it selfe and protect us Ans The Prelate here deserteth his owne consequence which is strong against himselfe for if a man be naturally subject to his fathers superiour as he said before why is not the sonne of a slave naturally subiect to his fathers superiour master 2. As a man may not make away his liberty without his own consent so can he not without his owne consent give his liberty to be subject to penall Lawes under a Prince without his owne consent either in his fathers or in the representative society in which he liveth 3. God and nature hath laid a necessity on all men to be under government a naturall necessity from the wombe to be under some government to wit a paternall government that is true but under this government politique and namely under soveraignty it is false and that is but said for why is he naturally under soveraignty rather then Aristocracy I beleeve any of the three formes are freely chosen by any society 4. It is false that one cannot defend the people except he have intire power that is to say he cannot doe good except he have a vast power to doe both good and ill Obj. 3. It is accidentall to any to render himselfe a slave being occasioned by force or extreame indigence but to submit to Government congrnous to the condition of man and is necessary for his happy being and naturall and necessary by the inviolable Ordinance of God and nature Ans If the father be a slave it is naturall and not accidentall by the Prelates Logick to be a slave 2. it is also accidentall to be under Soveraignty and sure not naturall for then Aristocracy and Democracy must be unnaturall and so unlawfull Governments 3. If to be congruous to the condition of man be all one with naturall man which he must say if he speake sense to beleeve in God to be an excellent Mathematician to swim in deepe waters being congruous to the nature of man must be naturall 4. Man by nature is under government Paternall not Politique properly but by the free consent of his will Obj. 4. Luke 11. 5. Christ himselfe was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to his Parents the word that is used Rom. 13. ergo none is exempted from subjection to lawfull government Ans We never said that any was exempted from lawfull goverment the Prelate and his fellow Iesuites teach that the Clergy is exempted from the lawes of the civill Magistrate not we but because Christ was subject to his Parents and the same word is used Luk. 11. that is Rom. 13. it will not follow therefore men are by nature subject to Kings because they are by nature subject to parents Obj. 5. The father had power over the children by the Law of God and nature to redeeme himselfe from debt or any distressed condition by inslaving his children begotten of his owne body if this power was not by the right of nature and by the Warrant of God I can see no other for it could not be by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers Ans 1. Shew a law of nature that the father might inslave his children by a Divine positive law presupposing sin the father might doe that and yet I thinke that may be questioned whether it was not a permission rather then a law as was the Bill of devorce but a law of nature it was not 2. The P. Prelate can see no Law but the law of nature here but it is because he is blind or will not see his reason is it was not by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers ergo it was by the law of nature so he that cursed his father was to dye by Gods Law This law was not made by mutuall consent betwixt the Father and the Sonne ergo it was a law of inature the Prelate will see no better Nature will teach a man to inslave himselfe to redeeme himselfe from death but that it is a Dictate of nature that a man should inslave his sonne I conceive not 3. What can this prove but that if the sonne may by the law of nature be inslaved for the father but that the sonne of a slave is by nature under subjection to slavery that by natures law the contrary whereof he spake in the page preceding and in this same page As for the Argument of the Prelate to answer Suarez who laboureth to prove Monarchy not to be naturall but of free consent because it is various in sundry nations it is the Iesuites Argument not ours I owne it not Let Iesuites plead for Iesuites QUEST XIIII Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects because there be no such equality say Royalists betwixt the King and his people as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court to either necessitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people or to tye him to any punishment if he faile yet say they he is under naturall obligation â—n Gods Court to keepe his Oath but he is comptible only to God if he violate his Oath Asser 1. There is an Oath betwixt the King and his people laying on by reciprocation of bands mutuall civill obligation upon the King to the people and the people to the King 2 Sam. 5. 3. So â—ll the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anuoynted David King over Israel 1 Chron. 11. 3. And David made a covenant with them before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel 2 Chron. 23. 2. And they went about in Iudah and gathered the Levites out of all the Cities of Iudah and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel and they câ—me to Ierusalem 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the King Ioash in the house of God 2 King 11. 17. and Jehoiada made a covenant betwixt the Lord and the King and the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also and his people Eccles 8. 2. I counsell thee to keepe the Kings commandement and that in regard of the Oath of God then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the King and the people 2. That was not a covenant that did tye the King to God onely and not to the people 1. because the covenant betwixt the King and the people is clearly differenced from the Kings covenant with the Lord 2 King 11. 17. 2. there were no necessity that this covenant should be made publickly before the people if the King did not in the
true Kings in a speciall manner reign by Christ Ergo Not by the peoples free election The P. Prelate argueth like himself By this Text a Major of a Citie by the Lord decreeth justice Ergo He is not made a Major of the Citie by the people of the Citie It followeth not 4. None of us teach that Kings reign by Gods anger We judge a King a great mercy of God to Church or State But the Text saith not By the Lord Kings and Iudges do not onely reign and decree justice but also murther Protestants by raising against them an Army of Papists And the word 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers doth in no Greek Author signifie irrevocable powers for Vzziah was a lawfull King and yet 2 Chron. 26. lawfully put from the throne and cut off from the house of the Lord And Interpreters on this place deny that the place is to be understood of Tyrants so the Chaldee Paraphrase turns it well Potentes virga justitiae so Lavater and Diâ—datus and Thomas saith this place doth prove That all Kings and Iudges Laws derivari a lege aeterna are derived from the eternall Law The Prelate eating his tongue for anger striveth to prove That all power and so Royall power is of God but what can he make of it we beleeve it though he say Sectaries prove by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That a man is justified by faith onely so there is no power but of God onely but feel the smell of a Iesuite it is the Sectaries doctrine That we are justified by faith onely but the Prelates and the Iesuites goe another way not by faith onely but by works also And all power is from God onely as the first Author and from no man What then Therefore men and people interpose no humane act in making this man a King and not this man It followeth And let us with the Prelate joyn Paul and Solomon together and say That Soveraigntie is from God of God by God as Gods appointment irrevocable Then shall it never follow it is unseparable from the person except you make the King a man immortall as God onely can remove the Crown it is true but God onely can put an unworthy and an excommunicated Prelate from Office and Benefice but how Doth that prove that men and the Church may not also in their place remove an unworthy Church-man when the Church following Gods Word delivereth to Satan Christ onely as head of the Church excommunicateth scandalous men Ergo The Church cannot do it and yet the Argument is as good the one way as the other for all the Churches on earth cannot make a Minister properly they but design him to the Ministery whom God hath gifted and called But shall we conclude ergo no Church on earth but God onely by an immediate action from Heaven can deprive a Minister how then durst Prelates excommunicate unmake and imprison so many Ministers in the three Kingdoms But the truth is take this one Argument from the Prelate and all that is in his Book falleth to the ground to wit Soveraigntie is from God onely A King is a creature of Gods making onely and what then Ergo Soveraigntie cannot be taken from him So God onely made Aarons house Priests 2. Solomon had no Law to depose Abiathar from the Priest-hood Possibly the Prelate will grant all the place Rom. 13. which he saith hath tortured us I refer to a fitter place it will be found to torture Court Parasites I goe on with the Prelate c. 3. Sacred Soveraignty is to be preserved and Kings are to be prayed for that we may lead a godly life 1 Tim. 3. What then 1. All in authority are to be prayed for even Parliaments by that text Pastors are to be prayed for and without them sound religion cannot well subsist 2. Is this questioned but Kings should be prayed for or are we wanting in this duty but it followeth not that all dignities to be prayed for are immediatly from God not from men Prelate Prov. 8. Solomon speaketh first of the establishment of Government before he speake of the workes of Creation ergo better not be at all as be without government And God fixed government in the person of Adam before Evah or any else came into the world and how shall government be and we enjoy the fruits of it except we preserve the Kings sacred Authority inviolable Ans Moses Gen. 1. speaketh of Creation before he speaketh of Kings and Moses speaketh Gen. 3. of Adams sins before he speakes of redemption through the blessed seed ergo better never be redeemed at all as to to be without sin 2. If God made Adam a governour before he made Evah and any of Mankind he was made a father and a husband before he had either sonne or wise Is this the Prelates Logick he may prove that two eggs on his fathers Table are three this way 3. There is no government where soveraignty is not keptinviolable It is true where there is a King soveraignty must be inviolable What then Arbitrary government is not soveraignty 4. He intimateth Aristocracy and Democracy and the power of Parliaments which maketh Kings to be nothing but Anarchie for he speaketh here of no government but Monarchy P. Prelate there is need of grace to obey the King Ps 18. 43. Ps 144. 2. It is God who subdueth the people under David 2. Rebellion against the King iâ— rebellion against God Pet. 2. 17. Prov 24. 12. Ergo Kings have a neare alliance with God Ans 1. There is much grace in Papists and Prelates then who use to write and Preach against grace 2. Lorinus your brother Iesuite will with good warrant of the texts inferre that the King may make a conquest of his own Kingdomes of Scotland and England by the sword as David subdued the Heathen 3. Arbitrary governing hath no alliance with God a rebell to God his Country and an Apostate hath no reason to terme lawfull defence against cut-throat Irish rebellion 4. There is need of much grace to obey Pastors inferiour Iudges masters Col. 3. 22 23. ergo their power is from God immediatly and no more from men then the King is created King by the people according to the way of Royalists P. Prelate God saith of Pharaoh Exo. 9. 7. I have raised thee up Elisha from God constituted the King of Syria 2 King 8. 13. Pharaoh Abimelech Hiram Hazael Hadad are no lesse honoured with the compellation of Kings then David Saul c. Ier. 29. 9. Nebuchadnezer is honoured to be called by way of excellency Gods servant which God giveth to David a King according to his owne heart and Esay 45. 1 2. Thus saith the Lord to his anoynted Cyrus and God nameth him neere a hundreth yeare before he was borne Esay 44. 28. He is my shepheard Daniel 2. 19 20. 17. 24. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will Dan. 5. 8. and p. 37. Empires Kingdomes Royalties are not
if they break this Law But this maketh not the King greater then the Law for therefore do Rulers put the stamp of relation to punishment on the Law because there is intrinsecall worth in the Law Prior to the Act of the will of Law-givers for which it meriteth to be inacted and therefore because it is authorizable as good and just the King puteth on it this stamp of a Politique Law God formeth Being and morall Aptitude to the end in all Laws to wit the safetie of the people and the Kings will is neither the measure nor the cause of the goodnesse of things 2. If the King be he who maketh the Law good and just because he is more such himself then as the Law cannot crook and erre nor sin neither can the King sin nor break a Law This is blasphemy Every man is a lyer a Law which deserveth the name of a Law cannot lie 3. His ground is That there is such majesty in Kings that their will must be done either in us or on us A great untruth Achabs will must neither be done of Elias for he commandeth things unjust nor yet on Elias for Elias fled and lawfully we may slie Tyrants and so Achabs will in killing Elias was not done on him Assert 2. Nor can it be made good that the King only hath power of making Lawes because his power were then absolute to inflict penalties on Subjects without any consent of theirs and that were a dominion of Masters who command what they please and under what paine they please And the people consenting to be ruled by such a man they tacitely consent to penaltie of laws because naturall reason saith An ill-doer should be punished Florianus in l. inde Vasquez l. 2. c. 55. n. 3. Therefore they must have some power in making these lawes 2. Jer. 26. It is cleare The Princes judge with the people A nomothetick power differeth gradually only from a judiciall power both being collarerall meanes to the end of Government the peoples safetie But Parliaments judge ergo they have a nomothetick power with the King 3. The Parliament giveth all supremacie to the King ergo to prevent Tyrannie it must keep a coordinate power with the King in the highest acts 4. If the Kingly line be interrupted if the King be a Childe or a Captive they make Lawes who make Kings Ergo this nomothetick power recurreth into the States as to the first subject Obj. The King is the fountaine of the law and Subjects cannot make Lawes to themselves more then they can punish themselves He is only the Supreme Answ The People being the fountaine of the King must rather be the fountaine of Lawes 2. It is false that no man maketh lawes to himselfe Those who teach others teach themselves also 1 Tim. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. though Teaching be an act of authoritie But they agree to the penaltie of the Law secondarily only and so doth the King who as a father doth not will evill of punishment to his children but by a consequent will 3. The King is the only Supreme in the power ministeriall of executing lawes but this is a derived power so as no one man is above him but in the fountaine-power of Royaltie the States are above him 5. The Civil law is cleare that the laws of the Emperor have force only from this fountaine because the People have transferred their power to the King Lib. 1. digest tit 4. de constit Princip leg 1. sic Vlpian Quod Principi placuit loquitur de Principe formaliter qua Princeps est non qua est homo legis habet vigorem utpote cum lege Regia quae de imperio ejus lata est populus â—i in eum omne suum imperium potestatem conferat Yea the Emperour himselfe may be conveened before the Prince Elector Aurea Bulla Carol. 4. Imper c. 5. The King of France may be conveened before the Senate of Paris The States may resist a Tyrant as Bossius saith de Principe privileg ejus n. 55. Paris de puteo in tract syno tit de excess Reg. c. 3. Divines acknowledge that Elias rebuked the halting of Israel betwixt God and Baal that their Princes permitted Baals Priests to converse with the King And is not this the sinne of the Land that they suffer their King to worship Idols and therefore the Land is punished for the sinnes of Manasseh as Knox observeth in his Dispute with Lethington where he proveth that the States of Scotland should not permit the Queen of Scotland to have her abominable Masse Hist of Scotland l. 4. p. 379. edit an 1644. Surely the power or Sea-Prerogative of a sleepie or mad Pilot to split the ship on a rock as I conceive is limited by the Passengers Suppose a father in a distemper would set his own house on fire and burne himselfe and his ten sonnes I conceive his Fatherly prerogative which neither God nor Nature gave should not be looked to in this but they may binde him Yea Althusius polit c. 39. n. 60. answering that That in Democracie the people cannot both command and obey saith It is true secundum idem ad idem eodem tempore But the people may saith he choose Magistrates by succession Yea I say 1. they may change Rulers yearely to remove envie A yearely King were more dangerous the King being almost above envie Men incline more to flatter then to envie Kings 2. Aristotle saith polit l. 4. c. 4. l. 6. c. 2. The people may give their judgement of the wisest Obj. Williams B. of Ossorie Vindic. Reg. A Looking-glasse for Rebels saith p. 64. To say the King is better than any one doth not prove him to be better then two and if his supremacie be no more then any other may challenge as much for the Prince is singulis major A Lord is above all Knights a Knight above all Esquires and so the People have placed a King under them not above them Ans The reason is not alike for all the Knights united cannot make one Lord and all the Esquires united cannot make one Knight but all the People united made David King at Hebron 2. The King is above the people by eminencie of derived authoritie as a Watchman and in actuall supremacie and he is inferior to them in fountaine-power as the effect to the cause Object 2. The Parliament saith Williams may not command the King Why then make they supplications to him if their Vote be a Law Ans They supplicate ex decentia of decencie and conveniencie for his place as a Citie doth supplicate a Lord Major but they supplicate not ex debito of obligation as beggars seeke almes then should they be cyphers 2. When a Subject oppressed supplicateth his Soveraigne for justice the King is obliged by office to give justice And to heare the oppressed is not an act of grace and mercie as to give
Apostles have used this rod of censure and rebuke as servants under God against Kings this is a sort of spirituall coaction of Lawes put in execution by men and by due proportion corporall coaction being the same ordinance of God though of another nature must have the like power over all whom the Law of God hath not excepted but Gods Law excepteth none at all 3. It is presumed that God hath not provided better for the safety of the part then of the whole especially when he maketh the part a meane for the safety of the whole But if God have provided that the King who is a part of the Common-wealth shall be free of all punishment though he be a habituall destroyer of the whole Kingdome seeing God hath given him to be a Father Tutor Saviour Defender thereof and destinated him as a meane for their safety then must God have worse not better provided for the safety of the whole then of the part The Proposition is cleare in that God Rom. 13. 4. 1 Tim. 2. 2. hath ordained the Ruler and given to him the sword to defend the whole Kingdome and City but we read no where that the Lord hath given the sword to the whole Kingdome to defend one man a King though a Ruler come going on in a Tyrannicall way of destroying all his subjects The assumption is evident for then the King turning Tyrant might set an Army of Turkes Jewes cruell Papists to destroy the Church of God without all feare of Law or punishment Yea this is contrary to the doctrine of Royalists for Winzetus adversus Buchananum p. 275. saith of Nero that he seeking to destroy the Senate and people of Rome and seeking to make new lawes for himselfe excidit jure Regni lost right to the Kingdome And Barclaiâ—s advers Monarcho-Machous l. 3. c. ult p. 212 213. saith A Tyrant such as Caligula spoliare se jure Regni spoileth himselfe of the right to the Crown And in that same place Regem si regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit regno cadere If the King sell his Kingdome he loseth the title to the Crown Grotius de jure belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7 Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur amittit regnum If he turne Enemie to the Kingdome for their destruction he loseth his Kingdome because saith he Voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi simul consistere non possunt A will or minde to governe and to destroy cannot consist together in one Now if this be true that a King turning Tyrant loseth title to the Crown this is either a falling from his Royall title only in Gods court or it is a losing of it before men and in the court of his Subjects If the former be said 1. He is no King having before God lost his Royall title and yet the people is to obey him as the Minister of God and a power from God when as he is no such thing 2. In vaine doe these Authors provide remedies to save the people from a Tyrannous waster of the people if they speake of a Tyrant who is no King in Gods court only and yet remaineth a King to the people in regard of the Law for the places speake of Remedies that God hath provided against Tyrants cum titulo such as are lawfull Kings but turn Tyrants Now by this they provide no remedie at all if only in Gods court and not in Mans court also a Tyrant lose his title As for Tyrants sine titulo such as usurpe the throne and have no just claime to it Barclaius adver Monarcho-Ma l. 4. c. 10. p. 268. saith Any private man may kill him as a publike enemie of the State but if he lose his title to the Crown in the court of Men then is there 1. a Court on Earth to judge the King and so he is under the coactive power of a Law 2. Then a King may be resisted and yet those who resist them doe not incurre damnation the contrary where of Royalists endeavour to prove from Rom. 13. 3. Then the people may un-king one who was a King But 4. I would know who taketh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from him whereby he is a King that beame of Divine majestie Not the people because Royalists say they neither can give nor take away Royall dignitie and so they cannot un-king him 4. The more Will be in the consent saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 1. c. 41. the obligation is the stricter So doubled words saith the Law l. 1. § 13. n. 13. oblige more strictly And all lawes of Kings who are rationall fathers and so lead us by Lawes as by rationall meanes to peace and externall happinesse are contracts of King and People Omnis lex sponsio contractus Reip. § 1. Iust de ver relig Now the King at his Coronation-covenant with the people giveth a most intense consent an Oath to be a keeper and preserver of all good Laws and so hardly he can be freed from the strictest obligation that Law can impose And if he keep Lawes by office he is a meane to preserve Lawes and no meane can bee superior and above the end but inferior thereunto 5. Bodine proveth de Rep. l. 2. c. 5. p. 221. that Emperors at first were but Princes of the Commonwealth and that Soveraigntie remained still in the Senate and people Marius Salomonius a learned Romane Civilian wrote sixe bookes de Principatu to refute the supremacie of Emperors above the State Ferd. Vasq illust quest part 1. l. 1. n. 21. proveth that the Prince by Royall dignitie leaveth not off to be a Citizen a member of the Politique body and not a King but a Keeper of Lawes Hence 6. The Prince remaineth even being a Prince a sociall creature a Man as well as a King one who must buy sell promise contract dispose Ergo he is not Regula regulans but under rule of law for impossible it is if the King can in a politicall way live as a member of societie and doe and performe acts of policie and so performe them as he may by his office buy and not pay promise and vow and sweare to men and not performe nor be obliged to men to render a reckoning of his Oath and kill and destroy and yet in Curia politicae societatis in the Court of humane policie be free and that he may give inheritances as just rewards of vertue and well-doing and take them away againe Yea seeing these sinnes that are not punishable before men are not sinnes before men If all the sinnes and oppressions of a Prince be so above the punishment that men can inflict they are not sinnes before men by which meanes the King is loosed from all guiltinesse of the sinnes against the Second Table for the ratio formalis the formall reason why the Iudge by warrant from God condemneth in the Court of men the guilty man is
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
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
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