woman and men above beasts because those that are not can exercise no act at all But it followeth not ergo all the workes of providence such as is the government of Kingdomes are done immediatly by God for in the workes of providence for the most part in ordinary God worketh by meanes it is then as good a consequence as this God immediatly created man ergo he keepeth his life immediatly also without foode and sleepe God immediatly created the Sunne ergo God immediatly without the mediation of the Sunne giveth light to the world The making of a King is an act of reason and God hath given a man reason to rule himselfe and therefore hath given to a society an instinct of reason to appoint a governour over themselves but no act of reason goeth before man be created ergo it is not in his power whether he be created a creature of greater power then a beast or no. 4. God by creation gave power to a man over the creatures and so immediatly but I hope a man cannot say God by creation hath made a man King over men 5. The Excellency of Monarchy if it be excellenter then any other government of which hereafter is no ground why it should be immediatly from God as well as mans dominion over the creature for then the worke of mans redemption being more excellent then the rayâ—ing 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 â—or 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 designed 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 have 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 in dustrie 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
no politique power whereby they may lay a command on others but onely a naturall power of private resistance which they cannot use against the Magistrate Ans But to take off those by the way 1. If the King may choose A. B. an Ambassadour and limit him in his power and say Doe this and say this to the forraigne State you goe to but no more halfe a wit will say the King createth the Ambassadour and the Ambassadours power is originally from the King and we prove the power of the Lyon is originally from God and of the Sea and the fire is originally from God because God limiteth the Lyon in the exercises of its power that it shall not devoure Daniel and limiteth the Sea as Ieremiah saith when as he will have its proud Waves to come thither and no farther and will have the fire to burne those who throwe the three Children into the fiery furnace and yet not to burne the three Children for this is as if Doctor Ferne said the power of the King of six degrees rather then his power of five is from the people therefore the power of the King is not from the people yea the contrary is true 2. That the people can make a King supreame that is Absolute and so resigne natures birth-right that is a power to defend themselves is not lawfull for if the people have not absolute power to destroy themselves they cannot resigne such a power to their Prince 3. It is false that a community before they be established with formall Rulers have 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 naturae 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 Salust In Iugurth 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 câ—ntinuata 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 Gods 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.
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 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. Driedo 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 subjection 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 sacrae 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 do invtil scrupl l. inter Stipulantem S. Sacram. F. de verber Obligat 3 Assert Every man by
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 politicè 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 himselfe were borne of Kings where as God calleth the King their Shepheard and the people Gods flocke inheritance and people and they are not a disorderly body by nature but by sin in which sense the Prelate may call King Priest and people a company of Heires of Gods wrath except he be an Arminian still as once he was 3. If we are in ordinary providence now because we have not Samuels and Prophets to anoynt Kings to hold the designation of a person to be King to be the manifestation of Gods Will called voluntas â—igni is Treason for if Scotland and England should designe Maxwell in the place of King Charles our native Soveraigne an odious comparison Maxwell should be lawfull King for what is done by Gods Will called by our Divines they have it not from Schoolemen as the Prelate ignorantly saith his signified will which is our rule is done lawfully there can be no greater treason put in print then this QUEST XVI Whether or no a despotiticall and masterly dominion of men and things agree to the King because he is King I May here dispute whether the King be Lord having a masterly dominion both over men and things But I first discusse shortly his dominion over his subjects It is agreed on by Divines that servitude is a penall fruit of sinne and against nature Institut de jure personarum Sect. 1. F. de statu hominum l. libertas Because all men are borne by nature of equall condition 1 Assert The King hath no proper masterly or herile dominion over his subjects his dominion is rather fiduciary and ministeriall than masterly 1. Because Royall Empire is essentially to feed rule defend and to governe in Peace and Godlinesse 1 Tim. 2. 2. as the father doth his children Ps 78. 71. He brought him to feed Jacob his people and Israel his inheritance Esa 55. 4. I gave him for a leader and commander to the people 2 Sam. 5. 2. Thou shalt feed my people Israel 2 Sam. 5. 2. 1 Chron 11. 2. 1 Chron 17. 6. And so it is for the good of the people and to bring those over whom he is a feeder and ruler to such a happy end and as saith Althusius polit c. 1. n. 13. and Marius Salomonius de princ â— 2. it is to take care of the good of those over whom the Ruler is set and conservare est rem illaesam servare to keep a thing safe But to be a Master and to have a masterly and herile power over slaves and servants is to make use of servants for the owners benefit not for the good of the slave L. 2. de leg L. Servus de servit expert Danae polit l. 1. Tolossan de Rep. l. 1. c. 1. n. 15 16. therefore are servants bought and sold as goods jure belli F. de statu hominum l. servorum 2. Not to be under Governors and Magistrates is a judgement of God Esa 3. 6 7. Esa 3. 1. Hos 3. 4. Iudg. 19. 1 2. But not to be under a master as slaves are is a blessing seeing freedome is a blessing of God Ioh. 8. 33. Exod. 21. 2. v. 26 27. Deut. 15. 12. so he that killeth Goliah 1 Sam. 17. 25. his fathers house shall be free in Israel Ier. 34. 9. Act. 22. 28. 1 Cor. 9. 19. Gal. 4. 26. 31. Therefore the power of a King cannot be an herile and masterly power for then to be under a Kingly power should both be a blessing and a curse and just punishment of sinne 3. Subjects are called the servants of the King 1 Sam. 15. 2. 2 Chron. 13. 7. 1 King 12. 7. Exod. 10. 1 â— Exod 9. 20. but they are not slaves because Deut. 17. 20. they are his brethren That the Kings heare be not lifted up against his brethren And his sonnes Esa 49. 23. And the Lord gave his people a King as a blessing 1 King 10. 9. Hos 1. 11. Esa 1. 26. Ier. 17. 25. And brought them out of the house of bondage Exod. 20. v. 2. as out of a place of miserie And therefore to be the Kings servants in the places cited is some other thing then to be he Kings slaves 4. The Master might in some cases sell the servant for money yea for his own gain he might doe it Nehem. 5. 8. Eccles 2. 7. 1 King 2. 32. Gâ—n 9 25. Gen. 26 14. 2 King 4. 1. Gen. 20. 14. and might give away his servants and the servants were the proper goods and riches of the master Eccles 2. 7. Gen. 30. 43. Gen. 20. 14. Job 1. 3. 15. But the King may not sell his Kingdome or Subjects or give them away for money or any other way for Royalists grant that King to be a Tyrant and worthy to be dethroned who shall sell his people for the King may not delapidate the rents of the Crown and give them away to the hurt and prejudice of his successors L. ult Sect. sed nostr C. Comment de lege l. petâ— 69. Sect. fratrom de lege 2. l. 32. ulâ—imo D. T. and
1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother Caâ—n ought in his place to be the keeper of Abel his brother So hath God committed the keeping of the Commonwealth by a positive law not to the King only because that is impossible Num. 11. 14 17. 2 Chron. 19. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Chron. 27. 4. If the King had such a power as King and so from God he should have power to breake up the meeting of all Courts of Parliament Secret Councell and all inferior Iudicatures And when the Congregation of gods as Ps 82. in the midst of which the Lord standeth were about to pronounce just judgement for the oppressed and poere they might be hindred by the King and so they should be as just as the King maketh them and might pervert judgement and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Esa 5. 23. because the King commandeth And the cause of the poore should not come before the Iudge when the King so commandeth And shall it excuse the Estates to say We could not judge the cause of the poore nor crush the Priests of Baal and the idolatrous Masse-Preltes because the King forbad us So might the King breake up the meeting of the Lords of Session when they were to decerne that Naboths vineyard should be restored to him and hinder the States to represse Tyranny And this were as much as if the States should say We made this man our King and with our good will we agree he shall be a Tyrant For if God gave it to him as a King we are to consent that he enjoy it 5. If Barclay and other flatterers have leave to make the Parliament but Counsellers and Advisers of the King and the King to be the only and sole Iudge 1. The King is by that same reason the sole Iudge in relation to all Iudges the contrary whereof is cleere Num. 11. 16. Deut 1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Yea but say they the King when he sendeth an Ambassadour he may tye him to a written Commission and in so far as he exceedeth that he is not an Ambassadour and cleare it is that all inferiour Iudges 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. are but sent by the King ergo they are so Iudges as they are but messengers and are to adhere to the Royall pleasure of the Prince that 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 prononnce 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 jearim 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 â—iercely 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
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 â— 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 Hercsies 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 an Arbitrary Prince if he cannot over flie all Laws to the subversion of the Fundamentalls of a State if you make him as you do 1. One who hath the sole Legislative power who allanerly by himself maketh Laws and his Parliament and Councell are onely to give him advice which by Law he may as easily reject as they can speak words to him He may in one transient act and it is but one cancell all Laws made against idlolatry and Popery and command through bad Counsell in all his Dominions the Pope to be acknowledged as Christs Vicar and all his doctrine to be established as the Catholike true Religion It is but one transient act to seal a pardon to the shedding of the blood of two hundred thousand killed by Papists 2. You make him a King who may not be resisted in any case and though he subvert all Fundamentall Laws he is countable to God onely his people have no remedy but prayers or flight Object 3. Ferne Limitations and mixtures in Monarchies do not imply a forceable restraining power in subjects for the preventing of the dissolution of the State but onely a legall restraining power and if such a restraining power be in the subjects by reservation then it must be expressed in the constitution of the Government and in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people but such a condition â—â— unlawfull which will not have the Soveraign power secured is unprofitable for King and people a seminary for seditions and jealousies Answ I understand not a difference betwixt forceable restraining and legall restraining For he must mean by legall mans Law because he saith It is a Law in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people Now if this be not forceable and physicall it is onely Morall in the conscience of the King and a Cypher and a meer vanitie for God not the people putteth a restraint of conscience on the King that he may not oppresse his poor subjects but he shall sin against God that is a poor restraint the goodnesse of the King a sinfull man inclined from the womb to all sin and so to Tyranny is no restraint 2. There 's no necessitie that the reserve be expressed in the Covenant between King and people more then in contract of marriage between a husband and a wife beside her joynter you should set down this clause in the contract that if the husband attempt to kill the wife or the wife the husband in that case it shall be lawfull to either of them to part companies For Doct. Ferne saith That personall defence is lawfull in the people if the Kings assault be 1. Suddain 2. Without colour of Law 3. Inevitable Yet the reserve of this power of defence is not necessarily to be expressed in the contract betwixt King and people Exigences of the Law of nature cannot be set down in positive Covenants they are presupposed 3. He saith A reservation of power whereby soveraigntie is not secured is unlawfull Lend me this Argument The giving away of a power of defence and a making the King absolute is unlawfull because by it the people is not secured but one man hath thereby the sword of God put in his hand whereby ex officio he may as King cut the throats of thousands and be countable to none therefore but to God onely now if the non-securing of the King make a condition unlawfull the non-securing of a Kingdom and Church yea of the true religion which are infinitely in worth above one single man may far more make the condition unlawfull 4.
Tyrannicall power if he make captives and slaves of them as the Kings of Chaldea made slaves of the people of Israel What Because God useth another mean Ergo This mean is not lawfull It followeth in no sort If we must use no means but what the captive people did under Cyrus we may not lawfully flie nor supplicate for the people did neither P. Prelate You read of no Covenant in Scripture made without the King Exod. 34. Moses King of Iesurum neither Tables nor Parliament framed it Joshua another Iosh 24. and Asa 2 Chron. 15. and 2 Chron. 34. and Ezra 10. The Covenant of Iehojada in the non-age of Ioash was the High Priests Act as the Kings Governour There is a covenant with Hell made without the King and a false Covenant Hos 10. 3 4. Answ We argue this negatively This is neither commanded nor practised nor warranted by promise Ergo It is not lawfull But this is not practised in Scripture Ergo It is not lawfull It followeth it Shew me in Scripture the killing of a Goaring On who killed a man the not making battlements on an house the putting to death of a man lying with a Beast the killing of seducing Prophets who tempted the people to go a whoring and serve another God then Jehovah I mean a god made by the hand of the Baker such a one as the excommunicated Prelate is known to be who hath Preached this Idolatry in three Kingdoms yet Deut. 13. This is written and all the former Laws are divine Precepts shall the Precept make them all unlawfull because they are not practised by some in Scripture By this I ask Where read yee that the people entered in a Covenant with God not to worship the Golden Image and the King and these who pretend they are the Priests of Iehovah the Church-men and Pelates refused to enter in Covenant with God By this argument the King and Prelates in non-practising with us wanting the precedent of a like practice in Scripture are in the fault 2. This is nothing to prove the conclusion in question 3. All these places prove it is the Kings dutie when the people under him and their fathers have corrupted the worship of God to renew a Covenant with God and to cause the people to do the like as Moses Asa Iehoshaphat did 4. If the King refuse to do his dutie where is it written That the people ought also to omit their dutie and to love to have it so because the Rulers corrupt their wayes Ierem. 5. 31 To renew a Covenant with God is a point of service due to God that the people are obliged unto whether the King command it or no. What if the King command not his people to serve God or What if he forbid Daniel to pray to God Shall the people in that case serve the King of Kings onely at the nod and Royall command of an earthly King Clear this from Scripture 5. Ezra 5. had no commandment in particular from Artaxerxes King of Persia or from Darius but a Generall that Ezr. 7. 23. Whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven let it be diligently done far the house of the God of Heaven But the Tables in Scotland and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland who renewed the Covenant and entered in Covenant not against the King as the P. P. saith but to restore Religion to its ancient Puritie have this expresse Law from King James and King Charles both in many Acts of Parliament that Religion be kept pure Now as Artaxerxes knew nothing of the Covenant and was unwilling to subscribe it and yet gave to Ezra and the Princes a warrant in generall to do 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 nonage 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
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 victoriouâ— is not law nor reason it were then reason that Herod behead Joâ—â— Baptist and the Roman Emperors kill the witnesses of Christ Ieus If Conquest as just be the title and lawfull claime before Gods court to a Crown then certainly a stronger King for pregnaâ—t nationall injuries may lawfully subdue and reigne over an inâ—ocent posteritie not yet borne But what word of God can 1. waâ—rant a posteritie not borne and so accessarie to no offence against tâ—e Conquerour but only sin originall to be under a Conquerouâ— 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 posteritity But 2. the fathers may ingage the posterity by an oath to surrender themselvos as loyall subject 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 disâ—ose of the inheritance of their children because that inheritance â—elongeth to the father as well ar to the sonne but because the liberty of the sonne being borne with the sonne all men being boâ—ne free from all Civill subjection the father hath no more power to resigne the libertie of his children then their lives and the 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 â—ver the Ammonites and Moabites but by expecting their consent 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 valet 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 usâ—d 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
it selfe and protect us Ans The Prelate here deserteth his owne consequence which is strong against himselfe for if a man be naturally subject to his fathers superiour as he said before why is not the sonne of a slave naturally subiect to his fathers superiour master 2. As a man may not make away his liberty without his own consent so can he not without his owne consent give his liberty to be subject to penall Lawes under a Prince without his owne consent either in his fathers or in the representative society in which he liveth 3. God and nature hath laid a necessity on all men to be under government a naturall necessity from the wombe to be under some government to wit a paternall government that is true but under this government politique and namely under soveraignty it is false and that is but said for why is he naturally under soveraignty rather then Aristocracy I beleeve any of the three formes are freely chosen by any society 4. It is false that one cannot defend the people except he have intire power that is to say he cannot doe good except he have a vast power to doe both good and ill Obj. 3. It is accidentall to any to render himselfe a slave being occasioned by force or extreame indigence but to submit to Government congrnous to the condition of man and is necessary for his happy being and naturall and necessary by the inviolable Ordinance of God and nature Ans If the father be a slave it is naturall and not accidentall by the Prelates Logick to be a slave 2. it is also accidentall to be under Soveraignty and sure not naturall 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 himselfe 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 â—n 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 â—ll 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 anuoynted 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 câ—me 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
Schoolemaster is clearely above all lawes of discipline which he imposeth on his Scholars but none can say that King Asa was clearely above that law of seeking of the Lord God of his fathers Diodorus Siculus l. 17. saith the Kings of Persia were under an oath and that they might not change the Lawes and so were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia The Kings of Sparta which Aristotle calleth just Kings renew their oath every moneth Romulus so covenanted with the Senate and People Carolus V. Austriacus sweareth he shall not change the Lawes without the consent of the Electors nor make new lawes nor dispose or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire So read we Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped l. 8. saith there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Persians The nobles are crowned when they crown their King and exact a speciall Oath of the King So doth England Polonia Spaine Arragonia c. Alberi Gentilis Hug. Grotius prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people but notwithstanding there be such a covenant it followeth not from this saith Arnisaeus that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically the people shall be free and the contract or covenant nothing Ans The covenant may be materially broken while the King remaineth King and the subjects remaine subjects but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken the people must be free from their Allegiance but of this more hereafter Arg. 7. If a Master bind himselfe by an Oath to his servant he shall not receive such a benefit of such a point of service if he violate the Oath his Oath must give his servant Law and right both to challenge his Master and he is freed from that point of service an Army appointeth such a one their Leader 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 surious 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 â—ay 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 â—n 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 Moduâ— 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 madâ— 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
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. sialius § Bellissimè ubique Gloss in vers ex magn not per. illum text ff quod vi aut clam l. ait praetor § si debitorem meum ff de hisque in fraud credito even a privat man his own judge magistrate and defender quando copiam judicis qui sibijus 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 ad 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 jadges 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 lesle 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 man to self-defence 7. The Law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a magistrate or any other unjust violence from a ruler is twice injustice 1. He doth unjustly as a man 2. As a member of the common-wealth 3. He committeth a speciall kind of sin of injustice against his office but it is absurd to say we may lawfully dâ—fend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of nature and not from the greater If the Pope saith Fer. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 24. n. 24 25. command to take away benefices from the just owner these who are to execute his commandement are not to obey but to write back that that mandat came not from his holinesse but from the avarice of his Officers but if the Pope still continue and presse the same unjust Mandat the same should be written againe to him and though there be none above the Pope yet there is naturall self-defence patent for all Defensio vitae neceâ—aria est à jure naturali profluit L. ut vim ff de just jure 16. Nam quod quisque ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure fecisse videatur Câ—jus naturale 1. distinc l. 1. ff de vi vi armata l. injuriarum ff de injuria C. significasti 2. de hom l. scientiam sect qui non aliter ff ad leg Aquil. C. si vero 1. de sent excom l. sed etsi ff ad leg Aquil. etiamsi sequatur homicidium Vasquez l. 1. c. 17. n. 5. etiam occidere licet ob defensionem rerum Vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt in C. significasti Garcias Fortunius Comment in l. ut vim ff de instit jur n. 3. defendere se est juris naturae gentium A jure civili fuit additum moderamen inculpatae tutelae lac Novel defens n. 101. Occidens Principem vel alium Tyrannidem exercentem à paena homicidii excusatur Grotius de jure belli pacis l. 2. c. 1. n. 3. Si corpus impetatur vi presente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabili tune bellum est licitum etiam cum intersectione periculum infâ—rentis ratio natura quemque sibicommendat Barcl advers Monar l. 3. c. 8 est jus cuilibet se tenendi adversus immanem sevitiam But what ground saith the Royalist is there to take Arms against a King Ielousies and suspitions are not enough Ans The King sent first an Armie to Scotland and blocked us up by sea before we took Armes 2. Papists were armed in England they have professed themselves in their Religion of Trent to be so much the holyer that they root out Prottstants 3. The King declared we had broken loyalty to him since the last
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 〈…〉 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 flew 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 place is too narrow who commenting on the place restricteth all to these two that the priest should deliver by interceding for the innocent 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 behoved to be done with great violence 2 King 18. 34. They have not delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samaria out of my hand So Cornel. à Lapide Charitas suadâ—â— ut vi armis eruamus injuste ductos ad mortem Ambros 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 the 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 performe 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 obligeth me not to acts of charity when I in all reason see them unpossible but a multitude who had strength did well to rescue innocent Ionathan out of the hands of the King that he should not be put to death yet one man was not tyed by the law of nature to rescue Ionathan if the King and Prince had condemned him though unjustly 2. The hoast of men that helped David against King Saul 1 Sam. 22. 2. entered in a lawfull war and 1 Chron. 12. 18. Amasa by the spirit of the Lord blesseth his helpers peace peace be unto thee and peace be to thy helpers for thy God helpeth the. Ergo Peace must be to the Parliament of England and to their helpers their brethren of Scotland 3. Numb 32. 1. 2. 3. 16. 17. 18. 19. Iosh 1. 12. 13. 14. The children of Gad and of Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh though their inheritance fell to be in this side of Iordan yet they were to goe over the river armed to fight for their brethren while they had also possession of the land at the commandement of Moses and Joshua 4. So Saul and Israel helped the men of Iabesh Gilead conjoyned in blood with them against Nahash the Ammonite and his unjust conditions in plucking out their right eyes 1 Sam. 11. 5. Iephtha Iudg. 12. 2. justly rebuketh the men of Ephraim because they would not help him and his people against the Ammonites 6. If the communion of Saints be any bound that England and we have one Lord one faith one Baptisme one head and Saviour Iesus Christ then are we obliged to help our bleeding sister Church against these same common enemies Papists and Prelates but the former is undenyably true for 1. We send help to the Rotchel if there had not been a secret betraying of our brethren we send help to the recovery of the Palatinate and the aide of the confederat Princes against Babels strength and power and that lawfully but we did it at great leisure and coldly Q. Elizabeth helped Holland against the King of Spain And beside the union in Religion 1. We sayle in one
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 nine 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 fymbolicall and declarative not really dative it placeth nothing in the King Quest 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King it being the immediate result without intervening of Law or any act of man issuing from God only Ans Though we should give which in reason we cannot grant that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God without any act of man Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle without any act of men yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power that he abuse it not to Iudaizing Royalists deny not but they teach That the 80. Priests that restrained Vzziah his power from burning incense to the Lord gave no Royall power to Vzziah Doe not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power that he kill not the subjects without cause yet they teach That subjects gave no power to the King certainly this is a proofe of the immense power of the King of Kings that none can fly from his pursuing hand Ps 139. 1 2 3. Amos 9. 1 2 3 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings Nebuchadnezzar as Royalists teach might justly conquer some Kingdomes for conquest is a just title to the Crowne say they now the Conquerour then justly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him yet we know the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King Ioshua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave and therefore this is no good reason The people gave not to the King Royall Power ergo they could not lawfully limit it and take it away 2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly without the intervention of any Act of Law for it is an Act of Law that Deut. 17. the people chooseth such a King not such a King that the people by a legall covenant make Saul David and Joash Kings and that God exerciseth any politicall action of making a King over such subjects upon such a condition is absurd and inconceivable for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jsrael upon this politicall and legall condition that they rule in Iustice and Judgement but there must intervene a politicall action and so they are not made Kings immediatly If God feed Moses by bread and Manna the Lords act of feeding is mediate by the mediation of second causes if he feed Moses 40. dayes without eating any thing the act of feeding is immediate If God made David King as he made him a Prophet I should thinke God immediatly made him King for God asked consent of no man of no people no not of David himselfe before he infused on him the Spirit of Prophecy but he made him formally King by the politicall and legall Covenant betwixt him and the people I shall not thinke that a Covenant and Oath of God is a Ceremony especially a Law-covenant or a politicall paction between David and the people the contents whereof behoved to be De materia gravi onerosa concerning a great part of obedience to the fifth Commandement of Gods Morall Law the duties Morall concerning Religion and Mercy and Justice to be performed reciprocally between King and people Oathes I hope are more then Ceremonies Quest 12. Whether or no is not the Common-wealth ever a Pupill never growing to age as a minor under nonage doth come not to need a Tutor but the Common-wealth being still in need of a Tutor a Governour or King must alwaies be a Tutor and so the Kingdome can never come to that condition as to accuse the King it alwaies being minor Ans 1. Then can they never accuse inferiour Iudges for a Kingdome is perpetually in such a nonage as it cannot want them when sometime it wanteth a King 2. Can the Common-wealth under Democracy and Aristocracy being perpetually under nonage ever then quarrell at these Governments and never seeke a