Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
law_n england_n king_n people_n 13,931 5 5.0853 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A30577 The glorious name of God, The Lord of Hosts opened in two sermons, at Michaels Cornhill, London, vindicating the Commission from this Lord of Hosts, to subjects, in some case, to take up arms : with a post-script, briefly answering a late treatise by Henry Ferne, D.D. / by Jer. Burroughes. Burroughs, Jeremiah, 1599-1646. 1643 (1643) Wing B6074; ESTC R4315 105,730 154

There are 10 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

lawfull service you serve under The Lord of Hosts but the more the service concerns his glory and the good of his Saints the more will God own it The very Chronicles or Records of the wars of the Church the Lord is pleased to have styled The Booke of the wars of the Lord Numbers 21. 14. The Name of the Lord is exceedingly much interessed in these wars You young ones who are willing to offer and venture your selves in this service you honour your selves betimes yea God and his people doe and will honour you God will remember the kindnesse of your youth You tender-hearted mothers bee not unwilling to give up your children the fruit of your wombes to this service but blesse God that ever ye bare any in your wombes to be of that use to stand up for God and his people as your children have an opportunity now to doe If as you heard when God hissed for the fly and for the bee they came much more doe you come when God calls and that aloud to come and help him against the mighty And when you are in the service seeing it is so honourable take heed you stain it not as others have done of whom it may be said as it was of the children of Ephraim Psal 78. 9. The children of Ephraim being armed turned back in the day of battel They kept not the covenant of God The covenant of a souldier is the Covenant of God Hence the oath that a souldier took when he came to his Captain the Romans called Sacramentum A brand of dishonour was upon Ephraim Judges 12. 4. Yee fugitives of Ephraim Let not such a Brand be upon any of you ye Fugitives of such a county of such a town your General the Lord of Hosts is worthy of all you can possibly do for him Plutarch tells of Scipio Africanus shewing a friend of his three hundred of his souldiers exercising their Armes neare the Sea where there was a high tower There is never a one of all these said he but if I bid him climbe up that steepe tower and from the top of it cast himself down into the sea but he will readily do it What will not you be ready to shew more respect to your General this Lord of Hosts then any heathen shall do to a Heathen General be willing to venture your lives for him this is your glory for he accounts it his If in this cause you should turn your backes upon your enemies with what face could you ever after look upon your friends Psal 69. 6. Let not them that waite for thee O Lord of Hosts be ashamed for my sake Take this Text with you into the Army and pray to God O Lord grant that I may so behave my selfe in this great businesse I have undertaken that none of those that waite on the Lord that have prayed for and now wayte for the salvation of God may be ashamed for my sake I have read of one Abaga a Tartarian that had this device to make cowards valiant he caused them that ran away from the battell ever after to weare womens clothes I do not say that there should be this brand of dishonour but one brand or other it is fit should be upon such as basely forsake such an honourable worke such an honourable cause as this is Thirdly If God be the Lord of Hosts hence there is no war to be undertaken but for God and according to Gods will it must bee by commission from this great General To goe into the field without him is dangerous but to go against him is desperate Ps 20. 5. In the Name of the Lord will we set up our banners But if any shall say We are afraid we goe not by the Commission of The Lord of Hosts because we goe against the King Doth God give Commission for Subjects to fight against the King For answer The sound of these words in the eares of men oh what an efficacie have they But when they are examined and applyed to this businesse the truth is there is nothing at all in them to any man that will be rationall For first It is not against the King it is defensive onely to defend our lawfull liberties our estates which we inherit as truly as the King inherits any thing he hath It is to defend our Religion which is our chiefe inheritance The law of Nature and Scripture teacheth us to defend our selves from violence and wrong God hath not put man and whole Kingdoms into a worse condition then brute creatures and yet they by an instinct of nature defend themselves against man that vvould hurt them and yet they vvere made for man but Kingdoms vvere not made for Kings but Kings rather for Kingdoms And the Scripture warrants this you know David gathered 600. souldiers together to defend himselfe against any injury Saul intended and indeavoured against him And when the children of Benjamin and Judah came to him to the hold 1 Chron. 12. 16 17 18. The spirit came upon Amasai and he said Peace be to thee and peace be unto thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee What David did in this kind was no other but what God helped him in 2. It is not against the King but for the King it is for the preservation of true Regall power in the King and his posteritie it is to rescue him out of the hands of evil men who are his greatest enemies The Scripture bids that the wicked should be taken from the throne of the King Who should take them away if he had a mind to doe it himselfe he need not suffer them to come to his throne but when he does suffer them to come there and abide there yet they must be taken away if a Representative kingdome hath not power to take them away who hath 3. That which is done is not done against the power of the King His power is that which the lawes of the land invests him withall The Scripture bids us be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. 1. It doth not bid us to be subject to the wills of those who are in highest place If we be either actively or passively subject to the Lawes of that country wherein we live we fulfill the very letter of that Scripture that commands us to be subject to the highest powers Wherefore that which is now done is not against the King though it be against the personal command of the King yet it is not against the Legall power of the King when we speak of a King we mean such a man invested with a Regal power by the lawes constitutions of that country he is the King of Now if nothing be done against this power that the laws and constitutions of our country invests him with then nothing can be said to be done against the King People are much mistaken who do not distinguish between a man in authority and the authority of that man A man
in authority may command what authority does not command But may we go against the command of the King It is not against his authorative command Many if not most men mistake in this they think the authorative commands of the King chiefly consist in his personall verbal commands but the truth is his authority is in his commands by his officers Seals and Courts of Justice we may appeale from his personal verball command to his command in his Courts of Justice whatsoever is his command in one Court of Justice may be appealed from to a superior Court and so to the highest and there we must rest But the King sayes That this which is done is done against Law If when the most inferior Court of Justice determines any thing to be Law it is not the Kings personall dissent and saying it is not Law that disanuls it but the judgement of some superior Court then if the highest Court in the Land which is the Parliament shall judge a thing to be Law surely the personall dissent of the King and saying it is not Law cannot disanul it But although the Parliament tels us that what they doe is Law yet they doe not shew where that Law is where shall we finde it extant We are to know that our Common-wealth is governed not onely by Statute Law but by the Common Law now this Common Law is nothing else but recta ratio right reason so adjudged by Judges appointed thereunto by Law and this is various according as cases doe occur so that although some presidents some generall maximes of this Law be extant yet if new cases arise then there must bee determination according to the nature of such a new case which determination by such as are appointed Judges is now Law although it were no where written before And certainly we have now such things faln out as no former time can shew presidents of As That a King should goe from his Parliament so as ours doth That a King should take up Arms as now he doth with many other things of consequence of a high nature which our Houses of Parl. in their Declarations publish which our eares tingle to hear of and our hearts tremble at the mention of These things were never heard of since England was a Kingdom therefore we can expect no presidents of what determinations there can be in these cases and some determinations of necessity we must have or else wee shall run to confusion The determination then of the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome wee must account Law in this case This is the way of determining Cases that fall out in the Common Law First the determination must not be against any Statute Law and so is the determination of Parliament now there is no Statute Law against it Secondly it must be according to some generall Maximes of that Law Now this is one great maxime of it Salus populi suprema Lex The safety of the people is the supreame Law and according to this their determination is Thirdly when any inferior Judge makes this determination against any party that thinks himselfe wronged he makes his Appeale to the Kings Bench If at the Kings Bench that be judged Law against a man which he thinks is not right then he hath a Writ of Appeale ad proximum Parliamentum to the next Parliament so that it is apparent by the frame of Government in our Kingdom that the Parliament is supreame Judge of what is Recta ratio Right reason in cases of difficulty and controversie and this not being against any former Statute Law agreeable to the received Maximes of Common Law it is to be accounted Law although we finde not that Case or that Determination written in any Book before This is needefull for the satisfying mens consciences that things are carried according to the constitution of the Government of our Kingdom therefore in this we do not sin against Authority If mens consciences be not satisfied in these things what shal they do Now therefore because that which is urged upon mens consciences is the authority of man that we must obey we can never satisfie our consciences untill we know what this authority of man is that we cannot know but by the Law of the Kingdom It is necessary therefore that men understand what kind of government they live under that they may know when they offend against Authority and when not that they may not be deluded and brought into snares and things of dangerous consequence meerly by the name of Authority But yet it may further be said Grant the Parliament to be the Judge how can it judge without the King For the Parliament consists of three Estates the House of Commons the House of Lords and the King How can that then be said to be the determination of the Parliament which is not the determination of the King It is true for the making any Statute the passing any thing by way of Bill all the three Estates of the Kingdome are required to joyne but for the determination of what is Law that may be done by both the Houses in the absence of or without the knowledge of the King as usually it is In cases that are brought before them in the punishment of Delinquents they doe not send to the King for his assent to joyne with them in their determinations but in those proceed as a Court of Justice themselves But what if authority be abused may we resist Is not passive obedience required if active cannot be given There is a great deale of difference between the commands that are from abused authority and the commands that are from the wils of men in authority but not from the authority of those men That is abused authority when those to whom power of making Laws belongs shall make evill Laws in this case there is no help but passive obedience or flying untill some way may be taken for rectifying that Authority that is abused But when men that are in authority command any thing out of their owne wils which is no Law it is not Authority that doth command it in this case there is no resisting of Authority at all although the thing be denyed that is commanded in such a case if we neither yeeld active nor passive obedience we cannot be said therefore to resist authority For as Samson said in another case If you doe thus and thus unto me I shall be but as another man so if these men who are in place of authority do such things as the Laws and Government of the Countrey will not bear them out in they are but as other men yet some reverence ought to be shewed to their persons both in words and actions in regard of their place What say you to the Kings of Judah Many of them did otherwise then they ought and yet we doe not reade they were resisted but obeyed
1. In a defensive way they were resisted as appears by what was said before in the case of David gathering up 600. men to defend himselfe against Saul 2. Yea when Saul would have killed Jonathan the people resisted him and would not suffer him 3. We reade 2 King 6. 32. when the King of Israel sent a messenger to kill the Prophet the Prophet being amongst the Elders of the people calls the King the son of a murtherer and bade that they should shut the door against the messenger and hold him fast at the door The former Translation hath it Handle him roughly though sent by the King Yea the King himself was following yet his messenger comming with his command must be handled roughly The Hebrew word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall oppresse him so Arias Montanus translates it opprimet is you shall use great rigour to him It is a vaine conceit in people to think that the command of the King is enough to bear out an Officer in illegall and unjust acts as if every one were bound to obey if he comes by the command of the King there is no such thing if any man doth any thing illegal although the King bids him he must answer for it as if it were his own act therefore it is that the Acts of Authority that come from the King they come by Officers because the Subject may have some to call to account in case of injury not being fit to molest the Kings own Person for every dammage the Subject suffers These three examples are out of question justifiable And if we would goe to bare example we shall finde that ten Tribes brake off from Rehoboam because he would follow the counsel of his young Cavaliers to make their yoaks heavie to make his little finger heavier then his fathers loynes yea and God sayes it was of him vvhat was done But further this is no certain rule that just what power the Kings of Judah had that and no more should all Kings have If in some things they may have more then it cannot follow because they had this or that power therefore all Kings must have the same If their examples be the rule for all Kings power then their examples must as well be to limit the power of Kings as enlarge it but Kings would think it much to be limited by their power therefore they must not urge the enlargement from their power too hard I will instance in one thing wherein the Kings of England vvould not vvillingly be limited by their example namely The confining of their succession to the heire male The daughters of the Kings of Judah did not inherit onely the males but the daughters of our Kings do If this Question be asked Why in some countreyes onely the Male inherits as in France in others the females likewise as in England why in some Countries the King is elective as in Denmark and others in others it is hereditary as with us The Answer will be given This is from the diversity of the Laws of Kingdoms So then it follows not because some Kings in Scripture were thus and thus therefore all Kings must needs be so but according to the diversity of the Laws of Kingdoms so is the diversity of the power of Kings Every Countrey in the first constitution of the Government hath power to divide the Government so much to the King so much to the Nobles so much to the Commons as they shall see best sutable to the condition of their Countrey so that we are not to goe by such a rule what power such and such Kings have had but what power every King hath in the Countrey where he is King Civil Government is left to the wisdome and justice of every Country in the constitution of it They may confer power upon severall Magistrates by severall portions as shal be most for the good of that Countrey That there should be Civil Government God hath appointed but that it should be thus or thus all in one or divided into many that is left to humane prudence going according to rules of Justice for the publique good If the kinds of Civil government were of Divine institution it must be all the same in every compleat Common-wealth which no man that I know wil affirm Ecclesiastical Government because it is spirituall and hath a spirituall efficacie in it must therefore of necessity be of Divine institution so the same in all places in the world where Churches are cōpleat But what shal wee say to the example of the Christians in the Primitive times who suffered so much wrong under Tyrants and would never resist The Civil Government under which they lived was such as it gave power to those Emperors to doe such things as they did the laws of those Countries being against them they could not help themselves but it is not so with us The Laws of our Countrey are for us and we seek nothing but to maintain those liberties we have by Law We have legall wayes to help our selves which they had not But above all Objections this sticks most with us Doth not the Scripture straitly charge us not to touch Gods Anointed First This doth nothing concerne this raising of Armes for it is for defence of our selves not offence against Gods Anointed But further that I may satisfie fully I wil say three things to this Objection First we will examine the Scripture out of which this Objection is raised and see whether there be any such sense in it as is ordinarily taken for granted Secondly I shall shew that Anointing is not proper to Kings but belongs to others as well as Kings Thirdly I will shew the difference betweene that anointing that Kings had in time of the Law from that they have now For the first This Scripture is 1 Chron. 26. 22. and Psal 105. 15. it is the same in both places 1. They both speak of times before ever there had been any Kings of Israel 2. The Anointing here is apparently meant of the people of God of the Church of the Saints God gives here a charge that none no not Kings should touch them to doe them any hurt It is not here meant that people should not touch Kings that are anointed but that Kings should not touch people that are Gods Anointed The Church of God being separated from the world to God being consecrated to God Gods sanctified ones are here called Gods anointed and that it is meant of people it is plain if you consider this Scripture from the 12. ver to this 15. ver When they were but few in number and strangers in the Land when they went from one Nation to another from one Kingdom to another people he suffered no man to doe them wrong yea he reproved Kings for their sakes saying Touch not mine Anointed To whom did he say it he said it even to Kings Whom should they not touch Not them
a servant by stipulation makes a man his Master who was not before Now the power of the Master is Gods may he therefore never be deprived of that power Servants must serve Christ in serving their Masters as truely as Subjects must obey God in obeying their Prince Pastors and Teachers have a ruling and a ministeriall power and this power is Gods may it therefore never be taken away from them His second Argument is We cannot recall what is once given as in things devoted 1. That can never be proved that a thing devoted to a religious use can never lawfully be imployed to no other This is a groundlesse conceit because he brings no proofs for it Eadem facilitate rejicitur qua asseritur But this that we speake of is a civill thing And for Kings that the power they have may not be taken away he gives that reason Because the Lords hand and his oyle is upon them So the Lords hand and oyle is upon Captains and other Magistrates Ioshua and Zerubbabel are called The anointed ones Prophets Priests have Gods hand and oyle upon them and cannot the power for no cause be taken from these And yet how confidently doth the man conclude This will not a true informed conscience dare to doe Certainly notwithstanding all the information in this argument he may doe it But he proceeds How can conscience be satisfied that this their argument grounded upon election and derivation of power can have place in this Kingdome when as the Crown descends by inheritance and hath often been setled by Conquest 1. There is no body here that yet hath attempted to take any power away from the King that Law hath given him 2. Howsoever the point of inheritance or conquest cannot hinder For first none inherits but that which his Progenitors had his Progenitors had no more originally then by consent was given them therefore the difference between Kings by inheritance and Kings by election in this case is not much And for Conquest that onely settles former right or makes way to some farther agreement to adde to what was former The right comes not from power to conquer or act of conquering but from some agreement precedent or consequent He further argues It is probable indeed that Kings were at first by choice here as elsewhere but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistance or think that first election will give power against Princes that do not claime by it 1. Is it but a remote probabilitie that Kings were here first by election I demand what first invested such a Family with Regall power more then another It must be either God from heaven designing it as David or men appointing it or taken by force there is no quartum It was not the first and to say the third is the right is an extream wrong to the King If meer force can give right then whosoever is most forcible hath right it must therefore be something else what can that be but the consent of people to such a family which is in effect all one with elect on You may give it what name you will it is not therefore a remote probalilitie but a neere certainty that even here Kings were at first either by choice or by that which in effect is all one The Doctor sayes that Kings of England doe not claime their right by election It may be they use not that word but if the Doctor shall presume to dispute their claime for them and think to get a better and surer claime then the agreement of people that the Regall power shall be in such a family surely he will have no thanks for his labour Let him take heed of this Although he is pleased to call Election a slender plea yet I beleeve he cannot bring a stronger He is at his place in Rom. 13. againe with the absolute Monarchy of Romane Emperours This hath been answered againe and againe The next thing he discusses is the covenant the King enters into and the oath he takes And here he tels us our Kings are Kings before they enter into the Covenant or take this Oath Although they be Kings before they personally do covenant or sweare yet their right comes in by their Progenitors who had their right conferred upon them by some agreement or other so that they have covenanted in them But this clause in the covenant or oath is not expressed that in case he will not discharge his trust it shall be law full to resist We doe not stand so much upon the oath that every King takes as upon the originall agreement between people and King whereby this power was conferred first upon such a family and for that wee say that no more power was conferred then was done by vertue of that agreement and why there should not be the same reason in the Covenant between a Countrey and a Family in matters of so high a nature as there is in other Covenants amongst men let the Doctor shew or any for him The Doctor confesseth Page 16. line 21. That Lawes are for the restraint of the power of Princes But at length after the discussion of the businesse he tels you that to argue any forfeiture of power by breaking his covenant is an inconsequent argument You must beleeve him because he sayes so If his bare word will not satisfie you you are like to have nothing else Yet we would have him and all know that we do not think that every breach of promise and not performance of covenant in every thing makes a forfeiture this indeed were a dangerous consequent But the question is Whether no breach of Covenant may possibly in any case make a forfeiture We confesse our selves not willing to dispute this too farre He presently seemes to grant that there may be some force in the argument in States elective and pactionall but not in this Kingdome If the ground of all power that one man hath over another in Civill Government be some kinde of election explicite or implicite or some kind of agreement at the first let the Doctor shew how this Kingdome is freed But what if the King will not keepe to his agreement may the Subject doe nothing The Dr. 〈◊〉 Yes they may use faire means by Petitions and they may ●ery him Subsidies and ayds To what purpose are Subsidies and ayds denyed if the King hath power to take our estates when he pleaseth and there must be no resistance Though this he sayes may seeme unreasonable to people and very impolitique to the States-man yet plain Scripture and reason forbids it But this Scripture and reason lies hid from us as yet we have examined them as they have come and we have found plain mistakes in the alledging them SECT V. THis Section is spent in the argument of meanes of safety to a Kingdome in case the King should tyrannize if they might not resist it seemes God
evils imminent nor rectifie these disorders extant but by power added to their authoritie although there be no such horrible things as the Doctor speaks of namely the Kings intentions to subvert Religion and our Laws and liberties if the King do but denie to assist in the delivering us from those dangers not upon groundlesse jealousies feared but upon certain proofs we know we are in and in the delivering up of such delinquents as justice must not our safety cannot suffer to escape there is cause enough to satisfie our consciences in the lawfulnesse of our taking up Arms. Yea our protestation and duty though we had never so protested binds us to maintain by all our strength the Parliament in this and in maintaining them we do not at all prejudice the King in any lawfull power of his This generall is enough to satisfie in what is said in the two last Sections As for particulars mentioned there many of them are answered alreadie in the former discourse others being matters of fact it is more easie for any one to answer that hath a mind to examine what passages have falne out To go through them particularly I shall leave to some who have more time to spare then I they are far more easie to answer then what was before but not so profitable and yet the answer would exasperate more they are Subjects more suteable for Lawyers and Statists to treat about then for Divines Wherefore where as in the conclusion of all the Doctor defires those who will run the Hazard of this resistance first to set their consciences before the tribunall of God and confider whether they will excuse them there when they have shed blood to say we supposed our Prince would change Religion overthrow liberties No Doctor We can comfortably and will freely and really set our conscience before Gods tribunall in this case but we will not make that our plea but we will stand thus before the Lord. Lord thou who art the searcher of our hearts and our Iudge thou knowest we aimed at no hurt to our King we desired to live in peace we according to our solemne vow and Protestation have only endeavoured to deliver our Kingdom Parliament from the rage of ungodly and violent bloody men to bring forth the wicked unto justice to preserve what thy Maiestie what the law of nature and the Law of the Land hath made our own If thou wilt please to call us to suffer for thy Name we hope we shall be readie but because thou tellest us that it is not the part of a Christian but of an Infidell not to provide for his family therefore we have not submitted our selves wives and children to the rage of these bloody men for the substance of what we have done it hath been in thy Name that we may be faithfull to the King Kingdom Parliament and to posteritie What failings thou hast seen in the managing of it Lord pardon to us for Christ his sake Thus we are willing to meet the Doctor at Gods Tribunall but he shall not lay our plea for us we fear he will have enough to do to answer for himself yea to answer for that Book he hath put forth in such a time as this For a Conclusion of all LEt none think that though we thus iustifie taking up Arms that therfore we are of those that delight in War God forbid Our souls desire after peace we pray for peace we would gladly lay down our lives if we know our own hearts for peace Lately my name was injuriously added to a printed paper wherein there was a Petition against Accommodations It sayes I went along with it whereas I knew nothing at all of it untill neere a week after it was delivered to the House Thus are we at the mercy of every malignant spirit if he can get a Printer to assist him to be rendred to the world as odious as he pleaseth As great an injury I suffered before though in another nature when a few pieces of a Sermon I preached to young men were gathered together and patched up with a deale of non-sense and additions of their owne as they pleased and then put out as mine Although we live amongst men set on fire yet God forbid but we should follow peace but it must be the peace of Jerusalem not the peace of Babylon And the truth is had the people knowne their liberties before it is very probable these warres would have been prevented This I am confident hath been the great encouraging fomenting argument for these warres If we goe in the name of the King none will dare to stir against us What will they take up Arms to resist their King Had they seen the weaknesse of this their Argument as it is applyed to this businesse in hand that bloud that hath been shed would have been prevented And if the people of the Land knew the Liberty that God and Nature and Law gives them there would soone be an end of these Warres but a few such Doctors as this is may helpe to prolong them by dividing the people and putting them into a maze comming in so plausible a way to informe Conscience whereas in truth he gives no bottome for Conscience to rest on but rather puts it to a stand or rather into a labyrinth There is a necessitie that in these times peoples Consciences should be further satisfied in their liberties in this case then formerly because the time is we hope at hand for the pulling down of Antichrist and we find by Scripture this work at first will be by the people Revel 18. 2. The Angel came down from heaven and cried mightily with a strong voice Babylon the great is falne is falne And vers 4. I heard another voice from heaven saying Come out of her my people ver 6. Reward you her as she hath rewarded you and so to the 9. ver her destruction is threatned Now ver 9. the Text sayes The Kings of the earth who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her shall bewaile her and lament for her saying Alas alas Ver. 11. And the Merchants of those things which were made rich by her shall stand weeping and wailing ver 15. All her Proctors and Commissaries and Chancellors that grew rich by her they shall lament No marvaile then though so many Proctors get together to seek for peace upon any terms Here you see Babylon must down and yet the Kings lament her fall Who then must pull her down but the people Not that the people can raise a War meerly for Religion but God will so order things that the Papists shall by their malice be put upon such plots and enterprises that they shall make themselves lyable to the justice of the Law so that Kings shall have no legall power to rescue them from it but inferiour Magistrates assisted by the people shall in a just way fall upon them even then when the Kings of the earth and their
that were few in number that went from one countrey to another them for whose sakes Kings were reproved he said that these anointed ones must not be touched though the Kings and people of the world thought them to be but ordinary ones yet God accounts them his anointed ones and will not have them touched but if Kings shall meddle with them to doe them any hurt he will reprove thē for their sakes You may see how God reproved that King Nebuchadnezar for their sakes Jer. 50. 17. This Nebuchadnezar hath broken their bones observe the expression This Nebuchadnezar he makes but a This of Nebuchadnezar a great King when he comes to reprove him for the sake of his anointed ones and mark further how the reproofe is when their inheritance is but touched Jer. 12. 17. Thus saith the Lord against all the evill neighbours that touch the inheritance c. Behold I will pluck them out of the Land If they do but touch my peoples inheritance I will pluck them out of the Land And Isa 10. 27. all this care of God over his people is laid upon their anointment The burden shall be taken off their shoulder and the yoake from their neck and the yoake shall be destroyed because of the anointing I suppose now every one that lookes into this Scripture Touch not mine anointed will see that it hath been grosly abused and made to speak rather the conceits of men then the meaning of the Holy Ghost But for futher satisfaction consider it is not peculiar to Kings to be anointed It is true they were anointed in the time of the Law but as they were anointed so Priests were anointed Prophets were anointed yea other Magistrates and Captaines of Gods people are called the anointed ones First for Priests Numb 3. 3. These are the names of the sons of Aaron the Priest that were anointed And you know the Prophet Elijah anointed Elisha And Zac. 4. 14. speaking of Zerubbabel and Joshua the text saies these are the anointed of the Lord now then if this meaning could be put upon the words that those which are Gods anointed must not be touched whatsoever they do then Priests and Prophets whatsoever they do must not be touched for they are as truely Gods anointed as Kings are yea Captaines and inferior Magistrates must not be touched because they are Gods anointed also The third thing is the difference between Kings anointing then as David and Solomon and others were and Kings anointing now Then God chose such himselfe by revealing from Heaven that they should be Kings it was the immediate choice of God and then they were upon this submitted to by the people but now the people first agree that such a one shall be King the Kingly power shall be in such a family successively and then God establisheth this choise or agreement There is a great difference between these two First Gods chusing and then the peoples establishing and this the peoples chusing and then Gods establishing There the Kingly power was not conferred by way of compact or covenant but with us it was and so is with others But what if the Kingdom be got by Conquest the right come in that way Those who plead thus for Kings know not what they do in making this plea For if there were no other right neither precedent nor consequent but meerly because such a one was the stronger and got it and so holds it now then whosoever is the strongest at any time he hath right if a stronger then he comes he shall have the right This is no good Divinity nor Polity to plead thus that which subjects my conscience to such a one is the submission upon some compact covenant or agreement This may be when Kings are elective but what will you say concerning Kings that are hereditary Kings that inherit inherit no more then their fathers had and their fathers no more then those before them so that you must come at length to the root to the first who had this Kingly power invested upon him and by whom was he invested with this but by the people and what subjected the consciences of people to acknowledge this man or this family more then another man or another family but only the agreement that passed between this people and such a man or family But there is yet one Objection more out of Scripture We reade that Davids heart smote him but for cutting off the lap of Sauls garment because Saul was Gods Anointed The consequence that follows from hence is cleerly this That no private man in his own cause for so was David then by his own power may seize upon the person of a King in an offensive way especially such a King which had his call immediatly from heaven what further consequence that concerns our busines in hand let any shew from this place that can But is not this a Popish tenet that in case of Religion Subjects may rise up against their King Papists hold and practice against this and for this and beyond this as they see they may serve their own turns in their practises especially of late they have laboured to infuse into people yea and into Princes an opinion of their absolute power as conceiving it for the present most conducing to their ends who have preached up that all is the Kings that his wil is our Law that whatsoever he cōmands must be obeyed either by doing or suffering Prelates and prelatical men have infused this doctrine so that to question this was dangerous enough yea not to bee zealous in it was enough to have the brand of an Antimonarchical Puritan And the reason why the Popish party labours so much to cry up absolute and arbitrary Government in Kings is because their being but few they hope to gain some of them at least to them and then this absolute power shall be made use of for the extirpation of the truth and upholding Popery In gaining one King they gaine almost the whole Kingdome if this King may rule by his absolute power if once he be a Papist then this absolute power is the Popes absolute power it is the Prelates absolute power for if he useth it not as they please they can excommunicate him they can free their Subjects from their allegiance yea being by them excommunicated Marke what follows it is one of the Canons of Pope Urbans We take them not in any wise to be man slayers who in a certaine heate of Zeale towards the Catholique Church their mother shall happen to kill an excommunicated person This they teach and practice if they doe not gaine them to be full Papists yet if they can by popish matches or by any popish party in the Kingdom gain them to be inclinable any way to them or remisse in the profession of the truth they get a great advantage by this absolute power of the King the Prelats have upheld their tyrannicall power
and faction but who is the Schismatike who are the factious men now Now although there be Ordinances from the highest Court of Judicature in a Kingdom these men forget what arguments they were wont to use to poore Country men in their Courts to be obedient to Authority and and what are you wiser then the Governours of the Church who presume to shew themselves wiser then their Governours now If any shall say howsoever those who yeeld not to ordinances of Parl. cannot be accounted Schismatiques because that is a rending from the Church The House of Parl. may as truly have the denomination of the Church as the Prelats their Chancellors Commissaries Officials will they not acknowledge the House of parl to have as much power to govern the Church as they have surely they dare not speak out Yea the Houses of Parl. are as truly Gods Clergie although there be never a Prelat there as the Bishops or Ministers are it is a proud arrogation of theirs to make themselves Gods Clergie that is Gods lot or Heritage thereby distinguishing themselves from the people when as the Scripture makes the people Gods Clergie by way of distinction from the Ministers but never the Ministers Gods Clergie by way of distinction from the people as 1. Pet. 5. 3. Neither as being Lords over Gods heritage hee speakes to Ministers that they may not Lord over the Clergie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the words are let any shew me now where Ministers in distinction from people are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence their word Clergie comes but thus in matters of Church government as well as in Civill have people been deluded But are not many if not most of the House of Commons men of meane quality in comparison and what must the great affaires of King and Kingdome be ordered by them 1. Would you know why so many of the Gentry in most Counties throughout the Kingdome are so malignant surely it lies in great part in this objection they look with an envious eye at the Parliament because they think themselves as good men yea and far better then many of them there and why should not they have been chosen in as well as those that are this pride and envie of theirs makes them swel at every thing the House of Cōmons doth it makes them forget that the liberties of themselves and posterities together with the whole Commons of the Kingdom are maintained in such a way of choise of the Members of that House howsoever for the present it hath not falne upon themselves besides many of thē had rather inslave themselves their posterities to those above them then not to have their wils upon those that are under them they would faine bring it to be with us as it is in France that the Gentry should be under the Nobility and Courtiers and all the country people the pesants bee under them as slaves they live in miserable bondage under the Gentrey there who generally are Cavalliers There is no Countrey in the world where countrey men such as we call the yeomandry yea and their Farmers and workmen under them doe live in that fashion and freedome as they doe in England in all other places they are slaves in comparison their lives are so miserable as they are not worth the enjoying they have no influence at all into the government they are under nothing to doe in the making of Laws or any way consenting to them but must receive them from others according to their pleasure but in England every Free-holder hath an influence into the making and consenting every Law he is under and enjoyes his owne with as true a title as the Nobleman enjoyes whatsoever is his This freedome many of the proud Gentry are vexed at and hence it is their hearts rise so against those that are chosen by them and against their Ordinances But the Commons begin to discerne this more then they have done and to be so wise as to hold their own faster then formerly they have 2. Whatsoever quality any man is of before he be invested with power should be no prejudice to his power when once he is invested with it If a Prince should be chosen out of a meane condition as many have been must not he be obeyed as a Prince notwithstanding that as Saul Agathocles and others would it not be accounted an high offence yea Treason for any to refuse obedience to a Prince upon this ground that when he and that Family was chosen perhaps neither he nor his family was the fittest and ablest that might have been had No we are to rest in the choice being made Is not the reason the same in this although the degree inferiour The one is the supreme man in authority the other a Member of the supreme Court of Judicature and regulating all authority 3. Yet further the honour of the Members of the House of Commons consists much in this although personally some of them are not of very high quality yet they are representative of whole Shires Counties Cities whereas the Noble-men themselves are not thus representative every one is there for himself and for the good of the Kingdom because in regard of his estate and honour that he is born to hee hath a deeper share then other men in the good of the kingdome 4. Such is the constitution of the Government of this Kingdom that the Commons of the Land choosing so many to represent them have that power that they may so moderate the Government by Nobility Monarchie that neither of them may grow into a Tyrannie but govern by Statute Law made by the three Estates and the Common Law judged by Courts of Judicature that Law hath enabled thereunto And this power seeing they have it by the constitution of the Government of this kingdome that sutable to the very law of Nature both His Majesty and the Nobles do beleeve so far as the Law of God and Nature will give leave they will maintain with all their might But what would the Lords or Commons have hath not the King graciously yeelded to them almost in all things they can desire why doe they now stand out so as they doe True we acknowledge with all humble thankfulnesse to God and his Majestie for what he hath done what is for the good of the Kingdom surely is for the good of his Majestie too and if it be so worthy an Act of the King to yeeld his royall assent to those things that are so beneficiall for his Majesty and the kingdome then surely the Act of Commons Lords must have their due praise in preparing such good things first in voting them and presenting them to his Majesty for his Royall assent to them But then you say What would they have more what doe they stand for more They desire that and stand for that now without which all is done is nothing all that
God is the Lord of Hosts in respect of that absolute command he hath over all creatures he hath all creatures in heaven and earth under him as a Generall hath his Souldiers The Angels they are his Hosts Psal 68. 17. The Charyots of God are twenty thousand even thousands of Angels The Lord is among them as in Sinai In the Hebrew the word is in the singular number the Charet to note the joynt-service of all the Angels they are but as one Charet although they be many thousands yea Myriads of thousands as we have it here there never is any mutiny amongst these Souldiers their harmony is most blessed their union firm indissoluble That which your English turns Twenty thousand even thousands is Myriades thousands and the word translated Angels is not elsewhere found in Scripture in that signification it comes of Shanah to second as being second or next to God the chiefe Princes the Nobles of Gods Court as Dan. 10. 13. Michael one of the chiefe Princes The Seventy translates the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The chearfull ones who serve this Lord of Hosts readily and freely and joyfully in his wars they derive it from the Hebrew Shaan which signifies to bee in tranquility and joy as in Sinai that is as God was in Sinai with ten thousand of his holy ones when hee gave the Law Deut. 33. 2. so he is in Sion likewise the Angels Gods Hosts makes Sion as dreadfull to all her enemies as those Angels as appeared to God on Mount Sinai made it dreadfull to the people Thus Dan. 10. 20. The Angel tels Daniel That he was to returne to fight with the King of Persia God hath his Angels to stand out against the great Princes of the earth they go forth to fight with them they often meete with terrible strokes from Angels when they little thinke of them The stars in Heaven they are the Hosts of God Judges 5. 20. They sought from heaven the stars in their courses fought against Sisera The waters are Gods Host they drowned Pharoah in the red sea and here ver 21. The River Kishon swept away the mighty Host of Sisera The windes are the Hosts of God Psal 148. together with the haile and snow there reckoned up with many others fire and vapour beasts and creeping things Livy reports of the windes in Cannensi pugna raising dust in the eyes of the Romans while they went in fight that they could not see The locusts are Gods Hosts Joel 2. 25. What an Host did God muster up against Pharaoh frogs and flies lice and caterpillers They were all the Armies of God against him God gave commission to the fire and it burnt up Sodome he gave commission to the earth and it swallowed up Corah Dathan and Abiram But the chiefe thing I intend in this is to shew you the glory of God in this title of his from this consideration 1. God is glorious in this that he hath an exceeding great Army The greatnesse of an Army is the glory of a Generall now Gods Army onely of his Angels that are about him is very great Dan. 7. 10. Thousand thousands ministred unto him and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him His Army of Locusts is called a great Army Joel 2. 25. this then of the Angels is much more to be esteemed a great Army 2. His Army is exceeding strong and powerfull and in this likewise the glory of a General consists much God did but send one of his Captains he hath with him in heaven and in one night he slew one hundred fourscore and foure thousand of the Host of Senacherib 2 Kings 19. 35. 3. He hath multitudes of Armies it is the glory of a great Prince to have many Armies in the field at once one in one place another in another place and so compassing round about his adversaries with his Armies The Lord of Hosts hath Armies in the heavens Armies in the aire armies in the seas Armies on the earth dispersed in every Countrey all the whole world is filled with the multitudes of the Armies of the Lord. 4. All these Armies of the Lord are always in a readinesse they are prepared Armies it is but giving out the word and they fall on they are in battel array evermore ready armed to doe the pleasure of their Generall No Prince no Commander hath thus his Armies always in readinesse many times when they have use of them much time is lost in getting Companies together and in getting their Arms. 5. Gods Armies alwaies accomplish what God intends by them they alwayes prosper in their fight they are never conquered but effect what God sends them for Psal 140. 8. Fire haile snow vapour stormy wind fulfilling his word Many of you Mariners wil not fulfil Gods word but God when he hath you at Sea he sends stormie winds and they fulfill Gods word upon you Psal 103. 21. Blesse ye the Lord yee his Angels that excell in strength that doe his Commandements hearkning unto the voice of his word How many men who think themselves great demeane themselves as if they thought themselves above Gods Commandments but the Angels that excel in strength they doe his Commandments they hearken to the voice of his word They stand listening to heare what it is that God hath to command them and are ready to obey And that which is said of the Angels is true of all Gods Hosts for so it followes ver 21. Blesse ye the Lord all ye his Hosts ye ministers of his that do his pleasure Blesse ye the Lord all his works in all places of his dominion God sayes to one Doe this and hee doth it to another Come and he commeth yea Gods Armies are ready to destroy themselves in the service of their Lord. The command of a Generall in an Armie is powerfull he may keep his Armie from spoile if he please Plutarch in the life of Pompey tels of him that hearing of his soldiers offering violence in an unjust way he caused all their swords to be sealed up so as no man dared break open the seale without leave He did more then bid them yea more then command them that they should not spoile 6. Yea God forceth his enemies to fight for him and can turn their weapons against themselves which is a high power beyond all other Captains and Generals in the world Sozomen and Nicephorus tell us of a great work of God in the defence of that good Emperour Theodosius by a mighty wind the arrows of his enemies were turned upon them which Claudian likewise mentions Oh thou beloved so exceeding much of God for whom the skies and the wind fight c. There are no other creatures but devils and men but doe readily and faithfully fight for God and even these God forces to fight for him whether they will or no even then when they seeme to fight most against him As many men who say they defie the devil yet
that shew that Princes may make use of other help So there is for Subjects to make use of other helps against the oppression of their Princes many Scriptures have been mentioned formerly and cleered Further besides this we answer that the power of all Kings is not alike it is no argument because one King hath such and such power therefore all must needs have The power of Kings is limited or enlarged by the severall Laws of severall Countries Let us see what the third Scripture sayes for yet our consciences are not scrupled it is Numb 10. That the people might not go to war but by order from him that had the power of the Trumpet Because there was a positive order there that Moses must make trumpets and thus use them Doth it follow that this must be so every where you may by as true a consequence urge the necessity of silver trumpets and that the Priests should blow them as well as the former The consequence would be full as good No King can use Trumpets in war but by the blowing of the Priests for it is commanded there as that no people can go to war till the Magistrates use the Trumpets because it is so ordered there we know the Law is judiciall and for those judiciall Laws the equity binds no further then according to rules of prudence and justice every countrey shall see behoofefull for their conditions Besides if this did binde then it were a sinne for an Act to passe to put the Militia for any time into any other hands for certainly it might not then be done no not with Moses and Aarons consent The next Scripture is 1 Sam. 26. 9. who can stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse Why doth the D. speake of stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed who endeavours it doth not the Parliament professe the defence of the Kings Persons 2. Doctor willet upon this place gives you this Answer That indeed it is not lawfull for a private man to lay hands no not upon a tyrant for it is not lawfull for a private man to kill a thiefe of a murderer much lesse a Magistrate a Prince But secondly he tels us of some that have laid hands upon a King and yet have been guiltlesse as Ehud upon Eglon King of Moab therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a generall Proposition drawn that no man in any case may stretch forth his hand against a King Yea Doctor willet answers in the third place that yet Tyrants and wicked Governours may be removed by the whole State He indeed limits this and sayes it must be understood of such Kingdomes as goe by election as in Polonia and gives this reason From whom Kings receive their authority by them may they be constrained to keep within bounds This it seems was good Divinity in those dayes This distinction he used to deliver the opinion from opposition in England but if the distinction be examined there will appeare little strength in it We doe not find that D. willet was ever reproved or his writings censured for this thing Concerning that restriction of his to Kingdomes by election we shall when wee come to shew from whence all Kings have their power see that if it proves true of them it will prove true of others for the foundation of all power that such and such men have over others will be found either from election or covenant which will come to all one D. Ferne proceeds thus If the King had come into the battel his person might have been hurt as well as any This had been but accidentally If a father should voluntarily goe into the Army of the common enemy against whom the childe is in service and the child in discharging upon the enemy should slay his father being there especially he being desired beseeched by any meanes not to be there but to withdraw himselfe doth the child contract guilt in such a case His next Argument from Scripture is That the Prophet reprechending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatry and oppression none ever called upon the people for this duty of resistance First There is much difference betweene Kings now and those Kings The people then did neither give them their power nor limit their power They doe both now when first they are set up Secondly if this be a good argument that because when Kings oppressed the prophet did not cal upon people for resistance therefore all resistance in any case is unlawful then if when people have resisted cast oft the Government of their King the Prophets have not reproved them for it then it is lawfull for people in some case to resist He that will harken to his own reason must acknowledge there is par ratio If the Prophets exhorted not to resistance then there may be no resistance sayes the Doctor Then if when there is resistance the Prophets rebuke not that resistance then there may with as good reason be resistance say I. When the ten Tribes cast off the Government of Rehoboam for his oppression and hearkning to his young Cavalliers about him rather then to his ancient grave counsel the Prophets did not rebuke the ten Tribes for what they did but rather seemed to take their parts 1 Kings 12. 24. ●eturn every man to his house for this thing is from mee Now the D. comes to his great place again Rom. 13. which he sayes be will free from all exceptions Nay bare me an Ace of that The truth is he vever so much as mentions nor thinks of the great exception which duly considered will clear the Text to be nothing to his purpose First he supposes that the King is the supream as Peter calls him or the higher power as here 1. It is true Peter cals the King Supreame but in the same place he is made an ordinance of man and therefore to be limited by man He may be the chiefe man in authority and yet limited in that authority he is supreame but not absolute We grant that the Houses of Parliament and we all are his Subjects but not Subjects to his will but to that power of his that Law gives him 2. He takes for granted the King is the higher power Here observe his mistake Let it be granted that the King hath the highest power yet what propriety of speech is it to say that he is the highest power It is proper to God to say that he is Power in the abstract Well The King hath the highest power and we must be subject to this power of his and not resist it Who denies all this When all this is granted the D. hath got nothing at all for if we resist not that power which Law hath given him we do not resist the higher power although we do not do nor suffer what hee would have us to do or suffer Then he reasons from the person whosoever
every soule There was then sayes he the Senate c. But what power the Senate had for the present upon agreement or how much of their power was now given up to the Emperour by agreement he shews not and if he shews not this he sayes nothing Then he tels us of the cause Christians had to resist because their Emperours were enemies to Religion and had over thrown Laws and liberties To the first we acknowledge we must not resist for Religion if the Laws of the Land be against it we must either suffer or seek to enjoy our Religion in the uttermost ●arts of the earth rather then resist For the Emperors subverting Laws and Liberties he must prove that the people ●enate had not given absolute power to them for the present for the preventing further wils they feared or else it reacheth not our case for we know our people and Senate ●ave not given any such absolute power We must not be put to prove they had for it 〈◊〉 his argument therefore if he wil make it good he must prove they had not And yet ●ppose they had not if we should gratifie the D. in that thing yet the Argument would ●e but weak for the Apostle requires them not to resist their power their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee ●oth not charge them not to resist their tyrannie Certainly they could have no power at that which was given them by some agreement if they challenged further it was no ●uthority at all such kind of tyrannie as they would assume to themselves the Apostle ●●rbids not the resistance of in that place As for that he sayes that some affirm that prohibition was temporary let them main●●in it that affirm it I am ful of the D. mind in that this prohibition is a standing rule As for that distinction which he sayes some make that they resist not the power but ●e abuse of the power We answer it is not resisting abused power for it is resisting no power at all Abused power is the ill use of what is given to men but the ill use of what was never given to them more then to any other is abuse of their wils but not abuse of their power By Power I do not mean Strength but Authority Further he sayes These Emperours ruled absolutely therefore upon that ground men might resist if for any thing 1. Although the Emperors might use some force to bring themselves to an absolute power yet whether the people were not brought to consent to prevent farther danger that must be disproved when our case ever fals so as we shall be brought to consent to an absolute power although it be out of feare which God forbid then this argument will concerne us but not before 2. What they got and held meerly by force without any consent and agreement was no power no authority at all but might be resisted no withstanding that prohibition The last thing in that Sect. is whereas we say that our Religion is established by Law theirs was not He answers 2. things 1. Shall the prohibition be good against Christians under Emperors persecuting Religion not against Subjects enjoying their Religion If those who have power to make Laws should prove so wicked as to make wicked Laws against Religion yet I am rather bound to passive obedience in that case then if men never so good should command according to their own will and not according to Law for there is an authority in the one though abused but none at all in the other His second answer is This prohibition did not concern Christians only but all people under the Emperour As before 1. we know not but these people had given up their right 2. If they had not that prohibition doth not reach them in those things wherein they had not Thus his Scriptures are answered and I professe I have not answered from a humour of seeking to overcome in a dispute to put glosses upon the one side or to seek evasions from the strength of the other but as in the presence of God to find out truth and to satisfie Conscience that hath to doe with God in a speciall manner SECT III. THe first Sect. is spent about the original of the power of Kings He first contends that the power is from God and that he needs not contend for we grant that the power not only of Kings but of all lawfull authority is Gods Ordinance but that such and such men should have this power and how much of this power should be put upon this man and how much upon that that is from man Hence it is very observable when the Apostle speaks of the power Rom. 13. he sayes it is of God bu● when Peter speaks of the men upon whom that power is put whether Kings or tho●● sent by him he sayes that is a humnne ordinance 1 Pet. 2. 13. yea a humane creation 〈◊〉 the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rea the D. grants this that though the power be from God yet the designing the person to bear that power yea and the qualification and l●mitation is from men by the Laws made with consent The supreme Magistrate is called the Minister of God Rom. 13. We acknowledg him so he is also said in the same place to minister for thy good I have said Ye are Gods This is true of inferiour Magistrates as well as superiour and yet none will say b● inferiors may be resisted His conclusion is in this Sect. that though the power be of God yet the person d●signed and the qualification of power in several forms of government limitation this is by the laws of men This is as much as we desire Many go no further then th● designation of the person to be from man but the D. is more fair he sayes the qualification is from man also If so mark what follows then no man can have any of this ruli●● power but according as he is designed to it qualified for it limited in it by men whatsover the name be by which you call him Emperor King Prince Duke Lord c. SECT IV. THis Sect. is about the power of people to re-assume what power they have conferred upon Magistrates although Gods power yet conferred by them He argues thus If the power be Gods then people cannot re-assume If the King gives power to an inferior Magistrate the power that this Magistrate hath is likewise from God for so the Scripture sayes Rom. 13. All power is from God may not this power be re-assumed therefore Let none put this off with saying But people are not above Kings as Kings are above inferior Magistrates for that is nothing to the argument The argument that he makes is this If the power be of God it cannot be re-assumed Now the answer is That the power of inferiour Magistrates is of God and yet it may be re-assumed therefore his consequence is not good Further