if the people have this it s a creating of a King under God who principally disposeth of Kings and Kingdomes and this is enough for us The want of this made Zimri no King and those whom the Rulers of Iezreel at Samaria 2 King 10. refused to make Kings no Kings This election of the people made Athaliah a Princesse the removall of it and translation of the crown by the people to Ioash made her no Princesse for I beseech you what other calling of God hath a race of a familie and a person to the crowne but only the election of the States There is now no voice from heaven no immediately inspired Prophets such as Samuel and Elisha to annoynt David not Eliab Solomon not Adoniah The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the heroick spirit of a Royall facultie of governing is I grant from God only not from the people but I suppose that maketh not a King for then many sitting on the throne this day should be no Kings and many private persons should be Kings If he meane by the peoples choosing nothing but the peoples approbative consent posterior to Gods act of creating a King let them shew us an act of God making Kings and establishing royall power in such a familie rather then in such a familie which is prior to the peoples consent distinct from the peoples consent I believe there is none at all 4. Arg. Hence I argue If there be no calling or title on earth to tie the Crown to such a Familie and Person but the suffrages of the people then have the line of such a familie and the persons now no calling of God no right to the crown but only by the suffrages of the people except we say that there be no lawfull Kings on earth now when Propheticall unction and designation to Crowns are ceased contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 13.1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2.13 14 15 16 17. But there is no title on earth now to tye crownes to families to persons but onely the suffrages of the people for 1. Conquest without the consent of the people is but royall latrocinie as we shall see 2. There is no propheticall and immediate calling to Kingdomes now 3. The Lords giving of Regall parts is somewhat but I hope Royallists will not deny but a child young in yeares and judgment may be a lawfull King 3. Mr. Maxwell his appointing of the Kingly office doth no more make one man a lawfull King then another for this were a wide consequence God hath appointed that Kings should be ergo Iohn a Stiles is a King yea ergo David is a King It followeth not Therefore it remaineth only that the suffrages of the people of God is that just title and divine calling that Kings have now to their crownes I presuppose they have gifts to governe from God 5. If the Lords immediate designation of David and his annointing by the divine authoritie of Samuel had been that which is alone without the election of the people made David formally King of Israel then there were two Kings in Israel at one time for Samuel annointed David and so he was formally King upon the ground layed by Royallists that the King hath no royall power from the people and David after he himselfe was annointed by Samuel divers times calleth Saul the Lords anointed and that by the inspiration of Gods spirit as we and Royallists doe both agree Now two lawfull supreme Monarchs in one Kingdome I conceive to be most repugnant to Gods truth and sound reason for they are as repugnant as two most Highs or as two Infinites 2. It shall follow that David all the while betwixt his anointing by Samuel and his coronation by the suffrages of all Israel at Hebron 1. Was in-lacking in discharging and acquiting himselfe of his royall duty God having made him formally a King and so laying upon him a charge to execute justice and judgement and defend Religion which he did not discharge 2. All Davids suffering upon Davids part must be unjust for as King he should have cut off the murtherer Saul who killed the Priests of the Lord especially seeing Saul by this ground must be a private murtherer and David the only lawfull King 3. David if he was formally King deserted his calling in flying to the Philistims for a King should not forsake his Kingdome upon no hazards even of his life no more then a Pilot should give over the helme in an extreme storme but certainly Gods dispensation in this warranteth us to say no man can be formally a lawfull King without the suffrages of the peoâ—leâ— for Saul after Samuel from the Lord anointed him remained a private man and no King till the people made him King and elected him And David anointed by that same divine authoritie remained formally a Subject and not a King till all Israel made him King at Hebron And Salomâ—n though by God designed and ordained to be King yet was never King till the people made him King 1 King 1. ergo there floweth something from the power of the people by which he who is no King now becommeth a King formally and by Gods lawfull call whereas before the man was no King but as touâ—hing all royall power a meere private man And I am sure birth must be lesse then Gods designation to a crowne as is cleere Adoniah was elder then Salomon yet God will have Salomon the younger by birth to be King and not Adoniah And so Mr. Symons and other Court-Prophets must prevaricate who will have birth without the peoples election to make a king and the peoples voyces but a ceremonie 6. I thinke Royalists cannot deny but a people ruled by Aristocraticall Magistrates may elect a King and a King so elected is formally made a lawfull King by the peoples election for of six apt and gifted to reigne what maketh one a King and not the other five Certainly God disposing the people to choose this man and not another man it cannot be said but God giveth the Kingly power immediately and by him Kings raigne that is true The Office is immediately from â—od but now the question is what is that which formally applyeth the Office and Royall Power to this Person rather thâ—n 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
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 Abimâ—lech 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 〈◊〉 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 â—nd 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 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
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 flatterers 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 intrudors before the Lords of Session for that act of injustice Is this against Gods Word or Conscience 2. The Sanedrim 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 Ioabs 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 for 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-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 fervor 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 1. Because Nature hath given to man to be a sociall creature and impossible he can preserve himselfe in a societie except he being in communitie transforme his power to an head 2. He saith Hujus vero civilis societatis resp rector ab alio quam ab ipsamet repub constitui non potest justè absque Tyrannide Siquidem ab ipso Deo constitutus non est nec electus cuilibet civili societati immediatè Rex aut Princeps Arist. polit 3. c. 10. saith It is better that Kings got by election then by birth because Kingdomes by succession are verè regia truly Kingly these by birth are more Tyrannicall masterly and proper to Barbarous Nations And Covarruvias tom 2. pract quest de jurisd Castellan Reip. c. 1. n. 4. saith Hereditary Kings are also made hereditary by the tacit consent of the people and so by law and consuetude Spalato Let us grant saith he that a societie shall refuse to have a Governour over them shall they be for that free in no sort but there be many wayes by which a people may be compelled to admit a governour for then no man might rule over a Communitie against their will But nature hath otherwise disposed ut quod singuli nollent universi vellent that which every one will not have a Communitie naturally desireth And the P. Prelate saith God is no lesse the author of Order then he is the author of Being for the Lord who createth all conserveth all and without
body but as they transferre their power to the father 1. for their owne safetie and peace not if he use the power they give him to their destruction the same way they tye themselves to his first borne as to their King 2. As they chose the father not as a man but a man gifted with Royall grace and a Princely facultie for government so they can but tye themselves to his first borne as to one graced with a facultie of governing and if his first borne shall be borne an idiot and a foole they are not obliged to make him King for the obligation to the sonne can be no greater then the obligation to the father which first obligation is the ground measure and cause of all posterior obligations If Tutors be appointed to governe such an one the Tutors have the Royall power not the Idiot nor can he governe others who cannot governe himselfe That Kings goe not as heritage from the father to the sonne I prove 1. God Deut. 17. could not command them to choose such a one for the King and such a one who sitting on his throne shall follow the direction of God speaking in his word if birth were that which gave him Gods title and right to the Crowne for that were as much as such a man should be heire to his fathers inheritance and the sonne not heire to his fathers crown except he were such a man But God in all the Law morall or judiciall never required that the heire should be thus and thus qualified else he should not be heire but he requireth that a man and so that a familie should be thus and thus qualified else they should not be Kings and I confirme it thus The first King of divine institution must be the rule paterne and measure of all the rest of the Kings as Christ maketh the first Mariage Mat. 19.8 a paterne to all others and Paul reduceth the right administration of the Supper to Christs first institution 1 Cor. 11.23 now the first King Deut. 17.14 15. is not a man qualified by naked birth for then the Lord in describing the manner of the King and his due qualifications should seeke no other but this You shall choose onely the first borne or the lawfull sonne of the former King But seeing the King of Gods first moulding is a King by election and what God did after by promises and free grace give to David and his seed even a throne till the Mesiah should come and did promise to some Kings if they would walke in his Commandements that their sonnes and sonnes sonne should sit upon the Throne in my judgement is not an obliging Law that sole birth should be as just a title in foro Dei for I now dispute the question in point of conscience as royall unction 2. If by divine institution God have impawned in the peoples hand a subordinate power to the most High who giveth Kingdomes to whom he will to make and create Kings then is not sole birth a just title to the Crowne But the former is true both by precept Deut. 17.1 and God expresly saith Thou shalt choose him King whom the Lord shall choose And if it had not been the peoples power to create their own Kings how doth God after he had designed Saul their King yet expresly 1 Sam. 10. inspire Samuel 17. to call the people before the Lord at Mizpeh to make Saul King and how doth the Lord v. 22. expresly shew to Samuel and the people the man that they might make him King and because all consented not that Saul should be King God will have his Coronation renewed v. 14. Then said Samuel to the people Come and let us goe to Gilgall and renew the Kingdome there 15. And all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gilgall And how is it that David anoynted by God is yet no King but a private subject while all Israel make him King at Hebron 3. If royall birth be equivolent to royall unction and the best title and if birth speake and declare to us the Lords appointment and Will that the first born of a King should be King as M. Symmons and others say then is all title by conquest where the former King standeth in title to the Crowne and hath an Heire unlawfull But the latter is against all the nation of the Royalists for Arnisaeus Barclay Grotius Io. Roffensis Episco the Bishop of Spalato Dr. Ferne M. Symmons the excommunicate Prelat if his poore learning may bring him in the roll teach that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne I prove the Proposition 1. because if birth speake Gods revealed Will that the Heire of a King is the lawfull King then conquest cannot speake the contradicent Will of God that he is no lawfull King but the conquerour is the lawfull King Gods revealed Will should be contradictory to himselfe and birth should speake it is Gods Will that the Heire of the former King be King and the conquest being also Gods revealed Will should also speake that that Heire should not be King 2. If birth speake and reveale Gods Will that the Heire be King it is unlawfull for a conquered people to give their consent that a conquerour be their King For their consent being contrary to Gods revealed Will which is that birth is the just title must be an unlawfull consent If Royalists say God the King of Kings who immediately maketh Kings may and doth transferre Kingdomes to whom he will and when he putteth the sword in Nebuchadnezers hand to conquer the King and Kingdome of Iudah then Zedikiah or his sonne is not King of Iudah but Nebuchadnezer is King and God being above his Law speaketh in that case his Will by conquests as before he spake his Will by birth this is all can be said Ans. They answer black treason in saying so for if Ieremiah from the Lord had not commanded expresly that both the King and Kingdome of Judah should submit to the King of Babylon and serve him and pray for him as their lawfull King it had been as lawfull to them to rebell against that Tyrant as it was for them to fight against the Philistimes and the King of Ammon but if birth be the just and lawfull title in foro Dei in Gods Court and the only thing that evidenceth Gods Will without any election of the people that the first borne of such a King is their lawfull King then conquests cannot now speake a contrardictory Will of God for the question is not whether or not God giveth power to Tyrants to conquer Kingdomes from the just Heires of Kings which did raigne lawfully before their sword made an empty Throne But whether conquest now when Jeremiahs are not sent immediatly from God to command for example Britaine to submit to a violent intruder who hath expelled the lawfull Heires of the royall Line of the King of
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 predecessor 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 2 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. â— 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 indeleble 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 Barclay 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 nâ—ver 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 â—â—trimony 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
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. eod 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 1 Sam. 12.24 only feare the Lord 25. But if yee doe still wickedly yee shall be consumed both yee and your King And this case I grant is extraordinary yet so as Iunius Brutus proveth well and strongly that Religion is not given only to the King that he only should keepe it but to all the inferiour Iudges and people also in their kind but because the estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion and presse a false and Idolatrous worship upon them therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion but presseth upon the people a false and Idolatrous Religion in that they are not under the King but are presumed to have no King catenus so farre and are presumed to have the power in themselves as if they had not appointed any King at all as if we presume the body had given to the right hand a power to ward off strokes and to defend the body if the right hand should by a Palsie or some other disease become impotent and be withered up when ill is comming on the body it is presumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand and to the rest of the body to defend it selfe in this case as if the body had no right hand and had never communicated any power to the right hand at all So if an incorporation accused of Treason and in danger of the sentence of death shall appoint a Lawyer to Advocate their cause and to give in their just defences to the Iudge if their Advocate be stricken with dumbnesse because they have losed their legall and representative tongue none can say that this incorporation hath loosed the tongues that Nature hath given them so as by Natures law they may not plead in their own just
superioritie in Rulers is not primely and only for the Subjects good for some are by God and Nature appointed for the mutuall and inseperable good of the superiour and inferiour as in the government of husband and wife or father and sonne and in herili dominio in the government of a Lord and his servant the good and benefit of the servant is but secondary and consecutively intended it is not the principall end but the externall and adventitious as the gaine that commeth to a Physitian is not the proper and internall end of his art but followeth only from his practice of Medicine Ans. The Prelates logick tendeth to this some government tendeth to the mutuall good of the superior and inferior but Royall Government is some government ergo nothing followeth from a major proposition Ex particulari affirmante in prima figura Or of two particular propositions 2. If it be thus formed every maritall government and every government of the Lord and servant is for the mutuall good of the superiour and inferiour But Royall Government is such ergo c. the assumption is false and cannot be proved as I shall anon cleare 2. Obj. Solomon disposed of Cabul and gave it to Hiram ergo a conquered Kingdome is for the good of the conquerour especially Ans. Solomons speciall giving away some Titles to the King of Tyre being a speciall fact of a Prophet as well as a King cannot warrant the King of England to sell England to a forraine Prince because William made England his owne by conquest which also is a most false supposition and this he stole from Hugo Grotius who condemneth selling of Kingdomes 3 Object A man may render himselfe totally under the power of a Master without any conditions and why may not the body of a people doe the like even to have peace and safety surrender themselves fully to the power of a King A lord of great Mannours may admit no man to live in his Lands but upon a condition of a full surrender of him and his posterity to that lord Tacitus sheweth us it was so anciently amongst the Germans and the Campanians surrendered themselves fully to the Romans Answ. What compelled people may do to redeem their lives with losse of liberty is nothing to the point such a violent Conquerour who will be a father and a husband to a people against their will is not their lawfull King and that they may sell the liberty of their posteritie not yet born is utterly denied as unlawfull yea a violentated father to me is a father and not a father and the posteritie may vindicate their own liberty given away unjustly before they were born Qua omne regnum vi partum potest vi dissolvi Object 4. But saith Doct. Fern these which are ours and given away to another in which there redoundeth to God by donation a speciall interest as in things devoted to holy uses though after they be abused yet we cannot recall them Ergo If the people be once forced to give away their liberty they cannot recall it far lesse if they willingly resign it to their Prince Answ. This is not true when the power is given for the conservation of the Kingdom and is abused for the destruction thereof for a power to destruction was never given nor can it by rationall nature be given 2. Mortifications given to religious uses by a positive law may be recalled by a more divine and stronger law of nature such as is this I will have mercy and not sacrifice Suppose David of his own proper heritage had given the Shew-bread to the Priests yet when David and his men are famishing he may take it back from them against their will Suppose Christ man had bought the Corns and dedicated them to the Altar yet might he and his Disciples eat the Ears of Corn in their hunger The vessels of silver dedicated to the Church may be taken and bestowed on wounded Souldiers 2. A people free may not and ought not totally surrender their liberty to a Prince confiding on his goodnesse 1. Because liberty is a condition of nature that all men are born with and they are not to give it away no not to a King except in part and for the better that they may have peace and justice for it which is better for them hic nunc 2. If a people trusting in the goodnesse of their Prince inslave themselves to him and he shall after turn Tyrant a rash and temerarious surrender obligeth not Et ignorantia facit factum quasi involuntarium Ignorance maketh the fact some way unvoluntary for if the people had beleeved that a meek King would have turned a roaring Lyon they should not have resigned their liberty into his hand and therefore the surrender was tacitely conditionall to the King as meek or whom they beleeved to be meek and not to a tyrannous Lord and therefore when the contract is made for the utilitie of the one party the law saith their place is for after wits that men may change their minde and resume their liberty though if they had given away their liberty for money they cannot recall it and if violence made the surrender of liberty here is slavery and slaves taken in war so soon as they can escape and return to their own they are free D. Sect. item ea Justit de rerum divin l. nihil F. de capt l. 3. So the learned Ferdin Vasquez illustri l. 2. c. 82. n. 15. saith The bird that was taken and hath escaped is free nature in a forced people so soon as they can escape from a violent Conqueror maketh them a free people and si solo tempore saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 2. c. 82. n. 6. justificatur subjectio solo tempore facilius justificabitur liberatio Assert 20. All the Goods of the Subjects belongeth not to the King I presuppose that the division of Goods doth not necessarily slow from the law of nature for God made man before the fall Lord of the creatures indefinitely but what Goods be Peters and not Pauls we know not But supposing mans sin though the light of the Sun and Air be common to all and religious places be proper to none yet it is morally unpossible that there should not be a distinction of meum tuum mine and thine and the decalogue forbidding theft and coveting the wife of another man yet is she the wife of Peter not of Thomas by free election not by an act of natures law doth evidence to us that the division of things is so far forth men now being in the state of sin of the law of nature that it hath evident ground in the Law of nations and thus farre naturall that the heat that I have from my own coat and cloak and the nourishment from my own meat are physically incommunicable to any But I hasten to prove the Proposition If 1. I have leave to premit that in time
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 inferior to the hand and far more to the whole body as any part is inferior to the whole 2. Consider the King reduplicative and formally as King and by the officiall relation he hath he is no more then but a Royall servant an officiall meane tending ex officio to this end to preserve the people to rule and governe them and a gift of God given by vertue of his office to rule the people of God and so any way inferiour to the people 9. Those who are before the King and may be a People without a King must be of more worth then that which is posteriour and cannot be a King without them For thus Gods selfe sufficiency is proved in that he might be and eternally was blessed for ever without his Creature but his creature cannot subsist in being without him Now the people were a people many yeares before there was any government save domestick and is a people where there is no King but only an Aristocracy or a Democracy but the King can be no King without a people It is vaine that some say the King and Kingdome are relatives and not one is before another for its true in the naked relation so are father and sonne Master and servant Relata simul natura but sure there is a priority of worth and independency for all that in the father above the sonne and in the master above the servant and so in the people above the King take away the people and Dyonisius is but a poore Schoole-master 2. Asser. The people in power are superiour to the King 1. because every efficient and constituent cause is more excellent then the effect Every meane is inferiour in power to the end so Iun. Brutus q. 31. Bucher l. 1. c. 16. Author Lib. De offic Magistr q. 6. Henaenius disp 2. n. 6. Ioan. Roffensis Epist. De potest pap l. 2. c. 5. Spalato de Repu Ecclesiast l. 6. c. 2. n. 31. but the people is the efficient and constituent cause the King is the effect the people is the end both intended of God to save the people to be a healer and a Physician to them Esay 3. v. 7. and the people appoint and create the King out of their indigence to preserve themselves from mutuall violence Many things are objected against this 1. That the efficient and constituent cause is
The Observator said The King is not a father to the whole collective body and it s well said he is son to them and they his maker Who made the King Policy answereth The State made him and Divinitie God made him 4. The Observator said well The peoples weaknesse is not the Kings strength The Prelate saith Amen He said That that perisheth not to the King which is granted to the people The Prelate denyeth Because What the King hath in trust from God the King cannot make away to another nor can any take it from him without sacriledge Answ. True indeed If the King had Royalty by immediate trust and infusion by God as Elias had the spirit of prophecie that he cannot make away Royalists dream that God immediately from heaven now infuseth facultie and right to Crowns without any word of God It s enough to make an Euthysiast leap up to the Throne and kill Kings Judge if these Fanaticks be favourers of Kings But if the King have Royaltie mediately by the peoples free consent from God there is no reason but people give as much power even by ounce weights for power is strong Wine and a great mocker as they know a weak mans head will bear and no more power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven But a birth-right of the people borrowed from them they may let it out for their good and resume it when a man is drunk with it 2. The man will have it conscience on the King to fight and destroy his three Kingdoms for a dream his prerogative above Law But the truth is Prelates do engage the King his house honour subjects Church for their cursed Mytres The Prelate vexeth the Reader with Repetitions and saith The King must proportion his Government to the safety of the people on the one hand and to his owne safety and power on the other hand Ans. What the King doth as King he doth it for the happinesse of his people the King is a relative yea even his owne happinesse that he seeketh he is to referre to the good of Gods people He saith farther The safety of the people includeth the safety of the King because the word populus is so taken which he proveth by a raw sickly rabble of words stollen out of Passerats Dictioner His father the Schoole-master may whip him for frivolous Etymologies This supreame Law saith the Prelate is not above the Law of Prerogative Royall the highest Law nor is Rex above Lex The Democracie of Rome had a supremacie above Lawes to make and unmake Lawes and will they force this power on a Monarch to the destruction of Soveraigntie Answ. This which is stollen from Spalato Barclay Grotius and others is easily answered The supremacie of People is a Law of natures selfe-preservation above all positive Lawes and above the King and is to regulate Soveraigntie not to destroy it 2. If this supremacie of Majâ—stie was in people before they have a King then 1. they lose it not by a voluntary choise of a King for a King is chosen for good and not for the peoples losse ergo they must retain this power in habite and potency even when they have a King 2. Then supremacy of Majesty is not a beame of Divinity proper to a King only 3. Then the people having Royall soveraignty vertually in them make and so unmake a King all which the Prelate denyeth This supreme Law saith the Prelate begging it from Spalato Arnisaeus Grotius advance the King not the people and the sense is The Kingdome is really some time in such a case that the Soveraigne must exercise an Arbitrary Power and not stand upon private mens interests or transgressing of Lawes made for the private good of individualls but for the preservation of it selfe and the publicke may break through all Lawes This he may in the case when suddaine forraine invasion threatneth ruine inevitably to King and Kingdome a Physitian may rather cut a Gangreened member then suffer the whole body to perish The Dictator in case of extreame dangers as Livie and Dion Halicarnass shew us had power according to his owne Arbitrament had a soveraigne Commission in peace and war of life death persons c. not co-ordinate not subordinate to any Ans. It is not an Arbitrary power but naturally tyed and fettered to this same supreame Law Salus populi the safety of the people that a King breake through not the Law but the letter of the Law for the safety of the people as the Chyrurgion not by any prerogative that he hath above the Art of Chyrurgery but by necessity cutteth off a Gangreened member thus it s not Arbitrary to the King to save his people from ruine but by the strong and imperious Law of the peoples safety he doth it for if he did it not he were a murtherer of his people 2. He is to stand upon transgression of Lawes according to their genuine sense of the peoples safety for good Lawes are not contrary one to another though when he breaketh through the letter to the Law yet he breaketh not the Law for if twenty thousand Rebells invade Scotland he is to command all to rise though the formality of a Parliament cannot be had to indict the war as our Law provideth but the King doth not command all to rise and defend themselves by a Prerogative Royall proper to him as King and incommunicable to any but to himselfe 1. There is no such dinne and noise to be made for a King and his incommunicable Prerogative for though the King were not at all yea though he command the contrary as he did when he came against Scotland with an English Army the law of Nature teacheth all to rise without the King 2. That the King command this as King it is not a particular positive Law but he doth it as a man and a member of the Kingdom The law of Nature which knoweth no dreame of such a Prerogative forceth him to it as every member is by Natures indictment to care for the whole 3. It is poore hungry skill in this New Statist for so he nameth all Scotland to say that any Lawes are made for private interests and the good of some individuals Lawes are not Lawes if they be not made for the safetie of the people 4. It is false that the King in a publike danger is to care for himselfe as a man with the ruine and losse of any Yea in a publike calamitie a good King as David is to desire he may die that the Publique may bee saved 2 Samuel 24.17 Exodus 32.32 It is commended of all that the Emperour Otho yea and Richard the 2. of England as M. Speed saith Hist. of England p. 757. resigned their Kingdomes to eschew the effusion of blood The Prelate adviseth the King to passe over all lawes of Nature and slay thousands of innocents and destroy Church and State of three Kingdomes
and Prickman answereth to many places alledged out of the Lawyers to prove the King to be above the Law Maldorus in 12. Art 4 5 9 96. will have the Prince under that Law which concerneth all the Common-wealth equally in regard of the matter and that by the Law of nature but he will not have him subject to these Lawes which concerneth the subjects as subjects as to pay tribute He citeth Francisâ— a Vict. Covarruvia and Turrecremata He also will have the Prince under positive Lawes such as not to transport victualls not because the Law bindeth him as a Law But because the making of the Law bindeth him Tanquam conditio sine qua non even as he who teacheth another that he should not steale he should not steale himselfe Rom. 2. But the truth is this is but a branch of the Law of Nature that I should not commit Adultery and Theft and Sacriledge and such sinnes as nature condemneth if I shall condemne them in others and doth not prove that the King is under the coactive power of Civill Lawes Vlpianus l. 31. F. de regibus saith The Prince is loosed from Lawes Bodine de Repub. l. 7. c. 8. Nemo imperat sibi No man commandeth himselfe Tholosanus saith Ipsius est dare non accipere leges The Prince giveth Lawes but receiveth none De Rep. l. 7. c. 20. Donellus Lib. 1. Comment c. 17. distinguisheth betwixt a Law and a Royall Law proper to the King Trentlerus Volum 1.79.80 saith The Prince is freed from Laws and that he obeyeth Laws de honestate non de necessitate Vpon honesty not of necessity Thomas P. 1. q. 96. Art 5. and with him Soto Gregorius de Valentia and other Schoole-men subject the King to the directive power of the Law and liberate him of the coactive power of the Law Assert 7. If a King turne a Paricide a Lyon and a waster and destroyer of the people as a man he is subject to the Coactive power of the Lawes of the Land If any Law should hinder that a Tyrant should not be punished by Law it must be because he hath not a superiour but God for Royalists build all upon this but this ground is false because the Estates of the Kingdome who gave him the Crowne are above him and they may take away what they gave him as the Law of Nature and God saith If they had knowne he would turne Tyrant they would never have given him the swordâ—â— and so how much ignorance is in the contract they made with the King as little of will is in it and so it is not every way willing but being conditionall is supposed to be against their will 2. They gave the power to him only for their good and that they make the King is cleare 2 Chron. 23.11 1 Sam. 10.17 24. Deut. 17.14 15 16 17. 2 King 11. v. 12. 1 King 16.21 2 King 10.5 Iud. 9.6.2 2 Chron. 26.18 fourescore valiant men of the Priests withstood Vzziah in a corporall violence and thrust him out and cut him off from the house of the Lord. And 2. If the Princes place doe not put him above the Lawes of Church-Discipline Matth. 18. for Christ excepteth none and how can men except and if the rod of Christs lips smite the earth and slay the wicked Esay 11.4 and the Prophets Elias Nathan Ieremiah Esaiah c. Iohn Baptist Iesus Christ and his 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 feire of Lâ—w or punishment Yea this is contrary to the doctrine of Royalists for Winzetus adversus Buchanaâ—um p. 275. sâ—ith of Nero that he seeking to destroy the Senate and people of Româ— and seeking to mâ—ke new lawes for himselfe excidit jure Regni lost right to the Kingdome And Barclaius 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
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 charge 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 iâ— 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 à Lapide Otherwise Ieroboam 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 ouâ— 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 A Ruisaeus 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 integra 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 vâ—lit 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
man to self-defâ—nce 7. The Law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a magistrate or any other unjust violence from a ruler is twice injustice 1. He doth unjustly as a man 2. As a member of the common-wealth 3. He committeth a speciall kind of sin of injustice against his office but it is absurd to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of nature and not from the greater If the Pope saith Fer. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 24. n. 24 25. command to take away benefices from the just owner these who are to execute his commandement are not to obey but to write back that that mandat came not from his holinesse but from the avarice of his Officers but if the Pope still continue and presse the same unjust Mandat the same should be written againe to him and though there be none above the Pope yet there is naturall self-defence patent for all Defensio vitae nece aria est à jure naturali profluit L. ut vim ff de just jure 16. Nam quod quisque ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure fecisse videatur C. jus naturale 1. distinc l. 1. ff de vi vi armata l. injuriarum ff de injuria C. significasti 2. de hom l. scientiam sect qui non aliter ff ad leg Aquil. C. si vero 1. de sent excom l. sed etsi ff ad leg Aquil. etiamsi sequatur homicidium Vasquez l. 1. c. 17. n. 5. etiam occidere licet ob defensionem rerum Vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt in C. signisicasti Garcias Fortunius Comment in l. ut vim ff de instit jur n. 3. defendere se est juris naturae gentium A jure civili fuit additum moderamen inculpatae tutelae Iac. Novel defens n. 101. Occidens Principem vel alium Tyrannidem exercentem à poena homicidii excusatur Grotius de jure belli pacit l. 2. c. 1. n. 3. Si corpus impetatur vi presente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabili tunc bellum est licitum etiam cum interfectione periculum inferentis ratio natura quemque sibi commendat Barcl advers Monar l. 3. c. 8. est jus cuilibet se tenendi adversus immanem sevitiam But what ground saith the Royalist is there to take Arms against a King Ielousies and suspitions are not enough Ans. The King sent first an Armie to Scotland and blocked us up by sea before we took Armes 2. Papists were armed in England they have professed themselves in their Religion of Trent to â—e so much the holyer that they root out Protestants 3. The King declared we had broken loyalty to him since the last Parliament 4. He dâ—clared both Kingdoms Rebels 5. Attempted in his Emissaries to destroy the Parliament 6. And to bring in a forraigne enemie And the Law saith An imminent danger which is a sufficient warrant to take up Armes is not strokes but either the terrour of Armour or threatning Glossator in d. l. 1. C. Vnde vi ait non esse verbera expectanda sed vel terrorem armorum sufficere vel minas hoc esse imminens periculum L. Sed si quemcunque in princ ff ad leg Aquil. l. 3. quod qui armati ff de vi vi armata is qui aggressorem C. ad legem C. ad legem Corneli In most hainous sinnes conatus the endeavour and aime etiamsi effectus non sequatur puniri debet is punishable Bartoln in l. Si quis non dicam rapere The King hath aimed at the destruction of his Subjects through the power of wicked counsellors and we are to consider not the intenton of the workes but the nature and intention of the work Papists are in armes their religion the Conspiracy of Trent their conscience if they have any their malice against the covenant of Scotland which abjureth their Religion to the full their ceremonies their Prelates lead and necessitate them to root out the name of Protestant Religion yea and to stab a King who is a Protestant Nor is our King remaining a Protestant and adhering to his oath made at his Coronation in both kingdomes Lord of his own person master of himself nor able as King to be a King over Protestant subjects if the Papists now in armes under his standard shall prevail The King hath been compâ—lled to go against his own oath and the Lawes which he did swear to maintaine The Pope sendeth to his popish armies both dispensations bulls mandats incouragements The King hath made a cessation with the bloody Irish and hath put arms in the hands of Papists Now he being under the oath of God tied to maintain the Protestant Religion he hath a metaphysically subtle pearcing faith of miracles who beleeveth armed Papists and Prelates shall defend Protestants their Religion and these who have abjured Prelats as the lawful sons of the Pope that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as the law saith Quilibet in dubio praesumitur bonus L. merito praesumi L. non omnes § à Barbaris de re milit Charity beleeveth not ill So Charity is not a foole to beleeve all things So saith the Law Semel malus semper praesumitur malus in eodem genere C. semel malus de jure gentium in 6. Once wicked is alwayes wicked in that kind Marius Salamonius I. C. in L. ut vim atque injuriam ff de just jure We are not to wait on strokes the terrour of armour omnium consensu by consent of all is sufficient n. 3. If I see saith he the enemy take an arrow out of the Quiver before he bend the bow it is lawfull to prevent him with a blow cunctatio est periculosa The Kings comming with armed men to demand the Five Members into the House of Commons is very symbolicall and Warre was printed on that fact he that runneth may reade His comming to Hull with an Armie saith not he had no errand there but aske what it was in the clock See Novellus that learned Venetian Lawyer in a Treatise for defence he maketh continuatam rixam a continued upbraiding a sufficient ground of violent defence He citeth Doctores Comniter in L. ut vim ff de just jure Yea he saith Drunkennesse defens n. 44. Error n. 46. Madnesse n. 49 50. Ignorance n. 51 52. Impudence n. 54. Necessity n. 56. Lasciviousnesse 58. Continuall reproaches 59. The fervour of anger 64. Threatning 66. Feare of imminent danger 67. Iust grief doe excuse a man from homicide and that in these he ought to be more mildly punished Quia obnubilatum mancum est consilium Reason in these being lame and clogged Ambros. l. 1. offic Qui non repellit injuriam à socio cum potest tam est in vitio quam ille quifacit And as Nature so the Law saith When the losses are such as can never be repaired as Death
Mutilation lâ—sse of Chastity Quoniam facta infecta fieri nequeunt things of that kinde once done can never be undone we are to prevent the enemy l. Zonat. tract defens par 3. l. in bello § factae de capit notat Gloss. in l. si quis provocatione If the King send an Irish Rebell to cast me over a bridge and drowne me in a water I am not to do nothing while the Kings emissary first cast me over and then in the next room I am to defend my self but nature and the law of self-defence warranteth me if I know certainly his ayme to horse him first over the bridge and then consult how to defend my sâ—lfe at my own leasure Royalists object that David in his defence never invaded and persecuted Saul yea when he came upon Saul and his men sleeping hee would not kill any but the Scottish and Parliaments Forces not onely defend but invade offend kill and plunder and this is cleerely an offensive not a defensive warre Answ. There is no defensive warre different in spece and nature from an offensive warre if we speake physically they differ onely in the event and intention of the heart and it is most cleare that the affection and intention doth make one and the same action of taking away the life either homicide or no homicide If a man out of hatred deliberatâ—ly take away his brothers life he is a murtherer catenus but if that same man had taken away that same brothers life by thâ—â—lying off oâ— an Axe heâ—d ofâ— the staffe while he was hewing timber he neither hating him before nor intending to hurt his brother he is no murtherer by Gods expresse Law Deut. 4.42 Deut. 19 4. Ioshua 20.5 2. The cause betweene the King and the two Parliaments and betweene Saul and David are so different in this as it is much for us Royalists say David might if he had seene offending to conduce for sâ—lfe-preservation have invaded Sauls men and say they the case was extraordinary and bindeth not us to selfe-defence and thus they must say for offensive weapons such as Goliahs sword and an hoast of armed men cannot by any rationall men be assumed and David had the wisdome of God but to offend if providence should so dispose and so what was lawfull to David is lawfull to us in self-defence he might offend lawfully and so may we 2. If Saul and the Philistims ayming as under an oath to set up Dagon in the land of Israel should invade David and the Princes and Elders of Israel who made him King and if David with an hoast of armed men he and the Princes of Israel should come in that case upon Saul and the Philistims sleeping if in that case David might not lawfully have cut oft 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 Kâ—nâ—s 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 intâ—nd 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 recâ—oâ—ed 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 Kenâ—h and Jozabad Jediel and Michael and Jozabad 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 warrantably 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 â—od 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
to make warre against the King and themselves in the defence of Religion when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people that they sinned in joyning with the King what place was there to shew them their sin in not using their owne lawfull defence And in reason any may judge it unreasonable for Elias to exhort of thousand thousands in Israel poore seven thousand of which many no doubt were women aged weake young to rise in Armes against Ahab and all Israel except God had given a positive and extraordinary Commandement and with all miraculous courage and strength in war against the whole Land and God worketh not alwayes by miracles to save his Church and therefore the naturall mandate of self-preservation in that case doth no more oblige a few weake ones to lawfull resistance then it obliged one Martyre to rise against a persecuting Nero and all his forces Arnisaeus should remember wee are not to tye our Lord to miracles 2. Elias did not onely flee but denounced wrath against the King and Cavalliers who joyned with them in Idolatry and when God gave oportunity he shewed himself and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seducing idolatours when the Idolatrous King refuâ—ed to do it and Eliah with his own hand took them not but all Israel being gathered together 1 King 18.19 The Princes and Judges did apprehend them ver 40. which is a warrant when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists that other judges are to do it 2. For Nebuchadnezzer Ieremiah from the Lord expresly forbad to fight against him shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cut-throats for that example may as well prove if it be a binding law to us that our King should not raise his Subjects to fight against a Spanish Armado and a forraigne Priâ—ce for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27.1 In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim ver 12 13 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon I hope this will not tye us and our King not to fight against forraigne Princes or against the great Turk if they shall injustly invade us and our King and this example is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him as much as against us for Nebuchadnezzar was a Tyrannous invader and the King of Iudah the Lords Annoynted 3. The people also conspired with Manasseh as with Ahab Ier. 15.4 4 Of Empâ—rours persecuting Christians we shall heare anon 5. Deut. 13. None are excepted by a synecdoche the dearest are expressed sonne daughter brother the friend that is as thine own soul. Ergo fathers also And husbands are to love their lives Ephes. 5.25 Yet to execute judgement on them without pitty Deut. 13.8.9 The father is to love the son yet if the son prophecy falsely in the name of the Lord to kill him Zach. 13.3 Hence love fear reverence toward the King may be commanded and defensive warres also 6. Christ fled from Herod and all his actions and sufferings are mysteries and instructions saith the poor Prelate 1. Christ kissed the man that to his knowledge came to betray him Christ fled not but knowing where and when his enemy should apprehend him came willingly to the place Ergo we should not flee 2. His actions are so mysterious that Iohn P. P. in imitation of Christs fourty dayes fast will fast from flesh in lent and the Prelate must walk on the sea and work miracles if all Christs actions be our instructions 7. He might with more then twelve Lâ—gions of Angels defend himself but he would not not because resistance was unlawfull no shadow for that in the text but because it was Gods will that he should drink the cup his Father gave him because to take the sword without Gods warrant subjecteth the usurper of Gods place to perish with the sword Peter had Gods revealed wil that Christ behoved to suffer Math. 26.52 53. Math. 16.21 22 23. Gods positive command that Christ should die for sinners Iohn 10.24 may well restraine an act of lawfull sâ—lf-preservation hic nunc and such an act as Christ lawfully used at another time Luk. 4.29 30. Ioh. 11.7 8. we give no new creed but this apostate hath forsaken his old creed the religion of the Church of Scotland in which he was Baptised 9. Nor do we expuâ—ge out of the Creed Christs descension into hell the communion of Saints as the apostate saith but the Popish locall descension of Christ the Popish advancing of the Churches power above the Scriptures the intercession prayers to the saints or of the saints for us we deny this Prelate though he did swear the doctrine of the Church of Scotland preached expresly all these many other poynts of Popery in the Pulpits of Edenburgh 10. We beleeve that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilat but that Pilat had any legal power to condemne Christ but onely a power by a permissive Decree Act. 4.27 28. Such as Devils had by Gods permission Luke 22.53 we utterly deny 11. The Prelat saith it is his resolution for our sin of naturall selfe defence to dissolve in tears because his Bishopricke I conceive by which he was wont to dissolve in cups being drunk on the Lords day after he with other Prelates had been at the Lords Supper while the Chamber wherein they were was dissolved in vomitting was taken from him 12. The prophets cry against all sins but never against the sin of non-resistance and yet they had very Tyrannous and Idolatrous Kings 1. This is but a weak argument 1. The Prophets cry not out against all sins they cry not out against men-stealers and killers of father and mother in expresse tearmes yet do they by consequence condemne all these sins and so do they condemne non-resistance in wars by consequence when they cry out Ier. 5.31 The Prophets prophesie falsly and the Priests beare rule by their meanes and my people love to have it so And when they complaine Ezek. 22.26 27 28. That the Prophets and Priests violate the Law her Princes are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood and the people use oppression and exercise robbery and vexe the poore And when they say Ier. 22.2 not to the King onely but also to his servants and the people that enter in by the gates 3. Execute judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour I pray you who are the oppressors I answer The murthering Judges Esa. 1.21 And Esa. 3.12 As for my people children are their oppressors and women rule over them And ver 14 15. The ancients of the people grind the faces of the poore and when they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth And Prov. 24.11 the Loâ—d shal render to
Ergo they must have the power of the sword hence upon the same grounds Assert 2. That the King onely hath the power of warre and raising Armies must be but a positive civill Law For 1. by divine right if the inferiour Judges have the sword given to them of God then have they also power of Warre and raising Armies 2. All power of warre that the King hath is cumulative not privative and not distructive but given for the safety of the Kingdome as therefore the King cannot take from one particular man the power of the sword for naturall self-preservation because it is the birth-right of life neither can the King take from a community and Kingdome a power of rising in Armes for their owne defence If an Armie of Turks shall suddenly invade the Land and the Kings consent expresse cannot be had for it is essentially involved in the office of the King as King that all the power of the swoâ—d that he hath be for their safety or if the King should as a man refuse his consent and interdict and discharge the Land to rise in Armes yet they have his Royall consent though they want his personall consent in respect that his office obligeth him to command them to rise in Armes 2. Because no King no Civill power can take away Natures birth-right of self-defence from any man or a community of men 2. Because if a King should sell his Kingdome and invite a bloody Conquerour to come in with an Armie of men to destroy his people impose upon their conscience an Idolatrous Religion they may lawfully rise against that Armie without the Kings consent for though Royalists say they need not come in asinine patience and offer their throats to cut-throats but may flee yet two things hindereth a flight 1. They are obliged by vertue of the first Commandement to re-man and with their sword defend the Cities of the Lord and the King 2 Sam. 10.12 1 Chron. 19.13 for if to defend our Country and children and the Church of God from unjust invaders and cut-throats by the sword be an act of charity that God and the Law of Nature requireth of a people as is evident Prov. 24.11 and if the fift Commandement oblige the Land to defend their aged Parents and young children from these invaders and iâ— the sixt Commandement lay on us the like bond all the Land are to act works of mercy and charity though the King unjustly command the contrary except Royalists say that we are not to performe the duties of the second Table commanded by God if an earthly King forbid us and if we exercise not acts of mercy toward our brethren when their life is in hazard to save them wee are murtherers and so men may murther their neighbour if the King command them so to doe this is like the Court-faith 2. The Kinâ—s power of warres is for the safety of his people if he deny his conseâ—t to their raising of Armes till they be destroyed he playeth the Tyrant not the King and the law of Nature will necessiâ—ate them either to defend themselves seeing slight of all in that case is harder then death else they must be guilty of self-murther Now the Kings commandement of not rising in Armes at best is positive and against the nature of his Office and it â—loweth then from him as from a man and so must be farre inferiour to the naturall Commandement of God which commandeth self-preservation if wee would not be guilty of self-murther and of obeying men rather then God So Althusius Polit. c. 25. n. 9. Halicarnas l. 4. Antiq. Rom. Aristo Pol. l. 3. c. 3. 3. David tooke Goliahs sword and became a Captaine a Captaine to an hoast of armed men in the battaile and fought the battailes of the Lord 1 Sam. 25.28 and this Abigal by the spirit of prophecy as I take it saith ver 29 30 31. 1 Sam. 22.2 1 Chron. 12.1.2.3.17.18.21.22 not onely without Sauls consent but against King Saul as he was a man but not against him as hee was King of Israel 4. If there be no King or the King be minor or an usurper as Athalia be on the Throne the Kingdome may lawfully make war without the King as Iudges cap. 20. The children of Israel foure hundred thousand footemen that drew sword went out to warre against the children of Benjamin Iudah had the power of the sword when Iosiah was but eight yeares old in the beginning of his reigne 2 King 22.1 2. and before Iehoash was crowned King and while he was minor 2 King 11. there were Captaines of hundreds in armes raised by Iehoiada and the people of Iudah to defend the young King It cannot be said that this is more extraordinary then that it is extraordinary for Kings to die and in the interregnum warres in an ordinary providence may fall out in these Kingdoms where Kings goe by election and for Kings to fall to be Minors Captives Tyrannous And I shall be of that opinion that Mr Symmons who holdeth That Royall birth is equivalent to divine unction must also hold that election is not equivalent to divine unction for both election and birth cannot be of the same validity the one being naturall the other a matter of free choise which shall infer that Kings by election are lesse properly and analogically onely Kings and so Saul was not properly a King for he was King by election but I conceive that rather Kings by birth must be lesse properly Kings because the first King by Gods institution being the mould of all the rest was by election Deut. 17.18.19.20 5. If the estates create the King and make this man King not this man as is clear Deut. 17.18 and 2 Chron. 5.1 2 3 4. they give to him the power of the Sword and the power of War and the Militia and I shall judge it strange and reasonlesse that the power given to the King by the Parliament or estates of a free Kingdom such as Scotland as acknowledged to be by all should create regulate limit abridge yea and anull that power that created it self hath God ordained a Parliamentary power to create a Royal power of the sword and war to be placed in the King the Parliaments creature for the safety of Parliament and Kingdome which yet is destructive of it selfe D. Ferne saith that the King summoneth a Parliament and giveth them power to be a Parliament and to advise and counsell him and in the meane time Scripture saith Deut. 17.18 19 20. 1 Sam. 10 20 21 22 23 24 25. 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3 4. that the Parliament createth the King heir's admirable reciprocation of creation in policie and shall God make the mother to destroy the daughter The Parliamentarie power that giveth Crown Militia sword and all to the King must give power to the King to use sword and war for the destruction of the Kingdome and to annull all the power of Parliaments to
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 Ptolomeus 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 Agos 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 thâ— 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 futuras rex Francorum in die ordinationis mea 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 cum qui non sit Catholicus All these by Scripture are oathâ—s 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 promittâ— 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 any oath it 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 his oath Hugo Grotius putteth seven cases in which the people may have most reall action against the King to accuse and punish him 1. They may punish the King to death for matters capitall if so it be agreed on betwixt the King and the people as in Lacedemonia 2. He may be punished as a private man 3. If the King make away a Kingdome given to him by succession his act is null and he may be resisted because the Kingdome is a life-rent onely to him Yea saith Barclay He loseth the Crown 4. He loseth his Kingdom if with a hostile mind he seek the destruction of the Kingdome 5. If such a clause be put in that if he commit felonie or doe such oppressions the Subjects shall be loosed from the bonds of subjection then the King failing thus turneth a private man 6. If the King have the one halfe or part of the Kingdome and the people or Senate the other halfe if the King prey upon that half which is not his owne he may violently be resisted for in so farre he hath not the Empire 7. If when the Crowne was given this be declared that in some cases he may be resisted then some naturall liberty is free from the Kings power and reserved in the peoples hand It is then reason that the King sweare an oath 4. That the Kings oath is but a ceremonie to please the people and that because he is king and king by birth therefore he sweareth and is crowned is in question and denyed No man is borne a king as no man is borne a subject and because the people maketh him King therefore he is to swear The councel of Toledo saith non antea conscendat regiam sedem quam iuret 2 An oath is a religious obligation no arbitrary ceremony 3. He may swear in his cabinet chamber not covenanting with the people as David and Iehoash did 4. So he maketh promises that he may be King not because he is King it were ridiculous he should promise or swear to be a just King because he is a just King and by the same reason the estates swear the oath of loyalty to the new King not that they may be loyall in all time coming but because they are loyall Subjects already for if the one half of the covenant on the Kings part be a ceremony of indulgence not of necessity by the same reason the other half of the covenant must be a ceremony of indulgence also to the people Object Arnisaeus saith a contract cannot be dissolved in law but by consent of two parties contracting because both are obliged l. ab emptione 58. in pr. de pact l. 3. de rescind vend l. 80. de solu Therefore if the subjects go from the covenant that they have made to be loyall to the King they ought to be punished Answ. A contract the conditions whereof are violated by neither side cannot be dissolved but by the joynt consent of both and in buying and selling and in all contracts unviolated the sole wil of neither side can violate the contract of this speaketh the law But I ask the Royalist if the contract betwixt the spies sent to view Iericho and Rahab the harlot had not been null and the spies free from any obligation if Rahab had neglected to keep within doors when Iericho was taken though Rahab and the spies had never consented expresly to break the covenant We hâ—ld that the law saith with us that vassals lose their farme if they pay not what is due Now what are Kings but vassals to the State who if they turne Tyrants fall from their Right Arnisaeus saith in the councell of Toledo 4. c. 74. The subjects ask from the King that Kings would be meek and just not upon the ground of a voluntarie Contract and Paction but because God shall rejoice in King and People by so doing Answ. These two do no more fight one with another then that two Marchants should keep faith one to another both because God hath said he shall dwell in Gods mountaine who sweareth and covenanteth and standeth to his oath covenant though to his losse hurt Psa. 15. and also because they made their covenant and contract thus and thus Arnisaeus 16. Every Prince is subject to God but not as a vassal for a Master may commit felonie and lose the proprietie of his farme can God do so The Master cannot take the farme from the vassal without an expresse cause legally deduced but cannot God take what he hath given but by a law-Processe a vassall can intitle to himself a farme against the Masters will as some jurists say but can a Prince intitle a kingdom to himself against the God of heavens will though we grant the comparison yet the subjects have no law over the Kings because the coercive power of the vassal is in the Lord of the manner the punishing of Kings belongeth to God Answ. We compare not the lord of a mannor and the Lord of Heaven together all these
naturae strictim I must crave leave to doubt I hold him to be a Divine morall Ordinance to which in conscience we are to submit in the Lord. Quest. 15. Whether was King Uzzah dethroned by the People Ans. Though we should say he was not formally unkinged and dethroned yet if the Royall power consist in an indivisible point as some Royalists say and if Vzzah was removed to a private house and could not reigne being a Leper Certainly much Royall power was taken from him 'T is true Arnisaeus saith he neither could be compelled to resigne his power nor was he compelled to resigne his Royall authoritie but he willingly resigned actuall government and remained King as Tutors and Curators are put upon Kings that are mad stupid and Children who yet governe all by the authoritie of lawfull Kings But that Vzzah did not denude himselfe of the Royall power voluntarily is cleare The reason 2 Chro. 26.21 why he dwelt in an house apart and did not actually reigne is because he was a Leper for He was cut off saith the Text from the house of the Lord and Jotham his sonne was over the Kings house judging the people of the Land Whereby it is cleare by the expresse law of God he being a Leper and so not by Law to enter into the Congregation he was cut off from the house of the Lord and he being a patient is said to be cut off from the Lords house Whether then Vzzah turned necessitie to a vertue I know not It is evident that Gods Law removed the actuall exercise of 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 Thaâ— 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 hath 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 cannoâ— 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
Murthers by himselfe and the inferior Iudges yet may not the King imploy any of these against the Kingdome 3. They are the Kings as he is King quoad officialem Regalem publicam proprietatem for he hath a Royall and Princely propriety to all these as his own in so far as he useth them according to Law And thus they are 4. The Kings also quoad usum in regard of officiall use But they are the Kingdomes quoad fructum in regard of the effect and fruit 2. They are the Kingdomes finaliter being destinated for the safetie and securitie of the Kingdome 3. They are the Kingdomes quoad proprietatem propriam legalem stricté sumptam according to the proper and legall proprietie And are not the Kings proper heritage as he is a Man 1. Because he may not sell these Forts Strengths Ports Magazine Bridges c. to a stranger or a Forraigne Prince 2. When the King is dead and his Heires and Royall line interrupted these all remaine proper to the Kingdome yet so as the State cannot as they are Men make them away or sell them more then the King for no Publike persons yea the Multitude cannot make away the securitie safetie and that which necessarily conduceth to the securitie of the Posteritie The Lord build his owne Zion and appoint Salvation for walls and bulwarks FINIS ERRATA In the Preface p. 4. l. 5. for who is r. which is PAge 14. Line 9. for he read they ib. l. 39. for is r. it s p. 24. l. 19. adde not ib. l. 27. 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 works 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. 444 forâ—ive â—ive r. suae p. 451. l. 8. for neither r. either Sacr. san Epist. dediâ— 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 Presbyteries 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 〈◊〉 22. (d) Bodin de rep l. 1 c. 6. (e) Suarez to 1. de legib l. 3. c. 3. Civill societie how naturall (f) Vasquez illust quae t. l. 1. c. 41. num 28 29. Power of Government and of Government by Magistrates disterent (g) L. 2. in princ F. de iust jur in princ Iust. Cod. tit c. jus nat 1. disp (h) Dominium est jus quoddam l. fin 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 naâ—ure (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 1. Family Government and civil different Civill government by consequent naturall Rom. 13. (e) Govarruvias tr 2. pract quest 1. n 2 3 4 (f) Soto loc cit (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 fourefold senâ—e (i) Sacro an reg maj 〈◊〉 sacred and royall prerogatiâ—â— of Christian Kings c. 1. q. 1. p. 6 7. (k) Bellarm. de locis l. 5. c. 6. not 5. Politica universe considerata est de jure divino in particulari considerata est de jure gentium Royall power is of divine institution (a) Hieromy in â— 4. Comment in Ierem. (b) Basilius Epist. 125. (c) Athanasius Epist. ad solita (d) Optat. Melevitanus Lib. 3 (e) Epiphanius l. 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 deeâ—t Mand. 5. pa. 194. (g) Pisc. in loc (h) Diodat annot (i) Occumenius Quod hominum dispositione consistit humanis suffragiis creatur (k) Dydimus (l) Cajetan officium regimenis quia humanis suffragiis creatur (m) Estius in loc (n) Betrandus tom 4. Bib. (o) Gloss. ordinar (p) Lyranus (q) Syriak (r) Lorin in lo. (s) 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 gentibus magistratus secundum dei verbum Exod. 18. Deut. 1. cligendi sunt non ex assectibus (b) Barclaius l. 3. cont Monarchomach 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 â—bstâ—act be immeâ—iâ—tely of God (a) Bellarmine l. 5. c. 6. not 5. De Laicis Sacro 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
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 anâ— 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 Eâ—g 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 Popery 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 flattered 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 cheeks 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 are 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. WHether 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 prorsus 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 makâ—th 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 were 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 but onely by meer approbation Negatur pag. 28 29. The Forms of Government not from God by an act of naked Providence but by his approving will Ibid. Soveraignty not from the people by sole approbation P. 29 30. Though God have peculiar acts of providence in creating Kings it followeth not hence that the people maketh not Kings P. 31. The P. Prelate exponeth prophecies true onely of David Solomon and Iesus Christ as true of prophane heathen Kings P. 34 35. The P. P. maketh all the heathen Kings to be Princes anointed with the holy Oyl of saving grace Ibid. QUEST VII Whether the P.
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 saith Abimelech 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 Iew 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 calling to the Crown were not blessed of God and their Government was a ruine to 〈◊〉 people and Religion as the people were removed to all the Kingdoms of the earth for the sins of Manasseh 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 falsly 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 Jepthah a bastard and the sonne of an harlot should be Iudge as that Gideon should be Iudge God vindicateth to himselfe that he giveth his people favour in the eyes of their enemies but doth it follow that the enemies are not agents and to be commended for their humanitie in favouring the people of God So Psal. 65.9 10. God maketh corne to grow therefore clouds and earth and sun and summer and husbandry contributeth nothing to the growing of corne But this is but that which he said before We grant that this is an eminent and singular act of Gods speciall providence that he moveth and boweth the wills of a great multitude to promote such a man who by nature commeth no more out of the wombe a crowned King then the poorest shepherd in the land and it is an act of grace to endue him with heroick and royall parts for the government But what is all this doth it exclude the peoples consent in no wayes So the works of supernaturall grace as to love Christ above all things to beleeve in Christ in a singular manner are ascribed to the rich grace of God but can the Prelate say that the understanding and will in these acts are meere patients and contribute no more then the people contributeth to Royall authority in the King and that is just nothing by the Prelates way And we utterly deny that as water in baptisme hath no action at all in the working of remission of sinnes so the people
argument from fact 1. A wicked Magistracie may permit perjurie and lying in the Common-wealth and that without punishment and some Christian Commonweales he meaneth his own Synagogue of Rome spirituall Sodome a cage of uncleane birds suffereth Harlotrie by Law and the whores pay so many thousands yearely to the Pope and are free of all punishment by Law to eschew homicides adulteries of Romish Priests and other greater sinnes Therefore God hath given power to a King to play the Tyrant without any feare of punishment to be inflicted by man But 1. if this be a good argument The Magistrate to whom God hath committed the sword to take vengeance on evill doers Rom. 13.3 4 5 6. such as are perjured persons professed whores and harlots hath a lawfull power from God to connive at sinnes and grosse scandals in the Commonwealth as they dreame that the King hath power given from God to exercise all acts of Tyranny without any resistance But 1. this was a grievous sinne in Eli that he being a father and a Iudge punished not his sonnes for their uncleannesse and his house in Gods heavy displeasure was cut off from the Priesthood therefore Then God hath given no such power to the Iudge 2. The contrary duty is lying on the Iudge To execute judgement for the oppressed Iob 29.12 13 14 15 16 17. Ier. 22.15 16. and perverting of judgement and conniving at the heynous sinnes of the wicked is condemned Num. 5.31 32. 1 Sam. 15.23 1 King 20.42 43. Esa. 1.17 10.1 5.23 and therefore God hath given no power to a Iudge to permit wicked men to commit grievous crimes without any punishment As for the Law of Divorce it was indeed a permissive law whereby the husband might give the wife a bill of divorce and be free of punishment before men but not free of sinne and guiltinesse before God for it was contrary to Gods institution of Mariage at the beginning as Christ saith and the Prophet saith that the Lord hateth putting away But that God hath given any such permissive power to the King that he may doe what he pleaseth and cannot be resisted This is in question 3. The Law spoken of in the Text is by Royalists called not a consuetude of Tranny but the divine law of God whereby the King is formally and essentially distinguished from the Judge in Israel Now if so a power to sinne and a power to commit acts of Tyranny yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the people of God must be a lawfull power given of God for a lawfull power it must be if it commeth from God whether it be from the King in his own person or from his servants at his commandement and by either put forth in acts as the power of a bill of Divorce was a power from God exempting either the husband from punishment before men or freeing the servant who at the husbands command should write it and put it in the hands of the woman I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by Law to one Man to command twenty thousand Cut-throats to kill and destroy all the Children of God and that he hath commanded his Children to give their necks and heads to Babels sonnes without resistance This I am sure is another matter then a Law for a bill of Divorce to one woman maried by free election of a humorous and unconstant man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from heaven like the law of Divorce for the hardnesse of the heart not of the Iewes only but also of the whole Christian and Heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch that one Emperour may by such a Law of God as the Law of Divorce kill by bloody Cut-throats such as the Irish Rebels are all the Nations that call on Gods name men women and sucking infants And if Providence impede the Catholike issue and dry up the seas of Blood it is good but God hath given a law such as the law of Divorce to the King whereby he and all his may without resistance by a legall power given of God who giveth Kings to be fathers nurses protectors guides yea the breath of nostrils of his Church as speciall mercies and blessings to his people he may I say by a law of God as it is 1 Sam. 8.9 11. cut off Nations as that Lyon of the world Nebuchadnezzar did So Royalists teach us Barclaius l. 2. cont Monarchoma pag. 69. The Lord spake to Samuel the Law of the King and wrot it in a book◠and laid it up before the Lord. But what Law That same law which he proposed to the people 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 inspired 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 out 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 he 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 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 stay 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 Pharaoh 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
will not execute the judgement of the Lord Those who made him supreme Magistrate under God who have under God soveraigne libertie to dispose of crownes and kingdomes are to execute the judgement of the Lord when wicked men make the law of God of none effect 1 Sam. 15.32 so Samuel killed Hagage whom the Lord expresly commanded to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord. I deny not but there is necessitie of a cleere warrant that the Magistrate neglect his duty either in not conveening the States or not executing the judgement of the Lord. 3. I see not how the conveening of a Parliament is extraordinarie to the States for none hath power ordinary when the King is dead or when he is distracted or captive in another land to conveene the Estates and Parliament but they only and in their defect by the law of Nature the people may conveene But 4. If they be essentially Iudges no lesse then the King as I have demonstrated to the impartiall Reader in the former Chapter I conceive though the State make a positive law for Orders cause that the King ordinarily conveene Parliaments Yet if we dispute the matter in the court of Conscience the Estates have intrinsecally because they are the Estates and essentially Iudges of the Land ordinary power to conveene themselves 1. Because when Moses by Gods rule hath appointed seventie men to be Catholike Iudges in the Land Moses upon his sole pleasure and will hath not power to restraine them in the exercise of judgment given them of God for as God hath given to any one Iudge power to judge righteous judgement though the King command the contrary so hath he given to him power to sit down in the gate or the bench when and where the necessitie of the oppressed people calleth for it For 1. the expresse commandement of God which saith to all Iudges Execute judgement in the morning involveth essentially a precept to all the Physicall actions without which it is impossible to execute judgement As namely if by a divine precept the Iudge must execute judgement ergo he must come to some publique place and he must cause partie and witnesses come before him and he must consider cognosce examine in the place of judgement things persons circumstances and so God who commandeth positive acts of judgeing commandeth the Iudges locomotive power and his naturall actions of compelling by the sword the parties to come before him even as Christ who commandeth his servants to preach commandeth that the Preacher and the People goe to Church and that he stand or sit in a place where all may heare and that he give himselfe to reading and meditating before he come to preach And if God command one Iudge to come to the place of judgement so doth he command seventie and so all Estates to conveen in the place of judgement It is objected That the Estates are not Iudges ordinary and habitually but only Iudges at some certaine occasions when the King for cogent and weighty causes calleth them and calleth them not to judge but to give him advise and counsell how to judge Ans. 1. They are no lesse Iudges habitually then the King when the common affaires of the whole Kingdome necessitateth these Publique Watchmen to come together for even the King judgeth not actually but upon occasion 2. This is to beg the question to say that the Estates are not Iudges but when the King calleth them at such and such occasions for the Elders Princes and Heads of families and Tribes were Iudges ordinarie because they made the King And 2. the Kingdome by God yea and Church Iustice and Religion so far as they concerne the whole Kingdome are committed not to the keeping of the King only but to all the Iudges Elders and Princes of the Land And they are rebuked as evening wolves lyons oppressors Ezech. 22.27 Zaca 3.3 Esa. 3.14 15. Mic. 3.1 2 3. when they oppresse the people in judgement So are they Deut. 1.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19.6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother Cain ought in his place to be the keeper of Abel his brother So hath God committed the keeping of the Commonwealth by a positive law not to the King only because that is impossible Num. 11.14 17. 2 Chron. 19.1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Chron. 27. 4. If the King had such a power as King and so from God he should have power to breake up the meeting of all Courts of Parliament Secret Councell and all inferior Iudicatures And when the Congregation of gods as Ps. 82. in the midst of which the Lord standeth were about to pronounce just judgement for the oppressed and poere they might be hindred by the King and so they should be as just as the King maketh them and might pervert judgement and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Esa. 5.23 because the King commandeth And the cause of the poore should not come before the Iudge when the King so commandeth And shall it excuse the Estates to say We could not judge the cause of the poore nor crush the Priests of Baal and the idolatrous Masse-Preltes because the King forbad us So might the King breake up the meeting of the Lords of Session when they were to decerne that Naboths vineyard should be restored to him and hinder the States to represse Tyranny And this were as much as if the States should say We made this man our King and with our good will we agree he shall be a Tyrant For if God gave it to him as a King we are to consent that he enjoy it 5. If Barclay and other flatterers have leave to make the Parliament but Counsellers and Advisers of the King and the King to be the only and sole Iudge 1. The King is by that same reason the sole Iudge in relation to all Iudges the contrary whereof is cleere Num. 11.16 Deut 1.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19.6 Rom. 13.1 2. 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Yea but say they the King when he sendeth an Ambassadour he may tye him to a written Commission and in so far as he exceedeth that he is not an Ambassadour and cleare it is that all inferiour Iudges 1 Pet. 2.13 14. are but sent by the King ergo they are so Iudges as they are but messengers and are to adhere to the Royall pleasure of the Prince that
King not the sole interpreter of the Law The Kings conscience no rule of judging to the inferiour Iudge The King not the authentick peremtory and Lordly interpreter of the Law Argum. 1. Argum. 2. The Will of the King is not the sense of the Law The King is King according to the Law but not King of the Law Argum. 3. Arg. 5. There can be no written Law if the King only be the authentick expositor of the Law Imperator 〈…〉 condere dicit i. omnium C. de testam Arg 6. Arnisaus de authori Princ. c. 1. n. 2. The state of the question concerning resistance Arnisae 16. n. 4. If Kings be absolute by divine Institution then all Covenants restraining them must be unlawfull spoiling of Kings of that which God hath given them Resistance in some câ—ses lawfull according to D. Fern. De author Princ. c. 2. n. 10. Royalists hold it lawfull to resist an inferiour Iudge The Exactors of unjust tribute not easily to be resisted Arguments for the lawfulnesse of resisting unjust violence Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Arg. 5. Arg. 6. The Kings person as a man in concretâ— and as a King and his office in abstracto are very different in this dispute Sâ—cr sanc Reg. Mai. c. 1. pag. 2. Arnisae de authoritat Princip c. 4. n. n. pag. 96. Every one that commandeth obedience active or passive unjustly is â—â—â—enus no higher power Arnisaeus 16. Laertius l. 3. in Plato The person or the man who is the Magistrate may lawfully be resisted and the man as using the power lawfully or the office can not be resisted Arg. 5. Pag. 141. Sac. sarc mac 2 pag 28. pag. 30.31 Arnisâ—n de potest prin c. 2.11.17 pag. 3. sec. 5. pag. 30. Royalists reasons thâ—t to resist the man or person is to resist the King office or ordinance of God Grot. de iur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Winzetus Vâ—lâ—tat adâ—er Buchanan Barclay adv Monarchom l. 3. c. 8. We may kill a person as a man and love him as a sonne a father a wife according to Gods Word How the person and office â—f the Ruler are both the object of our subiection The question of subjection toucheth the persons as abusing their power De Authorit princ c. 2. n. 18. Loyall Subiects beliefe pag. 49. 〈…〉 pag. 9. Pilates power to crucifie Christ was no Law-power given by God to Pilate as a Iudge Patient bearing of ill and resistance are compatible in one and the same person Resistance not forbidden 1 Pet. 2.18 but patient suffering onely recommended D. Fernâ— part 3. § 2. p. 1â— Suffering and non-resistance passive fâ—ll under 〈◊〉 law Christs non-resisting of Pilate no plea against resistance of unjust violence Many things not imitable by us in Christs non-resistance D. Ferne part 3. §. 2. p. 10. Confes. Remonstrant Suffering not commanded of God formally We are compaâ—atively rather to suffer 〈◊〉 to deny the truth but we are not commanded formally to 〈◊〉 Patience in suffering is commanded not suffering it self formally Re-offending in ended is contrary to patient â—ubjâ—ctâ—on The physicall act of taking away of the life maketh not homicide We have a greater dominion over our goods and members mutilation excepted then over our life Populo quidem hoc casu resislendi actuendi se ab injuâ—ia potestas competiâ—â—â—ed tuendisâ— tantum non autem Principem in â—adendi resisâ—endi inâ—uâ—iae illatae nâ—n recedendi a debita reverentâ—â— non â—im 〈…〉 jus habet Defensive warres cannot be without offending D. Ferne acknowledgeth violent resisting to be lawfull but not defensive warres Defensive wars are â—ffâ—nsive only by 〈◊〉 There 〈◊〉 holding of an a 〈…〉 es hands 〈◊〉 warding of stroakes but by offensive wars conjoyned by accident with defensive wars Flying is resistance Self-defence naturall D. Ferne alloweth the resistance of denying of Tribute to a tyranous Prince Apologies Supplicationâ— Flight taking of Aâ—mes lawfull in self-defence Violent re-offending in self-defâ—nce the last 〈◊〉 〈…〉 a Church or nation not 〈◊〉 mean of selâ—â—defence alway possible and so not required of God A self defence remote and a self-defence neere-hand When David had Saul in his hand he was in a câ—se of actuall self-defence Saul being in a habituall unjust pursuit 〈…〉 was in when he came armâ—e upon King Saul sleeping 〈◊〉 D. Feâ—ne The law of universall and particular nature warranteth sâ—lf-defence This or that King not the adequat head of the community Exod 32. Rom 9. The love of our selfe the rule and measure of our love to our neighbour We are to 〈◊〉 our brethrens salvation aobve our lâ—fe not their life aâ—ove our owne How many wayes a man may preferre the safety of his owne life to the safety of his brother 〈…〉 common to man wiâ—h beast Takeing 〈◊〉 armes in the law is a sovâ—raigne ground oâ— a difensive postuâ—e Offâ—nsive and defeâ—sive wars differ in the event and intentions of men but not physically A whore may not sell her own body for hire Covar 10.1 par 2. §. 1. de â—urti rapi restituti §. 2. n. 1. The lawfulness of violent resistance of Kings cleare from Scripture proofes Symmons Loyall subject 5.10 pag. 31. Davidâ— not â—nvading Saul and his men a case far contrary to the condition of England and Scotland now It is not lawfull to kill the King as Jesuits teach D. Ferne his resolving of conscâ—ence Sect. â— Arnisaeus de authorit princ c. 2. n. 15. Davids example not extraordâ—nary Elisha's fact proveth the lawfulâ—esse of defensive wars 〈◊〉 by no exâ—â—aordinary spirit resisted Joâ—am Loyall subjects beliefe Resistâ—nce made to King Vzziah proveth the same Vatâ—b Deturbaâ—unt eum ex illo lâ—â—o compulsusque ut egredeâ—etur in not Festinanter egredi eum coegerunt hoc est extruserunt eum 1 Sam. 14. The peoples resisting of Saul in rescuing â—onathan unjustly condemned to die saith that thâ— Estaâ—es of the two Kingdomes may swear and covenant to rescue thousands of innocents from the unjust sword of â—â—â—throats of Iâ—eland Papists in England Chald. Par. Manifestum est quod Jonathan peccavit perignorantiam P. Maâ—t saith with a doubt Siâ— ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunt Yea he saith they might sussâ—agiis with their suffrages free him Jun. The people opposed a just oath to Sauls hypocriticall oath Osiander and Borhaius justifie the people P. Mar. Com. in 2 Reg. c. 8. saith Libâ—ah revoltâ—d Quia subditos nitâ—batur cogere ad Idololatriam quod ipsi libnenses pati noluerunt merito principibus â—nim parendum est verum usque ad aras The King would compell them to Idolatry and they justly revolted Vatab. in noâ— Impulit Judaeos ad Idololatriam alioqui â—am pronos ad cultum Idololorum The Citie of Abels revolting a proof for the lawfulnesse of resistance The place Rom. 13. discussâ—d The King onely is not understood in the Text. Thâ— King is principally understood in