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
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
King not the people and the sense is The Kingdome is really some time in such a case that the Soveraigne must exercise an Arbitrary Power and not stand upon private mens interests or transgressing of Lawes made for the private good of individualls but for the preservation of it selfe and the publicke may break through all Lawes This he may in the case when suddaine forraine invasion threatneth ruine inevitably to King and Kingdome a Physitian may rather cut a Gangreened member then suffer the whole body to perish The Dictator in case of extreame dangers as Livie and Dion Halicarnass shew us had power according to his owne Arbitrament had a soveraigne Commission in peace and war of life death persons c. not co-ordinate not subordinate to any Ans It is not an Arbitrary power but naturally tyed and fettered to this same supreame Law Salus populi the safety of the people that a King breake through not the Law but the letter of the Law for the safety of the people as the Chyrurgion not by any prerogative that he hath above the Art of Chyrurgery but by necessity cutteth off a Gangreened member thus it s not Arbitrary to the King to save his people from ruine but by the strong and imperious Law of the peoples safety he doth it for if he did it not he were a murtherer of his people 2. He is to stand upon transgression of Lawes according to their genuine sense of the peoples safety for good Lawes are not contrary one to another though when he breaketh through the letter to the Law yet he breaketh not the Law for if twenty thousand Rebells invade Scotland he is to command all to rise though the formality of a Parliament cannot be had to indict the war as our Law provideth but the King doth not command all to rise and defend themselves by a Prerogative Royall proper to him as King and incommunicable to any but to himselfe 1. There is no such dinne and noise to be made for a King and his incommunicable Prerogative for though the King were not at all yea though he command the contrary as he did when he came against Scotland with an English Army the law of Nature teacheth all to rise without the King 2. That the King command this as King it is not a particular positive Law but he doth it as a man and a member of the Kingdom The law of Nature which knoweth no dreame of such a Prerogative forceth him to it as every member is by Natures indictment to care for the whole 3. It is poore hungry skill in this New Statist for so he nameth all Scotland to say that any Lawes are made for private interests and the good of some individuals Lawes are not Lawes if they be not made for the safetie of the people 4. It is false that the King in a publike danger is to care for himselfe as a man with the ruine and losse of any Yea in a publike calamitie a good King as David is to desire he may die that the Publique may bee saved 2 Samuel 24. 17. Exâ—dus 32. 32. It is commended of all that the Emperour Otho yea and Richard the 2. of England as M. Speed saith Hist of England p. 757. resigned their Kingdomes to eschew the effâ—sion of blood The Prelate adviseth the King to passe over all lawes of Nature and slay thousands of innocents and destroy Church and State of three Kingdomes for a straw and supposed Prerogative Royall Now certainly Prerogative and Absolutenes to doe good and ill must be inferior to a Law the end whereof is the safetie of the People For David willeth the pestilence may take him away and so his Prerogative that the People may be saved 2 Sam. 24. 17. for Prerogative is cumulative to doe good not privative to doe ill and so is but a meane to defend both the Law and the People 2. Prerogative is either a power to doe good or ill or both If the first be said it must be limited by the End and Law for which it is ordained A meane is no farther a meane but in so far as it conduceth to the end the safetie of all If the second be admitted It is Licence and Tyrannie not power from God If the third be said both reasons plead against this that Prerogative should be the Kings end in the present warres 3. Prerogative being a power given by the mediation of the people yea suppose which is false that it were given immediately of God yet it not a thing for which the King should raise war against his Subjects for God will aske no more of the King then he giveth to him The Lord reapeth not where he soweth not If the Militia and other things be ordered hitherto for the holding off Irish and Spanishe invasion by Sea and so for the good of the Land seeing the King in his own person cannot make use of the Militia he is to rejoyce that his Subjects are defended The King cannot answer to God for the justice of warre on his part It is not a case of conscience that the King should shed blood for to wit because the under-Officers are such men and not others of his choosing seeing the Kingdome is defended sufficiently except where Cavaliers destroy it And to me this is an unanswerable argument that the Cavaliers destroy not the Kingdomes for this Prerogative Royall as the principall ground but for a deeper designe even for that which was working by Prelates and Malignants before the late troubles in both Kingdomes 4. The King is to intend the safetie of his People and the safety of the King as a Governour but not as this King and this man Charles that is a selfe end a King David is not to looke to that for when the people was seeking his life and crown he saith Ps 3. 8. Thy blessing upon thy People He may care for and intend that the King and Government be safe for if the Kingdome be destroyed there cannot be a new Kingdome and Church on earth againe to serve God in that generation Psal 89. 47. but they may easily have a new King againe and so the safetie of the one cannot in reason be intended as a collaterall end with the safetie of the other for there is no imaginable comparison betwixt one man with all his accidents of Prerogative and Absolutenesse and three Nationall Churches and Kingdomes Better the King weep for a Childish triâ—le of a Prerogative than Poperie be erected and three Kingdomes be destroyed by Cavaliers for their own ends 5. The Dictators power is 1. a fact and proveth not a point of Conscience 2. His power was in an exigence of extreme danger of the Commonwealth The P. Prelate pleadeth for a constant absolutenesse above Lawes to the King at all times and that jure Divino 3. The Dictator was the Peoples creature ergo the Creator the People had that soveraigntie over him 4. The
the Deputy of the King Inferiour Iudges powers ordained of God Rebuked for perverting judgement They are the Ministers of God To resist them is to resist God They are Gods By this the Parliame nt of both Kingdomes ought to put to death cut-rhroat Cavaliers â—aising warre against the subject though the King commands the contrary Sac. Sanc. mai c. 4. pag. 46. How the King judgeth by inferiour Iudges Simmons loyall subjects beleif Sect. 1. pag. 3. The honour of an inferiour Iudge commeth neither from East nor from West more then from the King Argu. 9. Power of Kings and of inferiour Iudges differ gradually not specifically The specifick acts and formall object of Kings and inferiour Iudges are the same The same obligation of conscience that lyeth on the King in all things lyeth on the inferiour Iudge Inferiores Iudices sunt impropriè Vicarii Regis quoad missionem externam ad officium sed immediati Dei vicarii quoad officium in quod missi sunt Barcl l. 2. contr Monarchom p. 56 57. Arnisaeus de authorit Princ. c. 3. â— 9. Marant disp 1. Zoan tract 3. de defens Mynsin g. obs 18. cent 5. Symmons sect â— p. 2. The Iudges of Israel and the Kings after them differed but not essentially Sacr. sanct maj c. 7. p. 81 82. Nature is aâ— neare to Aristocracy as to Monarchy for the wise cannot be under the husband as a subject under a Monarch she by the fift Commandement haâ—h a joynt â—headship with the husband Iudges inferiour depend on the King in fieri when the constitution of the Kingdome is such but not in facto esse nor in their essence Arg. 10. Inferiour Iudges after the King is dead as also the States of Parliament remain Iudges Arg. 11. God not the absolute Prince maketh the inferiour Iudges No heritable Iudges according to Gods Word Inferiour Iudges more necessary in a large Kingdom then the Kfng and fo Aristocracy in that more sutable to the naturall end of government then Monarchy Principes sunt capitis tempora Rex vertex Elders of a land joyntly in Parliament must have as much if not more vis unita fortior then when they are divided in severall tribes â—ities shires but divided they are as essentially Iudges as the King The whole must have more power in extension then the part Jer. 38. 25 they had power against the Kings will to put Ieremiah to death Ieremiah saith Doe whatsoever seemeth good to you v. 10. The power of conveening Parliaments in the Estates without the King Ps 122. 2 3. Why are thrones set for judgement for all the tribes if only the King judge Tables in Scotland lawfull The inferiour Iudges are not subject in their conscience to the King in their acts of judgement either quoad specificationem to give unjust sentences at his will nor quoad exercitium to execute or not execute judgement for the oppressed Vnjust judgeing and no judging at all are sinnes in the States Junius Brut. q. 2. p. 51. vind contr Tyran The Parliament Iudges not advisers only Ieferiour Iudges not the Legats or Servants or Messengers of the King Publick Government belongeth to the States and Elders as to the King Arg. 8. Arg. 9. Arg 10. Arg. 11. Ferne par 3. Defence Sect. 3. pag. pag. 1â— The question is not if the King be so absolute as he is freed from all Morall restraint comming from Gods Law Sacr. sanc Maj. cap. 14. p. 1â—3 No resisting of the most Turkish Tyran by the Royalists way An absolute King more absolute then the Great Turke by Royalists way No law at all by Royalists way to impede a King from a super-inundation of overflowing Tyrannâ— 1 Arg. against Absolutenesse of Kings Why the King a breathing Law three reasons 2. Argument against an absolute King The People have no absolute power over themselves and so cannot make over any such power to the King Arg. 3. Against an absolute Prince Power Tyrannicall is not from God Barclaius contr Monarcho l. 2. pag. 62. That evasion removed Tyrannicall power is not from God but a power to do ill so as no mortall man may resist is from God Argum. 4. Against an absolute Prince A King as a King must be a plague iâ— God be the Creator of an absolute Prince The goodnesse of an absolute Prince in not putting forth his power in actuall destroying of the people hindereth not the power to be actu primo Tyrannicall Argum. 5. Against absolute Princes An absolute Prince against justice peace reason law c. Argum. 6. Against an absolute Prince It is against nature Arg. 7. Against an absolute Prince contrary to the fift Commandement Arg. 8. Against an absolute Prince The King remaineth a brother when he is King and may be rebuked may not take his neighbours vineyard from him A Damsell forced by the King may violently resist No sufficient meanes against all cruelties and unjust violences if an absolute Prince be from God all goe to confusion Barclaius cont Monarch l. 2 pag. 76 77. 9. Argument against an absolute Prince The conditions tacite or expresse upon which the Prince receiveth the crown fight with all absolute power Prerogative taken two wayes No Prerogative Royall in the Scripture Jus personae jus corouae The question touching Prerogative Royall vaine Prerogative Royall of Royalists Gods due Acts founded upon the soleâ— pleasure of the Agent proper to God A threefold dispensation A dispensation 1. of sole pleasure 2. of justice 3. of grace A twofold exponing of the Law by grace In re dubia possunt dispensare Principes quia nullus sensus presumitur qui vincat principalem l. 1. Sect. initium ib. Kings as Kings cannot doe things of meere grace because they must doe all ex debito officii by necessitie of their office Rom-13 4. Prov. 17. 15. Kings equivocally Kings The King may as well do acts of meer cruelty from his supposed Prerogative as acts of meer grace to one man out of the same fountain If Prerogative may over leap Law in one why not in twenty No Tyrant can do any thâ— most cruell act but under the notion of apprehended good Pretended Prerogative Royal of Royalists Tyranny Polanus in Daniel c. 5. 19. Rollocus com 16. ib. Th. Sanches de matr tom 1. l. 2. dis 15. n. 3. est arbâ—â—rii plenitudo nulli necessitati subjecta nulliusque publici juris regulis limita ta Baldus l. 2. n. 40. C. de servit aqua Sueâ—oni in Calign cap. 29. memento tibi omnia in omnes licere Coelius Rodigi l. 8. Lect. Antiq c. 1. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 26. n. 2. A contradiction in Ferne. Treaties of Monarchicall Government c. 2. pag. 6 7. The King of Persia not absolute The Oath of Iudah to the King of Babylon tyed them notto renounce naturall selfe preservation Servants are not by 1 Pet. 2. 18 19. interdited of selfe-defence Declar. at New Market Mar. 9. 1641. Magna Charca against
but onely by meer approbation Negatur pag. 28 29. The Forms of Government not from God by an act of naked Providence but by his approving will Ibid. Soveraignty not from the people by sole approbation P. 29 30. Though God have peculiar acts of providence in creating Kings it followeth not hence that the people maketh not Kings P. 31. The P. Prelate exponeth prophecies true onely of David Solomon and Iesus Christ as true of prophane heathen Kings P. 34 35. The P. P. maketh all the heathen Kings to be Princes anointed with the holy Oyl of saving grace Ibid. QUEST VII Whether the P. Prelate conclude that neither constitution nor designation of Kings is from the people Negatur P. 38 39. The excellency of Kings maketh them not of Gods onely Constitution and Designation Ibid. How Soveraigntie is in the people how not P. 43. A Communitie doth not surrender their right and libertie to their Rulers so much as their power active to do and passive to suffer violence P. 44 45. Gods loosing of the bonds of Kings by the mediation of the peoples despising him proveth against the P. P. That the Lord taketh away and giveth Royall Majestie mediately not immediately P. 45 46. The subordination of people to Kings and Rulers both naturall and voluntary the subordination of beasts and creatures to man meerly naturall P. 46 47. The place Gen. 9. 5. He that shedeth man's blood c. discussed P. 47 48. QUEST VIII Whether or no the P. Prelate proveth by force of reason That the people cannot be capable of any power of Goverment Negatur pag. 49 50. In any communitie there is an active and passive power to Government P. 50. Popular Government is not that wherein all the whole people are Governours P. 53 54. People by nature are equally indifferent to all the three Governments and are under not any one by nature P. 53. The P. Prelate denyeth the Pope his father to be the Antichrist Ibid. The bad successe of Kings chosen by people proveth nothing against us because Kings chosen by God had bad successe through their own wickednesse P. 54 55. The P. Prelate condemneth King Charls his ratifying Parl. 2. An. 1641. The whole proceedings of Scotland in this present Reformation P. 56. That there be any supreme Judges is an eminent act of divine providence which hindereth not but that the King is made by the people P. 57. The people not patients in making a King as is water in the Sacrament of Baptisme in the Act of production of grace P. 58. QUEST IX Whether or no Soveraigntie is so in and from the people that they may resume their power in time of extreme necessity Negatur pag. 58. How the people is the subject of Soveraignty Ibid. No Tyrannicall power is from God P. 59. People cannot alienate the naturall power of self-defence Ibid. The power of Parliaments P. 60. The Parliament hath more power then the King Ibid. Judges and Kings differ P. 61. People may resume their power not because they are infallible but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves as one man may do P. 63. That the Sanedrim punished not David Bathsheba Joab is but a fact not a law P. 63 64. There is a subordination of Creatures naturall Government must be naturall and yet this or that form is voluntary P. 65 66 67. QUEST X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to Divine Unction Negatur pag. 68. Impugned by eight Arguments Ibid. Royalty not transmitted from father to sonne ibid. A family may be chosen to a Crown as a single person is chosen but the tye is conditionall in both pag. 68. 69. The Throne by speciall promise made to David and his seed by God Psal 89. no ground to make birth In foro Dei a just title to the crowne pag. 69 70. A Title by conquest to a Throne must be unlawfull if birth be gods lawfull title pag. 70. Royalists who hold conquest to be a just title to the Crown teach manifest treason against King Charles and his Royall Heires ibid. Only Bona fortunae not honour or Royalty properly transmittable from father to sonne pag. 71. Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people to submit to a conquerour as their lawfull King pag. 72. Naked birth is inferiour to that very divine unction that made no man aâ— King without the peoples election pag. 73. If a Kingdome were by birth the King might sell it pag. 74. The Crown is the Patrimony of the Kingdome not of him who is King or of his father pag. 72 73 76. Birth a typicall designement to the Crowne in Israel pag. 74. The choise of a family to the Crowne resolveth upon the free election of the people as on the fountaine-cause pag. 76. Election of a family to the Crown lawfull pag. 77. QUEST XI Whether or no he be more principally a King who is a King by birth or he who is a King by the free election of the people Affir posterius pag. 79. The Elective King commeth nearer to the first King Deut. 17. pag. 80. If the people may limit the King they give him the power ibid. A Community have not power formally to punish themselves pag. 81. The Hereditary and the elective Prince in divers considerations better or worse each one then another pag. 82. QUEST XII Whether or no a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole Title of Conquest Negatur pag. 82. 7. Argu. for the negat a twofold right of conquest ibid. Conquest turned in an after-consent of the people becommeth a just title pag. 83. Conquest not a signification to us of Gods approving will pag. 84. Meere violent domineering contrary to the acts of governing ibid. Violence hath nothing in it of a King ibid. A bloody Conquerour not a blessing per se as a King is pag. 85. Strength as prevailing is not Law or reason pag. 86 Fathers cannot dispone of the liberty of posterity not borne ibid. A father as a father hath not power of life and death pag. 87. Israels and Davids Conquests of the Canaanites Edomites Ammonites not lawfull because conquest but upon a Divine title of Gods promise pag. 88. 89. QUEST XIII Whether or no Royall Dignity have its spring from Nature and how that is true every man is borne free and how servitude is contrary to nature Affir 89. Seven sorts of superiority and inferiority pag. 89 90. Power of life and death from a positive Law ibid. A Dominion antecedent and consequent 90. Kings and subjects no naturall order ibid. A man is borne consequenter in politick relation pag. 91. Slavery not naturall from four reasons ibid. Every man borne free in regard of civill subjection not in regard of naturall such as of children and wife to Parents and Husband proved by seven Arguments pag. 91 92 93. Politique Government how necessary how naturall pag. 94. That Parents should inslave their children not naturall pag. 95. QUEST XIV Whether or
no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether the King be tyed by any such covenant pag. 96. The King under a naturall but no civill obligation to the people as Royalists teach ibid. The Covenant civilly tyeth the King proved by Scriptures and reasons by 8. Argu. ibid. sequent If the condition without which one of the parties would never have entered in Covenant be not performed that party is loosed from the Covenant pag. 97. The people and Princes are obliged in their places for Iustice and Religion no lesse then the King pag. 98. In so farre as the King presseth a false Religion on the people eatenus in so farre they are understood not to have a King pag. 99. The Covenant giveth a mutuall coactive power to King and people to compell each other though there be not one in earth higher then both to compell each of them pag. 100. The Covenant bindeth the King as King not as he is a man onely pag. 101. One or two Tyrannous acts deprive not the King of his Royall right pag. 104. Though there were no positive written Covenant which yet we grant not yet there is a naturall tacit implicit Covenant tying the King by the nature of his Office pag. 106 If the King be made King absolutely it is contrary to Scripture and the nature of his Office pag. 107. The people given to the King as a pledge not as if they became his owne to dispose of at his absolute will pag. 108. The King could not buy sell borrow if no Covenant should tye him to men ibid. The Covenant sworne by Iudah 2 Chro. 15. tyed the King pag. 109. QUEST XV. Whether the King be univocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father pag. 111 Adam not King of the whole earth because a father ibid. The King a Father Metaphorically and improperly proved by eight Arguments ibid. sequent QUEST XVI Whether or no a despoticall or masterly dominion agree to the King because he is King Negatur pag. 116 The King hath no masterly dominion over the Subjects as if they were his servants Proved by 4. Arguments pag. 116. The King not over men as reasonable creatures to domineere pag. 117. The King cannot give away his Kingdome or his people as if they were his proper goods ibid. A violent surrender of liberty tyeth not pag. 119 A surrender of ignorance is in so farre unvoluntary as it oblige not ibid. The goods of the subjects not the Kings proved by 8. Argu. pag. 120. All the goods of the subjects are the Kings in a four-fold sence pag. 121. QVEST. XVII Whether or no the Prince have properly the fiduciary or ministeriall power of a Tutor Husband Patron Minister Head Master of a Family not of a lord or dominator Affirmed p. 124. The King a Tutor rather then a Father as these are distinguished ibid. A free Communitie not properly and in all respects a minor and pupill p. 125. The Kings power not properly maritall and husbandly ibid. The King a Patron and Servant pag. 126. The Royall power only from God Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum solitudine causae primae but not Immediatione applicationis dignitatis ad personam pag. 126. The King the Servant of the people both objectively and subjectively pag. 127. The Lord and the people by one and the same act according to the Physicall relation maketh the King ibid. The King head of the people Metaphorically only not essentially not univocally by 6. Argu. pag. 128. His power fiduciary only pag. 129 QVEST. XVIII What is the Law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8 9 11. the place discussed fully pag. 130. The Power and the Offfce badly differenced by Barclay pag. 130. What is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of the King by the harmony of Interpretors ancient and moderne Protestants and Papists pag. 131 132 133. Crying out 1 Sam. 8. not necessarily a remedy of tyranny nor a praying with faith and patience pag. 135 136. Resisting of Kings that are tyrannous and patience not inconsistent ibid. The Law of the King not a permissive Law as was the Law of Devorcement pag. 136 137. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 12. 23 24. not a Law of tyranny pag. 138 139. QVEST. XIX Whether or no the King be in Dignity and Power above the people Neg. Impugned by 10. Argu. p. 139. In what consideration the King is above the people and the people above the King pag. 139 140. A meane as a meane inferiour to the end how its true ibid. The King inferiour to the people ibid. The Church because the Church is of more excellency then the King because King pag. 140 141. The people being those to whom the King is given worthier then the gift pag. 141. And the people immortall the King mortall pag. 142. The King a meane only not both the efficient or Author of the Kingdome and a meane Two necessary distinctions of a meane pag. 143 If sin had never been there should have been no King pag. 142. The King is to give his life for his people ibid. The consistent cause more excellent then the effect pag. 143 144 145. The people then the King pag. 144 145. Vnpossible people can limit Royall Power but they must give Royall Power also ibid. The people have an action in making a King proved by foure Arguments ibid. Though it were granted that God immediately made Kings yet it is no consequent God only and not the people can unmake him pag. 146. The people appointing a King over themselves retaine the Fountaine-power of making a King pag. 147 148 149. The meane inferiour to the end and the King as King is a meane pag. 149 150 153. The King as a meane and also as a man inferiour to the people pag. 150. To sweare non-selfe-preservation and to sweare selfe-murther all one pag. 151. The people cannot make away their power 1. Their whole power nor 2. irrevocably to the King pag. 152. The people may resume the power they give to the Commissioners of Parliament when it is abused p. 152 The Tables in Scotland lawfull when the ordinary judicaturies are corrupt p. 153. Quod efficit tale idâ—ipsum magis tale discussed the fountain-power in the people the derived onely in the King p. 153 154 155. The King is a fiduciary a life-renter not a lord or heritor p. 155 156. How soveraigntie is in the people p. 156 157. Power of life and death how in a Community ibid. A Communitie voide of Ruiers is yet and may be a politike body p. 157. Iudges gods Analogically p. 158. QUEST XX. Whether Inferiour Judges be essentially the immediate Vicegerents of God as Kings not differing in essence and nature from Kings Affirmatur Proved by twelve Arguments pag. 159. Inferiour Iudges the immediate Vicars of God no lâ—sse then the King ibid. The consciences of inferiour Iudges immediately subordinate to God not to the King either mediately
or immediately p. 160. How the inferiour Iudge is the deputy of the King p. 161 162. He may put to death murtherers as having Gods sword committed to him no lesse then the King even though the King command the contrary for he is not to execute judgement and to relieve the oppressed conditionally if a mortall King give him leave but whether the King will or no he is to obey the King of Kings p. 160 161. Inferiour Iudges are ministri regni non ministri regis p. 162 163. The King doth not make Iudges as he is a man by an act of private good will but as he is a King by an act of Royall Iustice and by a power that he hath from the people who made himself supreme Iudge p. 163 164 165. The Kings making of inferiour Iudges hindereth not but they are as essentially Iudges as the King who maketh them not by fountain-power but by power borrowed from the people p. 165 166. The Iudges in Israel and the Kings differ not essentially p. 167. Aristocracy as naturall as Monarchie and as warrantable p. 168 169. Inferiour Iudges depend some way on the King in fieri but not in facto esse p. 169 170. The Parliament not Iudges by derivation from the King p. 170. The King cannot make nor unmake Iudges ibid. No heritable Iudges ibid. Inferiour Iudges more necessary then a King p. 171 172. QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament hath over the King and in the State p. 172. The Elders appointed by God to be Iudges p. 173. Parliaments may conveen and judge without the King p. 173 174. Parliaments are essentially Iudges and so their consciences neither dependeth on the King quoad specificationem that is That they should give out this sentence not this nec quoad exercitium That they should not in the morning execute judgement p. 174 175. Vnjust judging and no judging at all are sins in the States p. 175. The Parliament coordinate Iudges with the King not advisers onely By eleven Arguments p. 176 177 Inferior Iudges not the Kings Messengers or Legates but publike Governours p. 176. The Jews Monarchie mixt p. 178. A Power executive of Laws more in the King a Power legislative more in the Parliament p. 178 179. QUEST XXII Whether the power of the King as King be absolute or dependent and limited by Gods first mould and patern of a King Negatur Prius Affirmatur Posterius p. 179. The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk p. 180. The King not absolute in his power proved by nine Arguments p. 181. 182 183 seq Why the King is a living Law p. 184. Power to do ill not from God ibid. Royalists say power to do ill is not from God but power to do ill as punishable by man is from God p. 186. A King actu primo is a plague and the people slaves if the King by Gods institution be absolute p. 187. Absolutenesse of Royaltie against Iustice Peace Reason Law p. 189. Against the Kings relation of a brother p. 190. A Damsel forced may resist the King ibid. The goodnesse of an absolute Prince hindereth not but he is actu primo a Tyrant p. 189. QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath a Prerogative Royall above Laws Negatur p. 192. Prerogative taken two wayes ibid. Prerogative above Laws a Garland proper to infinite Majestie ibid. A threefold dispensation 1. Of power 2. Of justice 3. Of Grace p. 194. Acts of meer grace may be acts of blood p. 195. An oath to the King of Babylon tyed not the people of Judah to all that absolute power could command ibid. The absolute Prince is as absolute in acts of crueltie as in acts of grace p. 196. Servants are not 1 Pet. 2. 18 19. interdited of self-defence p. 199 200. The Parliament materially onely not formally hath the King for their Lord p. 202. Reason not a sufficient restraint to keep a Prince from Acts of tyranny ibid. Princes have sufficient power to do good though they have not absolute to do evil p. 203. A power to shed innocent blood can be no part of any Royall power given of God p. 204. The King because he is a publike person wanteth many priviledges that subjects have p. 205 206. QUEST XXIV What relation the King hath to the Law p. 207. Humane Laws considered as reasonable or as penal ibid. The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power p. 208. Whether the King be above Parliaments as their Iudge p. 208 p. 209 210 211. Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordination both consistent p. 210 211. Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other and they cannot any one of them be in its prevalency conveniently without the mixture of the other two p. 211 212. The King as a King cannot erre as he erreth in so far he is not the remedie of oppression and Anarchie intended by God and nature p. 212. In the court of necessitie the people may judge the King p. 213. Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernable p. 213 214. It s more requisite that the whole people Church and Religion be secured then one man p. 215. If there be any restraint by Law on the King it must be physicall for a morall restraint is upon all men p. 214 215. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath eatenus in so far unlawfull and not obligatory p. 215. QUEST XXV Whether the supreme Law the safetie of the people be above the King Affirmed p. 218. The safetie of the people to be preferred to the King for the King is not to seek himself but the good of the people p. 218 219. Royalists make no Kings but Tyrants p. 222. How the safetie of the King is the safetie of the people p. 223. A King for the safetie of the people may break through the Letter and paper of a Law p. 227. The Kings prerogative above Law and Reason not comparable to the blood that has been shed in Ireland and England p. 225 226 228. The power of Dictators prove not a Prerogative above Law p. 229 230. QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law p. 230 231. The Law above the King in four things 1. In constitution 2. Direction 3. Limitation 4. Coaction p. 231. In what sense the King may do all things p. 231 232. The King under the moralitie of Laws 2. Vnder Fundamentall Laws not under punishment to be inflicted by himself nor because of the eminency of his place but for the physicall incongruity thereof p. 232 233. If and how the King may punish himself p. 233. That the King transgressing in a hainous manner is under the Coaction of Law proved by seven Arguments p. 234 235 seq The Coronation of a King who is supposed to be a just Prince yet proveth after a Tyrant is conditionall and from ignorance and so unvoluntary and in so far not
disposed of by the composed contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God Hos 13. 11. I gave them a King in my anger I tooke him away in my wrath Iob He places Kings in the throne c. Ans Here is a whole Chapter of seven pages for one raw argument ten times before repeated 1. to Exod. 9. 7. I have raised up Pharaoh Paul expoundeth it Rom. 9. to prove that King Pharaoh was a vessell of wrath fitted for destruction by Gods absolute Will and the Prelate following Arminius with treasonable charity applyeth this to our King Can this man pray for the King 2. Elisha anoynted but constituted not Hazael King and foretold he should be King and if he be a King of Gods making who slew his sicke Prince and invaded the Throne by innocent bloud judge you I would not take Kings of the Prelates making 3. If God give to Nebuchadnezer the same still of the servant of God given to David Ps 18. 1. 116. 16. and to Moses Ios 1 2. all Kings because Kings are men according to Gods heart Why is not royalty then founded on grace Nebuchadnezer was not otherwise his servant then he was the hammer of the earth and a tyrannous conquerour of the Lords people and all the Heathen Kings are called Kings But how came they to their Thrones for the most part as David and Hezekiah but God anointed them not by his Prophets they came to their Kingdomes by the peoples election or by blood and rapine the latter way is no ground to you to deny Athaliah to be a lawfull Princesse she and Abimelech were lawfull Princes and their soveraignty as immediatly and independently from God as the soveraignty of many heathen Kings See then how justly Athaliah was killed as a bloody usurper of the throne this would licence your brethren the Iesuites to stab heathen Kings whom you will have as well Kings as the Lords anointed though Nebuchadnezer many of them made their way to the Throne against all Law of God and man through a bloudy patent 4. Cyrus is Gods anointed and his Shepheard too ergo his Arbitrary government is a soveraignty immediatly depending on God and above all Law it is a wicked consequence 5. God named him neare a hundreth yeare ere he was borne God named and designed Judas very individually and named the Asse that Christ should ride on to Ierusalem Zach. 9. 9. some moe hundred yeares then one What will the Prelate make them independent Kings for that 6. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will What then this will prove Kingdomes to be as independent and immediatly from God as Kings are for as God giveth Kings to Kingdomes so he giveth Kingdomes to Kings and no doubt he giveth Kingdoms to whom he will so he giveth Prophets Apostles Pastors to whom he will and he giveth tyrannous conquests to whom he will and it is Nebuchadnezer to whom Daniel speaketh that from the Lord and he had no just title to many Kingdomes especially to the Kingdome of Iudah which yet God the King of Kings gave to him because it was his good pleasure and if God had not commanded them by the mouth of his Prophet Ieremiah might they not have risen and with the sword have vindicated themselves and their own liberty no lesse then they lawfully by the sword vindicated themselves from under Moab Iudges 3. from under Iabin Iaakin King of Canaan who twenty yeares mightily oppressed the children of Israel Iudges 4. now this P. Prelate by all these instances making Heathen Kings to be Kings by as good a title as David and Hezekiah condemneth the people of God as rebells if being subdued and conquered by the Turke and Spanish King they should by the sword recover their owne liberty and that Israel and the saviours which God raised to them had not warrant from the law of nature to vindicate themselves to liberty which was taken from them violently and unjustly by the sword but from all this it shall well follow that the tyranny of bloudy conquerours is immediatly and only dependent from God no lesse then lawfull soveraignty for Nebuchadnezers soveraignty over the people of God and many other Kingdomes also was revenged of God as tyranny Ier. 50. 6. 7. and therefore the vengeance of the Lord and the vengeance of his Temple came upon him and his land Ier. 50. 16 17. 18. 28 29. 30. It is true the people of God were commanded of God to submit to the King of Babylon to serve him and to pray for him and to doe on the contrary was rebellion but this was not because the King of Babylon was their King and because the King of Babylon had a command of God so to bring under his yoak the people of God So Christ had a Commandement to suffer the death of the Crosse Iohn 10. 18. but had Herod and Pilate any warrant to crucifie him none at all 7. He saith Royalties even of Heathen Kings are not disposed of by the composed Contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God But the Contracts of men to give a Kingdome to a person which a Heathen community may lawfully doe and so by contract dispose of a Kingdom is not opposite to the immediate hand of God appointing Royalty and Monarchy at his owne blessed liberty Lastly he saith God tooke away Saul in his wrath but I pray you did God onely doe it then had Saul because a King a Patent Royall from God to kill himselfe for so God tooke him away and we are rebells by this if we suffer not the King to kill himselfe Well pleaded QUEST VI. Whether the King be so from God onely both in regard of his Soveraignty and of the designation of his person to the Crown as that he is no waies from the people but by meere approbation Dr. Ferne a man much for Monarchy saith Though Monarchy hath its excellency being first set up of God in Moses yet neither Monarchy Aristocracy nor any other forme is jure divino but we say saith he the power it selfe or that sufficiency of authority to governe that is in a Monarchy or Aristocracy abstractly considered from the qualification of other formes is a flux and constitution subordinate to that providence an ordinance of that Dixi or silent word by which the world was made and shall be governed under God This is a great debasing of the Lords anoynted for so soveraignty hath no warrant in Gods Word formally as it is such a government but is in the world by providence as sin is and as the falling of a Sparrow to the ground whereas Gods Word hath not onely commanded that government should be but that fathers and mothers should be 2. and not only that politick Rulers should be but also Kings by name and other Iudges Aristocraticall should be Rom. 13. 3. Deut. 17. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 17. Prov. 24. 21. Prov. 15. 16. 3. If
from being a royaltie due to all Heathen Kings 12. I would our King would evidence such a Majestie in breaking the Images and Idols of his Queen and of Papists about him 13. The fear of Noah and the regenerated who are in Covenant with the Beasts of the field Job 5. 23. is upon the Beasts of the earth not by any approbation only as the people maketh Kings by the Prelates way nor yet by free consent as the people freely transfer their power to him who is King The creatures inferiour to man have by no act of freewill chosen man to be their Ruler and transferred their power to him because they are by nature inferiour to man and God by nature hath subjected the creatures to man Gen. 1. 28. and so this proveth not that the King by nature is above the people I mean the man who is King and therefore though God had planted in the hearts of all subjects a fear and reverence toward the King upon supposall that they have made him King It followeth not That this authoritie and majestie is immediately given by God to the man who is King without the interveening consent of the people for there is a native feare in the Scholler to stand in awe of his Teacher and yet the Scholler may willingly give himselfe to be a disciple to his Teacher and so give his Teacher power over him Citizens naturally feare their supreame Governour of the City yet they give to the man who is their supream Governour that power and Authority which is the ground of awe and reverence A Servant naturally feareth his Master yet often he giveth his liberty and resigneth it up voluntarily to his Master and this was not unordinary amongst the Iewes where the servant did intirely love the Master and is most ordinary now when servants doe for hyre tye themselves to such a Master and Souldiers naturally feare their Commanders yet they may and often doe by voluntary consent make such men their Commanders and therefore from this it followeth no way that the Governour of a City the Teacher the Master the Commander in War have not their power and authority only and immediatly from God but from their inferiours who by their free consent appointed them for such places P. Prelate This seemeth or rather is an unanswerable Argument No man hath power of life and death but the Soveraign Power of life and death to wit God Gen. 9. 5. God saith thrice he will require the blood of man at the hands of man and this power God hath committed to Gods Deputy who so sheddeth mans blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by man shall die by the King for the world knew not any kind of goverment at this time but Monarchiall and this Monarch was Noah and if this power be from God why not all soveraigne power seeing it is Homogeneous and as â—â—rists say in indivisibili posita a thing in its nature indivisible and that cannot be distracted or impaired and if every man had the power of life and death God should not be the God of Order The P. Prelate taketh the paines to prove out of the text that a Magistracy is established in the text Ans 1. Let us consider this unanswerable Argument 1. It is grounded upon a lye and a conjecture never taught by any but himselfe to wit that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or in or through man must signifie a Magistrate 2. and a King onely 3. This King was Noah never interpreter nay not common sence can say that no Magistrate is here understood but a King the consequence is vaine his blood shall be shed by man ergo by a Magistrate it followeth not ergo by a King it followeth not there was not a King in the world yet as some make Belus the father of Ninus the first King and the builder of Babylon this Ninus is thought the first builder of the City after called Ninivie and the first King of the Assyrians so saith Quintus Curtius and others but grave Authors beleeve that Nimrod was no other then Belus the father of Ninus so saith Augustin Hierome Eusebius Hieronym And Eusebius maketh him the first founder of Babylon So saith Clemens Pirerius and Iosephus saith the same 1. their times 2. their cruell natures are the same Calvin saith Noah yet lived while Nimrod lived and the Scripture saith Nimrod began to reigne and be powerfull on the Earth And Babel was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of his kingdome No writer Moses nor any other can shew us a King before Nimrod So Eusebius Paul Orosius Hieronym Iosephus say that he was the first King And Tostatus Abulens and our own Calvin Luther Musculus on the place and Ainsworth make him the first King and the founder of Babylon How Noah was a King or there was any Monarchicall government in the world then the Prelate hath alone dreamed it There was but Familie-government before this 2. And if there bee a Magistracie heere established by God there is no warrant to say it is onely a Monarchie For if the Holy Ghost intendeth a policie it is a policie to be established to the worlds end and not to bee limited as the P. Prelate doth to Noahs dayes all Interpreters upon good ground establish the same policie that our Saviour speaketh of when he saith He shall perish by the sword who taketh the sword Matth. 26. 52. So the Netherlands have no lawfull Magistrate who have power of life and death because their Government is Aristocraticall and they have no King So all acts of taking away the lives of ill-doers shall be acts of homicide in Holland how absurd 3. Nor doe I see how the place in the native scope doth establish a Magistracie s Calvin saith not so Interpreters deduce by consequence the power of the Magistrate from this place But the Text is generall He who killeth man shall be killed by man either he shall fall into the Magistrates hand or into the hand of some Murtherer so Calvin t Marlorat And he speaketh saith w Pirerius not of the fact and event it selfe but of the deserving of murtherers and it 's certaine all murtherers fall not into the Magistrates hands but he saith by Gods and maâ—s laws Ergo They ought to dye though sometime one murtherer killeth another 4. The Soveraign power is given to the King ergo it is given to him immediately without the consent of the people It followeth not 5. Power of life and death is not given to the King only but also to other Magistrates yea and to a single private man in the just defence of his own life Other arguments are but what the Prelate hath said already QUEST VIII Whether the Prelate proveth by force of reason that the people cannot be capable of any power of Government P. Prelate God and nature giveth
avowed as the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland and England as the learned Author and my much respected brother evidenceth in his Ludensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canterburian selfe conviction 4. The Parliament of England was never yet found guilty of Treason 5. The good Counsellers of great States-men that Parliaments of both Kingdomes would take from the Kings Majesty are a faction of perjured Papists Prelates Iesuites Irish cut-throates Strafords and Apostate subverters of all Lawes divine humane of God of Church of State P. Prelate In whom so ever this power of Government be it is the onely remedy to supply all defects and to set right what ever is disjoynted in Church and State and the subject of this super-intending power must be free from all errour in Iudgement and Practice and so we have a Pope in temporalibus and if the Parliament erre the people must take order with them else God hath left Church and State remedilesse Ans This is stollen from Barolaius also 1. but the same Barclaius saith Si Rex regnum suum alienâ— ditioni manciparit regno cadit If the King shall sell his Kingdome or inslave it to a forraigne power he falleth from all right to his Kingdome but who shall execute any such Law against him not the people not the Peeres not the Parliament for this Mancipium ventris aulae this slave saith p. 147. I know no power in any to punish or curbe Soveraignty but in Almighty God 2. We see no super-intending power on earth in King or people infallible nor is the last power of taking order with a Prince who inslaveth his Kingdome to a forraigne power placed by us in the people because they cannot erre Court flattererâ— who teach that the will of the Prince is the measure of all right and wrong of Law and no Law and above all Law must hold that the King is a temporall Pope both in Ecclesiasticall and Civill matters but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves the law of Nature having given to them a contrary internall principle of selfe preservation as a Tyrant who doth care for himselfe and not for the people 3. And because Extremis morbis extrema remedia in an extraordinary exigent when Achab and Iezabell did undoe the Church of God and Tyrannize over both the bodies and consciences of Priest Prophet and people Elias procured the convention of the States and Elias with the peoples helpe killed all Baals Priests the King looking on and no question against his heart In this case I thinke it s more then evident that the people resumed their power 4. We teach not that people should supply all defects in Government nor that they should use their power when any thing is done amisse by the King no more then the King is to cut off the whole people of God when they refuse an Idolatrous service obtruded upon them against all Law the people is to suffer much before they resume their power but this Court slave will have the people to doe what he did not himselfe for when King and Parliament summoned him was he not obliged to appeare Non-compearance when lawfull royall and Parliamentory power summoneth is no lesse resistance then taking of Forts and Castles P. Prelate Then this super-intending power in people may call a King to accompt and punish him for any misdemeanour or act of injustice Why might not the people of Israels Peeres or Sanedrin have convented David before them judged and punished him for his Adultery with Bathsheba and his murther of Uriah but it is holden by all that Tyranny should be an intended universall totall manifest destruction of the whole Common-wealth which cannot fall in the thoughts of any but a mad man What is recorded in the Story of Nero his wish in this kind may be rather judged the expression of transported passion then a fixed resolution Ans The P. Prelate contrary to the scope of his booke which is all for the subject and seat of Soveraigne power against all order hath plunged himselfe in the deep of Defensive armes and yet hath no new thing 1. Our law of Scotland will warrant any subject if the King take from him his heritage or invade his possession against Law to resist the invaders and to summon the Kings intruders before the Lords of Session for that act of injustice Is this against Gods Word or Conscience 2. The Sancdrim did not punish David Ergo it is not lawfull to challenge a King for any one act of injustice from the practice of the Sanedrim to conclude a thing lawfull or unlawfull is logick we may resist 3. By the P. Prelates doctrine the law might not put Bathshebah to death nor yet Joab the neerest agent of the murthering of innocent Vriah because Bathshebaes adulterie was the Kings adulterie she did it in obedience to King David Joabs murther was Royall murther as the murther of all the Cavaliers for he had the Kings hand-writing for it Murther is Murther and the murtherer is to dye though the King by a secret Let alone a private and illegall warrant command it Ergo the Sanedrim might have taken Bathshebaes life and Joabs head also and consequently the Parliament of England if they be Judges as I conceive God and the Law of that ancient and renowned Kingdome maketh them may take the head of many Joabs and Jermines for murther â—or the command of a King cannot legitimate murther 4. David himselfe as King speaketh more for us then for the Prelate 2 Sam. 12. 7. And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man the man was himselfe v. 7. Thou art the man and he said to Nathan as the Lord liveth the man that hath done this shall surely dye 5. Every act of injustice doth not un-King a Prince before God as every act of uncleannesse doth not make a wife no wife before God 6. The Prelate excuseth Nero and would not have him resisted if all Rome were one neck that he might cut it off with one stroke I read it of Caligula If the Prelate see more in Historie then I doe I yield 7. He saith the thoughts of totall eversion of a Kingdome must only fall on a mad man The King of Britaine was not mad when he declared the Scots Traytors because they resisted the service of the Masse and raised an Army of Prelaticall cut-throats to destroy them if all the Kingdome should resist Idolatry as all are obliged The King sleeped upon this Prelaticall resolution many moneths passions in servor have not a dayes raigne upon a man And this was not so cleare as the sun but it was as cleare as written printed Proclamations and the pressing of Souldiers and the visible marching of Cut-throats and the blocking of Scotland up by sea and land could be visible to men having five senses Covaruv a great Lawyer saith 1. that all Civill power is penes remp in the hands of the Common-wealth
founded upon divine unction was not the only externall lawfull calling that we read of that David had to the Throne then royall birth because it is but equivalent only to divine unction not superiour to divine unction it cannot have more force to make a King then divine unction And if birth was equivalent to divine unction what needed Ioash who had royall birth be made King by the people and what needed Saul and David who had more then royall birth even divine unction be made Kings by the people and Saul having the vocall and infallible testimony of a Prophet needed not the peoples election the one at Mizpeh and Gilgall and the other at Hebron 5. If royall birth be as just a title to the Crowne as divine unction and so as the peoples election is no title at all then is it unlawfull that there should be a King by election in the world now but the latter is absurd so is the former I prove the Proposition because where conquerours are wanting and there is no King for the present but the people governing and so much confusion aboundeth they cannot lawfully appoint a King for his lawfull title before God must either be conquest which to me is no title and here and in this case there is no conquest or if the title must be a Propheticall word immediatly inspired by God but this is now ceased or thirdly the title must be royal birth but here there is no royall birth because the government is popular except you imagine that the society is obliged in conscience to goe and seek the sonne of a forraine King to be their King But I hope that such a royall birth should not be a just title before God to make him King of that society to which he had no relation at all but is a meere stranger Hence in this case no title could be given to any man to make him King but onely the peoples election which is that which we say And it is most unreasonable that a people under popular Government cannot lawfully choose a King to themselves seeing a King is a lawfull Magistrate and warranted by Gods Word because they have not a King of royall birth to sit upon the throne Mr. Symmons saith that birth is the best title to the Crowne because after the first of the family had been anoynted unction was no more used in that family unlesse there arose a strife about the Kingdome as betwixt Solomon and Adonijah Ioash and Athalia the eldest sonne of the predâ—cessor was afterward the chosen of the Lord his birth-right spake the Lords appointment as plainly as his fathers unction Ans It is a conjecture that unction was not used in the family after the first unction except the contest was betwixt two Brethren that is said not proved for a King 23. 30. when good Iosiah was killed and there was no contest concerning the Throne of that beloved Prince the people of the Land took Iehoahaz his son and anointed him and made him King in his fathers stead and the Priests were anointed Levit. 6. 22. yea all the Priests were anointed Num. 3. 8. yet read we not in the History where this or this man was anointed 2. In that Adonijah Solomons elder Brother was not King it is clear That Gods anointing and the peoples electing made the right to the Crown and not birth 3. Birth de facto did design the man because of Gods speciall promises to Davids house but how doth a typicall discent made to David and some others by Gods speciall promise prove that birth is the birth-right and lawfull call of God to a Crown in all after ages For as gifts to reign goeth not by birth so neither doth Gods title to a Crown go M. Symons A Prince once possessed of a Kingdome coming to him by inheritance can never by any upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof without horrible impietie and unjustice Royall unction was an indeloble Character of old Saul remained the Lords anointed till the last gaspe David durst not take the right of Government actually into him although he had it in reversion being already anointed thereunto and had received the spirit thereof Answ That is the question If a Prince once a Prince by inheritance cannot be dispossessed thereof without unjustice For if a Kingdom be his by birth as an inheritance transmitted from the father to the son I see not but any man upon necessary occasions may sell his inheritance but if a Prince sell his Kingdom a very Barelay and an Hug. Grotius with reason will say he may be dispossessed and dethroned and take up his indeleble Character then 2. A Kingdom is not the Princes own so as it is unjustice to take it from him as to take a mans purse from him the Lords Church in a Christian Kingdom is Gods heritage and the King onely a shepheard and the sheep in the court of conscience are not his 3. Royall unction is not an indeleble Character for neither Saul nor David were all their dayes Kings thereby but lived many dayes private men after divine unction while the people anointed them Kings except you say 1. That there were two Kings at once in Israel 2. And that Saul killing David should have killed his own Lord and his anointed 4. If David durst not take the right of Government actually on him then divine unction made him not King but onely designed him to be King the peoples election must make the King M. Symons addeth He that is born a King and a Prince can never be unborn Semel Augustus semper Augustus yea I beleeve the eldest son of such a King is in respect of birth the Lords anointed in his fathers life time even as David was before Sauls death and to deprive him of his right of reversion is as true unjustice as to dispossesse him of it Answ It is proper onely to Jesus Christ to be born a King sure I am No man bringeth out of the womb with him a Scepter and a Crown on his head Divine unction giveth a right infallibly to a Crown but birth doth not so for one may be born here to a Crown as was hopefull Prince Henry and yet never live to be King The eldest son of a King if he attempt to kill his father as Absolom did and raise forces against the lawfull Prince I conceive he may be killed in battell without any unjustice 2. If in his fathers time he be the Lords anointed there be two Kings and the heir may have a son and so there shall be three Kings possibly four all Kings by divine right The Prelate of Rochester saith The people and nobles give no right to him who is born a King they onely declare his right Answ This is said not proved A man born for an inheritance is by birth an heir because he is not born for these Lands as a mean for the end but by the contrary these Lands
are for the heir as the mean for the end But the King is for his Kingdom as a mean for the end as the watch-man for the Citie the living Law for peace and safetie to Gods people and therefore is not heres hominum An heir of men but men are rather heredes regis heirs of the King Arnisaeus Many Kingdoms saith he are purchased by just war and transmitted by the Law of heritage from the father to the son beside the consent of the people because the son receiveth right to the Crown not from the people but from his parents nor doth he possesse the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people keeping onely to himself the burden of protecting and governing the people but as a proprietie given to him lege regni by his parents which he is obliged to defend and rule as a father looketh to the good and welfare of the family yet so also as he may look to his own good Answ We read in the Word of God That the people made Solomon King not that David or any King can leave in his Testament a Kingdom to his son 2. He saith The son hath not the right of reigning as the patrimony of the people but as a proprietie given by the Law of the Kingdom by his parents Now this is all one as if he said The son hath not the right of the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people but as the patrimony of the people which is good non-sense For the proprietie of reigning given from father to son by the Law of the Kingdom is nothing but a right to reign given by the Law of the people and the very gift and patrimony of the people for Lex regni This Law of the Kingdom is the Law of the people tying the Crown to such a Royall Family and this Law of the people is prior and ancienter then the King or the right of reigning in the King or which the King is supposed to have from his Royall father because it made the first father the first King of the Royall Line For I demand How doth the son succeed to his fathers Crown and Throne Not by any promise of a divine Covenant that the Lord maketh to the father as he promised that Davids seed should sit on his throne till the Messiah should come this as I conceive is vanished with the Common-wealth of the Iews nor can we now finde any immediate divine constitution tying the Crown now to such a race nor can we say this cometh from the will of the father King making his son King For 1. there is no Scripture can warrant us to say The King maketh a King but the Scripture holdeth forth that the people made Saul and David Kings 2. This may prove That the father is some way a cause why this son succeedeth King but he is not the cause of the Royaltie conferred upon the whole Line because the question is Who made the first father a King Not himself nor doth God now immediately by Prophets anoint men to be Kings then need force the people choose the first man then must the peoples election of a King be prior and more ancient then the birth-law to a Crown And election must be a better right then birth 2. The question is Whence cometh it that not onely the first father should be chosen King but also whence is that whereas it is in the peoples freewill to make the succession of Kings go by free election as it is in Denmark and Pol yet the people doth freely choose not only the first man to be King but also the whole race of the first born of this mans Family to be Kings All here must be resolved in the free will of the Communitie now since we have no immediate and propheticall enthroning of men it is evident That the lineall deduction of the Crown from father to son through the whole line is from the people not from the parent Hence I adde this as my sixth Argument That which taketh away that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right in a Communitie given to them by God and nature to provide the most efficacious and prevalent mean for their own preservation and peace in the fittest Government that is not to be holden but to make birth the best title to the Crown and better then free election taketh away and impedeth that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right of chosing not simply a Governour but the best the justest the more righteous and tyeth and fettereth their choice to one of a house whether he be a wise man and righteous and just or a fool and an unjust man therefore to make birth the best title to the Crown is not to be holden It is objected That parents may binde their after Generations to choose one of such a line But by this Argument their naturall birth-right of a free choice to elect the best and fittest is abridged and clipped and so the posterity shall not be tyed to a King of the Royall Line to which the Ancestors did swear See for this the learned Author of Scripture and Reasons pleaded for defensive Arms. Answ Frequent elections of a King at the death of every Prince may have by accident and through the corruption of our nature bloody and tragicall sequels and to eschew these people may tie and oblige their children to chose one of the first born Male or Female as in Scotland and England of such a line but I have spoken of the excellencie of the title by election above that of birth as comparing things according to their own nature together but give me leave to say That the posterity are tyed to that Line 1. Conditionally So the first born ceteris paribus be qualified and have an head to sit at the helm 2. Elections of Governours would be performed as in the sight of God and in my weak apprehension the person coming neerest to Gods judge Fearing God hating covetousnesse and to Moses his King Deut. 17. one who shall read in the Book of the Law and it would seem now that gracious morals are to us insteed of Gods immediate designation 3. The genuine and intrinsecall end of making Kings is not simply governing but governing the best way in peace honesty and godlinesse 1. Tim. 2. Ergo These are to be made Kings who may most expeditely procure this end neither is it my purpose to make him no King who is not a gracious man onely here I compare title with title 7. Argument Where God hath not bound the conscience men may not binde themselves or the consciences of the posterity But God hath not bound any nation irrevocably and unalterably to a Royall Line or to one kinde of Government Ergo No nation can binde their conscience and the conscience of the posterity either to one Royall Line or irrevocably and unalterably to Monarchy The proposition is clear 1. No Nation is tyed jure divine by
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
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
1. 2. and the law of Nature and therefore they having made such a man their King they have given him power to be their father feeder healer protector and so must only have made him King conditionally so he be a father a feeder and tutor Now if this deed of making a King must be exponed to be an investing with an absolute and not a conditionall power this fact shall be contrary to Scripture and to the law of Nature for if they have given him Royall power absolutely and without any condition they must have given to him power to be a father protector tutor and to be a tyrant a murtherer a bloody lyon to waste and destroy the people of God 3. The Law permitteth the bestower of a benefit to interpret his own mind in the bestowing of a benefit even as a King and State must expone their own Commission given to their Ambassadour so must the Estates expone whether they bestowed the Crown upon the first King conditionally or absolutely For the 4th if it stand then must the people give to their first elected King a power to wast and destroy themselves so as they may never controle it but only leave it to God and the King to reckon together but so the condition is a Chimera We give you a Throne upon condition you swear by him who made heaven and earth that you will govern us according to Gods Law and you shall be answerable to God only not to us whether you keep the covenant you make with us or violate it but how a covenant can be made with the people and the King obliged to God not to the people I conceive not 2. This presupposeth that the King as King cannot doe any sin or commit any act of tyranny against the people but against God only because if he be obliged to God only as a King by vertue of his covenant How can he faile against an obligation where there is no obligation but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people and indeed so doe our good men expound that Psal 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned not against Vriah for if he sinned not as King against Vriah whose life he was obliged to conserve as a King he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conserve his life Where there is no sin there is no obligation not to sin and where there is no obligation not to sin there is no sin By this the King as King is loosed from all duties of the second Table being once made a King he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himselfe for he is above all his neighbours and above all mankind and only lesse then God 4. Arg. If the people be so given to the King that they are committed to him as a pledge oppignorated in his hand as a pupill to a Tutor as a distressed man to a Patron as a flocke to a Shepheard and so as they remaine the Lords Church his people his flocke his portion his inheritance his vineyard his redeemedones then they cannot be given to the King as Oxen and Sheepe that are freely gifted to a man or as a gift or summe of gold or silver that the man to whom they are given may use so that he cannot commit a fault against the oxen sheepe gold or mony that is given to him how ever he shall dispose of them But the people are given to the King to be tutored and protected of him so as they remaine the people of God and in covenant with him and if the people were the goods of fortune as Heathens say he could no more sinne against the people then a man can sin against his gold now though a man by adoring gold or by lavish profusion and wasting of gold may sin against God yet not against gold nor can he be in any covenant with gold or under any obligation of either duty or sin to gold or to livelesse and reasonlesse creatures properly therefore he may sin in the use of them and yet not sin against them but against God Hence of necessity the King must be under obligation to the Lords people in another manner then that he should only answer to God for the losse of men as if men were worldly goods under his hand and as if being a King he were now by this Royall Authority priviledged from the best halfe of the law of nature to wit from acts of mercy and truth and covenant keeping with his brethren 5. Arg. If a King because a King were priviledged from all covenant obligation to his subjects then could no Law of men lawfully reach him for any contract violated by him then he could not be a debtor to his subjects if he borrowed mony from them and it were utterly unlawfull either to crave him mony or to sue him at Law for debts yet our Civill Lawes of Scotland tyeth the King to pay his debts as any other man yea and King Solomons traffiquing and buying and selling betwixt him and his owne subjects would seeme unlawfull for how can a King buy and sell with his subjects if he be under no covenant obligation to men but to God only Yea then a King could not marry a wife for he could not come under a covenant to keepe his body to her only nor if he committed adultery could he sin against his wife because being immediate unto God and above all obligation to men he could sin against no covenant made with men but only against God 6. If that was a lawfull covenant made by Asa and the States of Iudah 2 Chron. 15. 13. That whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of their fathers should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman this obligeth the King for ought I see and the Princes and the people but it was a lawfull covenant ergo the King is under a covenant to the Princes and Iudges as they are to him it is replyed If a Master of a Schoole should make a law whoever shall goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty obtained of the Master shall be whipped it will not oblige the Schoole-master that he shall be whipped if he goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty so neither doth this Law oblige the King the supreame Law-giver Ans Suppose that the Schollars have no lesse hand and authority magisteriall in making the law then the Schoole-master as the Princes of Iudah had a collaterall power with King Asa about that law it would follow that the Schoole-master is under the same law 2. Suppose going out at Schoole doores were that way a morall neglect of studying in the Master as it is in the Scholars as the not seeking of God is as hainous a sinne in King Asa and no lesse deserving death then it is in the people then should the Law oblige Schoolmaster and Scholler both without exception 3. 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
loved so now Gods love from whence he communicateth his Image representing his owne holinesse commeth nearer to his most speciall love of election of men to glory 5. If God give Kings to be a ransome for his Church and if he slay great Kings for their sake as Pharaoh King of Aegypt Esa 43. 3 and Sihon King of the Amorites and Og King of Bashan Ps 136. 18 19 20. if he plead with Princes and Kings for destroying his people Esa 3. v. 12 13 14. if he make Babylon and her King a threshing-floore for the violence done to the inhabitants of Zion Ier. 51. 33 34 35. then his people as his people must be so much dearer and more precious in the Lords eyes then Kings because they are Kings by how much more his Justice is active to destroy the one and his Mercy to save the other Neither is the Argument taken off by saying the King must in this question be compared with his owne people not a forraigne King with other forraigne people over whom he doth not Raigne for the Argument proveth that the people of God are of more worth then Kings as Kings and Nebuchadnezer and Pharoah for the time were Kings to the people of God and forraigne Kings are no lesse essentially Kings then Kings native are 6. Those who are given of God as gifts for the preservation of the people to be Nurse-fathers to them those must be of lesse worth before God then those to whom they are given since the gift as the gift is lesse then the party on whom the gift is bestowed But the King is a gift for the good and preservation of the people as is cleare Esa 1. 26. And from this that God gave his people a King in his wrath we may conclude that a King of himselfe except God be angry with his people must be a gift 7. That which is eternall and cannot politically die yea which must continue as the dayes of heaven because of Gods promise That is more excellent then that which is both accidentall temporarie and mortall But the People is both eternall as People because Eccles 1. 4. one generation passeth away and another generation commeth And as a people in covenant with God Ier. 32. 40 41. in respect that a People and Church though mortall in the individuals yet the Church remaining the Church cannot dye but the King as King may and doth dye It is true where a Kingdome goeth by succession the Politicians say the man who is King dyeth but the King never dyeth because some other either by birth or free election succeedeth in his roome But I answer 1. People by a sort of necessity of nature succeedeth to People generation to generation except Gods judgement contrary to nature intervene to make Babylon no people and a land that shall never be inhabited which I both believe and hope for according to Gods word of Prophecie But a King by a sort of contingencie succeedeth to Kings for nature doth not ascertaine us there must be Kings to the worlds end because the essence of Governours is kept safe in Aristocracie and Democracie though there were no Kings And that Kings should necessarily have been in the world if man had never fallen in sinne I am not by any cogent argument induced to beleeve I conceive there should have been no Government but these of Fathers Children Husband and Wife and which is improperly Government some more gifted with supervenient additions to nature as gifts and excellencies of Engines Now in this point Althusius polit c. 38. n. 114. saith the King in respect of office is worthier then the people but this is but an accidentall respect but as the King is a man he is inferior to the people But 8. he who by office is obliged to expend himselfe and to give his life for the safety of the people he must be inferior to the people So Christ saith the life is more then rayment or food because both these give themselves to corruption for mans life so the beasts are inferiour to man because they die for our life that they may sustaine our life And Caiaphas prophesied right that it was better that one man die then that the whole Nation perish Joh. 11. v. 50. and in nature Elements against their particular inclination defraud themselves of their private and particular ends that the Commonwealth of Nature may stand as heavy elements ascend light descend lest nature should perish by a vacuitie And the good shepherd Ioh. 10. giveth his life for his sheep So Saul and David both were made Kings to fight the Lords battels and to expose their lives to hazard for the safetie of the Church and people of God But the King by office is obliged to expend his life for the safety of the people of God he is obliged to fight the Lords battels for them to goe betwixt the Flock and death as Paul was willing to be spent for the Church It may be objected Jesus Christ gave himselfe a Ransome for his Church and his life for the life of the World and was a gift given to the world Ioh. 3. 16. 4. 10. and he was a meane to save us And so what arguments we have before produced to prove that the King must be inferior to the people because he is a ransome a meane a gift are not concludent I answer Consider a meane reduplicatively and formaliter as a meane and secondly as a meane materially that is the thing which is a meane 2. Consider that which is only a mean and ransome and gift and no more and that which beside that it is a meane is of a higher nature also So Christ formally as a meane giving 1. his temporall life 2. for a time 3. according to the flesh For 1. the eternall life 2. of all the Catholike Church to be glorified eternally 3. not his blessed Godhead and glorie which as God he had with the Father from eternitie In that respect Christ hath the relation of a servant ransome gift and some inferioritie in comparison of the Church of God and his Fathers glory as a meane is inferior to the end but Christ materially in concreto Christ is not only a meane to save his Church but as God in which consideration he was the immortall Lord of life he was more then a meane even the author efficient and Creator of heaven and earth and so there is no ground to say that he is inferiour to the Church but the absolute head King the chiefe of ten thousand more in excellencie and worth then ten thousand millions of possible worlds of men and Angels But such a consideration cannot befall any mortall King because consider the King materially as a mortall man he must be inferior to the whole Church for he is but one and so of lesse worth then the whole Church as the thumbe though the strongest of the fingers yet it is
Saul in any King of the world as for the Prelates jeere about the peoples giving of their goods to the good cause I hope it shall by the blessing of God inrich them more whereas Prelates by the Rebellion in Ireland to which they assent when they counsell His Majesty to sell the blood of some hundred thousands of innocents killed in Ireland are brought from thousands a yeare to begg a morsell of bread The Prelate answereth that Maxime Quod efsicit tale id ipsum est magis tale That which maketh another such it is it selfe more such It is true De principio formali effectivo as I learned in the Vniversity of such an Agent as is formally such in it selfe as is the effect produced Next it is such as is effective and productive of it selfe as when fire heateth cold water so the quality must be formally inherent in the Agent as Wine maketh drunke it followeth not Wine is more drunke because Drunkennesse is not inherent in the Wine nor is it capable of drunkennesse and therefore Aristotle qualifieth the Maxime with this Quod efficit tale est magis tale modo utrique insit And it holdeth not in Agents who operate by donation if the right of the King be transferred from the people to the King The donation devesteth the people totally of it except the King have it by way of loane which to my thinking never yet any spoke Soveraignty never was never can be in the Community Soveraignty hath power of life and death which none hath over himselfe and the community conceived without government all as equall endowed with Natures and native liberty of that community can have no power over the life of another And so the Argument may be turned home if the people be not tales such by nature as hath formally Royall power he should say they cannot give the King Royall Power Also none hath power of life and death either eminenter or formally the people either singly or collectively have not power over their owne life much lesse over their neighbours Ans 1. The Prelate would make the maxime true of a formall cause and this he learned in the University of St. Andrewes he wrongeth the University he rather learned it while he kept the Calves of Craile the wall is white from whitenesse ergo whitenesse is more white by the Prelates learning never such thing was taught in that learned University 2. Principium formale effectivum is as good Logick as principium effectivum materiale formale finale The Prelate is in his acuracy of Logick now he yet maketh the causality of the formall cause all one with the causality of the efficient but he is weake in his Logicks 3. He confoundeth a cause equivocall and a cause univocall and in that case the Maxime holdeth not Nor is it necessary to make true the maxime that the quality be inherent in the cause the same way For a City maketh a Major but to be a Major is one way in the City and another way in him who is created Major and the Prelates Maxime would helpe him if we reasoned thuâ— The people maketh the King ergo the people is more a King and more formally a Soveraigne then the King But that is no more our Argument then the simile that Maxwell used as neere heart and mouth both Wine maketh drunk the Prelate ergo Wine is more drunk But we reason this the Fountaine-power of making six Kings is in the people ergo there is more fountain-power of Royalty in the people then in any one King for we read that Israel made Saul King and made David King and made Abimelech King but never that King Saul made another King or that an earthly King made another Absolute King 4. The Prelate will have the Maxime false where the Agent worketh by donation which yet holdeth true by his owne grant c. 9. pag. 98. The King giveth power to a Deputy ergo there is more power in the King 5. He supposeth that which is the Basis and foundation of all the question that people devesteth themselves totally of their Fountaiue power which is most false 6. Either they must devest themselves totally saith he of their power or the King hath power from the people by way of loane which to my thinking never any yet spake But the P. Prelates thinking is short and no rule to Divines and Lawyers for to the thinking of the learnedst Jurists this power of the King is but fiduciary and that is whether the Prelate thinke it or thinke it not a sort of power by trust pawn'd or loane Rex director Regni non proprietarius Molinae in consuet Parisi Tit. 1. 9. 1. Glos 7. n. 9. The King is a life-renter not a Lord or proprieter of his Kingdome So Novel 85. in princip c. 18. Quod magistratus sit nudus dispensator defensor jurium regni non proprietarius constat ex eo quodnon posset alienare imperium oppida urbes regionésve velres subditorum bonâ—ve regni So Gregory l. 3. c. 8. de Repub. per c. 1. Sect. praeterea de propo feud Hottoman quest illust 1. Ferdinan Vasquez l. 1. c. 4. Bossius de princip privileg illius n. 290. The King is only a steward and a defender of the lawes of the Kingdome not a proprietor because he hath not power to make away the Impire Cities Townes Countries and goods of the Subjects and bona commissa Magistratui sunt subjecta restitutioni in prejudtcium successorum alienari non possunt per l. ult Sect sed nost C. Comment de leg l. peto 69. fratrem de leg 2. l. 32. ult d. t. All the goods committed to any Magistrate are under Restitution for he hath not power to make them away to the prejudice of his successors The Prelates thoughts reach not the secrets of Jurists and therefore he speaketh with a warrant he will say no more then his short-travel'd thoughts can reach and that is but at the doore 7 Soveraigntie is not in the Communitie saith the P. Prelate Truly it neither is nor can be more then ten or a thousand or a thousand thousands or a whole Kingdome can be one man for Soveraigntie is the abstract the Soveraigne is the concrete Many cannot be one King or one Soveraigne a Soveraigne must be essentially one and a multitude cannot be one but what then may not the Soveraigne power be eminently fontaliter originallp and radically in the people I thinke it may and must be A King is not an under-Iudge he is not a Lord of Councell or Session formally because he is more The people is not King formally because the people is eminently more then the King for they make David King and Saul King And the power to make a Lord of Councell aud Session is in the King say Royalists 8. A Communitie hath not power of life and death A King hath power of life and death saith the Prelate What
then ergo a Communitie is not King I grant all But poore man Ergo the power of making a King who hath power of life and death is not in the people It is like Prelates logick Samuel is not a King ergo he cannot make David a King It followeth not by the Prelates ground So the King is not an in inferiour Iudge What ergo he cannot make an inferiour Iudge 9. The power of life and death is eminently and virtually in the people collectively taken though not formally And though no man can take away his own life or hath power over his own life formally yet a man and a body of men hath power over their own lives radically and virtually in respect they may render themselves to a Magistrate and to Lawes which if they violate they must be in hazard of their lives and so they virtually have power of their own lives by putting them under the power of good lawes for the peace and safety of the whole 10. This is a weake consequence None hath power of his owne life Ergo far lesse of his neighbours saith the Prelate I shall denie the consequence The King hath not power of his own life that is according to the Prelates mind he can neither by the law of nature nor by any Civill law kill himselfe Ergo the King hath far lesse power to kill another It followeth not for the Iudge hath more power over his neighbours life then over his own 11. But saith the P. Prelate The Communitie conceived without government all as equall endowed with natures and native libertie hath no power of life and death because all aâ—e borne free and so none is borne with dominion and power over his neighbours life Yea but so Mr. P. Prelate a King considered without government and as born a free man hath not power of any mans life more then a Communitie hath for King and Begger are borne both alike free But a Communitie in this consideration as they come from the wombe have no Politique consideration at all If you consider them as without all policie you cannot consider them as invested with policie yea if you consider them so as they are by nature voyd of all policie they cannot so much as adde their after-consent and approbation to such a man to be their King whom God immediately from heaven maketh a King for to adde such an after-consent is an act of government Now as they are conceived to want all government they cannot performe any act of government And this is as much against himselfe as against us 2. The power of a part and the power of the whole is not alike Royaltie never advanceth the King above the place of a member And Lawyers say The King is above the subjects in sensu diviso in a divisive sense he is above this or that subject but he is inferiour to all the subjects collectively taken because he is for the whole Kingdome as a meane for the end Object If this be a good reason that he is a meane for the whole Kingdome as for the end that he is therefore inferiour to the whole Kingdome then is he also inferior to any one subject for he is a meane for the safety of every subject as for the whole Kingdome Answ Every meane is inferior to its compleat adequate and whole end and such an end is the whole Kingdome in relation to the King but every man is not alwayes inferiour to its incompleat inadequate and partiall end This or that subject is not adequate but the inadequate and incompleat end in relation to the King The Prelate saith Kings are Dii Elohim Gods and the manner of their propagation is by filiation by adoption sonnes of the most high and Gods first borne Now the first borne is not above every brother severally but if there were thousands millions numberlesse numbers he is above all in precedencie and power Answ Not only Kings but all inferiour Iudges are Gods Psal 82. God standeth in the congregation of the Gods that is not a congregation of Kings So Exo. 22. 8. the master of the house shall be brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Gods or to the Judges And that there were more Iudges then one is cleare by vers 9. and if they shall condemne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jarshignur condemnarint Joh. 10. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He called them Gods Exod. 4. 16. Thou shalt be to Aaron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a God They are Gods analogically only God is infinite not so the King 2. Gods will is a law not so the Kings 3. God is an end to himselfe not so the King The Iudge is but God by office and representation and conservation of the people 2. It is denyed that the first-borne is in power before all his brethren though there were millions That is but said One as one is inferior to a multitude as the first-borne was a Politick Ruler to his brethren he was inferiour to them politically Object 3. The collective Vniversitie of a Kingdome are subjects sonnes and the King their father no lesse then this or that subject is the Kings subject For the universitie of Subjects are either the King or the King subjects for all the kingdome must be one of these two but they are not the King Ergo they are his subjects Answ All the Kingdome in any consideration is not either King or Subjects I give a third The Kingdome collective is neither properly King nor Subject but the Kingdome embodied in a State having collaterall or coordinate power with the King Object 4. The universitie is ruled by lawes Ergo they are inferior to the King who ruleth all by law Answ The Universitie properly is no otherwise ruled by lawes then the King is ruled by lawes The Universitie formally is the compleat Politick body indued with a nomothetick facultie which cannot use violence against it selfe and so is not properly under a Law QUEST XX. Whether or no inferiour Judges be univocally and essentially Judges and the immediate Vicars of God no lesse then the King or if they be onely the Deputies and Vicars of the King IT is certain that in one and the same Kingdom the power of the King is more in extension then the power of any inferiour Iudge but if these powers of the King and the inferiour Iudges differ intenfivè and in spece and nature is the question though it be not all the question Assert Inferiour Iudges are no lesse essentially Iudges and the immediate Vicars of God then the King 1. These who judge in the room of God and exercise the judgement of God are essentially Iudges and the Deputies of God as well as the King but inferiour Iudges are such Ergo The proposition is clear the formall reason why the King is univocally and essentially a Iudge is because the Kings throne is the Lords throne 1 Chron. 29. 23. And Solomon sate on the
foro Soli in the name and authority of the King but being once made a Iudge in foro poli before God he is as essentially a Iudge and in his officiall acts no lesse immediately subjected to God then the King himself Argum. 2. These powers to whom we are to yield obedience because they are ordained of God these are as essentially Iudges as the supreme Magistrate the King but inferiour Iudges are such Ergo Inferiour Iudges are as essentially Iudges as the supreme Magistrate The proposition is Rom. 13. 1. For that is the Apostles Arguments whence we prove Kings are to be obeyed because they are powers from God I prove the assumption Inferiour Magistrates are powers from God Deut. 1. 17. and 19. 6 7. Exod. 22. 7. Jere. 5. 1. and the Apostle saith The powers that are are ordained of God 3. Christ testified that Pilate had power from God as a Iudge say Royalists no lesse then Caesar the Emperour Iohn 19. 11. and 1 Pet. 2. 12. We are commanded to obey the King and these that are sent by him and that for the Lords sake and for conscience to God and Rom. 13. 5. We must be subject to all powers that are of God not onely for wrath but for conscience 4. These who are rebuked because they execute not just judgement as well as the King are supposed to be essentially Iudges as well as the King but inferiour Iudges are rebuked because of this Ierem. 22. 15 16 17. Ezek. 45. 9 10 11 12. Zeph. 3. 3. Amos 5. 6 7. Eccles 3. 16. Micah 3. 2 3 4. Jerem. 5. 31. Ierem. 5. 1. 5. He is the Minister of God for good and hath the sword not in vain but to execute vengeance on the evil doers no lesse then the King Rom. 13. 2 3 4. He to whom agreeth by an Ordinance of God the specifick acts of a Magistrate he is essentially a Magistrate 6. The resisting of the inferiour Magistrate in his lawfull commandmenâ—s is the resisting of Gods Ordinance and a breach of the fifth Commandment as is disobedience to parents and not to give him tribute and fear and honour is the same transgression Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 7. These stiles of Gods of Heads of the people of Fathers of Physicians and healers of the sonnes of the most High of such as Raign and Decree by the wisdome of God c. that are given to Kings for the which Royalists make Kings onely Iudges and all inferiour Iudges but deputed and Iudges by participation and at the second hand or given to inferiour Iudges Exod. 22. 8 9. Ioh. 10. 35. These who are appointed Iudges under Moses Deut. 1. 16. are called in Hebrew or Chaldee 1 Kings 8. 1 2. Chap. 5. 2. Mic. 3. 1. Iosh 23. 2. Num. 1. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rasce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fathers Act. 7. 2. Iosh 14. 1. c. 19. 51. 1 Chro. 8 28. Healers Esai 3. 7. Gods and sonnes of the most High Psal 82. 1. 2. 6. 7. Prov 8. 16 17. I much doubt if Kings can infuse Godheads in their Subjects I conceive they have from the God of Gods these gifts whereby they are inhabled to be Iudges and that Kings may appoint them Iudges but can do no more they are no lesse essentially Iudges then themselves 8. If inferiour Iudges be Deputies of the King not of God and have all their authority from the King then may the King limit the practise of these inferiour Iudges Say that an inferiour Iudge hath condemned to death an Paricide and he be conveying him to the place of execution the King commeth with a force to rescue him out of his hand if this inferiour Magistrate beare Gods sword for the terrour of ill doers and to execute Gods vengeance on murtherers he cannot but resist the King in this which I judge to be his Office for the inferiour Iudge is to take vengeance on ill doers and to use the coactive force of the sword by vertue of his Office to take away this Paracide now if he be the Deputy of the King he is not to breake the jawes of the wicked Iob 29. 17. not to take vengeance on evill doers Rom. 13. 4. nor to execute judgement on the wicked Ps 149 9. nor to execute judgment for the fatherlesse De. 10. 18. except a mortall man his Creator the King say Amen Now truly then God in all Israel was to rebuke no inferiour Iudge for perverting judgement As he doth Exod. 23. 2. 6. Mic. 3. 2 3 4. Zach. 3. 3. Numb 25. 5. Deut. 1. 16. For the King onely is Lord of the conscience of the inferiour Iudge who is to give sentence and execute sentence righteously upon condition that the King the onely univocall and proper Iudge first decree the same as Royalists teach Heare our Prelate How is it imaginable that Kings can be said to Iudge in Gods place and not receive the power from God but Kings Iudge in Gods place Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chro. 19. 6. Let no man stumble this is his Prolepsis at this that Moses in the one place and Iehosaphat in the other speake to subordinate Iudges under them this weakeneth no waies our Argument for it is a ruled case in Law Quod quis facit per alium facit per se all Iudgements of inferiour Iudges are in the name authority and by the power of the supreme and are but communicatively and derivatively from the Soveraigne power Ans How is it possible that inferiour Iudges Deut. 1. 17. 2. Chron. 19. 6. can be said to judge in Gods place and not receive the power from God immediatly without any consent or covenant of men So the Prelate But inferiour Iudges judge in the Gods place as both the P. Prelate and Scripture teach Deut. 1. 17. 2. Chro. 19. 6. Let the Prelate see to the stumbling conclusion for so he feareth it proves to his bad cause 2. He saith the places Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chro. 19. 6. prove that the King judgeth in the Roome of God because their Deputies judge in the place of God The Prelate may know we would deny this stumbling and lame consequence for 1. Moses and Iehosaphat are not speaking to themselves but to other inferiour Iudges who doth publickly exhort them Moses and Iehosaphat are perswading the regulation of the personall actions of other men who might pervert Iudgement 2. The Prelate is much upon his Law after he had forsworne the Gospell and Religion of the Church where he was baptized What the King doth by another that he doth by himselfe but were Moses and Jehosaphat feared that they should pervert Iudgement in the unjust Sentence pronounced by under Iudges of which Sentence they could not know any thing And doe inferiour Iudges so judge in the name authority and power of the King as not in the Name Authority and Power of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings or is the Iudgement
voluntary aspect information or commandement of the King but on that immediate subjection of their conscience to the King of Kings And their Iudgement which they execute is the Lords immediatly and not the Kings and so the comparison halteth Arg. Our 10th Arg. If the King dying the Iudges inferiour remaine powers from God the Deputies of the Lord of Hoasts having their power from God then are they essentially Iudges yea and if the estates in their prime representators and leaders have power in the death of the King to choose and make another King then are they not Iudges and Rulers by derivation and participation or unproperly but the King is rather the Ruler by derivation and participation then these who are called inferiour Iudges Now if these Iudges depend in their Sentences upon the immediat will of him who is supposed to be the only Iudge when this only Iudge dyeth they should cease to be Iudges for Expirante mandatore expirat mandatum because the Fountaine Iudge drying up the streames must dry up Now when Saul dyed the Princes of the Tribes remaine by Gods institution Princes and they by Gods Law and Warrant Deut. 17. choose David their King 11. If the King through absolute power doe not send inferiour Iudges and constitute them but only by a power from the people and if the Lord have no lesse immediate influence in making inferiour Iudges then in making Kings then is there no ground that the King should be sole Iudge and the inferiour Iudge only Iudge by derivation from him and essentially his Deputy and not the immediate Deputy of God But the former is true ergo so is the latter And first that the Kings absolute Will maketh not inferiour Iudges is cleare from Deut. 1. 15. Moses might not follow his owne will in making inferiour Iudges whom he pleased God tyed him to a Law v. 13. that he should take wise men known amongst the people and fearing God and hating covetousnesse And these qualifications were not from Moses but from God and no lesse immediatly from God then the inward qualification of a King Deut. 17. and therefore it is not Gods Law that the King may make inferiour Iudges only Durante beneplacito during his absolute will for if these Divine qualifications remaine in the seventy Elders Moses at his will could not remove them from their places 2. That the King can make heritable Iudges more then he can communicate faculties and parts of judging I doubt riches are of fathers but not promotion which is from God and neither from the East nor the West That our Nobles are borne Lords of Parliament and Iudges by blood is a positive Law 3. It seemeth to me from Esay 3. 1 2 3 4. that the inferiour Iudge is made by consent of the people nor can it be called a wronging of the King that all cities and Burroughs of Scotland and England have power to choose their owne Provests Rulers and Majors 4. If it be warranted by God that the lawfull Call of God to the Throne be the election of the people the call of inferiour Iudges must also be from the people mediatly or immediatly So I see no ground to say that the inferiour Iudge is the Kings Vicegerent or that he is in respect of the King or in relation to supreme Authority only a private man 12. These Iudges cannot but be univocally and essentially Iudges no lesse then the King without which in a Kingdome Iustice is Physically unpossible and Anarchie and violence and confusion must follow if they be wanting in the Kingdome But without inferiour Iudges though there be a King Iustice is Physically unpossible and Anarchie and confusion must follow c. Now this Argument is more considerable that without inferiour Iudges though there be a King in a Kingdome Iustice and safety are unpossible and if there be inferiour Iudges though there be no King as in Aristocracy and when the King is dead and another not Crowned or the King is Minor or absent or a captive in the enemies Land yet justice is possible and the Kingdome preserved the Medium of the Argument is grounded upon Gods Word Num. 11. 14 15. when Moses is unable alone to judge the people seventy Elders re-joyned with him 16. 17. so were the Elders adjoyned to helpe him Exo. 24. 1. Deut. 5. 23. c. 22. 16. Iosh 23. 2. Iudg. 8. 14. Iudg. 11. 5. Iudg. 11. â—â— 1 Sam. 11. 3. 1 King 20. 7. 2 King 6. 32. 2 Chro. 34. 29. Ruth 4. 4. Deut. 19. 12. Ezech. 8. 1 Lament 1. 19. then were the Elders of Moab thought they had a King 2. The end naturall of Iudges hath been indigence and weaknesse because men could not in a society defend themselves from violence therefore by the light of nature they gave their power to one or more and made a Iudge or Iudges to obtaine the end of selfe preservation But Nature useth the most efficacious meanes to obtaine its end but in a great society and Kingdome the end is more easily attained by many Governours then by one only for where there is but one he cannot minister Iustice to all and the farther that the children are removed from their father and tutor they are the nearer to violence and unjustice Iustice should be at as easie a rate to the poore as a draught of water Samuel went yearely through the Land to Bethell Gilgall Mizpeh 1 Sam. 7. 16. and brought Iustice to the doores of the poore So were our Kings of Scotland obliged to doe of old but now justice is as deare as gold it is not a good argument to prove inferior Iudges to be only Vicars and Deputies of the King because the King may censure and punish them when they pervert judgement 1. Because the King in that punisheth them not as Iudges but as men 2. That might prove all the Subjects to be Vicars and Deputies of the King because he can punish them all in the case of their breach of lawes QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament have over the King and in the State IT is true the King is the head of the Kingdome but the States of the Kingdome are as the temples of the head and so as essentially parts of the head as the King is the crown of the head Assert 1. These Ordines Regni the States have been in famous Nations so there were fathers of families and Princes of Tribes amongst the Jewes The Ephori amongst the Lacedemonians Polyb. hist l. 6. The Senate amongst the Romanes The forum Superbiense amongst the Arragonians The Parliaments in Scotland England France Spaine 2 Sam. 3. 17. Abner communed with the Elders of Israel to bring the King home And there were Elders in Israel both in the time of the Judges and in the time of the Kings who did not only give advice and counsell to the Judges and Kings but also were Iudges no lesse then
the Kings and Iudges which I shall make good by these places Deut. 21. 19. The rebellious Son is brought to the Elders of the Citie who had power of life and death and caused to stone him Deut. 22. 18. The Elders of the Citie shall take that man and chastise him Iosh 20. 4. But beside the Elders of every Citie there were the Elders of Israel and the Princes who had also judiciall power of life and death as the Iudges and King had Josh 22. 30. Even when Ioshua was Iudge in Israel the Princes of the Congregation and heads of the Thousands of Israel did judicially cognosce whether the Children of Reuben of Gad and of halfe the tribe of Manasseh were apostates from God and the Religion of Israel 2 Sam. 5. 3. All the Elders of Israel made David King at Hebron and Num. 11. They are appointed by God not to be the advisers only and helpers of Moses but v. 14 17. to beare a part of the burden of ruling and governing the people that Moses might be eased Jeremiah is accused c. 26. 10. upon his life before the Princes Iosh 7 4. The Princes sit in judgement with Ioshua Iosh 9. 15. Ioshua and the Princes of the Congregation sware to the Gibeonites that they would not kill them The Princes of the house of Israel could not be rebuked for oppression in judgement Mic. 3. 1 2 3. if they had not had power of judgement So Zeph. 3. 3. And Deut. 1. 17. 2. Chron. 19. 6 7. They are expresly made Iudges in the place of God And 1 Sam. 8. 2. without advise or knowledge of Samuel the supreme Iudge they conveene and ask a King and without any head or superior when there is no King they conveene a Parliament and make David King at Hebron And when David is banished they conveen to bring him home againe when Tyrannous Athalia reigneth they conveene and make Ioash King and that without any King And Iosh 22. there is a Parliament conveened and for any thing we can read without Ioshua to take cognisance of a new Altar It had been good that the Parliaments both of Scotland and of England had conveened though the King had not indicted and summoned a Parliament without the King to take order with the wicked Clergie who had made many idolatrous Altars And the P. Prelate should have brought an argument to prove it unlawfull in foro Dei to set up the Tables and Conventions in our Kingdome when the Prelates were bringing in the grossest idolatrie into the Church a service for adoring of Altars of Bread the worke of the hand of the Baker a God more corruptible then any god of silver and gold And against Achabs will and minde 1 King 18 19. Elias causeth to kill the Priests of Baal according to Gods expresse law It is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise extraordinary then it is at this day When the supreme Magistrate will not execute the judgement of the Lord Those who made him supreme Magistrate under God who have under God soveraigne libertie to dispose of crownes and kingdomes are to execute the judgement of the Lord when wicked men make the law of God of none effect 1 Sam. 15. 32. so Samuel killed Hagage whom the Lord expresly commanded to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord. I deny not but there is necessitie of a cleere warrant that the Magistrate neglect his duty either in not conveening the States or not executing the judgement of the Lord. 3. I see not how the conveening of a Parliament is extraordinarie to the States for none hath power ordinary when the King is dead or when he is distracted or captive in another land to conveene the Estates and Parliament but they only and in their defect by the law of Nature the people may conveene But 4. If they be essentially Iudges no lesse then the King as I have demonstrated to the impartiall Reader in the former Chapter I conceive though the State make a positive law for Orders cause that the King ordinarily conveene Parliaments Yet if we dispute the matter in the court of Conscience the Estates have intrinsecally because they are the Estates and essentially Iudges of the Land ordinary power to conveene themselves 1. Because when Moses by Gods rule hath appointed seventie men to be Catholike Iudges in the Land Moses upon his sole pleasure and will hath not power to restraine them in the exercise of judgment given them of God for as God hath given to any one Iudge power to judge righteous judgement though the King command the contrary so hath he given to him power to sit down in the gate or the bench when and where the necessitie of the oppressed people calleth for it For 1. the expresse commandement of God which saith to all Iudges Execute judgement in the morning involveth essentially a precept to all the Physicall actions without which it is impossible to execute judgement As namely if by a divine precept the Iudge must execute judgement ergo he must come to some publique place and he must cause partie and witnesses come before him and he must consider cognosce examine in the place of judgement things persons circumstances and so God who commandeth positive acts of judgeing commandeth the Iudges locomotive power and his naturall actions of compelling by the sword the parties to come before him even as Christ who commandeth his servants to preach commandeth that the Preacher and the People goe to Church and that he stand or sit in a place where all may heare and that he give himselfe to reading and meditating before he come to preach And if God command one Iudge to come to the place of judgement so doth he command seventie and so all Estates to conveen in the place of judgement It is objected That the Estates are not Iudges ordinary and habitually but only Iudges at some certaine occasions when the King for cogent and weighty causes calleth them and calleth them not to judge but to give him advise and counsell how to judge Ans 1. They are no lesse Iudges habitually then the King when the common affaires of the whole Kingdome necessitateth these Publique Watchmen to come together for even the King judgeth not actually but upon occasion 2. This is to beg the question to say that the Estates are not Iudges but when the King calleth them at such and such occasions for the Elders Princes and Heads of families and Tribes were Iudges ordinarie because they made the King And 2. the Kingdome by God yea and Church Iustice and Religion so far as they concerne the whole Kingdome are committed not to the keeping of the King only but to all the Iudges Elders and Princes of the Land And they are rebuked as evening wolves lyons oppressors Ezech. 22. 27. Zaca 3. 3. Esa 3. 14 15. Mic. 3. 1 2 3. when they oppresse the people in judgement So are they Deut.
1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother 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
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 Estates Neither will it follow that if the Estates of a Kingdome doe any thing but counsell a King they must then command him for a legall and judiciall advice hath influence in the effect to make it a Law not on the Kings Will to cause him give the being of a Law to that which without his Will is no Law for this supponeth that he is only Iudge Obj. What power the people reserveth they reserve it to themselves in unitate as united in a Parliament and therefore what they doe out of a Parliament is tumultous Ans I deny the consequence they reserve the power of selfe preservation out of a Parliament and a power of convening in Parliament for that effect that they may by Common Counsell defend themselves QUEST XXII Whether the power of the King as King be absolute or dependent and limited by Gods first mould and paterne of a King DOctor Ferne sheweth us it was never his purpose to plead for absolutenesse of an Arbitrary commandement free from all Morall restraint laid on the power by Gods Law but only he striveth for a power in the King that cannot be resisted by the subject But truely we never disputed with Royalists of any absolute power in the King free from Morall subjection to Gods Law 1. Because any bond that Gods Law imposeth on the King it commeth wholly from God and the nature of a Divine Law and not from any voluntary contract or covenant either expresse or tacito betwixt the King and the people who made him King for if he faile against such a covenant though he should exceed the cruelty of a King or a man and become a Lion and a Nero a Mother-killer he should in all his inhumanity and breach of covenant be countable to God not to any man on earth 2. To dispute with Royalists if Gods Law lay any Morall restraint upon the King nor to dispute whether the King be a rationall man or no and whether he can sin against God and shall cry in the day of Gods wrath if he be a wicked Prince Hills fall on us and cover us as it is Revel 6. 15 16. and whether Tophet be prepared for all workers of iniquity and certainly I justifie the Schoole-men in that question Whether or no God could have created a rationall creature such a one as by nature is impeccable and not naturally capable of sinne before God if Royalists dispute this question of their absolute Monarch they are wicked Divines 2. We plead not at this time saith the Prelate stealing from Grotius Barclaius Arnisaeus who spake it with more sinewes of reason for a masterly or despoticall or rather a slavishing Soveraignty which is Dominium herile an absolute power such as the great Turke this day exerciseth over his subjects and the King of Spaine hath over and in his territories without Europe we maintain only regiam potestatem quae fundatur in paterna such royall fatherly Soveraignty as we live under blessed be God and our predecessors This saith he as it hath its Royall Prerogative inherent to the Crowne naturally and inseparable from it so it trencheth not upon the liberty of the person or the property of the goods of the subject but in and by the lawfull and just acts of jurisdiction Ans 1. Here is another absolute power disclaimed to be in the King he hath not such a masterly and absolute liberty as the Turke hath Why Iohn P. P. in such a tender and high point as concerneth soule and body of subjects in three Christian Kingdomes you should have taught us 1. What bonds and fetters any covenant or paction betwixt the King and people layeth upon the King why he hath not as King the power of the great Turke I will tell you The Great Turke may command any of his subjects to leape into a mountaine of fire and burne himselfe quick in
Prelate presumeth that Fatherly power is absolute But so if a father murther his childe he is not comptable to the Magistrate therefore but being absolute over his children only the Judge of the World not any power on earth can punish him 6. We have proved that the Kings power is paternall or fatherly only by analogie and improperly 7. What is this Prerogative Royall we shall heare by and by 8. There is no restraint on Earth laid upon this fatherly power of the King but Gods law which is a morall restraint If then the King challenge as great a power as the Turke hath he only sinneth against God but no mortall man on earth may controll him as Royalists teach and who can know what power it is that Royalists plead for whether a dispoticall power of Lordly power or a fatherly power If it be a power above law such as none on earth may resist it it is no matter whether it be above law of two degrees or of twenty even to the Great Turkes power These goe for Oracles at Court Tacitus Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt subditis obsequii gloria relicta est Seneca Indigna digna habenda sunt Rex quae facit Salustius Impunâ— quidvis facere id est Regem esse As if to be a King and to be a God who cannot erre were all one But certainly these Authors are taxing the Licence of Kings and not commanding their power But that God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a King above the law is evident by this Arg. 1. He who in his first institution is appointed of God by office even when he sitteth on the throne to take heed to read on a written copie of Gods law that he may learne to feare the Lord his God and keep all the words of this law c. He is not of absolute power above law But Deut. 17. 18 19 the King as King while he sitteth on the Throne is to doe this Ergo the Assumption is cleare for this is the law of the King as King and not of a man as a man But as he sitteth on the Throne he is to read on the booke of the Law and ver 20. Because he is King his heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren And as King v. 16. he is not to multiply horses c. So Polititians make this argument good They say Rex est lex viva animata loquens lex The King as King is a living breathing and speaking Law And there be three reasons of this 1. If all were innocent persons and could doe no violence one to another the Law would rule all and all men would put the Law in execution agendo sponte by doing right of their own accord and there should be no need of a King to compell men to do right But now because men are by nature averse to good lawes therefore there was need of a Ruler who by office should reduce the Law into practice and so is the King the Law reduced in practice 2. The Law is ratio sive mens the reason or minde free from all perturbations of anger lust hatred and cannot be tempted to ill and the King as a man may be tempted by his own passions and therefore as King he commeth by office out of himselfe to reason and law and so much as he hath of Law so much of a King and in his remotest distance from Law and Reason he is a Tyrant 3. Abstracta concretis sunt puriora perfectiora Iustice is perfecter then a just man Whitenes perfecter then the white wall so the neerer the King comes to a Law for the which he is a King the neerer to a King Propter quod unumquodque tale id ipsum magis tale Therefore Kings throwing lawes to themselves as men whereas they should have conformed themselves to the Law have erred Cambyses the sonne of Cyrus because he loved his own sister would have the mariage of the brother with the sister lawfull Anaxarchus said to Alexander grieved in minde that he had killed Clytus Regi ac Iovi Themin atque Iustitiam assidere Iudgement and Righteousnesse did alway accompanie God and the King in all they doe But some to this purpose say better The Law rather then the King hath power of life and death Arg. 2. The power that the King hath I speak not of his gifts he hath it from the people who maketh him King as I proved before but the people have neither formally nor virtually any power absolute to give the King all the power they have is a legall and naturall power to guide themselves in peace and godlinesse and save themselves from unjust violence by the benefit of Rulers Now an absolute power above a Lawis a power to doe ill and to destroy the people and this the people have not themselves it being repugnant to nature that any should have a naturall power in themselves to destroy themselves or to inflict upon themselves an evill of punishment to destruction Though therefore it were given which yet is not granted that the people had resigned all power that they have into their King yet if he use a Tyrannicall power against the people for their hurt and destruction he useth a power that the people never gave him and against the intention of nature for they invested a man with power to be their father and defender for their good And he faileth against the peoples intention in usurping aâ— over power to himselfe which they never gave never had never could give for they cannot give what they never had and power to destroy themselves they never had 3. Arg. All Royall Power whereby a King is a King and differenced from a private man armed with no power of the sword is from God But absolute power to Tyranize over the people and to destroy them is not a power from God Ergo there is not any such royall power absolute The proposition is evident because that God who maketh Kings and disposeth of Crownes Prov. 8. 15 16. 2 Sam. 12. 7. Daniel 4. 32. must also create and give that Royall and Officiall power by which a King is a King 1. Because God created man he must be the Author of his reasonable soule if God be the Author of things he must be the Author of their formes by which they are that which they are 2. All power is Gods 1 Chro. 29. 11 Matth. 6. 13. Ps 62. 11. Ps 68. 35. Dan. 2. 37. And that absolute power to Tyrannize is not from God 1. Because if this Morall power to sinne be from God it being formally wickednesse God must be the Author of sinne 2. What ever Morall power is from God the exercises of that power and the acts thereof must be from God and so these acts must be Morally good and just for if the Morall power be of God as the Author so must the acts
sinfull man which must be idolatrie But to doe Royall acts out of an absolute power above Law and Reason is such a power as agreeth to God as is evident in positive lawes and in acts of Gods meere pleasure where we see no reason without the Almightie for the one side rather than for the other as Gods forbidding the eating of the tree of knowledge maketh the eating sinne and contrary to reason but there is no reason in the object for if God should command eating of that tree not to eat should be also sinne So Gods choosing Peter to glory and his refusing Judas is a good and a wise act but not good or wise from the object of the act but from the sole wise pleasure of God because if God had chosen Judas to glory and rejected Peter that act had been no lesse a good and a wise act then the former For when there is no law in the object but only Gods will the act is good and wise seeing infinite wisdome cannot be separated from the perfect will of God but no act of a mortall King having sole and only will and neither law nor reason in it can be a lawfull a wise or a good act Assert 2. There is something which may be called a Prerogative by way of dispensation There is a threefold dispensation one of power another of justice and a third of grace A dispensation of power is when the will of the Law-giver maketh that act to be no sinne which without that will would have been sinne As if Gods commanding Will had not interveened the Israelites borrowing the eare-rings and jewels of the Egyptians and not restoring them had been a breach of the 8 Commandement and in this sense no King hath a Prerogative to dispence with a Law 2. There is a dispensation of law and justice not flowing from any Prerogative but from the true intent of the Law And thus the King yea the inferiour Judge is not to take the life of a man whom the letter of the Law would condemne because the Justice of the Law is the intent and life of the Law and where nothing is done against the intent of the Law there is no breach of any Law The Third is not unlike unto the Second when the King exponeth the Law by Grace and this is twofold 1. Either when he exponeth it of his wisdome and mercifull nature inclined to mercy and justice yet according to the just intent native sense and scope of the Law considering the occasion circumstances of the fact and comparing both with the Law aud this dispensation of grace I grant to the King As when the tribute is great and the man poor the King may dispense with the custome 2. The Law saith In a doubtfull case the Prince may dispense because it is presumed the Law can have no sense against the principall sense and intent of the Law But there is another dispensation that Royalists doe plead for and that is a power in the King ex mera gratia absolutae potestatis regalis Out of meere grace of absolute Royall power to pardon crimes which Gods law saith should be punished by death Now this they call a power of Grace but it is not a power of meere Grace But 1. Though Princes may doe some things of Grace yet not of meere Grace because what Kings doe as Kings and by vertue of their Royall office that they do ex debito officii by debt and right of their office and that they cannot but do it not being arbitrarie to them to doe the debtfull acts of their office But what they doe of meere grace that they doe as good men and not as Kings and that they may not doe As for example Some Kings out of their pretended prerogative have given foure pardons to one man for foure murthers Now this the King might have left undone without sinne But of meere grace he pardoned the murtherer who killed foure men But the truth is the King killed the three last because he hath no power in point of Conscience to dispute with blood Num. 35. 31. Gen. 9. 6. These pardons are acts of meere grace to one man but acts of blood to the Communitie 2. Because the Prince is the Minister of God for the good of the subject and therefore the Law saith He cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him Contra l. quod favore F. de leg l. non ideo minus F. de proc l. legata inutiliter F. de lega 1. And the reason is cleare He is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill And if the Judgement be the Lords not mans not the Kings as it is indeed Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. he cannot draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guiltie except he would take on himselfe to carve and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now certaine it is God only univocally and essentially as God is the Judge Ps 75. 7. and God only and essentially King Ps 97. 1. Ps 99. 1. and all men in relation to him are meere ministers servants legates deputies and in relation to him equivocally and improperly Iudges or Kings and meere created and breathing shadowes of the power of the King of Kings And looke as the Scribe following his own device and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the Court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Iudge so are Kings and all Iudges but forged intruders and bastard Kings and Iudges in so far as they give out the sentences of men and are not the very mouthes of the King of Kings to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himselfe would doe if he were sitting on the Throne or Bench. 3. If the King from any supposed prerogative Royall may doe acts of meere grace without any warrant of Law because he is above Law by office then also may he doe acts of meere rigorous Iustice and kill and destroy the innocent out of the same supposed Prerogative For Gods word equally tyeth him to the place of a meere minister in doing good as in executing wrath on evill doers Rom. 13. 3 4. And reason would say he must be as absolute in the one as in the other seeing God tieth him to the one as to the other by his office and place yea by this acts of Iustice to ill-doers and acts of reward to well-doers shall be arbitrary morally and by vertue of office to the King and the word Prerogative Royall saith this for the word Prerogative is a supreme power absolute that is loosed from all Law and so from all reason of Law and depending on the Kings meer and naked pleasure and will and the word Royall or Kingly is an Epithete of office and of a Iudge a created and limited Iudge and so it must tye this
supposed Prerogative to Law Reason and to that which is debitum legale officii and a legall duty of an office and by this our masters the Royalists make God to frame a rationall creature which they call a King to frame acts of Royalty good and lawfull upon his own meer pleasure and the super-dominion of his will above a Law and Reason And from this it is that deluded Counsellours made King James a man not of shallow understanding and King Charls to give pardons to such bloody murtherers as James a Grant and to go so far on by this supposed Prerogative Royall that King Charls in Parliament at Edinburgh 1633. did command an high point of Religion That Ministers should use in officiating in Gods service such Habits and Garments as he pleaseth that is all the Attire and Habits of the idolatrous Masse-Priests that the Romish Priests of Baal useth in the oadest point of idolatry the adoring of Bread that the earth has and by this Prerogative the King commanded the Service Book in Scotland An. 1637. without or above Law and Reason And I desire any man to satisfie me in this If the Kings Prerogative Royall may over-leap Law and Reason in two degrees and if he may as King by a Prerogative Royall command the body of Popery in a Popish Book If he may not by the same reason over-leap Law and Reason by the elevation of twenty degrees And if you make the King a Iulian God avert and give the spirit of revelation to our King may he not command all the Alcaron and the Religion of the Heathen and Indians Royalists say The Prerogative of Royalty excludeth not reason and maketh not the King to â—â— as a brute beast without all reason but it giveth a power to a King to do by his Royall pleasure not fettered to the dictates of a Law for in things which the King doth by his Prerogative Royall he is to follow the advice and counsell of his wise counsell though their counsell and advice doth not binde the Royall will of the King I answer it is to me and I am sure to many Learneder a great question If the will of any reasonable creature even of the damned angels can will or chose any thing which their reason corrupted as it is doth not dictate hic nunc to be good For the object of the will of all men is good either truely or apparently good to the doer for the devill could not suite in marriage souls except he war in the cloths of an Angel of light sin as sin cannot sell or obtrude it self upon any but under the notion of good I think it seemeth good to the great Turk to command innocent men to cast themselves over a precipie two hundreth fadom high in the Sea and drown themselves to pleasure him So the Turks reason for he is rationall if he be a man dictateth to his vast pleasure that that is good which he commandeth 2. Counsellours to the King who will speak what will please the Queen are but naked empty Titles for they speak que placent non que prosunt what may please the King whom they make glad with their lies not what law and reason dictateth 3. Absolutenesse of an unreasonable Prerogative doth not deny Counsell and Law also for none more absolute de facto I cannot say de jure then the Kings of Babylon and Persia for Daniel saith of one of them Dan. 5. 19. Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set up and whom he would he put down and yet these same Kings did nothing but by advice of their Princes and Counsellors yea so as they could not alter a decree and law as is clear Ester 1. 14 15 16 17 21. Yea Darius de facto an absolute Prince was not able to deliver Daniel because the Law was passed that he should be cast into the Lions den Dan. 6. 14 15 16. 4. That which the spirit of God condemneth as a point of Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar that is no lawfull Prerogative Royall but the spirit of God condemneth this as Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar That he slew whom he would he kept alive whom he would he set up whom he would he put down this is too God-like Deut. 32. 39. So Polanus Rollocus on the place say he did these things Vers 19. Ex abusu legitime potestatis for Nebuchadnezzars will in matters of death and life was his Law and he did what pleased himself above all Law beside and contrary to it and our flatterers of Kings draw the Kings Pretogative out of Vlpians words who saith That is a Law which seemeth good to the Prince but Vlpian was far from making the Princes will a rule of good and ill for he saith the contrary That the Law ruleth the just Prince 5. It is considerable here that Sanches defineth the absolute power of Kings to be a plenitude and fulnesse of power subject to no necessity and bounded with rules of no publick Law and so did Baldus before him but all Politicians condemn that of Caligula as Suetonius saith which he spake to Alexander the Great Remember that thou maist do all things and that thou hast a power to do to al men what thou pleasest And Lawyers say that this is Tyranny Chilon one of the seven wise of Greece as Rodigi saith better Princes are like gods because they onely can do that which is just And this power being meerly Tyrannicall can be no ground of a Royall Prerogative There is another power saith Sanches absolute by which a Prince dispenseth without a cause in a humane law and this power saith he may be defended but he saith What the King doth by this absolute power he doth it validè validly but not jure by Law but by valid acts the Iesuite must mean Royall Acts but no acts void of Law and Reason say we can be Royall Acts for Royall Acts are acts performed by a King as a King and by a Law and so cannot be Acts above or beside a Law It is true a King may dispence with the breach of an humane Law as a humane Law that is If the Law be death to any who goeth up on the Walls of the Citie the King may pardon any who going up discovereth the enemies approach and saveth the Citie But 1. The inferiour Iudge according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that benigne interpretation that the soul and intent of the Law requireth may do this as well as the King 2. All acts of independent Prerogative are above a Law and acts of free-will having no cause or ground in the Law otherwayes it is not founded upon absolute power but on power ruled by Law and Reason but to pardon a breach of the letter of the Law of man by exponing it according to the true intent of the Law and benignly is an act of legall obligation and so of the ordinary power of
threatning 4. To be a King and an absolute Master to me are contradictory a King essentially is a living Law An absolute man is a creature that they call a Tyrant and no lawfull King yet doe I not meane that any that is a King and usurpeth absolutenesse leaveth off to be a King but in so far as he is absolute he is no more a King then in so far as he is a Tyrant But further the King of England saith in a Declaration 1. The Law is the measure of the Kings Power 2. Parliaments are essentially Lord Iudges to make Lawes essentially as the King is ergo the King is not above the Law 3. Magna Charta saith the King can doe nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law 4. Prescription taketh away the title of conquests Obj 3. The King not the Parliament is the Anoynted of God Ans The Parliament is as good even a Congregation of Gods Psalme 82. 1. Obj. 4. The Parliament is the Court in their Acts they say with consent of our Soveraigne Lord. Ans They say not at the Commandement and absolute pleasure of our Soveraigne Lord. 2. He is their Lord materially not as they are formally a Parliament for the King made them not a Parliament but sure I am the Parliament had power before he was King and made him King 1 Sam. 10. 17 18. Obj. 5. In an absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any will as will but to the reasonable will of the Monarch which having the law of reason to direct it is kept from injurious acts Ans If reason be a sufficient restraint and if God hath laid no other restraint upon some lawfull King yee reason Then is Migistracy a lame a needlesse ordinance of God for all Mankind hath reason to keepe themselves from injuries and so there is no need of Iudges or Kings to defend them from either doing or suffering injuries But certainly this must be admirable If God as Author of nature should make the Lyon King of all beasts the Lyon remaining a devouring beast and should ordaine by nature all the sheepe and Lambs to come and submit their corps to him by instinct of nature and to be eaten at his will and then say The nature of a beast in a Lyon is a sufficient restraint to keepe the Lyon from devouring Lambs Certainly a King being a sinfull man and having no restraint on his power but reason he may thinke it reason to allow rebells to kill drowne hang torture to death an hundred thousand Protestants men women infants in the wombe and sucking babes as is clere in Pharaoh Manasseh and other Princes Obj. 6. There is no Court or Iudge above the King ergo he is absolutely supreame Ans The Antecedent is false The Court that made the King of a private man a King is above him and here are limitations laid on him at his Coronation 2. The States of Parliament are above him to censure him 3. In case of open Tyranny though the States had not time to conveen in Parliament if he bring on his people an hoast of Spaniards or forraine Rèbells his owne conscience is above him and the conscience of the people farre more called conscientia terrae may judge him in so farre as they may rise up and defend themselves Obj. 7. Here the Prelate borrowing from Grotius Barclay Arnisaeus or it s possible he be not so farre travelled for Doct. Ferne hath the same Soveraignty weakned in Aristocracy cannot do◠its worke and is in the next place to Anarchy and confusion When Zedekiah was over Lorded by his Nobles he could neither save himselfe nor the people nor the Prophet the servant of God Ieremiah nor could David punish Ioab when he was over-awed by that power he himselfe had put in his hand To weaken the head is to distemper the whole body if any good Prince or his Royall Antecessors be cheated of their sacred right by fraud or force he may at his fittest opportunity resume it What a sinne is it to rob God or the King of their due Ans Aristocracy is no lesse an ordinance of God then Royalty for Rom. 13. 1. and 1 Tim. 2. 1. All in Authority are to be acknowledged as Gods Vice-gerents the Senate the Consuls as well as the Emperour And so one ordinance of God cannot weaken another nor can any but by a lawlesse Animall say Aristocracy bordereth with confusion but he must say Order and Light are sister Germanes to confusion and darknesse 2 Though Zedekiah a man voyd of God were over-awed with his Nobles and so could not help Ieremiah it followeth not that because Kings may not do this and this good therefore they are to be invested with power to doe all ill if they doe all the good that they have power to doe they 'l finde way to helpe the oppressed Jeremiahes and because power to doe both good and evill is given by the Divell to our Scottish Witches it s a poore consequent that the States should give to the King power absolute to be a Tyrant 3. A State must give a King more power then ordinary especially to execute Laws which requireth singular wisdom when a Prince cannot alwayes have his great Councell about with him to advise him But 1. That is power borrowed and by loan and not properly his own and therefore it is no sacriledge in the States to resume what the King hath by a fiduciary Title and borrowed from them 2. This power was given to do good not evill David had power over Joab to punish him for his murther but he executed it not upon carnall fears and abused his power to kill innocent Vriah which power neither God nor the States gave him But how proveth he the States took power from David or that Ioab took power from David to put to death a murtherer that I see not 3. If Princes power to do good be taken from them they may resume it when God giveth opportunity But this is to the Prelate Perjury that the people by Oath give away their power to their King and resume it when he abuseth it to Tyranny But it is no perjurie in the King to resume a taken away power which if it be his own is yet lis sub judice a great controversie Quod in Cajo licet in Nevio non licet So he teacheth the King That Perjurie and Sacriledge is lawfull to him If Princes power to do ill and cut the whole Land off as one neck which was the wicked desire of Caligula be taken from them by the States I am sure 1. This power was never theirs and never the peoples and you cannot take the Princes power from him which was never his power 2. I am also sure the Prince should never resume an unjust power though he were cheated of it P. Prelate It is a poor shift to acknowledge no more for the
almes though it should proceed from mercie in the Prince Psal 72. 13. but an act of Royall debt 3. The P. Prelate objecteth The most you claime to Parliaments is a coordinate power which in law and reason run in equall tearmes In Law par in parem non habet imperium an equall cannot judge an equall much lesse may an inferiour usurpeto judge a superiour Our Lord knew gratiâ visionis the woman taken in adulterie to be guilty bat he would not scntence her to teach us not improbably not to be both Judge and Witnesse The Parliament are Judges accusers and witnesses against the King in their owne cause against the Imperiall lawes Ans 1. The Parliament is coordinate ordinarily with the King in the power of making Lawes but the coordination on the Kings part is by derivation on the Parliaments part originaliter fontaliter as in the fountaine 2. In ordinarie there is coordination but if the King turne Tyrant the Estates are to use their fountaine-power And that of the Law Par in parem c. is no better from his Pen that stealeth all he hath then from Barclaius Grotius Arnisaeus Blackwood c. It is cold and sowre We hold the Parliament that made the King at Hebron to be above their own creature the King Barclaius saith more acurately l. 5 cont Monarch p. 129. It is absurd that the People should both be subject to the King and command the King also Ans It is not absurd that a Father naturall as a private man should be subject to his Sonne even that Jesse and his elder brother the Lord of all the rest be subject to David their King Royalists say Our late Queen being supreme Magistrate might by Law have put to death her own husband for adulterie or murther 2. The Parliament should not be both Accuser Iudge and Witnesse in their own cause 1. It is the Cause of Religion of God of Protestants and of the whole people 2. The oppressed accuse there is no need of witnesses in raising armes against the Subjects 3. The P. Prelate could not object this if against the Imperiall laws the King were both Partie and Iudge in his own cause and in these acts of arbitrarie power which he hath done through bad counsell in wronging Fundamentall lawes raising armes against his subjects bringing in forraigne enemies into both his Kingdomes c. Now this is properly the cause of the King as he is a man and his owne cause not the cause of God and by no Law of nature reason or Imperiall Statutes can he be both Iudge and party 4. If the King be sole supreame Iudge without any fellow sharers in power 1. He is not obliged by Law to follow Counsell or hold Parliaments for Counsell is not Command 2. It is unpossible to limit him even in the exercises of his power which yet Dr. Ferne saith cannot be said for if any of his power be retrinched God is robbed saith Maxwell 3. He may by Law play the Tyrant gratis Ferne objecteth § 7. pag. 26. The King is a fundamentall with the Estates now foundations are not to be stirred or removed Ans The King as King inspired with Law is a fundamentall and his power is not to be stirred but as a man wasting his people he is a destruction to the house and community and not a 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 theâ— Prince of Orange is some â—mbrage 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 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.
Dictator was not above a King but the Romanes ejected Kings 5. The Dictators power was not to destroy a State 2. He might be and was resisted 3. He might be deposed Prelate The safetie of the People is pretended as a Law that the Jewes must put Christ to death and that Saul spared Agag Ans No shadow for either in the word of God Caiaphas prophecied and knew not what he said But that the Iewes intended the salvation of the Elect in kilâ—ing Christ or that Saul intended a publick good in sparing Agag shall be the Prelates Divinitie not mine 2. What howbeit many should abuse this Law of the peoples safety to wrong good Kings it ceaseth not therefore to be a Law and licenseth not ill Kings to place a Tyrannicall Prerogative above a just Dictate of nature In the last Chapter the Prelate hath no reasons onely he would have Kings holy and this he proveth from Apocrypha Books because he is ebbe in holy Scripture but it is Romish holinesse as is cleer 2. He must preach something to himself that the King adore a tree-Altar Thus Kings must be most reverend in their gestures pag. 182. 3. The King must hazard his sacred life and three Kingdoms his Crown Royall posterity to preserve sacred things that is Antichristian Romish Idols Images Altars Ceremonies Idolatry Popery 4. He must upon the same pain maintain sacred persons that is greasie Apostate Prelates The rest I am weary to trouble the Reader withall but know ex ungue leonem QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law or no VVE may consider the question of the Laws supremacie over the King either in the supremacie of constitution of the King 2. or of direction or 3. of limitation or 4. of coaction and punishing Those who maintain this The King is not subject to the Law if their meaning be The King as King is not subject to the Laws direction They say nothing for the King as the King is a living Law then they say The Law is not subject to the Laws direction a very improper speech or The King as King is not subject to the coaction of the Law that is true for he who is a living Law as such cannot punish himself as the Law saith 1. Assert The Law hath a supremacy of constitution above the King 1. Because the King by nature is not King as is proved Ergo he must be King by a politique constitution and Law and so the Law in that consideration is above the King because it is from a civil Law that there is a King rather then any other kinde of Governour 2. It is by Law that amongst many hundred men this man is King not this man and because by the which a thing is constituted by the same thing it is or may be dissolved therefore 3. As a Community finding such and such qualifications as the Law requireth to be in a King in this man not in this man therefore upon Law-ground 5. They make him a King and upon Law-grounds and just demerit they may unmake him again for what men voluntarily doe upon condition the condition being removed they may undoe again 2. Assert It is denyed by none but the King is under the directive power of the Law though many liberate the King from the coactive power of a civil Law But I see not what direction a civil Law can give to the King if he be above all obedience or disobedience to a Law seeing all Law-direction is in ordine ad obedientiam in order to obey except thus far that the light that is in the civil Law is a morall or naturall guide to conduct a King in his walking but this is the morality of the Law which inlightneth and informeth not any obligation that aweth the King and so the King is under Gods and Natures Law this is nothing to the purpose 3. Assert The King is under the Law in regard of some coercive limitation 1. Because there is no absolute power given to him to do what he listeth as a man And because 2. God in making Saul a King doth not by any Royall stamp give him a power to sin or to play the Tyrant for which cause I expone these of the Law Omnia sunt possibilia Regi Imperator omnia potest Baldus in § F. de no. for fidel in F. in prima constitut C. col 2. Chassanaeus in Catalog gloriae mundi par 5. considerat 24. tanta est ejus celsitudo ut non posset ei imponi lex in regno suo Curt. in consol 65. col 6. ad F. Petrus Rebuff Notab 3. repet l. unicae C. de sentent quae pro eo quod nu 17. pag. 363. All these go no otherwise but thus The King can do all things which by Law he can do and that holdeth him id possumus quod jure possumus And therefore the King cannot be above the Covenant and Law made betwixt him and his people at his Coronation-oath for then the Covenant and Oath should binde him onely by a naturall obligation as he is a man not by a civil or politique obligation as he is a King So then 1. it were sufficient that the King should swear that Oath in his Cabinet-chamber and it is but a mocking of an Oath that he swear it to the people 2. That Oath given by the Representative-Kingdom should also oblige the Subjects naturally in foro Dei not politically in foro humano upon the same reason 3. He may be resisted as a man 4. Assert The fourth case is if the King be under the obliging politique coaction of civil Laws for that he in foro Dei be under the morality of civil Laws so as he cannot contraveen any Law in that notion but he must sin against God is granted on all hands Deut. 17. 20. Iosh 1. 8. 1 Sam. 12. 15. That the King binde himself to the same Law that he doth binde others is decent and obligeth the King as he is a man 1. Because Matth. 7. 12. It is said to be the Law and the Prophets All things whatsoever ye would men should do unto you do ye even so to them 2. It is the Law Jmperator L. 4. dignae vox C. de lege tit Quod quisque juris in alium statuit eodem ipse utatur Iulius Caesar commanded the youth who had defloured the Emperours daughter to be scourged above that which the Law allowed The youth said to the Emperour Dixisti legem Caesar You appointed the Law Caesar The Emperor was so offended with himself that he had failed against the Law that for the whole day he refused to taste meat Assert 5. The King cannot but he subject to the coactive power of Fundamentall Laws Because this is a Fundamentall Law that the free Estates lay upon the King that all the power that they give to the King as King is for the good and safety of the
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
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 have a sole and peremptory power of exponing Lawes and the Word of God We are to consider that there 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 judicandi 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 King Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. L 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 Suppoâ—e 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 to other inferiour Iudges Be wise understand and the cause that you know not search out then the King is not the only interpreter of the Law But the Lord saith not to the King only but to other Iudges also Be wise understand and the cause that you know not search out ergo the King is not the sole Law-giver The Major is cleare from Ps 2. 10. Be wise now therefore O yee Kings be instructed yee Iudges of the earth So are commands and rebukes for unjust judgement given to others then to Kings Ps 82. 1 2 3 4 5. Ps 58. 1 2. Esay 1. 17 23 25 26. Esay 3. 14. see Iob. 29. 12 13 14 15. c. 31. v. 21. 22. 3 The King is either the sole interpreter of Law in respect he is to follow the Law as his Rule and so he is a ministeriall interpreter of the Law or he is an interpreter of the Law according to that super-dominion of absolute power that he hath above the Law If the former be holden then it is cleare that the King is not the only interpreter for all Iudges as they are Iudges have a ministeriall power to expone the Law by the Law but the second is the sense of Royalists Hence our second Assertion is That the Kings power of exponing the Law is a meere ministeriall power and he hath no dominion of any absolute Royall Power to expone the Law as he will and to put such a sense and meaning of the Law as he pleaseth 1. Because Saul maketh a Law 1 Sam. 14. 24. Cursed be the man that tasteth any food till night that the King may be avenged on his enemies the Law according to the letter was bloudy but according to the intent of the Law-giver and substance of the Law profitable for the end was that the enemies should be persued with all speed But King Sauls exponing the Law after a Tyrannicall way against the intent of the Law which is the Diamond and Pearle of all Lawes the safety of the innocent people was justly resisted by the people who violently hindered innocent Jonathan to be killed Whence it is cleare that the people and Princes put on the Law its true sense and meaning for Ionathans tasting of a little honey though as it was against that sinfull and precipitate circumstance a rash oath yet it was not against the substance and true intent of the Law which was the peoples speedy pursuite of the enemy Whence it is cleare that the people including the Princes hath a ministeriall power to expone the Law aright and according to its genuine intent and that the King as King hath no absolute power to expone the Law as he pleaseth 2. The Kings absolute pleasure can no more be the genuine sense of a just Law then his absolute pleasure can be a Law because the genuine sense of the Law is the Law it selfe as the formall essence of a thing differeth not really but in respect of reason from the thing it selfe The Pope and Romish Church cannot put on the Scripture Ex plenitudine potestatis what ever meaning they will no more then they can out of absolute power make Canonicke Scripture Now so it is that the King by his absolute power cannot make
for their own just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull ARnisaeus perverteth the question he saith The question is Whether or no the Subjects may according to their power judge the King and dethrone him that is Whether or no is it lawfull for the Subjects in any case to take arms against their lawfull Prince if he degenerate and shall wickedly use his lawfull power The state of the question is much perverted for these be different questions Whether the Kingdom may dethrone a wicked and Tyrannous Prince And whether may the Kingdom take up arms against the man who is the King in their own innocent defence For the former is an Act offensive and of punishing the latter is an Act of Defence 2. The present question is not of Subjects onely but of the Estates and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom I utterly deny these as they are Iudges to be subjects to the King for the question is Whether is the King or the representative Kingdom greatest and which of them be subject one to another I affirm Amongst Iudges as Iudges not one is the Commander or Superiour and the other the commanded or subject Indeed one higher Iudge may correct and punish a Iudge not as a Iudge but as an erring man 3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act of War as concerning the power of naturall Defence upon supposition That the King be not now turned an habituall Tyrant but that upon some acts of mis-information he come in arms against his Subjects 2. Arnisaeus maketh two sort of Kings Some Kings integrae Majestatis of intire power and Soveraignty some Kings by pactions or voluntary agreement between King and people But I judge this a vain distinction For the limited Prince so he be limited to a power onely of doing just and right by this is not a Prince integrae Majestatis of entire Royall Majestie whereby he may do both good and also play the Tyrant but a power to do ill being no wayes essentiall yea repugnant to the absolute Majestie of the King of Kings cannot be an essentiall part of the Majestie of a lawfull King and therefore the Prince limited by voluntary and positive paction onely to rule according to law and equity is the good lawfull and entire Prince if he have not power to do every thing just and good in that regard onely he is not an intire and compleat Prince So the man will have it lawfull to resist the limited Prince not the absolute Prince by the contrary it is more lawfull to me to resist the absolute Prince then the limited in as much as we may with safer consciences resist the Tyrant and the Lyon then the just Prince and the Lamb. Nor can I assent to Cunnerus de officio princip Christia c. 5. 17. Who holdeth that these voluntary pactions betwixt King and people in which the power of the Prince is diminished cannot stand because their power is given to them by Gods Word which cannot be taken from them by any voluntary paction lawfully and from the same ground Winzetus in velit contr Buchan p. 32. will have it unlawfull to resist Kings because God hath made them unresistable I answer If God by a divine institution make Kings absolute and above all Laws which is a blasphemous supposition the holy Lord can give to no man a power to sin for God hath not himself any such power then the Covenant betwixt the King and people cannot lawfully remove and take away what God by institution has given but because God Deut. 17. hath limited the first lawfull King the mould of all the rest the people ought also to limit him by a voluntary Covenant and because the lawfull power of a King to do good is not by divine Institution placed in an indivisible point It is not a sin for the people to take some power even of doing good from the King that he solely and by himself shall not have power to pardon an involuntary homicide without advice and the judiciall suffrages of the Councell of the Kingdom least he insteed of this give pardons to Robbers to abominable Murtherers and in so doing the people robbeth not the King of the power that God gave him as King nor ought the King to contend for a sole power in himself of ministring justice to all for God layeth not upon Kings burdens unpossible and God by Institution hath denied to the King all power of doing all good because it is his Will that other Iudges be sharers with the King in that power Num. 14. 16 Deut. 1. 14. 15 16 17. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. And therefore the Duke of Venice to me cometh neerest to the King moulded by God Deut. 17. in respect of power de jure of any King I know in Europe And in point of conscience the inferiour Iudge discerning a murtherer and bloody man to die may in foro conscientiae despise the Kings unjust pardon and resist the Kings force by his sword and coactive power that God hath given him and put to death the bloody murtherer and he sinneth if he do not this for to me it is clear The King cannot judge so justly and understandingly of a murtherer in Scotland as a Iudge to whom God hath committed the sword in Scotland Nor hath the Lord laid that unpossible burden on a King to judge so of a murther four hundreth miles removed from the King as the Iudge nearer to him as is clear by Num. 14 16. 1 Sam. 7. 15 16 17. The King should go from place to place and judge and whereas it is unpossible to him to go thorow three Kingdoms he should appoint faithfull Iudges who may not be resisted no not by the King 2. The question is If the King command A. B. to kill his father his pastour the man neither being cited nor convicted of any fault may lawfully be resisted 3. Queritur If in that case in which the King is captived imprisoned and not sui juris and awed or over-awed by bloody Papists and so is forced to command a barbarous and unjust War and if being distracted Physically or Morally through wicked Counsell he command that which no father in his sober wits would command even against Law and Conscience That the sons should yeild obedience and subjection to him in maintaining with lives and goods a bloody Religion and bloody Papists If in that case the King may not be resisted in his person because the power lawfull and the sinfull person cannot be separated We hold the King using contrary to the oath of God and his Royall Office violence in killing against Law and Conscience his Subjects by bloody Emissaries may be resisted by defensive Wars at the commandment of the Estates of the Kingdom But before I produce Arguments to prove the lawfulnesse of resistance a little of the case of resistance 1. Doct. Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39.
is to resist the Ordinance of God as Royalists say from Rom. 13. 1 2 3. And we know to resist Gods ordinances and Gods Deputy formaliter as his Deputy is to resist God himselfe 1 Sam. 8. 7. Mat. 10. 40. as if God were doing personally these Acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these Acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to thinke or say that when a King is drinking the blood of innocents and wasting the Church of God that God if he were personally present would commit these same acts of Tyranny God would avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King as his lawfull Deputy and Vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poore Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of Tyranny he is not Gods formall Vicegerent but only in good and lawfull acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his Royall Person Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lords Deputy though not as the Lords Deputy what absurd is there in that more then to disobey him refusing active obedience to him who is the Lords Deputy but not as the Lords Deputy but as a man commanding beside his Masters Warrant 5. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now Gods end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding safetie preservation the peaceable and quiet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2. 2. Esa 49. 23. Psal 79. 71. But God should crosse his own end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressors and wasters in his holy Mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a thousand thousand Protestants for their Religion in an ordinary Providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say The King will not be so cruell I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possibly in his power to be so cruell 2. We owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the nature and genuine intrinsecall end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistance made by any mortall man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemie to Gods ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no barre upon the illimited power of a man inclined to sinne and abuse his power to so much crueltie Some may say the same absurditie doth follow if the King should turne Papist and the Parliament all were Papists in that case there might be so many Martyrs for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power then more then now and yet in that case the King and Parliament should be Iudges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in Peace and Godlinesse But I answer If God gave a lawfull officiall power to King and Parliament to worke the same crueltie upon millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawfull for them by armes to defend themselves I should then think that King and Parliament were both ex officio by vertue of their office and actu primo Iudges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and Butchers Which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted Providence of God 6. If the Estates of a Kingdome give the power to a King it is their own power in the fountaine and if they give it for their own good they have power to judge when it it used against themselves and for their evill and so power to limit and resist the power that they gave Now that they may take away this power is cleare in Athaliahs case It is true she was a Tyrant without a Title and had not the right of Heaven to the Crown yet she had in Mens Court a title For supposing all the seed Royall to be killed and the peoples Consent we cannot say That for these sixe yeares or thereabout she was no Magistrate 2. That there were none on the Throne of David at this time 3. That she was not to be obeyed as Gods Deputie But grant that she was no Magistrate yet when Iehoash is brought forth to be crowned it was a controversie to the States to whom the Crown should belong 1. Athaliah was in possession 2. Iehoash himselfe being but seven yeares old could not be Iudge 3. It might be doubted if Ioash was the true sonne of Ahaziah and if he was not killed with the rest of the blood Royall Two great Adversaries say with us Hugo Grotius de jur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. He saith He dare not condemne this if the lesser part of the People and every one of them indifferently should defend themselves against a Tyrant ultimo necessitatis praesidio The case of Scotland when we were blocked up by Sea and Land with Armes The case of England when the King induced by Prelates first attempted to bring an Army to cut off the Parliament and then gathered an Army and fortified Yorke and invaded Hull to make the Militia his own sure is considerable Barclay saith The People hath jus se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiem Advers Monarchomach l. 3. c. 8. A power to defend themselves against prodigious crueltie The case of England and Ireland now invaded by the bloody Rebels of Ireland is also worthy of consideration I could cite hoasts more QUEST XXIX Whether in the case of Defensive warre the distinction of the person of the King as a man who can commit acts of hostile Tyrannie against his Subjects and of the Office and Royall power that he hath from God and the People as a King can have place BEfore I can proceed to other Scripture-proofes for the lawfulnesse of Resistance this Distinction rejected by Royalists must be cleered This is an evident and sensible distinction The King in concreto the Man who is King And the King in abstracto the Royall office of the King The ground of this distinction we desire to be considered from Rom. 13. we affirme with Buchanan that Paul Rom. 13 speaketh of the office and duty of good Magistrates and that the text speaketh nothing of an absolute King nothing of a Tyrant and the Royalists distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not against the Law l. pret 10. gl Bart. de pub in Rem and therefore we move the question here Whether or no to resist the illegall and Tyrannicall will
where the King ought not to be as Abner was worthy of death who watched not carefully King Saul but slept when David came to his bed side and had opportunity to kill the King they are Traitors and murtherers of the King who either counselled his Majesty to come to Edge-hill where the danger was so grett or did not violently restraine him from comming thither seeing Kings safety and lives are as much yea more in the disposing of the people then in their owne private will 2 Sam. 18. 2 3. for certainly the people might have violently restrained King Saul from killing himselfe and the King was guilty of his own death and sinneth against his Office and subjects who commeth out in person to any such battles where he may be killed and the contrary party free of his blood And here our Prelate is blind if he see not the cleare difference between the Kings Person and the Office as he is King and between his private Will and his publicke and Royall Will 3. The Angels may be named Thrones and Dominions in abstracto and yet created in concreto and we may say the Angell and his power are both created at once but David was not both borne the Son of Iesse and a King at once and the P. Prelate by this may prove it is not lawfull to resist the Divell for he is of the number of these created Angells Col. 1. as he is a Divell because in resisting the Divell as a Divell we must resist an Angell of God and a Principality 4. To speake ill of dignities 2 Pet. 2. and Iud. 8. Piscator insinuateth is to speake evill of the very Office of Rulers as well as of their manners and Theodat saith on 2 Pet. 2. that these Raylers spake evill of the place of Governours and Masters as unbâ—seeming beleevers All our Interpreters as Beza Calvin Luther Bucer Marloratus from the place saith It is a speciall reproofe of Anabaptists and Libertines who in that time maintained that we are all free men in Christ and that there should not be Kings Masters nor any Magistrates however the abstract is put for the concrete its true and it saith we are not to raile upon Nero but to say Nero was a persecutor of Christians and yet obey him commanding what is just are very consistent 5. The persons are proposed Rom. 13. to be the object of our obedience saith D. Ferne it is very true but he is ignorant of our mind in exponing the word Person we never meant that feare honour royalty tribute must be due to the abstracted accident of Kingly Authority and not to the man who is King Nor is it our meaning that Royalty in abstracto is Crowned King and is anoynted but that the Person is crowned and anoynted But againe by a person we meane nothing lesse then the man Nero wasting Rome burning crucifying Paul and torturing Christians and that we owe subjection to Nero and to his person in concreto as to Gods ordinance Gods Minister Gods sword-bearer in that notion of a Person is that only that we deny Nay in that Nero in concreto to us is no Power ordained of God no Minister of God but a Minister of the Divell and Sathans armour-bearer and therefore we owe not feare honour subjection and tribute to the Person of Nero. But the Person thus far is the object of our obedience that feare honour subjection and tribute must be due to the man in concreto to his Person who is Prince but not because he is a man or a person simply or a sword bearer of Papists but for his office for that eminent place of royall dignity that God hath conferred on his Person We know the light of the Sun the heate of fire in abstracto doe not properly give light and heat but the Sun and fire in concreto yet the principium quo ratio qua the principles of these operations in Sun and fire be light heate and we ascribe illuminating of dark bodies heating of cold bodies to Sun and fire in concreto yet not to the subjects simply but to them as affected with such accidents so here we honour and submit to the man who is King not because he is a man that were treason not because he useth his sword against the Church that were impiety but because of his Royall Dignity and because he useth it for the Lord. It is true Arnisaeus Barclay Ferne say That Kings leave not off to be Kings when they use their power and sword against the Church and Religion And also it is considerable that when the worst of Emperors bloody Nero did raigne the Apostle presseth the duty of subjection to him as to a power appointed of God and condemneth the resisting of Nero as the resisting of an ordinance of God And certainely if the cause and reason in point of duty Morall and of conscience before God remaine in Kings to wit that while they are enemies and persecutors as Nero was their Royall Dignity given them of God remaineth then subjection upon that ground is lawfull and resistance unlawfull Ans It is true so long as Kings remaine Kings subjection is due to them because Kings but that is not the question But the question is if subjection be due to them when they use their power unlawfully and Tyrannically What ever David did though he was a King he did it not as King he deflowred not Bathsheba as King and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted King David though Kingly Power remained in him while he should thus attempt to commit Adultery else David might have said to Bathshba Because I am the Lords Anoynted it is rebellion in thee a subject to oppose any bodily violence to my act of forcing of thee it is unlawfull to thee to cry for helpe for if any shall offer violently to rescue thee from me he resisteth the ordinance of God Subjection is due to Nero as an Emperour but not any subjection is due to him in the burning of Rome and torturing of Christians except you say that Nero's power abused in these acts of cruelty was 1. A power from God 2. An ordinance of God 3. That in these he was the Minister of God for the good of the Common-wealth Because some beleeved Christians were free from the yoake of Magistracy and that the dignity it selfe was unlawfull And 2. because ch 12. he had set downe the lawfull Church Rulers and in this and the following chapter the duties of brotherly love of one toward another So here ch 13. he teacheth that all Magistrates suppose Heathen are to be obeyed and submitted unto in all things so far as they are Ministers of God Arnisaeus objecteth to Buchan If we are by this place to subject our selves to every power in abstracto then also to a power contrary to the truth and to a power of a King exceeding the limits of a King for such a power
18. 4 5 6 7. 2. They may prove that people sought by a Tyrant to be crucifyed for the Cause of God or to reveale and discover themselves to an Armie of men who come to seek them Ioh. 13. 1 2. Ioh. 18. 4 5 6 7. 3. That Martyrs are of purpose to goe to the place where they know they shall be apprehended and put to death for this Christ did and are willingly to offer themselves to the enemies Armie for so did Christ Ioh. 14. 3. Mar. 14. 41 42. Mat. 26. 46 47. and so by his example all the Parliament all the Innocents of the Citie of London and Assemblie of Divines are obliged to lay downe Armes and to goe to their owne death to Prince Rupert and the bloody Irish Rebels 4. By this example it is unlawfull to resist the cut-throats of a King for Cesar in his owne Royall person the High Priest in person came not out against Christ Yea it is not lawfull for the Parliament to resist a Iudas who hath fled as a traiterous Apostate from the Truth and the Temple of Christ 5. It is not lawful for innocents to defend themselves by any violence against the invasion of superiours in D. Fernes three cases in which he alloweth resistance 1. When the Invasion is sudden 2. Vnavoidable 3. Without all colour of Law and Reason In the two last cases Royalists defend the lawfulnes of self-defence 6. If the example be pressed Christ did not this and this he resisted not with violence to save his owne life therefore we are to abstaine from resistance and such and such meanes of self-preservation then because Christ appealed not from inferiour Judges to the Emperour Caesar who no doubt would have shewne him more favour then the Scribes and Pharisees did and because Christ conveyed not a humble supplication to his Soveraigne and Father Caesar then because he proffered not a humble petition to Prince Pilate for his life he being an innocent man and his cause just because he neither conduced an Orator to pleade his owne just cause nor did he so plead for himselfe and give in word and writ all lawfull and possible defences for his own safety but answered many things with silence to the admiration of the Judge Marke 15. 3 4. 5. and was thrice pronounced by the Judge to be innocent Luke 22. ver 23. because I say Christ did not all these for his owne life therefore it is unlawfull for Scotland and England to appeale to the King to supplicate to give in Appologiâ—s c. I thinke Royalists dare not say so But if they say he would not resist and yet might have done all these lawfully because these be lawfull meanes and resistance with the sword unlawfull because He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword Let me Answer then 1. They leave the argument from Christs example who was thus farre subject to higher powers that he would not resist and plead from the unlawfulnesse of resistance this is petitio principii 2. He that taketh the sword without Gods warrant which Peter had not but the contrary he was himselfe a Sathan to Christ who would but councell him not to die but there is no shadow of a word to prove that violent resisting is unlawfull when the King and his Irish cut-throats pursue us unjustly onely Christ saith when God may deliver extraordinarily by his Angels except it be his absolute will that his Son should drink the cup of death then to take the sword when God hath declared his will on the contrary is unlawfull and that is all Though I doe not question but Christs asking for swords and his arresting all his enemies to the ground Ioh. 18. 6. backward is a justifying of selfe-defence But hit herto it is cleare by Christs example that he onely was commanded to suffer Now the second case in which suffering falleth under a Commandement is indirectly and comparatively when it commeth to the election of the witnesse of Jesus that it is referred to them either to deny the truth of Christ and his name or then to suffer death the choise is apparently evident and this choise that persecuters referre us unto is to us a Commandement of God that we must choose suffering for Christ and refuse sinning against Christ but the supposition must stand that this alternative is unavoydable that is not in our power to decline either suffering for Christ or denying of Christ before men otherwayes no man is to expect the reward of a witnesse of Iesus who having a lawfull possible meanes of eschewing suffering doth yet cast himselfe into suffering needlesly But I prove that suffering by men of this world falleth not formally and directly under any divine positive Law for the Law of nature what ever Arminians in their Declaration or this Arminian excommunicate think with them for they teach that God gave a Commandement to Adam to abstaine from such and such fruit with paine and trouble to sinlesse nature doth not command suffering or any thing contrary to nature as nature is sinlesse I prove it thus 1. What ever falleth under a positive Commandement of God I may say here under any Commandement of God is not a thing under the free will and power of others from whom we are not discended necessarily by naturall generation but that men of the world kill me even these from whom I am not discended by naturall generation which I speake to exclude Adam who killed all his posterity is not in my free will either as if they had my common nature in that act or as if I were accessory by counsell consent or approbation to that act for this is under the free-will and power of others not under my owne free-will Ergo that I suffer by others is not under my free-will and cannot fall under a Commandement of God And certainly it is an irrationall Law glorified be his name that God should command Antipas either formally to suffer or formally not to suffer death by these of the Synagogue of Sathan Revel 2. 13. because if they be pleased not to kill him it is not in his free-will to be killed by them and if they shall have him in their power except God extraordinarily deliver it is not in his power in an ordinary providence not to be killed 2. All these places of Gods word that recommendeth suffering to the followers of Christ do not command formally that we suffer Ergo suffering falleth not formally under any Commandement of God I prove the Antecedent because if they be considered they prove only that comparatively we are to choose rather to suffer then to deny Christ before men Mat. 10 28 32. Revel 2. 13. Mat. 10. 37. Mat. 16. 24. c. 19. 29. or then they command not suffering according to the substance of the passion but according to the manner that we suffer willingly cheerfully and patiently Hence Christs word to take up his Crosse
cannot help us Assert 3. By the place 1 Pet. 2. The servant unjustly buffeted is not to buffet his master again but to bear patiently as Christ did who when he was reviled did not revile again Not because the place condemneth resistance for self-defence but because buffeting again is formally re-offending not defending defending is properly a warding of a blow or stroak if my neighbour come to kill me and I can by no means save my life by flight I may defend my self and all Divines say I may rather kill ere I be killed because I am nearer by the law of nature and dearer to my self and my own life then to my brother but if I kill him out of malice or hatred the act of defending by the unlawfull manner of doing becometh an act of offending and murther whence the mind of the blood-shedder will vary the nature of the action from whence this corolarie doth naturally issue that the physicall action of taking away the life maketh not murther nor homicide and so the physical action of offending my neighbour is not murther Abraham may kill his son he for whom the cities of refuge were ordained and did kill his brother yet not hating him he was not by Gods law judged a murtherer And 2. It necessarily hence followeth that an act which is physically an act of offending my brother yea even to the taking away of his life is often morally and legally an act of lawfull self-defence an offending of another necessitated from the sole invention of self-defence is no more but an act of innocent self defence if David with his men had killed any of Sauls men in a set battel David and his men onely intending self defence the waren Davids part was meere defensive for physicall actions of killing indifferent of themselves yet imperated by a principle of naturall self-defence and clothed with this formall end of self-defence or according to the substance of the action the act is of self-defence If therefore one shall wound me deadly and I know it is my death after that to kill the killer of my selfe I being onely a private man must be no act of self-defence but of homicide because it cannot be imperated by a sinlesse dictate of a naturall conscience for this end of self-defence after I know I am killed Any mean not used for preventing death must be an act of revenge not of self-defence for it is physically unsutable for the intended end of self-defence And so for a servant buffeted to buffet againe is of the same nature the second buffet not being a conducible meane to ward the first buffet but a meane to procure heavier stroakes and possibly killing it cannot be an act of self defence for an act of self defence must be an act destinated ex naturarei onely for defence and if it be known to be an act of sole offending without any known necessary relation of a mean to self-defence as the end it cannot be properly an act of self-defence Assert 4. When the matter is lighter as in paying tribute or suffering a buffet of a rough master though un justly we are not to use any act of re-offending For though I be not absolute Lord of my owne goods and so may not at my sole pleasure give tribute and expend monies to the hurting of my children where I am not by Gods Law or Mans Law obliged to pay tribute and though I be not an absolute Lord of my members to expose face and cheeks and back to stripes and whips at my owne meere will yet have we a comparative dominion given to us of God in matters of goods and disposing of our members I think I may except the case of mutilation which is a little death for buffets because Christ no doubt to teach us the like would rather give of his goods and pay tribute where it is not due then that this scandall lay on the way of Christ that Christ was no loyall subject to lawfull Emperors and Kings And 1 Cor. 9. Paul would rather not take stipend though it was due to him then hinder the course of the Gospel And the like is 1 Cor. 6. where the Corinthians were rather to suffer losse in their goods then to goe to Law before Infidel Judges and by the like to prevent greater inconveniences and mutilation and death the Christian servant hath that dominion over his members rather to suffer buffets then to ward off buffets with violent resistance But it is no consequent that innocent subjects should suffer death of tyrants and servants be killed by masters and yet that they shall not be allowed by the law of nature to defend themselves by re-offending when onely self-defence is intended because we have not that dominion over life and death And therefore as a man is his brothers murtherer who with froward Cain will not be his brothers keeper and may preserve his brothers life without losse of his owne life when his brother is unjustly preserved so when he may preserve his owne life and doth not that which Natures Law alloweth him to doe rather to kill ere he be killed he is guilty of self-murther because he is deficient in the duty of lawfull self-defence But I grant to offend or kill is not of the nature of defensive warre but accidentall thereunto and yet killing of cut-throats sent forth by the illegal commandement of the King may be intended as a mean and a lawfull mean of self-defence 2. Of two ills of punishment we have a comparative dominion over our selves a man may cast his goods in the sea to redeeme his life So for to redeeme peace we may suffer buffets but because death is the greatest ill of punishment God hath not made it eligible to us when lawfull self defence is at hand But in defending our own life against Tyrannicall power though we do it by offending and killing we resist no ordinance of God onely I judge killing of the King in self-defence not lawfull because self-defence must be national on just causes Let here the reader judge Barcley l. 3. c. 8. pag. 159. con Monar If the King saith he shall vex the Common-wealth or one part thereof with great and intollerable cruelty what shall the people do they have saith he in that case a power to resist and defend themselves from injury but onely to defend themselves not to invade the Prince nor to resist the injury or to recede from reverence due to the Prince I answer 1. Let Barclay or the prelate if he may carry Barclayes books or any difference these two the people may resist a Tyrant but they may not resist the injuries inflicted by a Tyrants officers cut-throats I cannot imagine how to conciliate these two for to resist the cruelty of a King is but to hold off the injurie by resistance 2. If this Nero waste the Common-wealth unsufferably with his cruelty and remaine a lawful King to be honoured
put us to flee even all Protestants and their seed and the weak and sick whom we are obliged to defend as our selves both by the Law of nature and grace I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God to dwell there but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestantâ— their seed aged sick sucking children should flee out of England Scotland Ireland and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists Prelates and bloody Irish and Atheists and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land violent re-offending is their second mean next to supplications and declarations c. and flight is not required of them as of a private man Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation violent and unjust invasion of a private man which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book or rather the idolatry of the Masse therein intended was unavoidable it was unpossible for the Protestants their old and sick their women and sucking children to flee over sea or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book Althusius saith well Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee but the estates if they flee they do not their duty to commit a country religion and all to a Lion Let not any oâ—ject we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy Psal 2. 8 9. Isa 49. 1. it is true if the way be our own sinfull way nor let any object a Colony went to New-England and fled the persecution Answer True but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication there was no more reason that one Colony should go to New-England then it is necessary by a divine law obligatory that the wholâ— Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine are to leave their native country religion to one man to popish Idolators Atheists willing to worship idols with them and whethere then shall the Gospel be which we are obliged to defend with our lives 2. There is Tutela vitae proxima remota A meer and immediat defence of our life and a remote or mediat defence when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending David might have killed Saul whâ—n he was sleeping and when he cut off the lap of his garment but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed because he is the Lords Annoited as it is unlawfull to kill a man because he is the Image of God Gen. 96. except in case of necessity The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector thought his malefices do not put him in that case that he hath not now the image of God now prudency and light of grace determineth When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation it is not left to our pleasure In a remote posture of self-defence we are not to â—se violet re-offending David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actuall not inavoidable not a necessary mean in human prudence for self-preservation for King Saul was then in a habituall not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes Elders and judges of Israel or of a whole community and Church Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for religion or a nationall pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul it is no lesse unlawfull to threatten a King then to put hands on him and rather kill or be killed by Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissaries for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in three kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religious Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitrary or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the three Kingdoms to actuall killing rather then we be killed and suffer Lawes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Annoynted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans 1. David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without colour of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resisted and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he remaineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6. 9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe
holy things from him especially since by the law the leper was to be put out of the congregation Ans 1. He contradicteth the text it was not a resistance by words for the text saith they withstood him and they thrust him out violently 2. He yeeldeth the cause for to withdraw the holy things of God by corporall violence and violently to pull the censer out of his hand that he should not provoke Gods wrath by offering incense to the Lord is resistance and the like violence may by this example be used when the King useth the sword and the Militia to bring in an enemy to destroy the kingdom it is no lesse injustice against the second table that the King useth the sword to destroy the innocent then to usurpe the câ—nsor against the first table But Doctor Ferne yeeldeth that the censor may be pulled out of his hand lest he provoke God to wrath Ergo by the same very reason a fortiore the Sword the Castles the Sea-ports the Militia may be violently pulled out of his hand for if there was an expresse Law that the leper should be put out of the congregation and therefore the King also should be subject to his Church-censor then he subjecteth the King to a punishment to be inflicted by the subjects upon the King Ergo the King is obnoxious to the coactive power of the law 2. Ergo subjects may judge him and punish him 3. Ergo he is to be subject to all Church-censors no lesse then the people 4. There is an expresse law that the leper should be put out of the congregation What then flattering court Divines say the King is above all these lawes for there is an expresse law of God as expresse as that ceremoniall on touching lepers and a more binding law that the murtherer should die the death Will Royalists put no exception upon a ceremoniall law of expelling the leper and yet put an exception upon a Divine morall law concerning the punishing of murtherers given before the law on Mount Sinai Gen. 6. 9. They so declare that they accept the persons of men 5. If a leper King could not actually sit upon the throne but must be cut off from the house of the Lord because of an expresse law of God these being inconsistent that a King remaining amongst Gods people ruling and raigning should keep company with the Church of God and yet be a leper who was to be cut off by a Divine law from the Church now I perswade my self that far lesse can he actually raigne in the full use of the power of the sword if he use the sword to cut off thousands of innocent people because murthering the innocent and fatherles and Royall governing in Righteousnesse and Godlinesse are more inconsistent by Gods law being morally opposite then remaining a governour of the people and the disease of leprosie are incompatible 6. I think not much that Barcley saith cont Monar l 5. c. 11. Vzziah remained King after he was removed from the congregation for leprosie 1. Because that toucheth the question of dethroning Kings this is an argument brought for violent resisting of Kings and that the people did resume all power from Vzziah and put it in the hand of Iotham his son who was over the Kings house judging the people of the land ver 21. And by this same reason the Parliaments of both Kingdomes may resume the power once given to the King when he hath proved more unfit to governe morally then Vzziah was ceremonially that he ought not to judge the people of the land in this case 2. If the priests did execute a ceremoniall law upon King Vzziah Far more may the three estates of Scotland and the two houses of Parliament of England execute the morall law of God on their King If the people may covenant by oath to rescue the innocent and unjustly condemned from the sentence of death notoriously known be to tyranous and cruel then may the people resist the King in his unlawfull practises But this the people did in the matter of Ionathan M. Symmons saith pag. 32. and Doctor Ferne § 9. 49. That with no violence but by prayers and teares the people saved Jonathan as Peter was rescued out of prison by the prayers of the Church King Saul might easily be intreated to break a rash vow to save the life of his eldest son Ans 1. I say not the common people did it but the people including proceres regni the Princes of the land and captaines of thousands 2. The text hath not one word or syllable of either prayers supplications or teares but by the contrary They bound themselves by an oath contrary to the oath of Saul 1 Sam. 14. 44. and swear ver 45. God forbid as the Lord liveth there shal not one hair of his head fall to the ground so the people rescued Ionathan The Church prayed not to God for Peters deliverance with an oath that they must have Peter saved whether God will or no. 2. Though we read of no violence used by the people yet an oath upon so reasonable a ground 1. without the Kings consent 2. contrary to a standing law that they had agreed unto ver 24. 3. contradictory to the Kings sentence and unjust oath 4. spoken to the King in his face all these prove that the people meaned and that the oath ex conditione operis tended to a violent resisting of the King in a manifestly unjust sentence Chrysostom hom 14. ad Pop. Antioch accuseth Saul as a murtherer in this sentence and praiseth the people So Iunius Peter Martyr whom Royalists impudently cite so Cor. à lap Zanch. Lyra and Hug. Cardinalis say it was Tyranny in Saul and laudable that the people resisted Saul and the same is asserted by Iosephus l. 6. antiquit c. 7. so Althus Polyt c. 38. n. 109. We see also 2 Chron. 21. 10. That Libnah revolted from under Iehoram because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers It hath no ground in the text that Royalists say that the defection of Lybnah is not justified in the text but the cause is from the demerit of wicked Iehoram because he made defection from God Libnah made defection from him as the ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam for Solomons idolatry which before the Lord procured this defection yet the ten tribes make defection for oppression I answer where the literall meaning is simple and obvious we are not to go from it The text sheweth what cause moved Libnah to revolt it was a town of the Levites and we know they were longer sound in the truth then the ten tribes 2. Chron. 13. 8 9 10. Hos 11. 12. Lavater saith Iehoram hath pressed them to idolatry and therefore they revolted Zanch. Cor. à Lap. saith this was the cause that moved them to revolt and it is cleare ver 13. he caused Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring from God and no doubt tempted
Parliaments and Estates of two Kingdomes Here what P. P. saith to the contrary 1. They are called eminent powers Ergo Kings only Answ It followeth not for these can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 2. 2. But these are not Kings but in the Text contradivided from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and they can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Principalities and powers 2. The reason of the Apostle proveth clearely that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot meane Kings onely for Paul addeth of that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there is no power but of God It must be there is no supereminent Royall power but it is of God and the powers Royall onely so he must meane that are are ordained of God Now this latter is manifestly false for inferiour powers are of God The power of the Roman Senate of a Master of a Father are of God P. Prelate Peter must expound Paul and Pauls higher powers must be 1 Pet. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More reason that Paul expound Paul Now 1 Tim. 2. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All in authority are not Kings P. Prelate Are of God or ordained of God cannot so properly be understood of subordinate powers for that is not by immediate derivation from God but immediately from the higher power the King and mediately from God Answ It is most false that King David is so immediatly a King from God as that he is not also by the mediation of the people who made him King at Hebron 2. The inferiour Magistrates are also immediate vicars and ministers of God as the King for their throne and judgement is not the Kings but the Lords Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 6. 3. Though they were mediatly from man it followeth not that they are not so properly from God for Wisdome Prov. 8. saith as properly ver 16. By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth as ver 15. By me Kings reigne and promotion is as properly from God and not from the East and the West Psal 75. 6 7. Though God promote Ioseph by the thanâ—full munificence of Pharaoh and Mordecai by Ahasuerus Daniel by Darius as if he gave them power and honour immediately from Heaven Prelat Learned Interpreters expound it so Answ It is an untruth for none expound it onely and principally of Kings Produce one Interpreter for that conceit Prelat Paul wrote this when Nero was Monarch Answ Then must the Text be expounded of Nero only 2. He wrote this when Nero played the Tyrant and persecuted Christians Ergo We are not to disobey Nero's now 3. He wrote it when the Senate of Rome had power to declare Nero an enemy not a Father as they did P. Prelat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to the Antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this There is no power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of God must undeniably inferre there is no supreme power but of God and so Soveraignty relates to God as his immediate author so Sectaries reason Gal. 2. 16. Not justified by works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by saith onely Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be a perfect exclusive else their strong hold for Iustification is overthrowne Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a neerer Antecedent which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is alone without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Grammer is not so good as Beza's which hee rejected 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referre to God alone as the onely cause In genere causae primae God alone giveth raine but not for that immediatly but by the mediation of vapours and clouds God alone killeth and maketh alive Deut. 32. 39. That is excluding all strange gods but not immediatly for by his peoples fighting he slew Og King of Bashan and cast out seven Nations yet they used bow and sword as it is in the bookâ— of Ioshua and therefore God killed not Og immediatly God hath an infinite eminent transeendent way of working so that in his kinde he onely worketh his alone Deus solus operatur solitudine primae causae non solus solitudine omnis causae God onely giveth learning and wisdome yet not immediatly alwayes often he doth it by teaching and industry God onely maketh rich yet the Prelates make themselves rich also with the fat of the flock and God onely maketh poore yet the P. Prelates Courts mediately also under God made many men poore 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not such an exclusive Particle when we ascribe it to God as when we ascribe it to two created causes workes and faith and the Protestants forme of arguing Gal. 2. to prove we are justified by faith he calleth our strong hold Ergo It is not his strong hold In this point then hee must be a Papist and so he refuses to owne Protestant strong holds for justification by faith alone D. Ferne sect 2. pag. 10. As many as have soules must be subject to the higher powers spoken of here but all inferiour Iudges have soules Answ If the word soules be thus pressed none shall be understood by higher powers but the King onely 2. Certainly he that commandeth as he commandeth must be excepted except because the King hath a soule you must subject the King to himself and to his owne commandements Royall and so to penall Lawes 3. Inferiour Judges as Judges by this text must either be subject to themselves as Judges and by the same reason the King must be subject to himselfe as he is a Judge Or Judges as men or as erring men are to be subject which I would grant but they are not subject as Judges no more then one as he commandeth can also obey as he commandeth These are contradictory I am not put off that opinion since I was at Schools Species subjicibilis qua subjicibilis non est praedicabilis 4. If Nero make fathers rulers over their mothers and children and command them by his publique sword of justice to kill their owne children and mothers if a Senate of such fathers disobey and if with the sword they deâ—end their own children and mothers which some other Doegs as Judges are to kill in the name and commandement of Nero Then they resisting Neroes bastard-commandment by this doctrine resist the ordinance of God and resist the Minister of God I have not a faith stretcht out so farre to the Prelates Court-divinity Yet Ferne saith there was never more cause to resist higher powers for their wicked Nero was Emperour when he now forbideth resistance Rom. 13. under the paine of damnation I desire to be informed whether to resist the Kings servants be to resist the King Doctor Forne p. 3. § 2. p. 10. and par 3. § 9. p. 59. allow us in unavoidable assaults where death is imminent personall defence without offending as lawfull whether the King or his emissaries invade without law or reason Well then the resisting then of
ut igni humano vindicetur divina secta aut doleat pati in quo probetur Si enim hostes extraneos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis vis numerorum copiarum Answ I will not goe about to say that Tertullian thought it lawfull to raise Armes against the Emperour I ingeniously confesse Tertullian was in that errour But 1. something of the man 2. Of the Christians Of the man Tertullian after this turned a Montanist 2. Pamelius saith of him in vit Tertul. inter Apocrypha numeratur excommunicatus 3. It was Tertullians error in a fact not in a question that he believed Christians were so numerous as that they might have fought with the Emperours 4. M. Pryn doth judiciously observe 3. part soveraigne power of Parl. pag. 139 140. He not onely thought it unlawfull to resist but also to flee and therefore wrote a booke de fuga and therefore as some men are excessive in doing for Christ so also in suffering for Christ Hence I inferre that Tertullian is neither ours nor theirs in this point and we can cite Tertullian against them also I am sumus ergo pares Yea Fox in his Monum saith Christians ranne to the stakes to be burnt when they were neither condemned nor cited 4. What if wee cite Theodoret fol. 98. De provid Who about that time say that evill men reigne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the cowardlinesse of the subjects as the Prelate saith of Tertullian I turne it If Theodoret were now living he would goe for a Rebell About that time Christians sought help from Constantine the Great against Lycinius their Emperour and overthrew him in battaile And the Christians being oppressed by the King of Persia their owne King sent to Theodosius to help them against him 2. For the man Tertullian in the place cited saith The Christians were strangers under the Emperour Externi sumus and therefore they had no Laws of their owne but were under the Civill Laws of Heathen till Constantines time and they had sworne to Iulian as his souldiers and therefore might have and no doubt had scruples of conscience to resist the Emperour 2. It is knowne Iulian had huge numbers of Heathen in his Armie and to resist had beene great danger 3. Wanting Leaders and Commanders many prime men doubting of the lawfulnesse thereof though they had beene equall in number yet number is not all in warre skill in valorous Commanders is required 4. What if all Christians were not of Tertullians minde 5. If I would go to humane testimonies which I judge not satisfactory to the conscience I might cite many The practice of France of Holland The Divines in Luthers time as Sleidan 8. c. 8. 22. resolved resistance to be lawfull Calvin Beza Pareus the German Divines Bucanus and an hoast might be produced QUEST XXXVI Whether the power of Warre be onely in the King IT is not hard to determine this question The Sword in a constitute Common-wealth is given to the Judge supreme or subordinate Rom. 13. 4. He beareth not the sword in vaine in the Empire the use of Armour is restricted to the Emperour by a positive Law so the Law saith Armorum officia nisi jussu Principis sunt interdicta lib. de Cod. de Lege 1. Imperat Valentinian nulli nobis inconsultis usus armorum tribuatur ad 1. Jul. Mai. l. 3. Warre is a species and a particular the sword is a generall Assert 1. The power of the sword by Gods Law is not proper peculiar to the King only but given by God to the inferiour Judges 1. Because the inferiour Judge is essentially a Judge no lesse then the King as is proved and therefore he must beare the sword Rom. 13. 4. 2. Not Moses onely but the Congregation of Israel had power of life and death and so of the sword Numb 35. 12. The manslayer shall not die untill he stand before the Congregation in judgement ver 24. Then the Congregation shall judge betweene the slayer and the avenger of blood Deut. 22. 18. The Elders of the City shall take that man and chastise him 21. The men of the Citie shall stone her with stones Deu. 17. 5. Deu. 19. 12 13. v. 18 19 20 21. Deu. 21. 19. Then shall his father and his mother bring him to the Elders of his City 21. And the men of the City shall stone him with stones 1 King 21. 11. The Elders and Nobles that were inhabitants in his City stoned Naboth 3. Inferiour Judges are condemned as murtherers who have shed innocent blood Esay 1. 21. Psal 94. 5. 6. Ier. 22. 3. Ezek. 22. 12. ver 27. Hosea 6. 8. Zephan 3. 1 2 3. Ergo they must have the power of the sword hence upon the same grounds Assert 2. That the King onely hath the power of warre and raising Armies must be but a positive civill Law For 1. by divine right if the inferiour Judges have the sword given to them of God then have they also power of Warre and raising Armies 2. All power of warre that the King hath is cumulative not privative and not distructive but given for the safety of the Kingdome as therefore the King cannot take from one particular man the power of the sword for naturall self-preservation because it is the birth-right of life neither can the King take from a community and Kingdome a power of rising in Armes for their owne defence If an Armie of Turks shall suddenly invade the Land and the Kings consent expresse cannot be had for it is essentially involved in the office of the King as King that all the power of the sword that he hath be for their safety or if the King should as a man refuse his consent and interdict and discharge the Land to rise in Armes yet they have his Royall consent though they want his personall consent in respect that his office obligeth him to command them to rise in Armes 2. Because no King no Civill power can take away Natures birth-right of self-defence from any man or a community of men 2. Because if a King should sell his Kingdome and invite a bloody Conquerour to come in with an Armie of men to destroy his people impose upon their conscience an Idolatrous Religion they may lawfully rise against that Armie without the Kings consent for though Royalists say they need not come in asinine patience and offer their throats to cut-throats but may flee yet two things hindereth a flight 1. They are obliged by vertue of the first Commandement to re-man and with their sword defend the Cities of the Lord and the King 2 Sam. 10. 12. 1 Chron. 19. 13. for if to defend our Country and children and the Church of God from unjust invaders and cut-throats by the sword be an act of charity that God and the Law of Nature requireth of a people as is evident Prov. 24. 11. and if the fift Commandement oblige the
Land to defend their aged Parents and young children from these invaders and if the sixt Commandement lay on us the like bond all the Land are to act works of mercy and charity though the King unjustly command the contrary except Royalists say that we are not to performe the duties of the second Table commanded by God if an earthly King forbid us and if we exercise not acts of mercy toward our brethren when their life is in hazard to save them wee are murtherers and so men may murther their neighbour if the King command them so to doe this is like the Court-faith 2. The Kings power of warres is for the safety of his people if he deny his consent to their raising of Armes till they be destroyed he playeth the Tyrant not the King and the law of Nature will necessitate them either to defend themselves seeing flight of all in that case is harder then death else they must be guilty of self-murther Now the Kings commandement of not rising in Armes at best is positive and against the nature of his Office and it floweth then from him as from a man and so must be farre inferiour to the naturall Commandement of God which commandeth self-preservation if wee would not be guilty of self-murther and of obeying men rather then God So Althusius Polit. c. 25. n. 9. Halicarnas l. 4. Antiq. Rom. Aristo Pol. l. 3. c. 3. 3. David tooke Goliahs sword and became a Captaine a Captaine to an hoast of armed men in the battaile and fought the battailes of the Lord 1 Sam. 25. 28. and this Abigal by the spirit of prophecy as I take it saith ver 29 30 31. 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 1. 2. 3. 17. 18. 21. 22. not onely without Sauls consent but against King Saul as he was a man but not against him as hee was King of Israel 4. If there be no King or the King be minor or an usurper as Athalia be on the Throne the Kingdome may lawfully make war without the King as Iudges cap. 20. The children of Israel foure hundred thousand footemen that drew sword went out to warre against the children of Benjamin Iudah had the power of the sword when Iosiah was but eight yeares old in the beginning of his reigne 2 King 22. 1 2. and before Iehoash was crowned King and while he was minor 2 King 11. there were Captaines of hundreds in armes raised by Iehoiada and the people of Iudah to defend the young King It cannot be said that this is more extraordinary then that it is extraordinary for Kings to die and in the interregnum warres in an ordinary providence may fall out in these Kingdoms where Kings goe by election and for Kings to fall to be Minors Captives Tyrannous And I shall be of that opinion that Mr Symmons who holdeth That Royall birth is equivalent to divine unction must also hold that election is not equivalent to divine unction for both election and birth cannot be of the same validity the one being naturall the other a matter of free choise which shall infer that Kings by election are lesse properly and analogically onely Kings and so Saul was not properly a King for he was King by election but I conceive that rather Kings by birth must be lesse properly Kings because the first King by Gods institution being the mould of all the rest was by election Deut. 17. 18. 19. 20. 5. If the estates create the King and make this man King not this man as is clear Deut. 17. 18. and 2 Chron. 5. 1 2 3 4. they give to him the power of the Sword and the power of War and the Militia and I shall judge it strange and reasonlesse that the power given to the King by the Parliament or estates of a free Kingdom such as Scotland is acknowledged to be by all should create regulate limit abridge yea and anull that power that created it self hath God ordained a Parliamentary power to create a Royal power of the sword and war to be placed in the King the Parliaments creature for the safety of Parliament and Kingdome which yet is destructive of it selfe D. Ferne saith that the King summoneth a Parliament and giveth them power to be a Parliament and to advise and counsell him and in the meane time Scripture saith Deut 17. 18 19 20. 1 Sam. 10 20 21 22 23 24 25. 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3 4. that the Parliament createth the King heir's admirable reciprocation of creation in policie and shall God make the mother to destroy the daughter The Parliamentarie power that giveth Crown Militia sword and all to the King must give power to the King to use sword and war for the destruction of the Kingdome and to annull all the power of Parliaments to make unmake Parliaments and all Parliamentary power what more absurd Obj. 1. Symmons Loyall Subj Pag. 57. These phrases 2 Sam. 9. 1. When Kings goe forth to warre and Luk. 14. 31. What King going forth to warre speak to my conscience that both offensive and defensive warre are in the Kings hand Answ It is not much to other men what is spoken to any mans conscience by Phrase and customes for by this no States where there be no Kings but government by the best or the people as in Holland or in other Nations can have power of war for what time of yeare shall Kings goe to war who are not Kings and because Christ saith A certaine housholder delivered talents to his servants will this infer to any conscience that none but a housholder may take usurie And when he saith If the good man of the house knew at what houre the thiefe would come he would watch shall it follow the sonne or servant may not watch the house but onely the good man Obj. 2. Ferne pag. 95. The naturall Bodie cannot move but upon naturall Principles and so neither can the Politique Bodie move in Warre but upon Politique reasons from the Prince which must direct by Law Answ This may well be retorted the Politique Head cannot then move but upon politique reasons and so the King cannot move to wars but by the Law and that is by consent of Parliament and no Law can principle the head to destroy the members 2. If an Armie of cut-throats rise to destroy the Kingdome because the King is in lacking in his place to doe his duty how can the other Judges the States and Parliament be accessorie to murther committed by them in not raising armies to suppresse such robbers Shall the inferiour Judges be guilty of innocent blood because the King will not doe his duty 3. The politique body ceaseth no more to renounce the principles of sinlesse nature in self-defence because it is a politique body and subject to a King then it can leave off to sleep eat and drink and there is more need of politique principles to the one then the other 4. The Parliaments and Estates of both
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
his oath Hugo Grotius putteth seven cases in which the people may have most reall action against the King to accuse and punish him 1. They may punish the King to death for matters capitall if so it be agreed on betwixt the King and the people as in Lacedemonia 2. He may be punished as a private man 3. If the King make away a Kingdome given to him by succession his act is null and he may be resisted because the Kingdome is a life-rent onely to him Yea saith Barclay He loseth the Crown 4. He loseth his Kingdom if with a hostile mind he seâ—k the destruction of the Kingdome 5. If such a clause be put in that if he commit felonie or doe such oppressions the Subjects shall be loosed from the bonds of subjection then the King failing thus turneth a private man 6. If the King have the one halfe or part of the Kingdome and the people or Senate the other halfe if the King prey upon that half which is not his owne he may violently be resisted for in so farre he hath not the Empire 7. If when the Crowne was given this be declared that in some cases he may be resisted then some naturall liberty is free from the Kings power and reserved in the peoples hand It is then reason that the King sweare an oath 4. That the Kings oath is but a ceremonie to please the people and that because he is king and king by birth therefore he sweareth and is crowned is in question and denyed No man is borne a king as no man is borne a subject and because the people maketh him King therefore he is to swear The councel of Toledo saith non antea conscendat regiam sedem quam iuret 2 An oath is a religious obligation no arbitrary ceremony 3. He may swear in his cabinet chamber not covenanting with the people as David and Iehoash did 4. So he maketh promises that he may be King not because he is King it were ridiculous he should promise or swear to be a just King because he is a just King and by the same reason the estates swear the oath of loyalty to the new King not that they may be loyall in all time coming but because they are loyall Subjects already for if the one half of the covenant on the Kings part be a ceremony of indulgence not of necessity by the same reason the other half of the covenant must be a ceremony of indulgence also to the people Object Arnisaeus saith a contract cannot be dissolved in law but by consent of two parties contracting because both are obliged l. ab emptione 58. in pr. de pact l. 3. de rescind vend l. 80. de solu Therefore if the subjects go from the covenant that they have made to be loyall to the King they ought to be punished Answ A contract the conditions whereof are violated by neither side cannot be dissolved but by the joynt consent of both and in buying and selling and in all contracts unviolated the sole wil of neither side can violate the contract of this speaketh the law But I ask the Royalist if the contract betwixt the spies sent to view Iericho and Rahab the harlot had not been null and the spies free from any obligation if Rahab had neglected to keep within doors when Iericho was taken though Rahab and the spies had never consented expresly to break the covenant We hâ—ld that the law saith with us that vassals lose their farme if they pay not what is due Now what are Kings but vassals to the State who if they turne Tyrants fall from their Right Arnisaeus saith in the councell of Toledo 4. c. 74. The subjects ask from the King that Kings would be meek and just not upon the ground of a voluntarie Contract and Paction but because God shall rejoice in King and People by so doing Answ These two do no more fight one with another then that two Marchants should keep faith one to another both because God hath said he shall dwell in Gods mountaine who sweareth and covenanteth and standeth to his oath covenant though to his losse hurt Psa 15. and also because they made their covenant and contract thus and thus Arnisaeus 16. Every Prince is subject to God but not as a vassal for a Master may commit felonie and lose the proprietie of his farme can God do so The Master cannot take the farme from the vassal without an expresse cause legally deduced but cannot God take what he hath given but by a law-Processe a vassall can intitle to himself a farme against the Masters will as some jurists say but can a Prince intitle a kingdom to himself against the God of heavens will though we grant the comparison yet the subjects have no law over the Kings because the coercive power of the vassal is in the Lord of the mannor the punishing of Kings belongeth to God Answ We compare not the lord of a mannor and the Lord of Heaven together all these dissimilitudes we grant but as the King is Gods vassal so is he a noble and Princely vassal to the Estates of a kingdom because they make him 2. They make him rather then another their noble servant 3. They make him for themselves and their own Godly quiet and honest life 4. They in their first election limit him to such a way to governe by law and give to him so much power for their good no more in these four acts they are above the Prince and so have a coercive power over him Arnisaeus n. 9. It is to make the Princes fidelity doubtfull to put him to an oath Lawyers say there is no need of an oath when a person is of approved fidelitie Answ Then we are not to seek an oath of an inferiour Magistrate of a Commander in wars of a pastor it is presumed these are of approved fidelity and it maketh their integritie obnoxious to slanders to put them to an oath 2. David was of more approved fidelity then any King now adayes and to put him to a covenant seemed to call his fidelity in question Ionathan sought an oath of David to deal kindly with his seed when he came to the throne Ieremiah sought an oath of the King of Iudah did they put any note of false-hood on them therefore Arnisaeus You cannot prove that ever any King gave an oath to their subjects in Scriptures Answ What more unbeseeming Kings is it to swear to do their duty then to promise covenant wayes to do the same and a covenant you cannot deny 2. In a covenant for religious duties there was alwayes an oath 2 Chro. 15. 12 13 14. hence the right of cuting a calf and swearing in a covenant Ier. 34. 18. 3. There is an oath that the people giveth to the King to obey him Eccles 8. 2. and a covenant 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. mutuall between the king and people I leave it to the juditious
choise of his person This is non-sense for the peoples choosing of David at Hebron to be King and their refusing of Sauls seed to be King what was it but an act of God by the free suffrages of the people conferring royall power on David and making him King whereas in former times David even anointed by Samuel at Bethleem 1 Sam. 16. was onely a private man the subject of King Saul and never tearmed by the Spirit of God a King nor was he King till God by the peoples consent made him King at Hebron for Samuel neither honoured him as King nor bowed to him as King nor did the people say God save King David but after this David acknowledged Saul as his Master and King Let Royalists shew us any act of God making David King save this act of the people making him formally King at Hebron and therefore the people as Gods instrument transferred the power and God by them in the same act transferred the power and in the same they chose the person the Royalists affirm these to be different actions affirmanti incumbit probatio 4. This power is the peoples radically naturally as the Bees as some think have a power naturall to choose a King-Bee so hath a communitie a power naturally to defend and protect themselves and God hath revealed in Deut. 17. 14 15. the way of regulating the act of choosing Governours and Kings which is a speciall mean of defending and protecting themselves and the people is as principally the subject and fountain of Royall power as a fountain is of water I shall not contend if you call a Fountain Gods Instrument to give water as all creatures are his Instruments 5. For Spalato's comparison he is far out for the people choosing one of ten to be their King have freewill to choose any and are under a Law Deut. 17. 14 15. In the manner of their choosing and thought they erre and make a sinfull choice yet the man is King and Gods King whom they make King but if the King command a servant to make A. B. a Knight if the servant make C. D. a Knight I shall not think C. D. is a valid Knight at all and indeed the honour is immediately here from the King because the Kings servant by no innate power maketh the Knight but Nations by a radicall and naturall and innate power maketh this man a King not this man and I conceive the man chosen by the people oweth thanks and gratefull service to the people who rejected others that they had power to choose and made him King 6. The light immediately and formally is light from the Sun and so is the Office of a King immediately instituted of God Deut. 17. 14. Whether the institution be naturall or positive it is no matter 2. The man is not King because of Royall indowments though we should say these were immediately from God to which instruction and education may also conferre not a little but he is formally King ratione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in regard of the formall essence of a King not immediately from God as the light is from the Sun but by the mediation of the free consent of the people 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. nor is the people in making a King as the man who onely casteth Wood in the fire the Wood is not made fire formally but by the fire not by the approach of fire to Wood or of Wood to fire for the people do not apply the Royaltie which is immediately in and from God to the person explicate such an application for to me it is a Fiction unconceiveable because the people hath the Royaltie radically in themselves as in the Fountain and Cause and conferreth it on the man who is made King yea the people by making David King confer the Royall power on the King this is so true that Royalists forgetting themselves inculcate frequently in asserting their absolute Monarch from Vlpian but misunderstood that the people have resigned all their power libertie right of life death goods chastitie a potency of rapine homicides unjust wars c. upon a creature called an absolute Prince even saith Grotius as a man may make himself a slave by selling his liberty to a master Now if the people make away this power to the King and this be nothing but the transcendent absolutenesse of a King certainly this power was in the people for how can they give to a King that which they have not themselves As a man cannot make away his liberty to a master by becoming a slave to him if his libertie were immediately in God as Royalists say Soveraigntie is immediately in God and people can exercise no Act about Soveraignty to make it over to one man rather then to another People onely have an after-approbation that this man to whom God hath given it immediately shall have it Furthermore they say people in making a King may make such conditions as in seven cases a King may be dethroned at least resisted saith Hu. Grotius Ergo people may give more or lesse half or whole limited or absolute Royall power to the Prince but if this power were immediately in God and from God how could the people have the husbanding of it at their need to expend it out in ounce weights or pound weights as they please And that the people may be Taverners of it to sell or give it is taught by Grotius de jur bel pac l. 1. c. 4. Barclai advers Monarch l. 4. c. 6. Arnisae cap. 6. de majest an princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 10. n. se Aventiun Anal. l. 3. Chytreus l. 23. l. 28. Saxon Sleid. lib. 1. in fi yet Arnisaeus is not ashamed to cite Arist po c. 12. l. 3. That he is not a true and absolute King who ruleth by Laws The point black contrary of which Aristotle saith QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in these Questions of lawfull defensive Wars THe P. Prelate without all ground will have us all Iesuites in this point but if we make good that this Truth was in Scripture before a Iesuite was in the earth he falleth from his Cause P. Prelate The Begardi saith There was no Government no Law given to the just It feareth me this age fancieth to it self some such thing and have learned of Core Dathan c. Ans This Calumniator in the next words belieth himself when he saith We presuppose that these with whom we are to enter in Lists do willingly grant That Government is not onely lawfull and just but necessary both for Church and Common-wealth then we fancie no such thing as he imputeth to us P. Prelate Some said that the right of Dominion is founded on grace whether the Waldenses and Hus held any such Tenet I cannot now insist to prove or disprove Gerson and others held that there must be a new Title and
Kingdome by Statute of Parliament to be bestowed on the Kingdome and the King should sell no Acts of Justice for Subsidies 5. He dare not speake of the consequences if the King grant Bills of Grace and part with the flowers of the Crowne Ans He dare not say The people shall vindicate their liberty by selling Subsidies to buy branches of the Prerogative Royall and diminishing the Kings fancied absolutenesse so would Prelates have the King absolute that they may ride over the soules purses persons estates and Religion of men upon the horse of pretended absolutenesse 6. He feareth the Parliament sall upon Church businesse but 1. The Church is too weake already if it had more power the King might have more both obedience and service 2. The Houses can be no competent Iudges in point of Doctrine 3. For the King Clergy and Convocation are Iudges in all causes Ecclesiasticall Ans 1. This striketh at the root of all Parliamentary power 1. The P. P. giveth them but a poore deliberative power in Subsides and that is to make the Kings Will a Law in taking all the subjects goods from them to foment warre against the subjects 2. He taketh all jurisdiction from them over Persons though they were as black Traitors as breathe 3. And spoileth them of all power in Church matters to make all Iudges yea and the King himselfe yield blind obedience to the Pope and Prelate and their illuminated Clergie Sure I am P. Maxwell imputeth this but most unjustly to Presbyteries What essentiall and fundamentall priviledges are left to Parliaments David and the Parliament of Israel are impertinent Iudges in the matter of bringing home the Ark of God And for the Churches weaknesse that is the weaknesse of the damned Prelates shall this be the Kings weaknesse Yes the P. P. must make it true No Bishop no King 7. He feareth factious spirits will take heart to themselves if the King yield to them without any submission of theirs Ans The Princes and Iudges of the Land are a company of factious men and so no Parliament no Court but at best some good advisers of a King to breake up the Parliament because they refuse Subsidies that he may by a lawlesse way extort Subsidies 8. He desireth the Parliament may sit a short time that they may not well understand one another Ans He loveth short or no justice from the Parliament he feareth they reforme Gods house and execute justice on men like himselfe But I returne to the Scotish Parliament Assert 2. The Parliament is to regulate the power of the King The heritable Sheriffes complaine that the King granteth Commissions to others in cases perteining to their office Whereupon the Estates Par. 6. K. Iam. 5. Act. 82. dischargeth all such Commissions as also appointeth that all Murtherers be judged by the Iustice generall only And in severall Acts the King is inhibited to grant pardons to malefactors K. Ia. 6. Act. 75. P. 11. It is to be considered that King Iames in his Baslicon Doron layeth down an unsound ground that Fergus the first father of 107 Kings of Scotland conquered this Kingdom The contrary whereof is asserted by Fordome Major Boethius Buchannan Hollanshed who run all upon this Principle That the Estates of the Kingdome did 1. Choose a Monarchie and freely and no other Government 2. That they freely elected Fergus to be their King 3. King Fergus frequently conveened the Parliament called Insulanorum Duces Tribuum Rectores Majorum consessus Conventus Ordinum conventus Statuum Communitatum Regni Phylarchi Primores Principes patres and as Hollanshed saith they made Fergus King therefore a Parliament must be before the King yea and after the death of King Fergus Philarchi coeunt conciâ—ne advocatâ the Estates convened without any King and made that fundamentall Law Regni electivi That when the Kings Children were minores any of the Fergusian Race might be chosen to Reigne and this indured to the daies of Kennethus and Redotha Reâ— 7. resigneth and maketh over the Government into the hands of the Parliament and Philarchi Tribuum Gubernatores ordained Therius the 8. King Buchanan l. 4. Rer. Scot. calleth him Reutha and said he did this Populo egrè permittente then the Royall Power recurred to the fountaine Therius the 8. a wicked man filled the Kingdome with Roberies fearing that the Parliament should punish him fled to the Britaines and thereupon the Parliament choose Connanus to be Protex and protector of the Kingdome Finnanus R. 10. Decreed Ne quid Reges quod majoris esset momenti nisi de publici consilii authoritate juberent ne domestico consilio remp administrarent regia publicaque negotia non sine patrum consultatione ductuque tractarentur nec bellum pacem aut faedera reges per se patrum Tribuumve Rectorum injussu facerent demerentue Then it is cleare that Parliaments were consortes imperii and had Authority with and above the King When a Law is made that the Kings should doe nothing Injussu rectorum tribuum without commandement of the Parliament a Cabinet Counsell was not lawfull to the Kings of Scotland So Durstus Rex XI sweareth to the Parliament Se nihil nisi de primorum consilio acturum That he shall doe nothing but by counsell of the Rulers and Heads of the Kingdome The Parliament rejecting the lawfull sonne of Corbredus the 20 King because he was young created Dardanus the sonne of Metellanus King which is a great argument of the power of the Scottish Parliament of old for elective rather then hereditary Kings Corbredus secundus called Galdus the 21 King at his Coronation renouncing all negative voices did sweare Se majorum consiliis acquieturum That he should be ruled by the Parliament and it is said Leges quasdam tollere non potuit adversante multitudine Lactatus R. 22. is censured by a Parliament Quod spreto majorum consilio He appointed base men to publick Offices Mogaldus R. 23. Ad consilia seniorum omnia ex prisco more revâ—cavit did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Conarus 24. K. was cast in Prison by the Parliament Quod non expectato decreto patrum quod summae erat potestatis privatis consiliis administrasset Because he did the weightiest businesse that concerned the Kingdome by private advice without the judiciall Ordinance of Parliament that was of greatest authority Where is the negative voice of the King here Ethodius 2. the sonne of Ethodius the 1. the 28. King The Parliament passing by his son of the first Bed because he was a child had created Satrael his Brother King before a simple ignorant man yet for reverence to the race of Fergus kept the name of a King but the Estates appointed Tutors to him he was the 28. King Nathalocus the 30. K. corrupting the Nobles with buds and faire promises obtained the Crowne Romachus Fethelmachus and Angusianus or as Buchanan
calleth him Aenneannus contended for the Crowne the Parliament convened to judge the matter was dissolved by tumult and Rommachus chosen King doing all Non adhibito de more consilio majorum was censured by the Parliament Fergus the 2. was created King by the States De more Constantine 43. K. a most wicked man was punished by the States Aidanus 49. K. by the counsell of Sanctus Columba governed all in peace by three Parliaments every yeare Ferchardus 52. K. and Ferchardus 2. the 54. King were both censured by Parliaments Eugenius 62. K. a wicked Prince was put to death by the Parliament Omnibus in ejus exitium consentientibus Eugenius 7. the 59. K. was judicially accused and absolved by the States of killing his Wife Spondana Donaldus the 70. K. is censured by a Parliament which convened Pro salute Reipublicae for the good of the Land So Ethus the 72. K. Ne unius culpâ regnum periret Gregorius the 73. K. sweareth to maintaine Kirk and State in their liberties the Oath is ordained to be sworne by all Kings at their Coronation The Estates complaine of Duffus 78. K. because contemning the counsell of the Nobles Sacrificulorum consiliis abduceretur and that neither the Nobility must depart the Kingdome or another King must be made Culenus the 79. King was summoned before the Estates so before him Constantine the 3. the 75. K. did by Oath resigne the Kingdome to the States and entered in a Monastery at Saint Andrewes Kenethus the 70. K. procured almost per vim saith Buchanan that the Parliament should change the elective Kings in hereditary observe the Power of Parliaments After this Grimus and then Macbethus R. 85. is rebuked for governing by private counsell in his time the King is ordained by the States to sweare to maintaine the community of the Kingdome When Maccolumbus the 92. King would have admitted a Treaty to the hurt of the Kingdome the Nobles said Non jus esse Regi the King had no right to take any thing from the Kingdome Nisi omnibus Ordinibus consentientibus In the time of Alexander the 94. K. is ordained Acta regis oporteri confirmari decreto ordinum regni quia ordinibus regni non consultis aut adversantibus nihil quod ad totius regnistatum attinet Regi agere liceret So all our Historians observe by which it is cleare that the Parliament not the King hath a negative voyce The States answer to K. Edwards Legates concerning Balzees conditions in his contest with Bruce is That these conditions were made a solo Rege by the King only without the estates of the Kingdome and therefore they did not oblige the Kingdome In Robert the Bruce his Raigne the K. 97. the succession to the Crowne is appointed by Act of Parliament and twice changed and in the League with France Quod quando de successuro rege ambigeretur apud Scotos ea controversia ab Ordinum de creto decideretur Robert the 100. K. in a Parliament at Scoone moved the States to appoint the Earle of Carick his eldest sonne of the second Mariage to the Crowne passing his children of the first Mariage and when he would have made a Treatie he was told That he could not inducias facere nisi ex sententia conventus publici he could not make Truces but with the consent of the Estates of Parliament K. James the 1. could not doe any thing in his Oath in England The Parliaments approbation of the Battell at Stirling against King Iames the 3. is set downe in the printed Acts because he had not the consent of the States To come to our first Reformation Queene Regent breaking her promise to the States said Faith of promise should not be sought from Princes the States answered That they then were not obliged to obey and suspended her government as inconsistent with the duty of Princes by the Articles of pacification at Leith Anno 1560. Iunii 16. No peace or warre can be without the States In the Parliament thereafter Anno 1560. the Nobility say frequently to the Queene Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nec unquam adunius libidinem sed ad legum praescriptum nobilitatis consensum regisolitum So it is declared Parliament at Stirling 1578. and Parl. 1567 concerning Queene Mary I need not insist here K. James the 6. Anno 1567. Iul. 21. was Crowned the Earle of Morton and Humne jurarunt pro co ejus nomine in leges eum doctrinam ritus religionis quae tum docebantur publice quoad posset servaturum contrarios oppugnaturum Buch. Rer. Scot. Hist l. 18. The three Estates revoke all alienations made by the King without consent of the Parliament Parliam K. Iames 2. cap. 2. K. Iames 4 5 6. Three Parliaments of K. Iames the 2. are holden without any mention of the King as Anno 1437. Anno 1438. Anno 1440. and the 5. and 6. Act of Parl. 1440. the Estates ordaine the King to doe such and such things to ride through the country for doing of Iustice And Parl. 1. K. Iames 1. Act. 23. the Estates ordained the King to mend his money But shew any Parliament where ever the King doth prescribe Lawes to the States or censure the States In the 1. Parl. of K. Iames the 6. the Confession of Faith being ratified in Acts made by the three Estates that the Kings must sweare at their Coronation In the presence of the eternall God that they shall maintaine the true Religion right Preaching and administration of the Sacraments now received and preached within this Realme and shall abolish and gain-stand all false Religions contrary to the same and shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will of God laudable Lawes and Constitutions of the Realme c. The 1. Parl. of K. Iames the 6. 1567. approveth the Acts Parl. 1560. conceived only in name of the States without the King and Queen who had deserted the same So saith the Act 2. 5. 4. 20. 28. And so this Parliament wanting the King and Queenes authoritie is confirmed Parl. 1572. Act. 51. K. Ia. 6. and Parl. 1581. Act. 1. and Parl. 1581. Act. 115. in which it is declared That they have been Common lawes from their first Date and all are ratified Parl. 1587. and Parl. 1592. Act. 1. and stand ratified to this day by K. Charles his Parliament An. 1633. The Act of the Assemblie 1566. commendeth that Parliament 1560. as the most lawfull and free Parliament that ever was in the Kingdome Yea even Parl. 1641. King Charles himselfe being present an Act was passed upon the occasion of the Kings illegall imprisoning of the Laird of Langtoune That the King hath no power to imprison any Member of the Parliament without consent of the Parliament Which Act to the great prejudice of the libertie of the Subject should not have been left unprinted for by what Law the King may imprison one
his power If we obteine this which Gods Word doth give us we have enough for our purpose though Vzzah kept the naked title of a King as indeed he tooke but up roome in the Catalogue of Kings Now if by Law he was cut off from actuall governing Whether he was willing or not willing to denude himselfe of Reigning it is all one And to say that furious men ideots stupid men and Children who must doe all Royall acts by Curators and Tutors are Kings jure with correction is petitio principii for then hath God infused immediately from heaven as Royalists teach us a Royall power to governe a Kingdome on those who are as capable of Royaltie as blocks I conceive that the Lord Deut. 17. 14 15 16 17. commandeth the people to make no blocks Kings and that the Lord hath not done that himselfe in a binding Law to us which we have no commandement from him to doe I conceive that God made Josiah and Joash Kings typicall and in destination for his promise sake to David while they were Children as well as he made them Kings but not actu completo ratione officii to be a rule to us now to make a Childe of sixe yeares of age a King by office I conceive Children are to us only Kings in destination and appointment And for Idiots and Fooles I shall not believe let Royalists breake their faith upon so rocky and stony a point at their pleasure that God hath made them Governors of others by Royall office who can scarce number their own fingers Or that God tyeth a people to acknowledge stupid blocks for Royall Governours of a Kingdome who cannot governe themselves But far be it from me to argue with Bellarmine From Vzziah his bodily leprosie to inferre that any Prince spiritually Leprous and turned Hereticall is presently to be dethroned Nothing can dethrone a King but such Tyrannie as is inconsistent with his Royall office Nor durst I inferre that Kings now adayes may be removed from actuall Government for one single transgression It is true 80 Priests and the whole Kingdome so serving King Vzzah their motives I know were Divine proveth well that the Subjects may punish the transgression of Gods expresse law in the King in some cases even to remove him from the Throne but as from Gods commanding to stone the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day we cannot inferre that Sabbath-breakers are now to be punished with death yet we may well argue Sabbath-breakers may be punished and Sabbath-breakers are not unpunishable and above all Law So may we argue here Vzzah though a King was punished Ergo Kings are punishable by Subjects Quest 16. Whether or no as the deniall of active obedience in things unlawfull is not dishonourable to the King as King he being obliged to command in the Lord only so the deniall of passive subjection to the King using unjust violence be also no dishonouring of the King Ans As the King is under Gods Law both in commanding or in exacting active obedience so is he under the same regulating Law of God in punishing or demanding of us passive subjection and as he may not command what he will but what the King of Kings warranteth him to command so may he not punish as he will but by warrant also of the supreame Iudge of all the earth and therefore it is not dishonourable to the Majesty of the Ruler that we deny passive subjection to him when he punisheth beside his warrant more then its against his Majesty and honour that we deny active obedience when he commandeth illegally else I see not how it is lawfull to fly from a tyrannous King as Elias Christ and other of the witnesses of our Lord have done and therefore what Royalists say here is a great untruth namely That in things lawfull we must be subject actively in things unlawfull passively For as we are in things lawfull to be subject actively so there is no duty in point of conscience laying on us to be subject passively because I may lawfully fly and so lawfully deny passive subjection to the Kings will punishing unjustly Quest 17. Whether may the Prince make away any part of his Dominions as an Iland or a Kingdome for the safety of the whole kingdomes he bath as if goods be like to sinke an over burthened Ship the Sea-men cast away a part of the Goods in the Sea to save the lives of the whole Passengers and if three thousand Passengers being in one Ship and the Ship in a storme like to be loosed it would seeme that a thousand may be cast over-board to save the lives of the whole Passengers Ans The Kingdome being not the Kings proper Heritage it would seeme he cannot make away any part of his Kingdome to save the whole without the expresse consent of that part though they be made away to save the whole In things of this kind men are not as the commodities of Merchants nor is the case alike as when one thousand of three thousand are to be cast into the Sea to save all the rest and that either by common consent or by Lots or some other way for it is one thing when destruction is evidently inevitable as in the casting so many men into the Sea to save the whole and many Passengers and when a King for peace or for help from another King maketh away part of his Dominion The Lord is here to be waited on in his good Providence and events are to be committed to him but far lesse can it be imaginably lawfull for a King to make away a part of his Dominions without their consent that he may have help from a forraign Prince to destroy the rest This were to make merchandize of the lives of men Quest 18. Whether or no the convening of the subjects without the Kings will be unlawfull Answ The convention of men of it self is an indifferent thing and taketh its specification from its causes and manner of convening though some convention of the Subjects without the King be forbidden yet Ratio Legis est anima Legis The reason and intent of the Law is the soul of the Law Convention of the Subjects in a tumultuary way for a seditious end to make war without warrant of Law is forbidden but not when Religion Laws Liberties Invasion of forraign Enemies necessitateth the Subjects to conveen though the King and ordinary Iudicatures going a corrupt way to pervert Iudgement shall refuse to consent to their conventions Upon which ground no convention of Tables at Edinburgh or any other place An. 1637. 1638. 1639. can be judged there unlawfull for if these be unlawfull because they are convention of the Leagues without expresse Act of Parliament then the convention of the Leagues to quench a house on fire and the convention of a Countrey to pursue a Wolf entered in the Land to destroy women and children which are warranted by the Law of
resolveth upon the free election of the people as on the fountain-cause 6. Argum. Sect. 4. p. 39. Election of a family to the Crown lawfull Speed Hist pag. 757. A King by election commeth neerer to the first King then a King by succession D. Fern part 3. sect â— p. 14. If the people may limit the King they may give him power A community have not power formally to punish themselves Barclay cont Monarcham c. 2 p. 5 6. The elective King and the hereditary King better and worse every one then another in divers relations Sac. sanc Reg. Maiest c. 17. p. 158. Letter p. 7. Twofold right of conquest Sect. 7. p. 30. Vniust conquest is no signification of Gods approving Will. 1 Arg. 2 Arg. Meere violent domineering is contrary to the rules of governing 3 Arg. Violence hath nothing in it of a King 4 Arg. 5 Arg. A King given to a people by a bloody Conquest must be a judgement not a blessing and so not pâ—â— se a King 6 Arg. Strength as prevailing strength is not law or reason Fathers cannot dispose of the liberty of the posteritie not borne A father as a father hath not power of life and death Hugo Gâ—otius de iute belli pacis l. 2. c. 4. n. 10. 7 Arg. Part 3. Sect. 3. pâ—g 20. Arnisaeus de authoritat Priâ—cip c. 1. n. 1 â— The peoples and Davids conquest of Canaanites Amonites and Edomites do not prove conquest to be a good title to a Crown Davids conquest of the Ammonites more rigorous then that it can legitimate Crowns by â—onquest 2 Sam. 12. 30. 31. 7 sorts of superioritie and inferioritie Power of life and death from a positive law not from the superioritie of father children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A dominion antecedent and consequent Kings and subjects no naturall order Buchan de jure Regni apud Scoles A man is born consequenter in a politique â—â—lation Slavery not naturall Every man by nature free borne in regard of civill subjection 1 Arg. 2 Arg. 3 Arg. 4 Arg. 5 Arg. 6 Arg. Politque societie naturall in radice free in modo rei 7 Arg. Sac. sanct Reg. ma. c. 12. p. 12 P. Prelate Politick Government how naturall P. Prelate Sac. sanct Mai. p. 126. Inslaving of children by the parents not naturall The King under a naturall but no civil obligation to the people say Royalists If the condition without the which one of the parties would never have entered in covenant be not performed that person is loosed from the covenant Arnis de authorit prin â— â— n. 6. 7. The people Princes in their place are obliged to maintain Religion and Iustice no lesse then the King In so far as the King presseth a false Religion on the people catenus in so far they are understood not to have a Kingly power The covenant between King and People giveth a coactive power to each other The covenant bindeth the King as King not as he is a man only The covenant tyeth the King to the People politically as well as to God naturally or religiously 2 Arg. How the covenant is conditionall and what breach dissolveth the covenant One or two tyrannous acts deprive not a King of his Royall right The covenant between King and people conditionall Though there be no positive written covecant which yet we grant not yet there is a naturall tacite and implicite covenant betwixt the King and ths people If the King be made King absolutely he is made such an one contrary to the word of God and nature of his office The people are not given to the Kings keeping so as they be his owne as sheep or mony are given The King could not buy or sell borrow or contract debt if his covenant with men did not bind him The covenant sworn by Asa and all Iudah 2 Chron. 15. obligeth the King Barclay Alber. Gentilis in disput Regal l. 2. c. 12. l. 3. c. 14 15. 16. Hug. Grotius de jure belli poc l. 2. c. 11 12 13. Arnisaeus dâ— authorit princip c. 1. n. 7. 8. 10. Haenon disp 2. Ioan. Roffens de potest papâ— l. 2. c. 5. Adam suppose he had lived till now should not have bin King of the whole earth because â— father King a father Metaphorically only A fatherly power and a politike power are not one and the fame D. Ferne par 1. sect 3. pag. 8. Sacr. sanct Reg. Maiest c. 7. pag. 87. Arnisaeus de potest princip c. 3. u. 1. 2. See Aristotle saith the Prelate Eth. 8. 10. pol. 1. c. Homer Odys 1. he might have said see Arnisaeus loe tit The King as King hath no masterly domion over the people but only fiduciarie To be a King is by office and actu primo to defend save feed and not to hurt or inthral A King not over men as reasonable men Prelatâ— Sacr. sanct mas c. 16. p. 15. Hugo Grotius hath the same de jur bel pacis l. 1. c. 3. A compelled surrender of liberty tyeth not A surrender of ignorance and mistake is some way unvoluntary and obligeth not The Goods of the Subjects not the Kings * Quod jure gentium dicitur F. de justi tia jure l. ex hee Quod partim jure civili Iusti de rerum divisio sect singulorum * L. item si verberatum F. de rei vindicat Ias plene m. l. Barbarius F. de oâ—fici praetor all the goods of the people are the Kings in a fourfold notion but not in propriety Subjects are propriators of their own Goods Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. The answer of Hybreas to a extorting Prince Autonius Argum. 4. Species enim furti est de alieuo largiri beneficii debitorem sihi acquirere L. si pignore sect de furt Argum. 5. Argum. 6. Argum. 7. Argum. 8. The Kings power fiduciarie The King a Tutor Difference between a father and a Tutor A free Community no pupill or minor The Kings power not properly Maritall or husbandly The King a Patron rather then a Lord. The King an honourable servant Royall power only from God and only from the people in divers respects The King the servant of the people both objectively subjectively By one and the same act the Lord of Heaven and the People make the King according to the physicall realitie of the act The King head of the Communitie only metaphorically The King but metaphorically only Lord of the familie The King not heire nor proprietor of the Kingdome The place 1 Sam. 8 9 11. discussed a Grotius de ju bel pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 3. b Barclaius contra Monarchom l. 2. p. 64. Potostatem intelligit non â—aâ— quae competit ex praecepto neque etiam quae ex permissu est quatenus liberat à peccato sed quatenus paenis legalibus â—ximit operantem c Barclaius contra Monarcho l. 2. p. 56 57. The power office of the King badly disterenced by Barclay
d Barclaius l. 3 c. 2. e Arr. Mon. Haec erit ratio Regis f 70. Interpret Vatabul judica â—is judicium consuetudinem i. mores ib. bis moribus hac consuetudine utentur erga vos reges g Chald. Para. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 70. Interp. 70. Interp. h P. Martyr coment 1 Sam. 8. verum jus regium describit in Deut. apud Samuelem autem usurpatum l Calvin conc 1 Sam. 8. k Andr. Rivetus in decal â— 20. inâ— mundat p. 195. l Junius annot in 1 Sam. 2 13. m Diodatus annot 1 Sam. 8. 3. n Glossa interlinearis o Lyra in locum hic accipitur jus large sumptum quod reputatur jus propter malum abusum Nam illa quae dieuntur hic de jure Reg is magis contingunt per Tyranidem p Tostatus Abulens in 1 Reg. 8. q. 17. deq. 21. q Cornelius a Lapid in locum r Cajetan in locum Å¿ Hugo Cardinal in loc t Serrarius in locum u Thom. Aquin l. 3. de Regni Princip c. 11. x Mendoza jus Tyrannorum y Clemens Alexand. pag. 26. z Beda l. 2. expo in Samuel a Petrus Rebuffus tract de incongrua prert p. 110. Osiander he setteth not down the Office of the King what he ought to be but what manner of King they should have Pelican that ruled by will not by law Willet Such as decline to Tyranny Borhaius Tyrants not Kings b Rabb Levi Ben. Gersom in 1 Sam. 8. Pezelius in exp leg Mosai l. 4. c. 8. Tossan in not Bibl. Bosseus de Rep. Christ potest supra regem c. 2. n. 103. Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 19. Breutius homil 27. in 1 Sam. 8. Mos regis non de jure sed de vulgaâ—â consuetudine Doct. Ferne p. 2. sect pag. 55. Active and passive Obed. pag. 24. D. Ferne. 3. p. Sect. 2. pag. 10. Learned Authors teach that Gods Law Deut. 17. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a manner of the King 1 Sam. 8 9. are opposite one to another so Gerson in trinprinâ— sac adu lat par 4. Alp. 66. lit l. cons 8. Buchan de jure regni apud Scot. Chasson cat glo mundi cons 24. n. 162. cons 35. Tholoss l. 9. c. 1. Rossen De polus Rep. c. 2. n. 10. Magdeburg in trac de off ma. Crying to God not the only remedy against a tyrant Ferne par 3. pag. 95. Resisting of tyrants and patience not inconsistent The Law of the King not a permissive law as was the law of devorcement Mal. 2. The law of the King written in a booke â— Sam. 11. not the law of Tyranny In what considerations the King is woâ—thier then the people and the people worthier then the King A meane as a meane inferiour to the end A King inferiour to the people Argum. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Argum. 5. The Church bâ—cause the Church of more worth then the King because King Argum. 6. Argum. 7. People in the spece immortall King not so If sinne had never been there should have been no need of Kings Arg. 8. The King is to expend his life for the people and so inferior to them A meane is considered reduplicatively and formally as a meane and materially as thething which is the mean in this latter sense the mean may be of more worth then the end but not so in the former sense A meane may be considered as a meane only and as more then a meane The people may be with out the King but not the King without the people 10. Argum. The people wortheir as the â—tâ—stituent cause then the King who is the effect Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Vnpossible that people can limit Royall power but they must give Royall power Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Except 2. Ioan. Rossens De potest pap l. 2. c. 5. Though God immediately create Kings without the people yet can the people unmake Kings Though God should immediately give a talent and gift for Prophecying as he gave to Balaam Caiaphas and others yet they may lose that talent by digging it in the earth and be deprived by the Church Except 3. 〈…〉 sanc Majes c. 9. p. 98. 99 Arnisâ—us De authorit princip cap. 1. â— 1. The people putting a King above themselves retaine the fountain-power and so are superior to the King Ulpian l. 1. ad Sc. Tupil Populus omne suum imperium potestà tene confert in Regem Bartolus ad l. hostes 24. f. de capt host Arnis c. 3. n. 10. The King as King a meane and inferior to the people The King both as a man and as a King inferior to the people Except 4. Sacr. sanct maj c. 9. p. 98. Observe here that the P. P. yieldeth there is a free covenant by which the people resigne their power to the King but whether Royall power or some other he dare not assert lest he destroy his own principles To sweare non-selfe-preservation and to sweare self-murther all one 5 Reply Sac. sanct maj c. 9. p. 129. stollen from Barclaius l. 5. c. 12. The people cannot make away their power to the King irrevocably The people may resume the power they gave to Commissioners of Parliament when they abuse that power Buchanan not understood by the P. P. Tables lawfull when the secret Counsell is corrupted and Parliaments are denyed 6 Rep. Barc l. 4. conc Monarcho c. 11 pag. 27. 7. Rep. Saer sanc Mai. c. 13. p. 130. stolen out of Arnisaeus de jure Majest cap. 3. n. â— pag. 34. Quod ofsicit â—ale c. holdeth when the agent maketh not away all its vertue by alicnation 8. Rep. Sacr. sanc Mai. pag. 131. Propter quod unumquodque c. not understood by the P. P. The King hath Soveraignty by loane and iâ— trust Soveraigntie how in the Communitie how not Power of life and death how in the Communitie A Communitie of it selfe wanting Rulers is a Politique body and how Sacr. sanc maj c. 4. p. 43. The propagation of Kings is by filiation saith the P. P. A speech that hath neither sense nor reason Filiation is later then propagation one must be propagated ere he be a sonne Inferiour Iudges no lesse Gods immediate Vicars then the King The conscience of the inferiour Iudge is immediately subordinate to God not to the King either mediately or immediaâ—ely Grotius de jure Belli pac l. 1. c. 4. Nam omnis facultas gubernandi in Magistratibus summae potestati ita subjicitur ut quicquid contra voluntatem summi imperantis faciant id defectum sit â—a facultate ac proinde de proactu privato habendum Grotius ibi species intermedia si genus respicias â—st species si speciem infra positam est genus ita magistratus illi inferiorum quidem ratione habita sunt publicae personae at supperâ—ores si considerentur sunt privati Grot. 16. Inferiour Judges truely Judges in relation to the King The inferiour judge how
we yeeld obedience to the person c. and the Prelate hath as much learning as to coppy out of Fern and Barclay Arniseus and others these words and the like but hath not wit to adde the sinewes of these Authors reason and with all this he can in his Preface call it his own and provoke any to answer him if they dare whereas while I answer this excommunicated Pamphletter I answer these learned Authors from which he stealeth all he hath and yet he must perswade the King he is the onely man can defend his Majesties Cause and the importunity forsooth of friends extorted this peece as if it were a fault that this Delphick Oracle giving out railings and lies for responses should be silent 2. Not we onely but the Holy Ghost in terminis hath this distinction Act. 4. 19. and 5. 29. We ought to obey God rather then men Them Rulers for of Rulers sitting in judgement is that speech uttered commanding and tyrannizing over the Apostles are men contradistinguished from God and as they command and punish unjustly they are but men otherwise commanding for God they are Gods and more then men 2. From Theophylact also or from Chrysostome on Rom. 13. we have this The Apostle speaketh not say they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Soveraigntie or Royaltie doth not properly reign or bear the sword or receive praise and this accident doth not bear a sword nor do we think or Paul speak Rom. 13. of the abstracted Jew of power and Royaltie subsisting out of its subject nor dream we that the naked accident of Royall Authority is to be feared and honoured as the Lords anointed the person or man who is the King and beareth the Crown on his head and holdeth the scepter in his hand is to be obeyed accidentes are not persons but they speak non-sense and like brute beasts who deny that all the kingly honour due to the King must be due to him as a King and because of the Royall dignity that God hath given to him and not because he is a man for a Pursevants son is a man and if a Pursevants son would usurpe the throne and take the Crown on his head and the scepter in his hand and command that all souls be subject to such a superior Power because he is a man the Lawes of Scotland would hang a man for a lesse fault we know and the P. Prelate was wont to edifie women and converted souls to Christ with such a distinction as objectum quod and objectum quo in the Pulpits of Edenburgh and it hath good use here we never took abstract Royalty to be the King The Kings of Scotland of old were not second notions and we exclude not the person of the King yet we distinguish with leave of the P. Prelate betwixt the person in linea physica we must take physica largly heer and in linea morali obedience fear tribute honour is due to the person of the King and to the man who is King not because of his person or because he is a man the P. Prelate may know in what notion we take the name Person but because God by the peoples election hath exalted him to Royall dignity and for this cause ill doers are to subject their throats and necks to the sword of the Lords Annoynteds executioner or hangman with patience and willingly because in taking away the head of ill doers for ill doing he is acting the Office of the Lord by whom he Raigneth but if he take away their heads and send out the long-tusked Vultures and Boares of Babylon the Irish Rebells to execute his wrath as he is in that act a mis-informed man and wanteth the authority of Gods Law or mans Law he may be resisted with Armes For 1. If Royalists say against this then if a King turne an habituall Tyrant and conduce an hundred thousand Turkes to destroy his subjects upon meere desire of revenge they are not to resist but to be subject and suffer for conscience I am sure Grotius saith If a King sell his subjects he loseth all title to the Crowne and so may be resisted and Winzetus saith A Tyrant may be resisted and Barclay It is lawfull for the people in case of Tyranny to defend themselves Adversus immanem saevetiam against extreame cruelty and I desire the Prelate to answer how people are subject in suffering such cruelty of the higher power because he is Gods ordinance and a power from God except he say as he selleth his people and barbarously destroyeth by Cut-throat Irishes his whole subjects refusing to worship Idolls he is a man and a sinfull man eatenus and an inferiour power inspired by wicked counsell not a King eatenus not a higher power and that in resisting him thus the subjects resist not the ordinance of God Also suppone King David defend his Kingdome and people against Iesse his naturall father who we suppose cometh in against his sonne and Prince King David with a huge army of the Philistimes to destroy him and his Kingdome if he shall kill his owne native father in that warr at some Edge-hill how shall he preserve at Ierusalem that honour love that he oweth to his father by vertue of the fifth Commandement Honour thy father and thy mother c. Let them answer this except King David consider Iesse in one relation in abstracto as his father whom he is to obey and as he is a wicked man and a perfidious subject in another relation and except King David say he is to subject himselfe to his father as a father according to the fifth Commandement and that in the act of his fathers violent invasion he is not to subject himselfe to him as he is a violent invader and as a man Let the Royalist see how he can answer the Argument and how Levie is not to know his father and mother as they are sinfull men Deut. 33. 9. and yet to know and honour them as Parents and how an Israelite is not to pitty the wife that lyeth in his bosome when she inticeth him to goe a whooring after strange Gods but is to kill her Deut. 13. 6 7 8. and yet the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved his Church Eph. 5. 25. If the husband take away his wives life in some mountaine in the holy Land as Gods Law commandeth let the Royalists answer us where is then the meritall love he owes to her and that respect due to her as she is a wife and a helper But let not the Royalist infer that I am from these examples pleading for the killing of Kings for lawfull resistance is one thing and killing of Kings is another the one defensive and lawfull the other offensive and unlawfull so long as he remaineth a King and the Lords Anoynted But if he be a murtherer of his father who doth counsell his father to come to a place of danger where he may be killed and
9. The States punished Archidanius because he married a wife of a low stature Plutarch in Ages in pris The ancient Burgundions thought it cause enough to expell their King if matters went not well in the State Marcel l. 27. The Goths in Spain gave no other cause of expelling their King nisi quod sibi displiceret because he displeased them Aimon l. 2. c. 20. l. 4. c. 35. Ans All these are not to be excused in people but neither every abuse of power in a King exautorateth a King nor every abuse in people can make null their power Arnisaeus maketh three kinds of oathes the first is when the King sweareth to defend true Religion and the Pope and he denyeth that this is an oath of fidelitie or by paction or covenant made to the Pope or Clergie he saith it is onely on oath of protection nor doth the King receive the Crown from the Pope or Clergie Answ 1. Arnisaeus divideth oathes that are to be conjoyned we read not that Kings sweare to defend Religion in one oath and to administrate judgement and justice in another for David made not two Covenants but onely one with all Israel 2. The King was not King while he did swear this oath and therefore it must be a pactionall oath between him and the Kingdom and it is true the King receiveth not a Crown from the Church yet David received a Crowne from the Church for this end to feed the Lords people and so conditionally Papir Masse l. 3. Chron. Gal. saith The king was not king before the oath 2. That he did sweare to be a keeper not onely of the first but also of the second Table of the Law Ego N. Dei gratia mox futur as rex Francorum in die ordinationis meae coram Deo sanctis ejus polliceor quod servabo privilegia canonica justitiamque jus unicuique Praelato debitum vosque defendam Deo juvante quantum potero quemadmodum Rex ex officio in suo regno defendere debet unumquemque Episcopum ac Ecclesiam administrabo populo justitiam leges uti jus postulat And so is it ordained in the Councel of Tolet 6. c. 6. Quisquis deinceps regni sortitus fuerit apicem non ante conscendat Regiam sedem quam inter reliquas conditiones sacramento policitus fuerit quod non sinet in regno suo degere â—um qui non sit Catholicus All these by Scripture are oathes of Covenant Deut. 17. ver 17 18. 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3 4. 2 Kings 11. 17 18. Arnisaeus maketh a second oath of absolute Kings who sweare they shall raigne according to equitie and justice and he saith There is no need of this oath a promise is enough for an oath encreaseth not the obligation L. fin de non num pec Onelie it addeth the bound of Religion for there is no use of an oath where there is no paction of law against him that sweareth if he violate his oath There followeth onelie the punishment of Perjurie And the word of a Prince is as good as his oath onelie he condescendeth to sweare to please the people out of indulgence not out of necessitie And the King doth not therefore sweare because he is made King but because he is made King he sweareth And he is not King because he is crowned but he is crowned because he is King Where the Crowne goeth by succession the King never dieth and he is King by nature before he be crowned Answ 1. This oath is the very first oath spoken of before included in the covenant that the King maketh with the people 2 Sam 5. 2 3 4. For absolute Princes by Arnisaeus his grant doth swear to do the duties of a King as Bodinus maketh the oath of France de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. Iuro ego per deum ac promitto me justè regnaturum judicium equitatem ac misericordiam facturum And papir Mass l. 3. Chron. hath the same expresly in the particulars And by this a King sweareth he shall not be absolute and if he swear this oath he bindeth himself not to governe by the Law of the King whereby he may play the Tyrant as Saul did 1 Sam. 8. 9 10 11 12 c. As all Royalists expound the place 2. It is but a poor evasion to distinguish betwixt the Kings promise and his oath for the promise and covenant of any man and so of the King doth no lesse bring him under a civil obligation and politique coaction to keep his promise then an oath for he that becometh surety for his friend doth by no civil Law sweare he shall be good for the sonne or performe in liew and place of the friend what he is to performe he doth onely covenant and promise and in law and politique obligation he is taken and snared by that promise no lesse then if he had sworne Reuben offereth to be caution to bring Benjamin safe home to his old father Gen. 42. 37. Iudah also Gen. 43. 9. but they do not swear anyoath iâ— is true that an oath adeth nothing to a contract and promise but onely it laies on a religious tie before God yet so as consequently if the contractor violate both promise and oath he cometh under the guilt of perjury which a law of men may punish Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politique obligation as well as an oath is already proved and farther confirmed by Gal. 3. 15. Though it be a mans testament or covenant no man disanulleth and addeth thereunto No man even by mans law can anull a confirmed covenant and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himself under law to fulfill his own covenant and so must the King put himself under mens law by a covenant at his Coronation Yea and David is reputed by Royallists an absolute Prince yet he cometh under a covenant before he be made King 3. It is but a weak reason to say that an oath is needlesse where no action of law can be against the King who sweareth if it have any strength of reason I retort it a legall and solemne promise then is needlesse also for there is no action of law against a King as Royalists teach if he violate his promise So then King David needlesly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation for though David should turne as bloody an enemie to the Church as Nero or Iulian the people have no Law-action against David and why then did Ieremiah seek an oath of the King of Iudah that he would not kill him nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies and why did David seek an oath of Ionathan It is not like Ieremiah and David could have law-action against a King and a Kings son if they should violate the oath of God And farther it is a begging of the question to say that the States can have no action against the king if he should violate