disposed of by the composed contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God Hos 13. 11. I gave them a King in my anger I tooke him away in my wrath Iob He places Kings in the throne c. Ans Here is a whole Chapter of seven pages for one raw argument ten times before repeated 1. to Exod. 9. 7. I have raised up Pharaoh Paul expoundeth it Rom. 9. to prove that King Pharaoh was a vessell of wrath fitted for destruction by Gods absolute Will and the Prelate following Arminius with treasonable charity applyeth this to our King Can this man pray for the King 2. Elisha anoynted but constituted not Hazael King and foretold he should be King and if he be a King of Gods making who slew his sicke Prince and invaded the Throne by innocent bloud judge you I would not take Kings of the Prelates making 3. If God give to Nebuchadnezer the same still of the servant of God given to David Ps 18. 1. 116. 16. and to Moses Ios 1 2. all Kings because Kings are men according to Gods heart Why is not royalty then founded on grace Nebuchadnezer was not otherwise his servant then he was the hammer of the earth and a tyrannous conquerour of the Lords people and all the Heathen Kings are called Kings But how came they to their Thrones for the most part as David and Hezekiah but God anointed them not by his Prophets they came to their Kingdomes by the peoples election or by blood and rapine the latter way is no ground to you to deny Athaliah to be a lawfull Princesse she and Abimelech were lawfull Princes and their soveraignty as immediatly and independently from God as the soveraignty of many heathen Kings See then how justly Athaliah was killed as a bloody usurper of the throne this would licence your brethren the Iesuites to stab heathen Kings whom you will have as well Kings as the Lords anointed though Nebuchadnezer many of them made their way to the Throne against all Law of God and man through a bloudy patent 4. Cyrus is Gods anointed and his Shepheard too ergo his Arbitrary government is a soveraignty immediatly depending on God and above all Law it is a wicked consequence 5. God named him neare a hundreth yeare ere he was borne God named and designed Judas very individually and named the Asse that Christ should ride on to Ierusalem Zach. 9. 9. some moe hundred yeares then one What will the Prelate make them independent Kings for that 6. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will What then this will prove Kingdomes to be as independent and immediatly from God as Kings are for as God giveth Kings to Kingdomes so he giveth Kingdomes to Kings and no doubt he giveth Kingdoms to whom he will so he giveth Prophets Apostles Pastors to whom he will and he giveth tyrannous conquests to whom he will and it is Nebuchadnezer to whom Daniel speaketh that from the Lord and he had no just title to many Kingdomes especially to the Kingdome of Iudah which yet God the King of Kings gave to him because it was his good pleasure and if God had not commanded them by the mouth of his Prophet Ieremiah might they not have risen and with the sword have vindicated themselves and their own liberty no lesse then they lawfully by the sword vindicated themselves from under Moab Iudges 3. from under Iabin Iaakin King of Canaan who twenty yeares mightily oppressed the children of Israel Iudges 4. now this P. Prelate by all these instances making Heathen Kings to be Kings by as good a title as David and Hezekiah condemneth the people of God as rebells if being subdued and conquered by the Turke and Spanish King they should by the sword recover their owne liberty and that Israel and the saviours which God raised to them had not warrant from the law of nature to vindicate themselves to liberty which was taken from them violently and unjustly by the sword but from all this it shall well follow that the tyranny of bloudy conquerours is immediatly and only dependent from God no lesse then lawfull soveraignty for Nebuchadnezers soveraignty over the people of God and many other Kingdomes also was revenged of God as tyranny Ier. 50. 6. 7. and therefore the vengeance of the Lord and the vengeance of his Temple came upon him and his land Ier. 50. 16 17. 18. 28 29. 30. It is true the people of God were commanded of God to submit to the King of Babylon to serve him and to pray for him and to doe on the contrary was rebellion but this was not because the King of Babylon was their King and because the King of Babylon had a command of God so to bring under his yoak the people of God So Christ had a Commandement to suffer the death of the Crosse Iohn 10. 18. but had Herod and Pilate any warrant to crucifie him none at all 7. He saith Royalties even of Heathen Kings are not disposed of by the composed Contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God But the Contracts of men to give a Kingdome to a person which a Heathen community may lawfully doe and so by contract dispose of a Kingdom is not opposite to the immediate hand of God appointing Royalty and Monarchy at his owne blessed liberty Lastly he saith God tooke away Saul in his wrath but I pray you did God onely doe it then had Saul because a King a Patent Royall from God to kill himselfe for so God tooke him away and we are rebells by this if we suffer not the King to kill himselfe Well pleaded QUEST VI. Whether the King be so from God onely both in regard of his Soveraignty and of the designation of his person to the Crown as that he is no waies from the people but by meere approbation Dr. Ferne a man much for Monarchy saith Though Monarchy hath its excellency being first set up of God in Moses yet neither Monarchy Aristocracy nor any other forme is jure divino but we say saith he the power it selfe or that sufficiency of authority to governe that is in a Monarchy or Aristocracy abstractly considered from the qualification of other formes is a flux and constitution subordinate to that providence an ordinance of that Dixi or silent word by which the world was made and shall be governed under God This is a great debasing of the Lords anoynted for so soveraignty hath no warrant in Gods Word formally as it is such a government but is in the world by providence as sin is and as the falling of a Sparrow to the ground whereas Gods Word hath not onely commanded that government should be but that fathers and mothers should be 2. and not only that politick Rulers should be but also Kings by name and other Iudges Aristocraticall should be Rom. 13. 3. Deut. 17. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 17. Prov. 24. 21. Prov. 15. 16. 3. If
to be Pastor should not be from the Church and from men as the Prelate denyeth that either the constitution or designation of the King is from the people but from God onely 2. I beleeve the infusion of the spirit of God upon the Iudges will not prove that Kings are now both constituted and designed of God solely onely and immediatly for the Iudges were indeed immediatly and for the most part extraordinarily raised up of God and God indeed in the time of the Iewes was the King of Israel in another manner then he was the King of all the nations and is the King of Christian Realmes now and therefore the peoples despising of Samuel was a refusing that God should reigne over them because God in the Iudges revealed himselfe even in matters of Policy as what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day and the like as he doth not now to Kings P. Prelate Soveraigntie is a ray of divine glory and majestie but this cannot be found in people whether you consider them joyntly or singly if you consider them singly it cannot be in every individuall man for Sectaries say That all are born equall with a like freedom and if it be not in the people singly it cannot be in them joyntly for all the contribution in this compact and contract which they fancie to be humane composition and voluntary constitution is onely by a surrender of the native right that every one had in himself from whence then can this majestie and authoritie be derived Again where the obligation amongst equals is by contract and compact violation of the faith plighted in the contract cannot in proper termes be called disobedience or contempt of authoritie it is no more but a receding from and a violation of that which was promised as it may be in States or Counties confederate Nature reason conscience scripture teach That disobedience to Soveraign power is not onely a violation of Truth breach of Covenant but also high disobedience and contempt as is clear 1 Sam. 10. 26. So when Saul Chap. 11. sent a yoak of Oxen hewed in pieces to all the Tribes the fear of the Lord fell on the people and they came out with one consent 1 Sam. 11. 17. so Job 11. 18. He looseth the bonds of Kings that is he looseth their authoritie and bringeth them in contempt and he girdeth there loyns with a girdle that is he strengthneth their authoritie and maketh the people to reverence them Heathens observe that there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some divine thing in Kings Prophane Histories say that this was so eminent in Alexander the great that it was a terrour to his enemies and a powerfull Loadstone to draw men to compose the most seditious Counsels and cause his most experienced Commanders embrace and obey his counsel and command Some stories write that upon some great exigence there was some resplendent majestic in the eyes of Scipio This kept Pharoah from lifting his hand against Moses who charged him so boldly with his sins When Moses did speak with God face to face in the Mount this resplendent glory of Majestie so awed the people that they durst not behold his glory Exod. 34. This repressed the fury of the people enraged against Gideon from destroying their idol Judg. 6. And the fear of man is naturally upon all living creatures below Gen. 9. So what can this reverence which is innate in the hearts of all subjects toward their Soveraigns be but the Ordinance unrepealable of God and the naturall effect of that majestie of Princes with which they are endowed with from above Ans 1. I never heard any shadow of reason while now and yet because the lie hath a latitude here is but a shadow which the Prelate stole from M. Antonius de Dominis Archiepisc Spalatensis and I may say confidently this Plagiarius hath not one line in his booke which is not stollen and for the present Spalato his argument is but spilt and the nerves cut from it while it is both bleeding and famed Let the Reader compare them and I pawn my credit he hath ignorantly clipped Spalato But I answer 1. Soveraigntie is a beam and ray as Spalato saith of divine majestie and is not either formally or virtually in the people So he It is false that it is not virtually in the people for there be two things in the Iudge either inferior or supream for the argument holdeth in the majestie of a Parliament as we shall hear 1. The gift or grace of Governing the Arminian Prelate will offend at this 2. The Authority of governing 1. The gift is supernaturall and is not in man naturally and so not in the King for he is physically but a mortall man and this is a gift received for Salomon asked it by prayer from God There is a capacitie passive in all individuall men for it as for the officiall authoritie it self it is virtually in all in whom any of gods image is remaining since the fall as is clear as may be gathered from Gen. 1. 28. yea the Father the Master the Judge have it by Gods institution in some measure over son servant and subject though it be more in the supreme Ruler and for our purpose it is not requisite that authoritative majestie should be in all What is in the Father and Husband I hope to clear I mean it needeth not to be formally in all and so all are born alike and equall But he who is a Papist a Socinian an Arminian and therefore delivered to Satan by his mother Church must be the Sectarie for we are where this Prelate left us maintainers of the Protestant Religion continued in the Confession of Faith and Nationall Covenant of Scotland when this Demas forsook us and embraced the World 2. Though not on single man in Israel be a Judge or King by nature nor have in them formally any ray of Royaltie or of Magistraticall Authoritie yet it followeth not that Israel Parliamentarily convened hath no such authoritie as to make Saul King in Mizpah and David King in Hebron 1 Sam. 10. 24 25. 1 Chro. 11. 1 2. Chap. 12. 38 39. One man alone hath not the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven as the Prelate dreameth But it followeth not that many convened in a Church way hath not this power Matth. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4. One man hath not strength to fight against an Army of ten thousand doth it follow Ergo An Army of twenty thousand hath not strength to fight against these ten thousand So one Paul cannot Synodically determine the question Acts 15. It followeth not Ergo The Apostles and Elders and Brethren convened from divers Churches hath not power to determine it in a lawfull Synod And therefore from a disjoyned and scattered power no man can argue to a united power So not any one man is an inferiour Ruler or hath the rayes and beams of a number of
1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother Caâ—n ought in his place to be the keeper of Abel his brother So hath God committed the keeping of the Commonwealth by a positive law not to the King only because that is impossible Num. 11. 14 17. 2 Chron. 19. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Chron. 27. 4. If the King had such a power as King and so from God he should have power to breake up the meeting of all Courts of Parliament Secret Councell and all inferior Iudicatures And when the Congregation of gods as Ps 82. in the midst of which the Lord standeth were about to pronounce just judgement for the oppressed and poere they might be hindred by the King and so they should be as just as the King maketh them and might pervert judgement and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Esa 5. 23. because the King commandeth And the cause of the poore should not come before the Iudge when the King so commandeth And shall it excuse the Estates to say We could not judge the cause of the poore nor crush the Priests of Baal and the idolatrous Masse-Preltes because the King forbad us So might the King breake up the meeting of the Lords of Session when they were to decerne that Naboths vineyard should be restored to him and hinder the States to represse Tyranny And this were as much as if the States should say We made this man our King and with our good will we agree he shall be a Tyrant For if God gave it to him as a King we are to consent that he enjoy it 5. If Barclay and other flatterers have leave to make the Parliament but Counsellers and Advisers of the King and the King to be the only and sole Iudge 1. The King is by that same reason the sole Iudge in relation to all Iudges the contrary whereof is cleere Num. 11. 16. Deut 1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Yea but say they the King when he sendeth an Ambassadour he may tye him to a written Commission and in so far as he exceedeth that he is not an Ambassadour and cleare it is that all inferiour Iudges 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. are but sent by the King ergo they are so Iudges as they are but messengers and are to adhere to the Royall pleasure of the Prince that sent them Ans 1. The Ambassadour is not to accept an unjust Ambassage that fighteth with the Law of nature 2. The Ambassadour and the Iudge differ the Ambassadour is the King and States Deputy both in his call to the Ambassage and also in the matter of the Ambassage for which cause he is not to transgresse what is given to him in Writ as a Rule but the inferiour Iudges and the high Court of Parliament though they were the Kings Deputies as the Parliament is in no sort his Deputy but he their Deputy Royall yet it is only in respect of their call not in respect of the matter of their Commission for the King may send the Iudge to judge in generall according to the Law and Iustice and Religion but he cannot depute the sentence and command the conscience of the Judge to prononnce such a sentence not such the inferiour Iudge in the act of judging is as independent and his conscience as immediatly subject to God as the King therefore the King owes to every sentence his approbative suffrage as King but not his either directive suffrage nor his imperative suffrage of absolute pleasure 6. If the King should sell his Country and bring in a forraigne Army the estates are to convene to take course for the safety of the Kingdome 7. If David exhort the Princes of Israel to helpe King Solomon in governing the Kingdome in building the Temple 2 Chron. 32. 3. Ezechiah tooke counsell with his Princes and his mighty men in the matter of holding off the Assyrians who were to invade the Land if David 1 Chron. 13. 1 2 3 4. consult with the Captaines of thousands and hundreds to bring the Arke of God to Kireath jearim if Solomon 1 King 8. 1. Assemble the Elders of Israel and all the Heads of the Tribes and the chief of the fathers to bring the Arke of the Tabernacle to the congregation of the Lord. And Achab gather together the States of Israel in a matter that nearely concerned Religion If the Elders and people 1 King 20. 8. counsell and decree that King Achab should hearken to Benhadad King of Syria and if Ahasuerus make no Decrees but with consent of his Princes Ester 1. 21. nor Darius any Act without his Nobles and Princes if Hamor and Schechem Genes 34. 20. would not make a Covenant with Iacobs Sons without the consent of the men of the City and Ephron the Hittite would not sell Abraham a buriall place in his Land without the consent of the children of Heth Gen. 23. 10. Then must the estates have a power of judging with the King or Prince in matters of Religion Iustice and Government which concerne the whole Kingdome but the former is true by the Records of Scripture ergo so is the latter 8. The men of Ephraim complaine that Iephtah had gone to warre against the children of Ammon without them and hence rose warre betwixt the men of Ephraim and the men of Gilead Iud. 12. 1 2 3. and the men of Israel â—iercely contend with the men of Iudah because they brought King David home againe without them pleading that they were therein dispised 2 Sam. 19. 41 42 43. which evinceth that the whole States have hand in matters of publick government that concerne all the Kingdome and when there is no King Iudg. 20. The chiefe of the people and of all the Tribes goe out in battell against the children of Benjamin 9. These who make the King and so have power to unmake him in the case of Tyranny must be above the King in power of Government but the Elders and Princes made both David and Saul Kings 10. There is not any who say that the Princes and people 1 Sam. 14. did not right in rescuing innocent Ionathan from death against the Kings Will and his Law 11. The speciall ground of Royalists is to make the King the absolute supreame giving all life and
be Now the acts of a Tyrannicall power are acts of sinfull unjustice and oppression and cannot be from God 3. Polititians say There is no power in Rulers to doe ill but to helpe and defend the people as the power of a Physiâ—ian to destroy of a Pilot to cast away the ship on a Rock the power of a Tutor to wast the inheritance of the Orphan and the power of father and mother to kill their children and of the mighty to defraud and oppresse are not powers from God So Ferdinand Vasquez illustr quest l. 1. c. 26. c. 45. Pruckman d. c. 3. § Soluta potestas Althus pol. cap. 9. n. 25. Barclaim Grotius Doct. Ferne The P. Prelates wit could come up tÌ„o it say That absolute power to do ill so as no mortall man can lawfully resist it is from God and the King hath this way power from God as no subject â—an resist it but he must resist the Ordinance of God and yet the power of tyranny is not simply from God Answ The Law saith Illud possumus quod jure possumus Papinus F. filius D. de cond Just The Law saith It is no power which is not lawfull power The Royalists say power of Tyranny in so farre as it may be resisted and is punishable by men is not from God but what is the other part of the distinction it must be that Tyrannicall power is simpliciter from God or in it self it is from God but as it is punishable or restrainable by subjects it is not from God now to be punishable by subjects is but an accident and tyrannicall power is the subject yea and it is an separable accident for many Tyrants are never punished and their power is never restrained such a Tyrant was Saul and many persecuting Emperours Now if the Tyrannicall power it self was from God the argument is yet valid and remaineth unanswered and shall not this fall to the ground as false which Arnisaeus de autho princ c. 2. n. 10. Dum contra officium facit Magistratus non est Magistratus quippe a quo non injuria sed jus nasci debeat l. meminerint 6. C. unde vi din. in C. quod quis 24. n. 4 5. Et de hoâ— neminem dubitare aut dissentire scribit Marant disp 1. num 14. When the Magistrate doth by violence and without law any thing in so farre doing against his Office he is not a Magistrate then say I that power by which he doth is not of God 2. None doeth then resist the Ordinance of God who resist the King in Tyrannous acts 2. If the power as it cannot be punished by the subject nor restrained be from God Ergo the Tyrannicall power itself and without this accident that it can be punished by men it must be from God also but the conclusion is absurd and denied by Royalists I prove the connexion For if the King have such a power above all restraint the power itself to wit King Davids power to kill innocent Vriah and defloor Bathshebah without the accident of being restrained or punished by men is either from God or not from God if it be from God it must be a power against the sixth and seventh Commandment which God gave to David and not to any subject and so David lied when he confessed this sin and this sin cannot be pardoned because it was no sin and Kings because Kings are under no tye of duties of mercy and truth and justice to their subjects contrary to that which Gods Law requireth of all Judges Deut. 1. 15 16 17. and 17. 15 16 17 18 19 20. 2 Chro. 19. 6 7. Rom. 13. 3 4. If this power be from God as it is unrestrainable and unpunishable by the subject it is not from God at all for how can God give a power to do ill that is unpunishable by men and not give that power to do ill it is unconceiveable For in this very thing that God giveth to David a power to murther the innocent with this respect That it shall be punishable by God onely and not by men God mâ—st give it as a sinfull power to do ill which must be a power of dispensation to sin and so not to be punished by either God or man which is contrary to his revealed will in his word If such a power as not restrainable by man be from God by way of permission as a power to sin in divels and men is then it is no Royall power nor any Ordinance of God and to resist this power is not to resist the Ordinance of God Argum. 4. That power which maketh the benefit of a King to be no benefit but a judgement of God as a making all the people slaves such as were slaves amongst the Romans and Jews is not to be asserted by any Christian but an absolute power to do ill and to Tyrannize which is supposed to be an essentiall and constitutive of Kings to difference them from all Judges maketh the benefit of a King no benefit but a judgement of God as making all the people slaves That the major may be clear It is evident to have a King is a blessing of God because to have no King is a judgement Judg. 17. 6. Every man doth what seemeth good in his own eyes Judg. 18. 1. and 19. 1. and 21. 25. 2. So it is a part of Gods good providence to provide a King for his people 1 Sam. 16. 1. so 2 Sam. 5. 12. And David perceived that the Lord had established him King over Israel and that he had exalted his Kingdom for his people Israels sake 2 Sam. 15. 2 3 6. 2 Sam. 18. 3. Rom. 13. 2 3 4. If the King be a thing good in it self then can he not actu primo be a curse and a judgement and essentially a bondage and slavery to the people also the genuine and intrinsecall end of a King is the good Rom. 13. 4. and the good of a quiet a peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. and he is by Office custos utriusque tabulae whose genuine end is to preserve the law from violence and to defend the subject he is the peoples debtor for all happynesse possible to be procured by Gods sword either in peace or war at home or abroad For the assumption it is evident An absolute and Arbitrary power is a King-law such as Royalists say God gave to Saul 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. and 10. 25. to play the Tyrant and this power Arbitrary and unlimited above all Laws is that which 1. Is given of God 2. Distinguisheth essentially the Kings of Israel from the Iudge â—aith Banclay Grotius Arnisaeus 3. A constitutive form of a King therefore it must be actu primo a benefit and a blessing of God but if God hath given any such power absolute to a King as 1. His will must be a law either to do or suffer all the Tyranny and cruelty of a Tyger
Land to defend their aged Parents and young children from these invaders and if the sixt Commandement lay on us the like bond all the Land are to act works of mercy and charity though the King unjustly command the contrary except Royalists say that we are not to performe the duties of the second Table commanded by God if an earthly King forbid us and if we exercise not acts of mercy toward our brethren when their life is in hazard to save them wee are murtherers and so men may murther their neighbour if the King command them so to doe this is like the Court-faith 2. The Kings power of warres is for the safety of his people if he deny his consent to their raising of Armes till they be destroyed he playeth the Tyrant not the King and the law of Nature will necessitate them either to defend themselves seeing flight of all in that case is harder then death else they must be guilty of self-murther Now the Kings commandement of not rising in Armes at best is positive and against the nature of his Office and it floweth then from him as from a man and so must be farre inferiour to the naturall Commandement of God which commandeth self-preservation if wee would not be guilty of self-murther and of obeying men rather then God So Althusius Polit. c. 25. n. 9. Halicarnas l. 4. Antiq. Rom. Aristo Pol. l. 3. c. 3. 3. David tooke Goliahs sword and became a Captaine a Captaine to an hoast of armed men in the battaile and fought the battailes of the Lord 1 Sam. 25. 28. and this Abigal by the spirit of prophecy as I take it saith ver 29 30 31. 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 1. 2. 3. 17. 18. 21. 22. not onely without Sauls consent but against King Saul as he was a man but not against him as hee was King of Israel 4. If there be no King or the King be minor or an usurper as Athalia be on the Throne the Kingdome may lawfully make war without the King as Iudges cap. 20. The children of Israel foure hundred thousand footemen that drew sword went out to warre against the children of Benjamin Iudah had the power of the sword when Iosiah was but eight yeares old in the beginning of his reigne 2 King 22. 1 2. and before Iehoash was crowned King and while he was minor 2 King 11. there were Captaines of hundreds in armes raised by Iehoiada and the people of Iudah to defend the young King It cannot be said that this is more extraordinary then that it is extraordinary for Kings to die and in the interregnum warres in an ordinary providence may fall out in these Kingdoms where Kings goe by election and for Kings to fall to be Minors Captives Tyrannous And I shall be of that opinion that Mr Symmons who holdeth That Royall birth is equivalent to divine unction must also hold that election is not equivalent to divine unction for both election and birth cannot be of the same validity the one being naturall the other a matter of free choise which shall infer that Kings by election are lesse properly and analogically onely Kings and so Saul was not properly a King for he was King by election but I conceive that rather Kings by birth must be lesse properly Kings because the first King by Gods institution being the mould of all the rest was by election Deut. 17. 18. 19. 20. 5. If the estates create the King and make this man King not this man as is clear Deut. 17. 18. and 2 Chron. 5. 1 2 3 4. they give to him the power of the Sword and the power of War and the Militia and I shall judge it strange and reasonlesse that the power given to the King by the Parliament or estates of a free Kingdom such as Scotland is acknowledged to be by all should create regulate limit abridge yea and anull that power that created it self hath God ordained a Parliamentary power to create a Royal power of the sword and war to be placed in the King the Parliaments creature for the safety of Parliament and Kingdome which yet is destructive of it selfe D. Ferne saith that the King summoneth a Parliament and giveth them power to be a Parliament and to advise and counsell him and in the meane time Scripture saith Deut 17. 18 19 20. 1 Sam. 10 20 21 22 23 24 25. 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3 4. that the Parliament createth the King heir's admirable reciprocation of creation in policie and shall God make the mother to destroy the daughter The Parliamentarie power that giveth Crown Militia sword and all to the King must give power to the King to use sword and war for the destruction of the Kingdome and to annull all the power of Parliaments to make unmake Parliaments and all Parliamentary power what more absurd Obj. 1. Symmons Loyall Subj Pag. 57. These phrases 2 Sam. 9. 1. When Kings goe forth to warre and Luk. 14. 31. What King going forth to warre speak to my conscience that both offensive and defensive warre are in the Kings hand Answ It is not much to other men what is spoken to any mans conscience by Phrase and customes for by this no States where there be no Kings but government by the best or the people as in Holland or in other Nations can have power of war for what time of yeare shall Kings goe to war who are not Kings and because Christ saith A certaine housholder delivered talents to his servants will this infer to any conscience that none but a housholder may take usurie And when he saith If the good man of the house knew at what houre the thiefe would come he would watch shall it follow the sonne or servant may not watch the house but onely the good man Obj. 2. Ferne pag. 95. The naturall Bodie cannot move but upon naturall Principles and so neither can the Politique Bodie move in Warre but upon Politique reasons from the Prince which must direct by Law Answ This may well be retorted the Politique Head cannot then move but upon politique reasons and so the King cannot move to wars but by the Law and that is by consent of Parliament and no Law can principle the head to destroy the members 2. If an Armie of cut-throats rise to destroy the Kingdome because the King is in lacking in his place to doe his duty how can the other Judges the States and Parliament be accessorie to murther committed by them in not raising armies to suppresse such robbers Shall the inferiour Judges be guilty of innocent blood because the King will not doe his duty 3. The politique body ceaseth no more to renounce the principles of sinlesse nature in self-defence because it is a politique body and subject to a King then it can leave off to sleep eat and drink and there is more need of politique principles to the one then the other 4. The Parliaments and Estates of both
the Lord and sent by the supreme judge their father Samuel then it was sin to resist many inferiour Judges that were Lyons and even Wolves under the Kings of Israel and Iudah so they judged for the Lord and as sent by the Supreme Magistrate But the difference was in this that judges were extraordinarily raised up of God out of any tribe as he pleased and were beleevers Heb. 11. 32. Saved by faith and so used not their power to oppresse the people though inferiour judges as the sons of Eli and of Samuel perverted judgment and therefore in the time of the judges God who gave them saviours and judges was their King but Kings were tied to a certaine tribe especially the line of David to the Kingdom of Iudah 2. They were hereditary judges not so 3. They were made and chosen by the people Deut. 17. 14. 15. 1 Sam. 10. 17 18 19 20. 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. as were the Kings of the nations and the first King though a King be the lawfull ordinance of God was sought from God in a sinfull imitation of the nations 1 Sam. 8. 19 20. and therefore were not of Gods peculiar election as the judges and so they were wicked men and many of them yea all for the most part did evil in the sight of the Lord and their law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their manner and custome was to oppresse the people and so were their inferiour judges little Tyrants and lesser Lyons Leopards evening Wolves Ezech. 22. 27. Mic. 3. 1 2 3. Esa 3. 14 15. And the Kings and inferiour judges are onely distinguished de facto that the King was a more Catholick oppressour and the old Lyon and so had more art and power to catch the prey then the inferiour judges who were but whelps and had lesse power but all were oppressors some few excepted and Samuel speaketh of that which Saul was to be de facto not de jure and the most part of the Kings after him and this Tyranny is well called jus regis the manner of the King and not the manner of the judges because it had not been the practice custome and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the beleeving judges before Sauls Reigne and while God was his peoples King 1 Sam. 8. 7. to oppresse 3. We grant that all other inferiour judges after the people cast off Gods government and in imitation of the nations would have a King were also lesser Tyrants as the King was a greater Tyrant and that was a punishment of their rejecting God and Samuel to be their King and judge 4. How shall Arnisaeus prove that this manner or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the King was potestas concessa a power granted I hope granted of God and not an abuse of Kingly power for then he and Royalists must say that all the acts of Tyranny ascribed to King Saul 1 Sam. 8. 11 12 13 14. by reason of which they did cry out and complaine to God because of their oppression was no abuse of power given to Saul Ergo it was an use and a lawfull use of power given of God to their King for there is no medium or mids betwixt a lawfull power used in morall acts and a lawfull power abused and indeed Arnisaeus so distinguisheth a King and a Tyrant that he maketh them all one in nature and spece He saith a Tyrant doth quod licet that which by Law he may do and a King doth not these things quae licent which by Law he may do but so to me it is clear a Tyrant acting as a Tyrant must act according to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 law of the King and that which is lawfull and a King acting as a King and not doing these things that are lawfull must sin against his office and the power that God hath given to him which were to commend and praise the Tyrant and to condemne and dispraise the King 3. If this Law of the King be a permissive Law of God which the king may out of his absolute enesse put inexecution to oppressâ— the people such as the law of a bill of divorcement as Arnisaeus Barcklay and other Royalists say then must God have given a Law to every King to play the Tyrant because of the hardnesse of the Kings heart but we would gladly see some word of God for this The Law of a bill of Divorcement is a meere positive Law permitted in a particular exigent when a husband out of levity of heart and affection cannot love his wife therefore God by a Law permitted him out of indulgence to put her away that both he might have a seed the want whereof because of the blessed seed to be borne of woman was a reproach in Israel and though this was an affliction to some particular women yet the intent of the Law and the soul thereof was a publique benefit to the Common-wealth of Israel of which sort of Lawes I judge the hard usage permitted by God to his people in the Master toward the servant and the people of God toward the stranger of whom they might exâ—ct usury not toward their brethren to be But that God should make a permissive Law that Ieroboam might presse all Israel to â—iâ—ne and worship the Golden Calves and that a King by Law may kill as a bloody Nero all the people of God by a Divine permissive Law hath no warrant in Gods word Judge reader if Royalists make God to confer a benefit on a land when he giveth them a King if by a Law of God such as the Law for a bill of Divorcement the King may kill and devour as a lawfull absolute Lion six kingdoms of nations that professe Christ and beleeve in his name For if the King have a divine law to kill an innocent Ionathan so as it be unlawfull to resist him he may by that same law turne bloodier then either Nero Iulian or any that ever sucked the paps of a Liones or of any of whom it may be said Quaeque dedit nutrix ubera Tigris erat and he shall be given as a plague of God ex conditione doni to the people and the people inasmuch as they are gifted of God with a King to feed them in a peaceable and godly life must be made slaves now it wanteth reason that God will have a permissive Law of murthering the Church of Christ a Law so contrary to the publique good and intrinsecall intention of a King and to the immutable and eternall law of Nature that one man because of his power may by Gods permissive Law murther millions of innocents Some may say It is against the duty of love that by Nature and Gods Law the husband owes to the wife Ephes 5. 25. that the husband should put away his wife for God hateth putting away and yet God made a Law that a husband might give his wife a bill of divorce and so put her away and by the same
power as a publique though a honourable servant and watchman appointed by the community as a mean for an end to regulate my bread houses moneys fields for the good of the publique Dominion is defined a faculty to use a thing as you please except you be hindered by force or by Law Iustin tit c. de legibus in l. digna vox c. So have I a dominion over my own garments house money to use them for uses not forbidden by the Law of God and man but I may not lay my corne field wast that it shall neither bear grassâ— nor corne the King may hinder that because it is a hurt to the publique but the King as Lord and Soveraigne hath no such dominion over Naboths viâ—eyard How the King is lord of all goods ratione jurisdictionis tuitionis se Anton. de paudrill in l. Altius n. 5. c. de servit Hottom illust quest q. 1. ad fin Conc. 2. Lod. Molin de just jur dis 25. Soto de justitia jur l. 4. q. 4. art 1. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his oath covenant or any other way ARistotle saith Ethic. 8. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Tyrant seeketh his owne a King the good of the Subjects for he is no King who is not content and excelleth in goodnesse The former part of these words distinguish essentially the King by his office from the Tyrant Now every office requireth essentially a duty to be performed by him that is in office and where there is a duty required there is some obligation if it be a politique duty it is a politique obligation Now amongst politique duties betwixt equall and equall superiour and inferiour that is not de facto required coaction for the performance thereof but de jure there is for two neighbour Kings and two neighbour Nations both being equall and independent the one toward the other the one owe a duty to the other and if the Ammonites do â— wrong to David and Israel as they are equall de facto the one cannot punish the other though the Ammonites do a disgrace to Davids messengers yet de jure David and Israel may compell them to politique duties of politique consociation for betwixt independent kingdomes there must be some politique government and some politique and civil Lawes for two or three making a society cannot dwell together without some policy and David and Israel as by the Law of nature they may repell violence with violence so if the lawes of neighbour-hood and nations be broken the one may punish the other though there be no relation of superiority and inferiority betwixt them 2. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt equals yea or superiours and inferiours the one hath some coactive power over the other if the father give his bond to pay to his son ten thousand pounds as his patrimony to him though before the giving of the bond the father was not obliged but onely by the Law of nature to give a patrimony to his son yet now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is obliged so to his son to pay ten thousand pounds that by the Law of Nations and the civil Law the son hath now a coactive power by Law to compell his father though his superiour to pay him no lesse then ten thousand pounds of patrimony Though therefore the King should stand simply superiour to his kingdom and estates which I shall never grant â—t if the King come under covenant with his kingdom as I have proved at length c. 13. he must by that same come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum What any doth promise falleth under debt if the covenant be politique and civil as is the covenant between King David and all Israel 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. and between King Iehoash and the people 2 King 11. 17 18. Then the King must come under a civil obligation to performe the covenant and though their be none superiour to King and the people on earth to compell them both to performe what they have promised yet de jure by the Law of Nations each may compell the other to mutuall performance This is evident 1 By the Law of nations if one nation break covenant to another â—â—â—ugh both be independent yet hath the wronged nation a coactive power de jure by accident because they are weaker they want stength to compell yet they have right and jus to compell them to force the other to keep covenant or then to punish them because nature teacheth to repel violence by violence so it be done without desire of revenge and malice 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant for Solomon saith Prov. 6. 1. My son if thou be surety for thy friend if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger 2. Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth art taken with the words of thy mouth But whence is it that a man free is now snared as a beast in a gin or trap Certainly Solomon saith it is by a word and striking of hands by a word of promise and covenant Now the Creditor hath coactive power though he be an equall or an inferiour to the man who is surety even by Law to force him to pay and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the Creditor that he may force the surety to pay Hence it is cleare that a Covenant maketh a free man under the coactive power of law to an equall and to weaker and the stronger is by the law of fraternity to help the weaker with his coactive power to cause the superiour fulfill his covenant If then the King giving and not granting he were superiour to his whole Kingdome come under a covenant to them to seek their good not his owne to defend true Protestant Religion they have power to compell him to keep his covenant and Scotland if the King be stronger then England and break his covenant to them is obliged by Gods law Prov. 24. 11. to adde their forces and coactive power to help their brethren of England 3. The Law shall warrant to loose the vassal from the Lord when the Lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in l. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Bartol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de offic magistrat Imperatores reges esse primarios vasallos imperii regni proinde si feloniam contra imperium aut regnum committant fewdo privari proinde ut alios vasallos Arnisaeus q. 6. An princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 2. saith This occasioneth confusion and sedition The Egyptians saith he cast off Pâ—olomeus because he affected too much the name of a King of the Romans his own friend Dion l.
9. The States punished Archidanius because he married a wife of a low stature Plutarch in Ages in pris The ancient Burgundions thought it cause enough to expell their King if matters went not well in the State Marcel l. 27. The Goths in Spain gave no other cause of expelling their King nisi quod sibi displiceret because he displeased them Aimon l. 2. c. 20. l. 4. c. 35. Ans All these are not to be excused in people but neither every abuse of power in a King exautorateth a King nor every abuse in people can make null their power Arnisaeus maketh three kinds of oathes the first is when the King sweareth to defend true Religion and the Pope and he denyeth that this is an oath of fidelitie or by paction or covenant made to the Pope or Clergie he saith it is onely on oath of protection nor doth the King receive the Crown from the Pope or Clergie Answ 1. Arnisaeus divideth oathes that are to be conjoyned we read not that Kings sweare to defend Religion in one oath and to administrate judgement and justice in another for David made not two Covenants but onely one with all Israel 2. The King was not King while he did swear this oath and therefore it must be a pactionall oath between him and the Kingdom and it is true the King receiveth not a Crown from the Church yet David received a Crowne from the Church for this end to feed the Lords people and so conditionally Papir Masse l. 3. Chron. Gal. saith The king was not king before the oath 2. That he did sweare to be a keeper not onely of the first but also of the second Table of the Law Ego N. Dei gratia mox futur as rex Francorum in die ordinationis meae coram Deo sanctis ejus polliceor quod servabo privilegia canonica justitiamque jus unicuique Praelato debitum vosque defendam Deo juvante quantum potero quemadmodum Rex ex officio in suo regno defendere debet unumquemque Episcopum ac Ecclesiam administrabo populo justitiam leges uti jus postulat And so is it ordained in the Councel of Tolet 6. c. 6. Quisquis deinceps regni sortitus fuerit apicem non ante conscendat Regiam sedem quam inter reliquas conditiones sacramento policitus fuerit quod non sinet in regno suo degere â—um qui non sit Catholicus All these by Scripture are oathes of Covenant Deut. 17. ver 17 18. 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3 4. 2 Kings 11. 17 18. Arnisaeus maketh a second oath of absolute Kings who sweare they shall raigne according to equitie and justice and he saith There is no need of this oath a promise is enough for an oath encreaseth not the obligation L. fin de non num pec Onelie it addeth the bound of Religion for there is no use of an oath where there is no paction of law against him that sweareth if he violate his oath There followeth onelie the punishment of Perjurie And the word of a Prince is as good as his oath onelie he condescendeth to sweare to please the people out of indulgence not out of necessitie And the King doth not therefore sweare because he is made King but because he is made King he sweareth And he is not King because he is crowned but he is crowned because he is King Where the Crowne goeth by succession the King never dieth and he is King by nature before he be crowned Answ 1. This oath is the very first oath spoken of before included in the covenant that the King maketh with the people 2 Sam 5. 2 3 4. For absolute Princes by Arnisaeus his grant doth swear to do the duties of a King as Bodinus maketh the oath of France de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. Iuro ego per deum ac promitto me justè regnaturum judicium equitatem ac misericordiam facturum And papir Mass l. 3. Chron. hath the same expresly in the particulars And by this a King sweareth he shall not be absolute and if he swear this oath he bindeth himself not to governe by the Law of the King whereby he may play the Tyrant as Saul did 1 Sam. 8. 9 10 11 12 c. As all Royalists expound the place 2. It is but a poor evasion to distinguish betwixt the Kings promise and his oath for the promise and covenant of any man and so of the King doth no lesse bring him under a civil obligation and politique coaction to keep his promise then an oath for he that becometh surety for his friend doth by no civil Law sweare he shall be good for the sonne or performe in liew and place of the friend what he is to performe he doth onely covenant and promise and in law and politique obligation he is taken and snared by that promise no lesse then if he had sworne Reuben offereth to be caution to bring Benjamin safe home to his old father Gen. 42. 37. Iudah also Gen. 43. 9. but they do not swear anyoath iâ— is true that an oath adeth nothing to a contract and promise but onely it laies on a religious tie before God yet so as consequently if the contractor violate both promise and oath he cometh under the guilt of perjury which a law of men may punish Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politique obligation as well as an oath is already proved and farther confirmed by Gal. 3. 15. Though it be a mans testament or covenant no man disanulleth and addeth thereunto No man even by mans law can anull a confirmed covenant and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himself under law to fulfill his own covenant and so must the King put himself under mens law by a covenant at his Coronation Yea and David is reputed by Royallists an absolute Prince yet he cometh under a covenant before he be made King 3. It is but a weak reason to say that an oath is needlesse where no action of law can be against the King who sweareth if it have any strength of reason I retort it a legall and solemne promise then is needlesse also for there is no action of law against a King as Royalists teach if he violate his promise So then King David needlesly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation for though David should turne as bloody an enemie to the Church as Nero or Iulian the people have no Law-action against David and why then did Ieremiah seek an oath of the King of Iudah that he would not kill him nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies and why did David seek an oath of Ionathan It is not like Ieremiah and David could have law-action against a King and a Kings son if they should violate the oath of God And farther it is a begging of the question to say that the States can have no action against the king if he should violate
nature should be lawlesse or against Acts of Parliament Quest 19. Whether the Subjects be obliged to pay the debts of the King Answ These debts which the King contracteth as King in Throno Regali the people are to pay For the Law of nature and the divine Law doth prove That to every servant and Minister wages is due Rom. 13. 5 6. compared with Vers 4. and 1 Cor. 9. 9 10 11 12. 1 Tim. 5. 18. If the Prince be taken in a war for the defence of the people it is just that he be redeemed by them So the Law saith Tit. F. C. de negotiis gestis F. C. Manda But when Fer. Vasquius illust quest l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. Vicesimo tertio apparet c. saith If the Prince was not doing the businesse of the publike and did make war without advice and consent of the people then are they not to redeem him Now certain it is when the King raiseth war not onely against his Oath and saith God do so â—o me and mine if I intend any thing but peace yet maketh war and also raiseth war without consent of the Parliament and a Parliament at that time convocated by his own Royall Writ and not raised and dissolved at all but still sitting formally a Parliament if he borrow money from his own Subjects and from forraign Princâ—s to raise war against his Subjects and Parliament then the people are not obliged to pay his debts 1. Because they are obliged to the King only as a King and not as an enemy But in so raising war he cannot be considered as a King 2. Though if the people agree with him and still acknowledge him King it is unpossible Physicè he can be their King and they not pay his debts yet they sin not but may ex decentia non ex debito legali pay his debts yet are they not obliged by any Law of God or man to pay his debts but though it be true by all Law the King be obliged to pay his debt except we say that all the peoples goods are the Kings a compendious way I confesse to pay all that any voluptuous Heliogabolus shall contract yet it may easily be proved That what his subjects and forraign Princes lent him to the raising of an unjust war are not properly debts but expences unjustly given out under the reduplication of formall enemies to the Countrey and so not payable by the Subjects and this is evident by Law because one may give most unjustly moneys to his neighbour under the notion of loan which yet hath nothing of the essence of loan and debt but is meer delapidation and cannot properly be debt by Gods Law for the Law regulateth a man in borrowing and lending as in other politike actions if I out of desire of revenge should lend moneys to a robber to buy powder and fewel to burn an innocent Citie or to buy armour to kill innocent men I deny that that is legally debt I dispute not whether A. B. borrowing money formally that thereby he may buy a Whore shall be obliged to repay it to C. D. under the reduplication of debt or if the borrower be obliged to pay what the lender hath unjustly lent I dare not pray to God That all our Kings debts may be payed I have scarce faith so to do Quest 20. Whether Subsidies be due to the King as King Answ There is a twofold Subsidie one Debitum of debâ— another Charitativum By way of charitie a Subsidie of debt is rather the Kingdoms due for their necessitie then the Kings due as a part of his rent we read of Custome due to the King as King and for conscience sake Rom. 13. 5 6. never of a Subsidie or taxation to the Kings of Israel and Judah at any convention of the States Augustus Caesar his taxing of all the World Luk. 2. for the maintenance of Wars cannot be the proper rent of Augustus as Emperour but the rent of the Romane Empire and it is but the fact of a man Charitative subsidies to the King of indulgence because through bad husbanding of the Kings rents he hath contracted debts I judge no better than Royall and Princely begging Yet lawfull they are as I owe charitie to my brother so to my father so to my Politique father the King See Ferd. Vasq illust quest l. 1. c. 8. who desireth that Superiors under the name of Charitie hid not rapine and citeth Cieer gravely saying offic l. 1. Nulla generi humano justitiae major pestis est quam eorum qui dum maximè fallunt id agunt ut boni viri esse videantur c. Quest 21. Whether the Seas Floods Road-wayes Castles Ports publike Magazine Militia Armour Forts and Strengths be the Kings Ans All these may be understood to be the Kings in divers notions 1. They are the Kings quoad custodiam publicam possessionem as a pawn is the mans in whose hand the pawn is laid down 2. They are the Kings quoad jurisdictionem cumulativam non privativam The King is to direct and Royally to command that the Castles Forts Ports Strengths Armour Magazine Militia be imployed for the safetie of the Kingdome All the Wayes Bridges the publike Road-wayes are the Kings in so far as he as a publike and Royall watchman is to secure the Subjects from Robbers and to cognosce of unknown Murthers by himselfe and the inferior Iudges yet may not the King imploy any of these against the Kingdome 3. They are the Kings as he is King quoad officialem Regalem publicam proprietatem for he hath a Royall and Princely propriety to all these as his own in so far as he useth them according to Law And thus they are 4. The Kings also quoad usum in regard of officiall use But they are the Kingdomes quoad fructum in regard of the effect and fruit 2. They are the Kingdomes sinaliter being destinated for the safetie and securitie of the Kingdome 3. They are the Kingdomes quoad proprietatem propriam legalem stricté sumptam according to the proper and legall proprietie And are not the Kings proper heritage as he is a Man 1. Because he may not sell these Forts Strengths Ports Magazine Bridges c. to a stranger or a Forraigne Prince 2. When the King is dead and his Heires and Royall line interrupted these all reâ—aine proper to the Kingdome yet so as the State cannot as they are Men make them away or sell them more then the King for no Publike persons yea the Multitude cannot make away the securitie safetie and that which necessarily conduceth to the securitie of the Posteritie The Lord build his owne Zion and appoint Salvation for walls and bulwarks FINIS ERRATA In the Preface p. 4. l. 5. for who is r. which is PAge 14. Line 9. for he read they ib. l. 39. for is r. it s p. 24. l. 19. adde not ib. l. 27.
praying and frequent advice and counsell from the whole Reformed Churches are to the P. P. a negative faith and devote imaginations it s a lye that Episcopacie by both sides was ever agreed on by Law in Scotland 39. And was it a heresie that M. Melvin taught that Presbyter and Bishop are one function in Scripture and that Abbots and Priors were not in Gods book dic ubi legis and is this a proof of inconsistency of Presbyteries with a Monarchie 40 It is a heresie to the P. P. that the Church appoynt a Fast when King James appoynted an unseasonable Feast when Gods wrath was upon the Land contrary to Gods word Esa 22. 12 13 14. and what will this prove Presbyteries to be inconsistent with Monarchies 41. This Assembly is to judge what Doctrine is treasonable what then Surely the secret Counsell and King in a constitute Church is not Synodically to determine what is true or false Doctrine more then the Roman Emperor could make the Church Canon Act. 15. 42. M. Gibson M. Black preached against King James his maintaining the Tyranny of Bishops his sympathizing with Papists and other crying sins and were absolved in a generall Assembly shal this make Presbyteries inconsistent with Monarchie Nay but it proveth only that they are inconsistent with the wickednesse of some Monarchies and that Prelates have been like the four hundred false prophets that â—lattered King Achab and these men that preached against the sins of the King and Court by Prelates in both Kingdomes have been imprisoned Banished their Noses ript their cheâ—ks burnt their eares cut 43. The Godly men that kept the Assembly of Aberdeen An. 1603. did stand for Christs Prerogative when K. James took away all generall Assemblies as the event proved and the King may with as good warrant inhibit all Assemblies for Word and Sacraments as for Church Discipline 44. They excommunicate not for light faults and trifles as the Lyar saith our Discipline saith the contrary 45. This Assembly never took on them to chose the Kings Counsellours but these who were in authority took K. James when he was a child out of the Company of a corrupt and seducing Papist Esme Duke of Lennox whom the P. P. nameth Noble Worthy of eminent indowments 46. It is true Glasgow Assembly 1637. voted down the High Commission because it was not consented unto by the Church and yet was a Church Judicature which took upon them to judge of the Doctrine of Ministers and deprive them and did incroach upon the Liberties of the established lawfull Church judicatures 47. This Assembly might well forbid M. John Graham Minister to make use of an unjust decree it being scandalous in a Minister to oppresse 48. Though Nobles Barons and Burgesses that professe the truth be Elders and so Members of the generall Assembly this is not to make the Church the House and the Common-wealth the Hangings for the constistuent Members we are content to be examined by the patern of Synods Act. 15. v. 22 23. Is this inconsistent with Monarchie 49. The Commissioners of the generall Assembly arâ— 1. A meer occasionall judicature 2. Appointed by and subordinate to the Generall Assembly 3. They have the same warrant of Gods Word that Messengers of the Synod Act. 15. v. 22. 27. hath 50. The historicall calumnie of the 17. day of December is known to all 1. That the Ministers had any purpose to dethrone King James and that they wrote to John L. Marquesse of Hamilton to be King because K. James had made defection from the true Religion Satan devised Spotswood and this P. P. vented this I hope the true history of this is known to all The holiest Pastors and professors in the Kingdom asserted this Government suffered for it contended with authority only for sin never for the power and Office These on the contrary side were men of another stamp who minded earthly things whose God was the world 2. All the forged inconsistency betwixt Presbyteries and Monarchies is an opposition with absolute Monarchie and concludeth with alike strength against Parliaments and all Synods of either side against the Law and Gospell preached to which Kings and Kingdoms are subordinate Lord establish Peace and Truth Farewell The Table of the Contents of the Book QUEST I. VVHether Government be by a divine Law Affirmed Pag. 1. How Government is from God Ibid. Civill Power in the Root immediately from God Pag. 2. QUEST II. Whether or no Goverment be warranted by the Law of nature Affirmed Ibid. Civil societie naturall in radice in the root voluntary in modo in the manner Ibid. Power of Government and Power of Government by such and such Magistrates different Pag. 2 3. Civil subjection not formally from natures Law Pag. 3. Our consent to Laws penal not antecedently naturall Ibid. Government by such Rulers a secondary Law of nature Ibid. Family Government and politike different Ibid. Government by Rulers a secondary Law of nature Family Government and Civil different Pag. 4. Civil Government by consequent naturall Pag. 5. QUEST III. Whether Royall Power and definite Forms of Government be from God Affirmed Ibid. That Kings are from God understood in a fourfold sense Pag. 5 6. The Royall Power hath warrant from divine institution Pag. 6. The three forms of Government not different in spece and nature P. 8. How every form is from God Ibid. How Government is an ordinance of man 1 Pet 2. 13. Pag. 8 9. QUEST IV. Whether or no the King be onely and immediately from God and not from the people Prius distinguitur posterius prâ—rsus Negatur pag. 5. How the King is from God how from the people Ibid. Royall Power three wayes in the people P. 6 10. How Royall Power is radically in the people P. 7. The people maketh the King Ibid. How any form of Government is from God P. 8. How Government is a humane ordinance 1 Pet. 2. 3. P. 8 9. The people creat the King P. 10 11. Making a King and choosing a King not to be distinguished P. 12 13. David not a King formally because anointed by God P. 14 15. QUEST V. Whether or no the P. P. proveth that Soveraignty is immediately from God not from the people p. 16. Kings made by the people though the Office in abstracto worâ— immediately from God P. 16. The people have a reall action more then approbation in making a King P. 19 Kinging of a person ascribed to the people P. 20. Kings in a speciall manner are from God but it followeth not Ergo not from the people P. 21. The place Prov. 8. 15. proveth not but Kings are made by the people P. 22 23. Nebuchadnezzar and other heathen Kings had no just Title before God to the Kingdom of Judah and divers other subdued Kingdoms P. 26 27. QUEST VI. Whether or no the King be so allanerly from both in regard of Soveraignty and Designation of his person as he is no wayes from the people
establish him King 2. The Lord by Lots found out the Tribe of Benjamin 3. The Lord found out the man by name Saul the sonne of Kish when he did hide himselfe amongst the stuffe that the people might doe their part in creating of the King whereas Samuel had annoynted him before but the Text saith expresly that the people made Saul King and Calvin Martyr Lavater and Popish Writers as Serrarius Mendoza Sancheiz Cornelius a Lapide Lyranus Hugo Cardinalis Carthusius Sanctius doe all hence conclude that the people under God make the King I see no reason why Barclaius should here distinguish a power of choosing a King which he granteth the people hath and a power of makinga King which he saith is only proper to God Answ Choosing of a King is either a comparative crowning of this man not this man and if the people have this it s a creating of a King under God who principally disposeth of Kings and Kingdomes and this is enough for us The want of this made Zimri no King and those whom the Rulers of Iezreel at Samaria 2 King 10. refused to make Kings no Kings This election of the people made Athaliah a Princesse the removall of it and translation of the crown by the people to Ioash made her no Princesse for I beseech you what other calling of God hath a race of a familie and a person to the crowne but only the election of the States There is now no voice from heaven no immediately inspired Prophets such as Samuel and Elisha to annoynt David not Eliab Solomon not Adoniah The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the â—â—roick spirit of a Royall facultie of governing is I grant from God only not from the people but I suppose that maketh not a King for then many sitting on the throne this day should be no Kings and many private persons should be Kings If he meane by the peoples choosiag nothing but the peoples approbative consent posterior to Gods act of creating a King let them shew us an act of God making Kings and establishing royall power in such a familie rather then in such a familie which is prior to the peoples consent distinct from the peoples consent I believe there is none at all 4. Arg. Hence I argue if there be no calling or title on earth to tie the Crown to such a Familie and Person but the suffrages of the people then have the line of such a familie and the persons now no calling of God no right to the crown but only by the suffrages of the people except we say that there be no lawfull Kings on earth now when Propheticall unction and designation to Crowns are ceased contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 13. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15 16 17. But there is no title on earth now to tye crownes to families to persons but onely the suffrages of the people for 1. Conquest without the consent of the people is but royall latrocinie as we shall see 2. There is no propheticall and immediate calling to Kingdomes now 3. The Lords giving of Regall parts is somewhat but I hope Royallists will not deny but a child young in yeares and judgment may be a lawfull King 3. Mr. Maxwell his appointing of the Kingly office doth no more make one man a lawfull King then another for this were a wide consequence God hath appointed that Kings should be ergo Iohn a Stiles is a King yea ergo David is a King It followeth not Therefore it remaineth only that the suffrages of the people of God is that just title and divine calling that Kings have now to their crownes I presuppose they have gifts to governe from God 5. If the Lords immediate designation of David and his annointing by the divine authoritie of Samuel had been that which is alone without the election of the people made David formally King of Israel then there were two Kings in Israel at one time for Samuel annointed David and so he was formally King upon the ground layed by Royallists that the King hath no royall power from the people and David after he himselfe was annointed by Samuel divers times calleth Saul the Lords anointed and that by the inspiration of Gods spirit as we and Royallistâ— doe both agree Now two lawfull supreme Monarchs in one Kingdome I conceive to be most repugnant to Gods truth and sound reason for they are as repugnant as two most Highs or as two Infinites 2. Iâ— shâ—ll follow that David all the while betwixt his anointing by Samuel and his coronation by the suffrages of all Israel at Hebron 1. Was in-lacking in discharging and acquiting himselfe of his royall duty God having made him formally a King and so laying upon him â— châ—rge to execute justice and judgement and defend Religion which he did not discharge 2. All Davids suffering upon Davidsâ—art â—art must be unjust for as King he should have cut off the murtherer Saul who killed the Priests of the Lord especially seeing Saul by this ground must be a private murtherer and David the only lawfull King 3. David if he was formally King deserted his calling in flying to the Philistims for a King should not forsake his Kingdome upon no hazards even of his life no more thâ—n a Pilot should give over the helme in an exâ—reme storme but certainly Gods dispensation in this warranteth us to say no man can be formally a lawfull King without the suffrages of the peoâ—le for Saul after Samuel from the Lord anointed him remained a private man and no King till the people made him King and elected him And David anointed by that same divine authoritie remained formally a Subject and not a King till all Israel made him King at Hebron And Salomâ—n though by God designed and ordained to be King yet was never King till the people made him King 1 King 1. ergo there floweth something from the power of the people by which he who is no King now becommeth a King formally and by Gods lawfull call whereas before the man was no King but as touching all royall power a meere private man And I am sure birth must be lesse then Gods designation to a crowne as is cleere Adoniah was elder then Salomon yet God will have Salomon the younger by birth to be King and not Adoniah And so Mr. Symons and other Court-Prophets must prevaricate who will have birth without the peoples election to make a king and the peoples voyces but a ceremonie 6. I thinke Royalists cannot deny but a people ruled by Aristocraticall Magistrates may elect a King and a King so elected is formally made a lawfull King by the peoples election for of six apt and gifted to reigne what maketh one a King and not the other five Certainly God disposing the people to choose this man and not another man it cannot be said but God giveth the Kingly power immediately and by him Kings raigne that is true The
in all things except sinne It is tyrannicall and domineering Logick Many things are ascribed to God only by reason of a speciall and admirable act of providence as the saving of the world by Christ the giving of Canaan to Israel the bringing his people out of Egypt and from Chaldea the sending of the Gospel to both Iew Gentile c. But shall we say that God did none of these things by the ministerie of men and weake and fraile men 2. How proveth the Prelate that all royall ensignes are ascribed to God because Esa 62. the Church universall shall be as a crown of glorie and a royall diadem in the hand of the Lord ergo baculus in angulo the Church shall be as a seale on the heart of Christ what then Hieronymus Procopius Cyrillus with good reason render the meaning thus Thou O Zion and Church shalt be to me a royall Priesthood and a holy people For that he speaketh of his owne Kingdome and Church is most evident v. 1. 2. For Zions sake I will not hold my peace c. 3. God put a crown of pure gold on Davids head Psal 21. 3. therefore Iulian Nero and no elective Kings are made and designed to be Kings by the people He shall never prove this consequence The Chaldee paraphrase applyeth it to the reigne of King Messiah Diodatus he speaketh of the kingdome of Christ Ainsworth maketh this crowne a signe of Christs victorie Athanasius Eusebius Origen Augustine Dydimus expound it of Christ and his kingdome The Prelate extendeth it to all Kings as the blasphemous Rabbines especially Ra. Salomon deny that he speaketh of Christ here but what more reason is there to expound this of the crownes of all Kings given by God I deny not to Nero Julian c. then to expound the foregoing and following verses as applyed to all Kings Did Julian rejoyce in Gods salvation did God grant Nero his hearts desire did God grant as it is v. 4. life eternall to Heathen Kings as Kings which words all Interpreters expound of the eternitie of Davids throne till Christ come and of victorie and life eternall purchased by Christ as Ainsworth with good reason expounds it And what though God give David a Crown ergo not by second causes and by bowing all Israels heart to come in sinceritie to Hebron to make David King 1 King 12. 38. God gave corne and wine to Israel Hos 2. shall the Prelate and the Anabaptist inferre Ergo he giveth it not by plowing sowing and the art of the husbahd-man 3. The Heathen acknowledged a Divinitie in Kings but he is blind who readeth them and seeth not in their writings that they teach that the people maketh Kings 4. God girt David with strength while he was a private man and persecuted by Saul and fought with Goliah as the title of the same beareth and he made him a valiant man of warre to breake bowes of steele ergo he giveth the sword to Kings as Kings and they receive no sword from the people This is poore Logick 5. The P. Prelate sendeth us Judg. 7. 17. to the singular and extraordinarie power of God with Gideon and I say that same power behoved to be in Oreb and Zeba v. 27. for they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes and such as the Prelate from Pro. 8. 15. saith have no royall power from the people 6. Moses and Aaron their two rods were miraculous This will prove that Priests are also Gods and their persons srcred I see not except the Prelate would be at worshipping of Reliques what more royall Divinitie is in Moses his rod because he wrought miracles by his rod then there is in Elias his staffe in Peters napkin in Pauls shadow This is like the strong symbolicall Theologie of his fathers the Jesuites which is not argumentative except he say that Moses as King of Jesurum wrought miracles and why should not Nero Caligula Pharoah and all Kings rods then dry up the red sea and work miracles 7. We give all the stiles to Kings that the Fathets gave and yet we thinke not when David commandeth to kill Vriah and a King commandeth to murther his innocent subjects in England and Scotland that that is Divalis jussio the command of a God and that this is a good consequence What ever the King commandeth though it were to kill his loyallest Subjects is the commandement of God Ergo the King is not made King by the people 8. Ergo saith he these new Statists disgrace the King If a most New Statist sprung out of a poore pursevant of Kraill from the dunghill to the Court could have made himselfe an old Statist and more expert in state affaires then all the Nobles and soundest Lawyers in Scotland and England this might have more weight 9. Therefore the King saith P. P. is not the extract of the basest of rationall creatures He meaneth fex populi his owne house and linage but God calleth them his owne people a royall Priesthood a chosen generation and ps 78. 71. will warrant us to say the people is much worthier before God then one man seeing God choose David for Iacob his people and Israel his inheritance that he might feede them Iohn P. P. his fathers suffrage in making a King will never be sought We make not the multitude but the three Estates including the Nobles and Gentry to be as rationall creatures as any Apostate Prelate in the three Kingdomes QUEST VII Whether or no the P. Prelate the aforesaid Authâ—r doth by force of reason evince that neither constitution nor designation of the King is from the people THe P. Prelate aymeth but it is an empty ayme to prove that the people are wholly excluded I answer only Arguments not pitched on before as the Prelate saith P. Prelate 1. To whom can it be more proper to give the rule over men then to him who is the onely King truely and properly of the whole world 2. God is the immediate Author of all rule and power that is amongst all his creatures above or below 3. Man before the fall received dominion and empire over all the creatures below immediatly as Gen. 1. 28. Gen. 9. 2. ergo we cannot deny that the most noble government to wit Monarchy must be immediatly from God without any Contract or compact of men Ans The first reason concludeth not what is in question for God only giveth rule and power to one man over another ergo he giveth it immediatly it followeth not 2. It shall as well prove that God doth immediatly constitute all Iudges and therefore it shall be unlawfull for a city to appoint a Major or a shire a Iustice of peace 3. The second argument is inconsequent also because God in creation is the immediat Author of all things and therefore without consent of the creatures or any act of the creature created an Angell a nobler creature then man and a man then a
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 Britaine whether I say doth conquest in such a violent way speake that it is Gods revealed Will called Voluntas signi the will that is to rule us in all our Morall duties to cast off the just Heires of the blood Royall and to sweare homage to a conquerour and so as that conquerour now hath as just right as the King of Britaine had by birth This cannot be taken off by the wit of any who 1. maintaine that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne and 2. that royall birth without the people election speaketh Gods regulating Will in his Word that the first borne of a King is a lawfull King by birth for God now a daies doth not say the contrary of what he revealed in his Word If birth be Gods regulating Will that the Heire of the King is in Gods Court a King no act of the conquerour can anull that Word of God to us and the people may not lawfully though they were ten times subdued sweare homage and allegiance to a conquerour against the due right of birth which by Royalists Doctrine revealeth to us the plaine contradictory Will of God It is I grant often Gods Decree revealed by the event that a conquerour be on the Throne but this Will is not our rule and the people are to sweare no Oath of Allegiance contrary to Gods Voluntas signi which is his revealed Will in his Word regulating us 4. Things transferrible and communicable by birth from father to sonne are onely in Law those which Heathen call bona fortunae riches as lands houses monies and heritages and so saith the Law also These things which essentially include gifts of the mind and honour properly so called I meane honour founded on vertue as Aristotle with good reason maketh honour praeminum virtuâ—is cannot be communicated by birth from the father to the sonne for royall dignity includeth these three constituent parts essentially of which none can be communicable by birth 1. The royall faculty of governing which is a speciall gift of God above nature is from God Solomon asked it from God and had it not by generation from his father David 2. The royall honour to be set above the people because of this royall vertue is not from the wombe for then Gods spirit would not have said Blessed art thou O Land when thy King is the sonne of Nobles Eccles 10. 17. this honour springing from vertue is not borne with any man noâ— is any man borne with either the gift or honour to be a Iudge God maketh high and low not birth Nobles are borne to great estates if judging be heritage to any it is a municipall positive law I now speake in point of conscience 3. The externall lawfull title before men come to a Crowne must be Gods Will revealed by such an externall signe as by Gods appointment and warrant is to regulate our will but according to Scripture nothing regulateth our will and leadeth the people now that they cannot erre following Gods rule in making a King but the free suffrages of the States choosing a man whom they conceive God hath endued with these royall gifts required in the King whom God holdeth forth to them in his Word Deut. 17. now there be but these to regulate the people or to be a rule to any man to ascend lawfully in foro Dei in Gods Court to the Throne 1. Gods immediate designation of a man by Propheticall and Divinely inspired unction as Samuel annoynted Saul and David this we are not to expect now nor can Royalists say it 2. Conquest seeing it is an act of violence and Gods revenging Justice for the sinnes of a people cannot give in Gods Court such a just title to the Throne as the people are to submit their consciences unto except God reveale his regulating will by some immediate voice from Heaven as he commanded Iudah to submit to Nebuchadnezer as to their King by the mouth of Ieremiah now this is not a rule to us for then if the Spanish King should invade this Iland and as Nebuchadnezer did deface the Temple and instruments and meanes of Gods Worship and abolish the true worship of God it should be unlawfull to resist him after he had once conquered the Iland neither Gods Word nor the Law of nature could permit this I suppose even by grant of adversaries now no act of violence done to a people though in Gods Court they have deserved it can be a testification to us of Gods regulating Will except it have some warrant from the Law and testimony it is no rule to our conscience to acknowledge him a lawfull Magistrate whose sole law to the Throne is an act of the bloody instrument of divine wrath I meane the sword That therefore Iudah was to submit according to Gods Word to Nebuchadnezer whose conscience and best warranted calling to the Kingdome of Judah was his bloody sword even if we suppose Ieremiah had not commanded them to submit to the King of Babylon I thinke cannot be said 3. Naked birth cannot be this externall signification of Gods regulating Will to warrant the conscience of any to ascend to the Throne for the Authors of this opinion make royall birth equivalent to divine unction for David anoynted by Samuel and so anoynted by God is not King Saul remained the Lords anoynted many yeares not David even anoynted by God the peoples making him King at Hebron
founded upon divine unction was not the only externall lawfull calling that we read of that David had to the Throne then royall birth because it is but equivalent only to divine unction not superiour to divine unction it cannot have more force to make a King then divine unction And if birth was equivalent to divine unction what needed Ioash who had royall birth be made King by the people and what needed Saul and David who had more then royall birth even divine unction be made Kings by the people and Saul having the vocall and infallible testimony of a Prophet needed not the peoples election the one at Mizpeh and Gilgall and the other at Hebron 5. If royall birth be as just a title to the Crowne as divine unction and so as the peoples election is no title at all then is it unlawfull that there should be a King by election in the world now but the latter is absurd so is the former I prove the Proposition because where conquerours are wanting and there is no King for the present but the people governing and so much confusion aboundeth they cannot lawfully appoint a King for his lawfull title before God must either be conquest which to me is no title and here and in this case there is no conquest or if the title must be a Propheticall word immediatly inspired by God but this is now ceased or thirdly the title must be royal birth but here there is no royall birth because the government is popular except you imagine that the society is obliged in conscience to goe and seek the sonne of a forraine King to be their King But I hope that such a royall birth should not be a just title before God to make him King of that society to which he had no relation at all but is a meere stranger Hence in this case no title could be given to any man to make him King but onely the peoples election which is that which we say And it is most unreasonable that a people under popular Government cannot lawfully choose a King to themselves seeing a King is a lawfull Magistrate and warranted by Gods Word because they have not a King of royall birth to sit upon the throne Mr. Symmons saith that birth is the best title to the Crowne because after the first of the family had been anoynted unction was no more used in that family unlesse there arose a strife about the Kingdome as betwixt Solomon and Adonijah Ioash and Athalia the eldest sonne of the predâ—cessor was afterward the chosen of the Lord his birth-right spake the Lords appointment as plainly as his fathers unction Ans It is a conjecture that unction was not used in the family after the first unction except the contest was betwixt two Brethren that is said not proved for a King 23. 30. when good Iosiah was killed and there was no contest concerning the Throne of that beloved Prince the people of the Land took Iehoahaz his son and anointed him and made him King in his fathers stead and the Priests were anointed Levit. 6. 22. yea all the Priests were anointed Num. 3. 8. yet read we not in the History where this or this man was anointed 2. In that Adonijah Solomons elder Brother was not King it is clear That Gods anointing and the peoples electing made the right to the Crown and not birth 3. Birth de facto did design the man because of Gods speciall promises to Davids house but how doth a typicall discent made to David and some others by Gods speciall promise prove that birth is the birth-right and lawfull call of God to a Crown in all after ages For as gifts to reign goeth not by birth so neither doth Gods title to a Crown go M. Symons A Prince once possessed of a Kingdome coming to him by inheritance can never by any upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof without horrible impietie and unjustice Royall unction was an indeloble Character of old Saul remained the Lords anointed till the last gaspe David durst not take the right of Government actually into him although he had it in reversion being already anointed thereunto and had received the spirit thereof Answ That is the question If a Prince once a Prince by inheritance cannot be dispossessed thereof without unjustice For if a Kingdom be his by birth as an inheritance transmitted from the father to the son I see not but any man upon necessary occasions may sell his inheritance but if a Prince sell his Kingdom a very Barelay and an Hug. Grotius with reason will say he may be dispossessed and dethroned and take up his indeleble Character then 2. A Kingdom is not the Princes own so as it is unjustice to take it from him as to take a mans purse from him the Lords Church in a Christian Kingdom is Gods heritage and the King onely a shepheard and the sheep in the court of conscience are not his 3. Royall unction is not an indeleble Character for neither Saul nor David were all their dayes Kings thereby but lived many dayes private men after divine unction while the people anointed them Kings except you say 1. That there were two Kings at once in Israel 2. And that Saul killing David should have killed his own Lord and his anointed 4. If David durst not take the right of Government actually on him then divine unction made him not King but onely designed him to be King the peoples election must make the King M. Symons addeth He that is born a King and a Prince can never be unborn Semel Augustus semper Augustus yea I beleeve the eldest son of such a King is in respect of birth the Lords anointed in his fathers life time even as David was before Sauls death and to deprive him of his right of reversion is as true unjustice as to dispossesse him of it Answ It is proper onely to Jesus Christ to be born a King sure I am No man bringeth out of the womb with him a Scepter and a Crown on his head Divine unction giveth a right infallibly to a Crown but birth doth not so for one may be born here to a Crown as was hopefull Prince Henry and yet never live to be King The eldest son of a King if he attempt to kill his father as Absolom did and raise forces against the lawfull Prince I conceive he may be killed in battell without any unjustice 2. If in his fathers time he be the Lords anointed there be two Kings and the heir may have a son and so there shall be three Kings possibly four all Kings by divine right The Prelate of Rochester saith The people and nobles give no right to him who is born a King they onely declare his right Answ This is said not proved A man born for an inheritance is by birth an heir because he is not born for these Lands as a mean for the end but by the contrary these Lands
are for the heir as the mean for the end But the King is for his Kingdom as a mean for the end as the watch-man for the Citie the living Law for peace and safetie to Gods people and therefore is not heres hominum An heir of men but men are rather heredes regis heirs of the King Arnisaeus Many Kingdoms saith he are purchased by just war and transmitted by the Law of heritage from the father to the son beside the consent of the people because the son receiveth right to the Crown not from the people but from his parents nor doth he possesse the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people keeping onely to himself the burden of protecting and governing the people but as a proprietie given to him lege regni by his parents which he is obliged to defend and rule as a father looketh to the good and welfare of the family yet so also as he may look to his own good Answ We read in the Word of God That the people made Solomon King not that David or any King can leave in his Testament a Kingdom to his son 2. He saith The son hath not the right of reigning as the patrimony of the people but as a proprietie given by the Law of the Kingdom by his parents Now this is all one as if he said The son hath not the right of the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people but as the patrimony of the people which is good non-sense For the proprietie of reigning given from father to son by the Law of the Kingdom is nothing but a right to reign given by the Law of the people and the very gift and patrimony of the people for Lex regni This Law of the Kingdom is the Law of the people tying the Crown to such a Royall Family and this Law of the people is prior and ancienter then the King or the right of reigning in the King or which the King is supposed to have from his Royall father because it made the first father the first King of the Royall Line For I demand How doth the son succeed to his fathers Crown and Throne Not by any promise of a divine Covenant that the Lord maketh to the father as he promised that Davids seed should sit on his throne till the Messiah should come this as I conceive is vanished with the Common-wealth of the Iews nor can we now finde any immediate divine constitution tying the Crown now to such a race nor can we say this cometh from the will of the father King making his son King For 1. there is no Scripture can warrant us to say The King maketh a King but the Scripture holdeth forth that the people made Saul and David Kings 2. This may prove That the father is some way a cause why this son succeedeth King but he is not the cause of the Royaltie conferred upon the whole Line because the question is Who made the first father a King Not himself nor doth God now immediately by Prophets anoint men to be Kings then need force the people choose the first man then must the peoples election of a King be prior and more ancient then the birth-law to a Crown And election must be a better right then birth 2. The question is Whence cometh it that not onely the first father should be chosen King but also whence is that whereas it is in the peoples freewill to make the succession of Kings go by free election as it is in Denmark and Pol yet the people doth freely choose not only the first man to be King but also the whole race of the first born of this mans Family to be Kings All here must be resolved in the free will of the Communitie now since we have no immediate and propheticall enthroning of men it is evident That the lineall deduction of the Crown from father to son through the whole line is from the people not from the parent Hence I adde this as my sixth Argument That which taketh away that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right in a Communitie given to them by God and nature to provide the most efficacious and prevalent mean for their own preservation and peace in the fittest Government that is not to be holden but to make birth the best title to the Crown and better then free election taketh away and impedeth that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right of chosing not simply a Governour but the best the justest the more righteous and tyeth and fettereth their choice to one of a house whether he be a wise man and righteous and just or a fool and an unjust man therefore to make birth the best title to the Crown is not to be holden It is objected That parents may binde their after Generations to choose one of such a line But by this Argument their naturall birth-right of a free choice to elect the best and fittest is abridged and clipped and so the posterity shall not be tyed to a King of the Royall Line to which the Ancestors did swear See for this the learned Author of Scripture and Reasons pleaded for defensive Arms. Answ Frequent elections of a King at the death of every Prince may have by accident and through the corruption of our nature bloody and tragicall sequels and to eschew these people may tie and oblige their children to chose one of the first born Male or Female as in Scotland and England of such a line but I have spoken of the excellencie of the title by election above that of birth as comparing things according to their own nature together but give me leave to say That the posterity are tyed to that Line 1. Conditionally So the first born ceteris paribus be qualified and have an head to sit at the helm 2. Elections of Governours would be performed as in the sight of God and in my weak apprehension the person coming neerest to Gods judge Fearing God hating covetousnesse and to Moses his King Deut. 17. one who shall read in the Book of the Law and it would seem now that gracious morals are to us insteed of Gods immediate designation 3. The genuine and intrinsecall end of making Kings is not simply governing but governing the best way in peace honesty and godlinesse 1. Tim. 2. Ergo These are to be made Kings who may most expeditely procure this end neither is it my purpose to make him no King who is not a gracious man onely here I compare title with title 7. Argument Where God hath not bound the conscience men may not binde themselves or the consciences of the posterity But God hath not bound any nation irrevocably and unalterably to a Royall Line or to one kinde of Government Ergo No nation can binde their conscience and the conscience of the posterity either to one Royall Line or irrevocably and unalterably to Monarchy The proposition is clear 1. No Nation is tyed jure divine by
no politique power whereby they may lay a command on others but onely a naturall power of private resistance which they cannot use against the Magistrate Ans But to take off those by the way 1. If the King may choose A. B. an Ambassadour and limit him in his power and say Doe this and say this to the forraigne State you goe to but no more halfe a wit will say the King createth the Ambassadour and the Ambassadours power is originally from the King and we prove the power of the Lyon is originally from God and of the Sea and the fire is originally from God because God limiteth the Lyon in the exercises of its power that it shall not devoure Daniel and limiteth the Sea as Ieremiah saith when as he will have its proud Waves to come thither and no farther and will have the fire to burne those who throwe the three Children into the fiery furnace and yet not to burne the three Children for this is as if Doctor Ferne said the power of the King of six degrees rather then his power of five is from the people therefore the power of the King is not from the people yea the contrary is true 2. That the people can make a King supreame that is Absolute and so resigne natures birth-right that is a power to defend themselves is not lawfull for if the people have not absolute power to destroy themselves they cannot resigne such a power to their Prince 3. It is false that a community before they be established with formall Rulers have no politicke power for consider them as men onely and not as associated they have indeed no politicke power but before Magistrates be established they may convene and associate themselves in a body and appoint Magistrates and this they cannot doe if they had no politicke power at all 4. They have virtually a power to lay on Commandements in that they have power to appoint to themselves Rulers who may lay commandements on others 5. A community hath not formally power to punish themselves for to punish is to inflict Malum disconveniens naturae an evill contrary to nature but in appointing Rulers and in agreeing to Lawes they consent they shall be punished by another upon supposition of transgression as the child willingly going to schoole submitteth himself in that to Schoole-discipline if he shall faile against any Schoole Law and by all this t is cleare a King by election is principally a King Barclay then faileth who saith No man denyeth but succession to a Crowne by birth is agreeable to nature it is not against nature but it is no more naturall then for a Lyon to be borne a King of Lyons Obj. Most of the best Divines approve an hereditary Monarch rather then a Monarch by election Ans So doe I in some cases in respect of Empire simply it is not better in respect of Empire now under mans fall in sin I grant it to be better in some respect So Salust In Iugurth Natura mortalium imperij avida Tacitus Hist 2. Minore discrimine princeps sumitur quam queritu there 's lesse danger to accept of a Prince at hand then to seeke one a farre off 2. In a Kingdome to be constituted election is better in a constituted Kingdome birth seemeth lesse evill 3. In respect of liberty election is more convenient in respect of safety and peace birth is safer and the nearest way to the Well See Bodin De Rep. l. 6. c. 4. Thol ozan De Rep. l. 7. c. 4. QUEST XII Whether or not a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest THe Prelate averreth confidently that a Title to a Kingdome by Conquest without the consent of the people is so just and evident by Scripture that it cannot be denyed but the man bringeth no Scripture to prove it Mr. Marshall saith a conquered Kingdome is but câ—ntinuata injuria a continued robbery A right of conquest is twofold 1. When there is no just cause 2. When there is just reason and ground of the war in this latter case if a Prince subdue a whole Land which justly deserveth to dye yet by his grace who is so mild a conquerour they may be all preserved alive Now amongst those who have thus injured the conquerour as they deserve death we are to difference the persons offending and the wives children especially not borne and such as have not offended The former sort may resign their personall liberty to the conquerour that the sweet life may be saved but he cannot be their King properly but I conceive that they are obliged to consent that he be their King upon this condition that the conquerour put not upon them violent and tyrannicall conditions that are harder then death now in reason we cannot thinke that a tyrannous and unjust domineering can be Gods lawfull meane of translating Kingdomes and for the other part the conquerour cannot domineere as King over the innocent and especially the children not yet borne 1. Assertion A people may be by Gods speciall Commandement subject to a conquering Nebuchadnezer and a Caesar as to their King as was Iudah commanded by the Prophet Ieremiah to submit unto the yoake of the King of Babylon and to pray for him and the people of the Iewes were to give to Caesar the things of Caesar and yet both those were unjust conquerours for those Tyrants had no command of God to oppresse and raigne over the Lords people yet were they to obey those Kings so the passive subjection was just and commanded of God and the active unjust and tyranous and forbidden of God 2. Assert This title by conquest through the peoples after consent may be turned into a just title as it s like the case was with the Iewes in Caesars time for which cause our Saviour commanded to obey Caesar and to pay tribute unto him as Dr. Ferne confesseth But two things are to be condemned in the Doctor 1. That God manifesteth his Will to us in this worke of providence whereby he translateth Kingdomes 2. That this is an over-awed consent now to the former I reply if the act of conquering be violent and unjust it is no manifestation of Gods regulating and approving Will and can no more prove a just title to a Crowne because it is an act of Divine providence then Pilate and Herod their crucifying of the Lord of Glory which was an act of Divine providence flowing from the Will and Decree of Divine providence Act. 2. 23. Act. 4. 28. is a manifestation that it was Gods approving Will that they should kill Jesus Christ 2. Though the consent be some way over-awed yet is it a sort of Contract and Covenant of loyall subjection made to the conquerour and therefore sufficent to make the title just otherwise if the people never give their consent the conquerour domineering over them by violence hath no just title to the Crowne 3.
Assert Meere conquest by the sword without the consent of the people is no just title to the Crowne 1. Because the lawfull title that Gods Word holdeth forth to us beside the Lords choosing and calling of a man to the Crowne is the peoples election Deut. 17. 15. all that had any lawfull calling to the Crowne in Gods Word as Saul David Solomon c. were called by the people and the first lawfull calling is to us a rule and paterne to all lawfull callings 2. A King as a King and by vertue of his Royall Office is the Father of the Kingdome a Tutor a Defender Protector a Shield a Leader a Shepheard an Husband a Patron a Watchman a Keeper of the people over which he is King and so the Office essentially includeth acts of fatherly affection care love and kindnesse to those over whom he is set so as he who is cloathed with all these relations of love to the people cannot exercise those officiall Acts on a people against their will and by meere violence Can he be a Father and a Guide a Patron to us against our will and by the sole power of the bloudy sword a benefit conferred upon any against their will is no benefit Will he by the awsome dominion of the sword be our father and we unwilling to be his sonnes an head over such as will not be menbers will he guide me as a Father an Husband against my will he cannot come by meere violence to be a Patton a Shield and a defender of me through violence 3. It is not to be thought that that is Gods just Title to a Crowne which hath nothing in it of the essence of a King but a violent and bloody purchase which is in its prevalency in an oppressing Nymrod and the cruellest tyrant that is hath nothing essentiall to that which constituteth a King for it hath nothing of Heroick and Royall wisedome and gifts to governe and nothing of Gods approving and regulating will which must be manifested to any who would be a King but by the contrary cruelty hath rather basenesse and witlesse fury and a plaine reluctancy with Gods revealing Will which forbideth murther Gods Law should say Murther thou and prosper and raigne and by the act of violating the sixt Commandement God should declare his approving Will to wit his lawfull call to a Throne 4. There be none under a Law of God who may resist a lawfull call to a lawfull Office but men may resist any impulsion of God stirring them up to murther the maniest and strongest and cheife men of a Kingdome that they may raigne over the fewest the weakest and the young and lowest of the people against their will therefore this call by the sword is not lawfull If it be said that the Divine impulsion stirring up a man to make a bloody conquest that the ire and just indignation of God in Iustice may be declared on a wicked Nation is an extraordinary impulsion of God who is above a Law and therefore no man may resist it Ans then all bloody Conquerors must have some extraordinary revelation from Heaven to warrant their yeelding of obedience to such an extraordinary impulsion And if it be so They must shew a lawfull and immediate extraordinary impulsion now but it is certaine the sinnes of the people conquered and their most equall and just demerit before God cannot be a just plea to legitimate the Conquest for though the people of God deserved vastation and captivitie by the Heathen in regard of their sinnes before the throne of Divine Iustice yet the Heathen grievously sinned in conquering them Zach. 1. 15. And I am very sore displeased with the Heathen that are at ease for I was but a little displeased and they helped forward the affliction So though Iudah deserved to be made captives and a conquered people because of their idolatry and other sinnes as Ieremiah had prophecied yet God was highly displeased at Babylon for their unjust and bloody Coneuest Jer. 50. 17 18 33 34. c. 51. 35. The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon shall the inhabitants of Zion say and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea shall Jerusalem say And that any other extraordinary impulsion to be as lawfull a call to the Throne as the peoples free election we know not from Gods word and we have but the naked word of our Adversaries that William the Conquerour without the peoples consent made himselfe by blood the lawfull King of England and also of all their posteritie And that King Fergus conquered Scotland 5. A King is a speciall gift of God given to feed and defend the people of God that they may lead a godly and peaceable life under him Isal 78. v. 71 72. 1 Tim. 2. 2. as it is a judgement of God that Israel's without a King for many dayes Hos 3. 4. and that there is no Iuâ—ge no King to put evill doers to shame Iudg. 19. 1. but if a King be given of God as a King by the acts of a bloody Conquest to be avenged on the sinfull land over which he is made a King he cannot be given actu primo as a speciall gift and blessing of God to feed but to murther and to destroy for the genuine end of a Conqueror as a Conqueror is not peace but fire and sword If God changâ— his heart to be of a bloody Vastator a father Prince and feeder of the people ex officio now he is not a violent Conquerour and he came to that meeknes by contraries which is the proper worke of the omnipotent God and not proper to man who as he cannot worke miracles so neither can he lawfully worke by contraries and so if Conquest be a lawfull title to a Crown and an ordinary calling as the opponents presume every bloody Conquerour must be changed into a loving father Prince and feeder and if God call him none should oppose him but the whole Land should dethrone their own native Soveraigne whom they are obliged before the Lord to defend and submit to the bloody invasion of a strange Lord presumed to be a just Conqueror as if he were lawfully called to the Throne both by birth and the voyces of the people And truly they deserve no wages who thus defend the Kings Prerogative royall for if the sword be a lawfull title to the crown suppose the two Generals of both Kingdomes should conquer the most and the chiefest of the Kingdome now when they have so many forces in the field by this wicked reason the one should have a lawfull call of God to be King of England and the other to be King of Scotland which is absurd 6. Either conquest as conquest is a just title to the crown or as a just conquest If as Conquest then all conquests are just titles to a Crown then the Ammonites Zidonians Canaanites Edomites c. subduing Gods people for
a time have just title to reigne over them and if Absolom had been stronger then David he had then had the just title to be the Lords Anointed and King of Israel not David and so strength actually prevailing should be Gods lawfull call to a Crown But strength as strength victoriouâ— is not law nor reason it were then reason that Herod behead Joâ—â— Baptist and the Roman Emperors kill the witnesses of Christ Ieus If Conquest as just be the title and lawfull claime before Gods court to a Crown then certainly a stronger King for pregnaâ—t nationall injuries may lawfully subdue and reigne over an inâ—ocent posteritie not yet borne But what word of God can 1. waâ—rant a posteritie not borne and so accessarie to no offence against tâ—e Conquerour but only sin originall to be under a Conquerouâ— against their will and who hath no right to reigne over them but the bloody sword for so Conquest as Conquest not as just maketh him King over the posteritity But 2. the fathers may ingage the posterity by an oath to surrender themselvos as loyall subject to the man who justly and deservedly made the fathers vassals by the title of the sword of justice I answer the fathers may indeed disâ—ose of the inheritance of their children because that inheritance â—elongeth to the father as well ar to the sonne but because the liberty of the sonne being borne with the sonne all men being boâ—ne free from all Civill subjection the father hath no more power to resigne the libertie of his children then their lives and the father as a father hath not power of the life of his child as a Magistrate he may have power and as something more then a father he may have power of life and death I heare not what Grotius saith Those who are not borne have no accidents and so no rights Non entis nulla sunt accidentia then Children not borne have neither right nor liberty and so no injury may some say can be done to Children not borne though the fathers should give away their liberty to the conquerour those who are not capable of Law are not capable of injury contrary to Law Ans There is a virtuall alienation of rights and lives of children not borne unlawfull because the children are not borne to say that children not borne are not capable of law and injuries virtuall which become reall in time might say Adam did not an injury to his posterity by his first sin which is contrary to Gods Word so those who vowed yearely to give seven innocent children to the Minotaure to be devoured and to kill their children not borne to bloody Molech did no acts of bloody injury to their children nor can any say then that fathers cannot tye themselves and their posterity to a King by succession but I say To be tyed to a lawfull King is no making away of liberty but a resigning of a power to be justly governed protected and awed from active and passive violence 7. No lawfull King may be dethroned nor lawfull Kingdome dissolved but Law and reason both saith Quod vi partum est imperium vi dissolvi potest Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence Censetur enim ipsa natura jus dare ad id omne sine quo obtineri non potest quod ipsa imperat It is objected that the people of God by their sword conquered seven nations of the Canaanites David conquered the Ammonites for the disgrace done to his Embassadours So God gave Egypt to Nebuchadnezar for his hire in his service done against Iudah had David no right â—ver the Ammonites and Moabites but by expecting their consent yee will say A right to their lands goods and lives but not to challenge their morall subjection well we doubt not but such conquerours will challenge and obtain their morall consent but if the people refuse their consent is there no way for providence giveth no right So D. Ferne so Arnisaeus Ans A facto ad jus non valet consequentia God to whom belongeth the world and the fulnesse thereof disponed to Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan for their inheritance and ordained that they should use their bow and their sword for the actuall possession thereof and the like divine right had David to the Edomites and Ammonites though the occasion of Davids taking possession of these Kingdoms by his sword did arise from particular and occasionall exigences and injuries but it followeth in no sort That therefore Kings now wanting any word of promise and so of divine right to any Lands may ascend to the Throns of other Kingdoms then their own by no better title then the bloody sword That Gods will was the chief patent here is clear in that God forbad his people to conquer Edom or Esau's possession when as he gave them command to conquer the Ammorites I doubt not to say if Joshua and David had had no better title then their bloody sword though provoked by injuries they could have had no right to any kingly power over these Kingdoms and if onely successe by the sword be a right of providence it is no right of precept Gods providence as providence without precept or promise can conclude a thing is done or may be done but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully and warrantably done else you might say the selling of Joseph the crucifying of Christ the spoiling of Job were lawfully done 2. Though Conquerors extort consent and oath of Loyaltie yet that maketh not over a Royall right to the Conquerour to be King over their posterity without their consent 3. Though the Children of Ammon did a high injury to David yet no injury can be recompensed in justice with the pressure of the constrained subjection of Loyaltie to a violent Lord if David had not had an higher warrant from God then an injury done to his messengers he could not have conquered them But 1. The Ammonites were the declared enemies of the Church of God and raised forces against David when they themselves were the injurer's and offenders and if Davids Conquest will prove a lawfull title by the sword to all Conquerours then may all Conquerours lawfully do to the conquered people as David did that is they may put them under saws and under harrows of iron and under axes of iron and cause them passe through the Brick-kilne But I beseech you will Royalists say that Conquerours who make themselves Kings by their sword and so make themselves fathers heads defenders and feeders of the people may use the extreamest Tyranny in the world such as David usâ—d against the children of Ammon which he could not have done by the naked title of sword-conquest if God had not laid a Commandment of an higher nature on him to serve Gods enemies so I shall then say if a conquering King be a lawfull King because a Conquerour then hath God made such a lawfull King
covenant tye and oblige himselfe to the people nor needed it be made solemnly before the Lord is the House of God 3. It is expresly a covenant that was between Ioash the King and his people and David made a covenant at his Coronation with the Princes and Elders of Israel therefore the people give the Crown to David Covenant-wise and upon condition that he should performe such and such duties to them and this is cleare by all Covenants in the Word of God even the Covenant between God and man is so mutuall I will be your God and yee shall be my people The covenant is so mutuall that if the people breake the covenant God is loosed from his part of the covenant Zach. 11. v. 10. 2. The covenant giveth to the beleever a sort of action of Law and jus quoddam to plead with God in respect of his fidelity to stand to that covenant that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity Esay 43. 26. Es 63. 16. Daniel 9. 4 5. and farre more a covenant giveth ground of a civill action and claime to a people and the free estates against a King seduced by wicked counsell to make war against the Land whereas he did sweare by the most high God that he should be a father and protector of the Church of God 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man yea all solemne promises bring the covenanteâ—s under a Law and a claime before men if the Oath of God be broken as the Covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech Gen. 21. 27. Ionathan and David I Sam. 18. 3. the spies professe to Rahab in the covenant that they made with him Iosh 2. v. 20. And if thou utter this our businesse say they we will be quit of thine Oath which thou hast made us to swear There be no mutuall contract made upon certain conditions but if the conditions be not fulfilled the party injured is loosed from the contract Barclay saith That this covenant obligeth the King to God but not the King to the people Ans It is a vaine thing to say that the people and the King make a covenant and that David made a covenant with the Elders and Princes of Israel for if he be obliged to God only and not to the people by a covenant made with the people it is not made with the people at all nay it is no more made with the people of Israel nor with the Chaldeans for it bindeth David no more to Israel nor to Chaldea as a covenant made with men Arnisaeus saith when two parties contract if one performe the duty the other is acquitted Sect. Ex hujusmod ubi vult just de duob reis l. 3. F. because every one of them are obliged fully Sect. 1. Iust cod to God to whom the Oath is made for that is his meaning and if either the people performe what is sworne to the Lord or the King yet one of the parties remaineth still under obligation and neither doth the peoples obedience exempt the King from punishment if he faile nor the Kings obedience exempt the people if they faile but every one beareth the punishment of his owne sin and there is no mutuall power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty because that belongeth to the Pretor or Magistrate before whom the contract was made The King hath jurisdiction over the people if they violate their Oath but the people hath no power over the Prince and the ground that Arnisaeus layeth downe is that 1. The King is not a party contracting with the people as if there were mutuall obligations betwixt the King and the people and a mutuall coactive power on either side 2. That the care of Religion belongeth not to the people for that hath no warrant in the Word saith he 2. We read not that the people was to command and compell the Priests and the King to reforme Religion and abolish Idolatry as it must follow if the covenant be mutuall 3. Iehoiada 2 King 11. obligeth himselfe and the King and the people by a like law to serve God and here be not two parts but three the high Priest the King the People if this example prove any thing 4. Both King and people shall finde the revenging hand of God against them if they faile in the breach of their Oath but with this difference and every one of the two King and people by the Oath stand obliged to God the King for himselfe and the people for themselves but with this difference the King oweth to God proper and due obedience as any of the subjects and also to governe the people according to Gods true religion Deut. 17. 2 Chro. 29. and in this the Kings obligation differeth from the peoples obligation the people as they would be saved must serve God and the King for the same cause 1 Sam. 12. But besides this the King is obliged to rule and governe the people and keepe them in obedience to God but the people is not obliged to governe the King and keepe him in obedience to God for then the people should have as great power of jurisdiction over the King as the King hath o-over the people which is against the Word of God and the examples of the Kings of Iudah but this commeth not from any promise or covenant that the King hath made with the people but from a peculiar obligation whereby he is obliged to God as a man not as a King This is the mystery of the businesse but I oppose this in these Assertions 1. Assert As the King is obliged to God for the maintenance of true Religion so are the people and Princes no lesse in their place obliged to maintaine true Religion for 1. the people are rebuked because they burnt Incense in all high places 2 King 17. 11. 2 Chron. 33. 17. Hos 4. 13. And the reason why the high places are not taken away 2 Chro. 20. 33. is given for as yet the people had not prepared their heart unto the God of their fathers but you will reply elicite acts of maintenance of true Religion are commanded to the people and that the places prove but the question is De actibus imperatis of commanded acts of Religion sure none but the Magistrate is to command others to worship God according to his Word I answer in ordinary only Magistrates not the King only but all the Princes of the Land and Iudges are to maintaine Religion by their commandements Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chro. 1. 2. Deut. 16. 19. Eccles 5. 8. Hab. 1. 4. Mic. 3. 9. Zach. 7. 9. Hos 5. 10. 11. and to take care of Religion but when the Iudges decline from Gods way and corrupt the Law we finde the people punished and rebuked for it Ier. 15. 4. And I will cause them to be removed to all Kingdomes of the earth because of Manasseh the sonne of Hezekiah King of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem
King not the people and the sense is The Kingdome is really some time in such a case that the Soveraigne must exercise an Arbitrary Power and not stand upon private mens interests or transgressing of Lawes made for the private good of individualls but for the preservation of it selfe and the publicke may break through all Lawes This he may in the case when suddaine forraine invasion threatneth ruine inevitably to King and Kingdome a Physitian may rather cut a Gangreened member then suffer the whole body to perish The Dictator in case of extreame dangers as Livie and Dion Halicarnass shew us had power according to his owne Arbitrament had a soveraigne Commission in peace and war of life death persons c. not co-ordinate not subordinate to any Ans It is not an Arbitrary power but naturally tyed and fettered to this same supreame Law Salus populi the safety of the people that a King breake through not the Law but the letter of the Law for the safety of the people as the Chyrurgion not by any prerogative that he hath above the Art of Chyrurgery but by necessity cutteth off a Gangreened member thus it s not Arbitrary to the King to save his people from ruine but by the strong and imperious Law of the peoples safety he doth it for if he did it not he were a murtherer of his people 2. He is to stand upon transgression of Lawes according to their genuine sense of the peoples safety for good Lawes are not contrary one to another though when he breaketh through the letter to the Law yet he breaketh not the Law for if twenty thousand Rebells invade Scotland he is to command all to rise though the formality of a Parliament cannot be had to indict the war as our Law provideth but the King doth not command all to rise and defend themselves by a Prerogative Royall proper to him as King and incommunicable to any but to himselfe 1. There is no such dinne and noise to be made for a King and his incommunicable Prerogative for though the King were not at all yea though he command the contrary as he did when he came against Scotland with an English Army the law of Nature teacheth all to rise without the King 2. That the King command this as King it is not a particular positive Law but he doth it as a man and a member of the Kingdom The law of Nature which knoweth no dreame of such a Prerogative forceth him to it as every member is by Natures indictment to care for the whole 3. It is poore hungry skill in this New Statist for so he nameth all Scotland to say that any Lawes are made for private interests and the good of some individuals Lawes are not Lawes if they be not made for the safetie of the people 4. It is false that the King in a publike danger is to care for himselfe as a man with the ruine and losse of any Yea in a publike calamitie a good King as David is to desire he may die that the Publique may bee saved 2 Samuel 24. 17. Exâ—dus 32. 32. It is commended of all that the Emperour Otho yea and Richard the 2. of England as M. Speed saith Hist of England p. 757. resigned their Kingdomes to eschew the effâ—sion of blood The Prelate adviseth the King to passe over all lawes of Nature and slay thousands of innocents and destroy Church and State of three Kingdomes for a straw and supposed Prerogative Royall Now certainly Prerogative and Absolutenes to doe good and ill must be inferior to a Law the end whereof is the safetie of the People For David willeth the pestilence may take him away and so his Prerogative that the People may be saved 2 Sam. 24. 17. for Prerogative is cumulative to doe good not privative to doe ill and so is but a meane to defend both the Law and the People 2. Prerogative is either a power to doe good or ill or both If the first be said it must be limited by the End and Law for which it is ordained A meane is no farther a meane but in so far as it conduceth to the end the safetie of all If the second be admitted It is Licence and Tyrannie not power from God If the third be said both reasons plead against this that Prerogative should be the Kings end in the present warres 3. Prerogative being a power given by the mediation of the people yea suppose which is false that it were given immediately of God yet it not a thing for which the King should raise war against his Subjects for God will aske no more of the King then he giveth to him The Lord reapeth not where he soweth not If the Militia and other things be ordered hitherto for the holding off Irish and Spanishe invasion by Sea and so for the good of the Land seeing the King in his own person cannot make use of the Militia he is to rejoyce that his Subjects are defended The King cannot answer to God for the justice of warre on his part It is not a case of conscience that the King should shed blood for to wit because the under-Officers are such men and not others of his choosing seeing the Kingdome is defended sufficiently except where Cavaliers destroy it And to me this is an unanswerable argument that the Cavaliers destroy not the Kingdomes for this Prerogative Royall as the principall ground but for a deeper designe even for that which was working by Prelates and Malignants before the late troubles in both Kingdomes 4. The King is to intend the safetie of his People and the safety of the King as a Governour but not as this King and this man Charles that is a selfe end a King David is not to looke to that for when the people was seeking his life and crown he saith Ps 3. 8. Thy blessing upon thy People He may care for and intend that the King and Government be safe for if the Kingdome be destroyed there cannot be a new Kingdome and Church on earth againe to serve God in that generation Psal 89. 47. but they may easily have a new King againe and so the safetie of the one cannot in reason be intended as a collaterall end with the safetie of the other for there is no imaginable comparison betwixt one man with all his accidents of Prerogative and Absolutenesse and three Nationall Churches and Kingdomes Better the King weep for a Childish triâ—le of a Prerogative than Poperie be erected and three Kingdomes be destroyed by Cavaliers for their own ends 5. The Dictators power is 1. a fact and proveth not a point of Conscience 2. His power was in an exigence of extreme danger of the Commonwealth The P. Prelate pleadeth for a constant absolutenesse above Lawes to the King at all times and that jure Divino 3. The Dictator was the Peoples creature ergo the Creator the People had that soveraigntie over him 4. The
with the wine of the Cup of Babells fornications are so madde and the ten Emperours are so madde who wasted their faithfullest subjects P. Prelate If there be such a power in the Peeres resumable in the exigent of necessity as the last necessary remedy for safety of Church and State God and nature not being deficient in things necessary it must be proved out of the Scripture and not taken on trust for Affirmanti incumbit probatio Ans Mr. Bishop what better is your Affirmanti incumbit c then mine for you are the affirmer I can prove a power in the King limited onely to feed governe and save the people and you affirme that God hath given to the King not only a power officiall and Royall to save but also to destroy and cut off so as no man may say Why doest thou this Shall we take this upon the word of an excommunicated Prelate Profer tabulas Iohn P. P. I beleeve you not Royall power is Deut. 17. 18. Rom. 3. 14. I am sure there is there a power given to the King to doe good and that from God Let John P. P. prove a power to doe ill given of God to the King 2. We shall quickly prove that the States may represse this power and punish the Tyrant not the King when he shall prove that a Tyrannous power is an Ordinance of God and so may not be resisted For the law of Nature teacheth If I give my sword to my fellow to defend me from the murtherer if he shall fall to and murther me with my own sword I may if I have strength take my sword from him Prelate It is infidelitie to thinke that God cannot helpe us and impatience that we will not wait on God When a King oppresseth us it is against Gods wisdome that he hath not provided another meane for our safetie than intrusion on Gods right 2. It is against Gods power 3. his Holinesse 4. Christian Religion that we necessitate God to so weake a meane to make use of sinne and we cast the aspersion of Treason on Religion and deterre Kings to professe Reformed Catholike Religion 5. We are not to justle God out of his right Ans I see nothing but what D. Ferne Grotius Barclay Blackwood have said before with some colour of proving the consequence The P. Prelate giveth us other mens arguments but without bones All were good if the States coercing and curbing a power which God never gave to the King were a sinne and an act of impatience and unbelief And if it were proper to God only by his immediate hand to coerce Tyrannie 2. He calleth it not Protestant Religion either here or elsewhere but cautelously giveth a name that will agree to the Roman Catholique Religion For the Dominicans Franciscans and the Parisian Doctors and Schoolemen following Occham Gerson Almain and other Papists call themselves Reformed Catholiques 2. He layeth this for a ground in 3 or 4 pages where these same Arguments are againe and againe repeated in terminis as his second Reason p. 149. was handled ad nauseam p. 148. his 3. Reason is repeated in his 6. Reason p. 151. He layeth I say down this ground which is the begged Conclusion and maketh the Conclusion the Assumption in 8 raw and often repeated Arguments to wit That the Parliaments coercing and restraining of Arbitrarie power is rebellion and resisting the Ordinance of God But he dare not looke the place Rom. 13. on the face other Royalists have done it with bad successe This I desire to be weighed â—â—d I retort the Prelates argument But it is indeed the triviall Argument of all Royalists especially of Barclay obvious in his 3. Booke If Arbitrarie and Tyrannicall power above any Law that the lawfull Magistrate commandeth under the paine of death Thou shalt not murther one man Thou shalt not take away the vineyard of one Naboth violently be lawfull and warrantable by Gods word then an Arbitrarie power above all Divine lawes is given to the keeping of the Civill Magistrate And it is no lesse lawfull Arbitrarie or rather Tyrannicall power for David to kill all his Subjects and to plunder all Jerusalem as I beleeve Prelates and Malignants and Papists would serve the three Kingdomes if the King should command them then to kill one Vriah or for Achab to spoile one Naboth The essence of sinne must agree alike to all though the degrees varie Of Gods remedie against Arbitrary power hereafter in the Question of Resistance but the confused ingine of the Prelate bringeth it in here where there is no place for it His 7. Argument is Before God would authorize Rebellion and give a bad president thereof for ever he would rather worke extraordinary and wonderfull miracles and therefore would not authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Mosesâ— Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a stretched-out arme nor did the Lord deliver his people by the wisdome oâ— Moses or strength of the people or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and power Ans I reduce the Prelates confused words to a few for I speake not of his Popish tearme of Saint Steven and others the like because all that he hath said in a book of 149 pages might have been said in three sheets of paper But I pray you what is this Argument to the Question in hand which is Whether the King be so above all Lawes as People and Peeres in the case of Arbitrarie power may resume their power and punish a Tyrant The P. Prelate draweth in the Question of Resistance by the haire Israels not rising in armes against K. Pharaoh proveth nothing against the power of a Free Kingdome against a Tyrant 1. Moses who wrought miracles destructive to Pharaoh might pray a vengeance against Pharaoh God having revealed to Moses that Pharaoh was a Reprobate But may Ministers and Nobles pray so against King Charles God forbid 2. Pharaoh had not his Crown from Israel 3. Pharaoh had not sworne to defend Israel nor became he their King upon condition he should maintaine and professe the Religion of the God of Israel Therefore Israel could not as free Estates challenge him in their supreme Court of Parliament of breach of oath and upon no termes could they un-king Pharaoh He held not his Crown of them 4. Pharaoh was never circumcised nor within the Covenant of the God of Isrdel in profession 5. Israel had their lands by the meere gift of the King I hope the King of Britaine standeth to Scotland and England in a fourefold contrary relation All Divines know that Pharaoh his Princes and the Egyptians were his Peeres and People â—nd that Israel were not his native Subjects but a number of strangers who by the lawes of the King and Princes by the meanes of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and libertie to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their
we yeeld obedience to the person c. and the Prelate hath as much learning as to coppy out of Fern and Barclay Arniseus and others these words and the like but hath not wit to adde the sinewes of these Authors reason and with all this he can in his Preface call it his own and provoke any to answer him if they dare whereas while I answer this excommunicated Pamphletter I answer these learned Authors from which he stealeth all he hath and yet he must perswade the King he is the onely man can defend his Majesties Cause and the importunity forsooth of friends extorted this peece as if it were a fault that this Delphick Oracle giving out railings and lies for responses should be silent 2. Not we onely but the Holy Ghost in terminis hath this distinction Act. 4. 19. and 5. 29. We ought to obey God rather then men Them Rulers for of Rulers sitting in judgement is that speech uttered commanding and tyrannizing over the Apostles are men contradistinguished from God and as they command and punish unjustly they are but men otherwise commanding for God they are Gods and more then men 2. From Theophylact also or from Chrysostome on Rom. 13. we have this The Apostle speaketh not say they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Soveraigntie or Royaltie doth not properly reign or bear the sword or receive praise and this accident doth not bear a sword nor do we think or Paul speak Rom. 13. of the abstracted Jew of power and Royaltie subsisting out of its subject nor dream we that the naked accident of Royall Authority is to be feared and honoured as the Lords anointed the person or man who is the King and beareth the Crown on his head and holdeth the scepter in his hand is to be obeyed accidentes are not persons but they speak non-sense and like brute beasts who deny that all the kingly honour due to the King must be due to him as a King and because of the Royall dignity that God hath given to him and not because he is a man for a Pursevants son is a man and if a Pursevants son would usurpe the throne and take the Crown on his head and the scepter in his hand and command that all souls be subject to such a superior Power because he is a man the Lawes of Scotland would hang a man for a lesse fault we know and the P. Prelate was wont to edifie women and converted souls to Christ with such a distinction as objectum quod and objectum quo in the Pulpits of Edenburgh and it hath good use here we never took abstract Royalty to be the King The Kings of Scotland of old were not second notions and we exclude not the person of the King yet we distinguish with leave of the P. Prelate betwixt the person in linea physica we must take physica largly heer and in linea morali obedience fear tribute honour is due to the person of the King and to the man who is King not because of his person or because he is a man the P. Prelate may know in what notion we take the name Person but because God by the peoples election hath exalted him to Royall dignity and for this cause ill doers are to subject their throats and necks to the sword of the Lords Annoynteds executioner or hangman with patience and willingly because in taking away the head of ill doers for ill doing he is acting the Office of the Lord by whom he Raigneth but if he take away their heads and send out the long-tusked Vultures and Boares of Babylon the Irish Rebells to execute his wrath as he is in that act a mis-informed man and wanteth the authority of Gods Law or mans Law he may be resisted with Armes For 1. If Royalists say against this then if a King turne an habituall Tyrant and conduce an hundred thousand Turkes to destroy his subjects upon meere desire of revenge they are not to resist but to be subject and suffer for conscience I am sure Grotius saith If a King sell his subjects he loseth all title to the Crowne and so may be resisted and Winzetus saith A Tyrant may be resisted and Barclay It is lawfull for the people in case of Tyranny to defend themselves Adversus immanem saevetiam against extreame cruelty and I desire the Prelate to answer how people are subject in suffering such cruelty of the higher power because he is Gods ordinance and a power from God except he say as he selleth his people and barbarously destroyeth by Cut-throat Irishes his whole subjects refusing to worship Idolls he is a man and a sinfull man eatenus and an inferiour power inspired by wicked counsell not a King eatenus not a higher power and that in resisting him thus the subjects resist not the ordinance of God Also suppone King David defend his Kingdome and people against Iesse his naturall father who we suppose cometh in against his sonne and Prince King David with a huge army of the Philistimes to destroy him and his Kingdome if he shall kill his owne native father in that warr at some Edge-hill how shall he preserve at Ierusalem that honour love that he oweth to his father by vertue of the fifth Commandement Honour thy father and thy mother c. Let them answer this except King David consider Iesse in one relation in abstracto as his father whom he is to obey and as he is a wicked man and a perfidious subject in another relation and except King David say he is to subject himselfe to his father as a father according to the fifth Commandement and that in the act of his fathers violent invasion he is not to subject himselfe to him as he is a violent invader and as a man Let the Royalist see how he can answer the Argument and how Levie is not to know his father and mother as they are sinfull men Deut. 33. 9. and yet to know and honour them as Parents and how an Israelite is not to pitty the wife that lyeth in his bosome when she inticeth him to goe a whooring after strange Gods but is to kill her Deut. 13. 6 7 8. and yet the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved his Church Eph. 5. 25. If the husband take away his wives life in some mountaine in the holy Land as Gods Law commandeth let the Royalists answer us where is then the meritall love he owes to her and that respect due to her as she is a wife and a helper But let not the Royalist infer that I am from these examples pleading for the killing of Kings for lawfull resistance is one thing and killing of Kings is another the one defensive and lawfull the other offensive and unlawfull so long as he remaineth a King and the Lords Anoynted But if he be a murtherer of his father who doth counsell his father to come to a place of danger where he may be killed and
a praise to good Pilates power to crucifie Christ was the contrary 4. A Law-power is to execute wrath on ill-doing a power to crucifie Christ is no such 5. A Law-power conciliateth honour fear and veneration to the person of the Iudge a power to crucifie Christ conciliateth no such thing but a disgrace to Pilate 6. The Genuine Acts of a lawfull power are lawfull Acts for such as is the Fountain-power such are the Acts flowing therefrom good Acts flow not from bad powers neither hath God given a power to sin except by way of permission QUEST XXX Whether or no Passive Obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement and what a meane Resistance is That Flying is Resistance MUch is built to commend patient suffering of ill and condemne all resistance of Superiors by Royalists on the place 1 Pet. 2. 18. Where we are commanded being servants to suffer buffets not onely for ill doing of good masters but also undeservedly and when we doe well we are to suffer of these masters that are evill and so much more are we patiently without Resistance to suffer of Kings But it is cleare the place is nothing against Resistance as in these Assertions I cleare Assertion 1. Patient suffering of wicked men and violent resisting are not incompatible but they may well stand together So this consequence is the basis of the argument and it is just nothing To wit Servants are to suffer unjustly wounds and buffeting of their wicked Masters and they are to bear it patiently Ergo Servants are in conscience obliged to non-resistance Now Scripture maketh this clear The Church of God is to bear with all patience the indignation of the Lord because she hath sinned and to suffer of wicked enemies which were to be troden as mire in the streets Micah 7. 9 10 11 12. but withall they were not obliged to non-resistance and not to fight against these enemies yea they were obliged to fight against them also If these were Babilon Iudah might have resisted and fought if God had not given a speciall commandement of a positive law that they should not fight if these were the Assyrians and other enemies or rather both the people were to resist by fighting and yet to endure patiently the indignation of the Lord. David did bear most patiently the wrong that his own son Absolon and Achitophel and the people inflicted on him in pursuing him to take his life and the kingdom from him as is cleare by his gracious expressious 2 Sam. 15. 25 26. chap. 16. ver 10 11 12. Psal 3. 1 2 3. Yea he prayeth for a blessing on the people that conspired against him Psal 3. 8. Yet did he lawfully resist Absalom and the conspiratours and sent out Ioab and a huge army in open battel against them 2 Sam. 18. 1 2 3 4 c. and fought against them And were not the people of God patient to endure the violence done to them in the wildernes by Og king of Bashan Siho◠king of Heshbon by the Ammorites Moabites c I think Gods law tyeth all men especially his people to as patient a suffering in wars Deut. 8. 16. God then trying and humbling his people as the servant is to endure patiently unjustly inflicted buffets 1 Pet. 2. 18. And yet Gods people at Gods command did resist these Kings and people and did fight and kill them and possesse their land as the history is cleare See the like Iosh 11. ver 18 19. 2. One act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another Resistance is in the Children of God an innocent act of self-preservation as is patient suffering and therefore they may well subsist in one And so saith Amasa by the spirit of the Lord 1 Chro. 12. 18. Peace peace be unto thee and peace to thy helpers for God helpeth thee Now David in that and all his helpers were resisters of King Saul 3. The scope of the place 1 Pet. 2. is not to forbid all violent resisting as is clear he speaketh nothing of violent resisting either one way or other but onely he forbiddeth revengefull resisting of repaying one wrong with another from the example of Christ who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not Therefore the argument is a falacy ab eo quod docitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though therefore the master should attempt to kill an innocent servant and invade him with a weapon of death 1. Suddenly 2. Without all reason or cause 3. Vnavoidably Doctor Ferne in that case doth free a Subject from guiltynesse if he violently resist his Prince Ergo the servant who should violently resist his Master in the aforesaid case should and might patiently suffer and violently resist notwithstanding any thing that Royalists can conclude on the contrary 4. No Prince hath a Masterly or herile dominion over his subjects but onely a free ingenious paternall and tutorly over-sight for the good of the people Rom. 13. 4. The Master especially in the Apostle Peters time had a dominion over servants as over their proper goods 2. Assertion Neither suffering formally as suffering and so neither can non-resisting passive fall under any morall law of God except in two conditions 1. In the point of Christs passive obedience he being the eternall God as well as Man and so Lord of his owne blood and life by vertue of a speciall commandement imposed on him by his Father was commanded to lay downe his life yea and to be an Agent as well as a Patient in dying Ioh. 10. 18. Yea and actively he was to contribute somthing for his own death and offer himself willingly to death Mat. 28. 20. And knowing the houre that he was to depart out of this world unto the Father Iohn 13. 1. would not onely not flee which is to Royalists lawfull to us a speciall point of resistance Ioh. 14. 31. Ioh. 18. 4 5 6 7. and but upbraided Peter as the Agent of Sathan who would disswade him to die Mat. 16. 22 23. and would fight for him And he doth not fetch any argument against Peters drawing of his sword from the unlawfulnesse of self-defence and innocent resistance which he should have done if Royalists plead with any colour of reason from his example against the lawfulnesse of Resistance and self-defence but from the absolute power of God 2. From Gods positive wil who commanded him to die Mat. 26. 53 54. if therefore Royalists prove any thing against the lawfulnesse of resisting Kings when they offer most unjustly violence to the life of Gods servants from this one meerly extraordinary and rare example of Christ the like whereof was never in the world they may from the same example prove it unlawfull to flee for Christ would not flee Psal 40. 6 7. Heb. 10. 6 7 8 9. Ioh. 14. 31. Ioh.
put us to flee even all Protestants and their seed and the weak and sick whom we are obliged to defend as our selves both by the Law of nature and grace I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God to dwell there but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestantâ— their seed aged sick sucking children should flee out of England Scotland Ireland and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists Prelates and bloody Irish and Atheists and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land violent re-offending is their second mean next to supplications and declarations c. and flight is not required of them as of a private man Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation violent and unjust invasion of a private man which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book or rather the idolatry of the Masse therein intended was unavoidable it was unpossible for the Protestants their old and sick their women and sucking children to flee over sea or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book Althusius saith well Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee but the estates if they flee they do not their duty to commit a country religion and all to a Lion Let not any oâ—ject we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy Psal 2. 8 9. Isa 49. 1. it is true if the way be our own sinfull way nor let any object a Colony went to New-England and fled the persecution Answer True but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication there was no more reason that one Colony should go to New-England then it is necessary by a divine law obligatory that the wholâ— Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine are to leave their native country religion to one man to popish Idolators Atheists willing to worship idols with them and whethere then shall the Gospel be which we are obliged to defend with our lives 2. There is Tutela vitae proxima remota A meer and immediat defence of our life and a remote or mediat defence when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending David might have killed Saul whâ—n he was sleeping and when he cut off the lap of his garment but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed because he is the Lords Annoited as it is unlawfull to kill a man because he is the Image of God Gen. 96. except in case of necessity The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector thought his malefices do not put him in that case that he hath not now the image of God now prudency and light of grace determineth When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation it is not left to our pleasure In a remote posture of self-defence we are not to â—se violet re-offending David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actuall not inavoidable not a necessary mean in human prudence for self-preservation for King Saul was then in a habituall not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes Elders and judges of Israel or of a whole community and Church Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for religion or a nationall pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul it is no lesse unlawfull to threatten a King then to put hands on him and rather kill or be killed by Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissaries for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in three kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religious Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitrary or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the three Kingdoms to actuall killing rather then we be killed and suffer Lawes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Annoynted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans 1. David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without colour of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resisted and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he remaineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6. 9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe
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 conscience 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 arbitary 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 When 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 if 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 Rebels 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 left 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 Ahimelâ—ch and Abishai 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 flâ—d no or that David consulted the oracle of God what to do when Saul was coming against him 5. in an ordinary fact something may 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 is I confesse a short way to an adversary to cull out something that 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 not 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 answered They will not deliver
sheepe 3. A power to doe ill without resistance is not security Object 15. If God appoint Ministers to preach then the sheep cannot seeke safety elsewhere Ergo. Answ The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband but not if she feare he will kill her in the bed The obedience of positive duties that subjects owe to Princes cannot loose them from Natures law of self-preservation nor from Gods Law of defending Religion against Papists in Armes nor are the sheep obliged to intrust themselves but to a saving shepherd Object 16. If self-defence and that by taking up Armes against the King be an unlawfull duty how is it that you have no practise no precept no promise for it in all the word of God 1. You have no practise Ahab sold himselfe to do evill he was an Idolater and killed the Prophets and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse stirred him up to great wickednesse Elias had as great power with the people as you have yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church Arnisaeus de autho Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled Nebuchadnezer Ahab Manassah Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters the people never raised an Armie against them B. Williams of Osserie p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother son daughter wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods kill them not a word of the father Children are to love Fathers not to kill them Christ saith John P. P. in the cradle taught by practise to flee from Herod and all Christs acts and sufferings are full of mysteries and our instructions Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him but would rather worke a miracle in curing Malchus eare as use the sword against Caesar If Sectaries give us a new Creed it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell and the communion of Saints to raze out this He suffered under Pontius Pilate My resolution is for this sin of yours to dissolve in teares and Prayers and with my Master say daylie and hourely Father forgive them c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans because they refused him lodging 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry blasphemy murther adultery c. and all sins never against the sin of neglect and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word Answ It is a great non-consequence this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word Ergo. It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith Shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she inticed him to follow strange Gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13 6. when a man lying with a beast is put to death Yet it is a Law Exod. 22. 19. infinite more Lawes are the practise of which we finde not in Scripture 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry and if Iehu out of sincerity and for the zeale of God had done what God commanded he should have beene rewarded for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu that he should kill Ahab yet there was an expresse Law for it that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death Deut. 13. 6. and there is no exception of King or Father in the Law and to except father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeale of God Deut. 33. 9. And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King and in killing King Nabad and smiting all the house of Ieroboam foâ— his Idolatry they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty according to Gods expresse Law Deut. 13. 6 7 8 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary 3. Ahab and Iezabel raised not an Armie of Idolaters Malignants such as are Papists Prelates and Cavalliers against the three Estates to destroy Parliaments Lawes and Religion and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry to forsake the Covenant throw downe the Altars of God and slay his Prophets so as in the estimation of Elias 1 King 19. 9 10 11. there was not one man but they were Malignant Cavalliers and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves and to shew them it is their duty to make warre against the King and themselves in the defence of Religion when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people that they sinned in joyning with the King what place was there to shew them their sin in not using their owne lawfull defence And in reason any may judge it unreasonable for Elias to exhort of thousand thousands in Israel poore seven thousand of which many no doubt were women aged weake young to rise in Armes against Ahab and all Israel except God had given a positive and extraordinary Commandement and with all miraculous courage and strength in war against the whole Land and God worketh not alwayes by miracles to save his Church and therefore the naturall mandate of self-preservation in that case doth no more oblige a few weake ones to lawfull resistance then it obliged one Martyre to rise against a persecuting Nero and all his forces Arnisaeus should remember wee are not to tye our Lord to miracles 2. Elias did not onely flee but denounced wrath against the King and Cavalliers who joyned with them in Idolatry and when God gave oportunity he shewed himself and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seduceing idolatours when the Idolatrous King refused to do it and Eliah with his own hand took them not but all Israel being gathered together 1 King 18. 19. The Princes and Judges did apprehend them ver 40. which is a warrant when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists that other judges are to do it 2. For Nebuchadnezzer Ieremiah from the Lord expresly forbad to fight against him shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cut-throats for that example may as well prove if it be a binding law to us that our King should not raise his Subjects to fight against a Spanish Armado and a forraigne Prince for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27. 1. In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim ver 12 13 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon I hope this will not tye us and our King not to fight against forraigne Princes or against the great Turk if they shall unjustly invade us and our King and this example is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him as much as against us for Nebuchadnezzar was a
9. Why if God might work a miracle in the three Childrens resistance active why doth he evidence omnipotencie in the passive obedience of these Witnesses The Kingdome of Iudah was Christs birthright as man and Davids sonne why did he not by legions of Men Angels rather vindicate his own flesh and blood than triumph by non-resistance and the omnipotencie of glorie to shine in his meere suffering Ans Who art thou that disputest with God He that killeth with the jaw-bone of an Asse thousands and he that destroyed the numberlesse Midianites by only three hundred should no more put the three Children to an unlawfull fact in the one if they had by three men killed Nebuchadnezzar and all his Subjects than in the other But nothing is said against us in a Sophisme à non-causa pro causa except it be proved God would neither deliver his three Children nor Christ from death and the Iewes from bondage by miraculous resistance because resistance is unlawfull What patient suffring is lawfull Ergo resistance is unlawfull It is a poor consequent and a begging of the question both must be lawfull to us And so we hold of ten lawfull meanes fit to compasse Gods blessed end he may choose one and let goe nine shall any inferre ergo These other nine meanes are unlawfull because God chose a mean dâ—fferent from those nine and refused them So may I answer by retortion The three hundred sinned in resisting Midian and defeating them Why Because it should be more honour to God if they had by suffering patiently the sword of Midian glorified God in Martyrdome So Christ and the Apostles who could have wrought miracles might have wrought Reformation by the sword and destroyed Kings and Emperors the opposers of the Lambe and they did reforme by suffering Ergo the sword is unlawfull in Reformation It followeth not The meane Christ used is lawfull Ergo all other meanes that he used not are unlawfull It is vaine Logick Quest 10. Whether is the Coronation of a King any other thing but a Ceremonie Ans In the Coronation there is and may be the Ceremonie of a shout and an Acclamation and the reaching of a Scepter in his right hand who is made King and the like But the Coronation in concreto according to the substance of the act is no Ceremonie nor any accidentall ingredient in the constitution of a King 1. Because Israel should have performed a meere ceremoniall action on Saul when they made him King which we cannot say for as the Peoples act of Coronation is distinctive so is it constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and did constitute him in a new relation that he was changed from no King to be a King 2. The people cannot by a Ceremonie make a King they must really put some honour on him that was not on him before Now this Ceremonie which Royalists doe fancie Coronation to be is only fymbolicall and declarative not really dative it placeth nothing in the King Quest 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King it being the immediate result without intervening of Law or any act of man issuing from God only Ans Though we should give which in reason we cannot grant that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God without any act of man Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle without any act of men yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power that he abuse it not to Iudaizing Royalists deny not but they teach That the 80. Priests that restrained Vzziah his power from burning incense to the Lord gave no Royall power to Vzziah Doe not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power that he kill not the subjects without cause yet they teach That subjects gave no power to the King certainly this is a proofe of the immense power of the King of Kings that none can fly from his pursuing hand Ps 139. 1 2 3. Amos 9. 1 2 3 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings Nebuchadnezzar as Royalists teach might justly conquer some Kingdomes for conquest is a just title to the Crowne say they now the Conquerour then justly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him yet we know the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King Ioshua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave and therefore this is no good reason The people gave not to the King Royall Power ergo they could not lawfully limit it and take it away 2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly without the intervention of any Act of Law for it is an Act of Law that Deut. 17. the people chooseth such a King not such a King that the people by a legall covenant make Saul David and Joash Kings and that God exerciseth any politicall action of making a King over such subjects upon such a condition is absurd and inconceivable for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jsrael upon this politicall and legall condition that they rule in Iustice and Judgement but there must intervene a politicall action and so they are not made Kings immediatly If God feed Moses by bread and Manna the Lords act of feeding is mediate by the mediation of second causes if he feed Moses 40. dayes without eating any thing the act of feeding is immediate If God made David King as he made him a Prophet I should thinke God immediatly made him King for God asked consent of no man of no people no not of David himselfe before he infused on him the Spirit of Prophecy but he made him formally King by the politicall and legall Covenant betwixt him and the people I shall not thinke that a Covenant and Oath of God is a Ceremony especially a Law-covenant or a politicall paction between David and the people the contents whereof behoved to be De materia gravi onerosa concerning a great part of obedience to the fifth Commandement of Gods Morall Law the duties Morall concerning Religion and Mercy and Justice to be performed reciprocally between King and people Oathes I hope are more then Ceremonies Quest 12. Whether or no is not the Common-wealth ever a Pupill never growing to age as a minor under nonage doth come not to need a Tutor but the Common-wealth being still in need of a Tutor a Governour or King must alwaies be a Tutor and so the Kingdome can never come to that condition as to accuse the King it alwaies being minor Ans 1. Then can they never accuse inferiour Iudges for a Kingdome is perpetually in such a nonage as it cannot want them when sometime it wanteth a King 2. Can the Common-wealth under Democracy and Aristocracy being perpetually under nonage ever then quarrell at these Governments and never seeke a
that commandeth obedience active or passive unjustly is eatenus 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. â— Pag. 141. Sac. sanâ— mac 2 pag 28. pag. 30. 31. Arnisaen de potest prin c. 2. 11. 17. pag. 3. sec 5. pag. 30. Royalists reasons that to resist the man or person is to resist the King office or ordinance of God Grot. dâ— iur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Winzetus Velitat adver 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 theobject 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. Sect. 5. 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. Ferne part 3. § 2. p. 10. Suffering and non-resistance passive fell under no 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. Conses Remonstrant Suffering not commanded of God formally We are comparatively rather to suffer then to deny the truth but we are not commanded formally to suffer Patience in suffering is commanded not suffering it self formally Re-offending in ended is contrary to patient subjection The physicall act of taking away of the liâ—â— makeâ—h not homâ—cide We have a greater dominion over our goods and members mutilation excepted then over our life Populo quidem hoc casu resistendi actuendi se ab injuâ—ia potestas competir sed tuendise tantum non autem â—â—inâ—ipem inâ—…di resisâ—endâ— injuriae illaâ—ae nâ—n reâ—â—dendi a deâ—â—ra reverenâ—ia non vim pâ—…am uâ—â—isâ—… 〈…〉 â—â—â— Defenâ—â—ve warres cannot be without offending D. Ferne acknowledgeth violent resisting to be lawfull but not defensive warres Defensive wars are offensive only by accidâ—nt There is â—o holding of an arâ—ies hands or warding of stroakes â—ut by â—ffensive wars conjoyned by accidâ—nt with defensive wars Flying is resistance Self-defence naturall D. Ferne alloweth the resistance of denying of Tribute to a tyranous Prince Apologies Supplications Flight taking of Armes lawfull in self-defence Violent re-offending in self-defence the last remedy Simmons Loyâ—ll Subjects belees Re-offending comparatively that I kill ere I be killed in the court of necessity lawâ—ull The â—leeing of a Church or nation not a mean of self-defence alway possible and so not required of God A self defence remote and a self-defence nâ—ere hand When David had Saul in his hand he was in a case of actuall self-defence Saul being in a habituall unjust pursuit The Protestants of the three kingdoms not in the case that David was in when he came armed upon King Saul sleeping So D. Ferne. The law of universall and particular nature warranteth self-defence This or that King not the adequat head of the community Fxod 32. Rom. 9. The love of our selfe the rule and measure of our love to our neighbour We are to love 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 Self defence common to man with beasts Takeing of armes in the law is a soveraigne ground of a dâ—fensive postuâ—e Offensive and defensive wars differ in the event and intentions of men but not physically A where may not sell her own body for hire Covar to 1. par 2. â— 1. de furti rapi restituti §. 2. n. 1. The lawfulness of violent resistance of Kings cleare from Scripture proofes Symmons Loyall subject § 10. pag 31. Davids not invading 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 conscience Sect. 2. Arnisaeus de authorit prinâ— c. 2. n. 15. Davids example not extraordinary Elisha's fact proveth the lawfulnesse of defensive wars Elisha by no extraordinary spirit resisted Joram Loyall subjects beliefe Resistance made to King Vzziah proveth the same Vaâ—ib Deturba â—nt eum ex illo lâ—co compulsusque ut egâ—â—de etur inâ—â— â—â— Fâ—â—â—inanter eg â—dâ— eum coeâ—eâ—unt hoc est extruserunt eum 1 Sam. 14. The peoples resisting of Saul in rescuing Jonathan unjustly condemned to die saith that the Estates of the two Kingdomes may swear and covenant to rescue thousands of innocents from the unjust sword of cuâ—throats of Ireland Papists in England Chald. Par. Manifestum est quod Jonathan peccavit perignorantiam P. Mart. saith with a doubt Si ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunâ— Yea he saith they might suffragiis 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 Libnah revoltrd Quia subditos nitebatur cogere ad Idololatriam quod ipsi libnenses pati noluerunt merito principibus enim parendum est verum usque ad aras The King would compell them to Idolatry and they justly râ—volt d. 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. discussed The King onely is not understood in the Text. The King is principally understood in the Text Rom. 13. in regard of dignity but not only in regard of â—ssance Onely Nero cannot be understood Rom. 13. â— Vatab. Homines intelligit publica authoritatepâ—aeditus The P. Prelats poore reasons restraining the Text to Kings answered Prelat Sac. Sanct. maj c. 2. pag. 29. P. Martyr Varia sunt potestatum gâ—nera regna Aristocâ—atica Politica Tyrannica Oligaâ—chica Deus etiam illorum author Willet saith the same and so Beza so Tolet. Haymo Reasons against the lawfulnesse of resistance made to unjust violence answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herod l. 7. de Xerxe Vulgar version and Lyra turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Apostate Luk. 15. 32. Prelat Sac. sanc maj c. 5. n. 6. The objection that Goâ—s Prophets never rebuked non-resistance as a murtherous omission and that Gods people in Scripture never practâ—sâ—d resistancâ— aâ—d God nâ—vâ—r commanded it fâ—lly â—nswâ—red Nota. Rivet in Dâ—cal in mand 6. pag. 234. Sheweth the reasons why Christ condemned Peter not because he thought self defence unlawfull but 1. it had a kind of revenge in it for so few could not repel such an army