Sam. 9.17 1 Sam. 10.1 we have not Saul elected and constituted king and Samuel did obeysance to him and kissed him for the honor Royall which God was to put upon him for before this propheticall unction 1 Sam. 9.22 he made him sit in the chiefe place and honored him as king when as yet Samuel was materially King and the Lords Vicegerent in Israel If then the Prelate conclude any thing from Samuel his doing reverence and obeysance to him as King it shall follow that Saul was formally King before Samuel 1 Sam. 10.1 anointed him and kissd him and that must be before he he was formally King otherwise he was in Gods appointment King before ever he saw Samuels face and it is true he ascribeth honour to him as to one appointed by God to be supreame Soveraigne for that which he should be not for that which he was as c. 9.22 he set him in the chiefest place and therefore it is false that we have Sauls election and constitution to be King 1 Sam. 10. for after that time the people are rebuked for seeking a King and that with a purpose to disswade them from it as a sinfull desire and he is chosen by Lots after that and made King after Samuels anoynting of him he was a private man and did hide himselfe amongst the stuffe v. 22.3 The Prelate if of ignorance or wilfully I know not saith the expression and phrase is the same 1 Sam. 12.13 and Ps. 2.6 which is false for 1 Sam. 12.13 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold the Lord hath given you a King such is the expression Hos. 13.11 I gave them a King in my wrath but that expression is not Psal. 2.6 but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I have established him my King and though it were the same expression it followeth not that the people have not hand any other way in appointing Christ their head though that phrase also be in the word Hos. 1. v. 11. then by consenting and beleeving in him as King but this proveth not that the people in appointing a King hath no hand but naked approbation for the same phrase doth not expresse the same action nay the Iudges are to kisse Christ Ps. 2.12 the same way and by the same action that Samuel kissed Saul 1 Sam. 10.1 and the Idolaters kissed the calves Hos. 13.2 for the same Hebrew word is used in all the three places and yet it is certaine the first kissing is spirituall the second a kisse of honour and the third an Idolatrous kissing 4. The anoynting of Saul cannot be a leading rule to the making of all Kings to the worlds end for the P. Prelate forgetting himselfe said that onely some few as Moses Saul and David c. by extraordinary manifestation from Heaven were made Kings pa. 19.5 he saith it was not Arbitrary for the people to admit or reject Saul so designed What meaneth he it was not morally arbitrary because they were under a law Deut. 17.14 15. to make him King whom the Lord should choose That is true but was it not arbitrary to them to breake a law Physically I think he who is a professed Arminian will not side with Manicheans and Fatalists so but the P. Prelate must prove it was not Arbitrary either Morally or Physically to them not to accept Saul as their King because they had no action at all in the making of a King God did it all both by constituting and designing the King why then did God Deut. 17. give a Law to them to make such a man King not such a man if it was not in their free wil to have any action or hand in the making of a King at all but that some sonnes of Belial would not accept him as their King is expresly said 1 Sam. 10.27 and how did Israel conspire with Absolom to unking and dethronâ— David whom the Lord had made King If the Prelate meane it was not Arbitrary to them physically to reject Saul he speaketh wonders the sonnes of Belial did reject him ergo they had physicall power to doe it If he meane it was not arbitrary that is it was not lawfull to them to reject him that is true but doth it follow they had no hand nor action in making Saul King because it was not lawfull for them to make a King in a sinfull way and to refuse him whom God chose to be King then see what I inferre 1. Then they had no hand in obeying him as King because they sinne in obeying unlawfull commandements against Gods Law and so they had no hand in approving and consenting he should be King the contrary whereof the P. Prelate saith 2. So might the P. Prelate prove men are patientes and have no action in violating all the Commandements of God because it is not lawfull to them to violate any one Commandement 6 The Lord Deut. 17. vindicates this as proper and peculiar to himselfe to choose the person and to choose Saul What then ergo now the people choosing a King have no power to choose or name a man because God anoynted Saul and David by immediate manifestation of his Will to Samuel this consequence is nothing also it followeth in no wise that therefore the people made not Saul King 7. That the peoples approbation of a King is not necessary is Bellarmines and Papists saying and that the people chose their Ministers in the Apostolick Church not by a necessity of a divine Commandement but to conciliate love betwixt Pastor and people Papists hold that if the Pope make a â—â—pish King the head and King of Britaine against the peoples will yet is he their King 8. David was then King all the time that Saul presecuted him he sinned truely in not discharging the duty of a King onely because he wanted a ceremony the peoples approbation which the Prelate saith is required to the solemnity and pompe not to the necessity and truth and essence of a formall King So the Kings Coronation Oath and the peoples Oath must be Ceremonies and because the Prelate is perjured himselfe therefore perjury is but a ceremony also 9. The enthronization of Bishops is like the Kinging of the Pope the Apostles must spare Thrones while they come to Heaven Luk. 22.29 30. the P. Prelates with their head the Pope must be enthroned 10. The hereditary King he maketh a King before his Coronation and his Acts are as valid before as after his Coronation it might cost him his head to say that the Prince of Wales is now no lesse King of Britaine and his Acts Acts of Kingly Royalty no lesse then our Soveraigne is King of Britaine if Lawes and Parliaments had their owne vigour from royall Authority 11. I allow that Kings be as high as God hath placed them but that God said of all Kings I will make him my first borne c. Psalm 89.26 27. which is true of Solomon as the Type 2 Sam 7.
promulgated is their approbation and maketh them obligatory Lawes to them but if the people speak against unjust Lawes they are not Lawes at all and Buchannan knew the power of the Scottish Parliament better then this ignorant Statist 2. There is not like reason to grant so much to the King as to Parliaments because certainly Parliaments who make Kings under God or above any one man and they must have more authority and wisedome then any one King except Solomon as base flatterers say should returne to the thrones of the earth And as the power to make just Lawes is all in the Parliament only the people have power to resist tyrannicall Lawes the power of all the Parliament was never given to the King by God the Parliament are as essentially Iudges as the King and therefore the Kings deed may well be revoked because he acteth nothing as King but united with his great or lesser Councell no more then the eye can see being separated from the body The Peeres and Members of Parliament have more then the King because they have both their owne power being parts and speciall Members of the people and also they have their high places in Parliament either from the peoples expresse or tacite consent 3. We allow no Arbitrary power to the Parliament because their just Lawes are irrevocable for the irrevocable power of making just Lawes doth argue a legall not an irreovocable Arbitrary power nor is there any arbitrary power in the people or in any mortall man but of the Covenant betwixt King and people hereafter P. Prelate If Soveraigne power be habitually in the community so as they may resume it at their pleasure then nothing is given to the King but an empty title for at the same instant he receiveth Empire and Soveraignty and layeth downe the power to rule or determine in matters which concerne either private or publick good and so he is both a King and a Subject Ans. This naked consequence the Prelate sayeth and proveth not and we deny it and give this reason the King receiveth Royall power with the States to make good Lawes and 2. power by his royalty to execute those Lawes and this power the community hath devolved in the hands of the King and States of Parliament but the community keepeth to themselves a power to resist tyranny and to coerce it and â—atenus in so far is Saul subject that David is not to compeare before him nor to lay downe Goliahes sword nor disband his Army of defence though the King should command him so to doe P. Prelate By all Polititians Kings and enferiour Magistrates are differenced by their different specifice entity but by this they are not differenced nay a Magistrate is in a better condition then a King for the Magistrate is to judge by a knowne Statute and Law and cannot be censured and punished but by Law But the King is censurable yea disabled by the multitude yea the basest of subjects may cite and convent the King before the underived Majesty of the community and he may be judged by the Arbitrary Law thâ—t is in the closet of their heart not only for reall misdemeanour but for fancied jealousies It will be said good Kings are in no danger the contrary appeareth this day and ordinarily the best are in greatest danger no Government except Plato'es Republick wanteth incommodities subtile spirits may make them apprehend them The poore people bewitched follow Absolom in his treason they strike not at Royalty at first but labour to make the Prince naked of the good counsell of great Statesmen c. Ans. Whether the King and the under Magistrate differ essentially we shall see The P. Prelate saith all Polititians grant it but he saith untruth he bringeth Moses and the Iudges their power to prove the power of Kings and so either the Iudges of Israel and the Kings differ not essentially or then the Prelate must correct the spirit of God tearming one booke of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudges and make the booke of Kings the booke of Iudges 2. The Magistrates condition is not better then the Kings because the Magistrate is to judge by an knowne Statute and Law and the King not so God moulded the first King Deut. 17.18 when he sitteth judging on his Throne to looke to a written Coppy of the Law of God as his rule Now a power to follow Gods Law is better then a power to follow mans sinfull will so the Prelate putteth the King in a worse condition then the Magistrate not we who will have the King to judge according to just statutes and lawes 3. Whether the King be censurable and deposable by the multitude he cannot determine out of our writings 4. The communities law is the law of nature not their arbitrary lust 5. The Prelates treasonable raylings I cannot follow he first saith that we agree not ten of us to a positive faith and that our faith is negative but his faith is Privative Popish Socinian Arminian Pelagian and worse for he was once of that same faith that we are of 2. Our Confession of Faith is positive as the confession of all the reformed Churches but I judge he thinketh the Protestant Faith of all the reformed Churches but negative 3. The incommodities of Government before our reformation were not fancied but printed by Authority all the body of Popery was printed and avowed as the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland and England as the learned Author and my much respected brother evidenceth in his Ludensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canterburian selfe conviction 4. The Parliament of England was never yet found guilty of Treason 5. The good Counsellers of great States-men that Parliaments of both Kingdomes would take from the Kings Majesty are a faction of perjured Papists Prelates Iesuites Irish cut-throates Strafords and Apostate subverters of all Lawes divine humane of God of Church of State P. Prelate In whom so ever this power of Government be it is the onely remedy to supply all defects and to set right what ever is disjoynted in Church and State and the subject of this super-intending power must be free from all errour in Iudgement and Practice and so we have a Pope in temporalibus and if the Parliament erre the people must take order with them else God hath left Church and State remedilesse Ans. This is stollen from Barclaius also 1. but the same Barclaius saith Si Rex regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit regno cadit If the King shall sell his Kingdome or inslave it to a forraigne power he falleth from all right to his Kingdome but who shall execute any such Law against him not the people not the Peeres not the Parliament for this Mancipium ventris aulae this slave saith p. 147. I know no power in any to punish or curbe Soveraignty but in Almighty God 2. We see no
sent them Ans. 1. The Ambassadour is not to accept an unjust Ambassage that fighteth with the Law of nature 2. The Ambassadour and the Iudge differ the Ambassadour is the King and States Deputy both in his call to the Ambassage and also in the matter of the Ambassage for which cause he is not to transgresse what is given to him in Writ as a Rule but the inferiour Iudges and the high Court of Parliament though they were the Kings Deputies as the Parliament is in no sort his Deputy but he their Deputy Royall yet it is only in respect of their call not in respect of the matter of their Commission for the King may send the Iudge to judge in generall according to the Law and Iustice and Religion but he cannot depute the sentence and command the conscience of the Judge to pronounce such a sentence not such the inferiour Iudge in the act of judging is as independent and his conscience as immediatly subject to God as the King therefore the King owes to every sentence his approbative suffrage as King but not his either directive suffrage nor his imperative suffrage of absolute pleasure 6. If the King should sell his Country and bring in a forraigne Army the estates are to convene to take course for the safety of the Kingdome 7. If David exhort the Princes of Israel to helpe King Solomon in governing the Kingdome in building the Temple 2 Chron. 32.3 Ezechiah tooke counsell with his Princes and his mighty men in the matter of holding off the Assyrians who were to invade the Land if David 1 Chron. 13.1 2 3 4. consult with the Captaines of thousands and hundreds to bring the Arke of God to Kireath joarim if Solomon 1 King 8.1 Assemble the Elders of Israel and all the Heads of the Tribes and the chief of the fathers to bring the Arke of the Tabernacle to the congregation of the Lord. And Achab gather together the States of Israel in a matter that nearely concerned Religion If the Elders and people 1 King 20.8 counsell and decree that King Achab should hearken to Benhadad King of Syria and if Ahasuerus make no Decrees but with consent of his Princes Ester 1.21 nor Darius any Act without his Nobles and Princes if Hamor and Schechem Genes 34.20 would not make a Covenant with Iacobs Sons without the consent of the men of the City and Ephron the Hittite would not sell Abraham a buriall place in his Land without the consent of the children of Heth Gen. 23.10 Then must the estates have a power of judging with the King or Prince in matters of Religion Iustice and Government which concerne the whole Kingdome but the former is true by the Records of Scripture ergo so is the latter 8. The men of Ephraim complaine that Iephtah had gone to warre against the children of Ammon without them and hence rose warre betwixt the men of Ephraim and the men of Gilead Iud. 12.1 2 3. and the men of Israel fiercely contend with the men of Iudah because they brought King David home againe without them pleading that they were therein dispised 2 Sam. 19.41 42 43. which evinceth that the whole States have hand in matters of publick government that concerne all the Kingdome and when there is no King Iudg. 20. The chiefe of the people and of all the Tribes goe out in battell against the children of Benjamin 9. These who make the King and so have power to unmake him in the case of Tyranny must be above the King in power of Government but the Elders and Princes made both David and Saul Kings 10. There is not any who say that the Princes and people 1 Sam. 14. did not right in rescuing innocent Ionathan from death against the Kings Will and his Law 11. The speciall ground of Royalists is to make the King the absolute supreame giving all life and power to the Parliament and States and of meere grace convening them So Ferne the Author of Ossorianum p. 69. but this ground is false because the Kings power is fiduciary and put in his hand upon trust and must be ministeriall and borrowed from these who put him in trust and so his power must be lesse and derived from the Parliament but the Parliament hath no power in trust from the King because the time was when the man who is the King had no power and the Parliament had the same power that they now have and now when the King hath received power from them they have the whole power that they had before That is to make Lawes and resigned no power to the King but to execute Lawes and his convening of them is an Act of Royall Duty which he oweth to the Paliament by vertue of his Office and is not an act of grace for an act of grace is an act of free Will and what the King doth of free Will he may not doe and so he may never convene a Parliament But when David Salomon Asa Ezekiah Iehosaphat Achas convened Parliaments they convened Parliaments as Kings and so Ex debito virtute officii out of debt and Royall Obligation and if the King as the King be Lex animata a breathing and living Law the King as King must doe by obligation of Law what he doth as King and not from spontaneous and Arbitrary grace 2. If the Scripture holds forth to us a King in Jsrael and two Princés and Elders who made the King and had power of life and death as we have seene then is there in Israel Monarchy tempered with Aristocracy and if there were Elders and Rulers in every City as the Scripture saith here was also Aristocracy and Democracy And for the warrant of the power of the Estates I appeale to Iurists and to approved Authors Argu. l. aliud 160. § 1. De Iur. Reg. l. 22. Mortuo de fidei l. 11.14 ad Mum. l. 3.1.4 Sigonius De Rep. Iudaeor l. 6. c. 7. Cornelius Bertramo c. 12. Iunius Brutus Vindic. contra Tyran § 2. Author Libelli de jur Magistrat in subd q. 6. Althus Politic. c. 18. Calvin Institut l. 4. c. 20. Pareus Coment in Rom. 13. Pet. Martyr in Lib. Iudic. c. 3. Ioan. Marianus de rege Lib. 1. c. 7. Hottoman de jure Antiq. Regni Gallici l. 1. c. 12. Buchanan De jure Regni apud Scotos Obj. The King after a more noble way representeth the people then the Estates doth for the Princes and Commissioners of Parliament have all their power from the people and the peoples power is concentricated in the King Ans. The Estates taken collectively doe represent the people both in respect of Office and of persons because they stand Iudges for them for many represent many ratione numeri officii better then one doeth The King doth unproperly represent the people though the power for actuall execution of Lawes be more in the King yet a legislative power is more in the
due to him then hinder the course of the Gospel And the like is 1 Cor. 6. where the Corinthians were rather to suffer losse in their goods then to goe to Law before Infidel Judges and by the like to prevent greater inconveniences and mutilation and death the Christian servant hath that dominion over his members rather to suffer buffâ—ts then to ward off buffets with violent resistance But it is no consequent that innocent subjects should suffer death of tyrants and servants be killed by masters and yet that they shall not be allowed by the law of nature to defend themselves by re-offending when onâ—ly self-defence is intended because we have not that dominion over life and death And therefore as a man is his brothers murtherâ—r who with froward Cain will not be his brothers keeper and may preserve his brothers life without losse of his owne life when his brother is unjustly preserved so when he may preserve his owne life and doth not that which Natures Law alloweth hâ—m to doe rather to kill ere he be killed he is guilty of self-murther because he is deficient in the duty of lawfull self-defence But I grant to offend or kill is not of the nature of defensive warre but accidentall therâ—unto and yet killing of cut-throats sent forth by the illegal commandement of the King may be intended as a mean and a lawfull mean of self-defence 2. Of two ills of punishment we have a comparative dominion over our selves a man may cast his goods in the sea to redeeme his life So for to redeeme peace we may suffer buffets but because death is the greatest ill of punishment God hath not made it eligible to us when lawfull self defence is at hand But in defending our own life against Tyrannicall power though we do it by offending and killing we resist no ordinance of God onely I judge killing of the King in self-defence not lawfull because self-defence must be national on just causes Let here the reader judge Barcley l. 3. c. 8. pag. 159. con Monar If the King saith he shall vex the Common-wealth or one part thereof with great and intollerable cruelty what shall the people do they have saith he in that case a power to resist and defend themselves from injury but onely to defend themselves not to invade the Prince nor to resist the injury or to recede from reverence due to the Prince I answer 1. Let Barclay or the prelate if he may carry Barclayes books or any difference these two the people may resist a Tyrant but they may not resist the injuries inflicted by a Tyrants officers cut-throats I cannot imagine how to conciliate these two for to resist the cruelty of a King is but to hold off the injurie by resistance 2. If this Nero waste the Common-wealth unsufferably with his cruelty and remaine a lawful King to be honoured as a King who may resist him according to Royalists way but from Rom. 13. they resist the Ordinance of God 3. Resisting is not a meere suffering nor is it a morall resisting by alledging lâ—wes to be broken by him We had never a question with Royalists about such resisting 2. Nor is this resisting non-obedience to unjust commandements that resisting was never yet in question by any except the Papists who in good â—arnest by consequent say It is better to obey men then God 3. It is then resisting by bodily violence but if the King have such an absolute power given him by God as Royalists fancie from Rom. 13.1 2. 1 Sam. 8 9 11. I know not how Sujects have any power given them of God to resist the power from God and Gods Ordinance And if this resisting extend not it selfe to defensive wars how shall the people defend themselves from injuries and the greatest injuries imaginable from an Armie of Cut-throats and Idolaters in war comming to destroy Religion set up Idolatry and root out the name of Gods people and lay waste the mountaine of the Lords house And if they may defend themselves by defensive wars how can wars be without offending 3. The law of Nature teacheth to repell violence with violence when one man is oppressed no lesse then when the Common-wealth is oppressed Barclay should have given either Scripture or the law of Nature for his warrant here 4. Let us suppose a King can be perjured how are the Estates of the Kingdome who are his Subjects by Barclays way not to challenge such a Tyrant of his perjurie He did swear he should be meek and clement and he is now become a furious Lyon shall the flock of God be committed to the keeping of a furious Lyon D. Ferne p. 3. sect 2. pag. 9. addeth Personall defence is lawfull against sudden and illegall invasion such as Elisha practiced even if it were against the Prince to ward blowes and to hold the Princes hand but not to returne blowes but generall resistance by Armes cannot be without many unjust violences and doth immediatelie strike at the order which is the life of the Common-wealth Answ. If it be naturall to one man to defend himself against the personall invasion of a Prince then is it naturall and warrantable to ten thousand and to a whole Kingdome and what reason to defraud a Kingdome of the benefit of self-defence more then one man Neither grace nor policy destroyeth nature and how shall ten or twenty thousand be defended against Cannons and Musquets that killeth afar off except they keepe Townes against the King which D. Ferne and others say had beene treason in David if he had kept Keilah against King Saul except they be armed to offend with weapons of the like nature to kill rather then be killed as the Law of nature teacheth 3. To hold the hands of the Prince is no lesse resisting viâ—lence then to cut the lap of his garment which Royalists think unlawfull and is an opposing of externall force to the Kings person 4. It is true warres meerely defensive cannot be but they must be offâ—nsive but they are offensive by accident and intended for meere defence and they cannot be without warres sinfully offensive nor can any warres be in rerum naturâ now I except the warres commanded by God who onely must have beene sinfull in the manner of doing but some innocent must be killed but warres cannot for that be condemned 5. Neither are offensive warres against these who are no powers and no ordinances of God such as are cut-throate Irish condemned Prelates and Papists now in Armes more destructive to the order established by God then acts of lawfull war are or the punishing of robbers and by all this Protestants in Scotland and England should remaine in their houses unarmed while the Papists and Irish come on them armed and cut their throats and spoyle and plunder at will Nor can we think that resistance to a King in holding his hands can be naturall if he be stronger it is not a
naturall meane of selfe-preservation Nature hath appoynted innocent and offending violence against unjust violence as a meanes of selfe-preservation Goliahs sword is no naturall meanes to hold Sauls hands for a sword hath no fingers and if Saul 1. suddainly 2. without colour of Law or reason 3. inevitably should make personall invasion on David to kill him Dr. Ferne saith he may resist but resisting is essentially a reaction of violence shew us Scripture or reason for violent holding a Kings hands in an unjust personall invasion without any other reaction of offence Walter Torrils killed King W. Rufus as he was shooting at a Deere the Earle of Suffolk killed Henrie the 8. at Tilting there is no treasonable intention here and so no homicide Defensive wars are offensive ex eventu effectu not ex causa or ex intentione But it may be asked if no passive subjection at all be commanded as due to Superiours Rom. 13. Answ. None properly so called that is purely passive onely we are for feare of the sword to doe our duety 2. We are to suffer ill of punishment of Tyrants ex hypothesi that they inflict that ill on us some other way and in some other notion then we are to suffer ill of equals for we are to suffer of equals not for any paternall authority that they have over us as certainly wee are to suffer ill inflicted by Superiours I demand of Royalists if Tyrants inflicting evill of punishment upon Subjects unjustly be powers ordained of God 2. If to resist a power in Tyrannicall acts be to resist God 3. Since wee are not to yiâ—ld active obedience to all the commandements of Superiours whether they be good or ill by vertue of this place Rom. 13. how is it that we may not deny passive subjection to all the Acts of violence exercised whether of injustice whether in these Acts of violence wherein the Prince in actu ex cito and formally punisheth not in Gods stead or in these wherein he punishâ—th Tyrannically in no formall or actuall subordination to God we owe passive subjection I desire an answer to these Assert 5. Flying from the tyranny of abused Authority is a plaine resisting of Rulers in their unlawfull oppression and perverting of judgement All Royalists grant it lawfull and ground it upon the Law of Nature that those that are persecuted by tyrannous Princes may flee and it is evident from Christs Commandment If they persecute you in one City flee to another Mat. 10.23 and by Mat. 23.34 Christ fled from the fury of the Jewes till his houre was come Elias Vriah Ier. 26.20 Ioseph and Mary fled the Martyres did hide themselves in caves and dens of the earth Heb. 11.37 38. Paul was let downe through a window in a basket at Damascus this certainly is resistance For looke what legall power God hath given to a tyrannous Ruler remaining a power ordained of God to summon legally and set before his tribunall the servants of God that he may kill them and murther them unjustly that same legall power he hath to murther them For if it be a legall power to kill the innocent and such a power as they are obliged in conscience to submit unto they are obliged in conscience to submit to the legall power of citing for it is one and the same power Now if resistance to the one power be unlawfull resistance to the other must be unlawfull also and if the law of self-defence or command of Christ warâ—ant me to disobey a tyrannous power commanding me to compeiâ— to receive the sentence of death that same Law farre more shall warrant me to resist and deny passive subjection in submitting to the un-unjâ—st sentence of death 2. When a murtherer self-convicted sleeth from the just power of a Judge lawfully citing him he resisteth the just power ordained of God Rom. 3. Ergo by the same â—eason if we flee from a tyrannous power we resist that tyrannous power and so by Royalists ground we resist the ordinance of God by flying Now to be disobedient to a just power summoning a maâ—â—factor is to hinder that lawfull power to be put forth in lawfull Acts for the Judge cannot purge the land of blood if the murtherer slee 3. When the King of Israel sendeth a Captaine and fifty â—ictors to fâ—tch Elisha these come instructed with legall power from the King if I may lay fetters on their power by flight upon the ground of self-preservation the same warrant shall allow me to oppose harmelesse violence for my owne safety 4. Royalists hold it unlawfull to keepe a strong hold against the King though the Fort be not the Kings house and though that David should not have offended if he had kept Keilah against Saul Dr. Ferne and Royalists say it had beene unlawfull resistance What more resistance is made to Royall power by wals interposed then by Seas and miles of earth interposed Both are physicall resistance and violent in their kinde QUEST XXXI Whether or no self-defence against any unjust violence offered to the life be warranted by Gods Law and the Law of Nature and Nations SElfe-preservation in all creatures in which is nature is in the creatures sutable to their nature The Bull defendeth it selfe by its hornes the Eagle by her clawes and bill it will not follow that a Lambe will defend it selfe against a Wolfe any other way then by flying So men and Christian men doe naturally defend themselves but the manner of self-defence in a rationall creature is rationall and not alwayes meerely naturall therefore a politique communitie being a combination of many natures as neither grace farre lesse can policy destroy nature then must these many natures be allowed of God to use a naturall self-defence If the King bring in an Army of forraigners then a politique community must defend it selfe in a rationall way Why Self-defence is naturall to Man and â—aâ—urall to a Lamb but not the same way A Lamb or a Dove naturally defend themselves against beasts of another kinde onely by flight not by re-action and re-offending But it followeth not that a man defendeth himselfe from his enemy only by flight If a robber invade me to take away my life and my purse I may defend my sâ—lfe by re-action for reason and grace both may determine the way of self-preservation Hence Royalists say a private man against his Prince hath no way to defend himselfe but by flight Ergo a community hath no other way to defend themsâ—lvâ—s but by flight 1. The antecedent is false Dr. Ferne alloweth to a private man supplications and denying of Subsidies and Tribute to the Prince when he imployeth Tribute to the destruction of the Common-wealth which by the way is a cleere resistance and an active resistance made against the King Rom. 13.6 7. and against a Commandement of God except Royalists grant tyrannous powers may be resisted 2. The consequence is naught for a private man may defend himselfe
against unjust violence but not any way he pleaseth The first way is by supplications and apologies he may not presently use violence to the Kings servants before he supplicate nor may he use re-offending if flight may save David used all the three in order 1. He made his defence by words by the mediation of Ionathan when that prevailed not he tooke himselfe to flight as the next but because he knew flight was not safe every way and nature taught him self-preservation and reason and light of grace taught him the meanes and the religious order of these meanes for self-preservation Therefore he addeth a third He took Goliahs sword and gathered six hundred armed men and after that made use of an hoast Now a sword and armour are not horsing and shipping for flight but contrary to flight so re-offending is Policies last refuge A godly magistrate taketh not away the life of a subject if other means can compasse the end of the Law and so he is compelled and necessitated to take away the life so the private man in his naturall self-defence not to use re-action or violent re-offending in his self-defence against any man farre lesse against the servants of a King but in the exigence of the last and most inexorable necessity And it is true that M. Symmons saith Sect. 11. pag. 35. Self-defence is not to be used where it cannot be without sinne It is certaine Necessity is but a hungry plea for sinne Luke 14.18 but it is also true re-offending comparatively that I kill rather then I be killed in the sinlesse Court of Natures spotlesse and harmelesse necessity is lawfull and necessary except I be guilty of self-murdâ—r in the culpable omission of sâ—lf-defence Now a private man may flie and that is his second necessity and violâ—nt re-offending is the third meane of self-preservation But with leave violent re-offending is necessary to a private man when his second meane to wit flight is not possible and cannot attaine the end as in the case of David if flight doe not prevaile Goliahs sword and an host of armed men are lawfull So to a Church and a community of Protestants men women aged sucking children sick and diseased who are pressed either to be killed or forsake Religion and Jesus Christ flight is not the second meane nor a meane at all because 1. not possible and therefore not a naturall meane of preservation For 1. the aged the sick the sucking infants and sound Religion in the posteritie cannot flee flight here is physically and by natures necessity unpossible and therefore no lawfull mean What is to nature physically unpossible is no lawfull mean 2. If Christ have a promise that the ends of the earth Psal. 2.8 and the Isles shall be his possession Esa. 49.1 I see not how naturall defence can put us to flee even all Protestants and their seed and the weak and sick whom we are obliged to defend as our selves both by the Law of nature and grace I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God to dwell there but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestants their seed aged sick sucking children should flee out of England Scotland Ireland and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists Prelates and bloody Irish and Atheists and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land violent re-offending is their second mean next to supplications and declarations c. and flight is not required of them as of a private man Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation violent and unjust invasion of a private man which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book or rather the idolatry of the Masse therein intended was unavoidable it was unpossible for the Protestants their old and sick their women and sucking children to flee over sea or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book Althusius saith well Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee but the estates if they flee they do not their duty to commit a country religion and all to a Lion Lâ—t not any object we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy Psal. 2.8 9. Isa. 49.1 it is true if the way be our own sinfull way nor let any object a Colony went to New-England and fled the persecution Answer True but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication there was no more reason that one Colony should go to New-England then it is necessary by a divine law obligatory that the whole Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine are to leave thâ—ir native country religion to one man to popish Idolators Atheists willing to worship idols with them and whethere then shall the Gospel be which we are obliged to defend with our lives 2. There is Tutela vitae proxima remota near- A meer and immediat defence of our life and a remote or mediat defence when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending David might have killed Saul when he was sleeping and when he cut off the lap of his garment but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed because he is the Lords Annoited as it is unlawfull to kill a man because he is the Image of God Gen. 9 6. except in case of necessity The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector thought his malefices do not put him in that case that he hath not now the image of God now prudency and light of grace determineth When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation it is not left to our pleasure In a remote posture of self-defence we are not to use violet re-offending David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actuall not inavoidable not a necessâ—ry mean in human prudence for self-preservation for King Saul was then in a habituall not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes Elders and judges of Israel or of a whole community and Church Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for religion or a nationall pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul it is no lesse unlawfull to thrâ—atten a King then to put hands on him and rather kill or be killed by
Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissariâ—s for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in threâ— kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religions Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitrâ—ry or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-offâ—nding for sâ—lf-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the suffâ—r â—awes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Annoâ—nted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans. 1. David speaketh of stretching out his haâ—d against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without colâ—ur of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resistâ—d and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he râ—maineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6.9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market-confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himselfe with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sons and may save their owne lives with weapons much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evill spirit from the Lord may be resisted and faâ—re more if a King indued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his son and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves and the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one man who cannot be virtually the Common-wealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody emissaries to the dissolution of the Common-wealth 3. The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangrene would corrupt the whole body is well warranted by nature because the safety of the whole is to be preferred to the safety of a part Nor is it much that Royalists say the King being the head destroy him the whole body the Common-wealth is dissolved as cut off a mans head the life of the whole man is taken away Because 1. God cutteth off the spirits of tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved no more then when a Leopard or a wilde Boare running through children is killed it can be the destruction of all the children in the land 2. A king indefinitely is referred to the Common-wealth as an adequat head to a Monarchicall Kingdome and remove all Kings and the politique body as Monarchicall in its frame is not Monarchicall but it leaveth not off to be a politique body seeing it hath other Judges but the naturall body without the head cannot live 2. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortall thing cannnot be referred to the immortall Common-wealth as it is adequat correlate They say the King never dieth yet this King can dye an immortall politique body such as the Common-wealth must have an immortall head and that is a King as a King not this or that man possibly a tyrant who is for the time and eternall things abstract from time onely a King 4. The reason of Fortunius Garcias a skilfull Lawyer in Spaine is considâ—rable Coment in l. ut vim vi ff de justit jure God hath implâ—nted in every creature naturall inclinations and motions to preserve it selfe and we are to love our self for God and have a love to preserve our selves rather then our neighbour and Natures law teacheth every man to love God best of all and next our selves more then our neighbour for the Law saith Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe then saith Malderus com in 12. q. 26. tom 2. c. 10. concl 2. The love of our selfe is the measure of the love of our neighbour But the rule and the measure is more perfect simple and more principall then the thing that is measured It is true I am to love the salvation of the Church it comming neerer to Gods glory more then my owne salvation as the wishes of Moses and Paul do prove and I am to love the salvation of my brother more then my owne temporall life but I am to love my owne temporall life more then the life of any other and therefore I am rather to kill then to be killed the exigence of necessity so requiring Nature without sin aimeth this as a truth in the case of losse of life Proximus sum egomet mihi Ephes. 5.28 29. He that loveth his wife loveth himselfe for no man ever yet hated his owne flesh but nourisheth it and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church As then nature tyeth the dam to defend the young birds and the Lyon her whelps and the husband the wife and that by a comparative re-offending rather then the wife or children should be killed yea hee that is wanting to his brother if a robber unjustly invade his brother and helpeth him not is a murtherer of his
because of Saul the son of Kish And they were amongst the mighty men helpers of the warre It is a scorne to say that their might and their helping in warre consisted in being meere patients with David and such as fled from Saul for they had beene on Sauls side before and to come with armour to flee is a mocking of the word of God 2. It is cleare the scope of the Spirit of God is to shew how God helped his innocent servant David against his persecuting Prince and Master King Saul in moving so many mighty men of warre to come in such multitudes all in Armes to help him in warre Now to what end would the Lord commend them as fit for Warre men of might fit to handle shield buckler whose faces are as the faces of Lyons as swift as the Roes on the Mountaines ver 8. and commend them as helpers of David if it were unlawfull for David and all those mighty men to carry Armes to pursue Saul and his followers and to doe nothing with their armour but flee Judge if the Spirit of God in reason could say All these men came armed with bowes ver 2. and could handle both the right hand and the left in slinging stones and shooting of arrowes and that ver 22. all these came to David being mighty men of valour and they came as Captains over hundreds and thousands they put to slight all them of the valleyes both toward the East and toward the West ver 14 15. and that David received them and made them Captains of the band if they did not come in a posture of warre and for hostile invasion if need were For if they came onâ—ly to suffer and to flee not to pursue Bowes Captaines and Captaines of Bands made by David and Davids helpers in the warre came not to help David by â—lying that was a hurt to David not a help It is true M. Symmons saith 1 Sam. 22.2 Those that came out to David strengthened him but he strengthened not them and David might easily have revenged himselfe on the Ziphites who did good will to betray him to the hands of Saul if his conscience had served him Answ. 1. This would inferre that these armed men came to help David against his conscience and that David was a patient in the businesse the contrary is in the Text 1 Sam. 26.2 David became a Captaine over them and 1 Chron. 12.17 If ye come peaceably to help me my heart shall be knit to you ver 18. Then David received them and made them Captains of the band 2. David might have revenged himselfe upon the Ziphites True but that Conscience hindred him cannot be proved To pursue an enemie is an act of a Councell of Warre and he saw it would create more enemies not help his Cause 3. To David to kill Saul sleeping and the people who out of a mis-informed consciencâ— came out many of them to help their lawfull Prince against a Traitor as was supposed seeking to kill their King and to usurp the throne had not been wisdome nor justice because to kill the enemie in a just self-defence must be when the enemie actually doth invade and the life of the defendant cannot be otherwise saved A sleeping enemie is not in the act of unjust pursuit of the innocent but if an Armie of Papists Philistims were in the fields sleeping pursuing not one single David onely for a supposed personall wrong to the King but lying in the fields and campe against the whole Kingdome and Religion labouring to introduce arbitrary Government Popery Idolatry and to destroy Lawes and Liberties and Parliaments then David were obliged to kill these murtherers in their sleep If any say The case is all one in a naturall self-defence what ever be the cause and who ever be the enemy because the self-defender is not to offend except the unjust Invader be in actuall pursuit now Armies in their sleep are not in actuall pursuit Answ. Whâ—n one man with a multitude invadeth one man that one man may pursue as he seeth most conducible for self-defence Now the Law saith Threatnings and terror of Armour maketh imminent danger and the case of pursuit in self-defence lawfull iâ— therefore an Armie of Irish Rebels and Spanyards were sleeping in their Camp and our King in a deep sleep in the midst of them and these Râ—bâ—ls actually in the Camp besieging the Parliament and the Citie of London most unjustly to take away Parliament Laws and Liberties of Religion it should follow that Generall Essex ought not to kill the Kings Majesty in his sleep for he is the Lords Anointed but 1. will it follow that Generall Essex may not kill the Irish Rebels sleeping about the King and that he may not rescue the Kings Person out of the hands of the Papists and Rebels ensnaring the King and leading him on to Popery and to employ his Authority to defend Popery and trample upon Protestant Parliaments and Lawes Certainly from this example this cannot be concluded For Armies in actuall pursuit of a whole Parliament Kingdome Lawes and Religion though sleeping in the Camp because in actuall pursuit may be invaded and killed though sleeping And David useth no argument from conscience why hee might not kill Sauls Armie I conceive he had not Armes to doe that and should have created more enemies to himselfe and hazard his owne life and the life of all his men if he had of purpose killed so many sleeping men yea the inexpedience of that for a private wrong to kill Gods mis-led people should have made all Israel enemies to David But David useth an Argument from Conscience onely to prove it was not lawfull for him to stretch forth his hand against the King and for my part so long as he remaineth King and is not dethroned by those who made him King at Hebron to put hands on his person I judge utterly unlawfull one man sleeping cannot be in actuall pursuit of another man so that the self-defender may lawfully kill him in his sleep but the case is farre otherwise in lawfull wars the Israelites might lawfully kill the Philistims encamping about Jerusalem to destroy it and Religion and the Church of God though they were all sleeping even though we suppose King Saul had brought them in by his Authority though he were sleeping in the midst of the uncircumcised Armies and it is evident that an hoast of armed enemies though sleeping by the law of self-defence may be killed lest they awake and kill us whereas one single man and that a King cannot be killed 2. I think certainly David had not done unwisely but hazarded his owne life and all his mens if he and Ahimelech and Abâ—shai should have killed an host of their enemies sleeping that had been a work as impossible to three so hazard some to all his men D. Ferne as Arnisaeus did before him saith The example of David was extraordinary
because he was anointed and designed by God as successor to Saul and so he must use an extraordinary way of guarding himselfe Arnisaeus citeth Alberic Gentilis that David was now exempted from amongst the number of Subjects Answ. There were not two Kings in Israel now both David and Saul 2. David acknowledgeth his subjection in naming Saul the Lords Anointed his Master Lord King and therefore David was yet a subject 3. If David would have proved his title to the Crowne by extraordinary wayes he who killed Goliah extraordinarily might have killed Saul by a miracle but David goeth a most ordinary way to work for self-defence and his comming to the Kingdom was through persecution want eating shew-bread in case of necessity defending himself with Goliahs sword 4. How was any thing extraordinary and above a Law seeing David might have killed his enemie Saul and according to Gods Law he spared him and hee argueth from a morall duty he is the Lords annoynted therefore I will not kill him was this extraoardinary above a law then according to Gods law he might have killed him Royalists cannot say so what ground to say one of Davids acts in his deportment toward Saul was extraordinary and not all was it extraordinary that David fled no or that David consulted the oracle of God what to do when Saul was coming against him 5. in an ordinary fact something â—ay be extraordinary as the dead sleep from the Lord upon Saul and his men 1. Sam. 26. and yet the fact according to its substance ordinary 6. Nor is this extraordinary that a distressed man being an excellent warriour as David was may use the help of six hundred men who by the law of charity are to help to deliver the innocent from death yea all Israel were obliged to defend him who killed Goliah 7. Royalists make Davids act of not putting hands on the Lords annointed an ordinary morall reason against resistance but his putting on of armour they will have extraordinary and this 〈◊〉 I confesse a short way to an adversary to cull out something tâ—at is for his cause and make it ordinary and something that is against his cause must be extraordinary 8. These men by the law of nature were obliged to joyne in armes with David ergo the non-helping of an oppressed man must be Gods ordinary law a blasphemous tenet 9. If David by an extraordinary spirit killed â—ot King Saul then the Jesuits way of killing must be Gods ordinary Law 2. David certainly intended to keep Keilah against King Saul for the Lord would not have answered David in an unlawfull fact for that were all one as if God should teach David how to play the Traitor to his King for if God had answâ—red They will not deliver thee up but they shall save thee from the hand of Saul As David beleeved he might say this as well as its contradicent then David behoved to keep the city for certainly Davids question pre-supposeth he was to keep the city The example of Elisha the Prophet is considerable 2 Kings 6.32 But Elisha sate in his house and the Elders with him And the King sent a man before him but â—re the messengers came to him he said to the Elders See now the sonnâ— of a murtherer hath sent to take away mine head Here is unjust violence offered by King Ioram to an innocent man Elisha keepeth the house violently against the Kings Messenger as we did keep Castles against King Charles his unlawfull messengers Look saith he when the messenger commeth shut the doore 2. There is violence also commanded and resistence to be made Hold him fast at the doore In the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Montan. Claudite ostium opprimetis eum in ostio Violently presse him at the doore And so the Chaldee Paraphrase Ierom. Ne sinatis eum introirâ— The LXX Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illidite eum in ostio Presse him betwixt the doore and the wall It is a word of bodily violence according to Vatablus Yea Theodoret will have King Ioram himselfe holden at the doore And 3. It is no Answer that D. Ferne and other Royalists give that Elisha made no personall resistance to the King himselfe but onely to the Kings cut-throat sent to take away his head Yea they say It is lawfull to resist the Kings cut-throats But the text is cleere that the violent resistance is made to the King himselfe also for he addeth Is not the sound of his Masters feet behinde him And by this answer it is lawfull to keep Townes with iron gates and barres and violently to oppose the Kings cut-throats comming to take away the heads of the Parliaments of both Kingdomes and of Protestants in the three Kingdomes Some Royalists are so impudent as to say that there was no violence here and that Elisha was an extraordinary man and that it is not lawfull for us to call a King the son of a murtherer as the Prophet Elisha did but Ferne sect 2. pag. 9. forgeâ—ting himselfe saith from hence It is lawfull to resist the Prince himselfe thus farre as toward his blowes and hold his hands But let Ferne answer if the violent binding of the Princes hands that he shall not be able to kill be a greater violence done to his Royall person then Davids cutting off the lap of Sauls garment for certainly the Royall body of a Prince is of more worth then his cloathes Now it was a sinne I judge that smote Davids conscience that he being a subject and not in the act of naturall self-defence did cut the garment of the Lords Annointed Let Ferne see then how he will save his owne principles for certainly hee yeeldeth the cause for me I judge that the person of the King or any Judge who is the Lords Deputy as is the King is sacred and that remaining in that honourable case no subject can without guiltinesse before God put hands in his person the case of naturall self-defence being excepted for because the Royall dignity doth not advance a King above the common condition of men and the Throne maketh him not leave off to bee a man and a man that can do wrong and therefore as one that doth manifest violence to the life of a man though his subject he may be resisted with â—odâ—ly 〈◊〉 in the case of uâ—jâ—st and violent invasion It is a vaine thing to say Who shall be judge betweene the King and his subjâ—cts The â—ubject cannot judge the King because none can be judge in his owne cause and an inferiour or equall cannot judge a superiour or equall But I answer 1. This is the Kings owne cause also and he doth unjust violence as a man and not as a King and so he cannot be judge more then the subject 2. Every one that doth unjust violence as he is such is inferiour to the innocent and so ought to be judged by some 3. There is no need of
obligeth me not to acts of charity when I in all reason see them unpossible but a multitude who had strength did well to rescue innocent Ionathan out of the hands of the King that he should not be put to death yet one man was not tyed by the law of nature to rescue Ionathan if the King and Prince had condemned him though unjustly 2. The hoast of men that helped David against King Saul 1 Sam. 22.2 entered in a lawfull war and 1 Chron. 12.18 Amasa by the spirit of the Lord blesseth his helpers peace peace be unto thee and peace be to thy helpers for thy God helpeth the. Ergo Peace must be to the Parliament of England and to their helpâ—rs their brethren of Scotland 3. Numb 32.1.2.3.16.17.18.19 Iosh. 1.12.13.14 The children of Gad and of Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh though their inheritance fell to be in this side of Iordan yet they were to goe over the river armed to fight for their brethren while they had also possâ—ssion of the land at the commandement of Moses and Joshua 4. So Saul and Israel hâ—lped the men of Iabesh Gilead conjoyned in blood with them against Nahash the Ammonite and his unjust conditions in plucking out their right eyes 1 Sam. 11. 5. Iephtha Iudg. 12.2 justly rebuketh the men of Ephraim because they would not help him and his people against the Ammonitâ—â— 6. If the communion of Saints be any bound that England and we have one Lord one faith one Baptisme one head and Saviour Iesus Christ then are we obliged to help our bleeding sister Church against these same common enemies Papists and Prelates but the former is undenyably true for 1. We send help to the Rotchel if there had not been a secret betraying of our brethren we send help to the recovery of the Palatinate and the aide of the confederat Princes against Babels strength and power and that lawfully but we did it at great leisure and coldly Q. Elizabeth helped Holland against the King of Spain And beside the union in Religion 1. We sayle in one ship together being in one Iland under one King and now by the mercy of God have sworne one Covenant and so must stand or fall together 7. We are obliged by the union betwixt the Kingdomes concluded to be by the Convention of the Estates of Scotland An. 1585. at the desire of the Generall Assembly 1583. to joyne forces together at home and enter in League with Protestant Princes and Estates abroad to maintaine the Protestant Religion against the bloody confederacy of Trent and accordingly this League betweene the two Crownes was subscribed at Berwick An. 1586. and the same renewed An. 1587 1588. as also the confession of Faith subscribed when the Spanish Armado was on our coasts 8. The Law of God commanding that we love our neighbour as our selfe and therefore to defend one another against unjust violence l. ut vim ff de just jur obligeth us to the same except we thinke God can be pleased with lippâ—-love in word onely which the Spirit of God condemneth 1 Ioh. 2.9 10. cap. 3.16 and the summe of Law and Prophets is that as we would not men should refuse to help us when we are unjustly oppressed so neither would we so serve our afflicted brethren l. in facto ff de cond demonstr § Si uxor Iustit de nupt 9. Every man is a keeper of his brothers life there is a voluntary homicide when a man refuseth food or physick necessary for his owne life and refuseth food to his dying brother and men are not borne for themselves And when the King defendeth not subjects against their enemies all fellow-subjects by the law of Nature of Nations the Civill and cannon Law have a naturall priviledge to defend one another and are mutuall Magistrates to one another when there be no other Magistrates If an Army of Turks or Pagans would come upon Britaine if the King were dead as he is civilly dead in this juncture of time when he refuseth to helpe his subjects one part of Britaine would help another As Iehoshaphat King of Iudah did right in helping Ahab and Israel so the Lord had approved of the warre If the left hand be wounded and the left eye put out nature teacheth that the whole burden of naturall acts is devolved on the other hand and eye and so are they obliged to helpe one another 10. As we are to beare one anothers burthens and to help our enemies to compassionate strangers so far more these who make one body of Christ with us 11. Meroz iâ— under a curse who helpeth not the Lord one part of a Church another A woe lieth on them that are at ease in Zion and helpeth not afflicted Ioseph so farre as they are able 12. The law of Gratitude obligeth us to this England sent an Armie to free both our soules and bodies from the bondage of Popery and the fury of the French upon which occasion a Parliament at Leith Anno 1560. established Peace and Religion and then after they helped us against a faction of Papists in our owne bosome for which we take Gods name in a prayer seeking grace never to forget that kindnesse 13. When Papists in Armes had undone England if God give them victory they should next fall on us and it should not be in the Kings power to resist them When our enemies within two dayes journey are in Armes and have the person of our King and his judgement and so the breathing Law of the two Kingdomes under their power we should but sleepe to be killed in our nest if we did not arise and fight for King Church Countrey and Brethren Object By these and the like grounds when the Kings Royall Person and life is in danger he may use Papists as subjects not as Papists in his owne naturall self-defence Answ. Hell and the Devill cannot say that a thought was in any heart against the Kings person He sleeped in Scotland safe and at Westminster in his owne Palace when the Estates of both Kingdomes would not so much as take the water-pot from his bed-side and his Speare and Satan instilled this traiterous lye first in Prelates then in Papists 2. The King professeth his maintenance of the true Protestant Religion in his Declarations since he tooke Armes but if Saul had put Armes in the hands of Baals Priests and in an Armie of Sidonians Philistims Ammonites professing their quarrell against Israel was not to defend the King but their Dagon and false gods cleere it were Sauls Armie should not stand in relation of helpers of the Kings but of advancers of their owne Religion Now Irish Papists and English in Armes presse the King to cancell all Lawes against Popery and make Laws for the free liberty of Masse and the full power of Papists then the King must use Papists as Papists in these warres QUEST XXXVIII Whether Monarchy be the best of governments NOthing more unwillingly
King not the sole interpreter of the Law The Kings conscience no rule of judging to the inferiour Iudge The King not the authentick peremtory and Lordly interpreter of the Law Argum. 1. Argum. 2. The Will of the King is not the sense of the Law The King is King according to the Law but not King of the Law Argum. 3. Arg. 5. There can be no written Law if the King only be the authentick expositor of the Law Imperator 〈…〉 condere dicit i. omnium C. de testam Arg 6. Arnisaus de authori Princ. c. 1. n. 2. The state of the question concerning resistance Arnisae 16. n. 4. If Kings be absolute by divine Institution then all Covenants restraining them must be unlawfull spoiling of Kings of that which God hath given them Resistance in some câ—ses lawfull according to D. Fern. De author Princ. c. 2. n. 10. Royalists hold it lawfull to resist an inferiour Iudge The Exactors of unjust tribute not easily to be resisted Arguments for the lawfulnesse of resisting unjust violence Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Arg. 5. Arg. 6. The Kings person as a man in concretâ— and as a King and his office in abstracto are very different in this dispute Sâ—cr sanc Reg. Mai. c. 1. pag. 2. Arnisae de authoritat Princip c. 4. n. n. pag. 96. Every one that commandeth obedience active or passive unjustly is â—â—â—enus no higher power Arnisaeus 16. Laertius l. 3. in Plato The person or the man who is the Magistrate may lawfully be resisted and the man as using the power lawfully or the office can not be resisted Arg. 5. Pag. 141. Sac. sarc mac 2 pag 28. pag. 30.31 Arnisâ—n de potest prin c. 2.11.17 pag. 3. sec. 5. pag. 30. Royalists reasons thâ—t to resist the man or person is to resist the King office or ordinance of God Grot. de iur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Winzetus Vâ—lâ—tat adâ—er Buchanan Barclay adv Monarchom l. 3. c. 8. We may kill a person as a man and love him as a sonne a father a wife according to Gods Word How the person and office â—f the Ruler are both the object of our subiection The question of subjection toucheth the persons as abusing their power De Authorit princ c. 2. n. 18. Loyall Subiects beliefe pag. 49. 〈…〉 pag. 9. Pilates power to crucifie Christ was no Law-power given by God to Pilate as a Iudge Patient bearing of ill and resistance are compatible in one and the same person Resistance not forbidden 1 Pet. 2.18 but patient suffering onely recommended D. Fernâ— part 3. § 2. p. 1â— Suffering and non-resistance passive fâ—ll under 〈◊〉 law Christs non-resisting of Pilate no plea against resistance of unjust violence Many things not imitable by us in Christs non-resistance D. Ferne part 3. §. 2. p. 10. Confes. Remonstrant Suffering not commanded of God formally We are compaâ—atively rather to suffer 〈◊〉 to deny the truth but we are not commanded formally to 〈◊〉 Patience in suffering is commanded not suffering it self formally Re-offending in ended is contrary to patient â—ubjâ—ctâ—on The physicall act of taking away of the life maketh not homicide We have a greater dominion over our goods and members mutilation excepted then over our life Populo quidem hoc casu resislendi actuendi se ab injuâ—ia potestas competiâ—â—â—ed tuendisâ— tantum non autem Principem in â—adendi resisâ—endi inâ—uâ—iae illatae nâ—n recedendi a debita reverentâ—â— non â—im 〈…〉 jus habet Defensive warres cannot be without offending D. Ferne acknowledgeth violent resisting to be lawfull but not defensive warres Defensive wars are â—ffâ—nsive only by 〈◊〉 There 〈◊〉 holding of an a 〈…〉 es hands 〈◊〉 warding of stroakes but by offensive wars conjoyned by accident with defensive wars Flying is resistance Self-defence naturall D. Ferne alloweth the resistance of denying of Tribute to a tyranous Prince Apologies Supplicationâ— Flight taking of Aâ—mes lawfull in self-defence Violent re-offending in self-defâ—nce the last 〈◊〉 〈…〉 a Church or nation not 〈◊〉 mean of selâ—â—defence alway possible and so not required of God A self defence remote and a self-defence near-neere-hand When David had Saul in his hand he was in a câ—se of actuall self-defence Saul being in a habituall unjust pursuit 〈…〉 was in when he came armâ—e upon King Saul sleeping 〈◊〉 D. Feâ—ne The law of universall and particular nature warranteth sâ—lf-defence This or that King not the adequat head of the community Exod 32. Rom 9. The love of our selfe the rule and measure of our love to our neighbour We are to 〈◊〉 our brethrens salvation aobve our lâ—fe not their life aâ—ove our owne How many wayes a man may preferre the safety of his owne life to the safety of his brother 〈…〉 common to man wiâ—h beast Takeing 〈◊〉 armes in the law is a sovâ—raigne ground oâ— a difensive postuâ—e Offâ—nsive and defeâ—sive wars differ in the event and intentions of men but not physically A whore may not sell her own body for hire Covar 10.1 par 2. §. 1. de â—urti rapi restituti §. 2. n. 1. The lawfulness of violent resistance of Kings cleare from Scripture proofes Symmons Loyall subject 5.10 pag. 31. Davidâ— not â—nvading Saul and his men a case far contrary to the condition of England and Scotland now It is not lawfull to kill the King as Jesuits teach D. Ferne his resolving of conscâ—ence Sect. â— Arnisaeus de authorit princ c. 2. n. 15. Davids example not extraordâ—nary Elisha's fact proveth the lawfulâ—esse of defensive wars 〈◊〉 by no exâ—â—aordinary spirit resisted Joâ—am Loyall subjects beliefe Resistâ—nce made to King Vzziah proveth the same Vatâ—b Deturbaâ—unt eum ex illo lâ—â—o compulsusque ut egredeâ—etur in not Festinanter egredi eum coegerunt hoc est extruserunt eum 1 Sam. 14. The peoples resisting of Saul in rescuing â—onathan unjustly condemned to die saith that thâ— Estaâ—es of the two Kingdomes may swear and covenant to rescue thousands of innocents from the unjust sword of â—â—â—throats of Iâ—eland Papists in England Chald. Par. Manifestum est quod Jonathan peccavit perignorantiam P. Maâ—t saith with a doubt Siâ— ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunt Yea he saith they might sussâ—agiis with their suffrages free him Jun. The people opposed a just oath to Sauls hypocriticall oath Osiander and Borhaius justifie the people P. Mar. Com. in 2 Reg. c. 8. saith Libâ—ah revoltâ—d Quia subditos nitâ—batur cogere ad Idololatriam quod ipsi libnenses pati noluerunt merito principibus â—nim parendum est verum usque ad aras The King would compell them to Idolatry and they justly revolted Vatab. in noâ— Impulit Judaeos ad Idololatriam alioqui â—am pronos ad cultum Idololorum The Citie of Abels revolting a proof for the lawfulnesse of resistance The place Rom. 13. discussâ—d The King onely is not understood in the Text. Thâ— King is principally understood in
Potentes virga justitiae so Lavater and Diâ—datus and Thomas saith this place doth prove That all Kings and Iudges Laws derivari a lege aeterna are derived from the eternall Law The Prelate eating his tongue for anger striveth to prove That all power and so Royall power is of God but what can he make of it we beleeve it though he say Sectaries prove by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That a man is justified by faith onely so there is no power but of God onely but feel the smell of a Iesuite it is the Sectaries doctrine That we are justified by faith onely but the Prelates and the Iesuites goe another way not by faith onely but by works also And all power is from God onely as the first Author and from no man What then Therefore men and people interpose no humane act in making this man a King and not this man It followeth And let us with the Prelate joyn Paul and Solomon together and say That Soveraigntie is from God of God by God as Gods appointment irrevocable Then shall it never follow it is unseparable from the person except you make the King a man immortall as God onely can remove the Crown it is true but God onely can put an unworthy and an excommunicated Prelate from Office and Benefice but how Doth that prove that men and the Church may not also in their place remove an unworthy Church-man when the Church following Gods Word delivereth to Satan Christ onely as head of the Church excommunicateth scandalous men Ergo The Church cannot do it and yet the Argument is as good the one way as the other for all the Churches on earth cannot make a Minister properly they but design him to the Ministery whom God hath gifted and called But shall we conclude ergo no Church on earth but God onely by an immediate action from Heaven can deprive a Minister how then durst Prelates excommunicate unmake and imprison so many Ministers in the three Kingdoms But the truth is take this one Argument from the Prelate and all that is in his Book falleth to the ground to wit Soveraigntie is from God onely A King is a creature of Gods making onely and what then Ergo Soveraigntie cannot be taken from him So God onely made Aarons house Priests 2. Solomon had no Law to depose Abiathar from the Priest-hood Possibly the Prelate will grant all the place Rom. 13. which he saith hath tortured us I refer to a fitter place it will be found to torture Court Parasites I goe on with the Prelate c. 3. Sacred Soveraignty is to be preserved and Kings are to be prayed for that we may lead a godly life 1 Tim. 3. What then 1. All in authority are to be prayed for even Parliaments by that text Pastors are to be prayed for and without them sound religion cannot well subsist 2. Is this questioned but Kings should be prayed for or are we wanting in this duty but it followeth not that all dignities to be prayed for are immediatly from God not from men Prelate Prov. 8. Solomon speaketh first of the establishment of Government before he speake of the workes of Creation ergo better not be at all as be without government And God fixed government in the person of Adam before Evah or any else came into the world and how shall government be and we enjoy the fruits of it except we preserve the Kings sacred Authority inviolable Ans. Moses Gen. 1. speaketh of Creation before he speaketh of Kings and Moses speaketh Gen. 3. of Adams sins before he speakes of redemption through the blessed seed ergo better never be redeemed at all as to to be without sin 2. If God made Adam a governour before he made Evah and any of Mankind he was made a father and a husband before he had either sonne or wife Is this the Prelates Logick he may prove that two eggs on his fathers Table are three this way 3. There is no government where soveraignty is not kept inviolable It is true where there is a King soveraignty must be inviolable What then Arbitrary government is not soveraignty 4. He intimateth Aristocracy and Democracy and the power of Parliaments which maketh Kings to be nothing but Anarchie for he speaketh here of no government but Monarchy P. Prelate there is need of grace to obey the King Ps. 18.43 Ps. 144.2 It is God who subdueth the people under David 2. Rebellion against the King is rebellion against God Pet. 2.17 Prov 24.12 Ergo Kings have a neare alliance with God Ans. 1. There is much grace in Papists and Prelates then who use to write and Preach against grace 2. Lorinus your brother Iesuite will with good warrant of the texts inferre that the King may make a conquest of his own Kingdomes of Scotland and England by the sword as David subdued the Heathen 3. Arbitrary governing hath no alliance with God a rebell to God his Country and an Apostate hath no reason to terme lawfull defence against â—ut-throat Irish rebellion 4. There is need of much grace to obey Pastors inferiour Iudges masters Col. 3.22 23. ergo their power is from God immediatly and no more from men then the King is created King by the people according to the way of Royalists P. Prelate God saith of Pharaoh Exo. 9.7 I have raised thee up Elisha from God constituted the King of Syria 2 King 8.13 Pharaoh Abimelech Hiram Hazael Hadad are no lesse honoured with the compellation of Kings then David Saul c. Ier. 29.9 Nebuchadnezer is honoured to be called by way of excellency Gods servant which God giveth to David a King according to his owne heart and Esay 45.1 2. Thus saith the Lord to his anoynted Cyrus and God nameth him neere a hundreth yeare before he was borne Esay 44.28 He is my shepheard Daniel 2.19 20.17.24 God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will Dan. 5.8 and p. 37. Empires Kingdomes Royalties are not disposed of by the composed contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God Hos. 13.11 I gave them a King in my anger I tooke him away in my wrath Iob He places Kings in the throne c. Ans. Here is a whole Chapter of seven pages for one raw argument ten times before repeated 1. to Exod. 9.7 I have raised up Pharaoh Paul expoundeth it Rom. 9 to prove that King Pharaoh was a vessell of wrath fitted for destruction by Gods absolute Will and the Prelate following Arminius with treasonable charity applyeth this to our King Can this man pray for the King 2. Elisha anoynted but constituted not Hazael King and foretold he should be King and if he be a King of Gods making who slew his sicke Prince and invaded the Throne by innocent bloud judge you I would not take Kings of the Prelates making 3. If God give to Nebuchadnezer the same still of the servant of God given to David Ps. 18.1 116.16 and to Moses Ios. 1 2.
all Kings because Kings are men according to Gods heart Why is not royalty then founded on grace Nebuchadnezer was not otherwise his servant then he was the hammer of the earth and a tyrannous conquerour of the Lords people and all the Heathen Kings are called Kings But how came they to their Thrones for the most part as David and Hezekiah but God anointed them not by his Prophets they came to their Kingdomes by the peoples election or by blood and rapine the latter way is no ground to you to deny Athaliah to be a lawfull Princesse she and Abimâ—lech were lawfull Princes and their soveraignty as immediatly and independently from God as the soveraignty of many heathen Kings See then how justly Athaliah was killed as a bloody usurper of the throne this would licence your brethren the Iesuites to stab heathen Kings whom you will have as well Kings 〈◊〉 the Lords anointed though Nebuchadnezer many of them made their way to the Throne against all Law of God and man through a bloudy patent 4. Cyrus is Gods anointed and his Shepheard too ergo his Arbitrary government is a soveraignty immediatly depending on God â—nd above all Law it is a wicked consequence 5. God named him neare a hundreth yeare ere he was borne God named and designed Judas very individually and named the Asse that Christ should ride on to Ierusalem Zach. 9.9 some moe hundred yeares then one What will the Prelate make them independent Kings for that 6. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will What then this will prove Kingdomes to be as independent and immediatly from God as Kings are for as God giveth Kings to Kingdomes so he giveth Kingdomes to Kings and no doubt he giveth Kingdoms to whom he will so he giveth Prophets Apostles Pastors to whom he will and he giveth tyrannous conquests to whom he will and it is Nebuchadnezer to whom Daniel speaketh that from the Lord and he had no just title to many Kingdomes especially to the Kingdome of Iudah which yet God the King of Kings gave to him because it was his good pleasure and if God had not commanded them by the mouth of his Prophet Ieremiah might they not have risen and with the sword have vindicated themselves and their own liberty no lesse then they lawfully by the sword vindicated themselves from under Moab Iudges 3. from under Iabin Iaakin King of Canaan who twenty yeares mightily oppressed the children of Israel Iudges 4. now this P. Prelate by all these instances making Heathen Kings to be Kings by as good a title as David and Hezekiah condemneth the people of God as rebells if being subdued and conquered by the Turke and Spanish King they should by the sword recover their owne liberty and that Israel and the saviours which God raised to them had not warrant from the law of nature to vindicate themselves to liberty which was taken from them violently and unjustly by the sword but from all this it shall well follow that the tyranny of bloudy conquerours is immediatly and only dependent from God no lesse then lawfull soveraignty for Nebuchadnezers soveraignty over the people of God and many other Kingdomes also was revenged of God as tyranny Ier. 50.6.7 and therefore the vengeance of the Lord and the vengeance of his Temple came upon him and his land Ier. 50.16 17.18.28 29.30 It is true the people of God were commanded of God to submit to the King of Babylon to serve him and to pray for him and to doe on the contrary was rebellion but this was not because the King of Babylon was their King and because the King of Babylon had a command of God so to bring under his yoak the people of God So Christ had a Commandement to suffer the death of the Crosse Iohn 10.18 but had Herod and Pilate any warrant to crucifie him none at all 7. He saith Royalties even of Heathen Kings are not disposed of by the composed Contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God But the Contracts of men to give a Kingdome to a person which a Heathen community may lawfully doe and so by contract dispose of a Kingdom is not opposite to the immediate hand of God appointing Royalty and Monarchy at his owne blessed liberty Lastly he saith God tooke away Saul in his wrath but I pray you did God onely doe it then had Saul because a King a Patent Royall from God to kill himselfe for so God tooke him away and we are rebells by this if we suffer not the King to kill himselfe Well pleaded QUEST VI. Whether the King be so from God onely both in regard of his Soveraignty and of the designation of his person to the Crown as that he is no waies from the people but by meere approbation Dr. Ferne a man much for Monarchy saith Though Monarchy hath its excellency being first set up of God in Moses yet neither Monarchy Aristocracy nor any other forme is jure divino but we say saith he the power it selfe or that sufficiency of authority to governe that is in a Monarchy or Aristocracy abstractly considered from the qualification of other formes is a flux and constitution subordinate to that providence an ordinance of that Dixi or silent word by which the world was made and shall be governed under God This is a great debasing of the Lords anoynted for so soveraignty hath no warrant in Gods Word formally as it is such a government but is in the world by providence as sin is and as the falling of a Sparrow to the ground whereas Gods Word hath not onely commanded that government should be but that fathers and mothers should be 2. and not only that politick Rulers should be but also Kings by name and other Iudges Aristocraticall should be Rom. 13.3 Deut. 17.14 1 Pet. 2.17 Prov. 24.21 Prov. 15.16.3 If the power of Monarchy and Aristocracy abstracted from the formes be from God then it is no more lawfull to resist Aristocraticall Government and our Lords of Parliament or Iudges then it is lawfull to resist Kings But heare the Prelates reasons to prove that the King is from the people by approbation only P. Prelate The people Deut. 17. is said to set a King over them only as 1 Cor. 6. The Saints are said to judge the world that is by consenting to Christs Iudgement So the people doe not make a King by transferring on him soveraignty but by accepting acknowledging reverencing him as King whom God hath both constituted and designed King Answ. This is said but not a word proved for the Queen of Sheba and Hiram acknowledged reverenced and obeyed Solomon as King and yet they made him not King as the Princes of Israell did 2. Reverence and obedience of the people is relative to the Kings lawes but the peoples making of a King is not relative to the laws of a King for then he should be a King giving laws and
body but as they transferre their power to the father 1. for their owne safetie and peace not if he use the power they give him to their destruction the same way they tye themselves to his first borne as to their King 2. As they chose the father not as a man but a man gifted with Royall grace and a Princely facultie for government so they can but tye themselves to his first borne as to one graced with a facultie of governing and if his first borne shall be borne an idiot and a foole they are not obliged to make him King for the obligation to the sonne can be no greater then the obligation to the father which first obligation is the ground measure and cause of all posterior obligations If Tutors be appointed to governe such an one the Tutors have the Royall power not the Idiot nor can he governe others who cannot governe himselfe That Kings goe not as heritage from the father to the sonne I prove 1. God Deut. 17. could not command them to choose such a one for the King and such a one who sitting on his throne shall follow the direction of God speaking in his word if birth were that which gave him Gods title and right to the Crowne for that were as much as such a man should be heire to his fathers inheritance and the sonne not heire to his fathers crown except he were such a man But God in all the Law morall or judiciall never required that the heire should be thus and thus qualified else he should not be heire but he requireth that a man and so that a familie should be thus and thus qualified else they should not be Kings and I confirme it thus The first King of divine institution must be the rule paterne and measure of all the rest of the Kings as Christ maketh the first Mariage Mat. 19.8 a paterne to all others and Paul reduceth the right administration of the Supper to Christs first institution 1 Cor. 11.23 now the first King Deut. 17.14 15. is not a man qualified by naked birth for then the Lord in describing the manner of the King and his due qualifications should seeke no other but this You shall choose onely the first borne or the lawfull sonne of the former King But seeing the King of Gods first moulding is a King by election and what God did after by promises and free grace give to David and his seed even a throne till the Mesiah should come and did promise to some Kings if they would walke in his Commandements that their sonnes and sonnes sonne should sit upon the Throne in my judgement is not an obliging Law that sole birth should be as just a title in foro Dei for I now dispute the question in point of conscience as royall unction 2. If by divine institution God have impawned in the peoples hand a subordinate power to the most High who giveth Kingdomes to whom he will to make and create Kings then is not sole birth a just title to the Crowne But the former is true both by precept Deut. 17.1 and God expresly saith Thou shalt choose him King whom the Lord shall choose And if it had not been the peoples power to create their own Kings how doth God after he had designed Saul their King yet expresly 1 Sam. 10. inspire Samuel 17. to call the people before the Lord at Mizpeh to make Saul King and how doth the Lord v. 22. expresly shew to Samuel and the people the man that they might make him King and because all consented not that Saul should be King God will have his Coronation renewed v. 14. Then said Samuel to the people Come and let us goe to Gilgall and renew the Kingdome there 15. And all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gilgall And how is it that David anoynted by God is yet no King but a private subject while all Israel make him King at Hebron 3. If royall birth be equivolent to royall unction and the best title and if birth speake and declare to us the Lords appointment and Will that the first born of a King should be King as M. Symmons and others say then is all title by conquest where the former King standeth in title to the Crowne and hath an Heire unlawfull But the latter is against all the nation of the Royalists for Arnisaeus Barclay Grotius Io. Roffensis Episco the Bishop of Spalato Dr. Ferne M. Symmons the excommunicate Prelat if his poore learning may bring him in the roll teach that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne I prove the Proposition 1. because if birth speake Gods revealed Will that the Heire of a King is the lawfull King then conquest cannot speake the contradicent Will of God that he is no lawfull King but the conquerour is the lawfull King Gods revealed Will should be contradictory to himselfe and birth should speake it is Gods Will that the Heire of the former King be King and the conquest being also Gods revealed Will should also speake that that Heire should not be King 2. If birth speake and reveale Gods Will that the Heire be King it is unlawfull for a conquered people to give their consent that a conquerour be their King For their consent being contrary to Gods revealed Will which is that birth is the just title must be an unlawfull consent If Royalists say God the King of Kings who immediately maketh Kings may and doth transferre Kingdomes to whom he will and when he putteth the sword in Nebuchadnezers hand to conquer the King and Kingdome of Iudah then Zedikiah or his sonne is not King of Iudah but Nebuchadnezer is King and God being above his Law speaketh in that case his Will by conquests as before he spake his Will by birth this is all can be said Ans. They answer black treason in saying so for if Ieremiah from the Lord had not commanded expresly that both the King and Kingdome of Judah should submit to the King of Babylon and serve him and pray for him as their lawfull King it had been as lawfull to them to rebell against that Tyrant as it was for them to fight against the Philistimes and the King of Ammon but if birth be the just and lawfull title in foro Dei in Gods Court and the only thing that evidenceth Gods Will without any election of the people that the first borne of such a King is their lawfull King then conquests cannot now speake a contrardictory Will of God for the question is not whether or not God giveth power to Tyrants to conquer Kingdomes from the just Heires of Kings which did raigne lawfully before their sword made an empty Throne But whether conquest now when Jeremiahs are not sent immediatly from God to command for example Britaine to submit to a violent intruder who hath expelled the lawfull Heires of the royall Line of the King of
morall hurt and losse of Religion Assert 3. The King is more properly a sort of Patron to defend the people and therefore hath no power given either by God or man to hurt the people and a Minister or publick and honourable servant Rom. 13.4 for he is the Minister of God to thee for good he is the Common-wealths servant objectively because all the Kings service as he is King is for the good safety peace and salvation of the people and in this he is a servant 2. He is the servant of the people Representatively in that the people hath impawned in his hand all their power to doe Royall service Obj. He is the servant of God ergo he is not the peoples Servant but their soveraigne Lord. Ans. It followeth not because all the service the King as King performeth to God they are acts of Royalty and acts of Royall service as terminated on the people or acts of their Soveraigne Lord and this proveth that to be their Soveraigne is to be their servant and watch-man Object 2. God maketh a King only and the Kingly power is in him only not in the people Ans. The Royall power is only from God immediatly Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum a Deo solitudine primae causae by the immediation of simple constitution none but God appointed there should be Kings but 2. Royall power is not in God nor only from God immediatione applicationis regia dignitatis ad personam nec a Deo solum solitudine causae applicantis dignitatem huic non illi in respect of the applying of Royall dignity to this person not to this Object 3. Though Royall power were given to the people it is not given to the people as if it were the Royal power of the people and not the Royall power of God neither is it any other waies bestowed on the people but as on a beame a channell an instrument by which it is derived to others and so the King is not the minister or servant of the people Ans. It is not in the people as in the principall cause Sure all Royall power that way is only in God but it is in the people as in the instrument and when the people maketh David their King at Hebron in that same very act God by the people using their free suffrages and consent maketh David King at Hebron so God only giveth raine and none of the vanities and supposed gods of the Gentiles can give raine Ier. 14 22. and yet the Clouds also give raine as nature as an organ and vessell out of which God powreth down raine upon the dry earth Amos 9.6 and every instrument under God that is properly an instrument is a sort of Vicarious cause in Gods room and so the people as in Gods roome applyeth Royall power to David not to any of Sauls sonnes and appointeth David to be their Royall Servant to governe and in that to serve God and to doe that which a Communitie now in the state of sinne cannot formally doe themselves and so I see not how it is a service to the people not only objectively because the Kings Royall service tendeth to the good and peace and safety of the people but also subjectively in regard he hath his power and Royall authoritie which he exerciseth as King from the people under God as Gods instruments and therefore the King and Parliament give out Lawes and Statutes in the name of the whole people of the Land And they are but flatterers and belye the Holy Ghost who teach that the people doe not make the King for Israel made Saul King at Mizpeh and Israel made David King at Hebron Object 3. Israel made David King that is Israel designed Davids person to be King and Israel consented to Gods act of making David King but they did not make David King Ans. I say not that Israel made the Royall dignitie of Kings God Deut. 17. instituted that himselfe buâ— the Royalist must give us an act of God going before an act of the peoples making David King at Hebron by which David of no King is made formally a King and then another act of the People approving only and consenting to that act of God whereby David is made formally of no King to be a King This Royalists shall never instruct for there be only two acts of God here 1. Gods act of annointing David by the hand of Samuel and 2. Gods act of making David King at Hebron and a third they shall never give But the former is not that by which David was essentially and formally changed from the state of a private subject and no King into the state of a publike Judge and supreme Lord and King for as I have proved after this act of annointing of David King he was designed only and set apart to be King in the Lords fit time and after this annointing he was no more formally a King then Doeg or Nabal were Kings but a subject who called Saul the Lords annointed and King and obeyed Saul as another subjâ—ct doth his King but it is certaine God by no other act made David King at Hebron then by Israels act of free electing him to be King and leader of the Lords people as God by no other act sendeth down rain on the earth but by Gods melting the clouds and causing raine to fall on the earth and therefore to say Israel made David King at Hebron that is Israel approved only and consented to a prior act of Gods making David King is all one as to say Saul prophecied that is Saul consented to a prior act of the Spirit of God who prophecied and Peter preached Act. 2. that is Peter approved and consented to the Holy Ghosts act of preaching Which to say is childish Assert 4. The King is an head of the Commonwealth only metaphorically by a borrowed speech in a politique sense because he ruleth commandeth directeth the whole politique body in all their operations and functions But he is not univocally and essentially the head of the Commonwealth 1. The same very life in number that is in the head is in the members there be divers distinct soules and lives in the King and in his Subjects 2. The head naturall is not made an head by the free election and consent of armes shoulders leggs toes fingers c. The King is made King only by the free election of his people 3. The naturall head so long as the person liveth is ever the head and cannot cease to be a head while it is seated on the shoulders The King if he sell his people their persons and soules may leave off to be a King and Head 4. The head and members live together and dye together the King the people are not so the King may dye and the People live 5. The naturall head cannot destroy the members and preserve it selfe but King Nero may waste and destroy his people
to resist either is to resist the ordinance of God v. 2. both are by Office a terrour to evill workes v. 3. 3. both are the Ministers of God for good 2. Though the King send and give a call to the inferiour Iudge that doth no more make the inferiour Iudges powers in nature and spece different then Ministers of the Word called by Ministers of the Word have Offices different in nature Timotheus Office to be Preacher of the Word differeth not in specie from the Office of the Presbytery which layed hands on him though their Office by extension be more then Timothies Office 3. The peoples power is put forth in those same acts when they choose one to be their King and supreame Governour and when they set up an Aristocraticall Government and choose many or more then one to be their Governours for the formall object of one or many Governours is Iustice and Religion as they are to be advanced 2. The forme and manner of their opperation is brachio seculari by a coactive power and by the sword 3. The formall acts of King and many Iudges in Aristocracy are these same the defending of the poore and needy from violence the conservation of a Community in a peaceable and a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2 Iob 29.12 13. Esay 1.17 4. These same Lawes of God that regulateth the King in all His Acts of Royall Government and tyeth and obligeth his conscience as the Lords Deputy to execute Iudgement for God and not in the stead of men in Gods Court of Heaven doth in like manner tye and oblige the conscience of Aristocraticall Iudges and all inferiour Iudges as is cleare and evident by these places 1 Tim. 2.2 not only Kings but all in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are obliged to procure that their subjects leade a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty All in conscience are obliged Deut. 1.16 to judge righteously between every man and his brother and the stranger that is with them 17. Neither are they to respect persons in judgement but are to heare the small as well as the great nor to be affraid of the face of men the judgement administred by all is Gods 2. Chro. 19.6 All are obliged to feare God Deut. 17.19.20 to keepe the words of the Law not to be lifted up in heart above their brethren Esay 1.17 Ier. 22.2 3. Let any man show me a difference according to Gods Word but in the extention that what the King is to doe as a King in all the Kingdome and whole Dominions if God give to him many as he gave to David and Solomon and Ioshua that the inferiour Iudges are to doe in such and such Circuits and limited places and I quit the cause so as the inferiour Iudges are little Kings and the King a great and delated Iudge as a compressed hand or fist and the hand stretched out in fingers and thumbe are one hand so here 4. God owneth inferiour Iudges as a congregation of Gods Ps. 82.1.2 for that God sitteth in a congregation or Senate of Kings or Monarches I shall not beleeve till I see Royalists shew to me a Common-wealth of Monarches convening in one Iudicature all are equally called Gods Ioh. 10.35 Exod. 22.8 if for any cause but because all Iudges even inferiour are the immediate Deputies of the King of Kings and their sentence in Iudgement as the sentence of the Iudge of all the earth I shall be informed by the P. Prelate when he shall answer my reasons if his interdicted Lordship may cast an eye to a poore Presbyter below and as wisedome is that by which Kings raigne Prov. 8.15 so also v. 16. by which Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth all that is said against this is That the King hath a Prerogative Royall by which he is differenced from all Iudges in Israel called jus regis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for saith Barclay The King as King essentially hath a Domination and power above all so as none can câ—nsure him or punish him but God because â—here be no thrones above his but the throne of God The Iudges of Israel 〈◊〉 Samuel Gedeon c. had no domination the dominion was in Gods hand 2. Wee may resist an inferior Iudge saith Arnisaeus otherwise there were no appeale from him and the wrong we suffer were irreparable as saith Marantius And all the Iudges of the earth saith Edw. Symmons are from God more remotely namely mediante Rege by the mediation of the Supreame even as the lesser starres have their light from God by the mediation of the Sun To the first I answer There was a difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and their Iudges no question but if it be an essentiall difference it is a question for 1. The Iudges were raised up in an extraordinary manner out of any Tribe to defend the people and vindicate their libertie God remaining their King the King by the Lords appointment was tyed after Saul to the Royall tribe of Judah till the Messiahs comming God tooke his own blessed libertie to set up a succession in the ten tribes 2. The Iudges were not by succession from father to sonne the Kings were as I conceive for the typicall eternitie of the Messiahs throne presignified to stand from generation to generation 3. Whether the Iudges were appointed by the election of the people or no some doubt because Iepthah was so made Iudge but I thinke it was not a law in Israel that it should be so but the first mould of a King Deut. 17. is by election But that God gave power of domineering that is of Tyrannizing to a King so as he cannot be resisted which he gave not to a Iudge I thinke no Scripture can make good For by what Scripture can Royalists warrant to us that the people might rise in armes to defend themselves against Moses Gideon Eli Samuel and other Iudges if they should have tyrannized over the people and that it is unlawfull to resist the most Tyrannous King in Israel and Iudah Yet Barclay and others must say this if they be true to that principle of Tyranny That the jus Regis the law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. 1 Sam. 10.25 doth essentially difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and the Iudges of Israel but we thinke God gave never any power of Tyranny to either Iudge or King of Israel and domination in that sense was by God given to none of them 2. Arnisaeus hath as little for him to say the inferior Magistrate may be resisted because we may appeale from him but the King cannot be resisted quia sanctitas Majestatis id non permittit the sanctitie of Royall majestie will not permit us to resist the King Ans. That is not Pauls argument to prove it unlawfull to resist Kings as Kings and doing their office because of the sanctitie of their Majestie that is as the
but they do not swear any oath it is true that an oath adeth nothing to a contract and promise but onely it laies on a religious tie before God yet so as consequently if the contractor violate both promise and oath he cometh under the guilt of perjury which a law of men may punish Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politique obligation as well as an oath is already proved and farther confirmed by Gal. 3.15 Though it be a mans testament or covenant no man disanulleth and addeth thereunto No man even by mans law can anull a confirmed covenant and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himself under law to fulfill his own covenant and so must the King put himself under mens law by a covenant at his Coronation Yea and David is reputed by Royallists an absolute Prince yet he cometh under a covenant before he be made King 3. It is but a weak reason to say that an oath is needlesse where no action of law can be against the King who sweareth if it have any strength of reason I retort it a legall and solemne promise then is needlesse also for there is no action of law against a King as Royalists teach if he violate his promise So then King David needlesly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation for though David should turne as bloody an enemie to the Church as Nero or Iulian the people have no Law-action against David and why then did Ieremiah seek an oath of the King of Iudah that he would not kill him nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies and why did David seek an oath of Ionathan It is not like Ieremiah and David could have law-action against a King and a Kings son if they should violate the oath of God And farther it is a begging of the question to say that the States can have no action against the king if he should violate his oath Hugo Grotius putteth seven cases in which the people may have most reall action against the King to accuse and punish him 1. They may punish the King to death for matters capitall if so it be agreed on betwixt the King and the people as in Lacedemonia 2. He may be punished as a private man 3. If the King make away a Kingdome given to him by succession his act is null and he may be resisted because the Kingdome is a life-rent onely to him Yea saith Barclay He loseth the Crown 4. He loseth his Kingdom if with a hostile mind he seek the destruction of the Kingdome 5. If such a clause be put in that if he commit felonie or doe such oppressions the Subjects shall be loosed from the bonds of subjection then the King failing thus turneth a private man 6. If the King have the one halfe or part of the Kingdome and the people or Senate the other halfe if the King prey upon that half which is not his owne he may violently be resisted for in so farre he hath not the Empire 7. If when the Crowne was given this be declared that in some cases he may be resisted then some naturall liberty is free from the Kings power and reserved in the peoples hand It is then reason that the King sweare an oath 4. That the Kings oath is but a ceremonie to please the people and that because he is king and king by birth therefore he sweareth and is crowned is in question and denyed No man is borne a king as no man is borne a subject and because the people maketh him King therefore he is to swear The councel of Toledo saith non antea conscendat regiam sedem quam iuret 2 An oath is a religious obligation no arbitrary ceremony 3. He may swear in his cabinet chamber not covenanting with the people as David and Iehoash did 4. So he maketh promises that he may be King not because he is King it were ridiculous he should promise or swear to be a just King because he is a just King and by the same reason the estates swear the oath of loyalty to the new King not that they may be loyall in all time coming but because they are loyall Subjects already for if the one half of the covenant on the Kings part be a ceremony of indulgence not of necessity by the same reason the other half of the covenant must be a ceremony of indulgence also to the people Object Arnisaeus saith a contract cannot be dissolved in law but by consent of two parties contracting because both are obliged l. ab emptione 58. in pr. de pact l. 3. de rescind vend l. 80. de solu Therefore if the subjects go from the covenant that they have made to be loyall to the King they ought to be punished Answ. A contract the conditions whereof are violated by neither side cannot be dissolved but by the joynt consent of both and in buying and selling and in all contracts unviolated the sole wil of neither side can violate the contract of this speaketh the law But I ask the Royalist if the contract betwixt the spies sent to view Iericho and Rahab the harlot had not been null and the spies free from any obligation if Rahab had neglected to keep within doors when Iericho was taken though Rahab and the spies had never consented expresly to break the covenant We hâ—ld that the law saith with us that vassals lose their farme if they pay not what is due Now what are Kings but vassals to the State who if they turne Tyrants fall from their Right Arnisaeus saith in the councell of Toledo 4. c. 74. The subjects ask from the King that Kings would be meek and just not upon the ground of a voluntarie Contract and Paction but because God shall rejoice in King and People by so doing Answ. These two do no more fight one with another then that two Marchants should keep faith one to another both because God hath said he shall dwell in Gods mountaine who sweareth and covenanteth and standeth to his oath covenant though to his losse hurt Psa. 15. and also because they made their covenant and contract thus and thus Arnisaeus 16. Every Prince is subject to God but not as a vassal for a Master may commit felonie and lose the proprietie of his farme can God do so The Master cannot take the farme from the vassal without an expresse cause legally deduced but cannot God take what he hath given but by a law-Processe a vassall can intitle to himself a farme against the Masters will as some jurists say but can a Prince intitle a kingdom to himself against the God of heavens will though we grant the comparison yet the subjects have no law over the Kings because the coercive power of the vassal is in the Lord of the manner the punishing of Kings belongeth to God Answ. We compare not the lord of a mannor and the Lord of Heaven together all these
absolute power is essentially a power to do without or above Law and a power to doe ill to destroy and so it cannot come from God as a Morall power by institution though it come from God by a flux of permissive providence but so things unlawfull and sinfull come from God Quest. 7. Whether the King may in his actions intend his owne Prerogative and Absolutenes Answ. He can neither intend it as his nearest end nor as his remote end Not the former for if he fight and destroy his People for a Prerogative he destroyeth his People that he may have a power to destroy them which must be meere Tyranny nor can it be his remote end for granting that his supposed absolute Prerogative were lawfull he is to referre all lawfull Power and all his actions to a more noble end to wit to the safetie and good of the People Quest. 8. Doe not they that resist the Parliaments power resist the Parliament And they that resist the Kings power resist the King God hath joyned King and Power who dare seperate them Answ. If the Parliament abuse their power we may resist their abused power and not their power Parliamentarie Mr. Bridges doth well distinguish in his Annot. on the Loyall Convert betwixt the Kings power and the Kings will 2. The Resisters doe not separate King and Power but the King himselfe doth separate his lawfull Power from his Will if he worke and act Tyrannie out of this principle Will Passion Lust not out of the Royall principle of Kingly power So far we may resist the one and not the other Quest. 9. Why if God might work a miracle in the three Childrens resistance active why doth he evidence omnipotencie in the passive obedience of these Witnesses The Kingdome of Iudah was Christs birthright as man and Davids sonne why did he not by legions of Men Angels rather vindicate his own flesh and blood than triumph by non-resistance and the omnipotencie of glorie to shine in his meere suffering Ans. Who art thou that disputest with God He that killeth with the jaw-bone of an Asse thousands and he that destroyed the numberlesse Midianites by only three hundred should no more put the three Children to an unlawfull fact in the one if they had by three men killed Nebuchadnezzar and all his Subjects than in the other But nothing is said against us in a Sophisme à non-causa pro causa except it be proved God would neither deliver his three Children nor Christ from death and the Iewes from bondage by miraculous resistance because resistance is unlawfull What patient suffring is lawfull Ergo resistance is unlawfull It is a poor consequent and a begging of the question both must be lawfull to us And so we hold of ten lawfull meanes fit to compasse Gods blessed end he may choose one and let goe nine shall any inferre ergo These other nine meanes are unlawfull because God chose a mean dâ—fferent from those ninâ— and refused them So may I answer by retortion The three hundred sinned in resisting Midian and defeating them Why Because it should be more honour to God if they had by suffering patiently the sword of Midian glorified God in Martyrdome So Christ and the Apostles who could have wrought miracles might have wrought Reformation by the sword and destroyed Kings and Emperors the opposers of the Lambe and they did reforme by suffering Ergo the sword is unlawfull in Reformation It followeth not The meane Christ used is lawfull Ergo all other meanes that he used not are unlawfull It is vaine Logick Quest. 10. Whether is the Coronation of a King any other thing but a Ceremonie Ans. In the Coronation there is and may be the Ceremonie of a shout and an Acclamation and the reaching of a Scepter in his right hand who is made King and the like But the Coronation in concreto according to the substance of the act is no Ceremonie nor any accidentall ingredient in the constitution of a King 1. Because Israel should have performed a meere ceremoniall action on Saul when they made him King which we cannot say for as the Peoples act of Coronation is distinctive so is it constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and did constitute him in a new relation that he was changed from no King to be a King 2. The people cannot by a Ceremonie make a King they must really put some honour on him that was not on him before Now this Ceremonie which Royalists doe fancie Coronation to be is only symbolicall and declarative not really dative it placeth nothing in the King Quest. 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King it being the immediate result without intervening of Law or any act of man issuing from God only Ans. Though we should give which in reason we cannot grant that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God without any act of man Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle without any act of men yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power that he abuse it not to Iudaizing Royalists deny not but they teach That the 80. Priests that restrained Vzziah his power from burning incense to the Lord gave no Royall power to Vzziah Doe not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power that he kill not the subjects without cause yet they teach That subjects gave no power to the King certainly this is a proofe of the immense power of the King of Kings that none can fly from his pursuing hand Ps. 139.1 2 3. Amos 9.1 2 3 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings Nebuchadnezzar as Royalists teach might justly conquer some Kingdomes for conquest is a just title to the Crowne say they now the Conquerour then justly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him yet we know the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King Ioshua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave and therefore this is no good reason The people gave not to the King Royall Power ergo they could not lawfully limit it and take it away 2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly without the intervention of any Act of Law for it is an Act of Law that Deut. 17. the people chooseth such a King not such a King that the people by a legall covenant make Saul David and Joash Kings and that God exerciseth any politicall action of making a King over such subjects upon such a condition is absurd and inconceivable for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jsrael upon this politicall and legall condition that they rule in Iustice and Judgement but there must intervene a politicall action and so they are not made Kings immediatly If God feed Moses by bread and Manna
rise up and defend themselves Obj. 7. Here the Prelate borrowing from Grotius Barclay Arnisaus or it s possible he be not so farre travelled for Doct. Ferne hath the same Soveraignty weakned in Aristocracy cannot doe its worke and is in the next place to Anarchy and confusion When Zedekiah was over Lorded by his Nobles he could neither save himselfe nor the people nor the Prophet the servant of God Ieremiah nor could David punish Ioab when he was over-awed by that power he himselfe had put in his hand To weaken the head is to distemper the whole body if any good Prince or his Royall Antecessors be cheated of their sacred right by fraud or force he may at his fittest opportunity resume it What a sinne is it to rob God or the King of their due Ans. Aristocracy is no lesse an ordinance of God then Royalty for Rom. 13.1 and 1 Tim. 2.1 All in Authority are to be acknowledged as Gods Vice-gerents the Senate the Consuls as well as the Emperour And so one ordinance of God cannot weaken another nor can any but by a lawlesse Animall say Aristocracy bordereth with confusion but he must say Order and Light are sister Germanes to confusion and darknesse 2 Though Zedekiah a man voyd of God were over-awed with his Nobles and so could not help Ieremiah it followeth not that because Kings may not do this and this good therefore they are to be invested with power to doe all ill if they doe all the good that they have power to doe they 'l finde way to helpe the oppressed Jeremiahes and because power to doe both good and evill is given by the Divell to our Scottish Witches it s a poore consequent that the States should give to the King power absolute to be a Tyrant 3. A State must give a King more power then ordinary especially to execute Laws which requireth singular wisdom when a Prince cannot alwayes have his great Councell about with him to advise him But 1. That is power borrowed and by loan and not properly his own and therefore it is no sacriledge in the States to resume what the King hath by a fiduciary Title and borrowed from them 2. This power was given to do good not evill David had power over Joab to punish him for his murther but he executed it not upon carnall fears and abused his power to kill innocent Vriah which power neither God nor the States gave him But how proveth he the States took power from David or that Ioab took power from David to put to death a murtherer that I see not 3. If Princes power to do good be taken from them they may resume it when God giveth opportunity But this is to the Prelate Perjury that the people by Oath give away their power to their King and resume it when he abuseth it to Tyranny But it is no perjurie in the King to resume a taken away power which if it be his own is yet lis sub judice a great controversie Quod in Cajo licet in Nevio non licet So he teacheth the King That Perjurie and Sacriledge is lawfull to him If Princes power to do ill and cut the whole Land off as one neck which was the wicked desire of Caligula be taken from them by the States I am sure 1. This power was never theirs and never the peoples and you cannot take the Princes power from him which was never his power 2. I am also sure the Prince should never resume an unjust power though he were cheated of it P. Prelate It is a poor shift to acknowledge no more for the Royall Prerogative then the Municipall Law hath determined as some smatterers in the Law say They cannot distinguish betwixt a Statute Declarative and a Statute Constitutive but the Statutes of a Kingdom do declare onely what is the Prerogative Royall but do not constitute or make it God Almightie hath by himself constituted it It is laughter to say the Decalogue was not a Law till God wrote it Answ. Here a profound Lawyer calleth all smatters in the Law who cannot say that non ens a Prerogative Royall that is a power contrary to God and mans Law to kill and destroy the innocent came not immediately down from Heaven but I professe my self no Lawyer but do maintain against the Prelate that no Municipall Law can constitute a power to do ill nor can any Law either justly constitute or declare such a fancie as a Prerogative Royall so far is it from being like the Decalogue that is a Law before it be written that this Prerogative is neither Law before it be written nor after Court Placebo's have written for it for it must be eternall as the Decalogue if it have any blood from so noble a house 2. In what Scripture hath God Almightie spoken of a fancied Prerogative Royall P. Prelate Prerogative resteth not in its naturall seat but in the King God saith Reddite not Date render to Kings that which is Kings not give to Kings it shall never be well with us if his annointed and his Church be wronged Answ. The Prelate may remember a Countrey Proverb He and his Prelates called the Church the scum of men not the Church are like the Tinkers dogs they like good company they must be ranked with the King And 2. Here a false Prophet It shall never be well with the Land while Arbitrary power and Popery be erected saith he in good sense P. â—â—elate The King hath his right from God and cannot make it away to the people Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars Kings persons their Charge their Right their Authority their Prerogative are by Scriptures Fathers Iurists Sacred inseparable Ordinances inherent in their Crowns they cannot be made away and when they are given to inferiour Judges it is not ad minuendam majestatem sed solicitudinem to lessen Soveraign Majesty but to ease them Answ. The King hath his right from God What then not from the people I read in Scripture The people made the King Never That the King made the people 2. All these are inseparably in the Crown but he stealeth in Prerogative Royall in the clause which is now in question Render to Caesar all Caesars And therefore saith he Render to him a Prerogative that is an absolute power to pardon and sell the blood of thousands Is power of blood either the Kings or inherent inseparably in his Crown Alas I fear Prelates have made blood an inseparable accident of his Throne 3. When Kings by that publike power given to them at their Coronation maketh inferiour Iudges they give them power to judge for the Lord not for men Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 Now they cannot both make away a power and keep it also for the inferiour Iudges conscience hangeth not at the Kings girdle he hath no lesse power to judge in his sphere then the King hath in his sphere though the Orb and circle
positive covenant made with him To finde out the essentiall difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant We are to observe that it is one thing to sin against a man another thing against a Stat◠David killing Vriah committed an act of murther But on this supposition that David is not punished for that murther he did not so sin against the State and Catholike good of the State that he turneth Tyrant and ceaseth to be a lawfull King A Tyrant is he who habitually sinneth against the Catholike good of the Subjects and State and subverteth Law Such a one should not be as Jason of whom it is said by Aeneas Silvius Graviter ferebat si non regnaret quasi nesciret esse privatus When such as are monstrous Tyrants are not taken away by the Estates God pursueth them in wrath Domitian was killed by his own Family his wife knowing of it Aurelianus was killed with a thunder-bolt Darius was drowned in a River Dioclesian fearing death poysoned himself Salerius died eaten with Worms The end of Herod and Antiochus Maxentius was swallowed up in a standing River Iulian died being stricken through with a Dart thrown at him by a man or an Angel it is not known Valens the Arian was burnt with fire in a little Village by the Gothes Anastasius the Eutychian Emperour was stricken by God with thunder Gundericus Vandalus when he rose against the Church of God being apprehended by the Divell died Some time the State have taken order with Tyrants The Empire was taken from Vitellius Heliogabalus Maximinus Didius Iulianus So was the two Childerici of France served So were also Sigebertus Dagabertus and Lodowick the 11. of France Christiernus of Denmark Mary of Scotland who killed her husband and raised Forces against the Kingdom So was Henricus Valesius of Pol for fleeing the Kingdom Sigismundus of Pol for violating his faith to the States QUEST XXV What force the Supreme Law hath over the King even that Law of the Peoples safetie called Salus Populi THe Law of the 12. Tables is Salus populi Suprema lex The safetie of the People is the supreme and Cardinall law to which all Lawes are to stoope And that from these Reasons 1. Originally Because if the People be the first Author Fountaine and Efficient under God of Law and King then their own safetie must be principally sought and their safetie must be farre above the King as the safetie of a Cause especially of an universall Cause such as is the People must be more then the safetie of one as Aristotle saith l. 3. polit alias l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The part cannot be more excellent then the whole nor the effect above the cause 2. Finaliter This Supreme law must stand for if all Law Policie Magistrates and Power be referred to the peoples good as the end Rom. 13.4 and to their quiet and peaceable life in godlinesse and honestie then must this Law stand as of more worth then the King as the end is of more worth then the meanes leading to the end for the end is the measure and rule of the goodnesse of the meane and finis ultimus in influxu est potentissimus The King is good because he conduceth much for the safetie of the People Ergo the safetie of the people must be better 3. By way of limitation Because no Law in its letter hath force where the safetie of the Subject is in hazard and if Law or King be destructive to the people they are to be abolished This is cleare in a Tyrant or a wicked man 4. In the desires of the most holy Moses a Prince desired for the safetie of Gods people and rather then God should destroy his people that his name should be razed out of the booke of life And David saith 1 Chron. 21.17 Let thine hand I pray thee O Lord my God be on me and on my fathers house but not on thy people that they should be plagued This being a holy desire of these two publick Spirits the object must be in it selfe true and the safetie of Gods people and their happinesse must be of more worth then the salvation of Moses and the life of David and his Fathers house The Prelate borroweth an answer to this for he hath none of his own from D. Ferne. The safetie of the Subjects is the prime end of the constitution of Government but it is not the sole and adequate end of government in Monarchie for that is the safetie of both King and People And it beseemeth the King to proportion his lawes for their good and it becommeth the People to proportion all their obedience actions and endeavours for the safetie honour and happinesse of the King It 's impossible the people can have safetie when Soveraigntie is weakened Ans. The Prelate would have the other halfe of the end why a King is set over a People to be the safetie and happinesse of the King as well as the safetie of the People This is new Logick indeed that one and the same thing should be the meane and the end The question is For what end is a King made so happy as to be exalted King The Prelate answereth He is made happy that he may be happy and made a King that he may be made a King Now is the King as King to intend this halfe end that is Whether or no accepteth he the burden of setting his head and shoulders under the Crowne for this end that he may not only make the people happy but also that he may make himselfe rich and honorable above his brethren and enrich himselfe I beleeve not but that he feed the people of God For if he intend himselfe and his own honour it is the intention of the man who is King and intentio operantis but it is not the intention of the King as the King or intentio operis The King as a King is formally and essentially the Minister of God for our good Rom. 13.4 1 Tim. 2.2 and cannot come under any notion as a King but as a mean not as an end nor as that which he is to seeke himselfe I conceive God did forbid this in the moulding of the first King Deut. 17.18 19 26. He is a minister by office and one who receiveth honour and wages for this worke that ex officio he may feed his people But the Prelate saith the people are to intend his riches and honour I cannot say but the people may intend to honour the King but that is not the question whether the people be to referre the King and his government as a meane to honour the King I conceive not But that end which the people in obeying the King in being ruled by him may intend is 1 Tim. 2.2 That under him they may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie And Gods end in giving a King is the good and safetie of
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