannot be two because it involveth a contradiction that an infinite thing can be created for then should it be finite but a royall power is essentially a derived and created power and supreme secundum quid onely in relation to single men but not in relation to the Communitie it is alwayes a creature of the communitie with leave of the Royalist 2. It is false that to an act of Parliamentarie supremacie the consent of the King is required for it is repugnant that there can be any Parliamentarie judiciall act without the Parliament but there may be without the King 3. More false it is that the King hath a negative voice in Parliament then he shall be sole Judge and the Parliament the Kings Creator and Constituent shall be a cypher Obj. 3. Arnesaeus de jur Maj. de potest armorum c. 5. n. 4. The People is mad and furious therefore supreme Majestie cannot be secured and Rebels suppressed and publike Peace kept if the power of Armour be not in the Kings hand only Answ. To denude the people of Armour because they may abuse the Prince is to expose them to violence and oppression unjustly for one King may easilier abuse armour then all the people one man may more easily fail then a Community 2. The safety of the people is far to be preferred before the safety of one man though he were two Emperours one in the East another in the West because the Emperour is ordained of God for the good and safety of the people 1 Tim. 2.2 3. There can be no inferiour Judges to bear the sword as God requireth Rom. 13 4. Deut. 1.15 16. 2 Chron. 19.6 7. and the King must be sole Judge if he onely have the sword and all armour monopolized to himselfe Obj. 4. The causes of Warre saith M. Simmons sect 4. pag. 9. should not be made knowne to the Subjects who are to look more to the lawfull call to Warre from the Prince then to the cause of the War Answ. The Parliament and all the Judges and Nobles are Subjects to Royalists if they should make war and shed blood upon blind obedience to the King not inquiring either in causes of Law or faâ—t they must resigne their consciences to the King 2. The King cannot make unlawfull warre to be lawfull by any authority Royall excâ—pt he could raze out the sixt Commandement therefore Subjâ—cts must look more to the causes of Warre then to the authority of the King and this were a faire way to make Parliaments of both Kingdomes set up Popery by the sword and root out the Reformed Religion upon the Kings Authority as the lawfull call to warre not looking to the causes of warre QUEST XXXVII Whether or no it be lawfull that the Estates of Scotland help their oppressed brethren the Parliament and Protestants in England against Papists and Prelates now in Armes against them and killing them and â—ndevouring the establishment of Poperie though the King of Scotland should inhibit them MArianus saith one iâ— obliged to help his brother non vinculo efficace not with any efficacious band because in these
tribe The Pope is but a swelled fat Prelate and what he saith of Popes he saith of his own house 6. The Ministers of Christ in Scotland had never a contest with King Iames but for his sinnes and his conniving with Papists and his introducing Bishops the usher of the Pope QUEST XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having Prerogatives above Parliament and Laws The Negative is asserted by the Lawes of Scotland the Kings Oath of Coronation the Confession of Faith c. THe negative part of this I hold in these Assertions Assert 1. The Kings of Scotland have not any Prerogative distinct from Supremacie above the Lawes 1. If the People must be governed by no Lawes but by the Kings own Lawes that is the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme acted in Parliament under paine of disobedience then must the King governe by no other Lawes and so by no Prerogative above Law But the former is an evident truth by our Acts of Parliament ergo so is the latter The Proposition is confirmed 1. Because what ever Law enjoyneth passive obedience no way but by Lawes that must injoyne also the King actively to command no other way but by Law for to be governed by Law essentially includeth to be governed by the Supreme Governour only by Law 2. An act of Regall governing is an act of Law and essentially an act of Law an act of absolute Prerogative is no act of Law but an act above Law or of pleasure loosed from Law and so they are opposed as acts of Law and non acts of Law If the Subjects by command of the King and Parliament cannot be governed but by Law How can the King but be under his own and the Parliaments Law to governe only by Law I prove the Assumption from Parl. 3. of K. Iames the 1. Act 48. Ordaines That all and sundry the Kings Lieges be governed under the Kings Laws and Statutes of the Realme allanerly and under no particular Lawes or speciall Priviledges nor by any Lawes of other Countries or Realmes Priviledges doe exclude Lawes Absolute pleasure of the King as a Man and the Law of the King as King are opposed by way of contradiction and so in Parl. 6. K. James 4. Act. 79. and ratified Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. Act. 131. 2. The King at his Coronation 1. Par. K. James 6. Act. 8. sweareth to maintaine the true Kirk of God and Religion now presently professed in puritie And to rule the People according to the Lawes and Constitutions received in the Realme causing Justice and equitie to be ministred without partialitie This did King Charles sweare at his Coronation and ratified Parl. 7. K. Iam. 6. Act. 99. Hence he who by the Oath of God is limited to governe by Law can have no Prerogative above the Law If then the King change the Religion Confession of Faith authorised by many Parliaments especially by Parliament 1. K. Charles An. 1633. He goeth against his Oath 3. The Kings Royall Prerogative or rather Supremacie enacted Parl. 8. K. James 6. Act. 129. and Parl. 18. Act. 1. and Parl. 21. Act. 1. K. Iames and 1 Parl. K. Charles Act. 3. cannot 1. be contrary to the Oath that K. Charles did sweare at his Coronation which bringeth down the Prerogative to governing according to the standing Lawes of the Realme 2. It cannot be contrary to these former Parliaments and Acts declaring that the Lieges are to be governed by the Lawes of the Realme and by no particular Lawes and speciall Priviledges but absolute Prerogative is a speciall Priviledge above or without Law which Acts stand unrepealed to this day and these Acts of Parliaments stand ratified An. 1633. the 1 Parl. K. Charles 3. Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. in the first three Acts thereof the Kings Supremacie and the power and authoritie of Parliaments are equally ratified under the same paine Their jurisdictions power and judgements in Spirituall or Temporall causes not ratified by His Majestie and the three Estates conveened in Parliament are discharged But the Absolute Prerogative of the King above Law Equity and Iustice was never ratified in any Parliament of Scotland to this day 4. Parliam 12. K. Iames 6. Act. 114. All former Acts in favour of the true Church and Religion being ratified Their power of making Constitutions concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Order and Decency the Priviledges that God hath given to spirituall Office-bearers as well of Doctrine and Discipline in matters of Heresie Excommunication Collation Deprivation and such like warranted by the Word of God and also to Assembles and Presbyteries are ratified Now in that Parliament in Acts so contiguous we are not to think That the King and three Estates would make Acts for establishing the Churches power in all the former heads of Government in which Royalists say The soul of the Kings Absolute Prerogative doth consist And therefore it must be the true intent of our Parliament to give the King a Supremacy and a Prerogative Royall which we also give but without any Absolutenesse of boundlesse and transcendent power above Law and not to obtrude a Service-Book and all the Superstitious Rites of the Church of Rome without Gods Word upon us 5. The former Act of Parliament ratifieth the true Religion according to the Word of God then could it never have been the intent of our Parliament to ratifie an Absolute supremacy according to which a King might govern his people as a Tyrannous Lion contrary to Deut. 17.18 19 20. And 't is true The 18. P. of King James 6. Act. 1. and Act. 2. upon personall qualifications giveth a Royall Prerogative to King James over all causes persons and estates within His Majesties Dominion whom they humbly acknowledge to be Soveraign Monarch Absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes These two Acts for my part I acknowledge spoken rather in Court-expressions then in Law-termes 1. Because personall vertues cannot advance a limited Prince such as the Kings of Scotland Post hominum memoriam ever were to be an Absolute Prince Personall graces make not David absolutely supreme Judge over all persons and causes nor can King James advanced to be King of England be for that made more King of Scotland and more supreme Iudge then he was while he was onely King of Scotland A wicked Prince is as essentially supreme Iudge as a godly King 2. If this Parliamentary figure of speech which is to be imputed to the times exalted King James to be Absolute in Scotland for his personall indowments there was no ground to put the same on King Charls Personall vertues are not alway Hereditary though to me the present King be the best 3. There is not any Absolutenesse above Law in the Act. 1. The Parliament must be more absolute themselves King James 6. had been divers yeers before this 18. Parl. King of Scotland then if they gave him by Law an Absolutenesse which he had
be regarded This is a strong Argument that the Parliaments never made the King supreame Iudge Quoad actus elicitos in all causes nay not if the King have a Cause of his owne that concerneth Lands of the Crowne farre lesse can the King have a will of Prerogative above the Law by our Lawes of Scotland And therefore when in the eighth Parliament King Ia. 6. the Kings Royall Power is established in the first Act the very next act immediatly subjoyned thereunto declareth the authority of the supreame Court of Parliament continued past all memory of man unto this day and constitute of the free voices of the three estates of this ancient Kingdome which in the Parliament 1606. is called The ancient and fundamentall policy of this Kingdome and so fundamentall as if it should be innovate such confusion would ensue as it could no more be a free Monarchy as is exprest in the Parliaments printed Commission 1604. by whom the same under God hath been upholden rebellious and traiterous subjects punished the good and faithfull preserved and maintained and the Lawes and Acts of Parliament by which all men are governed made and established and appointeth the Honour Authority and Dignity of the Estates of Parliament to stand in their owne integrity according to the ancient and laudable custome by past without alteration or diminution and therefore dischargeth any to presume or take in hand To impugne the dignity and the authority of the said Estates or to seeke or procure the innovation or diminution of their power or authority under the paine of Treason and therefore in the next Act they discharge all Iurisdictions or Judicatories albeit appointed by the Kings Majesty as the High Commission was without their Warrant and approbation and that as contrary to the fundamentall Laws above titled 48. Act. Parl. 3. K. Ia. 1. and Act. 79. Parl. 6. King Ia. 4. whereby the Lieges should only be ruled by the Lawes or Acts past in the Parliament of this Kingdome Now what was the ancient Dignity Authority and power of the Parliaments of Scotland which is to stand without diminution that will be easily and best known from the subsequent passages or Historians which can also be very easily verified by the old Registers whensoever they should be produced In the meane time remember that in Parliament and by Act of Parl. K. Ia. 6. for observing the due order of Parliament promiseth never to doe or command any thing which may directly or indirectly prejudge the libertie of free reasoning or voting of Parliament K. Ia. 6. Parl. 11. Act. 40. And withall to evidence the freedome of the Parliament of Scotland from that absolute unlimited Prerogative of the Prince and their libertie to resist his breaking of Covenant with them or Treaties with forraigne Nations Ye shall consider 1. That the Kings of Scotland are obliged before they be inaugurate to sweare and make their faithfull Covenant to the true Kirk of God that they shall maintaine defend and set forward the true Religion confessed and established within this Realme even as they are obliged and astricted by the Law of God aswell in Deuteronomie as in the 11 chap. of the 2. book of the Kings and as they crave obedience of their subjects So that the bond and contract shall be mutuall and reciprocall in all time comming between the Prince and the People according to the Word of God as is fully exprest in the Register of the convention of Estates Iuly 1567. 2. That important Acts and Sentences at home whereof one is printed 112 Act. Parl. 14. K. Ia. 3. and in Treaties with Forraigne Princes the Estates of Parliament did append their severall Seales with the Kings Great Seale which to Grotius Barclaius and Arnisaeus is an undeniable argument of a limited Prince as well as the stile of our Parliament that the Estates with the King ordaine ratifie rescind c. as also they were obliged in case of the Kings breaking these Treaties to resist him therein even by armes and that without any breach of their allegiance or of his Prerogative as is yet extant in the records of our old Treaties with England and France c. But to goe on and leave some high mysteries unto a rejoynder And to the end I may make good that nothing is here taught in this Treatise but the very Doctrine of the Church of Scotland I desire that the Reader may take notice of the larger Confession of the Church of Scotland printed with the Syntagme and body of the Confessions at Geneva anno MDCXII and authorized by King Iames the 6. and the three Estates in Parliament and printed in our Acts of Parliament Parl. 15. K. Iames 6. An. 1567. Amongst good works of the Second Table saith our Confession art 14. are these To honour Father Mother Princes Rulers and superiour Powers To love them to support them yea to obey their Charge not repugning to the commandement of God to save the lives of innocents to represse Tyrannie to defend the oppressed to keep our bodies cleane and holy c. The contrary whereof is To disobey or resist any that God hath placed in Authoritie while they passe not over the bounds of their office to murther or to consent thereunto to beare hatred or to let innocent blood be shed if we may withstand it c. Now the Confession citeth in the margin Ephes. 6.1.7 and Ezek. 22.1 2 3 4 c. where it is evident by the name of Father and Mother all inferiour Iudges as well as the King and especially the Princes Rulers and Lords of Parliament are understood 2. Ezek. 22. The bloody City is to be judged because they releeved not the oppressed out of the hand of bloody Princes v. 6. who every one of them were to their power to shed innocent blood 3. To resist superiour powers and so the Estates of Parliament as the Cavaliers of Scotland doe is resistance forbidden Romans 13.1 the place is also cited in the confession And the Confession exponeth the place Romans 13. according to the interpretation of all sound Expositers as is evident in these words Art 24. And therefore we confesse and avouch that such as resist the supreame power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge doe resist Gods ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltlesse And further we affirme that whosoever denyeth unto them aide their counsell and comfort while as the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their Office that the same men deny their helpe support and counsell to God who by the presence of his Lieutenant craves it of them From which words we have cleare 1. That to resist the King or Parliament is to resist them while as they are doing the thing that appertaineth to their charge and while they vigilantly travell in the execution of their office But while King and Parliament doe acts of Tyranny against Gods Law and all good Lawes of men they doe not the things
where the last left Ans. What ever ungrate Courtier had hand in the death of King Iames deserved to come under Tryall 2. He feareth they sacrifice some man Ans. If Parliaments have not power to cut off Rebels and corrupt Iudges the root of their being is undone 2. If they be lawfull Courts none needeth feare them but the guilty 3. He feareth their Consultations be long and the supply must be present Ans. Then Cavaliers intend Parliaments for Subsidies to the King to foment and promote the warre against Scotland not for Iustice. 2. He that feareth long and serious consultations to rip up and launce the wounds of Church and State is affraid that the wounds be cured 4. He feareth they deny Subsidies which are due by the Law of God Nature and Nations whereas Parliaments have but their deliberation and consent for the manner of giving otherwise this is to sell Subsidies not to give them Ans. Tribute and the standing Revenues of the King are due by the Law of God and Nations but Subsidies are occasionall Rents given upon occasion of Warre or some extraordinary necessity and they are not given to the King as Tribute and standing Revenues which the King may bestow for his House Family and Royall Honour but they are given by the Kingdome rather to the Kingdome then to the King for the present warre or some other necessity of the Kingdome and therefore are not due to the King as King by any Law of Nature or Nations and so should not be given but by deliberation and judiciall sentence of the States and they are not sold to the King but given out by the Kingdome by Statute of Parliament to be bestowed on the Kingdome and the King should sell no Acts of Justice for Subsidies 5. He dare not speake of the consequences if the King grant Bills of Grace and part with the flowers of the Crowne Ans. He dare not say The people shall vindicate their liberty by selling Subsidies to buy branches of the Prerogative Royall and diminishing the Kings fancied absolutenesse so would Prelates have the King absolute that they may ride over the soules purses persons estates and Religion of men upon the horse of pretended absolutenesse 6. He feareth the Parliament fall upon Church businesse but 1. The Church is too weake already if it had more power the King might have more both obedience and service 2. The Houses can be no competent Iudges in point of Doctrine 3. For the King Clergy and Convocation are Iudges in all causes Ecclesiasticall Ans. 1. This striketh at the root of all Parliamentary power 1. The P. P. giveth them but a poore deliberative power in Subsidies and that is to make the Kings Will a Law in taking all the subjects goods from them to foment warre against the subjects 2. He taketh all jurisdiction from them â—ver Persons though they were as black Traitors as breathe 3. And spoileth them of all power in Church matters to make all Iudges yea and the King himselfe yield blind obedience to the Pope and Prelate and their illuminated Clergie Sure I am P. Maxwell imputeth this but most unjustly to Presbyteries What essentiall and fundamentall priviledges are left to Parliaments David and the Parliament of Israel are impertinent Iudges in the matter of bringing home the Ark of God And for the Churches weaknesse that is the weaknesse of the damned Prelates shall this be the Kings weaknesse Yes the P.P. must make it true No Bishop no King 7. He feareth factious spirits will take heart to themselves if the King yield to them without any submission of theirs Ans. The Princes and Iudges of the Land are a company of factious men and so no Parliament no Court but at best some good advisers of a King to breake up the Parliament because they refuse Subsidies that he may be a lawlesse way extort Subsidies 8. He desireth the Parliament may sit a short time that they may not well understand one another Ans. He loveth short or no justice from the Parliament he feareth they reforme Gods house and execute justice on men like himselfe But I returne to the Scotish Parliament Assert 2. The Parliament is to regulate the power of the King The heritable Sheriffes complaine that the King granteth Commissions to others in cases perteining to their office Whereupon the Estates Par. 6. K. Iam. 5. Act. 82. dischargeth all such Commissions as also appointeth that all Murtherers be judged by the Iustice generall only And in severall Acts the King is inhibited to grant pardons to malefactors K. Ia. 6. Act. 75. P. 11. It is to be considered that King Iames in his Basilicon Doron layeth down an unsound ground that Fergus the first father of 107 Kings of Scotland conquered this Kingdom The contrary whereof is asserted by Fordome Major Boethius Buchannan Hollanshed who run all upon this Principle That the Estates of the Kingdome did 1. Choose a Monarchie and freely and no other Government 2 That they freely elected Fergus to be their King 3. King Fergus frequently conveened the Parliament called Inâ—ulanorum Duces Tribuum Rectores Majorum consessus Conventus Ordinum conventus Statuum Communitatum Regni Phylarchi Primores Principes patres and as Hollanshed saith they made Fergus King therefore a Parliament must be before the King yea and after the death of King Fergus Philarchi coeunt concione advocatâ the Estates convened without any King and made that fundamentall Law Regni electivi That when the Kings Children were minores any of the Fergusian Race might be chosen to Reigne and this indured to the daies of Kennethus and Redotha Rex 7. resigneth and maketh over the Government into the hands of the Parliament and Philarchi Tribuum Gabernatores ordained Therius the 8. King Buchanan l. 4. Rer. Scot. calleth him Reutha and said he did this Populo egrè permittente then the Royall Power recurred to the fountaine Therius the 8. a wicked man filled the Kingdome with Roberies fearing that the Parliament should punish him fled to the Britaines and thereupon the Parliament choose Connanus to be Prorex and protector of the Kingdome Finnanus R. 10. Decreed Ne quid Reges quod majoris esset momenti nisi de publici consilii authoritate juberent ne domestico consilio remp administrarent regia publicaque negotia non sine patrum consultatione ductuque tractarentur nec bellum pacem aut faedera reges per se patrum Tribuumve Rectorum injussu facerent demerentue Then it is cleare that Parliaments were consortes imperii and had Authority with and above the King When a Law is made that the Kings should doe nothing Injussu rectorum tribuum without commandement of the Parliament a Cabinet Counsell was not lawfull to the Kings of Scotland So Durstus Rex XI sweareth to the Parliament Se nihil nisi de primorum consilio acturum That he shall doe nothing but by counsell of the Rulers and Heads of
the Kingdome The Parliament rejecting the lawfull sonne of Corbredus the 20 King because he was young created Dardanus the sonne of Metellanus King which is a great argument of the power of the Scottish Parliament of old for elective rather then hereditary Kings Corbredus secundus called Galdus the 21 King at his Coronation renouncing all negative voices did sweare So majorum consiliis acquieturum That he should be ruled by the Parliament and it is said Leges quasdam tollere non potuit adversante multitudine Lactatus R. 22. is censured by a Parliament Quod spreto majorum consilio He appointed base men to publick Offices Mogaldus R. 23. Ad consilia seniorum omnia ex prisco more revâ—cavit did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Conarus 24. K. was cast in Prison by the Parliament Quod non expectato decreto patrum quod summa orat potestatis privatis consiliis administrasset Because he did the weightiest businesse that concerned the Kingdome by private advice without the judiciall Ordinance of Parliament that was of greatest authority Where is the negative voice of the King here Ethodius 2. the sonne of Ethodius the 1. the 28. King The Parliament passing by his son of the first Bed because he was a child had created Satrael his Brother King before a simple ignorant man yet for reverence to the race of Fergus kept the name of a King but the Estates appointed Tutors to him he was the 28. King Nathalocus the 30. K. corrupting the Nobles with buds and faire promises obtained the Crowne Romachus Fethelmachus and Angusianus or as Buchanan calleth him Aenneannus contended for the Crowne the Parliament convened to judge the matter was dissolved by tumult and Rommachus chosen King doing all Non adhibito de more consilio majorum was censured by the Parliament Fergus the 2. was created King by the States De more Constantine 43. K. a most wicked man was punished by the States Aidanus 49. K. by the counsell of Sanctus Columba governed all in peace by three Parliaments every yeare Ferchardus 52. K. and Ferchardus 2. the 54. King were both censured by Parliaments Eugenius 62. K. a wicked Prince was put to death by the Parliament Omnibus in ejus exitium consentientibus Eugenius 7. the 59. K. was judicially accused and absolved by the States of killing his Wife Spondanâ— Donaldus the 70. K. is censured by a Parliament which convened Pro salute Reipublica for the good of the Land So Ethus the 72. K. Ne unius culpâ regnum periret Gregorius the 73. K. sweareth to maintaine Kirk and State in their liberties the Oath is ordained to be sworne by all Kings at their Coronation The Estates complaine of Duffus 78. K. because contemning the counsell of the Nobles Saerificulorum consiliis abduceretur and that neither the Nobility must depart the Kingdome or another King must be made Culenus the 79. King was summoned before the Estates so before him Constantine the 3. the 75. K. did by Oath resigne the Kingdome to the States and entered in a Monastery at Saint Andrewes Kenethus the 70. K. procured almost per vim saith Buchanan that the Parliament should change the elective Kings in hereditary observe the Power of Parliaments After this Grimus and then Macbethus R. 85. is rebuked for governing by private counsell in his time the King is ordained by the States to sweare to maintaine the community of the Kingdome When Maccolumbus the 92. King would have admitted a Treaty to the hurt of the Kingdome the Nobles said Non jus esse Regi the King had no right to take any thing from the Kingdome Nisi omnibus Ordinibus consentientibus In the time of Alexander the 94. K. is ordained Acta regis oporteri confirmari decreto ordinum regni quia ordinibus regni non consultis aut adversantibus nihil quod ad â—otius regnistatum attinet Regi agere liceret So all our Historians observe by which it is cleare that the Parliament not the King hath a negative voyce The States answer to K. Edwards Legates concerning Balzees conditions in his contest with Bruce is That these conditions were made a solo Rege by the King only without the estates of the Kingdome and therefore they did not oblige the Kingdome In Robert the Bruce his Raigne the K. 97. the succession to the Crowne is appointed by Act of Parliament and twice changed and in the League with France Quod quando de successuro rege ambigeretur apud Scotâ—s ea controversia ab Ordinum de creto decideretur Robert the â—00 K. in a Parliament at Scâ—â—ne moved the States to appoint the Earle of Carick his eldest sonne of the second Mariage to the Crowne passing his children of the first Mariage and when he would have made a Treatie he was told That he could not inducias facere nisi ex sententia conventus publici he could not make Truces but with the consent of the Estates of Parliament K. James the 1. could not doe any thing in his Oath in England The Parliaments approbation of the Battell at Stirling against King Iames the 3. is set downe in the printed Acts because he had not the consent of the States To come to our first Reformation Queene Regent breaking her promise to the States said Faith of promise should not be sought from Princes the States answered That they then were not obliged to obey and suspended her government as inconsistent with the duty of Princes by the Articles of pacification at Leith Anno 1560. Iunii 16. No peace or warre can be without the States In the Parliament thereafter Anno 1560. the Nobility say frequently to the Queene Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nec unquam adunius libidinem sed ad legum praescriptum nobilitatis consensum regi solitum So it is declared Parliament at Stirling 1578. and Parl. 1567 concerning Queene Mary I need not insist here K. James the 6. Anno 1567. Iul. 21. was Crowned the Earle of Morton and Humne jurarunt pro â—o ejus nomine in leges eum doctrinam ritus religionis quae tum docebantur publicè quoad posset servaturum contrarios oppugnaturum Buch. Rer. Scot. Hist. l. 18. The three Estates revoke all alienations made by the King without consent of the Parliament Parliam K. Iames 2. cap. 2. K. Iames 4 5 6. Three Parliaments of K. Iames the 2. are holden without any mention of the King as Anno 1437. Anno 1438. Anno 1440. and the 5. and 6. Act of Parl. 1440. the Estates ordaine the King to doe such and such things to ride through the country for doing of Iustice. And Parl. 1. K. Iames 1. Act. 23. the Estates ordained the King to mend his money But shew any Parliament where ever the King doth prescribe Lawes to the States or censure the States In the 1. Parl. of K. Iames the 6. the
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
to the people in making a King 2 Sam. 16.18 is given to God 1 King 12.28 Kinging of a person ascribed to the people Kings in a speciall manner from God but it followeth not ergo not from the people Ib. c 24. Kings are from God yet from the people also The place Prov. 8.15 proveth not but Kings are made by the people Thom. 12. q. 93. art 3. Pag. 30. Dr. Fern 3. â— 13. The formes of Government not from God by a naked act of Providence but by his approving will cap. 4. pag 41 Soveraigntie not from the people by sole approbation That Kings in an eminent 〈◊〉 of divine providence have their crownes from God hindreth not but they have their crownes from the people also Phrases ascribing the making of Kings in a peculiar manner to God prove not that the free will of the people hath no hand in the making Kings Prophesies of Christ expounded by the P. Prelate of prophane Heathen Kings The P. Prelate expoundeth Prophesies of David Solomon and Iesus Christ as true of prophane heathen Kings Sacro sancta Maj. 43.44 The P. P. maketh all the Heathen Kings to be anoynted with grace from Heaven (a) Aug. in locum uâ—xi manum fortem servum obedientâ—m ideo in â—o posui adjutorium (b) Lyra. Gratia est habitualis quia stat pugil contra diabolum (c) Gloss. ordin (d) Hugo Cardinalis Oleo laetitia quo prae consortibus unctus fuit Christus Ps. 45. (e) Bellarm. ib. (f) Lorinus (g) Theodatus (h) Ainsworth annot (i) 1 Sam. 16 1.13 14. Luk. 4.18.21 Io. 3. â—4 (k) Iunius annot in loc (l) Mollerus com ibid. 〈…〉 of the Church and Christ by the P P. expâ—unded of profane Kings (a) Chald. par (b) Diodat an (c) Ainsworth Athanasius Eusebius Origen Augustine Dydimus (d) Ainsw an iâ— v. 5. The excellency of Kings maketh them not of Gods only constitution and designation Antonin de dominis Archiepis de dom l. 6. c. 2. n. 5 6. seq How Soveraigntie is in the people and how not A Community doth not surrender their right and libertie to their Rulers so much as their power active to do and passive to suffer unjust violence Gods losing of the bond of Kings by the mediation of the peoples dispising him proveth against P. P. that the Lord taketh and giveth Royall Majesty mediately The subordination of creatures naturall not voluntary as is the subordination of people to Kings and Rulers 7. Arg. pag. 51.52 The place Gen. 9.5 He that sheddeth mans blood c. (a) Quint. Curtius l. 5. (b) Aug. de civ Dei l. 16. c. 17. (c) Euseb. in exo Cronic (d) Hieron in c. 2. Hos. (e) Euseb. l. 9. de prepar Evan. c. 3. (f) Clemens recog l. 4. (g) Pirerius in Gen. c. 10. v. 8 9. disp 3. n. 67. Illud quoque mihi fit percredibile Nimrod fuisse eundem atque enim quem alia appellant Belum patreâ— Niâ—i (i) Euseb. prolog l. 1. Chron. (k) Paul Orosius l. 1. de Ormesta mundi (l) Hieron in traditio Hebrei in Gen. (m) Tostat. Abulensan Gen. c. 10.9.6 (n) Calvin com (o) Iosephus in c. 10. Ge. (p) Luth. cò ib. (q) Musculus (q) Calv. com Quanquam hoc loco non simpliter fertur lex politica ut plectantur homicidae (r) Ainsw com (r) Calv. in lect (s) Mortar (t) Pirerius in Gen. â— 9 v. 3 4. n. 37. Vatablus hath divers interpretations In homine id est in conspectu omnium publicè aut in homine i.e. hominibus testificantibus alii in homine i. e. propter hominem quia occidit hominem jussu magistratus Cajetan expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra hominem in despight of man (h) Calvin com in c. 9. Gen. (s) Mortar (t) Pirerius in Gen. â— 9 v. 3 4. n. 37. Vatablus hath divers interpretations In homine id est in conspectu omnium publicè aut in homine i. e. hominibus testificantibus alii in homine i. e. propter hominem quia occidit hominem jussu magistratus Cajetan expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra hominem in despight of man (a) M. Anto. de domini Arch. Spalatens l. 6. c. 2. n. 5.6 〈◊〉 petius hâ—bet a natura non tam vim aâ—â—ice rectivam aut gubernativâ—m quam inclinationem passive re gibilem ut ita loquar gubernabilem qua volens libens sese submittit rectoribus c. (b) Almain de potest La. 1 q. 1. c. 1.6 q. 2.3 5. (c) Navarrus (d) Nem. don iud not 3. n. 85. In any community there are active and passive power to government Pag. 95 96. Spalâ—tensis Ibid pag. 648. Popular Government is not that in which the whole people are Governors People by nature are equally indifferent to all the three forms of Government 〈◊〉 16. August de lib. arb l. 1. c. 6. â—i deprauatus populus rem privatam Reipub. preserat atque habeat venale suffragium corruptusque ab iiâ— qui honoros aâ—nant regnum in sefactiosis consâ—â—leratisque committat non ne item rectê si quis tunc extilerit vir bonus qui plurimum possit adimat huic populo potestatem dandi honores in pavcorum bonorum vel etiam unjus red regat arbitrium Pag. 97. sacr sanc regum majest The P. Prelate holdeth the Pope noâ— to be the Antichrist but that as Papists say the Antichrist shal be one single man The bad successe of Kings chosen by the people proveth nothing because Kings chosen by God had bad successe through their own wickednesse The P. Prelate condemneth King Charles his ratifying in Parliament 2. An. 1641. the proceedings of Scotland in this present Reformation That any are supreme Iudges is an eminent act of speciall providence which hindereth not but that the King is made by the people The people not patients in making a King as is water in producing grace in baptisme Barclaius contr Monarch l. 4. c. 10. p. 268. ut hostes publicos non solù ab universo populo sed à singulis etiam â—mpeti oâ—edique jure optimo posse tota Antiquitas â—ensuit â—ow the people is the subject of Soveraigntie Sac. Reg. Maj. The sacred anâ— royall prerogative of King c. 9. p. 101.102 Stollen from Barclaius The power of Parliaments The Parliament hath more power then the King C. 10. pag. 105. C. 16.105 106 107. Iudges and Kings differ Cap. 15. p. 147 148. Barclaius contra Monarchum l. 5. c. 12. Idem l. 3 c. ult pag. 2 3. People may resume their power in some cases not because they are infallible but because they cannot so easily erre as one man That the Sanedrim punished not David Bathsheba Ioab proveth nothing in law as a fact or non fact is not law (a) Covarruvias tom 2. pract â—uest c. 1. n. 2 3 4 Spalato de rep eccles l. 6. c. 2. n. 32. Sa. sa maj The sacred and royall prerogative of Kings c. 7. p. 82 83
sanc Maâ— c. 13. p. 130. stolen out of Arnisaeus dâ— jure Majest cap. 3. n. 1. pag. 34. Quod â—fficit tale c. holdeth when the agent maketh not away all its vertue by alienation 8. Rep. Sacr. sanc Mai. pag. 131. Propter quod unumquodque c. not understood by the P. P. The King hath Soveraignty by loane and in trust Soveraigntie how in the Communitie how not Power of life and death how in the Communitie A Communitie of it selfe wanting Rulers is a Politique body and how Sacr. sanc maj c. 4. p. 43. The propagation of Kings is by filiation saith the P.P. A speech that hath neither sense nor reason Filiation is later then propagation one must be propagated ere he be a sonne Kings and inferior Iudges Gods analogically Inferiour Iudges no lesse Gods immediate Vicars then the King The conscience of the inferiour Iudge is immediately subordinate to God not to the King either mediately or immediaâ—ely Grotius de jure Belli 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 4. Nam â—â—nis faculeas gubernandi in Magistratibus summae potestati ita subjicitur ut quiâ—quid conâ—ra voluntatem summi imperantis faciant id dosectum sit ca facultate ac proinde de pro actu privato â—abendum Grotius ibi species intermedia si genus respicias est species si speciem infra positam est genus ita magistratus illi inferiorum quidem ratione habita sunt publicae personae at supper ores si considerentur sunt privati Grot. 16. Inferiour Iudges truely Iudges in relation to the King The 〈◊〉 judge how the Deputy of the King Inferiour Iudges powers ordained of God Rebuked for perverting judgement They are the Ministers of God To resist them is to resist God They are Gods By this the Parliament of both Kingdomes ought to put to death cut-rhroat Cavaliers â—aising warre against the subject though the King commands the contrary Sac. Sanc. mai c. 4. pag. 46. How the King judgeth by inferiour Iudges Simmons loyall subjects beleif Sect. 1. pag. 3. The honour of an inferiour Iudge commeth neither from East nor from West more then from the King Argu. 9. Power of Kings and of inferiour Iudges dister gradually not specifically The specifick acts and formall object of Kings and inferiour Iudges are the same The same obligation of consâ—iencâ— that lyeth on the King in all things lyeth on the inferiour Iudge Inferiores Iudices sunt impropriè Vicarii Regis quoad missionem externam ad officium sed immediati Dei vicarii quoad officium in quod missi sunt Barcl l. 2. contr Monarchom p. 56 57. Arnisaeus de authorit Princ. c. 3. n. 9. Marant disp 1. Zoan tract 3. de desens Mynsing obs 18. cent 5. Symmons sect 1 p. 2. The Iudges of Israel and the Kings after them differed but not essentially Sacr. sanct maj 6.7 p. 81 82. Nature is as neare to Aristocracy as to Monarchy for the wife cannot be under the husband as a subject under a Monarch slie by the fift Commandement hath a joynt headship with the husband Iudges inferiour depend on the King in fieri when the constitution of the Kingdome is such but not in facto esse nor in their essence Arg. 10. Inferiouâ— Iudges after the King is dead as also the States of Parliament remain Iudges Arg. 11. God not the absolute Prâ—nce maketh the inferiour Iudges No heritable Iudges according to Gods Word Inferiour Iudges more necessary in a large Kingdom then the Kâ—ng and so Aristocracy in that more sutable to the naturall end of government then Monarchy Principes sunt capitis tempora Rex â—ertex Elders of a land joyntly in Parliament must have as much if not more viâ— uniâ—a sortior then when they are divided in severall tribes cities shires but divided they are as essentially Iudges as the King The whole must have more power in extension then the part Jer. 38.25 they had power against the Kings will to put Ieremiah to death Ieremiah saith Doe whatsoever soemeth good to you v. 10. The power of conveening Parliaments in the Estates without the King Ps. 122.2 3. Why are thrones set for judgement for all the tribes if only the King judge Tables in Scotland lawfull The inferiour Iudges are not subject in their conscience to the King in their acts of judgement either quoad â—â—â—cifiâ—ationem to give unjust sentences at his will nor quo ad 〈◊〉 to execute or not execute judgement for the oppressed Vnjust judgeing and no judging at all are sinnes in the States Junius Brut. q. 2. p. 51. vin l. contr Tyran The Parliament Iudges not advisers only Ieferiour Iudges not the Legats or Servants or Messengers of the King Publick Government belongeth to the States and Elders as to the King Arg. 8. Arg. 9. Arg 10. Arg. 11. Ferne par 3. Defence Sect. 3. pag. pag. 12 The question is not if the King be so absolute as he is freed from all Morall restraint comming from Gods Law Sacr. sanc Maj. 〈◊〉 14 p. 163. No resisting of the most Turkish Tyran by the Royalists way An absolute King more absolute then the Great Turke by Royalists way No law at all by Royalists way to impede a King from a super-inundation of overflowing Tyranny 1 Arg. against Absoluâ—enâ—slo of Kings Why the King â— breathing Law three reasons 2. Argument against an absolute King The People have no absolute power over themselves and so cannot make over any such power to the King Arg. 3. Against an absolute Prince Power Tyrannicall is not from God Barclaius 〈…〉 l. 2. pag. 62. That â—â—â—sion 〈…〉 mortall â—an may resist â—s from God Argum. 4. Against an absolute Prince A King as a King must be a plague if God be the Creator of an absolute Prince The goodnesse of an absolute Prince in not putting forth his power in actuall destroying of the people hindereth not the power to be actu primo Tyrannicall Argum. 5. Against absolute Princes An absolute Prince against justice peace reason law c. Argum. 6. Against an absolute Prince It is against nature Arg. 7. Against an absolute Prince contrary to the fift Commandement Arg. 8. Against an absolute Prince The King remaineth a brother when he is King and may be rebuked may not take his neighbours vineyard from him A Damsell forced by the King may violently resist No sufficient meanes against all cruelties and unjust violences iâ— an absolute Prince be from God all goâ— to confusion Barclaius cont Monarch l. â— pag. 76 77. 9. Argument 〈◊〉 an abâ—â—luâ—e Pâ—â—nce The 〈…〉 expressâ— upon which the Pâ—â—nâ—e receiveâ—h the crown â—ight with all absolute power Prerogative taken two wayes No Prerogative Royall in the Scripture Jus personae jus coronae The question touching Prerogative Royall vaine Prerogative Royall of Royalists Gods due Acts founded upon the sole pleasure of the Agent proper to God A threefold dispensation A dispensation 1. of sole pleasure 2. of â—ustice 3. of grace A twofold exponing
the Text Rom. 13. in regard of dignity but not only in regard of â—ssâ—nce Onely Nero cannot be understood Rom. 13.1 Vataâ— Homines intelligit publica authoâ—itate pâ—â—editus The P. Prelats pooâ—e reasâ—n â—estraining the Text to Kings answered Prelat 〈◊〉 Sanct. maâ— c. 2. pag. 29. P. Marty◠〈…〉 potestatum gâ—nâ—ra regna Aristocratâ—â—a Politiâ—a Tyrannica Oligarâ—hiâ—a Deus etiam illorum author Willet saith the same and so Beza so Tolet. Haymo Reasons against the lawfulnesse of resistance made to unjust violence answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heâ—â—d l. 7. de Xeâ—xe Vulgar version and Lyra turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Apostate Luk. 15.32 Prelat Sac. sanc maj c. 5. n. 6. The objection that Gâ—ds Prophets never 〈◊〉 non-resistance as a murtherous omission and that Godâ— people in Scripture never practâ—sâ—d resistaâ—câ— aâ—d God nâ—vâ—r câ—mmaâ—deâ— it â—â—lly â—nswâ—red Nota. 〈…〉 6. 〈◊〉 234. Sheweth the reasons why Christ â—â—ndemned 〈◊〉 nâ—t because he thought felt deâ—eâ—ce unlawfull 〈◊〉 1. it had a kind of revenge in it â—or so â—ew could not repel such an army as caâ—e to take Christ. 2. He waited nâ—t on Christs answer 3. He could have defended himself â—nothâ—r way 4. It was contrary to Gods will reveâ—led to Petâ—â— The Prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the peoples not executeing judgement for the oppressed and not relieving those that were crushed in the gate There is no warrant in the word by precept or practice that the King and Cavalliers should rise and oppose Princes and States in a hostile wâ—y for their conscience Sacr. sance 6. pag. 74 75 76. The Doctors of Aberdeene in their Duplyes Tâ—â—tullâ—an in an errour The ancient Chrâ—stiâ—ns did rise in Armes against persecuting Emperours Inferiour Judges have the 〈◊〉 of the sword aswell as the King The people tyed to acts of Charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forreigne Army though the King forbid We must defend with the swâ—rd â—he Church of God whether the King will or no â—xcept it be said the King may câ—mmaâ—d murther and discharge us 〈◊〉 the dutâ—es 〈◊〉 the second Table Examples of lawfull warres without the Kiâ—g If the Parliament make the King and give to him the sword the King cannot make the Parliament nor use the sword to their destruction Parliamentary power a fountaine power above the King 〈…〉 Beliefe Causeâ— oâ— war make lawâ—ull war not the sâ—le pleasure 〈◊〉 the Kiâ—g 〈…〉 6. n. 18. It is necessary and laâ—full for tâ—e States of Scotland to help their brethren in England Cases â—n which we are to help our brethren according to divers opinions We are to help our brethren though they desire us not Solons testimony 〈◊〉 of the â—gâ—ptians â—gainst those that helped not the oppressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ad 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ad 〈◊〉 Acts of charity 〈◊〉 helpâ—ng our breâ—hren against uâ—just oppressions of ligâ— us whether the King câ—mmaâ—d thâ—m or forbid 〈◊〉 Loyall subâ—ectâ—â—eliefe sect 4. â—ag 7. Sacr. Sanct. Reg. maâ— c. 2. â—ag 26.27 The question â—oncerning the â—xcellency of Monarchy aâ—ove other â—â—rmes variâ—us â—ccording to â—ivers consideâ—â—tions An absolute Monarchy the baddest of governments Epiminondas his watchfulnesse A power to sin worse then a power of non-sinning Monarchy in it selfe considered is the best government Every forme in some construction best A mixed Monarchy best Tolossan de Rep. l. 13. c. 12. Paâ—â—l cont Monaâ—ch l. 〈…〉 Symmâ—ns Lâ—yall Subj unbâ—liefe § 4. pag 7. A threefold supreame power What be jura regalia or juâ—â— majestatis Anâ—isaeus dâ— juâ—i 6. mat c. 1. n 3. pag. 15â— 158. Kings conâ—â—r honours aâ— rewards of vertue as they pâ—nish â—ldoers not because they are absolute but according to law The law of the King 1 Sam 8.9.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Father consideration of the place 1 Sam. 8.9.11 Difference of Kings and Judges The law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 no permissive law of God as was the law of a bill of divorcement God cannot make a permissive law tending to the destruction of a whole national Church and Kingdome What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subject The peoples power over the King by reason of the Coronation covenant Mutuall punâ—shments may be wâ—ere there be no mutuall relations of superiority and inferiority A promise layeth a politique obligation on the promiser and giveth law to him to whom the promise is made to presse performance or punish violation when the promises are betwixt man and man Three kindes of oathes or covenants â—â—de by Kings as Arnisaeus thinketh The King not King while he first swear the oath It is an evasion onely to distinguâ—sh between the Kings promisâ—s and his oath Grotius de jur bel pac l. 1. c. 4. Barclai l. 4. c. 6. A King cannot swear to be a just King because he is already King Bartol in l. 1. n. 4. de his quâ— not â—nfam Arnisae cap. 6. An princeps qui turaâ— subditis c. Io. Ross. de potest pa. lib. 2. c. 20. B. Rochester 16 A difference betwixt a father and a King A people may give Royall power to the King by limitation and measure but people can give no gift which is solely and immediately from God by measure they cannot measure God Sacr. san reg maj c. 1. pag. 1 2. An. 1633. Coronation of King Charls in Scotland L. 3. desens sid Orth. c. 3. n. 2 3. The P. Prelate is a Papist Iesuites tenents concerning Kings Tract contra primatum Regis Angliae Calvin Iust. l. 4. c. 4. Sac. sanc Mai. c. 1. p. 17 18. Soveraigne power in the King but not power of Tyrannie The King not the Vicegerent of Christ as mediator The King not the head of the Church The Prelates reason proveth all creatures to be the vicegerents of Christ as Mediator 2 Reas. p. 58. The King no mixâ—â— person or half Clergie man in the externall government of the Church as the P. P. dreameth 1 Parl. King Charles an 1633. The P. Prelate prayeth for the Pope The power of Presbyteries Ministeriall P. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel and Discipline of Christ Pag. 65. The Ministeriall power of Page 65. The P. Prelate maketh the King a Church-man The P. Prelate giveth an Arbitrary power of government in Christs-Church to the King Prelates extend a lawlesse prerogative to the government of the Church Two Supremes under Christ one in the Church another in the State are not absurd P. 66 67 68. The King noâ— the servant of the Church Ruling Elders not Lay-men The King of Scotland not above Laws and Parliaments proved from our acts of Parliament The King of Scotland's oath at his Coronation How the King is supreme Iudge in all Causes The Estates of Parliament do append their collaterall Seales with the Great Seal in Treaties with forraigne Princes Angl. Conf. art 37. civiliâ—â—erâ—câ—nt â—â—erâ—câ—nt W. Laud and other Prelates enemies to Parliaments The Parliaments of Scotland doe regulate limit and set bounds to the Kings power Fergus the first King of Scotland no Conquerour but a freely elected Prince A fundamentall Law of elective Kings in Scotland The Parliaments of Scotland chosed Kings â—he Oath of â—aldus the 21. â—ing of Scotâ—â—nd Kings of Scotâ—and censured â—nd punished â—y the Parliaâ—ent Kings of Scotland of old had no negative voyce Buchan Res. Scot. l. 7. Coronation Oath Parliamentâ— of Scotland by Law are to decide who should raigne How Royaltie is the first and naturall Government Many Rulers over a great multitude more naturall than one To resist the Will is not to resist the Power Pag. 9. It is no good consequence Christ and the Apostles used not violent resistance to spread the Gospel ergo such resistance is unlawfull The Coronation of the King in concreto is more then a Ceremonie Men may limit the Power that they gave not Arnisaeus de authorit princi c. 3. n. 6. Subiects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients Vassals Children Servi indignè â—abiti consugiâ—ndi ad statuas dominum â—â—utandi copiam â—abent l. 2. De â—is qui sunt sui Item C. De lat Hered toll Arnisaeus De authori princiâ—um in popul â— 3. n. 7. Subjects in active obedience must subject to a Kings lawfull commandement but in things unlawfull they are not naturally subject in passive subjection Whether King Vzzah was dethroned Arnisaeus de jure Pontif. Rom. in Regna Princ. c. 5. n. 30. Bellarm. de paenit l. 3. c. 2. Deniall of passive obedience in things unjust not dishonourable to the King more then deniall of active obedience in these same things Loyall Convert page 10. The King may not make away a part of his owne Dominions Ferdinan Vasquius illustr quest l. 1. c. 3. n. 8. juri alieno quisquam nec in minima parte obesse potest l. id quod nostru F. de reg jur l. jur natu cod titul l. How subjects are obliged to pay the Kings debts Subsidies the Kingdoms due rather then the Kings In how many divers notions the Seas Forts Castles Militia Road-wayes are the Kings and how more properly they are the Kingdomes
Feast when Gods wrath was upon the Land contrary to Gods word Esa. 22.12 13 14. and what will this prove Presbyteries to be inconsistent with Monarchies 41. This Assembly is to judge what Doctrine is treasonable what then Surely the secret Counsell and King in a constitute Church is not Synodically to determine what is true or false Doctrine more then the Roman Emperor could make the Church Canon Act. 15. 42. M. Gibson M. Black preached against King James his maintaining the Tyranny of Bishops his sympathizing with Papists and other crying sins and were absolved in a generall Assembly shal this make Presbyteries inconsistent with Monarchie Nay but it proveth only that they are inconsistent with the wickednesse of some Monarchies and that Prelates have been like the four hundred false prophets that flattered King Achab and these men that preached against the sins of the King and Court by Prelates in both Kingdomes have been imprisoned Banished their Noses ript their cheeks burnt their eares cut 43. The Godly men that kept the Assembly of Aberdeen An. 1603. did stand for Christs Prerogative when K. James took away all generall Assemblies as the event proved and the King may with as good warrant inhibit all Assemblies for Word and Sacraments as for Church Discipline 44. They excommunicate not for light faults and trifles as the Lyar saith our Discipline saith the contrary 45. This Assembly never took on them to chose the Kings Counsellours but these who were in authority took K. James when he was a child out of the Company of a corrupt and seducing Papist Esme Duke of Lennox whom the P. P. nameth Noble Worthy of eminent indowments 46. It is true Glasgow Assembly 1637. voted down the High Commission because it was not consented unto by the Church and yet was a Church Judicature which took upon them to judge of the Doctrine of Ministers and deprive them and did incroach upon the Liberties of the established lawfull Church judicatures 47. This Assembly might well forbid M. John Graham Minister to make use of an unjust decree it being scandalous in a Minister to oppresse 48. Though Nobles Barons and Burgesses that professe the truth be Elders and so Members of the generall Assembly this is not to make the Church the House and the Common-wealth the Hangings for the constistuent Members we are content to be examined by the patern of Synods Act. 15. v. 22 23. Is this inconsistent with Monarchie 49. The Commissioners of the generall Assembly are 1. A meer occasionall judicature 2. Appointed by and subordinate to the Generall Assembly 3. They have the same warrant of Gods Word that Messengers of the Synod Act. 15. v. 22.27 hath 50. The historicall calumnie of the 17. day of December is known to all 1. That the Ministers had any purpose to dethrone King James and that they wrote to John L. Marquesse of Hamilton to be King because K. James had made defection from the true Religion Satan devised Spotswood and this P. P. vented this I hope the true history of this is known to all The holiest Pastors and professors in the Kingdom asserted this Government suffered for it contended with authority only for sin never for the power and Office These on the contrary side were men of another stamp who minded earthly things whose God was the world 2. All the forged inconsistency betwixt Presbyteries and Monarchies is an opposition with absolute Monarchie and concludeth with alike strength against Parliaments and all Synods of either side against the Law and Gospell preached to which Kings and Kingdoms are subordinate Lord establish Peace and Truth Farewell The Table of the Contents of the Book QUEST I. WHether Government be by a divine Law Affirmed Pag. 1. How Government is from God Ibid. Civill Power in the Root immediately from God Pag. 2 QUEST II. Whether or no Goverment be warranted by the Law of nature Affirmed Ibid. Civil societie naturall in radice in the root voluntary in modo in the manner Ibid. Power of Government and Power of Government by such and such Magistrates different Pag. 2 3. Civil subjection not formally from natures Law Pag. 3. Our consent to Laws penal not antecedently naturall Ibid. Government by such Rulers a secondary Law of nature Ibid. Family Government and politike different Ibid. Government by Rulers a secondary Law of nature Family Government and Civil different Pag. 4. Civil Government by consequent naturall Pag. 5. QUEST III. Whether Royall Power and definite Forms of Government be from God Affirmed Ibid. That Kings are from God understood in a fourfold sense Pag. 5 6. The Royall Power hath warrant from divine institution Pag. 6. The three forms of Government not different in spece and nature P. 8. How every form is from God Ibid. How Government is an ordinance of man 1 Pet. 2.13 Pag. 8 9. QUEST IV. Whether or no the King be onely and immediately from God and not from the people Prius distinguitur posterius prorsus Negatur pag. 5. How the King is from God how from the people Ibid. Royall Power three wayes in the people P. 6 10. How Royall Power is radically in the people P. 7. The people makâ—th the King Ibid. How any form of Government is from God P. 8. How Government is a humane ordinance 1 Pet. 2.3 P. 8 9. The people creat the King P. 10 11. Making a King and choosing a King not to be distinguished P. 12 13. David not a King formally because anointed by God P. 14 15. QUEST V. Whether or no the P. P. proveth that Soveraignty is immediately from God not from the people p. 16. Kings made by the people though the Office in abstracto were immediately from God P. 16. The people have a reall action more then approbation in making a King P. 19 Kinging of a person ascribed to the people P. 20. Kings in a speciall manner are from God but it followeth not Ergo not from the people P. 21. The place Prov. 8.15 proveth not but Kings are made by the people P. 22 23. Nebuchadnezzar and other heathen Kings had no just Title before God to the Kingdom of Judah and divers other subdued Kingdoms P. 26 27. QUEST VI. Whether or no the King be so allanerly from both in regard of Soveraignty and Designation of his person as he is no wayes from the people but onely by meer approbation Negatur pag. 28 29. The Forms of Government not from God by an act of naked Providence but by his approving will Ibid. Soveraignty not from the people by sole approbation P. 29 30. Though God have peculiar acts of providence in creating Kings it followeth not hence that the people maketh not Kings P. 31. The P. Prelate exponeth prophecies true onely of David Solomon and Iesus Christ as true of prophane heathen Kings P. 34 35. The P. P. maketh all the heathen Kings to be Princes anointed with the holy Oyl of saving grace Ibid. QUEST VII Whether the P.
Prelate conclude that neither constitution nor designation of Kings is from the people Negatur P. 38 39. The excellency of Kings maketh them not of Gods onely Constitution and Designation Ibid. How Soveraigntie is in the people how not P. 43. A Communitie doth not surrender their right and libertie to their Rulers so much as their power active to do and passive to suffer violence P. 44 45. Gods loosing of the bonds of Kings by the mediation of the peoples despising him proveth against the P. P. That the Lord taketh away and giveth Royall Majestie mediately not immediately P. 45 46. The subordination of people to Kings and Rulers both naturall and voluntary the subordination of beasts and creatures to man meerly naturall P. 46 47. The place Gen. 9.5 He that shedeth man's blood c. discussed P. 47 48. QUEST VIII Whether or no the P. Prelate proveth by force of reason That the people cannot be capable of any power of Goverment Negatur pag. 49 50. In any communitie there is an active and passive power to Government P. 50. Popular Government is not that wherein all the whole people are Governours P. 53 54. People by nature are equally indifferent to all the three Governments and are under not any one by nature P. 53. The P. Prelate denyeth the Pope his father to be the Antichrist Ibid. The bad successe of Kings chosen by people proveth nothing against us because Kings chosen by God had bad successe through their own wickednesse P. 54 55. The P. Prelate condemneth King Charls his ratifying Parl. 2. An. 1641. The whole proceedings of Scotland in this present Reformation P. 56. That there be any supreme Judges is an eminent act of divine providence which hindereth not but that the King is made by the people P. 57. The people not patients in making a King as is water in the Sacrament of Baptisme in the Act of production of grace P. 58. QUEST IX Whether or no Soveraigntie is so in and from the people that they may resume their power in time of extreme necessity Negatur pag. 58. How the people is the subject of Soveraignty Ibid. No Tyrannicall power is from God P. 59. People cannot alienate the naturall power of self-defence Ibid. The power of Parliaments P. 60. The Parliament hath more power then the King Ibid. Judges and Kings differ P. 61. People may resume their power not because they are infallible but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves as one man may do P. 63. That the Sanâ—drim punished not David Bathsheba Joab is but a fact not a law P. 63 64. There is a subordination of Creatures naturall Government must be naturall and yet this or that form is voluntary P. 65 66 67. QUEST X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to Divine Unction Negatur pag. 68. Impugned by eight Arguments Ibid. Royalty not transmitted from father to sonne ibid. A family may be chosen to a Crown as a single person is chosen but the tye is conditionall in both pag. 68.69 The Throne by speciall promise made to David and his seed by God Psal. 89. no ground to make birth In foro Dei a just title to the crowne pag. 69 70. A Title by conquest to a Throne must be unlawfull if birth be Gods lawfull title pag. 70. Royalists who held conquâ—st to be a just title to the Crown teach manifest treason against King Charles and his Royall Heires ibid. Only Bona fortunae not honour or Royalty properly transmittable from father to sonne pag. 71. Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people to submit to a conquerour as their lawfull King pag. 72. Naked birth is inferiour to that very divine unction that made no man a King without the peoples election pag. 73. If a Kingdome were by birth the King might sell it pag. 74. The Crown is the Patrimony of the Kingdome not of him who is King or of his father pag. 72 73 76. Birth a typicall designement to the Crowne in Israel pag. 74. The choise of a family to the Crowne resolveth upon the free election of the people as on the fountaine-cause pag. 76. Election of a family to the Crown lawfull pag. 77. QUEST XI Whether or no he be more principally a King who is a King by birth or he who is a King by the free election of the people Affir posterius pag. 79. The Elective King commeth nearer to the first King Deut. 17. pag. 80. If the people may limit the King they give him the power ibid. A Community have not power formally to punish themselves pag. 81. The Hereditary and the elective Prince in divers considerations better or worse each one then another pag. 82. QUEST XII Whether or no a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole Title of Conquest Negatur pag. 82. 7. Argu. for the negaâ— a twofold right of conquest ibid. Conquest turned in an after-consent of the people becommeth a just title pag. 83. Conquest not a signification to us of Gods approving will pag. 84. Meere violent domineering contrary to the acts of governing ibid. Violence hath nothing in it of a King ibid. A bloody Conquerour not a blessing per se as a King is pag. 85. Strength as prevailing is not Law or reason pag. 86 Fathers cannot dispone of the liberty of posterity not borne ibid. A father as a father hath not power of life and death pag. 87. Israels and Davids Conquests of the Canaanites Edomites Ammonites not lawfull because conquest but upon a Divine title of Gods promise pag. 88.89 QUEST XIII Whether or no Royall Dignity have its spring from Nature and how that is true every man is borne free and how servitude is contrary to nature Affir 89. Seven sorts of superiority and inferiority pag. 89 90. Power of life and death from a positive Law ibid. A Dominion antecedent and consequent 90. Kings and subjects no naturall order ibid. A man is borne consequenter in politick relation pag. 91. Slavery not naturall from four reasons ibid. Every man borne free in regard of civill subjection not in regard of naturall such as of children and wife to Parents and Husband proved by seven Arguments pag. 91 92 93. Politique Government how necessary how naturall pag. 94. That Parents should inslave their children not naturall pag. 95. QUEST XIV Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether the King be tyed by any such covenant pag. 96. The King under a naturall but no civill obligation to the people as Royalists teach ibid. The Covenant civilly tyeth the King proved by Scriptures and reasons by 8. Argu. ibid. sequent Jf the condition without which one of the parties would never have entered in Covenant be not performed that party is loosed from the Covenant pag. 97. The people and Princes are obliged in their places for Iustice and Religion no lesse then the King pag. 98. In so farre as the King presseth
a false Religion on the people eatenus in so farre they are understood not to have a King pag. 99. The Covenant giveth a mutuall coactive power to King and people to compell each other though there be not one in earth higher then both to compell each of them pag. 100. The Covenant bindeth the King as King not as he is a man onely pag. 101. One or two Tyrannous acts deprive not the King of his Royall right pag. 104. Though there were no positive written Covenant which yet we grant not yet there is a naturall tacit implicit Covenant tying the King by the nature of his Office pag. 106 If the King be made King absolutely it is contrary to Scripture and the nature of his Office pag. 107. The people given to the King as a pledge not as if they became his owne to dispose of at his absolute will pag. 108. The King could not buy sell borrow if no Covenant should tye him to men ibid. The Covenant sworne by Iudah 2 Chro. 15. tyed the King pag. 109. QUEST XV. Whether the King be univocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father pag. 111 Adam not King of the whole earth because a father ibid. The King a Father Metaphorically and improperly proved by eight Arguments ibid. sequent QUEST XVI Whether or no a despoticall or masterly dominion agree to the King because he is King Negatur pag. 116 The King hath no masterly dominion over the Subjects as if they were his servants Proved by 4. Arguments pag. 116. The King not over men as reasonable creatures to domineere pag. 117. The King cannot give away his Kingdome or his people as if they were his proper goods ibid. A violent surrender of liberty tyeth not pag. 119 A surrender of ignorance is in so farre unvoluntary as it oblige not ibid. The goods of the subjects not the Kings proved by 8. Argu. pag. 120. All the goods of the subjects are the Kings in a four-fold sence· pag. 121· QVEST. XVII Whether or no the Prince have properly the fiduciary or ministeriall power of a Tutor Husband Patron Minister Head Master of a Family not of a lord or dominator Affirmed p. 124. The King a Tutor rather then a Father as these are distinguished ibid. A free Communitie not properly and in all respects a minor and pupill p. 125. The Kings power not properly maritall and husbandly ibid. The King a Patron and Servant pag. 126. The Royall power only from God Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum solitudine causae primae but not Immediatione applicationis dignitatis ad personam pag. 126. The King the Servant of the people both objectively and subjectively pag. 127. The Lord and the people by one and the same act according to the Physicall relation maketh the King ibid. The King head of the people Metaphorically only not essentially not univocally by 6. Argu. pag. 128. His power fiduciary only pag. 129. QVEST. XVIII What is the Law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8 9 11. the place discussed fully pag. 130. The Power and the Office badly differenced by Barclay pag. 130. What is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of the King by the harmony of Interpretors ancient and moderne Protestants and Papists pag. 131 132 133. Crying out 1 Sam. 8. not necessarily a remedy of tyranny nor a praying with faith and patience pag. 135 136. Resisting of Kings that are tyrannous and patience not inconsistent ibid. The Law of the King not a permissive Law as was the Law of Devorcement pag. 136 137. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 12.23 24. not a Law of tyranny pag. 138 139. QVEST. XIX Whether or no the King be in Dignity and Power above the people Neg. Impugned by 10. Argu. p. 139. In what consideration the King is above the people and the people above the King pag. 139 140. A meane as a meane inferiour to the end how its true ibid. The King inferiour to the people ibid. The Church because the Church is of more excellency then the King because King pag. 140 141. The people being those to whom the King is given worthier then the gift pag. 141. And the people immortall the King mortall pag. 142. The King a meane only not both the efficient or Author of the Kingdome and a meane Two necessary distinctions of a meane pag. 143 If sin had never been there should have been no King pag. 142. The King is to give his life for his people ibid. The consistent cause more excellent then the effect pag. 143 144 145. The people then the King pag. 144 145. Vnpossible people can limit Royall Power but they must give Royall Power also ibid. The people have an action in making a King proved by foure Arguments ibid. Though it were granted that God immediately made Kings yet it is no consequent God only and not the people can unmake him pag. 146. The people appointing a King over themselves retaine the Fountaine-power of making a King pag. 147 148 149. The meane inferiour to the end and the King as King is a meane pag. 149 150 153. The King as a meane and also as a man inferiour to the people pag. 150. To sweare non-selfe-preservation and to sweare selfe-murther all one pag. 151. The people cannot make away their power 1. Their whole power nor 2. irrevocably to the King pag. 152. The people may resume the power they give to the Commissioners of Parliament when it is abused p. 152 The Tables in Scotland lawfull when the ordinary judicaturies are corrupt p. 153. Quod efficit tale id ipsum magis tale discussed the fountain-power in the people the derived onely in the King p. 153 154 155. The King is a fiduciary a life-renter not a lord or heritor p. 155 156. How soveraigntie is in the people p. 156 157. Power of life and death how in a Community ibid. A Communitie voide of Rulers is yet and may be a politike body p. 157. Iudges gods Analogically p. 158. QUEST XX. Whether Inferiour Judges be essentially the immediate Vicegerents of God as Kings not differing in essence and nature from Kings Affirmatur Proved by twelve Arguments pag. 159. Inferiour Iudges the immediate Vicars of God no lesse then the King ibid. The consciences of inferiour Iudges immediately subordinate to God not to the King either mediately or immediately p. 160. How the inferiour Iudge is the deputy of the King p. 161 162. He may put to death murtherers as having Gods sword committed to him no lesse then the King even though the King command the contrary for he is not to execute judgement and to relieve the oppressed conditionally if a mortall King give him leave but whether the King will or no he is to obey the King of Kings p. 160 161. Inferiour Iudges are ministri regni non ministri regis p. 162 163. The King doth not make Iudges as he is a man by an act of private good will but as he
Interpreter p. 254. Nor is his will the sense of the Law p. 252 253. Nor is he the sole and onely judiciall Interpreter of the Law p. 253 254 255 seq QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Estates and Subjects for their owne just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull Affir p. 257. The state of the question P. 257 258 If Kings be absolute a superiour Iudge may punish an inferiour Iudge not as a Iudge but an erring man ibid. By Divine institution all Covenants to restraine their power must be unlawfull p. 258 259. Resistance in some cases lawfull p. 260 261 262. Six Arguments for the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars in this Quest. 260. seq Many others follow Quest. 29. and 30. seq QUEST XXIX Whether in the case of defensive War the distinction of the Person of the King as a man who may and can commit hostile acts of tyranny against his subjects and of the Office and Royall Power that he hath from God and the people can have place Affirmatur p. 265. The Kings Person in concreto and his Office in abstracto or which is all one the King using his Power lawfully to be distinguished Rom. 13 p. 265. To command unjustly maketh not a higher power p. 265.266 The person may be resisted and yet the Office cannot be resisted prooved by fourteene Arguments p. 265 266. seq Contrary Objections of Royalists and of the P. Prelate answered p. 270 271. seq What we meane by the person and Office in abstracto in this dispute we doe not exclude the person in concreto altogether but only the person as abusing his power we may kill a person as a man and love him as a sonne father wife according to Scripture p. 272 273 274. We obey the King for the Law and not the Law for the King p. 275 276. The loosing of habituall and actuall Royalty different p. 276. Ioh. 19.10 Pilates power of crucifying Christ no Law-power given to him of God it s proved against Royalists by six Arguments p. 280. QVEST. XXX Whether or no passive obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement Neg. What a meane resistance is that flying is resistance p. 313. The place 1 Pet. 2.18 discussed ibid. Patient bearing of injuries and resistance of injuries compatible in one and the same subject ibid. Christs non-resistance hath many things rare and extraordinary and so is no leading rule to us p. 315. Suffering is either commanded to us comparatively only that we rather choose to suffer then deny the truth or the manner only is commanded that we suffer with patience p. 317 318. sequent The Physicall act of taking avvay the life or of offending vvhen commanded by the Lavv of self defence is no murther p. 321. We have a greater dominion over our goods and members except in case of mutilation vvhich is a little death then over our life p. 321. To kill is not of the nature of self defence but accidentall thereunto ibid. Defensive vvar cannot be vvithout offending p. 323. The nature of defensive and offensiue Warrâ— p. 324 325. Flying is resistance p. 325 326. QUEST XXXI Whether selfe-defence by opposing violence to unjust violence be lawfull by the Law of God and Nature Affirm p. 326 327. Self-defence in man naturall but Modus the way must be rationall and just p. 327. The method of selfe-defence ibid. Violent re-offending in selfe-defence the last remedy p. 328. It s Physically unpossible for a Nation to fly in the case of persecution for Religion and so they may resist in their owne self-defence p. 328. Tutela vitae proxima and remota p. 329. In a remote posture of selfe-defence we are not to take us to re-offending as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping or in the Cave for the same cause ibid. David would not kill Saul because he was the Lords Anoynted p. 330. The King not Lord of chastity name conscience and so may be resisted p. 331. By universall and particular nature selfe-defence lawfull proved by divers Arguments p. 330. And made good by the testimony of Iurists p. 331. The love of our selves the measure of the love of our neighbour and inforceth selfe-defence p. 332. Nature maketh a private man his owne Iudge and Magistrate when the Magistrate is absent and violence is offered to his life as the Law saith p. 334 335. Selfe-defence how lawfull it is p. 333 334 335. What presumption is from the Kings carriage to the two Kingdomes are in Law sufficient grounds of defensive warrs p. 336 337. Offensive and defensive warrs differ in the event and intentions of men but not in nature and spece nor Physically p. 336 337 338. Davids case in not killing Saul nor his men no rule to us not in our lawfull defence to kill the Kings Emissaries the cases farre different p. 338 339. QUEST XXXII Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warrrs can be proved from the Scripture from the examples of David the peoples rescuing Ionathan Elisha and the 80. valiant Priests who resisted Vzziah Affirm p. 340. David warrantably raised an Army of men to defend himselfe against the unjust violence of his Prince Saul p. 340 341 342. Davids not invading Saul and his men who did not aime at Arbitrary Government at subversion of Lawes Religion and extirpation of those that worshipped the God of Israel and opposed Idolatry but only pursuing one single person farre unlike to our case in Scotland and England now p. 342.343 Davids example not extraordinary p. 343 344. Elisha's resistance proveth defensive warrs to be warrantable p. 344 345 Resistance made to King Vzziah by eighty valiant Priests proveth the same p. 346 347 348. The peoples rescuing Ionathan proveth the same p. 348 349. Libnah's revolt proveth this p. 349. The City of Abel defended themselves against Ioab King Davids Generall when he came to destroy a City for one wicked conspirator Sheba his sake p. 349 350. QUEST XXXIII Whether or no Rom. 13.1 make any thing against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs Neg. p. 350. The King not only understood Rom. 13. p. 351.352 And the place Rom. 13. discussed p. 352 353 354. QUEST XXXIV Whether Royalists prove by cogent reasons the unlawfulnesse of defensive warrs p. 355. Objections of Royalists answered p. 355 356 357. seq The place Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods c. answered p. 357. And Eccles. 10.20 p. 358. The place Eccles. 8.3 4. Where the word of a King is c. answered p. 357 358. The place Iob 34.18 answered p. 359. And Act. 23.3 God shall smite thee thou whited wall c. p. 359 360 361. The Emperours in Pauls time not absolute by their Law p. 361. That objection that we have no practise for defensive resistance and that the Prophets never complaine of the omission of the duty of resistance of Princes answered p. 163 164 165. The Prophets
call to determine the wills and liberty of people to pitch upon a Monarchy Hic nunc rather then any other forme of Government though all the three be from God even as single life and Marriage are both the lawfull Ordinances of God and the constitution and temper of the body is a calling to either of the two not are we to think that Aristocracy and Democracy are either unlawfull Ordinances or mens inventions or that those societies which want Monarchy doe therefore live in sins But some say that Peter calleth any form of Government an humane Ordinance 1 Pet. 2.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore Monarchy can be no Ordinance of God Answ. Rivetus It is called an Ordinance of man not because it is an invention of man and not an Ordinance of God but respectu subjecti Piscator Not because man is the efficient cause of Magistracie but because they are men who are Magistrates Diodatus Obey Princes and Magistrates or Governours made by men or amongst men Oecumenius an humane constitution because it is made by an humane disposition and created by humane suffrages Dydimus presides presidents made by men Cajetanus Estius Every creature of God as Preach the Gospel to every creature in authority But I take the word every creature of man to be put 1. Emphatically to commend the worth of obedience to Magistrates though 〈◊〉 men when we do it for the Lords sake Therefore Betranduâ— Cardinalis Ednensis saith he speaketh so for the more necessiâ—y of merit and Glossa Ordinaria saith Be subject to all powers Etiam ex infidelibus incredulis Even of infidels and unbeleevers Lyranus For though they be men the image of God shineth in them and the Syriack as Lorinus saith leadeth us thereunto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lechullechum benai anasa Obey all the children of men that are in authority 2. It is an Ordinance of men not effectively as if it were an invention and a dream of men But 2. subjectively because exercised by man 3. Objectively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the good of men and for the externall mans peace and safety especially Whereas Church-Officers are for the spirituall good of mens souls And Durandus saith well Civill power according to its institution is of God and according to its acquisition and way of use it s of man And we may thus farre call the forms of Magistrates an humane Ordinance That some Magistrates are ordained to care for mens lives and matters criminall of life and death and some for mens Lands and estates some for commodities by Sea and some by Land and Magistrates according to these Determinations or humane Ordinances QUEST IIII. Whether the king be only and imediatly from God not from the people THat this question may be the clearer we are to set down these Considerations 1. The question is Whether the Kingly Office it self come from God I conceive it is and floweth from the people not by formall institution as if the people had by an act of reason devised and excogitated such a power God ordained the power it is from the people onely by a virtuall emanation in respect that a community having no Government at all may ordain a King or appoint an Aristocracie But the question is concerning the designation of the person Whence is it that this man rather then this man is crowned King and whence is it from God immediatly and onely that this man rather then this man and this race or family rather then that race and family is chosen for the Crowne or is it from the people also and their free choise for the Pastor and the Doctors Offiâ—e is from Christ onely but that Iohn rather then Thomas be the Doctor or the Pastor is from the will and choice of men the Presbyters and people 2. The Royall power is three wayes in the people 1. Radically and virtually as in the first subject 2. Collativè vel communicativè by way of free donation they giving it to this man not to this man that he may rule over them 3. Limitatè They giving it so as these three acts remaine with the people 1. That they may measure out by ounce weights so much Royall power and no more and no lesse 2. So as they may limit moderate and set banks and marches to the excercise 3. That they give it out conditionatè upon this and this condition that they may take again to themselves what they gave out upon condition if the condition be violated The first I conceive is cleere 1. because if every living creature have radically in them a power of selfe-preservation to defend themselves from violence as we see Lyons have pawes some beasts have hornes some clawes men being reasonable creatures united in societie must have power in a more reasonable and honorable way to put this power of warding off violence in the hands of one or moe Rulers to defend themselves by Magistrates 2. If all men be borne as concerning civill power alike for no man commeth out of the wombe with a Diadem on his head or a Scepter in his hand and yet men united in a societie may give crown and scepter to this man and not to this man then this power was in this united societie but it was not in them formally for they should then all have been one King and so both above and superiour and below and inferiour to themselves which we cannot say therefore this power must have been virtually in them because neither man nor communitie of men can give that which they neither have formally nor virtually in them 3. Royalists cannot deny but Cities have power to choose and create inferiour Magistrates ergo many Cities united have power to create an higher Ruler for Royall power is but the united and superlative power of inferiour Judges in one greater Judge whom they call a King 2 Conclus The power of creating a man a King is from the people 1. Because those who may create this man a King rather then thiâ— man they have power to appoint a King For a comparative act on doth positively inferre an action if a man have a power to marry this woman not that woman we may strongly conclude ergo he hath power to marry now 1 King 16. The people made Omri King and not Zimri and his sonne Achab rather then Tibni the sonne of Sinath Nor can it be replyed this was no lawfull power that the people used for that cannot elude the argument for 1 King 1. the people made Salomon King and not Adonijah though Adonijah was the elder brother they say God did extraordinarily both make the Office and designe Salomon to be King the people had no hand in it but approved Gods fact Answer This is that we say God by the people by Nathan the Prophet and the servants of David and the
States crying God save King Salomon made Salomon King and here is a reall action of the people God is the first Agent in all acts of the Creature where a people maketh choise of a man to be their King the States doe no other thing under God but create this man rather then another and we cannot here find two actions one of God another of the people but in one and the same action God by the peoples free suffrages voices createth such a man King passing by many thousands and the people are not patientes in the action because by the authoritative choise of the States the man is made of a private man and no King a publick person and a crowned King 2 Sam. 16.18 Hushai said to Absolom nay but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose his will I be and with him will I abide Iudg. 8.22 The men of Israel said to Gideon Rule thou over us Iudg. 9.6 The men of Sechem made Abimelech King Iudg. 11.8.11 2 King 14.21 The people made Azariah King 1 Sam. 12.1 2 Chron. 23.3 2. If God doth regulate his people in making such a man King not such a man then he thereby insinuateth that the people have a power to make such a man King and not such a man But God doth regulate his people in making a King Ergo the people have a power to make such a man King not such a man King The Proposition is cleare because Gods Law doth not regulate a non-eâ—s a meere nothing or an unlawfull power nor can Gods holy Law regulate an unlawfull power or an unlawfull action but quite abolish it and interdict it the Lord setteth not downe rules and waies how men should not commit Treason but the Lord commandeth loyalty and simply interdicteth men of treason 2. If people have then more power to create a King over themselves then they had to make Prophets then God forbidding them to choose such a man for their King should say as much to his people as if he would say I command you to make Esaiah Ieremiah Prophets over you but not these and these men This certainly should prove that not God onely but the people also with God made Prophets I leave this to the consideration of the godly The Prophets were immediatly called of God to be Prophets whether the people consented that they should be Prophets or not Therefore God immediatly and onely sent the Prophets not the people but though God extraordinarily designed some men to be Kings and annoynted them by his Prophets yet were they never actually installed Kings till the people made them Kings I prove the assumption Deut. 17. 14. When thou shalt say I will set a King over me like all the nations round about me 15. Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose one from amongst thy brethren shalt thou set King over thee thou maist not set a stranger over thee which is not thy brother Should not this be an unjust charge to the people if God onely without any action of the people should immediatly set a King over them Might not the people reply We have no power at all to set a King over our selves no more then we have power to make Esaiah a Prophet who saw the visions of God to what end then should God mocke us and say make a brother and not a stranger King over you 3. Expresly Scripture saith that the people made the King though under God Iudg. 9.6 The men of Sechem made Abimelech King 1 Sam. 11.15 And all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King before the Lord 2 King 10.5 We will not make any King This had been an irrationall speech to Iehu if both Iehu and the people held the Royalists Tenet that the people had no power to make a King nor any active or causative influence therein but that God immediatly made the King 1 Chron. 12.38 All these came with a perfect heart to make David King in Hebron and all the rest were of one heart to make David King on the words Lavater saith the same way are Magistrates now to be chosen now this day God by an immediate Oracle from Heaven appointeth the Office of a King but I am sure he doth not immediatly designe the man but doth onely mark him out to the people as one who hath the most royall indowments and the due qualifications required in a lawfull Magistrate by the Word of God Exod. 18.21 Men of truth hating covetousnesse c. Deut. 1.16 17. men who will judge causes betwixt their brethren righteously without respect of persons 1 Sam. 10.21 Saul was chosen out of the Tribes according to the Law of God Deut. 17. they might not choose a stranger and Abulensis Serrarius Câ—rnelius a lapide Sancheiz and other Popish Writers think that Saul was not onely anoynted with Oyle first privately by Samuel 1 Sam. 10.1 2. but also at two other times before the people once at Mizpeh and another time at Gilgal by a Parliament and a Convention of the States and Samuel judged the voices of the people so essentiall to make a King that Samuel doth not acknowledge him as formall King 1 Sam. 10.7 8 17 18 19. though he honoured him because he was to be King 1. Sam. 9 23 24. while the Tribes of Israel and Parliament were gathered together to make him King according to Gods Law Deut 17. as is evident For Samuel v. 20. caused all the Tribes of Israel to stand before the Lord and the Tribe of Benjamin was taken the Law provided one of their owne not a stranger to raigne over them and because some of the States of Parliament did not choose him but being children of Belial despised him in their heart v. 27. therefore after King Saul by that victory over the Ammonites had conquered the affections of all the people fully v. 10 11. Samuel would have his coronation election by the Estates of Parliament renewed at Gilgall by all the people v. 14 15. to establish him King 2. The Lord by Lots found out the Tribe of Benjamin 3. The Lord found out the man by name Saul the sonne of Kish when he did hide himselfe amongst the staffe that the people might doe their part in creating of the King whereas Samuel had annoynted him before but the Text saith expresly that the people made Saul King and Calvin Martyr Lavater and Popish Writers as Serrarius Mendoza Sancheiz Cornelius a Lapide Lyâ—anus Hugo Cardinalis Carthusius Sanctius doe all hence conclude that the people under God make the King I see no reason why Barclaius should here distinguish a power of choosing a King which he granteth the people hath and a power of making a King which he saith is only proper to God Answ. Choosing of a King is either a comparative crowning of this man not this man and
if the people have this it s a creating of a King under God who principally disposeth of Kings and Kingdomes and this is enough for us The want of this made Zimri no King and those whom the Rulers of Iezreel at Samaria 2 King 10. refused to make Kings no Kings This election of the people made Athaliah a Princesse the removall of it and translation of the crown by the people to Ioash made her no Princesse for I beseech you what other calling of God hath a race of a familie and a person to the crowne but only the election of the States There is now no voice from heaven no immediately inspired Prophets such as Samuel and Elisha to annoynt David not Eliab Solomon not Adoniah The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the heroick spirit of a Royall facultie of governing is I grant from God only not from the people but I suppose that maketh not a King for then many sitting on the throne this day should be no Kings and many private persons should be Kings If he meane by the peoples choosing nothing but the peoples approbative consent posterior to Gods act of creating a King let them shew us an act of God making Kings and establishing royall power in such a familie rather then in such a familie which is prior to the peoples consent distinct from the peoples consent I believe there is none at all 4. Arg. Hence I argue If there be no calling or title on earth to tie the Crown to such a Familie and Person but the suffrages of the people then have the line of such a familie and the persons now no calling of God no right to the crown but only by the suffrages of the people except we say that there be no lawfull Kings on earth now when Propheticall unction and designation to Crowns are ceased contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 13.1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2.13 14 15 16 17. But there is no title on earth now to tye crownes to families to persons but onely the suffrages of the people for 1. Conquest without the consent of the people is but royall latrocinie as we shall see 2. There is no propheticall and immediate calling to Kingdomes now 3. The Lords giving of Regall parts is somewhat but I hope Royallists will not deny but a child young in yeares and judgment may be a lawfull King 3. Mr. Maxwell his appointing of the Kingly office doth no more make one man a lawfull King then another for this were a wide consequence God hath appointed that Kings should be ergo Iohn a Stiles is a King yea ergo David is a King It followeth not Therefore it remaineth only that the suffrages of the people of God is that just title and divine calling that Kings have now to their crownes I presuppose they have gifts to governe from God 5. If the Lords immediate designation of David and his annointing by the divine authoritie of Samuel had been that which is alone without the election of the people made David formally King of Israel then there were two Kings in Israel at one time for Samuel annointed David and so he was formally King upon the ground layed by Royallists that the King hath no royall power from the people and David after he himselfe was annointed by Samuel divers times calleth Saul the Lords anointed and that by the inspiration of Gods spirit as we and Royallists doe both agree Now two lawfull supreme Monarchs in one Kingdome I conceive to be most repugnant to Gods truth and sound reason for they are as repugnant as two most Highs or as two Infinites 2. It shall follow that David all the while betwixt his anointing by Samuel and his coronation by the suffrages of all Israel at Hebron 1. Was in-lacking in discharging and acquiting himselfe of his royall duty God having made him formally a King and so laying upon him a charge to execute justice and judgement and defend Religion which he did not discharge 2. All Davids suffering upon Davids part must be unjust for as King he should have cut off the murtherer Saul who killed the Priests of the Lord especially seeing Saul by this ground must be a private murtherer and David the only lawfull King 3. David if he was formally King deserted his calling in flying to the Philistims for a King should not forsake his Kingdome upon no hazards even of his life no more then a Pilot should give over the helme in an extreme storme but certainly Gods dispensation in this warranteth us to say no man can be formally a lawfull King without the suffrages of the peoâ—leâ— for Saul after Samuel from the Lord anointed him remained a private man and no King till the people made him King and elected him And David anointed by that same divine authoritie remained formally a Subject and not a King till all Israel made him King at Hebron And Salomâ—n though by God designed and ordained to be King yet was never King till the people made him King 1 King 1. ergo there floweth something from the power of the people by which he who is no King now becommeth a King formally and by Gods lawfull call whereas before the man was no King but as touâ—hing all royall power a meere private man And I am sure birth must be lesse then Gods designation to a crowne as is cleere Adoniah was elder then Salomon yet God will have Salomon the younger by birth to be King and not Adoniah And so Mr. Symons and other Court-Prophets must prevaricate who will have birth without the peoples election to make a king and the peoples voyces but a ceremonie 6. I thinke Royalists cannot deny but a people ruled by Aristocraticall Magistrates may elect a King and a King so elected is formally made a lawfull King by the peoples election for of six apt and gifted to reigne what maketh one a King and not the other five Certainly God disposing the people to choose this man and not another man it cannot be said but God giveth the Kingly power immediately and by him Kings raigne that is true The Office is immediately from â—od but now the question is what is that which formally applyeth the Office and Royall Power to this Person rather thâ—n to the other five as meet Nothing can here be dreamed of but God inclining the hearts of the States to choose this man and not this men QUEST V. Whether or no P. P. the Author of Sac. San. Regum Majestas called the sacred and Royall Prerogative of Kings proveth that God is the immediate Author of Soveraignty and that the King is no creature of the peoples making COnsider first that the excommunicated Prelate saith cap. 2. p. 19. Kings are not immediatly from God as by any speciall Ordinance sent from Heaven by the ministery of Angels and Prophets there were but some few such as Moses Saul David c. yet something may immediatly proceed from God and be his speciall worke
without a revelation or manifestation extraordinary from Heaven so the designation to a sacred function is from the Church and from man yet the power of Word Sacraments binding and loosing is immediatly from Jesus Christ. The Apostle Matthias was from Christs immediate constitution and yet he was designed by men Act. 1. The soule is by creation and infusion without any speciall ordinance from Heaven though nature begeteth the body and disposeth the matter and prepareth it as fit to be conjoyned with the soule so as the father is said to beget the sonne Ans. 1. The unchurched Prelate striveth to make us hatefull by the title of the Chapter That God is by his title the immediate Author of Soveraingty and who denyeth that Not those who teach that the person who is King is created King by the people no more then those who deny that men are now called to be Pastors and Deacoâ—s immediately and by a voice from Heaven or by the ministery of Angells and Prophets because the Office of Pastors and Deacons is immediately from God 2. When he hath proved that God is the immediate Author of Soveraingty What then shall it follow that the soveraigne in concreto may not be resisted and that he is above all Law and that there is no armour against his violence but prayers and teares So God is the immediate Author of the Pastors of the Apostles Office ergo it is unlawfull to resist a Pastor though he turne robber ergo the Pastor is above all the Kings Lawes this is the Iesuite and all made ergo there is no Armour against the robbing Prelate but prayer and teares 2. He saith in his Title that the King is no Creature of the peoples making If he meane the King in abstracto that is the royall dignity whom speaketh he against Not against us but against his owne father Bellarmine who saith that Soveraignty hath no warrant by any divine Law If he meane that the man who is King is not created and elected King by the people he contradicteth himself and all the Court Doctors 3. It is false that Saul and David their originall of Royalty was onely from God by a speciall Ordinance sent from Heaven for their office is Deut. 17.14 from the written Word of God as the killing of Idolaters v. 3 7. as the Office of the Priests and Levites 8 9 10. and this is no extraordinary Ordinance from Heaven more than that is from Heaven which is warranted by the Word of God If he meane that these men Saul and David were created Kings by the onely extraordinary revelation of God from Heaven it is a lye for beside the Propheticall anoynting of them they were made Kings by the people as the word saith expresly except we say that David sinned in not setting himselfe downe on the Throne when Samuel anoynted him first King and so he should have made away his Master King Saul out of the world and there were not a few called to the Throne by the people but many yea all the Kings of Israel and Iudah 4. The Prelate contendeth that a King is designed to his royall dignity immediatly from God without an extraordinary revelation from Heaven as the man is designed to be a Pastor by men and yet the power of Preaching is immediatly from God c. but he proveth nothing except he prove that all Pastors are called to be Pastors immediatly and that God calleth and designeth to the Throne such a person immediatly as he hath immediatly instituted by the power of Preaching and the Apostleship and hath immediatly infused the soule in the body by an act of Creation and we cannot conceive how God in our daies when there are no extraordinary revelations doth immediatly create this man a King and immediatly tie the crown to this family rather then to this this he doth by the people now without any Propheticall Vnction and by this medium to wit by the free choice of the people He needeth not bring the example of Matthias more than of any ordinary Pastor and yet an ordinary Pastor is not immediatly called of God because the Office of an ordinary Pastor is from God immediatly and also the man is made Pastor by the Church The P. Prelate saith a thing is immediatly from God three waies 1. When it is solely from God and presupposeth nothing ordinary or humane antecedent to the obteyning of it Such was the power of Moses Saul David Such were the Apostles 2. When the collation of the power to such a person is immediatly from God though some act of man be antecedent as Matthias was an Apostle A baptized man obtaineth remission and regeneration yet aspersion of water cannot produce these excellent effects A King giveth power to a favourite to make a Lord or a Baron yet who is so stupid as to averre the honour of a Lord commeth immediatly from the favourite and not from the King 3. When a man hath by some ordinary humane right a full and just right and the approbation and confirmation of this right is immediatly from God The first way Soveraignty is not from God The second way Soveraignty is conferred on Kings immediatly though some created act of Election succession conquests intervene the interposed act containeth not in it power to conferre Soveraignty as in Baptisme Regeneration if there be nothing repugnant in the suscipient is conferred not by water but immediatly by God In sacred Orders designation is from men power to supernaturall acts from God election succession conquests remotely and improperly constitute a King To say in the third sence that soveraignty is immediatly from God by approbation or confirmation onely is against Scripture Prov. 8.15 Psa. 82.8 Ioh. 19. then the people say you are Gods your power is from below And Pauls ordained of God is approved and confirmed onely of God the power of designation or application of the person to royalty is from man the power of conferring royall power or of applying the person to royall power is from God A mans hand may apply a faggot to the fire the fire onely maketh the faggot to burne Ans. 1. Apostles both according to their Office and the designation of their person to the Office wâ—re immediatly and onely from God without any act of the people and therefore are badly coupled with the royall power of David and King Saul who were not formally made Kings but by the people at Mizpeh and Hebron 2. The second way God giveth Royall Power by moving the peoples hearts to confer royall power and this is virtually in the people formally from God Water hath no influence to produce grace Gods institution and promise doth it except you dream with your Iesuites of opus operatum that water sprinkled by the doing of the deed conferreth grace nisi ponatur obex what can the child doe or one child more then another baptized child to hinder the flux of remission of sins if
you meane not that Baptisme worketh as Physick on a sick man except strength of humours hinder and therefore this comparison is not alike The people cannot produce so noble an effect as royalty a beame of God True formally they cannot but virtually it is in a society of reasonable men in whom are left beames of authoritative Majesty which by a divine institution they can give Deut. 17.14 to this man to David not to Eliab and I could well say the Favorite made the Lord and placed honour in the man whom he made Lord by a borrowed power from his Prince and yet the honour of a Lord is principally from the King 3. It is true the election of the people conteineth not formally Royall dignitie but the Word saith they made Saul they made David King so virtually election must conteine it Samuels oyle maketh not David King he is a subject after he is anointed the peoples election at Hebron maketh him King 2. differenceth him from his brethren 3. putteth him in Royall state yet God is the principall agent What immediate action God hath here is said and dreamed of no man can divine except Prophet P. Prelate The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Royall authoritie is given organically by that act by which he is made King another act is a night-dreame but by the act of election David is made of no King a King The collation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Royall gifts is immediately from God but that formally maketh not a King if Solomon saw right servants riding on horses Princes going on foot 4. Judge of the Prelates subtiltie I dare say not his own he stealeth from Spalato but telleth not The applying of the person to Royall authoritie is from the people but the applying of Royall authoritie to the person of the King is immediately and only from God as the hand putteth the faggot to the fire but the fire maketh it burne To apply the subject to the accident is it any thing else but to apply the accident to the subject Royall authoritie is an accident the person of the King the subject the applying of the faggot to the fire and the applying of the fire to the faggot are all one to any not forsaken of common sense When the people applyeth the person to the royall authoritie they but put the person in the state of royall authoritie and this is to make an union betwixt the Man and royall authoritie and this is to apply royall authoritie to the person 5. The third sense is the Prelates dreame not a Tene◠of ours we never said that soveraigntie in the King is immediately from God by approbation or confirmation only as if the people first made the King and God did only by a posterior and latter act say Amen to the deed done and subscribe as Recorder to what the people doth so the people should deale kingdomes and crownes at their pleasure and God behoved to ratifie and make good their fact When God doth apply the person to royall power what is this a different action from the peoples applying the person to royall dignitie It is not imaginable but the people by creating a king applyeth the person to royall dignitie and God by the peoples act of constituting the man king doth by the mediation of this act convey royall authoritie to the man as the Church by sending a man and ordaining him to bee a Pastor doth not by that as Gods instruments infuse supernaturall powers of preaching these powers supernaturall may be and often are in him before he be in orders and sometimes God infuseth a supernaturall power of government in a man when he is not yet a king as the Lord turned Saul into another man 1 Sam. 10.5.6 neither at that point of time when Samuel anointed him but after that v. 5. After that thou shalt come to the hill of God 6. the spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee and thou shalt prophecie with them and shalt be turned into another man Nor yet at that time when he is formally made King by the people for Saul was not King formally because of Samuels anointing nor yet was he King because another spirit was infused into him v. 5 6. for he was yet a privat man till the States of Israel chose him King at Mizpeh And the word of God useth words of action to expresse the peoples power Iudg. 9.6 And all the men of Sechem gathered together and all the men of Millo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regnare fecerunt they caused him to be King The same is said 1 Sam. 10.15 they caused Saul to reigne 2 K. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall not King any man 1 Chron. 12.38 They came to Hebron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to King David over all Israel Deut. 17. three times the making of a King is given to the people 7. When thou shalt say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall set a King over me if it were not their power to make a King no law could be imposed on them not to make a stranger their King 1 King 12.20 all the congregation Kinged Jeroboam or made him King over all Israel 2 King 11.12 They Kinged Joash or made Ioash to reigne 6. The people are to say You are Gods and your power is below saith the Prelate what then ergo their power is not from God also It followeth not subordinata non pugnant The Scripture saith both the Lord exalted David to be King and All power is from God and so the power of a L. Major of a Citie and the people made David King also and the Citie maketh such a man L. Major It is the Anabaptists argument God writeth his law in our heart and teacheth his own children ergo bookes and the ministerie of men are needlesse So all Sciences and lawfull arts are from God ergo Sciences applied to men are not from mens free will industrie and studies The Prelate extolleth the King when he will have his Royaltie from God the way that John Stiles is the husband of such a woman P. Prelate Kings are of God they are Gods children of the most High his servants publike Ministers their sword and judgement Gods This he hath said of their royaltie in abstracto and in concreto their power person charge are all of divine extract and so their authoritie and person are both sacred and inviolable Answ. So are all the congregation of the Iudges Psal. 82. v. 1.6 all of them Gods for he speaketh not there of a congregation of Kings So are Apostles their office and persons of God and so the Prelates they thinke the successors of the Apostles are Gods servants their ministerie word rod of discipline not theirs but of God the judgement of Iudges inferiour to the King is the Lords judgement not mens Deut. 1.17 2. Chro. 19.6 Hence by the Prelates Logick the persons of Prelates Majors Bailiffes Constables Pastors are sacred and
commanding the people as King before the people make him King 3. If the peoples approving and consenting that an elected King be their King presupposeth that he is a King designed and constituted by God before the people approve him as King Let the P. Prelate give us an act of God now designing a man King for there are no immediate voyces from heaven saying to a people This is your King before the people elect one of sixe to be their King And this infallibly proveth that God designeth one of sixe to be a King to a people who had no King before by no other act but by determining the hearts of the States to elect and designe this man King and passe any of the other five 4. When God Deut. 17. forbiddeth them to choose a stranger he presupposeth they may choose a stranger for Gods law now given to man in the state of sinne presupposeth he hath corruption of nature to doe contrary to Gods law Now if God did hold forth that their setting a King over them was but the peoples approving the man whom God shall both constitute and designe to be King then he should presuppose that God was to designe a stranger to be the lawfull King of Israel and the people should be interdicted to approve and consent that the man should be King whom God should choose for it was unpossible that the people should make a stranger King God is the only immediate King-creator the people should only approve and consent that a stranger should be King yet upon supposall that God first constituted and designed the stranger King it was not in the peoples power that the King should be a Brother rather then a stranger for if the people have no power to make a King but doe only approve him or consent to him when he is both made and designed of God to be King it is not in their power that he be either brother or stranger and so God commandeth what is simply impossible 2. Consider the sense of the command by the Prelates vaine Logick I Iehovah as I only create the world of nothing so I only constitute and designe a man whether Iew or Nebuchadnezzar a stranger to be your King yet I inhibit you under the pain of my curse that you set any King â—ver your selves but only a brother What is this but I inhibite you to be creators by omnipotent power 5. To these adde the reasons I produced before that the people by no shadow of reason can be commanded to make such a man King not such a man if they only consent to the man made King but have no action in the making of the King P. Prelate All the acts reall and imaginable which are necessary for the making of Kings are ascribed to God Take the first King as a ruling case 1 Sam. 12.13 Behold the King whom you have chosen and desired and behold the Lord hath set a King over you This election of the people can be no other but their admittance or acceptance of the King whom God hath chosen and constituted as the words whom ye have chosen imply 1 Sam. 9.17 1 Sam. 10.1 You have Sauls election and constitution where Samuel as Priest and Prophet anointeth him doing reverence and obeysance to him and ascribing to God that he did appoint him supreame and Soveraigne over his inheritance And the same expression is 1 Sam. 12.13 The Lord hath set a King over you which is Psal. 2.6 I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion Neither man nor Angel hath any share in any act of constituting Christ King Deut. 17. The Lord vindicateth as proper and peculiar to himselfe the designation of the person It was not arbitrary to the people to admit or reject Saul so designed it pleased God to consummate the worke by the acceptation consent and approbation of the people ut suaviore modo that by a smoother way he might incourage Saul to undergoe the hard charge and make his people the more heartily without grumbling and scruple reverence and obey him The peoples admittance possibly added something to the solemnitie to the pompe but nothing to the essentiall and reall constitution or necessitie it only puts the subjects in mala fide if they should contraveen as the intimation of a Law the coronation of an hereditary King the inthronization of a Bishop And 1 King 3.7 Thou hast made thy servant King 1 Sam. 16.1 I have provided me a King Psal. 18.50 He is Gods King Psal. 89.19 I have exalted one chosen out of the people v. 20. He anointeth them 27. adopteth them I will make him my first borne Psal. 82.6 the first borne is above every brother severally and above all though a thousand joyntly Answ. 1. By this reason inferiour Iudges are no lesse immediate Deputies of God and so irresistible then the Kings because God took off the spirit that was on Moses and immediately powred it upon the seventy Elders who were Iudges inferiour to Moses Num. 11.14.15.16 Answ. 2. This P. P. cannot make a Syllogisme Iâ— all the acts necessary to make a King be given to God none to the people then God both constituteth and designeth the King But the former the Scripture saith ergo if all the acts be given to God as to the prime King-maker and disposer of Kings and Kingdoms and none to the people in that notion then God both constituteth and designeth a King Both major and minor is false The major is aâ— false as the very P. Prelate himselfe All the acts necessary for war-making are in an eminent manner given to God as 1. the Lord fighteth for his people 2. The Lord scattered the enemies 3. The Lord slew Og King of Bashan 4. The battell is the Lords 5. The victorie the Lords ergo Israel never fought a battell So Deut. 32. The Lord alone led his people the Lord led them in the wildernesse their bow and their sword gave them not the land God wrought all their workes for them Esa 26.12 ergo Moses led them not ergo the people went not on their own leggs through the wildernesse ergo the people never shot an arrow never drew a sword It followeth not 1. God did all these as the first eminent principall and efficacious pre-determinator of the creature though this Arminian and Popish Prelate mind not so to honour God 2. The assumption is also false for the people made Saul and David Kings and it were ridiculous that God should command them to make a brother not a stranger King if it was not in their power whether he should be a Iew a Scythian an Ethiopian who was their King if God did only without them both choose 2. constitute 3. designe the person and performe all acts essentiall to make a King and the people had no more in them but only to admit and consent and that for the solemnitie and pompe not for the essentiall constitution of the King 3. â—
Sam. 9.17 1 Sam. 10.1 we have not Saul elected and constituted king and Samuel did obeysance to him and kissed him for the honor Royall which God was to put upon him for before this propheticall unction 1 Sam. 9.22 he made him sit in the chiefe place and honored him as king when as yet Samuel was materially King and the Lords Vicegerent in Israel If then the Prelate conclude any thing from Samuel his doing reverence and obeysance to him as King it shall follow that Saul was formally King before Samuel 1 Sam. 10.1 anointed him and kissd him and that must be before he he was formally King otherwise he was in Gods appointment King before ever he saw Samuels face and it is true he ascribeth honour to him as to one appointed by God to be supreame Soveraigne for that which he should be not for that which he was as c. 9.22 he set him in the chiefest place and therefore it is false that we have Sauls election and constitution to be King 1 Sam. 10. for after that time the people are rebuked for seeking a King and that with a purpose to disswade them from it as a sinfull desire and he is chosen by Lots after that and made King after Samuels anoynting of him he was a private man and did hide himselfe amongst the stuffe v. 22.3 The Prelate if of ignorance or wilfully I know not saith the expression and phrase is the same 1 Sam. 12.13 and Ps. 2.6 which is false for 1 Sam. 12.13 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold the Lord hath given you a King such is the expression Hos. 13.11 I gave them a King in my wrath but that expression is not Psal. 2.6 but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I have established him my King and though it were the same expression it followeth not that the people have not hand any other way in appointing Christ their head though that phrase also be in the word Hos. 1. v. 11. then by consenting and beleeving in him as King but this proveth not that the people in appointing a King hath no hand but naked approbation for the same phrase doth not expresse the same action nay the Iudges are to kisse Christ Ps. 2.12 the same way and by the same action that Samuel kissed Saul 1 Sam. 10.1 and the Idolaters kissed the calves Hos. 13.2 for the same Hebrew word is used in all the three places and yet it is certaine the first kissing is spirituall the second a kisse of honour and the third an Idolatrous kissing 4. The anoynting of Saul cannot be a leading rule to the making of all Kings to the worlds end for the P. Prelate forgetting himselfe said that onely some few as Moses Saul and David c. by extraordinary manifestation from Heaven were made Kings pa. 19.5 he saith it was not Arbitrary for the people to admit or reject Saul so designed What meaneth he it was not morally arbitrary because they were under a law Deut. 17.14 15. to make him King whom the Lord should choose That is true but was it not arbitrary to them to breake a law Physically I think he who is a professed Arminian will not side with Manicheans and Fatalists so but the P. Prelate must prove it was not Arbitrary either Morally or Physically to them not to accept Saul as their King because they had no action at all in the making of a King God did it all both by constituting and designing the King why then did God Deut. 17. give a Law to them to make such a man King not such a man if it was not in their free wil to have any action or hand in the making of a King at all but that some sonnes of Belial would not accept him as their King is expresly said 1 Sam. 10.27 and how did Israel conspire with Absolom to unking and dethronâ— David whom the Lord had made King If the Prelate meane it was not Arbitrary to them physically to reject Saul he speaketh wonders the sonnes of Belial did reject him ergo they had physicall power to doe it If he meane it was not arbitrary that is it was not lawfull to them to reject him that is true but doth it follow they had no hand nor action in making Saul King because it was not lawfull for them to make a King in a sinfull way and to refuse him whom God chose to be King then see what I inferre 1. Then they had no hand in obeying him as King because they sinne in obeying unlawfull commandements against Gods Law and so they had no hand in approving and consenting he should be King the contrary whereof the P. Prelate saith 2. So might the P. Prelate prove men are patientes and have no action in violating all the Commandements of God because it is not lawfull to them to violate any one Commandement 6 The Lord Deut. 17. vindicates this as proper and peculiar to himselfe to choose the person and to choose Saul What then ergo now the people choosing a King have no power to choose or name a man because God anoynted Saul and David by immediate manifestation of his Will to Samuel this consequence is nothing also it followeth in no wise that therefore the people made not Saul King 7. That the peoples approbation of a King is not necessary is Bellarmines and Papists saying and that the people chose their Ministers in the Apostolick Church not by a necessity of a divine Commandement but to conciliate love betwixt Pastor and people Papists hold that if the Pope make a â—â—pish King the head and King of Britaine against the peoples will yet is he their King 8. David was then King all the time that Saul presecuted him he sinned truely in not discharging the duty of a King onely because he wanted a ceremony the peoples approbation which the Prelate saith is required to the solemnity and pompe not to the necessity and truth and essence of a formall King So the Kings Coronation Oath and the peoples Oath must be Ceremonies and because the Prelate is perjured himselfe therefore perjury is but a ceremony also 9. The enthronization of Bishops is like the Kinging of the Pope the Apostles must spare Thrones while they come to Heaven Luk. 22.29 30. the P. Prelates with their head the Pope must be enthroned 10. The hereditary King he maketh a King before his Coronation and his Acts are as valid before as after his Coronation it might cost him his head to say that the Prince of Wales is now no lesse King of Britaine and his Acts Acts of Kingly Royalty no lesse then our Soveraigne is King of Britaine if Lawes and Parliaments had their owne vigour from royall Authority 11. I allow that Kings be as high as God hath placed them but that God said of all Kings I will make him my first borne c. Psalm 89.26 27. which is true of Solomon as the Type 2 Sam 7.
1 Chro. 17.22 2 Sam. 7.12 and fulfilled of Christ and by the Holy Ghost spoken of him Heb. 1.5.6 is blasphemous for God said not to Nero Iulian Dioclesian Belshazer Evilmerodach who were lawfull Kings I will make him my first borne and that any of these blasphemous Idolatrous Princes should cry to God he is my Father my God c. is Divinity well beseeming an excommunicated Prelate Of the Kings dignity above the Kingdome I speake not now the Prelate pulled it in by the haire but hereafter we shall heare of it P. Prelate God onely anoynted David 1 Sam. 16.4 the men of Bethleem yea Samuel knew it not before God saith with mine holy oyle have I anoynted him Ps. 89.91 1. He is the Lords anoynted 2. The oyle is Gods not from the Apothecaries shop nor the Priests Viall this oyle descended from the Holy Ghost who is no lesse the true Olive then Christ is the true Vine yet not the oyle of saving grace as some Fantasticks say but holy 1. From the Author God 2. From influence in the person it maketh the Person of the King sacred 3. From influence on his charge his function and power is sacred Ans. 1. The Prelate said before Davids anoynting was extraordinary here he draweth this anoynting to all Kings 2. Let David be formally both constituted and designed King divers yeares before the States made him King at Hebron and then 1. Saul was not King the Prelate will tearme that treason 2. This was a dry oyle David his person was not made sacred nor his authority sacred by it for he remained a private man and called Saul his King his Master and himselfe a subject 3. This oyle was no doubt Gods Oyle and the Prelate will have it the Holy Ghosts yet he denieth that saving grace yea p. 2. c. 1 he denyeth that any supernaturall gift should be the foundation of Royall dignity and that it is a pernitious tenent So to me he would have the Oyle from Heaven and not from Heaven 4. This holy oyle wherewith David was annointed Psalme 89.20 to Augustine is the oyle of saving grace His own deare brethren the Papists say so and especially Lyranus Glossa ordinaria Hugo Cardinal his beloved Bellarmine and Lorinus Calvin Musculus Marlorat If these be Fanaticks as I think they are to the Prelate yet the Text is evident that this oyle of God was the oyle of saving gtace bestowed on David as on a speciall type of Christ who received the spirit above measure and was the anointed of God Ps. 45.7 whereby all his garments smell of myrrhe aloes and cassia ver 8. and his name Messiah is as an oyntment powred out Cant. 1. 2. This anointed shall be head of his enemies 3. His dominion shall be from the sea to the rivers v. 25. 4. He is in the covenant of grace v. 26. 5. He is higher then the Kings of the earth 6. The grace of perseverance is promised to his seed v. 28 29 30. 7. His kingdome is eternall as the dayes of Heaven vers 35 36. 8. If the Prelate will looke under himselfe to Diodatus and Ainsworth they say this holy oyle was powred on David by Samuel and on Christ was powred the Holy Ghost and that by warrant of Scripture and Junius and Mollerus saith with them Now the Prelate taketh the Court way to powre this oyle of grace on many drie Princes who without all doubt are Kings essentially no lesse then David He must see better then the man who finding Pontius Pilate in the Creed said he behoved to be a good man so because he hath found Nero the tyrant Julian the apostate Nebuchadnezzar Evil-Merodach Hazael Hagag all the Kings of Spaine and I doubt not the Great Turke in the 89 Psalm v. 19 20. so all these Kings are anointed with the oyle of grace and all these must make their enemies necks their footstoole all these be higher then the Kings of the Earth and are hard and fast in the covenant of grace c. P. Prelate All the royall ensignes and acts of Kings are ascribed to God The Crown is of God Esa. 62.3 Psal. 21.3 in the Emperours coyne was an hand putting a crowne on their head the Heathen said they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as holding their Crownes from God Psal. 18.39 Thou hast girt me with strength the sword is the embleme of strength unto battell See Iud. 7.17 their scepter Gods scepter Exod. 4.20 17 9. we read of two rods Moses and Aarons Aarons rod budded God made both the rods Their judgement is the Lords 2 Chron. 19.6 their throne is Gods 1 Chron. 19.21 The Fathers called them sacra vestigia sacra majestas their commandements Divalis jussio The Law saith all their goods are res sacrae Ergo our new Statists disgrace Kings if they blaspheme not God in making them the derivatives of the people the basest extract of the basest of irrationall creatures the Multitude the Communaltie Answ. This is all one Argument from the Prelates beginning of his booke to the end In a most speciall and eminent act of Gods providence Kings are from God but therefore they are not from men and mens consent It followeth not From a most speciall and eminent act of Gods providence Christ came into the world and tooke on him our nature ergo he came not of Davids l oynes It is a vaine consequencâ— There could not be a more eminent act then this Psal. 40. A body thou hast given me Ergo he came not of Davids house and from Adam by naturall generation and was not a man like us in all things except sinne It is tyrannicall and domineering Logick Many things are ascribed to God only by reason of a speciall and admirable act of providence as the saving of the world by Christ the giving of Canaan to Israel the bringing hâ—s people out of Egypt and from Chaldea the sending of the Gospel to both Iew Gentile c. But shall we say that God did none of these things by the ministerie of men and weake and fraile men 2. How proveth the Prelate that all royall ensignes are ascribed to God because Esa. 62. the Church universall shall be as a crown of glorie and a royall diadem in the hand of the Lord ergo baculus in angulo the Church shall be as a seale on the heart of Christ. what then Hieronymus Procopius Cyrillus with good reason render the meaning thus Thou O Zion and Church shalt be to me a royall Priesthood and a holy people For that he speaketh of his owne Kingdome and Church is most evident v. 1.2 For Zions sake I will not hold my peace c. 3. God put a crown of pure gold on Davids head Psal. 21.3 therefore Iulian Nero and no elective Kings are made and designed to be Kings by the people He shall never prove this consequence The Chaldee
paraphrase applyeth it to the reigne of King Messiah Diodatus he speaketh of the kingdome of Christ. Ainsworth maketh this crowne a signe of Christs victorie Athanasius Eusebius Origen Augustine Dydimus expound it of Christ and his kingdome The Prelate extendeth it to all Kings as the blasphemous Rabbines especially Ra. Salomon deny that he speaketh of Christ here but what more reason is there to expound this of the crownes of all Kings given by God I deny not to Nero Julian c. then to expound the foregoing and following verses as applyed to all Kings Did Julian rejoyce in Gods salvation did God grant Nero his hearts desire did God grant as it is v. 4. life eternall to Heathen Kings as Kings which words all Interpreters expound of the eternitie of Davids throne till Christ come and of victorie and life eternall purchased by Christ as Ainsworth with good reason expounds it And what though God give David a Crown ergo not by second causes and by bowing all Israels heart to come in sinceritie to Hebron to make David King 1 King 12.38 God gave corne and wine to Israel Hos. 2. shall the Prelate and the Anabaptist inferre Ergo he giveth it not by plowing sowing and the art of the husbahd-man 3. The Heathen acknowledged a Divinitie in Kings but he is blind who readeth them and seeth not in their writings that they teach that the people maketh Kings 4. God girt David with strength while he was a private man and persecuted by Saul and fought with Goliah as the title of the same beareth and he made him a valiant man of warre to breake bowes of steele ergo he giveth the sword to Kings as Kings and they receive no sword from the people This is poore Logick 5. The P. Prelate sendeth us Judg. 7.17 to the singular and extraordinarie power of God with Gideon and I say that same power behoved to be in Oreb and Zeba v. 27. for they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes and such as the Prelate from Pro. 8.15 saith have no royall power from the people 6. Moses and Aaron their two rods were miraculous This will prove that Priests are also Gods and their persons srcred I see not except the Prelate would be at woâ—shâ—pping of Reliques what more royall Divinitie is in Moses his rod because he wrought miracles by his rod then there is in Elias his staffe in Peters napkin in Pauls shadow This is like the strong symbolicall Theologie of his fathers the Jesuites which is not argumentative except he say that Moses as King of Jesurum wrought miracles and why should not Nero Caligula Pharoah and all Kings rods then dry up the red sea and work miracles 7. We give all the stiles to Kings that the Fathers gave and yet we thinke not when David commandeth to kill Vriah and a King commandeth to murther his innocent subjects in England and Scotland that that is Divalis jussio the command of a God and that this is a good consequence What ever the King commandeth though it were to kill his loyallest Subjects is the commandement of God Ergo the King is not made King by the people 8. Ergo saith he these new Statists disgrace the King If a most New Statist sprung out of a poore pursevant of Kraill from the dunghill to the Court could have made himselfe an old Statist and more expert in state affaires then all the Nobles and soundest Lawyers in Scotland and England this might have more weight 9. Therefore the King saith P. P. is not the extract of the basest of rationall creatures He meaneth fex populi his owne house and linage but God calleth them his owne people a royall Priesthood a chosen generation and ps 78.71 will warrant us to say the people is much worthier before God then one man seeing God choose David for Iacob his people and Israel his inheritance that he might feede them Iohn P. P. his fathers suffrage in making a King will never be sought We make not the multitude but the three Estates including the Nobles and Gentry to be as rationall creatures as any Apostate Prelate in the three Kingdomes QUEST VII Whether or no the P. Prelate the aforesaid Author doth by force of reason evince that neither constitution nor designation of the King is from the people THe P. Prelate aymeth but it is an empty ayme to prove that the people are wholly excluded I answer only Arguments not pitched on before as the Prelate saith P. Prelate 1. To whom can it be more proper to give the rule over men then to him who is the onely King truely and properly of the whole world 2. God is the immediate Author of all rule and power that is amongst all his creatures above or below 3. Man before the fall received dominion and empire over all the creatures below immediatly as Gen. 1.28 Gen. 9.2 ergo we cannot deny that the most noble government to wit Monarchy must be immediatly from God without any Contract or compact of men Ans. The first reason concludeth not what is in question for God only giveth rule and power to one man over another ergo he giveth it immediatly it followeth not 2. It shall as well prove that God doth immediatly constitute all Iudges and therefore it shall be unlawfull for a city to appoint a Major or a shire a Iustice of peace 3. The second argument is inconsequent also because God in creation is the immediat Author of all things and therefore without consent of the creatures or any act of the creature created an Angell a nobler creature then man and a man then a woman and men above beasts because those that are not can exercise no act at all But it followeth not ergo all the workes of providence such as is the government of Kingdomes are done immediatly by God for in the workes of providence for the most part in ordinary God worketh by meanes it is then as good a consequence as this God immediatly created man ergo he keepeth his life immediatly also without foode and sleepe God immediatly created the Sunne ergo God immediatly without the mediation of the Sunne giveth light to the world The making of a King is an act of reason and God hath given a man reason to rule himselfe and therefore hath given to a society an instinct of reason to appoint a governour over themselves but no act of reason goeth before man be created ergo it is not in his power whether he be created a creature of greater power then a beast or no. 4. God by creation gave power to a man over the creatures and so immediatly but I hope a man cannot say God by creation hath made a man King over men 5. The Excellency of Monarchy if it be excellenter then any other government of which hereafter is no ground why it should be immediatly from God as well as mans dominion over the creature for then the worke
have Morall power to do injuries without punishment and this is not right or libertie properly but servitude for a power to do violence and injuries is not liberty but servâ—tude and bondage But the Prelate talketh of Royaltie as of meer Tyranny as if it were a proper Dominion and servile Empire that the Prince hath over his people and not more paternall and fatherly then lordly or masterly 5. He saith Violation of faith plighted in a contract amongst equals cannot be called disobedience but disobedience to the authoritie of the Soveraign is not onely breach of Covenant but high disobedience and contempt But violation of faith amongst equals as equals is not properly disobedience for disobedience is betwixt a superiour and an inferiour but violation of faith amongst equals when they make one of their equals their Iudge and Ruler is not onely violation of truth but also disobedience All Israel and Saul while he is a private man seeking his fathers Asses are equals by Covenant obliged one to another and so any injury done by Israel to Saul in that case is not disobedience but onely violation of faith but when all Israel maketh Saul their King and sweareth to him obedience he is not now their equall and an injury done to him now is both a violation of their faith and high disobedience also Suppose a Citie of Aldermen all equall amongst themselves indignitie and place take one of their number and make him their Major and Provost a wrong done to him now is not onely against the rules of fraternitie but disobedience to one placed by God in authoritie over them 6. 1 Sam. 11.7 The fear of the Lord fell on the people and they came out with one consent to obey Saul Ergo God hath placed authority in Kings which is not in people It is true because God hath transferred the scattered authorities that are in all the people in one Masse and by vertue of his own Ordinance hath placed them in one man who is King What followeth Ergo God conferreth this authoritie immediately upon the King without the mediation of any action of the people yea the contrary rather followeth 7. God looseth the bond of Kings that is when God is to cast off Kings he causeth them to lose all authoritie and maketh them come in contempt with the people But what doth this prove That God taketh away the majestie and authority of Kings Immediately And therefore God gave to Kings this authoritie Immediately without the peoples conveiance Yea I take the Prelates weapon from him God doth not take the authority of the King from him immediately but mediately by the people their hating and dispising him when they see his wickednesse as the people see Nero a Monster a prodigeous blood-sucker upon this all the people contemn him and dispise him and so the majesty is taken from Nero and all his Mandates and Laws when they see him trample upon all Laws divine and humane and that mediately by the peoples heart dispising of his majestie and so they repeat and take again that aw-some authoritie that they once gave him And this proveth that God gave him the authoritie mediately by the consent of man 8. Nor speaketh he of Kings onely but Vers. 21. He powreth contempt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super munificos Pineda Aria Mont. super Principes Upon Nobles and great men And this place may prove That no Iudges of the earth are made by men 9. The Heathen say That there is some divinity in Princes as in Alexander the great toward his enemies and Scipio But this will prove That Princes and Kings have a Superiority over those who are not their native Subjects for something of God is in them in relation to all men that are not their Subjects If this be a ground strong and good because God onely and independently from men taketh away this majestie as God onely and independently giveth it then a King is sacred to all men subjects or not subjects then it is unlawfull to make war against any forraign King and Prince for in invading him or resisting him you resist that divine majestie of God that is in him then you may not lawfully flee from a tyrant no more then you may lawfully flie from God 10. Scipio was not a King Ergo This divine majestie is in all Iudges of the earth in a more or lesse measure Ergo God onely and immediately may take this spark of divine majestie from inferiour Iudges It followeth not And Kings certainly cannot infuse any sparkle of a divine majestie on any inferiour Iudges for God onely immediately infuseth it in men Ergo It is unlawfull for Kings to take this divinitie from Iudges for they resist God who resist Parliaments no lesse then those who resist Kings Scipio hath divinity in him as well as Cesar and that immediately from God and not from any King 10. Moses was not a King when he went to Pharaoh for he had not as yet a people Pharaoh was the King and because Pharaoh was a King the Divines of Oxford must say His Majestie must not in words of rebuke be resisted more then by deeds 11. Moses his face did shine as a Prophet receiving the Law from God not as a King and is this Sunshine of Heaven upon the face of Nero and Julian It must be if it be a beam of Royall Majestie if this pratler say right but 2 Cor. 3.7 this was a majestie typicall which did adumbrate the glory of the Law of God and is far from being a royaltie due to all Heathen Kings 12. I would our King would evidence such a Majestie in breaking the Images and Idols of his Queen and of Papists about him 13. The fear of Noah and the regenerated who are in Covenant with the Beasts of the field Job 5.23 is upon the Beasts of the earth not by any approbation only as the people maketh Kings by the Prelates way nor yet by free consent as the people freely transfer their power to him who is King The creatures inferiour to man have by no act of freewill chosen man to be their Ruler and transferred their power to him because they are by nature inferiour to man and God by nature hath subjected the creatures to man Gen. 1.28 and so this proveth not that the King by nature is above the people I mean the man who is King and therefore though God had planted in the hearts of all subjects a fear and reverence toward the King upon supposall that they have made him King It followeth not That this authoritie and majestie is immediately given by God to the man who is King without the interveening consent of the people for there is a native feare in the Scholler to stand in awe of his Teacher and yet the Scholler may willingly give himselfe to be a disciple to his Teacher and so give his Teacher power over him Citizens naturally feare their supreame Governour of the City yet
they give to the man who is their supream Governour that power and Authority which is the ground of awe and reverence A Servant naturally feareth his Master yet often he giveth his liberty and resigneth it up voluntarily to his Master and this was not unordinary amongst the Iewes where the servant did intirely love the Master and is most ordinary now when servants doe for hyre tye themselves to such a Master and Souldiers naturally feare their Commanders yet they may and often doe by voluntary consent make such men their Commanders and therefore from this it followeth no way that the Governour of a City the Teacher the Master the Commander in War have not their power and authority only and immediatly from God but from their inferiours who by their free consent appointed them for such places P. Prelate This seemeth or rather is an unanswerable Argument No man hath power of life and death but the Soveraign Power of life and death to wit God Gen. 9.5 God saith thrice he will require the blood of man at the hands of man and this power God hath committed to Gods Deputy who so sheddeth mans blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by man shall die by the King for the world knew not any kind of goverment at this time but Monarchiall and this Monarch was Noah and if this power be from God why not all soveraigne power seeing it is Homogeneous and as Iurists say in indivisibili posita a thing in its nature indivisible and that cannot be distracted or impaired and if every man had the power of life and death God should not be the God of Order The P. Prelate taketh the paines to prove out of the text that a Magistracy is established in the text Ans. 1. Let us consider this unanswerable Argument 1. It is grounded upon a lye and a conjecture never taught by any but himselfe to wit that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or in or through man must signifie a Magistrate 2. and a King onely 3. This King was Noah never interpreter nay not common sence can say that no Magistrate is here understood but a King the consequence is vaine his blood shall be shed by man ergo by a Magistrate it followeth not ergo by a King it followeth not there was not a King in the world yet as some make Belus the father of Ninus the first King and the builder of Babylon this Ninus is thought the first builder of the City after called Ninivie and the first King of the Assyrians so saith Quintus Curtius and others but grave Authors beleeve that Nimrod was no other then Belus the father of Ninus so saith Augustin Hierome Eusebius Hieronym And Eusebius maketh him the first founder of Babylon So saith Clemens Pirerius and Iosephus saith the same 1. their times 2. their cruell natures are the same Calvin saith Noah yet lived while Nimrod lived and the Scripture saith Nimrod began to reigne and be powerfull on the Earth And Babel was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of his kingdome No writer Moses nor any other can shew us a King before Nimrod So Eusebius Paul Orosius Hieronym Iosephus say that he was the first King And Tostatus Abulens and our own Calvin Luther Musculus on the place and Ainsworth make him the first King and the founder of Babylon How Noah was a King or there was any Monarchicall government in the world then the Prelate hath alone dreamed it There was but Familie-government before this 2. And if there bee a Magistracie heere established by God there is no warrant to say it is onely a Monarchie For if the Holy Ghost intendeth a policie it is a policie to be established to the worlds end and not to bee limited as the P. Prelate doth to Noahs dayes all Interpreters upon good ground establish the same policie that our Saviour speaketh of when he saith He shall perish by the sword who taketh the sword Matth. 26.52 So the Netherlands have no lawfull Magistrate who have power of life and death because their Government is Aristocraticall and they have no King So all acts of taking away the lives of ill-doers shall be acts of homicide in Holland how absurd 3. Nor doe I see how the place in the native scope doth establish a Magistracie Calvin saith not so Interpreters deduce by consequence the power of the Magistrate from this place But the Text is generall He who killeth man shall be killed by man either he shall fall into the Magistrates hand or into the hand of some Murtherer so Calvin Marlorat And he speaketh saith w Pirerius not of the fact and event it selfe but of the deserving of murtherers and it 's certaine all murtherers fall not into the Magistrates hands but he saith by Gods and mans laws Ergo They ought to dye though sometime one murtherer killeth another 4. The Soveraign power is given to the King ergo it is given to him immediately without the consent of the people It followeth not 5. Power of life and death is not given to the King only but also to other Magistrates yea and to a single private man in the just defence of his own life Other arguments are but what the Prelate hath said already QUEST VIII Whether the Prelate proveth by force of reason that the people cannot be capable of any power of Government P. Prelate God and nature giveth no power in vain and which may not be reduced into action but an active power or a power of actuall governing was never acted by the Communitie therefore this power cannot be seated in the Communitie as in the prime and proper subject and it cannot be in every individuall person of a Communitie because Government intrinsecally and essentially includeth a specified distinction of Governours and some to be governed and to speak properly there can no other power be conceived in the Communitie naturally and properly but only potestas passiva regiminis a capacitie or susceptabilitie to be governed by one or by moe just as the first matter desireth a forme This obligeth all by the dictate of Natures law to submit to actuall government and as it is in every individuall person it is not meerly and properly voluntary because howsoever nature dictates that government is necessary for the safety of the society yet every singular person by corruption and selfe-love hath a naturall aversenesse and repugnancie to submit to any every man would be a King himselfe This universall desire appetitus universalis aut naturalis or universall propension to Government is like the act of the understanding assenting to the first undeniable principles of truth and to the wills generall propension to happines in generall which propension is not a free act except our new Statists as they have changed their faith so they overturne true reason it will puzzle them infinitely
to make any thing in its kinde passive really active and collative of positive acts and effects All know no man can give what he hath not an old Philosopher would laugh at him who would say that a matter perfected and actuated by union with a forme could at pleasure shake off its forme and marrie it selfe to another they may as well say every wife hath power to resume her freedome and marrie another as that any such power active is in the Communitie or any power to cast off Monarchie Ans. The P. Prelate might have thanked Spalato for this Argument but he doth not so much as cite him for feare his theft be deprehended but Spalato hath it set downe with stronger nerves then the Prelates head was able to copie out of him But Iac. de Almain and Navarrus with the Parision Doctors said in the Concell of Paris that politick power is immediatly from God but first from the community but so that the community apply their power to this oâ— that Government not of liberty but by naturall necessity but Spalâ—to and the Plagiarie Prelate doe both looke beside the booke The question is not now concerning the vis rectiva the power of governing in the people but concerning the power of government for these two diâ—fer much the former is a power of ruling and Monarchicall commanding of themselves this power is not formally in the people but only vertually and no reason can say that a vertuall power is idle because it cannot be actuated by that same subject that it is in for then it should not be a vertuall but a formall power Doe not Philosophers say such a Hearb vertually maketh hot and can the sottish Prelate say this vertuall power is idle and in vaine given of God because it doth not formally heate your hand when you touch it 2. The P. Prelate who is excommunicated for Popery Socinianisme Arminianisme and is now turned Apostate to Christ and his Church must have changed his faith not we and be reasonlesly ignorant to presse that axiome that the power is idle that cannot be reduced to acts for a generative power is given to living and sensitive creatures this power is not idle though it be not reduced in act by all and every individuall sensitive creature A power of seeing is given to all who naturally doe or ought to see yet it is not an idle power because divers are blind seeing it is put forth in action in divers of the kind so this power in the community is not idle because it is not put forth in acts in the people in which it is vertually and is put forth in action in some of them whom they choose to be their Governours nor is it reasonable to say that it should be put forth in action by all the people as if all should be Kings and Governours But the question is not of the power of governing in the people but of the power of Government that is of the power of making Governours and Kings and the community doth put forth in act this power as a free voluntary and active power for 1. a Community transplanted to India or any place of the world not before inhabited have a perfect liberty to choose either a Monarchy or a Democracy or an Aristocracy for though nature incline them to Government in generall yet are they not naturally determinated to any one of those three more than another 2. Israel did of their free will choose the change of government and would have a King as the Nations had ergo they had free will and so an active power so to doe and not a a passive inclination only to be governed such as Spalato saith agreeth to the first matter 3 Royalists teach that a people under Democracy or Aristocracy have liberty to choose a King and the Romanes did this ergo they had an active power to do it ergo the Prelates simile crookes the matter at its pleasurâ— cannot shake off its forme nor the wife cast off her husband being once married but Barclaius Grotius Arnisaeus Blackwood and all the Royalists teach that the people under any of these two formes of Democracy or Aristocracy may resume their power and cast off these formes and choose a Monarch and if Monarchy be the best government as Royalists say they may chose the best and is this but a passive capacity to be governed 2. Of ten men fit for a Kingdome they may designe one and put the Crowne on his head and refuse the other nine and Israel crowned Solomon and refused Adâ—niah Is this not a voluntary action proceeding from a free active elective power It will puzzle the pretended Prelate to deny this that which the community doth freely they doe not from such a passive capacity as is in the first matter in regard of the forme 3. It is true that people through corruption of nature are averse to submit to Governours for conscience sake and as to the Lord because the naturall man remaining in the state of nature can doe nothing that is truely good but it is false that men have no active Morall power to submit to superiours but only a passive capacity to be governed he quite contradicteth himselfe for he said before c. 4. pag. 49. that there is an innate feare and reverence in the hearts of all men naturally even in Heathen toward their Severaign yea as we have a naturall morall active power to love our Parents and superiours though it be not Evangelically or legally in Gods Court good and so to obey their commandements only we are averse to penall Lawes of superiours but this proveth no way that we have only by nature a passive capacity to government for Heathens have by instinct of nature both made Lawes morally good submitted to them set Kings and Iudges over them which clearely proveth that men have an active power of Government by nature 4. yea what difference maketh the Prelate betwixt men and beasts for beasts have a capacity to be governed even Lyons and Tigers but here is the matter if men have any naturall power of Government the P. Prelate would have it with his brethren Iesuites and Arminians to be not naturall but done by the helpe of universall grace for so doe they confound nature and grace But it is certaine our power to submit to Rulers and Kings as to rectors and guides and fathers is naturall to submit to Tyrants in doing ills of sinne is naturall but in suffering ills of punishment it s not naturall 5. No man can give that which he hath not is true but that people have no power to make their Governours is that which is in question and denyed by us 6. This argument doth prove that people hath no power to appoint Aristocraticall Rulers more then Kings and sothe Aristocraticall and Democraticall Rulers are all inviolable and sacred as the King 2. by this the people may not resume their freedome if
vulgar c. 3. Every action of Christ is our instruction Christ was truely a born King notwithstanding when the people would make him a King he disclaimed it he would not be an arbiter betwixt two brethren differing Answ. I am not to follow the Prelates order every way though God willing I shall reach him in the fore-going Chapters Nor purpose I to answer his treasonable railing against his own Nation and the Iudges of the Land whom God hath set over this seditious excommunicated Apostate He layeth to us frequently the Iesuites Tenets when as he is known himself to be a Papist In this Argument he saith Abimelech did reigne onely three yeers well neer Anti-Christs reign Is not this the basis and the mother principle of Popery That the Pope is not the Antichrist for the Pope hath continued many ages 1. He is not an individuall man but a race of men but the Antichrist saith Belarmine Stapleton Becanus and the nation of Iesuites and Poplings shall be one inviduall man a born Iew and shall reign onely three yeers and a half But 1. The Argument from successe proveth nothing except the Prelate prove their bad successe to be from this because they were chosen of the people When as Saul chosen of God and most of the Kings of Israel and Judah who undeniably had Gods calling to the Crown were not blessed of God and their Government was a ruine to 〈◊〉 people and Religion as the people were removed to all the Kingdoms of the earth for the sins of Manasseh Iere. 15.4 Was therefore Manasseh not lawfully called to the Crown 2. For his instance of Kings unlawfully called to the Crown he bringeth us whole two and telleth us that he doubteth as many learned men do Whether Ieroboam was a King by permission onely or by a commission from God 3. Abimelech was cursed because he wanted Gods calling to the throne for then Israel had no King but Iudges extraordinarily raised up by God and God did not raise him at all only he came to the throne by blood and carnall reasons moving the men of Sechem to advance him The Argument presupposeth that the whole lawfull calling of a King is the voices of the people This we never taught though the Prelate make conquest a just title to a Crown and it is but a title of blood and rapine 4. Abimelech was not the first King but onely a Iudge all our Divines with the Word of God maketh Saul the first King 5. For Ieroboam he had Gods Word and Promise to be King 1 King 11.34 35 37 38. But in my weak judgement he waited not Gods time and way of coming to the Crown but that his coming to the throne was unlawfull because he came by the peoples election is in question 5. That the peoples Reformation and their making a new King was like the Kingdom of Scotlands Reformation and the Parliament of Englands way now is a traiterous calumny For 1. It condemneth the King who hath in Parliament declared all their proceedings to be legall Rehoboam never declared Ieroboams Coronation to be lawfull but contrary to Gods Word made war against Israel 2. It is false that Israel pretended Religion in that change the cause was the rough answer given to the supplication of the Estates complaining of their oppression they were under in Solomons reign 3. Religion is still subjected to policie by Prelates and Caveliers not by us in Scotland who sought nothing but Reformation of Religion of Laws so far as they serve Religion as our Supplications Declarations and the event proveth 4. We have no new Calves new Altars new Feasts but professe and really do hazard life and estate to put away the Prelates Calves Images Tree-worship Altar-worship Saints Feast-dayes Idolatry Masses and nothing is said here but Jesuites and Cananites and Baalites might say though falsly against the Reformation of Iosiah Trueth and purity of worship this yeer is new in relation to Idolatry the last yeer but it is simpliciter older 5. We have not put away the Lords Priests and Levites and taken in the scum of the vulgar but have put away Baals Priests such as excommunicated Prelate Maxwel and other Apostates and resumed the faithfull servants of God who were deprived and banished for standing to the Protestant Faith sworn too by the Prelates themselves 6. Every action of Christ such as his walking on the Sea is not our instruction in that sense that Christs refusing a Kingdom is directly our instruction And did Christ refuse to be a King because the people would have made him a King that is non causa pro causa he refused it because his Kingdom was not in this world and he came to suffer for men not to reign over man 7. The Prelate and others who were Lords of Session and would be Iudges of mens Inheritances and would usurpe the sword by being Lords of Counsell and Parliament have refused to be instructed by every Action of Christ who would not judge betwixt brother and brother P. Prelate Jephtah came to be a Iudge by Covenant betwixt him and the Gileadites here you have an interposed Act of man yet the Lord himself in authorizing him as Iudge vindicateth it no lesse to himself then when extraordinarily he authorized Gideon and Samuel 1 Sam. 12.11 Ergo whatsoever act of man interveeneth it contributeth nothing to Royall Authority it cannot weaken or repeal it Answ. It was as extraordinary that Jepthah a bastard and the sonne of an harlot should be Iudge as that Gideon should be Iudge God vindicateth to himselfe that he giveth his people favour in the eyes of their enemies but doth it follow that the enemies are not agents and to be commended for their humanitie in favouring the people of God So Psal. 65.9 10. God maketh corne to grow therefore clouds and earth and sun and summer and husbandry contributeth nothing to the growing of corne But this is but that which he said before We grant that this is an eminent and singular act of Gods speciall providence that he moveth and boweth the wills of a great multitude to promote such a man who by nature commeth no more out of the wombe a crowned King then the poorest shepherd in the land and it is an act of grace to endue him with heroick and royall parts for the government But what is all this doth it exclude the peoples consent in no wayes So the works of supernaturall grace as to love Christ above all things to beleeve in Christ in a singular manner are ascribed to the rich grace of God but can the Prelate say that the understanding and will in these acts are meere patients and contribute no more then the people contributeth to Royall authority in the King and that is just nothing by the Prelates way And we utterly deny that as water in baptisme hath no action at all in the working of remission of sinnes so the people
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-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
government all humane societies should be dissolved and goe to ruine Then government must be naturall and not depend upon a voluntary arbitrary constitution of men In nature the liveles creatures inferior give a tacit consent silent obedience to their superiour and the superiour have a powerfull influence on the inferiour In the subordination of creatures we ascend from one superior to another till at last we come to one supreme which by the way pleadeth for the excellencie of Monarchie Amongst Angels there is an order how can it then be supposed that God hath left it to the simple consent of man to establish a heraldrie of sub supra of one above another which neither nature nor the Gospel doth warrant To leave it thus arbitrary that upon this supposed principle Mankind may be without government at all is vain which paradox cannot be maintained In nature God hath established a superiority inherent in superior creatures which is no ways derived from the inferior by communication in what proportion it will and resumeable upon such exigents as the inferior listeth therefore neither hath God left to the multitude the communitie the collective the representative or virtuall body to derive from it selfe and communicate soveraigntie whether in one or few or more in that measure and proportion pleaseth them which they resume at pleasure Answ. 1. To answer Spalato No societie hath liberty to be without all government for God hath given to every societie saith Covarruvias a faculty of preserving themselves and warding off violence and injuries and this they could not doe except they gave their power to one or many Rulers But all that the Prelate buildeth on this false supposition which is his fiction and calumnie not our doctrine to wit that it is voluntary to man to be without all government because it is voluntarie to them to give away their power to one or moe Rulers is a meere non-consequence 1. We teach that Government is naturall not voluntary but the way and manner of Government is voluntarie All societies should be quickly ruined if there were no Government but it followeth not therefore God hath made some Kings and that immediately without the interveening consent of the people and ergo it is not arbitrary to the people to choose one supreme Ruler and to erect a Monarchie or to choose moe Rulers and to erect an Aristocracie It followeth no way It is naturall to men to expresse their minde by humane voyces Is not speaking of this or that language Greeke rather then Latine as Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by humane institution It is naturall for men to eat ergo election of this or that meat is not in their choise What reason is in this consequence and so it s a poore consequence also Power of Soveraigntie is in the people naturally ergo it is not in their power to give it out in that measure that pleaseth them and to resume it at pleasure It followeth no way Because the inherencie of Soveraigntie is naturall and not arbitary ergo the alienation and giving out of the power to one not to three thus much not thus much conditionally not absolutely and irrevocably must be also arbitrary It is as if you should say a father having six children naturally loveth them all ergo he hath not freedome of will in expressing his affection to give so much of his goods to this sonne and that conditionally if he use these goods well and not more or lesse of his goods at his pleasure 2. There is a naturall subordination in nature in creatures superior and inferior without any freedome of election the earth made not the heavens more excellent then the earth and the earth by no freedome of will made the heavens superior in excellencie to it selfe Man gave no superioritie of excellencie to Angels above himselfe the Creator of all Beings did both immediately without freedome of election in the creature create the being of all creatures and their essentiall degrees of superiority and inferiority but God created not Saul by nature King over Israel nor is David by the act of creation by which he is made a man created also a King over Israel for then David should from the wombe and by nature be a King and not by Gods free gift Here both the free gift of God and the free consent of the people interveene indeed God made the office and royaltie of a King above the dignitie of the people but God by the interveening consent of the people maketh David a King not Eliah and the people maketh a covenant at Davids inauguration that David shall have so much power to wit power to be a Father not power to be a Tyrant power to fight for the people but no power to waste and destroy them The inferior creatures in nature give no power to the superiour and therefore they cannot give in such a proportion power The deniall of the positive degree is a deniall of the comparative and superlative and so they cannot resume any power But the designing of such a man or such men to be Kings or Rulers is a rationall voluntary action not an action of nature such as is Gods act of creating an Angell a nobler creature then a man and the creating of man a more excellent creature then a beast and for this cause the argument is vaine and foolish for inferior creatures are inferior to the more noble and superior by nature not by voluntary designation or as Royalists say by naked approbation which yet must be an arbitrary and voluntary action 3. The P. Prelate commendeth order while we come to the most supreme hence he commendeth Monarchie above all governments because it is Gods government I am not against it that Monarchie well tempered is the best government though the question to me is most problematick but because God is a Monarch who cannot erre or deny himselfe therefore that sinfull Man be a Monarch is miserable logick and he must argue solidly forsooth by this because there is order as he saith amongst Angels will he make a Monarch and a King-Angell His argument if it have any weight in it driveth at that even that there be crowned Kings amongst the Angels QUEST X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to divine unction SYmmons holdeth that Birth is as good a title to the Crowne as any given of God How this question can be cleered I see not except we dispute tha◠Whether or not Kingdomes be proper patrimonies derived from the father to the sonne 2. I take there is a large difference betwixt a thing transmittable by birth from the father to the sonne and a thing not transmittable 3. I conceive as a person is chosen to be a King over a people so a familie or house may be chosen and a Kingdome at first choosing a person to be their King may also tye themselves to choose the first borne of his
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
no politicke power for consider them as men onely and not as associated they have indeed no politicke power but before Magistrates be established they may convene and associate themselves in a body and appoint Magistrates and this they cannot doe if they had no politicke power at all 4. They have virtually a power to lay on Commandements in that they have power to appoint to themselves Rulers who may lay commandements on others 5. A community hath not formally power to punish themselves for to punish is to inflict Malum disconveniens natura an evill contrary to nature but in appointing Rulers and in agreeing to Lawes they consent they shall be punished by another upon supposition of transgression as the child willingly going to schoole submitteth himself in that to Schoole-discipline if he shall faile against any Schoole Law and by all this t is cleare a King by election is principally a King Barclay then faileth who saith No man denyeth but succession to a Crowne by birth is agreeable to nature it is not against nature but it is no more naturall then for a Lyon to be borne a King of Lyons Obj. Most of the best Divines approve an hereditary Monarch rather then a Monarch by election Ans. So doe I in some cases in respect of Empire simply it is not better in respect of Empire now under mans fall in sin I grant it to be better in some respect So Sâ—lust In Ingurth Natura mortalium imperij avida Tacitus Hist. 2. Minore discrimine princeps sumitur quam queritu there 's lesse danger to accept of a Prince at hand then to seeke one a farre off 2. In a Kingdome to be constituted election is better in a constituted Kingdome birth seemeth lesse evill 3. In respect of liberty election is more convenient in respect of safety and peace birth is safer and the nearest way to the Well See Bodin De Rep. l. 6. c. 4. Thol ozan De Rep. l. 7. c. 4. QUEST XII Whether or not a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest THe Prelate averreth confidently that a Title to a Kingdome by Conquest without the consent of the people is so just and evident by Scripture that it cannot be denyed but the man bringeth no Scripture to prove it Mr. Marshall saith a conquered Kingdome is but continuata injuria a continued robbery A right of conquest is twofold 1. When there is no just cause 2. When there is just reason and ground of the war in this latter case if a Prince subdue a whole Land which justly deserveth to dye yet by his grace who is so mild a conquerour they may be all preserved alive Now amongst those who have thus injured the conquerour as they deserve death we are to difference the persons offending and the wives children especially not borne and such as have not offended The former sort may resign their personall liberty to the conquerour that the sweet life may be saved but he cannot be their King properly but I conceive that they are obliged to consent that he be their King upon this condition that the conquerour put not upon them violent and tyrannicall conditions that are harder then death now in reason we cannot thinke that a tyrannous and unjust domineering can be Godâ— lawfull meane of translating Kingdomes and for the other part the conquerour cannot domineere as King over the innocent and especially the children not yet borne 1. Assertion A people may be by Gods speciall Commandement subject to a conquering Nebuchadnezer and a Caesar as to their King as was Iudah commanded by the Prophet Ieremiah to submit unto the yoake of the King of Babylon and to pray for him and the people of the Iewes were to give to Caesar the things of Caesar and yet both those were unjust conquerours for those Tyrants had no command of God to oppresse and raigne over the Lords people yet were they to obey those Kings so the passive subjection was just and commanded of God and the active unjust and tyranous and forbidden of God 2. Assert This title by conquest through the peoples after consent may be turned into a just title as it s like the case was with the Iewes in Caesars time for which cause our Saviour commanded to obey Caesar and to pay tribute unto him as Dr. Ferne confesseth But two things are to be condemned in the Doctor 1. That God manifesteth his Will to us in this worke of providence whereby he translateth Kingdomes 2. That this is an over-awed consent now to the former I reply if the act of conquering be violent and unjust it is no manifestation of Gods regulating and approving Will and can no more prove a just title to a Crowne because it is an act of Divine providence then Pilate and Herod their crucifying of the Lord of Glory which was an act of Divine providence flowing from the Will and Decree of Divine providence Act. 2.23 Act. 4.28 is a manifestation that it was Gods approving Will that they should kill Jesus Christ. 2. Though the consent be some way over-awed yet is it a sort of Contract and Covenant of loyall subjection made to the conquerour and therefore sufficent to make the title just otherwise if the people never give their consent the conquerour domineering over them by violence hath no just title to the Crowne 3. Assert Meere conquest by the sword without the consent of the people is no just title to the Crowne 1. Because the lawfull title that Gods Word holdeth forth to us beside the Lords choosing and calling of a man to the Crowne is the peoples election Deut. 17.15 all that had any lawfull calling to the Crowne in Gods Word as Saul David Solomon c. were called by the people and the first lawfull calling is to us a rule and paterne to all lawfull callings 2. A King as a King and by vertue of his Royall Office is the Father of the Kingdome a Tutor a Defender Protector a Shield a Leader a Shepheard an Husband a Patron a Watchman a Keeper of the people over which he is King and so the Office essentially includeth acts of fatherly affection care love and kindnesse to those over whom he is set so as he who is cloathed with all these relations of love to the people cannot exercise those officiall Acts on a people against their will and by meere violence Can he be a Father and a Guide a Patron to us against our will and by the sole power of the bloudy sword a benefit conferred upon any against their will is no benefit Will he by the awsome dominion of the sword be our father and we unwilling to be his sonnes an head over such as will not be menbers will he guide me as a Father an Husband against my will he cannot come by meere violence to be a Patron a Shield and a defender of me through violence
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
say they we will be quit of thine Oath which thou hast made us to swear There be no mutuall contract made upon certain conditions but if the conditions be not fulfilled the party injured is loosed from the contract Barclay saith That this covenant obligeth the King to God but not the King to the people Ans. It is a vaine thing to say that the people and the King make a covenant and that David made a covenant with the Elders and Princes of Israel for if he be obliged to God only and not to the people by a covenant made with the people it is not made with the people at all nay it is no more made with the people of Israel nor with the Chaldeans for it bindeth David no more to Israel nor to Chaldea as a covenant made with men Arnisaeus saith when two parties contract if one performe the duty the other is acquitted Sect. Ex hujusmod ubi vult just de duob reis l. 3. F. because every one of them are obliged fully Sect. 1. Iust. eod to God to whom the Oath is made for that is his meaning and if either the people performe what is sworne to the Lord or the King yet one of the parties remaineth still under obligation and neither doth the peoples obedience exempt the King from punishment if he faile nor the Kings obedience exempt the people if they faile but every one beareth the punishment of his owne sin and there is no mutuall power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty because that belongeth to the Pretor or Magistrate before whom the contract was made The King hath jurisdiction over the people if they violate their Oath but the people hath no power over the Prince and the ground that Arnisaeus layeth downe is that 1. The King is not a party contracting with the people as if there were mutuall obligations betwixt the King and the people and a mutuall coactive power on either side 2. That the care of Religion belongeth not to the people for that hath no warrant in the Word saith he 2. We read not that the people was to command and compell the Priests and the King to reforme Religion and abolish Idolatry as it must follow if the covenant be mutuall 3. Iehoiada 2 King 11. obligeth himselfe and the King and the people by a like law to serve God and here be not two parts but three the high Priest the King the People if this example prove any thing 4. Both King and people shall finde the revenging hand of God against them if they faile in the breach of their Oath but with this difference and every one of the two King and people by the Oath stand obliged to God the King for himselfe and the people for themselves but with this difference the King oweth to God proper and due obedience as any of the subjects and also to governe the people according to Gods true religion Deut. 17. 2 Chro. 29. and in this the Kings obligation differeth from the peoples obligation the people as they would be saved must serve God and the King for the same cause 1 Sam. 12. But besides this the King is obliged to rule and governe the people and keepe them in obedience to God but the people is not obliged to governe the King and keepe him in obedience to God for then the people should have as great power of jurisdiction over the King as the King hath o-over the people which is against the Word of God and the examples of the Kings of Iudah but this commeth not from any promise or covenant that the King hath made with the people but from a peculiar obligation whereby he is obliged to God as a man not as a King This is the mystery of the businesse but I oppose this in these Assertions 1. Assert As the King is obliged to God for the maintenance of true Religion so are the people and Princes no lesse in their place obliged to maintaine true Religion for 1. the people are rebuked because they burnt Incense in all high places 2 King 17.11 2 Chron. 33.17 Hos. 4.13 And the reason why the high places are not taken away 2 Chro. 20.33 is given for as yet the people had not prepared their heart unto the God of their fathers but you will reply elicite acts of maintenance of true Religion are commanded to the people and that the places prove but the question is De actibus imperatis of commanded acts of Religion sure none but the Magistrate is to command others to worship God according to his Word I answer in ordinary only Magistrates not the King only but all the Princes of the Land and Iudges are to maintaine Religion by their commandements Deut. 1.16 2 Chro. 1.2 Deut. 16.19 Eccles. 5.8 Hab. 1.4 Mic. 3.9 Zach. 7.9 Hos. 5.10.11 and to take care of Religion but when the Iudges decline from Gods way and corrupt the Law we finde the people punished and rebuked for it Ier. 15.4 And I will cause them to be removed to all Kingdomes of the earth because of Manasseh the sonne of Hezekiah King of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem 1 Sam. 12.24 only feare the Lord 25. But if yee doe still wickedly yee shall be consumed both yee and your King And this case I grant is extraordinary yet so as Iunius Brutus proveth well and strongly that Religion is not given only to the King that he only should keepe it but to all the inferiour Iudges and people also in their kind but because the estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion and presse a false and Idolatrous worship upon them therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion but presseth upon the people a false and Idolatrous Religion in that they are not under the King but are presumed to have no King catenus so farre and are presumed to have the power in themselves as if they had not appointed any King at all as if we presume the body had given to the right hand a power to ward off strokes and to defend the body if the right hand should by a Palsie or some other disease become impotent and be withered up when ill is comming on the body it is presumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand and to the rest of the body to defend it selfe in this case as if the body had no right hand and had never communicated any power to the right hand at all So if an incorporation accused of Treason and in danger of the sentence of death shall appoint a Lawyer to Advocate their cause and to give in their just defences to the Iudge if their Advocate be stricken with dumbnesse because they have losed their legall and representative tongue none can say that this incorporation hath loosed the tongues that Nature hath given them so as by Natures law they may not plead in their own just
lawfull defence as if they had never appointed the foresaid lawyer to plead for them The King as a man is not more obliged to the publick and regall defence of the true Religion then any other man of the land but he is made by God and the people King for the Church and people of God's sake that he may defend true Religion for the behalfe and salvation of all If therefore he defend not Religion for the salvation of the soules of all in his publick and royall way it is presumed as undeniable that the people of God who by the law of nature are to care for their own soule are to defend in their way true Religion which so nearly concerneth them and their eternall happinesse 2 Assert When the covenant is betwixt God on the one part and the King Priests and people on the other part it is true if the one performe for his part to God the whole duty the other is acquitted as if two men be indebted to one man ten thousand pounds if the one pay the whole summe the other is acquitted but the King and People are not so contracting parties in covenant with God as that they are both indebted to God for one and the same sum of compleat obedience so as if the King pay the whole summe of obedience to God the people is acquitted and if the People pay the whole summe the King is acquitted for every one standeth obliged to God for himselfe for the people must doe all that is their part in acquitting the King from his Royall duty that they may free him and themselves both from punishment if he disobey the King of Kings Nor doth the Kings obedience acquit the people from their duty And Arnisaeus dreamed if he believed that we make King and People this way partie contracters in covenant with God Nor can two co-partners in covenant with God so mutually compell one another to doe their duty for we hold that the covenant is made betwixt the King and the People betwixt mortall men but they both bind themselves before God to each other But saith Arnisaeuâ— It belongeth to a Pretor or Ruler who is above both King and People to compell each of them the King to performe his part of the covenant to the people and the people to performe their part of the covenant to the King Now there is no Ruler but God above both King and People But let me answer The consequence is not needfull no more then when the King of Iudah and the King of Israel make a covenant to perform mutuall duties one to another no more then it is necessarie that there should be a King and superior Ruler above the King of Israel and the King of Iudah who should compell each one to doe a duty to his fellow King for the King and People are each of them above and below others in divers respects The People because they create the man King they are so above the King and have a virtuall power to compell him to doe his duty and the King as King hath an authoritative power above the People because Royaltie is formally in him and originally and virtually only in the People therefore may he compell them to their duty as we shall heare anon and therefore there is no need of an earthly Ruler higher then both to compell both 3 Assert We shall hereafter prove the power of the people above the King God willing And so it is false that there is not mutuall coactive power on each side 4 Assert The obligation of the King in this covenant floweth from the peculiar obligation nationall betwixt the King and the Estates and it bindeth the King as King and not simply as he is a man 1. Because it is a covenant betwixt the people and David not as he is the sonne of Jesse for then it should oblige Eliab or any other of Davids brethren yea it should oblige any man if it oblige David as a man but it oblâ—geth David as a King or as he is to be their King because it is the specifice act of a King that he is obliged unto to wit to governe the people in Righteousnesse and Religion with his Royall power And so it is false that Arnisaeus saith that the King as a man is obliged to God by this covenant not as a King 2. He saith by covenant the King is bound to God as a Man not as a King But so the man will have the King as King under no law of God and so he must either be above God as King or coequall with God which are manifest blasphemies for I thought ever the Royalists had not denyed but the King as King had been obliged to keep his oath to his subjects in relation to God and in regard of naturall obligation so as he sinneth before God if he breake his covenant with his people though they deny that he is obliged to keep his covenant in relation to his Subjects and in regard of politique or civill obligation to men Sure I am this the Royalists constantly teach 3. He would have this covenant so made with men as it obligeth not the King to men but to God But the contrary is true Beside the King and the Peoples covenant with the Lord King Joash made another covenant with the People and Jehoiada the Priest was only a witnesse or one who in Gods name performed the rite of annointing otherwise he was a subject on the peoples side obliged to keep allegiance to Joash as to his Soveraigne and Master But certainly who ever maketh a covenant with the people promising to governe them according to Gods word and upon that condition and these termes receiveth a throne and crown from the people he is obliged to what he promiseth to the people Omnis promittens facit alteri cui promissio facta est jus in promittentem Who ever maketh a promise to another giveth to that other a sort of right or jurisdiction to challenge the promise The covenant betwixt David and Israel were a shadow if it tye the people to allegiance to David as their King and if it tye not David as King to govern them in righteousnesse but leave David loose to the people and only tye him to God then it is a covenant betwixt David and God only But the Text saith It is a covenant betwixt the King and the People 2 King 11.17 2 Sam. 5.3 Hence our second Argument He who is made a minister of God not simply but for the good of the subject and so he take heed to walk in Gods law as a King and governe according to Gods will he is in so far only made King by God as he fulfilleth the condition and in so far as he is a minister for evill to the subject and ruleth not according to that which the book of the Law commandeth him as King in so far he is not by God appointed King and Ruler and
so must be made a King by God conditionally But so hath God made Kings and Rulers Rom. 13.4 2 Chron. 6.16 Ps. 89.30 31. 2 Sam. 7.12 1 Chron. 28.7 8 9. This argument is not brought to prove that Jeroboam or Saul leave off to be Kings when they faile in some part of the condition or as if they were not Gods Vicegerents to be obeyed in things lawfull after they have gone on in wicked courses For the People consenting to make Saul King they give him the Crown pro hac vice at his entry absolutely there is no condition required in him before they make him King but only that he covenant with them to rule according to Gods law The conditions to be performed are consequent and posterior to his actuall coronation and his sitting on the Throne But the argument presupposing that which the Lords word teacheth to wit that the Lord and the people giveth a crown by one and the same action for God formally maketh David a King by the Princes and Elders of Israels choosing of him to be their King at Hebron and therefore seeing the people maketh him a King covenant-wise and conditionally so he rule according to Gods Law and the people resigning their power to him for their safety and for a peaceable and godly life under him and not to destroy them and tyrannize over them it is certain God giveth a King that same way by that same very act of the people and if the King tyrannize I cannot say it is beside the intention of God making a King nor yet beside his intention as a just punisher of their transgressions for to me as I conceive nothing either good or evill falleth out beside the intention of him who doeth all things according to the pleasure of his Will if then the people make a King as a King conditionally for their safety and not for their destruction for as a King he saveth as a man he destroyeth and not as a King and Father and if God by the peoples free election make a King God maketh him a King conditionally and so by covenant and therefore when God promiseth 2 Sam. 7.12 1 Chron. 28.7 8 9. to Davids seed and to Solomon a Throne he promiseth not a Throne to them immediatly as he raised up Prophets and Apostles without any mediate action and consent of the people but he promiseth a Throne to them by the mediate consent election and covenant of the people which condition and covenant he expresseth in the very words of the people covenant with the King so they walke as Kings in the Law of the Lord and take heed to Gods Commandements and Statutes to doe them Obj. But then Solomon falling in love with many outlandish women and so not walking according to Gods Law loseth all royall dignity and Kingly power and the people is not to acknowledge him as King since the Kingly power was conferred upon him rather then Adonijah upon such a condition which condition not being performed by him it is presumed that neither God nor the people under God as Gods instruments in making King conferred any royall power on him Ans. It doth not follow that Solomon falling in love with strange women doth lose Royall dignity either in the Court of Heaven or before men because the conditions of the covenant upon which God by the people made him King must be exponed by the Law Deut. 17. now that cannot beare that any one act contrary to the Royall Office yea that any one or two acts of Tyranny doth denude a man of the Royall dignity that God and the people gave him for so David committing two acts of tyranny one of taking his owne faithfull Subjects wife from him and another in killing himselfe should denude himselfe of all the Kingly power that he had and that therefore the people after his Adultery and Murther were not to reknowledge David as their King which is most absurd for as one single act of unchastity is indeed against the matrimoniall covenant and yet doth not make the woman no wife at all so it must be such a breach of the Royall Covenant as maketh the King no King that anulleth the Royall Covenant and denudeth the Prince of his Royall authority and power that must be interpreted a breach of the Oath of God because it must be such a breach upon supposition whereof the people would not have given the Crowne but upon supposition of his destructivenesse to the Common-wealth they would never have given to him the Crowne Obj. 2. Yet at least it will follow that Saul after he is rejected of God for disobedience in not destroying the Amalekites as Samuel speaketh to him 1 Sam. 15. is no longer to be acknowledged King by the people at least after he committeth such acts of tyranny as are 1. Sam. 8.12 13 14 15. c. and after he had killed the Priests of the Lord and persecuted innocent David without cause he was no longer either in the Court of Heaven or the Court of men to be acknowledged as King seeing he had manifestly violated the royall covenant made with the people 1 Sam. 11. v. 14 15. and yet after those breaches David acknowledgeth him to be his Prince and the Lords annoynted Ans. The Prophet Samuel his threatning 1 Sam. 17. is it not exponed of actuall unkinging and rejecting of Saul at the present for after that Samuel both honoured him as King before the people and prayed for him and mourned to God on his behalfe as King 1 Sam. 16.1.2 but the threatning was to have effect in Gods time when he should bring David to the Throne as was prophesied upon occasion of lesse sinne even his sacrificing and not waiting the time appointed as God had commanded 1 Sam. 13. v. 13 14. 2. The people and Davids acknowledgment of Saul to be the Lords annoynted and a King after he had committed such acts of Tyranny as seeme destructive of the Royall Covenant and inconsistent therewith cannot prove that Saul was not made King by the Lord and the people conditionally and that for the peoples good and safety and not for their destruction and it doth well prove that those acts of blood and tyranny committed by Saul were not done by him as King or from the principle of Royall power given to him by God and the people 2. That in these acts they were not to acknowledge him as King 3. That these acts of blood were contrary to the covenant that Saul did sweare at his inauguration and contrary to the conditions that Saul in the covenant tooke on him to perform at the making of the Royall covenant 4. They prove not but the States who made Saul King might lawfully dethrone him and annoint David their King But David had reason to hold him for his Prince and the Lords Anointed so long as the people recalled not their grant of Royall dignity as David or any man is obliged to honour him as
King by vertue of his covenant How can he faile against an obligation where there is no obligation but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people and indeed so doe our good men expound that Psal. 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned not against Vriah for if he sinned not as King against Vriah whose life he was obliged to conserve as a King he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conserve his life Where there is no sin there is no obligation not to sin and where there is no obligation not to sin there is no sin By this the King as King is loosed from all duties of the second Table being once made a King he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himselfe for he is above all his neighbours and above all mankind and only lesse then God 4. Arg. If the people be so given to the King that they are committed to him as a pledge oppignorated in his hand as a pupill to a Tutor as a distressed man to a Patron as a flocke to a Shepheard and so as they remaine the Lords Church his people his flocke his portion his inheritance his vineyard his redeemed ones then they cannot be given to the King as Oxen and Sheepe that are freely gifted to a man or as a gift or summe of gold or silver that the man to whom they are given may use so that he cannot commit a fault against the oxen sheepe gold or mony that is given to him how ever he shall dispose of them But the people are given to the King to be tutored and protected of him so as they remaine the people of God and in covenant with him and if the people were the goods of fortune as Heathens say he could no more sinne against the people then a man can sin against his gold now though a man by adoring gold or by lavish profusion and wasting of gold may sin against God yet not against gold nor can he be in any covenant with gold or under any obligation of either duty or sin to gold or to livelesse and reasonlesse creatures properly therefore he may sin in the use of them and yet not sin against them but against God Hence of necessity the King must be under obligation to the Lords people in another manner then that he should only answer to God for the losse of men as if men were worldly goods under his hand and as if being a King he were now by this Royall Authority priviledged from the best halfe of the law of nature to wit from acts of mercy and truth and covenant keeping with his brethren 5. Arg. If a King because a King were priviledged from all covenant obligation to his subjects then could no Law of men lawfully reach him for any contract violated by him then he could not be a debtor to his subjects if he borrowed mony from them and it were utterly unlawfull either to crave him mony or to sue him at Law for debts yet our Civill Lawes of Scotland tyeth the King to pay his debts as any other man yea and King Solomons traffiquing and buying and selling betwixt him and his owne subjects would seeme unlawfull for how can a King buy and sell with his subjects if he be under no covenant obligation to men but to God only Yea then a King could not marry a wife for he could not come under a covenant to keepe his body to her only nor if he committed adultery could he sin against his wife because being immediate unto God and above all obligation to men he could sin against no covenant made with men but only against God 6. If that was a lawfull covenant made by Asa and the States of Iudah 2 Chron. 15.13 That whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of their fathers should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman this obligeth the King for ought I see and the Princes and the people but it was a lawfull covenant ergo the King is under a covenant to the Princes and Iudges as they are to him it is replyed If a Master of a Schoole should make a law whoever shall goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty obtained of the Master shall be whipped it will not oblige the Schoole-master that he shall be whipped if he goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty so neither doth this Law oblige the King the supreame Law-giver Ans. Suppose that the Schollars have no lesse hand and authority magisteriall in making the law then the Schoole-master as the Princes of Iudah had a collaterall power with King Asa about that law it would follow that the Schoole-master is under the same law 2. Suppose going out at Schoole doores were that way a morall neglect of studying in the Master as it is in the Scholars as the not seeking of God is as hainous a sinne in King Asa and no lesse deserving death then it is in the people then should the Law oblige Schoolmaster and Scholler both without exception 3. The Schoolemaster iâ— clearely above all lawes of discipline which he imposeth on his Scholars but none can say that King Asa was clearely above that law of seeking of the Lord God of his fathers Diodorus Siculus l. 17. saith the Kings of Persia were under an oath and that they might not change the Lawes and so were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia The Kings of Sparta which Aristotle calleth just Kings renew their oath every moneth Romulus so covenanted with the Senate and People Carolus V. Austriacus sweareth he shall not change the Lawes without the consent of the Electors nor make new lawes nor dispose or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire So read we Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped l. 8. saith there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Persians The nobles are crowned when they crown their King and exact a speciall Oath of the King So doth England Polonia Spaine Arragonia c. Alberi Gentilis Hug. Grotius prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people but notwithstanding there be such a covenant it followeth not from this saith Arnisaeus that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically the people shall be free and the contract or covenant nothing Ans. The covenant may be materially broken while the King remaineth King and the subjects remaine subjects but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken the people must be free from their Allegiance but of this more hereafter Arg. 7. If a Master bind himselfe by an Oath to his servant he shall not receive such a benefit of such a point of service if he violate the Oath his Oath must give his servant Law and right both to challenge his Master and he is freed from that point of service an Army appointeth such a one their Leader
himselfe were borne of Kings where as God calleth the King their Shepheard and the people Gods stocke inheritance and people and they are not a disorderly body by nature but by sin in which sense the Prelate may call King Priest and people a company of Heires of Gods wrath except he be an Arminian still as once he was 3. If we are in ordinary providence now because we have not Samuels and Prophets to anoynt Kings to hold the designation of a person to be King to be the manifestation of Gods Will called voluntas signi is Treason for if Scotland and England should designe Maxwell in the place of King Charles our native Soveraigne an odious comparison Maxwell should be lawfull King for what is done by Gods Will called by our Divines they have it not from Schoolemen as the Prelate ignorantly saith his signified will which is our rule is done lawfully there can be no greater treason put in print then this QUEST XVI Whether or no a despotiticall and masterly dominion of men and things agree to the King because he is King I May here dispute whether the King be Lord having a masterly dominion both over men and things But I first discusse shortly his dominion over his subjects It is agreed on by Divines that servitude is a penall fruit of sinne and against nature Institut de jure personarum Sect. 1. F. de statu hominum l. libertas Because all men are borne by nature of equall condition 1 Assert The King hath no proper masterly or herile dominion over his subjects his dominion is rather fiduciary and ministeriall than masterly 1. Because Royall Empire is essentially to feed rule defend and to governe in Peace and Godlinesse 1 Tim. 2.2 as the father doth his children Ps. 78.71 He brought him to feed Iacob his people and Israel his inheritance Esa. 55.4 I gave him for a leader and commander to the people 2 Sam. 5.2 Thou shalt feed my people Israel 2 Sam. 5.2 1 Chron. 11.2 1 Chron. 17.6 And so it is for the good of the people and to bring those over whom he is a feeder and ruler to such a happy end and as saith Althusius polit c. 1. n. 13. and Marius Salomonius de princ c. 2. it is to take care of the good of those over whom the Ruler is set and conservare est rem illaesam servare to keep a thing safe But to be a Master and to have a masterly and herile power over slaves and servants is to make use of servants for the owners benefit not for the good of the slave L. 2 de leg L. Servus de servit expert Danae polit l. 1. Tolossan de Rep. l. 1. c. 1. n. 15 16. therefore are servants bought and sold as goods jure belli F. de statu hominum l. servorum 2. Not to be under Governors and Magistrates is a judgement of God Esa. 3.6 7. Esa. 3.1 Hos 3.4 Iudg. 19.1 2. But not to be under a master as slaves are is a blessing seeing freedome is a blessing of God Ioh. 8.33 Exod. 21.2 v. 26 27. Deut. 15.12 so he that killeth Goliah 1 Sam. 17.25 his fathers house shall be free in Israel Ier. 34.9 Act. 22.28 1 Cor. 9.19 Gal. 4.26.31 Therefore the power of a King cannot be an herile and masterly power for then to be under a Kingly power should both be a blessing and a curse and just punishment of sinne 3. Subjects are called the servants of the King 1 Sam. 15.2 2 Chron. 13.7 1 King 12.7 Exod. 10.1 2. Exod. 9.20 but they are not slaves because Deut. 17.20 they are his brethren That the Kings heart be not lifted up against his brethren And his sonnes Esa. 49.23 And the Lord gave his people a King as a blessing 1 King 10.9 Hos. 1.11 Esa. 1.26 Ier. 17.25 And brought them out of the house of bondage Exod. 20. v. 2. as out of a place of miserie And therefore to be the Kings servants in the places cited is some other thing then to be the Kings slaves 4. The Master might in some cases sell the servant for money yea for his own gain â—e might doe it Nehem. 5.8 Eccles. 2.7 1 King 2.32 Gen. 9.25 Gen. â—6 14 2 King 4.1 Gen. 20.14 and might give away his servants and the servants were the proper goods and riches of the master Eccles. 2.7 Gen. 30.43 Gen. 20.14 Job 1.3.15 But the King may not sell his Kingdome or Subjects or give them away for money or any other way for Royalists grant that King to be a Tyrant and worthy to be dethroned who shall sell his people for the King may not delapidate the rents of the Crown and give them away to the hurt and prejudice of his successors L. ult Sect. sed nostr C. Comment de lege l. peto 69. Sect. fratrem de lege 2. l. 32. ultimo D. T. and farre lesse can he lawfully sell men and give away a whole Kingdome to the hurt of his successours for that were to make merchandize of the living Temples of the Holy Ghost And Arnisaeus de authorit Princip c. 3. n. 7. saith Servitude is praeter naturam beside nature he might have said contrary to nature l. 5. de stat homin Sect. 2. Iust. de jur perso c. 3. Novel 89. but the subjection of subjects is so consonant to nature that it is seen in Bees and Cranes Therefore a dominion is defined a facultie of using of things to what uses you will Now a man hath not this way an absolute dominion over his beasts to dispose of them at his will for a good man hath mercy on the life of his beast Prov. 12.10 nor hath he dominion over his goods to use them as he will because he may not use them to the dammage of the Commonwealth he may not use them to the dishonour of God and so God and the Magistrate hath laid some bound on his dominion And because the King being made a King leaveth not off to be a reasonable creature he must be under a Law and so his will and lust cannot be the rule of his power and dominion but law and reason must regulate him Now if God had given to the King a dominion over men as reasonable creatures his power and dominion which by Royalists is conceived to be above Law should be a rule to men as reasonable men which would make men under Kings no better then bruit beasts for then should subjects exercise acts of reason not because good and honest but because their Prince commandeth them so to doe and if this cannot be said none can be at the disposing of Kings in politick acts liable to Royall government that way that the slave is in his actions under the dominion of his master The Prelate objecteth out of Spalato Arnisaeus and Hug. Grotius for in his booke there is not one line which is his own except his raylings 1. All government and
of necessitie all things are common by Gods Law A man travelling might eat Grapes in his neighbours vineyard though he was not licenced to carry any away I doubt if David wanting money was necessitated to pay money for the Shew-bread or for Goliahs sword supposing these to be the very Goods of private men and ordinarily to be bought and sold natures Law in extremity for self preservation hath rather a Prerogative Royall above all Laws of Nations and all civill Laws then any mortall King and therefore by the civill Law all are the Kings in case of extreme necessity in this meaning any one man is obliged to give all he hath for the good of the Common-wealth and so far the good of the King in as farre as he is head and father of the Common-wealth 2. All things are the Kings in regard of his publike power to defend all men and their Goods from unjust violence 3. All are the Kings in regard of his Act of conservation of Goods for the use of the just owner 4. All are the Kings in regard of a legall limitation in case of a dammage offered to the Common-wealth justice requireth confiscation of Goods for a fault but confiscated Goods are to help the interessed Common-wealth and the King not as a man to bestow them on his children but as a King to this we may referre these called bona caduca inventa things losed by Shipwrack or any other providence Vlpian tit 19. t. c. de bonis vacantibus C. de Thesauro And the Reasons why private men are just Lords and proprietors of their own Goods are 1. Because by order of nature division of Goods cometh neerer to natures law and necessity then any King or Magistrate in the world for because it is agreeable to nature thâ—â— every man be warmed by his own fleece nourished by his own meat therefore to conserve every mans Goods to the just owner and to preserve a communitie from the violence of rapine and theft a Magistrate and King was devised So it is clear men are just owners of their own Goods by all good order both of nature and time before there be any such thing as a King or Magistrate Now if it be good that every man enjoy his own Goods as just proprietor thereof for his own use before there be a King who can be proprietor of his Goods and a King being given of God for a blessing not for any mans hurt and losse the King cometh in to preserve a mans Goods but not to be lord and owner thereof himself nor to take from any man Gods right to his own Goods 2. When God created man at the beginning he made all the creatures for man and made them by the law of nature the proper possession of man but then there was not any King formally as King for certainly Adam was a father before he was a King and no man being either born or created a King over an other man no more then the first Lyon and the first Eagle that God created were by the birth-right and first-start of creation by nature the King of all Lyons and all Eagles to be after created no man can by natures law be the owner of all Goods of particular men And because the law of nations founded upon the law of nature hath brought in meum tuum mine and thine as proper to every particular man and the introduction of Kings cannot overturn natures foundation neither civility nor grace destroyeth but perfiteth nature and if a man be not born a King because he is a man he cannot be born the possessour of my Goods 3. What is a Character and note of a Tyrant and an oppressing King as a Tyrant is not the just due of a King as a King But to take the proper Goods of Subjects and use them as his own is a proper Character and note of a Tyrant and an oppressour Ergo the proposition is evident A King and a Tyrant are by way of contradiction contrary one to another the assumption is proved thus Ezek. 45.9 Thus saith the Lord Let it suffice you O Princes of Israel remove violence and spoil and execute judgement and justice take away your exactions from my people saith the Lord Vers. 10. Ye shall have just ballances and a just Ephah and a just bath If all be the Kings he is not capable of extortion and rapine Micah 3.2 God complaineth of the violence of Kings Is it not for you to know judgement Vers. 3. Who eat the flesh of my people and flea their skins from off them and they break their bones and chop them in pieces as for the pot and as flesh within the chaldron Isai. 3.14 Zeph. 3.3 and was it not an act of tyranny in King Achab to take the vineyard of Naboth and in King Saul 1 Sam. 8.14 to take the people of Gods fields and vineyards and olive-yards and give them to their servants Was it a just fault that Hybreas objected to Antonius exacting two tributes in one yeer that he said If thou must have two tributes in one yeer then make for us two Summers and two Harvests in one yeer This cannot be just if all be the Kings the King taketh but his own 4. Subjects under a Monarch could not give alms nor exercise works of charity for charity must be my own Isai. 58.7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry c. Eccles. 11.1 Cast thy bread into the waters and the Law saith It is theft to give of another mans to the poor yea the distinction of poor and rich should have no place under a Monarchie he onely should be rich 5. When Paul commandeth us to pay tribute to Princes Rom. 13.6 because they are the Ministers of God he layeth this ground That the King hath not all but that the subjects are to give to him of their goods 6. It is the Kings place by justice to preserve every man in his own right and under his own fig-tree Ergo It s not the Kings house 7. Even Pharaoh could not make all the victuall of the land his own while he had bought it with money and every thing is presumed to be free Allodialis free land except the King prove that it is bought or purchased L. actius C. de servit aqua Joan. And. m. C. F. de ind hosti in C. minus de jur 8. If the subjects had no proprietie in their own goods but all were the Princes due then the subject should not be able to make any contract of buying and selling without the King and every subject were in the case of a slave Now the Law saith L. 2. F. de Noxali act l. 2. F. ad legem aquil When he maketh any Covenant he is not obliged civilly to keep it because the condition of a servant he not being sui juris is compared to the state
of a beast though he be obliged by a naturall obligation being a rationall Creature in regard of the law of nature L. naturaliter L. si id quod L. interdum F. de conà indebit cum aliis 2. The subject could not by Solomon be forbidden to be suretie for his friend as King Solomon doth counsell Prov. 6.1 2 3. he could not be condemned to bring on himself poverty by sluggishnesse as Prov. 6.6 7 8 9 10. nor were he to honour the Lord with his riches as Prov. 3.9 nor to keep his Covenant though to his losse Psal. 15.4 nor could he be mercifull and lend Psal. 37.26 nor had he power to borrow nor could he be guiltie in not paying all again Psal. 37.21 For subjects under a Monarch can neither perform a duty nor fail in a duty in the matter of Goods If all be the Kings what power or dominion hath the subject in disposing of his Princes Goods See more in Petr. Rebuffus tract congruae portionis num 225. pag. 109 110. Sed quoad dominium rerum c. QUEST XVII Whether or not the Prince have properly a fiduciarie and ministeriall power of a Tutor Husband Patron Minister head father of a family not of a Lord or dominator THat the power of the King is fiduciarie that is given to him immediatly by God in trust Royallists deny not but we hold that the trust is put upon the King by the people 2. We deny that the people give themselves to the King as a gift for what is freely given cannot be taken againe but they gave themselves to the King as a pawne and if the pawne be abused or not used in that manner as it was conditionated to be used the party in whose hand the pawne is intrusted faileth in his trust 1. Assertion The King is more properly a Tutor then a Father 1. Indigencie is the originall of Tutors the Parents dye what then shall become of the Orphan and his inheritance he cannot guide it himselfe therefore nature devised a Tutor to supply the place of a father and to governe the Tutor but with this consideration the father is Lord of the inheritance and if he be distressed may sell it that it shall never come to the sonne and the father for the bad deserving of his sonne may dis-inherite him but the Tutor being but a borrowed father cannot sell the inheritance of the pupill nor can he for the pupills bad deserving by any dominion of Justice over the pupill take away the inheritance from him and give it to his owne son so a Community of it selfe because of sin is a naked society that can but destroy it selfe and every one eate the flesh of his brother therefore God hath appointed a King or governour who shall take care of that community rule them in peace and save all from reciprocation of mutuall acts of violence yet so as because a trust is put on the Ruler of a community which is not his heritage he cannot dispose of it as he pleaseth because he is not the proper owner of the inheritance 2. The Pupill when he commeth to age may call his Tutor to an accompt for his administration I doe not acknowledge that as a truth which Arnisaeus saith De authoritate prin c. 3. n. 5. The Common-wealth is alwaies minor and under Tutory because it alway hath need of a curator and governour and can never put away its governour buâ— the pupill may grow to age and wisedome so as he may be without all Tutors and can guide himselfe and so may call in question his Tutor and the pupill cannot be his Iudge but must stand to the sentence of a superiour Iudge and so the people cannot judge or punish their Prince God must be Iudge betwixt them both But this is 1. a begging of the question every comparison halteth no community but it is Major in this that it can appoint its owne Tutors and though it cannot be without all Rulers yet it may well be without this or that Prince and Ruler and therefore may resume its power which it gave conditionally to the Ruler for its owne safety and good and in so farre as this condition is violated and power turned to the destruction of the Common-wealth it is to be esteemed as not given and though the people be not a politique Iudge in their owne cause yet in case of manifest oppression nature can teach them to oppose defensive violence against offensive a community in its politique body is also above any Ruler and may judge what is manifestly destructive to it selfe Obj. The Pupill hath not power to appoint his owne Tutor nor doth he give power to him so neither doth the people give it to the King Ans. The Pupill hath not indeed a formall power to make a Tutor but he hath vertually a legall power in his father who appointeth a Tutor for his sonne and the people have vertually all Royall power in them as in a sort of immortall and eternall fountain and may create to themselves many Kings Asser. 2. The Kings power is not properly and univocally a Maritall and husbandly power but only Analogically 1. The Wife by nature is the weaker Vessell and inferiour to the man but the Kingdom as shall be demonstrated is superiour to the King 2. The Wife is given as an helpe to the man but by the contrary the man here is given as an helpe and father to the Common-wealth which is presumed to be the wife 3. Maritall and husbandly power is naturall though it be not naturall but from free election that Peter is Ana's Husband and should have been though man had never sinned but Royall Power is a politick constitution and the world might have subsisted though Aristocracy or Democracy had been the only and perpetuall governments So let the Prelate glory in his borrowed Logick he had it from Barclay It is not in the power of the Wife to repudiat her Husband though never so wicked she is tyed to him for ever and may not give to him a bill of Divorcement as by Law the Husband might give to her if therefore the people sweare loyalty to him they must keep though to their hurt Ps. 15. Ans. There 's nothing here said except Barclay and the Plagiarie prove that the Kings Power is properly a Husbands power which they cannot prove but from a Simile that crooketh but a King elected upon conditions that if he sell his people he shall lose his Crown is as essentially a King as Adam was Evahs Husband and yet by grant of parties the people may devorce from such a King and dethrone him if he sell his people but a Wife may never devorce from her Husband as the Argument saith And this poore Argument the Prelate stole from Dr. Ferne part 2. Sec. 3. pag. 10 11. 2. The keeping of Covenant though to our huâ—t is a penall hurt and losse of goods not a
morall hurt and losse of Religion Assert 3. The King is more properly a sort of Patron to defend the people and therefore hath no power given either by God or man to hurt the people and a Minister or publick and honourable servant Rom. 13.4 for he is the Minister of God to thee for good he is the Common-wealths servant objectively because all the Kings service as he is King is for the good safety peace and salvation of the people and in this he is a servant 2. He is the servant of the people Representatively in that the people hath impawned in his hand all their power to doe Royall service Obj. He is the servant of God ergo he is not the peoples Servant but their soveraigne Lord. Ans. It followeth not because all the service the King as King performeth to God they are acts of Royalty and acts of Royall service as terminated on the people or acts of their Soveraigne Lord and this proveth that to be their Soveraigne is to be their servant and watch-man Object 2. God maketh a King only and the Kingly power is in him only not in the people Ans. The Royall power is only from God immediatly Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum a Deo solitudine primae causae by the immediation of simple constitution none but God appointed there should be Kings but 2. Royall power is not in God nor only from God immediatione applicationis regia dignitatis ad personam nec a Deo solum solitudine causae applicantis dignitatem huic non illi in respect of the applying of Royall dignity to this person not to this Object 3. Though Royall power were given to the people it is not given to the people as if it were the Royal power of the people and not the Royall power of God neither is it any other waies bestowed on the people but as on a beame a channell an instrument by which it is derived to others and so the King is not the minister or servant of the people Ans. It is not in the people as in the principall cause Sure all Royall power that way is only in God but it is in the people as in the instrument and when the people maketh David their King at Hebron in that same very act God by the people using their free suffrages and consent maketh David King at Hebron so God only giveth raine and none of the vanities and supposed gods of the Gentiles can give raine Ier. 14 22. and yet the Clouds also give raine as nature as an organ and vessell out of which God powreth down raine upon the dry earth Amos 9.6 and every instrument under God that is properly an instrument is a sort of Vicarious cause in Gods room and so the people as in Gods roome applyeth Royall power to David not to any of Sauls sonnes and appointeth David to be their Royall Servant to governe and in that to serve God and to doe that which a Communitie now in the state of sinne cannot formally doe themselves and so I see not how it is a service to the people not only objectively because the Kings Royall service tendeth to the good and peace and safety of the people but also subjectively in regard he hath his power and Royall authoritie which he exerciseth as King from the people under God as Gods instruments and therefore the King and Parliament give out Lawes and Statutes in the name of the whole people of the Land And they are but flatterers and belye the Holy Ghost who teach that the people doe not make the King for Israel made Saul King at Mizpeh and Israel made David King at Hebron Object 3. Israel made David King that is Israel designed Davids person to be King and Israel consented to Gods act of making David King but they did not make David King Ans. I say not that Israel made the Royall dignitie of Kings God Deut. 17. instituted that himselfe buâ— the Royalist must give us an act of God going before an act of the peoples making David King at Hebron by which David of no King is made formally a King and then another act of the People approving only and consenting to that act of God whereby David is made formally of no King to be a King This Royalists shall never instruct for there be only two acts of God here 1. Gods act of annointing David by the hand of Samuel and 2. Gods act of making David King at Hebron and a third they shall never give But the former is not that by which David was essentially and formally changed from the state of a private subject and no King into the state of a publike Judge and supreme Lord and King for as I have proved after this act of annointing of David King he was designed only and set apart to be King in the Lords fit time and after this annointing he was no more formally a King then Doeg or Nabal were Kings but a subject who called Saul the Lords annointed and King and obeyed Saul as another subjâ—ct doth his King but it is certaine God by no other act made David King at Hebron then by Israels act of free electing him to be King and leader of the Lords people as God by no other act sendeth down rain on the earth but by Gods melting the clouds and causing raine to fall on the earth and therefore to say Israel made David King at Hebron that is Israel approved only and consented to a prior act of Gods making David King is all one as to say Saul prophecied that is Saul consented to a prior act of the Spirit of God who prophecied and Peter preached Act. 2. that is Peter approved and consented to the Holy Ghosts act of preaching Which to say is childish Assert 4. The King is an head of the Commonwealth only metaphorically by a borrowed speech in a politique sense because he ruleth commandeth directeth the whole politique body in all their operations and functions But he is not univocally and essentially the head of the Commonwealth 1. The same very life in number that is in the head is in the members there be divers distinct soules and lives in the King and in his Subjects 2. The head naturall is not made an head by the free election and consent of armes shoulders leggs toes fingers c. The King is made King only by the free election of his people 3. The naturall head so long as the person liveth is ever the head and cannot cease to be a head while it is seated on the shoulders The King if he sell his people their persons and soules may leave off to be a King and Head 4. The head and members live together and dye together the King the people are not so the King may dye and the People live 5. The naturall head cannot destroy the members and preserve it selfe but King Nero may waste and destroy his people
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
inconsistent with the holinesse of God for so the Lord might deny himself and dispence with sin God avert such blasphemies Now if the kingly power be from God That which essentially and specifically constituteth a King must be from God as the Office it self is from God And Barclay saith expressely That the kingly power is from God and that same which is the specifice form that constituteth a King must be that which essentially separateth the King from the Iudge if they be essentially different as Barclay dreameth Hence have we this jus Regis this Manner or Law of the King to tyrannize and oppresse to be a power from God and so a lawfull power by which you shall have this result of Barclayes interpretation That God made a Tyrant as well as a King 3. By this difference that Barclay putteth betwixt the King and the Judge the Judge might be resisted for he had not this power of domination that Saul hath contrary to Rom. 13.2 Exod. 22.28 and 20.12 But let us try the Text first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word cannot inforce us to expone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a law our English rendreth Shew them the manner of the King Arri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis I grant the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chalde Paraphrase saith Statutum regis Hieronimus translateth it jus regis so Calvin but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude yea and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not alwayes a law as Josh. 6.14 They compassed the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven times 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King 17.26 They know not the manner of the God of the Land Vers. 33. They served their own gods after the manner of the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken in an evill part 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers. 34. Vntill this day they do after these manners 1 Kings 18.28 Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after their manner 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 40.13 Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh according as thou wast wont to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 21.19 He shall deal with her after the manner of daughters 1 Sam. 27.11 And David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring tydings to Gath saying So did David and so will his manner be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be they meaned that it was Davids law right or priviledge to spare none alive 1 Sam. 2.13 And the Priests custome with the people was c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was a wicked custome not a law and the 70. turneth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes taken in a good meaning so P. Martyr He meaneth here of an usurped law saith he Calvin Non jus a deo prescriptum sed tyranidem He speaketh not of Gods law here saith he but of tyranny And Rivetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not ever jus law Sed aliquando morem sive modum rationem agendi The custome and manner of doing so Junius and Tremellius Diodatus exponeth jus This law namely saith he that which is now grown to a common custome by the consent of nations and Gods toleration The interline glosse to speak of Papists exactionem dominationem The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant Lyra exponeth it tyranny Tostatus Abulens He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes as Solomon and others Cornelius a lapide This was an unjust law Cajetanus calleth it tyranny Hugo Cardinal nameth them exactiones servitutes exactions and slaveries And Serrarius he speaketh not here Quid Reges jure possint What they may do by right and law Sed quid audeant What they will be bold to do and what they tyrannically decern against all Laws of nature and humanitie And so speaketh Tho. Aquinas So also Mendoza saith he speaketh of the law of Tyrants and amongst the fathers Clemens Alexandrinus saith on this place Non humanum pollicetur dominum sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum He promiseth not a humane Prince but threatneth to give them an insolent Tyrant and the like also saith Beda And an excellent Lawyer Pet. Rebuffus saith Etiam loquitur de Tyranno qui non erat a Deo electus And that he speaketh of Sauls Tyrannicall usurpation and not of the law prescribed by God Deut. 17. I prove 1. He speaketh of such a power as is answerable to the Acts here spoken of but the Acts here spoken of are Acts of meere tyranny Vers. 11. And this will be the manner of your King that shall reign over you he will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his Chariots and to be his horsemen and some shall run before his Chariots Now to make slaves of their sons was an Act of Tyranny 2. To take their fields and vineyards and oliveyards from them and give them to his servants was no better then Ahabs taking Naboths vineyard from him which by Gods law he might not lawfully sell except in the case of extreme povertie and then in the yeer of Jubilee he might redeem his own inheritance 3. Verse 15 16. To put the people of God to bondage and make them servants was to deal with them as the Tyrant Pharaoh did 4. He speaketh of such a law the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord because of their King but the execution of the just Law of the King Deut. 17. is a blessing and not a bondage which should make the people cry out of the bitternesse of their spirit 5. It is clear here that God is by his Prophet not instructing the King in his duty but as Rabbi Levi Ben. Gersom saith Terrifying them from their purpose of seeking a King and foretelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrannous King But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable Acts of favour that a good King by his good Government was to do for his people Deut. 17. 15 16. But he speaketh of contrary facts here and that he is disswading them from suiting a King is clear from the Text. 1. Because he saith Give them their will but yet protest against their unlawfull course 2. He biddeth the Prophet lay before them the tyranny and oppression of their King which tyranny Saul exercised in his time as the story sheweth 3. Because how uneffectuall Samuels exhortation was is set down Verse 19. Neverthelesse they would not obey the voice of Samuel but said Nay but we will have a King over us if Samuel had not been dehorting them from a King
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
God and the people is only the instrumentall cause and Spalato saith that the people doth indirectly only give Kingly power because God at their act of election ordinarily giveth it Ans. The Scripture saith plainly as we heard before the people made Kings and if they doe as other second causes produce their effects it is all one that God as the principall cause maketh Kings else we should not argue from the cause to the effect amongst the creatures 2. God by that same action that the people createth a King doth also by them as by his instruments create a King and that God doth not immediatly at the naked presence of the act of popular election conferre Royall dignity on the man without any action of the people as they say by the Churches act of conferring Orders God doth immediatly without any act of the Church infuse from Heaven supernaturall habilities on the man without any active influence of the Church is evident by this 1. The Royall power to make Lawes with the King and so a power eminent in their states representative to governe themselves is in the people for if the most high act of Royalty be in them why not the power also and so what need to fetch a Royall power from Heaven to be immediatly infused in him seeing the people hath such a power in themselves at hand 2. The people can and doth limite and bind Royall power in elected Kings ergo they have in them Royall power to give to the King those who limit power can take away so many degrees of Royall power and those who can take away power can give power and it is unconceiveable to say that people can put restraint upon a power immediatly comming from God if Christ immediatly infuse an Apostolick spirit in Paul mortall men cannot take from him any degrees of that infused spirit if Christ infuse a spirit of nine degrees the Church cannot limit it to six degrees only but Royalists consent that the people may choose a King upon such conditions to raigne as he hath Royall power of ten degrees whereas his Ancester had by birth a power of foureteen degrees 3. It is not intelligible that the Holy Ghost should give Commandement to the people to make such a man King Deut. 17.15 16. and forbid them to make such a man King if the people had no active influence in making a King at all but God solely and immediately from Heaven did infuse Royalty in the King without any action of the people save a naked consent only and that after God had made the King they should approve only with an after-after-act of naked approbation 4. If the people by other Governours as by heads of families and other choise men governe themselves and produce these same formall effects of Peace Justice Religion on themselves which the King doth produce then is there a power of the same kind and as excellent as the Royall power in the people and no reason but this power should be holden to come immediatly from God as the Royall Power for it is every way of the same nature and kind and as I shall prove Kings and Iudges differ not in nature and spece but it is experienced that people doe by Aristocraticall guides governe themselves c. so then if God immediatly infuse Royalty when the people chooseth a King without any action of the people then must God immediatly infuse a beame of governing on a Provost and a Bailiffe when the people choose such and that without any action of the people because all Powers are in abstracto from God Rom. 13.2 and God as immediatly maketh inferiour Iudges as superiour Prov. 8.16 and all promotion even to be a Provost or Major commeth from God only as to be a King except Royalists say all promotion commeth from the East and from the West and not from God except promotion to the Royall Throne the contrary whereof is said Ps. 75.6 7. 1 Sam. 2.7 8. not only Kings but all Judges are Gods Ps. 82.1 2. and therefore all must be the same way created and moulded of God except by Scripture Royalists can shew us a difference An English Prelate giveth Reasons why People who are said to make Kings as efficients and Authors cannot unmake them the one is because God as chief and sole supreame Moderator maketh Kings but I say Christ as the chiefe Moderator and head of the Church doth immediatly conferre abilities to a man to be a Preacher and though by industry the man acquire abilities yet in regard the Church doth not so much as instrumentally conferre those abilities they may be said to come from God immediatly in relation to the Church who calleth the man to the ministery yea Royalists as our excommunicated Prelate learned from Spalato say that God at the naked presence of the Churches call doth immediatly infuse that from Heaven by which the man is now in Holy Orders and a Pastor whereas he was not so before and yet Prelates cannot deny but they can unmake Ministers and have practised this in their unhallowed Courts and therefore though God immediatly without any action of the people make Kings this is a weake reason to prove they cannot unmake them As for their undeleble character that Prelates cannot take from a Minister it is nothing if the Church may unmake a Minister though his character goe to prison with him we seeke no more but to anull the reason God immediatly maketh Kings and Pastors ergo no power on earth can unmake them this consequence is as weake as water 2. The other cause is because God hath erected no Tribunall on earth higher then the Kings Tribunall ergo no power on earth can unmake a King the Antecedent and consequence is both denyed and is a begging of the question for the Tribunall that made the King is above the King 2. Though there be no Tribunall formally regall and Kingly above the King yet is there a Tribunall vertuall eminently above him in the case of tyranny for the States and Princes have a Tribunall above him 3. To this the constituent cause is of more power and dignity then the effect and so the people is above the King The P. Prelate borrowed an answer from Arnisaeus and Barclay and other Royalists and saith If we knew any thing in Law or were ruled by reason Every constituent saith Arnisaeus and Barclay more accurately then the P. Prelate had a head to transcribe their words where the constituent hath resigned all his power in the hand of the Prince whom hâ— constitutes is of more worth and power then he in whose hand they resigne the power so the proposition is false The servant who hath constituted his Master Lord of his liberty is not worthier then his Master whom he hath made his Lord and to whom he hath given himselfe aâ— a slave for after he hath resigned his liberty he cannot repent he
must keepe covenant though to his hurt yea such a servant is not only not above his Master but he cannot move his foot without his Master The Governour of Britaine saith Arnisaeus being despised by King Philip resigned himselfe as Vassall to King Edward of England but did not for that make himselfe superiour to King Edward indeed he who constituteth another under him as a Legat is superiour but the people do◠constitute a King above themselves not a King under themselves and therefore the people are not by this made the Kings superiour but his inferiour Ans. 1. It is false that the people doth or can by the Law of nature resigne their whole liberty in the hand of a King 1. they cannot resigne to others that which they have not in themselves Nemo potest dare quod non habet but the people hath not an absolute power in themselves to destroy themselves or to exercise those tyrannous acts spoken of 1 Sam. 8.11 12 13 14 15 c. for neither God nor Natures Law hath given any such power 2. He who constituteth himselfe a slave is supposed to be compelled to that unnaturall fact of alienation of that liberty which he hath from his Maker from the wombe by violence constraint or extreame necessity and so is inferiour to all free men but the people doth not make themselves slaves when they constitute a King over themselves because God giving to a people a King the best and excellentest Governour on earth giveth a blessing and speciall fafour Esay 1.26 Hosea 1. v. 11. Esay 3.6 7. Ps. 79.70 71 72. but to lay upon his people the state of slaverie in which they renounce their whole libertie is a curse of God Gen. 9.25 Gen. 27.29 Deut. 28.32.36 But the people having their liberty to make any of ten or twenty their King and to advance one from a private state to an honorable throne whereas it was in their libertie to advance another and to give him Royall power of ten degrees whereas they might give him power of twelve degrees and of eight or sixe must be in excellencie and worth above the man whom they constitute King and invest with such honour as Honour in the fountain and honos participans originans must be more excellent and pure then the derived honour in the King which is honos participatus originatus 2. If the servant give his libertie to his master ergo he had that libertie in him and in that act libertie must be in a more excellent way in the servant as in the Fountaine then it is in the master and so this libertie must be purer in the people then in the King and therefore in that both the servant is above the master and the People worthier then the King and when the people give themselves conditionally and Covenant-wise to the King as to a Publique servant and Patron and Tutour as the Governour of Britaine out of his humour gave himselfe to King Edward there is even here a note of superioritie Every giver of a benefit as a giver is superior to him to whom the gift is given though after the servant hath given away his gift of libertie by which he was superiour he cannot be a superior because by his gift he hath made himselfe inferior 3. The People constituteth a King above themselves I distinguish supra se above themselves according to the fountaine power of Royaltie that is false for the fountaine-power remaineth most eminently in the people 1. because they give it to the King ad modum recipientis and with limitations ergo it is unlimited in the people and bounded and limited in the King and so lesse in the King then in the people 2. If the King turne distracted and an ill spirit from the Lord come upon Saul so as reason be taken from a Nebuchadnezzar it is certaine the people may put Curators and Tutors over him who hath the Royall power 3. If the King be absent and taken captive the People may give the Royall power to one or to some few to exercise it as custodes regni And 4. if he die and the Crown goe by election they may create another with more or lesse power all which evinceth that they never constituted over themselves a King in regard of fountaine-power for if they give away the fountaine as a slave selleth his libertie they could not make use of it Indeed they set a King above them quoad potestatem legum executivam in regard of a power of executing lawes and actuall government for their good and safetie but this proveth only that the King is above the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect but the most eminent and fountaine-power of Royaltie remaineth in the people as in an immortall spring which they communicate by succession to this or that mortall man in the manner and measure that they thinke good And Vlpian and Bartolus cited by our Prelate out of Barclaius are only to be understood of the derived secondary and borrowed power of executing lawes and not of the fountaine power which the people cannot give away no more then they can give away their rationall nature for it is a power naturall to conserve themselves essentially adhering to every created Being For if the People give all their power away 1. What shall they reserve to make a new King if this man dye 2. What if the Royall line surcease there be no Prophets immediately sent of God to make Kings 3. What if he turne Tyrant and destroy his Subjects with the sword The Royalists say they may flie but when they made him King they resigned all their power to him even their power of flying for they bound themselves by an oath say Royalists to all passive and lawfull active obedience and I suppose to stand at his Tribunal if he summoned the three Estates upon Treason to come before him is conteined in the oath that Royalists say bindeth all and is contradictorie to flying Arnisaeus a more learned Iurist and Divine then the P. Prelate answereth the other Maxime The end is worthier then the meane leading to the end because it is ordained for the end These meanes saith he which referre their whole nature to the end and have all their excellencie from the end and have excellencie from no other thing but from the end are lesse excellent then the end that is true such an end as medicine is for health And Hugo Grotius l. 1. c. 3. n. 8. Those meanes which are only for the end for the good of the end and are not for their own good also are of lesse excellencie and inferior to the end But so the assumption is false But those meanes which beside their relation to the end have an excellencie of nature in themselves are not alwayes inferior to the end The Disciple as he is instituted is inferior to the Master but as he is the sonne of a Prince he is
act of government Now as they are conceived to want all government they cannot performe any act of government And this is as much against himselfe as against us 2. The power of a part and the power of the whole is not alike Royaltie never advanceth the King above the place of a member And Lawyers say The King is above the subjects in sensu diviso in a divisive sense he is above this or that subject but he is inferiour to all the subjects collectively taken because he is for the whole Kingdome as a meane for the end Object If this be a good reason that he is a meane for the whole Kingdome as for the end that he is therefore inferiour to the whole Kingdome then is he also inferior to any one subject for he is a meane for the safety of every subject as for the whole Kingdome Answ. Every meane is inferior to its compleat adequate and whole end and such an end is the whole Kingdome in relation to the King but every man is not alwayes inferiour to its incompleat inadequate and partiall end This or that subject is not adequate but the inadequate and incompleat end in relation to the King The Prelate saith Kings are Dii Elohim Gods and the manner of their propagation is by filiation by adoption sonnes of the most high and Gods first borne Now the first borne is not above every brother severally but if there were thousands millions numberlesse numbers he is above all in precedencie and power Answ. Not only Kings but all inferiour Iudges are Gods Psal. 82. God standeth in the congregation of the Gods that is not a congregation of Kings So Exo. 22.8 the master of the house shall be brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Gods or to the Judges And that there were more Iudges then one is cleare by vers 9. and if they shall condemne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jarshignur condemnarint Joh. 10.35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He called them Gods Exod. 4.16 Thou shalt be to Aaron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a God They are Gods analogically only God is infinite not so the King 2. Gods will is a law not so the Kings 3. God is an end to himselfe not so the King The Iudge is but God by office and representation and conservation of the people 2. It is denyed that the first-borne is in power before all his brethren though there were millions That is but said One as one is inferior to a multitude as the first-borne was a Politick Ruler to his brethren he was inferiour to them politically Object 3. The collective Vniversitie of a Kingdome are subjects sonnes and the King their father no lesse then this or that subject is the Kings subject For the universitie of Subjects are either the King or the King subjects for all the kingdome must be one of these two but they are not the King Ergo they are his subjects Answ. All the Kingdome in any consideration is not either King or Subjects I give a third The Kingdome collective is neither properly King nor Subject but the Kingdome embodied in a State having collaterall or coordinate power with the King Object 4. The universitie is ruled by lawes Ergo they are inferior to the King who ruleth all by law Answ. The Universitie properly is no otherwise ruled by lawes then the King is ruled by lawes The Universitie formally is the compleat Politick body indued with a nomothetick facultie which cannot use violence against it selfe and so is not properly under a Law QUEST XX. Whether or no inferiour Judges be univocally and essentially Judges and the immediate Vicars of God no lesse then the King or if they be onely the Deputies and Vicars of the King IT is certain that in one and the same Kingdom the power of the King is more in extension then the power of any inferiour Iudge but if these powers of the King and the inferiour Iudges differ intensivè and in spece and nature is the question though it be not all the question Assert Inferiour Iudges are no lesse essentially Iudges and the immediate Vicars of God then the King 1. These who judge in the room of God and exercise the judgement of God are essentially Iudges and the Deputies of God as well as the King but inferiour Iudges are such Ergo The proposition is clear the formall reason why the King is univocally and essentially a Iudge is because the Kings throne is the Lords throne 1 Chron. 29.23 And Solomon sate on the throne of the Lord as King instead of David his father 1 King 1.13 It is called Davids throne because the King is the Deputy of Iehovah and the judgement is the Lords I prove the assumption Inferiour Iudges appointed by King Iehoshaphat have this place 2 Chro. 19.6 The King said to the Iudges Take heed what ye do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ye judge not for man but for the Lord then they were Deputies in the place of the Lord and not the Kings Deputies in the formall and officiall acts of judging 7. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you take heed and do it for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God nor respect of persons or taking of gifts Hence I argue If the Holy Ghost in this good King forbid inriour Judges wresting of judgement respecting of persons and taking of gifts because the judgement is the Lords and if the Lord himself were on the Bench he would not respect persons nor take gifts then he presumeth that inferiour Iudges are in the stead and place of Jehovah and that when these inferiour Iudges should take gifts they make as it were the Lord whose place they represent to take gifts and to do iniquitie and to respect persons but that the holy Lord cannot do 2. If the inferiour Iudges in the act of judging were the Vicars and Deputies of King Jehoshaphat he would have said Judge righteous judgement Why For the judgement is mine and if I the King were on the Bench I would not respect persons nor take gifts and you judge for me the supreme Judge as my Deputies but the King saith They judge not for man but for the Lord. 3. If by this they were not Gods immediate Vicars but the Vicars and Deputies of the King then being meer servants the King might command them to pronounce such a sentence and not such a sentence as I may command my servant and deputy in so far as he is a servant and deputie to say this and say not this but the King cannot limit the conscience of the inferiour Iudge because the judgement is not the Kings but the Lords 4. The King cannot command any other to do that as King for the doing whereof he hath no power from God himself but the King hath no power from God to pronounce what sentence he pleaseth because the judgement is not his own but Gods And though inferiour Iudges
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
given to inferiour Iudges Exod. 22.8 9. Ioh. 10.35 These who are appointed Iudges under Moses Deut. 1.16 are called in Hebrew or Chaldee 1 Kings 8.1 2. Chap. 5.2 Mic. 3.1 Iosh. 23.2 Num. 1.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rasce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fathers Act. 7.2 Iosh. 14.1 c. 19.51 1 Chro. 8 28. Healers Esai 3.7 Gods and sonnes of the most High Psal. 82.1.2.6.7 Prov 8.16 17. I much doubt if Kings can infuse Godheads in their Subjects I conceive they have from the God of Gods these gifts whereby they are inhabled to be Iudges and that Kings may appoint them Iudges but can do no more they are no lesse essentially Iudges then themselves 8. If inferiour Iudges be Deputies of the King not of God and have all their authority from the King then may the King limit the practise of these inferiour Iudges Say that an inferiour Iudge hath condemned to death an Paricide and he be conveying him to the place of execution the King commeth with a force to rescue him out of his hand if this inferiour Magistrate beare Gods sword for the terrour of ill doers and to execute Gods vengeance on murtherers he cannot but resist the King in this which I judge to be his Office for the inferiour Iudge is to take vengeance on ill doers and to use the coactive force of the sword by vertue of his Office to take away this Paracide now if he be the Deputy of the King he is not to breake the jawes of the wicked Iob 29.17 not to take vengeance on evill doers Rom. 13.4 nor to execute judgement on the wicked Ps. 149 9. nor to execute judgment for the fatherlesse De. 10.18 except a mortall man his Creator the King say Amen Now truly then God in all Israel was to rebuke no inferiour Iudge for perverting judgement As he doth Exod. 23.2.6 Mic. 3.2 3 4. Zach. 3.3 Numb 25.5 Deut. 1.16 For the King onely is Lord of the conscience of the inferiour Iudge who is to give sentence and execute sentence righteously upon condition that the King the onely univocall and proper Iudge first decree the same as Royalists teach Heare our Prelate How is it imaginable that Kings can be said to Iudge in Gods place and not receive the power from God but Kings Iudge in Gods place Deut. 1.17 2 Chro. 19.6 Let no man stumble this is his Prolepsis at this that Moses in the one place and Iehosaphat in the other speake to subordinate Iudges under them this weakeneth no waies our Argument for it is a ruled case in Law Quod quis facit per alium facit per se all Iudgements of inferiour Iudges are in the name authority and by the power of the supreme and are but communicatively and derivatively from the Soveraigne power Ans. How is it possible that inferiour Iudges Deut. 1.17 2. Chron. 19.6 can be said to judge in Gods place and not receive the power from God immediatly without any consent or covenant of men So the Prelate But inferiour Iudges judge in the Gods place as both the P. Prelate and Scripture teach Deut. 1.17 2. Chro. 19.6 Let the Prelate see to the stumbling conclusion for so he feareth it proves to his bad cause 2. He saith the places Deut. 1.17 2 Chro. 19.6 prove that the King judgeth in the Roome of God because their Deputies judge in the place of God The Prelate may know we would deny this stumbling and â—â—me consequence for 1. Moses and Iehosaphat are not speaking to themselves but to other inferiour Iudges who doth publickly exhort them Moses and Iehosaphat are perswading the regulation of the personall actions of other men who might pervert Iudgement 2. The Prelate is much upon his Law after he had forsworne the Gospell and Religion of the Church where he was baptized What the King doth by another that he doth by himselfe but were Moses and Jehosaphat feared that they should pervert Iudgement in the unjust Sentence pronounced by under Iudges of which Sentence they could not know any thing And doe inferiour Iudges so judge in the name authority and power of the King as not in the Name Authority and Power of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings or is the Iudgement the Kings no the Spirit of God saith no such matter the Iudgement executed by those inferiour Iudges is the Lords not a mortall Kings ergo a mortall King may not hinder them to execute Iudgement Obj. He cannot suggest an unjust Sentence and command an inferiour Iudge to give out a sentence absolvatory on cut-throates but he may hinder the execution of any sentence against Irish cut-throates Ans. It is all one to hinder the execution of a just sentence and to suggest or command the inferiour Iudge to pronounce an unjust one for inferiour Iudges by conscience of their Office are both to judge righteously and by force and power of the sword given to them of God Rom. 23.2 3 4. to execute the sentence and so God hath commanded inferiour Iudges to execute Iudgement and hath forbidden them to wrest Iudgement to take gifts except the King Command them so to doe Master Symmonâ— The King is by the Grace of God the inferiour Iudge is Iudge by the grace of the King even as the man is the image of God and the woman the mans image Ans. This distinction is neither true in Law nor conscience not in Law for it distinguisheth not betwixt Ministros regis ministros regni The servants of the King are his domesticks the Iudges are Ministri regni non regis the Ministers and Iudges of the Kingdome not of the King The King doth not show grace as he is a man in making such a man a Iudge but Iustice as a King by a Royall Power received from the people and by an Act of Iustice he makes Iudges of deserving men he should neither for favour nor bribes make any Iudge in the Land 2. It is the grace of God that men are to be advanced from a private condiâ—ion to be inferiour Iudges as Royall Dignity is a free gift of God 1 Sam. 2.7 The Lord bringeth low and lifteth up Ps. 757. God putteth downe one and seteth up another Court flatterers take from God and give to Kings but to be a Iudge inferiour is no lesse an immediate favour of God then to be King though the one be a greater favour then the other Magis honos and Majoâ— honos are to be considered 9. Arg. Those powers which dâ—ffer gradually and per magis minus by more and lesse only differ not in nature and spece and constitute not Kings and inferiour Iudges different univocally But the power of Kings and inferiour Iudges are such therefore Kings and inferiour Iudges differ not univocally That the powers are the same in nature I prove 1. by the specifice acts and formall object of the power of both for 1. both are power ordained of God Rom. 13.1
to resist either is to resist the ordinance of God v. 2. both are by Office a terrour to evill workes v. 3. 3. both are the Ministers of God for good 2. Though the King send and give a call to the inferiour Iudge that doth no more make the inferiour Iudges powers in nature and spece different then Ministers of the Word called by Ministers of the Word have Offices different in nature Timotheus Office to be Preacher of the Word differeth not in specie from the Office of the Presbytery which layed hands on him though their Office by extension be more then Timothies Office 3. The peoples power is put forth in those same acts when they choose one to be their King and supreame Governour and when they set up an Aristocraticall Government and choose many or more then one to be their Governours for the formall object of one or many Governours is Iustice and Religion as they are to be advanced 2. The forme and manner of their opperation is brachio seculari by a coactive power and by the sword 3. The formall acts of King and many Iudges in Aristocracy are these same the defending of the poore and needy from violence the conservation of a Community in a peaceable and a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2 Iob 29.12 13. Esay 1.17 4. These same Lawes of God that regulateth the King in all His Acts of Royall Government and tyeth and obligeth his conscience as the Lords Deputy to execute Iudgement for God and not in the stead of men in Gods Court of Heaven doth in like manner tye and oblige the conscience of Aristocraticall Iudges and all inferiour Iudges as is cleare and evident by these places 1 Tim. 2.2 not only Kings but all in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are obliged to procure that their subjects leade a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty All in conscience are obliged Deut. 1.16 to judge righteously between every man and his brother and the stranger that is with them 17. Neither are they to respect persons in judgement but are to heare the small as well as the great nor to be affraid of the face of men the judgement administred by all is Gods 2. Chro. 19.6 All are obliged to feare God Deut. 17.19.20 to keepe the words of the Law not to be lifted up in heart above their brethren Esay 1.17 Ier. 22.2 3. Let any man show me a difference according to Gods Word but in the extention that what the King is to doe as a King in all the Kingdome and whole Dominions if God give to him many as he gave to David and Solomon and Ioshua that the inferiour Iudges are to doe in such and such Circuits and limited places and I quit the cause so as the inferiour Iudges are little Kings and the King a great and delated Iudge as a compressed hand or fist and the hand stretched out in fingers and thumbe are one hand so here 4. God owneth inferiour Iudges as a congregation of Gods Ps. 82.1.2 for that God sitteth in a congregation or Senate of Kings or Monarches I shall not beleeve till I see Royalists shew to me a Common-wealth of Monarches convening in one Iudicature all are equally called Gods Ioh. 10.35 Exod. 22.8 if for any cause but because all Iudges even inferiour are the immediate Deputies of the King of Kings and their sentence in Iudgement as the sentence of the Iudge of all the earth I shall be informed by the P. Prelate when he shall answer my reasons if his interdicted Lordship may cast an eye to a poore Presbyter below and as wisedome is that by which Kings raigne Prov. 8.15 so also v. 16. by which Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth all that is said against this is That the King hath a Prerogative Royall by which he is differenced from all Iudges in Israel called jus regis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for saith Barclay The King as King essentially hath a Domination and power above all so as none can câ—nsure him or punish him but God because â—here be no thrones above his but the throne of God The Iudges of Israel 〈◊〉 Samuel Gedeon c. had no domination the dominion was in Gods hand 2. Wee may resist an inferior Iudge saith Arnisaeus otherwise there were no appeale from him and the wrong we suffer were irreparable as saith Marantius And all the Iudges of the earth saith Edw. Symmons are from God more remotely namely mediante Rege by the mediation of the Supreame even as the lesser starres have their light from God by the mediation of the Sun To the first I answer There was a difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and their Iudges no question but if it be an essentiall difference it is a question for 1. The Iudges were raised up in an extraordinary manner out of any Tribe to defend the people and vindicate their libertie God remaining their King the King by the Lords appointment was tyed after Saul to the Royall tribe of Judah till the Messiahs comming God tooke his own blessed libertie to set up a succession in the ten tribes 2. The Iudges were not by succession from father to sonne the Kings were as I conceive for the typicall eternitie of the Messiahs throne presignified to stand from generation to generation 3. Whether the Iudges were appointed by the election of the people or no some doubt because Iepthah was so made Iudge but I thinke it was not a law in Israel that it should be so but the first mould of a King Deut. 17. is by election But that God gave power of domineering that is of Tyrannizing to a King so as he cannot be resisted which he gave not to a Iudge I thinke no Scripture can make good For by what Scripture can Royalists warrant to us that the people might rise in armes to defend themselves against Moses Gideon Eli Samuel and other Iudges if they should have tyrannized over the people and that it is unlawfull to resist the most Tyrannous King in Israel and Iudah Yet Barclay and others must say this if they be true to that principle of Tyranny That the jus Regis the law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. 1 Sam. 10.25 doth essentially difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and the Iudges of Israel but we thinke God gave never any power of Tyranny to either Iudge or King of Israel and domination in that sense was by God given to none of them 2. Arnisaeus hath as little for him to say the inferior Magistrate may be resisted because we may appeale from him but the King cannot be resisted quia sanctitas Majestatis id non permittit the sanctitie of Royall majestie will not permit us to resist the King Ans. That is not Pauls argument to prove it unlawfull to resist Kings as Kings and doing their office because of the sanctitie of their Majestie that is as the
man intendeth because of the supreme absolute and illimited power that God hath given him But this is a begging of the question and all one as to say the King may not be resisted because he may not be resisted for sanctitie of Majestie if we beleeve Royalists includeth essentially an absolute supremacie of power whereby they are above the reach of all thrones lawes powers or resistance on Earth But the Argument is Resist noâ— because the Power is of God But the inferiour Magistrates power is of God 2. Resist not because you resist Gods ordinance in resisting the Iudge But the inferior Iudge is Gods ordinance Rom. 13.1 Deut. 1.17 2 Chro. 19.6 3. Mr. Symmons saith all Iudges on earth are from the Kings as starres have their light from the Sun I answer 1. Then Aristocracie were unlawfull for it hath not its power from Monarchie Had the Lords of the Philistims have the States of Holland no power but from a Monarchie Name the Monarch Have the Venetians any power from a King Indeed our Prelate saith from Augustine Confess lib. 3. cap. 8. Generale pactum est societatis humanae obedire Regibus suis It is an universall covenant of humane societie and a dictate of nature that men obey their Kings I beg the favour of Sectaries saith he to shew as much for Aristocracie and Democracie Now all other governments to bellies borne at Court are the inventions of men But I can shew that same warrant for the one as for the other because it is as well the dictate of nature that People obey their Iudges and Rulers as it is that they obey their Kings And Austin speaketh of all Iudges in that place though he name Kings for Kingly government is no more of the law of nature then Aristocracie or Democracie nor are any borne Iudges or Subjects at all There is a naturall aptitude in all to either of these for the conservation of nature and that is all Let us see that men naturally inclining to Government incline rather to Royall Government then to any other That the P. Prelate shall not be able to show For fatherly government being in two is not Kingly but nearer to Aristocracy and when many families were on earth every one independent within themselves if a commune enemy should invade a tract of Land governed by families I conceive by natures light they should incline to defend themselves and to joyne in one politique body for their owne safety as is most naturall but in that case they having no King and there weâ—e no reason of many fathers all alike loving their own families and selfe preservation why one should be King over all rather then another except by voluntary compact so it is cleare that Nature is nearer to Aristocracy before this contract then a Monarchy and let him shew us in multitudes of families dwelling together before there was a King as cleare a warrant for Monarchy as here is for Aristocracy though to me both be lawdable and lawfull ordinances of God and the difference meerely accidentall being one and the same power from the Lord Rom. 13.1 which is in divers subjects in one as a Monarchy in many as in Aristocracy and the one is as naturall as the other and the subjects are accidentall to the nature of the power 2. The Starrs have no light at all but in actuall aspect toward the Sun and they are not lightsome bodies by the free will of the Sunne and have no immediate light from God formally but from the Sun so as if there were no Sun there should be no Starres 3. for actuall shining and sending out of beames of light actu secundo they depend upon the presence of the Sun but for inferiour Iudges though they have their call from the King yet have they gifts to governe from no King on earth but only from the King of Kings 4. When the King is dead the Iudges are Iudges and they depend not on the King for their second acts of judging and for the actuall emission and putting forth their beames and raies of justice upon the poore and needy they depend on no voluntary aspect information or commandement of the King but on that immediate subjection of their conscience to the King of Kings And their Iudgement which they execute is the Lords immediatly and not the Kings and so the comparison halteth Arg. Our 10th Arg. If the King dying the Iudges inferiour remaine powers from God the Deputies of the Lord of Hoasts having their power from God then are they essentially Iudges yea and if the estates in their prime representators and leaders have power in the death of the King to choose and make another King then are they not Iudges and Rulers by derivation and participation or unproperly but the King is rather the Ruler by derivation and participation then these who are called inferiour Iudges Now if these Iudges depend in their Sentences upon the immediat will of him who is supposed to be the only Iudge when this only Iudge dyeth they should cease to be Iudges for Expirante mandatore expirat mandatum because the Fountaine Iudge drying up the streames must dry up Now when Saul dyed the Princes of the Tribes remaine by Gods institution Princes and they by Gods Law and Warrant Deut. 17. choose David their King 11. If the King through absolute power doe not send inferiour Iudges and constitute them but only by a power from the people and if the Lord have no lesse immediate influence in making inferiour Iudges then in making Kings then is there no ground that the King should be sole Iudge and the inferiour Iudge only Iudge by derivation from him and essentially his Deputy and not the immediate Deputy of God But the former is true ergo so is the latter And first that the Kings absolute Will maketh not inferiour Iudges is cleare from Deut. 1.15 Moses might not follow his owne will in making inferiour Iudges whom he pleased God tyed him to a Law v. 13. that he should take wise men known amongst the people and fearing God and hating covetousnesse And these qualifications were not from Moses but from God and no lesse immediatly from God then the inward qualification of a King Deut. 17. and therefore it is not Gods Law that the King may make inferiour Iudges only Durante beneplacito during his absolute will for if these Divine qualifications remaine in the seventy Elders Moses at his will could not remove them from their places 2. That the King can make heritable Iudges more then he can communicate faculties and parts of judging I doubt riches are of fathers but not promotion which is from God and neither from the East nor the West That our Nobles are borne Lords of Parliament and Iudges by blood is a positive Law 3. It seemeth to me from Esay 3.1 2 3 4. that the inferiour Iudge is made by consent of the people nor
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
ratio five mens the reason or minde free from all perturbations of anger lust hatred and cannot be tempted to ill and the King as a man may be tempted by his own passions and therefore as King he commeth by office out of himselfe to reason and law and so much as he hath of Law so much of a King and in his remotest distance from Law and Reason he is a Tyrant 3. Abstracta concretis sunt puriora perfectiora Iustice is perfecter then a just man Whitenes perfecter then the white wall so the neerer the King comes to a Law for the which he is a King the neerer to a King Propter quod unumquodque tale id ipsum magis tale Therefore Kings throwing lawes to themselves as men whereas they should have conformed themselves to the Law have erred Cambyses the sonne of Cyrus because he loved his own sister would have the mariage of the brother with the sister lawfull Anaxarchus said to Alexander grieved in minde that he had killed Clytus Regi ac Iovi Themin atque Iustitiam assidere Iudgement and Righteousnesse did alway accompanie God and the King in all they doe But some to this purpose say better The Law rather then the King hath power of life and death Arg. 2. The power that the King hath I speak not of his gifts he hath it from the people who maketh him King as I proved before but the people have neither formally nor virtually any power absolute to give the King all the power they have is a legall and naturall power to guide themselves in peace and godlinesse and save themselves from unjust violence by the benefit of Rulers Now an absolute power above a Law is a power to doe ill and to destroy the people and this the people have not themselves it being repugnant to nature that any should have a naturall power in themselves to destroy themselves or to inflict upon themselves an evill of punishment to destruction Though therefore it were given which yet is not granted that the people had resigned all power that they have into their King yet if he use a Tyrannicall power against the people for their hurt and destruction he useth a power that the people never gave him and against the intention of nature for they invested a man with power to be their father and defender for their good And he faileth against the peoples intention in usurping an over power to himselfe which they never gave never had never could give for they cannot give what they never had and power to destroy themselves they never had 3. Arg. All Royall Power whereby a King is a King and differenced from a private man armed with no power of the sword is from God But absolute power to Tyranize over the people and to destroy them is not a power from God Ergo there is not any such royall power absolute The proposition is evident because that God who maketh Kings and disposeth of Crownes Prov. 8.15 16. 2 Sam. 12.7 Daniel 4.32 must also create and give that Royall and Officiall power by which a King is a King 1. Because God created man he must be the Author of his reasonable soule if God be the Author of things he must be the Author of their formes by which they are that which they are 2. All power is Gods 1 Chro. 29.11 Matth. 6.13 Ps. 62.11 P◠68.35 Dan. 2.37 And that absolute power to Tyrannize is not from God 1. Because if this Morall power to sinne be from God it being formally wickednesse God must be the Author of sinne 2. What ever Morall power is from God the exercises of that power and the acts thereof must be from God and so these acts must be Morally good and just for if the Morall power be of God as the Author so must the acts be Now the acts of a Tyrannicall power are acts of sinfull unjustice and oppression and cannot be from God 3. Polititians say There is no power in Rulers to doe ill but to helpe and defend the people as the power of a Physitian to destroy of a Pilot to cast away the ship on a Rock the power of a Tutor to wast the inheritance of the Orphan and the power of father and mother to kill their children and of the mighty to defraud and oppresse are not powers from God So Ferdinand Vasquez illustr quest l. 1. c. 26. c. 45. Pruckman d. c. 3. § Soluta potestas Althus pol. cap. 9. n. 25. Barclaius Grotius Doct. Ferne The P. Prelates wit could come up to it say That absolute power to do ill so as no mortall man can lawfully resist it is from God and the King hath this way power from God as no subject can resist it but he must resist the Ordinance of God and yet the power of tyranny is not simply from God Answ. The Law saith Illud possumus quod jure possumus Papinus F. filius D. de cond Just. The Law saith It is no power which is not lawfull power The Royalists say power of Tyranny in so farre as it may be resisted and is punishable by men is not from God but what is the other part of the distinction it must be that Tyrannicall power is simpliciter from God or in it self it is from God but as it is punishable or restrainable by subjects it is not from God now to be punishable by subjects is but an accident and tyrannicall power is the subject yea and it is an separable accident for many Tyrants are never punished and their power is never restrained such a Tyrant was Saul and many persecuting Emperours Now if the Tyrannicall power it self was from God the argument is yet valid and remaineth unanswered and shall not this fall to the ground as false which Arnisaeus de autho princ c. 2. n. 10. Dum contra officium facit Magistratus non est Magistratus quippe a quo non injuria sed jus nasci debeat l. meminerint 6. C. unde vi din. in C. quod quis 24. n. 4 5. Et de hoc neminem dubitare aut dissentire scribit Marant 〈◊〉 1. num 14. When the Magistrate doth by violence and without law any thing in so farre doing against his Office he is not a Magistrate then say I that power by which he doth is not of God 2. None doeth then resist the Ordinance of God who resist the King in Tyrannous acts 2. If the power as it cannot be punished by the subject nor restrained be from God Ergo the Tyrannicall power itself and without this accident that it can be punished by men it must be from God also but the conclusion is absurd and denied by Royalists I prove the connexion For if the King have such a power above all restraint the power it self to wi◠King Davids power to kill innocent Vriah and defloor Bathshebah without the accident of being restrained or punished by men is either from God
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
Counsell and Law also for none more absolute de facto I cannot say de jure then the Kings of Babylon and Persia for Daniel saith of one of them Dan. 5.19 Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set up and whom he would he put down and yet these same Kings did nothing but by advice of their Princes and Counsellors yea so as they could not alter a decree and law as is clear Ester 1.14 15 16 17 21. Yea Darius de facto an absolute Prince was not able to deliver Daniel because the Law was passed that he should be cast into the Lions den Dan. 6.14 15 16. 4. That which the spirit of God condemneth as a point of Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar that is no lawfull Prerogative Royall but the spirit of God condemneth this as Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar That he slew whom he would he kept alive whom he would he set up whom he would he put down this is too God-like Deut. 32.39 So Polanus Rollocus on the place say he did these things Vers. 19. Ex abusu legitimae potestatis for Nebuchadnezzars will in matters of death and life was his Law and he did what pleased himself above all Law beside and contrary to it and our flatterers of Kings draw the Kings Prerogative out of Vlpians words who saith â—hat is a Law which seemeth good to the Prince but Vlpian was far from making the Princes will a rule of good and ill for he saith the contrary That the Law ruleth the just Prince 5. It is considerable here that Sanches defineth the absolute power of Kings to be a plenitude and fulnesse of power subject to no necessity and bounded with rules of no publick Law and so did Baldus before him but all Politicians condemn that of Caligula as Suetonius saith which he spake to Alexander the Great Remember that thou maist do all things and that thou hast a power to do to al men what thou pleasest And Lawyers say that this is Tyranny Chilon one of the seven wise of Greece as Rodigi saith better Princes are like gods because they onely can do that which is just And this power being meerly Tyrannicall can be no ground of a Royall Prerogative There is another power saith Sanches absolute by which a Prince dispenseth without a cause in a humane law and this power saith he may be defended but he saith What the King doth by this absolute power he doth it validè but not jure by Law but by valid acts the Iesuite must mean Royall Acts but no acts void of Law and Reason say we can be Royall Acts for Royall Acts are acts performed by a King as a King and by a Law and so cannot be Acts above or beside a Law It is true a King may dispence with the breach of an humane Law as a humane Law that is If the Law be death to any who goeth up on the Walls of the Citie the King may pardon any who going up discovereth the enemies approach and saveth the Citie But 1. The inferiour Iudge according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that benigne interpretation that the soul and intent of the Law requireth may do this as well as the King 2. All acts of independent Prerogative are above a Law and acts of free-will having no cause or ground in the Law otherwayes it is not founded upon absolute power but on power ruled by Law and Reason but to pardon a breach of the letter of the Law of man by exponing it according to the true intent of the Law and benignly is an act of legall obligation and so of the ordinary power of all Iudges and if either King or Iudge kill a man for the violation of the Letter of the Law when the intent of the Law contradicteth the rigid sentence he is guilty of innocent blood If that learned Ferdin Vasquez be consulted he is against this distinction of a power ordinary and extraordinary in men and certainly if you give to a King a Prerogative above a Law it is a power to do evill as well as good but there is no lawfull power to do evill and Doct. Ferne is plunged in a contradiction by this for he saith Sect. 9. pag. 58. I ask when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure Was that power ordained by God No. But an illegall will and Tyranny But Pag. 61. The power though abused to execute such a wicked commandment is an Ordinance of God It is objected 1. For the lawfulnesse of an absolute Monarchy The Easterne Persian and Turkes Monarchy maketh absolute Monarchy lawfull for it is an Oath to a lawfull obligatory thing and judgment Ezech. 17.16 18. is denounced against Iudah for breaking the Oath of the King of Babylon and it is called the Oath of God and doubtlesse was an Oath of absolute subjection and the power Rom. 13. was absolute and yet the Apostle calleth it an Ordinance of God The soveraignty of Masters over servanes was absolute and the Apostle exhorteth not to renounce that title as to ridged but exhorteth to moderation in the use of it Ans. That the Persian Monarchy was absolute is but a facto ad jus and no rule of a lawfull Monarchy but that it was absolute I beleeve not Darius who was an absolute Prince as many think but I thinke not would gladly have delivered Daniel from the power of a Law and Dan. 6.14 And he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him and he laboured till the going downe of the Sun to deliver him and was so sorrowfull that he could not breake through a Law that he interdicted himselfe of all pleasures of Musiâ—ians and if ever he had used the absolutenesse of a Prerogative Royall I conceive he would have done it in this yet he could not prevaile But in things not established by Law I conceive Darius was absolute as to me is cleare Daniel 6. v. 24. but absolute not by a Divine Law but De facto quod transierat in jus humanum by fact which was now become a lrw 2. It was Gods Oath and God tyed Iudah to absolute subjection ergo people may tye themselves It followeth not exeept you could make good this inference God is absolute ergo the King of Babylon may lawfully be absolute this is a blasphemous consequence 2. That Iudah was to sweare the Oath of absolute subjection in the latitude of the absolutenesse of the Kings of Chaldea I would see proved their absolutenesse by the Chaldean Lawes was to command murther Idolatry Daniel 3.4 5. and to make wicked Lawes Dan. 6. v. 7 8. I beleeve Ieremiah commanded not absolute subjection in this sence But the contrary Ier. 10. v. 11. They were to sweare the Oath in the point of suffering but what if the King of Chaldea had commanded them all the whole holy Seed men women and children out of his Royall power to give their neckes
only from this fountaine because the People have transferred their power to the King Lib. 1. digest tit 4. de constit Princip leg 1. sic Vlpian Quod Principi placuit loquitur de Principe formaliter qua Princeps est non qua est homo legis habet vigorem utpote cum lege Regia quae de imperio ejus lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem conferat Yea the Emperour himselfe may be conveened before the Prince Elector Aurea Bulla Carol. 4. Imper c. 5. The King of France may be conveened before the Senate of Paris The States may resist a Tyrant as Bossius saith de Principe privileg jus n. 55. Paris de puteo iu tract syno tit de excess Reg. c. 3. Divines acknowledge that Elias rebuked the halting of Israel betwixt God and Baal that their Princes permitted Baals Priests to converse with the King And is not this the sinne of the Land that they suffer their King to worship Idols and therefore the Land is punished for the sinnes of Manasseh as Knox observeth in his Dispute with Lethington where he proveth that the States of Scotland should not permit the Queen of Scotland to have her abominable Masse Hist. of Scotland l. 4. p. 379. edit an 1644. Surely the power or Sea-Prerogative of a sleepie or mad Pilot to split the ship on a rock as I conceive is limited by the Passengers Suppose a father in a distemper would set his own house on fire and burne himselfe and his ten sonnes I conceive his Fatherly prerogative which neither God nor Nature gave should not be looked to in this but they may binde him Yea Althusius polit c. 39. n. 60. answering that That in Democracie the people cannot both command and obey saith It is true secundum ideus ad idem eodem tempore But the people may saith he choose Magistrates by succession Yea I say 1. they may change Rulers yearely to remove envie A yearely King were more dangerous the King being almost above envie Men incline more to flatter then to envie Kings 2. Aristotle saith polit l. 4. c. 4. l. 6. c. 2. The people may give their judgement of the wisest Obj. Williams B. of Ossorie Vindic. Reg. A Looking-glasse for Rebels saith p. 64. To say the King is better than any one doth not prove him to be better then two and if his supremacie be no more then any other may challenge as much for the Prince is singulis major A Lord is above all Knights a Knight above all Esquires and so the People have placed a King under them not above them Ans. The reason is not alike for all the Knights united cannot make one Lord and all the Esquires united cannot make one Knight but all the People united made David King at Hebron 2. The King is above the people by eminencie of derived authoritie as a Watchman and in actuall supremacie and he is inferior to them in fountaine-power as the effect to the cause Object 2. The Parliament saith Williams may not command the King Why then make they supplications to him if their Vote be a Law Ans. They supplicate ex decentia of decencie and connveniencie for his place as a Citie doth supplicate a Lord Major but they supplicate not ex debito of obligation as beggars seeke almes then should they be cyphers 2. When a Subject oppressed supplicateth his Soveraigne for justice the King is obliged by office to give justice And to heare the oppressed is not an act of grace and mercie as to give almes though it should proceed from mercie in the Prince Psal. 72.13 but an act of Royall debt 3. The P. Prelate objecteth The most you claime to Parliaments is a coordinate power which in law and reason run in equall tearmes In Law par in parem non habet imperium an equall cannot judge an equall much lesse may an inferiour usurpeto judge a superiour Our Lord knew gratiâ visionis the woman taken in adulterie to be guilty bat he would not sâ—ntence her to teach us not improbably not to be both Judge and Witnesse The Parliament are Judges accusers and witnesses against the King in their owne cause against the Imperiall lawes Ans. 1. The Parliament is coordinate ordinarily with the King in the power of making Lawes but the coordination on the Kings part is by derivation on the Parliaments part originaliter fontaliter as in the fountaine 2. In ordinarie there is coordination but if the King turne Tyrant the Estates are to use their fountaine-power And that of the Law Par in parem c. is no better from his Pen that stealeth all he hath then from Barclaius Grotius Arnisaeus Blackwood c. It is cold and sowre We hold the Parliament that made the King at Hebron to be above their own creature the King Barclaius saith more acurately l. 5 cont Monarch p. 129. It is absurd that the People should both be subject to the King and command the King also Ans. It is not absurd that a Father naturall as a private man should be subject to his Sonne even that Jesse and his elder brother the Lord of all the rest be subject to David their King Royalists say Our late Queen being supreme Magistrate might by Law have put to death her own husband for adulterie or murther 2. The Parliament should not be both Accuser Iudge and Witnesse in their own cause 1. It is the Cause of Religion of God of Protestants and of the whole people 2. The oppressed accuse there is no need of Witnesses in raising armes against the Subjects 3. The P. Prelate could not object this if against the Imperiall laws the King were both Partie and Iudge in his own cause and in these acts of arbitrarie power which he hath done through bad counsell in wronging Fundamentall lawes raising armes against his subjects bringing in forraigne enemies into both his Kingdomes c. Now this is properly the cause of the King as he is a man and his owne cause not the cause of God and by no Law of nature reason or Imperiall Statutes can he be both Iudge and party 4. If the King be sole supreame Iudge without any fellow sharers in power 1. He is not obliged by Law to follow Counsell or hold Parliaments for Counsell is not Command 2. It is unpossible to limit him even in the exercises of his power which yet Dr. Ferne saith cannot be said for if any of his power be retrinched God is robbed saith Maxwell 3. He may by Law play the Tyrant gratis Ferne objecteth § 7. pag. 26. The King is a fundamentall with the Estates now foundations are not to be stirred or removed Ans. The King as King inspired with Law is a fundamentall and his power is not to be stirred but as a man wasting his people he is a destruction to the house and community and not a
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
B. of Ossarie answereth to the Maxime Salus populi c. No wise King but will carefully provide for the peoples safety because his safety and honour is included in theirs his destruction in theirs And it is saith Lipsius egri animi proprium nihil diu pati Absolom perswaded there was no justice in the Land when he intendeth Rebellion And the poore Prelate following him spendeth pages to prove that Goods Life Chastity and Fame dependeth on the safety of the King as the breath of our nostrills our Nurse-father our Head corner-stone and Judge c. 17.6.18.1 The reason why all disorder was in Church and State was not because there was no Iudge no Government none can be so stupid as to imagine that But because 1. They wanted the excellentest of Governments 2. Because Aristocracy was weakened so as there was no right No doubt Priests there were but Hos. 4. either they would not serve or were over-awed no doubt in those daies they had Iudges but Priests and Iudges were stoned by a rascally multitude and they were not able to rule therefore it is most consonant to Scripture to say Salus regis suprema populi salus The safety of the King and his Prerogative Royall is the safest sanctuary for the people So Hos. 3.4 Lament 2.9 Ans. 1. The question is not of the Wisedome but of the Power of the King if it should be bounded by no Law 2. The flatterer may know there be more foolish Kings in the world then wise and that Kings misled with Idolatrous Queenes and by name Achab ruined himselfe and his posterity and Kingdome 3. The salvation and happinesse of men standing in the exalting of Christs Throne and the Gospell ergo every King and every man will exalt the Throne and so let them have an incontrollable power without constraint of Law to doe what they list and let no bounds be set to Kings over subjects by this Argument their owne wisedome is a law to leade them to Heaven 4. It is not Absoloms mad Male-contents in Britane but there were really no justice to Protestants all indulgence to Papists Popery Arminianisme Idolatry printed Preached professed rewarded by Authority Parliaments and Church Assemblies the Bulwarkes of Iustice and Religion were denyed dissolved crushed c. 5. That by a King he understandeth a Monarch Iudg. 17. and that such a one as Saul of Absolute power and not a Iudge cannot be proved for there were no Kings in Israel in the Iudges daies the Government not being changed till neare the end of Samuels Government 6. And that they had no Iudges he saith It is not imaginable but I rather beleeve God then the Prelate Every one did what was right in his owne eyes because there was none to put ill doers to shame Possible the Estates of Israel governed some way for meere necessity but wanting a supreme Iudge which they should have they were loose but this was not because where there is no King as P. P. would insinuate there was no Government as is cleare 7. Of tempered and limited Monarchy I thinke as honourably as the Prelate but that absolute and unlimited Monarchy is excellenter then Aristocracy I shall then beleeve when Royalists shall prove such a Government in so farre it is absolute to be of God 8. That Aristocracy was now weakened I beleeve not seeing God so highly commendeth it and calleth it his own reigning over his people 1 Sam. 8.7 The weakening of it through abuse is not to a purpose more then the abuse of Monarchy 9. No doubt saith he Hos. 4. They were Priests and Iudges Hos. 4. but they were over-awed as they are now J thinke he would say Hos. 3.4 otherwise he citeth Scripture sleeping That the Priests of Antichrist be not only over-awed but out of the earth I yeeld that the King be limited not over-awed I thinke Gods Law and mans Law alloweth 10. The safety of the King as King is not only safety but a blessing to Church and State and therefore this P. Prelate and his fellowes deserve to be hanged before the Sun who have led him on a warre to destroy him and his Protestant subjects But the safety and flourishing of a King in the exercises of an Arbitrary unlimited power against Law and Religion and to the destruction of his subjects is not the safety of the people nor the safety of the Kings soule which these men if they be the Priests of the Lord should care for The Prelate commeth to refute the learned and worthy Observator The safety of the people is the supreme Law ergo the King is bound in duty to promote all and every one of his subjects to all happinesse The Observator hath no such inference the King is bound to promote some of his subjects even as King to a Gallowes especially Irish Rebells and many bloudy Malignants But the Prelate will needs have God rigorous hallowed be his name if it be so for it is unpossible to the tenderest-hearted father to doe so actuall promotion of all is unpossible that the King intend it of all his subjects as good subjects by a Throne established on righteousnesse and judgement is that which the worthy Observator meaneth other things here are answered The summe of his second answer is a repetition of what he hath said I give my word in a Pamphlet of one hundred ninety and foure pages I never saw more idle repetitions of one thing twenty times before said But page one hundred sixty and eight he saith The safety of the King and his subjects in the Morall notion may be esteemed Morally the same no lesse then the soule and the body make one personall subsistence Ans. This is strange Logick the King and his subjects are Ens per aggregationem and the King as King hath one Morall subsistence and the people another Hath the Father and the sonne the Master and the servant one Morall subsistence but the man speaketh of their well being and then he must meane that our Kings Government that was not long agoe and is yet to wit the Popery Arminianisme Idolatry cutting of mens eares and noses banishing imprisonment for speaking against Popery arming of Papists to slay Protestants pardoning the bloud of Ireland that I feare shall not be soone taken away c. are identically the same with the life safety and happinesse of Protestants then life and death justice and unjustice Idolatry and sincere worship are identically one as the soule of the Prelate and his body are one The third is but a repitition The Acts of Royaltie saith the Observator are Acts of dutie and obligation Ergo not acts of grace properly so called Ergo We may not thank the King for a courtesie This is no consequence What fathers do to children are acts of naturall dutie and of naturall grace and yet children owe gratitude to parents and subjects to good Kings in a legall sense No but in way of courtesie onely
titulo such as usurpe the throne and have no just claime to it Barclaius adver Monarcho-Ma l. 4. c. 10. p. 268. saith Any private man may kill him as a publike enemie of the State but if he lose his title to the Crown in the court of Men then is there 1 a Court on Earth to judge the King and so he is under the coactive power of a Law 2. Then a King may be resisted and yet those who resist them doe not incurre damnation the contrary whereof Royalists endeavour to prove from Rom. 13.3 Then the people may un-king one who was a King But 4. I would know who taketh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from him whereby he is a King that beame of Divine majestie Not the people because Royalists say they neither can give nor take away Royall dignitie and so they cannot un-king him 4. The more Will be in the consent saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 1. c 41. the obligation is the stricter So doubled words saith the Law l. 1. § 13. n. 13. oblige more strictly And all lawes of Kings who are rationall fathers and so lead us by Lawes as by rationall meanes to peace and externall happinesse are contracts of King and People Omnis lex sponsio contractus Reip. § 1. Iust. de ver relig Now the King at his Coronation-covenant with the people giveth a most intense consent an Oath to be a keeper and preserver of all good Laws and so hardly he can be freed from the strictest obligation that Law can impose And if he keep Lawes by office he is a meane to preserve Lawes and no meane can bee superior and above the end but inferior thereunto 5. Bodine proveth de Rep. l. 2. c. 5. p. 221. that Emperors at first were but Princes of the Commonwealth and that Soveraigntie remained still in the Senate and people Marius Salomonius a learned Romane Civilian wrote sixe bookes de Principatu to refute the supremacie of Emperors above the State Ferd. Vasq. illust quest part 1. l. 1. n. 21. proveth that the Prince by Royall dignitie leaveth not off to be a Citizen a member of the Politique body and not a King but a Keeper of Lawes Hence 6. The Prince remaineth even being a Prince a sociall creature a Man as well as a King one who must buy sell promise contract dispose Ergo he is not Regula regulans but under rule of law for impossible it is if the King can in a politicall way live as a member of a societie and doe and performe acts of policie and so performe them as he may by his office buy and not pay promise and vow and sweare to men and not performe nor be obliged to men to render a reckoning of his Oath and kill and destroy and yet in Curia politicae societatis in the Court of humane policie be free and that he may give inheritances as just rewards of vertue and well-doing and take them away againe Yea seeing these sinnes that are not punishable before men are not sinnes before men If all the sinnes and oppressions of a Prince be so above the punishment that men can inflict they are not sinnes before men by which meanes the King is loosed from all guiltinesse of the sinnes against the Second Table for the ratio formalis the formall reason why the Iudge by warrant from God condemneth in the Court of men the guilty man is because he hath sinned against humane societie either through the scandall of blasphemie or through other heynous sinnes he hath defiled the Land Now this is incident to the King as well as to some other sinfull man To these and the like heare what the excommunicated Prelate hath to say 1. They say he meaneth the Jesuites Every societie of men is a perfect Republick and so must have within it selfe a power to preserve it selfe from ruine and by that to punish a Tyrant He answereth A societie without a Head is a disorderly rout not a Politique body and so cannot have this power Ans. 1. The Pope giveth to every Societie Politick power to make away a Tyrant or hereticall King and to un-king him by his brethren the Jesuites way And observe how Papists of which number I could easily prove the P. Prelate to be by the Popish doctrine that he delivered while the iniquitie of time and dominion of Prelates in Scotland advanced him against all worth of true learning and holinesse to be a Preacher in Edinborough and Iesuites agree as the builders of Babylon It is the purpose of God to destroy Babylon 2. This answer shall inferre that the Aristocraticall Governors of any free State and that the Duke of Venice and the Senate there is above all Law and cannot be resisted because without their Heads they are a disorderly Rout. 3. A Politicall societie as by Natures instinct they may appoint a Head or Heads to themselves so also if their Head or Heads become ravenous Wolves the God of Nature hath not left a perfect Societie remedilesse but they may both resist and punish the Head or Heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good not for their destruction 4. They are as orderly a body Politique to unmake a Tyrannous Commander as they were to make a just Governour The Prelate saith It is alike to conceive a Politique body without a Governour as to conceive the naturall body without a Head He meaneth None of them can be conceivable I am not of his minde When Saul was dead Israel was a perfect Politique body and the Prelate if he be not very obtuse in his head as this hungry peece stollen from others sheweth him to be may conceive a visible Politicall societie performing a Politicall action 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. making David King at a visible and conceivable place at Hebron and making a Covenant with him And that they wanted not all Governors is nothing to make them Chymera's unconceivable For when so many families before Nimrod were governed only by fathers of families and they agreed to make either a King or other Governors a Head or Heads over themselves though the severall families had government yet these consociated families had no government and yet so conceivable a Politique body as if Maxwell would have compeared amongst them and called them a disorderly rout or an unconceivable Chymera they should have made the Prelate know that Chymera's can knock down Prelates Neither is a King the life of a Politique body as the soule is of the naturall body The body createth not the soule but Israel created Saul King and when he was dead they made David King and so under God many Kings as they succeeded till the Messiah came No naturall body can make soules to it selfe by succession Nor can Seas create new Prelates alwayes P. Prelate Jesuites and Puritans differ infinitely We are hopefull God shall cast down this Babel The Iesuites for ought I know seat the
Ambrose Sermo 16. in Psal. 118. Gregorius and Augusti Ioan. 8. saith he meaneth no man durst judge or punish him but God only Lorinus the Iesuit observeth eleven interpretatioÌ„s of the Fathers all to this sense since Lyra saith he sinned only against God because God only could pardon him Hugo Cardinalis because God only could wash him which he asketh in the Text. And Lorin Solo Deo conscio peccavi But the simple meaning is Against thee only have I sinned as my eye witnesse and imediate beholder and therfore he addeth and have done this evill in thy sight 2. Against thee only as my Iudge that thou maist be justified when thou judgest as cleare from all unrighteousnesse when thou shalt send the sword on my house 3. Against thee O Lord only who canst wash me and pardon me v. 1 2. And if this thee only exclude all together Vriah Bathsheba and the Law of the Iudges as if he had sinned against none of these in their kind then is the King because a King free not only from a punishing Law of man but from the duties of the second Table simply and so a King cannot be under the best and largest halfe of the Law Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe 2. He shall not need to say Forgive us our sinnes as we forgive them that sin against us for there is no reason from the nature of sin and the nature of the Law of God why we can say more the subjects and sonnes sin against the King and Father then to say the Father and King sin against the sonnes and subjects 3. By this the King killing his Father Iesse should sin against God but not breake the fift Command nor sinne against his father 4. God should in vaine forbid fathers to provoke their children to wrath 1. And Kings to doe unjustice to their subjects because by this the superiour cannot sinne against the inferiour for as much as Kings can sin against none but those who have power to judge and punish them but God only and no inferiours and no subjects have power to punish the Kings therefore Kings can sin against none of their subjects and where there is no sin how can there be a Law neither Major or Minor can be denyed by Royalists 2. We acknowledge Tyraâ—ny must only unking a Prince The Prelate denyeth it but he is a green Statist Barclay Grotius Winzetus as I have proved granteth it 3. He will excuse Nero as of infirmity wishing all Rome to have one necke that he may cut it off And is that charitable of Kings that they will not be so mad as to destroy their owne Kingdome But when Stories teach us there have been more Tyrants then Kings the Kings are more obliged to him for flattery then for State-wit except we say that all Kings who eate the people of God as they doe bread owe him little for making them all madde and franticke 4. But let them be Nero's and madde and worse there is no coercing of them but all must give their neckes to the sword if the poore Prelate be heard and yet Kings cannot be so madde as to destroy their subjects Mary of England was that madde the Romish Princes who have given Revel 17.13 their power and strength to the beast and doe make warre with the Lambe and Kings inspired with the spirit of the beast and drunke with the wine of the Cup of Babells fornications are so madde and the ten Emperours are so madde who wasted their faithfullest subjects P. Prelate If there be such a power in the Peeres resumable in the exâ—gent of necessity as the last necessary remedy for safety of Church and State God and nature not being deficient in things necessary it must be proved out of the Scripture and not taken on trust for Affirmanti incumbit probatio Ans. Mr. Bishop what better is your Affirmanti incumbit c then mine for you are the affirmer I can prove a power in the King limited onely to feed governe and save the people and you affirme that God hath given to the King not only a power officiall and Royall to save but also to destroy and cut off so as no man may say Why doest thou this Shall we take this upon the word of an excommunicated Prelate Profer tabulas Iohn P. P. I beleeve you not Royall power is Deut. 17.18 Rom. 3.14 I am sure there is there a power given to the King to doe good and that from God Let John P.P. prove a power to doe ill given of God to the King 2. We shall quickly prove that the States may represse this power and punish the Tyrant not the King when he shall prove that a Tyrannous power is an Ordinance of God and so may not be resisted For the law of Nature teacheth If â— give my sword to my fellow to defend me from the murtherer if he shall fall to and murther me with my own sword I may if I have strength take my sword from him Prelate It is infidelitie to thinke that God cannot helpe us and impatience that we will not wait on God When a King oppresseth us it is against Gods wisdome that he hath not provided another meane for our safetie than intrusion on Gods right 2. It is against Gods power 3. his Holinesse 4. Christian Religion that we necessitate God to so weake a meane to make use of sinne and we cast the aspersion of Treason on Religion and deterre Kings to professe Reformed Catholike Religion 5. We are not to justle God out of his right Ans. I see nothing but what D. Ferne Grotius Barclay Blackwood have said before with some colour of proving the consequence The P. Prelate giveth us other mens arguments but without bones All were good if the States coercing and curbing a power which God never gave to the King were a sinne and an act of impatience and unbelief And if it were proper to God only by his immediate hand to coerce Tyrannie 2. He calleth it not Protestant Religion either here or elsewhere but cautelously giveth a name that will agree to the Roman Catholique Religion For the Dominicans Franciscans and the Parisian Doctors and Schoolemen following Occham Gerson Almaâ—â— and other Papists call themselves Reformed Catholiques 2. He layeth this for a ground in 3 or 4 pages where these same Arguments are againe and againe repeated in terminis as his second Reason p. 149. was handled ad nauseam p. 148. his 3. Reason is repeated in his 6. Reason p. 151. He layeth I say down this ground which is the begged Conclusion and maketh the Conclusion the Assumption in 8 raw and often repeated Arguments to wit That the Parliaments coercing and restraining of Arbitrarie power is rebellion and resisting the Ordinance of God But he dare not looke the place Rom. 13. on the face other Royalists have done it with bad successe This I desire to be weighed and I retort the Prelates argument But it is
to other inferiour Iudges Be wise understand and the cause that you know not search out then the King is not the only interpreter of the Law But the Lord saith not to the King only but to other Iudges also Be wise understand and the cause that you know not search out ergo the King is not the sole Law-giver The Major is cleare from Ps. 2.10 Be wise now therefore O yee Kings be instructed yee Iudges of the earth So are commands and rebukes for unjust judgement given to others then to Kings Ps. 82.1 2 3 4 5. Ps. 58.1 2. Esay 1.17 23 25 26. Esay 3.14 see Iob. 29.12 13 14 15. c. 31. v. 21.22 3 The King is either the sole interpreter of Law in respect he is to follow the Law as his Rule and so he is a ministeriall interpreter of the Law or he is an interpreter of the Law according to that super-dominion of absolute power that he hath above the Law If the former be holden then it is cleare that the King is not the only interpreter for all Iudges as they are Iudges have a ministeriall power to expone the Law by the Law but the second is the sense of Royalists Hence our second Assertion is That the Kings power of exponing the Law is a meere ministeriall power and he hath no dominion of any absolute Royall Power to expone the Law as he will and to put such a sense and meaning of the Law as he pleaseth 1. Because Saul maketh a Law 1 Sam. 14.24 Cursed be the man that tasteth any food till night that the King may be avenged on his enemies the Law according to the letter was bloudy but according to the intent of the Law-giver and substance of the Law profitable for the end was that the enemies should be pursued with all speed But King Sauls exponing the Law after a Tyrannicall way against the intent of the Law which is the Diamond and Pearle of all Lawes the safety of the innocent people was justly resisted by the people who violently hindered innocent Jonathan to be killed Whence it is cleare that the people and Princes put on the Law its true sense and meaning for Ionathans tasting of a little honey though as it was against that sinfull and precipitate circumstance a rash oath yet it was not against the substance and true intent of the Law which was the peoples speedy pursuite of the enemy Whence it is cleare that the people including the Princes hath a ministeriall power to expone the Law aright and according to its genuine intent and that the King as King hath no absolute power to expone the Law as he pleaseth 2. The Kings absolute pleasure can no more be the genuine sense of a just Law then his absolute pleasure can be a Law because the genuine sense of the Law is the Law it selfe as the formall essence of a thing differeth not really but in respect of reason from the thing it selfe The Pope and Romish Church cannot put on the Scripture Ex plenitudine potestatis what ever meaning they will no more then they can out of absolute power make Canonicke Scripture Now so it is that the King by his absolute power cannot make Law no Law 1. Because he is King by or according to Law but he is not King of Law Rex est Rex secundum legem sed non est Dominus Rex legis 2. Because although it have a good meaning which Vlpian saith Quod principi placet legis vigorem habet The Will of the Prince is the Law yet the meaning is not that any thing is a just Law because it is the Princes Will for its rule formally for it must be good and just before the Prince can will it and then he finding it so he puteth the stampe of a humane Law on it 3. This is the difference between Gods Will and the will of the King or any mortall creature Things are just and good because God willeth them especially things positively good though I conceive it hold in all things and God doth not will things because they are good and just But the creature be he King or any never so eminent doe will things because they are good and just and the Kings willing of a thing maketh it not good and just for only Gods will not the Creatures will can be the cause why things are good and just If therefore it be so it must undeniably hence follow that the Kings will maketh not a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense and he cannot as King by any absolute super-dominion over the Law put a just sense on a bloody and unjust Law 4. The advancing of any man to the Throne and Royall dignitie putteth not the man above the number of rationall men But no rationall man can create by any act of power never so transcendent or boundlesse a sense to a Law contrary to the Law Nay give me leave to doubt if Omnipotencie can make a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense aut contra because it involveth a contradiction the true meaning of a Law being the essentiall forme of the Law Hence judge what bruitish swinish flatterers they are who say That it is the true meaning of the Law which the King the only supreme and independent expositor of the Law saith is the true sense of the Law There was once an Animal a Foole of the first magnitude who said He could demonstrate by invincible reasons that the Kings dung was more nourishing food then bread of the floore of the finest wheat For my part I could wish it were the Demonstrators only food for seven dayes and that should be the best demonstration he could make for his proofe 5. It must follow that there can be no necessitie of written laws to the Subjects against Scripture and naturall reason and the law of Nations in which all accord That Lawes not promulgated and published cannot oblige as Lawes Yea Adam in his innocencie was not obliged to obey a Law not written in his heart by Nature except God had made known the Law as is cleare Gen. 3.11 Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat But if the Kings absolute Will may put on the Law what sense he pleaseth out of his independent and irresistable Supremacie The Lawes promulgated and written to the Subjects can declare nothing what is to be done by the Subjects as just and what is to be avoyded as unjust because the Lawes must signifie to the Subjects what is just and unjust according to their genuine sense Now their genuine sense according to Royalists is not only uncertaine and impossible to be known but also contradictorious for the King obligeth us without gainsaying to believe that the just Law hath this unjust sense Hence this of flattering Royalists crueller to Kings than Ravens for these ear but dead men and they
devoure living men when there is a controversie between the King and the Estates of Parliament who shall expone the Law and render its native meaning say Royalists not the Estates of Parliament for they are Subjects not Iudges to the King and only Counsellers and advisers of the King The King therefore must be the only judiciall and finall expositor As for Lawyers said Strafford the Law is not inclosed in a Lawyers Cap. But I remember this was one of the Articles laid to the charge of Richard the Second that he said The Law was in his head and breast And indeed it must follow if the King by the plenitude of absolute power be the only supreme uncontrollable Expositor of the Law that is not Law which is written in the Acts of Parliament but that is the Law which is in the Kings breast and head which Iosephus lib. 19. Antiq. c. 2. objected to Caius And all justice and injustice should be finally and peremptorily resolved on the Kings will and absolute pleasure 6. The King either is to expone the Law by the Law it selfe or by his Absolute power loosed from all Law he exponeth it or according to the advise of his Great Senate If the first be said he is nothing more then other Iudges If the second be said he must be omnipotent and more If the third be said he is not absolute if the Senate be only Advisers and he yet the only Iudiciall expositor The King often professeth his ignorance of the Lawes and he must then both be absolute above the Law and ignorant of the Law and 2. the sole and finall Iudiciall exponer of the Law And by this all Parliaments and their power of making Lawes and of judging iâ— cryed down They object Prov. 16.10 A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King His mouth transgresseth not in judgement ergo he only can expone the Law Ans. 1. Lavater saith and I see no reason on the contrary by a King he meaneth all Magistrates 2. Aben Ezra and Isidorus read the words imperatively The Tigurine version They are Oracles which proceed from his lips let not therefore his mouth transgresse in judgement Vatabulus When he is in his prophecies he lyeth not Iansenius Non facile errabit in judicando Mich. Iermine If he pray Calvine If he read in the booke of the Law as God commandeth him Deut. 17. But why stand we on the place He speaketh of good Kings saith Cornel à Lapide Otherwise Ieroboam Achab Manasseh erred in judgement And except as Mercerus exponeth it We understand him to speake of Kings according to their office not their facts and practice we make them Popes and men who cannot give out grievous and unjust sentences on the Throne against both the Word and experience Object 2. Sometimes all is cast upon ouâ— mans voice why may not the King be this one man Answ. The Antecedent is false the last Voter in a Senate is not the sole Iudge else why should others give suffrages with him 2. This were to take away inferiour Iudges contrary to Gods Word Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Rom. 13.1 2 3. QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Subjects and Estates for their own just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull A Ruisaeus perverteth the question he saith The question is Whether or no the Subjects may according to their power judge the King and dethrone him that is Whether or no is it lawfull for the Subjects in any case to take arms against their lawfull Prince if he degenerate and shall wickedly use his lawfull power The state of the question is much perverted for these be different questions Whether the Kingdom may dethrone a wicked and Tyrannous Prince And whether may the Kingdom take up arms against the man who is the King in their own innocent defence For the former is an Act offensive and of punishing the latter is an Act of Defence 2. The present question is not of Subjects onely but of the Estates and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom I utterly deny these as they are Iudges to be subjects to the King for the question is Whether is the King or the representative Kingdom greatest and which of them be subject one to another I affirm Amongst Iudges as Iudges not one is the Commander or Superiour and the other the commanded or subject Indeed one higher Iudge may correct and punish a Iudge not as a Iudge but as an erring man 3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act of War as concerning the power of naturall Defence upon supposition That the King be not now turned an habituall Tyrant but that upon some acts of mis-information he come in arms against his Subjects 2. Arnisaeus maketh two sort of Kings Some Kings integra Majestatis of intire power and Soveraignty some Kings by pactions or voluntary agreement between King and people But I judge this a vain distinction For the limited Prince so he be limited to a power onely of doing just and right by this is not a Prince integrae Majestatis of entire Royall Majestie whereby he may do both good and also play the Tyrant but a power to do ill being no wayes essentiall yea repugnant to the absolute Majestie of the King of Kings cannot be an essentiall part of the Majestie of a lawfull King and therefore the Prince limited by voluntary and positive paction onely to rule according to law and equity is the good lawfull and entire Prince if he have not power to do every thing just and good in that regard onely he is not an intire and compleat Prince So the man will have it lawfull to resist the limited Prince not the absolute Prince by the contrary it is more lawfull to me to resist the absolute Prince then the limited in as much as we may with safer consciences resist the Tyrant and the Lyon then the just Prince and the Lamb. Nor can I assent to Cunnerus de officio princip Christia c. 5. 17. Who holdeth that these voluntary pactions betwixt King and people in which the power of the Prince is diminished cannot stand because their power is given to them by Gods Word which cannot be taken from them by any voluntary paction lawfully and from the same ground Winzetus in vâ—lit contr Buchan p. 32. will have it unlawfull to resist Kings because God hath made them unresistable I answer If God by a divine institution make Kings absolute and above all Laws which is a blasphemous supposition the holy Lord can give to no man a power to sin for God hath not himself any such power then the Covenant betwixt the King and people cannot lawfully remove and take away what God by institution has given but because God Deut. 17. hath limited the first lawfull King the mould of all the rest the people ought also to limit him by a voluntary Covenant and because the
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
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
that act as a sinfull man having something of Tyrannie in him 2. The Powers Rom. 13.1 that are are ordained of God as their author and efficient But Kings commanding unjust things and killing the innocent in these acts are but men and sinfull men and the power by which they doe these acts a sinfull and an usurped power and so far they are not powers ordained of God according to his revealed Will which must rule us Now the authoritie and officiall power in abstracto is ordained of God as the Text saith and other Scriptures doe evidence And this Polititians doe cleare while they distinguish betwixt jus Personae and jus Coronae the power of the Person and the power of the Crown and Royall office They must then be two different things 3. He that resisteth the power that is the officiall power and the King as King and commanding in the Lord resisteth the Ordinance of God and Gods lawfull constitution v. 2. But he who resisteth the Man who is the King commanding that which is against God and killing the innocent resisteth no ordinance of God but an ordinance of Sin and Sathan for a man commanding unjustly and ruling Tyrannically hath in that no power from God 4. They that resist the power and Royall office of the King in things just and right shall receive to themselves damnation ver 3. but they that resist that is refuse for Conscience to obey the man who is the King and choose to obey God rather then men as all the Martyrs did shall receive to themselves salvation And the 80 valiant men the Priests who used bodily violence against King Vzzahs person and thrust him out of the house of the Lord from offering incense to the Lord which belonged to the Priest only received not damnation to themselves but salvation in doing Gods will and in resisting the Kings wicked will Arg. 5. The lawfull Ruler as a Ruler and in respect of his office is not to be resisted because he is not a terrour to good workes but to evill and no man who doth Good is to be afraid of the Office or the Power but to expect praise and a reward of the same v. 3. But the man who is a King may command an idolatrous and superstitious Worship send an Army of Cut-throats against them because they refuse that Worship and may reward Papists Prelates and other corrupt men and may advance them to places of State and Honour because they kneele to a Tree-Altar pray to the East adore the letters and sound of the word Jesus teach and write Arminianisme And may imprison deprive confine cut the eares and rip the noses and burne the faces of those who speake and preach and write the truth of God and may send Armies of Cut-throats Irish Rebels and other Papists and malignant Atheists to destroy and murther the Iudges of the Land and innocent defenders of the Reformed Religion c. The Man I say in these acts is a terrour to Good workes an incouragement to Evill And those that doe Good are to be afraid of the King and to expect no praise but punishment and vexation from him Ergo this reason in the Text will prove that the Man who is the King in so far as he doth these things that are against his offiâ—e may be resisted and that in these we are not to be subject but only we are to be subject to his power and Royall authoriâ—ie in abstracto in so farre as according to his office he is not a terrour to good workes but to evill 6. The lawfull Ruler is the minister of God or the servant of God for Good to the Commonwealth And to resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and using the power that he hath from his Master is to resist the Lord his Master v. 4. But the man who is the King commanding unjust things and killing the innocent in these acts is not the minister of God for the Good of the Commonwealth he serveth himselfe and Papists and Prelates for the destruction of Religion Lawes and Commonwealth therefore the Man may be resisted by this Text when the office and power cannot be resisted 7. The Ruler as the Ruler and the nature and intrinsecall end of the office is that he beare Gods sword as an avenger to execute wrath on him that doth evill v. 4. and so cannot be resisted without sinne But the man who is the Ruler and commandeth things unlawfull and killeth the innocent carieth the Papists and Prelates sword to execute not the righteous judgement of the Lord upon the ill-doer but his own private revenge upon him that doth well Ergo the Man may be resisted the Office may not be resisted and they must be two different things 8. We must needs be subject to the Royall office for â—onscience v. 5. by reason of the fifth Commandement But we must not needs be subject to the man who is King if he command things unlawfull for D. Ferne warranteth us to resist if the Ruler invade us sodainly 2. Without colour of Law or Reason 3. Vnavoydably And Winzetus and Barclay and Grotius as before I cited give us leave to resist a King turning a cruell Tyrant But Paul Rom. 13. forbiddeth us to resist the Power in Abstracto Ergo it must be the Man in concreto that we must resist 9. Those we may not resist to whom we owe tribute as a reward of the onerous worke on which they as Ministers of God doe attend continually But we owe not tribute to the King as a man for then should we be addebted tribute to all men but as a King to whom the wages of tribute is due as to a Princely workman a King as a King ergo the Man and the King are different 10. We owe fear and honour as due to be rendred to the man who is King because he is a King not because he is a man for it is the highest feare and honour due to any mortall man which is due to the King as King 11. The Man and the inferiour Judge are different and we cannot by this Text resist the inferiour Iudge as a Iudge but we resist the ordinance of God as the Text proveth But Cavaliers resist the inferior Iudges as men and have killed divers members of both Houses of Parliament but they will not say that they killed them as Judges but as Rebels If therefore to be a Rebell as a wicked Man and to be a Iudge are differenced thus then to be a Man and to commit some acts of Tyrannie and to be the supreme Iudge and King are two different things 12. Mr. Knox Hist. of Scotland l. 2. The Congregation in a letter to the Nobilitie say There is great difference betwixt the Authoritie which is Gods Ordinance and the Persons of those who are placed in authoritie The Authoritie and Gods ordinances can never doe wrong for it commandeth that Vice and wicked men be punished and
an habituall Tyrant and conduce an hundred thousand Turkes to destroy his subjects upon meere desire of revenge they are not to resist but to be subject and suffer for conscience I am sure Grotius saith If a King sell his subjects he loseth all title to the Crowne and so may be resisted and Winzetus saith A Tyrant may be resisted and Barclay It is lawfull for the people in case of Tyranny to defend themselves Adversus immanem saevetiam against extreame cruelty and I desire the Prelate to answer how people are subject in suffering such cruelty of the higher power because he is Gods ordinance and a power from God except he say as he selleth his people and barbarously destroyeth by Cut-throat Irishes his whole subjects refusing to worship Idolls he is a man and a sinfull man eatenus and an inferiour power inspired by wicked counsell not a King eatenus not a higher power and that in resisting him thus the subjects resist not the ordinance of God Also suppone King David defend his Kingdome and people against Iesse his naturall father who we suppose cometh in against his sonne and Prince King David with a huge army of the Philistimes to destroy him and his Kingdome if he shall kill his owne native father in that warr at some Edge-hill how shall he preserve at Ierusalem that honour love that he oweth to his father by vertue of the fifth Commandement Honour thy father and thy mother c. Let them answer this except King David consider Iesse in one relation in abstracto as his father whom he is to obey and as he is a wicked man and a perfidious subject in another relation and except King David say he is to subject himselfe to his father as a father according to the fifth Commandement and that in the act of his fathers violent invasion he is not to subject himselfe to him as he is a violent invader and as a man Let the Royalist see how he can answer the Argument and how Levie is not to know his father and mother as they are sinfull men Deut. 33.9 and yet to know and honour them as Parents and how an Israelite is not to pitty the wife that lyeth in his bosome when she inticeth him to goe a whooring after strange Gods but is to kill her Deut. 13.6 7 8. and yet the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved his Church Eph. 5.25 If the husband take away his wives life in some mountaine in the holy Land as Gods Law commandeth let the Royalists answer us where is then the maritall love he owes to her and that respect due to her as she is a wife and a helper But let not the Royalist infer that I am from these examples pleading for the killing of Kings for lawfull resistance is one thing and killing of Kings is another the one defensive and lawfull the other offensive and unlawfull so long as he remaineth a King and the Lords Anoynted But if he be a murtherer of his father who doth counsell his father to come to a place of danger where he may be killed and where the King ought not to be as Abner was worthy of death who watched not carefully King Saul but slept when David came to his bed side and had opportunity to kill the King they are Traitors and murtherers of the King who either counselled his Majesty to come to Edge-hill where the danger was so grett or did not violently restraine him from comming thither seeing Kings safety and lives are as much yea more in the disposing of the people then in their owne private will 2 Sam. 18.2 3. for certainly the people might have violently restrained King Saul from killing himselfe and the King was guilty of his own death and sinneth against his Office and subjects who commeth out in person to any such battles where he may be killed and the contrary party free of his blood And here our Prelate is blind if he see not the cleare difference between the Kings Person and the Office as he is King and between his private Will and his publicke and Royall Will 3. The Angels may be named Thrones and Dominions in abstracto and yet created in concreto and we may say the Angell and his power are both created at once but David was not both borne the Son of Iesse and a King at once and the P. Prelate by this may prove it is not lawfull to resist the Divell for he is of the number of these created Angells Col. 1. as he is a Divell because in resisting the Divell as a Divell we must resist an Angell of God and a Principality 4. To speake ill of dignities 2 Pet. 2. and Iud. 8. Piscator insinuateth is to speake evill of the very Office of Rulers as well as of their manners and Theodat saith on 2 Pet. 2. that these Raylers spake evill of the place of Governours and Masters as unbeseeming beleevers All our Interpreters as Beza Calvin Luther Bucer Marloratus from the place saith It is a speciall reproofe of Anabaptists and Libertines who in that time maintained that we are all free men in Christ and that there should not be Kings Masters nor any Magistrates however the abstract is put for the concrete its true and it saith we are not to raile upon Nero but to say Nero was a persecutor of Christians and yet obey him commanding what is just are very consistent 5. The persons are proposed Rom. 13. to be the object of our obedience saith D. Ferne it is very true but he is ignorant of our mind in exponing the word Person we never meant that feare honour royalty tribute must be due to the abstracted accident of Kingly Authority and not to the man who is King Nor is it our meaning that Royalty in abstracto is Crowned King and is anoynted but that the Person is crowned and anoynted But againe by a person we meane nothing lesse then the man Nero wasting Rome burning crucifying Paul and torturing Christians and that we owe subjection to Nero and to his person in concreto as to Gods ordinance Gods Minister Gods sword-bearer in that notion of a Person is that only that we deny Nay in that Nero in concreto to us is no Power ordained of God no Minister of God but a Minister of the Divell and Sathans armour-bearer and therefore we owe not feare honour subjection and tribute to the Person of Nero. But the Person thus far is the object of our obedience that feare honour subjection and tribute must be due to the man in concreto to his Person who is Prince but not because he is a man or a person simply or a sword-bearer of Papists but for his office for that eminent place of royall dignity that God hath conferred on his Person We know the light of the Sun the heate of fire in abstracto doe not properly give light and heat but the Sun and fire in
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
say Nathan and Samuel erred not as men because their persons were sacred and anointed and they erred not as Prophets sure Ergo they erred not all A King as a King is an holy Ordinance of God and so cannot doe injustice Ergo they must doe acts of Iustice as men 2. The inferior Iudge is a Power from God 2. To resist him is to resist an ordinance of God 3. He is not a terrour to good workes but to evill 4. He is the minister of God for good 5. He is Gods Sword-bearer his officiall power to rule may by as good right come by birth as the Crown and the Kings person is sacred only for his office and is annointed only for his office For then the Chaldeans dishonored not inferior Iudges Lam. 5.12 when they hanged the Prince honored not the faces of Elders It is in questiō if the Kings actual authority be not as separable frō him as the actuall authority of the Iudge Symmons p. 24. The King himselfe may use this distinction As a Christian he may forgive any that offendeth against his person but as a Iudge he must punish in regard of his office Ans. Well then Flatterers will grant the distinction when the King doth good and pardoneth the blood of Protestants shed by bloody Rebels But when the King doth acts of injustice he is neither man nor King but some independent absolute God Symmons p. 27. Gods Word tyeth me to every one of his personall commandements as well as his legall commandements nor doe I obey the Kings law because it is established or because of its known penaltie nor yet the King himselfe because he ruleth according to Law But I obey the Kings law because I obey the King and I obey the King because I obey God I obey the King and his Law because I obey God and his Law Better obey the Command for a reverent regard to the Prince then for a penaltie Ans. It is hard to answer a sick man It is blasphemie to seek this distinction of Person and Office in the King of Kings because by Person in a mortall King we understand a Man that can sinne 1. I am not obliged to obey his personall commandement except I were his domestick nor his unlawfull personall commandements because they are sinfull 2. It is false that you obey the Kings Law because you obey the King for then you say but this I obey the King because I obey the King The truth is Obedience is not formally terminated on the person of the King Obedience is relative to a precept and it is Men-service to obey a Law not because it is good and just but upon this formall motive because it is the will of a mortall man to command it And Reverence Love Feare being acts of the Affection are not terminated on a Law but properly on the Person of the Iudge and they are modifications or laudable qualifications of acts of obedience not motives not the formall reason why I obey but the manner how I obey And the Apostle maketh expresly Rom. 13 4. feare of punishment a motive of obedience while he saith He beareth not the sword in vaine Ergo Be subject to the King And this hindreth not personall resistance to unjust commandements Symmons p. 27 28 29. You say To obey the Princes Personall commandement against his Legall will is to obey himselfe against himselfe So say I To obey his Legall will against his Personall will is to obey himselfe against himselfe for I take his Person to be himselfe Ans. To obey the Kings personall will when it is sinfull as we now suppose against his legall will is a sinne and a disobedience to God and the King also seeing the Law is the Kings will as King but to obey his Legall will against his sinfull personall will as it must be sinfull if contrary to a just Law is obedience to the King as King and so obedience to God 2. You take the Kings person to be himself but you take quid pro quo for his person here you must take not Physically for his suppost of soul and body but morally it is the King as a sinning man doing his worst will against the Law which is his just and best will and the rule of the Subjects and the Kings personall will is so far just and to regulate the Subjects in so far as it agreeth with his legall Will or his Law and this will can sinne and therefore may be crossed without breach of the fifth Commandement but his Legall Will cannot be crossed without disobedience both to God and the King Symmons p. 28. The Kings Personall will doth not alwayes presuppone passion and if it be attended with passion yet we must beare it for conscience sake Ans. We are to obey the Kings Personall will when the thing commanded is not sinne but his Subjects as Subjects have little to do with his personall will in that notion It concerneth his domestick servant and is the Kings will as he is the master of servants not as he is King in relation to Subjects but we speak of the Kings personall will as repugnant to Law and contrary to the Kings will as King and so contrary to the fifth Commandment and this is attended often not onely with Passion but also with prejudice and we owe no subjection to prejudice and Passions or to Actions commanded by these misordered powers because they are not from God nor his Ordinances but from men and the flesh and we owe no subjection to the flesh Doct. Ferne Sect. 9. pag. 58. The distinction of personall and legall will hath place in evill actions but not in resistance where we cannot sever the person and the dignitie or authority because we cannot resist the power but we must resist the person who hath the power Saul had lawfully the command of Arms but that power he useth unjustly against innocent David I ask when these Emperours took away lives and goods at their pleasure was that a power ordained of God No but an Illegall will a Tyranny but they might not resist nay but they cannot resist for that power and soveraigntie imployed to compasse these illegall commandments was ordained and settled in them When Pilate condemned our Saviour it was an illegall will ye◠our Saviour acknowledgeth in it Pilates power that was given him from above Answ. 1. Here we have the distinction denyed by Royalists granted by D. Fern but if when the King commands us to do wickednesse we may resist that personall will and when he commandeth us to suffer unjustly we cannot resist his will but we must resist also his Royall person What Is it not still the King and his person sacred as his power is sacred when he commandeth the subjects to do unjustly as when he commandeth them to suffer unjustly It were fearfull to say when Kings command any one act of idolatry they are no longer Kings if for conscience I am to suffer unjustly
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
Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissariâ—s for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in threâ— kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religions Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitrâ—ry or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-offâ—nding for sâ—lf-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the suffâ—r â—awes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Annoâ—nted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans. 1. David speaketh of stretching out his haâ—d against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without colâ—ur of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resistâ—d and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he râ—maineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6.9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market-confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himselfe with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sons and may save their owne lives with weapons much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evill spirit from the Lord may be resisted and faâ—re more if a King indued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his son and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves and the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one man who cannot be virtually the Common-wealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody emissaries to the dissolution of the Common-wealth 3. The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangrene would corrupt the whole body is well warranted by nature because the safety of the whole is to be preferred to the safety of a part Nor is it much that Royalists say the King being the head destroy him the whole body the Common-wealth is dissolved as cut off a mans head the life of the whole man is taken away Because 1. God cutteth off the spirits of tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved no more then when a Leopard or a wilde Boare running through children is killed it can be the destruction of all the children in the land 2. A king indefinitely is referred to the Common-wealth as an adequat head to a Monarchicall Kingdome and remove all Kings and the politique body as Monarchicall in its frame is not Monarchicall but it leaveth not off to be a politique body seeing it hath other Judges but the naturall body without the head cannot live 2. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortall thing cannnot be referred to the immortall Common-wealth as it is adequat correlate They say the King never dieth yet this King can dye an immortall politique body such as the Common-wealth must have an immortall head and that is a King as a King not this or that man possibly a tyrant who is for the time and eternall things abstract from time onely a King 4. The reason of Fortunius Garcias a skilfull Lawyer in Spaine is considâ—rable Coment in l. ut vim vi ff de justit jure God hath implâ—nted in every creature naturall inclinations and motions to preserve it selfe and we are to love our self for God and have a love to preserve our selves rather then our neighbour and Natures law teacheth every man to love God best of all and next our selves more then our neighbour for the Law saith Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe then saith Malderus com in 12. q. 26. tom 2. c. 10. concl 2. The love of our selfe is the measure of the love of our neighbour But the rule and the measure is more perfect simple and more principall then the thing that is measured It is true I am to love the salvation of the Church it comming neerer to Gods glory more then my owne salvation as the wishes of Moses and Paul do prove and I am to love the salvation of my brother more then my owne temporall life but I am to love my owne temporall life more then the life of any other and therefore I am rather to kill then to be killed the exigence of necessity so requiring Nature without sin aimeth this as a truth in the case of losse of life Proximus sum egomet mihi Ephes. 5.28 29. He that loveth his wife loveth himselfe for no man ever yet hated his owne flesh but nourisheth it and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church As then nature tyeth the dam to defend the young birds and the Lyon her whelps and the husband the wife and that by a comparative re-offending rather then the wife or children should be killed yea hee that is wanting to his brother if a robber unjustly invade his brother and helpeth him not is a murtherer of his
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
themselves rich also with the fat of the flock and God onely maketh poore yet the P. Prelates Courts mediately also under God â—ade many men poore 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not such an exclusive Particle when we ascribe it to God as when we ascribe it to two created câ—uses workes and faith and the Protestants forme of arguing Gal. 2. to prove we are justified by faith he calleth our strong hold Ergo. It is not his strong hold In this point then hee must be a Papist and so he refuses to owne Protestant strong holds for justification by faith alone D. Ferne sâ—ct 2. pag. 10. As many as have soules must be subject to the higher powers spoken of here but all inferiour Iudges have soules Answ. If the word soules be thus pressed none shall be understood by higher powers but the King onely 2. Certainly he that commandeth as he commandeth must be excepted except because the King haâ—h a soule you must subject the King to himself and to his owne commandements Royall and so to penall Lawes 3. Inferiour Judges as Judges by this text must either be subject to themselves as Judges and by the same reason the King must be subject to himselfe as he is a Judge Or Judges as men or as erring men are to be subject which I would grant but they are not subject as Judges no more then one as he commandeth can also obey as he commandâ—th These are contradictory I am not put off that opinion since I was at Schools Species subjicibilis qua subjicibilis non est praedicabilis 4. â—f Nero make fathers rulers over their mothers and children and command them by his publique sword of justice to kill their ownâ— children and mothers if a Senate of such fathers disobey and if with the sword they defend their own children and mothers which some other Doâ—gs as Judges are to kill in the name and commandement of Nero Then they resisting Neroes bastard-commandment by â—his doctâ—ine resist the ordinance of God and resist the Minister of God I have not a faith stretcht out so farre to the Prelates Court-divinity Yet Ferne saith there was never more cause to resist higher powers for their wicked Nero was Emperour when he now forbideth resistance Rom. 13. under the paine of damnation I desire to be informed whether to resist the Kings servants be to resist the King Doctor Ferne p. 3. § 2. p. 10. and par 3. § 9. p. 59. allow us in unavoidable assaults where death is imminent personall defence without offending as lawfull whether the King or his emissaries invade without law or reason Well then the resisting then of the Kings cut-throats though they have a personall command of the King to kill the innocent yet if they want a legall is no resisting of the King not as King and the servant hath no more then the Master giveth but the King in lawlesse commandements gave nothing royall to his cut-throates and so nothing legall QUEST XXXIIII Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres WHat reasons have already been discussed I touch not Obj. 1. Arnisaeus de authorit princâ—p c. 2. num 2. If we are to obey our parents not if they be good but simply whether they be good or ill so Iust. saith of the King Quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius tamen pater § si vero in ff vos 12. then must we submit to wicked Kings Ans. Valeat totum we are to submit to wicked Kings wicked parents because Kings and parents but when it cometh to actuall submission we are to submit to neither but in the Lord the question is not touching subjection to a Prince let him be Nero but if in acts of Tyranny we may not deny subjection there be great odds betwixt wicked rulers and rulers commanding or punishing unjustly Obj. 2. Arnisaeus c. 3. n. 9. We may resist an inferior magistrate Ergo we may resist the supreame it followeth not for an inferiour judge hath a Majesty in fiction onely not properly treason is or can onely be committed against the King the obligation to inferiour judges is onely for the prince the person of none is sacred and inviolable but the Kings Ans. We obey parents masters kings upon this formall ground because they are Gods deputies and set over us not by man but by God So that not onely are we to obey them because what they command is good and just such a sort of obedience an equall owes to the counsell of either equall or inferiour but also by vertue of the fift commandement because of their place of dignity now this Majesty which is the formall reason of subjection is one and the same in spece and nature in King and Constable and onely different gradually in the King and in other judges and it is denyed that there is any incommunicable sanctity in the Kings person which is not in some degree in the inferiour judge all proceedeth from this false ground that the King and inferiour judges differ in nature which is denied and treason inferiour may be committed against an inferiour judge and it is a fiction that the inferiour judge doth not resemble God as the King doth yea there is a sacred Majesty in all inferiour judges in the aged in every superiour wherefore they deserve honour feare and reverence Suppose there were no King on earth as is cleare in Scripture Exod. 20.12 Levit. 19.32 Esther 1.20 Psal. 149.9 Prov. 3.16 Math. 13.57 Heb. 5.4 Isa. 3 3. Lam. 5.12 Mal. 1.6 Psal. 8.5 and this honour is but united in a speciall manner in the King because of his high place Obj. 3. A King elected upon conditions may be resisted Ans. He is as essentially a King as a hereditary yea as an absolute Prince and no lesse the Lords annoynted then another prince if then one also another may be resisted Obj. 4. The oath of God bindeth the subjects Ergo they must obey not resist Ans. Obedience and resistance are very consistent 2. No doubt the people gave their oath to Athaliah but to her as the onely heir of the crown they not knowing that Ioash the lawfull heir was liveing so may conditionall oaths all of this kinde are conditionall in which there is interpretative and virtuall ignorance be broken as the peoplâ— swear loyalty to such a man conceived to be a father he after that turneth Tyrant may they not resist his Tyranny they may Also no doubt Israel gave their oath of loyalty to Iabin for when Nebuchadnezer subdued Iudah he took an oath of loyalty of their King Yet many of Zabulon Nepthali and Isachar Barack leading them conspired against Iabin Obj. 5. There is no law to take a Kings life if he turne a Nero we never read that Subjects did it Ans. The treatise of unlimited prerogative saith p. 7. We read not that a father killing his children was killed by them the fact being abhominable 2. The law Gen. 6.9
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
these men according to their works which forbeare to help men that are drawn to death and those that be ready to be slaine if they shift the businesse and say Behold we know not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it When therefore the Lords Prophets complaine that the people execute not judgement relieve not the oppressed help not and rescue not those that are drawn to death unjustly by the King or his murthering Judges they expresly cry out against the sin of non-resistance 2. The Prophets cannot expresly and formally cry out against the Judges for non-resisting the King when they joyne as â—avening wolves with the King in these same acts of oppression even as the Judge cannot formally impannell 24 men sent out to guard the travellers from an arch robber if these men joyne with the robber and rob the travellers and become cut-throats as the arch robber is he cannot accuse them for their omission in not guarding the innocent travellers but for a more hainous crime that not onely they omitted what was their duty in that they did not rescue the oppressed out of the hands of the wicked but because they did rob and murther and so the lesser sinne is swallowed up in the greater The under-Judges are watchmen and a guard to the Church of God if the King turn a bosome robber their part is Ier. 22.3 to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour to watch against domestick and forraine enemies and to defend the flock from wolves Ezek. 23.2 3 4. Ier. 50.6 to let the oppressed goe free and to break every yoak Esay 58.6 to break the jawes of the wicked and pluck the spoile out of his teeth Job 29.17 Now if these Judges turne Lyons and ravening Wolves to prey upon the flock and joyne with the King as alwayes they did when the King was an oppressor his Princes made him glad with their lies and joyned with him and the people with both Ier. 1.18 Ier. 5.1 Ier. 9.1 Mic. 7.1 Ezek. 22.24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31. Ier. 15.1 2 3. It is no wonder if the Prophets condemne and cry out against the hugest and most bloody crime of positive oppression formally and expresly and in that their negative murthers in not releeving the oppressed must also be cryed out against 13. The whole Land cannot formally be accused for non-resistance when the whole Land are oppressors for then they should be accused for not resisting themselves 14. The King ought to resist the inferiour judges in their oppression of the people by the confession of Royalists then this argument cometh with the like force of strength on themselves let them shew us practice precept or promise in the Word where the King raised an Armie for defence of Religion against Princes and people who were subverting Religion and we shall make use of that same place of Scripture to prove that the Estates and people who are above the King as I have proved and made the King may and ought to resist the King with the like force of Scripturall truth in the like case 16. Royalists desire the like president of practice and precept for defensive warres but I answer let them shew us a practice where any King of Israel or Judah raised an Armie of Malignants of Phylistims Sydonians Ammonites against the Princes of Israel and Judah conveened in an Assemblie to take course for bringing home the captived Arke of God and vindicating the Lawes of the Land and raised an Armie contrary to the knowledge of the Elders Princes and Judges to set up Dagon or tollerate the worship of the Sydonian gods and yet Princes Elders Judges and the whole people were obliged all to flee out of Gods land or then onely to weep and request that the King would not destroy souls and bodies of them and their innocent posterities because they could not in conscience imbrace the worship of Dagon and the Sydonian gods when the Royalist can parallel this with a precedent we can answer there was as smal apparency of precedency in Scripture except you flee to the law of nature that 80 Priests the Subjects of King Vzziah should put in execution a penall Law against the Lords Annoynted and that the inferiours and subjects should resist the Superiour and that these Priests with the Princes of the land should remove the King from actuall government all his dayes and crown his son at least make the father their Prince and superiour as Royalists say as good as a Cypher Is not this a punishment inflicted by inferiours upon a superiour according to the way of Royalists Now it is clear a worshipping of bread and the Masse commanded and against law obtruded upon Scotland by influence of the counsell of known Papists is to us and in it self as abominable as the worshiping of Dagon or the Sydonian Gods and when the Kingdom of Scotland did but conveen supplicat and protest against that obtruded Idolatry they were first declared rebels by the King and then an army raised against them by Prelates and Malignants inspired with the spirit of Anti-christ to destroy the whole land if they should not submit soul and conscience to that wicked service QUEST XXXV Whether or no the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church militate against the lawfulnesse of defensive wars ROyalists think they burden our Cause much with hatred when they bring the Fathers and ancient Martyrs against us So the P. Prelate extracted out of other Authors testimonies for this and from I. Armagh in a Sermon on Rom. 13. pag. 20 21. So the Do. of Aberdeene The Prelat proveth from Clem. Alexand. l. 7. c. 17. That the King is constituted by the Lord. So Ignatius Answ. 1. Except he prove from these Fathers that the King is from God onely and immediately he proveth nothing Obj. 2. Iren. l. 5. adv haer c. 20. proveth that God giveth Kingdomes and that the devill lied Luk. 4. and we make the people to make Kings and so to be the children of the Devill Answ. If we denyed God to dispose of Kingdomes this man might alledge the Church of God in England and Scotland to be the sons of Satan But Gods Word Deut. 17.18 and many other places make the people to make Kings and yet not devils But to say that Prelates should crowne Kings and with their foule fingers anoint him and that as the Popes substitutes is to make him that is the sonne of perdition a Donor of Kingdoms also to make a man with his bloodie sword to ascend to a throne is to deny God to be the disposer of Kingdoms and Prelats teach both these Obj. 3. Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Inde est Imperator unde homo antequam imperator inde potestas illi unde spiritus God is no lesse the Creator of Soveraigntie then of the soul of man Answ. God onely maketh Kings by his absolute soveraignty as he onely maketh high and low and
Ergo they must have the power of the sword hence upon the same grounds Assert 2. That the King onely hath the power of warre and raising Armies must be but a positive civill Law For 1. by divine right if the inferiour Judges have the sword given to them of God then have they also power of Warre and raising Armies 2. All power of warre that the King hath is cumulative not privative and not distructive but given for the safety of the Kingdome as therefore the King cannot take from one particular man the power of the sword for naturall self-preservation because it is the birth-right of life neither can the King take from a community and Kingdome a power of rising in Armes for their owne defence If an Armie of Turks shall suddenly invade the Land and the Kings consent expresse cannot be had for it is essentially involved in the office of the King as King that all the power of the swoâ—d that he hath be for their safety or if the King should as a man refuse his consent and interdict and discharge the Land to rise in Armes yet they have his Royall consent though they want his personall consent in respect that his office obligeth him to command them to rise in Armes 2. Because no King no Civill power can take away Natures birth-right of self-defence from any man or a community of men 2. Because if a King should sell his Kingdome and invite a bloody Conquerour to come in with an Armie of men to destroy his people impose upon their conscience an Idolatrous Religion they may lawfully rise against that Armie without the Kings consent for though Royalists say they need not come in asinine patience and offer their throats to cut-throats but may flee yet two things hindereth a flight 1. They are obliged by vertue of the first Commandement to re-man and with their sword defend the Cities of the Lord and the King 2 Sam. 10.12 1 Chron. 19.13 for if to defend our Country and children and the Church of God from unjust invaders and cut-throats by the sword be an act of charity that God and the Law of Nature requireth of a people as is evident Prov. 24.11 and if the fift Commandement oblige the Land to defend their aged Parents and young children from these invaders and iâ— the sixt Commandement lay on us the like bond all the Land are to act works of mercy and charity though the King unjustly command the contrary except Royalists say that we are not to performe the duties of the second Table commanded by God if an earthly King forbid us and if we exercise not acts of mercy toward our brethren when their life is in hazard to save them wee are murtherers and so men may murther their neighbour if the King command them so to doe this is like the Court-faith 2. The Kinâ—s power of warres is for the safety of his people if he deny his conseâ—t to their raising of Armes till they be destroyed he playeth the Tyrant not the King and the law of Nature will necessiâ—ate them either to defend themselves seeing slight of all in that case is harder then death else they must be guilty of self-murther Now the Kings commandement of not rising in Armes at best is positive and against the nature of his Office and it â—loweth then from him as from a man and so must be farre inferiour to the naturall Commandement of God which commandeth self-preservation if wee would not be guilty of self-murther and of obeying men rather then God So Althusius Polit. c. 25. n. 9. Halicarnas l. 4. Antiq. Rom. Aristo Pol. l. 3. c. 3. 3. David tooke Goliahs sword and became a Captaine a Captaine to an hoast of armed men in the battaile and fought the battailes of the Lord 1 Sam. 25.28 and this Abigal by the spirit of prophecy as I take it saith ver 29 30 31. 1 Sam. 22.2 1 Chron. 12.1.2.3.17.18.21.22 not onely without Sauls consent but against King Saul as he was a man but not against him as hee was King of Israel 4. If there be no King or the King be minor or an usurper as Athalia be on the Throne the Kingdome may lawfully make war without the King as Iudges cap. 20. The children of Israel foure hundred thousand footemen that drew sword went out to warre against the children of Benjamin Iudah had the power of the sword when Iosiah was but eight yeares old in the beginning of his reigne 2 King 22.1 2. and before Iehoash was crowned King and while he was minor 2 King 11. there were Captaines of hundreds in armes raised by Iehoiada and the people of Iudah to defend the young King It cannot be said that this is more extraordinary then that it is extraordinary for Kings to die and in the interregnum warres in an ordinary providence may fall out in these Kingdoms where Kings goe by election and for Kings to fall to be Minors Captives Tyrannous And I shall be of that opinion that Mr Symmons who holdeth That Royall birth is equivalent to divine unction must also hold that election is not equivalent to divine unction for both election and birth cannot be of the same validity the one being naturall the other a matter of free choise which shall infer that Kings by election are lesse properly and analogically onely Kings and so Saul was not properly a King for he was King by election but I conceive that rather Kings by birth must be lesse properly Kings because the first King by Gods institution being the mould of all the rest was by election Deut. 17.18.19.20 5. If the estates create the King and make this man King not this man as is clear Deut. 17.18 and 2 Chron. 5.1 2 3 4. they give to him the power of the Sword and the power of War and the Militia and I shall judge it strange and reasonlesse that the power given to the King by the Parliament or estates of a free Kingdom such as Scotland as acknowledged to be by all should create regulate limit abridge yea and anull that power that created it self hath God ordained a Parliamentary power to create a Royal power of the sword and war to be placed in the King the Parliaments creature for the safety of Parliament and Kingdome which yet is destructive of it selfe D. Ferne saith that the King summoneth a Parliament and giveth them power to be a Parliament and to advise and counsell him and in the meane time Scripture saith Deut. 17.18 19 20. 1 Sam. 10 20 21 22 23 24 25. 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3 4. that the Parliament createth the King heir's admirable reciprocation of creation in policie and shall God make the mother to destroy the daughter The Parliamentarie power that giveth Crown Militia sword and all to the King must give power to the King to use sword and war for the destruction of the Kingdome and to annull all the power of Parliaments to
obligeth me not to acts of charity when I in all reason see them unpossible but a multitude who had strength did well to rescue innocent Ionathan out of the hands of the King that he should not be put to death yet one man was not tyed by the law of nature to rescue Ionathan if the King and Prince had condemned him though unjustly 2. The hoast of men that helped David against King Saul 1 Sam. 22.2 entered in a lawfull war and 1 Chron. 12.18 Amasa by the spirit of the Lord blesseth his helpers peace peace be unto thee and peace be to thy helpers for thy God helpeth the. Ergo Peace must be to the Parliament of England and to their helpâ—rs their brethren of Scotland 3. Numb 32.1.2.3.16.17.18.19 Iosh. 1.12.13.14 The children of Gad and of Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh though their inheritance fell to be in this side of Iordan yet they were to goe over the river armed to fight for their brethren while they had also possâ—ssion of the land at the commandement of Moses and Joshua 4. So Saul and Israel hâ—lped the men of Iabesh Gilead conjoyned in blood with them against Nahash the Ammonite and his unjust conditions in plucking out their right eyes 1 Sam. 11. 5. Iephtha Iudg. 12.2 justly rebuketh the men of Ephraim because they would not help him and his people against the Ammonitâ—â— 6. If the communion of Saints be any bound that England and we have one Lord one faith one Baptisme one head and Saviour Iesus Christ then are we obliged to help our bleeding sister Church against these same common enemies Papists and Prelates but the former is undenyably true for 1. We send help to the Rotchel if there had not been a secret betraying of our brethren we send help to the recovery of the Palatinate and the aide of the confederat Princes against Babels strength and power and that lawfully but we did it at great leisure and coldly Q. Elizabeth helped Holland against the King of Spain And beside the union in Religion 1. We sayle in one ship together being in one Iland under one King and now by the mercy of God have sworne one Covenant and so must stand or fall together 7. We are obliged by the union betwixt the Kingdomes concluded to be by the Convention of the Estates of Scotland An. 1585. at the desire of the Generall Assembly 1583. to joyne forces together at home and enter in League with Protestant Princes and Estates abroad to maintaine the Protestant Religion against the bloody confederacy of Trent and accordingly this League betweene the two Crownes was subscribed at Berwick An. 1586. and the same renewed An. 1587 1588. as also the confession of Faith subscribed when the Spanish Armado was on our coasts 8. The Law of God commanding that we love our neighbour as our selfe and therefore to defend one another against unjust violence l. ut vim ff de just jur obligeth us to the same except we thinke God can be pleased with lippâ—-love in word onely which the Spirit of God condemneth 1 Ioh. 2.9 10. cap. 3.16 and the summe of Law and Prophets is that as we would not men should refuse to help us when we are unjustly oppressed so neither would we so serve our afflicted brethren l. in facto ff de cond demonstr § Si uxor Iustit de nupt 9. Every man is a keeper of his brothers life there is a voluntary homicide when a man refuseth food or physick necessary for his owne life and refuseth food to his dying brother and men are not borne for themselves And when the King defendeth not subjects against their enemies all fellow-subjects by the law of Nature of Nations the Civill and cannon Law have a naturall priviledge to defend one another and are mutuall Magistrates to one another when there be no other Magistrates If an Army of Turks or Pagans would come upon Britaine if the King were dead as he is civilly dead in this juncture of time when he refuseth to helpe his subjects one part of Britaine would help another As Iehoshaphat King of Iudah did right in helping Ahab and Israel so the Lord had approved of the warre If the left hand be wounded and the left eye put out nature teacheth that the whole burden of naturall acts is devolved on the other hand and eye and so are they obliged to helpe one another 10. As we are to beare one anothers burthens and to help our enemies to compassionate strangers so far more these who make one body of Christ with us 11. Meroz iâ— under a curse who helpeth not the Lord one part of a Church another A woe lieth on them that are at ease in Zion and helpeth not afflicted Ioseph so farre as they are able 12. The law of Gratitude obligeth us to this England sent an Armie to free both our soules and bodies from the bondage of Popery and the fury of the French upon which occasion a Parliament at Leith Anno 1560. established Peace and Religion and then after they helped us against a faction of Papists in our owne bosome for which we take Gods name in a prayer seeking grace never to forget that kindnesse 13. When Papists in Armes had undone England if God give them victory they should next fall on us and it should not be in the Kings power to resist them When our enemies within two dayes journey are in Armes and have the person of our King and his judgement and so the breathing Law of the two Kingdomes under their power we should but sleepe to be killed in our nest if we did not arise and fight for King Church Countrey and Brethren Object By these and the like grounds when the Kings Royall Person and life is in danger he may use Papists as subjects not as Papists in his owne naturall self-defence Answ. Hell and the Devill cannot say that a thought was in any heart against the Kings person He sleeped in Scotland safe and at Westminster in his owne Palace when the Estates of both Kingdomes would not so much as take the water-pot from his bed-side and his Speare and Satan instilled this traiterous lye first in Prelates then in Papists 2. The King professeth his maintenance of the true Protestant Religion in his Declarations since he tooke Armes but if Saul had put Armes in the hands of Baals Priests and in an Armie of Sidonians Philistims Ammonites professing their quarrell against Israel was not to defend the King but their Dagon and false gods cleere it were Sauls Armie should not stand in relation of helpers of the Kings but of advancers of their owne Religion Now Irish Papists and English in Armes presse the King to cancell all Lawes against Popery and make Laws for the free liberty of Masse and the full power of Papists then the King must use Papists as Papists in these warres QUEST XXXVIII Whether Monarchy be the best of governments NOthing more unwillingly
yet is in question So Royalists prove Common-wealths must be best governed by absolute Monarchs because that is the best government but the Law saith it is contrary to nature even though people should paction to make a King absolute Conventio procuratoria ad dilapidandum dissipandum juri naturali contraria nulla est l. filius 15. de cond Iust. l. Nepos procul 125. de verb. signif l. 188. ubi de jure Reguâ— l. 85. d. tit Assert 2. Monarchy in its latitude as heaven and earth and all the hoast therein are Citizens is the best government absolutely because Gods immediate government must be best but that other governments are good or best so farre as they come neere to this must prove that there is a Monarchy in Angels if there be a government and a Monarchy amongst Fishes Beasts Birds c. and that if Adam had never sinned there should be one Monarchy amongst all mankinde I professe I have no eye to see what Government could be in that State but paternall or maritall and by this reason there should be one Catholique Emperour over all the Kings of the â—arth A position holden by some Papists and Interpreters of the cannon Law which maketh all the Princes of the earth to be usurpers except these who acknowledge a Catholique dominion of the whole earth in the Emperour to whom they submit themselves as Vassals If Kings were Gods and could not sin and just as Solomon in the beginning of his reigne and as David I could say Monarchy so limited must be better then Aristocracy or Democracy 1. Because it is farthest from injustice neerest to peace and godlinesse m. l. 3. § aparet ff de administrat tutor l. 2. § novissime ff de Orig. jur Aristot. pol. l. 8. c. 10. Bodin de Rep. l. 6. c. 4. 2. Because God ordained this government in his people 3. By experience it is knowne to be lesse obnoxious to change except that some think the Venetian Common-wealth best but with reverence I see small difference betweene a King and the Duke of Venice Assert 3. Every government hath some thing wherein it is best 1. Monarchy is honorable and glorious-like before men Aristocracie for counsell is surest Democracie for liberty and possibly for riches and gaine best Monarchy obtaineth its end with more conveniency 1. Because the ship is easilier brought to land when one sitteth at the helme then when ten move the helme 2. Wee more easily feare love obey and serve one then many 3. He can more easily execute the Lawes Assert 4. A limited and mixed Monarchy such as is in Scotland and England seeme to me the best government when Parliaments with the King have the good of all the three This government hath 1. glory order unitie from a Monarch from the government of the most and wisest it hath safety of counsell stability strength from the influence of the Commons it hath liberty priviledges promptitude of obedience Object 1. There is more power terrour and love in one then in many Answ. Not more power 2. terrour cometh from sin and so to nature fallen in sin in circumstances a Monarchy is best Object 2. It is more convenient to nature that one should be Lord then many Answ. To sinlesse nature true as in a father to many children Object 3 Monarchies for invention of counsels execution concealing of secrets is above any other government Answ. That is in some particulars because sin hath brought darknesse on us so are we all dull of invention slow in execution and by reason of the falsnesse of men silence is needlesse but this is the accidentary state of nature otherways there is safety in a multitude of counsellers one commanding all without following counsell trusteth in his own heart and is a foole Object 4. A Monarch is above envy because he hath no equall Answ. Grant all in many things a Monarchy is more excellent but that is nothing to an absolute Monarchy for whom Royalists contend Object 5. In a multitude there be more fooles then wise men and a multitude of vices and little vertue is in many Answ. Meere multitude cannot governe in either Democracy or Aristocracy for then all should be rulers and none ruled but many eyes see more then one by accident one may see more then hundreds but accidents are not rules Object 6. Monarchy is most perfect because most opposite to Anarchy and most agreeable to nature as is evident in Plants Birds Bees Answ. Government of sinlesse nature void of reason as in biâ—ds bees is weak to conclude politique civil government amongst men in sin and especially absolute government a King-Bee is not absolute nor a King-Eagle if either destroy its fellowes by nature all rise and dâ—stroy their King 2. A King-Bee doth not act by counsell borrowed from fellow Bees as a King must do and communication of counsels lesseneth absolutenesse of a man 2. I see not how a Monarchy is more opposite to Anarchy and confusion then other governments a Monarch as one is more opposite to a multitude as many but there is no lesse order in Aristocracy then in Monarchy for a government essentially includeth order of commanding and subjection Now one is not for absolutenesse more contrary to Anarchy then many for that one now who can easily slip from a King to a Tyrant cannot have a negative voice in acts of justice for then should he have a legall power to oppose justice and so for his absolutenesse he should be most contrary to order of justice and a Monarch because absolute should be a door-neighbour to disorder and confusion Object But the Parliament hath no power to deny their voices to things just or to crosse the law of God more then the King Answ. It is true neither of them hath a negative voice against law and reason but if the Monarch by his exorbitant power may deny justice he may by that same legall power do all injustice and so there is no absolutenesse in either Object Who should then punish and coerce the Parliament in the case of exorbitance Answ. Posterior Parliaments Object Posterior Parliaments and people both may erre Answ. All is true God must remedy that onely QUEST XXXIX Whether or no any Prerogative at all above the law be due to the King or if jura Majestatis be any such Prerogative Royall I Conceive Kings are conceived to have a threefold supreme power 1. Strictly absolute to do what they please their will being simply a law this is Tyranicall some Kings have it de facto ex consuetudine but by a divine law none have it I doubt if any have it by a human positive law except the great Turk and the King of Spaine over his conquâ—st without the borders of Europe and some few other conquerours There is another 2. power limited to Gods law the due proper right of Kings Deut. 17.18.19.20 There is 3. a potestas
intermedia a middle power not so vast as that which is absolute and tyrannicall which yet is some way humane this I take Iurists call jus regium lex regia jura Regalia regis Cicero jura Majestatis Livius jura imperii and these Royall priviledges are such common and high dignities as no one particular magistrate can have seeing they are common to all the kingdom as that Cesar only should coyne money in his own name Hence the penny â—â—ven to Christ because it had Cesars image and superscription Matâ— 22.20 21. Infer by way of argumentation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. give therefore tribute to Cesar as his due so the Magazine and Armory for the safety of the Kingdom is in the Kings hand the King hath the like of these priviledges because he is the common supreame publick officer and Minister of God for the good of the whole Kingdom and amongst these Royall priviledges I reckon that power that is given to the King when he is made King to do many things without warrant of the letter of the law without the expresse consent of his counsell which he cannot alwayes carry about with him as the law saith The King shall not raise armes without consent of the Parliament but if an army of Irish or Danes or Spanyards should suddenly land in Scotland he hath power without a formally conveened Parliament to command them all to rise in armes against these invadeâ—s and defend themselves this power to inferiour Magistrate hath as he is but such a Magistrate And in many such exigences when the necessity of justice or grace requireth an extemporall exposition of Lawes Pro re natâ for present necessary execution some say onely the Emperour others all Kings have these priviledges I am of the minde of Arnisaeus that these priviledges are not rewards given to Princes for their great paines For the King is not obliged to governe the Common-wealth because he receiveth these Royall Priviledges as his reward but because by office he is obliged to govâ—rne the common-wealth therefore these priviledges are given to him and without them he could not so easily governe But I am utterly against Arnisaeus who saith these are not essentiall to a King Because saith he he createth Marquesses Dukes c. and Nobles constituteth Magistrates not because of His Royall Dignity but by reason of his absolute power for many Princes have supreame power and cannot make Nobles and therefore to him they are jura majestatis non â—ura potestatis But 1. The King suppose a limited King may â—nd ought to make nobles for he may conferre honours as a reward of vertue none can say Pharoah by his absolute authority and not as a King advanced Ioseph to be a noble Ruler we cannot say that for there was merit and worth in him deserving that honour and Darius not by absolute authority but on the ground of well-deserving the rule by which Kings are obliged in justice to confer honours promoted Daniel to be the first president of all his kingdomes because Dâ—n 6.3 An excellent spirit was in him and in Justice the King could nobilitate none rather then Daniel except he should fail against the rule of conferring honours It is acknowledged by all that honos est proemium virtutis honour is founded upon vertue and therefore Darius did not this out of his absolute Majesty but as King 2. All Kings as Kings and by a Divine Law of God and so by no absolutenesse of Majesty are to make men of wisdome fearing God hating covetousnesse Judges under them Deut. 1.13 2 Chro. 19.6 7. Psal. 101.6 7 8. 3. If we suppose a King to be limited as Gods King is Deut. 17.18 19 20. Yet is it his part to confer honours upon the worthiest Now if he have no absolutenesse of Majesty he cannot confer honours out of a principle that is none at all unum quodque sicut est ita operatur and if the people confer honours then must Royalists grant that there is an absolute Majesty in the people why then may they not derive Majesty to a King and why then do Royalists talk to us of Gods immediate creating of Kings without any interveening action of the people 4. By this absolutnesse of Majesty Kings may play the Tyrant as Samuel 1 Sam. 8.9 10 11 12 13 14. foretelleth Saul would do But I cannot beleeve that Kngs have the same very officiall absolute power from whence they do both acts of grace goodnesse and justice such as are to expone Laws extemporally in extraordinary cases to confer honours upon good and excellent men of grace to pardon offenders upon good grounds and also doe acts of extreme Tyrannie For out of the same fountaine doth not proceed both sweet water and bitter Then by this absolutenesse Kings cannot doe acts of goodnesse justice and grace and so they must doe good as Kings and they must doe acts of tyrannie as men not from absolutenesse of majesty 5. Inferiour Magistrates in whom there is no absolutenesse of Majesty according to Royalists way may expound laws also extemporally and doe acts of justice without formalities of civill or municipall laws so they keep the genuine intent of the Law as they may pardon one that goeth up to the wall of a City and discovereth the approach of the enemie when the watchmen are sleeping though the Law be That any ascending to the wall of the Citie shall die Also the inferiour Judge may make Judges and Deputies under himselfe 6. This Distinction is neither grounded upon Reason or Lawes nor on any Word of God Not the former as is proved before for there is no absolute power in a King to do above or against law all the officiall power that a King hath is a Royall power to do good for the safety and good of his subjects and that according to law and reason and there is no other power given to a King as a King and for Scripture Arnisaeus ibid. alledgeth 1 Sam. 8. The manner or law of the King ver 9.11 And he saith it cannot be the custome and manner of the King but must be the law of absolute Majesty 1. Because it was the manner of inferiour judges as Tyberius said of his judges to flea the people when they were commanded to shear them onely 2. Samuels sons who wrested judgment and perverted the law had this manner and custome to oppresse the people as did the sons of Eli and therefore without reason is it called the law of Kings jus regum if it was the law of the judges for if all this law be Tyrannicall and but an abuse of Kingly power the same law may agree to all other Magistrates who by the same unjust power may abuse their power but Samuel as Brentius observeth homi 27. in 1 Sam. in princ doth meane here a greater license then Kings can challenge if at any time they would make use of their plenitude of absolute
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
hard usage permitted by God to his people in the Master toward the servant and the people of God toward the stranger of whom they might exact usury not toward their brethren to be But that God should make a permissive Law that Ieroboam might presse all Israel to sinne and worship the Golden Calves and that a King by Law may kill as a bloody Nero all the people of God by a Divine permissive Law hath no warrant in Gods word Judge reader if Royalists make God to confer a benefit on a land when he giveth them a King if by a Law of God such as the Law for a bill of Divorcement the King may kill and devour as a lawfull absolute Lion six kingdoms of nations that professe Christ and beleeve in his name For if the King have a divine law to kill an innocent Ionathan so as it be unlawfull to resist him he may by that same law turne bloodier then either Nero Iulian or any that ever sucked the paps of a Liones or of any of whom it may be said Quaeque dedit nutrix ubera Tigris erat and he shall be given as a plague of God ex conditione doni to the people and the people inasmuch as they are gifted of God with a King to feed them in a peaceable and godly life must be made slaves now it wanteth reason that God will have a permissive Law of murthering the Church of Christ a Law so contrary to the publique good and intrinsecall intention of a King and to the immutaâ—le and eternall law of Nature that one man because of his power may by Gods permissive Law murther millions of innocents Some may say It is against the duty of love that by Nature and Gods Law the husband owes to the wife Ephes. 5.25 that the husband should put away his wife for God hateth putting away and yet God made a Law that a husband might give his wife a bill of divorce and so put her away and by the same reason God may make a Law though against nature that a King should kill and murther without all resistance Answ. The question is not if God may make permissive Laws to oppresse the innocent I grant he may doe it as he may command Abraham to kill his son Isaac and Abraham by Law is obliged to kill him except God retract his Commandement and whether God retract it or no he may intend to kill his son which is an act of love and obedience to God but this were more then a permissive Law 2. We have a cleere Scripture for a permissive Law of divorce and it was not a Law tending to the universall destruction of a whole Kingdome or many Kingdomes but onely to the grievance of some particular wives but the Law of divorce gave not power to all husbands to put away their wives but onely to the husband who could not command his affection to love his wife But this law of the King is a Catholique law to all Kings for Royalists will have all Kings so absolute as it is sin and disobedience to God to resist any that all Kings have a divine law to kill all their subjects surely then it were better for the Church to want such nurse-fathers as have absolute power to suck their blood and for such a perpetuall permissive Law continuing to the end of the world there is no word of God Nor can we think that the hardnesse of one Princes heart can be a ground for God to make a Law so destructive to his Church and all mankinde such a permissive Law being a positive Law of God must have a word of Christ for it else we are not to receive it 2. Arnisaeus cap. 4. distru Tyran princ n. 16. thinketh a Tyrant in excercito becomming a notorious Tyrant when there is no other remedy may be removed from government sine magno scelâ—re without great sin But I aske how men can annull any divine Law of God though but a permissive Law For if Gods permissive Law warrant a Tyrant to kill two innocent men it is tyranny more or lesse and the Law distinguisheth not 3. This permissive Law is expressely contray to Gods Law limiting all Kings Deut. 17.16 17 18. How then are we to beleeve that God would make an universall Law contray to the Law that he established before Israel had a King 4. What Brentius saith is much for us for he calleth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law a licence and so to use it must be licentiousnesse 5. Arnisaeus desireth that Kings may use sparingly the plenitude of their power for publique good there must be saith he necessity to make it lawfull to use the plenitude of this power justly therefore Ahab sinned in that he unjustly possessed Naboths vineyard though he sinned specially in this that he came to the possession by murther and it was peculiar to the Iewes that they could not transfer their possessions from one tribe to another But if it be so then this power of absolutenesse is not given by permissive Law by which God permitted putting away of wives for the object of a permissive Law is sinne but this plenitude of power may be justly put forth in act saith he if the publique good may be regarded I would know what publique good can legittimate Tyranny and killing of the innocent the intentions of men can make nothing intrinsecally evil to become good And 6. How can that be a permissive Law of God and not his approveing Law by which Kings create inferiour judges for this is done by Gods approving will 7. It is evident that Arnisaeus his minde is that Kings may take their subjects vineyards and their goods so they erre not in the manner and way of the act so be like if there had not been a peculiar Law that Naboth should not sell his vineyard and if the King had had any publique use for it he might have taken Naboths vineyard from him but he specially sinned saith he in eo maxime culpatur c. that he took away the mans vineyard by murthering of him therefore saith Arnisaeus c. 1. de potest maj in bona privato 2. that by the Kings Law 1 Sam. 8. There is given to the King a dominion over the peoples sons daughters fields vineyards olive-yards servants and flockes So he citeth that that Daniel putteth all places the Rocks of the Mountaines the birds of the heaven Dan. 2. under the Kings power So all is the Kings in dominion and the subjects in use onely But 1. This law of the King then can be no ground for the Kings absolutenesse above Law and there can be no permissive Law of God here for that which assertâ—th the Kings Royall Dominion over persons and things that must be the Law of Gods approving not his permiting evil but this is such a Law as Arnisaeus saith 2. The text speaketh of no Law or lawful power or of any absolutenesse of King Saul but
but they do not swear any oath it is true that an oath adeth nothing to a contract and promise but onely it laies on a religious tie before God yet so as consequently if the contractor violate both promise and oath he cometh under the guilt of perjury which a law of men may punish Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politique obligation as well as an oath is already proved and farther confirmed by Gal. 3.15 Though it be a mans testament or covenant no man disanulleth and addeth thereunto No man even by mans law can anull a confirmed covenant and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himself under law to fulfill his own covenant and so must the King put himself under mens law by a covenant at his Coronation Yea and David is reputed by Royallists an absolute Prince yet he cometh under a covenant before he be made King 3. It is but a weak reason to say that an oath is needlesse where no action of law can be against the King who sweareth if it have any strength of reason I retort it a legall and solemne promise then is needlesse also for there is no action of law against a King as Royalists teach if he violate his promise So then King David needlesly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation for though David should turne as bloody an enemie to the Church as Nero or Iulian the people have no Law-action against David and why then did Ieremiah seek an oath of the King of Iudah that he would not kill him nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies and why did David seek an oath of Ionathan It is not like Ieremiah and David could have law-action against a King and a Kings son if they should violate the oath of God And farther it is a begging of the question to say that the States can have no action against the king if he should violate his oath Hugo Grotius putteth seven cases in which the people may have most reall action against the King to accuse and punish him 1. They may punish the King to death for matters capitall if so it be agreed on betwixt the King and the people as in Lacedemonia 2. He may be punished as a private man 3. If the King make away a Kingdome given to him by succession his act is null and he may be resisted because the Kingdome is a life-rent onely to him Yea saith Barclay He loseth the Crown 4. He loseth his Kingdom if with a hostile mind he seek the destruction of the Kingdome 5. If such a clause be put in that if he commit felonie or doe such oppressions the Subjects shall be loosed from the bonds of subjection then the King failing thus turneth a private man 6. If the King have the one halfe or part of the Kingdome and the people or Senate the other halfe if the King prey upon that half which is not his owne he may violently be resisted for in so farre he hath not the Empire 7. If when the Crowne was given this be declared that in some cases he may be resisted then some naturall liberty is free from the Kings power and reserved in the peoples hand It is then reason that the King sweare an oath 4. That the Kings oath is but a ceremonie to please the people and that because he is king and king by birth therefore he sweareth and is crowned is in question and denyed No man is borne a king as no man is borne a subject and because the people maketh him King therefore he is to swear The councel of Toledo saith non antea conscendat regiam sedem quam iuret 2 An oath is a religious obligation no arbitrary ceremony 3. He may swear in his cabinet chamber not covenanting with the people as David and Iehoash did 4. So he maketh promises that he may be King not because he is King it were ridiculous he should promise or swear to be a just King because he is a just King and by the same reason the estates swear the oath of loyalty to the new King not that they may be loyall in all time coming but because they are loyall Subjects already for if the one half of the covenant on the Kings part be a ceremony of indulgence not of necessity by the same reason the other half of the covenant must be a ceremony of indulgence also to the people Object Arnisaeus saith a contract cannot be dissolved in law but by consent of two parties contracting because both are obliged l. ab emptione 58. in pr. de pact l. 3. de rescind vend l. 80. de solu Therefore if the subjects go from the covenant that they have made to be loyall to the King they ought to be punished Answ. A contract the conditions whereof are violated by neither side cannot be dissolved but by the joynt consent of both and in buying and selling and in all contracts unviolated the sole wil of neither side can violate the contract of this speaketh the law But I ask the Royalist if the contract betwixt the spies sent to view Iericho and Rahab the harlot had not been null and the spies free from any obligation if Rahab had neglected to keep within doors when Iericho was taken though Rahab and the spies had never consented expresly to break the covenant We hâ—ld that the law saith with us that vassals lose their farme if they pay not what is due Now what are Kings but vassals to the State who if they turne Tyrants fall from their Right Arnisaeus saith in the councell of Toledo 4. c. 74. The subjects ask from the King that Kings would be meek and just not upon the ground of a voluntarie Contract and Paction but because God shall rejoice in King and People by so doing Answ. These two do no more fight one with another then that two Marchants should keep faith one to another both because God hath said he shall dwell in Gods mountaine who sweareth and covenanteth and standeth to his oath covenant though to his losse hurt Psa. 15. and also because they made their covenant and contract thus and thus Arnisaeus 16. Every Prince is subject to God but not as a vassal for a Master may commit felonie and lose the proprietie of his farme can God do so The Master cannot take the farme from the vassal without an expresse cause legally deduced but cannot God take what he hath given but by a law-Processe a vassall can intitle to himself a farme against the Masters will as some jurists say but can a Prince intitle a kingdom to himself against the God of heavens will though we grant the comparison yet the subjects have no law over the Kings because the coercive power of the vassal is in the Lord of the manner the punishing of Kings belongeth to God Answ. We compare not the lord of a mannor and the Lord of Heaven together all these
dissimilitudes we grant but as the King is Gods vassal so is he a noble and Princely vassal to the Estates of a kingdom because they make him 2. They make him rather then another their noble servant 3. They make him for themselves and their own Godly quiet and honest life 4. They in their first election limit him to such a way to governe by law and give to him so much power for their good no more in these four acts they are above the Prince and so have a coercive power over him Arnisaeus n. 9. It is to make the Princes fidelity doubtfull to put him to an oath Lawyers say there is no need of an oath when a person is of approved fidelitie Answ. Then we are not to seek an oath of an inferiou r Magistrate of a Commander in wars of a pastor it is presumed these are of approved fidelity and it maketh their integritie obnoxious to slandâ—rs to put them to an oath 2. David was of more approved fidelity then any King now adayes and to put him to a covenant seemed to call his fidelity in question Ionathan sought an oath of David to deal kindly with his seed when he came to the throne Ieremiah sought an oath of the King of Iudah did they put any note of false-hood on them therefore Arnisaeus You cannot prove that ever any King gave an oath to their subjects in Scriptures Answ. What more unbeseeming Kings is it to swear to do their duty then to promise covenant wayes to do the same and a covenant you cannot deny 2. In a covenant for religious duties there was alwayes an oath 2 Chro. 15.12 13 14. hence the right of cutting a calf and swearing in a covenant Ier. 34.18 3. There is an oath that the people giveth to the King to obey him Eccles. 8.2 and a covenant 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. mutuall between the king and people I leave it to the juditious if the people swear to the king obedience in a covenant mutuall and he swear not to them Arnisaeus sheweth to us a third sort of oath that limited Princes do swear this oath in Denmarke Suecia Polonia Hungaria is sworne by the kings who may do nothing without consent of the Senat and according to order of Law this is but the other two oathes specified and a Prince cannot contraveen his own contract the law saith in that the Prince is but as a private man in l. digna vox C. de ll Rom. cons. 426. n. 17. And it is known that the Emperour is constituted and created by the Princes Electors subject to them and by Law may be dethroned by them The B. of Rochester saith from Barclay none can denude a King of his power but he that gave him the power or hath an expresse commandement so to do from him that gave the power But God onely and the people gave the King his power Ergo God with the people having an expresse commandement from God must denude the King of power Answ. 1. This shall prove that God onely by an immediat action or some having an expresse commandement from him can deprive a preacher for scandals Christ onely or those who have an expresse commandement from him can excommunicate God only or the magistrate with him can take away the life of man and Numb 11.14 15 16. No inferiour Magistrates who also have their power from God immediatly Rom. 13.1 If we speak of the immediation of the office can devide inferiour judges of their power God only by the husbandmans paines maketh a fruitfull vineyard Ergo the husbandman cannot make his vineyard grow over with nettles and briars 2. The argument must run thus else the assumption shall be false God onely by the action of the people as his instrument and by no other action make a lawfull King God onely by the action of the people as his instrument can make a King God onely by the action of the people as his instrument can dethrone a King for as the people making a King are in that doing what God doth before them and what God doth by them in that very act so the people unmaking a King doth that which God doth before the people both the one and the other according to Gods rule obligeth Deut. 17.14.15.16.17.18.19.20 The Prelate whose tribe seldom saith truth addeth As a fatherly power by God and natures law over a family was in the father of a family before the children could either transfer their power or consent to the translation of that power to him so a Kingly power which succeedeth to a paternal or fatherly power to governe many families yea a Kingdom was in that same father in relation to many families before these many families can transfer their power The Kingly power floweth immediately from God the people doth not transfer that power but doth onely consent to the person of the King or doth onely choose his person at some time And though this power were principally given to the people it is not so given to the people as if it were the peoples power not Gods for it is Gods power neither is it any other waies given to the people but as to a streame a beam and an instrument which may confer it to another M. Anton. de domini l. 6. c. 2. n 22.23 doth more subtilly illustrate the matter if the King should confer honour on a subject by the hand of a servant who had not power or freedom to confer that honour or not to confer it but by necessity of the Kings commandment must confer it nothing should hinder us to say that such a subject had his honour immediately from the King so the earth is immediately illuminated by the sun although light be received in the earth but by the interveening mediation of many inferiour bodies and elements because by no other thing but by the sun only is the light as an efficient cause in a nearest capacity to give light so the Royall power in whomsoever it be is immediatly from God onely though it be applyed by men to this or this person because from God onely and from no other the Kingly power is formally and effectively that which it is and worketh that which it worketh and if you ask by what cause is the tree immediatly turned in fire none sound in reason would say it is made fire not by the fire but by him that laid the tree on the fire Iohn P. P. would have stollen this argument also if he had been capable thereof Ans. 1. A fatherly power is in a father not before he have a child but indeed before his children by an act of their free-will consent that he be their father yea whether the children consent or no from a physical act of generation he must be the father let the father be the most wicked man let him be made by no moral requisite is he made a father nor can heever leave off physically
to be a father he may leave off morally to do the duty of a father so be non pater officio but he cannot but be pater naturae generantis vi So there never is nor can be any need that childrens fre consent interveen to make Kish the Father of Saul because he is by nature a father to make Saul a King a moral father by analogy and improperly a father by ruling governing guiding defending Israel by good laws in peace and godlinesse I hope there is some act of the peoples free-will required even by Spalatoes way the people must approve him to be King yea they must King him or constitute him King say we no such act is required of naturall sons to make a physicall father and so here is a great halt in the comparison and it is most false that there is a Kingly power to governe many families in the same father before these many families can transfer their power to make him King Put Royallists to their Logick they have not found out a medium to make good that there is a formall Kingly power whereby Saul is King and father morally over all Israel before Israel chose him and made him as Kish was Sauls father formally and had a fatherly power to be his father before Saul had the use of free-will to consent that he should be his father Royalists are here at a stand The man may have Royall gifts before the people make him King but this is not regia potestas a Royall power by which the man is formally King Many have more Royal gifts then the man that beareth the Crown yet are never Kings nor is there formally regia potestas kingly power in them In this meaning Petrarcha said Plures sunt reges quam regna 3. He saith The people doth not confer royall power but onely consent to the person of the man or choise of his person This is non-sense for the peoples choosing of David at Hebron to be King and their refusing of Sauls seed to be King what was it but an act of God by the free suffrages of the people conferring royall power on David and making him King whereas in former times David even anointed by Samuel at Bethleem 1 Sam. 16. was onely a private man the subject of King Saul and never tearmed by the Spirit of God a King nor was he King till God by the peoples consent made him King at Hebron for Samuel neither honoured him as King nor bowed to him as King nor did the people say God save King David but after this David acknowledged Saul as his Master and King Let Royalists shew us any act of God making David King save this act of the people making him formally King at Hebron and therefore the people as Gods instrument transferred the power and God by them in the same act transferred the power and in the same they chose the person the Royalists affirm these to be different actions affirmanti incumbit probatio 4. This power is the peoples radically naturally as the Bees as some think have a power naturall to choose a King-Bee so hath a communitie a power naturally to defend and protect themselves and God hath revealed in Deut. 17.14 15. the way of regulating the act of choosing Governours and Kings which is a speciall mean of defending and protecting themselves and the people is as principally the subject and fountain of Royall power as a fountain is of water I shall not contend if you call a Fountain Gods Instrument to give water as all creatures are his Instruments 5. For Spalato's comparison he is far out for the people choosing one of ten to be their King have freewill to choose any and are under a Law Deut. 17.14 15. In the manner of their choosing and thought they erre and make a sinfull choice yet the man is King and Gods King whom they make King but if the King command a servant to make A. B. a Knight if the servant make C. D. a Knight I shall not think C. D. is a valid Knight at all and indeed the honour is immediately here from the King because the Kings servant by no innate power maketh the Knight but Nations by a radicall and naturall and innate power maketh this man a King not this man and I conceive the man chosen by the people oweth thanks and gratefull service to the people who rejected others that they had power to choose and made him King 6. The light immediately and formally is light from the Sun and so is the Office of a King immediately instituted of God Deut. 17.14 Whether the institution be naturall or positive it is no matter 2. The man is not King because of Royall indowments though we should say these were immediately from God to which instruction and education may also conferre not a little but he is formally King ratione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in regard of the formall essence of a King not immediately from God as the light is from the Sun but by the mediation of the free consent of the people 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. nor is the people in making a King as the man who onely casteth Wood in the fire the Wood is not made fire formally but by the fire not by the approach of fire to Wood or of Wood to fire for the people do not apply the Royaltie which is immediately in and from God to the person explicate such an application for to me it is a Fiction unconceiveable because the people hath the Royaltie radically in themselves as in the Fountain and Cause and conferreth it on the man who is made King yea the people by making David King confer the Royall power on the King this is so true that Royalists forgetting themselves inculcate frequently in asserting their absolute Monarch from Vlpian but misunderstood that the people have resigned all their power libertie right of life death goods chastitie a potency of rapine homicides unjust wars c. upon a creature called an absolute Prince even saith Grotius as a man may make himself a slave by selling his liberty to a master Now if the people make away this power to the King and this be nothing but the transcendent absolutenesse of a King certainly this power was in the people for how can they give to a King that which they have not themselves As a man cannot make away his liberty to a master by becoming a slave to him if his libertie were immediately in God as Royalists say Soveraigntie is immediately in God and people can exercise no Act about Soveraignty to make it over to one man rather then to another People onely have an after-approbation that this man to whom God hath given it immediately shall have it Furthermore they say people in making a King may make such conditions as in seven cases a King may be dethroned at least resisted saith Hu. Grotius Ergo people may give more or lesse half or whole
limited or absolute Royall power to the Prince but if this power were immediately in God and from God how could the people have the husbanding of it at their need to expend it out in ounce weights or pound weights as they please And that the people may be Taverners of it to sell or give it is taught by Grotius de jur bel pac l. 1. c. 4. Barclai advers Monarch l. 4. c. 6. Arnisae cap. 6. de majest an princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 10. n. se Aventiun Anal. l. 3. Chytreus l. 23. l. 28. Saxon Sleid. lib. 1. in fi yet Arnisaeus is not ashamed to cite Arist. po c. 12. l. 3. That he is not a true and absolute King who ruleth by Laws The point black contrary of which Aristotle saith QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in these Questions of lawfull defensive Wars THe P. Prelate without all ground will have us all Iesuites in this point but if we make good that this Truth was in Scripture before a Iesuite was in the earth he falleth fron his Cause P. Prelate The Begardi saith There was no Government no Law given to the just It fâ—â—reth me this age fancieth to it self some such thing and have learned of Core Dathan c. Ans. This Calumniator in the next words belieth himself when he saith We presuppose that these with whom we are to enter in Lists do willingly grant That Government is not onely lawfull and just but necessary both for Church and Common-wealth then we fancie no such thing as he imputeth to us P. Prelate Some said that the right of Dominion is founded on grace whether the Waldenses and Hus held any such Tenet I cannot now insist to prove or disprove Gerson and others held that there must be a new Title and Right to what men possesse Too many too confidently hold these or the like Answ. 1. That Dominion is founded upon Grace as its essentiall Pillar so as wicked men be no Magistrates because they are in mortall sin was falsly imputed to ancient Protestants the Waldenses Wickcliff and Hus by Papists and this day by Iesuites Suarez Bellarmine Becan The P. Prelate will leave them under this Calumny that he may offend Papists and Iesuites as little as he can but he would lay it on us but if the P. Prelate think that Dominion is not founded on Grace de jure that Rulers should have that spirit that God put on the seventy Elders for their Calling and that they ought not to be men fearing God and hating covetousnesse as Gerson and others did he belieth the Scripture 2. It is no errour of Gerson that beleevers have a spirituall Right to their civill possessions but by Scripture 1 Cor. 4.21 Revel 21.7 P. Prelate The Iesuites are ashamed of the errour of Casuists who hold that directum imperium the direct and primary power Supreme Civill and Ecclesiasticall is in the Pope and therefore they give an indirect directive and coercive power to him over Kings and States in ordine ad spiritualia So may he King and un-King Princes at his pleasure Our Presbyterians if they run not fully this way are very neer to it Answ. The Windy man would seem versed in School-men he should have named some Casuists who hold any like thing 2. The Presbyterians must be Popes because they subject Kings to the Gospel and Christs Scepter in Church Censures and think Christian Kings may be rebuked for blasphemy blood-shed c. Whereas Prelates in ordine ad diabolica murther souls of Kings 2. Prelates do King Princes An P. Arch-Prelate when our King was crowned put the Crown on King Charls Head the Sword and Scepter in his hand anointed him in his hands Crown shoulders arms with sacred Oyl The King must kisse the Archbishop and Bishops is not this to King Princeâ— in ordine ad spiritualia And these that Kingeth may unking and judge what relation the P. Arch-Bishop Spotwood had when he proffered to the King The Oath that the Popish Kings sweareth to maintain the professed Religion not one word of the true Protestant Religion and will carefully root out all Hereticks and enemies that is Protestants as the expone it to the true Worship of God that shall be convicted by the true Church of God of the foresaid crimes And when the Prelates professed they held not their Prelacies of the King but of the Pope indeed Who are then nearest to the Popes power in ordine ad spiritualia 3. How will this black mouthed Calumniator make Presbyterians to dethrone Kings He hath written a Pamphlet of the inconsistency of Monarchie and Presbyterian Government consisting of lies invented Calumnies of his Church in which he was baptized But the truth is all his Arguments prove the inconsistencie of Monarchs and Parliaments and transform any King in a most absolute Tyrant for which Treason he deserveth to suffer as a Traytor P. Prelate Q. 1. c. 1. The Puritan saith That all power Civill is radically and originally seated in the Communitie he here joyneth hands with the Jesuite Answ. In six pages he repeateth the same things 1. Is this such an Heresie that a Colonie casted into America by the Tyranny of P. Prelates have power to choose their own Governours all Israel was Hereticall in this for David could not be their King though designed and anointed by God 1 Sam. 16. till the people 2 Sam. 5. put forth in act this power and made David King in Hebron 2. Let the Prelate make a Syllogisme it is but ex utraque affirmante in secunda figura Logick like the bellies of the Court in which men of their own way is disgraced and cast out of Grace and Court because in this controversie of the King with his two Parliaâ—ents they are like Erasmus in Gods matters who said Lutherum nec accuso nec defendo 1. He is discourted who ever he be who is in shape like a Puritan and not fire and sword against Religion and his Countrey and Oath and Covenant with God and so it is this The Iesuite teacheth that power of Government is in the Communitie originally The Puritan teacheth that power of Government is in the Communitie originally Ergo The Puritan is a Iesuite But so the Puritan is a Iesuite because he and the Iesuite teacheth that there is one God and three persons And if the Prelate like this reasoning we shall make himself and the Prelates and Court-Divines Iesuites upon surer grounds Jesuites teach The Pope is not the Antichrist 2. Christ locally discended to Hell to free some out of that prison 3. It was sin to separate from Babylonish Rome 4. We are justified by works 5. The merit of fasting is not to be condemned 6. The Masse is no idolatry 7. The Church is the judge of controversies 8. All the Arminian points are safer to be beleeved then the contrary yea and
jurisdiction Iaco. Symanca de Catho Instit. tit 45. n. 25. Catholica uxor heretico viro debitum reddere non tenetur Item Constat Haereticum privatum esse omni dominio naturali civili politico naturali quod habet in filios nam propter haeresin patris efficiuntur filii sui iuris civili quod habet in servos ab eo enim servi liberantur politico quod rerum domini habent in subditos ita Bannes 22. q. 12. art 10. Gregor de valent 22. dis 1. q. 12. p. 2. lod Mol. to 1. De just jur tract 2. dis 29. v. 3. 2. Papists hold that Generatio clerici est corruptio subditi Church-men are not subjects under the Kings Law It is a Canonicall priviledge of the Clergy that they are not subject to the Kings Civill Lawes Now this Prelate and his fellowes made the King sweare at his Coronation to maintaine all Canonicall Priviledges of the Prelaticall Clergy the very Oath and words sworne by all the Popish Kings P. Prelate Power is given by the multitude to the King immediatly and by God mediately not so much by collation as by approbation how the Iesuite and Puritane walke all along in equall pace See Bellarmine l. 1. de liac c. 6. Zuarez cont sect Angl. l. 3. c. 3. Answ. It is a Calumnie that we teach that the power of the King is from God mediatly by meere approbation indeed a fellow of his a Papist writing against the Kings Supremacy Anthony Capell Cont. 1. c. 5. saith Saul was made King and others also by Gods permission and Deo invito irato God being angry that is not our Doctrine but with what reall efficiencie God hath made men and communities rationall and sociall men with the same hath he made them by instinct of nature by the mediation of reason to create a King and Bellarmine and Suarez say Not God maketh Kings by approbation only P. Prelate The people may change Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy or Aristocracy into Monarchy for ought I know they differ not in this neither Ans. The P. Prelate knoweth not all things the two Iesuites Bellarmine and Suarez are produced only as if they were all Iesuites and Suarez saith De prim po l. 3. n. 4. Donationem absolutam semel valide factam revocari non posse neque in totum neque ex parce maxime quando onerosa fuit If the people once give their power to the King they cannot resume it without cause and laying downe the grounds of Suarez and other Iesuites that our Religion is Heresie they doe soundly collect this consequence That no King can be Lord of the consciences of their subjects to compell them to an Hereticall Religion We teach that the King of Spaine hath no power over the consciences of Protestant Subjects to force them to Idolatry and that their soules are not his subjects but only their persons and in the Lord. 2. It is no great crime that if a King degenerate in a Tyranny or if the Royall Line faile that we thinke the people have liberty to change Monarchy into Aristocracy aut contra Iesuites deny that the people can make this change without the Popes consent We judge neither the great Bishop the Pope nor the little Popes ought to have hand in making Kings P. Prelate They say the power is derived to the King from the people Cumulativè or Communicativé non Privativé by way of communication not by way of privation so as the people denude not themselves of this soveraignty As the King maketh a Lieutenant in Ireland not to denude himselfe of his Royall power but to put him in trust for his service If this be their mind the King is in a poore case The principal authority is in the Deligate and so the people is still Iudge and the King their Deputy Ans. The P. Prelate taketh on him to write he knoweth not what this is not our opinion The King is King and hath the peoples power not as their Deputy 1. Because the people is not principall Iudge and the King subordinate The King in the executive power of Lawes is really a Soveraigne above the people a Deputy is not so 2. The people have irrevocably made over to the King their power of governing defending and protecting themselves I except the power of selfe preservation which people can no more make away it being sinlesse natures birth-right then the liberty of eating drinking sleeping and this the people cannot resume except in case of the Kings Tyranny there is no power by the King so irrevocably resigned to his Servant or Deputy but he may use it himselfe 3. A Delegate is comptable for all he doth to those that put him in trust whether he doe ill or well The King in acts of Iustice is not comptable to any for if his acts be not lyable to high suspitions of Tyranny no man may say to him What dost thou onely in acts of unjustice and those so tyrannous that they be inconsistent with the habituall fiduciary repose and trust put on him he is to render accounts to the Parliament which representeth the people 4. A Delegate in esse in fieri both that he may be a Delegate and that he may continue a Delegate whether he doe ill or well dependeth on his pleasure who delegateth him but though a King depend in fieri in regard of his call to the Crowne upon the suffrages of his people yet that he may be continued King he dependeth not on the people simply but only in case of Tyrannicall administration and in this sense Suarez and Bellarmine spake with no more honesty then we doe but with more then Prelates doe for they professe any Emissary of Hell may stab a Protestant King We know the Prelates professe the contrary but their judgement is the same with Iesuites in all points and since they will have the Pope Christs Vicar by such a Divine right as they themselves are Bishops and have the King under Oath to maintaine the Clergie Bishops and all their Canonicall priviledges amongst which the Bishops of Rome his indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia and to dethrone Kings who turne Heritickes is one principall right I see not how Prelates are not as deepe in treason against Kings as the Pope himselfe and therefore P. Prelate take the beame out of your owne eye The P. Prelate taketh unlearned paines to prove that Gerson Occam Iac. de almaine Parisian Doctors maintained these same grounds a nent the peoples power over Kings in the case of Tyranny and that before Luther and Calvine was in the world and this is to give himselfe the lye that Luther Calvin and we have not this Doctrine from Iesuites and what is Calvines mind is evident Instit l. 4. c. all that the estates may coerce and reduce in order a Tyrant else they are deficient in their trust that God hath given them over the Common-wealth
and Church and this is the Doctrine for which Royalists cry out against Master Knox of blessed memory Buchanan Iunius Brutus Bouchier Rossaeus Althusius and Luther in scripto ad pastorem to 7. German fol. 386. bringeth two examples for resistance the people resisted Saul when he was willing to kill Ionathan his sonne and Ahikam and other Princes rescued Ieremiah out of the hands of the King of Iudah and Gerardus citeth many Divines who second Luther in this as Bugenliagius Iustus Ionas Nicholas Ambsderffius George Spalatinus Iustus Menius Christopher Hofmanus It is knowne what is the mind of Protestant Divines as Beza Pareus Melancthon Bucanus Polanus Chamer all the Divines of France of Germany of Holland No wonder then Prelates were upon the plot of betraying the City of Rochel and of the Protestant Church there when they then will have the Protestants of France for their defensive warres to be Rebels and siders with Iesuites when in these warres Iesuites sought their blood and ruine The P. Prelate having shewn his mind concerning the deposing of Childericke by the Pope of which I say nothing but the Pope was an Antichristian Usurper and the poore man never fit to beare a Crowne he goeth on to set downe an opinion of some mute Authors he might devise a thousand opinions that way to make men beleeve he had been in a wood of learned mens secrets and that never man saw the bottome of the controversie while he seeing the escapes of many Pens as supercilious Bubo praiseth was forced to appeare a Star new risen in the firmament of Pursevants and reveale all dreames and teach all the New-Statists the Gamaliels Buchanan Iunius Brutus and a world who were all sleeping while this Lucifer the sonne of the night did appeare this new way of Lawes Divinity and casuists Theologie They hold saith P. P. Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude from it derived to thâ— King immediatly from God The reason of which order is because we cannot reape the fruites of government unlesse by compact we submit to some possible and accidentall inconveniences Ans. 1. Who speaketh so the P. Prelate cannot name That Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude Vertually it may be Soveraignty is in the multitude but primarily and naturally as heat is in the fire light in the Sun I thinke the P. Prelate dreamed it no man said it but himselfe for what attribute is naturally in a Subject I conceive may directly and naturally be predicated thereof Now the P. Prelate hath taught us of a very naturall predication Our Dreadful and Soveraign Lord the multitude commandeth this and this 2. This is no more a reason for a Monarchy then for a Democracy for we can reape the fruites of no government except we submit to it 3. We must submit in Monarchy saith he to some possible and accidentall inconveniences Here be soft words but is subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties of Church and State introducing of Popery Arminianisme of Idolatry Altar-worship the Masse proved by a learned Treatise The Canterburian selfe conviction printed the 3. edit an 1641. never answered couched under the name of inconveniency The pardoning of the innocent blood of hundreds of thousand Protestants in Ireland the killing of many thousands Nobles Barons Commons by the hands of Papists in Armes agâ—inst the Law of the Land the making of England a field of blood the obtruding of an Idolatrous Service-Booke with Armies of men by Sea and Land to blocke up the Kingdome of Scotland are all these inconveniences only 4. Are they only possible and accidentall but make a Monarch absolute as the P. Prelate doth and tyranny is as necessary and as much intended by a sinfull man inclined to make a God of himselfe as it is naturall to men to sinne when they are tempted and to be drunken and giddy with honour and greatnesse witnesse the Kings of Israel and Iudah though de jure they were not absolute Is it accidentall to Nero Iulian to the ten hornes that grew out of the womans head who sate upon the scarlet colloured beast to make warre against the Lambe and his followers especially the spirit of Sathan being in them P. Prelate They inferre 1. They cannot without violation of a Divine ordinance and breach of faith resume the authority they have placed in the King 2. It were high sin to rob authority of its essentials 3. This ordinance is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath urgent reasons Ans. 1. These namelesse Authors cannot inferre that an Oath is broken which is made conditionally all authority given by the people to the King is conditionall that he use it for the safety of the people if it be used for their distruction they breake no faith to resume it for they never made faith to give up their power to the King upon such tearmes and so they cannot be said to resume what they never gave 2. So the P. Prelate maketh power to act all the former mischiefes the essentialls of a King Balaam he is not worthy his wages for Prophecying thus that the Kings essentialls is a power of blood and destructive to people Law Religion and liberties of Church and State for otherwise we teach not that people may resume from the King Authority and power of disarme Papists to roote out the bloody Irish and in justice serve them as they have served us 3. This ordinance of the people giving lawfull power to a King for the governing of the people in peace and godlinesse is Gods good pleasure and hath just reasons and causes But that the people make over a power to one man to act all the inconveniences above named I mean the bloody and destructive inconveniences hath nothing of God or reason in it P. Prelate The reasons of this opinion are 1. If Power soveraigne were not in one he could not have strength enough to act all necessary parts and acts of government 2. Nor to prevent divisions which attend multitudes or many indowed with equall power and the Authors say They must part with their native right entirely for a greater good and to prevent greater evills 3. To resume any part of this power of which the people have totally devested themselves or to limit it is to disable Soveraignty from government loose the sinewes of all society c. Ans. 1. I know none for this opinion but the P. Prelate himselfe The first Reason may be made rhyme but never reason for though there be not absolute power to good and ill there may be strength of limited power in abundance in the King and sufficient for all acts of just Government and the adequate end of Government which is salus populi the safetie of the people But the Royalist will have strength to be a Tyrant and act all the Tyrannicall and bloody inconveniences of which we spake an essentiall part of the power of
Land to swear our Covenant in the Prelaticall sense against the intent thereof and onely to devide and so command Iudge what Religion Prelates are of who will have the Name of God prophaned by a whole Nation by swearing fancies 8. Of making private men Magistrates in defending themselves against cut-throats Enough already Let the P. Prelate answer if he can P. Prelate Let no man imagine me to priviledge a King from the direction and just power of the Church or that like Uzzah he should intrude upon sacred actions ex vi ordinis in foro interno conscientiae to Preach or Administrate Sacraments c. Answ. Vzzah did not burn Incense ex vi ordinis as if he had been a Priest but because he was a King and Gods anointed Prelates sit not in Councell and Parliament ex vi ordinis as temporall Lords The Pope is no temporall Monarch ex vi ordinis yet all are intruders So the P. P. will licence Kings to administer Sacraments so they doe it not Ex vi ordinis P.P. Men in sacred Orders in things intrinsecally spirituall have immediatly a directive and authoritative power in order to all whatsoever although ministeriall only as related to Christ but that giveth them no coercive civill power over the Prince per se or per accidens directly or indirectly that either the one way or the other any or many in sacred Order Pope or Presbytery can cite and censure Kings associate Covenant or sweare to resist him and force him to submit to the Scepter of Christ. This power over man God Almighty useth not much lesse hath he given it to man Ps. 110. His people are a willing people Suadenda non cogenda religio Ans. 1. Pastors have a ministerial power saith he in spirituall things but in order to Christ ergo in order to others it is not ministeriall but Lordly So here a Lordly power Pastors have over Kings by the P. P. way We teach it is ministeriall in relation to all because Ministers can make no Lawes as Kings can doe but only as Heralds declare Christs Lawes 2. None of us give any coercive Civill power to the Church over either Kings or any other it is Ecclesiasticall a power to rebuke and censure was never civill 3. A religious Covenant to sweare to resist that is to defend our selves is one thing and a lawfull Oath as is cleare in those of Israel that did sweare Asa's Covenant without the authority of their owne King 2 Chron. 15.9 10 11 12. and to sweare to force the King to submit to Christs Scepter is another thing the Presbytery never did sweare or covenant any such thing nor doe we take Sacrament upon it to force the King Prelates have made the King sweare and take his Sacrament upon it that he shall roote out Puritanes that is Protestants whereas he did sweare at his Coronation to roote out Heretickes that is if Prelates were not traiterous in administring the Oath Arminians and Papists such as this P. P. is knowne to be but I hold that the Estates of Scotland have power to punish the King if he labour to subvert Religion and Lawes 4. If this Argument that Religion is to be perswaded not forced which P. P. useth be good it will make much against the King for the King then can force no man to the externall profession and use of the ordinances of God and not only Kings but all the people should be willing P. Prelate Though the King may not preach c. yet the exercise of these things freely within his Kingdome what concerneth the decent and orderly doing of all and the externall man in the externall government of the Church in appointing things arbitrary ând indifferent and what else is of this straine are so due to the prerogative of the Crowne as that the Priests without highest Rebellion may not usurpe upon him a King in the State and Church is a mixed person not simply civill but sacred too They are not only professors of truth that they have in the capacity of Christians but they are defenders of the faith as Kings they are not sonnes only but Nurse-fathers they serve God as Augustine saith as men and as Kings also Ans. If yee give the King power of the exercises of Word and Sacraments in his Kingdome this is deprivation of Ministers in his Kingdome for sure he cannot hinder them in another Kingdome you may make him to give a Ministeriall calling if he may take it away By what word of God can the King close the mouth of the man of God whom Christ hath commanded to speake in his name 2. If the King may externally governe the Church why may he not excommunicate for this is one of the speciall acts of Church Government especially seeing he is a mixed person that is halfe a Church-man and if he may prescribe Arbitrary teaching Ceremonies Surplice to instruct men in the duties of holinesse required of Pastors I see not but he may teach the Word 3. Dr. Ferne and other Royalists deny Arbitrary Government to the King in the State and with reason because it is Tyranny over the people but Prelates are not ashamed of commanding a thing Arbitrary and indifferent in Gods Worship shall not Arbitrary Government in the Church be tyranny over the conscience But say they Church-men teacheth the King what is decent and orderly in Gods Worship and he commandeth it Ans. Solomon by no teaching of Church-men deposed Abiather David by no teaching of Church-men appointed the forme of the Temple 2. Hath God given a Prerogâ—tive Royall to Kings whereby they may governe the Church and as Kings they shall not know how to use it but in so farre as they are taught by Church-men 4. Certainely we shall once be informed by Gods Word what is this Prerogative if according to it all the externall worship of God may be ordered Lawyers and Royalists teach that it is an absolutenesse of power to doe above or against a Law as they say from 1 Sam. 8. v. 9.11 and whereby the King may oppresse and no man may say What dost thou Now Good P. Prelate if by a plenitude of tyranny the King prescribe what he will in the externall worship and government of Gods House who can rebuke the King though he command all the Antichristian Ceremonies of Rome and of Turkey yea and the sacrificing of children to Molech for absolutenesse Royall will amount to shedding of innocent blood for if any oppose the King or say Sir What doe you he opposeth the Prerogative Royall and that is highest Rebellion saith our P. Prelate 5. I see not how the King is a mixt person because he is Defender of the â—aith as the Pope named the King of England Henry the eighth he defendeth it by his Sword as he is a Nurse-father not by the sword that commeth out of his mouth 6. I would know how Iulian Nebuchadnezzar Og and Sihon
were mixed persons and did all in the externall government of the Church and that by their office as they were Kings 7. All the instances that Augustine bringeth to prove that the King is a mixt person proveth nothing but Civill acts in Kings as Hezekiah cast down the high places the King of Nineve compelled to obey the Prophet Ionah Darius cast Daniels enemies to the Lyons P. Prelate If you make two Soveraignes and two Independents there is no more peace in the State then in Rebeckahs wombe while Jacob and Esau strove for the prerogative Ans. 1. What need Israel strive when Moses and Aaron are two Independents If Aaron make a golden Calfe may not Moses punish him If Moses turne an Achab and sell himselfe to doe wickedly ought not 80 valiant Priests and Aarons both rebuke censure and resist 2. p. 65. The P.P. said Let no man imagine we priviledge the King from the direction and power of the Church so he be no intruding Vzzah I pray P. P. what is this Church power Is it not supreme in its kinde of Church power or is it subordinate to the King If it be supreme see how P. P. maketh two Supremes and two Soveraignes If it be subordinate to the King as he is a mixt person the King is priviledged from this power and he may intrude as Vzzah and by his prerogative as a mixed person he may say Masse and offer a sacrifice if there be no power above his prerogative to curbe him If there be none the P.P. his imagination is reall The King is priviledged from all Church power Let the P.P. see to it I see no inconvenience for reciprocations of subjections in two Supremes and that they may mutually censure and judge one another Object Not in the same cause that is impossible If the King say Masse shall the Church judge and censure the King for intrusion and because the King is also Soveraigne and Supreme in his kinde he may judge and punish the Church for their act of judging and censuring the King it being an intrusion on his prerogative that any should judge the highest Judge Ans. The one is not subiect to the other but in the case of male-administration the innocent as innocent is subject to no higher punishing he may be subject to a higher as accusing citing c. Now the Royalist must give instance in the same cause where the Church faileth against the King and his Civill law and the King in the same cause faileth against the Church-canon and then it shall be easie to answer P. Prelate Religion is the bottome of all happinesse if you make the King only to execute what a Presbyterie commandeth he is in a hard case and you take from him the chiefest in Government Ecclesiasticall power hath the soule in subjection the Civill Soveraigntie holdeth a dead dominion ever the body Then the Pope and Presbyterie shall be in better condition then the King Cic. in Ver. Omnes Religione moventur Superstition is furious and maddeth people that they spare neither Crown nor Mitre Ans. Cold and dry is the P. P. when he spendeth foure pages in declamation for the excellencie of Religion The madnesse of Superstition nothing to the purpose 1. The King hath a chiefe hand in Church affaires when he is a Nurse-father and beareth the Royall sword to defend both the Tables of the Law though he doe not spin and weave Surplices and other base Masse-cloaths to Prelates and such Priests of Baal They dishonour his Majestie who bring his Prerogative so low 2. The King doth not execute with blind obedience with us what the Pope commandeth and the Prelates but with light of knowledge what Synods discernes and he is no more made the servant of the Church by this then the King of Iudah and Nebuchadnezzar are servants to Ieremiah and Daniel because they are to obey the Word of the Lord in their mouth Let them shew a reason of this why they are servants in executing Gods will in Discipline and in punishing what the Holy Ghost by his Apostles and Elders decree when any contemne the Decree concerning the abstinence from blood things strangled c. Act. 15. rather then when they punish murther idolatrie blasphemie which are condemned in the Word preached by Pastors of Christ and farther this objection would have some more colour realitie it hath not if Kings were only to execute what the Church ministerially in Christs name commandeth to be done in Synods but Kings may and doe command Synods to conveen and doe their duty and command many duties never Synodically decreed as they are to cast out of their Court apostate Prelates sleeping many yeares in the Devils armes and are to command Trencher-Divines neglecting their flock and lying at Court attending the falling of a dead Bishop as Ravens doe an old dying horse To goe and attend the flock and not the Court as this P. P. did 3. A King hath greater outward glory and may doe much more service to Christ in respect of extension and is excellenter then the Pastor who yet in regard of intension is busied about nobler things to wit the Soule the Gospel Eternitie than the King 4. Superstition maddeth men but it followeth not that true Religion may not set them on work to defend soule and body against Tyrannie of the Crown and Antichristian Mitres P. Prelate The Kingdome had peace and plentie in Prelates time Ans. A belly-argument We had plenty when we sacrificed to the Queen of Heaven 2. If the Traveller contend to have his purse againe shall the Robber say Robberie was blessed with peace The rest to the end are lies and answered already Only his invectives against ruling Elders falsly called Lay-Elders are not to purpose Parliament-Priests and Lay and Court-Pastors are Lay-Prophets 2. That Presbyteries meddle with Civill businesse is a slander They meddle with publike scandals that offendeth in Christs Kingdome But the Prelate by office was more in two elements in Church and State then any Frogs even in the Kings Leavenâ—tubs ordinarily 3. Something he saith of Popes usurping over Kings but only of one of his fathers a great uncleane spirit Gregorie the Great But if he had refuted him by Gods Word he should have thrown stones at his own Tribe for Prelates like him doe ex officio trample upon the neck of Kings 4. His testimonies of one Councell and one Father for all Antiquitie proveth nothing Athanasius said God hath given Davids Throne to Kings What to be Head of the Church No to be the Minister of God without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to tutour the Church And because Kings reigne by Christ as the Councell of Arimin saith therefore it may follow a Baily is also Head of the Church It is taken from Prov. 8. and answered 5. That Presbyteries have usurped upon Kings more then Popes since Hildebrand is a lie all stories are full of the usurpation of Prelates his own
that appertaine to their charge and the execution of their Office ergo by our confession to resist them in Tyrannicall acts is not to resist the ordinance of God 2. To resist Princes and Rulers and so inferiour Iudges and to deny them counsell and comfort is to deny helpe counsell and comfort to God Let then Cavaliers and such as refuse to helpe the Princes of the Land against Papists Prelates and Malignants know that they resist Gods ordinance which rebellion they unjustly impute to us 3. Whereas it is added in our Confession that God by the presence of his Lieutenant craveth support and counsell of the people It is not so to be taken as if then only we are to ayde and helpe inferiour Iudges and Parliaments when the King personally requireth it and not other waies 1. Because the King requireth helpe when by his Office he is obliged to require our helpe and counsell against Papists and Malignants though as misled he should command the contrary so if the Law require our helpe the King requireth it ex officio 2. This should expresly contradict our confession if none were obliged to give helpe and counsell to the Parliament and Estates except the King in his own person should require it because Art 14. it is expresly said That to save the lives of innocents or represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed not to suffer innocent blood to be shed or workes pleasing to God which he rewardeth Now we are not to thinke in reason if the King shall be induced by wicked Counsell to doe tyrannicall workes and to raise Papists in Armes against Protestants that God doth by him as by his Lieutenant require our helpe comfort and counsell in assisting the King in acts of Tyranny and in oppression and in shedding innocent blood yea our confession tyeth us to deny helpe and comfort to the King in these wicked acts and therefore our helpe must be in the things that pertaineth to his Royall Office and duty only otherwise we are to represse all tyranny art 14. 4 To save the lives of innocents to represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed are by our confession good workes well pleasing to God and so is this a good worke not to suffer innocent blood to be shed if we may withstand it Hence it is cleare as the Sunne that our confession according to the Word of God to which King Charles did sweare at his Coronation doth oblige and tye us in the presence of God and his holy Angels to rise in Armes to save the innocent to represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed When the King induced by ill counsell sent Armies by Sea and Land to kill and destroy the whole Kingdome who should refuse such a Service-booke as they could not in conscience receive except they would disobey God renounce the confession of Faith which the King and they had sworne unto and prove perfidious Apostates to Christ and his Church what could we doe and that the same Confession considering our bonds to our deare Brethren in England layeth bonds on us to this as a good worke also not to suffer their innocent blood to be shed but to defend them when they against all Law of God of men to State of Nations are destroyed and killed For my part I judge it had been a guiltinesse of blood upon Scotland if we had not helped them and risen in Armes to defend our selves and our innocent brethren against bloody Cavaliers Adde to this what is in the 24. Article of the same Confession We confesse whosoever goeth about to take away or to confound the whole state of Civill Polity now long established we affirme the same men not only to be enemies to mankind but also wickedly to fight against Gods Will. But these who have taken Armes against the Estates of Scotland and the Princes and Rulers of the Land have laboured to take away Parliaments and the fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdome ergo c. The Confession addeth 16. We farther confesse and acknowledge that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved honoured feared and holden in most reverent estimation because that they are Lieutenants of God in whose Sessions God himselfe doth sit and Iudge yea even the Iudges and Princes themselves to whom by God is given the sword to the praise and defence of good men and to revenge and punish all open malefactors Ergo the Parliament and Princes and Rulers of the Land are Gods Lieutenants on earth no lesse then the King by our Confession of Faith and those who resist them resist the ordinance of God Royalists say They are but the Deputies of the King and when they doe contrary to his Royall Will they may be resisted yea and killed for in so farre they are private men though they are to be honoured as Iudges when they act according to the Kings Will whose Deputies they are But I answer 1. It is a wonder that inferiour Judges should be formally Iudges in so far as they act conforme to the will of a mortall King and not in so far as they act conforme to the will of the King of Kings seeing the judgement they execute is the King of Kings and not the Iudgement of a mortall King 2 Chro. 19.6 2. Royalists cannot indure the former distinction as it is applyed to the King but they receive it with both hands as it is applyed to inferiour Iudges and yet certaine it is that it is as ordinary for a King being a sinfull man to act sometimes as the Lieutenant of God and sometimes as an erring and misinformed man no lesse then the inferiour Iudge acteth sometimes according to the Kings will and Law and sometimes according to his owne private way and if we are to obey the inferiour Iudge as the Deputy of the King what shall become of his Person when Cavaliers may kill him at some Edge-hill for so they mock this distinction as applyed to the King in regard of his Person and of his Royall Office and for this point our Confession citeth in the Margin Rom. 13.7 1 Pet. 2.17 Psal. 82.1 which places doe clearely prove 1. That inferiour Magistrates are 1. Gods ordinances 2. Gods on earth Psal. 82. 3. Such as beare the Lords sword 4. That they are not only as the Confession saith appointed for Civill policie but also for maintenance of true Religion and for suppressing of idolatrie and superstition Then it is evident to resist inferior Magistrates is to resist God himselfe and to labour to throw the sword out of Gods hands 5 Our Confession useth the same Scriptures cited by Junius Brutus to wit Ezek. 22.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. and Ier. 22.3 where we are no lesse then the Iewes commanded to execute judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoyled out of the hands of the oppressour For both the Law of God and the Civill Law saith Qui non impedit homicidium quum potest is homicidii reus est I will
absolute power is essentially a power to do without or above Law and a power to doe ill to destroy and so it cannot come from God as a Morall power by institution though it come from God by a flux of permissive providence but so things unlawfull and sinfull come from God Quest. 7. Whether the King may in his actions intend his owne Prerogative and Absolutenes Answ. He can neither intend it as his nearest end nor as his remote end Not the former for if he fight and destroy his People for a Prerogative he destroyeth his People that he may have a power to destroy them which must be meere Tyranny nor can it be his remote end for granting that his supposed absolute Prerogative were lawfull he is to referre all lawfull Power and all his actions to a more noble end to wit to the safetie and good of the People Quest. 8. Doe not they that resist the Parliaments power resist the Parliament And they that resist the Kings power resist the King God hath joyned King and Power who dare seperate them Answ. If the Parliament abuse their power we may resist their abused power and not their power Parliamentarie Mr. Bridges doth well distinguish in his Annot. on the Loyall Convert betwixt the Kings power and the Kings will 2. The Resisters doe not separate King and Power but the King himselfe doth separate his lawfull Power from his Will if he worke and act Tyrannie out of this principle Will Passion Lust not out of the Royall principle of Kingly power So far we may resist the one and not the other Quest. 9. Why if God might work a miracle in the three Childrens resistance active why doth he evidence omnipotencie in the passive obedience of these Witnesses The Kingdome of Iudah was Christs birthright as man and Davids sonne why did he not by legions of Men Angels rather vindicate his own flesh and blood than triumph by non-resistance and the omnipotencie of glorie to shine in his meere suffering Ans. Who art thou that disputest with God He that killeth with the jaw-bone of an Asse thousands and he that destroyed the numberlesse Midianites by only three hundred should no more put the three Children to an unlawfull fact in the one if they had by three men killed Nebuchadnezzar and all his Subjects than in the other But nothing is said against us in a Sophisme à non-causa pro causa except it be proved God would neither deliver his three Children nor Christ from death and the Iewes from bondage by miraculous resistance because resistance is unlawfull What patient suffring is lawfull Ergo resistance is unlawfull It is a poor consequent and a begging of the question both must be lawfull to us And so we hold of ten lawfull meanes fit to compasse Gods blessed end he may choose one and let goe nine shall any inferre ergo These other nine meanes are unlawfull because God chose a mean dâ—fferent from those ninâ— and refused them So may I answer by retortion The three hundred sinned in resisting Midian and defeating them Why Because it should be more honour to God if they had by suffering patiently the sword of Midian glorified God in Martyrdome So Christ and the Apostles who could have wrought miracles might have wrought Reformation by the sword and destroyed Kings and Emperors the opposers of the Lambe and they did reforme by suffering Ergo the sword is unlawfull in Reformation It followeth not The meane Christ used is lawfull Ergo all other meanes that he used not are unlawfull It is vaine Logick Quest. 10. Whether is the Coronation of a King any other thing but a Ceremonie Ans. In the Coronation there is and may be the Ceremonie of a shout and an Acclamation and the reaching of a Scepter in his right hand who is made King and the like But the Coronation in concreto according to the substance of the act is no Ceremonie nor any accidentall ingredient in the constitution of a King 1. Because Israel should have performed a meere ceremoniall action on Saul when they made him King which we cannot say for as the Peoples act of Coronation is distinctive so is it constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and did constitute him in a new relation that he was changed from no King to be a King 2. The people cannot by a Ceremonie make a King they must really put some honour on him that was not on him before Now this Ceremonie which Royalists doe fancie Coronation to be is only symbolicall and declarative not really dative it placeth nothing in the King Quest. 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King it being the immediate result without intervening of Law or any act of man issuing from God only Ans. Though we should give which in reason we cannot grant that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God without any act of man Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle without any act of men yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power that he abuse it not to Iudaizing Royalists deny not but they teach That the 80. Priests that restrained Vzziah his power from burning incense to the Lord gave no Royall power to Vzziah Doe not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power that he kill not the subjects without cause yet they teach That subjects gave no power to the King certainly this is a proofe of the immense power of the King of Kings that none can fly from his pursuing hand Ps. 139.1 2 3. Amos 9.1 2 3 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings Nebuchadnezzar as Royalists teach might justly conquer some Kingdomes for conquest is a just title to the Crowne say they now the Conquerour then justly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him yet we know the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King Ioshua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave and therefore this is no good reason The people gave not to the King Royall Power ergo they could not lawfully limit it and take it away 2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly without the intervention of any Act of Law for it is an Act of Law that Deut. 17. the people chooseth such a King not such a King that the people by a legall covenant make Saul David and Joash Kings and that God exerciseth any politicall action of making a King over such subjects upon such a condition is absurd and inconceivable for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jsrael upon this politicall and legall condition that they rule in Iustice and Judgement but there must intervene a politicall action and so they are not made Kings immediatly If God feed Moses by bread and Manna
the Lords act of feeding is mediate by the mediation of second causes if he feed Moses 40. dayes without eating any thing the act of feeding is immediate If God made David King as he made him a Prophet I should thinke God immediatly made him King for God asked consent of no man of no people no not of David himselfe before he infused on him the Spirit of Prophecy but he made him formally King by the politicall and legall Covenant betwixt him and the people I shall not thinke that a Covenant and Oath of God is a Ceremony especially a Law-covenant or a politicall paction between David and the people the contents whereof behoved to be De materia gravi onerosa concerning a great part of obedience to the fifth Commandement of Gods Morall Law the duties Morall concerning Religion and Mercy and Justice to be performed reciprocally between King and people Oathes I hope are more then Ceremonies Quest. 12. Whether or no is not the Common-wealth ever a Pupill never growing to age as a minor under nonage doth come not to need a Tutor but the Common-wealth being still in need of a Tutor a Governour or King must alwaies be a Tutor and so the Kingdome can never come to that condition as to accuse the King it alwaies being minor Ans. 1. Then can they never accuse inferiour Iudges for a Kingdome is perpetually in such a nonage as it cannot want them when sometime it wanteth a King 2. Can the Common-wealth under Democracy and Aristocracy being perpetually under nonage ever then quarrell at these Governments and never seeke a King by this reason they cannot 3. The King in all respects is not a Tutor every comparison in something beareth a Leg for the Common-wealth in their owne persons doe choose a King 2. Complaine of a King 3. Resist an Vzziah 4. Tye their elective Prince to a Law a Pupill cannot choose his Tutor either his dying Father or the living Law doth that service for him he cannot resist his Tutor he cannot tye his Tutor to a Law nor limit him when first he chooseth him Pupillo non licet postulare Tutorem suspecti quamdiu sub tutela est manet impubes l. Pietatis 6. in fin C. de susp Tutor l. impuberem 7. § Impuberes Iust. eod Quest. 13. Whether or no are subjects more obnoxious to a King then Clients to Patrons and servants to Masters because the Patron cannot be the Clients Judge but some superiour Magistrate must judge both and the slave had no refuge against his Master but only flight And the King doth conferre infinite greater benefits on the subjects then the Master doth on the slave because he exposeth his life pleasure ease credit and all for the safety of his subjects Ans. It s denyed for to draw the case to Fathers and Lords in respect of Children and Vassals the reason why Sons Clients Vassals can neither formally judge nor judicially punish Fathers Patrons Lords and Masters though never so Tyrannous is a Morall impotency or a politicall incongruity because these relations of Patron and Client Fathers and Children are supposed to be in a Community in which are Rulers and Iudges above the Father and Sonne the Patron and the Client but there is no Physicall incongruity that the politique inferiour punish the superiour if we suppone there were no Iudges on the earth and no relation but Patron and Client and because for the father to destroy the children is a troubling of the harmony of Nature and the highest degree of violence therefore one violence of selfe defence and that most jâ—st though contrary to nature must be a remedy against another violence but in a Kingdome there is no politicall Ruler above both King and People and therefore though Nature have not formally appointed the politicall relation of a King rather then many Governours and subjects yet hath Nature appointed a Court and Tribunall of necessity in which the people may by innocent violence represse the unjust violence of an injuring Prince so as the people injured in the matter of selfe defence may be their owne Iudge 2. I wonder that any should teach That oppressed slaves had of old no refuge against the tyranny of Masters but only flight for 1. The Law expresly saith That they might not only fly but also change Masters which we all know was a great dammage to the Master to whom the servant was as good as mony in his purse 2. I have demonstrated before by the Law of Nature and out of divers learned Iurists that all inferiours may defend themselves by opposing violence against unjust violence to say nothing that unanswerably I have proved that the Kingdome is superiour to the King 3. It is true Qui plus dat plus obligat as the Scripture saith Luke 7. He that giveth a greater benefit layeth a foundation of a greater obligation But 1. If benefit be compared with benefit it is disputable if a King give a greater benefit then an earthly father to whom under God the sonne is debtor for life and being if we regard the compensation of eminency of honour and riches that the People puteth upon the King but I utterly deny that a power to act Tyrannous acts is any benefit or obligation that the People in reason can lay upon their Prince as a compensation or hire for his great paines he taketh in his Royall Watch-Tower I Iudge it no benefit but a great hurt dammage and an ill of nature both to King and people that the people should give to their Prince any power to destroy themselves and therefore that people doth reverence and honour the Prince most who lay strongest chaines and Iron fetters on him that he cannot tyrannize Quest. 14. But are not Subjects more subject to their Prince seeing the subjection is naturall as we see Bees and Cranes to obey him then servants to their Lord. C. in Apib. 7.9.1 ex Hiero. 4. ad Rustic Monarch Plin. n. 17. For Jurists teach that servitude is beside or against nature l. 5. de stat homi § 2. just jur pers c. 3. § sicut Nov. 89. quib med nat eff sui Ans. There is no question in active subjection to Princes and Fathers commanding in the Lord we shall grant as high a measure as you desire But the question is if either active subjection to ill and unjust mandates or passive subjection to penall inflictions of Tyrannie and abused power be naturall or most naturall or if Subjects doe renounce naturall subjection to their Prince when they oppose violence to unjust violence This is to beg the question And for the Commonwealth of Bees and Cranes and Crown and Scepter amongst them Give me leave to doubt of it To be subject to Kings is a Divine morall Law of God but not properly naturall to be subject to coaction of the Sword Government and subjection to Parents is naturall But that a King is juris
naturae strictim I must crave leave to doubt I hold him to be a Divine morall Ordinance to which in conscience we are to submit in the Lord. Quest. 15. Whether was King Uzzah dethroned by the People Ans. Though we should say he was not formally unkinged and dethroned yet if the Royall power consist in an indivisible point as some Royalists say and if Vzzah was removed to a private house and could not reigne being a Leper Certainly much Royall power was taken from him 'T is true Arnisaeus saith he neither could be compelled to resigne his power nor was he compelled to resigne his Royall authoritie but he willingly resigned actuall government and remained King as Tutors and Curators are put upon Kings that are mad stupid and Children who yet governe all by the authoritie of lawfull Kings But that Vzzah did not denude himselfe of the Royall power voluntarily is cleare The reason 2 Chro. 26.21 why he dwelt in an house apart and did not actually reigne is because he was a Leper for He was cut off saith the Text from the house of the Lord and Jotham his sonne was over the Kings house judging the people of the Land Whereby it is cleare by the expresse law of God he being a Leper and so not by Law to enter into the Congregation he was cut off from the house of the Lord and he being a patient is said to be cut off from the Lords house Whether then Vzzah turned necessitie to a vertue I know not It is evident that Gods Law removed the actuall exercise of his power If we obteine this which Gods Word doth give us we have enough for our purpose though Vzzah kept the naked title of a King as indeed he tooke but up roome in the Catalogue of Kings Now if by Law he was cut off from actuall governing Whether he was willing or not willing to denude himselfe of Reigning it is all one And to say that furious men ideots stupid men and Children who must doe all Royall acts by Curators and Tutors are Kings jure with correction is petitio principii for then hath God infused immediately from heaven as Royalists teach us a Royall power to governe a Kingdome on those who are as capable of Royaltie as blocks I conceive that the Lord Deut. 17.14 15 16 17. commandeth the people to make no blocks Kings and that the Lord hath not done that himselfe in a binding Law to us which we have no commandement from him to doe I conceive that God made Josiah and Joash Kings typicall and in destination for his promise sake to David while they were Children as well as he made them Kings but not actu completo ratione officii to be a rule to us now to make a Childe of sixe yeares of age a King by office I conceive Children are to us only Kings in destination and appointment And for Idiots and Fooles I shall not believe let Royalists breake their faith upon so rocky and stony a point at their pleasure that God hath made them Governors of others by Royall office who can scarce number their own fingers Or that God tyeth a people to acknowledge stupid blocks for Royall Governours of a Kingdome who cannot governe themselves But far be it from me to argue with Bellarmine From Vzziah his bodily leprosie to inferre that any Prince spiritually Leprous and turned Hereticall is presently to be dethroned Nothing can dethrone a King but such Tyrannie as is inconsistent with his Royall office Nor durst I inferre that Kings now adayes may be removed from actuall Government for one single transgression It is true 80 Priests and the whole Kingdome so serving King Vzzah their motives I know were Divine proveth well that the Subjects may punish the transgression of Gods expresse law in the King in some cases even to remove him from the Throne but as from Gods commanding to stone the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day we cannot inferre that Sabbath-breakers are now to be punished with death yet we may well argue Sabbath-breakers may be punished and Sabbath-breakers are not unpunishable and above all Law So may we argue here Vzzah though a King was punished Ergo Kings are punishable by Subjects Quest. 16. Whether or no as the deniall of active obedience in things unlawfull is not dishonourable to the King as King he being obliged to command in the Lord only so the deniall of passive subjection to the King using unjust violence be also no dishonouring of the King Ans. As the King is under Gods Law both in commanding or in exacting active obedience so is he under the same regulating Law of God in punishing or demanding of us passive subjection and as he may not command what he will but what the King of Kings warranteth him to command so may he not punish as he will but by warrant also of the supreame Iudge of all the earth and therefore it is not dishonourable to the Majesty of the Ruler that we deny passive subjection to him when he punisheth beside his warrant more then its against his Majesty and honour that we deny active obedience when he commandeth illegally else I see not how it is lawfull to fly from a tyrannous King as Elias Christ and other of the witnesses of our Lord have done and therefore what Royalists say here is a great untruth namely Thaâ— in things lawfull we must be subject actively in things unlawfull passively For as we are in things lawfull to be subject actively so there is no duty in point of conscience laying on us to be subject passively because I may lawfully fly and so lawfully deny passive subjection to the Kings will punishing unjustly Quest. 17. Whether may the Prince make away any part of his Dominions as an Iland or a Kingdome for the safety of the whole kingdomes he hath as if goods be like to sinke an over-burthened Ship the Sea-men cast away a part of the Goods in the Sea to save the lives of the whole Passengers and if three thousand Passengers being in one Ship and the Ship in a storme like to be loosed it would seeme that a thousand may be cast over-board to save the lives of the whole Passengers Ans. The Kingdome being not the Kings proper Heritage it would seeme he cannoâ— make away any part of his Kingdome to save the whole without the expresse consent of that part though they be made away to save the whole In things of this kind men are not as the commodities of Merchants nor is the case alike as when one thousand of three thousand are to be cast into the Sea to save all the rest and that either by common consent or by Lots or some other way for it is one thing when destruction is evidently inevitable as in the casting so many men into the Sea to save the whole and many Passengers and when a King for peace or for help from another
84. (a) Covarr to 4 pract quest c. 1. â— 2. Government how both naturall and also voluntary There is a subordination of creatures naturall and government must be naturall and yet this or that forme iâ— voluntary Edward Symmons in his loyall subjects beleefe sect 3. p. 16. Royaltie not transmittable from father to sonne Vpon what tearme a people chooseth a Familie to reigne over them by succession The Throne by speciall promises of God made to David and his seed Ps. 89. no ground to make birth in foro dei a iust title to the Crowne 3 Arg. M. Symmons Loyall Subjects beliefe Sect. 3. p. 16. Title to a Crown by conquest must be unlawfull if truth be Gods just Title to a Crowne Royalists who hold conquests a iust title to the Crowne teach manifest treason against our Soveraigne King Charles and his Heires 4. Arg. Onely bona fortunae not honour is transmittable from father to son Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people to submit to a conquerour as their lawfull King Naked birth is inferiour to the divine unction which yet made no man a King without the peoples election Symmons loyall Subiects beleef Sect. 3. p. 16. Birth a typical designment to the crown If a Kingdom were by birth the King might sell it Symons sect 3. pag. 7. Joan. Episcâ— Roffens de potest Papae l. 2. c. 5. Arnisaeuâ— de authorit princip c. 1. n. 13. The heir of a Crown hath the Crown as the patrimony of the Kingdom not of the King his father The choice of a family to the Crown resolveth upon the free election of the people as on the fountain-cause 6. Argum. Sect. 4. p. 39. Election of a family to the Crown lawfull Speed Hist. pag. 757. A King by elâ—ction commâ—th neerer to the first King thâ—â— a Kâ—ng by sucâ—â—ssiâ—n D. Fern part 3. sect 3 p. 14. If the people may limit the King they may give him power A community have not power formally to punish themselves Barclay cont Monarcham c. 2. p. 56. The elective King and the hereditary King better and worse every one then another in divers relations Sac. sanc Reg. Maiest c. 17. p. 158. Letter p. 7. Twofold right of conquest Sect. 7. p. 30. Vniust conquest is no signification of Gods approving Will. 1 Arg. 2 Arg. Meere violent domineering is contrary to the rules of governing 3 Arg. Violence hath nothing in it of a King 4 Arg. 5 Arg. A King given to a people by a bloody Conquest must be a judgement not a blessing and so not per se a King 6 Arg. Strength as prevailing strength is not law or reason Fathers cannot dispose of the liberty of the posteritie not borne A father as a father hath not power of life and death Hugo Gootius de â—ute belli pacis l. 2. c. 4. n. 10. 7 Arg. Part 3. Sect. 3. pag. 20. Arnisaeus de authoritat Princip c. 1. n. 12. The peoples and Davids conquest of Canaanites Amonites and Edomites do not prove conquest to be a good title to a Crown Davids conquest of the Ammonites more rigorous then that it can legitimate Crowns by conquest 2 Sam. 12.30.31 7. sorts of superioritie and inferioritie Power of life and death from a positive law not from the superioritie oâ— father children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A dominion antecedent and consequent Kings and subjects no naturall order Buchan de juâ— Regni apud Scoâ—tos A man is borâ— consequenter iâ— a poltique reâ—lation Slavery not naturall Every man by nature free borne in regard of civill subjection 1 Arg. 2 Arg. 3 Arg. 4 Arg. 5 Arg. 6 Arg. Politque societie naturall in radice free in modo rei 7 Arg. Sac. sanct Râ—g ma. c. 12. p. 12â— P. Prelate Politick Government how naturall P. Prelate Sac. sanct Mai. p. â—26 Inslaving of children by the parents not naturall The King under a naturall but no civil obligation to the people say Royalists If the condition without the which one of the parties would never have entered in covenant be not performed that person is loosed from the covenant Arnis de anthorit prin c. 1 n. 6 7. The people Princes in their place are obliged to maintain Religion and Iustice no lesse then the King In so far as the King presseth a false Religion on the people catenus in so far they are understood not to have a Kingly power The covenant between King and People giveth a coactive power to each other The covenant bindeth the King as King not as he is a man only The covenant tyeth the King to the People politically as well as to God naturally or religiously 2 Arg. How the covenant is conditionall and what breach dissolveth the covenant One or two tyrannous acts deprive not a King of his Royall right The covenant between King and people conditionall Though there be no positive written covecant which yet we grant not yet there is a naturall tacite and implicite covenant betwixt the King and the people If the King be made King absolutely he is made such an one contrary to the word of God and nature of his office The people are not given to the Kings keeping so as they be his owne as sheep or mony are given The King could not buy or sell borrow or contract debt if his covenant with men did not bind him The covenant sworn by Asa and all Iudah 2 Chron. 15. obligeth the King Barclay Alber. Gentilis in disput Regal l. 2. c. 12. l. â—3 c. 14â— 15.116 Hug. Grotius de jure belli poc l. 2. c. 11 12 13. Arnisaeus do authorit princip c. 1. n. 7.8.10 Haenon disp 2. Ioan. Roffens de potest pape l. 2. c. 5. Adam suppose he had lived till now should not have bin King of the whole earth because a father King a father Metaphorically only A fatherly power and a politike power are not one and the fame D. Ferne par 1. sect 3. pag. 8. Sacr. sanct Reg. Maiest c. 7. pag. 87. Arnisaeus de potest princip c. 3. n. 1.2 See Aristotle saith the Prolate Eth. 8.10 pol. 1. c. Homer Odys 1. he might have said see Arnisaeus loc tit The King as King hath no masterly domion over the people but only fiduciarie To be a King is by office and actu primo to defend save feed and not to hurt or inthral A King not over men as reasonable men Prelate Sacr. sanct maj c. 16· p. 15. Hugo Grotius hath the same de jur bel pacis l. 1. c. 3. A compelled surrender of liberty tyeth not A surrender of ignorance and mistake is some way unvoluntary and obligeth not The Goods of the Subjects not the Kings * Quod jure gentium dicitur F. de justitia jure l. ex hâ—e Quod partim jure civili Iusti de rerum divisio sect singulorum * L. item si verberatum F. de rei vindicat Ias. plene m. l. Barbarius F. de offici
prator all the goods of the people are the Kings in a fourfold notion but not in propriety Subjects are propriators of their own Goods Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. The answer of Hybreas to a extorting Prince Antonius Argum. 4. Species enim furti est de aliâ—no largiri beneficit debito rem sihi acquirerâ— L. si pignore sect de furt Argum. 5. Argum. 6. Argum. 7. Argum. 8. The Kings power fiduciarie The King a Tutor Difference between a father and a Tutor A free Community no pupill or minor The Kings power not properly Maritall or husbandly The King a Patron rather then a Lord. The King an honourable servant Royall power only from God and only from the people in divers respects The King the servant of the people both objectively subjectively By one and the same act the Lord of Heaven and the People make the King according to the physicall realitie of the act The King head of the Communitie only metaphorically The King but metaphorically only Lord of the familie The King not heire nor proprietor of the Kingdome The place 1 Sam. 8 9 11. discussed (a) Grotius de ju bel pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 3. (b) Barclaius contra Monar chom l. 2. p. 64. Potestatem intelligit non cam quae competit eâ— praecepto neque etiam quae ex permissu est quatenus liberat à â—cecato sed quatenus paenis legalibus eximit operantem (c) Barclaius contra Monarcho l. 2. p. 56 57. The power office of the King badly diâ—â—erenced by Barclay (d) Barclaius l. 3. c. 2. (e) Arr. Mon. Haec erit ratio Regis (f) 70. Interpret Vatabul judica 〈◊〉 judicium consuetudinem â— more 's ib. his moribus hac consuetudine utentur erga vos reges g Chald Para. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 70. Interp. 70. Interp. (h) P. Martyr coment 1 Sam. 8. verum jus regium describit in Deut. apud Samuelem autem usurpatum (i) Calvin conc 1 Sam. 8. (k) Andr. Rivetus in decal c. 20. inâ— mundat p. 195. (l) Junius annot in 1 Sam. 2.13 (m) Diodatus annot 1 Sam. 8.3 (n) Glossâ— interlinearis (o) Lyra in locum hic accipitur jus large sumptum quoâ— reputatur jus propter malum abusum Nam illa quae dicuntur hic de jure Regis magis contingunt pâ—r Tyranidem (p) Tostatuâ— Abulens in 1 Reg. 8. q. 17. deq. 21. (q) Cornelius a Lapid in locum (r) Cajetan in locum (s) Hugo Cardinal in loc (t) Serrarius in locum (u) Thom. Aquin l. 3. de Regni Princip c. 11. (x) Mendoza jus Tyrannorum (y) Clemens Alexand. pag. 26. (z) Beda l. 2 expo in Samuel (a) Petrus Robuffus tract dâ— incongrua prert p. 110. Osiander he setteth not down the Office of the King what he ought to be but what manâ—ner of King they should have Pelican that ruled by will not by law Willet Such as decline to Tyranny Borhaius Tyrants not Kings (b) Rabb Levi Ben. Gersom in 1 Sam. 8. Pezelius in exp leg Mosai l. 4. c. 8. Tossan in not Bibl. Bosseus de Rep. Christ. potest supra regem c. 2. n. 103. Bodin de Rep. l. 1. â— 19. Brentius homil 27. in 1 Sam. 8. Mos regis non de jure sed de vulgatâ consuctudinâ— Doct. Ferne p. 2. sect pag. 55. Active and passive Obed. pag. 24. D. Ferne. 3. p. Sect. 2. pag. 10. Learned Authors teach that Gods Law Deut. 17. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a manner of the King 1 Sam. 8 9 are opposite one to another so Gerson in trinprinc sac adu lat par 4. Alp. 66. lit l. cons. 8. Buchan de jure regni apud Scot. Chasson cat glo mundi cons. 24. n. 162. cons. 35. Tholoss l. 9. c. 1. Rossen De polus Rep. c. 2. n. 10. Magdeburg in trac de off ma. Crying to God not the only remedy against a tyrant Ferne par 3. pag. 95. Resisting of tyrants and patience not inconsistent The Law of the King not a permissive law as was the law of devorcement Mal. 2. The law of the King written in a booke 1 Sam. 11. not the law of Tyranny In what considerations the King is worthier then the people and the people worthier then the King A meane as a meane inferiour to the end A King inferiour to the people Argum. â— Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Argum. 5. The Church because the Church of more worth then the King because King Argum. 6. Argum. 7. People in the spece immortall King not so If sinne had never been there should have been no need of Kings Arg. 8. The King is to expend his life for the people and so inferior â—o them A meane is considered reduplicatively and formally as a meane and materially as the thing which is the mean in this latter sense the mean may be of more worth then the end but not so in the former sense A meane may be considered as a meane only and as more then a meane The people may be without the King but not the King without the people 10. Argum. The people worthier as the constituent cause then the King who is the effect Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Vnpossible that people can limit Royall power but they must givâ— Royall power Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Except 2. Ioan. Rossens De potest pap l. 2. c. 5. Though God immediately create Kings without the people yet can the people unmake Kings Though God should immediately give a talent and gift for Prophecying as he gave to Balaam Caiaphas and others yet they may lose that talent by digging it in the earth and be deprived by the Church Except 3. Sacr. sanc Mâ—jes c. 9. p. 98.99 Arnisaus De authorit princip cap. 1. n. 1. The people putting a King above themselves retaine the fountain-power and so are superior to the King Ulpian l. 1. ad Sc. Tupil Populus omne suum imperium potestatem confert in Regem Bartolus ad l. hostes 24. f. de capt host Arnis c. â— n. 10. The King as King a meane and inferior to the people The King both as a man and as a King inferior to the people Except 4. Sacr. sanct maj c. 9. p. 98. Observe here that the P. P. yieldeth there is a free covenant by which the people resigne their power to the King but whether Royall power or some other he dare not assert lest he destroy his own principles To sweare non-selfe-preservation and to sweare self-murther all one 5 Reply Sac. sanct maj c. 9. p. 129. stollen from Barclaius l. 5. c. 12. The people cannot make away their power to the King irrevocably The people may resume the power they gave to Commissioners of Parliament when they abuse that power Buchanan not understood by the P. P. Tables lawfull when the secret Counsell is corrupted and Parliaments are denyed 6 Rep. Barc l. 4. conâ— Monarâ—bo c. 11 pag. 27. 7. Rep. Sacr.
of the Law by grace In re dubia possunt dispensare Principes quia nullus sensus presumitur qui vincat principolem l. â— Sect. initium ib. Kings as Kings cannot doe things of meere grace because they must doe all ex debito officii by necessitie of their office Rom. 13.4 Prov. 17.15 Kings equivocally Kings The King may â—s well do acts of mâ—er cruelty from his supposâ—d Prerogative as acts of meer grace to one man out of the same fountain If Prerogative may ovâ—r-leap Law in one why not in twenty No Tyrant câ—n do any the most cruell act but under the notion of apprehended good Pretended Prerogative Royal of Royalists Tyranny Polanus in Daniel c. 5.19 Rollocus com 16. ib. The Saâ—ches de matr tom 1. l. 2. dis 15. n. 3. est arbitrii plenitudo nulli neâ—â—â—sitati subjecta ruliiusque publicâ— juriâ— regalis limita 〈◊〉 Baldus l. 2. n. 40. C. de servit aqua Suetoâ—i in Caligu cap. 29. memento tibi omnia in omneâ— licere Coelius Rodigi l. 8. Lect. Antiq c. 1. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 26. n. 2. A contradiction in Ferne. Treaties of Monarchicall Government c. 2. pag. 6 7. The King of Persia not absolute The Oâ—th of Iudah to the King of Babylon tyed them not to renounce naturall selfe preservation Servants are not by 1 Pet. 2.18 19. interdited of selfe-defence Declar. at New Market Mar. 9. 1641. Magna Charcâ— against an absolute Prince How the King is Lord of the Parliamenâ— Monarch Governa part 2. c. 1. pag. 31. Sac. sanc Mai. c. 14. p. 144. Princes are not to be invested with power to all Tyranny upon this pretence that they cannot do good except they have also absolute power to do evil Sac. Maj. pag. 145. Sacr. sanc Maj. c. 16. p. 170 171. A power to shed innocent blood is no part of a true Prerogative The King because of the publikenesse of his office inferiour to subjects and other Iudges in many priviledges Loyall subjects belief Sect. 6. p. 19. Barcl l. 4. c. 23. p. 325. Humane Laws as penall take life from Law makers as reasonable they have life from the eternall Law of God The King not greater then the Law No necessitie that an unjust will of a King be either done by us or on us The King hath no Nomothetick power his alone Symmons Loyall Subject Sect. 5. pag. 8. Prerogative Royall warranteth not the Prince to destroy himselfe nor is the people to permit him to cooperat for destruction to themselves The King inferiour to the People Parliaments supplicate not the King ex debito Sac. sanct maj â— 9 p. 103 104 Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordinatioÌ„ both consistent Do. p. 3. Sect. 4. pag. 27. Temperament of all the three in a limited Monarchy Barcl Ad verfus Monarchomachous l. 1. pag. 24. A King as King how excellent a head of the people how contrary to a Tyrant The King as an erring man no remedy against confusions and oppressions of Anarchy A Court of necessity and a Court of Iustice. Humane Laws not so obscure as Tyranny is legible Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39. It is ridiculous to say a King cannot be so void of reason as to destroy his people Part. 3. sect 5. pag. 39. If there be a civill restraint from mans Law laid upon the King it must be forceable It s more requisite the people religion and Church be secured then one man D. Ferne p. 3. sect 5. pag. 40. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath Eatenus in so far not obligatory Difference betwixt a Tyrant in act and a Tyrant in habit Epist. 45. The tragicall end of many Tyrannous Princes â—easons why â—he Peoples â—â—fetie is the â—overaignes â—aw 〈◊〉 good Prince 〈◊〉 to postpone 〈◊〉 own safetie 〈◊〉 the safetie 〈◊〉 the people Sac. sane Maâ— c. 16.159 Dr. Ferne Conscience 〈◊〉 satisfied Sec. p. 28. The King in his governmeâ—â— is to seeke 〈◊〉 safetie of the people not himselfe â—â—c sanc maj 〈◊〉 160. 〈◊〉 Armini Declar. Remonstrant in â—uod dordraâ— The Royalists principles drive at this to make none Kings but only rank Tyrants Vâ—â—dix regum pag. 65. Sac. sanc Mai. 16. pag. 161 162 163. Sacr. san Mâ—i pag. 165. The subjects may gratifie the King for doing what he is obliged to doe by his office Sac. sacr Maâ— pag. 170. Page 172. Symmons hath the same very thing in his Loyall Subjec â—nbelief p. 39. Page 175. The safetie of the people far above the King Page 176. A King may though we should deny all Prerogative breake through the letter of a Law for the safety of the whole Land The Kings supposed Prerogative nothing in comparison of the lives and blood of so many thousands as are killed in England and Ireland The power of the Dictator no plea for a Prerogative above Law Pag. 177. Sac. saâ—â— maj cap. 16. The Law above the King in four considerations The meaning of this The King is not subject to the Law The Law above the King in supremacy of constitution In what sense the King mâ—y do all things Plutarch in Apothâ—g l. 4. The King under the fundamentall Laws Whether the King be punishable or be to he punished Two divers questions Magistratus ipse est judex execùtor contra sâ—ipsum in prâ—pria causa propter excellentiam sut officii l. sâ— pater familias l. hoc Tiberius Caesar F. De Hereâ— â—oc just The King above sâ—me Lawes The King â—bove Lawes that conâ—erne subjâ—cts as subjects Some Lawyers and Schoole-men free the King from the Law Reasons to prove that the King is under the Law Thâ—t a King hath no superiour but God a false ground to liberate the the King from the coaction of Law Argum. 2. Argum. 3. A Tyrant in â—xercise may be puniâ—â—â—d by th◠〈…〉 But how this câ—n 〈◊〉 wâ—th thâ— dâ—ctrine oâ— Râ—yalâ—â—ts I see not to wit Once a father alway a father once a King ever a King None can punish a King 〈◊〉 Goâ— Almighty say they Arg. 4. The Kâ—ng under the strictâ—st obligation of Lâ—w. Arg. 5. A King remaineth a man and a sociall creature 〈…〉 Mai. 〈…〉 1â—6 14â— In what considerations the people is the subject of all politike power Sac. Mai. p. 147 148. C. 15. p. 148. Stollen from Arnisaeus De authorit Prin. c. 4. num 5. pag. 73 If David in his Murthering Vriah and his Adultery sinned against none but God Arg. 6. The place Psa. 51. Against hee only have I sinned Discussed Against thee only c. cannot excluâ—e men as if David had sinned against no mortall men on earth as Royalists would teach Sac. sanct maj pag. 153. Gods delivering his people by Iudges and by Cyrus nothing agâ—inst the power of a free people That the people may swear a Covenant for Reformation of Religion without the King is proved A twofold exposition of Lawes A Rule to expone Lawes The
three Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland p. 446 447 448. The Parliament of Scotland doth regulate limit and set bounds to the Kings power p. 448 449 Fergus the first King not a Conquerour p. 449. The King of Scotland below Parliaments considerable by them hath no negative voice p. 450 451 seq QUEST XLIV Generall results of the former doctrine in some few Corrolaries in 22 Questions p. 454 455. Concerning Monarchy compared with other forms p. 454. How Royaltie is an issue of nature p. 454 455. And how Magistrates as Magistrates be naturall p. 455. How absolutenesse is not a Ray of Gods Majestie ibid. And resistance not unlawfull because Christ and his Apostles used it not in some cases p. 456 457. Coronation is no ceremony p. 457. Men may limit the power that they gave not p. 457 458. The Common-wealth not a pupill or minor properly p. 459. Subjects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients Vassals Children to their Superiours p. 459 460. If subjection passive be naturall p. 461. Whether King Uzziah was dethroned p. 461 462. Idiots and children not compleat Kings children are Kings in destination onely p. 462. Deniall of passive subjection in things unlawfull not dishonourable to the King more then deniall of active obedience in the same things p. 463. The King may not make away or sell any part of his Dominions p. 463 464. People may in some cases conveen without the King p. 464. How and in what meaning subjects are to pay the Kings debts p. 465. Subsidies the Kingdoms due rather then the Kings p. 465 466. How the Seas Ports Forts Castles Militia Magazeen are the Kings and how they are the Kingdoms p. 466. Lex Rex QUEST I. In what sense Government is from God I Reduce all that I am to speak of the power of Kings to the Author or efficient 2. The matter or subject 3. The form or power 4. The end and fruit of their Government And 5. to some cases of resistance Hence Quest. I. Whether Government be warranted by a divine Law The question is either of Government in generall or of the particular species of Government such as are Government by one only called Monarchy the Government by some chief leading men named Aristocracie the Government by the people going under the name of Democracie 2. We cannot but put difference betwixt the institution of the Office to wit Government and the designation of person or persons to the Office 3. What is warranted by the direction of natures light is warranted by the Law of nature and consequently by a divine Law for who can deny the Law of nature to be a divine Law That power of Government in generall must be from God I make good 1. Because Rom. 13. 1. there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God 2. God commandeth obedience and so subjection of conscience to powers Rom. 13.5 Wherefore we must be subject not onely for wrath or civill punishment but for conscience sake 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme c. Now God onely by a divine Law can lay a band of subjection on the conscience tying men to guilt and punishment if they transgrâ—sse 2. Conclus All civill power is immediately from God in its root In that 1. God hath made man a sociall creature and one who inclineth to be governed by man then certainly he must have put this power in mans nature so are we by good reason taught by Aristotle 2. God and nature intendeth the policie and peace of mankinde then must God and nature have given to mankinde a power to compasse this end and this must be a power of Government I see not then why John Prelate Master Maxwel the excommunicate P. of Rosse who speakâ—th in the name of I. Armagh had reason to say That he feared that we fancied that the Government of Superiours was onely for the more perfit but have no Authoritie over or above the perfit Nâ—c Rex nec Lex justo posita He might have imputed this to the Brasilians who teach That every single man hath the power of the sword to revenge his own injuries as Molina saith QUEST II. Whether or not Government be warranted by the Law of nature AS domestick societie is by natures instinct so is civill societie naturall in radice in the root and voluntary in modo in the manner of coalescing Politick power of Government agreeth not to man singly as one man except in that root of reasonable nature but supposing that men be combined in societies or that one family cannot contain a societie it is naturall that they joyn in a civill societie though the manner of Union in a politick body as Bodine saith be voluntary Gen. 10.10 Gen. 15.7 and Suarez saith That a power of making Laws is given by God as a property flowing from nature Qui dat formam dat consequâ—ntia ad formam Not by any speciall action or grant different from creation nor will he have it to result from nature while men be united into one politick body which Union being made that power followeth without any new action of the will We are to distinguish betwixt a power of Government and a power of Government by Magistracy That we defend our selves from violence by violence is a consequent of unbroken and sin-lesse nature but that we defend our selves by devolving our power over in the hands of one or more Rulers seemeth rather positively morall then naturall except that it is naturall for the childe to expect help against violence from his father For which cause I judge that learned Senator Ferdinandus Vasquius said well That Princedom Empire Kingdom or Iurisdiction hath its rise from a positive and secundary law of Nations and not from the law of pure Nature The Law saith there is no law of Nature agreeing to all living creatures for superiority for by no reason in Nature hath a Boar dominion over a Boar a Lyon over a Lyon a Dragon over a Dragon a Bull over a Bull And if all Men be born equally free as I hope to prove there is no reason in Nature why one Man should be King and Lord over another therefore while I be otherwise taught by the forecasten Prelate Maxwell I conceive all jurisdiction of Man over Man to be as it were Artificiall and Positive and that it inferreth some servitude whereof Nature from the womb hath freed us if you except that subjection of children to parents and the wife to the husband and the Law saith De jure gentium secundarius est omnis principatus 2. This also the Scripture proveth while as the exalting of Saul or David above their Brethren to be Kings and Captains of the Lords people is ascribed not to Nature for King and Beggar spring of one clay-mettall but to
an act of Divine bounty and grace above Nature so Psal. 78.70 71. He took David from following the Ewes and made him King and feeder of his people 1 Sam. 13.13 There is no cause why Royallists should deny Government to be naturall but to be altogether from God and that the Kingly power is immediatly and only from God because it is not naturall to us to subject to Government but against Nature and against the hair for us to resign our liberty to a King or any Ruler or Rulers for this is much for us and proveth not but Government is naturall it concludeth that a power of Government tali modo by Magistracy is not naturall but this is but a Sophisme a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod est dictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this speciall of Government by resignation of our liberty is not naturall Ergo power of Government is not naturall it followeth not a negatione spâ—ciei non sequitur negatio generis non est homo ergo non est animal And by the same reason I may by an antecedent will agree to a Magistrate and a Law that I may be ruled in a politick Society and by a consequent will onely yea and conditionally onely agree to the penalty and punishment of the Law and it is most true no man by the instinct of Nature giveth consent to Penall Laws as Penall for Nature doth not teach a man nor incline his spirit to yeeld that his life shall be taken away by the sword and his blood shed except in this remote ground a man hath a disposition that a veine be cutt by the Physitian or a Member of his body cut off rather then the whole body and life perish by some contagious disease but here reason in cold blood not a naturall disposition is the neerest prevalent cause and disposer of the businesse When therefore a communitie by natures instinct and guidance incline to Government and to defend themselves from violence they do not by that instinct formally agree to Government by Magistrates and when a naturall conscience giveth a deliberate consent to good Laws as to this He that doth violence to the life of a man by man shall his blood be shed Gen. 9.6 He doth tacitely consent that his own blood shall be shed but this he consenteth unto consequently tacitely and conditionally If he shall do violence to the life of his brother Yet so as this consent proceedeth not from a disposition every way purely naturall I grant reason may be necessitated to assent to the conclusion being as it were forced by the prevalent power of the evidence of an insuperable and invincible light in the premises yet from naturall affections there resulteth an act of self-love for self-preservation So David shall condemn another rich man who hath many Lambs and robbeth his poor brother of his one Lamb and yet not condemn himself though he be most deep in that fault 1 Sam. 12.5 6. yet all this doth not hinder but Government even by Rulers hath its ground in a secondary Law of nature which Lawyers call secundariò jus naturale or jus gentium secundarium a secondary Law of nature which is granted by Plato and denied by none of sound judgement in a sound sense and that is this Licet vim virepellere It is lawfull to repeal violence by violence and this is a speciall act of the Magistrate 2. But there is no reason why we may not defend by good reasons that politick Societies Rulers Cities and Incorporations have their rise and spring from the secundary Law of nature 1. Because by Natures Law Family-Government hath its warrant and Adam though there had never been any positive Law had a power of governing his own family and punishing malefactors but as Tannerus saith well and as I shall prove God willing this was not properly a Royall or Monarchicall power and I judge by the reasoning of Sotus Molina and Victoria By what reason a Family hath a power of Government and of punishing Malefactors that same power must be in a societie of men Suppose that societie were not made up of Families but of single persons for the power of punishing ill-doers doth not reside in one single man of a familie or in them all as they are single private persons but as they are in a familie But this argument holdeth not but by proportion for paternall government or a fatherly power of parents over their families and a politick power of a Magistrate over many families are powers different in nature the one being warranted by natures law even in its species the other being in its spece and kind warranted by a positive law and in the generall only warranted by a law of nature 2. If we once lay the supposition that God hath immediately by the law of nature appointed there should be a Government and mediately defined by the dictate of naturall light in a communitie that there shall be one or many Rulers to governe the Communitie then the Scriptures arguments may well be drawn out of the school of nature as 1. The powers that are be of God therefore natures light teacheth that we should be subject to these powers 2. It is against natures light to resist the ordinance of God 3. Not to feare him to whom God hath committed the sword for the terror of evill doers 4. Not to honour the publike rewarder of well-doing 5. Not to pay tribute to him for his worke Therefore I see not but Govarruvias Soto Suarez have rightly said that power of Government is immediately from God and this or this definite power is mediately from God proceeding from God by the mediation of the consent of a Communitie which resigneth their power to one or moe Rulers and to me Barclaius saith the same quamvis populus potentiae largitor videatur c. QUEST III. Whether Royall Power and definite forms of Government be from God THe King may be said to be from God and his word in these seveall notions 1. By way of permission Ier. 43.10 Say to them thus saith the Lord of hoasts the God of Israel Behold I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon my servant and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid and he shall spread his royall pavilion over them And thus God made him a Catholick King and gave him all Nations to serve him Jer. 27.6 7 8. though he was but an unjust Tyrant and his sword the best title to those crownes 2. The King is said to be from God by way of naked approbation God giving to a people power to appoint what Government they shall thinke good but instituting none in speciall in his Word This way some make Kingly power to be from God in the generall but in the particular to be an invention of men negatively lawfull and not repugnant to the Word as
Church cannot dye but the King as King may and doth dye It is true where a Kingdome goeth by succession the Politicians say the man who is King dyeth but the King never dyeth because some other either by birth or free election succeedeth in his roome But I answer 1. People by a sort of necessity of nature succeedeth to People generation to generation except Gods judgement contrary to nature intervene to make Babylon no people and a land that shall never be inhabited which I both believe and hope for according to Gods word of Prophecie But a King by a sort of contingencie succeedeth to Kings for nature doth not ascertaine us there must be Kings to the worlds end because the essence of Governours is kept safe in Aristocracie and Democracie though there were no Kings And that Kings should necessarily have been in the world if man had never fallen in sinne I am not by any cogent argument induced to beleeve I conceive there should have been no Government but these of Fathers Children Husband and Wife and which is improperly Government some more gifted with supervenient additions to nature as gifts and excellencies of Engines Now in this point Althusius polit c. 38. n. 114. saith the King in respect of office is worthier then the people but this is but an accidentall respect but as the King is a man he is inferior to the people But 8. he who by office is obliged to expend himselfe and to give his life for the safety of the people he must be inferior to the people So Christ saith the life is more then rayment or food because both these give themselves to corruption for mans life so the beasts are inferiour to man because they die for our life that they may sustaine our life And Caiaphas prophesied right that it was better that one man die then that the whole Nation perish Joh. 11. v. 50. and in nature Elements against their particular inclination defraud themselves of their private and particular ends that the Commonwealth of Nature may stand as heavy elements ascend light descend lest nature should perish by a vacuitie And the good shepherd Ioh. 10. giveth his life for his sheep So Saul and David both were made Kings to fight the Lords battels and to expose their lives to hazard for the safetie of the Church and people of God But the King by office is obliged to expend his life for the safety of the people of God he is obliged to fight the Lords battels for them to goe betwixt the Flock and death as Paul was willing to be spent for the Church It may be objected Jesus Christ gave himselfe a Ransome for his Church and his life for the life of the World and was a gift given to the world Ioh. 3.16 4.10 and he was a meane to save us And so what arguments we have before produced to prove that the King must be inferior to the people because he is a ransome a meane a gift are not concludent I answer Consider a meane reduplicatively and formaliter as a meane and secondly as a meane materially that is the thing which is a meane 2. Consider that which is only a mean and ransome and gift and no more and that which beside that it is a meane is of a higher nature also So Christ formally as a meane giving 1. his temporall life 2. for a time 3. according to the flesh For 1. the eternall life 2. of all the Catholike Church to be glorified eternally 3. not his blessed Godhead and glorie which as God he had with the Father from eternitie In that respect Christ hath the relation of a servant ransome gift and some inferioritie in comparison of the Church of God and his Fathers glory as a meane is inferior to the end but Christ materially in concreto Christ is not only a meane to save his Church but as God in which consideration he was the immortall Lord of life he was more then a meane even the author efficient and Creator of heaven and earth and so there is no ground to say that he is inferiour to the Church but the absolute head King the chiefe of ten thousand more in excellencie and worth then ten thousand millions of possible worlds of men and Angels But such a consideration cannot befall any mortall King because consider the King materially as a mortall man he must be inferior to the whole Church for he is but one and so of lesse worth then the whole Church as the thumbe though the strongest of the fingers yet it is inferior to the hand and far more to the whole body as any part is inferior to the whole 2. Consider the King reduplicative and formally as King and by the officiall relation he hath he is no more then but a Royall servant an officiall meane tending ex officio to this end to preserve the people to rule and governe them and a gift of God given by vertue of his office to rule the people of God and so any way inferiour to the people 9. Those who are before the King and may be a People without a King must be of more worth then that which is posteriour and cannot be a King without them For thus Gods selfe sufficiency is proved in that he might be and eternally was blessed for ever without his Creature but his creature cannot subsist in being without him Now the people were a people many yeares before there was any government save domestick and is a people where there is no King but only an Aristocracy or a Democracy but the King can be no King without a people It is vaine that some say the King and Kingdome are relatives and not one is before another for its true in the naked relation so are father and sonne Master and servant Relata simul natura but sure there is a priority of worth and independency for all that in the father above the sonne and in the master above the servant and so in the people above the King take away the people and Dyonisius is but a poore Schoole-master 2. Asser. The people in power are superiour to the King 1. because every efficient and constituent cause is more excellent then the effect Every meane is inferiour in power to the end so Iun. Brutus q. 31. Bucher l. 1. c. 16. Author Lib. De offic Magistr q. 6. Henaenius disp 2. n. 6. Ioan. Roffensis Epist. De potest pap l. 2. c. 5. Spalato de Repu Ecclesiast l. 6. c. 2. n. 31. but the people is the efficient and constituent cause the King is the effect the people is the end both intended of God to save the people to be a healer and a Physician to them Esay 3. v. 7. and the people appoint and create the King out of their indigence to preserve themselves from mutuall violence Many things are objected against this 1. That the efficient and constituent cause is
Principium formale effectivum is as good Logick as principium effectivum materiale formale finale The Prelate is in his acuracy of Logick now he yet maketh the causality of the formall cause all one with the causality of the efficient but he is weake in his Logicks 3. He confoundeth a cause equivocall and a cause univocall and in that case the Maxime holdeth not Nor is it necessary to make true the maxime that the quality be inherent in the cause the same way For a City maketh a Major but to be a Major is one way in the City and another way in him who is created Major and the Prelates Maxime would helpe him if we reasoned thus The people maketh the King ergo the people is more a King and more formally a Soveraigne then the King But that is no more our Argument then the simile that Maxwell used as neere heart and mouth both Wine maketh drunk the Prelate ergo Wine is more drunk But we reason this the Fountaine-power of making six Kings is in the people ergo there is more fountain-power of Royalty in the people then in any one King for we read that Israel made Saul King and made David King and made Abimelech King but never that King Saul made another King or that an earthly King made another Absolute King 4. The Prelate will have the Maxime false where the Agent worketh by donation which yet holdeth true by his owne grant c. 9. pag. 98. The King giveth power to a Deputy ergo there is more power in the King 5. He supposeth that which is the Basis and foundation of all the question that people devesteth themselves totally of their Fountaine power which is most false 6. Either they must devest themselves totally saith he of their power or the King hath power from the people by way of loane which to my thinking never any yet spake But the P. Prelates thinking is short and no rule to Divines and Lawyers for to the thinking of the learnedst Jurists this power of the King is but fiduciary and that is whether the Prelate thinke it or thinke it not a sort of power by trust pawn'd or loane Rex director Regni non proprietarius Molinae in consuet Parisi Tit. 1.9.1 Glos. 7. n. 9. The King is a life-renter not a Lord or proprieter of his Kingdome So Novel 85. in princip c. 18. Quod magistratus sit nudus dispensator defensor jurium regni non proprietarius constat ex eo quod non posset alienare imperium oppida urbes regionésve vel res subditorum bonà ve regni So Gregory l. 3. c. 8. de Repub. per c. 1. Sect. praeterea de propo feud Hottoman quest illust 1. Ferdinan Vasquez l. 1. c. 4. Bossius de princip privileg illius n. 290. The King is only a steward and a defender of the lawes of the Kingdome not a proprietor because he hath not power to make away the Impire Cities Townes Countries and goods of the Subjects and bona commissa Magistratui sunt subjecta restitutioni in prejudicium successorum alienari non possunt per l. ult Sect. sed nost C. Comment de leg l. peto 69. fratrem de leg 2. l. 32. ult d. t. All the goods committed to any Magistrate are under Restitution◠for he hath not power to make them away to the prejudice of his successors The Prelates thoughts reach not the secrets of Jurists and therefore he speaketh with a warrant he will say no more then his short-travel'd thoughts can reach and that is but at the doore 7. Soveraigntie is not in the Communitie saith the P. Prelate Truly it neither is nor can be more then ten or a thousand or a thousand thousands or a whole Kingdome can be one man for Soveraigntie is the abstract the Soveraigne is the concrete Many cannot be one King or one Soveraigne a Soveraigne must be essentially one and a multitude cannot be one but what then may not the Soveraigne power be eminently fontaliter originally and radically in the people I thinke it may and must be A King is not an under-Iudge he is not a Lord of Councell or Session formally because he is more The people is not King formally because the people is eminently more then the King for they make David King and Saul King And the power to make a Lord of Councell and Session is in the King say Royalists 8. A Communitie hath not power of life and death A King hath power of life and death saith the Prelate What then ergo a Communitie is not King I grant all But poore man Ergo the power of making a King who hath power of life and death is not in the people It is like Prelates logick Samuel is not a King ergo he cannot make David a King It followeth not by the Prelates ground So the King is not an in inferiour Iudge What ergo he cannot make an inferiour Iudge 9. The power of life and death is eminently and virtually in the people collectively taken though not formally And though no man can take away his own life or hath power over his own life formally yet a man and a body of men hath power over their own lives radically and virtually in respect they may render themselves to a Magistrate and to Lawes which if they violate they must be in hazard of their lives and so they virtually have power of their own lives by putting them under the power of good lawes for the peace and safety of the whole 10. This is a weake consequence None hath power of his owne life Ergo far lesse of his neighbours saith the Prelate I shall denie the consequence The King hath not power of his own life that is according to the Prelates mind he can neither by the law of nature nor by any Civill law kill himselfe Ergo the King hath far lesse power to kill another It followeth not for the Iudge hath more power over his neighbours life then over his own 11. But saith the P. Prelate The Communitie conceived without government all as equall endowed with natures and native libertie hath no power of life and death because all are borne free and so none is borne with dominion and power over his neighbours life Yea but so Mr. P. Prelate a King considered without government and as born a free man hath not power of any mans life more then a Communitie hath for King and Begger are borne both alike free But a Communitie in this consideration as they come from the wombe have no Politique consideration at all If you consider them as without all policie you cannot consider them as invested with policie yea if you consider them so as they are by nature voyd of all policie they cannot so much as adde their after-consent and approbation to such a man to be their King whom God immediately from heaven maketh a King for to adde such an after-consent is an