Sam. 9.17 1 Sam. 10.1 we have not Saul elected and constituted king and Samuel did obeysance to him and kissed him for the honor Royall which God was to put upon him for before this propheticall unction 1 Sam. 9.22 he made him sit in the chiefe place and honored him as king when as yet Samuel was materially King and the Lords Vicegerent in Israel If then the Prelate conclude any thing from Samuel his doing reverence and obeysance to him as King it shall follow that Saul was formally King before Samuel 1 Sam. 10.1 anointed him and kissd him and that must be before he he was formally King otherwise he was in Gods appointment King before ever he saw Samuels face and it is true he ascribeth honour to him as to one appointed by God to be supreame Soveraigne for that which he should be not for that which he was as c. 9.22 he set him in the chiefest place and therefore it is false that we have Sauls election and constitution to be King 1 Sam. 10. for after that time the people are rebuked for seeking a King and that with a purpose to disswade them from it as a sinfull desire and he is chosen by Lots after that and made King after Samuels anoynting of him he was a private man and did hide himselfe amongst the stuffe v. 22.3 The Prelate if of ignorance or wilfully I know not saith the expression and phrase is the same 1 Sam. 12.13 and Ps. 2.6 which is false for 1 Sam. 12.13 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold the Lord hath given you a King such is the expression Hos. 13.11 I gave them a King in my wrath but that expression is not Psal. 2.6 but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I have established him my King and though it were the same expression it followeth not that the people have not hand any other way in appointing Christ their head though that phrase also be in the word Hos. 1. v. 11. then by consenting and beleeving in him as King but this proveth not that the people in appointing a King hath no hand but naked approbation for the same phrase doth not expresse the same action nay the Iudges are to kisse Christ Ps. 2.12 the same way and by the same action that Samuel kissed Saul 1 Sam. 10.1 and the Idolaters kissed the calves Hos. 13.2 for the same Hebrew word is used in all the three places and yet it is certaine the first kissing is spirituall the second a kisse of honour and the third an Idolatrous kissing 4. The anoynting of Saul cannot be a leading rule to the making of all Kings to the worlds end for the P. Prelate forgetting himselfe said that onely some few as Moses Saul and David c. by extraordinary manifestation from Heaven were made Kings pa. 19.5 he saith it was not Arbitrary for the people to admit or reject Saul so designed What meaneth he it was not morally arbitrary because they were under a law Deut. 17.14 15. to make him King whom the Lord should choose That is true but was it not arbitrary to them to breake a law Physically I think he who is a professed Arminian will not side with Manicheans and Fatalists so but the P. Prelate must prove it was not Arbitrary either Morally or Physically to them not to accept Saul as their King because they had no action at all in the making of a King God did it all both by constituting and designing the King why then did God Deut. 17. give a Law to them to make such a man King not such a man if it was not in their free wil to have any action or hand in the making of a King at all but that some sonnes of Belial would not accept him as their King is expresly said 1 Sam. 10.27 and how did Israel conspire with Absolom to unking and dethronâ— David whom the Lord had made King If the Prelate meane it was not Arbitrary to them physically to reject Saul he speaketh wonders the sonnes of Belial did reject him ergo they had physicall power to doe it If he meane it was not arbitrary that is it was not lawfull to them to reject him that is true but doth it follow they had no hand nor action in making Saul King because it was not lawfull for them to make a King in a sinfull way and to refuse him whom God chose to be King then see what I inferre 1. Then they had no hand in obeying him as King because they sinne in obeying unlawfull commandements against Gods Law and so they had no hand in approving and consenting he should be King the contrary whereof the P. Prelate saith 2. So might the P. Prelate prove men are patientes and have no action in violating all the Commandements of God because it is not lawfull to them to violate any one Commandement 6 The Lord Deut. 17. vindicates this as proper and peculiar to himselfe to choose the person and to choose Saul What then ergo now the people choosing a King have no power to choose or name a man because God anoynted Saul and David by immediate manifestation of his Will to Samuel this consequence is nothing also it followeth in no wise that therefore the people made not Saul King 7. That the peoples approbation of a King is not necessary is Bellarmines and Papists saying and that the people chose their Ministers in the Apostolick Church not by a necessity of a divine Commandement but to conciliate love betwixt Pastor and people Papists hold that if the Pope make a â—â—pish King the head and King of Britaine against the peoples will yet is he their King 8. David was then King all the time that Saul presecuted him he sinned truely in not discharging the duty of a King onely because he wanted a ceremony the peoples approbation which the Prelate saith is required to the solemnity and pompe not to the necessity and truth and essence of a formall King So the Kings Coronation Oath and the peoples Oath must be Ceremonies and because the Prelate is perjured himselfe therefore perjury is but a ceremony also 9. The enthronization of Bishops is like the Kinging of the Pope the Apostles must spare Thrones while they come to Heaven Luk. 22.29 30. the P. Prelates with their head the Pope must be enthroned 10. The hereditary King he maketh a King before his Coronation and his Acts are as valid before as after his Coronation it might cost him his head to say that the Prince of Wales is now no lesse King of Britaine and his Acts Acts of Kingly Royalty no lesse then our Soveraigne is King of Britaine if Lawes and Parliaments had their owne vigour from royall Authority 11. I allow that Kings be as high as God hath placed them but that God said of all Kings I will make him my first borne c. Psalm 89.26 27. which is true of Solomon as the Type 2 Sam 7.
King by vertue of his covenant How can he faile against an obligation where there is no obligation but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people and indeed so doe our good men expound that Psal. 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned not against Vriah for if he sinned not as King against Vriah whose life he was obliged to conserve as a King he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conserve his life Where there is no sin there is no obligation not to sin and where there is no obligation not to sin there is no sin By this the King as King is loosed from all duties of the second Table being once made a King he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himselfe for he is above all his neighbours and above all mankind and only lesse then God 4. Arg. If the people be so given to the King that they are committed to him as a pledge oppignorated in his hand as a pupill to a Tutor as a distressed man to a Patron as a flocke to a Shepheard and so as they remaine the Lords Church his people his flocke his portion his inheritance his vineyard his redeemed ones then they cannot be given to the King as Oxen and Sheepe that are freely gifted to a man or as a gift or summe of gold or silver that the man to whom they are given may use so that he cannot commit a fault against the oxen sheepe gold or mony that is given to him how ever he shall dispose of them But the people are given to the King to be tutored and protected of him so as they remaine the people of God and in covenant with him and if the people were the goods of fortune as Heathens say he could no more sinne against the people then a man can sin against his gold now though a man by adoring gold or by lavish profusion and wasting of gold may sin against God yet not against gold nor can he be in any covenant with gold or under any obligation of either duty or sin to gold or to livelesse and reasonlesse creatures properly therefore he may sin in the use of them and yet not sin against them but against God Hence of necessity the King must be under obligation to the Lords people in another manner then that he should only answer to God for the losse of men as if men were worldly goods under his hand and as if being a King he were now by this Royall Authority priviledged from the best halfe of the law of nature to wit from acts of mercy and truth and covenant keeping with his brethren 5. Arg. If a King because a King were priviledged from all covenant obligation to his subjects then could no Law of men lawfully reach him for any contract violated by him then he could not be a debtor to his subjects if he borrowed mony from them and it were utterly unlawfull either to crave him mony or to sue him at Law for debts yet our Civill Lawes of Scotland tyeth the King to pay his debts as any other man yea and King Solomons traffiquing and buying and selling betwixt him and his owne subjects would seeme unlawfull for how can a King buy and sell with his subjects if he be under no covenant obligation to men but to God only Yea then a King could not marry a wife for he could not come under a covenant to keepe his body to her only nor if he committed adultery could he sin against his wife because being immediate unto God and above all obligation to men he could sin against no covenant made with men but only against God 6. If that was a lawfull covenant made by Asa and the States of Iudah 2 Chron. 15.13 That whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of their fathers should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman this obligeth the King for ought I see and the Princes and the people but it was a lawfull covenant ergo the King is under a covenant to the Princes and Iudges as they are to him it is replyed If a Master of a Schoole should make a law whoever shall goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty obtained of the Master shall be whipped it will not oblige the Schoole-master that he shall be whipped if he goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty so neither doth this Law oblige the King the supreame Law-giver Ans. Suppose that the Schollars have no lesse hand and authority magisteriall in making the law then the Schoole-master as the Princes of Iudah had a collaterall power with King Asa about that law it would follow that the Schoole-master is under the same law 2. Suppose going out at Schoole doores were that way a morall neglect of studying in the Master as it is in the Scholars as the not seeking of God is as hainous a sinne in King Asa and no lesse deserving death then it is in the people then should the Law oblige Schoolmaster and Scholler both without exception 3. The Schoolemaster iâ— clearely above all lawes of discipline which he imposeth on his Scholars but none can say that King Asa was clearely above that law of seeking of the Lord God of his fathers Diodorus Siculus l. 17. saith the Kings of Persia were under an oath and that they might not change the Lawes and so were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia The Kings of Sparta which Aristotle calleth just Kings renew their oath every moneth Romulus so covenanted with the Senate and People Carolus V. Austriacus sweareth he shall not change the Lawes without the consent of the Electors nor make new lawes nor dispose or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire So read we Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped l. 8. saith there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Persians The nobles are crowned when they crown their King and exact a speciall Oath of the King So doth England Polonia Spaine Arragonia c. Alberi Gentilis Hug. Grotius prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people but notwithstanding there be such a covenant it followeth not from this saith Arnisaeus that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically the people shall be free and the contract or covenant nothing Ans. The covenant may be materially broken while the King remaineth King and the subjects remaine subjects but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken the people must be free from their Allegiance but of this more hereafter Arg. 7. If a Master bind himselfe by an Oath to his servant he shall not receive such a benefit of such a point of service if he violate the Oath his Oath must give his servant Law and right both to challenge his Master and he is freed from that point of service an Army appointeth such a one their Leader
superioritie in Rulers is not primely and only for the Subjects good for some are by God and Nature appointed for the mutuall and inseperable good of the superiour and inferiour as in the government of husband and wife or father and sonne and in herili dominio in the government of a Lord and his servant the good and benefit of the servant is but secondary and consecutively intended it is not the principall end but the externall and adventitious as the gaine that commeth to a Physitian is not the proper and internall end of his art but followeth only from his practice of Medicine Ans. The Prelates logick tendeth to this some government tendeth to the mutuall good of the superior and inferior but Royall Government is some government ergo nothing followeth from a major proposition Ex particulari affirmante in prima figura Or of two particular propositions 2. If it be thus formed every maritall government and every government of the Lord and servant is for the mutuall good of the superiour and inferiour But Royall Government is such ergo c. the assumption is false and cannot be proved as I shall anon cleare 2. Obj. Solomon disposed of Cabul and gave it to Hiram ergo a conquered Kingdome is for the good of the conquerour especially Ans. Solomons speciall giving away some Titles to the King of Tyre being a speciall fact of a Prophet as well as a King cannot warrant the King of England to sell England to a forraine Prince because William made England his owne by conquest which also is a most false supposition and this he stole from Hugo Grotius who condemneth selling of Kingdomes 3 Object A man may render himselfe totally under the power of a Master without any conditions and why may not the body of a people doe the like even to have peace and safety surrender themselves fully to the power of a King A lord of great Mannours may admit no man to live in his Lands but upon a condition of a full surrender of him and his posterity to that lord Tacitus sheweth us it was so anciently amongst the Germans and the Campanians surrendered themselves fully to the Romans Answ. What compelled people may do to redeem their lives with losse of liberty is nothing to the point such a violent Conquerour who will be a father and a husband to a people against their will is not their lawfull King and that they may sell the liberty of their posteritie not yet born is utterly denied as unlawfull yea a violentated father to me is a father and not a father and the posteritie may vindicate their own liberty given away unjustly before they were born Qua omne regnum vi partum potest vi dissolvi Object 4. But saith Doct. Fern these which are ours and given away to another in which there redoundeth to God by donation a speciall interest as in things devoted to holy uses though after they be abused yet we cannot recall them Ergo If the people be once forced to give away their liberty they cannot recall it far lesse if they willingly resign it to their Prince Answ. This is not true when the power is given for the conservation of the Kingdom and is abused for the destruction thereof for a power to destruction was never given nor can it by rationall nature be given 2. Mortifications given to religious uses by a positive law may be recalled by a more divine and stronger law of nature such as is this I will have mercy and not sacrifice Suppose David of his own proper heritage had given the Shew-bread to the Priests yet when David and his men are famishing he may take it back from them against their will Suppose Christ man had bought the Corns and dedicated them to the Altar yet might he and his Disciples eat the Ears of Corn in their hunger The vessels of silver dedicated to the Church may be taken and bestowed on wounded Souldiers 2. A people free may not and ought not totally surrender their liberty to a Prince confiding on his goodnesse 1. Because liberty is a condition of nature that all men are born with and they are not to give it away no not to a King except in part and for the better that they may have peace and justice for it which is better for them hic nunc 2. If a people trusting in the goodnesse of their Prince inslave themselves to him and he shall after turn Tyrant a rash and temerarious surrender obligeth not Et ignorantia facit factum quasi involuntarium Ignorance maketh the fact some way unvoluntary for if the people had beleeved that a meek King would have turned a roaring Lyon they should not have resigned their liberty into his hand and therefore the surrender was tacitely conditionall to the King as meek or whom they beleeved to be meek and not to a tyrannous Lord and therefore when the contract is made for the utilitie of the one party the law saith their place is for after wits that men may change their minde and resume their liberty though if they had given away their liberty for money they cannot recall it and if violence made the surrender of liberty here is slavery and slaves taken in war so soon as they can escape and return to their own they are free D. Sect. item ea Justit de rerum divin l. nihil F. de capt l. 3. So the learned Ferdin Vasquez illustri l. 2. c. 82. n. 15. saith The bird that was taken and hath escaped is free nature in a forced people so soon as they can escape from a violent Conqueror maketh them a free people and si solo tempore saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 2. c. 82. n. 6. justificatur subjectio solo tempore facilius justificabitur liberatio Assert 20. All the Goods of the Subjects belongeth not to the King I presuppose that the division of Goods doth not necessarily slow from the law of nature for God made man before the fall Lord of the creatures indefinitely but what Goods be Peters and not Pauls we know not But supposing mans sin though the light of the Sun and Air be common to all and religious places be proper to none yet it is morally unpossible that there should not be a distinction of meum tuum mine and thine and the decalogue forbidding theft and coveting the wife of another man yet is she the wife of Peter not of Thomas by free election not by an act of natures law doth evidence to us that the division of things is so far forth men now being in the state of sin of the law of nature that it hath evident ground in the Law of nations and thus farre naturall that the heat that I have from my own coat and cloak and the nourishment from my own meat are physically incommunicable to any But I hasten to prove the Proposition If 1. I have leave to premit that in time
all in one day to his sword were they obliged by this Oath to prayers and â—eares and only to suffer and was it against the Oath of God to defend themselves by Armes I beleeve the Oath did not oblige to such absolute subjection and though they had taken Armes in their owne lawfull defence according to the Law of Nature they had not broken the Oath of God The Oath was not a tye to an absolute subjection of all and every one either to worship Idols or then to sly or suffer death Now the Service-booke commanded in the Kings absolute authority all Scotland to commit grosser Idolatry in the intention of the work if not in the intention of the Commander then was in Babylon We read not that the King of Babylon pressed the consciences of Gods people to Idolatry or that all should either sly the Kingdome and leave their inheritances to Papists and Prelates or then come under the mercy of the sword of Papists and Atheists by sea or land 3. God may command against the Law of Nature and Gods Commandement maketh subjection lawfull so as men may not now being under the Law of God defend themselves What then Ergo we owe subjection to absolute Princes and their power must be a lawfull power it no waies is consequent Gods Commandement by Ieremiah made the subjection of Iudah lawfull and without that Commandement they might have taken Armes against the King of Babylon as they did against the Philistines and Gods Commandement maketh the Oath lawfull As suppone Ireland would all rise in Armes and come and destroy Scotland the King of Spain leading then we were by this Argument not to resist 4. It is denyed that the power Rom. 13. as absolute is Gods ordinance And I deny utterly that Christ and his Apostles did sweare non-resistence absolute to the Roman Emperour Obj. 2. It sesmeth 1 Pet. 2.18 19. if well doing be mistaken by the reason and judgement of an absolute Monarch for ill doing and we punished yet the Magistrates will is the command of a reasonable will and so to be submitted unto because such a one suffereth by Law where the Monarches Will is a Law and in this case some power must judge Now in an absolute Monarchy all judgement resolveth in the Will of the Monarch as the supreame Law and if Ancestors have submitted themselves by Oath there is no repeale or redresment Ans. Who ever was the Author of this Treatise he is a bad defender of the defensive warres in England for all the lawfulnesse of warres then must depend on this 1. Whether England be a conquered Nation at the beginning 2. If the Law-will of an absolute Monarch or a Nero be a reasonable Will to which we must submit in suffering ill I see not but we must submit to a reasonable will if it be reasonable will in doing ill no lesse then in suffering ill 3. Absolute Will in absolute Monarches is no Iudge De jure but an unlawfull and a usurping Iudge 4. 1 Pet. 2.18 19. Servants are not commanded simply to suffer I can prove suffering formally not to fall under any Law of God but only patient suffering I except Christ who was under a peculiar commandement to suffer But servants upon supposition that they are servants and buffeted unjustly by their Masters are by the Apostle Peter commanded v. 20. to suffer patiently But it doth not bind up a servants hand to defend his owne life with weapons if his Master invade him without cause to kill him otherwise if God call him to suffer he is to suffer in the manner and way as Christ did not reviling not threatning 4. To be a King and an absolute Master to me are contradictory a King essentially is a living Law An absolute man is a creature that they call a Tyrant and no lawfull King yet doe I not meane that any that is a King and usurpeth absolutenesse leaveth off to be a King but in so far as he is absolute he is no more a King then in so far as he is a Tyrant But further the King of England saith in a Declaration 1. The Law is the measure of the Kings Power 2. Parliaments are essentially Lord Iudges to make Lawes essentially as the King is ergo the King is not above the Law 3. Magna Charta saith the King can doe nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law 4. Prescription taketh away the title of conquests Obj 3. The King not the Parliament is the Anoynted of God Ans. The Parliament is as good even a Congregation of Gods Psalme 82.1 Obj. 4. The Parliament is the Court in their Acts they say with consent of our Soveraigne Lord. Ans. They say not at the Commandement and absolute pleasure of our Soveraigne Lord. 2. He is their Lord materially not as they are formally a Parliament for the King made them not a Parliament but sure I am the Parliament had power before he was King and made him King 1 Sam. 10.17 18. Obj. 5. In an absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any will as will but to the reasonable will of the Monarch which having the law of reason to direct it is kept from injurious acts Ans. If reason be a sufficient restraint and if God hath laid no other restraint upon some lawfull King yee reason Then is Magistracy a lame a needlesse ordinance of God for all Mankind hath reason to keepe themselves from injuries and so there is no need of Iudges or Kings to defend them from either doing or suffering injuries But certainly this must be admirable If God as Author of nature should make the Lyon King of all beasts the Lyon remaining a devouring beast and should ordaine by nature all the sheepe and Lambs to come and submit their corps to him by instinct of nature and to be eaten at his will and then say The nature of a beast in a Lyon is a sufficient restraint to keepe the Lyon from devouring Lambs Certainly a King being a sinfull man and having no restraint on his power but reason he may thinke it reason to allow rebells to kill drowne hang torture to death an hundred thousand Protestants men women infants in the wombe and sucking babes as is clere in Pharaoh Manasseh and other Princes Obj. 6. There is no Court or Iudge above the King ergo he is absolutely supreame Ans. The Antecedent is false The Court that made the King of a private man a King is above him and here are limitations laid on him at his Coronation 2. The States of Parliament are above him to censure him 3. In case of open Tyranny though the States had not time to conveen in Parliament if he bring on his people an hoast of Spaniards or forraine Rebells his owne conscience is above him and the conscience of the people farre more called conscientia terrae may judge him in so farre as they may
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 interpretatioÌ„s 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 fift 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 Tyraâ—ny 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 eate 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 with the wine of the Cup of Babells fornications are so madde and the ten Emperours are so madde who wasted their faithfullest subjects P. Prelate If there be such a power in the Peeres resumable in the exâ—gent of necessity as the last necessary remedy for safety of Church and State God and nature not being deficient in things necessary it must be proved out of the Scripture and not taken on trust for Affirmanti incumbit probatio Ans. Mr. Bishop what better is your Affirmanti incumbit c then mine for you are the affirmer I can prove a power in the King limited onely to feed governe and save the people and you affirme that God hath given to the King not only a power officiall and Royall to save but also to destroy and cut off so as no man may say Why doest thou this Shall we take this upon the word of an excommunicated Prelate Profer tabulas Iohn P. P. I beleeve you not Royall power is Deut. 17.18 Rom. 3.14 I am sure there is there a power given to the King to doe good and that from God Let John P.P. prove a power to doe ill given of God to the King 2. We shall quickly prove that the States may represse this power and punish the Tyrant not the King when he shall prove that a Tyrannous power is an Ordinance of God and so may not be resisted For the law of Nature teacheth If â— give my sword to my fellow to defend me from the murtherer if he shall fall to and murther me with my own sword I may if I have strength take my sword from him Prelate It is infidelitie to thinke that God cannot helpe us and impatience that we will not wait on God When a King oppresseth us it is against Gods wisdome that he hath not provided another meane for our safetie than intrusion on Gods right 2. It is against Gods power 3. his Holinesse 4. Christian Religion that we necessitate God to so weake a meane to make use of sinne and we cast the aspersion of Treason on Religion and deterre Kings to professe Reformed Catholike Religion 5. We are not to justle God out of his right Ans. I see nothing but what D. Ferne Grotius Barclay Blackwood have said before with some colour of proving the consequence The P. Prelate giveth us other mens arguments but without bones All were good if the States coercing and curbing a power which God never gave to the King were a sinne and an act of impatience and unbelief And if it were proper to God only by his immediate hand to coerce Tyrannie 2. He calleth it not Protestant Religion either here or elsewhere but cautelously giveth a name that will agree to the Roman Catholique Religion For the Dominicans Franciscans and the Parisian Doctors and Schoolemen following Occham Gerson Almaâ—â— and other Papists call themselves Reformed Catholiques 2. He layeth this for a ground in 3 or 4 pages where these same Arguments are againe and againe repeated in terminis as his second Reason p. 149. was handled ad nauseam p. 148. his 3. Reason is repeated in his 6. Reason p. 151. He layeth I say down this ground which is the begged Conclusion and maketh the Conclusion the Assumption in 8 raw and often repeated Arguments to wit That the Parliaments coercing and restraining of Arbitrarie power is rebellion and resisting the Ordinance of God But he dare not looke the place Rom. 13. on the face other Royalists have done it with bad successe This I desire to be weighed and I retort the Prelates argument But it is
indeed the triviall Argument of all Royalists especially of Barclay obvious in his 3. Booke If Arbitrarie and Tyrannicall power above any Law that the lawfull Magistrate commandeth under the paine of death Thou shalt not murther one man Thou shalt not take away the vineyard of one Naboth violently be lawfull and warrantable by Gods word then an Arbitrarie power above all Divine lawes is given to the keeping of the Civill Magistrate And it is no lesse lawfull Arbitrarie or rather Tyrannicall power for David to kill all his Subjects and to plunder all Jerusalem as I beleeve Prelates and Malignants and Papists would serve the three Kingdomes if the King should command them then to kill one Vriah or for Achab to spoile one Naboth The essence of â—inne must agree alike to all though the degrees varie Of Gods remedie against Arbitrary power hereafter in the Question of Resistance but the confused ingine of the Prelate bringeth it in here where there is no place for iâ— His 7. Argument is Before God would authorize Rebellion and give a bad president thereof for ever he would rather worke extraordinary and wondâ—rfull miracles and therefore would not authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Moses a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a strâ—tched-out armâ— nor did the Lord deliver his people by the wisdome of Moses or strength of the people or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and power Ans. I reduce the Prelates confused words to a few for I speake not of his Popish tearme of Saint Steven and others the like because all that he hath said in a book of 149 pages might have been said in three sheets of paper But I pray you what is this Argument to the Question in hand wâ—â—ch is Whether the King be so above all Lawes as People and Peeres in the case of Arbitrarie power may resume their power and punish a Tyrant The P. Prâ—late draweth in the Question of Resistance by the haire Israels not rising in armes against K. Pharaoh proveth nothing against the power of a Free Kingdome against a Tyrant 1. Moses who wrought miracles destructive to Pharaoh might pray a vengeance against Pharaoh God having revealed to Moses that Pharaoh was a Reprobate But may Ministers and Nobles pray so against King Charles God forbid 2. Pharaoh had not his Crown from Israel 3. Pharaoh had not sworne to defend Israel nor became he their King upon condition he should maintaine and professe the Religion of the God of Israel Therefore Israel could not as free Estates challenge him in their supreme Court of Parliament of breach of oath and upon no termes could they un-king Pharaoh He held not his Crown of them 4. Pharaoh was never circumcised nor within the Covenant of the God of Isrâ—el in profession 5. Israel had their lands by the meere gift of the King I hope the King of Britaine standeth to Scotland and England in a foure-fold contrary relation All Divines know that Pharaoh his Princes and the Egyptians were his Peeres and People and that Israel were not his native Subjects but a number of strangers who by the lawes of the King and Princes by the meanes of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and libertie to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their bondage Exod. 2.23 24. and they were not to serve the Gods of Egypt nor were of the Kings Religion And therefore his Argument is thus A number of poore exiled strangers under King Pharaoh who were not Pharaohs Princes and Peeres could not restraine the Tyrannie of King Pharaoh Ergo the three Estates in a free Kingdome may not restraine the Arbitrarie power of a King 2. The Prelate must prove that God gave a Royall and Kingly power to King Pharaoh due to him by vertue of his Kingly calling according as Royalists expone 1 Sam. 8.9 11. to kill all the male children of Israel to make slaves of themselves and compell them to worke in brick and clay while their lives were a burden to them And that if a Romish Catholique Mary of England should kill all the male Children of Protestants by the hands of Papists at the Queenes commandement and make bondslaves of all the Peeres Iudges and three Estates who made her a free Princesse yet notwithstanding that Mary had sworne to maintaine the Protestant Religion they were to suffer and not to defend themselves But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Israel so as they could not controll it then God giveth to a King a Royall power by office to sinne only the Royalist saveth God from being the author of sinne in this that God gave the power to sinne but yet with this limitation that the Subjects should not resist this power 2. He must prove that Israel was to give their Male-childâ—en to Pharaohs Butchers for to hide them was to resist a Royall power and to disobey a Royall power given of God is to disobey God 3. The Subjects may not resist the Kings Butchers coming to kill them and their Male-children For to resist the servant of the King in that wherein he is a servant is to resist the King 1 Sam. 8.7 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 4. He must prove that upon the supposition That Israel had been as strong as Pharaoh and his people that without Gods speciall commandment they then wanting the written Word they should have fought with Pharaoh and that we now for all wars must have a word from Heaven as if we had not Gods perfit Will in his Word as at that time Israel behoved to have in all wars Judg. 18.5 1 Sam. 14.37 Esa. 30.2 Iere. 38.37 1 King 22.5 1 Sam. 30.5 Iudg. 20.27 1 Sam. 23.2 2 Sam. 16.23 1 Chron. 10.14 But because God gave not them an answer to fight against Pharaoh therefore we have no warrant now to fight agâ—inst a forraign Nation invading us the consequence is null and therefore this is a vain Argument The Prophets never reprove the people for not performing the duty of defensive wars against Tyraâ—nous Kings Ergo There is no such dutie enjoyned by any Law of God to us For the Prophets never rebuke the people for non-performing the dutie of offensive wars against their enemies but where God gave a speciall command and responce from his own Oracle that they should fight And if God was pleased never to command the people to rise against a Tyrannous King they did not sin where they had no commandment of God but I hope we have now a more sure word of prophecie to inform us 5. The Prelate conjectureth Moses his miraâ—les and the deliverance of the people by dividing the Red Sea was to forbid and condemn defensive wars of people against their King but he hath neither Scripture nor Reasons to do it The end of these miracles was to Seal to Pharaoh the Truth of Gods calling of Moses and
saith he non est actio aut poena one may not have action of law against his brother who refuseth to help him yet saith he as man he is obliged to man nexu civilis societatis by the bond of humane society Others say one nation may indirectly defend a neighbour nation against a common enemie because it is a self-defence and it is presumed that a forraigne enemie having overcome the neighbour nation shall invade that nation it selfe who denyeth help and succour to the neighbour nation this is a self-opinion and to me it looketh not like the spiritâ—aâ—l law of God 3. Some say it is lawfull but not alwayes expedient in which opinion there is this much truth that if the neighbor nation have an evil cause neque licet neque expedit it is neither lawfull nor expedient But what is lawful in the case of necessity so extreame as is the losse of a brothers life or of a nation must be expedient because necessity of non-sinning maketh any lawfull thing expedient As to help my brother in fire or water requiring my present and speedy help though to the losse of my goods must be as expedient as a negative commandement Thou shalt not murther 4. Others think it lawfull in the case that my brother seek my help only other wayes I have no calling thereunto to which opinion I cannot universally subscribe it is holden both by reason and the soundest divines that to rebuke my brother of sinne is actus misericordiae charitatis an act of mercy and charity to his soul yet I hold I am obliged to rebuke him by Gods law Levit. 19.17 otherwise I hate him 1 Thes. 5.14 Col. 4.17 Math. 18 15. Nor can I think in reason that my duty of love to my brother doth not oblige me but upon dependency on his free consent but as I am to help my neighbours oxe out of a ditch though my neighbour know not and so I have onely his implicit and virtuall consent so is the case here I go not farther in this case of conscience if a neighbour nation be jealous of our help and in an hostile way should oppose us in helping which blessed be the Lord the honourable houses of the Parliament of England hath not done though Malignant spirits tempted them to such a course what in that case we should owe to the afflicted members of Christs body is a case may be determined easily The fift and last opinion is of those who think if the King command Papists and Prelates to rise against the Parliament and our dear brethren in England in warres that we are obliged in conscience and by our oath and covenant to help our native Prince against them to which opinion with hands and feet I should accord if our Kings cause were just and lawfull but from this it followeth that we must thus far judge of the cause as concerneth our consciences in the matter of our necessary duty leaving the judiciall cognizance to the honourable Parliament of England But because I cannot returne to all these opinions particularly I see no reason but the Civil Law of a Kingdom doth oblige any Citizen to help an innocent man against a murthering robber that he may be judicially accused as a murtherer who faileth in his duty that Solon said well beatam remp esse illam in quâ quisque injuriam alterius suam estimet It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother as an injury done against himself As the Egyptians had a good law by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that suffered wrong and if he was not able to help he was holden to accuse the injurer if not his punishment was whips or three dayes hunger it may be upon this ground it was that Moses slew the Egyptian Ambrose commendeth him for so doing Assert We are obliged by many bands to expose our lives goods children c. in this cause of religion and of the unjust oppression of enemies for the safety and defence of our deare brethren and true religion in England 1. Prov. 24.11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken as captives to be killed and those that are ready to be slaine 12. If thou say behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it and he that keepeth thy soul doth he not know it and shall he not render to every man according to his work Master Iermin on the plâ—ce is too narrow who coâ—menting on the place restricteth all to these two that the priest should deliver by interceding for the innocâ—nt and the King by pardoning only But 1. to deliver is a word of violence as 1 Sam. 30.18 David by the sword rescued his wives Hos. 5 14. I will take away and none shall rescue 1 Sam. 17.35 I rescued the lambs out of his mouth out of the Lyons mouth which behovâ—d to be done with great violence 2 King 18.34 They have not delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samaria out of my hand So Cornel. à Lapidâ— Charitas suadâ—t ut vi armis eruamus injuste ductos ad mortem Amâ—ros lib. 1. offic c. 36. citeth this same text and commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man 2. It is an act of Charity and so to be done though the judge forbid it when thâ— innocent is unjustly put to death Object But in so doing private men may offer violence to the lawfull magistrate when he unjustly putteth an innocent man to death and rescue him out of the hands of the magistrate and this were to bring in anarchy and confusion for if it be an act of charity to deliver the innocent out of the hand of the Magistrate it is homicide to a private man not to do it for our obedience to the law of nature tyeth us absolutely though the Magistrate forbid these acts for it is known that I must obey God rather then man Answ. The law of nature tyeth us to obedience in acts of charity yet not to perfâ—rme these acts after any way and manner in a meere naturall way impetu naturae but I am to performe acts of naturall charity in a rationall and prudent way and in looking to Gods law else if my brother or father were justly condemned to die I might violently deliver him out of the Magistrates hand but by the contrary my hand should be first on him without naturall compassion As if my brother or my wife have been a blasphemer of God Deut. 13.6 7 8. and therefore am I to do acts naturall as a wise man observing as Solomon saith Eccles. 8.5 both time and judgement Now it were no wisdom for one private man to hazard his own life by attempting to rescue an innocent brother because he hath not strength to do it and the law of nature
tribe The Pope is but a swelled fat Prelate and what he saith of Popes he saith of his own house 6. The Ministers of Christ in Scotland had never a contest with King Iames but for his sinnes and his conniving with Papists and his introducing Bishops the usher of the Pope QUEST XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having Prerogatives above Parliament and Laws The Negative is asserted by the Lawes of Scotland the Kings Oath of Coronation the Confession of Faith c. THe negative part of this I hold in these Assertions Assert 1. The Kings of Scotland have not any Prerogative distinct from Supremacie above the Lawes 1. If the People must be governed by no Lawes but by the Kings own Lawes that is the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme acted in Parliament under paine of disobedience then must the King governe by no other Lawes and so by no Prerogative above Law But the former is an evident truth by our Acts of Parliament ergo so is the latter The Proposition is confirmed 1. Because what ever Law enjoyneth passive obedience no way but by Lawes that must injoyne also the King actively to command no other way but by Law for to be governed by Law essentially includeth to be governed by the Supreme Governour only by Law 2. An act of Regall governing is an act of Law and essentially an act of Law an act of absolute Prerogative is no act of Law but an act above Law or of pleasure loosed from Law and so they are opposed as acts of Law and non acts of Law If the Subjects by command of the King and Parliament cannot be governed but by Law How can the King but be under his own and the Parliaments Law to governe only by Law I prove the Assumption from Parl. 3. of K. Iames the 1. Act 48. Ordaines That all and sundry the Kings Lieges be governed under the Kings Laws and Statutes of the Realme allanerly and under no particular Lawes or speciall Priviledges nor by any Lawes of other Countries or Realmes Priviledges doe exclude Lawes Absolute pleasure of the King as a Man and the Law of the King as King are opposed by way of contradiction and so in Parl. 6. K. James 4. Act. 79. and ratified Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. Act. 131. 2. The King at his Coronation 1. Par. K. James 6. Act. 8. sweareth to maintaine the true Kirk of God and Religion now presently professed in puritie And to rule the People according to the Lawes and Constitutions received in the Realme causing Justice and equitie to be ministred without partialitie This did King Charles sweare at his Coronation and ratified Parl. 7. K. Iam. 6. Act. 99. Hence he who by the Oath of God is limited to governe by Law can have no Prerogative above the Law If then the King change the Religion Confession of Faith authorised by many Parliaments especially by Parliament 1. K. Charles An. 1633. He goeth against his Oath 3. The Kings Royall Prerogative or rather Supremacie enacted Parl. 8. K. James 6. Act. 129. and Parl. 18. Act. 1. and Parl. 21. Act. 1. K. Iames and 1 Parl. K. Charles Act. 3. cannot 1. be contrary to the Oath that K. Charles did sweare at his Coronation which bringeth down the Prerogative to governing according to the standing Lawes of the Realme 2. It cannot be contrary to these former Parliaments and Acts declaring that the Lieges are to be governed by the Lawes of the Realme and by no particular Lawes and speciall Priviledges but absolute Prerogative is a speciall Priviledge above or without Law which Acts stand unrepealed to this day and these Acts of Parliaments stand ratified An. 1633. the 1 Parl. K. Charles 3. Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. in the first three Acts thereof the Kings Supremacie and the power and authoritie of Parliaments are equally ratified under the same paine Their jurisdictions power and judgements in Spirituall or Temporall causes not ratified by His Majestie and the three Estates conveened in Parliament are discharged But the Absolute Prerogative of the King above Law Equity and Iustice was never ratified in any Parliament of Scotland to this day 4. Parliam 12. K. Iames 6. Act. 114. All former Acts in favour of the true Church and Religion being ratified Their power of making Constitutions concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Order and Decency the Priviledges that God hath given to spirituall Office-bearers as well of Doctrine and Discipline in matters of Heresie Excommunication Collation Deprivation and such like warranted by the Word of God and also to Assembles and Presbyteries are ratified Now in that Parliament in Acts so contiguous we are not to think That the King and three Estates would make Acts for establishing the Churches power in all the former heads of Government in which Royalists say The soul of the Kings Absolute Prerogative doth consist And therefore it must be the true intent of our Parliament to give the King a Supremacy and a Prerogative Royall which we also give but without any Absolutenesse of boundlesse and transcendent power above Law and not to obtrude a Service-Book and all the Superstitious Rites of the Church of Rome without Gods Word upon us 5. The former Act of Parliament ratifieth the true Religion according to the Word of God then could it never have been the intent of our Parliament to ratifie an Absolute supremacy according to which a King might govern his people as a Tyrannous Lion contrary to Deut. 17.18 19 20. And 't is true The 18. P. of King James 6. Act. 1. and Act. 2. upon personall qualifications giveth a Royall Prerogative to King James over all causes persons and estates within His Majesties Dominion whom they humbly acknowledge to be Soveraign Monarch Absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes These two Acts for my part I acknowledge spoken rather in Court-expressions then in Law-termes 1. Because personall vertues cannot advance a limited Prince such as the Kings of Scotland Post hominum memoriam ever were to be an Absolute Prince Personall graces make not David absolutely supreme Judge over all persons and causes nor can King James advanced to be King of England be for that made more King of Scotland and more supreme Iudge then he was while he was onely King of Scotland A wicked Prince is as essentially supreme Iudge as a godly King 2. If this Parliamentary figure of speech which is to be imputed to the times exalted King James to be Absolute in Scotland for his personall indowments there was no ground to put the same on King Charls Personall vertues are not alway Hereditary though to me the present King be the best 3. There is not any Absolutenesse above Law in the Act. 1. The Parliament must be more absolute themselves King James 6. had been divers yeers before this 18. Parl. King of Scotland then if they gave him by Law an Absolutenesse which he had