Concretely as in the subject or the Magistrate that bears it therefore presently it follows in the Apostles reasons against resistance for he is the Minister he beares the sword so St. Peter tells us what he meanes by the Ordinance the King as supream or they that are sent by him for though the will and command be illegall yet because he that bears the power lawfully uses that power though illegally to compasse that will and execute that command the power it self is resisted in resisting him that so uses it as Saul had lawfully the power and command of Arms but that power he uses unlawfuly in pursuing his unjust wil against David And I aske when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure was that a pwoer ordained by God no but an illegall will a Tyranny therefore according to M. Burrows they might have been resisted in doing so No for that power and soveraignty they imployed to compasse those illegal commands was a power ordained and settled in them When Pilate condemned our Saviour it was an illegal will yet our Saviour acknowledges in it Pilates power that was given him from above Again this answerer of theirs makes void that distinction of private men and of publick states in the point of resistance it voids also their other distinction of absolute Monarchs limited For according to this answerer it shal be lawfull for private men to resist their Princes though absolute if they command illegally and to say as M. Burrows teaches them We resist no power no authority at all but the illegall will and pleasure of man and so might the Christians have resisted and so replyed if then answer be good The truth is the lawfull power is resisted when armes are taken against Princes abusing that power to the compassing of unlawfull commands which also I insinuated often in the other treatise that from the Apostles reasons in this place against resistance drawn from that order that good for which the power is ordain'd though then the execution of the power in those Emperours was nothing answerable to that end That which the fuller Answerer presently adds pag. 22 There are two kinds of tyranny Regiminis and Usurpationis that of Government must be endured though never so heavy Not only to the good but to the froward also 1. Pet. 2.18 That other of Vsurpation hath no right at all I know not what it means if it be not a plain confirmation of what I have sayd against resistance and a direct confutation of what himselfe and Mr Burrows has answered for it M. Burrowes also tels us pag. 113. VVe professe against resisting power and authority though abused A man would think he came home to us and so he must if he will speak reason but his device is If those who have power to make lawes shall make wicked lawes and force obedience to them there is nothing left us but flying or passive obedience In this hole he often lurks to defend himselfe against the prohibition of resistance by making us believe the abused power that must not be resisted is only seen when sinfull lawes are made and imposed but I ask have they power to make such Laws No for it is not of God they have power from Him to make Laws but such Laws and Commands are their illegall wills then may they that resist say in M. Burrowes words we resist no power no authority but the illegall wills of men Pilate had power from above to judge the accused brought before him not to condemne the innocent that was the abuse of the Legislative power and the power it selfe is resisted by resisting the abuse of the one as of the other Now all this has bin said against resistance in case His Majesties Commands in the use of that power which is in Him were unlawfull but Conscience that knows He ha's by Law a power to command assistance for the defence of Himselfe and protection of His Subjects will easily conclude it a Legall power and command not only not to be resisted but also to be actively obeyed as all Legall ordained powers ought to be Notwithstanding these Scriptures so plain against Resistance or Arms taken up by Subjects M. Burrowes professeth his Conscience is not one whit scrupled I hope he will better consider it ere he come to dye and give an account of those poor souls he ha's seduced Finally we must subjoyn M. Bridge his replyes upon this 13 to the Romans he as if his conscience were as little scrupled with the Apostles prohibiting as M. Burrowes his was thus begins The Dr. indeavours to sear the tender Conscience with the word Damnation but it is rather to be translated judgement by it is meant the punishment of the Magistrate in this life pag. 14. M. Bridge might have had respect to our translation which renders it damnation with good reason for resistance is a breach of the 5 Commandement it is a resisting of the ordinance of God as in this chapter and M. Bridge knows it is no vain scaring of Conscience to tell it the breach of Gods Commandement ordinance makes it guilty of damnation And if we consider the condition of the Christians in those times what great matter had the Apostle told them in assuring them they should be punished by those Emperors if they resisted when as they were sure of that whether they resisted or resisted not but he gives them to understand however those Emperors were enemies to christianity the resisting of them was an offence against the ordinance of God or if we consider the principles of these daies which teach people to take the sword out of the Princes hand seize the Arms of the Kingdom in order to their own preservation what great matter would the Apostle threaten to such in telling them they should be punished by the Mag strate when as they have provided for their indemnity by taking the sword from their Prince or causing Him to bear it in vain therefore there is the stroke of a higher hand also to be expected and those that have been lately taken in actuall resistance and through His Majesties mercy escaped the deserved punishment of this life must if they continue not in obedience look for a greater condemnation Again M. Bridge answers That only active obedience to lawfull Commands is there enjoyned not passive under unlawfull Commands pag. 23. Both say we as appears by the injunction of subjection prohibition of resistance for if the Apostle had enjoyned onely obedience to just commands he had given the Romans that lived under such unjust Emperors but a lame instruction the refore in ease they had unjust commands imposed on them he tels them how to behave themselves that is not to resist what then remains but passive obedience But he would prove it thus The power they were to be subject to and not resist is the ordinance of God and the minister of God for good but
but not to the deniall of His Supremacy for He is still by Law acknowledged the onely supream Governour and the supream Head which being urged in my former Treatise this Answerer should have shewn us how the King can be so and yet this co-ordination of his stand good to all purposes as he would have it If he restrain that only supream Governour and supream Head to supremacy of power in Execution or Administration it would be plain that none can use power in this government but derivatively from His Majesty which were enough for the purpose I urged Supremacy in the former Treatise viz. to shew His Majesty cannot be resisted for resistance is a taking of the sword or power without him and from him and also a using of it against that power of administration which is setled in him and therefore against him as he is the only supream Governour This would be enough to checke any mans conscience that will dare to resist yet must not the supremacy be so restrained for albeit for the greater security of the people Kings have bound themselves from imposing Laws upon them without their consent yet may wee also see the beams of His Supremacy shining in the power of enacting exercised with their consent For he has the power of calling them to that purpose and the constitution that has given them power of consenting has left in him power of dissolving them Also anciently as I have heard knowing men say the Law enacted began thus Rex statuit the King ordains and before the Laws and Statutes in each Kings Raign we find the title or introduction thus usually expressed The King by the advice and assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonalty has ordained c. And still for the procuring of his assent we see them Petitioning under the stile of Loyall Subjects and while they sit in that co-ordination there is still that other relation of Head Body between them and accordingly He was declared in Parliament to be Supream Head of the body politique He being instituted and furnished by the goodnesse and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole entire power preheminency authority praerogative and Iurisdiction to render and yeeld Iustice and finall determination to all manner of Subiects within this Realm in all causes Also that sundry Laws and Ordinances had been made in former Parliaments for sure and entire conserving the Prerogative and preheminency of this Crown 24. H. 8. c. 12. From all this so plainly declared in Law confessed can we conclude with this man that the two Houses are Co-ordinate with his Majesty in the very Supremacy or that the highest Supream head is a mixt one No! but that the Legislative power is Supreamly in the King only this power is excited by the instance and request of the Commons representing to him the grievances of his people abroad and cannot be exercised or come to the act of Ordaining but with consent of them the House of Lords This may easily be conceived if we consider that Kings at first ruled arbitrarily and then the Legislative power was solely in them afterward the people obtained such limitations and qualifications of that power as might make for their security as for example That they should not have Laws imposed on them without their consent this does not make them co-ordinate with their King in the very Supremacy of power it self as this man has conceived it but still leaves the power of Ordaining supreamly in him as in the fountain though the efflux or exercise of that power be not solely in his will but expects the consent of the People Now let us gather up his scattered proofes as we can find them Such a co-ordination there must be or els saith he the Monarchy is not mixt pag. 3. 4. It doth not follow if there be a mixture in it therefore such an one of equall ingredients or if it be mixt secundùm quid in some respect therefore simply or as he would have it though we say not the Monarchy is mixt as he yet we grant the Government is mixt not as he by placing such power in the co-ordinate parts but mixt that is not absolute or arbitrary in his Majesty yet not without Subordination on their part and predominancy on his And to say the Monarchy it selfe is compounded of three Estates as hee doth is absurd But the Treatiser himselfe calls it that excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament confessing them to be the fundamentalls of this Government and if Fundamentalls what subordination can there be in them they admit not of higher lower all foundations are alike pag. 3. The Treatiser acknowledged it a Fundamentall of Government that provided this temper of the three estates in Parliament as the reasonable means of our safety therefore saith the Answerer the three estates are Fundamentalls a good argument A genere adgenus from the constitution that places this power in the two Houses to the persons that bear the power for when we speak of Fundamentalls we speak of Laws and constitutions which may provide such a temper and yet do it with subordination that it be not temperamentum ad pondus but ad justitiam not with Arithmeticall but Geometricall proportion not with exact equality of all but with a predominancy of one otherwise it would sometime fall out that this body of the Commonwealth could not act or move any way like as the naturall body could not if all the elements were equally tempered in it And to shew he is for an Arithmeticall proportion in this temper of the three Estates he wonders we cannot see that the King is Universis minor when as we may easily reckon that of three one is lesse than two pag. 3. Very good we shall have enough of such arguments as these for the present we will make a note of this in the Margin and shall have occasion anon to call him to his reckoning upon it Then he keeps a trifling to shew how the two Houses are subjects divisim taken singly and not subjects conjunctim in the co-ordination pag. 4. In one word their consent is not subject to the Kings command yet they are subjects even collectively taken for so they represent subjects that chose them they are subject to his command still to remove or rise when He Prorogues or dissolves and so they acknowledge themselves Subjects in all their addresses to His Majestie which they make as a body collective He is the Head of them not taken severally for then He should be Head of many bodies but as joyntly making one body And left he should seeme to forget they are his Councell which would take off from that fellowship in the supremacie where he has placed them he grants they are his Councell but by the first constitution not to be elected by him but assigned to him not assumed as Moses his under Officers were
it down right and it is for the advantage of the other that they do so The Doctor said not there was infallibility in the great Councell but wished the misled people to examine whether they have not such a thought to worke them into an implicite faith of beleeving and receiving without Examination what ever is concluded there He leaves us a private dissent of judgement from their determinations but we are bound by them from gainsaying or resistance and so it is to us inevitable Such a power of binding has a generall Councell to its decisions and why should a Civill Generall Councell of England have lesse power in it So he pag. 18. We Answer the great Councell of England has such power of binding inevitably if you adde the assent of the King as all Ecclesiasticall Councels expect the Confirmation of the supream Civill power for the binding of those that are under them to their Canons and decisions But if we keepe our selves from gainsaying or resistance will it satisfie no their Resolution or Ordinance cals us all to active obedience to Arme kill and slay and this we must believe after so many ages to be a fundamentall Law when as we heare the known Law which is inevitable to us not onely binding us from being active against His Majesty to the endangering of His Person or diminution of His Crowne and Dignity but also not suffering us to be silent or sit still when the defence of His Rights or Person requires our aid We have now done with his propositions and his discourse upon them whereby he hath wound himselfe up to the pitch of Bractons speech which he brought and rejected as too high to be attempted pag. 4. the King hath above him besides God and the Law His Court of Earles and Barons But this Answerer has placed both them and the House of Commons in that height by this finall Resolution and arbitrary inevitable Command and this reserved by them in their first choice of a King which according to the rules of Policy makes the King to have but imperium communicatum leaves the supream commanding power in them From the Premises he concludes his resolution for Conscience pag. 19. This great Centurion of the Kingdome the Parliament saies to one of this now necessary listed Army Goe and he goes to another come and he comes what other authority hath a Sheriffe to put a Malefactor to death We have had enough of the Centurion already too much God knowes of the Military Commands we should have liked it better if he had likened the Parliament to that wise and peaceable woman which gave advice to throw the Rebels heads over the walls and so the matter was ended 2 Sam. 20.18 But hath the Sheriffe no other Authority but such as a Centurion gives to Kill and Slay He ha's it derived from the only Supream Governour the King and so should every one that takes the Sword Conscience also ha's Gods warrant too first of Charity by the sixth Commandement which not onely forbids Murder but commands preservation of ours and our Neighbours life Secondly of Justice Render to all what is due to the great Councell what is due to it upon the Kings refusall lastly of obedience Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man Hence every Souldier in this Army hath warrant enough for his Conscience if he apply it I am sure his three warrants here from Gods Law are misapplyed and will not secure their Souldiers Consciences First that warrant of selfe defence and preservation tels us we must not doe it by murthering of others which may happen when our selfe preservation uses meanes not allowed by the Law it is to be regulated by if it be the defence of the body Naturall then must it be according to the Law of God and Nature if of the body Politique then according to its Law which this man has not any waies proved to prescribe this way of preservation by Subjects taking Armes we see by the Law the King is the onely supream Governor and so the Sword is put into His hand for preservation of order and executing of wrath from whom the Authority of the Sheriffe and all other Ministers of power is derived But he that takes the Sword by his owne authority and not by Commission from or under Him commits murder and shall perish by the Sword The Law is yet to make that may derive the warrant of killing and slaying from any other fountaine of power Secondly â—ender to all what is due is a good rule of Justice and tels us what is due to the King by the fift Commandement Honour and Feare and Tribute as the Apostle goes on in that place Rom. 13. but it 's misapplied by the Answerer to urge the rendring of Obedience to the Arbitrary commands of the two Houses for unto such it is not due as has been shewn though this man phancy it never so strongly Lastly The submission to every Ordinance of Man is also misapplied by him for there was never any such Ordinance or Contrivement which reserved such a power at the first Constitution of this Government as he supposes but never could prove Therefore I may conclude according to my first resolve in my former Treatise Conscience cannot finde any warrant or safe ground to goe upon for making this resistance For according to the principles of the now pleaders for this resistance It finds nothing but a pretended Constitution at a supposed Capitulating Election contriving and reserving for the people such a power finds this un reasonable in it selfe inconsistent with the usuall and established government of this Land and so cannot thinke it safe to rest on or fit to give it warrant against the known Law which places the power of Armes in the King which acknowledges him Only supreme Governour which challenges by Our Allegiance ayd and assistance from us for the defence not onely of His Person but also of His Rights His Crown and Dignity which are most injuriously wronged by this Contrivement or frame of Government and exceedingly invaded by this resistance and power of Armes raised and used against Him at this day SECT VIII A Confutation of what is replied by the Answerers upon the first Sect. of the former Treatise NOw we come to the application of what hath been hitherto said to see how it meets with what was written in the former Treatise where we shall take in the other Answerers also And first we must cast an eye over Mr. Bridge his grounds which he layes for this resistance before he enters upon the first Section He tels us there are three grounds of their proceeding by Armes 1. To fetch in Delinquents to be tryed in the highest Court. 2. To defend the State from forraine invasion 3. To preserve themselves and their Country from the insurrection of Papists And that all this is done as an act of selfe-preservation not as an act of Iurisdiction over their Prince Pag. 2. That
look upon them as the supposed causes of their Armes And first I cannot but wonder why among these particulars here 's no mention of Religion when as the people are made to beleeve that 's it they fight for happily he included it in the c. as indeed in the consultations of these unhappy daies the care of it though timely moved by worthy Members of both Houses has been cast off to the fagge end of other more necessary occasions that I may not say Designes a likely way to make all prosper When the people are dealt with by such men as these Answerers then Religion is the main Engine to draw them into Armes and indeed were they not abused with that plausible pretence they could never have been so farre engaged against their Soveraigne but when these men enter the lists with an Adversary about the cause of this warre Religion is not insisted on not once touched in this expresly declined in the other Answers but Nature is rather sought unto by them for a ground of selfe preservation for upon strict examination these men know it will appear what actuall invasions have been made upon Religion against the known Lawes of this land and who are to answer for them they know also what offence it would give to severall Sects which are and will be alwaies serviceable to new designes should Religion be either countenanced as it is by Law established or any one way declared for But secondly I would fain know whether they can in Conscience be perswaded that some actuall invasions of Lawes and Liberties can be a sufficient cause for Subjects to Arme and Resist when it evidently appeares their Soveraigne is not bent to continue in that destructive way will it not suffice if he restore those Liberties and withdraw the encroachments made upon them If he promise security and passe severall Acts of Grace for further assurance of them If he be content that All Armes laid aside the Law shall judge who are Delinquents and accordingly censure them They that have formerly written for Resistance in some Cases have thought it unreasonable that Subjects should pretend to Armes till they find their Prince in such a Condition as was insinuated in the case proposed viz. Bent or seduced to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion or to make havock of the Common-wealth or Church as D. Willet ha's it in Rom. 13. q. 17 and as we see by the limitations testimonies examples in Paraeus upon Rom. 13. and in Phil. Par. his answer to Mr Owen But our Pleaders for Resistance at this day because they cannot find His Majesty in such a condition or hope to make men that know any thing of His Personall Vertucs or His Acts of Grace passed this Parliament believe he is so bent doe now pretend they have cause enough for taking Armes what ever the Kings mind be and although there be no such horrible things intended by him as the Doctor speakes of so Mr Buâ—r pag. 140.141 and to the same puâ—pose this Fuller Answer insists upon actuall invasions of Liborvies Lawes as the cause of their Armes Yet that they may seem to have better pretence of Reason for what they doe and more win upon the people that least know the gratious disposition of their Soveraigne towards them they doe endeavour to charge His Majesty with the like destructive intentions as were to be supposed in the case To this purpose we find this Answerer every where rendring the reason of their taking Arms to be bâ—â—â—use the King refuses to performe His trust and in the first page because His Majesty has drawn in Delinquents to be a party in Armes thereby to dissolve or remove the arliament where he puts the Cause upon His Majesties intention And we well remember upon His Majesties first Guard at Yorke it was I will not say voted above given out among the people He intended to make Warre against His Parliament and still we have it urged as a Cause of these Arms that His Majesty is seduced by wicked Councell and the like Therefore the Case being so laid upon his supposed intentions to continue in a subversive way of Lawes Liberties the question upon it was put to the full for the rationall part whether such a case being supposed or granted it were Lawfull for Subjects to take Armes and resist Then for the other part of the question which concerned matter of Fact Whether that case were now i.e. whether it were true of His Majesty which they supposed and took for granted and endevoured to make the people believe of Him it was of a second consideration and examined after by it selfe Every mean understanding might easily conceave this to be the sense of the Question the briefe of the Cause and of my Treatise But this Answerer it seems had a discourse of the power of Parliamâ—nâ—s lying by him for no man will think it occasioned by my book but applyed to it and therefore thought fit to quarrell at the Question as proposed by mee and in stead of my three Resolves to give the Reader three Propositions of his own he should have made them moe but for observing number And then he boasts How many weekes soever the Doctor has been about the Treatise it is well known to many the Answer cost not many houres the doing pag. 3. he means the applying of what was done before but any one may perceive by his confused jumbling of things and his frequent mistakes when ever he repeats and answers what I had written that he was ambitious of doing the businesse hastily rather then surely Wee 'l follow him as we may first examining how he makes good his Propositions or grounds he goes on then how he applyes them to what I had written where we shall tak in the other Answers as occasion requires SECT II. The frame of this Government as it is fancied in the Fuller Answer HIs whole resolution of the Cause is laid down in his first Proposition which is this The Parliament may with good Conscience in defence of the King Lawes and Government established when imminently endangered take up Armes without or against the Kings Personall commands if He refuse His other two Propositions are subservient to this tending to the proofe of it That the finall result of this States judgment what those Lawes Dangers and meanes of prevention are resides in the two Houses of Parliament Prop. 2. That in this finall resolution the People are to rest and in obedience thereto may with good Conscience bear and use Armes Prop. 3. To make this good he first endeavours to shew this Monarchy is mixt by a Coordination of the two Houses with the King in the very supremacy of power it selfe so he pag. 3. Whereupon if the King refuse to provide for the safety of the Kingdome according to their advice then His coordinates the two Houses must according to their trusts supply so he tells us p. 3.8.10 And that this power was reserved by
Delinquents should be brought to a Legall tryall and the State defended is just and necessary yet to be done in an orderly and Legall way not by an Army raised by Subjects taking the Militia and power of the Kingdome out of chose hands in which the Law has inâ—â—â—sted it And if Conscience were to speake the Truth it could not say that any Delinquents were denied or with-held till the Militia was seized and a great Delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to tryall at His Majesties instance of which see more above Sect. 5. Neither can Conscience say that Subjects have had cause upon feares and pretences of forrain invasion or insurrection of Papists to Arme and resist Whether this be done by an Act of jurisdiction we may discerne by the plea of the fuller Answerer for he would have us believe they are inabled to this by Law and the Constitution of this Government and that they doe it by an act of judgement the States judgement residing in their finall resolution and that this power of theirs is transcendent to any power ordinarily in the King for it declares Law without Him it does arbitrarily command the power of the Kingdome and the obedience of the people without and against the commands of the King so we found it in the examination of his discourse and what is more required to an act of Jurisdiction I know not let Him and Mr. Bridge agree it Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of preservation First from the Law of Nature selfe preservation is naturall for a Man for a Community and therefore when a Community shall trust a Prince with their welfare that act of trust is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall Law which is selfe-preservation pag. 2. But the Fuller Answer will tell him there must be a Constitution to enable them to this selfe-preservation And were this Argument good then might private men or the people without the Parliament take Armes and resist for selfe-preservation is naturall to them and no positive Law which according to the Fuller Answer restraines their resistance upon their trust given to the Houses of Parliament can according to Mr. Bridge his reason destroy that naturall Law Also absolute Princes with whom the people have intrusted their welfare without any resevation might be resisted which the Fuller Answer againe denies for that act of trust is but by positive Law and according to Mr. Bridge it must not restraine them for it cannot destroy the Naturall Law of self-preservation But he should have observed that as the naturall body is to preserve it selfe according to its Law and no otherwise so a Community or politique body must doe it according to its Law which prescribeth the order and way and means of preservation and for want of holding to that way we see people often under pretence of this selfe-preservation drawne by seditious Leaders into Armes to their owne destruction Secondly he proves it from the Law of God by places of Scripture but so wildely that I am ashamed to repeat them yet the judicious Reader must give me leave for the peoples sake that are abused by these mens abusing of Scripture 1 Chron. 12.19 It is expresly said that David went out against Saul to battail but he was Sauls subject at that time pag. 2. A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for Subjects to go out to Battaile against their King but he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that He helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Achish See below Sect. 9. where this place is touched again Rom. 13. Be subject to the higher powers But the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pag. 3. this is well assumed but we grant the Conclusion there is a subjection due to them and if he means by the Parliament the three Estates concurring then all manner of subjection and obedience is due to them But he takes them as divided for it follows Though the King be supreame yet they have the high power of declaring Law pag. 3. this is a good explication of the Supremacy Yea this Doctor confesseth they are most fit to judge what is Law Take in all my words which were these none so fit to judge what those fundamentalls are as They that have power to build new Laws upon them and then make what you can of them or look what is spoken above of Supremacy Sect. 4. of the power of Declaring Law Sect. 6. Then he undertakes to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and has the ill hap to light on Saul David and Solomon for examples because it is said They made Saul King before the Lord 1 Sam. 11. and so of David and Solomon which was the peoples not giving of power but receiving and acknowledging him for King whom the Lord had designed Lastly he has found an example and proofe for the trust of Parliament in Davids time 1 Chron. 13.1 2. David consults with the Captains and Leaders and with all the Congregation about the fetching of the Ark what then These were Officers not of the King but Kingdom and though under him yet were they with him trusted in the affairs of the Kingdom pag. 5. Excellent Collections The Fuller Answer will tell him presently that the Kings of the Iewes were absolute Monarches though I say not so yet this I say those were Officers of the King and Kingdom meerly designed by him not the people and called by him to that trust what he infers that the Parliament is entrusted by the people though not deduceible from that place I grant yet so as that they have a trust from the King upon them too as was above shewn Sect. 4. But that in case they think the King misled it belongs to their trust to take the Armes of the Kingdom as M. Bridge would inferre can neither be drawn out of that place of Scripture nor any Law of this Land that ever could yet be seen The like rambling discourse he has upon the 5. Sect. touching the Monarchicall Government which God set up over his people wherein as he is for the conclusion altogether contrary to the Full Answerer who held the Jewish Monarchy absolute so for his proofes and places of Scripture alleaged altogether impertinent At length he will seem to give us Law for it Inferiour Courts have power to send for by force if need be those that are accused much more the Parliament the highest Court pag. 6. And therefore also inferiour Courts have power to raise Armies to force in the Accused if they refuse to come in upon Summons that would make good work But the Law has provided a force if need be a Posse Comitatûs and the Kings Officer or Minister for that is the Sheriffe but this new way turnes both the King out