the Lords act of feeding is mediate by the mediation of second causes if he feed Moses 40. dayes without eating any thing the act of feeding is immediate If God made David King as he made him a Prophet I should thinke God immediatly made him King for God asked consent of no man of no people no not of David himselfe before he infused on him the Spirit of Prophecy but he made him formally King by the politicall and legall Covenant betwixt him and the people I shall not thinke that a Covenant and Oath of God is a Ceremony especially a law-Law-covenant or a politicall paction between David and the people the contents whereof behoved to be De materia gravi onerosa concerning a great part of obedience to the fifth Commandement of Gods Morall Law the duties Morall concerning Religion and Mercy and Justice to be performed reciprocally between King and people Oathes I hope are more then Ceremonies Quest. 12. Whether or no is not the Common-wealth ever a Pupill never growing to age as a minor under nonage doth come not to need a Tutor but the Common-wealth being still in need of a Tutor a Governour or King must alwaies be a Tutor and so the Kingdome can never come to that condition as to accuse the King it alwaies being minor Ans. 1. Then can they never accuse inferiour Iudges for a Kingdome is perpetually in such a nonage as it cannot want them when sometime it wanteth a King 2. Can the Common-wealth under Democracy and Aristocracy being perpetually under nonage ever then quarrell at these Governments and never seeke a King by this reason they cannot 3. The King in all respects is not a Tutor every comparison in something beareth a Leg for the Common-wealth in their owne persons doe choose a King 2. Complaine of a King 3. Resist an Vzziah 4. Tye their elective Prince to a Law a Pupill cannot choose his Tutor either his dying Father or the living Law doth that service for him he cannot resist his Tutor he cannot tye his Tutor to a Law nor limit him when first he chooseth him Pupillo non licet postulare Tutorem suspecti quamdiu sub tutela est manet impubes l. Pietatis 6. in fin C. de susp Tutor l. impuberem 7. § Impuberes Iust. eod Quest. 13. Whether or no are subjects more obnoxious to a King then Clients to Patrons and servants to Masters because the Patron cannot be the Clients Judge but some superiour Magistrate must judge both and the slave had no refuge against his Master but only flight And the King doth conferre infinite greater benefits on the subjects then the Master doth on the slave because he exposeth his life pleasure ease credit and all for the safety of his subjects Ans. It s denyed for to draw the case to Fathers and Lords in respect of Children and Vassals the reason why Sons Clients Vassals can neither formally judge nor judicially punish Fathers Patrons Lords and Masters though never so Tyrannous is a Morall impotency or a politicall incongruity because these relations of Patron and Client Fathers and Children are supposed to be in a Community in which are Rulers and Iudges above the Father and Sonne the Patron and the Client but there is no Physicall incongruity that the politique inferiour punish the superiour if we suppone there were no Iudges on the earth and no relation but Patron and Client and because for the father to destroy the children is a troubling of the harmony of Nature and the highest degree of violence therefore one violence of selfe defence and that most jâ—st though contrary to nature must be a remedy against another violence but in a Kingdome there is no politicall Ruler above both King and People and therefore though Nature have not formally appointed the politicall relation of a King rather then many Governours and subjects yet hath Nature appointed a Court and Tribunall of necessity in which the people may by innocent violence represse the unjust violence of an injuring Prince so as the people injured in the matter of selfe defence may be their owne Iudge 2. I wonder that any should teach That oppressed slaves had of old no refuge against the tyranny of Masters but only flight for 1. The Law expresly saith That they might not only fly but also change Masters which we all know was a great dammage to the Master to whom the servant was as good as mony in his purse 2. I have demonstrated before by the Law of Nature and out of divers learned Iurists that all inferiours may defend themselves by opposing violence against unjust violence to say nothing that unanswerably I have proved that the Kingdome is superiour to the King 3. It is true Qui plus dat plus obligat as the Scripture saith Luke 7. He that giveth a greater benefit layeth a foundation of a greater obligation But 1. If benefit be compared with benefit it is disputable if a King give a greater benefit then an earthly father to whom under God the sonne is debtor for life and being if we regard the compensation of eminency of honour and riches that the People puteth upon the King but I utterly deny that a power to act Tyrannous acts is any benefit or obligation that the People in reason can lay upon their Prince as a compensation or hire for his great paines he taketh in his Royall Watch-Tower I Iudge it no benefit but a great hurt dammage and an ill of nature both to King and people that the people should give to their Prince any power to destroy themselves and therefore that people doth reverence and honour the Prince most who lay strongest chaines and Iron fetters on him that he cannot tyrannize Quest. 14. But are not Subjects more subject to their Prince seeing the subjection is naturall as we see Bees and Cranes to obey him then servants to their Lord. C. in Apib. 7.9.1 ex Hiero. 4. ad Rustic Monarch Plin. n. 17. For Jurists teach that servitude is beside or against nature l. 5. de stat homi § 2. just jur pers c. 3. § sicut Nov. 89. quib med nat eff sui Ans. There is no question in active subjection to Princes and Fathers commanding in the Lord we shall grant as high a measure as you desire But the question is if either active subjection to ill and unjust mandates or passive subjection to penall inflictions of Tyrannie and abused power be naturall or most naturall or if Subjects doe renounce naturall subjection to their Prince when they oppose violence to unjust violence This is to beg the question And for the Commonwealth of Bees and Cranes and Crown and Scepter amongst them Give me leave to doubt of it To be subject to Kings is a Divine morall Law of God but not properly naturall to be subject to coaction of the Sword Government and subjection to Parents is naturall But that a King is juris
of injuries 21. It is false that Presbyteries usurp both swords because they censure sins which the civill Magistrate should censure and punish Elias might be said then to mix himselfe with the civill businesse of the Kingdom because he prophecied against Idolators killing of the Lords Prophets which crime the civill Magistrate was to punish But the truth is the Assembly of Glasgow 1637. condemned the Prelates because they being Pastors would be also Lords of Parliament of Session of Secret Counsell of Exchequer Judges Barons and in their lawlesse High Commission would Fine Imprison and use the sword 22. It is his ignorance that he saith A provinciall synod is an associate body chosen out of all judiciall Presbyteries for all Pastors and Doctors without delegation by vertue of their place and office repaire to the Provinciall Synods and without any choice at all consult and voice there 23. It is a lye That some Leading men rule all here indeed Episcopall men made factions to rent the Synods and though men abuse their power to factions this cannot prove that Presbyteries are inconsistent with Monarchie for then the Prelate the Monarch of his Diocesian rout should be Anti-Monarchiall in a higher manner for he ruleth all at his will 24. The prime men as Mr. R. Bruce the faithfull servant of Christ was honoured and attended by all because of his Suffering Zeal Holinesse his fruitfull Ministery in gaining many thousand souls to Christ So though King James cast him off and did swear By Gods name he intended to be King the Prelate maketh Blasphemy a vertue in the King yet King James sware he could not find an honest Minister in Scotland to be a Bishop and therefore he was necessitated to promote false knaves but he said sometimes and wrote it under his hand that Mr. R. Bruce was worthy of the half of his kingdom but will this prove Presbyteries inconsistent with Monarchies I should rather think that Knave Bishops by King James his judgement were inconsistent with Monarchies 25. His lyes of Mr. R. Bruce excerpted out of the lying Manuscript of Apostat Spotswood in that he would not but preach against the Kings recalling from exile some Bloody Popish Lords to undo all are nothing comparable to the Incests Adulteries Blasphemies Perjuries Sabbath-breaches Drunkennesse Prophanity c. committed by Prelates before the Sun 26. Our Generall Assembly is no other then Christs Court Act. 15. made up of Pastors Doctors and Brethren or Elders 27. They ought to have no negative vote to impede the conclusions of Christ in his servants 28. It is a lye that the King hath no power to appoint time anâ— place for the Generall Assembly but his power is not privative to destroy the free Courts of Christ but accumulative to ayd and assist them 29. It is a lye That our generall Assembly may repeal Laws command and expect performance of the King or then excommunicate subject to them force compell King Judges and all to submit to them They may not force the conscience of the poorest begger nor is any Assembly infallible nor can it lay bounds upon souls of Iudges which they are to obey with blind obedience their power is ministeriall subordinate to Christs Law and what civill Laws Parliaments make against Gods word they may Authoritatively declare them to be unlawfull as though the Emperour Act. 15. had commanded Fornication and eating of blood might not the Assembly forbid these in the Synod I conceive the Prelates if they had power would repeal the Act of Parliament made An. 1641. in Scotland by his Majestie personally present and the three Estates concerning the anulling of these Acts of Parliament and Laws which established Bishops in Scotland Eâ—g Bishops set themselves as independent Monarchs above Kings and Laws and what they damne in Presbyteries and Assemblies that they practise themselves 30. Commissioners from Burroughs and Two from Edinbrough because of the largenesse of that Church not for Cathedrall supereminence sit in Assemblies not as sent from Burroughs but as sent and Authorized by the Church Session of the Burrough and so they sit there in a Church capacity 31. Doctors both in Accademies and in Parishes we desire and our Book of Discipline holdeth forth such 32. They hold I beleeve with warrant of Gods word if the King refuse to reform Religion the inferior Iudges and Assembly of Godly Pastors and other Church Officers may reform if the King will not kisse the Sun and do his duty in purging the House of the Lord may not Eliah and the people do their duty and cast out Baals Priests Reformation of Religion is a personall act that belongeth to all even to any one private person according to his place 33. They may swear a Covenant without the King if he refuse and Build the Lords House 2 Chron. 15.9 themselves and relieve and defend one another when they are oppressed For my acts and duties of defending my self and the oppressed do not tye my conscience conditionally so the King consent but absolutely as all duties of the Law of nature doe Jer. 22.3 Prov. 24.11 Esa. 58.6 Esa. 1.17 34. The P. P. condemneth our Reformation because it was done against the will of our Popish Queen This sheweth what estimation he hath of Popery and how he abhorreth Protestant Religion 35. They deposed the Queen for Her Tyranny but Crowned her Son all this is vindicated in the following Treatise 36. The killing of the monstrous and prodigious wicked Cardinall in the Castle of St. Andrews and the violence done to the Prelates who against all Law of God and man obtruded a Masse service upon their own private motion in Edinbrough An. 1637. can conclude nothing against Presbyteriall Government except our Doctrine commend these acts as lawfull 37. What was preached by the servant of Christ whom p. 46. he calleth the Scottish Pope is Printed and the P. P. durst not could not cite any thing thereof as Popish or unsound he knoweth that the man whom he so slandereth knocked down the Pope and the Prelates 38. The making away the fat Abbacies and Bishopricks is a bloody Heresie to the earthly minded Prelate the Confession of Faith commended by all the Protestant Churches as a strong bar against Popery and the book of Discipline in which the servants of God laboured twenty yeares with fasting and praying and frequent advice and counsell from the whole Reformed Churches are to the P. P. a negative faith and devote imaginations it s a lye that Episcopacie by both sides was ever agreed on by Law in Scotland 39. And was it a heresie that M. Melvin taught that Presbyter and Bishop are one function in Scripture and that Abbots and Priors were not in Gods book dic ubi legis and is this a proof of inconsistency of Presbyteries with a Monarchie 40 It is a heresie to the P. P. that the Church appoynt a Fast when King James appoynted an unseasonable
for then Aristocracy and Democracy must be unnaturall and so unlawfull Governments 3. If to be congruous to the condition of man be all one with naturall man which he must say if he speake sense to beleeve in God to be an excellent Mathematician to swim in deepe waters being congruous to the nature of man must be naturall 4. Man by nature is under government Paternall not Politique properly but by the free consent of his will Obj. 4. Luke 11.5 Christ himselfe was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to his Parents the word that is used Rom. 13. ergo none is exempted from subjection to lawfull government Ans. We never said that any was exempted from lawfull goverment the Prelate and his fellow Iesuites teach that the Clergy is exempted from the lawes of the civill Magistrate not we but because Christ was subject to his Parents and the same word is used Luk. 11. that is Rom. 13. it will not follow therefore men are by nature subject to Kings because they are by nature subject to parents Obj. 5. The father had power over the children by the Law of God and nature to redeeme himselfe from debt or any distressed condition by inslaving his children begotten of his owne body if this power was not by the right of nature and by the Warrant of God I can see no other for it could not be by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers Ans. 1. Shew a law of nature that the father might inslave his children by a Divine positive law presupposing sin the father might doe that and yet I thinke that may be questioned whether it was not a permission rather then a law as was the Bill of devorce but a law of nature it was not 2. The P. Prelate can see no Law but the law of nature here but it is because he is blind or will not see his reason is it was not by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers ergo it was by the law of nature so he that cursed his father was to dye by Gods Law This law was not made by mutuall consent betwixt the Father and the Sonne ergo it was a law of inature the Prelate will see no better Nature will teach a man to inslave hmselfe to redeeme himselfe from death but that it is a Dictate of nature that a man should inslave his sonne I conceive not 3. What can this prove but that if the sonne may by the law of nature be inslaved for the father but that the sonne of a slave is by nature under subjection to slavery that by natures law the contrary whereof he spake in the page preceding and in this same page As for the Argument of the Prelate to answer Suarez who laboureth to prove Monarchy not to be naturall but of free consent because it is various in sundry nations it is the Iesuites Argument not ours I owne it not Let Iesuites plead for Iesuites QUEST XIIII Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects because there be no such equality say Royalists betwixt the King and his people as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court to either necessitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people or to tye him to any punishment if he faile yet say they he is under naturall obligation in Gods Court to keepe his Oath but he is comptible only to God if he violate his Oath Asser. 1. There is an Oath betwixt the King and his people laying on by reciprocation of bands mutuall civill obligation upon the King to the people and the people to the King 2 Sam. 5.3 So all the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel 1 Chron. 11.3 And David made a covenant with them before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel 2 Chron. 23.2 And they went about in Iudah and gathered the Levites out of all the Cities of Iudah and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel and they came to Ierusalem 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the King Ioash in the house of God 2 King 11.17 and Jehoiada made a covenant betwixt the Lord and the King and the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also and his people Eccles. 8.2 I counsell thee to keepe the Kings commandement and that in regard of the Oath of God then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the King and the people 2. That was not a covenant that did tye the King to God onely and not to the people 1. because the covenant betwixt the King and the people is clearly differenced from the Kings covenant with the Lord 2 King 11.17 2. there were no necessity that this covenant should be made publickly before the people if the King did not in the covenant tye and oblige himselfe to the people nor needed it be made solemnly before the Lord is the House of God 3. It is expresly a covenant that was between Ioash the King and his people and David made a covenant at his Coronation with the Princes and Elders of Israel therefore the people give the Crown to David Covenant-wise and upon condition that he should performe such and such duties to them and this is cleare by all Covenants in the Word of God even the Covenant between God and man is so mutuall I will be your God and yee shall be my people The covenant is so mutuall that if the people breake the covenant God is loosed from his part of the covenant Zach. 11. v. 10.2 The covenant giveth to the beleever a sort of action of Law and jus quoddam to plead with God in respect of his fidelity to stand to that covenant that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity Esay 43.26 Es. 63.16 Daniel 9.4 5. and farre more a covenant giveth ground of a civill action and claime to a people and the free estates against a King seduced by wicked counsell to make war against the Land whereas he did sweare by the most high God that he should be a father and protector of the Church of God 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man yea all solemne promises bring the covenanters under a Law and a claime before men if the Oath of God be broken as the Covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech Gen. 21.27 Ionathan and David 1 Sam. 18.3 the spies professe to Rahab in the covenant that they made with him Iosh. 2. v. 20. And if thou utter this our businesse
say they we will be quit of thine Oath which thou hast made us to swear There be no mutuall contract made upon certain conditions but if the conditions be not fulfilled the party injured is loosed from the contract Barclay saith That this covenant obligeth the King to God but not the King to the people Ans. It is a vaine thing to say that the people and the King make a covenant and that David made a covenant with the Elders and Princes of Israel for if he be obliged to God only and not to the people by a covenant made with the people it is not made with the people at all nay it is no more made with the people of Israel nor with the Chaldeans for it bindeth David no more to Israel nor to Chaldea as a covenant made with men Arnisaeus saith when two parties contract if one performe the duty the other is acquitted Sect. Ex hujusmod ubi vult just de duob reis l. 3. F. because every one of them are obliged fully Sect. 1. Iust. eod to God to whom the Oath is made for that is his meaning and if either the people performe what is sworne to the Lord or the King yet one of the parties remaineth still under obligation and neither doth the peoples obedience exempt the King from punishment if he faile nor the Kings obedience exempt the people if they faile but every one beareth the punishment of his owne sin and there is no mutuall power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty because that belongeth to the Pretor or Magistrate before whom the contract was made The King hath jurisdiction over the people if they violate their Oath but the people hath no power over the Prince and the ground that Arnisaeus layeth downe is that 1. The King is not a party contracting with the people as if there were mutuall obligations betwixt the King and the people and a mutuall coactive power on either side 2. That the care of Religion belongeth not to the people for that hath no warrant in the Word saith he 2. We read not that the people was to command and compell the Priests and the King to reforme Religion and abolish Idolatry as it must follow if the covenant be mutuall 3. Iehoiada 2 King 11. obligeth himselfe and the King and the people by a like law to serve God and here be not two parts but three the high Priest the King the People if this example prove any thing 4. Both King and people shall finde the revenging hand of God against them if they faile in the breach of their Oath but with this difference and every one of the two King and people by the Oath stand obliged to God the King for himselfe and the people for themselves but with this difference the King oweth to God proper and due obedience as any of the subjects and also to governe the people according to Gods true religion Deut. 17. 2 Chro. 29. and in this the Kings obligation differeth from the peoples obligation the people as they would be saved must serve God and the King for the same cause 1 Sam. 12. But besides this the King is obliged to rule and governe the people and keepe them in obedience to God but the people is not obliged to governe the King and keepe him in obedience to God for then the people should have as great power of jurisdiction over the King as the King hath o-over the people which is against the Word of God and the examples of the Kings of Iudah but this commeth not from any promise or covenant that the King hath made with the people but from a peculiar obligation whereby he is obliged to God as a man not as a King This is the mystery of the businesse but I oppose this in these Assertions 1. Assert As the King is obliged to God for the maintenance of true Religion so are the people and Princes no lesse in their place obliged to maintaine true Religion for 1. the people are rebuked because they burnt Incense in all high places 2 King 17.11 2 Chron. 33.17 Hos. 4.13 And the reason why the high places are not taken away 2 Chro. 20.33 is given for as yet the people had not prepared their heart unto the God of their fathers but you will reply elicite acts of maintenance of true Religion are commanded to the people and that the places prove but the question is De actibus imperatis of commanded acts of Religion sure none but the Magistrate is to command others to worship God according to his Word I answer in ordinary only Magistrates not the King only but all the Princes of the Land and Iudges are to maintaine Religion by their commandements Deut. 1.16 2 Chro. 1.2 Deut. 16.19 Eccles. 5.8 Hab. 1.4 Mic. 3.9 Zach. 7.9 Hos. 5.10.11 and to take care of Religion but when the Iudges decline from Gods way and corrupt the Law we finde the people punished and rebuked for it Ier. 15.4 And I will cause them to be removed to all Kingdomes of the earth because of Manasseh the sonne of Hezekiah King of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem 1 Sam. 12.24 only feare the Lord 25. But if yee doe still wickedly yee shall be consumed both yee and your King And this case I grant is extraordinary yet so as Iunius Brutus proveth well and strongly that Religion is not given only to the King that he only should keepe it but to all the inferiour Iudges and people also in their kind but because the estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion and presse a false and Idolatrous worship upon them therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion but presseth upon the people a false and Idolatrous Religion in that they are not under the King but are presumed to have no King catenus so farre and are presumed to have the power in themselves as if they had not appointed any King at all as if we presume the body had given to the right hand a power to ward off strokes and to defend the body if the right hand should by a Palsie or some other disease become impotent and be withered up when ill is comming on the body it is presumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand and to the rest of the body to defend it selfe in this case as if the body had no right hand and had never communicated any power to the right hand at all So if an incorporation accused of Treason and in danger of the sentence of death shall appoint a Lawyer to Advocate their cause and to give in their just defences to the Iudge if their Advocate be stricken with dumbnesse because they have losed their legall and representative tongue none can say that this incorporation hath loosed the tongues that Nature hath given them so as by Natures law they may not plead in their own just
lawfull defence as if they had never appointed the foresaid lawyer to plead for them The King as a man is not more obliged to the publick and regall defence of the true Religion then any other man of the land but he is made by God and the people King for the Church and people of God's sake that he may defend true Religion for the behalfe and salvation of all If therefore he defend not Religion for the salvation of the soules of all in his publick and royall way it is presumed as undeniable that the people of God who by the law of nature are to care for their own soule are to defend in their way true Religion which so nearly concerneth them and their eternall happinesse 2 Assert When the covenant is betwixt God on the one part and the King Priests and people on the other part it is true if the one performe for his part to God the whole duty the other is acquitted as if two men be indebted to one man ten thousand pounds if the one pay the whole summe the other is acquitted but the King and People are not so contracting parties in covenant with God as that they are both indebted to God for one and the same sum of compleat obedience so as if the King pay the whole summe of obedience to God the people is acquitted and if the People pay the whole summe the King is acquitted for every one standeth obliged to God for himselfe for the people must doe all that is their part in acquitting the King from his Royall duty that they may free him and themselves both from punishment if he disobey the King of Kings Nor doth the Kings obedience acquit the people from their duty And Arnisaeus dreamed if he believed that we make King and People this way partie contracters in covenant with God Nor can two co-partners in covenant with God so mutually compell one another to doe their duty for we hold that the covenant is made betwixt the King and the People betwixt mortall men but they both bind themselves before God to each other But saith Arnisaeuâ— It belongeth to a Pretor or Ruler who is above both King and People to compell each of them the King to performe his part of the covenant to the people and the people to performe their part of the covenant to the King Now there is no Ruler but God above both King and People But let me answer The consequence is not needfull no more then when the King of Iudah and the King of Israel make a covenant to perform mutuall duties one to another no more then it is necessarie that there should be a King and superior Ruler above the King of Israel and the King of Iudah who should compell each one to doe a duty to his fellow King for the King and People are each of them above and below others in divers respects The People because they create the man King they are so above the King and have a virtuall power to compell him to doe his duty and the King as King hath an authoritative power above the People because Royaltie is formally in him and originally and virtually only in the People therefore may he compell them to their duty as we shall heare anon and therefore there is no need of an earthly Ruler higher then both to compell both 3 Assert We shall hereafter prove the power of the people above the King God willing And so it is false that there is not mutuall coactive power on each side 4 Assert The obligation of the King in this covenant floweth from the peculiar obligation nationall betwixt the King and the Estates and it bindeth the King as King and not simply as he is a man 1. Because it is a covenant betwixt the people and David not as he is the sonne of Jesse for then it should oblige Eliab or any other of Davids brethren yea it should oblige any man if it oblige David as a man but it oblâ—geth David as a King or as he is to be their King because it is the specifice act of a King that he is obliged unto to wit to governe the people in Righteousnesse and Religion with his Royall power And so it is false that Arnisaeus saith that the King as a man is obliged to God by this covenant not as a King 2. He saith by covenant the King is bound to God as a Man not as a King But so the man will have the King as King under no law of God and so he must either be above God as King or coequall with God which are manifest blasphemies for I thought ever the Royalists had not denyed but the King as King had been obliged to keep his oath to his subjects in relation to God and in regard of naturall obligation so as he sinneth before God if he breake his covenant with his people though they deny that he is obliged to keep his covenant in relation to his Subjects and in regard of politique or civill obligation to men Sure I am this the Royalists constantly teach 3. He would have this covenant so made with men as it obligeth not the King to men but to God But the contrary is true Beside the King and the Peoples covenant with the Lord King Joash made another covenant with the People and Jehoiada the Priest was only a witnesse or one who in Gods name performed the rite of annointing otherwise he was a subject on the peoples side obliged to keep allegiance to Joash as to his Soveraigne and Master But certainly who ever maketh a covenant with the people promising to governe them according to Gods word and upon that condition and these termes receiveth a throne and crown from the people he is obliged to what he promiseth to the people Omnis promittens facit alteri cui promissio facta est jus in promittentem Who ever maketh a promise to another giveth to that other a sort of right or jurisdiction to challenge the promise The covenant betwixt David and Israel were a shadow if it tye the people to allegiance to David as their King and if it tye not David as King to govern them in righteousnesse but leave David loose to the people and only tye him to God then it is a covenant betwixt David and God only But the Text saith It is a covenant betwixt the King and the People 2 King 11.17 2 Sam. 5.3 Hence our second Argument He who is made a minister of God not simply but for the good of the subject and so he take heed to walk in Gods law as a King and governe according to Gods will he is in so far only made King by God as he fulfilleth the condition and in so far as he is a minister for evill to the subject and ruleth not according to that which the book of the Law commandeth him as King in so far he is not by God appointed King and Ruler and
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 redeemed ones 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 iâ— 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
of a beast though he be obliged by a naturall obligation being a rationall Creature in regard of the law of nature L. naturaliter L. si id quod L. interdum F. de conà indebit cum aliis 2. The subject could not by Solomon be forbidden to be suretie for his friend as King Solomon doth counsell Prov. 6.1 2 3. he could not be condemned to bring on himself poverty by sluggishnesse as Prov. 6.6 7 8 9 10. nor were he to honour the Lord with his riches as Prov. 3.9 nor to keep his Covenant though to his losse Psal. 15.4 nor could he be mercifull and lend Psal. 37.26 nor had he power to borrow nor could he be guiltie in not paying all again Psal. 37.21 For subjects under a Monarch can neither perform a duty nor fail in a duty in the matter of Goods If all be the Kings what power or dominion hath the subject in disposing of his Princes Goods See more in Petr. Rebuffus tract congruae portionis num 225. pag. 109 110. Sed quoad dominium rerum c. QUEST XVII Whether or not the Prince have properly a fiduciarie and ministeriall power of a Tutor Husband Patron Minister head father of a family not of a Lord or dominator THat the power of the King is fiduciarie that is given to him immediatly by God in trust Royallists deny not but we hold that the trust is put upon the King by the people 2. We deny that the people give themselves to the King as a gift for what is freely given cannot be taken againe but they gave themselves to the King as a pawne and if the pawne be abused or not used in that manner as it was conditionated to be used the party in whose hand the pawne is intrusted faileth in his trust 1. Assertion The King is more properly a Tutor then a Father 1. Indigencie is the originall of Tutors the Parents dye what then shall become of the Orphan and his inheritance he cannot guide it himselfe therefore nature devised a Tutor to supply the place of a father and to governe the Tutor but with this consideration the father is Lord of the inheritance and if he be distressed may sell it that it shall never come to the sonne and the father for the bad deserving of his sonne may dis-inherite him but the Tutor being but a borrowed father cannot sell the inheritance of the pupill nor can he for the pupills bad deserving by any dominion of Justice over the pupill take away the inheritance from him and give it to his owne son so a Community of it selfe because of sin is a naked society that can but destroy it selfe and every one eate the flesh of his brother therefore God hath appointed a King or governour who shall take care of that community rule them in peace and save all from reciprocation of mutuall acts of violence yet so as because a trust is put on the Ruler of a community which is not his heritage he cannot dispose of it as he pleaseth because he is not the proper owner of the inheritance 2. The Pupill when he commeth to age may call his Tutor to an accompt for his administration I doe not acknowledge that as a truth which Arnisaeus saith De authoritate prin c. 3. n. 5. The Common-wealth is alwaies minor and under Tutory because it alway hath need of a curator and governour and can never put away its governour buâ— the pupill may grow to age and wisedome so as he may be without all Tutors and can guide himselfe and so may call in question his Tutor and the pupill cannot be his Iudge but must stand to the sentence of a superiour Iudge and so the people cannot judge or punish their Prince God must be Iudge betwixt them both But this is 1. a begging of the question every comparison halteth no community but it is Major in this that it can appoint its owne Tutors and though it cannot be without all Rulers yet it may well be without this or that Prince and Ruler and therefore may resume its power which it gave conditionally to the Ruler for its owne safety and good and in so farre as this condition is violated and power turned to the destruction of the Common-wealth it is to be esteemed as not given and though the people be not a politique Iudge in their owne cause yet in case of manifest oppression nature can teach them to oppose defensive violence against offensive a community in its politique body is also above any Ruler and may judge what is manifestly destructive to it selfe Obj. The Pupill hath not power to appoint his owne Tutor nor doth he give power to him so neither doth the people give it to the King Ans. The Pupill hath not indeed a formall power to make a Tutor but he hath vertually a legall power in his father who appointeth a Tutor for his sonne and the people have vertually all Royall power in them as in a sort of immortall and eternall fountain and may create to themselves many Kings Asser. 2. The Kings power is not properly and univocally a Maritall and husbandly power but only Analogically 1. The Wife by nature is the weaker Vessell and inferiour to the man but the Kingdom as shall be demonstrated is superiour to the King 2. The Wife is given as an helpe to the man but by the contrary the man here is given as an helpe and father to the Common-wealth which is presumed to be the wife 3. Maritall and husbandly power is naturall though it be not naturall but from free election that Peter is Ana's Husband and should have been though man had never sinned but Royall Power is a politick constitution and the world might have subsisted though Aristocracy or Democracy had been the only and perpetuall governments So let the Prelate glory in his borrowed Logick he had it from Barclay It is not in the power of the Wife to repudiat her Husband though never so wicked she is tyed to him for ever and may not give to him a bill of Divorcement as by Law the Husband might give to her if therefore the people sweare loyalty to him they must keep though to their hurt Ps. 15. Ans. There 's nothing here said except Barclay and the Plagiarie prove that the Kings Power is properly a Husbands power which they cannot prove but from a Simile that crooketh but a King elected upon conditions that if he sell his people he shall lose his Crown is as essentially a King as Adam was Evahs Husband and yet by grant of parties the people may devorce from such a King and dethrone him if he sell his people but a Wife may never devorce from her Husband as the Argument saith And this poore Argument the Prelate stole from Dr. Ferne part 2. Sec. 3. pag. 10 11. 2. The keeping of Covenant though to our huâ—t is a penall hurt and losse of goods not a
argument from fact 1. A wicked Magistracie may permit perjurie and lying in the Common-wealth and that without punishment and some Christian Commonweales he meaneth his own Synagogue of Rome spirituall Sodome a cage of uncleane birds suffereth Harlotrie by Law and the whores pay so many thousands yearely to the Pope and are free of all punishment by Law to eschew homicides adulteries of Romish Priests and other greater sinnes Therefore God hath given power to a King to play the Tyrant without any feare of punishment to be inflicted by man But 1. if this be a good argument The Magistrate to whom God hath committed the sword to take vengeance on evill doers Rom. 13.3 4 5 6. such as are perjured persons professed whores and harlots hath a lawfull power from God to connive at sinnes and grosse scandals in the Commonwealth as they dreame that the King hath power given from God to exercise all acts of Tyranny without any resistance But 1. this was a grievous sinne in Eli that he being a father and a Iudge punished not his sonnes for their uncleannesse and his house in Gods heavy displeasure was cut off from the Priesthood therefore Then God hath given no such power to the Iudge 2. The contrary duty is lying on the Iudge To execute judgement for the oppressed Iob 29.12 13 14 15 16 17. Ier. 22.15 16. and perverting of judgement and conniving at the heynous sinnes of the wicked is condemned Num. 5.31 32. 1 Sam. 15.23 1 King 20.42 43. Esa. 1.17 10.1 5.23 and therefore God hath given no power to a Iudge to permit wicked men to commit grievous crimes without any punishment As for the Law of Divorce it was indeed a permissive law whereby the husband might give the wife a bill of divorce and be free of punishment before men but not free of sinne and guiltinesse before God for it was contrary to Gods institution of Mariage at the beginning as Christ saith and the Prophet saith that the Lord hateth putting away But that God hath given any such permissive power to the King that he may doe what he pleaseth and cannot be resisted This is in question 3. The Law spoken of in the Text is by Royalists called not a consuetude of Tranny but the divine law of God whereby the King is formally and essentially distinguished from the Judge in Israel Now if so a power to sinne and a power to commit acts of Tyranny yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the people of God must be a lawfull power given of God for a lawfull power it must be if it commeth from God whether it be from the King in his own person or from his servants at his commandement and by either put forth in acts as the power of a bill of Divorce was a power from God exempting either the husband from punishment before men or freeing the servant who at the husbands command should write it and put it in the hands of the woman I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by Law to one Man to command twenty thousand Cut-throats to kill and destroy all the Children of God and that he hath commanded his Children to give their necks and heads to Babels sonnes without resistance This I am sure is another matter then a Law for a bill of Divorce to one woman maried by free election of a humorous and unconstant man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from heaven like the law of Divorce for the hardnesse of the heart not of the Iewes only but also of the whole Christian and Heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch that one Emperour may by such a Law of God as the Law of Divorce kill by bloody Cut-throats such as the Irish Rebels are all the Nations that call on Gods name men women and sucking infants And if Providence impede the Catholike issue and dry up the seas of Blood it is good but God hath given a law such as the law of Divorce to the King whereby he and all his may without resistance by a legall power given of God who giveth Kings to be fathers nurses protectors guides yea the breath of nostrils of his Church as speciall mercies and blessings to his people he may I say by a law of God as it is 1 Sam. 8.9 11. cut off Nations as that Lyon of the world Nebuchadnezzar did So Royalists teach us Barclaius l. 2. cont Monarchoma pag. 69. The Lord spake to Samuel the Law of the King and wrot it in a book◠and laid it up before the Lord. But what Law That same law which he proposed to the people when they first sought a King but that was the Law contemning Precepts rather for the peoples obeying then for the Kings commanding for the people was to be instructed with those precepts not the King Those things that concerned the Kings duty Deut. 17. Moses commanded to be put into the Arke but so if Samuel had commanded the King that which Moses Deut. 17. commanded he had done no new thing but had done againe what was once done actum egisset but there was nothing before commanded the people concerning their obedience and patience under evill Princes Ioseph Antiq. l. 6. c. 5. he wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evills that were to befall them Ans. It was not that same Law for though this Law was written to the people yet it was the Law of the King and I pray you did Samuel write in a booke all the Rules of Tyranny and teach Saul and all the Kings after him for this book was put in the Ark of the Covenant where also was the booke of the Law how to play the Tyrant And what instruction was it to King or people to write to them a book of the wicked waies of a King which nature teacheth without a Doctor Sanctius saith on the place These things which by mens fraud and to the hurt of the publick may be corrupted were kept in the Tabernacle and the booke of the Law was kept in the Arke Cornelius a Lapide saith It was the Law common to King and people which was commonly kept with the booke of the Law in the Arke of the Covenant Lyra contradicteth Barclay he exponeth Legem legem regni non secundum usurpationem supra positam sed secundum ordinationem Dei positam Deut. 17. Theodat excellently exponeth it the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome inspired by God to temper Monarchy with a liberty befitting Gods people and with equity toward a Nation to withstand the abuse of an absolute power 2. Can any beleeve Samuel would have written a Law of Tyranny and put that booke in the Arke of the Covenant before the Lord to be kept to the posterity seeing he was to teach both King and people the good and the right way 1 Sam. 12.23 24 25. 3. Where is the Law of the Kingdome called a Law of
punishing innocent people 4. To write the duty of the King in a booke and apply it to the King is no more superfluous nor to teach the people the good and the right way out of the Law and apply generalls to persons 5. There is nothing in the Law 1 Sam. 8.9.11.12 of the peoples patience but rather of their impatient crying out God not hearing nor helping and nothing of that in this booke for any thing that we know and Iosephus speaketh of the Law 1 Sam. 8. not of this Law 1 Sam. 12. QUEST XIX Whether or no the King be in Dignity and power above the people IN this grave question divers considerations are to be pondered 1. There is a Dignity materiall in the people scattered they being many representations of God and his Image which is in the King also and formally more as King he being indued with formall Magistraticall and publick Royall Authority in the former regard this or that man is inferiour to the King because the King hath that same remander of the Image of God that any private man hath and something more he hath a politicke resemblance of the King of Heavens being a little God and so is above any one man 2. All these of the people taken collectively having more of God as being representations are according to this materiall dignity excellenter then the King because many are excellenter then one and the King according to the Magistraticall and Royall Authority he hath is excellenter then they are because he partaketh formally of Royalty which they have not formally 3. A meane or medium as it is such is lesse then the end though the thing materially that is a meane may be excellenter every mean as a meane under that reduplication hath all its goodnesse and excellency in relation to the end yet an Angell that is a meane and a ministring Spirit ordained of God for an heire of life eternall Heb. 1.13 considered materially is excellenter then a man Psal. 8.5 Heb. 2.6 7 8. 4. A King and leader in a military consideration and as a Governour and conserver of the whole Army is more worth then ten thousand of the people 2 Sam. 18.3 5. But simply and absolutely the people is above and more excellent then the King and the King in Dignity inferiour to the people and that upon these Reasons 1. Because he is the meane ordained for the people as for the end that he may save them 2. Sam. 19.9 a publick shepheard to feede them Ps. 78.70 71 72 73. the Captaine and Leader of the Lords inheritance 1 Sam. 10.1 to defend them the Minister of God for their good Rom. 13.4 2. The Pilot is lesse then the whole Passengers the Generall lesse then the whole Army the Tutor lesse then all the children the Physician lesse then all the living men whose health he careth for the Master or Teacher lesse then all the Schollars because the part is lesse then the whole the King is but a part and a member though I grant a very eminent and Noble Member of the Kingdome 3. A Christian people especially is the portion of the Lords inheritance Deut. 32.9 the sheepe of his pasture his redeemed ones for whom God gave his blood Act. 20.28 And the killing of a man is to violate the Image of God Gen. 9.6 and therefore the death and destruction of a Church and of thousand thousands of men is a sadder and a more heavy matter then the death of a King who is but one man 4. A King as a King or because a King is not the inheritance of God nor the chosen and called of God nor the sheepe or flocke of the Lords pasture nor the redeemed of Christ for those excellencies agree not to Kings because they are Kings for then all Kings should be indued with those excellencies and God should an be accepter of persons if he put those excellencies of Grace upon men for externall respects of highnesse and Kingly power and worldly glory and splendor for many living Images and representations of God as he is holy or more excellent then a politique representation of Gods greatnesse and Majesty such as the King is because that which is the fruit of a love of God which commeth nearer to Gods most speciall love is more excellent then that which is farther remote from his speciall love now though Royalty be a beame of the Majesty of the greatnesse of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords yet is it such a fruit and beam of Gods greatnesse as may consist with the eternall reprobation of the party 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 stay 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 Pharaoh 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
Aaron to deliver the people as is clear Exod. 4.1 2 3 4. compared with Chap. 7. vers 8 9 10. And that the Lord might get to himself a name on all the earth Rom. 9.17 Exod. 9.16 and 13.13 14. and 15. 1 2 3. seq But of the Prelates conjecturall end the Scripture is silent and we cannot take an excommunicated mans word What I said of Pharaoh who had not his Crown from Israel that I say of Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of Persia keeping thâ— people of God captive P. Prelate So in the Book of the Judgeâ— when the people were delivered over to the hand of their enemies because of their sins hâ— never warranted the ordinary Iudges or Communitie to be their own deliverers but when they repented God raised up â— Iudge The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon God effected it by Cyrus immediately and totally Is not this a reall proof God will not have inferiour Iudges to rectifie what is amisse but we must waite in patience till God provide lawfull means some Soveraign power immediately sent by himself in which course of his ordinary providence he will not be deficient Answ. All this is beside the question and proveth nothing lesse then that Peers and Communitie may not resume their power to curbe an Arbitrary power For in the first case there is neither Arbitrary nor lawfull supreme Iudge 2. If the first prove any thing it proveth That it was rebellion in the inferiour Iudges and Communitie of Israel to fight against forraign Kings not set over them by God and that offensive wars against any Kings whatsoever because they are Kings though strangers are unlawfull Let Socinians and Anabaptists consider if the P. Prelate help not them in this and may prove all wars to be unlawfull 3. He is so Malignant to all inferiour Iudges as if they were not powers sent of God and to all Governours that are not Kings and so upholders of Prelates and of himself as he conceiveth that by his arguing he will have all deliverance by Kings onely the onely lawfull means in ordinary providence and so Aristocracy and Democracy except in Gods extraordinary providence and by some divine dispensation must be extraordinary and ordinarily unlawfulh 2. The Acts of a State when a King is dead and they choosâ— another shall be an Anticipating of Gods providence 3. If the King be a childe a captive or distracted and the Kingdom oppressed with Malignants they are to waite while God immediately from Heaven create a King to them as he did Saul long ago But have we now Kings immediately sent as Saul was 1. How is the spirit of Prophecie and Government infused in them as in King Saul Or are they by propheticall inspiration anointed as David was I conceive their calling to the throne on Gods part do differ as much from the calling of Saul and David in some respect as the calling of ordinary Pastors who must be gifted by industry and learning and called by the Church and the calling of Apostles 4. God would deliver his people from Babylon by moving the heart of Cyrus immediately the people having no hand in it not so much as supplicating Cyrus Ergo The People and Peers who made the King cannot curb his 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 Cyruâ— 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 anâ— 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 Ox 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 didâ— 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 ch 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 for 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 non-age of Joash and that by this Royall Authoritie the Covenant was sworn is a dream to the end he may make the Pope and the Arch-Prelate now Vice-Royes and Kings when the throne varieth The Nobles were Authors of the making of that Covenant no lesse then Iehojadah was yea and the People of the Land when the King was but a childe went unto the house of Baal and brake down his Images c. Here is a Reformation made without the King by the people 8. Grave Expositors say That the Covenant with death and hell Esay 28. was the Kings Covenant with Egypt 9. And the Covenant Hos. 10. is by none exponed of a Covenant made without the King I heard say this Prelate Preaching on this Text before the King exponed it so But he spake words as the Text is falsly The P. Prelate to the end of the Chapter giveth instance of the ill-successe of Popular Reformation because the people caused Aaron to make a Golden Calf and they revolted from Rehoboam to Ieroboam and made two Golden Calves and they conspired with Absolom against David Answ. If the first example make good any thing neither the High-Priest as was Aaron nor the P. Prelate who claimeth to be descended of Aarons house should have any hand in Reformation at all for Aaron erred in that and to argue from the peoples sins to deny their power is no better then to prove Achab Ieroboam and many Kings in Israel and Judah committed Idolatry Ergo They had no Royall power at all In the rest of the Chapter for a whole Page he singeth over again his Mattens in a circle and giveth us the same Arguments we heard before of which you have these three notes 1. They are stoln and not his own 2. Repeated again and again to fill the field 3. All hang on a false supposition and a begging of the question That the people without the King have no power at all QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall interpreter of the Law THis Question conduceth not a little to the clearing of the doubts concerning the Kings absolute power and the supposed sole nomothetick power in the King And I thinke it not unlike to the question whether the Pope and Romish Church havt a sole and peremptory power of exponing Lawes and the Word of God We are to consider that therr is a twofold exposition of Lawes one speculative in a Schoole way so exquisite Iurists have a power to expone Lawes 2. Practicall in so farre as the sense of the Law falleth under our Practice and this is twofold either private and common to all or judiciall and proper to Iudges and of this last is the question For this Publicke the Law hath one fundamentall rule Salus populi like the King of Planets the Sunne which lendeth Star-light to all Lawes and by which they are exponed whatever interpretation swarveth either from fundamentall Lawes of policy or from the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations and especially from the safety of the publick is to be rejected as a perverting of the Law and therefore Conscientia humani generis the naturall conscience of all men to which the oppressed people may appeale unto when the King exponeth a Law unjustly at his owne pleasure is the last rule on earth for exponing of Lawes Nor ought Lawes to be made so obscure as an ordinary wit cannot see their connexion with fundamentall truths of policy and the safety of the people and therefore I see no inconvenience to say that The Law it selfe is Norma regula juduicandi the Rule and directory to square the Iudge and that the Iudge is the publicke practicall interpreter of the Law Assert 1. The King is not the sole and finall interpreter of the Law 1. Because then inferiour Iudges should not be interpreters of the Law but inferiour Iudges are no lesse essentially Iudges then the Kingâ— Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 2. and so by Office must interpret the Law else they cannot give sentence according to their conscience and equity now exponing of the Law judicially is an act of judging and so a personall and incommunicable act so as I can no more judge and expone the Law according to another mans conscience then I can beleeve with another mans soule or understand with another mans understanding see with another mans eye The Kings pleasure therefore cannot be the rule of the inferiour Iudges conscience for he giveth an immediate accompt to God the Iudge of all of a just or an unjust sentence Suppone Caesar shall expone the Law to Pilate that Christ deserveth to dye the death yet Pilate is not in conscience to expone the Law so If therefore inferiour Iudges judge for the King they judge only by power borrowed from the King not by the pleasure will or command of the King thus and thus exponing the Law ergo the King cannot be the sole interpreter of the Law 2. If the Lord say not to the King only but also
saith he non est actio aut poena one may not have action of law against his brother who refuseth to help him yet saith he as man he is obliged to man nexu civilis societatis by the bond of humane society Others say one nation may indirectly defend a neighbour nation against a common enemie because it is a self-defence and it is presumed that a forraigne enemie having overcome the neighbour nation shall invade that nation it selfe who denyeth help and succour to the neighbour nation this is a self-opinion and to me it looketh not like the spiritâ—aâ—l law of God 3. Some say it is lawfull but not alwayes expedient in which opinion there is this much truth that if the neighbor nation have an evil cause neque licet neque expedit it is neither lawfull nor expedient But what is lawful in the case of necessity so extreame as is the losse of a brothers life or of a nation must be expedient because necessity of non-sinning maketh any lawfull thing expedient As to help my brother in fire or water requiring my present and speedy help though to the losse of my goods must be as expedient as a negative commandement Thou shalt not murther 4. Others think it lawfull in the case that my brother seek my help only other wayes I have no calling thereunto to which opinion I cannot universally subscribe it is holden both by reason and the soundest divines that to rebuke my brother of sinne is actus misericordiae charitatis an act of mercy and charity to his soul yet I hold I am obliged to rebuke him by Gods law Levit. 19.17 otherwise I hate him 1 Thes. 5.14 Col. 4.17 Math. 18 15. Nor can I think in reason that my duty of love to my brother doth not oblige me but upon dependency on his free consent but as I am to help my neighbours oxe out of a ditch though my neighbour know not and so I have onely his implicit and virtuall consent so is the case here I go not farther in this case of conscience if a neighbour nation be jealous of our help and in an hostile way should oppose us in helping which blessed be the Lord the honourable houses of the Parliament of England hath not done though Malignant spirits tempted them to such a course what in that case we should owe to the afflicted members of Christs body is a case may be determined easily The fift and last opinion is of those who think if the King command Papists and Prelates to rise against the Parliament and our dear brethren in England in warres that we are obliged in conscience and by our oath and covenant to help our native Prince against them to which opinion with hands and feet I should accord if our Kings cause were just and lawfull but from this it followeth that we must thus far judge of the cause as concerneth our consciences in the matter of our necessary duty leaving the judiciall cognizance to the honourable Parliament of England But because I cannot returne to all these opinions particularly I see no reason but the Civil Law of a Kingdom doth oblige any Citizen to help an innocent man against a murthering robber that he may be judicially accused as a murtherer who faileth in his duty that Solon said well beatam remp esse illam in quâ quisque injuriam alterius suam estimet It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother as an injury done against himself As the Egyptians had a good law by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that suffered wrong and if he was not able to help he was holden to accuse the injurer if not his punishment was whips or three dayes hunger it may be upon this ground it was that Moses slew the Egyptian Ambrose commendeth him for so doing Assert We are obliged by many bands to expose our lives goods children c. in this cause of religion and of the unjust oppression of enemies for the safety and defence of our deare brethren and true religion in England 1. Prov. 24.11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken as captives to be killed and those that are ready to be slaine 12. If thou say behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it and he that keepeth thy soul doth he not know it and shall he not render to every man according to his work Master Iermin on the plâ—ce is too narrow who coâ—menting on the place restricteth all to these two that the priest should deliver by interceding for the innocâ—nt and the King by pardoning only But 1. to deliver is a word of violence as 1 Sam. 30.18 David by the sword rescued his wives Hos. 5 14. I will take away and none shall rescue 1 Sam. 17.35 I rescued the lambs out of his mouth out of the Lyons mouth which behovâ—d to be done with great violence 2 King 18.34 They have not delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samaria out of my hand So Cornel. à Lapidâ— Charitas suadâ—t ut vi armis eruamus injuste ductos ad mortem Amâ—ros lib. 1. offic c. 36. citeth this same text and commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man 2. It is an act of Charity and so to be done though the judge forbid it when thâ— innocent is unjustly put to death Object But in so doing private men may offer violence to the lawfull magistrate when he unjustly putteth an innocent man to death and rescue him out of the hands of the magistrate and this were to bring in anarchy and confusion for if it be an act of charity to deliver the innocent out of the hand of the Magistrate it is homicide to a private man not to do it for our obedience to the law of nature tyeth us absolutely though the Magistrate forbid these acts for it is known that I must obey God rather then man Answ. The law of nature tyeth us to obedience in acts of charity yet not to perfâ—rme these acts after any way and manner in a meere naturall way impetu naturae but I am to performe acts of naturall charity in a rationall and prudent way and in looking to Gods law else if my brother or father were justly condemned to die I might violently deliver him out of the Magistrates hand but by the contrary my hand should be first on him without naturall compassion As if my brother or my wife have been a blasphemer of God Deut. 13.6 7 8. and therefore am I to do acts naturall as a wise man observing as Solomon saith Eccles. 8.5 both time and judgement Now it were no wisdom for one private man to hazard his own life by attempting to rescue an innocent brother because he hath not strength to do it and the law of nature
of his wicked custome and his rapine and Tyranny He will take your sons your daughters your fields and your vineyards from you Saul took not these through any power of dominion by Law but by meere Tyranny 3. I have before cleared that the subjects have a propriety and an use also else how could we be obliged by vertue of the fift commandement to pay tribute to the King Rom. 13.7 for that which we pay was as much the Kings before we payed as when we have paied it 4. Arnisaeus saiâ—h all are the Kings in respect of the universall jurisdiction that the King hath in governing and ordering all to the universall end the good of the Common-wealth for as universall nature careth for the conservation of the spece and kind so doth particular nature care for the conservation of individuals so do men care for their private good and the King is to refer every mans private goods to the good of the publick but the truth is this taketh not away propriety of goods from private men retaining onely the use to private men and giving the dominion to the King because this power that the King â—ath of mens goods is not power of dominion that the King hath over the goods of men as if the King were Dominus Lord and owner of the fields and monyes of the private subject but it is a power to regulate the goods for a publique use and supposeth the abuse of goods when they are Monopolized to and for private ends 2. The power that the King hath over my bread is not a power of dominion so as he may eat my bread as if it were his own bread and he be Lord of my bread as I was sometimes my self before I abused it but it is a dominion unproperly and abusively so called and is a meere fiduciary and dispensatory power because he is set over my bread not to eat it nor over my houses to dwel in them but onely with a ministeriall power as a publique though a honourable servant and wâ—tchman appâ—inted by the community as a mean for an end to regulate my bread houses moneys fields for the good of the publique Dominion is defined a faculty to use a thing as you please except you be hindered by force or by Law â—ustin tit c. de legibus in l. digna vox c. So have I a dominion over my own garments house money to use them for usâ—s not forbidden by the Law of God and man but I may not lay my corne field wast that it shall neither bear grassâ— nor corne the King may hinder that because it is a hurt to the publique but the King as Lord and Soveraigne hath no such dominion over Naboths viâ—eyard Hâ—w the King is lord of all goods ratione jurisdictionis tuitionis sâ— Anton. de paudrill in l. Altius n. 5. c. de servit Hottom illust quest q. 1. ad fin Conc. 2. Lod. Molin de just jur dis 25. Soto de justitiâ— jur l. 4. q. 4. art 1. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his oath covenant or any other way ARistotle saith Ethic. 8. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Tyrant seeketh his owne a King the good of the Subjects for he is no King who is not content and excelleth in goodnesse The former part of these words distinguish essentially the King by his office from the Tyrant Now every office râ—quâ—reth essentially a duty to be performed by him that is in office and where there is a duty required there is some obligation if it be a politique duty it is a politique obligation Now amongst politique duties betwixt equall and equall superiour and infâ—riour that is not de facto required coaction for the performance therâ—â—f but de jure there is for two neighbour Kings and two neighbour Nations both being equall and independent the one toward the other the one owe a duty to the other and if the Ammonites do a wrong to David and Israel as they are equall de facto the one cannot punish the other though the Ammonites do a disgrace to Davids messengers yet de jure David and Israel may compell them to politique duties of politique consâ—ciation for betwixt independent kingdomes there must be some politique government and some politique and civil Lawes for two or three making a society cannot dwell together without some policy and David and Israel as by the Law of nature they may repell violence with violence so if the lawes of neighbour-hood and nations be broken the one may punish the other though there be no relation of superiority and inferiority betwixt them 2. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt equals yea or superiours and inferiours the one hath some coactive power over the other if the father give his bond to pay to his son ten thousand pounds as his patrimony to him though before the giving of the bond the father was not obliged but onely by the Law of nature to give a patrimony to his son yâ—t now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is obliged so to his son to pay ten thousand pounds that by the Law of Nations and the civil Law the son hath now a coactive power by Law to compell his father though his superiour to pay him no lesse then ten thousand pounds of patrimony Though therefore the King should stand simply superiour to his kingdom and estates which I shall never grant yet if the King come under covenant with his kingdom as I have proved at length c. 13. he must by that same come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum What any doth promise falleth under debt if the covenant be politique and civil as is the covenant between King David and all Israel 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. and between King Iehoash and the people 2 King 11.17 18. Then the King must come under a civil obligation to performe the covenant and though their be none superiour to King and the people on earth to compell them both to performe what they have promised yet de jure by the Law of Nations each may compell the other to mutuall performance This is evident 1. By the Law of nations if one nation break covenant to another though both be independent yet hath the wronged nation a coactive power de jure by accident because they are weaker they want stength to compell yet they have right and jus to compell them to force the other to keep covenant or then to punish them because nature teacheth to repel violence by violence so it be done without desire of revenge and malice 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant for Solomon saith Prov. 6.1 My son if thou be surety for thy friend if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger 2. Thou art snared with
the words of thy mouth art taken with the words of thy mouth But whence is it that a man free is now snared as a beast in a gin or trap Certainly Solomon saith it is by a word and striking of hands by a word of promise and covenant Now the Creditor hath coactive power though he be an equall or an inferiour to the man who is surety even by Law to force him to pay and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the Creditor that he may force the surety to pay Hence it is cleare that a Covenant maketh a free man under the coactive power of law to an equall and to weaker and the stronger is by the law of fraternity to help the weaker with his coactive power to cause the superiour fulfill his covenant If then the King giving and not granting he were superiour to his whole Kingdome come under a covenant to them to seek their good not his owne to defend true Protestant Religion they have power to compell him to keep his covenant and Scotland if the King be stronger then England and break his covenant to them is obliged by Gods law Prov. 24.11 to adde their forces and coactive power to help their brethren of England 3. The Law shall warrant to loose the vassal from the Lord when the Lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in l. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Bartol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de offic magistrat Imperatores reges esse primarios vasallos imperii regni proinde si feloniam contra imperium aut regnum committant fewdo privari proinde ut alios vasallos Arnisaeus q. 6. An princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 2. saith This occasioneth confusion and sedition The Egyptians saith he cast off Ptolomeus because he affected too much the name of a King of the Romans his own friend Dion l. 9. The States punished Archidanius because he married a wife of a low stature Plutarch in Agos 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 thâ— 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 futuras rex Francorum in die ordinationis mea 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 cum qui non sit Catholicus All these by Scripture are oathâ—s 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 promittâ— 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
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 inferiou r Magistrate of a Commander in wars of a pastor it is presumed these are of approved fidelity and it maketh their integritie obnoxious to slandâ—rs 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 cutting 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 if the people swear to the king obedience in a covenant mutuall and he swear not to them Arnisaeus sheweth to us a third sort of oath that limited Princes do swear this oath in Denmarke Suecia Polonia Hungaria is sworne by the kings who may do nothing without consent of the Senat and according to order of Law this is but the other two oathes specified and a Prince cannot contraveen his own contract the law saith in that the Prince is but as a private man in l. digna vox C. de ll Rom. cons. 426. n. 17. And it is known that the Emperour is constituted and created by the Princes Electors subject to them and by Law may be dethroned by them The B. of Rochester saith from Barclay none can denude a King of his power but he that gave him the power or hath an expresse commandement so to do from him that gave the power But God onely and the people gave the King his power Ergo God with the people having an expresse commandement from God must denude the King of power Answ. 1. This shall prove that God onely by an immediat action or some having an expresse commandement from him can deprive a preacher for scandals Christ onely or those who have an expresse commandement from him can excommunicate God only or the magistrate with him can take away the life of man and Numb 11.14 15 16. No inferiour Magistrates who also have their power from God immediatly Rom. 13.1 If we speak of the immediation of the office can devide inferiour judges of their power God only by the husbandmans paines maketh a fruitfull vineyard Ergo the husbandman cannot make his vineyard grow over with nettles and briars 2. The argument must run thus else the assumption shall be false God onely by the action of the people as his instrument and by no other action make a lawfull King God onely by the action of the people as his instrument can make a King God onely by the action of the people as his instrument can dethrone a King for as the people making a King are in that doing what God doth before them and what God doth by them in that very act so the people unmaking a King doth that which God doth before the people both the one and the other according to Gods rule obligeth Deut. 17.14.15.16.17.18.19.20 The Prelate whose tribe seldom saith truth addeth As a fatherly power by God and natures law over a family was in the father of a family before the children could either transfer their power or consent to the translation of that power to him so a Kingly power which succeedeth to a paternal or fatherly power to governe many families yea a Kingdom was in that same father in relation to many families before these many families can transfer their power The Kingly power floweth immediately from God the people doth not transfer that power but doth onely consent to the person of the King or doth onely choose his person at some time And though this power were principally given to the people it is not so given to the people as if it were the peoples power not Gods for it is Gods power neither is it any other waies given to the people but as to a streame a beam and an instrument which may confer it to another M. Anton. de domini l. 6. c. 2. n 22.23 doth more subtilly illustrate the matter if the King should confer honour on a subject by the hand of a servant who had not power or freedom to confer that honour or not to confer it but by necessity of the Kings commandment must confer it nothing should hinder us to say that such a subject had his honour immediately from the King so the earth is immediately illuminated by the sun although light be received in the earth but by the interveening mediation of many inferiour bodies and elements because by no other thing but by the sun only is the light as an efficient cause in a nearest capacity to give light so the Royall power in whomsoever it be is immediatly from God onely though it be applyed by men to this or this person because from God onely and from no other the Kingly power is formally and effectively that which it is and worketh that which it worketh and if you ask by what cause is the tree immediatly turned in fire none sound in reason would say it is made fire not by the fire but by him that laid the tree on the fire Iohn P. P. would have stollen this argument also if he had been capable thereof Ans. 1. A fatherly power is in a father not before he have a child but indeed before his children by an act of their free-will consent that he be their father yea whether the children consent or no from a physical act of generation he must be the father let the father be the most wicked man let him be made by no moral requisite is he made a father nor can heever leave off physically