when they dealt perfidiously contrare to the law of God might be lawfully deposed by the people Yea he tells us that whiles wicked princes and Kings were not removed all the people were punished of God which he proveth by Ier. 15 1. to ver 6. and a little thereafter tels us that if the children of Israel had thus deposed Manasseh they had not been so grievously punished with him Yea Schikcardus in his jus regium hebraorum Cap. 2. Theor. 7. tells us Pag. 56. 57. out of the Rabbines that the Kings of the jewes might have been called to an account punished for transgressing of the law by the Sanhedrin especially if they took moe wives and moe horses then vvere allowed and heaped up riches for these causes he proveth Pag. 60. out of Hal. melach c. 3. § 4. Halach Sanhedr cap. 19. Talmud cap. Kohen gadol Siphri pars schoph That they were to be scourged And histories show us How this Sanhedrin even in their weak and declineing times were loth to quite with this power and therefore did question Herod who was set over Galilee by the Romans for some murther committed by him see the history set forth by Iosephus Antiq. lib. 14. c. 17. And if any should object that Casaubon ad annal Eccles exerc 13. n. 5. hath proved the contrary out of the Talmud The forecited learned Shikchardus Pag. 63. 64. sheweth out of the very places cited by Casaubon how he was mistaken and how the Kings of David's line both did judge and were judged 2. Sayes he It is good that this Metaphisical Statist was no Chief Priest or member of the Sanhedrin in Davids time for he would have afforded a corrupt exposition of the Law to cut off the King What sots were the Priests Prophets at that time that did not instigate the Sanhedrin This man could have told them that they were above him and they were bound to execute the Law upon him Answ It was good that this superlatively irrational parasite and infraphysical fooll was not breathing in these dayes for he would have told Kings you may Kill murther massacre destroy all the land Man Wife and Childe without the least fear of resistance and have told the People the Sanhedrin and all the Elders of Israel though your Kings turn butchers and destroyers of the People of God worse then ever Nimrod or any that ever breathed since his dayes you have no more to do but hold up your throats or flee to the uncircumcised out of the inheritance of the Lord. But what sayes all this to the thing Doth this pove that David or any King was excepted in the Law of God Where In what chapter or what verse shall we finde this Good Master prelate tell us or where we shall finde it in your book of wisdome 2. We finde not that any of the Priests or Prophets reproved David for spareing Ioab that murtherer who shed the blood of war in peace 2 King 2 ver 5. was it therefore right in David to have spared him Sure they might well have told David that though Ioab was a great man yet he was above him to punish him as well as another Man for his sin and in poynt of conscience and by God's Law he was bound to do it These sinful acts of Ioab were more notoure then what David had done in secret And because we finde not that he vvas reproved upon this account shall vve therefore use this Man's dialect and say What 's sots or coldrife senselesse Men were the Priests and the Prophets of that time who did not instigate David to execute the Moral Law on Ioab that wrath might be turned away from the Land 3. He tels us that the author of Lex Rex Vtterly mistakes the meaning of the Word of God Gen. 9 6. as for the other texts they clearly concerne Magistrats only toward such over whom they have power but does neither instigate the inferiour Magistrates against the Superiour nor the People against any of them where it is said he that sheds mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Ans 1. The author of Lex Rex doth not say that these places do instigate the inferiour Magistrats against the superiour nor the people against both but that they poynt forth the Magistrate's duty to judge righteous judgment and to accept no Mans person be he a Prince or be he a poor Man And if they concerne Magistrates toward such over whom they have power The author of Lex Rex seeketh no more for he had proved and this vaine windy man hath not the head though he want not a heart and good will to it to ansvvere his arguments that the Estates and Representative of the People have power over the Prince 2. It is a hard censure to say that he hath utterly mistaken the meaning of Gen. 9 ver 6. Let us hear how Concluding hence sayes he that there is here a precept that the blood of every man though he be in the supreame power should be shed by his inferiours if he shed blood innocently and without cause Answ But this is not the conclusion that Lex Rex draweth from the place He only sayeth That in this place there is no exception made of the Prince though he be the Supreme power And can this Man for all his skill demonstrate the exception Lex Rex said not that his blood should be shed by his inferiours but by the Estates of the land who are his superiours what way then hath he mistaken the meaning of this word What furder Supposeing says he this word not only to be predictional but also diatactick and perceptive there must be meet limitations of the sentence both in the subject and attribute Grants all what limitations will he have in the subject that sheds mans blood It is to be understood says he only of such as have no authority and do it out of private revenge for we must not owne the fancies of Photinians and Anabaptists that condemne lawful warres and capital punishments Answ This is good and granted for we say that even the King when murthering unjustly acteth as a private person and is prompted by his revenge did he suppose that Lex Rex was a Photinian or Anabaptist If not why did he trouble himself with this But what sayes he to that which he cals the attribute Certanely sayes he taking the word as a precept It is not meant that it is the duty of every man or any man indifferently to shed the blood of the person who sheds innocent blood but of the Magistrate who is judge above him All interpreters are agreed that here is if not the institution yet the approbation of the office of the civil magistrate Answ Did the author of Lex Rex say that it was the duty of any man indifferently to punish capitally shedders of innocent blood said he any thing against agreement of interpreters concerning the institution or approbation of the office of
Magistrate from violence and opposition when he keepeth within his sphaere and doth his duty 4. If the matter passe from resistence to revenge we approve it not if the pride and haughtinesse of the spirit of Princes be the cause of this let them see to it and labour to prevent it by condescending to the just equitable demands of their oppressed and grieved subjects 5. We do not deny but God may stir up an Absolome and other conspirators against a Gracious David for his owne holy ends But in ordinary providence it is to be seen that good Princes while alive and when dead have had more respect of their Subjects then others who have been most flagitious and wicked The books of the Kings Chronicles demonstrate this That good Kings have been much honoured and reverenced while living and much lamented when dead and upon the contrare vvicked King 's have either been cut off or when dead have not been desired nor burned with the burnings of their fathers nor buryed in the sepulchre of their fathers whatever forced submission outward respect they might have had while living 6. As for the difference that God in his providence hath put betwixt Heathenish and Christian Kinges see what Evagrius sayeth Eccles histor cap. 41. speaking against Zosimus he hath these words worth the marking Let us see if thow will how the Emperours which were Hethnickes and Panimes maintainers of Idolatry and paganisme and how on the contrary such as cleaved unto the Christian faith ended their reigne was not Cajus Julius Caesar the first Emperous slaine by a conspiracy did not certane souldiers with naked swords dispatch Cajus the nephew of Tiberius was not Nero murdered by one of his familiar and dear friends Had not Galba the like end Otho Vitellus who all three reigned only Sixteen moneths what shall I speak of Titus whom Domitianus poisoned although he was his owne brother what sayest thow of Commodus what shall I say of Marcinus did not the souldiers use him like a captive about Byzantium and cruelly put him to death what shall I say of Maximinus whom his owne army dispatched were not Gallus and Volusianus murdered by their owne army had not Aemilianus the like miserable end But since Constantine began to reigne-was there any one Emperour in that city Julian a man of thine own Religion-only excepted that was murthered by his owne subjects It were an endlesse work to run thorow histories and show how for the most part contrare to what he sayes these Kings who have been resisted by their Subjects whether in the time of Heathenisme or since Christianity was professed have been most flagitious and wicked Sure if we should goe no further but to our owne history we shall finde this put beyond all question the Surveyer himself being witnesse who sayes Pag. 78. that the instances of opposition made unto the Scotish Kings adduced by the Apolog. were but the insurrection of Nobles against the Kings and violent oppressions of such of them as have been flagitious and tyrannous And thus he contradicteth what he just now said But to what purpose is all this stir He sayes but can he prove that we assert That any party of the people when strong enough may get up against the King and all Magistrates when they judge that they deal wrongously and injuriously with them Sure the thing which we affirme is far contrary to this as hath been often times shewed We know that the evil wit of a seditious party can soon paint the Best King as a black and ugly Tyrant and vve know also that the evil wit of a hired court-parasite and bese flatterer can paint out the blackest Nero or Caligula or a Heliogabalus as a brave and virtuous prince And this is nothing to our case when the acts of Tyranny and oppression are as legible as if written with the sun-beames It behoved to be strange virmilion that would serve to make the apostasy perjury oppression and tyranny of the novv Prince and Rulers appear vvhit and comely and he needs no great vvit vvho vvould painte out these grosse acts under the forme of ugly Tyranny Yet vvith all vve shall vvillingly grant to him that All the fearers of God should rather indure some acts of real tyranny then by doctrine or practices of resistence open a door to the destruction of good Kings by a party not of their spirit but lurking under their pretences and to the continual dissolution concussion and desolation of humane societies for this is not the thing vve are against Some acts of Tyranny vve are vvilling to endure provideing he vvill grant us liberty both to teach practise resistence vvhen the acts of tyranny are not one or two but many nor acts of Tyranny in smaller and lesse considerable matters but such as tend to the destruction of the true Libertyes of the Subject to the overturning of a Covenanted vvork of Reformation svvorne-to by all rankes and degrees of people hovvbeit men of corrupt principles and of another spirit should lurk under these pretences Is it not reasonable that vve also demand of this Surveyer vvhile he is in a good mood That he vvould evidence so much fear of God as not to condemne resistence unto real tyranny so as to open a gap to all the ingrained bloody Nerâ—es and such prodigious Canibales to vvaste destroy at pleasure the best of Subjects What follovveth concerning obedience active and Subjection passive hath been spoken to formerly and it is needlesse fill up pages vvith repetitions as he doth only vvhereas he citeth Apolog. Pag. 376 377. granting that subjection is necessary and supposeth that this is repugnant to vvhat Naphtali sayeth He vvould knovv that he is in a great mistake for the question there is concerning obedience in things indifferent or of submitting to the penalty and that by a few privat persones and though in this case a single person who will not obey the Magistrate in these matters must yeeld the penalty and so acknowledge his subjection it will not follow that a multitude or a Community forced under intolerable penaltyes to acts of impiety and hainous transgression and who can defend their rights and just privileges palpably and iniquously violated may not repel such unjust force with force resist intolerable tyranny abusing the ordinance of God to all acts of wickednesse and to the overturning destroying the very ends of government And to this Naphtaly speaketh Pag. 28. So that he but gives vent to his profane Spirit to cry out as he doth Pag. 46. and say Good God! to what times are we reserved to see so certane truths that may be reckoned among the immoveables of Religion and the ancient land marks removed by an upstart furious Crue who by their new principles as false as new seek to confound both Church and State The lawfulnesse of privat men's counter acting and violent resistence to a whole Church a whole
shew them the manner of the King and what else was this for but to bring them off their purpose and disswade them from prosecuteing it any furder But it is said ver 19. Neverthelesse the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel now what else was the voyce of Samuel then a disswasion Let him look the English and Dutch Annot. upon the place and other Commentators and he will finde it so 3. That which he takes the meaning of this manner of the King to be is the old saying of Barclaius long since exploded by Althusius in his Politic. cap. 19. num 58. thus Impunity sayes he in committing wickednese can make no right Princes have no power to do evil but only to help comforte and to promove the good and profite of the people Vasq Lib. 1. cap. 1. and 2. c. 26. num 2 3. contr Illustr To do evil is no act of power but of infirmity that cannot abstean from doing evil Vasq D. L. C. 27. for so a company of Thieves and Incendiaries which can do many things which they ought not should be said to do these things by a kingly right and if this Jus Regium be understood of permission which de facto cannot be hindered That is common to others as well as to Kings for both a King and a private person may be free of punishment either because the fact cannot be proved or because they cannot be gotten punished or because these evils are permitted by law L. non omne 144. de Reg. Jur. Tyranny is not to be reckoned among these things which are to be permitted for Tyrants are Adulterers Ravishers Murtherers and such as are guilty of other capital crimes whom Scripture stiles Lyons Beares Dragons Wolves Prov. 28 ver 14. Ezech. 22 27. Dan. 2 c. and the like Pfal 58. Esa 13 ver 11. and Cap. 33. v. 1. Let him consider also what famous and learned Voetius sayeth to this Disp select part 4. pag. 222. Where he tells us that to do evil with impunity is not Ius doth found no Ius Or right neither is founded on the law of God of Nature of Nations nor on the civil law And as to that which the Surveyer sayeth that it is a Ius because it shewes what people were to endure willingly and might not resist He answereth Pag. 223. That then the people should be the subject of this right or Ius and not the King and so it could not be called the manner of the King but the manner of the People Againe he sayes evil losse vexation passion and not to hinder evil in Scripture phrase is rather called somewhat opposit to Ius then Ius or right viz. a privation of it 4. As for his simile of a permission granted to men to put away their Wives it is not of the same nature with the former evils sayeth Althusius in the place above cited And the Author of Lex Rex pag. 137. said well 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 â—e a lawful power given of God for a lawful power it must be if it cometh from God whether it be from the King in his owne person or from his Servants at his command and be 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 into 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 destroy and kill all the children of God that he hath commanded his children to give their necks and heads to Babel's sones without resistence This I am sure is another matter then a law for a bill of divorce to one woman married by free Election of a humorous and inconstant Man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from Heaven like the law of divorce for the hardnesse of heart not of the jewes only but also of the whole Christian and heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch That one Emperour may be such a Law of God as the law of divorce kill by bloody cut throats all the nations that call on God's name men women and sucking infants 5. The reason which he giveth Pag. 64. is the same that Barclaius gave viz. To what purpose should he have written the manner of the King in a book and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10 ver 25. When there was no pleace for repentance no remedy no use of terrifying or disswading them the only use of recording it was to teach the people their beheaviour towards their King and patience under him and that it should not be free for them to shake off the yoke of his government or to offer violence to him albeit he should overstretch his power too far This recorded was not the law of the King Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the ark with therest of the law Answ 1. Though the King was set over them he had need to have had his duty writen before him in a book and keeped to posterity no lesse then the People should have stood in need to have had their duty so recorded 2. To say that it vvas to teach the People their duty is but a begging of vvhat is in question And it is not probable that Samuel vvould vvrite the rules of Tyranny in a book and lay it up before the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant seing he vvas to teach both King and People The good and right way 1 Sam. 12 ver 23 24 25. 3. The English Annotators tell us on the place that this manner of the Kingdome which Samuel vvrote vvas Not as it is commonly practised Chap. 8. ver 9 18. but as it-ought to be in a lawful and free Monarchy appoynted by God himself according to the fundamental lawes of the Kingdome teaching what dutyes the King ought to performe in the government of his people and the people in their subjection and obedience to their King according to that description of a King set downe by Moses Deut. 17 ver 14 c. Ezech. 45 ver 9 10. Cap. 46 ver 16. Rom. 13. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2 v. 2. The Dutch Annot. say This is not of the way manner and custome of actings which Kings sometimes take up contrary to law but of the lawes which Samuel by God's instinct made or inacted concerning the goverment of Kings see Deut. 17 ver 18. Or of the ordinances for to instruct as well the King as the Subject And Iackson in his notes on the place sayeth That it vvas both the duty of the King tovvards his Subjects and of the Subjects tovvard their King and these vvere the fundamental lavves