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
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
disobedience to a Law seeing all Law-direction is in â—rdine ad obedientiam in order to obey except thus far that the light that is in the civil Law is a morall or naturall guide to conduct a King in his walking but this is the morality of the Law which inlightneth and informeth not any obligation that aweth the King and so the King is under Gods and Natures Law this is nothing to the purpose 3. Assert The King is under the Law in regard of some coercive limitation 1. Because there is no absolute power given to him to do what he listeth as a man And because 2. God in making Saul a King doth not by any Royall stamp give him a power to sin or to play the Tyrant for which cause I expone these of the Law Omnia sunt possibilia Regi Imperator omnia potest Baldus in § F. de no. for fidel in F. in prima constitut C. col 2. Chassanaeus in Catalog gloriae mundi par 5. considerat 24. tanta est ejus celsitudo ut non posset ei imponi lex in regno suo Curt. in consol 65. col 6. ad F. Petrus Rebuff Notab 3. repet l. unicae C. de sentent quae pro eo quod nu 17. pag. 363. All these go no otherwise but thus The King can do all things which by Law he can do and that holdeth him id possumus quod jure possumus And therefore the King cannot be above the Covenant and Law made betwixt him and his people at his Coronation-oath for then the Covenant and Oath should binde him onely by a naturall obligation as he is a man not by a civil or politique obligation as he is a King So then 1. it were sufficient that the King should swear that Oath in his Cabinet-chamber and it is but a mocking of an Oath that he swear it to the people 2. That Oath given by the Representative-Kingdom should also oblige the Subjects naturally in foro Dei not politically in foro humano upon the same reason 3. He may be resisted as a man 4. Assert The fourth case is if the King be under the obliging politique coaction of civil Laws for that he in foro Dei be under the morality of civil Laws so as he cannot contraveen any Law in that notion but he must sin against God is granted on all hands Deut. 17.20 Iosh. 1.8 1 Sam. 12.15 That the King binde himself to the same Law that he doth binde others is decent and obligeth the King as he is a man 1. Because Matth. 7.12 It is said to be the Law and the Prophets All things whatsoever ye would men should do unto you do ye even so to them 2. It is the Law Jmperator L. 4. digna vâ—x C. de lege tit Quod quisque juris in alium statuit eodem ipse utatur Iulius Caesar commanded the youth who had defloured the Emperours daughter to be scourged above that which the Law allowed The youth said to the Emperour Dixisti legem Caesar You appointed the Law Caesar. The Emperor was so offended with himself that he had failed against the Law that for the whole day he refused to taste meat Assert 5. The King cannot but he subject to the coactive power of Fundamentall Laws Because this is a Fundamentall Law that the free Estates lay upon the King that all the power that they give to the King as King is for the good and safety of the people and so what he doth to the hurt of his subjects he doth it not as King 2. The Law saith Qui habet potestatem constituendi etiam jus adimendi l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg jure Those who have power to make have power to unmake Kings 3. What ever the King doth as King that he doth by a power borrowed from or by a fiduciary power which is his by trust the Estates who made him King He must then be nothing but an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others If therefore he be unpunishable it is not so much because his Royall power is above all Law-coaction as because one the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished and this is a Physicall incongruity rather then a Morall absurdity So the Law of God layeth a duty on the inferiour Magistrate to use the sword against the murtherer and that by vertue of his Office but I much doubt it for that he is to use the sword against himselfe in the case of Murther for this is a truth I purpose to make good that suffering as suffering according to the substance and essence of passion is not commanded by any Law of God or nature to the sufferer but only the manner of suffering I doubt if it be not by the Law of Nature lawfull even to the ill doer who hath deserved death by Gods Law to fly from the sword of the lawfull Magistrate only the manner of suffering with patience is commanded of God I know the Law saith here That the Magistrate is both Iudge and the Executor of the sentence against himselfe in his owne cause for the excellency of his Office Therefore these are to be distinguished whether the King Ratione demeriti jure by Law be punishable or if the King can actually be punished corporally by a Law of man he remaining King and since he must be a punisher himselfe and that by vertue of his Office In matters of goods the King may be both Iudge and punisher of himselfe as our Law provideth that any subject may plead his owne heritage from the King before the inferiour Iudges and if the King be a violent possessour and in Mala fide for many yeares by Law he is obliged upon a Decree of the Lords to execute the sentence against himselfe Ex officio and to restore the Lands and repay the dammage to the just owner and this the King is to doe against himselfe ex officio I grant here the King as King punisheth himselfe as an unjust man but because bodily suffering is meere violence to nature I doubt if the King ex officio is to doe or inflict any bodily punishment on himselfe Nemo potest a seipso cogi l. ille a quo 13. § Assert 6. There be some Lawes made in favour of the King as King as to pay tribute The King must be above this Law as King True but if a Noble man of a great rent be elected King I know not if he can be free from paying to himselfe as King tribute seeing this is not allowed to the King by a Divine Law Rom. 13.6 as a reward of his worke and Christ expresly maketh tribute a thing due to Caesar as a King Matth. 22. v. 21. There be some solemnities of the Law from which the King may be free Prickman D. c. 3. n. 78. and he relateth what they are they are not Lawes but some circumstances belonging to Lawes
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
because he was anointed and designed by God as successor to Saul and so he must use an extraordinary way of guarding himselfe Arnisaeus citeth Alberic Gentilis that David was now exempted from amongst the number of Subjects Answ. There were not two Kings in Israel now both David and Saul 2. David acknowledgeth his subjection in naming Saul the Lords Anointed his Master Lord King and therefore David was yet a subject 3. If David would have proved his title to the Crowne by extraordinary wayes he who killed Goliah extraordinarily might have killed Saul by a miracle but David goeth a most ordinary way to work for self-defence and his comming to the Kingdom was through persecution want eating shew-bread in case of necessity defending himself with Goliahs sword 4. How was any thing extraordinary and above a Law seeing David might have killed his enemie Saul and according to Gods Law he spared him and hee argueth from a morall duty he is the Lords annoynted therefore I will not kill him was this extraoardinary above a law then according to Gods law he might have killed him Royalists cannot say so what ground to say one of Davids acts in his deportment toward Saul was extraordinary and not all was it extraordinary that David fled no or that David consulted the oracle of God what to do when Saul was coming against him 5. in an ordinary fact something â—ay be extraordinary as the dead sleep from the Lord upon Saul and his men 1. Sam. 26. and yet the fact according to its substance ordinary 6. Nor is this extraordinary that a distressed man being an excellent warriour as David was may use the help of six hundred men who by the law of charity are to help to deliver the innocent from death yea all Israel were obliged to defend him who killed Goliah 7. Royalists make Davids act of not putting hands on the Lords annointed an ordinary morall reason against resistance but his putting on of armour they will have extraordinary and this 〈◊〉 I confesse a short way to an adversary to cull out something tâ—at is for his cause and make it ordinary and something that is against his cause must be extraordinary 8. These men by the law of nature were obliged to joyne in armes with David ergo the non-helping of an oppressed man must be Gods ordinary law a blasphemous tenet 9. If David by an extraordinary spirit killed â—ot King Saul then the Jesuits way of killing must be Gods ordinary Law 2. David certainly intended to keep Keilah against King Saul for the Lord would not have answered David in an unlawfull fact for that were all one as if God should teach David how to play the Traitor to his King for if God had answâ—red They will not deliver thee up but they shall save thee from the hand of Saul As David beleeved he might say this as well as its contradicent then David behoved to keep the city for certainly Davids question pre-supposeth he was to keep the city The example of Elisha the Prophet is considerable 2 Kings 6.32 But Elisha sate in his house and the Elders with him And the King sent a man before him but â—re the messengers came to him he said to the Elders See now the sonnâ— of a murtherer hath sent to take away mine head Here is unjust violence offered by King Ioram to an innocent man Elisha keepeth the house violently against the Kings Messenger as we did keep Castles against King Charles his unlawfull messengers Look saith he when the messenger commeth shut the doore 2. There is violence also commanded and resistence to be made Hold him fast at the doore In the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Montan. Claudite ostium opprimetis eum in ostio Violently presse him at the doore And so the Chaldee Paraphrase Ierom. Ne sinatis eum introirâ— The LXX Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illidite eum in ostio Presse him betwixt the doore and the wall It is a word of bodily violence according to Vatablus Yea Theodoret will have King Ioram himselfe holden at the doore And 3. It is no Answer that D. Ferne and other Royalists give that Elisha made no personall resistance to the King himselfe but onely to the Kings cut-throat sent to take away his head Yea they say It is lawfull to resist the Kings cut-throats But the text is cleere that the violent resistance is made to the King himselfe also for he addeth Is not the sound of his Masters feet behinde him And by this answer it is lawfull to keep Townes with iron gates and barres and violently to oppose the Kings cut-throats comming to take away the heads of the Parliaments of both Kingdomes and of Protestants in the three Kingdomes Some Royalists are so impudent as to say that there was no violence here and that Elisha was an extraordinary man and that it is not lawfull for us to call a King the son of a murtherer as the Prophet Elisha did but Ferne sect 2. pag. 9. forgeâ—ting himselfe saith from hence It is lawfull to resist the Prince himselfe thus farre as toward his blowes and hold his hands But let Ferne answer if the violent binding of the Princes hands that he shall not be able to kill be a greater violence done to his Royall person then Davids cutting off the lap of Sauls garment for certainly the Royall body of a Prince is of more worth then his cloathes Now it was a sinne I judge that smote Davids conscience that he being a subject and not in the act of naturall self-defence did cut the garment of the Lords Annointed Let Ferne see then how he will save his owne principles for certainly hee yeeldeth the cause for me I judge that the person of the King or any Judge who is the Lords Deputy as is the King is sacred and that remaining in that honourable case no subject can without guiltinesse before God put hands in his person the case of naturall self-defence being excepted for because the Royall dignity doth not advance a King above the common condition of men and the Throne maketh him not leave off to bee a man and a man that can do wrong and therefore as one that doth manifest violence to the life of a man though his subject he may be resisted with â—odâ—ly 〈◊〉 in the case of uâ—jâ—st and violent invasion It is a vaine thing to say Who shall be judge betweene the King and his subjâ—cts The â—ubject cannot judge the King because none can be judge in his owne cause and an inferiour or equall cannot judge a superiour or equall But I answer 1. This is the Kings owne cause also and he doth unjust violence as a man and not as a King and so he cannot be judge more then the subject 2. Every one that doth unjust violence as he is such is inferiour to the innocent and so ought to be judged by some 3. There is no need of
Cavalliers and Irish cut-throats except you say inferiour Judges are not obliged to execute judgement but at the Kings commandment Object As the Irish Rebels are armed with the Kings power they are superiour to the Parliament Answ. So an Armie of Turks and Spaniards armed with the Kings power and comming against the two Kingdomes at the Kings commandement though they be but Lictors in a lawlesse cause are superiour to the highest Courts of Parliament in the two Kingdomes But the King and the Law gave power to the Parliament first to resist Rebels now he giveth power to Rebels to resist the Parliament here must be contradictory wils and contradictory powers in the King Which of them is the Kings will and his power the former is legall and Parliamentary Then because Law is not contrary to Law the latter cannot be legall also nor can it be from God and to resist it then is not to resist God Object 13. If resistance bee restrained to legall commandements What shall we say to these arguments that Paul forbiddeth resistance under these tyrannous governours and that from the end of their government which is for good and which their subjects did in some sort enjoy under them Answ. 1. This proveth nothing but that we are to cooperate with these governours though tyrannous by subjecting to their Laws so farre as they come up to this end the morall good and peace of their government but Paul no where commandeth absolute subjection to tyrannous governours in tyrannous actâ— which is still the question Object 14. Hee that hath the supreme trust next to God should have the greatest security to his person and power but if resistance be lawfull he hath a poore security Answ. He that hath the greatest trust should have the greatest security to his person and power in the â—â—eping his power and using it according to his trust for its owne native end for justice peace and godlinesse God alloweth security to no man nor that his Angels shall guard them but onâ—ly when they are in their wayes and the service of God else There is no peace to the wicked 2. It is denyed that one man having the greatest trust should have the greatest security the Church and people of God for whose safety he hath the trust as a meanes for the end should have a greater security the City ought to have greater security then the watchers the Armie then the leaders The good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheepe 3. A power to doe ill without resistance is not security Object 15. If God appoint Ministers to preach then the sheep cannot seeke safety elsewhere Ergo. Answ. The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband but not if she feare he will kill her in the bed The obedience of positive duties that subjects owe to Princes cannot loose them from Natures law of self-preservation nor from Gods Law of defending Religion against Papists in Armes nor are the sheep obliged to intrust themselves but to a saving shepherd Object 16. If self-defence and that by taking up Armes against the King he an unlawfull duty how is it that you have no practise no precept no promise for it in all the word of God 1. You have no practise Ahab sold himselfe to do evill he was an Idolater and killed the Prophets and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse stirred him up to great wickednesse Elias had as great power with the people as you have yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church Arnisaeus de autho Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled Nebuchadnezer Ahab Manassah Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters the people never raised an Armie against them B. Williams of Ossorie p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother son daughter wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods kill them not a word of the father Children are to love Fathers not to kill them Christ saith John P.P. in the cradle taught by practise to flee from Herod and all Christs acts and sufferings are full of mysteries and our instructions Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him but would rather worke a miracle in curing Malchus eare as use the sword against Caesar If Sectaries give us a new Creed it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell and the communion of Saints to raze out this He suffered under Pontius Pilate My resolution is for this sin of yours to dissolve in teares and Prayers and with my Master say daylie and hourely Father forgive them c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans because they refused him lodging 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry blasphemy murther adultery c. and all sins never against the sin of neglect and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word Answ. It is a grâ—at non-consâ—quence this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word Ergo. It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith Shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she inticed him to follow strange Gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13.6 when a man lying with a beast is put to death Yet it is a Law Exod. 22.19 infinite more Lawes are the practise of which we finde not in Scripture 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry and if Iehu out of sincerity and for the zeale of God had done what God commanded he should have beene rewarded for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu that he should kill Ahab yet there was an expresse Law for it that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death Deut. 13.6 and there is no exception of King or Father in the Law and to except father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeale of God Deut. 33.9 And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King and in killing King Nabad and smiting all the house of Iereboam for his Idolatry they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty according to Gods expresse Law Deut. 13.6 7 8 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary 3. Ahab and Iezabelâ—aisâ—d â—aisâ—d not an Armie of Idolaters Malignants such as are Papists Prelates and Cavalliers against the three Estates to destroy Parliaments Lawes and Religion and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry to forsake the Covenant throw dowwe the Altars of God and slay his Prophets so as in the estimation of Elias 1 King 19.9 10 11. there was not one man but they were Malignant Cavalliers and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves and to shew them it is their duty
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
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
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
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
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
cast in a word of other Confessions lest we seeme to be Iesuites alone The Confession of Helvetia saith c. 30. de Magistratu Viduas pupillos afflictos asserat Every Magistrate is to defend the widow the orphan and the oppressed The French Confession saith art 40. Affirmamus ergo parendumesse Legibus Statutis solvenda Tributa subjectionis denique jugum voluntariè tolerandum etiamsi infideles fuerint Magistratus dummodo Dei summum imperium integrum illibatum maneat So cleare it is that all active obedience is due to all Magistrates and that that yoake of passive obedience is to be tolerated but conditionally with a dummodo so as the Magistrate violate not the supreme commandement of the King of Kings And we know accordingly Protestants of that Church have taken defensive armes against their King But our P. Prelate can say The Confessions of Scotland Helvetia France and all the Reformed Churches are Jesuiticall when as it was the doctrine of the Waldenses Protestants and Luther Calvin and others while as there was no Iesuite on earth The 37. Art of the Church of Englands Confession is so far from erecting an absolute power in the King that they expresly bring down the Royall Prerogative from the high seat and transcendent superlative power above the Law and expone the Prerogative to be nothing but meere Law-power We only say they ascribe that Prerogative to the King which the Scripture doth ascribe to all Godly Princes that is that they cause all committed to their trust whether Ecclesiasticall or Civill persons doe their duty and punish with the Civill sword all disobedient offenders In syntag Confess And this they say in answer to some who beleeved the Church of England made the King the Head of the Church The Prelates Convocation must be Iesuites to this P. P. also So the 36. Article of the Belgick Confession saith of all Magistrates no lesse then of a King We know for Tyrannie of Soule and Body they justly revolted from their King Idcirco Magistratus ipsos gladio armavit ut malos quidem plectant paenis probos vero tueantur Horum porro est non modo de Civili politia conservanda esse solicitos verum etiam dare operam ut sacrum Ministerium conservetur omnis Idololatria adulterinus Dei cultus è medio tollatur regnum Antichristi diruatur c. Then all Magistrates though inferiour must doe their duty that the Law of God hath laid on them though the King forbid them But by the Belgick Confession and the Scripture it is their duty to relieve the oppressed to use the sword against murthering Papists and Irish Rebels and destroying Cavaliers For shall it be a good plea in the day of Christ to say Lord Iesus we would have used thy sword against bloody Murtherers if thy Anoynted the King had not commanded us to obey a mortall King rather than the King of ages and to execute no judgement for the oppressed because he judged them faithfull Catholike subjects Let all Oxford and Cavalier Doctors in the three Kingdomes satisfie the consciences of men in this that inferior Iudges are to obey a Divine Law with a proviso that the King command them so to doe and otherwise they are to obey Men rather then God This is evidently holden forth in the Argentine Confession exhibited by foure Cities to the Emperour Charles the Fifth An. M.D.XXX. in the same very cause of innocent Defence that we are now in in the three Kingdomes of Scotland England and Ireland The Saxonick Confession exhibited to the Councell of Trent An. M.D.LI. art 23 maketh the Magistrates office essentially to consist in keeping of the two Tables of Gods Law and so what can follow hence but in so far as he defendeth Murtherers or if he be a King and shall with the sword or Armies impede inferior Magistrates for the Confession speaketh of all to defend Gods law and true Religion against Papists Murtherers and bloody Cavaliers and hinder them to execute the judgement of the Lord against evill doers He is not in that a Magistrate and the denying of obedience active or passive to him in that is no resistance to the Ordinance of God but by the contrary the King himselfe must resist the ordinance of God The Confession of Bohemia is clear art 16. Qui publico munere magistratuque funguntur quemcunquegradū teneant se non suum sed Dei opus agere sciant Hence all inferior or the supreme Magistrate what ever be their place they doe not their own work nor the work of the King but the work of God in the use of the sword Ergo they are to use the sword against bloody Cavaliers as doing Gods worke suppose the King should forbid them to doe Gods worke And it saith of all Magistrates Sunt autem Magistratuum partes ac munus omnibus ex aequo jus dicere in communem omnium usum sine personarum acceptatione pacem ac tranquilitatem publicam tueri ac procurare de malis ac facinorosis hanc inter turbantibus poenas sumere aliosque omnes ab eorum vi injuria vindicare Now this Confession was the faith of the Barons and Nobles of Bohemia who were Magistrates and exhibited to the Emperor An. 1535. in the cause not unlike unto ours now and the Emperor was their Soveraigne yet they professe they are obliged in conscience to defend all under them from all violence and injuries that the Emperor or any other could bring on them and that this is their office before God which they are obliged to performe as a worke of God and the Christian Magistrate is not to doe that worke which is not his own but Gods upon condition that the King shall not inhibite him What if the King shall inhibite Parliaments Princes and Rulers to relieve the oppressed to defend the Orphan the Widow the Stranger from unjust violence Shall they obey man rather than God To say no more of this Prelates in Scotland did what they could to hinder his Majestie to indict a Parliament 2. When it was indicted to have its freedome destroyed by prelimitations 3. When it was sitting their care was to divide impede and anull the course of Iustice. 4. All in the P. Prelates booke tendeth to abolish Parliaments and to enervate their power 5. There were many wayes used to break up Parliaments in England And to command Iudges not to judge at all but to interrupt the course of Iustice is all one as to command unrighteous judgement Ier. 22. v. 3. 6. Many wayes have been used by Cavaliers to cut off Parliaments and the present Parliament in England The paper found in William Lauds Studie touching feares and hopes of the Parliament of England evidenceth that Cavaliers hate the Supreme seat of Iustice and would it were not in the World which is the highest rebellion and resistance made against superior Powers 1. He feareth this Parliament shall begin
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 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
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
of mans redemption being more excellent then the raysing of Lazarus should have been done immediatly without the incarnation death and satisfaction of Christ for no act of God without himselfe is comparable to the worke of redemption 1 Pet. 1.11 12. Col. 1.18 19 20 21 22. and Gods lesse excellent workes as his creating of beasts and wormes should have been done mediatly and his creating of man immediatly P. P. They who execute the judgement of God must needs have the power to judge from God But Kings are Deputies in the exercises of the Iudgements of God ergo the proposition is proved How is it imaginable that God reconcileth the world by Ministers and saveth man by them 1 Cor. 5. 1 Tim. 4.16 except they receive a power so to doe from God the assumption is Deut. 1.17 1 Chro. 19.6 Let none say Moses and Iehosaphat speake of inferiour Iudges for that which the King doth to others he doth by himselfe also 5. The execution of the Kingly power is from God for the King is the Servant Angell Legat Minister of God Rom. 13.6 7. God properly and primarily is King and King of Kings and Lord of Lords 1 Tim. 6.15 Rev. 1.5.21.27.29.20 all Kings related to him are Kings equivocally and in resemblance and he the only King Ans. That which is in question is never concluded to wit that the King is both immediatly constituted and dâ—signed King by God onely and not by the mediation of the people for when God reconcileth and saveth men by Pastors he saveth them by the intervening action of men so he scourgeth his people by men as by his sword Psal. 17.14 and hand staffe and rod Esay 10.5 his hammer Doth it follow that God onely doth immediatly scourge his people and that wicked men have no more hand and action in scourging his people then the Prelate saith the people hâ—ve an hand in making a King and that is no hand at all by the Prelates way 2. We may borrow the Prelates argument inferiour Iudges execute the judgement of the Lord and not the judgement of the King ergo by the Prelates argument God doth only by immediate power execute judgement in them and the inferiour Iudges are not Gods ministers executing the judgement of the Lord. But the Conclusion is against all truth and so must the Prelates argument be And that inferiour Iudges are the immediate substitutes and deputies of God is hence proved and shall be hereafter made good if God will 3. God is properly King of Kings so is God properly causa causarum the cause of causes the life of lifes the joy of joyes What shall it then follow that he worketh nothing in the creatures by their mediation as causes Because God is light of lights doth he not enlighten the earth and aire by the mediation of the Sun then God communicateth not life mediately by generation he causeth not his Saints to rejoyce with joy unspeakable and glorious by the intervening mediation of the Word These are vaine consequences Soueraignty and all power and virtue is in God infinitely And what vertue and power of action is in the creatures as they are compared with God are in the creatures equivocally and in resemblance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opinion rather then really Hence it must follow 1. that second causes worke none at all no more then the people hath a hand or action in making the King and that is no hand at all as the Prelate saith And God only and immediately worketh all workes in the creatures because both the power of working and actuall working commeth from God and the creatures in all their working are Gods instruments and if the Prelate argue so frequently from power given of God to prove that actuall reigning is from God immediately Deut. 8.18 The Lord giveth the power to get wealth will it follow that Israel getteth no riches at all or that God doth not mediately by them and their industrie get them I thinke not P. Prelate 6 To whom can it be due to give the Kingly office but to him only who is able to give the indument and abilitie for the office now God only and immediately giveth abilitie to be a King as the Sacramentall anointing proveth Josh 3.10 Othniel is the first Judge after Joshua and it is said And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and and he judged Israel the like is said of Saul and David Ans. God gave royall indowments immediatly ergo he immediatly now maketh the King It followeth not for the species of government is not that which formally constituteth a King for then Nero Caligula Iulian should not have been Kings and those who come to the Crowne by conquest and blood are essentially Kings as the Prelate saith but be all these Othniels upon whom the spirit of the Lord commeth then they are not essentially Kings who are babes and children and foolish and destitute of the royall endowments but it is one thing to have a royall gift and another thing to be formally called to the Kingdome David had royall gifts after Samuel anoynted him but if you make him King before Sauls death Saul was both a traytor all the time that he persecuted David and so no King and also King and Gods anoynted as David acknowledgeth him and therefore that spirit that came on David and Saul maketh nothing against the peoples election of a King as the Spirit of God is given to Pastors under the new Testament as Christ promised but it will not follow that the designation of the man who is to be Pastor should not be from the Church and from men as the Prelate denyeth that either the constitution or designation of the King is from the people but from God onely 2. I beleeve the infusion of the spirit of God upon the Iudges will not prove that Kings are now both constituted and designed of God solely onely and immediatly for the Iudges were indeed immediatly and for the most part extraordinarily raised up of God and God indeed in the time of the Iewes was the King of Israel in another manner then he was the King of all the nations and is the King of Christian Realmes now and therefore the peoples despising of Samuel was a refusing that God should reigne over them because God in the Iudges revealed himselfe even in matters of Policy as what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day and the like as he doth not now to Kings P. Prelate Soveraigntie is a ray of divine glory and majestieâ— but this cannot be found in people whether you consider them joyntly or singly if you consider them singly it cannot be in every individuall man for Sectaries say That all are born equall with a like freedom and if it be not in the people singly it cannot be in them joyntly for all the contribution in this compact and contract which they fancie to be humane composition and voluntary
King though tyed by an oath to govern is obliged to the practices of the Emperour Otho And as Speed saith of Richard the second to resign the Crown for the eschewing of the effusion of blood And who doubteth but the second wits of the experienced posterity may correct the first wits of their fathers nor shall I ever beleeve that the fathers can leave in legacie by oath any chaines of the best gold to fetter the after-wits of posteritie to a choice destructive to peace and true Godlinesse To these adde 8. That 1. an heritor may defraud his first borne of his heritage because of his dominion he hath over his heritage A King cannot defraud his first-borne of the Crown 2. An heritor may divide his heritage equally amongst his twelve sonnes A King cannot divide his Royall Dominions in twelve parts and give a part to every sonne for so he might turne a Monarchie into an Aristocracie and put twelve men in the place of one King 3. Any heritor taken captive may lawfully oppignorate yea and give all his inheritance as a ransome for his liberty for a man is better then his inheritance but no King may give his Subjects as a price or ransome Yet I shall not be against the succession of Kings by birth with good limitations and shall agree that through the corruption of mans nature it may be in so far profitable as it is peaceable and preventeth bloody tumults which are the bane of humane societies Consider further for this Aegid Romanus l. 3. de reg princi cap. 5. Turrecremat and Joan. de terra Reubea 1 tract contr Rebelles ar 1. con 4. Yet Aristotle the flower of Natures wit l. 3. polit c. 10. preferreth Election to Succession He preferreth Carthage to Sparta though their Kings came of Hercules Plutarch in Scylla saith he would have Kings as dogs that is best hunters not those who are borne of best dogs Tacitus lib. 1. Nasci generari à Principibus fortuitum nec ultra aestimantur 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 and suffrages of the people WIthout deteining the Reader I desire liberty to assert that 1 Assert Where God establisheth a Kingdome by Birth that government hic nunc is best and because God principally distributeth Crownes when God establisheth the Royall line of David to reigne he is not principally a King who commeth neerest and most immediately to the fountaine of Royaltie which is Gods immediate will but God established hic nunâ— for typicall reasons with reverence of the learned a King by birth 2 Assert But to speake of them ex natura reâ— and according to the first mould and paterne of a King by law A King by election is more principally King magis univoce per se then an hereditarie Prince 1. Because in hereditary Crownes the first familie being chosen by the free suffrages of the people for that cause ultimate the hereditary Prince commeth to the throne because his first father and in him the whole line of the familie was chosen to the Crowne and propter quod unumquodque tale id ipsum magis tale 2. The first King ordained by Gods positive law must be the measure of all Kings and more principally the King then he who is such by derivation But the first King is a King by election not by birth Deut. 17.15 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 over thee If the free will of the people be not the neerest cause of the first moulded King God could have made no positive law to choose such a man not such a man for all positive lawes presuppose free election 3. The Law saith Surrogatum fruitur privilegiis ejus in cujus locum surrogatur He who is substituted in the place of another enjoyeth the priviledges of him in whose place be succeedeth But the hereditary King hath Royall priviledges from him who is chosen King Salomon hath the Royall priviledges of David his father and is therefore King by birth because his father David was King by election And this I say not because I think sole birth is a just title to the Crown but because it designeth him who indeed virtually was chosen when the first King of the race was chosen 4. Because there is no dominion of either Royalty or any other way by nature no more then an Eagle is born King of Eagles a Lyon King of Lyons neither is a man by nature born King of men and therefore he who is made King by suffrages of the people must be more principally King then he who hath no title but the womb of his mother Doct. Fern is so farre with us to father Royaltie upon the peoples free election as on the formall cause that he saith If to design the person and to procure limitation of the power in the exercise of it â—e to give the power we grant the power is from the people but saith he you will have the power originally from themselves in another sense for you say they reserve power to depose and displace the Magistrate sometime they make the Monarch supreme and then they devest themselves of all power and keep none to themselves but before established Government they have no politique power whereby they may lay a command on others but onely a naturall power of private resistance which they cannot use against the Magistrate Ans. But to take off those by the way 1. If the King may choose A. B. an Ambassadour and limit him in his power and say Doe this and say this to the forraigne State you goe to but no more halfe a wit will say the King createth the Ambassadour and the Ambassadours power is originally from the King and we prove the power of the Lyon is originally from God and of the Sea and the fire is originally from God because God limiteth the Lyon in the exercises of its power that it shall not devoure Daniel and limiteth the Sea as Ieremiah saith when as he will have its proud Waves to come thither and no farther and will have the fire to burne those who throwe the three Children into the fiery furnace and yet not to burne the three Children for this is as if Doctor Ferne said the power of the King of six degrees rather then his power of five is from the people therefore the power of the King is not from the people yea the contrary is true 2. That the people can make a King supreame that is Absolute and so resigne natures birth-right that is a power to defend themselves is not lawfull for if the people have not absolute power to destroy themselves they cannot resigne such a power to their Prince 3. It is false that a community before they be established with formall Rulers have
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
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-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
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
will not execute the judgement of the Lord Those who made him supreme Magistrate under God who have under God soveraigne libertie to dispose of crownes and kingdomes are to execute the judgement of the Lord when wicked men make the law of God of none effect 1 Sam. 15.32 so Samuel killed Hagage whom the Lord expresly commanded to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord. I deny not but there is necessitie of a cleere warrant that the Magistrate neglect his duty either in not conveening the States or not executing the judgement of the Lord. 3. I see not how the conveening of a Parliament is extraordinarie to the States for none hath power ordinary when the King is dead or when he is distracted or captive in another land to conveene the Estates and Parliament but they only and in their defect by the law of Nature the people may conveene But 4. If they be essentially Iudges no lesse then the King as I have demonstrated to the impartiall Reader in the former Chapter I conceive though the State make a positive law for Orders cause that the King ordinarily conveene Parliaments Yet if we dispute the matter in the court of Conscience the Estates have intrinsecally because they are the Estates and essentially Iudges of the Land ordinary power to conveene themselves 1. Because when Moses by Gods rule hath appointed seventie men to be Catholike Iudges in the Land Moses upon his sole pleasure and will hath not power to restraine them in the exercise of judgment given them of God for as God hath given to any one Iudge power to judge righteous judgement though the King command the contrary so hath he given to him power to sit down in the gate or the bench when and where the necessitie of the oppressed people calleth for it For 1. the expresse commandement of God which saith to all Iudges Execute judgement in the morning involveth essentially a precept to all the Physicall actions without which it is impossible to execute judgement As namely if by a divine precept the Iudge must execute judgement ergo he must come to some publique place and he must cause partie and witnesses come before him and he must consider cognosce examine in the place of judgement things persons circumstances and so God who commandeth positive acts of judgeing commandeth the Iudges locomotive power and his naturall actions of compelling by the sword the parties to come before him even as Christ who commandeth his servants to preach commandeth that the Preacher and the People goe to Church and that he stand or sit in a place where all may heare and that he give himselfe to reading and meditating before he come to preach And if God command one Iudge to come to the place of judgement so doth he command seventie and so all Estates to conveen in the place of judgement It is objected That the Estates are not Iudges ordinary and habitually but only Iudges at some certaine occasions when the King for cogent and weighty causes calleth them and calleth them not to judge but to give him advise and counsell how to judge Ans. 1. They are no lesse Iudges habitually then the King when the common affaires of the whole Kingdome necessitateth these Publique Watchmen to come together for even the King judgeth not actually but upon occasion 2. This is to beg the question to say that the Estates are not Iudges but when the King calleth them at such and such occasions for the Elders Princes and Heads of families and Tribes were Iudges ordinarie because they made the King And 2. the Kingdome by God yea and Church Iustice and Religion so far as they concerne the whole Kingdome are committed not to the keeping of the King only but to all the Iudges Elders and Princes of the Land And they are rebuked as evening wolves lyons oppressors Ezech. 22.27 Zaca 3.3 Esa. 3.14 15. Mic. 3.1 2 3. when they oppresse the people in judgement So are they Deut. 1.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19.6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother Cain ought in his place to be the keeper of Abel his brother So hath God committed the keeping of the Commonwealth by a positive law not to the King only because that is impossible Num. 11.14 17. 2 Chron. 19.1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Chron. 27. 4. If the King had such a power as King and so from God he should have power to breake up the meeting of all Courts of Parliament Secret Councell and all inferior Iudicatures And when the Congregation of gods as Ps. 82. in the midst of which the Lord standeth were about to pronounce just judgement for the oppressed and poere they might be hindred by the King and so they should be as just as the King maketh them and might pervert judgement and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Esa. 5.23 because the King commandeth And the cause of the poore should not come before the Iudge when the King so commandeth And shall it excuse the Estates to say We could not judge the cause of the poore nor crush the Priests of Baal and the idolatrous Masse-Preltes because the King forbad us So might the King breake up the meeting of the Lords of Session when they were to decerne that Naboths vineyard should be restored to him and hinder the States to represse Tyranny And this were as much as if the States should say We made this man our King and with our good will we agree he shall be a Tyrant For if God gave it to him as a King we are to consent that he enjoy it 5. If Barclay and other flatterers have leave to make the Parliament but Counsellers and Advisers of the King and the King to be the only and sole Iudge 1. The King is by that same reason the sole Iudge in relation to all Iudges the contrary whereof is cleere Num. 11.16 Deut 1.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19.6 Rom. 13.1 2. 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Yea but say they the King when he sendeth an Ambassadour he may tye him to a written Commission and in so far as he exceedeth that he is not an Ambassadour and cleare it is that all inferiour Iudges 1 Pet. 2.13 14. are but sent by the King ergo they are so Iudges as they are but messengers and are to adhere to the Royall pleasure of the Prince that
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
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
all that the God of Heaven required to be done for the Religion and house of the God of Heaven and so a generall warrant for a Covenant without the King and yet Ezra and the people in swearing that Covenant failed in no dutie against their King to whom by the fifth Commandment they were no lesse subject then we are to our King just so we are and so have not failed but they say The King hath committed to no Lievtenant and Deputie under him to do what they please in Religion without his Royall consent in particular and the direction of his Clergy seeing he is of that same Religion with his people whereas Artaxerxes was of another Religion then were the Iews and their Governour Answ. Nor can our King take on himself to do what he pleaseth and what the Prelates amongst whom these who ruled all are known before the World and the Sun to be of another Religion then we are pleaseth in particular But see what Religion and Worship the Lord our God and the Law of the Land which is the Kings revealed will alloweth to us that we may swear though the King should not swear it otherwayes we are to be of no Religion but of the Kings and to swear no Covenant but the Kings which is to joyn with Papists against Protestants 6. The strangers of Ephraim and Manasseh and out of Simeon fell out of Israel in abundance to Asa when they saw that the Lord his God was with him 2 Chron. 15.9 10. And sware that Covenant without their own Kings consent their own King being against it If a people may swear a Religious Covenant without their King who is averse thereunto far more may the Nobles Peers and Estates of Parliament do it without their King And here is an example of a practise which the P. Prelate requireth 7. That Jehojadah was Governour and Vice-Roy during the non-age of Joash and that by this Royall Authoritie the Covenant was sworn is a dream to the end he may make the Pope and the Arch-Prelate now Vice-Royes and Kings when the throne varieth The Nobles were Authors of the making of that Covenant no lesse then Iehojadah was yea and the People of the Land when the King was but a childe went unto the house of Baal and brake down his Images c. Here is a Reformation made without the King by the people 8. Grave Expositors say That the Covenant with death and hell Esay 28. was the Kings Covenant with Egypt 9. And the Covenant Hos. 10. is by none exponed of a Covenant made without the King I heard say this Prelate Preaching on this Text before the King exponed it so But he spake words as the Text is falsly The P. Prelate to the end of the Chapter giveth instance of the ill-successe of Popular Reformation because the people caused Aaron to make a Golden Calf and they revolted from Rehoboam to Ieroboam and made two Golden Calves and they conspired with Absolom against David Answ. If the first example make good any thing neither the High-Priest as was Aaron nor the P. Prelate who claimeth to be descended of Aarons house should have any hand in Reformation at all for Aaron erred in that and to argue from the peoples sins to deny their power is no better then to prove Achab Ieroboam and many Kings in Israel and Judah committed Idolatry Ergo They had no Royall power at all In the rest of the Chapter for a whole Page he singeth over again his Mattens in a circle and giveth us the same Arguments we heard before of which you have these three notes 1. They are stoln and not his own 2. Repeated again and again to fill the field 3. All hang on a false supposition and a begging of the question That the people without the King have no power at all QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall interpreter of the Law THis Question conduceth not a little to the clearing of the doubts concerning the Kings absolute power and the supposed sole nomothetick power in the King And I thinke it not unlike to the question whether the Pope and Romish Church havt a sole and peremptory power of exponing Lawes and the Word of God We are to consider that therr is a twofold exposition of Lawes one speculative in a Schoole way so exquisite Iurists have a power to expone Lawes 2. Practicall in so farre as the sense of the Law falleth under our Practice and this is twofold either private and common to all or judiciall and proper to Iudges and of this last is the question For this Publicke the Law hath one fundamentall rule Salus populi like the King of Planets the Sunne which lendeth Star-light to all Lawes and by which they are exponed whatever interpretation swarveth either from fundamentall Lawes of policy or from the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations and especially from the safety of the publick is to be rejected as a perverting of the Law and therefore Conscientia humani generis the naturall conscience of all men to which the oppressed people may appeale unto when the King exponeth a Law unjustly at his owne pleasure is the last rule on earth for exponing of Lawes Nor ought Lawes to be made so obscure as an ordinary wit cannot see their connexion with fundamentall truths of policy and the safety of the people and therefore I see no inconvenience to say that The Law it selfe is Norma regula juduicandi the Rule and directory to square the Iudge and that the Iudge is the publicke practicall interpreter of the Law Assert 1. The King is not the sole and finall interpreter of the Law 1. Because then inferiour Iudges should not be interpreters of the Law but inferiour Iudges are no lesse essentially Iudges then the Kingâ— Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 2. and so by Office must interpret the Law else they cannot give sentence according to their conscience and equity now exponing of the Law judicially is an act of judging and so a personall and incommunicable act so as I can no more judge and expone the Law according to another mans conscience then I can beleeve with another mans soule or understand with another mans understanding see with another mans eye The Kings pleasure therefore cannot be the rule of the inferiour Iudges conscience for he giveth an immediate accompt to God the Iudge of all of a just or an unjust sentence Suppone Caesar shall expone the Law to Pilate that Christ deserveth to dye the death yet Pilate is not in conscience to expone the Law so If therefore inferiour Iudges judge for the King they judge only by power borrowed from the King not by the pleasure will or command of the King thus and thus exponing the Law ergo the King cannot be the sole interpreter of the Law 2. If the Lord say not to the King only but also
King maketh away part of his Dominion The Lord is here to be waited on in his good Providence and events are to be committed to him but far lesse can it be imaginably lawfull for a King to make away a part of his Dominions without their consent that he may have help from a forraign Prince to destroy the rest This were to make merchandize of the lives of men Quest. 18. Whether or no the convening of the subjects without the Kings will be unlawfull Answ. The convention of men of it self is an indifferent thing and taketh its specification from its causes and manner of convening though some convention of the Subjects without the King be forbidden yet Ratio Legis est anima Legis The reason and intent of the Law is the soul of the Law Convention of the Subjects in a tumultuary way for a seditious end to make war without warrant of Law is forbidden but not when Religion Laws Liberties Invasion of forraign Enemies necessitateth the Subjects to conveen though the King and ordinary Iudicatures going a corrupt way to pervert Iudgement shall refuse to consent to their conventions Upon which ground no convention of Tables at Edinburgh or any other place An. 1637. 1638. 1639. can be judged there unlawfull for if these be unlawfull because they are convention of the Leagues without expresse Act of Parliament then the convention of the Leagues to quench a house on fire and the convention of a Countrey to pursue a Wolf entered in the Land to destroy women and children which are warranted by the Law of nature should be lawlesse or against Acts of Parliament Quest. 19. Whether the Subjects be obliged to pay the debts of the King Answ. These debts which the King contracteth as King in Throno Regali the people are to pay For the Law of nature and the divine Law doth prove That to every servant and Minister wages is due Rom. 13.5 6. compared with Vers. 4. and 1 Cor. 9.9 10 11 12. 1 Tim. 5.18 If the Prince be taken in a war for the defence of the people it is just that he be redeemed by them So the Law saith Tit. F. C. de negotiis gestis F. C. Manda But when Fer. Vasquius illust quest l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. Vicesimo tertio apparet c. saith If the Prince was not doing the businesse of the publike and did make war without advice and consent of the people then are they not to redeem him Now certain it is when the King raiseth war not onely against his Oath and saith God do so to me and mine if I intend any thing but peace yet maketh war and also raiseth war without consent of the Parliament and a Parliament at that time convocated by his own Royall Writ and not raised and dissolved at all but still sitting formally a Parliament if he borrow money from his own Subjects and from forraign Princes to raise war against his Subjects and Parliament then the people are not obliged to pay his debts 1. Because they are obliged to the King only as a King and not as an enemy But in so raising war he cannot be considered as a King 2. Though if the people agree with him and still acknowledge him King it is unpossible Physicè he can be their King and they not pay his debts yet they sin not but may ex decentia non ex debito legali pay his debts yet are they not obliged by any Law of God or man to pay his debts but though it be true by all Law the King be obliged to pay his debt except we say that all the peoples goods are the Kings a compendious way I confesse to pay all that any voluptuous Hâ—liogabolus shall contract yet it may easily be proved That what his subjects and forraign Princes lent him to the raising of an unjust war are not properly debts but expences unjustly given out under the reduplication of formall enemies to the Countrey and so not payable by the Subjects and this is evident by Law because one may give most unjustly moneys to his neighbour under the notion of loan which yet hath nothing of the essence of loan and debt but is meer delapidation and cannot properly be debt by Gods Law for the Law regulateth a man in borrowing and lending as in other politike actions if I out of desire of revenge should lend moneys to a robber to buy powder and fewel to burn an innocent Citie or to buy armour to kill innocent men I deny that that is legally debt I dispute not whether A. B. borrowing money formally that thereby he may buy a Whore shall be obliged to repay it to C. D. under the reduplication of debt or if the borrower be obliged to pay what the lender hath unjustly lent I dare not pray to God That all our Kings debts may be payed I have scarce faith so to do Quest. 20. Whether Subsidies be due to the King as King Answ. There is a twofold Subsidie one Debitum of debt another Charitativum By way of charitie a Subsidie of debt is rather the Kingdoms due for their necessitie then the Kings due as a part of his rent we read of Custome due to the King as King and for conscience sake Rom. 13.5 6. never of a Subsidie or taxation to the Kings of Israel and Judah at any convention of the States Augustus Caesar his taxing of all the World Luk. 2. for the maintenance of Wars cannot be the proper rent of Augustus as Emperour but the rent of the Romane Empire and it is but the fact of a man Charitative subsidies to the King of indulgence because through bad husbanding of the Kings rents he hath contracted debts I judge no better than Royall and Princely begging Yet lawfull they are as I owe charitie to my brother so to my father so to my Politique father the King See Ferd. Vasq. illust quest l. 1. c. 8. who desireth that Superiors under the name of Charitie hid not rapine and citeth Cleer gravely saying offic l. 1. Nulla generi humano justitiae major pestis est quam eorum qui dum maximè fallunt id agunt ut boni viri esse videantur c. Quest. 21. Whether the Seas Floods Road-wayes Castles Ports publike Magazine Militia Armour Forts and Strengths be the Kings Ans. All these may be understood to be the Kings in divers notions 1. They are the Kings quoad custodiam publicam possessionem as a pawn is the mans in whose hand the pawn is laid down 2. They are the Kings quoad jurisdictionem cumulativam non privativam The King is to direct and Royally to command that the Castles Forts Ports Strengths Armour Magazine Militia be imployed for the safetie of the Kingdome All the Wayes Bridges the publike Road-wayes are the Kings in so far as he as a publike and Royall watchman is to secure the Subjects from Robbers and to cognosce of unknown
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
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
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
father as a father hath not power of the life of his child as a Magistrate he may have power and as something more then a father he may have power of life and death I heare not what Grotius saith Those who are not borne have no accidents and so no rights Non entis nulla sunt accidentia then Children not borne have neither right nor liberty and so no injury may some say can be done to Children not borne though the fathers should give away their liberty to the conquerour those who are not capable of Law are not capable of injury contrary to Law Ans. There is a virtuall alienation of rights and lives of children not borne unlawfull because the children are not borne to say that children not borne are not capable of law and injuries virtuall which become reall in time might say Adam did not an injury to his posterity by his first sin which is contrary to Gods Word so those who vowed yearely to give seven innocent children to the Minotaure to be devoured and to kill their children not borne to bloody Molech did no acts of bloody injury to their children nor can any say then that fathers cannot tye themselves and their posterity to a King by succession but I say To be tyed to a lawfull King is no making away of liberty but a resigning of a power to be justly governed protected and awed from active and passive violence 7. No lawfull King may be dethroned nor lawfull Kingdome dissolved but Law and reason both saith Quod vi partum est imperium vi dissolvi potest Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence Censetur enim ipsa natura jus dare ad id omne sine quo obtineri non potest quod ipsa imperat It is objected that the people of God by their sword conquered seven nations of the Canaanites David conquered the Ammonites for the disgrace done to his Embassadours So God gave Egypt to Nebuchadnezar for his hire in his service done against Iudah had David no right over the Ammonites and Moabites but by expecting their consentâ— yee will say A right to their lands goods and lives but not to challenge their morall subjection well we doubt not but such conquerours will challenge and obtain their morall consent but if the people refuse their consent is there no way for providence giveth no right So D. Ferne so Arnisaeus Ans. A facto ad jus non valeâ— consequentia God to whom belongeth the world and the fulnesse thereof disponed to Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan for their inheritance and ordained that they should use their bow and their sword for the actuall possession thereof and the like divine right had David to the Edomites and Ammonites though the occasion of Davids taking possession of these Kingdoms by his sword did arise from particular and occasionall exigences and injuries but it followeth in no sort That therefore Kings now wanting any word of promise and so of divine right to any Lands may ascend to the Throns of other Kingdoms then their own by no better title then the bloody sword That Gods will was the chief patent here is clear in that God forbad his people to conquer Edom or Esau's possession when as he gave them command to conquer the Ammorites I doubt not to say if Joshua and David had had no better title then their bloody sword though provoked by injuries they could have had no right to any kingly power over these Kingdoms and if onely successe by the sword be a right of providence it is no right of precept Gods providence as providence without precept or promise can conclude a thing is done or may be done but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully and warrantably done else you might say the selling of Joseph the crucifying of Christ the spoiling of Job were lawfully done 2. Though Conquerors extort consent and oath of Loyaltie yet that maketh not over a Royall right to the Conquerour to be King over their posterity without their consent 3. Though the Children of Ammon did a high injury to David yet no injury can be recompensed in justice with the pressure of the constrained subjection of Loyaltie to a violent Lord if David had not had an higher warrant from God then an injury done to his messengers he could not have conquered them But 1. the Ammonites were the declared enemies of the Church of God and raised forces against David when they themselves were the injurer's and offenders and if Davids Conquest will prove a lawfull title by the sword to all Conquerours then may all Conquerours lawfully do to the conquered people as David did that is they may put them under saws and under harrows of iron and under axes of iron and cause them passe through the Brick-kilne But I beseech you will Royalists say that Conquerours who make themselves Kings by their sword and so make themselves fathers heads defenders and feeders of the people may use the extreamest Tyranny in the world such as David used against the children of Ammon which he could not have done by the naked title of sword-conquest if God had not laid a Commandment of an higher nature on him to serve Gods enemies so I shall then say if a conquering King be a lawfull King because a Conquerour then hath God made such a lawfull King both a father because a King and a Tyrant and cruell and lyon-hearted oppressour of these whom he hath conquered for God hath given him Royall power by this example to put these to whom he is a father and defender by office to torment and also to be a torturer of them by office by bringing their backs under such Instruments of crueltie as saws and harrows of iron and axes of iron QUEST XIII Whether or no Royall dignitie have its spring from nature and how that is true every man is born free and how servitude is contrary to nature I Conceive it to be evident that Royall dignity is not immediately and without the intervention of the peoples consent given by God to any one person 2. That conquest and violence is no just title to a Crown Now the question is If Royalty flow from nature if Royalty be not a thing meerly naturall neither can subjection to Royall power be meerly naturall but the former is rather civill then naturall and the question of the same nature is Whether subjection or servitude be naturall I conceive that there be divers subjections to these that are above us some way naturall and therefore I rank them in order thus 1. There is a subjection in respect of naturall being as the effect to the cause so though Adam had never sinned this morality of the fifth command should have stood in vigour that the son by nature without any positive Law should have been subject to the father because from him he hath his being as from a second cause But I much
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
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
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
Mutilation lâ—sse of Chastity Quoniam facta infecta fieri nequeunt things of that kinde once done can never be undone we are to prevent the enemy l. Zonat. tract defens par 3. l. in bello § factae de capit notat Gloss. in l. si quis provocatione If the King send an Irish Rebell to cast me over a bridge and drowne me in a water I am not to do nothing while the Kings emissary first cast me over and then in the next room I am to defend my self but nature and the law of self-defence warranteth me if I know certainly his ayme to horse him first over the bridge and then consult how to defend my sâ—lfe at my own leasure Royalists object that David in his defence never invaded and persecuted Saul yea when he came upon Saul and his men sleeping hee would not kill any but the Scottish and Parliaments Forces not onely defend but invade offend kill and plunder and this is cleerely an offensive not a defensive warre Answ. There is no defensive warre different in spece and nature from an offensive warre if we speake physically they differ onely in the event and intention of the heart and it is most cleare that the affection and intention doth make one and the same action of taking away the life either homicide or no homicide If a man out of hatred deliberatâ—ly take away his brothers life he is a murtherer catenus but if that same man had taken away that same brothers life by thâ—â—lying off oâ— an Axe heâ—d ofâ— the staffe while he was hewing timber he neither hating him before nor intending to hurt his brother he is no murtherer by Gods expresse Law Deut. 4.42 Deut. 19 4. Ioshua 20.5 2. The cause betweene the King and the two Parliaments and betweene Saul and David are so different in this as it is much for us Royalists say David might if he had seene offending to conduce for sâ—lfe-preservation have invaded Sauls men and say they the case was extraordinary and bindeth not us to selfe-defence and thus they must say for offensive weapons such as Goliahs sword and an hoast of armed men cannot by any rationall men be assumed and David had the wisdome of God but to offend if providence should so dispose and so what was lawfull to David is lawfull to us in self-defence he might offend lawfully and so may we 2. If Saul and the Philistims ayming as under an oath to set up Dagon in the land of Israel should invade David and the Princes and Elders of Israel who made him King and if David with an hoast of armed men he and the Princes of Israel should come in that case upon Saul and the Philistims sleeping if in that case David might not lawfully have cut oft the Philistims and as he defended in that case Gods Church and true Religion if he might not then have lawfully killed I say the Philistims I remit to the conscience of the Reader Now to us Papists and Prelates under the Kâ—nâ—s banner are Philistims introducing the Idolatry of Bread-worship and Popery as hatefull to God as Dagon-worship 3. Saul intended no arbitrary government nor to make Israel a conquered people nor yet to cut off all that professed the true worship of God nor came Saul against these Princes Elders and people who made him King only Davids head would have made Saul lay downe Arms but Prelates and Papists and Malignants under the King intâ—nd to make the Kings sole will a Law to destroy the Court of Parliament which putteth Lawes in execution against their Idolatry and their ayme is that Protestants be a conquered people and their attempt hath been hitherto to blow up King and Parliament to cut off all Protestants and they are in Armes in divers parts of the Kingdome against the Princes of the Land who are no lesse Judges and deputies of the Lord then the King himselfe and would kill and do kill plunder and spoyle us if we kill not them And the case is every way now betweene Armies and Armies as betweene a single man unjustly invaded for his life and an unjust invader neither in a naturall action such as is self-defence is that of policy to be urged none can be Judge in his owne cause when oppression is manifest one may be both agent and patient as the fire and water conflicting there is no need of a judge a community casts not off nature when the judge is wanting nature is judge actor accused and all Lastly no man is Lord of his owne members of his body m. l. liber homo ff ad leg Aqui. nor Lord of his owne life but is to be accountable to God for it QUEST XXXII Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warres hath its warrant in Gods word from the example of David Elisha the eighty Priests who resisted Uzziah c DAvid defended himselfe against King Saul 1. by taking Goliahs sword with him 2. by being Captaine to six hundred men yea it is more then cleare 1 Chron. 12. that there came to David a hoast like the hoast of God v. 22. to help against Saul exceeding foure thousand v. 36. Now that this hoast came warrantably to help him against Saul I prove 1. because it is said ver 1. Now these are they that came to David to Ziglag while he kept himselfe close because of Saul the son of Kish and they were amongst the mighty men helpers of the warre and then so many mighty Captains are recâ—oâ—ed out v. 16. There came of the children of Benjamin and Iudah to the hold of David v. 19. And there fell some of Manasseh to David 20. As he went to Ziglag there fell to him of Manasseh Kenâ—h and Jozabad Jediel and Michael and Jozabad and Elihu and Zilthai Captaines of the thousands that were of Manasseh 21. And they helped David against the band of the rovers 22. At that time day by day there came to David untill it was a great hoast like the hoast of God Now the same expression that is ver 1. where it is said they came to help David against Saul which ver 1. is repeated ver 16. ver 19 20 21 22 23. 2. That they warrantably came is evident because 1. the Spirit of God commendeth them for their valor and skill in war ver 2. ver 8. ver 15. ver 21. which the Spirit of â—od doth not in unlawfull wars 2. Because Amasai v. 18. The Spirit of the Lord comming on him saith Thine are we David and on thy side thou son of Jesse peace peace unto thee and peace to thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee The Spirit of God inspireth no man to pray peace to those who are in an unlawfull warre 3. That they came to Davids side onely to be sufferers and to flee with David and not to pursue and offend is ridiculous 1. It is said ver 1. They came to David to Ziglag while he kept himselfe close
saith he non est actio aut poena one may not have action of law against his brother who refuseth to help him yet saith he as man he is obliged to man nexu civilis societatis by the bond of humane society Others say one nation may indirectly defend a neighbour nation against a common enemie because it is a self-defence and it is presumed that a forraigne enemie having overcome the neighbour nation shall invade that nation it selfe who denyeth help and succour to the neighbour nation this is a self-opinion and to me it looketh not like the spiritâ—aâ—l law of God 3. Some say it is lawfull but not alwayes expedient in which opinion there is this much truth that if the neighbor nation have an evil cause neque licet neque expedit it is neither lawfull nor expedient But what is lawful in the case of necessity so extreame as is the losse of a brothers life or of a nation must be expedient because necessity of non-sinning maketh any lawfull thing expedient As to help my brother in fire or water requiring my present and speedy help though to the losse of my goods must be as expedient as a negative commandement Thou shalt not murther 4. Others think it lawfull in the case that my brother seek my help only other wayes I have no calling thereunto to which opinion I cannot universally subscribe it is holden both by reason and the soundest divines that to rebuke my brother of sinne is actus misericordiae charitatis an act of mercy and charity to his soul yet I hold I am obliged to rebuke him by Gods law Levit. 19.17 otherwise I hate him 1 Thes. 5.14 Col. 4.17 Math. 18 15. Nor can I think in reason that my duty of love to my brother doth not oblige me but upon dependency on his free consent but as I am to help my neighbours oxe out of a ditch though my neighbour know not and so I have onely his implicit and virtuall consent so is the case here I go not farther in this case of conscience if a neighbour nation be jealous of our help and in an hostile way should oppose us in helping which blessed be the Lord the honourable houses of the Parliament of England hath not done though Malignant spirits tempted them to such a course what in that case we should owe to the afflicted members of Christs body is a case may be determined easily The fift and last opinion is of those who think if the King command Papists and Prelates to rise against the Parliament and our dear brethren in England in warres that we are obliged in conscience and by our oath and covenant to help our native Prince against them to which opinion with hands and feet I should accord if our Kings cause were just and lawfull but from this it followeth that we must thus far judge of the cause as concerneth our consciences in the matter of our necessary duty leaving the judiciall cognizance to the honourable Parliament of England But because I cannot returne to all these opinions particularly I see no reason but the Civil Law of a Kingdom doth oblige any Citizen to help an innocent man against a murthering robber that he may be judicially accused as a murtherer who faileth in his duty that Solon said well beatam remp esse illam in quâ quisque injuriam alterius suam estimet It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother as an injury done against himself As the Egyptians had a good law by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that suffered wrong and if he was not able to help he was holden to accuse the injurer if not his punishment was whips or three dayes hunger it may be upon this ground it was that Moses slew the Egyptian Ambrose commendeth him for so doing Assert We are obliged by many bands to expose our lives goods children c. in this cause of religion and of the unjust oppression of enemies for the safety and defence of our deare brethren and true religion in England 1. Prov. 24.11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken as captives to be killed and those that are ready to be slaine 12. If thou say behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it and he that keepeth thy soul doth he not know it and shall he not render to every man according to his work Master Iermin on the plâ—ce is too narrow who coâ—menting on the place restricteth all to these two that the priest should deliver by interceding for the innocâ—nt and the King by pardoning only But 1. to deliver is a word of violence as 1 Sam. 30.18 David by the sword rescued his wives Hos. 5 14. I will take away and none shall rescue 1 Sam. 17.35 I rescued the lambs out of his mouth out of the Lyons mouth which behovâ—d to be done with great violence 2 King 18.34 They have not delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samaria out of my hand So Cornel. à Lapidâ— Charitas suadâ—t ut vi armis eruamus injuste ductos ad mortem Amâ—ros lib. 1. offic c. 36. citeth this same text and commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man 2. It is an act of Charity and so to be done though the judge forbid it when thâ— innocent is unjustly put to death Object But in so doing private men may offer violence to the lawfull magistrate when he unjustly putteth an innocent man to death and rescue him out of the hands of the magistrate and this were to bring in anarchy and confusion for if it be an act of charity to deliver the innocent out of the hand of the Magistrate it is homicide to a private man not to do it for our obedience to the law of nature tyeth us absolutely though the Magistrate forbid these acts for it is known that I must obey God rather then man Answ. The law of nature tyeth us to obedience in acts of charity yet not to perfâ—rme these acts after any way and manner in a meere naturall way impetu naturae but I am to performe acts of naturall charity in a rationall and prudent way and in looking to Gods law else if my brother or father were justly condemned to die I might violently deliver him out of the Magistrates hand but by the contrary my hand should be first on him without naturall compassion As if my brother or my wife have been a blasphemer of God Deut. 13.6 7 8. and therefore am I to do acts naturall as a wise man observing as Solomon saith Eccles. 8.5 both time and judgement Now it were no wisdom for one private man to hazard his own life by attempting to rescue an innocent brother because he hath not strength to do it and the law of nature
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
doubt if the relation of a father as a father doth necessarily infer a Royall or Kingly authority of the father over the son or by natures Law that the father hath power of life and death over or above his children and the reasons I give are 1. Because power of life and death is by a positive Law presupposing sin and the fall of man and if Adam standing in innocency could lawfully kill his son though the son should be a Malefactor without any positive Law of God I much doubt 2. I judge that the power Royall and the fatherly power of a father over his children shall be found to be different and the one is founded on the Law of nature the other to wit Royall power on a meere positive Law The 2. degree or order of subjection naturall is a subjection in respect of gifts or age so Aristotle 1 Polit. cap. 3. saith that some are by nature servants his meaning is good that some gifts of nature as wisedom naturall or aptitude to govern hath made some men of gold fitter to command and some of iron and clay fitter to be servants and slaves But I judge this title to make a King by birth seeing Saul whom God by supervenient gifts made a King seemeth to ow small thanks to the womb or nature that he was a King for his crueltie to the Lords Priests speaketh nothing but naturall basenesse It s possible Plato had a good meaning Dialog 3. de legib who made six orders here 1. That fathers command their sons 2. The noble the ignoble 3. The elder the younger 4. The masters the servants 5. The stronger the weaker 6. The wiser the ignorant 3. Aquinas 22. q. 57. art 3. Driedâ— de libert Christ. l. 1. pag. 8. following Aristotle polit l. 7. c. 14. hold though man had never sinned there should have been a sort of dominion of the more gifted and wiser above the lesse wise and weaker not antecedent from nature properly but consequent for the utilitie and good of the weaker in so far as it is good for the weaker to be guided by the stronger which cannot be denyed to have some ground in nature but there is no ground for Kings by nature here 1. Because even these who plead that the mothers womb must be the best title for a Crown and make it equivalent to Royall unction are to be corrected in memory thus That it is meerly accidentall and not naturall for such a son to be born a King because the free consent of the people making choice of the first father of that Line to be their King and in him making choice of the first born of the family is meerly accidentall to father and son and so cannot be naturall 2. Because Royall gifts to reign are not holden by either us or our adversaries to be the specifice essence of a King for if the people Crown a person their King say we if the womb bring him forth to be a King say the opponents he is essentially a King and to be obeyed as the Lords annointed though nature be very Parca sparing and a niggard in bestowing Royall gifts Yea though he be an idiot say some if he be the first born of a King he is by just title a King but must have Curators and Tutors to guide him in the exercise of that Royall right that he hath from the womb But Buchanan saith well He who cannot govern himself shall never govern others 1 Assert de facto As a man commeth into the world a member of a politick societie he is by consequence borne subject to the laws of that societie but this maketh him not from the wombe and by nature subject to a King as by nature he is subject to his Father who begat him no more then by nature a Lyon is borne subject to another King-Lyon for it is by accident that he is borne of parents under subjâ—ction to a Monarch or to either Democraticall or Aristocraticall governours for Cain and Abel were borne under none of these formes of Government properly and if he had been borne in a new planted Colonie in a wildernesse where no government were yet established he should be under no such Government 2 Assert Slavery of servants to Lords or Masters such as were of old amongst the Iews is not naturall but against nature 1. Because slaverie is malum naturae a penall evill and contrary to nature and a punishment of sinne 2. Slaverie should not have been in the world if man had never sinned no more then there could have been buying and selling of men which is a miserable consequent of sin and a sort of death when men are put to the toyling paines of the hireling who longeth for the shadow and under iron harrowes and sawes and to hew wood and draw water continually 3. The originall of servitude was when men were taken in warre to eschew a greater evill even death the captives were willing to undergoe a lesse evill slaverie S. Servitus 1. de jur Pers. 4. A man being created according to Gods image he is res sacra a sacred thing and can no more by natures law be sold and bought then a religious and sacred thing dedicated to God S. 1. Instit. de invtil scrupl l. inter Stipulantem S. Sacram. F. de verber Obligat 3 Assert Every man by nature is a freeman borne that is by nature no man commeth out of the wombe vnder any civill subjection to King Prince or Judge to master captaine conquerour teacher c. 1. Because freedome is naturall to all except freedome from subjection to Parents And subjection politick is meerly accidentall comming from some positive lawes of men as they are in a politique societie whereas they might have been borne with all concomitants of nâ—ure though borne in a single familie the only naturall and first societie in the world 2. Man is borne by nature free from all subjection except of that which is most kindly and naturall and that is fatherly or filial subjection or matrimoniall subjection of the wife to the husband and especially he is free of subjection to a Prince by nature Because to be under jurisdiction to a Iudge or King hath a sort of jurisdiction Argument L. Si quis sit fugitivus F. de edil edict in S. penult vel fin especially to be under penall lawes now in the state of sinne The learned Senator Ferdinandus Vasquez saith l. 2. c. 82. n. 15. Every subject is to lay down his life for the Prince now no man is borne under subjection to penall lawes or dying for his Prince 3. Man by nature is borne free and as free as beasts but by nature no beast no Lyon is born King of Lyons no Horse no Bullock no Eagle King of Horses Bullocks Eagles nor is there any subjection here except that the young Lyon is subject to the old every foul to its damme
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