disposed of by the composed contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God Hos 13. 11. I gave them a King in my anger I tooke him away in my wrath Iob He places Kings in the throne c. Ans Here is a whole Chapter of seven pages for one raw argument ten times before repeated 1. to Exod. 9. 7. I have raised up Pharaoh Paul expoundeth it Rom. 9. to prove that King Pharaoh was a vessell of wrath fitted for destruction by Gods absolute Will and the Prelate following Arminius with treasonable charity applyeth this to our King Can this man pray for the King 2. Elisha anoynted but constituted not Hazael King and foretold he should be King and if he be a King of Gods making who slew his sicke Prince and invaded the Throne by innocent bloud judge you I would not take Kings of the Prelates making 3. If God give to Nebuchadnezer the same still of the servant of God given to David Ps 18. 1. 116. 16. and to Moses Ios 1 2. all Kings because Kings are men according to Gods heart Why is not royalty then founded on grace Nebuchadnezer was not otherwise his servant then he was the hammer of the earth and a tyrannous conquerour of the Lords people and all the Heathen Kings are called Kings But how came they to their Thrones for the most part as David and Hezekiah but God anointed them not by his Prophets they came to their Kingdomes by the peoples election or by blood and rapine the latter way is no ground to you to deny Athaliah to be a lawfull Princesse she and Abimelech were lawfull Princes and their soveraignty as immediatly and independently from God as the soveraignty of many heathen Kings See then how justly Athaliah was killed as a bloody usurper of the throne this would licence your brethren the Iesuites to stab heathen Kings whom you will have as well Kings as the Lords anointed though Nebuchadnezer many of them made their way to the Throne against all Law of God and man through a bloudy patent 4. Cyrus is Gods anointed and his Shepheard too ergo his Arbitrary government is a soveraignty immediatly depending on God and above all Law it is a wicked consequence 5. God named him neare a hundreth yeare ere he was borne God named and designed Judas very individually and named the Asse that Christ should ride on to Ierusalem Zach. 9. 9. some moe hundred yeares then one What will the Prelate make them independent Kings for that 6. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will What then this will prove Kingdomes to be as independent and immediatly from God as Kings are for as God giveth Kings to Kingdomes so he giveth Kingdomes to Kings and no doubt he giveth Kingdoms to whom he will so he giveth Prophets Apostles Pastors to whom he will and he giveth tyrannous conquests to whom he will and it is Nebuchadnezer to whom Daniel speaketh that from the Lord and he had no just title to many Kingdomes especially to the Kingdome of Iudah which yet God the King of Kings gave to him because it was his good pleasure and if God had not commanded them by the mouth of his Prophet Ieremiah might they not have risen and with the sword have vindicated themselves and their own liberty no lesse then they lawfully by the sword vindicated themselves from under Moab Iudges 3. from under Iabin Iaakin King of Canaan who twenty yeares mightily oppressed the children of Israel Iudges 4. now this P. Prelate by all these instances making Heathen Kings to be Kings by as good a title as David and Hezekiah condemneth the people of God as rebells if being subdued and conquered by the Turke and Spanish King they should by the sword recover their owne liberty and that Israel and the saviours which God raised to them had not warrant from the law of nature to vindicate themselves to liberty which was taken from them violently and unjustly by the sword but from all this it shall well follow that the tyranny of bloudy conquerours is immediatly and only dependent from God no lesse then lawfull soveraignty for Nebuchadnezers soveraignty over the people of God and many other Kingdomes also was revenged of God as tyranny Ier. 50. 6. 7. and therefore the vengeance of the Lord and the vengeance of his Temple came upon him and his land Ier. 50. 16 17. 18. 28 29. 30. It is true the people of God were commanded of God to submit to the King of Babylon to serve him and to pray for him and to doe on the contrary was rebellion but this was not because the King of Babylon was their King and because the King of Babylon had a command of God so to bring under his yoak the people of God So Christ had a Commandement to suffer the death of the Crosse Iohn 10. 18. but had Herod and Pilate any warrant to crucifie him none at all 7. He saith Royalties even of Heathen Kings are not disposed of by the composed Contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God But the Contracts of men to give a Kingdome to a person which a Heathen community may lawfully doe and so by contract dispose of a Kingdom is not opposite to the immediate hand of God appointing Royalty and Monarchy at his owne blessed liberty Lastly he saith God tooke away Saul in his wrath but I pray you did God onely doe it then had Saul because a King a Patent Royall from God to kill himselfe for so God tooke him away and we are rebells by this if we suffer not the King to kill himselfe Well pleaded QUEST VI. Whether the King be so from God onely both in regard of his Soveraignty and of the designation of his person to the Crown as that he is no waies from the people but by meere approbation Dr. Ferne a man much for Monarchy saith Though Monarchy hath its excellency being first set up of God in Moses yet neither Monarchy Aristocracy nor any other forme is jure divino but we say saith he the power it selfe or that sufficiency of authority to governe that is in a Monarchy or Aristocracy abstractly considered from the qualification of other formes is a flux and constitution subordinate to that providence an ordinance of that Dixi or silent word by which the world was made and shall be governed under God This is a great debasing of the Lords anoynted for so soveraignty hath no warrant in Gods Word formally as it is such a government but is in the world by providence as sin is and as the falling of a Sparrow to the ground whereas Gods Word hath not onely commanded that government should be but that fathers and mothers should be 2. and not only that politick Rulers should be but also Kings by name and other Iudges Aristocraticall should be Rom. 13. 3. Deut. 17. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 17. Prov. 24. 21. Prov. 15. 16. 3. If
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
to be obeyed by no Divine law the King misled by P. Prelates shall forbid to obey them who is in right-down truth a mortall civill Pope may loose and liberate subjects from the tye of a Divine law 5 His inveying against ruling Elders and the rooting out of Antichristian Prelacie without any word of Scripture on the contrary I passe as the extravagancy of a malecontent because he is deservedly excommunicated for Perjury Popery Socinianisme Tyranny over mens conscience and invading places of civill dignity and deserting his calling and the camp of Christ c. 6 None were of old anoynted but Kings Priests and Prophets who then more obliged to maintain the Lords Anoynted then Priests and Prophets The Church hath never more beauty and plenty under any government then Monarchy which is most countenanced by God and magnified by Scripture Ans Pastors are to maintain the rights of people and a true Church no lesse then the right of Kings but Prelates the Court Parasites and creatures of the King that are born for the Glory of their King can do no lesse then professe this in words yet it is true that Tacitus writeth of such Hist l. 1. Libentius cum fortuna principis quam cum principe loquuntur and it is true that the Church hath had plenty under Kings not so much because they were Kings as because they were godly and zealous except the P. P. say That the oppressing Kings of Israell and Judah and the bloody horns that made war with the Lamb are not Kings In the rest of the Epistle he extols the Marques of Ormond with base flattery from his Loyalty to the King and his more then Admirable prudence in the Treaty of Cessation with the Rebells a woe is due to this false prophet who calleth Darknesse Light for the former was abominable and perfidious Apostacy from the Lords cause and people of God whom he once defended and the Cessation was a selling of the blood of many hundred thousand protestants Men Women and sucking Children This cursed P. hath written of late a Treatise against the Presbyteriall government of Scotland in which there is a bundle of lyes hellish calumnies and grosse errors The first lye is that we have Lay-Elders whereas they are such as rule But labour not in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5. 7. pag. 3. 2. The second lye that Deacons who only attend Tables are joynt Rulers with Pastors pag. 3. 3. That we never or little use the lesser excommunication that is debarring from the Lords Supper Pag. 4. 4. That any Church judicature in Scotland exacteth pecuniary mulcts and threaten excommunication to the non-payers and refuseth to accept the repentance of any who are not able to pay the civill magistrate only fineth for Drunkennesse and Adultery Blaspheming of God which are frequent sins in Prelates 5 A calumnie it is to say That ruling Elders are of equall authority to Preach the Word as Pastors Pag. 7. 6. That Lay-men are members of Presbyteries or generall Assemblies Buchanan and Mr. Melvin were Doctors of Divinity and could have taught such an Asse as Jo. Maxwell 7. That exspectants are intruders upon the sacred function because as sons of the Prophets they exercise their gifts for tryall in Preaching 8. That the Presbytery of Edinbrough hath a superintending power because they communicate the affaires of the Church and writ to the Churches what they hear Prelates and Hell devise against Christ and his Church 9. That the King must submit his Scepter to the Presbytery the Kings Scepter is his Royal office which is not subject to any judicature no more then any lawfull ordinance of Christ but if the King as a man blaspheme God murther the innocent advance Belly-gods such as our Prelates for the most part were above the Lords inheritance the Ministers of Christ are to say The King troubleth Jsraell and they have the keyes to open and shut heaven to and upon the King if he can offend 10. That King James said a Scottish Presbytery and a Monarchy agreeth as well as God and the Devill is true but King James meant of a wicked King else he spake as a man 11. That the presbytery out of pride refused to answer King James his Honourable messengers is a lye they could not in businesse of high concernment return a present answer to a Prince seeking still to abolish Presbyteries 12. It s a lye that all sins even all civil businesse come under the cognizance of the Church for only sins as publikely scandalous fall under their power Mat. 18. 15 16 17. c. 2 Thess 3. 11. 1 Tim. 5. 20. It is a calumnie that they search out secret crimes or that ever they disgraced the innocent or devided families where there be flagrant scandals and pregnant suspitions of scandalous crimes they search out these as the incest of Spotswood P. P. of Saint Andrewes with his own daughter the adulteries of Whiteford P. P. of Brichen whose Bastard came weeping to the Assembly of Glasgow in the armes of the whore these they searched out but not with the damnable oath ex officio that the High Commission put upon innocents to cause them accuse themselves against the Law of nature 13. The Presbytery hinder not lawfull merchandize scandalous exhortation unjust suits of Law they may forbid and so doth the Scripture as scandalous to Christians 2 Cor. 6. 14. They repeal no civill Lawes they Preach against unjust and grievous lawes as Esa cap. 10. 1. doth and censure the violation of Gods Holyday which Prelates prophaned 15. We know no Parochiall Popes we turn out no holy Ministers but only dumbe dogs non-residents scandalous wretched and Apostate Prelates 16. Our Moderator hath no dominion the P. P. absolveth him while he saith All is done in our Church by common consent p. 7. 17. It is true we have no Popish consecration such as P. P. contendeth for in the Masse but we have such as Christ and his Apostles used in Consecrating the Elements 18. â—f any sell the Patrimony of the Church the Presbytery censures him if any take buds of Malt Meale Beâ—ffe it is no law with us no more then the Bishops five hundred markes or a yeares stipend that the intrant gave to the Lord Bishop for a church And who ever took buds in these dayes as King James by the Earl of Dumbar did buy Episcopacie at a pretended Assembly by foule budding they were either men for the Episcopall way or perfidiously against their oath became Bishops all personall faults of this kind imputed to Presbyters agree to them under the reduplication of Episcopall men 19. The leading men that covered the sins of the dying man and so losed his soul were Episcopall men and though some of them were presbyterians the faults of men cannot prejudice the truth of God but the Prelates alwayes cry out against the rigor of Presbyteries in
censuring scandals because they themselves do ill they hate the light now here the Prelate condemneth them of remissenesse in Discipline 20. Satan a lier from the beginning saith The Presbyterie was a seminary and nursery of fiends and contentions bloods because they excommunicated murtherers against King James his will which is all one as to say Prophecying is a nurse of bloods because the Prophets cryed out against King Achab and the murtherers of innocent Naboth the men of God must be either on the one side or the other or then preach against reciprocation of injuries 21. It is false that Presbyteries usurp both swords because they censure sins which the civill Magistrate should censure and punish Elias might be said then to mix himselfe with the civill businesse of the Kingdom because he prophecied against Idolators killing of the Lords Prophets which crime the civill Magistrate was to punish But the truth is the Assembly of Glasgow 1637. condemned the Prelates because they being Pastors would be also Lords of Parliament of Session of Secret Counsell of Exchequer Judges Barons and in their lawlesse High Commission would Fine Imprison and use the sword 22. It is his ignorance that he saith A provinciall synod is an associate body chosen out of all judiciall Presbyteries for all Pastors and Doctors without delegation by vertue of their place and office repaire to the Provinciall Synods and without any choice at all consult and voice there 23. It is a lye That some Leading men rule all here indeed Episcopall men made factions to rent the Synods and though men abuse their power to factions this cannot prove that Presbyteries are inconsistent with Monarchie for then the Prelate the Monarch of his Diocesian rout should be Anti-Monarchiall in a higher manner for he ruleth all at his will 24. The prime men as Mr. R. Bruce the faithfull servant of Christ was honoured and attended by all because of his Suffering Zeal Holinesse his fruitfull Ministery in gaining many thousand souls to Christ So though King James cast him off and did swear By Gods name he intended to be King the Prelate maketh Blasphemy a vertue in the King yet King James sware he could not find an honest Minister in Scotland to be a Bishop and therefore he was necessitated to promote false knaves but he said sometimes and wrote it under his hand that Mr. R. Bruce was worthy of the half of his kingdom but will this prove Presbyteries inconsistent with Monarchies I should rather think that Knave Bishops by King James his judgement were inconsistent with Monarchies 25. His lyes of Mr. R. Bruce excerpted out of the lying Manuscript of Apostat Spotswood in that he would not but preach against the Kings recalling from exile some Bloody Popish Lords to undo all are nothing comparable to the Incests Adulteries Blasphemies Perjuries Sabbath-breaches Drunkennesse Prophanity c. committed by Prelates before the Sun 26. Our Generall Assembly is no other then Christs Court Act. 15. made up of Pastors Doctors and Brethren or Elders 27. They ought to have no negative vote to impede the conclusions of Christ in his servants 28. It is a lye that the King hath no power to appoint time and place for the Generall Assembly but his power is not privative to destroy the free Courts of Christ but accumulative to ayd and assist them 29. It is a lye That our generall Assembly may repeal Laws command and expect performance of the King or then excommunicate subject to them force compell King Judges and all to submit to them They may not force the conscience of the poorest begger nor is any Assembly infallible nor can it lay bounds upon souls of Iudges which they are to obey with blind obedience their power is ministeriall subordinate to Christs Law and what civill Laws Parliaments make against Gods word they may Authoritatively declare them to be unlawfull as though the Emperour Act. 15. had commanded Fornication and eating of blood might not the Assembly forbid these in the Synod I conceive the Prelates if they had power would repeal the Act of Parliament made An. 1641. in Scotland by his Majestie personally present and the three Estates concerning the anulling of these Acts of Parliament and Laws which established Bishops in Scotland Erg. Bishops set themselves as independent Monarchs above Kings and Laws and what they damne in Presbyteries and Assemblies that they practise themselves 30. Commissioners from Burroughs and Two from Edinbrough because of the largenesse of that Church not for Cathedrall supereminence sit in Assemblies not as sent from Burroughs but as sent and Authorized by the Church Session of the Burrough and so they sit there in a Church capacity 31. Doctors both in Accademies and in Parishes we desire and our Book of Discipline holdeth forth such 32. They hold I beleeve with warrant of Gods word if the King refuse to reform Religion the inferior Iudges and Assembly of Godly Pastors and other Church Officers may reform if the King will not kisse the Sun and do his duty in purging the House of the Lord may not Eliah and the people do their duty and cast out Baals Priests Reformation of Religion is a personall act that belongeth to all even to any one private person according to his place 33. They may swear a Covenant without the King if he refuse and Build the Lords House 2 Chron. 15. 9. themselves and relieve and defend one another when they are oppressed For my acts and duties of defending my self and the oppressed do not tye my conscience conditionally so the King consent but absolutely as all duties of the Law of nature doe Jer. 22. 3. Prov. 24. 11. Esa 58. 6. Esa 1. 17. 34. The P. P. condemneth our Reformation because it was done against the will of our Popish Queen This sheweth what estimation he hath of Popery and how he abhorreth Protestant Religion 35. They deposed the Queen for Her Tyranny but Crowned her Son all this is vindicated in the following Treatise 36. The killing of the monstrous and prodigious wicked Cardinall in the Castle of St. Andrews and the violence done to the Prelates who against all Law of God and man obtruded a Masse service upon their own private motion in Edinbrough An. 1637. can conclude nothing against Presbyteriall Government except our Doctrine commend these acts as lawfull 37. What was preached by the servant of Christ whom p. 46. he calleth the Scottish Pope is Printed and the P. P. durst not could not cite any thing thereof as Popish or unsound he knoweth that the man whom he so slandereth knocked down the Pope and the Prelates 38. The making away the fat Abbacies and Bishopricks is a bloody Heresie to the earthly minded Prelate the Confession of Faith commended by all the Protestant Churches as a strong bar against Popety and the book of Discipline in which the servants of God laboured twenty yeares with fasting and
praying and frequent advice and counsell from the whole Reformed Churches are to the P. P. a negative faith and devote imaginations it s a lye that Episcopacie by both sides was ever agreed on by Law in Scotland 39. And was it a heresie that M. Melvin taught that Presbyter and Bishop are one function in Scripture and that Abbots and Priors were not in Gods book dic ubi legis and is this a proof of inconsistency of Presbyteries with a Monarchie 40 It is a heresie to the P. P. that the Church appoynt a Fast when King James appoynted an unseasonable Feast when Gods wrath was upon the Land contrary to Gods word Esa 22. 12 13 14. and what will this prove Presbyteries to be inconsistent with Monarchies 41. This Assembly is to judge what Doctrine is treasonable what then Surely the secret Counsell and King in a constitute Church is not Synodically to determine what is true or false Doctrine more then the Roman Emperor could make the Church Canon Act. 15. 42. M. Gibson M. Black preached against King James his maintaining the Tyranny of Bishops his sympathizing with Papists and other crying sins and were absolved in a generall Assembly shal this make Presbyteries inconsistent with Monarchie Nay but it proveth only that they are inconsistent with the wickednesse of some Monarchies and that Prelates have been like the four hundred false prophets that â—lattered King Achab and these men that preached against the sins of the King and Court by Prelates in both Kingdomes have been imprisoned Banished their Noses ript their cheâ—ks burnt their eares cut 43. The Godly men that kept the Assembly of Aberdeen An. 1603. did stand for Christs Prerogative when K. James took away all generall Assemblies as the event proved and the King may with as good warrant inhibit all Assemblies for Word and Sacraments as for Church Discipline 44. They excommunicate not for light faults and trifles as the Lyar saith our Discipline saith the contrary 45. This Assembly never took on them to chose the Kings Counsellours but these who were in authority took K. James when he was a child out of the Company of a corrupt and seducing Papist Esme Duke of Lennox whom the P. P. nameth Noble Worthy of eminent indowments 46. It is true Glasgow Assembly 1637. voted down the High Commission because it was not consented unto by the Church and yet was a Church Judicature which took upon them to judge of the Doctrine of Ministers and deprive them and did incroach upon the Liberties of the established lawfull Church judicatures 47. This Assembly might well forbid M. John Graham Minister to make use of an unjust decree it being scandalous in a Minister to oppresse 48. Though Nobles Barons and Burgesses that professe the truth be Elders and so Members of the generall Assembly this is not to make the Church the House and the Common-wealth the Hangings for the constistuent Members we are content to be examined by the patern of Synods Act. 15. v. 22 23. Is this inconsistent with Monarchie 49. The Commissioners of the generall Assembly arâ— 1. A meer occasionall judicature 2. Appointed by and subordinate to the Generall Assembly 3. They have the same warrant of Gods Word that Messengers of the Synod Act. 15. v. 22. 27. hath 50. The historicall calumnie of the 17. day of December is known to all 1. That the Ministers had any purpose to dethrone King James and that they wrote to John L. Marquesse of Hamilton to be King because K. James had made defection from the true Religion Satan devised Spotswood and this P. P. vented this I hope the true history of this is known to all The holiest Pastors and professors in the Kingdom asserted this Government suffered for it contended with authority only for sin never for the power and Office These on the contrary side were men of another stamp who minded earthly things whose God was the world 2. All the forged inconsistency betwixt Presbyteries and Monarchies is an opposition with absolute Monarchie and concludeth with alike strength against Parliaments and all Synods of either side against the Law and Gospell preached to which Kings and Kingdoms are subordinate Lord establish Peace and Truth Farewell The Table of the Contents of the Book QUEST I. VVHether Government be by a divine Law Affirmed Pag. 1. How Government is from God Ibid. Civill Power in the Root immediately from God Pag. 2. QUEST II. Whether or no Goverment be warranted by the Law of nature Affirmed Ibid. Civil societie naturall in radice in the root voluntary in modo in the manner Ibid. Power of Government and Power of Government by such and such Magistrates different Pag. 2 3. Civil subjection not formally from natures Law Pag. 3. Our consent to Laws penal not antecedently naturall Ibid. Government by such Rulers a secondary Law of nature Ibid. Family Government and politike different Ibid. Government by Rulers a secondary Law of nature Family Government and Civil different Pag. 4. Civil Government by consequent naturall Pag. 5. QUEST III. Whether Royall Power and definite Forms of Government be from God Affirmed Ibid. That Kings are from God understood in a fourfold sense Pag. 5 6. The Royall Power hath warrant from divine institution Pag. 6. The three forms of Government not different in spece and nature P. 8. How every form is from God Ibid. How Government is an ordinance of man 1 Pet 2. 13. Pag. 8 9. QUEST IV. Whether or no the King be onely and immediately from God and not from the people Prius distinguitur posterius prâ—rsus Negatur pag. 5. How the King is from God how from the people Ibid. Royall Power three wayes in the people P. 6 10. How Royall Power is radically in the people P. 7. The people maketh the King Ibid. How any form of Government is from God P. 8. How Government is a humane ordinance 1 Pet. 2. 3. P. 8 9. The people creat the King P. 10 11. Making a King and choosing a King not to be distinguished P. 12 13. David not a King formally because anointed by God P. 14 15. QUEST V. Whether or no the P. P. proveth that Soveraignty is immediately from God not from the people p. 16. Kings made by the people though the Office in abstracto worâ— immediately from God P. 16. The people have a reall action more then approbation in making a King P. 19 Kinging of a person ascribed to the people P. 20. Kings in a speciall manner are from God but it followeth not Ergo not from the people P. 21. The place Prov. 8. 15. proveth not but Kings are made by the people P. 22 23. Nebuchadnezzar and other heathen Kings had no just Title before God to the Kingdom of Judah and divers other subdued Kingdoms P. 26 27. QUEST VI. Whether or no the King be so allanerly from both in regard of Soveraignty and Designation of his person as he is no wayes from the people
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
Nature why one Man should be King and Lord over another therefore while I be otherwise taught by the forecasten Prelate Maxwell I conceive all jurisdiction of Man over Man to be as it were Artificiall and Positive and that it inferreth some servitude whereof Nature from the womb hath freed us if you except that subjection of children to parents and the wife to the husband and the Law saith De jure gentium secundarius est omnis principatus 2. This also the Scripture proveth while as the exalting of Saul or David above their Brethren to be Kings and Captains of the Lords people is ascribed not to Nature for King and Beggar spring of one clay-mettall but to an act of Divine bounty and grace above Nature so Psal 78. 70 71. He took David from following the Ewes and made him King and feeder of his people 1 Sam. 13. 13. There is no cause why Royallists should deny Government to be naturall but to be altogether from God and that the Kingly power is immediatly and only from God because it is not naturall to us to subject to Government but against Nature and against the hair for us to resign our liberty to a King or any Ruler or Rulers for this is much for us and proveth not but Government is naturall it concludeth that a power of Government tali modo by Magistracy is not naturall but this is but a Sophisme a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod est dictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this speciall of Government by resignation of our liberty is not naturall Ergo power of Government is not naturall it followeth not a negatione speciei non sequitur negatio generis non est homo ergo non est animal And by the same reason I may by an antecedent will agree to a Magistrate and a Law that I may be ruled in a politick Society and by a consequent will onely yea and conditionally onely agree to the penalty and punishment of the Law and it is most true no man by the instinct of Nature giveth consent to Penall Laws as Penall for Nature doth not teach a man nor incline his spirit to yeeld that his life shall be taken away by the sword and his blood shed except in this remote ground a man hath a disposition that a veine be cutt by the Physitian or a Member of his body cut off rather then the whole body and life perish by some contagious disease but here reason in cold blood not a naturall disposition is the neerest prevalent cause and disposer of the businesse When therefore a communitie by natures instinct and guidance incline to Government and to defend themselves from violence they do not by that instinct formally agree to Government by Magistrates and when a naturall conscience giveth a deliberate consent to good Laws as to this He that doth violence to the life of a man by man shall his blood be shed Gen. 9. 6. He doth tacitely consent that his own blood shall be shed but this he consenteth unto consequently tacitely and conditionally If he shall do violence to the life of his brother Yet so as this consent proceedeth not from a disposition every way purely naturall I grant reason may be necessitated to assent to the conclusion being as it were forced by the prevalent power of the evidence of an insuperable and invincible light in the premises yet from naturall affections there resulteth an act of self-love for self-preservation So David shall condemn another rich man who hath many Lambs and robbeth his poor brother of his one Lamb and yet not condemn himself though he be most deep in that fault 1 Sam. 12. 5 6. yet all this doth not hinder but Government even by Rulers hath its ground in a secondary Law of nature which Lawyers call secundariò jus naturale or jus gentium secundarium a secondary Law of nature which is granted by Plato and denied by none of sound judgement in a sound sense and that is this Licet vim virepellere It is lawfull to repeal violence by violence and this is a speciall act of the Magistrate 2. But there is no reason why we may not defend by good reasons that politick Societies Rulers Cities and Incorporations have their rise and spring from the secundary Law of nature 1. Because by Natures Law Family-Government hath its warrant and Adam though there had never been any positive Law had a power of governing his own family and punishing malefactors but as Tannerus saith well and as I shall prove God willing this was not properly a Royall or Monarchicall power and I judge by the reasoning of Sotus Molina and Victoria By what reason a Family hath a power of Government and of punishing Malefactors that same power must be in a societie oâ— men Suppose that sociâ—tie were not made up of Families but of single persons for the power of punishing ill-doers doth not reside in one single man of a familie or in them all as they are single private persons but as they are in a familie But this argument holdeth not but by proportion for paternall government or a fatherly power of parents over their families and a politick power of a Magistrate over many families are powers different in nature the one being warranted by natures law even in its species the other being in its spece and kind warranted by a positive law and in the generall only warranted by a law of nature 2. If we once lay the supposition that God hath immediately by the law of nature appointed there should be a Government and mediately defined by the dictate of naturall light in a communitie that there shall be one or many Rulers to governe the Communitie then the Scriptures arguments may well be drawn out of the school of nature as 1. The powers that are be of God therefore natures light teacheth that we should be subject to these powers 2. It is against natures light to resist the ordinance of God 3. Not to feare him to whom God hath committed the sword for the terror of evill doers 4. Not to honour the publike rewarder of well-doing 5. Not to pay tribute to him for his worke Therefore I see not but Govarruvias Soto Suarez have rightly said that power of Government is immediately from God and this or this definite power is mediately from God proceeding from God by the mediation of the consent of a Communitie which resigneth their power to one or moe Rulers and to me Barclaius saith the same quamvis populus potentiae largitor videatur c. QUEST III. Whether Royall Power and definite forms of Government be from God THe King may be said to be from God and his word in these seveall notions 1. By way of permission Ier. 43. 10. Say to them thus saith the Lord of hoasts the God of Israel Behold I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar the King of
King For a comparative action doth positively inferre an action if a man have a power to marry this woman not that woman we may strongly conclude ergo he hath power to marry now 1 King 16. The people made Omri King and not Zimri and his sonne Achab rather then Tibni the sonne of Sinath Nor can it be replyed this was no lawfull power that the people used for that cannot elude the argument for 1 King 1. the people made Salomon King and not Adonijah though Adonijah was the elder brother thev say God did extraordinarily both make the Office and â—esâ—gne Salomon to be King the people had no hand in it but approved Gods fact Answer This is that we say God by the people by Nathan the Propher and the servants of David and the states crying God save King Salomon made Salomon King and here is a reall action of the people God is the first Agentin all acts of the Creature where a people maketh choise of a man to be their King the States doe no other thing under God but create this man rather then another and we cannot here find two actions one of God another of the people but in one and the same action God by the peoples free suffrages voices createth such a man King passing by many thousands and the people are not patientes in the action because by the authoritatâ—ve choise of the States the man is made of a private man and no King a publick person and a crowned King 2 Sam. 16. 18 Hushai said to Absolom nay but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose his will I be and with him will I abide Iudg. 8. 22. The men of Israel said to Gideon Rule thou over us Iudg. 9. 6. The men of Seâ—hem made Abimeleth King Iudg. 11. 8. 11. 2 King 14. 21 The people made Azariah King 1 Sam. 12. 1. 2 Chron. 23. 3. 2. If God doth regulate his people in making such a man King not such a man then he thereby insinuateth that the people have a power to make such a man King and not such a man But God doth regulate his people in making a King Ergo the people have a power to make such a man King not such a man King The Proposition is cleare because Gods Law doth not regulate a non-ens a meere nothing or an unlawfull power nor can Gods holy Law regulate an unlawfull power or an unlawfull action but quite abolish it and interdict it the Lord setteth not downe rules and waies how men should not commit Treason but the Lord commandeth loyalty and simply interdicteth men of treason 2. If people have then more power to create a King over themselves then they had to make Prophets then God forbidding them to choose such a man for their King should say as much to his people as if he would say I command you to make Esaiah Ieremiah Prophets over you but not these and these men This certainly should prove that not God onely but the people also with God made Prophets I leave this to the consideration of the godly The Prophets were immediatly called of God to be Prophets whether the people consented that they should be Prophets or not Therefore God immediatly and onely sent the Prophets not the people but though God extraordinarily designed some men to be Kings and annoynted them by his Prophets yet were they never actually installed Kings till the people made them Kings I prove the assumption Deut. 17. 14. When thou shalt say I will set a King over me like all the nations round about me 15. Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose one from amongst thy brethren shalt thoâ— set King over thee thou maist not set a stranger over thee which is not thy brother Should not this be an unjust charge to the people if God onely without any action of the people should immediatly set a King over them Might not the people reply We have no power at all to set a King over our selves no more then we have power to make Esaiah a Prophet who saw the visions of God to what end then should God mocke us and say make a brother and not a stranger King over you 3. Expresly Scripture saith that the people made the King though under God Iudg. 9. 6. The men of Sechem made Abimelech King 1 Sam. 11. 15. And all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King before the Lord 2 King 10. 5. We will not make any King This had been an irrationall speech to Iehu if both Iehu and the people held the Royalists Tenet that the people had no power to make a King nor any active or causative influence therein but that God immediatly made the King 1 Chron. 12. 38. All these came with a perfect heart to make David King in Hebron and all the rest were of one heart to make David King on the words Lavater saith the same way are Magistrates now to be chosen now this day God by an immediate Oracle from Heaven appointeth the Office of a King but I am sure he doth not immediatly designe the man but doth onely mark him out to the people as one who hath the most royall indowments and the due qualifications required in a lawfull Magistrate by the Word of God Exod. 18. 21. Men of truth hating covetousnesse c. Deut. 1. 16 17. men who will judge causes betwixt their brethren righteously without respect of persons 1 Sam. 10. 21. Saul was chosen out of the Tribes according to the Law of God Deut. 17. they might not choose a stranger and Abulensis Serrarius Câ—rnelius a lapide Sancheiz and other Popish Writers think that Saul was not onely anoynted with Oyle first privately by Samuel 1 Sam. 10. 1 2. but also at two other times before the people once at Mizpeh and another time at Gilgal by a Parliament and a Convention of the States and Samuel judged the voices of the people so essentiall to make a King that Samuel doth not acknowledge him as formall King 1 Sam. 10. 7 8 17 18 19. though he honoured him because he was to be King 1. Sam. 9 23 24. while the Tribes of Israel and Parliament were gathered together to make him King according to Gods Law Deut 17. as is evident For Samuel v. 20. caused all the Tribes of Israel to stand before the Lord and the Tribe of Benjamin was taken the Law provided one of their owne not a stranger to raigne over them and because some of the States of Parliament did not choose him but being children of Belial de spised him in their heart v. 27. therefore after King Saul by that victory over the Ammonites had conquered the affections of all the people fully v. 10 11. Samuel would have his coronation election by the Estates of Parliament renewed at Gilgall by all the people v. 14 15. to
Office is immediately from God but now the question is what is that which formally applyeth the Office and Royall Power to this Person rather then to the other five as meet Nothing can here be dreamed of but God inclining the hearts of the States to choose this man and not this men QUEST V. Whether or no P. P. the Author of Sac. San. Regum Majestas called the sacred and Royall Prerogative of Kings proveth that God is the immediate Author of Soveraignty and that the King is no creature of the peoples making COnsider first that the excommunicated Prelate saith cap. 2. p. 19. Kings are not immediatly from God as by any speciall Ordinance sent from Heaven by the ministery of Angels and Prophets there were but some few such as Moses Saul David c. yet something may immediatly proceed from God and be his speciall worke without a revelation or manifestation extraordinary from Heaven so the designation to a sacred function is from the Church and from man yet the power of Word Sacraments binding and loosing is immediatly from Jesus Christ The Apostle Matthias was from Christs immediate constitution and yet he was designed by men Act. 1. The soule is by creation and infusion without any speciall ordinance from Heaven though nature begeteth the body and disposeth the matter and prepareth it as fit to be conjoyned with the soule so as the father is said to beget the sonne Ans 1. The unchurched Prelate striveth to make us hatefull by the title of the Chapter That God is by his title the immediate Author of Soveraingty and who denyeth that Not those who teach that the person who is King is created King by the people no more then those who deny that men are now called to be Pastors and Deacons immediately and by a voice from Heaven or by the ministery of Angells and Prophets because the Office of Pastors and Deacons is immediately from God 2. When he hath proved that God is the immediate Author of Soveraingty What then shall it follow that the soveraigne in concreto may not be resisted and that he is above all Law and that there is no armour against his violence but prayers and teares So God is the immediate Author of the Pastors of the Apostles Office ergo it is unlawfull to resist a Pastor though he turne robber ergo the Pastor is above all the Kings Lawes this is the Iesuite and all made ergo there is no Armour against the robbing Prelate but prayer and teares 2. He saith in his Title that the King is no Creature of the peoples making If he meane the King in abstracto that is the royall dignity whom speaketh he against Not against us but against his owne father Bellarmine who saith that Soveraignty hath no warrant by any divine Law If he meane that the man who is King is not created and elected King by the people he contradicteth himself and all the Court Doctors 3. It is false that Saul and David their originall of Royalty was onely from God by a speciall Ordinance sent from Heaven for their office is Deut. 17. 14. from the written Word of God as the killing of Idolaters v. 3 7. as the Office of the Priests and Levites 8 9 10. and this is no extraordinary Ordinance from Heaven more than that is from Heaven which is warranted by the Word of God If he meane that these men Saul and David were created Kings by the onely extraordinary revelation of God from Heaven it is a lye for beside the Propheticall anoynting of them they were made Kings by the people as the word saith expresly except we say that David sinned in not setting himselfe downe on the Throne when Samuel anoynted him first King and so he should have made away his Master King Saul out of the world and there were not a few called to the Throne by the people but many yea all the Kings of Israel and Iudah 4. The Prelate contendeth that a King is designed to his royall dignity immediatly from God without an extraordinary revelation from Heaven as the man is designed to be a Pastor by men and yet the power of Preaching is immediatly from God c. but he proveth nothing except he prove that all Pastors are called to be Pastors immediatly and that God calleth and designeth to the Throne such a person immediatly as he hath immediatly instituted by the power of Preaching and the Apostleship and hath immediatly infused the soule in the body by an act of Creation and we cannot conceive how God in our daies when there are no extraordinary revelations doth immediatly create this man a King and immediatly tie the crown to this family rather then to this this he doth by the people now without any Propheticall Vnction and by this medium to wit by the free choice of the people He needeth not bring the example of Matthias more than of any ordinary Pastor and yet an ordinary Pastor is not immediatly called of God because the Office of an ordinary Pastor is from God immediatly and also the man is made Pastor by the Church The P. Prelate saith a thing is immediatly from God three waies 1. When it is solely from God and presupposeth nothing ordinary or humane antecedent to the obteyning of it Such was the power of Moses Saul David Such were the Apostles 2. When the collation of the power to such a person is immediatly from God though some act of man be antecedent as Matthias was an Apostle A baptized man obtaineth remission and regeneration yet aspersion of water cannot produce these excellent effects A King giveth power to a favourite to make a Lord or a Baron yet who is so stupid as to averre the honour of a Lord commeth immediatly from the favourite and not from the King 3. When a man hath by some ordinary humane right a full and just right and the approbation and confirmation of this right is immediatly from God The first way Soveraignty is not from God The second way Soveraignty is conferred on Kings immediatly though some created act of Election succesion conquests intervene the interposed act containeth not in it power to conferre Soveraignty as in Baptisme Regeneration if there be nothing repugnant in the suscipient is conferred not by water but immediatly by God In sacred Orders designation is from men power to supernatur all acts from God election succession conquests remotely and improperly constitute a King To say in the third sence that soveraignty is immediatly from God by approbation or confirmation onely is against Scripture Prov. 8. 15. Psa 82. 8. Ioh. 19. then the people say you are Gods your power is from below And Pauls ordained of God is approved and confirmed onely of God the power of designation or application of the person to royalty is from man the power of conferring royall power or of applying the person to royall power is from God A mans hand may apply a
faggot to the fire the fire onely maketh the faggot to burne Ans 1. Apostles both according to their Office and the designation of their person to the Office were immediatly and onely from God without any act of the people and therefore are badly coupled with the royall power of David and King Saul who were not formally made Kings but by the people at Mizpeh and Hebron 2. The second way God giveth Royall Power by moving the peoples hearts to confer royall power and this is virtually in the people formally from God Water hath no influence to produce grace Gods institution and promise doth it except you dream with your Iesuites of opus operatum that water sprinkled by the doing of the deed conferreth grace nisi ponatur obex what can the child doe or one child more then another baptized child to hinder the flux of remission of sins if you meane not that Baptisme worketh as Physick on a sick man except strength of humours hinder and therefore this comparison is not alike The people cannot produce so noble an effect as royalty a beame of God True formally they cannot but virtually it is in a society of reasonable men in whom are left beames of authoritative Majesty which by a divine institution they can give Deut. 17. 14. to this man to David not to Eliab and I could well say the Favorite made the Lord and placed honour in the man whom he made Lord by a borrowed power from his Prince and yet the honour of a Lord is principally from the King 3. It is true theelection of the people conteineth not formally Royall dignitie but the Word saith they made Saul they made David King so virtually election must conteine it Samuels oyle maketh not David King he is a subject after he is anointed the peoples election at Hebron maketh him King 2. differenceth him from his brethren 3. putteth him in Royall state yet God is the principall agent What immediate action God hath here is said and dreamed of no man can divine except Prophet P. Prelate The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Royall authoritie is given organically by that act by which he is made King another act is a night-dreame but by the act of election David is made of no King a King The collation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Royall gifts is immediately from God but that formally maketh not a King if Solomon saw right servants riding on horses Princes going on foot 4. Judge of the Prelates subtiltie I dare say not his own he stealeth from Spalato but telleth not The applying of the person to Royall authoritie is from the people but the applying of Royall authoritie to the person of the King is immediately and only from God as the hand putteth the faggot to the fire but the fire maketh it burne To apply the subject to the accident is it any thing else but to apply the accident to the subject Royall authoritie is an accident the person of the King the subject the applying of the faggot to the fire and the applying of the fire to the faggot are all one to any not forsaken of common sense When the people applyeth the person to the royall authoritie they but put the person in the state of royall authoritie and this is to make an union betwixt the Man and royall authoritie and this is to apply royall authoritie to the person 5. The third sense is the Prelates dreame not a Tenet of ours we never said that soveraigntie in the King is immediately from God by approbation or confirmation only as if the people first made the King and God did only by a posterior and latter act say Amen to the deed done and subscribe as Recorder to what the people doth so the people should deale kingdomes and crownes at their pleasure and God behoved to ratifie and make good their fact When God doth apply the person to royall power what is this a different action from the peoples applying the person to royall dignitie It is not imaginable but the people by creating a king applyeth the person to royall dignitie and God by the peoples act of constituting the man king doth by the mediation of this act convey royall authoritie to the man as the Church by sending a man and ordaining him to bee a Pastor doth not by that as Gods instruments infuse supernaturall powers of preaching these powers supernaturall may be and often are in him before he be in orders and sometimes God infuseth a supernaturall power of government in a man when he is not yet a king as the Lord turned Saul into another man 1 Sam. 10. 5. 6. neither at that point of time when Samuel anointed him but after that v. 5. After that thou shalt come to the hill of God 6. the spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee and thou shalt prophecie with them and shalt be turned into another man Nor yet at that time when he is formally made King by the people for Saul was not King formally because of Samuels anointing nor yet was he King because another spirit was infused into him v. 5 6. for he was yet a privat man till the States of Israel chose him King at Mizpeh And the word of God useth words of action to expresse the peoples power Iudg. 9. 6. And all the men of Sechem gathered together and all the men of Millo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regnare fecerunt they caused him to be King The same is said 1 Sam. 10. 15. they caused Saul to reigne 2 K. 10. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall not King any man 1 Chron. 12. 38. They came to Hebron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to King David over all Israel Deut. 17. three times the making of a King is given to the people 7. When thou shalt say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall set a King over me if it were not their power to make a King no law could be imposed on them not to make a stranger their King 1 King 12. 20. all the congregation Kinged Jeroboam or made him King over all Israel 2 King 11. 12. They Kinged Joash or made Ioash to reigne 6. The people are to say You are Gods and your power is below saith the Prelate what then ergo their power is not from God also It followeth not subordinata non pugnant The Scripture saith both the Lord exalted David to be King and All power is from God and so the power of a L. Major of a Citie and the people made David King also and the Citie maketh such a man L. Major It is the Anabaptists argument God writeth his law in our heart and teacheth his own children ergo bookes and the ministerie of men are needlesse So all Sciences and lawfull arts are from God ergo Sciences applied to men are not from mens free will industrie and studies The Prelate extolleth the King when he will have his Royaltie from God the way that John
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
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
the power of Monarchy and Aristocracy abstracted from the formes be from God then it is no more lawfull to resist Aristocraticall Government and our Lords of Parliament or Iudges then it is lawfull to resist Kings But heare the Prelates reasons to prove that the King is from the people by approbation only P. Prelate The people Deut. 17. is said to set a King over them only as 1 Cor. 6. The Saints are said to judge the world that is by consenting to Christs Iudgement So the people doe not make a King by transferring on him soveraignty but by accepting acknowledging reverencing him as King whom God hath both constituted and designed King Answ This is said but not a word proved for the Queen of Sheba and Hiram acknowledged reverenced and obeyed Solomon as King and yet they made him not King as the Princes of Israell did 2. Reverence and obedience of the people is relative to the Kings lawes but the peoples making of a King is not relative to the laws of a King for then he should be a King giving laws and commanding the people as King before the people make him King 3. If the peoples approving and consenting that an elected King be their King presupposeth that he is a King designed and constituted by God before the people approve him as King Let the P. Prelate give us an act of God now designing a man King for there are no immediate voyces from heaven saying to a people This is your King before the people elect one of sixe to be their King And this infallibly proveth that God designeth one of sixe to be a King to a people who had no King before by no other act but by determining the hearts of the States to elect and designe this man King and passe any of the other five 4. When God Deut. 17. forbiddeth them to choose a stranger he presupposeth they may choose a stranger for Gods law now given to man in the state of sinne presupposeth he hath corruption of nature to doe contrary to Gods law Now if God did hold forth that their setting a King over them was but the peoples approving the man whom God shall both constitute and designe to be King then he should presuppose that God was to designe a stranger to be the lawfull King of Israel and the people should be interdicted to approve and consent that the man should be King whom God should choose for it was unpossible that the people should make a stranger King God is the only immediate King-creator the people should only approve and consent that a stranger should be King yet upon supposall that God first constituted and designed the stranger King it was not in the peoples power that the King should be a Brother rather then a stranger for if the people have no power to make a King but doe only approve him or consent to him when he is both made and designed of God to be King it is not in their power that he be either brother or stranger and so God commandeth what is simply impossible 2. Consider the sense of the command by the Prelates vaine Logick I Iehovah as I only create the world of nothing so I only constitute and designe a man whether Iew or Nebuchadnezzar a stranger to be your King yet I inhibit you under the pain of my curse that you set any King over your selves but only a brother What is this but I inhibite you to be creators by omnipotent power 5. To these adde the reasons I produced before that the people by no shadow of reason can be commanded to make such a man King not such a man if they only consent to the man made King but have no action in the making of the King P. Prelate All the acts reall and imaginable which are necessary for the making of Kings are ascribed to God Take the first King as a ruling case 1 Sam. 12. 13. Behold the King whom you have chosen and desired and behold the Lord hath set a King over you This election of the people can be no other but their admittance or acceptance of the King whom God hath chosen and constituted as the words whom ye have chosen imply 1 Sam. 9. 17. 1 Sam. 10. 1. You have Sauls election and constitution where Samuel as Priest and Prophet anointeth him doing reverence and obeysance to him and ascribing to God that he did appoint him supreame and Soveraigne over his inheritance And the same expression is 1 Sam. 12. 13. The Lord hath set a King over you which is Psal 2. 6. I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion Neither man nor Angel hath any share in any act of constituting Christ King Deut. 17. The Lord vindicateth as proper and peculiar to himselfe the designation of the person It was not arbitrary to the people to admit or reject Saul so designed it pleased God to consummate the worke by the acceptation consent and approbation of the people ut suaviore modo that by a smoother way he might incourage Saul to undergoe the hard charge and make his people the more heartilyâ— without grumbling and scruple reverence and obey him The peoples admittance possibly added something to the solemnitie to the pompe but nothing to the essentiall and reall constitution or necessitie it only puts the subjects in mala fide if they should contraveen as the intimation of a Law the coronation of an hereditary King the inthronization of a Bishop And 1 King 3. 7. Thou hast made thy servant King 1 Sam. 16. 1. I have provided me a King Psal 18. 50. He is Gods King Psal 89. 19. I have exalted one chosen out of the people v. 20. He anointeth them 27. adopteth them I will make him my first borne Psal 82. 6. the first borne is above every brother severally and above all though a thousand joyntly Answ 1. By this reason inferiour Iudges are no lesse immediate Deputies of God and so irresistible then the Kings because God took off the spirit that was on Moses and immediately powred it upon the seventy Elders who were Iudges inferiour to Moses Num. 11. 14. 15. 16. Answ 2. This P. P. cannot make a Syllogisme If all the acts necessary to make a King be given to God none to the people then God both constituteth and designeth the King But the former the Scripture saith ergo if all the acts be given to God as to the prime King-makâ—r and disposer of Kings and Kingdoms and none to the people in that notion then God both constituteth and designeth a King Both major and minor is false The major is as false as the very P. Prelate himselfe All the acts necessary for war-making are in an eminent manner given to God as 1. the Lord fighteth for his people 2. The Lord scattered the enemies 3. The Lord slew Og King of Bashan 4. The battell is the Lords 5. The victorie the Lords ergo Israel never fought a
battell So Deut. 32. The Lord alone led his people the Lord led them in the wildernesse their bow and their sword gave them not the land God wrought all their workes for them Esa 26. 12. ergo Moses led them not ergo the people went not on their own leggs through the wildernesse ergo the people never shot an arrow never drew a sword It followeth not 1. God did all these as the first eminent principall and efficacious pre-determinator of the creature though this Arminian and Popish Prelate mind not so to honour God 2. The assumption is also false for the people made Saul and David Kings and it were ridiculous that God should command them to make a brother not a stranger King if it was not in their power whether he should be a Iew a Scythian an Ethiopian who was their King if God did only without them both choose 2. constitute 3. designe the person and performe all acts essentiall to make a King and the people had no more in them but only to admit and consent and that for the solemnitie and pompe not for the essentiall constitution of the King 3. 1 Sam. 9. 17. 1 Sam. 10. 1. we have not Saul elected and constituted king and Samuel did obeysance to him and kissed him for the honor Royall which God was to put upon him for before this propheticall unction 1 Sam. 9. 22. he made him sit in the chiefe place and honored him as king when as yet Samuel was materially King and the Lords Vicegerent in Israel If then the Prelate conclude any thing from Samuel his doing reverence and obeysance to him as King it shall follow that Saul was formally King before Samuel 1 Sam. 10. 1. anointed him and kissd him and that must be before he he was formally King otherwise he was in Gods appointment King before ever he saw Samuels face and it is true he ascribeth honour to him as to one appointed by God to be supreame Soveraigne for that which he should be not for that which he was as c. 9. 22. he set him in the chiefest place and therefore it is false that we have Sauls election and constitution to be King 1 Sam. 10. for after that time the people are rebuked for seeking a King and that with a purpose to disswade them from it as a sinfull desire and he is chosen by Lots after that and made King after Samuels anoynting of him he was a private man and did hide himselfe amongst the stuffe v. 22. 3. The Prelate if of ignorance or wilfully I know not saith the expression and phrase is the same 1 Sam. 12. 13. and Ps 2. 6. which is false for 1 Sam. 12. 13. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold the Lord hath given you a King such is the expression Hos 13. 11. I gave them a King in my wrath but that expression is not Psal 2. 6. but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I have established him my King and though it were the same expression it followeth not that the people have not hand any other way in appointing Christ their head though that phrase also be in the word Hos 1. v. 11. then by consenting and beleeving in him as King but this proveth not that the people in appointing a King hath no hand but naked approbation for the same phrase doth not expresse the same action nay the Iudges are to kisse Christ Ps 2. 12. the same way and by the same action that Samuel kissed Saul 1 Sam. 10. 1. and the Idolaters kissed the calves Hos 13. 2. for the same Hebrew word is used in all the three places and yet it is certaine the first kissing is spirituall the second a kisse of honour and the third an Idolatrous kissing 4. The anoynting of Saul cannot be a leading rule to the making of all Kings to the worlds end for the P. Prelate forgetting himselfe said that onely some few as Moses Saul and David c. by extraordinary manifestation from Heaven were made Kings pa. 19. 5. he saith it was not Arbitrary for the people to admit or reject Saul so designed What meaneth he it was not morally arbitrary because they were under a law Deut. 17. 14 15. to make him King whom the Lord should choose That is true but was it not arbitrary to them to breake a law Physically I think he who is a professed Arminian will not side with Manicheans and Fatalists so but the P. Prelate must prove it was not Arbitrary either Morally or Physically to them not to accept Saul as their King because they had no action at all in the making of a King God did it all both by constituting and designing the King why then did God Deut. 17. give a Law to them to make such a man King not such a man if it was not in their free wil to have any action or hand in the making of a King at all but that some sonnes of Belial would not accept him as their King is expresly said 1 Sam. 10. 27. and how did Israel conspirc with Absolom to unking and dethrone David whom the Lord had made King If the Prelate meane it was not Arbitrary to them physically to reject Saul he speaketh wonders the sonnes of Belial did reject him ergo they had physicall power to doe it If he meane it was not arbitrary that is it was not lawfull to them to reject him that is true but doth it follow they had no hand nor action in making Saul King because it was not lawfull for them to make a King in a â—infull way and to refuse him whom God chose to be King then see what I inferre 1. Then they had no hand in obeying him as King because they sinne in obeying unlawfull commandements against Gods Law and so they had no hand in approving and consenting he should be King the contrary whereof the P. Prelate saith 2. So might the P. Prelate prove men are patientes and have no action in violating all the Commandements of God because it is not lawfull to them to violate any one Commandement 6 The Lord Deut. 17. vindicates this as proper and peculiar to himselfe to choose the person and to choose Saul What then ergo now the people choosing a King have no power to choose or name a man because God anoynted Saul and David by immediate manifestation of his Will to Samuel this consequence is nothing also it followeth in no wise that therefore the people made not Saul King 7. That the peoples approbation of a King is not necessary is Bellarmines and Papists saying and that the people chose their Ministers in the Apostolick Church not by a necessity of a divine Commandement but to conciliate love betwixt Pastor and people Papists hold that if the Pope make a pâ—pish King the head and King of Britaine against the peoples will yet is he their King 8. David was then King all the time that Saul presecuted him
Aristocraticall Rulers but it followeth not Ergo All these men combined in a Citie or Societie have not power in a joynt Politicall body to chose Inferiour or Aristocraticall Rulers 3. The P. Prelates reason is nothing All the Contribution saith he in the compact body to make a King is onely by a surrender of the native right of every single man the whole being onely a voluntary constitution How then can there be any majestie derived from them I answer Very well For the surrender is so voluntary that it is also naturall and founded on the Law of nature That men must have Governours either many or one supreme Ruler And it is voluntary and dependeth on a positive institution of God Whether the Government be by one supreme Ruler as in a Monarchie or in many as in an Aristocracie according as the necessitie and temper of the Common-wealth do most require This Constitution is so voluntary as it hath below it the Law of nature for its generall foundation and above it the supervenient institution of God ordaining That there should be such Magistrates both Kings and other Iudges because without such all humane societies should be dissolved 4. Individuall persons in creating a Magistrate doth not properly surrender their right which can be called a right for they do but surrender their power of doing violence to these of their fellows in that same Communitie so as they shall not now have Morall power to do injuries without punishment and this is not right or libertie properly but servitude for a power to do violence and injuries is not liberty but servitude and bondage But the Prelate talketh of Royaltie as of meer Tyranny as if iâ— were a proper Dominion and servile Empire that the Prince hath over his people and not more paternall and fatherly then lordly or masterly 5. He saith Violation of faith plighted in a contract amongst equals cannot be called disobedience but disobedience to the authoritie of the Soveraign is not onely breach of Covenant but high disobedience and contempt But violation of faith amongst equals as equals is not properly disobedience for disobedience is betwixt a superiour and an inferiour but violation of faith amongst equals when they make one of their equals their Iudge and Ruler is not onely violation of truth but also disobedience All Israel and Saul while he is a private man seeking his fathers Asses are equals by Covenant obliged one to another and so any injury done by Israel to Saul in that case is not disobedience but onely violation of â—aith but when all Israel maketh Saul their King and sweareth to him obedience he is not now their equall and an injury done to him now is both a violation of their faith and high disobedience also Suppose a Citie of Aldermen all equall amongst themselves indignitie and place take one of their number and make him their Major and Provost a wrong done to him now is not onely against the rules of fraternitie but disobedience to one placed by God in authoritie over them 6. 1 Sam. 11. 7. The fear of the Lord fell on the people and they came out with one consent to obey Saul Ergo God hath placed authority in Kings which is not in people It is true because God hath transferred the scattered authorities that are in all the people in one Masse and by vertue of his own Ordinance hath placed them in one man who is King What followeth Ergo God conferreth this authoritie immediately upon the King without the mediation of any action of the people yea the contrary rather followeth 7. God looseth the bond of Kings that is when God is to cast off Kings he causeth them to lose all authoritie and maketh them come in contempt with the people But what doth this prove That God taketh away the majestie and authority of Kings immediately And therefore God gave to Kings this authoritie Immediately without the peoples conveiance Yea I take the Prelates weapon from him God doth not take the authority of the King from him immediately but mediately by the people their hating and dispising him when they â—ee his wickednesse as the people see Nero a Monster a prodigeous blood-sucker upon this all the people contemn him and dispise him and so the majesty is taken from Nero and all his Mandates and Laws when they see him trample upon all Laws divine and humane and that mediately by the peoples heart dispising of his majestie and so they repeat and take again that aw-some authoritie that they once gave him And this proveth that God gave him the authoritie mediately by the consent of man 8. Nor speaketh he of Kings onely but Vers 21. He powreth contempt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super munificos Pineda Aria Mont. super Principes Upon Nobles and great men And this place may prove That no Iudges of the earth are made by men 9. The Heathen say That there is some divinity in Princes as in Alexander the great toward his enemies and Scipio But this will prove That Princes and Kings have a Superiority over those who are not their native Subjects for something of God is in them in relation to all men that are not their Subjects If this be a ground strong and good because God onely and independently from men taketh away this majestie as God onely and independently giveth it then a King is sacred to all men subjects or not subjects then it is unlawfull to make war against any forraign King and Prince for in invading him or resisting him you resist that divine majestie of God that is in him then you may not lawfully flee from a tyrant no more then you may lawfully flie from God 10. Scipio was not a King Ergo This divine majestie is in all Iudges of the earth in a more or lesse measure Ergo God onely and immediately may take this spark of divine majestie from inferiour Iudges It followeth not And Kings certainly cannot infuse any sparkle of a divine majestie on any inferiour Iudges for God onely immediately infuseth it in men Ergo It is unlawfull for Kings to take this divinitie from Iudges for they resist God who resist Parliaments no lesse then those who resist Kings Scipio hath divinity in him as well as Cesar and that immediately from God and not from any King 10. Moses was not a King when he went to Pharaoh for he had not as yet a people Pharaoh was the King and because Pharaoh was a King the Divines of Oxford must say His Majestie must not in words of rebuke be resisted more then by deeds 11. Moses his face did shine as a Prophet receiving the Law from God not as a King and is this Sunshine of Heaven upon the face of Nero and Julian It must be if it be a beam of Royall Majestie if this pratler say right but 2 Cor. 3. 7. this was a majestie typicall which did adumbrate the glory of the Law of God and is far
supposeth the people to be under Popular Government this is not our case for Spalato and the Prelate presupposeth by our grounds that the people by nature must be under Popular Government Augustine dreameth no such thing and we deny that by nature they are under any form of Government 2. Augustine in a case most considerable thinketh one good and potent man may take the corrupt peoples power of giving Honours and making Rulers from them and give it to some good men few or many or to one then Augustine layeth done as a ground that which Spalato and the Prelate denieth That the people hath power to appoint their own Rulers otherwayes how could one good man take that power from them And the Prelates fifth Argument is but a Branch of the fourth Argument and is answered already P. Prelate Chap. 11. He would prove That Kings of the peoples making are not blessed of God The first creature of the peoples making was Abimelech Iudg. 9. 22. who reigned onely three yeers well neer Anti-Christs time of endurance he came to it by blood and an evil spirit rose betwixt him and the men of Sechem and he made a miserable end The next was Ieroboam who had this Motto He made Israel to sin the people made him King and he made the same pretence of a glorious Reformation that our Reformers now make new Calves new Altars new Feasts are erected they banish the Levites and take in the scum and drosse of the vulgar c. 3. Every action of Christ is our instruction Christ was truely a born King notwithstanding when the people would make him a King he disclaimed it he would not be an arbiter betwixt two brethren differing Answ I am not to follow the Prelates order every way though God willing I shall reach him in the fore-going Chapters Nor purpose I to answer his treasonable railing against his own Nation and the Iudges of the Land whom God hath set over this seditious excommunicated Apostate He layeth to us frequently the Iesuites Tenets when as he is known himself to be a Papist In this Argument he faith Abimâ—lech did reigne onely three yeers well neer Anti-Christs reign Is not this the basis and the mother principle of Popery That the Pope is not the Antichrist for the Pope hath continued many ages 1. He is not an individuall man but a race of men but the Antichrist saith Belarmine Stapleton Becanus and the nation of Iesuites and Poplings shall be one inviduall man a born Iaw and shall reign onely three yeers and a half But 1. The Argument from successe proveth nothing except the Prelate prove their bad successe to be from this because they were chosen of the people When as Saul chosen of God and most of the Kings of Israel and Judah who undeniably had Gods calâ—ing to the Crown were not blessed of God and their Government was a ruine to â—oth people and Religion as the people were removed to all the Kingdoms of the earth for the sins of Manassâ—h Iere. 15. 4. Was therefore Manasseh not lawfully called to the Crown 2. For his instance of Kings unlawfully called to the Crown he bringeth us whole two and telleth us that he doubteth as many learned men do Whether Ieroboam was a King by permission onely or by a commission from God 3. Abimelech was cursed because he wanted Gods calling to the throne for then Israel had no King but Iudges extraordinarily raised up by God and God did not raise him at all only he came to the throne by blood and carnall reasons moving the men of Sechem to advance him The Argument presupposeth that the whole lawfull calling of a King is the voices of the people This we never taught though the Prelate make conquest a just title to a Crown and it is but a title of blood and rapine 4. Abimelech was not the first King but onely a Iudge all our Divines with the Word of God maketh Saul the first King 5. For Ieroboam he had Gods Word and Promise to be King 1 King 11. 34 35 37 38. But in my weak judgement he waited not Gods time and way of coming to the Crown but that his coming to the throne was unlawfull because he came by the peoples election is in question 5. That the peoples Reformation and their making a new King was like the Kingdom of Scotlands Reformation and the Parliament of Englands way now is a traiterous calumny For 1. It condemneth the King who hath in Parliament declared all their proceedings to be legall Rehoboam never declared Ieroboams Coronation to be lawfull but contrary to Gods Word made war against Israel 2. It is false that Israel pretended Religion in that change the cause was the rough answer given to the supplication of the Estates complaining of their oppression they were under in Solomons reign 3. Religion is still subjected to policie by Prelates and Caveliers not by us in Scotland who sought nothing but Reformation of Religion of Laws so far as they serve Religion as our Supplications Declarations and the event proveth 4. We have no new Calves new Altars new Feasts but professe and really do hazard life and estate to put away the Prelates Calves Images Tree-worship Altar-worship Saints Feast-dayes Idolatry Masses and nothing is said here but Jesuites and Cananites and Baalites might say though salsly against the Reformation of Iosiah Trueth and purity of worship this yeer is new in relation to Idolatry the last yeer but it is simpliciter older 5. We have not put away the Lords Priests and Levites and taken in the scum of the vulgar but have put away Baals Priests such as excommunicated Prelate Maxwel and other Apostates and resumed the faithfull servants of God who were deprived and banished for standing to the Protestant Faith sworn too by the Prelates themselves 6. Every action of Christ such as his walking on the Sea is not our instruction in that sense that Christs refusing a Kingdom is directly our instruction And did Christ refuse to be a King because the people would have made him a King that is non causa pro causa he refused it because his Kingdom was not in this world and he came to suffer for men not to reign over man 7. The Prelate and others who were Lords of Session and would be Iudges of mens Inheritances and would usurpe the sword by being Lords of Counsell and Parliament have refused to be instructed by every Action of Christ who would not judge betwixt brother and brother P. Prelate Jephtah came to be a Iudge by Covenant betwixt him and the Gileadites here you have an interposed Act of man yet the Lord himself in authorizing him as Iudge vindicateth it no lesse to himself then when extraordinarily he authorized Gideon and Samuel 1 Sam. 12. 11. Ergo whatsoever act of man interveeneth it contributeth nothing to Royall Authority it cannot weaken or repeal it Answ It was as extraordinary that
avowed as the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland and England as the learned Author and my much respected brother evidenceth in his Ludensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canterburian selfe conviction 4. The Parliament of England was never yet found guilty of Treason 5. The good Counsellers of great States-men that Parliaments of both Kingdomes would take from the Kings Majesty are a faction of perjured Papists Prelates Iesuites Irish cut-throates Strafords and Apostate subverters of all Lawes divine humane of God of Church of State P. Prelate In whom so ever this power of Government be it is the onely remedy to supply all defects and to set right what ever is disjoynted in Church and State and the subject of this super-intending power must be free from all errour in Iudgement and Practice and so we have a Pope in temporalibus and if the Parliament erre the people must take order with them else God hath left Church and State remedilesse Ans This is stollen from Barolaius also 1. but the same Barclaius saith Si Rex regnum suum alienâ— ditioni manciparit regno cadit If the King shall sell his Kingdome or inslave it to a forraigne power he falleth from all right to his Kingdome but who shall execute any such Law against him not the people not the Peeres not the Parliament for this Mancipium ventris aulae this slave saith p. 147. I know no power in any to punish or curbe Soveraignty but in Almighty God 2. We see no super-intending power on earth in King or people infallible nor is the last power of taking order with a Prince who inslaveth his Kingdome to a forraigne power placed by us in the people because they cannot erre Court flattererâ— who teach that the will of the Prince is the measure of all right and wrong of Law and no Law and above all Law must hold that the King is a temporall Pope both in Ecclesiasticall and Civill matters but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves the law of Nature having given to them a contrary internall principle of selfe preservation as a Tyrant who doth care for himselfe and not for the people 3. And because Extremis morbis extrema remedia in an extraordinary exigent when Achab and Iezabell did undoe the Church of God and Tyrannize over both the bodies and consciences of Priest Prophet and people Elias procured the convention of the States and Elias with the peoples helpe killed all Baals Priests the King looking on and no question against his heart In this case I thinke it s more then evident that the people resumed their power 4. We teach not that people should supply all defects in Government nor that they should use their power when any thing is done amisse by the King no more then the King is to cut off the whole people of God when they refuse an Idolatrous service obtruded upon them against all Law the people is to suffer much before they resume their power but this Court slave will have the people to doe what he did not himselfe for when King and Parliament summoned him was he not obliged to appeare Non-compearance when lawfull royall and Parliamentory power summoneth is no lesse resistance then taking of Forts and Castles P. Prelate Then this super-intending power in people may call a King to accompt and punish him for any misdemeanour or act of injustice Why might not the people of Israels Peeres or Sanedrin have convented David before them judged and punished him for his Adultery with Bathsheba and his murther of Uriah but it is holden by all that Tyranny should be an intended universall totall manifest destruction of the whole Common-wealth which cannot fall in the thoughts of any but a mad man What is recorded in the Story of Nero his wish in this kind may be rather judged the expression of transported passion then a fixed resolution Ans The P. Prelate contrary to the scope of his booke which is all for the subject and seat of Soveraigne power against all order hath plunged himselfe in the deep of Defensive armes and yet hath no new thing 1. Our law of Scotland will warrant any subject if the King take from him his heritage or invade his possession against Law to resist the invaders and to summon the Kings intruders before the Lords of Session for that act of injustice Is this against Gods Word or Conscience 2. The Sancdrim did not punish David Ergo it is not lawfull to challenge a King for any one act of injustice from the practice of the Sanedrim to conclude a thing lawfull or unlawfull is logick we may resist 3. By the P. Prelates doctrine the law might not put Bathshebah to death nor yet Joab the neerest agent of the murthering of innocent Vriah because Bathshebaes adulterie was the Kings adulterie she did it in obedience to King David Joabs murther was Royall murther as the murther of all the Cavaliers for he had the Kings hand-writing for it Murther is Murther and the murtherer is to dye though the King by a secret Let alone a private and illegall warrant command it Ergo the Sanedrim might have taken Bathshebaes life and Joabs head also and consequently the Parliament of England if they be Judges as I conceive God and the Law of that ancient and renowned Kingdome maketh them may take the head of many Joabs and Jermines for murther â—or the command of a King cannot legitimate murther 4. David himselfe as King speaketh more for us then for the Prelate 2 Sam. 12. 7. And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man the man was himselfe v. 7. Thou art the man and he said to Nathan as the Lord liveth the man that hath done this shall surely dye 5. Every act of injustice doth not un-King a Prince before God as every act of uncleannesse doth not make a wife no wife before God 6. The Prelate excuseth Nero and would not have him resisted if all Rome were one neck that he might cut it off with one stroke I read it of Caligula If the Prelate see more in Historie then I doe I yield 7. He saith the thoughts of totall eversion of a Kingdome must only fall on a mad man The King of Britaine was not mad when he declared the Scots Traytors because they resisted the service of the Masse and raised an Army of Prelaticall cut-throats to destroy them if all the Kingdome should resist Idolatry as all are obliged The King sleeped upon this Prelaticall resolution many moneths passions in servor have not a dayes raigne upon a man And this was not so cleare as the sun but it was as cleare as written printed Proclamations and the pressing of Souldiers and the visible marching of Cut-throats and the blocking of Scotland up by sea and land could be visible to men having five senses Covaruv a great Lawyer saith 1. that all Civill power is penes remp in the hands of the Common-wealth
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
founded upon divine unction was not the only externall lawfull calling that we read of that David had to the Throne then royall birth because it is but equivalent only to divine unction not superiour to divine unction it cannot have more force to make a King then divine unction And if birth was equivalent to divine unction what needed Ioash who had royall birth be made King by the people and what needed Saul and David who had more then royall birth even divine unction be made Kings by the people and Saul having the vocall and infallible testimony of a Prophet needed not the peoples election the one at Mizpeh and Gilgall and the other at Hebron 5. If royall birth be as just a title to the Crowne as divine unction and so as the peoples election is no title at all then is it unlawfull that there should be a King by election in the world now but the latter is absurd so is the former I prove the Proposition because where conquerours are wanting and there is no King for the present but the people governing and so much confusion aboundeth they cannot lawfully appoint a King for his lawfull title before God must either be conquest which to me is no title and here and in this case there is no conquest or if the title must be a Propheticall word immediatly inspired by God but this is now ceased or thirdly the title must be royal birth but here there is no royall birth because the government is popular except you imagine that the society is obliged in conscience to goe and seek the sonne of a forraine King to be their King But I hope that such a royall birth should not be a just title before God to make him King of that society to which he had no relation at all but is a meere stranger Hence in this case no title could be given to any man to make him King but onely the peoples election which is that which we say And it is most unreasonable that a people under popular Government cannot lawfully choose a King to themselves seeing a King is a lawfull Magistrate and warranted by Gods Word because they have not a King of royall birth to sit upon the throne Mr. Symmons saith that birth is the best title to the Crowne because after the first of the family had been anoynted unction was no more used in that family unlesse there arose a strife about the Kingdome as betwixt Solomon and Adonijah Ioash and Athalia the eldest sonne of the predâ—cessor was afterward the chosen of the Lord his birth-right spake the Lords appointment as plainly as his fathers unction Ans It is a conjecture that unction was not used in the family after the first unction except the contest was betwixt two Brethren that is said not proved for a King 23. 30. when good Iosiah was killed and there was no contest concerning the Throne of that beloved Prince the people of the Land took Iehoahaz his son and anointed him and made him King in his fathers stead and the Priests were anointed Levit. 6. 22. yea all the Priests were anointed Num. 3. 8. yet read we not in the History where this or this man was anointed 2. In that Adonijah Solomons elder Brother was not King it is clear That Gods anointing and the peoples electing made the right to the Crown and not birth 3. Birth de facto did design the man because of Gods speciall promises to Davids house but how doth a typicall discent made to David and some others by Gods speciall promise prove that birth is the birth-right and lawfull call of God to a Crown in all after ages For as gifts to reign goeth not by birth so neither doth Gods title to a Crown go M. Symons A Prince once possessed of a Kingdome coming to him by inheritance can never by any upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof without horrible impietie and unjustice Royall unction was an indeloble Character of old Saul remained the Lords anointed till the last gaspe David durst not take the right of Government actually into him although he had it in reversion being already anointed thereunto and had received the spirit thereof Answ That is the question If a Prince once a Prince by inheritance cannot be dispossessed thereof without unjustice For if a Kingdom be his by birth as an inheritance transmitted from the father to the son I see not but any man upon necessary occasions may sell his inheritance but if a Prince sell his Kingdom a very Barelay and an Hug. Grotius with reason will say he may be dispossessed and dethroned and take up his indeleble Character then 2. A Kingdom is not the Princes own so as it is unjustice to take it from him as to take a mans purse from him the Lords Church in a Christian Kingdom is Gods heritage and the King onely a shepheard and the sheep in the court of conscience are not his 3. Royall unction is not an indeleble Character for neither Saul nor David were all their dayes Kings thereby but lived many dayes private men after divine unction while the people anointed them Kings except you say 1. That there were two Kings at once in Israel 2. And that Saul killing David should have killed his own Lord and his anointed 4. If David durst not take the right of Government actually on him then divine unction made him not King but onely designed him to be King the peoples election must make the King M. Symons addeth He that is born a King and a Prince can never be unborn Semel Augustus semper Augustus yea I beleeve the eldest son of such a King is in respect of birth the Lords anointed in his fathers life time even as David was before Sauls death and to deprive him of his right of reversion is as true unjustice as to dispossesse him of it Answ It is proper onely to Jesus Christ to be born a King sure I am No man bringeth out of the womb with him a Scepter and a Crown on his head Divine unction giveth a right infallibly to a Crown but birth doth not so for one may be born here to a Crown as was hopefull Prince Henry and yet never live to be King The eldest son of a King if he attempt to kill his father as Absolom did and raise forces against the lawfull Prince I conceive he may be killed in battell without any unjustice 2. If in his fathers time he be the Lords anointed there be two Kings and the heir may have a son and so there shall be three Kings possibly four all Kings by divine right The Prelate of Rochester saith The people and nobles give no right to him who is born a King they onely declare his right Answ This is said not proved A man born for an inheritance is by birth an heir because he is not born for these Lands as a mean for the end but by the contrary these Lands
are for the heir as the mean for the end But the King is for his Kingdom as a mean for the end as the watch-man for the Citie the living Law for peace and safetie to Gods people and therefore is not heres hominum An heir of men but men are rather heredes regis heirs of the King Arnisaeus Many Kingdoms saith he are purchased by just war and transmitted by the Law of heritage from the father to the son beside the consent of the people because the son receiveth right to the Crown not from the people but from his parents nor doth he possesse the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people keeping onely to himself the burden of protecting and governing the people but as a proprietie given to him lege regni by his parents which he is obliged to defend and rule as a father looketh to the good and welfare of the family yet so also as he may look to his own good Answ We read in the Word of God That the people made Solomon King not that David or any King can leave in his Testament a Kingdom to his son 2. He saith The son hath not the right of reigning as the patrimony of the people but as a proprietie given by the Law of the Kingdom by his parents Now this is all one as if he said The son hath not the right of the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people but as the patrimony of the people which is good non-sense For the proprietie of reigning given from father to son by the Law of the Kingdom is nothing but a right to reign given by the Law of the people and the very gift and patrimony of the people for Lex regni This Law of the Kingdom is the Law of the people tying the Crown to such a Royall Family and this Law of the people is prior and ancienter then the King or the right of reigning in the King or which the King is supposed to have from his Royall father because it made the first father the first King of the Royall Line For I demand How doth the son succeed to his fathers Crown and Throne Not by any promise of a divine Covenant that the Lord maketh to the father as he promised that Davids seed should sit on his throne till the Messiah should come this as I conceive is vanished with the Common-wealth of the Iews nor can we now finde any immediate divine constitution tying the Crown now to such a race nor can we say this cometh from the will of the father King making his son King For 1. there is no Scripture can warrant us to say The King maketh a King but the Scripture holdeth forth that the people made Saul and David Kings 2. This may prove That the father is some way a cause why this son succeedeth King but he is not the cause of the Royaltie conferred upon the whole Line because the question is Who made the first father a King Not himself nor doth God now immediately by Prophets anoint men to be Kings then need force the people choose the first man then must the peoples election of a King be prior and more ancient then the birth-law to a Crown And election must be a better right then birth 2. The question is Whence cometh it that not onely the first father should be chosen King but also whence is that whereas it is in the peoples freewill to make the succession of Kings go by free election as it is in Denmark and Pol yet the people doth freely choose not only the first man to be King but also the whole race of the first born of this mans Family to be Kings All here must be resolved in the free will of the Communitie now since we have no immediate and propheticall enthroning of men it is evident That the lineall deduction of the Crown from father to son through the whole line is from the people not from the parent Hence I adde this as my sixth Argument That which taketh away that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right in a Communitie given to them by God and nature to provide the most efficacious and prevalent mean for their own preservation and peace in the fittest Government that is not to be holden but to make birth the best title to the Crown and better then free election taketh away and impedeth that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right of chosing not simply a Governour but the best the justest the more righteous and tyeth and fettereth their choice to one of a house whether he be a wise man and righteous and just or a fool and an unjust man therefore to make birth the best title to the Crown is not to be holden It is objected That parents may binde their after Generations to choose one of such a line But by this Argument their naturall birth-right of a free choice to elect the best and fittest is abridged and clipped and so the posterity shall not be tyed to a King of the Royall Line to which the Ancestors did swear See for this the learned Author of Scripture and Reasons pleaded for defensive Arms. Answ Frequent elections of a King at the death of every Prince may have by accident and through the corruption of our nature bloody and tragicall sequels and to eschew these people may tie and oblige their children to chose one of the first born Male or Female as in Scotland and England of such a line but I have spoken of the excellencie of the title by election above that of birth as comparing things according to their own nature together but give me leave to say That the posterity are tyed to that Line 1. Conditionally So the first born ceteris paribus be qualified and have an head to sit at the helm 2. Elections of Governours would be performed as in the sight of God and in my weak apprehension the person coming neerest to Gods judge Fearing God hating covetousnesse and to Moses his King Deut. 17. one who shall read in the Book of the Law and it would seem now that gracious morals are to us insteed of Gods immediate designation 3. The genuine and intrinsecall end of making Kings is not simply governing but governing the best way in peace honesty and godlinesse 1. Tim. 2. Ergo These are to be made Kings who may most expeditely procure this end neither is it my purpose to make him no King who is not a gracious man onely here I compare title with title 7. Argument Where God hath not bound the conscience men may not binde themselves or the consciences of the posterity But God hath not bound any nation irrevocably and unalterably to a Royall Line or to one kinde of Government Ergo No nation can binde their conscience and the conscience of the posterity either to one Royall Line or irrevocably and unalterably to Monarchy The proposition is clear 1. No Nation is tyed jure divine by
Assert Meere conquest by the sword without the consent of the people is no just title to the Crowne 1. Because the lawfull title that Gods Word holdeth forth to us beside the Lords choosing and calling of a man to the Crowne is the peoples election Deut. 17. 15. all that had any lawfull calling to the Crowne in Gods Word as Saul David Solomon c. were called by the people and the first lawfull calling is to us a rule and paterne to all lawfull callings 2. A King as a King and by vertue of his Royall Office is the Father of the Kingdome a Tutor a Defender Protector a Shield a Leader a Shepheard an Husband a Patron a Watchman a Keeper of the people over which he is King and so the Office essentially includeth acts of fatherly affection care love and kindnesse to those over whom he is set so as he who is cloathed with all these relations of love to the people cannot exercise those officiall Acts on a people against their will and by meere violence Can he be a Father and a Guide a Patron to us against our will and by the sole power of the bloudy sword a benefit conferred upon any against their will is no benefit Will he by the awsome dominion of the sword be our father and we unwilling to be his sonnes an head over such as will not be menbers will he guide me as a Father an Husband against my will he cannot come by meere violence to be a Patton a Shield and a defender of me through violence 3. It is not to be thought that that is Gods just Title to a Crowne which hath nothing in it of the essence of a King but a violent and bloody purchase which is in its prevalency in an oppressing Nymrod and the cruellest tyrant that is hath nothing essentiall to that which constituteth a King for it hath nothing of Heroick and Royall wisedome and gifts to governe and nothing of Gods approving and regulating will which must be manifested to any who would be a King but by the contrary cruelty hath rather basenesse and witlesse fury and a plaine reluctancy with Gods revealing Will which forbideth murther Gods Law should say Murther thou and prosper and raigne and by the act of violating the sixt Commandement God should declare his approving Will to wit his lawfull call to a Throne 4. There be none under a Law of God who may resist a lawfull call to a lawfull Office but men may resist any impulsion of God stirring them up to murther the maniest and strongest and cheife men of a Kingdome that they may raigne over the fewest the weakest and the young and lowest of the people against their will therefore this call by the sword is not lawfull If it be said that the Divine impulsion stirring up a man to make a bloody conquest that the ire and just indignation of God in Iustice may be declared on a wicked Nation is an extraordinary impulsion of God who is above a Law and therefore no man may resist it Ans then all bloody Conquerors must have some extraordinary revelation from Heaven to warrant their yeelding of obedience to such an extraordinary impulsion And if it be so They must shew a lawfull and immediate extraordinary impulsion now but it is certaine the sinnes of the people conquered and their most equall and just demerit before God cannot be a just plea to legitimate the Conquest for though the people of God deserved vastation and captivitie by the Heathen in regard of their sinnes before the throne of Divine Iustice yet the Heathen grievously sinned in conquering them Zach. 1. 15. And I am very sore displeased with the Heathen that are at ease for I was but a little displeased and they helped forward the affliction So though Iudah deserved to be made captives and a conquered people because of their idolatry and other sinnes as Ieremiah had prophecied yet God was highly displeased at Babylon for their unjust and bloody Coneuest Jer. 50. 17 18 33 34. c. 51. 35. The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon shall the inhabitants of Zion say and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea shall Jerusalem say And that any other extraordinary impulsion to be as lawfull a call to the Throne as the peoples free election we know not from Gods word and we have but the naked word of our Adversaries that William the Conquerour without the peoples consent made himselfe by blood the lawfull King of England and also of all their posteritie And that King Fergus conquered Scotland 5. A King is a speciall gift of God given to feed and defend the people of God that they may lead a godly and peaceable life under him Isal 78. v. 71 72. 1 Tim. 2. 2. as it is a judgement of God that Israel's without a King for many dayes Hos 3. 4. and that there is no Iuâ—ge no King to put evill doers to shame Iudg. 19. 1. but if a King be given of God as a King by the acts of a bloody Conquest to be avenged on the sinfull land over which he is made a King he cannot be given actu primo as a speciall gift and blessing of God to feed but to murther and to destroy for the genuine end of a Conqueror as a Conqueror is not peace but fire and sword If God changâ— his heart to be of a bloody Vastator a father Prince and feeder of the people ex officio now he is not a violent Conquerour and he came to that meeknes by contraries which is the proper worke of the omnipotent God and not proper to man who as he cannot worke miracles so neither can he lawfully worke by contraries and so if Conquest be a lawfull title to a Crown and an ordinary calling as the opponents presume every bloody Conquerour must be changed into a loving father Prince and feeder and if God call him none should oppose him but the whole Land should dethrone their own native Soveraigne whom they are obliged before the Lord to defend and submit to the bloody invasion of a strange Lord presumed to be a just Conqueror as if he were lawfully called to the Throne both by birth and the voyces of the people And truly they deserve no wages who thus defend the Kings Prerogative royall for if the sword be a lawfull title to the crown suppose the two Generals of both Kingdomes should conquer the most and the chiefest of the Kingdome now when they have so many forces in the field by this wicked reason the one should have a lawfull call of God to be King of England and the other to be King of Scotland which is absurd 6. Either conquest as conquest is a just title to the crown or as a just conquest If as Conquest then all conquests are just titles to a Crown then the Ammonites Zidonians Canaanites Edomites c. subduing Gods people for
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
it selfe and protect us Ans The Prelate here deserteth his owne consequence which is strong against himselfe for if a man be naturally subject to his fathers superiour as he said before why is not the sonne of a slave naturally subiect to his fathers superiour master 2. As a man may not make away his liberty without his own consent so can he not without his owne consent give his liberty to be subject to penall Lawes under a Prince without his owne consent either in his fathers or in the representative society in which he liveth 3. God and nature hath laid a necessity on all men to be under government a naturall necessity from the wombe to be under some government to wit a paternall government that is true but under this government politique and namely under soveraignty it is false and that is but said for why is he naturally under soveraignty rather then Aristocracy I beleeve any of the three formes are freely chosen by any society 4. It is false that one cannot defend the people except he have intire power that is to say he cannot doe good except he have a vast power to doe both good and ill Obj. 3. It is accidentall to any to render himselfe a slave being occasioned by force or extreame indigence but to submit to Government congrnous to the condition of man and is necessary for his happy being and naturall and necessary by the inviolable Ordinance of God and nature Ans If the father be a slave it is naturall and not accidentall by the Prelates Logick to be a slave 2. it is also accidentall to be under Soveraignty and sure not naturall for then Aristocracy and Democracy must be unnaturall and so unlawfull Governments 3. If to be congruous to the condition of man be all one with naturall man which he must say if he speake sense to beleeve in God to be an excellent Mathematician to swim in deepe waters being congruous to the nature of man must be naturall 4. Man by nature is under government Paternall not Politique properly but by the free consent of his will Obj. 4. Luke 11. 5. Christ himselfe was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to his Parents the word that is used Rom. 13. ergo none is exempted from subjection to lawfull government Ans We never said that any was exempted from lawfull goverment the Prelate and his fellow Iesuites teach that the Clergy is exempted from the lawes of the civill Magistrate not we but because Christ was subject to his Parents and the same word is used Luk. 11. that is Rom. 13. it will not follow therefore men are by nature subject to Kings because they are by nature subject to parents Obj. 5. The father had power over the children by the Law of God and nature to redeeme himselfe from debt or any distressed condition by inslaving his children begotten of his owne body if this power was not by the right of nature and by the Warrant of God I can see no other for it could not be by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers Ans 1. Shew a law of nature that the father might inslave his children by a Divine positive law presupposing sin the father might doe that and yet I thinke that may be questioned whether it was not a permission rather then a law as was the Bill of devorce but a law of nature it was not 2. The P. Prelate can see no Law but the law of nature here but it is because he is blind or will not see his reason is it was not by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers ergo it was by the law of nature so he that cursed his father was to dye by Gods Law This law was not made by mutuall consent betwixt the Father and the Sonne ergo it was a law of inature the Prelate will see no better Nature will teach a man to inslave himselfe to redeeme himselfe from death but that it is a Dictate of nature that a man should inslave his sonne I conceive not 3. What can this prove but that if the sonne may by the law of nature be inslaved for the father but that the sonne of a slave is by nature under subjection to slavery that by natures law the contrary whereof he spake in the page preceding and in this same page As for the Argument of the Prelate to answer Suarez who laboureth to prove Monarchy not to be naturall but of free consent because it is various in sundry nations it is the Iesuites Argument not ours I owne it not Let Iesuites plead for Iesuites QUEST XIIII Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects because there be no such equality say Royalists betwixt the King and his people as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court to either necessitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people or to tye him to any punishment if he faile yet say they he is under naturall obligation â—n Gods Court to keepe his Oath but he is comptible only to God if he violate his Oath Asser 1. There is an Oath betwixt the King and his people laying on by reciprocation of bands mutuall civill obligation upon the King to the people and the people to the King 2 Sam. 5. 3. So â—ll the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anuoynted David King over Israel 1 Chron. 11. 3. And David made a covenant with them before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel 2 Chron. 23. 2. And they went about in Iudah and gathered the Levites out of all the Cities of Iudah and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel and they câ—me to Ierusalem 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the King Ioash in the house of God 2 King 11. 17. and Jehoiada made a covenant betwixt the Lord and the King and the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also and his people Eccles 8. 2. I counsell thee to keepe the Kings commandement and that in regard of the Oath of God then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the King and the people 2. That was not a covenant that did tye the King to God onely and not to the people 1. because the covenant betwixt the King and the people is clearly differenced from the Kings covenant with the Lord 2 King 11. 17. 2. there were no necessity that this covenant should be made publickly before the people if the King did not in the
covenant tye and oblige himselfe to the people nor needed it be made solemnly before the Lord is the House of God 3. It is expresly a covenant that was between Ioash the King and his people and David made a covenant at his Coronation with the Princes and Elders of Israel therefore the people give the Crown to David Covenant-wise and upon condition that he should performe such and such duties to them and this is cleare by all Covenants in the Word of God even the Covenant between God and man is so mutuall I will be your God and yee shall be my people The covenant is so mutuall that if the people breake the covenant God is loosed from his part of the covenant Zach. 11. v. 10. 2. The covenant giveth to the beleever a sort of action of Law and jus quoddam to plead with God in respect of his fidelity to stand to that covenant that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity Esay 43. 26. Es 63. 16. Daniel 9. 4 5. and farre more a covenant giveth ground of a civill action and claime to a people and the free estates against a King seduced by wicked counsell to make war against the Land whereas he did sweare by the most high God that he should be a father and protector of the Church of God 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man yea all solemne promises bring the covenanteâ—s under a Law and a claime before men if the Oath of God be broken as the Covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech Gen. 21. 27. Ionathan and David I Sam. 18. 3. the spies professe to Rahab in the covenant that they made with him Iosh 2. v. 20. And if thou utter this our businesse say they we will be quit of thine Oath which thou hast made us to swear There be no mutuall contract made upon certain conditions but if the conditions be not fulfilled the party injured is loosed from the contract Barclay saith That this covenant obligeth the King to God but not the King to the people Ans It is a vaine thing to say that the people and the King make a covenant and that David made a covenant with the Elders and Princes of Israel for if he be obliged to God only and not to the people by a covenant made with the people it is not made with the people at all nay it is no more made with the people of Israel nor with the Chaldeans for it bindeth David no more to Israel nor to Chaldea as a covenant made with men Arnisaeus saith when two parties contract if one performe the duty the other is acquitted Sect. Ex hujusmod ubi vult just de duob reis l. 3. F. because every one of them are obliged fully Sect. 1. Iust cod to God to whom the Oath is made for that is his meaning and if either the people performe what is sworne to the Lord or the King yet one of the parties remaineth still under obligation and neither doth the peoples obedience exempt the King from punishment if he faile nor the Kings obedience exempt the people if they faile but every one beareth the punishment of his owne sin and there is no mutuall power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty because that belongeth to the Pretor or Magistrate before whom the contract was made The King hath jurisdiction over the people if they violate their Oath but the people hath no power over the Prince and the ground that Arnisaeus layeth downe is that 1. The King is not a party contracting with the people as if there were mutuall obligations betwixt the King and the people and a mutuall coactive power on either side 2. That the care of Religion belongeth not to the people for that hath no warrant in the Word saith he 2. We read not that the people was to command and compell the Priests and the King to reforme Religion and abolish Idolatry as it must follow if the covenant be mutuall 3. Iehoiada 2 King 11. obligeth himselfe and the King and the people by a like law to serve God and here be not two parts but three the high Priest the King the People if this example prove any thing 4. Both King and people shall finde the revenging hand of God against them if they faile in the breach of their Oath but with this difference and every one of the two King and people by the Oath stand obliged to God the King for himselfe and the people for themselves but with this difference the King oweth to God proper and due obedience as any of the subjects and also to governe the people according to Gods true religion Deut. 17. 2 Chro. 29. and in this the Kings obligation differeth from the peoples obligation the people as they would be saved must serve God and the King for the same cause 1 Sam. 12. But besides this the King is obliged to rule and governe the people and keepe them in obedience to God but the people is not obliged to governe the King and keepe him in obedience to God for then the people should have as great power of jurisdiction over the King as the King hath o-over the people which is against the Word of God and the examples of the Kings of Iudah but this commeth not from any promise or covenant that the King hath made with the people but from a peculiar obligation whereby he is obliged to God as a man not as a King This is the mystery of the businesse but I oppose this in these Assertions 1. Assert As the King is obliged to God for the maintenance of true Religion so are the people and Princes no lesse in their place obliged to maintaine true Religion for 1. the people are rebuked because they burnt Incense in all high places 2 King 17. 11. 2 Chron. 33. 17. Hos 4. 13. And the reason why the high places are not taken away 2 Chro. 20. 33. is given for as yet the people had not prepared their heart unto the God of their fathers but you will reply elicite acts of maintenance of true Religion are commanded to the people and that the places prove but the question is De actibus imperatis of commanded acts of Religion sure none but the Magistrate is to command others to worship God according to his Word I answer in ordinary only Magistrates not the King only but all the Princes of the Land and Iudges are to maintaine Religion by their commandements Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chro. 1. 2. Deut. 16. 19. Eccles 5. 8. Hab. 1. 4. Mic. 3. 9. Zach. 7. 9. Hos 5. 10. 11. and to take care of Religion but when the Iudges decline from Gods way and corrupt the Law we finde the people punished and rebuked for it Ier. 15. 4. And I will cause them to be removed to all Kingdomes of the earth because of Manasseh the sonne of Hezekiah King of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem
but to God But the contrary is true Beside the King and the Peoples covenant with the Lord King Joash made another covenant with the People and Jehoiada the Priest was only a witnesse or one who in Gods name performed the rite of annointing otherwise he was a subject on the peoples side obliged to keep allegiance to Joash as to his Soveraigne and Master But certainly who ever maketh a covenant with the people promising to governe them according to Gods word and upon that condition and these termes receiveth a throne and crown from the people he is obliged to what he promiseth to the people Omnis promittens facit alteri cui promissio facta est jus in promittentâ—m Who ever maketh a promise to another giveth to that other a sort of right or jurisdiction to challenge the promise The covenant betwixt David and Israel were a shadow if it tye the people to allegiance to David as their King and if it tye not David as King to govern them in righteousnesse but leave David loose to the people and only tye him to God then it is a covenant betwixt David and God only But the Text saith It is a covenant betwixt the King and the People 2 King 11. 17. 2 Sam. 5. 3. Hence our second Argument He who is made a minister of God not simply but for the good of the subject and so he take heed to walk in Gods law as a King and governe according to Gods will he is in so far only made King by God as he fulfilleth the condition and in so far as he is a minister for evill to the subject and ruleth not according to that which the book of the Law commandeth him as King in so far he is not by God appointed King and Ruler and so must be made a King by God conditionally But so hath God made Kings and Rulers Rom. 13. 4. 2 Chron. 6. 16. Ps 89. 30 31. 2 Sam. 7. 12. 1 Chron. 28. 7 8 9. This argument is not brought to prove that Jeroboam or Saul leave off to be Kings when they faile in some part of the condition or as if they were not Gods Vicegerents to be obeyed in things lawfull after they have gone on in wicked courses For the People consenting to make Saul King they give him the Crown pro hac vice at his entry absolutely there is no condition required in him before they make him King but only that he covenant with them to rule according to Gods law The conditions to be performed are consequent and posterior to his actuall coronation and his sitting on the Throne But the argument presupposing that which the Lords word teacheth to wit that the Lord and the people giveth a crown by one and the same action for God formally maketh David a King by the Princes and Elders of Israels choosing of him to be their King at Hebron and therefore seeing the people maketh him a King covenant-wise and conditionally so he rule according to Gods Law and the people resigning their power to him for their safety and for a peaceable and godly life under him and not to destroy them and tyrannize over them it is certain God giveth a King that same way by that same very act of the people and if the King tyrannize I cannot say it is beside the intention of God making a King not yet beside his intention as a just punisher of their transgressions for to me as I conceive nothing either good or evill falleth out beside the intention of him who doeth all things according to the pleasure of his Will if then the people make a King as a King conditionally for their fafety and not for their destruction for as a King he saveth as a man he destroyeth and not as a King and Father and if God by the peoples free election make a King God maketh him a King conditionally and so by covenant and therefore when God promiseth 2 Sam. 7. 12. 1 Chron. 28. 7 8 9. to Davids seed and to Solomon a Throne he promiseth not a Throne to them immediatly as he raised up Prophets and Apostles without any mediate action and consent of the people but he promiseth a Throne to them by the mediate consent election and covenant of the people which condition and covenant he expresseth in the very words of the people covenant with the King so they walke as Kings in the Law of the Lord and take heed to Gods Commandements and Statutes to doe them Obj. But then Solomon falling in love with many outlandish women and so not walking according to Gods Law loseth all royall dignity and Kingly power and the people is not to acknowledge him as King since the Kingly power was conferred upon him rather then Adonijah upon such a condition which condition not being performed by him it is presumed that neither God nor the people under God as Gods instruments in making King conferred any royall power on him Ans It doth not follow that Solomon falling in love with strange women doth lose Royall dignity either in the Court of Heaven or before men because the conditions of the covenant upon which God by the people made him King must be exponed by the Law Deut. 17. now that cannot beare that any one act contrary to the Royall Office yea that any one or two acts of Tyranny doth denude a man of the Royall dignity that God and the people gave him for so David committing two acts of tyranny one of taking his owne faithfull subjects wife from him and another in killing himselfe should denude himselfe of all the Kingly power that he had and that therefore the people after his Adultery and Murther were not to reknowledge David as their King which is most absurd for as one single act of unchastity is indeed against the matrimoniall covenant and yet doth not make the woman no wife at all so it must be such a breach of the Royall Covenant as maketh the King no King that anulleth the Royall Covenant and denudeth the Prince of his Royall authority and power that must be interpreted a breach of the Oath of God because it must be such a breach upon supposition whereof the people would not have given the Crowne but upon supposition of his destructivenesse to the Common-wealth they would never have given to him the Crowne Obj. 2. Yet at least it will follow that Saul after he is rejected of God for disobedience in not destroying the Amalekites as Samuel speaketh to him 1 Sam. 15. is no longer to be acknowledged King by the people at least after he committeth such acts of tyranny as are 1. Sam. 8. 12 13 14 15. c. and after he had killed the Priests of the Lord and persecuted innocent David without cause he was no longer either in the Court of Heaven or the Court of men to be acknowledged as King seeing he had manifestly violated the royall covenant made with the people 1 Sam.
11. v. 14 15. and yet after those breaches David acknowledgeth him to be his Prince and the Lords annoynted Ans The Prophet Samuel his threatning 1 Sam. 17. is it not exponed of actuall unkinging and rejecting of Saul at the present for after that Samuel both honoured him as King before the people and prayed for him and mourned to God on his behalfe as King 1 Sam. 16. 1. 2. but the threatning was to have effect in Gods time when he should bring David to the Throne as was prophesied upon occasion of lesse sinne even his sacrificing and not waiting the time appointed as God had commanded 1 Sam. 13. v. 13 14. 2. The people and Davids acknowledgment of Saul to be the Lords annoynted and a King after he had committed such acts of Tyranny as seeme destructive of the Royall Covenant and inconsistent therewith cannot prove that Saul was not made King by the Lord and the people conditionally and that for the peoples good and safety and not for their destruction and it doth well prove that those acts of blood and tyranny committed by Saul were not done by him as King or from the principle of Royall power given to him by God and the people 2. That in these acts they were not to acknowledge him as King 3. That these acts of blood were contrary to the covenant that Saul did sweare at his inauguration and contrary to the conditions that Saul in the covenant tooke on him to perform at the making of the Royall covenant 4. They prove not but the States who made Saul King might lawfully dethrone him and annoint David their King But David had reason to hold him for his Prince and the Lords Anointed so long as the people recalled not their grant of Royall dignity as David or any man is obliged to honour him as King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodier and more tyrannous man then Saul Any Tyrant standeth in titulo so long as the People and Estates who made him King have not recalled their grant so as neither David nor any single man though six hundred with him may unking him or detract obedience from him as King So many acts of disloyaltie and breaches of lawes in the Subjects though they be contrary to this Covenant that the States make with their Prince doth not make them to be no Subjects and the Covenant mutuall standeth thus 3 Arg. If the people as Gods instruments bestow the benefit of a Crown on their King upon condition that he will rule them according to Gods word then is the King made King by the people conditionally but the former is true Ergo so is the latter The assumption is proved thus because to be a King is to be an adopted father tutor a Politick servant and Royall watchman of the State and the Royall honour and Royall maintenance given to him is a reward of his labours and a Kingly hire And this is the Apostles argument Rom. 13. 6. For this cause pay you tribute also there is the wages for they are Gods ministers attending continually upon this very thing There is the worke Qui non implet conditionem à se promissam cadit benefiâ—io It is confirmed thus The people either maketh the man their Prince conditionally that he rule according to Law or absolutely so that he rule according to will or lust or 3. without any vocall transactions at all but only brevi manu say Reigne thou over us and God save the King And so there be no conditions spoken on either side Or 4. The King is obliged to God for the condition which he promiseth by oath to performe toward the people but he is to make no reckoning to the people whether he performe his promise or no for the people being inferiour to him and he solo Deo minor only next and immediate to God the people can have no jus no law over him by vertue of any covenant But the first standing we have what we seeke The second is contrary to Scripture He is not Deut. 17. 15 16. made absolutely a King to rule according to his will and lust for Reigne thou over us should have this meaning Come thou and play the Tyrant over us and let thy lust and will be a law to us which is against naturall sense nor can the sense and meaning be according to the third That the people without any expresse vocall and positive covenant give a Throne to their King to rule as he pleaseth because 1. it is a vain thing for the Prelate and other Mancipia Aulae Court-bellies to say Scotland and England must produce a written authentick covenant betwixt the first King and their People because say they it s the Lawes word De non apparentibus non existentibus eadem lex that covenant which appeareth not it is not For in positive covenants that is true and in such contracts as are made according to the Civill or Municipall lawes or the secondary law of Nations But the generall covenant of nature is presupposed in making a King where there is no vocall or written covenant if there be no conditions betwixt a Christian King and his people then those things which are just and right according to the law of God and the rule of God in moulding the first King are understood to regulate both King and People as if they had been written and here we produce our written covenant Deut. 17. 15. Josh 1. 8 9. 2 Chr. 31 32. 1. Because this is as much against the King as the people and more for if the first King cannot bring forth his written and authentick tables to prove that the Crown was given to him and his heires and his successors absolutely and without any conditions so as his will shall be a law ca lit causa he loseth his cause say they The King is in possession of the Royall power absolutely without any condition and you must put him from his possession by a law I answer this is most false 1. Though he were in mala fide and in unjust possession the law of Nature will warrant the people to repeal their right and plead for it in a matter which concerneth their heads lives and soules 2. The Parliaments of both Kingdomes standing in possession of a nomothetick power to make lawes proveth cleerely that the King is in no possession of any Royall dignitie conferred absolutely and without any condition upon him and therefore it is the Kings part by law to put the Estates out of possession And so though there were no written covenant the standing law and practice of many hundreth acts of Parliament is equivalent to a written covenant 2. When the people appointeth any to be their King the voyce of Nature exponeth their deed though there be no vocall or written covenant For that fact of making a King is a morall lawfull act warranted by the word of God Deut. 17. 15 16. Rom. 13.
1. 2. and the law of Nature and therefore they having made such a man their King they have given him power to be their father feeder healer protector and so must only have made him King conditionally so he be a father a feeder and tutor Now if this deed of making a King must be exponed to be an investing with an absolute and not a conditionall power this fact shall be contrary to Scripture and to the law of Nature for if they have given him Royall power absolutely and without any condition they must have given to him power to be a father protector tutor and to be a tyrant a murtherer a bloody lyon to waste and destroy the people of God 3. The Law permitteth the bestower of a benefit to interpret his own mind in the bestowing of a benefit even as a King and State must expone their own Commission given to their Ambassadour so must the Estates expone whether they bestowed the Crown upon the first King conditionally or absolutely For the 4th if it stand then must the people give to their first elected King a power to wast and destroy themselves so as they may never controle it but only leave it to God and the King to reckon together but so the condition is a Chimera We give you a Throne upon condition you swear by him who made heaven and earth that you will govern us according to Gods Law and you shall be answerable to God only not to us whether you keep the covenant you make with us or violate it but how a covenant can be made with the people and the King obliged to God not to the people I conceive not 2. This presupposeth that the King as King cannot doe any sin or commit any act of tyranny against the people but against God only because if he be obliged to God only as a King by vertue of his covenant How can he faile against an obligation where there is no obligation but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people and indeed so doe our good men expound that Psal 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned not against Vriah for if he sinned not as King against Vriah whose life he was obliged to conserve as a King he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conserve his life Where there is no sin there is no obligation not to sin and where there is no obligation not to sin there is no sin By this the King as King is loosed from all duties of the second Table being once made a King he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himselfe for he is above all his neighbours and above all mankind and only lesse then God 4. Arg. If the people be so given to the King that they are committed to him as a pledge oppignorated in his hand as a pupill to a Tutor as a distressed man to a Patron as a flocke to a Shepheard and so as they remaine the Lords Church his people his flocke his portion his inheritance his vineyard his redeemedones then they cannot be given to the King as Oxen and Sheepe that are freely gifted to a man or as a gift or summe of gold or silver that the man to whom they are given may use so that he cannot commit a fault against the oxen sheepe gold or mony that is given to him how ever he shall dispose of them But the people are given to the King to be tutored and protected of him so as they remaine the people of God and in covenant with him and if the people were the goods of fortune as Heathens say he could no more sinne against the people then a man can sin against his gold now though a man by adoring gold or by lavish profusion and wasting of gold may sin against God yet not against gold nor can he be in any covenant with gold or under any obligation of either duty or sin to gold or to livelesse and reasonlesse creatures properly therefore he may sin in the use of them and yet not sin against them but against God Hence of necessity the King must be under obligation to the Lords people in another manner then that he should only answer to God for the losse of men as if men were worldly goods under his hand and as if being a King he were now by this Royall Authority priviledged from the best halfe of the law of nature to wit from acts of mercy and truth and covenant keeping with his brethren 5. Arg. If a King because a King were priviledged from all covenant obligation to his subjects then could no Law of men lawfully reach him for any contract violated by him then he could not be a debtor to his subjects if he borrowed mony from them and it were utterly unlawfull either to crave him mony or to sue him at Law for debts yet our Civill Lawes of Scotland tyeth the King to pay his debts as any other man yea and King Solomons traffiquing and buying and selling betwixt him and his owne subjects would seeme unlawfull for how can a King buy and sell with his subjects if he be under no covenant obligation to men but to God only Yea then a King could not marry a wife for he could not come under a covenant to keepe his body to her only nor if he committed adultery could he sin against his wife because being immediate unto God and above all obligation to men he could sin against no covenant made with men but only against God 6. If that was a lawfull covenant made by Asa and the States of Iudah 2 Chron. 15. 13. That whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of their fathers should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman this obligeth the King for ought I see and the Princes and the people but it was a lawfull covenant ergo the King is under a covenant to the Princes and Iudges as they are to him it is replyed If a Master of a Schoole should make a law whoever shall goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty obtained of the Master shall be whipped it will not oblige the Schoole-master that he shall be whipped if he goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty so neither doth this Law oblige the King the supreame Law-giver Ans Suppose that the Schollars have no lesse hand and authority magisteriall in making the law then the Schoole-master as the Princes of Iudah had a collaterall power with King Asa about that law it would follow that the Schoole-master is under the same law 2. Suppose going out at Schoole doores were that way a morall neglect of studying in the Master as it is in the Scholars as the not seeking of God is as hainous a sinne in King Asa and no lesse deserving death then it is in the people then should the Law oblige Schoolmaster and Scholler both without exception 3. The
Schoolemaster is clearely above all lawes of discipline which he imposeth on his Scholars but none can say that King Asa was clearely above that law of seeking of the Lord God of his fathers Diodorus Siculus l. 17. saith the Kings of Persia were under an oath and that they might not change the Lawes and so were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia The Kings of Sparta which Aristotle calleth just Kings renew their oath every moneth Romulus so covenanted with the Senate and People Carolus V. Austriacus sweareth he shall not change the Lawes without the consent of the Electors nor make new lawes nor dispose or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire So read we Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped l. 8. saith there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Persians The nobles are crowned when they crown their King and exact a speciall Oath of the King So doth England Polonia Spaine Arragonia c. Alberi Gentilis Hug. Grotius prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people but notwithstanding there be such a covenant it followeth not from this saith Arnisaeus that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically the people shall be free and the contract or covenant nothing Ans The covenant may be materially broken while the King remaineth King and the subjects remaine subjects but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken the people must be free from their Allegiance but of this more hereafter Arg. 7. If a Master bind himselfe by an Oath to his servant he shall not receive such a benefit of such a point of service if he violate the Oath his Oath must give his servant Law and right both to challenge his Master and he is freed from that point of service an Army appointeth such a one their Leader and Captaine but they refuse to doe it except he sweare he shall not betray them to the enemy he doth betray them then must the souldiers be loosed from that contract if one be appointed Pilate of a ship and not but by an Oath if he sell the Passengers to the Turke they may challenge the Pilate of his Oath and it is cleare that 1. the estates should refuse to give the Crown to him who would refuse to governe them according to Gods Law but should professe that he would make his owne will a Law therefore the intention of the Oath is clearely conditionall 2. When the King sweareth the Oath he is but King in fieri and so not as King above the States of Kingdomes now his being King doth not put him in a case above all civill obligation of a King to his subjects because the matter of the Oath is that he shall be under them so farre in regard of the Oath of God Arg. 8. If the Oath of God made to the people doe not bind him to the people to governe according to Law and not according to his will and lust it should be unlawfull for any to sweare such an Oath for if a power above law agree essentially to a King as a King as Royalists hold he who sweareth such a Oath should both sweare to be a King to such a people and should sweare to be no King in respect by his Oath he should renounce that which is essentiall to a King Arnisaeus objecteth Ex particularibus non potest colligi conclusio universalis some few of the Kings as David Ioash made a covenant with the people it followeth not that this was a universall law Ans Yea the covenant is Deut. 17. and must be a rule to all if so just a man as David was limited by a covenant then all the rest also QUEST XV. Whether or no the King be Vnivocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father IT is true Aristotle Polit. l. 3. c. 11. saith That the Kingly power is a fatherly power and Iustin Novell 12. c. 2. Pater quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius sit tamen pater est But I doe not beleeve that as Royalists say that the Kingly power is essentially and univocally that same with a paternall or fatherly power or that Adam as a father was as a father and King and that suppose Adam should live in Noahs daies that by divine institution and without consent of the Kingdomes and communities on earth Adam hoc ipso and for no other reason but because he was a father should also be the universall King and Monarch of the whole world or suppose Adam were living to this day that all Kings that hath been since and now are held their Crownes of him and had no more Kingly power then inferiour Iudges in Scotland have under our soveraigne King Charles for so all that hath been and now are lawfull Kings should be unjust usurpers for if fatherly power be the first and native power of commanding it is against nature that a Monarch who is not my father by generation should take that power from me and be a King over both me and my children But I assert that though the Word warrant us to esteem Kings fathers Esa 49. 23. Jud. 5. 7. Gen. 20. v. 2. yet are not they essentially and formally fathers by generation Num. c. 11. v. 12. Have I conceived all this people have I begotten them and yet are they but fathers metaphorically 1. By office because they should care for them as fathers doe for children and so come under the name of fathers in the fifth Commandement and therefore rigorous and cruell Rulers are Leopards and Lyons and Wolves Ezech. 22. 27. Zeph. 3. 3. If then tyrannous Judges be not essentially and formally Leopards and Lyons but only metaphorically neither can Kings be formally fathers 2. Not only Kings but all Iudges are fathers in defending their subjects from violence and the sword and fighting the Lords battells for them and counselling them If therefore Royalists argue rightly A King is essentially a father and fatherly power and royall power are of the same essence and nature As therefore he who is once a father is ever a father and his children cannot take up armes against him to resist him for that is unnaturall repugnant to the 5. Commandement So he who is once a King is evermore a King and it is repugnant to the fifth Commandement to resist him with armes It is answered that the Argument presupposeth that Royall power and Fatherly power is one and the same in nature whereas they differ in nature and are only one by analogie and proportion for so Pastors of the Word are called fathers 1 Cor. 4. 15. it will not follow that once a Pastor evermore a Pastor and that if therefore Pastors turne wolves and by hereticall doctrine corrupt the flock they cannot be cast out of the Church 3. A father as a father hath not power of life and death over his sonnes because Rom. 13. by divine institution the
sword is given by God to Kings and Iudges and if Adam had had any such power to kill his sonne Cain for the killing of his brother Abel it had been given to him by God as a power politike different from a fatherly power for a fatherly power as such is formally to conserve the life of the childaen and not to take away the life yea and Adam though he had never sinned nor any of his posteritie Adam should have been a perfect father as he is now indued with all fatherly power that any father now hath yea should not God have given the sword or power of punishing ill doers since that power should have been in vaine if there had been no violence nor bloodshed or sinne on the earth for the power of the sword and of lawfull warre is given to men now in the state of sinne 4. Fatherly government and power is from the bosome and marrow of that fountaine law of nature but Royall power is not from the law of nature more then Aristocraticall or Democraticall power D. Ferne saith Monarchie is not jure divino I am not of his mind nor yet from the law of Nature but ductu naturae by the guidance of nature Sure it is from a supervenient commandement of God added to the first law of nature establishing Fatherly power 5. Children having their life and first breathings of nature from their parents must be in a more intire relation from their father then from their Prince Subjects have not their Being naturall but their civill politique and peaceable well-being from their Prince 6. A father is a father by generation and giving the being of nature to children and is a naturall head and root without the free consent and suffrages of his children and is essentially a father to one childe as Adam was to one Cain but a Prince is a Prince by the free suffrages of a community and cannot be a King to one only and he is the politique head of a civill Corporation 7. A father so long as his children liveth can never leave off to be a father though he were mad and surious though he be the most wicked man on earth Qui genuit filium non potest non genuisse filium what is once past cannot by any power be not passed a father is a father for ever But by confession of Royalists as Barclay Hug. Grotius and Arnisaeus and others grant if a King sell his subjects by sea or land to other nations if he turne a furious Nero he may be dethroned and the power that created the King under such expresse conditions as if the King violate them by his owne consent he shall be put from the Throne may cease to be a King and if a stronger King conquer a King and his subjects Royalists â—ay the conquerour is a lawfull King and so the conquered King must also lawfully come downe from his Throne and turne a lawfull captive sitting in the dust 8. Learned Polititians as Bartholomeus Romulus Defens part 1. num 153. Ioannes de Anania in c. fin de his qui fil occid teach that the father is not obliged to reveale the conspiracy of his son against his Prince nor is he more to accuse his son then to accuse himselfe because the father loveth the sonne better then himselfe D. Listi quidem Sect. Fin. quod met caus D. L. fin c. de cura furiosi and certainly a father had rather dye in his own person as choose to dye in his sonnes in whom he affecteth a sort of immortality In specie quando non potest in individuo but a King doth not love his subjects with a naturall or fatherly love thus and if the affections differ the power which secondeth the affection for the conservation either of being or well being must also differ proportionally The P. Prelate objecteth against us thus stealing word by word from Arnisaeus When a King is elected Soveraigne to a multitude he is surrogated in the place of a common father Exod. 20. 5. Honour thy father then as a naturall father receiveth not Paternall right power or authority from his sonnes but hath this from God and the ordinance of nature nor can the King have his right from the community 2. The maxime of the Law is Surrogatus gaudet privilegiis ejus cui surrogatur qui succedit â—n locum succedit in jus The person surrogated hath all the Priviledges that he hath in whose place he succeedeth he who succeedeth to the place succeedeth to the right the adopted sonne or the bastard who is legittimated and commeth in the place of the lawfull borne sonne commeth also in the priviledges of the lawfull borne sonne a Prince elected commeth to the full possession of the Majesty of a naturall Prince and Father for Moduâ— acquirendi non tollit naturale jus possidendi saith Arnisaeus more fully then the poore Plagiarius the manner of acquiring any thing taketh not away the naturall possession for how ever things be acquired if the title be just possession is the Law of Nations then when the King is chosen in place of the father as the father hath a divine right by nature so must the King have that same and seeing the right proprietor saith the Pamphleting Prelate had his right by God by nature how can it be but howsoever the designation of the person is from the disordered community yet the collation of the power is from God immediatly and from his sacred and inviolable ordinance And what can be said against the way by which any one elected obtained his right for seeing God doth not now send Samuells or Elisha's to anoynt or declare Kings we are in his ordinary providence to conceive the designation of the person is the manifestation of Gods Will called Voluntas signi as the Schooles speake just so as when the Church designeth one to sacred orders Ans 1. He that is surrogated in the place of another due to him by a positive Law of man he hath Law to all the priviledges that he hath in whose place he is surrogated that is true He who is made Assignee to an Obligation for a summe of money hath all the rights that the principall party to whom the Bond or Obligation was madâ— he who commeth in the place of a Major of a City of a Captaine in an Army of a Pilot in a ship of a Pope hath all the priviledges and Rights that his predecessors had by Law Jus succedit juri persona jure predita personae jure preditae So the Law so far as my reading can reach who professe my selfe a Divine but that he who succeedeth to the place of a father by nature should injoy all the naturall Rights and Priviledges of the person to whom he succeedeth I beleeve the Law never dreamed it for then the adopted sonne comming in place of the naturall sonne hath right to the naturall affection of the father if any should adopt
power to rule according to Gods law as he is commanded Deut. 17. and this is the very office or officiall power which the King of Kings hath given to all Kings under him and this is a power of the Royall office of a King to governe for the Lord his maker or this is a power to doe ill and tyrannize over Gods people but this is accidentall to a King and the character of a Tyrant and is not from God and so the Law of the King in this place must be the Tyranny of the King which is our very mind 2. Barclay Reges sine dominatione ne concipi quidem possunt Iudices dominationem in populum minimé habebant Hence it is cleare that Barclay saith that the Iudges of Israel and the Kings are different in essence and nature so that domination is so essentiall to a King that you cannot conceive a King but he must have domination whereas the Iudges of Israel had no domination over the people Hence I argue that whereby a King is essentially distinguished from a Iudge that must be from God but by domination which is a power to oppresse the subject a King is essentially distinguished from a Iudge of Israel Ergo Domination and a power to do Acts of Tyranny as they are expressed Verse 11 12 13. and to oppresse a subject is from God and so must be a lawfull power but the conclusion is absurd the assumption is the doctrine of Barclay The major proposition I prove 1. Because both the Iudge and the King was from God for God gave Moses a lawfull calling to be a Iudge so did he to Eli to Samuel and Deut. 17. 15. the King is a lawfull Ordinance of God If then the Judge and the King be both lawfull Ordinances and if they differ essentially as Barclay saith then that specifice forme which distinguisheth the one from the other to wit Domination and a power to destroy the subject must be from God which is blasphemous for God can give no morall power to do wickedly for that is licence and a power to sin against a Law of God which is absolutely inconsistent with the holinesse of God for so the Lord might deny himself and dispence with sin God avert such blasphemies Now if the kingly power be from God That which essentially and specifically constituteth a King must be from God as the Office it self is from God And Barclay saith expressely That the kingly power is from God and that same which is the specifice form that constituteth a King must be that which essentially separateth the King from the Iudge if they be essentially different as Barclay dreameth Hence have we this jus Regis this Manner or Law of the King to tyrannize and oppresse to be a power from God and so a lawfull power by which you shall have this result of Barclayes interpretation That God made a Tyrant as well as a King 3. By this difference that Barclay putteth betwixt the King and the Judge the Judge might be resisted for he had not this power of domination that Saul hath contrary to Rom. 13. 2. Exod. 22. 28. and 20 12. But let us try the Text first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word cannot inforce us to expone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a law our English rendreth Shew them the manner of the King Arri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis I grant the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chalde Paraphrase saith Statutum regis Hieronimus translateth it jus regis so Calvin but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude yea and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not alwayes a law as Josh 6. 14. They compassed the citi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven times 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King 17. 26. They know not the manner of the God of the Land Vers 33. They served their â—â—n gods after the manner of the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken in an evill part 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 34. Vntill this day they do after these manners 1 Kings 18. 28. Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after their manner 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 40. 13. Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh according as thou wast wont to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 21. 19. He shall deal with her after the manner of daughters 1 Sam. 27. 11. And David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring tydings to Gath saying So did David and so will his manner be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be they meaned that it was Davids law right or priviledge to spare none alive 1 Sam. 2. 13. And the Priests custome with the people was c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was a wicked custome not a law and the 70. turneth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes taken in a good meaning so P. Martyr He meaneth here of an usurped law saith he Calvin Non jus a deo prescriptum sed tyranidem He speaketh not of Gods law here saith he but of tyranny And Rivetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not ever jus law Sed aliquando morem sive modum rationem agendi The custome and manner of doing so Junius and Tremellius Diodatus exponeth jus This law namely saith he that which is now grown to a common custome by the consent of nations and Gods toleration The interline glosse to speak of Papists exactionem dominationem The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant Lyra exponeth it tyranny Tostatus Abulens He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes as Solomon and others Cornelius a lapide This was an unjust law Cajetanus calleth it tyranny Hugo Cardinal nameth them exactiones servitutes exactions and slaveries And Serrarius he speaketh not here Quid Reges jure possint What they may do by right and law Sed quid audeant What they will be bold to do and what they tyrannically decern against all Laws of nature and humanitie And so speaketh Tho. Aquinas So also Mendoza saith he speaketh of the law of Tyrants and amongst the fathers Clemens Alexandrinus saith on this place Non humanum pollicetur dominum sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum He promiseth not a humane Prince but threatneth to give them an insolent Tyrant and the like also saith Beda And an excellent Lawyer Pet. Rebuffus saith Etiam loquitur de Tyranno qui non erat a Deo electus And that he speaketh of Sauls Tyrannicall usurpation and not of the law prescribed by God Deut. 17. I prove 1. He speaketh of such a power as is answerable to
the Acts here spoken of but the Acts here spoken of are Acts of meere tyranny Vers 11. And this will be the manner of your King that shall reign over you he will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his Chariots and to be his horsemen and some shall run before his Chariots Now to make slaves of their sons was an Act of Tyranny 2. To take their fields and vineyards and oliveyards from them and give them to his servants was no better then Ahabs taking Naboths vineyard from him which by Gods law he might not lawfully sell except in the case of extreme povertie and then in the yeer of Jubilee he might redeem his own inheritance 3. Verse 15 16. To put the people of God to bondage and make them servants was to deal with them as the Tyrant Pharaoh did 4. He speaketh of such a law the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord because of their King but the execution of the just Law of the King Deut. 17. is a blessing and not a bondage which should make the people cry out of the bitternesse of their spirit 5. It is clear here that God is by his Prophet not instructing the King in his duty but as Rabbi Levi Ben. Gersom saith Terrifying them from their purpose of seeking a King and foretelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrannous King But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable Acts of favour that a good King by his good Government was to do for his people Deut. 17. 15 16. But he speaketh of contrary facts here and that he is disswading them from suiting a King is clear from the Text. 1. Because he saith Give them their will but yet protest against their unlawfull course 2. He biddeth the Prophet lay before them the tyranny and oppression of their King which tyranny Saul exercised in his time as the story sheweth 3. Because how uneffectuall Samuels exhortation was is set down Verse 19. Neverthelesse they would not obey the voice of Samuel but said Nay but we will have a King over us if Samuel had not been dehorting them from a King how could they be said in this to refuse to heare the voice of Samuel 6. The ground of Barclay and Royalists here is weak For they say that the people sought a King like the Nations and the Kings of the Nations were all absolute and so Tyrants And God granted their unlawfull desire and gave them a Tyrant to reign over them such as the Nations had The plain contrary is true they sought not a Tyrant but one of the speciall reasons why they sought a King was to be freed of Tyranny for 1 Sam. 8. 3. Because Samuels sons turned aside after lucre and took bribes and perverted judgement therefore all the Elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel to Ramah and their they sought a King 7. One could not more clearly speak with the mouth of a false Prophet then the Author of active and passive obedience doth while he will have Samuel here to describe a King and to say yee have formerly committed one errour in shaking off the yoke of God and seeking a King so now beware you fall not in the next errour in casting of the yoke of a King which God at your own desire hath laid on you for God hath onely power both to make and unmake Kings therefore prepare your selves patientlie to suffer and bear Answ For if he were exhorting to patient suffering of the yoke of a King he should presume it were Gods revealed and regulating will that they should have a King But the scope of Samuels Sermon is to disswade them from a King and they by the contrary Verse 19. say they Nay but we will have a King and there not one word in the Text that may intimate patience under the yoke of a King 2. There is here the description of a Tyrant not of a King 3. Here is a threatning and a prediction not any thing that smelleth of an exhortation Object But it is evident that God teaching the people how to behave themselves under the unjust oppressions of their King he sets down no remedy but tears crying to God prayer and patience therefore resistance is not lawfull Answ Though this be not the place due to the doctrine of Resistance yet to vindicate the place I say there is not one word of any lawfull remedy in the Text onely it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et clamatis in illa die a faciebus regis vestri It is not necessarily to be exponed of praying to God Iob 35. 9. by reason of the multitude of the oppression They make the oppressed to cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clamare faciunt Isai 15. 4. And Heshbon shall cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The armed souldiers of Moab shall cry out There is no other word here then doth expresse the idolatrous prayers of Moab Isai 17. 12. and Habbak 2. 11. The stone shall cry out of the wall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 22. 24. You shall stone the maide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because she cryed not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but she is not to be stoned because she prayed not to God Ps 18. 4. Davids enemies cryed and there was none to save even to the Lord and he heard not 2. Though it were the Prophets meaning they cryed to the Lord yet it is not the crying of a people humbled and in faith speaking to God in their troubles Zach. 7. 13. They cryed and I will not heare therefore Royalists must make crying to God out of the bitternesse of affliction without humiliation and faith and such prayets of sinners as God heareth not Psal 18. 41. Ioh. 9. 31. Esay 17. 12. to be the only remedy of a people oppressed by a Tyrannous King now it is certaine God prescribeth no unlawfull meanes to an oppressed people under their affliction therefore it is cleare here that God speaketh only of evills of punishment such as is to cry in trouble and not be heard of God and that he prescribeth here no duty at all nor any remedy 3. All Protestant Divines say Ex particulari non valet argumentum negativé from one particular place a negative argument is not good This remedy is not written in this particular place therefore it is not written at all in other places of Scripture so 1 Tim. 1. 19. The end of excommunication is that the party excommunicated may learne not to blaspheme ergo the end is not also that the Church be not infected it followeth not the contrary is cleare 1 Cor. 5. v. 6. D. Ferne and other Royalists teach us that we may supplicate and make prayers to a Tyranous King 2. We may fly from a tyranous King but neither supplicating the King nor flying from his sury shall be lawfull meanes left by this Argument because these
when they first sought a King but that was the Law contemning Precepts rather for the peoples obeying then for the Kings commanding for the people was to be instructed with those precepts not the King Those things that concerned the Kings duty Deut. 17. Moses commanded to be put into the Arke but so if Samuel had commanded the King that which Moses Deut. 17. commanded he had done no new thing but had done againe what was once done actum egisset but there was nothing before commanded the people concerning their obedience and patience under evill Princes Ioseph Antiq. l. 6. c. 5. he wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evills that were to befall them Ans It was not that same Law for though this Law was written to the people yet it was the Law of the King and I pray you did Samuel write in a booke all the Rules of Tyranny and teach Saul and all the Kings after him for this book was put in the Ark of the Covenant where also was the booke of the Law how to play the Tyrant And what instruction was it to King or people to write to them a book of the wicked waies of a King which nature teacheth without a Doctor Sanctius saith on the place These things which by mens fraud and to the hurt of the publick may be corrupted were kept in the Tabernacle and the booke of the Law was kept in the Arke Cornelius a Lapide saith It was the Law common to King and people which was commonly kept with the booke of the Law in the Arke of the Covenant Lyra contradicteth Barclay he exponeth Legem legem regni non secundum usurpationem supra positam sed secundum ordinationem Dei positam Deut. 17. Theodat excellently exponeth it the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome inspride by God to temper Monarchy with a liberty befitting Gods people and with equity toward a Nation to withstand the abuse of an absolute power 2. Can any beleeve Samuel would have written a Law of Tyranny and put that booke in the Arke of the Covenant before the Lord to be kept to the posterity seeing he was to teach both King and people the good and the right way 1 Sam. 12. 23 24 25. 3. Where is the Law of the Kingdome called a Law of punishing innocent people 4. To write the duty of the King in a booke and apply it to the King is no more superfluous nor to teach the people the good and the right way out of the Law and apply generalls to persons 5. There is nothing in the Law 1 Sam. 8. 9. 11. 12. of the peoples patience but rather of their impatient crying ouâ— God not hearing nor helping and nothing of that in this booke for any thing that we know and Iosephus speaketh of the Law 1 Sam. 8. not of this Law 1 Sam. 12. QUEST XIX Whether or no the King be in Dignity and power above the people IN this grave question divers considerations are to be pondered 1. There is a Dignity materiall in the people scattered they being many representations of God and his Image which is in the King also and formally more as King he being indued with formall Magistraticall and publick Royall Authority in the former regard this or that man is inferiour to the King because the King hath that same remander of the Image of God that any private man hath and something more â—e hath a politicke resemblance of the King of Heavens being a little God and so is above any one man 2. All these of the people taken collectively having more of God as being representations are according to this materiall dignity excellenter then the King because many are excellenter then one and the King according to the Magistraticall and Royall Authority he hath is excellenter then they are because he partaketh formally of Royalty which they have not formally 3. A meane or medium as it is such is lesse then the end though the thing materially that is a meane may be excellenter every mean as a meane under that reduplication hath all its goodnesse and excellency in relation to the end yet an Angell that is a meane and a ministring Spirit ordained of God for an heire of life eternall Heb. 1. 13. considered materially is excellenter then a man Psal 8. 5. Heb. 2. 6 7 8. 4. A King and leader in a military consideration and as a Governour and conserver of the whole Army is more worth then ten thousand of the people 2 Sam. 18. 3. 5. But simply and absolutely the people is above and more excellent then the King and the King in Dignity inferiour to the people and that upon these Reasons 1. Because he is the meane ordained for the people as for the end that he may save them 2. Sam. 19. 9. a publick shepheard to feede them Ps 78. 70 71 72 73. the Captaine and Leader of the Lords inheritance 1 Sam. 10. 1. to defend them the Minister of God for their good Rom. 13. 4. 2. The Pilot is lesse then the whole Passengers the Generall lesse then the whole Army the Tutor lesse then all the children the Physician lesse then all the living men whose health he careth for the Master or Teacher lesse then all the Schollars because the part is lesse then the whole the King is but a part and a member though I grant a very eminent and Noble Member of the Kingdome 3. A Christian people especially is the portion of the Lords inheritance Deut. 32. 9. the sheepe of his pasture his redeemed ones for whom God gave his blood Act. 20. 28. And the killing of a man is to violate the Image of God Gen. 9. 6. and therefore the death and destruction of a Church and of thousand thousands of men is a sadder and a more heavy matter then the death of a King who is but one man 4. A King as a King or because a King is not the inheritance of God nor the chosen and called of God nor the sheepe or flocke of the Lords pasture nor the redeemed of Christ for those excellencies agree not to Kings because they are Kings for then all Kings should be indued with those excellencies and God should an be accepter of persons if he put those excellencies of Grace upon men for externall respects of highnesse and Kingly power and worldly glory and splendor for many living Images and representations of God as he is holy or more excellent then a politique representation of Gods greatnesse and Majesty such as the King is because that which is the fruit of a love of God which commeth nearer to Gods most speciall love is more excellent then that which is farther remote from his speciall love now though Royalty be a beame of the Majesty of the greatnesse of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords yet is it such a fruit and beam of Gods greatnesse as may consist with the eternall reprobation of the party
throne of the Lord as King instead of David his father 1 King 1. 13. It is called Davids throne because the King is the Deputy of Iehovah and the judgement is the Lords I prove the assumption Inferiour Iudges appointed by King Iehoshaphat have this place 2 Chro. 19. 6. The King said to the Iudges Take heed what ye do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ye judge not for man but for the Lord then they were Deputies in the place of the Lord and not the Kings Deputies in the formall and officiall acts of judging 7. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you take heed and do it for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God nor respect of persons or taking of gifts Hence I argue If the Holy Ghost in this good King forbid inriour Judges wresting of judgement respecting of persons and taking of gifts because the judgement is the Lords and if the Lord himself were on the Bench he would not respect persons nor take gifts then he presumeth that inferiour Iudges are in the stead and place of Jehovah and that when these inferiour Iudges should take gifts they make as it were the Lord whose place they represent to take gifts and to do iniquitie and to respect persons but that the holy Lord cannot do 2. If the inferiour Iudges in the act of judging were the Vicars and Deputies of King Jehoshaphat he would have said Judge righteous judgement Why For the judgement is mine and if I the King were on the Bench I would not respect persons nor take gifts and you judge for me the supreme Judge as my Deputies but the King saith They judge not for man but for the Lord. 3. If by this they were not Gods immediate Vicars but the Vicars and Deputies of the King then being meer servants the King might command them to pronounce such a sentence and not such a sentence as I may command my servant and deputy in so far as he is a servant and deputie to say this and say not this but the King cannot limit the conscience of the inferiour Iudge because the judgement is not the Kings but the Lords 4. The King cannot command any other to do that as King for the doing whereof he hath no power from God himself but the King hath no power from God to pronounce what sentence he pleaseth because the judgement is not his own but Gods And though inferiour Iudges be sent of the King and appointed by him to be Iudges and so have their externall call from Gods deputy the King yet because judging is an act of conscience as one mans conscience cannot properly be a deputy for another mans conscience so neither can an inferior Iudge as a Iudge be a deputy for a King therefore the inferiour Iudges have designation to their office from the King but if they have from the King that they are Iudges and be not Gods deputies but the Kings they could not be commanded to execute judgement for God but for the King and Deut. 1. 17. Moses appointed Iudges but not as his deputies to judge and give sentence as subordinate to Moses For the judgement saith he is the Lords not mine 6. If all the inferiour Iudges in Israel were but the deputies of the King and not immediately subordinate to God as his deputies then could neither inferiour Iudges be admonished nor condemned in Gods word for unjust judgement because their sentence should be neither righteous nor unrighteous judgement but in so far as the King should approve it or disapprove it and indeed that Royalist Hugo Grotius saith so That an inferiour Iudge can do nothing against the will of the supreme Magistrate if it be so When ever God commandeth inferiour Iudges to execute righteous judgement it must have this sense Respect not persons in judgement except the King command you crush not the poor oppresse not the fatherlesse except the King command you I understand not such policie Sure I am The Lords commandments rebukes and threats oblige in conscience the inferiour Iudge as the superiour as is manifest in these Scriptures Jerem. 5. 1. Isai 1. 17 21. and 5. 7. and 10. 2. and 59. 14. Jere. 22. 3. Ezek. 18. 8. Amos 5. 7. Micah 3. 9. Habak 1. 4. Levit 19. 15. Deut. 17. 11. and 1. 17. Exod. 23. 2. Grotius saith It is here as in a Categorie the middle Spece is in respect of the Superiour a Spece in respect of the inferiour a Genus so inferiour Magistrates in relation to these who are inferiour to them and under them they are Magistrates or publike persons but in relation to superiour Magistrates especially the King they are private persons and not Magistrates Answ Jehoshaphat esteemed not Iudges appointed by himself private men 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. Yee judge not for men but for the Lord. 2. We shall prove that under Iudges are powers ordained of God 3. In Scotland the King can take no mans inheritance from him because he is King But if any man possesse Lands belonging to the Crown the King by his Advocate must stand before the Lord-Iudges of the Session and submit the matter to the Laws of the Land and if the King for propertie of Goods were not under a Law and were not to acknowledge Iudges as Iudges I see not how the subject in either Kingdoms have any proprietie 4. I judge it blasphemie to say That a sentence of an inferiour Iudge must be no sentence though never so legall nor just if it be contrary to the Kings will as Grotius saith He citeth that of Augustine If the Consul command one thing and the Emperour another thing you contemn not the power but you choose to obey the highest Peter saith He will have us one way to be subject to the King as to the supreme sine ulla exceptione without any exception but to these who are sent by the King as having their power from the King Answ When the Consull commandeth a thing lawfull and the King that same thing lawfull or a thing not unlawfull we are to obey the King rather then the Consull so I expone Augustine 2. We are not to obey the King and the Consull the same way that is with the same degree of reverence and submission for we owe more submission of spirit to the King then to the Consul but magis minus non variant speciem more or lesse varieth not the natures of things but if the meaning be that we are not to obey the inferiour Iudge commanding things lawfull if the King command the contrary this is utterly denyed But saith Grotius The inferiour Judge is but the Deputie of the King and hath all his power from him therefore we are to obey him for the King Answ The inferiour Iudge may be called the Deputy of the King where it is the Kings place to make Iudges because he hath his externall call from the King and is Iudge 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
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
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.
Ieremiah is commanded to Prophesie against the Kings of Iudah Ier. 1. 18. and the Prophets practised it Ier. 19. 3. c. 21. 2. c. 22. 13 14 15. Hos 5. 1. Kings are guilty before God because they submitted not their Royall power and greatnesse to the rebukes of the Prophets but persecuted them 2 Deut. 17. 20. The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother Psal 22. 22. and so the Iudges or three Estates are not to accept of the Person of the King for his greatnesse in Iudgement Deut. 1. 16 17. and the Iudge is to give out such a sentence in Iudgement as the Lord with whom there is no iniquity would give out if the Lord himselfe were sitting in Iudgement because the Iudge is in the very stead of God as his Lievtenant 2 Chron. 19. 6 7. Ps 82. 1 2. Deut. 1. 17. And with God there is no respect of persons 2 Chro. 19. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Act. 10. 34. I doe not intend that any inferiour Iudge sent by the King is to judge the King but these who gave him the Throne and made him King are truely above him and to judge him without respect of persons as God would judge himselfe if he himselfe were sitting in the Beanch 3. God is the Author of Civill Lawes and Government and his intention is therein the externall peace and quiet life and godlinesse of his Church and people and that all Iudges according to their places be Nurse-fathers to the Church Esay 49. 23. Now God must have appointed sufficient meanes for this end but there is no sufficient meanes at all but a meere Anarchy and confusion if to one man an absolute and unlimited power be given of God whereby at his pleasure he may obstruct the fountaines of Iustice and command Lawyers and Lawes to speake not Gods mind that is Iustice righteousnesse safety true Religion but the sole lust and pleasure of one man And 2. this one having absolute and irresistible influence on all the inferiour Instruments of Iustice may by this power turne all into Anarchy and put the people in a worse condition then if there were no Iudge at all in the Land For that of Polititians that Tyranny is better then Anarchy is to be taken Cum grano salis but I shall never beleeve that absolute power of one man which is actu primo Tyranny is Gods sufficient way of peaceable government Therefore Barclaius saith nothing for the contrary when he saith The Athenians made Draco and Solon absolute Law-givers For a facto adjus non valet consequentia What if a roving people trusting Draco and Solon to be Kings above mortall men and to be gods gave them power to make Lawes written not with Inke but with blood Shall other Kings have from God the like Tyrannicall and bloody power from that to make bloody Lawes Chytreus Lib. 2. and Sleidan citeth it l. 1. Sueton. Sub paena periurii non tenentur fidem sevare regi degeneri 9. He who is regulated by Law and sweareth to the three Estates to be regulated by Law and accepteth the Crown Covenant-wise and so as the Estates would refuse to make him their King if either he should refuse to sweare or if they did beleeve certainly that he would breake his oath he hath no illimited and absolute power from God or the People for faedus conditionatum aut premissio conditionalis mutua facit jus alteri in alterum A mutuall conditionall Covenant giveth law and power over one to another But from that which hath been said The King sweareth to the three Estates to be regulated by Law He accepteth the Crowne upon the tenor of a mutuall covenant c. for if he should as King sweare to be King that is one who hath absolute power above a Law and also to be regulated by a Law he should sweare things contradictorie that is that he should be their King having absolute power over them and according to that power to rule them and he should sweare not to be their King and to rule them not according to absolute power but according to Law If therefore this absolute power be essentiall to a King as a King no King can lawfully take the oath to governe according to Law for then he should sweare not to reigne as King and not be their King For how could he be their King wanting that which God hath made essentiall to a King as a King QUEST XXIII Whother the King hath any Royall prerogative or a power to dispence with Lawes And some other-grounds against absolute Monarchie A Prerogative Royall I take two wayes 1. Either to be an act of meere will and pleasure above or beside Reason or Law Or an act of dispensation beside or against the letter of the Law Assert 1. That which Royalists call the Prerogative Royall of Princes is the salt of Absolute Power and it is a supreme and highest power of a King as a King to doe above without or contrary to a Law or Reason which is unreasonable 1. When Gods word speaketh of the power of Kings and Iudges Deut. 17. 15 16 17. Deut. 1. 15 16 17. and elsewhere there is not any footstep or ground for such a power and therefore if we speake according to conscience there is no such thing in the world And because Royalistâ— cannot give us any warrant it is to be rejected 2. A Prerogative Royall must be a power of doing good to the people and grounded upon some reason or law but this is but a branch of an ordinarie limited power and no prerogative above or beside law Yea any power not grounded on a reason different from meere will or absolute pleasure is an irrationall and brutish power and therefore it may well be jus personae the power of the man who is King it cannot be jus coronae any power annexed to the Crown for this holdeth true of all the actions of a King as a King Illud potest Rex illud tantum quod jure potest The King as King can doe no more then that which upon right and law he may doe 3. To dispute this question Whether such a Prerogative agree to any King as King is to dispute whether God hath made all under a Monarch slaves by their own consent which is a vaine question 2. Those who hold such a Prerogative must say the King is so absolute and illimited a God on earth that either by law or his sole pleasure beside law he may regularly and rationally move all wheeles in Policie and his uncontrolled will shall be the axeltree on which all the wheeles are turned 4. That which is the garland and proper flower of the King of Kings as he is absolute above his creatures and not tyed to any law without himselfe that regulateth his will That must be given to no mortall man or King except we would communicate that which is Gods proper due to a
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
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.
of Monarchy 9. No doubt saith he Hos 4. They were Priests and Iudges Hos 4. but they were over-awed as they are now J thinke he would say Hos 3. 4. otherwise he citeth Scripture sleeping That the Priests of Antichrist be not only over-awed but out of the earth I yeeld that the King be limited not over-awed I thinke Gods Law and mans Law alloweth 10. The safety of the King as King is not only safety but a blessing to Church and State and therefore this P. Prelate and his fellowes deserve to be hanged before the Sun who have led him on a warre to destroy him and his Protestant subjects But the safety and flourishing of a King in the exercises of an Arbitrary unlimited power against Law and Religion and to the destruction of his subjects is not the safety of the people nor the safety of the Kings soule which these men if they be the Priests of the Lord should care for The Prelate commeth to refute the learned and worthy Observator The safety of the people is the supreme Law ergo the King is bound in duty to promote all and every one of his subjects to all happinesse The Observator hath no such inference the King is bound to promote some of his subjects even as King to a Gallowes especially Irish Rebells and many bloudy Malignants But the Prelate will needs have God rigorous hallowed be his name if it be so for it is unpossible to the tenderest-hearted father to doe so actuall promotion of all is unpossible that the King intend it of all his subjects as good subjects by a Throne established on righteousnesse and judgement is that which the worthy Observator meaneth other things here are answered The summe of his second answer is a repetition of what he hath said I give my word in a Pamphlet of one hundred ninety and foure pages I never saw more idle repetitions of one thing twenty times before said But page one hundred sixty and eight he saith The safety of the King and his subjects in the Morall notion may be esteemed Morally the same no lesse then the soule and the body make one personall subsistence Ans This is strange Logick the King and his subjects are Ens por aggregationem and the King as King hath one Morall subsistence and the people another Hath the Father and the sonne the Master and the servant one Morall subsistence but the man speaketh of their well being and then he must meane that our Kings Government that was not long agoe and is yet to wit the Popery Arminianisme Idolatry cutting of mens eares and noses banishing imprisonment for speaking against Popery arming of Papists to slay Protestants pardoning the bloud of Ireland that I feare shall not be soone taken away c. are identically the same with the life safety and happinesse of Protestants then life and death justice and unjustice Idolatry and sincere worship are identically one as the soule of the Prelate and his body are one The third is but a repitition The Acts of Royaltie saith the Observator are Acts of dutie and obligation Ergo not acts of grace properly so called Ergo We may not thank the King for a courtesie This is no consequence What fathers do to children are acts of naturall dutie and of naturall grace and yet children owe gratitude to parents and subjects to good Kings in a legall sense No but in way of courtesie onely The Observator said The King is not a father to the whole collective body and it s well said he is son to them and they his maker Who made the King Policy answereth The State made him and Divinitie God made him 4. The Observator said well The peoples weaknesse is not the Kings strength The Prelate saith Amen He said That that perisheth not to the King which is granted to the people The Prelate denyeth Because What the King hath in trust from God the King cannot make away to another nor can any take it from him without sacriledge Answ True indeed If the King had Royalty by immediate trust and infusion by God as Elias had the spirit of prophecie that he cannot make away Royalists dream that God immediately from heaven now infuseth facultie and right to Crowns without any word of God It s enough to make an Euthysiast leap up to the Throne and kill Kings Judge if these Fanaticks be favourers of Kings But if the King have Royaltie mediately by the peoples free consent from God there is no reason but people give as much power even by ounce weights for power is strong Wine and a great mocker as they know a weak mans head will bear and no more power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven But a birth-right of the people borrowed from them they may set it out for their good and resume it when a man is drunk with it 2. The man will have it conscience on the King to fight and destroy his three Kingdoms for a dream his prerogative above Law But the truth is Prelates do engage the King his house honour subjects Church for their cursed Mytres The Prelate vexeth the Reader with Repetitions and saith The King must proportion his Government to the safety of the people on the one hand and to his owne safety and power on the other hand Ans What the King doth as King he doth it for the happinesse of his people the King is a relative yea even his owne happinesse that he seeketh he is to referre to the good of Gods people He saith farther The safety of the people includeth the safety of the King because the word populus is so taken which he proveth by a raw sickly rabble of words stollen out of Passerats Dictioner His father the Schoole-master may whip him for frivolous Etymologies This supreame Law saith the Prelate is not above the Law of Prerogative Royall the highest Law nor is Rex above Lex The Democracie of Rome had a supremacie above Lawes to make and unmake Lawes and will they force this power on a Monarch to the destruction of Soveraigntie Answ This which is stollen from Spalato Barclay Grotius and others is easily answered The supremacie of People is a Law of natures selfe-preservation above all positive Lawes and above the King and is to regulate Soveraigntie not to destroy it 2. If this supremacie of Majestie was in people before they have a King then 1. they lose it not by a voluntary choise of a King for a King is chosen for good and not for the peoples losse ergo they must retain this power in habite and potency even when they have a King 2. Then supremacy of Majesty is not a beame of Divinity proper to a King only 3. Then the people having Royall soveraignty vertually in them make and so unmake a King all which the Prelate denyeth This supreme Law saith the Prelate begging it from Spalato Arnisaeus Grotius advance the
Apostles have used this rod of censure and rebuke as servants under God against Kings this is a sort of spirituall coaction of Lawes put in execution by men and by due proportion corporall coaction being the same ordinance of God though of another nature must have the like power over all whom the Law of God hath not excepted but Gods Law excepteth none at all 3. It is presumed that God hath not provided better for the safety of the part then of the whole especially when he maketh the part a meane for the safety of the whole But if God have provided that the King who is a part of the Common-wealth shall be free of all punishment though he be a habituall destroyer of the whole Kingdome seeing God hath given him to be a Father Tutor Saviour Defender thereof and destinated him as a meane for their safety then must God have worse not better provided for the safety of the whole then of the part The Proposition is cleare in that God Rom. 13. 4. 1 Tim. 2. 2. hath ordained the Ruler and given to him the sword to defend the whole Kingdome and City but we read no where that the Lord hath given the sword to the whole Kingdome to defend one man a King though a Ruler come going on in a Tyrannicall way of destroying all his subjects The assumption is evident for then the King turning Tyrant might set an Army of Turkes Jewes cruell Papists to destroy the Church of God without all feare of Law or punishment Yea this is contrary to the doctrine of Royalists for Winzetus adversus Buchananum p. 275. saith of Nero that he seeking to destroy the Senate and people of Rome and seeking to make new lawes for himselfe excidit jure Regni lost right to the Kingdome And Barclaiâ—s advers Monarcho-Machous l. 3. c. ult p. 212 213. saith A Tyrant such as Caligula spoliare se jure Regni spoileth himselfe of the right to the Crown And in that same place Regem si regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit regno cadere If the King sell his Kingdome he loseth the title to the Crown Grotius de jure belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7 Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur amittit regnum If he turne Enemie to the Kingdome for their destruction he loseth his Kingdome because saith he Voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi simul consistere non possunt A will or minde to governe and to destroy cannot consist together in one Now if this be true that a King turning Tyrant loseth title to the Crown this is either a falling from his Royall title only in Gods court or it is a losing of it before men and in the court of his Subjects If the former be said 1. He is no King having before God lost his Royall title and yet the people is to obey him as the Minister of God and a power from God when as he is no such thing 2. In vaine doe these Authors provide remedies to save the people from a Tyrannous waster of the people if they speake of a Tyrant who is no King in Gods court only and yet remaineth a King to the people in regard of the Law for the places speake of Remedies that God hath provided against Tyrants cum titulo such as are lawfull Kings but turn Tyrants Now by this they provide no remedie at all if only in Gods court and not in Mans court also a Tyrant lose his title As for Tyrants sine titulo such as usurpe the throne and have no just claime to it Barclaius adver Monarcho-Ma l. 4. c. 10. p. 268. saith Any private man may kill him as a publike enemie of the State but if he lose his title to the Crown in the court of Men then is there 1. a Court on Earth to judge the King and so he is under the coactive power of a Law 2. Then a King may be resisted and yet those who resist them doe not incurre damnation the contrary where of Royalists endeavour to prove from Rom. 13. 3. Then the people may un-king one who was a King But 4. I would know who taketh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from him whereby he is a King that beame of Divine majestie Not the people because Royalists say they neither can give nor take away Royall dignitie and so they cannot un-king him 4. The more Will be in the consent saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 1. c. 41. the obligation is the stricter So doubled words saith the Law l. 1. § 13. n. 13. oblige more strictly And all lawes of Kings who are rationall fathers and so lead us by Lawes as by rationall meanes to peace and externall happinesse are contracts of King and People Omnis lex sponsio contractus Reip. § 1. Iust de ver relig Now the King at his Coronation-covenant with the people giveth a most intense consent an Oath to be a keeper and preserver of all good Laws and so hardly he can be freed from the strictest obligation that Law can impose And if he keep Lawes by office he is a meane to preserve Lawes and no meane can bee superior and above the end but inferior thereunto 5. Bodine proveth de Rep. l. 2. c. 5. p. 221. that Emperors at first were but Princes of the Commonwealth and that Soveraigntie remained still in the Senate and people Marius Salomonius a learned Romane Civilian wrote sixe bookes de Principatu to refute the supremacie of Emperors above the State Ferd. Vasq illust quest part 1. l. 1. n. 21. proveth that the Prince by Royall dignitie leaveth not off to be a Citizen a member of the Politique body and not a King but a Keeper of Lawes Hence 6. The Prince remaineth even being a Prince a sociall creature a Man as well as a King one who must buy sell promise contract dispose Ergo he is not Regula regulans but under rule of law for impossible it is if the King can in a politicall way live as a member of societie and doe and performe acts of policie and so performe them as he may by his office buy and not pay promise and vow and sweare to men and not performe nor be obliged to men to render a reckoning of his Oath and kill and destroy and yet in Curia politicae societatis in the Court of humane policie be free and that he may give inheritances as just rewards of vertue and well-doing and take them away againe Yea seeing these sinnes that are not punishable before men are not sinnes before men If all the sinnes and oppressions of a Prince be so above the punishment that men can inflict they are not sinnes before men by which meanes the King is loosed from all guiltinesse of the sinnes against the Second Table for the ratio formalis the formall reason why the Iudge by warrant from God condemneth in the Court of men the guilty man is
with the wine of the Cup of Babells fornications are so madde and the ten Emperours are so madde who wasted their faithfullest subjects P. Prelate If there be such a power in the Peeres resumable in the exigent of necessity as the last necessary remedy for safety of Church and State God and nature not being deficient in things necessary it must be proved out of the Scripture and not taken on trust for Affirmanti incumbit probatio Ans Mr. Bishop what better is your Affirmanti incumbit c then mine for you are the affirmer I can prove a power in the King limited onely to feed governe and save the people and you affirme that God hath given to the King not only a power officiall and Royall to save but also to destroy and cut off so as no man may say Why doest thou this Shall we take this upon the word of an excommunicated Prelate Profer tabulas Iohn P. P. I beleeve you not Royall power is Deut. 17. 18. Rom. 3. 14. I am sure there is there a power given to the King to doe good and that from God Let John P. P. prove a power to doe ill given of God to the King 2. We shall quickly prove that the States may represse this power and punish the Tyrant not the King when he shall prove that a Tyrannous power is an Ordinance of God and so may not be resisted For the law of Nature teacheth If I give my sword to my fellow to defend me from the murtherer if he shall fall to and murther me with my own sword I may if I have strength take my sword from him Prelate It is infidelitie to thinke that God cannot helpe us and impatience that we will not wait on God When a King oppresseth us it is against Gods wisdome that he hath not provided another meane for our safetie than intrusion on Gods right 2. It is against Gods power 3. his Holinesse 4. Christian Religion that we necessitate God to so weake a meane to make use of sinne and we cast the aspersion of Treason on Religion and deterre Kings to professe Reformed Catholike Religion 5. We are not to justle God out of his right Ans I see nothing but what D. Ferne Grotius Barclay Blackwood have said before with some colour of proving the consequence The P. Prelate giveth us other mens arguments but without bones All were good if the States coercing and curbing a power which God never gave to the King were a sinne and an act of impatience and unbelief And if it were proper to God only by his immediate hand to coerce Tyrannie 2. He calleth it not Protestant Religion either here or elsewhere but cautelously giveth a name that will agree to the Roman Catholique Religion For the Dominicans Franciscans and the Parisian Doctors and Schoolemen following Occham Gerson Almain and other Papists call themselves Reformed Catholiques 2. He layeth this for a ground in 3 or 4 pages where these same Arguments are againe and againe repeated in terminis as his second Reason p. 149. was handled ad nauseam p. 148. his 3. Reason is repeated in his 6. Reason p. 151. He layeth I say down this ground which is the begged Conclusion and maketh the Conclusion the Assumption in 8 raw and often repeated Arguments to wit That the Parliaments coercing and restraining of Arbitrarie power is rebellion and resisting the Ordinance of God But he dare not looke the place Rom. 13. on the face other Royalists have done it with bad successe This I desire to be weighed â—â—d I retort the Prelates argument But it is indeed the triviall Argument of all Royalists especially of Barclay obvious in his 3. Booke If Arbitrarie and Tyrannicall power above any Law that the lawfull Magistrate commandeth under the paine of death Thou shalt not murther one man Thou shalt not take away the vineyard of one Naboth violently be lawfull and warrantable by Gods word then an Arbitrarie power above all Divine lawes is given to the keeping of the Civill Magistrate And it is no lesse lawfull Arbitrarie or rather Tyrannicall power for David to kill all his Subjects and to plunder all Jerusalem as I beleeve Prelates and Malignants and Papists would serve the three Kingdomes if the King should command them then to kill one Vriah or for Achab to spoile one Naboth The essence of sinne must agree alike to all though the degrees varie Of Gods remedie against Arbitrary power hereafter in the Question of Resistance but the confused ingine of the Prelate bringeth it in here where there is no place for it His 7. Argument is Before God would authorize Rebellion and give a bad president thereof for ever he would rather worke extraordinary and wonderfull miracles and therefore would not authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Mosesâ— Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a stretched-out arme nor did the Lord deliver his people by the wisdome oâ— Moses or strength of the people or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and power Ans I reduce the Prelates confused words to a few for I speake not of his Popish tearme of Saint Steven and others the like because all that he hath said in a book of 149 pages might have been said in three sheets of paper But I pray you what is this Argument to the Question in hand which is Whether the King be so above all Lawes as People and Peeres in the case of Arbitrarie power may resume their power and punish a Tyrant The P. Prelate draweth in the Question of Resistance by the haire Israels not rising in armes against K. Pharaoh proveth nothing against the power of a Free Kingdome against a Tyrant 1. Moses who wrought miracles destructive to Pharaoh might pray a vengeance against Pharaoh God having revealed to Moses that Pharaoh was a Reprobate But may Ministers and Nobles pray so against King Charles God forbid 2. Pharaoh had not his Crown from Israel 3. Pharaoh had not sworne to defend Israel nor became he their King upon condition he should maintaine and professe the Religion of the God of Israel Therefore Israel could not as free Estates challenge him in their supreme Court of Parliament of breach of oath and upon no termes could they un-king Pharaoh He held not his Crown of them 4. Pharaoh was never circumcised nor within the Covenant of the God of Isrdel in profession 5. Israel had their lands by the meere gift of the King I hope the King of Britaine standeth to Scotland and England in a fourefold contrary relation All Divines know that Pharaoh his Princes and the Egyptians were his Peeres and People â—nd that Israel were not his native Subjects but a number of strangers who by the lawes of the King and Princes by the meanes of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and libertie to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their
bondage Exod. 2. 23 24. and they were not to serve the Gods of Egypt nor were of the Kings Religion And therefore his Argument is thus A number of poore exiled strangers under King Pharaoh who were not Pharaohs Princes and Peeres could not restraine the Tyrannie of King Pharaoh Ergo the three Estates in a free Kingdome may not restraine the Arbitrarie power of a King 2. The Prelate must prove that God gave a Royall and Kingly power to King Pharaoh due to him by vertue of his Kingly calling according as Royalists expone 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. to kill all the male children of Israel to make slaves of themselves and compell them to worke in brick and clay while their lives were a burden to them And that if a Romish Catholique Mary of England should kill all the male Children of Protestants by the hands of Papists at the Queenes commandement and make bondslaves of all the Peeres Iudges and three Estates who made her a free Princesse yet notwithstanding that Mary had sworne to maintaine the Protestant Religion they were to suffer and not to defend themselves But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Israel so as they could not controll it then God giveth to a King a Royall power by office to sinne only the Royalist saveth God from being the author of sinne in this that God gave the power to sinne but yet with this limitation that the Subjects should not resist this power 2. He must prove that Israel was to give their Male-children to Pharaohs Butchers for to hide them was to resist a Royall power and to disobey a Royall power given of God is to disobey God 3. The Subjects may not resist the Kings Butchers coming to kill them and their Male-children For to resist the servant of the King in that wherein he is a servant is to resist the King 1 Sam. 8. 7. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Rom. 13. 1. 4. He must prove that upon the supposition That Israel had been as strong as Pharaoh and his people that without Gods speciall commandment they then wanting the written Word they should have sought with Pharaoh and that we now for all wars must have a word from Heaven as if we had not Gods perfit Will in his Word as at that time Israel behoved to have in all wars Judg. 18. 5. 1 Sam. 14. 37. Esa 30. 2. Iere. 38. 37. 1 King 22. 5. 1 Sam. 30. 5. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 23. 2. 2 Sam. 16. 23. 1 Chron. 10. 14. But because God gave not them an answer to fight against Pharaoh therefore we have no warrant now to fight against a forraign Nation invading us the consequence is null and therefore this is a vain Argument The Prophets never reprove the people for not performing the duty of defensive wars against Tyrannous Kings Ergo There is no such dutie enjoyned by any Law of God to us For the Prophets never rebuke the people for non-performing the dutie of offensive wars against their enemies but where God gave a speciall command and responce from his own Oracle that they should fight And if God was pleased never to command the people to rise against a Tyrannous King they did not sin where they had no commandment of God but I hope we have now a more sure word of prophecie to inform us 5. The Prelate conjectureth Moses his miraeles and the deliverance of the people by dividing the Red Sea was to forbid and condemn defensive wars of people against their King but he hath neither Scripture nor Reasons to do it The end of these miracles was to Seal to Pharaoh the Truth of Gods calling of Moses and Aaron to deliver the people as is clear Exod. 4. 1 2 3 4. compared with Chap. 7. vers 8 9 10. And that the Lord might get to himself a name on all the earth Rom. 9 17. Exod. 9. 16. and 13. 13 14. and 15. 1 2 3. seq But of the Prelates conjecturall end the Scripture is silent and we cannot take an excommunicated mans word What I said of Pharaoh who had noâ—â—is Crown from Israel that I say of Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of Persia keeping the people of God captive P. Prelate So in the Book of the Judges when the people were delivered over to the hand of their enemies because of their sins he never warranted the ordinary Iudges or Communitie to be their own deliverers but when they repented God raised up a Iudge The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon God effected it by Cyrus immediately and totally Is not this a reall proof God will not have inferiour Iudges to rectifie what is amisse but we must waite in patience till God provide lawfull means some Soveraign power immediately sent by himself in which course of his ordinary providence he will not be deficient Answ All this is beside the question and proveth nothing lesse then that Peers and Communitie may not resume their power to curbe an Arbitrary power For in the first case there is neither Arbitrary nor lawfull supreme Iudge 2. If the first prove any thing it proveth That it was rebellion in the inferiour Iudges and Communitie of Israel to fight against forraign Kings not set over them by God and that offensive wars against any Kings whatsoever because they are Kings though strangers are unlawfull Let Socinians and Anabaptists consider if the P. Prelate help not them in this and may prove all wars to be unlawfull 3. He is so Malignant to all inferiour Iudges as if they were not powers sent of God and to all Governours that are not Kings and so upholders of Prelates and of himself as he conceiveth that by his arguing he will have all deliverance by Kings onely the onely lawfull means in ordinary providenâ—â— and so Aristocracy and Democracy except in Gods extraordinary providence and by some divine dispensation must be extraordinary and ordinarily unlawfull 2. The Acts of a State when a King is dead and they choose another shall be an Anticipating of Gods providence 3. If the King be a childe a captive or distracted and the Kingdom oppressed with Malignants they are to waite while God immediately from Heaven create a King to them as he did Saul long ago But have we now Kings immediately sent as Saul was 1. How is the spirit of Prophecie and Government infused in them as in King Saul Or are they by propheticall inspiration anointed as David was I conceive their calling to the throne on Gods part do differ as much from the calling of Saul and David in some respect as the calling of ordinary Pastors who must be gifted by industry and learning and called by the Church and the calling of Apostles 4. God would deliver his people from Babylon by moving the heart of Cyrus immediately the people having no hand in it not so much as supplicating Cyrus Ergo The People and Peers who made the King cannot curb his
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.
of the man who is King be to resist the King and the ordinance of God we say no Nor doe we deny the King abusing his power in unjust acts to remaine King and the Minister of God whose person for his royall office and his Royall Office both are to be honoured reverenced and obeyed God forbid that we should doe so as the sonnes of Belial imputing to us the doctrine of Anabaptists and the doctrine falsely imputed to Wicliffe That Dominion is founded upon supernaturall grace and that a Magistrate being in the state of mortall sin cannot be a lawfull Magistrate we teach no such thing The P. Prelate sheweth us his sympathy with Papists and that he buildeth the Monuments and Sepulchres of the slaine and murthered Prophets when he refusing to open his mouth in the Gates for the righteous professeth he will not purge the Witnesses of Christ the Waldenses and Wicliffe and Husse of these notes of disloyalty but that these acts proceeding from this roote of bitternesse the abused power of a King should be acknowledged with obedience active or passive in these unjust acts we deny 1. Assert It is evident from Rom. 13. That all subjection and obedience to higher powers commanded there is subjection to the power and office of the Magistrate in abstracto or which is all one to the person using the power lawfully and that no subjection is due by that text or any Word of God to the abused and Tyrannicall power of the King which I evince from the Text and from other Scriptures 1. Because the Text saith Let every soule be subject to the higher powers But no powers commanding things unlawfull and killing the innocent people of God can be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 higher powers but in that lower powers 1. He that commandeth not what God commandeth and punisheth and killeth where God is personally and immediatly present would neither command nor punish is not in these acts to be subjected unto and obeyed as a superiour power though in habit he may remaine a superiour power for all habituall all actuall superiority is a formall participation of the power of the most high 2. Arnisaeus well saith That of Aristotle must be true It is against nature that better and worthier men should be in subjection to unworthier and more wicked men but in this when Magistrates command wickednesse and killeth the innocent the non-obeyers eatenus in so far are worthier the commanders whatever they be in habite and in office actually or in these wicked acts are unworthier and inferiour and the non-obeyers are in that worthier as being zealous adherents to Gods Command and not to mans will I desire not to be mistaken if we speake of habituall excellency godly and holy men as the Witnesses of Christ in things lawfull are to obey wicked and Infidell Kings and Emperours but in that these wicked Kings have an excellency in respect of office above them but when they command things unlawfull and kill the innocent They doe it not by vertue of any office and so in that they are not higher powers but lower and weak ones Laertius doth explain Aristotle well who defineth a Tyrant by this That he commandeth his subjects by violence and Arnisaeus condemneth Laertius for this Because one Tyrannicall action doth no more constitute a Tyrant then one unjust action doth constitute an unjust man But he may condemne as he doth indeed for this also Covarruvias pract quest c. 1. and Vasquez Illustr quest l. 1. c. 47. nu 1. 12. for this is essentiall to a Tyrant to command and rule by violence If a lawfull Prince doe one or more acts of a Tyrant he is not a Tyrant for that yet his action in that is Tyrannicall and he doth not that as a King but in that act as a sinfull man having something of Tyrannie in him 2. The Powers Rom. 13. 1. that are ordained of God as their author and efficient But Kings commanding unjust things and killing the innocent in these acts are but men and sinfull men and the power by which they doe these acts a sinfull and an usurped power and so far they are not powers ordained of God according to his revealed Will which must rule us Now the authoritie and officiall power in abstracto is ordained of God as the Text saith and other Scriptures doe evidence And this Polititians doe cleare while they distinguish betwixt jus Personae and jus Coronae the power of the Person and the power of the Crown and Royall office They must then be two different things 3. He that resisteth the power that is the officiall power and the King as King and commanding in the Lord resisteth the Ordinance of God and Gods lawfull constitution v. 2. But he who resisteth the Man who is the King commanding that which is against God and killing the innocent resisteth no ordinance of God but an ordinance of Sin and Sathan for a man commanding unjustly and ruling Tyrannically hath in that no power from God 4. They that resist the power and Royall office of the King in things just and right shall receive to themselves damnation ver 3. but they that resist that is refuse for Conscience to obey the man who is the King and choose to obey God rather then men as all the Martyrs did shall receive to themselves salvation And the 80 valiant men the Priests who used bodily violence against King Vzzahs person and thrust him out of the house of the Lord from offering incense to the Lord which belonged to the Priest only received not damnation to themselves but salvation in doing Gods will and in resisting the Kings wicked will Arg. 5. The lawfull Ruler as a Ruler and in respect of his office is not to be resisted because he is not a terrour to good workes but to evill and no man who doth Good is to be afraid of the Office or the Power but to expect praise and a reward of the same v. 3. But the man who is a King may command an idolatrous and superstitious Worship send an Army of Cut-throats against them because they refuse that Worship and may reward Papists Prelates and other corrupt men and may advance them to places of State and Honour because they kneele to a Tree-Altar pray to the East adore the letters and sound of the word Jesus teach and write Arminianisme And may imprison deprive confine cut the eares and rip the noses and burne the faces of those who speake and preach and write the truth of God and may send Armies of Cut-throats Irish Rebels and other Papists and malignant Atheists to destroy and murther the Iudges of the Land and innocent defenders of the Reformed Religion c. The Man I say in these acts is a terrour to Good workes an incouragement to Evill And those that doe Good are to be afraid of the King and to expect no praise but punishment and vexation from him Ergo this
reason in the Text will prove that the Man who is the King in so far as he doth these things that are against his office may be resisted and that in these we are not to be subject but only we are to be subject to his power and Royall authoririe in abstracto in so farre as according to his office he is not a terrour to good workes but to evill 6. The lawfull Ruler is the minister of God or the servant of God for Good to the Commonwealth And to resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and using the power that he hath from his Master is to resist the Lord his Master v. 4. But the man who is the King commanding unjust things and killing the innocent in these acts is not the minister of God for the Good of the Commonwealth he serveth himselfe and Papists and Prelates for the destruction of Religion Lawes and Commonwealth therefore the Man may be resisted by this Text when the office and power cannot be resisted 7. The Ruler as the Ruler and the nature and intrinsecall end of the office is that he beare Gods sword as an avenger to execute wrath on him that doth evill v. 4. and so cannot be resisted without sinne But the man who is the Ruler and commandeth things unlawfull and killeth the innocent carieth the Papists and Prelates sword to execute not the righteous judgement of the Lord upon the ill-doer but his own private revenge upon him that doth well Ergo the Man may be resisted the Office may not be resisted and they must be two different things 8. We must needs be subject to the Royall office for conscience v. 5. by reason of the fifth Commandement But we must not needs be subject to the man who is King if he command things unlawfull for D. Ferne warranteth us to resist if the Ruler invade us sodainly 2. Without colour of Law or Reason 3. Vnavoydably And Winzetus and Barclay and Grotius as before I cited give us leave to resist a King turning a cruell Tyrant But Paul Rom. 13. forbiddeth us to resist the Power in Abstracto Ergo it must be the Man in concreto that we must resist 9. Those we may not resist to whom we owe tribute as a reward of the onerous worke on which they as Ministers of God doe attend continually But we owe not tribute to the King as a man for then should we be addebted tribute to all men but as a King to whom the wages of tribute is due as to a Princely workman a King as a King ergo the Man and the King are different 10. We owe fear and honour as due to be rendred to the man who is King because he is a King not because he is a man for it is the highest feare and honour due to any mortall man which is due to the King as King 11. The Man and the inferiour Judge are different and we cannot by this Text resist the inferiour Iudge as a Iudge but we resist the ordinance of God as the Text proveth But Cavaliers resist the inferior Iudges as men and have killed divers members of both Houses of Parliament but they will not say that they killed them as Judges but as Rebels If therefore to be a Rebell as a wicked Man and to be a Iudge are differenced thus then to be a Man and to commit some acts of Tyrannie and to be the supreme Iudge and King are two different things 12. Mr. Knox Hist of Scotland l. 2. The Congregation in a letter to the Nobilitie say There is great difference betwixt the Authoritie which is Gods Ordinance and the Persons of those who are placed in authoritie The Authoritie and Gods ordinances can never doe wrong for it commandeth that Vice and wicked men be punished and Vertue with vertuous men and just be maintained But the corrupt Person placed in this Authoritie may offend and most commonly doe contrary to this Authoritie and is then the corruption of Man to be followed by reason that it is clothed with the name of Authoritie And they give instance in Pharaoh and Saul who were lawfall Kings and yet corrupt Men. And certainly the Man and the Divine authoritie differ as the Subject and the Accident as that which is under a Law and can offend God and that which is neither capable of Law nor sinne 13. The King as King is a just creature and by office a living and breathing Law His Will as he is King is nothing but a just Law But the King as a sinfull man is not a just creature but one who can sinne and play the Tyrant and his Will as a private sinfull man is a private Will and may be resisted So the Law saith The King as King can doe no wrong but the King as a Man may doe a wrong While as then the Parliaments of both Kingdomes resist the Kings private will as a Man and fight against his illegall Cut-throats sent out by him to destroy his native subjects they fight for him as a King and obey his publick Legall will which is his Royall will de jure and while he is absent from his Parliaments as a man he is Legally and in his Law-Power present and so the Parliaments are as Legall as if he were personally present with them Let me answer Royalists The P. Prelate saith it is Solomons word By me Kings raign Kings in concreto with their Soveraignty he saith not By me Royalty or Soveraignty raigneth And elsewhere he saith that Barclay saith Paul writing to the Romans keepeth the Roman usuall diction in this who expresse by Powers in abstracto the persons authorized by Power and it is the soriptures Dialect By him were created thrones Dominions Principalities that is Angels to say Angels in abstracto were created 2 Pet. 2. 10. They speak ill of dignities Iud. 8. dispise dominion That is they speak ill of Cajus Caligula Nero our Levites rail against the Lords Anoynted the best of Kings in the world Nero Rom. 13. 4. in concreto beareth not the sword in vain Arnisaeus saith it better then the Prelate he is a witlesse theef Rom. 13. 4. the Royall Power in abstracto doth not bear the sword but the Person not the Power but the Prince himself beareth the sword And the Prelate poor man following Doctor Fern saith It s absurd to pursue the Kings Person with a canon-bullet at Edge-hill and preserve his authority at London or elsewhere So saith Fern 16. sect 10. pag. 64. The concret Powers here are purposed as objects of our obedience which cannot be directed but upon power in some person for it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the powers that are are of God now Power cannot be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existent but in some person and Pag. 69. saith Fern can Power in the abstract have praise Or is tribute payed to the Power in the abstract Yea the Power is the reason why
where the King ought not to be as Abner was worthy of death who watched not carefully King Saul but slept when David came to his bed side and had opportunity to kill the King they are Traitors and murtherers of the King who either counselled his Majesty to come to Edge-hill where the danger was so grett or did not violently restraine him from comming thither seeing Kings safety and lives are as much yea more in the disposing of the people then in their owne private will 2 Sam. 18. 2 3. for certainly the people might have violently restrained King Saul from killing himselfe and the King was guilty of his own death and sinneth against his Office and subjects who commeth out in person to any such battles where he may be killed and the contrary party free of his blood And here our Prelate is blind if he see not the cleare difference between the Kings Person and the Office as he is King and between his private Will and his publicke and Royall Will 3. The Angels may be named Thrones and Dominions in abstracto and yet created in concreto and we may say the Angell and his power are both created at once but David was not both borne the Son of Iesse and a King at once and the P. Prelate by this may prove it is not lawfull to resist the Divell for he is of the number of these created Angells Col. 1. as he is a Divell because in resisting the Divell as a Divell we must resist an Angell of God and a Principality 4. To speake ill of dignities 2 Pet. 2. and Iud. 8. Piscator insinuateth is to speake evill of the very Office of Rulers as well as of their manners and Theodat saith on 2 Pet. 2. that these Raylers spake evill of the place of Governours and Masters as unbâ—seeming beleevers All our Interpreters as Beza Calvin Luther Bucer Marloratus from the place saith It is a speciall reproofe of Anabaptists and Libertines who in that time maintained that we are all free men in Christ and that there should not be Kings Masters nor any Magistrates however the abstract is put for the concrete its true and it saith we are not to raile upon Nero but to say Nero was a persecutor of Christians and yet obey him commanding what is just are very consistent 5. The persons are proposed Rom. 13. to be the object of our obedience saith D. Ferne it is very true but he is ignorant of our mind in exponing the word Person we never meant that feare honour royalty tribute must be due to the abstracted accident of Kingly Authority and not to the man who is King Nor is it our meaning that Royalty in abstracto is Crowned King and is anoynted but that the Person is crowned and anoynted But againe by a person we meane nothing lesse then the man Nero wasting Rome burning crucifying Paul and torturing Christians and that we owe subjection to Nero and to his person in concreto as to Gods ordinance Gods Minister Gods sword-bearer in that notion of a Person is that only that we deny Nay in that Nero in concreto to us is no Power ordained of God no Minister of God but a Minister of the Divell and Sathans armour-bearer and therefore we owe not feare honour subjection and tribute to the Person of Nero. But the Person thus far is the object of our obedience that feare honour subjection and tribute must be due to the man in concreto to his Person who is Prince but not because he is a man or a person simply or a sword bearer of Papists but for his office for that eminent place of royall dignity that God hath conferred on his Person We know the light of the Sun the heate of fire in abstracto doe not properly give light and heat but the Sun and fire in concreto yet the principium quo ratio qua the principles of these operations in Sun and fire be light heate and we ascribe illuminating of dark bodies heating of cold bodies to Sun and fire in concreto yet not to the subjects simply but to them as affected with such accidents so here we honour and submit to the man who is King not because he is a man that were treason not because he useth his sword against the Church that were impiety but because of his Royall Dignity and because he useth it for the Lord. It is true Arnisaeus Barclay Ferne say That Kings leave not off to be Kings when they use their power and sword against the Church and Religion And also it is considerable that when the worst of Emperors bloody Nero did raigne the Apostle presseth the duty of subjection to him as to a power appointed of God and condemneth the resisting of Nero as the resisting of an ordinance of God And certainely if the cause and reason in point of duty Morall and of conscience before God remaine in Kings to wit that while they are enemies and persecutors as Nero was their Royall Dignity given them of God remaineth then subjection upon that ground is lawfull and resistance unlawfull Ans It is true so long as Kings remaine Kings subjection is due to them because Kings but that is not the question But the question is if subjection be due to them when they use their power unlawfully and Tyrannically What ever David did though he was a King he did it not as King he deflowred not Bathsheba as King and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted King David though Kingly Power remained in him while he should thus attempt to commit Adultery else David might have said to Bathshba Because I am the Lords Anoynted it is rebellion in thee a subject to oppose any bodily violence to my act of forcing of thee it is unlawfull to thee to cry for helpe for if any shall offer violently to rescue thee from me he resisteth the ordinance of God Subjection is due to Nero as an Emperour but not any subjection is due to him in the burning of Rome and torturing of Christians except you say that Nero's power abused in these acts of cruelty was 1. A power from God 2. An ordinance of God 3. That in these he was the Minister of God for the good of the Common-wealth Because some beleeved Christians were free from the yoake of Magistracy and that the dignity it selfe was unlawfull And 2. because ch 12. he had set downe the lawfull Church Rulers and in this and the following chapter the duties of brotherly love of one toward another So here ch 13. he teacheth that all Magistrates suppose Heathen are to be obeyed and submitted unto in all things so far as they are Ministers of God Arnisaeus objecteth to Buchan If we are by this place to subject our selves to every power in abstracto then also to a power contrary to the truth and to a power of a King exceeding the limits of a King for such a power
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
18. 4 5 6 7. 2. They may prove that people sought by a Tyrant to be crucifyed for the Cause of God or to reveale and discover themselves to an Armie of men who come to seek them Ioh. 13. 1 2. Ioh. 18. 4 5 6 7. 3. That Martyrs are of purpose to goe to the place where they know they shall be apprehended and put to death for this Christ did and are willingly to offer themselves to the enemies Armie for so did Christ Ioh. 14. 3. Mar. 14. 41 42. Mat. 26. 46 47. and so by his example all the Parliament all the Innocents of the Citie of London and Assemblie of Divines are obliged to lay downe Armes and to goe to their owne death to Prince Rupert and the bloody Irish Rebels 4. By this example it is unlawfull to resist the cut-throats of a King for Cesar in his owne Royall person the High Priest in person came not out against Christ Yea it is not lawfull for the Parliament to resist a Iudas who hath fled as a traiterous Apostate from the Truth and the Temple of Christ 5. It is not lawful for innocents to defend themselves by any violence against the invasion of superiours in D. Fernes three cases in which he alloweth resistance 1. When the Invasion is sudden 2. Vnavoidable 3. Without all colour of Law and Reason In the two last cases Royalists defend the lawfulnes of self-defence 6. If the example be pressed Christ did not this and this he resisted not with violence to save his owne life therefore we are to abstaine from resistance and such and such meanes of self-preservation then because Christ appealed not from inferiour Judges to the Emperour Caesar who no doubt would have shewne him more favour then the Scribes and Pharisees did and because Christ conveyed not a humble supplication to his Soveraigne and Father Caesar then because he proffered not a humble petition to Prince Pilate for his life he being an innocent man and his cause just because he neither conduced an Orator to pleade his owne just cause nor did he so plead for himselfe and give in word and writ all lawfull and possible defences for his own safety but answered many things with silence to the admiration of the Judge Marke 15. 3 4. 5. and was thrice pronounced by the Judge to be innocent Luke 22. ver 23. because I say Christ did not all these for his owne life therefore it is unlawfull for Scotland and England to appeale to the King to supplicate to give in Appologiâ—s c. I thinke Royalists dare not say so But if they say he would not resist and yet might have done all these lawfully because these be lawfull meanes and resistance with the sword unlawfull because He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword Let me Answer then 1. They leave the argument from Christs example who was thus farre subject to higher powers that he would not resist and plead from the unlawfulnesse of resistance this is petitio principii 2. He that taketh the sword without Gods warrant which Peter had not but the contrary he was himselfe a Sathan to Christ who would but councell him not to die but there is no shadow of a word to prove that violent resisting is unlawfull when the King and his Irish cut-throats pursue us unjustly onely Christ saith when God may deliver extraordinarily by his Angels except it be his absolute will that his Son should drink the cup of death then to take the sword when God hath declared his will on the contrary is unlawfull and that is all Though I doe not question but Christs asking for swords and his arresting all his enemies to the ground Ioh. 18. 6. backward is a justifying of selfe-defence But hit herto it is cleare by Christs example that he onely was commanded to suffer Now the second case in which suffering falleth under a Commandement is indirectly and comparatively when it commeth to the election of the witnesse of Jesus that it is referred to them either to deny the truth of Christ and his name or then to suffer death the choise is apparently evident and this choise that persecuters referre us unto is to us a Commandement of God that we must choose suffering for Christ and refuse sinning against Christ but the supposition must stand that this alternative is unavoydable that is not in our power to decline either suffering for Christ or denying of Christ before men otherwayes no man is to expect the reward of a witnesse of Iesus who having a lawfull possible meanes of eschewing suffering doth yet cast himselfe into suffering needlesly But I prove that suffering by men of this world falleth not formally and directly under any divine positive Law for the Law of nature what ever Arminians in their Declaration or this Arminian excommunicate think with them for they teach that God gave a Commandement to Adam to abstaine from such and such fruit with paine and trouble to sinlesse nature doth not command suffering or any thing contrary to nature as nature is sinlesse I prove it thus 1. What ever falleth under a positive Commandement of God I may say here under any Commandement of God is not a thing under the free will and power of others from whom we are not discended necessarily by naturall generation but that men of the world kill me even these from whom I am not discended by naturall generation which I speake to exclude Adam who killed all his posterity is not in my free will either as if they had my common nature in that act or as if I were accessory by counsell consent or approbation to that act for this is under the free-will and power of others not under my owne free-will Ergo that I suffer by others is not under my free-will and cannot fall under a Commandement of God And certainly it is an irrationall Law glorified be his name that God should command Antipas either formally to suffer or formally not to suffer death by these of the Synagogue of Sathan Revel 2. 13. because if they be pleased not to kill him it is not in his free-will to be killed by them and if they shall have him in their power except God extraordinarily deliver it is not in his power in an ordinary providence not to be killed 2. All these places of Gods word that recommendeth suffering to the followers of Christ do not command formally that we suffer Ergo suffering falleth not formally under any Commandement of God I prove the Antecedent because if they be considered they prove only that comparatively we are to choose rather to suffer then to deny Christ before men Mat. 10 28 32. Revel 2. 13. Mat. 10. 37. Mat. 16. 24. c. 19. 29. or then they command not suffering according to the substance of the passion but according to the manner that we suffer willingly cheerfully and patiently Hence Christs word to take up his Crosse
put us to flee even all Protestants and their seed and the weak and sick whom we are obliged to defend as our selves both by the Law of nature and grace I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God to dwell there but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestantâ— their seed aged sick sucking children should flee out of England Scotland Ireland and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists Prelates and bloody Irish and Atheists and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land violent re-offending is their second mean next to supplications and declarations c. and flight is not required of them as of a private man Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation violent and unjust invasion of a private man which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book or rather the idolatry of the Masse therein intended was unavoidable it was unpossible for the Protestants their old and sick their women and sucking children to flee over sea or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book Althusius saith well Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee but the estates if they flee they do not their duty to commit a country religion and all to a Lion Let not any oâ—ject we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy Psal 2. 8 9. Isa 49. 1. it is true if the way be our own sinfull way nor let any object a Colony went to New-England and fled the persecution Answer True but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication there was no more reason that one Colony should go to New-England then it is necessary by a divine law obligatory that the wholâ— Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine are to leave their native country religion to one man to popish Idolators Atheists willing to worship idols with them and whethere then shall the Gospel be which we are obliged to defend with our lives 2. There is Tutela vitae proxima remota A meer and immediat defence of our life and a remote or mediat defence when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending David might have killed Saul whâ—n he was sleeping and when he cut off the lap of his garment but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed because he is the Lords Annoited as it is unlawfull to kill a man because he is the Image of God Gen. 96. except in case of necessity The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector thought his malefices do not put him in that case that he hath not now the image of God now prudency and light of grace determineth When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation it is not left to our pleasure In a remote posture of self-defence we are not to â—se violet re-offending David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actuall not inavoidable not a necessary mean in human prudence for self-preservation for King Saul was then in a habituall not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes Elders and judges of Israel or of a whole community and Church Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for religion or a nationall pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul it is no lesse unlawfull to threatten a King then to put hands on him and rather kill or be killed by Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissaries for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in three kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religious Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitrary or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the three Kingdoms to actuall killing rather then we be killed and suffer Lawes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Annoynted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans 1. David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without colour of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resisted and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he remaineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6. 9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe
have cut off the Philistims and as he defended in that case Gods Church and true Religion if he might not then have lawfully killed I say the Philistims I remit to the conscience of the Reader Now to us Papists and Prelates under the Kings banner are Philistims introducing the Idolatry of Bread-worship and Popery as hatefull to God as Dagon-worship 3. Saul intended no arbitrary government nor to make Israel a conquered people nor yet to cut off all that professed the true worship of God nor came Saul against these Princes Elders and people who made him King only Davids head would have made Saul lay downe Arms but Prelates and Papists and Malignants under the King intend to make the Kings sole will a Law to destroy the Court of Parliament which putteth Lawes in execution against their Idolatry and their ayme is that Protestants be a conquered people and their attempt hath been hitherto to blow up King and Parliament to cut off all Protestants and they are in Armes in divers parts of the Kingdome against the Princes of the Land who are no lesse Judges and deputies of the Lord then the King himselfe and would kill and do kill plunder and spoyle us if we kill not them And the case is every way now betweene Armies and Armies as betweene a single man unjustly invaded for his life and an unjust invader neither in a naturall action such as is self-defence is that of policy to be urged none can be Judge in his owne cause when oppression is manifest one may be both agent and patient as the fire and water conflicting there is no need of a judge a community casts not off nature when the judge is wanting nature is judge actor accused and all Lastly no man is Lord of his owne members of his body m. l. liber homo ff ad leg Aqui. nor Lord of his owne life but is to be accountable to God for it QUEST XXXII Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warres hath its warrant in Gods word from the example of David Elisha the eighty Priests who resisted Uzziah c DAvid defended himselfe against King Saul 1. by taking Goliahs sword with him 2. by being Captaine to six hundred men yea it is more then cleare 1 Chron. 12. that there came to David a hoast like the hoast of God v. 22. to help against Saul exceeding foure thousand v. 36. Now that this hoast came warrantably to help him against Saul I prove 1. because it is said ver 1. Now these are they that came to David to Ziglag while he kept himselfe close because of Saul the son of Kish and they were amongst the mighty men helpers of the warre and then so many mighty Captains are reckoned out v. 16. There came of the children of Benjamin and Iudah to the hold of David v. 19. And there fell some of Manasseh to David 20. As he went to Ziglag there fell to him of Manasseh Keâ—â—h and Jozabad Jediâ—l and Michael and Elihu and Zilthai Captaines of the thousands that were of Manasseh 21. And they helped David against the band of the rovers 22. At that time day by day there came to David untill it was a great hoast like the hoast of God Now the same expression that is ver 1. where it is said they came to help David against Saul which ver 1. is repeated ver 16. ver 19 20 21 22 23. 2. That they wartantably came is evident because 1. the Spirit of God commendeth them for their valor and skill in war ver 2. ver 8. ver 15. ver 21. which the Spirit of God doth not in unlawfull wars 2. Because Amasai v. 18. The Spirit of the Lord comming on him saith Thine are we David and on thy side thou son of Jesse peace peace unto thee and peace to thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee The Spirit of God inspireth no man to pray peace to those who are in an unlawfull warre 3. That they came to Davids side onely to be sufferers and to flee with David and not to pursue and offend is ridiculous 1. It is said ver 1. They came to David to Ziglag while he kept himselfe close because of Saul the son of Kish And they were amongst the mighty men helpers of the warre It is a scorne to say that their might and their helping in warre consisted in being meere patients with David and such as fled from Saul for they had beene on Sauls side before and to come with armour to flee is a mocking of the word of God 2. It is cleare the scope of the Spirit of God is to shew how God helped his innocent servant David against his persecuting Prince and Master King Saul in moving so many mighty men of warre to come in such multitudes all in Armes to help him in warre Now to what end would the Lord commend them as fit for Warre men of might fit to handle shield buckler whose faces are as the faces of Lyons as swift as the Roes on the Mountaines ver 8. and commend them as helpers of David if it were unlawfull for David and all those mighty men to carry Armes to pursue Saul and his followers and to doe nothing with their armour but flee Judge if the Spirit of God in reason could say All these men came armed with bowes ver 2. and could handle both the right hand and the left in slinging stones and shooting of arrowes and that ver 22. all these came to David being mighty men of valour and they came as Captains over hundreds and thousands they put to flight all them of the valleyes both toward the East and toward the West ver 14 15. and that David received them and made them Captains of the band if they did not come in a posture of warre and for hostile invasion if need were For if they came onâ—ly to suffer and to slee not to pursue Bowes Captaines and Captaines of Bands made by David and Davids helpers in the warre came not to help David by flying that was a hurt to David not a help It is true M. Symmons saiâ—h 1 Sam. 22. 2. Those that came out to David strengthened him but he strengthened not them and David might easily have revenged himselfe on the Ziphites who did good will to betray him to the hands of Saul if his conscience had served him Answ 1. This would inferre that these armed men came to help David against his conscience and that David was a patient in the businesse the contrary is in the Text 1 Sam. 26. 2. David became a Captaine over them and 1 Chron. 12. 17. If ye come peaceably to help me my heart shall be knit to you ver 18. Then David received them and made them Captains of the band 2. David might have revenged himselfe upon the Ziphites True but that Conscience hindred him cannot be proved To pursue an enemie is an act of a Councell of Warre and he saw
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
Parliaments and Estates of two Kingdomes Here what P. P. saith to the contrary 1. They are called eminent powers Ergo Kings only Answ It followeth not for these can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 2. 2. But these are not Kings but in the Text contradivided from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and they can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Principalities and powers 2. The reason of the Apostle proveth clearely that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot meane Kings onely for Paul addeth of that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there is no power but of God It must be there is no supereminent Royall power but it is of God and the powers Royall onely so he must meane that are are ordained of God Now this latter is manifestly false for inferiour powers are of God The power of the Roman Senate of a Master of a Father are of God P. Prelate Peter must expound Paul and Pauls higher powers must be 1 Pet. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More reason that Paul expound Paul Now 1 Tim. 2. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All in authority are not Kings P. Prelate Are of God or ordained of God cannot so properly be understood of subordinate powers for that is not by immediate derivation from God but immediately from the higher power the King and mediately from God Answ It is most false that King David is so immediatly a King from God as that he is not also by the mediation of the people who made him King at Hebron 2. The inferiour Magistrates are also immediate vicars and ministers of God as the King for their throne and judgement is not the Kings but the Lords Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 6. 3. Though they were mediatly from man it followeth not that they are not so properly from God for Wisdome Prov. 8. saith as properly ver 16. By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth as ver 15. By me Kings reigne and promotion is as properly from God and not from the East and the West Psal 75. 6 7. Though God promote Ioseph by the thanâ—full munificence of Pharaoh and Mordecai by Ahasuerus Daniel by Darius as if he gave them power and honour immediately from Heaven Prelat Learned Interpreters expound it so Answ It is an untruth for none expound it onely and principally of Kings Produce one Interpreter for that conceit Prelat Paul wrote this when Nero was Monarch Answ Then must the Text be expounded of Nero only 2. He wrote this when Nero played the Tyrant and persecuted Christians Ergo We are not to disobey Nero's now 3. He wrote it when the Senate of Rome had power to declare Nero an enemy not a Father as they did P. Prelat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to the Antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this There is no power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of God must undeniably inferre there is no supreme power but of God and so Soveraignty relates to God as his immediate author so Sectaries reason Gal. 2. 16. Not justified by works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by saith onely Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be a perfect exclusive else their strong hold for Iustification is overthrowne Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a neerer Antecedent which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is alone without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Grammer is not so good as Beza's which hee rejected 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referre to God alone as the onely cause In genere causae primae God alone giveth raine but not for that immediatly but by the mediation of vapours and clouds God alone killeth and maketh alive Deut. 32. 39. That is excluding all strange gods but not immediatly for by his peoples fighting he slew Og King of Bashan and cast out seven Nations yet they used bow and sword as it is in the bookâ— of Ioshua and therefore God killed not Og immediatly God hath an infinite eminent transeendent way of working so that in his kinde he onely worketh his alone Deus solus operatur solitudine primae causae non solus solitudine omnis causae God onely giveth learning and wisdome yet not immediatly alwayes often he doth it by teaching and industry God onely maketh rich yet the Prelates make themselves rich also with the fat of the flock and God onely maketh poore yet the P. Prelates Courts mediately also under God made many men poore 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not such an exclusive Particle when we ascribe it to God as when we ascribe it to two created causes workes and faith and the Protestants forme of arguing Gal. 2. to prove we are justified by faith he calleth our strong hold Ergo It is not his strong hold In this point then hee must be a Papist and so he refuses to owne Protestant strong holds for justification by faith alone D. Ferne sect 2. pag. 10. As many as have soules must be subject to the higher powers spoken of here but all inferiour Iudges have soules Answ If the word soules be thus pressed none shall be understood by higher powers but the King onely 2. Certainly he that commandeth as he commandeth must be excepted except because the King hath a soule you must subject the King to himself and to his owne commandements Royall and so to penall Lawes 3. Inferiour Judges as Judges by this text must either be subject to themselves as Judges and by the same reason the King must be subject to himselfe as he is a Judge Or Judges as men or as erring men are to be subject which I would grant but they are not subject as Judges no more then one as he commandeth can also obey as he commandeth These are contradictory I am not put off that opinion since I was at Schools Species subjicibilis qua subjicibilis non est praedicabilis 4. If Nero make fathers rulers over their mothers and children and command them by his publique sword of justice to kill their owne children and mothers if a Senate of such fathers disobey and if with the sword they deâ—end their own children and mothers which some other Doegs as Judges are to kill in the name and commandement of Nero Then they resisting Neroes bastard-commandment by this doctrine resist the ordinance of God and resist the Minister of God I have not a faith stretcht out so farre to the Prelates Court-divinity Yet Ferne saith there was never more cause to resist higher powers for their wicked Nero was Emperour when he now forbideth resistance Rom. 13. under the paine of damnation I desire to be informed whether to resist the Kings servants be to resist the King Doctor Forne p. 3. § 2. p. 10. and par 3. § 9. p. 59. allow us in unavoidable assaults where death is imminent personall defence without offending as lawfull whether the King or his emissaries invade without law or reason Well then the resisting then of
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
whole Land cannot formally be accused for non-resistance when the whole Land are oppressors for then they should be accused for not resisting themselves 14. The King ought to resist the inferiour judges in their oppression of the people by the confession of Royalists then this argument cometh with the like force of strength on themselves let them shew us practice precept or promise in the Word where the King raised an Armie for defence of Religion against Princes and people who were subverting Religion and we shall make use of that same place of Scripture to prove that the Estates and people who are above the King as I have proved and made the King may and ought to resist the King with the like force of Scripturall truth in the like case 16. Royalists desire the like president of practice and precept for defensive warres but I answer let them shew us a practice where any King of Israel or Judah raised an Armie of Malignants of Phylistims Sydonians Ammonites against the Princes of Israel and Judah conveened in an Assemblie to take course for bringing home the captived Arke of God and vindicating the Lawes of the Land and raised an Armie contrary to the knowledge of the Elders Princes and Judges to set up Dagon or tollerate the worship of the Sydonian gods and yet Princes Elders Judges and the whole people were obliged all to flee out of Gods land or then onely to weep and request that the King would not destroy souls and bodies of them and their innocent posterities because they could not in conscience imbrace the worship of Dagon and the Sydonian gods when the Royalist can parallel this with a precedent we can answer there was as smal apparency of precedency in Scripture except you flee to the law of nature that 80 Priests the Subjects of King Vzziah should put in execution a penall Law against the Lords Annoynted and that the inferiours and subjects should resist the Superiour and that these Priests with the Princes of the land should remove the King from actuall government all his dayes and crown his son at least make the father their Prince and superiour as Royalists say as good as a Cypher Is not this a punishment inflicted by inferiours upon a superiour according to the way of Royalists Now it is clear a worshipping of bread and the Masse commanded and against law obtruded upon Scotland by influence of the counsell of known Papists is to us and in it self as abominable as the worshiping of Dagon or the Sydonian Gods and when the Kingdom of Scotland did but conveen supplicat and protest against that obtruded Idolatry they were first declared rebels by the King and then an army raised against them by Prelates and Malignants inspired with the spirit of Anti-christ to destroy the whole land if they should not submit soul and conscience to that wicked service QUEST XXXV Whether or no the suffering of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church militate against the lawfulnesse of defensive wars ROyalists think they burden our Cause much with hatred when they bring the Fathers and ancient Martyrs against us So the P. Prelate extracted out of other Authors testimonies for this and from I. Armagh in a Sermon on Rom. 1. 3. pag. 20 21. So the Do. of Aberdeene The Prelat proveth from Clem. Alexand. l. 7. c. 17. That the King is constituted by the Lord. So Ignatius Answ 1. Except he prove from these Fathers that the King is from God onely and immediately he proveth nothing Obj. 2. Iren. l. 5. adv haer c. 20. proveth that God giveth Kingdomes and that the devill lied Luk. 4. and we make the people to make Kings and so to be the children of the Devill Answ If we denyed God to dispose of Kingdomes this man might alledge the Church of God in England and Scotland to be the sons of Satan But Gods Word Deut. 17. 18. and many other places make the people to make Kings and yet not devils But to say that Prelates should crowne Kings and with their foule fingers anoint him and that as the Popes substitutes is to make him that is the sonne of perdition a Donor of Kingdoms also to make a man with his bloodie sword to ascend to a throne is to deny God to be the disposer of Kingdoms and Prelats teach both these Obj. 3. Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Inde est Imperator unde homo antequam imperator inde potestas illi unde spiritus God is no lesse the Creator of Soveraigntie then of the soul of man Answ God onely maketh Kings by his absolute soveraignty as he onely maketh high and low and so onely he maketh Mayors Provosts Bailiffes for there is no power but of him Rom. 13. Ergo Provosts and Bailiffes are not from men The Reader shall not be troubled with the rest of the testimonies of this poore Plagiarie for they prove what never man denyed but Prelats and Royalists to wit that Kings are not from Gods approving and regulating will which they oppose when they say Sole Conquest is a just title to the Crowne But they deserve rather an answer which Grotius Barclay Arnisaeus and Spalato alledge as Obj. 1. Cyprian Epist 1. Non est fas Christianis armis ac vituori se adversus impetum persecutorum Christians cannot by violence defend themselves against persecutors Answ If these words be pressed literally it were not lawfull to defend our selfe against murtherers but Cyprian is expresly condemning in that place the seditious tumults of people against the lawfull Magistrate Obj. 2. The Ancients say he was justly punished who did rend and teare the Edict of Dioclesian and Maximinus Euseb l. 7. Hist Eccles c. 5. Answ To rend an Edict is no act of naturall self-defence but a breach of a positive commandment of the Emperors and could not be lawfully done especially by a private man Object 3. Cyprian Epist 56. Incumbamus gemitibus assiduis deprecationibus crebris haec enim sunt munimenta spiritualia tela divina quae protegunt And Russinus l. 2. c. 6. Ambrosius adversus reginae Iustinae Arianae furorem non se manu defensabat aut telo sed jejuniis continuatisque vigiliis sub altari positus Answ It is true Cyprian reputed prayers his armour but not his onely armour Though Ambrose de facto used no other against Iustina the places say nothing against the lawfulnesse of selfe-defence Ambrose speaketh of that armour and these meanes of defence that are proper to Pastors and these are prayers and teares not the sword because Pastors carry the Arke that is their charge not the sword that is the Magistrates place Object 4. Tertullian Apolog. c. 37. saith expresly that the Christians might for strength and number have defended themselves against their persecutors but thought it unlawfull Quando vel una nox pauculis faculis largitatem ulâ—ionis po et operari si malum malo dispungi penes nos liceret sed absit
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
the Lord and sent by the supreme judge their father Samuel then it was sin to resist many inferiour Judges that were Lyons and even Wolves under the Kings of Israel and Iudah so they judged for the Lord and as sent by the Supreme Magistrate But the difference was in this that judges were extraordinarily raised up of God out of any tribe as he pleased and were beleevers Heb. 11. 32. Saved by faith and so used not their power to oppresse the people though inferiour judges as the sons of Eli and of Samuel perverted judgment and therefore in the time of the judges God who gave them saviours and judges was their King but Kings were tied to a certaine tribe especially the line of David to the Kingdom of Iudah 2. They were hereditary judges not so 3. They were made and chosen by the people Deut. 17. 14. 15. 1 Sam. 10. 17 18 19 20. 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. as were the Kings of the nations and the first King though a King be the lawfull ordinance of God was sought from God in a sinfull imitation of the nations 1 Sam. 8. 19 20. and therefore were not of Gods peculiar election as the judges and so they were wicked men and many of them yea all for the most part did evil in the sight of the Lord and their law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their manner and custome was to oppresse the people and so were their inferiour judges little Tyrants and lesser Lyons Leopards evening Wolves Ezech. 22. 27. Mic. 3. 1 2 3. Esa 3. 14 15. And the Kings and inferiour judges are onely distinguished de facto that the King was a more Catholick oppressour and the old Lyon and so had more art and power to catch the prey then the inferiour judges who were but whelps and had lesse power but all were oppressors some few excepted and Samuel speaketh of that which Saul was to be de facto not de jure and the most part of the Kings after him and this Tyranny is well called jus regis the manner of the King and not the manner of the judges because it had not been the practice custome and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the beleeving judges before Sauls Reigne and while God was his peoples King 1 Sam. 8. 7. to oppresse 3. We grant that all other inferiour judges after the people cast off Gods government and in imitation of the nations would have a King were also lesser Tyrants as the King was a greater Tyrant and that was a punishment of their rejecting God and Samuel to be their King and judge 4. How shall Arnisaeus prove that this manner or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the King was potestas concessa a power granted I hope granted of God and not an abuse of Kingly power for then he and Royalists must say that all the acts of Tyranny ascribed to King Saul 1 Sam. 8. 11 12 13 14. by reason of which they did cry out and complaine to God because of their oppression was no abuse of power given to Saul Ergo it was an use and a lawfull use of power given of God to their King for there is no medium or mids betwixt a lawfull power used in morall acts and a lawfull power abused and indeed Arnisaeus so distinguisheth a King and a Tyrant that he maketh them all one in nature and spece He saith a Tyrant doth quod licet that which by Law he may do and a King doth not these things quae licent which by Law he may do but so to me it is clear a Tyrant acting as a Tyrant must act according to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 law of the King and that which is lawfull and a King acting as a King and not doing these things that are lawfull must sin against his office and the power that God hath given to him which were to commend and praise the Tyrant and to condemne and dispraise the King 3. If this Law of the King be a permissive Law of God which the king may out of his absolute enesse put inexecution to oppressâ— the people such as the law of a bill of divorcement as Arnisaeus Barcklay and other Royalists say then must God have given a Law to every King to play the Tyrant because of the hardnesse of the Kings heart but we would gladly see some word of God for this The Law of a bill of Divorcement is a meere positive Law permitted in a particular exigent when a husband out of levity of heart and affection cannot love his wife therefore God by a Law permitted him out of indulgence to put her away that both he might have a seed the want whereof because of the blessed seed to be borne of woman was a reproach in Israel and though this was an affliction to some particular women yet the intent of the Law and the soul thereof was a publique benefit to the Common-wealth of Israel of which sort of Lawes I judge the hard usage permitted by God to his people in the Master toward the servant and the people of God toward the stranger of whom they might exâ—ct usury not toward their brethren to be But that God should make a permissive Law that Ieroboam might presse all Israel to â—iâ—ne and worship the Golden Calves and that a King by Law may kill as a bloody Nero all the people of God by a Divine permissive Law hath no warrant in Gods word Judge reader if Royalists make God to confer a benefit on a land when he giveth them a King if by a Law of God such as the Law for a bill of Divorcement the King may kill and devour as a lawfull absolute Lion six kingdoms of nations that professe Christ and beleeve in his name For if the King have a divine law to kill an innocent Ionathan so as it be unlawfull to resist him he may by that same law turne bloodier then either Nero Iulian or any that ever sucked the paps of a Liones or of any of whom it may be said Quaeque dedit nutrix ubera Tigris erat and he shall be given as a plague of God ex conditione doni to the people and the people inasmuch as they are gifted of God with a King to feed them in a peaceable and godly life must be made slaves now it wanteth reason that God will have a permissive Law of murthering the Church of Christ a Law so contrary to the publique good and intrinsecall intention of a King and to the immutable and eternall law of Nature that one man because of his power may by Gods permissive Law murther millions of innocents Some may say It is against the duty of love that by Nature and Gods Law the husband owes to the wife Ephes 5. 25. that the husband should put away his wife for God hateth putting away and yet God made a Law that a husband might give his wife a bill of divorce and so put her away and by the same
power as a publique though a honourable servant and watchman appointed by the community as a mean for an end to regulate my bread houses moneys fields for the good of the publique Dominion is defined a faculty to use a thing as you please except you be hindered by force or by Law Iustin tit c. de legibus in l. digna vox c. So have I a dominion over my own garments house money to use them for uses not forbidden by the Law of God and man but I may not lay my corne field wast that it shall neither bear grassâ— nor corne the King may hinder that because it is a hurt to the publique but the King as Lord and Soveraigne hath no such dominion over Naboths viâ—eyard How the King is lord of all goods ratione jurisdictionis tuitionis se Anton. de paudrill in l. Altius n. 5. c. de servit Hottom illust quest q. 1. ad fin Conc. 2. Lod. Molin de just jur dis 25. Soto de justitia jur l. 4. q. 4. art 1. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his oath covenant or any other way ARistotle saith Ethic. 8. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Tyrant seeketh his owne a King the good of the Subjects for he is no King who is not content and excelleth in goodnesse The former part of these words distinguish essentially the King by his office from the Tyrant Now every office requireth essentially a duty to be performed by him that is in office and where there is a duty required there is some obligation if it be a politique duty it is a politique obligation Now amongst politique duties betwixt equall and equall superiour and inferiour that is not de facto required coaction for the performance thereof but de jure there is for two neighbour Kings and two neighbour Nations both being equall and independent the one toward the other the one owe a duty to the other and if the Ammonites do â— wrong to David and Israel as they are equall de facto the one cannot punish the other though the Ammonites do a disgrace to Davids messengers yet de jure David and Israel may compell them to politique duties of politique consociation for betwixt independent kingdomes there must be some politique government and some politique and civil Lawes for two or three making a society cannot dwell together without some policy and David and Israel as by the Law of nature they may repell violence with violence so if the lawes of neighbour-hood and nations be broken the one may punish the other though there be no relation of superiority and inferiority betwixt them 2. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt equals yea or superiours and inferiours the one hath some coactive power over the other if the father give his bond to pay to his son ten thousand pounds as his patrimony to him though before the giving of the bond the father was not obliged but onely by the Law of nature to give a patrimony to his son yet now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is obliged so to his son to pay ten thousand pounds that by the Law of Nations and the civil Law the son hath now a coactive power by Law to compell his father though his superiour to pay him no lesse then ten thousand pounds of patrimony Though therefore the King should stand simply superiour to his kingdom and estates which I shall never grant â—t if the King come under covenant with his kingdom as I have proved at length c. 13. he must by that same come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum What any doth promise falleth under debt if the covenant be politique and civil as is the covenant between King David and all Israel 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. and between King Iehoash and the people 2 King 11. 17 18. Then the King must come under a civil obligation to performe the covenant and though their be none superiour to King and the people on earth to compell them both to performe what they have promised yet de jure by the Law of Nations each may compell the other to mutuall performance This is evident 1 By the Law of nations if one nation break covenant to another â—â—â—ugh both be independent yet hath the wronged nation a coactive power de jure by accident because they are weaker they want stength to compell yet they have right and jus to compell them to force the other to keep covenant or then to punish them because nature teacheth to repel violence by violence so it be done without desire of revenge and malice 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant for Solomon saith Prov. 6. 1. My son if thou be surety for thy friend if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger 2. Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth art taken with the words of thy mouth But whence is it that a man free is now snared as a beast in a gin or trap Certainly Solomon saith it is by a word and striking of hands by a word of promise and covenant Now the Creditor hath coactive power though he be an equall or an inferiour to the man who is surety even by Law to force him to pay and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the Creditor that he may force the surety to pay Hence it is cleare that a Covenant maketh a free man under the coactive power of law to an equall and to weaker and the stronger is by the law of fraternity to help the weaker with his coactive power to cause the superiour fulfill his covenant If then the King giving and not granting he were superiour to his whole Kingdome come under a covenant to them to seek their good not his owne to defend true Protestant Religion they have power to compell him to keep his covenant and Scotland if the King be stronger then England and break his covenant to them is obliged by Gods law Prov. 24. 11. to adde their forces and coactive power to help their brethren of England 3. The Law shall warrant to loose the vassal from the Lord when the Lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in l. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Bartol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de offic magistrat Imperatores reges esse primarios vasallos imperii regni proinde si feloniam contra imperium aut regnum committant fewdo privari proinde ut alios vasallos Arnisaeus q. 6. An princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 2. saith This occasioneth confusion and sedition The Egyptians saith he cast off Pâ—olomeus because he affected too much the name of a King of the Romans his own friend Dion l.
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
presumption in the Pope to challenge to himself the Title or Right of Christs universall Vicar on earth by Divine right The Pope the Bishop of Rome hath no more by Divine right what he may have by positive Ecclesiasticall right is not pertinent for us now to examine and discusse no higher priviledge except it be in extent then the meanest Bishop of the world in his Diocesse And amongst all proofes he passing by Scriptures which should prove or improve a Divine right he will content himselfe with one proofe of Cyprian de unitat Eccles And endeth with these words Would God both sides in this and other controversies would submit to the judgement of the holy Fathers Hence the P. Prelate in his 4. Article the other two I shall touch anon maketh Puritans grosser then Jesuites in dethroning Kings because if the King be deficient the People may resume their power and governe for him and so dethrone the King But Bellarmine l. 3. q. de laic holdeth the people cannot dethrone the King but in certis casibus in some cases that is as Suarez saith si Rex sua potestate iu manifestam Civitatis ceu Regni perniciem abutatur But I will demonstrate that if Papists hold that the Pope may dethrone Kings this Prelate is of their mind for 1. the words I cited make good that he is for the Popes Supremacie now it is a joynt or lith of his supremacie to King and un-King Princes 2. They make good that he is a Papist for 1. It is presumption in the Pope to challenge to himselfe that he is Christs Vniversall Vicar on Earth by Divine right Why saith he not by no right at all but only he is not Christs Vicar by Divine right for it is evident that Papists make him Christs Vicar only by Ecclesiasticall right for they professe succession of Popes to this day cannot be proved but by Tradition not by Scripture 2. The Popes supremacie by Papists is expresly reckoned amongst unwritten Traditions and so there is no necessitie that the right of it be proved from Scripture 3. The Prelate expresly saith He will not discusse the Ecclesiasticall right that the Pope hath to be Christs Vicar And by that he clearly insinuateth that he hath a right to be Christs Vicar beside a Scripturall and Divine right only for offending Papists he will not discusse it 4. He hath no higher priviledge saith he then other Bishops except in extent by Divine right Now other Bishops as officers in nature different from Presbyters for of such the P. Prelate must speak in his own dialect have their office by Divine right and this the Prelates words must include else he saith non-sense to the matter in hand And in extent the Pope hath by Divine right more then other Bishops have Now what is the Pope of Rome his extent All knowes it is the whole Catholike visible Church on earth If then all Bishops be particular Ambassadours in Christs stead 2 Cor. 5. 20. and so Legates and Deputies of Christ He who by Divine right is a Bishop in extent over the whole world is as like one that calleth himselfe the universall Vicar of Christ as one egge is like another 2. The doctrine taught by this Prelate so Popish hints yea are more then evidences of grosse Poperie in this book and his other Pamphlet against Presbyteries And his desire that the Controversie concerning the Popes supremacie and others were determined with submission to the judgement of the Fathers doe cry that he is but a rotten Papist For why will he submit all other controversies to the judgement of the Fathers Why not to the Prophets and Apostles Can Fathers decide Controversies better then the Word of God A reason cannot be dreamed of why the Fathers should be Iudges and not the Scriptures except that Scriptures are obscure 2. Their authoritie and light cannot determine and judge controversies except in so far as they have authoritie from Fathers and the Church and we know this to be proprium 4 to modo proper to Jesuites and Papists to cry Fathers Fathers in all controversies though the Fathers be more for us then for them except two things 1. What Fathers speake for us are corrupted by them 2. What were but errors in Fathers when children adde contumacie to error becomes the heresies of the sonnes And it is most false that we joyne with Jesuites 1. We teach no more against Tyrants in eâ—ercitio then Grotius Barclay Winzetus in the matter of deposing Kings And in this Royalists conspire with Jesuites 2. We deny that the Pope may loose Subjects from the oath of Fidelitie when a King turneth Hereticall 3. That People at the Popes commandement are to dethrone Kings for Heresie So doe the Prelates and their fellowes the Papists teach So Gregorie the 7. practised so Aquinas taught 22 q. 12. ar 2. Antonin sum par 3. t. 22. c. 3. § 7. Thou hast put all things under the Popes feet oves id est Christianos boves Iudaeos Hereticos pecora Paganos So Navar. l. 1. c. 13. Pagans have no jurisdiction Iaco. Symanca de Catho Instit tit 45. n. 25. Catholica uxor heretico viro debitum reddere non tenetur Item Constat Haeretieum privatum esse omni dominio naturali civili politico naturali quod habet in filios nam propter haeresin patris efficiuntur filii sui iuris civili quod habet in servos ab eo enim servi liberantur politico quod rerum domini habent in subditos ita Bannes 22. q. 12. art 10. Gregor de valent 22. dis 1. q. 12. p. 2. lod Mol. to 1. De just jur tract 2. dis 29. v. 3. 2. Papists hold that Generatio clerici est corruptio subditi Church-men are not subjects under the Kings Law It is a Canonicall priviledge of the Clergy that they are not subject to the Kings Civill Lawes Now this Prelate and his fellowes made the King sweare at his Coronation to maintaine all Canonicall Priviledges of the Prelaticall Clergy the very Oath and words sworne by all the Popish Kings P. Prelate Power is given by the multitude to the King immediatly and by God mediately not so much by collation as by approbation how the Iesuite and Puritane walke all along in equall pace See Bellarmine l. 1. de liac c. 6. Zuarez cont sect Angl. l. 3. c. 3. Ans It is a Calumnie that we teach that the power of the King is from God mediatly by meere approbation indeed a fellow of his a Papist writing against the Kings Supremacy Anthony Capell Cont. 1. c. 5. saith Saul was made King and others also by Gods permission and Deo invito irato God being angry that is not our Doctrine but with what reall efficiencie God hath made men and communities rationall and sociall men with the same hath he made them by instinct of nature by the mediation of reason to create a King
have a ministeriall power saith he in spirituall things but in order to Christ ergo in order to others it is not ministeriall but Lordly So here a Lordly power Pastors have over Kings by the P. P. way We teach it is ministeriall in relation to all because Ministers can make no Lawes as Kings can doe but only as Heralds declare Christs Lawes 2. None of us give any coercive Civill power to the Church over either Kings or any other it is Ecclesiasticall a power to rebuke and censure was never civill 3. A religious Covenant to swear to resist that is to defend our selves is one thing and a lawfull Oath as is cleare in those of Israel that did sweare Asa's Covenant without the authority of their owne King 2 Chron. 15. 9 10 11 12. and to sweare to force the King to submit to Christs Scepter is another thing the Presbytery never did sweare or covenant any such thing nor doe we take Sacrament upon it to force the King Prelates have made the King sweare and take his Sacrament upon it that he shall roote out Puritanes that is Protestants whereas he did sweare athis Coronation to roote out Heretickes that is if Prelates were not traiterous in administring the Oath Arminians and Papists such as this P. P. is knowne to be but I hold that the Estates of Scotland have power to punish the King if he labour to subvert Religion and Lawes 4. If this Argument that Religion is to be perswaded not forced which P. P. useth be good it will make much against the King for the King then can force no man to the externall profession and use of the ordinances of God and not only Kings but all the people should be willing P. Prelate Though the King may not preach c. yet the exercise of these things freely within his Kingdome what concerneth the decent and orderly doing of all and the externall man in the externall government of the Church in appointing things arbitrary and indifferent and what else is of this straine are so due to the prerogative of the Crown as that the Priests without highest Rebellion may not usurpe upon him a King in the State and Church is a mixed person not simply civill but sacred too They are not only professors of truth that they have in the capacity of Christians but they are defenders of the faith as Kings they are not sonnes only but Nurse-fathers they serve God as Augustine saith as men and as Kings also Ans If yee give the King power of the exercises of Word and Sacraments in his Kingdome this is deprivation of Ministers in his Kingdome for sure he cannot hinder them in another Kingdome you may make him to give a Ministeriall calling if he may take it away By what word of God can the King close the mouth of the man of God whom Christ hath commanded to speake in his name 2. If the King may externally governe the Church why may he not excommunicate for this is one of the speciall acts of Church Government especially seeing he is a mixed person that is halfe a Church-man and if he may prescribe Arbitrary teaching Ceremonies Surplice to instruct men in the duties of holinesse required of Pastors I see not but he may teach the Word 3. Dr. Ferne and other Royalists deny Arbitrary Government to the King in the State and with reason because it is Tyranny over the people but Prelates are not ashamed of commanding a thing Arbitrary and indifferent in Gods Worship shall not Arbitrary Government in the Church be tyranny over the conscience But say they Church-men teacheth the King what is decent and orderly in Gods Worship and he commandeth it Ans Solomon by no teaching of Church-men deposed Abiathar David by no teaching of Church-men appointed the forme of the Temple 2. Hath God given a Prerogative Royall to Kings whereby they may governe the Church and as Kings they shall not know how to use it but in so farre as they are taught by Church men 3. Certainely we shall once be informed by Gods Word what is this Prerogative if according to it all the externall worship of God may be ordered Lawyers and Royalists teach that it is an absolutenesse of power to doe above or against a Law as they say from 1 Sam. 8. v. 9. 11. and whereby the King may oppresse and no man may say What dost thou Now Good P. Prelate if by a plenitude of tyranny the King prescribe what he will in the externall worship and government of Gods House who can rebuke the King though he command all the Antichristian Ceremonies of Rome and of Turkey yea and the sacrificing of children to Molech for absolutenesse Royall will amount to shedding of innocent blood for if any oppose the King or say Sir What doe you he opposeth the Prerogative Royall and that is highest Rebellion saith our P. Prelate 5. I see not how the King is a mixt person because he is Defender of the Faith as the Pope named the King of England Henry the eighth he defendeth it by his Sword as he is a Nurse-father not by the sword that commeth out of his mouth 6. I would know how Iulian Nebuchadnezzar Og and Sihon were mixed persons and did all in the externall government of the Church and that by their office as they were Kings 7. All the instances that Augustine bringeth to prove that the King is a mixt person proveth nothing but Civill acts in Kings as Hezekiah cast down the high places the King of Nineve compelled to obey the Prophet Ionah Darius cast Daniels enemies to the Lyons P. Prelate If you make two Soveraignes and two Independents there is no more peace in the State then in Rebeckahs wombe while Jacob and Esau strove for the prerogative Ans 1. What need Israel strive when Moses and Aaron are two Independents If Aaron make a golden Calfe may not Moses punish him If Moses turne an Achab and sell himselfe to doe wickedly ought not 80 valiant Priests and Aarons both rebuke censure and resist 2. p. 65. The P. P. said Let no man imagine we priviledge the King from the direction and power of the Church so he be no intruding Vzzah I pray P. P. what is this Church power Is it not supreme in its kinde of Church power or is it subordinate to the King If it be supreme see how P. P. maketh two Supremes and two Soveraignes If it be subordinate to the King as he is a mixt person the King is priviledged from this power and he may intrude as Vzzah and by his prerogative as a mixed person he may say Masse and offer a sacrifice if there be no power above his prerogative to curbe him If there be none the P. P. his imagination is reall The King is priviledged from all Church power Let the P. P. see to it I see no inconvenience for reciprocations of subjections in two Supremes and
that they may mutually censure and judge one another Object Not in the same cause that is impossible If the King say Masse shall the Church judge and censure the King for intrusion and because the King is also Soveraigne and Supreme in his kinde he may judge and punish the Church for their act of judging and censuring the King it being an intrusion on his prerogative that any should judge the highest Judge Ans The one is not subiect to the other but in the case of male-administration the innocent as innocent is subject to no higher punishing he may be subject to a higher as accusing citing c. Now the Royalist must give instance in the same cause where the Church faileth against the King and his Civill law and the King in the same cause faileth against the Church-canon and then it shall be easie to answer P. Prelate Religion is the bottome of all happinesse if you make the King only to execute what a Presbyterie commandeth he is in a hard case and you take from him the chiefest in Government Ecclesiasticall power hath the soule in subjection the Civill Soveraigntie holdeth a dead dominion ever the body Then the Pope and Presbyterie shall be in better condition then the King Cic. in Ver. Omnes Religione moventur Superstition is furious and maddeth people that they spare neither Crown nor Mitre Ans Cold and dry is the P. P. when he spendeth foure pages in declamation for the excellencie of Religion The madnesse of Superstition nothing to the purpose 1. The King hath a chiefe hand in Church affaires when he is a Nurse-father and beareth the Royall sword to defend both the Tables of the Law though he doe not spin and weave Surplices and other base Masse-cloaths to Prelates and such Priests of Baal They dishonour his Majestie who bring his Prerogative so low 2. The King doth not execute with blind obedience with us what the Pope commandeth and the Prelates but with light of knowledge what Synods discernes and he is no more made the servant of the Church by this then the King of Iudah and Nebuchadnezzar are servants to Ieremiah and Daniel because they are to obey the Word of the Lord in their mouth Let them shew a reason of this why they are servants in executing Gods will in Discipline and in punishing what the Holy Ghost by his Apostles and Elders decree when any contemne the Decree concerning the abstinence from blood things strangled c. Act. 15. rather then when they punish murther idolatrie blasphemie which are condemned in the Word preached by Pastors of Christ and farther this objection would have some more colour realitie it hath not if Kings were only to execute what the Church ministerially in Christs name commandeth to be done in Synods but Kings may and doe command Synods to conveen and doe their duty and command many duties never Synodically decreed as they are to cast out of their Court apostare Prelates sleeping many yeares in the Devils armes and are to command Trencher-Divines neglecting their flock and lying at Court attending the falling of a dead Bishop as Ravens doe an old dying horse To goe and attend the flock and not the Court as this P. P. did 3. A King hath greater outward glory and may doe much more service to Christ in respect of extension and is excellenter then the Pastor who yet in regard of intension is busied about nobler things to wit the Soule the Gospel Eternitie than the King 4. Superstition maddeth men but it followeth not that true Religion may not set them on work to defend soule and body against Tyrannie of the Crown and Antichristian Mitres P. Prelate The Kingdome had peace and plentie in Prelates time Ans A belly-argument We had plenty when we sacrificed to the Queen of Heaven 2. If the Traveller contend to have his purse againe shall the Robber say Robberie was blessed with peace The rest to the end are lies and answered already Only his invectives against ruling Elders falsly called Lay-Elders are not to purpose Parliament-Priests and Lay and Court-Pastors are Lay-Prophets 2. That Presbyteries meddle with Civill businesse is a slander They meddle with publike scandals that offendeth in Christs Kingdome But the Prelate by office was more in two elements in Church and State then any Frogs even in the Kings Leaven-tubs ordinarily 3. Something he saith of Popes usurping over Kings but only of one of his fathers a great uncleane spirit Gregorie the Great But if he had refuted him by Gods Word he should have thrown stones at his own Tribe for Prelates like him doe ex officio trample upon the neck of Kings 4. His testimonies of one Councell and one Father for all Antiquitie proveth nothing Athanasius said God hath given Davids Throne to Kings What to be Head of the Church No to be the Minister of God without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to tutour the Church And because Kings reigne by Christ as the Councell of Arimin saith therefore it may follow a Baily is also Head of the Church It is taken from Prov. 8. and answered 5. That Presbyteries have usurped upon Kings more then Popes since Hildebrand is a lie all stories are full of the usurpation of Prelates his own tribe The Pope is but a swelled fat Prelate and what he saith of Popes he saith of his own house 6. The Ministers of Christ in Scotland had never a contest with King Iames but for his sinnes and his conniving with Papists and his introducing Bishops the usher of the Pope QUEST XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having Prerogatives above Parliament and Laws The Negative is asserted by the Lawes of Scotland the Kings Oath of Coronation the Confession of Faith c. THe negative part of this I hold in these Assertions Assert 1. The Kings of Scotland have not any Prerogative distinct from Supremacie above the Lawes 1. If the People must be governed by no Lawes but by the Kings own Lawes that is the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme acted in Parliament under paine of disobedience then must the King governe by no other Lawes and so by no Prerogative above Law But the former is an evident truth by our Acts of Parliament ergo so is the latter The Proposition is confirmed 1. Because what ever Law enjoyneth passive obedience no way but by Lawes that must injoyne also the King actively to command no other way but by Law for to be governed by Law essentially includeth to be governed by the Supreme Governour only by Law 2. An act of Regall governing is an act of Law and essentially an act of Law an act of absolute Prerogative is no act of Law but an act above Law or of pleasure loosed from Law and so they are opposed as acts of Law and non-acts of Law If the Subjects by command of the King and Parliament cannot be governed but by Law How can the King but
be under his own and the Parliaments Law to governe only by Law I prove the Assumption from Parl. 3. of K. Iames the 1. Act 48. Ordaines That all and sundry the Kings Lieges be governed under the Kings Laws and Statutes of the Realme allanerly and under no particular Lawes or speciall Priviledges nor by any Lawes of other Countries or Realmes Priviledges doe exclude Lawes Absolute pleasure of the King as a Man and the Law of the King as King are opposed by way of contradiction and so in Parl. 6. K. James 4. Act. 79. and ratified Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. Act. 131. 2. The King at his Coronation 1 Par. K. James 6. Act. 8. sweareth to maintaine the true Kirk of God and Religion now presently professed in puritie And to rule the People according to the Lawes and Constitutions received in the Realme causing Justice and equitie to be ministred without partialitie This did King Charles sweare at his Coronation and ratified Parl. 7. K. Iam. 6. Act. 99. Hence he who by the Oath of God is limited to governe by Law can have no Prerogative above the Law If then the King change the Religion Confession of Faith authorised by many Parliaments especially by Parliament 1 K. Charles An. 1633. He goeth against his Oath 3. The Kings Royall Prerogative or rather Supremacie enacted Parl. 8. K. James 6. Act. 129. and Parl. 18. Act. 1. and Parl. 21. Act. 1. K. Iames and 1 Parl. K. Charles Act. 3. cannot 1. be contrary to the Oath that K. Charles did sweare at his Coronation which bringeth down the Prerogative to governing according to the standing Lawes of the Realme 2. It cannot be contrary to these former Parliaments and Acts declaring that the Lieges are to be governed by the Lawes of the Realme and by no particular Lawes and speciall Priviledges but absolute Prerogative is a speciall Priviledge above or without Law which Acts stand unrepealed to this day and these Acts of Parliaments stand ratified An. 1633. the 1 Parl. K. Charles 3. Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. in the first three Acts thereof the Kings Supremacie and the power and authoritie of Parliaments are equally ratified under the same paine Their jurisdictions power and judgements in Spirituall or Temporall causes not ratified by His Majestie and the three Estates conveened in Parliament are discharged But the Absolute Prerogative of the King above Law Equity and Iustice was never ratified in any Parliament of Scotland to this day 4. Parliam 12. K. Iames 6. Act. 114. All former Acts in favour of the true Church and Religion being ratified Their power of making Constitutions concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Order and Decency the Priviledges that God hath given to spirituall Office-bearers as well of Doctrine and Discipline in matters of Heresie Excommunication Collation Deprivation and such like warranted by the Word of God and also to Assembles and Presbyteries are ratified Now in that Parliament in Acts so contiguous we are not to think That the King and three Estates would make Acts for establishing the Churches power in all the former heads of Government in which Royalists say The soul of the Kings Absolute Prerogative doth consist And therefore it must be the true intent of our Parliament to give the King a Supremacy and a Prerogative Royall which we also give but without any Absolutenesse of boundlesse and transcendent power above Law and not to obtrude a Service-Book and all the Superstitious Rites of the Church of Rome without Gods Word upon us 5. The former Act of Parliament ratifieth the true Religion according to the Word of God then could it never have been the intent of our Parliament to ratifie an Absolute supremacy according to which a King might govern his people as a Tyrannous Lion contrary to Deut. 17. 18 19 20. And 't is true The 18. P. of King James 6. Act. 1. and Act. 2. upon personall qualifications giveth a Royall Prerogative to King James over all causes persons and estates within His Majesties Dominion whom they humbly acknowledge to be Soveraign Monarch Absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes These two Acts for my part I acknowledge spoken rather in Court-expressions then in Law-termes 1. Because personall vertues cannot advance a limited Prince such as the Kings of Scotland Post hominum memoriam ever were to be an Absolute Prince Personall graces make not David absolutely supreme Judge over all persons and causes nor can King James advanced to be King of England be for that made more King of Scotland and more supreme Iudge then he was while he was onely King of Scotland A wicked Prince is as essentially supreme Iudge as a godly King 2. If this Parliamentary figure of speech which is to be imputed to the times exalted King James to be Absolute in Scotland for his personall indowments there was no ground to put the same on King Charls Personall vertues are not alway Hereditary though to me the present King be the best 3. There is not any Absolutenesse above Law in the Act. 1. The Parliament must be more absolute themselves King James 6. had been divers yeers before this 18. Parl. King of Scotland then if they gave him by Law an Absolutenesse which he had 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
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
was without their Warrant and approbation and that as contrary to the fundamentall Laws above titled 48. Act. Parl. 3. K. Ia. 1. and Act. 79. Parl. 6. King Ia. 4. whereby the Lieges should only be ruled by the Lawes or Acts past in the Parliament of this Kingdome Now what was the ancient Dignity Authority and power of the Parliaments of Scotland which is to stand without diminution that will be easily and best known from the subsequent passages or Historians which can also be very easily verified by the old Registers whensoever they should be produced In the meane time remember that in Parliament and by Act of Parl. K. Ia. 6. for observing the due order of Parliament promiseth never to doe or command any thing which may directly or indirectly prejudge the libertie of free reasoning or voting of Parliament K. Ia. 6. Parl. 11. Act. 40. And withall to evidence the freedome of the Parliament of Scotland from that absolute unlimited Prerogative of the Prince and their libertie to resist his breaking of Covenant with them or Treaties with forraigne Nations Ye shall consider 1. That the Kings of Scotland are obliged before they be inaugurate to sweare and make their faithfull Covenant to the true Kirk of God that they shall maintaine defend and set forward the true Religion confessed and established within this Realme even as they are obliged and astricted by the Law of God as well in Deuteronomie as in the 11 chap. of the 2. book of the Kings and as they crave obedience of their subjects So that the bond and contract shall be mutuall and reciprocall in all time comming between the Prince and the People according to the Word of God as is fully exprest in the Register of the convention of Estates Iuly 1567. 2. That important Acts and Sentences at home whereof one is printed 112 Act. Parl. 14. K. Ia. 3. and in Treaties with Forraigne Princes the Estates of Parliament did append their severall Seales with the Kings Great Seale which to Grotius Barclaius and Aâ—nisaeus is an undeniable argument of a limited Prince as well as the stile of our Parliament that the Estates with the King ordaine ratifie rescind c. as also they were obliged in case of the Kings breaking these Treaties to resist him therein even by armes and that without any breach of their allegiance or of his Prerogative as is yet extant in the records of our old Treaties with England and France c. But to goe on and leave some high mysteries unto a rejoynder And to the end I may make good that nothing is here taught in this Treatise but the very Doctrine of the Church of Scotland I desire that the Reader may take notice of the larger Confession of the Church of Scotland printed with the Syntagme and body of the Confessions at Geneva anno MDCXII and authorized by King Iames the 6. and the three Estates in Parliament and printed in our Acts of Parliament Parl. 15. K. Iames 6. An. 1567. Amongst good works of the Second Table saith our Confession art 14. are these To honour Father Mother Princes Rulers and superiour Powers To love them to support them yea to obey their Charge not repugning to the commandement of God to save the lives of innocents to represse Tyrannie to defend the oppressed to keep our bodies cleane and holy c. The contrary whereof is To disobey or resist any that God hath placed in Authoritie while they passe not over the bounds of their office to murther or to consent thereunto to beare hatred or to let innocent blood be shed if we may withstand it c. Now the Confession citeth in the margin Ephes 6. 1. 7. and Ezek. 22. 1 2 3 4 c. where it is evident by the name of Father and Mother all inferious Iudges as well as the King and especially the Princes Rulers and Lords of Parliament are understood 2. Ezek. 22. The bloody City is to be judged because they releeved not the oppressed out of the hand of bloody Princes v. 6. who every one of them were to their power to shed innocent blood 3. To resist superiour powers and so the Estates of Parliament as the Cavalters of Scotland doe is resistance forbidden Romans 1â— 1. the place is also cited in the confession And the Confession exponeth the place Romans 13. according to the interpretation of all sound Expositers as is evident in these words Art 24. And therefore we confesse and avouch that such as resist the supreame power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge doe resist Gods ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltlesse And further we affirme that whosoever denyeth unto them aide their counsell and comfort while as the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their Office that the same men deny their helpe support and counsell to God who by the presence of his Lieutenant craves it of them From which words we have cleare 1. That to resist the King or Parliament is to resist them while as they are doing the thing that appertaineth to their charge and while they vigilantly travell in the execution of their office But while King and Parliament doe acts of Tyranny against Gods Law and all good Lawes of men they doe not the things that appertaine to their charge and the execution of their Office ergo by our confession to resist them in Tyrannicall acts is not to resist the ordinance of God 2. To resist Princes and Rulers and so inferious Iudges and to deny them counsell and comfort is to deny helpe counsell and comfort to God Let then Cavaliers and such as refuse to helpe the Princes of the Land against Papists Prelates and Malignants know that they resist Gods ordinance which rebellion they unjustly impute to us 3. Whereas it is added in our Confession that God by the presence of his Lieutenant craveth support and counsell of the people It is not so to be taken as if then only we are to ayde and helpe inferiour Iudges and Parliaments when the King personally requireth it and not other waies 1. Because the King requireth helpe when by his Office he is obliged to require our helpe and counsell against Papists and Malignants though as misled he should command the contrary so if the Law require our helpe the King requireth it ex officio 2. This should expresly contradict our confession if none were obliged to give helpe and counsell to the Parliament and Estates except the King in his own person should require it because Art 14. it is expresly said That to save the lives of innocents or represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed not to suffer innocent blood to be shed or workes pleasing to God which he rewardeth Now we are not to thinke in reason if the King shall be induced by wicked Counsell to doe tyrannicall workes and to raise Papists in Armes against Protestants that God doth by him as by his Lieutenant require our helpe comfort
and counsell in assisting the King in acts of Tyranny and in oppression and in shedding innocent blood yea our confession tyeth us to deny helpe and comfort to the King in these wicked acts and therefore our helpe must be in the things that pertaineth to his Royall Office and duty only otherwise we are to represse all tyranny art 14. 4 To save the lives of innocents to represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed are by our confession good workes well pleasing to God and so is this a good worke not to suffer innocent blood to be shed if we â—ay withstand it Hence it is cleare as the Sunne that our confession according to the Word of God to which King Charles did sweare at his Coronation doth oblige and tye us in the presence of God and his holy Angels to rise in Armes to save the innocent to represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed When the King induced by ill counsell sent Armies by Sea and Land to kill and destroy the whole Kingdome who should refuse such a Service-booke as they could not in conscience receive except they would disobey God renounce the confession of Faith which the King and they had sworne unto and prove perfidious Apostates to Christ and his Church what could we doe and that the same Confession considering our bonds to our deare Brethren in England layeth bonds on us to this as a good worke also not to suffer their innocent blood to be shed but to defend them when they against all Law of God of men of State of Nations are destroyed and killed For my part I judge it had been a guiltinesse of blood upon Scotland if we had not helped them and risen in Armes to defend our selves and our innocent brethren against bloody Cavaliers Adde to this what is in the 24. Article of the same Confession We confesse whosoever goeth about to take away or to confound the whole state of Civill Polity now lonâ— established we affirme the same men not only to be enemies to mankind but also wickedly to fight against Gods Will. But these who have taken Armes against the Estates of Scotland and the Princes and Rulers of the Land have laboured to take away Parliaments and the fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdome ergo c. The Confession addeth 16. We farther confesse and acknowledge that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved honoured feared and holden in most reverent estimation because that they are Lieutenants of God in whose Sessions God himselfe doth sit and Iudge yea even the Iudges and Princes themselves to whom by God is given the sword to the praise and defence of good men and to revenge and punish all open malefactors Ergo the Parliament and Princes and Rulers of the Land are Gods Lieutenants on earth no lesse then the King by our Confession of Faith and those who resist them resist the ordinance of God Royalists say They are but the Deputies of the King and when they doe contrary to his Royall Will they may be resisted yea and killed for in so farre they are private men though they are to be honoured as Iudges when they act according to the Kings Will whose Deputies they are But I answer 1. It is a wonder that inferiour Judges should be formally Iudges in so far as they act conforme to the will of a mortall King and not in so far as they act conforme to the will of the King of Kings seeing the judgement they execute is the King of Kings and not the Iudgement of a mortall King 2 Chro. 19. 6. 2. Royalists cannot indure the former distinction as it is applyed to the King but they receive it with both hands as it is applyed to inferiour Iudges and yet certaine it is that it is as ordinary for a King being a sinfull man to act sometimes as the Lieutenant of God and sometimes as an erring and misinformed man no lesse then the inferiour Iudge acteth sometimes according to the Kings will and Law and sometimes according to his owne private way and if we are to obey the inferiour Iudge as the Deputy of the King what shall become of his Person when Cavaliers may kill him at some Edge-hill for so they mock this distinction as applyed to the King in regard of his Person and of his Royall Office and for this point our Confession citeth in the Margin Rom. 13. 7. 1 Pet. 2. 17. Psal 82. 1. which places doe clearely prove 1. That inferiour Magistrates are 1. Gods ordinances 2. Gods on earth Psal 82. 3. Such as beare the Lords sword 4. That they are not only as the Confession saith appointed for Civill policie but also for maintenance of true Religion and for suppressing of idolatrie and superstition Then it is evident to resist inferior Magistrates is to resist God himselfe and to labour to throw the sword out of Gods hands 5 Our Confession useth the same Scriptures cited by Junius Brutus to wit Ezek. 22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. and Ier. 22. 3. where we are no lesse then the Iewes commanded to execute judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoyled out of the hands of the oppressour For both the Law of God and the Civill Law saith Qui non impedit homicidium quum potest is homicidii reus est I will cast in a word of other Confessions lest we seeme to be Iesuites alone The Confession of Helvetia saith c. 30. de Magistratu Viduas pupillos afflictos asserat Every Magistrate is to defend the widow the orphan and the oppressed The French Confession saith art 40. Affirmamus ergo parendumesse Legibus Statutis solvenda Tributa subjectionis denique jugum voluntariè tolerandum etiamsi infideles fuerint Magistratus dummodo Dei summum imperium integrum illibatum maneat So cleare it is that all active obedience is due to all Magistrates and that that yoake of passive obedience is to be tolerated but conditionally with a dummodo so as the Magistrate violate not the supreme commandement of the King of Kings And we know accordingly Protestants of that Church have taken defensive armes against their King But our P. Prelate can say The Confessions of Scotland Helvetia France and all the Reformed Churches are Jesuiticall when as it was the doctrine of the Waldenses Protestants and Luther Calvin and others while as there was no Iesuite on earth The 37. Art of the Church of Englands Confession is so far from erecting an absolute power in the King that they expresly bring down the Royall Prerogative from the high seat and transcendent superlative power above the Law and expone the Prerogative to be nothing but meere Law-power We only say they ascribe that Prerogative to the King which the Scripture doth ascribe to all Godly Princes that is that they cause all committed to their trust whether Ecclesiasticall or Civill persons doe their duty and punish with the Civill sword all disobedient offenders In syntag Confess And
Member of the Parliament by that same reason he may imprison two and twenty and a hundreth and so may he clap up the whole Free Estates and where shall then the highest Court of the Kingdome be All Polititians say The King is a limited Prince not absolute where the King giveth out Lawes not in his own name but in the name of himselfe and the Estates judicially conveened Pag. 33. of the old Acts of Parliament Members are summoned to treat and conclude The duty of Parliaments and their power according to the Laws of Scotland may be seen in the Historie of Knox now printed at London An. 1643. in the Nobles proceeding with the Queen who killed her Husband and maried Bodwell and was arraigned in Parliament and by a great part condemned to death by many to perpetuall imprisonment King Charles received not Crown Sword and Scepter while first he did sweare the Oath that King Iames his Father did sweare 2. He was not crowned till one of every one of the three Estates came and offered to him the Crown 3. With an expresse condition of his duty before he be crowned After King Charles said I will by Gods assistance bestow my life for your defence wishing to live no longer then that I may see this Kingdome flourish in happinesse Thereafter the King shewing himselfe on a Stage to the people the P. Archbishop said Sir I doe present unto you King Charles the right descended inheritor the Crown and dignitie of this Realme appointed by the Peeres of the Kingdome And Are ye not willing to have him for your King and become subject to him The King turning himselfe on the stage to be seen of the People They declare their willingnesse by crying God save King Charles Let the King live QUEST XLIV Generall results of the former Doctrine in some few Corollaries or straying Questions fallen off the Road-way answered briefly QUest 1. Whether all Governments be but broken Governments and deviations from Monarchie Answ It is denyed There is no lesse somewhat of Gods authoritie in Government by many or some of the choisest of the People than in Monarchie nor can we judge any Ordinance of Man unlawfull for we are to be subject to all for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2. 13. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. 2. Though Monarchie should seeme the rule of all other Governments in regard of resemblance of the supreme Monarch of all Yet is it not the morall rule from which if other Governments shall erre they are to be judged sinfull deviations Quest 2. Whether is Royaltie an immediate issue and spring of Nature Answ No For man fallen in sinne knowing naturally he hath need of a Law and a Government could have by reason devised Governors one or moe and the supervenient institution of God comming upon this Ordinance doth more fully assure us that God for mans good hath appointed Governours but if we consult with Nature many Iudges and Governors to fallen Nature seeme nearer of blood to Nature then one only for two because of mans weaknesse are better then one Now Nature seemeth to me not to teach that one onely sinfull man should be the sole and onely Ruler of a whole Kingdome God in his Word ever joyned with the Supreme Ruler many Rulers who as touching the essence of a Iudge which is to rule for God were all equally Iudges some reserved Acts or a longer cubite of power in regard of extent being due to the King Quest 3. Whether Magistrates as Magistrates be naturall Answ Nature is considered as whole and sinlesse or as fallen and broken In the former consideration that either man should stand in need of any to compell him with the sword to doe his duty and not oppresse was no more naturall to man than to stand in need of Lictors and Hangmen or Physitians for the body which in this state was not in a capacitie of sicknesse or death And so Government by Parents and Husbands was only naturall in the latter consideration Magistrates as Magistrates are two wayes considered 1. According to the knowledge of such an Ordinance 2. According to the actuall erection of the practice of the office of Magistrates In the former notion I humbly conceive that by Natures light Man now fallen and broken even under all the fractions of the powers and faculties of the soule doth know that promises of reward feare of punishment and the coactive power of the Sword as Plato said are naturall meanes to move us and wings to promote obedience and to doe our duty And that Government by Magistrates is naturall But in the second relation it is hard to determine that Kings rather then other Governours are more naturall Quest 4. Whether Nature hath determined that there should be one supreme Ruler a King or many Rulers in a free Commnitie Answ It is denyed Quest 6. Whether every free Commonwealth hath not in it a supremacie of Majestie which it may formally place in one or many Answ It is affirmed Quest 6. Whether absolute and unlimited power of Royaltie be a ray and beame of Divine Majestie immediately derived from God Answ Not at all Such a creature is not in the world of Gods creation Royalists and flatterers of Kings are parents to this prodigious birth There is no shadow of power to doe ill in God An absolute power is essentially a power to do without or above Law and a power to doe ill to destroy and so it cannot come from God as a Morall power by institution though it come from God by a flux of permissive providence but so things unlawfull and sinfull come from God Quest 7. Whether the King may in his actions intend his owne Prerogative and Absolutenes Answ He can neither intend it as his nearest end nor as his remote end Not the former for if he fight and destroy his People for a Prerogative he destroyeth his People that he may have a power to destroy them which must be meere Tyranny nor can it be his remote end for granting that his supposed absolute Prerogative were lawfull he is to referre all lawfull Power and all his actions to a more noble end to wit to the safetie and good of the People Quest 8. Doe not they that resist the Parliaments power resist the Parliament And they that resist the Kings power resist the King God hath joyned King and Power who dare seperate them Answ If the Parliament abuse their power we may resist their abused power and not their power Parliamentarie Mr. Bridges doth well distinguish in his Annot. on the Loyall Convert betwixt the Kings power and the Kings will 2. The Resisters doe not separate King and Power but the King himselfe doth separate his lawfull Power from his Will if he worke and act Tyrannie out of this principle Will Passion Lust not out of the Royall principle of Kingly power So far we may resist the one and not the other Quest
his power If we obteine this which Gods Word doth give us we have enough for our purpose though Vzzah kept the naked title of a King as indeed he tooke but up roome in the Catalogue of Kings Now if by Law he was cut off from actuall governing Whether he was willing or not willing to denude himselfe of Reigning it is all one And to say that furious men ideots stupid men and Children who must doe all Royall acts by Curators and Tutors are Kings jure with correction is petitio principii for then hath God infused immediately from heaven as Royalists teach us a Royall power to governe a Kingdome on those who are as capable of Royaltie as blocks I conceive that the Lord Deut. 17. 14 15 16 17. commandeth the people to make no blocks Kings and that the Lord hath not done that himselfe in a binding Law to us which we have no commandement from him to doe I conceive that God made Josiah and Joash Kings typicall and in destination for his promise sake to David while they were Children as well as he made them Kings but not actu completo ratione officii to be a rule to us now to make a Childe of sixe yeares of age a King by office I conceive Children are to us only Kings in destination and appointment And for Idiots and Fooles I shall not believe let Royalists breake their faith upon so rocky and stony a point at their pleasure that God hath made them Governors of others by Royall office who can scarce number their own fingers Or that God tyeth a people to acknowledge stupid blocks for Royall Governours of a Kingdome who cannot governe themselves But far be it from me to argue with Bellarmine From Vzziah his bodily leprosie to inferre that any Prince spiritually Leprous and turned Hereticall is presently to be dethroned Nothing can dethrone a King but such Tyrannie as is inconsistent with his Royall office Nor durst I inferre that Kings now adayes may be removed from actuall Government for one single transgression It is true 80 Priests and the whole Kingdome so serving King Vzzah their motives I know were Divine proveth well that the Subjects may punish the transgression of Gods expresse law in the King in some cases even to remove him from the Throne but as from Gods commanding to stone the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day we cannot inferre that Sabbath-breakers are now to be punished with death yet we may well argue Sabbath-breakers may be punished and Sabbath-breakers are not unpunishable and above all Law So may we argue here Vzzah though a King was punished Ergo Kings are punishable by Subjects Quest 16. Whether or no as the deniall of active obedience in things unlawfull is not dishonourable to the King as King he being obliged to command in the Lord only so the deniall of passive subjection to the King using unjust violence be also no dishonouring of the King Ans As the King is under Gods Law both in commanding or in exacting active obedience so is he under the same regulating Law of God in punishing or demanding of us passive subjection and as he may not command what he will but what the King of Kings warranteth him to command so may he not punish as he will but by warrant also of the supreame Iudge of all the earth and therefore it is not dishonourable to the Majesty of the Ruler that we deny passive subjection to him when he punisheth beside his warrant more then its against his Majesty and honour that we deny active obedience when he commandeth illegally else I see not how it is lawfull to fly from a tyrannous King as Elias Christ and other of the witnesses of our Lord have done and therefore what Royalists say here is a great untruth namely That in things lawfull we must be subject actively in things unlawfull passively For as we are in things lawfull to be subject actively so there is no duty in point of conscience laying on us to be subject passively because I may lawfully fly and so lawfully deny passive subjection to the Kings will punishing unjustly Quest 17. Whether may the Prince make away any part of his Dominions as an Iland or a Kingdome for the safety of the whole kingdomes he bath as if goods be like to sinke an over burthened Ship the Sea-men cast away a part of the Goods in the Sea to save the lives of the whole Passengers and if three thousand Passengers being in one Ship and the Ship in a storme like to be loosed it would seeme that a thousand may be cast over-board to save the lives of the whole Passengers Ans The Kingdome being not the Kings proper Heritage it would seeme he cannot make away any part of his Kingdome to save the whole without the expresse consent of that part though they be made away to save the whole In things of this kind men are not as the commodities of Merchants nor is the case alike as when one thousand of three thousand are to be cast into the Sea to save all the rest and that either by common consent or by Lots or some other way for it is one thing when destruction is evidently inevitable as in the casting so many men into the Sea to save the whole and many Passengers and when a King for peace or for help from another King maketh away part of his Dominion The Lord is here to be waited on in his good Providence and events are to be committed to him but far lesse can it be imaginably lawfull for a King to make away a part of his Dominions without their consent that he may have help from a forraign Prince to destroy the rest This were to make merchandize of the lives of men Quest 18. Whether or no the convening of the subjects without the Kings will be unlawfull Answ The convention of men of it self is an indifferent thing and taketh its specification from its causes and manner of convening though some convention of the Subjects without the King be forbidden yet Ratio Legis est anima Legis The reason and intent of the Law is the soul of the Law Convention of the Subjects in a tumultuary way for a seditious end to make war without warrant of Law is forbidden but not when Religion Laws Liberties Invasion of forraign Enemies necessitateth the Subjects to conveen though the King and ordinary Iudicatures going a corrupt way to pervert Iudgement shall refuse to consent to their conventions Upon which ground no convention of Tables at Edinburgh or any other place An. 1637. 1638. 1639. can be judged there unlawfull for if these be unlawfull because they are convention of the Leagues without expresse Act of Parliament then the convention of the Leagues to quench a house on fire and the convention of a Countrey to pursue a Wolf entered in the Land to destroy women and children which are warranted by the Law of
r. Satan p. 28. l. penult for Ant. r. for p. 47. l. 38. for yet as r. as yet p. 52. l. 28. for rest r. right p. 91. l. 36. r. nature p. 96. l. 33. for is r. in p. 97. l. 21. for him r. her p. 98. l. 10. for 2. r. 3. ib. l. 13. for 3. r. 4. l. 17. for 4. r. 5. for fol. 92 93. r. 108 109 p. 121. l. 8 for far r. for p. 158. l. 31. for or r. is a. p. 171. l. 22. for re-joyned r. are joyned p. 179 l. 31. for nor r. were p. 186. l. 28. for are r. or p. 195. l. 10. for dispute r. dispence p. 201 l. 37. for is r. in p. 203. l. 13. dele by p. 224. l. 9 r. in so far as it is p. 228. l. 37. for it r. it s p. 234. l. 8. r. Malderus p. 235. l. 37. dele come p. 271. l. 2. for them r. then p. 280 l. 16. for traddit r. tradidit for fol. 313. r. 290. sequent p. 325. l. 23. for excito r. exercito p. 332. l. 29. for aimeth r. owneth p. 336. l. 33. for workâ— r. worker p. 343 l. 16. dele not p. 351. l. 35. for first r. fift p. 373. l. penult for first r. fift ib. l. ult for re-man r. remain p. 388. l. 10. for needlesse r. needfull p. 392. l. 22. for accidere r. occidere p. 405. l. antepenult for right r. rite p. 406. l. 26. for devide r. denude p. 433 l. 23. for from r. or p. 438. l. 30. for most lawfull r. fully p. 440. l. 28. for Parl. 15. r. Paâ—l 1. p. 444. in marg for five r. suae p. 451. l. 8. for neither r. either p. 452. l. 6. after England r. because he had not the consent of the States The Parliamentâ— approbation c. ib. l. 36. for being r. was Sacr. san Epist â—ediâ— Sacr. san reg maj c. 5. A refutation of the P. P. Pamphlet touching the inconsistency of the Presbytery with Monarchy The pretended Prelates lies and calumnies of the Presbyterits of Scotland Pag. 6. 6. 7. Pag. 9. Pag. 10. 10. 10 11. Pag. 11. Pa. 11 12 13. 14. 15. Pag. 7. Pag. 9. Pag. 18. Pa. 17 18. Pag. 18. Pag. 19. Pag. 22. P. 22 23 24. Pag. 31. Pag. 31. Pag. 33 34 35. His lies of the generall Assemblies of Scotland How Government is from God Civill power in the root immediately from God a Aristot polit l. 1. c. 2. b Sacro sanc reg majestas c. 1. p. 1. c Molina to â— de justit disp 22. d Bodin de rep l. 1. c. 6. e Suarez to 1. delegib l. 3. c. 3. Civill societie â—ow naturall Power of Government and of Government by Magistrates different f Vasquez illust quaest l. 1. c. 41. num 28 29. g L. 2. in princ F. de inst jur in princ Inst Cod. tit c. jus nat 1. disp h Dominium est jus quoddam l. sin ad med C. de long temp prest l. qui usum fert Civil subjection formally not natures Law Our consent to Laws not antecedently naturall Government by Rulers a secondary Law of nature a Ad Tannerus m. 12. tom 2. disp 5. de peccatis q. 5. dub 1. num 22. b Sotus 4. de justit q. 4 ar 1. c Lod. Molina to 1. de just disp 22. d Victoria in relect de potest civil q. 4. art â— Family Government and civil different Civill government by consequent naturall Rom. 13. e Gâ—â—â—rruvias tr 2. pract quest 1. n 2 3 4 f Soto loâ— â—â—t g Suarez de Reg. lib. 3. c. 4. n. 1 2. h Barclaius con Monarchoma l. 3. c. 2. The King from God understood in a foureâ—old sense i Sacrosan reg maj the sacred and royall prerogative of Christian Kings c. 1. q. 1. p. 6 7. k Bellarm. de locis l. 5. c. 6. not 5. Politica universè considerata est de jure divino in particulari considerata est de jure gentium Royall power is of divine institution a Hiâ—romy in L. 4. Comment in Iâ—rem b Basilius Epist 125. c Athanasius Epist ad solita d Optat. Melevitanus Lib. 3. e Epiphanius â— 1. tom 3. Heres 40. How and in what sence any forme of Government is indifferent How Government is an Ordinance of man 1 Pet. 2 3. f Rivetus in dâ—eal Mand. 5. pa. 194. g Pisc in loc h Diodat annot i Oecumenius Quod hominum dispositione consistit humanis suffragiiâ— creatur k Dydimus l Cajetan officium regiminis quia humanis suffragiis creatur m Estius in loc n Betrandus tom 4. Bib. o Gloss ordinar p Lyranus q Syriak r Lorin in lâ— Å¿ Durandus lib. de orig juris How the King is from God and how from the people Royall power three wayes in the people How Royall power is radidically in the people The people make the King The people create a King according to the Scripture a Lavater com in Part 12 38. Hodie quo que in liberis urbibus gencibus magistratus secundum dei verbum Exod. 18. Deut. 1. cligendi sunt non ex affectiâ—us b Barclaius l. 3. cout Monarâ—homach 8. c. 3. Making a king and choosing a king not to be distinguished David not a King because anointed by Samuel By the peoples election one is made of no King a King Kings elected made by the people though the Office in the abstract be immediately of God a Bellarmine l. 5. c. 6. not 5. De Laicis Sacrâ— Sa. reg Ma. 5. 2. pag. 20. 21 22 23. The people have a reall action more then approbation in making a King The same word that is ascribed to the people in making a King 2 Sam. 16. 18. is given to God 1 King 12. 28. Kinging of a person ascribed to the people Kings in a speciall manner from God but it followeth not ergo not from the people Ib. c 24. Kings are from God yet from the people also The place Prov. 8. 15. proveth not but Kings are made by the people Thoâ— 12. q. 93. art 3. Pag. 30. Dr. Fern 3. S. 13. The formes of Government not from God by a naked act of Providence but by his approving will cap. 4. pag. 41. Soveraigntie not from the people by sole approbation That Kings in an eminent act of divine providence have their crownes from God hindreth not but they have their crownes from the people also Phrases ascribing the making of Kings in a peculiar manner to God prove not that the free will of the people hath no hand in the making Kings Prophesies of Christ expounded by the P. Prelate of prophane Heathen Kings The P. Prelate expoundeth Prophesies of David Solomon and Iesus Christ as true of prophane heathen Kings Sacro sancta Maj. 43. 44. The P. P. maketh all the Heathen Kings to be anoynted with grace from Heaven a Aug. in locum unxi mâ—num fortâ—m servum obedientenâ— ideo in co posui adjutorium
resolveth upon the free election of the people as on the fountain-cause 6. Argum. Sect. 4. p. 39. Election of a family to the Crown lawfull Speed Hist pag. 757. A King by election commeth neerer to the first King then a King by succession D. Fern part 3. sect â— p. 14. If the people may limit the King they may give him power A community have not power formally to punish themselves Barclay cont Monarcham c. 2 p. 5 6. The elective King and the hereditary King better and worse every one then another in divers relations Sac. sanc Reg. Maiest c. 17. p. 158. Letter p. 7. Twofold right of conquest Sect. 7. p. 30. Vniust conquest is no signification of Gods approving Will. 1 Arg. 2 Arg. Meere violent domineering is contrary to the rules of governing 3 Arg. Violence hath nothing in it of a King 4 Arg. 5 Arg. A King given to a people by a bloody Conquest must be a judgement not a blessing and so not pâ—â— se a King 6 Arg. Strength as prevailing strength is not law or reason Fathers cannot dispose of the liberty of the posteritie not borne A father as a father hath not power of life and death Hugo Gâ—otius de iute belli pacis l. 2. c. 4. n. 10. 7 Arg. Part 3. Sect. 3. pâ—g 20. Arnisaeus de authoritat Priâ—cip c. 1. n. 1 â— The peoples and Davids conquest of Canaanites Amonites and Edomites do not prove conquest to be a good title to a Crown Davids conquest of the Ammonites more rigorous then that it can legitimate Crowns by â—onquest 2 Sam. 12. 30. 31. 7 sorts of superioritie and inferioritie Power of life and death from a positive law not from the superioritie of father children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A dominion antecedent and consequent Kings and subjects no naturall order Buchan de jure Regni apud Scoles A man is born consequenter in a politique â—â—lation Slavery not naturall Every man by nature free borne in regard of civill subjection 1 Arg. 2 Arg. 3 Arg. 4 Arg. 5 Arg. 6 Arg. Politque societie naturall in radice free in modo rei 7 Arg. Sac. sanct Reg. ma. c. 12. p. 12 P. Prelate Politick Government how naturall P. Prelate Sac. sanct Mai. p. 126. Inslaving of children by the parents not naturall The King under a naturall but no civil obligation to the people say Royalists If the condition without the which one of the parties would never have entered in covenant be not performed that person is loosed from the covenant Arnis de authorit prin â— â— n. 6. 7. The people Princes in their place are obliged to maintain Religion and Iustice no lesse then the King In so far as the King presseth a false Religion on the people catenus in so far they are understood not to have a Kingly power The covenant between King and People giveth a coactive power to each other The covenant bindeth the King as King not as he is a man only The covenant tyeth the King to the People politically as well as to God naturally or religiously 2 Arg. How the covenant is conditionall and what breach dissolveth the covenant One or two tyrannous acts deprive not a King of his Royall right The covenant between King and people conditionall Though there be no positive written covecant which yet we grant not yet there is a naturall tacite and implicite covenant betwixt the King and ths people If the King be made King absolutely he is made such an one contrary to the word of God and nature of his office The people are not given to the Kings keeping so as they be his owne as sheep or mony are given The King could not buy or sell borrow or contract debt if his covenant with men did not bind him The covenant sworn by Asa and all Iudah 2 Chron. 15. obligeth the King Barclay Alber. Gentilis in disput Regal l. 2. c. 12. l. 3. c. 14 15. 16. Hug. Grotius de jure belli poc l. 2. c. 11 12 13. Arnisaeus dâ— authorit princip c. 1. n. 7. 8. 10. Haenon disp 2. Ioan. Roffens de potest papâ— l. 2. c. 5. Adam suppose he had lived till now should not have bin King of the whole earth because â— father King a father Metaphorically only A fatherly power and a politike power are not one and the fame D. Ferne par 1. sect 3. pag. 8. Sacr. sanct Reg. Maiest c. 7. pag. 87. Arnisaeus de potest princip c. 3. u. 1. 2. See Aristotle saith the Prelate Eth. 8. 10. pol. 1. c. Homer Odys 1. he might have said see Arnisaeus loe tit The King as King hath no masterly domion over the people but only fiduciarie To be a King is by office and actu primo to defend save feed and not to hurt or inthral A King not over men as reasonable men Prelatâ— Sacr. sanct mas c. 16. p. 15. Hugo Grotius hath the same de jur bel pacis l. 1. c. 3. A compelled surrender of liberty tyeth not A surrender of ignorance and mistake is some way unvoluntary and obligeth not The Goods of the Subjects not the Kings * Quod jure gentium dicitur F. de justi tia jure l. ex hee Quod partim jure civili Iusti de rerum divisio sect singulorum * L. item si verberatum F. de rei vindicat Ias plene m. l. Barbarius F. de oâ—fici praetor all the goods of the people are the Kings in a fourfold notion but not in propriety Subjects are propriators of their own Goods Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. The answer of Hybreas to a extorting Prince Autonius Argum. 4. Species enim furti est de alieuo largiri beneficii debitorem sihi acquirere L. si pignore sect de furt Argum. 5. Argum. 6. Argum. 7. Argum. 8. The Kings power fiduciarie The King a Tutor Difference between a father and a Tutor A free Community no pupill or minor The Kings power not properly Maritall or husbandly The King a Patron rather then a Lord. The King an honourable servant Royall power only from God and only from the people in divers respects The King the servant of the people both objectively subjectively By one and the same act the Lord of Heaven and the People make the King according to the physicall realitie of the act The King head of the Communitie only metaphorically The King but metaphorically only Lord of the familie The King not heire nor proprietor of the Kingdome The place 1 Sam. 8 9 11. discussed a Grotius de ju bel pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 3. b Barclaius contra Monarchom l. 2. p. 64. Potostatem intelligit non â—aâ— quae competit ex praecepto neque etiam quae ex permissu est quatenus liberat à peccato sed quatenus paenis legalibus â—ximit operantem c Barclaius contra Monarcho l. 2. p. 56 57. The power office of the King badly disterenced by Barclay
as caâ—â—â— to take Christ 2. He waited not on Christs answer 3. He could have defended himself another way 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter The Prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the peoples not executeing judgement for the oppressed and not relieving those that were crushed in the gate There is no warrant in the word by precept or practice that the King and Cavalliers should rise and oppose Princes and States in a hostile way for their conscience Sacr. sanâ—â— 6. pag. 74 75 76. The Doctors of Aberdeene in their Duplyes Tertullian in an errour The ancient Christians did rise in Armes against persecuting Emperours Inferiour Judges have the power of the sword aswell as the King The people tyed to acts of Charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forreigne Army though the King forbid We must defend with the sword the Church of God whether the King will or no except it be said the King may command murther and discharge us of the duties of the second Table Examples of lawfull warres without the King If the Parliament make the King and give to him the sword the King cannot make the Parliament nor use the sword to their destruction Parliamentary power a fountaine power above the King Loyall Sâ—aj Beliefâ— Causes oâ— wâ—r make lawfull war not the sole pleasure of the King De â—â—iâ—cip 6. â— 18. It is necessary and lawfull for the States of Scotland to help their brethren in England Cases â—n which we are to help our brethren according to divers opinions We are to help our brethren though they desire us â—â—â— Solons testimony Law of the Egyptians against those that helped not the oppressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erne captos ad mortem Acts of charity as helping our brethren against unjust oppressions oblige us whether the King command them or forbid them Loyall subjects beliefe sect 4. pag. 7. Sacr. sanct Reg. maj c. 2. pag. 26. 27. The question concerning the excellency of Monarchy above other formes various according to divers considerations An absolute Monarchy the baddest of governments Epiminondas his watchfulnesse A power to sin worse then a power of non-sinning Monarchy in it selfe considered is the best government Every forme in some construction best A mixed Monarchy bâ—st Tolossan de Rep. l. 13. c. 12. Barâ—l cont Monarch l. 1. c. 39. Symmons Loyall Subj unbeliefe §. 4. pag. 7. A threefold supreame power What be jura regalia or jura majestatis Arnisaeus de 〈…〉 6. maâ— â— 1. â— 3. pag. 15â— 158. Kings conâ—â—r honours as rewards of vertue as they punish ildoers not because they are absolute but according to law The law of the King 1 Sam 8. 9. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Farther consideration of the place 1. Sam. 8. 9. 11. Difference of Kings and Judges The law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8. 9. no permissive law of God as was the law of a bill of divorcement God cannot make a permissive law tending to the destruction of a whole national Church and Kingdome What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subject The peoples power over the King by reason of the Coronation covenant Mutuall punishments may be where there be no mutuall relations of superiority and inferiority A promise layeth a politique obligation on the promiser and giveth law to him to whom the promise is made to presse performance or punish violation when the promises are betwixt man and man Three kindes of oathes or covenants â—â—de by Kings as Arnisaeus thinketh The King not King 〈…〉 â—â— first â—wear the oâ—â—h It is an evasion onely to distinguâ—sh between the Kings promisâ—s and his oath Grotius de jur bel pat l. 1. c. 4. Barclai l. 4. c. 6. A King cannot swear to be a just King because he is already King Bartol in l. 1. n. 4. de his qui not infam Arnisae cap. 6. An princeps qui iuraâ— subditis c. â—o Roâ—â— de potest pa. lib. 2. c. 20. B. Rochester 16 A difference betwixt a father and a King A people may give Royall power to the King by limitation and measure but people can give no gift which is solely and immediately from God by measure they cannot measure God Sacr. san reg maj c. 1. pag. 1 2. An. 1633. Coronation of King Charls in Scotland L. 3. defens fid Orth. c. 3. n. 2 3. The P. Prelate is a Papist Iesuites tenents concerning Kings Tract contra primatum Regis Angliae Calvin Iust l. 4. c. 4. Sac. sanc Mai. c. 1. p. 17 18. Soveraigne power in the King but not power of Tyrannie The King not the Vicegerent of Christ as mediator The King not the head of the Church The prelates reason proveth all creatures to be the vicegerents of Christ as Mediator 2 Reas p. 58. The King no mixed person or half Clergie man in the externail government of the Church as the P. P. dreameth 1 Parl. King Charles aâ— 1633. The P. Prelate prayeth for the Pope The Power of Presbyteries Ministeriall P. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel and Discipline of Christ Pag. 65. The Ministeriall power of Pastors what Page 65. The P. Prelate maketh the King a Church-man The P. Prelate giveth an Arbitrary power of government in Christs-Church to the King Prelates extend a lawlesse prerogative to the government of the Church Two Supremes under Christ one in the Church another in the State are not absurd P. 66 67 68. The King not the servant of the Church Ruling Elders not Lay-men The King of Scotland not above Laws and Parliaments proved from our acts of Parliament The King of Scotland's oath at his Coronation How the King is supreme Iudge in all Causes The Estates of Parliament do append their collaterall Seales with the Great Seal in Treaties with forraigne Princes Angl. Conf. art 37. Sed eam tantum Prerogativam aequam in sacris Scripturis à Deo ipso omnibus piis Princibus semper fuisse tributam hoc est ut omnes status atque ordines fidei sive commlssos sixe illi ecclesiastiei sint sive civiles in officio â—ontineant â—ontumaces ac delinquenteâ— gladio civili â—oerceant W. Laud and other Prelates enemies to Parliaments The Parliaments of Scotland doe regulate limit and set bounds to the Kings power Fergus the first King of Scotland no Conquerour but a freely elected Prince A fundamentall Law of elective Kings in Scotland The Parliaments of Scotland chosed Kings The Oath of Galdus the 21. King of Scotland Kings of Scotland censured and punished by the Parliament Kings of Scotland of old had no negative voyce Buchan Rer. Scot. l. 7. Coronation Oath Parliaments of Scotland by Law are to decide who should raigne How Royaltie is the first and naturall Government Many Rulers over a great multitude more naturall than one To resist the Will is not to resist the Power Pag. 9. It is no good consequence Christ and the Apostles used not violent resistance to spread the Gospel ergo such resistance is unlawfull The Coronation of the King in concreto is more then a Ceremonie Men may limit the Power that they gave not Arnisaeus de authorit princi c. 3. n. 6. Subiects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients Vassals Children Servi indignè habiti confugiendi ad statuas dominum mutandi copiam habent l. 2. De his qui sunt sui Item C. De lat Hered toll Arnisaeus De authori principumâ—in popul c. 3. n. 7. Subjects in active obedience must subject to a Kings lawfull commandement but in things unlawfull they are not naturally subject in passive subjection Whether King Vzzah was dethroned Arnisaeus de jure Pontif. Rom. in Regna Princ. c. 5. n. 30. Bellarm. de pâ—nit l. 3. c. 2. Deniall of passive obedience in things unjust not dishonourable to the King more then deniall of active obedience in these same things Loyall Convâ—rt page 10. The King may not make away a part of his owne Dominions Ferdinan Vasquius illustr quest l. 1. c. 3. n. 8. juri alieno quisquam nâ—c in minima parte obesse potest l. id quod nostru F. de reg jur l. jur natu cod titul l. How subjects are obliged to pay the Kings debts Subsidies the Kingdoms due rather then the Kings In how many divers notions the Seas Forts Castles Militia Road-wayes are the Kings and how more properly they are the Kingdomes