true Kings in a speciall manner reign by Christ Ergo Not by the peoples free election The P. Prelate argueth like himself By this Text a Major of a Citie by the Lord decreeth justice Ergo He is not made a Major of the Citie by the people of the Citie It followeth not 4. None of us teach that Kings reign by Gods anger We judge a King a great mercy of God to Church or State But the Text saith not By the Lord Kings and Iudges do not onely reign and decree justice but also murther Protestants by raising against them an Army of Papists And the word 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers doth in no Greek Author signifie irrevocable powers for Vzziah was a lawfull King and yet 2 Chron. 26. lawfully put from the throne and cut off from the house of the Lord And Interpreters on this place deny that the place is to be understood of Tyrants so the Chaldee Paraphrase turns it well Potentes virga justitiae so Lavater and Diâ—datus and Thomas saith this place doth prove That all Kings and Iudges Laws derivari a lege aeterna are derived from the eternall Law The Prelate eating his tongue for anger striveth to prove That all power and so Royall power is of God but what can he make of it we beleeve it though he say Sectaries prove by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That a man is justified by faith onely so there is no power but of God onely but feel the smell of a Iesuite it is the Sectaries doctrine That we are justified by faith onely but the Prelates and the Iesuites goe another way not by faith onely but by works also And all power is from God onely as the first Author and from no man What then Therefore men and people interpose no humane act in making this man a King and not this man It followeth And let us with the Prelate joyn Paul and Solomon together and say That Soveraigntie is from God of God by God as Gods appointment irrevocable Then shall it never follow it is unseparable from the person except you make the King a man immortall as God onely can remove the Crown it is true but God onely can put an unworthy and an excommunicated Prelate from Office and Benefice but how Doth that prove that men and the Church may not also in their place remove an unworthy Church-man when the Church following Gods Word delivereth to Satan Christ onely as head of the Church excommunicateth scandalous men Ergo The Church cannot do it and yet the Argument is as good the one way as the other for all the Churches on earth cannot make a Minister properly they but design him to the Ministery whom God hath gifted and called But shall we conclude ergo no Church on earth but God onely by an immediate action from Heaven can deprive a Minister how then durst Prelates excommunicate unmake and imprison so many Ministers in the three Kingdoms But the truth is take this one Argument from the Prelate and all that is in his Book falleth to the ground to wit Soveraigntie is from God onely A King is a creature of Gods making onely and what then Ergo Soveraigntie cannot be taken from him So God onely made Aarons house Priests 2. Solomon had no Law to depose Abiathar from the Priest-hood Possibly the Prelate will grant all the place Rom. 13. which he saith hath tortured us I refer to a fitter place it will be found to torture Court Parasites I goe on with the Prelate c. 3. Sacred Soveraignty is to be preserved and Kings are to be prayed for that we may lead a godly life 1 Tim. 3. What then 1. All in authority are to be prayed for even Parliaments by that text Pastors are to be prayed for and without them sound religion cannot well subsist 2. Is this questioned but Kings should be prayed for or are we wanting in this duty but it followeth not that all dignities to be prayed for are immediatly from God not from men Prelate Prov. 8. Solomon speaketh first of the establishment of Government before he speake of the workes of Creation ergo better not be at all as be without government And God fixed government in the person of Adam before Evah or any else came into the world and how shall government be and we enjoy the fruits of it except we preserve the Kings sacred Authority inviolable Ans Moses Gen. 1. speaketh of Creation before he speaketh of Kings and Moses speaketh Gen. 3. of Adams sins before he speakes of redemption through the blessed seed ergo better never be redeemed at all as to to be without sin 2. If God made Adam a governour before he made Evah and any of Mankind he was made a father and a husband before he had either sonne or wise Is this the Prelates Logick he may prove that two eggs on his fathers Table are three this way 3. There is no government where soveraignty is not keptinviolable It is true where there is a King soveraignty must be inviolable What then Arbitrary government is not soveraignty 4. He intimateth Aristocracy and Democracy and the power of Parliaments which maketh Kings to be nothing but Anarchie for he speaketh here of no government but Monarchy P. Prelate there is need of grace to obey the King Ps 18. 43. Ps 144. 2. It is God who subdueth the people under David 2. Rebellion against the King iâ— rebellion against God Pet. 2. 17. Prov 24. 12. Ergo Kings have a neare alliance with God Ans 1. There is much grace in Papists and Prelates then who use to write and Preach against grace 2. Lorinus your brother Iesuite will with good warrant of the texts inferre that the King may make a conquest of his own Kingdomes of Scotland and England by the sword as David subdued the Heathen 3. Arbitrary governing hath no alliance with God a rebell to God his Country and an Apostate hath no reason to terme lawfull defence against cut-throat Irish rebellion 4. There is need of much grace to obey Pastors inferiour Iudges masters Col. 3. 22 23. ergo their power is from God immediatly and no more from men then the King is created King by the people according to the way of Royalists P. Prelate God saith of Pharaoh Exo. 9. 7. I have raised thee up Elisha from God constituted the King of Syria 2 King 8. 13. Pharaoh Abimelech Hiram Hazael Hadad are no lesse honoured with the compellation of Kings then David Saul c. Ier. 29. 9. Nebuchadnezer is honoured to be called by way of excellency Gods servant which God giveth to David a King according to his owne heart and Esay 45. 1 2. Thus saith the Lord to his anoynted Cyrus and God nameth him neere a hundreth yeare before he was borne Esay 44. 28. He is my shepheard Daniel 2. 19 20. 17. 24. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will Dan. 5. 8. and p. 37. Empires Kingdomes Royalties are not
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 eâ— Justit de rerum divin l. nihil F. de capt l. 3. So the learned Ferdin Vasquez illustri l. 2. c. 82. â— 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 flow 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 of necessitie all things are common by Gods Law A man travelling might eat Grapes in his neighbours vineyard though he was not licenced to carry any away I doubt if David wanting money was necessitated to pay money for the Shew-bread or for Goliahs sword supposing these to be the very Goods of private men and ordinarily to be bought and sold natures Law in extremity for self preservation hath rather a Prerogative Royall above all Laws of Nations and all civill Laws then any mortall King and therefore by the civill Law all are the Kings in case of extreme necessity in this meaning any one man is obliged to give all he hath for the good of the Common-wealth and so far the good of the King in as farre as he is head and father of the Common-wealth 2. All things are the Kings in regard of his publike power to defend all men and their Goods from unjust violence 3. All are the Kings in regard of his Act of conservation of Goods for the use of the just owner 4. All are the Kings in regard of a legall limitation in case of a dammage offered to the Common-wealth justice requireth confiscation of Goods for a fault but confiscated Goods are to help the interessed Common-wealth and the King not as a man to bestow them on his children but as a King to this we may referre these called bona caduâ—a inventa things losed by Shipwrack or any other providence Vlpian tit 19. t. c. de bonis vacantibus C. de Thesauro And the Reasons why private men are just Lords and proprietors of their own Goods are 1. Because by order of nature division of Goods cometh neerer to natures law and necessity then any King or Magistrate in the world for because it is agreeable to nature that every man be warmed by his own fleece nourished by his own meat therefore to conserve every mans Goods to the just owner and to preserve a communitie from the violence of rapine and theft a Magistrate and King was devised So it is clear men are just owners of their own Goods by all good order both of nature and time before there be any such thing as a King or Magistrate Now if it be good that every man enjoy his own Goods as just proprietor thereof for his own use before there be a King who can be proprietor of his Goods and a King being given of God for a blessing not for any mans hurt and losse the King cometh in to preserve a mans Goods but not to be lord and owner thereof himself nor to take from any man Gods right to his own Goods 2. When God created man at the beginning he made all the creatures for man and made them by the law of nature the proper possession of man but then there was not any King formally as King for certainly Adam was a father before he was a King and no man being either born or created a King over an other man no more then the first Lyon and the first Eagle that God created were by the birth-right and first-start of creation by nature the King of all Lyons and all Eagles to be after created no man can by natures law be the owner of all Goods of particular men And because the law of nations founded upon the law of nature hath brought in meum tuum mine and thine as proper to every particular man and the introduction of Kings cannot overturn natures foundation neither civility nor grace destroyeth but perfiteth nature and if a man be not born a King because he is a man he cannot be born the possessour of my Goods 3. What is a Character and note of a Tyrant and an oppressing King as a Tyrant is not the just due of a King as a King But to take the proper Goods of Subjects and use them as his own is a proper Character and note of a Tyrant and an oppressour Ergo the proposition is evident A King and a Tyrant are by way of contradiction contrary one to another the assumption is proved thus Ezek. 45. 9. Thus saith the Lord Let it suffice you O Princes of Israel remove violence and spoil and execute judgement and justice take away your exactions from my people saith the Lord Vers 10. Ye shall have just ballances and a just Ephah and a just bath If all be the Kings he is not capable of extortion and rapine Micah 3. 2. God complaineth of the violence of Kings Is it not for you to know judgement Vers 3. Who eat the flesh of my people and flea their skins from off them and they break their bones and chop them in pieces as for the pot and as flesh within the chaldron Isai 3. 14. Zeph. 3. 3. and was it not an act of tyranny in King Achab to take the vineyard of Naboth and in King Saul 1 Sam. 8. 14.
loved so now Gods love from whence he communicateth his Image representing his owne holinesse commeth nearer to his most speciall love of election of men to glory 5. If God give Kings to be a ransome for his Church and if he slay great Kings for their sake as Pharaoh King of Aegypt Esa 43. 3 and Sihon King of the Amorites and Og King of Bashan Ps 136. 18 19 20. if he plead with Princes and Kings for destroying his people Esa 3. v. 12 13 14. if he make Babylon and her King a threshing-floore for the violence done to the inhabitants of Zion Ier. 51. 33 34 35. then his people as his people must be so much dearer and more precious in the Lords eyes then Kings because they are Kings by how much more his Justice is active to destroy the one and his Mercy to save the other Neither is the Argument taken off by saying the King must in this question be compared with his owne people not a forraigne King with other forraigne people over whom he doth not Raigne for the Argument proveth that the people of God are of more worth then Kings as Kings and Nebuchadnezer and Pharoah for the time were Kings to the people of God and forraigne Kings are no lesse essentially Kings then Kings native are 6. Those who are given of God as gifts for the preservation of the people to be Nurse-fathers to them those must be of lesse worth before God then those to whom they are given since the gift as the gift is lesse then the party on whom the gift is bestowed But the King is a gift for the good and preservation of the people as is cleare Esa 1. 26. And from this that God gave his people a King in his wrath we may conclude that a King of himselfe except God be angry with his people must be a gift 7. That which is eternall and cannot politically die yea which must continue as the dayes of heaven because of Gods promise That is more excellent then that which is both accidentall temporarie and mortall But the People is both eternall as People because Eccles 1. 4. one generation passeth away and another generation commeth And as a people in covenant with God Ier. 32. 40 41. in respect that a People and Church though mortall in the individuals yet the Church remaining the Church cannot dye but the King as King may and doth dye It is true where a Kingdome goeth by succession the Politicians say the man who is King dyeth but the King never dyeth because some other either by birth or free election succeedeth in his roome But I answer 1. People by a sort of necessity of nature succeedeth to People generation to generation except Gods judgement contrary to nature intervene to make Babylon no people and a land that shall never be inhabited which I both believe and hope for according to Gods word of Prophecie But a King by a sort of contingencie succeedeth to Kings for nature doth not ascertaine us there must be Kings to the worlds end because the essence of Governours is kept safe in Aristocracie and Democracie though there were no Kings And that Kings should necessarily have been in the world if man had never fallen in sinne I am not by any cogent argument induced to beleeve I conceive there should have been no Government but these of Fathers Children Husband and Wife and which is improperly Government some more gifted with supervenient additions to nature as gifts and excellencies of Engines Now in this point Althusius polit c. 38. n. 114. saith the King in respect of office is worthier then the people but this is but an accidentall respect but as the King is a man he is inferior to the people But 8. he who by office is obliged to expend himselfe and to give his life for the safety of the people he must be inferior to the people So Christ saith the life is more then rayment or food because both these give themselves to corruption for mans life so the beasts are inferiour to man because they die for our life that they may sustaine our life And Caiaphas prophesied right that it was better that one man die then that the whole Nation perish Joh. 11. v. 50. and in nature Elements against their particular inclination defraud themselves of their private and particular ends that the Commonwealth of Nature may stand as heavy elements ascend light descend lest nature should perish by a vacuitie And the good shepherd Ioh. 10. giveth his life for his sheep So Saul and David both were made Kings to fight the Lords battels and to expose their lives to hazard for the safetie of the Church and people of God But the King by office is obliged to expend his life for the safety of the people of God he is obliged to fight the Lords battels for them to goe betwixt the Flock and death as Paul was willing to be spent for the Church It may be objected Jesus Christ gave himselfe a Ransome for his Church and his life for the life of the World and was a gift given to the world Ioh. 3. 16. 4. 10. and he was a meane to save us And so what arguments we have before produced to prove that the King must be inferior to the people because he is a ransome a meane a gift are not concludent I answer Consider a meane reduplicatively and formaliter as a meane and secondly as a meane materially that is the thing which is a meane 2. Consider that which is only a mean and ransome and gift and no more and that which beside that it is a meane is of a higher nature also So Christ formally as a meane giving 1. his temporall life 2. for a time 3. according to the flesh For 1. the eternall life 2. of all the Catholike Church to be glorified eternally 3. not his blessed Godhead and glorie which as God he had with the Father from eternitie In that respect Christ hath the relation of a servant ransome gift and some inferioritie in comparison of the Church of God and his Fathers glory as a meane is inferior to the end but Christ materially in concreto Christ is not only a meane to save his Church but as God in which consideration he was the immortall Lord of life he was more then a meane even the author efficient and Creator of heaven and earth and so there is no ground to say that he is inferiour to the Church but the absolute head King the chiefe of ten thousand more in excellencie and worth then ten thousand millions of possible worlds of men and Angels But such a consideration cannot befall any mortall King because consider the King materially as a mortall man he must be inferior to the whole Church for he is but one and so of lesse worth then the whole Church as the thumbe though the strongest of the fingers yet it is
if they break this Law But this maketh not the King greater then the Law for therefore do Rulers put the stamp of relation to punishment on the Law because there is intrinsecall worth in the Law Prior to the Act of the will of Law-givers for which it meriteth to be inacted and therefore because it is authorizable as good and just the King puteth on it this stamp of a Politique Law God formeth Being and morall Aptitude to the end in all Laws to wit the safetie of the people and the Kings will is neither the measure nor the cause of the goodnesse of things 2. If the King be he who maketh the Law good and just because he is more such himself then as the Law cannot crook and erre nor sin neither can the King sin nor break a Law This is blasphemy Every man is a lyer a Law which deserveth the name of a Law cannot lie 3. His ground is That there is such majesty in Kings that their will must be done either in us or on us A great untruth Achabs will must neither be done of Elias for he commandeth things unjust nor yet on Elias for Elias fled and lawfully we may slie Tyrants and so Achabs will in killing Elias was not done on him Assert 2. Nor can it be made good that the King only hath power of making Lawes because his power were then absolute to inflict penalties on Subjects without any consent of theirs and that were a dominion of Masters who command what they please and under what paine they please And the people consenting to be ruled by such a man they tacitely consent to penaltie of laws because naturall reason saith An ill-doer should be punished Florianus in l. inde Vasquez l. 2. c. 55. n. 3. Therefore they must have some power in making these lawes 2. Jer. 26. It is cleare The Princes judge with the people A nomothetick power differeth gradually only from a judiciall power both being collarerall meanes to the end of Government the peoples safetie But Parliaments judge ergo they have a nomothetick power with the King 3. The Parliament giveth all supremacie to the King ergo to prevent Tyrannie it must keep a coordinate power with the King in the highest acts 4. If the Kingly line be interrupted if the King be a Childe or a Captive they make Lawes who make Kings Ergo this nomothetick power recurreth into the States as to the first subject Obj. The King is the fountaine of the law and Subjects cannot make Lawes to themselves more then they can punish themselves He is only the Supreme Answ The People being the fountaine of the King must rather be the fountaine of Lawes 2. It is false that no man maketh lawes to himselfe Those who teach others teach themselves also 1 Tim. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. though Teaching be an act of authoritie But they agree to the penaltie of the Law secondarily only and so doth the King who as a father doth not will evill of punishment to his children but by a consequent will 3. The King is the only Supreme in the power ministeriall of executing lawes but this is a derived power so as no one man is above him but in the fountaine-power of Royaltie the States are above him 5. The Civil law is cleare that the laws of the Emperor have force only from this fountaine because the People have transferred their power to the King Lib. 1. digest tit 4. de constit Princip leg 1. sic Vlpian Quod Principi placuit loquitur de Principe formaliter qua Princeps est non qua est homo legis habet vigorem utpote cum lege Regia quae de imperio ejus lata est populus â—i in eum omne suum imperium potestatem conferat Yea the Emperour himselfe may be conveened before the Prince Elector Aurea Bulla Carol. 4. Imper c. 5. The King of France may be conveened before the Senate of Paris The States may resist a Tyrant as Bossius saith de Principe privileg ejus n. 55. Paris de puteo in tract syno tit de excess Reg. c. 3. Divines acknowledge that Elias rebuked the halting of Israel betwixt God and Baal that their Princes permitted Baals Priests to converse with the King And is not this the sinne of the Land that they suffer their King to worship Idols and therefore the Land is punished for the sinnes of Manasseh as Knox observeth in his Dispute with Lethington where he proveth that the States of Scotland should not permit the Queen of Scotland to have her abominable Masse Hist of Scotland l. 4. p. 379. edit an 1644. Surely the power or Sea-Prerogative of a sleepie or mad Pilot to split the ship on a rock as I conceive is limited by the Passengers Suppose a father in a distemper would set his own house on fire and burne himselfe and his ten sonnes I conceive his Fatherly prerogative which neither God nor Nature gave should not be looked to in this but they may binde him Yea Althusius polit c. 39. n. 60. answering that That in Democracie the people cannot both command and obey saith It is true secundum idem ad idem eodem tempore But the people may saith he choose Magistrates by succession Yea I say 1. they may change Rulers yearely to remove envie A yearely King were more dangerous the King being almost above envie Men incline more to flatter then to envie Kings 2. Aristotle saith polit l. 4. c. 4. l. 6. c. 2. The people may give their judgement of the wisest Obj. Williams B. of Ossorie Vindic. Reg. A Looking-glasse for Rebels saith p. 64. To say the King is better than any one doth not prove him to be better then two and if his supremacie be no more then any other may challenge as much for the Prince is singulis major A Lord is above all Knights a Knight above all Esquires and so the People have placed a King under them not above them Ans The reason is not alike for all the Knights united cannot make one Lord and all the Esquires united cannot make one Knight but all the People united made David King at Hebron 2. The King is above the people by eminencie of derived authoritie as a Watchman and in actuall supremacie and he is inferior to them in fountaine-power as the effect to the cause Object 2. The Parliament saith Williams may not command the King Why then make they supplications to him if their Vote be a Law Ans They supplicate ex decentia of decencie and conveniencie for his place as a Citie doth supplicate a Lord Major but they supplicate not ex debito of obligation as beggars seeke almes then should they be cyphers 2. When a Subject oppressed supplicateth his Soveraigne for justice the King is obliged by office to give justice And to heare the oppressed is not an act of grace and mercie as to give
need of a King more then there should have beene need of a Tutor to defend the child whose father is not dead or of a Physitian to cure sicknesse where there is health for remove sinne and there is neither death nor sicknesse but because sinne is entered into the world God devised as a remedy of violence and unjustice a living rationall breathing Law called a King a Iudge a Father now the aberrations violence and oppression of this thing which is the living rationall breathing Law is no Medium no meane intended by God and nature to remove violence How shall violence remove violence Therefore an unjust King as unjust is not that genuine ordinance of God appointed to remove unjustice but accidentall to a King So we may resist the unjustice of the King and not resist the King 8 If then any cast off the nature of a King and become habitually a Tyrant in so farre he is not from God nor any ordinance which God doth owne If the Office of a Tyrant to speake so be contrary to a Kings Offices it is not from God and so neither is the power from God 9. Yea Lawes which are no lesse from God then the Kings are when they begin to be hurtfull Cessant materialiter they leave off to be Lawes because they oblige Non secundum vim verborum sed in vim sensus not according to the force of words but according to sense â— Non figura literarum F. de actione obligatione l. ita stipulatus But who saith the Royalists shall be judge betwixt the King and the people when the people alledge that the King is a Tyrant Ans There is a Court of necessity no lesse then a Court of Justice and 2. The fundamentall Lawes must then speake and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no Ruler Obj. 1. But if the Law be doubtsome as all humane all Civill all municipall Lawes may endure great dispute the peremptory person exponing the Law must be the supreame Iudge This cannot be the people ergo it must be the King Ans 1. As the Scriptures in all fundamentalls are cleare and expone themselves and Actu primo condemne Hercsies so all Lawes of men in their fundamentals which are the Law of Nature and of Nations are cleare And 2. Tyranny is more visible and intelligible then Heresie and it s soone decerned If a King bring in upon his native subjects twenty thousand Turks armed and the King lead them It is evident they come not to make a friendly visite to salute the Kingdom and depart in peace the people have a naturall throne of policie in their conscience to give warning and materially sentence against the King as a Tyrant and so by nature are to defend themselves Where Tyranny is more obscure and the thred small that it escape the eye of men the King keepeth possession but I deny that Tyranny can be obscure long Object 2. Doct. Ferne. A King may not or cannot easily alter the frame of fundamentall Laws he may make some actuall invasion in some transient and not fixed acts and it is safer to bear these then to raise a civill Warre of the Body against the Head Answ 1. If the King as King may alter any one wholesome Law by that same reason he may alter all 2. You give short wings to an Arbitrary Prince if he cannot over flie all Laws to the subversion of the Fundamentalls of a State if you make him as you do 1. One who hath the sole Legislative power who allanerly by himself maketh Laws and his Parliament and Councell are onely to give him advice which by Law he may as easily reject as they can speak words to him He may in one transient act and it is but one cancell all Laws made against idlolatry and Popery and command through bad Counsell in all his Dominions the Pope to be acknowledged as Christs Vicar and all his doctrine to be established as the Catholike true Religion It is but one transient act to seal a pardon to the shedding of the blood of two hundred thousand killed by Papists 2. You make him a King who may not be resisted in any case and though he subvert all Fundamentall Laws he is countable to God onely his people have no remedy but prayers or flight Object 3. Ferne Limitations and mixtures in Monarchies do not imply a forceable restraining power in subjects for the preventing of the dissolution of the State but onely a legall restraining power and if such a restraining power be in the subjects by reservation then it must be expressed in the constitution of the Government and in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people but such a condition â—â— unlawfull which will not have the Soveraign power secured is unprofitable for King and people a seminary for seditions and jealousies Answ I understand not a difference betwixt forceable restraining and legall restraining For he must mean by legall mans Law because he saith It is a Law in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people Now if this be not forceable and physicall it is onely Morall in the conscience of the King and a Cypher and a meer vanitie for God not the people putteth a restraint of conscience on the King that he may not oppresse his poor subjects but he shall sin against God that is a poor restraint the goodnesse of the King a sinfull man inclined from the womb to all sin and so to Tyranny is no restraint 2. There 's no necessitie that the reserve be expressed in the Covenant between King and people more then in contract of marriage between a husband and a wife beside her joynter you should set down this clause in the contract that if the husband attempt to kill the wife or the wife the husband in that case it shall be lawfull to either of them to part companies For Doct. Ferne saith That personall defence is lawfull in the people if the Kings assault be 1. Suddain 2. Without colour of Law 3. Inevitable Yet the reserve of this power of defence is not necessarily to be expressed in the contract betwixt King and people Exigences of the Law of nature cannot be set down in positive Covenants they are presupposed 3. He saith A reservation of power whereby soveraigntie is not secured is unlawfull Lend me this Argument The giving away of a power of defence and a making the King absolute is unlawfull because by it the people is not secured but one man hath thereby the sword of God put in his hand whereby ex officio he may as King cut the throats of thousands and be countable to none therefore but to God onely now if the non-securing of the King make a condition unlawfull the non-securing of a Kingdom and Church yea of the true religion which are infinitely in worth above one single man may far more make the condition unlawfull 4.
thee up but they shall save thee from the hand of Saul As David beleeved he might say this as well as its contradicent then David behoved to keep the city for certainly Davids question pre-supposeth he was to keep the city The example of Elisha the Prophet is considerable 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house and the Elders with him And the King sent a man before him but ere the messengers came to him he said to the Elders See now the sonne of a murtherer hath sent to take away mine head Here is unjust violence offered by King Ioram to an innocent man Elisha keepeth the house violently against the Kings Messenger as we did keep Castles against King Charles his unlawfull messengers Look saith he when the messenger commeth shut the doore 2. There is violence also commanded and resistence to be made Hold him fast at the doore In the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Montan. Claudite â—stium opprimetis eum in ostio Violently presse him at the doore And so the Chaldee Paraphrase Ierom. Ne sinatis eum introire The LXX Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illidite eum in ostio Presse him betwixt the doore and the wall It is a word of bodily violence according to Vatablus Yea Theodoret will have King Ioram himselfe holden at the doore And 3. It is no Answer that D. Ferne and other Royalists give that Elisha made no personall resistance to the King himselfe but onely to the Kings cut-throat sent to take away his head Yea they say It is lawfull to resist the Kings cut-throats But the text is cleere that the violent resistance is made to the King himselfe also for he addeth Is not the sound of his Masters feet behinde him And by this answer it is lawfull to keep Townes with iron gates and barres and violently to oppose the Kings cut-throats comming to take away the heads of the Parliaments of both Kingdomes and of Protestants in the three Kingdomes Some Royalists are so impudent as to say that there was no violence here and that Elisha was an extraordinary man and that it is not lawfull for us to call a King the son of a murtherer as the Prophet Elisha did but Ferne sect 2. pag. 9. forgetting himselfe saith from hence It is lawfull to resist the Prince himselfe thus farre as to ward his blowes and hold his hands But let Ferne answer if the violent binding of the Princes hands that he shall not be able to kill be a greater violence done to his Royall person then Davids cutting off the lap of Sauls garment for certainly the Royall body of a Prince is of more worth then his cloathes Now it was a sinne I judge that smote Davids conscience that he being a subject and not in the act of naturall self-defence did cut the garment of the Lords Annointed Let Ferne see then how he will save his owne principles for certainly hee yeeldeth the cause for me I judge that the person of the King or any Judge who is the Lords Deputy as is the King is sacred and that remaining in that honourable case no subject can without guiltinesse before God put hands in his person the case of naturall self-defence being excepted for because the Royall dignity doth not advance a King above the common condition of men and the Throne maketh him not leave off to bee a man and a man that can do wrong and therefore as one that doth manifest violence to the life of a man though his subject he may be resisted with bodily resistance in the case of unjust and violent invasion It is a vaine thing to say Who shall be judge betweene the King and his subjects The subject cannot judge the King because none can be judge in his owne cause and an inferiour or equall cannot judge a superiour or equall But I answer 1. This is the Kings owne cause also and he doth unjust violence as a man and not as a King and so he cannot be judge more then the subject 2. Every one that doth unjust violence as he is such is inferiour to the innocent and so ought to be judged by some 3. There is no need of the formality of a judge in things evident to natures eye such as are manifestly unjust violences Nature in acts naturall of self-defence is judge party accuser witnesse and all for it is supposed the Judge is absent when the Judge doth wrong And for the plea of Elisha's extraordinary spirit it is no thing extraordinary to the Prophet to call the King the sonne of a murtherer when hee complaineth to the Elders for justice of his oppression no more then it is for a plaintiffe to libell a true crime against a wicked person and if Elisha's resistance came from an extraordinary spirit then it is not naturall for an oppressed man to close the doore upon a murtherer then the taking away of the innocent Prophets head must be extraordinary for this was but an ordinary and most naturall remedy against this oppression and though to name the King the sonne of a murtherer be extraordinary and I should grant it without any hurt to this cause it followeth no wayes that the self-defence was extraordinary 3. 2. Chron. 26. 17. Foure score of Priests with Azariah are commended as valiant men LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Montan filii virtutis Men of courage and valour for that they resisted Vzziah the King who would take on him to burne Incense to the Lord against the Law M. Symmons pag. 34. sect 10. They withstood him not with swords and weapons but onely by speaking and one but spake I answer It was a bodily resistance for beside that Ierome turneth it Viri fortissimi Most valiant men And it is a speech in the Scripture taken for men valorous for warre As 1 Sam. 14. 25. 2 Sam. 17. 10. 1 Chron. 5. 18. And so doth the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potent in valour And the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 24. 9. 2 Sam. 11. 16. 1 Sam. 31. 12. and therefore all the 80. not onely by words but violently expelled the King out of the Temple 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Mont. â—sâ—â—tâ—runt contra Huzzi-Iahu the LXX say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They resisted the King so Dan. 11. 17. The armies of the south shall not stand Dan. 8. 25. It is a word of violence 3. The text saith ver 20. and they thrust him out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ar. Mont. fecerunt eum festinare Hyerony festinatò expulerunt eum The LXX say The Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Vatablus they cast him out And 4. it is said ver 21. he was cut off from the house of the Lord. Doctor Ferne saith sect 4. pag. 50. They are valiant men who dare withstand a King in an evil way by a home reproofe and by withdrawing the
Prerogative pardoneth a murtherer and he killeth another innocent man and out of the same ground the King pardoneth him again and so till he kill twenty for by what reason the Prerogative giveth one pardon he may give twenty there is a like reason above Law for all This act of Absolute Royaltie is such an act of murther as if a shepherd would keep a Woolf in the fold with the sheep he were guilty of the losse of these sheep Now an act of destroying cannot be an act of judging far lesse of a supreme Iudge but of a supreme Murtherer 7. Whereas he is called Absolute Prince and Supreme Judge in all Causes Ecclesiasticall and Civill It is to be considered 1. That the Estates professe in these acts not to give any new Prerogative but onely to continue the old power and that onely with that amplitude and freedom which the King and his Predecessors did enjoy and exerce of before the extent whereof is best known from the Acts of Parliament Histories of the time and the Oaths of the Kings of Scotland 2. That he is called Absolute Prince not in any relation of freedom from Law or Prerogative above Law whereunto as unto the norma regula ac mensura potestatis suae ac subjectionis meae He is tyed by the Fundamentall Law and his own Oath but in opposition to all forraign Iurisdiction or principalitie above him as is evident by the Oath of Supremacie set down for acknowledging of his power in the first Act of Parliament 21. K. Iam. 6. 3. They are but the same expressions giving onely the same power before acknowledged in the 129. Act. Parl. 8. K. Iam. 6. And that onely over Persons or Estates considered Separatim and over Causes but neither at all over the Laws nor over the Estates taken Conjunctim and as convened in Parliament as is clear both by the two immediately subsequent Acts of that Parliament 8. K. Iam. 6. Establishing the Authority of Parliaments equally with the Kings and discharging all Iurisdictions albeit granted by the King without their Warrant as also by the Narrative Depositive words and certification of the Act it self otherwayes the Estates convened in Parliament might by vertue of that Act be summoned before and censured by the Kings Majestie or His Councell a Iudicatory substitute be subordinate to and censurable by themselves which were contrary to sense and reason 4. The very termes of Supreme Iudge and in all Causes according to the nature of Correlates presupposeth Courts and judiciall Proceedings and Laws as the ground work and rule of all not a freedom from them 5. The sixth Act of the twenty Parliament K. Iac. 6. Cleerly interpreteth what is meant by the Kings Iurisdiction in all Spirituall and Ecclesiastick Causes to wit to be onely in the Consistoriall Causes of Matrimony Testaments Bastardy Adulteries abusively called Spirituall Causes because handled in Commissary Courts wherin the King appoints the Commissary his Deputies and makes the Lords of the Session his great Consistory in all Ecclesiasticall Causes with reservation of his Supremacy and Prerogative therein 7. Supreame Iudge in all causes cannot be taken Quoad actus elicitos as if the King were to judge between two Sea-men or two Husband-men or two Trades-men in that which is proper to their Art or between two Painters certainly the King is not to Iudge which of the two draweth the fairest Picture but which of the two wasteth most gold on his Picture and so doth interest most of the Common-wealth So the King cannot judge in all Ecclesiasticall Causes that is he cannot Quoad actos elicitos prescribe this Worship for example the Masse not the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Therefore the King hath but Actus imperatos some Royall Politicall Acts about the Worship of God to command God to be Worshipped according to his Word to punish the superstitions or neglectors of Divine Worship therefore cannot the King be sole Iudge in matters that belong to the Colledge of Iudges by the Lawes of Scotland the Lords of Session onely may judge these maters K. Iames 1. Parl. 2. Act. 45. K. Iames 3. Par. 8. Act. 62. K. Iames 3. Par. 4. Act. 105. K. I. 1. Parl. 6. Act. 83. K. I. 1. Par. 6 Act. 86. K. I. 5. Par. 7. Act. 104. and that only according to Law without any remedy of appellation to King or the Parliament Act 62 and 63. Par. 14. K. I. 2. And the King is by Act of Parliament inhibited to send any private letter to stay the Acts of Iustice or if any such letter be procured the Iudges are not to acknowledge it as the Kings Will for they are to proceed unpartially according to Iustice and are to make the Law which is the King and Parliaments publick revealed will their rule King I. 5. Parl. 5. Act. 68. K. Ia. 6. Part. 8. Act. 139. and K. I. 6. Par. 6. Act. 92. most lawfull Nor may the Lords suspend the course of Iustice or the sentence or execution of Decrees upon the Kings private letter King I. 6. Parl. 11. Act 79. and K. Iam. 6. Par. 11. Act 47. and so if the Kings Will or desire as he is a man be opposite to his Law and his Will as King it is not to be regarded This is a strong Argument that the Parliaments never made the King supreame Iudge Quoad actus elicitos in all causes nay not if the King have a Cause of his owne that concerneth Lands of the Crowne farre lesse can the King have a will of Prerogative above the Law by our Lawes of Scotland And therefore when in the eighth Parliament King Ia. 6. the Kings Royall Power is established in the first Act the very next act immediatly subjoyned thereunto declareth the authority of thesupreame Court of Parliament continued past all memory of man unto this day and constitute of the free voices of the three estates of this ancient Kingdome which in the Parliament 1606. is called The ancient and fundamentall policy of this Kingdome and so fundamentall as if it should be innovate such confusion would ensue as it could no more be a free Monarchy as is exprest in the Parliaments printed Commission 1604. by whom the same under God hath been upholden rebellious and traiterous subjects punished the good and faithfull preserved and maintained and the Lawes and Acts of Parliament by which all men are governed made and established and appointeth the Honour Authority and Dignity of the Estates of Parliament to stand in their owne integrity according to the ancient and laudable custome by past without alteration or diminution and therefore dischargeth any to presume or take in hand To impugne the dignity and the authority of the said Estates or to seeke or procure the innovation or diminution of their power or authority under the paine of Treason and therefore in the next Act they discharge all Iurisdictions or Judicatories albeit appointed by the Kings Majesty as the High Commission
or immediately p. 160. How the inferiour Iudge is the deputy of the King p. 161 162. He may put to death murtherers as having Gods sword committed to him no lesse then the King even though the King command the contrary for he is not to execute judgement and to relieve the oppressed conditionally if a mortall King give him leave but whether the King will or no he is to obey the King of Kings p. 160 161. Inferiour Iudges are ministri regni non ministri regis p. 162 163. The King doth not make Iudges as he is a man by an act of private good will but as he is a King by an act of Royall Iustice and by a power that he hath from the people who made himself supreme Iudge p. 163 164 165. The Kings making of inferiour Iudges hindereth not but they are as essentially Iudges as the King who maketh them not by fountain-power but by power borrowed from the people p. 165 166. The Iudges in Israel and the Kings differ not essentially p. 167. Aristocracy as naturall as Monarchie and as warrantable p. 168 169. Inferiour Iudges depend some way on the King in fieri but not in facto esse p. 169 170. The Parliament not Iudges by derivation from the King p. 170. The King cannot make nor unmake Iudges ibid. No heritable Iudges ibid. Inferiour Iudges more necessary then a King p. 171 172. QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament hath over the King and in the State p. 172. The Elders appointed by God to be Iudges p. 173. Parliaments may conveen and judge without the King p. 173 174. Parliaments are essentially Iudges and so their consciences neither dependeth on the King quoad specificationem that is That they should give out this sentence not this nec quoad exercitium That they should not in the morning execute judgement p. 174 175. Vnjust judging and no judging at all are sins in the States p. 175. The Parliament coordinate Iudges with the King not advisers onely By eleven Arguments p. 176 177 Inferior Iudges not the Kings Messengers or Legates but publike Governours p. 176. The Jews Monarchie mixt p. 178. A Power executive of Laws more in the King a Power legislative more in the Parliament p. 178 179. QUEST XXII Whether the power of the King as King be absolute or dependent and limited by Gods first mould and patern of a King Negatur Prius Affirmatur Posterius p. 179. The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk p. 180. The King not absolute in his power proved by nine Arguments p. 181. 182 183 seq Why the King is a living Law p. 184. Power to do ill not from God ibid. Royalists say power to do ill is not from God but power to do ill as punishable by man is from God p. 186. A King actu primo is a plague and the people slaves if the King by Gods institution be absolute p. 187. Absolutenesse of Royaltie against Iustice Peace Reason Law p. 189. Against the Kings relation of a brother p. 190. A Damsel forced may resist the King ibid. The goodnesse of an absolute Prince hindereth not but he is actu primo a Tyrant p. 189. QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath a Prerogative Royall above Laws Negatur p. 192. Prerogative taken two wayes ibid. Prerogative above Laws a Garland proper to infinite Majestie ibid. A threefold dispensation 1. Of power 2. Of justice 3. Of Grace p. 194. Acts of meer grace may be acts of blood p. 195. An oath to the King of Babylon tyed not the people of Judah to all that absolute power could command ibid. The absolute Prince is as absolute in acts of crueltie as in acts of grace p. 196. Servants are not 1 Pet. 2. 18 19. interdited of self-defence p. 199 200. The Parliament materially onely not formally hath the King for their Lord p. 202. Reason not a sufficient restraint to keep a Prince from Acts of tyranny ibid. Princes have sufficient power to do good though they have not absolute to do evil p. 203. A power to shed innocent blood can be no part of any Royall power given of God p. 204. The King because he is a publike person wanteth many priviledges that subjects have p. 205 206. QUEST XXIV What relation the King hath to the Law p. 207. Humane Laws considered as reasonable or as penal ibid. The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power p. 208. Whether the King be above Parliaments as their Iudge p. 208 p. 209 210 211. Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordination both consistent p. 210 211. Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other and they cannot any one of them be in its prevalency conveniently without the mixture of the other two p. 211 212. The King as a King cannot erre as he erreth in so far he is not the remedie of oppression and Anarchie intended by God and nature p. 212. In the court of necessitie the people may judge the King p. 213. Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernable p. 213 214. It s more requisite that the whole people Church and Religion be secured then one man p. 215. If there be any restraint by Law on the King it must be physicall for a morall restraint is upon all men p. 214 215. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath eatenus in so far unlawfull and not obligatory p. 215. QUEST XXV Whether the supreme Law the safetie of the people be above the King Affirmed p. 218. The safetie of the people to be preferred to the King for the King is not to seek himself but the good of the people p. 218 219. Royalists make no Kings but Tyrants p. 222. How the safetie of the King is the safetie of the people p. 223. A King for the safetie of the people may break through the Letter and paper of a Law p. 227. The Kings prerogative above Law and Reason not comparable to the blood that has been shed in Ireland and England p. 225 226 228. The power of Dictators prove not a Prerogative above Law p. 229 230. QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law p. 230 231. The Law above the King in four things 1. In constitution 2. Direction 3. Limitation 4. Coaction p. 231. In what sense the King may do all things p. 231 232. The King under the moralitie of Laws 2. Vnder Fundamentall Laws not under punishment to be inflicted by himself nor because of the eminency of his place but for the physicall incongruity thereof p. 232 233. If and how the King may punish himself p. 233. That the King transgressing in a hainous manner is under the Coaction of Law proved by seven Arguments p. 234 235 seq The Coronation of a King who is supposed to be a just Prince yet proveth after a Tyrant is conditionall and from ignorance and so unvoluntary and in so far not
p. 355. Objections of Royalists answered p. 355 356 357. seq The place Exod. 22. 28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods c. answered p. 357. And Eccles 10. 20. p. 358. The place Eccles 8. 3 4. Where the word of a King is c. answered p. 357 358. The place Iob 34. 18. answered p. 359. And Act. 23. 3. God shall smite thee thou whited wall c. p. 359 360 361. The Emperours in Pauls time not absolute by their Law p. 361. That objection that we have no practise for defensive resistance and that the Prophets never complaine of the omission of the duty of resistance of Princes answered p. 163 164 165. The Prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the Iudges because they execute not judgements for the oppressed p. 365 366. seq Iudahs subjection to Nebuchadnezar a conquering Tyrant no warrant for us to subject our selves to tyrannous acts p. 363 364 365. Christs subjection to Caesar nothing against defensive warrs p. 365 366. QUEST XXXV Whether the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church Militant be against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs p. 369 370. Tertullian neither ours nor theirs in the question of defensive warrs p. 370 371 372. QUEST XXXVI Whether the King have the power of warre only Negatur p. 372 373. Inferiour Iudges have the power of the sword no lesse then the King p. 372 373. The people tyed to acts of charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forraigne enemy though the King forbid p. 373 374. Flying unlawfull to the States of Scotland and England now Gods Law tying them to defend their Country p. 374. Parliamentary Power a fountain-power above the King p. 376 377. QUEST XXXVII Whether the Estates of Scotland are to help their Brethren the protestants in England against Cavaliers Affirmatur proved by 13. Arg. p. 378. seq Helping of neighbour Nations lawfull divers opinions concerning the point p. 378 379. The Law of Aegypt against those that helped not the oppressed p. 380. QVEST. XXXVIII Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments Affir p. 384. Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments hath divers considerations in which each one may be lesse or more convenient p. 384 385. Absolute Monarchy is the worst of Governments p. 385. Better want power to doe ill as have it ibid. A mixture sweetest of all Governments p. 387. Neither King nor Parliament have a voyce against Law and reason ibid. QUEST XXXIX Whether or no any Prerogative at all above the Law be due to the King Or if jura majestatis be any such Prerogative Negatur p. 389. A threefold supreme power ibid. What be jura regalia p. 390 391. Kings confer not honours from their plenitude of absolute power but according to the strait line and rule of Law justice and good deserving ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. p. 392 393. Difference of Kings and Judges ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. No permissive Law such as the Law of divorce p. 394. What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subjects p. 395 396 397. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his Oath Covenant or any other way Affirmed p. 398 399. The people have power over the King by reason of his Covenant and Promise ibid. Covenants and promises violated infer Coaction de jure by Law though not de facto p. 399 400. Mutuall punishments may be where there is no relation of superioritie and inferioritie p. 399 400 401. Three Covenants made by Arnisaeus ibid. The King not King while he swear the oath and be accepted as King by the people ibid. The oath of the Kings of France ibid. Hu. Grotius setteth down seven cases in which the people may accuse punish or dethrone the King p. 403 404. The Prince a noble Vassal of the Kingdom upon four grounds p. 405. The covenant had an oath annexed to it ibid. The Prince is but as a private man in a contract p. 406. How the Royall power is immediately from God and yet conferred upon the King by the people p. 407 408 409. QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. P. with reason ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in the Question of lawfull defence Negatur p. 410 411 412. That Soveraignty is originally and radically in the people as in the Fountain was taught by Fathers ancient Doctors sound Divines Lawyers before there was a Jesuite or a Prelate whelped in rerum natura p. 413. The P. P. holdeth the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ p. 414 415. Iesuites tenets concerning Kings p. 415 416 417. The King not the peoples Deputie by our doctrine it is onely the calumnie of the P. Prelate p. 417 418. The P. P. will have power to act the bloodiest tyrannies on earth upon the Church of Christ the essentiall power of a King ibid. QUEST XLII Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vicegerents Negatur p. 422. Why God as God hath a man a Vicegerent under him but not as Mediator p. 422 423. The King not head of the Church ibid. The King a sub-mediator and an under redeemer and a sub-priest to offer sacrifices to God for us if he be a Vicegerent p. 423. The King no mixt person ibid. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel p. 426 427. By no Prerogative Royall may the King prescribe religious observances and humane ceremonies in Gods worship p. 424 425. The P. P. giveth to the King a power Arbitrary supreme and independent to govern the Church p. 429 430. Reciprocation of subjections of the King to the Church of the Church to the King in divers kindes to wit of Ecclesiasticall and civill subjection are no more absurd then for Aarons Priest to teach instruct and rebuke Moses if he turne a tyrannous Achab and Moses to punish Aaron if he turn an obstinate Idolator p. 430 4â—3 QVEST. XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having prerogatives above Laws and Parliaments Negatur p. 433 434. The King of Scotland subjâ—ct to Parliaments by the fundamentall Lawes Acts and constant practises of Parliaments ancient and late in Scotland p. 433 434 435 436. seq The King of Scotlands Oath at his Coronation p. 434. A pretended absolute povver given to K. Iames 6. upon respect of personall indowments no ground of absolutenesse to the King of Scotland p. 435 436. By Lawes and constant practises the Kings of Scotland subject to Lawes and Parliaments proved by the fundamentall Law of elective Princes and out of the most partiall Historicians and our Acts of Parliament of Scotland p. 439 440. Coronation oath ibid. And again at the Coronation of K. James the 6. that oath sworn and again 1 Par. K. Jam. 6. ibid. seq p. 452 453. How the King is supreme Iudge in all causes p. 437. The power
establish him King 2. The Lord by Lots found out the Tribe of Benjamin 3. The Lord found out the man by name Saul the sonne of Kish when he did hide himselfe amongst the stuffe that the people might doe their part in creating of the King whereas Samuel had annoynted him before but the Text saith expresly that the people made Saul King and Calvin Martyr Lavater and Popish Writers as Serrarius Mendoza Sancheiz Cornelius a Lapide Lyranus Hugo Cardinalis Carthusius Sanctius doe all hence conclude that the people under God make the King I see no reason why Barclaius should here distinguish a power of choosing a King which he granteth the people hath and a power of makinga King which he saith is only proper to God Answ Choosing of a King is either a comparative crowning of this man not this man and if the people have this it s a creating of a King under God who principally disposeth of Kings and Kingdomes and this is enough for us The want of this made Zimri no King and those whom the Rulers of Iezreel at Samaria 2 King 10. refused to make Kings no Kings This election of the people made Athaliah a Princesse the removall of it and translation of the crown by the people to Ioash made her no Princesse for I beseech you what other calling of God hath a race of a familie and a person to the crowne but only the election of the States There is now no voice from heaven no immediately inspired Prophets such as Samuel and Elisha to annoynt David not Eliab Solomon not Adoniah The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the â—â—roick spirit of a Royall facultie of governing is I grant from God only not from the people but I suppose that maketh not a King for then many sitting on the throne this day should be no Kings and many private persons should be Kings If he meane by the peoples choosiag nothing but the peoples approbative consent posterior to Gods act of creating a King let them shew us an act of God making Kings and establishing royall power in such a familie rather then in such a familie which is prior to the peoples consent distinct from the peoples consent I believe there is none at all 4. Arg. Hence I argue if there be no calling or title on earth to tie the Crown to such a Familie and Person but the suffrages of the people then have the line of such a familie and the persons now no calling of God no right to the crown but only by the suffrages of the people except we say that there be no lawfull Kings on earth now when Propheticall unction and designation to Crowns are ceased contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 13. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15 16 17. But there is no title on earth now to tye crownes to families to persons but onely the suffrages of the people for 1. Conquest without the consent of the people is but royall latrocinie as we shall see 2. There is no propheticall and immediate calling to Kingdomes now 3. The Lords giving of Regall parts is somewhat but I hope Royallists will not deny but a child young in yeares and judgment may be a lawfull King 3. Mr. Maxwell his appointing of the Kingly office doth no more make one man a lawfull King then another for this were a wide consequence God hath appointed that Kings should be ergo Iohn a Stiles is a King yea ergo David is a King It followeth not Therefore it remaineth only that the suffrages of the people of God is that just title and divine calling that Kings have now to their crownes I presuppose they have gifts to governe from God 5. If the Lords immediate designation of David and his annointing by the divine authoritie of Samuel had been that which is alone without the election of the people made David formally King of Israel then there were two Kings in Israel at one time for Samuel annointed David and so he was formally King upon the ground layed by Royallists that the King hath no royall power from the people and David after he himselfe was annointed by Samuel divers times calleth Saul the Lords anointed and that by the inspiration of Gods spirit as we and Royallistâ— doe both agree Now two lawfull supreme Monarchs in one Kingdome I conceive to be most repugnant to Gods truth and sound reason for they are as repugnant as two most Highs or as two Infinites 2. Iâ— shâ—ll follow that David all the while betwixt his anointing by Samuel and his coronation by the suffrages of all Israel at Hebron 1. Was in-lacking in discharging and acquiting himselfe of his royall duty God having made him formally a King and so laying upon him â— châ—rge to execute justice and judgement and defend Religion which he did not discharge 2. All Davids suffering upon Davidsâ—art â—art must be unjust for as King he should have cut off the murtherer Saul who killed the Priests of the Lord especially seeing Saul by this ground must be a private murtherer and David the only lawfull King 3. David if he was formally King deserted his calling in flying to the Philistims for a King should not forsake his Kingdome upon no hazards even of his life no more thâ—n a Pilot should give over the helme in an exâ—reme storme but certainly Gods dispensation in this warranteth us to say no man can be formally a lawfull King without the suffrages of the peoâ—le for Saul after Samuel from the Lord anointed him remained a private man and no King till the people made him King and elected him And David anointed by that same divine authoritie remained formally a Subject and not a King till all Israel made him King at Hebron And Salomâ—n though by God designed and ordained to be King yet was never King till the people made him King 1 King 1. ergo there floweth something from the power of the people by which he who is no King now becommeth a King formally and by Gods lawfull call whereas before the man was no King but as touching all royall power a meere private man And I am sure birth must be lesse then Gods designation to a crowne as is cleere Adoniah was elder then Salomon yet God will have Salomon the younger by birth to be King and not Adoniah And so Mr. Symons and other Court-Prophets must prevaricate who will have birth without the peoples election to make a king and the peoples voyces but a ceremonie 6. I thinke Royalists cannot deny but a people ruled by Aristocraticall Magistrates may elect a King and a King so elected is formally made a lawfull King by the peoples election for of six apt and gifted to reigne what maketh one a King and not the other five Certainly God disposing the people to choose this man and not another man it cannot be said but God giveth the Kingly power immediately and by him Kings raigne that is true The
Stiles is the husband of such a woman P. Prelate Kings are of God they are Gods children of the most High his servants publike Ministers their sword and judgement Gods This he hath said of their royaltie in abstracto and in concreto their power person charge are all of divine extract and so their authoritie and person are both sacred and inviolable Answ So are all the congregation of the Iudges Psal 82. v. 1. 6. all of them Gods for he speaketh not there of a congregation of Kings So are Apostles their office and persons of God and so the Prelates they thinke the successors of the Apostles are Gods servants their ministerie word rod of discipline not theirs but of God the judgement of Iudges inferiour to the King is the Lords judgement not mens Deut. 1. 17. 2. Chro. 19. 6. Hence by the Prelates Logick the persons of Prelates Majors Bailiffes Constables Pastors are sacred and inviolable above all lawes as are Kings Is this an extolling of Kings 2. But where are Kings persons as men said to be of God as the Royaltie in abstract◠i◠The Prelate seeth beside his booke Psal 82. 7. But ye shall die as men P. Prelate We begin with the Law in which as God by himself prescribed the essentialls substantialls ceremonies of his pietie worship gave order for justice pietie Deut. 17. 14 15. the King is here originally immediately from God and independent from all others set over them Them is collective that is all every one Scripture knoweth not this State principle Rex est singulis major universis minor The person is expressed in concreto whom the Lord thy God shall choose This peremptorie precept dischargeth the people all and every one diffusively representatively or in any imaginable capacity to attempt the appointing of a King but to leave it entirely and totally to God Almighty Answ Begin with the Law but end not with Traditions If God by himselfe prescribed the essentialls of pietie and worship the other part of your distinction is that God not by himself but by his Prelates appointed the whole Romish Rites as accidentalls of pietie This is the Iesuites doctrine 2. This place is so far from proving the King to be independent and that it totally is Gods to appoint a King that it expresly giveth the people power to appoint a King for the setting of a King over themselves such a one and not such a one makes the people to appoint the King and the King to be lesse and dependent on the people seeing God intendeth the King for the peoples good and not the people for the Kings good This text shameth the Prelate who also confessed P. 22. That remotely and unproperly succession election and conquest maketh the King and so its lawfull for men remotely and improperly to invade Gods chaire P. Prelate Jesuites and Puritans say it was a priviledge of the Jews that God chose their King So Suarez Soto Navarra Answ 1. The Jesuites are the Prelates brethren they are under one Banner we are in contrary Camps to Iesuites 2. The Prelate said himself Pag. 19. Moses Saul and David were by extraordinary revelation from God sure I am Kings are not so now The Jews had this priviledge that no nation had 1. God named some Kings to them as Saul David he doth not so now 2. God did tie Royaltie to Davids house by a Covenant till Christ should come he doth not so now Yet we stand to Deut. 17. P. Prelate Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign If the people had right to constitute a King it had not been King Solomon but King Adonijah Solomon saith not of himself but indefinitely By me as by the Author efficient and constituent Kings reign Per is by Christ not by the people not by the high Priest State or Presbytery not Per me iratum by me in my anger as some Sectaries say Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Ordinance by high Authoritie not revocable So Sinesius useth the word Aristotle Lucilius Appian Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in me and by me as Doctor Andrews Kings indefinitely all Kings none may distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not they reign in concreto that same power that maketh Kings must unmake them Ans 1. The Prelate cannot restrict this to Kings only it extendeth to Parliaments also Solomon addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Consules 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Sirs and Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Magnificents and Nobles and more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all the Iudges of the earth they reign rule and decree justice by Christ Here then Majors Sheriffs Provosts Constables are by the Prelate extolled as persons sacred irresistible Then 1. the Iudges of England rule not by the King of Britain as their Author efficient constituent but by Iesus Christ immediately nor doth the Commissary rule by the Prelate 2. All these and their power and persons rule independently and immediately by Iesus Christ 3. All inferiour Iudges are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinances of God not revocable Ergo The King cannot deprive any Iudge under him he cannot declare the Parliament no Parliament once a Iudge and alwayes and irrevocably a judge This Prelates poor pleading for Kings deserves no wages Lavater intelligit superiores inferiores Magistratus non est potestas nisi a deo Vatablus confiliarios 2. If the people had absolute right to choose Kings by the Law of Israel they might have chosen another then either Adonijah or Solomon but the Lord expressely Deut. 17. 14. put an expresse Law on them that they should make no King but him whom the Lord should chuse Now the Lord did either by his immediately inspired Propher anoint the man as he anointed David Saul Iehu c. or then he restricted by a revealed promise the Royall power to a family and to the eldest by birth and therefore the Lord first chose the man and then the people made him King birth was not their rule as is clear in that they made Solomon their King not Adonijah the elder and this proveth that God did both ordain Kingly Government to the Kingdom of Israel and chose the man either in his person or tied it to the first born of the Line Now we have no Scripture nor Law of God to tie Royall dignitie to one man or to one family produce a warrant for it in the Word for that must be a priviledge of the Iews for which we have no Word of God but we have no immediately inspired Samuels to say Make David or this man King and no Word of God to say Let the first born of this family rather then another family sit upon the throne Therefore the people must make such a man King following the rule of Gods Word Deut. 17. 14. and other rules shewing what sort of men Iudges must be as Deut 1. 16 17 18. 2 Chro. 19. 6 7. 3. It is
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 Britaine whether I say doth conquest in such a violent way speake that it is Gods revealed Will called Voluntas signi the will that is to rule us in all our Morall duties to cast off the just Heires of the blood Royall and to sweare homage to a conquerour and so as that conquerour now hath as just right as the King of Britaine had by birth This cannot be taken off by the wit of any who 1. maintaine that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne and 2. that royall birth without the people election speaketh Gods regulating Will in his Word that the first borne of a King is a lawfull King by birth for God now a daies doth not say the contrary of what he revealed in his Word If birth be Gods regulating Will that the Heire of the King is in Gods Court a King no act of the conquerour can anull that Word of God to us and the people may not lawfully though they were ten times subdued sweare homage and allegiance to a conquerour against the due right of birth which by Royalists Doctrine revealeth to us the plaine contradictory Will of God It is I grant often Gods Decree revealed by the event that a conquerour be on the Throne but this Will is not our rule and the people are to sweare no Oath of Allegiance contrary to Gods Voluntas signi which is his revealed Will in his Word regulating us 4. Things transferrible and communicable by birth from father to sonne are onely in Law those which Heathen call bona fortunae riches as lands houses monies and heritages and so saith the Law also These things which essentially include gifts of the mind and honour properly so called I meane honour founded on vertue as Aristotle with good reason maketh honour praeminum virtuâ—is cannot be communicated by birth from the father to the sonne for royall dignity includeth these three constituent parts essentially of which none can be communicable by birth 1. The royall faculty of governing which is a speciall gift of God above nature is from God Solomon asked it from God and had it not by generation from his father David 2. The royall honour to be set above the people because of this royall vertue is not from the wombe for then Gods spirit would not have said Blessed art thou O Land when thy King is the sonne of Nobles Eccles 10. 17. this honour springing from vertue is not borne with any man noâ— is any man borne with either the gift or honour to be a Iudge God maketh high and low not birth Nobles are borne to great estates if judging be heritage to any it is a municipall positive law I now speake in point of conscience 3. The externall lawfull title before men come to a Crowne must be Gods Will revealed by such an externall signe as by Gods appointment and warrant is to regulate our will but according to Scripture nothing regulateth our will and leadeth the people now that they cannot erre following Gods rule in making a King but the free suffrages of the States choosing a man whom they conceive God hath endued with these royall gifts required in the King whom God holdeth forth to them in his Word Deut. 17. now there be but these to regulate the people or to be a rule to any man to ascend lawfully in foro Dei in Gods Court to the Throne 1. Gods immediate designation of a man by Propheticall and Divinely inspired unction as Samuel annoynted Saul and David this we are not to expect now nor can Royalists say it 2. Conquest seeing it is an act of violence and Gods revenging Justice for the sinnes of a people cannot give in Gods Court such a just title to the Throne as the people are to submit their consciences unto except God reveale his regulating will by some immediate voice from Heaven as he commanded Iudah to submit to Nebuchadnezer as to their King by the mouth of Ieremiah now this is not a rule to us for then if the Spanish King should invade this Iland and as Nebuchadnezer did deface the Temple and instruments and meanes of Gods Worship and abolish the true worship of God it should be unlawfull to resist him after he had once conquered the Iland neither Gods Word nor the Law of nature could permit this I suppose even by grant of adversaries now no act of violence done to a people though in Gods Court they have deserved it can be a testification to us of Gods regulating Will except it have some warrant from the Law and testimony it is no rule to our conscience to acknowledge him a lawfull Magistrate whose sole law to the Throne is an act of the bloody instrument of divine wrath I meane the sword That therefore Iudah was to submit according to Gods Word to Nebuchadnezer whose conscience and best warranted calling to the Kingdome of Judah was his bloody sword even if we suppose Ieremiah had not commanded them to submit to the King of Babylon I thinke cannot be said 3. Naked birth cannot be this externall signification of Gods regulating Will to warrant the conscience of any to ascend to the Throne for the Authors of this opinion make royall birth equivalent to divine unction for David anoynted by Samuel and so anoynted by God is not King Saul remained the Lords anoynted many yeares not David even anoynted by God the peoples making him King at Hebron
a time have just title to reigne over them and if Absolom had been stronger then David he had then had the just title to be the Lords Anointed and King of Israel not David and so strength actually prevailing should be Gods lawfull call to a Crown But strength as strength victoriouâ— is not law nor reason it were then reason that Herod behead Joâ—â— Baptist and the Roman Emperors kill the witnesses of Christ Ieus If Conquest as just be the title and lawfull claime before Gods court to a Crown then certainly a stronger King for pregnaâ—t nationall injuries may lawfully subdue and reigne over an inâ—ocent posteritie not yet borne But what word of God can 1. waâ—rant a posteritie not borne and so accessarie to no offence against tâ—e Conquerour but only sin originall to be under a Conquerouâ— against their will and who hath no right to reigne over them but the bloody sword for so Conquest as Conquest not as just maketh him King over the posteritity But 2. the fathers may ingage the posterity by an oath to surrender themselvos as loyall subject to the man who justly and deservedly made the fathers vassals by the title of the sword of justice I answer the fathers may indeed disâ—ose of the inheritance of their children because that inheritance â—elongeth to the father as well ar to the sonne but because the liberty of the sonne being borne with the sonne all men being boâ—ne free from all Civill subjection the father hath no more power to resigne the libertie of his children then their lives and the father as a father hath not power of the life of his child as a Magistrate he may have power and as something more then a father he may have power of life and death I heare not what Grotius saith Those who are not borne have no accidents and so no rights Non entis nulla sunt accidentia then Children not borne have neither right nor liberty and so no injury may some say can be done to Children not borne though the fathers should give away their liberty to the conquerour those who are not capable of Law are not capable of injury contrary to Law Ans There is a virtuall alienation of rights and lives of children not borne unlawfull because the children are not borne to say that children not borne are not capable of law and injuries virtuall which become reall in time might say Adam did not an injury to his posterity by his first sin which is contrary to Gods Word so those who vowed yearely to give seven innocent children to the Minotaure to be devoured and to kill their children not borne to bloody Molech did no acts of bloody injury to their children nor can any say then that fathers cannot tye themselves and their posterity to a King by succession but I say To be tyed to a lawfull King is no making away of liberty but a resigning of a power to be justly governed protected and awed from active and passive violence 7. No lawfull King may be dethroned nor lawfull Kingdome dissolved but Law and reason both saith Quod vi partum est imperium vi dissolvi potest Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence Censetur enim ipsa natura jus dare ad id omne sine quo obtineri non potest quod ipsa imperat It is objected that the people of God by their sword conquered seven nations of the Canaanites David conquered the Ammonites for the disgrace done to his Embassadours So God gave Egypt to Nebuchadnezar for his hire in his service done against Iudah had David no right â—ver the Ammonites and Moabites but by expecting their consent yee will say A right to their lands goods and lives but not to challenge their morall subjection well we doubt not but such conquerours will challenge and obtain their morall consent but if the people refuse their consent is there no way for providence giveth no right So D. Ferne so Arnisaeus Ans A facto ad jus non valet consequentia God to whom belongeth the world and the fulnesse thereof disponed to Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan for their inheritance and ordained that they should use their bow and their sword for the actuall possession thereof and the like divine right had David to the Edomites and Ammonites though the occasion of Davids taking possession of these Kingdoms by his sword did arise from particular and occasionall exigences and injuries but it followeth in no sort That therefore Kings now wanting any word of promise and so of divine right to any Lands may ascend to the Throns of other Kingdoms then their own by no better title then the bloody sword That Gods will was the chief patent here is clear in that God forbad his people to conquer Edom or Esau's possession when as he gave them command to conquer the Ammorites I doubt not to say if Joshua and David had had no better title then their bloody sword though provoked by injuries they could have had no right to any kingly power over these Kingdoms and if onely successe by the sword be a right of providence it is no right of precept Gods providence as providence without precept or promise can conclude a thing is done or may be done but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully and warrantably done else you might say the selling of Joseph the crucifying of Christ the spoiling of Job were lawfully done 2. Though Conquerors extort consent and oath of Loyaltie yet that maketh not over a Royall right to the Conquerour to be King over their posterity without their consent 3. Though the Children of Ammon did a high injury to David yet no injury can be recompensed in justice with the pressure of the constrained subjection of Loyaltie to a violent Lord if David had not had an higher warrant from God then an injury done to his messengers he could not have conquered them But 1. The Ammonites were the declared enemies of the Church of God and raised forces against David when they themselves were the injurer's and offenders and if Davids Conquest will prove a lawfull title by the sword to all Conquerours then may all Conquerours lawfully do to the conquered people as David did that is they may put them under saws and under harrows of iron and under axes of iron and cause them passe through the Brick-kilne But I beseech you will Royalists say that Conquerours who make themselves Kings by their sword and so make themselves fathers heads defenders and feeders of the people may use the extreamest Tyranny in the world such as David usâ—d against the children of Ammon which he could not have done by the naked title of sword-conquest if God had not laid a Commandment of an higher nature on him to serve Gods enemies so I shall then say if a conquering King be a lawfull King because a Conquerour then hath God made such a lawfull King
farre lesse can he lawfully sell men and give away a whole Kingdome to the hurt of his successours for that were to make merchandize of the living Temples of the Holy Ghost And Arnisaus de authorit Princip c. 3. n. 7. saith Servitude is praeter naturam beside nature he might have said contrary to nature l. 5. de stat homin Sect. 2. Iust de jur perso c. 3. Novel 89. but the subjection of subjects is so consonant to nature that it is seen in Bees and Cranes Therefore a dominion is defined a facultie of using of things to what uses you will Now a man hath not this way an absolute dominion over his beasts to dispose of them at his will for a good man hath mercy on the life of his beast Prov. 12. 10. nor hath he dominion over his goods to use them as he will because he may not use them to the dammage of the Commonwealth he may not use them to the dishonour of God and so God and the Magistrate hath laid some bound on his dominion And because the King being made a King leaveth not off to be a reasonable creature he must be under a Law and so his will and lust cannot be the rule of his power and dominion but law and reason must regulate him Now if God had given to the King a dominion over men as reasonable creatures his power and dominion which by Royalists is conceived to be above Law should be a rule to men as reasonable men which would make men under Kings no better then bruit beasts for then should subjects exercise acts of reason not because good and honest but because their Prince commandeth them so to doe and if this cannot be said none can be at the disposing of Kings in politick acts liable to Royall government that way that the slave is in his actions under the dominion of his master The Prelate objecteth out of Spalato Arnisaeus and Hug. Grotius for in his booke there is not one line which is his own except his raylings 1. All government and 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 adventâ—tious 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 awaâ— 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 rouring 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
to take the people of Gods fields and vineyards and olive-yards and give them to their servants Was it a just fault that Hybreas objected to Antonius exacting two tributes in one yeer that he said If thou must have two tributes in one yeer then make for us two Summers and two Harvests in one yeer This cannot be just if all be the Kings the King taketh but his own 4. Subjects under a Monarch could not give alms nor exercise works of charity for charity must be my own Isai 58. 7. Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry c. Eccles 11. 1. Cast thy bread into the waters and the Law saith It is theft to give of another mans to the poor yea the distinction of poor and rich should have no place under a Monarchie he onely should be rich 5. When Paul commandeth us to pay tribute to Princes Rom. 13. 6. because they are the Ministers of God he layeth this ground That the King hath not all but that the subjects are to give to him of their goods 6. It is the Kings place by justice to preserve every man in his own right and under his own fig-tree Ergo It s not the Kings house 7. Even Pharaoh could not make all the victuall of the land his own while he had bought it with money and every thing is presumed to be free Allodialis free land except the King prove that it is bought or purchased L. actius C. de servit aqua Joan. And. m. C. F. de ind hosti in C. minus de jur 8. If the subjects had no proprietie in their own goods but all were the Princes due then the subject should not be able to make any contract of buying and selling without the King and every subject were in the case of a slave Now the Law saith L. 2. F. de Noxali act l. 2. F. ad legem aquil When he maketh any Covenant he is not obliged civilly to keep it because the condition of a servant he not being sui juris is compared to the state of a beast though he be obliged by a naturall obligation being a rationall Creature in regard of the law of nature L. naturaliter L. si id quod L. interdum F. de cond indebit cum aliis 2. The subject could not by Solomon be forbidden to be suretie for his friend as King Solomon doth counsell Prov. 6. 1 2 3. he could not be condemned to bring on himself poverty by sluggishnesse as Prov. 6. 6 7 8 9 10. nor were he to honour the Lord with his riches as Prov. 3. 9. nor to keep his Covenant though to his losse Psal 15. 4. nor could he be mercifull and lend Psal 37. 26. nor had he power to borrow nor could he be guiltie in not paying all again Psal 37. 21. For subjects under a Monarch can neither perform a duty nor fail in a duty in the matter of Goods If all be the Kings what power or dominion hath the subject in disposing of his Princes Goods See more in Petr. Rebuffus tract congruae portionis num 225. pag. 109 110. Sed quoad dominiumrerum c. QUEST XVII Whether or not the Prince have properly a fiduciarie and ministeriall power of a Tutor Husband Patron Minister head father of a family not of a Lord or dominator THat the power of the King is fiduciarie that is given to him immediatly by God in trust Royallists deny not but we hold that the tâ—ust is put upon the King by the people 2. We deny that the people give themselves to the King as a gift for what is freely given cannot be taken againe but they gave themselves to the King as a pawne and if the pawne be abused or not used in that manner as it was conditionated to be used the party in whose hand the pawne is intrusted faileth in his trust 1. Assertion The King is more properly a Tutor then a Father 1. Indigencie is the originall of Tutors the Parents dye what then shall become of the Orphan and his inheritance he cannot guide it himselfe therefore nature devised a Tutor to supply the place of a father and to governe the Tutor but with this consideration the father is Lord of the inheritance and if he be distressed may sell it that it shall never come to the sonne and the father for the bad deserving of his sonne may dis-inherite him but the Tutor being but a borrowed father cannot sell the inheritance of the pupill nor can he for the pupills bad deserving by any dominion of Justice over the pupill take away the inheritance from him and give it to his owne son so a Community of it selfe because of sin is a naked society that can but destroy it selfe and every one eate the flesh of his brother therefore God hath appointed a King or governour who shall take care of that community rule them in peace and save all from reciprocation of mutuall acts of violence yet so as because a trust is put on the Ruler of a community which is not his heritage he cannot dispose of it as he pleaseth because he is not the proper owner of the inheritance 2. The Pupill when he commeth to age may call his Tutor to an accompt for his administration I doe not acknowledge that as a truth which Arnisaeus saith De authoritate prin c. 3. n. 5. The Common-wealth is alwaies minor and under Tutory because it alway hath need of a curator and governour and can never put away its governour but the pupill may grow to age and wisedome so as he may be without all Tuâ—ors and can guide himselfe and so may call in question his Tutor and the pupill cannot be his Iudge but must stand to the sentence of a superiour Iudge and so the people cannot judge or punish their Prince God must be Iudge betwixt them both But this is 1. a begging of the question every comparison halteth no community but it is Major in this that it can appoint its owne Tutors and though it cannot be without all Rulers yet it may well be without this or that Prince and Ruler and therefore may resume its power which it gave conditionally to the Ruler for its owne safety and good and in so farre as this condition is violated and power turned to the destruction of the Common-wealth it is to be esteemed as not given and though the people be not a politique Iudge in their owne cause yet in case of manifest oppression nature can teach them to oppose defensive violence against offensive a community in its politique body is also above any Ruler and may judge what is manifestly destructive to it selfe Obj. The Pupill hath not power to appoint his owne Tutor nor doth he give power to him so neither doth the people give it to the King Ans The Pupill hath not indeed a formall power to make a Tutor but he hath vertually
inferior to the hand and far more to the whole body as any part is inferior to the whole 2. Consider the King reduplicative and formally as King and by the officiall relation he hath he is no more then but a Royall servant an officiall meane tending ex officio to this end to preserve the people to rule and governe them and a gift of God given by vertue of his office to rule the people of God and so any way inferiour to the people 9. Those who are before the King and may be a People without a King must be of more worth then that which is posteriour and cannot be a King without them For thus Gods selfe sufficiency is proved in that he might be and eternally was blessed for ever without his Creature but his creature cannot subsist in being without him Now the people were a people many yeares before there was any government save domestick and is a people where there is no King but only an Aristocracy or a Democracy but the King can be no King without a people It is vaine that some say the King and Kingdome are relatives and not one is before another for its true in the naked relation so are father and sonne Master and servant Relata simul natura but sure there is a priority of worth and independency for all that in the father above the sonne and in the master above the servant and so in the people above the King take away the people and Dyonisius is but a poore Schoole-master 2. Asser The people in power are superiour to the King 1. because every efficient and constituent cause is more excellent then the effect Every meane is inferiour in power to the end so Iun. Brutus q. 31. Bucher l. 1. c. 16. Author Lib. De offic Magistr q. 6. Henaenius disp 2. n. 6. Ioan. Roffensis Epist De potest pap l. 2. c. 5. Spalato de Repu Ecclesiast l. 6. c. 2. n. 31. but the people is the efficient and constituent cause the King is the effect the people is the end both intended of God to save the people to be a healer and a Physician to them Esay 3. v. 7. and the people appoint and create the King out of their indigence to preserve themselves from mutuall violence Many things are objected against this 1. That the efficient and constituent cause is 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 acts 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
the Kings no the Spirit of God saith no such matter the Iudgement executed by those inferiour Iudges is the Lords not a mortall Kings ergo a mortall King may not hinder them to execute Iudgement Obj. He cannot suggest an unjust Sentence and command an inferiour Iudge to give out a sentence absolvatory on cut-throates but he may hinder the exocution of any sentence against Irish cut-throates Ans It is all one to hinder the execution of a just sentence and to suggest or command the inferiour Iudge to pronounce an unjust one for inferiour Iudges by conscience of their Office are both to judge righteously and by force and power of the sword given to them of God Rom. 13. 2 3 4. to execute the sentence and so God hath commanded inferiour Iudges to execute Iudgement and hath forbidden them to wrest Iudgement to take gifts except the King Command them so to doe Master Symmont The King is by the Grace of God the inferiour Iudge is Iudge by the grace of the King even as the man is the image of God and the woman the mans image Ans This distinction is neither true in Law nor conscience not in Law for it distinguisheth not betwixt Ministros regis ministros regni The servants of the King are his domesticks the Iudges are Ministri regni non regis the Ministers and Iudges of the Kingdome not of the King The King doth not show grace as he is a man in making such a man a Iudge but Iustice as a King by a Royall Power received from the people and by an Act of Iustice he makes Iudges of deserving men he should neither for favour nor bribes make any Iudge in the Land 2. It is the grace of God that men are to be advanced from a private condiâ—ion to be inferious Iudges as Royall Dignity is a free gift of God 1 Sam. 2. 7. The Lord bringeth low and lifteth up Ps 75. 7. God puâ—tâ—th downe one and seteth up another Court flatterers take from God and give to Kings but to be a Iudge inferiour is no lesse an immediate favour of God then to be King though the one be a greater favour then the other Magis honos and Majoc honos are to be considered 9. Arg. Those powers which differ gradually and per magis minus by more and lesse only differ not in nature and spece and constitute not Kings and inferiour Iudges different univocally But the power of Kings and inferiour Iudges are such therefore Kings and Inferiour Iudges differ not univocally That the powers are the same in nature I prove 1. by the specifice acts and formall object of the power of both for 1. both are power ordained of God Rom. 13. 1. to resist either is to resist the ordinance of God v. 2. both are by Office a terrour to evill workes v. â—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 censure him or punish him but God because there be no thrones above his but the throne of God The Iudges
of Israel as 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 man intendeth because of the supreme absolute and illimited power that God hath given him But this is a begging of the question and all one as to say the King may not be resisted because he may not be resisted for sanctitie of Majestie if we beleeve Royalists includeth essentially an absolute supremacie of power whereby they are above the reach of all thrones lawes powers or resistance on Earth But the Argument is Resist not because the Power is of God But the inferiour Magistrates power is of God 2. Resist not because you resist Gods ordinance in resisting the Iudge But the inferior Iudge is Gods ordinance Rom. 13. 1. Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chro. 19. 6. 3. Mr. Symmons saith all Iudges on earth are from the Kings as starres have their light from the Sun I answer 1. Then Aristocracie were unlawfull for it hath not its power from Monarchie Had the Lords of the Philistims have the States of Holland no power but from a Monarchie Name the Monarch Have the Venetians any power from a King Indeed our Prelate saith from Augustine Confess lib. 3. cap. 8. Generale pactum est societatis humana obedire Regibus suis It is an universall covenant of humane societie and a dictate of nature that men obey their Kings I beg the favour of Sectaries saith â—he to shew as much for Aristocracie and Democracie Now all other governments to bellies borne at Court are the inventions of men But I can shew that same warrant for the one as for the other because it is as well the dictate of nature that People obey their Iudges and Rulers as it is that they obey their Kings And Austin speaketh of all Iudges in that place though he name Kings for Kingly government is no more of the law of nature then Aristocracie or Democracie nor are any borne Iudges or Subjects at all There is a naturall aptitude in all to either of these for the conservation of nature and that is all Let us see that men naturally inclining to Government incline rather to Royall Government then to any other That the P. Prelate shall not be able to show For fatherly government being in two is not Kingly but nearer to Aristocracy and when many families were on earth every one independent within themselves if a commune enemy should invade a tract of Land governed by families I conceive by natures light they should incline to defend themselves and to joyne in one politique body for their owne safety as is most naturall but in that case they having no King and there were no reason of many fathers all alike loving their own families and selfe preservation why one should be King over all rather then another except by voluntary compact so it is cleare that Nature is nearer to Aristocracy before this contract then a Monarchy and let him shew us in multitudes of families dwelling together before there was a King as cleare a warrant for Monarchy as here is for Aristocracy though to me both be lawdable and lawfull ordinances of God and the difference meerely accidentall being one and the same power from the Lord Rom. 13. 1. which is in divers subjects in one as a Monarchy in many as in Aristocracy and the one is as naturall as the other and the subjects are accidentall to the nature of the power 2. The Starrs have no light at all but in actuall aspect toward the Sun and they are not lightsome bodies by the free will of the Sunne and have no immediate light from God formally but from the Sun so as if there were no Sun there should be no Starres 3. for actuall shining and sending out of beames of light actusecundo they depend upon the presence of the Sun but for inferiour Iudges though they have their call from the King yet have they gifts to governe from no King on earth but only from the King of Kings 4. When the King is dead the Iudges are Iudges and they depend not on the King for their second acts of judging and for the actuall emission and putting forth their beames and raies of justice upon the poore and needy they depend on no
voluntary aspect information or commandement of the King but on that immediate subjection of their conscience to the King of Kings And their Iudgement which they execute is the Lords immediatly and not the Kings and so the comparison halteth Arg. Our 10th Arg. If the King dying the Iudges inferiour remaine powers from God the Deputies of the Lord of Hoasts having their power from God then are they essentially Iudges yea and if the estates in their prime representators and leaders have power in the death of the King to choose and make another King then are they not Iudges and Rulers by derivation and participation or unproperly but the King is rather the Ruler by derivation and participation then these who are called inferiour Iudges Now if these Iudges depend in their Sentences upon the immediat will of him who is supposed to be the only Iudge when this only Iudge dyeth they should cease to be Iudges for Expirante mandatore expirat mandatum because the Fountaine Iudge drying up the streames must dry up Now when Saul dyed the Princes of the Tribes remaine by Gods institution Princes and they by Gods Law and Warrant Deut. 17. choose David their King 11. If the King through absolute power doe not send inferiour Iudges and constitute them but only by a power from the people and if the Lord have no lesse immediate influence in making inferiour Iudges then in making Kings then is there no ground that the King should be sole Iudge and the inferiour Iudge only Iudge by derivation from him and essentially his Deputy and not the immediate Deputy of God But the former is true ergo so is the latter And first that the Kings absolute Will maketh not inferiour Iudges is cleare from Deut. 1. 15. Moses might not follow his owne will in making inferiour Iudges whom he pleased God tyed him to a Law v. 13. that he should take wise men known amongst the people and fearing God and hating covetousnesse And these qualifications were not from Moses but from God and no lesse immediatly from God then the inward qualification of a King Deut. 17. and therefore it is not Gods Law that the King may make inferiour Iudges only Durante beneplacito during his absolute will for if these Divine qualifications remaine in the seventy Elders Moses at his will could not remove them from their places 2. That the King can make heritable Iudges more then he can communicate faculties and parts of judging I doubt riches are of fathers but not promotion which is from God and neither from the East nor the West That our Nobles are borne Lords of Parliament and Iudges by blood is a positive Law 3. It seemeth to me from Esay 3. 1 2 3 4. that the inferiour Iudge is made by consent of the people nor can it be called a wronging of the King that all cities and Burroughs of Scotland and England have power to choose their owne Provests Rulers and Majors 4. If it be warranted by God that the lawfull Call of God to the Throne be the election of the people the call of inferiour Iudges must also be from the people mediatly or immediatly So I see no ground to say that the inferiour Iudge is the Kings Vicegerent or that he is in respect of the King or in relation to supreme Authority only a private man 12. These Iudges cannot but be univocally and essentially Iudges no lesse then the King without which in a Kingdome Iustice is Physically unpossible and Anarchie and violence and confusion must follow if they be wanting in the Kingdome But without inferiour Iudges though there be a King Iustice is Physically unpossible and Anarchie and confusion must follow c. Now this Argument is more considerable that without inferiour Iudges though there be a King in a Kingdome Iustice and safety are unpossible and if there be inferiour Iudges though there be no King as in Aristocracy and when the King is dead and another not Crowned or the King is Minor or absent or a captive in the enemies Land yet justice is possible and the Kingdome preserved the Medium of the Argument is grounded upon Gods Word Num. 11. 14 15. when Moses is unable alone to judge the people seventy Elders re-joyned with him 16. 17. so were the Elders adjoyned to helpe him Exo. 24. 1. Deut. 5. 23. c. 22. 16. Iosh 23. 2. Iudg. 8. 14. Iudg. 11. 5. Iudg. 11. â—â— 1 Sam. 11. 3. 1 King 20. 7. 2 King 6. 32. 2 Chro. 34. 29. Ruth 4. 4. Deut. 19. 12. Ezech. 8. 1 Lament 1. 19. then were the Elders of Moab thought they had a King 2. The end naturall of Iudges hath been indigence and weaknesse because men could not in a society defend themselves from violence therefore by the light of nature they gave their power to one or more and made a Iudge or Iudges to obtaine the end of selfe preservation But Nature useth the most efficacious meanes to obtaine its end but in a great society and Kingdome the end is more easily attained by many Governours then by one only for where there is but one he cannot minister Iustice to all and the farther that the children are removed from their father and tutor they are the nearer to violence and unjustice Iustice should be at as easie a rate to the poore as a draught of water Samuel went yearely through the Land to Bethell Gilgall Mizpeh 1 Sam. 7. 16. and brought Iustice to the doores of the poore So were our Kings of Scotland obliged to doe of old but now justice is as deare as gold it is not a good argument to prove inferior Iudges to be only Vicars and Deputies of the King because the King may censure and punish them when they pervert judgement 1. Because the King in that punisheth them not as Iudges but as men 2. That might prove all the Subjects to be Vicars and Deputies of the King because he can punish them all in the case of their breach of lawes QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament have over the King and in the State IT is true the King is the head of the Kingdome but the States of the Kingdome are as the temples of the head and so as essentially parts of the head as the King is the crown of the head Assert 1. These Ordines Regni the States have been in famous Nations so there were fathers of families and Princes of Tribes amongst the Jewes The Ephori amongst the Lacedemonians Polyb. hist l. 6. The Senate amongst the Romanes The forum Superbiense amongst the Arragonians The Parliaments in Scotland England France Spaine 2 Sam. 3. 17. Abner communed with the Elders of Israel to bring the King home And there were Elders in Israel both in the time of the Judges and in the time of the Kings who did not only give advice and counsell to the Judges and Kings but also were Iudges no lesse then
the Kings and Iudges which I shall make good by these places Deut. 21. 19. The rebellious Son is brought to the Elders of the Citie who had power of life and death and caused to stone him Deut. 22. 18. The Elders of the Citie shall take that man and chastise him Iosh 20. 4. But beside the Elders of every Citie there were the Elders of Israel and the Princes who had also judiciall power of life and death as the Iudges and King had Josh 22. 30. Even when Ioshua was Iudge in Israel the Princes of the Congregation and heads of the Thousands of Israel did judicially cognosce whether the Children of Reuben of Gad and of halfe the tribe of Manasseh were apostates from God and the Religion of Israel 2 Sam. 5. 3. All the Elders of Israel made David King at Hebron and Num. 11. They are appointed by God not to be the advisers only and helpers of Moses but v. 14 17. to beare a part of the burden of ruling and governing the people that Moses might be eased Jeremiah is accused c. 26. 10. upon his life before the Princes Iosh 7 4. The Princes sit in judgement with Ioshua Iosh 9. 15. Ioshua and the Princes of the Congregation sware to the Gibeonites that they would not kill them The Princes of the house of Israel could not be rebuked for oppression in judgement Mic. 3. 1 2 3. if they had not had power of judgement So Zeph. 3. 3. And Deut. 1. 17. 2. Chron. 19. 6 7. They are expresly made Iudges in the place of God And 1 Sam. 8. 2. without advise or knowledge of Samuel the supreme Iudge they conveene and ask a King and without any head or superior when there is no King they conveene a Parliament and make David King at Hebron And when David is banished they conveen to bring him home againe when Tyrannous Athalia reigneth they conveene and make Ioash King and that without any King And Iosh 22. there is a Parliament conveened and for any thing we can read without Ioshua to take cognisance of a new Altar It had been good that the Parliaments both of Scotland and of England had conveened though the King had not indicted and summoned a Parliament without the King to take order with the wicked Clergie who had made many idolatrous Altars And the P. Prelate should have brought an argument to prove it unlawfull in foro Dei to set up the Tables and Conventions in our Kingdome when the Prelates were bringing in the grossest idolatrie into the Church a service for adoring of Altars of Bread the worke of the hand of the Baker a God more corruptible then any god of silver and gold And against Achabs will and minde 1 King 18 19. Elias causeth to kill the Priests of Baal according to Gods expresse law It is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise extraordinary then it is at this day When the supreme Magistrate will not execute the judgement of the Lord Those who made him supreme Magistrate under God who have under God soveraigne libertie to dispose of crownes and kingdomes are to execute the judgement of the Lord when wicked men make the law of God of none effect 1 Sam. 15. 32. so Samuel killed Hagage whom the Lord expresly commanded to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord. I deny not but there is necessitie of a cleere warrant that the Magistrate neglect his duty either in not conveening the States or not executing the judgement of the Lord. 3. I see not how the conveening of a Parliament is extraordinarie to the States for none hath power ordinary when the King is dead or when he is distracted or captive in another land to conveene the Estates and Parliament but they only and in their defect by the law of Nature the people may conveene But 4. If they be essentially Iudges no lesse then the King as I have demonstrated to the impartiall Reader in the former Chapter I conceive though the State make a positive law for Orders cause that the King ordinarily conveene Parliaments Yet if we dispute the matter in the court of Conscience the Estates have intrinsecally because they are the Estates and essentially Iudges of the Land ordinary power to conveene themselves 1. Because when Moses by Gods rule hath appointed seventie men to be Catholike Iudges in the Land Moses upon his sole pleasure and will hath not power to restraine them in the exercise of judgment given them of God for as God hath given to any one Iudge power to judge righteous judgement though the King command the contrary so hath he given to him power to sit down in the gate or the bench when and where the necessitie of the oppressed people calleth for it For 1. the expresse commandement of God which saith to all Iudges Execute judgement in the morning involveth essentially a precept to all the Physicall actions without which it is impossible to execute judgement As namely if by a divine precept the Iudge must execute judgement ergo he must come to some publique place and he must cause partie and witnesses come before him and he must consider cognosce examine in the place of judgement things persons circumstances and so God who commandeth positive acts of judgeing commandeth the Iudges locomotive power and his naturall actions of compelling by the sword the parties to come before him even as Christ who commandeth his servants to preach commandeth that the Preacher and the People goe to Church and that he stand or sit in a place where all may heare and that he give himselfe to reading and meditating before he come to preach And if God command one Iudge to come to the place of judgement so doth he command seventie and so all Estates to conveen in the place of judgement It is objected That the Estates are not Iudges ordinary and habitually but only Iudges at some certaine occasions when the King for cogent and weighty causes calleth them and calleth them not to judge but to give him advise and counsell how to judge Ans 1. They are no lesse Iudges habitually then the King when the common affaires of the whole Kingdome necessitateth these Publique Watchmen to come together for even the King judgeth not actually but upon occasion 2. This is to beg the question to say that the Estates are not Iudges but when the King calleth them at such and such occasions for the Elders Princes and Heads of families and Tribes were Iudges ordinarie because they made the King And 2. the Kingdome by God yea and Church Iustice and Religion so far as they concerne the whole Kingdome are committed not to the keeping of the King only but to all the Iudges Elders and Princes of the Land And they are rebuked as evening wolves lyons oppressors Ezech. 22. 27. Zaca 3. 3. Esa 3. 14 15. Mic. 3. 1 2 3. when they oppresse the people in judgement So are they Deut.
1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother Caâ—n ought in his place to be the keeper of Abel his brother So hath God committed the keeping of the Commonwealth by a positive law not to the King only because that is impossible Num. 11. 14 17. 2 Chron. 19. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Chron. 27. 4. If the King had such a power as King and so from God he should have power to breake up the meeting of all Courts of Parliament Secret Councell and all inferior Iudicatures And when the Congregation of gods as Ps 82. in the midst of which the Lord standeth were about to pronounce just judgement for the oppressed and poere they might be hindred by the King and so they should be as just as the King maketh them and might pervert judgement and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Esa 5. 23. because the King commandeth And the cause of the poore should not come before the Iudge when the King so commandeth And shall it excuse the Estates to say We could not judge the cause of the poore nor crush the Priests of Baal and the idolatrous Masse-Preltes because the King forbad us So might the King breake up the meeting of the Lords of Session when they were to decerne that Naboths vineyard should be restored to him and hinder the States to represse Tyranny And this were as much as if the States should say We made this man our King and with our good will we agree he shall be a Tyrant For if God gave it to him as a King we are to consent that he enjoy it 5. If Barclay and other flatterers have leave to make the Parliament but Counsellers and Advisers of the King and the King to be the only and sole Iudge 1. The King is by that same reason the sole Iudge in relation to all Iudges the contrary whereof is cleere Num. 11. 16. Deut 1. 15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Yea but say they the King when he sendeth an Ambassadour he may tye him to a written Commission and in so far as he exceedeth that he is not an Ambassadour and cleare it is that all inferiour Iudges 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. are but sent by the King ergo they are so Iudges as they are but messengers and are to adhere to the Royall pleasure of the Prince that sent them Ans 1. The Ambassadour is not to accept an unjust Ambassage that fighteth with the Law of nature 2. The Ambassadour and the Iudge differ the Ambassadour is the King and States Deputy both in his call to the Ambassage and also in the matter of the Ambassage for which cause he is not to transgresse what is given to him in Writ as a Rule but the inferiour Iudges and the high Court of Parliament though they were the Kings Deputies as the Parliament is in no sort his Deputy but he their Deputy Royall yet it is only in respect of their call not in respect of the matter of their Commission for the King may send the Iudge to judge in generall according to the Law and Iustice and Religion but he cannot depute the sentence and command the conscience of the Judge to prononnce such a sentence not such the inferiour Iudge in the act of judging is as independent and his conscience as immediatly subject to God as the King therefore the King owes to every sentence his approbative suffrage as King but not his either directive suffrage nor his imperative suffrage of absolute pleasure 6. If the King should sell his Country and bring in a forraigne Army the estates are to convene to take course for the safety of the Kingdome 7. If David exhort the Princes of Israel to helpe King Solomon in governing the Kingdome in building the Temple 2 Chron. 32. 3. Ezechiah tooke counsell with his Princes and his mighty men in the matter of holding off the Assyrians who were to invade the Land if David 1 Chron. 13. 1 2 3 4. consult with the Captaines of thousands and hundreds to bring the Arke of God to Kireath jearim if Solomon 1 King 8. 1. Assemble the Elders of Israel and all the Heads of the Tribes and the chief of the fathers to bring the Arke of the Tabernacle to the congregation of the Lord. And Achab gather together the States of Israel in a matter that nearely concerned Religion If the Elders and people 1 King 20. 8. counsell and decree that King Achab should hearken to Benhadad King of Syria and if Ahasuerus make no Decrees but with consent of his Princes Ester 1. 21. nor Darius any Act without his Nobles and Princes if Hamor and Schechem Genes 34. 20. would not make a Covenant with Iacobs Sons without the consent of the men of the City and Ephron the Hittite would not sell Abraham a buriall place in his Land without the consent of the children of Heth Gen. 23. 10. Then must the estates have a power of judging with the King or Prince in matters of Religion Iustice and Government which concerne the whole Kingdome but the former is true by the Records of Scripture ergo so is the latter 8. The men of Ephraim complaine that Iephtah had gone to warre against the children of Ammon without them and hence rose warre betwixt the men of Ephraim and the men of Gilead Iud. 12. 1 2 3. and the men of Israel â—iercely contend with the men of Iudah because they brought King David home againe without them pleading that they were therein dispised 2 Sam. 19. 41 42 43. which evinceth that the whole States have hand in matters of publick government that concerne all the Kingdome and when there is no King Iudg. 20. The chiefe of the people and of all the Tribes goe out in battell against the children of Benjamin 9. These who make the King and so have power to unmake him in the case of Tyranny must be above the King in power of Government but the Elders and Princes made both David and Saul Kings 10. There is not any who say that the Princes and people 1 Sam. 14. did not right in rescuing innocent Ionathan from death against the Kings Will and his Law 11. The speciall ground of Royalists is to make the King the absolute supreame giving all life and
Prelate presumeth that Fatherly power is absolute But so if a father murther his childe he is not comptable to the Magistrate therefore but being absolute over his children only the Judge of the World not any power on earth can punish him 6. We have proved that the Kings power is paternall or fatherly only by analogie and improperly 7. What is this Prerogative Royall we shall heare by and by 8. There is no restraint on Earth laid upon this fatherly power of the King but Gods law which is a morall restraint If then the King challenge as great a power as the Turke hath he only sinneth against God but no mortall man on earth may controll him as Royalists teach and who can know what power it is that Royalists plead for whether a dispoticall power of Lordly power or a fatherly power If it be a power above law such as none on earth may resist it it is no matter whether it be above law of two degrees or of twenty even to the Great Turkes power These goe for Oracles at Court Tacitus Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt subditis obsequii gloria relicta est Seneca Indigna digna habenda sunt Rex quae facit Salustius Impunâ— quidvis facere id est Regem esse As if to be a King and to be a God who cannot erre were all one But certainly these Authors are taxing the Licence of Kings and not commanding their power But that God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a King above the law is evident by this Arg. 1. He who in his first institution is appointed of God by office even when he sitteth on the throne to take heed to read on a written copie of Gods law that he may learne to feare the Lord his God and keep all the words of this law c. He is not of absolute power above law But Deut. 17. 18 19 the King as King while he sitteth on the Throne is to doe this Ergo the Assumption is cleare for this is the law of the King as King and not of a man as a man But as he sitteth on the Throne he is to read on the booke of the Law and ver 20. Because he is King his heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren And as King v. 16. he is not to multiply horses c. So Polititians make this argument good They say Rex est lex viva animata loquens lex The King as King is a living breathing and speaking Law And there be three reasons of this 1. If all were innocent persons and could doe no violence one to another the Law would rule all and all men would put the Law in execution agendo sponte by doing right of their own accord and there should be no need of a King to compell men to do right But now because men are by nature averse to good lawes therefore there was need of a Ruler who by office should reduce the Law into practice and so is the King the Law reduced in practice 2. The Law is ratio sive mens the reason or minde free from all perturbations of anger lust hatred and cannot be tempted to ill and the King as a man may be tempted by his own passions and therefore as King he commeth by office out of himselfe to reason and law and so much as he hath of Law so much of a King and in his remotest distance from Law and Reason he is a Tyrant 3. Abstracta concretis sunt puriora perfectiora Iustice is perfecter then a just man Whitenes perfecter then the white wall so the neerer the King comes to a Law for the which he is a King the neerer to a King Propter quod unumquodque tale id ipsum magis tale Therefore Kings throwing lawes to themselves as men whereas they should have conformed themselves to the Law have erred Cambyses the sonne of Cyrus because he loved his own sister would have the mariage of the brother with the sister lawfull Anaxarchus said to Alexander grieved in minde that he had killed Clytus Regi ac Iovi Themin atque Iustitiam assidere Iudgement and Righteousnesse did alway accompanie God and the King in all they doe But some to this purpose say better The Law rather then the King hath power of life and death Arg. 2. The power that the King hath I speak not of his gifts he hath it from the people who maketh him King as I proved before but the people have neither formally nor virtually any power absolute to give the King all the power they have is a legall and naturall power to guide themselves in peace and godlinesse and save themselves from unjust violence by the benefit of Rulers Now an absolute power above a Lawis a power to doe ill and to destroy the people and this the people have not themselves it being repugnant to nature that any should have a naturall power in themselves to destroy themselves or to inflict upon themselves an evill of punishment to destruction Though therefore it were given which yet is not granted that the people had resigned all power that they have into their King yet if he use a Tyrannicall power against the people for their hurt and destruction he useth a power that the people never gave him and against the intention of nature for they invested a man with power to be their father and defender for their good And he faileth against the peoples intention in usurping aâ— over power to himselfe which they never gave never had never could give for they cannot give what they never had and power to destroy themselves they never had 3. Arg. All Royall Power whereby a King is a King and differenced from a private man armed with no power of the sword is from God But absolute power to Tyranize over the people and to destroy them is not a power from God Ergo there is not any such royall power absolute The proposition is evident because that God who maketh Kings and disposeth of Crownes Prov. 8. 15 16. 2 Sam. 12. 7. Daniel 4. 32. must also create and give that Royall and Officiall power by which a King is a King 1. Because God created man he must be the Author of his reasonable soule if God be the Author of things he must be the Author of their formes by which they are that which they are 2. All power is Gods 1 Chro. 29. 11 Matth. 6. 13. Ps 62. 11. Ps 68. 35. Dan. 2. 37. And that absolute power to Tyrannize is not from God 1. Because if this Morall power to sinne be from God it being formally wickednesse God must be the Author of sinne 2. What ever Morall power is from God the exercises of that power and the acts thereof must be from God and so these acts must be Morally good and just for if the Morall power be of God as the Author so must the acts
be Now the acts of a Tyrannicall power are acts of sinfull unjustice and oppression and cannot be from God 3. Polititians say There is no power in Rulers to doe ill but to helpe and defend the people as the power of a Physiâ—ian to destroy of a Pilot to cast away the ship on a Rock the power of a Tutor to wast the inheritance of the Orphan and the power of father and mother to kill their children and of the mighty to defraud and oppresse are not powers from God So Ferdinand Vasquez illustr quest l. 1. c. 26. c. 45. Pruckman d. c. 3. § Soluta potestas Althus pol. cap. 9. n. 25. Barclaim Grotius Doct. Ferne The P. Prelates wit could come up tÌ„o it say That absolute power to do ill so as no mortall man can lawfully resist it is from God and the King hath this way power from God as no subject â—an resist it but he must resist the Ordinance of God and yet the power of tyranny is not simply from God Answ The Law saith Illud possumus quod jure possumus Papinus F. filius D. de cond Just The Law saith It is no power which is not lawfull power The Royalists say power of Tyranny in so farre as it may be resisted and is punishable by men is not from God but what is the other part of the distinction it must be that Tyrannicall power is simpliciter from God or in it self it is from God but as it is punishable or restrainable by subjects it is not from God now to be punishable by subjects is but an accident and tyrannicall power is the subject yea and it is an separable accident for many Tyrants are never punished and their power is never restrained such a Tyrant was Saul and many persecuting Emperours Now if the Tyrannicall power it self was from God the argument is yet valid and remaineth unanswered and shall not this fall to the ground as false which Arnisaeus de autho princ c. 2. n. 10. Dum contra officium facit Magistratus non est Magistratus quippe a quo non injuria sed jus nasci debeat l. meminerint 6. C. unde vi din. in C. quod quis 24. n. 4 5. Et de hoâ— neminem dubitare aut dissentire scribit Marant disp 1. num 14. When the Magistrate doth by violence and without law any thing in so farre doing against his Office he is not a Magistrate then say I that power by which he doth is not of God 2. None doeth then resist the Ordinance of God who resist the King in Tyrannous acts 2. If the power as it cannot be punished by the subject nor restrained be from God Ergo the Tyrannicall power itself and without this accident that it can be punished by men it must be from God also but the conclusion is absurd and denied by Royalists I prove the connexion For if the King have such a power above all restraint the power itself to wit King Davids power to kill innocent Vriah and defloor Bathshebah without the accident of being restrained or punished by men is either from God or not from God if it be from God it must be a power against the sixth and seventh Commandment which God gave to David and not to any subject and so David lied when he confessed this sin and this sin cannot be pardoned because it was no sin and Kings because Kings are under no tye of duties of mercy and truth and justice to their subjects contrary to that which Gods Law requireth of all Judges Deut. 1. 15 16 17. and 17. 15 16 17 18 19 20. 2 Chro. 19. 6 7. Rom. 13. 3 4. If this power be from God as it is unrestrainable and unpunishable by the subject it is not from God at all for how can God give a power to do ill that is unpunishable by men and not give that power to do ill it is unconceiveable For in this very thing that God giveth to David a power to murther the innocent with this respect That it shall be punishable by God onely and not by men God mâ—st give it as a sinfull power to do ill which must be a power of dispensation to sin and so not to be punished by either God or man which is contrary to his revealed will in his word If such a power as not restrainable by man be from God by way of permission as a power to sin in divels and men is then it is no Royall power nor any Ordinance of God and to resist this power is not to resist the Ordinance of God Argum. 4. That power which maketh the benefit of a King to be no benefit but a judgement of God as a making all the people slaves such as were slaves amongst the Romans and Jews is not to be asserted by any Christian but an absolute power to do ill and to Tyrannize which is supposed to be an essentiall and constitutive of Kings to difference them from all Judges maketh the benefit of a King no benefit but a judgement of God as making all the people slaves That the major may be clear It is evident to have a King is a blessing of God because to have no King is a judgement Judg. 17. 6. Every man doth what seemeth good in his own eyes Judg. 18. 1. and 19. 1. and 21. 25. 2. So it is a part of Gods good providence to provide a King for his people 1 Sam. 16. 1. so 2 Sam. 5. 12. And David perceived that the Lord had established him King over Israel and that he had exalted his Kingdom for his people Israels sake 2 Sam. 15. 2 3 6. 2 Sam. 18. 3. Rom. 13. 2 3 4. If the King be a thing good in it self then can he not actu primo be a curse and a judgement and essentially a bondage and slavery to the people also the genuine and intrinsecall end of a King is the good Rom. 13. 4. and the good of a quiet a peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. and he is by Office custos utriusque tabulae whose genuine end is to preserve the law from violence and to defend the subject he is the peoples debtor for all happynesse possible to be procured by Gods sword either in peace or war at home or abroad For the assumption it is evident An absolute and Arbitrary power is a King-law such as Royalists say God gave to Saul 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. and 10. 25. to play the Tyrant and this power Arbitrary and unlimited above all Laws is that which 1. Is given of God 2. Distinguisheth essentially the Kings of Israel from the Iudge â—aith Banclay Grotius Arnisaeus 3. A constitutive form of a King therefore it must be actu primo a benefit and a blessing of God but if God hath given any such power absolute to a King as 1. His will must be a law either to do or suffer all the Tyranny and cruelty of a Tyger
Leopard or a Nero and a Julian then hath God given actu primo a power to a King as King to inslave the people and slock of God redeemed by the blood of God as the slaves among the Romans and Iews who were so under their masters as their bondage was a plague of God and the lives of the people of God under Pharaoh who compelled them to work in brick and clay 2. Though he cut the throats of the people of God as the Lionnesse Queen Mary did and command an Army of souldiers to come and burn the Cities of the Land and kill man wife and children yet in so doing he doth the part of a King so as you cannot resist him as a man and obey him as a King but must give your necks to him upon this ground because this absolute power of his is ordained of God and there is no power even to kill and destroy the innocent but it is of God so saith Paul Rom. 13. If we beleeve Court-Prophets or rather Lying-Spirits who perswade the King of Britain to make war against his three Dominions Now it is clear that the distinction of bound and free continued in Israel even under the most tyrannous Kings 2 Kings 4. 1. yea even when the Iews were captives under Ahasuerus Esther 7. 4. And what difference should there be between the people of God under their own Kings and when they were captives under Tyrants serving wood and stone and false gods as was threatned as a curse in the Law Deut. 28. 25 36 64 68. If their own Kings by Gods appointment have the same absolute power over them and if he be a Tyrant actu primo that is if he be indued with absolute power and so have power to play the Tyrant then must the people of God be actu primo slaves and under absolute subjection for they are relatives as lord and servant conquerour and captive It is true they say Kings by office are fathers they cannot put forth in action their power to destroy I answer it is their goodnesse of nature that they put not forth in action all their absolute power to destroy which God hath given them as Kings and therefore thanks are due to their goodnesse for that they do not actu secundo play the Tyrant for Royalists teach that by vertue of their office God hath given to them a Royall power to destroy Ergo The Lords people are slaves under them though they deal not with them as slaves but that hindereth not but the people by condition are slaves so many Conquerours of old did deal kindely with these slaves whom they took in war and dealt with them as sons but as Conquerours they had power to sell them to kill them to put them to work in brick and clay so say I here Royall power and a King cannot be a blessing and actu primo a favour of God to the people for the which they are to pray when they want a King that they may have one or to praise God when they have one But a King must be a curse and a judgement if he be such a creature as essentially and in the intention and nature of the thing it self hath by office a Royall power to destroy and that from God for then the people praying Lord give us a King should pray make us slaves Lord take our Libertie and power from us and give a power illimited and absolute to one man by which he may if he please waste us and destroy us as all the bloody Emperours did the people of God Surely I see not but they should pray for a temptation and to be led in temptation when they pray God to give them a King and therefore such a power is a vain thing Argum. 5. A power contrary to justice 2. To peace and the good of the people 3. That looketh to no law as a rule and so is unreasonable and forbidden by the Law of God and the Civill Law L. 15. filius de condit Instit cannot be a lawfull power and cannot constitute a lawfull Iudge but an absolute and unlimited power is such How can the Iudge be the Minister of God for good to the people Rom. 13. 4 If he have such a power as a King given him of God to destroy and waste the people Argum. 6. An absolute power is contrary to nature and so unlawfull for it maketh the people give away the naturall power of defending their life against illegall and cruell violence and maketh a man who hath need to be ruled and lawed by nature above all rule and law and one who by nature can sin against his brethren such a one as cannot sin against any but God onely and maketh him a Lion and an unsociall man What a man is Nero whose life is poesie paintry Domitian only an Archer Valentinian only a Painter Charles the 9th of France only an Hunter Alphonsus Dux Ferrariensis only an Astronomer Philippe of Macedo only a Musitian and all because they are Kings This our King denyeth when he saith Art 13. There is power legally placed in the Parliament more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny But if they had not power to play the Lions it is not much that Kings are Musitians Hunters c. 7. God in making a King to preserve his people should give liberty without all politick restraint for one man to destroy many which is contrary to Gods end in the fift Commandement if one have absolute power to destroy soules and bodies of many thousands 8. If the Kings of Israel and Iudah were under censures and rebukes of the Prophets and sinned against God and the people in rejecting these rebukes and in persecuting the Prophets and were under this Law not to take their neighbours wife or his Vineyard from him against his will and the inferiour Iudges were to accept the persons of none in Iudgement small or great and if the King yet remaine a brother notwithstanding he be a King then is his power not above any Law nor absolute for what reason 1. He should be under one Law of God to be executed by men and not under another Law Royalists are to shew a difference from Gods Word 2. His neighbours brother or subjects may by violence keepe back their Vineyards and chastity from the King Naboth may by force keepe his owne Vineyard from Achab by the Lawes of Scotland if a subject obtaine a Decree of the King of violent possession of the Heritages of a subject he hath by Law power to cast out force apprehend and deliver to prison these who are Tenants brooking these Lands by the Kings personall Commandement If a King should force a Damsell she may violently resist and by violence and bodily opposing of violence to violence defend her owne chastity Now that the Prophets have rebuked Kings is evident Samuel rebuked Saul Nathan David Elias King Achab.
sinfull man which must be idolatrie But to doe Royall acts out of an absolute power above Law and Reason is such a power as agreeth to God as is evident in positive lawes and in acts of Gods meere pleasure where we see no reason without the Almightie for the one side rather than for the other as Gods forbidding the eating of the tree of knowledge maketh the eating sinne and contrary to reason but there is no reason in the object for if God should command eating of that tree not to eat should be also sinne So Gods choosing Peter to glory and his refusing Judas is a good and a wise act but not good or wise from the object of the act but from the sole wise pleasure of God because if God had chosen Judas to glory and rejected Peter that act had been no lesse a good and a wise act then the former For when there is no law in the object but only Gods will the act is good and wise seeing infinite wisdome cannot be separated from the perfect will of God but no act of a mortall King having sole and only will and neither law nor reason in it can be a lawfull a wise or a good act Assert 2. There is something which may be called a Prerogative by way of dispensation There is a threefold dispensation one of power another of justice and a third of grace A dispensation of power is when the will of the Law-giver maketh that act to be no sinne which without that will would have been sinne As if Gods commanding Will had not interveened the Israelites borrowing the eare-rings and jewels of the Egyptians and not restoring them had been a breach of the 8 Commandement and in this sense no King hath a Prerogative to dispence with a Law 2. There is a dispensation of law and justice not flowing from any Prerogative but from the true intent of the Law And thus the King yea the inferiour Judge is not to take the life of a man whom the letter of the Law would condemne because the Justice of the Law is the intent and life of the Law and where nothing is done against the intent of the Law there is no breach of any Law The Third is not unlike unto the Second when the King exponeth the Law by Grace and this is twofold 1. Either when he exponeth it of his wisdome and mercifull nature inclined to mercy and justice yet according to the just intent native sense and scope of the Law considering the occasion circumstances of the fact and comparing both with the Law aud this dispensation of grace I grant to the King As when the tribute is great and the man poor the King may dispense with the custome 2. The Law saith In a doubtfull case the Prince may dispense because it is presumed the Law can have no sense against the principall sense and intent of the Law But there is another dispensation that Royalists doe plead for and that is a power in the King ex mera gratia absolutae potestatis regalis Out of meere grace of absolute Royall power to pardon crimes which Gods law saith should be punished by death Now this they call a power of Grace but it is not a power of meere Grace But 1. Though Princes may doe some things of Grace yet not of meere Grace because what Kings doe as Kings and by vertue of their Royall office that they do ex debito officii by debt and right of their office and that they cannot but do it not being arbitrarie to them to doe the debtfull acts of their office But what they doe of meere grace that they doe as good men and not as Kings and that they may not doe As for example Some Kings out of their pretended prerogative have given foure pardons to one man for foure murthers Now this the King might have left undone without sinne But of meere grace he pardoned the murtherer who killed foure men But the truth is the King killed the three last because he hath no power in point of Conscience to dispute with blood Num. 35. 31. Gen. 9. 6. These pardons are acts of meere grace to one man but acts of blood to the Communitie 2. Because the Prince is the Minister of God for the good of the subject and therefore the Law saith He cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him Contra l. quod favore F. de leg l. non ideo minus F. de proc l. legata inutiliter F. de lega 1. And the reason is cleare He is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill And if the Judgement be the Lords not mans not the Kings as it is indeed Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. he cannot draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guiltie except he would take on himselfe to carve and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now certaine it is God only univocally and essentially as God is the Judge Ps 75. 7. and God only and essentially King Ps 97. 1. Ps 99. 1. and all men in relation to him are meere ministers servants legates deputies and in relation to him equivocally and improperly Iudges or Kings and meere created and breathing shadowes of the power of the King of Kings And looke as the Scribe following his own device and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the Court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Iudge so are Kings and all Iudges but forged intruders and bastard Kings and Iudges in so far as they give out the sentences of men and are not the very mouthes of the King of Kings to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himselfe would doe if he were sitting on the Throne or Bench. 3. If the King from any supposed prerogative Royall may doe acts of meere grace without any warrant of Law because he is above Law by office then also may he doe acts of meere rigorous Iustice and kill and destroy the innocent out of the same supposed Prerogative For Gods word equally tyeth him to the place of a meere minister in doing good as in executing wrath on evill doers Rom. 13. 3 4. And reason would say he must be as absolute in the one as in the other seeing God tieth him to the one as to the other by his office and place yea by this acts of Iustice to ill-doers and acts of reward to well-doers shall be arbitrary morally and by vertue of office to the King and the word Prerogative Royall saith this for the word Prerogative is a supreme power absolute that is loosed from all Law and so from all reason of Law and depending on the Kings meer and naked pleasure and will and the word Royall or Kingly is an Epithete of office and of a Iudge a created and limited Iudge and so it must tye this
wisedome for in many and in the people there must be more wisdome then in one man but rather corruption of nature and reciprocation of injuries that created Kings and other Iudges 9. The King shall better compasse his end to wit the safetie of the people with limited power placent mediocria and with other Iudges added to helpe him Num. 11. 14 16. Deut. 1. 12 13 14 15. then to put in one mans hand absolute power for a sinfull mans head cannot beare so much new wine such as exorbitant power is 10. He is a base flatterer who saith The King cannot choose but earnestly and carefully endeavour his own and the peoples happinesse that is the King is an Angel and cannot sinne and decline from the duties of a King Of the many Kings of Judah and Israel how many chose this All the good Kings that have been may be written in a gold ring 11. The peoples safetie dependeth indeed on the King as a King and a happy Governour but the people shall never be fattened to eat the winde of an imaginarie Prerogative Royall 12. Weake Government that is a King with a limited power who hath more power about his head nor within his head is a strong King and farre from Anarchy 13. I know not what he meaneth but Arminius his Masters way and words are here for Arminians say That being in the damned eternally tormented is no benefit it were better they never had being then to be eternally tormented and this they say to the defiance of the Doctrine of eternall Reprobation in which we teach That though by accident and because of the Damned their abuse of being and life it were to them better not to be as is said of Iudas yet simpliciter comparing being with non-being and considering the eternity of miserable being in relation to the absolute liberty of the Former of all things who maketh use of the sinfull being of Clay-vessells for the illustration of the glory of his Iustice and power Rom. 9. 17 22. 1 Pet. 2. 8. Iude v. 4. It is a censuring of God and his unsearchable Wisedome and a condemning of the Almighty of cruelty God avert blasphemy of the unspotted and holy Majesty who by Arminian grounds keepeth the Damned in life and being to be fuell eternally for Tophet to declare the glory of his Iustice But the Prelate behoved to goe out of his way to salute and gratifie a proclaimed enemy of free Grace Arminius and hence he would inferre That the King wanting his Prerogative Royall and fulnesse of absolute power to doe wickedly is in a penall and miserable condition and that it were better for the King to be a Tyrant with absolute liberty to destroy and save alive at his pleasure as is said of a Tyrant Dan. 5. v. 19. then to be no King at all And here consider a Principle of Royalists Court faith 1. The King is no King but a lame and miserable Iudge if he have not irresistable power to wast and destroy 2. The King cannot be happy nor the people safe nor can the King doe good in saving the needy except he have the uncontrollable and unlimited power of a Tyrant to crush the poore and needy and lay wast the mountaine of the Lords inheritance such Court-ravens who feede upon the soules of living Kings are more cruell then Ravens and Vultures who are but dead carcasses Williams B. of Ossarie answereth to the Maxime Salus populi c. No wise King but will carefully provide for the peoples safety because his safety and honour is included in theirs his destruction in theirs And it is saith Lipsius egri animi proprium nihil diu pati Absolom perswaded there was no justice in the Land when he intendeth Rebellion And the poore Prelate following him spendeth pages to prove that Goods Life Chastity and Fame dependeth on the safety of the King as the breath of our nostrills our Nurse-father our Head corner-stone and Judge c. 17. 6. 18. 1. The reason why all disorder was in Church and State was not because there was no Iudge no Government none can be so stupid as to imagine that But because 1. They wanted the excellentest of Governments 2. Because Aristocracy was weakened so as there was no right No doubt Priests there were but Hos 4. either they would not serve or were over-awed no doubt in those daies they had Iudges but Priests and Iudges were stoned by a rascally multitude and they were not able to rule therefore it is most consonant to Scripture to say Salus regis suprema populi salus The safety of the King and his Prerogative Royall is the safest sanctuary for the people So Hos 3. 4. Lament 2. 9. Ans 1. The question is not of the Wisedome but of the Power of the King if it should be bounded by no Law 2. The flatterer may know there be more foolish Kings in the world then wise and that Kings misled with Idolatrous Queenes and by name Achab ruined himselfe and his posterity and Kingdome 3. The salvation and happinesse of men standing in the exalting of Christs Throne and the Gospell ergo every King and every man will exalt the Throne and so let them have an incontrollable power without constraint of Law to doe what they list and let no bounds be set to Kings over subjects by this Argument their owne wisedome is a law to leade them to Heaven 4. It is not Absoloms mad Male-contents in Britane but there were really no justice to Protestants all indulgence to Papists Popery Arminianisme Idolatry printed Preached professed rewarded by Authority Parliaments and Church Assemblies the Bulwarkes of Iustice and Religion were denyed dissolved crushed c. 5. That by a King he understandeth a Monarch Iudg. 17. and that such a one as Saul of Absolute power and not a Iudge cannot be proved for there were no Kings in Israel in the Iudges daies the Government not being changed till neare the end of Samuels Government 6. And that they had no Iudges he saith It is not imaginable but I rather beleeve God then the Prelate Every one did what was right in his owne eyes because there was none to put ill doers to shame Possible the Estates of Israel governed some way for meere necessity but wanting a supreme Iudge which they should have they were loose but this was not because where there is no King as P. P. would insinuate there was no Government as is cleare 7. Of tempered and limited Monarchy I thinke as honourably as the Prelate but that absolute and unlimited Monarchy is excellenter then Aristocracy I shall then beleeve when Royalists shall prove such a Government in so farre it is absolute to be of God 8. That Aristocracy was now weakened I beleeve not seeing God so highly commendeth it and calleth it his own reigning over his people 1 Sam. 8. 7. The weakening of it through abuse is not to a purpose more then the abuse
King not the people and the sense is The Kingdome is really some time in such a case that the Soveraigne must exercise an Arbitrary Power and not stand upon private mens interests or transgressing of Lawes made for the private good of individualls but for the preservation of it selfe and the publicke may break through all Lawes This he may in the case when suddaine forraine invasion threatneth ruine inevitably to King and Kingdome a Physitian may rather cut a Gangreened member then suffer the whole body to perish The Dictator in case of extreame dangers as Livie and Dion Halicarnass shew us had power according to his owne Arbitrament had a soveraigne Commission in peace and war of life death persons c. not co-ordinate not subordinate to any Ans It is not an Arbitrary power but naturally tyed and fettered to this same supreame Law Salus populi the safety of the people that a King breake through not the Law but the letter of the Law for the safety of the people as the Chyrurgion not by any prerogative that he hath above the Art of Chyrurgery but by necessity cutteth off a Gangreened member thus it s not Arbitrary to the King to save his people from ruine but by the strong and imperious Law of the peoples safety he doth it for if he did it not he were a murtherer of his people 2. He is to stand upon transgression of Lawes according to their genuine sense of the peoples safety for good Lawes are not contrary one to another though when he breaketh through the letter to the Law yet he breaketh not the Law for if twenty thousand Rebells invade Scotland he is to command all to rise though the formality of a Parliament cannot be had to indict the war as our Law provideth but the King doth not command all to rise and defend themselves by a Prerogative Royall proper to him as King and incommunicable to any but to himselfe 1. There is no such dinne and noise to be made for a King and his incommunicable Prerogative for though the King were not at all yea though he command the contrary as he did when he came against Scotland with an English Army the law of Nature teacheth all to rise without the King 2. That the King command this as King it is not a particular positive Law but he doth it as a man and a member of the Kingdom The law of Nature which knoweth no dreame of such a Prerogative forceth him to it as every member is by Natures indictment to care for the whole 3. It is poore hungry skill in this New Statist for so he nameth all Scotland to say that any Lawes are made for private interests and the good of some individuals Lawes are not Lawes if they be not made for the safetie of the people 4. It is false that the King in a publike danger is to care for himselfe as a man with the ruine and losse of any Yea in a publike calamitie a good King as David is to desire he may die that the Publique may bee saved 2 Samuel 24. 17. Exâ—dus 32. 32. It is commended of all that the Emperour Otho yea and Richard the 2. of England as M. Speed saith Hist of England p. 757. resigned their Kingdomes to eschew the effâ—sion of blood The Prelate adviseth the King to passe over all lawes of Nature and slay thousands of innocents and destroy Church and State of three Kingdomes for a straw and supposed Prerogative Royall Now certainly Prerogative and Absolutenes to doe good and ill must be inferior to a Law the end whereof is the safetie of the People For David willeth the pestilence may take him away and so his Prerogative that the People may be saved 2 Sam. 24. 17. for Prerogative is cumulative to doe good not privative to doe ill and so is but a meane to defend both the Law and the People 2. Prerogative is either a power to doe good or ill or both If the first be said it must be limited by the End and Law for which it is ordained A meane is no farther a meane but in so far as it conduceth to the end the safetie of all If the second be admitted It is Licence and Tyrannie not power from God If the third be said both reasons plead against this that Prerogative should be the Kings end in the present warres 3. Prerogative being a power given by the mediation of the people yea suppose which is false that it were given immediately of God yet it not a thing for which the King should raise war against his Subjects for God will aske no more of the King then he giveth to him The Lord reapeth not where he soweth not If the Militia and other things be ordered hitherto for the holding off Irish and Spanishe invasion by Sea and so for the good of the Land seeing the King in his own person cannot make use of the Militia he is to rejoyce that his Subjects are defended The King cannot answer to God for the justice of warre on his part It is not a case of conscience that the King should shed blood for to wit because the under-Officers are such men and not others of his choosing seeing the Kingdome is defended sufficiently except where Cavaliers destroy it And to me this is an unanswerable argument that the Cavaliers destroy not the Kingdomes for this Prerogative Royall as the principall ground but for a deeper designe even for that which was working by Prelates and Malignants before the late troubles in both Kingdomes 4. The King is to intend the safetie of his People and the safety of the King as a Governour but not as this King and this man Charles that is a selfe end a King David is not to looke to that for when the people was seeking his life and crown he saith Ps 3. 8. Thy blessing upon thy People He may care for and intend that the King and Government be safe for if the Kingdome be destroyed there cannot be a new Kingdome and Church on earth againe to serve God in that generation Psal 89. 47. but they may easily have a new King againe and so the safetie of the one cannot in reason be intended as a collaterall end with the safetie of the other for there is no imaginable comparison betwixt one man with all his accidents of Prerogative and Absolutenesse and three Nationall Churches and Kingdomes Better the King weep for a Childish triâ—le of a Prerogative than Poperie be erected and three Kingdomes be destroyed by Cavaliers for their own ends 5. The Dictators power is 1. a fact and proveth not a point of Conscience 2. His power was in an exigence of extreme danger of the Commonwealth The P. Prelate pleadeth for a constant absolutenesse above Lawes to the King at all times and that jure Divino 3. The Dictator was the Peoples creature ergo the Creator the People had that soveraigntie over him 4. The
Law no Law 1. Because he is King by or according to Law but he is not King of Law Rex est Rex secundum legem sed non est Dominus Rex legis 2. Because although it have a good meaning which Vlpian saith Quod principi placet legis vigorem habet The Will of the Prince is the Law yet the meaning is not that any thing is a just Law because it is the Princes Will for its rule formally for it must be good and just before the Prince can will it and then he finding it so he puteth the stampe of a humane Law on it 3. This is the difference between Gods Will and the will of the King or any mortall creature Things are just and good because God willeth them especially things positively good though I conceive it hold in all things and God doth not will things because they are good and just But the creature be he King or any never so eminent doe will things because they are good and just and the Kings willing of a thing maketh it not good and just for only Gods will not the Creatures will can be the cause why things are good and just If therefore it be so it must undeniably hence follow that the Kings will maketh not a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense and he cannot as King by any absolute super-dominion over the Law put a just sense on a bloody and unjust Law 4. The advancing of any man to the Throne and Royall dignitie putteth not the man above the number of rationall men But no rationall man can create by any act of power never so transcendent or boundlesse a sense to a Law contrary to the Law Nay give me leave to doubt if Omnipotencie can make a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense aut contra because it involveth a contradiction the true meaning of a Law being the essentiall forme of the Law Hence judge what bruitish swinish flatterers they are who say That it is the true meaning of the Law which the King the only supreme and independent expositor of the Law saith is the true sense of the Law There was once an Animal a Foole of the first magnitude who said He could demonstrate by invincible reasons that the Kings dung was more nourishing food then bread of the floore of the finest wheat For my part I could wish it were the Demonstrators only food for seven dayes and that should be the best demonstration he could make for his proofe 5. It must follow that there can be no necessitie of written laws to the Subjects against Scripture and naturall reason and the law of Nations in which all accord That Lawes not promulgated and published cannot oblige as Lawes Yea Adam in his innocencie was not obliged to obey a Law not written in his heart by Nature except God had made known the Law as is cleare Gen. 3. 11. Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat But if the Kings absolute Will may put on the Law what sense he pleaseth out of his independent and irresistable Supremacie The Lawes promulgated and written to the Subjects can declare nothing what is to be done by the Subjects as just and what is to be avoyded as unjust because the Lawes must signifie to the Subjects what is just and unjust according to their genuine sense Now their genuine sense according to Royalists is not only uncertaine and impossible to be known but also contradictorious for the King obligeth us without gainsaying to believe that the just Law hath this unjust sense Hence this of flattering Royalists crueller to Kings than Ravens for these eat but dead men and they devoure living men when there is a controversie between the King and the Estates of Parliament who shall expone the Law and render its native meaning say Royalists not the Estates of Parliament for they are Subjects not Iudges to the King and only Counsellers and advisers of the King The King therefore must be the only judiciall and finall expositor As for Lawyers said Strafford the Law is not inclosed in a Lawyers Cap. But I remember this was one of the Articles laid to the chargeb of Richard the Second that he said The Law was in his head and breast And indeed it must follow if the King by the plenitude of absolute power be the only supreme uncontrollable Expositor of the Law that is not Law which is written in the Acts of Parliament but that is the Law which is in the Kings breast and head which Iosephus lib. 19. Antiq. c. 2. objected to Caius And all justice and injustice should be finally and peremptorily resolved on the Kings will and absolute pleasure 6. The King either is to expone the Law by the Law it selfe or by his Absolute power loosed from all Law he exponeth it or according to the advise of his Great Senate If the first be said he is nothing more then other Iudges If the second be said he must be omnipotent and more If the third be said he is not absolute if the Senate be only Advisers and he yet the only Iudiciall expositor The King often professeth his ignorance of the Lawes and he must then both be absolute above the Law and ignorant of the Law and 2. the sole and finall Iudiciall exponer of the Law And by this all Parliaments and their power of making Lawes and of judging is cryed down They object Prov. 16. 10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King His mouth transgresseth not in judgement ergo he only can expone the Law Ans 1. Lavater saith and I see no reason on the contrary by a King he meaneth all Magistrates 2. Aben Ezra and Isidorus read the words imperatively The Tigurine version They are Oracles which proceed from his lips let not therefore his mouth transgresse in judgement Vatabulus When he is in his prophecies he lyeth not Iansenius Non facile errabit in judicando Mich. Iermine If he pray Calvine If he read in the booke of the Law as God commandeth him Deut. 17. But why stand we on the place He speaketh of good Kings saith Cornel. a Lapide Otherwise â—eroboam Achab Manasseh erred in judgement And except as Mercerus exponeth it We understand him to speake of Kings according to their office not their facts and practice we make them Popes and men who cannot give out grievous and unjust sentences on the Throne against both the Word and experience Object 2. Sometimes all is cast upon one mans voice why may not the King be this one man Answ The Antecedent is false the last Voter in a Senate is not the sole Iudge else why should others give suffrages with him 2. This were to take away inferiour Iudges contrary to Gods Word Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. Rom. 13. 1 2 3. QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Subjects and Estates
for their own just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull ARnisaeus perverteth the question he saith The question is Whether or no the Subjects may according to their power judge the King and dethrone him that is Whether or no is it lawfull for the Subjects in any case to take arms against their lawfull Prince if he degenerate and shall wickedly use his lawfull power The state of the question is much perverted for these be different questions Whether the Kingdom may dethrone a wicked and Tyrannous Prince And whether may the Kingdom take up arms against the man who is the King in their own innocent defence For the former is an Act offensive and of punishing the latter is an Act of Defence 2. The present question is not of Subjects onely but of the Estates and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom I utterly deny these as they are Iudges to be subjects to the King for the question is Whether is the King or the representative Kingdom greatest and which of them be subject one to another I affirm Amongst Iudges as Iudges not one is the Commander or Superiour and the other the commanded or subject Indeed one higher Iudge may correct and punish a Iudge not as a Iudge but as an erring man 3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act of War as concerning the power of naturall Defence upon supposition That the King be not now turned an habituall Tyrant but that upon some acts of mis-information he come in arms against his Subjects 2. Arnisaeus maketh two sort of Kings Some Kings integrae Majestatis of intire power and Soveraignty some Kings by pactions or voluntary agreement between King and people But I judge this a vain distinction For the limited Prince so he be limited to a power onely of doing just and right by this is not a Prince integrae Majestatis of entire Royall Majestie whereby he may do both good and also play the Tyrant but a power to do ill being no wayes essentiall yea repugnant to the absolute Majestie of the King of Kings cannot be an essentiall part of the Majestie of a lawfull King and therefore the Prince limited by voluntary and positive paction onely to rule according to law and equity is the good lawfull and entire Prince if he have not power to do every thing just and good in that regard onely he is not an intire and compleat Prince So the man will have it lawfull to resist the limited Prince not the absolute Prince by the contrary it is more lawfull to me to resist the absolute Prince then the limited in as much as we may with safer consciences resist the Tyrant and the Lyon then the just Prince and the Lamb. Nor can I assent to Cunnerus de officio princip Christia c. 5. 17. Who holdeth that these voluntary pactions betwixt King and people in which the power of the Prince is diminished cannot stand because their power is given to them by Gods Word which cannot be taken from them by any voluntary paction lawfully and from the same ground Winzetus in velit contr Buchan p. 32. will have it unlawfull to resist Kings because God hath made them unresistable I answer If God by a divine institution make Kings absolute and above all Laws which is a blasphemous supposition the holy Lord can give to no man a power to sin for God hath not himself any such power then the Covenant betwixt the King and people cannot lawfully remove and take away what God by institution has given but because God Deut. 17. hath limited the first lawfull King the mould of all the rest the people ought also to limit him by a voluntary Covenant and because the lawfull power of a King to do good is not by divine Institution placed in an indivisible point It is not a sin for the people to take some power even of doing good from the King that he solely and by himself shall not have power to pardon an involuntary homicide without advice and the judiciall suffrages of the Councell of the Kingdom least he insteed of this give pardons to Robbers to abominable Murtherers and in so doing the people robbeth not the King of the power that God gave him as King nor ought the King to contend for a sole power in himself of ministring justice to all for God layeth not upon Kings burdens unpossible and God by Institution hath denied to the King all power of doing all good because it is his Will that other Iudges be sharers with the King in that power Num. 14. 16 Deut. 1. 14. 15 16 17. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. And therefore the Duke of Venice to me cometh neerest to the King moulded by God Deut. 17. in respect of power de jure of any King I know in Europe And in point of conscience the inferiour Iudge discerning a murtherer and bloody man to die may in foro conscientiae despise the Kings unjust pardon and resist the Kings force by his sword and coactive power that God hath given him and put to death the bloody murtherer and he sinneth if he do not this for to me it is clear The King cannot judge so justly and understandingly of a murtherer in Scotland as a Iudge to whom God hath committed the sword in Scotland Nor hath the Lord laid that unpossible burden on a King to judge so of a murther four hundreth miles removed from the King as the Iudge nearer to him as is clear by Num. 14 16. 1 Sam. 7. 15 16 17. The King should go from place to place and judge and whereas it is unpossible to him to go thorow three Kingdoms he should appoint faithfull Iudges who may not be resisted no not by the King 2. The question is If the King command A. B. to kill his father his pastour the man neither being cited nor convicted of any fault may lawfully be resisted 3. Queritur If in that case in which the King is captived imprisoned and not sui juris and awed or over-awed by bloody Papists and so is forced to command a barbarous and unjust War and if being distracted Physically or Morally through wicked Counsell he command that which no father in his sober wits would command even against Law and Conscience That the sons should yeild obedience and subjection to him in maintaining with lives and goods a bloody Religion and bloody Papists If in that case the King may not be resisted in his person because the power lawfull and the sinfull person cannot be separated We hold the King using contrary to the oath of God and his Royall Office violence in killing against Law and Conscience his Subjects by bloody Emissaries may be resisted by defensive Wars at the commandment of the Estates of the Kingdom But before I produce Arguments to prove the lawfulnesse of resistance a little of the case of resistance 1. Doct. Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39.
is a power and we are not to distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not Ans The Law clearely distinguisheth we are to obey Parents in the Lord and if Nero command Idolatry this is an excessive power are we obliged to obey because the Law distinguisheth not 2. The text saith we are to obey every power 1. from God 2. That is Gods ordinance 3. by which the man is a Minister of God for good but an unjust and excessive power is none ofthese three 3. The text in words distinguisheth not obedience active in things wicked and lawfull yet we are to distinguish Mr. Symmons Is authoritie subjected solely in the Kings Law and no whit in his Person though put upon him both by God and Man Or is Authoritie only the subject and the Person exercising the Authoritie a bare accident to that being in it only more separably as pride and folly are in a man Then if one in Authoritie command out of his own Will and not by Law if I neithr actively nor passively obey J doe not so much as resist abused Authoritie and then must the Prince by his disorderly Will have quite lost his authoritie and become like another man and yet his Authoritie has not fled from him Ans If we speake acurately neither the Man solely nor his Power only is resisted but the Man clothed with lawfull habituall power is resisted in such and such acts flowing from an abused power 2. It is an ignorant speech to ask Is Authoritie subjected solely in the Kings Law and no whit in his Person for the Authoritie hath all its power by Law not from the Mans person The Authoritie hath nothing from the Person but a naked inherencie in the Person as in the subject and the Person is to be honored for the Authoritie not the Authoritie for the Person 3. Authoritie is not so separable from the person as that for every act of lawlesse Will the King loseth his Royall authoritie and ceaseth to be King no but every act of a King in so far can claime subjection of the inferiour as the act of commanding and ruling hath law for it and in so far as it is lawlesse the Person in that act repugnant to Law loseth all due claime of actuall subjection in that act and in that act power actuall is losed as is cleare Act. 4. 19. 5. 29. The Apostles say to Rulers It is safer to obey God than Men. What were not these Rulers lawfull Magistrates armed with power from God I answer habitually they were Rulers and more then men and to obey them in things lawfull is to obey God But actually in these unlawfull commandements especially being commanded to speake no more in the name of Iesus the Apostles doe acknowledge them to be no more but Men and so their actuall authoritie is as separable from the person as pride and folly from men Symmons The distinction holdeth good of inferior Magistrates That they may be considered as Magistrates and as Men because their authoritie is only sacred and addeth veneration to their persons and is separable from the person The Man may live when his Authoritie is extinguished but it holdeth not in Kings King Sauls person is venerable as his authoritie and his authoritie commeth by inheritance and dyeth and liveth inseparably with his person and Authoritie and Person adde honour each one to another Ans 1. If this be true Manasseh a King did not shed innocent blood and use sorcerie he did not these great wickednesses as a man but as a King Salomon played the Apostate as a King not as a man if so the man must make the King more infallible then the Pope for the Pope as a man can erre as a Pope he cannot erre say Papists But Prophets in their persons were anoynted of God as Saul and David were then must we say Nathan and Samuel erred not as men because their persons were sacred and anointed and they erred not as Prophets sure Ergo they erred not all A King as a King is an holy Ordinance of God and so cannot doe injustice Ergo they must doe acts of Iustice as men 2. The inferior Iudge is a Power from God 2. To resist him is to resist an ordinance of God 3. He is not a terrour to good workes but to evill 4. He is the minister of God for good 5. He is Gods Sword-bearer his officiall power to rule may by as good right come by birth as the Crown and the Kings person is sacred only for his office and is annointed only for his office For then the Chaldeans dishonored not inferior Iudges Lam. 5. 12. when they hanged the Prince honored not the faces of Elders It is in questiō if the Kings actual authority be not as separable frō him as the actuall authority of the Iudge Symmons p. 24. The King himselfe may use this distinction As a Christian he may forgive any that offendeth against his person but as a Iudge he must punish in regard of his office Ans Well then Flatterers will grant the distinction when the King doth good and pardoneth the blood of Protestants shed by bloody Rebels But when the King doth acts of injustice he is neither man nor King but some in dependent absolute God Symmons p. 27. Gods Word tyeth me to every one of his personall commandements as well as his legall commandements nor doe I obey the Kings law because it is established or because of its known penaltie nor yet the King himselfe because he ruleth according to Law But I obey the Kings law because I obey the King and I obey the King because I obey God I obey the King and his Law because I obey God and his Law Better obey the Command for a reveren◠regard to the Prince then for a penaltie Ans It is hard to answer a sick man It is blasphemie to seek this distinction of Person and Office in the King of Kings because by Person in a mortall King we understand a Man that can sinne 1. I am not obliged to obey his personall commandement except I were his domestick nor his unlawfull personall commandements because they are sinfull 2. It is false that you obey the Kings Law because you obey the King for then you say but this I obey the King because I obey the King The truth is Obedience is not formally terminated on the person of the King Obedience is relative to a precept and it is Men-service to obey a Lew not because it is good and just but upon this formall motive because it is the will of a mortall man to command it And Reverence Love Feare being acts of the Affection are not terminated on a Law but properly on the Person of the Iudge and they are modifications or laudable qualifications of acts of obedience not motives not the formall reason why I obey but the manner how I obey And the Apostle maketh expresly Rom. 13 4. feare of punishment a
in that exigence is not onely not obliged to lift him up but he and the rest flying though they trample on him and kill him they are not guilty of murther seeing they hated him not before Deut. 19. 4. 6. so Chemnit loc com de vindic q. 3. alloweth private defence 1. When the violence is suddaine And the 2. Violence manifestly inevitable 3. When the Magistrate is absent and cannot help 4. When moderation is kept as Lawyers require 1. That it be done incontinent if it be done after the injury it is revenge not defence 2. Not of Desire of revenge 3. With proportion of armor If the violent invader invade not with deadly weapons you must not invade him with deadly weapons and certainly the law Exod. 22. of a mans defending his house is clear 1. If he come in the night it is presumed he is a robber 2. If he be taken with a weapon breaking the house he cometh to kill a man may defend himself wife and children but he is 3. but to wound him and if he die of the wound the defender is free so the defender is not to intend his death but to save himself 5. It were a mighty defect in providence to man if dogs by nature may defend themselves against Wolves Bulls against Lyons Doves against Haukes if man in the absence of the lawfull Magistrate should not defend himself against unjust violence but one man might raise armies of Papists sick for blood to destroy innocent men They object When the King is present in his person and his invaders he is not absent and so though you may rather kill a private man then suffer your self to be killed yet because prudence determineth the means of self-defence you are to expose your life to hazard for justice of your King and therefore not to do violence to the life of your King nor can the body in any self-defence fight against the head that must be the destruction of the whole Ans Though the King be present as an unjust invader in Warres against his innocent subjects he is absent as a King and a father and defender and present as an unjust grassator and therefore the innocent may defend themselves when the King neither can nor will defend him Nature maketh a man saith the law l. Gener. c. de decur l. 10. l. sialius § Bellissimè ubique Gloss in vers ex magn not per. illum text ff quod vi aut clam l. ait praetor § si debitorem meum ff de hisque in fraud credito even a privat man his own judge magistrate and defender quando copiam judicis qui sibijus reddat non habet When he hath no judge to give him justice and law 2. The subjects are to give their lives for the King ad the King because the safety of the King as King is the safety of the common-wealth But the King as offering unjust violence to his innocent subjects is not King Zoannet part 3. defens n. 44. transgrediens notoriè officium suum judex agit velut privatus aliquis non ut magistratus ff de injur est bonus in simili in l. qui fundum § si tutor ff pro emptore 3. If the politick body fight against this head in particular not as head but as an oppressor of the people There is no fear of dissolution if the body rise against all magistracy as magistracy and lawes dissolution of all must follow Parliaments and inferiour jadges are heads Num. 1. 16. Num. 10. 4. Deut. 1. 15. Iosh 22. 21. Mic. 3. 1. ver 9. 11. 1 King 8. 1. 1 Chron. 5. 25. 2 Chro. 5. 2. No lesle then the King and it is unlawfull to offer violence to them though I shall rather thinke a private man is to suffer the King to kill him rather then he kill the King because he is to preferre the life of a private man to the life of a publique man 6. By the law of nature a ruler is appointed to defend the innocent Now by nature an infant in the wombe dâ—fendeth it self first before the parents can defend it then when parents and magistrates are not and violent invading magistrates are not in that magistrates nature hath commended every man to self-defence 7. The Law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a magistrate or any other unjust violence from a ruler is twice injustice 1. He doth unjustly as a man 2. As a member of the common-wealth 3. He committeth a speciall kind of sin of injustice against his office but it is absurd to say we may lawfully dâ—fend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of nature and not from the greater If the Pope saith Fer. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 24. n. 24 25. command to take away benefices from the just owner these who are to execute his commandement are not to obey but to write back that that mandat came not from his holinesse but from the avarice of his Officers but if the Pope still continue and presse the same unjust Mandat the same should be written againe to him and though there be none above the Pope yet there is naturall self-defence patent for all Defensio vitae neceâ—aria est à jure naturali profluit L. ut vim ff de just jure 16. Nam quod quisque ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure fecisse videatur Câ—jus naturale 1. distinc l. 1. ff de vi vi armata l. injuriarum ff de injuria C. significasti 2. de hom l. scientiam sect qui non aliter ff ad leg Aquil. C. si vero 1. de sent excom l. sed etsi ff ad leg Aquil. etiamsi sequatur homicidium Vasquez l. 1. c. 17. n. 5. etiam occidere licet ob defensionem rerum Vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt in C. significasti Garcias Fortunius Comment in l. ut vim ff de instit jur n. 3. defendere se est juris naturae gentium A jure civili fuit additum moderamen inculpatae tutelae lac Novel defens n. 101. Occidens Principem vel alium Tyrannidem exercentem à paena homicidii excusatur Grotius de jure belli pacis l. 2. c. 1. n. 3. Si corpus impetatur vi presente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabili tune bellum est licitum etiam cum intersectione periculum infâ—rentis ratio natura quemque sibicommendat Barcl advers Monar l. 3. c. 8 est jus cuilibet se tenendi adversus immanem sevitiam But what ground saith the Royalist is there to take Arms against a King Ielousies and suspitions are not enough Ans The King sent first an Armie to Scotland and blocked us up by sea before we took Armes 2. Papists were armed in England they have professed themselves in their Religion of Trent to be so much the holyer that they root out Prottstants 3. The King declared we had broken loyalty to him since the last
it would create more enemies not help his Cause 3. To David to kill Saul sleeping and the people who out of a mis-informed conscience came out many of them to help their lawfull Prince against a Traitor as was supposed seeking to kill their King and to usurp the throne had not been wisdome nor justice because to kill the enemie in a just self-defence must be when the enemie actually doth invade and the life of the defendant cannot be otherwise saved A sleeping enemie is not in the act of unjust pursuit of the innocent but if an Armie of Papists Philistims were in the fields sleeping pursuing not one single David onely for a supposed personall wrong to the King but lying in the fields and campe against the whole Kingdome and Religion labouring to introduce arbitary Government Popery Idolatry and to destroy Lawes and Liberties and Parliaments then David were obliged to kill these murtherers in their sleep If any say The case is all one in a naturall self-defence what ever be the cause and who ever be the enemy because the self-defender is not to offend except the unjust Invader be in actuall pursuit now Armies in their sleep are not in actuall pursuit Answ When one man with a multitude invadeth one man that one man may pursue as he seeth most conducible for self-defence Now the Law saith Threatnings and terror of Armour maketh imminent danger and the case of pursuit in self-defence lawfull if therefore an Armie of Irish Rebels and Spanyards were sleeping in their Camp and our King in a deep sleep in the midst of them and these Rebels actually in the Camp besieging the Parliament and the Citie of London most unjustly to take away Parliament Laws and Liberties of Religion it should follow that Generall Essex ought not to kill the Kings Majesty in his sleep for he is the Lords Anointed but 1. will it follow that Generall Essex may not kill the Irish Rebels sleeping about the King and that he may not rescue the Kings Person out of the hands of the Papists and Rebels ensnaring the King and leading him on to Popery and to employ his Authority to defend Popery and trample upon Protestant Parliaments and Lawes Certainly from this example this cannot be concluded For Armies in actuall pursuit of a whole Parliament Kingdome Lawes and Religion though sleeping in the Camp because in actuall pursuit may be invaded and killed though sleeping And David useth no argument from conscience why hee might not kill Sauls Armie I conceive he had not Armes to doe that and should have created more enemies to himselfe and hazard his owne life and the life of all his men if he had of purpose killed so many sleeping men yea the inexpedience of that for a private wrong to kill Gods mis-led people should have made all Israel enemies to David But David useth an Argument from Conscience onely to prove it was not lawfull for him to stretch forth his hand against the King and for my part so long as he remaineth King and is not dethroned by those who made him King at Hebron to put hands on his person I judge utterly unlawfull one man sleeping cannot be in actuall pursuit of another man so that the self-defender may lawfully kill him in his sleep but the case is farre otherwise in lawfull wars the Israelites might lawfully kill the Philistims encamping about Jerusalem to destroy it and Religion and the Church of God though they were all sleeping even though we suppose King Saul had brought them in by his Authority though he were sleeping in the midst of the uncircumcised Armies and it is evident that an hoast of armed enemies though sleeping by the law of self-defence may be killed left they awake and kill us whereas one single man and that a King cannot be killed 2. I think certainly David had not done unwisely but hazarded his owne life and all his mens if he and Ahimelâ—ch and Abishai should have killed an host of their enemies sleeping that had been a work as impossible to three so hazard some to all his men D. Ferne as Arnisaeus did before him saith The example of David was extraordinary because he was anointed and designed by God as successor to Saul and so he must use an extraordinary way of guarding himselfe Arnisaeus citeth Alberic Gentilis that David was now exempted from amongst the number of Subjects Answ There were not two Kings in Israel now both David and Saul 2. David acknowledgeth his subjection in naming Saul the Lords Anointed his Master Lord King and therefore David was yet a subject 3. If David would have proved his title to the Crowne by extraordinary wayes he who killed Goliah extraordinarily might have killed Saul by a miracle but David goeth a most ordinary way to work for self-defence and his comming to the Kingdom was through persecution want eating shew-bread in case of necessity defending himself with Goliahs sword 4. How was any thing extraordinary and above a Law seeing David might have killed his enemie Saul and according to Gods Law he spared him and hee argueth from a morall duty he is the Lords annoynted therefore I will not kill him was this extraoardinary above a law then according to Gods law he might have killed him Royalists cannot say so what ground to say one of Davids acts in his deportment toward Saul was extraordinary and not all was it extraordinary that David flâ—d no or that David consulted the oracle of God what to do when Saul was coming against him 5. in an ordinary fact something may be extraordinary as the dead sleep from the Lord upon Saul and his men 1. Sam. 26. and yet the fact according to its substance ordinary 6. Nor is this extraordinary that a distressed man being an excellent warriour as David was may use the help of six hundred men who by the law of charity are to help to deliver the innocent from death yea all Israel were obliged to defend him who killed Goliah 7. Royalists make Davids act of not putting hands on the Lords annointed an ordinary morall reason against resistance but his putting on of armour they will have extraordinary and this is I confesse a short way to an adversary to cull out something that is for his cause and make it ordinary and something that is against his cause must be extraordinary 8. These men by the law of nature were obliged to joyne in armes with David ergo the non-helping of an oppressed man must be Gods ordinary law a blasphemous tenet 9. If David by an extraordinary spirit killed not King Saul then the Jesuits way of killing must be Gods ordinary Law 2. David certainly intended to keep Keilah against King Saul for the Lord would not have answered David in an unlawfull fact for that were all one as if God should teach David how to play the Traitor to his King for if God had answered They will not deliver
the Kings cut-throats though they have a personall command of the King to kill the innocent yet if they want a legall is no resisting of the King not as King and the servant hath no more then the Master giveth but the King in lawlesse commandements gave nothing royall to his cut-throates and so nothing legall QUEST XXXIIII Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres VVHat reasons have already been discussed I touch not Obj. 1. Arnisaeus de authorit princip c. 2. num 2. If we are to obey our parents not if they be good but simply whether they be good or ill so Iust saith of the King Quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius tamen pater § si vero in ff vos 12. then must we submit to wicked Kings Ans Valeat totum we are to submit to wicked Kings wicked parents because Kings and parents but when it cometh to actuall submission we are to submit to neither but in the Lord the question is not touching subjection to a Prince let him be Nero but if in acts of Tyranny we may not deny subjection there be great odds betwixt wicked rulers and rulers commanding or punishing unjustly Obj. 2. Arnisaeus c. 3. n. 9. We may resist an inferior magistrate Ergo we may resist the supreame it followeth not for an inferiour judge hath a Majesty infiction onely not properly treason is or can onely be committed against the King the obligation to inferiour judges is onely for the prince the person of none is sacred and inviolable but the Kings Ans We obey parents masters kings upon this formall ground because they are Gods deputies and set over us not by man but by God So that not onely are we to obey them because what they command is good and just such a sort of obedience an equall owes to the counsell of either equall or inferiour but also by vertue of the fift commandement because of their place of dignity now this Majesty which is the formall reason of subjection is one and the same in spece and nature in King and Constable and onely different gradually in the King and in other judges and it is denyed that there is any incommunicable sanctity in the Kings person which is not in some degree in the inferiour judge all proceedeth from this false ground that the King and inferiour judges differ in nature which is denied and treason inferiour may be committed against an inferiour judge and it is a fiction that the inferiour judge doth not resemble God as the King doth yea there is a sacred Majesty in all inferiour judges in the aged in every superiour wherefore they deserve honour feare and reverence Suppose there were no King on earth as is cleare in Scripture Exod. 20. 12. Levit. 19. 32. Esther 1. 20. Psal 149. 9. Prov. 3. 16. Math. 13. 57. Heb. 5. 4. Isa 3. 3. Lam. 5. 12. Mal. 1. 6. Psal 8. 5. and this honour is but united in a speciall manner in the King because of his high place Obj. 3. A King elected upon conditions may be resisted Ans He is as â—ssentially a King as a hereditary yea as an absolute Prince and no lesse the Lords annoynted then another prince if then one also another may be resisted Obj. 4. The oath of God bindeth the subjects Ergo they must obey not resist Ans Obedience and resistance are very consistent 2. No doubt the people gave their oath to Athaliah but to her as the onely heir of the crown they not knowing that Ioash the lawfull heir was liveing so may conditionall oaths all of this kinde are conditionall in which there is interpretative and virtuall ignorance be broken as the people swear loyalty to such a man conceived to be a father he after that turneth Tyrant may they not resist his Tyranny they may Also no doubt Israel gâ—ve their oath of loyalty to Iabin for when Nebuchadnezer subdued Iudah he took an oath of loyalty of their King Yet many of Zabulon Nepthali and Isachar Barack leading them conspired against Iabin Obj. 5. There is no law to take a Kings life if he turne a Nero we never read that Subjects didit Ans The treatise of unlimited prerogative saith p. 7. We read not that a father killing his children was killed by them the fact being abhominable 2. The law Gen. 6. 9. Levit. 24. 16. excepteth none Seâ— Deut. 13. 6. the dearest that nature knoweth are not excepted Obj. 6. Vengeance pursued Core Dathan and Abiram who resisted Moses Ans From resisting of a lawfull magistrate in a thing lawfull it followeth not it must be unlawfull to resist Kings in Tyrannous acts Obj. 7. Exod. 22. 28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of the people Exod. 10 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought nor the rich in thy bed-chamber Ans 1. The word Elohim signifieth all judges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasifignifieth one lifted up above the people saith Rivetus in loc whether a monarch or many rulers All cursing of any is unlawfull even of a private man Rom. 12. 14. Ergo we may not resist a private man by this the other text readeth contemne not the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in scientiâ tuâ Aria Mon. or in thy conscience or thought and it may prove resisting any rich man to be unlawfull Nothing in word or deed tending to the dishonour of the King may be done now to resist him in self-defence being a commandment of God in the law of nature cannot fight with another commandment to honour the King no more then the fift commandement can fighâ— with the sixth for all resistance is against the judge as a man exceeding the limits of his office in that wherein he is resisted not as a judge Obj. 8. Eccles 8. 3. 4. Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him what dost thou Ergo the King cannot be resisted Ans 1. Tremel saith well that the scope is that a man go not from the Kings lawfull command in passion and rebellion Vatab. If thou go from the King in disgrace strive to be reconciled to him quickly Cajetan Vse not Kings too familiarly by comming too quickly to them or going too hastily from them Plutarch Cum rege agendum ut cum rogo neither too neere this fire nor too farre off Those have smarted who have been too great in their favour Ahasuerus slew Haman Alexander so served Clitus and Tiberius Sejanus and Nero Seneca But the sence is cleare rebellion is forbidden not resistance so the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stand not in an evil matter or in a rebellion And he dehorteth from rebellion against the King by an argument taken from his power 3. For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him 4. Where the word of a King is there is power And who may say unto him What doest thou The meaning is in way of justice he is
armed with power that cannot be resisted other wayes Samuel said to King Saul 1 Sam. 13. 13. Thou hast done foolishly Eliah said more to Ahab then What hast thou done And the Prophets were to rebuke sinne in Kings 2 King 3. 14. Ier. 1. 28. Chap. 22. 3. Hos 5. 1 2. And though Solomon here give them a power he speaketh of Kings as they are de facto but de jure they are under a Law Deut. 17. 18. If the meaning be as Royalists dreame he doth whatsoever hee will or desireth as a Prince by his royall that is his legall will by which he is lex animata a breathing law we shall owne that as truth and it is nothing against us But if the meaning be that De jure as King he doth whatsoever he will by the absolute supremacie of Royall will above all law and reason then Ioram should by law as King take Elisha's head away and Elisha resisted God in saying What doth the King and he sinned in commanding to deal rougbly with the Kings messenger and hold him at the doore then the fourescore valiant Priests who said to King Vzziah What dost thou resisted him in burning incense which he desired to doe sinned Then Pharaoh who said Ezech. 29. 3. The river Nilus is mine I have made it for my selfe and the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28. 2. I am God I sit in the seat of God should not be controlled by the Prophets and no man should say to them What sayest thou Did Cyrus as a King with a Royall power from God and jure regio be angry at the river Gyndes because it drowned one of his horses and punish it by dividing it in 130. Channels Sen. l. 3. de ira c. 21. And did Xerxes jure regio by a Royall power given of God when Hellespontus had cast downe his bridges command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea and that it should be cast in fetters And our Royalists will have these mad fooles doing these acts of blasphemous insolencie against heaven to be honoured as Kings and to act those acts by a regall power But heare flatterers a Royall power is the good gift of God a lawfull and just power A King acting and speaking as a King speaketh and acteth Law and Justice A power to blaspheme is not a lawfull power they did and spake these things with a humane and a sinfull will if therefore this be the Royalists meaning as Kings 1. They are absolute and so the limited and elected King is no King 2. The King as King is above Gods Law put on him by God Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill 4. It were unlawfull to say to the King of Cyrus What sayest thou Thou are not God according to this vaine sense of Royalists Obj. 9. Elihu saith Iob 34. 18. Is it fit to say to a King Thou art â—icked and to Princes Ye are ungodly Ergo You may not resiâ— Kings Ans 1. This Text no more proveth that Kings should not be resisted then it proveth that rich men or liberall men or other Judges inferiour should not be resisted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth all that and it signifieth liber all Isa 32. 5. And ver 8. the same word is 2. Deodat and Calvin say the meaning is Learne from the respect that is due to earthly princes the reverence due to the Soveraign Lord Mal. 1. 8. for it is not convenient to reproach earthly Kings and and to say to a Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beliel a word of reproach signifying extreme wickednesse And you may not say to a man of place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an extreamly wicked man so are the words taken as signifying most vile and wicked men 1 Sam. 2. 12. 1 Sam. 10. 27. 2 Sam. 24. 6. Psal 1. 1 6. Psal 11. 5. Psal 12. 8. Prov. 16. 4. Psa 146. 9. and in infinite places For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word of extreme reproach comming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine non and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profuit Iud. 19. 22. a most naughtie and a lewd man or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jugum a lawlesse man who hath cast off all yokes of Gods or Mans Law So then the meaning is It is unlawfull to reproach earthly Princes and men of place farre more is it unlawfull to reproach the Judge of the whole earth with injustice And what then We may not reproach the King as Shimei cursed King David Ergo it is unlawfull to resist the King in any tyrannous act I shall deny the consequence Nay as Pineda observeth if the Royalist presse the words literally it shall not be lawfull for Prophets to reprove Kings of their sins Christ called Herod a Fox Elias Ahab one that troubled Israel Obj. 10. Act. 23. Paul excuseth himselfe that he called Ananias the High-priest a whited wall Answ Rivetus Exo. 22. learnedly discussing the place thinketh Paul professing he knew him not to be the High-Priest speaketh ironically that he could not acknowledge such a man for a Judge Piscator answereth he could not then cite Scripture It is written Exod. c. Ans But they may well consist in that act of smiting Paul unjustly he might be reproached otherwise it is not lawfull to reproach him and surely it is not like that Paul was ignorant that he was a Judge Yea it is certain he knew him to be a Judge 1. He appeared before him as a Judge to answer for himselfe 2. Paul saith expresly he was a Judge ver 3. Sittest thou to judge me after the Law c. and therefore the place is for us for even according to the mind of all the fault was if there were any in calling him a whited wall and he resisted him in judgement when he said Commandest thou me to be smitten against the Law 2. Though Royalists rather put a fault on the Apostle Paul now in the act of prophecying judgement against Ananias which after fell out then upon their God the King yet the consequence amounteth but to this We may not revile the High Priest Ergo we may not resist the King in his illegall commandments It followeth not Yea it should prove if a Prelate come in open war to kill the innocent Apostle Paul the Apostle might fly or hold his hands but might not re-offend Now the Prelate is the High Priests successor and his base person so is as sacred as the person of the Lords Anointed the King Hence the Cavalliers had in one of their Colours which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston lul 2. An. 1644. the Crowne and the Prelates Mitre painted with these words Nolite tangere Christos meos as if the Antichristian Mitre were as sacred as the lawfull Crowne of the King of Britaine Obj. 11. Ferne sect 9. 56. If the Senate and people of Rome who a little before had the supreme
sheepe 3. A power to doe ill without resistance is not security Object 15. If God appoint Ministers to preach then the sheep cannot seeke safety elsewhere Ergo. Answ The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband but not if she feare he will kill her in the bed The obedience of positive duties that subjects owe to Princes cannot loose them from Natures law of self-preservation nor from Gods Law of defending Religion against Papists in Armes nor are the sheep obliged to intrust themselves but to a saving shepherd Object 16. If self-defence and that by taking up Armes against the King be an unlawfull duty how is it that you have no practise no precept no promise for it in all the word of God 1. You have no practise Ahab sold himselfe to do evill he was an Idolater and killed the Prophets and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse stirred him up to great wickednesse Elias had as great power with the people as you have yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church Arnisaeus de autho Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled Nebuchadnezer Ahab Manassah Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters the people never raised an Armie against them B. Williams of Osserie p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother son daughter wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods kill them not a word of the father Children are to love Fathers not to kill them Christ saith John P. P. in the cradle taught by practise to flee from Herod and all Christs acts and sufferings are full of mysteries and our instructions Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him but would rather worke a miracle in curing Malchus eare as use the sword against Caesar If Sectaries give us a new Creed it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell and the communion of Saints to raze out this He suffered under Pontius Pilate My resolution is for this sin of yours to dissolve in teares and Prayers and with my Master say daylie and hourely Father forgive them c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans because they refused him lodging 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry blasphemy murther adultery c. and all sins never against the sin of neglect and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word Answ It is a great non-consequence this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word Ergo. It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith Shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she inticed him to follow strange Gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13 6. when a man lying with a beast is put to death Yet it is a Law Exod. 22. 19. infinite more Lawes are the practise of which we finde not in Scripture 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry and if Iehu out of sincerity and for the zeale of God had done what God commanded he should have beene rewarded for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu that he should kill Ahab yet there was an expresse Law for it that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death Deut. 13. 6. and there is no exception of King or Father in the Law and to except father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeale of God Deut. 33. 9. And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King and in killing King Nabad and smiting all the house of Ieroboam foâ— his Idolatry they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty according to Gods expresse Law Deut. 13. 6 7 8 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary 3. Ahab and Iezabel raised not an Armie of Idolaters Malignants such as are Papists Prelates and Cavalliers against the three Estates to destroy Parliaments Lawes and Religion and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry to forsake the Covenant throw downe the Altars of God and slay his Prophets so as in the estimation of Elias 1 King 19. 9 10 11. there was not one man but they were Malignant Cavalliers and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves and to shew them it is their duty to make warre against the King and themselves in the defence of Religion when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people that they sinned in joyning with the King what place was there to shew them their sin in not using their owne lawfull defence And in reason any may judge it unreasonable for Elias to exhort of thousand thousands in Israel poore seven thousand of which many no doubt were women aged weake young to rise in Armes against Ahab and all Israel except God had given a positive and extraordinary Commandement and with all miraculous courage and strength in war against the whole Land and God worketh not alwayes by miracles to save his Church and therefore the naturall mandate of self-preservation in that case doth no more oblige a few weake ones to lawfull resistance then it obliged one Martyre to rise against a persecuting Nero and all his forces Arnisaeus should remember wee are not to tye our Lord to miracles 2. Elias did not onely flee but denounced wrath against the King and Cavalliers who joyned with them in Idolatry and when God gave oportunity he shewed himself and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seduceing idolatours when the Idolatrous King refused to do it and Eliah with his own hand took them not but all Israel being gathered together 1 King 18. 19. The Princes and Judges did apprehend them ver 40. which is a warrant when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists that other judges are to do it 2. For Nebuchadnezzer Ieremiah from the Lord expresly forbad to fight against him shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cut-throats for that example may as well prove if it be a binding law to us that our King should not raise his Subjects to fight against a Spanish Armado and a forraigne Prince for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27. 1. In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim ver 12 13 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon I hope this will not tye us and our King not to fight against forraigne Princes or against the great Turk if they shall unjustly invade us and our King and this example is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him as much as against us for Nebuchadnezzar was a
Duke of Venice Assert 3. Every government hath some thing wherein it is best 1. Monarchy is honorable and glorious-like before men Aristocracie for counsell is surest Democracie for liberty and possibly for riches and gaine best Monarchy obtaineth its end with more conveniency 1. Because the ship is easilier brought to land when one sitteth at the helme then when ten move the helme 2. Wee more easily feare love obey and serve one then many 3. He can more easily execute the Lawes Assert 4. A limited and mixed Monarchy such as is in Scotland and England seeme to me the best government when Parliaments with the King have the good of all the three This government hath 1. glory order unitie from a Monarch from the government of the most and wisest it hath safety of counsell stability strength from the influence of the Commons it hath liberty priviledges promptitude of obedience Object 1. There is more power terrour and love in one then in many Answ Not more power 2. terrour cometh from sin and so to nature fallen in sin in circumstances a Monarchy is best Object 2. It is more convenient to nature that one should be Lord then many Answ To sinlesse nature true as in a father to many children Object 3 Monarchies for invention of counsels execution concealing of secrets is above any other government Answ That is in some particulars because sin hath brought darknesse on us so are we all dull of invention slow in execution and by reason of the falsnesse of men silence is needlesse but this is the accidentary state of nature otherways there is safety in a multitude of counsellers one commanding all without following counsell trusteth in his own heart and is a foole Object 4. A Monarch is above envy because he hath no equall Answ Grant all in many things a Monarchy is more excellent but that is nothing to an absolute Monarchy for whom Royalists contend Object 5. In a multitude there be more fooles then wise men and a multitude of vices and little vertue is in many Answ Meere multitude cannot governe in either Democracy or Aristocracy for then all should be rulers and none ruled but many eyes see more thâ—n one by accident one may see more then hundreds but accidents are not rules Object 6. Monarchy is most perfect because most opposite to Anarchy and most agreeable to nature as is evident in Plants Birds Bees Answ Government of sinlesse nature void of reason as in birds bees is weak to conclude politique civil government amongst men in sin and especially absolute government a King-Bee is not absolute nor a King-Eagle if either destroy its fellowes by nature all rise and destroy their King 2. A King-Bee doth not act by counsell borrowed from fellow Bees as a King must do and communication of counsels lesseneth absolutenesse of a man 2. I see not how a Monarchy is more opposite to Anarchy and confusion then other governments a Monarch as one is more opposite to a multitude as many but there is no lesse order in Aristocracy then in Monarchy for a government essentially includeth order of commanding and subjection Now one is not for absolutenesse more contrary to Anarchy then many for that one now who can easily slip from a King to a Tyrant cannot have a negative voice in acts of justice for then should he have a legall power to oppose justice and so for his absolutenesse he should be most contrary to order of justice and a Monarch because absolute should be a door-neighbour to disorder and confusion Object But the Parliament hath no power to deny their voices to things just or to crosse the law of God more then the King Answ It is true neither of them hath a negative voice against law and reason but if the Monarch by his exorbitant power may deny justice he may by that same legall power do all injustice and so there is no absolutenesse in either Object Who should then punish and coerce the Parliament in the case of exorbitance Answ Posterior Parliaments Object Posterior Parliaments and people both may erre Answ All is true God must remedy that onely QUEST XXXIX Whether or no any Prerogative at all above the law be due to the King or if jura Majestatis be any such Prerogative Royall I Conceive Kings are conceived to have a threefold supreme power 1. Strictly absolute to do what they please their will being simply a law this is Tyranicall some Kings have it de facto ex consuetudine but by a divine law none have it I doubt if any have it by a human positive law except the great Turk and the King of Spaine over his conquest without the borders of Europe and some few other conquerours There is another 2. power limited to Gods law the due proper right of Kings Deut. 17. 18. 19. 20. There is 3. a potest as intermedia a middle power not so vast as that which is absolute and tyrannicall which yet is some way humane this I take Iurists call jus regium lex regia jura Regalia regis Cicero jura Majestatis Livius jura imperii and these Royall priviledges are such common and high dignities as no one particular magistrate can have seeing they are common to all the kingdom as that Cesar only should coyne money in his own name Hence the penny given to Christ because it had Cesars image and superscription Math. 22. 20 21. Infer by way of argumentation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. give therefore tribute to Cesar as his due so the Magazine and Armory for the safety of the Kingdom is in the Kings hand the King hath the like of these priviledges because he is the common supreame publick officer and Minister of God for the good of the whole Kingdom and amongst these Royall priviledges I reckon that power that is given to the King when he is made King to do many things without warrant of the letter of the law without the expresse consent of his counsell which he cannot alwayes carry about with him as the law saith The King shall not raise armes without consent of the Parliament but if an army of Irish or Danes or Spanyards should suddenly land in Scotland he hath power without a formally conveened Parliament to command them all to rise in armes against these invaders and defend themselves this power no inferiour Magistrate hath as he is but such a Magistrate And in many such exigences when the necessity of justice or grace requireth an extemporall exposition of Lawes Prorenatâ— for present necessary execution some say onely the Emperour others all Kings have these priviledges I am of the minde of Arnisaeus that these priviledges are not rewards given to Princes for their great paines For the King is not obliged to governe the Common-wealth because he receiveth these Royall Priviledges as his reward but because by office he is obliged to governe the common-wealth therefore
these priviledges are given to him and without them he could not so easily governe But I am utterly against Arnisaeus who saith these are not essentiall to a King Because saith he he createth Marquesses Dukes c. and Nobles constituteth Magistrates not because of His Royall Dignity but by reason of his absolute power for many Princes have supreame power and cannot make Nobles and therefore to him they are jura majestatis non jura potestatis But 1. The King suppose a limited King may and ought to make nobles for he may conferre honours as a reward of vertue none can say Pharoah by his absolute authority and not as a King advanced Ioseph to be a noble Ruler we cannot say that for there was merit and worth in him deserving that honour and Darius not by absolute authority but on the ground of well-deserving the rule by which Kings are obliged in justice to confer honours promoted Daniel to be the first president of all his kingdomes because Dan. 6. 3. An excellent spirit was in him and in Justice the King could nobilitate none rather then Daniel except he should fail against the rule of conferring honours It is acknowledged by all that honos est proemium virtutis honour is founded upon vertue and therefore Darius did not this out of his absolute Majesty but as King 2. All Kings as Kings and by a Divine Law of God and so by no absolutenesse of Majesty are to make men of wisdome fearing God hating covetousnesse Judges under them Deut. 1. 13. 2 Chro. 19. 6 7. Psal 101. 6 7 8. 3. If we suppose a King to be limited as Gods King is Deut. 17. 18 19 20. Yet is it his part to confer honours upon the worthiest Now if he have no absolutenesse of Majesty he cannot confer honours out of a principle that is none at all unum quodque sicut est ita operatur and if the people confer honours then must Royalists grant that there is an absolute Majesty in the people why then may they not derive Majesty to a King and why then do Royalists talk to us of Gods immediate creating of Kings without any interveening action of the people 4. By this absolutnesse of Majesty Kings may play the Tyrant as Samuel 1 Sam. 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14. foretelleth Saul would do But I cannot beleeve that Kngs have the same very officiall absolute power from whence they do both acts of grace goodnesse and justice such as are to expone Laws extemporally in extraordinary cases to confer honours upon good and excellent men of grace to pardon offenders upon good grounds and also-doe acts of extreme Tyrannie For out of the same fountaine doth not proceed both sweet water and bitter Then by this absolutenesse Kings cannot doe acts of goodnesse justice and grace and so they must doe good as Kings and they must doe acts of tyrannie as men not from absolutenesse of majesty 5. Inferiour Magistrates in whom there is no absolutenesse of Majesty according to Royalists way may expound laws also extemporally and doe acts of justice without formalities of civill or municipall laws so they keep the genuine intent of the Law as they may pardon one that goeth up to the wall of a City and discovereth the approach of the enemie when the watchmen are sleeping though the Law be That any ascending to the wall of the Citie shall die Also the inferiour Judge may make Judges and Deputies under himselfe 6. This Distinction is neither grounded upon Reason or Lawes nor on any Word of God Not the former as is proved before for there is no absolute power in a King to do above or against law all the officiall power that a King hath is a Royall power to do good for the safety and good of his subjects and that according to law and reason and there is no other power given to a King as a King and for Scripture Arnisaeus ibid. alledgeth 1 Sam. 8. The manner or law of the King ver 9. 11. And he saith it cannot be the custome and manner of the King but must be the law of absolute Majesty 1. Because it was the manner of inferiour judges as Tyberius said of his judges to flea the people when they were commanded to shear them onely 2. Samuels sons who wrested judgment and perverted the law had this manner and custome to oppresse the people as did the sons of Eli and therefore without reason is it called the law of Kings jus regum if it was the law of the judges for if all this law be Tyrannicall and but an abuse of Kingly power the same law may agree to all other Magistrates who by the same unjust power may abuse their power but Samuel as Brentius observeth homi 27. in 1 Sam. in princ doth meane here a greater license then Kings can challenge if at any time they would make use of their plenitude of absolute power and therefore nomine juris by the word law here he understandeth a power granted by law jure or right to the King but pernitious to the people which Gregory calleth jus regium Tyrannorum the Royall law of Tyrants So Seneca 1 de clem c. 11. hoc interest inter regem Tyrannum Species ipsa fortunae ac licentiae par est nisi quod Tyranni ex volutate saeviunt Reges non nisi ex causa necessitate quid ergo non Reges quoque accidere solent sed quoties fieri publica utilitas persuadet Tirannis saevitia cordi est A Tyran saith Arnisaeus in this differeth from a King Qui ne ea quidem vult quae sibi licent that a King will not do these things which are lawfull a Tyran doth quae libet what he pleaseth to do Answ Arnisaeus bewrayeth his ignorance in the Scriptures for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a custome and a wicked custome as by many Scriptures I have proved already his reason are poor It is the manner of inferiour judges as we see in the sons of Eli and Samuel to pervert judgment as well as King Saul did but the King may more oppresse and his Tyranny hath more colour and is more catholick then the oppression of inferiour judges it is not Samuels purpose thus to distinguish the judges of Israel and the kings in that the judges had no power granted them of God to oppresse because the people might judge their judges and resist them and there was power given of God to the king so far to play the Tyrant that no man could resist him or say what dost thou the text will not beare any such difference for it was as unlawfull to resist Moses Ioshua Samuel as Royalists prove from the judgement of God that came upon Core Dathan and Abiram as to resist King Saul and King David Royalists doubt not to make Moses a King It was also no lesse sin to resist Samuels sons or to do violence to their persons as judging for
9. The States punished Archidanius because he married a wife of a low stature Plutarch in Ages in pris The ancient Burgundions thought it cause enough to expell their King if matters went not well in the State Marcel l. 27. The Goths in Spain gave no other cause of expelling their King nisi quod sibi displiceret because he displeased them Aimon l. 2. c. 20. l. 4. c. 35. Ans All these are not to be excused in people but neither every abuse of power in a King exautorateth a King nor every abuse in people can make null their power Arnisaeus maketh three kinds of oathes the first is when the King sweareth to defend true Religion and the Pope and he denyeth that this is an oath of fidelitie or by paction or covenant made to the Pope or Clergie he saith it is onely on oath of protection nor doth the King receive the Crown from the Pope or Clergie Answ 1. Arnisaeus divideth oathes that are to be conjoyned we read not that Kings sweare to defend Religion in one oath and to administrate judgement and justice in another for David made not two Covenants but onely one with all Israel 2. The King was not King while he did swear this oath and therefore it must be a pactionall oath between him and the Kingdom and it is true the King receiveth not a Crown from the Church yet David received a Crowne from the Church for this end to feed the Lords people and so conditionally Papir Masse l. 3. Chron. Gal. saith The king was not king before the oath 2. That he did sweare to be a keeper not onely of the first but also of the second Table of the Law Ego N. Dei gratia mox futur as rex Francorum in die ordinationis meae coram Deo sanctis ejus polliceor quod servabo privilegia canonica justitiamque jus unicuique Praelato debitum vosque defendam Deo juvante quantum potero quemadmodum Rex ex officio in suo regno defendere debet unumquemque Episcopum ac Ecclesiam administrabo populo justitiam leges uti jus postulat And so is it ordained in the Councel of Tolet 6. c. 6. Quisquis deinceps regni sortitus fuerit apicem non ante conscendat Regiam sedem quam inter reliquas conditiones sacramento policitus fuerit quod non sinet in regno suo degere â—um qui non sit Catholicus All these by Scripture are oathes of Covenant Deut. 17. ver 17 18. 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3 4. 2 Kings 11. 17 18. Arnisaeus maketh a second oath of absolute Kings who sweare they shall raigne according to equitie and justice and he saith There is no need of this oath a promise is enough for an oath encreaseth not the obligation L. fin de non num pec Onelie it addeth the bound of Religion for there is no use of an oath where there is no paction of law against him that sweareth if he violate his oath There followeth onelie the punishment of Perjurie And the word of a Prince is as good as his oath onelie he condescendeth to sweare to please the people out of indulgence not out of necessitie And the King doth not therefore sweare because he is made King but because he is made King he sweareth And he is not King because he is crowned but he is crowned because he is King Where the Crowne goeth by succession the King never dieth and he is King by nature before he be crowned Answ 1. This oath is the very first oath spoken of before included in the covenant that the King maketh with the people 2 Sam 5. 2 3 4. For absolute Princes by Arnisaeus his grant doth swear to do the duties of a King as Bodinus maketh the oath of France de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. Iuro ego per deum ac promitto me justè regnaturum judicium equitatem ac misericordiam facturum And papir Mass l. 3. Chron. hath the same expresly in the particulars And by this a King sweareth he shall not be absolute and if he swear this oath he bindeth himself not to governe by the Law of the King whereby he may play the Tyrant as Saul did 1 Sam. 8. 9 10 11 12 c. As all Royalists expound the place 2. It is but a poor evasion to distinguish betwixt the Kings promise and his oath for the promise and covenant of any man and so of the King doth no lesse bring him under a civil obligation and politique coaction to keep his promise then an oath for he that becometh surety for his friend doth by no civil Law sweare he shall be good for the sonne or performe in liew and place of the friend what he is to performe he doth onely covenant and promise and in law and politique obligation he is taken and snared by that promise no lesse then if he had sworne Reuben offereth to be caution to bring Benjamin safe home to his old father Gen. 42. 37. Iudah also Gen. 43. 9. but they do not swear anyoath iâ— is true that an oath adeth nothing to a contract and promise but onely it laies on a religious tie before God yet so as consequently if the contractor violate both promise and oath he cometh under the guilt of perjury which a law of men may punish Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politique obligation as well as an oath is already proved and farther confirmed by Gal. 3. 15. Though it be a mans testament or covenant no man disanulleth and addeth thereunto No man even by mans law can anull a confirmed covenant and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himself under law to fulfill his own covenant and so must the King put himself under mens law by a covenant at his Coronation Yea and David is reputed by Royallists an absolute Prince yet he cometh under a covenant before he be made King 3. It is but a weak reason to say that an oath is needlesse where no action of law can be against the King who sweareth if it have any strength of reason I retort it a legall and solemne promise then is needlesse also for there is no action of law against a King as Royalists teach if he violate his promise So then King David needlesly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation for though David should turne as bloody an enemie to the Church as Nero or Iulian the people have no Law-action against David and why then did Ieremiah seek an oath of the King of Iudah that he would not kill him nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies and why did David seek an oath of Ionathan It is not like Ieremiah and David could have law-action against a King and a Kings son if they should violate the oath of God And farther it is a begging of the question to say that the States can have no action against the king if he should violate
and Bellarmine and Suarez say Not God maketh Kings by approbation only P. Prelate The people may change Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy or Aristocracy into Monarchy for ought I know they differ not in this neither Ans The P. Prelate knoweth not all things the two Iesuites Bellarmine and Suarez are produced only as if they were all Iesuites and Suarez saith De prim po l. 3. n. 4. Donationem absolutam semel valide factam revocari non posse neque in totum neque ex parce maxime quando onerosa fuit If the people once give their power to the King they cannot resume it without cause and laying downe the grounds of Suarez and other Iesuites that our Religion is Heresie they doe soundly collect this consequence That no King can be Lord of the consciences of their subjects to compell them to an Hereticall Religion We teach that the King of Spaine hath no power over the consciences of Protestant Subjects to force them to Idolatry and that their soules are not his subjects but only their persons and in the Lord. 2. It is no great crime that if a King degenerate in a Tyranny or if the Royall Line faile that we thinke the people have liberty to change Monarchy into Aristocracy aut contra Iesuites deny that the people can make this change without the Popes consent We judge neither the great Bishop the Pope nor the little Popes ought to have hand in making Kings P. Prelate They say the power is derived to the King from the people Cumulativè or Communicativé non Privativé by way of communication not by way of privation so as the people denude not themselves of this soveraignty As the King maketh a Lieutenant in Ireland not to denude himselfe of his Royall power but to put him in trust for his service If this be their mind the King is in a poore case The principal authority is in the Deligate and so the people is still Iudge and the King their Deputy Ans The P. Prelate taketh on him to write he knoweth not what this is not our opinion The King is King and hath the peoples power not as their Deputy 1. Because the people is not principall Iudge and the King subordinate The King in the executive power of Lawes is really a Soveraigne above the people a Deputy is not so 2. The people have irrevocably made over to the King their power of governing defending and protecting themselves I except the power of selfe preservation which people can no more make away it being sinlesse natures birth-right then the liberty of eating drinking sleeping and this the people cannot resume except in case of the Kings Tyranny there is no power by the King so irrevocably resigned to his Servant or Deputy but he may use it himselfe 3. A Delegate is comptable for all he doth to those that put him in trust whether he doe ill or well The King in acts of Iustice is not comptable to any for if his acts be not lyable to high suspitions of Tyranny no man may say to him What dost thou onely in acts of unjustice and those so tyrannous that they be inconsistent with the habituall fiduciary repose and trust put on him he is to render accounts to the Parliament which representeth the people 4. A Delegate in esse in fieri both that he may be a Delegate and that he may continue a Delegate whether he doe ill or well dependeth on his pleasure who delegateth him but though a King depend in fieri in regard of his call to the Crowne upon the suffrages of his people yet that he may be continued King he dependeth not on the people simply but only in case of Tyrannicall administration and in this sense Suarez and Bellarmine spake with no more honesty then we doe but with more then Prelates doe for they professe any Emissary of Hell may stab a Protestant King We know the Prelates professe the contrary but their judgement is the same with Iesuites in all points and since they will have the Pope Christs Vicar by such a Divine right as they themselves are Bishops and have the King under Oath to maintaine the Clergie Bishops and all their Canonicall priviledges amongst which the Bishops of Rome his indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia and to dethrone Kings who turne Heritickes is one principall right I see not how Prelates are not as deepe in treason against Kings as the Pope himselfe and therefore P. Prelate take the beame out of your owne eye The P. Prelate taketh unlearned paines to prove that Gerson Occam Iac. de almaine Parisian Doctors maintained these same grounds anent the peoples power over Kings in the case of Tyranny and that before Luther and Calvine was in the world and this is to give himselfe the lye that Luther Calvin and we have not this Doctrine from Iesuites and what is Calvines mind is evident Instit l. 4. c. all that the estates may coerce and reduce in order a Tyrant else they are deficient in their trust that God hath given them over the Common-wealth and Church and this is the Doctrine for which Royalists cry out against Master Knox of blessed memory Buchanan Iunius Brutus Bâ—uchier Rossaeus Althusius and Luther in scripto ad pastorem to 7. German fol. 386. bringeth two examples for resistance the people resisted Saul when he was willing to kill Ionathan his sonne and Ahikam and other Princes rescued Ieremiah out of the hands of the King of Iudah and Gerardus citeth many Divines who second Luther in this as Bugenliagius Iustus Ionas Nicholas Ambsderffius George Spalatinus Iustus Menius Christopher Hofmanus It is knowne what is the mind of Protestant Divines as Beza Pareus Melancthon Bucanus Polanus Chamer all the Divines of France of Germany of Holland No wonder then Prelates were upon the plot of betraying the City of Rochel and of the Protestant Church there when they then will have the Protestants of France for their defensive warres to be Rebels and siders with Iesuites when in these warres Iesuites sought their blood and ruine The P. Prelate having shewn his mind concerning the deposing of Childericke by the Pope of which I say nothing but the Pope was an Antichristian Usurper and the poore man never fit to beare a Crowne he goeth on to set downe an opinion of some mute Authors he might devise a thousand opinions that way to make men beleeve he had been in a wood of learned mens secrets and that never man saw the bottome of the controversie while he seeing the escapes of many Pens as supercilious Bubo praiseth was forced to appeare a Star new risen in the firmament of Pursevants and reveale all dreames and teach all the New-Statists the Gamâ—liels Buchanan Iunius Brutus and a world who were all sleeping while this Lucifer the sonne of the night did appeare this new way of Lawes Divinity and casuists Theologie They hold saith P. P. Soveraigne power is
primarily and naturally in the multitude from it derived to the King immediatly from God The reason of which order is because we cannot reape the fruites of government unlesse by compact we submit to some possible and accidentall inconveniences Ans 1. Who speaketh so the P. Prelate cannot name That Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude Vertually it may be Soveraignty is in the multitude but primarily and naturally as heat is in the fire light in the Sun I thinke the P. Prelate dreamed it no man said it but himselfe for what attribute is naturally in a Subject I conceive may directly and naturally be predicated thereof Now the P. Prelate hath taught us of a very naturall predication Our Dreadful and Soveraign Lord the multitude commandeth this and this 2. This is no more a reason for a Monarchy then for a Democracy for we can reape the fruites of no government except we submit to it 3. We must submit in Monarchy saith he to some possible and accidentall inconveniences Here be soft words but is subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties of Church and State introducing of Popery Arminianisme of Idolatry Altar-worship the Masse proved by a learned Treatise The Canterburian selfe conviction printed the 3. edit an 1641. never answered couched under the name of inconveniency The pardoning of the innocent blood of hundreds of thousand Protestants in Ireland the killing of many thousands Nobles Barons Commons by the hands of Papists in Armes against the Law of the Land the making of England a field of blood the obtruding of an Idolatrous Service-Booke with Armies of men by Sea and Land to blocke up the Kingdome of Scotland are all these inconveniences only 4. Are they only possible and accidentall but make a Monarch absolute as the P. Prelate doth and tyranny is as necessary and as much intended by a sinfull man inclined to make a God of himselfe as it is naturall to men to sinne when they are tempted and to be drunken and giddy with honour and greatnesse witnesse the Kings of Israel and Iudah though de jure they were not absolute Is it accidentall to Nero Iulian to the ten hornes that grew out of the womans head who sate upon the scarlet colloured beast to make warre against the Lambe and his followers especially the spirit of Sathan being in them P. Prelate They inferre 1. They cannot without violation of a Divine ordinance and breach of faith resume the authority they have placed in the King 2. It were high sin to rob authority of its essentials 3. This ordinance is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath urgent reasons Ans 1. These namelesse Authors cannot inferre that an Oath is broken which is made conditionally all authority given by the people to the King is conditionall that he use it for the safety of the people if it be used for their distruction they breake no faith to resume it for they never made faith to give up their power to the King upon such tearmes and so they cannot be said to resume what they never gave 2. So the P. Prelate maketh power to act all the former mischiefes the essentialls of a King Balaam he is not worthy his wages for Prophecying thus that the Kings essentialls is a power of blood and destructive to people Law Religion and liberties of Church and State for otherwise we teach not that people may resume from the King Authority and power to disarme Papists to roote out the bloody Irish and in justice serve them as they have served us 3. This ordinance of the people giving lawfull power to a King for the governing of the people in peace and godlinesse is Gods good pleasure and hath just reasons and causes But that the people make over a power to one man to act all the inconveniences above named I mean the bloody and destructive inconveniences hath nothing of God or reason in it P. Prelate The reasons of this opinion are 1. If Power soveraigne were not in one he could not have strength enough to act all necessary parts and acts of government 2. Nor to prevent divisions which attend multitudes or many indowed with equall power and the Authors say They must part with their native right entirely for a greater good and to prevent greater evills 3. To resume any part of this power of which the people have totally devested themselves or to limit it is to disable Soveraignty from government loose the sinewes of all society c Ans 1. I know none for this opinion but the P. Prelate himselfe The first Reason may be made rhyme but never reason for though there be not absolute power to good and ill there may be strength of limited power in abundance in the King and sufficient for all acts of just Government and the adequate end of Government which is salus populi the safetie of the people But the Royalist will have strength to be a Tyrant and act all the Tyrannicall and bloody inconveniences of which we spake an essentiall part of the power of a King As if weaknesse were essentiall to strength and a King could not be powerfull as a King to doe good and save and protect except he had power also as a Tyrant to doe evill and to destroy and waste his people This power is weaknesse and no part of the image of the greatnesse of the King of Kings whom a King representeth 2. The second Reason condemneth Democracie and Aristocracie as unlawfull and maketh Monarchie the only Physick to cure these as if there were no Government an ordinance of God save only absolute Monarchie which indeed is no ordinance of God at all but contrary to the nature of a lawfull King Deut. 17. 3. 3. That people must part with their native right totally to make an absolute Monarch is as if the whole members of the Body would part with their whole nutritive power to cause the Milt to swell which would be the destruction of the Body 4. The people cannot divest themselves of power of defensive Warres more then they can part with Nature and put themselves in a condition inferior to a slave who if his master who hath power to sell him invade him unjustly to take away his life may oppose violence to unjust violence And the other Consequences are null QUEST XLII Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vicegerents THe P. Prelate taketh on him to prove the truth of this but the question is not pertinent it belongeth to another head to the Kings power in Church matters I therefore only examine what he saith and follow him P. Prelate Sectaries have found a Quere of late that Kings are Gods not Christs Lieutenants on earth Romanists and Puritans erect two Soveraignes in every State The Jesuite in the Pope the Puritan in the Presbyterie Ans We give a reason why God hath a Lieutenant as God
be under his own and the Parliaments Law to governe only by Law I prove the Assumption from Parl. 3. of K. Iames the 1. Act 48. Ordaines That all and sundry the Kings Lieges be governed under the Kings Laws and Statutes of the Realme allanerly and under no particular Lawes or speciall Priviledges nor by any Lawes of other Countries or Realmes Priviledges doe exclude Lawes Absolute pleasure of the King as a Man and the Law of the King as King are opposed by way of contradiction and so in Parl. 6. K. James 4. Act. 79. and ratified Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. Act. 131. 2. The King at his Coronation 1 Par. K. James 6. Act. 8. sweareth to maintaine the true Kirk of God and Religion now presently professed in puritie And to rule the People according to the Lawes and Constitutions received in the Realme causing Justice and equitie to be ministred without partialitie This did King Charles sweare at his Coronation and ratified Parl. 7. K. Iam. 6. Act. 99. Hence he who by the Oath of God is limited to governe by Law can have no Prerogative above the Law If then the King change the Religion Confession of Faith authorised by many Parliaments especially by Parliament 1 K. Charles An. 1633. He goeth against his Oath 3. The Kings Royall Prerogative or rather Supremacie enacted Parl. 8. K. James 6. Act. 129. and Parl. 18. Act. 1. and Parl. 21. Act. 1. K. Iames and 1 Parl. K. Charles Act. 3. cannot 1. be contrary to the Oath that K. Charles did sweare at his Coronation which bringeth down the Prerogative to governing according to the standing Lawes of the Realme 2. It cannot be contrary to these former Parliaments and Acts declaring that the Lieges are to be governed by the Lawes of the Realme and by no particular Lawes and speciall Priviledges but absolute Prerogative is a speciall Priviledge above or without Law which Acts stand unrepealed to this day and these Acts of Parliaments stand ratified An. 1633. the 1 Parl. K. Charles 3. Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. in the first three Acts thereof the Kings Supremacie and the power and authoritie of Parliaments are equally ratified under the same paine Their jurisdictions power and judgements in Spirituall or Temporall causes not ratified by His Majestie and the three Estates conveened in Parliament are discharged But the Absolute Prerogative of the King above Law Equity and Iustice was never ratified in any Parliament of Scotland to this day 4. Parliam 12. K. Iames 6. Act. 114. All former Acts in favour of the true Church and Religion being ratified Their power of making Constitutions concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Order and Decency the Priviledges that God hath given to spirituall Office-bearers as well of Doctrine and Discipline in matters of Heresie Excommunication Collation Deprivation and such like warranted by the Word of God and also to Assembles and Presbyteries are ratified Now in that Parliament in Acts so contiguous we are not to think That the King and three Estates would make Acts for establishing the Churches power in all the former heads of Government in which Royalists say The soul of the Kings Absolute Prerogative doth consist And therefore it must be the true intent of our Parliament to give the King a Supremacy and a Prerogative Royall which we also give but without any Absolutenesse of boundlesse and transcendent power above Law and not to obtrude a Service-Book and all the Superstitious Rites of the Church of Rome without Gods Word upon us 5. The former Act of Parliament ratifieth the true Religion according to the Word of God then could it never have been the intent of our Parliament to ratifie an Absolute supremacy according to which a King might govern his people as a Tyrannous Lion contrary to Deut. 17. 18 19 20. And 't is true The 18. P. of King James 6. Act. 1. and Act. 2. upon personall qualifications giveth a Royall Prerogative to King James over all causes persons and estates within His Majesties Dominion whom they humbly acknowledge to be Soveraign Monarch Absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes These two Acts for my part I acknowledge spoken rather in Court-expressions then in Law-termes 1. Because personall vertues cannot advance a limited Prince such as the Kings of Scotland Post hominum memoriam ever were to be an Absolute Prince Personall graces make not David absolutely supreme Judge over all persons and causes nor can King James advanced to be King of England be for that made more King of Scotland and more supreme Iudge then he was while he was onely King of Scotland A wicked Prince is as essentially supreme Iudge as a godly King 2. If this Parliamentary figure of speech which is to be imputed to the times exalted King James to be Absolute in Scotland for his personall indowments there was no ground to put the same on King Charls Personall vertues are not alway Hereditary though to me the present King be the best 3. There is not any Absolutenesse above Law in the Act. 1. The Parliament must be more absolute themselves King James 6. had been divers yeers before this 18. Parl. King of Scotland then if they gave him by Law an Absolutenesse which he had not before then they were more Absolute These who can adde Absolutenesse must have it in themselves Nemo dat quod non habet if it be said King James had that before the Act the Parliament legally declared it to be his power which before the Declaration was his power I answer All he had before this Declaration was to govern the people according to Law and Conscience and no more and if they declare no other Prerogative Royall to be due to him there is an end we grant all But then this which they call Prerogative Royall is no more then a power to govern according to Law and so you adde nothing to King James upon the ground of his personall vertues onely you make an oration to his praise in the Acts of Parliament 4. If this Absolutenesse of Prerogative be given to the King the subjects swearing obedience swear That he hath power from themselves to destroy themselves this is neither a lawfull oath nor though they should swear it doth it oblige them 6. A Supreme Iudge is a supreme father of all his children and all their causes and to be a supreme Father cannot be contrary to a supreme Iudge but contrary it must be if this supremacy make over to the Prince a power of devouring as a Lyon and that by a regall priviledge and by office whereas he should be a father to save or if a Iudge kill an ill-doer though that be an act destructive to one man yet is it an act of a father to the Common-wealth An act of supreme and absolute Royaltie is often an act of destruction to one particular man and to the whole Common-wealth For example when the King out of his Absolute
this they say in answer to some who beleeved the Church of England made the King the Head of the Church The Prelates Convocation must be Iesuites to this P. P. also So the 36. Article of the Belgick Confession saith of all Magistrates no lesse then of a King We know for Tyrannie of Soule and Body they justly revolted from their King Idcirco Magistratus ipsos gladio armavit ut malos quidem plectant paenis probos vero tueantur Horum porro est non modo de Civili politia conservanda esse solioitâ—s verum etiam dare operam ut sacrum Ministerium conservetur omnis Idololatria adulterinus Dei cultus è medio tollatur regnum Antichristi diruatur c. Then all Magistrates though inferiour must doe their duty that the Law of God hath laid on them though the King forbid them But by the Belgick Confession and the Scripture it is their duty to relieve the oppressed to use the sword against murthering Papists and Irish Rebels and destroying Cavaliers For shall it be a good plea in the day of Christ to say Lord Iesus we would have used thy sword against bloody Murtherers if thy Anoynted the King had not commanded us to obey a mortall King rather than the King of ages and to execute no judgement for the oppressed because he judged them faithfull Catholike subjects Let all Oxford and Cavalier Doctors in the three Kingdomes satisfie the consciences of men in this that inferior Iudges are to obey a Diviue Law with a proviso that the King command them so to doe and otherwise they are to obey Men rather then God This is evidently holden forth in the Argentine Confession exhibited by foure Cities to the Emperour Charles the Fifth An. M. D. XXX in the same very cause of innocent Defence that we are now in in the three Kingdomes of Scotland England and Ireland The Saxonick Confession exhibited to the Councell of Trent An. M. D. LI. art 23 maketh the Magistrates office essentially to consist in keeping of the two Tables of Gods Law and so what can follow hence but in so far as he defendeth Murtherers or if he be a King and shall with the sword or Armies impede inferior Magistrates for the Confession speaketh of all to defend Gods law and true Religion against Papists Murtherers and bloody Cavaliers and hinder them to execute the judgement of the Lord against evill doers He is not in that a Magistrate and the denying of obedience active or passive to him in that is no resistance to the Ordinance of God but by the contrary the King himselfe must resist the ordinance of God The Confession of Bohemia is clear art 16. Qui publico munere magistratuque funguntur quemcunque graduÌ„ teneant se non suum sed Dei opus agere sciant Hence all inferior or the supreme Magistrate what ever be their place they doe not their own work nor the work of the King but the work of God in the use of the sword Ergo they are to use the sword against bloody Cavaliers as doing Gods worke suppose the King should forbid them to doe Gods worke And it saith of all Magistrates Sunt autem Magistratuum partes ac munus omnibus ex aequo jus dicere in communem omnium usum sine personarum acceptatione pacem ac tranquilitatem publicam tueri ac procurare de malis ac facinorosis hanc inter turbantibus poenas sumere aliosque omnes ab eorum vi injuria vindicare Now this Confession was the faith of the Barons and Nobles of Bohemia who were Magistrates and exhibited to the Emperor An. 1535. in the cause not unlike unto ours now and the Emperor was their Soveraigne yet they professe they are obliged in conscience to defend all under them from all violence and injuries that the Emperor or any other could bring on them and that this is their office before God which they are obliged to performe as a worke of God and the Christian Magistrate is not to doe that worke which is not his own but Gods upon condition that the King shall not inhibite him What if the King shall inhibite Parliaments Princes and Rulers to relieve the oppressed to defend the Orphan the Widow the Stranger from unjust violence Shall they obey man rather than God To say no more of this Prelates in Scotland did what they could to hinder his Majestie to indict a Parliament 2. When it was indicted to have its freedome destroyed by prelimitations 3. When it was sitting their care was to divide impede and anull the course of Iustice 4. All in the P. Prelates booke tendeth to abolish Parliaments and to enervate their power 5. There were many wayes used to break up Parliaments in England And to command Iudges not to judge at all but to interrupt the course of Iustice is all one as to command unrighteous judgement Ier. 22. v. 3. 6. Many wayes have been used by Cavaliers to cut off Parliaments and the present Parliament in England The paper found in William Lauds Studie touching feares and hopes of the Parliament of England evidenceth that Cavaliers hate the Supreme seat of Iustice and would it were not in the World which is the highest rebellion and resistance made against superior Powers 1. He feareth this Parliament shall begin where the last left Ans What ever ungrate Courtier had hand in the death of King Iames deserved to come under Tryall 2. He feareth they sacrifice some man Ans If Parliaments have not power to cut off Rebels and corrupt Iudges the root of their being is undone 2. If they be lawfull Courts none needeth feare them but the guilty 3. He feareth their Consultations be long and the supply must be present Ans Then Cavaliers intend Parliaments for Subsidies to the King to foment and promote the warre against Scotland not for Iustice 2. He that feareth long and serious consultations to rip up and launce the wounds of Church and State is affraid that the wounds be cured 4. He feareth they deny Subsidies which are due by the Law of God Nature and Nations whereas Parliaments have but their deliberation and consent for the manner of giving otherwise this is to sell Subsidies not to give them Ans Tribute and the standing Revenues of the King are due by the Law of God and Nations but Subsidies are occasionall Rents given upon occasion of Warre or some extraordinary necessity and they are not given to the King as Tribute and standing Revenues which the King may bestow for his House Family and Royall Honour but they are given by the Kingdome rather to the Kingdome then to the King for the present warre or some other necessity of the Kingdome and therefore are not due to the King as King by any Law of Nature or Nations and so should not be given but by deliberation and judiciall sentence of the States and they are not sold to the King but given out by the
Kingdome by Statute of Parliament to be bestowed on the Kingdome and the King should sell no Acts of Justice for Subsidies 5. He dare not speake of the consequences if the King grant Bills of Grace and part with the flowers of the Crowne Ans He dare not say The people shall vindicate their liberty by selling Subsidies to buy branches of the Prerogative Royall and diminishing the Kings fancied absolutenesse so would Prelates have the King absolute that they may ride over the soules purses persons estates and Religion of men upon the horse of pretended absolutenesse 6. He feareth the Parliament sall upon Church businesse but 1. The Church is too weake already if it had more power the King might have more both obedience and service 2. The Houses can be no competent Iudges in point of Doctrine 3. For the King Clergy and Convocation are Iudges in all causes Ecclesiasticall Ans 1. This striketh at the root of all Parliamentary power 1. The P. P. giveth them but a poore deliberative power in Subsides and that is to make the Kings Will a Law in taking all the subjects goods from them to foment warre against the subjects 2. He taketh all jurisdiction from them over Persons though they were as black Traitors as breathe 3. And spoileth them of all power in Church matters to make all Iudges yea and the King himselfe yield blind obedience to the Pope and Prelate and their illuminated Clergie Sure I am P. Maxwell imputeth this but most unjustly to Presbyteries What essentiall and fundamentall priviledges are left to Parliaments David and the Parliament of Israel are impertinent Iudges in the matter of bringing home the Ark of God And for the Churches weaknesse that is the weaknesse of the damned Prelates shall this be the Kings weaknesse Yes the P. P. must make it true No Bishop no King 7. He feareth factious spirits will take heart to themselves if the King yield to them without any submission of theirs Ans The Princes and Iudges of the Land are a company of factious men and so no Parliament no Court but at best some good advisers of a King to breake up the Parliament because they refuse Subsidies that he may by a lawlesse way extort Subsidies 8. He desireth the Parliament may sit a short time that they may not well understand one another Ans He loveth short or no justice from the Parliament he feareth they reforme Gods house and execute justice on men like himselfe But I returne to the Scotish Parliament Assert 2. The Parliament is to regulate the power of the King The heritable Sheriffes complaine that the King granteth Commissions to others in cases perteining to their office Whereupon the Estates Par. 6. K. Iam. 5. Act. 82. dischargeth all such Commissions as also appointeth that all Murtherers be judged by the Iustice generall only And in severall Acts the King is inhibited to grant pardons to malefactors K. Ia. 6. Act. 75. P. 11. It is to be considered that King Iames in his Baslicon Doron layeth down an unsound ground that Fergus the first father of 107 Kings of Scotland conquered this Kingdom The contrary whereof is asserted by Fordome Major Boethius Buchannan Hollanshed who run all upon this Principle That the Estates of the Kingdome did 1. Choose a Monarchie and freely and no other Government 2. That they freely elected Fergus to be their King 3. King Fergus frequently conveened the Parliament called Insulanorum Duces Tribuum Rectores Majorum consessus Conventus Ordinum conventus Statuum Communitatum Regni Phylarchi Primores Principes patres and as Hollanshed saith they made Fergus King therefore a Parliament must be before the King yea and after the death of King Fergus Philarchi coeunt conciâ—ne advocatâ the Estates convened without any King and made that fundamentall Law Regni electivi That when the Kings Children were minores any of the Fergusian Race might be chosen to Reigne and this indured to the daies of Kennethus and Redotha Reâ— 7. resigneth and maketh over the Government into the hands of the Parliament and Philarchi Tribuum Gubernatores ordained Therius the 8. King Buchanan l. 4. Rer. Scot. calleth him Reutha and said he did this Populo egrè permittente then the Royall Power recurred to the fountaine Therius the 8. a wicked man filled the Kingdome with Roberies fearing that the Parliament should punish him fled to the Britaines and thereupon the Parliament choose Connanus to be Protex and protector of the Kingdome Finnanus R. 10. Decreed Ne quid Reges quod majoris esset momenti nisi de publici consilii authoritate juberent ne domestico consilio remp administrarent regia publicaque negotia non sine patrum consultatione ductuque tractarentur nec bellum pacem aut faedera reges per se patrum Tribuumve Rectorum injussu facerent demerentue Then it is cleare that Parliaments were consortes imperii and had Authority with and above the King When a Law is made that the Kings should doe nothing Injussu rectorum tribuum without commandement of the Parliament a Cabinet Counsell was not lawfull to the Kings of Scotland So Durstus Rex XI sweareth to the Parliament Se nihil nisi de primorum consilio acturum That he shall doe nothing but by counsell of the Rulers and Heads of the Kingdome The Parliament rejecting the lawfull sonne of Corbredus the 20 King because he was young created Dardanus the sonne of Metellanus King which is a great argument of the power of the Scottish Parliament of old for elective rather then hereditary Kings Corbredus secundus called Galdus the 21 King at his Coronation renouncing all negative voices did sweare Se majorum consiliis acquieturum That he should be ruled by the Parliament and it is said Leges quasdam tollere non potuit adversante multitudine Lactatus R. 22. is censured by a Parliament Quod spreto majorum consilio He appointed base men to publick Offices Mogaldus R. 23. Ad consilia seniorum omnia ex prisco more revâ—cavit did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Conarus 24. K. was cast in Prison by the Parliament Quod non expectato decreto patrum quod summae erat potestatis privatis consiliis administrasset Because he did the weightiest businesse that concerned the Kingdome by private advice without the judiciall Ordinance of Parliament that was of greatest authority Where is the negative voice of the King here Ethodius 2. the sonne of Ethodius the 1. the 28. King The Parliament passing by his son of the first Bed because he was a child had created Satrael his Brother King before a simple ignorant man yet for reverence to the race of Fergus kept the name of a King but the Estates appointed Tutors to him he was the 28. King Nathalocus the 30. K. corrupting the Nobles with buds and faire promises obtained the Crowne Romachus Fethelmachus and Angusianus or as Buchanan
calleth him Aenneannus contended for the Crowne the Parliament convened to judge the matter was dissolved by tumult and Rommachus chosen King doing all Non adhibito de more consilio majorum was censured by the Parliament Fergus the 2. was created King by the States De more Constantine 43. K. a most wicked man was punished by the States Aidanus 49. K. by the counsell of Sanctus Columba governed all in peace by three Parliaments every yeare Ferchardus 52. K. and Ferchardus 2. the 54. King were both censured by Parliaments Eugenius 62. K. a wicked Prince was put to death by the Parliament Omnibus in ejus exitium consentientibus Eugenius 7. the 59. K. was judicially accused and absolved by the States of killing his Wife Spondana Donaldus the 70. K. is censured by a Parliament which convened Pro salute Reipublicae for the good of the Land So Ethus the 72. K. Ne unius culpâ regnum periret Gregorius the 73. K. sweareth to maintaine Kirk and State in their liberties the Oath is ordained to be sworne by all Kings at their Coronation The Estates complaine of Duffus 78. K. because contemning the counsell of the Nobles Sacrificulorum consiliis abduceretur and that neither the Nobility must depart the Kingdome or another King must be made Culenus the 79. King was summoned before the Estates so before him Constantine the 3. the 75. K. did by Oath resigne the Kingdome to the States and entered in a Monastery at Saint Andrewes Kenethus the 70. K. procured almost per vim saith Buchanan that the Parliament should change the elective Kings in hereditary observe the Power of Parliaments After this Grimus and then Macbethus R. 85. is rebuked for governing by private counsell in his time the King is ordained by the States to sweare to maintaine the community of the Kingdome When Maccolumbus the 92. King would have admitted a Treaty to the hurt of the Kingdome the Nobles said Non jus esse Regi the King had no right to take any thing from the Kingdome Nisi omnibus Ordinibus consentientibus In the time of Alexander the 94. K. is ordained Acta regis oporteri confirmari decreto ordinum regni quia ordinibus regni non consultis aut adversantibus nihil quod ad totius regnistatum attinet Regi agere liceret So all our Historians observe by which it is cleare that the Parliament not the King hath a negative voyce The States answer to K. Edwards Legates concerning Balzees conditions in his contest with Bruce is That these conditions were made a solo Rege by the King only without the estates of the Kingdome and therefore they did not oblige the Kingdome In Robert the Bruce his Raigne the K. 97. the succession to the Crowne is appointed by Act of Parliament and twice changed and in the League with France Quod quando de successuro rege ambigeretur apud Scotos ea controversia ab Ordinum de creto decideretur Robert the 100. K. in a Parliament at Scoone moved the States to appoint the Earle of Carick his eldest sonne of the second Mariage to the Crowne passing his children of the first Mariage and when he would have made a Treatie he was told That he could not inducias facere nisi ex sententia conventus publici he could not make Truces but with the consent of the Estates of Parliament K. James the 1. could not doe any thing in his Oath in England The Parliaments approbation of the Battell at Stirling against King Iames the 3. is set downe in the printed Acts because he had not the consent of the States To come to our first Reformation Queene Regent breaking her promise to the States said Faith of promise should not be sought from Princes the States answered That they then were not obliged to obey and suspended her government as inconsistent with the duty of Princes by the Articles of pacification at Leith Anno 1560. Iunii 16. No peace or warre can be without the States In the Parliament thereafter Anno 1560. the Nobility say frequently to the Queene Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nec unquam adunius libidinem sed ad legum praescriptum nobilitatis consensum regisolitum So it is declared Parliament at Stirling 1578. and Parl. 1567 concerning Queene Mary I need not insist here K. James the 6. Anno 1567. Iul. 21. was Crowned the Earle of Morton and Humne jurarunt pro co ejus nomine in leges eum doctrinam ritus religionis quae tum docebantur publice quoad posset servaturum contrarios oppugnaturum Buch. Rer. Scot. Hist l. 18. The three Estates revoke all alienations made by the King without consent of the Parliament Parliam K. Iames 2. cap. 2. K. Iames 4 5 6. Three Parliaments of K. Iames the 2. are holden without any mention of the King as Anno 1437. Anno 1438. Anno 1440. and the 5. and 6. Act of Parl. 1440. the Estates ordaine the King to doe such and such things to ride through the country for doing of Iustice And Parl. 1. K. Iames 1. Act. 23. the Estates ordained the King to mend his money But shew any Parliament where ever the King doth prescribe Lawes to the States or censure the States In the 1. Parl. of K. Iames the 6. the Confession of Faith being ratified in Acts made by the three Estates that the Kings must sweare at their Coronation In the presence of the eternall God that they shall maintaine the true Religion right Preaching and administration of the Sacraments now received and preached within this Realme and shall abolish and gain-stand all false Religions contrary to the same and shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will of God laudable Lawes and Constitutions of the Realme c. The 1. Parl. of K. Iames the 6. 1567. approveth the Acts Parl. 1560. conceived only in name of the States without the King and Queen who had deserted the same So saith the Act 2. 5. 4. 20. 28. And so this Parliament wanting the King and Queenes authoritie is confirmed Parl. 1572. Act. 51. K. Ia. 6. and Parl. 1581. Act. 1. and Parl. 1581. Act. 115. in which it is declared That they have been Common lawes from their first Date and all are ratified Parl. 1587. and Parl. 1592. Act. 1. and stand ratified to this day by K. Charles his Parliament An. 1633. The Act of the Assemblie 1566. commendeth that Parliament 1560. as the most lawfull and free Parliament that ever was in the Kingdome Yea even Parl. 1641. King Charles himselfe being present an Act was passed upon the occasion of the Kings illegall imprisoning of the Laird of Langtoune That the King hath no power to imprison any Member of the Parliament without consent of the Parliament Which Act to the great prejudice of the libertie of the Subject should not have been left unprinted for by what Law the King may imprison one
9. Why if God might work a miracle in the three Childrens resistance active why doth he evidence omnipotencie in the passive obedience of these Witnesses The Kingdome of Iudah was Christs birthright as man and Davids sonne why did he not by legions of Men Angels rather vindicate his own flesh and blood than triumph by non-resistance and the omnipotencie of glorie to shine in his meere suffering Ans Who art thou that disputest with God He that killeth with the jaw-bone of an Asse thousands and he that destroyed the numberlesse Midianites by only three hundred should no more put the three Children to an unlawfull fact in the one if they had by three men killed Nebuchadnezzar and all his Subjects than in the other But nothing is said against us in a Sophisme à non-causa pro causa except it be proved God would neither deliver his three Children nor Christ from death and the Iewes from bondage by miraculous resistance because resistance is unlawfull What patient suffring is lawfull Ergo resistance is unlawfull It is a poor consequent and a begging of the question both must be lawfull to us And so we hold of ten lawfull meanes fit to compasse Gods blessed end he may choose one and let goe nine shall any inferre ergo These other nine meanes are unlawfull because God chose a mean dâ—fferent from those nine and refused them So may I answer by retortion The three hundred sinned in resisting Midian and defeating them Why Because it should be more honour to God if they had by suffering patiently the sword of Midian glorified God in Martyrdome So Christ and the Apostles who could have wrought miracles might have wrought Reformation by the sword and destroyed Kings and Emperors the opposers of the Lambe and they did reforme by suffering Ergo the sword is unlawfull in Reformation It followeth not The meane Christ used is lawfull Ergo all other meanes that he used not are unlawfull It is vaine Logick Quest 10. Whether is the Coronation of a King any other thing but a Ceremonie Ans In the Coronation there is and may be the Ceremonie of a shout and an Acclamation and the reaching of a Scepter in his right hand who is made King and the like But the Coronation in concreto according to the substance of the act is no Ceremonie nor any accidentall ingredient in the constitution of a King 1. Because Israel should have performed a meere ceremoniall action on Saul when they made him King which we cannot say for as the Peoples act of Coronation is distinctive so is it constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and did constitute him in a new relation that he was changed from no King to be a King 2. The people cannot by a Ceremonie make a King they must really put some honour on him that was not on him before Now this Ceremonie which Royalists doe fancie Coronation to be is only fymbolicall and declarative not really dative it placeth nothing in the King Quest 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King it being the immediate result without intervening of Law or any act of man issuing from God only Ans Though we should give which in reason we cannot grant that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God without any act of man Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle without any act of men yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power that he abuse it not to Iudaizing Royalists deny not but they teach That the 80. Priests that restrained Vzziah his power from burning incense to the Lord gave no Royall power to Vzziah Doe not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power that he kill not the subjects without cause yet they teach That subjects gave no power to the King certainly this is a proofe of the immense power of the King of Kings that none can fly from his pursuing hand Ps 139. 1 2 3. Amos 9. 1 2 3 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings Nebuchadnezzar as Royalists teach might justly conquer some Kingdomes for conquest is a just title to the Crowne say they now the Conquerour then justly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him yet we know the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King Ioshua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave and therefore this is no good reason The people gave not to the King Royall Power ergo they could not lawfully limit it and take it away 2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly without the intervention of any Act of Law for it is an Act of Law that Deut. 17. the people chooseth such a King not such a King that the people by a legall covenant make Saul David and Joash Kings and that God exerciseth any politicall action of making a King over such subjects upon such a condition is absurd and inconceivable for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jsrael upon this politicall and legall condition that they rule in Iustice and Judgement but there must intervene a politicall action and so they are not made Kings immediatly If God feed Moses by bread and Manna the Lords act of feeding is mediate by the mediation of second causes if he feed Moses 40. dayes without eating any thing the act of feeding is immediate If God made David King as he made him a Prophet I should thinke God immediatly made him King for God asked consent of no man of no people no not of David himselfe before he infused on him the Spirit of Prophecy but he made him formally King by the politicall and legall Covenant betwixt him and the people I shall not thinke that a Covenant and Oath of God is a Ceremony especially a Law-covenant or a politicall paction between David and the people the contents whereof behoved to be De materia gravi onerosa concerning a great part of obedience to the fifth Commandement of Gods Morall Law the duties Morall concerning Religion and Mercy and Justice to be performed reciprocally between King and people Oathes I hope are more then Ceremonies Quest 12. Whether or no is not the Common-wealth ever a Pupill never growing to age as a minor under nonage doth come not to need a Tutor but the Common-wealth being still in need of a Tutor a Governour or King must alwaies be a Tutor and so the Kingdome can never come to that condition as to accuse the King it alwaies being minor Ans 1. Then can they never accuse inferiour Iudges for a Kingdome is perpetually in such a nonage as it cannot want them when sometime it wanteth a King 2. Can the Common-wealth under Democracy and Aristocracy being perpetually under nonage ever then quarrell at these Governments and never seeke a
an absolute Prince How the King is Lord of the Parliament Monarch Governa part 2. c. 1. pag. 31. Sac. sanc Mai. c. 14. p. 144. Princes are not to be invested with power to all Tyranny upon this pretence that they cannot do good except they have also absolute power to do evil Sae Maj. pag. 145. Sacr. sanc Maj. c. 16. p. 170 171. A power to shed innocent blood is no part of a true Prerogative The King because of the publikenesse of his office inferiour to subjects and other Iudges in many priviledges Loyall subjects belief Sect. 6. p. 19. Barcl l. 4. c. 23. p. 325. Humane Laws as penall take life from Law makers as reasonable they have life from the eternall Law of God The King not greater then the Law No necessitie that an unjust will of a King be either done by us or on us The King hath no Nomothetick power his alone Symmons Loyall Subject Sect. 5. pag. 8. Prerogative Royall warranteth not the Prince to destroy himselfe nor is the people to permit him to cooperat for destruction to themselves The King inferiour to the People Parliaments supplicate not the King ex debito Sac. sanct maj â— â— p. 103 104 Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordinatioÌ„ both consistent Do. p. 3. Sect. 4. pag. 2â— Temperament of all the three in a limited Monarchy Burel Ad verfus Monarchomachous l. 1. pag. 24. A King as King how excellent a head of the people how contrary to a Tyrant The King as an erring man no remedy against confusions and oppressions of Anarchy A Court of necessity and a Court of Iustice Humane Laws not so obscure as Tyranny is legible Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39. It is ridiculous to say a King cannoâ— be so void of reason as to destroy his people Part. 3. sect 5. pag. 39. If there be a civill restraint from mans Law laid upon the King it must be forceable It s more requisite the people religion and Church be secured then one man D. Ferne p. 3. sect 5. pag. 40. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath Eatenus in so far not obligatory Difference betwixt a Tyrant in act and a Tyrant in habit Epist 45. The tragicall end of many Tyrannous Princes Reasons why the Peoples safetie is the Soveraignes Law A good Prince is to postponâ— his own safetie to the safetie of the people Sac. sane Maj. c. 16. 159. Dr. Ferne Conscience not satisfied Sec. â— p. 28. The King in his government is to seeke the safetie of the people not himselfe Sac. sanc maj â—â— 160. Iac. Armini Declar. Remonstrant in suod dordrac The Royalists principles drive at this to make none Kings but only rank Tyrants Vindix regum pag 65. Sac. sanc Mat. 16 pag. 161 162 163. Sacr. san Mai. pag. 165. The subjects may gratifie the King for doing what he is obliged to doe by his office Sac. sacr Mai. pag. 170. Page 172. Symmons hath the same very thing in his Loyall Subjec unbelief p. 39. Page 175. The safetie of the people far above the King Page 176. A King may though we should deny all Prerogative breake through the letter of a Law for the safety of the whole Land The Kings supposed Prerogative nothing in comparison of the lives and blood of so many thousands as are killed in England and Ireland The power of the Dictator no plea for a Prerogative above Law Pag. 177. Sac. sanc maj cap. 16. The Law above the King in four considerations The meaning of this The King is not subject to the Law The Law above the King in supremacy of constitution In what sense the King may do all things Plutarch in Apotheg l. 4. The King under the fundamentall Laws Whether the King be punishable or be to he punished Two divers questions Magistratus ipse est judex executor contra scipsum in propria causa propter excellentiam sui officii l. se pater familiaâ— l. boc Tiberius Caesar F. De Hered hoc just The King above some Lawes The King above Lawes that concerne subjects as subjects Some Lawyers and Schoolemen free the King from the Law Reasons to prove that the King is under the Law That a King hath no superiour but God a false ground to liberate the the King from the coaction of Law Argum. 2. Argum. 3. A Tyrant in exercise may be punished by the confession of our adversaries Winzetus Barclat Hag. Grotius But how this can consist with the doctrine of Royalists I see not to wit Once a father alway a father once a King ever a King None can punish a King save God Almighty say they Arg. 4. The King under the strictest obligation of Law Arg. 5. A King remaineth a man and a sociall creature Sac. sanc Mai. c. 15. p. 146 147. In what considerations the people is the subject of all politike power Sac. Mai. p. 147 148. C. 15. p. 148. Stollen from Arnisaus Dâ— authorit Prin. c. 4. num 5. pag. 73. If David in his Murthering Vriah and his Adultery sinned against none but God Arg. 6. The place Psa 51. Against hee only have I sinned Discussed Against thee only c. cannot exclude men as if David had sinned against no mortall men on earth as Royalists would teach Sac. sanct maj pag. 153. Gods delivering his people by Iudges and by Cyrus nothing against the power of a free people That the people may swear a Covenant for Reformation of Religion without the King is proâ—ed A twofold exposition of Lawes A Rule to expone Lawes The King not the sole interpreter of the Law The Kings conscience no rule of judging to the inferiour Iudge The King not the authentick peremtory and Lordly interpreter of the Law Argum. 1. â—rguâ— 2. The Will of the King is not the sense of the Law The King is King according to the Law but not King of the Law Argum. 3. Arg. 5. There can be no written Law if the King only be the authentick expositor of the Law Imperator so leges in scrinio condere dicit l. omnium C. de testam Arg. 6. Arnisaeus de authori Princ. c. 1. n. 2. The state of the question concerning resistance Arnisae 16. n. 4. If Kings be absolute by divine Institution then all Covenants restraining them must be unlawfull spoiling of Kings of that which God hath given them Resistance in some cases lawfull according to D. Fern. De author Princ. c. 2. n. 10. Royalists hold it lawfull to resist an inferiour Iudge The Exactors of unjust tribute not easily to be resisted Arguments for the lawfulnesse of resisting unjust violence Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Arg. 5. Arg. 6. The Kings person as a man in concreto and as a King and his office in abstracto are very different in this dispute Sacr. sanc Reg. Mai. c. 1. pag. 2. Arnisae de authoritat Princip c. 4. n. n. pag. 96. Every one