father as a father hath not power of the life of his child as a Magistrate he may have power and as something more then a father he may have power of life and death I heare not what Grotius saith Those who are not borne have no accidents and so no rights Non entis nulla sunt accidentia then Children not borne have neither right nor liberty and so no injury may some say can be done to Children not borne though the fathers should give away their liberty to the conquerour those who are not capable of Law are not capable of injury contrary to Law Ans. There is a virtuall alienation of rights and lives of children not borne unlawfull because the children are not borne to say that children not borne are not capable of law and injuries virtuall which become reall in time might say Adam did not an injury to his posterity by his first sin which is contrary to Gods Word so those who vowed yearely to give seven innocent children to the Minotaure to be devoured and to kill their children not borne to bloody Molech did no acts of bloody injury to their children nor can any say then that fathers cannot tye themselves and their posterity to a King by succession but I say To be tyed to a lawfull King is no making away of liberty but a resigning of a power to be justly governed protected and awed from active and passive violence 7. No lawfull King may be dethroned nor lawfull Kingdome dissolved but Law and reason both saith Quod vi partum est imperium vi dissolvi potest Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence Censetur enim ipsa natura jus dare ad id omne sine quo obtineri non potest quod ipsa imperat It is objected that the people of God by their sword conquered seven nations of the Canaanites David conquered the Ammonites for the disgrace done to his Embassadours So God gave Egypt to Nebuchadnezar for his hire in his service done against Iudah had David no right over the Ammonites and Moabites but by expecting their consentâ— yee will say A right to their lands goods and lives but not to challenge their morall subjection well we doubt not but such conquerours will challenge and obtain their morall consent but if the people refuse their consent is there no way for providence giveth no right So D. Ferne so Arnisaeus Ans. A facto ad jus non valeâ— consequentia God to whom belongeth the world and the fulnesse thereof disponed to Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan for their inheritance and ordained that they should use their bow and their sword for the actuall possession thereof and the like divine right had David to the Edomites and Ammonites though the occasion of Davids taking possession of these Kingdoms by his sword did arise from particular and occasionall exigences and injuries but it followeth in no sort That therefore Kings now wanting any word of promise and so of divine right to any Lands may ascend to the Throns of other Kingdoms then their own by no better title then the bloody sword That Gods will was the chief patent here is clear in that God forbad his people to conquer Edom or Esau's possession when as he gave them command to conquer the Ammorites I doubt not to say if Joshua and David had had no better title then their bloody sword though provoked by injuries they could have had no right to any kingly power over these Kingdoms and if onely successe by the sword be a right of providence it is no right of precept Gods providence as providence without precept or promise can conclude a thing is done or may be done but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully and warrantably done else you might say the selling of Joseph the crucifying of Christ the spoiling of Job were lawfully done 2. Though Conquerors extort consent and oath of Loyaltie yet that maketh not over a Royall right to the Conquerour to be King over their posterity without their consent 3. Though the Children of Ammon did a high injury to David yet no injury can be recompensed in justice with the pressure of the constrained subjection of Loyaltie to a violent Lord if David had not had an higher warrant from God then an injury done to his messengers he could not have conquered them But 1. the Ammonites were the declared enemies of the Church of God and raised forces against David when they themselves were the injurer's and offenders and if Davids Conquest will prove a lawfull title by the sword to all Conquerours then may all Conquerours lawfully do to the conquered people as David did that is they may put them under saws and under harrows of iron and under axes of iron and cause them passe through the Brick-kilne But I beseech you will Royalists say that Conquerours who make themselves Kings by their sword and so make themselves fathers heads defenders and feeders of the people may use the extreamest Tyranny in the world such as David used against the children of Ammon which he could not have done by the naked title of sword-conquest if God had not laid a Commandment of an higher nature on him to serve Gods enemies so I shall then say if a conquering King be a lawfull King because a Conquerour then hath God made such a lawfull King both a father because a King and a Tyrant and cruell and lyon-hearted oppressour of these whom he hath conquered for God hath given him Royall power by this example to put these to whom he is a father and defender by office to torment and also to be a torturer of them by office by bringing their backs under such Instruments of crueltie as saws and harrows of iron and axes of iron QUEST XIII Whether or no Royall dignitie have its spring from nature and how that is true every man is born free and how servitude is contrary to nature I Conceive it to be evident that Royall dignity is not immediately and without the intervention of the peoples consent given by God to any one person 2. That conquest and violence is no just title to a Crown Now the question is If Royalty flow from nature if Royalty be not a thing meerly naturall neither can subjection to Royall power be meerly naturall but the former is rather civill then naturall and the question of the same nature is Whether subjection or servitude be naturall I conceive that there be divers subjections to these that are above us some way naturall and therefore I rank them in order thus 1. There is a subjection in respect of naturall being as the effect to the cause so though Adam had never sinned this morality of the fifth command should have stood in vigour that the son by nature without any positive Law should have been subject to the father because from him he hath his being as from a second cause But I much
doubt if the relation of a father as a father doth necessarily infer a Royall or Kingly authority of the father over the son or by natures Law that the father hath power of life and death over or above his children and the reasons I give are 1. Because power of life and death is by a positive Law presupposing sin and the fall of man and if Adam standing in innocency could lawfully kill his son though the son should be a Malefactor without any positive Law of God I much doubt 2. I judge that the power Royall and the fatherly power of a father over his children shall be found to be different and the one is founded on the Law of nature the other to wit Royall power on a meere positive Law The 2. degree or order of subjection naturall is a subjection in respect of gifts or age so Aristotle 1 Polit. cap. 3. saith that some are by nature servants his meaning is good that some gifts of nature as wisedom naturall or aptitude to govern hath made some men of gold fitter to command and some of iron and clay fitter to be servants and slaves But I judge this title to make a King by birth seeing Saul whom God by supervenient gifts made a King seemeth to ow small thanks to the womb or nature that he was a King for his crueltie to the Lords Priests speaketh nothing but naturall basenesse It s possible Plato had a good meaning Dialog 3. de legib who made six orders here 1. That fathers command their sons 2. The noble the ignoble 3. The elder the younger 4. The masters the servants 5. The stronger the weaker 6. The wiser the ignorant 3. Aquinas 22. q. 57. art 3. Driedâ— de libert Christ. l. 1. pag. 8. following Aristotle polit l. 7. c. 14. hold though man had never sinned there should have been a sort of dominion of the more gifted and wiser above the lesse wise and weaker not antecedent from nature properly but consequent for the utilitie and good of the weaker in so far as it is good for the weaker to be guided by the stronger which cannot be denyed to have some ground in nature but there is no ground for Kings by nature here 1. Because even these who plead that the mothers womb must be the best title for a Crown and make it equivalent to Royall unction are to be corrected in memory thus That it is meerly accidentall and not naturall for such a son to be born a King because the free consent of the people making choice of the first father of that Line to be their King and in him making choice of the first born of the family is meerly accidentall to father and son and so cannot be naturall 2. Because Royall gifts to reign are not holden by either us or our adversaries to be the specifice essence of a King for if the people Crown a person their King say we if the womb bring him forth to be a King say the opponents he is essentially a King and to be obeyed as the Lords annointed though nature be very Parca sparing and a niggard in bestowing Royall gifts Yea though he be an idiot say some if he be the first born of a King he is by just title a King but must have Curators and Tutors to guide him in the exercise of that Royall right that he hath from the womb But Buchanan saith well He who cannot govern himself shall never govern others 1 Assert de facto As a man commeth into the world a member of a politick societie he is by consequence borne subject to the laws of that societie but this maketh him not from the wombe and by nature subject to a King as by nature he is subject to his Father who begat him no more then by nature a Lyon is borne subject to another King-Lyon for it is by accident that he is borne of parents under subjâ—ction to a Monarch or to either Democraticall or Aristocraticall governours for Cain and Abel were borne under none of these formes of Government properly and if he had been borne in a new planted Colonie in a wildernesse where no government were yet established he should be under no such Government 2 Assert Slavery of servants to Lords or Masters such as were of old amongst the Iews is not naturall but against nature 1. Because slaverie is malum naturae a penall evill and contrary to nature and a punishment of sinne 2. Slaverie should not have been in the world if man had never sinned no more then there could have been buying and selling of men which is a miserable consequent of sin and a sort of death when men are put to the toyling paines of the hireling who longeth for the shadow and under iron harrowes and sawes and to hew wood and draw water continually 3. The originall of servitude was when men were taken in warre to eschew a greater evill even death the captives were willing to undergoe a lesse evill slaverie S. Servitus 1. de jur Pers. 4. A man being created according to Gods image he is res sacra a sacred thing and can no more by natures law be sold and bought then a religious and sacred thing dedicated to God S. 1. Instit. de invtil scrupl l. inter Stipulantem S. Sacram. F. de verber Obligat 3 Assert Every man by nature is a freeman borne that is by nature no man commeth out of the wombe vnder any civill subjection to King Prince or Judge to master captaine conquerour teacher c. 1. Because freedome is naturall to all except freedome from subjection to Parents And subjection politick is meerly accidentall comming from some positive lawes of men as they are in a politique societie whereas they might have been borne with all concomitants of nâ—ure though borne in a single familie the only naturall and first societie in the world 2. Man is borne by nature free from all subjection except of that which is most kindly and naturall and that is fatherly or filial subjection or matrimoniall subjection of the wife to the husband and especially he is free of subjection to a Prince by nature Because to be under jurisdiction to a Iudge or King hath a sort of jurisdiction Argument L. Si quis sit fugitivus F. de edil edict in S. penult vel fin especially to be under penall lawes now in the state of sinne The learned Senator Ferdinandus Vasquez saith l. 2. c. 82. n. 15. Every subject is to lay down his life for the Prince now no man is borne under subjection to penall lawes or dying for his Prince 3. Man by nature is borne free and as free as beasts but by nature no beast no Lyon is born King of Lyons no Horse no Bullock no Eagle King of Horses Bullocks Eagles nor is there any subjection here except that the young Lyon is subject to the old every foul to its damme
King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodier and more tyrannous man then Saul Any Tyrant standeth in titulo so long as the People and Estates who made him King have not recalled their grant so as neither David nor any single man though six hundred with him may unking him or detract obedience from him as King So many acts of disloyaltie and breachcs of lawes in the Subjects though they be contrary to this Covenant that the States make with their Prince doth not make them to be no Subjects and the Covenant mutuall standeth thus 3 Arg. If the people as Gods instruments bestow the benefit of a Crown on their King upon condition that he will rule them according to Gods word then is the King made King by the people conditionally but the former is true Ergo so is the latter The assumption is proved thus because to be a King is to be an adopted father tutor a Politick servant and Royall watchman of the State and the Royall honour and Royall maintenance given to him is a reward of his labours and a Kingly hire And this is the Apostles argument Rom. 13.6 For this cause pay you tribute also there is the wages for they are Gods ministers attending continually upon this very thing There is the worke Qui non implet conditionem à se promissam cadit beneficio It is confirmed thus The people either maketh the man their Prince conditionally that he rule according to Law or absolutely so that he rule according to will or lust or 3. without any vocall transactions at all but only brevi manu say Reigne thou over us and God save the King And so there be no conditions spoken on either side Or 4. The King is obliged to God for the condition which he promiseth by oath to performe toward the people but he is to make no reckoning to the people whether he performe his promise or no for the people being inferiour to him and he solo Deo minor only next and immediate to God the people can have no jus no law over him by vertue of any covenant But the first standing we have what we seeke The second is contrary to Scripture He is not Deut. 17.15 16. made absolutely a King to rule according to his will and lust for Reigne thou over us should have this meaning Come thou and play the Tyrant over us and let thy lust and will be a law to us which is against naturall sense nor can the sense and meaning be according to the third That the people without any expresse vocall and positive covenant give a Throne to their King to rule as he pleaseth because 1. it is a vain thing for the Prelate and other Mancipia Aulae Court-bellies to say Scotland and England must produce a written authentick covenant betwixt the first King and their People because say they it s the Lawes word De non apparentibus non existentibus eadem lex that covenant which appeareth not it is not For in positive covenants that is true and in such contracts as are made according to the Civill or Municipall lawes or the secondary law of Nations But the generall covenant of nature is presupposed in making a King where there is no vocall or written covenant if there be no conditions betwixt a Christian King and his people then those things which are just and right according to the law of God and the rule of God in moulding the first King are understood to regulate both King and People as if they had been written and here we produce our written covenant Deut. 17.15 Josh. 1.8 9. 2 Chr. 31 32.1 Because this is as much against the King as the people and more for if the first King cannot bring forth his written and authentick tables to prove that the Crown was given to him and his heires and his successors absolutely and without any conditions so as his will shall be a law cadit causa he loseth his cause say they The King is in possession of the Royall power absolutely without any condition and you must put him from his possession by a law I answer this is most false 1. Though he were in mala fide and in unjust possession the law of Nature will warrant the people to repeal their right and plead for it in a matter which concerneth their heads lives and soules 2. The Parliaments of both Kingdomes standing in possession of a nomothetick power to make lawes proveth cleerely that the King is in no possession of any Royall dignitie conferred absolutely and without any condition upon him and therefore it is the Kings part by law to put the Estates out of possession And so though there were no written covenant the standing law and practice of many hundreth acts of Parliament is equivalent to a written covenant 2. When the people appointeth any to be their King the voyce of Nature exponeth their deed though there be no vocall or written covenant For that fact of making a King is a morall lawfull act warranted by the word of God Deut. 17.15 16. Rom. 13.1.2 and the law of Nature and therefore they having made such a man their King they have given him power to be their father feeder healer protector and so must only have made him King conditionally so he be a father a feeder and tutor Now if this deed of making a King must be exponed to be an investing with an absolute and not a conditionall power this fact shall be contrary to Scripture and to the law of Nature for if they have given him Royall power absolutely and without any condition they must have given to him power to be a father protector tutor and to be a tyrant a murtherer a bloody lyon to waste and destroy the people of God 3. The Law permitteth the bestower of a benefit to interpret his own mind in the bestowing of a benefit even as a King and State must expone their own Commission given to their Ambassadour so must the Estates expone whether they bestowed the Crown upon the first King conditionally or absolutely For the 4th if it stand then must the people give to their first elected King a power to wast and destroy themselves so as they may never controle it but only leave it to God and the King to reckon together but so the condition is a Chimera We give you a Throne upon condition you swear by him who made heaven and earth that you will govern us according to Gods Law and you shall be answerable to God only not to us whether you keep the covenant you make with us or violate it but how a covenant can be made with the people and the King obliged to God not to the people I conceive not 2. This presupposeth that the King as King cannot doe any sin or commit any act of tyranny against the people but against God only because if he be obliged to God only as a
and Captaine but they refuse to doe it except he sweare he shall not betray them to the enemy he doth betray them then must the souldiers be loosed from that contract if one be appointed Pilate of a ship and not but by an Oath if he sell the Passengers to the Turke they may challenge the Pilate of his Oath and it is cleare that 1. the estates should refuse to give the Crown to him who would refuse to governe them according to Gods Law but should professe that he would make his owne will a Law therefore the intention of the Oath is clearely conditionall 2. When the King sweareth the Oath he is but King in fieri and so not as King above the States of Kingdomes now his being King doth not put him in a case above all civill obligation of a King to his subjects because the matter of the Oath is that he shall be under them so farre in regard of the Oath of God Arg. 8. If the Oath of God made to the people doe not bind him to the people to governe according to Law and not according to his will and lust it should be unlawfull for any to sweare such an Oath for if a power above law agree essentially to a King as a King as Royalists hold he who sweareth such a Oath should both sweare to be a King to such a people and should sweare to be no King in respect by his Oath he should renounce that which is essentiall to a King Arnisaeus objecteth Ex particularibus non potest colligi conclusio universalis some few of the Kings as David Ioash made a covenant with the people it followeth not that this was a universall law Ans. Yea the covenant is Deut. 17. and must be a rule to all if so just a man as David was limited by a covenant then all the rest also QUEST XV. Whether or no the King be Vnivocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father IT is true Aristotle Polit. l. 3. c. 11. saith That the Kingly power is a fatherly power and Iustin. Novell 12. c. 2. Pater quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius sit tamen pater est But I doe not beleeve that as Royalists say that the Kingly power is essentially and univocally that same with a paternall or fatherly power or that Adam as a father was as a father and King and that suppose Adam should live in Noahs daies that by divine institution and without consent of the Kingdomes and communities on earth Adam hoc ipso and for no other reason but because he was a father should also be the universall King and Monarch of the whole world or suppose Adam were living to this day that all Kings that hath been since and now are held their Crownes of him and had no more Kingly power then inferiour Iudges in Scotland have under our soveraigne King Charles for so all that hath been and now are lawfull Kings should be unjust usurpers for if fatherly power be the first and native power of commanding it is against nature that a Monarch who is not my father by generation should take that power from me and be a King over both me and my children But I assert that though the Word warrant us to esteem Kings fathers Esa. 49.23 Jud. 5.7 Gen. 20. v. 2. yet are not they essentially and formally fathers by generation Num. c. 11. v. 12. Have I conceived all this people have I begotten them and yet are they but fathers metaphorically 1. By office because they should care for them as fathers doe for children and so come under the name of fathers in the fifth Commandement and therefore rigorous and cruell Rulers are Leopards and Lyons and Wolves Ezech. 22.27 Zeph. 3.3 If then tyrannous Judges be not essentially and formally Leopards and Lyons but only metaphorically neither can Kings be formally fathers 2. Not only Kings but all Iudges are fathers in defending their subjects from violence and the sword and fighting the Lords battells for them and counselling them If therefore Royalists argue rightly A King is essentially a father and fatherly power and royall power are of the same essence and nature As therefore he who is once a father is ever a father and his children cannot take up armes against him to resist him for that is unnaturall repugnant to the 5. Commandement So he who is once a King is evermore a King and it is repugnant to the fifth Commandement to resist him with armes It is answered that the Argument presupposeth that Royall power and Fatherly power is one and the same in nature whereas they differ in nature and are only one by analogie and proportion for so Pastors of the Word are called fathers 1 Cor. 4.15 it will not follow that once a Pastor evermore a Pastor and that if therefore Pastors turne wolves and by hereticall doctrine corrupt the flock they cannot be cast out of the Church 3. A father as a father hath not power of life and death over his sonnes because Rom. 13. by divine institution the sword is given by God to Kings and Iudges and if Adam had had any such power to kill his sonne Cain for the killing of his brother Abel it had been given to him by God as a power politike different from a fatherly power for a fatherly power as such is formally to conserve the life of the childaen and not to take away the life yea and Adam though he had never sinned nor any of his posteritie Adam should have been a perfect father as he is now indued with all fatherly power that any father now hath yea should not God have given the sword or power of punishing ill doers since that power should have been in vaine if there had been no violence nor bloodshed or sinne on the earth for the power of the sword and of lawfull warre is given to men now in the state of sinne 4. Fatherly government and power is from the bosome and marrow of that fountaine law of nature but Royall power is not from the law of nature more then Aristocraticall or Democraticall power D. Ferne saith Monarchie is not jure divino I am not of his mind nor yet from the law of Nature but ductu naturae by the guidance of nature Sure it is from a supervenient commandement of God added to the first law of nature establishing Fatherly power 5. Children having their life and first breathings of nature from their parents must be in a more intire relation from their father then from their Prince Subjects have not their Being naturall but their civill politique and peaceable well-being from their Prince 6. A father is a father by generation and giving the being of nature to children and is a naturall head and root without the free consent and suffrages of his children and is essentially a father to one childe as Adam was to one Cain but a Prince is a Prince by the free
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
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
is referred to them either to deny the truth of Christ and his name or then to suffer death the choise is apparently evident and this choise that persecuters referre us unto is to us a Commandement of God that we â—ust choose suffering for Christ and refuse sinning against Christ but the supposition must stand that this alternative is unavoydable that is not in our power to decline either suffering for Christ or denying of Christ bâ—fore men otherwayes no man is to expect the reward of a witnesse of Iesus who having a lawfull possible meanes of eschewing suffering doth yet cast himselfe into suffering neâ—dlesly But I prove that suffering by men of this world falleth not formally and directly under any divine positive Law for the Law of nature what â—ver Arminians in their Declaration or this Arminian excommunicate think with them for they teach that God gave a Commadement to Adam to abstaine from such and such fruit with paine and trouble to sinlesse nature doth not command suffering or any thing contrary to nature as nature is sinlesse I prove it thus 1. What ever falleth under a positive Commandemâ—nt of God I may say here undâ—r any Commandement of God is not a thing under the freewill and power of others from whom we are not discended necessarily by naturall generation but that men of the world kill me even these from whom I am not dâ—scended by naturall generation which I speake to exclude Adam who killed all his posterity is not in my free will either as if they had my common nature in that act or as if I werâ— accessory by counsell consent or approbation to that act for this is under the free-will and power of others not under my owne free-will Ergo that I suffer by others is not under my free-will and cannot fall under a Commandement of God And certainly it is an irrationall Law glorified be his name that God should command Antipas either formally to suffer or formally not to suffer death by these of the Synagogue of Sathan Revel 2.13 because if they be pleased not to kill him it is not in his free-will to be killed by them and if they shall have him in their power except God extraordinarily deliver it is not in his power in an ordinary providence not to be killed 2. All these places of Gods word that recommendeth suffering to the followers of Christ do not command formally that we suffer Ergo suffering falleth not formally under any Commandement of God I prove the Antecedent because iâ— they be considered they prove onely that comparatively we are to choose rather to suffer then to deny Christ before men Mat. 10.28 32. Revel 2.13 Mat. 10.37 Mat. 16.24 c. 19.29 or then they command not suffering according to the substance of the passion but according to the manner that we suffer willingly cheerfully and patiently Hence Christs word to take up his Crosse which is not a meere passion but commendeth an act of the vertue of patience Now no Christian vertue consisteth in a meer passion but in laudable habits and good and gracious acts and the Text we are now on 1 Pet. 2.18 19. doth not recommend suffering from the example of Christ but patient suffering and so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply enjoyned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all feare ver 18. and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suffer with patience as 2 Tim 3.11 1 Cor. 10.13 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to suffer patiently 1 Cor. 13.7 Love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffereth all things Heb. 12.17 if you suffer correction 1 Tim. 5.5 She continueth patiently in prayers Heb. 12.2 Christ endured the Crosse patiently Rom. 15.5 Rom. 8.25 Luk. 8.15 21.29 the derivats hence signifie patience so doe all our Interâ—reters Beza Calvin Marlorat and Popish expositors as Lorinus Estius Carthusian Lyra Hugo Cardinaliâ— expound it of patient suffering and the text is clear it is suffering like Christ without rendring evil for evil and reviling for reviling 3. Suffering simply according to substance of the passion I cannot say action is common to good and ill and to the wicked yea to the damned in hell who suffâ—r against their will and that cannot be joyned according to its substance as an act of formall obediâ—nce and subjection to higher powers Kings Fathers Masters by force of the fifth commandement and of the place Rom. 13.1 2. Which according to its substance wicked men suffer and the damned in hell also against their will 4. Passive obedience to wicked Emperours can but be enjoyned Rom. 13. but onely in the manner and upon supposition that we must be subject to them and must suffer against our wills all the ill of punishment that they can inâ—lict we must suffer patiently and because it is Gods permissive will that they punish us unjustly for it is not Gods ruling and approving will called voluntas signi that they should against the law of God and man kill us and persecute us and therefore neither Rom. 13. nor 1 Pet. 2. nor any place in Gods word nor any common Divinâ— naturall of nations or any municipal Law commandeth formally obedience passive or subjection passive or non-resistance under the notion of passive obedience yea to me obedience passive if we speak oâ— obedience properly called as relative essentially to a law is a chymera a dream and repugnantia in adjecto and therefore I utterly deny that resistance passive or subjection passive doth formally fal under either commandment of God affirmative or negative onely the unlawfull manner of resistance by way of revenge or for defence of Popery and false Religion and out of impatient tolleration of Monarchy or any Tyranny is forbidden in Gods word and certainly all the words used Rom. 13. as they fall under a formal commandement of God or words of action not of any Chymericall passive obediâ—nce as we are not to resist actively Gods ordinance as his ordinance ver 1.2 that is to resist God actively 2. We are to do good works not evil if we would have the ruler no terror to us ver 3. 3. We must not do ill if we would be free of vengeances sword ver 7. we are to pay tribute and to give fear and honour to the ruler ver 7. â—ll which are evidently actions not passive subjection and if any passive subjection be commanded it is not here nor in the first commandement commanded but in the first commandement under the hand of patience and submission under Gods hand in sufferings or in the third commandement under the hand of rather dying for Christ or denying his truth before men hence I argue here Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2. and Tit. 3. is nothing else but an exposition of the fifth commandement but in the fifth commandement onely active obedience is formally commanded and the subordination of inferiours to superiours is ordained and passive
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
three Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland p. 446 447 448. The Parliament of Scotland doth regulate limit and set bounds to the Kings power p. 448 449 Fergus the first King not a Conquerour p. 449. The King of Scotland below Parliaments considerable by them hath no negative voice p. 450 451 seq QUEST XLIV Generall results of the former doctrine in some few Corrolaries in 22 Questions p. 454 455. Concerning Monarchy compared with other forms p. 454. How Royaltie is an issue of nature p. 454 455. And how Magistrates as Magistrates be naturall p. 455. How absolutenesse is not a Ray of Gods Majestie ibid. And resistance not unlawfull because Christ and his Apostles used it not in some cases p. 456 457. Coronation is no ceremony p. 457. Men may limit the power that they gave not p. 457 458. The Common-wealth not a pupill or minor properly p. 459. Subjects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients Vassals Children to their Superiours p. 459 460. If subjection passive be naturall p. 461. Whether King Uzziah was dethroned p. 461 462. Idiots and children not compleat Kings children are Kings in destination onely p. 462. Deniall of passive subjection in things unlawfull not dishonourable to the King more then deniall of active obedience in the same things p. 463. The King may not make away or sell any part of his Dominions p. 463 464. People may in some cases conveen without the King p. 464. How and in what meaning subjects are to pay the Kings debts p. 465. Subsidies the Kingdoms due rather then the Kings p. 465 466. How the Seas Ports Forts Castles Militia Magazeen are the Kings and how they are the Kingdoms p. 466. Lex Rex QUEST I. In what sense Government is from God I Reduce all that I am to speak of the power of Kings to the Author or efficient 2. The matter or subject 3. The form or power 4. The end and fruit of their Government And 5. to some cases of resistance Hence Quest. I. Whether Government be warranted by a divine Law The question is either of Government in generall or of the particular species of Government such as are Government by one only called Monarchy the Government by some chief leading men named Aristocracie the Government by the people going under the name of Democracie 2. We cannot but put difference betwixt the institution of the Office to wit Government and the designation of person or persons to the Office 3. What is warranted by the direction of natures light is warranted by the Law of nature and consequently by a divine Law for who can deny the Law of nature to be a divine Law That power of Government in generall must be from God I make good 1. Because Rom. 13. 1. there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God 2. God commandeth obedience and so subjection of conscience to powers Rom. 13.5 Wherefore we must be subject not onely for wrath or civill punishment but for conscience sake 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme c. Now God onely by a divine Law can lay a band of subjection on the conscience tying men to guilt and punishment if they transgrâ—sse 2. Conclus All civill power is immediately from God in its root In that 1. God hath made man a sociall creature and one who inclineth to be governed by man then certainly he must have put this power in mans nature so are we by good reason taught by Aristotle 2. God and nature intendeth the policie and peace of mankinde then must God and nature have given to mankinde a power to compasse this end and this must be a power of Government I see not then why John Prelate Master Maxwel the excommunicate P. of Rosse who speakâ—th in the name of I. Armagh had reason to say That he feared that we fancied that the Government of Superiours was onely for the more perfit but have no Authoritie over or above the perfit Nâ—c Rex nec Lex justo posita He might have imputed this to the Brasilians who teach That every single man hath the power of the sword to revenge his own injuries as Molina saith QUEST II. Whether or not Government be warranted by the Law of nature AS domestick societie is by natures instinct so is civill societie naturall in radice in the root and voluntary in modo in the manner of coalescing Politick power of Government agreeth not to man singly as one man except in that root of reasonable nature but supposing that men be combined in societies or that one family cannot contain a societie it is naturall that they joyn in a civill societie though the manner of Union in a politick body as Bodine saith be voluntary Gen. 10.10 Gen. 15.7 and Suarez saith That a power of making Laws is given by God as a property flowing from nature Qui dat formam dat consequâ—ntia ad formam Not by any speciall action or grant different from creation nor will he have it to result from nature while men be united into one politick body which Union being made that power followeth without any new action of the will We are to distinguish betwixt a power of Government and a power of Government by Magistracy That we defend our selves from violence by violence is a consequent of unbroken and sin-lesse nature but that we defend our selves by devolving our power over in the hands of one or more Rulers seemeth rather positively morall then naturall except that it is naturall for the childe to expect help against violence from his father For which cause I judge that learned Senator Ferdinandus Vasquius said well That Princedom Empire Kingdom or Iurisdiction hath its rise from a positive and secundary law of Nations and not from the law of pure Nature The Law saith there is no law of Nature agreeing to all living creatures for superiority for by no reason in Nature hath a Boar dominion over a Boar a Lyon over a Lyon a Dragon over a Dragon a Bull over a Bull And if all Men be born equally free as I hope to prove there is no reason in Nature why one Man should be King and Lord over another therefore while I be otherwise taught by the forecasten Prelate Maxwell I conceive all jurisdiction of Man over Man to be as it were Artificiall and Positive and that it inferreth some servitude whereof Nature from the womb hath freed us if you except that subjection of children to parents and the wife to the husband and the Law saith De jure gentium secundarius est omnis principatus 2. This also the Scripture proveth while as the exalting of Saul or David above their Brethren to be Kings and Captains of the Lords people is ascribed not to Nature for King and Beggar spring of one clay-mettall but to
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
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
of necessitie all things are common by Gods Law A man travelling might eat Grapes in his neighbours vineyard though he was not licenced to carry any away I doubt if David wanting money was necessitated to pay money for the Shew-bread or for Goliahs sword supposing these to be the very Goods of private men and ordinarily to be bought and sold natures Law in extremity for self preservation hath rather a Prerogative Royall above all Laws of Nations and all civill Laws then any mortall King and therefore by the civill Law all are the Kings in case of extreme necessity in this meaning any one man is obliged to give all he hath for the good of the Common-wealth and so far the good of the King in as farre as he is head and father of the Common-wealth 2. All things are the Kings in regard of his publike power to defend all men and their Goods from unjust violence 3. All are the Kings in regard of his Act of conservation of Goods for the use of the just owner 4. All are the Kings in regard of a legall limitation in case of a dammage offered to the Common-wealth justice requireth confiscation of Goods for a fault but confiscated Goods are to help the interessed Common-wealth and the King not as a man to bestow them on his children but as a King to this we may referre these called bona caduca inventa things losed by Shipwrack or any other providence Vlpian tit 19. t. c. de bonis vacantibus C. de Thesauro And the Reasons why private men are just Lords and proprietors of their own Goods are 1. Because by order of nature division of Goods cometh neerer to natures law and necessity then any King or Magistrate in the world for because it is agreeable to nature thâ—â— every man be warmed by his own fleece nourished by his own meat therefore to conserve every mans Goods to the just owner and to preserve a communitie from the violence of rapine and theft a Magistrate and King was devised So it is clear men are just owners of their own Goods by all good order both of nature and time before there be any such thing as a King or Magistrate Now if it be good that every man enjoy his own Goods as just proprietor thereof for his own use before there be a King who can be proprietor of his Goods and a King being given of God for a blessing not for any mans hurt and losse the King cometh in to preserve a mans Goods but not to be lord and owner thereof himself nor to take from any man Gods right to his own Goods 2. When God created man at the beginning he made all the creatures for man and made them by the law of nature the proper possession of man but then there was not any King formally as King for certainly Adam was a father before he was a King and no man being either born or created a King over an other man no more then the first Lyon and the first Eagle that God created were by the birth-right and first-start of creation by nature the King of all Lyons and all Eagles to be after created no man can by natures law be the owner of all Goods of particular men And because the law of nations founded upon the law of nature hath brought in meum tuum mine and thine as proper to every particular man and the introduction of Kings cannot overturn natures foundation neither civility nor grace destroyeth but perfiteth nature and if a man be not born a King because he is a man he cannot be born the possessour of my Goods 3. What is a Character and note of a Tyrant and an oppressing King as a Tyrant is not the just due of a King as a King But to take the proper Goods of Subjects and use them as his own is a proper Character and note of a Tyrant and an oppressour Ergo the proposition is evident A King and a Tyrant are by way of contradiction contrary one to another the assumption is proved thus Ezek. 45.9 Thus saith the Lord Let it suffice you O Princes of Israel remove violence and spoil and execute judgement and justice take away your exactions from my people saith the Lord Vers. 10. Ye shall have just ballances and a just Ephah and a just bath If all be the Kings he is not capable of extortion and rapine Micah 3.2 God complaineth of the violence of Kings Is it not for you to know judgement Vers. 3. Who eat the flesh of my people and flea their skins from off them and they break their bones and chop them in pieces as for the pot and as flesh within the chaldron Isai. 3.14 Zeph. 3.3 and was it not an act of tyranny in King Achab to take the vineyard of Naboth and in King Saul 1 Sam. 8.14 to take the people of Gods fields and vineyards and olive-yards and give them to their servants Was it a just fault that Hybreas objected to Antonius exacting two tributes in one yeer that he said If thou must have two tributes in one yeer then make for us two Summers and two Harvests in one yeer This cannot be just if all be the Kings the King taketh but his own 4. Subjects under a Monarch could not give alms nor exercise works of charity for charity must be my own Isai. 58.7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry c. Eccles. 11.1 Cast thy bread into the waters and the Law saith It is theft to give of another mans to the poor yea the distinction of poor and rich should have no place under a Monarchie he onely should be rich 5. When Paul commandeth us to pay tribute to Princes Rom. 13.6 because they are the Ministers of God he layeth this ground That the King hath not all but that the subjects are to give to him of their goods 6. It is the Kings place by justice to preserve every man in his own right and under his own fig-tree Ergo It s not the Kings house 7. Even Pharaoh could not make all the victuall of the land his own while he had bought it with money and every thing is presumed to be free Allodialis free land except the King prove that it is bought or purchased L. actius C. de servit aqua Joan. And. m. C. F. de ind hosti in C. minus de jur 8. If the subjects had no proprietie in their own goods but all were the Princes due then the subject should not be able to make any contract of buying and selling without the King and every subject were in the case of a slave Now the Law saith L. 2. F. de Noxali act l. 2. F. ad legem aquil When he maketh any Covenant he is not obliged civilly to keep it because the condition of a servant he not being sui juris is compared to the state