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
no politicke power for consider them as men onely and not as associated they have indeed no politicke power but before Magistrates be established they may convene and associate themselves in a body and appoint Magistrates and this they cannot doe if they had no politicke power at all 4. They have virtually a power to lay on Commandements in that they have power to appoint to themselves Rulers who may lay commandements on others 5. A community hath not formally power to punish themselves for to punish is to inflict Malum disconveniens natura an evill contrary to nature but in appointing Rulers and in agreeing to Lawes they consent they shall be punished by another upon supposition of transgression as the child willingly going to schoole submitteth himself in that to Schoole-discipline if he shall faile against any Schoole Law and by all this t is cleare a King by election is principally a King Barclay then faileth who saith No man denyeth but succession to a Crowne by birth is agreeable to nature it is not against nature but it is no more naturall then for a Lyon to be borne a King of Lyons Obj. Most of the best Divines approve an hereditary Monarch rather then a Monarch by election Ans. So doe I in some cases in respect of Empire simply it is not better in respect of Empire now under mans fall in sin I grant it to be better in some respect So Sâ—lust In Ingurth Natura mortalium imperij avida Tacitus Hist. 2. Minore discrimine princeps sumitur quam queritu there 's lesse danger to accept of a Prince at hand then to seeke one a farre off 2. In a Kingdome to be constituted election is better in a constituted Kingdome birth seemeth lesse evill 3. In respect of liberty election is more convenient in respect of safety and peace birth is safer and the nearest way to the Well See Bodin De Rep. l. 6. c. 4. Thol ozan De Rep. l. 7. c. 4. QUEST XII Whether or not a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest THe Prelate averreth confidently that a Title to a Kingdome by Conquest without the consent of the people is so just and evident by Scripture that it cannot be denyed but the man bringeth no Scripture to prove it Mr. Marshall saith a conquered Kingdome is but continuata injuria a continued robbery A right of conquest is twofold 1. When there is no just cause 2. When there is just reason and ground of the war in this latter case if a Prince subdue a whole Land which justly deserveth to dye yet by his grace who is so mild a conquerour they may be all preserved alive Now amongst those who have thus injured the conquerour as they deserve death we are to difference the persons offending and the wives children especially not borne and such as have not offended The former sort may resign their personall liberty to the conquerour that the sweet life may be saved but he cannot be their King properly but I conceive that they are obliged to consent that he be their King upon this condition that the conquerour put not upon them violent and tyrannicall conditions that are harder then death now in reason we cannot thinke that a tyrannous and unjust domineering can be Godâ— lawfull meane of translating Kingdomes and for the other part the conquerour cannot domineere as King over the innocent and especially the children not yet borne 1. Assertion A people may be by Gods speciall Commandement subject to a conquering Nebuchadnezer and a Caesar as to their King as was Iudah commanded by the Prophet Ieremiah to submit unto the yoake of the King of Babylon and to pray for him and the people of the Iewes were to give to Caesar the things of Caesar and yet both those were unjust conquerours for those Tyrants had no command of God to oppresse and raigne over the Lords people yet were they to obey those Kings so the passive subjection was just and commanded of God and the active unjust and tyranous and forbidden of God 2. Assert This title by conquest through the peoples after consent may be turned into a just title as it s like the case was with the Iewes in Caesars time for which cause our Saviour commanded to obey Caesar and to pay tribute unto him as Dr. Ferne confesseth But two things are to be condemned in the Doctor 1. That God manifesteth his Will to us in this worke of providence whereby he translateth Kingdomes 2. That this is an over-awed consent now to the former I reply if the act of conquering be violent and unjust it is no manifestation of Gods regulating and approving Will and can no more prove a just title to a Crowne because it is an act of Divine providence then Pilate and Herod their crucifying of the Lord of Glory which was an act of Divine providence flowing from the Will and Decree of Divine providence Act. 2.23 Act. 4.28 is a manifestation that it was Gods approving Will that they should kill Jesus Christ. 2. Though the consent be some way over-awed yet is it a sort of Contract and Covenant of loyall subjection made to the conquerour and therefore sufficent to make the title just otherwise if the people never give their consent the conquerour domineering over them by violence hath no just title to the Crowne 3. Assert Meere conquest by the sword without the consent of the people is no just title to the Crowne 1. Because the lawfull title that Gods Word holdeth forth to us beside the Lords choosing and calling of a man to the Crowne is the peoples election Deut. 17.15 all that had any lawfull calling to the Crowne in Gods Word as Saul David Solomon c. were called by the people and the first lawfull calling is to us a rule and paterne to all lawfull callings 2. A King as a King and by vertue of his Royall Office is the Father of the Kingdome a Tutor a Defender Protector a Shield a Leader a Shepheard an Husband a Patron a Watchman a Keeper of the people over which he is King and so the Office essentially includeth acts of fatherly affection care love and kindnesse to those over whom he is set so as he who is cloathed with all these relations of love to the people cannot exercise those officiall Acts on a people against their will and by meere violence Can he be a Father and a Guide a Patron to us against our will and by the sole power of the bloudy sword a benefit conferred upon any against their will is no benefit Will he by the awsome dominion of the sword be our father and we unwilling to be his sonnes an head over such as will not be menbers will he guide me as a Father an Husband against my will he cannot come by meere violence to be a Patron a Shield and a defender of me through violence
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
and Captaine but they refuse to doe it except he sweare he shall not betray them to the enemy he doth betray them then must the souldiers be loosed from that contract if one be appointed Pilate of a ship and not but by an Oath if he sell the Passengers to the Turke they may challenge the Pilate of his Oath and it is cleare that 1. the estates should refuse to give the Crown to him who would refuse to governe them according to Gods Law but should professe that he would make his owne will a Law therefore the intention of the Oath is clearely conditionall 2. When the King sweareth the Oath he is but King in fieri and so not as King above the States of Kingdomes now his being King doth not put him in a case above all civill obligation of a King to his subjects because the matter of the Oath is that he shall be under them so farre in regard of the Oath of God Arg. 8. If the Oath of God made to the people doe not bind him to the people to governe according to Law and not according to his will and lust it should be unlawfull for any to sweare such an Oath for if a power above law agree essentially to a King as a King as Royalists hold he who sweareth such a Oath should both sweare to be a King to such a people and should sweare to be no King in respect by his Oath he should renounce that which is essentiall to a King Arnisaeus objecteth Ex particularibus non potest colligi conclusio universalis some few of the Kings as David Ioash made a covenant with the people it followeth not that this was a universall law Ans. Yea the covenant is Deut. 17. and must be a rule to all if so just a man as David was limited by a covenant then all the rest also QUEST XV. Whether or no the King be Vnivocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father IT is true Aristotle Polit. l. 3. c. 11. saith That the Kingly power is a fatherly power and Iustin. Novell 12. c. 2. Pater quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius sit tamen pater est But I doe not beleeve that as Royalists say that the Kingly power is essentially and univocally that same with a paternall or fatherly power or that Adam as a father was as a father and King and that suppose Adam should live in Noahs daies that by divine institution and without consent of the Kingdomes and communities on earth Adam hoc ipso and for no other reason but because he was a father should also be the universall King and Monarch of the whole world or suppose Adam were living to this day that all Kings that hath been since and now are held their Crownes of him and had no more Kingly power then inferiour Iudges in Scotland have under our soveraigne King Charles for so all that hath been and now are lawfull Kings should be unjust usurpers for if fatherly power be the first and native power of commanding it is against nature that a Monarch who is not my father by generation should take that power from me and be a King over both me and my children But I assert that though the Word warrant us to esteem Kings fathers Esa. 49.23 Jud. 5.7 Gen. 20. v. 2. yet are not they essentially and formally fathers by generation Num. c. 11. v. 12. Have I conceived all this people have I begotten them and yet are they but fathers metaphorically 1. By office because they should care for them as fathers doe for children and so come under the name of fathers in the fifth Commandement and therefore rigorous and cruell Rulers are Leopards and Lyons and Wolves Ezech. 22.27 Zeph. 3.3 If then tyrannous Judges be not essentially and formally Leopards and Lyons but only metaphorically neither can Kings be formally fathers 2. Not only Kings but all Iudges are fathers in defending their subjects from violence and the sword and fighting the Lords battells for them and counselling them If therefore Royalists argue rightly A King is essentially a father and fatherly power and royall power are of the same essence and nature As therefore he who is once a father is ever a father and his children cannot take up armes against him to resist him for that is unnaturall repugnant to the 5. Commandement So he who is once a King is evermore a King and it is repugnant to the fifth Commandement to resist him with armes It is answered that the Argument presupposeth that Royall power and Fatherly power is one and the same in nature whereas they differ in nature and are only one by analogie and proportion for so Pastors of the Word are called fathers 1 Cor. 4.15 it will not follow that once a Pastor evermore a Pastor and that if therefore Pastors turne wolves and by hereticall doctrine corrupt the flock they cannot be cast out of the Church 3. A father as a father hath not power of life and death over his sonnes because Rom. 13. by divine institution the sword is given by God to Kings and Iudges and if Adam had had any such power to kill his sonne Cain for the killing of his brother Abel it had been given to him by God as a power politike different from a fatherly power for a fatherly power as such is formally to conserve the life of the childaen and not to take away the life yea and Adam though he had never sinned nor any of his posteritie Adam should have been a perfect father as he is now indued with all fatherly power that any father now hath yea should not God have given the sword or power of punishing ill doers since that power should have been in vaine if there had been no violence nor bloodshed or sinne on the earth for the power of the sword and of lawfull warre is given to men now in the state of sinne 4. Fatherly government and power is from the bosome and marrow of that fountaine law of nature but Royall power is not from the law of nature more then Aristocraticall or Democraticall power D. Ferne saith Monarchie is not jure divino I am not of his mind nor yet from the law of Nature but ductu naturae by the guidance of nature Sure it is from a supervenient commandement of God added to the first law of nature establishing Fatherly power 5. Children having their life and first breathings of nature from their parents must be in a more intire relation from their father then from their Prince Subjects have not their Being naturall but their civill politique and peaceable well-being from their Prince 6. A father is a father by generation and giving the being of nature to children and is a naturall head and root without the free consent and suffrages of his children and is essentially a father to one childe as Adam was to one Cain but a Prince is a Prince by the free
suffrages of a community and cannot be a King to one only and he is the politique head of a civill Corporation 7. A father so long as his children liveth can never leave off to be a father though he were mad and furious though he be the most wicked man on earth Qui genuit filium non potest non genuisse filium what is once past cannot by any power be not passed a father is a father for ever But by confession of Royalists as Barclay Hug. Grotius and Arnisaeus and others grant if a King sell his subjects by sea or land to other nations if he turne a furious Nero he may be dethroned and the power that created the King under such expresse conditions as if the King violate them by his owne consent he shall be put from the Throne may cease to be a King and if a stronger King conquer a King and his subjects Royalists say the conquerour is a lawfull King and so the conquered King must also lawfully come downe from his Throne and turne a lawfull captive sitting in the dust 8. Learned Polititians as Bartholomeus Romulus Defens part 1. num 153. Ioannes de Anania in c. fin de his qui fil occid teach that the father is not obliged to reveale the conspiracy of his son against his Prince nor is he more to accuse his son then to accuse himselfe because the father loveth the sonne better then himselfe D. Listi quidem Sect. Fin. quod met caus D. L. fin c. de cura furiosi and certainly a father had rather dye in his own person as choose to dye in his sonnes in whom he affecteth a sort of immortality In specie quando non potest in individuo but a King doth not love his subjects with a naturall or fatherly love thus and if the affections differ the power which secondeth the affection for the conservation either of being or well being must also differ proportionally The P. Prelate objecteth against us thus stealing word by word from Arnisaeus When a King is elected Soveraigne to a multitude he is surrogated in the place of a common father Exod. 20.5 Honour thy father then as a naturall father receiveth not Paternall right power or authority from his sonnes but hath this from God and the ordinance of nature nor can the King have his right from the community 2. The maxime of the Law is Surrogatus gaudet privilegiis ejus cui surrogatur qui succedit in locum succedit in jus The person surrogated hath all the Priviledges that he hath in whose place he succeedeth he who succeedeth to the place succeedeth to the right the adopted sonne or the bastard who is legittimated and commeth in the place of the lawfull borne sonne commeth also in the priviledges of the lawfull borne sonne a Prince elected commeth to the full possession of the Majesty of a naturall Prince and Father for Modus acquirendi non tollit naturale jus possidendi saith Arnisaeus more fully then the poore Plagiarius the manner of acquiring any thing taketh not away the naturall possession for how ever things be acquired if the title be just possession is the Law of Nations then when the King is chosen in place of the father as the father hath a divine right by nature so must the King have that same and seeing the right proprietor saith the Pamphleting Prelate had his right by God by nature how can it be but howsoever the designation of the person is from the disordered community yet the collation of the power is from God immediatly and from his sacred and inviolable ordinance And what can be said against the way by which any one elected obtained his right for seeing God doth not now send Samuells or Elisha's to anoynt or declare Kings we are in his ordinary providence to conceive the designation of the person is the manifestation of Gods Will called Voluntas signi as the Schooles speake just so as when the Church designeth one to sacred orders Ans. 1. He that is surrogated in the place of another due to him by a positive Law of man he hath Law to all the priviledges that he hath in whose place he is surrogated that is true He who is made Assignee to an Obligation for a summe of money hath all the rights that the principall party to whom the Bond or Obligation was made he who commeth in the place of a Major of a City of a Captaine in an Army of a Pilot in a ship of a Pope hath all the priviledges and Rights that his predecessors had by Law Jus succedit juri persona jure predita personae jure preditae So the Law so far as my reading can reach who professe my selfe a Divine but that he who succeedeth to the place of a father by nature should injoy all the naturall Rights and Priviledges of the person to whom he succeedeth I beleeve the Law never dreamed it for then the adopted sonne comming in place of the naturall sonne hath right to the naturall affection of the father if any should adopt Maxwell the Prelate should he love him as the Pursevant of Craile Maxwell his father loved him I conceive not hath the adopted sonne his life his being the figure bodily the manners of the sonne in whose place he is adopted or doth he naturally resemble the father as the naturall sonne doth The Prelate did not read this Law in any approved Iurist though he did steale the argument from Arnisaeus and stole the citations of Homer and Aristotle out of him with a little Metathesis A naturall sonne is not made a sonne by the consent of Parents but he is a sonne by generation so must the adopted sonne be adopted without the free consent and grace of the father adopting so here the King commeth in the place of a naturall father but I conceive the Law saith not that the elected King is a King without consent of the subjects as the naturall father is a father without consent of his sonnes 2. Nor is it a Law true as once a father alwaies a father so once an elected King alwaies a King though he sell his subjects being induced thereunto by wicked Counsellors 3. If the King have no priviledges but what the naturall father hath in whose place he commeth then as the naturall father in a free Kingdome hath not power of life and death over his sonnes neither hath the King power of life and death over his subjects this is no Law 4 This maxime should prove good if the King were essentially a father by generation and naturall propagation but he is onely a father Metaphorically and by a borrowed speech A father non generando sed politicò alendo tuendo regendo therefore an elected Prince commeth not in the full possession of all the naturall power and rights of a naturall father 2. The P. Prelate speaketh disgracefully of the Church of God calling it a disorderly community as if he
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
fundamentall in that notion Some object The three Estates as men and looking to their owne ends not to Law and the publick good are not fundamentalls and are to be judged by the King Ans. By the people and the conscience of the people they are to be judged Obj. But the people also doe judge as corrupt men and not as the people and a Politique Body providing for their owne safety Ans. I grant all when God will bring a vengeance on Jerusalem Prince and people both are hardened to their owne destruction Now God hath made all the three in every Government where there is Democracy there is some chosen ones resembling an Aristocracy and some one for order presiding in Democraticall courts resembling a King In Aristocracy as in Holland there is somewhat of Democracy the people have their Commissioners and one Duke or Generall as the Prince of Orange is some umbrage of Royalty and in Monarchy there are the three Estates of Parliament and these containe the three Estates and so somewhat of the three formes of Government and there is no one Government just that hath not some of all three powre and absolute Monarchy is Tyranny unmixed Democracy is confusion untempered Aristocracy is factious Dominion and a limited Monarchy hath from Democracy respect to publick good without confusion From Aristocracy safety in multitude of Counsells without factious emulation and so a barre laid on Tyranny by the joynt powers of many and from Soveraignty union of many children in one father and all the three thus contempered have their owne sweet fruits through Gods blessing and their owne diseases by accident and through mens corruption and neither reason nor Scripture shall warrant any one in its rigid purity without mixture And God having chosen the best government to bring men fallen in sinne to happinesse must warrant in any one a mixture of all three as in mixt bodies the foure Elements are reduced to a fit temper resulting of all the foure where the acrimony of all the foure first qualities is broken and the good of all combined in one The King as the King is an unerring and living Law and by grant of Barclay of old was one of excellent parts and noble through vertue and goodnesse and the goodnesse of a father as a father of a tutor as a tutor of a head as a head of a husband as a husband doe agree to the King as the King so as King he is the Law it selfe commanding governing saving 2. His Will as King or his Royall Will is reason conscience Law 3. This Will is politickly present when his person is absent in all Parliaments Courts and inferiour Iudicatures 4. The King as King cannot doe wrong or violence to any 5. Amongst the Romanes the name King and Tyrant were common to one thing 1. Because de facto some of their Kings were Tyrants in respect of their Dominion rather then Kings 2. Because he who was a Tyrant De facto should have been and was a King too de jure 6. It is not lawfull to either disobey or resist a King as a King no more then it is lawfull to disobey a good Law 7. What violence what unjustice and excesse of passion the King mixeth in with his Acts of Government are meerely accidentall to a King as King for because men by their owne innate goodnesse will not yea Morally cannot doe that which is lawfull and just one to another and doe naturally since the fall of man violence one to another therefore if there had not been sin there should not have been need of a King more then there should have beene need of a Tutor to defend the child whose father is not dead or of a Physitian to cure sicknesse where there is health for remove sinne and there is neither death nor sicknesse but because sinne is entered into the world God devised as a remedy of violence and unjustice a living rationall breathing Law called a King a Iudge a Father now the aberrations violence and oppression of this thing which is the living rationall breathing Law is no Medium no meane intended by God and nature to remove violence How shall violence remove violence Therefore an unjust King as unjust is not that genuine ordinance of God appointed to remove unjustice but accidentall to a King So we may resist the unjustice of the King and not resist the King 8 If then any cast off the nature of a King and become habitually a Tyrant in so farre he is not from God nor any ordinance which God doth owne If the Office of a Tyrant to speake so be contrary to a Kings Offices it is not from God and so neither is the power from God 9. Yea Lawes which are no lesse from God then the Kings are when they begin to be hurtfull Cessant materialiter they leave off to be Lawes because they oblige Non secundum vim verborum sed in vim sensus not according to the force of words but according to sense l. Non figura literarum F. de actione obligatione l. ita stipulatus But who saith the Royalists shall be judge betwixt the King and the people when the people alledge that the King is a Tyrant Ans. There is a Court of necessity no lesse then a Court of Justice and 2. The fundamentall Lawes must then speake and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no Ruler Obj. 1. But if the Law be doubtsome as all humane all Civill all municipall Lawes may endure great dispute the peremptory person exponing the Law must be the supreame Iudge This cannot be the people ergo it must be the King Ans. 1. As the Scriptures in all fundamentalls are cleare and expone themselves and Actu primo condemne Heresies so all Lawes of men in their fundamentals which are the Law of Nature and of Nations are cleare And 2. Tyranny is more visible and intelligible then Heresie and it s soone decerned If a King bring in upon his native subjects twenty thousand Turks armed and the King lead them It is evident they come not to make a friendly visite to salute the Kingdom and depart in peace the people have a naturall throne of policie in their conscience to give warning and materially sentence against the King as a Tyrant and so by nature are to defend themselves Where Tyranny is more obscure and the thred small that it escape the eye of men the King keepeth possession but I deny that Tyranny can be obscure long Object 2. Doct. Ferne. A King may not or cannot easily alter the frame of fundamentall Laws he may make some actuall invasion in some transient and not fixed acts and it is safer to bear these then to raise a civill Warre of the Body against the Head Answ. 1. If the King as King may alter any one wholesome Law by that same reason he may alter all 2. You give short wings to
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
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
for then Aristocracy and Democracy must be unnaturall and so unlawfull Governments 3. If to be congruous to the condition of man be all one with naturall man which he must say if he speake sense to beleeve in God to be an excellent Mathematician to swim in deepe waters being congruous to the nature of man must be naturall 4. Man by nature is under government Paternall not Politique properly but by the free consent of his will Obj. 4. Luke 11.5 Christ himselfe was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to his Parents the word that is used Rom. 13. ergo none is exempted from subjection to lawfull government Ans. We never said that any was exempted from lawfull goverment the Prelate and his fellow Iesuites teach that the Clergy is exempted from the lawes of the civill Magistrate not we but because Christ was subject to his Parents and the same word is used Luk. 11. that is Rom. 13. it will not follow therefore men are by nature subject to Kings because they are by nature subject to parents Obj. 5. The father had power over the children by the Law of God and nature to redeeme himselfe from debt or any distressed condition by inslaving his children begotten of his owne body if this power was not by the right of nature and by the Warrant of God I can see no other for it could not be by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers Ans. 1. Shew a law of nature that the father might inslave his children by a Divine positive law presupposing sin the father might doe that and yet I thinke that may be questioned whether it was not a permission rather then a law as was the Bill of devorce but a law of nature it was not 2. The P. Prelate can see no Law but the law of nature here but it is because he is blind or will not see his reason is it was not by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers ergo it was by the law of nature so he that cursed his father was to dye by Gods Law This law was not made by mutuall consent betwixt the Father and the Sonne ergo it was a law of inature the Prelate will see no better Nature will teach a man to inslave hmselfe to redeeme himselfe from death but that it is a Dictate of nature that a man should inslave his sonne I conceive not 3. What can this prove but that if the sonne may by the law of nature be inslaved for the father but that the sonne of a slave is by nature under subjection to slavery that by natures law the contrary whereof he spake in the page preceding and in this same page As for the Argument of the Prelate to answer Suarez who laboureth to prove Monarchy not to be naturall but of free consent because it is various in sundry nations it is the Iesuites Argument not ours I owne it not Let Iesuites plead for Iesuites QUEST XIIII Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects because there be no such equality say Royalists betwixt the King and his people as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court to either necessitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people or to tye him to any punishment if he faile yet say they he is under naturall obligation in Gods Court to keepe his Oath but he is comptible only to God if he violate his Oath Asser. 1. There is an Oath betwixt the King and his people laying on by reciprocation of bands mutuall civill obligation upon the King to the people and the people to the King 2 Sam. 5.3 So all the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel 1 Chron. 11.3 And David made a covenant with them before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel 2 Chron. 23.2 And they went about in Iudah and gathered the Levites out of all the Cities of Iudah and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel and they came to Ierusalem 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the King Ioash in the house of God 2 King 11.17 and Jehoiada made a covenant betwixt the Lord and the King and the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also and his people Eccles. 8.2 I counsell thee to keepe the Kings commandement and that in regard of the Oath of God then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the King and the people 2. That was not a covenant that did tye the King to God onely and not to the people 1. because the covenant betwixt the King and the people is clearly differenced from the Kings covenant with the Lord 2 King 11.17 2. there were no necessity that this covenant should be made publickly before the people if the King did not in the covenant tye and oblige himselfe to the people nor needed it be made solemnly before the Lord is the House of God 3. It is expresly a covenant that was between Ioash the King and his people and David made a covenant at his Coronation with the Princes and Elders of Israel therefore the people give the Crown to David Covenant-wise and upon condition that he should performe such and such duties to them and this is cleare by all Covenants in the Word of God even the Covenant between God and man is so mutuall I will be your God and yee shall be my people The covenant is so mutuall that if the people breake the covenant God is loosed from his part of the covenant Zach. 11. v. 10.2 The covenant giveth to the beleever a sort of action of Law and jus quoddam to plead with God in respect of his fidelity to stand to that covenant that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity Esay 43.26 Es. 63.16 Daniel 9.4 5. and farre more a covenant giveth ground of a civill action and claime to a people and the free estates against a King seduced by wicked counsell to make war against the Land whereas he did sweare by the most high God that he should be a father and protector of the Church of God 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man yea all solemne promises bring the covenanters under a Law and a claime before men if the Oath of God be broken as the Covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech Gen. 21.27 Ionathan and David 1 Sam. 18.3 the spies professe to Rahab in the covenant that they made with him Iosh. 2. v. 20. And if thou utter this our businesse
brother so farre Gods spirituall law requiring both conservation of it in our person and preservation in others The forced Damsell was commanded to cry for help and not the Magistrate onely but the neerest private man or woman was to come by an obligation of a divine Law of the seventh Commandement to rescue the Damsell with violence even as a man is to save his enemies Oxe or his Asse out of a pit And if a private man may inflict bodily punishment of two degrees to preserve the life and chastity of his neighbour far rather then suffer his life and chastity to be taken away then he may inflict violence of foure degrees even to killing for his life and much more for his owne life So when a Robber with deadly weapons invadeth an innocent traveller to kill him for his goods upon the supposition that if the Robber be not killed the innocent shall be killed Now the question is which of the two by Gods morall Law and revealed will in point of conscience ought to be killed by his fellow for we speake not now of Gods eternall decree of permitting evill according to the which murtherers may crucifie the innocent Lord of glory by no morall Law of God should the uâ—just robber kill the innocent traveller therefore in this exigence of providence the traveller should rather kill the robber If any say by Gods morall Law not one should kill his fellow and it is a sin against the morall Law in either to kill other I answer If a third shall come in when the robber and the innocent are invading each other for his life all acknowledge by the sixt Commandement the third may cut off the robbers arme to save the innocent but by what Law of God he may cut off his arme he may take his life also to save the other for it is murther to wound unjustly and to dismember a man by private authority as it is to take away his life If therefore the third may take away the robbers member then also his life so hee doe it without malice or appetite of revenge and if he may doe it out of this principle Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe because a man is obliged more to love his owne flesh then his neighbours Ephes. 5.28 and so more to defend himselfe then to defend his neighbour then may he oppose violence to the robber As two men drowning in a water the one is not obliged by Gods Law to expose himselfe to drowning to save his neighbour but by the contrary hee is obliged rather to save himselfe though it were with the losse of his neighbours life As in war if souldiers in a strait passage be pursued on their life nature teacheth them to flee if one fall his fellow in that exigence is not onely not obliged to lift him up but he and the rest flying though they trample on him and kill him they are not guilty of murther seeing they hated him not before Deut. 19.4.6 so Chemnit loc com de vindic q. 3. alloweth private defence 1. When the violence is suddaine And the 2. Violence manifestly inevitable 3. When the Magistrate is absent and cannot help 4. When moderation is kept as Lawyers require 1. That it be done incontinent if it be done after the injury it is revenge not defence 2. Not of Desire of revenge 3. With proportion of armor If the violent invader invade not with deadly weapons you must not invade him with deadly weapons and certainly the law Exod. 22. of a mans defending his house is clear 1. If he come in the night it is presumed he is a robber 2. If he be taken with a weapon breaking the house he cometh to kill a man may defend himself wife and children but he is 3. but to wound him and if he die of the wound the defender is free so the defender is not to intend his death but to save himself 5. It were a mighty defect in providence to man if dogs by nature may defend themselves against Wolves Bulls against Lyons Doves against Haukes if man in the absence of the lawfull Magistrate should not defend himself against unjust violence but one man might raise armies of Papists sick for blood to destroy innocent men They object When the King is present in his person and his invaders he is not absent and so though you may rather kill a private man then suffer your self to be killed yet because prudence determineth the means of self-defence you are to expose your life to hazard for justice of your King and therefore not to do violence to the life of your King nor can the body in any self-defence fight against the head that must be the destruction of the whole Ans. Though the King be present as an unjust invader in Warres against his innocent subjects he is absent as a King and a father and defender and present as an unjust grassator and therefore the innocent may defend themselves when the King neither can nor will defend him Nature maketh a man saith the law l. Gener. c. de decur l. 10. l. si alius â— Bellissimè ubique Gloss. in vers ex magn not per. ilâ—um text ff quod vi aut clam l. ait praetor § si debitorem nicum ff de hisque in fraud credito even a privat man his own judge magistrate and defender quando copiam judicis qui sibi jus reddat non habet When he hath no judge to give him justice and law 2. The subjects are to give their lives for the King as the King because the safety of the King as King is the safety of the common-wealth But the King as offering unjust violence to his innocent subjects is not King Zoannet part 3. defens n. 44. transgrediens notoriè officium suum judex agit velut privatus aliquis non ut magistratus ff de injur est bonus in simili in l. qui fundum § si tutor ff pro emptore 3. If the politick body fight against this head in particular not as head but as an oppressor of the people There is no fear of dissolution if the body rise against all magistracy as magistracy and lawes dissolution of all must follow Parliaments and inferiour judges are heads Num. 1.16 Num. 10.4 Deut. 1.15 Iosh. 22.21 Mic. 3.1 ver 9.11 1 King 8.1 1 Chron. 5.25 2 Chro. 5.2 No lesse then the King and it is unlawfull to offer violence to them though I shall rather thinke a private man is to suffer the King to kill him rather then he kill the King because he is to preferre the life of a private man to the life of a publique man 6. By the law of nature a ruler is appointed to defend the innocent Now by nature an infant in the wombe dâ—fendeth it self first before the parents can defend it then when parents and magistrates are not and violent invading magistrates are not in that magistrates nature hath commended every
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
absolute power is essentially a power to do without or above Law and a power to doe ill to destroy and so it cannot come from God as a Morall power by institution though it come from God by a flux of permissive providence but so things unlawfull and sinfull come from God Quest. 7. Whether the King may in his actions intend his owne Prerogative and Absolutenes Answ. He can neither intend it as his nearest end nor as his remote end Not the former for if he fight and destroy his People for a Prerogative he destroyeth his People that he may have a power to destroy them which must be meere Tyranny nor can it be his remote end for granting that his supposed absolute Prerogative were lawfull he is to referre all lawfull Power and all his actions to a more noble end to wit to the safetie and good of the People Quest. 8. Doe not they that resist the Parliaments power resist the Parliament And they that resist the Kings power resist the King God hath joyned King and Power who dare seperate them Answ. If the Parliament abuse their power we may resist their abused power and not their power Parliamentarie Mr. Bridges doth well distinguish in his Annot. on the Loyall Convert betwixt the Kings power and the Kings will 2. The Resisters doe not separate King and Power but the King himselfe doth separate his lawfull Power from his Will if he worke and act Tyrannie out of this principle Will Passion Lust not out of the Royall principle of Kingly power So far we may resist the one and not the other Quest. 9. Why if God might work a miracle in the three Childrens resistance active why doth he evidence omnipotencie in the passive obedience of these Witnesses The Kingdome of Iudah was Christs birthright as man and Davids sonne why did he not by legions of Men Angels rather vindicate his own flesh and blood than triumph by non-resistance and the omnipotencie of glorie to shine in his meere suffering Ans. Who art thou that disputest with God He that killeth with the jaw-bone of an Asse thousands and he that destroyed the numberlesse Midianites by only three hundred should no more put the three Children to an unlawfull fact in the one if they had by three men killed Nebuchadnezzar and all his Subjects than in the other But nothing is said against us in a Sophisme à non-causa pro causa except it be proved God would neither deliver his three Children nor Christ from death and the Iewes from bondage by miraculous resistance because resistance is unlawfull What patient suffring is lawfull Ergo resistance is unlawfull It is a poor consequent and a begging of the question both must be lawfull to us And so we hold of ten lawfull meanes fit to compasse Gods blessed end he may choose one and let goe nine shall any inferre ergo These other nine meanes are unlawfull because God chose a mean dâ—fferent from those ninâ— and refused them So may I answer by retortion The three hundred sinned in resisting Midian and defeating them Why Because it should be more honour to God if they had by suffering patiently the sword of Midian glorified God in Martyrdome So Christ and the Apostles who could have wrought miracles might have wrought Reformation by the sword and destroyed Kings and Emperors the opposers of the Lambe and they did reforme by suffering Ergo the sword is unlawfull in Reformation It followeth not The meane Christ used is lawfull Ergo all other meanes that he used not are unlawfull It is vaine Logick Quest. 10. Whether is the Coronation of a King any other thing but a Ceremonie Ans. In the Coronation there is and may be the Ceremonie of a shout and an Acclamation and the reaching of a Scepter in his right hand who is made King and the like But the Coronation in concreto according to the substance of the act is no Ceremonie nor any accidentall ingredient in the constitution of a King 1. Because Israel should have performed a meere ceremoniall action on Saul when they made him King which we cannot say for as the Peoples act of Coronation is distinctive so is it constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and did constitute him in a new relation that he was changed from no King to be a King 2. The people cannot by a Ceremonie make a King they must really put some honour on him that was not on him before Now this Ceremonie which Royalists doe fancie Coronation to be is only symbolicall and declarative not really dative it placeth nothing in the King Quest. 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King it being the immediate result without intervening of Law or any act of man issuing from God only Ans. Though we should give which in reason we cannot grant that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God without any act of man Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle without any act of men yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power that he abuse it not to Iudaizing Royalists deny not but they teach That the 80. Priests that restrained Vzziah his power from burning incense to the Lord gave no Royall power to Vzziah Doe not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power that he kill not the subjects without cause yet they teach That subjects gave no power to the King certainly this is a proofe of the immense power of the King of Kings that none can fly from his pursuing hand Ps. 139.1 2 3. Amos 9.1 2 3 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings Nebuchadnezzar as Royalists teach might justly conquer some Kingdomes for conquest is a just title to the Crowne say they now the Conquerour then justly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him yet we know the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King Ioshua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave and therefore this is no good reason The people gave not to the King Royall Power ergo they could not lawfully limit it and take it away 2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly without the intervention of any Act of Law for it is an Act of Law that Deut. 17. the people chooseth such a King not such a King that the people by a legall covenant make Saul David and Joash Kings and that God exerciseth any politicall action of making a King over such subjects upon such a condition is absurd and inconceivable for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jsrael upon this politicall and legall condition that they rule in Iustice and Judgement but there must intervene a politicall action and so they are not made Kings immediatly If God feed Moses by bread and Manna
3. It is not to be thought that that is Gods just Title to a Crowne which hath nothing in it of the essence of a King but a violent and bloody purchase which is in its prevalency in an oppressing Nymrod and the cruellest tyrant that is hath nothing essentiall to that which constituteth a King for it hath nothing of Heroick and Royall wisedome and gifts to governe and nothing of Gods approving and regulating will which must be manifested to any who would be a King but by the contrary cruelty hath rather basenesse and witlesse fury and a plaine reluctancy with Gods revealing Will which forbideth murther Gods Law should say Murther thou and prosper and raigne and by the act of violating the sixt Commandement God should declare his approving Will to wit his lawfull call to a Throne 4. There be none under a Law of God who may resist a lawfull call to a lawfull Office but men may resist any impulsion of God stirring them up to murther the maniest and strongest and cheife men of a Kingdome that they may raigne over the fewest the weakest and the young and lowest of the people against their will therefore this call by the sword is not lawfull If it be said that the Divine impulsion stirring up a man to make a bloody conquest that the ire and just indignation of God in Iustice may be declared on a wicked Nation is an extraordinary impulsion of God who is above a Law and therefore no man may resist it Ans. then all bloody Conquerors must have some extraordinary revelation from Heaven to warrant their yeelding of obedience to such an extraordinary impulsion And if it be so They must shew a lawfull and immediate extraordinary impulsion now but it is certaine the sinnes of the people conquered and their most equall and just demerit before God cannot be a just plea to legitimate the Conquest for though the people of God deserved vastation and captivitie by the Heathen in regard of their sinnes before the throne of Divine Iustice yet the Heathen grievously sinned in conquering them Zach. 1.15 And I am very sore displeased with the Heathen that are at ease for I was but a little displeased and they helped forward the affliction So though Iudah deserved to be made captives and a conquered people because of their idolatry and other sinnes as Ieremiah had prophecied yet God was highly displeased at Babylon for their unjust and bloody Conquest Jer. 50.17 18 33 34. c. 51.35 The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon shall the inhabitants of Zion say and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea shall Jerusalem say And that any other extraordinary impulsion to be as lawfull a call to the Throne as the peoples free election we know not from Gods word and we have but the naked word of our Adversaries that William the Conquerour without the peoples consent made himselfe by blood the lawfull King of England and also of all their posteritie And that King Fergus conquered Scotland 5. A King is a speciall gift of God given to feed and defend the people of God that they may lead a godly and peaceable life under him Psal. 78. v. 71 72. 1 Tim. 2.2 as it is a judgement of God that Israel is without a King for many dayes Hos. 3.4 and that there is no Iudge no King to put evill doers to shame Iudg. 19.1 but if a King be given of God as a King by the acts of a bloody Conquest to be avenged on the sinfull land over which he is made a King he cannot be given actu primo as a speciall gift and blessing of God to feed but to murther and to destroy for the genuine end of a Conqueror as a Conqueror is not peace but fire and sword If God change his heart to be of a bloody Vastator a father Prince and feeder of the people ex officio now he is not a violent Conquerour and he came to that meeknes by contraries which is the proper worke of the omnipotent God and not proper to man who as he cannot worke miracles so neither can he lawfully worke by contraries and so if Conquest be a lawfull title to a Crown and an ordinary calling as the opponents presume every bloody Conquerour must be changed into a loving father Prince and feeder and if God call him none should oppose him but the whole Land should dethrone their own native Soveraigne whom they are obliged before the Lord to defend and submit to the bloody invasion of a strange Lord presumed to be a just Conqueror as if he were lawfully called to the Throne both by birth and the voyces of the people And truly they deserve no wages who thus defend the Kings Prerogative royall for if the sword be a lawfull title to the crown suppose the two Generals of both Kingdomes should conquer the most and the chiefest of the Kingdome now when they have so many forces in the field by this wicked reason the one should have a lawfull call of God to be King of England and the other to be King of Scotland which is absurd 6. Either conquest as conquest is a just title to the crown or as a just conquest If as Conquest then all conquests are just titles to a Crown then the Ammonites Zidonians Canaanites Edomites c. subduing Gods people for a time have just title to reigne over them and if Absolom had been stronger then David he had then had the just title to be the Lords Anointed and King of Israel not David and so strength actually prevailing should be Gods lawfull call to a Crown But strength as strength victorious is not law nor reason it were then reason that Herod behead John Baptist and the Roman Emperors kill the witnesses of Christ Iesus If Conquest as just be the title and lawfull claime before Gods court to a Crown then certainly a stronger King for pregnant nationall injuries may lawfully subdue and reigne over an innocent posteritie not yet borne But what word of God can 1. warrant a posteritie not borne and so accessarie to no offence against the Conquerour but only sin originall to be under a Conquerour against their will and who hath no right to reigne over them but the bloody sword for so Conquest as Conquest not as just maketh him King over the posterity But 2. the fathers may ingage the posterity by an oath to surrender themselvos as loyall subjects to the man who justly and deservedly made the fathers vassals by the title of the sword of justice I answer the fathers may indeed dispose of the inheritance of their children because that inheritance belongeth to the father as well ar to the sonne but because the liberty of the sonne being borne with the sonne all men being borne free from all Civill subjection the father hath no more power to resigne the libertie of his children then their lives and the