morall hurt and losse of Religion Assert 3. The King is more properly a sort of Patron to defend the people and therefore hath no power given either by God or man to hurt the people and a Minister or publick and honourable servant Rom. 13.4 for he is the Minister of God to thee for good he is the Common-wealths servant objectively because all the Kings service as he is King is for the good safety peace and salvation of the people and in this he is a servant 2. He is the servant of the people Representatively in that the people hath impawned in his hand all their power to doe Royall service Obj. He is the servant of God ergo he is not the peoples Servant but their soveraigne Lord. Ans. It followeth not because all the service the King as King performeth to God they are acts of Royalty and acts of Royall service as terminated on the people or acts of their Soveraigne Lord and this proveth that to be their Soveraigne is to be their servant and watch-man Object 2. God maketh a King only and the Kingly power is in him only not in the people Ans. The Royall power is only from God immediatly Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum a Deo solitudine primae causae by the immediation of simple constitution none but God appointed there should be Kings but 2. Royall power is not in God nor only from God immediatione applicationis regia dignitatis ad personam nec a Deo solum solitudine causae applicantis dignitatem huic non illi in respect of the applying of Royall dignity to this person not to this Object 3. Though Royall power were given to the people it is not given to the people as if it were the Royal power of the people and not the Royall power of God neither is it any other waies bestowed on the people but as on a beame a channell an instrument by which it is derived to others and so the King is not the minister or servant of the people Ans. It is not in the people as in the principall cause Sure all Royall power that way is only in God but it is in the people as in the instrument and when the people maketh David their King at Hebron in that same very act God by the people using their free suffrages and consent maketh David King at Hebron so God only giveth raine and none of the vanities and supposed gods of the Gentiles can give raine Ier. 14 22. and yet the Clouds also give raine as nature as an organ and vessell out of which God powreth down raine upon the dry earth Amos 9.6 and every instrument under God that is properly an instrument is a sort of Vicarious cause in Gods room and so the people as in Gods roome applyeth Royall power to David not to any of Sauls sonnes and appointeth David to be their Royall Servant to governe and in that to serve God and to doe that which a Communitie now in the state of sinne cannot formally doe themselves and so I see not how it is a service to the people not only objectively because the Kings Royall service tendeth to the good and peace and safety of the people but also subjectively in regard he hath his power and Royall authoritie which he exerciseth as King from the people under God as Gods instruments and therefore the King and Parliament give out Lawes and Statutes in the name of the whole people of the Land And they are but flatterers and belye the Holy Ghost who teach that the people doe not make the King for Israel made Saul King at Mizpeh and Israel made David King at Hebron Object 3. Israel made David King that is Israel designed Davids person to be King and Israel consented to Gods act of making David King but they did not make David King Ans. I say not that Israel made the Royall dignitie of Kings God Deut. 17. instituted that himselfe buâ— the Royalist must give us an act of God going before an act of the peoples making David King at Hebron by which David of no King is made formally a King and then another act of the People approving only and consenting to that act of God whereby David is made formally of no King to be a King This Royalists shall never instruct for there be only two acts of God here 1. Gods act of annointing David by the hand of Samuel and 2. Gods act of making David King at Hebron and a third they shall never give But the former is not that by which David was essentially and formally changed from the state of a private subject and no King into the state of a publike Judge and supreme Lord and King for as I have proved after this act of annointing of David King he was designed only and set apart to be King in the Lords fit time and after this annointing he was no more formally a King then Doeg or Nabal were Kings but a subject who called Saul the Lords annointed and King and obeyed Saul as another subjâ—ct doth his King but it is certaine God by no other act made David King at Hebron then by Israels act of free electing him to be King and leader of the Lords people as God by no other act sendeth down rain on the earth but by Gods melting the clouds and causing raine to fall on the earth and therefore to say Israel made David King at Hebron that is Israel approved only and consented to a prior act of Gods making David King is all one as to say Saul prophecied that is Saul consented to a prior act of the Spirit of God who prophecied and Peter preached Act. 2. that is Peter approved and consented to the Holy Ghosts act of preaching Which to say is childish Assert 4. The King is an head of the Commonwealth only metaphorically by a borrowed speech in a politique sense because he ruleth commandeth directeth the whole politique body in all their operations and functions But he is not univocally and essentially the head of the Commonwealth 1. The same very life in number that is in the head is in the members there be divers distinct soules and lives in the King and in his Subjects 2. The head naturall is not made an head by the free election and consent of armes shoulders leggs toes fingers c. The King is made King only by the free election of his people 3. The naturall head so long as the person liveth is ever the head and cannot cease to be a head while it is seated on the shoulders The King if he sell his people their persons and soules may leave off to be a King and Head 4. The head and members live together and dye together the King the people are not so the King may dye and the People live 5. The naturall head cannot destroy the members and preserve it selfe but King Nero may waste and destroy his people
Sam. 9.17 1 Sam. 10.1 we have not Saul elected and constituted king and Samuel did obeysance to him and kissed him for the honor Royall which God was to put upon him for before this propheticall unction 1 Sam. 9.22 he made him sit in the chiefe place and honored him as king when as yet Samuel was materially King and the Lords Vicegerent in Israel If then the Prelate conclude any thing from Samuel his doing reverence and obeysance to him as King it shall follow that Saul was formally King before Samuel 1 Sam. 10.1 anointed him and kissd him and that must be before he he was formally King otherwise he was in Gods appointment King before ever he saw Samuels face and it is true he ascribeth honour to him as to one appointed by God to be supreame Soveraigne for that which he should be not for that which he was as c. 9.22 he set him in the chiefest place and therefore it is false that we have Sauls election and constitution to be King 1 Sam. 10. for after that time the people are rebuked for seeking a King and that with a purpose to disswade them from it as a sinfull desire and he is chosen by Lots after that and made King after Samuels anoynting of him he was a private man and did hide himselfe amongst the stuffe v. 22.3 The Prelate if of ignorance or wilfully I know not saith the expression and phrase is the same 1 Sam. 12.13 and Ps. 2.6 which is false for 1 Sam. 12.13 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold the Lord hath given you a King such is the expression Hos. 13.11 I gave them a King in my wrath but that expression is not Psal. 2.6 but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I have established him my King and though it were the same expression it followeth not that the people have not hand any other way in appointing Christ their head though that phrase also be in the word Hos. 1. v. 11. then by consenting and beleeving in him as King but this proveth not that the people in appointing a King hath no hand but naked approbation for the same phrase doth not expresse the same action nay the Iudges are to kisse Christ Ps. 2.12 the same way and by the same action that Samuel kissed Saul 1 Sam. 10.1 and the Idolaters kissed the calves Hos. 13.2 for the same Hebrew word is used in all the three places and yet it is certaine the first kissing is spirituall the second a kisse of honour and the third an Idolatrous kissing 4. The anoynting of Saul cannot be a leading rule to the making of all Kings to the worlds end for the P. Prelate forgetting himselfe said that onely some few as Moses Saul and David c. by extraordinary manifestation from Heaven were made Kings pa. 19.5 he saith it was not Arbitrary for the people to admit or reject Saul so designed What meaneth he it was not morally arbitrary because they were under a law Deut. 17.14 15. to make him King whom the Lord should choose That is true but was it not arbitrary to them to breake a law Physically I think he who is a professed Arminian will not side with Manicheans and Fatalists so but the P. Prelate must prove it was not Arbitrary either Morally or Physically to them not to accept Saul as their King because they had no action at all in the making of a King God did it all both by constituting and designing the King why then did God Deut. 17. give a Law to them to make such a man King not such a man if it was not in their free wil to have any action or hand in the making of a King at all but that some sonnes of Belial would not accept him as their King is expresly said 1 Sam. 10.27 and how did Israel conspire with Absolom to unking and dethronâ— David whom the Lord had made King If the Prelate meane it was not Arbitrary to them physically to reject Saul he speaketh wonders the sonnes of Belial did reject him ergo they had physicall power to doe it If he meane it was not arbitrary that is it was not lawfull to them to reject him that is true but doth it follow they had no hand nor action in making Saul King because it was not lawfull for them to make a King in a sinfull way and to refuse him whom God chose to be King then see what I inferre 1. Then they had no hand in obeying him as King because they sinne in obeying unlawfull commandements against Gods Law and so they had no hand in approving and consenting he should be King the contrary whereof the P. Prelate saith 2. So might the P. Prelate prove men are patientes and have no action in violating all the Commandements of God because it is not lawfull to them to violate any one Commandement 6 The Lord Deut. 17. vindicates this as proper and peculiar to himselfe to choose the person and to choose Saul What then ergo now the people choosing a King have no power to choose or name a man because God anoynted Saul and David by immediate manifestation of his Will to Samuel this consequence is nothing also it followeth in no wise that therefore the people made not Saul King 7. That the peoples approbation of a King is not necessary is Bellarmines and Papists saying and that the people chose their Ministers in the Apostolick Church not by a necessity of a divine Commandement but to conciliate love betwixt Pastor and people Papists hold that if the Pope make a â—â—pish King the head and King of Britaine against the peoples will yet is he their King 8. David was then King all the time that Saul presecuted him he sinned truely in not discharging the duty of a King onely because he wanted a ceremony the peoples approbation which the Prelate saith is required to the solemnity and pompe not to the necessity and truth and essence of a formall King So the Kings Coronation Oath and the peoples Oath must be Ceremonies and because the Prelate is perjured himselfe therefore perjury is but a ceremony also 9. The enthronization of Bishops is like the Kinging of the Pope the Apostles must spare Thrones while they come to Heaven Luk. 22.29 30. the P. Prelates with their head the Pope must be enthroned 10. The hereditary King he maketh a King before his Coronation and his Acts are as valid before as after his Coronation it might cost him his head to say that the Prince of Wales is now no lesse King of Britaine and his Acts Acts of Kingly Royalty no lesse then our Soveraigne is King of Britaine if Lawes and Parliaments had their owne vigour from royall Authority 11. I allow that Kings be as high as God hath placed them but that God said of all Kings I will make him my first borne c. Psalm 89.26 27. which is true of Solomon as the Type 2 Sam 7.
of mans redemption being more excellent then the raysing of Lazarus should have been done immediatly without the incarnation death and satisfaction of Christ for no act of God without himselfe is comparable to the worke of redemption 1 Pet. 1.11 12. Col. 1.18 19 20 21 22. and Gods lesse excellent workes as his creating of beasts and wormes should have been done mediatly and his creating of man immediatly P. P. They who execute the judgement of God must needs have the power to judge from God But Kings are Deputies in the exercises of the Iudgements of God ergo the proposition is proved How is it imaginable that God reconcileth the world by Ministers and saveth man by them 1 Cor. 5. 1 Tim. 4.16 except they receive a power so to doe from God the assumption is Deut. 1.17 1 Chro. 19.6 Let none say Moses and Iehosaphat speake of inferiour Iudges for that which the King doth to others he doth by himselfe also 5. The execution of the Kingly power is from God for the King is the Servant Angell Legat Minister of God Rom. 13.6 7. God properly and primarily is King and King of Kings and Lord of Lords 1 Tim. 6.15 Rev. 1.5.21.27.29.20 all Kings related to him are Kings equivocally and in resemblance and he the only King Ans. That which is in question is never concluded to wit that the King is both immediatly constituted and dâ—signed King by God onely and not by the mediation of the people for when God reconcileth and saveth men by Pastors he saveth them by the intervening action of men so he scourgeth his people by men as by his sword Psal. 17.14 and hand staffe and rod Esay 10.5 his hammer Doth it follow that God onely doth immediatly scourge his people and that wicked men have no more hand and action in scourging his people then the Prelate saith the people hâ—ve an hand in making a King and that is no hand at all by the Prelates way 2. We may borrow the Prelates argument inferiour Iudges execute the judgement of the Lord and not the judgement of the King ergo by the Prelates argument God doth only by immediate power execute judgement in them and the inferiour Iudges are not Gods ministers executing the judgement of the Lord. But the Conclusion is against all truth and so must the Prelates argument be And that inferiour Iudges are the immediate substitutes and deputies of God is hence proved and shall be hereafter made good if God will 3. God is properly King of Kings so is God properly causa causarum the cause of causes the life of lifes the joy of joyes What shall it then follow that he worketh nothing in the creatures by their mediation as causes Because God is light of lights doth he not enlighten the earth and aire by the mediation of the Sun then God communicateth not life mediately by generation he causeth not his Saints to rejoyce with joy unspeakable and glorious by the intervening mediation of the Word These are vaine consequences Soueraignty and all power and virtue is in God infinitely And what vertue and power of action is in the creatures as they are compared with God are in the creatures equivocally and in resemblance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opinion rather then really Hence it must follow 1. that second causes worke none at all no more then the people hath a hand or action in making the King and that is no hand at all as the Prelate saith And God only and immediately worketh all workes in the creatures because both the power of working and actuall working commeth from God and the creatures in all their working are Gods instruments and if the Prelate argue so frequently from power given of God to prove that actuall reigning is from God immediately Deut. 8.18 The Lord giveth the power to get wealth will it follow that Israel getteth no riches at all or that God doth not mediately by them and their industrie get them I thinke not P. Prelate 6 To whom can it be due to give the Kingly office but to him only who is able to give the indument and abilitie for the office now God only and immediately giveth abilitie to be a King as the Sacramentall anointing proveth Josh 3.10 Othniel is the first Judge after Joshua and it is said And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and and he judged Israel the like is said of Saul and David Ans. God gave royall indowments immediatly ergo he immediatly now maketh the King It followeth not for the species of government is not that which formally constituteth a King for then Nero Caligula Iulian should not have been Kings and those who come to the Crowne by conquest and blood are essentially Kings as the Prelate saith but be all these Othniels upon whom the spirit of the Lord commeth then they are not essentially Kings who are babes and children and foolish and destitute of the royall endowments but it is one thing to have a royall gift and another thing to be formally called to the Kingdome David had royall gifts after Samuel anoynted him but if you make him King before Sauls death Saul was both a traytor all the time that he persecuted David and so no King and also King and Gods anoynted as David acknowledgeth him and therefore that spirit that came on David and Saul maketh nothing against the peoples election of a King as the Spirit of God is given to Pastors under the new Testament as Christ promised but it will not follow that the designation of the man who is to be Pastor should not be from the Church and from men as the Prelate denyeth that either the constitution or designation of the King is from the people but from God onely 2. I beleeve the infusion of the spirit of God upon the Iudges will not prove that Kings are now both constituted and designed of God solely onely and immediatly for the Iudges were indeed immediatly and for the most part extraordinarily raised up of God and God indeed in the time of the Iewes was the King of Israel in another manner then he was the King of all the nations and is the King of Christian Realmes now and therefore the peoples despising of Samuel was a refusing that God should reigne over them because God in the Iudges revealed himselfe even in matters of Policy as what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day and the like as he doth not now to Kings P. Prelate Soveraigntie is a ray of divine glory and majestieâ— but this cannot be found in people whether you consider them joyntly or singly if you consider them singly it cannot be in every individuall man for Sectaries say That all are born equall with a like freedom and if it be not in the people singly it cannot be in them joyntly for all the contribution in this compact and contract which they fancie to be humane composition and voluntary
promulgated is their approbation and maketh them obligatory Lawes to them but if the people speak against unjust Lawes they are not Lawes at all and Buchannan knew the power of the Scottish Parliament better then this ignorant Statist 2. There is not like reason to grant so much to the King as to Parliaments because certainly Parliaments who make Kings under God or above any one man and they must have more authority and wisedome then any one King except Solomon as base flatterers say should returne to the thrones of the earth And as the power to make just Lawes is all in the Parliament only the people have power to resist tyrannicall Lawes the power of all the Parliament was never given to the King by God the Parliament are as essentially Iudges as the King and therefore the Kings deed may well be revoked because he acteth nothing as King but united with his great or lesser Councell no more then the eye can see being separated from the body The Peeres and Members of Parliament have more then the King because they have both their owne power being parts and speciall Members of the people and also they have their high places in Parliament either from the peoples expresse or tacite consent 3. We allow no Arbitrary power to the Parliament because their just Lawes are irrevocable for the irrevocable power of making just Lawes doth argue a legall not an irreovocable Arbitrary power nor is there any arbitrary power in the people or in any mortall man but of the Covenant betwixt King and people hereafter P. Prelate If Soveraigne power be habitually in the community so as they may resume it at their pleasure then nothing is given to the King but an empty title for at the same instant he receiveth Empire and Soveraignty and layeth downe the power to rule or determine in matters which concerne either private or publick good and so he is both a King and a Subject Ans. This naked consequence the Prelate sayeth and proveth not and we deny it and give this reason the King receiveth Royall power with the States to make good Lawes and 2. power by his royalty to execute those Lawes and this power the community hath devolved in the hands of the King and States of Parliament but the community keepeth to themselves a power to resist tyranny and to coerce it and â—atenus in so far is Saul subject that David is not to compeare before him nor to lay downe Goliahes sword nor disband his Army of defence though the King should command him so to doe P. Prelate By all Polititians Kings and enferiour Magistrates are differenced by their different specifice entity but by this they are not differenced nay a Magistrate is in a better condition then a King for the Magistrate is to judge by a knowne Statute and Law and cannot be censured and punished but by Law But the King is censurable yea disabled by the multitude yea the basest of subjects may cite and convent the King before the underived Majesty of the community and he may be judged by the Arbitrary Law thâ—t is in the closet of their heart not only for reall misdemeanour but for fancied jealousies It will be said good Kings are in no danger the contrary appeareth this day and ordinarily the best are in greatest danger no Government except Plato'es Republick wanteth incommodities subtile spirits may make them apprehend them The poore people bewitched follow Absolom in his treason they strike not at Royalty at first but labour to make the Prince naked of the good counsell of great Statesmen c. Ans. Whether the King and the under Magistrate differ essentially we shall see The P. Prelate saith all Polititians grant it but he saith untruth he bringeth Moses and the Iudges their power to prove the power of Kings and so either the Iudges of Israel and the Kings differ not essentially or then the Prelate must correct the spirit of God tearming one booke of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudges and make the booke of Kings the booke of Iudges 2. The Magistrates condition is not better then the Kings because the Magistrate is to judge by an knowne Statute and Law and the King not so God moulded the first King Deut. 17.18 when he sitteth judging on his Throne to looke to a written Coppy of the Law of God as his rule Now a power to follow Gods Law is better then a power to follow mans sinfull will so the Prelate putteth the King in a worse condition then the Magistrate not we who will have the King to judge according to just statutes and lawes 3. Whether the King be censurable and deposable by the multitude he cannot determine out of our writings 4. The communities law is the law of nature not their arbitrary lust 5. The Prelates treasonable raylings I cannot follow he first saith that we agree not ten of us to a positive faith and that our faith is negative but his faith is Privative Popish Socinian Arminian Pelagian and worse for he was once of that same faith that we are of 2. Our Confession of Faith is positive as the confession of all the reformed Churches but I judge he thinketh the Protestant Faith of all the reformed Churches but negative 3. The incommodities of Government before our reformation were not fancied but printed by Authority all the body of Popery was printed and avowed as the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland and England as the learned Author and my much respected brother evidenceth in his Ludensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canterburian selfe conviction 4. The Parliament of England was never yet found guilty of Treason 5. The good Counsellers of great States-men that Parliaments of both Kingdomes would take from the Kings Majesty are a faction of perjured Papists Prelates Iesuites Irish cut-throates Strafords and Apostate subverters of all Lawes divine humane of God of Church of State P. Prelate In whom so ever this power of Government be it is the onely remedy to supply all defects and to set right what ever is disjoynted in Church and State and the subject of this super-intending power must be free from all errour in Iudgement and Practice and so we have a Pope in temporalibus and if the Parliament erre the people must take order with them else God hath left Church and State remedilesse Ans. This is stollen from Barclaius also 1. but the same Barclaius saith Si Rex regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit regno cadit If the King shall sell his Kingdome or inslave it to a forraigne power he falleth from all right to his Kingdome but who shall execute any such Law against him not the people not the Peeres not the Parliament for this Mancipium ventris aulae this slave saith p. 147. I know no power in any to punish or curbe Soveraignty but in Almighty God 2. We see no
body but as they transferre their power to the father 1. for their owne safetie and peace not if he use the power they give him to their destruction the same way they tye themselves to his first borne as to their King 2. As they chose the father not as a man but a man gifted with Royall grace and a Princely facultie for government so they can but tye themselves to his first borne as to one graced with a facultie of governing and if his first borne shall be borne an idiot and a foole they are not obliged to make him King for the obligation to the sonne can be no greater then the obligation to the father which first obligation is the ground measure and cause of all posterior obligations If Tutors be appointed to governe such an one the Tutors have the Royall power not the Idiot nor can he governe others who cannot governe himselfe That Kings goe not as heritage from the father to the sonne I prove 1. God Deut. 17. could not command them to choose such a one for the King and such a one who sitting on his throne shall follow the direction of God speaking in his word if birth were that which gave him Gods title and right to the Crowne for that were as much as such a man should be heire to his fathers inheritance and the sonne not heire to his fathers crown except he were such a man But God in all the Law morall or judiciall never required that the heire should be thus and thus qualified else he should not be heire but he requireth that a man and so that a familie should be thus and thus qualified else they should not be Kings and I confirme it thus The first King of divine institution must be the rule paterne and measure of all the rest of the Kings as Christ maketh the first Mariage Mat. 19.8 a paterne to all others and Paul reduceth the right administration of the Supper to Christs first institution 1 Cor. 11.23 now the first King Deut. 17.14 15. is not a man qualified by naked birth for then the Lord in describing the manner of the King and his due qualifications should seeke no other but this You shall choose onely the first borne or the lawfull sonne of the former King But seeing the King of Gods first moulding is a King by election and what God did after by promises and free grace give to David and his seed even a throne till the Mesiah should come and did promise to some Kings if they would walke in his Commandements that their sonnes and sonnes sonne should sit upon the Throne in my judgement is not an obliging Law that sole birth should be as just a title in foro Dei for I now dispute the question in point of conscience as royall unction 2. If by divine institution God have impawned in the peoples hand a subordinate power to the most High who giveth Kingdomes to whom he will to make and create Kings then is not sole birth a just title to the Crowne But the former is true both by precept Deut. 17.1 and God expresly saith Thou shalt choose him King whom the Lord shall choose And if it had not been the peoples power to create their own Kings how doth God after he had designed Saul their King yet expresly 1 Sam. 10. inspire Samuel 17. to call the people before the Lord at Mizpeh to make Saul King and how doth the Lord v. 22. expresly shew to Samuel and the people the man that they might make him King and because all consented not that Saul should be King God will have his Coronation renewed v. 14. Then said Samuel to the people Come and let us goe to Gilgall and renew the Kingdome there 15. And all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gilgall And how is it that David anoynted by God is yet no King but a private subject while all Israel make him King at Hebron 3. If royall birth be equivolent to royall unction and the best title and if birth speake and declare to us the Lords appointment and Will that the first born of a King should be King as M. Symmons and others say then is all title by conquest where the former King standeth in title to the Crowne and hath an Heire unlawfull But the latter is against all the nation of the Royalists for Arnisaeus Barclay Grotius Io. Roffensis Episco the Bishop of Spalato Dr. Ferne M. Symmons the excommunicate Prelat if his poore learning may bring him in the roll teach that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne I prove the Proposition 1. because if birth speake Gods revealed Will that the Heire of a King is the lawfull King then conquest cannot speake the contradicent Will of God that he is no lawfull King but the conquerour is the lawfull King Gods revealed Will should be contradictory to himselfe and birth should speake it is Gods Will that the Heire of the former King be King and the conquest being also Gods revealed Will should also speake that that Heire should not be King 2. If birth speake and reveale Gods Will that the Heire be King it is unlawfull for a conquered people to give their consent that a conquerour be their King For their consent being contrary to Gods revealed Will which is that birth is the just title must be an unlawfull consent If Royalists say God the King of Kings who immediately maketh Kings may and doth transferre Kingdomes to whom he will and when he putteth the sword in Nebuchadnezers hand to conquer the King and Kingdome of Iudah then Zedikiah or his sonne is not King of Iudah but Nebuchadnezer is King and God being above his Law speaketh in that case his Will by conquests as before he spake his Will by birth this is all can be said Ans. They answer black treason in saying so for if Ieremiah from the Lord had not commanded expresly that both the King and Kingdome of Judah should submit to the King of Babylon and serve him and pray for him as their lawfull King it had been as lawfull to them to rebell against that Tyrant as it was for them to fight against the Philistimes and the King of Ammon but if birth be the just and lawfull title in foro Dei in Gods Court and the only thing that evidenceth Gods Will without any election of the people that the first borne of such a King is their lawfull King then conquests cannot now speake a contrardictory Will of God for the question is not whether or not God giveth power to Tyrants to conquer Kingdomes from the just Heires of Kings which did raigne lawfully before their sword made an empty Throne But whether conquest now when Jeremiahs are not sent immediatly from God to command for example Britaine to submit to a violent intruder who hath expelled the lawfull Heires of the royall Line of the King of
King by vertue of his covenant How can he faile against an obligation where there is no obligation but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people and indeed so doe our good men expound that Psal. 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned not against Vriah for if he sinned not as King against Vriah whose life he was obliged to conserve as a King he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conserve his life Where there is no sin there is no obligation not to sin and where there is no obligation not to sin there is no sin By this the King as King is loosed from all duties of the second Table being once made a King he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himselfe for he is above all his neighbours and above all mankind and only lesse then God 4. Arg. If the people be so given to the King that they are committed to him as a pledge oppignorated in his hand as a pupill to a Tutor as a distressed man to a Patron as a flocke to a Shepheard and so as they remaine the Lords Church his people his flocke his portion his inheritance his vineyard his redeemed ones then they cannot be given to the King as Oxen and Sheepe that are freely gifted to a man or as a gift or summe of gold or silver that the man to whom they are given may use so that he cannot commit a fault against the oxen sheepe gold or mony that is given to him how ever he shall dispose of them But the people are given to the King to be tutored and protected of him so as they remaine the people of God and in covenant with him and if the people were the goods of fortune as Heathens say he could no more sinne against the people then a man can sin against his gold now though a man by adoring gold or by lavish profusion and wasting of gold may sin against God yet not against gold nor can he be in any covenant with gold or under any obligation of either duty or sin to gold or to livelesse and reasonlesse creatures properly therefore he may sin in the use of them and yet not sin against them but against God Hence of necessity the King must be under obligation to the Lords people in another manner then that he should only answer to God for the losse of men as if men were worldly goods under his hand and as if being a King he were now by this Royall Authority priviledged from the best halfe of the law of nature to wit from acts of mercy and truth and covenant keeping with his brethren 5. Arg. If a King because a King were priviledged from all covenant obligation to his subjects then could no Law of men lawfully reach him for any contract violated by him then he could not be a debtor to his subjects if he borrowed mony from them and it were utterly unlawfull either to crave him mony or to sue him at Law for debts yet our Civill Lawes of Scotland tyeth the King to pay his debts as any other man yea and King Solomons traffiquing and buying and selling betwixt him and his owne subjects would seeme unlawfull for how can a King buy and sell with his subjects if he be under no covenant obligation to men but to God only Yea then a King could not marry a wife for he could not come under a covenant to keepe his body to her only nor if he committed adultery could he sin against his wife because being immediate unto God and above all obligation to men he could sin against no covenant made with men but only against God 6. If that was a lawfull covenant made by Asa and the States of Iudah 2 Chron. 15.13 That whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of their fathers should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman this obligeth the King for ought I see and the Princes and the people but it was a lawfull covenant ergo the King is under a covenant to the Princes and Iudges as they are to him it is replyed If a Master of a Schoole should make a law whoever shall goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty obtained of the Master shall be whipped it will not oblige the Schoole-master that he shall be whipped if he goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty so neither doth this Law oblige the King the supreame Law-giver Ans. Suppose that the Schollars have no lesse hand and authority magisteriall in making the law then the Schoole-master as the Princes of Iudah had a collaterall power with King Asa about that law it would follow that the Schoole-master is under the same law 2. Suppose going out at Schoole doores were that way a morall neglect of studying in the Master as it is in the Scholars as the not seeking of God is as hainous a sinne in King Asa and no lesse deserving death then it is in the people then should the Law oblige Schoolmaster and Scholler both without exception 3. The Schoolemaster iâ— clearely above all lawes of discipline which he imposeth on his Scholars but none can say that King Asa was clearely above that law of seeking of the Lord God of his fathers Diodorus Siculus l. 17. saith the Kings of Persia were under an oath and that they might not change the Lawes and so were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia The Kings of Sparta which Aristotle calleth just Kings renew their oath every moneth Romulus so covenanted with the Senate and People Carolus V. Austriacus sweareth he shall not change the Lawes without the consent of the Electors nor make new lawes nor dispose or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire So read we Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped l. 8. saith there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Persians The nobles are crowned when they crown their King and exact a speciall Oath of the King So doth England Polonia Spaine Arragonia c. Alberi Gentilis Hug. Grotius prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people but notwithstanding there be such a covenant it followeth not from this saith Arnisaeus that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically the people shall be free and the contract or covenant nothing Ans. The covenant may be materially broken while the King remaineth King and the subjects remaine subjects but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken the people must be free from their Allegiance but of this more hereafter Arg. 7. If a Master bind himselfe by an Oath to his servant he shall not receive such a benefit of such a point of service if he violate the Oath his Oath must give his servant Law and right both to challenge his Master and he is freed from that point of service an Army appointeth such a one their Leader
superioritie in Rulers is not primely and only for the Subjects good for some are by God and Nature appointed for the mutuall and inseperable good of the superiour and inferiour as in the government of husband and wife or father and sonne and in herili dominio in the government of a Lord and his servant the good and benefit of the servant is but secondary and consecutively intended it is not the principall end but the externall and adventitious as the gaine that commeth to a Physitian is not the proper and internall end of his art but followeth only from his practice of Medicine Ans. The Prelates logick tendeth to this some government tendeth to the mutuall good of the superior and inferior but Royall Government is some government ergo nothing followeth from a major proposition Ex particulari affirmante in prima figura Or of two particular propositions 2. If it be thus formed every maritall government and every government of the Lord and servant is for the mutuall good of the superiour and inferiour But Royall Government is such ergo c. the assumption is false and cannot be proved as I shall anon cleare 2. Obj. Solomon disposed of Cabul and gave it to Hiram ergo a conquered Kingdome is for the good of the conquerour especially Ans. Solomons speciall giving away some Titles to the King of Tyre being a speciall fact of a Prophet as well as a King cannot warrant the King of England to sell England to a forraine Prince because William made England his owne by conquest which also is a most false supposition and this he stole from Hugo Grotius who condemneth selling of Kingdomes 3 Object A man may render himselfe totally under the power of a Master without any conditions and why may not the body of a people doe the like even to have peace and safety surrender themselves fully to the power of a King A lord of great Mannours may admit no man to live in his Lands but upon a condition of a full surrender of him and his posterity to that lord Tacitus sheweth us it was so anciently amongst the Germans and the Campanians surrendered themselves fully to the Romans Answ. What compelled people may do to redeem their lives with losse of liberty is nothing to the point such a violent Conquerour who will be a father and a husband to a people against their will is not their lawfull King and that they may sell the liberty of their posteritie not yet born is utterly denied as unlawfull yea a violentated father to me is a father and not a father and the posteritie may vindicate their own liberty given away unjustly before they were born Qua omne regnum vi partum potest vi dissolvi Object 4. But saith Doct. Fern these which are ours and given away to another in which there redoundeth to God by donation a speciall interest as in things devoted to holy uses though after they be abused yet we cannot recall them Ergo If the people be once forced to give away their liberty they cannot recall it far lesse if they willingly resign it to their Prince Answ. This is not true when the power is given for the conservation of the Kingdom and is abused for the destruction thereof for a power to destruction was never given nor can it by rationall nature be given 2. Mortifications given to religious uses by a positive law may be recalled by a more divine and stronger law of nature such as is this I will have mercy and not sacrifice Suppose David of his own proper heritage had given the Shew-bread to the Priests yet when David and his men are famishing he may take it back from them against their will Suppose Christ man had bought the Corns and dedicated them to the Altar yet might he and his Disciples eat the Ears of Corn in their hunger The vessels of silver dedicated to the Church may be taken and bestowed on wounded Souldiers 2. A people free may not and ought not totally surrender their liberty to a Prince confiding on his goodnesse 1. Because liberty is a condition of nature that all men are born with and they are not to give it away no not to a King except in part and for the better that they may have peace and justice for it which is better for them hic nunc 2. If a people trusting in the goodnesse of their Prince inslave themselves to him and he shall after turn Tyrant a rash and temerarious surrender obligeth not Et ignorantia facit factum quasi involuntarium Ignorance maketh the fact some way unvoluntary for if the people had beleeved that a meek King would have turned a roaring Lyon they should not have resigned their liberty into his hand and therefore the surrender was tacitely conditionall to the King as meek or whom they beleeved to be meek and not to a tyrannous Lord and therefore when the contract is made for the utilitie of the one party the law saith their place is for after wits that men may change their minde and resume their liberty though if they had given away their liberty for money they cannot recall it and if violence made the surrender of liberty here is slavery and slaves taken in war so soon as they can escape and return to their own they are free D. Sect. item ea Justit de rerum divin l. nihil F. de capt l. 3. So the learned Ferdin Vasquez illustri l. 2. c. 82. n. 15. saith The bird that was taken and hath escaped is free nature in a forced people so soon as they can escape from a violent Conqueror maketh them a free people and si solo tempore saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 2. c. 82. n. 6. justificatur subjectio solo tempore facilius justificabitur liberatio Assert 20. All the Goods of the Subjects belongeth not to the King I presuppose that the division of Goods doth not necessarily slow from the law of nature for God made man before the fall Lord of the creatures indefinitely but what Goods be Peters and not Pauls we know not But supposing mans sin though the light of the Sun and Air be common to all and religious places be proper to none yet it is morally unpossible that there should not be a distinction of meum tuum mine and thine and the decalogue forbidding theft and coveting the wife of another man yet is she the wife of Peter not of Thomas by free election not by an act of natures law doth evidence to us that the division of things is so far forth men now being in the state of sin of the law of nature that it hath evident ground in the Law of nations and thus farre naturall that the heat that I have from my own coat and cloak and the nourishment from my own meat are physically incommunicable to any But I hasten to prove the Proposition If 1. I have leave to premit that in time
to resist either is to resist the ordinance of God v. 2. both are by Office a terrour to evill workes v. 3. 3. both are the Ministers of God for good 2. Though the King send and give a call to the inferiour Iudge that doth no more make the inferiour Iudges powers in nature and spece different then Ministers of the Word called by Ministers of the Word have Offices different in nature Timotheus Office to be Preacher of the Word differeth not in specie from the Office of the Presbytery which layed hands on him though their Office by extension be more then Timothies Office 3. The peoples power is put forth in those same acts when they choose one to be their King and supreame Governour and when they set up an Aristocraticall Government and choose many or more then one to be their Governours for the formall object of one or many Governours is Iustice and Religion as they are to be advanced 2. The forme and manner of their opperation is brachio seculari by a coactive power and by the sword 3. The formall acts of King and many Iudges in Aristocracy are these same the defending of the poore and needy from violence the conservation of a Community in a peaceable and a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2 Iob 29.12 13. Esay 1.17 4. These same Lawes of God that regulateth the King in all His Acts of Royall Government and tyeth and obligeth his conscience as the Lords Deputy to execute Iudgement for God and not in the stead of men in Gods Court of Heaven doth in like manner tye and oblige the conscience of Aristocraticall Iudges and all inferiour Iudges as is cleare and evident by these places 1 Tim. 2.2 not only Kings but all in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are obliged to procure that their subjects leade a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty All in conscience are obliged Deut. 1.16 to judge righteously between every man and his brother and the stranger that is with them 17. Neither are they to respect persons in judgement but are to heare the small as well as the great nor to be affraid of the face of men the judgement administred by all is Gods 2. Chro. 19.6 All are obliged to feare God Deut. 17.19.20 to keepe the words of the Law not to be lifted up in heart above their brethren Esay 1.17 Ier. 22.2 3. Let any man show me a difference according to Gods Word but in the extention that what the King is to doe as a King in all the Kingdome and whole Dominions if God give to him many as he gave to David and Solomon and Ioshua that the inferiour Iudges are to doe in such and such Circuits and limited places and I quit the cause so as the inferiour Iudges are little Kings and the King a great and delated Iudge as a compressed hand or fist and the hand stretched out in fingers and thumbe are one hand so here 4. God owneth inferiour Iudges as a congregation of Gods Ps. 82.1.2 for that God sitteth in a congregation or Senate of Kings or Monarches I shall not beleeve till I see Royalists shew to me a Common-wealth of Monarches convening in one Iudicature all are equally called Gods Ioh. 10.35 Exod. 22.8 if for any cause but because all Iudges even inferiour are the immediate Deputies of the King of Kings and their sentence in Iudgement as the sentence of the Iudge of all the earth I shall be informed by the P. Prelate when he shall answer my reasons if his interdicted Lordship may cast an eye to a poore Presbyter below and as wisedome is that by which Kings raigne Prov. 8.15 so also v. 16. by which Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth all that is said against this is That the King hath a Prerogative Royall by which he is differenced from all Iudges in Israel called jus regis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for saith Barclay The King as King essentially hath a Domination and power above all so as none can câ—nsure him or punish him but God because â—here be no thrones above his but the throne of God The Iudges of Israel 〈◊〉 Samuel Gedeon c. had no domination the dominion was in Gods hand 2. Wee may resist an inferior Iudge saith Arnisaeus otherwise there were no appeale from him and the wrong we suffer were irreparable as saith Marantius And all the Iudges of the earth saith Edw. Symmons are from God more remotely namely mediante Rege by the mediation of the Supreame even as the lesser starres have their light from God by the mediation of the Sun To the first I answer There was a difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and their Iudges no question but if it be an essentiall difference it is a question for 1. The Iudges were raised up in an extraordinary manner out of any Tribe to defend the people and vindicate their libertie God remaining their King the King by the Lords appointment was tyed after Saul to the Royall tribe of Judah till the Messiahs comming God tooke his own blessed libertie to set up a succession in the ten tribes 2. The Iudges were not by succession from father to sonne the Kings were as I conceive for the typicall eternitie of the Messiahs throne presignified to stand from generation to generation 3. Whether the Iudges were appointed by the election of the people or no some doubt because Iepthah was so made Iudge but I thinke it was not a law in Israel that it should be so but the first mould of a King Deut. 17. is by election But that God gave power of domineering that is of Tyrannizing to a King so as he cannot be resisted which he gave not to a Iudge I thinke no Scripture can make good For by what Scripture can Royalists warrant to us that the people might rise in armes to defend themselves against Moses Gideon Eli Samuel and other Iudges if they should have tyrannized over the people and that it is unlawfull to resist the most Tyrannous King in Israel and Iudah Yet Barclay and others must say this if they be true to that principle of Tyranny That the jus Regis the law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. 1 Sam. 10.25 doth essentially difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and the Iudges of Israel but we thinke God gave never any power of Tyranny to either Iudge or King of Israel and domination in that sense was by God given to none of them 2. Arnisaeus hath as little for him to say the inferior Magistrate may be resisted because we may appeale from him but the King cannot be resisted quia sanctitas Majestatis id non permittit the sanctitie of Royall majestie will not permit us to resist the King Ans. That is not Pauls argument to prove it unlawfull to resist Kings as Kings and doing their office because of the sanctitie of their Majestie that is as the
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 let 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 Majâ—stie 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 Exodus 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 effusion 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
Ambrose Sermo 16. in Psal. 118. Gregorius and Augusti Ioan. 8. saith he meaneth no man durst judge or punish him but God only Lorinus the Iesuit observeth eleven interpretatioÌ„s of the Fathers all to this sense since Lyra saith he sinned only against God because God only could pardon him Hugo Cardinalis because God only could wash him which he asketh in the Text. And Lorin Solo Deo conscio peccavi But the simple meaning is Against thee only have I sinned as my eye witnesse and imediate beholder and therfore he addeth and have done this evill in thy sight 2. Against thee only as my Iudge that thou maist be justified when thou judgest as cleare from all unrighteousnesse when thou shalt send the sword on my house 3. Against thee O Lord only who canst wash me and pardon me v. 1 2. And if this thee only exclude all together Vriah Bathsheba and the Law of the Iudges as if he had sinned against none of these in their kind then is the King because a King free not only from a punishing Law of man but from the duties of the second Table simply and so a King cannot be under the best and largest halfe of the Law Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe 2. He shall not need to say Forgive us our sinnes as we forgive them that sin against us for there is no reason from the nature of sin and the nature of the Law of God why we can say more the subjects and sonnes sin against the King and Father then to say the Father and King sin against the sonnes and subjects 3. By this the King killing his Father Iesse should sin against God but not breake the fift Command nor sinne against his father 4. God should in vaine forbid fathers to provoke their children to wrath 1. And Kings to doe unjustice to their subjects because by this the superiour cannot sinne against the inferiour for as much as Kings can sin against none but those who have power to judge and punish them but God only and no inferiours and no subjects have power to punish the Kings therefore Kings can sin against none of their subjects and where there is no sin how can there be a Law neither Major or Minor can be denyed by Royalists 2. We acknowledge Tyraâ—ny must only unking a Prince The Prelate denyeth it but he is a green Statist Barclay Grotius Winzetus as I have proved granteth it 3. He will excuse Nero as of infirmity wishing all Rome to have one necke that he may cut it off And is that charitable of Kings that they will not be so mad as to destroy their owne Kingdome But when Stories teach us there have been more Tyrants then Kings the Kings are more obliged to him for flattery then for State-wit except we say that all Kings who eate the people of God as they doe bread owe him little for making them all madde and franticke 4. But let them be Nero's and madde and worse there is no coercing of them but all must give their neckes to the sword if the poore Prelate be heard and yet Kings cannot be so madde as to destroy their subjects Mary of England was that madde the Romish Princes who have given Revel 17.13 their power and strength to the beast and doe make warre with the Lambe and Kings inspired with the spirit of the beast and drunke with the wine of the Cup of Babells fornications are so madde and the ten Emperours are so madde who wasted their faithfullest subjects P. Prelate If there be such a power in the Peeres resumable in the exâ—gent of necessity as the last necessary remedy for safety of Church and State God and nature not being deficient in things necessary it must be proved out of the Scripture and not taken on trust for Affirmanti incumbit probatio Ans. Mr. Bishop what better is your Affirmanti incumbit c then mine for you are the affirmer I can prove a power in the King limited onely to feed governe and save the people and you affirme that God hath given to the King not only a power officiall and Royall to save but also to destroy and cut off so as no man may say Why doest thou this Shall we take this upon the word of an excommunicated Prelate Profer tabulas Iohn P. P. I beleeve you not Royall power is Deut. 17.18 Rom. 3.14 I am sure there is there a power given to the King to doe good and that from God Let John P.P. prove a power to doe ill given of God to the King 2. We shall quickly prove that the States may represse this power and punish the Tyrant not the King when he shall prove that a Tyrannous power is an Ordinance of God and so may not be resisted For the law of Nature teacheth If â— give my sword to my fellow to defend me from the murtherer if he shall fall to and murther me with my own sword I may if I have strength take my sword from him Prelate It is infidelitie to thinke that God cannot helpe us and impatience that we will not wait on God When a King oppresseth us it is against Gods wisdome that he hath not provided another meane for our safetie than intrusion on Gods right 2. It is against Gods power 3. his Holinesse 4. Christian Religion that we necessitate God to so weake a meane to make use of sinne and we cast the aspersion of Treason on Religion and deterre Kings to professe Reformed Catholike Religion 5. We are not to justle God out of his right Ans. I see nothing but what D. Ferne Grotius Barclay Blackwood have said before with some colour of proving the consequence The P. Prelate giveth us other mens arguments but without bones All were good if the States coercing and curbing a power which God never gave to the King were a sinne and an act of impatience and unbelief And if it were proper to God only by his immediate hand to coerce Tyrannie 2. He calleth it not Protestant Religion either here or elsewhere but cautelously giveth a name that will agree to the Roman Catholique Religion For the Dominicans Franciscans and the Parisian Doctors and Schoolemen following Occham Gerson Almaâ—â— and other Papists call themselves Reformed Catholiques 2. He layeth this for a ground in 3 or 4 pages where these same Arguments are againe and againe repeated in terminis as his second Reason p. 149. was handled ad nauseam p. 148. his 3. Reason is repeated in his 6. Reason p. 151. He layeth I say down this ground which is the begged Conclusion and maketh the Conclusion the Assumption in 8 raw and often repeated Arguments to wit That the Parliaments coercing and restraining of Arbitrarie power is rebellion and resisting the Ordinance of God But he dare not looke the place Rom. 13. on the face other Royalists have done it with bad successe This I desire to be weighed and I retort the Prelates argument But it is
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 toto 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 the 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 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 provâ— 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
against unjust violence but not any way he pleaseth The first way is by supplications and apologies he may not presently use violence to the Kings servants before he supplicate nor may he use re-offending if flight may save David used all the three in order 1. He made his defence by words by the mediation of Ionathan when that prevailed not he tooke himselfe to flight as the next but because he knew flight was not safe every way and nature taught him self-preservation and reason and light of grace taught him the meanes and the religious order of these meanes for self-preservation Therefore he addeth a third He took Goliahs sword and gathered six hundred armed men and after that made use of an hoast Now a sword and armour are not horsing and shipping for flight but contrary to flight so re-offending is Policies last refuge A godly magistrate taketh not away the life of a subject if other means can compasse the end of the Law and so he is compelled and necessitated to take away the life so the private man in his naturall self-defence not to use re-action or violent re-offending in his self-defence against any man farre lesse against the servants of a King but in the exigence of the last and most inexorable necessity And it is true that M. Symmons saith Sect. 11. pag. 35. Self-defence is not to be used where it cannot be without sinne It is certaine Necessity is but a hungry plea for sinne Luke 14.18 but it is also true re-offending comparatively that I kill rather then I be killed in the sinlesse Court of Natures spotlesse and harmelesse necessity is lawfull and necessary except I be guilty of self-murdâ—r in the culpable omission of sâ—lf-defence Now a private man may flie and that is his second necessity and violâ—nt re-offending is the third meane of self-preservation But with leave violent re-offending is necessary to a private man when his second meane to wit flight is not possible and cannot attaine the end as in the case of David if flight doe not prevaile Goliahs sword and an host of armed men are lawfull So to a Church and a community of Protestants men women aged sucking children sick and diseased who are pressed either to be killed or forsake Religion and Jesus Christ flight is not the second meane nor a meane at all because 1. not possible and therefore not a naturall meane of preservation For 1. the aged the sick the sucking infants and sound Religion in the posteritie cannot flee flight here is physically and by natures necessity unpossible and therefore no lawfull mean What is to nature physically unpossible is no lawfull mean 2. If Christ have a promise that the ends of the earth Psal. 2.8 and the Isles shall be his possession Esa. 49.1 I see not how naturall defence can put us to flee even all Protestants and their seed and the weak and sick whom we are obliged to defend as our selves both by the Law of nature and grace I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God to dwell there but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestants their seed aged sick sucking children should flee out of England Scotland Ireland and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists Prelates and bloody Irish and Atheists and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land violent re-offending is their second mean next to supplications and declarations c. and flight is not required of them as of a private man Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation violent and unjust invasion of a private man which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book or rather the idolatry of the Masse therein intended was unavoidable it was unpossible for the Protestants their old and sick their women and sucking children to flee over sea or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book Althusius saith well Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee but the estates if they flee they do not their duty to commit a country religion and all to a Lion Lâ—t not any object we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy Psal. 2.8 9. Isa. 49.1 it is true if the way be our own sinfull way nor let any object a Colony went to New-England and fled the persecution Answer True but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication there was no more reason that one Colony should go to New-England then it is necessary by a divine law obligatory that the whole Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine are to leave thâ—ir native country religion to one man to popish Idolators Atheists willing to worship idols with them and whethere then shall the Gospel be which we are obliged to defend with our lives 2. There is Tutela vitae proxima remota A meer and immediat defence of our life and a remote or mediat defence when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending David might have killed Saul when he was sleeping and when he cut off the lap of his garment but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed because he is the Lords Annoited as it is unlawfull to kill a man because he is the Image of God Gen. 9 6. except in case of necessity The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector thought his malefices do not put him in that case that he hath not now the image of God now prudency and light of grace determineth When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation it is not left to our pleasure In a remote posture of self-defence we are not to use violet re-offending David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actuall not inavoidable not a necessâ—ry mean in human prudence for self-preservation for King Saul was then in a habituall not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes Elders and judges of Israel or of a whole community and Church Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for religion or a nationall pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul it is no lesse unlawfull to thrâ—atten a King then to put hands on him and rather kill or be killed by
Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissariâ—s for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in threâ— kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religions Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitrâ—ry or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-offâ—nding for sâ—lf-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the suffâ—r â—awes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Annoâ—nted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans. 1. David speaketh of stretching out his haâ—d against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without colâ—ur of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resistâ—d and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he râ—maineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6.9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market-confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himselfe with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sons and may save their owne lives with weapons much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evill spirit from the Lord may be resisted and faâ—re more if a King indued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his son and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves and the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one man who cannot be virtually the Common-wealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody emissaries to the dissolution of the Common-wealth 3. The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangrene would corrupt the whole body is well warranted by nature because the safety of the whole is to be preferred to the safety of a part Nor is it much that Royalists say the King being the head destroy him the whole body the Common-wealth is dissolved as cut off a mans head the life of the whole man is taken away Because 1. God cutteth off the spirits of tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved no more then when a Leopard or a wilde Boare running through children is killed it can be the destruction of all the children in the land 2. A king indefinitely is referred to the Common-wealth as an adequat head to a Monarchicall Kingdome and remove all Kings and the politique body as Monarchicall in its frame is not Monarchicall but it leaveth not off to be a politique body seeing it hath other Judges but the naturall body without the head cannot live 2. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortall thing cannnot be referred to the immortall Common-wealth as it is adequat correlate They say the King never dieth yet this King can dye an immortall politique body such as the Common-wealth must have an immortall head and that is a King as a King not this or that man possibly a tyrant who is for the time and eternall things abstract from time onely a King 4. The reason of Fortunius Garcias a skilfull Lawyer in Spaine is considâ—rable Coment in l. ut vim vi ff de justit jure God hath implâ—nted in every creature naturall inclinations and motions to preserve it selfe and we are to love our self for God and have a love to preserve our selves rather then our neighbour and Natures law teacheth every man to love God best of all and next our selves more then our neighbour for the Law saith Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe then saith Malderus com in 12. q. 26. tom 2. c. 10. concl 2. The love of our selfe is the measure of the love of our neighbour But the rule and the measure is more perfect simple and more principall then the thing that is measured It is true I am to love the salvation of the Church it comming neerer to Gods glory more then my owne salvation as the wishes of Moses and Paul do prove and I am to love the salvation of my brother more then my owne temporall life but I am to love my owne temporall life more then the life of any other and therefore I am rather to kill then to be killed the exigence of necessity so requiring Nature without sin aimeth this as a truth in the case of losse of life Proximus sum egomet mihi Ephes. 5.28 29. He that loveth his wife loveth himselfe for no man ever yet hated his owne flesh but nourisheth it and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church As then nature tyeth the dam to defend the young birds and the Lyon her whelps and the husband the wife and that by a comparative re-offending rather then the wife or children should be killed yea hee that is wanting to his brother if a robber unjustly invade his brother and helpeth him not is a murtherer of his
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—â—â—eterunt contra a 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 Hyâ—rony 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 holy things from him especially since by the law the leper was to be put out of the congregation Ans. 1. He contradicteth the text it was not a resistance by words for the text saith they withstood him and they thrust him out violently 2. He yeeldeth the cause for to withdraw the holy things of God by corporall violence and violently to pull the censer out of his hand that he should not provoke Gods wrath by offering incense to the Lord is resistance and the like violence may by this example be used when the King useth the sword and the Militia to bring in an enemy to destroy the kingdom it is no lesse in justice against the second table that the King useth the sword to destroy the innocent then to usurpe the censor against the first table But Doctor Ferne yeeldeth that the censor may be pulled out of his hand lest he provoke God to wrath Ergo by the same very reason à fortiore the Sword the Castles the Sea-ports the Militia may be violently pulled out of his hand for if there was an expresse Law that the leper should be put out of the congregation and therefore the King also should be subject to his Church-censor then he subjecteth the King to a punishment to be inflicted by the subjects upon the King Ergo the King is obnoxious to the coactive power of the law 2. Ergo subjects may judge him and punish him 3. Ergo he is to be subject to all Church-censors no lesse then the people 4. There is an expresse law that the leper should be put out of the congregation What then flattering court Divines say the King is above all these lawes for there is an expresse law of God as expresse as that ceremoniall on touching lepers and a more binding law that the murtherer should die the death Will Royalists put no exception upon a ceremoniall law of expelling the leper and yet put an exception upon a Divine morall law concerning the punishing of murtherers given before the law on Mount Sinai Gen. 6.9 They so declare that they accept the persons of men 5. If a leper King could not actually sit upon the throne but must be cut off from the house of the Lord because of an expresse law of God these being inconsistent that a King remaining amongst Gods people ruling and raigning should keep company with the Church of God and yet be a leper who was to be cut off by a Divine law from the Church now I perswade my self that far lesse can he actually raigne in the full use of the power of the sword if he use the sword to cut off thousands of innocent people because murthering the innocent and fatherles and Royall governing in Righteousnesse and Godlinesse are more inconsistent by Gods law being morally opposite then remaining a governour of the people and the disease of leprosie are incompatible 6. I think not much that Barcley saith cont Monar l. 5. c. 11. Vzziah remained King after he was removed from the congregation for leprosie 1. Because that toucheth the question of dethroning Kings this is an argument brought for violent resisting of Kings and that the people did resume all power from Vzziah and put it in the hand of Iotham his son who was over the Kings house judging the people of the land ver 21. And by this same reason the Parliaments of both Kingdomes may resume the power once given to the King when he hath proved more unfit to governe morally then Vzziah was ceremonially that he ought not to judge the people of the land in this case 2. If the priâ—sts did execute a ceremoniall law upon King Vzziah Far more may the three estates of Scotland and the two houses of Parliament of England execute the morall law of God on their King If the people may covenant by oath to rescue the innocent and unjustly condemned from the sentence of death notoriously known to be tyranous and cruel then may the people resist the King in his unlawfull practises But this the people did in the matter of Ionathan M. Symmons saith pag. 32. and Doctor Ferne § 9.49 That with no violence but by prayers and teares the people saved Jonathan as Peter was rescued out of prison by
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 Kiâ—g 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 Iul. 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 Britaâ—ne Obj. 11. Ferne sect 9.56 If the Senate and people of Rome who a little before had the supreme Government over the thâ—n Emperors that of Subjects had made them Lords might not resist their Emperours much lesse can the peoplâ— of England have power of resistance against the succession of this Crowne descending from the Conqueror who by force of Armes but in justice conquered the Kingdom Answ. 1. Though the Roman Emperours were absolute of which I much doubt and thâ—ugh the Senate had made them absolute I deny that therefore they cannot be resisted Tâ—e unlawfull resistance condemned by Paul Rom. 13. is not upon the ground of Absolâ—tenesse which is in the Court of God nothing being never ordained of God but upon reasons of conscience bâ—cause the powers are of God and ordained of God But some may say Volenti non fit injuria If a people totally resigne their power and swear non-resistance to a Conqueror by compact they cannot resist I answer neither doth this follow because it is an unlawfull compact and none is obliged to what is unlawfull For 1. it is no more lawfull for me to resigne to another my power of naturall self-defence then I can resigne my power to defend the innocent drawne to death and the wives children and posterity that God hath tyed me unto 2. The people can no more resigne power of self-defence which Nature hath given them then they can be guilty of self-murther and be wanting in the lawfull defence of Kingdome and Religion 3. Though you make one their King with absolutenesse of power yet when he use that transcendent power not for the safety but for the destruction of the State it is knowne they could not resigne to another that power which neither God nor nature gave them to wit a power to destroy themselves 2. I much doubt if the Roman Emperour was absolute when Paul wrote this Iustinian saith so Digest l. 2. tit 2. but he is partiall in this cause Bodine de repub l. 2. c. 5. pag. 221. proveth that the Roman Emperours were but Princes of the Common-wealth and that the Soveraignty remained still in the Senate and people Marius Salamon writeth sixe Books De Principatu on the contrary How could they make their Emperours absolute Livie saith The name of a King was contrary to a Senate liberty Florus Nomen Regis invidiosum They instituted a yearly Feast February 23. called Regifugium Cicero as Augustine observeth Regem Romae post haec nec Dii nec homines esse patiantur The Emperours might doe something de facto but Lex Regia was not before Vespasians time Augustus took on him to be Tribune of the people from ten yeares to ten Suetonius and Tacitus say The succeeding Kings encroached by degrees upon the peoples liberty For speedier execution of Law the Kings in time of Warre were forced to doe many things without the Senate and after the reigne of Emperours though there were no Plebescita yet there were Senatusconsulta and one great one is that the Senate declard Nero to be an enemie to the State It is thought Iulius Caesar in the warre against Pompey subdued the Romans and the Senate and they were subdued againe in the battaile of Octavius against Cassius and Brutus But Tacitus saith that was de facto not de jure Anal. l. 1. s. 2. Rome ruere in servitium Consules Patres Eques Caligula intended to assume Diadema the Ensigne of a King but his friends disswaded him 3. England is obliged to D. Ferne who maketh them a subdued Nation The contrary of which is known to the world Obj. M. Simmons Loyall Subj Beliefe sect 6. pag. 19. God is not honoured by being resisted no more is the King Answ. I deny the consequence Those who resist the Kings personall will and will not suffer him to ruine his Crowne and posterity in following Papists against his Oath at the Coronation do honour him and his Throne and Race as a King though for the time they displease him 2. Vzzâ—ah was not dishonoured in that he was resisted 3. Nor doe we honour the King when we flee from him and his Law Yet that resistance is lawfull according to the way of Royalists and in truth also Object 12. Supreme power is not to be resisted by subordinate powers because they are inferiour to the supreme Answ. The bloody Irish Rebels then being inferiour to the Parliament cannot resist the Parliament 2. Inferiour Judges as Judges are immediately subordinate to God as the King and must be guilty of blood before God if they use not the sword against bloody
1 Chro. 17.22 2 Sam. 7.12 and fulfilled of Christ and by the Holy Ghost spoken of him Heb. 1.5.6 is blasphemous for God said not to Nero Iulian Dioclesian Belshazer Evilmerodach who were lawfull Kings I will make him my first borne and that any of these blasphemous Idolatrous Princes should cry to God he is my Father my God c. is Divinity well beseeming an excommunicated Prelate Of the Kings dignity above the Kingdome I speake not now the Prelate pulled it in by the haire but hereafter we shall heare of it P. Prelate God onely anoynted David 1 Sam. 16.4 the men of Bethleem yea Samuel knew it not before God saith with mine holy oyle have I anoynted him Ps. 89.91 1. He is the Lords anoynted 2. The oyle is Gods not from the Apothecaries shop nor the Priests Viall this oyle descended from the Holy Ghost who is no lesse the true Olive then Christ is the true Vine yet not the oyle of saving grace as some Fantasticks say but holy 1. From the Author God 2. From influence in the person it maketh the Person of the King sacred 3. From influence on his charge his function and power is sacred Ans. 1. The Prelate said before Davids anoynting was extraordinary here he draweth this anoynting to all Kings 2. Let David be formally both constituted and designed King divers yeares before the States made him King at Hebron and then 1. Saul was not King the Prelate will tearme that treason 2. This was a dry oyle David his person was not made sacred nor his authority sacred by it for he remained a private man and called Saul his King his Master and himselfe a subject 3. This oyle was no doubt Gods Oyle and the Prelate will have it the Holy Ghosts yet he denieth that saving grace yea p. 2. c. 1 he denyeth that any supernaturall gift should be the foundation of Royall dignity and that it is a pernitious tenent So to me he would have the Oyle from Heaven and not from Heaven 4. This holy oyle wherewith David was annointed Psalme 89.20 to Augustine is the oyle of saving grace His own deare brethren the Papists say so and especially Lyranus Glossa ordinaria Hugo Cardinal his beloved Bellarmine and Lorinus Calvin Musculus Marlorat If these be Fanaticks as I think they are to the Prelate yet the Text is evident that this oyle of God was the oyle of saving gtace bestowed on David as on a speciall type of Christ who received the spirit above measure and was the anointed of God Ps. 45.7 whereby all his garments smell of myrrhe aloes and cassia ver 8. and his name Messiah is as an oyntment powred out Cant. 1. 2. This anointed shall be head of his enemies 3. His dominion shall be from the sea to the rivers v. 25. 4. He is in the covenant of grace v. 26. 5. He is higher then the Kings of the earth 6. The grace of perseverance is promised to his seed v. 28 29 30. 7. His kingdome is eternall as the dayes of Heaven vers 35 36. 8. If the Prelate will looke under himselfe to Diodatus and Ainsworth they say this holy oyle was powred on David by Samuel and on Christ was powred the Holy Ghost and that by warrant of Scripture and Junius and Mollerus saith with them Now the Prelate taketh the Court way to powre this oyle of grace on many drie Princes who without all doubt are Kings essentially no lesse then David He must see better then the man who finding Pontius Pilate in the Creed said he behoved to be a good man so because he hath found Nero the tyrant Julian the apostate Nebuchadnezzar Evil-Merodach Hazael Hagag all the Kings of Spaine and I doubt not the Great Turke in the 89 Psalm v. 19 20. so all these Kings are anointed with the oyle of grace and all these must make their enemies necks their footstoole all these be higher then the Kings of the Earth and are hard and fast in the covenant of grace c. P. Prelate All the royall ensignes and acts of Kings are ascribed to God The Crown is of God Esa. 62.3 Psal. 21.3 in the Emperours coyne was an hand putting a crowne on their head the Heathen said they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as holding their Crownes from God Psal. 18.39 Thou hast girt me with strength the sword is the embleme of strength unto battell See Iud. 7.17 their scepter Gods scepter Exod. 4.20 17 9. we read of two rods Moses and Aarons Aarons rod budded God made both the rods Their judgement is the Lords 2 Chron. 19.6 their throne is Gods 1 Chron. 19.21 The Fathers called them sacra vestigia sacra majestas their commandements Divalis jussio The Law saith all their goods are res sacrae Ergo our new Statists disgrace Kings if they blaspheme not God in making them the derivatives of the people the basest extract of the basest of irrationall creatures the Multitude the Communaltie Answ. This is all one Argument from the Prelates beginning of his booke to the end In a most speciall and eminent act of Gods providence Kings are from God but therefore they are not from men and mens consent It followeth not From a most speciall and eminent act of Gods providence Christ came into the world and tooke on him our nature ergo he came not of Davids l oynes It is a vaine consequencâ— There could not be a more eminent act then this Psal. 40. A body thou hast given me Ergo he came not of Davids house and from Adam by naturall generation and was not a man like us 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 hâ—s 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
God and the people is only the instrumentall cause and Spalato saith that the people doth indirectly only give Kingly power because God at their act of election ordinarily giveth it Ans. The Scripture saith plainly as we heard before the people made Kings and if they doe as other second causes produce their effects it is all one that God as the principall cause maketh Kings else we should not argue from the cause to the effect amongst the creatures 2. God by that same action that the people createth a King doth also by them as by his instruments create a King and that God doth not immediatly at the naked presence of the act of popular election conferre Royall dignity on the man without any action of the people as they say by the Churches act of conferring Orders God doth immediatly without any act of the Church infuse from Heaven supernaturall habilities on the man without any active influence of the Church is evident by this 1. The Royall power to make Lawes with the King and so a power eminent in their states representative to governe themselves is in the people for if the most high act of Royalty be in them why not the power also and so what need to fetch a Royall power from Heaven to be immediatly infused in him seeing the people hath such a power in themselves at hand 2. The people can and doth limite and bind Royall power in elected Kings ergo they have in them Royall power to give to the King those who limit power can take away so many degrees of Royall power and those who can take away power can give power and it is unconceiveable to say that people can put restraint upon a power immediatly comming from God if Christ immediatly infuse an Apostolick spirit in Paul mortall men cannot take from him any degrees of that infused spirit if Christ infuse a spirit of nine degrees the Church cannot limit it to six degrees only but Royalists consent that the people may choose a King upon such conditions to raigne as he hath Royall power of ten degrees whereas his Ancester had by birth a power of foureteen degrees 3. It is not intelligible that the Holy Ghost should give Commandement to the people to make such a man King Deut. 17.15 16. and forbid them to make such a man King if the people had no active influence in making a King at all but God solely and immediately from Heaven did infuse Royalty in the King without any action of the people save a naked consent only and that after God had made the King they should approve only with an after-act of naked approbation 4. If the people by other Governours as by heads of families and other choise men governe themselves and produce these same formall effects of Peace Justice Religion on themselves which the King doth produce then is there a power of the same kind and as excellent as the Royall power in the people and no reason but this power should be holden to come immediatly from God as the Royall Power for it is every way of the same nature and kind and as I shall prove Kings and Iudges differ not in nature and spece but it is experienced that people doe by Aristocraticall guides governe themselves c. so then if God immediatly infuse Royalty when the people chooseth a King without any action of the people then must God immediatly infuse a beame of governing on a Provost and a Bailiffe when the people choose such and that without any action of the people because all Powers are in abstracto from God Rom. 13.2 and God as immediatly maketh inferiour Iudges as superiour Prov. 8.16 and all promotion even to be a Provost or Major commeth from God only as to be a King except Royalists say all promotion commeth from the East and from the West and not from God except promotion to the Royall Throne the contrary whereof is said Ps. 75.6 7. 1 Sam. 2.7 8. not only Kings but all Judges are Gods Ps. 82.1 2. and therefore all must be the same way created and moulded of God except by Scripture Royalists can shew us a difference An English Prelate giveth Reasons why People who are said to make Kings as efficients and Authors cannot unmake them the one is because God as chief and sole supreame Moderator maketh Kings but I say Christ as the chiefe Moderator and head of the Church doth immediatly conferre abilities to a man to be a Preacher and though by industry the man acquire abilities yet in regard the Church doth not so much as instrumentally conferre those abilities they may be said to come from God immediatly in relation to the Church who calleth the man to the ministery yea Royalists as our excommunicated Prelate learned from Spalato say that God at the naked presence of the Churches call doth immediatly infuse that from Heaven by which the man is now in Holy Orders and a Pastor whereas he was not so before and yet Prelates cannot deny but they can unmake Ministers and have practised this in their unhallowed Courts and therefore though God immediatly without any action of the people make Kings this is a weake reason to prove they cannot unmake them As for their undeleble character that Prelates cannot take from a Minister it is nothing if the Church may unmake a Minister though his character goe to prison with him we seeke no more but to anull the reason God immediatly maketh Kings and Pastors ergo no power on earth can unmake them this consequence is as weake as water 2. The other cause is because God hath erected no Tribunall on earth higher then the Kings Tribunall ergo no power on earth can unmake a King the Antecedent and consequence is both denyed and is a begging of the question for the Tribunall that made the King is above the King 2. Though there be no Tribunall formally regall and Kingly above the King yet is there a Tribunall vertuall eminently above him in the case of tyranny for the States and Princes have a Tribunall above him 3. To this the constituent cause is of more power and dignity then the effect and so the people is above the King The P. Prelate borrowed an answer from Arnisaeus and Barclay and other Royalists and saith If we knew any thing in Law or were ruled by reason Every constituent saith Arnisaeus and Barclay more accurately then the P. Prelate had a head to transcribe their words where the constituent hath resigned all his power in the hand of the Prince whom hâ— constitutes is of more worth and power then he in whose hand they resigne the power so the proposition is false The servant who hath constituted his Master Lord of his liberty is not worthier then his Master whom he hath made his Lord and to whom he hath given himselfe aâ— a slave for after he hath resigned his liberty he cannot repent he
above the Master But by this reason the shepherd should be inferior to bruit beasts to sheep And the master of the familie is for the familie and referreth all that he hath for the entertaining of the familie but it followeth not therefore the familie is above him The forme is for the action therefore the action is more excellent then the forme and an accident then the subject or substance And Grotius saith Every government is not for the good of another but some for its own good as the government of a master over the servant and the husband over the wife Ans. I take the answer thus Those who are meere meanes and only meanes referred to the end they are inferior to the end but the King as King hath all his officiall and relative goodnesse in the world as relative to the end All that you can imagine to be in a King as a King is all relative to the safety and good of the people Rom. 13.4 He is a minister for thy good He should not as King make himselfe or his own gaine and honour his end I grant the King as a man shall dye as another man and so he may secondarily intend his own good and what excellencie he hath as a man is the excellencie of one mortall man and cannot make him amount in dignitie and in the absolute consideration of the excellencie of a man to be above many men and a whole Kingdome for the moe good things there be the better they are so the good things be multiplicable as a hundred men are better then one Otherwise if the good be such as cannot be multiplied as one God the multiplication maketh them worse as many Gods are inferiour to one God Now if Royalists can shew us any more in the King then these two we shall be obliged to them and in both he is inferiour to the whole The Prelate and his followers would have the Maxime to lose credit for then say they the shepherd should be inferior to the sheep But in this the Maxime faileth indeed 1. Because the shepherd is a reasonable man and the sheep bruit beasts and so must be excellenter then all the flocks of the world Now as he is a reasonable man he is not a shepherd nor in that relation referred to the shâ—ep and their preservation as a mean to the end but he is a shepherd by accident for the unrulinesse of the creatures for mans sinne withdrawing themselves from that naturall dominion that man had over the creatures before the fall of man in that relation of a meane to the end and so by accident is this officiall relation put on him and according to that officiall relation and by accident man is put to be a servant to the bruitish creature and a meane to so base an end But all this proveth him through mans sinne and by accident to be under the officiall relation of a meane to baser creatures then himselfe as to the end but not as a reasonable man But the King as King is an officiall and Royall meane to this end that the people may lead a godly and peaceable life under him And this officiall relation being an accident is of lesse worth then the whole people as they are to be governed And I grant the Kings sonne in relation to blood and birth is more excellent then his Teachers but as he is taught he is inferiour to his Teacher but in both considerations the King is inferior to the people for though he coÌ„mand the people and so have an executive power of law above them yet have they a fountain power above him because they made him King and in Gods intention he is given as King for their good according to that Thou shalt feed my people Israel that I gave him for a leader of my people 4. Saith the P. Prelate The constituent cause is excellenter then the effect constituted where the constitution is voluntary and dependeth upon the free act of the will as when the King maketh a Vice-Roy or a Iudge durante beneplacito during his free will but not when a man maketh over his right to another for then there should be neither faith nor truth in covenants if people might make over their power to their King and retract and take back what they have once given Ans. This is a begging of the question for it is denyed that the people can absolutely make away their whole power to the King It dependeth on the people that they be not destroyed They give to the King a politique power for their own safetie and they keepe a naturall power to themselves which they must conserve and cannot give away and they doe not breake their covenant when they put in act that naturall power to conserve themselves for though the people should give away that power and sweare though the King should kill them all they should not resist nor defend their own lives yet that being an oath against the sixth Command which enjoyneth naturall selfe-preservation it should not oblige the conscience for it should be intrinsecally sinfull and it 's all one to sweare to non-self-preservation as to sweare to selfe-murther 5. If the people saith the Prelate begging the answer from Barclay the constituent be more excellent then the effect and so the people above the King because they constitute him King Then the Counties and Corporations may make voyd all the Commissions given to the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons and send others in their place and repeal their Orders therefore Buchanan saith that Orders and Lawes in Parliament were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preparatorie consultationis and had not the force of a Law till the people give their consent and have their influence authoritative upon the Statutes and Acts of Parliament But the observator holdeth that the legislative power is whole and intire in the Parliament But when the Scots were preferring Petitions and Declarations they put all power in the collective body and kept their distinct tables Ans. There is no consequence here the Counties and Incorporations that send Commissioners to Parliament may make voyd their Commissions and anull their Acts because they constitute them Commissioners if they be unjust acts they may disobey them and so disanull them but it is presumed God hath given no morall power to doe ill nor can the Counties and Corporations give any such power to evill for they have not any such fâ—om God if they be just acts they are to obey them and cannot retract Commissions to make just Orders Illud tantum possumus quod â—ure possumus and therefore as power to governe justly is irrevocably committed by the three estâ—tes who made the King to the King so is that same power committed by the Shires and Corporations to their Commissioners to decree in Parliament what is just and good irrevocably and to take any jâ—st power from the King which
positive covenant made with him To finde out the essentiall difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant We are to observe that it is one thing to sin against a man another thing against a Stat◠David killing Vriah committed an act of murther But on this supposition that David is not punished for that murther he did not so sin against the State and Catholike good of the State that he turneth Tyrant and ceaseth to be a lawfull King A Tyrant is he who habitually sinneth against the Catholike good of the Subjects and State and subverteth Law Such a one should not be as Jason of whom it is said by Aeneas Silvius Graviter ferebat si non regnaret quasi nesciret esse privatus When such as are monstrous Tyrants are not taken away by the Estates God pursueth them in wrath Domitian was killed by his own Family his wife knowing of it Aurelianus was killed with a thunder-bolt Darius was drowned in a River Dioclesian fearing death poysoned himself Salerius died eaten with Worms The end of Herod and Antiochus Maxentius was swallowed up in a standing River Iulian died being stricken through with a Dart thrown at him by a man or an Angel it is not known Valens the Arian was burnt with fire in a little Village by the Gothes Anastasius the Eutychian Emperour was stricken by God with thunder Gundericus Vandalus when he rose against the Church of God being apprehended by the Divell died Some time the State have taken order with Tyrants The Empire was taken from Vitellius Heliogabalus Maximinus Didius Iulianus So was the two Childerici of France served So were also Sigebertus Dagabertus and Lodowick the 11. of France Christiernus of Denmark Mary of Scotland who killed her husband and raised Forces against the Kingdom So was Henricus Valesius of Pol for fleeing the Kingdom Sigismundus of Pol for violating his faith to the States QUEST XXV What force the Supreme Law hath over the King even that Law of the Peoples safetie called Salus Populi THe Law of the 12. Tables is Salus populi Suprema lex The safetie of the People is the supreme and Cardinall law to which all Lawes are to stoope And that from these Reasons 1. Originally Because if the People be the first Author Fountaine and Efficient under God of Law and King then their own safetie must be principally sought and their safetie must be farre above the King as the safetie of a Cause especially of an universall Cause such as is the People must be more then the safetie of one as Aristotle saith l. 3. polit alias l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The part cannot be more excellent then the whole nor the effect above the cause 2. Finaliter This Supreme law must stand for if all Law Policie Magistrates and Power be referred to the peoples good as the end Rom. 13.4 and to their quiet and peaceable life in godlinesse and honestie then must this Law stand as of more worth then the King as the end is of more worth then the meanes leading to the end for the end is the measure and rule of the goodnesse of the meane and finis ultimus in influxu est potentissimus The King is good because he conduceth much for the safetie of the People Ergo the safetie of the people must be better 3. By way of limitation Because no Law in its letter hath force where the safetie of the Subject is in hazard and if Law or King be destructive to the people they are to be abolished This is cleare in a Tyrant or a 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 and 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 Gods 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 ex officio 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
all that the God of Heaven required to be done for the Religion and house of the God of Heaven and so a generall warrant for a Covenant without the King and yet Ezra and the people in swearing that Covenant failed in no dutie against their King to whom by the fifth Commandment they were no lesse subject then we are to our King just so we are and so have not failed but they say The King hath committed to no Lievtenant and Deputie under him to do what they please in Religion without his Royall consent in particular and the direction of his Clergy seeing he is of that same Religion with his people whereas Artaxerxes was of another Religion then were the Iews and their Governour Answ. Nor can our King take on himself to do what he pleaseth and what the Prelates amongst whom these who ruled all are known before the World and the Sun to be of another Religion then we are pleaseth in particular But see what Religion and Worship the Lord our God and the Law of the Land which is the Kings revealed will alloweth to us that we may swear though the King should not swear it otherwayes we are to be of no Religion but of the Kings and to swear no Covenant but the Kings which is to joyn with Papists against Protestants 6. The strangers of Ephraim and Manasseh and out of Simeon fell out of Israel in abundance to Asa when they saw that the Lord his God was with him 2 Chron. 15.9 10. And sware that Covenant without their own Kings consent their own King being against it If a people may swear a Religious Covenant without their King who is averse thereunto far more may the Nobles Peers and Estates of Parliament do it without their King And here is an example of a practise which the P. Prelate requireth 7. That Jehojadah was Governour and Vice-Roy during the non-age of Joash and that by this Royall Authoritie the Covenant was sworn is a dream to the end he may make the Pope and the Arch-Prelate now Vice-Royes and Kings when the throne varieth The Nobles were Authors of the making of that Covenant no lesse then Iehojadah was yea and the People of the Land when the King was but a childe went unto the house of Baal and brake down his Images c. Here is a Reformation made without the King by the people 8. Grave Expositors say That the Covenant with death and hell Esay 28. was the Kings Covenant with Egypt 9. And the Covenant Hos. 10. is by none exponed of a Covenant made without the King I heard say this Prelate Preaching on this Text before the King exponed it so But he spake words as the Text is falsly The P. Prelate to the end of the Chapter giveth instance of the ill-successe of Popular Reformation because the people caused Aaron to make a Golden Calf and they revolted from Rehoboam to Ieroboam and made two Golden Calves and they conspired with Absolom against David Answ. If the first example make good any thing neither the High-Priest as was Aaron nor the P. Prelate who claimeth to be descended of Aarons house should have any hand in Reformation at all for Aaron erred in that and to argue from the peoples sins to deny their power is no better then to prove Achab Ieroboam and many Kings in Israel and Judah committed Idolatry Ergo They had no Royall power at all In the rest of the Chapter for a whole Page he singeth over again his Mattens in a circle and giveth us the same Arguments we heard before of which you have these three notes 1. They are stoln and not his own 2. Repeated again and again to fill the field 3. All hang on a false supposition and a begging of the question That the people without the King have no power at all QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall interpreter of the Law THis Question conduceth not a little to the clearing of the doubts concerning the Kings absolute power and the supposed sole nomothetick power in the King And I thinke it not unlike to the question whether the Pope and Romish Church havt a sole and peremptory power of exponing Lawes and the Word of God We are to consider that therr is a twofold exposition of Lawes one speculative in a Schoole way so exquisite Iurists have a power to expone Lawes 2. Practicall in so farre as the sense of the Law falleth under our Practice and this is twofold either private and common to all or judiciall and proper to Iudges and of this last is the question For this Publicke the Law hath one fundamentall rule Salus populi like the King of Planets the Sunne which lendeth Star-light to all Lawes and by which they are exponed whatever interpretation swarveth either from fundamentall Lawes of policy or from the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations and especially from the safety of the publick is to be rejected as a perverting of the Law and therefore Conscientia humani generis the naturall conscience of all men to which the oppressed people may appeale unto when the King exponeth a Law unjustly at his owne pleasure is the last rule on earth for exponing of Lawes Nor ought Lawes to be made so obscure as an ordinary wit cannot see their connexion with fundamentall truths of policy and the safety of the people and therefore I see no inconvenience to say that The Law it selfe is Norma regula juduicandi the Rule and directory to square the Iudge and that the Iudge is the publicke practicall interpreter of the Law Assert 1. The King is not the sole and finall interpreter of the Law 1. Because then inferiour Iudges should not be interpreters of the Law but inferiour Iudges are no lesse essentially Iudges then the Kingâ— Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 2. and so by Office must interpret the Law else they cannot give sentence according to their conscience and equity now exponing of the Law judicially is an act of judging and so a personall and incommunicable act so as I can no more judge and expone the Law according to another mans conscience then I can beleeve with another mans soule or understand with another mans understanding see with another mans eye The Kings pleasure therefore cannot be the rule of the inferiour Iudges conscience for he giveth an immediate accompt to God the Iudge of all of a just or an unjust sentence Suppone Caesar shall expone the Law to Pilate that Christ deserveth to dye the death yet Pilate is not in conscience to expone the Law so If therefore inferiour Iudges judge for the King they judge only by power borrowed from the King not by the pleasure will or command of the King thus and thus exponing the Law ergo the King cannot be the sole interpreter of the Law 2. If the Lord say not to the King only but also
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 slight 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 flee not to pursue Bowes Captaines and Captaines of Bands made by David and Davids helpers in the warre came not to help David by â—lying that was a hurt to David not a help It is true M. Symmons saith 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 consciencâ— 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 arbitrary 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. Whâ—n 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 iâ— 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 Râ—bâ—ls 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 lest 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 Ahimelech and Abâ—shai 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 fled no or that David consulted the oracle of God what to do when Saul was coming against him 5. in an ordinary fact something â—ay 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 〈◊〉 I confesse a short way to an adversary to cull out something tâ—at 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 â—ot 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 answâ—red 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 â—re the messengers came to him he said to the Elders See now the sonnâ— 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 ostium opprimetis eum in ostio Violently presse him at the doore And so the Chaldee Paraphrase Ierom. Ne sinatis eum introirâ— 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. forgeâ—ting himselfe saith from hence It is lawfull to resist the Prince himselfe thus farre as toward 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 â—odâ—ly 〈◊〉 in the case of uâ—jâ—st and violent invasion It is a vaine thing to say Who shall be judge betweene the King and his subjâ—cts The â—ubject 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
is his due is a great sin but when he abuseth his power to the destruction of his subjects it is lawfull to throw a sword out of a mad-mans hand though it be his owne proper sword and though he have due right to it and a just power to use it for good for all fiduciary power abused may be repealed and if the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons abuse their fiduciary power to the destruction of these Shires and Corporations who put the trust on them the observator did never say that Parliamentary power was so intire and irrevocably in them as that the people may not resist them anull their Commissions and rescind their acts and denude them of fiduciary power even as the King may be denuded of that same power by the three estates for particular Corporations are no more to be denuded of that fountain-power of making Commissioners and of the self preservation then the three estates are 2. The P. Prelate commeth not home to the mind of Buchanan who knew the fundamental Lawes of Scotland the power of Parliaments for his meaning was not to deny a legislative power in the Parliament but when he calleth their Parliamentary declarations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning is only that which Lawyers and Schoole-men both say Leges non promulgatae non habent vim legis actu completo obligatoriae Lawes not promulgated doe not oblige the subject while they be promulgated but he falsifies Buchannan when he saith Parliamentary Lawes must have the authoritative influence of the people before they can be formall Lawes or any more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or preparatory notions And it was no wonder when the King denyed a Parliament and the supreme Senate of the secret Counsell was corrupted then that the people did set up Tables and extraordinary judicatures of the three estates seeing there could not be any other government for the time 6. Barclay answereth to that The meane is inferiour to the end it holdeth not the Tutor and Curator is for the minor as for the end and given for his good but it followeth not that therefore the Tutor in the administration of the minor or Pupils inheritance is not superiour to the minor Ans. 1. It followeth well that the Minor virtually and in the intention of the Law is more excellent then the Tutor though the Tutor can exercise more excellent acts then the Pupill by accident for defect of age in the Minor yet he doth exercise those acts with subordination to the Minor and with correction because he is to render an account of his doings to the Pupill comming to age so the Tutor is only more excellent and superiour in some respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not simply and so is the King in some respect above the people The P. Prelate beggeth from the Royalists another of our Arguments Quod efficit tale est magis tale That which maketh another such is farre more such it selfe if the people give Royall Power to the King then farre more is the Royall Power in the people By this saith the Prelate it shall follow if the observator give all his goods to me to make me rich the observator is more rich if the people give most part of their goods to foment the Rebellion then the people are more rich having given all they have upon the Publicke Faith Ans. 1. This greedy Prelate was made richer then ten poore Pursevants by a Bishopricke it will follow well ergo the Bishopricke is richer then the Bishop whose goods the curse of God blasteth 2. It holdeth in efficient causes so working in other things as the vertue of the effect remaineth in the cause even after the production of the effect As the Sunne maketh all things light the Fire all things hot therefore the Sun is more light the Fire more hot but where the cause doth alienate and make over in a corporall manner that which it hath to another as the hungry Prelate would have the Observators goods it holdeâ—h not for the effect may exhaust the vertue of the cause but the people doth as the fountaine derive a streame of Royalty to Saul and make him King and yet so as they keepe Fountain-power of making Kings in themselves yea when Saul is dead to make David King at Hebron and when he is dead to make Solomon King and after him to make Rehoboam King and therefore in the people there is more fountaine power of making Kings then in David in Saul in any King of the world as for the Prelates jeere about the peoples giving of their goods to the good cause I hope it shall by the blessing of God inrich them more whereas Prelates by the Rebellion in Ireland to which they assent when they counsell His Majesty to sell the blood of some hundred thousands of innocents killed in Ireland are brought from thousands a yeare to begg a morsell of bread The Prelate answereth that Maxime Quod efâ—icit tale id ipsum est magis tale That which maketh another such it is it selfe more such It is true De principio formali effectivo as I learned in the Vniversity of such an Agent as is formally such in it selfe as is the effect produced Next it is such as is effective and productive of it selfe as when fire heateth cold water so the quality must be formally inherent in the Agent as Wine maketh drunke it followeth not Wine is more drunke because Drunkennesse is not inherent in the Wine nor is it capable of drunkennesse and therefore Aristotle qualifieth the Maxime with this Quod efficit tale est magis tale modo utrique insit And it holdeth not in Agents who operate by donation if the right of the King be transferred from the people to the King The donation devesteth the people totally of it except the King have it by way of loane which to my thinking never yet any spoke Soveraignty never was never can be in the Community Soveraignty hath power of life and death which none hath over himselfe and the community conceived without government all as equall endowed with Natures and native liberty of that community can have no power over the life of another And so the Argument may be turned home if the people be not tales such by nature as hath formally Royall power he should say they cannot give the King Royall Power Also none hath power of life and death either eminenter or formally the people either singly or collectively have not power over their owne life much lesse over their neighbours Ans. 1. The Prelate would make the maxime true of a formall cause and this he learned in the University of St. Andrewes he wrongeth the University he rather learned it while he kept the Calves of Craile the wall is white from whitenesse ergo whitenesse is more white by the Prelates learning never such thing was taught in that learned University 2.