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-children 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 sought 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 against 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 Tyrannous 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 miraeles 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 Aaron to deliver the people as is clear Exod. 4. 1 2 3 4. compared with Chap. 7. vers 8 9 10. And that the Lord might get to himself a name on all the earth Rom. 9 17. Exod. 9. 16. and 13. 13 14. and 15. 1 2 3. seq But of the Prelates conjecturall end the Scripture is silent and we cannot take an excommunicated mans word What I said of Pharaoh who had noâ—â—is Crown from Israel that I say of Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of Persia keeping the people of God captive P. Prelate So in the Book of the Judges when the people were delivered over to the hand of their enemies because of their sins he never warranted the ordinary Iudges or Communitie to be their own deliverers but when they repented God raised up a Iudge The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon God effected it by Cyrus immediately and totally Is not this a reall proof God will not have inferiour Iudges to rectifie what is amisse but we must waite in patience till God provide lawfull means some Soveraign power immediately sent by himself in which course of his ordinary providence he will not be deficient Answ All this is beside the question and proveth nothing lesse then that Peers and Communitie may not resume their power to curbe an Arbitrary power For in the first case there is neither Arbitrary nor lawfull supreme Iudge 2. If the first prove any thing it proveth That it was rebellion in the inferiour Iudges and Communitie of Israel to fight against forraign Kings not set over them by God and that offensive wars against any Kings whatsoever because they are Kings though strangers are unlawfull Let Socinians and Anabaptists consider if the P. Prelate help not them in this and may prove all wars to be unlawfull 3. He is so Malignant to all inferiour Iudges as if they were not powers sent of God and to all Governours that are not Kings and so upholders of Prelates and of himself as he conceiveth that by his arguing he will have all deliverance by Kings onely the onely lawfull means in ordinary providenâ—â— and so Aristocracy and Democracy except in Gods extraordinary providence and by some divine dispensation must be extraordinary and ordinarily unlawfull 2. The Acts of a State when a King is dead and they choose another shall be an Anticipating of Gods providence 3. If the King be a childe a captive or distracted and the Kingdom oppressed with Malignants they are to waite while God immediately from Heaven create a King to them as he did Saul long ago But have we now Kings immediately sent as Saul was 1. How is the spirit of Prophecie and Government infused in them as in King Saul Or are they by propheticall inspiration anointed as David was I conceive their calling to the throne on Gods part do differ as much from the calling of Saul and David in some respect as the calling of ordinary Pastors who must be gifted by industry and learning and called by the Church and the calling of Apostles 4. God would deliver his people from Babylon by moving the heart of Cyrus immediately the people having no hand in it not so much as supplicating Cyrus Ergo The People and Peers who made the King cannot curb his
to be obeyed by no Divine law the King misled by P. Prelates shall forbid to obey them who is in right-down truth a mortall civill Pope may loose and liberate subjects from the tye of a Divine law 5 His inveying against ruling Elders and the rooting out of Antichristian Prelacie without any word of Scripture on the contrary I passe as the extravagancy of a malecontent because he is deservedly excommunicated for Perjury Popery Socinianisme Tyranny over mens conscience and invading places of civill dignity and deserting his calling and the camp of Christ c. 6 None were of old anoynted but Kings Priests and Prophets who then more obliged to maintain the Lords Anoynted then Priests and Prophets The Church hath never more beauty and plenty under any government then Monarchy which is most countenanced by God and magnified by Scripture Ans Pastors are to maintain the rights of people and a true Church no lesse then the right of Kings but Prelates the Court Parasites and creatures of the King that are born for the Glory of their King can do no lesse then professe this in words yet it is true that Tacitus writeth of such Hist l. 1. Libentius cum fortuna principis quam cum principe loquuntur and it is true that the Church hath had plenty under Kings not so much because they were Kings as because they were godly and zealous except the P. P. say That the oppressing Kings of Israell and Judah and the bloody horns that made war with the Lamb are not Kings In the rest of the Epistle he extols the Marques of Ormond with base flattery from his Loyalty to the King and his more then Admirable prudence in the Treaty of Cessation with the Rebells a woe is due to this false prophet who calleth Darknesse Light for the former was abominable and perfidious Apostacy from the Lords cause and people of God whom he once defended and the Cessation was a selling of the blood of many hundred thousand protestants Men Women and sucking Children This cursed P. hath written of late a Treatise against the Presbyteriall government of Scotland in which there is a bundle of lyes hellish calumnies and grosse errors The first lye is that we have Lay-Elders whereas they are such as rule But labour not in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5. 7. pag. 3. 2. The second lye that Deacons who only attend Tables are joynt Rulers with Pastors pag. 3. 3. That we never or little use the lesser excommunication that is debarring from the Lords Supper Pag. 4. 4. That any Church judicature in Scotland exacteth pecuniary mulcts and threaten excommunication to the non-payers and refuseth to accept the repentance of any who are not able to pay the civill magistrate only fineth for Drunkennesse and Adultery Blaspheming of God which are frequent sins in Prelates 5 A calumnie it is to say That ruling Elders are of equall authority to Preach the Word as Pastors Pag. 7. 6. That Lay-men are members of Presbyteries or generall Assemblies Buchanan and Mr. Melvin were Doctors of Divinity and could have taught such an Asse as Jo. Maxwell 7. That exspectants are intruders upon the sacred function because as sons of the Prophets they exercise their gifts for tryall in Preaching 8. That the Presbytery of Edinbrough hath a superintending power because they communicate the affaires of the Church and writ to the Churches what they hear Prelates and Hell devise against Christ and his Church 9. That the King must submit his Scepter to the Presbytery the Kings Scepter is his Royal office which is not subject to any judicature no more then any lawfull ordinance of Christ but if the King as a man blaspheme God murther the innocent advance Belly-gods such as our Prelates for the most part were above the Lords inheritance the Ministers of Christ are to say The King troubleth Jsraell and they have the keyes to open and shut heaven to and upon the King if he can offend 10. That King James said a Scottish Presbytery and a Monarchy agreeth as well as God and the Devill is true but King James meant of a wicked King else he spake as a man 11. That the presbytery out of pride refused to answer King James his Honourable messengers is a lye they could not in businesse of high concernment return a present answer to a Prince seeking still to abolish Presbyteries 12. It s a lye that all sins even all civil businesse come under the cognizance of the Church for only sins as publikely scandalous fall under their power Mat. 18. 15 16 17. c. 2 Thess 3. 11. 1 Tim. 5. 20. It is a calumnie that they search out secret crimes or that ever they disgraced the innocent or devided families where there be flagrant scandals and pregnant suspitions of scandalous crimes they search out these as the incest of Spotswood P. P. of Saint Andrewes with his own daughter the adulteries of Whiteford P. P. of Brichen whose Bastard came weeping to the Assembly of Glasgow in the armes of the whore these they searched out but not with the damnable oath ex officio that the High Commission put upon innocents to cause them accuse themselves against the Law of nature 13. The Presbytery hinder not lawfull merchandize scandalous exhortation unjust suits of Law they may forbid and so doth the Scripture as scandalous to Christians 2 Cor. 6. 14. They repeal no civill Lawes they Preach against unjust and grievous lawes as Esa cap. 10. 1. doth and censure the violation of Gods Holyday which Prelates prophaned 15. We know no Parochiall Popes we turn out no holy Ministers but only dumbe dogs non-residents scandalous wretched and Apostate Prelates 16. Our Moderator hath no dominion the P. P. absolveth him while he saith All is done in our Church by common consent p. 7. 17. It is true we have no Popish consecration such as P. P. contendeth for in the Masse but we have such as Christ and his Apostles used in Consecrating the Elements 18. â—f any sell the Patrimony of the Church the Presbytery censures him if any take buds of Malt Meale Beâ—ffe it is no law with us no more then the Bishops five hundred markes or a yeares stipend that the intrant gave to the Lord Bishop for a church And who ever took buds in these dayes as King James by the Earl of Dumbar did buy Episcopacie at a pretended Assembly by foule budding they were either men for the Episcopall way or perfidiously against their oath became Bishops all personall faults of this kind imputed to Presbyters agree to them under the reduplication of Episcopall men 19. The leading men that covered the sins of the dying man and so losed his soul were Episcopall men and though some of them were presbyterians the faults of men cannot prejudice the truth of God but the Prelates alwayes cry out against the rigor of Presbyteries in
his oath Hugo Grotius putteth seven cases in which the people may have most reall action against the King to accuse and punish him 1. They may punish the King to death for matters capitall if so it be agreed on betwixt the King and the people as in Lacedemonia 2. He may be punished as a private man 3. If the King make away a Kingdome given to him by succession his act is null and he may be resisted because the Kingdome is a life-rent onely to him Yea saith Barclay He loseth the Crown 4. He loseth his Kingdom if with a hostile mind he seâ—k the destruction of the Kingdome 5. If such a clause be put in that if he commit felonie or doe such oppressions the Subjects shall be loosed from the bonds of subjection then the King failing thus turneth a private man 6. If the King have the one halfe or part of the Kingdome and the people or Senate the other halfe if the King prey upon that half which is not his owne he may violently be resisted for in so farre he hath not the Empire 7. If when the Crowne was given this be declared that in some cases he may be resisted then some naturall liberty is free from the Kings power and reserved in the peoples hand It is then reason that the King sweare an oath 4. That the Kings oath is but a ceremonie to please the people and that because he is king and king by birth therefore he sweareth and is crowned is in question and denyed No man is borne a king as no man is borne a subject and because the people maketh him King therefore he is to swear The councel of Toledo saith non antea conscendat regiam sedem quam iuret 2 An oath is a religious obligation no arbitrary ceremony 3. He may swear in his cabinet chamber not covenanting with the people as David and Iehoash did 4. So he maketh promises that he may be King not because he is King it were ridiculous he should promise or swear to be a just King because he is a just King and by the same reason the estates swear the oath of loyalty to the new King not that they may be loyall in all time coming but because they are loyall Subjects already for if the one half of the covenant on the Kings part be a ceremony of indulgence not of necessity by the same reason the other half of the covenant must be a ceremony of indulgence also to the people Object Arnisaeus saith a contract cannot be dissolved in law but by consent of two parties contracting because both are obliged l. ab emptione 58. in pr. de pact l. 3. de rescind vend l. 80. de solu Therefore if the subjects go from the covenant that they have made to be loyall to the King they ought to be punished Answ A contract the conditions whereof are violated by neither side cannot be dissolved but by the joynt consent of both and in buying and selling and in all contracts unviolated the sole wil of neither side can violate the contract of this speaketh the law But I ask the Royalist if the contract betwixt the spies sent to view Iericho and Rahab the harlot had not been null and the spies free from any obligation if Rahab had neglected to keep within doors when Iericho was taken though Rahab and the spies had never consented expresly to break the covenant We hâ—ld that the law saith with us that vassals lose their farme if they pay not what is due Now what are Kings but vassals to the State who if they turne Tyrants fall from their Right Arnisaeus saith in the councell of Toledo 4. c. 74. The subjects ask from the King that Kings would be meek and just not upon the ground of a voluntarie Contract and Paction but because God shall rejoice in King and People by so doing Answ These two do no more fight one with another then that two Marchants should keep faith one to another both because God hath said he shall dwell in Gods mountaine who sweareth and covenanteth and standeth to his oath covenant though to his losse hurt Psa 15. and also because they made their covenant and contract thus and thus Arnisaeus 16. Every Prince is subject to God but not as a vassal for a Master may commit felonie and lose the proprietie of his farme can God do so The Master cannot take the farme from the vassal without an expresse cause legally deduced but cannot God take what he hath given but by a law-Processe a vassall can intitle to himself a farme against the Masters will as some jurists say but can a Prince intitle a kingdom to himself against the God of heavens will though we grant the comparison yet the subjects have no law over the Kings because the coercive power of the vassal is in the Lord of the mannor the punishing of Kings belongeth to God Answ We compare not the lord of a mannor and the Lord of Heaven together all these dissimilitudes we grant but as the King is Gods vassal so is he a noble and Princely vassal to the Estates of a kingdom because they make him 2. They make him rather then another their noble servant 3. They make him for themselves and their own Godly quiet and honest life 4. They in their first election limit him to such a way to governe by law and give to him so much power for their good no more in these four acts they are above the Prince and so have a coercive power over him Arnisaeus n. 9. It is to make the Princes fidelity doubtfull to put him to an oath Lawyers say there is no need of an oath when a person is of approved fidelitie Answ Then we are not to seek an oath of an inferiour Magistrate of a Commander in wars of a pastor it is presumed these are of approved fidelity and it maketh their integritie obnoxious to slanders to put them to an oath 2. David was of more approved fidelity then any King now adayes and to put him to a covenant seemed to call his fidelity in question Ionathan sought an oath of David to deal kindly with his seed when he came to the throne Ieremiah sought an oath of the King of Iudah did they put any note of false-hood on them therefore Arnisaeus You cannot prove that ever any King gave an oath to their subjects in Scriptures Answ What more unbeseeming Kings is it to swear to do their duty then to promise covenant wayes to do the same and a covenant you cannot deny 2. In a covenant for religious duties there was alwayes an oath 2 Chro. 15. 12 13 14. hence the right of cuting a calf and swearing in a covenant Ier. 34. 18. 3. There is an oath that the people giveth to the King to obey him Eccles 8. 2. and a covenant 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. mutuall between the king and people I leave it to the juditious
choise of his person This is non-sense for the peoples choosing of David at Hebron to be King and their refusing of Sauls seed to be King what was it but an act of God by the free suffrages of the people conferring royall power on David and making him King whereas in former times David even anointed by Samuel at Bethleem 1 Sam. 16. was onely a private man the subject of King Saul and never tearmed by the Spirit of God a King nor was he King till God by the peoples consent made him King at Hebron for Samuel neither honoured him as King nor bowed to him as King nor did the people say God save King David but after this David acknowledged Saul as his Master and King Let Royalists shew us any act of God making David King save this act of the people making him formally King at Hebron and therefore the people as Gods instrument transferred the power and God by them in the same act transferred the power and in the same they chose the person the Royalists affirm these to be different actions affirmanti incumbit probatio 4. This power is the peoples radically naturally as the Bees as some think have a power naturall to choose a King-Bee so hath a communitie a power naturally to defend and protect themselves and God hath revealed in Deut. 17. 14 15. the way of regulating the act of choosing Governours and Kings which is a speciall mean of defending and protecting themselves and the people is as principally the subject and fountain of Royall power as a fountain is of water I shall not contend if you call a Fountain Gods Instrument to give water as all creatures are his Instruments 5. For Spalato's comparison he is far out for the people choosing one of ten to be their King have freewill to choose any and are under a Law Deut. 17. 14 15. In the manner of their choosing and thought they erre and make a sinfull choice yet the man is King and Gods King whom they make King but if the King command a servant to make A. B. a Knight if the servant make C. D. a Knight I shall not think C. D. is a valid Knight at all and indeed the honour is immediately here from the King because the Kings servant by no innate power maketh the Knight but Nations by a radicall and naturall and innate power maketh this man a King not this man and I conceive the man chosen by the people oweth thanks and gratefull service to the people who rejected others that they had power to choose and made him King 6. The light immediately and formally is light from the Sun and so is the Office of a King immediately instituted of God Deut. 17. 14. Whether the institution be naturall or positive it is no matter 2. The man is not King because of Royall indowments though we should say these were immediately from God to which instruction and education may also conferre not a little but he is formally King ratione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in regard of the formall essence of a King not immediately from God as the light is from the Sun but by the mediation of the free consent of the people 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. nor is the people in making a King as the man who onely casteth Wood in the fire the Wood is not made fire formally but by the fire not by the approach of fire to Wood or of Wood to fire for the people do not apply the Royaltie which is immediately in and from God to the person explicate such an application for to me it is a Fiction unconceiveable because the people hath the Royaltie radically in themselves as in the Fountain and Cause and conferreth it on the man who is made King yea the people by making David King confer the Royall power on the King this is so true that Royalists forgetting themselves inculcate frequently in asserting their absolute Monarch from Vlpian but misunderstood that the people have resigned all their power libertie right of life death goods chastitie a potency of rapine homicides unjust wars c. upon a creature called an absolute Prince even saith Grotius as a man may make himself a slave by selling his liberty to a master Now if the people make away this power to the King and this be nothing but the transcendent absolutenesse of a King certainly this power was in the people for how can they give to a King that which they have not themselves As a man cannot make away his liberty to a master by becoming a slave to him if his libertie were immediately in God as Royalists say Soveraigntie is immediately in God and people can exercise no Act about Soveraignty to make it over to one man rather then to another People onely have an after-approbation that this man to whom God hath given it immediately shall have it Furthermore they say people in making a King may make such conditions as in seven cases a King may be dethroned at least resisted saith Hu. Grotius Ergo people may give more or lesse half or whole limited or absolute Royall power to the Prince but if this power were immediately in God and from God how could the people have the husbanding of it at their need to expend it out in ounce weights or pound weights as they please And that the people may be Taverners of it to sell or give it is taught by Grotius de jur bel pac l. 1. c. 4. Barclai advers Monarch l. 4. c. 6. Arnisae cap. 6. de majest an princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 10. n. se Aventiun Anal. l. 3. Chytreus l. 23. l. 28. Saxon Sleid. lib. 1. in fi yet Arnisaeus is not ashamed to cite Arist po c. 12. l. 3. That he is not a true and absolute King who ruleth by Laws The point black contrary of which Aristotle saith QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in these Questions of lawfull defensive Wars THe P. Prelate without all ground will have us all Iesuites in this point but if we make good that this Truth was in Scripture before a Iesuite was in the earth he falleth from his Cause P. Prelate The Begardi saith There was no Government no Law given to the just It feareth me this age fancieth to it self some such thing and have learned of Core Dathan c. Ans This Calumniator in the next words belieth himself when he saith We presuppose that these with whom we are to enter in Lists do willingly grant That Government is not onely lawfull and just but necessary both for Church and Common-wealth then we fancie no such thing as he imputeth to us P. Prelate Some said that the right of Dominion is founded on grace whether the Waldenses and Hus held any such Tenet I cannot now insist to prove or disprove Gerson and others held that there must be a new Title and
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
p. 355. Objections of Royalists answered p. 355 356 357. seq The place Exod. 22. 28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods c. answered p. 357. And Eccles 10. 20. p. 358. The place Eccles 8. 3 4. Where the word of a King is c. answered p. 357 358. The place Iob 34. 18. answered p. 359. And Act. 23. 3. God shall smite thee thou whited wall c. p. 359 360 361. The Emperours in Pauls time not absolute by their Law p. 361. That objection that we have no practise for defensive resistance and that the Prophets never complaine of the omission of the duty of resistance of Princes answered p. 163 164 165. The Prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the Iudges because they execute not judgements for the oppressed p. 365 366. seq Iudahs subjection to Nebuchadnezar a conquering Tyrant no warrant for us to subject our selves to tyrannous acts p. 363 364 365. Christs subjection to Caesar nothing against defensive warrs p. 365 366. QUEST XXXV Whether the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church Militant be against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs p. 369 370. Tertullian neither ours nor theirs in the question of defensive warrs p. 370 371 372. QUEST XXXVI Whether the King have the power of warre only Negatur p. 372 373. Inferiour Iudges have the power of the sword no lesse then the King p. 372 373. The people tyed to acts of charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forraigne enemy though the King forbid p. 373 374. Flying unlawfull to the States of Scotland and England now Gods Law tying them to defend their Country p. 374. Parliamentary Power a fountain-power above the King p. 376 377. QUEST XXXVII Whether the Estates of Scotland are to help their Brethren the protestants in England against Cavaliers Affirmatur proved by 13. Arg. p. 378. seq Helping of neighbour Nations lawfull divers opinions concerning the point p. 378 379. The Law of Aegypt against those that helped not the oppressed p. 380. QVEST. XXXVIII Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments Affir p. 384. Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments hath divers considerations in which each one may be lesse or more convenient p. 384 385. Absolute Monarchy is the worst of Governments p. 385. Better want power to doe ill as have it ibid. A mixture sweetest of all Governments p. 387. Neither King nor Parliament have a voyce against Law and reason ibid. QUEST XXXIX Whether or no any Prerogative at all above the Law be due to the King Or if jura majestatis be any such Prerogative Negatur p. 389. A threefold supreme power ibid. What be jura regalia p. 390 391. Kings confer not honours from their plenitude of absolute power but according to the strait line and rule of Law justice and good deserving ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. p. 392 393. Difference of Kings and Judges ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. No permissive Law such as the Law of divorce p. 394. What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subjects p. 395 396 397. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his Oath Covenant or any other way Affirmed p. 398 399. The people have power over the King by reason of his Covenant and Promise ibid. Covenants and promises violated infer Coaction de jure by Law though not de facto p. 399 400. Mutuall punishments may be where there is no relation of superioritie and inferioritie p. 399 400 401. Three Covenants made by Arnisaeus ibid. The King not King while he swear the oath and be accepted as King by the people ibid. The oath of the Kings of France ibid. Hu. Grotius setteth down seven cases in which the people may accuse punish or dethrone the King p. 403 404. The Prince a noble Vassal of the Kingdom upon four grounds p. 405. The covenant had an oath annexed to it ibid. The Prince is but as a private man in a contract p. 406. How the Royall power is immediately from God and yet conferred upon the King by the people p. 407 408 409. QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. P. with reason ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in the Question of lawfull defence Negatur p. 410 411 412. That Soveraignty is originally and radically in the people as in the Fountain was taught by Fathers ancient Doctors sound Divines Lawyers before there was a Jesuite or a Prelate whelped in rerum natura p. 413. The P. P. holdeth the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ p. 414 415. Iesuites tenets concerning Kings p. 415 416 417. The King not the peoples Deputie by our doctrine it is onely the calumnie of the P. Prelate p. 417 418. The P. P. will have power to act the bloodiest tyrannies on earth upon the Church of Christ the essentiall power of a King ibid. QUEST XLII Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vicegerents Negatur p. 422. Why God as God hath a man a Vicegerent under him but not as Mediator p. 422 423. The King not head of the Church ibid. The King a sub-mediator and an under redeemer and a sub-priest to offer sacrifices to God for us if he be a Vicegerent p. 423. The King no mixt person ibid. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel p. 426 427. By no Prerogative Royall may the King prescribe religious observances and humane ceremonies in Gods worship p. 424 425. The P. P. giveth to the King a power Arbitrary supreme and independent to govern the Church p. 429 430. Reciprocation of subjections of the King to the Church of the Church to the King in divers kindes to wit of Ecclesiasticall and civill subjection are no more absurd then for Aarons Priest to teach instruct and rebuke Moses if he turne a tyrannous Achab and Moses to punish Aaron if he turn an obstinate Idolator p. 430 4â—3 QVEST. XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having prerogatives above Laws and Parliaments Negatur p. 433 434. The King of Scotland subjâ—ct to Parliaments by the fundamentall Lawes Acts and constant practises of Parliaments ancient and late in Scotland p. 433 434 435 436. seq The King of Scotlands Oath at his Coronation p. 434. A pretended absolute povver given to K. Iames 6. upon respect of personall indowments no ground of absolutenesse to the King of Scotland p. 435 436. By Lawes and constant practises the Kings of Scotland subject to Lawes and Parliaments proved by the fundamentall Law of elective Princes and out of the most partiall Historicians and our Acts of Parliament of Scotland p. 439 440. Coronation oath ibid. And again at the Coronation of K. James the 6. that oath sworn and again 1 Par. K. Jam. 6. ibid. seq p. 452 453. How the King is supreme Iudge in all causes p. 437. The power
in all things except sinne It is tyrannicall and domineering Logick Many things are ascribed to God only by reason of a speciall and admirable act of providence as the saving of the world by Christ the giving of Canaan to Israel the bringing his people out of Egypt and from Chaldea the sending of the Gospel to both Iew Gentile c. But shall we say that God did none of these things by the ministerie of men and weake and fraile men 2. How proveth the Prelate that all royall ensignes are ascribed to God because Esa 62. the Church universall shall be as a crown of glorie and a royall diadem in the hand of the Lord ergo baculus in angulo the Church shall be as a seale on the heart of Christ what then Hieronymus Procopius Cyrillus with good reason render the meaning thus Thou O Zion and Church shalt be to me a royall Priesthood and a holy people For that he speaketh of his owne Kingdome and Church is most evident v. 1. 2. For Zions sake I will not hold my peace c. 3. God put a crown of pure gold on Davids head Psal 21. 3. therefore Iulian Nero and no elective Kings are made and designed to be Kings by the people He shall never prove this consequence The Chaldee paraphrase applyeth it to the reigne of King Messiah Diodatus he speaketh of the kingdome of Christ Ainsworth maketh this crowne a signe of Christs victorie Athanasius Eusebius Origen Augustine Dydimus expound it of Christ and his kingdome The Prelate extendeth it to all Kings as the blasphemous Rabbines especially Ra. Salomon deny that he speaketh of Christ here but what more reason is there to expound this of the crownes of all Kings given by God I deny not to Nero Julian c. then to expound the foregoing and following verses as applyed to all Kings Did Julian rejoyce in Gods salvation did God grant Nero his hearts desire did God grant as it is v. 4. life eternall to Heathen Kings as Kings which words all Interpreters expound of the eternitie of Davids throne till Christ come and of victorie and life eternall purchased by Christ as Ainsworth with good reason expounds it And what though God give David a Crown ergo not by second causes and by bowing all Israels heart to come in sinceritie to Hebron to make David King 1 King 12. 38. God gave corne and wine to Israel Hos 2. shall the Prelate and the Anabaptist inferre Ergo he giveth it not by plowing sowing and the art of the husbahd-man 3. The Heathen acknowledged a Divinitie in Kings but he is blind who readeth them and seeth not in their writings that they teach that the people maketh Kings 4. God girt David with strength while he was a private man and persecuted by Saul and fought with Goliah as the title of the same beareth and he made him a valiant man of warre to breake bowes of steele ergo he giveth the sword to Kings as Kings and they receive no sword from the people This is poore Logick 5. The P. Prelate sendeth us Judg. 7. 17. to the singular and extraordinarie power of God with Gideon and I say that same power behoved to be in Oreb and Zeba v. 27. for they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes and such as the Prelate from Pro. 8. 15. saith have no royall power from the people 6. Moses and Aaron their two rods were miraculous This will prove that Priests are also Gods and their persons srcred I see not except the Prelate would be at worshipping of Reliques what more royall Divinitie is in Moses his rod because he wrought miracles by his rod then there is in Elias his staffe in Peters napkin in Pauls shadow This is like the strong symbolicall Theologie of his fathers the Jesuites which is not argumentative except he say that Moses as King of Jesurum wrought miracles and why should not Nero Caligula Pharoah and all Kings rods then dry up the red sea and work miracles 7. We give all the stiles to Kings that the Fathets gave and yet we thinke not when David commandeth to kill Vriah and a King commandeth to murther his innocent subjects in England and Scotland that that is Divalis jussio the command of a God and that this is a good consequence What ever the King commandeth though it were to kill his loyallest Subjects is the commandement of God Ergo the King is not made King by the people 8. Ergo saith he these new Statists disgrace the King If a most New Statist sprung out of a poore pursevant of Kraill from the dunghill to the Court could have made himselfe an old Statist and more expert in state affaires then all the Nobles and soundest Lawyers in Scotland and England this might have more weight 9. Therefore the King saith P. P. is not the extract of the basest of rationall creatures He meaneth fex populi his owne house and linage but God calleth them his owne people a royall Priesthood a chosen generation and ps 78. 71. will warrant us to say the people is much worthier before God then one man seeing God choose David for Iacob his people and Israel his inheritance that he might feede them Iohn P. P. his fathers suffrage in making a King will never be sought We make not the multitude but the three Estates including the Nobles and Gentry to be as rationall creatures as any Apostate Prelate in the three Kingdomes QUEST VII Whether or no the P. Prelate the aforesaid Authâ—r doth by force of reason evince that neither constitution nor designation of the King is from the people THe P. Prelate aymeth but it is an empty ayme to prove that the people are wholly excluded I answer only Arguments not pitched on before as the Prelate saith P. Prelate 1. To whom can it be more proper to give the rule over men then to him who is the onely King truely and properly of the whole world 2. God is the immediate Author of all rule and power that is amongst all his creatures above or below 3. Man before the fall received dominion and empire over all the creatures below immediatly as Gen. 1. 28. Gen. 9. 2. ergo we cannot deny that the most noble government to wit Monarchy must be immediatly from God without any Contract or compact of men Ans The first reason concludeth not what is in question for God only giveth rule and power to one man over another ergo he giveth it immediatly it followeth not 2. It shall as well prove that God doth immediatly constitute all Iudges and therefore it shall be unlawfull for a city to appoint a Major or a shire a Iustice of peace 3. The second argument is inconsequent also because God in creation is the immediat Author of all things and therefore without consent of the creatures or any act of the creature created an Angell a nobler creature then man and a man then a
Aristocraticall Rulers but it followeth not Ergo All these men combined in a Citie or Societie have not power in a joynt Politicall body to chose Inferiour or Aristocraticall Rulers 3. The P. Prelates reason is nothing All the Contribution saith he in the compact body to make a King is onely by a surrender of the native right of every single man the whole being onely a voluntary constitution How then can there be any majestie derived from them I answer Very well For the surrender is so voluntary that it is also naturall and founded on the Law of nature That men must have Governours either many or one supreme Ruler And it is voluntary and dependeth on a positive institution of God Whether the Government be by one supreme Ruler as in a Monarchie or in many as in an Aristocracie according as the necessitie and temper of the Common-wealth do most require This Constitution is so voluntary as it hath below it the Law of nature for its generall foundation and above it the supervenient institution of God ordaining That there should be such Magistrates both Kings and other Iudges because without such all humane societies should be dissolved 4. Individuall persons in creating a Magistrate doth not properly surrender their right which can be called a right for they do but surrender their power of doing violence to these of their fellows in that same Communitie so as they shall not now have Morall power to do injuries without punishment and this is not right or libertie properly but servitude for a power to do violence and injuries is not liberty but servitude and bondage But the Prelate talketh of Royaltie as of meer Tyranny as if iâ— were a proper Dominion and servile Empire that the Prince hath over his people and not more paternall and fatherly then lordly or masterly 5. He saith Violation of faith plighted in a contract amongst equals cannot be called disobedience but disobedience to the authoritie of the Soveraign is not onely breach of Covenant but high disobedience and contempt But violation of faith amongst equals as equals is not properly disobedience for disobedience is betwixt a superiour and an inferiour but violation of faith amongst equals when they make one of their equals their Iudge and Ruler is not onely violation of truth but also disobedience All Israel and Saul while he is a private man seeking his fathers Asses are equals by Covenant obliged one to another and so any injury done by Israel to Saul in that case is not disobedience but onely violation of â—aith but when all Israel maketh Saul their King and sweareth to him obedience he is not now their equall and an injury done to him now is both a violation of their faith and high disobedience also Suppose a Citie of Aldermen all equall amongst themselves indignitie and place take one of their number and make him their Major and Provost a wrong done to him now is not onely against the rules of fraternitie but disobedience to one placed by God in authoritie over them 6. 1 Sam. 11. 7. The fear of the Lord fell on the people and they came out with one consent to obey Saul Ergo God hath placed authority in Kings which is not in people It is true because God hath transferred the scattered authorities that are in all the people in one Masse and by vertue of his own Ordinance hath placed them in one man who is King What followeth Ergo God conferreth this authoritie immediately upon the King without the mediation of any action of the people yea the contrary rather followeth 7. God looseth the bond of Kings that is when God is to cast off Kings he causeth them to lose all authoritie and maketh them come in contempt with the people But what doth this prove That God taketh away the majestie and authority of Kings immediately And therefore God gave to Kings this authoritie Immediately without the peoples conveiance Yea I take the Prelates weapon from him God doth not take the authority of the King from him immediately but mediately by the people their hating and dispising him when they â—ee his wickednesse as the people see Nero a Monster a prodigeous blood-sucker upon this all the people contemn him and dispise him and so the majesty is taken from Nero and all his Mandates and Laws when they see him trample upon all Laws divine and humane and that mediately by the peoples heart dispising of his majestie and so they repeat and take again that aw-some authoritie that they once gave him And this proveth that God gave him the authoritie mediately by the consent of man 8. Nor speaketh he of Kings onely but Vers 21. He powreth contempt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super munificos Pineda Aria Mont. super Principes Upon Nobles and great men And this place may prove That no Iudges of the earth are made by men 9. The Heathen say That there is some divinity in Princes as in Alexander the great toward his enemies and Scipio But this will prove That Princes and Kings have a Superiority over those who are not their native Subjects for something of God is in them in relation to all men that are not their Subjects If this be a ground strong and good because God onely and independently from men taketh away this majestie as God onely and independently giveth it then a King is sacred to all men subjects or not subjects then it is unlawfull to make war against any forraign King and Prince for in invading him or resisting him you resist that divine majestie of God that is in him then you may not lawfully flee from a tyrant no more then you may lawfully flie from God 10. Scipio was not a King Ergo This divine majestie is in all Iudges of the earth in a more or lesse measure Ergo God onely and immediately may take this spark of divine majestie from inferiour Iudges It followeth not And Kings certainly cannot infuse any sparkle of a divine majestie on any inferiour Iudges for God onely immediately infuseth it in men Ergo It is unlawfull for Kings to take this divinitie from Iudges for they resist God who resist Parliaments no lesse then those who resist Kings Scipio hath divinity in him as well as Cesar and that immediately from God and not from any King 10. Moses was not a King when he went to Pharaoh for he had not as yet a people Pharaoh was the King and because Pharaoh was a King the Divines of Oxford must say His Majestie must not in words of rebuke be resisted more then by deeds 11. Moses his face did shine as a Prophet receiving the Law from God not as a King and is this Sunshine of Heaven upon the face of Nero and Julian It must be if it be a beam of Royall Majestie if this pratler say right but 2 Cor. 3. 7. this was a majestie typicall which did adumbrate the glory of the Law of God and is far
1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother Caâ—n ought in his place to be the keeper of Abel his brother So hath God committed the keeping of the Commonwealth by a positive law not to the King only because that is impossible Num. 11. 14 17. 2 Chron. 19. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Chron. 27. 4. If the King had such a power as King and so from God he should have power to breake up the meeting of all Courts of Parliament Secret Councell and all inferior Iudicatures And when the Congregation of gods as Ps 82. in the midst of which the Lord standeth were about to pronounce just judgement for the oppressed and poere they might be hindred by the King and so they should be as just as the King maketh them and might pervert judgement and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Esa 5. 23. because the King commandeth And the cause of the poore should not come before the Iudge when the King so commandeth And shall it excuse the Estates to say We could not judge the cause of the poore nor crush the Priests of Baal and the idolatrous Masse-Preltes because the King forbad us So might the King breake up the meeting of the Lords of Session when they were to decerne that Naboths vineyard should be restored to him and hinder the States to represse Tyranny And this were as much as if the States should say We made this man our King and with our good will we agree he shall be a Tyrant For if God gave it to him as a King we are to consent that he enjoy it 5. If Barclay and other flatterers have leave to make the Parliament but Counsellers and Advisers of the King and the King to be the only and sole Iudge 1. The King is by that same reason the sole Iudge in relation to all Iudges the contrary whereof is cleere Num. 11. 16. Deut 1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Yea but say they the King when he sendeth an Ambassadour he may tye him to a written Commission and in so far as he exceedeth that he is not an Ambassadour and cleare it is that all inferiour Iudges 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. are but sent by the King ergo they are so Iudges as they are but messengers and are to adhere to the Royall pleasure of the Prince that sent them Ans 1. The Ambassadour is not to accept an unjust Ambassage that fighteth with the Law of nature 2. The Ambassadour and the Iudge differ the Ambassadour is the King and States Deputy both in his call to the Ambassage and also in the matter of the Ambassage for which cause he is not to transgresse what is given to him in Writ as a Rule but the inferiour Iudges and the high Court of Parliament though they were the Kings Deputies as the Parliament is in no sort his Deputy but he their Deputy Royall yet it is only in respect of their call not in respect of the matter of their Commission for the King may send the Iudge to judge in generall according to the Law and Iustice and Religion but he cannot depute the sentence and command the conscience of the Judge to prononnce such a sentence not such the inferiour Iudge in the act of judging is as independent and his conscience as immediatly subject to God as the King therefore the King owes to every sentence his approbative suffrage as King but not his either directive suffrage nor his imperative suffrage of absolute pleasure 6. If the King should sell his Country and bring in a forraigne Army the estates are to convene to take course for the safety of the Kingdome 7. If David exhort the Princes of Israel to helpe King Solomon in governing the Kingdome in building the Temple 2 Chron. 32. 3. Ezechiah tooke counsell with his Princes and his mighty men in the matter of holding off the Assyrians who were to invade the Land if David 1 Chron. 13. 1 2 3 4. consult with the Captaines of thousands and hundreds to bring the Arke of God to Kireath jearim if Solomon 1 King 8. 1. Assemble the Elders of Israel and all the Heads of the Tribes and the chief of the fathers to bring the Arke of the Tabernacle to the congregation of the Lord. And Achab gather together the States of Israel in a matter that nearely concerned Religion If the Elders and people 1 King 20. 8. counsell and decree that King Achab should hearken to Benhadad King of Syria and if Ahasuerus make no Decrees but with consent of his Princes Ester 1. 21. nor Darius any Act without his Nobles and Princes if Hamor and Schechem Genes 34. 20. would not make a Covenant with Iacobs Sons without the consent of the men of the City and Ephron the Hittite would not sell Abraham a buriall place in his Land without the consent of the children of Heth Gen. 23. 10. Then must the estates have a power of judging with the King or Prince in matters of Religion Iustice and Government which concerne the whole Kingdome but the former is true by the Records of Scripture ergo so is the latter 8. The men of Ephraim complaine that Iephtah had gone to warre against the children of Ammon without them and hence rose warre betwixt the men of Ephraim and the men of Gilead Iud. 12. 1 2 3. and the men of Israel â—iercely contend with the men of Iudah because they brought King David home againe without them pleading that they were therein dispised 2 Sam. 19. 41 42 43. which evinceth that the whole States have hand in matters of publick government that concerne all the Kingdome and when there is no King Iudg. 20. The chiefe of the people and of all the Tribes goe out in battell against the children of Benjamin 9. These who make the King and so have power to unmake him in the case of Tyranny must be above the King in power of Government but the Elders and Princes made both David and Saul Kings 10. There is not any who say that the Princes and people 1 Sam. 14. did not right in rescuing innocent Ionathan from death against the Kings Will and his Law 11. The speciall ground of Royalists is to make the King the absolute supreame giving all life and
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.
Royall Prerogative then the Municipall Law hath determined as some smatterers in the Law say They cannot distinguish betwixt a Statute Declarative and a Statute Constitutive but the Statutes of a Kingdom do declare onely what is the Prerogative Royall but do not constitute or make it God Almightie â—â—th by himself constituted it It is laughter to say the Decalogue was not a Law till God wrote it Answ Here a profound Lawyer calleth all smatters in the Law who cannot say that non ens a Prerogative Royall that is a power contrary to God and mans Law to kill and destroy the innocent came not immediately down from Heaven but I professe my self no Lawyer but do maintain against the Prelate that no Municipall Law can constitute a power to do ill nor can any Law either justly constitute or declare such a fancie as a Prerogative Royall so far is it from being like the Decalogue that is a Law before it be written that this Prerogative is neither Law before it be written nor after Court Placebo's have written for it for it must be eternall as the Decalogue if it have any blood from so noble a house 2. In what Scripture hath God Almightie spoken of a fancied Prerogative Royall P. Prelate Prerogative resteth not in its naturall seat but in the King God saith Reddite not Date render to Kings that which is Kings not give to Kings it shall never be well with us if his annointed and his Church be wronged Answ The Prelate may remember a Countrey Proverb He and his Prelates called the Church the scum of men not the Church are like the Tinkers dogs they like good company they must be ranked with the King And 2. Here a false Prophet It shall never be well with the Land while Arbitrary power and Popery be erected saith he in good sense P. Prelate The King hath his right from God and cannot make it away to the people Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars Kings persons their Charge their Right their Authority their Prerogative are by Scriptures Fathers Iurists Sacred inseparable Ordinances inherent in their Crowns they cannot be made away and when they are given to inferiour Judges it is not ad minuendam majestatem sed solicitudinem to lessen Soveraign Majesty but to case them Answ The King hath his right from God What then not from the people I read in Scripture The people made the King Never That the King made the people 2. All these are inseparably in the Crown but he stealeth in Prerogative Royall in the clause which is now in question Render to Caesar all Caesars And therefore saith he Render to him a Prerogative that is an absolute power to pardon and sell the blood of thousands Is power of blood either the Kings or inherent inseparably in his Crown Alas I fear Prelates have made blood an inseparable accident of his Throne 3. When Kings by that publike power given to them at their Coronation maketh inferiour Iudges they give them power to judge for the Lord not for men Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. Now they cannot both make away a power and keep it also for the inferiour Iudges conscience hangeth not at the Kings girdle he hath no lesse power to judge in his sphere then the King hath in his sphere though the Orb and circle of Motion be larger in compasse in the one then in the other and if the King cannot give himself Royall Power but God and the people must do it how can he communicate any part of that power to inferiour Judges except by trust Yea he hath not that power that other men have in many respects 1. He may not marry whom he pleaseth for he might give his body to a Leper woman and so hurt the Kingdom 2. He may not do as Solomon and Achab marry the daughter of a strange god to make her the mother of the heir of the Crown He must in this follow his great Senate 2. He may not expose his person to hazard of Warres 3. He may not go over Sea and leave his Watch-Tower without consent 4. Many Acts of Parliament of both Kingdoms discharge Papists to come within ten miles of the King 5. Some pernicious Counsellours have been discharged his company by Laws 6. He may not eat what Meats he pleaseth 7. He may not make Wasters his Treasurers 8. Nor Delapidate the Rents of the Crown 9. He may not dis-inherit his eldest son of the Crown at his own pleasure 10. He is sworn to follow no false gods and false religions nor is it in his power to go to Masse 11. If a Priest say Masse to the King by the Law he is hanged drawn and quartered 12. He may not write Letters to the Pope by Law 13. He may not by Law pardon seducing Priests and Iesuites 14. He may not take Physick for his health but from Physitians sworn to be true to him 15. He may not educate his heir as he pleaseth 16. He hath not power of his children nor hath he that power that other fathers have to marry his eldest son as he pleaseth 17. He may not befriend a Traytor 18. It is high Treason for any woman to give her body to the King except she be his married wife 19. He ought not to build sumptuous Houses without advice of his Councell 20. He may not dwell constantly where he pleaseth 21. Nor may he go to the Countrey to Hunt farlesse to kill his subjects and desert the Parliament 22. He may not confer honours and high places without his Councell 23. He may not deprive Iudges at his will 24. Nor is it in his power to be buried where he pleaseth but amongst the Kings Now in most of these twenty four points private persons have their own liberty far lesse restricted then the King QUEST XXIV What power hath the King in relation to the Law and the people And how a King and a Tyrant differ Mr. Symmons saith That Authoritie is rooted rather in the Prince then in the Law for as the King giveth Being to the inferiour Iudge so he doth to the Law it self making it authorizable for propter quod unum-quodque tale id ipsum magis tale and therefore the King is greater then the Law others say That the King is the Fountain of the Law and the sole and onely Law-giver Assert 1. The Law hath a twofold consideration 1. Secundum esse paenale in relation to the punishment to be inflicted by man 2. Secundum esse legis as it is a thing legally good in it self In the former notion it is this way true Humane Laws take life and being inway to be punished or rewarded by men from the will of Princes and Law-givers and so Symmons saith true Because men cannot punish or reward Laws but where they are made and the will of Rulers putteth a sort of stamp on a Law that it bringeth the Common-wealth under guiltinesse
need of a King more then there should have beene need of a Tutor to defend the child whose father is not dead or of a Physitian to cure sicknesse where there is health for remove sinne and there is neither death nor sicknesse but because sinne is entered into the world God devised as a remedy of violence and unjustice a living rationall breathing Law called a King a Iudge a Father now the aberrations violence and oppression of this thing which is the living rationall breathing Law is no Medium no meane intended by God and nature to remove violence How shall violence remove violence Therefore an unjust King as unjust is not that genuine ordinance of God appointed to remove unjustice but accidentall to a King So we may resist the unjustice of the King and not resist the King 8 If then any cast off the nature of a King and become habitually a Tyrant in so farre he is not from God nor any ordinance which God doth owne If the Office of a Tyrant to speake so be contrary to a Kings Offices it is not from God and so neither is the power from God 9. Yea Lawes which are no lesse from God then the Kings are when they begin to be hurtfull Cessant materialiter they leave off to be Lawes because they oblige Non secundum vim verborum sed in vim sensus not according to the force of words but according to sense â— Non figura literarum F. de actione obligatione l. ita stipulatus But who saith the Royalists shall be judge betwixt the King and the people when the people alledge that the King is a Tyrant Ans There is a Court of necessity no lesse then a Court of Justice and 2. The fundamentall Lawes must then speake and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no Ruler Obj. 1. But if the Law be doubtsome as all humane all Civill all municipall Lawes may endure great dispute the peremptory person exponing the Law must be the supreame Iudge This cannot be the people ergo it must be the King Ans 1. As the Scriptures in all fundamentalls are cleare and expone themselves and Actu primo condemne Hercsies so all Lawes of men in their fundamentals which are the Law of Nature and of Nations are cleare And 2. Tyranny is more visible and intelligible then Heresie and it s soone decerned If a King bring in upon his native subjects twenty thousand Turks armed and the King lead them It is evident they come not to make a friendly visite to salute the Kingdom and depart in peace the people have a naturall throne of policie in their conscience to give warning and materially sentence against the King as a Tyrant and so by nature are to defend themselves Where Tyranny is more obscure and the thred small that it escape the eye of men the King keepeth possession but I deny that Tyranny can be obscure long Object 2. Doct. Ferne. A King may not or cannot easily alter the frame of fundamentall Laws he may make some actuall invasion in some transient and not fixed acts and it is safer to bear these then to raise a civill Warre of the Body against the Head Answ 1. If the King as King may alter any one wholesome Law by that same reason he may alter all 2. You give short wings to an Arbitrary Prince if he cannot over flie all Laws to the subversion of the Fundamentalls of a State if you make him as you do 1. One who hath the sole Legislative power who allanerly by himself maketh Laws and his Parliament and Councell are onely to give him advice which by Law he may as easily reject as they can speak words to him He may in one transient act and it is but one cancell all Laws made against idlolatry and Popery and command through bad Counsell in all his Dominions the Pope to be acknowledged as Christs Vicar and all his doctrine to be established as the Catholike true Religion It is but one transient act to seal a pardon to the shedding of the blood of two hundred thousand killed by Papists 2. You make him a King who may not be resisted in any case and though he subvert all Fundamentall Laws he is countable to God onely his people have no remedy but prayers or flight Object 3. Ferne Limitations and mixtures in Monarchies do not imply a forceable restraining power in subjects for the preventing of the dissolution of the State but onely a legall restraining power and if such a restraining power be in the subjects by reservation then it must be expressed in the constitution of the Government and in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people but such a condition â—â— unlawfull which will not have the Soveraign power secured is unprofitable for King and people a seminary for seditions and jealousies Answ I understand not a difference betwixt forceable restraining and legall restraining For he must mean by legall mans Law because he saith It is a Law in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people Now if this be not forceable and physicall it is onely Morall in the conscience of the King and a Cypher and a meer vanitie for God not the people putteth a restraint of conscience on the King that he may not oppresse his poor subjects but he shall sin against God that is a poor restraint the goodnesse of the King a sinfull man inclined from the womb to all sin and so to Tyranny is no restraint 2. There 's no necessitie that the reserve be expressed in the Covenant between King and people more then in contract of marriage between a husband and a wife beside her joynter you should set down this clause in the contract that if the husband attempt to kill the wife or the wife the husband in that case it shall be lawfull to either of them to part companies For Doct. Ferne saith That personall defence is lawfull in the people if the Kings assault be 1. Suddain 2. Without colour of Law 3. Inevitable Yet the reserve of this power of defence is not necessarily to be expressed in the contract betwixt King and people Exigences of the Law of nature cannot be set down in positive Covenants they are presupposed 3. He saith A reservation of power whereby soveraigntie is not secured is unlawfull Lend me this Argument The giving away of a power of defence and a making the King absolute is unlawfull because by it the people is not secured but one man hath thereby the sword of God put in his hand whereby ex officio he may as King cut the throats of thousands and be countable to none therefore but to God onely now if the non-securing of the King make a condition unlawfull the non-securing of a Kingdom and Church yea of the true religion which are infinitely in worth above one single man may far more make the condition unlawfull 4.
wicked man 4. In the desires of the most holy Moses a Prince desired for the safetie of Gods people and rather then God should destroy his people that his name should be razed out of the booke of life And David saith 1 Chron. 21. 17. Let thine hand I pray thee O Lord my God be on me und on my fathers house but not on thy people that they should be plagued This being a holy desire of these two publick Spirits the object must be in it selfe true and the safetie of God◠people and their happinesse must be of more worth then the salvation of Moses and the life of David and his Fathers house The Prelate borroweth an answer to this for he hath none of his own from D. Ferne. The safetie of the Subjects is the prime end of the constitution of Government but it is not the sole and adequate end of government in Monarchie for that is the safetie of both King and People And it beseemeth the King to proportion his lawes for their good and it becommeth the People to proportion all their obedience actions and endeavours for the safetie honour and happinesse of the King It 's impossible the people can have safetie when Soveraigntie is weakened Ans The Prelate would have the other halfe of the end why a King is set over a People to be the safetie and happinesse of the King as well as the safetie of the People This is new Logick indeed that one and the same thing should be the meane and the end The question is For what end is a King made so happy as to be exalted King The Prelate answereth He is made happy that he may be happy and made a King that he may be made a King Now is the King as King to intend this halfe end that is Whether or no accepteth he the burden of setting his head and shoulders under the Crowne for this end that he may not only make the people happy but also that he may make himselfe rich and honorable above his brethren and enrich himselfe I beleeve not but that he feed the people of God For if he intend himselfe and his own honour it is the intention of the man who is King and intentio operantis but it is not the intention of the King as the King or intentio operis The King as a King is formally and essentially the Minister of God for our good Rom. 13. 4. 1 Tim. 2. 2. and cannot come under any notion as a King but as a mean not as an end nor as that which he is to seeke himselfe I conceive God did forbid this in the moulding of the first King Deut. 17. 18 19 26. He is a minister by office and one who receiveth honour and wages for this worke that exofficio he may feed his people But the Prelate saith the people are to intend his riches and honour I cannot say but the people may intend to honour the King but that is not the question whether the people be to referre the King and his government as a meane to honour the King I conceive not But that end which the people in obeying the King in being ruled by him may intend is 1 Tim. 2. 2. That under him they may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie And Gods end in giving a King is the good and safetie of his people P. Prelate To reason from the one part and end of Monarchicall government The safetie of the Subjects to the destruction and weakning of the other part of the end of the power of Soveraigntîe and the Royall prerogative is a caption à divisis If the King be not happy and invested with the full power of a Head the Body cannot be well By Anti-Monarchists The people at the beginning were necessitated to commit themselves lives and fortunes to the government of a King because of themselves they had not wisedome and power enough to doe it and therefore they enabled him with honour and power without which he could not doe this being assured that he could not choose but most earnestly and carefully endeavour this end to wit his own and the peoples happines Ergo the safetie of the people issueth from the safetie of the King as the life of the naturall body from the soule Weake Government is neare to Anarchie Puritans will not say Quovis modo esse etiam poenale is better then non esse The Scripture saith the contrary It were better for some never to have been borne then to be Tyranny is better then no Government Ans 1. He knowes not Sophismes of Logick who calleth this Argument à divisis for the Kings Honour is not the end of the Kings Government He should seeke the safetie of State and Church not himself Himselfe is a private end and a step to Tyranny 2. The Prelate lyeth when he maketh us to reason from the safetie of the Subject to the destruction of the King Ferne Barclay Grotius taught the hungry Scholler to reason so Where read he this The People must be saved That is the Supreme law Ergo destroy the King The Devill and the Prelate both shall not fasten this on us But thus we reason When the man who is the King endeavoreth not the end of his Royall place but through bad counsell the subversion of Lawes Religion and bondage of the Kingdome The free Estates are to joyne with him for that end of Safetie according as God hath made them heads of Tribes and Princes of the people And if the King refuse to joyne with them and will not doe his dutie I see not how they are in conscience liberated before God from doing their part 3. If the P. Prelate call resisting the King by lawfull defensive wars the destruction of the Head He speaketh with the mouth of one excommunicated and delivered up to Sathan 4. We endeavour nothing more then the safetie and happinesse of the King as King but his happinesse is not to suffer him to destroy his Subjects subvert Religion arme Papists who have slaughtered above two hundred thousand innocent Protestants only for the profession of that true Religion which the King hath sworne to maintaine Not to rise in armes to helpe the King against these were to gratifie him as a Man but to be accessarie to his soules destruction as a King 5. That the Royall Prerogative is the end of a Monarchie ordained by God neither Scripture Law nor Reason can admit 6. The people are to intend the safetie of other Iudges as well as the Kings If Parliaments be destroyed whose it is to make Lawes and Kings the People can neither besafe free to serve Christ nor happy 7. It is a lie that people were necessitated at the beginning to commit themselves to a King for we read of no King while Nimrod arose Fathers of families who were not Kings and others did governe till then 8. It was not want of
of Monarchy 9. No doubt saith he Hos 4. They were Priests and Iudges Hos 4. but they were over-awed as they are now J thinke he would say Hos 3. 4. otherwise he citeth Scripture sleeping That the Priests of Antichrist be not only over-awed but out of the earth I yeeld that the King be limited not over-awed I thinke Gods Law and mans Law alloweth 10. The safety of the King as King is not only safety but a blessing to Church and State and therefore this P. Prelate and his fellowes deserve to be hanged before the Sun who have led him on a warre to destroy him and his Protestant subjects But the safety and flourishing of a King in the exercises of an Arbitrary unlimited power against Law and Religion and to the destruction of his subjects is not the safety of the people nor the safety of the Kings soule which these men if they be the Priests of the Lord should care for The Prelate commeth to refute the learned and worthy Observator The safety of the people is the supreme Law ergo the King is bound in duty to promote all and every one of his subjects to all happinesse The Observator hath no such inference the King is bound to promote some of his subjects even as King to a Gallowes especially Irish Rebells and many bloudy Malignants But the Prelate will needs have God rigorous hallowed be his name if it be so for it is unpossible to the tenderest-hearted father to doe so actuall promotion of all is unpossible that the King intend it of all his subjects as good subjects by a Throne established on righteousnesse and judgement is that which the worthy Observator meaneth other things here are answered The summe of his second answer is a repetition of what he hath said I give my word in a Pamphlet of one hundred ninety and foure pages I never saw more idle repetitions of one thing twenty times before said But page one hundred sixty and eight he saith The safety of the King and his subjects in the Morall notion may be esteemed Morally the same no lesse then the soule and the body make one personall subsistence Ans This is strange Logick the King and his subjects are Ens por aggregationem and the King as King hath one Morall subsistence and the people another Hath the Father and the sonne the Master and the servant one Morall subsistence but the man speaketh of their well being and then he must meane that our Kings Government that was not long agoe and is yet to wit the Popery Arminianisme Idolatry cutting of mens eares and noses banishing imprisonment for speaking against Popery arming of Papists to slay Protestants pardoning the bloud of Ireland that I feare shall not be soone taken away c. are identically the same with the life safety and happinesse of Protestants then life and death justice and unjustice Idolatry and sincere worship are identically one as the soule of the Prelate and his body are one The third is but a repitition The Acts of Royaltie saith the Observator are Acts of dutie and obligation Ergo not acts of grace properly so called Ergo We may not thank the King for a courtesie This is no consequence What fathers do to children are acts of naturall dutie and of naturall grace and yet children owe gratitude to parents and subjects to good Kings in a legall sense No but in way of courtesie onely The Observator said The King is not a father to the whole collective body and it s well said he is son to them and they his maker Who made the King Policy answereth The State made him and Divinitie God made him 4. The Observator said well The peoples weaknesse is not the Kings strength The Prelate saith Amen He said That that perisheth not to the King which is granted to the people The Prelate denyeth Because What the King hath in trust from God the King cannot make away to another nor can any take it from him without sacriledge Answ True indeed If the King had Royalty by immediate trust and infusion by God as Elias had the spirit of prophecie that he cannot make away Royalists dream that God immediately from heaven now infuseth facultie and right to Crowns without any word of God It s enough to make an Euthysiast leap up to the Throne and kill Kings Judge if these Fanaticks be favourers of Kings But if the King have Royaltie mediately by the peoples free consent from God there is no reason but people give as much power even by ounce weights for power is strong Wine and a great mocker as they know a weak mans head will bear and no more power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven But a birth-right of the people borrowed from them they may set it out for their good and resume it when a man is drunk with it 2. The man will have it conscience on the King to fight and destroy his three Kingdoms for a dream his prerogative above Law But the truth is Prelates do engage the King his house honour subjects Church for their cursed Mytres The Prelate vexeth the Reader with Repetitions and saith The King must proportion his Government to the safety of the people on the one hand and to his owne safety and power on the other hand Ans What the King doth as King he doth it for the happinesse of his people the King is a relative yea even his owne happinesse that he seeketh he is to referre to the good of Gods people He saith farther The safety of the people includeth the safety of the King because the word populus is so taken which he proveth by a raw sickly rabble of words stollen out of Passerats Dictioner His father the Schoole-master may whip him for frivolous Etymologies This supreame Law saith the Prelate is not above the Law of Prerogative Royall the highest Law nor is Rex above Lex The Democracie of Rome had a supremacie above Lawes to make and unmake Lawes and will they force this power on a Monarch to the destruction of Soveraigntie Answ This which is stollen from Spalato Barclay Grotius and others is easily answered The supremacie of People is a Law of natures selfe-preservation above all positive Lawes and above the King and is to regulate Soveraigntie not to destroy it 2. If this supremacie of Majestie was in people before they have a King then 1. they lose it not by a voluntary choise of a King for a King is chosen for good and not for the peoples losse ergo they must retain this power in habite and potency even when they have a King 2. Then supremacy of Majesty is not a beame of Divinity proper to a King only 3. Then the people having Royall soveraignty vertually in them make and so unmake a King all which the Prelate denyeth This supreme Law saith the Prelate begging it from Spalato Arnisaeus Grotius advance the
King not the people and the sense is The Kingdome is really some time in such a case that the Soveraigne must exercise an Arbitrary Power and not stand upon private mens interests or transgressing of Lawes made for the private good of individualls but for the preservation of it selfe and the publicke may break through all Lawes This he may in the case when suddaine forraine invasion threatneth ruine inevitably to King and Kingdome a Physitian may rather cut a Gangreened member then suffer the whole body to perish The Dictator in case of extreame dangers as Livie and Dion Halicarnass shew us had power according to his owne Arbitrament had a soveraigne Commission in peace and war of life death persons c. not co-ordinate not subordinate to any Ans It is not an Arbitrary power but naturally tyed and fettered to this same supreame Law Salus populi the safety of the people that a King breake through not the Law but the letter of the Law for the safety of the people as the Chyrurgion not by any prerogative that he hath above the Art of Chyrurgery but by necessity cutteth off a Gangreened member thus it s not Arbitrary to the King to save his people from ruine but by the strong and imperious Law of the peoples safety he doth it for if he did it not he were a murtherer of his people 2. He is to stand upon transgression of Lawes according to their genuine sense of the peoples safety for good Lawes are not contrary one to another though when he breaketh through the letter to the Law yet he breaketh not the Law for if twenty thousand Rebells invade Scotland he is to command all to rise though the formality of a Parliament cannot be had to indict the war as our Law provideth but the King doth not command all to rise and defend themselves by a Prerogative Royall proper to him as King and incommunicable to any but to himselfe 1. There is no such dinne and noise to be made for a King and his incommunicable Prerogative for though the King were not at all yea though he command the contrary as he did when he came against Scotland with an English Army the law of Nature teacheth all to rise without the King 2. That the King command this as King it is not a particular positive Law but he doth it as a man and a member of the Kingdom The law of Nature which knoweth no dreame of such a Prerogative forceth him to it as every member is by Natures indictment to care for the whole 3. It is poore hungry skill in this New Statist for so he nameth all Scotland to say that any Lawes are made for private interests and the good of some individuals Lawes are not Lawes if they be not made for the safetie of the people 4. It is false that the King in a publike danger is to care for himselfe as a man with the ruine and losse of any Yea in a publike calamitie a good King as David is to desire he may die that the Publique may bee saved 2 Samuel 24. 17. Exâ—dus 32. 32. It is commended of all that the Emperour Otho yea and Richard the 2. of England as M. Speed saith Hist of England p. 757. resigned their Kingdomes to eschew the effâ—sion of blood The Prelate adviseth the King to passe over all lawes of Nature and slay thousands of innocents and destroy Church and State of three Kingdomes for a straw and supposed Prerogative Royall Now certainly Prerogative and Absolutenes to doe good and ill must be inferior to a Law the end whereof is the safetie of the People For David willeth the pestilence may take him away and so his Prerogative that the People may be saved 2 Sam. 24. 17. for Prerogative is cumulative to doe good not privative to doe ill and so is but a meane to defend both the Law and the People 2. Prerogative is either a power to doe good or ill or both If the first be said it must be limited by the End and Law for which it is ordained A meane is no farther a meane but in so far as it conduceth to the end the safetie of all If the second be admitted It is Licence and Tyrannie not power from God If the third be said both reasons plead against this that Prerogative should be the Kings end in the present warres 3. Prerogative being a power given by the mediation of the people yea suppose which is false that it were given immediately of God yet it not a thing for which the King should raise war against his Subjects for God will aske no more of the King then he giveth to him The Lord reapeth not where he soweth not If the Militia and other things be ordered hitherto for the holding off Irish and Spanishe invasion by Sea and so for the good of the Land seeing the King in his own person cannot make use of the Militia he is to rejoyce that his Subjects are defended The King cannot answer to God for the justice of warre on his part It is not a case of conscience that the King should shed blood for to wit because the under-Officers are such men and not others of his choosing seeing the Kingdome is defended sufficiently except where Cavaliers destroy it And to me this is an unanswerable argument that the Cavaliers destroy not the Kingdomes for this Prerogative Royall as the principall ground but for a deeper designe even for that which was working by Prelates and Malignants before the late troubles in both Kingdomes 4. The King is to intend the safetie of his People and the safety of the King as a Governour but not as this King and this man Charles that is a selfe end a King David is not to looke to that for when the people was seeking his life and crown he saith Ps 3. 8. Thy blessing upon thy People He may care for and intend that the King and Government be safe for if the Kingdome be destroyed there cannot be a new Kingdome and Church on earth againe to serve God in that generation Psal 89. 47. but they may easily have a new King againe and so the safetie of the one cannot in reason be intended as a collaterall end with the safetie of the other for there is no imaginable comparison betwixt one man with all his accidents of Prerogative and Absolutenesse and three Nationall Churches and Kingdomes Better the King weep for a Childish triâ—le of a Prerogative than Poperie be erected and three Kingdomes be destroyed by Cavaliers for their own ends 5. The Dictators power is 1. a fact and proveth not a point of Conscience 2. His power was in an exigence of extreme danger of the Commonwealth The P. Prelate pleadeth for a constant absolutenesse above Lawes to the King at all times and that jure Divino 3. The Dictator was the Peoples creature ergo the Creator the People had that soveraigntie over him 4. The
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
for their own just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull ARnisaeus perverteth the question he saith The question is Whether or no the Subjects may according to their power judge the King and dethrone him that is Whether or no is it lawfull for the Subjects in any case to take arms against their lawfull Prince if he degenerate and shall wickedly use his lawfull power The state of the question is much perverted for these be different questions Whether the Kingdom may dethrone a wicked and Tyrannous Prince And whether may the Kingdom take up arms against the man who is the King in their own innocent defence For the former is an Act offensive and of punishing the latter is an Act of Defence 2. The present question is not of Subjects onely but of the Estates and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom I utterly deny these as they are Iudges to be subjects to the King for the question is Whether is the King or the representative Kingdom greatest and which of them be subject one to another I affirm Amongst Iudges as Iudges not one is the Commander or Superiour and the other the commanded or subject Indeed one higher Iudge may correct and punish a Iudge not as a Iudge but as an erring man 3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act of War as concerning the power of naturall Defence upon supposition That the King be not now turned an habituall Tyrant but that upon some acts of mis-information he come in arms against his Subjects 2. Arnisaeus maketh two sort of Kings Some Kings integrae Majestatis of intire power and Soveraignty some Kings by pactions or voluntary agreement between King and people But I judge this a vain distinction For the limited Prince so he be limited to a power onely of doing just and right by this is not a Prince integrae Majestatis of entire Royall Majestie whereby he may do both good and also play the Tyrant but a power to do ill being no wayes essentiall yea repugnant to the absolute Majestie of the King of Kings cannot be an essentiall part of the Majestie of a lawfull King and therefore the Prince limited by voluntary and positive paction onely to rule according to law and equity is the good lawfull and entire Prince if he have not power to do every thing just and good in that regard onely he is not an intire and compleat Prince So the man will have it lawfull to resist the limited Prince not the absolute Prince by the contrary it is more lawfull to me to resist the absolute Prince then the limited in as much as we may with safer consciences resist the Tyrant and the Lyon then the just Prince and the Lamb. Nor can I assent to Cunnerus de officio princip Christia c. 5. 17. Who holdeth that these voluntary pactions betwixt King and people in which the power of the Prince is diminished cannot stand because their power is given to them by Gods Word which cannot be taken from them by any voluntary paction lawfully and from the same ground Winzetus in velit contr Buchan p. 32. will have it unlawfull to resist Kings because God hath made them unresistable I answer If God by a divine institution make Kings absolute and above all Laws which is a blasphemous supposition the holy Lord can give to no man a power to sin for God hath not himself any such power then the Covenant betwixt the King and people cannot lawfully remove and take away what God by institution has given but because God Deut. 17. hath limited the first lawfull King the mould of all the rest the people ought also to limit him by a voluntary Covenant and because the lawfull power of a King to do good is not by divine Institution placed in an indivisible point It is not a sin for the people to take some power even of doing good from the King that he solely and by himself shall not have power to pardon an involuntary homicide without advice and the judiciall suffrages of the Councell of the Kingdom least he insteed of this give pardons to Robbers to abominable Murtherers and in so doing the people robbeth not the King of the power that God gave him as King nor ought the King to contend for a sole power in himself of ministring justice to all for God layeth not upon Kings burdens unpossible and God by Institution hath denied to the King all power of doing all good because it is his Will that other Iudges be sharers with the King in that power Num. 14. 16 Deut. 1. 14. 15 16 17. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. And therefore the Duke of Venice to me cometh neerest to the King moulded by God Deut. 17. in respect of power de jure of any King I know in Europe And in point of conscience the inferiour Iudge discerning a murtherer and bloody man to die may in foro conscientiae despise the Kings unjust pardon and resist the Kings force by his sword and coactive power that God hath given him and put to death the bloody murtherer and he sinneth if he do not this for to me it is clear The King cannot judge so justly and understandingly of a murtherer in Scotland as a Iudge to whom God hath committed the sword in Scotland Nor hath the Lord laid that unpossible burden on a King to judge so of a murther four hundreth miles removed from the King as the Iudge nearer to him as is clear by Num. 14 16. 1 Sam. 7. 15 16 17. The King should go from place to place and judge and whereas it is unpossible to him to go thorow three Kingdoms he should appoint faithfull Iudges who may not be resisted no not by the King 2. The question is If the King command A. B. to kill his father his pastour the man neither being cited nor convicted of any fault may lawfully be resisted 3. Queritur If in that case in which the King is captived imprisoned and not sui juris and awed or over-awed by bloody Papists and so is forced to command a barbarous and unjust War and if being distracted Physically or Morally through wicked Counsell he command that which no father in his sober wits would command even against Law and Conscience That the sons should yeild obedience and subjection to him in maintaining with lives and goods a bloody Religion and bloody Papists If in that case the King may not be resisted in his person because the power lawfull and the sinfull person cannot be separated We hold the King using contrary to the oath of God and his Royall Office violence in killing against Law and Conscience his Subjects by bloody Emissaries may be resisted by defensive Wars at the commandment of the Estates of the Kingdom But before I produce Arguments to prove the lawfulnesse of resistance a little of the case of resistance 1. Doct. Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39.
is to resist the Ordinance of God as Royalists say from Rom. 13. 1 2 3. And we know to resist Gods ordinances and Gods Deputy formaliter as his Deputy is to resist God himselfe 1 Sam. 8. 7. Mat. 10. 40. as if God were doing personally these Acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these Acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to thinke or say that when a King is drinking the blood of innocents and wasting the Church of God that God if he were personally present would commit these same acts of Tyranny God would avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King as his lawfull Deputy and Vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poore Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of Tyranny he is not Gods formall Vicegerent but only in good and lawfull acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his Royall Person Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lords Deputy though not as the Lords Deputy what absurd is there in that more then to disobey him refusing active obedience to him who is the Lords Deputy but not as the Lords Deputy but as a man commanding beside his Masters Warrant 5. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now Gods end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding safetie preservation the peaceable and quiet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2. 2. Esa 49. 23. Psal 79. 71. But God should crosse his own end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressors and wasters in his holy Mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a thousand thousand Protestants for their Religion in an ordinary Providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say The King will not be so cruell I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possibly in his power to be so cruell 2. We owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the nature and genuine intrinsecall end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistance made by any mortall man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemie to Gods ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no barre upon the illimited power of a man inclined to sinne and abuse his power to so much crueltie Some may say the same absurditie doth follow if the King should turne Papist and the Parliament all were Papists in that case there might be so many Martyrs for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power then more then now and yet in that case the King and Parliament should be Iudges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in Peace and Godlinesse But I answer If God gave a lawfull officiall power to King and Parliament to worke the same crueltie upon millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawfull for them by armes to defend themselves I should then think that King and Parliament were both ex officio by vertue of their office and actu primo Iudges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and Butchers Which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted Providence of God 6. If the Estates of a Kingdome give the power to a King it is their own power in the fountaine and if they give it for their own good they have power to judge when it it used against themselves and for their evill and so power to limit and resist the power that they gave Now that they may take away this power is cleare in Athaliahs case It is true she was a Tyrant without a Title and had not the right of Heaven to the Crown yet she had in Mens Court a title For supposing all the seed Royall to be killed and the peoples Consent we cannot say That for these sixe yeares or thereabout she was no Magistrate 2. That there were none on the Throne of David at this time 3. That she was not to be obeyed as Gods Deputie But grant that she was no Magistrate yet when Iehoash is brought forth to be crowned it was a controversie to the States to whom the Crown should belong 1. Athaliah was in possession 2. Iehoash himselfe being but seven yeares old could not be Iudge 3. It might be doubted if Ioash was the true sonne of Ahaziah and if he was not killed with the rest of the blood Royall Two great Adversaries say with us Hugo Grotius de jur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. He saith He dare not condemne this if the lesser part of the People and every one of them indifferently should defend themselves against a Tyrant ultimo necessitatis praesidio The case of Scotland when we were blocked up by Sea and Land with Armes The case of England when the King induced by Prelates first attempted to bring an Army to cut off the Parliament and then gathered an Army and fortified Yorke and invaded Hull to make the Militia his own sure is considerable Barclay saith The People hath jus se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiem Advers Monarchomach l. 3. c. 8. A power to defend themselves against prodigious crueltie The case of England and Ireland now invaded by the bloody Rebels of Ireland is also worthy of consideration I could cite hoasts more QUEST XXIX Whether in the case of Defensive warre the distinction of the person of the King as a man who can commit acts of hostile Tyrannie against his Subjects and of the Office and Royall power that he hath from God and the People as a King can have place BEfore I can proceed to other Scripture-proofes for the lawfulnesse of Resistance this Distinction rejected by Royalists must be cleered This is an evident and sensible distinction The King in concreto the Man who is King And the King in abstracto the Royall office of the King The ground of this distinction we desire to be considered from Rom. 13. we affirme with Buchanan that Paul Rom. 13 speaketh of the office and duty of good Magistrates and that the text speaketh nothing of an absolute King nothing of a Tyrant and the Royalists distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not against the Law l. pret 10. gl Bart. de pub in Rem and therefore we move the question here Whether or no to resist the illegall and Tyrannicall will
we yeeld obedience to the person c. and the Prelate hath as much learning as to coppy out of Fern and Barclay Arniseus and others these words and the like but hath not wit to adde the sinewes of these Authors reason and with all this he can in his Preface call it his own and provoke any to answer him if they dare whereas while I answer this excommunicated Pamphletter I answer these learned Authors from which he stealeth all he hath and yet he must perswade the King he is the onely man can defend his Majesties Cause and the importunity forsooth of friends extorted this peece as if it were a fault that this Delphick Oracle giving out railings and lies for responses should be silent 2. Not we onely but the Holy Ghost in terminis hath this distinction Act. 4. 19. and 5. 29. We ought to obey God rather then men Them Rulers for of Rulers sitting in judgement is that speech uttered commanding and tyrannizing over the Apostles are men contradistinguished from God and as they command and punish unjustly they are but men otherwise commanding for God they are Gods and more then men 2. From Theophylact also or from Chrysostome on Rom. 13. we have this The Apostle speaketh not say they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Soveraigntie or Royaltie doth not properly reign or bear the sword or receive praise and this accident doth not bear a sword nor do we think or Paul speak Rom. 13. of the abstracted Jew of power and Royaltie subsisting out of its subject nor dream we that the naked accident of Royall Authority is to be feared and honoured as the Lords anointed the person or man who is the King and beareth the Crown on his head and holdeth the scepter in his hand is to be obeyed accidentes are not persons but they speak non-sense and like brute beasts who deny that all the kingly honour due to the King must be due to him as a King and because of the Royall dignity that God hath given to him and not because he is a man for a Pursevants son is a man and if a Pursevants son would usurpe the throne and take the Crown on his head and the scepter in his hand and command that all souls be subject to such a superior Power because he is a man the Lawes of Scotland would hang a man for a lesse fault we know and the P. Prelate was wont to edifie women and converted souls to Christ with such a distinction as objectum quod and objectum quo in the Pulpits of Edenburgh and it hath good use here we never took abstract Royalty to be the King The Kings of Scotland of old were not second notions and we exclude not the person of the King yet we distinguish with leave of the P. Prelate betwixt the person in linea physica we must take physica largly heer and in linea morali obedience fear tribute honour is due to the person of the King and to the man who is King not because of his person or because he is a man the P. Prelate may know in what notion we take the name Person but because God by the peoples election hath exalted him to Royall dignity and for this cause ill doers are to subject their throats and necks to the sword of the Lords Annoynteds executioner or hangman with patience and willingly because in taking away the head of ill doers for ill doing he is acting the Office of the Lord by whom he Raigneth but if he take away their heads and send out the long-tusked Vultures and Boares of Babylon the Irish Rebells to execute his wrath as he is in that act a mis-informed man and wanteth the authority of Gods Law or mans Law he may be resisted with Armes For 1. If Royalists say against this then if a King turne an habituall Tyrant and conduce an hundred thousand Turkes to destroy his subjects upon meere desire of revenge they are not to resist but to be subject and suffer for conscience I am sure Grotius saith If a King sell his subjects he loseth all title to the Crowne and so may be resisted and Winzetus saith A Tyrant may be resisted and Barclay It is lawfull for the people in case of Tyranny to defend themselves Adversus immanem saevetiam against extreame cruelty and I desire the Prelate to answer how people are subject in suffering such cruelty of the higher power because he is Gods ordinance and a power from God except he say as he selleth his people and barbarously destroyeth by Cut-throat Irishes his whole subjects refusing to worship Idolls he is a man and a sinfull man eatenus and an inferiour power inspired by wicked counsell not a King eatenus not a higher power and that in resisting him thus the subjects resist not the ordinance of God Also suppone King David defend his Kingdome and people against Iesse his naturall father who we suppose cometh in against his sonne and Prince King David with a huge army of the Philistimes to destroy him and his Kingdome if he shall kill his owne native father in that warr at some Edge-hill how shall he preserve at Ierusalem that honour love that he oweth to his father by vertue of the fifth Commandement Honour thy father and thy mother c. Let them answer this except King David consider Iesse in one relation in abstracto as his father whom he is to obey and as he is a wicked man and a perfidious subject in another relation and except King David say he is to subject himselfe to his father as a father according to the fifth Commandement and that in the act of his fathers violent invasion he is not to subject himselfe to him as he is a violent invader and as a man Let the Royalist see how he can answer the Argument and how Levie is not to know his father and mother as they are sinfull men Deut. 33. 9. and yet to know and honour them as Parents and how an Israelite is not to pitty the wife that lyeth in his bosome when she inticeth him to goe a whooring after strange Gods but is to kill her Deut. 13. 6 7 8. and yet the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved his Church Eph. 5. 25. If the husband take away his wives life in some mountaine in the holy Land as Gods Law commandeth let the Royalists answer us where is then the meritall love he owes to her and that respect due to her as she is a wife and a helper But let not the Royalist infer that I am from these examples pleading for the killing of Kings for lawfull resistance is one thing and killing of Kings is another the one defensive and lawfull the other offensive and unlawfull so long as he remaineth a King and the Lords Anoynted But if he be a murtherer of his father who doth counsell his father to come to a place of danger where he may be killed and
a praise to good Pilates power to crucifie Christ was the contrary 4. A Law-power is to execute wrath on ill-doing a power to crucifie Christ is no such 5. A Law-power conciliateth honour fear and veneration to the person of the Iudge a power to crucifie Christ conciliateth no such thing but a disgrace to Pilate 6. The Genuine Acts of a lawfull power are lawfull Acts for such as is the Fountain-power such are the Acts flowing therefrom good Acts flow not from bad powers neither hath God given a power to sin except by way of permission QUEST XXX Whether or no Passive Obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement and what a meane Resistance is That Flying is Resistance MUch is built to commend patient suffering of ill and condemne all resistance of Superiors by Royalists on the place 1 Pet. 2. 18. Where we are commanded being servants to suffer buffets not onely for ill doing of good masters but also undeservedly and when we doe well we are to suffer of these masters that are evill and so much more are we patiently without Resistance to suffer of Kings But it is cleare the place is nothing against Resistance as in these Assertions I cleare Assertion 1. Patient suffering of wicked men and violent resisting are not incompatible but they may well stand together So this consequence is the basis of the argument and it is just nothing To wit Servants are to suffer unjustly wounds and buffeting of their wicked Masters and they are to bear it patiently Ergo Servants are in conscience obliged to non-resistance Now Scripture maketh this clear The Church of God is to bear with all patience the indignation of the Lord because she hath sinned and to suffer of wicked enemies which were to be troden as mire in the streets Micah 7. 9 10 11 12. but withall they were not obliged to non-resistance and not to fight against these enemies yea they were obliged to fight against them also If these were Babilon Iudah might have resisted and fought if God had not given a speciall commandement of a positive law that they should not fight if these were the Assyrians and other enemies or rather both the people were to resist by fighting and yet to endure patiently the indignation of the Lord. David did bear most patiently the wrong that his own son Absolon and Achitophel and the people inflicted on him in pursuing him to take his life and the kingdom from him as is cleare by his gracious expressious 2 Sam. 15. 25 26. chap. 16. ver 10 11 12. Psal 3. 1 2 3. Yea he prayeth for a blessing on the people that conspired against him Psal 3. 8. Yet did he lawfully resist Absalom and the conspiratours and sent out Ioab and a huge army in open battel against them 2 Sam. 18. 1 2 3 4 c. and fought against them And were not the people of God patient to endure the violence done to them in the wildernes by Og king of Bashan Siho◠king of Heshbon by the Ammorites Moabites c I think Gods law tyeth all men especially his people to as patient a suffering in wars Deut. 8. 16. God then trying and humbling his people as the servant is to endure patiently unjustly inflicted buffets 1 Pet. 2. 18. And yet Gods people at Gods command did resist these Kings and people and did fight and kill them and possesse their land as the history is cleare See the like Iosh 11. ver 18 19. 2. One act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another Resistance is in the Children of God an innocent act of self-preservation as is patient suffering and therefore they may well subsist in one And so saith Amasa by the spirit of the Lord 1 Chro. 12. 18. Peace peace be unto thee and peace to thy helpers for God helpeth thee Now David in that and all his helpers were resisters of King Saul 3. The scope of the place 1 Pet. 2. is not to forbid all violent resisting as is clear he speaketh nothing of violent resisting either one way or other but onely he forbiddeth revengefull resisting of repaying one wrong with another from the example of Christ who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not Therefore the argument is a falacy ab eo quod docitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though therefore the master should attempt to kill an innocent servant and invade him with a weapon of death 1. Suddenly 2. Without all reason or cause 3. Vnavoidably Doctor Ferne in that case doth free a Subject from guiltynesse if he violently resist his Prince Ergo the servant who should violently resist his Master in the aforesaid case should and might patiently suffer and violently resist notwithstanding any thing that Royalists can conclude on the contrary 4. No Prince hath a Masterly or herile dominion over his subjects but onely a free ingenious paternall and tutorly over-sight for the good of the people Rom. 13. 4. The Master especially in the Apostle Peters time had a dominion over servants as over their proper goods 2. Assertion Neither suffering formally as suffering and so neither can non-resisting passive fall under any morall law of God except in two conditions 1. In the point of Christs passive obedience he being the eternall God as well as Man and so Lord of his owne blood and life by vertue of a speciall commandement imposed on him by his Father was commanded to lay downe his life yea and to be an Agent as well as a Patient in dying Ioh. 10. 18. Yea and actively he was to contribute somthing for his own death and offer himself willingly to death Mat. 28. 20. And knowing the houre that he was to depart out of this world unto the Father Iohn 13. 1. would not onely not flee which is to Royalists lawfull to us a speciall point of resistance Ioh. 14. 31. Ioh. 18. 4 5 6 7. and but upbraided Peter as the Agent of Sathan who would disswade him to die Mat. 16. 22 23. and would fight for him And he doth not fetch any argument against Peters drawing of his sword from the unlawfulnesse of self-defence and innocent resistance which he should have done if Royalists plead with any colour of reason from his example against the lawfulnesse of Resistance and self-defence but from the absolute power of God 2. From Gods positive wil who commanded him to die Mat. 26. 53 54. if therefore Royalists prove any thing against the lawfulnesse of resisting Kings when they offer most unjustly violence to the life of Gods servants from this one meerly extraordinary and rare example of Christ the like whereof was never in the world they may from the same example prove it unlawfull to flee for Christ would not flee Psal 40. 6 7. Heb. 10. 6 7 8 9. Ioh. 14. 31. Ioh.
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
as a King who may resist him according to Royalists way but from Rom. 13. they resist the Ordinance of God 3. Resisting is not a meere suffering nor is it a morall resisting by alledging lawes to be broken by him We had never a question with Royalists about such resisting 2. Nor is this resisting non-obedience to unjust commandements that resisting was never yet in question by any except the Papists who in good earnest by consequent say It is better to obey men then God 3. Iâ— is then resisting by bodily violence but if the King have such an absolute power given him by God as Royalists fancie from Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. I know not how Subjects have any power given them of God to resist the power from God and Gods Ordinance And if this resisting extend not it selfe to defensive wars how shall the people defend themselves from injuries and the greatest injuries imaginable from an Armie of Cut-throats and Idolaters in war comming to destroy Religion set up Idolatry and root out the name of Gods people and lay waste the mountaine of the Lords house And if they may defend themselves by defensive wars how can wars be without offending 3. The law of Nature teacheth to repell violence with violence when one man is oppressed no lesse then when the Common-wealth is oppressed Barclay should have given either Scripture or the law of Nature for his warrant here 4. Let us suppose a King can be perjured how are the Estates of the Kingdome who are his Subjects by Barclays way not to challenge such a Tyrant of his perjurie He did swear he should be meek and clement and he is now become a furious Lyon shall the flock of God be committed to the keeping of a furious Lyon D. Ferne p. 3. sect 2. pag. 9. addeth Personall defence is lawfull against sudden and illegall invasion such as Elisha practiced even if it were against the Prince to ward blowes and to hold the Princes hand but not to returne blowes but generall resistance by Armes cannot be without many unjust violences and doth immediatelie strike at the order which is the life of the Common-wealth Answ If it be naturall to one man to defend himself against the personall invasion of a Prince then is it naturall and warrantable to ten thousand and to a whole Kingdome and what reason to defraud a Kingdome of the benefit of self-defence more then one man Neither grace nor policy destroyeth nature and how shall ten or twenty thousand be defended against Cannons and Musquets that killeth afar off except they keepe Townes against the King which D. Ferne and others say had beene treason in David if he had kept Keilah against King Saul except they be armed to offend with weapons of the like nature to kill rather then be killed as the Law of nature teacheth 3. To hold the hands of the Prince is no lesse resisting violence then to cut the lap of his garment which Royalists think unlawfull and is an opposing of externall force to the Kings person 4. It is true warres meerely defensive cannot be but they must be offensive but they are offensive by accident and intended for meere defence and they cannot be without warres sinfully offensive nor can any warres be in rerum naturâ now I except the warres commanded by God who onely must have beene sinfull in the manner of doing but some innocent must be killed but warâ—es cannot for that be condemned 5. Neither are offensive warres against these who are no powers and no ordinances of God such as are cut-throate Irish condemned Prelates and Papists now in Armes more destructive to the order established by God then acts of lawfull war are or the punishing of robbers and by all this Protestants in Scotland and England should remaine in their houses unarmed while the Papists and Irish come on them armed and cut their throats and spoyle and plunder at will Nor can we think that resistance to a King in holding his hands can be naturall if he be stronger it is not a naturall meane of selfe-preservation Nature hath appoynted innocent and offending violence against unjust violence as a meanes of selfe-preservation Goliahs sword is no naturall meanes to hold Sauls hands for a sword hath no fingers and if Saul 1. suddainly 2. without colour of Law or reason 3. inevitably should make personall invasion on David to kill him Dr. Ferne saith he may resist but resisting is essentially a reaction of violence shew us Scripture or reason for violent holding a Kings hands in an unjust personall invasion without any other reaction of offence Walter Torrils killed King W. Rufus as he was shooting at a Deere the Earle of Suffolk killed Henrie the 8. at Tilting there is no treasonable intention here and so no homicide Defensive wars are offensive ex eventu effectu not ex causa or ex intentione But it may be asked if no passive subjection at all be commanded as due to Superiours Rom. 13. Answ None properly so called that is purely passive onely weare for feare of the sword to doe our duety 2. We are to suffer ill of punishment of Tyrants ex hypothesi that they inflict that ill on us some other way and in some other notion then we are to suffer ill of equals for we are to suffer of equals not for any paternall authority that they have over us as certainly wee are to suffer ill inflicted by Superiours I demand of Royalists if Tyrants inflicting evill of punishment upon Subjects unjustly be powers ordained of God 2. If to resist a power in Tyrannicall acts be to resist God 3. Since wee are not to yield active obedience to all the commandements of Superiours whether they be good or ill by vertue of this place Rom. 13. how is it that we may not deny passive subjection to all the Acts of violence exercised whether of injustice whether in these Acts of violence wherein the Prince in actu ex cito and formally punisheth not in Gods stead or in these wherein he punishâ—th Tyrannically in no formall or actuall subordination to God we owe passive subjection I desire an answer to these Assert 5. Flying from the tyranny of abused Authority is a plaine resisting of Rulers in their unlawfull oppression and perverting of judgement All Royalists grant it lawfull and ground it upon the Law of Nature that those that are persecuted by tyrannous Princes may flee and it is evident from Christs Commandment If they persecute you in one City flee to another Mat. 10. 23. and by Mat. 23. 34. Christ fled from the fury of the Jewes till his houre was come Elias Vriah Ier. 26. 20. Ioseph and Mary fled the Martyres did hide themselves in caves and dens of the earth Heb. 11. 37 38. Paul was let downe through a window in a basket at Damascus this certainly is resistance For looke what legall power God hath given to a
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
have cut off the Philistims and as he defended in that case Gods Church and true Religion if he might not then have lawfully killed I say the Philistims I remit to the conscience of the Reader Now to us Papists and Prelates under the Kings banner are Philistims introducing the Idolatry of Bread-worship and Popery as hatefull to God as Dagon-worship 3. Saul intended no arbitrary government nor to make Israel a conquered people nor yet to cut off all that professed the true worship of God nor came Saul against these Princes Elders and people who made him King only Davids head would have made Saul lay downe Arms but Prelates and Papists and Malignants under the King intend to make the Kings sole will a Law to destroy the Court of Parliament which putteth Lawes in execution against their Idolatry and their ayme is that Protestants be a conquered people and their attempt hath been hitherto to blow up King and Parliament to cut off all Protestants and they are in Armes in divers parts of the Kingdome against the Princes of the Land who are no lesse Judges and deputies of the Lord then the King himselfe and would kill and do kill plunder and spoyle us if we kill not them And the case is every way now betweene Armies and Armies as betweene a single man unjustly invaded for his life and an unjust invader neither in a naturall action such as is self-defence is that of policy to be urged none can be Judge in his owne cause when oppression is manifest one may be both agent and patient as the fire and water conflicting there is no need of a judge a community casts not off nature when the judge is wanting nature is judge actor accused and all Lastly no man is Lord of his owne members of his body m. l. liber homo ff ad leg Aqui. nor Lord of his owne life but is to be accountable to God for it QUEST XXXII Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warres hath its warrant in Gods word from the example of David Elisha the eighty Priests who resisted Uzziah c DAvid defended himselfe against King Saul 1. by taking Goliahs sword with him 2. by being Captaine to six hundred men yea it is more then cleare 1 Chron. 12. that there came to David a hoast like the hoast of God v. 22. to help against Saul exceeding foure thousand v. 36. Now that this hoast came warrantably to help him against Saul I prove 1. because it is said ver 1. Now these are they that came to David to Ziglag while he kept himselfe close because of Saul the son of Kish and they were amongst the mighty men helpers of the warre and then so many mighty Captains are reckoned out v. 16. There came of the children of Benjamin and Iudah to the hold of David v. 19. And there fell some of Manasseh to David 20. As he went to Ziglag there fell to him of Manasseh Keâ—â—h and Jozabad Jediâ—l and Michael and Elihu and Zilthai Captaines of the thousands that were of Manasseh 21. And they helped David against the band of the rovers 22. At that time day by day there came to David untill it was a great hoast like the hoast of God Now the same expression that is ver 1. where it is said they came to help David against Saul which ver 1. is repeated ver 16. ver 19 20 21 22 23. 2. That they wartantably came is evident because 1. the Spirit of God commendeth them for their valor and skill in war ver 2. ver 8. ver 15. ver 21. which the Spirit of God doth not in unlawfull wars 2. Because Amasai v. 18. The Spirit of the Lord comming on him saith Thine are we David and on thy side thou son of Jesse peace peace unto thee and peace to thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee The Spirit of God inspireth no man to pray peace to those who are in an unlawfull warre 3. That they came to Davids side onely to be sufferers and to flee with David and not to pursue and offend is ridiculous 1. It is said ver 1. They came to David to Ziglag while he kept himselfe close because of Saul the son of Kish And they were amongst the mighty men helpers of the warre It is a scorne to say that their might and their helping in warre consisted in being meere patients with David and such as fled from Saul for they had beene on Sauls side before and to come with armour to flee is a mocking of the word of God 2. It is cleare the scope of the Spirit of God is to shew how God helped his innocent servant David against his persecuting Prince and Master King Saul in moving so many mighty men of warre to come in such multitudes all in Armes to help him in warre Now to what end would the Lord commend them as fit for Warre men of might fit to handle shield buckler whose faces are as the faces of Lyons as swift as the Roes on the Mountaines ver 8. and commend them as helpers of David if it were unlawfull for David and all those mighty men to carry Armes to pursue Saul and his followers and to doe nothing with their armour but flee Judge if the Spirit of God in reason could say All these men came armed with bowes ver 2. and could handle both the right hand and the left in slinging stones and shooting of arrowes and that ver 22. all these came to David being mighty men of valour and they came as Captains over hundreds and thousands they put to flight all them of the valleyes both toward the East and toward the West ver 14 15. and that David received them and made them Captains of the band if they did not come in a posture of warre and for hostile invasion if need were For if they came onâ—ly to suffer and to slee not to pursue Bowes Captaines and Captaines of Bands made by David and Davids helpers in the warre came not to help David by flying that was a hurt to David not a help It is true M. Symmons saiâ—h 1 Sam. 22. 2. Those that came out to David strengthened him but he strengthened not them and David might easily have revenged himselfe on the Ziphites who did good will to betray him to the hands of Saul if his conscience had served him Answ 1. This would inferre that these armed men came to help David against his conscience and that David was a patient in the businesse the contrary is in the Text 1 Sam. 26. 2. David became a Captaine over them and 1 Chron. 12. 17. If ye come peaceably to help me my heart shall be knit to you ver 18. Then David received them and made them Captains of the band 2. David might have revenged himselfe upon the Ziphites True but that Conscience hindred him cannot be proved To pursue an enemie is an act of a Councell of Warre and he saw
it would create more enemies not help his Cause 3. To David to kill Saul sleeping and the people who out of a mis-informed conscience came out many of them to help their lawfull Prince against a Traitor as was supposed seeking to kill their King and to usurp the throne had not been wisdome nor justice because to kill the enemie in a just self-defence must be when the enemie actually doth invade and the life of the defendant cannot be otherwise saved A sleeping enemie is not in the act of unjust pursuit of the innocent but if an Armie of Papists Philistims were in the fields sleeping pursuing not one single David onely for a supposed personall wrong to the King but lying in the fields and campe against the whole Kingdome and Religion labouring to introduce arbitary Government Popery Idolatry and to destroy Lawes and Liberties and Parliaments then David were obliged to kill these murtherers in their sleep If any say The case is all one in a naturall self-defence what ever be the cause and who ever be the enemy because the self-defender is not to offend except the unjust Invader be in actuall pursuit now Armies in their sleep are not in actuall pursuit Answ When one man with a multitude invadeth one man that one man may pursue as he seeth most conducible for self-defence Now the Law saith Threatnings and terror of Armour maketh imminent danger and the case of pursuit in self-defence lawfull if therefore an Armie of Irish Rebels and Spanyards were sleeping in their Camp and our King in a deep sleep in the midst of them and these Rebels actually in the Camp besieging the Parliament and the Citie of London most unjustly to take away Parliament Laws and Liberties of Religion it should follow that Generall Essex ought not to kill the Kings Majesty in his sleep for he is the Lords Anointed but 1. will it follow that Generall Essex may not kill the Irish Rebels sleeping about the King and that he may not rescue the Kings Person out of the hands of the Papists and Rebels ensnaring the King and leading him on to Popery and to employ his Authority to defend Popery and trample upon Protestant Parliaments and Lawes Certainly from this example this cannot be concluded For Armies in actuall pursuit of a whole Parliament Kingdome Lawes and Religion though sleeping in the Camp because in actuall pursuit may be invaded and killed though sleeping And David useth no argument from conscience why hee might not kill Sauls Armie I conceive he had not Armes to doe that and should have created more enemies to himselfe and hazard his owne life and the life of all his men if he had of purpose killed so many sleeping men yea the inexpedience of that for a private wrong to kill Gods mis-led people should have made all Israel enemies to David But David useth an Argument from Conscience onely to prove it was not lawfull for him to stretch forth his hand against the King and for my part so long as he remaineth King and is not dethroned by those who made him King at Hebron to put hands on his person I judge utterly unlawfull one man sleeping cannot be in actuall pursuit of another man so that the self-defender may lawfully kill him in his sleep but the case is farre otherwise in lawfull wars the Israelites might lawfully kill the Philistims encamping about Jerusalem to destroy it and Religion and the Church of God though they were all sleeping even though we suppose King Saul had brought them in by his Authority though he were sleeping in the midst of the uncircumcised Armies and it is evident that an hoast of armed enemies though sleeping by the law of self-defence may be killed left they awake and kill us whereas one single man and that a King cannot be killed 2. I think certainly David had not done unwisely but hazarded his owne life and all his mens if he and Ahimelâ—ch and Abishai should have killed an host of their enemies sleeping that had been a work as impossible to three so hazard some to all his men D. Ferne as Arnisaeus did before him saith The example of David was extraordinary because he was anointed and designed by God as successor to Saul and so he must use an extraordinary way of guarding himselfe Arnisaeus citeth Alberic Gentilis that David was now exempted from amongst the number of Subjects Answ There were not two Kings in Israel now both David and Saul 2. David acknowledgeth his subjection in naming Saul the Lords Anointed his Master Lord King and therefore David was yet a subject 3. If David would have proved his title to the Crowne by extraordinary wayes he who killed Goliah extraordinarily might have killed Saul by a miracle but David goeth a most ordinary way to work for self-defence and his comming to the Kingdom was through persecution want eating shew-bread in case of necessity defending himself with Goliahs sword 4. How was any thing extraordinary and above a Law seeing David might have killed his enemie Saul and according to Gods Law he spared him and hee argueth from a morall duty he is the Lords annoynted therefore I will not kill him was this extraoardinary above a law then according to Gods law he might have killed him Royalists cannot say so what ground to say one of Davids acts in his deportment toward Saul was extraordinary and not all was it extraordinary that David flâ—d no or that David consulted the oracle of God what to do when Saul was coming against him 5. in an ordinary fact something may be extraordinary as the dead sleep from the Lord upon Saul and his men 1. Sam. 26. and yet the fact according to its substance ordinary 6. Nor is this extraordinary that a distressed man being an excellent warriour as David was may use the help of six hundred men who by the law of charity are to help to deliver the innocent from death yea all Israel were obliged to defend him who killed Goliah 7. Royalists make Davids act of not putting hands on the Lords annointed an ordinary morall reason against resistance but his putting on of armour they will have extraordinary and this is I confesse a short way to an adversary to cull out something that is for his cause and make it ordinary and something that is against his cause must be extraordinary 8. These men by the law of nature were obliged to joyne in armes with David ergo the non-helping of an oppressed man must be Gods ordinary law a blasphemous tenet 9. If David by an extraordinary spirit killed not King Saul then the Jesuits way of killing must be Gods ordinary Law 2. David certainly intended to keep Keilah against King Saul for the Lord would not have answered David in an unlawfull fact for that were all one as if God should teach David how to play the Traitor to his King for if God had answered They will not deliver
thee up but they shall save thee from the hand of Saul As David beleeved he might say this as well as its contradicent then David behoved to keep the city for certainly Davids question pre-supposeth he was to keep the city The example of Elisha the Prophet is considerable 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house and the Elders with him And the King sent a man before him but ere the messengers came to him he said to the Elders See now the sonne of a murtherer hath sent to take away mine head Here is unjust violence offered by King Ioram to an innocent man Elisha keepeth the house violently against the Kings Messenger as we did keep Castles against King Charles his unlawfull messengers Look saith he when the messenger commeth shut the doore 2. There is violence also commanded and resistence to be made Hold him fast at the doore In the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Montan. Claudite â—stium opprimetis eum in ostio Violently presse him at the doore And so the Chaldee Paraphrase Ierom. Ne sinatis eum introire The LXX Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illidite eum in ostio Presse him betwixt the doore and the wall It is a word of bodily violence according to Vatablus Yea Theodoret will have King Ioram himselfe holden at the doore And 3. It is no Answer that D. Ferne and other Royalists give that Elisha made no personall resistance to the King himselfe but onely to the Kings cut-throat sent to take away his head Yea they say It is lawfull to resist the Kings cut-throats But the text is cleere that the violent resistance is made to the King himselfe also for he addeth Is not the sound of his Masters feet behinde him And by this answer it is lawfull to keep Townes with iron gates and barres and violently to oppose the Kings cut-throats comming to take away the heads of the Parliaments of both Kingdomes and of Protestants in the three Kingdomes Some Royalists are so impudent as to say that there was no violence here and that Elisha was an extraordinary man and that it is not lawfull for us to call a King the son of a murtherer as the Prophet Elisha did but Ferne sect 2. pag. 9. forgetting himselfe saith from hence It is lawfull to resist the Prince himselfe thus farre as to ward his blowes and hold his hands But let Ferne answer if the violent binding of the Princes hands that he shall not be able to kill be a greater violence done to his Royall person then Davids cutting off the lap of Sauls garment for certainly the Royall body of a Prince is of more worth then his cloathes Now it was a sinne I judge that smote Davids conscience that he being a subject and not in the act of naturall self-defence did cut the garment of the Lords Annointed Let Ferne see then how he will save his owne principles for certainly hee yeeldeth the cause for me I judge that the person of the King or any Judge who is the Lords Deputy as is the King is sacred and that remaining in that honourable case no subject can without guiltinesse before God put hands in his person the case of naturall self-defence being excepted for because the Royall dignity doth not advance a King above the common condition of men and the Throne maketh him not leave off to bee a man and a man that can do wrong and therefore as one that doth manifest violence to the life of a man though his subject he may be resisted with bodily resistance in the case of unjust and violent invasion It is a vaine thing to say Who shall be judge betweene the King and his subjects The subject cannot judge the King because none can be judge in his owne cause and an inferiour or equall cannot judge a superiour or equall But I answer 1. This is the Kings owne cause also and he doth unjust violence as a man and not as a King and so he cannot be judge more then the subject 2. Every one that doth unjust violence as he is such is inferiour to the innocent and so ought to be judged by some 3. There is no need of the formality of a judge in things evident to natures eye such as are manifestly unjust violences Nature in acts naturall of self-defence is judge party accuser witnesse and all for it is supposed the Judge is absent when the Judge doth wrong And for the plea of Elisha's extraordinary spirit it is no thing extraordinary to the Prophet to call the King the sonne of a murtherer when hee complaineth to the Elders for justice of his oppression no more then it is for a plaintiffe to libell a true crime against a wicked person and if Elisha's resistance came from an extraordinary spirit then it is not naturall for an oppressed man to close the doore upon a murtherer then the taking away of the innocent Prophets head must be extraordinary for this was but an ordinary and most naturall remedy against this oppression and though to name the King the sonne of a murtherer be extraordinary and I should grant it without any hurt to this cause it followeth no wayes that the self-defence was extraordinary 3. 2. Chron. 26. 17. Foure score of Priests with Azariah are commended as valiant men LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Montan filii virtutis Men of courage and valour for that they resisted Vzziah the King who would take on him to burne Incense to the Lord against the Law M. Symmons pag. 34. sect 10. They withstood him not with swords and weapons but onely by speaking and one but spake I answer It was a bodily resistance for beside that Ierome turneth it Viri fortissimi Most valiant men And it is a speech in the Scripture taken for men valorous for warre As 1 Sam. 14. 25. 2 Sam. 17. 10. 1 Chron. 5. 18. And so doth the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potent in valour And the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 24. 9. 2 Sam. 11. 16. 1 Sam. 31. 12. and therefore all the 80. not onely by words but violently expelled the King out of the Temple 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Mont. â—sâ—â—tâ—runt contra Huzzi-Iahu the LXX say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They resisted the King so Dan. 11. 17. The armies of the south shall not stand Dan. 8. 25. It is a word of violence 3. The text saith ver 20. and they thrust him out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ar. Mont. fecerunt eum festinare Hyerony festinatò expulerunt eum The LXX say The Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Vatablus they cast him out And 4. it is said ver 21. he was cut off from the house of the Lord. Doctor Ferne saith sect 4. pag. 50. They are valiant men who dare withstand a King in an evil way by a home reproofe and by withdrawing the
Libnah to the like Yea the city of Abel 2 Sam. 20. did well to resist Ioab Davids Generall for he came to destroy a whole city for a traitors sake for Sheba they resisted and defended themselves the wise woman calleth the city a mother in Israel and the inheritance of the Lord. ver 19. and Ioab professeth ver 20. far be it from him to swallow up and destroy Abel The woman saith ver 18. They said of old they shall surely ask counsell at Abel and so they ended the matter that is the city of Abel was a place of Prophets and Oracles of old where they asked responses of their doubts and therefore peace should be first offered to the City before Ioab should destroy it as the law saith Deut. 20. 10. from all which it is evident that the city in defending it self did nothing against peace so they should deliver Sheba the traitour to Ioabs hand which accordingly they did and Ioab pursued them not as traitors for keeping the city against the King but professeth in that they did no wrong QUEST XXXIII Whether or no the place Rom. 13. 1. prove that in no case it is lawfull to resist the King THe speciall ground of Royalists from Rom. 13. against the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars is to make Paul Rom. 13. speake onely of Kings Hugo Grotius de jure belli pac l. 1. c. 4. num 6. Barclay cont Monarch l. 3. c. 9. saith Though Ambrose expound the place Rom. 13. de solis Regibus of Kings onely this is false of Kings onely he doth not but of Kings principally Yâ—a it followeth not that all Magistrates by this place are freed from all lawes because saith he there is no Iudge above a King on earth and therefore he cannot be punished but there is a Iudge above all inferiour Iudges and therefore they must be subject to Lawes So D. Ferno followeth him sect 2. pag. 10. and our poore Prelate must be an accident to them Sacr. San. Maj. cap. 2. pag. 29. for his learning cannot subsist per se 1. Assert In a free Monarchie such as Scotland is known to be by the higher power Rom. 13. is the King principally in respect of dignity understood but not solely and onely as if inferiour Judges were not higher powers 1. I say in a free Monarchie For no man can say that where there is not a King but onely Aristocracie and government by States as in Holland that there the people are obliged to obey the King and yet this Text I hope can reach the consciences of all Holland that there every soule must be subject to the higher powers and yet not a subject in Holland is â—o be subject to any King foâ— non â—ntis nulla â—unt accidentia 2. I said the King in a free Monarchie is here principally understood in regard of dignity but not in regard of the essence of a magistrate because the essence of a Magistrate doth equally belong to all inferiour Magistrates as to the King as is already proved let the Prelate answer if he can for though some Judges be sent by the King and have from him authority to judge yet this doth no more prove that inferiour Judges are unproperly Judges and onely such by analogie not essentially Then it will prove a Citizen is not essentially a Citizen nor a Church-officer essentially a Church-officer nor a sonne not essentially a living creature because the former have authority from the Incorporation of Citizens and of Church-officers and the latter hath his life by generation from his father as Gods instrument For though the Citizen and the Church-officers may be judged by their severall Incorporations that made them yet are they also essentially Citizens and Church-officers as those who made them such 2. Assert There is no reason to restrain the higher powers to Monarchs onely or yet principally as if they onely were essentially powers ordained of God 1. Because he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 higher powers Now this will include all higher powers as Piscator observeth on the place And certainly Rome had never two or three Kings to which every soule should be subject if Paul had intended that they should have given obedience to one Nero as the onely essentiall Judge he would have designed him by the nowne in the singular number 2. All the reasons that the Apostle bringeth to prove that subjection is due agreeth to inferiour Judges as well as to Emperours for they are powers ordained of God and they beare the sword and we must obey them for conscience sake and they are Gods deputies and their judgement is not the judgement of men but of the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. Deut. 1. 16. Numb 11. 16 17. Tribute and wages be no lesse due to them as ministers and servants for their work then to the King c. 3. The Apostle could not omit obedience to the good Civill Lawes enacted by the Senate nor could he omit to command subjection to Rulers if the Romanes should change the Government and abolish Monarchie and erect their ancient forme of Government before they had Kings 5. This is Canonicall Scripture and a cleare exposition of the first Commandement and so must reach the consciences of all Christian Republicks where there is no Monarchie 5. Parallel places of Scripture prove this Paul 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. will have prayers made to God for Kings and for all that are in authority and the intrinsecall end of all is a godly honest and peaceable life And 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake Tit. 3. 1. It is true subjection to Nero of whom Tertullian said Apol. 5. Nihil nisi grande bonum à Nerone damnatum is commanded here but to Nero as such an one as he is obliged de jure to be whether you speak of the office in abstracto or of the Emperour in concreto in this notion to me it is all one but that Paul commandeth subjection to Nero and that principally and solely as he was such a man defacto I shall then beleeve when Antichristian Prelats turn Pauls Bishops 1 Tim. 2. which is a miracle 6. Inferiour Judges are not necessarily sent by the King by any divine Law but chosen by the people as the King is and defacto is the practise of creating all Magistrates of Cities in both Kingdomes 7. Augustin expos Prop. 72. on Epist Rom. lrenaeus l. 5. c. 24. Chrysostom in Psal 148. and on the place Hieron Epist 53. advers vigilant expound it of Masters Magistrates so do Calvin Beza Pareus Piscator Rollocu Marlorat So do Popish Writers Aquinas Lyra Hugo Cardinal Carthus Pirerius Toletus Cornel. à Lapide Salmeron Estius expound the place And therefore there is no argument that Royalists hence draw against resisting of the King by the Parliaments but they do strongly conclude against the Cavalliers unlawfull warres against the
Parliaments and Estates of two Kingdomes Here what P. P. saith to the contrary 1. They are called eminent powers Ergo Kings only Answ It followeth not for these can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 2. 2. But these are not Kings but in the Text contradivided from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and they can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Principalities and powers 2. The reason of the Apostle proveth clearely that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot meane Kings onely for Paul addeth of that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there is no power but of God It must be there is no supereminent Royall power but it is of God and the powers Royall onely so he must meane that are are ordained of God Now this latter is manifestly false for inferiour powers are of God The power of the Roman Senate of a Master of a Father are of God P. Prelate Peter must expound Paul and Pauls higher powers must be 1 Pet. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More reason that Paul expound Paul Now 1 Tim. 2. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All in authority are not Kings P. Prelate Are of God or ordained of God cannot so properly be understood of subordinate powers for that is not by immediate derivation from God but immediately from the higher power the King and mediately from God Answ It is most false that King David is so immediatly a King from God as that he is not also by the mediation of the people who made him King at Hebron 2. The inferiour Magistrates are also immediate vicars and ministers of God as the King for their throne and judgement is not the Kings but the Lords Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 6. 3. Though they were mediatly from man it followeth not that they are not so properly from God for Wisdome Prov. 8. saith as properly ver 16. By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth as ver 15. By me Kings reigne and promotion is as properly from God and not from the East and the West Psal 75. 6 7. Though God promote Ioseph by the thanâ—full munificence of Pharaoh and Mordecai by Ahasuerus Daniel by Darius as if he gave them power and honour immediately from Heaven Prelat Learned Interpreters expound it so Answ It is an untruth for none expound it onely and principally of Kings Produce one Interpreter for that conceit Prelat Paul wrote this when Nero was Monarch Answ Then must the Text be expounded of Nero only 2. He wrote this when Nero played the Tyrant and persecuted Christians Ergo We are not to disobey Nero's now 3. He wrote it when the Senate of Rome had power to declare Nero an enemy not a Father as they did P. Prelat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to the Antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this There is no power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of God must undeniably inferre there is no supreme power but of God and so Soveraignty relates to God as his immediate author so Sectaries reason Gal. 2. 16. Not justified by works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by saith onely Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be a perfect exclusive else their strong hold for Iustification is overthrowne Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a neerer Antecedent which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is alone without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Grammer is not so good as Beza's which hee rejected 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referre to God alone as the onely cause In genere causae primae God alone giveth raine but not for that immediatly but by the mediation of vapours and clouds God alone killeth and maketh alive Deut. 32. 39. That is excluding all strange gods but not immediatly for by his peoples fighting he slew Og King of Bashan and cast out seven Nations yet they used bow and sword as it is in the bookâ— of Ioshua and therefore God killed not Og immediatly God hath an infinite eminent transeendent way of working so that in his kinde he onely worketh his alone Deus solus operatur solitudine primae causae non solus solitudine omnis causae God onely giveth learning and wisdome yet not immediatly alwayes often he doth it by teaching and industry God onely maketh rich yet the Prelates make themselves rich also with the fat of the flock and God onely maketh poore yet the P. Prelates Courts mediately also under God made many men poore 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not such an exclusive Particle when we ascribe it to God as when we ascribe it to two created causes workes and faith and the Protestants forme of arguing Gal. 2. to prove we are justified by faith he calleth our strong hold Ergo It is not his strong hold In this point then hee must be a Papist and so he refuses to owne Protestant strong holds for justification by faith alone D. Ferne sect 2. pag. 10. As many as have soules must be subject to the higher powers spoken of here but all inferiour Iudges have soules Answ If the word soules be thus pressed none shall be understood by higher powers but the King onely 2. Certainly he that commandeth as he commandeth must be excepted except because the King hath a soule you must subject the King to himself and to his owne commandements Royall and so to penall Lawes 3. Inferiour Judges as Judges by this text must either be subject to themselves as Judges and by the same reason the King must be subject to himselfe as he is a Judge Or Judges as men or as erring men are to be subject which I would grant but they are not subject as Judges no more then one as he commandeth can also obey as he commandeth These are contradictory I am not put off that opinion since I was at Schools Species subjicibilis qua subjicibilis non est praedicabilis 4. If Nero make fathers rulers over their mothers and children and command them by his publique sword of justice to kill their owne children and mothers if a Senate of such fathers disobey and if with the sword they deâ—end their own children and mothers which some other Doegs as Judges are to kill in the name and commandement of Nero Then they resisting Neroes bastard-commandment by this doctrine resist the ordinance of God and resist the Minister of God I have not a faith stretcht out so farre to the Prelates Court-divinity Yet Ferne saith there was never more cause to resist higher powers for their wicked Nero was Emperour when he now forbideth resistance Rom. 13. under the paine of damnation I desire to be informed whether to resist the Kings servants be to resist the King Doctor Forne p. 3. § 2. p. 10. and par 3. § 9. p. 59. allow us in unavoidable assaults where death is imminent personall defence without offending as lawfull whether the King or his emissaries invade without law or reason Well then the resisting then of
armed with power that cannot be resisted other wayes Samuel said to King Saul 1 Sam. 13. 13. Thou hast done foolishly Eliah said more to Ahab then What hast thou done And the Prophets were to rebuke sinne in Kings 2 King 3. 14. Ier. 1. 28. Chap. 22. 3. Hos 5. 1 2. And though Solomon here give them a power he speaketh of Kings as they are de facto but de jure they are under a Law Deut. 17. 18. If the meaning be as Royalists dreame he doth whatsoever hee will or desireth as a Prince by his royall that is his legall will by which he is lex animata a breathing law we shall owne that as truth and it is nothing against us But if the meaning be that De jure as King he doth whatsoever he will by the absolute supremacie of Royall will above all law and reason then Ioram should by law as King take Elisha's head away and Elisha resisted God in saying What doth the King and he sinned in commanding to deal rougbly with the Kings messenger and hold him at the doore then the fourescore valiant Priests who said to King Vzziah What dost thou resisted him in burning incense which he desired to doe sinned Then Pharaoh who said Ezech. 29. 3. The river Nilus is mine I have made it for my selfe and the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28. 2. I am God I sit in the seat of God should not be controlled by the Prophets and no man should say to them What sayest thou Did Cyrus as a King with a Royall power from God and jure regio be angry at the river Gyndes because it drowned one of his horses and punish it by dividing it in 130. Channels Sen. l. 3. de ira c. 21. And did Xerxes jure regio by a Royall power given of God when Hellespontus had cast downe his bridges command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea and that it should be cast in fetters And our Royalists will have these mad fooles doing these acts of blasphemous insolencie against heaven to be honoured as Kings and to act those acts by a regall power But heare flatterers a Royall power is the good gift of God a lawfull and just power A King acting and speaking as a King speaketh and acteth Law and Justice A power to blaspheme is not a lawfull power they did and spake these things with a humane and a sinfull will if therefore this be the Royalists meaning as Kings 1. They are absolute and so the limited and elected King is no King 2. The King as King is above Gods Law put on him by God Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill 4. It were unlawfull to say to the King of Cyrus What sayest thou Thou are not God according to this vaine sense of Royalists Obj. 9. Elihu saith Iob 34. 18. Is it fit to say to a King Thou art â—icked and to Princes Ye are ungodly Ergo You may not resiâ— Kings Ans 1. This Text no more proveth that Kings should not be resisted then it proveth that rich men or liberall men or other Judges inferiour should not be resisted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth all that and it signifieth liber all Isa 32. 5. And ver 8. the same word is 2. Deodat and Calvin say the meaning is Learne from the respect that is due to earthly princes the reverence due to the Soveraign Lord Mal. 1. 8. for it is not convenient to reproach earthly Kings and and to say to a Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beliel a word of reproach signifying extreme wickednesse And you may not say to a man of place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an extreamly wicked man so are the words taken as signifying most vile and wicked men 1 Sam. 2. 12. 1 Sam. 10. 27. 2 Sam. 24. 6. Psal 1. 1 6. Psal 11. 5. Psal 12. 8. Prov. 16. 4. Psa 146. 9. and in infinite places For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word of extreme reproach comming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine non and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profuit Iud. 19. 22. a most naughtie and a lewd man or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jugum a lawlesse man who hath cast off all yokes of Gods or Mans Law So then the meaning is It is unlawfull to reproach earthly Princes and men of place farre more is it unlawfull to reproach the Judge of the whole earth with injustice And what then We may not reproach the King as Shimei cursed King David Ergo it is unlawfull to resist the King in any tyrannous act I shall deny the consequence Nay as Pineda observeth if the Royalist presse the words literally it shall not be lawfull for Prophets to reprove Kings of their sins Christ called Herod a Fox Elias Ahab one that troubled Israel Obj. 10. Act. 23. Paul excuseth himselfe that he called Ananias the High-priest a whited wall Answ Rivetus Exo. 22. learnedly discussing the place thinketh Paul professing he knew him not to be the High-Priest speaketh ironically that he could not acknowledge such a man for a Judge Piscator answereth he could not then cite Scripture It is written Exod. c. Ans But they may well consist in that act of smiting Paul unjustly he might be reproached otherwise it is not lawfull to reproach him and surely it is not like that Paul was ignorant that he was a Judge Yea it is certain he knew him to be a Judge 1. He appeared before him as a Judge to answer for himselfe 2. Paul saith expresly he was a Judge ver 3. Sittest thou to judge me after the Law c. and therefore the place is for us for even according to the mind of all the fault was if there were any in calling him a whited wall and he resisted him in judgement when he said Commandest thou me to be smitten against the Law 2. Though Royalists rather put a fault on the Apostle Paul now in the act of prophecying judgement against Ananias which after fell out then upon their God the King yet the consequence amounteth but to this We may not revile the High Priest Ergo we may not resist the King in his illegall commandments It followeth not Yea it should prove if a Prelate come in open war to kill the innocent Apostle Paul the Apostle might fly or hold his hands but might not re-offend Now the Prelate is the High Priests successor and his base person so is as sacred as the person of the Lords Anointed the King Hence the Cavalliers had in one of their Colours which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston lul 2. An. 1644. the Crowne and the Prelates Mitre painted with these words Nolite tangere Christos meos as if the Antichristian Mitre were as sacred as the lawfull Crowne of the King of Britaine Obj. 11. Ferne sect 9. 56. If the Senate and people of Rome who a little before had the supreme
sheepe 3. A power to doe ill without resistance is not security Object 15. If God appoint Ministers to preach then the sheep cannot seeke safety elsewhere Ergo. Answ The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband but not if she feare he will kill her in the bed The obedience of positive duties that subjects owe to Princes cannot loose them from Natures law of self-preservation nor from Gods Law of defending Religion against Papists in Armes nor are the sheep obliged to intrust themselves but to a saving shepherd Object 16. If self-defence and that by taking up Armes against the King be an unlawfull duty how is it that you have no practise no precept no promise for it in all the word of God 1. You have no practise Ahab sold himselfe to do evill he was an Idolater and killed the Prophets and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse stirred him up to great wickednesse Elias had as great power with the people as you have yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church Arnisaeus de autho Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled Nebuchadnezer Ahab Manassah Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters the people never raised an Armie against them B. Williams of Osserie p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother son daughter wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods kill them not a word of the father Children are to love Fathers not to kill them Christ saith John P. P. in the cradle taught by practise to flee from Herod and all Christs acts and sufferings are full of mysteries and our instructions Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him but would rather worke a miracle in curing Malchus eare as use the sword against Caesar If Sectaries give us a new Creed it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell and the communion of Saints to raze out this He suffered under Pontius Pilate My resolution is for this sin of yours to dissolve in teares and Prayers and with my Master say daylie and hourely Father forgive them c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans because they refused him lodging 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry blasphemy murther adultery c. and all sins never against the sin of neglect and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word Answ It is a great non-consequence this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word Ergo. It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith Shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she inticed him to follow strange Gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13 6. when a man lying with a beast is put to death Yet it is a Law Exod. 22. 19. infinite more Lawes are the practise of which we finde not in Scripture 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry and if Iehu out of sincerity and for the zeale of God had done what God commanded he should have beene rewarded for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu that he should kill Ahab yet there was an expresse Law for it that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death Deut. 13. 6. and there is no exception of King or Father in the Law and to except father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeale of God Deut. 33. 9. And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King and in killing King Nabad and smiting all the house of Ieroboam foâ— his Idolatry they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty according to Gods expresse Law Deut. 13. 6 7 8 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary 3. Ahab and Iezabel raised not an Armie of Idolaters Malignants such as are Papists Prelates and Cavalliers against the three Estates to destroy Parliaments Lawes and Religion and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry to forsake the Covenant throw downe the Altars of God and slay his Prophets so as in the estimation of Elias 1 King 19. 9 10 11. there was not one man but they were Malignant Cavalliers and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves and to shew them it is their duty to make warre against the King and themselves in the defence of Religion when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people that they sinned in joyning with the King what place was there to shew them their sin in not using their owne lawfull defence And in reason any may judge it unreasonable for Elias to exhort of thousand thousands in Israel poore seven thousand of which many no doubt were women aged weake young to rise in Armes against Ahab and all Israel except God had given a positive and extraordinary Commandement and with all miraculous courage and strength in war against the whole Land and God worketh not alwayes by miracles to save his Church and therefore the naturall mandate of self-preservation in that case doth no more oblige a few weake ones to lawfull resistance then it obliged one Martyre to rise against a persecuting Nero and all his forces Arnisaeus should remember wee are not to tye our Lord to miracles 2. Elias did not onely flee but denounced wrath against the King and Cavalliers who joyned with them in Idolatry and when God gave oportunity he shewed himself and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seduceing idolatours when the Idolatrous King refused to do it and Eliah with his own hand took them not but all Israel being gathered together 1 King 18. 19. The Princes and Judges did apprehend them ver 40. which is a warrant when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists that other judges are to do it 2. For Nebuchadnezzer Ieremiah from the Lord expresly forbad to fight against him shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cut-throats for that example may as well prove if it be a binding law to us that our King should not raise his Subjects to fight against a Spanish Armado and a forraigne Prince for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27. 1. In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim ver 12 13 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon I hope this will not tye us and our King not to fight against forraigne Princes or against the great Turk if they shall unjustly invade us and our King and this example is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him as much as against us for Nebuchadnezzar was a
whole Land cannot formally be accused for non-resistance when the whole Land are oppressors for then they should be accused for not resisting themselves 14. The King ought to resist the inferiour judges in their oppression of the people by the confession of Royalists then this argument cometh with the like force of strength on themselves let them shew us practice precept or promise in the Word where the King raised an Armie for defence of Religion against Princes and people who were subverting Religion and we shall make use of that same place of Scripture to prove that the Estates and people who are above the King as I have proved and made the King may and ought to resist the King with the like force of Scripturall truth in the like case 16. Royalists desire the like president of practice and precept for defensive warres but I answer let them shew us a practice where any King of Israel or Judah raised an Armie of Malignants of Phylistims Sydonians Ammonites against the Princes of Israel and Judah conveened in an Assemblie to take course for bringing home the captived Arke of God and vindicating the Lawes of the Land and raised an Armie contrary to the knowledge of the Elders Princes and Judges to set up Dagon or tollerate the worship of the Sydonian gods and yet Princes Elders Judges and the whole people were obliged all to flee out of Gods land or then onely to weep and request that the King would not destroy souls and bodies of them and their innocent posterities because they could not in conscience imbrace the worship of Dagon and the Sydonian gods when the Royalist can parallel this with a precedent we can answer there was as smal apparency of precedency in Scripture except you flee to the law of nature that 80 Priests the Subjects of King Vzziah should put in execution a penall Law against the Lords Annoynted and that the inferiours and subjects should resist the Superiour and that these Priests with the Princes of the land should remove the King from actuall government all his dayes and crown his son at least make the father their Prince and superiour as Royalists say as good as a Cypher Is not this a punishment inflicted by inferiours upon a superiour according to the way of Royalists Now it is clear a worshipping of bread and the Masse commanded and against law obtruded upon Scotland by influence of the counsell of known Papists is to us and in it self as abominable as the worshiping of Dagon or the Sydonian Gods and when the Kingdom of Scotland did but conveen supplicat and protest against that obtruded Idolatry they were first declared rebels by the King and then an army raised against them by Prelates and Malignants inspired with the spirit of Anti-christ to destroy the whole land if they should not submit soul and conscience to that wicked service QUEST XXXV Whether or no the suffering of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church militate against the lawfulnesse of defensive wars ROyalists think they burden our Cause much with hatred when they bring the Fathers and ancient Martyrs against us So the P. Prelate extracted out of other Authors testimonies for this and from I. Armagh in a Sermon on Rom. 1. 3. pag. 20 21. So the Do. of Aberdeene The Prelat proveth from Clem. Alexand. l. 7. c. 17. That the King is constituted by the Lord. So Ignatius Answ 1. Except he prove from these Fathers that the King is from God onely and immediately he proveth nothing Obj. 2. Iren. l. 5. adv haer c. 20. proveth that God giveth Kingdomes and that the devill lied Luk. 4. and we make the people to make Kings and so to be the children of the Devill Answ If we denyed God to dispose of Kingdomes this man might alledge the Church of God in England and Scotland to be the sons of Satan But Gods Word Deut. 17. 18. and many other places make the people to make Kings and yet not devils But to say that Prelates should crowne Kings and with their foule fingers anoint him and that as the Popes substitutes is to make him that is the sonne of perdition a Donor of Kingdoms also to make a man with his bloodie sword to ascend to a throne is to deny God to be the disposer of Kingdoms and Prelats teach both these Obj. 3. Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Inde est Imperator unde homo antequam imperator inde potestas illi unde spiritus God is no lesse the Creator of Soveraigntie then of the soul of man Answ God onely maketh Kings by his absolute soveraignty as he onely maketh high and low and so onely he maketh Mayors Provosts Bailiffes for there is no power but of him Rom. 13. Ergo Provosts and Bailiffes are not from men The Reader shall not be troubled with the rest of the testimonies of this poore Plagiarie for they prove what never man denyed but Prelats and Royalists to wit that Kings are not from Gods approving and regulating will which they oppose when they say Sole Conquest is a just title to the Crowne But they deserve rather an answer which Grotius Barclay Arnisaeus and Spalato alledge as Obj. 1. Cyprian Epist 1. Non est fas Christianis armis ac vituori se adversus impetum persecutorum Christians cannot by violence defend themselves against persecutors Answ If these words be pressed literally it were not lawfull to defend our selfe against murtherers but Cyprian is expresly condemning in that place the seditious tumults of people against the lawfull Magistrate Obj. 2. The Ancients say he was justly punished who did rend and teare the Edict of Dioclesian and Maximinus Euseb l. 7. Hist Eccles c. 5. Answ To rend an Edict is no act of naturall self-defence but a breach of a positive commandment of the Emperors and could not be lawfully done especially by a private man Object 3. Cyprian Epist 56. Incumbamus gemitibus assiduis deprecationibus crebris haec enim sunt munimenta spiritualia tela divina quae protegunt And Russinus l. 2. c. 6. Ambrosius adversus reginae Iustinae Arianae furorem non se manu defensabat aut telo sed jejuniis continuatisque vigiliis sub altari positus Answ It is true Cyprian reputed prayers his armour but not his onely armour Though Ambrose de facto used no other against Iustina the places say nothing against the lawfulnesse of selfe-defence Ambrose speaketh of that armour and these meanes of defence that are proper to Pastors and these are prayers and teares not the sword because Pastors carry the Arke that is their charge not the sword that is the Magistrates place Object 4. Tertullian Apolog. c. 37. saith expresly that the Christians might for strength and number have defended themselves against their persecutors but thought it unlawfull Quando vel una nox pauculis faculis largitatem ulâ—ionis po et operari si malum malo dispungi penes nos liceret sed absit
ut igni humano vindicetur divina secta aut doleat pati in quo probetur Si enim hostes extraneos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis vis numerorum copiarum Answ I will not goe about to say that Tertullian thought it lawfull to raise Armes against the Emperour I ingeniously confesse Tertullian was in that errour But 1. something of the man 2. Of the Christians Of the man Tertullian after this turned a Montanist 2. Pamelius saith of him in vit Tertul. inter Apocrypha numeratur excommunicatus 3. It was Tertullians error in a fact not in a question that he believed Christians were so numerous as that they might have fought with the Emperours 4. M. Pryn doth judiciously observe 3. part soveraigne power of Parl. pag. 139 140. He not onely thought it unlawfull to resist but also to flee and therefore wrote a booke de fuga and therefore as some men are excessive in doing for Christ so also in suffering for Christ Hence I inferre that Tertullian is neither ours nor theirs in this point and we can cite Tertullian against them also I am sumus ergo pares Yea Fox in his Monum saith Christians ranne to the stakes to be burnt when they were neither condemned nor cited 4. What if wee cite Theodoret fol. 98. De provid Who about that time say that evill men reigne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the cowardlinesse of the subjects as the Prelate saith of Tertullian I turne it If Theodoret were now living he would goe for a Rebell About that time Christians sought help from Constantine the Great against Lycinius their Emperour and overthrew him in battaile And the Christians being oppressed by the King of Persia their owne King sent to Theodosius to help them against him 2. For the man Tertullian in the place cited saith The Christians were strangers under the Emperour Externi sumus and therefore they had no Laws of their owne but were under the Civill Laws of Heathen till Constantines time and they had sworne to Iulian as his souldiers and therefore might have and no doubt had scruples of conscience to resist the Emperour 2. It is knowne Iulian had huge numbers of Heathen in his Armie and to resist had beene great danger 3. Wanting Leaders and Commanders many prime men doubting of the lawfulnesse thereof though they had beene equall in number yet number is not all in warre skill in valorous Commanders is required 4. What if all Christians were not of Tertullians minde 5. If I would go to humane testimonies which I judge not satisfactory to the conscience I might cite many The practice of France of Holland The Divines in Luthers time as Sleidan 8. c. 8. 22. resolved resistance to be lawfull Calvin Beza Pareus the German Divines Bucanus and an hoast might be produced QUEST XXXVI Whether the power of Warre be onely in the King IT is not hard to determine this question The Sword in a constitute Common-wealth is given to the Judge supreme or subordinate Rom. 13. 4. He beareth not the sword in vaine in the Empire the use of Armour is restricted to the Emperour by a positive Law so the Law saith Armorum officia nisi jussu Principis sunt interdicta lib. de Cod. de Lege 1. Imperat Valentinian nulli nobis inconsultis usus armorum tribuatur ad 1. Jul. Mai. l. 3. Warre is a species and a particular the sword is a generall Assert 1. The power of the sword by Gods Law is not proper peculiar to the King only but given by God to the inferiour Judges 1. Because the inferiour Judge is essentially a Judge no lesse then the King as is proved and therefore he must beare the sword Rom. 13. 4. 2. Not Moses onely but the Congregation of Israel had power of life and death and so of the sword Numb 35. 12. The manslayer shall not die untill he stand before the Congregation in judgement ver 24. Then the Congregation shall judge betweene the slayer and the avenger of blood Deut. 22. 18. The Elders of the City shall take that man and chastise him 21. The men of the Citie shall stone her with stones Deu. 17. 5. Deu. 19. 12 13. v. 18 19 20 21. Deu. 21. 19. Then shall his father and his mother bring him to the Elders of his City 21. And the men of the City shall stone him with stones 1 King 21. 11. The Elders and Nobles that were inhabitants in his City stoned Naboth 3. Inferiour Judges are condemned as murtherers who have shed innocent blood Esay 1. 21. Psal 94. 5. 6. Ier. 22. 3. Ezek. 22. 12. ver 27. Hosea 6. 8. Zephan 3. 1 2 3. Ergo they must have the power of the sword hence upon the same grounds Assert 2. That the King onely hath the power of warre and raising Armies must be but a positive civill Law For 1. by divine right if the inferiour Judges have the sword given to them of God then have they also power of Warre and raising Armies 2. All power of warre that the King hath is cumulative not privative and not distructive but given for the safety of the Kingdome as therefore the King cannot take from one particular man the power of the sword for naturall self-preservation because it is the birth-right of life neither can the King take from a community and Kingdome a power of rising in Armes for their owne defence If an Armie of Turks shall suddenly invade the Land and the Kings consent expresse cannot be had for it is essentially involved in the office of the King as King that all the power of the sword that he hath be for their safety or if the King should as a man refuse his consent and interdict and discharge the Land to rise in Armes yet they have his Royall consent though they want his personall consent in respect that his office obligeth him to command them to rise in Armes 2. Because no King no Civill power can take away Natures birth-right of self-defence from any man or a community of men 2. Because if a King should sell his Kingdome and invite a bloody Conquerour to come in with an Armie of men to destroy his people impose upon their conscience an Idolatrous Religion they may lawfully rise against that Armie without the Kings consent for though Royalists say they need not come in asinine patience and offer their throats to cut-throats but may flee yet two things hindereth a flight 1. They are obliged by vertue of the first Commandement to re-man and with their sword defend the Cities of the Lord and the King 2 Sam. 10. 12. 1 Chron. 19. 13. for if to defend our Country and children and the Church of God from unjust invaders and cut-throats by the sword be an act of charity that God and the Law of Nature requireth of a people as is evident Prov. 24. 11. and if the fift Commandement oblige the
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
Kingdoms move in these wars by the Kings Lawes and are a formall politique body in themselves Obj. 2. The ground of the present wars against the King saith D. Ferne sect 4. pag. 13. is false to wit that the Parliament is coordinate with the King but so the King shall not be supreme the Parliaments consent is required to an act of supremacie but not to a denyall of that act And there can no more saith Arnisaeus de jure majestatis c. 3. in quo consistat essen majest c. 3. n. 1. and c. 2. anjur majest separ c. n. 2. be two equall and coordinate supreme powers then there can be two supreme Gods and multitudo deorum est nullitas deorum many gods infer no gods Ans 1. If we consider the fountaine-power the King is subordinate to the Parliament and not coordinate for the constituent is above that which is constituted If we regard the derived and executive power in Parliamentarie acts they make but a totall and compleat soveraigne power yet so as the soveraigne power of the Parliament being habitually and underived a prime and fountaine power for I doe not here separate people and Parliament is perfect without the King for all Parliamentarie acts as is cleare in that the Parliament make Kings 2. Make Lawes raise Armies when either the King is minor captived tyrannous or dead but Royall power Parliamentarie without the Parliament is null because it is essentially but a part of the Parliament and can work nothing separated from the Parliament no more then a hand cut off from the body can write and so here we see two supremes coordinate Amongst infinite things there cannot be two because it involveth a contradiction that an infinite thing can be created for then should it be finite but a royall power is essentially a derived and created power and supreme secundum quid onely in relation to single men but not in relation to the Communitie it is alwayes a creature of the communitie with leave of the Royalist 2. It is false that to an act of Parliamentarie supremacie the consent of the King is required for it is repugnant that there can be any Parliamentarie judiciall act without the Parliament but there may be without the King 3. More false it is that the King hath a negative voice in Parliament then he shall be sole Judge and the Parliament the Kings Creator and Constituent shall be a cypher Obj. 3. Arnesaeus de jur Maj. de potest armorum c. 5. n. 4. The People is mad and furious therefore supreme Majestie cannot be secured and Rebels suppressed and publike Peace kept if the power of Armour be not in the Kings hand only Answ To denude the people of Armour because they may abuse the Prince is to expose them to violence and oppression unjustly for one King may easilier abuse armour then all the people one man may more easily fail then a Community 2. The safety of the people is far to be preferred before the safety of one man though he were two Emperours one in the East another in the West because the Emperour is ordained of God for the good and safety of the people 1 Tim. 2. 2. 3. There can be no inferiour Judges to bear the sword as God requireth Rom. 13 4. Deut. 1. 15 16. 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. and the King must be sole Judge if he onely have the sword and all armour monopolized to himselfe Obj. 4. The causes of Warre saith M. Simmons sect 4. pag. 9. should not be made knowne to the Subjects who are to look more to the lawfull call to Warre from the Prince then to the cause of the War Answ The Parliament and all the Judges and Nobles are Subjects to Royalists if they should make war and shed blood upon blind obedience to the King not inquiring either in causes of Law or fact they must resigne their consciences to the King 2. The King cannot make unlawfull warre to be lawfull by any authority Royall except he could raze out the sixt Commandement therefore Subjects must look more to the causes of Warre then to the authority of the King and this were a faire way to make Parliaments of both Kingdomes â—et up Popery by the sword and root out the Refâ—rmed Religion upon the Kings Authority as the lawfull call to warre not looking to the causes of warre QUEST XXXVII Whether or no it be lawfull that the Estates of Scotland help their oppressed brethren the Parliament and Protestants in England against Papists and Prelates now in Armes against them and killing them and â—ndevouring the establishment of Poperie though the King of Scotland should inhibit them MArianus saith one is obliged to help his brother non vinculâ— essicace not with any efficacious band because in these saith he non est actio aâ—t 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—all 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 〈…〉 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
primarily and naturally in the multitude from it derived to the King immediatly from God The reason of which order is because we cannot reape the fruites of government unlesse by compact we submit to some possible and accidentall inconveniences Ans 1. Who speaketh so the P. Prelate cannot name That Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude Vertually it may be Soveraignty is in the multitude but primarily and naturally as heat is in the fire light in the Sun I thinke the P. Prelate dreamed it no man said it but himselfe for what attribute is naturally in a Subject I conceive may directly and naturally be predicated thereof Now the P. Prelate hath taught us of a very naturall predication Our Dreadful and Soveraign Lord the multitude commandeth this and this 2. This is no more a reason for a Monarchy then for a Democracy for we can reape the fruites of no government except we submit to it 3. We must submit in Monarchy saith he to some possible and accidentall inconveniences Here be soft words but is subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties of Church and State introducing of Popery Arminianisme of Idolatry Altar-worship the Masse proved by a learned Treatise The Canterburian selfe conviction printed the 3. edit an 1641. never answered couched under the name of inconveniency The pardoning of the innocent blood of hundreds of thousand Protestants in Ireland the killing of many thousands Nobles Barons Commons by the hands of Papists in Armes against the Law of the Land the making of England a field of blood the obtruding of an Idolatrous Service-Booke with Armies of men by Sea and Land to blocke up the Kingdome of Scotland are all these inconveniences only 4. Are they only possible and accidentall but make a Monarch absolute as the P. Prelate doth and tyranny is as necessary and as much intended by a sinfull man inclined to make a God of himselfe as it is naturall to men to sinne when they are tempted and to be drunken and giddy with honour and greatnesse witnesse the Kings of Israel and Iudah though de jure they were not absolute Is it accidentall to Nero Iulian to the ten hornes that grew out of the womans head who sate upon the scarlet colloured beast to make warre against the Lambe and his followers especially the spirit of Sathan being in them P. Prelate They inferre 1. They cannot without violation of a Divine ordinance and breach of faith resume the authority they have placed in the King 2. It were high sin to rob authority of its essentials 3. This ordinance is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath urgent reasons Ans 1. These namelesse Authors cannot inferre that an Oath is broken which is made conditionally all authority given by the people to the King is conditionall that he use it for the safety of the people if it be used for their distruction they breake no faith to resume it for they never made faith to give up their power to the King upon such tearmes and so they cannot be said to resume what they never gave 2. So the P. Prelate maketh power to act all the former mischiefes the essentialls of a King Balaam he is not worthy his wages for Prophecying thus that the Kings essentialls is a power of blood and destructive to people Law Religion and liberties of Church and State for otherwise we teach not that people may resume from the King Authority and power to disarme Papists to roote out the bloody Irish and in justice serve them as they have served us 3. This ordinance of the people giving lawfull power to a King for the governing of the people in peace and godlinesse is Gods good pleasure and hath just reasons and causes But that the people make over a power to one man to act all the inconveniences above named I mean the bloody and destructive inconveniences hath nothing of God or reason in it P. Prelate The reasons of this opinion are 1. If Power soveraigne were not in one he could not have strength enough to act all necessary parts and acts of government 2. Nor to prevent divisions which attend multitudes or many indowed with equall power and the Authors say They must part with their native right entirely for a greater good and to prevent greater evills 3. To resume any part of this power of which the people have totally devested themselves or to limit it is to disable Soveraignty from government loose the sinewes of all society c Ans 1. I know none for this opinion but the P. Prelate himselfe The first Reason may be made rhyme but never reason for though there be not absolute power to good and ill there may be strength of limited power in abundance in the King and sufficient for all acts of just Government and the adequate end of Government which is salus populi the safetie of the people But the Royalist will have strength to be a Tyrant and act all the Tyrannicall and bloody inconveniences of which we spake an essentiall part of the power of a King As if weaknesse were essentiall to strength and a King could not be powerfull as a King to doe good and save and protect except he had power also as a Tyrant to doe evill and to destroy and waste his people This power is weaknesse and no part of the image of the greatnesse of the King of Kings whom a King representeth 2. The second Reason condemneth Democracie and Aristocracie as unlawfull and maketh Monarchie the only Physick to cure these as if there were no Government an ordinance of God save only absolute Monarchie which indeed is no ordinance of God at all but contrary to the nature of a lawfull King Deut. 17. 3. 3. That people must part with their native right totally to make an absolute Monarch is as if the whole members of the Body would part with their whole nutritive power to cause the Milt to swell which would be the destruction of the Body 4. The people cannot divest themselves of power of defensive Warres more then they can part with Nature and put themselves in a condition inferior to a slave who if his master who hath power to sell him invade him unjustly to take away his life may oppose violence to unjust violence And the other Consequences are null QUEST XLII Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vicegerents THe P. Prelate taketh on him to prove the truth of this but the question is not pertinent it belongeth to another head to the Kings power in Church matters I therefore only examine what he saith and follow him P. Prelate Sectaries have found a Quere of late that Kings are Gods not Christs Lieutenants on earth Romanists and Puritans erect two Soveraignes in every State The Jesuite in the Pope the Puritan in the Presbyterie Ans We give a reason why God hath a Lieutenant as God
this they say in answer to some who beleeved the Church of England made the King the Head of the Church The Prelates Convocation must be Iesuites to this P. P. also So the 36. Article of the Belgick Confession saith of all Magistrates no lesse then of a King We know for Tyrannie of Soule and Body they justly revolted from their King Idcirco Magistratus ipsos gladio armavit ut malos quidem plectant paenis probos vero tueantur Horum porro est non modo de Civili politia conservanda esse solioitâ—s verum etiam dare operam ut sacrum Ministerium conservetur omnis Idololatria adulterinus Dei cultus è medio tollatur regnum Antichristi diruatur c. Then all Magistrates though inferiour must doe their duty that the Law of God hath laid on them though the King forbid them But by the Belgick Confession and the Scripture it is their duty to relieve the oppressed to use the sword against murthering Papists and Irish Rebels and destroying Cavaliers For shall it be a good plea in the day of Christ to say Lord Iesus we would have used thy sword against bloody Murtherers if thy Anoynted the King had not commanded us to obey a mortall King rather than the King of ages and to execute no judgement for the oppressed because he judged them faithfull Catholike subjects Let all Oxford and Cavalier Doctors in the three Kingdomes satisfie the consciences of men in this that inferior Iudges are to obey a Diviue Law with a proviso that the King command them so to doe and otherwise they are to obey Men rather then God This is evidently holden forth in the Argentine Confession exhibited by foure Cities to the Emperour Charles the Fifth An. M. D. XXX in the same very cause of innocent Defence that we are now in in the three Kingdomes of Scotland England and Ireland The Saxonick Confession exhibited to the Councell of Trent An. M. D. LI. art 23 maketh the Magistrates office essentially to consist in keeping of the two Tables of Gods Law and so what can follow hence but in so far as he defendeth Murtherers or if he be a King and shall with the sword or Armies impede inferior Magistrates for the Confession speaketh of all to defend Gods law and true Religion against Papists Murtherers and bloody Cavaliers and hinder them to execute the judgement of the Lord against evill doers He is not in that a Magistrate and the denying of obedience active or passive to him in that is no resistance to the Ordinance of God but by the contrary the King himselfe must resist the ordinance of God The Confession of Bohemia is clear art 16. Qui publico munere magistratuque funguntur quemcunque graduÌ„ teneant se non suum sed Dei opus agere sciant Hence all inferior or the supreme Magistrate what ever be their place they doe not their own work nor the work of the King but the work of God in the use of the sword Ergo they are to use the sword against bloody Cavaliers as doing Gods worke suppose the King should forbid them to doe Gods worke And it saith of all Magistrates Sunt autem Magistratuum partes ac munus omnibus ex aequo jus dicere in communem omnium usum sine personarum acceptatione pacem ac tranquilitatem publicam tueri ac procurare de malis ac facinorosis hanc inter turbantibus poenas sumere aliosque omnes ab eorum vi injuria vindicare Now this Confession was the faith of the Barons and Nobles of Bohemia who were Magistrates and exhibited to the Emperor An. 1535. in the cause not unlike unto ours now and the Emperor was their Soveraigne yet they professe they are obliged in conscience to defend all under them from all violence and injuries that the Emperor or any other could bring on them and that this is their office before God which they are obliged to performe as a worke of God and the Christian Magistrate is not to doe that worke which is not his own but Gods upon condition that the King shall not inhibite him What if the King shall inhibite Parliaments Princes and Rulers to relieve the oppressed to defend the Orphan the Widow the Stranger from unjust violence Shall they obey man rather than God To say no more of this Prelates in Scotland did what they could to hinder his Majestie to indict a Parliament 2. When it was indicted to have its freedome destroyed by prelimitations 3. When it was sitting their care was to divide impede and anull the course of Iustice 4. All in the P. Prelates booke tendeth to abolish Parliaments and to enervate their power 5. There were many wayes used to break up Parliaments in England And to command Iudges not to judge at all but to interrupt the course of Iustice is all one as to command unrighteous judgement Ier. 22. v. 3. 6. Many wayes have been used by Cavaliers to cut off Parliaments and the present Parliament in England The paper found in William Lauds Studie touching feares and hopes of the Parliament of England evidenceth that Cavaliers hate the Supreme seat of Iustice and would it were not in the World which is the highest rebellion and resistance made against superior Powers 1. He feareth this Parliament shall begin where the last left Ans What ever ungrate Courtier had hand in the death of King Iames deserved to come under Tryall 2. He feareth they sacrifice some man Ans If Parliaments have not power to cut off Rebels and corrupt Iudges the root of their being is undone 2. If they be lawfull Courts none needeth feare them but the guilty 3. He feareth their Consultations be long and the supply must be present Ans Then Cavaliers intend Parliaments for Subsidies to the King to foment and promote the warre against Scotland not for Iustice 2. He that feareth long and serious consultations to rip up and launce the wounds of Church and State is affraid that the wounds be cured 4. He feareth they deny Subsidies which are due by the Law of God Nature and Nations whereas Parliaments have but their deliberation and consent for the manner of giving otherwise this is to sell Subsidies not to give them Ans Tribute and the standing Revenues of the King are due by the Law of God and Nations but Subsidies are occasionall Rents given upon occasion of Warre or some extraordinary necessity and they are not given to the King as Tribute and standing Revenues which the King may bestow for his House Family and Royall Honour but they are given by the Kingdome rather to the Kingdome then to the King for the present warre or some other necessity of the Kingdome and therefore are not due to the King as King by any Law of Nature or Nations and so should not be given but by deliberation and judiciall sentence of the States and they are not sold to the King but given out by the
Kingdome by Statute of Parliament to be bestowed on the Kingdome and the King should sell no Acts of Justice for Subsidies 5. He dare not speake of the consequences if the King grant Bills of Grace and part with the flowers of the Crowne Ans He dare not say The people shall vindicate their liberty by selling Subsidies to buy branches of the Prerogative Royall and diminishing the Kings fancied absolutenesse so would Prelates have the King absolute that they may ride over the soules purses persons estates and Religion of men upon the horse of pretended absolutenesse 6. He feareth the Parliament sall upon Church businesse but 1. The Church is too weake already if it had more power the King might have more both obedience and service 2. The Houses can be no competent Iudges in point of Doctrine 3. For the King Clergy and Convocation are Iudges in all causes Ecclesiasticall Ans 1. This striketh at the root of all Parliamentary power 1. The P. P. giveth them but a poore deliberative power in Subsides and that is to make the Kings Will a Law in taking all the subjects goods from them to foment warre against the subjects 2. He taketh all jurisdiction from them over Persons though they were as black Traitors as breathe 3. And spoileth them of all power in Church matters to make all Iudges yea and the King himselfe yield blind obedience to the Pope and Prelate and their illuminated Clergie Sure I am P. Maxwell imputeth this but most unjustly to Presbyteries What essentiall and fundamentall priviledges are left to Parliaments David and the Parliament of Israel are impertinent Iudges in the matter of bringing home the Ark of God And for the Churches weaknesse that is the weaknesse of the damned Prelates shall this be the Kings weaknesse Yes the P. P. must make it true No Bishop no King 7. He feareth factious spirits will take heart to themselves if the King yield to them without any submission of theirs Ans The Princes and Iudges of the Land are a company of factious men and so no Parliament no Court but at best some good advisers of a King to breake up the Parliament because they refuse Subsidies that he may by a lawlesse way extort Subsidies 8. He desireth the Parliament may sit a short time that they may not well understand one another Ans He loveth short or no justice from the Parliament he feareth they reforme Gods house and execute justice on men like himselfe But I returne to the Scotish Parliament Assert 2. The Parliament is to regulate the power of the King The heritable Sheriffes complaine that the King granteth Commissions to others in cases perteining to their office Whereupon the Estates Par. 6. K. Iam. 5. Act. 82. dischargeth all such Commissions as also appointeth that all Murtherers be judged by the Iustice generall only And in severall Acts the King is inhibited to grant pardons to malefactors K. Ia. 6. Act. 75. P. 11. It is to be considered that King Iames in his Baslicon Doron layeth down an unsound ground that Fergus the first father of 107 Kings of Scotland conquered this Kingdom The contrary whereof is asserted by Fordome Major Boethius Buchannan Hollanshed who run all upon this Principle That the Estates of the Kingdome did 1. Choose a Monarchie and freely and no other Government 2. That they freely elected Fergus to be their King 3. King Fergus frequently conveened the Parliament called Insulanorum Duces Tribuum Rectores Majorum consessus Conventus Ordinum conventus Statuum Communitatum Regni Phylarchi Primores Principes patres and as Hollanshed saith they made Fergus King therefore a Parliament must be before the King yea and after the death of King Fergus Philarchi coeunt conciâ—ne advocatâ the Estates convened without any King and made that fundamentall Law Regni electivi That when the Kings Children were minores any of the Fergusian Race might be chosen to Reigne and this indured to the daies of Kennethus and Redotha Reâ— 7. resigneth and maketh over the Government into the hands of the Parliament and Philarchi Tribuum Gubernatores ordained Therius the 8. King Buchanan l. 4. Rer. Scot. calleth him Reutha and said he did this Populo egrè permittente then the Royall Power recurred to the fountaine Therius the 8. a wicked man filled the Kingdome with Roberies fearing that the Parliament should punish him fled to the Britaines and thereupon the Parliament choose Connanus to be Protex and protector of the Kingdome Finnanus R. 10. Decreed Ne quid Reges quod majoris esset momenti nisi de publici consilii authoritate juberent ne domestico consilio remp administrarent regia publicaque negotia non sine patrum consultatione ductuque tractarentur nec bellum pacem aut faedera reges per se patrum Tribuumve Rectorum injussu facerent demerentue Then it is cleare that Parliaments were consortes imperii and had Authority with and above the King When a Law is made that the Kings should doe nothing Injussu rectorum tribuum without commandement of the Parliament a Cabinet Counsell was not lawfull to the Kings of Scotland So Durstus Rex XI sweareth to the Parliament Se nihil nisi de primorum consilio acturum That he shall doe nothing but by counsell of the Rulers and Heads of the Kingdome The Parliament rejecting the lawfull sonne of Corbredus the 20 King because he was young created Dardanus the sonne of Metellanus King which is a great argument of the power of the Scottish Parliament of old for elective rather then hereditary Kings Corbredus secundus called Galdus the 21 King at his Coronation renouncing all negative voices did sweare Se majorum consiliis acquieturum That he should be ruled by the Parliament and it is said Leges quasdam tollere non potuit adversante multitudine Lactatus R. 22. is censured by a Parliament Quod spreto majorum consilio He appointed base men to publick Offices Mogaldus R. 23. Ad consilia seniorum omnia ex prisco more revâ—cavit did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Conarus 24. K. was cast in Prison by the Parliament Quod non expectato decreto patrum quod summae erat potestatis privatis consiliis administrasset Because he did the weightiest businesse that concerned the Kingdome by private advice without the judiciall Ordinance of Parliament that was of greatest authority Where is the negative voice of the King here Ethodius 2. the sonne of Ethodius the 1. the 28. King The Parliament passing by his son of the first Bed because he was a child had created Satrael his Brother King before a simple ignorant man yet for reverence to the race of Fergus kept the name of a King but the Estates appointed Tutors to him he was the 28. King Nathalocus the 30. K. corrupting the Nobles with buds and faire promises obtained the Crowne Romachus Fethelmachus and Angusianus or as Buchanan
his power If we obteine this which Gods Word doth give us we have enough for our purpose though Vzzah kept the naked title of a King as indeed he tooke but up roome in the Catalogue of Kings Now if by Law he was cut off from actuall governing Whether he was willing or not willing to denude himselfe of Reigning it is all one And to say that furious men ideots stupid men and Children who must doe all Royall acts by Curators and Tutors are Kings jure with correction is petitio principii for then hath God infused immediately from heaven as Royalists teach us a Royall power to governe a Kingdome on those who are as capable of Royaltie as blocks I conceive that the Lord Deut. 17. 14 15 16 17. commandeth the people to make no blocks Kings and that the Lord hath not done that himselfe in a binding Law to us which we have no commandement from him to doe I conceive that God made Josiah and Joash Kings typicall and in destination for his promise sake to David while they were Children as well as he made them Kings but not actu completo ratione officii to be a rule to us now to make a Childe of sixe yeares of age a King by office I conceive Children are to us only Kings in destination and appointment And for Idiots and Fooles I shall not believe let Royalists breake their faith upon so rocky and stony a point at their pleasure that God hath made them Governors of others by Royall office who can scarce number their own fingers Or that God tyeth a people to acknowledge stupid blocks for Royall Governours of a Kingdome who cannot governe themselves But far be it from me to argue with Bellarmine From Vzziah his bodily leprosie to inferre that any Prince spiritually Leprous and turned Hereticall is presently to be dethroned Nothing can dethrone a King but such Tyrannie as is inconsistent with his Royall office Nor durst I inferre that Kings now adayes may be removed from actuall Government for one single transgression It is true 80 Priests and the whole Kingdome so serving King Vzzah their motives I know were Divine proveth well that the Subjects may punish the transgression of Gods expresse law in the King in some cases even to remove him from the Throne but as from Gods commanding to stone the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day we cannot inferre that Sabbath-breakers are now to be punished with death yet we may well argue Sabbath-breakers may be punished and Sabbath-breakers are not unpunishable and above all Law So may we argue here Vzzah though a King was punished Ergo Kings are punishable by Subjects Quest 16. Whether or no as the deniall of active obedience in things unlawfull is not dishonourable to the King as King he being obliged to command in the Lord only so the deniall of passive subjection to the King using unjust violence be also no dishonouring of the King Ans As the King is under Gods Law both in commanding or in exacting active obedience so is he under the same regulating Law of God in punishing or demanding of us passive subjection and as he may not command what he will but what the King of Kings warranteth him to command so may he not punish as he will but by warrant also of the supreame Iudge of all the earth and therefore it is not dishonourable to the Majesty of the Ruler that we deny passive subjection to him when he punisheth beside his warrant more then its against his Majesty and honour that we deny active obedience when he commandeth illegally else I see not how it is lawfull to fly from a tyrannous King as Elias Christ and other of the witnesses of our Lord have done and therefore what Royalists say here is a great untruth namely That in things lawfull we must be subject actively in things unlawfull passively For as we are in things lawfull to be subject actively so there is no duty in point of conscience laying on us to be subject passively because I may lawfully fly and so lawfully deny passive subjection to the Kings will punishing unjustly Quest 17. Whether may the Prince make away any part of his Dominions as an Iland or a Kingdome for the safety of the whole kingdomes he bath as if goods be like to sinke an over burthened Ship the Sea-men cast away a part of the Goods in the Sea to save the lives of the whole Passengers and if three thousand Passengers being in one Ship and the Ship in a storme like to be loosed it would seeme that a thousand may be cast over-board to save the lives of the whole Passengers Ans The Kingdome being not the Kings proper Heritage it would seeme he cannot make away any part of his Kingdome to save the whole without the expresse consent of that part though they be made away to save the whole In things of this kind men are not as the commodities of Merchants nor is the case alike as when one thousand of three thousand are to be cast into the Sea to save all the rest and that either by common consent or by Lots or some other way for it is one thing when destruction is evidently inevitable as in the casting so many men into the Sea to save the whole and many Passengers and when a King for peace or for help from another King maketh away part of his Dominion The Lord is here to be waited on in his good Providence and events are to be committed to him but far lesse can it be imaginably lawfull for a King to make away a part of his Dominions without their consent that he may have help from a forraign Prince to destroy the rest This were to make merchandize of the lives of men Quest 18. Whether or no the convening of the subjects without the Kings will be unlawfull Answ The convention of men of it self is an indifferent thing and taketh its specification from its causes and manner of convening though some convention of the Subjects without the King be forbidden yet Ratio Legis est anima Legis The reason and intent of the Law is the soul of the Law Convention of the Subjects in a tumultuary way for a seditious end to make war without warrant of Law is forbidden but not when Religion Laws Liberties Invasion of forraign Enemies necessitateth the Subjects to conveen though the King and ordinary Iudicatures going a corrupt way to pervert Iudgement shall refuse to consent to their conventions Upon which ground no convention of Tables at Edinburgh or any other place An. 1637. 1638. 1639. can be judged there unlawfull for if these be unlawfull because they are convention of the Leagues without expresse Act of Parliament then the convention of the Leagues to quench a house on fire and the convention of a Countrey to pursue a Wolf entered in the Land to destroy women and children which are warranted by the Law of
nature should be lawlesse or against Acts of Parliament Quest 19. Whether the Subjects be obliged to pay the debts of the King Answ These debts which the King contracteth as King in Throno Regali the people are to pay For the Law of nature and the divine Law doth prove That to every servant and Minister wages is due Rom. 13. 5 6. compared with Vers 4. and 1 Cor. 9. 9 10 11 12. 1 Tim. 5. 18. If the Prince be taken in a war for the defence of the people it is just that he be redeemed by them So the Law saith Tit. F. C. de negotiis gestis F. C. Manda But when Fer. Vasquius illust quest l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. Vicesimo tertio apparet c. saith If the Prince was not doing the businesse of the publike and did make war without advice and consent of the people then are they not to redeem him Now certain it is when the King raiseth war not onely against his Oath and saith God do so â—o me and mine if I intend any thing but peace yet maketh war and also raiseth war without consent of the Parliament and a Parliament at that time convocated by his own Royall Writ and not raised and dissolved at all but still sitting formally a Parliament if he borrow money from his own Subjects and from forraign Princâ—s to raise war against his Subjects and Parliament then the people are not obliged to pay his debts 1. Because they are obliged to the King only as a King and not as an enemy But in so raising war he cannot be considered as a King 2. Though if the people agree with him and still acknowledge him King it is unpossible Physicè he can be their King and they not pay his debts yet they sin not but may ex decentia non ex debito legali pay his debts yet are they not obliged by any Law of God or man to pay his debts but though it be true by all Law the King be obliged to pay his debt except we say that all the peoples goods are the Kings a compendious way I confesse to pay all that any voluptuous Heliogabolus shall contract yet it may easily be proved That what his subjects and forraign Princes lent him to the raising of an unjust war are not properly debts but expences unjustly given out under the reduplication of formall enemies to the Countrey and so not payable by the Subjects and this is evident by Law because one may give most unjustly moneys to his neighbour under the notion of loan which yet hath nothing of the essence of loan and debt but is meer delapidation and cannot properly be debt by Gods Law for the Law regulateth a man in borrowing and lending as in other politike actions if I out of desire of revenge should lend moneys to a robber to buy powder and fewel to burn an innocent Citie or to buy armour to kill innocent men I deny that that is legally debt I dispute not whether A. B. borrowing money formally that thereby he may buy a Whore shall be obliged to repay it to C. D. under the reduplication of debt or if the borrower be obliged to pay what the lender hath unjustly lent I dare not pray to God That all our Kings debts may be payed I have scarce faith so to do Quest 20. Whether Subsidies be due to the King as King Answ There is a twofold Subsidie one Debitum of debâ— another Charitativum By way of charitie a Subsidie of debt is rather the Kingdoms due for their necessitie then the Kings due as a part of his rent we read of Custome due to the King as King and for conscience sake Rom. 13. 5 6. never of a Subsidie or taxation to the Kings of Israel and Judah at any convention of the States Augustus Caesar his taxing of all the World Luk. 2. for the maintenance of Wars cannot be the proper rent of Augustus as Emperour but the rent of the Romane Empire and it is but the fact of a man Charitative subsidies to the King of indulgence because through bad husbanding of the Kings rents he hath contracted debts I judge no better than Royall and Princely begging Yet lawfull they are as I owe charitie to my brother so to my father so to my Politique father the King See Ferd. Vasq illust quest l. 1. c. 8. who desireth that Superiors under the name of Charitie hid not rapine and citeth Cieer gravely saying offic l. 1. Nulla generi humano justitiae major pestis est quam eorum qui dum maximè fallunt id agunt ut boni viri esse videantur c. Quest 21. Whether the Seas Floods Road-wayes Castles Ports publike Magazine Militia Armour Forts and Strengths be the Kings Ans All these may be understood to be the Kings in divers notions 1. They are the Kings quoad custodiam publicam possessionem as a pawn is the mans in whose hand the pawn is laid down 2. They are the Kings quoad jurisdictionem cumulativam non privativam The King is to direct and Royally to command that the Castles Forts Ports Strengths Armour Magazine Militia be imployed for the safetie of the Kingdome All the Wayes Bridges the publike Road-wayes are the Kings in so far as he as a publike and Royall watchman is to secure the Subjects from Robbers and to cognosce of unknown Murthers by himselfe and the inferior Iudges yet may not the King imploy any of these against the Kingdome 3. They are the Kings as he is King quoad officialem Regalem publicam proprietatem for he hath a Royall and Princely propriety to all these as his own in so far as he useth them according to Law And thus they are 4. The Kings also quoad usum in regard of officiall use But they are the Kingdomes quoad fructum in regard of the effect and fruit 2. They are the Kingdomes sinaliter being destinated for the safetie and securitie of the Kingdome 3. They are the Kingdomes quoad proprietatem propriam legalem stricté sumptam according to the proper and legall proprietie And are not the Kings proper heritage as he is a Man 1. Because he may not sell these Forts Strengths Ports Magazine Bridges c. to a stranger or a Forraigne Prince 2. When the King is dead and his Heires and Royall line interrupted these all reâ—aine proper to the Kingdome yet so as the State cannot as they are Men make them away or sell them more then the King for no Publike persons yea the Multitude cannot make away the securitie safetie and that which necessarily conduceth to the securitie of the Posteritie The Lord build his owne Zion and appoint Salvation for walls and bulwarks FINIS ERRATA In the Preface p. 4. l. 5. for who is r. which is PAge 14. Line 9. for he read they ib. l. 39. for is r. it s p. 24. l. 19. adde not ib. l. 27.
the Deputy of the King Inferiour Iudges powers ordained of God Rebuked for perverting judgement They are the Ministers of God To resist them is to resist God They are Gods By this the Parliame nt of both Kingdomes ought to put to death cut-rhroat Cavaliers â—aising warre against the subject though the King commands the contrary Sac. Sanc. mai c. 4. pag. 46. How the King judgeth by inferiour Iudges Simmons loyall subjects beleif Sect. 1. pag. 3. The honour of an inferiour Iudge commeth neither from East nor from West more then from the King Argu. 9. Power of Kings and of inferiour Iudges differ gradually not specifically The specifick acts and formall object of Kings and inferiour Iudges are the same The same obligation of conscience that lyeth on the King in all things lyeth on the inferiour Iudge Inferiores Iudices sunt impropriè Vicarii Regis quoad missionem externam ad officium sed immediati Dei vicarii quoad officium in quod missi sunt Barcl l. 2. contr Monarchom p. 56 57. Arnisaeus de authorit Princ. c. 3. â— 9. Marant disp 1. Zoan tract 3. de defens Mynsin g. obs 18. cent 5. Symmons sect â— p. 2. The Iudges of Israel and the Kings after them differed but not essentially Sacr. sanct maj c. 7. p. 81 82. Nature is aâ— neare to Aristocracy as to Monarchy for the wise cannot be under the husband as a subject under a Monarch she by the fift Commandement haâ—h a joynt â—headship with the husband Iudges inferiour depend on the King in fieri when the constitution of the Kingdome is such but not in facto esse nor in their essence Arg. 10. Inferiour Iudges after the King is dead as also the States of Parliament remain Iudges Arg. 11. God not the absolute Prince maketh the inferiour Iudges No heritable Iudges according to Gods Word Inferiour Iudges more necessary in a large Kingdom then the Kfng and fo Aristocracy in that more sutable to the naturall end of government then Monarchy Principes sunt capitis tempora Rex vertex Elders of a land joyntly in Parliament must have as much if not more vis unita fortior then when they are divided in severall tribes â—ities shires but divided they are as essentially Iudges as the King The whole must have more power in extension then the part Jer. 38. 25 they had power against the Kings will to put Ieremiah to death Ieremiah saith Doe whatsoever seemeth good to you v. 10. The power of conveening Parliaments in the Estates without the King Ps 122. 2 3. Why are thrones set for judgement for all the tribes if only the King judge Tables in Scotland lawfull The inferiour Iudges are not subject in their conscience to the King in their acts of judgement either quoad specificationem to give unjust sentences at his will nor quoad exercitium to execute or not execute judgement for the oppressed Vnjust judgeing and no judging at all are sinnes in the States Junius Brut. q. 2. p. 51. vind contr Tyran The Parliament Iudges not advisers only Ieferiour Iudges not the Legats or Servants or Messengers of the King Publick Government belongeth to the States and Elders as to the King Arg. 8. Arg. 9. Arg 10. Arg. 11. Ferne par 3. Defence Sect. 3. pag. pag. 1â— The question is not if the King be so absolute as he is freed from all Morall restraint comming from Gods Law Sacr. sanc Maj. cap. 14. p. 1â—3 No resisting of the most Turkish Tyran by the Royalists way An absolute King more absolute then the Great Turke by Royalists way No law at all by Royalists way to impede a King from a super-inundation of overflowing Tyrannâ— 1 Arg. against Absolutenesse of Kings Why the King a breathing Law three reasons 2. Argument against an absolute King The People have no absolute power over themselves and so cannot make over any such power to the King Arg. 3. Against an absolute Prince Power Tyrannicall is not from God Barclaius contr Monarcho l. 2. pag. 62. That evasion removed Tyrannicall power is not from God but a power to do ill so as no mortall man may resist is from God Argum. 4. Against an absolute Prince A King as a King must be a plague iâ— God be the Creator of an absolute Prince The goodnesse of an absolute Prince in not putting forth his power in actuall destroying of the people hindereth not the power to be actu primo Tyrannicall Argum. 5. Against absolute Princes An absolute Prince against justice peace reason law c. Argum. 6. Against an absolute Prince It is against nature Arg. 7. Against an absolute Prince contrary to the fift Commandement Arg. 8. Against an absolute Prince The King remaineth a brother when he is King and may be rebuked may not take his neighbours vineyard from him A Damsell forced by the King may violently resist No sufficient meanes against all cruelties and unjust violences if an absolute Prince be from God all goe to confusion Barclaius cont Monarch l. 2 pag. 76 77. 9. Argument against an absolute Prince The conditions tacite or expresse upon which the Prince receiveth the crown fight with all absolute power Prerogative taken two wayes No Prerogative Royall in the Scripture Jus personae jus corouae The question touching Prerogative Royall vaine Prerogative Royall of Royalists Gods due Acts founded upon the soleâ— pleasure of the Agent proper to God A threefold dispensation A dispensation 1. of sole pleasure 2. of justice 3. of grace A twofold exponing of the Law by grace In re dubia possunt dispensare Principes quia nullus sensus presumitur qui vincat principalem l. 1. Sect. initium ib. Kings as Kings cannot doe things of meere grace because they must doe all ex debito officii by necessitie of their office Rom-13 4. Prov. 17. 15. Kings equivocally Kings The King may as well do acts of meer cruelty from his supposed Prerogative as acts of meer grace to one man out of the same fountain If Prerogative may over leap Law in one why not in twenty No Tyrant can do any thâ— most cruell act but under the notion of apprehended good Pretended Prerogative Royal of Royalists Tyranny Polanus in Daniel c. 5. 19. Rollocus com 16. ib. Th. Sanches de matr tom 1. l. 2. dis 15. n. 3. est arbâ—â—rii plenitudo nulli necessitati subjecta nulliusque publici juris regulis limita ta Baldus l. 2. n. 40. C. de servit aqua Sueâ—oni in Calign cap. 29. memento tibi omnia in omnes licere Coelius Rodigi l. 8. Lect. Antiq c. 1. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 26. n. 2. A contradiction in Ferne. Treaties of Monarchicall Government c. 2. pag. 6 7. The King of Persia not absolute The Oath of Iudah to the King of Babylon tyed them notto renounce naturall selfe preservation Servants are not by 1 Pet. 2. 18 19. interdited of selfe-defence Declar. at New Market Mar. 9. 1641. Magna Charca against
that commandeth obedience active or passive unjustly is eatenus no higher power Arnisaeus 16. Laertius l. 3. in Plato The person or the man who is the Magistrate may lawfully be resisted and the man as using the power lawfully or the office can not be resisted Arg. â— Pag. 141. Sac. sanâ— mac 2 pag 28. pag. 30. 31. Arnisaen de potest prin c. 2. 11. 17. pag. 3. sec 5. pag. 30. Royalists reasons that to resist the man or person is to resist the King office or ordinance of God Grot. dâ— iur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Winzetus Velitat adver Buchanan Barclay adv Monarchom l. 3. c. 8. We may kill a person as a man and love him as a sonne a father a wife according to Gods Word How the person and office â—f the Ruler are both theobject of our subiection The question of subjection toucheth the persons as abusing their power De Authorit princ c. 2. n. 18. Loyall Subiects beliefe pag. 49. Sect. 5. pag. 9. Pilates power to crucifie Christ was no Law-power given by God to Pilate as a Iudge Patient bearing of ill and resistance are compatible in one and the same person Resistance not forbidden 1 Pet. 2. 18. but patient suffering onely recommended D. Ferne part 3. § 2. p. 10. Suffering and non-resistance passive fell under no law Christs non-resisting of Pilate no plea against resistance of unjust violence Many things not imitable by us in Christs non-resistance D. Ferne part 3. §. 2. p. 10. Conses Remonstrant Suffering not commanded of God formally We are comparatively rather to suffer then to deny the truth but we are not commanded formally to suffer Patience in suffering is commanded not suffering it self formally Re-offending in ended is contrary to patient subjection The physicall act of taking away of the liâ—â— makeâ—h not homâ—cide We have a greater dominion over our goods and members mutilation excepted then over our life Populo quidem hoc casu resistendi actuendi se ab injuâ—ia potestas competir sed tuendise tantum non autem â—â—inâ—ipem inâ—…di resisâ—endâ— injuriae illaâ—ae nâ—n reâ—â—dendi a deâ—â—ra reverenâ—ia non vim pâ—…am uâ—â—isâ—… 〈…〉 â—â—â— Defenâ—â—ve warres cannot be without offending D. Ferne acknowledgeth violent resisting to be lawfull but not defensive warres Defensive wars are offensive only by accidâ—nt There is â—o holding of an arâ—ies hands or warding of stroakes â—ut by â—ffensive wars conjoyned by accidâ—nt with defensive wars Flying is resistance Self-defence naturall D. Ferne alloweth the resistance of denying of Tribute to a tyranous Prince Apologies Supplications Flight taking of Armes lawfull in self-defence Violent re-offending in self-defence the last remedy Simmons Loyâ—ll Subjects belees Re-offending comparatively that I kill ere I be killed in the court of necessity lawâ—ull The â—leeing of a Church or nation not a mean of self-defence alway possible and so not required of God A self defence remote and a self-defence nâ—ere hand When David had Saul in his hand he was in a case of actuall self-defence Saul being in a habituall unjust pursuit The Protestants of the three kingdoms not in the case that David was in when he came armed upon King Saul sleeping So D. Ferne. The law of universall and particular nature warranteth self-defence This or that King not the adequat head of the community Fxod 32. Rom. 9. The love of our selfe the rule and measure of our love to our neighbour We are to love our brethrens salvation aobve our lâ—fe not their life aâ—ove our owne How many wayes a man may preferre the safety of his owne life to the safety of his brother Self defence common to man with beasts Takeing of armes in the law is a soveraigne ground of a dâ—fensive postuâ—e Offensive and defensive wars differ in the event and intentions of men but not physically A where may not sell her own body for hire Covar to 1. par 2. â— 1. de furti rapi restituti §. 2. n. 1. The lawfulness of violent resistance of Kings cleare from Scripture proofes Symmons Loyall subject § 10. pag 31. Davids not invading Saul and his men a case far contrary to the condition of England and Scotland now It is not lawfull to kill the King as Jesuits teach D. Ferne his resolving of conscience Sect. 2. Arnisaeus de authorit prinâ— c. 2. n. 15. Davids example not extraordinary Elisha's fact proveth the lawfulnesse of defensive wars Elisha by no extraordinary spirit resisted Joram Loyall subjects beliefe Resistance made to King Vzziah proveth the same Vaâ—ib Deturba â—nt eum ex illo lâ—co compulsusque ut egâ—â—de etur inâ—â— â—â— Fâ—â—â—inanter eg â—dâ— eum coeâ—eâ—unt hoc est extruserunt eum 1 Sam. 14. The peoples resisting of Saul in rescuing Jonathan unjustly condemned to die saith that the Estates of the two Kingdomes may swear and covenant to rescue thousands of innocents from the unjust sword of cuâ—throats of Ireland Papists in England Chald. Par. Manifestum est quod Jonathan peccavit perignorantiam P. Mart. saith with a doubt Si ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunâ— Yea he saith they might suffragiis with their suffrages free him Jun. The people opposed a just oath to Sauls hypocriticall oath Osiander and Borhaius justifie the people P. Mar. Com. in 2 Reg. c. 8. saith Libnah revoltrd Quia subditos nitebatur cogere ad Idololatriam quod ipsi libnenses pati noluerunt merito principibus enim parendum est verum usque ad aras The King would compell them to Idolatry and they justly râ—volt d. Vatab. in noâ— Impulit Judaeos ad Idololatriam alioqui â—am pronos ad cultum Idololorum The Citie of Abels revolting a proof for the lawfulnesse of resistance The place Rom. 13. discussed The King onely is not understood in the Text. The King is principally understood in the Text Rom. 13. in regard of dignity but not only in regard of â—ssance Onely Nero cannot be understood Rom. 13. â— Vatab. Homines intelligit publica authoritatepâ—aeditus The P. Prelats poore reasons restraining the Text to Kings answered Prelat Sac. Sanct. maj c. 2. pag. 29. P. Martyr Varia sunt potestatum gâ—nera regna Aristocâ—atica Politica Tyrannica Oligaâ—chica Deus etiam illorum author Willet saith the same and so Beza so Tolet. Haymo Reasons against the lawfulnesse of resistance made to unjust violence answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herod l. 7. de Xerxe Vulgar version and Lyra turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Apostate Luk. 15. 32. Prelat Sac. sanc maj c. 5. n. 6. The objection that Goâ—s Prophets never rebuked non-resistance as a murtherous omission and that Gods people in Scripture never practâ—sâ—d resistancâ— aâ—d God nâ—vâ—r commanded it fâ—lly â—nswâ—red Nota. Rivet in Dâ—cal in mand 6. pag. 234. Sheweth the reasons why Christ condemned Peter not because he thought self defence unlawfull but 1. it had a kind of revenge in it for so few could not repel such an army
as caâ—â—â— to take Christ 2. He waited not on Christs answer 3. He could have defended himself another way 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter The Prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the peoples not executeing judgement for the oppressed and not relieving those that were crushed in the gate There is no warrant in the word by precept or practice that the King and Cavalliers should rise and oppose Princes and States in a hostile way for their conscience Sacr. sanâ—â— 6. pag. 74 75 76. The Doctors of Aberdeene in their Duplyes Tertullian in an errour The ancient Christians did rise in Armes against persecuting Emperours Inferiour Judges have the power of the sword aswell as the King The people tyed to acts of Charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forreigne Army though the King forbid We must defend with the sword the Church of God whether the King will or no except it be said the King may command murther and discharge us of the duties of the second Table Examples of lawfull warres without the King If the Parliament make the King and give to him the sword the King cannot make the Parliament nor use the sword to their destruction Parliamentary power a fountaine power above the King Loyall Sâ—aj Beliefâ— Causes oâ— wâ—r make lawfull war not the sole pleasure of the King De â—â—iâ—cip 6. â— 18. It is necessary and lawfull for the States of Scotland to help their brethren in England Cases â—n which we are to help our brethren according to divers opinions We are to help our brethren though they desire us â—â—â— Solons testimony Law of the Egyptians against those that helped not the oppressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erne captos ad mortem Acts of charity as helping our brethren against unjust oppressions oblige us whether the King command them or forbid them Loyall subjects beliefe sect 4. pag. 7. Sacr. sanct Reg. maj c. 2. pag. 26. 27. The question concerning the excellency of Monarchy above other formes various according to divers considerations An absolute Monarchy the baddest of governments Epiminondas his watchfulnesse A power to sin worse then a power of non-sinning Monarchy in it selfe considered is the best government Every forme in some construction best A mixed Monarchy bâ—st Tolossan de Rep. l. 13. c. 12. Barâ—l cont Monarch l. 1. c. 39. Symmons Loyall Subj unbeliefe §. 4. pag. 7. A threefold supreame power What be jura regalia or jura majestatis Arnisaeus de 〈…〉 6. maâ— â— 1. â— 3. pag. 15â— 158. Kings conâ—â—r honours as rewards of vertue as they punish ildoers not because they are absolute but according to law The law of the King 1 Sam 8. 9. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Farther consideration of the place 1. Sam. 8. 9. 11. Difference of Kings and Judges The law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8. 9. no permissive law of God as was the law of a bill of divorcement God cannot make a permissive law tending to the destruction of a whole national Church and Kingdome What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subject The peoples power over the King by reason of the Coronation covenant Mutuall punishments may be where there be no mutuall relations of superiority and inferiority A promise layeth a politique obligation on the promiser and giveth law to him to whom the promise is made to presse performance or punish violation when the promises are betwixt man and man Three kindes of oathes or covenants â—â—de by Kings as Arnisaeus thinketh The King not King 〈…〉 â—â— first â—wear the oâ—â—h It is an evasion onely to distinguâ—sh between the Kings promisâ—s and his oath Grotius de jur bel pat l. 1. c. 4. Barclai l. 4. c. 6. A King cannot swear to be a just King because he is already King Bartol in l. 1. n. 4. de his qui not infam Arnisae cap. 6. An princeps qui iuraâ— subditis c. â—o Roâ—â— de potest pa. lib. 2. c. 20. B. Rochester 16 A difference betwixt a father and a King A people may give Royall power to the King by limitation and measure but people can give no gift which is solely and immediately from God by measure they cannot measure God Sacr. san reg maj c. 1. pag. 1 2. An. 1633. Coronation of King Charls in Scotland L. 3. defens fid Orth. c. 3. n. 2 3. The P. Prelate is a Papist Iesuites tenents concerning Kings Tract contra primatum Regis Angliae Calvin Iust l. 4. c. 4. Sac. sanc Mai. c. 1. p. 17 18. Soveraigne power in the King but not power of Tyrannie The King not the Vicegerent of Christ as mediator The King not the head of the Church The prelates reason proveth all creatures to be the vicegerents of Christ as Mediator 2 Reas p. 58. The King no mixed person or half Clergie man in the externail government of the Church as the P. P. dreameth 1 Parl. King Charles aâ— 1633. The P. Prelate prayeth for the Pope The Power of Presbyteries Ministeriall P. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel and Discipline of Christ Pag. 65. The Ministeriall power of Pastors what Page 65. The P. Prelate maketh the King a Church-man The P. Prelate giveth an Arbitrary power of government in Christs-Church to the King Prelates extend a lawlesse prerogative to the government of the Church Two Supremes under Christ one in the Church another in the State are not absurd P. 66 67 68. The King not the servant of the Church Ruling Elders not Lay-men The King of Scotland not above Laws and Parliaments proved from our acts of Parliament The King of Scotland's oath at his Coronation How the King is supreme Iudge in all Causes The Estates of Parliament do append their collaterall Seales with the Great Seal in Treaties with forraigne Princes Angl. Conf. art 37. Sed eam tantum Prerogativam aequam in sacris Scripturis à Deo ipso omnibus piis Princibus semper fuisse tributam hoc est ut omnes status atque ordines fidei sive commlssos sixe illi ecclesiastiei sint sive civiles in officio â—ontineant â—ontumaces ac delinquenteâ— gladio civili â—oerceant W. Laud and other Prelates enemies to Parliaments The Parliaments of Scotland doe regulate limit and set bounds to the Kings power Fergus the first King of Scotland no Conquerour but a freely elected Prince A fundamentall Law of elective Kings in Scotland The Parliaments of Scotland chosed Kings The Oath of Galdus the 21. King of Scotland Kings of Scotland censured and punished by the Parliament Kings of Scotland of old had no negative voyce Buchan Rer. Scot. l. 7. Coronation Oath Parliaments of Scotland by Law are to decide who should raigne How Royaltie is the first and naturall Government Many Rulers over a great multitude more naturall than one To resist the Will is not to resist the Power Pag. 9. It is no good consequence Christ and the Apostles used not violent resistance to spread the Gospel ergo such resistance is unlawfull The Coronation of the King in concreto is more then a Ceremonie Men may limit the Power that they gave not Arnisaeus de authorit princi c. 3. n. 6. Subiects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients Vassals Children Servi indignè habiti confugiendi ad statuas dominum mutandi copiam habent l. 2. De his qui sunt sui Item C. De lat Hered toll Arnisaeus De authori principumâ—in popul c. 3. n. 7. Subjects in active obedience must subject to a Kings lawfull commandement but in things unlawfull they are not naturally subject in passive subjection Whether King Vzzah was dethroned Arnisaeus de jure Pontif. Rom. in Regna Princ. c. 5. n. 30. Bellarm. de pâ—nit l. 3. c. 2. Deniall of passive obedience in things unjust not dishonourable to the King more then deniall of active obedience in these same things Loyall Convâ—rt page 10. The King may not make away a part of his owne Dominions Ferdinan Vasquius illustr quest l. 1. c. 3. n. 8. juri alieno quisquam nâ—c in minima parte obesse potest l. id quod nostru F. de reg jur l. jur natu cod titul l. How subjects are obliged to pay the Kings debts Subsidies the Kingdoms due rather then the Kings In how many divers notions the Seas Forts Castles Militia Road-wayes are the Kings and how more properly they are the Kingdomes
Law no Law 1. Because he is King by or according to Law but he is not King of Law Rex est Rex secundum legem sed non est Dominus Rex legis 2. Because although it have a good meaning which Vlpian saith Quod principi placet legis vigorem habet The Will of the Prince is the Law yet the meaning is not that any thing is a just Law because it is the Princes Will for its rule formally for it must be good and just before the Prince can will it and then he finding it so he puteth the stampe of a humane Law on it 3. This is the difference between Gods Will and the will of the King or any mortall creature Things are just and good because God willeth them especially things positively good though I conceive it hold in all things and God doth not will things because they are good and just But the creature be he King or any never so eminent doe will things because they are good and just and the Kings willing of a thing maketh it not good and just for only Gods will not the Creatures will can be the cause why things are good and just If therefore it be so it must undeniably hence follow that the Kings will maketh not a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense and he cannot as King by any absolute super-dominion over the Law put a just sense on a bloody and unjust Law 4. The advancing of any man to the Throne and Royall dignitie putteth not the man above the number of rationall men But no rationall man can create by any act of power never so transcendent or boundlesse a sense to a Law contrary to the Law Nay give me leave to doubt if Omnipotencie can make a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense aut contra because it involveth a contradiction the true meaning of a Law being the essentiall forme of the Law Hence judge what bruitish swinish flatterers they are who say That it is the true meaning of the Law which the King the only supreme and independent expositor of the Law saith is the true sense of the Law There was once an Animal a Foole of the first magnitude who said He could demonstrate by invincible reasons that the Kings dung was more nourishing food then bread of the floore of the finest wheat For my part I could wish it were the Demonstrators only food for seven dayes and that should be the best demonstration he could make for his proofe 5. It must follow that there can be no necessitie of written laws to the Subjects against Scripture and naturall reason and the law of Nations in which all accord That Lawes not promulgated and published cannot oblige as Lawes Yea Adam in his innocencie was not obliged to obey a Law not written in his heart by Nature except God had made known the Law as is cleare Gen. 3. 11. Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat But if the Kings absolute Will may put on the Law what sense he pleaseth out of his independent and irresistable Supremacie The Lawes promulgated and written to the Subjects can declare nothing what is to be done by the Subjects as just and what is to be avoyded as unjust because the Lawes must signifie to the Subjects what is just and unjust according to their genuine sense Now their genuine sense according to Royalists is not only uncertaine and impossible to be known but also contradictorious for the King obligeth us without gainsaying to believe that the just Law hath this unjust sense Hence this of flattering Royalists crueller to Kings than Ravens for these eat but dead men and they devoure living men when there is a controversie between the King and the Estates of Parliament who shall expone the Law and render its native meaning say Royalists not the Estates of Parliament for they are Subjects not Iudges to the King and only Counsellers and advisers of the King The King therefore must be the only judiciall and finall expositor As for Lawyers said Strafford the Law is not inclosed in a Lawyers Cap. But I remember this was one of the Articles laid to the chargeb of Richard the Second that he said The Law was in his head and breast And indeed it must follow if the King by the plenitude of absolute power be the only supreme uncontrollable Expositor of the Law that is not Law which is written in the Acts of Parliament but that is the Law which is in the Kings breast and head which Iosephus lib. 19. Antiq. c. 2. objected to Caius And all justice and injustice should be finally and peremptorily resolved on the Kings will and absolute pleasure 6. The King either is to expone the Law by the Law it selfe or by his Absolute power loosed from all Law he exponeth it or according to the advise of his Great Senate If the first be said he is nothing more then other Iudges If the second be said he must be omnipotent and more If the third be said he is not absolute if the Senate be only Advisers and he yet the only Iudiciall expositor The King often professeth his ignorance of the Lawes and he must then both be absolute above the Law and ignorant of the Law and 2. the sole and finall Iudiciall exponer of the Law And by this all Parliaments and their power of making Lawes and of judging is cryed down They object Prov. 16. 10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King His mouth transgresseth not in judgement ergo he only can expone the Law Ans 1. Lavater saith and I see no reason on the contrary by a King he meaneth all Magistrates 2. Aben Ezra and Isidorus read the words imperatively The Tigurine version They are Oracles which proceed from his lips let not therefore his mouth transgresse in judgement Vatabulus When he is in his prophecies he lyeth not Iansenius Non facile errabit in judicando Mich. Iermine If he pray Calvine If he read in the booke of the Law as God commandeth him Deut. 17. But why stand we on the place He speaketh of good Kings saith Cornel. a Lapide Otherwise â—eroboam Achab Manasseh erred in judgement And except as Mercerus exponeth it We understand him to speake of Kings according to their office not their facts and practice we make them Popes and men who cannot give out grievous and unjust sentences on the Throne against both the Word and experience Object 2. Sometimes all is cast upon one mans voice why may not the King be this one man Answ The Antecedent is false the last Voter in a Senate is not the sole Iudge else why should others give suffrages with him 2. This were to take away inferiour Iudges contrary to Gods Word Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. Rom. 13. 1 2 3. QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Subjects and Estates
granteth resistance by force to the King to be lawfull 1. When the assault is sudden 2. Without colour of a Law and Reason 3. Inevitable But if Nero burn Rome he hath a colour of Law and Reason yea if all Rome and his mother in whose Womb he lay were one neck A man who will with reason go mad hath colour of Reason and so of Law to invade and kill the innocent 2. Arnisaeus saith If the Magistrate proceed extra-judicialiter without order of Law by violence the Laws giveth every private man power to resist if the danger be irrecoverable yea though it be recoverable L. prohibitum C. de jur fisc l. quemadmodum 39. § Magistratus ad l. Aquil. l. nec Magistratibus 32. de injur Because while the Magistrate doth against his office he is not a Magistrate for Law and right not injury should come from the Magistrate L. meminerint 6. C. unde vi Yea if the Magistrate proceed judicially and the losse be irrecoverable Jurists say That a private man hath the same Law to resist Marantius dis 1. n. 35. And in a recoverable losse they say every man is holden to resist si evidenter constet de iniquitate If the iniquity be known to all D. D. Iason n. 19. dec n. 26. ad l. ut vim de just jur 3. I would think it not fit easily to resist the Kings unjust Exactors of custome or tribute 1. Because Christ payed tribute to Tiberius Caesar an unjust usurper though he was free from that by Gods Law least he should offend 2. Because we have a greater dominion over Goods then over our Lives and Bodies and it is better to yield in a matter of Goods then to come to Arms for of sinlesse evils we may choose the least 4. A Tyrant without a Title may be resisted by any private man Quia licet vim vi repellere Because we may repell violence by violence yea he may be killed Vâ— l. vim F. de iustit jure ubi plene per omnes Vasquez l. 1. c. S. n. 33. Barcla contra Monaroho l. 4. c. 10. pag. 268. For the lawfulnesse of resistance in the matter of the Kings unjust invasion of life and Religion we offer these Arguments 1. That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects and is only set over the people on these conditions and not absolutely cannot tye the people to subjection without resistance when the power is abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and the subjects But all power of the Law is thus obliged Rom. 13. 4. Deut. 17. vers 18 19 20. 2 Chron. 19. 6. Ps 132. 11 12. Ps 89. 30 31. 2 Sam. 7. 12. Ier. 17. 24 25. and hath and may be abused by Kings to the destruction of Lawes Religion and Subjects The Proposition is cleare for the powers that tye us to subjection only are of God 2. Because to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God 3. Because they are not a terrour to good workes but to evill 4. Because they are Gods Ministers for our good but abused powers are not of God but of men or not ordinances of God they are a terrour to good workes not to evill they are not Gods Ministers for our good 2. That power which is contrary to Law and is evill and Tyrannicall can tye none to subjection but is a meere Tyrannicall power and unlawfull and if it tye not to subjection it may lawfully be resisted But the power of the King abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and subjects is a power contrary to Law evill and Tyrannicall and tyeth no man to subjection wickednesse by no imaginable reason can oblige any man Obligation to suffer of wicked men falleth under no Commandement of God except in our Saviour A Passion as such is not formally commanded I meane a Physicall Passion such as to be killed God hath not said to me in any Morall Law Be thou killed tortured beheaded but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked mens hands to suffer these things 3. There is not a stricter Obligation Morall betwixt King and people then betwixt Parents and Children Master and servant Patron and Clients Husband and Wife the Lord and the Vassell between the Pilot of a Ship and the Passengers the Physitian and the sick the Doctor and the schollars but the Law granteth l. Minime 35. De Relig. sumpt funer If these betray their trust committed to them they may be resisted if the father turne distracted and arise to kill his sonnes his sonnes may violently apprehend him and bind his hands and spoile him of his Weapons for in that he is not a father Vasquez Lib. 1. Illustr question c. 8. n. 18. Si dominus subditum enormiter atrociter oneraret princeps superior vassallum posset ex tâ—â—o eâ—imere a sua jurisdictione etiam tacente subdito nihil petente Quid papa in suis decis Parliam grat decis 62. si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari possunt The servant may resist the Master if he attempt unjustly to kill him so may the Wife doe to the Husband if the Pilot should wilfully run the ship on a Rock to destroy himselfe and his Passengers they might violently thrust him from the Helme Every Tyrant is a furious man and is morally distracted as Althusius saith Politi c. 28. n. 30. seq 4. That which is given as a blessing and a favour and a Scrine betweene the peoples liberty and their bondage cannot be given of God as a bondage and slavery to the people But the power of a King is given as a blessing and favour of God to defend the poore and needy to preserve both Tables of the Law and to keepe the people in their liberties from oppressing and treading one upon another But so it is that if such a power be given of God to a King by which Actu primo he is invested of God to doe acts of Tyranny and so to doe them that to resist him in thâ— most innocent way which is selfe defence must be a resisting of God and Rebellion against the King his Deputy then hath God given a Royall power as incontrollable by mortall men by any violence as if God himselfe were immediatly and personally resisted when the King is resisted and so this power shall be a power to wast and destroy irresistably and so in it selfe a plague and a curse for it cannot be ordained both according to the intention and genuine formall effect and intrinsecall operation of the power to preserve the Tables of the Law Religion and Liberty Subjects and Lawes and also to destroy the same but it is taught by Royalists that this power is for Tyranny as well as for peaceable Government because to resist this Royall Power put forth in Acts either waies either in acts of Tyranny or just Government