naturae strictim I must crave leave to doubt I hold him to be a Divine morall Ordinance to which in conscience we are to submit in the Lord. Quest. 15. Whether was King Uzzah dethroned by the People Ans. Though we should say he was not formally unkinged and dethroned yet if the Royall power consist in an indivisible point as some Royalists say and if Vzzah was removed to a private house and could not reigne being a Leper Certainly much Royall power was taken from him 'T is true Arnisaeus saith he neither could be compelled to resigne his power nor was he compelled to resigne his Royall authoritie but he willingly resigned actuall government and remained King as Tutors and Curators are put upon Kings that are mad stupid and Children who yet governe all by the authoritie of lawfull Kings But that Vzzah did not denude himselfe of the Royall power voluntarily is cleare The reason 2 Chro. 26.21 why he dwelt in an house apart and did not actually reigne is because he was a Leper for He was cut off saith the Text from the house of the Lord and Jotham his sonne was over the Kings house judging the people of the Land Whereby it is cleare by the expresse law of God he being a Leper and so not by Law to enter into the Congregation he was cut off from the house of the Lord and he being a patient is said to be cut off from the Lords house Whether then Vzzah turned necessitie to a vertue I know not It is evident that Gods Law removed the actuall exercise of his power If we obteine this which Gods Word doth give us we have enough for our purpose though Vzzah kept the naked title of a King as indeed he tooke but up roome in the Catalogue of Kings Now if by Law he was cut off from actuall governing Whether he was willing or not willing to denude himselfe of Reigning it is all one And to say that furious men ideots stupid men and Children who must doe all Royall acts by Curators and Tutors are Kings jure with correction is petitio principii for then hath God infused immediately from heaven as Royalists teach us a Royall power to governe a Kingdome on those who are as capable of Royaltie as blocks I conceive that the Lord Deut. 17.14 15 16 17. commandeth the people to make no blocks Kings and that the Lord hath not done that himselfe in a binding Law to us which we have no commandement from him to doe I conceive that God made Josiah and Joash Kings typicall and in destination for his promise sake to David while they were Children as well as he made them Kings but not actu completo ratione officii to be a rule to us now to make a Childe of sixe yeares of age a King by office I conceive Children are to us only Kings in destination and appointment And for Idiots and Fooles I shall not believe let Royalists breake their faith upon so rocky and stony a point at their pleasure that God hath made them Governors of others by Royall office who can scarce number their own fingers Or that God tyeth a people to acknowledge stupid blocks for Royall Governours of a Kingdome who cannot governe themselves But far be it from me to argue with Bellarmine From Vzziah his bodily leprosie to inferre that any Prince spiritually Leprous and turned Hereticall is presently to be dethroned Nothing can dethrone a King but such Tyrannie as is inconsistent with his Royall office Nor durst I inferre that Kings now adayes may be removed from actuall Government for one single transgression It is true 80 Priests and the whole Kingdome so serving King Vzzah their motives I know were Divine proveth well that the Subjects may punish the transgression of Gods expresse law in the King in some cases even to remove him from the Throne but as from Gods commanding to stone the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day we cannot inferre that Sabbath-breakers are now to be punished with death yet we may well argue Sabbath-breakers may be punished and Sabbath-breakers are not unpunishable and above all Law So may we argue here Vzzah though a King was punished Ergo Kings are punishable by Subjects Quest. 16. Whether or no as the deniall of active obedience in things unlawfull is not dishonourable to the King as King he being obliged to command in the Lord only so the deniall of passive subjection to the King using unjust violence be also no dishonouring of the King Ans. As the King is under Gods Law both in commanding or in exacting active obedience so is he under the same regulating Law of God in punishing or demanding of us passive subjection and as he may not command what he will but what the King of Kings warranteth him to command so may he not punish as he will but by warrant also of the supreame Iudge of all the earth and therefore it is not dishonourable to the Majesty of the Ruler that we deny passive subjection to him when he punisheth beside his warrant more then its against his Majesty and honour that we deny active obedience when he commandeth illegally else I see not how it is lawfull to fly from a tyrannous King as Elias Christ and other of the witnesses of our Lord have done and therefore what Royalists say here is a great untruth namely Thaâ— in things lawfull we must be subject actively in things unlawfull passively For as we are in things lawfull to be subject actively so there is no duty in point of conscience laying on us to be subject passively because I may lawfully fly and so lawfully deny passive subjection to the Kings will punishing unjustly Quest. 17. Whether may the Prince make away any part of his Dominions as an Iland or a Kingdome for the safety of the whole kingdomes he hath as if goods be like to sinke an over-burthened Ship the Sea-men cast away a part of the Goods in the Sea to save the lives of the whole Passengers and if three thousand Passengers being in one Ship and the Ship in a storme like to be loosed it would seeme that a thousand may be cast over-board to save the lives of the whole Passengers Ans. The Kingdome being not the Kings proper Heritage it would seeme he cannoâ— make away any part of his Kingdome to save the whole without the expresse consent of that part though they be made away to save the whole In things of this kind men are not as the commodities of Merchants nor is the case alike as when one thousand of three thousand are to be cast into the Sea to save all the rest and that either by common consent or by Lots or some other way for it is one thing when destruction is evidently inevitable as in the casting so many men into the Sea to save the whole and many Passengers and when a King for peace or for help from another
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
inviolable above all lawes as are Kings Is this an extolling of Kings 2. But where are Kings persons as men said to be of God as the Royaltie in abstracto iâ— The Prelate seeth beside his booke Psal. â—2 7 But ye shall die as men P. Prelate We begin with the Law in which as God by himself prescribed the essentialls substantialls ceremonies of his pietie worship gave order for justice pietie Deut. 17.14.15 the King is here originally immediately from God and independent from all others set over them Them is collective that is all every one Scripture knoweth not this State principle Rex est singulis major universis minor The person is expressed in concreto Whom the Lord thy God shall choose This peremptorie precept dischargeth the people all and every one diffusively representatively or in any imaginable capacity to attempt the appointing of a King but to leave it entirely and totally to God Almighty Answ. Begin with the Law but end not with Traditions If God by himselfe prescribed the essentialls of pietie and worship the other part of your distinction is that God not by himself but by his Prelates appointed the whole Romish Rites as accidentalls of pietie This is the Iesuites doctrine 2. This place is so far from proving the King to be independent and that it totally is Gods to appoint a King that it expresly giveth the people power to appoint a King for the setting of a King over themselves such a one and not such a one makes the people to appoint the King and the King to be lesse and dependent on the people seeing God intendeth the King for the peoples good and not the people for the Kings good This text shameth the Prelate who also confessed P. 22. That remotely and unproperly succession election and conquest maketh the King and so its lawfull for men remotely and improperly to invade Gods chaire P. Prelate Jesuites and Puritans say it was a priviledge of the Jews that God chose their King So Suarez Soto Navarra Answ. 1. The Jesuites are the Prelates brethren they are under one Banner we are in contrary Camps to Iesuites 2. The Prelate said himself Pag. 19. Moses Saul and David were by extraordinary revelation from God sure I am Kings are not so now The Jews had this priviledge that no nation had 1. God named some Kings to them as Saul David he doth not so now 2. God did tie Royaltie to Davids house by a Covenant till Christ should come he doth not so now Yet we stand to Deut. 17. P. Prelate Prov. 8.15 By me Kings reign If the people had right to constitute a King it had not been King Solomon but King Adonijah Solomon saith not of himself but indefinitely By me as by the Author efficient and constituent Kings reign Per is by Christ not by the people not by the high Priest State or Presbytery not Per me iratum by me in my anger as some Sectaries say Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Ordinance by high Authoritie not revocable So Sinesius useth the word Aristotle Lucilius Appian Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in me and by me as Doctor Andrews Kings indefinitely all Kings none may distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not they reign in concreto that same power that maketh Kings must unmake them Ans. 1. The Prelate cannot restrict this to Kings only it extendeth to Parliaments also Solomon addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Consules 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Sirs and Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Magnificents and Nobles and more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all the Iudges of the earth they reign rule and decree jâ—stice by Christ. Here then Majors Sheriffs Provosts Constables are by the Prelate extolled as persons sacred irresistible Then 1. the Iudges of England rule not by the King of Britain as their Author efficient constituent but by Iesus Christ immediately nor doth the Commissary rule by the Prelate 2. All these and their power and persons rule independently and immediately by Iesus Christ. 3. All inferiour Iudges are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinances of God not revocable Ergo The King cannot deprive any Iudge under him he cannot declare the Parliament no Parliament once a Iudge and alwayes and irrevocably a judge This Prelates poor pleading for Kings deserves no wages Lavater intelligit superiores inferiores Magistratus non est potestas nisi a deo Vatablus consiliarios 2. If the people had absolute right to choose Kings by the Law of Israel they might have chosen another then either Adonijah or Solomon but the Lord expressely Deut. 17.14 put an expresse Law on them that they should make no King but him whom the Lord should chuse Now the Lord did either by his immediately inspired Prophet anoint the man as he anointed David Saul Iehu c. or then he restricted by a revealed promise the Royall power to a family and to the eldest by birth and therefore the Lord first chose the man and then the people made him King birth was not their rule as is clear in that they made Solomon their King not Adonijah the elder and this proveth that God did both ordain Kingly Government to the Kingdom of Israel and chose the man either in his person or tied it to the first born of the Line Now we have no Scripture nor Law of God to tie Royall dignitie to one man or to one family produce a warrant for it in the Word for that must be a priviledge of the Iews for which we have no Word of God but we have no immediately inspired Samuels to say Make David or this man King and no Word of God to say Let the first born of this family rather then another family sit upon the throne Therefore the people must make such a man King following the rule of Gods Word Deut. 17.14 and other rules shewing what sort of men Iudges must be as Deut. 1.16 17 18. 2 Chro. 19.6 7. 3. It is true Kings in a speciall manner reign by Christ. Ergo Not by the peoples free election The P. Prelate argueth like himself By this Text a Major of a Citie by the Lord decreeth justice Ergo He is not made a Major of the Citie by the people of the Citie It followeth not 4. None of us teach that Kings reign by Gods anger We judge a King a great mercy of God to Church or State But the Text saith not By the Lord Kings and Iudges do not onely reign and decree justice but also murther Protestants by raising against them an Army of Papists And the word 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers doth in no Greek Author signifie irrevocable powers for Vzziah was a lawfull King and yet 2 Chron. 26. lawfully put from the throne and cut off from the house of the Lord And Interpreters on this place deny that the place is to be understood of Tyrants so the Chaldee Paraphrase turns it well
King by vertue of his covenant How can he faile against an obligation where there is no obligation but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people and indeed so doe our good men expound that Psal. 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned not against Vriah for if he sinned not as King against Vriah whose life he was obliged to conserve as a King he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conserve his life Where there is no sin there is no obligation not to sin and where there is no obligation not to sin there is no sin By this the King as King is loosed from all duties of the second Table being once made a King he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himselfe for he is above all his neighbours and above all mankind and only lesse then God 4. Arg. If the people be so given to the King that they are committed to him as a pledge oppignorated in his hand as a pupill to a Tutor as a distressed man to a Patron as a flocke to a Shepheard and so as they remaine the Lords Church his people his flocke his portion his inheritance his vineyard his redeemed ones then they cannot be given to the King as Oxen and Sheepe that are freely gifted to a man or as a gift or summe of gold or silver that the man to whom they are given may use so that he cannot commit a fault against the oxen sheepe gold or mony that is given to him how ever he shall dispose of them But the people are given to the King to be tutored and protected of him so as they remaine the people of God and in covenant with him and if the people were the goods of fortune as Heathens say he could no more sinne against the people then a man can sin against his gold now though a man by adoring gold or by lavish profusion and wasting of gold may sin against God yet not against gold nor can he be in any covenant with gold or under any obligation of either duty or sin to gold or to livelesse and reasonlesse creatures properly therefore he may sin in the use of them and yet not sin against them but against God Hence of necessity the King must be under obligation to the Lords people in another manner then that he should only answer to God for the losse of men as if men were worldly goods under his hand and as if being a King he were now by this Royall Authority priviledged from the best halfe of the law of nature to wit from acts of mercy and truth and covenant keeping with his brethren 5. Arg. If a King because a King were priviledged from all covenant obligation to his subjects then could no Law of men lawfully reach him for any contract violated by him then he could not be a debtor to his subjects if he borrowed mony from them and it were utterly unlawfull either to crave him mony or to sue him at Law for debts yet our Civill Lawes of Scotland tyeth the King to pay his debts as any other man yea and King Solomons traffiquing and buying and selling betwixt him and his owne subjects would seeme unlawfull for how can a King buy and sell with his subjects if he be under no covenant obligation to men but to God only Yea then a King could not marry a wife for he could not come under a covenant to keepe his body to her only nor if he committed adultery could he sin against his wife because being immediate unto God and above all obligation to men he could sin against no covenant made with men but only against God 6. If that was a lawfull covenant made by Asa and the States of Iudah 2 Chron. 15.13 That whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of their fathers should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman this obligeth the King for ought I see and the Princes and the people but it was a lawfull covenant ergo the King is under a covenant to the Princes and Iudges as they are to him it is replyed If a Master of a Schoole should make a law whoever shall goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty obtained of the Master shall be whipped it will not oblige the Schoole-master that he shall be whipped if he goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty so neither doth this Law oblige the King the supreame Law-giver Ans. Suppose that the Schollars have no lesse hand and authority magisteriall in making the law then the Schoole-master as the Princes of Iudah had a collaterall power with King Asa about that law it would follow that the Schoole-master is under the same law 2. Suppose going out at Schoole doores were that way a morall neglect of studying in the Master as it is in the Scholars as the not seeking of God is as hainous a sinne in King Asa and no lesse deserving death then it is in the people then should the Law oblige Schoolmaster and Scholler both without exception 3. The Schoolemaster iâ— clearely above all lawes of discipline which he imposeth on his Scholars but none can say that King Asa was clearely above that law of seeking of the Lord God of his fathers Diodorus Siculus l. 17. saith the Kings of Persia were under an oath and that they might not change the Lawes and so were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia The Kings of Sparta which Aristotle calleth just Kings renew their oath every moneth Romulus so covenanted with the Senate and People Carolus V. Austriacus sweareth he shall not change the Lawes without the consent of the Electors nor make new lawes nor dispose or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire So read we Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped l. 8. saith there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Persians The nobles are crowned when they crown their King and exact a speciall Oath of the King So doth England Polonia Spaine Arragonia c. Alberi Gentilis Hug. Grotius prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people but notwithstanding there be such a covenant it followeth not from this saith Arnisaeus that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically the people shall be free and the contract or covenant nothing Ans. The covenant may be materially broken while the King remaineth King and the subjects remaine subjects but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken the people must be free from their Allegiance but of this more hereafter Arg. 7. If a Master bind himselfe by an Oath to his servant he shall not receive such a benefit of such a point of service if he violate the Oath his Oath must give his servant Law and right both to challenge his Master and he is freed from that point of service an Army appointeth such a one their Leader
superioritie in Rulers is not primely and only for the Subjects good for some are by God and Nature appointed for the mutuall and inseperable good of the superiour and inferiour as in the government of husband and wife or father and sonne and in herili dominio in the government of a Lord and his servant the good and benefit of the servant is but secondary and consecutively intended it is not the principall end but the externall and adventitious as the gaine that commeth to a Physitian is not the proper and internall end of his art but followeth only from his practice of Medicine Ans. The Prelates logick tendeth to this some government tendeth to the mutuall good of the superior and inferior but Royall Government is some government ergo nothing followeth from a major proposition Ex particulari affirmante in prima figura Or of two particular propositions 2. If it be thus formed every maritall government and every government of the Lord and servant is for the mutuall good of the superiour and inferiour But Royall Government is such ergo c. the assumption is false and cannot be proved as I shall anon cleare 2. Obj. Solomon disposed of Cabul and gave it to Hiram ergo a conquered Kingdome is for the good of the conquerour especially Ans. Solomons speciall giving away some Titles to the King of Tyre being a speciall fact of a Prophet as well as a King cannot warrant the King of England to sell England to a forraine Prince because William made England his owne by conquest which also is a most false supposition and this he stole from Hugo Grotius who condemneth selling of Kingdomes 3 Object A man may render himselfe totally under the power of a Master without any conditions and why may not the body of a people doe the like even to have peace and safety surrender themselves fully to the power of a King A lord of great Mannours may admit no man to live in his Lands but upon a condition of a full surrender of him and his posterity to that lord Tacitus sheweth us it was so anciently amongst the Germans and the Campanians surrendered themselves fully to the Romans Answ. What compelled people may do to redeem their lives with losse of liberty is nothing to the point such a violent Conquerour who will be a father and a husband to a people against their will is not their lawfull King and that they may sell the liberty of their posteritie not yet born is utterly denied as unlawfull yea a violentated father to me is a father and not a father and the posteritie may vindicate their own liberty given away unjustly before they were born Qua omne regnum vi partum potest vi dissolvi Object 4. But saith Doct. Fern these which are ours and given away to another in which there redoundeth to God by donation a speciall interest as in things devoted to holy uses though after they be abused yet we cannot recall them Ergo If the people be once forced to give away their liberty they cannot recall it far lesse if they willingly resign it to their Prince Answ. This is not true when the power is given for the conservation of the Kingdom and is abused for the destruction thereof for a power to destruction was never given nor can it by rationall nature be given 2. Mortifications given to religious uses by a positive law may be recalled by a more divine and stronger law of nature such as is this I will have mercy and not sacrifice Suppose David of his own proper heritage had given the Shew-bread to the Priests yet when David and his men are famishing he may take it back from them against their will Suppose Christ man had bought the Corns and dedicated them to the Altar yet might he and his Disciples eat the Ears of Corn in their hunger The vessels of silver dedicated to the Church may be taken and bestowed on wounded Souldiers 2. A people free may not and ought not totally surrender their liberty to a Prince confiding on his goodnesse 1. Because liberty is a condition of nature that all men are born with and they are not to give it away no not to a King except in part and for the better that they may have peace and justice for it which is better for them hic nunc 2. If a people trusting in the goodnesse of their Prince inslave themselves to him and he shall after turn Tyrant a rash and temerarious surrender obligeth not Et ignorantia facit factum quasi involuntarium Ignorance maketh the fact some way unvoluntary for if the people had beleeved that a meek King would have turned a roaring Lyon they should not have resigned their liberty into his hand and therefore the surrender was tacitely conditionall to the King as meek or whom they beleeved to be meek and not to a tyrannous Lord and therefore when the contract is made for the utilitie of the one party the law saith their place is for after wits that men may change their minde and resume their liberty though if they had given away their liberty for money they cannot recall it and if violence made the surrender of liberty here is slavery and slaves taken in war so soon as they can escape and return to their own they are free D. Sect. item ea Justit de rerum divin l. nihil F. de capt l. 3. So the learned Ferdin Vasquez illustri l. 2. c. 82. n. 15. saith The bird that was taken and hath escaped is free nature in a forced people so soon as they can escape from a violent Conqueror maketh them a free people and si solo tempore saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 2. c. 82. n. 6. justificatur subjectio solo tempore facilius justificabitur liberatio Assert 20. All the Goods of the Subjects belongeth not to the King I presuppose that the division of Goods doth not necessarily slow from the law of nature for God made man before the fall Lord of the creatures indefinitely but what Goods be Peters and not Pauls we know not But supposing mans sin though the light of the Sun and Air be common to all and religious places be proper to none yet it is morally unpossible that there should not be a distinction of meum tuum mine and thine and the decalogue forbidding theft and coveting the wife of another man yet is she the wife of Peter not of Thomas by free election not by an act of natures law doth evidence to us that the division of things is so far forth men now being in the state of sin of the law of nature that it hath evident ground in the Law of nations and thus farre naturall that the heat that I have from my own coat and cloak and the nourishment from my own meat are physically incommunicable to any But I hasten to prove the Proposition If 1. I have leave to premit that in time
given to inferiour Iudges Exod. 22.8 9. Ioh. 10.35 These who are appointed Iudges under Moses Deut. 1.16 are called in Hebrew or Chaldee 1 Kings 8.1 2. Chap. 5.2 Mic. 3.1 Iosh. 23.2 Num. 1.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rasce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fathers Act. 7.2 Iosh. 14.1 c. 19.51 1 Chro. 8 28. Healers Esai 3.7 Gods and sonnes of the most High Psal. 82.1.2.6.7 Prov 8.16 17. I much doubt if Kings can infuse Godheads in their Subjects I conceive they have from the God of Gods these gifts whereby they are inhabled to be Iudges and that Kings may appoint them Iudges but can do no more they are no lesse essentially Iudges then themselves 8. If inferiour Iudges be Deputies of the King not of God and have all their authority from the King then may the King limit the practise of these inferiour Iudges Say that an inferiour Iudge hath condemned to death an Paricide and he be conveying him to the place of execution the King commeth with a force to rescue him out of his hand if this inferiour Magistrate beare Gods sword for the terrour of ill doers and to execute Gods vengeance on murtherers he cannot but resist the King in this which I judge to be his Office for the inferiour Iudge is to take vengeance on ill doers and to use the coactive force of the sword by vertue of his Office to take away this Paracide now if he be the Deputy of the King he is not to breake the jawes of the wicked Iob 29.17 not to take vengeance on evill doers Rom. 13.4 nor to execute judgement on the wicked Ps. 149 9. nor to execute judgment for the fatherlesse De. 10.18 except a mortall man his Creator the King say Amen Now truly then God in all Israel was to rebuke no inferiour Iudge for perverting judgement As he doth Exod. 23.2.6 Mic. 3.2 3 4. Zach. 3.3 Numb 25.5 Deut. 1.16 For the King onely is Lord of the conscience of the inferiour Iudge who is to give sentence and execute sentence righteously upon condition that the King the onely univocall and proper Iudge first decree the same as Royalists teach Heare our Prelate How is it imaginable that Kings can be said to Iudge in Gods place and not receive the power from God but Kings Iudge in Gods place Deut. 1.17 2 Chro. 19.6 Let no man stumble this is his Prolepsis at this that Moses in the one place and Iehosaphat in the other speake to subordinate Iudges under them this weakeneth no waies our Argument for it is a ruled case in Law Quod quis facit per alium facit per se all Iudgements of inferiour Iudges are in the name authority and by the power of the supreme and are but communicatively and derivatively from the Soveraigne power Ans. How is it possible that inferiour Iudges Deut. 1.17 2. Chron. 19.6 can be said to judge in Gods place and not receive the power from God immediatly without any consent or covenant of men So the Prelate But inferiour Iudges judge in the Gods place as both the P. Prelate and Scripture teach Deut. 1.17 2. Chro. 19.6 Let the Prelate see to the stumbling conclusion for so he feareth it proves to his bad cause 2. He saith the places Deut. 1.17 2 Chro. 19.6 prove that the King judgeth in the Roome of God because their Deputies judge in the place of God The Prelate may know we would deny this stumbling and â—â—me consequence for 1. Moses and Iehosaphat are not speaking to themselves but to other inferiour Iudges who doth publickly exhort them Moses and Iehosaphat are perswading the regulation of the personall actions of other men who might pervert Iudgement 2. The Prelate is much upon his Law after he had forsworne the Gospell and Religion of the Church where he was baptized What the King doth by another that he doth by himselfe but were Moses and Jehosaphat feared that they should pervert Iudgement in the unjust Sentence pronounced by under Iudges of which Sentence they could not know any thing And doe inferiour Iudges so judge in the name authority and power of the King as not in the Name Authority and Power of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings or is the Iudgement the Kings no the Spirit of God saith no such matter the Iudgement executed by those inferiour Iudges is the Lords not a mortall Kings ergo a mortall King may not hinder them to execute Iudgement Obj. He cannot suggest an unjust Sentence and command an inferiour Iudge to give out a sentence absolvatory on cut-throates but he may hinder the execution of any sentence against Irish cut-throates Ans. It is all one to hinder the execution of a just sentence and to suggest or command the inferiour Iudge to pronounce an unjust one for inferiour Iudges by conscience of their Office are both to judge righteously and by force and power of the sword given to them of God Rom. 23.2 3 4. to execute the sentence and so God hath commanded inferiour Iudges to execute Iudgement and hath forbidden them to wrest Iudgement to take gifts except the King Command them so to doe Master Symmonâ— The King is by the Grace of God the inferiour Iudge is Iudge by the grace of the King even as the man is the image of God and the woman the mans image Ans. This distinction is neither true in Law nor conscience not in Law for it distinguisheth not betwixt Ministros regis ministros regni The servants of the King are his domesticks the Iudges are Ministri regni non regis the Ministers and Iudges of the Kingdome not of the King The King doth not show grace as he is a man in making such a man a Iudge but Iustice as a King by a Royall Power received from the people and by an Act of Iustice he makes Iudges of deserving men he should neither for favour nor bribes make any Iudge in the Land 2. It is the grace of God that men are to be advanced from a private condiâ—ion to be inferiour Iudges as Royall Dignity is a free gift of God 1 Sam. 2.7 The Lord bringeth low and lifteth up Ps. 757. God putteth downe one and seteth up another Court flatterers take from God and give to Kings but to be a Iudge inferiour is no lesse an immediate favour of God then to be King though the one be a greater favour then the other Magis honos and Majoâ— honos are to be considered 9. Arg. Those powers which dâ—ffer gradually and per magis minus by more and lesse only differ not in nature and spece and constitute not Kings and inferiour Iudges different univocally But the power of Kings and inferiour Iudges are such therefore Kings and inferiour Iudges differ not univocally That the powers are the same in nature I prove 1. by the specifice acts and formall object of the power of both for 1. both are power ordained of God Rom. 13.1
devoure living men when there is a controversie between the King and the Estates of Parliament who shall expone the Law and render its native meaning say Royalists not the Estates of Parliament for they are Subjects not Iudges to the King and only Counsellers and advisers of the King The King therefore must be the only judiciall and finall expositor As for Lawyers said Strafford the Law is not inclosed in a Lawyers Cap. But I remember this was one of the Articles laid to the charge of Richard the Second that he said The Law was in his head and breast And indeed it must follow if the King by the plenitude of absolute power be the only supreme uncontrollable Expositor of the Law that is not Law which is written in the Acts of Parliament but that is the Law which is in the Kings breast and head which Iosephus lib. 19. Antiq. c. 2. objected to Caius And all justice and injustice should be finally and peremptorily resolved on the Kings will and absolute pleasure 6. The King either is to expone the Law by the Law it selfe or by his Absolute power loosed from all Law he exponeth it or according to the advise of his Great Senate If the first be said he is nothing more then other Iudges If the second be said he must be omnipotent and more If the third be said he is not absolute if the Senate be only Advisers and he yet the only Iudiciall expositor The King often professeth his ignorance of the Lawes and he must then both be absolute above the Law and ignorant of the Law and 2. the sole and finall Iudiciall exponer of the Law And by this all Parliaments and their power of making Lawes and of judging iâ— cryed down They object Prov. 16.10 A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King His mouth transgresseth not in judgement ergo he only can expone the Law Ans. 1. Lavater saith and I see no reason on the contrary by a King he meaneth all Magistrates 2. Aben Ezra and Isidorus read the words imperatively The Tigurine version They are Oracles which proceed from his lips let not therefore his mouth transgresse in judgement Vatabulus When he is in his prophecies he lyeth not Iansenius Non facile errabit in judicando Mich. Iermine If he pray Calvine If he read in the booke of the Law as God commandeth him Deut. 17. But why stand we on the place He speaketh of good Kings saith Cornel à Lapide Otherwise Ieroboam Achab Manasseh erred in judgement And except as Mercerus exponeth it We understand him to speake of Kings according to their office not their facts and practice we make them Popes and men who cannot give out grievous and unjust sentences on the Throne against both the Word and experience Object 2. Sometimes all is cast upon ouâ— mans voice why may not the King be this one man Answ. The Antecedent is false the last Voter in a Senate is not the sole Iudge else why should others give suffrages with him 2. This were to take away inferiour Iudges contrary to Gods Word Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Rom. 13.1 2 3. QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Subjects and Estates for their own just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull A Ruisaeus perverteth the question he saith The question is Whether or no the Subjects may according to their power judge the King and dethrone him that is Whether or no is it lawfull for the Subjects in any case to take arms against their lawfull Prince if he degenerate and shall wickedly use his lawfull power The state of the question is much perverted for these be different questions Whether the Kingdom may dethrone a wicked and Tyrannous Prince And whether may the Kingdom take up arms against the man who is the King in their own innocent defence For the former is an Act offensive and of punishing the latter is an Act of Defence 2. The present question is not of Subjects onely but of the Estates and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom I utterly deny these as they are Iudges to be subjects to the King for the question is Whether is the King or the representative Kingdom greatest and which of them be subject one to another I affirm Amongst Iudges as Iudges not one is the Commander or Superiour and the other the commanded or subject Indeed one higher Iudge may correct and punish a Iudge not as a Iudge but as an erring man 3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act of War as concerning the power of naturall Defence upon supposition That the King be not now turned an habituall Tyrant but that upon some acts of mis-information he come in arms against his Subjects 2. Arnisaeus maketh two sort of Kings Some Kings integra Majestatis of intire power and Soveraignty some Kings by pactions or voluntary agreement between King and people But I judge this a vain distinction For the limited Prince so he be limited to a power onely of doing just and right by this is not a Prince integrae Majestatis of entire Royall Majestie whereby he may do both good and also play the Tyrant but a power to do ill being no wayes essentiall yea repugnant to the absolute Majestie of the King of Kings cannot be an essentiall part of the Majestie of a lawfull King and therefore the Prince limited by voluntary and positive paction onely to rule according to law and equity is the good lawfull and entire Prince if he have not power to do every thing just and good in that regard onely he is not an intire and compleat Prince So the man will have it lawfull to resist the limited Prince not the absolute Prince by the contrary it is more lawfull to me to resist the absolute Prince then the limited in as much as we may with safer consciences resist the Tyrant and the Lyon then the just Prince and the Lamb. Nor can I assent to Cunnerus de officio princip Christia c. 5. 17. Who holdeth that these voluntary pactions betwixt King and people in which the power of the Prince is diminished cannot stand because their power is given to them by Gods Word which cannot be taken from them by any voluntary paction lawfully and from the same ground Winzetus in vâ—lit contr Buchan p. 32. will have it unlawfull to resist Kings because God hath made them unresistable I answer If God by a divine institution make Kings absolute and above all Laws which is a blasphemous supposition the holy Lord can give to no man a power to sin for God hath not himself any such power then the Covenant betwixt the King and people cannot lawfully remove and take away what God by institution has given but because God Deut. 17. hath limited the first lawfull King the mould of all the rest the people ought also to limit him by a voluntary Covenant and because the
themselves rich also with the fat of the flock and God onely maketh poore yet the P. Prelates Courts mediately also under God â—ade many men poore 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not such an exclusive Particle when we ascribe it to God as when we ascribe it to two created câ—uses workes and faith and the Protestants forme of arguing Gal. 2. to prove we are justified by faith he calleth our strong hold Ergo. It is not his strong hold In this point then hee must be a Papist and so he refuses to owne Protestant strong holds for justification by faith alone D. Ferne sâ—ct 2. pag. 10. As many as have soules must be subject to the higher powers spoken of here but all inferiour Iudges have soules Answ. If the word soules be thus pressed none shall be understood by higher powers but the King onely 2. Certainly he that commandeth as he commandeth must be excepted except because the King haâ—h a soule you must subject the King to himself and to his owne commandements Royall and so to penall Lawes 3. Inferiour Judges as Judges by this text must either be subject to themselves as Judges and by the same reason the King must be subject to himselfe as he is a Judge Or Judges as men or as erring men are to be subject which I would grant but they are not subject as Judges no more then one as he commandeth can also obey as he commandâ—th These are contradictory I am not put off that opinion since I was at Schools Species subjicibilis qua subjicibilis non est praedicabilis 4. â—f Nero make fathers rulers over their mothers and children and command them by his publique sword of justice to kill their ownâ— children and mothers if a Senate of such fathers disobey and if with the sword they defend their own children and mothers which some other Doâ—gs as Judges are to kill in the name and commandement of Nero Then they resisting Neroes bastard-commandment by â—his doctâ—ine resist the ordinance of God and resist the Minister of God I have not a faith stretcht out so farre to the Prelates Court-divinity Yet Ferne saith there was never more cause to resist higher powers for their wicked Nero was Emperour when he now forbideth resistance Rom. 13. under the paine of damnation I desire to be informed whether to resist the Kings servants be to resist the King Doctor Ferne p. 3. § 2. p. 10. and par 3. § 9. p. 59. allow us in unavoidable assaults where death is imminent personall defence without offending as lawfull whether the King or his emissaries invade without law or reason Well then the resisting then of the Kings cut-throats though they have a personall command of the King to kill the innocent yet if they want a legall is no resisting of the King not as King and the servant hath no more then the Master giveth but the King in lawlesse commandements gave nothing royall to his cut-throates and so nothing legall QUEST XXXIIII Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres WHat reasons have already been discussed I touch not Obj. 1. Arnisaeus de authorit princâ—p c. 2. num 2. If we are to obey our parents not if they be good but simply whether they be good or ill so Iust. saith of the King Quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius tamen pater § si vero in ff vos 12. then must we submit to wicked Kings Ans. Valeat totum we are to submit to wicked Kings wicked parents because Kings and parents but when it cometh to actuall submission we are to submit to neither but in the Lord the question is not touching subjection to a Prince let him be Nero but if in acts of Tyranny we may not deny subjection there be great odds betwixt wicked rulers and rulers commanding or punishing unjustly Obj. 2. Arnisaeus c. 3. n. 9. We may resist an inferior magistrate Ergo we may resist the supreame it followeth not for an inferiour judge hath a Majesty in fiction onely not properly treason is or can onely be committed against the King the obligation to inferiour judges is onely for the prince the person of none is sacred and inviolable but the Kings Ans. We obey parents masters kings upon this formall ground because they are Gods deputies and set over us not by man but by God So that not onely are we to obey them because what they command is good and just such a sort of obedience an equall owes to the counsell of either equall or inferiour but also by vertue of the fift commandement because of their place of dignity now this Majesty which is the formall reason of subjection is one and the same in spece and nature in King and Constable and onely different gradually in the King and in other judges and it is denyed that there is any incommunicable sanctity in the Kings person which is not in some degree in the inferiour judge all proceedeth from this false ground that the King and inferiour judges differ in nature which is denied and treason inferiour may be committed against an inferiour judge and it is a fiction that the inferiour judge doth not resemble God as the King doth yea there is a sacred Majesty in all inferiour judges in the aged in every superiour wherefore they deserve honour feare and reverence Suppose there were no King on earth as is cleare in Scripture Exod. 20.12 Levit. 19.32 Esther 1.20 Psal. 149.9 Prov. 3.16 Math. 13.57 Heb. 5.4 Isa. 3 3. Lam. 5.12 Mal. 1.6 Psal. 8.5 and this honour is but united in a speciall manner in the King because of his high place Obj. 3. A King elected upon conditions may be resisted Ans. He is as essentially a King as a hereditary yea as an absolute Prince and no lesse the Lords annoynted then another prince if then one also another may be resisted Obj. 4. The oath of God bindeth the subjects Ergo they must obey not resist Ans. Obedience and resistance are very consistent 2. No doubt the people gave their oath to Athaliah but to her as the onely heir of the crown they not knowing that Ioash the lawfull heir was liveing so may conditionall oaths all of this kinde are conditionall in which there is interpretative and virtuall ignorance be broken as the peoplâ— swear loyalty to such a man conceived to be a father he after that turneth Tyrant may they not resist his Tyranny they may Also no doubt Israel gave their oath of loyalty to Iabin for when Nebuchadnezer subdued Iudah he took an oath of loyalty of their King Yet many of Zabulon Nepthali and Isachar Barack leading them conspired against Iabin Obj. 5. There is no law to take a Kings life if he turne a Nero we never read that Subjects did it Ans. The treatise of unlimited prerogative saith p. 7. We read not that a father killing his children was killed by them the fact being abhominable 2. The law Gen. 6.9
to make warre against the King and themselves in the defence of Religion when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people that they sinned in joyning with the King what place was there to shew them their sin in not using their owne lawfull defence And in reason any may judge it unreasonable for Elias to exhort of thousand thousands in Israel poore seven thousand of which many no doubt were women aged weake young to rise in Armes against Ahab and all Israel except God had given a positive and extraordinary Commandement and with all miraculous courage and strength in war against the whole Land and God worketh not alwayes by miracles to save his Church and therefore the naturall mandate of self-preservation in that case doth no more oblige a few weake ones to lawfull resistance then it obliged one Martyre to rise against a persecuting Nero and all his forces Arnisaeus should remember wee are not to tye our Lord to miracles 2. Elias did not onely flee but denounced wrath against the King and Cavalliers who joyned with them in Idolatry and when God gave oportunity he shewed himself and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seducing idolatours when the Idolatrous King refuâ—ed to do it and Eliah with his own hand took them not but all Israel being gathered together 1 King 18.19 The Princes and Judges did apprehend them ver 40. which is a warrant when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists that other judges are to do it 2. For Nebuchadnezzer Ieremiah from the Lord expresly forbad to fight against him shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cut-throats for that example may as well prove if it be a binding law to us that our King should not raise his Subjects to fight against a Spanish Armado and a forraigne Priâ—ce for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27.1 In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim ver 12 13 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon I hope this will not tye us and our King not to fight against forraigne Princes or against the great Turk if they shall injustly invade us and our King and this example is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him as much as against us for Nebuchadnezzar was a Tyrannous invader and the King of Iudah the Lords Annoynted 3. The people also conspired with Manasseh as with Ahab Ier. 15.4 4 Of Empâ—rours persecuting Christians we shall heare anon 5. Deut. 13. None are excepted by a synecdoche the dearest are expressed sonne daughter brother the friend that is as thine own soul. Ergo fathers also And husbands are to love their lives Ephes. 5.25 Yet to execute judgement on them without pitty Deut. 13.8.9 The father is to love the son yet if the son prophecy falsely in the name of the Lord to kill him Zach. 13.3 Hence love fear reverence toward the King may be commanded and defensive warres also 6. Christ fled from Herod and all his actions and sufferings are mysteries and instructions saith the poor Prelate 1. Christ kissed the man that to his knowledge came to betray him Christ fled not but knowing where and when his enemy should apprehend him came willingly to the place Ergo we should not flee 2. His actions are so mysterious that Iohn P. P. in imitation of Christs fourty dayes fast will fast from flesh in lent and the Prelate must walk on the sea and work miracles if all Christs actions be our instructions 7. He might with more then twelve Lâ—gions of Angels defend himself but he would not not because resistance was unlawfull no shadow for that in the text but because it was Gods will that he should drink the cup his Father gave him because to take the sword without Gods warrant subjecteth the usurper of Gods place to perish with the sword Peter had Gods revealed wil that Christ behoved to suffer Math. 26.52 53. Math. 16.21 22 23. Gods positive command that Christ should die for sinners Iohn 10.24 may well restraine an act of lawfull sâ—lf-preservation hic nunc and such an act as Christ lawfully used at another time Luk. 4.29 30. Ioh. 11.7 8. we give no new creed but this apostate hath forsaken his old creed the religion of the Church of Scotland in which he was Baptised 9. Nor do we expuâ—ge out of the Creed Christs descension into hell the communion of Saints as the apostate saith but the Popish locall descension of Christ the Popish advancing of the Churches power above the Scriptures the intercession prayers to the saints or of the saints for us we deny this Prelate though he did swear the doctrine of the Church of Scotland preached expresly all these many other poynts of Popery in the Pulpits of Edenburgh 10. We beleeve that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilat but that Pilat had any legal power to condemne Christ but onely a power by a permissive Decree Act. 4.27 28. Such as Devils had by Gods permission Luke 22.53 we utterly deny 11. The Prelat saith it is his resolution for our sin of naturall selfe defence to dissolve in tears because his Bishopricke I conceive by which he was wont to dissolve in cups being drunk on the Lords day after he with other Prelates had been at the Lords Supper while the Chamber wherein they were was dissolved in vomitting was taken from him 12. The prophets cry against all sins but never against the sin of non-resistance and yet they had very Tyrannous and Idolatrous Kings 1. This is but a weak argument 1. The Prophets cry not out against all sins they cry not out against men-stealers and killers of father and mother in expresse tearmes yet do they by consequence condemne all these sins and so do they condemne non-resistance in wars by consequence when they cry out Ier. 5.31 The Prophets prophesie falsly and the Priests beare rule by their meanes and my people love to have it so And when they complaine Ezek. 22.26 27 28. That the Prophets and Priests violate the Law her Princes are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood and the people use oppression and exercise robbery and vexe the poore And when they say Ier. 22.2 not to the King onely but also to his servants and the people that enter in by the gates 3. Execute judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour I pray you who are the oppressors I answer The murthering Judges Esa. 1.21 And Esa. 3.12 As for my people children are their oppressors and women rule over them And ver 14 15. The ancients of the people grind the faces of the poore and when they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth And Prov. 24.11 the Loâ—d shal render to
jurisdiction Iaco. Symanca de Catho Instit. tit 45. n. 25. Catholica uxor heretico viro debitum reddere non tenetur Item Constat Haereticum privatum esse omni dominio naturali civili politico naturali quod habet in filios nam propter haeresin patris efficiuntur filii sui iuris civili quod habet in servos ab eo enim servi liberantur politico quod rerum domini habent in subditos ita Bannes 22. q. 12. art 10. Gregor de valent 22. dis 1. q. 12. p. 2. lod Mol. to 1. De just jur tract 2. dis 29. v. 3. 2. Papists hold that Generatio clerici est corruptio subditi Church-men are not subjects under the Kings Law It is a Canonicall priviledge of the Clergy that they are not subject to the Kings Civill Lawes Now this Prelate and his fellowes made the King sweare at his Coronation to maintaine all Canonicall Priviledges of the Prelaticall Clergy the very Oath and words sworne by all the Popish Kings P. Prelate Power is given by the multitude to the King immediatly and by God mediately not so much by collation as by approbation how the Iesuite and Puritane walke all along in equall pace See Bellarmine l. 1. de liac c. 6. Zuarez cont sect Angl. l. 3. c. 3. Answ. It is a Calumnie that we teach that the power of the King is from God mediatly by meere approbation indeed a fellow of his a Papist writing against the Kings Supremacy Anthony Capell Cont. 1. c. 5. saith Saul was made King and others also by Gods permission and Deo invito irato God being angry that is not our Doctrine but with what reall efficiencie God hath made men and communities rationall and sociall men with the same hath he made them by instinct of nature by the mediation of reason to create a King and Bellarmine and Suarez say Not God maketh Kings by approbation only P. Prelate The people may change Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy or Aristocracy into Monarchy for ought I know they differ not in this neither Ans. The P. Prelate knoweth not all things the two Iesuites Bellarmine and Suarez are produced only as if they were all Iesuites and Suarez saith De prim po l. 3. n. 4. Donationem absolutam semel valide factam revocari non posse neque in totum neque ex parce maxime quando onerosa fuit If the people once give their power to the King they cannot resume it without cause and laying downe the grounds of Suarez and other Iesuites that our Religion is Heresie they doe soundly collect this consequence That no King can be Lord of the consciences of their subjects to compell them to an Hereticall Religion We teach that the King of Spaine hath no power over the consciences of Protestant Subjects to force them to Idolatry and that their soules are not his subjects but only their persons and in the Lord. 2. It is no great crime that if a King degenerate in a Tyranny or if the Royall Line faile that we thinke the people have liberty to change Monarchy into Aristocracy aut contra Iesuites deny that the people can make this change without the Popes consent We judge neither the great Bishop the Pope nor the little Popes ought to have hand in making Kings P. Prelate They say the power is derived to the King from the people Cumulativè or Communicativé non Privativé by way of communication not by way of privation so as the people denude not themselves of this soveraignty As the King maketh a Lieutenant in Ireland not to denude himselfe of his Royall power but to put him in trust for his service If this be their mind the King is in a poore case The principal authority is in the Deligate and so the people is still Iudge and the King their Deputy Ans. The P. Prelate taketh on him to write he knoweth not what this is not our opinion The King is King and hath the peoples power not as their Deputy 1. Because the people is not principall Iudge and the King subordinate The King in the executive power of Lawes is really a Soveraigne above the people a Deputy is not so 2. The people have irrevocably made over to the King their power of governing defending and protecting themselves I except the power of selfe preservation which people can no more make away it being sinlesse natures birth-right then the liberty of eating drinking sleeping and this the people cannot resume except in case of the Kings Tyranny there is no power by the King so irrevocably resigned to his Servant or Deputy but he may use it himselfe 3. A Delegate is comptable for all he doth to those that put him in trust whether he doe ill or well The King in acts of Iustice is not comptable to any for if his acts be not lyable to high suspitions of Tyranny no man may say to him What dost thou onely in acts of unjustice and those so tyrannous that they be inconsistent with the habituall fiduciary repose and trust put on him he is to render accounts to the Parliament which representeth the people 4. A Delegate in esse in fieri both that he may be a Delegate and that he may continue a Delegate whether he doe ill or well dependeth on his pleasure who delegateth him but though a King depend in fieri in regard of his call to the Crowne upon the suffrages of his people yet that he may be continued King he dependeth not on the people simply but only in case of Tyrannicall administration and in this sense Suarez and Bellarmine spake with no more honesty then we doe but with more then Prelates doe for they professe any Emissary of Hell may stab a Protestant King We know the Prelates professe the contrary but their judgement is the same with Iesuites in all points and since they will have the Pope Christs Vicar by such a Divine right as they themselves are Bishops and have the King under Oath to maintaine the Clergie Bishops and all their Canonicall priviledges amongst which the Bishops of Rome his indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia and to dethrone Kings who turne Heritickes is one principall right I see not how Prelates are not as deepe in treason against Kings as the Pope himselfe and therefore P. Prelate take the beame out of your owne eye The P. Prelate taketh unlearned paines to prove that Gerson Occam Iac. de almaine Parisian Doctors maintained these same grounds a nent the peoples power over Kings in the case of Tyranny and that before Luther and Calvine was in the world and this is to give himselfe the lye that Luther Calvin and we have not this Doctrine from Iesuites and what is Calvines mind is evident Instit l. 4. c. all that the estates may coerce and reduce in order a Tyrant else they are deficient in their trust that God hath given them over the Common-wealth
not before then they were more Absolute These who can adde Absolutenesse must have it in themselves Nemo dat quod non habet if it be said King James had that before the Act the Parliament legally declared it to be his power which before the Declaration was his power I answer All he had before this Declaration was to govern the people according to Law and Conscience and no more and if they declare no other Prerogative Royall to be due to him there is an end we grant all But then this which they call Prerogative Royall is no more then a power to govern according to Law and so you adde nothing to King James upon the ground of his personall vertues onely you make an oration to his praise in the Acts of Parliament 4. If this Absolutenesse of Prerogative be given to the King the subjects swearing obedience swear That he hath power from themselves to destroy themselves this is neither a lawfull oath nor though they should swear it doth it oblige them 6. A Supreme Iudge is a supreme father of all his children and all their causes and to be a supreme Father cannot be contrary to a supreme Iudge but contrary it must be if this supremacy make over to the Prince a power of devouring as a Lyon and that by a regall priviledge and by office whereas he should be a father to save or if a Iudge kill an ill-doer though that be an act destructive to one man yet is it an act of a father to the Common-wealth An act of supreme and absolute Royaltie is often an act of destruction to one particular man and to the whole Common-wealth For example when the King out of his Absolute Prerogative pardoneth a murtherer and he killeth another innocent man and out of the same ground the King pardoneth him again and so till he kill twenty for by what reason the Prerogative giveth one pardon he may give twenty there is a like reason above Law for all This act of Absolute Royaltie is such an act of murther as if a shepherd would keep a Woolf in the fold with the sheep he were guilty of the losse of these sheep Now an act of destroying cannot be an act of judging far lesse of a supreme Iudge but of a supreme Murtherer 7. Whereas he is called Absolute Prince and Supreme Judge in all Causes Ecclesiasticall and Civill It is to be considered 1. That the Estates professe in these acts not to give any new Prerogative but onely to continue the old power and that onely with that amplitude and freedom which the King and his Predecessors did enjoy and exerce of before the extent whereof is best known from the Acts of Parliament Histories of the time and the Oaths of the Kings of Scotland 2. That he is called Absolute Prince not in any relation of freedom from Law or Prerogative above Law whereunto as unto the norma regula ac mensura potestatis suae ac subjectionis meae He is tyed by the Fundamentall Law and his own Oath but in opposition to all forraign Iurisdiction or principalitie above him as is evident by the Oath of Supremacie set down for acknowledging of his power in the first Act of Parliament 21. K. Iam. 6. 3. They are but the same expressions giving onely the same power before acknowledged in the 129. Act. Parl. 8. K. Iam. 6. And that onely over Persons or Estates considered Separatim and over Causes but neither at all over the Laws nor over the Estates taken Conjunctim and as convened in Parliament as is clear both by the two immediately subsequent Acts of that Parliament 8. K. Iam. 6. Establishing the Authority of Parliaments equally with the Kings and discharging all Iurisdictions alâ—eit granted by the King without their Warrant as also by the Narrative Depositive words and certification of the Act it self otherwayes the Estates convened in Parliament might by vertue of that Act be summoned before and censured by the Kings Majestie or His Councell a Iudicatory substitute be subordinate to and censurable by themselves which were contrary to sense and reason 4. The very termes of Supreme Iudge and in all Causes according to the nature of Correlates presupposeth Courts and judiciall Proceedings and Laws as the ground work and rule of all not a freedom from them 5. The sixth Act of the twenty Parliament K. Iac. 6. Cleerly interpreteth what is meant by the Kings Iurisdiction in all Spirituall and Ecclesiastick Causes to wit to be onely in the Consistoriall Causes of Matrimony Testaments Bastardy Adulteries abusively called Spirituall Causes because handled in Commissary Courts wherin the King appoints the Commissary his Deputies and makes the Lords of the Session his great Consistory in all Ecclesiasticall Causes with reservation of his Supremacy and Prerogative therein 7. Supreame Iudge in all causes cannot be taken Quoad actus elicitos as if the King were to judge between two Sea-men or two Husband-men or two Trades-men in that which is proper to their Art or between two Painters certainly the King is not to Iudge which of the two draweth the fairest Picture but which of the two wasteth most gold on his Picture and so doth interest most of the Common-wealth So the King cannot judge in all Ecclesiasticall Causes that is he cannot Quoad actos elicitos prescribe this Worship for example the Masse not the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Therefore the King hath but Actus imperatos some Royall Politicall Acts about the Worship of God to command God to be Worshipped according to his Word to punish the superstitions or neglectors of Divine Worship therefore cannot the King be sole Iudge in matters that belong to the Colledge of Iudges by the Lawes of Scotland the Lords of Session onely may judge these maters K. Iames 1. Parl. 2. Act. 45. K. Iames 3. Par. 8. Act 62. K. Iames 3. Par. 4. Act. 105. K. I. 1. Parl. 6. Act. 83. K. I. 1. Par. 6 Act. 86. K. I. 5. Par. 7. Act. 104. and that only according to Law without any remedy of appellation to King or the Parliament Act 62 and 63. Par. 14. K. I. 2. And the King is by Act of Parliament inhibited to send any private letter to stay the Acts of Iustice or if any such letter be procured the Iudges are not to acknowledge it as the Kings Will for they are to proceed unpartially according to Iustice and are to make the Law which is the King and Parliaments publick revealed will their rule King I. 5. Parl. 5. Act. 68. K. Ia. 6. Part. 8. Act. 139. and K. I. 6. Par. 6. Act. 92. most lawfull Nor may the Lords suspend the course of Iustice or the sentence or execution of Decrees upon the Kings private letter King I. 6. Parl. 11. Act 79. and K. Iam. 6. Par. 11. Act 47. and so if the Kings Will or desire as he is a man be opposite to his Law and his Will as King it is not to