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. Driedo 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 subjection 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 sacrae 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 do 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 soul to its damme and by that same law of nature no man is borne King of men nor any man subject to man in a civill subjection by nature I speake not of naturall subjection of children to parents and therefore Ferdi. Vasquez illustr quest l. 2. c. 82. n. 6. said that Kingdomes and Empires were brought in not by Natures law but by the law of Nations he expoundeth himself elsewhere to speak of the law of nature secondary otherwise the primarie law of Nations is indeed the law of Nature as appropriated to man If any reply that the freedome naturall of beasts and birds who never sinned cannot be one with the naturall freedome of man who are now under sin and so under bondage for sin my answer is That the subjection of the miserie of man by nature because of sinne is more then the subjection of beasts comparing spece and kind of beasts and birds with mankind but comparing individuals of the same kinde amongst themselves a Lyon with Lyon Eagle with Eagle and so Man with Man in which respect because he who is supposed to be the man borne free from subjection politike even the King borne a King is under the same state of sin and so by reason of sinne of which he hath a share equally with all other men by nature he must be by nature borne under as great subjection penall for sinne except the King be borne voyd of sinne as other men Ergo he is not borne freer by nature then other men except he come out of the wombe with a Kings crown on his head 4. To be a King is a free gift of God which God bestoweth on some men above others as is evident 2 Sam. 12. 7 8. Psal 75. 6. Dan. 4. 32. and therefore all must be borne Kings if any one man be by nature a King borne and another a borne subject But if some be by Gods grace made Kings above others they are not so by nature for things which agree to man by nature agree to all men equally but all men equally are not borne Kings as is evident and all men are not equally borne by nature under politique subjection to Kings as the Adversaries grant because those who are by nature Kings cannot be also by nature subjects 5. If men be not by nature free from politique subjection then must some by the law of relation by nature be Kings But none are by nature Kings because none have by nature these things which essentially constitute Kings for they have neither by nature the calling of God nor gifts for the throne nor the free election of the people nor conquest and if there be none a King by nature there can be none a Subject by nature And the Law faith Omnes sumus naturâ liberi nullius ditioni subjecti l. Manuâ—iss F. de just jur S. jus autem gentium Ius de jur nat We are all by nature free and D. L. ex hâ—c jure cum simil 6. Politicians agree to this as an undeniable truth that as domestick society is naturall being grounded upon Natures instinct so Politique societie is voluntary being grounded on the consent of men and so politique societie is naturall in radice in the root and voluntary and free in modo in the manner of their union and the Scripture cleareth to us that a King is made by the free consent of the people Deut. 17. 15. and so not by nature 7. What is from the wombe and so naturall is eternall and agreeth to all societies of men but a Monarchie agreeth not to all societies of men for many hundred years de facto there was not a King till Nimrods time the world being governed by families and till Moses his time we find no institution for Kings Gen. 7. and the numerous multiplication of mankind did occasion Monarchies otherwise Fatherly government being the first and measure of the rest must be the best for it is better that my father governe me then that a stranger governe me and therefore the Lord forbad his people to set a stranger over themselves to be their King The P. Prelate contendeth for the contrary Every man saith he is borne subject to his father of whom immediately he hath his existence in nature and if his Father be the subject of another he is borne the subject of his fathers superiour Answ But the consequence is weake every man is borne under naturall subjection to his father ergo he is borne naturally under civill subjection to his fathers superiour or King it followeth not yea because his father was borne only by nature subject to his owne father ergo he was subject to a Prince or King only by accident and by the free constitution of men who freely choose politick government whereas there is no government naturall but fatherly or martiall and therefore the contradictory consequence is true P. Prelat Obj. 2. Every man by nature hath immunity and liberty from despoticall and herill Empire and so may dispose of his owne at will and cannot inslave himselfe without his owne free will but God hath laid and cannot inslave himselfe without his owne free will but God hath laid a necessity on all men to be under government and nature also laid this necessity on him therefore this soveraignty cannot protect us in righteousnesse and honesty except it be intirely indowed with soveraigne power to preserve
easier to one to destroy many having a power absolute which God never gave him then for many to destroy themselves Then if the King Vzzah intrude himselfe and sacrifice the Priests doe sin in remedying thereof P. Prelate Why might not the people of Israell Peers or Sanedrim have convened before them judged and punished David for his Adultery and Murther Romanists and new Statists acknowledge no case lawfull but Heresie Apostacy or Tyranny and tyranny they say must be universall 2. Manifest as the Sunne 3. And with obstinacy and invincible by prayers as is recorded of Nero whose wish was rather a transported passion then a fixed resolution this cannot fall in the attempts of any but a Mad-man Now this cannot be proved of our King but though we grant in the foresaid case that the community may resume their power and rectifie what is amisse which we canno grant but this will follow by their doctrine in every case of male administration Ans The Prelate draweth me to speake of the case of the Kings unjust Murther confessed Ps 51. to which I answer He taketh it for confessed that it had been treason in the Sanedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his Adultery and his Murther but he giveth no reason for this nor any word of God and truely though I will not presume to goe before others in this Gods Law Gen. 9. 6. compared with Num. 35. 30. 31. seemeth to say against them Nor can I thinke that Gods Law or his Deputy the Iudges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chro. 19. 6 7. and we say We cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not The Lord speaketh to under Iudges Levit. 19. 15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poore nor honour the person of the mighty or of the Prince for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King should draw the sword against himselfe but yet it followeth not that if we speake of the demerit of blood that the Law of God accepteth any Iudge great or small if the Estate be above the King as I conceive they are though it be a humane politicke constitution that the King be free of al coaction of Law because it conduceth for the peace of the Common-wealth yet if we make a matter of conscience for my part I see no exception that God makethit if men make I crave leave to say A facto ad jus non sequitur And I easily yeeld that in every case the Estates may coerce the King if we make it a case of conscience And for the place Ps 51. 4. Against thee only have I sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flatterers alleadge it to be a place that proveth that the King is above all earthly Tribunals and all Lawes and that there was not on earth any who might punish King David and so they cite Clemens Alexandria Strom. l. 4. Arnobi Psal 50. Dydimus Hieronim But Calvine on the place giveth the meaning that most of the Fathers give Domine etiam si me totus mundus absolvat mihi tamen plusquam satis est quod te solum judicem sentio It is true Beda Euthymius Ambrosius Apol. David c. 4. c. 10. do all acknowledge from the place De facto there was none above David to judge him and so doth Augustine Basilius Theodoret say and Chrysostomus and Cyrillus and Hyeronim Epist 22. Ambrose Sermo 16. in Psal 118. Gregorius and Augusti Ioan. 8. saith he meaneth no man durst judge or punish him but God only Lorinus the Iesuit observeth eleven interpretatiōs of the Fathers all to this sense since Lyra saith he sinned only against God because God only could pardon him Hugo Cardinalis because God only could wash him which he asketh in the Text. And Lorin Solo Deo conscio peccavi But the simple meaning is Against thee only have I sinned as my eye witnesse and imediate beholder and therfore he addeth and have done this evill in thy sight 2. Against thee only as my Iudge that thou maist be justified when thou judgest as cleare from all unrighteousnesse when thou shalt send the sword on my house 3. Against thee O Lord only who canst wash me and pardon me v. 1 2. And if this thee only exclude all together Vriah Bathsheba and the Law of the Iudges as if he had sinned against none of these in their kind then is the King because a King free not only from a punishing Law of man but from the duties of the second Table simply and so a King cannot be under the best and largest halfe of the Law Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe 2. He shall not need to say Forgive us our sinnes as we forgive them that sin against us for there is no reason from the nature of sin and the nature of the Law of God why we can say more the subjects and sonnes sin against the King and Father then to say the Father and King sin against the sonnes and subjects 3. By this the King killing his Father Iesse should sin against God but not breake the fist Command nor sinne against his father 4. God should in vaine forbid fathers to provoke their children to wrath 1. And Kings to doe unjustice to their subjects because by this the superiour cannot sinne against the inferiour for as much as Kings can sin against none but those who have power to judge and punish them but God only and no inferiours and no subjects have power to punish the Kings therefore Kings can sin against none of their subjects and where there is no sin how can there be a Law neither Major or Minor can be denyed by Royalists 2. We acknowledge Tyranny must only unking a Prince The Prelate denyeth it but he is a green Statist Barclay Grotius Winzetus as I have proved granteth it 3. He will excuse Nero as of infirmity wishing all Rome to have one necke that he may cut it off And is that charitable of Kings that they will not be so mad as to destroy their owne Kingdome But when Stories teach us there have been more Tyrants then Kings the Kings are more obliged to him for flattery then for State-wit except we say that all Kings who cate the people of God as they doe bread owe him little for making them all madde and franticke 4. But let them be Nero's and madde and worse there is no coercing of them but all must give their neckes to the sword if the poore Prelate be heard and yet Kings cannot be so madde as to destroy their subjects Mary of England was that madde the Romish Princes who have given Revel 17. 13. their power and strength to the beast and doe make warre with the Lambe and Kings inspired with the spirit of the beast and drunke
but onely by meer approbation Negatur pag. 28 29. The Forms of Government not from God by an act of naked Providence but by his approving will Ibid. Soveraignty not from the people by sole approbation P. 29 30. Though God have peculiar acts of providence in creating Kings it followeth not hence that the people maketh not Kings P. 31. The P. Prelate exponeth prophecies true onely of David Solomon and Iesus Christ as true of prophane heathen Kings P. 34 35. The P. P. maketh all the heathen Kings to be Princes anointed with the holy Oyl of saving grace Ibid. QUEST VII Whether the P. Prelate conclude that neither constitution nor designation of Kings is from the people Negatur P. 38 39. The excellency of Kings maketh them not of Gods onely Constitution and Designation Ibid. How Soveraigntie is in the people how not P. 43. A Communitie doth not surrender their right and libertie to their Rulers so much as their power active to do and passive to suffer violence P. 44 45. Gods loosing of the bonds of Kings by the mediation of the peoples despising him proveth against the P. P. That the Lord taketh away and giveth Royall Majestie mediately not immediately P. 45 46. The subordination of people to Kings and Rulers both naturall and voluntary the subordination of beasts and creatures to man meerly naturall P. 46 47. The place Gen. 9. 5. He that shedeth man's blood c. discussed P. 47 48. QUEST VIII Whether or no the P. Prelate proveth by force of reason That the people cannot be capable of any power of Goverment Negatur pag. 49 50. In any communitie there is an active and passive power to Government P. 50. Popular Government is not that wherein all the whole people are Governours P. 53 54. People by nature are equally indifferent to all the three Governments and are under not any one by nature P. 53. The P. Prelate denyeth the Pope his father to be the Antichrist Ibid. The bad successe of Kings chosen by people proveth nothing against us because Kings chosen by God had bad successe through their own wickednesse P. 54 55. The P. Prelate condemneth King Charls his ratifying Parl. 2. An. 1641. The whole proceedings of Scotland in this present Reformation P. 56. That there be any supreme Judges is an eminent act of divine providence which hindereth not but that the King is made by the people P. 57. The people not patients in making a King as is water in the Sacrament of Baptisme in the Act of production of grace P. 58. QUEST IX Whether or no Soveraigntie is so in and from the people that they may resume their power in time of extreme necessity Negatur pag. 58. How the people is the subject of Soveraignty Ibid. No Tyrannicall power is from God P. 59. People cannot alienate the naturall power of self-defence Ibid. The power of Parliaments P. 60. The Parliament hath more power then the King Ibid. Judges and Kings differ P. 61. People may resume their power not because they are infallible but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves as one man may do P. 63. That the Sanedrim punished not David Bathsheba Joab is but a fact not a law P. 63 64. There is a subordination of Creatures naturall Government must be naturall and yet this or that form is voluntary P. 65 66 67. QUEST X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to Divine Unction Negatur pag. 68. Impugned by eight Arguments Ibid. Royalty not transmitted from father to sonne ibid. A family may be chosen to a Crown as a single person is chosen but the tye is conditionall in both pag. 68. 69. The Throne by speciall promise made to David and his seed by God Psal 89. no ground to make birth In foro Dei a just title to the crowne pag. 69 70. A Title by conquest to a Throne must be unlawfull if birth be gods lawfull title pag. 70. Royalists who hold conquest to be a just title to the Crown teach manifest treason against King Charles and his Royall Heires ibid. Only Bona fortunae not honour or Royalty properly transmittable from father to sonne pag. 71. Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people to submit to a conquerour as their lawfull King pag. 72. Naked birth is inferiour to that very divine unction that made no man aâ— King without the peoples election pag. 73. If a Kingdome were by birth the King might sell it pag. 74. The Crown is the Patrimony of the Kingdome not of him who is King or of his father pag. 72 73 76. Birth a typicall designement to the Crowne in Israel pag. 74. The choise of a family to the Crowne resolveth upon the free election of the people as on the fountaine-cause pag. 76. Election of a family to the Crown lawfull pag. 77. QUEST XI Whether or no he be more principally a King who is a King by birth or he who is a King by the free election of the people Affir posterius pag. 79. The Elective King commeth nearer to the first King Deut. 17. pag. 80. If the people may limit the King they give him the power ibid. A Community have not power formally to punish themselves pag. 81. The Hereditary and the elective Prince in divers considerations better or worse each one then another pag. 82. QUEST XII Whether or no a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole Title of Conquest Negatur pag. 82. 7. Argu. for the negat a twofold right of conquest ibid. Conquest turned in an after-consent of the people becommeth a just title pag. 83. Conquest not a signification to us of Gods approving will pag. 84. Meere violent domineering contrary to the acts of governing ibid. Violence hath nothing in it of a King ibid. A bloody Conquerour not a blessing per se as a King is pag. 85. Strength as prevailing is not Law or reason pag. 86 Fathers cannot dispone of the liberty of posterity not borne ibid. A father as a father hath not power of life and death pag. 87. Israels and Davids Conquests of the Canaanites Edomites Ammonites not lawfull because conquest but upon a Divine title of Gods promise pag. 88. 89. QUEST XIII Whether or no Royall Dignity have its spring from Nature and how that is true every man is borne free and how servitude is contrary to nature Affir 89. Seven sorts of superiority and inferiority pag. 89 90. Power of life and death from a positive Law ibid. A Dominion antecedent and consequent 90. Kings and subjects no naturall order ibid. A man is borne consequenter in politick relation pag. 91. Slavery not naturall from four reasons ibid. Every man borne free in regard of civill subjection not in regard of naturall such as of children and wife to Parents and Husband proved by seven Arguments pag. 91 92 93. Politique Government how necessary how naturall pag. 94. That Parents should inslave their children not naturall pag. 95. QUEST XIV Whether or
no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether the King be tyed by any such covenant pag. 96. The King under a naturall but no civill obligation to the people as Royalists teach ibid. The Covenant civilly tyeth the King proved by Scriptures and reasons by 8. Argu. ibid. sequent If the condition without which one of the parties would never have entered in Covenant be not performed that party is loosed from the Covenant pag. 97. The people and Princes are obliged in their places for Iustice and Religion no lesse then the King pag. 98. In so farre as the King presseth a false Religion on the people eatenus in so farre they are understood not to have a King pag. 99. The Covenant giveth a mutuall coactive power to King and people to compell each other though there be not one in earth higher then both to compell each of them pag. 100. The Covenant bindeth the King as King not as he is a man onely pag. 101. One or two Tyrannous acts deprive not the King of his Royall right pag. 104. Though there were no positive written Covenant which yet we grant not yet there is a naturall tacit implicit Covenant tying the King by the nature of his Office pag. 106 If the King be made King absolutely it is contrary to Scripture and the nature of his Office pag. 107. The people given to the King as a pledge not as if they became his owne to dispose of at his absolute will pag. 108. The King could not buy sell borrow if no Covenant should tye him to men ibid. The Covenant sworne by Iudah 2 Chro. 15. tyed the King pag. 109. QUEST XV. Whether the King be univocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father pag. 111 Adam not King of the whole earth because a father ibid. The King a Father Metaphorically and improperly proved by eight Arguments ibid. sequent QUEST XVI Whether or no a despoticall or masterly dominion agree to the King because he is King Negatur pag. 116 The King hath no masterly dominion over the Subjects as if they were his servants Proved by 4. Arguments pag. 116. The King not over men as reasonable creatures to domineere pag. 117. The King cannot give away his Kingdome or his people as if they were his proper goods ibid. A violent surrender of liberty tyeth not pag. 119 A surrender of ignorance is in so farre unvoluntary as it oblige not ibid. The goods of the subjects not the Kings proved by 8. Argu. pag. 120. All the goods of the subjects are the Kings in a four-fold sence pag. 121. QVEST. XVII Whether or no the Prince have properly the fiduciary or ministeriall power of a Tutor Husband Patron Minister Head Master of a Family not of a lord or dominator Affirmed p. 124. The King a Tutor rather then a Father as these are distinguished ibid. A free Communitie not properly and in all respects a minor and pupill p. 125. The Kings power not properly maritall and husbandly ibid. The King a Patron and Servant pag. 126. The Royall power only from God Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum solitudine causae primae but not Immediatione applicationis dignitatis ad personam pag. 126. The King the Servant of the people both objectively and subjectively pag. 127. The Lord and the people by one and the same act according to the Physicall relation maketh the King ibid. The King head of the people Metaphorically only not essentially not univocally by 6. Argu. pag. 128. His power fiduciary only pag. 129 QVEST. XVIII What is the Law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8 9 11. the place discussed fully pag. 130. The Power and the Offfce badly differenced by Barclay pag. 130. What is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of the King by the harmony of Interpretors ancient and moderne Protestants and Papists pag. 131 132 133. Crying out 1 Sam. 8. not necessarily a remedy of tyranny nor a praying with faith and patience pag. 135 136. Resisting of Kings that are tyrannous and patience not inconsistent ibid. The Law of the King not a permissive Law as was the Law of Devorcement pag. 136 137. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 12. 23 24. not a Law of tyranny pag. 138 139. QVEST. XIX Whether or no the King be in Dignity and Power above the people Neg. Impugned by 10. Argu. p. 139. In what consideration the King is above the people and the people above the King pag. 139 140. A meane as a meane inferiour to the end how its true ibid. The King inferiour to the people ibid. The Church because the Church is of more excellency then the King because King pag. 140 141. The people being those to whom the King is given worthier then the gift pag. 141. And the people immortall the King mortall pag. 142. The King a meane only not both the efficient or Author of the Kingdome and a meane Two necessary distinctions of a meane pag. 143 If sin had never been there should have been no King pag. 142. The King is to give his life for his people ibid. The consistent cause more excellent then the effect pag. 143 144 145. The people then the King pag. 144 145. Vnpossible people can limit Royall Power but they must give Royall Power also ibid. The people have an action in making a King proved by foure Arguments ibid. Though it were granted that God immediately made Kings yet it is no consequent God only and not the people can unmake him pag. 146. The people appointing a King over themselves retaine the Fountaine-power of making a King pag. 147 148 149. The meane inferiour to the end and the King as King is a meane pag. 149 150 153. The King as a meane and also as a man inferiour to the people pag. 150. To sweare non-selfe-preservation and to sweare selfe-murther all one pag. 151. The people cannot make away their power 1. Their whole power nor 2. irrevocably to the King pag. 152. The people may resume the power they give to the Commissioners of Parliament when it is abused p. 152 The Tables in Scotland lawfull when the ordinary judicaturies are corrupt p. 153. Quod efficit tale idâ—ipsum magis tale discussed the fountain-power in the people the derived onely in the King p. 153 154 155. The King is a fiduciary a life-renter not a lord or heritor p. 155 156. How soveraigntie is in the people p. 156 157. Power of life and death how in a Community ibid. A Communitie voide of Ruiers is yet and may be a politike body p. 157. Iudges gods Analogically p. 158. QUEST XX. Whether Inferiour Judges be essentially the immediate Vicegerents of God as Kings not differing in essence and nature from Kings Affirmatur Proved by twelve Arguments pag. 159. Inferiour Iudges the immediate Vicars of God no lâ—sse then the King ibid. The consciences of inferiour Iudges immediately subordinate to God not to the King either mediately
obligatory in Law p. 234 235. Royalists confesse a Tyrant in exercise may be dethroned p. 235 236. How the people is the seat of the power of Soveraigntie p. 239 240. The place Psal 51. Against thee onely have I sinned c. discussed p. 241 242. Israels not rising in arms against Pharaoh examined p. 245 246 247 248 249. And Judahs not working their own deliverance under Cyrus p. 248 249. A Covenant without the Kings concurrence lawfull p. 249 250 251. QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall Interpreter of the Law Negatur p. 252. He is not the supreme and peremptor Interpreter p. 254. Nor is his will the sense of the Law p. 252 253. Nor is he the sole and onely judiciall Interpreter of the Law p. 253 254 255 seq QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Estates and Subjects for their owne just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull Affir p. 257. The state of the question P. 257 258 If Kings be absolute a superiour Iudge may punish an inferiour Iudge not as a Iudge but an erring man ibid. By Divine institution all Covenants to restraine their power must be unlawfull p. 258 259. Resistance in some cases lawfull p. 260 261 262. Six Arguments for the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars in this Quest 260. seq Many others follow Quest 29. and 30. seq QUEST XXIX Whether in the case of defensive War the distinction of the Person of the King as a man who may and can commit hostile acts of tyranny against his subjects and of the Office and Royall Power that he hath from God and the people can have place Affirmatur p. 265. The Kings Person in concreto and his Office in abstracto or which is all one the King using his Power lawfully to be distinguished Rom. 13. p. 265. To command unjustly maketh not a higher power p. 265. 266. The person may be resisted and yet the Office cannot be resisted prooved by fourteene Arguments p. 265 266. seq Contrary Objections of Royalists and of the P. Prelate answered p. 270 271. seq What we meane by the person and Office in abstracto in this dispute we doe not exclude the person in concreto altogether but only the person as abusing his power we may kill a person as a man and love him as a sonne father wife according to Scripture p. 272 273 274. We obey the King for the Law and not the Law for the King p. 275 276. The loosing of habituall and actuall Royalty different p. 276. Ioh. 19. 10. Pilates power of crucifying Christ no Law-power given to him of God it s proved against Royalists by six Arguments p. 280. QVEST. XXX Whether or no passive obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement Neg. What a meane resistance is that flying is resistance p. 313. The place 1 Pet. 2. 18. discussed ibid. Patient bearing of injuries and resistance of injuries compatible in one and the same subject ibid. Christs non-resistance hath many things rare and extraordinary and so is no leading rule to us p. 315. Suffering is either commanded to us comparatively only that we rather choose to suffer then deny the truth or the manner only is commanded that we suffer with patience p. 317 318. sequent The Physicall act of taking avvay the life or of offending vvhen commanded by the Lavv of self defence is no murther p. 321. We have a greater dominion over our goods and members except in case of mutilation vvhich is a little death then over our life p. 321. To kill is not of the nature of self defence but accidentall thereunto ibid. Defensive vvar cannot be vvithout offending p. 323. The nature of defensive and offensine Warrs p. 324 325. Flying is resistance p. 325 326. QUEST XXXI Whether selfe-defence by opposing violence to unjust violence be lawfull by the Law of God and Nature Affirm p. 326 327. Self-defence in man naturall but Modus the way must be rationall and just p. 327. The method of selfe-defence ibid. Violent re-offending in selfe-defence the last remedy p. 328. It s Physically unpossible for a Nation to fly in the case of persecution for Religion and so they may resist in their owne self-defence p. 328. Tutela Vitae proxima and remota p. 329. In a remote posture of selfe-defence we are not to take us to re-offending as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping or in the Cave for the same cause ibid. David would not kill Saul because he was the Lords Anoynted p. 330. The King not Lord of chastity name conscience and so may be resisted p. 331. By universall and particular nature selfe-defence lawfull proved by divers Arguments p. 330. And made good by the testimony of Iurists p. 331. The love of our selves the measure of the love of our neighbour and inforceth selfe-defence p. 332. Nature maketh a private man his owne Iudge and Magistrate when the Magistrate is absent and violence is offered to his life as the Law saith p. 334 335. Selfe-defence how lawfull it is p. 333 334 335. What presumption is from the Kings carriage to the two Kingdomes are in Law sufficient grounds of defensive warrs p. 336 337. Offensive and defensive warrs differ in the event and intentions of men but not in nature and spece nor Physically p. 336 337 338. Davids case in not killing Saul nor his men no rule to us not in our lawfull defence to kill the Kings Emissaries the cases farre different p. 338 339. QUEST XXXII Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warrrs can be proved from the Scripture from the examples of David the peoples rescuing Ionathan Elisha and the 80. valiant Priests who resisted Vzziah Affirm p. 340. David warrantably raised an Army of men to defend himselfe against the unjust violence of his Prince Saul p. 340 341 342. Davids not invading Saul and his men who did not aime at Arbitrary Government at subversion of Lawes Religion and extirpation of those that worshipped the God of Israel and opposed Idolatry but only pursuing one single person farre unlike to our case in Scotland and England now p. 342. 343. Davids example not extraordinary p. 343 344. Elisha's resistance proveth defensive warrs to be warrantable p. 344 345 Resistance made to King Vzziah by eighty valiant Priests proveth the same p. 346 347 348. The peoples rescuing Ionathan proveth the same p. 348 349. Libnah's revolt proveth this p. 349. The City of Abel defended themselves against Ioab King Davids Generall when he came to destroy a City for one wicked conspirator Sheba his sake p. 349 350. QUEST XXXIII Whether or no Rom. 13. 1. make any thing against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs Neg. p. 350. The King not only understood Rom. 13. p. 351. 352. And the place Rom. 13. discussed p. 352 353 354. QUEST XXXIV Whether Royalists prove by cogent reasons the unlawfulnesse of defensive warrs
are for the heir as the mean for the end But the King is for his Kingdom as a mean for the end as the watch-man for the Citie the living Law for peace and safetie to Gods people and therefore is not heres hominum An heir of men but men are rather heredes regis heirs of the King Arnisaeus Many Kingdoms saith he are purchased by just war and transmitted by the Law of heritage from the father to the son beside the consent of the people because the son receiveth right to the Crown not from the people but from his parents nor doth he possesse the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people keeping onely to himself the burden of protecting and governing the people but as a proprietie given to him lege regni by his parents which he is obliged to defend and rule as a father looketh to the good and welfare of the family yet so also as he may look to his own good Answ We read in the Word of God That the people made Solomon King not that David or any King can leave in his Testament a Kingdom to his son 2. He saith The son hath not the right of reigning as the patrimony of the people but as a proprietie given by the Law of the Kingdom by his parents Now this is all one as if he said The son hath not the right of the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people but as the patrimony of the people which is good non-sense For the proprietie of reigning given from father to son by the Law of the Kingdom is nothing but a right to reign given by the Law of the people and the very gift and patrimony of the people for Lex regni This Law of the Kingdom is the Law of the people tying the Crown to such a Royall Family and this Law of the people is prior and ancienter then the King or the right of reigning in the King or which the King is supposed to have from his Royall father because it made the first father the first King of the Royall Line For I demand How doth the son succeed to his fathers Crown and Throne Not by any promise of a divine Covenant that the Lord maketh to the father as he promised that Davids seed should sit on his throne till the Messiah should come this as I conceive is vanished with the Common-wealth of the Iews nor can we now finde any immediate divine constitution tying the Crown now to such a race nor can we say this cometh from the will of the father King making his son King For 1. there is no Scripture can warrant us to say The King maketh a King but the Scripture holdeth forth that the people made Saul and David Kings 2. This may prove That the father is some way a cause why this son succeedeth King but he is not the cause of the Royaltie conferred upon the whole Line because the question is Who made the first father a King Not himself nor doth God now immediately by Prophets anoint men to be Kings then need force the people choose the first man then must the peoples election of a King be prior and more ancient then the birth-law to a Crown And election must be a better right then birth 2. The question is Whence cometh it that not onely the first father should be chosen King but also whence is that whereas it is in the peoples freewill to make the succession of Kings go by free election as it is in Denmark and Pol yet the people doth freely choose not only the first man to be King but also the whole race of the first born of this mans Family to be Kings All here must be resolved in the free will of the Communitie now since we have no immediate and propheticall enthroning of men it is evident That the lineall deduction of the Crown from father to son through the whole line is from the people not from the parent Hence I adde this as my sixth Argument That which taketh away that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right in a Communitie given to them by God and nature to provide the most efficacious and prevalent mean for their own preservation and peace in the fittest Government that is not to be holden but to make birth the best title to the Crown and better then free election taketh away and impedeth that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right of chosing not simply a Governour but the best the justest the more righteous and tyeth and fettereth their choice to one of a house whether he be a wise man and righteous and just or a fool and an unjust man therefore to make birth the best title to the Crown is not to be holden It is objected That parents may binde their after Generations to choose one of such a line But by this Argument their naturall birth-right of a free choice to elect the best and fittest is abridged and clipped and so the posterity shall not be tyed to a King of the Royall Line to which the Ancestors did swear See for this the learned Author of Scripture and Reasons pleaded for defensive Arms. Answ Frequent elections of a King at the death of every Prince may have by accident and through the corruption of our nature bloody and tragicall sequels and to eschew these people may tie and oblige their children to chose one of the first born Male or Female as in Scotland and England of such a line but I have spoken of the excellencie of the title by election above that of birth as comparing things according to their own nature together but give me leave to say That the posterity are tyed to that Line 1. Conditionally So the first born ceteris paribus be qualified and have an head to sit at the helm 2. Elections of Governours would be performed as in the sight of God and in my weak apprehension the person coming neerest to Gods judge Fearing God hating covetousnesse and to Moses his King Deut. 17. one who shall read in the Book of the Law and it would seem now that gracious morals are to us insteed of Gods immediate designation 3. The genuine and intrinsecall end of making Kings is not simply governing but governing the best way in peace honesty and godlinesse 1. Tim. 2. Ergo These are to be made Kings who may most expeditely procure this end neither is it my purpose to make him no King who is not a gracious man onely here I compare title with title 7. Argument Where God hath not bound the conscience men may not binde themselves or the consciences of the posterity But God hath not bound any nation irrevocably and unalterably to a Royall Line or to one kinde of Government Ergo No nation can binde their conscience and the conscience of the posterity either to one Royall Line or irrevocably and unalterably to Monarchy The proposition is clear 1. No Nation is tyed jure divine by
it selfe and protect us Ans The Prelate here deserteth his owne consequence which is strong against himselfe for if a man be naturally subject to his fathers superiour as he said before why is not the sonne of a slave naturally subiect to his fathers superiour master 2. As a man may not make away his liberty without his own consent so can he not without his owne consent give his liberty to be subject to penall Lawes under a Prince without his owne consent either in his fathers or in the representative society in which he liveth 3. God and nature hath laid a necessity on all men to be under government a naturall necessity from the wombe to be under some government to wit a paternall government that is true but under this government politique and namely under soveraignty it is false and that is but said for why is he naturally under soveraignty rather then Aristocracy I beleeve any of the three formes are freely chosen by any society 4. It is false that one cannot defend the people except he have intire power that is to say he cannot doe good except he have a vast power to doe both good and ill Obj. 3. It is accidentall to any to render himselfe a slave being occasioned by force or extreame indigence but to submit to Government congrnous to the condition of man and is necessary for his happy being and naturall and necessary by the inviolable Ordinance of God and nature Ans If the father be a slave it is naturall and not accidentall by the Prelates Logick to be a slave 2. it is also accidentall to be under Soveraignty and sure not naturall for then Aristocracy and Democracy must be unnaturall and so unlawfull Governments 3. If to be congruous to the condition of man be all one with naturall man which he must say if he speake sense to beleeve in God to be an excellent Mathematician to swim in deepe waters being congruous to the nature of man must be naturall 4. Man by nature is under government Paternall not Politique properly but by the free consent of his will Obj. 4. Luke 11. 5. Christ himselfe was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to his Parents the word that is used Rom. 13. ergo none is exempted from subjection to lawfull government Ans We never said that any was exempted from lawfull goverment the Prelate and his fellow Iesuites teach that the Clergy is exempted from the lawes of the civill Magistrate not we but because Christ was subject to his Parents and the same word is used Luk. 11. that is Rom. 13. it will not follow therefore men are by nature subject to Kings because they are by nature subject to parents Obj. 5. The father had power over the children by the Law of God and nature to redeeme himselfe from debt or any distressed condition by inslaving his children begotten of his owne body if this power was not by the right of nature and by the Warrant of God I can see no other for it could not be by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers Ans 1. Shew a law of nature that the father might inslave his children by a Divine positive law presupposing sin the father might doe that and yet I thinke that may be questioned whether it was not a permission rather then a law as was the Bill of devorce but a law of nature it was not 2. The P. Prelate can see no Law but the law of nature here but it is because he is blind or will not see his reason is it was not by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers ergo it was by the law of nature so he that cursed his father was to dye by Gods Law This law was not made by mutuall consent betwixt the Father and the Sonne ergo it was a law of inature the Prelate will see no better Nature will teach a man to inslave himselfe to redeeme himselfe from death but that it is a Dictate of nature that a man should inslave his sonne I conceive not 3. What can this prove but that if the sonne may by the law of nature be inslaved for the father but that the sonne of a slave is by nature under subjection to slavery that by natures law the contrary whereof he spake in the page preceding and in this same page As for the Argument of the Prelate to answer Suarez who laboureth to prove Monarchy not to be naturall but of free consent because it is various in sundry nations it is the Iesuites Argument not ours I owne it not Let Iesuites plead for Iesuites QUEST XIIII Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects because there be no such equality say Royalists betwixt the King and his people as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court to either necessitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people or to tye him to any punishment if he faile yet say they he is under naturall obligation â—n Gods Court to keepe his Oath but he is comptible only to God if he violate his Oath Asser 1. There is an Oath betwixt the King and his people laying on by reciprocation of bands mutuall civill obligation upon the King to the people and the people to the King 2 Sam. 5. 3. So â—ll the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anuoynted David King over Israel 1 Chron. 11. 3. And David made a covenant with them before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel 2 Chron. 23. 2. And they went about in Iudah and gathered the Levites out of all the Cities of Iudah and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel and they câ—me to Ierusalem 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the King Ioash in the house of God 2 King 11. 17. and Jehoiada made a covenant betwixt the Lord and the King and the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also and his people Eccles 8. 2. I counsell thee to keepe the Kings commandement and that in regard of the Oath of God then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the King and the people 2. That was not a covenant that did tye the King to God onely and not to the people 1. because the covenant betwixt the King and the people is clearly differenced from the Kings covenant with the Lord 2 King 11. 17. 2. there were no necessity that this covenant should be made publickly before the people if the King did not in the
1 Sam. 12. 24. only feare the Lord 25. But if yee doe still wickedly yee shall be consumed both yee and your King And this case â— grant is extraordinary yet so as Iunius Brutus proveth well and strongly that Religion is not given only to the King that he only should keepâ— it but to all the inferiour Iudges and people also in their kind but because the estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion and presse a false and Idolatrous worship upon them therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion but presseth upon the people a false and Idolatrous Religion in that they are not under the King but are presumed to have no King eatenus so farre and are presumed to have the power in themselves as if they had not appointed any King at all as if we presume the body had given to the right hand a power to ward off strokes and to defend the body if the right hand should by a Palsie or some other disease become impotent and be withered up when ill is comming on the body it is presumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand and to the rest of the body to defend it selfe in this case as if the body had no right hand and had never communicated any power to the right hand at all So if an incorporation accused of Treason and in danger of the sentence of death shall appoint a Lawyer to Advocate their cause and to give in their just defences to the Iudge if their Advocate be stricken with dumbnesse because they have losed their legall and representative tongue none can say that this incorporation hath loosed the tongues that Nature hath given them so as by Natures law they may not plead in their own just lawfull defence as if they had never appointed the foresaid lawyer to plead for them The King as a man is not more obliged to the publick and regall defence of the true Religion then any other man of the land but he is made by God and the people King for the Church and people of God's sake that he may defend true Religion for the behalfe and salvation of all If therefore he defend not Religion for the salvation of the soules of all in his publick and royall way it is presumed as undeniable that the people of God who by the law of nature are to care for their own soule are to defend in their way true Religion which so nearly concerneth them and their eternall happinesse 2 Assert When the covenant is betwixt God on the one part and the King Priests and people on the other part it is true if the one performe for his part to God the whole duty the other is acquitted as if two men be indebted to one man ten thousand pounds if the one pay the whole summe the other is acquitted but the King and People are not so contracting parties in covenant with God as that they are both indebted to God for one and the same sum of compleat obedience so as if the King pay the whole summe of obedience to God the people is acquitted and if the People pay the whole summe the King is acquitted for every one standeth obliged to God for himselfe for the people must doe all that is their part in acquitting the King from his Royall duty that they may free him and themselves both from punishment if he disobey the King of Kings Nor doth the Kings obedience acquit the people from their duty And Arnisaeus dreamed if he believed that we make King and People this way partie contractors in covenant with God Nor can two co-partners in covenant with God so mutually compell one another to doe their duty for we hold that the covenant is made betwixt the King and the People betwixt mortall men but they both bind themselves before God to each other But saith Arnisaeus It belongeth to a Pretor or Ruler who is above both King and People to compell each of them the King to performe his part of the covenant to the people and the people to performe their part of the covenant to the King Now there is no Ruler but God above both King and People But let me answer The consequence is not needfull no more then when the King of Iudah and the King of Israel make a covenant to perform mutuall duties one to another no more then it is necessarie that there should be a King and superior Ruler above the King of Israel and the King of Iudah who should compell each one to doe a duty to his fellow King for the King and People are each of them above and below others in divers respects The People because they create the man King they are so above the King and have a virtuall power to compell him to doe his duty and the King as King hath an authoritative power above the People because Royaltie is formally in him and originally and virtually only in the People therefore may he compell them to their duty as we shall heare anon and therefore there is no need of an earthly Ruler higher then both to compell both 3 Assert We shall hereafter prove the power of the people above the King God willing And so it is false that there is not mutuall coactive power on each side 4 Assert The obligation of the King in the covenant floweth from the peculiar obligation nationall betwixt the King and the Estates and it bindeth the King as King and not simply as he is a man 1. Because it is a covenant betwixt the people and David not as he is the sonne of Jesse for then it should oblige Eliab or any other of Davids brethren yea it should oblige any man if it oblige David as a man but it obligeth David as a King or as he is to be their King because it is the specifice act of a King that he is obliged unto to wit to governe the people in Righteousnesse and Religion with his Royall power And so it is false that Arnisaeus saith that the King as a man is obliged to God by this covenant not as a King 2. He saith by covenant the King is bound to God as a Man not as a King But so the man will have the King as King under no law of God and so he must either be above God as King or coequall with God which are manifest blasphemies for I thought ever the Royalists had not denyed but the King as King had been obliged to keep his oath to his subjects in relation to God and in regard of naturall obligation so as he â—mneth before God if he breake his covenant with his people though they deny that he is obliged to keep his covenant in relation to his Subjects and in regard of politique or civill obligation to men Sure I am this the Royalists constantly teach 3. He would have this covenant so made with men as it obligeth not the King to men
Saul in any King of the world as for the Prelates jeere about the peoples giving of their goods to the good cause I hope it shall by the blessing of God inrich them more whereas Prelates by the Rebellion in Ireland to which they assent when they counsell His Majesty to sell the blood of some hundred thousands of innocents killed in Ireland are brought from thousands a yeare to begg a morsell of bread The Prelate answereth that Maxime Quod efsicit tale id ipsum est magis tale That which maketh another such it is it selfe more such It is true De principio formali effectivo as I learned in the Vniversity of such an Agent as is formally such in it selfe as is the effect produced Next it is such as is effective and productive of it selfe as when fire heateth cold water so the quality must be formally inherent in the Agent as Wine maketh drunke it followeth not Wine is more drunke because Drunkennesse is not inherent in the Wine nor is it capable of drunkennesse and therefore Aristotle qualifieth the Maxime with this Quod efficit tale est magis tale modo utrique insit And it holdeth not in Agents who operate by donation if the right of the King be transferred from the people to the King The donation devesteth the people totally of it except the King have it by way of loane which to my thinking never yet any spoke Soveraignty never was never can be in the Community Soveraignty hath power of life and death which none hath over himselfe and the community conceived without government all as equall endowed with Natures and native liberty of that community can have no power over the life of another And so the Argument may be turned home if the people be not tales such by nature as hath formally Royall power he should say they cannot give the King Royall Power Also none hath power of life and death either eminenter or formally the people either singly or collectively have not power over their owne life much lesse over their neighbours Ans 1. The Prelate would make the maxime true of a formall cause and this he learned in the University of St. Andrewes he wrongeth the University he rather learned it while he kept the Calves of Craile the wall is white from whitenesse ergo whitenesse is more white by the Prelates learning never such thing was taught in that learned University 2. Principium formale effectivum is as good Logick as principium effectivum materiale formale finale The Prelate is in his acuracy of Logick now he yet maketh the causality of the formall cause all one with the causality of the efficient but he is weake in his Logicks 3. He confoundeth a cause equivocall and a cause univocall and in that case the Maxime holdeth not Nor is it necessary to make true the maxime that the quality be inherent in the cause the same way For a City maketh a Major but to be a Major is one way in the City and another way in him who is created Major and the Prelates Maxime would helpe him if we reasoned thuâ— The people maketh the King ergo the people is more a King and more formally a Soveraigne then the King But that is no more our Argument then the simile that Maxwell used as neere heart and mouth both Wine maketh drunk the Prelate ergo Wine is more drunk But we reason this the Fountaine-power of making six Kings is in the people ergo there is more fountain-power of Royalty in the people then in any one King for we read that Israel made Saul King and made David King and made Abimelech King but never that King Saul made another King or that an earthly King made another Absolute King 4. The Prelate will have the Maxime false where the Agent worketh by donation which yet holdeth true by his owne grant c. 9. pag. 98. The King giveth power to a Deputy ergo there is more power in the King 5. He supposeth that which is the Basis and foundation of all the question that people devesteth themselves totally of their Fountaiue power which is most false 6. Either they must devest themselves totally saith he of their power or the King hath power from the people by way of loane which to my thinking never any yet spake But the P. Prelates thinking is short and no rule to Divines and Lawyers for to the thinking of the learnedst Jurists this power of the King is but fiduciary and that is whether the Prelate thinke it or thinke it not a sort of power by trust pawn'd or loane Rex director Regni non proprietarius Molinae in consuet Parisi Tit. 1. 9. 1. Glos 7. n. 9. The King is a life-renter not a Lord or proprieter of his Kingdome So Novel 85. in princip c. 18. Quod magistratus sit nudus dispensator defensor jurium regni non proprietarius constat ex eo quodnon posset alienare imperium oppida urbes regionésve velres subditorum bonâ—ve regni So Gregory l. 3. c. 8. de Repub. per c. 1. Sect. praeterea de propo feud Hottoman quest illust 1. Ferdinan Vasquez l. 1. c. 4. Bossius de princip privileg illius n. 290. The King is only a steward and a defender of the lawes of the Kingdome not a proprietor because he hath not power to make away the Impire Cities Townes Countries and goods of the Subjects and bona commissa Magistratui sunt subjecta restitutioni in prejudtcium successorum alienari non possunt per l. ult Sect sed nost C. Comment de leg l. peto 69. fratrem de leg 2. l. 32. ult d. t. All the goods committed to any Magistrate are under Restitution for he hath not power to make them away to the prejudice of his successors The Prelates thoughts reach not the secrets of Jurists and therefore he speaketh with a warrant he will say no more then his short-travel'd thoughts can reach and that is but at the doore 7 Soveraigntie is not in the Communitie saith the P. Prelate Truly it neither is nor can be more then ten or a thousand or a thousand thousands or a whole Kingdome can be one man for Soveraigntie is the abstract the Soveraigne is the concrete Many cannot be one King or one Soveraigne a Soveraigne must be essentially one and a multitude cannot be one but what then may not the Soveraigne power be eminently fontaliter originallp and radically in the people I thinke it may and must be A King is not an under-Iudge he is not a Lord of Councell or Session formally because he is more The people is not King formally because the people is eminently more then the King for they make David King and Saul King And the power to make a Lord of Councell aud Session is in the King say Royalists 8. A Communitie hath not power of life and death A King hath power of life and death saith the Prelate What
Leopard or a Nero and a Julian then hath God given actu primo a power to a King as King to inslave the people and slock of God redeemed by the blood of God as the slaves among the Romans and Iews who were so under their masters as their bondage was a plague of God and the lives of the people of God under Pharaoh who compelled them to work in brick and clay 2. Though he cut the throats of the people of God as the Lionnesse Queen Mary did and command an Army of souldiers to come and burn the Cities of the Land and kill man wife and children yet in so doing he doth the part of a King so as you cannot resist him as a man and obey him as a King but must give your necks to him upon this ground because this absolute power of his is ordained of God and there is no power even to kill and destroy the innocent but it is of God so saith Paul Rom. 13. If we beleeve Court-Prophets or rather Lying-Spirits who perswade the King of Britain to make war against his three Dominions Now it is clear that the distinction of bound and free continued in Israel even under the most tyrannous Kings 2 Kings 4. 1. yea even when the Iews were captives under Ahasuerus Esther 7. 4. And what difference should there be between the people of God under their own Kings and when they were captives under Tyrants serving wood and stone and false gods as was threatned as a curse in the Law Deut. 28. 25 36 64 68. If their own Kings by Gods appointment have the same absolute power over them and if he be a Tyrant actu primo that is if he be indued with absolute power and so have power to play the Tyrant then must the people of God be actu primo slaves and under absolute subjection for they are relatives as lord and servant conquerour and captive It is true they say Kings by office are fathers they cannot put forth in action their power to destroy I answer it is their goodnesse of nature that they put not forth in action all their absolute power to destroy which God hath given them as Kings and therefore thanks are due to their goodnesse for that they do not actu secundo play the Tyrant for Royalists teach that by vertue of their office God hath given to them a Royall power to destroy Ergo The Lords people are slaves under them though they deal not with them as slaves but that hindereth not but the people by condition are slaves so many Conquerours of old did deal kindely with these slaves whom they took in war and dealt with them as sons but as Conquerours they had power to sell them to kill them to put them to work in brick and clay so say I here Royall power and a King cannot be a blessing and actu primo a favour of God to the people for the which they are to pray when they want a King that they may have one or to praise God when they have one But a King must be a curse and a judgement if he be such a creature as essentially and in the intention and nature of the thing it self hath by office a Royall power to destroy and that from God for then the people praying Lord give us a King should pray make us slaves Lord take our Libertie and power from us and give a power illimited and absolute to one man by which he may if he please waste us and destroy us as all the bloody Emperours did the people of God Surely I see not but they should pray for a temptation and to be led in temptation when they pray God to give them a King and therefore such a power is a vain thing Argum. 5. A power contrary to justice 2. To peace and the good of the people 3. That looketh to no law as a rule and so is unreasonable and forbidden by the Law of God and the Civill Law L. 15. filius de condit Instit cannot be a lawfull power and cannot constitute a lawfull Iudge but an absolute and unlimited power is such How can the Iudge be the Minister of God for good to the people Rom. 13. 4 If he have such a power as a King given him of God to destroy and waste the people Argum. 6. An absolute power is contrary to nature and so unlawfull for it maketh the people give away the naturall power of defending their life against illegall and cruell violence and maketh a man who hath need to be ruled and lawed by nature above all rule and law and one who by nature can sin against his brethren such a one as cannot sin against any but God onely and maketh him a Lion and an unsociall man What a man is Nero whose life is poesie paintry Domitian only an Archer Valentinian only a Painter Charles the 9th of France only an Hunter Alphonsus Dux Ferrariensis only an Astronomer Philippe of Macedo only a Musitian and all because they are Kings This our King denyeth when he saith Art 13. There is power legally placed in the Parliament more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny But if they had not power to play the Lions it is not much that Kings are Musitians Hunters c. 7. God in making a King to preserve his people should give liberty without all politick restraint for one man to destroy many which is contrary to Gods end in the fift Commandement if one have absolute power to destroy soules and bodies of many thousands 8. If the Kings of Israel and Iudah were under censures and rebukes of the Prophets and sinned against God and the people in rejecting these rebukes and in persecuting the Prophets and were under this Law not to take their neighbours wife or his Vineyard from him against his will and the inferiour Iudges were to accept the persons of none in Iudgement small or great and if the King yet remaine a brother notwithstanding he be a King then is his power not above any Law nor absolute for what reason 1. He should be under one Law of God to be executed by men and not under another Law Royalists are to shew a difference from Gods Word 2. His neighbours brother or subjects may by violence keepe back their Vineyards and chastity from the King Naboth may by force keepe his owne Vineyard from Achab by the Lawes of Scotland if a subject obtaine a Decree of the King of violent possession of the Heritages of a subject he hath by Law power to cast out force apprehend and deliver to prison these who are Tenants brooking these Lands by the Kings personall Commandement If a King should force a Damsell she may violently resist and by violence and bodily opposing of violence to violence defend her owne chastity Now that the Prophets have rebuked Kings is evident Samuel rebuked Saul Nathan David Elias King Achab.
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 i◠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 positive covenant made with him To finde out the essentiall difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant We are to observe that it is one thing to sin against a man another thing against a State David killing Vriah committed an act of murther But on this supposition that David is not punished for that murther he did not so sin against the State and Catholike good of the State that he turneth Tyrant and ceaseth to be a lawfull King A Tyrant is he who habitually sinneth against the Catholike good of the Subjects and State and subverteth Law Such a one should not be as Jason of whom it is said by Aeneas Silvius Graviter ferebat si non regnaret quasi nesciret esse privatus When such as are monstrous Tyrants are not taken away by the Estates God pursueth them in wrath Domitian was killed by his own Family his wife knowing of it Aurelianus was killed with a thunder-bolt Darius was drowned in a River Dioclesian fearing death poysoned himself Salerius died eaten with Worms The end of Herod and Antiochus Maxentius was swallowed up in a standing River Iulian died being stricken through with a Dart thrown at him by a man or an Angel it is not known Valens the Arian was burnt with fire in a little Village by the Gothes Anastasius the Eutychian Emperour was stricken by God with thunder Gundericus Vandalus when he rose against the Church of God being apprehended by the Divell died Some time the State have taken order with Tyrants The Empire was taken from Vitellius Heliogabalus Maximinus Didius Iulianus So was the two Childerici of France served So were also Sigebertus Dagabertus and Lodowick the 11. of France Christiernus of Denmark Mary of Scotland who killed her husband and raised Forces against the Kingdom So was Henricus Valesius of Pol for fleeing the Kingdom Sigismundus of Pol for violating his faith to the States QUEST XXV What force the Supreme Law hath over the King even that Law of the Peoples safetie called Salus Populi THe Law of the 12. Tables is Salus populi Suprema lex The safetie of the People is the supreme and Cardinall law to which all Lawes are to stoope And that from these Reasons 1. Originally Because if the People be the first Author Fountaine and Efficient under God of Law and King then their own safetie must be principally sought and their safetie must be farre above the King as the safetie of a Cause especially of an universall Cause such as is the People must be more then the safetie of one as Aristotle saith l. 3. polit alias l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The part cannot be more excellent then the whole nor the effect above the cause 2. Finaliter This Supreme law must stand for if all Law Policie Magistrates and Power be referred to the peoples good as the end Rom. 13. 4. and to their quiet and peaceable life in godlinesse and honestie then must this Law stand as of more worth then the King as the end is of more worth then the meanes leading to the end for the end is the measure and rule of the goodnesse of the meane and finis ultimus in influxu est potentissimus The King is good because he conduceth much for the safetie of the People Ergo the safetie of the people must be better 3. By way of limitation Because no Law in its letter hath force where the safetie of the Subject is in hazard and if Law or King be destructive to the people they are to be abolished This is cleare in a Tyrant or a
cannot help us Assert 3. By the place 1 Pet. 2. The servant unjustly buffeted is not to buffet his master again but to bear patiently as Christ did who when he was reviled did not revile again Not because the place condemneth resistance for self-defence but because buffeting again is formally re-offending not defending defending is properly a warding of a blow or stroak if my neighbour come to kill me and I can by no means save my life by flight I may defend my self and all Divines say I may rather kill ere I be killed because I am nearer by the law of nature and dearer to my self and my own life then to my brother but if I kill him out of malice or hatred the act of defending by the unlawfull manner of doing becometh an act of offending and murther whence the mind of the blood-shedder will vary the nature of the action from whence this corolarie doth naturally issue that the physicall action of taking away the life maketh not murther nor homicide and so the physical action of offending my neighbour is not murther Abraham may kill his son he for whom the cities of refuge were ordained and did kill his brother yet not hating him he was not by Gods law judged a murtherer And 2. It necessarily hence followeth that an act which is physically an act of offending my brother yea even to the taking away of his life is often morally and legally an act of lawfull self-defence an offending of another necessitated from the sole invention of self-defence is no more but an act of innocent self defence if David with his men had killed any of Sauls men in a set battel David and his men onely intending self defence the waren Davids part was meere defensive for physicall actions of killing indifferent of themselves yet imperated by a principle of naturall self-defence and clothed with this formall end of self-defence or according to the substance of the action the act is of self-defence If therefore one shall wound me deadly and I know it is my death after that to kill the killer of my selfe I being onely a private man must be no act of self-defence but of homicide because it cannot be imperated by a sinlesse dictate of a naturall conscience for this end of self-defence after I know I am killed Any mean not used for preventing death must be an act of revenge not of self-defence for it is physically unsutable for the intended end of self-defence And so for a servant buffeted to buffet againe is of the same nature the second buffet not being a conducible meane to ward the first buffet but a meane to procure heavier stroakes and possibly killing it cannot be an act of self defence for an act of self defence must be an act destinated ex naturarei onely for defence and if it be known to be an act of sole offending without any known necessary relation of a mean to self-defence as the end it cannot be properly an act of self-defence Assert 4. When the matter is lighter as in paying tribute or suffering a buffet of a rough master though un justly we are not to use any act of re-offending For though I be not absolute Lord of my owne goods and so may not at my sole pleasure give tribute and expend monies to the hurting of my children where I am not by Gods Law or Mans Law obliged to pay tribute and though I be not an absolute Lord of my members to expose face and cheeks and back to stripes and whips at my owne meere will yet have we a comparative dominion given to us of God in matters of goods and disposing of our members I think I may except the case of mutilation which is a little death for buffets because Christ no doubt to teach us the like would rather give of his goods and pay tribute where it is not due then that this scandall lay on the way of Christ that Christ was no loyall subject to lawfull Emperors and Kings And 1 Cor. 9. Paul would rather not take stipend though it was due to him then hinder the course of the Gospel And the like is 1 Cor. 6. where the Corinthians were rather to suffer losse in their goods then to goe to Law before Infidel Judges and by the like to prevent greater inconveniences and mutilation and death the Christian servant hath that dominion over his members rather to suffer buffets then to ward off buffets with violent resistance But it is no consequent that innocent subjects should suffer death of tyrants and servants be killed by masters and yet that they shall not be allowed by the law of nature to defend themselves by re-offending when onely self-defence is intended because we have not that dominion over life and death And therefore as a man is his brothers murtherer who with froward Cain will not be his brothers keeper and may preserve his brothers life without losse of his owne life when his brother is unjustly preserved so when he may preserve his owne life and doth not that which Natures Law alloweth him to doe rather to kill ere he be killed he is guilty of self-murther because he is deficient in the duty of lawfull self-defence But I grant to offend or kill is not of the nature of defensive warre but accidentall thereunto and yet killing of cut-throats sent forth by the illegal commandement of the King may be intended as a mean and a lawfull mean of self-defence 2. Of two ills of punishment we have a comparative dominion over our selves a man may cast his goods in the sea to redeeme his life So for to redeeme peace we may suffer buffets but because death is the greatest ill of punishment God hath not made it eligible to us when lawfull self defence is at hand But in defending our own life against Tyrannicall power though we do it by offending and killing we resist no ordinance of God onely I judge killing of the King in self-defence not lawfull because self-defence must be national on just causes Let here the reader judge Barcley l. 3. c. 8. pag. 159. con Monar If the King saith he shall vex the Common-wealth or one part thereof with great and intollerable cruelty what shall the people do they have saith he in that case a power to resist and defend themselves from injury but onely to defend themselves not to invade the Prince nor to resist the injury or to recede from reverence due to the Prince I answer 1. Let Barclay or the prelate if he may carry Barclayes books or any difference these two the people may resist a Tyrant but they may not resist the injuries inflicted by a Tyrants officers cut-throats I cannot imagine how to conciliate these two for to resist the cruelty of a King is but to hold off the injurie by resistance 2. If this Nero waste the Common-wealth unsufferably with his cruelty and remaine a lawful King to be honoured
put us to flee even all Protestants and their seed and the weak and sick whom we are obliged to defend as our selves both by the Law of nature and grace I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God to dwell there but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestantâ— their seed aged sick sucking children should flee out of England Scotland Ireland and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists Prelates and bloody Irish and Atheists and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land violent re-offending is their second mean next to supplications and declarations c. and flight is not required of them as of a private man Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation violent and unjust invasion of a private man which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book or rather the idolatry of the Masse therein intended was unavoidable it was unpossible for the Protestants their old and sick their women and sucking children to flee over sea or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book Althusius saith well Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee but the estates if they flee they do not their duty to commit a country religion and all to a Lion Let not any oâ—ject we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy Psal 2. 8 9. Isa 49. 1. it is true if the way be our own sinfull way nor let any object a Colony went to New-England and fled the persecution Answer True but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication there was no more reason that one Colony should go to New-England then it is necessary by a divine law obligatory that the wholâ— Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine are to leave their native country religion to one man to popish Idolators Atheists willing to worship idols with them and whethere then shall the Gospel be which we are obliged to defend with our lives 2. There is Tutela vitae proxima remota A meer and immediat defence of our life and a remote or mediat defence when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending David might have killed Saul whâ—n he was sleeping and when he cut off the lap of his garment but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed because he is the Lords Annoited as it is unlawfull to kill a man because he is the Image of God Gen. 96. except in case of necessity The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector thought his malefices do not put him in that case that he hath not now the image of God now prudency and light of grace determineth When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation it is not left to our pleasure In a remote posture of self-defence we are not to â—se violet re-offending David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actuall not inavoidable not a necessary mean in human prudence for self-preservation for King Saul was then in a habituall not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes Elders and judges of Israel or of a whole community and Church Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for religion or a nationall pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul it is no lesse unlawfull to threatten a King then to put hands on him and rather kill or be killed by Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissaries for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in three kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religious Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitrary or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the three Kingdoms to actuall killing rather then we be killed and suffer Lawes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Annoynted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans 1. David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without colour of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resisted and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he remaineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6. 9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe
in that exigence is not onely not obliged to lift him up but he and the rest flying though they trample on him and kill him they are not guilty of murther seeing they hated him not before Deut. 19. 4. 6. so Chemnit loc com de vindic q. 3. alloweth private defence 1. When the violence is suddaine And the 2. Violence manifestly inevitable 3. When the Magistrate is absent and cannot help 4. When moderation is kept as Lawyers require 1. That it be done incontinent if it be done after the injury it is revenge not defence 2. Not of Desire of revenge 3. With proportion of armor If the violent invader invade not with deadly weapons you must not invade him with deadly weapons and certainly the law Exod. 22. of a mans defending his house is clear 1. If he come in the night it is presumed he is a robber 2. If he be taken with a weapon breaking the house he cometh to kill a man may defend himself wife and children but he is 3. but to wound him and if he die of the wound the defender is free so the defender is not to intend his death but to save himself 5. It were a mighty defect in providence to man if dogs by nature may defend themselves against Wolves Bulls against Lyons Doves against Haukes if man in the absence of the lawfull Magistrate should not defend himself against unjust violence but one man might raise armies of Papists sick for blood to destroy innocent men They object When the King is present in his person and his invaders he is not absent and so though you may rather kill a private man then suffer your self to be killed yet because prudence determineth the means of self-defence you are to expose your life to hazard for justice of your King and therefore not to do violence to the life of your King nor can the body in any self-defence fight against the head that must be the destruction of the whole Ans Though the King be present as an unjust invader in Warres against his innocent subjects he is absent as a King and a father and defender and present as an unjust grassator and therefore the innocent may defend themselves when the King neither can nor will defend him Nature maketh a man saith the law l. Gener. c. de decur l. 10. l. sialius § Bellissimè ubique Gloss in vers ex magn not per. illum text ff quod vi aut clam l. ait praetor § si debitorem meum ff de hisque in fraud credito even a privat man his own judge magistrate and defender quando copiam judicis qui sibijus reddat non habet When he hath no judge to give him justice and law 2. The subjects are to give their lives for the King ad the King because the safety of the King as King is the safety of the common-wealth But the King as offering unjust violence to his innocent subjects is not King Zoannet part 3. defens n. 44. transgrediens notoriè officium suum judex agit velut privatus aliquis non ut magistratus ff de injur est bonus in simili in l. qui fundum § si tutor ff pro emptore 3. If the politick body fight against this head in particular not as head but as an oppressor of the people There is no fear of dissolution if the body rise against all magistracy as magistracy and lawes dissolution of all must follow Parliaments and inferiour jadges are heads Num. 1. 16. Num. 10. 4. Deut. 1. 15. Iosh 22. 21. Mic. 3. 1. ver 9. 11. 1 King 8. 1. 1 Chron. 5. 25. 2 Chro. 5. 2. No lesle then the King and it is unlawfull to offer violence to them though I shall rather thinke a private man is to suffer the King to kill him rather then he kill the King because he is to preferre the life of a private man to the life of a publique man 6. By the law of nature a ruler is appointed to defend the innocent Now by nature an infant in the wombe dâ—fendeth it self first before the parents can defend it then when parents and magistrates are not and violent invading magistrates are not in that magistrates nature hath commended every man to self-defence 7. The Law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a magistrate or any other unjust violence from a ruler is twice injustice 1. He doth unjustly as a man 2. As a member of the common-wealth 3. He committeth a speciall kind of sin of injustice against his office but it is absurd to say we may lawfully dâ—fend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of nature and not from the greater If the Pope saith Fer. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 24. n. 24 25. command to take away benefices from the just owner these who are to execute his commandement are not to obey but to write back that that mandat came not from his holinesse but from the avarice of his Officers but if the Pope still continue and presse the same unjust Mandat the same should be written againe to him and though there be none above the Pope yet there is naturall self-defence patent for all Defensio vitae neceâ—aria est à jure naturali profluit L. ut vim ff de just jure 16. Nam quod quisque ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure fecisse videatur Câ—jus naturale 1. distinc l. 1. ff de vi vi armata l. injuriarum ff de injuria C. significasti 2. de hom l. scientiam sect qui non aliter ff ad leg Aquil. C. si vero 1. de sent excom l. sed etsi ff ad leg Aquil. etiamsi sequatur homicidium Vasquez l. 1. c. 17. n. 5. etiam occidere licet ob defensionem rerum Vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt in C. significasti Garcias Fortunius Comment in l. ut vim ff de instit jur n. 3. defendere se est juris naturae gentium A jure civili fuit additum moderamen inculpatae tutelae lac Novel defens n. 101. Occidens Principem vel alium Tyrannidem exercentem à paena homicidii excusatur Grotius de jure belli pacis l. 2. c. 1. n. 3. Si corpus impetatur vi presente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabili tune bellum est licitum etiam cum intersectione periculum infâ—rentis ratio natura quemque sibicommendat Barcl advers Monar l. 3. c. 8 est jus cuilibet se tenendi adversus immanem sevitiam But what ground saith the Royalist is there to take Arms against a King Ielousies and suspitions are not enough Ans The King sent first an Armie to Scotland and blocked us up by sea before we took Armes 2. Papists were armed in England they have professed themselves in their Religion of Trent to be so much the holyer that they root out Prottstants 3. The King declared we had broken loyalty to him since the last
Land to defend their aged Parents and young children from these invaders and if the sixt Commandement lay on us the like bond all the Land are to act works of mercy and charity though the King unjustly command the contrary except Royalists say that we are not to performe the duties of the second Table commanded by God if an earthly King forbid us and if we exercise not acts of mercy toward our brethren when their life is in hazard to save them wee are murtherers and so men may murther their neighbour if the King command them so to doe this is like the Court-faith 2. The Kings power of warres is for the safety of his people if he deny his consent to their raising of Armes till they be destroyed he playeth the Tyrant not the King and the law of Nature will necessitate them either to defend themselves seeing flight of all in that case is harder then death else they must be guilty of self-murther Now the Kings commandement of not rising in Armes at best is positive and against the nature of his Office and it floweth then from him as from a man and so must be farre inferiour to the naturall Commandement of God which commandeth self-preservation if wee would not be guilty of self-murther and of obeying men rather then God So Althusius Polit. c. 25. n. 9. Halicarnas l. 4. Antiq. Rom. Aristo Pol. l. 3. c. 3. 3. David tooke Goliahs sword and became a Captaine a Captaine to an hoast of armed men in the battaile and fought the battailes of the Lord 1 Sam. 25. 28. and this Abigal by the spirit of prophecy as I take it saith ver 29 30 31. 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 1. 2. 3. 17. 18. 21. 22. not onely without Sauls consent but against King Saul as he was a man but not against him as hee was King of Israel 4. If there be no King or the King be minor or an usurper as Athalia be on the Throne the Kingdome may lawfully make war without the King as Iudges cap. 20. The children of Israel foure hundred thousand footemen that drew sword went out to warre against the children of Benjamin Iudah had the power of the sword when Iosiah was but eight yeares old in the beginning of his reigne 2 King 22. 1 2. and before Iehoash was crowned King and while he was minor 2 King 11. there were Captaines of hundreds in armes raised by Iehoiada and the people of Iudah to defend the young King It cannot be said that this is more extraordinary then that it is extraordinary for Kings to die and in the interregnum warres in an ordinary providence may fall out in these Kingdoms where Kings goe by election and for Kings to fall to be Minors Captives Tyrannous And I shall be of that opinion that Mr Symmons who holdeth That Royall birth is equivalent to divine unction must also hold that election is not equivalent to divine unction for both election and birth cannot be of the same validity the one being naturall the other a matter of free choise which shall infer that Kings by election are lesse properly and analogically onely Kings and so Saul was not properly a King for he was King by election but I conceive that rather Kings by birth must be lesse properly Kings because the first King by Gods institution being the mould of all the rest was by election Deut. 17. 18. 19. 20. 5. If the estates create the King and make this man King not this man as is clear Deut. 17. 18. and 2 Chron. 5. 1 2 3 4. they give to him the power of the Sword and the power of War and the Militia and I shall judge it strange and reasonlesse that the power given to the King by the Parliament or estates of a free Kingdom such as Scotland is acknowledged to be by all should create regulate limit abridge yea and anull that power that created it self hath God ordained a Parliamentary power to create a Royal power of the sword and war to be placed in the King the Parliaments creature for the safety of Parliament and Kingdome which yet is destructive of it selfe D. Ferne saith that the King summoneth a Parliament and giveth them power to be a Parliament and to advise and counsell him and in the meane time Scripture saith Deut 17. 18 19 20. 1 Sam. 10 20 21 22 23 24 25. 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3 4. that the Parliament createth the King heir's admirable reciprocation of creation in policie and shall God make the mother to destroy the daughter The Parliamentarie power that giveth Crown Militia sword and all to the King must give power to the King to use sword and war for the destruction of the Kingdome and to annull all the power of Parliaments to make unmake Parliaments and all Parliamentary power what more absurd Obj. 1. Symmons Loyall Subj Pag. 57. These phrases 2 Sam. 9. 1. When Kings goe forth to warre and Luk. 14. 31. What King going forth to warre speak to my conscience that both offensive and defensive warre are in the Kings hand Answ It is not much to other men what is spoken to any mans conscience by Phrase and customes for by this no States where there be no Kings but government by the best or the people as in Holland or in other Nations can have power of war for what time of yeare shall Kings goe to war who are not Kings and because Christ saith A certaine housholder delivered talents to his servants will this infer to any conscience that none but a housholder may take usurie And when he saith If the good man of the house knew at what houre the thiefe would come he would watch shall it follow the sonne or servant may not watch the house but onely the good man Obj. 2. Ferne pag. 95. The naturall Bodie cannot move but upon naturall Principles and so neither can the Politique Bodie move in Warre but upon Politique reasons from the Prince which must direct by Law Answ This may well be retorted the Politique Head cannot then move but upon politique reasons and so the King cannot move to wars but by the Law and that is by consent of Parliament and no Law can principle the head to destroy the members 2. If an Armie of cut-throats rise to destroy the Kingdome because the King is in lacking in his place to doe his duty how can the other Judges the States and Parliament be accessorie to murther committed by them in not raising armies to suppresse such robbers Shall the inferiour Judges be guilty of innocent blood because the King will not doe his duty 3. The politique body ceaseth no more to renounce the principles of sinlesse nature in self-defence because it is a politique body and subject to a King then it can leave off to sleep eat and drink and there is more need of politique principles to the one then the other 4. The Parliaments and Estates of both
way should oppose us in helping which blessed be the Lord the honourable houses of the Parliament of England hath not done though Malignant spirits tempted them to such a course what in that case we should owe to the afflicted members of Christs body is a case may be determined easily The fift and last opinion is of those who think if the King command Papists and Prelates to rise against the Parliament and our dear brethren in England in warres that we are obliged in conscience and by our oath and covenant to help our native Prince against them to which opinion with hands and feet I should accord if our Kings cause were just and lawfull but from this it followeth that we must thus far judge of the cause as concerneth our consciences in the matter of our necessary duty leaving the judiciall cognizance to the honourable Parliament of England But because I cannot returne to all these opinions particularly I see no reason but the Civil Law of a Kingdom doth oblige any Citizen to help an innocent man against a murthering robber that he may be judicially accused as a murtherer who faileth in his duty that Solon said well beatam remp esse illam in quâ quisque injuriam alterius suam estimet It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother 〈…〉 injury done against himself As the Egyptians had a good law by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that suffered wrong and if he was not able to help he was holden to accuse the injurer if not his punishment was whips or three dayes hunger it may be upon this ground it was that Moses flew the Egyptian Ambrose commendeth him for so doing Assert We are obliged by many bands to expose our lives goods children c. in this cause of religion and of the unjust oppression of enemies for the safety and defence of our deare brethren and true religion in England 1. Prov. 24. 11. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken as captives to be killed and those that are ready to be slaine 12. If thou say behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it and he that keepeth thy soul doth he not know it and shall he not render to every man according to his work Master Iermin on the place is too narrow who commenting on the place restricteth all to these two that the priest should deliver by interceding for the innocent and the King by pardoning only But 1. to deliver is a word of violence as 1 Sam. 30. 18. David by the sword rescued his wives Hos 5 14. I will take away and none shall rescue 1 Sam. 17. 35. I rescued the lambs out of his mouth out of the Lyons mouth which behoved to be done with great violence 2 King 18. 34. They have not delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samaria out of my hand So Cornel. à Lapide Charitas suadâ—â— ut vi armis eruamus injuste ductos ad mortem Ambros lib. 1. offic c. 36. citeth this same text and commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man 2. It is an act of Charity and so to be done though the judge forbid it when the innocent is unjustly put to death Object But in so doing private men may offer violence to the lawfull magistrate when he unjustly putteth an innocent man to death and rescue him out of the hands of the magistrate and this were to bring in anarchy and confusion for if it be an act of charity to deliver the innocent out of the hand of the Magistrate it is homicide to a private man not to do it for our obedience to the law of nature tyeth us absolutely though the Magistrate forbid these acts for it is known that I must obey God rather then man Answ The law of nature tyeth us to obedience in acts of charity yet not to performe these acts after any way and manner in a meere naturall way impetu naturae but I am to performe acts of naturall charity in a rationall and prudent way and in looking to Gods law else if my brother or father were justly condemned to die I might violently deliver him out of the Magistrates hand but by the contrary my hand should be first on him without naturall compassion As if my brother or my wife have been a blasphemer of God Deut. 13. 6 7 8. and therefore am I to do acts naturall as a wise man observing as Solomon saith Eccles 8. 5. both time and judgement Now it were no wisdom for one private man to hazard his own life by attempting to rescue an innocent brother because he hath not strength to do it and the law of nature obligeth me not to acts of charity when I in all reason see them unpossible but a multitude who had strength did well to rescue innocent Ionathan out of the hands of the King that he should not be put to death yet one man was not tyed by the law of nature to rescue Ionathan if the King and Prince had condemned him though unjustly 2. The hoast of men that helped David against King Saul 1 Sam. 22. 2. entered in a lawfull war and 1 Chron. 12. 18. Amasa by the spirit of the Lord blesseth his helpers peace peace be unto thee and peace be to thy helpers for thy God helpeth the. Ergo Peace must be to the Parliament of England and to their helpers their brethren of Scotland 3. Numb 32. 1. 2. 3. 16. 17. 18. 19. Iosh 1. 12. 13. 14. The children of Gad and of Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh though their inheritance fell to be in this side of Iordan yet they were to goe over the river armed to fight for their brethren while they had also possession of the land at the commandement of Moses and Joshua 4. So Saul and Israel helped the men of Iabesh Gilead conjoyned in blood with them against Nahash the Ammonite and his unjust conditions in plucking out their right eyes 1 Sam. 11. 5. Iephtha Iudg. 12. 2. justly rebuketh the men of Ephraim because they would not help him and his people against the Ammonites 6. If the communion of Saints be any bound that England and we have one Lord one faith one Baptisme one head and Saviour Iesus Christ then are we obliged to help our bleeding sister Church against these same common enemies Papists and Prelates but the former is undenyably true for 1. We send help to the Rotchel if there had not been a secret betraying of our brethren we send help to the recovery of the Palatinate and the aide of the confederat Princes against Babels strength and power and that lawfully but we did it at great leisure and coldly Q. Elizabeth helped Holland against the King of Spain And beside the union in Religion 1. We sayle in one
an hundred 5. The question may be in regard of the power of commanding or of the justice and equity of commanding hence from this last I shall set downe the first Thesis Assert 1. An absolute and unlimited Monarchy is not onely not the best forme of Government but it is the worst and this is against our Petty Prelat and all Royalists My reasons be these 1. Because it is an unlawfull Ordinance and God never ordained it and I cannot ascribe the superlative degree to any thing of which I deny the positive Absolute government in a sinfull and peccable man is a wicked government and not a power from God for God never gave a power to sin Plenitudo potestatis ad malum injuriam non extenditur Sozenus Iunior cons 65. in causa occurrenti l. 2. Ferdinand Loazes in suo cons pro March de Velez pag. 54. n. 65. And so that learned Senator Ferdin Vasquez pag. 1. lib. 1. cap. 5. n. 17. 2. It was better for the State that Epiminondas could not sleepe then that he could sleepe when the people was dancing because said he I wake that you may have leave to sleepe and be secure for he was upon deepe cogitations how to doe good to the Common-wealth when the people were upon their pleasures Because all Kings since the fall of the Father King Adam are inclined to sin and injustice and so had need to be guided by a Law even because they are Kings so they remaine men Omnipotency in one that can sin is a cursed power With reason all our Divines say the state of saving grace in the second Adam where there is non posse deficere they cannot fall away from God is better then the state of the first Adam where there was posse non deficere a power not to fall away and that our free-will is better in our countrey in Heaven where we cannot sin then in the way to our countrey on earth where we have a power to sin and so Gods people is in a better case Hos 2. 6 7. Where her power to overtake her lovers is closed up with an hedge of thornes that she cannot finde her paths then the condition of Ephraim of whom God saith Hos 4. 17. Ephraim is joyned to Idols let him alone So cannot that be a good government when the supreme power is in a sinfull man as inclinable to injustice by nature as any man and more inclinable to injustice by the condition of his place then any and yet by office he is one that can doe no injustice against his subjects he is a King and so may destroy Vriah kill his subjects but cannot sinne and this is to flattering Royalists the best government in the world As if an unchained Lion were the best governour because unchained to all the beasts sheepe and lambs and all others which with his teeth and pawes he may reach and that by vertue of an ordinance of God 3. What is on man under no restraint but made a God on earth and so drunk with the graunder of a sinning-God here under the Moone and Clouds who may heare good counsell from men of his owne choosing yet is under no restraint of Law to follow it being the supreme power absolute high mighty and an impeccable god on earth Certainly this man may more easily erre and break out in violent acts of injustice then a number of Rulers grave wise under a Law One being a sinfull man shall sooner sin and turne a Nero when he may goe to hell and leade thousands to hell with him gratis then a multitude of sinfull men who have lesse power to doe against Law and a tyrannous killing of innocents and a subversion of Lawes Liberties and Religion by one who may by office and without resistance of mortall men doe all ill is more dangerous and hurtfull then division and fraction incident to Aristocracy 4. Caesar is great but Law and reason is greater by an absolute Monarchy all things are ruled by will and pleasure above Law then this government cannot be so good as Law and Reason in a government by the best or by many 5. Under absolute Monarchy a free people is actu primo and in themselves inslaved because though the Monarch so absolute should kill all hee cannot be controlled there is no more but flight prayers and teares remaining and what greater power hath a Tyrant none at all so may we say An absolute Monarch is actu primo a sleeping Lion and a Tyrant is a waking and a devouring Lion and they differ in accidents onely 6. This is the Papists way Bellarmine de Pontif. l. 1. c. 1. and Sanderus de visibili Monarchia l. 3. c. 3. Turrere in sum de Eccles l. 2. c. 2. prove that the government of the Church is by an absolute Monarch and Pope because that is the best government which yet is in question So Royalists prove Common-wealths must be best governed by absolute Monarchs because that is the best government but the Law saith it is contrary to nature even though people should paction to make a King absolute Conventio procuratoria ad dilapidandum dissipandum juri naturali contraria nulla est l. filius 15. de cond lust l. Nepos procul 125. de verb. signif l. 188. ubi de jure Regni l. 85. d. tit Assert 2. Monarchy in its latitude as heaven and earth and all the hoast therein are Citizens is the best government absolutely because Gods immediate government must be best but that other governments are good or best so farre as they come neere to this must prove that there is a Monarchy in Angels if there be a government and a Monarchy amongst Fishes Beasts Birds c. and that if Adam had never sinned there should be one Monarchy amongst all mankinde I professe I have no eye to see what Government could be in that State but paternall or maritall and by this reason there should be one Catholique Emperour over all the Kings of the earth A position holden by some Papists and Interpreters of the cannon Law which maketh all the Princes of the earth to be usurpers except these who acknowledge a Catholique dominion of the whole earth in the Emperour to whom they submit themselves as Vassals If Kings were Gods and could not sin and just as Solomon in the beginning of his reigne and as David I could say Monarchy so limited must be better then Aristocracy or Democracy 1. Because it is farthest from injustice neerest to peace and godlinesse m. l. 3. § aparet ff de administrat tutor l. 2. § novissime ff de Orig. jur Aristot pol. l. 8. c. 10. Bodin de Rep. l. 6. c. 4. 2. Because God ordained this government in his people 3. By experience it is knowne to be lesse obnoxious to change except that some think the Venetian Common-wealth best but with reverence I see small difference betweene a King and the