consequence was not necessary no more then when the King of Judah and the King of Israel make a covenant to performe mutual dutyes one to another it is necessary there should be a King and superiour Ruler above both who should compell each one to do a duty to his fellow King and People are each of them above and below others in diverse respects But in cometh this Surveyer Pag. 100. and tells us there is a great difference God having allowed lawful wars allows seeking of reparation or repelling of wrongs done by one Nation to another by force of the sword when no rational meanes can bring the doers of the wrong to do right and there being no other remedy he himself the Lord of hostes and God of armies sits judge and moderator in that great businesse and in the use of war is appealed to as judge there being no common judge on earth to sit on the causes of these independent Nations But God having set and established in one Particular Nation and Political society his owne ordinance of Magistracy to which every soul must be subject and all subject to the Supreme c. Ans This sayes wel when the difference or disput is between two subjects both under one Magistrate but is sayes nothing to our case where the difference is betwixt the Magistrate and the Subjects for in the other case there is a judge over both established unto whom both are subjects but in our case there is no judge on earth Common to both or who can sit and judge in such causes for the King must here be no more both judge and party then the People and so the case is irremediable unlesse there be an allowance of repelling force with force for in our case there are no rational meanes which can be used to bring the Prince to do right unto the injured Subjects and therefore it God allow war in the use of which he is appealed to as judge betwixt two Nations he wil allow also a necessary defensive warre in Subjects against their Soveraigne when there is no other remedy or rationall meanes of redresse This Man dictats but what proveth he The Magistrates are by their official power above the whole Nation and as absurd it is to say they are above the powers which God hath set over them as L. R. pag. 460. sayeth thrasonically he hath proved unanswereably as to say that every parish is above the Minister in an ecclesiaslical way though he hath official power over them all or that every Lord in Scotland hath their Tennants and vassals above them a thing which the nobles of Scotland had need to look to for certainely the principles which lead to subject Kings to People lead clearly and by undoubted consequence to Subject them to their vassalls and to all under them yea and all Masters to servants and parents to children and to confound and invert the order of all humane societies Ans 1. The law will tell us That in mutual compacts the party observer is Eatenus in so far superiour unto the party who faileth 2. The author of Lex Rex sayeth truly and not Thrasonically as this Thraso and windy man allaigeth who would make the world beleeve that his one word is enough to confute all which that learned author hath solidly proved with such reasons that he thought with the little wit he hath it was more wisdome to forbeare once to name then to offer to answere that he hath proved unanswereably if not let this windy Thraso try his hand in confuteing his reasons the Peoples power above the King 3. This man's reasons are as weak as water For 1. the Paroche is so above the Minister that in case he teach haeresy there be no ecclesiastick or civil power to put him away they may save their owne soulls thrust him out and choose another more Orthodox 2. All know that the Lord is bound to the Vassalls as well as they are to him and that the Lord may not oppresse them or if he transgresse the bounds and limites prescribed him they will get action of law yea in some cases be free to renunce him as their Supream and choose another Let the nobles take heed they drink not in this Man's doctrine for if they arrogate to themselves a power to oppresse pillage plunder murther Massacre their vassals as this man pleads for such power to the King without control I fear their vassals let them know they are not slaves 3. What a poor Politician is this He speaks this to move them so much the more to owne the King's cause but who seeth not that he is either a false or a foolish advocate for the King in this matter for if the King get no moe on his side but the Superior Lords if all the Vassalls and Tennants be against him he will have the weaker party by farre on his side 4. I would desire Nobles all to take notice of this that he would here seem to give to the king as much power over them and all the lands as Masters have over their Tennants who have their lands only from them upon certaine conditions and may be removed when these conditions are broken 5. What a fool is he to put Tennants and Vassals together doth he not know that Lords have more power over their Proper Tennants then over their Vassals 6. Doth he think that Servants may not in some cases be above their Masters a noble man's son may be an apprentice to a very meane man But thinks he that Servants will get no action of law against their Masters or if there be no law or judge over him and his Master he may not defend himself against his Master's unjust violence 7. As for the subjection of parents to Children it is impertinent in this case as shall be shewed in due time and yet we know that the father hath been a subject and the son a King over him and we know also that in case of necessity the children may defend themselves against their father taken with a mad phrenzy Then he adds This truth we must cleave to that in one and the same civil society where God hath appoynted Rulers and Ruled Subjects cannot without sacrilegious intrusion and contempt of God snatch the sword out of the Magistrates hands to punish him with it though in some partilars he abuse it neither can a war intended for this end by meer private persones be lawfull against their head or heads Answ We may let him cleave to this truth and this truth cleave to him and be no losers for we speak not of Subjects taking the sword of justice to punish the King we speak of no warre raised by the subjects for this end we plead only for a power in private Subjects to defend themselves in cases of necessity against their head or heads and he nor none of his party have the forehead to deny this to be lawful in some cases especially if
it is of no force when it cometh in competition with the authority of God and is stated against that Religion which by divine authority they are bound to maintaine with hazard and losse of their lives goods and fortunes And therefore the late act of defence being according to their sworne alleagiance to God a necessary defence of Religion cannot be condemned of Treason or Rebellion though it wanted that formality of the authority of Subordinat powers As postponing the authority of inferiour Magistrates in act of obedience and duty of alleagiance unto the Superiour can be no proper disloyalty or rebellion so nor can the postponing of the authority of Superiour and inferiour Magistrates in poynt of obedience and performing alleagiance unto the most Supreame be really treasonable seditious or rebellious 2. If we be sworne to maintaine the King's person and authority in the defence of the liberties of the subject Then who ever preferre the Liberties of the Subject unto his person and authority are not Traitours or Rebels And so the late act of defence being for the liberties of the subject when they were basely betrayed sold and given away by a company conjured into a conspiracy against the same and were trode upon and violently plucked away cannot in conscience or in the law of God or according to any just law of man be accounted or condemned as an act of Treason or Rebellion CAP. XII Some moe Arguments Briefly proposed and Prosecuted WE have in the preceeding Chapters proponed and considered such arguments as gave us occasion to meet with what this Surveyer allaidged We shall here ere we come to consider his objections briefly summe up other arguments The worthy author of Lex Rex Quest 28. and 31. hath some which we shall here set downe partly because that book is not in every mans hand and partly because this windy man pretends to have answered much of that book though he hath not so much as offered to make a reply unto the six hundereth part thereof 1. Pag. 261. thus he argueth That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects and is only set over the people on these conditions and not absolutely cannot tye the people to subjection without resistence when the power is abused to the destruction of lawes religion and the subjects But all power of the law is thus obliged Rom. 13 ver 4. Deut. 17 ver 18. 19. 23. 2 Chron. 19 ver 6. Psal 132. ver 11. 12. and 89. ver 30. 31. 2 Sam. 7 ver 12. Jer. 17 ver 24 25 And hath been may be abused by Kings to the destruction of Lawes Religion and Subjects The proposition is cleare for the powers that tye us to subjection only are of God 2. Because to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God 3 Because they are not a terrour to good works but to evil 4. Because they are God's ministers for our good But abused powers are not of God but of men are not ordinances of God they are a terrour to good works not to evil they are not God's ministers for our good 2. ibid That power which is contrary to law and is evil and tyrannical can tye none to subjection but is a meer tyrannical power and unlawful and if it tye not to subjection it may lawfully be resisted But the power of a King abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and subjects is a power contrary to law evil and tyrannical and tyeth no man to subjection wickednesse by no imaginable reason can oblige any man Obligation to suffer of wicked men falleth under no commandement of God except in our Saviour A Passion as such is not formally commanded I meane a physical passion such as is to be killed God hath not said to me in any moral law be thou killed tortured beheaded but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked mens hands to suffer these things 3. Ibid There is not a stricker obligation moral betwixt King and People then betwixt parents and Children Master and Servant Patron and Clyant Husband and Wife The Lord and the Vassal between the pilote of a shop and the passengers the Phisitian and the Sick the doctor and the Schollar But law granteth 1. minime 35. De Relig. sumpt funer If those betray their trust committed to them they may be resisted If the Father turne distracted and arise to kill his Sones his Sones may violently apprehend him bind his hands spoile him of his weapons for in that he is not a father Vasq lib. 1. illustr quaest Cap. 8. n. 18. Si dominus subditum enormiter atrociter oneraret princeps superior vasallum posset ex toto eximere a sua jurisdictione etiam tacente subdito nihil petente Quid papa in suis decis parliam grat decis 32. Si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari possunt The Servant may resist the Master if he attempt unjustly to kill him So may the wife do to the Husband If the pilot should wilfully run the ship on a roke to destroy himself and his passengers they might violently thrust him from the helme Every Tyrants is a furious Man and is morally distracted as althus sayeth polit cap. 28. n. 30. seqq 4. Pag. 262. That which is given as a blessing and a favour and a scrine betwixt the Peoples Liberty and their bondage cannot be given of God as a bondage and slavery to the People But the Power of a King is given as a blessing favour of God to defend the poor needy to preserve both tables of the law and to keep the People in their libertyes from oppressing and treading on upon another But so it is that if such a power be given of God to a King by which actu primo he is invested of God to do acts of Tyranny and so to do them that to resist him in the most innocent way which is self defence must be resisting of God and rebellion against the King his deputy Then hath God given a royal power as incontrollable by mortal men by any violence as if God himself were immediatly and personally resisted when the King is resisted and so this power shall be a power to waste and destroy irresistably and so in it self a plague and curse for it cannot be ordained both according to the intention and genuine formal effect and intrinsecal operation of the power to preserve the tables of the Law Religion and Liberty Subject and lawes and also to destroy the same But it is taught by Royalists That this power is for Tyranny as wel as for peacable government because to resist this royal power put forth in acts either of Tyranny or just government is to resist the ordinance of God as Royalists say from Rom. 13 1 2 3. We know to resist God's Ordinance and Gods deputy formaliter as his deputy is to resist God himself 2 Sam. 8. ver
Egypt had not his propriety Gen. 45. 9. No man might then defend his owne right by law against the Soveraigne but he might take what he pleased from whom he pleased and give to whom he pleased 10. Then the King could not properly buy or sell with his Subjects 11. Nor could Subjects make any barganes amongst themselves without his consent 12. Nor could they exerce any acts of charity because charity must be of Mens owne Esa 58 7. Ecc. 11 1. 13. Yea Subjects could neither perform a duty nor fail in a duty in the matter of goods if all were his 14. Subjects could not be enjoyned to pay tribute unto the Prince contrare to Rom. 13 6. 15. It is contrare both to the Law of God and nature see Timpl. ubi supra 6. Hence Soveraignes are not proper proprietors of their Kingdomes Because 1. there are other qualifications required of them then is required of ordinary proprietors 2. The People then could never change their Soveraignes 3. The Soveraigne might sell and dispone his Kingdomes as he pleased which Royalists themselves wil not grant 4. Kingdomes then should come in amongst bona fortuna 5. His place should not be properly a function or office but a proper possession 6. Several Kings both in Scotland elsewhere have been hindered from dilapidating the revenues of the crovvne or by gifts and other contracts deteriorating the Kingdome and punished for so doing 7. Would rational men give themselves up for a prey to one that they might be saife from becoming a prey to others 8. How should then a Soveraigne be chosen for the good of the Kingdom if he might do with it what he pleased sell it or dispone it to the Turk or such like 9. Paul by commanding that tribute custome be given to him supponeth some other thing see Althus poli cap. 24. n. 35 37. 7. Nor so much as usufructuaryes For 1. they may not lay their Kingdomes in pledge as an usufructuary may do 2. Nor can they give them freely away Nor 3. may they do with them what they please as usufructuaryes may do with what they have by that right See Iun. Brut. vind cont Tyr. q. 3. p. mihi 205. 8. The Soveraigne's power is properly a fiduciary power such as the power of a Tutor of Patron for to this end purpose was He created of the People that he might defend them from injuries and oppressions He is appoynted over them by God for their good and is to seek that mainly 2. though he hath his power by way of compact yet it is not a compact ex condigno such as betwixt buyer and seller upon valuable prices and considerations 3. His power is limited restricted and he is bound to conditions as we shewed 4. He may not as was said dispose of his Subjects and of their lives as he pleaseth 5 if he sell his Kingdomes Royalists grant he may be dethroned therefore he hath no other power then of a Tutor Publick Servant or Watchman 6. His power is over his Subjects as it is over the law of God and religion but over those he hath no other power but a ministerial Tutorypower He is to take care for them ex officio as a special pawne committed to his trust to see that they be not wronged or violated see Althus polit cap. 24. n. 43 44 45. Adrian the Imperour used to say Ita se Remp. gesturum ut sciret Populi esse non suam Hence we draw these arguments for resistence of Soveraignes by meer private Subjects in cases of necessity 1. If it be lawful for Children to resist their Father when enraged against them and seeking in his fury to destroy and cut them off whithout any violation of the Law of God enjoyning Children to obey and be subject to their Parents in the Lord Then it is lawful for Subjects though private persons to resist the fury of their enraged Soveraigne when he is seeking in his cruelty and rage contrary to compact oathes and vowes to destroy Them and their Religion But the former is true Therefore c. The Assumption cannot be denyed by any rational person It being most just and rational that when the Father is taken with a distemper in his braine and in his madnesse seeketh to destroy or cut the throates of his Children They may joyne together binde his hands pull the weapon out of his hand and defend themselves the best way they can The connexion of the proposition is certane for the most the adversaries can make of the Soveraignes power is that it is paternal and that he is parens patriae the Father of the Commonwealth yet seing natural Fathers may be resisted by their natural Children in case of necessity without the help or conduct of Magistrates Why may not also private Subjects without the conduct of a Parliament defend of themselves in case of necessity against the fury and rage of their civil father when he by his bloody emistaries is seeking to undoe them But next we may draw the argument from the lesse to the more If it be lawful for Children in cases of necessity to defend themselves against and to resist the unjust violence of their enraged Father Then much more is it lawful for private subjects in cases of necessity without the conduct of Parliament to defend themselves against and to repel the unjust violence of their Soveraigne For there is not such a connection betwixt the Soveraigne and his Subjects as betwixt Parents and their Children as we have abundantly cleared And againe if some of the Children may resist the unjust violence of their Parent and of others of their Brethren joyning with their enraged Father to cut them off that they alone may enjoy the whole inheritance or for some such ends Then far more may a part of the Common-wealth resist the Prince's unjust Tyranny though he hath the other parts of the Commonwealth concurring with him to their destruction For the argument followeth as I said à minori ad majus from the lesse to the more And the union tye relation betwixt Brethren Sones of the same Father is as great yea greater then the tye union and relation betwixt one part of the Commonwealth another this relation being but political and in itself no wayes indissoluble but the other natural and indissoluble 2 If Wives may lawfully defend themselves against the manifest and unjust violence of unnatural and enraged Husbands and repel in case of necessity violence with violence without the conduct or concurrence of other Magistrates Then it is no lesse yea much more lawful for meere Private Subjects in cases of necessity to resist without the help and conduct of a Parliament the furious and unjust assaults of their enraged Soveraigne But the former is true as all will grant Therefore c. The proposition is cleare from this That there is not so great a tye betwixt Prince and Subjects as betwixt Husband and
I may not pray for him except conditionally but against him as an enemy of Christ's so I may also lawfully resist him with violence 6. It is cleare from other perfsons or things against whom or which I may lawfully pray as inward or outward Enemics forraigne or domestick be they inferiour or superiour against these I may use resistence in my ovvne sinlesse defence 7. The lavves of the land make the one treasonable as vvel as the other and that deservedly vvhen the Prince is doing his duty but vvhen he turneth Tyrant neither can justly be condemned 8. We have seen the one practiced in Scripture and other Histories as vvell as the other 24. If it be lavvful for meer privat persons to refuse obedience unto the unjust and iniquous commands of Princes Then it is also lavvfull for them to resist the unjust and illegal Tyranny of such But the former is undengable Therefore so is the latter The connexion is cleare For 1. Subjection is no more expresly pressed in Scripture then is obedience to Superiours Therefore if not withstanding of this command non-obedience be allowed yea and necessary vvhy not also non-subjection or resistence 2. The lavv of God doth not presse this as more absolute and unlimited then the other 3. Non-obedience to the povver commanding just things is a resisting of the ordinance of God as well as non-subjection thereunto if notwithstanding hereof non-obedience to unjust commands be allowed why also shall not non-subjection to tyranny be allowed 4. The one doth no more derogate from the lawful authority of the Soveraigne then the other 5. The one is no more a wronging of the Minister of God as such then the other because he is no more the Minister and vicegerent of God in acts of Tyranny then in commanding unjust things And therefore 6. such as resist unjust violence can no more procure to themselves damnation then the such as disobey unjust commands CAP. XIII The Surveyer's grounds taken from Scripture for absolute Submission to Suffering examined HAving thus proved the lawfulnesse of private persones resisting in cases of necessity the unjust violence of Superiour powers by many arguments and having vindicated the same from what this Surveyer had to say against them We come now to examine his grounds for the contrary assertion Out of Scripture he adduceth Three grounds Pag. 28. c. The first is taken from the duty of Children toward Paents unjustly afflicting them Heb. 12 ver 9 10. where their reverend subjection under unreasonable and unjust dealing is commended and from the duty of Servants to suffer at the hands of unjust and froward Masters 1 Pet. 2 18 19 20. To which we answere 1. That these examples are so far from making against us that they fully comfirme our poynt as we have shewed above For notwithstanding of what is said in these places he cannot deny but Parents may be resisted by their Children in several cases and Masters by their Servants It would be strange if he should presse this subjection so close home that now no Servant might lawfully resist and withstand the fury of his Master nor no Childe might hold his furious Father's hands and defend himself against his unjust acts of cruelty And Althusius Pol. c. 38. n. 88 89. tels us that in several cases the father lòseth the right of his fatherly power over Children masters power from the law Tit. lust quib mod jus Pat. Pot. amit § Domin lust de his qui sunt sui vel alieni juris l. 5. § sivel Par. de agant vel alend. lib. L. necfilium Cap. de Patr. potcst L. 2. L. 3. Cap. de Inf. expos Novel 115. Cap. 3. 2. If these simititudes be hardly pressed it shall not now be lawful for Subjects to resist so much as by flying for the reverence and subjection required of Children unto their parents will not suffer that to evite every smal injurie from their parents they should ran away from under their power and subjection nor might servants in those dayes run away from their Masters who had another dominion over them then Masters now have over their Servants who are free to goe off when they will himself acknowledgeth this Pag. 31. 3. We have shewed above what a vast difference there is betwixt the power of Parents over their Children and the power of Magistrates over their Subjects And he himself doth confesse there is a difference yet sayes he Pag. 29. There is a full parity and agreement in this that in the inflicting of evils upon these who are under them such as are competent to them to inflict within their sphaere a patient reverent subjection is due from their inferiours even when they abuse their power Ans This is the question if the parity hold even here in all poynts for seing these Relations are different one from another even in their nature and ground it is but rational to think that there must also be some difference betwixt them as to the consequent or result that floweth from that relation else it would follow that as Children are so Subject as that they can never but be subject to their Parents so Subjects could never be free of their Superiours and yet himself tells us that they may by going under another government or removing to other dominions 2. Who shall be judge whether the Superior keepeth within his spaere yea or not If the Superiour then there is no remedy at all for when he doth most exceed his bounds he may judge that he keepeth within bounds and so whether he keep within his sphaere or not there must no resistence be used but a stupide subjection 3. Whether may the Superiour be resisted by the inferiour when he doth what is not incumbent to him to do within his sphaere or not If he may not then why is this parenthesis added As a restriction or limitation of the Subjection required If he may be resisted when he really goeth without his sphaere then this makes for us for he must grant that the Magistrate doth nor prescribe the limites of his owne povver but God and nature and the constitution of the Realme Novv God hath never put it in the povver of Princes to presse their subjects to perjury or to a complyance with a sinful abhominable and abjured course so that vvhn he doth thus he goeth beyond his sphaere His sphaere is to rule for God and the good of the land and not to destroy the interest of Christ and the Commongood and if he may be resisted vvhen he goeth beyond this sphaere then vve have all vve aske It vvas never vvithin his sphaere to break his compact vvith his People and vvhen he doth so he is vvithout his sphaere and may be resisted and this is also for us Againe he tells us in the 2 place That though Kings are not fathers by generation yet as Kings and Magistrats should have fatherly hearts to their subjects they being a sort of official fathers
shew them the manner of the King and what else was this for but to bring them off their purpose and disswade them from prosecuteing it any furder But it is said ver 19. Neverthelesse the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel now what else was the voyce of Samuel then a disswasion Let him look the English and Dutch Annot. upon the place and other Commentators and he will finde it so 3. That which he takes the meaning of this manner of the King to be is the old saying of Barclaius long since exploded by Althusius in his Politic. cap. 19. num 58. thus Impunity sayes he in committing wickednese can make no right Princes have no power to do evil but only to help comforte and to promove the good and profite of the people Vasq Lib. 1. cap. 1. and 2. c. 26. num 2 3. contr Illustr To do evil is no act of power but of infirmity that cannot abstean from doing evil Vasq D. L. C. 27. for so a company of Thieves and Incendiaries which can do many things which they ought not should be said to do these things by a kingly right and if this Jus Regium be understood of permission which de facto cannot be hindered That is common to others as well as to Kings for both a King and a private person may be free of punishment either because the fact cannot be proved or because they cannot be gotten punished or because these evils are permitted by law L. non omne 144. de Reg. Jur. Tyranny is not to be reckoned among these things which are to be permitted for Tyrants are Adulterers Ravishers Murtherers and such as are guilty of other capital crimes whom Scripture stiles Lyons Beares Dragons Wolves Prov. 28 ver 14. Ezech. 22 27. Dan. 2 c. and the like Pfal 58. Esa 13 ver 11. and Cap. 33. v. 1. Let him consider also what famous and learned Voetius sayeth to this Disp select part 4. pag. 222. Where he tells us that to do evil with impunity is not Ius doth found no Ius Or right neither is founded on the law of God of Nature of Nations nor on the civil law And as to that which the Surveyer sayeth that it is a Ius because it shewes what people were to endure willingly and might not resist He answereth Pag. 223. That then the people should be the subject of this right or Ius and not the King and so it could not be called the manner of the King but the manner of the People Againe he sayes evil losse vexation passion and not to hinder evil in Scripture phrase is rather called somewhat opposit to Ius then Ius or right viz. a privation of it 4. As for his simile of a permission granted to men to put away their Wives it is not of the same nature with the former evils sayeth Althusius in the place above cited And the Author of Lex Rex pag. 137. said well 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 â—e a lawful power given of God for a lawful power it must be if it cometh from God whether it be from the King in his owne person or from his Servants at his command and be 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 into 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 destroy and kill all the children of God that he hath commanded his children to give their necks and heads to Babel's sones without resistence This I am sure is another matter then a law for a bill of divorce to one woman married by free Election of a humorous and inconstant Man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from Heaven like the law of divorce for the hardnesse of heart not of the jewes only but also of the whole Christian and heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch That one Emperour may be such a Law of God as the law of divorce kill by bloody cut throats all the nations that call on God's name men women and sucking infants 5. The reason which he giveth Pag. 64. is the same that Barclaius gave viz. To what purpose should he have written the manner of the King in a book and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10 ver 25. When there was no pleace for repentance no remedy no use of terrifying or disswading them the only use of recording it was to teach the people their beheaviour towards their King and patience under him and that it should not be free for them to shake off the yoke of his government or to offer violence to him albeit he should overstretch his power too far This recorded was not the law of the King Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the ark with therest of the law Answ 1. Though the King was set over them he had need to have had his duty writen before him in a book and keeped to posterity no lesse then the People should have stood in need to have had their duty so recorded 2. To say that it vvas to teach the People their duty is but a begging of vvhat is in question And it is not probable that Samuel vvould vvrite the rules of Tyranny in a book and lay it up before the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant seing he vvas to teach both King and People The good and right way 1 Sam. 12 ver 23 24 25. 3. The English Annotators tell us on the place that this manner of the Kingdome which Samuel vvrote vvas Not as it is commonly practised Chap. 8. ver 9 18. but as it-ought to be in a lawful and free Monarchy appoynted by God himself according to the fundamental lawes of the Kingdome teaching what dutyes the King ought to performe in the government of his people and the people in their subjection and obedience to their King according to that description of a King set downe by Moses Deut. 17 ver 14 c. Ezech. 45 ver 9 10. Cap. 46 ver 16. Rom. 13. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2 v. 2. The Dutch Annot. say This is not of the way manner and custome of actings which Kings sometimes take up contrary to law but of the lawes which Samuel by God's instinct made or inacted concerning the goverment of Kings see Deut. 17 ver 18. Or of the ordinances for to instruct as well the King as the Subject And Iackson in his notes on the place sayeth That it vvas both the duty of the King tovvards his Subjects and of the Subjects tovvard their King and these vvere the fundamental lavves
not make use of mens help neither might he seek the help of Angels So that we argue not from God's absolute power but from Christ's professing he might if he would obtaine the help of Angels we show that in itself abstract from a particular positive command to the contrary it was not unlawful for the Disciples to defend themselves and their Master nor for Christ to make use of their help as it was not in itself unlawful to make use of the help of Angels Which yet in that case he would not do 3 He replyeth Albeit one part of our Lords designe is to testify his willing submission to the pleasure of his Father yet that is not all for any occasion of this prohibition to Peter he giveth a general rule to all his Disciples being privat Men and to all private Men that they should not take the sword God not giving them Authoritie Answ If he meane by Authority publick Magistratical authority He but begs the question and if he meane a lawful warrand we grant all For though privat persons have not the Magistratical power of the sword yet we have sufficiently proved that they have a warrand in cases of necessity to make use of the sword of defence or resistence in their owne defence And Christ's Word speaks nothing against this And if he should say That Christ's sentence being general admits of no such exception I would gladely know how he will salve the lawfulnesse of publick persons taking the sword for Christ speaks in general to his Disciples He who taketh the sword shall perish by the sword and I suppose he will not exclude Kings Magistrats from the roll of Christ's Disciples If he say he meaneth all these unto whom God giveth no authority Magistratical How shall he prove this If he say he speaketh to his Disciples who were private Persons True but it is as true That he speaketh to his Disciples who were Ministers Ergo shall it concerne only Ministers And that he speaketh to his Disciples who were Christians Ergo it must also concerne all Christians Magistrats as well as others Thus we see his evasions are naught And the true meaning is that all such as make use of the sword without God's warrand which the Disciples now wanted having God's minde revealed to the contrary in that particular shall perish by the sword and with this restriction we admit of it and he cannot reject it And then it will make nothing against us as is said proved Naphtaly answereth 3. Is it possible that men should be so far demented by flattery as to think that it was unlawful for Iesus Christ the mighty God and Lord over all to have defended himself by the assistence of his Disciples against the horrid wickednesse and insurrection of the vilest of his creatures had it not been that it was necessary that the Scriptures concerning him should be accomplished The surveyer sayeth He is insolent in saying so Why so Because albeit it be true Christ as God could have destroyed by himfelf or his instruments all the vile creatures that rose up against him yet Christ as Man submitting himself in our nature to fulfil all righteousnesse submitted himself to Magistracy as the ordinance of God and whatever by God's Law was unlawful for a subject to do as rebellion against lawfull powers is the Son of God in the state of his humiliation submitted that the same should be unlawful to him as Man c. Answ It is true Christ as Man became Subject to the Law and to Magistracy as the ordinance of God But to say that therefore He might not defend himself against the vilest of his creatures who rose up to take his life though abstract from that particular case wherein he had a particular command of God to lay downe his life because that would have been rebellion is but to begg the question and we have said enough to prove the contrary Naphtaly had a 3. answer thus Where our Lord sayeth in the place objected all they that take the sword c. as he thereby only condemneth unjust and offensive war So the saying itself by its later part doth tacitely imply the lawfulnesse justice of both defensive vindicative arms the same being otherwise justly founded Unto this The Surveyer replyeth 1. That the first part is false for then sayes he That sentence should not be pertinently applyed to Peter's fact or fault for his useing of the sword was defensive and objectively just on his part to wit in defence of his master whom they did invade yet he is reproved as wanting lawful authority Answ Peter's wanting a vvarrand for any further use of the svvord made it is true his vvar unjust yea and offensive for all lawful war except where God giveth a particular command to destroy a nation or people as he commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanits and Saul to destroy the Amaelekites is in a manner meerly defensive as sundry politicians averre thinking no ordinare war lawful but what is defensive And so this war being contrare to the revealed will of God was unlawful and so condemned by this sentence But to gather hence that every defensive war of Subjects is hereby condemned is to put more in the conclusion then is in the premisses His 2 reply is That the later is most falsly concluded if he meane defensive and vindictive armes against the Magistrate for albeit defensive and vindictive armes be otherwayes justly founded the defect of a lawful authority makes them unjust and sinful And it is utterly against Christ's minde and scope of the text to allow defensive as well as vindictive armes against the Magisirate for Peter was defending himfelf and his Master and revenging the invasion made by Malchus the Magistrats servant upon Christ and yet he is reproved for both Answ To say that the defect of a lawful authority as he understandeth it maketh a defensive war in subjects against their Magistrats otherwise lawful is but to beg the question and is not proved by any reproof Peter gote because as we have often tolde him that was a particular case it being necessary that the Scriptures concerning Christ should be accomplished which is only added by our Lord as the ground of his discharging Peter to proceed Christ never tels him that it was against the lawful Magistrates and therefore might not lawfully be Yea that which made Peter's Defence in this case unlawful would not Permit I. C. to pray to his father for aid or deliverance now if he will conclude from Christ's discharge of Peter to make use of the sword that it is simply unlawful for persons not cloathed with publick Authority in any case to defend themselves from the unjust violence of Magistrates then let him conclude also from Christ's example that it is unlawful for them to pray for help from God when they are oppressed for Christ gives on reason for both We are willing to grant him
and no Scottish man vvill deny it as to our king For if he or any for him should pretend a right to their inheritance and intend an action of lavv against them they may defend themselves by lavv or if he should take possession vvithout a sentence of lavv They might pursue him and his tennants or vvho ever came in his name to take violent possession and procure letters of ejection and the like Yea by force they might vvithstand any that should come to take violent and illegal possession The consequence is hence clear That vvhatever ground a man hath to defend his rights and possession by lavv the same ground he hath to defend his right by force vvhen he cannot use the legal meane for if the King had real right and not he unto vvhat he possesseth it vvere as unlavvful to vvithhold the King from possession of his ovvne by quircks of lavv as by force Againe This legal resistence is no resisting of the Ordinance of God but of the man vvho seeketh no enjure No more is this violent resistance a resisting of the ordinance of God but only of the man vvho abuseth his povver Hence 3. If the King have not absolute power to do and command what he will Then when he crosseth the rules prescribed by God's law and Man's law without any injury offered to the ordinance of God he may be resisted by his Subjects over whom he thinketh to exerce an absolute arbitrary and tyrannical power The reason is because That power which is not the ordinance of God may be resisted without the lest injury done unto the true ordinance of God But this absolute power is no ordinance of God it is not appoynted of him nor allowed of him Therefore c. But say Royalists Though that absolute and Tyrannical power be not simply from God yet it is so from God that no man can lawfully resist it Answ 1 If it be so from God as that it may not be resisted then it is from God and is the ordinance of God for it is the ordinance of God that cannot must not be resisted But sayes the Surveyer Pag. 37. It may be easily seen that subjection to the power opposite to resistence is all alongs enjoyned viz. Rom. 13. whether the power be rightly used or otherwise If it be rightly used subjection without refuseing active obedience is required if it be not rightly used subjection without resistence violent or forcible repelling of the power is required upon this formal reason and ground Because even when the power is abused it remaines a power ordained of God although the abuse of it be not ordained even as a man's eye remaines his eye although sometimes it is not rightly used The formal reason of the subjection and non-resistence pressed is not the right use of the power but because it is a power ordained of God however perverted in the use by man Answ 1. By this mans doctrine The King might not be resisted if he should turne another Nero or Caligula or should deal with us all as the Turk doth with his subjects or the King of Spaine with his slaves in America If he should fill ditches with his living subjects and to satisfy his lust and pleasure should tumble them be thousands downe a precipice into the midst of the sea yea though he should bring in an army of Turks or Tartars to destroy all his subjects young and old Though he should sell and give away the whole land unto the Turk or any forraigne Tyrant and become the most habited not our and compleat Tyrant and should against all appearance of law manifestly seek the destruction of the whole land man wife and childe and of the very being of religion according to law and of all known libertyes and should force and compel with armed heathens all his subjects great and small to offer sacrifice to the Heathen Gods and the like For in all this and the like there is but an abuse of the power and the power is still of God however it be abused and because it is a power ordained of God this abuse must be submitted unto without the least resistence is not this sufficient to make all men abhore this man's principles 2. He must say that it is not possible to resist the abuse of the power but the power it self must be resisted and so such as do resist the most dreadful tyranny imaginable do resist the ordinance of God which is most false and absurd 3. If the abuse of the power be not from God then such as resist this abuse do not resist that which is ordained of God but that which is not ordained of God And therefore resisting of the abuse of the power is no resisting of the ordinance of God 4. Subjection is only required to that which is the ordinance of God because subjection is required when and where and so far as resistence is prohibited Now resistence to the ordinance of God is only prohibited and not resistence to the carnal and bloody lusts of men which is rather the ordinance of the devil then the ordinance of God 5. The vvrong use or abuse of the eye may be resisted hindered and obstructed without any injury done to the eye it self So may the wrong use or abuse of Magistratical power be resisted without any vvrong done unto the povver vvhich is of God 5. It is false to say that all resistence of the abused power is forbidden upon this formal reason and ground because even when the power is abused it remaines a povver ordained of God Because the abused power is not at all ordained of God nor never vvas it is no part of that povver vvhich God ordained a povver to murther the innocent to kill the vvidow and fatherlesse and to oppresse the people of God is not of God God never appoynted that povver of David's to murther Vriah and to commit adultery vvith Bathshebah These vvere no acts of the Magistratical povver ordained of God but acts of lust the vvickednesse 7. If this reason hold good we must never resist by refuseing active obedience let him command what he will for his sinful and unjust commands are but the abuse of that power which is ordained of God and the power even when abused by giving out edicts and mandats according to this man remaineth a power ordained of God as a man's eye remaines his eye though sometimes it is not rightly used Now how will he loose his owne argument what ever answer he give here it will helps us out Sure if a man many refuse obedience to an unjust command of an abused power without doing injury unto the power which is ordained of God it will be no lesse cleare that a man may refuse subjection to and resist abused power without doing hurt unto the power which is ordained of God And I Desire that the Reader vvould seriously notice this and see how all he objecteth is answered by it the wicked
State is a maine article of their new faith to do so is one of their new commands added to God's For 1. It never was a certane truth nor ever was reckoned among the immovables of Religion except by Court divines base flattering Sycophants whose maine and only Religion was and is to please the King that he might full their bellies that absolute and illimited subjection was due to Princes by the whole body of the People so that if he should send our Emissaries like so many wild Beares to kill Man Wife and Children Without colour and pretence of Law or reason People should do nothing but cast open their brests and hold up their throats that they may be devoured at once what sound Divine sayeth so What sound Divine putteth this brutish subjection among the ancient land marks Yea what sober Royalist that is not with this surveyer intoxicate with Royal gifts till his braines be crack't and his rationality brutified dar positively averre that this is to be put among the immoveables of Religion 2. This principle which he calleth new and as false as new is an old truth verified by the practices of all ages and is as true as old which he might easily see if his new dignities and gifts had not blinded his eyes and made him as false and perfidious as he is notour 3. He tells that our principle tends to confound both Church and State because we plead against Tyranny either in Church or State a pretty reason Because we plead for that which tendeth to the preservation of Church and State in being and purity therefore we plead for confounding Church and State whereas his principle of Tyranny in Church and State is the readyest way imaginable to destroy both as hath been seen by many sad and dreadful examples before our dayes 4. This man who hath perfidiously renunced his Covenant with God and avowed his perjury to all the World and his palpable breach of and casting behind his heels the third command talks of our adding new articles to our faith and a new command to God's because we will not deny the principles of nature nor grant that free-born subjects are slaves or brutes And with him Tyranny is the ancient Land-mark and the chief poynt of his Religion and a maine article of his faith and one of the grand commands of the time But many know at whose girdle his faith and his Religion hangs But we will choose none of his Religion principles articles of faith or commands For they change with the Court and we know Court Divinity is a coat of many colours faire and fashionable but such as will neither keep from cold nor cover our nakednesse far lesse save from God's wrath in the day of accounts CAP. XV. Some other Particulars alledged by the Surveyer against us examined HAving in the two preceeding Chapters answered his maine Cardinal Arguments our labour will not be great in confuteing what followeth He says Pag. 22. We shake hands with any Papists asserting that any person unjustly pursued by Magistrates may defend himself by armes and slay them if he cannot otherwise escape no lesse then Robbers or cut-throats Thus Becan Tom. 2. contr Tract 3. quaest 8. Swarez contra Reg. Angl. Lib. 6. cap. 4. § 6. So Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 70. Art 4. c. To which we answere 1. That the question which these Papists speak to is different from ours We speak not concerning vvhat a privat single person may do vvhen arraigned and unjustly condemned but concerning what a community may do when unjustly oppressed persecuted by Magistrats contrare to their trust and oath 2. We speake not of private persons killing Magistrates at their own hand but of privat persons or a community their defending themselves against unjust violence and this truth which we maintain was owned and practised before ever any Papist put pen to Paper Next he tells us That Mr Calvsn is of another judgment Inst Lib. 4. cap. 20. § 26 31. To which we answere 1 Mr Calvin is asserting that wicked men may be Magistrates and that such though wicked while they are in office should be acknowledged as God's deputyes for so sayes he § 25. In homine deterrimo honoreque omni indignissimo penes quem modò sit publica potestas praeclaram illam Divinam potestatem residere quam Dominus justitiae ac judicit sui Ministris verbo suo detulit proinde à subditis eâdem in reverent â dignatione habendum quantum ad publicam obedientiam attinet qua optimum Regem si daretur habituri essent And in the following Sections sheweth that such ought to be so accounted who are in the possession of the Throne whatever way they have attained to it as Nebuchadnezzar who yet was but the hammer of the earth Ierem. 50 ver 23. Belsazer and the rest of that Kinde and therefore § 29. he sayeth Hunc reverentiae atque adeo pietatis affectum debemus ad extremum prafectis nostris omnibus qualescunque tandem sint And would have us § 31. carefull not to rub contempt upon or to violent the office or ordinance of God even in such which we easily assent unto Because that this is not repugnant to a sinlesse self-defence and resistence made to their open Tyranny when seeking to destroy Religion Libertyes and every thing that is previous and deare unto the Subjects It is true some-where his expressions seem to condemne resistence but that which we have mentioned is the maine thing he presseth and he doth not speak to the case of resistence particularly 2. Though we should grant that in this particular Calvin is not ours yet the Surveyer must know that § 31. he is against him also for the Surveyer putteth Parliaments all inferiour Magistrates in the same condition with private Subjects and yet Calvin sayeth that such as are as the Ephori among the Lacedemonians the Tribuns of the people among the Romans and the Demarchi among the Atheniens and the Estates of Parliament may and ought to suppresse the Tyranny of Princes And so in this matter Calvin shall be more for us then for him 3. It would be noted both in reference to the testimony cited out of Calvin and to the testimonies of other following That the case which they speak to is different far from ours For with us both King and Subject are bound in a solemne Covenant to God to maintaine and promote a work of Reformation and upon these tearmes did out King imbrace the Scepter and became obliged by conditions unto his People And sure more may be said for our defending our selves our Covenant and our Religion when unjustly persecuted by the King then for other privat Subjects who are by Gods Providence under Heathen Princes or conquerours or under Princes of a different Religion and who have no security or immunity covenanted unto them by these Princes Then the citeth some passages out of Peter Martyr's Loc.
is bound in conscience to subjection passive under unjust punishments inflicted by the Magistrà te more then to active obedience unto unlawful commands and that passive obedience under unjust sentences comes under no command of God Yea that it is a sin against God's command to be passively subject to unjust sentences and that it it an act of grace and vertue for a man to resist the Magistrate violently when he does him wrong and a self murther against the sixt command not to resist when he offers to take away the life without cause though not without law They were quickly applyed to the Church by this man and his party who pleaded for non-submission unto and counteracting of all the judicatories Whensoever the persones injured thought the sentence wrong and how well their practices in the Church do homologate with their practices as to the State we may now see for it is the way which they clearly owne that every person when and so long as they are able or are in probable capacity to act violently against the Magistrate ought to counter-act him violently when he thinks the Magistrate wrongs him for this must be referred to every man's private descretive judgment as Naphtaly tells us Pag. 141. How contrary such principles and practices of privat mens non-submission to and counteracting of Church Judicatories supposed to do wrong are unto the Word of God how subversive of Church government how introductory of schisme heresies and all mischiefs into the Church is well discovered by the learned Reviewer of the pamphet intituled presbytery no papacy c. And with equal reason may the same grounds be made use of against this man's inciteing all private persons to counteract the Magistrate violently when they think he doth them vvrong or when they account their sentences unjust Answ 1. It is a poor defence of a weak and tottering cause to follow such courses as this Surveyer doth To wrest and wire-draw the sayings of his adversaries is neither a faire way of confirming his owne opinion nor a solid way of confuteing his adversaries He sets dovvne some sentences here as assertions of Lex Rex And if any vvill consult the places cited they vvill discover unhandsome dealing I shall only set downe what Lex Rex sayeth and the Reader vvhen he compareth may judge Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 313. That patient bearing of evil and resistence are not incompatible in one the same person Pag. 314. He sayeth one act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another Resistence is in the Children of God an innocent act of self preservation as in a patient suffering and therefore they may well subsist in one And ibid Neither suffering formally as suffering and so neither can non-resisting passive fall under any moral law of God except in two cases Pag. 322. when a man may preserve his owne life and doth not that which Natures law alloweth him to do rather to Kill as be Killed he is guilty of self murther because he is deficient in the duty of lawful self defence And Pag. 463 It is not dishononrable to the Majesty of the Ruler that we deny Passive subjection to him when he punisheth beside his warrant more then it is against his Majesty and Honour that we deny active obedience when the Commandeth illegally I shall not trouble the Reader with words to discover the difference betwixt what Lex Rex sayeth and what this Surveyer alledgeth he did say seing the judicious and observant Reader will Sine monitore easily perceive it 2. What the Surveyer driveth at in making this parallel now may be obvious to any even to imbarque with himself and his party the few of those who were for the Publick Resolutions that have hitherto gotten grace of the Lord to abide faithful and not to say a confederacy with all with whom this Apostate generation hath now basely conspired against Chirst and his interests But we hope that those few will be so far from intertaining their former prejudices against their faithful and affectionat Brethren who withstood these Resolutions and owned the Protestations that on the contrare perceiving themselves mistaken as to what they feared concerning the Protesters as if they had intended to overturn all discipline and Church government and to side with Sectaryes since themselves have novv seen some of them owneing the same unto death and becomeing a martyr upon the account of Church privileges all the rest scarce three of foure excepted abideing faithful and suffering upon that account unto this day and since with all they see the feares of the Protesters concerning the inclination to Malignancy and Prelacy of the far greater part of these who stifly maintained these Resolutions now verified beyond all contradiction and that their objecting that the major part of the Ministery was then corrupted was too too true and too well grounded which things if these faithful men who now stand had but suspected then as now they see with their eyes they would we are confident have forborne to have sided with them in these debates and much more heartily have concurred with the honest proposals of the Protesters for a through way of purging the church of such corrupt naughty persones as have now most basely betrayed the interest of Christ and departed from their profession and Covenant and made that Church a hissing and a by-word to all nations by returning with the Sow to the puddle and with the dog to their vomite These worthy men I say perceiving now how far they have been mistaken not to their grief but to their joy as famous and zealous Mr Wood one of their number did before his sicknesse after some heavy groans plainely professe and declare to a credible person yet on life to verify the same if any should question it will be so far from owning this man and his principles that they will rather we hope condemne their former practices if not altogether yet in so far at least as it is now visible they did tend to the setting up of a arbitrary government and tyranny in the Church and are now improved by this Surveyer to confirme a Tyranny in the state Sure they now see what some at least of these who were very active and forward to screw up that debate to the hieght and to presse and absolute subjection might have been driveing at under hand though they made such faire professions of their firme purpose to adhere to presbyterian government as moved others to entrust them with the management of their affairs at Court and while entrusted therewith destroyed and overturned the whole government so that now they will be loath to say as the Reviewer did Pag. 5 6. That the innocency of his agency to prevent the evils the protesters were endeavouring to bring upon this Church and his carriage and integrity in managing that Trust are so wel known at home and abroad that we beleeve he needs not write Apologâ—ticks against the slanders of
goe and reflect upon the magazine as he speaketh to Lex Rex who Quaest. 26. proveth by unanswerable arguments that the King is not above the Law but this Surveyer for all his big words dar not meddle with that debate but quarrelleth with a word Pag. 241. where that worthy Author is answering the objection of that Apostate Prelate Maxwel the Author of Sacrosancta Regum Majestas stollen from Arnisaeus which was this Why might not the People of Israël Peers or Sanhedrin have conveened before them judged or punished David for his Adultery and Murther Unto which he answered thus He taketh it for confessed that it had been treason in the Sanhedrin and States of Israël to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his Adultery and Murther but he giveth no reason for this nor any Word of God and truely though I will not presume to goe before others in this God's Law Gen. 9 ver 6. compared with Numb 35 ver 30 31. seemeth to say against them Nor can I think that God's Law or his Deputy the judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great Deut. 1 ver 17. 2 Chron 19 ver 6 7. aud we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not The Lord speaketh to under judges Levit. 19 ver 15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor honour the person of the mighty or of the Prince for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth I grant it is not God's meaning that the King should draw the sword against himself but yet it followeth not that if we speak of the demerite of blood that the Law of God accepteth any judge great or small And if the Estates be above the King as I conceive they are though it be a humane politick constitution that the King be free of all coaction of Law because it conduceth for the peace of the commonwealth yet if we make it a matter of conscience for my part I see no exception that God maketh if men make I crave leave to say à facto adjus non sequitur Thus that worthy Author and could he have uttered his judgment more spareingly and soberly in a matter that was not of great Moment to the question in hand so that though he had forborne to have spoken any thing to this at all his cause had not been in the least weakened and though we should grant that the Sanhedrin could not have judged David for these facts which yet we can cannot do what losse shall we have Seing we may easily grant and Lex Rex with us Pag. 243. that Tyranny only must unking a Prince and these acts were not acts of Tyranny and what shall this vaine Surveyer gaine then Why would he not examine other things which that worthy Author sayd more apposite to the cause Will not wise men laugh at this dealing and account him a fool in the first magnitude in handleing such a cause which so nearly concerneth his Majesties life after such a manner that a very school-boy may smile at Then he addeth So Pag. 348 and 428 and 238. and often elsewhere he that is Lex Rex will have the Estates executing the moral Law as he calls it on the King and punishing him and why because he sayes most thrasonically Pag. 460. I have unanswerably proved that the Kingdome is superior to the King and the People may be their owne judge in the tribunal of necessity Answ Lex Rex in two at least of these pages cited speaketh no such thing and if this Surveyer were not more windy and vaine then ever Thraso was he would not speak so of that Author till first he had discovered the answereablenesse of these arguments which neither he nor any of his complices shall ever be able to do But this Epicompothrasibombomachides will force a beliefe upon the world that with this very adverb thrasonical diffavit omnes in Castris Gurgustodianis and cry to his enchanted fraternity to sing Jo pan at his invention But what sayes he to all this 1 sayes he what should he meane to make it conduceable to the peace of the commâ—nwealth that the King be free of the coaction of Law and yet not so if it be made a matter of conscience is the preservation of the peace of the commonwealth no matter of conscience to him Or is not the constitution freeing the King from coaction of Law for that end warrantable Ans Doth not this ignoramus know that a question of this nature may be considered and answered politically and theologically And that many things may be tolerated or forborne in poynt of policy upon politick grounds and ends which if considered stricto Iure according to conscience should not be forborne nor tolerated David in point of policy did forbear to execute the Law upon the Murtherer Joab whom yet in poynt of conscience he accounted a man of death and therefore recommended the execution of the Law of God unto his Son Solomon and this toleration or forbearance may be lawfull or unlawful according to the weight of the matter tolerated or forborne and the nature and weight of the grounds in policy upon which this forbearance is determined So that though we should suppone it lawful for a Commonwealth to enact and determine in Law that their King should not be questioned for one single act of Murther or Adultery as other persones are Yet in poynt of conscience if the question be stated in thesi whether a King may be questioned for one single act of Murther and Adultery as another private person it may be answered affirmatively because the Law of God makes no exception of persones 2. It may be made a matter of conscience to make the King free of the coaction of Law in some small and inconsiderable particulars because of the probable hazard into which the Commonwealth may be brought by coërcing of him which all the value of the particular anent which the coaction is exerced will not countervaile But it will never be allowed in poynt of conscience to make him free of all coaction of Law so as he may without control murther millions destroy and waste Religion For that were not conduceable to the peace of the Common-wealth but a ready way to destroy all So that a constitution freeing the King from all coaction of Law how ever pretended for the preservation of the peace of the Common-wealth can never be warrandable For that were to make him actu primo and in actu signato a Tyger a Lyon a waster of the Commonvvealth if his good Nature should incline him to good peaceable things yet no thanks to the constitution Whereas he would make his reader beleeve that the Kings of the jewes were under no coërtion let him consider what Zuinglius sayeth explan art 42. Tom. 1. oper where he expresly sayeth That the Kings of the jewes and others