of Motion be larger in compasse in the one then in the other and if the King cannot give himself Royall Power but God and the people must do it how can he communicate any part of that power to inferiour Judges except by trust Yea he hath not that power that other men have in many respects 1. He may not marry whom he pleaseth for he might give his body to a Leper woman and so hurt the Kingdom 2. He may not do as Solomon and Achab marry the daughter of a strange god to make her the mother of the heir of the Crown He must in this follow his great Senate 2. He may not expose his person to hazard of Warres 3. He may not go over Sea and leave his Watch-Tower without consent 4. Many Acts of Parliament of both Kingdoms discharge Papists to come within ten miles of the King 5. Some pernicious Counsellours have been discharged 〈◊〉 company by Laws 6. He may not eat what Meats he pleaseth 7. He may not make Wasters his Treasurers 8. Nor Delapidate the Rents of the Crown 9. He may not dis-inherit his eldest son of the Crown at his own pleasure 10. He is sworn to follow no false gods and false religions nor is it in his power to go to Masse 11. If a Priest say Masse to the King by the Law he is hanged drawn and quartered 12. He may not write Letters to the Pope by Law 13. He may not by Law pardon seducing Priests and Iesuites 14. He may not take Physick for his health but from Physitians sworn to be true to him 15. He may not educate his heir as he pleaseth 16. He hath not power of his children nor hath he that power that other fathers have to marry his eldest son as he pleaseth 17. He may not befriend a Traytor 18. It is high Treason for any woman to give her body to the King except she be his married wife 19. He ought not to build sumptuous Houses without advice of his Councell 20. He may not dwell constantly where he pleaseth 21. Nor may he go to the Countrey to Hunt farlesse to kill his subjects and desert the Parliament 22. He may not confer honours and high places without his Councell 23. He may not deprive Iudges at his will 24. Nor is it in his power to be buried where he pleaseth but amongst the Kings Now in most of these twenty four points private persons have their own liberty far lesse restricted then the King QUEST XXIV What power hath the King in relation to the Law and the people And how a King and a Tyrant differ Mr. Symmons saith That Authoritie is rooted rather in the Prince then in the Law for as the King giveth Being to the inferiour Iudge so he doth to the Law it self making it authorizable for propter quod unum-quodque tale id ipsum magis tale and therefore the King is greater then the Law others say That the King is the Fountain of the Law and the sole and onely Law-giver Assert 1. The Law hath a twofold consideration 1. Secundum esse paenale in relation to the punishment to be inflicted by man 2. Secundum esse legis as it is a thing legally good in it self In the former notion it is this way true Humane Laws take life and being inway to be punished or rewarded by men from the will of Princes and Law-givers and so Symmons saith true Because men cannot punish or reward Laws but where they are made and the will of Rulers putteth a sort of stamp on a Law that it bringeth the Common-wealth under guiltinesse if they break this Law But this maketh not the King greater then the Law for therefore do Rulers put the stamp of relation to punishment on the Law because there is intrinsecall worth in the Law Prior to the Act of the will of Law-givers for which it meriteth to be inacted and therefore because it is authorizable as good and just the King puteth on it this stamp of a Politique Law God formeth Being and morall Aptitude to the end in all Laws to wit the safetie of the people and the Kings will is neither the measure nor the cause of the goodnesse of things 2. If the King be he who maketh the Law good and just because he is more such himself then as the Law cannot crook and erre nor sin neither can the King sin nor break a Law This is blasphemy Every man is a lyer a Law which deserveth the name of a Law cannot lie 3. His ground is That there is such majesty in Kings that their will must be done either in us or on us A great untruth Achabs will must neither be done of Elias for he commandeth things unjust nor yet on Elias for Elias fled and lawfully we may flie Tyrants and so Achabs will in killing Elias was not done on him Assert 2. Nor can it be made good that the King only hath power of making Lawes because his power were then absolute to inflict penalties on Subjects without any consent of theirs and that were a dominion of Masters who command what they please and under what paine they please And the people consenting to be ruled by such a man they tacitely consent to penaltie of laws because naturall reason saith An ill-doer should be punished Florianus in l. inde Vasquez l. 2. c. 55. n. 3. Therefore they must have some power in making these lawes 2. Jer. 26. It is cleare The Princes judge with the people A nomothetick power differeth gradually only from a judiciall power both being collaterall meanes to the end of Government the peoples safetie But Parliaments judge ergo they have a nomothetick power with the King 3. The Parliament giveth all supremacie to the King ergo to prevent Tyrannie it must keep a coordinate power with the King in the highest acts 4. If the Kingly line be interrupted if the King be a Childe or a Captive they make Lawes who make Kings Ergo this nomothetick power recurreth into the States as to the first subject Obj. The King is the fountaine of the law and Subjects cannot make Lawes to themselves more then they can punish themselves He is only the Supreme Answ. The People being the fountaine of the King must rather be the fountaine of Lawes 2. It is false that no man maketh lawes to himselfe Those who teach others teach themselves also 1 Tim. 2.12 1 Cor. 14.34 though Teaching be an act of authoritie But they agree to the penaltie of the Law secondarily only and so doth the King who as a father doth not will evill of punishment to his children but by a consequent will 3. The King is the only Supreme in the power ministeriall of executing lawes but this is a derived power so as no one man is above him but in the fountaine-power of Royaltie the States are above him 5. The Civil law is cleare that the laws of the Emperor have force
positive covenant made with him To finde out the essentiall difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant We are to observe that it is one thing to sin against a man another thing against a Stat◠David killing Vriah committed an act of murther But on this supposition that David is not punished for that murther he did not so sin against the State and Catholike good of the State that he turneth Tyrant and ceaseth to be a lawfull King A Tyrant is he who habitually sinneth against the Catholike good of the Subjects and State and subverteth Law Such a one should not be as Jason of whom it is said by Aeneas Silvius Graviter ferebat si non regnaret quasi nesciret esse privatus When such as are monstrous Tyrants are not taken away by the Estates God pursueth them in wrath Domitian was killed by his own Family his wife knowing of it Aurelianus was killed with a thunder-bolt Darius was drowned in a River Dioclesian fearing death poysoned himself Salerius died eaten with Worms The end of Herod and Antiochus Maxentius was swallowed up in a standing River Iulian died being stricken through with a Dart thrown at him by a man or an Angel it is not known Valens the Arian was burnt with fire in a little Village by the Gothes Anastasius the Eutychian Emperour was stricken by God with thunder Gundericus Vandalus when he rose against the Church of God being apprehended by the Divell died Some time the State have taken order with Tyrants The Empire was taken from Vitellius Heliogabalus Maximinus Didius Iulianus So was the two Childerici of France served So were also Sigebertus Dagabertus and Lodowick the 11. of France Christiernus of Denmark Mary of Scotland who killed her husband and raised Forces against the Kingdom So was Henricus Valesius of Pol for fleeing the Kingdom Sigismundus of Pol for violating his faith to the States QUEST XXV What force the Supreme Law hath over the King even that Law of the Peoples safetie called Salus Populi THe Law of the 12. Tables is Salus populi Suprema lex The safetie of the People is the supreme and Cardinall law to which all Lawes are to stoope And that from these Reasons 1. Originally Because if the People be the first Author Fountaine and Efficient under God of Law and King then their own safetie must be principally sought and their safetie must be farre above the King as the safetie of a Cause especially of an universall Cause such as is the People must be more then the safetie of one as Aristotle saith l. 3. polit alias l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The part cannot be more excellent then the whole nor the effect above the cause 2. Finaliter This Supreme law must stand for if all Law Policie Magistrates and Power be referred to the peoples good as the end Rom. 13.4 and to their quiet and peaceable life in godlinesse and honestie then must this Law stand as of more worth then the King as the end is of more worth then the meanes leading to the end for the end is the measure and rule of the goodnesse of the meane and finis ultimus in influxu est potentissimus The King is good because he conduceth much for the safetie of the People Ergo the safetie of the people must be better 3. By way of limitation Because no Law in its letter hath force where the safetie of the Subject is in hazard and if Law or King be destructive to the people they are to be abolished This is cleare in a Tyrant or a wicked man 4. In the desires of the most holy Moses a Prince desired for the safetie of Gods people and rather then God should destroy his people that his name should be razed out of the booke of life And David saith 1 Chron. 21.17 Let thine hand I pray thee O Lord my God be on me and on my fathers house but not on thy people that they should be plagued This being a holy desire of these two publick Spirits the object must be in it selfe true and the safetie of Gods people and their happinesse must be of more worth then the salvation of Moses and the life of David and his Fathers house The Prelate borroweth an answer to this for he hath none of his own from D. Ferne. The safetie of the Subjects is the prime end of the constitution of Government but it is not the sole and adequate end of government in Monarchie for that is the safetie of both King and People And it beseemeth the King to proportion his lawes for their good and it becommeth the People to proportion all their obedience actions and endeavours for the safetie honour and happinesse of the King It 's impossible the people can have safetie when Soveraigntie is weakened Ans. The Prelate would have the other halfe of the end why a King is set over a People to be the safetie and happinesse of the King as well as the safetie of the People This is new Logick indeed that one and the same thing should be the meane and the end The question is For what end is a King made so happy as to be exalted King The Prelate answereth He is made happy that he may be happy and made a King that he may be made a King Now is the King as King to intend this halfe end that is Whether or no accepteth he the burden of setting his head and shoulders under the Crowne for this end that he may not only make the people happy but also that he may make himselfe rich and honorable above his brethren and enrich himselfe I beleeve not but that he feed the people of God For if he intend himselfe and his own honour it is the intention of the man who is King and intentio operantis but it is not the intention of the King as the King or intentio operis The King as a King is formally and essentially the Minister of God for our good Rom. 13.4 1 Tim. 2.2 and cannot come under any notion as a King but as a mean not as an end nor as that which he is to seeke himselfe I conceive God did forbid this in the moulding of the first King Deut. 17.18 19 26. He is a minister by office and one who receiveth honour and wages for this worke that ex officio he may feed his people But the Prelate saith the people are to intend his riches and honour I cannot say but the people may intend to honour the King but that is not the question whether the people be to referre the King and his government as a meane to honour the King I conceive not But that end which the people in obeying the King in being ruled by him may intend is 1 Tim. 2.2 That under him they may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie And Gods end in giving a King is the good and safetie of
The Observator said The King is not a father to the whole collective body and it s well said he is son to them and they his maker Who made the King Policy answereth The State made him and Divinitie God made him 4. The Observator said well The peoples weaknesse is not the Kings strength The Prelate saith Amen He said That that perisheth not to the King which is granted to the people The Prelate denyeth Because What the King hath in trust from God the King cannot make away to another nor can any take it from him without sacriledge Answ. True indeed If the King had Royalty by immediate trust and infusion by God as Elias had the spirit of prophecie that he cannot make away Royalists dream that God immediately from heaven now infuseth facultie and right to Crowns without any word of God It s enough to make an Euthysiast leap up to the Throne and kill Kings Judge if these Fanaticks be favourers of Kings But if the King have Royaltie mediately by the peoples free consent from God there is no reason but people give as much power even by ounce weights for power is strong Wine and a great mocker as they know a weak mans head will bear and no more power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven But a birth-right of the people borrowed from them they may let it out for their good and resume it when a man is drunk with it 2. The man will have it conscience on the King to fight and destroy his three Kingdoms for a dream his prerogative above Law But the truth is Prelates do engage the King his house honour subjects Church for their cursed Mytres The Prelate vexeth the Reader with Repetitions and saith The King must proportion his Government to the safety of the people on the one hand and to his owne safety and power on the other hand Ans. What the King doth as King he doth it for the happinesse of his people the King is a relative yea even his owne happinesse that he seeketh he is to referre to the good of Gods people He saith farther The safety of the people includeth the safety of the King because the word populus is so taken which he proveth by a raw sickly rabble of words stollen out of Passerats Dictioner His father the Schoole-master may whip him for frivolous Etymologies This supreame Law saith the Prelate is not above the Law of Prerogative Royall the highest Law nor is Rex above Lex The Democracie of Rome had a supremacie above Lawes to make and unmake Lawes and will they force this power on a Monarch to the destruction of Soveraigntie Answ. This which is stollen from Spalato Barclay Grotius and others is easily answered The supremacie of People is a Law of natures selfe-preservation above all positive Lawes and above the King and is to regulate Soveraigntie not to destroy it 2. If this supremacie of Majâ—stie was in people before they have a King then 1. they lose it not by a voluntary choise of a King for a King is chosen for good and not for the peoples losse ergo they must retain this power in habite and potency even when they have a King 2. Then supremacy of Majesty is not a beame of Divinity proper to a King only 3. Then the people having Royall soveraignty vertually in them make and so unmake a King all which the Prelate denyeth This supreme Law saith the Prelate begging it from Spalato Arnisaeus Grotius advance the 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 Exodus 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 effusion 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
doe I write then one word of this question It is a darke way circumstances in falne nature may make things best to be hic nunc evill Though to me it is probable that Monarchy in it selfe 2. Monarchy de jure that is lawfull and limited Monarchy is best even now in a Kingdome under the fall of sin if other circumstances be considered But observe I pray you 1. That M. Symmons and this poore Prelate do so extoll Monarchy that there is not a government save Monarchy onely all other governments are deviations and therefore M. Symmons saith pag. 8. If I should affect another government then Monarchy I should neither feare God nor the King but associate my selfe with the seditious and so the question of Monarchy is 1. Which is the choisest government in it selfe or which is the choisest government in policie and in the condition of man falne in the state of sinne 2. Which is the best government that is the most profitable or the most pleasant or the most honest For wee know that there bee these three kinds of good things things usefull and profitable bona utilia things pleasant jucunda things honest honesta and the question may be of every one of the three 3. The question may be which of these governments be most agreeable to nature that is either to nature in it selfe as it agreeth communiter to all natures of elements birds beasts Angels Men to lead them as a governour doth to their last end or which government is most agreeable to men to sinfull men to sinfull men of this or this Nation for some Nations are more ambitious some more factious some are better ruled by one some better ruled by many some by most and by the people 4. The question may be in regard of the facility or difficulty of loving fearing obeying and serving and so it may be thought easier to love feare and obey one Monarch then many Rulers in respect that our Lord saith it is difficult to serve two Masters and possibly more difficult to serve twenty or an hundred 5. The question may be in regard of the power of commanding or of the justice and equity of commanding hence from this last I shall set downe the first Thesis Assert 1. An absolute and unlimited Monarchy is not onely not the best forme of Government but it is the worst and this is against our Petty Prelat and all Royalists My reasons be these 1. Because it is an unlawfull Ordinance and God never ordained it and I cannot ascribe the superlative degree to any thing of which I deny the positive Absolute government in a sinfull and peccable man is a wicked government and not a power from God for God never gave a power to sin Plenitudo potestatis ad malum injuriam non extenditur Sozâ—nus Iunior cons. 65. in causa occurrenti l. 2. Ferdinand Loazes in suo cons. pro March de Velez pag. 54. n. 65. And so that learned Senator Ferdin Vasquez pag. 1. lib. 1. cap. 5. n. 17. 2. It was better for the State that Epiminondas could not sleepe then that he could sleepe when the people was dancing because said he I wake that you may have leave to sleepe and be secure for he was upon deepe cogitations how to doe good to the Common-wealth when the people were upon their pleasures Because all Kings since the fall of the Father King Adam are inclined to sin and injustice and so had need to be guided by a Law even because they are Kings so they remaine men Omnipotency in one that can sin is a cursed power With reason all our Divines say the state of saving grace in the second Adam where there is non posse deficere they cannot fall a way from God is better then the state of the first Adam where there was posse non deficere a power not to fall away and that our free-will is better in our countrey in Heaven where we cannot sin then in the way to our countrey on earth where we have a power to sin and so Gods people is in â— better case Hos. 2.6 7. Where her power to overtake her lovers is closed up with an hedge of thornes that she cannot finde her paths then the condition of Ephraim of whom God saith Hos. 4.17 Ephraim is joyned to Idols let him alone So cannot that be a good government when the supreme power is in a sinfull man as inclinable to injustice by nature as any man and more inclinable to injustice by the condition of his place then any and yet by office he is one that can doe no injustice against his subjects he is a King and so may destroy Vriah kill his subjects but cannot sinne and this is to flattering Royalists the best government in the world As if an unchained Lion were the best governour because unchained to all the beasts sheepe and lambs and all others which with his teeth and pawes he may reach and that by vertue of an ordinance of God 3. What is on man under no restraint but made a God on earth and so drunk with the graunder of a sinning-God here under the Moone and Clouds who may heare good counsell from men of his owne choosing yet is under no restraint of Law to follow it being the supreme power absolute high mighty and an impeccable god on earth Certainly this man may more easily erre and break out in violent acts of injustice then a number of Rulers grave wise under a Law One being a sinfull man shall sooner sin and turne a Nero when he may goe to hell and leade thousands to hell with him gratis then a multitude of sinfull men who have lesse power to doe against Law and a tyrannous killing of innocents and a subversion of Lawes Liberties and Religion by one who may by office and without resistance of mortall men doe all ill is more dangerous and hurtfull then division and fraction incident to Aristocracy 4. Caesar is great but Law and reason is greater by an absolute Monarchy all things are ruled by will and pleasure above Law then this government cannot be so good as Law and Reason in a government by the best or by many 5. Under absolute Monarchy a free people is actu primo and in themselves inslaved because though the Monarch so absolute should kill all hee cannot be controlled there is no more but flight prayers and teares remaining and what greater power hath a Tyrant none at all so may we say An absolute Monarch is actu primo a sleeping Lion and a Tyrant is a waking and a devouring Lion and they differ in accidents onely 6. This is the Papists way Bellarmine de Pontif. l. 1. c. 1. and Saâ—derus de visibili Monarchia l. 3. c. 3. Turrâ—re in sum de Eccles. l. 2. c. 2. prove that the government of the Church is by an absolutâ— Monarch and Pope because that is the best government which
is a King by an act of Royall Iustice and by a power that he hath from the people who made himself supreme Iudge p. 163 164 165. The Kings making of inferiour Iudges hindereth not but they are as essentially Iudges as the King who maketh them not by fountain-power but by power borrowed from the people p. 165 166. The Iudges in Israel and the Kings differ not essentially p. 167. Aristocracy as naturall as Monarchie and as warrantable p. 168 169. Inferiour Iudges depend some way on the King in fieri but not in facto esse p. 169 170. The Parliament not Iudges by derivation from the King p. 170. The King cannot make nor unmake Iudges ibid. No heritable Iudges ibid. Inferiour Iudges more necessary then a King p. 171 172. QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament hath over the King and in the State p. 172. The Elders appointed by God to be Iudges p. 173. Parliaments may conveen and judge without the King p. 173 174. Parliaments are essentially Iudges and so their consciences neither dependeth on the King quoad specificationem that is That they should give out this sentence not this nec quoad exercitium That they should not in the morning execute judgement p. 174 175. Vnjust judging and no judging at all are sins in the States p. 175. The Parliament coordinate Iudges with the King not advisers onely By eleven Arguments p. 176 177 Inferior Iudges not the Kings Messengers or Legates but publike Governours p. 176. The Jews Monarchie mixt p. 178. A Power executive of Laws more in the King a Power legislative more in the Parliament p. 178 179. QUEST XXII Whether the power of the King as King be absolute or dependent and limited by Gods first mould and patern of a King Negatur Prius Affirmatur Posterius p. 179. The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk p. 180. The King not absolute in his power proved by nine Arguments p. 181.182 183 seq Why the King is a living Law p. 184. Power to do ill not from God ibid. Royalists say power to do ill is not from God but power to do ill as punishable by man is from God p. 186. A King actu primo is a plague and the people slaves if the King by Gods institution be absolute p. 187. Absolutenesse of Royaltie against Iustice Peace Reason Law p. 189. Against the Kings relation of a brother p. 190. A Damsel forced may resist the King ibid. The goodnesse of an absolute Prince hindereth not but he is actu primo a Tyrant p. 189. QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath a Prerogative Royall above Laws Negatur p. 192. Prerogative taken two wayes ibid. Prerogative above Laws a Garland proper to infinite Majestie ibid. A threefold dispensation 1. Of power 2. Of justice 3. Of Grace p. 194. Acts of meer grace may be acts of blood p. 195. An oath to the King of Babylon tyed not the people of Judah to all that absolute power could command ibid. The absolute Prince is as absolute in acts of crueltie as in acts of grace p. 196. Servants are not 1 Pet. 2.18 19. interdited of self-defence p. 199 200. The Parliament materially onely not formally hath the King for their Lord p. 202. Reason not a sufficient restraint to keep a Prince from Acts of tyranny ibid. Princes have sufficient power to do good though they have not absolute to do evil p. 203. A power to shed innocent blood can be no part of any Royall power given of God p. 204. The King because he is a publike person wanteth many priviledges that subjects have p. 205 206. QUEST XXIV What relation the King hath to the Law p. 207. Humane Laws considered as reasonable or as penal ibid. The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power p. 208. Whether the King be above Parliaments as their Iudge p. 208 p. 209 210 211. Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordination both consistent p. 210 211. Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other and they cannot any one of them be in its prevalency conveniently without the mixture of the other two p. 211 212. The King as a King cannot erre as he erreth in so far he is not the remedie of oppression and Anarchie intended by God and nature p. 212. In the court of necessitie the people may judge the King p. 213. Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernable p. 213 214. It s more requisite that the whole people Church and Religion be secured then one man p. 215. If there be any restraint by Law on the King it must be physicall for a morall restraint is upon all men p. 214 215. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath eatenus in so far unlawfull and not obligatory p. 215. QUEST XXV Whether the supreme Law the safetie of the people be above the King Affirmed p. 218. The safetie of the people to be preferred to the King for the King is noâ— to seek himself but the good of the people p. 218 219. Royalists make no Kings but Tyrants p. 222. How the safetie of the King is the safetie of the people p. 223. A King for the safetie of the people may break through the Letter and paper of a Law p. 227. The Kings prerogative above Law and Reason not comparable to the blood that has been shed in Ireland and England p. 225 226 228. The power of Dictators prove not a Prerogative above Law p. 229 230. QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law p. 230 231. The Law above the King in four things 1. In constitution 2. Direction 3. Limitation 4. Coaction p. 231. In what sense the King may do all things p. 231 232. The King under the moralitie of Laws 2. Vnder Fundamentall Laws not under punishment to be inflicted by himself nor because of the eminency of his place but for the physicall incongruity thereof p. 232 233. If and how the King may punish himself p. 233. That the King transgressing in a hainous manner is under the Coaction of Law proved by seven Arguments p. 234 235 seq The Coronation of a King who is supposed to be a just Prince yet proveth after a Tyrant is conditionall and from ignorance and so unvoluntary and in so far not obligatory in Law p. 234 235. Royalists confesse a Tyrant in exercise may be dethroned p. 235 236. How the people is the seat of the power of Soveraigntie p. 239 240. The place Psal. 51. Against thee onely have I sinned c. discussed p. 241 242. Israels not rising in arms against Pharaoh examined p. 245 246 247 248 249. And Judahs not working their own deliverance under Cyrus p. 248 249. A Covenant without the Kings concurrence lawfull p. 249 250 251. QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall Interpreter of the Law Negatur p. 252. He is not the supreme and peremptor
cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the Iudges because they execute not judgements for the oppressed p. 365 366. seq Iudahs subjection to Nebuchadnezar a conquering Tyrant no warrant for us to subject our selves to tyrannous acts p. 363 364 365. Christs subjection to Caesar nothing against defensive warrs p. 365 366. QUEST XXXV Whether the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church Militant be against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs p. 369 370. Tertullian neither ours nor theirs in the question of defensive warrs p. 370 371 372. QUEST XXXVI Whether the King have the power of warre only Negatur p. 372 373. Inferiour Iudges have the power of the sword no lesse then the King p. 372 373. The people tyed to acts of charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forraigne enemy though the King forbid p. 373 374. Flying unlawfull to the States of Scotland and England now Gods Law tying them to defend their Country p. 374. Parliamentary Power a fountain-power above the King p. 376 377. QUEST XXXVII Whether the Estates of Scotland are to help their Brethren the protestants in England against Cavaliers Affirmatur proved by 13. Arg. p. 378. seq Helping of neighbour Nations lawfull divers opinions concerning the point p. 378 379. The Law of Aegypt against those that helped not the oppressed p. 380. QVEST. XXXVIII Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments Affir p. 384. Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments hath divers considerations in which each one may be lesse or more convenient p. 384 385. Absolute Monarchy is the worst of Governments p. 385. Better want power to doe ill as have it ibid. A mixture sweetest of all Governments p. 387. Neither King nor Parliament have a voyce against Law and reason ibid. QUEST XXXIX Whether or no any Prerogative at all above the Law be due to the King Or if jura majestatis be any such Prerogative Negatur p. 389. A threefold supreme power ibid. What be jura regalia p. 390 391. Kings confer not honours from their plenitude of absolute power but according to the strait line and rule of Law justice and good deserving ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. p. 392 393. Difference of Kings and Judges ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. No permissive Law such as the Law of divorce p. 394. What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subjects p. 395 396 397. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his Oath Covenant or any other way Affirmed p. 398 399. The people have power over the King by reason of his Covenant and Promise ibid. Covenants and promises violated infer Coaction de jure by Law though not de facto p. 399 400. Mutuall punishments may be where there is no relation of superioritie and inferioritie p. 399 400 401. Three Covenants made by Arnisaeus ibid. The King not King while he swear the oath and be accepted as King by the people ibid. The oath of the Kings of France ibid. Hu. Grotius setteth down seven cases in which the people may accuse punish or dethrone the King p. 403 404. The Prince a noble Vassal of the Kingdom upon four grounds p. 405. The covenant had an oath annexed to it ibid. The Prince is but as a private man in a contract p. 406. How the Royall power is immediately from God and yet conferred upon the King by the people p. 407 408 409. QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. P. with reason ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in the Question of lawfull defence Negatur p. 410 411 412. That Soveraignty is originally and radically in the people as in the Fountain was taught by Fathers ancient Doctors sound Divines Lawyers before there was a Jesuite or a Prelate whelped in rerum natura p. 413. The P. P. holdeth the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ p. 414 415. Iesuites tenets concerning Kings p. 415 416 417. The King not the peoples Deputie by our doctrine it is onely the calumnie of the P. Prelate p. 417 418. The P. P. will have power to act the bloodiest tyrannies on earth upon the Church of Christ the essentiall power of a King ibid. QUEST XLII Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vicegerents Negatur p. 422. Why God as God hath a man a Vicegerent under him but not as Mediator p. 422 423. The King not head of the Church ibid. The King a sub-mediator and an under redeemer and a sub-priest to offer sacrifices to God for us if he be a Vicegerent p. 423. The King no mixt person ibid. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel p. 426 427. By no Prerogative Royall may the King prescribe religious observances and humane ceremonies in Gods worship p. 424 425. The P. P. giveth to the King a power Arbitrary supreme and independent to govern the Church p. 429 430. Reciprocation of subjections of the King to the Church of the Church to the King in divers kindes to wit of Ecclesiasticall and civill subjection are no more absurd then for Aarons Priest to teach instruct and rebuke Moses if he turne a tyrannous Achab and Moses to punish Aaron if he turn an obstinate Idolator p. 430 4â—3 QVEST. XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having prerogatives above Laws and Parliaments Negatur p. 433 434. The King of Scotland subject to Parliaments by the fundamentall Lawes Acts and constant practises of Parliaments ancient and late in Scotland p. 433 434 435 436. seq The King of Scotlands Oath at his Coronation p. 434. A pretended absolute povver given to K. Iames 6. upon respect of personall indowments no ground of absolutenesse to the King of Scotland p. 435 436. By Lawes and constant practises the Kings of Scotland subject to Lawes and Parliaments proved by the fundamentall Law of elective Princes and out of the most partiall Historicians and our Acts of Parliament of Scotland p. 439 440. Coronation oath ibid. And again at the Coronation of K. James the 6. that oath sworn and again 1 Par. K. Jam. 6. ibid. seq p. 452 453. How the King is supreme Iudge in all causes p. 437. The power of the Parliaments of Scotland ibid. The confession of the faith of the Church of Scotland authorized by divers Acts of Parliament doth evidently hold forth to all the reformed Churches the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars when the supreme Magistrate is misled by wicked Counsell p. 440 441 442. The same proved from the Confessions of Faith in other reformed Churches ibid. The place Rom. 13. exponed in our Confession of Faith p. 441 442 443. The Confession not onely Saxonick exhibited to the Councell of Trent but also of Helvetia France England Bohemia prove the same p. 444 445. William Laud and other Prelates enemies to Parliaments to States and to the Fundamentall Laws of the
an act of Divine bounty and grace above Nature so Psal. 78.70 71. He took David from following the Ewes and made him King and feeder of his people 1 Sam. 13.13 There is no cause why Royallists should deny Government to be naturall but to be altogether from God and that the Kingly power is immediatly and only from God because it is not naturall to us to subject to Government but against Nature and against the hair for us to resign our liberty to a King or any Ruler or Rulers for this is much for us and proveth not but Government is naturall it concludeth that a power of Government tali modo by Magistracy is not naturall but this is but a Sophisme a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod est dictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this speciall of Government by resignation of our liberty is not naturall Ergo power of Government is not naturall it followeth not a negatione spâ—ciei non sequitur negatio generis non est homo ergo non est animal And by the same reason I may by an antecedent will agree to a Magistrate and a Law that I may be ruled in a politick Society and by a consequent will onely yea and conditionally onely agree to the penalty and punishment of the Law and it is most true no man by the instinct of Nature giveth consent to Penall Laws as Penall for Nature doth not teach a man nor incline his spirit to yeeld that his life shall be taken away by the sword and his blood shed except in this remote ground a man hath a disposition that a veine be cutt by the Physitian or a Member of his body cut off rather then the whole body and life perish by some contagious disease but here reason in cold blood not a naturall disposition is the neerest prevalent cause and disposer of the businesse When therefore a communitie by natures instinct and guidance incline to Government and to defend themselves from violence they do not by that instinct formally agree to Government by Magistrates and when a naturall conscience giveth a deliberate consent to good Laws as to this He that doth violence to the life of a man by man shall his blood be shed Gen. 9.6 He doth tacitely consent that his own blood shall be shed but this he consenteth unto consequently tacitely and conditionally If he shall do violence to the life of his brother Yet so as this consent proceedeth not from a disposition every way purely naturall I grant reason may be necessitated to assent to the conclusion being as it were forced by the prevalent power of the evidence of an insuperable and invincible light in the premises yet from naturall affections there resulteth an act of self-love for self-preservation So David shall condemn another rich man who hath many Lambs and robbeth his poor brother of his one Lamb and yet not condemn himself though he be most deep in that fault 1 Sam. 12.5 6. yet all this doth not hinder but Government even by Rulers hath its ground in a secondary Law of nature which Lawyers call secundariò jus naturale or jus gentium secundarium a secondary Law of nature which is granted by Plato and denied by none of sound judgement in a sound sense and that is this Licet vim virepellere It is lawfull to repeal violence by violence and this is a speciall act of the Magistrate 2. But there is no reason why we may not defend by good reasons that politick Societies Rulers Cities and Incorporations have their rise and spring from the secundary Law of nature 1. Because by Natures Law Family-Government hath its warrant and Adam though there had never been any positive Law had a power of governing his own family and punishing malefactors but as Tannerus saith well and as I shall prove God willing this was not properly a Royall or Monarchicall power and I judge by the reasoning of Sotus Molina and Victoria By what reason a Family hath a power of Government and of punishing Malefactors that same power must be in a societie of men Suppose that societie were not made up of Families but of single persons for the power of punishing ill-doers doth not reside in one single man of a familie or in them all as they are single private persons but as they are in a familie But this argument holdeth not but by proportion for paternall government or a fatherly power of parents over their families and a politick power of a Magistrate over many families are powers different in nature the one being warranted by natures law even in its species the other being in its spece and kind warranted by a positive law and in the generall only warranted by a law of nature 2. If we once lay the supposition that God hath immediately by the law of nature appointed there should be a Government and mediately defined by the dictate of naturall light in a communitie that there shall be one or many Rulers to governe the Communitie then the Scriptures arguments may well be drawn out of the school of nature as 1. The powers that are be of God therefore natures light teacheth that we should be subject to these powers 2. It is against natures light to resist the ordinance of God 3. Not to feare him to whom God hath committed the sword for the terror of evill doers 4. Not to honour the publike rewarder of well-doing 5. Not to pay tribute to him for his worke Therefore I see not but Govarruvias Soto Suarez have rightly said that power of Government is immediately from God and this or this definite power is mediately from God proceeding from God by the mediation of the consent of a Communitie which resigneth their power to one or moe Rulers and to me Barclaius saith the same quamvis populus potentiae largitor videatur c. QUEST III. Whether Royall Power and definite forms of Government be from God THe King may be said to be from God and his word in these seveall notions 1. By way of permission Ier. 43.10 Say to them thus saith the Lord of hoasts the God of Israel Behold I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon my servant and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid and he shall spread his royall pavilion over them And thus God made him a Catholick King and gave him all Nations to serve him Jer. 27.6 7 8. though he was but an unjust Tyrant and his sword the best title to those crownes 2. The King is said to be from God by way of naked approbation God giving to a people power to appoint what Government they shall thinke good but instituting none in speciall in his Word This way some make Kingly power to be from God in the generall but in the particular to be an invention of men negatively lawfull and not repugnant to the Word as
the wretched Popish ceremonies are from God But we teach no such thing let Maxwell free his Master Bellarmine and other Iesuites with whom he sideth in Romish Doctrine we are free of this Bellarmine saith that politick power in generall is warranted by a Divine law but the particular formes of politick power he meaneth Monarchie with the first is not by Divine right but de jure â—entium by the law of nations and sloweth immediately from humane election as all things saith he that appertein to the law of Nations So Monarchie to Bellarmine is but an humane invention as Mr. Maxwell his Surplice is and D. Ferne sect 3. p. 13. saith with Bellarmine 3. A King is said to be from God by particular designation as he appointed Saul by name for the crown of Israel Of this hereafter 4. The Kingly or Royall office is from God by divine institution and not by naked approbation for first we may well prove Aarons Priesthood to be of divine institution because God doth appoint the Priests qualification from his familie bodily perfections and his charge And we take the Pastor to be by divine law and Gods institution because the Holy Ghost 1 Tim. 3.1 2 3 4. describeth his qualification so may we say that the Royall power is by divine institution because God mouldeth him Deut. 17.15 Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose one from amongst thy brethren c. Rom. 2 13. There is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God 3. That power must be ordained of God as his own ordinance to which we owe subjection for conscience and not only for feare of punishment but every power is such Rom. 13.4 To resist the Kingly power is to resist God 5. He is the Minister of God for our good 6. He beareth the sword of God to take vengeance upon ill-doers 7. The Lord expresly saith 1 Pet. 2.17 Feare God honour the King v. 13. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreme 14. or unto governours as unto those that are sent by him c. Tit. 3. Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers and so the fift Commandement layeth obedience to the King on us no lesse then to our parents Whence I conceive that power to be of God to which by the morall law of God we owe perpetuall subjection and obedience 8. Kings and all Magistrates are Gods and Gods deputies and lieutenants upon earth Ps. 82.1.6 7. Exod. 22.8 Exod. 4.16 and therefore their Office must be a lawfull ordinance of God 9. By their Office they are feeders of the Lords people Ps. 78.70.71.72 the shields of the earth Ps. 47.9 nursing fathers of the Church Ps. 49.23 Captaines over â—he Lords people 1 Sam. 9.19.10 It is a great Iudgâ—ment of God when a land wanteth the benefit of such ordinances of God Esay 3 1 2.3.6 7.11 The execution of their office is an act of the just Lord of heâ—vâ—n aâ—d earth not onely by permission but according to Gods revealed Will in his Word their judgement is not the judgement of men but of the Lord 2 Chron. 19.6 and their Throne is the Throne of God 1 Chron. 19.21.12 Hierom saith to punish murtherers and sacrilegious persons is not bloud-shed but the ministery and service of good Lawes So if the King be a living law by Office and the law put in execution which God hath commanded then as the Morall Law is by divine institution so must the Officer of God be who is Custos vindex legis divinae the keeper preserver and avenger of Gods Law and Basilius this is the Princes Office Vt opem serat virtuti malitiam vero impugnet when Paulinus Treverensis Lucifer Metropolitane of Sardinia Dionysius Mediolanensis and other Bishops were commanded by Constantine to write against Athanasius they answered Regnum non ipsius esse sed dâ—i aquo acceperit the Kingdom was Gods not his as Athanasius saith Optatus Milevitanus helpeth us in the cause where he saith with Paul VVe are to pray for heathen Kings The genuine end of the Magistrate saith Epiphanius is ut ad bonum ordinem universitatis mundi omnia ex deo bene disponantur atque administrentur But some object if the Kingly Power be of divine institution then shall any other government be unlawfull and contrary to a divine institution and so we condemne Aristocracy and Democracy as unlawfull Ans. This consequence were good if Aristocracy and Democracy were not also of divine institution as all my arguments prove for I judge they are not Governments different in nature if we speake Morally and Theologically onely they differ politically and positivelâ— nor is Aristocracy any thing but diffused and inlarged Monarchy and Monarchy is nothing but contracted Aristocracy even as it is the same hand when the thumb and the foure fingers are folded together and when all the five fingers are dilated and stretched out and where ever God appointed a King he never appointed him absolute and a sole independent Angell but joyned alwaies with him Iudges who were no lesse to judge according to the Law of God 2 Chron. 19.6 then the King Deut. 17. v. 15. And in an obligation morall of judging righteously the conscience of the Monarch and the conscience of the inferiour Iudges are equally with an immediate subjection under the King of Kings for there is here a co-ordination of consciences and no subordination for it is not in the power of the inferiour Iudge to judge Quoad specificationem as the King commandeth him because the judgement is neither the Kings nor any mortall mans but the Lords 2 Chronicles 19.6 7. Hence all the three formes are from God but let no man say if they be all indifferent and equally of God societies and Kingdomes are left in the dark and know not which of the three they shall pitch upon because God hath given to them no speciall direction for one rather than for another But this is easily answered that a republick appoint Rulers to governe them is not an action indifferent but a Morall action because to set no Rulers over themselves I conceive were a breach of the fift Commandement which commandeth government to be one or other 2. It is not in mens free will that they have government or no government because it is not in their free will to obey or not to obey the acts of the Court of nature which is Gods Court and this Court enacteth that societies suffer not mankind to perish which must necessarily follow if they appoint no government also it is proved else where that no Morall acts in their exercises and use are left indifferent to us so then the aptitude and temper of every Common-wealth to Monarchy rather then to Democracy or Aristocracy is Gods Warrant and nearest
all Kings because Kings are men according to Gods heart Why is not royalty then founded on grace Nebuchadnezer was not otherwise his servant then he was the hammer of the earth and a tyrannous conquerour of the Lords people and all the Heathen Kings are called Kings But how came they to their Thrones for the most part as David and Hezekiah but God anointed them not by his Prophets they came to their Kingdomes by the peoples election or by blood and rapine the latter way is no ground to you to deny Athaliah to be a lawfull Princesse she and Abimâ—lech were lawfull Princes and their soveraignty as immediatly and independently from God as the soveraignty of many heathen Kings See then how justly Athaliah was killed as a bloody usurper of the throne this would licence your brethren the Iesuites to stab heathen Kings whom you will have as well Kings 〈◊〉 the Lords anointed though Nebuchadnezer many of them made their way to the Throne against all Law of God and man through a bloudy patent 4. Cyrus is Gods anointed and his Shepheard too ergo his Arbitrary government is a soveraignty immediatly depending on God â—nd above all Law it is a wicked consequence 5. God named him neare a hundreth yeare ere he was borne God named and designed Judas very individually and named the Asse that Christ should ride on to Ierusalem Zach. 9.9 some moe hundred yeares then one What will the Prelate make them independent Kings for that 6. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will What then this will prove Kingdomes to be as independent and immediatly from God as Kings are for as God giveth Kings to Kingdomes so he giveth Kingdomes to Kings and no doubt he giveth Kingdoms to whom he will so he giveth Prophets Apostles Pastors to whom he will and he giveth tyrannous conquests to whom he will and it is Nebuchadnezer to whom Daniel speaketh that from the Lord and he had no just title to many Kingdomes especially to the Kingdome of Iudah which yet God the King of Kings gave to him because it was his good pleasure and if God had not commanded them by the mouth of his Prophet Ieremiah might they not have risen and with the sword have vindicated themselves and their own liberty no lesse then they lawfully by the sword vindicated themselves from under Moab Iudges 3. from under Iabin Iaakin King of Canaan who twenty yeares mightily oppressed the children of Israel Iudges 4. now this P. Prelate by all these instances making Heathen Kings to be Kings by as good a title as David and Hezekiah condemneth the people of God as rebells if being subdued and conquered by the Turke and Spanish King they should by the sword recover their owne liberty and that Israel and the saviours which God raised to them had not warrant from the law of nature to vindicate themselves to liberty which was taken from them violently and unjustly by the sword but from all this it shall well follow that the tyranny of bloudy conquerours is immediatly and only dependent from God no lesse then lawfull soveraignty for Nebuchadnezers soveraignty over the people of God and many other Kingdomes also was revenged of God as tyranny Ier. 50.6.7 and therefore the vengeance of the Lord and the vengeance of his Temple came upon him and his land Ier. 50.16 17.18.28 29.30 It is true the people of God were commanded of God to submit to the King of Babylon to serve him and to pray for him and to doe on the contrary was rebellion but this was not because the King of Babylon was their King and because the King of Babylon had a command of God so to bring under his yoak the people of God So Christ had a Commandement to suffer the death of the Crosse Iohn 10.18 but had Herod and Pilate any warrant to crucifie him none at all 7. He saith Royalties even of Heathen Kings are not disposed of by the composed Contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God But the Contracts of men to give a Kingdome to a person which a Heathen community may lawfully doe and so by contract dispose of a Kingdom is not opposite to the immediate hand of God appointing Royalty and Monarchy at his owne blessed liberty Lastly he saith God tooke away Saul in his wrath but I pray you did God onely doe it then had Saul because a King a Patent Royall from God to kill himselfe for so God tooke him away and we are rebells by this if we suffer not the King to kill himselfe Well pleaded QUEST VI. Whether the King be so from God onely both in regard of his Soveraignty and of the designation of his person to the Crown as that he is no waies from the people but by meere approbation Dr. Ferne a man much for Monarchy saith Though Monarchy hath its excellency being first set up of God in Moses yet neither Monarchy Aristocracy nor any other forme is jure divino but we say saith he the power it selfe or that sufficiency of authority to governe that is in a Monarchy or Aristocracy abstractly considered from the qualification of other formes is a flux and constitution subordinate to that providence an ordinance of that Dixi or silent word by which the world was made and shall be governed under God This is a great debasing of the Lords anoynted for so soveraignty hath no warrant in Gods Word formally as it is such a government but is in the world by providence as sin is and as the falling of a Sparrow to the ground whereas Gods Word hath not onely commanded that government should be but that fathers and mothers should be 2. and not only that politick Rulers should be but also Kings by name and other Iudges Aristocraticall should be Rom. 13.3 Deut. 17.14 1 Pet. 2.17 Prov. 24.21 Prov. 15.16.3 If the power of Monarchy and Aristocracy abstracted from the formes be from God then it is no more lawfull to resist Aristocraticall Government and our Lords of Parliament or Iudges then it is lawfull to resist Kings But heare the Prelates reasons to prove that the King is from the people by approbation only P. Prelate The people Deut. 17. is said to set a King over them only as 1 Cor. 6. The Saints are said to judge the world that is by consenting to Christs Iudgement So the people doe not make a King by transferring on him soveraignty but by accepting acknowledging reverencing him as King whom God hath both constituted and designed King Answ. This is said but not a word proved for the Queen of Sheba and Hiram acknowledged reverenced and obeyed Solomon as King and yet they made him not King as the Princes of Israell did 2. Reverence and obedience of the people is relative to the Kings lawes but the peoples making of a King is not relative to the laws of a King for then he should be a King giving laws and
to make any thing in its kinde passive really active and collative of positive acts and effects All know no man can give what he hath not an old Philosopher would laugh at him who would say that a matter perfected and actuated by union with a forme could at pleasure shake off its forme and marrie it selfe to another they may as well say every wife hath power to resume her freedome and marrie another as that any such power active is in the Communitie or any power to cast off Monarchie Ans. The P. Prelate might have thanked Spalato for this Argument but he doth not so much as cite him for feare his theft be deprehended but Spalato hath it set downe with stronger nerves then the Prelates head was able to copie out of him But Iac. de Almain and Navarrus with the Parision Doctors said in the Concell of Paris that politick power is immediatly from God but first from the community but so that the community apply their power to this oâ— that Government not of liberty but by naturall necessity but Spalâ—to and the Plagiarie Prelate doe both looke beside the booke The question is not now concerning the vis rectiva the power of governing in the people but concerning the power of government for these two diâ—fer much the former is a power of ruling and Monarchicall commanding of themselves this power is not formally in the people but only vertually and no reason can say that a vertuall power is idle because it cannot be actuated by that same subject that it is in for then it should not be a vertuall but a formall power Doe not Philosophers say such a Hearb vertually maketh hot and can the sottish Prelate say this vertuall power is idle and in vaine given of God because it doth not formally heate your hand when you touch it 2. The P. Prelate who is excommunicated for Popery Socinianisme Arminianisme and is now turned Apostate to Christ and his Church must have changed his faith not we and be reasonlesly ignorant to presse that axiome that the power is idle that cannot be reduced to acts for a generative power is given to living and sensitive creatures this power is not idle though it be not reduced in act by all and every individuall sensitive creature A power of seeing is given to all who naturally doe or ought to see yet it is not an idle power because divers are blind seeing it is put forth in action in divers of the kind so this power in the community is not idle because it is not put forth in acts in the people in which it is vertually and is put forth in action in some of them whom they choose to be their Governours nor is it reasonable to say that it should be put forth in action by all the people as if all should be Kings and Governours But the question is not of the power of governing in the people but of the power of Government that is of the power of making Governours and Kings and the community doth put forth in act this power as a free voluntary and active power for 1. a Community transplanted to India or any place of the world not before inhabited have a perfect liberty to choose either a Monarchy or a Democracy or an Aristocracy for though nature incline them to Government in generall yet are they not naturally determinated to any one of those three more than another 2. Israel did of their free will choose the change of government and would have a King as the Nations had ergo they had free will and so an active power so to doe and not a a passive inclination only to be governed such as Spalato saith agreeth to the first matter 3 Royalists teach that a people under Democracy or Aristocracy have liberty to choose a King and the Romanes did this ergo they had an active power to do it ergo the Prelates simile crookes the matter at its pleasurâ— cannot shake off its forme nor the wife cast off her husband being once married but Barclaius Grotius Arnisaeus Blackwood and all the Royalists teach that the people under any of these two formes of Democracy or Aristocracy may resume their power and cast off these formes and choose a Monarch and if Monarchy be the best government as Royalists say they may chose the best and is this but a passive capacity to be governed 2. Of ten men fit for a Kingdome they may designe one and put the Crowne on his head and refuse the other nine and Israel crowned Solomon and refused Adâ—niah Is this not a voluntary action proceeding from a free active elective power It will puzzle the pretended Prelate to deny this that which the community doth freely they doe not from such a passive capacity as is in the first matter in regard of the forme 3. It is true that people through corruption of nature are averse to submit to Governours for conscience sake and as to the Lord because the naturall man remaining in the state of nature can doe nothing that is truely good but it is false that men have no active Morall power to submit to superiours but only a passive capacity to be governed he quite contradicteth himselfe for he said before c. 4. pag. 49. that there is an innate feare and reverence in the hearts of all men naturally even in Heathen toward their Severaign yea as we have a naturall morall active power to love our Parents and superiours though it be not Evangelically or legally in Gods Court good and so to obey their commandements only we are averse to penall Lawes of superiours but this proveth no way that we have only by nature a passive capacity to government for Heathens have by instinct of nature both made Lawes morally good submitted to them set Kings and Iudges over them which clearely proveth that men have an active power of Government by nature 4. yea what difference maketh the Prelate betwixt men and beasts for beasts have a capacity to be governed even Lyons and Tigers but here is the matter if men have any naturall power of Government the P. Prelate would have it with his brethren Iesuites and Arminians to be not naturall but done by the helpe of universall grace for so doe they confound nature and grace But it is certaine our power to submit to Rulers and Kings as to rectors and guides and fathers is naturall to submit to Tyrants in doing ills of sinne is naturall but in suffering ills of punishment it s not naturall 5. No man can give that which he hath not is true but that people have no power to make their Governours is that which is in question and denyed by us 6. This argument doth prove that people hath no power to appoint Aristocraticall Rulers more then Kings and sothe Aristocraticall and Democraticall Rulers are all inviolable and sacred as the King 2. by this the people may not resume their freedome if
hath no influence in making a King for the people are worthier more excellent then the King and they have an active power of ruling and directing themselves toward the intrinsecall end of humane policie which is the externall safety and peace of a societie in so far as there are morall principles of the Second Table for this effect written in their heart and therefore that royall authoritie which by Gods speciall providence is united in one King and as it were over-gilded and lustered with Princely grace and royall endowments is diffused in the people for the people hath an after-approbative consent in making a King as Royalists confesse water hath no such action in producing grace QUEST IX Whether or no Soveraigntie is so from the people that it remaineth in them in some part so as they may in case of necessitie resume it THe Prelate will have it Babylonish confusion that we are divided in opinion Jesuites saith he place all Soveraigntie in the communitie Of the Sectaries some warrant any one subject to make away his King and that such a worke is no lesse to be rewarded then when one killeth a wolfe Some say this power is in the whole Communitie some will have it in the collective body not conveened by warrant or writ of Soveraignty but when necessitie which is often fancied of reforming State and Church calleth them together Some in the Nobles and Peeres some in the three Estates assembled by the Kings writ some in the inferour Iudges I answer If the Prelate were not a Iesuite himselfe he would not bid his brethren take the mote out of their eye but there is nothing here said but which Barclaius said better before this Plagarius To which I answer We teach that any private man may kill a a Tyrant voyd of all title and a great Royalist Barclaius saith so also And if he have not the consent of the people he is an usurper for we know no externall lawfull calling that Kings have now or their familie to the Crown but only the call of the people all other calls to us are now invisible and unknown and God would not command us to obey Kings and leave us in the darke that we shall not know who is the King the Prelate placeth his lawfull calling to the Crown in such an immediate invisible and subtile act of omnipotencie as that whereby God conferreth remission of sinnes by sprinkling with water in baptisme and that whereby God directed Samuel to annoint Saul and David not Eliab nor any other brother It is the Devill in the P. P. not any of us who teach that any private man may kill a lawfull King though tyrannous in his government For the subject of Royall power we affirme the first and ultimate and native subject of all power is the Communitie as reasonable men naturally inclining to a societie but the ethicall and politicall subject or the legall and positive receptacle of this power is various according to the various constitutions of the policie In Scotland and England it is the three Estates of Parliament in other Nations some other Iudges or Peeres of the Land The Prelate had no more common sense for him to object a confusion of opinions to us for this then to all the Common-wealths on earth because all have not Parliaments as Scotland hath all have not Constables and Officials and Churchmen Barons Lords of Councell Parliaments c. as England had But the truth is the Communitie orderly conveened as it includeth all the Estates civill have hand and are to act in choosing their Rulers I see not what priviledge Nobles have above Commons in a Court of Parliament by Gods law but as they are Iudges all are equally Iudges and all make up one congregation of Gods But the question now is if all power of governing the Prelate to make all the people Kings saith if all Soveraignty be so in the people that they retaine power to guard themselves against Tyranny And if they reteine some of it habitu in habit and in their power I am not now unseasonably according to the Prelates order to dispute of the power of lawfull defence against tyranny but I lay down this maxime of Divinitie Tyranny being a worke of Sathan is not from God because sinne either habituall or actuall is not from God the power that is must be from God the Magistrate as Magistrate is good in nature of office and the intrinsecall end of his office Rom. 13.4 for he is the Minister of God for thy good and therefore a power ethicall politick or morall to oppresse is not from God and is not a power but a licentious deviation of a power and is no more from God but from sinfull nature and the old serpent then a license to sinne God in Christ giveth pardons of sinne but the Pope not God giveth dispensations to sinne 2. To this adde If for nature to defend it selfe be lawfull no Communitie without sin hath power to alienate and give away this power for as no power given to man to murther his brother is of God so no power to suffer his brother to be murthered is of God and no power to suffer himselfe à fortiori far lesse can be from God Here I speake not of physicall power for if free will be the creature of God a physicall power to acts which in relation to Gods law are sinfull must be from God But I now follow the P. Prelate Some of the adversaries as Buchanan say that the Parliament hath no power to make a law but only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the approbation of the Communitie Others as the the Observator say that the right of the Gentry and Communalty is intirely in the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons and will have their Orders irrevocable If then the common people cannot resume their power and oppose the Parliament how can Tables and Parliaments resume their power and resist the King Answ. The ignorant man should have thanked Barclaius for this Argument and yet Barclaius need not thanke him for it hath not the nerves that Barclaius gave it But I answer 1. if the Parliament should have been corrupted by fair hopes as in our age we have seene the like the people did well to resist the Prelates obtruding the Masse Booke when the Lords of the Counsell pressed it against all Law of God and man upon the Kingdome of Scotland and therefore it is denyed that the Acts of Parliament are irrevocable the observator said they were irrevocable by the King he being but one man the P. Prelate wrongeth him for he said onely they have the power of a Law and the King is obliged to consent by his Royall Office to all good Lawes and neither King nor people may oppose them Buchanan said Acts of Parliament are not Lawes obliging the people till they be promulgated and the peoples silence when they are
promulgated is their approbation and maketh them obligatory Lawes to them but if the people speak against unjust Lawes they are not Lawes at all and Buchannan knew the power of the Scottish Parliament better then this ignorant Statist 2. There is not like reason to grant so much to the King as to Parliaments because certainly Parliaments who make Kings under God or above any one man and they must have more authority and wisedome then any one King except Solomon as base flatterers say should returne to the thrones of the earth And as the power to make just Lawes is all in the Parliament only the people have power to resist tyrannicall Lawes the power of all the Parliament was never given to the King by God the Parliament are as essentially Iudges as the King and therefore the Kings deed may well be revoked because he acteth nothing as King but united with his great or lesser Councell no more then the eye can see being separated from the body The Peeres and Members of Parliament have more then the King because they have both their owne power being parts and speciall Members of the people and also they have their high places in Parliament either from the peoples expresse or tacite consent 3. We allow no Arbitrary power to the Parliament because their just Lawes are irrevocable for the irrevocable power of making just Lawes doth argue a legall not an irreovocable Arbitrary power nor is there any arbitrary power in the people or in any mortall man but of the Covenant betwixt King and people hereafter P. Prelate If Soveraigne power be habitually in the community so as they may resume it at their pleasure then nothing is given to the King but an empty title for at the same instant he receiveth Empire and Soveraignty and layeth downe the power to rule or determine in matters which concerne either private or publick good and so he is both a King and a Subject Ans. This naked consequence the Prelate sayeth and proveth not and we deny it and give this reason the King receiveth Royall power with the States to make good Lawes and 2. power by his royalty to execute those Lawes and this power the community hath devolved in the hands of the King and States of Parliament but the community keepeth to themselves a power to resist tyranny and to coerce it and â—atenus in so far is Saul subject that David is not to compeare before him nor to lay downe Goliahes sword nor disband his Army of defence though the King should command him so to doe P. Prelate By all Polititians Kings and enferiour Magistrates are differenced by their different specifice entity but by this they are not differenced nay a Magistrate is in a better condition then a King for the Magistrate is to judge by a knowne Statute and Law and cannot be censured and punished but by Law But the King is censurable yea disabled by the multitude yea the basest of subjects may cite and convent the King before the underived Majesty of the community and he may be judged by the Arbitrary Law thâ—t is in the closet of their heart not only for reall misdemeanour but for fancied jealousies It will be said good Kings are in no danger the contrary appeareth this day and ordinarily the best are in greatest danger no Government except Plato'es Republick wanteth incommodities subtile spirits may make them apprehend them The poore people bewitched follow Absolom in his treason they strike not at Royalty at first but labour to make the Prince naked of the good counsell of great Statesmen c. Ans. Whether the King and the under Magistrate differ essentially we shall see The P. Prelate saith all Polititians grant it but he saith untruth he bringeth Moses and the Iudges their power to prove the power of Kings and so either the Iudges of Israel and the Kings differ not essentially or then the Prelate must correct the spirit of God tearming one booke of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudges and make the booke of Kings the booke of Iudges 2. The Magistrates condition is not better then the Kings because the Magistrate is to judge by an knowne Statute and Law and the King not so God moulded the first King Deut. 17.18 when he sitteth judging on his Throne to looke to a written Coppy of the Law of God as his rule Now a power to follow Gods Law is better then a power to follow mans sinfull will so the Prelate putteth the King in a worse condition then the Magistrate not we who will have the King to judge according to just statutes and lawes 3. Whether the King be censurable and deposable by the multitude he cannot determine out of our writings 4. The communities law is the law of nature not their arbitrary lust 5. The Prelates treasonable raylings I cannot follow he first saith that we agree not ten of us to a positive faith and that our faith is negative but his faith is Privative Popish Socinian Arminian Pelagian and worse for he was once of that same faith that we are of 2. Our Confession of Faith is positive as the confession of all the reformed Churches but I judge he thinketh the Protestant Faith of all the reformed Churches but negative 3. The incommodities of Government before our reformation were not fancied but printed by Authority all the body of Popery was printed and avowed as the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland and England as the learned Author and my much respected brother evidenceth in his Ludensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canterburian selfe conviction 4. The Parliament of England was never yet found guilty of Treason 5. The good Counsellers of great States-men that Parliaments of both Kingdomes would take from the Kings Majesty are a faction of perjured Papists Prelates Iesuites Irish cut-throates Strafords and Apostate subverters of all Lawes divine humane of God of Church of State P. Prelate In whom so ever this power of Government be it is the onely remedy to supply all defects and to set right what ever is disjoynted in Church and State and the subject of this super-intending power must be free from all errour in Iudgement and Practice and so we have a Pope in temporalibus and if the Parliament erre the people must take order with them else God hath left Church and State remedilesse Ans. This is stollen from Barclaius also 1. but the same Barclaius saith Si Rex regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit regno cadit If the King shall sell his Kingdome or inslave it to a forraigne power he falleth from all right to his Kingdome but who shall execute any such Law against him not the people not the Peeres not the Parliament for this Mancipium ventris aulae this slave saith p. 147. I know no power in any to punish or curbe Soveraignty but in Almighty God 2. We see no
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 natura 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 Sâ—lust In Ingurth 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 continuata 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 Godâ— 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 Patron a Shield and a defender of me through violence
lawfull defence as if they had never appointed the foresaid lawyer to plead for them The King as a man is not more obliged to the publick and regall defence of the true Religion then any other man of the land but he is made by God and the people King for the Church and people of God's sake that he may defend true Religion for the behalfe and salvation of all If therefore he defend not Religion for the salvation of the soules of all in his publick and royall way it is presumed as undeniable that the people of God who by the law of nature are to care for their own soule are to defend in their way true Religion which so nearly concerneth them and their eternall happinesse 2 Assert When the covenant is betwixt God on the one part and the King Priests and people on the other part it is true if the one performe for his part to God the whole duty the other is acquitted as if two men be indebted to one man ten thousand pounds if the one pay the whole summe the other is acquitted but the King and People are not so contracting parties in covenant with God as that they are both indebted to God for one and the same sum of compleat obedience so as if the King pay the whole summe of obedience to God the people is acquitted and if the People pay the whole summe the King is acquitted for every one standeth obliged to God for himselfe for the people must doe all that is their part in acquitting the King from his Royall duty that they may free him and themselves both from punishment if he disobey the King of Kings Nor doth the Kings obedience acquit the people from their duty And Arnisaeus dreamed if he believed that we make King and People this way partie contracters in covenant with God Nor can two co-partners in covenant with God so mutually compell one another to doe their duty for we hold that the covenant is made betwixt the King and the People betwixt mortall men but they both bind themselves before God to each other But saith Arnisaeuâ— It belongeth to a Pretor or Ruler who is above both King and People to compell each of them the King to performe his part of the covenant to the people and the people to performe their part of the covenant to the King Now there is no Ruler but God above both King and People But let me answer The consequence is not needfull no more then when the King of Iudah and the King of Israel make a covenant to perform mutuall duties one to another no more then it is necessarie that there should be a King and superior Ruler above the King of Israel and the King of Iudah who should compell each one to doe a duty to his fellow King for the King and People are each of them above and below others in divers respects The People because they create the man King they are so above the King and have a virtuall power to compell him to doe his duty and the King as King hath an authoritative power above the People because Royaltie is formally in him and originally and virtually only in the People therefore may he compell them to their duty as we shall heare anon and therefore there is no need of an earthly Ruler higher then both to compell both 3 Assert We shall hereafter prove the power of the people above the King God willing And so it is false that there is not mutuall coactive power on each side 4 Assert The obligation of the King in this covenant floweth from the peculiar obligation nationall betwixt the King and the Estates and it bindeth the King as King and not simply as he is a man 1. Because it is a covenant betwixt the people and David not as he is the sonne of Jesse for then it should oblige Eliab or any other of Davids brethren yea it should oblige any man if it oblige David as a man but it oblâ—geth David as a King or as he is to be their King because it is the specifice act of a King that he is obliged unto to wit to governe the people in Righteousnesse and Religion with his Royall power And so it is false that Arnisaeus saith that the King as a man is obliged to God by this covenant not as a King 2. He saith by covenant the King is bound to God as a Man not as a King But so the man will have the King as King under no law of God and so he must either be above God as King or coequall with God which are manifest blasphemies for I thought ever the Royalists had not denyed but the King as King had been obliged to keep his oath to his subjects in relation to God and in regard of naturall obligation so as he sinneth before God if he breake his covenant with his people though they deny that he is obliged to keep his covenant in relation to his Subjects and in regard of politique or civill obligation to men Sure I am this the Royalists constantly teach 3. He would have this covenant so made with men as it obligeth not the King to men but to God But the contrary is true Beside the King and the Peoples covenant with the Lord King Joash made another covenant with the People and Jehoiada the Priest was only a witnesse or one who in Gods name performed the rite of annointing otherwise he was a subject on the peoples side obliged to keep allegiance to Joash as to his Soveraigne and Master But certainly who ever maketh a covenant with the people promising to governe them according to Gods word and upon that condition and these termes receiveth a throne and crown from the people he is obliged to what he promiseth to the people Omnis promittens facit alteri cui promissio facta est jus in promittentem Who ever maketh a promise to another giveth to that other a sort of right or jurisdiction to challenge the promise The covenant betwixt David and Israel were a shadow if it tye the people to allegiance to David as their King and if it tye not David as King to govern them in righteousnesse but leave David loose to the people and only tye him to God then it is a covenant betwixt David and God only But the Text saith It is a covenant betwixt the King and the People 2 King 11.17 2 Sam. 5.3 Hence our second Argument He who is made a minister of God not simply but for the good of the subject and so he take heed to walk in Gods law as a King and governe according to Gods will he is in so far only made King by God as he fulfilleth the condition and in so far as he is a minister for evill to the subject and ruleth not according to that which the book of the Law commandeth him as King in so far he is not by God appointed King and Ruler and
morall hurt and losse of Religion Assert 3. The King is more properly a sort of Patron to defend the people and therefore hath no power given either by God or man to hurt the people and a Minister or publick and honourable servant Rom. 13.4 for he is the Minister of God to thee for good he is the Common-wealths servant objectively because all the Kings service as he is King is for the good safety peace and salvation of the people and in this he is a servant 2. He is the servant of the people Representatively in that the people hath impawned in his hand all their power to doe Royall service Obj. He is the servant of God ergo he is not the peoples Servant but their soveraigne Lord. Ans. It followeth not because all the service the King as King performeth to God they are acts of Royalty and acts of Royall service as terminated on the people or acts of their Soveraigne Lord and this proveth that to be their Soveraigne is to be their servant and watch-man Object 2. God maketh a King only and the Kingly power is in him only not in the people Ans. The Royall power is only from God immediatly Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum a Deo solitudine primae causae by the immediation of simple constitution none but God appointed there should be Kings but 2. Royall power is not in God nor only from God immediatione applicationis regia dignitatis ad personam nec a Deo solum solitudine causae applicantis dignitatem huic non illi in respect of the applying of Royall dignity to this person not to this Object 3. Though Royall power were given to the people it is not given to the people as if it were the Royal power of the people and not the Royall power of God neither is it any other waies bestowed on the people but as on a beame a channell an instrument by which it is derived to others and so the King is not the minister or servant of the people Ans. It is not in the people as in the principall cause Sure all Royall power that way is only in God but it is in the people as in the instrument and when the people maketh David their King at Hebron in that same very act God by the people using their free suffrages and consent maketh David King at Hebron so God only giveth raine and none of the vanities and supposed gods of the Gentiles can give raine Ier. 14 22. and yet the Clouds also give raine as nature as an organ and vessell out of which God powreth down raine upon the dry earth Amos 9.6 and every instrument under God that is properly an instrument is a sort of Vicarious cause in Gods room and so the people as in Gods roome applyeth Royall power to David not to any of Sauls sonnes and appointeth David to be their Royall Servant to governe and in that to serve God and to doe that which a Communitie now in the state of sinne cannot formally doe themselves and so I see not how it is a service to the people not only objectively because the Kings Royall service tendeth to the good and peace and safety of the people but also subjectively in regard he hath his power and Royall authoritie which he exerciseth as King from the people under God as Gods instruments and therefore the King and Parliament give out Lawes and Statutes in the name of the whole people of the Land And they are but flatterers and belye the Holy Ghost who teach that the people doe not make the King for Israel made Saul King at Mizpeh and Israel made David King at Hebron Object 3. Israel made David King that is Israel designed Davids person to be King and Israel consented to Gods act of making David King but they did not make David King Ans. I say not that Israel made the Royall dignitie of Kings God Deut. 17. instituted that himselfe buâ— the Royalist must give us an act of God going before an act of the peoples making David King at Hebron by which David of no King is made formally a King and then another act of the People approving only and consenting to that act of God whereby David is made formally of no King to be a King This Royalists shall never instruct for there be only two acts of God here 1. Gods act of annointing David by the hand of Samuel and 2. Gods act of making David King at Hebron and a third they shall never give But the former is not that by which David was essentially and formally changed from the state of a private subject and no King into the state of a publike Judge and supreme Lord and King for as I have proved after this act of annointing of David King he was designed only and set apart to be King in the Lords fit time and after this annointing he was no more formally a King then Doeg or Nabal were Kings but a subject who called Saul the Lords annointed and King and obeyed Saul as another subjâ—ct doth his King but it is certaine God by no other act made David King at Hebron then by Israels act of free electing him to be King and leader of the Lords people as God by no other act sendeth down rain on the earth but by Gods melting the clouds and causing raine to fall on the earth and therefore to say Israel made David King at Hebron that is Israel approved only and consented to a prior act of Gods making David King is all one as to say Saul prophecied that is Saul consented to a prior act of the Spirit of God who prophecied and Peter preached Act. 2. that is Peter approved and consented to the Holy Ghosts act of preaching Which to say is childish Assert 4. The King is an head of the Commonwealth only metaphorically by a borrowed speech in a politique sense because he ruleth commandeth directeth the whole politique body in all their operations and functions But he is not univocally and essentially the head of the Commonwealth 1. The same very life in number that is in the head is in the members there be divers distinct soules and lives in the King and in his Subjects 2. The head naturall is not made an head by the free election and consent of armes shoulders leggs toes fingers c. The King is made King only by the free election of his people 3. The naturall head so long as the person liveth is ever the head and cannot cease to be a head while it is seated on the shoulders The King if he sell his people their persons and soules may leave off to be a King and Head 4. The head and members live together and dye together the King the people are not so the King may dye and the People live 5. The naturall head cannot destroy the members and preserve it selfe but King Nero may waste and destroy his people
inconsistent with the holinesse of God for so the Lord might deny himself and dispence with sin God avert such blasphemies Now if the kingly power be from God That which essentially and specifically constituteth a King must be from God as the Office it self is from God And Barclay saith expressely That the kingly power is from God and that same which is the specifice form that constituteth a King must be that which essentially separateth the King from the Iudge if they be essentially different as Barclay dreameth Hence have we this jus Regis this Manner or Law of the King to tyrannize and oppresse to be a power from God and so a lawfull power by which you shall have this result of Barclayes interpretation That God made a Tyrant as well as a King 3. By this difference that Barclay putteth betwixt the King and the Judge the Judge might be resisted for he had not this power of domination that Saul hath contrary to Rom. 13.2 Exod. 22.28 and 20.12 But let us try the Text first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word cannot inforce us to expone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a law our English rendreth Shew them the manner of the King Arri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis I grant the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chalde Paraphrase saith Statutum regis Hieronimus translateth it jus regis so Calvin but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude yea and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not alwayes a law as Josh. 6.14 They compassed the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven times 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King 17.26 They know not the manner of the God of the Land Vers. 33. They served their own gods after the manner of the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken in an evill part 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers. 34. Vntill this day they do after these manners 1 Kings 18.28 Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after their manner 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 40.13 Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh according as thou wast wont to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 21.19 He shall deal with her after the manner of daughters 1 Sam. 27.11 And David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring tydings to Gath saying So did David and so will his manner be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be they meaned that it was Davids law right or priviledge to spare none alive 1 Sam. 2.13 And the Priests custome with the people was c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was a wicked custome not a law and the 70. turneth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes taken in a good meaning so P. Martyr He meaneth here of an usurped law saith he Calvin Non jus a deo prescriptum sed tyranidem He speaketh not of Gods law here saith he but of tyranny And Rivetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not ever jus law Sed aliquando morem sive modum rationem agendi The custome and manner of doing so Junius and Tremellius Diodatus exponeth jus This law namely saith he that which is now grown to a common custome by the consent of nations and Gods toleration The interline glosse to speak of Papists exactionem dominationem The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant Lyra exponeth it tyranny Tostatus Abulens He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes as Solomon and others Cornelius a lapide This was an unjust law Cajetanus calleth it tyranny Hugo Cardinal nameth them exactiones servitutes exactions and slaveries And Serrarius he speaketh not here Quid Reges jure possint What they may do by right and law Sed quid audeant What they will be bold to do and what they tyrannically decern against all Laws of nature and humanitie And so speaketh Tho. Aquinas So also Mendoza saith he speaketh of the law of Tyrants and amongst the fathers Clemens Alexandrinus saith on this place Non humanum pollicetur dominum sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum He promiseth not a humane Prince but threatneth to give them an insolent Tyrant and the like also saith Beda And an excellent Lawyer Pet. Rebuffus saith Etiam loquitur de Tyranno qui non erat a Deo electus And that he speaketh of Sauls Tyrannicall usurpation and not of the law prescribed by God Deut. 17. I prove 1. He speaketh of such a power as is answerable to the Acts here spoken of but the Acts here spoken of are Acts of meere tyranny Vers. 11. And this will be the manner of your King that shall reign over you he will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his Chariots and to be his horsemen and some shall run before his Chariots Now to make slaves of their sons was an Act of Tyranny 2. To take their fields and vineyards and oliveyards from them and give them to his servants was no better then Ahabs taking Naboths vineyard from him which by Gods law he might not lawfully sell except in the case of extreme povertie and then in the yeer of Jubilee he might redeem his own inheritance 3. Verse 15 16. To put the people of God to bondage and make them servants was to deal with them as the Tyrant Pharaoh did 4. He speaketh of such a law the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord because of their King but the execution of the just Law of the King Deut. 17. is a blessing and not a bondage which should make the people cry out of the bitternesse of their spirit 5. It is clear here that God is by his Prophet not instructing the King in his duty but as Rabbi Levi Ben. Gersom saith Terrifying them from their purpose of seeking a King and foretelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrannous King But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable Acts of favour that a good King by his good Government was to do for his people Deut. 17. 15 16. But he speaketh of contrary facts here and that he is disswading them from suiting a King is clear from the Text. 1. Because he saith Give them their will but yet protest against their unlawfull course 2. He biddeth the Prophet lay before them the tyranny and oppression of their King which tyranny Saul exercised in his time as the story sheweth 3. Because how uneffectuall Samuels exhortation was is set down Verse 19. Neverthelesse they would not obey the voice of Samuel but said Nay but we will have a King over us if Samuel had not been dehorting them from a King
argument from fact 1. A wicked Magistracie may permit perjurie and lying in the Common-wealth and that without punishment and some Christian Commonweales he meaneth his own Synagogue of Rome spirituall Sodome a cage of uncleane birds suffereth Harlotrie by Law and the whores pay so many thousands yearely to the Pope and are free of all punishment by Law to eschew homicides adulteries of Romish Priests and other greater sinnes Therefore God hath given power to a King to play the Tyrant without any feare of punishment to be inflicted by man But 1. if this be a good argument The Magistrate to whom God hath committed the sword to take vengeance on evill doers Rom. 13.3 4 5 6. such as are perjured persons professed whores and harlots hath a lawfull power from God to connive at sinnes and grosse scandals in the Commonwealth as they dreame that the King hath power given from God to exercise all acts of Tyranny without any resistance But 1. this was a grievous sinne in Eli that he being a father and a Iudge punished not his sonnes for their uncleannesse and his house in Gods heavy displeasure was cut off from the Priesthood therefore Then God hath given no such power to the Iudge 2. The contrary duty is lying on the Iudge To execute judgement for the oppressed Iob 29.12 13 14 15 16 17. Ier. 22.15 16. and perverting of judgement and conniving at the heynous sinnes of the wicked is condemned Num. 5.31 32. 1 Sam. 15.23 1 King 20.42 43. Esa. 1.17 10.1 5.23 and therefore God hath given no power to a Iudge to permit wicked men to commit grievous crimes without any punishment As for the Law of Divorce it was indeed a permissive law whereby the husband might give the wife a bill of divorce and be free of punishment before men but not free of sinne and guiltinesse before God for it was contrary to Gods institution of Mariage at the beginning as Christ saith and the Prophet saith that the Lord hateth putting away But that God hath given any such permissive power to the King that he may doe what he pleaseth and cannot be resisted This is in question 3. The Law spoken of in the Text is by Royalists called not a consuetude of Tranny but the divine law of God whereby the King is formally and essentially distinguished from the Judge in Israel Now if so a power to sinne and a power to commit acts of Tyranny yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the people of God must be a lawfull power given of God for a lawfull power it must be if it commeth from God whether it be from the King in his own person or from his servants at his commandement and by either put forth in acts as the power of a bill of Divorce was a power from God exempting either the husband from punishment before men or freeing the servant who at the husbands command should write it and put it in the hands of the woman I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by Law to one Man to command twenty thousand Cut-throats to kill and destroy all the Children of God and that he hath commanded his Children to give their necks and heads to Babels sonnes without resistance This I am sure is another matter then a Law for a bill of Divorce to one woman maried by free election of a humorous and unconstant man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from heaven like the law of Divorce for the hardnesse of the heart not of the Iewes only but also of the whole Christian and Heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch that one Emperour may by such a Law of God as the Law of Divorce kill by bloody Cut-throats such as the Irish Rebels are all the Nations that call on Gods name men women and sucking infants And if Providence impede the Catholike issue and dry up the seas of Blood it is good but God hath given a law such as the law of Divorce to the King whereby he and all his may without resistance by a legall power given of God who giveth Kings to be fathers nurses protectors guides yea the breath of nostrils of his Church as speciall mercies and blessings to his people he may I say by a law of God as it is 1 Sam. 8.9 11. cut off Nations as that Lyon of the world Nebuchadnezzar did So Royalists teach us Barclaius l. 2. cont Monarchoma pag. 69. The Lord spake to Samuel the Law of the King and wrot it in a book◠and laid it up before the Lord. But what Law That same law which he proposed to the people when they first sought a King but that was the Law contemning Precepts rather for the peoples obeying then for the Kings commanding for the people was to be instructed with those precepts not the King Those things that concerned the Kings duty Deut. 17. Moses commanded to be put into the Arke but so if Samuel had commanded the King that which Moses Deut. 17. commanded he had done no new thing but had done againe what was once done actum egisset but there was nothing before commanded the people concerning their obedience and patience under evill Princes Ioseph Antiq. l. 6. c. 5. he wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evills that were to befall them Ans. It was not that same Law for though this Law was written to the people yet it was the Law of the King and I pray you did Samuel write in a booke all the Rules of Tyranny and teach Saul and all the Kings after him for this book was put in the Ark of the Covenant where also was the booke of the Law how to play the Tyrant And what instruction was it to King or people to write to them a book of the wicked waies of a King which nature teacheth without a Doctor Sanctius saith on the place These things which by mens fraud and to the hurt of the publick may be corrupted were kept in the Tabernacle and the booke of the Law was kept in the Arke Cornelius a Lapide saith It was the Law common to King and people which was commonly kept with the booke of the Law in the Arke of the Covenant Lyra contradicteth Barclay he exponeth Legem legem regni non secundum usurpationem supra positam sed secundum ordinationem Dei positam Deut. 17. Theodat excellently exponeth it the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome inspired by God to temper Monarchy with a liberty befitting Gods people and with equity toward a Nation to withstand the abuse of an absolute power 2. Can any beleeve Samuel would have written a Law of Tyranny and put that booke in the Arke of the Covenant before the Lord to be kept to the posterity seeing he was to teach both King and people the good and the right way 1 Sam. 12.23 24 25. 3. Where is the Law of the Kingdome called a Law of
punishing innocent people 4. To write the duty of the King in a booke and apply it to the King is no more superfluous nor to teach the people the good and the right way out of the Law and apply generalls to persons 5. There is nothing in the Law 1 Sam. 8.9.11.12 of the peoples patience but rather of their impatient crying out God not hearing nor helping and nothing of that in this booke for any thing that we know and Iosephus speaketh of the Law 1 Sam. 8. not of this Law 1 Sam. 12. QUEST XIX Whether or no the King be in Dignity and power above the people IN this grave question divers considerations are to be pondered 1. There is a Dignity materiall in the people scattered they being many representations of God and his Image which is in the King also and formally more as King he being indued with formall Magistraticall and publick Royall Authority in the former regard this or that man is inferiour to the King because the King hath that same remander of the Image of God that any private man hath and something more he hath a politicke resemblance of the King of Heavens being a little God and so is above any one man 2. All these of the people taken collectively having more of God as being representations are according to this materiall dignity excellenter then the King because many are excellenter then one and the King according to the Magistraticall and Royall Authority he hath is excellenter then they are because he partaketh formally of Royalty which they have not formally 3. A meane or medium as it is such is lesse then the end though the thing materially that is a meane may be excellenter every mean as a meane under that reduplication hath all its goodnesse and excellency in relation to the end yet an Angell that is a meane and a ministring Spirit ordained of God for an heire of life eternall Heb. 1.13 considered materially is excellenter then a man Psal. 8.5 Heb. 2.6 7 8. 4. A King and leader in a military consideration and as a Governour and conserver of the whole Army is more worth then ten thousand of the people 2 Sam. 18.3 5. But simply and absolutely the people is above and more excellent then the King and the King in Dignity inferiour to the people and that upon these Reasons 1. Because he is the meane ordained for the people as for the end that he may save them 2. Sam. 19.9 a publick shepheard to feede them Ps. 78.70 71 72 73. the Captaine and Leader of the Lords inheritance 1 Sam. 10.1 to defend them the Minister of God for their good Rom. 13.4 2. The Pilot is lesse then the whole Passengers the Generall lesse then the whole Army the Tutor lesse then all the children the Physician lesse then all the living men whose health he careth for the Master or Teacher lesse then all the Schollars because the part is lesse then the whole the King is but a part and a member though I grant a very eminent and Noble Member of the Kingdome 3. A Christian people especially is the portion of the Lords inheritance Deut. 32.9 the sheepe of his pasture his redeemed ones for whom God gave his blood Act. 20.28 And the killing of a man is to violate the Image of God Gen. 9.6 and therefore the death and destruction of a Church and of thousand thousands of men is a sadder and a more heavy matter then the death of a King who is but one man 4. A King as a King or because a King is not the inheritance of God nor the chosen and called of God nor the sheepe or flocke of the Lords pasture nor the redeemed of Christ for those excellencies agree not to Kings because they are Kings for then all Kings should be indued with those excellencies and God should an be accepter of persons if he put those excellencies of Grace upon men for externall respects of highnesse and Kingly power and worldly glory and splendor for many living Images and representations of God as he is holy or more excellent then a politique representation of Gods greatnesse and Majesty such as the King is because that which is the fruit of a love of God which commeth nearer to Gods most speciall love is more excellent then that which is farther remote from his speciall love now though Royalty be a beame of the Majesty of the greatnesse of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords yet is it such a fruit and beam of Gods greatnesse as may consist with the eternall reprobation of the party loved so now Gods love from whence he communicateth his Image representing his owne holinesse commeth nearer to his most speciall love of election of men to glory 5. If God give Kings to be a ransome for his Church and if he stay great Kings for their sake as Pharaoh King of Aegypt Esa. 43.3 and Sihon King of the Amorites and Og King of Bashan Ps. 136.18 19 20. if he plead with Princes and Kings for destroying his people Esa. 3. v. 12 13 14. if he make Babylon and her King a threshing-floore for the violence done to the inhabitants of Zion Ier. 51.33 34 35. then his people as his people must be so much dearer and more precious in the Lords eyes then Kings because they are Kings by how much more his Justice is active to destroy the one and his Mercy to save the other Neither is the Argument taken off by saying the King must in this question be compared with his owne people not a forraigne King with other forraigne people over whom he doth not Raigne for the Argument proveth that the people of God are of more worth then Kings as Kings and Nebuchadnezer and Pharaoh for the time were Kings to the people of God and forraigne Kings are no lesse essentially Kings then Kings native are 6. Those who are given of God as gifts for the preservation of the people to be Nurse-fathers to them those must be of lesse worth before God then those to whom they are given since the gift as the gift is lesse then the party on whom the gift is bestowed But the King is a gift for the good and preservation of the people as is cleare Esa 1.26 And from this that God gave his people a King in his wrath we may conclude that a King of himselfe except God be angry with his people must be a gift 7. That which is eternall and cannot politically die yea which must continue as the dayes of heaven because of Gods promise That is more excellent then that which is both accidentall temporarie and mortall But the People is both eternall as People because Eccles. 1.4 one generation passeth away and another generation commeth And as a people in covenant with God Ier. 32.40 41. in respect that a People and Church though mortall in the individuals yet the Church remaining the
must keepe covenant though to his hurt yea such a servant is not only not above his Master but he cannot move his foot without his Master The Governour of Britaine saith Arnisaeus being despised by King Philip resigned himselfe as Vassall to King Edward of England but did not for that make himselfe superiour to King Edward indeed he who constituteth another under him as a Legat is superiour but the people do◠constitute a King above themselves not a King under themselves and therefore the people are not by this made the Kings superiour but his inferiour Ans. 1. It is false that the people doth or can by the Law of nature resigne their whole liberty in the hand of a King 1. they cannot resigne to others that which they have not in themselves Nemo potest dare quod non habet but the people hath not an absolute power in themselves to destroy themselves or to exercise those tyrannous acts spoken of 1 Sam. 8.11 12 13 14 15 c. for neither God nor Natures Law hath given any such power 2. He who constituteth himselfe a slave is supposed to be compelled to that unnaturall fact of alienation of that liberty which he hath from his Maker from the wombe by violence constraint or extreame necessity and so is inferiour to all free men but the people doth not make themselves slaves when they constitute a King over themselves because God giving to a people a King the best and excellentest Governour on earth giveth a blessing and speciall fafour Esay 1.26 Hosea 1. v. 11. Esay 3.6 7. Ps. 79.70 71 72. but to lay upon his people the state of slaverie in which they renounce their whole libertie is a curse of God Gen. 9.25 Gen. 27.29 Deut. 28.32.36 But the people having their liberty to make any of ten or twenty their King and to advance one from a private state to an honorable throne whereas it was in their libertie to advance another and to give him Royall power of ten degrees whereas they might give him power of twelve degrees and of eight or sixe must be in excellencie and worth above the man whom they constitute King and invest with such honour as Honour in the fountain and honos participans originans must be more excellent and pure then the derived honour in the King which is honos participatus originatus 2. If the servant give his libertie to his master ergo he had that libertie in him and in that act libertie must be in a more excellent way in the servant as in the Fountaine then it is in the master and so this libertie must be purer in the people then in the King and therefore in that both the servant is above the master and the People worthier then the King and when the people give themselves conditionally and Covenant-wise to the King as to a Publique servant and Patron and Tutour as the Governour of Britaine out of his humour gave himselfe to King Edward there is even here a note of superioritie Every giver of a benefit as a giver is superior to him to whom the gift is given though after the servant hath given away his gift of libertie by which he was superiour he cannot be a superior because by his gift he hath made himselfe inferior 3. The People constituteth a King above themselves I distinguish supra se above themselves according to the fountaine power of Royaltie that is false for the fountaine-power remaineth most eminently in the people 1. because they give it to the King ad modum recipientis and with limitations ergo it is unlimited in the people and bounded and limited in the King and so lesse in the King then in the people 2. If the King turne distracted and an ill spirit from the Lord come upon Saul so as reason be taken from a Nebuchadnezzar it is certaine the people may put Curators and Tutors over him who hath the Royall power 3. If the King be absent and taken captive the People may give the Royall power to one or to some few to exercise it as custodes regni And 4. if he die and the Crown goe by election they may create another with more or lesse power all which evinceth that they never constituted over themselves a King in regard of fountaine-power for if they give away the fountaine as a slave selleth his libertie they could not make use of it Indeed they set a King above them quoad potestatem legum executivam in regard of a power of executing lawes and actuall government for their good and safetie but this proveth only that the King is above the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect but the most eminent and fountaine-power of Royaltie remaineth in the people as in an immortall spring which they communicate by succession to this or that mortall man in the manner and measure that they thinke good And Vlpian and Bartolus cited by our Prelate out of Barclaius are only to be understood of the derived secondary and borrowed power of executing lawes and not of the fountaine power which the people cannot give away no more then they can give away their rationall nature for it is a power naturall to conserve themselves essentially adhering to every created Being For if the People give all their power away 1. What shall they reserve to make a new King if this man dye 2. What if the Royall line surcease there be no Prophets immediately sent of God to make Kings 3. What if he turne Tyrant and destroy his Subjects with the sword The Royalists say they may flie but when they made him King they resigned all their power to him even their power of flying for they bound themselves by an oath say Royalists to all passive and lawfull active obedience and I suppose to stand at his Tribunal if he summoned the three Estates upon Treason to come before him is conteined in the oath that Royalists say bindeth all and is contradictorie to flying Arnisaeus a more learned Iurist and Divine then the P. Prelate answereth the other Maxime The end is worthier then the meane leading to the end because it is ordained for the end These meanes saith he which referre their whole nature to the end and have all their excellencie from the end and have excellencie from no other thing but from the end are lesse excellent then the end that is true such an end as medicine is for health And Hugo Grotius l. 1. c. 3. n. 8. Those meanes which are only for the end for the good of the end and are not for their own good also are of lesse excellencie and inferior to the end But so the assumption is false But those meanes which beside their relation to the end have an excellencie of nature in themselves are not alwayes inferior to the end The Disciple as he is instituted is inferior to the Master but as he is the sonne of a Prince he is
is his due is a great sin but when he abuseth his power to the destruction of his subjects it is lawfull to throw a sword out of a mad-mans hand though it be his owne proper sword and though he have due right to it and a just power to use it for good for all fiduciary power abused may be repealed and if the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons abuse their fiduciary power to the destruction of these Shires and Corporations who put the trust on them the observator did never say that Parliamentary power was so intire and irrevocably in them as that the people may not resist them anull their Commissions and rescind their acts and denude them of fiduciary power even as the King may be denuded of that same power by the three estates for particular Corporations are no more to be denuded of that fountain-power of making Commissioners and of the self preservation then the three estates are 2. The P. Prelate commeth not home to the mind of Buchanan who knew the fundamental Lawes of Scotland the power of Parliaments for his meaning was not to deny a legislative power in the Parliament but when he calleth their Parliamentary declarations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning is only that which Lawyers and Schoole-men both say Leges non promulgatae non habent vim legis actu completo obligatoriae Lawes not promulgated doe not oblige the subject while they be promulgated but he falsifies Buchannan when he saith Parliamentary Lawes must have the authoritative influence of the people before they can be formall Lawes or any more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or preparatory notions And it was no wonder when the King denyed a Parliament and the supreme Senate of the secret Counsell was corrupted then that the people did set up Tables and extraordinary judicatures of the three estates seeing there could not be any other government for the time 6. Barclay answereth to that The meane is inferiour to the end it holdeth not the Tutor and Curator is for the minor as for the end and given for his good but it followeth not that therefore the Tutor in the administration of the minor or Pupils inheritance is not superiour to the minor Ans. 1. It followeth well that the Minor virtually and in the intention of the Law is more excellent then the Tutor though the Tutor can exercise more excellent acts then the Pupill by accident for defect of age in the Minor yet he doth exercise those acts with subordination to the Minor and with correction because he is to render an account of his doings to the Pupill comming to age so the Tutor is only more excellent and superiour in some respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not simply and so is the King in some respect above the people The P. Prelate beggeth from the Royalists another of our Arguments Quod efficit tale est magis tale That which maketh another such is farre more such it selfe if the people give Royall Power to the King then farre more is the Royall Power in the people By this saith the Prelate it shall follow if the observator give all his goods to me to make me rich the observator is more rich if the people give most part of their goods to foment the Rebellion then the people are more rich having given all they have upon the Publicke Faith Ans. 1. This greedy Prelate was made richer then ten poore Pursevants by a Bishopricke it will follow well ergo the Bishopricke is richer then the Bishop whose goods the curse of God blasteth 2. It holdeth in efficient causes so working in other things as the vertue of the effect remaineth in the cause even after the production of the effect As the Sunne maketh all things light the Fire all things hot therefore the Sun is more light the Fire more hot but where the cause doth alienate and make over in a corporall manner that which it hath to another as the hungry Prelate would have the Observators goods it holdeâ—h not for the effect may exhaust the vertue of the cause but the people doth as the fountaine derive a streame of Royalty to Saul and make him King and yet so as they keepe Fountain-power of making Kings in themselves yea when Saul is dead to make David King at Hebron and when he is dead to make Solomon King and after him to make Rehoboam King and therefore in the people there is more fountaine power of making Kings then in David in Saul in any King of the world as for the Prelates jeere about the peoples giving of their goods to the good cause I hope it shall by the blessing of God inrich them more whereas Prelates by the Rebellion in Ireland to which they assent when they counsell His Majesty to sell the blood of some hundred thousands of innocents killed in Ireland are brought from thousands a yeare to begg a morsell of bread The Prelate answereth that Maxime Quod efâ—icit tale id ipsum est magis tale That which maketh another such it is it selfe more such It is true De principio formali effectivo as I learned in the Vniversity of such an Agent as is formally such in it selfe as is the effect produced Next it is such as is effective and productive of it selfe as when fire heateth cold water so the quality must be formally inherent in the Agent as Wine maketh drunke it followeth not Wine is more drunke because Drunkennesse is not inherent in the Wine nor is it capable of drunkennesse and therefore Aristotle qualifieth the Maxime with this Quod efficit tale est magis tale modo utrique insit And it holdeth not in Agents who operate by donation if the right of the King be transferred from the people to the King The donation devesteth the people totally of it except the King have it by way of loane which to my thinking never yet any spoke Soveraignty never was never can be in the Community Soveraignty hath power of life and death which none hath over himselfe and the community conceived without government all as equall endowed with Natures and native liberty of that community can have no power over the life of another And so the Argument may be turned home if the people be not tales such by nature as hath formally Royall power he should say they cannot give the King Royall Power Also none hath power of life and death either eminenter or formally the people either singly or collectively have not power over their owne life much lesse over their neighbours Ans. 1. The Prelate would make the maxime true of a formall cause and this he learned in the University of St. Andrewes he wrongeth the University he rather learned it while he kept the Calves of Craile the wall is white from whitenesse ergo whitenesse is more white by the Prelates learning never such thing was taught in that learned University 2.
Principium formale effectivum is as good Logick as principium effectivum materiale formale finale The Prelate is in his acuracy of Logick now he yet maketh the causality of the formall cause all one with the causality of the efficient but he is weake in his Logicks 3. He confoundeth a cause equivocall and a cause univocall and in that case the Maxime holdeth not Nor is it necessary to make true the maxime that the quality be inherent in the cause the same way For a City maketh a Major but to be a Major is one way in the City and another way in him who is created Major and the Prelates Maxime would helpe him if we reasoned thus The people maketh the King ergo the people is more a King and more formally a Soveraigne then the King But that is no more our Argument then the simile that Maxwell used as neere heart and mouth both Wine maketh drunk the Prelate ergo Wine is more drunk But we reason this the Fountaine-power of making six Kings is in the people ergo there is more fountain-power of Royalty in the people then in any one King for we read that Israel made Saul King and made David King and made Abimelech King but never that King Saul made another King or that an earthly King made another Absolute King 4. The Prelate will have the Maxime false where the Agent worketh by donation which yet holdeth true by his owne grant c. 9. pag. 98. The King giveth power to a Deputy ergo there is more power in the King 5. He supposeth that which is the Basis and foundation of all the question that people devesteth themselves totally of their Fountaine power which is most false 6. Either they must devest themselves totally saith he of their power or the King hath power from the people by way of loane which to my thinking never any yet spake But the P. Prelates thinking is short and no rule to Divines and Lawyers for to the thinking of the learnedst Jurists this power of the King is but fiduciary and that is whether the Prelate thinke it or thinke it not a sort of power by trust pawn'd or loane Rex director Regni non proprietarius Molinae in consuet Parisi Tit. 1.9.1 Glos. 7. n. 9. The King is a life-renter not a Lord or proprieter of his Kingdome So Novel 85. in princip c. 18. Quod magistratus sit nudus dispensator defensor jurium regni non proprietarius constat ex eo quod non posset alienare imperium oppida urbes regionésve vel res subditorum bonà ve regni So Gregory l. 3. c. 8. de Repub. per c. 1. Sect. praeterea de propo feud Hottoman quest illust 1. Ferdinan Vasquez l. 1. c. 4. Bossius de princip privileg illius n. 290. The King is only a steward and a defender of the lawes of the Kingdome not a proprietor because he hath not power to make away the Impire Cities Townes Countries and goods of the Subjects and bona commissa Magistratui sunt subjecta restitutioni in prejudicium successorum alienari non possunt per l. ult Sect. sed nost C. Comment de leg l. peto 69. fratrem de leg 2. l. 32. ult d. t. All the goods committed to any Magistrate are under Restitution◠for he hath not power to make them away to the prejudice of his successors The Prelates thoughts reach not the secrets of Jurists and therefore he speaketh with a warrant he will say no more then his short-travel'd thoughts can reach and that is but at the doore 7. Soveraigntie is not in the Communitie saith the P. Prelate Truly it neither is nor can be more then ten or a thousand or a thousand thousands or a whole Kingdome can be one man for Soveraigntie is the abstract the Soveraigne is the concrete Many cannot be one King or one Soveraigne a Soveraigne must be essentially one and a multitude cannot be one but what then may not the Soveraigne power be eminently fontaliter originally and radically in the people I thinke it may and must be A King is not an under-Iudge he is not a Lord of Councell or Session formally because he is more The people is not King formally because the people is eminently more then the King for they make David King and Saul King And the power to make a Lord of Councell and Session is in the King say Royalists 8. A Communitie hath not power of life and death A King hath power of life and death saith the Prelate What then ergo a Communitie is not King I grant all But poore man Ergo the power of making a King who hath power of life and death is not in the people It is like Prelates logick Samuel is not a King ergo he cannot make David a King It followeth not by the Prelates ground So the King is not an in inferiour Iudge What ergo he cannot make an inferiour Iudge 9. The power of life and death is eminently and virtually in the people collectively taken though not formally And though no man can take away his own life or hath power over his own life formally yet a man and a body of men hath power over their own lives radically and virtually in respect they may render themselves to a Magistrate and to Lawes which if they violate they must be in hazard of their lives and so they virtually have power of their own lives by putting them under the power of good lawes for the peace and safety of the whole 10. This is a weake consequence None hath power of his owne life Ergo far lesse of his neighbours saith the Prelate I shall denie the consequence The King hath not power of his own life that is according to the Prelates mind he can neither by the law of nature nor by any Civill law kill himselfe Ergo the King hath far lesse power to kill another It followeth not for the Iudge hath more power over his neighbours life then over his own 11. But saith the P. Prelate The Communitie conceived without government all as equall endowed with natures and native libertie hath no power of life and death because all are borne free and so none is borne with dominion and power over his neighbours life Yea but so Mr. P. Prelate a King considered without government and as born a free man hath not power of any mans life more then a Communitie hath for King and Begger are borne both alike free But a Communitie in this consideration as they come from the wombe have no Politique consideration at all If you consider them as without all policie you cannot consider them as invested with policie yea if you consider them so as they are by nature voyd of all policie they cannot so much as adde their after-consent and approbation to such a man to be their King whom God immediately from heaven maketh a King for to adde such an after-consent is an
Civill sword should be drawn against the King 3. This law of man should be produced by this profound Iurist the P. Prelate who mocketh at all the Statists and Lawyers of Scotland It is not a covenant betwixt the King and People at his Coronation for though there were any such covenant yet the breach of it doth binde before God but not before man nor can I see or any man else how a law of man can lay a restraint on the Kings power of two degrees to cancell it within a Law more then on a power of ten or fourteene degrees If the King of Spaine the lawfull Soveraigne of those over-European people as Royalists say have a power of foureteene degrees over those conquered Subjects as a King I see not how he hath not the like power over his own Subjects of Spaine to wit even of Foureteen for what agreeth to a King as a King and Kingly power from God he hath as King he hath it in relation to all Subjects except it be taken from him in relation to some Subjâ—cts and given by some law of God or in relation to some other Subjects Now no man can produce any such law 4. The nature of the goodnesse and grace of the Prince cannot lay bonds on the King to cancell his power that he should not usurpe the power of the King of Spaine toward his over-Europeans 1. Royalists plead for a power due to the King as King and that from God such as Saul had 1 Sam. 8.9 11. 1 Sam. 10.25 But this power should be a power of grace and goodnesse in the King as a good man not in the King as a King and due to him by law And so the King should have his Legall power from God to be a Tyrant But if he were not a Tyranâ— but should lay limits on his own power through the goodnesse of his own nature No thankes to Royalists that he is not a Tyrant For actu primo and as he is a King as they say he is a Tyrant having from God a Tyrannous power of ten degrees as Saul had 1 Sam. 8. and why not of foureteen degrees as well as the Great Turke or the King of Spaine if he use it not it is his own personall goodnesse not his officiall and Royall power 4. The rastraint of Providence laid by God upon any power to doe ill hindreth only the exercise of the power not to breake forth in as Tyrannous acts as ever the King of Spaine or the great Turke can exercise toward any Yea Providence layeth Physicall restraint and possibly morall sometimes upon the exercise of that power that Devils and the most wicked men of the world hath but Royalists must shew us that Providence hath laid bounds on the Kings power and made it fatherlie and not masterly so that if it the power exceed bounds of fatherly power and passe over to the dispoticall and masterly power it may be resisted by the Subjects But that they will not say 4. This paternall and fatherly power that God hath given to Kings as Royalists teach it trencheth not upon the libertie of the Subjects and propertie of their goods but in and by lawfull and just acts of Jurisdiction saith the P. Prelate Well Then it may trench upon the libertie of soule and body of the Subjects but in and by lawfull and just acts of of jurisdiction But none are to judge of these acts of Iurisdiction whether they be just or not just but the King the only Iudge of supreme and absolute authoritie and power And if the King command the idolatrous service in the obtruded Service-booke it is a lawfull and a just act of jurisdiction For to Royalists who make the Kings power absolute all acts are so just to the Subject though he command Idolatrie and Turcisme that we are to suffer only and not to resist 5. The Prelate presumeth that Fatherly power is absolute But so if a father murther his childe he is not comptable to the Magistrate therefore but being absolute over his children only the Judge of the World not any power on earth can punish him 6. We have proved that the Kings power is paternall or fatherly only by analogie and improperly 7. What is this Prerogative Royall we shall heare by and by 8. There is no restraint on Earth laid upon this fatherly power of the King but Gods law which is a morall restraint If then the King challenge as great a power as the Turke hath he oâ—ly sinneth against God but no mortall man on earth may controll him as Royalists teach and who can know what power it is that Royalists plead for whether a dispoticall power of Lordly power or a fatherly power If it be a power above law such as none on earth may resist it it is no matter whether it be above law of two degrees or of twenty even to the Great Turkes power These goe for Oracles at Court Tacitus Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt subditis obsequii gloria relicta est Seneca Indigna digna habenda sunt Rex quae facit Salustius Impunè quidvis facere id est Regem esse As if to be a King and to be a God who cannot erre were all one But certainly these Authors are taxing the Licence of Kings and not commanding their power But that God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a King above the law is evident by this Arg. 1. He who in his first institution is appointed of God by office even when he sitteth on the throne to take heed to read on a written copie of Gods law that he may learne to feare the Lord his God and keep all the words of this law c. He is not of absolute power above law But Deut. 17.18 19. the King as King while he sitteth on the Throne is to doe this Ergo the Assumption is cleare for this is the law of the King as King and not of a man as a man But as he sitteth on the Throne he is to read on the booke of the Law and ver 20. Because he is King his heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren And as King v. 16. he is not to multiply horses c. So Polititians make this argument good They say Rex est lex viva animata loquens lex The King as King is a living breathing and speaking Law And there be three reasons of this 1. If all were innocent persons and could doe no violence one to another the Law would rule all and all men would put the Law in execution agendo sponte by doing right of their own accord and there should be no need of a King to compell men to do right But now because men are by nature averse to good lawes therefore there was need of a Ruler who by office should reduce the Law into practice and so is the King the Law reduced in practice 2. The Law is
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 jâ—stice 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 must 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 saith Barclay 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 Leopard or a Nero and a Julian then hath God given actu primo a power to a King as King to inslave the people and flock of God redeemed by the blood of God as the slaves among the Romans and Iews who were so under their masters as their bondage was a plague of God and the lives of the people of God under Pharaoh who compelled them to work in brick and clay 2. Though he cut the throats of the people of God as the Lionnesse Queen Mary did and command an Army of souldiers to come and burn the Cities of the Land and kill man wife and children yet in so doing he doth the part of a King so as you cannot resist him as a man and obey him as a King but must give your necks to him upon this ground because this absolute power of his is ordained of God and there is no power even to kill and destroy the innocent but it is of God so saith Paul Rom. 13. If we beleeve Court-Prophets or rather Lying-Spirits who perswade the King of Britain to make war against his three Dominions Now it is clear that the distinction of bound and free continued in Israel even under the most tyrannous Kings 2 Kings 4.1 yea even when the Iews were captives under Ahasuerus Esther 7.4 And what difference should there be between the people of God under their own Kings and when they were captives under Tyrants serving wood and stone and false gods as was threatned as a curse in the Law Deut. 28 25 36 64 68. If their own Kings by Gods appointment have the same absolute power over them and if he be a Tyrant actu primo that is if he be indued with absolute power and so have power to play the Tyrant then must the people of God be actu primo slaves and under absolute subjection for they are relatives as lord and servant conquerour and captive It is true they say Kings by office are fathers they cannot put forth in action their power to destroy I answer it is their goodnesse of nature that they put not forth in action all their absolute power to destroy which God hath given them as Kings and therefore thanks are due to their goodnesse for that they do not actu secundo play the Tyrant for Royalists teach that by vertue of their office God hath given to them a Royall power to destroy Ergo The Lords people are slaves under them though they deal not with them as slaves but that hindereth not but the people by condition are slaves so many Conquerours of old did deal kindely with these slaves whom they took in war and dealt with them as sons but as Conquerours they had power to sell them to kill them to put them to work in brick and clay so say I here Royall power and a King cannot be a blessing and actu primo a favour of God to the people for the which they are to pray when they want a King that they may have one or to praise God when they have one But a King must be a curse and a judgement if he be such a creature as essentially and in the intention and nature of
the thing it self hath by office a Royall power to destroy and that from God for then the people praying Lord give us a King should pray make us slaves Lord take our Libertie and power from us and give a power illimited and absolute to one man by which he may if he please waste us and destroy us as all the bloody Emperours did the people of God Surely I see not but they should pray for a temptation and to be led in temptation when they pray God to give them a King and therefore such a power is a vain thing Argum. 5. A power contrary to justice 2. To peace and the good of the people 3. That looketh to no law as a rule and so is unreasonable and forbidden by the Law of God and the Civill Law L. 15. filius de condit Instit. cannot be a lawfull power and cannot constitute a lawfull Iudge but an absolute and unlimited power is such How can the Iudge be the Minister of God for good to the people Rom. 13.4 If he have such a power as a King given him of God to destroy and waste the people Argum. 6. An absolute power is contrary to nature and so unlawfull for it maketh the people give away the naturall power of defending their life against illegall and cruell violence and maketh a man who hath need to be ruled and lawed by nature above all rule and law and one who by nature can sin against his brethren such a one as cannot sin against any but God onely and maketh him a Lion and an unsociall man What a man is Nero whose life is poesie paintry Domitian only an Archer Valentinian only a Painter Charles the 9â—h of France only an Hunter Alphonsus Dux Ferrariensis only an Astronomer Philippe of Macedo only a Musitian and all because they are Kings This our King denyeth when he saith Art 13. There is power legally placed in the Parliament more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny But if they had not power to play the Lions it is not much that Kings are Musitians Hunters c. 7. God in making â— King to preserve his people should give liberty without all politick restraint for one man to destroy many which is contrary to Gods end in the fift Commandement if one have absolute power to destroy soules and bodies of many thousands 8. If the Kings of Israel and Iudah were under censures and rebukes of the Prophets and sinned against God and the people in rejecting these rebukes and in persecuting the Prophets and were under this Law not to take their neighbours wife or his Vineyard from him against his will and the inferiour Iudges were to accept the persons of none in Iudgement small or great and if the King yet remaine a brother notwithstanding he be a King then is his power not above any Law nor absolute for what reason 1. He should be under one Law of God to be executed by men and not under another Law Royalists are to shew a difference from Gods Word 2. His neighbours brother or subjects may by violence keepe back their Vineyards and chastity from the King Naboth may by force keepe his owne Vineyard from Achab by the Lawes of Scotland if a subject obtaine a Decree of the King of violent possession of the Heritages of a subject he hath by Law power to cast out force apprehend and deliver to prison these who are Tenants brooking these Lands by the Kings personall Commandement If a King should force a Damsell she may violently resist and by violence and bodily opposing of violence to violence defend her owne chastity Now that the Prophets have rebuked Kings is evident Samuel rebuked Saul Nathan David Elias King Achab. Ieremiah is commanded to Prophesie against the Kings of Iudah Ier. 1.18 and the Prophets practised it Ier. 19.3 c. 21.2 c. 22.13 14 15. Hos. 5.1 Kings are guilty before God because they submitted not their Royall power and greatnesse to the rebukes of the Prophets but persecuted them 2 Deut. 17.20 The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother Psal. 22.22 and so the Iudges or three Estates are not to accept of the Person of the King for his greatnesse in Iudgement Deut. 1.16 17. and the Iudge is to give out such a sentence in Iudgement as the Lord with whom there is no iniquity would give out if the Lord himselfe were sitting in Iudgement because the Iudge is in the very stead of God as his Lievtenant 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Ps. 82.1 2. Deut. 1.17 And with God there is no respect of persons 2 Chro. 19.7 1 Pet. 1.17 Act. 10.34 I doe not intend that any inferiour Iudge sent by the King is to judge the King but these who gave him the Throne and made him King are truely above him and to judge him without respect of persons as God would judge himselfe if he himselfe were sitting in the Beanch 3. God is the Author of Civill Lawes and Government and his intention is therein the externall peace and quiet life and godlinesse of his Church and people and that all Iudges according to their places be Nurse-fathers to the Church Esay 49.23 Now God must have appointed sufficient meanes for this end but there is no sufficient meanes at all but a meere Anarchy and confusion if to one man an absolute and unlimited power be given of God whereby at his pleasure he may obstruct the fountaines of Iustice and command Lawyers and Lawes to speake not Gods mind that is Iustice righteousnesse safety true Religion but the sole lust and pleasure of one man And 2. this one having absolute and irresistible influence on all the inferiour Instruments of Iustice may by this power turne all into Anarchy and put the people in a worse condition then if there were no Iudge at all in the Land For that of Polititians that Tyranny is better then Anarchy is to be taken Cum grano salis but I shall never beleeve that absolute power of one man which is actu primo Tyranny is Gods sufficient way of peaceable government Therefore Barclaius saith nothing for the contrary when he saith The Athenians made Draco and Solon absolute Law-givers For a facto ad jus non valet consequentia What if a roving people trusting Draco and Solon to be Kings above mortall men and to be gods gave them power to make Lawes written not with Inke but with blood Shall other Kings have from God the like Tyrannicall and bloody power from that to make bloody Lawes Chytreus Lib. 2. and Sleidan citeth it l. 1. Sueton. Sub paena periurii non tenentur fidensevare regi degeneri 9. He who is regulated by Law and sweareth to the three Estates to be regulated by Law and accepteth the Crown Covenant-wise and so as the Estates would refuse to make him their King if either he should refuse to sweare or if they did
beleeve certainly that he would breake his oath he hath no illimited and absolute power from God or the People for faedus conditionatum aut promissio conditionalis mutua facit jus alteri in alterum A mutuall conditionall Covenant giveth law and power over one to another But from that which hath been said The King sweareth to the three-Estates to be regulated by Law He accepteth the Crowne upon the tenor of a mutuall covenant c. for if he should as King sweare to be King that is one who hath absolute power above a Law and also to be regulated by a Law he should sweare things contradictorie that is that he should be their King having absolute power over them and according to that power to rule them and he should sweare not to be their King and to rule them not according to absolute power but according to Law If therefore this absolute power be essentiall to a King as a King no King can lawfully take the oath to governe according to Law for then he should sweare not to reigne as King and not be their King For how could he be their King wanting that which God hath made essentiall to a King as a King QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath any Royall prerogative or a power to dispence with Lawes And some other grounds against absolute Monarchie A Prerogative Royall I take two wayes 1. Either to be an act of meere will and pleasure above or beside Reason or Law Or an act of dispensation beside or against the letter of the Law Assert 1. That which Royalists call the Prerogative Royall of Princes is the salt of Absolute Power and it is a supreme and highest power of a King as a King to doe above without or contrary to a Law or Reason which is unreasonable 1. When Gods word speaketh of the power of Kings and Iudges Deut. 17.15 16 17. Deut. 1.15 16 17. and elsewhere there is not any footstep or ground for such a power and therefore if we speake according to conscience there is no such thing in the world And because Royalists cannot give us any warrant it is to be rejected 2. A Prerogative Royall must be a power of doing good to the people and grounded upon some reason or law but this is but a branch of an ordinarie limited power and no prerogative above or beside law Yea any power not grounded on a reason different from meere will or absolute pleasure is an irrationall and brutish power and therefore it may well be jus personae the power of the man who is King it cannot be jus coronae any power annexed to the Crown for this holdeth true of all the actions of a King as a King Illud potest Rex illud tantum quod jurâ— potest The King as King can doe no more then that which upon right and law he may doe 3. To dispute this question Whether such a Prerogative agree to any King as King is to dispute whether God hath made all under a Monarch slaves by their own consent which is a vaine question 2. Those who hold such a Prerogative must say the King is so absolute and illimited a God on earth that either by law or his sole pleasure beside law he may regularly and rationally move all wheeles in Policie and his uncontrolled will shall be the axeltree on which all the wheeles are turned 4. That which is the garland and proper flower of the King of Kings as he is absolute above his creatures and not tyed to any law without himselfe that regulateth his will That must be given to no mortall man or King except we would communicate that which is Gods proper due to a sinfull man which must be idolatrie But to doe Royall acts out of an absolute power above Law and Reason is such a power as agreeth to God as is evident in positive lawes and in acts of Gods meere pleasure where we see no reason without the Almightie for the one side rather than for the other as Gods forbidding the eating of the tree of knowledge maketh the eating sinne and contrary to reason but there is no reason in the object for if God should command eating of that tree not to eat should be also sinne So Gods choosing Peter to glory and his refusing Judas is a good and a wise act but not good or wise from the object of the act but from the sole wise pleasure of God because if God had chosen Judas to glory and rejected Peter that act had been no lesse a good and a wise act then the former For when there is no law in the object but only Gods will the act iâ— good and wise seeing infinite wisdome cannot be separated from the perfect will of God but no act of a mortall King having sole and only will and neither law nor reason in it can be a lawfull a wise or a good act Assert 2. There is something which may be called a Prerogative by way of dispensation There is a threefold dispensation one of power another of justice and a third of grace A dispensation of power is when the will of the Law-giver maketh that act to be no sinne which without that will would have been sinne As if Gods commanding Will had not interveened the Israelites borrowing the eare-rings and jewels of the Egyptians and not restoring them had been a breach of the 8 Commandement and in this sense no King hath a Prerogative to dispence with a Law 2. There is a dispensation of law and justice not flowing from any Prerogative but from the true intent of the Law And thus the King yea the inferiour Judge is not to take the life of a man whom the letter of the Law would condemne because the Justice of the Law is the intent and life of the Law and where nothing is done against the intent of the Law there is no breach of any Law The Third is not unlike unto the Second when the King exponeth the Law by Grace and this is twofold 1. Either when he exponeth it of his wisdome and mercifull nature inclined to mercy and justice yet according to the just intent native sense and scope of the Law considering the occasion circumstances of the fact and comparing both with the Law and this dispensation of grace I grant to the King As when the tribute is great and the man poor the King may dispense with the custome 2. The Law saith In a doubtfull case the Prince may dispense because it is presumed the Law can have no sense against the principall sense and intent of the Law But there is another dispensation that Royalists doe plead for and that is a power in the King ex mera gratia absolutae potestatis regalis Out of meere grace of absolute Royall power to pardon crimes which Gods law saith should be punished by death Now this they call a power of Grace but it is
not a power of meere Grace But 1. Though Princes may doe some things of Grace yet not of meere Grace because what Kings doe as Kings and by vertue of their Royall office that they do ex debito officii by debt and right of their office and that they cannot but do it not being arbitrarie to them to doe the debtfull acts of their office But what they doe of meere grace that they doe as good men and not as Kings and that they may not doe As for example Some Kings out of their pretended prerogative have given foure pardons to one man for foure murthers Now this the King might have left undone without sinne But of meere grace he pardoned the murtherer who killed foure men But the truth is the King killed the three last because he hath no power in point of Conscience to dispute with blood Num. 35.31 Gen. 9.6 These pardons are acts of meere grace to one man but acts of blood to the Communitie 2. Because the Prince is the Minister of God for the good of the subject and therefore the Law saith He cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him Contra l. quod favore F. de leg l. non ideo minus F. de proc l. legata inutiliter F. de lega 1. And the reason is cleare He is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill And if the Judgement be the Lords not mans not the Kings as it is indeed Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 he cannot draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guiltie except he would take on himselfe to carve and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now certaine it is God only univocally and essentially as God is the Judge Ps. 75.7 and God only and essentially King Ps. 97.1 Ps. 99.1 and all men in relation to him are meere ministers servants legates deputies and in relation to him equivocally and improperly Iudges or Kings and meere created and breathing shadowes of the power of the King of Kings And looke as the Scribe following his own device and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the Court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Iudge so are Kings and all Iudges but forged intruders and bastard Kings and Iudges in so far as they give out the sentences of men and are not the very mouthes of the King of Kings to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himselfe would doe if he were sitting on the Throne or Bench. 3. If the King from any supposed prerogative Royall may doe acts of meere grace without any warrant of Law because he is above Law by office then also may he doe acts of meere rigorous Iustice and kill and destroy the innocent out of the same supposed Prerogative For Gods word equally tyeth him to the place of a meere minister in doing good as in executing wrath on evill doers Rom. 13.3 4. And reason would say he must be as absolute in the one as in the other seeing God tieth him to the one as to the other by his office and place yea by this acts of Iustice to ill-doers and acts of reward to well-doers shall be arbitrary morally and by vertue of office to the King and the word Prerogative Royall saith this for the word Prerogative is a supreme power absolute that is loosed from all Law and so from all reason of Law and depending on the Kings meer and naked pleasure and will and the word Royall or Kingly is an Epithete of office and of a Iudge a created and limited Iudge and so it must tye this supposed Prerogative to Law Reason and to that which is debitum legale officii and a legall duty of an office and by this our masters the Royalists make God to frame a rationall creature which they call a King to frame acts of Royalty good and lawfull upon his own meer pleasure and the super-dominion of his will above a Law and Reason And from this it is that deluded Counsellours made King James a man not of shallow understanding and King Charls to give pardons to such bloody murtherers as James a Grant and to go so far on by this supposed Prerogative Royall that King Charls in Parliament at Edinburgh 1633. did command an high point of Religion That Ministers should use in officiating in Gods service such Habits and Garments as he pleaseth that is all the Attire and Habits of the idolatrous Masse-Priests that the Romish Priests of Baal useth in the oadest point of idolatry the adoring of Bread that the earth has and by this Prerogative the King commanded the Service Book in Scotland An. 1637. without or above Law and Reason And I desire any man to satisfie me in this If the Kings Prerogative Royall may over-leap Law and Reason in two degrees and if he may as King by a Prerogative Royall command the body of Popery in a Popish Book If he may not by the same reason over-leap Law and Reason by the elevation of twenty degrees And if you make the King a Iulian God avert and give the spirit of revelation to our King may he not command all the Alcaron and the Religion of the Heathen and Indians Royalists say The Prerogative of Royalty excludeth not reason and maketh not the King to do as a brute beast without all reason but it giveth a power to a King to do by his Royall pleasure not fettered to the dictates of a Law for in things which the King doth by his Prerogative Royall he is to follow the advice and counsell of his wise counsell though their counsell and advice doth not binde the Royall will of the King I answer it is to me and I am sure to many Learneder a great question If the will of any reasonable creature even of the damned angels can will or chose any thing which their reason corrupted as it is doth not dictate hic nunc to be good For the object of the will of all men is good either truely or apparently good to the doer for the devill could not suite in marriage souls except he war in the cloths of an Angel of light sin as sin cannot sell or obtrude it self upon any but under the notion of good I think it seemeth good to the great Turk to command innocent men to cast themselves over a precipie two hundreth fadom high in the Sea and drown themselves to pleasure him So the Turks reason for he is rationall if he be a man dictateth to his vast pleasure that that is good which he commandeth 2. Counsellours to the King who will speak what will please the Queen are but naked empty Titles for they speak que placent non que prosunt what may please the King whom they make glad with their lies not what law and reason dictateth 3. Absolutenesse of an unreasonable Prerogative doth not deny
Counsell and Law also for none more absolute de facto I cannot say de jure then the Kings of Babylon and Persia for Daniel saith of one of them Dan. 5.19 Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set up and whom he would he put down and yet these same Kings did nothing but by advice of their Princes and Counsellors yea so as they could not alter a decree and law as is clear Ester 1.14 15 16 17 21. Yea Darius de facto an absolute Prince was not able to deliver Daniel because the Law was passed that he should be cast into the Lions den Dan. 6.14 15 16. 4. That which the spirit of God condemneth as a point of Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar that is no lawfull Prerogative Royall but the spirit of God condemneth this as Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar That he slew whom he would he kept alive whom he would he set up whom he would he put down this is too God-like Deut. 32.39 So Polanus Rollocus on the place say he did these things Vers. 19. Ex abusu legitimae potestatis for Nebuchadnezzars will in matters of death and life was his Law and he did what pleased himself above all Law beside and contrary to it and our flatterers of Kings draw the Kings Prerogative out of Vlpians words who saith â—hat is a Law which seemeth good to the Prince but Vlpian was far from making the Princes will a rule of good and ill for he saith the contrary That the Law ruleth the just Prince 5. It is considerable here that Sanches defineth the absolute power of Kings to be a plenitude and fulnesse of power subject to no necessity and bounded with rules of no publick Law and so did Baldus before him but all Politicians condemn that of Caligula as Suetonius saith which he spake to Alexander the Great Remember that thou maist do all things and that thou hast a power to do to al men what thou pleasest And Lawyers say that this is Tyranny Chilon one of the seven wise of Greece as Rodigi saith better Princes are like gods because they onely can do that which is just And this power being meerly Tyrannicall can be no ground of a Royall Prerogative There is another power saith Sanches absolute by which a Prince dispenseth without a cause in a humane law and this power saith he may be defended but he saith What the King doth by this absolute power he doth it validè but not jure by Law but by valid acts the Iesuite must mean Royall Acts but no acts void of Law and Reason say we can be Royall Acts for Royall Acts are acts performed by a King as a King and by a Law and so cannot be Acts above or beside a Law It is true a King may dispence with the breach of an humane Law as a humane Law that is If the Law be death to any who goeth up on the Walls of the Citie the King may pardon any who going up discovereth the enemies approach and saveth the Citie But 1. The inferiour Iudge according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that benigne interpretation that the soul and intent of the Law requireth may do this as well as the King 2. All acts of independent Prerogative are above a Law and acts of free-will having no cause or ground in the Law otherwayes it is not founded upon absolute power but on power ruled by Law and Reason but to pardon a breach of the letter of the Law of man by exponing it according to the true intent of the Law and benignly is an act of legall obligation and so of the ordinary power of all Iudges and if either King or Iudge kill a man for the violation of the Letter of the Law when the intent of the Law contradicteth the rigid sentence he is guilty of innocent blood If that learned Ferdin Vasquez be consulted he is against this distinction of a power ordinary and extraordinary in men and certainly if you give to a King a Prerogative above a Law it is a power to do evill as well as good but there is no lawfull power to do evill and Doct. Ferne is plunged in a contradiction by this for he saith Sect. 9. pag. 58. I ask when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure Was that power ordained by God No. But an illegall will and Tyranny But Pag. 61. The power though abused to execute such a wicked commandment is an Ordinance of God It is objected 1. For the lawfulnesse of an absolute Monarchy The Easterne Persian and Turkes Monarchy maketh absolute Monarchy lawfull for it is an Oath to a lawfull obligatory thing and judgment Ezech. 17.16 18. is denounced against Iudah for breaking the Oath of the King of Babylon and it is called the Oath of God and doubtlesse was an Oath of absolute subjection and the power Rom. 13. was absolute and yet the Apostle calleth it an Ordinance of God The soveraignty of Masters over servanes was absolute and the Apostle exhorteth not to renounce that title as to ridged but exhorteth to moderation in the use of it Ans. That the Persian Monarchy was absolute is but a facto ad jus and no rule of a lawfull Monarchy but that it was absolute I beleeve not Darius who was an absolute Prince as many think but I thinke not would gladly have delivered Daniel from the power of a Law and Dan. 6.14 And he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him and he laboured till the going downe of the Sun to deliver him and was so sorrowfull that he could not breake through a Law that he interdicted himselfe of all pleasures of Musiâ—ians and if ever he had used the absolutenesse of a Prerogative Royall I conceive he would have done it in this yet he could not prevaile But in things not established by Law I conceive Darius was absolute as to me is cleare Daniel 6. v. 24. but absolute not by a Divine Law but De facto quod transierat in jus humanum by fact which was now become a lrw 2. It was Gods Oath and God tyed Iudah to absolute subjection ergo people may tye themselves It followeth not exeept you could make good this inference God is absolute ergo the King of Babylon may lawfully be absolute this is a blasphemous consequence 2. That Iudah was to sweare the Oath of absolute subjection in the latitude of the absolutenesse of the Kings of Chaldea I would see proved their absolutenesse by the Chaldean Lawes was to command murther Idolatry Daniel 3.4 5. and to make wicked Lawes Dan. 6. v. 7 8. I beleeve Ieremiah commanded not absolute subjection in this sence But the contrary Ier. 10. v. 11. They were to sweare the Oath in the point of suffering but what if the King of Chaldea had commanded them all the whole holy Seed men women and children out of his Royall power to give their neckes
rise up and defend themselves Obj. 7. Here the Prelate borrowing from Grotius Barclay Arnisaus or it s possible he be not so farre travelled for Doct. Ferne hath the same Soveraignty weakned in Aristocracy cannot doe its worke and is in the next place to Anarchy and confusion When Zedekiah was over Lorded by his Nobles he could neither save himselfe nor the people nor the Prophet the servant of God Ieremiah nor could David punish Ioab when he was over-awed by that power he himselfe had put in his hand To weaken the head is to distemper the whole body if any good Prince or his Royall Antecessors be cheated of their sacred right by fraud or force he may at his fittest opportunity resume it What a sinne is it to rob God or the King of their due Ans. Aristocracy is no lesse an ordinance of God then Royalty for Rom. 13.1 and 1 Tim. 2.1 All in Authority are to be acknowledged as Gods Vice-gerents the Senate the Consuls as well as the Emperour And so one ordinance of God cannot weaken another nor can any but by a lawlesse Animall say Aristocracy bordereth with confusion but he must say Order and Light are sister Germanes to confusion and darknesse 2 Though Zedekiah a man voyd of God were over-awed with his Nobles and so could not help Ieremiah it followeth not that because Kings may not do this and this good therefore they are to be invested with power to doe all ill if they doe all the good that they have power to doe they 'l finde way to helpe the oppressed Jeremiahes and because power to doe both good and evill is given by the Divell to our Scottish Witches it s a poore consequent that the States should give to the King power absolute to be a Tyrant 3. A State must give a King more power then ordinary especially to execute Laws which requireth singular wisdom when a Prince cannot alwayes have his great Councell about with him to advise him But 1. That is power borrowed and by loan and not properly his own and therefore it is no sacriledge in the States to resume what the King hath by a fiduciary Title and borrowed from them 2. This power was given to do good not evill David had power over Joab to punish him for his murther but he executed it not upon carnall fears and abused his power to kill innocent Vriah which power neither God nor the States gave him But how proveth he the States took power from David or that Ioab took power from David to put to death a murtherer that I see not 3. If Princes power to do good be taken from them they may resume it when God giveth opportunity But this is to the Prelate Perjury that the people by Oath give away their power to their King and resume it when he abuseth it to Tyranny But it is no perjurie in the King to resume a taken away power which if it be his own is yet lis sub judice a great controversie Quod in Cajo licet in Nevio non licet So he teacheth the King That Perjurie and Sacriledge is lawfull to him If Princes power to do ill and cut the whole Land off as one neck which was the wicked desire of Caligula be taken from them by the States I am sure 1. This power was never theirs and never the peoples and you cannot take the Princes power from him which was never his power 2. I am also sure the Prince should never resume an unjust power though he were cheated of it P. Prelate It is a poor shift to acknowledge no more for the Royall Prerogative then the Municipall Law hath determined as some smatterers in the Law say They cannot distinguish betwixt a Statute Declarative and a Statute Constitutive but the Statutes of a Kingdom do declare onely what is the Prerogative Royall but do not constitute or make it God Almightie hath by himself constituted it It is laughter to say the Decalogue was not a Law till God wrote it Answ. Here a profound Lawyer calleth all smatters in the Law who cannot say that non ens a Prerogative Royall that is a power contrary to God and mans Law to kill and destroy the innocent came not immediately down from Heaven but I professe my self no Lawyer but do maintain against the Prelate that no Municipall Law can constitute a power to do ill nor can any Law either justly constitute or declare such a fancie as a Prerogative Royall so far is it from being like the Decalogue that is a Law before it be written that this Prerogative is neither Law before it be written nor after Court Placebo's have written for it for it must be eternall as the Decalogue if it have any blood from so noble a house 2. In what Scripture hath God Almightie spoken of a fancied Prerogative Royall P. Prelate Prerogative resteth not in its naturall seat but in the King God saith Reddite not Date render to Kings that which is Kings not give to Kings it shall never be well with us if his annointed and his Church be wronged Answ. The Prelate may remember a Countrey Proverb He and his Prelates called the Church the scum of men not the Church are like the Tinkers dogs they like good company they must be ranked with the King And 2. Here a false Prophet It shall never be well with the Land while Arbitrary power and Popery be erected saith he in good sense P. â—â—elate The King hath his right from God and cannot make it away to the people Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars Kings persons their Charge their Right their Authority their Prerogative are by Scriptures Fathers Iurists Sacred inseparable Ordinances inherent in their Crowns they cannot be made away and when they are given to inferiour Judges it is not ad minuendam majestatem sed solicitudinem to lessen Soveraign Majesty but to ease them Answ. The King hath his right from God What then not from the people I read in Scripture The people made the King Never That the King made the people 2. All these are inseparably in the Crown but he stealeth in Prerogative Royall in the clause which is now in question Render to Caesar all Caesars And therefore saith he Render to him a Prerogative that is an absolute power to pardon and sell the blood of thousands Is power of blood either the Kings or inherent inseparably in his Crown Alas I fear Prelates have made blood an inseparable accident of his Throne 3. When Kings by that publike power given to them at their Coronation maketh inferiour Iudges they give them power to judge for the Lord not for men Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 Now they cannot both make away a power and keep it also for the inferiour Iudges conscience hangeth not at the Kings girdle he hath no lesse power to judge in his sphere then the King hath in his sphere though the Orb and circle
fundamentall in that notion Some object The three Estates as men and looking to their owne ends not to Law and the publick good are not fundamentalls and are to be judged by the King Ans. By the people and the conscience of the people they are to be judged Obj. But the people also doe judge as corrupt men and not as the people and a Politique Body providing for their owne safety Ans. I grant all when God will bring a vengeance on Jerusalem Prince and people both are hardened to their owne destruction Now God hath made all the three in every Government where there is Democracy there is some chosen ones resembling an Aristocracy and some one for order presiding in Democraticall courts resembling a King In Aristocracy as in Holland there is somewhat of Democracy the people have their Commissioners and one Duke or Generall as the Prince of Orange is some umbrage of Royalty and in Monarchy there are the three Estates of Parliament and these containe the three Estates and so somewhat of the three formes of Government and there is no one Government just that hath not some of all three powre and absolute Monarchy is Tyranny unmixed Democracy is confusion untempered Aristocracy is factious Dominion and a limited Monarchy hath from Democracy respect to publick good without confusion From Aristocracy safety in multitude of Counsells without factious emulation and so a barre laid on Tyranny by the joynt powers of many and from Soveraignty union of many children in one father and all the three thus contempered have their owne sweet fruits through Gods blessing and their owne diseases by accident and through mens corruption and neither reason nor Scripture shall warrant any one in its rigid purity without mixture And God having chosen the best government to bring men fallen in sinne to happinesse must warrant in any one a mixture of all three as in mixt bodies the foure Elements are reduced to a fit temper resulting of all the foure where the acrimony of all the foure first qualities is broken and the good of all combined in one The King as the King is an unerring and living Law and by grant of Barclay of old was one of excellent parts and noble through vertue and goodnesse and the goodnesse of a father as a father of a tutor as a tutor of a head as a head of a husband as a husband doe agree to the King as the King so as King he is the Law it selfe commanding governing saving 2. His Will as King or his Royall Will is reason conscience Law 3. This Will is politickly present when his person is absent in all Parliaments Courts and inferiour Iudicatures 4. The King as King cannot doe wrong or violence to any 5. Amongst the Romanes the name King and Tyrant were common to one thing 1. Because de facto some of their Kings were Tyrants in respect of their Dominion rather then Kings 2. Because he who was a Tyrant De facto should have been and was a King too de jure 6. It is not lawfull to either disobey or resist a King as a King no more then it is lawfull to disobey a good Law 7. What violence what unjustice and excesse of passion the King mixeth in with his Acts of Government are meerely accidentall to a King as King for because men by their owne innate goodnesse will not yea Morally cannot doe that which is lawfull and just one to another and doe naturally since the fall of man violence one to another therefore if there had not been sin there should not have been need of a King more then there should have beene need of a Tutor to defend the child whose father is not dead or of a Physitian to cure sicknesse where there is health for remove sinne and there is neither death nor sicknesse but because sinne is entered into the world God devised as a remedy of violence and unjustice a living rationall breathing Law called a King a Iudge a Father now the aberrations violence and oppression of this thing which is the living rationall breathing Law is no Medium no meane intended by God and nature to remove violence How shall violence remove violence Therefore an unjust King as unjust is not that genuine ordinance of God appointed to remove unjustice but accidentall to a King So we may resist the unjustice of the King and not resist the King 8 If then any cast off the nature of a King and become habitually a Tyrant in so farre he is not from God nor any ordinance which God doth owne If the Office of a Tyrant to speake so be contrary to a Kings Offices it is not from God and so neither is the power from God 9. Yea Lawes which are no lesse from God then the Kings are when they begin to be hurtfull Cessant materialiter they leave off to be Lawes because they oblige Non secundum vim verborum sed in vim sensus not according to the force of words but according to sense l. Non figura literarum F. de actione obligatione l. ita stipulatus But who saith the Royalists shall be judge betwixt the King and the people when the people alledge that the King is a Tyrant Ans. There is a Court of necessity no lesse then a Court of Justice and 2. The fundamentall Lawes must then speake and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no Ruler Obj. 1. But if the Law be doubtsome as all humane all Civill all municipall Lawes may endure great dispute the peremptory person exponing the Law must be the supreame Iudge This cannot be the people ergo it must be the King Ans. 1. As the Scriptures in all fundamentalls are cleare and expone themselves and Actu primo condemne Heresies so all Lawes of men in their fundamentals which are the Law of Nature and of Nations are cleare And 2. Tyranny is more visible and intelligible then Heresie and it s soone decerned If a King bring in upon his native subjects twenty thousand Turks armed and the King lead them It is evident they come not to make a friendly visite to salute the Kingdom and depart in peace the people have a naturall throne of policie in their conscience to give warning and materially sentence against the King as a Tyrant and so by nature are to defend themselves Where Tyranny is more obscure and the thred small that it escape the eye of men the King keepeth possession but I deny that Tyranny can be obscure long Object 2. Doct. Ferne. A King may not or cannot easily alter the frame of fundamentall Laws he may make some actuall invasion in some transient and not fixed acts and it is safer to bear these then to raise a civill Warre of the Body against the Head Answ. 1. If the King as King may alter any one wholesome Law by that same reason he may alter all 2. You give short wings to
an Arbitrary Prince if he cannot over flie all Laws to the subversion of the Fundamentalls of a State if you make him as you do 1. One who hath the sole Legislative power who allanerly by himself maketh Laws and his Parliament and Councell are onely to give him advice which by Law he may as easily reject as they can speak words to him He may in one transient act and it is but one cancell all Laws made against idlolatry and Popery and command through bad Counsell in all his Dominions the Pope to be acknowledged as Christs Vicar and all his doctrine to be established as the Catholike true Religion It is but one transient act to seal a pardon to the shedding of the blood of two hundred thousand killed by Papists 2. You make him a King who may not be resisted in any case and though he subvert all Fundamentall Laws he is countable to God onely his people have no remedy but prayers or flight Object 3. Ferne. Limitations and mixtures in Monarchies do not imply a forceable restraining power in subjects for the preventing of the dissolution of the State but onely a legall restraining power and if such a restraining power be in the subjects by reservation then it must be expressed in the constitution of the Government and in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people but such a condition is unlawfull which will not have the Soveraign power secured is unprofitable for King and people a seminary for seditions and jealousies Answ. I understand not a difference betwixt forceable restraining and legall restraining For he must mean by legall mans Law because he saith It is a Law in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people Now if this be not forceable and physicall it is onely Morall in the conscience of the King and a Cypher and a meer vanitie for God not the people putteth a restraint of conscience on the King that he may not oppresse his poor subjects but he shall sin against God that is a poor restraint the goodnesse of the King a sinfull man inclined from the womb to all sin and so to Tyranny is no restraint 2. There 's no necessitie that the reserve be expressed in the Covenant between King and people more then in contract of marriage between a husband and a wife beside her joynter you should set down this clause in the contract that if the husband attempt to kill the wife or the wife the husband in that case it shall be lawfull to either of them to part companies For Doct. Ferne saith That personall defence is lawfull in the people if the Kings assault be 1. Suddain 2. Without colour of Law 3. Inevitable Yet the reserve of this power of defence is not necessarily to be expressed in the contract betwixt King and people Exigences of the Law of nature cannot be set down in positive Covenants they are presupposed 3. He saith A reservation of power whereby soveraigntie is not secured is unlawfull Lend me this Argument The giving away of a power of defence and a making the King absolute is unlawfull because by it the people is not secured but one man hath thereby the sword of God put in his hand whereby ex officio he may as King cut the throats of thousands and be countable to none therefore but to God onely now if the non-securing of the King make a condition unlawfull the non-securing of a Kingdom and Church yea of the true religion which are infinitely in worth above one single man may far more make the condition unlawfull 4. A legall restraint on a King is no more unprofitable and a seminary of jealousies between King and people then a legall restraint upon people for the King out of a non-restraint as out of seed may more easily educe tyranny and subversion of religion If outlandish women tempt even a Solomon to idolatry as people may educe sedition out of a legall restraint laid upon a King to say nothing that Tyranny is a more dangerous sin then sedition by how much more the lives of many and true religion are to be preferred to the safetie of one and a false peace Object 4. An absolute Monarch is free from all forceable restraint and so far as he is absolute from all legall restraint of positive Laws now in a limited Monarch there is onely sought a legall restraint and limitation cannot infer a forceable restraint for an absolute Monarch is limited also not by civill compact but by the Law of nature and nations which he cannot justly transgresse if therefore an absolute Monarch being exorbitant may not be resisted because he transgresseth the Law of nature how shall we think a limited Monarch may be resisted for transgressing the bounds set by civill agreement Answ. A legall restraint on the people is a forceable restraint For if Law be not backed with force it is onely a Law of rewarding weldoing which is no restraint but an incouragement to do evil If then there be a legall restraint upon the King without any force it is no restraint but onely such a request as this Be a just Prince and we will give your Majestie two Subsidies in one yeer 2. I utterly deny that God ever ordained such an irrationall creature as an absolute Monarch If a people unjustly and against natures dictates make away irrevocably their own libertie and the libertie of their posteritie which is not their's to dispose off and set over themselves as base slaves a sinning creature with absolute power he is their King but not as he is absolute and that he may not be forceably resisted notwithstanding the subjects did swear to his absolute power which oath in the point of absolutenesse is unlawfull and so not obligatory I utterly deny 3. An absolute Monarch saith he is limited but by Law of nature That is Master Doctor he is not limited as a Monarch not as an absolute Monarch but as a son of Adam he is under the limites of the Law of nature which he should have been under though he had never been a King all his dayes but a slave But what then Therefore he cannot be resisted Yes Doctor by your own grant he can be resisted If he invade an innocent subject say you 1. Suddenly 2. Without colour of Law 3. Inevitably And that because he transgresseth the Law of nature 4. You say a limited Monarch can lesse be resisted for transgressing the bounds set by civill agreement But 1. What if the thus limited Monarch transgresse the Law of nature and subvert Fundamentall Lawes he is then you seem to say to be resisted it is not for simple transgression of a civill agreement that he is to be resisted 2. The limited Monarch is as essentially the Lords anointed and the power ordained of God as the absolute Monarch Now resistance by all your grounds is unlawfull because of Gods power and place conferred upon him not because of mens
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 Kingâ— 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 Spanish 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 trifle 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 Dictator was not above a King but the Romanes ejected Kings 5. The Dictators power was not to destroy a State 2. He might be and was resisted 3. He might be deposed Prelate The safetie of the People is pretended as a Law that the Jewes must put Christ to death and that Saul spared Agag Ans. No shadow for either in the word of God Caiaphas prophecied and knew not what he said But that the Iewes intended the salvation of the Elect in kilâ—ing Christ or that Saul intended a publick good in sparing Agag shall be the Prelates Divinitie not mine 2. What howbeit many should abuse this Law of the peoples safety to wrong good Kings it ceaseth not therefore to be a Law and licenseth not ill Kings to place a Tyrannicall Prerogative above a just Dictate of nature In the last Chapter the Prelate hath no reasons onely he would have Kings holy and this he proveth from Apocrypha Books because he is ebbe in holy Scripture but it is Romish holinesse as is cleer 2. He must preach something to himself that the King adore a tree-Altar Thus Kings must be most reverend in their gestures pag. 182. 3. The King must hazard his sacred life and three Kingdoms his Crown Royall posterity to preserve sacred things that is Antichristian Romish Idols Images Altars Ceremonies Idolatry Popery 4. He must upon the same pain maintain sacred persons that is greasie Apostate Prelates The rest I am weary to trouble the Reader withall but know ex ungue leoâ—em QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law or no WE may consider the question of the Laws supremacie over the King either in the supremacie of constitution of the King 2. or of direction or 3. of limitation or 4. of coaction and punishing Those who maintain this The King is not subject to the Law if their meaning be The King as King is not subject to the Laws direction They say nothing for the King as the King is a living Law then they say The Law is not subject to the Laws direction a very improper speech or The King as King is not subject to the coaction of the Law that is true for he who is a living Law as such cannot punish himself as the Law saith 1. Assert The Law hath a supremacy of constitution above the King 1. Because the King by nature is not King as is proved Ergo he must be King by a politique constitution and Law and so the Law in that consideration is above the King because it is from a civil Law that there is a King rather then any other kinde of Governour 2. It is by Law that amongst many hundred men this man is King not this man and because by the which a thing is constituted by the same thing it is or may be dissolved therefore 3. As a Community finding such and such qualifications as the Law requireth to be in a King in this man not in this man therefore upon Law-ground 5. They make him a King and upon Law-grounds and just demerit they may unmake him again for what men voluntarily doe upon condition the condition being removed they may undoe again 2. Assert It is denyed by none but the King is under the directive power of the Law though many liberate the King from the coactive power of a civil Law But I see not what direction a civil Law can give to the King if he be above all obedience or
disobedience to a Law seeing all Law-direction is in â—rdine ad obedientiam in order to obey except thus far that the light that is in the civil Law is a morall or naturall guide to conduct a King in his walking but this is the morality of the Law which inlightneth and informeth not any obligation that aweth the King and so the King is under Gods and Natures Law this is nothing to the purpose 3. Assert The King is under the Law in regard of some coercive limitation 1. Because there is no absolute power given to him to do what he listeth as a man And because 2. God in making Saul a King doth not by any Royall stamp give him a power to sin or to play the Tyrant for which cause I expone these of the Law Omnia sunt possibilia Regi Imperator omnia potest Baldus in § F. de no. for fidel in F. in prima constitut C. col 2. Chassanaeus in Catalog gloriae mundi par 5. considerat 24. tanta est ejus celsitudo ut non posset ei imponi lex in regno suo Curt. in consol 65. col 6. ad F. Petrus Rebuff Notab 3. repet l. unicae C. de sentent quae pro eo quod nu 17. pag. 363. All these go no otherwise but thus The King can do all things which by Law he can do and that holdeth him id possumus quod jure possumus And therefore the King cannot be above the Covenant and Law made betwixt him and his people at his Coronation-oath for then the Covenant and Oath should binde him onely by a naturall obligation as he is a man not by a civil or politique obligation as he is a King So then 1. it were sufficient that the King should swear that Oath in his Cabinet-chamber and it is but a mocking of an Oath that he swear it to the people 2. That Oath given by the Representative-Kingdom should also oblige the Subjects naturally in foro Dei not politically in foro humano upon the same reason 3. He may be resisted as a man 4. Assert The fourth case is if the King be under the obliging politique coaction of civil Laws for that he in foro Dei be under the morality of civil Laws so as he cannot contraveen any Law in that notion but he must sin against God is granted on all hands Deut. 17.20 Iosh. 1.8 1 Sam. 12.15 That the King binde himself to the same Law that he doth binde others is decent and obligeth the King as he is a man 1. Because Matth. 7.12 It is said to be the Law and the Prophets All things whatsoever ye would men should do unto you do ye even so to them 2. It is the Law Jmperator L. 4. digna vâ—x C. de lege tit Quod quisque juris in alium statuit eodem ipse utatur Iulius Caesar commanded the youth who had defloured the Emperours daughter to be scourged above that which the Law allowed The youth said to the Emperour Dixisti legem Caesar You appointed the Law Caesar. The Emperor was so offended with himself that he had failed against the Law that for the whole day he refused to taste meat Assert 5. The King cannot but he subject to the coactive power of Fundamentall Laws Because this is a Fundamentall Law that the free Estates lay upon the King that all the power that they give to the King as King is for the good and safety of the people and so what he doth to the hurt of his subjects he doth it not as King 2. The Law saith Qui habet potestatem constituendi etiam jus adimendi l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg jure Those who have power to make have power to unmake Kings 3. What ever the King doth as King that he doth by a power borrowed from or by a fiduciary power which is his by trust the Estates who made him King He must then be nothing but an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others If therefore he be unpunishable it is not so much because his Royall power is above all Law-coaction as because one the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished and this is a Physicall incongruity rather then a Morall absurdity So the Law of God layeth a duty on the inferiour Magistrate to use the sword against the murtherer and that by vertue of his Office but I much doubt it for that he is to use the sword against himselfe in the case of Murther for this is a truth I purpose to make good that suffering as suffering according to the substance and essence of passion is not commanded by any Law of God or nature to the sufferer but only the manner of suffering I doubt if it be not by the Law of Nature lawfull even to the ill doer who hath deserved death by Gods Law to fly from the sword of the lawfull Magistrate only the manner of suffering with patience is commanded of God I know the Law saith here That the Magistrate is both Iudge and the Executor of the sentence against himselfe in his owne cause for the excellency of his Office Therefore these are to be distinguished whether the King Ratione demeriti jure by Law be punishable or if the King can actually be punished corporally by a Law of man he remaining King and since he must be a punisher himselfe and that by vertue of his Office In matters of goods the King may be both Iudge and punisher of himselfe as our Law provideth that any subject may plead his owne heritage from the King before the inferiour Iudges and if the King be a violent possessour and in Mala fide for many yeares by Law he is obliged upon a Decree of the Lords to execute the sentence against himselfe Ex officio and to restore the Lands and repay the dammage to the just owner and this the King is to doe against himselfe ex officio I grant here the King as King punisheth himselfe as an unjust man but because bodily suffering is meere violence to nature I doubt if the King ex officio is to doe or inflict any bodily punishment on himselfe Nemo potest a seipso cogi l. ille a quo 13. § Assert 6. There be some Lawes made in favour of the King as King as to pay tribute The King must be above this Law as King True but if a Noble man of a great rent be elected King I know not if he can be free from paying to himselfe as King tribute seeing this is not allowed to the King by a Divine Law Rom. 13.6 as a reward of his worke and Christ expresly maketh tribute a thing due to Caesar as a King Matth. 22. v. 21. There be some solemnities of the Law from which the King may be free Prickman D. c. 3. n. 78. and he relateth what they are they are not Lawes but some circumstances belonging to Lawes
titulo such as usurpe the throne and have no just claime to it Barclaius adver Monarcho-Ma l. 4. c. 10. p. 268. saith Any private man may kill him as a publike enemie of the State but if he lose his title to the Crown in the court of Men then is there 1 a Court on Earth to judge the King and so he is under the coactive power of a Law 2. Then a King may be resisted and yet those who resist them doe not incurre damnation the contrary whereof Royalists endeavour to prove from Rom. 13.3 Then the people may un-king one who was a King But 4. I would know who taketh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from him whereby he is a King that beame of Divine majestie Not the people because Royalists say they neither can give nor take away Royall dignitie and so they cannot un-king him 4. The more Will be in the consent saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 1. c 41. the obligation is the stricter So doubled words saith the Law l. 1. § 13. n. 13. oblige more strictly And all lawes of Kings who are rationall fathers and so lead us by Lawes as by rationall meanes to peace and externall happinesse are contracts of King and People Omnis lex sponsio contractus Reip. § 1. Iust. de ver relig Now the King at his Coronation-covenant with the people giveth a most intense consent an Oath to be a keeper and preserver of all good Laws and so hardly he can be freed from the strictest obligation that Law can impose And if he keep Lawes by office he is a meane to preserve Lawes and no meane can bee superior and above the end but inferior thereunto 5. Bodine proveth de Rep. l. 2. c. 5. p. 221. that Emperors at first were but Princes of the Commonwealth and that Soveraigntie remained still in the Senate and people Marius Salomonius a learned Romane Civilian wrote sixe bookes de Principatu to refute the supremacie of Emperors above the State Ferd. Vasq. illust quest part 1. l. 1. n. 21. proveth that the Prince by Royall dignitie leaveth not off to be a Citizen a member of the Politique body and not a King but a Keeper of Lawes Hence 6. The Prince remaineth even being a Prince a sociall creature a Man as well as a King one who must buy sell promise contract dispose Ergo he is not Regula regulans but under rule of law for impossible it is if the King can in a politicall way live as a member of a societie and doe and performe acts of policie and so performe them as he may by his office buy and not pay promise and vow and sweare to men and not performe nor be obliged to men to render a reckoning of his Oath and kill and destroy and yet in Curia politicae societatis in the Court of humane policie be free and that he may give inheritances as just rewards of vertue and well-doing and take them away againe Yea seeing these sinnes that are not punishable before men are not sinnes before men If all the sinnes and oppressions of a Prince be so above the punishment that men can inflict they are not sinnes before men by which meanes the King is loosed from all guiltinesse of the sinnes against the Second Table for the ratio formalis the formall reason why the Iudge by warrant from God condemneth in the Court of men the guilty man is because he hath sinned against humane societie either through the scandall of blasphemie or through other heynous sinnes he hath defiled the Land Now this is incident to the King as well as to some other sinfull man To these and the like heare what the excommunicated Prelate hath to say 1. They say he meaneth the Jesuites Every societie of men is a perfect Republick and so must have within it selfe a power to preserve it selfe from ruine and by that to punish a Tyrant He answereth A societie without a Head is a disorderly rout not a Politique body and so cannot have this power Ans. 1. The Pope giveth to every Societie Politick power to make away a Tyrant or hereticall King and to un-king him by his brethren the Jesuites way And observe how Papists of which number I could easily prove the P. Prelate to be by the Popish doctrine that he delivered while the iniquitie of time and dominion of Prelates in Scotland advanced him against all worth of true learning and holinesse to be a Preacher in Edinborough and Iesuites agree as the builders of Babylon It is the purpose of God to destroy Babylon 2. This answer shall inferre that the Aristocraticall Governors of any free State and that the Duke of Venice and the Senate there is above all Law and cannot be resisted because without their Heads they are a disorderly Rout. 3. A Politicall societie as by Natures instinct they may appoint a Head or Heads to themselves so also if their Head or Heads become ravenous Wolves the God of Nature hath not left a perfect Societie remedilesse but they may both resist and punish the Head or Heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good not for their destruction 4. They are as orderly a body Politique to unmake a Tyrannous Commander as they were to make a just Governour The Prelate saith It is alike to conceive a Politique body without a Governour as to conceive the naturall body without a Head He meaneth None of them can be conceivable I am not of his minde When Saul was dead Israel was a perfect Politique body and the Prelate if he be not very obtuse in his head as this hungry peece stollen from others sheweth him to be may conceive a visible Politicall societie performing a Politicall action 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. making David King at a visible and conceivable place at Hebron and making a Covenant with him And that they wanted not all Governors is nothing to make them Chymera's unconceivable For when so many families before Nimrod were governed only by fathers of families and they agreed to make either a King or other Governors a Head or Heads over themselves though the severall families had government yet these consociated families had no government and yet so conceivable a Politique body as if Maxwell would have compeared amongst them and called them a disorderly rout or an unconceivable Chymera they should have made the Prelate know that Chymera's can knock down Prelates Neither is a King the life of a Politique body as the soule is of the naturall body The body createth not the soule but Israel created Saul King and when he was dead they made David King and so under God many Kings as they succeeded till the Messiah came No naturall body can make soules to it selfe by succession Nor can Seas create new Prelates alwayes P. Prelate Jesuites and Puritans differ infinitely We are hopefull God shall cast down this Babel The Iesuites for ought I know seat the
to other inferiour Iudges Be wise understand and the cause that you know not search out then the King is not the only interpreter of the Law But the Lord saith not to the King only but to other Iudges also Be wise understand and the cause that you know not search out ergo the King is not the sole Law-giver The Major is cleare from Ps. 2.10 Be wise now therefore O yee Kings be instructed yee Iudges of the earth So are commands and rebukes for unjust judgement given to others then to Kings Ps. 82.1 2 3 4 5. Ps. 58.1 2. Esay 1.17 23 25 26. Esay 3.14 see Iob. 29.12 13 14 15. c. 31. v. 21.22 3 The King is either the sole interpreter of Law in respect he is to follow the Law as his Rule and so he is a ministeriall interpreter of the Law or he is an interpreter of the Law according to that super-dominion of absolute power that he hath above the Law If the former be holden then it is cleare that the King is not the only interpreter for all Iudges as they are Iudges have a ministeriall power to expone the Law by the Law but the second is the sense of Royalists Hence our second Assertion is That the Kings power of exponing the Law is a meere ministeriall power and he hath no dominion of any absolute Royall Power to expone the Law as he will and to put such a sense and meaning of the Law as he pleaseth 1. Because Saul maketh a Law 1 Sam. 14.24 Cursed be the man that tasteth any food till night that the King may be avenged on his enemies the Law according to the letter was bloudy but according to the intent of the Law-giver and substance of the Law profitable for the end was that the enemies should be pursued with all speed But King Sauls exponing the Law after a Tyrannicall way against the intent of the Law which is the Diamond and Pearle of all Lawes the safety of the innocent people was justly resisted by the people who violently hindered innocent Jonathan to be killed Whence it is cleare that the people and Princes put on the Law its true sense and meaning for Ionathans tasting of a little honey though as it was against that sinfull and precipitate circumstance a rash oath yet it was not against the substance and true intent of the Law which was the peoples speedy pursuite of the enemy Whence it is cleare that the people including the Princes hath a ministeriall power to expone the Law aright and according to its genuine intent and that the King as King hath no absolute power to expone the Law as he pleaseth 2. The Kings absolute pleasure can no more be the genuine sense of a just Law then his absolute pleasure can be a Law because the genuine sense of the Law is the Law it selfe as the formall essence of a thing differeth not really but in respect of reason from the thing it selfe The Pope and Romish Church cannot put on the Scripture Ex plenitudine potestatis what ever meaning they will no more then they can out of absolute power make Canonicke Scripture Now so it is that the King by his absolute power cannot make Law no Law 1. Because he is King by or according to Law but he is not King of Law Rex est Rex secundum legem sed non est Dominus Rex legis 2. Because although it have a good meaning which Vlpian saith Quod principi placet legis vigorem habet The Will of the Prince is the Law yet the meaning is not that any thing is a just Law because it is the Princes Will for its rule formally for it must be good and just before the Prince can will it and then he finding it so he puteth the stampe of a humane Law on it 3. This is the difference between Gods Will and the will of the King or any mortall creature Things are just and good because God willeth them especially things positively good though I conceive it hold in all things and God doth not will things because they are good and just But the creature be he King or any never so eminent doe will things because they are good and just and the Kings willing of a thing maketh it not good and just for only Gods will not the Creatures will can be the cause why things are good and just If therefore it be so it must undeniably hence follow that the Kings will maketh not a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense and he cannot as King by any absolute super-dominion over the Law put a just sense on a bloody and unjust Law 4. The advancing of any man to the Throne and Royall dignitie putteth not the man above the number of rationall men But no rationall man can create by any act of power never so transcendent or boundlesse a sense to a Law contrary to the Law Nay give me leave to doubt if Omnipotencie can make a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense aut contra because it involveth a contradiction the true meaning of a Law being the essentiall forme of the Law Hence judge what bruitish swinish flatterers they are who say That it is the true meaning of the Law which the King the only supreme and independent expositor of the Law saith is the true sense of the Law There was once an Animal a Foole of the first magnitude who said He could demonstrate by invincible reasons that the Kings dung was more nourishing food then bread of the floore of the finest wheat For my part I could wish it were the Demonstrators only food for seven dayes and that should be the best demonstration he could make for his proofe 5. It must follow that there can be no necessitie of written laws to the Subjects against Scripture and naturall reason and the law of Nations in which all accord That Lawes not promulgated and published cannot oblige as Lawes Yea Adam in his innocencie was not obliged to obey a Law not written in his heart by Nature except God had made known the Law as is cleare Gen. 3.11 Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat But if the Kings absolute Will may put on the Law what sense he pleaseth out of his independent and irresistable Supremacie The Lawes promulgated and written to the Subjects can declare nothing what is to be done by the Subjects as just and what is to be avoyded as unjust because the Lawes must signifie to the Subjects what is just and unjust according to their genuine sense Now their genuine sense according to Royalists is not only uncertaine and impossible to be known but also contradictorious for the King obligeth us without gainsaying to believe that the just Law hath this unjust sense Hence this of flattering Royalists crueller to Kings than Ravens for these ear but dead men and they
lawfull power of a King to do good is not by divine Institution placed in an indivisible point It is not a sin for the people to take some power even of doing good from the King that he solely and by himself shall not have power to pardon an involuntary homicide without advice and the judiciall suffrages of the Councell of the Kingdom least he insteed of this give pardons to Robbers to abominable Murtherers and in so doing the people robbeth not the King of the power that God gave him as King nor ought the King to contend for a sole power in himself of ministring justice to all for God layeth not upon Kings burdens unpossible and God by Institution hath denied to the King all power of doing all good because it is his Will that other Iudges be sharers with the King in that power Num. 14.16 Deut. 1.14 15 16 17. 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 2 3 4. And therefore the Duke of Venice to me cometh neerest to the King moulded by God Deut. 17. in respect of power de jure of any King I know in Europe And in point of conscience the inferiour Iudge discerning a murtherer and bloody man to die may in foro conscientiae despise the Kings unjust pardon and resist the Kings force by his sword and coactive power that God hath given him and put to death the bloody murtherer and he sinneth if he do not this for to me it is clear The King cannot judge so justly and understandingly of a murtherer in Scotland as a Iudge to whom God hath committed the sword in Scotland Nor hath the Lord laid that unpossible burden on a King to judge so of a murther four hundreth miles removed from the King as the Iudge nearer to him as is clear by Num. 14.16 1 Sam. 7.15 16 17. The King should go from place to place and judge and whereas it is unpossible to him to go thorow three Kingdoms he should appoint faithfull Iudges who may not be resisted no not by the King 2. The question is If the King command A. B. to kill his father his pastour the man neither being cited nor convicted of any fault may lawfully be resisted 3. Queritur If in that case in which the King is captived imprisoned and not sui juris and awed or over-awed by bloody Papists and so is forced to command a barbarous and unjust War and if being distracted Physically or Morally through wicked Counsell he command that which no father in his sober wits would command even against Law and Conscience That the sons should yeild obedience and subjection to him in maintaining with lives and goods a bloody Religion and bloody Papists If in that case the King may not be resisted in his person because the power lawfull and the sinfull person cannot be separated We hold the King using contrary to the oath of God and his Royall Office violence in killing against Law and Conscience his Subjects by bloody Emissaries may be resisted by defensive Wars at the commandment of the Estates of the Kingdom But before I produce Arguments to prove the lawfulnesse of resistance a little of the case of resistance 1. Doct. Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39. granteth resistance by force to the King to be lawfull 1. When the assault is sudden 2. Without colour of a Law and Reason 3. Inevitable But if Nero burn Rome he hath a colour of Law and Reason yea if all Rome and his mother in whose Womb he lay were one neck A man who will with reason go mad hath colour of Reason and so of Law to invade and kill the innocent 2. Arnisaeus saith If the Magistrate proceed extra-judicialiter without order of Law by violence the Laws giveth every private man power to resist if the danger be irrecoverable yea though it be recoverable L. prohibitum C. de jur fisc l. quemadmodum 39. § Magistratus ad l. Aquil. l. nec Magistratibus 32. de injur Because while the Magistrate doth against his office he is not a Magistrate for Law and right not injury should come from the Magistrate L. meminerint 6. C. unde vi Yea if the Magistrate proceed judicially and the losse be irrecoverable Jurists say That a private man hath the same Law to resist Marantius dis 1. n. 35. And in a recoverable losse they say every man is holden to resist si evidenter constet de iniquitate If the iniquity be known to all D. D. Iason n. 19. dec n. 26. ad l. ut vim de just jur 3. I would think it not fit easily to resist the Kings unjust Exactors of custome or tribute 1. Because Christ payed tribute to Tiberius Caesar an unjust usurper though he was free from that by Gods Law least he should offend 2. Because we have a greater dominion over Goods then over our Lives and Bodies and it is better to yield in a matter of Goods then to come to Arms for of sinlesse evils we may choose the least 4. A Tyrant without a Title may be resisted by any private man Quia licet vim vi repellere Because we may repell violence by violence yea he may be killed Vt l. vim F. de iustit jure ubi plene per omnes Vasquez l. 1. c. 8. n. 33. Barcla contra Monarcho l. 4 c. 10. pag. 268. For the lawfulnesse of resistance in the matter of the Kings unjust invasion of life and Religion we offer these Arguments 1. That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects and is only set over the people on these conditions and not absolutely cannot tye the people to subjection without resistance when the power is abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and the subjects But all power of the Law is thus obliged Rom. 13.4 Deut. 17. vers 18 19 20. 2 Chron. 19.6 Ps. 132.11 12. Ps. 89.30 31. 2 Sam. 7.12 Ier. 17.24 25. and hath and may be abused by Kings to the destruction of Lawes Religion and Subjects The Proposition is cleare for the powers that tye us to subjection only are of God 2. Because to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God 3. Because they are not a terrour to good workes but to evill 4. Because they are Gods Ministers for our good but abused powers are not of God but of men or not ordinances of God they are a terrour to good workes not to evill they are not Gods Ministers for our good 2. That power which is contrary to Law and is evill and Tyrannicall can tye none to subjection but is a meere Tyrannicall power and unlawfull and if it tye not to subjection it may lawfully be resisted But the power of the King abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and subjects is a power contrary to Law evill and Tyrannicall and tyeth no man to subjection wickednesse by no imaginable reason can oblige any man Obligation to
God 6. If the Estates of a Kingdome give the power to a King it is their own power in the fountaine and if they give it for their own good they have power to judge when it it used against themselves and for their evill and so power to limit and resist the power that they gave Now that they may take away this power is cleare in Athaliahs case It is true she was a Tyrant without a Title and had not the right of Heaven to the Crown yet she had in Mens Court a title For supposing all the seed Royall to be killed and the peoples Consent we cannot say That for these sixe yeares or thereabout she was no Magistrate 2. That there were none on the Throne of David at this time 3. That she was not to be obeyed as Gods Deputie But grant that she was no Magistrate yet when Iehoash is brougbt forth to be crowned it was a controversie to the States to whom the Crown should belong 1. Athaliah was in possession 2. Iehoash himselfe being but seven yeares old could not be Iudge 3. It might be doubted if Ioash was the true sonne of Ahaziah and if he was not killed with the rest of the blood Royall Two great Adversaries say with us Hugo Grotius de jur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. He saith He dare not condemne this if the lesser part of the People and every one of them indifferently should defend themselves against a Tyrant ultimo necessitatis praesidio The case of Scotland when we were blocked up by Sea and Land with Armes The case of England when the King induced by Prelates first attempted to bring an Army to cut off the Parliament and then gathered an Army and fortified Yorke and invaded Hull to make the Militia his own sure is considerable Barclay saith The People hath jus se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiem Advers Monarchomach l. 3. c. 8. A power to defend themselves against prodigious crueltie The case of England and Ireland now invaded by the bloody Rebels of Ireland is also worthy of consideration I could cite hoasts more QUEST XXIX Whether in the case of Defensive warre the distinction of the person of the King as a man who can commit acts of hostile Tyrannie against his Subjects and of the Office and Royall power that he hath from God and the People as a King can have place BEfore I can proceed to other Scripture-proofes for the lawfulnesse of Resistance this Distinction rejected by Royalists must be cleered This is an evident and sensible distinction The King in concreto the Man who is King And the King in abstracto the Royall office of the King The ground of this distinction we desire to be considered from Rom. 13. we affirme with Buchanan that Paul Rom. 13 speaketh of the office and duty of good Magistrates and that the text speaketh nothing of an absolute King nothing of a Tyrant and the Royalists distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not against the Law l. pret 10. gl Bart. de pub in Rem and therefore we move the question here Whether or no to resist the illegall and Tyrannicall will of the man who is King be to resist the King and the ordinance of God we say no Nor doe we deny the King abusing his power in unjust acts to remaine King and the Minister of God whose person for his royall office and his Royall Office both are to be honoured reverenced and obeyed God forbid that we should doe so as the sonnes of Belial imputing to us the doctrine of Anabaptists and the doctrine falsely imputed to Wicliffe That Dominion is founded upon supernaturall grace and that a Magistrate being in the state of mortall sin cannot be a lawfull Magistrate we teach no such thing The P. Prelate sheweth us his sympathy with Papists and that he buildeth the Monuments and Sepulchres of the slaine and murthered Prophets when he refusing to open his mouth in the Gates for the righteous professeth he will not purge the Witnesses of Christ the Waldenses and Wicliffe and Husse of these notes of disloyalty but that these acts proceeding from this roote of bitternesse the abused power of a King should be acknowledged with obedience active or passive in these unjust acts we deny 1. Assert It is evident from Rom. 13. That all subjection and obedience to higher powers commanded there is subjection to the power and office of the Magistrate in abstracto or which is all one to the person using the power lawfully and that no subjection is due by that text or any Word of God to the abused and Tyrannicall power of the King which I evince from the Text and from other Scriptures 1. Because the Text saith Let every soule be subject to the higher powers But no powers commanding things unlawfull and killing the innocent people of God can be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 higher powers but in that lower powers 1. He that commandeth not what God commandeth and punisheth and killeth where God is personally and immediatly present would neither command nor punish is not in these acts to be subjected unto and obeyed as a superiour power though in habit he may remaine a superiour power for all habituall all actuall superiority is a formall participation of the power of the most high 2. Arnisaeus well saith That of Aristotle must be true It is against nature that better and worthier men should be in subjection to unworthier and more wicked men but in this when Magistrates command wickednesse and killeth the innocent the non-obeyers eatenus in so far are worthier the commanders whatever they be in habite and in office actually or in these wicked acts are unworthier and inferiour and the non-obeyers are in that worthier as being zealous adherents to Gods Command and not to mans will I desire not to be mistaken if we speake of habituall excellency godly and holy men as the Witnesses of Christ in things lawfull are to obey wicked and Infidell Kings and Emperours but in that these wicked Kings have an excellency in respect of office above them but when they command things unlawfull and kill the innocent They doe it not by vertue of any office and so in that they are not higher powers but lower and weak ones Laertius doth explain Aristotle well who defineth a Tyrant by this That he commandeth his subjects by violence and Arnisaeus condemneth Laertius for this Because one Tyrannicall action doth no more constitute a Tyrant then one unjust action doth constitute an unjust man But he may condemne as he doth indeed for this also Covarruvias pract quest c. 1. and Vasquez Illustr quest l. 1. c. 47. n◠1.12 for this is essentiall to a Tyrant to command and rule by violence If a lawfull Prince doe one or more acts of a Tyrant he is not a Tyrant for that yet his action in that is Tyrannicall and he doth not that as a King but in
that act as a sinfull man having something of Tyrannie in him 2. The Powers Rom. 13.1 that are are ordained of God as their author and efficient But Kings commanding unjust things and killing the innocent in these acts are but men and sinfull men and the power by which they doe these acts a sinfull and an usurped power and so far they are not powers ordained of God according to his revealed Will which must rule us Now the authoritie and officiall power in abstracto is ordained of God as the Text saith and other Scriptures doe evidence And this Polititians doe cleare while they distinguish betwixt jus Personae and jus Coronae the power of the Person and the power of the Crown and Royall office They must then be two different things 3. He that resisteth the power that is the officiall power and the King as King and commanding in the Lord resisteth the Ordinance of God and Gods lawfull constitution v. 2. But he who resisteth the Man who is the King commanding that which is against God and killing the innocent resisteth no ordinance of God but an ordinance of Sin and Sathan for a man commanding unjustly and ruling Tyrannically hath in that no power from God 4. They that resist the power and Royall office of the King in things just and right shall receive to themselves damnation ver 3. but they that resist that is refuse for Conscience to obey the man who is the King and choose to obey God rather then men as all the Martyrs did shall receive to themselves salvation And the 80 valiant men the Priests who used bodily violence against King Vzzahs person and thrust him out of the house of the Lord from offering incense to the Lord which belonged to the Priest only received not damnation to themselves but salvation in doing Gods will and in resisting the Kings wicked will Arg. 5. The lawfull Ruler as a Ruler and in respect of his office is not to be resisted because he is not a terrour to good workes but to evill and no man who doth Good is to be afraid of the Office or the Power but to expect praise and a reward of the same v. 3. But the man who is a King may command an idolatrous and superstitious Worship send an Army of Cut-throats against them because they refuse that Worship and may reward Papists Prelates and other corrupt men and may advance them to places of State and Honour because they kneele to a Tree-Altar pray to the East adore the letters and sound of the word Jesus teach and write Arminianisme And may imprison deprive confine cut the eares and rip the noses and burne the faces of those who speake and preach and write the truth of God and may send Armies of Cut-throats Irish Rebels and other Papists and malignant Atheists to destroy and murther the Iudges of the Land and innocent defenders of the Reformed Religion c. The Man I say in these acts is a terrour to Good workes an incouragement to Evill And those that doe Good are to be afraid of the King and to expect no praise but punishment and vexation from him Ergo this reason in the Text will prove that the Man who is the King in so far as he doth these things that are against his offiâ—e may be resisted and that in these we are not to be subject but only we are to be subject to his power and Royall authoriâ—ie in abstracto in so farre as according to his office he is not a terrour to good workes but to evill 6. The lawfull Ruler is the minister of God or the servant of God for Good to the Commonwealth And to resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and using the power that he hath from his Master is to resist the Lord his Master v. 4. But the man who is the King commanding unjust things and killing the innocent in these acts is not the minister of God for the Good of the Commonwealth he serveth himselfe and Papists and Prelates for the destruction of Religion Lawes and Commonwealth therefore the Man may be resisted by this Text when the office and power cannot be resisted 7. The Ruler as the Ruler and the nature and intrinsecall end of the office is that he beare Gods sword as an avenger to execute wrath on him that doth evill v. 4. and so cannot be resisted without sinne But the man who is the Ruler and commandeth things unlawfull and killeth the innocent carieth the Papists and Prelates sword to execute not the righteous judgement of the Lord upon the ill-doer but his own private revenge upon him that doth well Ergo the Man may be resisted the Office may not be resisted and they must be two different things 8. We must needs be subject to the Royall office for â—onscience v. 5. by reason of the fifth Commandement But we must not needs be subject to the man who is King if he command things unlawfull for D. Ferne warranteth us to resist if the Ruler invade us sodainly 2. Without colour of Law or Reason 3. Vnavoydably And Winzetus and Barclay and Grotius as before I cited give us leave to resist a King turning a cruell Tyrant But Paul Rom. 13. forbiddeth us to resist the Power in Abstracto Ergo it must be the Man in concreto that we must resist 9. Those we may not resist to whom we owe tribute as a reward of the onerous worke on which they as Ministers of God doe attend continually But we owe not tribute to the King as a man for then should we be addebted tribute to all men but as a King to whom the wages of tribute is due as to a Princely workman a King as a King ergo the Man and the King are different 10. We owe fear and honour as due to be rendred to the man who is King because he is a King not because he is a man for it is the highest feare and honour due to any mortall man which is due to the King as King 11. The Man and the inferiour Judge are different and we cannot by this Text resist the inferiour Iudge as a Iudge but we resist the ordinance of God as the Text proveth But Cavaliers resist the inferior Iudges as men and have killed divers members of both Houses of Parliament but they will not say that they killed them as Judges but as Rebels If therefore to be a Rebell as a wicked Man and to be a Iudge are differenced thus then to be a Man and to commit some acts of Tyrannie and to be the supreme Iudge and King are two different things 12. Mr. Knox Hist. of Scotland l. 2. The Congregation in a letter to the Nobilitie say There is great difference betwixt the Authoritie which is Gods Ordinance and the Persons of those who are placed in authoritie The Authoritie and Gods ordinances can never doe wrong for it commandeth that Vice and wicked men be punished and
concreto yet the principium quo ratio qua the principles of these operations in Sun and fire be light heate and we ascribe illuminating of dark bodies heating of cold bodies to Sun and fire in concreto yet not to the subjects simply but to them as affected with such accidents so here we honour and submit to the man who is King not because he is a man that were treason not because he useth his sword against the Church that were impiety but because of his Royall Dignity and because he useth it for the Lord. It is true Arnisaeus Barclay Ferne say That Kings leave not off to be Kings when they use their power and sword against the Church and Religion And also it is considerable that when the worst of Emperors bloody Nero did raigne the Apostle presseth the duty of subjection to him as to a power appointed of God and condemneth the resisting of Nero as the resisting of an ordinance of God And certainely if the cause and reason in point of duty-Morall and of conscience before God remaine in Kings to wit that while they are enemies and persecutors as Nero was their Royall Dignity given them of God remaineth then subjection upon that ground is lawfull and resistance unlawfull Ans. It is true so long as Kings remaine Kings subjection is due to them because Kings but that is not the question But the question is if subjection be due to them when they use their power unlawfully and Tyrannically What ever David did though he was a King he did it not as King he deflowred not Bathsheba as King and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted King David though Kingly Power remained in him while he should thus attempt to commit Adultery else David might have said to Bathshba Because I am the Lords Anoynted it is rebellion in thee a subject to oppose any bodily violence to my act of forcing of thee it is unlawfull to thee to cry for helpe for if any shall offer violently to rescue thee from me he resisteth the ordinance of God Subjection is due to Nero as an Emperour but not any subjection is due to him in the burning of Rome and torturing of Christians except you say that Nero's power abused in these acts of cruelty was 1. A power from God 2. An ordinance of God 3. That in these he was the Minister of God for the good of the Common-wealth Because some beleeved Christians were free from the yoake of Magistracy and that the dignity it selfe was unlawfull And 2. because ch 12. he had set downe the lawfull Church Rulers and in this and the following chapter the duties of brotherly love of one toward another So here ch 13. he teacheth that all Magistrates suppose Heathen are to be obeyed and submitted unto in all things so far as they are Ministers of God Arnisaeus objecteth to Buchan If we are by this place to subject our selves to every power in abstracto then also to a power contrary to the truth and to a power of a King exceeding the limits of a King for such a power is a power and we are not to distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not Ans. The Law clearely distinguisheth we are to obey Parents in the Lord and if Nero command Idolatry this is an excessive power are we obliged to obey because the Law distinguisheth not 2. The text saith we are to obey every power 1. from God 2. That is Gods ordinance 3. by which the man is a Minister of God for good but an unjust and excessive power is none of these three 3. The text in words distinguisheth not obedience active in things wicked and lawfull yet we are to distinguish Mr. Symmons Is authoritie subjected solely in the Kings Law and no whit in his Person though put upon him both by God and Man Or is Authoritie only the subject and the Person exercising the Authoritie a bare accident to that being in it only more separably as pride and folly are in a man Then if one in Authoritie command out of his own Will and not by Law if I neithr actively nor passively obey J doe not so much as resist abused Authoritie and then must the Prince by his disorderly Will have quite lost his authoritie and become like another man and yet his Authoritie has not fled from him Ans. If we speake acurately neither the Man solely nor his Power only is resisted but the Man clothed with lawfull habituall power is resisted in such and such acts flowing from an abused power 2. It is an ignorant speech to ask Is Authoritie subjected solely in the Kings Law and no whit in his Person for the Authoritie hath all its power by Law not from the Mans person The Authoritie hath nothing from the Person but a naked inherencie in the Person as in the subject and the Person is to be honored for the Authoritie not the Authoritie for the Person 3. Authoritie is not so separable from the person as that for every act of lawlesse Will the King loseth his Royall authoritie and ceaseth to be King no but every act of a King in so far can claime subjection of the inferiour as the act of commanding and ruling hath law for it and in so far as it is lawlesse the Person in that act repugnant to Law loseth all due claime of actuall subjection in that act and in that act power actuall is losed as is cleare Act. 4.19 5.29 The Apostles say to Rulers It is safer to obey God than Men. What were not these Rulers lawfull Magistrates armed with power from God I answer habitually they were Rulers and more then men and to obey them in things lawfull is to obey God But actually in these unlawfull commandements especially being commanded to speake no more in the name of Iesus the Apostles doe acknowledge them to be no more but Men and so their actuall authoritie is as separable from the person as pride and folly from men Symmons The distinction holdeth good of inferior Magistrates That they may be considered as Magistrates and as Men because their authoritie is only sacred and addeth veneration to their persons and is separable from the person The Man may live when his Authoritie is extinguished but it holdeth not in Kings King Sauls person is venerable as his authoritie and his authoritie commeth by inheritance and dyeth and liveth inseparably with his person and Authoritie and Person adde honour each one to another Ans. 1. If this be true Manasseh a King did not shed innocent blood and use â—orcerie he did not these great wickednesses as a man but as a King Salomon played the Apostate as a King not as a man if so the man must make the King more infallible then the Pope for the Pope as a man can erre as a Pope he cannot erre say Papists But Prophets in their persons were anoynted of God as Saul and David were then must we
say Nathan and Samuel erred not as men because their persons were sacred and anointed and they erred not as Prophets sure Ergo they erred not all A King as a King is an holy Ordinance of God and so cannot doe injustice Ergo they must doe acts of Iustice as men 2. The inferior Iudge is a Power from God 2. To resist him is to resist an ordinance of God 3. He is not a terrour to good workes but to evill 4. He is the minister of God for good 5. He is Gods Sword-bearer his officiall power to rule may by as good right come by birth as the Crown and the Kings person is sacred only for his office and is annointed only for his office For then the Chaldeans dishonored not inferior Iudges Lam. 5.12 when they hanged the Prince honored not the faces of Elders It is in questiō if the Kings actual authority be not as separable frō him as the actuall authority of the Iudge Symmons p. 24. The King himselfe may use this distinction As a Christian he may forgive any that offendeth against his person but as a Iudge he must punish in regard of his office Ans. Well then Flatterers will grant the distinction when the King doth good and pardoneth the blood of Protestants shed by bloody Rebels But when the King doth acts of injustice he is neither man nor King but some independent absolute God Symmons p. 27. Gods Word tyeth me to every one of his personall commandements as well as his legall commandements nor doe I obey the Kings law because it is established or because of its known penaltie nor yet the King himselfe because he ruleth according to Law But I obey the Kings law because I obey the King and I obey the King because I obey God I obey the King and his Law because I obey God and his Law Better obey the Command for a reverent regard to the Prince then for a penaltie Ans. It is hard to answer a sick man It is blasphemie to seek this distinction of Person and Office in the King of Kings because by Person in a mortall King we understand a Man that can sinne 1. I am not obliged to obey his personall commandement except I were his domestick nor his unlawfull personall commandements because they are sinfull 2. It is false that you obey the Kings Law because you obey the King for then you say but this I obey the King because I obey the King The truth is Obedience is not formally terminated on the person of the King Obedience is relative to a precept and it is Men-service to obey a Law not because it is good and just but upon this formall motive because it is the will of a mortall man to command it And Reverence Love Feare being acts of the Affection are not terminated on a Law but properly on the Person of the Iudge and they are modifications or laudable qualifications of acts of obedience not motives not the formall reason why I obey but the manner how I obey And the Apostle maketh expresly Rom. 13 4. feare of punishment a motive of obedience while he saith He beareth not the sword in vaine Ergo Be subject to the King And this hindreth not personall resistance to unjust commandements Symmons p. 27 28 29. You say To obey the Princes Personall commandement against his Legall will is to obey himselfe against himselfe So say I To obey his Legall will against his Personall will is to obey himselfe against himselfe for I take his Person to be himselfe Ans. To obey the Kings personall will when it is sinfull as we now suppose against his legall will is a sinne and a disobedience to God and the King also seeing the Law is the Kings will as King but to obey his Legall will against his sinfull personall will as it must be sinfull if contrary to a just Law is obedience to the King as King and so obedience to God 2. You take the Kings person to be himself but you take quid pro quo for his person here you must take not Physically for his suppost of soul and body but morally it is the King as a sinning man doing his worst will against the Law which is his just and best will and the rule of the Subjects and the Kings personall will is so far just and to regulate the Subjects in so far as it agreeth with his legall Will or his Law and this will can sinne and therefore may be crossed without breach of the fifth Commandement but his Legall Will cannot be crossed without disobedience both to God and the King Symmons p. 28. The Kings Personall will doth not alwayes presuppone passion and if it be attended with passion yet we must beare it for conscience sake Ans. We are to obey the Kings Personall will when the thing commanded is not sinne but his Subjects as Subjects have little to do with his personall will in that notion It concerneth his domestick servant and is the Kings will as he is the master of servants not as he is King in relation to Subjects but we speak of the Kings personall will as repugnant to Law and contrary to the Kings will as King and so contrary to the fifth Commandment and this is attended often not onely with Passion but also with prejudice and we owe no subjection to prejudice and Passions or to Actions commanded by these misordered powers because they are not from God nor his Ordinances but from men and the flesh and we owe no subjection to the flesh Doct. Ferne Sect. 9. pag. 58. The distinction of personall and legall will hath place in evill actions but not in resistance where we cannot sever the person and the dignitie or authority because we cannot resist the power but we must resist the person who hath the power Saul had lawfully the command of Arms but that power he useth unjustly against innocent David I ask when these Emperours took away lives and goods at their pleasure was that a power ordained of God No but an Illegall will a Tyranny but they might not resist nay but they cannot resist for that power and soveraigntie imployed to compasse these illegall commandments was ordained and settled in them When Pilate condemned our Saviour it was an illegall will ye◠our Saviour acknowledgeth in it Pilates power that was given him from above Answ. 1. Here we have the distinction denyed by Royalists granted by D. Fern but if when the King commands us to do wickednesse we may resist that personall will and when he commandeth us to suffer unjustly we cannot resist his will but we must resist also his Royall person What Is it not still the King and his person sacred as his power is sacred when he commandeth the subjects to do unjustly as when he commandeth them to suffer unjustly It were fearfull to say when Kings command any one act of idolatry they are no longer Kings if for conscience I am to suffer unjustly
his helpâ—rs 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 Tâ—erefore the argument is a falacy ab â—o quod docitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though therefore the master should attempt to kill an innocent servant and invade him with a weapon of 〈◊〉 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 neithâ—r 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 â—ffer 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 wâ—o commanded him to die Mat. 26.53 54. if therefore Royalists pâ—ove any thing against the lawfulnesse of resisting Kings when they offer most unjustly violence to the life of Gods servants from thiâ— one meerly extraordinary and rare example of Christ the like whâ—reof 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. 18.4 5 6 7. 2. They may prove that people sought by a Tyrant to be crucifyed for the Cause of God or to reveale and discover themselves to an Armie of men who come to seek them Ioh. 13.1 2. Ioh. 18.4 5 6 7. 3. That Martyrs are of purpose to goe to the place where they know they shall be apprehended and put to death for this Christ did and are willingly to offer themselves to the enemies Armie for so did Christ Ioh. 14.3 Mar. 14.41 42. Mat. 26.46 47. and so by his example all the Parliament all the Innocents of the Citie of London and Assemblie of Divines are obliged to lay downe Armes and to goe to their owne death to Prince Rupert and the bloody Irish Rebels 4. By this example it is unlawfull to resist the cut-throats of a King for Cesar in his owne Royall person the High Priest in person came not out against Christ. Yea it is not lawfull for the Parliament to resist a Iudas who hath â—led as a traiterous Apostate from the Truth and the Temple of Christ. 5. It is not lawful for innocents to defend themselves by any violence against the invasion of superiours in D. Fernes three cases in which he alloweth resistance 1. When the Invasion is sudden 2. Vnavoidable 3. Without all colour of Law and Reason In the two last cases Royalists defend the lawfulnes of self-defence 6. If the example be pressed Christ did not this and this he resisted not with violence to save his owne life therefore we are to abstaine from resistance and such and such meanes of self-preservation then because Christ appealed not from inferiour Judges to the Emperour Caesar who no doubt would have shewne him more favour then the Scribes and Pharisees did and because Christ conveyed not a humble supplication to his Soveraigne and Father Caesar then because he proffered not a humble petition to Prince Pilate for his life he being an innocent man and his cause just because he neither conduced an Orator to pleade his owne just cause nor did he so plead for himselfe and give in word and writ all lawfull and possible defences for his own safety but answered many things with silence to the admiration of the Judge Marke 15.3 4 5. and was thrice pronounced by the Judge to be innocent Luke 22. ver 23. because I say Christ did not all these for his owne life therefore it is unlawfull for Scotland and England to appeale to the King to supplicate to give in Appolâ—gâ—â—s c. I thinke Royalists dare not say so But if they say he would not resist and yet might have done all these lawfully because these be lawfull meanes and resistance with the sword unlawfull becâ—use He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword Let me Answer then 1. They leave the argument from Christs example who was thus farre subject to higher powers that he would not râ—sist and plead from the unlawfulnesse of resistance this is petitio principii 2. He that taketh the sword without Gods warrant which Peter had not but the contrary he was himselfe a Sathan to Christ who would but councell him not to die but there is no shadow of a word to prove that violent resisting is unlawfull when the King and his Iâ—ish cut-throats pursue us unjustly onely Christ saith when God may deliver extraordinarily by his Angels except it be his absolute will that his Son should drink the cup of death then to take the sword when God hath declared his will on the contrary is unlawfull and that is all Though I doe not question but Christs asking for swords and his arresting all his enemies to the ground Ioh. 18.6 backward is a justifying of selfe-defence But hitherto it is cleare by Christs example that he onely was commanded to suffer Now the second case in which suffering falleth under a Commandement is indirectly and comparatively when it commeth to the election of the witnesse of Jesus that it
essentiall Judge he would have designed him by the nowne in the singular number 2. All the reasons that the Apostle bringeth to prove that subjection is due agreeth to inferiour Judges as well as to Emperours for they are powers ordained of God and they beare the sword and we must obey them for conscience sake and they are Gods deputies and their judgement is not the judgement of men but of the Lord 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Deut. 1.16 Numb 11.16 17. Tribute and wages be no lesse due to them as ministers and servants for their work then to the King c. 3. The Apostle could not omit obedience to the good Civill Lawes enacted by the Senate nor could he omit to command subjection to Rulers if the Romanes should change the Government and abolish Monarchie and erect their ancient forme of Government before they had Kings 5. This is Canonicall Scripture and a cleare exposition of the first Commandement and so must reach the consciences of all Christian Republicks where there is no Monarchie 5. Parallel places of Scripture prove this Paul 1 Tim. 2.1 2. will have prayers made to God for Kings and for all that are in authority and the intrinsecall â—nd of all is a godly honest and peaceable life And 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake Tit. 3.1 It is true subjection to Nero of whom Tertullian said Apol. 5. Nihil nisi grande bonum à Nerone damnatum is commanded here but to Nero as such an one as he is obliged de jure to be whether you speak of the office in abstracto or of the Emperour in concretâ— in this notion to me it is all one but that Paul commandeth subjection to Nero and that principally and solely as he was such a man de facto I shall then beleeve when Antichristian Prelats turn Pauls Bishops 1 Tim. 2. which is a miracle 6. Inferiour Judges are not necessarily sent by the King by any divine Law but chosen by the people as the King is and de facto is the practise of creating all Magistrates of Cities in both Kingdomes 7. Augustin expos Prop. 72. on Epist. Rom. Irenaeus l. 5. c. 24. Chrysostom in Psal. 148. and on the place Hieron Epist. 53. advers vigilant expound it of Masters Magistrates so do Calvin Beza Pareus Pisâ—ator Rollocu Marlorat So do Popish Writers Aquinas Lyra Hugo Cardinal Carthus Pirerius Toletus Cornel. à Lapide Salmeron Estius expound the place And therefore there is no argument that Royalists hence draw against resisting of the King by the Parliaments but they do strongly conclude against the Cavalliers unlawfull warres against the Parliaments and Estates of two Kingdomes Here what P. P. saith to the contrary 1. They are called eminent powers Ergo Kings only Answ. It followeth not for these can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 2.2 But these are not Kings but in the Text contradivided from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and they can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Principalities and powers 2. The reason of the Apostle proveth clearely that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot meane Kings onely for Paul addeth of that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there is no power but of God It must be there is no supereminent Royall power but it is of God and the powers Royall onely so he must meane that are are ordained of God Now this latter is manifestly false for inferiour powers are of God The power of the Roman Senate of a Master of a Father are of God P. Prelate Peter must expound Paul and Pauls higher powers must be 1 Pet. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More reason that Paul expound Paul Now 1 Tim. 2.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All in authority are not Kings P. Prelate Are of God or ordained of God cannot so properly be understood of subordinate powers for that is not by immediate derivation from God but immediately from the higher power the King and mediately from God Answ. It is most false that King David is so immediatly a King from God as that he is not also by the mediation of the peoplâ— who made him King at Hebron 2. The inferiour Magistratâ—s are also immediate vicars and ministers of God as the King for their throne and judgement is not the Kings but the Lords Deut. 1.16 2 Chron. 19.6 3. Though they were mediatly from man it followeth not that they are not so properly from God for Wisdome Prov. 8. saith as properly ver 16. By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth as ver 15. By me Kings reigne and promotion is as properly from God and not from the East and the West Psal. 75.6 7. Though God promote Ioseph by the thankfull munificence of Pharaoh and Mordecai by Ahasuerus Daniel by Darius as if he gave them power and honour immediately from Heaven Prelat Learned Interpreters expound it so Answ. It is an untruth for none expound it onely and principally of Kings Produce one Interpreter for that conceit Prelat Paul wrote this when Nero was Monarch Answ. Then must the Text be expounded of Nero only 2. He wrote this when Nero played the Tyrant and persecuted Christians Ergo We are not to disobey Nero's now 3. He wrote it when the Senate of Rome had power to declare Nero an enemy not a Father as they did P. Prelat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to the Antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this There is no power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of God must undeniably inferre there is no supreme power but of God and so Soveraignty relates to God as his immediate author so Sectaries reason Gal. 2.16 Not justified by works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by faith onely Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be a perfect exclusive else their strong hold for Iustification is overthrowne Answ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a neerer Antecedent which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is alone without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Grammer is not so good as Beza's which hee rejected 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referre to God alone as the onely cause In genere causae primae God alone giveth raine but not for that immediatly but by the mediation of vapours and clouds God alone killeth and maketh alive Deut. 32.39 That is excluding all strange gods but not immediatly for by his peoples fighting he slew Og King of Bashan and cast out seven Nations yet they used bow and sword as it is in the booke of Ioshua and therefore God killed not Og immediately God hath an infinite eminent transcendent way of working so that in his kinde he onely worketh his alone Deus solus operatur solitudine primae causae non solus solitudine omnis causae God onely giveth learning and wisdome yet not immediatly alwayes often he doth it by teaching and industry God onely maketh rich yet the Prelates make
Levit. 24.16 â—xcepteth none See Deut. 13.6 the dearest that nature knoweth are not excepted Obj. 6. Vengeance pursued Core Dathan and Abiram who resisted Moses Ans. From resisting of a lawfull magistrate in a thing lawfull it followeth not it must be unlawfull to resist Kings in Tyrannous acts Obj. 7. Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of the people Exod. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thought nor the rich in thy bed-chamber Ans. 1. The word Elohim signifieth all judges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasi signifieth one lifted up above the people saith Rivetus in loc whether a monarch or many rulers All cursing of any is unlawfull even of a private man Rom. 12.14 Ergo we may not resist a private man by this the other text readeth contemne not the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in scientiâ tuâ Aria Mon. or in thy conscience or thought and it may prove resisting any rich man to be unlawfull Nothing in word or deed tending to the dishonour of the King may be done now to resist him in self-defence being a commandment of God in the law of nature cannot fight with another commandment to honour the King no more then the fift commandement can fight with the sixâ—h for all resistance is against the judge as a man exceâ—ding the limits of his office in that wherein he is resisted not as a judge Obj. 8. Eccles. 8.3.4 Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him what dost thou Ergo the King cannot be resisted Ans. 1. Tremel saith well that the scope is that a man go not from the Kings lawfull command in passion and rebellion Vatab. If thou go from the King in disgrace strive to be reconciled to him quickly Cajetan Vse not Kings too familiarly by comming too quickly to them or going too hastily from them Plutarch Cum rege agendum ut cum rogo neither too neere this fire nor too farre off Those have smarted who have been too great in their favour Ahasuerus slew Haman Alexander so served Clitus and Tiberius Sejanus and Nero Seneca But th◠〈◊〉 is cleare rebellion is forbidden not resistance so the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stand not in an evil matter or in a rebellion And he dehorteth from rebellion against the King by an argument taken from his power 3. For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him 4. Where the word of a King is there is power And who may say unto him What doest thou The meaning is in way of justice he is armed with power that cannot be resisted other wayes Samuel said to King Saul 1 Sam. 13.13 Thou hast done foolishly Eliah said more to Ahab then What hast thou done And the Prophets were to rebuke sinne in Kings 2 King 3.14 Ier. 1.28 Chap. 22.3 Hos. 5.1 2. And though Solomon here give them a power he speaketh of Kings as they are de facto but de jure they are under a Law Deut. 17.18 If the meaning be as Royalists dreame he doth whatsoever hee will or desireth as a Prince by his royall that is his legall will by which he is lex animata a breathing law we shall owne that as truth and it is nothing against us But if the meaning be that De jure as King he doth whatsoever he will by the absolute supremacie of Royall will above all law and reason then Ioram should by law as King take Elisha's head away and Elisha resisted God in saying What doth the King and he sinned in commanding to deal rougbly with the Kings messenger and hold him at the doore then the foureâ—core valiant Priests who said to King Vzziah What dost thou resisted him in burning incense which he desired to doe sinned Then Pharaoh who said Ezech. 29.3 The river Nilus is mine I have made it for my selfe and the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28.2 I am God I sit in the seat of God should not be controlled by the Prophets and no man should say to them What sayest thou Did Cyrus as a King with a Royall power from God and jure regio be angry at the river Gyndes because it drowned one of his horses and punish it by dividing it in 130. Channels Sen. l. 3. de ira c. 21. And did Xerxes jure regio by a Royall power given of God when Hellespontus had cast downe his bridges command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea and that it should be cast in fetters And our Royalists will have these mad fooles doing these acts of blasphemous insolencie against heaven to be honoured as Kings and to act those acts by a regall power But heare flatterers a Royall power is the good gift of God a lawfull and just power A King acting and speaking as a King speaketh and acteth Law and Justice A power to blaspheme is not a lawfull power they did and spake thesâ— things with a humane and a sinfull will if therefore this be the Royaliâ—ts meaning as Kings 1. They are absolute and so the limited and elected King is no King 2. The King as King is above Gods Law put on him by God Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill 4. It were unlawfull to say to the King of Cyrus What sayest thou Thou art not God according to this vaine sense of Royalists Obj. 9. Elihu saith Iob 34.18 Is it fit to say to a King Thou art wicked and to Princes Ye are ungodly Ergo You may not resist Kings Ans. 1. This Text no more proveth that Kings should not be resisted then it proveth that rich men or liberall men or other Judges inâ—eriour should not be resisted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth all that and it signifieth liberall Isa. 32.5 And ver 8. the same word is 2. Deodat and Calvin say the meaning is Learne from the respect that is due to earthly princes the reverence due to the Soveraign Lord Mal. 1.8 for it is not convenient to reproach earthly Kings and and to say to a Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beliel a word of reproach signifying extreme wickednesse And you may not say to a man of place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an extreamly wicked man so are the words taken as signifying most vile and wicked men 1 Sam. 2.12 1 Sam. 10.27 2 Sam. 24.6 Psal. 1.1 6. Psal. 11.5 Psal. 12.8 Prov. 16.4 Psa. 146.9 and in infinite places For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word of extreme reproach comming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine non and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profuit Iud. 19.22 a most naughtie and a lewd man or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jugum a lawlesse man who hath cast off all yokes of Gods or Mans Law So then the meaning is It is unlawfull to reproach earthly Princes and men of place farre more is it unlawfull to reproach the Judge of the whole earth with injustice And what then We may
Cavalliers and Irish cut-throats except you say inferiour Judges are not obliged to execute judgement but at the Kings commandment Object As the Irish Rebels are armed with the Kings power they are superiour to the Parliament Answ. So an Armie of Turks and Spaniards armed with the Kings power and comming against the two Kingdomes at the Kings commandement though they be but Lictors in a lawlesse cause are superiour to the highest Courts of Parliament in the two Kingdomes But the King and the Law gave power to the Parliament first to resist Rebels now he giveth power to Rebels to resist the Parliament here must be contradictory wils and contradictory powers in the King Which of them is the Kings will and his power the former is legall and Parliamentary Then because Law is not contrary to Law the latter cannot be legall also nor can it be from God and to resist it then is not to resist God Object 13. If resistance bee restrained to legall commandements What shall we say to these arguments that Paul forbiddeth resistance under these tyrannous governours and that from the end of their government which is for good and which their subjects did in some sort enjoy under them Answ. 1. This proveth nothing but that we are to cooperate with these governours though tyrannous by subjecting to their Laws so farre as they come up to this end the morall good and peace of their government but Paul no where commandeth absolute subjection to tyrannous governours in tyrannous actâ— which is still the question Object 14. Hee that hath the supreme trust next to God should have the greatest security to his person and power but if resistance be lawfull he hath a poore security Answ. He that hath the greatest trust should have the greatest security to his person and power in the â—â—eping his power and using it according to his trust for its owne native end for justice peace and godlinesse God alloweth security to no man nor that his Angels shall guard them but onâ—ly when they are in their wayes and the service of God else There is no peace to the wicked 2. It is denyed that one man having the greatest trust should have the greatest security the Church and people of God for whose safety he hath the trust as a meanes for the end should have a greater security the City ought to have greater security then the watchers the Armie then the leaders The good Shepherd giveth his life for his 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 he 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 Ossorie 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 grâ—at non-consâ—quence 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 Iereboam for 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 Iezabelâ—aisâ—d â—aisâ—d 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 dowwe 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
these men according to their works which forbeare to help men that are drawn to death and those that be ready to be slaine if they shift the businesse and say Behold we know not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it When therefore the Lords Prophets complaine that the people execute not judgement relieve not the oppressed help not and rescue not those that are drawn to death unjustly by the King or his murthering Judges they expresly cry out against the sin of non-resistance 2. The Prophets cannot expresly and formally cry out against the Judges for non-resisting the King when they joyne as â—avening wolves with the King in these same acts of oppression even as the Judge cannot formally impannell 24 men sent out to guard the travellers from an arch robber if these men joyne with the robber and rob the travellers and become cut-throats as the arch robber is he cannot accuse them for their omission in not guarding the innocent travellers but for a more hainous crime that not onely they omitted what was their duty in that they did not rescue the oppressed out of the hands of the wicked but because they did rob and murther and so the lesser sinne is swallowed up in the greater The under-Judges are watchmen and a guard to the Church of God if the King turn a bosome robber their part is Ier. 22.3 to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour to watch against domestick and forraine enemies and to defend the flock from wolves Ezek. 23.2 3 4. Ier. 50.6 to let the oppressed goe free and to break every yoak Esay 58.6 to break the jawes of the wicked and pluck the spoile out of his teeth Job 29.17 Now if these Judges turne Lyons and ravening Wolves to prey upon the flock and joyne with the King as alwayes they did when the King was an oppressor his Princes made him glad with their lies and joyned with him and the people with both Ier. 1.18 Ier. 5.1 Ier. 9.1 Mic. 7.1 Ezek. 22.24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31. Ier. 15.1 2 3. It is no wonder if the Prophets condemne and cry out against the hugest and most bloody crime of positive oppression formally and expresly and in that their negative murthers in not releeving the oppressed must also be cryed out against 13. The whole Land cannot formally be accused for non-resistance when the whole Land are oppressors for then they should be accused for not resisting themselves 14. The King ought to resist the inferiour judges in their oppression of the people by the confession of Royalists then this argument cometh with the like force of strength on themselves let them shew us practice precept or promise in the Word where the King raised an Armie for defence of Religion against Princes and people who were subverting Religion and we shall make use of that same place of Scripture to prove that the Estates and people who are above the King as I have proved and made the King may and ought to resist the King with the like force of Scripturall truth in the like case 16. Royalists desire the like president of practice and precept for defensive warres but I answer let them shew us a practice where any King of Israel or Judah raised an Armie of Malignants of Phylistims Sydonians Ammonites against the Princes of Israel and Judah conveened in an Assemblie to take course for bringing home the captived Arke of God and vindicating the Lawes of the Land and raised an Armie contrary to the knowledge of the Elders Princes and Judges to set up Dagon or tollerate the worship of the Sydonian gods and yet Princes Elders Judges and the whole people were obliged all to flee out of Gods land or then onely to weep and request that the King would not destroy souls and bodies of them and their innocent posterities because they could not in conscience imbrace the worship of Dagon and the Sydonian gods when the Royalist can parallel this with a precedent we can answer there was as smal apparency of precedency in Scripture except you flee to the law of nature that 80 Priests the Subjects of King Vzziah should put in execution a penall Law against the Lords Annoynted and that the inferiours and subjects should resist the Superiour and that these Priests with the Princes of the land should remove the King from actuall government all his dayes and crown his son at least make the father their Prince and superiour as Royalists say as good as a Cypher Is not this a punishment inflicted by inferiours upon a superiour according to the way of Royalists Now it is clear a worshipping of bread and the Masse commanded and against law obtruded upon Scotland by influence of the counsell of known Papists is to us and in it self as abominable as the worshiping of Dagon or the Sydonian Gods and when the Kingdom of Scotland did but conveen supplicat and protest against that obtruded Idolatry they were first declared rebels by the King and then an army raised against them by Prelates and Malignants inspired with the spirit of Anti-christ to destroy the whole land if they should not submit soul and conscience to that wicked service QUEST XXXV Whether or no the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church militate against the lawfulnesse of defensive wars ROyalists think they burden our Cause much with hatred when they bring the Fathers and ancient Martyrs against us So the P. Prelate extracted out of other Authors testimonies for this and from I. Armagh in a Sermon on Rom. 13. pag. 20 21. So the Do. of Aberdeene The Prelat proveth from Clem. Alexand. l. 7. c. 17. That the King is constituted by the Lord. So Ignatius Answ. 1. Except he prove from these Fathers that the King is from God onely and immediately he proveth nothing Obj. 2. Iren. l. 5. adv haer c. 20. proveth that God giveth Kingdomes and that the devill lied Luk. 4. and we make the people to make Kings and so to be the children of the Devill Answ. If we denyed God to dispose of Kingdomes this man might alledge the Church of God in England and Scotland to be the sons of Satan But Gods Word Deut. 17.18 and many other places make the people to make Kings and yet not devils But to say that Prelates should crowne Kings and with their foule fingers anoint him and that as the Popes substitutes is to make him that is the sonne of perdition a Donor of Kingdoms also to make a man with his bloodie sword to ascend to a throne is to deny God to be the disposer of Kingdoms and Prelats teach both these Obj. 3. Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Inde est Imperator unde homo antequam imperator inde potestas illi unde spiritus God is no lesse the Creator of Soveraigntie then of the soul of man Answ. God onely maketh Kings by his absolute soveraignty as he onely maketh high and low and
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 Paâ—liament 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 Kingdoms move in these wars by the Kings Lawes and are a formall politique body in themselves Obj. 2. The ground of the present wars against the King saith D. Ferne sect 4. pag. 13. is false to wit that the Parliament is coordinate with the King but so the King shall not be supreme the Parliaments consent is required to an act of supremacie but not to a denyall of that act And there can no more saith Arnisaeus de jure majestatis c. 3. in quo consistat essen majest c. 3. n. 1. and c. 2. an jur majest separ c. n. 2. be two equall and coordinate supreme powers then there can be two supreme Gods and multitudo deorum est nullitas deorum many gods infer no gods Ans. 1. If we consider the fountaine-power the King is subordinate to the Parliament and not coordinate for the constituent is above that which is constituted If we regard the derived and executive power in Parliamentarie acts they make but a totall and compleat soveraigne power yet so as the soveraigne power of the Parliament being habitually and underived a prime and fountaine power for I doe not here separate people and Parliament is perfect without the King for all Parliamentarie acts as is cleare in that the Parliament make Kings 2. Make Lawes raise Armies when either the King is minor captived tyrannous or dead but Royall power Parliamentarie without the Parliament is null because it is essentially but a part of the Parliament and can work nothing separated from the Parliament no more then a hand cut off from the body can write and so here we see two supremes coordinate Amongst infinite things there cannot be two because it involveth a contradiction that an infinite thing can be created for then should it be finite but a royall power is essentially a derived and created power and supreme secundum quid onely in relation to single men but not in relation to the Communitie it is alwayes a creature of the communitie with leave of the Royalist 2. It is false that to an act of Parliamentarie supremacie the consent of the King is required for it is repugnant that there can be any Parliamentarie judiciall act without the Parliament but there may be without the King 3. More false it is that the King hath a negative voice in Parliament then he shall be sole Judge and the Parliament the Kings Creator and Constituent shall be a cypher Obj. 3. Arnesaeus de jur Maj. de potest armorum c. 5. n. 4. The People is mad and furious therefore supreme Majestie cannot be secured and Rebels suppressed and publike Peace kept if the power of Armour be not in the Kings hand only Answ. To denude the people of Armour because they may abuse the Prince is to expose them to violence and oppression unjustly for one King may easilier abuse armour then all the people one man may more easily fail then a Community 2. The safety of the people is far to be preferred before the safety of one man though he were two Emperours one in the East another in the West because the Emperour is ordained of God for the good and safety of the people 1 Tim. 2.2 3. There can be no inferiour Judges to bear the sword as God requireth Rom. 13 4. Deut. 1.15 16. 2 Chron. 19.6 7. and the King must be sole Judge if he onely have the sword and all armour monopolized to himselfe Obj. 4. The causes of Warre saith M. Simmons sect 4. pag. 9. should not be made knowne to the Subjects who are to look more to the lawfull call to Warre from the Prince then to the cause of the War Answ. The Parliament and all the Judges and Nobles are Subjects to Royalists if they should make war and shed blood upon blind obedience to the King not inquiring either in causes of Law or faâ—t they must resigne their consciences to the King 2. The King cannot make unlawfull warre to be lawfull by any authority Royall excâ—pt he could raze out the sixt Commandement therefore Subjâ—cts must look more to the causes of Warre then to the authority of the King and this were a faire way to make Parliaments of both Kingdomes set up Popery by the sword and root out the Reformed Religion upon the Kings Authority as the lawfull call to warre not looking to the causes of warre QUEST XXXVII Whether or no it be lawfull that the Estates of Scotland help their oppressed brethren the Parliament and Protestants in England against Papists and Prelates now in Armes against them and killing them and â—ndevouring the establishment of Poperie though the King of Scotland should inhibit them MArianus saith one iâ— obliged to help his brother non vinculo efficace not with any efficacious band because in these
saith he non est actio aut poena one may not have action of law against his brother who refuseth to help him yet saith he as man he is obliged to man nexu civilis societatis by the bond of humane society Others say one nation may indirectly defend a neighbour nation against a common enemie because it is a self-defence and it is presumed that a forraigne enemie having overcome the neighbour nation shall invade that nation it selfe who denyeth help and succour to the neighbour nation this is a self-opinion and to me it looketh not like the spiritâ—aâ—l law of God 3. Some say it is lawfull but not alwayes expedient in which opinion there is this much truth that if the neighbor nation have an evil cause neque licet neque expedit it is neither lawfull nor expedient But what is lawful in the case of necessity so extreame as is the losse of a brothers life or of a nation must be expedient because necessity of non-sinning maketh any lawfull thing expedient As to help my brother in fire or water requiring my present and speedy help though to the losse of my goods must be as expedient as a negative commandement Thou shalt not murther 4. Others think it lawfull in the case that my brother seek my help only other wayes I have no calling thereunto to which opinion I cannot universally subscribe it is holden both by reason and the soundest divines that to rebuke my brother of sinne is actus misericordiae charitatis an act of mercy and charity to his soul yet I hold I am obliged to rebuke him by Gods law Levit. 19.17 otherwise I hate him 1 Thes. 5.14 Col. 4.17 Math. 18 15. Nor can I think in reason that my duty of love to my brother doth not oblige me but upon dependency on his free consent but as I am to help my neighbours oxe out of a ditch though my neighbour know not and so I have onely his implicit and virtuall consent so is the case here I go not farther in this case of conscience if a neighbour nation be jealous of our help and in an hostile way should oppose us in helping which blessed be the Lord the honourable houses of the Parliament of England hath not done though Malignant spirits tempted them to such a course what in that case we should owe to the afflicted members of Christs body is a case may be determined easily The fift and last opinion is of those who think if the King command Papists and Prelates to rise against the Parliament and our dear brethren in England in warres that we are obliged in conscience and by our oath and covenant to help our native Prince against them to which opinion with hands and feet I should accord if our Kings cause were just and lawfull but from this it followeth that we must thus far judge of the cause as concerneth our consciences in the matter of our necessary duty leaving the judiciall cognizance to the honourable Parliament of England But because I cannot returne to all these opinions particularly I see no reason but the Civil Law of a Kingdom doth oblige any Citizen to help an innocent man against a murthering robber that he may be judicially accused as a murtherer who faileth in his duty that Solon said well beatam remp esse illam in quâ quisque injuriam alterius suam estimet It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother as an injury done against himself As the Egyptians had a good law by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that suffered wrong and if he was not able to help he was holden to accuse the injurer if not his punishment was whips or three dayes hunger it may be upon this ground it was that Moses slew the Egyptian Ambrose commendeth him for so doing Assert We are obliged by many bands to expose our lives goods children c. in this cause of religion and of the unjust oppression of enemies for the safety and defence of our deare brethren and true religion in England 1. Prov. 24.11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken as captives to be killed and those that are ready to be slaine 12. If thou say behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it and he that keepeth thy soul doth he not know it and shall he not render to every man according to his work Master Iermin on the plâ—ce is too narrow who coâ—menting on the place restricteth all to these two that the priest should deliver by interceding for the innocâ—nt and the King by pardoning only But 1. to deliver is a word of violence as 1 Sam. 30.18 David by the sword rescued his wives Hos. 5 14. I will take away and none shall rescue 1 Sam. 17.35 I rescued the lambs out of his mouth out of the Lyons mouth which behovâ—d to be done with great violence 2 King 18.34 They have not delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samaria out of my hand So Cornel. à Lapidâ— Charitas suadâ—t ut vi armis eruamus injuste ductos ad mortem Amâ—ros lib. 1. offic c. 36. citeth this same text and commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man 2. It is an act of Charity and so to be done though the judge forbid it when thâ— innocent is unjustly put to death Object But in so doing private men may offer violence to the lawfull magistrate when he unjustly putteth an innocent man to death and rescue him out of the hands of the magistrate and this were to bring in anarchy and confusion for if it be an act of charity to deliver the innocent out of the hand of the Magistrate it is homicide to a private man not to do it for our obedience to the law of nature tyeth us absolutely though the Magistrate forbid these acts for it is known that I must obey God rather then man Answ. The law of nature tyeth us to obedience in acts of charity yet not to perfâ—rme these acts after any way and manner in a meere naturall way impetu naturae but I am to performe acts of naturall charity in a rationall and prudent way and in looking to Gods law else if my brother or father were justly condemned to die I might violently deliver him out of the Magistrates hand but by the contrary my hand should be first on him without naturall compassion As if my brother or my wife have been a blasphemer of God Deut. 13.6 7 8. and therefore am I to do acts naturall as a wise man observing as Solomon saith Eccles. 8.5 both time and judgement Now it were no wisdom for one private man to hazard his own life by attempting to rescue an innocent brother because he hath not strength to do it and the law of nature
intermedia a middle power not so vast as that which is absolute and tyrannicall which yet is some way humane this I take Iurists call jus regium lex regia jura Regalia regis Cicero jura Majestatis Livius jura imperii and these Royall priviledges are such common and high dignities as no one particular magistrate can have seeing they are common to all the kingdom as that Cesar only should coyne money in his own name Hence the penny â—â—ven to Christ because it had Cesars image and superscription Matâ— 22.20 21. Infer by way of argumentation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. give therefore tribute to Cesar as his due so the Magazine and Armory for the safety of the Kingdom is in the Kings hand the King hath the like of these priviledges because he is the common supreame publick officer and Minister of God for the good of the whole Kingdom and amongst these Royall priviledges I reckon that power that is given to the King when he is made King to do many things without warrant of the letter of the law without the expresse consent of his counsell which he cannot alwayes carry about with him as the law saith The King shall not raise armes without consent of the Parliament but if an army of Irish or Danes or Spanyards should suddenly land in Scotland he hath power without a formally conveened Parliament to command them all to rise in armes against these invadeâ—s and defend themselves this power to inferiour Magistrate hath as he is but such a Magistrate And in many such exigences when the necessity of justice or grace requireth an extemporall exposition of Lawes Pro re natâ for present necessary execution some say onely the Emperour others all Kings have these priviledges I am of the minde of Arnisaeus that these priviledges are not rewards given to Princes for their great paines For the King is not obliged to governe the Common-wealth because he receiveth these Royall Priviledges as his reward but because by office he is obliged to govâ—rne the common-wealth therefore these priviledges are given to him and without them he could not so easily governe But I am utterly against Arnisaeus who saith these are not essentiall to a King Because saith he he createth Marquesses Dukes c. and Nobles constituteth Magistrates not because of His Royall Dignity but by reason of his absolute power for many Princes have supreame power and cannot make Nobles and therefore to him they are jura majestatis non â—ura potestatis But 1. The King suppose a limited King may â—nd ought to make nobles for he may conferre honours as a reward of vertue none can say Pharoah by his absolute authority and not as a King advanced Ioseph to be a noble Ruler we cannot say that for there was merit and worth in him deserving that honour and Darius not by absolute authority but on the ground of well-deserving the rule by which Kings are obliged in justice to confer honours promoted Daniel to be the first president of all his kingdomes because Dâ—n 6.3 An excellent spirit was in him and in Justice the King could nobilitate none rather then Daniel except he should fail against the rule of conferring honours It is acknowledged by all that honos est proemium virtutis honour is founded upon vertue and therefore Darius did not this out of his absolute Majesty but as King 2. All Kings as Kings and by a Divine Law of God and so by no absolutenesse of Majesty are to make men of wisdome fearing God hating covetousnesse Judges under them Deut. 1.13 2 Chro. 19.6 7. Psal. 101.6 7 8. 3. If we suppose a King to be limited as Gods King is Deut. 17.18 19 20. Yet is it his part to confer honours upon the worthiest Now if he have no absolutenesse of Majesty he cannot confer honours out of a principle that is none at all unum quodque sicut est ita operatur and if the people confer honours then must Royalists grant that there is an absolute Majesty in the people why then may they not derive Majesty to a King and why then do Royalists talk to us of Gods immediate creating of Kings without any interveening action of the people 4. By this absolutnesse of Majesty Kings may play the Tyrant as Samuel 1 Sam. 8.9 10 11 12 13 14. foretelleth Saul would do But I cannot beleeve that Kngs have the same very officiall absolute power from whence they do both acts of grace goodnesse and justice such as are to expone Laws extemporally in extraordinary cases to confer honours upon good and excellent men of grace to pardon offenders upon good grounds and also doe acts of extreme Tyrannie For out of the same fountaine doth not proceed both sweet water and bitter Then by this absolutenesse Kings cannot doe acts of goodnesse justice and grace and so they must doe good as Kings and they must doe acts of tyrannie as men not from absolutenesse of majesty 5. Inferiour Magistrates in whom there is no absolutenesse of Majesty according to Royalists way may expound laws also extemporally and doe acts of justice without formalities of civill or municipall laws so they keep the genuine intent of the Law as they may pardon one that goeth up to the wall of a City and discovereth the approach of the enemie when the watchmen are sleeping though the Law be That any ascending to the wall of the Citie shall die Also the inferiour Judge may make Judges and Deputies under himselfe 6. This Distinction is neither grounded upon Reason or Lawes nor on any Word of God Not the former as is proved before for there is no absolute power in a King to do above or against law all the officiall power that a King hath is a Royall power to do good for the safety and good of his subjects and that according to law and reason and there is no other power given to a King as a King and for Scripture Arnisaeus ibid. alledgeth 1 Sam. 8. The manner or law of the King ver 9.11 And he saith it cannot be the custome and manner of the King but must be the law of absolute Majesty 1. Because it was the manner of inferiour judges as Tyberius said of his judges to flea the people when they were commanded to shear them onely 2. Samuels sons who wrested judgment and perverted the law had this manner and custome to oppresse the people as did the sons of Eli and therefore without reason is it called the law of Kings jus regum if it was the law of the judges for if all this law be Tyrannicall and but an abuse of Kingly power the same law may agree to all other Magistrates who by the same unjust power may abuse their power but Samuel as Brentius observeth homi 27. in 1 Sam. in princ doth meane here a greater license then Kings can challenge if at any time they would make use of their plenitude of absolute
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 exact usury not toward their brethren to be But that God should make a permissive Law that Ieroboam might presse all Israel to sinne 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 immutaâ—le 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 reason God may make a Law though against nature that a King should kill and murther without all resistance Answ. The question is not if God may make permissive Laws to oppresse the innocent I grant he may doe it as he may command Abraham to kill his son Isaac and Abraham by Law is obliged to kill him except God retract his Commandement and whether God retract it or no he may intend to kill his son which is an act of love and obedience to God but this were more then a permissive Law 2. We have a cleere Scripture for a permissive Law of divorce and it was not a Law tending to the universall destruction of a whole Kingdome or many Kingdomes but onely to the grievance of some particular wives but the Law of divorce gave not power to all husbands to put away their wives but onely to the husband who could not command his affection to love his wife But this law of the King is a Catholique law to all Kings for Royalists will have all Kings so absolute as it is sin and disobedience to God to resist any that all Kings have a divine law to kill all their subjects surely then it were better for the Church to want such nurse-fathers as have absolute power to suck their blood and for such a perpetuall permissive Law continuing to the end of the world there is no word of God Nor can we think that the hardnesse of one Princes heart can be a ground for God to make a Law so destructive to his Church and all mankinde such a permissive Law being a positive Law of God must have a word of Christ for it else we are not to receive it 2. Arnisaeus cap. 4. distru Tyran princ n. 16. thinketh a Tyrant in excercito becomming a notorious Tyrant when there is no other remedy may be removed from government sine magno scelâ—re without great sin But I aske how men can annull any divine Law of God though but a permissive Law For if Gods permissive Law warrant a Tyrant to kill two innocent men it is tyranny more or lesse and the Law distinguisheth not 3. This permissive Law is expressely contray to Gods Law limiting all Kings Deut. 17.16 17 18. How then are we to beleeve that God would make an universall Law contray to the Law that he established before Israel had a King 4. What Brentius saith is much for us for he calleth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law a licence and so to use it must be licentiousnesse 5. Arnisaeus desireth that Kings may use sparingly the plenitude of their power for publique good there must be saith he necessity to make it lawfull to use the plenitude of this power justly therefore Ahab sinned in that he unjustly possessed Naboths vineyard though he sinned specially in this that he came to the possession by murther and it was peculiar to the Iewes that they could not transfer their possessions from one tribe to another But if it be so then this power of absolutenesse is not given by permissive Law by which God permitted putting away of wives for the object of a permissive Law is sinne but this plenitude of power may be justly put forth in act saith he if the publique good may be regarded I would know what publique good can legittimate Tyranny and killing of the innocent the intentions of men can make nothing intrinsecally evil to become good And 6. How can that be a permissive Law of God and not his approveing Law by which Kings create inferiour judges for this is done by Gods approving will 7. It is evident that Arnisaeus his minde is that Kings may take their subjects vineyards and their goods so they erre not in the manner and way of the act so be like if there had not been a peculiar Law that Naboth should not sell his vineyard and if the King had had any publique use for it he might have taken Naboths vineyard from him but he specially sinned saith he in eo maxime culpatur c. that he took away the mans vineyard by murthering of him therefore saith Arnisaeus c. 1. de potest maj in bona privato 2. that by the Kings Law 1 Sam. 8. There is given to the King a dominion over the peoples sons daughters fields vineyards olive-yards servants and flockes So he citeth that that Daniel putteth all places the Rocks of the Mountaines the birds of the heaven Dan. 2. under the Kings power So all is the Kings in dominion and the subjects in use onely But 1. This law of the King then can be no ground for the Kings absolutenesse above Law and there can be no permissive Law of God here for that which assertâ—th the Kings Royall Dominion over persons and things that must be the Law of Gods approving not his permiting evil but this is such a Law as Arnisaeus saith 2. The text speaketh of no Law or lawful power or of any absolutenesse of King Saul but
of his wicked custome and his rapine and Tyranny He will take your sons your daughters your fields and your vineyards from you Saul took not these through any power of dominion by Law but by meere Tyranny 3. I have before cleared that the subjects have a propriety and an use also else how could we be obliged by vertue of the fift commandement to pay tribute to the King Rom. 13.7 for that which we pay was as much the Kings before we payed as when we have paied it 4. Arnisaeus saiâ—h all are the Kings in respect of the universall jurisdiction that the King hath in governing and ordering all to the universall end the good of the Common-wealth for as universall nature careth for the conservation of the spece and kind so doth particular nature care for the conservation of individuals so do men care for their private good and the King is to refer every mans private goods to the good of the publick but the truth is this taketh not away propriety of goods from private men retaining onely the use to private men and giving the dominion to the King because this power that the King â—ath of mens goods is not power of dominion that the King hath over the goods of men as if the King were Dominus Lord and owner of the fields and monyes of the private subject but it is a power to regulate the goods for a publique use and supposeth the abuse of goods when they are Monopolized to and for private ends 2. The power that the King hath over my bread is not a power of dominion so as he may eat my bread as if it were his own bread and he be Lord of my bread as I was sometimes my self before I abused it but it is a dominion unproperly and abusively so called and is a meere fiduciary and dispensatory power because he is set over my bread not to eat it nor over my houses to dwel in them but onely with a ministeriall power as a publique though a honourable servant and wâ—tchman appâ—inted by the community as a mean for an end to regulate my bread houses moneys fields for the good of the publique Dominion is defined a faculty to use a thing as you please except you be hindered by force or by Law â—ustin tit c. de legibus in l. digna vox c. So have I a dominion over my own garments house money to use them for usâ—s not forbidden by the Law of God and man but I may not lay my corne field wast that it shall neither bear grassâ— nor corne the King may hinder that because it is a hurt to the publique but the King as Lord and Soveraigne hath no such dominion over Naboths viâ—eyard Hâ—w the King is lord of all goods ratione jurisdictionis tuitionis sâ— Anton. de paudrill in l. Altius n. 5. c. de servit Hottom illust quest q. 1. ad fin Conc. 2. Lod. Molin de just jur dis 25. Soto de justitiâ— jur l. 4. q. 4. art 1. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his oath covenant or any other way ARistotle saith Ethic. 8. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Tyrant seeketh his owne a King the good of the Subjects for he is no King who is not content and excelleth in goodnesse The former part of these words distinguish essentially the King by his office from the Tyrant Now every office râ—quâ—reth essentially a duty to be performed by him that is in office and where there is a duty required there is some obligation if it be a politique duty it is a politique obligation Now amongst politique duties betwixt equall and equall superiour and infâ—riour that is not de facto required coaction for the performance therâ—â—f but de jure there is for two neighbour Kings and two neighbour Nations both being equall and independent the one toward the other the one owe a duty to the other and if the Ammonites do a wrong to David and Israel as they are equall de facto the one cannot punish the other though the Ammonites do a disgrace to Davids messengers yet de jure David and Israel may compell them to politique duties of politique consâ—ciation for betwixt independent kingdomes there must be some politique government and some politique and civil Lawes for two or three making a society cannot dwell together without some policy and David and Israel as by the Law of nature they may repell violence with violence so if the lawes of neighbour-hood and nations be broken the one may punish the other though there be no relation of superiority and inferiority betwixt them 2. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt equals yea or superiours and inferiours the one hath some coactive power over the other if the father give his bond to pay to his son ten thousand pounds as his patrimony to him though before the giving of the bond the father was not obliged but onely by the Law of nature to give a patrimony to his son yâ—t now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is obliged so to his son to pay ten thousand pounds that by the Law of Nations and the civil Law the son hath now a coactive power by Law to compell his father though his superiour to pay him no lesse then ten thousand pounds of patrimony Though therefore the King should stand simply superiour to his kingdom and estates which I shall never grant yet if the King come under covenant with his kingdom as I have proved at length c. 13. he must by that same come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum What any doth promise falleth under debt if the covenant be politique and civil as is the covenant between King David and all Israel 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. and between King Iehoash and the people 2 King 11.17 18. Then the King must come under a civil obligation to performe the covenant and though their be none superiour to King and the people on earth to compell them both to performe what they have promised yet de jure by the Law of Nations each may compell the other to mutuall performance This is evident 1. By the Law of nations if one nation break covenant to another though both be independent yet hath the wronged nation a coactive power de jure by accident because they are weaker they want stength to compell yet they have right and jus to compell them to force the other to keep covenant or then to punish them because nature teacheth to repel violence by violence so it be done without desire of revenge and malice 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant for Solomon saith Prov. 6.1 My son if thou be surety for thy friend if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger 2. Thou art snared with
the words of thy mouth art taken with the words of thy mouth But whence is it that a man free is now snared as a beast in a gin or trap Certainly Solomon saith it is by a word and striking of hands by a word of promise and covenant Now the Creditor hath coactive power though he be an equall or an inferiour to the man who is surety even by Law to force him to pay and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the Creditor that he may force the surety to pay Hence it is cleare that a Covenant maketh a free man under the coactive power of law to an equall and to weaker and the stronger is by the law of fraternity to help the weaker with his coactive power to cause the superiour fulfill his covenant If then the King giving and not granting he were superiour to his whole Kingdome come under a covenant to them to seek their good not his owne to defend true Protestant Religion they have power to compell him to keep his covenant and Scotland if the King be stronger then England and break his covenant to them is obliged by Gods law Prov. 24.11 to adde their forces and coactive power to help their brethren of England 3. The Law shall warrant to loose the vassal from the Lord when the Lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in l. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Bartol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de offic magistrat Imperatores reges esse primarios vasallos imperii regni proinde si feloniam contra imperium aut regnum committant fewdo privari proinde ut alios vasallos Arnisaeus q. 6. An princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 2. saith This occasioneth confusion and sedition The Egyptians saith he cast off Ptolomeus because he affected too much the name of a King of the Romans his own friend Dion l. 9. The States punished Archidanius because he married a wife of a low stature Plutarch in Agos in pris The ancient Burgundions thought it cause enough to expell their King if matters went not well in the State Marcel l. 27. The Goths in Spain gave no other cause of expelling their King nisi quod sibi displiceret because he displeased them Aimon l. 2. c. 20. l. 4. c. 35. Ans. All these are not to be excused in people but neither every abuse of power in a King exautorateth a King nor every abuse in people can make null their power Arnisaeus maketh three kinds of oathes the first is when the King sweareth to defend true Religion and the Pope and he denyeth that this is an oath of fidelitie or by paction or covenant made to thâ— Pope or Clergie he saith it is onely on oath of protection nor doth the King receive the Crown from the Pope or Clergie Answ. 1. Arnisaeus divideth oathes that are to be conjoyned we read not that Kings sweare to defend Religion in one oath and to administrate judgement and justice in another for David made not two Covenants but onely one with all Israel 2. The king was not King while he did swear this oath and therefore it must be a pactionall oath between him and the Kingdom and it is true the King receiveth not a Crown from the Church yet David received a Crowne from the Church for this end to feed the Lords people and so conditionally Papir Masse l. 3. Chron. Gal. saith The King was not king before the oath 2. That he did sweare to be a keeper not onely of the first but also of the second Table of the Law Ego N. Dei gratia mox futuras rex Francorum in die ordinationis mea coram Deo sanctis ejus polliceor quod servabo privilegia canonica justitiamque jus unicuique Praelato debitum vosque defendam Deo juvante quantum potero quemadmodum Rex ex officio in suo regno defendere debet unumquemque Episcopum ac Ecclesiam administrabo populo justitiam leges uti jus postulat And so is it ordained in the Councel of Tolet. 6. c. 6. Quisquis deinceps regni sortitus fuerit apicem non ante conscendat Regiam sedem quam inter reliquas conditiones sacramento policitus fuerit quod non sinet in regno suo degere cum qui non sit Catholicus All these by Scripture are oathâ—s of Covenant Deut. 17. ver 17 18. 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3 4. 2 Kings 11.17 18. Arnisaeus maketh a second oath of absolute Kings who sweare they shall raigne according to equitie and justice and he saith There is no need of this oath a promise is enough for an oath encreaseth not the obligation L. fin de non num pec Onelie it addeth the bound of Religion for there is no use of an oath where there is no paction of law against him that sweareth if he violate his oath There followeth onelie the punishment of Perjurie And the word of a Prince is as good as his oath onelie he condescendeth to sweare to please the people out of indulgence not out of necessitie And the King doth not therefore sweare because he is made King but because he is made King he sweareth And he is not King because he is crowned but he is crowned because he is King Where the Crowne goeth by succession the King never dieth and he is King by nature before he be crowned Answ. 1. This oath is the very first oath spoken of before included in the covenant that the King maketh with the people 2 Sam. 5.2 3 4. For absolute Princes by Arnisaeus his grant doth swear to do the duties of a King as Bodinus maketh the oath of France de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. Iuro ego per deum ac promittâ— me justè regnaturum judicium equitatem ac misericordiam facturum And papir Mass. l. 3. Chron. hath the same expresly in the particulars And by this a King sweareth he shall not be absolute and if he swear this oath he bindeth himself not to governe by the Law of the King whereby he may play the Tyrant as Saul did 1 Sam. 8.9 10 11 12 c. As all Royalists expound the place 2. It is but a poor evasion to distinguish betwixt the Kings promise and his oath for the promise and covenant of any man and so of the King doth no lesse bring him under a civil obligation and politique coaction to keep his promise then an oath for he that becometh surety for his friend doth by no civil Law sweare he shall be good for the sonne or performe in liew and place of the friend what he is to performe he doth onely covenant and promise and in law and politique obligation he is taken and snared by that promise no lesse then if he had sworne Reuben offereth to be caution to bring Benjamin safe home to his old father Gen. 42.37 Iudah also Gen. 43.9
to be a father he may leave off morally to do the duty of a father so be non pater officio but he cannot but be pater naturae generantis vi So there never is nor can be any need that childrens fre consent interveen to make Kish the Father of Saul because he is by nature a father to make Saul a King a moral father by analogy and improperly a father by ruling governing guiding defending Israel by good laws in peace and godlinesse I hope there is some act of the peoples free-will required even by Spalatoes way the people must approve him to be King yea they must King him or constitute him King say we no such act is required of naturall sons to make a physicall father and so here is a great halt in the comparison and it is most false that there is a Kingly power to governe many families in the same father before these many families can transfer their power to make him King Put Royallists to their Logick they have not found out a medium to make good that there is a formall Kingly power whereby Saul is King and father morally over all Israel before Israel chose him and made him as Kish was Sauls father formally and had a fatherly power to be his father before Saul had the use of free-will to consent that he should be his father Royalists are here at a stand The man may have Royall gifts before the people make him King but this is not regia potestas a Royall power by which the man is formally King Many have more Royal gifts then the man that beareth the Crown yet are never Kings nor is there formally regia potestas kingly power in them In this meaning Petrarcha said Plures sunt reges quam regna 3. He saith The people doth not confer royall power but onely consent to the person of the man or choise of his person This is non-sense for the peoples choosing of David at Hebron to be King and their refusing of Sauls seed to be King what was it but an act of God by the free suffrages of the people conferring royall power on David and making him King whereas in former times David even anointed by Samuel at Bethleem 1 Sam. 16. was onely a private man the subject of King Saul and never tearmed by the Spirit of God a King nor was he King till God by the peoples consent made him King at Hebron for Samuel neither honoured him as King nor bowed to him as King nor did the people say God save King David but after this David acknowledged Saul as his Master and King Let Royalists shew us any act of God making David King save this act of the people making him formally King at Hebron and therefore the people as Gods instrument transferred the power and God by them in the same act transferred the power and in the same they chose the person the Royalists affirm these to be different actions affirmanti incumbit probatio 4. This power is the peoples radically naturally as the Bees as some think have a power naturall to choose a King-Bee so hath a communitie a power naturally to defend and protect themselves and God hath revealed in Deut. 17.14 15. the way of regulating the act of choosing Governours and Kings which is a speciall mean of defending and protecting themselves and the people is as principally the subject and fountain of Royall power as a fountain is of water I shall not contend if you call a Fountain Gods Instrument to give water as all creatures are his Instruments 5. For Spalato's comparison he is far out for the people choosing one of ten to be their King have freewill to choose any and are under a Law Deut. 17.14 15. In the manner of their choosing and thought they erre and make a sinfull choice yet the man is King and Gods King whom they make King but if the King command a servant to make A. B. a Knight if the servant make C. D. a Knight I shall not think C. D. is a valid Knight at all and indeed the honour is immediately here from the King because the Kings servant by no innate power maketh the Knight but Nations by a radicall and naturall and innate power maketh this man a King not this man and I conceive the man chosen by the people oweth thanks and gratefull service to the people who rejected others that they had power to choose and made him King 6. The light immediately and formally is light from the Sun and so is the Office of a King immediately instituted of God Deut. 17.14 Whether the institution be naturall or positive it is no matter 2. The man is not King because of Royall indowments though we should say these were immediately from God to which instruction and education may also conferre not a little but he is formally King ratione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in regard of the formall essence of a King not immediately from God as the light is from the Sun but by the mediation of the free consent of the people 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. nor is the people in making a King as the man who onely casteth Wood in the fire the Wood is not made fire formally but by the fire not by the approach of fire to Wood or of Wood to fire for the people do not apply the Royaltie which is immediately in and from God to the person explicate such an application for to me it is a Fiction unconceiveable because the people hath the Royaltie radically in themselves as in the Fountain and Cause and conferreth it on the man who is made King yea the people by making David King confer the Royall power on the King this is so true that Royalists forgetting themselves inculcate frequently in asserting their absolute Monarch from Vlpian but misunderstood that the people have resigned all their power libertie right of life death goods chastitie a potency of rapine homicides unjust wars c. upon a creature called an absolute Prince even saith Grotius as a man may make himself a slave by selling his liberty to a master Now if the people make away this power to the King and this be nothing but the transcendent absolutenesse of a King certainly this power was in the people for how can they give to a King that which they have not themselves As a man cannot make away his liberty to a master by becoming a slave to him if his libertie were immediately in God as Royalists say Soveraigntie is immediately in God and people can exercise no Act about Soveraignty to make it over to one man rather then to another People onely have an after-approbation that this man to whom God hath given it immediately shall have it Furthermore they say people in making a King may make such conditions as in seven cases a King may be dethroned at least resisted saith Hu. Grotius Ergo people may give more or lesse half or whole
limited or absolute Royall power to the Prince but if this power were immediately in God and from God how could the people have the husbanding of it at their need to expend it out in ounce weights or pound weights as they please And that the people may be Taverners of it to sell or give it is taught by Grotius de jur bel pac l. 1. c. 4. Barclai advers Monarch l. 4. c. 6. Arnisae cap. 6. de majest an princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 10. n. se Aventiun Anal. l. 3. Chytreus l. 23. l. 28. Saxon Sleid. lib. 1. in fi yet Arnisaeus is not ashamed to cite Arist. po c. 12. l. 3. That he is not a true and absolute King who ruleth by Laws The point black contrary of which Aristotle saith QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in these Questions of lawfull defensive Wars THe P. Prelate without all ground will have us all Iesuites in this point but if we make good that this Truth was in Scripture before a Iesuite was in the earth he falleth fron his Cause P. Prelate The Begardi saith There was no Government no Law given to the just It fâ—â—reth me this age fancieth to it self some such thing and have learned of Core Dathan c. Ans. This Calumniator in the next words belieth himself when he saith We presuppose that these with whom we are to enter in Lists do willingly grant That Government is not onely lawfull and just but necessary both for Church and Common-wealth then we fancie no such thing as he imputeth to us P. Prelate Some said that the right of Dominion is founded on grace whether the Waldenses and Hus held any such Tenet I cannot now insist to prove or disprove Gerson and others held that there must be a new Title and Right to what men possesse Too many too confidently hold these or the like Answ. 1. That Dominion is founded upon Grace as its essentiall Pillar so as wicked men be no Magistrates because they are in mortall sin was falsly imputed to ancient Protestants the Waldenses Wickcliff and Hus by Papists and this day by Iesuites Suarez Bellarmine Becan The P. Prelate will leave them under this Calumny that he may offend Papists and Iesuites as little as he can but he would lay it on us but if the P. Prelate think that Dominion is not founded on Grace de jure that Rulers should have that spirit that God put on the seventy Elders for their Calling and that they ought not to be men fearing God and hating covetousnesse as Gerson and others did he belieth the Scripture 2. It is no errour of Gerson that beleevers have a spirituall Right to their civill possessions but by Scripture 1 Cor. 4.21 Revel 21.7 P. Prelate The Iesuites are ashamed of the errour of Casuists who hold that directum imperium the direct and primary power Supreme Civill and Ecclesiasticall is in the Pope and therefore they give an indirect directive and coercive power to him over Kings and States in ordine ad spiritualia So may he King and un-King Princes at his pleasure Our Presbyterians if they run not fully this way are very neer to it Answ. The Windy man would seem versed in School-men he should have named some Casuists who hold any like thing 2. The Presbyterians must be Popes because they subject Kings to the Gospel and Christs Scepter in Church Censures and think Christian Kings may be rebuked for blasphemy blood-shed c. Whereas Prelates in ordine ad diabolica murther souls of Kings 2. Prelates do King Princes An P. Arch-Prelate when our King was crowned put the Crown on King Charls Head the Sword and Scepter in his hand anointed him in his hands Crown shoulders arms with sacred Oyl The King must kisse the Archbishop and Bishops is not this to King Princeâ— in ordine ad spiritualia And these that Kingeth may unking and judge what relation the P. Arch-Bishop Spotwood had when he proffered to the King The Oath that the Popish Kings sweareth to maintain the professed Religion not one word of the true Protestant Religion and will carefully root out all Hereticks and enemies that is Protestants as the expone it to the true Worship of God that shall be convicted by the true Church of God of the foresaid crimes And when the Prelates professed they held not their Prelacies of the King but of the Pope indeed Who are then nearest to the Popes power in ordine ad spiritualia 3. How will this black mouthed Calumniator make Presbyterians to dethrone Kings He hath written a Pamphlet of the inconsistency of Monarchie and Presbyterian Government consisting of lies invented Calumnies of his Church in which he was baptized But the truth is all his Arguments prove the inconsistencie of Monarchs and Parliaments and transform any King in a most absolute Tyrant for which Treason he deserveth to suffer as a Traytor P. Prelate Q. 1. c. 1. The Puritan saith That all power Civill is radically and originally seated in the Communitie he here joyneth hands with the Jesuite Answ. In six pages he repeateth the same things 1. Is this such an Heresie that a Colonie casted into America by the Tyranny of P. Prelates have power to choose their own Governours all Israel was Hereticall in this for David could not be their King though designed and anointed by God 1 Sam. 16. till the people 2 Sam. 5. put forth in act this power and made David King in Hebron 2. Let the Prelate make a Syllogisme it is but ex utraque affirmante in secunda figura Logick like the bellies of the Court in which men of their own way is disgraced and cast out of Grace and Court because in this controversie of the King with his two Parliaâ—ents they are like Erasmus in Gods matters who said Lutherum nec accuso nec defendo 1. He is discourted who ever he be who is in shape like a Puritan and not fire and sword against Religion and his Countrey and Oath and Covenant with God and so it is this The Iesuite teacheth that power of Government is in the Communitie originally The Puritan teacheth that power of Government is in the Communitie originally Ergo The Puritan is a Iesuite But so the Puritan is a Iesuite because he and the Iesuite teacheth that there is one God and three persons And if the Prelate like this reasoning we shall make himself and the Prelates and Court-Divines Iesuites upon surer grounds Jesuites teach The Pope is not the Antichrist 2. Christ locally discended to Hell to free some out of that prison 3. It was sin to separate from Babylonish Rome 4. We are justified by works 5. The merit of fasting is not to be condemned 6. The Masse is no idolatry 7. The Church is the judge of controversies 8. All the Arminian points are safer to be beleeved then the contrary yea and
be regarded This is a strong Argument that the Parliaments never made the King supreame Iudge Quoad actus elicitos in all causes nay not if the King have a Cause of his owne that concerneth Lands of the Crowne farre lesse can the King have a will of Prerogative above the Law by our Lawes of Scotland And therefore when in the eighth Parliament King Ia. 6. the Kings Royall Power is established in the first Act the very next act immediatly subjoyned thereunto declareth the authority of the supreame Court of Parliament continued past all memory of man unto this day and constitute of the free voices of the three estates of this ancient Kingdome which in the Parliament 1606. is called The ancient and fundamentall policy of this Kingdome and so fundamentall as if it should be innovate such confusion would ensue as it could no more be a free Monarchy as is exprest in the Parliaments printed Commission 1604. by whom the same under God hath been upholden rebellious and traiterous subjects punished the good and faithfull preserved and maintained and the Lawes and Acts of Parliament by which all men are governed made and established and appointeth the Honour Authority and Dignity of the Estates of Parliament to stand in their owne integrity according to the ancient and laudable custome by past without alteration or diminution and therefore dischargeth any to presume or take in hand To impugne the dignity and the authority of the said Estates or to seeke or procure the innovation or diminution of their power or authority under the paine of Treason and therefore in the next Act they discharge all Iurisdictions or Judicatories albeit appointed by the Kings Majesty as the High Commission was without their Warrant and approbation and that as contrary to the fundamentall Laws above titled 48. Act. Parl. 3. K. Ia. 1. and Act. 79. Parl. 6. King Ia. 4. whereby the Lieges should only be ruled by the Lawes or Acts past in the Parliament of this Kingdome Now what was the ancient Dignity Authority and power of the Parliaments of Scotland which is to stand without diminution that will be easily and best known from the subsequent passages or Historians which can also be very easily verified by the old Registers whensoever they should be produced In the meane time remember that in Parliament and by Act of Parl. K. Ia. 6. for observing the due order of Parliament promiseth never to doe or command any thing which may directly or indirectly prejudge the libertie of free reasoning or voting of Parliament K. Ia. 6. Parl. 11. Act. 40. And withall to evidence the freedome of the Parliament of Scotland from that absolute unlimited Prerogative of the Prince and their libertie to resist his breaking of Covenant with them or Treaties with forraigne Nations Ye shall consider 1. That the Kings of Scotland are obliged before they be inaugurate to sweare and make their faithfull Covenant to the true Kirk of God that they shall maintaine defend and set forward the true Religion confessed and established within this Realme even as they are obliged and astricted by the Law of God aswell in Deuteronomie as in the 11 chap. of the 2. book of the Kings and as they crave obedience of their subjects So that the bond and contract shall be mutuall and reciprocall in all time comming between the Prince and the People according to the Word of God as is fully exprest in the Register of the convention of Estates Iuly 1567. 2. That important Acts and Sentences at home whereof one is printed 112 Act. Parl. 14. K. Ia. 3. and in Treaties with Forraigne Princes the Estates of Parliament did append their severall Seales with the Kings Great Seale which to Grotius Barclaius and Arnisaeus is an undeniable argument of a limited Prince as well as the stile of our Parliament that the Estates with the King ordaine ratifie rescind c. as also they were obliged in case of the Kings breaking these Treaties to resist him therein even by armes and that without any breach of their allegiance or of his Prerogative as is yet extant in the records of our old Treaties with England and France c. But to goe on and leave some high mysteries unto a rejoynder And to the end I may make good that nothing is here taught in this Treatise but the very Doctrine of the Church of Scotland I desire that the Reader may take notice of the larger Confession of the Church of Scotland printed with the Syntagme and body of the Confessions at Geneva anno MDCXII and authorized by King Iames the 6. and the three Estates in Parliament and printed in our Acts of Parliament Parl. 15. K. Iames 6. An. 1567. Amongst good works of the Second Table saith our Confession art 14. are these To honour Father Mother Princes Rulers and superiour Powers To love them to support them yea to obey their Charge not repugning to the commandement of God to save the lives of innocents to represse Tyrannie to defend the oppressed to keep our bodies cleane and holy c. The contrary whereof is To disobey or resist any that God hath placed in Authoritie while they passe not over the bounds of their office to murther or to consent thereunto to beare hatred or to let innocent blood be shed if we may withstand it c. Now the Confession citeth in the margin Ephes. 6.1.7 and Ezek. 22.1 2 3 4 c. where it is evident by the name of Father and Mother all inferiour Iudges as well as the King and especially the Princes Rulers and Lords of Parliament are understood 2. Ezek. 22. The bloody City is to be judged because they releeved not the oppressed out of the hand of bloody Princes v. 6. who every one of them were to their power to shed innocent blood 3. To resist superiour powers and so the Estates of Parliament as the Cavaliers of Scotland doe is resistance forbidden Romans 13.1 the place is also cited in the confession And the Confession exponeth the place Romans 13. according to the interpretation of all sound Expositers as is evident in these words Art 24. And therefore we confesse and avouch that such as resist the supreame power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge doe resist Gods ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltlesse And further we affirme that whosoever denyeth unto them aide their counsell and comfort while as the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their Office that the same men deny their helpe support and counsell to God who by the presence of his Lieutenant craves it of them From which words we have cleare 1. That to resist the King or Parliament is to resist them while as they are doing the thing that appertaineth to their charge and while they vigilantly travell in the execution of their office But while King and Parliament doe acts of Tyranny against Gods Law and all good Lawes of men they doe not the things
that appertaine to their charge and the execution of their Office ergo by our confession to resist them in Tyrannicall acts is not to resist the ordinance of God 2. To resist Princes and Rulers and so inferiour Iudges and to deny them counsell and comfort is to deny helpe counsell and comfort to God Let then Cavaliers and such as refuse to helpe the Princes of the Land against Papists Prelates and Malignants know that they resist Gods ordinance which rebellion they unjustly impute to us 3. Whereas it is added in our Confession that God by the presence of his Lieutenant craveth support and counsell of the people It is not so to be taken as if then only we are to ayde and helpe inferiour Iudges and Parliaments when the King personally requireth it and not other waies 1. Because the King requireth helpe when by his Office he is obliged to require our helpe and counsell against Papists and Malignants though as misled he should command the contrary so if the Law require our helpe the King requireth it ex officio 2. This should expresly contradict our confession if none were obliged to give helpe and counsell to the Parliament and Estates except the King in his own person should require it because Art 14. it is expresly said That to save the lives of innocents or represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed not to suffer innocent blood to be shed or workes pleasing to God which he rewardeth Now we are not to thinke in reason if the King shall be induced by wicked Counsell to doe tyrannicall workes and to raise Papists in Armes against Protestants that God doth by him as by his Lieutenant require our helpe comfort and counsell in assisting the King in acts of Tyranny and in oppression and in shedding innocent blood yea our confession tyeth us to deny helpe and comfort to the King in these wicked acts and therefore our helpe must be in the things that pertaineth to his Royall Office and duty only otherwise we are to represse all tyranny art 14. 4 To save the lives of innocents to represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed are by our confession good workes well pleasing to God and so is this a good worke not to suffer innocent blood to be shed if we may withstand it Hence it is cleare as the Sunne that our confession according to the Word of God to which King Charles did sweare at his Coronation doth oblige and tye us in the presence of God and his holy Angels to rise in Armes to save the innocent to represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed When the King induced by ill counsell sent Armies by Sea and Land to kill and destroy the whole Kingdome who should refuse such a Service-booke as they could not in conscience receive except they would disobey God renounce the confession of Faith which the King and they had sworne unto and prove perfidious Apostates to Christ and his Church what could we doe and that the same Confession considering our bonds to our deare Brethren in England layeth bonds on us to this as a good worke also not to suffer their innocent blood to be shed but to defend them when they against all Law of God of men to State of Nations are destroyed and killed For my part I judge it had been a guiltinesse of blood upon Scotland if we had not helped them and risen in Armes to defend our selves and our innocent brethren against bloody Cavaliers Adde to this what is in the 24. Article of the same Confession We confesse whosoever goeth about to take away or to confound the whole state of Civill Polity now long established we affirme the same men not only to be enemies to mankind but also wickedly to fight against Gods Will. But these who have taken Armes against the Estates of Scotland and the Princes and Rulers of the Land have laboured to take away Parliaments and the fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdome ergo c. The Confession addeth 16. We farther confesse and acknowledge that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved honoured feared and holden in most reverent estimation because that they are Lieutenants of God in whose Sessions God himselfe doth sit and Iudge yea even the Iudges and Princes themselves to whom by God is given the sword to the praise and defence of good men and to revenge and punish all open malefactors Ergo the Parliament and Princes and Rulers of the Land are Gods Lieutenants on earth no lesse then the King by our Confession of Faith and those who resist them resist the ordinance of God Royalists say They are but the Deputies of the King and when they doe contrary to his Royall Will they may be resisted yea and killed for in so farre they are private men though they are to be honoured as Iudges when they act according to the Kings Will whose Deputies they are But I answer 1. It is a wonder that inferiour Judges should be formally Iudges in so far as they act conforme to the will of a mortall King and not in so far as they act conforme to the will of the King of Kings seeing the judgement they execute is the King of Kings and not the Iudgement of a mortall King 2 Chro. 19.6 2. Royalists cannot indure the former distinction as it is applyed to the King but they receive it with both hands as it is applyed to inferiour Iudges and yet certaine it is that it is as ordinary for a King being a sinfull man to act sometimes as the Lieutenant of God and sometimes as an erring and misinformed man no lesse then the inferiour Iudge acteth sometimes according to the Kings will and Law and sometimes according to his owne private way and if we are to obey the inferiour Iudge as the Deputy of the King what shall become of his Person when Cavaliers may kill him at some Edge-hill for so they mock this distinction as applyed to the King in regard of his Person and of his Royall Office and for this point our Confession citeth in the Margin Rom. 13.7 1 Pet. 2.17 Psal. 82.1 which places doe clearely prove 1. That inferiour Magistrates are 1. Gods ordinances 2. Gods on earth Psal. 82. 3. Such as beare the Lords sword 4. That they are not only as the Confession saith appointed for Civill policie but also for maintenance of true Religion and for suppressing of idolatrie and superstition Then it is evident to resist inferior Magistrates is to resist God himselfe and to labour to throw the sword out of Gods hands 5 Our Confession useth the same Scriptures cited by Junius Brutus to wit Ezek. 22.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. and Ier. 22.3 where we are no lesse then the Iewes commanded to execute judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoyled out of the hands of the oppressour For both the Law of God and the Civill Law saith Qui non impedit homicidium quum potest is homicidii reus est I will
absolute power is essentially a power to do without or above Law and a power to doe ill to destroy and so it cannot come from God as a Morall power by institution though it come from God by a flux of permissive providence but so things unlawfull and sinfull come from God Quest. 7. Whether the King may in his actions intend his owne Prerogative and Absolutenes Answ. He can neither intend it as his nearest end nor as his remote end Not the former for if he fight and destroy his People for a Prerogative he destroyeth his People that he may have a power to destroy them which must be meere Tyranny nor can it be his remote end for granting that his supposed absolute Prerogative were lawfull he is to referre all lawfull Power and all his actions to a more noble end to wit to the safetie and good of the People Quest. 8. Doe not they that resist the Parliaments power resist the Parliament And they that resist the Kings power resist the King God hath joyned King and Power who dare seperate them Answ. If the Parliament abuse their power we may resist their abused power and not their power Parliamentarie Mr. Bridges doth well distinguish in his Annot. on the Loyall Convert betwixt the Kings power and the Kings will 2. The Resisters doe not separate King and Power but the King himselfe doth separate his lawfull Power from his Will if he worke and act Tyrannie out of this principle Will Passion Lust not out of the Royall principle of Kingly power So far we may resist the one and not the other Quest. 9. Why if God might work a miracle in the three Childrens resistance active why doth he evidence omnipotencie in the passive obedience of these Witnesses The Kingdome of Iudah was Christs birthright as man and Davids sonne why did he not by legions of Men Angels rather vindicate his own flesh and blood than triumph by non-resistance and the omnipotencie of glorie to shine in his meere suffering Ans. Who art thou that disputest with God He that killeth with the jaw-bone of an Asse thousands and he that destroyed the numberlesse Midianites by only three hundred should no more put the three Children to an unlawfull fact in the one if they had by three men killed Nebuchadnezzar and all his Subjects than in the other But nothing is said against us in a Sophisme à non-causa pro causa except it be proved God would neither deliver his three Children nor Christ from death and the Iewes from bondage by miraculous resistance because resistance is unlawfull What patient suffring is lawfull Ergo resistance is unlawfull It is a poor consequent and a begging of the question both must be lawfull to us And so we hold of ten lawfull meanes fit to compasse Gods blessed end he may choose one and let goe nine shall any inferre ergo These other nine meanes are unlawfull because God chose a mean dâ—fferent from those ninâ— and refused them So may I answer by retortion The three hundred sinned in resisting Midian and defeating them Why Because it should be more honour to God if they had by suffering patiently the sword of Midian glorified God in Martyrdome So Christ and the Apostles who could have wrought miracles might have wrought Reformation by the sword and destroyed Kings and Emperors the opposers of the Lambe and they did reforme by suffering Ergo the sword is unlawfull in Reformation It followeth not The meane Christ used is lawfull Ergo all other meanes that he used not are unlawfull It is vaine Logick Quest. 10. Whether is the Coronation of a King any other thing but a Ceremonie Ans. In the Coronation there is and may be the Ceremonie of a shout and an Acclamation and the reaching of a Scepter in his right hand who is made King and the like But the Coronation in concreto according to the substance of the act is no Ceremonie nor any accidentall ingredient in the constitution of a King 1. Because Israel should have performed a meere ceremoniall action on Saul when they made him King which we cannot say for as the Peoples act of Coronation is distinctive so is it constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and did constitute him in a new relation that he was changed from no King to be a King 2. The people cannot by a Ceremonie make a King they must really put some honour on him that was not on him before Now this Ceremonie which Royalists doe fancie Coronation to be is only symbolicall and declarative not really dative it placeth nothing in the King Quest. 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King it being the immediate result without intervening of Law or any act of man issuing from God only Ans. Though we should give which in reason we cannot grant that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God without any act of man Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle without any act of men yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power that he abuse it not to Iudaizing Royalists deny not but they teach That the 80. Priests that restrained Vzziah his power from burning incense to the Lord gave no Royall power to Vzziah Doe not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power that he kill not the subjects without cause yet they teach That subjects gave no power to the King certainly this is a proofe of the immense power of the King of Kings that none can fly from his pursuing hand Ps. 139.1 2 3. Amos 9.1 2 3 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings Nebuchadnezzar as Royalists teach might justly conquer some Kingdomes for conquest is a just title to the Crowne say they now the Conquerour then justly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him yet we know the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King Ioshua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave and therefore this is no good reason The people gave not to the King Royall Power ergo they could not lawfully limit it and take it away 2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly without the intervention of any Act of Law for it is an Act of Law that Deut. 17. the people chooseth such a King not such a King that the people by a legall covenant make Saul David and Joash Kings and that God exerciseth any politicall action of making a King over such subjects upon such a condition is absurd and inconceivable for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jsrael upon this politicall and legall condition that they rule in Iustice and Judgement but there must intervene a politicall action and so they are not made Kings immediatly If God feed Moses by bread and Manna
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 King by this reason they cannot 3. The King in all respects is not a Tutor every comparison in something beareth a Leg for the Common-wealth in their owne persons doe choose a King 2. Complaine of a King 3. Resist an Vzziah 4. Tye their elective Prince to a Law a Pupill cannot choose his Tutor either his dying Father or the living Law doth that service for him he cannot resist his Tutor he cannot tye his Tutor to a Law nor limit him when first he chooseth him Pupillo non licet postulare Tutorem suspecti quamdiu sub tutela est manet impubes l. Pietatis 6. in fin C. de susp Tutor l. impuberem 7. § Impuberes Iust. eod Quest. 13. Whether or no are subjects more obnoxious to a King then Clients to Patrons and servants to Masters because the Patron cannot be the Clients Judge but some superiour Magistrate must judge both and the slave had no refuge against his Master but only flight And the King doth conferre infinite greater benefits on the subjects then the Master doth on the slave because he exposeth his life pleasure ease credit and all for the safety of his subjects Ans. It s denyed for to draw the case to Fathers and Lords in respect of Children and Vassals the reason why Sons Clients Vassals can neither formally judge nor judicially punish Fathers Patrons Lords and Masters though never so Tyrannous is a Morall impotency or a politicall incongruity because these relations of Patron and Client Fathers and Children are supposed to be in a Community in which are Rulers and Iudges above the Father and Sonne the Patron and the Client but there is no Physicall incongruity that the politique inferiour punish the superiour if we suppone there were no Iudges on the earth and no relation but Patron and Client and because for the father to destroy the children is a troubling of the harmony of Nature and the highest degree of violence therefore one violence of selfe defence and that most jâ—st though contrary to nature must be a remedy against another violence but in a Kingdome there is no politicall Ruler above both King and People and therefore though Nature have not formally appointed the politicall relation of a King rather then many Governours and subjects yet hath Nature appointed a Court and Tribunall of necessity in which the people may by innocent violence represse the unjust violence of an injuring Prince so as the people injured in the matter of selfe defence may be their owne Iudge 2. I wonder that any should teach That oppressed slaves had of old no refuge against the tyranny of Masters but only flight for 1. The Law expresly saith That they might not only fly but also change Masters which we all know was a great dammage to the Master to whom the servant was as good as mony in his purse 2. I have demonstrated before by the Law of Nature and out of divers learned Iurists that all inferiours may defend themselves by opposing violence against unjust violence to say nothing that unanswerably I have proved that the Kingdome is superiour to the King 3. It is true Qui plus dat plus obligat as the Scripture saith Luke 7. He that giveth a greater benefit layeth a foundation of a greater obligation But 1. If benefit be compared with benefit it is disputable if a King give a greater benefit then an earthly father to whom under God the sonne is debtor for life and being if we regard the compensation of eminency of honour and riches that the People puteth upon the King but I utterly deny that a power to act Tyrannous acts is any benefit or obligation that the People in reason can lay upon their Prince as a compensation or hire for his great paines he taketh in his Royall Watch-Tower I Iudge it no benefit but a great hurt dammage and an ill of nature both to King and people that the people should give to their Prince any power to destroy themselves and therefore that people doth reverence and honour the Prince most who lay strongest chaines and Iron fetters on him that he cannot tyrannize Quest. 14. But are not Subjects more subject to their Prince seeing the subjection is naturall as we see Bees and Cranes to obey him then servants to their Lord. C. in Apib. 7.9.1 ex Hiero. 4. ad Rustic Monarch Plin. n. 17. For Jurists teach that servitude is beside or against nature l. 5. de stat homi § 2. just jur pers c. 3. § sicut Nov. 89. quib med nat eff sui Ans. There is no question in active subjection to Princes and Fathers commanding in the Lord we shall grant as high a measure as you desire But the question is if either active subjection to ill and unjust mandates or passive subjection to penall inflictions of Tyrannie and abused power be naturall or most naturall or if Subjects doe renounce naturall subjection to their Prince when they oppose violence to unjust violence This is to beg the question And for the Commonwealth of Bees and Cranes and Crown and Scepter amongst them Give me leave to doubt of it To be subject to Kings is a Divine morall Law of God but not properly naturall to be subject to coaction of the Sword Government and subjection to Parents is naturall But that a King is juris
84. (a) Covarr to 4 pract quest c. 1. â— 2. Government how both naturall and also voluntary There is a subordination of creatures naturall and government must be naturall and yet this or that forme iâ— voluntary Edward Symmons in his loyall subjects beleefe sect 3. p. 16. Royaltie not transmittable from father to sonne Vpon what tearme a people chooseth a Familie to reigne over them by succession The Throne by speciall promises of God made to David and his seed Ps. 89. no ground to make birth in foro dei a iust title to the Crowne 3 Arg. M. Symmons Loyall Subjects beliefe Sect. 3. p. 16. Title to a Crown by conquest must be unlawfull if truth be Gods just Title to a Crowne Royalists who hold conquests a iust title to the Crowne teach manifest treason against our Soveraigne King Charles and his Heires 4. Arg. Onely bona fortunae not honour is transmittable from father to son Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people to submit to a conquerour as their lawfull King Naked birth is inferiour to the divine unction which yet made no man a King without the peoples election Symmons loyall Subiects beleef Sect. 3. p. 16. Birth a typical designment to the crown If a Kingdom were by birth the King might sell it Symons sect 3. pag. 7. Joan. Episcâ— Roffens de potest Papae l. 2. c. 5. Arnisaeuâ— de authorit princip c. 1. n. 13. The heir of a Crown hath the Crown as the patrimony of the Kingdom not of the King his father The choice of a family to the Crown resolveth upon the free election of the people as on the fountain-cause 6. Argum. Sect. 4. p. 39. Election of a family to the Crown lawfull Speed Hist. pag. 757. A King by elâ—ction commâ—th neerer to the first King thâ—â— a Kâ—ng by sucâ—â—ssiâ—n D. Fern part 3. sect 3 p. 14. If the people may limit the King they may give him power A community have not power formally to punish themselves Barclay cont Monarcham c. 2. p. 56. The elective King and the hereditary King better and worse every one then another in divers relations Sac. sanc Reg. Maiest c. 17. p. 158. Letter p. 7. Twofold right of conquest Sect. 7. p. 30. Vniust conquest is no signification of Gods approving Will. 1 Arg. 2 Arg. Meere violent domineering is contrary to the rules of governing 3 Arg. Violence hath nothing in it of a King 4 Arg. 5 Arg. A King given to a people by a bloody Conquest must be a judgement not a blessing and so not per se a King 6 Arg. Strength as prevailing strength is not law or reason Fathers cannot dispose of the liberty of the posteritie not borne A father as a father hath not power of life and death Hugo Gootius de â—ute belli pacis l. 2. c. 4. n. 10. 7 Arg. Part 3. Sect. 3. pag. 20. Arnisaeus de authoritat Princip c. 1. n. 12. The peoples and Davids conquest of Canaanites Amonites and Edomites do not prove conquest to be a good title to a Crown Davids conquest of the Ammonites more rigorous then that it can legitimate Crowns by conquest 2 Sam. 12.30.31 7. sorts of superioritie and inferioritie Power of life and death from a positive law not from the superioritie oâ— father children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A dominion antecedent and consequent Kings and subjects no naturall order Buchan de juâ— Regni apud Scoâ—tos A man is borâ— consequenter iâ— a poltique reâ—lation Slavery not naturall Every man by nature free borne in regard of civill subjection 1 Arg. 2 Arg. 3 Arg. 4 Arg. 5 Arg. 6 Arg. Politque societie naturall in radice free in modo rei 7 Arg. Sac. sanct Râ—g ma. c. 12. p. 12â— P. Prelate Politick Government how naturall P. Prelate Sac. sanct Mai. p. â—26 Inslaving of children by the parents not naturall The King under a naturall but no civil obligation to the people say Royalists If the condition without the which one of the parties would never have entered in covenant be not performed that person is loosed from the covenant Arnis de anthorit prin c. 1 n. 6 7. The people Princes in their place are obliged to maintain Religion and Iustice no lesse then the King In so far as the King presseth a false Religion on the people catenus in so far they are understood not to have a Kingly power The covenant between King and People giveth a coactive power to each other The covenant bindeth the King as King not as he is a man only The covenant tyeth the King to the People politically as well as to God naturally or religiously 2 Arg. How the covenant is conditionall and what breach dissolveth the covenant One or two tyrannous acts deprive not a King of his Royall right The covenant between King and people conditionall Though there be no positive written covecant which yet we grant not yet there is a naturall tacite and implicite covenant betwixt the King and the people If the King be made King absolutely he is made such an one contrary to the word of God and nature of his office The people are not given to the Kings keeping so as they be his owne as sheep or mony are given The King could not buy or sell borrow or contract debt if his covenant with men did not bind him The covenant sworn by Asa and all Iudah 2 Chron. 15. obligeth the King Barclay Alber. Gentilis in disput Regal l. 2. c. 12. l. â—3 c. 14â— 15.116 Hug. Grotius de jure belli poc l. 2. c. 11 12 13. Arnisaeus do authorit princip c. 1. n. 7.8.10 Haenon disp 2. Ioan. Roffens de potest pape l. 2. c. 5. Adam suppose he had lived till now should not have bin King of the whole earth because a father King a father Metaphorically only A fatherly power and a politike power are not one and the fame D. Ferne par 1. sect 3. pag. 8. Sacr. sanct Reg. Maiest c. 7. pag. 87. Arnisaeus de potest princip c. 3. n. 1.2 See Aristotle saith the Prolate Eth. 8.10 pol. 1. c. Homer Odys 1. he might have said see Arnisaeus loc tit The King as King hath no masterly domion over the people but only fiduciarie To be a King is by office and actu primo to defend save feed and not to hurt or inthral A King not over men as reasonable men Prelate Sacr. sanct maj c. 16· p. 15. Hugo Grotius hath the same de jur bel pacis l. 1. c. 3. A compelled surrender of liberty tyeth not A surrender of ignorance and mistake is some way unvoluntary and obligeth not The Goods of the Subjects not the Kings * Quod jure gentium dicitur F. de justitia jure l. ex hâ—e Quod partim jure civili Iusti de rerum divisio sect singulorum * L. item si verberatum F. de rei vindicat Ias. plene m. l. Barbarius F. de offici
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 predecessor 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 2 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. â— 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 indeleble 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 Barclay 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 nâ—ver 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 â—â—trimony 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 â—hence 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 divinâ— by the tie of a divine Law to a Monarchy rather then to another Government The Parisian Doctors prove That the precept of having a Pope is affirmative and so tyeth not the Church ad semper for ever and so the Church is the body of Christ without the Pope and all oaths to things of their nature indifferent and to things the contrary whereof is lawfull and may be expedient and necessary lay on a tie onely conditionally in so far as they conduce to the end If the Gibeonites had risen in Joshuaes dayes to cut off the people of God I think no wise man can think that Joshua and the people were tyed by the oath of God not to cut off the Gibeonites in that case For to preserve them alive as enemies was against the intent of the oath which was to preserve them alive as friends demanding and supplicating peace and submitting The assumption is clear If a Nation seeth that Aristocraticall Government is better then Monarchy hic nunc That the sequels of such a Monarchy is bloody destructive tyrannous that the Monarchy compelleth the free subjects to Turcisme to grosse Idolatry they cannot by the divine bond of any oath captive their naturall freedom which is to choose a Government and Governours for their safetie for a peaceable and godly life or fetter and chain the wisdom of the posterity unalterably to a Government or a Royall Line which hic nunc contrary to the intention of their oath proveth destructive and bloody And in this case even the