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

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57975	Lex, rex The law and the prince : a dispute for the just prerogative of king and people : containing the reasons and causes of the most necessary defensive wars of the kingdom of Scotland and of their expedition for the ayd and help of their dear brethren of England : in which their innocency is asserted and a full answer is given to a seditious pamphlet intituled Sacro-sancta regum majestas, or, The sacred and royall prerogative of Christian kings, under the name of J. A. but penned by Jo. Maxwell the excommunicate P. Prelat. : with a scripturall confutation of the ruinous grounds of W. Barclay, H. Grotius, H. Arnisœus, Ant. de Domi P. Bishop of Spalata, and of other late anti-magistratical royalists, as the author of Ossorianum, D. Fern, E. Symmons, the doctors of Aberdeen, &c. : in XLIV questions.	Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.	1644 (1644)	Wing R2386; ESTC R12731	451,072	480

is a King by an act of Royall Iustice and by a power that he hath from the people who made himself supreme Iudge p. 163 164 165. The Kings making of inferiour Iudges hindereth not but they are as essentially Iudges as the King who maketh them not by fountain-power but by power borrowed from the people p. 165 166. The Iudges in Israel and the Kings differ not essentially p. 167. Aristocracy as naturall as Monarchie and as warrantable p. 168 169. Inferiour Iudges depend some way on the King in fieri but not in facto esse p. 169 170. The Parliament not Iudges by derivation from the King p. 170. The King cannot make nor unmake Iudges ibid. No heritable Iudges ibid. Inferiour Iudges more necessary then a King p. 171 172. QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament hath over the King and in the State p. 172. The Elders appointed by God to be Iudges p. 173. Parliaments may conveen and judge without the King p. 173 174. Parliaments are essentially Iudges and so their consciences neither dependeth on the King quoad specificationem that is That they should give out this sentence not this nec quoad exercitium That they should not in the morning execute judgement p. 174 175. Vnjust judging and no judging at all are sins in the States p. 175. The Parliament coordinate Iudges with the King not advisers onely By eleven Arguments p. 176 177 Inferior Iudges not the Kings Messengers or Legates but publike Governours p. 176. The Jews Monarchie mixt p. 178. A Power executive of Laws more in the King a Power legislative more in the Parliament p. 178 179. QUEST XXII Whether the power of the King as King be absolute or dependent and limited by Gods first mould and patern of a King Negatur Prius Affirmatur Posterius p. 179. The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk p. 180. The King not absolute in his power proved by nine Arguments p. 181.182 183 seq Why the King is a living Law p. 184. Power to do ill not from God ibid. Royalists say power to do ill is not from God but power to do ill as punishable by man is from God p. 186. A King actu primo is a plague and the people slaves if the King by Gods institution be absolute p. 187. Absolutenesse of Royaltie against Iustice Peace Reason Law p. 189. Against the Kings relation of a brother p. 190. A Damsel forced may resist the King ibid. The goodnesse of an absolute Prince hindereth not but he is actu primo a Tyrant p. 189. QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath a Prerogative Royall above Laws Negatur p. 192. Prerogative taken two wayes ibid. Prerogative above Laws a Garland proper to infinite Majestie ibid. A threefold dispensation 1. Of power 2. Of justice 3. Of Grace p. 194. Acts of meer grace may be acts of blood p. 195. An oath to the King of Babylon tyed not the people of Judah to all that absolute power could command ibid. The absolute Prince is as absolute in acts of crueltie as in acts of grace p. 196. Servants are not 1 Pet. 2.18 19. interdited of self-defence p. 199 200. The Parliament materially onely not formally hath the King for their Lord p. 202. Reason not a sufficient restraint to keep a Prince from Acts of tyranny ibid. Princes have sufficient power to do good though they have not absolute to do evil p. 203. A power to shed innocent blood can be no part of any Royall power given of God p. 204. The King because he is a publike person wanteth many priviledges that subjects have p. 205 206. QUEST XXIV What relation the King hath to the Law p. 207. Humane Laws considered as reasonable or as penal ibid. The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power p. 208. Whether the King be above Parliaments as their Iudge p. 208 p. 209 210 211. Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordination both consistent p. 210 211. Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other and they cannot any one of them be in its prevalency conveniently without the mixture of the other two p. 211 212. The King as a King cannot erre as he erreth in so far he is not the remedie of oppression and Anarchie intended by God and nature p. 212. In the court of necessitie the people may judge the King p. 213. Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernable p. 213 214. It s more requisite that the whole people Church and Religion be secured then one man p. 215. If there be any restraint by Law on the King it must be physicall for a morall restraint is upon all men p. 214 215. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath eatenus in so far unlawfull and not obligatory p. 215. QUEST XXV Whether the supreme Law the safetie of the people be above the King Affirmed p. 218. The safetie of the people to be preferred to the King for the King is no● to seek himself but the good of the people p. 218 219. Royalists make no Kings but Tyrants p. 222. How the safetie of the King is the safetie of the people p. 223. A King for the safetie of the people may break through the Letter and paper of a Law p. 227. The Kings prerogative above Law and Reason not comparable to the blood that has been shed in Ireland and England p. 225 226 228. The power of Dictators prove not a Prerogative above Law p. 229 230. QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law p. 230 231. The Law above the King in four things 1. In constitution 2. Direction 3. Limitation 4. Coaction p. 231. In what sense the King may do all things p. 231 232. The King under the moralitie of Laws 2. Vnder Fundamentall Laws not under punishment to be inflicted by himself nor because of the eminency of his place but for the physicall incongruity thereof p. 232 233. If and how the King may punish himself p. 233. That the King transgressing in a hainous manner is under the Coaction of Law proved by seven Arguments p. 234 235 seq The Coronation of a King who is supposed to be a just Prince yet proveth after a Tyrant is conditionall and from ignorance and so unvoluntary and in so far not obligatory in Law p. 234 235. Royalists confesse a Tyrant in exercise may be dethroned p. 235 236. How the people is the seat of the power of Soveraigntie p. 239 240. The place Psal. 51. Against thee onely have I sinned c. discussed p. 241 242. Israels not rising in arms against Pharaoh examined p. 245 246 247 248 249. And Judahs not working their own deliverance under Cyrus p. 248 249. A Covenant without the Kings concurrence lawfull p. 249 250 251. QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall Interpreter of the Law Negatur p. 252. He is not the supreme and peremptor

cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the Iudges because they execute not judgements for the oppressed p. 365 366. seq Iudahs subjection to Nebuchadnezar a conquering Tyrant no warrant for us to subject our selves to tyrannous acts p. 363 364 365. Christs subjection to Caesar nothing against defensive warrs p. 365 366. QUEST XXXV Whether the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church Militant be against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs p. 369 370. Tertullian neither ours nor theirs in the question of defensive warrs p. 370 371 372. QUEST XXXVI Whether the King have the power of warre only Negatur p. 372 373. Inferiour Iudges have the power of the sword no lesse then the King p. 372 373. The people tyed to acts of charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forraigne enemy though the King forbid p. 373 374. Flying unlawfull to the States of Scotland and England now Gods Law tying them to defend their Country p. 374. Parliamentary Power a fountain-power above the King p. 376 377. QUEST XXXVII Whether the Estates of Scotland are to help their Brethren the protestants in England against Cavaliers Affirmatur proved by 13. Arg. p. 378. seq Helping of neighbour Nations lawfull divers opinions concerning the point p. 378 379. The Law of Aegypt against those that helped not the oppressed p. 380. QVEST. XXXVIII Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments Affir p. 384. Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments hath divers considerations in which each one may be lesse or more convenient p. 384 385. Absolute Monarchy is the worst of Governments p. 385. Better want power to doe ill as have it ibid. A mixture sweetest of all Governments p. 387. Neither King nor Parliament have a voyce against Law and reason ibid. QUEST XXXIX Whether or no any Prerogative at all above the Law be due to the King Or if jura majestatis be any such Prerogative Negatur p. 389. A threefold supreme power ibid. What be jura regalia p. 390 391. Kings confer not honours from their plenitude of absolute power but according to the strait line and rule of Law justice and good deserving ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. p. 392 393. Difference of Kings and Judges ibid. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. No permissive Law such as the Law of divorce p. 394. What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subjects p. 395 396 397. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his Oath Covenant or any other way Affirmed p. 398 399. The people have power over the King by reason of his Covenant and Promise ibid. Covenants and promises violated infer Coaction de jure by Law though not de facto p. 399 400. Mutuall punishments may be where there is no relation of superioritie and inferioritie p. 399 400 401. Three Covenants made by Arnisaeus ibid. The King not King while he swear the oath and be accepted as King by the people ibid. The oath of the Kings of France ibid. Hu. Grotius setteth down seven cases in which the people may accuse punish or dethrone the King p. 403 404. The Prince a noble Vassal of the Kingdom upon four grounds p. 405. The covenant had an oath annexed to it ibid. The Prince is but as a private man in a contract p. 406. How the Royall power is immediately from God and yet conferred upon the King by the people p. 407 408 409. QUEST XLI Whether doth the P. P. with reason ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in the Question of lawfull defence Negatur p. 410 411 412. That Soveraignty is originally and radically in the people as in the Fountain was taught by Fathers ancient Doctors sound Divines Lawyers before there was a Jesuite or a Prelate whelped in rerum natura p. 413. The P. P. holdeth the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ p. 414 415. Iesuites tenets concerning Kings p. 415 416 417. The King not the peoples Deputie by our doctrine it is onely the calumnie of the P. Prelate p. 417 418. The P. P. will have power to act the bloodiest tyrannies on earth upon the Church of Christ the essentiall power of a King ibid. QUEST XLII Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vicegerents Negatur p. 422. Why God as God hath a man a Vicegerent under him but not as Mediator p. 422 423. The King not head of the Church ibid. The King a sub-mediator and an under redeemer and a sub-priest to offer sacrifices to God for us if he be a Vicegerent p. 423. The King no mixt person ibid. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel p. 426 427. By no Prerogative Royall may the King prescribe religious observances and humane ceremonies in Gods worship p. 424 425. The P. P. giveth to the King a power Arbitrary supreme and independent to govern the Church p. 429 430. Reciprocation of subjections of the King to the Church of the Church to the King in divers kindes to wit of Ecclesiasticall and civill subjection are no more absurd then for Aarons Priest to teach instruct and rebuke Moses if he turne a tyrannous Achab and Moses to punish Aaron if he turn an obstinate Idolator p. 430 4●3 QVEST. XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having prerogatives above Laws and Parliaments Negatur p. 433 434. The King of Scotland subject to Parliaments by the fundamentall Lawes Acts and constant practises of Parliaments ancient and late in Scotland p. 433 434 435 436. seq The King of Scotlands Oath at his Coronation p. 434. A pretended absolute povver given to K. Iames 6. upon respect of personall indowments no ground of absolutenesse to the King of Scotland p. 435 436. By Lawes and constant practises the Kings of Scotland subject to Lawes and Parliaments proved by the fundamentall Law of elective Princes and out of the most partiall Historicians and our Acts of Parliament of Scotland p. 439 440. Coronation oath ibid. And again at the Coronation of K. James the 6. that oath sworn and again 1 Par. K. Jam. 6. ibid. seq p. 452 453. How the King is supreme Iudge in all causes p. 437. The power of the Parliaments of Scotland ibid. The confession of the faith of the Church of Scotland authorized by divers Acts of Parliament doth evidently hold forth to all the reformed Churches the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars when the supreme Magistrate is misled by wicked Counsell p. 440 441 442. The same proved from the Confessions of Faith in other reformed Churches ibid. The place Rom. 13. exponed in our Confession of Faith p. 441 442 443. The Confession not onely Saxonick exhibited to the Councell of Trent but also of Helvetia France England Bohemia prove the same p. 444 445. William Laud and other Prelates enemies to Parliaments to States and to the Fundamentall Laws of the

hath no influence in making a King for the people are worthier more excellent then the King and they have an active power of ruling and directing themselves toward the intrinsecall end of humane policie which is the externall safety and peace of a societie in so far as there are morall principles of the Second Table for this effect written in their heart and therefore that royall authoritie which by Gods speciall providence is united in one King and as it were over-gilded and lustered with Princely grace and royall endowments is diffused in the people for the people hath an after-approbative consent in making a King as Royalists confesse water hath no such action in producing grace QUEST IX Whether or no Soveraigntie is so from the people that it remaineth in them in some part so as they may in case of necessitie resume it THe Prelate will have it Babylonish confusion that we are divided in opinion Jesuites saith he place all Soveraigntie in the communitie Of the Sectaries some warrant any one subject to make away his King and that such a worke is no lesse to be rewarded then when one killeth a wolfe Some say this power is in the whole Communitie some will have it in the collective body not conveened by warrant or writ of Soveraignty but when necessitie which is often fancied of reforming State and Church calleth them together Some in the Nobles and Peeres some in the three Estates assembled by the Kings writ some in the inferour Iudges I answer If the Prelate were not a Iesuite himselfe he would not bid his brethren take the mote out of their eye but there is nothing here said but which Barclaius said better before this Plagarius To which I answer We teach that any private man may kill a a Tyrant voyd of all title and a great Royalist Barclaius saith so also And if he have not the consent of the people he is an usurper for we know no externall lawfull calling that Kings have now or their familie to the Crown but only the call of the people all other calls to us are now invisible and unknown and God would not command us to obey Kings and leave us in the darke that we shall not know who is the King the Prelate placeth his lawfull calling to the Crown in such an immediate invisible and subtile act of omnipotencie as that whereby God conferreth remission of sinnes by sprinkling with water in baptisme and that whereby God directed Samuel to annoint Saul and David not Eliab nor any other brother It is the Devill in the P. P. not any of us who teach that any private man may kill a lawfull King though tyrannous in his government For the subject of Royall power we affirme the first and ultimate and native subject of all power is the Communitie as reasonable men naturally inclining to a societie but the ethicall and politicall subject or the legall and positive receptacle of this power is various according to the various constitutions of the policie In Scotland and England it is the three Estates of Parliament in other Nations some other Iudges or Peeres of the Land The Prelate had no more common sense for him to object a confusion of opinions to us for this then to all the Common-wealths on earth because all have not Parliaments as Scotland hath all have not Constables and Officials and Churchmen Barons Lords of Councell Parliaments c. as England had But the truth is the Communitie orderly conveened as it includeth all the Estates civill have hand and are to act in choosing their Rulers I see not what priviledge Nobles have above Commons in a Court of Parliament by Gods law but as they are Iudges all are equally Iudges and all make up one congregation of Gods But the question now is if all power of governing the Prelate to make all the people Kings saith if all Soveraignty be so in the people that they retaine power to guard themselves against Tyranny And if they reteine some of it habitu in habit and in their power I am not now unseasonably according to the Prelates order to dispute of the power of lawfull defence against tyranny but I lay down this maxime of Divinitie Tyranny being a worke of Sathan is not from God because sinne either habituall or actuall is not from God the power that is must be from God the Magistrate as Magistrate is good in nature of office and the intrinsecall end of his office Rom. 13.4 for he is the Minister of God for thy good and therefore a power ethicall politick or morall to oppresse is not from God and is not a power but a licentious deviation of a power and is no more from God but from sinfull nature and the old serpent then a license to sinne God in Christ giveth pardons of sinne but the Pope not God giveth dispensations to sinne 2. To this adde If for nature to defend it selfe be lawfull no Communitie without sin hath power to alienate and give away this power for as no power given to man to murther his brother is of God so no power to suffer his brother to be murthered is of God and no power to suffer himselfe à fortiori far lesse can be from God Here I speake not of physicall power for if free will be the creature of God a physicall power to acts which in relation to Gods law are sinfull must be from God But I now follow the P. Prelate Some of the adversaries as Buchanan say that the Parliament hath no power to make a law but only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the approbation of the Communitie Others as the the Observator say that the right of the Gentry and Communalty is intirely in the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons and will have their Orders irrevocable If then the common people cannot resume their power and oppose the Parliament how can Tables and Parliaments resume their power and resist the King Answ. The ignorant man should have thanked Barclaius for this Argument and yet Barclaius need not thanke him for it hath not the nerves that Barclaius gave it But I answer 1. if the Parliament should have been corrupted by fair hopes as in our age we have seene the like the people did well to resist the Prelates obtruding the Masse Booke when the Lords of the Counsell pressed it against all Law of God and man upon the Kingdome of Scotland and therefore it is denyed that the Acts of Parliament are irrevocable the observator said they were irrevocable by the King he being but one man the P. Prelate wrongeth him for he said onely they have the power of a Law and the King is obliged to consent by his Royall Office to all good Lawes and neither King nor people may oppose them Buchanan said Acts of Parliament are not Lawes obliging the people till they be promulgated and the peoples silence when they are

promulgated is their approbation and maketh them obligatory Lawes to them but if the people speak against unjust Lawes they are not Lawes at all and Buchannan knew the power of the Scottish Parliament better then this ignorant Statist 2. There is not like reason to grant so much to the King as to Parliaments because certainly Parliaments who make Kings under God or above any one man and they must have more authority and wisedome then any one King except Solomon as base flatterers say should returne to the thrones of the earth And as the power to make just Lawes is all in the Parliament only the people have power to resist tyrannicall Lawes the power of all the Parliament was never given to the King by God the Parliament are as essentially Iudges as the King and therefore the Kings deed may well be revoked because he acteth nothing as King but united with his great or lesser Councell no more then the eye can see being separated from the body The Peeres and Members of Parliament have more then the King because they have both their owne power being parts and speciall Members of the people and also they have their high places in Parliament either from the peoples expresse or tacite consent 3. We allow no Arbitrary power to the Parliament because their just Lawes are irrevocable for the irrevocable power of making just Lawes doth argue a legall not an irreovocable Arbitrary power nor is there any arbitrary power in the people or in any mortall man but of the Covenant betwixt King and people hereafter P. Prelate If Soveraigne power be habitually in the community so as they may resume it at their pleasure then nothing is given to the King but an empty title for at the same instant he receiveth Empire and Soveraignty and layeth downe the power to rule or determine in matters which concerne either private or publick good and so he is both a King and a Subject Ans. This naked consequence the Prelate sayeth and proveth not and we deny it and give this reason the King receiveth Royall power with the States to make good Lawes and 2. power by his royalty to execute those Lawes and this power the community hath devolved in the hands of the King and States of Parliament but the community keepeth to themselves a power to resist tyranny and to coerce it and ●atenus in so far is Saul subject that David is not to compeare before him nor to lay downe Goliahes sword nor disband his Army of defence though the King should command him so to doe P. Prelate By all Polititians Kings and enferiour Magistrates are differenced by their different specifice entity but by this they are not differenced nay a Magistrate is in a better condition then a King for the Magistrate is to judge by a knowne Statute and Law and cannot be censured and punished but by Law But the King is censurable yea disabled by the multitude yea the basest of subjects may cite and convent the King before the underived Majesty of the community and he may be judged by the Arbitrary Law th●t is in the closet of their heart not only for reall misdemeanour but for fancied jealousies It will be said good Kings are in no danger the contrary appeareth this day and ordinarily the best are in greatest danger no Government except Plato'es Republick wanteth incommodities subtile spirits may make them apprehend them The poore people bewitched follow Absolom in his treason they strike not at Royalty at first but labour to make the Prince naked of the good counsell of great Statesmen c. Ans. Whether the King and the under Magistrate differ essentially we shall see The P. Prelate saith all Polititians grant it but he saith untruth he bringeth Moses and the Iudges their power to prove the power of Kings and so either the Iudges of Israel and the Kings differ not essentially or then the Prelate must correct the spirit of God tearming one booke of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudges and make the booke of Kings the booke of Iudges 2. The Magistrates condition is not better then the Kings because the Magistrate is to judge by an knowne Statute and Law and the King not so God moulded the first King Deut. 17.18 when he sitteth judging on his Throne to looke to a written Coppy of the Law of God as his rule Now a power to follow Gods Law is better then a power to follow mans sinfull will so the Prelate putteth the King in a worse condition then the Magistrate not we who will have the King to judge according to just statutes and lawes 3. Whether the King be censurable and deposable by the multitude he cannot determine out of our writings 4. The communities law is the law of nature not their arbitrary lust 5. The Prelates treasonable raylings I cannot follow he first saith that we agree not ten of us to a positive faith and that our faith is negative but his faith is Privative Popish Socinian Arminian Pelagian and worse for he was once of that same faith that we are of 2. Our Confession of Faith is positive as the confession of all the reformed Churches but I judge he thinketh the Protestant Faith of all the reformed Churches but negative 3. The incommodities of Government before our reformation were not fancied but printed by Authority all the body of Popery was printed and avowed as the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland and England as the learned Author and my much respected brother evidenceth in his Ludensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canterburian selfe conviction 4. The Parliament of England was never yet found guilty of Treason 5. The good Counsellers of great States-men that Parliaments of both Kingdomes would take from the Kings Majesty are a faction of perjured Papists Prelates Iesuites Irish cut-throates Strafords and Apostate subverters of all Lawes divine humane of God of Church of State P. Prelate In whom so ever this power of Government be it is the onely remedy to supply all defects and to set right what ever is disjoynted in Church and State and the subject of this super-intending power must be free from all errour in Iudgement and Practice and so we have a Pope in temporalibus and if the Parliament erre the people must take order with them else God hath left Church and State remedilesse Ans. This is stollen from Barclaius also 1. but the same Barclaius saith Si Rex regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit regno cadit If the King shall sell his Kingdome or inslave it to a forraigne power he falleth from all right to his Kingdome but who shall execute any such Law against him not the people not the Peeres not the Parliament for this Mancipium ventris aulae this slave saith p. 147. I know no power in any to punish or curbe Soveraignty but in Almighty God 2. We see no

super-intending power on earth in King or people infallible nor is the last power of taking order with a Prince who inslaveth his Kingdome to a forraigne power placed by us in the people because they cannot erre Court flatterers who teach that the will of the Prince is the measure of all right and wrong of Law and no Law and above all Law must hold that the King is a temporall Pope both in Ecclesiasticall and Civill matters but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves the law of Nature having given to them a contrary internall principle of selfe preservation as a Tyrant who doth care for himselfe and not for the people 3. And because Extremis morbis extrema remedia in an extraordinary exigent when Achab and Iezabell did undoe the Church of God and Tyrannize over both the bodies and consciences of Priest Prophet and people Elias procured the convention of the States and Elias with the peoples helpe killed all Baals Priests the King looking on and no question against his heart In this case I thinke it s more then evident that the people resumed their power 4. We teach not that people should supply all defects in Government nor that they should use their power when any thing is done amisse by the King no more then the King is to cut off the whole people of God when they refuse an Idolatrous service obtruded upon them against all Law the people is to suffer much before they resume their power but this Court slave will have the people to doe what he did not himselfe for when King and Parliament summoned him was he not obliged to appeare Non-compearance when lawfull royall and Parliamentory power summoneth is no lesse resistance then taking of Forts and Castles P. Prelate Then this super-intending power in people may call a King to accompt and punish him for any misdemeanour or act of injustice Why might not the people of Israels Peeres or Sanedrin have convented David before them judged and punished him for his Adultery with Bathsheba and his murther of Uriah but it is holden by all that Tyranny should be an intended universall totall manifest destruction of the whole Common-wealth which cannot fall in the thoughts of any but a mad man What is recorded in the Story of Nero his wish in this kind may be rather judged the expression of transported passion then a fixed resolution Ans. The P. Prelate contrary to the scope of his booke which is all for the subject and seat of Soveraigne power against all order hath plunged himselfe in the deep of Defensive armes and yet hath no new thing 1. Our law of Scotland will warrant any subject if the King take from him his heritage or invade his possession against Law to resist the invaders and to summon the Kings intrudors before the Lords of Session for that act of injustice Is this against Gods Word or Conscience 2. The Sanedrim did not punish David Ergo it is not lawfull to challenge a King for any one act of injustice from the practice of the Sanedrim to conclude a thing lawfull or unlawfull is logick we may resist 3. By the P. Prelates doctrine the law might not put Bathshebah to death nor yet Joab the neerest agent of the murthering of innocent Vriah because Bathshebaes adulterie was the Kings adulterie she did it in obedience to King David Ioabs murther was Royall murther as the murther of all the Cavaliers for he had the Kings hand-writing for it Murther is Murther and the murtherer is to dye though the King by a secret Let alone a private and illegall warrant command it Ergo the Sanedrim might have taken Bathshebaes life and Joabs head also and consequently the Parliament of England if they be Judges as I conceive God and the Law of that ancient and renowned Kingdome maketh them may take the head of many Joabs and Jermines for murther for the command of a King cannot legitimate murther 4. David himselfe as King speaketh more for us then for the Prelate 2 Sam. 12.7 And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man the man was himselfe v. 7. Thou art the man and he said to Nathan as the Lord liveth the man that hath done this shall surely dye 5. Every act of injustice doth not un-King a Prince before God as every act of uncleannesse doth not make a wife no wife before God 6. The Prelate excuseth Nero and would not have him resisted if all Rome were one neck that he might cut it off with one stroke I read it of Caligula If the Prelate see more in Historie then I doe I yield 7. He saith the thoughts of totall eversion of a Kingdome must only fall on a mad man The King of Britaine was not mad when he declared the Scots Traytors because they resisted the service of the Masse and raised an Army of Prelaticall cut-throats to destroy them if all the Kingdome should resist Idolatry as all are obliged The King sleeped upon this Prelaticall resolution many moneths passions in fervor have not a dayes raigne upon a man And this was not so cleare as the sun but it was as cleare as written printed Proclamations and the pressing of Souldiers and the visible marching of Cut-throats and the blocking of Scotland up by sea and land could be visible to men having five senses Covaruv a great Lawyer saith 1. that all Civill power is penes remp in the hands of the Common-wealth 1. Because Nature hath given to man to be a sociall creature and impossible he can preserve himselfe in a societie except he being in communitie transforme his power to an head 2. He saith Hujus vero civilis societatis resp rector ab alio quam ab ipsamet repub constitui non potest justè absque Tyrannide Siquidem ab ipso Deo constitutus non est nec electus cuilibet civili societati immediatè Rex aut Princeps Arist. polit 3. c. 10. saith It is better that Kings got by election then by birth because Kingdomes by succession are verè regia truly Kingly these by birth are more Tyrannicall masterly and proper to Barbarous Nations And Covarruvias tom 2. pract quest de jurisd Castellan Reip. c. 1. n. 4. saith Hereditary Kings are also made hereditary by the tacit consent of the people and so by law and consuetude Spalato Let us grant saith he that a societie shall refuse to have a Governour over them shall they be for that free in no sort but there be many wayes by which a people may be compelled to admit a governour for then no man might rule over a Communitie against their will But nature hath otherwise disposed ut quod singuli nollent universi vellent that which every one will not have a Communitie naturally desireth And the P. Prelate saith God is no lesse the author of Order then he is the author of Being for the Lord who createth all conserveth all and without

King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodier and more tyrannous man then Saul Any Tyrant standeth in titulo so long as the People and Estates who made him King have not recalled their grant so as neither David nor any single man though six hundred with him may unking him or detract obedience from him as King So many acts of disloyaltie and breachcs of lawes in the Subjects though they be contrary to this Covenant that the States make with their Prince doth not make them to be no Subjects and the Covenant mutuall standeth thus 3 Arg. If the people as Gods instruments bestow the benefit of a Crown on their King upon condition that he will rule them according to Gods word then is the King made King by the people conditionally but the former is true Ergo so is the latter The assumption is proved thus because to be a King is to be an adopted father tutor a Politick servant and Royall watchman of the State and the Royall honour and Royall maintenance given to him is a reward of his labours and a Kingly hire And this is the Apostles argument Rom. 13.6 For this cause pay you tribute also there is the wages for they are Gods ministers attending continually upon this very thing There is the worke Qui non implet conditionem à se promissam cadit beneficio It is confirmed thus The people either maketh the man their Prince conditionally that he rule according to Law or absolutely so that he rule according to will or lust or 3. without any vocall transactions at all but only brevi manu say Reigne thou over us and God save the King And so there be no conditions spoken on either side Or 4. The King is obliged to God for the condition which he promiseth by oath to performe toward the people but he is to make no reckoning to the people whether he performe his promise or no for the people being inferiour to him and he solo Deo minor only next and immediate to God the people can have no jus no law over him by vertue of any covenant But the first standing we have what we seeke The second is contrary to Scripture He is not Deut. 17.15 16. made absolutely a King to rule according to his will and lust for Reigne thou over us should have this meaning Come thou and play the Tyrant over us and let thy lust and will be a law to us which is against naturall sense nor can the sense and meaning be according to the third That the people without any expresse vocall and positive covenant give a Throne to their King to rule as he pleaseth because 1. it is a vain thing for the Prelate and other Mancipia Aulae Court-bellies to say Scotland and England must produce a written authentick covenant betwixt the first King and their People because say they it s the Lawes word De non apparentibus non existentibus eadem lex that covenant which appeareth not it is not For in positive covenants that is true and in such contracts as are made according to the Civill or Municipall lawes or the secondary law of Nations But the generall covenant of nature is presupposed in making a King where there is no vocall or written covenant if there be no conditions betwixt a Christian King and his people then those things which are just and right according to the law of God and the rule of God in moulding the first King are understood to regulate both King and People as if they had been written and here we produce our written covenant Deut. 17.15 Josh. 1.8 9. 2 Chr. 31 32.1 Because this is as much against the King as the people and more for if the first King cannot bring forth his written and authentick tables to prove that the Crown was given to him and his heires and his successors absolutely and without any conditions so as his will shall be a law cadit causa he loseth his cause say they The King is in possession of the Royall power absolutely without any condition and you must put him from his possession by a law I answer this is most false 1. Though he were in mala fide and in unjust possession the law of Nature will warrant the people to repeal their right and plead for it in a matter which concerneth their heads lives and soules 2. The Parliaments of both Kingdomes standing in possession of a nomothetick power to make lawes proveth cleerely that the King is in no possession of any Royall dignitie conferred absolutely and without any condition upon him and therefore it is the Kings part by law to put the Estates out of possession And so though there were no written covenant the standing law and practice of many hundreth acts of Parliament is equivalent to a written covenant 2. When the people appointeth any to be their King the voyce of Nature exponeth their deed though there be no vocall or written covenant For that fact of making a King is a morall lawfull act warranted by the word of God Deut. 17.15 16. Rom. 13.1.2 and the law of Nature and therefore they having made such a man their King they have given him power to be their father feeder healer protector and so must only have made him King conditionally so he be a father a feeder and tutor Now if this deed of making a King must be exponed to be an investing with an absolute and not a conditionall power this fact shall be contrary to Scripture and to the law of Nature for if they have given him Royall power absolutely and without any condition they must have given to him power to be a father protector tutor and to be a tyrant a murtherer a bloody lyon to waste and destroy the people of God 3. The Law permitteth the bestower of a benefit to interpret his own mind in the bestowing of a benefit even as a King and State must expone their own Commission given to their Ambassadour so must the Estates expone whether they bestowed the Crown upon the first King conditionally or absolutely For the 4th if it stand then must the people give to their first elected King a power to wast and destroy themselves so as they may never controle it but only leave it to God and the King to reckon together but so the condition is a Chimera We give you a Throne upon condition you swear by him who made heaven and earth that you will govern us according to Gods Law and you shall be answerable to God only not to us whether you keep the covenant you make with us or violate it but how a covenant can be made with the people and the King obliged to God not to the people I conceive not 2. This presupposeth that the King as King cannot doe any sin or commit any act of tyranny against the people but against God only because if he be obliged to God only as a

must keepe covenant though to his hurt yea such a servant is not only not above his Master but he cannot move his foot without his Master The Governour of Britaine saith Arnisaeus being despised by King Philip resigned himselfe as Vassall to King Edward of England but did not for that make himselfe superiour to King Edward indeed he who constituteth another under him as a Legat is superiour but the people do● constitute a King above themselves not a King under themselves and therefore the people are not by this made the Kings superiour but his inferiour Ans. 1. It is false that the people doth or can by the Law of nature resigne their whole liberty in the hand of a King 1. they cannot resigne to others that which they have not in themselves Nemo potest dare quod non habet but the people hath not an absolute power in themselves to destroy themselves or to exercise those tyrannous acts spoken of 1 Sam. 8.11 12 13 14 15 c. for neither God nor Natures Law hath given any such power 2. He who constituteth himselfe a slave is supposed to be compelled to that unnaturall fact of alienation of that liberty which he hath from his Maker from the wombe by violence constraint or extreame necessity and so is inferiour to all free men but the people doth not make themselves slaves when they constitute a King over themselves because God giving to a people a King the best and excellentest Governour on earth giveth a blessing and speciall fafour Esay 1.26 Hosea 1. v. 11. Esay 3.6 7. Ps. 79.70 71 72. but to lay upon his people the state of slaverie in which they renounce their whole libertie is a curse of God Gen. 9.25 Gen. 27.29 Deut. 28.32.36 But the people having their liberty to make any of ten or twenty their King and to advance one from a private state to an honorable throne whereas it was in their libertie to advance another and to give him Royall power of ten degrees whereas they might give him power of twelve degrees and of eight or sixe must be in excellencie and worth above the man whom they constitute King and invest with such honour as Honour in the fountain and honos participans originans must be more excellent and pure then the derived honour in the King which is honos participatus originatus 2. If the servant give his libertie to his master ergo he had that libertie in him and in that act libertie must be in a more excellent way in the servant as in the Fountaine then it is in the master and so this libertie must be purer in the people then in the King and therefore in that both the servant is above the master and the People worthier then the King and when the people give themselves conditionally and Covenant-wise to the King as to a Publique servant and Patron and Tutour as the Governour of Britaine out of his humour gave himselfe to King Edward there is even here a note of superioritie Every giver of a benefit as a giver is superior to him to whom the gift is given though after the servant hath given away his gift of libertie by which he was superiour he cannot be a superior because by his gift he hath made himselfe inferior 3. The People constituteth a King above themselves I distinguish supra se above themselves according to the fountaine power of Royaltie that is false for the fountaine-power remaineth most eminently in the people 1. because they give it to the King ad modum recipientis and with limitations ergo it is unlimited in the people and bounded and limited in the King and so lesse in the King then in the people 2. If the King turne distracted and an ill spirit from the Lord come upon Saul so as reason be taken from a Nebuchadnezzar it is certaine the people may put Curators and Tutors over him who hath the Royall power 3. If the King be absent and taken captive the People may give the Royall power to one or to some few to exercise it as custodes regni And 4. if he die and the Crown goe by election they may create another with more or lesse power all which evinceth that they never constituted over themselves a King in regard of fountaine-power for if they give away the fountaine as a slave selleth his libertie they could not make use of it Indeed they set a King above them quoad potestatem legum executivam in regard of a power of executing lawes and actuall government for their good and safetie but this proveth only that the King is above the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect but the most eminent and fountaine-power of Royaltie remaineth in the people as in an immortall spring which they communicate by succession to this or that mortall man in the manner and measure that they thinke good And Vlpian and Bartolus cited by our Prelate out of Barclaius are only to be understood of the derived secondary and borrowed power of executing lawes and not of the fountaine power which the people cannot give away no more then they can give away their rationall nature for it is a power naturall to conserve themselves essentially adhering to every created Being For if the People give all their power away 1. What shall they reserve to make a new King if this man dye 2. What if the Royall line surcease there be no Prophets immediately sent of God to make Kings 3. What if he turne Tyrant and destroy his Subjects with the sword The Royalists say they may flie but when they made him King they resigned all their power to him even their power of flying for they bound themselves by an oath say Royalists to all passive and lawfull active obedience and I suppose to stand at his Tribunal if he summoned the three Estates upon Treason to come before him is conteined in the oath that Royalists say bindeth all and is contradictorie to flying Arnisaeus a more learned Iurist and Divine then the P. Prelate answereth the other Maxime The end is worthier then the meane leading to the end because it is ordained for the end These meanes saith he which referre their whole nature to the end and have all their excellencie from the end and have excellencie from no other thing but from the end are lesse excellent then the end that is true such an end as medicine is for health And Hugo Grotius l. 1. c. 3. n. 8. Those meanes which are only for the end for the good of the end and are not for their own good also are of lesse excellencie and inferior to the end But so the assumption is false But those meanes which beside their relation to the end have an excellencie of nature in themselves are not alwayes inferior to the end The Disciple as he is instituted is inferior to the Master but as he is the sonne of a Prince he is

can it be called a wronging of the King that all cities and Burroughs of Scotland and England have power to choose their owne Provests Rulers and Majors 4. If it be warranted by God that the lawfull Call of God to the Throne be the election of the people the call of inferiour Iudges must also be from the people mediatly or immediatly So I see no ground to say that the inferiour Iudge is the Kings Vicegerent or that he is in respect of the King or in relation to supreme Authority only a private man 12. These Iudges cannot but be univocally and essentially Iudges no lesse then the King without which in a Kingdome Iustice is Physically unpossible and Anarchie and violence and confusion must follow if they be wanting in the Kingdome But without inferiour Iudges though there be a King Iustice is Physically unpossible and Anarchie and confusion must follow c. Now this Argument is more considerable that without inferiour Iudges though there be a King in a Kingdome Iustice and safety are unpossible and if there be inferiour Iudges though there be no King as in Aristocracy and when the King is dead and another not Crowned or the King is Minor or absent or a captive in the enemies Land yet justice is possible and the Kingdome preserved the Medium of the Argument is grounded upon Gods Word Num. 11.14 15. when Moses is unable alone to judge the people seventy Elders re-joyned with him 16.17 so were the Elders adjoyned to helpe him Exo. 24.1 Deut. 5.23 c. 22.16 Iosh. 23.2 Iudg. 8.14 Iudg. 11.5 Iudg. 11.11 1 Sam. 11.3 1 King 20.7 2 King 6.32 2 Chro. 34.29 Ruth 4.4 Deut. 19.12 Ezech. 8.1 Lament 1.19 then were the Elders of Moab thought they had a King 2. The end naturall of Iudges hath been indigence and weaknesse because men could not in a society defend themselves from violence therefore by the light of nature they gave their power to one or more and made a Iudge or Iudges to obtaine the end of selfe preservation But Nature useth the most efficacious meanes to obtaine its end but in a great society and Kingdome the end is more easily attained by many Governours then by one only for where there is but one he cannot minister Iustice to all and the farther that the children are removed from their father and tutor they are the nearer to violence and unjustice Iustice should be at as easie a rate to the poore as a draught of water Samuel went yearely through the Land to Bethell Gilgall Mizpeh 1 Sam. 7.16 and brought Iustice to the doores of the poore So were our Kings of Scotland obliged to doe of old but now justice is as deare as gold it is not a good argument to prove inferior Iudges to be only Vicars and Deputies of the King because the King may censure and punish them when they pervert judgement 1. Because the King in that punisheth them not as Iudges but as men 2. That might prove all the Subjects to be Vicars and Deputies of the King because he can punish them all in the case of their breach of lawes QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament have over the King and in the State IT is true the King is the head of the Kingdome but the States of the Kingdome are as the temples of the head and so as essentially parts of the head as the King is the crown of the head Assert 1. These Ordines Regni the States have been in famous Nations so there were fathers of families and Princes of Tribes amongst the Jewes The Ephori amongst the Lacedemonians Polyb. hist. l. 6. The Senate amongst the Romanes The sorum Superbiense amongst the Arragonians The Parliaments in Scotland England France Spaine 2 Sam. 3.17 Abner communed with the Elders of Israel to bring the King home And there were Elders in Israel both in the time of the Judges and in the time of the Kings who did not only give advice and counsell to the Judges and Kings but also were Iudges no lesse then the Kings and Iudges which I shall make good by these places Deut. 21.19 The rebellious Son is brought to the Elders of the Citie who had power of life and death and caused to stone him Deut. 22.18 The Elders of the Citie shall take that man and chastise him Iosh. 20.4 But beside the Elders of every Citie there were the Elders of Israel and the Princes who had also judiciall power of life and death as the Iudges and King had Josh. 22.30 Even when Ioshua was Iudge in Israel the Princes of the Congregation and heads of the Thousands of Israel did judicially cognosce whether the Children of Reuben of Gad and of halfe the tribe of Manasseh were apostates from God and the Religion of Israel 2 Sam. 5.3 All the Elders of Israel made David King at Hebron and Num. 11. They are appointed by God not to be the advisers only and helpers of Moses but v. 14 17. to beare a part of the burden of ruling and governing the people that Moses might be eased Jeremiah is accused c. 26.10 upon his life before the Princes Iosh. 7.4 The Princes sit in judgement with Ioshua Iosh. 9.15 Ioshua and the Princes of the Congregation sware to the Gibeonites that they would not kill them The Princes of the house of Israel could not be rebuked for oppression in judgement Mic. 3.1 2 3. if they had not had power of judgement So Zeph. 3.3 And Deut. 1.17 2. Chron. 19.6 7. They are expresly made Iudges in the place of God And 1 Sam. 8.2 without advise or knowledge of Samuel the supreme Iudge they conveene and ask a King and without any head or superior when there is no King they conveene a Parliament and make David King at Hebron And when David is banished they conveen to bring him home againe when Tyrannous Athalia reigneth they conveene and make Ioash King and that without any King And Iosh. 22. there is a Parliament conveened and for any thing we can read without Ioshua to take cognisance of a new Altar It had been good that the Parliaments both of Scotland and of England had conveened though the King had not indicted and summoned a Parliament without the King to take order with the wicked Clergie who had made many idolatrous Altars And the P. Prelate should have brought an argument to prove it unlawfull iu foro Dei to set up the Tables and Conventions in our Kingdome when the Prelates were bringing in the grossest idolatrie into the Church a service for adoring of Altars of Bread the worke of the hand of the Bake● a God more corruptible then any god of silver and gold And against Achabs will and minde 1 King 18 19. Elias causeth to kill the Priests of Baal according to Gods expresse law It is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise extraordinary then it is at this day When the supreme Magistrate

Estates Neither will it follow that if the Estates of a Kingdome doe any thing but counsell a King they must then command him for a legall and judiciall advice hath influence in the effect to make it a Law not on the Kings Will to cause him give the being of a Law to that which without his Will is no Law for this supponeth that he is only Iudge Obj. What power the people reserveth they reserve it to themselves in unitate as united in a Parliament and therefore what they doe out of a Parliament is tumultous Ans. I deny the consequence they reserve the power of selfe preservation out of a Parliament and a power of convening in Parliament for that effect that they may by Common Counsell defend themselves QUEST XXII Whether the power of the King as King be absolute or dependent and limited by Gods first mould and paterne of a King DOctor Ferne sheweth us it was never his purpose to plead for absolutenesse of an Arbitrary commandement free from all Morall restraint laid on the power by Gods Law but only he striveth for a power in the King that cannot be resisted by the subject But truely we never disputed with Royalists of any absolute power in the King free from Morall subjection to Gods Law 1. Because any bond that Gods Law imposeth on the King it commeth wholly from God and the nature of a Divine Law and not from any voluntary contract or covenant either expresse or tacito betwixt the King and the people who made him King for if he faile against such a covenant though he should exceed the cruelty of a King or a man and become a Lion and a Nero a Mother-killer he should in all his inhumanity and breach of covenant be countable to God not to any man on earth 2. To dispute with Royalists if Gods Law lay any Morall restraint upon the King nor to dispute whether the King be a rationall man or no and whether he can sin against God and shall cry in the day of Gods wrath if he be a wicked Prince Hills fall on us and cover us as it is Revel 6.15 16. and whether Tophet be prepared for all workers of iniquity and certainly I justifie the Schoole-men in that question Whether or no God could have created a rationall creature such a one as by nature is impeccable and not naturally capable of sinne before God if Royalists dispute this question of their absolute Monarch they are wicked Divines 2. We plead not at this time saith the Prelate stealing from Grotius Barclaius Arnisaeus who spake it with more sinewes of reason for a masterly or despoticall or rather a slavishing Soveraignty which is Dominium herile an absolute power such as the great Turke this day exerciseth over his subjects and the King of Spaine hath over and in his territories without Europe we maintain only regiam potestatem quae fundatur in paterna such royall fatherly Soveraignty as we live under blessed be God and our predecessors This saith he as it hath its Royall Prerogative inherent to the Crowne naturally and inseparable from it so it trencheth not upon the liberty of the person or the property of the goods of the subject but in and by the lawfull and just acts of jurisdiction Ans. 1. Here is another absolute power disclaimed to be in the King he hath not such a masterly and absolute liberty as the Turke hath Why Iohn P. P. in such a tender and high point as concerneth soule and body of subjects in three Christian Kingdomes you should have taught us 1. What bonds and fetters any covenant or paction betwixt the King and people layeth upon the King why he hath not as King the power of the great Turke I will tell you The Great Turke may command any of his subjects to leape into a mountaine of fire and burne himselfe quick in conscience of obedience to his Law And what if the subject disobey the Great Turk if the Great Turke be a lawfull Prince as you will not deny And if the King of Spaine should command forraine conquered slaves to doe the like By your Doctrine neither the one nor the other were obliged to resist by violence but to pray or fly which both were to speake to stones and were like the man who in case of ship-wrack made his devotion of praying to the waves of the sea not to enter the place of his bed and drowne him But a Christian King hath not this power Why and a Christian King by Royalists doctrine hath a greater power then the Turke if greater can be he hath power to command his subjects to cast themselves into Hell-fire that is to presse on them a service wherein it is written Adore the worke of mens hands in the place of the living God and this is worse then the Turkes commandement of bodily burning quick And what is left to the Christian Subjects in this case is the very same and no other then is left to the Turkish and forraigne Spanish subject Either flee or make prayers There is no more left to us 2. Many Royalists maintaine that England is a conquered Nation Why then see what power by law of Conquest the King of Spaine hath over his slaves the same must the King of England have over his subjects For to Royalists a title by Conquest to a Crown is as lawfull as a title by birth or election For lawfulnesse in relation to Gods law is placed in an indivisible point if we regard the essence of lawfulnesse And therefore there is nothing left to England but that all Protestants who take the oath of a Protestant King to defend the true Protestant Religion should after prayers conveyed to the King through the fingers of Prelates and Papists leave the Kingdome empty to Papists Prelates and Atheists 3. All power restrained that it cannot arise from ten degrees to foureteen from the Kingly power of Saul 1 Sam. 8.9 11. to the Kingly power of the Great Turke to fourteen 1. must either be restrained by Gods law 2. or by Mans law or 3. by the innate goodnes and grace of the Prince or 4. by the providence of God A restraint from Gods law is vaine for it is no question between us and Royalists but God hath laid a morall restraint on Kings and all men that they have not morall power to sinne against God 2. Is the restraint laid on by mans law What law of man 1. The Royalist saith 1. The King as King is above all law of man Then say I no law of man can hinder the Kings power of ten to arise to the Turkish power of foureteen 2. All law of man as it is mans law is seconded either with Ecclesiasticall and spirituall coaction such as Excommunication or with Civill and temporall coaction such as is the Sword if it be violated But Royalists deny that either the sword of the Church in Excommunication or the

The Observator said The King is not a father to the whole collective body and it s well said he is son to them and they his maker Who made the King Policy answereth The State made him and Divinitie God made him 4. The Observator said well The peoples weaknesse is not the Kings strength The Prelate saith Amen He said That that perisheth not to the King which is granted to the people The Prelate denyeth Because What the King hath in trust from God the King cannot make away to another nor can any take it from him without sacriledge Answ. True indeed If the King had Royalty by immediate trust and infusion by God as Elias had the spirit of prophecie that he cannot make away Royalists dream that God immediately from heaven now infuseth facultie and right to Crowns without any word of God It s enough to make an Euthysiast leap up to the Throne and kill Kings Judge if these Fanaticks be favourers of Kings But if the King have Royaltie mediately by the peoples free consent from God there is no reason but people give as much power even by ounce weights for power is strong Wine and a great mocker as they know a weak mans head will bear and no more power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven But a birth-right of the people borrowed from them they may let it out for their good and resume it when a man is drunk with it 2. The man will have it conscience on the King to fight and destroy his three Kingdoms for a dream his prerogative above Law But the truth is Prelates do engage the King his house honour subjects Church for their cursed Mytres The Prelate vexeth the Reader with Repetitions and saith The King must proportion his Government to the safety of the people on the one hand and to his owne safety and power on the other hand Ans. What the King doth as King he doth it for the happinesse of his people the King is a relative yea even his owne happinesse that he seeketh he is to referre to the good of Gods people He saith farther The safety of the people includeth the safety of the King because the word populus is so taken which he proveth by a raw sickly rabble of words stollen out of Passerats Dictioner His father the Schoole-master may whip him for frivolous Etymologies This supreame Law saith the Prelate is not above the Law of Prerogative Royall the highest Law nor is Rex above Lex The Democracie of Rome had a supremacie above Lawes to make and unmake Lawes and will they force this power on a Monarch to the destruction of Soveraigntie Answ. This which is stollen from Spalato Barclay Grotius and others is easily answered The supremacie of People is a Law of natures selfe-preservation above all positive Lawes and above the King and is to regulate Soveraigntie not to destroy it 2. If this supremacie of Maj●stie was in people before they have a King then 1. they lose it not by a voluntary choise of a King for a King is chosen for good and not for the peoples losse ergo they must retain this power in habite and potency even when they have a King 2. Then supremacy of Majesty is not a beame of Divinity proper to a King only 3. Then the people having Royall soveraignty vertually in them make and so unmake a King all which the Prelate denyeth This supreme Law saith the Prelate begging it from Spalato Arnisaeus Grotius advance the King not the people and the sense is The Kingdome is really some time in such a case that the Soveraigne must exercise an Arbitrary Power and not stand upon private mens interests or transgressing of Lawes made for the private good of individualls but for the preservation of it selfe and the publicke may break through all Lawes This he may in the case when suddaine forraine invasion threatneth ruine inevitably to King and Kingdome a Physitian may rather cut a Gangreened member then suffer the whole body to perish The Dictator in case of extreame dangers as Livie and Dion Halicarnass shew us had power according to his owne Arbitrament had a soveraigne Commission in peace and war of life death persons c. not co-ordinate not subordinate to any Ans. It is not an Arbitrary power but naturally tyed and fettered to this same supreame Law Salus populi the safety of the people that a King breake through not the Law but the letter of the Law for the safety of the people as the Chyrurgion not by any prerogative that he hath above the Art of Chyrurgery but by necessity cutteth off a Gangreened member thus it s not Arbitrary to the King to save his people from ruine but by the strong and imperious Law of the peoples safety he doth it for if he did it not he were a murtherer of his people 2. He is to stand upon transgression of Lawes according to their genuine sense of the peoples safety for good Lawes are not contrary one to another though when he breaketh through the letter to the Law yet he breaketh not the Law for if twenty thousand Rebells invade Scotland he is to command all to rise though the formality of a Parliament cannot be had to indict the war as our Law provideth but the King doth not command all to rise and defend themselves by a Prerogative Royall proper to him as King and incommunicable to any but to himselfe 1. There is no such dinne and noise to be made for a King and his incommunicable Prerogative for though the King were not at all yea though he command the contrary as he did when he came against Scotland with an English Army the law of Nature teacheth all to rise without the King 2. That the King command this as King it is not a particular positive Law but he doth it as a man and a member of the Kingdom The law of Nature which knoweth no dreame of such a Prerogative forceth him to it as every member is by Natures indictment to care for the whole 3. It is poore hungry skill in this New Statist for so he nameth all Scotland to say that any Lawes are made for private interests and the good of some individuals Lawes are not Lawes if they be not made for the safetie of the people 4. It is false that the King in a publike danger is to care for himselfe as a man with the ruine and losse of any Yea in a publike calamitie a good King as David is to desire he may die that the Publique may bee saved 2 Samuel 24.17 Exodus 32.32 It is commended of all that the Emperour Otho yea and Richard the 2. of England as M. Speed saith Hist. of England p. 757. resigned their Kingdomes to eschew the effusion of blood The Prelate adviseth the King to passe over all lawes of Nature and slay thousands of innocents and destroy Church and State of three Kingdomes

indeed the triviall Argument of all Royalists especially of Barclay obvious in his 3. Booke If Arbitrarie and Tyrannicall power above any Law that the lawfull Magistrate commandeth under the paine of death Thou shalt not murther one man Thou shalt not take away the vineyard of one Naboth violently be lawfull and warrantable by Gods word then an Arbitrarie power above all Divine lawes is given to the keeping of the Civill Magistrate And it is no lesse lawfull Arbitrarie or rather Tyrannicall power for David to kill all his Subjects and to plunder all Jerusalem as I beleeve Prelates and Malignants and Papists would serve the three Kingdomes if the King should command them then to kill one Vriah or for Achab to spoile one Naboth The essence of ●inne must agree alike to all though the degrees varie Of Gods remedie against Arbitrary power hereafter in the Question of Resistance but the confused ingine of the Prelate bringeth it in here where there is no place for i● His 7. Argument is Before God would authorize Rebellion and give a bad president thereof for ever he would rather worke extraordinary and wond●rfull miracles and therefore would not authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Moses a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a str●tched-out arm● nor did the Lord deliver his people by the wisdome of Moses or strength of the people or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and power Ans. I reduce the Prelates confused words to a few for I speake not of his Popish tearme of Saint Steven and others the like because all that he hath said in a book of 149 pages might have been said in three sheets of paper But I pray you what is this Argument to the Question in hand w●●ch is Whether the King be so above all Lawes as People and Peeres in the case of Arbitrarie power may resume their power and punish a Tyrant The P. Pr●late draweth in the Question of Resistance by the haire Israels not rising in armes against K. Pharaoh proveth nothing against the power of a Free Kingdome against a Tyrant 1. Moses who wrought miracles destructive to Pharaoh might pray a vengeance against Pharaoh God having revealed to Moses that Pharaoh was a Reprobate But may Ministers and Nobles pray so against King Charles God forbid 2. Pharaoh had not his Crown from Israel 3. Pharaoh had not sworne to defend Israel nor became he their King upon condition he should maintaine and professe the Religion of the God of Israel Therefore Israel could not as free Estates challenge him in their supreme Court of Parliament of breach of oath and upon no termes could they un-king Pharaoh He held not his Crown of them 4. Pharaoh was never circumcised nor within the Covenant of the God of Isr●el in profession 5. Israel had their lands by the meere gift of the King I hope the King of Britaine standeth to Scotland and England in a foure-fold contrary relation All Divines know that Pharaoh his Princes and the Egyptians were his Peeres and People and that Israel were not his native Subjects but a number of strangers who by the lawes of the King and Princes by the meanes of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and libertie to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their bondage Exod. 2.23 24. and they were not to serve the Gods of Egypt nor were of the Kings Religion And therefore his Argument is thus A number of poore exiled strangers under King Pharaoh who were not Pharaohs Princes and Peeres could not restraine the Tyrannie of King Pharaoh Ergo the three Estates in a free Kingdome may not restraine the Arbitrarie power of a King 2. The Prelate must prove that God gave a Royall and Kingly power to King Pharaoh due to him by vertue of his Kingly calling according as Royalists expone 1 Sam. 8.9 11. to kill all the male children of Israel to make slaves of themselves and compell them to worke in brick and clay while their lives were a burden to them And that if a Romish Catholique Mary of England should kill all the male Children of Protestants by the hands of Papists at the Queenes commandement and make bondslaves of all the Peeres Iudges and three Estates who made her a free Princesse yet notwithstanding that Mary had sworne to maintaine the Protestant Religion they were to suffer and not to defend themselves But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Israel so as they could not controll it then God giveth to a King a Royall power by office to sinne only the Royalist saveth God from being the author of sinne in this that God gave the power to sinne but yet with this limitation that the Subjects should not resist this power 2. He must prove that Israel was to give their Male-child●en to Pharaohs Butchers for to hide them was to resist a Royall power and to disobey a Royall power given of God is to disobey God 3. The Subjects may not resist the Kings Butchers coming to kill them and their Male-children For to resist the servant of the King in that wherein he is a servant is to resist the King 1 Sam. 8.7 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 4. He must prove that upon the supposition That Israel had been as strong as Pharaoh and his people that without Gods speciall commandment they then wanting the written Word they should have fought with Pharaoh and that we now for all wars must have a word from Heaven as if we had not Gods perfit Will in his Word as at that time Israel behoved to have in all wars Judg. 18.5 1 Sam. 14.37 Esa. 30.2 Iere. 38.37 1 King 22.5 1 Sam. 30.5 Iudg. 20.27 1 Sam. 23.2 2 Sam. 16.23 1 Chron. 10.14 But because God gave not them an answer to fight against Pharaoh therefore we have no warrant now to fight ag●inst a forraign Nation invading us the consequence is null and therefore this is a vain Argument The Prophets never reprove the people for not performing the duty of defensive wars against Tyra●nous Kings Ergo There is no such dutie enjoyned by any Law of God to us For the Prophets never rebuke the people for non-performing the dutie of offensive wars against their enemies but where God gave a speciall command and responce from his own Oracle that they should fight And if God was pleased never to command the people to rise against a Tyrannous King they did not sin where they had no commandment of God but I hope we have now a more sure word of prophecie to inform us 5. The Prelate conjectureth Moses his mira●les and the deliverance of the people by dividing the Red Sea was to forbid and condemn defensive wars of people against their King but he hath neither Scripture nor Reasons to do it The end of these miracles was to Seal to Pharaoh the Truth of Gods calling of Moses and

Aaron to deliver the people as is clear Exod. 4.1 2 3 4. compared with Chap. 7. vers 8 9 10. And that the Lord might get to himself a name on all the earth Rom. 9.17 Exod. 9.16 and 13.13 14. and 15. 1 2 3. seq But of the Prelates conjecturall end the Scripture is silent and we cannot take an excommunicated mans word What I said of Pharaoh who had not his Crown from Israel that I say of Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of Persia keeping th● people of God captive P. Prelate So in the Book of the Judge● when the people were delivered over to the hand of their enemies because of their sins h● never warranted the ordinary Iudges or Communitie to be their own deliverers but when they repented God raised up ● Iudge The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon God effected it by Cyrus immediately and totally Is not this a reall proof God will not have inferiour Iudges to rectifie what is amisse but we must waite in patience till God provide lawfull means some Soveraign power immediately sent by himself in which course of his ordinary providence he will not be deficient Answ. All this is beside the question and proveth nothing lesse then that Peers and Communitie may not resume their power to curbe an Arbitrary power For in the first case there is neither Arbitrary nor lawfull supreme Iudge 2. If the first prove any thing it proveth That it was rebellion in the inferiour Iudges and Communitie of Israel to fight against forraign Kings not set over them by God and that offensive wars against any Kings whatsoever because they are Kings though strangers are unlawfull Let Socinians and Anabaptists consider if the P. Prelate help not them in this and may prove all wars to be unlawfull 3. He is so Malignant to all inferiour Iudges as if they were not powers sent of God and to all Governours that are not Kings and so upholders of Prelates and of himself as he conceiveth that by his arguing he will have all deliverance by Kings onely the onely lawfull means in ordinary providence and so Aristocracy and Democracy except in Gods extraordinary providence and by some divine dispensation must be extraordinary and ordinarily unlawfulh 2. The Acts of a State when a King is dead and they choos● another shall be an Anticipating of Gods providence 3. If the King be a childe a captive or distracted and the Kingdom oppressed with Malignants they are to waite while God immediately from Heaven create a King to them as he did Saul long ago But have we now Kings immediately sent as Saul was 1. How is the spirit of Prophecie and Government infused in them as in King Saul Or are they by propheticall inspiration anointed as David was I conceive their calling to the throne on Gods part do differ as much from the calling of Saul and David in some respect as the calling of ordinary Pastors who must be gifted by industry and learning and called by the Church and the calling of Apostles 4. God would deliver his people from Babylon by moving the heart of Cyrus immediately the people having no hand in it not so much as supplicating Cyrus Ergo The People and Peers who made the King cannot curb his Tyrannicall power if he make captives and slaves of them as the Kings of Chaldea made slaves of the people of Israel What Because God useth another mean Ergo This mean is not lawfull It followeth in no sort If we must use no means but what the captive people did under Cyru● we may not lawfully flie nor supplicate for the people did neither P. Prelate You read of no Covenant in Scripture made without the King Exod. 34. Moses King of Iesurum neither Tables nor Parliament framed it Joshua another Iosh. 24. and Asa 2 Chron. 15. and 2 Chron. 34. and Ezra 10. The Covenant of Iehojada in the non-age of Ioash was the High Priests Act as the Kings Governour There is a covenant with Hell made without the King an● a false Covenant Hos. 10.3 4. Answ. We argue this negatively This is neither commanded nor practised nor warranted by promise Ergo It is not lawfull But this is not practised in Scripture Ergo It is not lawfull It followeth it Shew me in Scripture the killing of a Goaring Ox who killed a man the not making battlements on an house the putting to death of a man lying with a Beast the killing of seducing Prophets who tempted the people to go a whoring and serve another God then Jehovah I mean a god made by the hand of the Baker such a one as the excommunicated Prelate is known to be who hath Preached this Idolatry in three Kingdoms yet Deut. 13. This is written and all the former Laws are divine Precepts shall the Precept make them all unlawfull because they are not practised by some in Scripture By this I ask Where read yee that the people entered in a Covenant with God not to worship the Golden Image and the King and these who pretend they are the Priests of Iehovah the Church-men and Pelates refused to enter in Covenant with God By this argument the King and Prelates in non-practising with us wanting the precedent of a like practice in Scripture are in the fault 2. This is nothing to prove the conclusion in question 3. All these places prove it is the Kings dutie when the people under him and their fathers have corrupted the worship of God to renew a Covenant with God and to cause the people to do the like as Moses Asa Iehoshaphat did● 4. If the King refuse to do his dutie where is it written That the people ought also to omit their dutie and to love to have it so because the Rulers corrupt their wayes Ierem. 5.31 To renew a Covenant with God is a point of service due to God that the people are obliged unto whether the King command it or no. What if the King command not his people to serve God or What if he forbid Daniel to pray to God Shall the people in that case serve the King of Kings onely at the nod and Royall command of an earthly King Clear this from Scripture 5. Ezra ch 5. had no commandment in particular from Artaxerxes King of Persia or from Darius but a generall that Ezr. 7.23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven let it be diligently done for the house of the God of Heaven But the Tables in Scotland and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland who renewed the Covenant and entered in Covenant not against the King as the P. P. saith but to restore Religion to its ancient Puritie have this expresse Law from King James and King Charles both in many Acts of Parliament that Religion be kept pure Now as Artaxerxes knew nothing of the Covenant and was unwilling to subscribe it and yet gave to Ezra and the Princes a warrant in generall to do

the formality of a judge in things evident to natures eye such as are manifestly unjust violences Nature in acts naturall of self-defence is judge party accuser witnesse and all for it is supposed the Judge is absent when the Judge doth wrong And for the plea of Elisha's extraordinary spirit it is no thing extraordinary to the Prophet to call the King the sonne of a murtherer when hee complaineth to the Elders for justice of his oppression no more then it is for a plaintiffe to libell a true crime against a wicked person and if Elisha's resistance came from an extraordinary spirit then it is not naturall for an oppressed man to close the doore upon a murtherer then the taking away of the innocent Prophets head must be extraordinary for this was but an ordinary and most naturall remedy against this oppression and though to name the King the sonne of a murtherer be extraordinary and I should grant it without any hurt to this cause it followeth no wayes that the self-defence was extraordinary 3. 2. Chron. 26.17 Foure score of Priests with Azariah are commended as valiant men LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Montan. filii virtutis Men of courage and valour for that they resisted Vzziah the King who would take on him to burne Incense to the Lord against the Law M. Symmons pag. 34. sect 10. They withstood him not with swords and weapons but onely by speaking and one but spake I answer It was a bodily resistance for beside that Ierome turneth it Viri fortissimi Most valiant men And it is a speech in the Scripture taken for men valorous for warre As 1 Sam. 14.25 2 Sam. 17.10 1 Chron. 5.18 And so doth the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Potent in valour And the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 24.9 2 Sam. 11.16 1 Sam. 31.12 and therefore all the 80. not onely by words but violently expelled the King out of the Temple 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Mont. ●●●eterunt contra a Huzzi-Iahu the LXX say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They resisted the King so Dan. 11.17 The armies of the south shall not stand Dan. 8 25. It is a word of violence 3. The text saith ver 20. and they thrust him out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ar. Mont. fecerunt eum festinare Hy●rony festinatò expulerunt eum The LXX say The Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Vatablus they cast him out And 4. it is said ver 21. he was cut off from the house of the Lord. Doctor Ferne saith sect 4. pag. 50. They are valiant men who dare withstand a King in an evil way by a home reproofe and by withdrawing the holy things from him especially since by the law the leper was to be put out of the congregation Ans. 1. He contradicteth the text it was not a resistance by words for the text saith they withstood him and they thrust him out violently 2. He yeeldeth the cause for to withdraw the holy things of God by corporall violence and violently to pull the censer out of his hand that he should not provoke Gods wrath by offering incense to the Lord is resistance and the like violence may by this example be used when the King useth the sword and the Militia to bring in an enemy to destroy the kingdom it is no lesse in justice against the second table that the King useth the sword to destroy the innocent then to usurpe the censor against the first table But Doctor Ferne yeeldeth that the censor may be pulled out of his hand lest he provoke God to wrath Ergo by the same very reason à fortiore the Sword the Castles the Sea-ports the Militia may be violently pulled out of his hand for if there was an expresse Law that the leper should be put out of the congregation and therefore the King also should be subject to his Church-censor then he subjecteth the King to a punishment to be inflicted by the subjects upon the King Ergo the King is obnoxious to the coactive power of the law 2. Ergo subjects may judge him and punish him 3. Ergo he is to be subject to all Church-censors no lesse then the people 4. There is an expresse law that the leper should be put out of the congregation What then flattering court Divines say the King is above all these lawes for there is an expresse law of God as expresse as that ceremoniall on touching lepers and a more binding law that the murtherer should die the death Will Royalists put no exception upon a ceremoniall law of expelling the leper and yet put an exception upon a Divine morall law concerning the punishing of murtherers given before the law on Mount Sinai Gen. 6.9 They so declare that they accept the persons of men 5. If a leper King could not actually sit upon the throne but must be cut off from the house of the Lord because of an expresse law of God these being inconsistent that a King remaining amongst Gods people ruling and raigning should keep company with the Church of God and yet be a leper who was to be cut off by a Divine law from the Church now I perswade my self that far lesse can he actually raigne in the full use of the power of the sword if he use the sword to cut off thousands of innocent people because murthering the innocent and fatherles and Royall governing in Righteousnesse and Godlinesse are more inconsistent by Gods law being morally opposite then remaining a governour of the people and the disease of leprosie are incompatible 6. I think not much that Barcley saith cont Monar l. 5. c. 11. Vzziah remained King after he was removed from the congregation for leprosie 1. Because that toucheth the question of dethroning Kings this is an argument brought for violent resisting of Kings and that the people did resume all power from Vzziah and put it in the hand of Iotham his son who was over the Kings house judging the people of the land ver 21. And by this same reason the Parliaments of both Kingdomes may resume the power once given to the King when he hath proved more unfit to governe morally then Vzziah was ceremonially that he ought not to judge the people of the land in this case 2. If the pri●sts did execute a ceremoniall law upon King Vzziah Far more may the three estates of Scotland and the two houses of Parliament of England execute the morall law of God on their King If the people may covenant by oath to rescue the innocent and unjustly condemned from the sentence of death notoriously known to be tyranous and cruel then may the people resist the King in his unlawfull practises But this the people did in the matter of Ionathan M. Symmons saith pag. 32. and Doctor Ferne § 9.49 That with no violence but by prayers and teares the people saved Jonathan as Peter was rescued out of prison by

the words of thy mouth art taken with the words of thy mouth But whence is it that a man free is now snared as a beast in a gin or trap Certainly Solomon saith it is by a word and striking of hands by a word of promise and covenant Now the Creditor hath coactive power though he be an equall or an inferiour to the man who is surety even by Law to force him to pay and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the Creditor that he may force the surety to pay Hence it is cleare that a Covenant maketh a free man under the coactive power of law to an equall and to weaker and the stronger is by the law of fraternity to help the weaker with his coactive power to cause the superiour fulfill his covenant If then the King giving and not granting he were superiour to his whole Kingdome come under a covenant to them to seek their good not his owne to defend true Protestant Religion they have power to compell him to keep his covenant and Scotland if the King be stronger then England and break his covenant to them is obliged by Gods law Prov. 24.11 to adde their forces and coactive power to help their brethren of England 3. The Law shall warrant to loose the vassal from the Lord when the Lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in l. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Bartol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de offic magistrat Imperatores reges esse primarios vasallos imperii regni proinde si feloniam contra imperium aut regnum committant fewdo privari proinde ut alios vasallos Arnisaeus q. 6. An princeps qui jurat subditis c. n. 2. saith This occasioneth confusion and sedition The Egyptians saith he cast off Ptolomeus because he affected too much the name of a King of the Romans his own friend Dion l. 9. The States punished Archidanius because he married a wife of a low stature Plutarch in Agos in pris The ancient Burgundions thought it cause enough to expell their King if matters went not well in the State Marcel l. 27. The Goths in Spain gave no other cause of expelling their King nisi quod sibi displiceret because he displeased them Aimon l. 2. c. 20. l. 4. c. 35. Ans. All these are not to be excused in people but neither every abuse of power in a King exautorateth a King nor every abuse in people can make null their power Arnisaeus maketh three kinds of oathes the first is when the King sweareth to defend true Religion and the Pope and he denyeth that this is an oath of fidelitie or by paction or covenant made to th● Pope or Clergie he saith it is onely on oath of protection nor doth the King receive the Crown from the Pope or Clergie Answ. 1. Arnisaeus divideth oathes that are to be conjoyned we read not that Kings sweare to defend Religion in one oath and to administrate judgement and justice in another for David made not two Covenants but onely one with all Israel 2. The king was not King while he did swear this oath and therefore it must be a pactionall oath between him and the Kingdom and it is true the King receiveth not a Crown from the Church yet David received a Crowne from the Church for this end to feed the Lords people and so conditionally Papir Masse l. 3. Chron. Gal. saith The King was not king before the oath 2. That he did sweare to be a keeper not onely of the first but also of the second Table of the Law Ego N. Dei gratia mox futuras rex Francorum in die ordinationis mea coram Deo sanctis ejus polliceor quod servabo privilegia canonica justitiamque jus unicuique Praelato debitum vosque defendam Deo juvante quantum potero quemadmodum Rex ex officio in suo regno defendere debet unumquemque Episcopum ac Ecclesiam administrabo populo justitiam leges uti jus postulat And so is it ordained in the Councel of Tolet. 6. c. 6. Quisquis deinceps regni sortitus fuerit apicem non ante conscendat Regiam sedem quam inter reliquas conditiones sacramento policitus fuerit quod non sinet in regno suo degere cum qui non sit Catholicus All these by Scripture are oath●s of Covenant Deut. 17. ver 17 18. 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3 4. 2 Kings 11.17 18. Arnisaeus maketh a second oath of absolute Kings who sweare they shall raigne according to equitie and justice and he saith There is no need of this oath a promise is enough for an oath encreaseth not the obligation L. fin de non num pec Onelie it addeth the bound of Religion for there is no use of an oath where there is no paction of law against him that sweareth if he violate his oath There followeth onelie the punishment of Perjurie And the word of a Prince is as good as his oath onelie he condescendeth to sweare to please the people out of indulgence not out of necessitie And the King doth not therefore sweare because he is made King but because he is made King he sweareth And he is not King because he is crowned but he is crowned because he is King Where the Crowne goeth by succession the King never dieth and he is King by nature before he be crowned Answ. 1. This oath is the very first oath spoken of before included in the covenant that the King maketh with the people 2 Sam. 5.2 3 4. For absolute Princes by Arnisaeus his grant doth swear to do the duties of a King as Bodinus maketh the oath of France de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. Iuro ego per deum ac promitt● me justè regnaturum judicium equitatem ac misericordiam facturum And papir Mass. l. 3. Chron. hath the same expresly in the particulars And by this a King sweareth he shall not be absolute and if he swear this oath he bindeth himself not to governe by the Law of the King whereby he may play the Tyrant as Saul did 1 Sam. 8.9 10 11 12 c. As all Royalists expound the place 2. It is but a poor evasion to distinguish betwixt the Kings promise and his oath for the promise and covenant of any man and so of the King doth no lesse bring him under a civil obligation and politique coaction to keep his promise then an oath for he that becometh surety for his friend doth by no civil Law sweare he shall be good for the sonne or performe in liew and place of the friend what he is to performe he doth onely covenant and promise and in law and politique obligation he is taken and snared by that promise no lesse then if he had sworne Reuben offereth to be caution to bring Benjamin safe home to his old father Gen. 42.37 Iudah also Gen. 43.9

of the Law by grace In re dubia possunt dispensare Principes quia nullus sensus presumitur qui vincat principolem l. ● Sect. initium ib. Kings as Kings cannot doe things of meere grace because they must doe all ex debito officii by necessitie of their office Rom. 13.4 Prov. 17.15 Kings equivocally Kings The King may ●s well do acts of m●er cruelty from his suppos●d Prerogative as acts of meer grace to one man out of the same fountain If Prerogative may ov●r-leap Law in one why not in twenty No Tyrant c●n do any the most cruell act but under the notion of apprehended good Pretended Prerogative Royal of Royalists Tyranny Polanus in Daniel c. 5.19 Rollocus com 16. ib. The Sa●ches de matr tom 1. l. 2. dis 15. n. 3. est arbitrii plenitudo nulli ne●●●sitati subjecta ruliiusque public● juri● regalis limita 〈◊〉 Baldus l. 2. n. 40. C. de servit aqua Sueto●i in Caligu cap. 29. memento tibi omnia in omne● licere Coelius Rodigi l. 8. Lect. Antiq c. 1. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 26. n. 2. A contradiction in Ferne. Treaties of Monarchicall Government c. 2. pag. 6 7. The King of Persia not absolute The O●th of Iudah to the King of Babylon tyed them not to renounce naturall selfe preservation Servants are not by 1 Pet. 2.18 19. interdited of selfe-defence Declar. at New Market Mar. 9. 1641. Magna Charc● against an absolute Prince How the King is Lord of the Parliamen● Monarch Governa part 2. c. 1. pag. 31. Sac. sanc Mai. c. 14. p. 144. Princes are not to be invested with power to all Tyranny upon this pretence that they cannot do good except they have also absolute power to do evil Sac. Maj. pag. 145. Sacr. sanc Maj. c. 16. p. 170 171. A power to shed innocent blood is no part of a true Prerogative The King because of the publikenesse of his office inferiour to subjects and other Iudges in many priviledges Loyall subjects belief Sect. 6. p. 19. Barcl l. 4. c. 23. p. 325. Humane Laws as penall take life from Law makers as reasonable they have life from the eternall Law of God The King not greater then the Law No necessitie that an unjust will of a King be either done by us or on us The King hath no Nomothetick power his alone Symmons Loyall Subject Sect. 5. pag. 8. Prerogative Royall warranteth not the Prince to destroy himselfe nor is the people to permit him to cooperat for destruction to themselves The King inferiour to the People Parliaments supplicate not the King ex debito Sac. sanct maj ● 9 p. 103 104 Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordinatiō both consistent Do. p. 3. Sect. 4. pag. 27. Temperament of all the three in a limited Monarchy Barcl Ad verfus Monarchomachous l. 1. pag. 24. A King as King how excellent a head of the people how contrary to a Tyrant The King as an erring man no remedy against confusions and oppressions of Anarchy A Court of necessity and a Court of Iustice. Humane Laws not so obscure as Tyranny is legible Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39. It is ridiculous to say a King cannot be so void of reason as to destroy his people Part. 3. sect 5. pag. 39. If there be a civill restraint from mans Law laid upon the King it must be forceable It s more requisite the people religion and Church be secured then one man D. Ferne p. 3. sect 5. pag. 40. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath Eatenus in so far not obligatory Difference betwixt a Tyrant in act and a Tyrant in habit Epist. 45. The tragicall end of many Tyrannous Princes ●easons why ●he Peoples ●●fetie is the ●overaignes ●aw 〈◊〉 good Prince 〈◊〉 to postpone 〈◊〉 own safetie 〈◊〉 the safetie 〈◊〉 the people Sac. sane Ma● c. 16.159 Dr. Ferne Conscience 〈◊〉 satisfied Sec. p. 28. The King in his governme●● is to seeke 〈◊〉 safetie of the people not himselfe ●●c sanc maj 〈◊〉 160. 〈◊〉 Armini Declar. Remonstrant in ●uod dordra● The Royalists principles drive at this to make none Kings but only rank Tyrants V●●dix regum pag. 65. Sac. sanc Mai. 16. pag. 161 162 163. Sacr. san M●i pag. 165. The subjects may gratifie the King for doing what he is obliged to doe by his office Sac. sacr Ma● pag. 170. Page 172. Symmons hath the same very thing in his Loyall Subjec ●nbelief p. 39. Page 175. The safetie of the people far above the King Page 176. A King may though we should deny all Prerogative breake through the letter of a Law for the safety of the whole Land The Kings supposed Prerogative nothing in comparison of the lives and blood of so many thousands as are killed in England and Ireland The power of the Dictator no plea for a Prerogative above Law Pag. 177. Sac. sa●● maj cap. 16. The Law above the King in four considerations The meaning of this The King is not subject to the Law The Law above the King in supremacy of constitution In what sense the King m●y do all things Plutarch in Apoth●g l. 4. The King under the fundamentall Laws Whether the King be punishable or be to he punished Two divers questions Magistratus ipse est judex execùtor contra s●ipsum in pr●pria causa propter excellentiam sut officii l. s● pater familias l. hoc Tiberius Caesar F. De Here● ●oc just The King above s●me Lawes The King ●bove Lawes that con●erne subj●cts as subjects Some Lawyers and Schoole-men free the King from the Law Reasons to prove that the King is under the Law Th●t a King hath no superiour but God a false ground to liberate the the King from the coaction of Law Argum. 2. Argum. 3. A Tyrant in ●xercise may be puni●●●d by th● 〈…〉 But how this c●n 〈◊〉 w●th th● d●ctrine o● R●yal●●ts I see not to wit Once a father alway a father once a King ever a King None can punish a King 〈◊〉 Go● Almighty say they Arg. 4. The K●ng under the strict●st obligation of L●w. Arg. 5. A King remaineth a man and a sociall creature 〈…〉 Mai. 〈…〉 1●6 14● In what considerations the people is the subject of all politike power Sac. Mai. p. 147 148. C. 15. p. 148. Stollen from Arnisaeus De authorit Prin. c. 4. num 5. pag. 73 If David in his Murthering Vriah and his Adultery sinned against none but God Arg. 6. The place Psa. 51. Against hee only have I sinned Discussed Against thee only c. cannot exclu●e men as if David had sinned against no mortall men on earth as Royalists would teach Sac. sanct maj pag. 153. Gods delivering his people by Iudges and by Cyrus nothing ag●inst the power of a free people That the people may swear a Covenant for Reformation of Religion without the King is proved A twofold exposition of Lawes A Rule to expone Lawes The

a false Religion on the people eatenus in so farre they are understood not to have a King pag. 99. The Covenant giveth a mutuall coactive power to King and people to compell each other though there be not one in earth higher then both to compell each of them pag. 100. The Covenant bindeth the King as King not as he is a man onely pag. 101. One or two Tyrannous acts deprive not the King of his Royall right pag. 104. Though there were no positive written Covenant which yet we grant not yet there is a naturall tacit implicit Covenant tying the King by the nature of his Office pag. 106 If the King be made King absolutely it is contrary to Scripture and the nature of his Office pag. 107. The people given to the King as a pledge not as if they became his owne to dispose of at his absolute will pag. 108. The King could not buy sell borrow if no Covenant should tye him to men ibid. The Covenant sworne by Iudah 2 Chro. 15. tyed the King pag. 109. QUEST XV. Whether the King be univocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father pag. 111 Adam not King of the whole earth because a father ibid. The King a Father Metaphorically and improperly proved by eight Arguments ibid. sequent QUEST XVI Whether or no a despoticall or masterly dominion agree to the King because he is King Negatur pag. 116 The King hath no masterly dominion over the Subjects as if they were his servants Proved by 4. Arguments pag. 116. The King not over men as reasonable creatures to domineere pag. 117. The King cannot give away his Kingdome or his people as if they were his proper goods ibid. A violent surrender of liberty tyeth not pag. 119 A surrender of ignorance is in so farre unvoluntary as it oblige not ibid. The goods of the subjects not the Kings proved by 8. Argu. pag. 120. All the goods of the subjects are the Kings in a four-fold sence· pag. 121· QVEST. XVII Whether or no the Prince have properly the fiduciary or ministeriall power of a Tutor Husband Patron Minister Head Master of a Family not of a lord or dominator Affirmed p. 124. The King a Tutor rather then a Father as these are distinguished ibid. A free Communitie not properly and in all respects a minor and pupill p. 125. The Kings power not properly maritall and husbandly ibid. The King a Patron and Servant pag. 126. The Royall power only from God Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum solitudine causae primae but not Immediatione applicationis dignitatis ad personam pag. 126. The King the Servant of the people both objectively and subjectively pag. 127. The Lord and the people by one and the same act according to the Physicall relation maketh the King ibid. The King head of the people Metaphorically only not essentially not univocally by 6. Argu. pag. 128. His power fiduciary only pag. 129. QVEST. XVIII What is the Law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8 9 11. the place discussed fully pag. 130. The Power and the Office badly differenced by Barclay pag. 130. What is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of the King by the harmony of Interpretors ancient and moderne Protestants and Papists pag. 131 132 133. Crying out 1 Sam. 8. not necessarily a remedy of tyranny nor a praying with faith and patience pag. 135 136. Resisting of Kings that are tyrannous and patience not inconsistent ibid. The Law of the King not a permissive Law as was the Law of Devorcement pag. 136 137. The Law of the King 1 Sam. 12.23 24. not a Law of tyranny pag. 138 139. QVEST. XIX Whether or no the King be in Dignity and Power above the people Neg. Impugned by 10. Argu. p. 139. In what consideration the King is above the people and the people above the King pag. 139 140. A meane as a meane inferiour to the end how its true ibid. The King inferiour to the people ibid. The Church because the Church is of more excellency then the King because King pag. 140 141. The people being those to whom the King is given worthier then the gift pag. 141. And the people immortall the King mortall pag. 142. The King a meane only not both the efficient or Author of the Kingdome and a meane Two necessary distinctions of a meane pag. 143 If sin had never been there should have been no King pag. 142. The King is to give his life for his people ibid. The consistent cause more excellent then the effect pag. 143 144 145. The people then the King pag. 144 145. Vnpossible people can limit Royall Power but they must give Royall Power also ibid. The people have an action in making a King proved by foure Arguments ibid. Though it were granted that God immediately made Kings yet it is no consequent God only and not the people can unmake him pag. 146. The people appointing a King over themselves retaine the Fountaine-power of making a King pag. 147 148 149. The meane inferiour to the end and the King as King is a meane pag. 149 150 153. The King as a meane and also as a man inferiour to the people pag. 150. To sweare non-selfe-preservation and to sweare selfe-murther all one pag. 151. The people cannot make away their power 1. Their whole power nor 2. irrevocably to the King pag. 152. The people may resume the power they give to the Commissioners of Parliament when it is abused p. 152 The Tables in Scotland lawfull when the ordinary judicaturies are corrupt p. 153. Quod efficit tale id ipsum magis tale discussed the fountain-power in the people the derived onely in the King p. 153 154 155. The King is a fiduciary a life-renter not a lord or heritor p. 155 156. How soveraigntie is in the people p. 156 157. Power of life and death how in a Community ibid. A Communitie voide of Rulers is yet and may be a politike body p. 157. Iudges gods Analogically p. 158. QUEST XX. Whether Inferiour Judges be essentially the immediate Vicegerents of God as Kings not differing in essence and nature from Kings Affirmatur Proved by twelve Arguments pag. 159. Inferiour Iudges the immediate Vicars of God no lesse then the King ibid. The consciences of inferiour Iudges immediately subordinate to God not to the King either mediately or immediately p. 160. How the inferiour Iudge is the deputy of the King p. 161 162. He may put to death murtherers as having Gods sword committed to him no lesse then the King even though the King command the contrary for he is not to execute judgement and to relieve the oppressed conditionally if a mortall King give him leave but whether the King will or no he is to obey the King of Kings p. 160 161. Inferiour Iudges are ministri regni non ministri regis p. 162 163. The King doth not make Iudges as he is a man by an act of private good will but as he

three Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland p. 446 447 448. The Parliament of Scotland doth regulate limit and set bounds to the Kings power p. 448 449 Fergus the first King not a Conquerour p. 449. The King of Scotland below Parliaments considerable by them hath no negative voice p. 450 451 seq QUEST XLIV Generall results of the former doctrine in some few Corrolaries in 22 Questions p. 454 455. Concerning Monarchy compared with other forms p. 454. How Royaltie is an issue of nature p. 454 455. And how Magistrates as Magistrates be naturall p. 455. How absolutenesse is not a Ray of Gods Majestie ibid. And resistance not unlawfull because Christ and his Apostles used it not in some cases p. 456 457. Coronation is no ceremony p. 457. Men may limit the power that they gave not p. 457 458. The Common-wealth not a pupill or minor properly p. 459. Subjects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients Vassals Children to their Superiours p. 459 460. If subjection passive be naturall p. 461. Whether King Uzziah was dethroned p. 461 462. Idiots and children not compleat Kings children are Kings in destination onely p. 462. Deniall of passive subjection in things unlawfull not dishonourable to the King more then deniall of active obedience in the same things p. 463. The King may not make away or sell any part of his Dominions p. 463 464. People may in some cases conveen without the King p. 464. How and in what meaning subjects are to pay the Kings debts p. 465. Subsidies the Kingdoms due rather then the Kings p. 465 466. How the Seas Ports Forts Castles Militia Magazeen are the Kings and how they are the Kingdoms p. 466. Lex Rex QUEST I. In what sense Government is from God I Reduce all that I am to speak of the power of Kings to the Author or efficient 2. The matter or subject 3. The form or power 4. The end and fruit of their Government And 5. to some cases of resistance Hence Quest. I. Whether Government be warranted by a divine Law The question is either of Government in generall or of the particular species of Government such as are Government by one only called Monarchy the Government by some chief leading men named Aristocracie the Government by the people going under the name of Democracie 2. We cannot but put difference betwixt the institution of the Office to wit Government and the designation of person or persons to the Office 3. What is warranted by the direction of natures light is warranted by the Law of nature and consequently by a divine Law for who can deny the Law of nature to be a divine Law That power of Government in generall must be from God I make good 1. Because Rom. 13. 1. there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God 2. God commandeth obedience and so subjection of conscience to powers Rom. 13.5 Wherefore we must be subject not onely for wrath or civill punishment but for conscience sake 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme c. Now God onely by a divine Law can lay a band of subjection on the conscience tying men to guilt and punishment if they transgr●sse 2. Conclus All civill power is immediately from God in its root In that 1. God hath made man a sociall creature and one who inclineth to be governed by man then certainly he must have put this power in mans nature so are we by good reason taught by Aristotle 2. God and nature intendeth the policie and peace of mankinde then must God and nature have given to mankinde a power to compasse this end and this must be a power of Government I see not then why John Prelate Master Maxwel the excommunicate P. of Rosse who speak●th in the name of I. Armagh had reason to say That he feared that we fancied that the Government of Superiours was onely for the more perfit but have no Authoritie over or above the perfit N●c Rex nec Lex justo posita He might have imputed this to the Brasilians who teach That every single man hath the power of the sword to revenge his own injuries as Molina saith QUEST II. Whether or not Government be warranted by the Law of nature AS domestick societie is by natures instinct so is civill societie naturall in radice in the root and voluntary in modo in the manner of coalescing Politick power of Government agreeth not to man singly as one man except in that root of reasonable nature but supposing that men be combined in societies or that one family cannot contain a societie it is naturall that they joyn in a civill societie though the manner of Union in a politick body as Bodine saith be voluntary Gen. 10.10 Gen. 15.7 and Suarez saith That a power of making Laws is given by God as a property flowing from nature Qui dat formam dat consequ●ntia ad formam Not by any speciall action or grant different from creation nor will he have it to result from nature while men be united into one politick body which Union being made that power followeth without any new action of the will We are to distinguish betwixt a power of Government and a power of Government by Magistracy That we defend our selves from violence by violence is a consequent of unbroken and sin-lesse nature but that we defend our selves by devolving our power over in the hands of one or more Rulers seemeth rather positively morall then naturall except that it is naturall for the childe to expect help against violence from his father For which cause I judge that learned Senator Ferdinandus Vasquius said well That Princedom Empire Kingdom or Iurisdiction hath its rise from a positive and secundary law of Nations and not from the law of pure Nature The Law saith there is no law of Nature agreeing to all living creatures for superiority for by no reason in Nature hath a Boar dominion over a Boar a Lyon over a Lyon a Dragon over a Dragon a Bull over a Bull And if all Men be born equally free as I hope to prove there is no reason in Nature why one Man should be King and Lord over another therefore while I be otherwise taught by the forecasten Prelate Maxwell I conceive all jurisdiction of Man over Man to be as it were Artificiall and Positive and that it inferreth some servitude whereof Nature from the womb hath freed us if you except that subjection of children to parents and the wife to the husband and the Law saith De jure gentium secundarius est omnis principatus 2. This also the Scripture proveth while as the exalting of Saul or David above their Brethren to be Kings and Captains of the Lords people is ascribed not to Nature for King and Beggar spring of one clay-mettall but to

States crying God save King Salomon made Salomon King and here is a reall action of the people God is the first Agent in all acts of the Creature where a people maketh choise of a man to be their King the States doe no other thing under God but create this man rather then another and we cannot here find two actions one of God another of the people but in one and the same action God by the peoples free suffrages voices createth such a man King passing by many thousands and the people are not patientes in the action because by the authoritative choise of the States the man is made of a private man and no King a publick person and a crowned King 2 Sam. 16.18 Hushai said to Absolom nay but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose his will I be and with him will I abide Iudg. 8.22 The men of Israel said to Gideon Rule thou over us Iudg. 9.6 The men of Sechem made Abimelech King Iudg. 11.8.11 2 King 14.21 The people made Azariah King 1 Sam. 12.1 2 Chron. 23.3 2. If God doth regulate his people in making such a man King not such a man then he thereby insinuateth that the people have a power to make such a man King and not such a man But God doth regulate his people in making a King Ergo the people have a power to make such a man King not such a man King The Proposition is cleare because Gods Law doth not regulate a non-e●s a meere nothing or an unlawfull power nor can Gods holy Law regulate an unlawfull power or an unlawfull action but quite abolish it and interdict it the Lord setteth not downe rules and waies how men should not commit Treason but the Lord commandeth loyalty and simply interdicteth men of treason 2. If people have then more power to create a King over themselves then they had to make Prophets then God forbidding them to choose such a man for their King should say as much to his people as if he would say I command you to make Esaiah Ieremiah Prophets over you but not these and these men This certainly should prove that not God onely but the people also with God made Prophets I leave this to the consideration of the godly The Prophets were immediatly called of God to be Prophets whether the people consented that they should be Prophets or not Therefore God immediatly and onely sent the Prophets not the people but though God extraordinarily designed some men to be Kings and annoynted them by his Prophets yet were they never actually installed Kings till the people made them Kings I prove the assumption Deut. 17. 14. When thou shalt say I will set a King over me like all the nations round about me 15. Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose one from amongst thy brethren shalt thou set King over thee thou maist not set a stranger over thee which is not thy brother Should not this be an unjust charge to the people if God onely without any action of the people should immediatly set a King over them Might not the people reply We have no power at all to set a King over our selves no more then we have power to make Esaiah a Prophet who saw the visions of God to what end then should God mocke us and say make a brother and not a stranger King over you 3. Expresly Scripture saith that the people made the King though under God Iudg. 9.6 The men of Sechem made Abimelech King 1 Sam. 11.15 And all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King before the Lord 2 King 10.5 We will not make any King This had been an irrationall speech to Iehu if both Iehu and the people held the Royalists Tenet that the people had no power to make a King nor any active or causative influence therein but that God immediatly made the King 1 Chron. 12.38 All these came with a perfect heart to make David King in Hebron and all the rest were of one heart to make David King on the words Lavater saith the same way are Magistrates now to be chosen now this day God by an immediate Oracle from Heaven appointeth the Office of a King but I am sure he doth not immediatly designe the man but doth onely mark him out to the people as one who hath the most royall indowments and the due qualifications required in a lawfull Magistrate by the Word of God Exod. 18.21 Men of truth hating covetousnesse c. Deut. 1.16 17. men who will judge causes betwixt their brethren righteously without respect of persons 1 Sam. 10.21 Saul was chosen out of the Tribes according to the Law of God Deut. 17. they might not choose a stranger and Abulensis Serrarius C●rnelius a lapide Sancheiz and other Popish Writers think that Saul was not onely anoynted with Oyle first privately by Samuel 1 Sam. 10.1 2. but also at two other times before the people once at Mizpeh and another time at Gilgal by a Parliament and a Convention of the States and Samuel judged the voices of the people so essentiall to make a King that Samuel doth not acknowledge him as formall King 1 Sam. 10.7 8 17 18 19. though he honoured him because he was to be King 1. Sam. 9 23 24. while the Tribes of Israel and Parliament were gathered together to make him King according to Gods Law Deut 17. as is evident For Samuel v. 20. caused all the Tribes of Israel to stand before the Lord and the Tribe of Benjamin was taken the Law provided one of their owne not a stranger to raigne over them and because some of the States of Parliament did not choose him but being children of Belial despised him in their heart v. 27. therefore after King Saul by that victory over the Ammonites had conquered the affections of all the people fully v. 10 11. Samuel would have his coronation election by the Estates of Parliament renewed at Gilgall by all the people v. 14 15. to establish him King 2. The Lord by Lots found out the Tribe of Benjamin 3. The Lord found out the man by name Saul the sonne of Kish when he did hide himselfe amongst the staffe that the people might doe their part in creating of the King whereas Samuel had annoynted him before but the Text saith expresly that the people made Saul King and Calvin Martyr Lavater and Popish Writers as Serrarius Mendoza Sancheiz Cornelius a Lapide Ly●anus Hugo Cardinalis Carthusius Sanctius doe all hence conclude that the people under God make the King I see no reason why Barclaius should here distinguish a power of choosing a King which he granteth the people hath and a power of making a King which he saith is only proper to God Answ. Choosing of a King is either a comparative crowning of this man not this man and

without a revelation or manifestation extraordinary from Heaven so the designation to a sacred function is from the Church and from man yet the power of Word Sacraments binding and loosing is immediatly from Jesus Christ. The Apostle Matthias was from Christs immediate constitution and yet he was designed by men Act. 1. The soule is by creation and infusion without any speciall ordinance from Heaven though nature begeteth the body and disposeth the matter and prepareth it as fit to be conjoyned with the soule so as the father is said to beget the sonne Ans. 1. The unchurched Prelate striveth to make us hatefull by the title of the Chapter That God is by his title the immediate Author of Soveraingty and who denyeth that Not those who teach that the person who is King is created King by the people no more then those who deny that men are now called to be Pastors and Deaco●s immediately and by a voice from Heaven or by the ministery of Angells and Prophets because the Office of Pastors and Deacons is immediately from God 2. When he hath proved that God is the immediate Author of Soveraingty What then shall it follow that the soveraigne in concreto may not be resisted and that he is above all Law and that there is no armour against his violence but prayers and teares So God is the immediate Author of the Pastors of the Apostles Office ergo it is unlawfull to resist a Pastor though he turne robber ergo the Pastor is above all the Kings Lawes this is the Iesuite and all made ergo there is no Armour against the robbing Prelate but prayer and teares 2. He saith in his Title that the King is no Creature of the peoples making If he meane the King in abstracto that is the royall dignity whom speaketh he against Not against us but against his owne father Bellarmine who saith that Soveraignty hath no warrant by any divine Law If he meane that the man who is King is not created and elected King by the people he contradicteth himself and all the Court Doctors 3. It is false that Saul and David their originall of Royalty was onely from God by a speciall Ordinance sent from Heaven for their office is Deut. 17.14 from the written Word of God as the killing of Idolaters v. 3 7. as the Office of the Priests and Levites 8 9 10. and this is no extraordinary Ordinance from Heaven more than that is from Heaven which is warranted by the Word of God If he meane that these men Saul and David were created Kings by the onely extraordinary revelation of God from Heaven it is a lye for beside the Propheticall anoynting of them they were made Kings by the people as the word saith expresly except we say that David sinned in not setting himselfe downe on the Throne when Samuel anoynted him first King and so he should have made away his Master King Saul out of the world and there were not a few called to the Throne by the people but many yea all the Kings of Israel and Iudah 4. The Prelate contendeth that a King is designed to his royall dignity immediatly from God without an extraordinary revelation from Heaven as the man is designed to be a Pastor by men and yet the power of Preaching is immediatly from God c. but he proveth nothing except he prove that all Pastors are called to be Pastors immediatly and that God calleth and designeth to the Throne such a person immediatly as he hath immediatly instituted by the power of Preaching and the Apostleship and hath immediatly infused the soule in the body by an act of Creation and we cannot conceive how God in our daies when there are no extraordinary revelations doth immediatly create this man a King and immediatly tie the crown to this family rather then to this this he doth by the people now without any Propheticall Vnction and by this medium to wit by the free choice of the people He needeth not bring the example of Matthias more than of any ordinary Pastor and yet an ordinary Pastor is not immediatly called of God because the Office of an ordinary Pastor is from God immediatly and also the man is made Pastor by the Church The P. Prelate saith a thing is immediatly from God three waies 1. When it is solely from God and presupposeth nothing ordinary or humane antecedent to the obteyning of it Such was the power of Moses Saul David Such were the Apostles 2. When the collation of the power to such a person is immediatly from God though some act of man be antecedent as Matthias was an Apostle A baptized man obtaineth remission and regeneration yet aspersion of water cannot produce these excellent effects A King giveth power to a favourite to make a Lord or a Baron yet who is so stupid as to averre the honour of a Lord commeth immediatly from the favourite and not from the King 3. When a man hath by some ordinary humane right a full and just right and the approbation and confirmation of this right is immediatly from God The first way Soveraignty is not from God The second way Soveraignty is conferred on Kings immediatly though some created act of Election succession conquests intervene the interposed act containeth not in it power to conferre Soveraignty as in Baptisme Regeneration if there be nothing repugnant in the suscipient is conferred not by water but immediatly by God In sacred Orders designation is from men power to supernaturall acts from God election succession conquests remotely and improperly constitute a King To say in the third sence that soveraignty is immediatly from God by approbation or confirmation onely is against Scripture Prov. 8.15 Psa. 82.8 Ioh. 19. then the people say you are Gods your power is from below And Pauls ordained of God is approved and confirmed onely of God the power of designation or application of the person to royalty is from man the power of conferring royall power or of applying the person to royall power is from God A mans hand may apply a faggot to the fire the fire onely maketh the faggot to burne Ans. 1. Apostles both according to their Office and the designation of their person to the Office w●re immediatly and onely from God without any act of the people and therefore are badly coupled with the royall power of David and King Saul who were not formally made Kings but by the people at Mizpeh and Hebron 2. The second way God giveth Royall Power by moving the peoples hearts to confer royall power and this is virtually in the people formally from God Water hath no influence to produce grace Gods institution and promise doth it except you dream with your Iesuites of opus operatum that water sprinkled by the doing of the deed conferreth grace nisi ponatur obex what can the child doe or one child more then another baptized child to hinder the flux of remission of sins if

you meane not that Baptisme worketh as Physick on a sick man except strength of humours hinder and therefore this comparison is not alike The people cannot produce so noble an effect as royalty a beame of God True formally they cannot but virtually it is in a society of reasonable men in whom are left beames of authoritative Majesty which by a divine institution they can give Deut. 17.14 to this man to David not to Eliab and I could well say the Favorite made the Lord and placed honour in the man whom he made Lord by a borrowed power from his Prince and yet the honour of a Lord is principally from the King 3. It is true the election of the people conteineth not formally Royall dignitie but the Word saith they made Saul they made David King so virtually election must conteine it Samuels oyle maketh not David King he is a subject after he is anointed the peoples election at Hebron maketh him King 2. differenceth him from his brethren 3. putteth him in Royall state yet God is the principall agent What immediate action God hath here is said and dreamed of no man can divine except Prophet P. Prelate The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Royall authoritie is given organically by that act by which he is made King another act is a night-dreame but by the act of election David is made of no King a King The collation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Royall gifts is immediately from God but that formally maketh not a King if Solomon saw right servants riding on horses Princes going on foot 4. Judge of the Prelates subtiltie I dare say not his own he stealeth from Spalato but telleth not The applying of the person to Royall authoritie is from the people but the applying of Royall authoritie to the person of the King is immediately and only from God as the hand putteth the faggot to the fire but the fire maketh it burne To apply the subject to the accident is it any thing else but to apply the accident to the subject Royall authoritie is an accident the person of the King the subject the applying of the faggot to the fire and the applying of the fire to the faggot are all one to any not forsaken of common sense When the people applyeth the person to the royall authoritie they but put the person in the state of royall authoritie and this is to make an union betwixt the Man and royall authoritie and this is to apply royall authoritie to the person 5. The third sense is the Prelates dreame not a Tene● of ours we never said that soveraigntie in the King is immediately from God by approbation or confirmation only as if the people first made the King and God did only by a posterior and latter act say Amen to the deed done and subscribe as Recorder to what the people doth so the people should deale kingdomes and crownes at their pleasure and God behoved to ratifie and make good their fact When God doth apply the person to royall power what is this a different action from the peoples applying the person to royall dignitie It is not imaginable but the people by creating a king applyeth the person to royall dignitie and God by the peoples act of constituting the man king doth by the mediation of this act convey royall authoritie to the man as the Church by sending a man and ordaining him to bee a Pastor doth not by that as Gods instruments infuse supernaturall powers of preaching these powers supernaturall may be and often are in him before he be in orders and sometimes God infuseth a supernaturall power of government in a man when he is not yet a king as the Lord turned Saul into another man 1 Sam. 10.5.6 neither at that point of time when Samuel anointed him but after that v. 5. After that thou shalt come to the hill of God 6. the spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee and thou shalt prophecie with them and shalt be turned into another man Nor yet at that time when he is formally made King by the people for Saul was not King formally because of Samuels anointing nor yet was he King because another spirit was infused into him v. 5 6. for he was yet a privat man till the States of Israel chose him King at Mizpeh And the word of God useth words of action to expresse the peoples power Iudg. 9.6 And all the men of Sechem gathered together and all the men of Millo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regnare fecerunt they caused him to be King The same is said 1 Sam. 10.15 they caused Saul to reigne 2 K. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall not King any man 1 Chron. 12.38 They came to Hebron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to King David over all Israel Deut. 17. three times the making of a King is given to the people 7. When thou shalt say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall set a King over me if it were not their power to make a King no law could be imposed on them not to make a stranger their King 1 King 12.20 all the congregation Kinged Jeroboam or made him King over all Israel 2 King 11.12 They Kinged Joash or made Ioash to reigne 6. The people are to say You are Gods and your power is below saith the Prelate what then ergo their power is not from God also It followeth not subordinata non pugnant The Scripture saith both the Lord exalted David to be King and All power is from God and so the power of a L. Major of a Citie and the people made David King also and the Citie maketh such a man L. Major It is the Anabaptists argument God writeth his law in our heart and teacheth his own children ergo bookes and the ministerie of men are needlesse So all Sciences and lawfull arts are from God ergo Sciences applied to men are not from mens free will industrie and studies The Prelate extolleth the King when he will have his Royaltie from God the way that John Stiles is the husband of such a woman P. Prelate Kings are of God they are Gods children of the most High his servants publike Ministers their sword and judgement Gods This he hath said of their royaltie in abstracto and in concreto their power person charge are all of divine extract and so their authoritie and person are both sacred and inviolable Answ. So are all the congregation of the Iudges Psal. 82. v. 1.6 all of them Gods for he speaketh not there of a congregation of Kings So are Apostles their office and persons of God and so the Prelates they thinke the successors of the Apostles are Gods servants their ministerie word rod of discipline not theirs but of God the judgement of Iudges inferiour to the King is the Lords judgement not mens Deut. 1.17 2. Chro. 19.6 Hence by the Prelates Logick the persons of Prelates Majors Bailiffes Constables Pastors are sacred and

all Kings because Kings are men according to Gods heart Why is not royalty then founded on grace Nebuchadnezer was not otherwise his servant then he was the hammer of the earth and a tyrannous conquerour of the Lords people and all the Heathen Kings are called Kings But how came they to their Thrones for the most part as David and Hezekiah but God anointed them not by his Prophets they came to their Kingdomes by the peoples election or by blood and rapine the latter way is no ground to you to deny Athaliah to be a lawfull Princesse she and Abim●lech were lawfull Princes and their soveraignty as immediatly and independently from God as the soveraignty of many heathen Kings See then how justly Athaliah was killed as a bloody usurper of the throne this would licence your brethren the Iesuites to stab heathen Kings whom you will have as well Kings 〈◊〉 the Lords anointed though Nebuchadnezer many of them made their way to the Throne against all Law of God and man through a bloudy patent 4. Cyrus is Gods anointed and his Shepheard too ergo his Arbitrary government is a soveraignty immediatly depending on God ●nd above all Law it is a wicked consequence 5. God named him neare a hundreth yeare ere he was borne God named and designed Judas very individually and named the Asse that Christ should ride on to Ierusalem Zach. 9.9 some moe hundred yeares then one What will the Prelate make them independent Kings for that 6. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will What then this will prove Kingdomes to be as independent and immediatly from God as Kings are for as God giveth Kings to Kingdomes so he giveth Kingdomes to Kings and no doubt he giveth Kingdoms to whom he will so he giveth Prophets Apostles Pastors to whom he will and he giveth tyrannous conquests to whom he will and it is Nebuchadnezer to whom Daniel speaketh that from the Lord and he had no just title to many Kingdomes especially to the Kingdome of Iudah which yet God the King of Kings gave to him because it was his good pleasure and if God had not commanded them by the mouth of his Prophet Ieremiah might they not have risen and with the sword have vindicated themselves and their own liberty no lesse then they lawfully by the sword vindicated themselves from under Moab Iudges 3. from under Iabin Iaakin King of Canaan who twenty yeares mightily oppressed the children of Israel Iudges 4. now this P. Prelate by all these instances making Heathen Kings to be Kings by as good a title as David and Hezekiah condemneth the people of God as rebells if being subdued and conquered by the Turke and Spanish King they should by the sword recover their owne liberty and that Israel and the saviours which God raised to them had not warrant from the law of nature to vindicate themselves to liberty which was taken from them violently and unjustly by the sword but from all this it shall well follow that the tyranny of bloudy conquerours is immediatly and only dependent from God no lesse then lawfull soveraignty for Nebuchadnezers soveraignty over the people of God and many other Kingdomes also was revenged of God as tyranny Ier. 50.6.7 and therefore the vengeance of the Lord and the vengeance of his Temple came upon him and his land Ier. 50.16 17.18.28 29.30 It is true the people of God were commanded of God to submit to the King of Babylon to serve him and to pray for him and to doe on the contrary was rebellion but this was not because the King of Babylon was their King and because the King of Babylon had a command of God so to bring under his yoak the people of God So Christ had a Commandement to suffer the death of the Crosse Iohn 10.18 but had Herod and Pilate any warrant to crucifie him none at all 7. He saith Royalties even of Heathen Kings are not disposed of by the composed Contracts of men but by the immediate hand and worke of God But the Contracts of men to give a Kingdome to a person which a Heathen community may lawfully doe and so by contract dispose of a Kingdom is not opposite to the immediate hand of God appointing Royalty and Monarchy at his owne blessed liberty Lastly he saith God tooke away Saul in his wrath but I pray you did God onely doe it then had Saul because a King a Patent Royall from God to kill himselfe for so God tooke him away and we are rebells by this if we suffer not the King to kill himselfe Well pleaded QUEST VI. Whether the King be so from God onely both in regard of his Soveraignty and of the designation of his person to the Crown as that he is no waies from the people but by meere approbation Dr. Ferne a man much for Monarchy saith Though Monarchy hath its excellency being first set up of God in Moses yet neither Monarchy Aristocracy nor any other forme is jure divino but we say saith he the power it selfe or that sufficiency of authority to governe that is in a Monarchy or Aristocracy abstractly considered from the qualification of other formes is a flux and constitution subordinate to that providence an ordinance of that Dixi or silent word by which the world was made and shall be governed under God This is a great debasing of the Lords anoynted for so soveraignty hath no warrant in Gods Word formally as it is such a government but is in the world by providence as sin is and as the falling of a Sparrow to the ground whereas Gods Word hath not onely commanded that government should be but that fathers and mothers should be 2. and not only that politick Rulers should be but also Kings by name and other Iudges Aristocraticall should be Rom. 13.3 Deut. 17.14 1 Pet. 2.17 Prov. 24.21 Prov. 15.16.3 If the power of Monarchy and Aristocracy abstracted from the formes be from God then it is no more lawfull to resist Aristocraticall Government and our Lords of Parliament or Iudges then it is lawfull to resist Kings But heare the Prelates reasons to prove that the King is from the people by approbation only P. Prelate The people Deut. 17. is said to set a King over them only as 1 Cor. 6. The Saints are said to judge the world that is by consenting to Christs Iudgement So the people doe not make a King by transferring on him soveraignty but by accepting acknowledging reverencing him as King whom God hath both constituted and designed King Answ. This is said but not a word proved for the Queen of Sheba and Hiram acknowledged reverenced and obeyed Solomon as King and yet they made him not King as the Princes of Israell did 2. Reverence and obedience of the people is relative to the Kings lawes but the peoples making of a King is not relative to the laws of a King for then he should be a King giving laws and

commanding the people as King before the people make him King 3. If the peoples approving and consenting that an elected King be their King presupposeth that he is a King designed and constituted by God before the people approve him as King Let the P. Prelate give us an act of God now designing a man King for there are no immediate voyces from heaven saying to a people This is your King before the people elect one of sixe to be their King And this infallibly proveth that God designeth one of sixe to be a King to a people who had no King before by no other act but by determining the hearts of the States to elect and designe this man King and passe any of the other five 4. When God Deut. 17. forbiddeth them to choose a stranger he presupposeth they may choose a stranger for Gods law now given to man in the state of sinne presupposeth he hath corruption of nature to doe contrary to Gods law Now if God did hold forth that their setting a King over them was but the peoples approving the man whom God shall both constitute and designe to be King then he should presuppose that God was to designe a stranger to be the lawfull King of Israel and the people should be interdicted to approve and consent that the man should be King whom God should choose for it was unpossible that the people should make a stranger King God is the only immediate King-creator the people should only approve and consent that a stranger should be King yet upon supposall that God first constituted and designed the stranger King it was not in the peoples power that the King should be a Brother rather then a stranger for if the people have no power to make a King but doe only approve him or consent to him when he is both made and designed of God to be King it is not in their power that he be either brother or stranger and so God commandeth what is simply impossible 2. Consider the sense of the command by the Prelates vaine Logick I Iehovah as I only create the world of nothing so I only constitute and designe a man whether Iew or Nebuchadnezzar a stranger to be your King yet I inhibit you under the pain of my curse that you set any King ●ver your selves but only a brother What is this but I inhibite you to be creators by omnipotent power 5. To these adde the reasons I produced before that the people by no shadow of reason can be commanded to make such a man King not such a man if they only consent to the man made King but have no action in the making of the King P. Prelate All the acts reall and imaginable which are necessary for the making of Kings are ascribed to God Take the first King as a ruling case 1 Sam. 12.13 Behold the King whom you have chosen and desired and behold the Lord hath set a King over you This election of the people can be no other but their admittance or acceptance of the King whom God hath chosen and constituted as the words whom ye have chosen imply 1 Sam. 9.17 1 Sam. 10.1 You have Sauls election and constitution where Samuel as Priest and Prophet anointeth him doing reverence and obeysance to him and ascribing to God that he did appoint him supreame and Soveraigne over his inheritance And the same expression is 1 Sam. 12.13 The Lord hath set a King over you which is Psal. 2.6 I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion Neither man nor Angel hath any share in any act of constituting Christ King Deut. 17. The Lord vindicateth as proper and peculiar to himselfe the designation of the person It was not arbitrary to the people to admit or reject Saul so designed it pleased God to consummate the worke by the acceptation consent and approbation of the people ut suaviore modo that by a smoother way he might incourage Saul to undergoe the hard charge and make his people the more heartily without grumbling and scruple reverence and obey him The peoples admittance possibly added something to the solemnitie to the pompe but nothing to the essentiall and reall constitution or necessitie it only puts the subjects in mala fide if they should contraveen as the intimation of a Law the coronation of an hereditary King the inthronization of a Bishop And 1 King 3.7 Thou hast made thy servant King 1 Sam. 16.1 I have provided me a King Psal. 18.50 He is Gods King Psal. 89.19 I have exalted one chosen out of the people v. 20. He anointeth them 27. adopteth them I will make him my first borne Psal. 82.6 the first borne is above every brother severally and above all though a thousand joyntly Answ. 1. By this reason inferiour Iudges are no lesse immediate Deputies of God and so irresistible then the Kings because God took off the spirit that was on Moses and immediately powred it upon the seventy Elders who were Iudges inferiour to Moses Num. 11.14.15.16 Answ. 2. This P. P. cannot make a Syllogisme I● all the acts necessary to make a King be given to God none to the people then God both constituteth and designeth the King But the former the Scripture saith ergo if all the acts be given to God as to the prime King-maker and disposer of Kings and Kingdoms and none to the people in that notion then God both constituteth and designeth a King Both major and minor is false The major is a● false as the very P. Prelate himselfe All the acts necessary for war-making are in an eminent manner given to God as 1. the Lord fighteth for his people 2. The Lord scattered the enemies 3. The Lord slew Og King of Bashan 4. The battell is the Lords 5. The victorie the Lords ergo Israel never fought a battell So Deut. 32. The Lord alone led his people the Lord led them in the wildernesse their bow and their sword gave them not the land God wrought all their workes for them Esa 26.12 ergo Moses led them not ergo the people went not on their own leggs through the wildernesse ergo the people never shot an arrow never drew a sword It followeth not 1. God did all these as the first eminent principall and efficacious pre-determinator of the creature though this Arminian and Popish Prelate mind not so to honour God 2. The assumption is also false for the people made Saul and David Kings and it were ridiculous that God should command them to make a brother not a stranger King if it was not in their power whether he should be a Iew a Scythian an Ethiopian who was their King if God did only without them both choose 2. constitute 3. designe the person and performe all acts essentiall to make a King and the people had no more in them but only to admit and consent and that for the solemnitie and pompe not for the essentiall constitution of the King 3. ●

1 Chro. 17.22 2 Sam. 7.12 and fulfilled of Christ and by the Holy Ghost spoken of him Heb. 1.5.6 is blasphemous for God said not to Nero Iulian Dioclesian Belshazer Evilmerodach who were lawfull Kings I will make him my first borne and that any of these blasphemous Idolatrous Princes should cry to God he is my Father my God c. is Divinity well beseeming an excommunicated Prelate Of the Kings dignity above the Kingdome I speake not now the Prelate pulled it in by the haire but hereafter we shall heare of it P. Prelate God onely anoynted David 1 Sam. 16.4 the men of Bethleem yea Samuel knew it not before God saith with mine holy oyle have I anoynted him Ps. 89.91 1. He is the Lords anoynted 2. The oyle is Gods not from the Apothecaries shop nor the Priests Viall this oyle descended from the Holy Ghost who is no lesse the true Olive then Christ is the true Vine yet not the oyle of saving grace as some Fantasticks say but holy 1. From the Author God 2. From influence in the person it maketh the Person of the King sacred 3. From influence on his charge his function and power is sacred Ans. 1. The Prelate said before Davids anoynting was extraordinary here he draweth this anoynting to all Kings 2. Let David be formally both constituted and designed King divers yeares before the States made him King at Hebron and then 1. Saul was not King the Prelate will tearme that treason 2. This was a dry oyle David his person was not made sacred nor his authority sacred by it for he remained a private man and called Saul his King his Master and himselfe a subject 3. This oyle was no doubt Gods Oyle and the Prelate will have it the Holy Ghosts yet he denieth that saving grace yea p. 2. c. 1 he denyeth that any supernaturall gift should be the foundation of Royall dignity and that it is a pernitious tenent So to me he would have the Oyle from Heaven and not from Heaven 4. This holy oyle wherewith David was annointed Psalme 89.20 to Augustine is the oyle of saving grace His own deare brethren the Papists say so and especially Lyranus Glossa ordinaria Hugo Cardinal his beloved Bellarmine and Lorinus Calvin Musculus Marlorat If these be Fanaticks as I think they are to the Prelate yet the Text is evident that this oyle of God was the oyle of saving gtace bestowed on David as on a speciall type of Christ who received the spirit above measure and was the anointed of God Ps. 45.7 whereby all his garments smell of myrrhe aloes and cassia ver 8. and his name Messiah is as an oyntment powred out Cant. 1. 2. This anointed shall be head of his enemies 3. His dominion shall be from the sea to the rivers v. 25. 4. He is in the covenant of grace v. 26. 5. He is higher then the Kings of the earth 6. The grace of perseverance is promised to his seed v. 28 29 30. 7. His kingdome is eternall as the dayes of Heaven vers 35 36. 8. If the Prelate will looke under himselfe to Diodatus and Ainsworth they say this holy oyle was powred on David by Samuel and on Christ was powred the Holy Ghost and that by warrant of Scripture and Junius and Mollerus saith with them Now the Prelate taketh the Court way to powre this oyle of grace on many drie Princes who without all doubt are Kings essentially no lesse then David He must see better then the man who finding Pontius Pilate in the Creed said he behoved to be a good man so because he hath found Nero the tyrant Julian the apostate Nebuchadnezzar Evil-Merodach Hazael Hagag all the Kings of Spaine and I doubt not the Great Turke in the 89 Psalm v. 19 20. so all these Kings are anointed with the oyle of grace and all these must make their enemies necks their footstoole all these be higher then the Kings of the Earth and are hard and fast in the covenant of grace c. P. Prelate All the royall ensignes and acts of Kings are ascribed to God The Crown is of God Esa. 62.3 Psal. 21.3 in the Emperours coyne was an hand putting a crowne on their head the Heathen said they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as holding their Crownes from God Psal. 18.39 Thou hast girt me with strength the sword is the embleme of strength unto battell See Iud. 7.17 their scepter Gods scepter Exod. 4.20 17 9. we read of two rods Moses and Aarons Aarons rod budded God made both the rods Their judgement is the Lords 2 Chron. 19.6 their throne is Gods 1 Chron. 19.21 The Fathers called them sacra vestigia sacra majestas their commandements Divalis jussio The Law saith all their goods are res sacrae Ergo our new Statists disgrace Kings if they blaspheme not God in making them the derivatives of the people the basest extract of the basest of irrationall creatures the Multitude the Communaltie Answ. This is all one Argument from the Prelates beginning of his booke to the end In a most speciall and eminent act of Gods providence Kings are from God but therefore they are not from men and mens consent It followeth not From a most speciall and eminent act of Gods providence Christ came into the world and tooke on him our nature ergo he came not of Davids l oynes It is a vaine consequenc● There could not be a more eminent act then this Psal. 40. A body thou hast given me Ergo he came not of Davids house and from Adam by naturall generation and was not a man like us in all things except sinne It is tyrannicall and domineering Logick Many things are ascribed to God only by reason of a speciall and admirable act of providence as the saving of the world by Christ the giving of Canaan to Israel the bringing h●s people out of Egypt and from Chaldea the sending of the Gospel to both Iew Gentile c. But shall we say that God did none of these things by the ministerie of men and weake and fraile men 2. How proveth the Prelate that all royall ensignes are ascribed to God because Esa. 62. the Church universall shall be as a crown of glorie and a royall diadem in the hand of the Lord ergo baculus in angulo the Church shall be as a seale on the heart of Christ. what then Hieronymus Procopius Cyrillus with good reason render the meaning thus Thou O Zion and Church shalt be to me a royall Priesthood and a holy people For that he speaketh of his owne Kingdome and Church is most evident v. 1.2 For Zions sake I will not hold my peace c. 3. God put a crown of pure gold on Davids head Psal. 21.3 therefore Iulian Nero and no elective Kings are made and designed to be Kings by the people He shall never prove this consequence The Chaldee

have Morall power to do injuries without punishment and this is not right or libertie properly but servitude for a power to do violence and injuries is not liberty but serv●tude and bondage But the Prelate talketh of Royaltie as of meer Tyranny as if it were a proper Dominion and servile Empire that the Prince hath over his people and not more paternall and fatherly then lordly or masterly 5. He saith Violation of faith plighted in a contract amongst equals cannot be called disobedience but disobedience to the authoritie of the Soveraign is not onely breach of Covenant but high disobedience and contempt But violation of faith amongst equals as equals is not properly disobedience for disobedience is betwixt a superiour and an inferiour but violation of faith amongst equals when they make one of their equals their Iudge and Ruler is not onely violation of truth but also disobedience All Israel and Saul while he is a private man seeking his fathers Asses are equals by Covenant obliged one to another and so any injury done by Israel to Saul in that case is not disobedience but onely violation of faith but when all Israel maketh Saul their King and sweareth to him obedience he is not now their equall and an injury done to him now is both a violation of their faith and high disobedience also Suppose a Citie of Aldermen all equall amongst themselves indignitie and place take one of their number and make him their Major and Provost a wrong done to him now is not onely against the rules of fraternitie but disobedience to one placed by God in authoritie over them 6. 1 Sam. 11.7 The fear of the Lord fell on the people and they came out with one consent to obey Saul Ergo God hath placed authority in Kings which is not in people It is true because God hath transferred the scattered authorities that are in all the people in one Masse and by vertue of his own Ordinance hath placed them in one man who is King What followeth Ergo God conferreth this authoritie immediately upon the King without the mediation of any action of the people yea the contrary rather followeth 7. God looseth the bond of Kings that is when God is to cast off Kings he causeth them to lose all authoritie and maketh them come in contempt with the people But what doth this prove That God taketh away the majestie and authority of Kings Immediately And therefore God gave to Kings this authoritie Immediately without the peoples conveiance Yea I take the Prelates weapon from him God doth not take the authority of the King from him immediately but mediately by the people their hating and dispising him when they see his wickednesse as the people see Nero a Monster a prodigeous blood-sucker upon this all the people contemn him and dispise him and so the majesty is taken from Nero and all his Mandates and Laws when they see him trample upon all Laws divine and humane and that mediately by the peoples heart dispising of his majestie and so they repeat and take again that aw-some authoritie that they once gave him And this proveth that God gave him the authoritie mediately by the consent of man 8. Nor speaketh he of Kings onely but Vers. 21. He powreth contempt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super munificos Pineda Aria Mont. super Principes Upon Nobles and great men And this place may prove That no Iudges of the earth are made by men 9. The Heathen say That there is some divinity in Princes as in Alexander the great toward his enemies and Scipio But this will prove That Princes and Kings have a Superiority over those who are not their native Subjects for something of God is in them in relation to all men that are not their Subjects If this be a ground strong and good because God onely and independently from men taketh away this majestie as God onely and independently giveth it then a King is sacred to all men subjects or not subjects then it is unlawfull to make war against any forraign King and Prince for in invading him or resisting him you resist that divine majestie of God that is in him then you may not lawfully flee from a tyrant no more then you may lawfully flie from God 10. Scipio was not a King Ergo This divine majestie is in all Iudges of the earth in a more or lesse measure Ergo God onely and immediately may take this spark of divine majestie from inferiour Iudges It followeth not And Kings certainly cannot infuse any sparkle of a divine majestie on any inferiour Iudges for God onely immediately infuseth it in men Ergo It is unlawfull for Kings to take this divinitie from Iudges for they resist God who resist Parliaments no lesse then those who resist Kings Scipio hath divinity in him as well as Cesar and that immediately from God and not from any King 10. Moses was not a King when he went to Pharaoh for he had not as yet a people Pharaoh was the King and because Pharaoh was a King the Divines of Oxford must say His Majestie must not in words of rebuke be resisted more then by deeds 11. Moses his face did shine as a Prophet receiving the Law from God not as a King and is this Sunshine of Heaven upon the face of Nero and Julian It must be if it be a beam of Royall Majestie if this pratler say right but 2 Cor. 3.7 this was a majestie typicall which did adumbrate the glory of the Law of God and is far from being a royaltie due to all Heathen Kings 12. I would our King would evidence such a Majestie in breaking the Images and Idols of his Queen and of Papists about him 13. The fear of Noah and the regenerated who are in Covenant with the Beasts of the field Job 5.23 is upon the Beasts of the earth not by any approbation only as the people maketh Kings by the Prelates way nor yet by free consent as the people freely transfer their power to him who is King The creatures inferiour to man have by no act of freewill chosen man to be their Ruler and transferred their power to him because they are by nature inferiour to man and God by nature hath subjected the creatures to man Gen. 1.28 and so this proveth not that the King by nature is above the people I mean the man who is King and therefore though God had planted in the hearts of all subjects a fear and reverence toward the King upon supposall that they have made him King It followeth not That this authoritie and majestie is immediately given by God to the man who is King without the interveening consent of the people for there is a native feare in the Scholler to stand in awe of his Teacher and yet the Scholler may willingly give himselfe to be a disciple to his Teacher and so give his Teacher power over him Citizens naturally feare their supreame Governour of the City yet

they give to the man who is their supream Governour that power and Authority which is the ground of awe and reverence A Servant naturally feareth his Master yet often he giveth his liberty and resigneth it up voluntarily to his Master and this was not unordinary amongst the Iewes where the servant did intirely love the Master and is most ordinary now when servants doe for hyre tye themselves to such a Master and Souldiers naturally feare their Commanders yet they may and often doe by voluntary consent make such men their Commanders and therefore from this it followeth no way that the Governour of a City the Teacher the Master the Commander in War have not their power and authority only and immediatly from God but from their inferiours who by their free consent appointed them for such places P. Prelate This seemeth or rather is an unanswerable Argument No man hath power of life and death but the Soveraign Power of life and death to wit God Gen. 9.5 God saith thrice he will require the blood of man at the hands of man and this power God hath committed to Gods Deputy who so sheddeth mans blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by man shall die by the King for the world knew not any kind of goverment at this time but Monarchiall and this Monarch was Noah and if this power be from God why not all soveraigne power seeing it is Homogeneous and as Iurists say in indivisibili posita a thing in its nature indivisible and that cannot be distracted or impaired and if every man had the power of life and death God should not be the God of Order The P. Prelate taketh the paines to prove out of the text that a Magistracy is established in the text Ans. 1. Let us consider this unanswerable Argument 1. It is grounded upon a lye and a conjecture never taught by any but himselfe to wit that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or in or through man must signifie a Magistrate 2. and a King onely 3. This King was Noah never interpreter nay not common sence can say that no Magistrate is here understood but a King the consequence is vaine his blood shall be shed by man ergo by a Magistrate it followeth not ergo by a King it followeth not there was not a King in the world yet as some make Belus the father of Ninus the first King and the builder of Babylon this Ninus is thought the first builder of the City after called Ninivie and the first King of the Assyrians so saith Quintus Curtius and others but grave Authors beleeve that Nimrod was no other then Belus the father of Ninus so saith Augustin Hierome Eusebius Hieronym And Eusebius maketh him the first founder of Babylon So saith Clemens Pirerius and Iosephus saith the same 1. their times 2. their cruell natures are the same Calvin saith Noah yet lived while Nimrod lived and the Scripture saith Nimrod began to reigne and be powerfull on the Earth And Babel was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of his kingdome No writer Moses nor any other can shew us a King before Nimrod So Eusebius Paul Orosius Hieronym Iosephus say that he was the first King And Tostatus Abulens and our own Calvin Luther Musculus on the place and Ainsworth make him the first King and the founder of Babylon How Noah was a King or there was any Monarchicall government in the world then the Prelate hath alone dreamed it There was but Familie-government before this 2. And if there bee a Magistracie heere established by God there is no warrant to say it is onely a Monarchie For if the Holy Ghost intendeth a policie it is a policie to be established to the worlds end and not to bee limited as the P. Prelate doth to Noahs dayes all Interpreters upon good ground establish the same policie that our Saviour speaketh of when he saith He shall perish by the sword who taketh the sword Matth. 26.52 So the Netherlands have no lawfull Magistrate who have power of life and death because their Government is Aristocraticall and they have no King So all acts of taking away the lives of ill-doers shall be acts of homicide in Holland how absurd 3. Nor doe I see how the place in the native scope doth establish a Magistracie Calvin saith not so Interpreters deduce by consequence the power of the Magistrate from this place But the Text is generall He who killeth man shall be killed by man either he shall fall into the Magistrates hand or into the hand of some Murtherer so Calvin Marlorat And he speaketh saith w Pirerius not of the fact and event it selfe but of the deserving of murtherers and it 's certaine all murtherers fall not into the Magistrates hands but he saith by Gods and mans laws Ergo They ought to dye though sometime one murtherer killeth another 4. The Soveraign power is given to the King ergo it is given to him immediately without the consent of the people It followeth not 5. Power of life and death is not given to the King only but also to other Magistrates yea and to a single private man in the just defence of his own life Other arguments are but what the Prelate hath said already QUEST VIII Whether the Prelate proveth by force of reason that the people cannot be capable of any power of Government P. Prelate God and nature giveth no power in vain and which may not be reduced into action but an active power or a power of actuall governing was never acted by the Communitie therefore this power cannot be seated in the Communitie as in the prime and proper subject and it cannot be in every individuall person of a Communitie because Government intrinsecally and essentially includeth a specified distinction of Governours and some to be governed and to speak properly there can no other power be conceived in the Communitie naturally and properly but only potestas passiva regiminis a capacitie or susceptabilitie to be governed by one or by moe just as the first matter desireth a forme This obligeth all by the dictate of Natures law to submit to actuall government and as it is in every individuall person it is not meerly and properly voluntary because howsoever nature dictates that government is necessary for the safety of the society yet every singular person by corruption and selfe-love hath a naturall aversenesse and repugnancie to submit to any every man would be a King himselfe This universall desire appetitus universalis aut naturalis or universall propension to Government is like the act of the understanding assenting to the first undeniable principles of truth and to the wills generall propension to happines in generall which propension is not a free act except our new Statists as they have changed their faith so they overturne true reason it will puzzle them infinitely

the society is obliged in conscience to goe and seek the sonne of a forraine King to be their King But I hope that such a royall birth should not be a just title before God to make him King of that society to which he had no relation at all but is a meere stranger Hence in this case no title could be given to any man to make him King but onely the peoples election which is that which we say And it is most unreasonable that a people under popular Government cannot lawfully choose a King to themselves seeing a King is a lawfull Magistrate and warranted by Gods Word because they have not a King of royall birth to sit upon the throne Mr. Symmons saith that birth is the best title to the Crowne because after the first of the family had been anoynted unction was no more used in that family unlesse there arose a strife about the Kingdome as betwixt Solomon and Adonijah Ioash and Athalia the eldest sonne of the predecessor was afterward the chosen of the Lord his birth-right spake the Lords appointment as plainly as his fathers unction Ans. It is a conjecture that unction was not used in the family after the first unction except the contest was betwixt two Brethren that is said not proved for 2 King 23.30 when good Iosiah was killed and there was no contest concerning the Throne of that beloved Prince the people of the Land took Iehoahaz his son and anointed him and made him King in his fathers stead and the Priests were anointed Levit. 6.22 yea all the Priests were anointed Num. 3. ● yet read we not in the History where this or this man was anointed 2. In that Adonijah Solomons elder Brother was not King it is clear That Gods anointing and the peoples electing made the right to the Crown and not birth 3. Birth de facto did design the man because of Gods speciall promises to Davids house but how doth a typicall discent made to David and some others by Gods speciall promise prove that birth is the birth-right and lawfull call of God to a Crown in all after ages For as gifts to reign goeth not by birth so neither doth Gods title to a Crown go M. Symons A Prince once possessed of a Kingdome coming to him by inheritance can never by any upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof without horrible impietie and unjustice Royall unction was an indeleble Character of old Saul remained the Lords anointed till the last gaspe David durst not take the right of Government actually into him although he had it in reversion being already anointed thereunto and had received the spirit thereof Answ. That is the question If a Prince once a Prince by inheritance cannot be dispossessed thereof without unjustice For if a Kingdom be his by birth as an inheritance transmitted from the father to the son I see not but any man upon necessary occasions may sell his inheritance but if a Prince sell his Kingdom a very Barclay and an Hug. Grotius with reason will say he may be dispossessed and dethroned and take up his indeleble Character then 2. A Kingdom is not the Princes own so as it is unjustice to take it from him as to take a mans purse from him the Lords Church in a Christian Kingdom is Gods heritage and the King onely a shepheard and the sheep in the court of conscience are not his 3. Royall unction is not an indeleble Character for neither Saul nor David were all their dayes Kings thereby but lived many dayes private men after divine unction while the people anointed them Kings except you say 1. That there were two Kings at once in Israel 2. And that Saul killing David should have killed his own Lord and his anointed 4. If David durst not take the right of Government actually on him then divine unction made him not King but onely designed him to be King the peoples election must make the King M. Symons addeth He that is born a King and a Prince can n●ver be unborn Semel Augustus semper Augustus yea I beleeve the eldest son of such a King is in respect of birth the Lords anointed in his fathers life time even as David was before Sauls death and to deprive him of his right of reversion is as true unjustice as to dispossesse him of it Answ. It is proper onely to Jesus Christ to be born a King sure I am No man bringeth out of the womb with him a Scepter and a Crown on his head Divine unction giveth a right infallibly to a Crown but birth doth not so for one may be born here to a Crown as was hopefull Prince Henry and yet never live to be King The eldest son of a King if he attempt to kill his father as Absolom did and raise forces against the lawfull Prince I conceive he may be killed in battell without any unjustice 2. If in his fathers time he be the Lords anointed there be two Kings and the heir may have a son and so there shall be three Kings possibly four all Kings by divine right The Prelate of Rochester saith The people and nobles give no right to him who is born a King they onely declare his right Answ. This is said not proved A man born for an inheritance is by birth an heir because he is not born for these Lands as a mean for the end but by the contrary these Lands are for the heir as the mean for the end But the King is for his Kingdom as a mean for the end as the watch-man for the Citie the living Law for peace and safetie to Gods people and therefore is not heres hominum An heir of men but men are rather heredes regis heirs of the King Arnisaeus Many Kingdoms saith he are purchased by just war and transmitted by the Law of heritage from the father to the son beside the consent of the people because the son receiveth right to the Crown not from the people but from his parents nor doth he possesse the Kingdom as the ●●trimony of the people keeping onely to himself the burden of protecting and governing the people but as a proprietie given to him lege regni by his parents which he is obliged to defend and rule as a father looketh to the good and welfare of the family yet so also as he may look to his own good Answ. We read in the Word of God That the people made Solomon King not that David or any King can leave in his Testament a Kingdom to his son 2. He saith The son hath not the right of reigning as the patrimony of the people but as a proprietie given by the Law of the Kingdom by his parents Now this is all one as if he said The son hath not the right of the Kingdom as the patrimony of the people but as the patrimony of the people which is good non-sense For the proprietie of reigning given from father

to son by the Law of the Kingdom is nothing but a right to reign given by the Law of the people and the very gift and patrimony of the people for Lex regni This Law of the Kingdom is the Law of the people tying the Crown to such a Royall Family and this Law of the people is prior and ancienter then the King or the right of reigning in the King or which the King is supposed to have from his Royall father because it made the first father the first King of the Royall Line For I demand How doth the son succeed to his fathers Crown and Throne Not by any promise of a divine Covenant that the Lord maketh to the father as he promised that Davids seed should sit on his throne till the Messiah should come this as I conceive is vanished with the Common-wealth of the Iews nor can we now finde any immediate divine constitution tying the Crown now to such a race nor can we say this cometh from the will of the father King making his son King For 1. there is no Scripture can warrant us to say The King maketh a King but the Scripture holdeth forth that the people made Saul and David Kings 2. This may prove That the father is some way a cause why this son succeedeth King but he is not the cause of the Royaltie conferred upon the whole Line because the question is Who made the first father a King Not himself nor doth God now immediately by Prophets anoint men to be Kings then need force the people choose the first man then must the peoples election of a King be prior and more ancient then the birth-birth-law to a Crown And election must be a better right then birth 2. The question is Whence cometh it that not onely the first father should be chosen King but also ●hence is that whereas it is in the peoples freewill to make the succession of Kings go by free election as it is in Denmark and Pol yet the people doth freely choose not only the first man to be King but also the whole race of the first born of this mans Family to be Kings All here must be resolved in the free will of the Communitie now since we have no immediate and propheticall enthroning of men it is evident That the lineall deduction of the Crown from father to son through the whole line is from the people not from the parent Hence I adde this as my sixth Argument That which taketh away that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right in a Communitie given to them by God and nature to provide the most efficacious and prevalent mean for their own preservation and peace in the fittest Government that is not to be holden but to make birth the best title to the Crown and better then free election taketh away and impedeth that naturall aptitude and natures birth-right of chosing not simply a Governour but the best the justest the more righteous and tyeth and fettereth their choice to one of a house whether he be a wise man and righteous and just or a fool and an unjust man therefore to make birth the best title to the Crown is not to be holden It is objected That parents may binde their after Generations to choose one of such a line But by this Argument their naturall birth-right of a free choice to elect the best and fittest is abridged and clipped and so the posterity shall not be tyed to a King of the Royall Line to which the Ancestors did swear See for this the learned Author of Scripture and Reasons pleaded for defensive Arms. Answ. Frequent elections of a King at the death of every Prince may have by accident and through the corruption of our nature bloody and tragicall sequels and to eschew these people may tie and oblige their children to chose one of the first born Male or Female as in Scotland and England of such a line but I have spoken of the excellencie of the title by election above that of birth as comparing things according to their own nature together but give me leave to say That the posterity are tyed to that Line 1. Conditionally So the first born ceteris paribus be qualified and have an head to sit at the helm 2. Elections of Governours would be performed as in the sight of God and in my weak apprehension the person coming neerest to Gods judge Fearing God hating covetousnesse and to Moses his King Deut. 17. one who shall read in the Book of the Law and it would seem now that gracious morals are to us insteed of Gods immediate designation 3. The genuine and intrinsecall end of making Kings is not simply governing but governing the best way in peace honesty and godlinesse 1 Tim. 2. Ergo These are to be made Kings who may most expeditely procure this end neither is it my purpose to make him no King who is not a gracious man onely here I compare title with title 7. Argument Where God hath not bound the conscience men may not binde themselves or the consciences of the posterity But God hath not bound any nation irrevocably and unalterably to a Royall Line or to one kinde of Government Ergo No nation can binde their conscience and the conscience of the posterity either to one Royall Line or irrevocably and unalterably to Monarchy The proposition is clear 1. No Nation is tyed jure divin● by the tie of a divine Law to a Monarchy rather then to another Government The Parisian Doctors prove That the precept of having a Pope is affirmative and so tyeth not the Church ad semper for ever and so the Church is the body of Christ without the Pope and all oaths to things of their nature indifferent and to things the contrary whereof is lawfull and may be expedient and necessary lay on a tie onely conditionally in so far as they conduce to the end If the Gibeonites had risen in Joshuaes dayes to cut off the people of God I think no wise man can think that Joshua and the people were tyed by the oath of God not to cut off the Gibeonites in that case For to preserve them alive as enemies was against the intent of the oath which was to preserve them alive as friends demanding and supplicating peace and submitting The assumption is clear If a Nation seeth that Aristocraticall Government is better then Monarchy hic nunc That the sequels of such a Monarchy is bloody destructive tyrannous that the Monarchy compelleth the free subjects to Turcisme to grosse Idolatry they cannot by the divine bond of any oath captive their naturall freedom which is to choose a Government and Governours for their safetie for a peaceable and godly life or fetter and chain the wisdom of the posterity unalterably to a Government or a Royall Line which hic nunc contrary to the intention of their oath proveth destructive and bloody And in this case even the

King though tyed by an oath to govern is obliged to the practices of the Emperour Otho And as Speed saith of Richard the second to resign the Crown for the eschewing of the effusion of blood And who doubteth but the second wits of the experienced posterity may correct the first wits of their fathers nor shall I ever beleeve that the fathers can leave in legacie by oath any chaines of the best gold to fetter the after-wits of posteritie to a choice destructive to peace and true Godlinesse To these adde 8. That 1. an heritor may defraud his first borne of his heritage because of his dominion he hath over his heritage A King cannot defraud his first-borne of the Crown 2. An heritor may divide his heritage equally amongst his twelve sonnes A King cannot divide his Royall Dominions in twelve parts and give a part to every sonne for so he might turne a Monarchie into an Aristocracie and put twelve men in the place of one King 3. Any heritor taken captive may lawfully oppignorate yea and give all his inheritance as a ransome for his liberty for a man is better then his inheritance but no King may give his Subjects as a price or ransome Yet I shall not be against the succession of Kings by birth with good limitations and shall agree that through the corruption of mans nature it may be in so far profitable as it is peaceable and preventeth bloody tumults which are the bane of humane societies Consider further for this Aegid Romanus l. 3. de reg princi cap. 5. Turrecremat and Joan. de terra Reubea 1 tract contr Rebelles ar 1. con 4. Yet Aristotle the flower of Natures wit l. 3. polit c. 10. preferreth Election to Succession He preferreth Carthage to Sparta though their Kings came of Hercules Plutarch in Scylla saith he would have Kings as dogs that is best hunters not those who are borne of best dogs Tacitus lib. 1. Nasci generari à Principibus fortuitum nec ultra aestimantur QUEST XI Whether or no he be more principally a King who is a King by birth or he who is a King by the free election and suffrages of the people WIthout deteining the Reader I desire liberty to assert that 1 Assert Where God establisheth a Kingdome by Birth that government hic nunc is best and because God principally distributeth Crownes when God establisheth the Royall line of David to reigne he is not principally a King who commeth neerest and most immediately to the fountaine of Royaltie which is Gods immediate will but God established hic nun● for typicall reasons with reverence of the learned a King by birth 2 Assert But to speake of them ex natura re● and according to the first mould and paterne of a King by law A King by election is more principally King magis univoce per se then an hereditarie Prince 1. Because in hereditary Crownes the first familie being chosen by the free suffrages of the people for that cause ultimate the hereditary Prince commeth to the throne because his first father and in him the whole line of the familie was chosen to the Crowne and propter quod unumquodque tale id ipsum magis tale 2. The first King ordained by Gods positive law must be the measure of all Kings and more principally the King then he who is such by derivation But the first King is a King by election not by birth Deut. 17.15 Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose One from amongst thy brethren shalt thou set over thee If the free will of the people be not the neerest cause of the first moulded King God could have made no positive law to choose such a man not such a man for all positive lawes presuppose free election 3. The Law saith Surrogatum fruitur privilegiis ejus in cujus locum surrogatur He who is substituted in the place of another enjoyeth the priviledges of him in whose place be succeedeth But the hereditary King hath Royall priviledges from him who is chosen King Salomon hath the Royall priviledges of David his father and is therefore King by birth because his father David was King by election And this I say not because I think sole birth is a just title to the Crown but because it designeth him who indeed virtually was chosen when the first King of the race was chosen 4. Because there is no dominion of either Royalty or any other way by nature no more then an Eagle is born King of Eagles a Lyon King of Lyons neither is a man by nature born King of men and therefore he who is made King by suffrages of the people must be more principally King then he who hath no title but the womb of his mother Doct. Fern is so farre with us to father Royaltie upon the peoples free election as on the formall cause that he saith If to design the person and to procure limitation of the power in the exercise of it ●e to give the power we grant the power is from the people but saith he you will have the power originally from themselves in another sense for you say they reserve power to depose and displace the Magistrate sometime they make the Monarch supreme and then they devest themselves of all power and keep none to themselves but before established Government they have no politique power whereby they may lay a command on others but onely a naturall power of private resistance which they cannot use against the Magistrate Ans. But to take off those by the way 1. If the King may choose A. B. an Ambassadour and limit him in his power and say Doe this and say this to the forraigne State you goe to but no more halfe a wit will say the King createth the Ambassadour and the Ambassadours power is originally from the King and we prove the power of the Lyon is originally from God and of the Sea and the fire is originally from God because God limiteth the Lyon in the exercises of its power that it shall not devoure Daniel and limiteth the Sea as Ieremiah saith when as he will have its proud Waves to come thither and no farther and will have the fire to burne those who throwe the three Children into the fiery furnace and yet not to burne the three Children for this is as if Doctor Ferne said the power of the King of six degrees rather then his power of five is from the people therefore the power of the King is not from the people yea the contrary is true 2. That the people can make a King supreame that is Absolute and so resigne natures birth-right that is a power to defend themselves is not lawfull for if the people have not absolute power to destroy themselves they cannot resigne such a power to their Prince 3. It is false that a community before they be established with formall Rulers have

and by that same law of nature no man is borne King of men nor any man subject to man in a civill subjection by nature I speake not of naturall subjection of children to parents and therefore Ferdi. Vasquez illustr quest l. 2. c. 82. n. 6. said that Kingdomes and Empires were brought in not by Natures law but by the law of Nations he expoundeth himself elsewhere to speak of the law of nature secondary otherwise the primarie law of Nations is indeed the law of Nature as appropriated to man If any reply that the freedome naturall of beasts and birds who never sinned cannot be one with the naturall freedome of man who are now under sin and so under bondage for sin my answer is That the subjection of the miserie of man by nature because of sinne is more then the subjection of beasts comparing spece and kind of beasts and birds with mankind but comparing individuals of the same kinde amongst themselves a Lyon with Lyon Eagle with Eagle and so Man with Man in which respect because he who is supposed to be the man borne free from subjection politike even the King borne a King is under the same state of sin and so by reason of sinne of which he hath a share equally with all other men by nature he must be by nature borne under as great subjection penall for sinne except the King be borne voyd of sinne as other men Ergo he is not borne freer by nature then other men except he come out of the wombe with a Kings crown on his head 4. To be a King is a free gift of God which God bestoweth on some men above others as is evident 2 Sam. 12.7 8 Psal. 75.6 Dan. 4.32 and therefore all must be borne Kings if any one man be by nature a King borne and another a borne subject But if some be by Gods grace made Kings above others they are not so by nature for things which agree to man by nature agree to all men equally but all men equally are not borne Kings as is evident and all men are not equally borne by nature under politique subjection to Kings as the Adversaries grant because those who are by nature Kings cannot be also by nature subjects 5. If men be not by nature free f●om politique subjection then must some by the law of relation by nature be Kings But none are by nature Kings because none have by nature these things which essentially constitute Kings for they have neither by nature the calling of God nor gifts for the throne nor the free election of the people nor conquest and if there be none a King by nature there can be none a Subject by nature And the Law faith Omnes sumus naturâ liberi nullius ditioni subjecti l. Manumiss F. de just jur S. jus autem gentium Ins. de jur nat We are all by nature free and D. L. ex hoc jure cum simil 6. Politicians agree to this as an undeniable truth that as domestick society is naturall being grounded upon Natures instinct so Politique societie is voluntary being grounded on the consent of men and so politique societie is naturall in radice in the root and voluntary and free in modo in the manner of their union and the Scripture cleareth to us that a King is made by the free consent of the people Deut. 17.15 and so not by nature 7. What is from the wombe and so naturall is eternall and agreeth to all societies of men but a Monarchie agreeth not to all societies of men for many hundred years de facto there was not a King till Nimrods time the world being governed by families and till Moses his time we find no institution for Kings Gen. 7. and the numerous multiplication of mankind did occasion Monarchies otherwise Fatherly government being the first and measure of the rest must be the best for it is better that my father governe me then that a stranger governe me and therefore the Lord forbad his people to set a stranger over themselves to be their King The P. Prelate contendeth for the contrary Every man saith he is borne subject to his father of whom immediately he hath his existence in nature and if his Father be the subject of another he is borne the subject of his fathers superiour Answ. But the consequence is weake every man is borne under naturall subjection to his father ergo he is borne naturally under civill subjection to his fathers superiour or King it followeth not yea because his father was borne only by nature subject to his owne father ergo he was subject to a Prince or King only by accident and by the free constitution of men who freely choose politick government whereas there is no government naturall but fatherly or martiall and therefore the contradictory consequence is true P. Prelat Obj. 2. Every man by nature hath immunity and liberty from despoticall and herill Empire and so may dispose of his owne at will and cannot inslave himselfe without his owne free will but God hath laid a necessity on all men to be under government and nature also laid this necessity on him therefore this soveraignty cannot protect us in righteousnesse and honesty except it be intirely indowed with soveraigne power to preserve it selfe and protect us Ans. The Prelate here deserteth his owne consequence which i● strong against himselfe for if a man be naturally subject to his fathers superiour as he said before why is not the sonne of a slave naturally subiect to his fathers superiour master 2. As a man may not make away his liberty without his own consent so can he not without his owne consent give his liberty to be subject to penall Lawes under a Prince without his owne consent either in his fathers or in the representative society in which he liveth 3. God and nature hath laid a necessity on all men to be under government a naturall necessity from the wombe to be under some government to wit a paternall government that is true but under this government politique and namely under soveraignty it is false and that is but said for why is he naturally under soveraignty rather then Aristocracy I beleeve any of the three formes are freely chosen by any society 4. It is false that one cannot defend the people except he have intire power that is to say he cannot doe good except he have a vast power to doe both good and ill Obj. 3. It is accidentall to any to render himselfe a slave being occasioned by force or extreame indigence but to submit to Government congruous to the condition of man and is necessary for his happy being and naturall and necessary by the inviolable Ordinance of God and nature Ans. If the father be a slave it is naturall and not accidentall by the Prelates Logick to be a slave 2. it is also accidentall to be under Soveraignty and sure not naturall

say they we will be quit of thine Oath which thou hast made us to swear There be no mutuall contract made upon certain conditions but if the conditions be not fulfilled the party injured is loosed from the contract Barclay saith That this covenant obligeth the King to God but not the King to the people Ans. It is a vaine thing to say that the people and the King make a covenant and that David made a covenant with the Elders and Princes of Israel for if he be obliged to God only and not to the people by a covenant made with the people it is not made with the people at all nay it is no more made with the people of Israel nor with the Chaldeans for it bindeth David no more to Israel nor to Chaldea as a covenant made with men Arnisaeus saith when two parties contract if one performe the duty the other is acquitted Sect. Ex hujusmod ubi vult just de duob reis l. 3. F. because every one of them are obliged fully Sect. 1. Iust. eod to God to whom the Oath is made for that is his meaning and if either the people performe what is sworne to the Lord or the King yet one of the parties remaineth still under obligation and neither doth the peoples obedience exempt the King from punishment if he faile nor the Kings obedience exempt the people if they faile but every one beareth the punishment of his owne sin and there is no mutuall power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty because that belongeth to the Pretor or Magistrate before whom the contract was made The King hath jurisdiction over the people if they violate their Oath but the people hath no power over the Prince and the ground that Arnisaeus layeth downe is that 1. The King is not a party contracting with the people as if there were mutuall obligations betwixt the King and the people and a mutuall coactive power on either side 2. That the care of Religion belongeth not to the people for that hath no warrant in the Word saith he 2. We read not that the people was to command and compell the Priests and the King to reforme Religion and abolish Idolatry as it must follow if the covenant be mutuall 3. Iehoiada 2 King 11. obligeth himselfe and the King and the people by a like law to serve God and here be not two parts but three the high Priest the King the People if this example prove any thing 4. Both King and people shall finde the revenging hand of God against them if they faile in the breach of their Oath but with this difference and every one of the two King and people by the Oath stand obliged to God the King for himselfe and the people for themselves but with this difference the King oweth to God proper and due obedience as any of the subjects and also to governe the people according to Gods true religion Deut. 17. 2 Chro. 29. and in this the Kings obligation differeth from the peoples obligation the people as they would be saved must serve God and the King for the same cause 1 Sam. 12. But besides this the King is obliged to rule and governe the people and keepe them in obedience to God but the people is not obliged to governe the King and keepe him in obedience to God for then the people should have as great power of jurisdiction over the King as the King hath o-over the people which is against the Word of God and the examples of the Kings of Iudah but this commeth not from any promise or covenant that the King hath made with the people but from a peculiar obligation whereby he is obliged to God as a man not as a King This is the mystery of the businesse but I oppose this in these Assertions 1. Assert As the King is obliged to God for the maintenance of true Religion so are the people and Princes no lesse in their place obliged to maintaine true Religion for 1. the people are rebuked because they burnt Incense in all high places 2 King 17.11 2 Chron. 33.17 Hos. 4.13 And the reason why the high places are not taken away 2 Chro. 20.33 is given for as yet the people had not prepared their heart unto the God of their fathers but you will reply elicite acts of maintenance of true Religion are commanded to the people and that the places prove but the question is De actibus imperatis of commanded acts of Religion sure none but the Magistrate is to command others to worship God according to his Word I answer in ordinary only Magistrates not the King only but all the Princes of the Land and Iudges are to maintaine Religion by their commandements Deut. 1.16 2 Chro. 1.2 Deut. 16.19 Eccles. 5.8 Hab. 1.4 Mic. 3.9 Zach. 7.9 Hos. 5.10.11 and to take care of Religion but when the Iudges decline from Gods way and corrupt the Law we finde the people punished and rebuked for it Ier. 15.4 And I will cause them to be removed to all Kingdomes of the earth because of Manasseh the sonne of Hezekiah King of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem 1 Sam. 12.24 only feare the Lord 25. But if yee doe still wickedly yee shall be consumed both yee and your King And this case I grant is extraordinary yet so as Iunius Brutus proveth well and strongly that Religion is not given only to the King that he only should keepe it but to all the inferiour Iudges and people also in their kind but because the estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion and presse a false and Idolatrous worship upon them therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion but presseth upon the people a false and Idolatrous Religion in that they are not under the King but are presumed to have no King catenus so farre and are presumed to have the power in themselves as if they had not appointed any King at all as if we presume the body had given to the right hand a power to ward off strokes and to defend the body if the right hand should by a Palsie or some other disease become impotent and be withered up when ill is comming on the body it is presumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand and to the rest of the body to defend it selfe in this case as if the body had no right hand and had never communicated any power to the right hand at all So if an incorporation accused of Treason and in danger of the sentence of death shall appoint a Lawyer to Advocate their cause and to give in their just defences to the Iudge if their Advocate be stricken with dumbnesse because they have losed their legall and representative tongue none can say that this incorporation hath loosed the tongues that Nature hath given them so as by Natures law they may not plead in their own just

lawfull defence as if they had never appointed the foresaid lawyer to plead for them The King as a man is not more obliged to the publick and regall defence of the true Religion then any other man of the land but he is made by God and the people King for the Church and people of God's sake that he may defend true Religion for the behalfe and salvation of all If therefore he defend not Religion for the salvation of the soules of all in his publick and royall way it is presumed as undeniable that the people of God who by the law of nature are to care for their own soule are to defend in their way true Religion which so nearly concerneth them and their eternall happinesse 2 Assert When the covenant is betwixt God on the one part and the King Priests and people on the other part it is true if the one performe for his part to God the whole duty the other is acquitted as if two men be indebted to one man ten thousand pounds if the one pay the whole summe the other is acquitted but the King and People are not so contracting parties in covenant with God as that they are both indebted to God for one and the same sum of compleat obedience so as if the King pay the whole summe of obedience to God the people is acquitted and if the People pay the whole summe the King is acquitted for every one standeth obliged to God for himselfe for the people must doe all that is their part in acquitting the King from his Royall duty that they may free him and themselves both from punishment if he disobey the King of Kings Nor doth the Kings obedience acquit the people from their duty And Arnisaeus dreamed if he believed that we make King and People this way partie contracters in covenant with God Nor can two co-partners in covenant with God so mutually compell one another to doe their duty for we hold that the covenant is made betwixt the King and the People betwixt mortall men but they both bind themselves before God to each other But saith Arnisaeu● It belongeth to a Pretor or Ruler who is above both King and People to compell each of them the King to performe his part of the covenant to the people and the people to performe their part of the covenant to the King Now there is no Ruler but God above both King and People But let me answer The consequence is not needfull no more then when the King of Iudah and the King of Israel make a covenant to perform mutuall duties one to another no more then it is necessarie that there should be a King and superior Ruler above the King of Israel and the King of Iudah who should compell each one to doe a duty to his fellow King for the King and People are each of them above and below others in divers respects The People because they create the man King they are so above the King and have a virtuall power to compell him to doe his duty and the King as King hath an authoritative power above the People because Royaltie is formally in him and originally and virtually only in the People therefore may he compell them to their duty as we shall heare anon and therefore there is no need of an earthly Ruler higher then both to compell both 3 Assert We shall hereafter prove the power of the people above the King God willing And so it is false that there is not mutuall coactive power on each side 4 Assert The obligation of the King in this covenant floweth from the peculiar obligation nationall betwixt the King and the Estates and it bindeth the King as King and not simply as he is a man 1. Because it is a covenant betwixt the people and David not as he is the sonne of Jesse for then it should oblige Eliab or any other of Davids brethren yea it should oblige any man if it oblige David as a man but it obl●geth David as a King or as he is to be their King because it is the specifice act of a King that he is obliged unto to wit to governe the people in Righteousnesse and Religion with his Royall power And so it is false that Arnisaeus saith that the King as a man is obliged to God by this covenant not as a King 2. He saith by covenant the King is bound to God as a Man not as a King But so the man will have the King as King under no law of God and so he must either be above God as King or coequall with God which are manifest blasphemies for I thought ever the Royalists had not denyed but the King as King had been obliged to keep his oath to his subjects in relation to God and in regard of naturall obligation so as he sinneth before God if he breake his covenant with his people though they deny that he is obliged to keep his covenant in relation to his Subjects and in regard of politique or civill obligation to men Sure I am this the Royalists constantly teach 3. He would have this covenant so made with men as it obligeth not the King to men but to God But the contrary is true Beside the King and the Peoples covenant with the Lord King Joash made another covenant with the People and Jehoiada the Priest was only a witnesse or one who in Gods name performed the rite of annointing otherwise he was a subject on the peoples side obliged to keep allegiance to Joash as to his Soveraigne and Master But certainly who ever maketh a covenant with the people promising to governe them according to Gods word and upon that condition and these termes receiveth a throne and crown from the people he is obliged to what he promiseth to the people Omnis promittens facit alteri cui promissio facta est jus in promittentem Who ever maketh a promise to another giveth to that other a sort of right or jurisdiction to challenge the promise The covenant betwixt David and Israel were a shadow if it tye the people to allegiance to David as their King and if it tye not David as King to govern them in righteousnesse but leave David loose to the people and only tye him to God then it is a covenant betwixt David and God only But the Text saith It is a covenant betwixt the King and the People 2 King 11.17 2 Sam. 5.3 Hence our second Argument He who is made a minister of God not simply but for the good of the subject and so he take heed to walk in Gods law as a King and governe according to Gods will he is in so far only made King by God as he fulfilleth the condition and in so far as he is a minister for evill to the subject and ruleth not according to that which the book of the Law commandeth him as King in so far he is not by God appointed King and Ruler and

so must be made a King by God conditionally But so hath God made Kings and Rulers Rom. 13.4 2 Chron. 6.16 Ps. 89.30 31. 2 Sam. 7.12 1 Chron. 28.7 8 9. This argument is not brought to prove that Jeroboam or Saul leave off to be Kings when they faile in some part of the condition or as if they were not Gods Vicegerents to be obeyed in things lawfull after they have gone on in wicked courses For the People consenting to make Saul King they give him the Crown pro hac vice at his entry absolutely there is no condition required in him before they make him King but only that he covenant with them to rule according to Gods law The conditions to be performed are consequent and posterior to his actuall coronation and his sitting on the Throne But the argument presupposing that which the Lords word teacheth to wit that the Lord and the people giveth a crown by one and the same action for God formally maketh David a King by the Princes and Elders of Israels choosing of him to be their King at Hebron and therefore seeing the people maketh him a King covenant-wise and conditionally so he rule according to Gods Law and the people resigning their power to him for their safety and for a peaceable and godly life under him and not to destroy them and tyrannize over them it is certain God giveth a King that same way by that same very act of the people and if the King tyrannize I cannot say it is beside the intention of God making a King nor yet beside his intention as a just punisher of their transgressions for to me as I conceive nothing either good or evill falleth out beside the intention of him who doeth all things according to the pleasure of his Will if then the people make a King as a King conditionally for their safety and not for their destruction for as a King he saveth as a man he destroyeth and not as a King and Father and if God by the peoples free election make a King God maketh him a King conditionally and so by covenant and therefore when God promiseth 2 Sam. 7.12 1 Chron. 28.7 8 9. to Davids seed and to Solomon a Throne he promiseth not a Throne to them immediatly as he raised up Prophets and Apostles without any mediate action and consent of the people but he promiseth a Throne to them by the mediate consent election and covenant of the people which condition and covenant he expresseth in the very words of the people covenant with the King so they walke as Kings in the Law of the Lord and take heed to Gods Commandements and Statutes to doe them Obj. But then Solomon falling in love with many outlandish women and so not walking according to Gods Law loseth all royall dignity and Kingly power and the people is not to acknowledge him as King since the Kingly power was conferred upon him rather then Adonijah upon such a condition which condition not being performed by him it is presumed that neither God nor the people under God as Gods instruments in making King conferred any royall power on him Ans. It doth not follow that Solomon falling in love with strange women doth lose Royall dignity either in the Court of Heaven or before men because the conditions of the covenant upon which God by the people made him King must be exponed by the Law Deut. 17. now that cannot beare that any one act contrary to the Royall Office yea that any one or two acts of Tyranny doth denude a man of the Royall dignity that God and the people gave him for so David committing two acts of tyranny one of taking his owne faithfull Subjects wife from him and another in killing himselfe should denude himselfe of all the Kingly power that he had and that therefore the people after his Adultery and Murther were not to reknowledge David as their King which is most absurd for as one single act of unchastity is indeed against the matrimoniall covenant and yet doth not make the woman no wife at all so it must be such a breach of the Royall Covenant as maketh the King no King that anulleth the Royall Covenant and denudeth the Prince of his Royall authority and power that must be interpreted a breach of the Oath of God because it must be such a breach upon supposition whereof the people would not have given the Crowne but upon supposition of his destructivenesse to the Common-wealth they would never have given to him the Crowne Obj. 2. Yet at least it will follow that Saul after he is rejected of God for disobedience in not destroying the Amalekites as Samuel speaketh to him 1 Sam. 15. is no longer to be acknowledged King by the people at least after he committeth such acts of tyranny as are 1. Sam. 8.12 13 14 15. c. and after he had killed the Priests of the Lord and persecuted innocent David without cause he was no longer either in the Court of Heaven or the Court of men to be acknowledged as King seeing he had manifestly violated the royall covenant made with the people 1 Sam. 11. v. 14 15. and yet after those breaches David acknowledgeth him to be his Prince and the Lords annoynted Ans. The Prophet Samuel his threatning 1 Sam. 17. is it not exponed of actuall unkinging and rejecting of Saul at the present for after that Samuel both honoured him as King before the people and prayed for him and mourned to God on his behalfe as King 1 Sam. 16.1.2 but the threatning was to have effect in Gods time when he should bring David to the Throne as was prophesied upon occasion of lesse sinne even his sacrificing and not waiting the time appointed as God had commanded 1 Sam. 13. v. 13 14. 2. The people and Davids acknowledgment of Saul to be the Lords annoynted and a King after he had committed such acts of Tyranny as seeme destructive of the Royall Covenant and inconsistent therewith cannot prove that Saul was not made King by the Lord and the people conditionally and that for the peoples good and safety and not for their destruction and it doth well prove that those acts of blood and tyranny committed by Saul were not done by him as King or from the principle of Royall power given to him by God and the people 2. That in these acts they were not to acknowledge him as King 3. That these acts of blood were contrary to the covenant that Saul did sweare at his inauguration and contrary to the conditions that Saul in the covenant tooke on him to perform at the making of the Royall covenant 4. They prove not but the States who made Saul King might lawfully dethrone him and annoint David their King But David had reason to hold him for his Prince and the Lords Anointed so long as the people recalled not their grant of Royall dignity as David or any man is obliged to honour him as

King by vertue of his covenant How can he faile against an obligation where there is no obligation but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people and indeed so doe our good men expound that Psal. 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned not against Vriah for if he sinned not as King against Vriah whose life he was obliged to conserve as a King he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conserve his life Where there is no sin there is no obligation not to sin and where there is no obligation not to sin there is no sin By this the King as King is loosed from all duties of the second Table being once made a King he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himselfe for he is above all his neighbours and above all mankind and only lesse then God 4. Arg. If the people be so given to the King that they are committed to him as a pledge oppignorated in his hand as a pupill to a Tutor as a distressed man to a Patron as a flocke to a Shepheard and so as they remaine the Lords Church his people his flocke his portion his inheritance his vineyard his redeemed ones then they cannot be given to the King as Oxen and Sheepe that are freely gifted to a man or as a gift or summe of gold or silver that the man to whom they are given may use so that he cannot commit a fault against the oxen sheepe gold or mony that is given to him how ever he shall dispose of them But the people are given to the King to be tutored and protected of him so as they remaine the people of God and in covenant with him and if the people were the goods of fortune as Heathens say he could no more sinne against the people then a man can sin against his gold now though a man by adoring gold or by lavish profusion and wasting of gold may sin against God yet not against gold nor can he be in any covenant with gold or under any obligation of either duty or sin to gold or to livelesse and reasonlesse creatures properly therefore he may sin in the use of them and yet not sin against them but against God Hence of necessity the King must be under obligation to the Lords people in another manner then that he should only answer to God for the losse of men as if men were worldly goods under his hand and as if being a King he were now by this Royall Authority priviledged from the best halfe of the law of nature to wit from acts of mercy and truth and covenant keeping with his brethren 5. Arg. If a King because a King were priviledged from all covenant obligation to his subjects then could no Law of men lawfully reach him for any contract violated by him then he could not be a debtor to his subjects if he borrowed mony from them and it were utterly unlawfull either to crave him mony or to sue him at Law for debts yet our Civill Lawes of Scotland tyeth the King to pay his debts as any other man yea and King Solomons traffiquing and buying and selling betwixt him and his owne subjects would seeme unlawfull for how can a King buy and sell with his subjects if he be under no covenant obligation to men but to God only Yea then a King could not marry a wife for he could not come under a covenant to keepe his body to her only nor if he committed adultery could he sin against his wife because being immediate unto God and above all obligation to men he could sin against no covenant made with men but only against God 6. If that was a lawfull covenant made by Asa and the States of Iudah 2 Chron. 15.13 That whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of their fathers should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman this obligeth the King for ought I see and the Princes and the people but it was a lawfull covenant ergo the King is under a covenant to the Princes and Iudges as they are to him it is replyed If a Master of a Schoole should make a law whoever shall goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty obtained of the Master shall be whipped it will not oblige the Schoole-master that he shall be whipped if he goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty so neither doth this Law oblige the King the supreame Law-giver Ans. Suppose that the Schollars have no lesse hand and authority magisteriall in making the law then the Schoole-master as the Princes of Iudah had a collaterall power with King Asa about that law it would follow that the Schoole-master is under the same law 2. Suppose going out at Schoole doores were that way a morall neglect of studying in the Master as it is in the Scholars as the not seeking of God is as hainous a sinne in King Asa and no lesse deserving death then it is in the people then should the Law oblige Schoolmaster and Scholler both without exception 3. The Schoolemaster i● clearely above all lawes of discipline which he imposeth on his Scholars but none can say that King Asa was clearely above that law of seeking of the Lord God of his fathers Diodorus Siculus l. 17. saith the Kings of Persia were under an oath and that they might not change the Lawes and so were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia The Kings of Sparta which Aristotle calleth just Kings renew their oath every moneth Romulus so covenanted with the Senate and People Carolus V. Austriacus sweareth he shall not change the Lawes without the consent of the Electors nor make new lawes nor dispose or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire So read we Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped l. 8. saith there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Persians The nobles are crowned when they crown their King and exact a speciall Oath of the King So doth England Polonia Spaine Arragonia c. Alberi Gentilis Hug. Grotius prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people but notwithstanding there be such a covenant it followeth not from this saith Arnisaeus that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically the people shall be free and the contract or covenant nothing Ans. The covenant may be materially broken while the King remaineth King and the subjects remaine subjects but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken the people must be free from their Allegiance but of this more hereafter Arg. 7. If a Master bind himselfe by an Oath to his servant he shall not receive such a benefit of such a point of service if he violate the Oath his Oath must give his servant Law and right both to challenge his Master and he is freed from that point of service an Army appointeth such a one their Leader

and Captaine but they refuse to doe it except he sweare he shall not betray them to the enemy he doth betray them then must the souldiers be loosed from that contract if one be appointed Pilate of a ship and not but by an Oath if he sell the Passengers to the Turke they may challenge the Pilate of his Oath and it is cleare that 1. the estates should refuse to give the Crown to him who would refuse to governe them according to Gods Law but should professe that he would make his owne will a Law therefore the intention of the Oath is clearely conditionall 2. When the King sweareth the Oath he is but King in fieri and so not as King above the States of Kingdomes now his being King doth not put him in a case above all civill obligation of a King to his subjects because the matter of the Oath is that he shall be under them so farre in regard of the Oath of God Arg. 8. If the Oath of God made to the people doe not bind him to the people to governe according to Law and not according to his will and lust it should be unlawfull for any to sweare such an Oath for if a power above law agree essentially to a King as a King as Royalists hold he who sweareth such a Oath should both sweare to be a King to such a people and should sweare to be no King in respect by his Oath he should renounce that which is essentiall to a King Arnisaeus objecteth Ex particularibus non potest colligi conclusio universalis some few of the Kings as David Ioash made a covenant with the people it followeth not that this was a universall law Ans. Yea the covenant is Deut. 17. and must be a rule to all if so just a man as David was limited by a covenant then all the rest also QUEST XV. Whether or no the King be Vnivocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father IT is true Aristotle Polit. l. 3. c. 11. saith That the Kingly power is a fatherly power and Iustin. Novell 12. c. 2. Pater quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius sit tamen pater est But I doe not beleeve that as Royalists say that the Kingly power is essentially and univocally that same with a paternall or fatherly power or that Adam as a father was as a father and King and that suppose Adam should live in Noahs daies that by divine institution and without consent of the Kingdomes and communities on earth Adam hoc ipso and for no other reason but because he was a father should also be the universall King and Monarch of the whole world or suppose Adam were living to this day that all Kings that hath been since and now are held their Crownes of him and had no more Kingly power then inferiour Iudges in Scotland have under our soveraigne King Charles for so all that hath been and now are lawfull Kings should be unjust usurpers for if fatherly power be the first and native power of commanding it is against nature that a Monarch who is not my father by generation should take that power from me and be a King over both me and my children But I assert that though the Word warrant us to esteem Kings fathers Esa. 49.23 Jud. 5.7 Gen. 20. v. 2. yet are not they essentially and formally fathers by generation Num. c. 11. v. 12. Have I conceived all this people have I begotten them and yet are they but fathers metaphorically 1. By office because they should care for them as fathers doe for children and so come under the name of fathers in the fifth Commandement and therefore rigorous and cruell Rulers are Leopards and Lyons and Wolves Ezech. 22.27 Zeph. 3.3 If then tyrannous Judges be not essentially and formally Leopards and Lyons but only metaphorically neither can Kings be formally fathers 2. Not only Kings but all Iudges are fathers in defending their subjects from violence and the sword and fighting the Lords battells for them and counselling them If therefore Royalists argue rightly A King is essentially a father and fatherly power and royall power are of the same essence and nature As therefore he who is once a father is ever a father and his children cannot take up armes against him to resist him for that is unnaturall repugnant to the 5. Commandement So he who is once a King is evermore a King and it is repugnant to the fifth Commandement to resist him with armes It is answered that the Argument presupposeth that Royall power and Fatherly power is one and the same in nature whereas they differ in nature and are only one by analogie and proportion for so Pastors of the Word are called fathers 1 Cor. 4.15 it will not follow that once a Pastor evermore a Pastor and that if therefore Pastors turne wolves and by hereticall doctrine corrupt the flock they cannot be cast out of the Church 3. A father as a father hath not power of life and death over his sonnes because Rom. 13. by divine institution the sword is given by God to Kings and Iudges and if Adam had had any such power to kill his sonne Cain for the killing of his brother Abel it had been given to him by God as a power politike different from a fatherly power for a fatherly power as such is formally to conserve the life of the childaen and not to take away the life yea and Adam though he had never sinned nor any of his posteritie Adam should have been a perfect father as he is now indued with all fatherly power that any father now hath yea should not God have given the sword or power of punishing ill doers since that power should have been in vaine if there had been no violence nor bloodshed or sinne on the earth for the power of the sword and of lawfull warre is given to men now in the state of sinne 4. Fatherly government and power is from the bosome and marrow of that fountaine law of nature but Royall power is not from the law of nature more then Aristocraticall or Democraticall power D. Ferne saith Monarchie is not jure divino I am not of his mind nor yet from the law of Nature but ductu naturae by the guidance of nature Sure it is from a supervenient commandement of God added to the first law of nature establishing Fatherly power 5. Children having their life and first breathings of nature from their parents must be in a more intire relation from their father then from their Prince Subjects have not their Being naturall but their civill politique and peaceable well-being from their Prince 6. A father is a father by generation and giving the being of nature to children and is a naturall head and root without the free consent and suffrages of his children and is essentially a father to one childe as Adam was to one Cain but a Prince is a Prince by the free

of a beast though he be obliged by a naturall obligation being a rationall Creature in regard of the law of nature L. naturaliter L. si id quod L. interdum F. de conà indebit cum aliis 2. The subject could not by Solomon be forbidden to be suretie for his friend as King Solomon doth counsell Prov. 6.1 2 3. he could not be condemned to bring on himself poverty by sluggishnesse as Prov. 6.6 7 8 9 10. nor were he to honour the Lord with his riches as Prov. 3.9 nor to keep his Covenant though to his losse Psal. 15.4 nor could he be mercifull and lend Psal. 37.26 nor had he power to borrow nor could he be guiltie in not paying all again Psal. 37.21 For subjects under a Monarch can neither perform a duty nor fail in a duty in the matter of Goods If all be the Kings what power or dominion hath the subject in disposing of his Princes Goods See more in Petr. Rebuffus tract congruae portionis num 225. pag. 109 110. Sed quoad dominium rerum c. QUEST XVII Whether or not the Prince have properly a fiduciarie and ministeriall power of a Tutor Husband Patron Minister head father of a family not of a Lord or dominator THat the power of the King is fiduciarie that is given to him immediatly by God in trust Royallists deny not but we hold that the trust is put upon the King by the people 2. We deny that the people give themselves to the King as a gift for what is freely given cannot be taken againe but they gave themselves to the King as a pawne and if the pawne be abused or not used in that manner as it was conditionated to be used the party in whose hand the pawne is intrusted faileth in his trust 1. Assertion The King is more properly a Tutor then a Father 1. Indigencie is the originall of Tutors the Parents dye what then shall become of the Orphan and his inheritance he cannot guide it himselfe therefore nature devised a Tutor to supply the place of a father and to governe the Tutor but with this consideration the father is Lord of the inheritance and if he be distressed may sell it that it shall never come to the sonne and the father for the bad deserving of his sonne may dis-inherite him but the Tutor being but a borrowed father cannot sell the inheritance of the pupill nor can he for the pupills bad deserving by any dominion of Justice over the pupill take away the inheritance from him and give it to his owne son so a Community of it selfe because of sin is a naked society that can but destroy it selfe and every one eate the flesh of his brother therefore God hath appointed a King or governour who shall take care of that community rule them in peace and save all from reciprocation of mutuall acts of violence yet so as because a trust is put on the Ruler of a community which is not his heritage he cannot dispose of it as he pleaseth because he is not the proper owner of the inheritance 2. The Pupill when he commeth to age may call his Tutor to an accompt for his administration I doe not acknowledge that as a truth which Arnisaeus saith De authoritate prin c. 3. n. 5. The Common-wealth is alwaies minor and under Tutory because it alway hath need of a curator and governour and can never put away its governour bu● the pupill may grow to age and wisedome so as he may be without all Tutors and can guide himselfe and so may call in question his Tutor and the pupill cannot be his Iudge but must stand to the sentence of a superiour Iudge and so the people cannot judge or punish their Prince God must be Iudge betwixt them both But this is 1. a begging of the question every comparison halteth no community but it is Major in this that it can appoint its owne Tutors and though it cannot be without all Rulers yet it may well be without this or that Prince and Ruler and therefore may resume its power which it gave conditionally to the Ruler for its owne safety and good and in so farre as this condition is violated and power turned to the destruction of the Common-wealth it is to be esteemed as not given and though the people be not a politique Iudge in their owne cause yet in case of manifest oppression nature can teach them to oppose defensive violence against offensive a community in its politique body is also above any Ruler and may judge what is manifestly destructive to it selfe Obj. The Pupill hath not power to appoint his owne Tutor nor doth he give power to him so neither doth the people give it to the King Ans. The Pupill hath not indeed a formall power to make a Tutor but he hath vertually a legall power in his father who appointeth a Tutor for his sonne and the people have vertually all Royall power in them as in a sort of immortall and eternall fountain and may create to themselves many Kings Asser. 2. The Kings power is not properly and univocally a Maritall and husbandly power but only Analogically 1. The Wife by nature is the weaker Vessell and inferiour to the man but the Kingdom as shall be demonstrated is superiour to the King 2. The Wife is given as an helpe to the man but by the contrary the man here is given as an helpe and father to the Common-wealth which is presumed to be the wife 3. Maritall and husbandly power is naturall though it be not naturall but from free election that Peter is Ana's Husband and should have been though man had never sinned but Royall Power is a politick constitution and the world might have subsisted though Aristocracy or Democracy had been the only and perpetuall governments So let the Prelate glory in his borrowed Logick he had it from Barclay It is not in the power of the Wife to repudiat her Husband though never so wicked she is tyed to him for ever and may not give to him a bill of Divorcement as by Law the Husband might give to her if therefore the people sweare loyalty to him they must keep though to their hurt Ps. 15. Ans. There 's nothing here said except Barclay and the Plagiarie prove that the Kings Power is properly a Husbands power which they cannot prove but from a Simile that crooketh but a King elected upon conditions that if he sell his people he shall lose his Crown is as essentially a King as Adam was Evahs Husband and yet by grant of parties the people may devorce from such a King and dethrone him if he sell his people but a Wife may never devorce from her Husband as the Argument saith And this poore Argument the Prelate stole from Dr. Ferne part 2. Sec. 3. pag. 10 11. 2. The keeping of Covenant though to our hu●t is a penall hurt and losse of goods not a

morall hurt and losse of Religion Assert 3. The King is more properly a sort of Patron to defend the people and therefore hath no power given either by God or man to hurt the people and a Minister or publick and honourable servant Rom. 13.4 for he is the Minister of God to thee for good he is the Common-wealths servant objectively because all the Kings service as he is King is for the good safety peace and salvation of the people and in this he is a servant 2. He is the servant of the people Representatively in that the people hath impawned in his hand all their power to doe Royall service Obj. He is the servant of God ergo he is not the peoples Servant but their soveraigne Lord. Ans. It followeth not because all the service the King as King performeth to God they are acts of Royalty and acts of Royall service as terminated on the people or acts of their Soveraigne Lord and this proveth that to be their Soveraigne is to be their servant and watch-man Object 2. God maketh a King only and the Kingly power is in him only not in the people Ans. The Royall power is only from God immediatly Immediatione simplicis constitutionis solum a Deo solitudine primae causae by the immediation of simple constitution none but God appointed there should be Kings but 2. Royall power is not in God nor only from God immediatione applicationis regia dignitatis ad personam nec a Deo solum solitudine causae applicantis dignitatem huic non illi in respect of the applying of Royall dignity to this person not to this Object 3. Though Royall power were given to the people it is not given to the people as if it were the Royal power of the people and not the Royall power of God neither is it any other waies bestowed on the people but as on a beame a channell an instrument by which it is derived to others and so the King is not the minister or servant of the people Ans. It is not in the people as in the principall cause Sure all Royall power that way is only in God but it is in the people as in the instrument and when the people maketh David their King at Hebron in that same very act God by the people using their free suffrages and consent maketh David King at Hebron so God only giveth raine and none of the vanities and supposed gods of the Gentiles can give raine Ier. 14 22. and yet the Clouds also give raine as nature as an organ and vessell out of which God powreth down raine upon the dry earth Amos 9.6 and every instrument under God that is properly an instrument is a sort of Vicarious cause in Gods room and so the people as in Gods roome applyeth Royall power to David not to any of Sauls sonnes and appointeth David to be their Royall Servant to governe and in that to serve God and to doe that which a Communitie now in the state of sinne cannot formally doe themselves and so I see not how it is a service to the people not only objectively because the Kings Royall service tendeth to the good and peace and safety of the people but also subjectively in regard he hath his power and Royall authoritie which he exerciseth as King from the people under God as Gods instruments and therefore the King and Parliament give out Lawes and Statutes in the name of the whole people of the Land And they are but flatterers and belye the Holy Ghost who teach that the people doe not make the King for Israel made Saul King at Mizpeh and Israel made David King at Hebron Object 3. Israel made David King that is Israel designed Davids person to be King and Israel consented to Gods act of making David King but they did not make David King Ans. I say not that Israel made the Royall dignitie of Kings God Deut. 17. instituted that himselfe bu● the Royalist must give us an act of God going before an act of the peoples making David King at Hebron by which David of no King is made formally a King and then another act of the People approving only and consenting to that act of God whereby David is made formally of no King to be a King This Royalists shall never instruct for there be only two acts of God here 1. Gods act of annointing David by the hand of Samuel and 2. Gods act of making David King at Hebron and a third they shall never give But the former is not that by which David was essentially and formally changed from the state of a private subject and no King into the state of a publike Judge and supreme Lord and King for as I have proved after this act of annointing of David King he was designed only and set apart to be King in the Lords fit time and after this annointing he was no more formally a King then Doeg or Nabal were Kings but a subject who called Saul the Lords annointed and King and obeyed Saul as another subj●ct doth his King but it is certaine God by no other act made David King at Hebron then by Israels act of free electing him to be King and leader of the Lords people as God by no other act sendeth down rain on the earth but by Gods melting the clouds and causing raine to fall on the earth and therefore to say Israel made David King at Hebron that is Israel approved only and consented to a prior act of Gods making David King is all one as to say Saul prophecied that is Saul consented to a prior act of the Spirit of God who prophecied and Peter preached Act. 2. that is Peter approved and consented to the Holy Ghosts act of preaching Which to say is childish Assert 4. The King is an head of the Commonwealth only metaphorically by a borrowed speech in a politique sense because he ruleth commandeth directeth the whole politique body in all their operations and functions But he is not univocally and essentially the head of the Commonwealth 1. The same very life in number that is in the head is in the members there be divers distinct soules and lives in the King and in his Subjects 2. The head naturall is not made an head by the free election and consent of armes shoulders leggs toes fingers c. The King is made King only by the free election of his people 3. The naturall head so long as the person liveth is ever the head and cannot cease to be a head while it is seated on the shoulders The King if he sell his people their persons and soules may leave off to be a King and Head 4. The head and members live together and dye together the King the people are not so the King may dye and the People live 5. The naturall head cannot destroy the members and preserve it selfe but King Nero may waste and destroy his people

inconsistent with the holinesse of God for so the Lord might deny himself and dispence with sin God avert such blasphemies Now if the kingly power be from God That which essentially and specifically constituteth a King must be from God as the Office it self is from God And Barclay saith expressely That the kingly power is from God and that same which is the specifice form that constituteth a King must be that which essentially separateth the King from the Iudge if they be essentially different as Barclay dreameth Hence have we this jus Regis this Manner or Law of the King to tyrannize and oppresse to be a power from God and so a lawfull power by which you shall have this result of Barclayes interpretation That God made a Tyrant as well as a King 3. By this difference that Barclay putteth betwixt the King and the Judge the Judge might be resisted for he had not this power of domination that Saul hath contrary to Rom. 13.2 Exod. 22.28 and 20.12 But let us try the Text first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word cannot inforce us to expone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a law our English rendreth Shew them the manner of the King Arri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis I grant the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chalde Paraphrase saith Statutum regis Hieronimus translateth it jus regis so Calvin but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude yea and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not alwayes a law as Josh. 6.14 They compassed the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven times 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King 17.26 They know not the manner of the God of the Land Vers. 33. They served their own gods after the manner of the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken in an evill part 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers. 34. Vntill this day they do after these manners 1 Kings 18.28 Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after their manner 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 40.13 Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh according as thou wast wont to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 21.19 He shall deal with her after the manner of daughters 1 Sam. 27.11 And David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring tydings to Gath saying So did David and so will his manner be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be they meaned that it was Davids law right or priviledge to spare none alive 1 Sam. 2.13 And the Priests custome with the people was c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was a wicked custome not a law and the 70. turneth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes taken in a good meaning so P. Martyr He meaneth here of an usurped law saith he Calvin Non jus a deo prescriptum sed tyranidem He speaketh not of Gods law here saith he but of tyranny And Rivetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not ever jus law Sed aliquando morem sive modum rationem agendi The custome and manner of doing so Junius and Tremellius Diodatus exponeth jus This law namely saith he that which is now grown to a common custome by the consent of nations and Gods toleration The interline glosse to speak of Papists exactionem dominationem The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant Lyra exponeth it tyranny Tostatus Abulens He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes as Solomon and others Cornelius a lapide This was an unjust law Cajetanus calleth it tyranny Hugo Cardinal nameth them exactiones servitutes exactions and slaveries And Serrarius he speaketh not here Quid Reges jure possint What they may do by right and law Sed quid audeant What they will be bold to do and what they tyrannically decern against all Laws of nature and humanitie And so speaketh Tho. Aquinas So also Mendoza saith he speaketh of the law of Tyrants and amongst the fathers Clemens Alexandrinus saith on this place Non humanum pollicetur dominum sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum He promiseth not a humane Prince but threatneth to give them an insolent Tyrant and the like also saith Beda And an excellent Lawyer Pet. Rebuffus saith Etiam loquitur de Tyranno qui non erat a Deo electus And that he speaketh of Sauls Tyrannicall usurpation and not of the law prescribed by God Deut. 17. I prove 1. He speaketh of such a power as is answerable to the Acts here spoken of but the Acts here spoken of are Acts of meere tyranny Vers. 11. And this will be the manner of your King that shall reign over you he will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his Chariots and to be his horsemen and some shall run before his Chariots Now to make slaves of their sons was an Act of Tyranny 2. To take their fields and vineyards and oliveyards from them and give them to his servants was no better then Ahabs taking Naboths vineyard from him which by Gods law he might not lawfully sell except in the case of extreme povertie and then in the yeer of Jubilee he might redeem his own inheritance 3. Verse 15 16. To put the people of God to bondage and make them servants was to deal with them as the Tyrant Pharaoh did 4. He speaketh of such a law the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord because of their King but the execution of the just Law of the King Deut. 17. is a blessing and not a bondage which should make the people cry out of the bitternesse of their spirit 5. It is clear here that God is by his Prophet not instructing the King in his duty but as Rabbi Levi Ben. Gersom saith Terrifying them from their purpose of seeking a King and foretelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrannous King But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable Acts of favour that a good King by his good Government was to do for his people Deut. 17. 15 16. But he speaketh of contrary facts here and that he is disswading them from suiting a King is clear from the Text. 1. Because he saith Give them their will but yet protest against their unlawfull course 2. He biddeth the Prophet lay before them the tyranny and oppression of their King which tyranny Saul exercised in his time as the story sheweth 3. Because how uneffectuall Samuels exhortation was is set down Verse 19. Neverthelesse they would not obey the voice of Samuel but said Nay but we will have a King over us if Samuel had not been dehorting them from a King

argument from fact 1. A wicked Magistracie may permit perjurie and lying in the Common-wealth and that without punishment and some Christian Commonweales he meaneth his own Synagogue of Rome spirituall Sodome a cage of uncleane birds suffereth Harlotrie by Law and the whores pay so many thousands yearely to the Pope and are free of all punishment by Law to eschew homicides adulteries of Romish Priests and other greater sinnes Therefore God hath given power to a King to play the Tyrant without any feare of punishment to be inflicted by man But 1. if this be a good argument The Magistrate to whom God hath committed the sword to take vengeance on evill doers Rom. 13.3 4 5 6. such as are perjured persons professed whores and harlots hath a lawfull power from God to connive at sinnes and grosse scandals in the Commonwealth as they dreame that the King hath power given from God to exercise all acts of Tyranny without any resistance But 1. this was a grievous sinne in Eli that he being a father and a Iudge punished not his sonnes for their uncleannesse and his house in Gods heavy displeasure was cut off from the Priesthood therefore Then God hath given no such power to the Iudge 2. The contrary duty is lying on the Iudge To execute judgement for the oppressed Iob 29.12 13 14 15 16 17. Ier. 22.15 16. and perverting of judgement and conniving at the heynous sinnes of the wicked is condemned Num. 5.31 32. 1 Sam. 15.23 1 King 20.42 43. Esa. 1.17 10.1 5.23 and therefore God hath given no power to a Iudge to permit wicked men to commit grievous crimes without any punishment As for the Law of Divorce it was indeed a permissive law whereby the husband might give the wife a bill of divorce and be free of punishment before men but not free of sinne and guiltinesse before God for it was contrary to Gods institution of Mariage at the beginning as Christ saith and the Prophet saith that the Lord hateth putting away But that God hath given any such permissive power to the King that he may doe what he pleaseth and cannot be resisted This is in question 3. The Law spoken of in the Text is by Royalists called not a consuetude of Tranny but the divine law of God whereby the King is formally and essentially distinguished from the Judge in Israel Now if so a power to sinne and a power to commit acts of Tyranny yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants and bloody Emissaries to waste and destroy the people of God must be a lawfull power given of God for a lawfull power it must be if it commeth from God whether it be from the King in his own person or from his servants at his commandement and by either put forth in acts as the power of a bill of Divorce was a power from God exempting either the husband from punishment before men or freeing the servant who at the husbands command should write it and put it in the hands of the woman I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by Law to one Man to command twenty thousand Cut-throats to kill and destroy all the Children of God and that he hath commanded his Children to give their necks and heads to Babels sonnes without resistance This I am sure is another matter then a Law for a bill of Divorce to one woman maried by free election of a humorous and unconstant man But sure I am God gave no permissive law from heaven like the law of Divorce for the hardnesse of the heart not of the Iewes only but also of the whole Christian and Heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch that one Emperour may by such a Law of God as the Law of Divorce kill by bloody Cut-throats such as the Irish Rebels are all the Nations that call on Gods name men women and sucking infants And if Providence impede the Catholike issue and dry up the seas of Blood it is good but God hath given a law such as the law of Divorce to the King whereby he and all his may without resistance by a legall power given of God who giveth Kings to be fathers nurses protectors guides yea the breath of nostrils of his Church as speciall mercies and blessings to his people he may I say by a law of God as it is 1 Sam. 8.9 11. cut off Nations as that Lyon of the world Nebuchadnezzar did So Royalists teach us Barclaius l. 2. cont Monarchoma pag. 69. The Lord spake to Samuel the Law of the King and wrot it in a book● and laid it up before the Lord. But what Law That same law which he proposed to the people when they first sought a King but that was the Law contemning Precepts rather for the peoples obeying then for the Kings commanding for the people was to be instructed with those precepts not the King Those things that concerned the Kings duty Deut. 17. Moses commanded to be put into the Arke but so if Samuel had commanded the King that which Moses Deut. 17. commanded he had done no new thing but had done againe what was once done actum egisset but there was nothing before commanded the people concerning their obedience and patience under evill Princes Ioseph Antiq. l. 6. c. 5. he wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evills that were to befall them Ans. It was not that same Law for though this Law was written to the people yet it was the Law of the King and I pray you did Samuel write in a booke all the Rules of Tyranny and teach Saul and all the Kings after him for this book was put in the Ark of the Covenant where also was the booke of the Law how to play the Tyrant And what instruction was it to King or people to write to them a book of the wicked waies of a King which nature teacheth without a Doctor Sanctius saith on the place These things which by mens fraud and to the hurt of the publick may be corrupted were kept in the Tabernacle and the booke of the Law was kept in the Arke Cornelius a Lapide saith It was the Law common to King and people which was commonly kept with the booke of the Law in the Arke of the Covenant Lyra contradicteth Barclay he exponeth Legem legem regni non secundum usurpationem supra positam sed secundum ordinationem Dei positam Deut. 17. Theodat excellently exponeth it the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome inspired by God to temper Monarchy with a liberty befitting Gods people and with equity toward a Nation to withstand the abuse of an absolute power 2. Can any beleeve Samuel would have written a Law of Tyranny and put that booke in the Arke of the Covenant before the Lord to be kept to the posterity seeing he was to teach both King and people the good and the right way 1 Sam. 12.23 24 25. 3. Where is the Law of the Kingdome called a Law of

punishing innocent people 4. To write the duty of the King in a booke and apply it to the King is no more superfluous nor to teach the people the good and the right way out of the Law and apply generalls to persons 5. There is nothing in the Law 1 Sam. 8.9.11.12 of the peoples patience but rather of their impatient crying out God not hearing nor helping and nothing of that in this booke for any thing that we know and Iosephus speaketh of the Law 1 Sam. 8. not of this Law 1 Sam. 12. QUEST XIX Whether or no the King be in Dignity and power above the people IN this grave question divers considerations are to be pondered 1. There is a Dignity materiall in the people scattered they being many representations of God and his Image which is in the King also and formally more as King he being indued with formall Magistraticall and publick Royall Authority in the former regard this or that man is inferiour to the King because the King hath that same remander of the Image of God that any private man hath and something more he hath a politicke resemblance of the King of Heavens being a little God and so is above any one man 2. All these of the people taken collectively having more of God as being representations are according to this materiall dignity excellenter then the King because many are excellenter then one and the King according to the Magistraticall and Royall Authority he hath is excellenter then they are because he partaketh formally of Royalty which they have not formally 3. A meane or medium as it is such is lesse then the end though the thing materially that is a meane may be excellenter every mean as a meane under that reduplication hath all its goodnesse and excellency in relation to the end yet an Angell that is a meane and a ministring Spirit ordained of God for an heire of life eternall Heb. 1.13 considered materially is excellenter then a man Psal. 8.5 Heb. 2.6 7 8. 4. A King and leader in a military consideration and as a Governour and conserver of the whole Army is more worth then ten thousand of the people 2 Sam. 18.3 5. But simply and absolutely the people is above and more excellent then the King and the King in Dignity inferiour to the people and that upon these Reasons 1. Because he is the meane ordained for the people as for the end that he may save them 2. Sam. 19.9 a publick shepheard to feede them Ps. 78.70 71 72 73. the Captaine and Leader of the Lords inheritance 1 Sam. 10.1 to defend them the Minister of God for their good Rom. 13.4 2. The Pilot is lesse then the whole Passengers the Generall lesse then the whole Army the Tutor lesse then all the children the Physician lesse then all the living men whose health he careth for the Master or Teacher lesse then all the Schollars because the part is lesse then the whole the King is but a part and a member though I grant a very eminent and Noble Member of the Kingdome 3. A Christian people especially is the portion of the Lords inheritance Deut. 32.9 the sheepe of his pasture his redeemed ones for whom God gave his blood Act. 20.28 And the killing of a man is to violate the Image of God Gen. 9.6 and therefore the death and destruction of a Church and of thousand thousands of men is a sadder and a more heavy matter then the death of a King who is but one man 4. A King as a King or because a King is not the inheritance of God nor the chosen and called of God nor the sheepe or flocke of the Lords pasture nor the redeemed of Christ for those excellencies agree not to Kings because they are Kings for then all Kings should be indued with those excellencies and God should an be accepter of persons if he put those excellencies of Grace upon men for externall respects of highnesse and Kingly power and worldly glory and splendor for many living Images and representations of God as he is holy or more excellent then a politique representation of Gods greatnesse and Majesty such as the King is because that which is the fruit of a love of God which commeth nearer to Gods most speciall love is more excellent then that which is farther remote from his speciall love now though Royalty be a beame of the Majesty of the greatnesse of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords yet is it such a fruit and beam of Gods greatnesse as may consist with the eternall reprobation of the party loved so now Gods love from whence he communicateth his Image representing his owne holinesse commeth nearer to his most speciall love of election of men to glory 5. If God give Kings to be a ransome for his Church and if he stay great Kings for their sake as Pharaoh King of Aegypt Esa. 43.3 and Sihon King of the Amorites and Og King of Bashan Ps. 136.18 19 20. if he plead with Princes and Kings for destroying his people Esa. 3. v. 12 13 14. if he make Babylon and her King a threshing-floore for the violence done to the inhabitants of Zion Ier. 51.33 34 35. then his people as his people must be so much dearer and more precious in the Lords eyes then Kings because they are Kings by how much more his Justice is active to destroy the one and his Mercy to save the other Neither is the Argument taken off by saying the King must in this question be compared with his owne people not a forraigne King with other forraigne people over whom he doth not Raigne for the Argument proveth that the people of God are of more worth then Kings as Kings and Nebuchadnezer and Pharaoh for the time were Kings to the people of God and forraigne Kings are no lesse essentially Kings then Kings native are 6. Those who are given of God as gifts for the preservation of the people to be Nurse-fathers to them those must be of lesse worth before God then those to whom they are given since the gift as the gift is lesse then the party on whom the gift is bestowed But the King is a gift for the good and preservation of the people as is cleare Esa 1.26 And from this that God gave his people a King in his wrath we may conclude that a King of himselfe except God be angry with his people must be a gift 7. That which is eternall and cannot politically die yea which must continue as the dayes of heaven because of Gods promise That is more excellent then that which is both accidentall temporarie and mortall But the People is both eternall as People because Eccles. 1.4 one generation passeth away and another generation commeth And as a people in covenant with God Ier. 32.40 41. in respect that a People and Church though mortall in the individuals yet the Church remaining the

God and the people is only the instrumentall cause and Spalato saith that the people doth indirectly only give Kingly power because God at their act of election ordinarily giveth it Ans. The Scripture saith plainly as we heard before the people made Kings and if they doe as other second causes produce their effects it is all one that God as the principall cause maketh Kings else we should not argue from the cause to the effect amongst the creatures 2. God by that same action that the people createth a King doth also by them as by his instruments create a King and that God doth not immediatly at the naked presence of the act of popular election conferre Royall dignity on the man without any action of the people as they say by the Churches act of conferring Orders God doth immediatly without any act of the Church infuse from Heaven supernaturall habilities on the man without any active influence of the Church is evident by this 1. The Royall power to make Lawes with the King and so a power eminent in their states representative to governe themselves is in the people for if the most high act of Royalty be in them why not the power also and so what need to fetch a Royall power from Heaven to be immediatly infused in him seeing the people hath such a power in themselves at hand 2. The people can and doth limite and bind Royall power in elected Kings ergo they have in them Royall power to give to the King those who limit power can take away so many degrees of Royall power and those who can take away power can give power and it is unconceiveable to say that people can put restraint upon a power immediatly comming from God if Christ immediatly infuse an Apostolick spirit in Paul mortall men cannot take from him any degrees of that infused spirit if Christ infuse a spirit of nine degrees the Church cannot limit it to six degrees only but Royalists consent that the people may choose a King upon such conditions to raigne as he hath Royall power of ten degrees whereas his Ancester had by birth a power of foureteen degrees 3. It is not intelligible that the Holy Ghost should give Commandement to the people to make such a man King Deut. 17.15 16. and forbid them to make such a man King if the people had no active influence in making a King at all but God solely and immediately from Heaven did infuse Royalty in the King without any action of the people save a naked consent only and that after God had made the King they should approve only with an after-act of naked approbation 4. If the people by other Governours as by heads of families and other choise men governe themselves and produce these same formall effects of Peace Justice Religion on themselves which the King doth produce then is there a power of the same kind and as excellent as the Royall power in the people and no reason but this power should be holden to come immediatly from God as the Royall Power for it is every way of the same nature and kind and as I shall prove Kings and Iudges differ not in nature and spece but it is experienced that people doe by Aristocraticall guides governe themselves c. so then if God immediatly infuse Royalty when the people chooseth a King without any action of the people then must God immediatly infuse a beame of governing on a Provost and a Bailiffe when the people choose such and that without any action of the people because all Powers are in abstracto from God Rom. 13.2 and God as immediatly maketh inferiour Iudges as superiour Prov. 8.16 and all promotion even to be a Provost or Major commeth from God only as to be a King except Royalists say all promotion commeth from the East and from the West and not from God except promotion to the Royall Throne the contrary whereof is said Ps. 75.6 7. 1 Sam. 2.7 8. not only Kings but all Judges are Gods Ps. 82.1 2. and therefore all must be the same way created and moulded of God except by Scripture Royalists can shew us a difference An English Prelate giveth Reasons why People who are said to make Kings as efficients and Authors cannot unmake them the one is because God as chief and sole supreame Moderator maketh Kings but I say Christ as the chiefe Moderator and head of the Church doth immediatly conferre abilities to a man to be a Preacher and though by industry the man acquire abilities yet in regard the Church doth not so much as instrumentally conferre those abilities they may be said to come from God immediatly in relation to the Church who calleth the man to the ministery yea Royalists as our excommunicated Prelate learned from Spalato say that God at the naked presence of the Churches call doth immediatly infuse that from Heaven by which the man is now in Holy Orders and a Pastor whereas he was not so before and yet Prelates cannot deny but they can unmake Ministers and have practised this in their unhallowed Courts and therefore though God immediatly without any action of the people make Kings this is a weake reason to prove they cannot unmake them As for their undeleble character that Prelates cannot take from a Minister it is nothing if the Church may unmake a Minister though his character goe to prison with him we seeke no more but to anull the reason God immediatly maketh Kings and Pastors ergo no power on earth can unmake them this consequence is as weake as water 2. The other cause is because God hath erected no Tribunall on earth higher then the Kings Tribunall ergo no power on earth can unmake a King the Antecedent and consequence is both denyed and is a begging of the question for the Tribunall that made the King is above the King 2. Though there be no Tribunall formally regall and Kingly above the King yet is there a Tribunall vertuall eminently above him in the case of tyranny for the States and Princes have a Tribunall above him 3. To this the constituent cause is of more power and dignity then the effect and so the people is above the King The P. Prelate borrowed an answer from Arnisaeus and Barclay and other Royalists and saith If we knew any thing in Law or were ruled by reason Every constituent saith Arnisaeus and Barclay more accurately then the P. Prelate had a head to transcribe their words where the constituent hath resigned all his power in the hand of the Prince whom h● constitutes is of more worth and power then he in whose hand they resigne the power so the proposition is false The servant who hath constituted his Master Lord of his liberty is not worthier then his Master whom he hath made his Lord and to whom he hath given himselfe a● a slave for after he hath resigned his liberty he cannot repent he

above the Master But by this reason the shepherd should be inferior to bruit beasts to sheep And the master of the familie is for the familie and referreth all that he hath for the entertaining of the familie but it followeth not therefore the familie is above him The forme is for the action therefore the action is more excellent then the forme and an accident then the subject or substance And Grotius saith Every government is not for the good of another but some for its own good as the government of a master over the servant and the husband over the wife Ans. I take the answer thus Those who are meere meanes and only meanes referred to the end they are inferior to the end but the King as King hath all his officiall and relative goodnesse in the world as relative to the end All that you can imagine to be in a King as a King is all relative to the safety and good of the people Rom. 13.4 He is a minister for thy good He should not as King make himselfe or his own gaine and honour his end I grant the King as a man shall dye as another man and so he may secondarily intend his own good and what excellencie he hath as a man is the excellencie of one mortall man and cannot make him amount in dignitie and in the absolute consideration of the excellencie of a man to be above many men and a whole Kingdome for the moe good things there be the better they are so the good things be multiplicable as a hundred men are better then one Otherwise if the good be such as cannot be multiplied as one God the multiplication maketh them worse as many Gods are inferiour to one God Now if Royalists can shew us any more in the King then these two we shall be obliged to them and in both he is inferiour to the whole The Prelate and his followers would have the Maxime to lose credit for then say they the shepherd should be inferior to the sheep But in this the Maxime faileth indeed 1. Because the shepherd is a reasonable man and the sheep bruit beasts and so must be excellenter then all the flocks of the world Now as he is a reasonable man he is not a shepherd nor in that relation referred to the sh●ep and their preservation as a mean to the end but he is a shepherd by accident for the unrulinesse of the creatures for mans sinne withdrawing themselves from that naturall dominion that man had over the creatures before the fall of man in that relation of a meane to the end and so by accident is this officiall relation put on him and according to that officiall relation and by accident man is put to be a servant to the bruitish creature and a meane to so base an end But all this proveth him through mans sinne and by accident to be under the officiall relation of a meane to baser creatures then himselfe as to the end but not as a reasonable man But the King as King is an officiall and Royall meane to this end that the people may lead a godly and peaceable life under him And this officiall relation being an accident is of lesse worth then the whole people as they are to be governed And I grant the Kings sonne in relation to blood and birth is more excellent then his Teachers but as he is taught he is inferiour to his Teacher but in both considerations the King is inferior to the people for though he cōmand the people and so have an executive power of law above them yet have they a fountain power above him because they made him King and in Gods intention he is given as King for their good according to that Thou shalt feed my people Israel that I gave him for a leader of my people 4. Saith the P. Prelate The constituent cause is excellenter then the effect constituted where the constitution is voluntary and dependeth upon the free act of the will as when the King maketh a Vice-Roy or a Iudge durante beneplacito during his free will but not when a man maketh over his right to another for then there should be neither faith nor truth in covenants if people might make over their power to their King and retract and take back what they have once given Ans. This is a begging of the question for it is denyed that the people can absolutely make away their whole power to the King It dependeth on the people that they be not destroyed They give to the King a politique power for their own safetie and they keepe a naturall power to themselves which they must conserve and cannot give away and they doe not breake their covenant when they put in act that naturall power to conserve themselves for though the people should give away that power and sweare though the King should kill them all they should not resist nor defend their own lives yet that being an oath against the sixth Command which enjoyneth naturall selfe-preservation it should not oblige the conscience for it should be intrinsecally sinfull and it 's all one to sweare to non-self-preservation as to sweare to selfe-murther 5. If the people saith the Prelate begging the answer from Barclay the constituent be more excellent then the effect and so the people above the King because they constitute him King Then the Counties and Corporations may make voyd all the Commissions given to the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons and send others in their place and repeal their Orders therefore Buchanan saith that Orders and Lawes in Parliament were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preparatorie consultationis and had not the force of a Law till the people give their consent and have their influence authoritative upon the Statutes and Acts of Parliament But the observator holdeth that the legislative power is whole and intire in the Parliament But when the Scots were preferring Petitions and Declarations they put all power in the collective body and kept their distinct tables Ans. There is no consequence here the Counties and Incorporations that send Commissioners to Parliament may make voyd their Commissions and anull their Acts because they constitute them Commissioners if they be unjust acts they may disobey them and so disanull them but it is presumed God hath given no morall power to doe ill nor can the Counties and Corporations give any such power to evill for they have not any such f●om God if they be just acts they are to obey them and cannot retract Commissions to make just Orders Illud tantum possumus quod ●ure possumus and therefore as power to governe justly is irrevocably committed by the three est●tes who made the King to the King so is that same power committed by the Shires and Corporations to their Commissioners to decree in Parliament what is just and good irrevocably and to take any j●st power from the King which

is his due is a great sin but when he abuseth his power to the destruction of his subjects it is lawfull to throw a sword out of a mad-mans hand though it be his owne proper sword and though he have due right to it and a just power to use it for good for all fiduciary power abused may be repealed and if the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons abuse their fiduciary power to the destruction of these Shires and Corporations who put the trust on them the observator did never say that Parliamentary power was so intire and irrevocably in them as that the people may not resist them anull their Commissions and rescind their acts and denude them of fiduciary power even as the King may be denuded of that same power by the three estates for particular Corporations are no more to be denuded of that fountain-power of making Commissioners and of the self preservation then the three estates are 2. The P. Prelate commeth not home to the mind of Buchanan who knew the fundamental Lawes of Scotland the power of Parliaments for his meaning was not to deny a legislative power in the Parliament but when he calleth their Parliamentary declarations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning is only that which Lawyers and Schoole-men both say Leges non promulgatae non habent vim legis actu completo obligatoriae Lawes not promulgated doe not oblige the subject while they be promulgated but he falsifies Buchannan when he saith Parliamentary Lawes must have the authoritative influence of the people before they can be formall Lawes or any more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or preparatory notions And it was no wonder when the King denyed a Parliament and the supreme Senate of the secret Counsell was corrupted then that the people did set up Tables and extraordinary judicatures of the three estates seeing there could not be any other government for the time 6. Barclay answereth to that The meane is inferiour to the end it holdeth not the Tutor and Curator is for the minor as for the end and given for his good but it followeth not that therefore the Tutor in the administration of the minor or Pupils inheritance is not superiour to the minor Ans. 1. It followeth well that the Minor virtually and in the intention of the Law is more excellent then the Tutor though the Tutor can exercise more excellent acts then the Pupill by accident for defect of age in the Minor yet he doth exercise those acts with subordination to the Minor and with correction because he is to render an account of his doings to the Pupill comming to age so the Tutor is only more excellent and superiour in some respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not simply and so is the King in some respect above the people The P. Prelate beggeth from the Royalists another of our Arguments Quod efficit tale est magis tale That which maketh another such is farre more such it selfe if the people give Royall Power to the King then farre more is the Royall Power in the people By this saith the Prelate it shall follow if the observator give all his goods to me to make me rich the observator is more rich if the people give most part of their goods to foment the Rebellion then the people are more rich having given all they have upon the Publicke Faith Ans. 1. This greedy Prelate was made richer then ten poore Pursevants by a Bishopricke it will follow well ergo the Bishopricke is richer then the Bishop whose goods the curse of God blasteth 2. It holdeth in efficient causes so working in other things as the vertue of the effect remaineth in the cause even after the production of the effect As the Sunne maketh all things light the Fire all things hot therefore the Sun is more light the Fire more hot but where the cause doth alienate and make over in a corporall manner that which it hath to another as the hungry Prelate would have the Observators goods it holde●h not for the effect may exhaust the vertue of the cause but the people doth as the fountaine derive a streame of Royalty to Saul and make him King and yet so as they keepe Fountain-power of making Kings in themselves yea when Saul is dead to make David King at Hebron and when he is dead to make Solomon King and after him to make Rehoboam King and therefore in the people there is more fountaine power of making Kings then in David in Saul in any King of the world as for the Prelates jeere about the peoples giving of their goods to the good cause I hope it shall by the blessing of God inrich them more whereas Prelates by the Rebellion in Ireland to which they assent when they counsell His Majesty to sell the blood of some hundred thousands of innocents killed in Ireland are brought from thousands a yeare to begg a morsell of bread The Prelate answereth that Maxime Quod ef●icit tale id ipsum est magis tale That which maketh another such it is it selfe more such It is true De principio formali effectivo as I learned in the Vniversity of such an Agent as is formally such in it selfe as is the effect produced Next it is such as is effective and productive of it selfe as when fire heateth cold water so the quality must be formally inherent in the Agent as Wine maketh drunke it followeth not Wine is more drunke because Drunkennesse is not inherent in the Wine nor is it capable of drunkennesse and therefore Aristotle qualifieth the Maxime with this Quod efficit tale est magis tale modo utrique insit And it holdeth not in Agents who operate by donation if the right of the King be transferred from the people to the King The donation devesteth the people totally of it except the King have it by way of loane which to my thinking never yet any spoke Soveraignty never was never can be in the Community Soveraignty hath power of life and death which none hath over himselfe and the community conceived without government all as equall endowed with Natures and native liberty of that community can have no power over the life of another And so the Argument may be turned home if the people be not tales such by nature as hath formally Royall power he should say they cannot give the King Royall Power Also none hath power of life and death either eminenter or formally the people either singly or collectively have not power over their owne life much lesse over their neighbours Ans. 1. The Prelate would make the maxime true of a formall cause and this he learned in the University of St. Andrewes he wrongeth the University he rather learned it while he kept the Calves of Craile the wall is white from whitenesse ergo whitenesse is more white by the Prelates learning never such thing was taught in that learned University 2.

act of government Now as they are conceived to want all government they cannot performe any act of government And this is as much against himselfe as against us 2. The power of a part and the power of the whole is not alike Royaltie never advanceth the King above the place of a member And Lawyers say The King is above the subjects in sensu diviso in a divisive sense he is above this or that subject but he is inferiour to all the subjects collectively taken because he is for the whole Kingdome as a meane for the end Object If this be a good reason that he is a meane for the whole Kingdome as for the end that he is therefore inferiour to the whole Kingdome then is he also inferior to any one subject for he is a meane for the safety of every subject as for the whole Kingdome Answ. Every meane is inferior to its compleat adequate and whole end and such an end is the whole Kingdome in relation to the King but every man is not alwayes inferiour to its incompleat inadequate and partiall end This or that subject is not adequate but the inadequate and incompleat end in relation to the King The Prelate saith Kings are Dii Elohim Gods and the manner of their propagation is by filiation by adoption sonnes of the most high and Gods first borne Now the first borne is not above every brother severally but if there were thousands millions numberlesse numbers he is above all in precedencie and power Answ. Not only Kings but all inferiour Iudges are Gods Psal. 82. God standeth in the congregation of the Gods that is not a congregation of Kings So Exo. 22.8 the master of the house shall be brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Gods or to the Judges And that there were more Iudges then one is cleare by vers 9. and if they shall condemne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jarshignur condemnarint Joh. 10.35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He called them Gods Exod. 4.16 Thou shalt be to Aaron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a God They are Gods analogically only God is infinite not so the King 2. Gods will is a law not so the Kings 3. God is an end to himselfe not so the King The Iudge is but God by office and representation and conservation of the people 2. It is denyed that the first-borne is in power before all his brethren though there were millions That is but said One as one is inferior to a multitude as the first-borne was a Politick Ruler to his brethren he was inferiour to them politically Object 3. The collective Vniversitie of a Kingdome are subjects sonnes and the King their father no lesse then this or that subject is the Kings subject For the universitie of Subjects are either the King or the King subjects for all the kingdome must be one of these two but they are not the King Ergo they are his subjects Answ. All the Kingdome in any consideration is not either King or Subjects I give a third The Kingdome collective is neither properly King nor Subject but the Kingdome embodied in a State having collaterall or coordinate power with the King Object 4. The universitie is ruled by lawes Ergo they are inferior to the King who ruleth all by law Answ. The Universitie properly is no otherwise ruled by lawes then the King is ruled by lawes The Universitie formally is the compleat Politick body indued with a nomothetick facultie which cannot use violence against it selfe and so is not properly under a Law QUEST XX. Whether or no inferiour Judges be univocally and essentially Judges and the immediate Vicars of God no lesse then the King or if they be onely the Deputies and Vicars of the King IT is certain that in one and the same Kingdom the power of the King is more in extension then the power of any inferiour Iudge but if these powers of the King and the inferiour Iudges differ intensivè and in spece and nature is the question though it be not all the question Assert Inferiour Iudges are no lesse essentially Iudges and the immediate Vicars of God then the King 1. These who judge in the room of God and exercise the judgement of God are essentially Iudges and the Deputies of God as well as the King but inferiour Iudges are such Ergo The proposition is clear the formall reason why the King is univocally and essentially a Iudge is because the Kings throne is the Lords throne 1 Chron. 29.23 And Solomon sate on the throne of the Lord as King instead of David his father 1 King 1.13 It is called Davids throne because the King is the Deputy of Iehovah and the judgement is the Lords I prove the assumption Inferiour Iudges appointed by King Iehoshaphat have this place 2 Chro. 19.6 The King said to the Iudges Take heed what ye do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ye judge not for man but for the Lord then they were Deputies in the place of the Lord and not the Kings Deputies in the formall and officiall acts of judging 7. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you take heed and do it for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God nor respect of persons or taking of gifts Hence I argue If the Holy Ghost in this good King forbid inriour Judges wresting of judgement respecting of persons and taking of gifts because the judgement is the Lords and if the Lord himself were on the Bench he would not respect persons nor take gifts then he presumeth that inferiour Iudges are in the stead and place of Jehovah and that when these inferiour Iudges should take gifts they make as it were the Lord whose place they represent to take gifts and to do iniquitie and to respect persons but that the holy Lord cannot do 2. If the inferiour Iudges in the act of judging were the Vicars and Deputies of King Jehoshaphat he would have said Judge righteous judgement Why For the judgement is mine and if I the King were on the Bench I would not respect persons nor take gifts and you judge for me the supreme Judge as my Deputies but the King saith They judge not for man but for the Lord. 3. If by this they were not Gods immediate Vicars but the Vicars and Deputies of the King then being meer servants the King might command them to pronounce such a sentence and not such a sentence as I may command my servant and deputy in so far as he is a servant and deputie to say this and say not this but the King cannot limit the conscience of the inferiour Iudge because the judgement is not the Kings but the Lords 4. The King cannot command any other to do that as King for the doing whereof he hath no power from God himself but the King hath no power from God to pronounce what sentence he pleaseth because the judgement is not his own but Gods And though inferiour Iudges

man intendeth because of the supreme absolute and illimited power that God hath given him But this is a begging of the question and all one as to say the King may not be resisted because he may not be resisted for sanctitie of Majestie if we beleeve Royalists includeth essentially an absolute supremacie of power whereby they are above the reach of all thrones lawes powers or resistance on Earth But the Argument is Resist no● because the Power is of God But the inferiour Magistrates power is of God 2. Resist not because you resist Gods ordinance in resisting the Iudge But the inferior Iudge is Gods ordinance Rom. 13.1 Deut. 1.17 2 Chro. 19.6 3. Mr. Symmons saith all Iudges on earth are from the Kings as starres have their light from the Sun I answer 1. Then Aristocracie were unlawfull for it hath not its power from Monarchie Had the Lords of the Philistims have the States of Holland no power but from a Monarchie Name the Monarch Have the Venetians any power from a King Indeed our Prelate saith from Augustine Confess lib. 3. cap. 8. Generale pactum est societatis humanae obedire Regibus suis It is an universall covenant of humane societie and a dictate of nature that men obey their Kings I beg the favour of Sectaries saith he to shew as much for Aristocracie and Democracie Now all other governments to bellies borne at Court are the inventions of men But I can shew that same warrant for the one as for the other because it is as well the dictate of nature that People obey their Iudges and Rulers as it is that they obey their Kings And Austin speaketh of all Iudges in that place though he name Kings for Kingly government is no more of the law of nature then Aristocracie or Democracie nor are any borne Iudges or Subjects at all There is a naturall aptitude in all to either of these for the conservation of nature and that is all Let us see that men naturally inclining to Government incline rather to Royall Government then to any other That the P. Prelate shall not be able to show For fatherly government being in two is not Kingly but nearer to Aristocracy and when many families were on earth every one independent within themselves if a commune enemy should invade a tract of Land governed by families I conceive by natures light they should incline to defend themselves and to joyne in one politique body for their owne safety as is most naturall but in that case they having no King and there we●e no reason of many fathers all alike loving their own families and selfe preservation why one should be King over all rather then another except by voluntary compact so it is cleare that Nature is nearer to Aristocracy before this contract then a Monarchy and let him shew us in multitudes of families dwelling together before there was a King as cleare a warrant for Monarchy as here is for Aristocracy though to me both be lawdable and lawfull ordinances of God and the difference meerely accidentall being one and the same power from the Lord Rom. 13.1 which is in divers subjects in one as a Monarchy in many as in Aristocracy and the one is as naturall as the other and the subjects are accidentall to the nature of the power 2. The Starrs have no light at all but in actuall aspect toward the Sun and they are not lightsome bodies by the free will of the Sunne and have no immediate light from God formally but from the Sun so as if there were no Sun there should be no Starres 3. for actuall shining and sending out of beames of light actu secundo they depend upon the presence of the Sun but for inferiour Iudges though they have their call from the King yet have they gifts to governe from no King on earth but only from the King of Kings 4. When the King is dead the Iudges are Iudges and they depend not on the King for their second acts of judging and for the actuall emission and putting forth their beames and raies of justice upon the poore and needy they depend on no voluntary aspect information or commandement of the King but on that immediate subjection of their conscience to the King of Kings And their Iudgement which they execute is the Lords immediatly and not the Kings and so the comparison halteth Arg. Our 10th Arg. If the King dying the Iudges inferiour remaine powers from God the Deputies of the Lord of Hoasts having their power from God then are they essentially Iudges yea and if the estates in their prime representators and leaders have power in the death of the King to choose and make another King then are they not Iudges and Rulers by derivation and participation or unproperly but the King is rather the Ruler by derivation and participation then these who are called inferiour Iudges Now if these Iudges depend in their Sentences upon the immediat will of him who is supposed to be the only Iudge when this only Iudge dyeth they should cease to be Iudges for Expirante mandatore expirat mandatum because the Fountaine Iudge drying up the streames must dry up Now when Saul dyed the Princes of the Tribes remaine by Gods institution Princes and they by Gods Law and Warrant Deut. 17. choose David their King 11. If the King through absolute power doe not send inferiour Iudges and constitute them but only by a power from the people and if the Lord have no lesse immediate influence in making inferiour Iudges then in making Kings then is there no ground that the King should be sole Iudge and the inferiour Iudge only Iudge by derivation from him and essentially his Deputy and not the immediate Deputy of God But the former is true ergo so is the latter And first that the Kings absolute Will maketh not inferiour Iudges is cleare from Deut. 1.15 Moses might not follow his owne will in making inferiour Iudges whom he pleased God tyed him to a Law v. 13. that he should take wise men known amongst the people and fearing God and hating covetousnesse And these qualifications were not from Moses but from God and no lesse immediatly from God then the inward qualification of a King Deut. 17. and therefore it is not Gods Law that the King may make inferiour Iudges only Durante beneplacito during his absolute will for if these Divine qualifications remaine in the seventy Elders Moses at his will could not remove them from their places 2. That the King can make heritable Iudges more then he can communicate faculties and parts of judging I doubt riches are of fathers but not promotion which is from God and neither from the East nor the West That our Nobles are borne Lords of Parliament and Iudges by blood is a positive Law 3. It seemeth to me from Esay 3.1 2 3 4. that the inferiour Iudge is made by consent of the people nor

will not execute the judgement of the Lord Those who made him supreme Magistrate under God who have under God soveraigne libertie to dispose of crownes and kingdomes are to execute the judgement of the Lord when wicked men make the law of God of none effect 1 Sam. 15.32 so Samuel killed Hagage whom the Lord expresly commanded to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord. I deny not but there is necessitie of a cleere warrant that the Magistrate neglect his duty either in not conveening the States or not executing the judgement of the Lord. 3. I see not how the conveening of a Parliament is extraordinarie to the States for none hath power ordinary when the King is dead or when he is distracted or captive in another land to conveene the Estates and Parliament but they only and in their defect by the law of Nature the people may conveene But 4. If they be essentially Iudges no lesse then the King as I have demonstrated to the impartiall Reader in the former Chapter I conceive though the State make a positive law for Orders cause that the King ordinarily conveene Parliaments Yet if we dispute the matter in the court of Conscience the Estates have intrinsecally because they are the Estates and essentially Iudges of the Land ordinary power to conveene themselves 1. Because when Moses by Gods rule hath appointed seventie men to be Catholike Iudges in the Land Moses upon his sole pleasure and will hath not power to restraine them in the exercise of judgment given them of God for as God hath given to any one Iudge power to judge righteous judgement though the King command the contrary so hath he given to him power to sit down in the gate or the bench when and where the necessitie of the oppressed people calleth for it For 1. the expresse commandement of God which saith to all Iudges Execute judgement in the morning involveth essentially a precept to all the Physicall actions without which it is impossible to execute judgement As namely if by a divine precept the Iudge must execute judgement ergo he must come to some publique place and he must cause partie and witnesses come before him and he must consider cognosce examine in the place of judgement things persons circumstances and so God who commandeth positive acts of judgeing commandeth the Iudges locomotive power and his naturall actions of compelling by the sword the parties to come before him even as Christ who commandeth his servants to preach commandeth that the Preacher and the People goe to Church and that he stand or sit in a place where all may heare and that he give himselfe to reading and meditating before he come to preach And if God command one Iudge to come to the place of judgement so doth he command seventie and so all Estates to conveen in the place of judgement It is objected That the Estates are not Iudges ordinary and habitually but only Iudges at some certaine occasions when the King for cogent and weighty causes calleth them and calleth them not to judge but to give him advise and counsell how to judge Ans. 1. They are no lesse Iudges habitually then the King when the common affaires of the whole Kingdome necessitateth these Publique Watchmen to come together for even the King judgeth not actually but upon occasion 2. This is to beg the question to say that the Estates are not Iudges but when the King calleth them at such and such occasions for the Elders Princes and Heads of families and Tribes were Iudges ordinarie because they made the King And 2. the Kingdome by God yea and Church Iustice and Religion so far as they concerne the whole Kingdome are committed not to the keeping of the King only but to all the Iudges Elders and Princes of the Land And they are rebuked as evening wolves lyons oppressors Ezech. 22.27 Zaca 3.3 Esa. 3.14 15. Mic. 3.1 2 3. when they oppresse the people in judgement So are they Deut. 1.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19.6 7. made Iudges and therefore they are no more to be restrained not to conveene by the Kings power which is in this accumulative and auxiliarie not privative then they can be restrained in judgement and in pronouncing such a sentence as the King pleased and not such a sentence Because as they are to answer to God for unjust sentences so also for no just sentences and for not conveening to judge when Religion and Iustice which are fallen in the streets calleth for them 3. As God in a law of nature hath given to every man the keeping and selfe-preservation of himselfe and of his brother Cain ought in his place to be the keeper of Abel his brother So hath God committed the keeping of the Commonwealth by a positive law not to the King only because that is impossible Num. 11.14 17. 2 Chron. 19.1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Chron. 27. 4. If the King had such a power as King and so from God he should have power to breake up the meeting of all Courts of Parliament Secret Councell and all inferior Iudicatures And when the Congregation of gods as Ps. 82. in the midst of which the Lord standeth were about to pronounce just judgement for the oppressed and poere they might be hindred by the King and so they should be as just as the King maketh them and might pervert judgement and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Esa. 5.23 because the King commandeth And the cause of the poore should not come before the Iudge when the King so commandeth And shall it excuse the Estates to say We could not judge the cause of the poore nor crush the Priests of Baal and the idolatrous Masse-Preltes because the King forbad us So might the King breake up the meeting of the Lords of Session when they were to decerne that Naboths vineyard should be restored to him and hinder the States to represse Tyranny And this were as much as if the States should say We made this man our King and with our good will we agree he shall be a Tyrant For if God gave it to him as a King we are to consent that he enjoy it 5. If Barclay and other flatterers have leave to make the Parliament but Counsellers and Advisers of the King and the King to be the only and sole Iudge 1. The King is by that same reason the sole Iudge in relation to all Iudges the contrary whereof is cleere Num. 11.16 Deut 1.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 19.6 Rom. 13.1 2. 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Yea but say they the King when he sendeth an Ambassadour he may tye him to a written Commission and in so far as he exceedeth that he is not an Ambassadour and cleare it is that all inferiour Iudges 1 Pet. 2.13 14. are but sent by the King ergo they are so Iudges as they are but messengers and are to adhere to the Royall pleasure of the Prince that

Civill sword should be drawn against the King 3. This law of man should be produced by this profound Iurist the P. Prelate who mocketh at all the Statists and Lawyers of Scotland It is not a covenant betwixt the King and People at his Coronation for though there were any such covenant yet the breach of it doth binde before God but not before man nor can I see or any man else how a law of man can lay a restraint on the Kings power of two degrees to cancell it within a Law more then on a power of ten or fourteene degrees If the King of Spaine the lawfull Soveraigne of those over-European people as Royalists say have a power of foureteene degrees over those conquered Subjects as a King I see not how he hath not the like power over his own Subjects of Spaine to wit even of Foureteen for what agreeth to a King as a King and Kingly power from God he hath as King he hath it in relation to all Subjects except it be taken from him in relation to some Subj●cts and given by some law of God or in relation to some other Subjects Now no man can produce any such law 4. The nature of the goodnesse and grace of the Prince cannot lay bonds on the King to cancell his power that he should not usurpe the power of the King of Spaine toward his over-Europeans 1. Royalists plead for a power due to the King as King and that from God such as Saul had 1 Sam. 8.9 11. 1 Sam. 10.25 But this power should be a power of grace and goodnesse in the King as a good man not in the King as a King and due to him by law And so the King should have his Legall power from God to be a Tyrant But if he were not a Tyran● but should lay limits on his own power through the goodnesse of his own nature No thankes to Royalists that he is not a Tyrant For actu primo and as he is a King as they say he is a Tyrant having from God a Tyrannous power of ten degrees as Saul had 1 Sam. 8. and why not of foureteen degrees as well as the Great Turke or the King of Spaine if he use it not it is his own personall goodnesse not his officiall and Royall power 4. The rastraint of Providence laid by God upon any power to doe ill hindreth only the exercise of the power not to breake forth in as Tyrannous acts as ever the King of Spaine or the great Turke can exercise toward any Yea Providence layeth Physicall restraint and possibly morall sometimes upon the exercise of that power that Devils and the most wicked men of the world hath but Royalists must shew us that Providence hath laid bounds on the Kings power and made it fatherlie and not masterly so that if it the power exceed bounds of fatherly power and passe over to the dispoticall and masterly power it may be resisted by the Subjects But that they will not say 4. This paternall and fatherly power that God hath given to Kings as Royalists teach it trencheth not upon the libertie of the Subjects and propertie of their goods but in and by lawfull and just acts of Jurisdiction saith the P. Prelate Well Then it may trench upon the libertie of soule and body of the Subjects but in and by lawfull and just acts of of jurisdiction But none are to judge of these acts of Iurisdiction whether they be just or not just but the King the only Iudge of supreme and absolute authoritie and power And if the King command the idolatrous service in the obtruded Service-booke it is a lawfull and a just act of jurisdiction For to Royalists who make the Kings power absolute all acts are so just to the Subject though he command Idolatrie and Turcisme that we are to suffer only and not to resist 5. The Prelate presumeth that Fatherly power is absolute But so if a father murther his childe he is not comptable to the Magistrate therefore but being absolute over his children only the Judge of the World not any power on earth can punish him 6. We have proved that the Kings power is paternall or fatherly only by analogie and improperly 7. What is this Prerogative Royall we shall heare by and by 8. There is no restraint on Earth laid upon this fatherly power of the King but Gods law which is a morall restraint If then the King challenge as great a power as the Turke hath he o●ly sinneth against God but no mortall man on earth may controll him as Royalists teach and who can know what power it is that Royalists plead for whether a dispoticall power of Lordly power or a fatherly power If it be a power above law such as none on earth may resist it it is no matter whether it be above law of two degrees or of twenty even to the Great Turkes power These goe for Oracles at Court Tacitus Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt subditis obsequii gloria relicta est Seneca Indigna digna habenda sunt Rex quae facit Salustius Impunè quidvis facere id est Regem esse As if to be a King and to be a God who cannot erre were all one But certainly these Authors are taxing the Licence of Kings and not commanding their power But that God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a King above the law is evident by this Arg. 1. He who in his first institution is appointed of God by office even when he sitteth on the throne to take heed to read on a written copie of Gods law that he may learne to feare the Lord his God and keep all the words of this law c. He is not of absolute power above law But Deut. 17.18 19. the King as King while he sitteth on the Throne is to doe this Ergo the Assumption is cleare for this is the law of the King as King and not of a man as a man But as he sitteth on the Throne he is to read on the booke of the Law and ver 20. Because he is King his heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren And as King v. 16. he is not to multiply horses c. So Polititians make this argument good They say Rex est lex viva animata loquens lex The King as King is a living breathing and speaking Law And there be three reasons of this 1. If all were innocent persons and could doe no violence one to another the Law would rule all and all men would put the Law in execution agendo sponte by doing right of their own accord and there should be no need of a King to compell men to do right But now because men are by nature averse to good lawes therefore there was need of a Ruler who by office should reduce the Law into practice and so is the King the Law reduced in practice 2. The Law is

ratio five mens the reason or minde free from all perturbations of anger lust hatred and cannot be tempted to ill and the King as a man may be tempted by his own passions and therefore as King he commeth by office out of himselfe to reason and law and so much as he hath of Law so much of a King and in his remotest distance from Law and Reason he is a Tyrant 3. Abstracta concretis sunt puriora perfectiora Iustice is perfecter then a just man Whitenes perfecter then the white wall so the neerer the King comes to a Law for the which he is a King the neerer to a King Propter quod unumquodque tale id ipsum magis tale Therefore Kings throwing lawes to themselves as men whereas they should have conformed themselves to the Law have erred Cambyses the sonne of Cyrus because he loved his own sister would have the mariage of the brother with the sister lawfull Anaxarchus said to Alexander grieved in minde that he had killed Clytus Regi ac Iovi Themin atque Iustitiam assidere Iudgement and Righteousnesse did alway accompanie God and the King in all they doe But some to this purpose say better The Law rather then the King hath power of life and death Arg. 2. The power that the King hath I speak not of his gifts he hath it from the people who maketh him King as I proved before but the people have neither formally nor virtually any power absolute to give the King all the power they have is a legall and naturall power to guide themselves in peace and godlinesse and save themselves from unjust violence by the benefit of Rulers Now an absolute power above a Law is a power to doe ill and to destroy the people and this the people have not themselves it being repugnant to nature that any should have a naturall power in themselves to destroy themselves or to inflict upon themselves an evill of punishment to destruction Though therefore it were given which yet is not granted that the people had resigned all power that they have into their King yet if he use a Tyrannicall power against the people for their hurt and destruction he useth a power that the people never gave him and against the intention of nature for they invested a man with power to be their father and defender for their good And he faileth against the peoples intention in usurping an over power to himselfe which they never gave never had never could give for they cannot give what they never had and power to destroy themselves they never had 3. Arg. All Royall Power whereby a King is a King and differenced from a private man armed with no power of the sword is from God But absolute power to Tyranize over the people and to destroy them is not a power from God Ergo there is not any such royall power absolute The proposition is evident because that God who maketh Kings and disposeth of Crownes Prov. 8.15 16. 2 Sam. 12.7 Daniel 4.32 must also create and give that Royall and Officiall power by which a King is a King 1. Because God created man he must be the Author of his reasonable soule if God be the Author of things he must be the Author of their formes by which they are that which they are 2. All power is Gods 1 Chro. 29.11 Matth. 6.13 Ps. 62.11 P● 68.35 Dan. 2.37 And that absolute power to Tyrannize is not from God 1. Because if this Morall power to sinne be from God it being formally wickednesse God must be the Author of sinne 2. What ever Morall power is from God the exercises of that power and the acts thereof must be from God and so these acts must be Morally good and just for if the Morall power be of God as the Author so must the acts be Now the acts of a Tyrannicall power are acts of sinfull unjustice and oppression and cannot be from God 3. Polititians say There is no power in Rulers to doe ill but to helpe and defend the people as the power of a Physitian to destroy of a Pilot to cast away the ship on a Rock the power of a Tutor to wast the inheritance of the Orphan and the power of father and mother to kill their children and of the mighty to defraud and oppresse are not powers from God So Ferdinand Vasquez illustr quest l. 1. c. 26. c. 45. Pruckman d. c. 3. § Soluta potestas Althus pol. cap. 9. n. 25. Barclaius Grotius Doct. Ferne The P. Prelates wit could come up to it say That absolute power to do ill so as no mortall man can lawfully resist it is from God and the King hath this way power from God as no subject can resist it but he must resist the Ordinance of God and yet the power of tyranny is not simply from God Answ. The Law saith Illud possumus quod jure possumus Papinus F. filius D. de cond Just. The Law saith It is no power which is not lawfull power The Royalists say power of Tyranny in so farre as it may be resisted and is punishable by men is not from God but what is the other part of the distinction it must be that Tyrannicall power is simpliciter from God or in it self it is from God but as it is punishable or restrainable by subjects it is not from God now to be punishable by subjects is but an accident and tyrannicall power is the subject yea and it is an separable accident for many Tyrants are never punished and their power is never restrained such a Tyrant was Saul and many persecuting Emperours Now if the Tyrannicall power it self was from God the argument is yet valid and remaineth unanswered and shall not this fall to the ground as false which Arnisaeus de autho princ c. 2. n. 10. Dum contra officium facit Magistratus non est Magistratus quippe a quo non injuria sed jus nasci debeat l. meminerint 6. C. unde vi din. in C. quod quis 24. n. 4 5. Et de hoc neminem dubitare aut dissentire scribit Marant 〈◊〉 1. num 14. When the Magistrate doth by violence and without law any thing in so farre doing against his Office he is not a Magistrate then say I that power by which he doth is not of God 2. None doeth then resist the Ordinance of God who resist the King in Tyrannous acts 2. If the power as it cannot be punished by the subject nor restrained be from God Ergo the Tyrannicall power itself and without this accident that it can be punished by men it must be from God also but the conclusion is absurd and denied by Royalists I prove the connexion For if the King have such a power above all restraint the power it self to wi● King Davids power to kill innocent Vriah and defloor Bathshebah without the accident of being restrained or punished by men is either from God

or not from God if it be from God it must be a power against the sixth and seventh Commandment which God gave to David and not to any subject and so David lied when he confessed this sin and this sin cannot be pardoned because it was no sin and Kings because Kings are under no tye of duties of mercy and truth and j●stice to their subjects contrary to that which Gods Law requireth of all Judges Deut. 1.15 16 17. and 17.15 16 17 18 19 20. 2 Chro. 19.6 7. Rom. 13.3 4. If this power be from God as it is unrestrainable and unpunishable by the subject it is not from God at all for how can God give a power to do ill that is unpunishable by men and not give that power to do ill it is unconceiveable For in this very thing that God giveth to David a power to murther the innocent with this respect That it shall be punishable by God onely and not by men God must give it as a sinfull power to do ill which must be a power of dispensation to sin and so not to be punished by either God or man which is contrary to his revealed will in his word If such a power as not restrainable by man be from God by way of permission as a power to sin in divels and men is then it is no Royall power nor any Ordinance of God and to resist this power is not to resist the Ordinance of God Argum. 4. That power which maketh the benefit of a King to be no benefit but a judgement of God as a making all the people slaves such as were slaves amongst the Romans and Jews is not to be asserted by any Christian but an absolute power to do ill and to Tyrannize which is supposed to be an essentiall and constitutive of Kings to difference them from all Judges maketh the benefit of a King no benefit but a judgement of God as making all the people slaves That the major may be clear It is evident to have a King is a blessing of God because to have no King is a judgement Judg. 17.6 Every man doth what seemeth good in his own eyes Judg. 18.1 and 19.1 and 21.25 2. So it is a part of Gods good providence to provide a King for his people 1 Sam. 16.1 so 2 Sam. 5.12 And David perceived that the Lord had established him King over Israel and that he had exalted his Kingdom for his people Israels sake 2 Sam. 15.2 3 6. 2 Sam. 18.3 Rom. 13.2 3 4. If the King be a thing good in it self then can he not actu primo be a curse and a judgement and essentially a bondage and slavery to the people also the genuine and intrinsecall end of a King is the good Rom. 13.4 and the good of a quiet a peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty 1 Tim. 2.2 and he is by Office custos utriusque tabulae whose genuine end is to preserve the law from violence and to defend the subject he is the peoples debtor for all happynesse possible to be procured by Gods sword either in peace or war at home or abroad For the assumption it is evident An absolute and Arbitrary power is a King-law such as Royalists say God gave to Saul 1 Sam. 8.9 11. and 10.25 to play the Tyrant and this power Arbitrary and unlimited above all Laws is that which 1. Is given of God 2. Distinguisheth essentially the Kings of Israel from the Iudge saith Barclay Grotius Arnisaeus 3. A constitutive form of a King therefore it must be actu primo a benefit and a blessing of God but if God hath given any such power absolute to a King as 1. His will must be a law either to do or suffer all the Tyranny and cruelty of a Tyger Leopard or a Nero and a Julian then hath God given actu primo a power to a King as King to inslave the people and flock of God redeemed by the blood of God as the slaves among the Romans and Iews who were so under their masters as their bondage was a plague of God and the lives of the people of God under Pharaoh who compelled them to work in brick and clay 2. Though he cut the throats of the people of God as the Lionnesse Queen Mary did and command an Army of souldiers to come and burn the Cities of the Land and kill man wife and children yet in so doing he doth the part of a King so as you cannot resist him as a man and obey him as a King but must give your necks to him upon this ground because this absolute power of his is ordained of God and there is no power even to kill and destroy the innocent but it is of God so saith Paul Rom. 13. If we beleeve Court-Prophets or rather Lying-Spirits who perswade the King of Britain to make war against his three Dominions Now it is clear that the distinction of bound and free continued in Israel even under the most tyrannous Kings 2 Kings 4.1 yea even when the Iews were captives under Ahasuerus Esther 7.4 And what difference should there be between the people of God under their own Kings and when they were captives under Tyrants serving wood and stone and false gods as was threatned as a curse in the Law Deut. 28 25 36 64 68. If their own Kings by Gods appointment have the same absolute power over them and if he be a Tyrant actu primo that is if he be indued with absolute power and so have power to play the Tyrant then must the people of God be actu primo slaves and under absolute subjection for they are relatives as lord and servant conquerour and captive It is true they say Kings by office are fathers they cannot put forth in action their power to destroy I answer it is their goodnesse of nature that they put not forth in action all their absolute power to destroy which God hath given them as Kings and therefore thanks are due to their goodnesse for that they do not actu secundo play the Tyrant for Royalists teach that by vertue of their office God hath given to them a Royall power to destroy Ergo The Lords people are slaves under them though they deal not with them as slaves but that hindereth not but the people by condition are slaves so many Conquerours of old did deal kindely with these slaves whom they took in war and dealt with them as sons but as Conquerours they had power to sell them to kill them to put them to work in brick and clay so say I here Royall power and a King cannot be a blessing and actu primo a favour of God to the people for the which they are to pray when they want a King that they may have one or to praise God when they have one But a King must be a curse and a judgement if he be such a creature as essentially and in the intention and nature of

the thing it self hath by office a Royall power to destroy and that from God for then the people praying Lord give us a King should pray make us slaves Lord take our Libertie and power from us and give a power illimited and absolute to one man by which he may if he please waste us and destroy us as all the bloody Emperours did the people of God Surely I see not but they should pray for a temptation and to be led in temptation when they pray God to give them a King and therefore such a power is a vain thing Argum. 5. A power contrary to justice 2. To peace and the good of the people 3. That looketh to no law as a rule and so is unreasonable and forbidden by the Law of God and the Civill Law L. 15. filius de condit Instit. cannot be a lawfull power and cannot constitute a lawfull Iudge but an absolute and unlimited power is such How can the Iudge be the Minister of God for good to the people Rom. 13.4 If he have such a power as a King given him of God to destroy and waste the people Argum. 6. An absolute power is contrary to nature and so unlawfull for it maketh the people give away the naturall power of defending their life against illegall and cruell violence and maketh a man who hath need to be ruled and lawed by nature above all rule and law and one who by nature can sin against his brethren such a one as cannot sin against any but God onely and maketh him a Lion and an unsociall man What a man is Nero whose life is poesie paintry Domitian only an Archer Valentinian only a Painter Charles the 9●h of France only an Hunter Alphonsus Dux Ferrariensis only an Astronomer Philippe of Macedo only a Musitian and all because they are Kings This our King denyeth when he saith Art 13. There is power legally placed in the Parliament more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny But if they had not power to play the Lions it is not much that Kings are Musitians Hunters c. 7. God in making ● King to preserve his people should give liberty without all politick restraint for one man to destroy many which is contrary to Gods end in the fift Commandement if one have absolute power to destroy soules and bodies of many thousands 8. If the Kings of Israel and Iudah were under censures and rebukes of the Prophets and sinned against God and the people in rejecting these rebukes and in persecuting the Prophets and were under this Law not to take their neighbours wife or his Vineyard from him against his will and the inferiour Iudges were to accept the persons of none in Iudgement small or great and if the King yet remaine a brother notwithstanding he be a King then is his power not above any Law nor absolute for what reason 1. He should be under one Law of God to be executed by men and not under another Law Royalists are to shew a difference from Gods Word 2. His neighbours brother or subjects may by violence keepe back their Vineyards and chastity from the King Naboth may by force keepe his owne Vineyard from Achab by the Lawes of Scotland if a subject obtaine a Decree of the King of violent possession of the Heritages of a subject he hath by Law power to cast out force apprehend and deliver to prison these who are Tenants brooking these Lands by the Kings personall Commandement If a King should force a Damsell she may violently resist and by violence and bodily opposing of violence to violence defend her owne chastity Now that the Prophets have rebuked Kings is evident Samuel rebuked Saul Nathan David Elias King Achab. Ieremiah is commanded to Prophesie against the Kings of Iudah Ier. 1.18 and the Prophets practised it Ier. 19.3 c. 21.2 c. 22.13 14 15. Hos. 5.1 Kings are guilty before God because they submitted not their Royall power and greatnesse to the rebukes of the Prophets but persecuted them 2 Deut. 17.20 The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother Psal. 22.22 and so the Iudges or three Estates are not to accept of the Person of the King for his greatnesse in Iudgement Deut. 1.16 17. and the Iudge is to give out such a sentence in Iudgement as the Lord with whom there is no iniquity would give out if the Lord himselfe were sitting in Iudgement because the Iudge is in the very stead of God as his Lievtenant 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Ps. 82.1 2. Deut. 1.17 And with God there is no respect of persons 2 Chro. 19.7 1 Pet. 1.17 Act. 10.34 I doe not intend that any inferiour Iudge sent by the King is to judge the King but these who gave him the Throne and made him King are truely above him and to judge him without respect of persons as God would judge himselfe if he himselfe were sitting in the Beanch 3. God is the Author of Civill Lawes and Government and his intention is therein the externall peace and quiet life and godlinesse of his Church and people and that all Iudges according to their places be Nurse-fathers to the Church Esay 49.23 Now God must have appointed sufficient meanes for this end but there is no sufficient meanes at all but a meere Anarchy and confusion if to one man an absolute and unlimited power be given of God whereby at his pleasure he may obstruct the fountaines of Iustice and command Lawyers and Lawes to speake not Gods mind that is Iustice righteousnesse safety true Religion but the sole lust and pleasure of one man And 2. this one having absolute and irresistible influence on all the inferiour Instruments of Iustice may by this power turne all into Anarchy and put the people in a worse condition then if there were no Iudge at all in the Land For that of Polititians that Tyranny is better then Anarchy is to be taken Cum grano salis but I shall never beleeve that absolute power of one man which is actu primo Tyranny is Gods sufficient way of peaceable government Therefore Barclaius saith nothing for the contrary when he saith The Athenians made Draco and Solon absolute Law-givers For a facto ad jus non valet consequentia What if a roving people trusting Draco and Solon to be Kings above mortall men and to be gods gave them power to make Lawes written not with Inke but with blood Shall other Kings have from God the like Tyrannicall and bloody power from that to make bloody Lawes Chytreus Lib. 2. and Sleidan citeth it l. 1. Sueton. Sub paena periurii non tenentur fidensevare regi degeneri 9. He who is regulated by Law and sweareth to the three Estates to be regulated by Law and accepteth the Crown Covenant-wise and so as the Estates would refuse to make him their King if either he should refuse to sweare or if they did

all in one day to his sword were they obliged by this Oath to prayers and ●eares and only to suffer and was it against the Oath of God to defend themselves by Armes I beleeve the Oath did not oblige to such absolute subjection and though they had taken Armes in their owne lawfull defence according to the Law of Nature they had not broken the Oath of God The Oath was not a tye to an absolute subjection of all and every one either to worship Idols or then to sly or suffer death Now the Service-booke commanded in the Kings absolute authority all Scotland to commit grosser Idolatry in the intention of the work if not in the intention of the Commander then was in Babylon We read not that the King of Babylon pressed the consciences of Gods people to Idolatry or that all should either sly the Kingdome and leave their inheritances to Papists and Prelates or then come under the mercy of the sword of Papists and Atheists by sea or land 3. God may command against the Law of Nature and Gods Commandement maketh subjection lawfull so as men may not now being under the Law of God defend themselves What then Ergo we owe subjection to absolute Princes and their power must be a lawfull power it no waies is consequent Gods Commandement by Ieremiah made the subjection of Iudah lawfull and without that Commandement they might have taken Armes against the King of Babylon as they did against the Philistines and Gods Commandement maketh the Oath lawfull As suppone Ireland would all rise in Armes and come and destroy Scotland the King of Spain leading then we were by this Argument not to resist 4. It is denyed that the power Rom. 13. as absolute is Gods ordinance And I deny utterly that Christ and his Apostles did sweare non-resistence absolute to the Roman Emperour Obj. 2. It sesmeth 1 Pet. 2.18 19. if well doing be mistaken by the reason and judgement of an absolute Monarch for ill doing and we punished yet the Magistrates will is the command of a reasonable will and so to be submitted unto because such a one suffereth by Law where the Monarches Will is a Law and in this case some power must judge Now in an absolute Monarchy all judgement resolveth in the Will of the Monarch as the supreame Law and if Ancestors have submitted themselves by Oath there is no repeale or redresment Ans. Who ever was the Author of this Treatise he is a bad defender of the defensive warres in England for all the lawfulnesse of warres then must depend on this 1. Whether England be a conquered Nation at the beginning 2. If the Law-will of an absolute Monarch or a Nero be a reasonable Will to which we must submit in suffering ill I see not but we must submit to a reasonable will if it be reasonable will in doing ill no lesse then in suffering ill 3. Absolute Will in absolute Monarches is no Iudge De jure but an unlawfull and a usurping Iudge 4. 1 Pet. 2.18 19. Servants are not commanded simply to suffer I can prove suffering formally not to fall under any Law of God but only patient suffering I except Christ who was under a peculiar commandement to suffer But servants upon supposition that they are servants and buffeted unjustly by their Masters are by the Apostle Peter commanded v. 20. to suffer patiently But it doth not bind up a servants hand to defend his owne life with weapons if his Master invade him without cause to kill him otherwise if God call him to suffer he is to suffer in the manner and way as Christ did not reviling not threatning 4. To be a King and an absolute Master to me are contradictory a King essentially is a living Law An absolute man is a creature that they call a Tyrant and no lawfull King yet doe I not meane that any that is a King and usurpeth absolutenesse leaveth off to be a King but in so far as he is absolute he is no more a King then in so far as he is a Tyrant But further the King of England saith in a Declaration 1. The Law is the measure of the Kings Power 2. Parliaments are essentially Lord Iudges to make Lawes essentially as the King is ergo the King is not above the Law 3. Magna Charta saith the King can doe nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law 4. Prescription taketh away the title of conquests Obj 3. The King not the Parliament is the Anoynted of God Ans. The Parliament is as good even a Congregation of Gods Psalme 82.1 Obj. 4. The Parliament is the Court in their Acts they say with consent of our Soveraigne Lord. Ans. They say not at the Commandement and absolute pleasure of our Soveraigne Lord. 2. He is their Lord materially not as they are formally a Parliament for the King made them not a Parliament but sure I am the Parliament had power before he was King and made him King 1 Sam. 10.17 18. Obj. 5. In an absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any will as will but to the reasonable will of the Monarch which having the law of reason to direct it is kept from injurious acts Ans. If reason be a sufficient restraint and if God hath laid no other restraint upon some lawfull King yee reason Then is Magistracy a lame a needlesse ordinance of God for all Mankind hath reason to keepe themselves from injuries and so there is no need of Iudges or Kings to defend them from either doing or suffering injuries But certainly this must be admirable If God as Author of nature should make the Lyon King of all beasts the Lyon remaining a devouring beast and should ordaine by nature all the sheepe and Lambs to come and submit their corps to him by instinct of nature and to be eaten at his will and then say The nature of a beast in a Lyon is a sufficient restraint to keepe the Lyon from devouring Lambs Certainly a King being a sinfull man and having no restraint on his power but reason he may thinke it reason to allow rebells to kill drowne hang torture to death an hundred thousand Protestants men women infants in the wombe and sucking babes as is clere in Pharaoh Manasseh and other Princes Obj. 6. There is no Court or Iudge above the King ergo he is absolutely supreame Ans. The Antecedent is false The Court that made the King of a private man a King is above him and here are limitations laid on him at his Coronation 2. The States of Parliament are above him to censure him 3. In case of open Tyranny though the States had not time to conveen in Parliament if he bring on his people an hoast of Spaniards or forraine Rebells his owne conscience is above him and the conscience of the people farre more called conscientia terrae may judge him in so farre as they may

of Motion be larger in compasse in the one then in the other and if the King cannot give himself Royall Power but God and the people must do it how can he communicate any part of that power to inferiour Judges except by trust Yea he hath not that power that other men have in many respects 1. He may not marry whom he pleaseth for he might give his body to a Leper woman and so hurt the Kingdom 2. He may not do as Solomon and Achab marry the daughter of a strange god to make her the mother of the heir of the Crown He must in this follow his great Senate 2. He may not expose his person to hazard of Warres 3. He may not go over Sea and leave his Watch-Tower without consent 4. Many Acts of Parliament of both Kingdoms discharge Papists to come within ten miles of the King 5. Some pernicious Counsellours have been discharged 〈◊〉 company by Laws 6. He may not eat what Meats he pleaseth 7. He may not make Wasters his Treasurers 8. Nor Delapidate the Rents of the Crown 9. He may not dis-inherit his eldest son of the Crown at his own pleasure 10. He is sworn to follow no false gods and false religions nor is it in his power to go to Masse 11. If a Priest say Masse to the King by the Law he is hanged drawn and quartered 12. He may not write Letters to the Pope by Law 13. He may not by Law pardon seducing Priests and Iesuites 14. He may not take Physick for his health but from Physitians sworn to be true to him 15. He may not educate his heir as he pleaseth 16. He hath not power of his children nor hath he that power that other fathers have to marry his eldest son as he pleaseth 17. He may not befriend a Traytor 18. It is high Treason for any woman to give her body to the King except she be his married wife 19. He ought not to build sumptuous Houses without advice of his Councell 20. He may not dwell constantly where he pleaseth 21. Nor may he go to the Countrey to Hunt farlesse to kill his subjects and desert the Parliament 22. He may not confer honours and high places without his Councell 23. He may not deprive Iudges at his will 24. Nor is it in his power to be buried where he pleaseth but amongst the Kings Now in most of these twenty four points private persons have their own liberty far lesse restricted then the King QUEST XXIV What power hath the King in relation to the Law and the people And how a King and a Tyrant differ Mr. Symmons saith That Authoritie is rooted rather in the Prince then in the Law for as the King giveth Being to the inferiour Iudge so he doth to the Law it self making it authorizable for propter quod unum-quodque tale id ipsum magis tale and therefore the King is greater then the Law others say That the King is the Fountain of the Law and the sole and onely Law-giver Assert 1. The Law hath a twofold consideration 1. Secundum esse paenale in relation to the punishment to be inflicted by man 2. Secundum esse legis as it is a thing legally good in it self In the former notion it is this way true Humane Laws take life and being inway to be punished or rewarded by men from the will of Princes and Law-givers and so Symmons saith true Because men cannot punish or reward Laws but where they are made and the will of Rulers putteth a sort of stamp on a Law that it bringeth the Common-wealth under guiltinesse if they break this Law But this maketh not the King greater then the Law for therefore do Rulers put the stamp of relation to punishment on the Law because there is intrinsecall worth in the Law Prior to the Act of the will of Law-givers for which it meriteth to be inacted and therefore because it is authorizable as good and just the King puteth on it this stamp of a Politique Law God formeth Being and morall Aptitude to the end in all Laws to wit the safetie of the people and the Kings will is neither the measure nor the cause of the goodnesse of things 2. If the King be he who maketh the Law good and just because he is more such himself then as the Law cannot crook and erre nor sin neither can the King sin nor break a Law This is blasphemy Every man is a lyer a Law which deserveth the name of a Law cannot lie 3. His ground is That there is such majesty in Kings that their will must be done either in us or on us A great untruth Achabs will must neither be done of Elias for he commandeth things unjust nor yet on Elias for Elias fled and lawfully we may flie Tyrants and so Achabs will in killing Elias was not done on him Assert 2. Nor can it be made good that the King only hath power of making Lawes because his power were then absolute to inflict penalties on Subjects without any consent of theirs and that were a dominion of Masters who command what they please and under what paine they please And the people consenting to be ruled by such a man they tacitely consent to penaltie of laws because naturall reason saith An ill-doer should be punished Florianus in l. inde Vasquez l. 2. c. 55. n. 3. Therefore they must have some power in making these lawes 2. Jer. 26. It is cleare The Princes judge with the people A nomothetick power differeth gradually only from a judiciall power both being collaterall meanes to the end of Government the peoples safetie But Parliaments judge ergo they have a nomothetick power with the King 3. The Parliament giveth all supremacie to the King ergo to prevent Tyrannie it must keep a coordinate power with the King in the highest acts 4. If the Kingly line be interrupted if the King be a Childe or a Captive they make Lawes who make Kings Ergo this nomothetick power recurreth into the States as to the first subject Obj. The King is the fountaine of the law and Subjects cannot make Lawes to themselves more then they can punish themselves He is only the Supreme Answ. The People being the fountaine of the King must rather be the fountaine of Lawes 2. It is false that no man maketh lawes to himselfe Those who teach others teach themselves also 1 Tim. 2.12 1 Cor. 14.34 though Teaching be an act of authoritie But they agree to the penaltie of the Law secondarily only and so doth the King who as a father doth not will evill of punishment to his children but by a consequent will 3. The King is the only Supreme in the power ministeriall of executing lawes but this is a derived power so as no one man is above him but in the fountaine-power of Royaltie the States are above him 5. The Civil law is cleare that the laws of the Emperor have force

only from this fountaine because the People have transferred their power to the King Lib. 1. digest tit 4. de constit Princip leg 1. sic Vlpian Quod Principi placuit loquitur de Principe formaliter qua Princeps est non qua est homo legis habet vigorem utpote cum lege Regia quae de imperio ejus lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem conferat Yea the Emperour himselfe may be conveened before the Prince Elector Aurea Bulla Carol. 4. Imper c. 5. The King of France may be conveened before the Senate of Paris The States may resist a Tyrant as Bossius saith de Principe privileg jus n. 55. Paris de puteo iu tract syno tit de excess Reg. c. 3. Divines acknowledge that Elias rebuked the halting of Israel betwixt God and Baal that their Princes permitted Baals Priests to converse with the King And is not this the sinne of the Land that they suffer their King to worship Idols and therefore the Land is punished for the sinnes of Manasseh as Knox observeth in his Dispute with Lethington where he proveth that the States of Scotland should not permit the Queen of Scotland to have her abominable Masse Hist. of Scotland l. 4. p. 379. edit an 1644. Surely the power or Sea-Prerogative of a sleepie or mad Pilot to split the ship on a rock as I conceive is limited by the Passengers Suppose a father in a distemper would set his own house on fire and burne himselfe and his ten sonnes I conceive his Fatherly prerogative which neither God nor Nature gave should not be looked to in this but they may binde him Yea Althusius polit c. 39. n. 60. answering that That in Democracie the people cannot both command and obey saith It is true secundum ideus ad idem eodem tempore But the people may saith he choose Magistrates by succession Yea I say 1. they may change Rulers yearely to remove envie A yearely King were more dangerous the King being almost above envie Men incline more to flatter then to envie Kings 2. Aristotle saith polit l. 4. c. 4. l. 6. c. 2. The people may give their judgement of the wisest Obj. Williams B. of Ossorie Vindic. Reg. A Looking-glasse for Rebels saith p. 64. To say the King is better than any one doth not prove him to be better then two and if his supremacie be no more then any other may challenge as much for the Prince is singulis major A Lord is above all Knights a Knight above all Esquires and so the People have placed a King under them not above them Ans. The reason is not alike for all the Knights united cannot make one Lord and all the Esquires united cannot make one Knight but all the People united made David King at Hebron 2. The King is above the people by eminencie of derived authoritie as a Watchman and in actuall supremacie and he is inferior to them in fountaine-power as the effect to the cause Object 2. The Parliament saith Williams may not command the King Why then make they supplications to him if their Vote be a Law Ans. They supplicate ex decentia of decencie and connveniencie for his place as a Citie doth supplicate a Lord Major but they supplicate not ex debito of obligation as beggars seeke almes then should they be cyphers 2. When a Subject oppressed supplicateth his Soveraigne for justice the King is obliged by office to give justice And to heare the oppressed is not an act of grace and mercie as to give almes though it should proceed from mercie in the Prince Psal. 72.13 but an act of Royall debt 3. The P. Prelate objecteth The most you claime to Parliaments is a coordinate power which in law and reason run in equall tearmes In Law par in parem non habet imperium an equall cannot judge an equall much lesse may an inferiour usurpeto judge a superiour Our Lord knew gratiâ visionis the woman taken in adulterie to be guilty bat he would not s●ntence her to teach us not improbably not to be both Judge and Witnesse The Parliament are Judges accusers and witnesses against the King in their owne cause against the Imperiall lawes Ans. 1. The Parliament is coordinate ordinarily with the King in the power of making Lawes but the coordination on the Kings part is by derivation on the Parliaments part originaliter fontaliter as in the fountaine 2. In ordinarie there is coordination but if the King turne Tyrant the Estates are to use their fountaine-power And that of the Law Par in parem c. is no better from his Pen that stealeth all he hath then from Barclaius Grotius Arnisaeus Blackwood c. It is cold and sowre We hold the Parliament that made the King at Hebron to be above their own creature the King Barclaius saith more acurately l. 5 cont Monarch p. 129. It is absurd that the People should both be subject to the King and command the King also Ans. It is not absurd that a Father naturall as a private man should be subject to his Sonne even that Jesse and his elder brother the Lord of all the rest be subject to David their King Royalists say Our late Queen being supreme Magistrate might by Law have put to death her own husband for adulterie or murther 2. The Parliament should not be both Accuser Iudge and Witnesse in their own cause 1. It is the Cause of Religion of God of Protestants and of the whole people 2. The oppressed accuse there is no need of Witnesses in raising armes against the Subjects 3. The P. Prelate could not object this if against the Imperiall laws the King were both Partie and Iudge in his own cause and in these acts of arbitrarie power which he hath done through bad counsell in wronging Fundamentall lawes raising armes against his subjects bringing in forraigne enemies into both his Kingdomes c. Now this is properly the cause of the King as he is a man and his owne cause not the cause of God and by no Law of nature reason or Imperiall Statutes can he be both Iudge and party 4. If the King be sole supreame Iudge without any fellow sharers in power 1. He is not obliged by Law to follow Counsell or hold Parliaments for Counsell is not Command 2. It is unpossible to limit him even in the exercises of his power which yet Dr. Ferne saith cannot be said for if any of his power be retrinched God is robbed saith Maxwell 3. He may by Law play the Tyrant gratis Ferne objecteth § 7. pag. 26. The King is a fundamentall with the Estates now foundations are not to be stirred or removed Ans. The King as King inspired with Law is a fundamentall and his power is not to be stirred but as a man wasting his people he is a destruction to the house and community and not a

fundamentall in that notion Some object The three Estates as men and looking to their owne ends not to Law and the publick good are not fundamentalls and are to be judged by the King Ans. By the people and the conscience of the people they are to be judged Obj. But the people also doe judge as corrupt men and not as the people and a Politique Body providing for their owne safety Ans. I grant all when God will bring a vengeance on Jerusalem Prince and people both are hardened to their owne destruction Now God hath made all the three in every Government where there is Democracy there is some chosen ones resembling an Aristocracy and some one for order presiding in Democraticall courts resembling a King In Aristocracy as in Holland there is somewhat of Democracy the people have their Commissioners and one Duke or Generall as the Prince of Orange is some umbrage of Royalty and in Monarchy there are the three Estates of Parliament and these containe the three Estates and so somewhat of the three formes of Government and there is no one Government just that hath not some of all three powre and absolute Monarchy is Tyranny unmixed Democracy is confusion untempered Aristocracy is factious Dominion and a limited Monarchy hath from Democracy respect to publick good without confusion From Aristocracy safety in multitude of Counsells without factious emulation and so a barre laid on Tyranny by the joynt powers of many and from Soveraignty union of many children in one father and all the three thus contempered have their owne sweet fruits through Gods blessing and their owne diseases by accident and through mens corruption and neither reason nor Scripture shall warrant any one in its rigid purity without mixture And God having chosen the best government to bring men fallen in sinne to happinesse must warrant in any one a mixture of all three as in mixt bodies the foure Elements are reduced to a fit temper resulting of all the foure where the acrimony of all the foure first qualities is broken and the good of all combined in one The King as the King is an unerring and living Law and by grant of Barclay of old was one of excellent parts and noble through vertue and goodnesse and the goodnesse of a father as a father of a tutor as a tutor of a head as a head of a husband as a husband doe agree to the King as the King so as King he is the Law it selfe commanding governing saving 2. His Will as King or his Royall Will is reason conscience Law 3. This Will is politickly present when his person is absent in all Parliaments Courts and inferiour Iudicatures 4. The King as King cannot doe wrong or violence to any 5. Amongst the Romanes the name King and Tyrant were common to one thing 1. Because de facto some of their Kings were Tyrants in respect of their Dominion rather then Kings 2. Because he who was a Tyrant De facto should have been and was a King too de jure 6. It is not lawfull to either disobey or resist a King as a King no more then it is lawfull to disobey a good Law 7. What violence what unjustice and excesse of passion the King mixeth in with his Acts of Government are meerely accidentall to a King as King for because men by their owne innate goodnesse will not yea Morally cannot doe that which is lawfull and just one to another and doe naturally since the fall of man violence one to another therefore if there had not been sin there should not have been need of a King more then there should have beene need of a Tutor to defend the child whose father is not dead or of a Physitian to cure sicknesse where there is health for remove sinne and there is neither death nor sicknesse but because sinne is entered into the world God devised as a remedy of violence and unjustice a living rationall breathing Law called a King a Iudge a Father now the aberrations violence and oppression of this thing which is the living rationall breathing Law is no Medium no meane intended by God and nature to remove violence How shall violence remove violence Therefore an unjust King as unjust is not that genuine ordinance of God appointed to remove unjustice but accidentall to a King So we may resist the unjustice of the King and not resist the King 8 If then any cast off the nature of a King and become habitually a Tyrant in so farre he is not from God nor any ordinance which God doth owne If the Office of a Tyrant to speake so be contrary to a Kings Offices it is not from God and so neither is the power from God 9. Yea Lawes which are no lesse from God then the Kings are when they begin to be hurtfull Cessant materialiter they leave off to be Lawes because they oblige Non secundum vim verborum sed in vim sensus not according to the force of words but according to sense l. Non figura literarum F. de actione obligatione l. ita stipulatus But who saith the Royalists shall be judge betwixt the King and the people when the people alledge that the King is a Tyrant Ans. There is a Court of necessity no lesse then a Court of Justice and 2. The fundamentall Lawes must then speake and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no Ruler Obj. 1. But if the Law be doubtsome as all humane all Civill all municipall Lawes may endure great dispute the peremptory person exponing the Law must be the supreame Iudge This cannot be the people ergo it must be the King Ans. 1. As the Scriptures in all fundamentalls are cleare and expone themselves and Actu primo condemne Heresies so all Lawes of men in their fundamentals which are the Law of Nature and of Nations are cleare And 2. Tyranny is more visible and intelligible then Heresie and it s soone decerned If a King bring in upon his native subjects twenty thousand Turks armed and the King lead them It is evident they come not to make a friendly visite to salute the Kingdom and depart in peace the people have a naturall throne of policie in their conscience to give warning and materially sentence against the King as a Tyrant and so by nature are to defend themselves Where Tyranny is more obscure and the thred small that it escape the eye of men the King keepeth possession but I deny that Tyranny can be obscure long Object 2. Doct. Ferne. A King may not or cannot easily alter the frame of fundamentall Laws he may make some actuall invasion in some transient and not fixed acts and it is safer to bear these then to raise a civill Warre of the Body against the Head Answ. 1. If the King as King may alter any one wholesome Law by that same reason he may alter all 2. You give short wings to

an Arbitrary Prince if he cannot over flie all Laws to the subversion of the Fundamentalls of a State if you make him as you do 1. One who hath the sole Legislative power who allanerly by himself maketh Laws and his Parliament and Councell are onely to give him advice which by Law he may as easily reject as they can speak words to him He may in one transient act and it is but one cancell all Laws made against idlolatry and Popery and command through bad Counsell in all his Dominions the Pope to be acknowledged as Christs Vicar and all his doctrine to be established as the Catholike true Religion It is but one transient act to seal a pardon to the shedding of the blood of two hundred thousand killed by Papists 2. You make him a King who may not be resisted in any case and though he subvert all Fundamentall Laws he is countable to God onely his people have no remedy but prayers or flight Object 3. Ferne. Limitations and mixtures in Monarchies do not imply a forceable restraining power in subjects for the preventing of the dissolution of the State but onely a legall restraining power and if such a restraining power be in the subjects by reservation then it must be expressed in the constitution of the Government and in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people but such a condition is unlawfull which will not have the Soveraign power secured is unprofitable for King and people a seminary for seditions and jealousies Answ. I understand not a difference betwixt forceable restraining and legall restraining For he must mean by legall mans Law because he saith It is a Law in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people Now if this be not forceable and physicall it is onely Morall in the conscience of the King and a Cypher and a meer vanitie for God not the people putteth a restraint of conscience on the King that he may not oppresse his poor subjects but he shall sin against God that is a poor restraint the goodnesse of the King a sinfull man inclined from the womb to all sin and so to Tyranny is no restraint 2. There 's no necessitie that the reserve be expressed in the Covenant between King and people more then in contract of marriage between a husband and a wife beside her joynter you should set down this clause in the contract that if the husband attempt to kill the wife or the wife the husband in that case it shall be lawfull to either of them to part companies For Doct. Ferne saith That personall defence is lawfull in the people if the Kings assault be 1. Suddain 2. Without colour of Law 3. Inevitable Yet the reserve of this power of defence is not necessarily to be expressed in the contract betwixt King and people Exigences of the Law of nature cannot be set down in positive Covenants they are presupposed 3. He saith A reservation of power whereby soveraigntie is not secured is unlawfull Lend me this Argument The giving away of a power of defence and a making the King absolute is unlawfull because by it the people is not secured but one man hath thereby the sword of God put in his hand whereby ex officio he may as King cut the throats of thousands and be countable to none therefore but to God onely now if the non-securing of the King make a condition unlawfull the non-securing of a Kingdom and Church yea of the true religion which are infinitely in worth above one single man may far more make the condition unlawfull 4. A legall restraint on a King is no more unprofitable and a seminary of jealousies between King and people then a legall restraint upon people for the King out of a non-restraint as out of seed may more easily educe tyranny and subversion of religion If outlandish women tempt even a Solomon to idolatry as people may educe sedition out of a legall restraint laid upon a King to say nothing that Tyranny is a more dangerous sin then sedition by how much more the lives of many and true religion are to be preferred to the safetie of one and a false peace Object 4. An absolute Monarch is free from all forceable restraint and so far as he is absolute from all legall restraint of positive Laws now in a limited Monarch there is onely sought a legall restraint and limitation cannot infer a forceable restraint for an absolute Monarch is limited also not by civill compact but by the Law of nature and nations which he cannot justly transgresse if therefore an absolute Monarch being exorbitant may not be resisted because he transgresseth the Law of nature how shall we think a limited Monarch may be resisted for transgressing the bounds set by civill agreement Answ. A legall restraint on the people is a forceable restraint For if Law be not backed with force it is onely a Law of rewarding weldoing which is no restraint but an incouragement to do evil If then there be a legall restraint upon the King without any force it is no restraint but onely such a request as this Be a just Prince and we will give your Majestie two Subsidies in one yeer 2. I utterly deny that God ever ordained such an irrationall creature as an absolute Monarch If a people unjustly and against natures dictates make away irrevocably their own libertie and the libertie of their posteritie which is not their's to dispose off and set over themselves as base slaves a sinning creature with absolute power he is their King but not as he is absolute and that he may not be forceably resisted notwithstanding the subjects did swear to his absolute power which oath in the point of absolutenesse is unlawfull and so not obligatory I utterly deny 3. An absolute Monarch saith he is limited but by Law of nature That is Master Doctor he is not limited as a Monarch not as an absolute Monarch but as a son of Adam he is under the limites of the Law of nature which he should have been under though he had never been a King all his dayes but a slave But what then Therefore he cannot be resisted Yes Doctor by your own grant he can be resisted If he invade an innocent subject say you 1. Suddenly 2. Without colour of Law 3. Inevitably And that because he transgresseth the Law of nature 4. You say a limited Monarch can lesse be resisted for transgressing the bounds set by civill agreement But 1. What if the thus limited Monarch transgresse the Law of nature and subvert Fundamentall Lawes he is then you seem to say to be resisted it is not for simple transgression of a civill agreement that he is to be resisted 2. The limited Monarch is as essentially the Lords anointed and the power ordained of God as the absolute Monarch Now resistance by all your grounds is unlawfull because of Gods power and place conferred upon him not because of mens

positive covenant made with him To finde out the essentiall difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant We are to observe that it is one thing to sin against a man another thing against a Stat● David killing Vriah committed an act of murther But on this supposition that David is not punished for that murther he did not so sin against the State and Catholike good of the State that he turneth Tyrant and ceaseth to be a lawfull King A Tyrant is he who habitually sinneth against the Catholike good of the Subjects and State and subverteth Law Such a one should not be as Jason of whom it is said by Aeneas Silvius Graviter ferebat si non regnaret quasi nesciret esse privatus When such as are monstrous Tyrants are not taken away by the Estates God pursueth them in wrath Domitian was killed by his own Family his wife knowing of it Aurelianus was killed with a thunder-bolt Darius was drowned in a River Dioclesian fearing death poysoned himself Salerius died eaten with Worms The end of Herod and Antiochus Maxentius was swallowed up in a standing River Iulian died being stricken through with a Dart thrown at him by a man or an Angel it is not known Valens the Arian was burnt with fire in a little Village by the Gothes Anastasius the Eutychian Emperour was stricken by God with thunder Gundericus Vandalus when he rose against the Church of God being apprehended by the Divell died Some time the State have taken order with Tyrants The Empire was taken from Vitellius Heliogabalus Maximinus Didius Iulianus So was the two Childerici of France served So were also Sigebertus Dagabertus and Lodowick the 11. of France Christiernus of Denmark Mary of Scotland who killed her husband and raised Forces against the Kingdom So was Henricus Valesius of Pol for fleeing the Kingdom Sigismundus of Pol for violating his faith to the States QUEST XXV What force the Supreme Law hath over the King even that Law of the Peoples safetie called Salus Populi THe Law of the 12. Tables is Salus populi Suprema lex The safetie of the People is the supreme and Cardinall law to which all Lawes are to stoope And that from these Reasons 1. Originally Because if the People be the first Author Fountaine and Efficient under God of Law and King then their own safetie must be principally sought and their safetie must be farre above the King as the safetie of a Cause especially of an universall Cause such as is the People must be more then the safetie of one as Aristotle saith l. 3. polit alias l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The part cannot be more excellent then the whole nor the effect above the cause 2. Finaliter This Supreme law must stand for if all Law Policie Magistrates and Power be referred to the peoples good as the end Rom. 13.4 and to their quiet and peaceable life in godlinesse and honestie then must this Law stand as of more worth then the King as the end is of more worth then the meanes leading to the end for the end is the measure and rule of the goodnesse of the meane and finis ultimus in influxu est potentissimus The King is good because he conduceth much for the safetie of the People Ergo the safetie of the people must be better 3. By way of limitation Because no Law in its letter hath force where the safetie of the Subject is in hazard and if Law or King be destructive to the people they are to be abolished This is cleare in a Tyrant or a wicked man 4. In the desires of the most holy Moses a Prince desired for the safetie of Gods people and rather then God should destroy his people that his name should be razed out of the booke of life And David saith 1 Chron. 21.17 Let thine hand I pray thee O Lord my God be on me and on my fathers house but not on thy people that they should be plagued This being a holy desire of these two publick Spirits the object must be in it selfe true and the safetie of Gods people and their happinesse must be of more worth then the salvation of Moses and the life of David and his Fathers house The Prelate borroweth an answer to this for he hath none of his own from D. Ferne. The safetie of the Subjects is the prime end of the constitution of Government but it is not the sole and adequate end of government in Monarchie for that is the safetie of both King and People And it beseemeth the King to proportion his lawes for their good and it becommeth the People to proportion all their obedience actions and endeavours for the safetie honour and happinesse of the King It 's impossible the people can have safetie when Soveraigntie is weakened Ans. The Prelate would have the other halfe of the end why a King is set over a People to be the safetie and happinesse of the King as well as the safetie of the People This is new Logick indeed that one and the same thing should be the meane and the end The question is For what end is a King made so happy as to be exalted King The Prelate answereth He is made happy that he may be happy and made a King that he may be made a King Now is the King as King to intend this halfe end that is Whether or no accepteth he the burden of setting his head and shoulders under the Crowne for this end that he may not only make the people happy but also that he may make himselfe rich and honorable above his brethren and enrich himselfe I beleeve not but that he feed the people of God For if he intend himselfe and his own honour it is the intention of the man who is King and intentio operantis but it is not the intention of the King as the King or intentio operis The King as a King is formally and essentially the Minister of God for our good Rom. 13.4 1 Tim. 2.2 and cannot come under any notion as a King but as a mean not as an end nor as that which he is to seeke himselfe I conceive God did forbid this in the moulding of the first King Deut. 17.18 19 26. He is a minister by office and one who receiveth honour and wages for this worke that ex officio he may feed his people But the Prelate saith the people are to intend his riches and honour I cannot say but the people may intend to honour the King but that is not the question whether the people be to referre the King and his government as a meane to honour the King I conceive not But that end which the people in obeying the King in being ruled by him may intend is 1 Tim. 2.2 That under him they may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie And Gods end in giving a King is the good and safetie of

his people P. Prelate To reason from the one part and end of Monarchicall government The safetie of the Subjects to the destruction and weakning of the other part of the end of the power of Soveraigntie and the Royall prerogative is a caption à divisis If the King be not happy and invested with the full power of a Head the Body cannot be well By Anti-Monarchists The people at the beginning were necessitated to commit themselves lives and fortunes to the government of a King because of themselves they had not wisedome and power enough to doe it and therefore they enabled him with honour and power without which he could not doe this being assured that he could not choose but most earnestly and carefully endeavour this end to wit his own and the peoples happines Ergo the safetie of the people issueth from the safetie of the King as the life of the naturall body from the soule Weake Government is neare to Anarchie Puritans will not say Quovis modo esse etiam poenale is better then non esse The Scripture saith the contrary It were better for some never to have been borne then to be Tyranny is better then no Government Ans. 1. He knowes not Sophismes of Logick who calleth this Argument à divisis for the Kings Honour is not the end of the Kings Government He should seeke the safetie of State and Church not himself Himselfe is a private end and a step to Tyranny 2. The Prelate lyeth when he maketh us to reason from the safetie of the Subject to the destruction of the King Ferne Barclay Grotius taught the hungry Scholler to reason so Where read he this The People must be saved That is the Supreme law Ergo destroy the King The Devill and the Prelate both shall not fasten this on us But thus we reason When the man who is the King endeavoreth not the end of his Royall place but through bad counsell the subversion of Lawes Religion and bondage of the Kingdome The free Estates are to joyne with him for that end of Safetie according as God hath made them heads of Tribes and Princes of the people And if the King refuse to joyne with them and will not doe his dutie I see not how they are in conscience liberated before God from doing their part 3. If the P. Prelate call resisting the King by lawfull defensive wars the destruction of the Head He speaketh with the mouth of one excommunicated and delivered up to Sathan 4. We endeavour nothing more then the safetie and happinesse of the King as King but his happinesse is not to suffer him to destroy his Subjects subvert Religion arme Papists who have slaughtered above two hundred thousand innocent Protestants only for the profession of that true Religion which the King hath sworne to maintaine Not to rise in armes to helpe the King against these were to gratifie him as a Man but to be accessarie to his soules destruction as a King 5. That the Royall Prerogative is the end of a Monarchie ordained by God neither Scripture Law nor Reason can admit 6. The people are to intend the safetie of other Iudges as well as the Kings If Parliaments be destroyed whose it is to make Lawes and Kings the People can neither be safe free to serve Christ nor happy 7. It is a lie that people were necessitated at the beginning to commit themselves to a King for we read of no King while Nimrod arose Fathers of families who were not Kings and others did governe till then 8. It was not want of wisedome for in many and in the people there must be more wisdome then in one man but rather corruption of nature and reciprocation of injuries that created Kings and other Iudges 9. The King shall better compasse his end to wit the safetie of the people with limited power placent mediocria and with other Iudges added to helpe him Num. 11.14 16. Deut. 1.12 13 14 15. then to put in one mans hand absolute power for a sinfull mans head cannot beare so much new wine such as exorbitant power is 10. He is a base flatterer who saith The King cannot choose but earnestly and carefully endeavour his own and the peoples happinesse that is the King is an Angel and cannot sinne and decline from the duties of a King Of the many Kings of Judah and Israel how many chose this All the good Kings that have been may be written in a gold ring 11. The peoples safetie dependeth indeed on the King as a King and a happy Governour but the people shall never be fattened to eat the winde of an imaginarie Prerogative Royall 12. Weake Government that is a King with a limited power who hath more power about his head nor within his head is a strong King and farre from Anarchy 13. I know not what he meaneth but Arminius his Masters way and words are here for Arminians say That being in the damned eternally tormented is no benefit it were better they never had being then to be eternally tormented and this they say to the defiance of the Doctrine of eternall Reprobation in which we teach That though by accident and because of the Damned their abuse of being and life it were to them better not to be as is said of Iudas yet simpliciter comparing being with non-being and considering the eternity of miserable being in relation to the absolute liberty of the Former of all things who maketh use of the sinfull being of Clay-vessells for the illustration of the glory of his Iustice and power Rom. 9.17 22. 1 Pet. 2.8 Iude v. 4. It is a censuring of God and his unsearchable Wisedome and a condemning of the Almighty of cruelty God avert blasphemy of the unspotted and holy Majesty who by Arminian grounds keepeth the Damned in life and being to be fuell eternally for Tophet to declare the glory of his Iustice. But the Prelate behoved to goe out of his way to salute and gratifie a proclaimed enemy of free Grace Arminius and hence he would inferre That the King wanting his Prerogative Royall and fulnesse of absolute power to doe wickedly is in a penall and miserable condition and that it were better for the King to be a Tyrant with absolute liberty to destroy and save alive at his pleasure as is said of a Tyrant Dan. 5. v. 19. then to be no King at all And here consider a Principle of Royalists Court faith 1. The King is no King but a lame and miserable Iudge if he have not irresistable power to wast and destroy 2. The King cannot be happy nor the people safe nor can the King doe good in saving the needy except he have the uncontrollable and unlimited power of a Tyrant to crush the poore and needy and lay wast the mountaine of the Lords inheritance such Court-ravens who feede upon the soules of living Kings are more cruell then Ravens and Vultures who are but dead carcasses Williams

B. of Ossarie answereth to the Maxime Salus populi c. No wise King but will carefully provide for the peoples safety because his safety and honour is included in theirs his destruction in theirs And it is saith Lipsius egri animi proprium nihil diu pati Absolom perswaded there was no justice in the Land when he intendeth Rebellion And the poore Prelate following him spendeth pages to prove that Goods Life Chastity and Fame dependeth on the safety of the King as the breath of our nostrills our Nurse-father our Head corner-stone and Judge c. 17.6.18.1 The reason why all disorder was in Church and State was not because there was no Iudge no Government none can be so stupid as to imagine that But because 1. They wanted the excellentest of Governments 2. Because Aristocracy was weakened so as there was no right No doubt Priests there were but Hos. 4. either they would not serve or were over-awed no doubt in those daies they had Iudges but Priests and Iudges were stoned by a rascally multitude and they were not able to rule therefore it is most consonant to Scripture to say Salus regis suprema populi salus The safety of the King and his Prerogative Royall is the safest sanctuary for the people So Hos. 3.4 Lament 2.9 Ans. 1. The question is not of the Wisedome but of the Power of the King if it should be bounded by no Law 2. The flatterer may know there be more foolish Kings in the world then wise and that Kings misled with Idolatrous Queenes and by name Achab ruined himselfe and his posterity and Kingdome 3. The salvation and happinesse of men standing in the exalting of Christs Throne and the Gospell ergo every King and every man will exalt the Throne and so let them have an incontrollable power without constraint of Law to doe what they list and let no bounds be set to Kings over subjects by this Argument their owne wisedome is a law to leade them to Heaven 4. It is not Absoloms mad Male-contents in Britane but there were really no justice to Protestants all indulgence to Papists Popery Arminianisme Idolatry printed Preached professed rewarded by Authority Parliaments and Church Assemblies the Bulwarkes of Iustice and Religion were denyed dissolved crushed c. 5. That by a King he understandeth a Monarch Iudg. 17. and that such a one as Saul of Absolute power and not a Iudge cannot be proved for there were no Kings in Israel in the Iudges daies the Government not being changed till neare the end of Samuels Government 6. And that they had no Iudges he saith It is not imaginable but I rather beleeve God then the Prelate Every one did what was right in his owne eyes because there was none to put ill doers to shame Possible the Estates of Israel governed some way for meere necessity but wanting a supreme Iudge which they should have they were loose but this was not because where there is no King as P. P. would insinuate there was no Government as is cleare 7. Of tempered and limited Monarchy I thinke as honourably as the Prelate but that absolute and unlimited Monarchy is excellenter then Aristocracy I shall then beleeve when Royalists shall prove such a Government in so farre it is absolute to be of God 8. That Aristocracy was now weakened I beleeve not seeing God so highly commendeth it and calleth it his own reigning over his people 1 Sam. 8.7 The weakening of it through abuse is not to a purpose more then the abuse of Monarchy 9. No doubt saith he Hos. 4. They were Priests and Iudges Hos. 4. but they were over-awed as they are now J thinke he would say Hos. 3.4 otherwise he citeth Scripture sleeping That the Priests of Antichrist be not only over-awed but out of the earth I yeeld that the King be limited not over-awed I thinke Gods Law and mans Law alloweth 10. The safety of the King as King is not only safety but a blessing to Church and State and therefore this P. Prelate and his fellowes deserve to be hanged before the Sun who have led him on a warre to destroy him and his Protestant subjects But the safety and flourishing of a King in the exercises of an Arbitrary unlimited power against Law and Religion and to the destruction of his subjects is not the safety of the people nor the safety of the Kings soule which these men if they be the Priests of the Lord should care for The Prelate commeth to refute the learned and worthy Observator The safety of the people is the supreme Law ergo the King is bound in duty to promote all and every one of his subjects to all happinesse The Observator hath no such inference the King is bound to promote some of his subjects even as King to a Gallowes especially Irish Rebells and many bloudy Malignants But the Prelate will needs have God rigorous hallowed be his name if it be so for it is unpossible to the tenderest-hearted father to doe so actuall promotion of all is unpossible that the King intend it of all his subjects as good subjects by a Throne established on righteousnesse and judgement is that which the worthy Observator meaneth other things here are answered The summe of his second answer is a repetition of what he hath said I give my word in a Pamphlet of one hundred ninety and foure pages I never saw more idle repetitions of one thing twenty times before said But page one hundred sixty and eight he saith The safety of the King and his subjects in the Morall notion may be esteemed Morally the same no lesse then the soule and the body make one personall subsistence Ans. This is strange Logick the King and his subjects are Ens per aggregationem and the King as King hath one Morall subsistence and the people another Hath the Father and the sonne the Master and the servant one Morall subsistence but the man speaketh of their well being and then he must meane that our Kings Government that was not long agoe and is yet to wit the Popery Arminianisme Idolatry cutting of mens eares and noses banishing imprisonment for speaking against Popery arming of Papists to slay Protestants pardoning the bloud of Ireland that I feare shall not be soone taken away c. are identically the same with the life safety and happinesse of Protestants then life and death justice and unjustice Idolatry and sincere worship are identically one as the soule of the Prelate and his body are one The third is but a repitition The Acts of Royaltie saith the Observator are Acts of dutie and obligation Ergo not acts of grace properly so called Ergo We may not thank the King for a courtesie This is no consequence What fathers do to children are acts of naturall dutie and of naturall grace and yet children owe gratitude to parents and subjects to good Kings in a legall sense No but in way of courtesie onely

for a straw and supposed Prerogative Royall Now certainly Prerogative and Absolutenes to doe good and ill must be inferior to a Law the end whereof is the safetie of the People For David willeth the pestilence may take him away and so his Prerogative that the People may be saved 2 Sam. 24.17 for Prerogative is cumulative to doe good not privative to doe ill and so is but a meane to defend both the Law and the People 2. Prerogative is either a power to doe good or ill or both If the first be said it must be limited by the End and Law for which it is ordained A meane is no farther a meane but in so far as it conduceth to the end the safetie of all If the second be admitted it is Licence and Tyrannie not power from God If the third be said both reasons plead against this that Prerogative should be the King● end in the present warres 3. Prerogative being a power given by the mediation of the people yea suppose which is false that it were given immediately of God yet it not a thing for which the King should raise war against his Subjects for God will aske no more of the King then he giveth to him The Lord reapeth not where he soweth not If the Militia and other things be ordered hitherto for the holding off Irish and Spanish invasion by Sea and so for the good of the Land seeing the King in his own person cannot make use of the Militia he is to rejoyce that his Subjects are defended The King cannot answer to God for the justice of warre on his part It is not a case of conscience that the King should shed blood for to wit because the under-Officers are such men and not others of his choosing seeing the Kingdome is defended sufficiently except where Cavaliers destroy it And to me this is an unanswerable argument that the Cavaliers destroy not the Kingdomes for this Prerogative Royall as the principall ground but for a deeper designe even for that which was working by Prelates and Malignants before the late troubles in both Kingdomes 4. The King is to intend the safetie of his People and the safety of the King as a Governour but not as this King and this man Charles that is a selfe end a King David is not to looke to that for when the people was seeking his life and crown he saith Ps. 3.8 Thy blessing upon thy People He may care for and intend that the King and Government be safe for if the Kingdome be destroyed there cannot be a new Kingdome and Church on earth againe to serve God in that generation Psal. 89.47 but they may easily have a new King againe and so the safetie of the one cannot in reason be intended as a collaterall end with the safetie of the other for there is no imaginable comparison betwixt one man with all his accidents of Prerogative and Absolutenesse and three Nationall Churches and Kingdomes Better the King weep for a Childish trifle of a Prerogative than Poperie be erected and three Kingdomes be destroyed by Cavaliers for their own ends 5. The Dictators power is 1. a fact and proveth not a point of Conscience 2. His power was in an exigence of extreme danger of the Commonwealth The P. Prelate pleadeth for a constant absolutenesse above Lawes to the King at all times and that jure Divino 3. The Dictator was the Peoples creature ergo the Creator the People had that soveraigntie over him 4. The Dictator was not above a King but the Romanes ejected Kings 5. The Dictators power was not to destroy a State 2. He might be and was resisted 3. He might be deposed Prelate The safetie of the People is pretended as a Law that the Jewes must put Christ to death and that Saul spared Agag Ans. No shadow for either in the word of God Caiaphas prophecied and knew not what he said But that the Iewes intended the salvation of the Elect in kil●ing Christ or that Saul intended a publick good in sparing Agag shall be the Prelates Divinitie not mine 2. What howbeit many should abuse this Law of the peoples safety to wrong good Kings it ceaseth not therefore to be a Law and licenseth not ill Kings to place a Tyrannicall Prerogative above a just Dictate of nature In the last Chapter the Prelate hath no reasons onely he would have Kings holy and this he proveth from Apocrypha Books because he is ebbe in holy Scripture but it is Romish holinesse as is cleer 2. He must preach something to himself that the King adore a tree-Altar Thus Kings must be most reverend in their gestures pag. 182. 3. The King must hazard his sacred life and three Kingdoms his Crown Royall posterity to preserve sacred things that is Antichristian Romish Idols Images Altars Ceremonies Idolatry Popery 4. He must upon the same pain maintain sacred persons that is greasie Apostate Prelates The rest I am weary to trouble the Reader withall but know ex ungue leo●em QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law or no WE may consider the question of the Laws supremacie over the King either in the supremacie of constitution of the King 2. or of direction or 3. of limitation or 4. of coaction and punishing Those who maintain this The King is not subject to the Law if their meaning be The King as King is not subject to the Laws direction They say nothing for the King as the King is a living Law then they say The Law is not subject to the Laws direction a very improper speech or The King as King is not subject to the coaction of the Law that is true for he who is a living Law as such cannot punish himself as the Law saith 1. Assert The Law hath a supremacy of constitution above the King 1. Because the King by nature is not King as is proved Ergo he must be King by a politique constitution and Law and so the Law in that consideration is above the King because it is from a civil Law that there is a King rather then any other kinde of Governour 2. It is by Law that amongst many hundred men this man is King not this man and because by the which a thing is constituted by the same thing it is or may be dissolved therefore 3. As a Community finding such and such qualifications as the Law requireth to be in a King in this man not in this man therefore upon Law-ground 5. They make him a King and upon Law-grounds and just demerit they may unmake him again for what men voluntarily doe upon condition the condition being removed they may undoe again 2. Assert It is denyed by none but the King is under the directive power of the Law though many liberate the King from the coactive power of a civil Law But I see not what direction a civil Law can give to the King if he be above all obedience or

disobedience to a Law seeing all Law-direction is in ●rdine ad obedientiam in order to obey except thus far that the light that is in the civil Law is a morall or naturall guide to conduct a King in his walking but this is the morality of the Law which inlightneth and informeth not any obligation that aweth the King and so the King is under Gods and Natures Law this is nothing to the purpose 3. Assert The King is under the Law in regard of some coercive limitation 1. Because there is no absolute power given to him to do what he listeth as a man And because 2. God in making Saul a King doth not by any Royall stamp give him a power to sin or to play the Tyrant for which cause I expone these of the Law Omnia sunt possibilia Regi Imperator omnia potest Baldus in § F. de no. for fidel in F. in prima constitut C. col 2. Chassanaeus in Catalog gloriae mundi par 5. considerat 24. tanta est ejus celsitudo ut non posset ei imponi lex in regno suo Curt. in consol 65. col 6. ad F. Petrus Rebuff Notab 3. repet l. unicae C. de sentent quae pro eo quod nu 17. pag. 363. All these go no otherwise but thus The King can do all things which by Law he can do and that holdeth him id possumus quod jure possumus And therefore the King cannot be above the Covenant and Law made betwixt him and his people at his Coronation-oath for then the Covenant and Oath should binde him onely by a naturall obligation as he is a man not by a civil or politique obligation as he is a King So then 1. it were sufficient that the King should swear that Oath in his Cabinet-chamber and it is but a mocking of an Oath that he swear it to the people 2. That Oath given by the Representative-Kingdom should also oblige the Subjects naturally in foro Dei not politically in foro humano upon the same reason 3. He may be resisted as a man 4. Assert The fourth case is if the King be under the obliging politique coaction of civil Laws for that he in foro Dei be under the morality of civil Laws so as he cannot contraveen any Law in that notion but he must sin against God is granted on all hands Deut. 17.20 Iosh. 1.8 1 Sam. 12.15 That the King binde himself to the same Law that he doth binde others is decent and obligeth the King as he is a man 1. Because Matth. 7.12 It is said to be the Law and the Prophets All things whatsoever ye would men should do unto you do ye even so to them 2. It is the Law Jmperator L. 4. digna v●x C. de lege tit Quod quisque juris in alium statuit eodem ipse utatur Iulius Caesar commanded the youth who had defloured the Emperours daughter to be scourged above that which the Law allowed The youth said to the Emperour Dixisti legem Caesar You appointed the Law Caesar. The Emperor was so offended with himself that he had failed against the Law that for the whole day he refused to taste meat Assert 5. The King cannot but he subject to the coactive power of Fundamentall Laws Because this is a Fundamentall Law that the free Estates lay upon the King that all the power that they give to the King as King is for the good and safety of the people and so what he doth to the hurt of his subjects he doth it not as King 2. The Law saith Qui habet potestatem constituendi etiam jus adimendi l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg jure Those who have power to make have power to unmake Kings 3. What ever the King doth as King that he doth by a power borrowed from or by a fiduciary power which is his by trust the Estates who made him King He must then be nothing but an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others If therefore he be unpunishable it is not so much because his Royall power is above all Law-coaction as because one the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished and this is a Physicall incongruity rather then a Morall absurdity So the Law of God layeth a duty on the inferiour Magistrate to use the sword against the murtherer and that by vertue of his Office but I much doubt it for that he is to use the sword against himselfe in the case of Murther for this is a truth I purpose to make good that suffering as suffering according to the substance and essence of passion is not commanded by any Law of God or nature to the sufferer but only the manner of suffering I doubt if it be not by the Law of Nature lawfull even to the ill doer who hath deserved death by Gods Law to fly from the sword of the lawfull Magistrate only the manner of suffering with patience is commanded of God I know the Law saith here That the Magistrate is both Iudge and the Executor of the sentence against himselfe in his owne cause for the excellency of his Office Therefore these are to be distinguished whether the King Ratione demeriti jure by Law be punishable or if the King can actually be punished corporally by a Law of man he remaining King and since he must be a punisher himselfe and that by vertue of his Office In matters of goods the King may be both Iudge and punisher of himselfe as our Law provideth that any subject may plead his owne heritage from the King before the inferiour Iudges and if the King be a violent possessour and in Mala fide for many yeares by Law he is obliged upon a Decree of the Lords to execute the sentence against himselfe Ex officio and to restore the Lands and repay the dammage to the just owner and this the King is to doe against himselfe ex officio I grant here the King as King punisheth himselfe as an unjust man but because bodily suffering is meere violence to nature I doubt if the King ex officio is to doe or inflict any bodily punishment on himselfe Nemo potest a seipso cogi l. ille a quo 13. § Assert 6. There be some Lawes made in favour of the King as King as to pay tribute The King must be above this Law as King True but if a Noble man of a great rent be elected King I know not if he can be free from paying to himselfe as King tribute seeing this is not allowed to the King by a Divine Law Rom. 13.6 as a reward of his worke and Christ expresly maketh tribute a thing due to Caesar as a King Matth. 22. v. 21. There be some solemnities of the Law from which the King may be free Prickman D. c. 3. n. 78. and he relateth what they are they are not Lawes but some circumstances belonging to Lawes

and Prickman answereth to many places alledged out of the Lawyers to prove the King to be above the Law Maldorus in 12. Art 4 5 9 96. will have the Prince under that Law which concerneth all the Common-wealth equally in regard of the matter and that by the Law of nature but he will not have him subject to these Lawes which concerneth the subjects as subjects as to pay tribute He citeth Francis● a Vict. Covarruvia and Turrecremata He also will have the Prince under positive Lawes such as not to transport victualls not because the Law bindeth him as a Law But because the making of the Law bindeth him Tanquam conditio sine qua non even as he who teacheth another that he should not steale he should not steale himselfe Rom. 2. But the truth is this is but a branch of the Law of Nature that I should not commit Adultery and Theft and Sacriledge and such sinnes as nature condemneth if I shall condemne them in others and doth not prove that the King is under the coactive power of Civill Lawes Vlpianus l. 31. F. de regibus saith The Prince is loosed from Lawes Bodine de Repub. l. 7. c. 8. Nemo imperat sibi No man commandeth himselfe Tholosanus saith Ipsius est dare non accipere leges The Prince giveth Lawes but receiveth none De Rep. l. 7. c. 20. Donellus Lib. 1. Comment c. 17. distinguisheth betwixt a Law and a Royall Law proper to the King Trentlerus Volum 1.79.80 saith The Prince is freed from Laws and that he obeyeth Laws de honestate non de necessitate Vpon honesty not of necessity Thomas P. 1. q. 96. Art 5. and with him Soto Gregorius de Valentia and other Schoole-men subject the King to the directive power of the Law and liberate him of the coactive power of the Law Assert 7. If a King turne a Paricide a Lyon and a waster and destroyer of the people as a man he is subject to the Coactive power of the Lawes of the Land If any Law should hinder that a Tyrant should not be punished by Law it must be because he hath not a superiour but God for Royalists build all upon this but this ground is false because the Estates of the Kingdome who gave him the Crowne are above him and they may take away what they gave him as the Law of Nature and God saith If they had knowne he would turne Tyrant they would never have given him the sword●● and so how much ignorance is in the contract they made with the King as little of will is in it and so it is not every way willing but being conditionall is supposed to be against their will 2. They gave the power to him only for their good and that they make the King is cleare 2 Chron. 23.11 1 Sam. 10.17 24. Deut. 17.14 15 16 17. 2 King 11. v. 12. 1 King 16.21 2 King 10.5 Iud. 9.6.2 2 Chron. 26.18 fourescore valiant men of the Priests withstood Vzziah in a corporall violence and thrust him out and cut him off from the house of the Lord. And 2. If the Princes place doe not put him above the Lawes of Church-Discipline Matth. 18. for Christ excepteth none and how can men except and if the rod of Christs lips smite the earth and slay the wicked Esay 11.4 and the Prophets Elias Nathan Ieremiah Esaiah c. Iohn Baptist Iesus Christ and his Apostles have used this rod of censure and rebuke as servants under God against Kings this is a sort of spirituall coaction of Lawes put in execution by men and by due proportion corporall coaction being the same ordinance of God though of another nature must have the like power over all whom the Law of God hath not excepted but Gods Law excepteth none at all 3. It is presumed that God hath not provided better for the safety of the part then of the whole especially when he maketh the part a meane for the safety of the whole But if God have provided that the King who is a part of the Common-wealth shall be free of all punishment though he be a habituall destroyer of the whole Kingdome seeing God hath given him to be a Father Tutor Saviour Defender thereof and destinated him as a meane for their safety then must God have worse not better provided for the safety of the whole then of the part The Proposition is cleare in that God Rom. 13.4 1 Tim. 2.2 hath ordained the Ruler and given to him the sword to defend the whole Kingdome and City but we read no where that the Lord hath given the sword to the whole Kingdome to defend one man a King though a Ruler come going on in a Tyrannicall way of destroying all his subjects The assumption is evident for then the King turning Tyrant might set an Army of Turkes Jewes cruell Papists to destroy the Church of God without all feire of L●w or punishment Yea this is contrary to the doctrine of Royalists for Winzetus adversus Buchana●um p. 275. s●ith of Nero that he seeking to destroy the Senate and people of Rom● and seeking to m●ke new lawes for himselfe excidit jure Regni lost right to the Kingdome And Barclaius advers Monarcho-Machous l. 3. c. ult p. 212 213. saith A Tyrant such as Caligula spoliare se jure Regni spoileth himselfe of the right to the Crown And in that same place Regem si regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit regno cadere If the King sell his Kingdome he loseth the title to the Crown Grotius de jure belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7 Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur amittit regnum If he turne Enemie to the Kingdome for their destruction he loseth his Kingdome because saith he Voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi simul consistere non possunt A will or minde to governe and to destroy cannot consist together in one Now if this be true that a King turning Tyrant loseth title to the Crown this is either a falling from his Royall title only in Gods court or it is a losing of it before men and in the court of his Subjects If the former be said 1. He is no King having before God lost his Royall title and yet the people is to obey him as the Minister of God and a power from God when as he is no such thing 2. In vaine doe these Authors provide remedies to save the people from a Tyrannous waster of the people if they speake of a Tyrant who is no King in Gods court only and yet remaineth a King to the people in regard of the Law for the places speake of Remedies that God hath provided against Tyrants cum titulo such as are lawfull Kings but turn Tyrants Now by this they provide no remedie at all if only in Gods court and not in Mans court also a Tyrant lose his title As for Tyrants sine

titulo such as usurpe the throne and have no just claime to it Barclaius adver Monarcho-Ma l. 4. c. 10. p. 268. saith Any private man may kill him as a publike enemie of the State but if he lose his title to the Crown in the court of Men then is there 1 a Court on Earth to judge the King and so he is under the coactive power of a Law 2. Then a King may be resisted and yet those who resist them doe not incurre damnation the contrary whereof Royalists endeavour to prove from Rom. 13.3 Then the people may un-un-king one who was a King But 4. I would know who taketh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from him whereby he is a King that beame of Divine majestie Not the people because Royalists say they neither can give nor take away Royall dignitie and so they cannot un-king him 4. The more Will be in the consent saith Ferd. Vasquez l. 1. c 41. the obligation is the stricter So doubled words saith the Law l. 1. § 13. n. 13. oblige more strictly And all lawes of Kings who are rationall fathers and so lead us by Lawes as by rationall meanes to peace and externall happinesse are contracts of King and People Omnis lex sponsio contractus Reip. § 1. Iust. de ver relig Now the King at his Coronation-covenant with the people giveth a most intense consent an Oath to be a keeper and preserver of all good Laws and so hardly he can be freed from the strictest obligation that Law can impose And if he keep Lawes by office he is a meane to preserve Lawes and no meane can bee superior and above the end but inferior thereunto 5. Bodine proveth de Rep. l. 2. c. 5. p. 221. that Emperors at first were but Princes of the Commonwealth and that Soveraigntie remained still in the Senate and people Marius Salomonius a learned Romane Civilian wrote sixe bookes de Principatu to refute the supremacie of Emperors above the State Ferd. Vasq. illust quest part 1. l. 1. n. 21. proveth that the Prince by Royall dignitie leaveth not off to be a Citizen a member of the Politique body and not a King but a Keeper of Lawes Hence 6. The Prince remaineth even being a Prince a sociall creature a Man as well as a King one who must buy sell promise contract dispose Ergo he is not Regula regulans but under rule of law for impossible it is if the King can in a politicall way live as a member of a societie and doe and performe acts of policie and so performe them as he may by his office buy and not pay promise and vow and sweare to men and not performe nor be obliged to men to render a reckoning of his Oath and kill and destroy and yet in Curia politicae societatis in the Court of humane policie be free and that he may give inheritances as just rewards of vertue and well-doing and take them away againe Yea seeing these sinnes that are not punishable before men are not sinnes before men If all the sinnes and oppressions of a Prince be so above the punishment that men can inflict they are not sinnes before men by which meanes the King is loosed from all guiltinesse of the sinnes against the Second Table for the ratio formalis the formall reason why the Iudge by warrant from God condemneth in the Court of men the guilty man is because he hath sinned against humane societie either through the scandall of blasphemie or through other heynous sinnes he hath defiled the Land Now this is incident to the King as well as to some other sinfull man To these and the like heare what the excommunicated Prelate hath to say 1. They say he meaneth the Jesuites Every societie of men is a perfect Republick and so must have within it selfe a power to preserve it selfe from ruine and by that to punish a Tyrant He answereth A societie without a Head is a disorderly rout not a Politique body and so cannot have this power Ans. 1. The Pope giveth to every Societie Politick power to make away a Tyrant or hereticall King and to un-king him by his brethren the Jesuites way And observe how Papists of which number I could easily prove the P. Prelate to be by the Popish doctrine that he delivered while the iniquitie of time and dominion of Prelates in Scotland advanced him against all worth of true learning and holinesse to be a Preacher in Edinborough and Iesuites agree as the builders of Babylon It is the purpose of God to destroy Babylon 2. This answer shall inferre that the Aristocraticall Governors of any free State and that the Duke of Venice and the Senate there is above all Law and cannot be resisted because without their Heads they are a disorderly Rout. 3. A Politicall societie as by Natures instinct they may appoint a Head or Heads to themselves so also if their Head or Heads become ravenous Wolves the God of Nature hath not left a perfect Societie remedilesse but they may both resist and punish the Head or Heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good not for their destruction 4. They are as orderly a body Politique to unmake a Tyrannous Commander as they were to make a just Governour The Prelate saith It is alike to conceive a Politique body without a Governour as to conceive the naturall body without a Head He meaneth None of them can be conceivable I am not of his minde When Saul was dead Israel was a perfect Politique body and the Prelate if he be not very obtuse in his head as this hungry peece stollen from others sheweth him to be may conceive a visible Politicall societie performing a Politicall action 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. making David King at a visible and conceivable place at Hebron and making a Covenant with him And that they wanted not all Governors is nothing to make them Chymera's unconceivable For when so many families before Nimrod were governed only by fathers of families and they agreed to make either a King or other Governors a Head or Heads over themselves though the severall families had government yet these consociated families had no government and yet so conceivable a Politique body as if Maxwell would have compeared amongst them and called them a disorderly rout or an unconceivable Chymera they should have made the Prelate know that Chymera's can knock down Prelates Neither is a King the life of a Politique body as the soule is of the naturall body The body createth not the soule but Israel created Saul King and when he was dead they made David King and so under God many Kings as they succeeded till the Messiah came No naturall body can make soules to it selfe by succession Nor can Seas create new Prelates alwayes P. Prelate Jesuites and Puritans differ infinitely We are hopefull God shall cast down this Babel The Iesuites for ought I know seat the

all that the God of Heaven required to be done for the Religion and house of the God of Heaven and so a generall warrant for a Covenant without the King and yet Ezra and the people in swearing that Covenant failed in no dutie against their King to whom by the fifth Commandment they were no lesse subject then we are to our King just so we are and so have not failed but they say The King hath committed to no Lievtenant and Deputie under him to do what they please in Religion without his Royall consent in particular and the direction of his Clergy seeing he is of that same Religion with his people whereas Artaxerxes was of another Religion then were the Iews and their Governour Answ. Nor can our King take on himself to do what he pleaseth and what the Prelates amongst whom these who ruled all are known before the World and the Sun to be of another Religion then we are pleaseth in particular But see what Religion and Worship the Lord our God and the Law of the Land which is the Kings revealed will alloweth to us that we may swear though the King should not swear it otherwayes we are to be of no Religion but of the Kings and to swear no Covenant but the Kings which is to joyn with Papists against Protestants 6. The strangers of Ephraim and Manasseh and out of Simeon fell out of Israel in abundance to Asa when they saw that the Lord his God was with him 2 Chron. 15.9 10. And sware that Covenant without their own Kings consent their own King being against it If a people may swear a Religious Covenant without their King who is averse thereunto far more may the Nobles Peers and Estates of Parliament do it without their King And here is an example of a practise which the P. Prelate requireth 7. That Jehojadah was Governour and Vice-Roy during the non-age of Joash and that by this Royall Authoritie the Covenant was sworn is a dream to the end he may make the Pope and the Arch-Prelate now Vice-Royes and Kings when the throne varieth The Nobles were Authors of the making of that Covenant no lesse then Iehojadah was yea and the People of the Land when the King was but a childe went unto the house of Baal and brake down his Images c. Here is a Reformation made without the King by the people 8. Grave Expositors say That the Covenant with death and hell Esay 28. was the Kings Covenant with Egypt 9. And the Covenant Hos. 10. is by none exponed of a Covenant made without the King I heard say this Prelate Preaching on this Text before the King exponed it so But he spake words as the Text is falsly The P. Prelate to the end of the Chapter giveth instance of the ill-successe of Popular Reformation because the people caused Aaron to make a Golden Calf and they revolted from Rehoboam to Ieroboam and made two Golden Calves and they conspired with Absolom against David Answ. If the first example make good any thing neither the High-Priest as was Aaron nor the P. Prelate who claimeth to be descended of Aarons house should have any hand in Reformation at all for Aaron erred in that and to argue from the peoples sins to deny their power is no better then to prove Achab Ieroboam and many Kings in Israel and Judah committed Idolatry Ergo They had no Royall power at all In the rest of the Chapter for a whole Page he singeth over again his Mattens in a circle and giveth us the same Arguments we heard before of which you have these three notes 1. They are stoln and not his own 2. Repeated again and again to fill the field 3. All hang on a false supposition and a begging of the question That the people without the King have no power at all QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall interpreter of the Law THis Question conduceth not a little to the clearing of the doubts concerning the Kings absolute power and the supposed sole nomothetick power in the King And I thinke it not unlike to the question whether the Pope and Romish Church havt a sole and peremptory power of exponing Lawes and the Word of God We are to consider that therr is a twofold exposition of Lawes one speculative in a Schoole way so exquisite Iurists have a power to expone Lawes 2. Practicall in so farre as the sense of the Law falleth under our Practice and this is twofold either private and common to all or judiciall and proper to Iudges and of this last is the question For this Publicke the Law hath one fundamentall rule Salus populi like the King of Planets the Sunne which lendeth Star-light to all Lawes and by which they are exponed whatever interpretation swarveth either from fundamentall Lawes of policy or from the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations and especially from the safety of the publick is to be rejected as a perverting of the Law and therefore Conscientia humani generis the naturall conscience of all men to which the oppressed people may appeale unto when the King exponeth a Law unjustly at his owne pleasure is the last rule on earth for exponing of Lawes Nor ought Lawes to be made so obscure as an ordinary wit cannot see their connexion with fundamentall truths of policy and the safety of the people and therefore I see no inconvenience to say that The Law it selfe is Norma regula juduicandi the Rule and directory to square the Iudge and that the Iudge is the publicke practicall interpreter of the Law Assert 1. The King is not the sole and finall interpreter of the Law 1. Because then inferiour Iudges should not be interpreters of the Law but inferiour Iudges are no lesse essentially Iudges then the King● Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 2. and so by Office must interpret the Law else they cannot give sentence according to their conscience and equity now exponing of the Law judicially is an act of judging and so a personall and incommunicable act so as I can no more judge and expone the Law according to another mans conscience then I can beleeve with another mans soule or understand with another mans understanding see with another mans eye The Kings pleasure therefore cannot be the rule of the inferiour Iudges conscience for he giveth an immediate accompt to God the Iudge of all of a just or an unjust sentence Suppone Caesar shall expone the Law to Pilate that Christ deserveth to dye the death yet Pilate is not in conscience to expone the Law so If therefore inferiour Iudges judge for the King they judge only by power borrowed from the King not by the pleasure will or command of the King thus and thus exponing the Law ergo the King cannot be the sole interpreter of the Law 2. If the Lord say not to the King only but also

to other inferiour Iudges Be wise understand and the cause that you know not search out then the King is not the only interpreter of the Law But the Lord saith not to the King only but to other Iudges also Be wise understand and the cause that you know not search out ergo the King is not the sole Law-giver The Major is cleare from Ps. 2.10 Be wise now therefore O yee Kings be instructed yee Iudges of the earth So are commands and rebukes for unjust judgement given to others then to Kings Ps. 82.1 2 3 4 5. Ps. 58.1 2. Esay 1.17 23 25 26. Esay 3.14 see Iob. 29.12 13 14 15. c. 31. v. 21.22 3 The King is either the sole interpreter of Law in respect he is to follow the Law as his Rule and so he is a ministeriall interpreter of the Law or he is an interpreter of the Law according to that super-dominion of absolute power that he hath above the Law If the former be holden then it is cleare that the King is not the only interpreter for all Iudges as they are Iudges have a ministeriall power to expone the Law by the Law but the second is the sense of Royalists Hence our second Assertion is That the Kings power of exponing the Law is a meere ministeriall power and he hath no dominion of any absolute Royall Power to expone the Law as he will and to put such a sense and meaning of the Law as he pleaseth 1. Because Saul maketh a Law 1 Sam. 14.24 Cursed be the man that tasteth any food till night that the King may be avenged on his enemies the Law according to the letter was bloudy but according to the intent of the Law-giver and substance of the Law profitable for the end was that the enemies should be pursued with all speed But King Sauls exponing the Law after a Tyrannicall way against the intent of the Law which is the Diamond and Pearle of all Lawes the safety of the innocent people was justly resisted by the people who violently hindered innocent Jonathan to be killed Whence it is cleare that the people and Princes put on the Law its true sense and meaning for Ionathans tasting of a little honey though as it was against that sinfull and precipitate circumstance a rash oath yet it was not against the substance and true intent of the Law which was the peoples speedy pursuite of the enemy Whence it is cleare that the people including the Princes hath a ministeriall power to expone the Law aright and according to its genuine intent and that the King as King hath no absolute power to expone the Law as he pleaseth 2. The Kings absolute pleasure can no more be the genuine sense of a just Law then his absolute pleasure can be a Law because the genuine sense of the Law is the Law it selfe as the formall essence of a thing differeth not really but in respect of reason from the thing it selfe The Pope and Romish Church cannot put on the Scripture Ex plenitudine potestatis what ever meaning they will no more then they can out of absolute power make Canonicke Scripture Now so it is that the King by his absolute power cannot make Law no Law 1. Because he is King by or according to Law but he is not King of Law Rex est Rex secundum legem sed non est Dominus Rex legis 2. Because although it have a good meaning which Vlpian saith Quod principi placet legis vigorem habet The Will of the Prince is the Law yet the meaning is not that any thing is a just Law because it is the Princes Will for its rule formally for it must be good and just before the Prince can will it and then he finding it so he puteth the stampe of a humane Law on it 3. This is the difference between Gods Will and the will of the King or any mortall creature Things are just and good because God willeth them especially things positively good though I conceive it hold in all things and God doth not will things because they are good and just But the creature be he King or any never so eminent doe will things because they are good and just and the Kings willing of a thing maketh it not good and just for only Gods will not the Creatures will can be the cause why things are good and just If therefore it be so it must undeniably hence follow that the Kings will maketh not a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense and he cannot as King by any absolute super-dominion over the Law put a just sense on a bloody and unjust Law 4. The advancing of any man to the Throne and Royall dignitie putteth not the man above the number of rationall men But no rationall man can create by any act of power never so transcendent or boundlesse a sense to a Law contrary to the Law Nay give me leave to doubt if Omnipotencie can make a just Law to have an unjust and bloody sense aut contra because it involveth a contradiction the true meaning of a Law being the essentiall forme of the Law Hence judge what bruitish swinish flatterers they are who say That it is the true meaning of the Law which the King the only supreme and independent expositor of the Law saith is the true sense of the Law There was once an Animal a Foole of the first magnitude who said He could demonstrate by invincible reasons that the Kings dung was more nourishing food then bread of the floore of the finest wheat For my part I could wish it were the Demonstrators only food for seven dayes and that should be the best demonstration he could make for his proofe 5. It must follow that there can be no necessitie of written laws to the Subjects against Scripture and naturall reason and the law of Nations in which all accord That Lawes not promulgated and published cannot oblige as Lawes Yea Adam in his innocencie was not obliged to obey a Law not written in his heart by Nature except God had made known the Law as is cleare Gen. 3.11 Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat But if the Kings absolute Will may put on the Law what sense he pleaseth out of his independent and irresistable Supremacie The Lawes promulgated and written to the Subjects can declare nothing what is to be done by the Subjects as just and what is to be avoyded as unjust because the Lawes must signifie to the Subjects what is just and unjust according to their genuine sense Now their genuine sense according to Royalists is not only uncertaine and impossible to be known but also contradictorious for the King obligeth us without gainsaying to believe that the just Law hath this unjust sense Hence this of flattering Royalists crueller to Kings than Ravens for these ear but dead men and they

devoure living men when there is a controversie between the King and the Estates of Parliament who shall expone the Law and render its native meaning say Royalists not the Estates of Parliament for they are Subjects not Iudges to the King and only Counsellers and advisers of the King The King therefore must be the only judiciall and finall expositor As for Lawyers said Strafford the Law is not inclosed in a Lawyers Cap. But I remember this was one of the Articles laid to the charge of Richard the Second that he said The Law was in his head and breast And indeed it must follow if the King by the plenitude of absolute power be the only supreme uncontrollable Expositor of the Law that is not Law which is written in the Acts of Parliament but that is the Law which is in the Kings breast and head which Iosephus lib. 19. Antiq. c. 2. objected to Caius And all justice and injustice should be finally and peremptorily resolved on the Kings will and absolute pleasure 6. The King either is to expone the Law by the Law it selfe or by his Absolute power loosed from all Law he exponeth it or according to the advise of his Great Senate If the first be said he is nothing more then other Iudges If the second be said he must be omnipotent and more If the third be said he is not absolute if the Senate be only Advisers and he yet the only Iudiciall expositor The King often professeth his ignorance of the Lawes and he must then both be absolute above the Law and ignorant of the Law and 2. the sole and finall Iudiciall exponer of the Law And by this all Parliaments and their power of making Lawes and of judging i● cryed down They object Prov. 16.10 A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King His mouth transgresseth not in judgement ergo he only can expone the Law Ans. 1. Lavater saith and I see no reason on the contrary by a King he meaneth all Magistrates 2. Aben Ezra and Isidorus read the words imperatively The Tigurine version They are Oracles which proceed from his lips let not therefore his mouth transgresse in judgement Vatabulus When he is in his prophecies he lyeth not Iansenius Non facile errabit in judicando Mich. Iermine If he pray Calvine If he read in the booke of the Law as God commandeth him Deut. 17. But why stand we on the place He speaketh of good Kings saith Cornel à Lapide Otherwise Ieroboam Achab Manasseh erred in judgement And except as Mercerus exponeth it We understand him to speake of Kings according to their office not their facts and practice we make them Popes and men who cannot give out grievous and unjust sentences on the Throne against both the Word and experience Object 2. Sometimes all is cast upon ou● mans voice why may not the King be this one man Answ. The Antecedent is false the last Voter in a Senate is not the sole Iudge else why should others give suffrages with him 2. This were to take away inferiour Iudges contrary to Gods Word Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Rom. 13.1 2 3. QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Subjects and Estates for their own just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull A Ruisaeus perverteth the question he saith The question is Whether or no the Subjects may according to their power judge the King and dethrone him that is Whether or no is it lawfull for the Subjects in any case to take arms against their lawfull Prince if he degenerate and shall wickedly use his lawfull power The state of the question is much perverted for these be different questions Whether the Kingdom may dethrone a wicked and Tyrannous Prince And whether may the Kingdom take up arms against the man who is the King in their own innocent defence For the former is an Act offensive and of punishing the latter is an Act of Defence 2. The present question is not of Subjects onely but of the Estates and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom I utterly deny these as they are Iudges to be subjects to the King for the question is Whether is the King or the representative Kingdom greatest and which of them be subject one to another I affirm Amongst Iudges as Iudges not one is the Commander or Superiour and the other the commanded or subject Indeed one higher Iudge may correct and punish a Iudge not as a Iudge but as an erring man 3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act of War as concerning the power of naturall Defence upon supposition That the King be not now turned an habituall Tyrant but that upon some acts of mis-information he come in arms against his Subjects 2. Arnisaeus maketh two sort of Kings Some Kings integra Majestatis of intire power and Soveraignty some Kings by pactions or voluntary agreement between King and people But I judge this a vain distinction For the limited Prince so he be limited to a power onely of doing just and right by this is not a Prince integrae Majestatis of entire Royall Majestie whereby he may do both good and also play the Tyrant but a power to do ill being no wayes essentiall yea repugnant to the absolute Majestie of the King of Kings cannot be an essentiall part of the Majestie of a lawfull King and therefore the Prince limited by voluntary and positive paction onely to rule according to law and equity is the good lawfull and entire Prince if he have not power to do every thing just and good in that regard onely he is not an intire and compleat Prince So the man will have it lawfull to resist the limited Prince not the absolute Prince by the contrary it is more lawfull to me to resist the absolute Prince then the limited in as much as we may with safer consciences resist the Tyrant and the Lyon then the just Prince and the Lamb. Nor can I assent to Cunnerus de officio princip Christia c. 5. 17. Who holdeth that these voluntary pactions betwixt King and people in which the power of the Prince is diminished cannot stand because their power is given to them by Gods Word which cannot be taken from them by any voluntary paction lawfully and from the same ground Winzetus in v●lit contr Buchan p. 32. will have it unlawfull to resist Kings because God hath made them unresistable I answer If God by a divine institution make Kings absolute and above all Laws which is a blasphemous supposition the holy Lord can give to no man a power to sin for God hath not himself any such power then the Covenant betwixt the King and people cannot lawfully remove and take away what God by institution has given but because God Deut. 17. hath limited the first lawfull King the mould of all the rest the people ought also to limit him by a voluntary Covenant and because the

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 Physicall Passion such as to be killed God hath not said to me in any Morall Law Be thou killed tortured beheaded but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked mens hands to suffer these things 3. There is not a stricter Obligation Morall betwixt King and people then betwixt Parents and Children Master and servant Patron and Clients Husband and Wife the Lord and the Vassell between the Pilot of a Ship and the Passengers the Physitian and the sick the Doctor and the schollars but the Law granteth l. Minime 35. De Relig. sumpt funer If these betray their trust committed to them they may be resisted if the father turne distracted and arise to kill his sonnes his sonnes may violently apprehend him and bind his hands and spoile him of his Weapons for in that he is not a father Vasquez Lib. 1. Illustr question c. 8. n. 18. Si dominus subditum enormiter atrociter oneraret princeps superior vassallum posset ex toto e●imere a sua jurisdictione etiam tacente subdito nihil petente Quid papa in suis decis Parliam grat decis 62. si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari possunt The servant may resist the Master if he attempt unjustly to kill him so may the Wife doe to the Husband if the Pilot should wilfully run the ship on a Rock to destroy himselfe and his Passengers they might violently thrust him from the Helme Every Tyrant is a furious man and is morally distracted as Althusius saith Politi c. 28. n. 30. seq 4. That which is given as a blessing and a favour and a Scrine betweene 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 and favour of God to defend the poore and needy to preserve both Tables of the Law and to keepe the people in their liberties from oppressing and treading one 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 doe acts of Tyranny and so to doe them that to resist him in the most innocent way which is selfe defence must be a resisting of God and Rebellion against the King his Deputy then hath God given a Royall power as incontrollable by mortall men by any violence as if God himselfe were immediatly and personally resisted when the King is resisted and so this power shall be a power to wast and destroy irresistably and so in it selfe a plague and a curse for it cannot be ordained both according to the intention and genuine formall effect and intrinsecall operation of the power to preserve the Tables of the Law Religion and Liberty Subjects and Lawes and also to destroy the same but it is taught by Royalists that this power is for Tyranny as well as for peaceable Government because to resist this Royall Power put forth in Acts either waies either in acts of Tyranny or just Government is to resist the Ordinance of God as Royalists say from Rom. 13.1 2 3. And we know to resist Gods ordinances and Gods Deputy formaliter as his Deputy is to resist God himselfe 1 Sam. 8.7 Mat. 10.40 as if God were doing personally these Acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these Acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to thinke or say that when a King is drinking the blood of innocents and wasting the Church of God that God if he were personally present would commit these same acts of Tyranny God would avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King as his lawfull Deputy and Vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poore Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of Tyranny he is not Gods formall Vicegerent but only in good and lawfull acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his Royall Person Yet this must prov● that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lords Deputy though not as the Lords Deputy what absurd is there in that more then to disobey him refusing active obedience to him who is the Lords Deputy but not as the Lords Deputy but as a man commanding beside his Masters Warrant 5. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now Gods end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding safetie preservation the peaceable and quiet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2.2 Esa. 49.23 Psal. 79.71 But God should crosse his own end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressors and wasters in his holy Mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a thousand thousand Protestants for their Religion in an ordinary Providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say The King will not be so cruell I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possibly in his power to be so cruell 2. We owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the nature and genuine intrinsecall end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistance made by any mortall man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemie to Gods ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no barre upon the illimited power of a man inclined to sinne and abuse his power to so much crueltie Some may say the same absurditie doth follow if the King should turne Papist and the Parliament all were Papists in that case there might be so many Martyrs for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power then more then now and yet in that case the King and Parliament should be Iudges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in Peace and Godlinesse But I answer If God gave a lawfull officiall power to King and Parliament to worke the same crueltie upon millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawfull for them by armes to defend themselves I should then think that King and Parliament were both ex officio by vertue of their office and actu primo Iudges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and Butchers Which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted Providence of

when Nero commandeth unjust punishment because Nero commanding so remaineth Gods Minister Why But when Nero commandeth me to worship an Heathen God I am upon the same ground to obey that unjust will in doing ill For Nero in commanding Idolatry remaineth the Lords Minister his person is sacred in the one commandment of doing ill as in inflicting ill of punishment And do I not resist his person in the one as in the other His power and his person are unseparably conjoyned by God in the one as in the other 2. In bodily thrusting out of Vzzah from the Temple these fourscore valiant men did resist the Kings person by bodily violence as well as his power 3. If the power of killing the Martyrs in Nero was no power ordained of God then the resisting of Nero in his taking away the lives of the Martyrs was but the resisting of Tyranny And certainly if that power in Nero was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power ordained of God and not to be resisted as the place Rom. 13. is alleaged by Royalists then it must be a lawfull power and no Tyranny and if it cannot be resisted because it was a power ordained and settled in him it is either setled by God and so not Tyranny except God be the Author of Tyranny or then settled by the devill and so may well be resisted but the Text speaketh of no power but of that which is of God 4. We are not to be subject to all powers in concreto by the Text for we are not to be subject to powers lawfull yet commanding active obedience to things unlawfull Now subjection includeth active obedience of honour love fear paying tribute and therefore of need force some powers must be excepted 5. Pilates power is meerly a power by divine permission not a power ordained of God as are the powers spoken of Rom. 13. Gregori mor. l. 3. c. 11. expresly saith This was Satans power given to Pilate against Christ. Manibus Satanae pro nostra redemptione se traddit Lyra. A Principibus Romanorum ulterius permissum a Deo qui est potestas superior Calvin B●za Diod●tus saith the same and that he cannot mean of Legall power from Gods regulating will is evident 1. Because Christ is answering Pilate John 19.10 Knowest thou not that I have power to crucifie thee This was an untruth Pilate had a command to worship him and beleeve in him and whereas Ferne saith Sect. 9. pag. 59. Pilate had power to judge any accused before him It is true but he being obliged to beleeve in Christ he was obliged to be perswaded of Christs innocency and so neither to judge nor receive accusation against him and the power he saith he had to crucifie was a Law-power in Pilates meaning but not in very deed any Law-power because a Law-power is from Gods regulating will in the fifth Commandment but no creature hath a lawfull or a Law-power to crucifie Christ. 2. A Law-power is for good Rom. 13.4 A power to crucifie Christ is for ill 3. A Law-power is a terrour to ill works and a praise to good Pilates power to crucifie Christ was the contrary 4. A Law-power is to execute wrath on ill-doing a power to crucifie Christ is no such 5. A Law-power conciliateth honour fear and veneration to the person of the Judge a power to crucifie Christ conciliateth no such thing but a disgrace to Pilate 6. The Genuine Acts of a lawfull power are lawfull Acts for such as is the Fountain-power such are the Acts flowing therefrom good Acts slow not from bad powers neither hath God given a power to sin except by way of permission QUEST XXX Whether or no Passive Obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement and what a meane Resistance is That Flying is Resistance MUch is built to commend patient suff●ring of ill and con●emne all r●sistance of Superiors by Royalists on the place 1 Pet. 2.18 Where we are commanded being servants to suffer buffets not onely for ill doing of good masters but also undeservedly and when we do● well we a●e to suffer of these masters that are evi●l and so much more are we patiently without Resistance to suffer of Kings B●t it is cleare the place is nothing against Resistance as in these Assertions I cleare Assertion 1. Pati●nt suff●ring of wicked men and violent resisting are not incompatible but they may well stand together So this consequence is the basis of the argument and it is just nothing To wit Servants are to suff●r u●j●stly wounds and ●u●●●ting of their wicked Masters and they a●e to bear i● patiently Ergo Servants are in conscience obliged to non-resistance Now Scripture maketh this cl●ar The Church of God is to bear with all patience the 〈◊〉 of the Lord because she hath sinned and to suffer of wicked enemies which were to be troden as mire in the streets Micah 7.9 10 11 12. but withall they were not obliged to non-resistance and not to fight against these enemies yea they were obliged to fight against them also If these were Babilon Iudah might have resisted and fought if God had not giv●n a speciall commandement of a positive law that they should not fight if these were the Assyrians and other enemies or rather both the people were to resist by fighting and yet to endure patiently the indignation of the Lord. David did bear most patiently the wrong that his own son Absolon and Achitophel and the people inflicted on him in pursuing him to take his life and the kingdom from him as is cleare by his gracious expressions 2 Sam. 15.25 26. chap. 16. ver 10 11 12. Psal. 3.1 2 3. Yea he prayeth for a blessing on the people that conspired against him Psal. 3.8 Yet did he lawfully resist Absalom and the conspiratours and sent out Ioab and a huge army in open battel against them 2. Sam. 18.1 2 3 4 c. and fought against them And were not the people of God patient to endure the violence done to them in the wildernes by Og king of Bashan Sihon king of Heshbon by the Ammorites Moabites c I think Gods law tyeth all men especially his people to as patient a suffering in wars Deut. 8.16 God then trying and humbling his people as the servant is to endure patiently unjustly inflicted buffets 1 Pet. 2.18 And yet Gods people at Gods command did resist these Kings and people and did fight and kill them and possesse their land as the history is cleare See the like Iosh. 11. ver 18 19. 2. One act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another Resistance is in the Children of God an innocent act of self-preservation as is patient suffering and therefore they may well subsist in one And so saith Amasa by the spirit of the Lord. 1 Chro. 12.18 Peace peace be unto thee and peace to thy helpers for God helpeth thee Now David in that and all

against unjust violence but not any way he pleaseth The first way is by supplications and apologies he may not presently use violence to the Kings servants before he supplicate nor may he use re-offending if flight may save David used all the three in order 1. He made his defence by words by the mediation of Ionathan when that prevailed not he tooke himselfe to flight as the next but because he knew flight was not safe every way and nature taught him self-preservation and reason and light of grace taught him the meanes and the religious order of these meanes for self-preservation Therefore he addeth a third He took Goliahs sword and gathered six hundred armed men and after that made use of an hoast Now a sword and armour are not horsing and shipping for flight but contrary to flight so re-offending is Policies last refuge A godly magistrate taketh not away the life of a subject if other means can compasse the end of the Law and so he is compelled and necessitated to take away the life so the private man in his naturall self-defence not to use re-action or violent re-offending in his self-defence against any man farre lesse against the servants of a King but in the exigence of the last and most inexorable necessity And it is true that M. Symmons saith Sect. 11. pag. 35. Self-defence is not to be used where it cannot be without sinne It is certaine Necessity is but a hungry plea for sinne Luke 14.18 but it is also true re-offending comparatively that I kill rather then I be killed in the sinlesse Court of Natures spotlesse and harmelesse necessity is lawfull and necessary except I be guilty of self-murd●r in the culpable omission of s●lf-defence Now a private man may flie and that is his second necessity and viol●nt re-offending is the third meane of self-preservation But with leave violent re-offending is necessary to a private man when his second meane to wit flight is not possible and cannot attaine the end as in the case of David if flight doe not prevaile Goliahs sword and an host of armed men are lawfull So to a Church and a community of Protestants men women aged sucking children sick and diseased who are pressed either to be killed or forsake Religion and Jesus Christ flight is not the second meane nor a meane at all because 1. not possible and therefore not a naturall meane of preservation For 1. the aged the sick the sucking infants and sound Religion in the posteritie cannot flee flight here is physically and by natures necessity unpossible and therefore no lawfull mean What is to nature physically unpossible is no lawfull mean 2. If Christ have a promise that the ends of the earth Psal. 2.8 and the Isles shall be his possession Esa. 49.1 I see not how naturall defence can put us to flee even all Protestants and their seed and the weak and sick whom we are obliged to defend as our selves both by the Law of nature and grace I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God to dwell there but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestants their seed aged sick sucking children should flee out of England Scotland Ireland and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists Prelates and bloody Irish and Atheists and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land violent re-offending is their second mean next to supplications and declarations c. and flight is not required of them as of a private man Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation violent and unjust invasion of a private man which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book or rather the idolatry of the Masse therein intended was unavoidable it was unpossible for the Protestants their old and sick their women and sucking children to flee over sea or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book Althusius saith well Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee but the estates if they flee they do not their duty to commit a country religion and all to a Lion L●t not any object we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy Psal. 2.8 9. Isa. 49.1 it is true if the way be our own sinfull way nor let any object a Colony went to new-New-England and fled the persecution Answer True but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication there was no more reason that one Colony should go to new-New-England then it is necessary by a divine law obligatory that the whole Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine are to leave th●ir native country religion to one man to popish Idolators Atheists willing to worship idols with them and whethere then shall the Gospel be which we are obliged to defend with our lives 2. There is Tutela vitae proxima remota A meer and immediat defence of our life and a remote or mediat defence when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending David might have killed Saul when he was sleeping and when he cut off the lap of his garment but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed because he is the Lords Annoited as it is unlawfull to kill a man because he is the Image of God Gen. 9 6. except in case of necessity The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector thought his malefices do not put him in that case that he hath not now the image of God now prudency and light of grace determineth When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation it is not left to our pleasure In a remote posture of self-defence we are not to use violet re-offending David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actuall not inavoidable not a necess●ry mean in human prudence for self-preservation for King Saul was then in a habituall not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes Elders and judges of Israel or of a whole community and Church Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for religion or a nationall pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul it is no lesse unlawfull to thr●atten a King then to put hands on him and rather kill or be killed by

Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissari●s for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in thre● kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religions Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitr●ry or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-off●nding for s●lf-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the suff●r ●awes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Anno●nted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans. 1. David speaketh of stretching out his ha●d against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without col●ur of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resist●d and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he r●maineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6.9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market-confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himselfe with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sons and may save their owne lives with weapons much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evill spirit from the Lord may be resisted and fa●re more if a King indued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his son and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves and the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one man who cannot be virtually the Common-wealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody emissaries to the dissolution of the Common-wealth 3. The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangrene would corrupt the whole body is well warranted by nature because the safety of the whole is to be preferred to the safety of a part Nor is it much that Royalists say the King being the head destroy him the whole body the Common-wealth is dissolved as cut off a mans head the life of the whole man is taken away Because 1. God cutteth off the spirits of tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved no more then when a Leopard or a wilde Boare running through children is killed it can be the destruction of all the children in the land 2. A king indefinitely is referred to the Common-wealth as an adequat head to a Monarchicall Kingdome and remove all Kings and the politique body as Monarchicall in its frame is not Monarchicall but it leaveth not off to be a politique body seeing it hath other Judges but the naturall body without the head cannot live 2. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortall thing cannnot be referred to the immortall Common-wealth as it is adequat correlate They say the King never dieth yet this King can dye an immortall politique body such as the Common-wealth must have an immortall head and that is a King as a King not this or that man possibly a tyrant who is for the time and eternall things abstract from time onely a King 4. The reason of Fortunius Garcias a skilfull Lawyer in Spaine is consid●rable Coment in l. ut vim vi ff de justit jure God hath impl●nted in every creature naturall inclinations and motions to preserve it selfe and we are to love our self for God and have a love to preserve our selves rather then our neighbour and Natures law teacheth every man to love God best of all and next our selves more then our neighbour for the Law saith Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe then saith Malderus com in 12. q. 26. tom 2. c. 10. concl 2. The love of our selfe is the measure of the love of our neighbour But the rule and the measure is more perfect simple and more principall then the thing that is measured It is true I am to love the salvation of the Church it comming neerer to Gods glory more then my owne salvation as the wishes of Moses and Paul do prove and I am to love the salvation of my brother more then my owne temporall life but I am to love my owne temporall life more then the life of any other and therefore I am rather to kill then to be killed the exigence of necessity so requiring Nature without sin aimeth this as a truth in the case of losse of life Proximus sum egomet mihi Ephes. 5.28 29. He that loveth his wife loveth himselfe for no man ever yet hated his owne flesh but nourisheth it and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church As then nature tyeth the dam to defend the young birds and the Lyon her whelps and the husband the wife and that by a comparative re-offending rather then the wife or children should be killed yea hee that is wanting to his brother if a robber unjustly invade his brother and helpeth him not is a murtherer of his

Mutilation l●sse of Chastity Quoniam facta infecta fieri nequeunt things of that kinde once done can never be undone we are to prevent the enemy l. Zonat. tract defens par 3. l. in bello § factae de capit notat Gloss. in l. si quis provocatione If the King send an Irish Rebell to cast me over a bridge and drowne me in a water I am not to do nothing while the Kings emissary first cast me over and then in the next room I am to defend my self but nature and the law of self-defence warranteth me if I know certainly his ayme to horse him first over the bridge and then consult how to defend my s●lfe at my own leasure Royalists object that David in his defence never invaded and persecuted Saul yea when he came upon Saul and his men sleeping hee would not kill any but the Scottish and Parliaments Forces not onely defend but invade offend kill and plunder and this is cleerely an offensive not a defensive warre Answ. There is no defensive warre different in spece and nature from an offensive warre if we speake physically they differ onely in the event and intention of the heart and it is most cleare that the affection and intention doth make one and the same action of taking away the life either homicide or no homicide If a man out of hatred deliberat●ly take away his brothers life he is a murtherer catenus but if that same man had taken away that same brothers life by th●●lying off o● an Axe he●d of● the staffe while he was hewing timber he neither hating him before nor intending to hurt his brother he is no murtherer by Gods expresse Law Deut. 4.42 Deut. 19 4. Ioshua 20.5 2. The cause betweene the King and the two Parliaments and betweene Saul and David are so different in this as it is much for us Royalists say David might if he had seene offending to conduce for s●lfe-preservation have invaded Sauls men and say they the case was extraordinary and bindeth not us to selfe-defence and thus they must say for offensive weapons such as Goliahs sword and an hoast of armed men cannot by any rationall men be assumed and David had the wisdome of God but to offend if providence should so dispose and so what was lawfull to David is lawfull to us in self-defence he might offend lawfully and so may we 2. If Saul and the Philistims ayming as under an oath to set up Dagon in the land of Israel should invade David and the Princes and Elders of Israel who made him King and if David with an hoast of armed men he and the Princes of Israel should come in that case upon Saul and the Philistims sleeping if in that case David might not lawfully have cut oft the Philistims and as he defended in that case Gods Church and true Religion if he might not then have lawfully killed I say the Philistims I remit to the conscience of the Reader Now to us Papists and Prelates under the K●n●s banner are Philistims introducing the Idolatry of Bread-worship and Popery as hatefull to God as Dagon-worship 3. Saul intended no arbitrary government nor to make Israel a conquered people nor yet to cut off all that professed the true worship of God nor came Saul against these Princes Elders and people who made him King only Davids head would have made Saul lay downe Arms but Prelates and Papists and Malignants under the King int●nd to make the Kings sole will a Law to destroy the Court of Parliament which putteth Lawes in execution against their Idolatry and their ayme is that Protestants be a conquered people and their attempt hath been hitherto to blow up King and Parliament to cut off all Protestants and they are in Armes in divers parts of the Kingdome against the Princes of the Land who are no lesse Judges and deputies of the Lord then the King himselfe and would kill and do kill plunder and spoyle us if we kill not them And the case is every way now betweene Armies and Armies as betweene a single man unjustly invaded for his life and an unjust invader neither in a naturall action such as is self-defence is that of policy to be urged none can be Judge in his owne cause when oppression is manifest one may be both agent and patient as the fire and water conflicting there is no need of a judge a community casts not off nature when the judge is wanting nature is judge actor accused and all Lastly no man is Lord of his owne members of his body m. l. liber homo ff ad leg Aqui. nor Lord of his owne life but is to be accountable to God for it QUEST XXXII Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warres hath its warrant in Gods word from the example of David Elisha the eighty Priests who resisted Uzziah c DAvid defended himselfe against King Saul 1. by taking Goliahs sword with him 2. by being Captaine to six hundred men yea it is more then cleare 1 Chron. 12. that there came to David a hoast like the hoast of God v. 22. to help against Saul exceeding foure thousand v. 36. Now that this hoast came warrantably to help him against Saul I prove 1. because it is said ver 1. Now these are they that came to David to Ziglag while he kept himselfe close because of Saul the son of Kish and they were amongst the mighty men helpers of the warre and then so many mighty Captains are rec●o●ed out v. 16. There came of the children of Benjamin and Iudah to the hold of David v. 19. And there fell some of Manasseh to David 20. As he went to Ziglag there fell to him of Manasseh Ken●h and Jozabad Jediel and Michael and Jozabad and Elihu and Zilthai Captaines of the thousands that were of Manasseh 21. And they helped David against the band of the rovers 22. At that time day by day there came to David untill it was a great hoast like the hoast of God Now the same expression that is ver 1. where it is said they came to help David against Saul which ver 1. is repeated ver 16. ver 19 20 21 22 23. 2. That they warrantably came is evident because 1. the Spirit of God commendeth them for their valor and skill in war ver 2. ver 8. ver 15. ver 21. which the Spirit of ●od doth not in unlawfull wars 2. Because Amasai v. 18. The Spirit of the Lord comming on him saith Thine are we David and on thy side thou son of Jesse peace peace unto thee and peace to thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee The Spirit of God inspireth no man to pray peace to those who are in an unlawfull warre 3. That they came to Davids side onely to be sufferers and to flee with David and not to pursue and offend is ridiculous 1. It is said ver 1. They came to David to Ziglag while he kept himselfe close

the prayers of the Church King Saul might easily be intreated to break a rash vow to save the life of his eldest son Ans. 1. I say not the common people did it but the people including proceres regni the Princes of the land and captaines of thousands 2. The text hath not one word or syllable of either prayers supplications or teares but by the contrary They bound themselves by an oath contrary to the oath of Saul 1 Sam. 14.44 and swear ver 45. God forbid as the Lord liveth there shal not one hair of his head fall to the ground so the people rescued Ionathan The Church prayed not to God for Peters deliverance with an oath that they must have Peter saved whether God will or no. 2. Though we read of no violence used by the people yet an oath upon so reasonable a ground 1. without the Kings consent 2. contrary to a standing law that they had agreed unto ver 24. 3. contradictory to the Kings sentence and unjust oath 4. spoken to the King in his face all these prove that the people meaned and that the oath ex conditione operis tended to a violent resisting of the King in a manifestly unjust sentence Chrysostom hom 14. ad Pop. Antioch accuseth Saul as a murtherer in this sentence and praiseth the people So Iunius Peter Martyr whom Royalists impudently cite so Cor. à lap Zanch. Lyra and Hug. Cardinalis say it was Tyranny in Saul and laudable that the people resisted Saul and the same is asserted by Iosephus l. 6. antiquit c. 7. so Althus Polyt c. 38. n. 109. We see also 2 Chron. 21.10 That Libnah revolted from under Iehoram because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers It hath no ground in the text that Royalists say that the defection of Lybnah is not justified in th●●ex● but the cause is from the demerit of wicked Iehoram because he made defection from God Libnah made defection from him as the ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam for Solomons idolatry which before the Lord procured this defection yet the ten tribes make defection for oppression I answer where the literall meaning is simple and obvious we are not to go from it The text sheweth what cause moved Libnah to revolt it was a town of the Levites and we know they were longer sound in the truth then the ten tribes 2. Chron. 13.8 9 10. Hos. 11.12 Lavater saith Iehoram hath pressed them to idolatry and therefore they revolted Zanch. Cor. à Lap. saith this was the cause that moved them to revolt and it is cleare ver 13. he caused Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring from God and no doubt tempted Libnah to the like Yea the city of Abel 2 Sam. 20. did well to resist Ioab Davids Generall for he came to destroy a whole city for a traitors sake for Sheba they resisted and defended themselves the wise woman calleth the city a mother in Israel and the inheritance of the Lord. ver 19. and Ioab professeth ver 20. far be it from him to swallow up and destroy Abel The woman saith ver 18. They said of old they shall surely ask counsell at Abel and so they ended the matter that is the city of Abel was a place of Prophets and Oracles of old where they asked responses of their doubts and therefore peace should be first offered to the City before Ioab should destroy it as the law saith Deut. 20.10 from all which it is evident that the city in defending it self did nothing against peace so they should deliver Sheba the traitour to Ioabs hand which accordingly they did and Ioab pursued them not as traitors for keeping the city against the King but professeth in that they did no wrong QUEST XXXIII Whether or no the place Rom. 13.1 prove that in no case it is lawfull to resist the King THe speciall ground of Royalists from Rom. 13. against the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars is to make Paul Rom. 13. speake onely of Kings Hugo Grotius de jure belli pac l. 1. c. 4. num 6. Barclay cont Monarch l. 3. c. 9. saith Though Ambrose expound the place Rom. 13. de solis Regibus of Kings onely this is false of Kings onely he doth not but of Kings principally Yea it followeth not that all Magistrates by this place are freed from all lawes because saith he there is no Iudge above a King on earth and therefore he cannot be punished but there is a Iudge above all inferiour Iudges and therefore they must be subject to Lawes So D. Ferne followeth him sect 2. pag. 10. and our poore Prelate must be an accident to them Sacr. San. Maj. cap. 2. pag. 29. for his learning cannot subsist per se. 1. Assert In a free Monarchie such as Scotland is known to be by the higher power Rom. 13. is the King principally in respect of dignity understood but not solely and onely as if inferiour Judges were not higher powers 1. I say in a free Monarchie For no man can say that where there is not a King but onely Aristocracie and government by States as in Holland that there the people are obliged to obey the King and yet this Text I hope can reach the consciences of all Holland that there every soul● must be subject to the higher powers and yet not a subject in Holland is to be subject to any King for non entis nulla sunt accidentia 2. I said the King in a free Monarchie is here principally understood in regard of dignity but not in regard of the essence of a magistrate because the essence of a Magistrate doth equally belong to all inferiour Magistrates as to the King as is already proved let the Prelate answer if he can for though some Judges be sent by the King and have from him authority to judge yet this doth no more prove that inferiour Judges are unproperly Judges and onely such by analogie not essentially Then it will prove a Citizen is not essentially a Citizen nor a Church-officer essentially a Church-officer nor a sonne not essentially a living creature because the former have authority from the Incorporation of Citizens and of Church-officers and the latter hath his life by generation from his father as Gods instrument For though the Citizen and the Church-officers may be judged by their severall Incorporations that made them yet are they also essentially Citizens and Church-officers as those who made them such 2. Assert There is no reason to restrain the higher powers to Monarchs onely or yet principally as if they onely were essentially powers ordained of God 1. Because he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 higher powers Now this will include all higher powers as Piscator observeth on the place And certainly Rome had never two or three Kings to which every soule should be subject if Paul had intended that they should have given obedience to one Nero as the onely

essentiall Judge he would have designed him by the nowne in the singular number 2. All the reasons that the Apostle bringeth to prove that subjection is due agreeth to inferiour Judges as well as to Emperours for they are powers ordained of God and they beare the sword and we must obey them for conscience sake and they are Gods deputies and their judgement is not the judgement of men but of the Lord 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Deut. 1.16 Numb 11.16 17. Tribute and wages be no lesse due to them as ministers and servants for their work then to the King c. 3. The Apostle could not omit obedience to the good Civill Lawes enacted by the Senate nor could he omit to command subjection to Rulers if the Romanes should change the Government and abolish Monarchie and erect their ancient forme of Government before they had Kings 5. This is Canonicall Scripture and a cleare exposition of the first Commandement and so must reach the consciences of all Christian Republicks where there is no Monarchie 5. Parallel places of Scripture prove this Paul 1 Tim. 2.1 2. will have prayers made to God for Kings and for all that are in authority and the intrinsecall ●nd of all is a godly honest and peaceable life And 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake Tit. 3.1 It is true subjection to Nero of whom Tertullian said Apol. 5. Nihil nisi grande bonum à Nerone damnatum is commanded here but to Nero as such an one as he is obliged de jure to be whether you speak of the office in abstracto or of the Emperour in concret● in this notion to me it is all one but that Paul commandeth subjection to Nero and that principally and solely as he was such a man de facto I shall then beleeve when Antichristian Prelats turn Pauls Bishops 1 Tim. 2. which is a miracle 6. Inferiour Judges are not necessarily sent by the King by any divine Law but chosen by the people as the King is and de facto is the practise of creating all Magistrates of Cities in both Kingdomes 7. Augustin expos Prop. 72. on Epist. Rom. Irenaeus l. 5. c. 24. Chrysostom in Psal. 148. and on the place Hieron Epist. 53. advers vigilant expound it of Masters Magistrates so do Calvin Beza Pareus Pis●ator Rollocu Marlorat So do Popish Writers Aquinas Lyra Hugo Cardinal Carthus Pirerius Toletus Cornel. à Lapide Salmeron Estius expound the place And therefore there is no argument that Royalists hence draw against resisting of the King by the Parliaments but they do strongly conclude against the Cavalliers unlawfull warres against the Parliaments and Estates of two Kingdomes Here what P. P. saith to the contrary 1. They are called eminent powers Ergo Kings only Answ. It followeth not for these can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 2.2 But these are not Kings but in the Text contradivided from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and they can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Principalities and powers 2. The reason of the Apostle proveth clearely that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot meane Kings onely for Paul addeth of that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there is no power but of God It must be there is no supereminent Royall power but it is of God and the powers Royall onely so he must meane that are are ordained of God Now this latter is manifestly false for inferiour powers are of God The power of the Roman Senate of a Master of a Father are of God P. Prelate Peter must expound Paul and Pauls higher powers must be 1 Pet. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More reason that Paul expound Paul Now 1 Tim. 2.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All in authority are not Kings P. Prelate Are of God or ordained of God cannot so properly be understood of subordinate powers for that is not by immediate derivation from God but immediately from the higher power the King and mediately from God Answ. It is most false that King David is so immediatly a King from God as that he is not also by the mediation of the peopl● who made him King at Hebron 2. The inferiour Magistrat●s are also immediate vicars and ministers of God as the King for their throne and judgement is not the Kings but the Lords Deut. 1.16 2 Chron. 19.6 3. Though they were mediatly from man it followeth not that they are not so properly from God for Wisdome Prov. 8. saith as properly ver 16. By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth as ver 15. By me Kings reigne and promotion is as properly from God and not from the East and the West Psal. 75.6 7. Though God promote Ioseph by the thankfull munificence of Pharaoh and Mordecai by Ahasuerus Daniel by Darius as if he gave them power and honour immediately from Heaven Prelat Learned Interpreters expound it so Answ. It is an untruth for none expound it onely and principally of Kings Produce one Interpreter for that conceit Prelat Paul wrote this when Nero was Monarch Answ. Then must the Text be expounded of Nero only 2. He wrote this when Nero played the Tyrant and persecuted Christians Ergo We are not to disobey Nero's now 3. He wrote it when the Senate of Rome had power to declare Nero an enemy not a Father as they did P. Prelat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to the Antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this There is no power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of God must undeniably inferre there is no supreme power but of God and so Soveraignty relates to God as his immediate author so Sectaries reason Gal. 2.16 Not justified by works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by faith onely Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be a perfect exclusive else their strong hold for Iustification is overthrowne Answ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a neerer Antecedent which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is alone without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Grammer is not so good as Beza's which hee rejected 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referre to God alone as the onely cause In genere causae primae God alone giveth raine but not for that immediatly but by the mediation of vapours and clouds God alone killeth and maketh alive Deut. 32.39 That is excluding all strange gods but not immediatly for by his peoples fighting he slew Og King of Bashan and cast out seven Nations yet they used bow and sword as it is in the booke of Ioshua and therefore God killed not Og immediately God hath an infinite eminent transcendent way of working so that in his kinde he onely worketh his alone Deus solus operatur solitudine primae causae non solus solitudine omnis causae God onely giveth learning and wisdome yet not immediatly alwayes often he doth it by teaching and industry God onely maketh rich yet the Prelates make

Cavalliers and Irish cut-throats except you say inferiour Judges are not obliged to execute judgement but at the Kings commandment Object As the Irish Rebels are armed with the Kings power they are superiour to the Parliament Answ. So an Armie of Turks and Spaniards armed with the Kings power and comming against the two Kingdomes at the Kings commandement though they be but Lictors in a lawlesse cause are superiour to the highest Courts of Parliament in the two Kingdomes But the King and the Law gave power to the Parliament first to resist Rebels now he giveth power to Rebels to resist the Parliament here must be contradictory wils and contradictory powers in the King Which of them is the Kings will and his power the former is legall and Parliamentary Then because Law is not contrary to Law the latter cannot be legall also nor can it be from God and to resist it then is not to resist God Object 13. If resistance bee restrained to legall commandements What shall we say to these arguments that Paul forbiddeth resistance under these tyrannous governours and that from the end of their government which is for good and which their subjects did in some sort enjoy under them Answ. 1. This proveth nothing but that we are to cooperate with these governours though tyrannous by subjecting to their Laws so farre as they come up to this end the morall good and peace of their government but Paul no where commandeth absolute subjection to tyrannous governours in tyrannous act● which is still the question Object 14. Hee that hath the supreme trust next to God should have the greatest security to his person and power but if resistance be lawfull he hath a poore security Answ. He that hath the greatest trust should have the greatest security to his person and power in the ●●eping his power and using it according to his trust for its owne native end for justice peace and godlinesse God alloweth security to no man nor that his Angels shall guard them but on●ly when they are in their wayes and the service of God else There is no peace to the wicked 2. It is denyed that one man having the greatest trust should have the greatest security the Church and people of God for whose safety he hath the trust as a meanes for the end should have a greater security the City ought to have greater security then the watchers the Armie then the leaders The good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheepe 3. A power to doe ill without resistance is not security Object 15. If God appoint Ministers to preach then the sheep cannot seeke safety elsewhere Ergo. Answ. The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband but not if she feare he will kill her in the bed The obedience of positive duties that subjects owe to Princes cannot loose them from Natures law of self-preservation nor from Gods Law of defending Religion against Papists in Armes nor are the sheep obliged to intrust themselves but to a saving shepherd Object 16. If self-defence and that by taking up Armes against the King he an unlawfull duty how is it that you have no practise no precept no promise for it in all the word of God 1. You have no practise Ahab sold himselfe to do evill he was an Idolater and killed the Prophets and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse stirred him up to great wickednesse Elias had as great power with the people as you have yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church Arnisaeus de autho Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled Nebuchadnezer Ahab Manassah Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters the people never raised an Armie against them B. Williams of Ossorie p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother son daughter wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods kill them not a word of the father Children are to love Fathers not to kill them Christ saith John P.P. in the cradle taught by practise to flee from Herod and all Christs acts and sufferings are full of mysteries and our instructions Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him but would rather worke a miracle in curing Malchus eare as use the sword against Caesar If Sectaries give us a new Creed it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell and the communion of Saints to raze out this He suffered under Pontius Pilate My resolution is for this sin of yours to dissolve in teares and Prayers and with my Master say daylie and hourely Father forgive them c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans because they refused him lodging 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry blasphemy murther adultery c. and all sins never against the sin of neglect and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word Answ. It is a gr●at non-cons●quence this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word Ergo. It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith Shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she inticed him to follow strange Gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13.6 when a man lying with a beast is put to death Yet it is a Law Exod. 22.19 infinite more Lawes are the practise of which we finde not in Scripture 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry and if Iehu out of sincerity and for the zeale of God had done what God commanded he should have beene rewarded for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu that he should kill Ahab yet there was an expresse Law for it that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death Deut. 13.6 and there is no exception of King or Father in the Law and to except father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeale of God Deut. 33.9 And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King and in killing King Nabad and smiting all the house of Iereboam for his Idolatry they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty according to Gods expresse Law Deut. 13.6 7 8 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary 3. Ahab and Iezabel●ais●d ●ais●d not an Armie of Idolaters Malignants such as are Papists Prelates and Cavalliers against the three Estates to destroy Parliaments Lawes and Religion and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry to forsake the Covenant throw dowwe the Altars of God and slay his Prophets so as in the estimation of Elias 1 King 19.9 10 11. there was not one man but they were Malignant Cavalliers and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves and to shew them it is their duty

to make warre against the King and themselves in the defence of Religion when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people that they sinned in joyning with the King what place was there to shew them their sin in not using their owne lawfull defence And in reason any may judge it unreasonable for Elias to exhort of thousand thousands in Israel poore seven thousand of which many no doubt were women aged weake young to rise in Armes against Ahab and all Israel except God had given a positive and extraordinary Commandement and with all miraculous courage and strength in war against the whole Land and God worketh not alwayes by miracles to save his Church and therefore the naturall mandate of self-preservation in that case doth no more oblige a few weake ones to lawfull resistance then it obliged one Martyre to rise against a persecuting Nero and all his forces Arnisaeus should remember wee are not to tye our Lord to miracles 2. Elias did not onely flee but denounced wrath against the King and Cavalliers who joyned with them in Idolatry and when God gave oportunity he shewed himself and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seducing idolatours when the Idolatrous King refu●ed to do it and Eliah with his own hand took them not but all Israel being gathered together 1 King 18.19 The Princes and Judges did apprehend them ver 40. which is a warrant when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists that other judges are to do it 2. For Nebuchadnezzer Ieremiah from the Lord expresly forbad to fight against him shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cut-throats for that example may as well prove if it be a binding law to us that our King should not raise his Subjects to fight against a Spanish Armado and a forraigne Pri●ce for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27.1 In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim ver 12 13 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon I hope this will not tye us and our King not to fight against forraigne Princes or against the great Turk if they shall injustly invade us and our King and this example is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him as much as against us for Nebuchadnezzar was a Tyrannous invader and the King of Iudah the Lords Annoynted 3. The people also conspired with Manasseh as with Ahab Ier. 15.4 4 Of Emp●rours persecuting Christians we shall heare anon 5. Deut. 13. None are excepted by a synecdoche the dearest are expressed sonne daughter brother the friend that is as thine own soul. Ergo fathers also And husbands are to love their lives Ephes. 5.25 Yet to execute judgement on them without pitty Deut. 13.8.9 The father is to love the son yet if the son prophecy falsely in the name of the Lord to kill him Zach. 13.3 Hence love fear reverence toward the King may be commanded and defensive warres also 6. Christ fled from Herod and all his actions and sufferings are mysteries and instructions saith the poor Prelate 1. Christ kissed the man that to his knowledge came to betray him Christ fled not but knowing where and when his enemy should apprehend him came willingly to the place Ergo we should not flee 2. His actions are so mysterious that Iohn P. P. in imitation of Christs fourty dayes fast will fast from flesh in lent and the Prelate must walk on the sea and work miracles if all Christs actions be our instructions 7. He might with more then twelve L●gions of Angels defend himself but he would not not because resistance was unlawfull no shadow for that in the text but because it was Gods will that he should drink the cup his Father gave him because to take the sword without Gods warrant subjecteth the usurper of Gods place to perish with the sword Peter had Gods revealed wil that Christ behoved to suffer Math. 26.52 53. Math. 16.21 22 23. Gods positive command that Christ should die for sinners Iohn 10.24 may well restraine an act of lawfull s●lf-preservation hic nunc and such an act as Christ lawfully used at another time Luk. 4.29 30. Ioh. 11.7 8. we give no new creed but this apostate hath forsaken his old creed the religion of the Church of Scotland in which he was Baptised 9. Nor do we expu●ge out of the Creed Christs descension into hell the communion of Saints as the apostate saith but the Popish locall descension of Christ the Popish advancing of the Churches power above the Scriptures the intercession prayers to the saints or of the saints for us we deny this Prelate though he did swear the doctrine of the Church of Scotland preached expresly all these many other poynts of Popery in the Pulpits of Edenburgh 10. We beleeve that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilat but that Pilat had any legal power to condemne Christ but onely a power by a permissive Decree Act. 4.27 28. Such as Devils had by Gods permission Luke 22.53 we utterly deny 11. The Prelat saith it is his resolution for our sin of naturall selfe defence to dissolve in tears because his Bishopricke I conceive by which he was wont to dissolve in cups being drunk on the Lords day after he with other Prelates had been at the Lords Supper while the Chamber wherein they were was dissolved in vomitting was taken from him 12. The prophets cry against all sins but never against the sin of non-resistance and yet they had very Tyrannous and Idolatrous Kings 1. This is but a weak argument 1. The Prophets cry not out against all sins they cry not out against men-stealers and killers of father and mother in expresse tearmes yet do they by consequence condemne all these sins and so do they condemne non-resistance in wars by consequence when they cry out Ier. 5.31 The Prophets prophesie falsly and the Priests beare rule by their meanes and my people love to have it so And when they complaine Ezek. 22.26 27 28. That the Prophets and Priests violate the Law her Princes are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood and the people use oppression and exercise robbery and vexe the poore And when they say Ier. 22.2 not to the King onely but also to his servants and the people that enter in by the gates 3. Execute judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour I pray you who are the oppressors I answer The murthering Judges Esa. 1.21 And Esa. 3.12 As for my people children are their oppressors and women rule over them And ver 14 15. The ancients of the people grind the faces of the poore and when they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth And Prov. 24.11 the Lo●d shal render to

obligeth me not to acts of charity when I in all reason see them unpossible but a multitude who had strength did well to rescue innocent Ionathan out of the hands of the King that he should not be put to death yet one man was not tyed by the law of nature to rescue Ionathan if the King and Prince had condemned him though unjustly 2. The hoast of men that helped David against King Saul 1 Sam. 22.2 entered in a lawfull war and 1 Chron. 12.18 Amasa by the spirit of the Lord blesseth his helpers peace peace be unto thee and peace be to thy helpers for thy God helpeth the. Ergo Peace must be to the Parliament of England and to their help●rs their brethren of Scotland 3. Numb 32.1.2.3.16.17.18.19 Iosh. 1.12.13.14 The children of Gad and of Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh though their inheritance fell to be in this side of Iordan yet they were to goe over the river armed to fight for their brethren while they had also poss●ssion of the land at the commandement of Moses and Joshua 4. So Saul and Israel h●lped the men of Iabesh Gilead conjoyned in blood with them against Nahash the Ammonite and his unjust conditions in plucking out their right eyes 1 Sam. 11. 5. Iephtha Iudg. 12.2 justly rebuketh the men of Ephraim because they would not help him and his people against the Ammonit●● 6. If the communion of Saints be any bound that England and we have one Lord one faith one Baptisme one head and Saviour Iesus Christ then are we obliged to help our bleeding sister Church against these same common enemies Papists and Prelates but the former is undenyably true for 1. We send help to the Rotchel if there had not been a secret betraying of our brethren we send help to the recovery of the Palatinate and the aide of the confederat Princes against Babels strength and power and that lawfully but we did it at great leisure and coldly Q. Elizabeth helped Holland against the King of Spain And beside the union in Religion 1. We sayle in one ship together being in one Iland under one King and now by the mercy of God have sworne one Covenant and so must stand or fall together 7. We are obliged by the union betwixt the Kingdomes concluded to be by the Convention of the Estates of Scotland An. 1585. at the desire of the Generall Assembly 1583. to joyne forces together at home and enter in League with Protestant Princes and Estates abroad to maintaine the Protestant Religion against the bloody confederacy of Trent and accordingly this League betweene the two Crownes was subscribed at Berwick An. 1586. and the same renewed An. 1587 1588. as also the confession of Faith subscribed when the Spanish Armado was on our coasts 8. The Law of God commanding that we love our neighbour as our selfe and therefore to defend one another against unjust violence l. ut vim ff de just jur obligeth us to the same except we thinke God can be pleased with lipp●-love in word onely which the Spirit of God condemneth 1 Ioh. 2.9 10. cap. 3.16 and the summe of Law and Prophets is that as we would not men should refuse to help us when we are unjustly oppressed so neither would we so serve our afflicted brethren l. in facto ff de cond demonstr § Si uxor Iustit de nupt 9. Every man is a keeper of his brothers life there is a voluntary homicide when a man refuseth food or physick necessary for his owne life and refuseth food to his dying brother and men are not borne for themselves And when the King defendeth not subjects against their enemies all fellow-subjects by the law of Nature of Nations the Civill and cannon Law have a naturall priviledge to defend one another and are mutuall Magistrates to one another when there be no other Magistrates If an Army of Turks or Pagans would come upon Britaine if the King were dead as he is civilly dead in this juncture of time when he refuseth to helpe his subjects one part of Britaine would help another As Iehoshaphat King of Iudah did right in helping Ahab and Israel so the Lord had approved of the warre If the left hand be wounded and the left eye put out nature teacheth that the whole burden of naturall acts is devolved on the other hand and eye and so are they obliged to helpe one another 10. As we are to beare one anothers burthens and to help our enemies to compassionate strangers so far more these who make one body of Christ with us 11. Meroz i● under a curse who helpeth not the Lord one part of a Church another A woe lieth on them that are at ease in Zion and helpeth not afflicted Ioseph so farre as they are able 12. The law of Gratitude obligeth us to this England sent an Armie to free both our soules and bodies from the bondage of Popery and the fury of the French upon which occasion a Parliament at Leith Anno 1560. established Peace and Religion and then after they helped us against a faction of Papists in our owne bosome for which we take Gods name in a prayer seeking grace never to forget that kindnesse 13. When Papists in Armes had undone England if God give them victory they should next fall on us and it should not be in the Kings power to resist them When our enemies within two dayes journey are in Armes and have the person of our King and his judgement and so the breathing Law of the two Kingdomes under their power we should but sleepe to be killed in our nest if we did not arise and fight for King Church Countrey and Brethren Object By these and the like grounds when the Kings Royall Person and life is in danger he may use Papists as subjects not as Papists in his owne naturall self-defence Answ. Hell and the Devill cannot say that a thought was in any heart against the Kings person He sleeped in Scotland safe and at Westminster in his owne Palace when the Estates of both Kingdomes would not so much as take the water-pot from his bed-side and his Speare and Satan instilled this traiterous lye first in Prelates then in Papists 2. The King professeth his maintenance of the true Protestant Religion in his Declarations since he tooke Armes but if Saul had put Armes in the hands of Baals Priests and in an Armie of Sidonians Philistims Ammonites professing their quarrell against Israel was not to defend the King but their Dagon and false gods cleere it were Sauls Armie should not stand in relation of helpers of the Kings but of advancers of their owne Religion Now Irish Papists and English in Armes presse the King to cancell all Lawes against Popery and make Laws for the free liberty of Masse and the full power of Papists then the King must use Papists as Papists in these warres QUEST XXXVIII Whether Monarchy be the best of governments NOthing more unwillingly

yet is in question So Royalists prove Common-wealths must be best governed by absolute Monarchs because that is the best government but the Law saith it is contrary to nature even though people should paction to make a King absolute Conventio procuratoria ad dilapidandum dissipandum juri naturali contraria nulla est l. filius 15. de cond Iust. l. Nepos procul 125. de verb. signif l. 188. ubi de jure Regu● l. 85. d. tit Assert 2. Monarchy in its latitude as heaven and earth and all the hoast therein are Citizens is the best government absolutely because Gods immediate government must be best but that other governments are good or best so farre as they come neere to this must prove that there is a Monarchy in Angels if there be a government and a Monarchy amongst Fishes Beasts Birds c. and that if Adam had never sinned there should be one Monarchy amongst all mankinde I professe I have no eye to see what Government could be in that State but paternall or maritall and by this reason there should be one Catholique Emperour over all the Kings of the ●arth A position holden by some Papists and Interpreters of the cannon Law which maketh all the Princes of the earth to be usurpers except these who acknowledge a Catholique dominion of the whole earth in the Emperour to whom they submit themselves as Vassals If Kings were Gods and could not sin and just as Solomon in the beginning of his reigne and as David I could say Monarchy so limited must be better then Aristocracy or Democracy 1. Because it is farthest from injustice neerest to peace and godlinesse m. l. 3. § aparet ff de administrat tutor l. 2. § novissime ff de Orig. jur Aristot. pol. l. 8. c. 10. Bodin de Rep. l. 6. c. 4. 2. Because God ordained this government in his people 3. By experience it is knowne to be lesse obnoxious to change except that some think the Venetian Common-wealth best but with reverence I see small difference betweene a King and the Duke of Venice Assert 3. Every government hath some thing wherein it is best 1. Monarchy is honorable and glorious-like before men Aristocracie for counsell is surest Democracie for liberty and possibly for riches and gaine best Monarchy obtaineth its end with more conveniency 1. Because the ship is easilier brought to land when one sitteth at the helme then when ten move the helme 2. Wee more easily feare love obey and serve one then many 3. He can more easily execute the Lawes Assert 4. A limited and mixed Monarchy such as is in Scotland and England seeme to me the best government when Parliaments with the King have the good of all the three This government hath 1. glory order unitie from a Monarch from the government of the most and wisest it hath safety of counsell stability strength from the influence of the Commons it hath liberty priviledges promptitude of obedience Object 1. There is more power terrour and love in one then in many Answ. Not more power 2. terrour cometh from sin and so to nature fallen in sin in circumstances a Monarchy is best Object 2. It is more convenient to nature that one should be Lord then many Answ. To sinlesse nature true as in a father to many children Object 3 Monarchies for invention of counsels execution concealing of secrets is above any other government Answ. That is in some particulars because sin hath brought darknesse on us so are we all dull of invention slow in execution and by reason of the falsnesse of men silence is needlesse but this is the accidentary state of nature otherways there is safety in a multitude of counsellers one commanding all without following counsell trusteth in his own heart and is a foole Object 4. A Monarch is above envy because he hath no equall Answ. Grant all in many things a Monarchy is more excellent but that is nothing to an absolute Monarchy for whom Royalists contend Object 5. In a multitude there be more fooles then wise men and a multitude of vices and little vertue is in many Answ. Meere multitude cannot governe in either Democracy or Aristocracy for then all should be rulers and none ruled but many eyes see more then one by accident one may see more then hundreds but accidents are not rules Object 6. Monarchy is most perfect because most opposite to Anarchy and most agreeable to nature as is evident in Plants Birds Bees Answ. Government of sinlesse nature void of reason as in bi●ds bees is weak to conclude politique civil government amongst men in sin and especially absolute government a King-Bee is not absolute nor a King-Eagle if either destroy its fellowes by nature all rise and d●stroy their King 2. A King-Bee doth not act by counsell borrowed from fellow Bees as a King must do and communication of counsels lesseneth absolutenesse of a man 2. I see not how a Monarchy is more opposite to Anarchy and confusion then other governments a Monarch as one is more opposite to a multitude as many but there is no lesse order in Aristocracy then in Monarchy for a government essentially includeth order of commanding and subjection Now one is not for absolutenesse more contrary to Anarchy then many for that one now who can easily slip from a King to a Tyrant cannot have a negative voice in acts of justice for then should he have a legall power to oppose justice and so for his absolutenesse he should be most contrary to order of justice and a Monarch because absolute should be a door-neighbour to disorder and confusion Object But the Parliament hath no power to deny their voices to things just or to crosse the law of God more then the King Answ. It is true neither of them hath a negative voice against law and reason but if the Monarch by his exorbitant power may deny justice he may by that same legall power do all injustice and so there is no absolutenesse in either Object Who should then punish and coerce the Parliament in the case of exorbitance Answ. Posterior Parliaments Object Posterior Parliaments and people both may erre Answ. All is true God must remedy that onely QUEST XXXIX Whether or no any Prerogative at all above the law be due to the King or if jura Majestatis be any such Prerogative Royall I Conceive Kings are conceived to have a threefold supreme power 1. Strictly absolute to do what they please their will being simply a law this is Tyranicall some Kings have it de facto ex consuetudine but by a divine law none have it I doubt if any have it by a human positive law except the great Turk and the King of Spaine over his conqu●st without the borders of Europe and some few other conquerours There is another 2. power limited to Gods law the due proper right of Kings Deut. 17.18.19.20 There is 3. a potestas

intermedia a middle power not so vast as that which is absolute and tyrannicall which yet is some way humane this I take Iurists call jus regium lex regia jura Regalia regis Cicero jura Majestatis Livius jura imperii and these Royall priviledges are such common and high dignities as no one particular magistrate can have seeing they are common to all the kingdom as that Cesar only should coyne money in his own name Hence the penny ●●ven to Christ because it had Cesars image and superscription Mat● 22.20 21. Infer by way of argumentation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. give therefore tribute to Cesar as his due so the Magazine and Armory for the safety of the Kingdom is in the Kings hand the King hath the like of these priviledges because he is the common supreame publick officer and Minister of God for the good of the whole Kingdom and amongst these Royall priviledges I reckon that power that is given to the King when he is made King to do many things without warrant of the letter of the law without the expresse consent of his counsell which he cannot alwayes carry about with him as the law saith The King shall not raise armes without consent of the Parliament but if an army of Irish or Danes or Spanyards should suddenly land in Scotland he hath power without a formally conveened Parliament to command them all to rise in armes against these invade●s and defend themselves this power to inferiour Magistrate hath as he is but such a Magistrate And in many such exigences when the necessity of justice or grace requireth an extemporall exposition of Lawes Pro re natâ for present necessary execution some say onely the Emperour others all Kings have these priviledges I am of the minde of Arnisaeus that these priviledges are not rewards given to Princes for their great paines For the King is not obliged to governe the Common-wealth because he receiveth these Royall Priviledges as his reward but because by office he is obliged to gov●rne the common-wealth therefore these priviledges are given to him and without them he could not so easily governe But I am utterly against Arnisaeus who saith these are not essentiall to a King Because saith he he createth Marquesses Dukes c. and Nobles constituteth Magistrates not because of His Royall Dignity but by reason of his absolute power for many Princes have supreame power and cannot make Nobles and therefore to him they are jura majestatis non ●ura potestatis But 1. The King suppose a limited King may ●nd ought to make nobles for he may conferre honours as a reward of vertue none can say Pharoah by his absolute authority and not as a King advanced Ioseph to be a noble Ruler we cannot say that for there was merit and worth in him deserving that honour and Darius not by absolute authority but on the ground of well-deserving the rule by which Kings are obliged in justice to confer honours promoted Daniel to be the first president of all his kingdomes because D●n 6.3 An excellent spirit was in him and in Justice the King could nobilitate none rather then Daniel except he should fail against the rule of conferring honours It is acknowledged by all that honos est proemium virtutis honour is founded upon vertue and therefore Darius did not this out of his absolute Majesty but as King 2. All Kings as Kings and by a Divine Law of God and so by no absolutenesse of Majesty are to make men of wisdome fearing God hating covetousnesse Judges under them Deut. 1.13 2 Chro. 19.6 7. Psal. 101.6 7 8. 3. If we suppose a King to be limited as Gods King is Deut. 17.18 19 20. Yet is it his part to confer honours upon the worthiest Now if he have no absolutenesse of Majesty he cannot confer honours out of a principle that is none at all unum quodque sicut est ita operatur and if the people confer honours then must Royalists grant that there is an absolute Majesty in the people why then may they not derive Majesty to a King and why then do Royalists talk to us of Gods immediate creating of Kings without any interveening action of the people 4. By this absolutnesse of Majesty Kings may play the Tyrant as Samuel 1 Sam. 8.9 10 11 12 13 14. foretelleth Saul would do But I cannot beleeve that Kngs have the same very officiall absolute power from whence they do both acts of grace goodnesse and justice such as are to expone Laws extemporally in extraordinary cases to confer honours upon good and excellent men of grace to pardon offenders upon good grounds and also doe acts of extreme Tyrannie For out of the same fountaine doth not proceed both sweet water and bitter Then by this absolutenesse Kings cannot doe acts of goodnesse justice and grace and so they must doe good as Kings and they must doe acts of tyrannie as men not from absolutenesse of majesty 5. Inferiour Magistrates in whom there is no absolutenesse of Majesty according to Royalists way may expound laws also extemporally and doe acts of justice without formalities of civill or municipall laws so they keep the genuine intent of the Law as they may pardon one that goeth up to the wall of a City and discovereth the approach of the enemie when the watchmen are sleeping though the Law be That any ascending to the wall of the Citie shall die Also the inferiour Judge may make Judges and Deputies under himselfe 6. This Distinction is neither grounded upon Reason or Lawes nor on any Word of God Not the former as is proved before for there is no absolute power in a King to do above or against law all the officiall power that a King hath is a Royall power to do good for the safety and good of his subjects and that according to law and reason and there is no other power given to a King as a King and for Scripture Arnisaeus ibid. alledgeth 1 Sam. 8. The manner or law of the King ver 9.11 And he saith it cannot be the custome and manner of the King but must be the law of absolute Majesty 1. Because it was the manner of inferiour judges as Tyberius said of his judges to flea the people when they were commanded to shear them onely 2. Samuels sons who wrested judgment and perverted the law had this manner and custome to oppresse the people as did the sons of Eli and therefore without reason is it called the law of Kings jus regum if it was the law of the judges for if all this law be Tyrannicall and but an abuse of Kingly power the same law may agree to all other Magistrates who by the same unjust power may abuse their power but Samuel as Brentius observeth homi 27. in 1 Sam. in princ doth meane here a greater license then Kings can challenge if at any time they would make use of their plenitude of absolute

power and therefore nomine juris by the word law here he understandeth a power granted by law jure or right to the King but pernitious to the people which Gregory calleth jus regium Tyrannorum the Royall law of Tyrants So Seneca 1 de clem c. 11. hoc interest inter regem Tyrannum Species ipsa fortunae ac licentiae par est nisi quod Tyranni ex volutate saeviunt Reges non nisi ex causa necessitate quid ergo non Reges quoque accidere solent sed quoties fieri publica utilitas persuadet Tirannis saevitia cordi est A Tyran saith Arnisaeus in this differeth from a King Qui ne ea quidem vult quae sibi licent that a King will not do these things which are lawfull a Tyran doth quae libet what he pleaseth to do Answ. Arnisaeus bewrayeth his ignorance in the Scriptures for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a custome and a wicked custome as by many Scriptures I have proved already his reasons are poor It is the manner of inferiour judges as we see in the sons of Eli and Samuel to pervert judgment as well as King Saul did but the King may more oppresse and his Tyranny hath more colour and is more catholick then the oppression of inferiour judges it is not Samuels purpose thus to distinguish the judges of Israel and the kings in that the judges had no power granted them of God to oppresse because the people might judge their judges and resist them and there was power given of God to the king so far to play the Tyrant that no man could resist him or say what dost thou the text will not beare any such difference for it was as unlawfull to resist Moses Ioshua Samuel as Royalists prove from the judgement of God that came upon Core Dathan and Abiram as to resist King Saul and King David Royalists doubt not to make Moses a King It was also no lesse sin to resist Samuels sons or to do violence to their persons as judging for the Lord and sent by the supreme judge their father Samuel then it was sin to resist many inferiour Judges that were Lyons and even Wolves under the Kings of Israel and Iudah so they judged for the Lord and as sent by the Supreme Magistrate But the difference was in this that judges were extraordinarily raised up of God out of any tribe as he pleased and were beleevers Heb. 11.32 Saved by faith and so used not their power to oppresse the people though inferiour judges as the sons of Eli and of Samuel perverted judgment and therefore in the time of the judges God who gave them saviours and judges was their King but Kings were tied to a certaine tribe especially the line of David to the Kingdom of Iudah 2. They were hereditary judges not so 3. They were made and chosen by the people Deut. 17.14.15 1 Sam. 10.17 18 19 20. 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. as were the Kings of the nations and the first King though a King be the lawfull ordinance of God was sought from God in a sinfull imitation of the nations 1 Sam. 8.19 20. and therefore were not of Gods peculiar election as the judges and so they were wicked men and many of them yea all for the most part did evil in the sight of the Lord and their law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their manner and custome was to oppresse the people and so were their inferiour judges little Tyrants and lesser Lyons Leopards evening Wolves Ezech. 22.27 Mic. 3.1 2 3. Esa. 3.14 15. And the Kings and inferiour judges are onely distinguished de facto that the King was a more Catholick oppressour and the old Lyon and so had more art and power to catch the prey then the inferiour judges who were but whelps and had lesse power but all were oppressors some few excepted and Samuel speaketh of that which Saul was to be de facto not de jure and the most part of the Kings after him and this Tyranny is well called jus regis the manner of the King and not the manner of the jugdes because it had not been the practice custome and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the beleeving judges before Sauls Reigne and while God was his peoples King 1 Sam. 8.7 to oppresse 3. We grant that all other inferiour judges after the people cast off Gods government and in imitation of the nations would have a King were also lesser Tyrants as the King was a greater Tyrant and that was a punishment of their rejecting God and Samuel to be their King and judge 4. How shall Arnisaeus prove that this manner or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the King w●s potestas concessa a power granted I hope granted of God and 〈…〉 abuse of Kingly power for then he and Royalists must say that all the acts of Tyranny ascribed to King Saul 1 Sam. 8.11 12 13 14. by reason of which they did cry out and complaine to God because of their oppression was no abuse of power given to Saul Ergo it was an use and a lawfull use of power given of God to their King for there is no medium or mids betwixt a lawfull power used in morall acts and a lawfull power abused and indeed Arnisaeus so distinguisheth a King and a Tyrant that he maketh them all one in nature and spece He saith a Tyrant doth quod licet that which by Law he may do and a King doth not these things quae licent which by Law he may do but so to me it is clear a Tyrant acting as a Tyrant must act according to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 law of the King and that which is lawfull and a King acting as a King and not doing these things that are lawfull must sin against his office and the power that God hath given to him which were to commend and praise the Tyrant and to condemne and dispraise the King 3. If this Law of the King be a permissive Law of God which the king may out of his absolutenesse put in execution to oppress● the people such as the law of a bill of divorcement as Arnisaeus Barcklay and other Royalists say then must God have given a Law to every King to play the Tyrant because of the hardnesse of the Kings heart but we would gladly see some word of God for this The Law of a bill of Divorcement is a meere positive Law permitted in a particular exigent when a husband out of levity of heart and affection cannot love his wife therefore God by a Law permitted him out of indulgence to put her away that both he might have a seed the want whereof because of the blessed seed to be borne of woman was a reproach in Israel and though this was an affliction to some particular women yet the intent of the Law and the soul thereof was a publique benefit to the Common-wealth of Israel of which sort of Lawes I judge the

hard usage permitted by God to his people in the Master toward the servant and the people of God toward the stranger of whom they might exact usury not toward their brethren to be But that God should make a permissive Law that Ieroboam might presse all Israel to sinne and worship the Golden Calves and that a King by Law may kill as a bloody Nero all the people of God by a Divine permissive Law hath no warrant in Gods word Judge reader if Royalists make God to confer a benefit on a land when he giveth them a King if by a Law of God such as the Law for a bill of Divorcement the King may kill and devour as a lawfull absolute Lion six kingdoms of nations that professe Christ and beleeve in his name For if the King have a divine law to kill an innocent Ionathan so as it be unlawfull to resist him he may by that same law turne bloodier then either Nero Iulian or any that ever sucked the paps of a Liones or of any of whom it may be said Quaeque dedit nutrix ubera Tigris erat and he shall be given as a plague of God ex conditione doni to the people and the people inasmuch as they are gifted of God with a King to feed them in a peaceable and godly life must be made slaves now it wanteth reason that God will have a permissive Law of murthering the Church of Christ a Law so contrary to the publique good and intrinsecall intention of a King and to the immuta●le and eternall law of Nature that one man because of his power may by Gods permissive Law murther millions of innocents Some may say It is against the duty of love that by Nature and Gods Law the husband owes to the wife Ephes. 5.25 that the husband should put away his wife for God hateth putting away and yet God made a Law that a husband might give his wife a bill of divorce and so put her away and by the same reason God may make a Law though against nature that a King should kill and murther without all resistance Answ. The question is not if God may make permissive Laws to oppresse the innocent I grant he may doe it as he may command Abraham to kill his son Isaac and Abraham by Law is obliged to kill him except God retract his Commandement and whether God retract it or no he may intend to kill his son which is an act of love and obedience to God but this were more then a permissive Law 2. We have a cleere Scripture for a permissive Law of divorce and it was not a Law tending to the universall destruction of a whole Kingdome or many Kingdomes but onely to the grievance of some particular wives but the Law of divorce gave not power to all husbands to put away their wives but onely to the husband who could not command his affection to love his wife But this law of the King is a Catholique law to all Kings for Royalists will have all Kings so absolute as it is sin and disobedience to God to resist any that all Kings have a divine law to kill all their subjects surely then it were better for the Church to want such nurse-fathers as have absolute power to suck their blood and for such a perpetuall permissive Law continuing to the end of the world there is no word of God Nor can we think that the hardnesse of one Princes heart can be a ground for God to make a Law so destructive to his Church and all mankinde such a permissive Law being a positive Law of God must have a word of Christ for it else we are not to receive it 2. Arnisaeus cap. 4. distru Tyran princ n. 16. thinketh a Tyrant in excercito becomming a notorious Tyrant when there is no other remedy may be removed from government sine magno scel●re without great sin But I aske how men can annull any divine Law of God though but a permissive Law For if Gods permissive Law warrant a Tyrant to kill two innocent men it is tyranny more or lesse and the Law distinguisheth not 3. This permissive Law is expressely contray to Gods Law limiting all Kings Deut. 17.16 17 18. How then are we to beleeve that God would make an universall Law contray to the Law that he established before Israel had a King 4. What Brentius saith is much for us for he calleth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law a licence and so to use it must be licentiousnesse 5. Arnisaeus desireth that Kings may use sparingly the plenitude of their power for publique good there must be saith he necessity to make it lawfull to use the plenitude of this power justly therefore Ahab sinned in that he unjustly possessed Naboths vineyard though he sinned specially in this that he came to the possession by murther and it was peculiar to the Iewes that they could not transfer their possessions from one tribe to another But if it be so then this power of absolutenesse is not given by permissive Law by which God permitted putting away of wives for the object of a permissive Law is sinne but this plenitude of power may be justly put forth in act saith he if the publique good may be regarded I would know what publique good can legittimate Tyranny and killing of the innocent the intentions of men can make nothing intrinsecally evil to become good And 6. How can that be a permissive Law of God and not his approveing Law by which Kings create inferiour judges for this is done by Gods approving will 7. It is evident that Arnisaeus his minde is that Kings may take their subjects vineyards and their goods so they erre not in the manner and way of the act so be like if there had not been a peculiar Law that Naboth should not sell his vineyard and if the King had had any publique use for it he might have taken Naboths vineyard from him but he specially sinned saith he in eo maxime culpatur c. that he took away the mans vineyard by murthering of him therefore saith Arnisaeus c. 1. de potest maj in bona privato 2. that by the Kings Law 1 Sam. 8. There is given to the King a dominion over the peoples sons daughters fields vineyards olive-yards servants and flockes So he citeth that that Daniel putteth all places the Rocks of the Mountaines the birds of the heaven Dan. 2. under the Kings power So all is the Kings in dominion and the subjects in use onely But 1. This law of the King then can be no ground for the Kings absolutenesse above Law and there can be no permissive Law of God here for that which assert●th the Kings Royall Dominion over persons and things that must be the Law of Gods approving not his permiting evil but this is such a Law as Arnisaeus saith 2. The text speaketh of no Law or lawful power or of any absolutenesse of King Saul but

of his wicked custome and his rapine and Tyranny He will take your sons your daughters your fields and your vineyards from you Saul took not these through any power of dominion by Law but by meere Tyranny 3. I have before cleared that the subjects have a propriety and an use also else how could we be obliged by vertue of the fift commandement to pay tribute to the King Rom. 13.7 for that which we pay was as much the Kings before we payed as when we have paied it 4. Arnisaeus sai●h all are the Kings in respect of the universall jurisdiction that the King hath in governing and ordering all to the universall end the good of the Common-wealth for as universall nature careth for the conservation of the spece and kind so doth particular nature care for the conservation of individuals so do men care for their private good and the King is to refer every mans private goods to the good of the publick but the truth is this taketh not away propriety of goods from private men retaining onely the use to private men and giving the dominion to the King because this power that the King ●ath of mens goods is not power of dominion that the King hath over the goods of men as if the King were Dominus Lord and owner of the fields and monyes of the private subject but it is a power to regulate the goods for a publique use and supposeth the abuse of goods when they are Monopolized to and for private ends 2. The power that the King hath over my bread is not a power of dominion so as he may eat my bread as if it were his own bread and he be Lord of my bread as I was sometimes my self before I abused it but it is a dominion unproperly and abusively so called and is a meere fiduciary and dispensatory power because he is set over my bread not to eat it nor over my houses to dwel in them but onely with a ministeriall power as a publique though a honourable servant and w●tchman app●inted by the community as a mean for an end to regulate my bread houses moneys fields for the good of the publique Dominion is defined a faculty to use a thing as you please except you be hindered by force or by Law ●ustin tit c. de legibus in l. digna vox c. So have I a dominion over my own garments house money to use them for us●s not forbidden by the Law of God and man but I may not lay my corne field wast that it shall neither bear grass● nor corne the King may hinder that because it is a hurt to the publique but the King as Lord and Soveraigne hath no such dominion over Naboths vi●eyard H●w the King is lord of all goods ratione jurisdictionis tuitionis s● Anton. de paudrill in l. Altius n. 5. c. de servit Hottom illust quest q. 1. ad fin Conc. 2. Lod. Molin de just jur dis 25. Soto de justiti● jur l. 4. q. 4. art 1. QUEST XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King either by his oath covenant or any other way ARistotle saith Ethic. 8. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Tyrant seeketh his owne a King the good of the Subjects for he is no King who is not content and excelleth in goodnesse The former part of these words distinguish essentially the King by his office from the Tyrant Now every office r●qu●reth essentially a duty to be performed by him that is in office and where there is a duty required there is some obligation if it be a politique duty it is a politique obligation Now amongst politique duties betwixt equall and equall superiour and inf●riour that is not de facto required coaction for the performance ther●●f but de jure there is for two neighbour Kings and two neighbour Nations both being equall and independent the one toward the other the one owe a duty to the other and if the Ammonites do a wrong to David and Israel as they are equall de facto the one cannot punish the other though the Ammonites do a disgrace to Davids messengers yet de jure David and Israel may compell them to politique duties of politique cons●ciation for betwixt independent kingdomes there must be some politique government and some politique and civil Lawes for two or three making a society cannot dwell together without some policy and David and Israel as by the Law of nature they may repell violence with violence so if the lawes of neighbour-hood and nations be broken the one may punish the other though there be no relation of superiority and inferiority betwixt them 2. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt equals yea or superiours and inferiours the one hath some coactive power over the other if the father give his bond to pay to his son ten thousand pounds as his patrimony to him though before the giving of the bond the father was not obliged but onely by the Law of nature to give a patrimony to his son y●t now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is obliged so to his son to pay ten thousand pounds that by the Law of Nations and the civil Law the son hath now a coactive power by Law to compell his father though his superiour to pay him no lesse then ten thousand pounds of patrimony Though therefore the King should stand simply superiour to his kingdom and estates which I shall never grant yet if the King come under covenant with his kingdom as I have proved at length c. 13. he must by that same come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum What any doth promise falleth under debt if the covenant be politique and civil as is the covenant between King David and all Israel 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. and between King Iehoash and the people 2 King 11.17 18. Then the King must come under a civil obligation to performe the covenant and though their be none superiour to King and the people on earth to compell them both to performe what they have promised yet de jure by the Law of Nations each may compell the other to mutuall performance This is evident 1. By the Law of nations if one nation break covenant to another though both be independent yet hath the wronged nation a coactive power de jure by accident because they are weaker they want stength to compell yet they have right and jus to compell them to force the other to keep covenant or then to punish them because nature teacheth to repel violence by violence so it be done without desire of revenge and malice 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant for Solomon saith Prov. 6.1 My son if thou be surety for thy friend if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger 2. Thou art snared with

but they do not swear any oath it is true that an oath adeth nothing to a contract and promise but onely it laies on a religious tie before God yet so as consequently if the contractor violate both promise and oath he cometh under the guilt of perjury which a law of men may punish Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politique obligation as well as an oath is already proved and farther confirmed by Gal. 3.15 Though it be a mans testament or covenant no man disanulleth and addeth thereunto No man even by mans law can anull a confirmed covenant and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himself under law to fulfill his own covenant and so must the King put himself under mens law by a covenant at his Coronation Yea and David is reputed by Royallists an absolute Prince yet he cometh under a covenant before he be made King 3. It is but a weak reason to say that an oath is needlesse where no action of law can be against the King who sweareth if it have any strength of reason I retort it a legall and solemne promise then is needlesse also for there is no action of law against a King as Royalists teach if he violate his promise So then King David needlesly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation for though David should turne as bloody an enemie to the Church as Nero or Iulian the people have no Law-action against David and why then did Ieremiah seek an oath of the King of Iudah that he would not kill him nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies and why did David seek an oath of Ionathan It is not like Ieremiah and David could have law-action against a King and a Kings son if they should violate the oath of God And farther it is a begging of the question to say that the States can have no action against the king if he should violate his oath Hugo Grotius putteth seven cases in which the people may have most reall action against the King to accuse and punish him 1. They may punish the King to death for matters capitall if so it be agreed on betwixt the King and the people as in Lacedemonia 2. He may be punished as a private man 3. If the King make away a Kingdome given to him by succession his act is null and he may be resisted because the Kingdome is a life-rent onely to him Yea saith Barclay He loseth the Crown 4. He loseth his Kingdom if with a hostile mind he seek the destruction of the Kingdome 5. If such a clause be put in that if he commit felonie or doe such oppressions the Subjects shall be loosed from the bonds of subjection then the King failing thus turneth a private man 6. If the King have the one halfe or part of the Kingdome and the people or Senate the other halfe if the King prey upon that half which is not his owne he may violently be resisted for in so farre he hath not the Empire 7. If when the Crowne was given this be declared that in some cases he may be resisted then some naturall liberty is free from the Kings power and reserved in the peoples hand It is then reason that the King sweare an oath 4. That the Kings oath is but a ceremonie to please the people and that because he is king and king by birth therefore he sweareth and is crowned is in question and denyed No man is borne a king as no man is borne a subject and because the people maketh him King therefore he is to swear The councel of Toledo saith non antea conscendat regiam sedem quam iuret 2 An oath is a religious obligation no arbitrary ceremony 3. He may swear in his cabinet chamber not covenanting with the people as David and Iehoash did 4. So he maketh promises that he may be King not because he is King it were ridiculous he should promise or swear to be a just King because he is a just King and by the same reason the estates swear the oath of loyalty to the new King not that they may be loyall in all time coming but because they are loyall Subjects already for if the one half of the covenant on the Kings part be a ceremony of indulgence not of necessity by the same reason the other half of the covenant must be a ceremony of indulgence also to the people Object Arnisaeus saith a contract cannot be dissolved in law but by consent of two parties contracting because both are obliged l. ab emptione 58. in pr. de pact l. 3. de rescind vend l. 80. de solu Therefore if the subjects go from the covenant that they have made to be loyall to the King they ought to be punished Answ. A contract the conditions whereof are violated by neither side cannot be dissolved but by the joynt consent of both and in buying and selling and in all contracts unviolated the sole wil of neither side can violate the contract of this speaketh the law But I ask the Royalist if the contract betwixt the spies sent to view Iericho and Rahab the harlot had not been null and the spies free from any obligation if Rahab had neglected to keep within doors when Iericho was taken though Rahab and the spies had never consented expresly to break the covenant We h●ld that the law saith with us that vassals lose their farme if they pay not what is due Now what are Kings but vassals to the State who if they turne Tyrants fall from their Right Arnisaeus saith in the councell of Toledo 4. c. 74. The subjects ask from the King that Kings would be meek and just not upon the ground of a voluntarie Contract and Paction but because God shall rejoice in King and People by so doing Answ. These two do no more fight one with another then that two Marchants should keep faith one to another both because God hath said he shall dwell in Gods mountaine who sweareth and covenanteth and standeth to his oath covenant though to his losse hurt Psa. 15. and also because they made their covenant and contract thus and thus Arnisaeus 16. Every Prince is subject to God but not as a vassal for a Master may commit felonie and lose the proprietie of his farme can God do so The Master cannot take the farme from the vassal without an expresse cause legally deduced but cannot God take what he hath given but by a law-Processe a vassall can intitle to himself a farme against the Masters will as some jurists say but can a Prince intitle a kingdom to himself against the God of heavens will though we grant the comparison yet the subjects have no law over the Kings because the coercive power of the vassal is in the Lord of the manner the punishing of Kings belongeth to God Answ. We compare not the lord of a mannor and the Lord of Heaven together all these

dissimilitudes we grant but as the King is Gods vassal so is he a noble and Princely vassal to the Estates of a kingdom because they make him 2. They make him rather then another their noble servant 3. They make him for themselves and their own Godly quiet and honest life 4. They in their first election limit him to such a way to governe by law and give to him so much power for their good no more in these four acts they are above the Prince and so have a coercive power over him Arnisaeus n. 9. It is to make the Princes fidelity doubtfull to put him to an oath Lawyers say there is no need of an oath when a person is of approved fidelitie Answ. Then we are not to seek an oath of an inferiou r Magistrate of a Commander in wars of a pastor it is presumed these are of approved fidelity and it maketh their integritie obnoxious to sland●rs to put them to an oath 2. David was of more approved fidelity then any King now adayes and to put him to a covenant seemed to call his fidelity in question Ionathan sought an oath of David to deal kindly with his seed when he came to the throne Ieremiah sought an oath of the King of Iudah did they put any note of false-hood on them therefore Arnisaeus You cannot prove that ever any King gave an oath to their subjects in Scriptures Answ. What more unbeseeming Kings is it to swear to do their duty then to promise covenant wayes to do the same and a covenant you cannot deny 2. In a covenant for religious duties there was alwayes an oath 2 Chro. 15.12 13 14. hence the right of cutting a calf and swearing in a covenant Ier. 34.18 3. There is an oath that the people giveth to the King to obey him Eccles. 8.2 and a covenant 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. mutuall between the king and people I leave it to the juditious if the people swear to the king obedience in a covenant mutuall and he swear not to them Arnisaeus sheweth to us a third sort of oath that limited Princes do swear this oath in Denmarke Suecia Polonia Hungaria is sworne by the kings who may do nothing without consent of the Senat and according to order of Law this is but the other two oathes specified and a Prince cannot contraveen his own contract the law saith in that the Prince is but as a private man in l. digna vox C. de ll Rom. cons. 426. n. 17. And it is known that the Emperour is constituted and created by the Princes Electors subject to them and by Law may be dethroned by them The B. of Rochester saith from Barclay none can denude a King of his power but he that gave him the power or hath an expresse commandement so to do from him that gave the power But God onely and the people gave the King his power Ergo God with the people having an expresse commandement from God must denude the King of power Answ. 1. This shall prove that God onely by an immediat action or some having an expresse commandement from him can deprive a preacher for scandals Christ onely or those who have an expresse commandement from him can excommunicate God only or the magistrate with him can take away the life of man and Numb 11.14 15 16. No inferiour Magistrates who also have their power from God immediatly Rom. 13.1 If we speak of the immediation of the office can devide inferiour judges of their power God only by the husbandmans paines maketh a fruitfull vineyard Ergo the husbandman cannot make his vineyard grow over with nettles and briars 2. The argument must run thus else the assumption shall be false God onely by the action of the people as his instrument and by no other action make a lawfull King God onely by the action of the people as his instrument can make a King God onely by the action of the people as his instrument can dethrone a King for as the people making a King are in that doing what God doth before them and what God doth by them in that very act so the people unmaking a King doth that which God doth before the people both the one and the other according to Gods rule obligeth Deut. 17.14.15.16.17.18.19.20 The Prelate whose tribe seldom saith truth addeth As a fatherly power by God and natures law over a family was in the father of a family before the children could either transfer their power or consent to the translation of that power to him so a Kingly power which succeedeth to a paternal or fatherly power to governe many families yea a Kingdom was in that same father in relation to many families before these many families can transfer their power The Kingly power floweth immediately from God the people doth not transfer that power but doth onely consent to the person of the King or doth onely choose his person at some time And though this power were principally given to the people it is not so given to the people as if it were the peoples power not Gods for it is Gods power neither is it any other waies given to the people but as to a streame a beam and an instrument which may confer it to another M. Anton. de domini l. 6. c. 2. n 22.23 doth more subtilly illustrate the matter if the King should confer honour on a subject by the hand of a servant who had not power or freedom to confer that honour or not to confer it but by necessity of the Kings commandment must confer it nothing should hinder us to say that such a subject had his honour immediately from the King so the earth is immediately illuminated by the sun although light be received in the earth but by the interveening mediation of many inferiour bodies and elements because by no other thing but by the sun only is the light as an efficient cause in a nearest capacity to give light so the Royall power in whomsoever it be is immediatly from God onely though it be applyed by men to this or this person because from God onely and from no other the Kingly power is formally and effectively that which it is and worketh that which it worketh and if you ask by what cause is the tree immediatly turned in fire none sound in reason would say it is made fire not by the fire but by him that laid the tree on the fire Iohn P. P. would have stollen this argument also if he had been capable thereof Ans. 1. A fatherly power is in a father not before he have a child but indeed before his children by an act of their free-will consent that he be their father yea whether the children consent or no from a physical act of generation he must be the father let the father be the most wicked man let him be made by no moral requisite is he made a father nor can heever leave off physically

to be a father he may leave off morally to do the duty of a father so be non pater officio but he cannot but be pater naturae generantis vi So there never is nor can be any need that childrens fre consent interveen to make Kish the Father of Saul because he is by nature a father to make Saul a King a moral father by analogy and improperly a father by ruling governing guiding defending Israel by good laws in peace and godlinesse I hope there is some act of the peoples free-will required even by Spalatoes way the people must approve him to be King yea they must King him or constitute him King say we no such act is required of naturall sons to make a physicall father and so here is a great halt in the comparison and it is most false that there is a Kingly power to governe many families in the same father before these many families can transfer their power to make him King Put Royallists to their Logick they have not found out a medium to make good that there is a formall Kingly power whereby Saul is King and father morally over all Israel before Israel chose him and made him as Kish was Sauls father formally and had a fatherly power to be his father before Saul had the use of free-will to consent that he should be his father Royalists are here at a stand The man may have Royall gifts before the people make him King but this is not regia potestas a Royall power by which the man is formally King Many have more Royal gifts then the man that beareth the Crown yet are never Kings nor is there formally regia potestas kingly power in them In this meaning Petrarcha said Plures sunt reges quam regna 3. He saith The people doth not confer royall power but onely consent to the person of the man or choise of his person This is non-sense for the peoples choosing of David at Hebron to be King and their refusing of Sauls seed to be King what was it but an act of God by the free suffrages of the people conferring royall power on David and making him King whereas in former times David even anointed by Samuel at Bethleem 1 Sam. 16. was onely a private man the subject of King Saul and never tearmed by the Spirit of God a King nor was he King till God by the peoples consent made him King at Hebron for Samuel neither honoured him as King nor bowed to him as King nor did the people say God save King David but after this David acknowledged Saul as his Master and King Let Royalists shew us any act of God making David King save this act of the people making him formally King at Hebron and therefore the people as Gods instrument transferred the power and God by them in the same act transferred the power and in the same they chose the person the Royalists affirm these to be different actions affirmanti incumbit probatio 4. This power is the peoples radically naturally as the Bees as some think have a power naturall to choose a King-Bee so hath a communitie a power naturally to defend and protect themselves and God hath revealed in Deut. 17.14 15. the way of regulating the act of choosing Governours and Kings which is a speciall mean of defending and protecting themselves and the people is as principally the subject and fountain of Royall power as a fountain is of water I shall not contend if you call a Fountain Gods Instrument to give water as all creatures are his Instruments 5. For Spalato's comparison he is far out for the people choosing one of ten to be their King have freewill to choose any and are under a Law Deut. 17.14 15. In the manner of their choosing and thought they erre and make a sinfull choice yet the man is King and Gods King whom they make King but if the King command a servant to make A. B. a Knight if the servant make C. D. a Knight I shall not think C. D. is a valid Knight at all and indeed the honour is immediately here from the King because the Kings servant by no innate power maketh the Knight but Nations by a radicall and naturall and innate power maketh this man a King not this man and I conceive the man chosen by the people oweth thanks and gratefull service to the people who rejected others that they had power to choose and made him King 6. The light immediately and formally is light from the Sun and so is the Office of a King immediately instituted of God Deut. 17.14 Whether the institution be naturall or positive it is no matter 2. The man is not King because of Royall indowments though we should say these were immediately from God to which instruction and education may also conferre not a little but he is formally King ratione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in regard of the formall essence of a King not immediately from God as the light is from the Sun but by the mediation of the free consent of the people 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3. nor is the people in making a King as the man who onely casteth Wood in the fire the Wood is not made fire formally but by the fire not by the approach of fire to Wood or of Wood to fire for the people do not apply the Royaltie which is immediately in and from God to the person explicate such an application for to me it is a Fiction unconceiveable because the people hath the Royaltie radically in themselves as in the Fountain and Cause and conferreth it on the man who is made King yea the people by making David King confer the Royall power on the King this is so true that Royalists forgetting themselves inculcate frequently in asserting their absolute Monarch from Vlpian but misunderstood that the people have resigned all their power libertie right of life death goods chastitie a potency of rapine homicides unjust wars c. upon a creature called an absolute Prince even saith Grotius as a man may make himself a slave by selling his liberty to a master Now if the people make away this power to the King and this be nothing but the transcendent absolutenesse of a King certainly this power was in the people for how can they give to a King that which they have not themselves As a man cannot make away his liberty to a master by becoming a slave to him if his libertie were immediately in God as Royalists say Soveraigntie is immediately in God and people can exercise no Act about Soveraignty to make it over to one man rather then to another People onely have an after-approbation that this man to whom God hath given it immediately shall have it Furthermore they say people in making a King may make such conditions as in seven cases a King may be dethroned at least resisted saith Hu. Grotius Ergo people may give more or lesse half or whole

jurisdiction Iaco. Symanca de Catho Instit. tit 45. n. 25. Catholica uxor heretico viro debitum reddere non tenetur Item Constat Haereticum privatum esse omni dominio naturali civili politico naturali quod habet in filios nam propter haeresin patris efficiuntur filii sui iuris civili quod habet in servos ab eo enim servi liberantur politico quod rerum domini habent in subditos ita Bannes 22. q. 12. art 10. Gregor de valent 22. dis 1. q. 12. p. 2. lod Mol. to 1. De just jur tract 2. dis 29. v. 3. 2. Papists hold that Generatio clerici est corruptio subditi Church-men are not subjects under the Kings Law It is a Canonicall priviledge of the Clergy that they are not subject to the Kings Civill Lawes Now this Prelate and his fellowes made the King sweare at his Coronation to maintaine all Canonicall Priviledges of the Prelaticall Clergy the very Oath and words sworne by all the Popish Kings P. Prelate Power is given by the multitude to the King immediatly and by God mediately not so much by collation as by approbation how the Iesuite and Puritane walke all along in equall pace See Bellarmine l. 1. de liac c. 6. Zuarez cont sect Angl. l. 3. c. 3. Answ. It is a Calumnie that we teach that the power of the King is from God mediatly by meere approbation indeed a fellow of his a Papist writing against the Kings Supremacy Anthony Capell Cont. 1. c. 5. saith Saul was made King and others also by Gods permission and Deo invito irato God being angry that is not our Doctrine but with what reall efficiencie God hath made men and communities rationall and sociall men with the same hath he made them by instinct of nature by the mediation of reason to create a King and Bellarmine and Suarez say Not God maketh Kings by approbation only P. Prelate The people may change Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy or Aristocracy into Monarchy for ought I know they differ not in this neither Ans. The P. Prelate knoweth not all things the two Iesuites Bellarmine and Suarez are produced only as if they were all Iesuites and Suarez saith De prim po l. 3. n. 4. Donationem absolutam semel valide factam revocari non posse neque in totum neque ex parce maxime quando onerosa fuit If the people once give their power to the King they cannot resume it without cause and laying downe the grounds of Suarez and other Iesuites that our Religion is Heresie they doe soundly collect this consequence That no King can be Lord of the consciences of their subjects to compell them to an Hereticall Religion We teach that the King of Spaine hath no power over the consciences of Protestant Subjects to force them to Idolatry and that their soules are not his subjects but only their persons and in the Lord. 2. It is no great crime that if a King degenerate in a Tyranny or if the Royall Line faile that we thinke the people have liberty to change Monarchy into Aristocracy aut contra Iesuites deny that the people can make this change without the Popes consent We judge neither the great Bishop the Pope nor the little Popes ought to have hand in making Kings P. Prelate They say the power is derived to the King from the people Cumulativè or Communicativé non Privativé by way of communication not by way of privation so as the people denude not themselves of this soveraignty As the King maketh a Lieutenant in Ireland not to denude himselfe of his Royall power but to put him in trust for his service If this be their mind the King is in a poore case The principal authority is in the Deligate and so the people is still Iudge and the King their Deputy Ans. The P. Prelate taketh on him to write he knoweth not what this is not our opinion The King is King and hath the peoples power not as their Deputy 1. Because the people is not principall Iudge and the King subordinate The King in the executive power of Lawes is really a Soveraigne above the people a Deputy is not so 2. The people have irrevocably made over to the King their power of governing defending and protecting themselves I except the power of selfe preservation which people can no more make away it being sinlesse natures birth-right then the liberty of eating drinking sleeping and this the people cannot resume except in case of the Kings Tyranny there is no power by the King so irrevocably resigned to his Servant or Deputy but he may use it himselfe 3. A Delegate is comptable for all he doth to those that put him in trust whether he doe ill or well The King in acts of Iustice is not comptable to any for if his acts be not lyable to high suspitions of Tyranny no man may say to him What dost thou onely in acts of unjustice and those so tyrannous that they be inconsistent with the habituall fiduciary repose and trust put on him he is to render accounts to the Parliament which representeth the people 4. A Delegate in esse in fieri both that he may be a Delegate and that he may continue a Delegate whether he doe ill or well dependeth on his pleasure who delegateth him but though a King depend in fieri in regard of his call to the Crowne upon the suffrages of his people yet that he may be continued King he dependeth not on the people simply but only in case of Tyrannicall administration and in this sense Suarez and Bellarmine spake with no more honesty then we doe but with more then Prelates doe for they professe any Emissary of Hell may stab a Protestant King We know the Prelates professe the contrary but their judgement is the same with Iesuites in all points and since they will have the Pope Christs Vicar by such a Divine right as they themselves are Bishops and have the King under Oath to maintaine the Clergie Bishops and all their Canonicall priviledges amongst which the Bishops of Rome his indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia and to dethrone Kings who turne Heritickes is one principall right I see not how Prelates are not as deepe in treason against Kings as the Pope himselfe and therefore P. Prelate take the beame out of your owne eye The P. Prelate taketh unlearned paines to prove that Gerson Occam Iac. de almaine Parisian Doctors maintained these same grounds a nent the peoples power over Kings in the case of Tyranny and that before Luther and Calvine was in the world and this is to give himselfe the lye that Luther Calvin and we have not this Doctrine from Iesuites and what is Calvines mind is evident Instit l. 4. c. all that the estates may coerce and reduce in order a Tyrant else they are deficient in their trust that God hath given them over the Common-wealth

and Church and this is the Doctrine for which Royalists cry out against Master Knox of blessed memory Buchanan Iunius Brutus Bouchier Rossaeus Althusius and Luther in scripto ad pastorem to 7. German fol. 386. bringeth two examples for resistance the people resisted Saul when he was willing to kill Ionathan his sonne and Ahikam and other Princes rescued Ieremiah out of the hands of the King of Iudah and Gerardus citeth many Divines who second Luther in this as Bugenliagius Iustus Ionas Nicholas Ambsderffius George Spalatinus Iustus Menius Christopher Hofmanus It is knowne what is the mind of Protestant Divines as Beza Pareus Melancthon Bucanus Polanus Chamer all the Divines of France of Germany of Holland No wonder then Prelates were upon the plot of betraying the City of Rochel and of the Protestant Church there when they then will have the Protestants of France for their defensive warres to be Rebels and siders with Iesuites when in these warres Iesuites sought their blood and ruine The P. Prelate having shewn his mind concerning the deposing of Childericke by the Pope of which I say nothing but the Pope was an Antichristian Usurper and the poore man never fit to beare a Crowne he goeth on to set downe an opinion of some mute Authors he might devise a thousand opinions that way to make men beleeve he had been in a wood of learned mens secrets and that never man saw the bottome of the controversie while he seeing the escapes of many Pens as supercilious Bubo praiseth was forced to appeare a Star new risen in the firmament of Pursevants and reveale all dreames and teach all the New-Statists the Gamaliels Buchanan Iunius Brutus and a world who were all sleeping while this Lucifer the sonne of the night did appeare this new way of Lawes Divinity and casuists Theologie They hold saith P. P. Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude from it derived to th● King immediatly from God The reason of which order is because we cannot reape the fruites of government unlesse by compact we submit to some possible and accidentall inconveniences Ans. 1. Who speaketh so the P. Prelate cannot name That Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude Vertually it may be Soveraignty is in the multitude but primarily and naturally as heat is in the fire light in the Sun I thinke the P. Prelate dreamed it no man said it but himselfe for what attribute is naturally in a Subject I conceive may directly and naturally be predicated thereof Now the P. Prelate hath taught us of a very naturall predication Our Dreadful and Soveraign Lord the multitude commandeth this and this 2. This is no more a reason for a Monarchy then for a Democracy for we can reape the fruites of no government except we submit to it 3. We must submit in Monarchy saith he to some possible and accidentall inconveniences Here be soft words but is subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties of Church and State introducing of Popery Arminianisme of Idolatry Altar-worship the Masse proved by a learned Treatise The Canterburian selfe conviction printed the 3. edit an 1641. never answered couched under the name of inconveniency The pardoning of the innocent blood of hundreds of thousand Protestants in Ireland the killing of many thousands Nobles Barons Commons by the hands of Papists in Armes ag●inst the Law of the Land the making of England a field of blood the obtruding of an Idolatrous Service-Booke with Armies of men by Sea and Land to blocke up the Kingdome of Scotland are all these inconveniences only 4. Are they only possible and accidentall but make a Monarch absolute as the P. Prelate doth and tyranny is as necessary and as much intended by a sinfull man inclined to make a God of himselfe as it is naturall to men to sinne when they are tempted and to be drunken and giddy with honour and greatnesse witnesse the Kings of Israel and Iudah though de jure they were not absolute Is it accidentall to Nero Iulian to the ten hornes that grew out of the womans head who sate upon the scarlet colloured beast to make warre against the Lambe and his followers especially the spirit of Sathan being in them P. Prelate They inferre 1. They cannot without violation of a Divine ordinance and breach of faith resume the authority they have placed in the King 2. It were high sin to rob authority of its essentials 3. This ordinance is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath urgent reasons Ans. 1. These namelesse Authors cannot inferre that an Oath is broken which is made conditionally all authority given by the people to the King is conditionall that he use it for the safety of the people if it be used for their distruction they breake no faith to resume it for they never made faith to give up their power to the King upon such tearmes and so they cannot be said to resume what they never gave 2. So the P. Prelate maketh power to act all the former mischiefes the essentialls of a King Balaam he is not worthy his wages for Prophecying thus that the Kings essentialls is a power of blood and destructive to people Law Religion and liberties of Church and State for otherwise we teach not that people may resume from the King Authority and power of disarme Papists to roote out the bloody Irish and in justice serve them as they have served us 3. This ordinance of the people giving lawfull power to a King for the governing of the people in peace and godlinesse is Gods good pleasure and hath just reasons and causes But that the people make over a power to one man to act all the inconveniences above named I mean the bloody and destructive inconveniences hath nothing of God or reason in it P. Prelate The reasons of this opinion are 1. If Power soveraigne were not in one he could not have strength enough to act all necessary parts and acts of government 2. Nor to prevent divisions which attend multitudes or many indowed with equall power and the Authors say They must part with their native right entirely for a greater good and to prevent greater evills 3. To resume any part of this power of which the people have totally devested themselves or to limit it is to disable Soveraignty from government loose the sinewes of all society c. Ans. 1. I know none for this opinion but the P. Prelate himselfe The first Reason may be made rhyme but never reason for though there be not absolute power to good and ill there may be strength of limited power in abundance in the King and sufficient for all acts of just Government and the adequate end of Government which is salus populi the safetie of the people But the Royalist will have strength to be a Tyrant and act all the Tyrannicall and bloody inconveniences of which we spake an essentiall part of the power of

Deacons are no more admitted by Christ to enter into his sanctuary as governours then the Leaper into the Campe of old and the Moabite and Ammonite were to enter into the congregation of the Lord Deut. 23.3 therefore we have excommunicated this P. Prelate and such Moabites out of the Lords house 2. What be the things that doe not primely concerne salvation the P. Prelate knoweth to wit Images in the Church Altar worship Antichristian Ceremonies which primely concerne damnation 3. I understand not what the P. Prelate meaneth that the King preserveth externall Government in order and decency in Scotland in our Parliament 1633. the prescribed Surplice and he commanded the Service-booke and the Masse-worship The Prelate degradeth the King here to make him onely keep or preserve the Prelates Masse-Clothes they intended indeed to make the King but the Popes servant for all they say and do for him now 4. If the King be vicegerent of Christ in prescribing Laws for the externall ordering of the worship and all their decent symbolicall Ceremonies What more doth the Pope and the Prelate in that kinde He may with as good warrant Preach and Administrate the Sacraments P. Prelate Kings have the sign of the Crosse on their Crowns Answ. Ergo Baculus est in angulo Prelates have put a crosse in the Kings heart and crossed Crown and Throne to Really Some Knights some Ships some Cities and Burroughes do carry a crosse are they made Christs vice-gerents of late By what antiquity doth the Crosse signifie Christ Of old it was a badge of Christians no Religious Ceremony and is this all The King is the vicegerent of Christians The Prelates we know adore the Crosse with Religious worship so must they adore the Crown P. Prelate Grant that the Pope were the Vicar of Christ in spirituall things it followeth not Ergo Kings Crowns are subject to the Pope for Papists teach that all power that was in Christ as man as power to work miracles to institute Sacraments was not transmitted to Peter and his successors Answ. This is a base consequence Make the Pope head of the Church the King if he be a mixed person that is half a Church-man and Christs Vice-gerent both he and Prelates must be members of the head Papists teach that all in Christ as man cannot be transmitted to Peter but a Ministeriall Catholike Headship say Batcanus and his fellows was transmitted from Christ as man and visible head to Peter and the Pope P. Prelate I wish the Pope who claimeth so neer alliance with Christ would learn of him to be meek and humble in heart so should he finde rest to his own soul to Church and State Answ. The same was the wish of Gerson Occam the Doctors of Paris the fathers of the Concels of Constance and Basil yet all make him head of the Church 2. The Excommunicate Prelate is turned Chaplain to Preach to the Pope the Soul-rest that Protestants wish to the Pope is That the Lord would destroy him by the Spirit of his mouth 2 Thes. 2.8 But P. Prelates This wish is a Reformation of accidents with the safety of the subject the Pope and is as good as a wish That the Devill remaining a Devill may finde rest for his soul all we are to pray for as having place in the Church are supposed members of the Church The Prelate would not pray so for the Presbytery by which he was ordained a Pastour 1 Tim. 4.14 though he be now an Apostate It is gratitude to pray for his lucky father the Pope What ever the Prelate wish we pray for and beleeve that desolation shall be his Soul-rest and that the vengeance of the Lord and of his Temple shall fall upon him and the Prelates his sons P. Prelate That which they purpose by denying Kings to be Christs Vice-gerents is to set up a Soveraignty Ecclesiasticall in Presbyteries to constrain Kings repeal his Laws correct his Satutes reverse his Judgements to cite convent and censure Kings and if there be not power to execute what Presbyteries decrees they may call and command the help of the people in whom is the underived Majstie and promise and swear and covenant to defend their fancies against all mortall men with their Goods Lands Fortunes to admit no divisive motion and this Soveraign Association maketh every private man an armed Magistrate Answ. You see the Excommunicate Apostats tusses against the Presbytery of a Reformed Church from which he had his baptism faith ministery 1. We deny the King to be the head of the Church 2. We assert that in the Pastors Doctors and Elders of the Church there is a Ministeriall power as servants under Christ in his authority and name to rebuke and censure Kings that there is revenge in the Gospel against all disobedience 2 Cor. 2.6 and 10.6 The rod of God 1 Cor. 4.21 The rod of Christs lips Isai. 11.4 The Scepter and Sword of Christ Revel 1.16 and 19.15 The Keyes of his Kingdom to binde and loose open and shut Matth. 18.17 18. and 16.19 1 Cor. 5.1 2 3. 2 Thes. 3.14 15. 1 Tim. 1.19 and 5.22 and 5.17 And that this power is committed to the Officers of Christs house call them as you will 3. For reversing of Laws made for the establishing of Popery we think the Church of Christ did well to declare all these unjust grievous decrees and that woe is due to the Iudges even the Queen if they should not repent as Isai. 10.1 And this P. must shew his teeth in this against our Reformation in Scotland which he once commended in Pulpit as a glorious work of Gods right arm And the Assemble of Glaskow 1637. declared That Bishops though established by Acts of Parliament procured by Prelates onely Commissioners and Agents for the Church who betrayed their trust were unlawfull and did supplicate That the ensuing Parliament would annull these wicked Acts. They think God priviledgeth neither King nor others from Church-Censures the P. Prelates imprisoned and silenced the Ministers of Christ who preached against the publike sins the blood oppressions unjustice open swearing and blasphemy of the holy Name of God the countenancing of Idolaters c. in King and Court 4. They did never sought the help of the people against the most unjust standing Law of authority 5. They never swear and covenant to defend their own fancies For the Confession and Covenant of the Protestant Religion translated in Latin to all the Protestants in Europe and America being termed a fancie is a clear evidence That this P. Prelate was justly excommunicated for Popery 6. This Covenant was sworn by King James and his house by the whole Land by the Prelates themselves And to this fancy this P. Prelate by the Law of our Land was obliged to swear when he received degrees in the Universitie 7. There is reason our Covenant should provide against divisive motions The Prelates moved the King to command all the

tribe The Pope is but a swelled fat Prelate and what he saith of Popes he saith of his own house 6. The Ministers of Christ in Scotland had never a contest with King Iames but for his sinnes and his conniving with Papists and his introducing Bishops the usher of the Pope QUEST XLIII Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince having Prerogatives above Parliament and Laws The Negative is asserted by the Lawes of Scotland the Kings Oath of Coronation the Confession of Faith c. THe negative part of this I hold in these Assertions Assert 1. The Kings of Scotland have not any Prerogative distinct from Supremacie above the Lawes 1. If the People must be governed by no Lawes but by the Kings own Lawes that is the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme acted in Parliament under paine of disobedience then must the King governe by no other Lawes and so by no Prerogative above Law But the former is an evident truth by our Acts of Parliament ergo so is the latter The Proposition is confirmed 1. Because what ever Law enjoyneth passive obedience no way but by Lawes that must injoyne also the King actively to command no other way but by Law for to be governed by Law essentially includeth to be governed by the Supreme Governour only by Law 2. An act of Regall governing is an act of Law and essentially an act of Law an act of absolute Prerogative is no act of Law but an act above Law or of pleasure loosed from Law and so they are opposed as acts of Law and non acts of Law If the Subjects by command of the King and Parliament cannot be governed but by Law How can the King but be under his own and the Parliaments Law to governe only by Law I prove the Assumption from Parl. 3. of K. Iames the 1. Act 48. Ordaines That all and sundry the Kings Lieges be governed under the Kings Laws and Statutes of the Realme allanerly and under no particular Lawes or speciall Priviledges nor by any Lawes of other Countries or Realmes Priviledges doe exclude Lawes Absolute pleasure of the King as a Man and the Law of the King as King are opposed by way of contradiction and so in Parl. 6. K. James 4. Act. 79. and ratified Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. Act. 131. 2. The King at his Coronation 1. Par. K. James 6. Act. 8. sweareth to maintaine the true Kirk of God and Religion now presently professed in puritie And to rule the People according to the Lawes and Constitutions received in the Realme causing Justice and equitie to be ministred without partialitie This did King Charles sweare at his Coronation and ratified Parl. 7. K. Iam. 6. Act. 99. Hence he who by the Oath of God is limited to governe by Law can have no Prerogative above the Law If then the King change the Religion Confession of Faith authorised by many Parliaments especially by Parliament 1. K. Charles An. 1633. He goeth against his Oath 3. The Kings Royall Prerogative or rather Supremacie enacted Parl. 8. K. James 6. Act. 129. and Parl. 18. Act. 1. and Parl. 21. Act. 1. K. Iames and 1 Parl. K. Charles Act. 3. cannot 1. be contrary to the Oath that K. Charles did sweare at his Coronation which bringeth down the Prerogative to governing according to the standing Lawes of the Realme 2. It cannot be contrary to these former Parliaments and Acts declaring that the Lieges are to be governed by the Lawes of the Realme and by no particular Lawes and speciall Priviledges but absolute Prerogative is a speciall Priviledge above or without Law which Acts stand unrepealed to this day and these Acts of Parliaments stand ratified An. 1633. the 1 Parl. K. Charles 3. Parl. 8. K. Iames 6. in the first three Acts thereof the Kings Supremacie and the power and authoritie of Parliaments are equally ratified under the same paine Their jurisdictions power and judgements in Spirituall or Temporall causes not ratified by His Majestie and the three Estates conveened in Parliament are discharged But the Absolute Prerogative of the King above Law Equity and Iustice was never ratified in any Parliament of Scotland to this day 4. Parliam 12. K. Iames 6. Act. 114. All former Acts in favour of the true Church and Religion being ratified Their power of making Constitutions concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Order and Decency the Priviledges that God hath given to spirituall Office-bearers as well of Doctrine and Discipline in matters of Heresie Excommunication Collation Deprivation and such like warranted by the Word of God and also to Assembles and Presbyteries are ratified Now in that Parliament in Acts so contiguous we are not to think That the King and three Estates would make Acts for establishing the Churches power in all the former heads of Government in which Royalists say The soul of the Kings Absolute Prerogative doth consist And therefore it must be the true intent of our Parliament to give the King a Supremacy and a Prerogative Royall which we also give but without any Absolutenesse of boundlesse and transcendent power above Law and not to obtrude a Service-Book and all the Superstitious Rites of the Church of Rome without Gods Word upon us 5. The former Act of Parliament ratifieth the true Religion according to the Word of God then could it never have been the intent of our Parliament to ratifie an Absolute supremacy according to which a King might govern his people as a Tyrannous Lion contrary to Deut. 17.18 19 20. And 't is true The 18. P. of King James 6. Act. 1. and Act. 2. upon personall qualifications giveth a Royall Prerogative to King James over all causes persons and estates within His Majesties Dominion whom they humbly acknowledge to be Soveraign Monarch Absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes These two Acts for my part I acknowledge spoken rather in Court-expressions then in Law-termes 1. Because personall vertues cannot advance a limited Prince such as the Kings of Scotland Post hominum memoriam ever were to be an Absolute Prince Personall graces make not David absolutely supreme Judge over all persons and causes nor can King James advanced to be King of England be for that made more King of Scotland and more supreme Iudge then he was while he was onely King of Scotland A wicked Prince is as essentially supreme Iudge as a godly King 2. If this Parliamentary figure of speech which is to be imputed to the times exalted King James to be Absolute in Scotland for his personall indowments there was no ground to put the same on King Charls Personall vertues are not alway Hereditary though to me the present King be the best 3. There is not any Absolutenesse above Law in the Act. 1. The Parliament must be more absolute themselves King James 6. had been divers yeers before this 18. Parl. King of Scotland then if they gave him by Law an Absolutenesse which he had

be regarded This is a strong Argument that the Parliaments never made the King supreame Iudge Quoad actus elicitos in all causes nay not if the King have a Cause of his owne that concerneth Lands of the Crowne farre lesse can the King have a will of Prerogative above the Law by our Lawes of Scotland And therefore when in the eighth Parliament King Ia. 6. the Kings Royall Power is established in the first Act the very next act immediatly subjoyned thereunto declareth the authority of the supreame Court of Parliament continued past all memory of man unto this day and constitute of the free voices of the three estates of this ancient Kingdome which in the Parliament 1606. is called The ancient and fundamentall policy of this Kingdome and so fundamentall as if it should be innovate such confusion would ensue as it could no more be a free Monarchy as is exprest in the Parliaments printed Commission 1604. by whom the same under God hath been upholden rebellious and traiterous subjects punished the good and faithfull preserved and maintained and the Lawes and Acts of Parliament by which all men are governed made and established and appointeth the Honour Authority and Dignity of the Estates of Parliament to stand in their owne integrity according to the ancient and laudable custome by past without alteration or diminution and therefore dischargeth any to presume or take in hand To impugne the dignity and the authority of the said Estates or to seeke or procure the innovation or diminution of their power or authority under the paine of Treason and therefore in the next Act they discharge all Iurisdictions or Judicatories albeit appointed by the Kings Majesty as the High Commission was without their Warrant and approbation and that as contrary to the fundamentall Laws above titled 48. Act. Parl. 3. K. Ia. 1. and Act. 79. Parl. 6. King Ia. 4. whereby the Lieges should only be ruled by the Lawes or Acts past in the Parliament of this Kingdome Now what was the ancient Dignity Authority and power of the Parliaments of Scotland which is to stand without diminution that will be easily and best known from the subsequent passages or Historians which can also be very easily verified by the old Registers whensoever they should be produced In the meane time remember that in Parliament and by Act of Parl. K. Ia. 6. for observing the due order of Parliament promiseth never to doe or command any thing which may directly or indirectly prejudge the libertie of free reasoning or voting of Parliament K. Ia. 6. Parl. 11. Act. 40. And withall to evidence the freedome of the Parliament of Scotland from that absolute unlimited Prerogative of the Prince and their libertie to resist his breaking of Covenant with them or Treaties with forraigne Nations Ye shall consider 1. That the Kings of Scotland are obliged before they be inaugurate to sweare and make their faithfull Covenant to the true Kirk of God that they shall maintaine defend and set forward the true Religion confessed and established within this Realme even as they are obliged and astricted by the Law of God aswell in Deuteronomie as in the 11 chap. of the 2. book of the Kings and as they crave obedience of their subjects So that the bond and contract shall be mutuall and reciprocall in all time comming between the Prince and the People according to the Word of God as is fully exprest in the Register of the convention of Estates Iuly 1567. 2. That important Acts and Sentences at home whereof one is printed 112 Act. Parl. 14. K. Ia. 3. and in Treaties with Forraigne Princes the Estates of Parliament did append their severall Seales with the Kings Great Seale which to Grotius Barclaius and Arnisaeus is an undeniable argument of a limited Prince as well as the stile of our Parliament that the Estates with the King ordaine ratifie rescind c. as also they were obliged in case of the Kings breaking these Treaties to resist him therein even by armes and that without any breach of their allegiance or of his Prerogative as is yet extant in the records of our old Treaties with England and France c. But to goe on and leave some high mysteries unto a rejoynder And to the end I may make good that nothing is here taught in this Treatise but the very Doctrine of the Church of Scotland I desire that the Reader may take notice of the larger Confession of the Church of Scotland printed with the Syntagme and body of the Confessions at Geneva anno MDCXII and authorized by King Iames the 6. and the three Estates in Parliament and printed in our Acts of Parliament Parl. 15. K. Iames 6. An. 1567. Amongst good works of the Second Table saith our Confession art 14. are these To honour Father Mother Princes Rulers and superiour Powers To love them to support them yea to obey their Charge not repugning to the commandement of God to save the lives of innocents to represse Tyrannie to defend the oppressed to keep our bodies cleane and holy c. The contrary whereof is To disobey or resist any that God hath placed in Authoritie while they passe not over the bounds of their office to murther or to consent thereunto to beare hatred or to let innocent blood be shed if we may withstand it c. Now the Confession citeth in the margin Ephes. 6.1.7 and Ezek. 22.1 2 3 4 c. where it is evident by the name of Father and Mother all inferiour Iudges as well as the King and especially the Princes Rulers and Lords of Parliament are understood 2. Ezek. 22. The bloody City is to be judged because they releeved not the oppressed out of the hand of bloody Princes v. 6. who every one of them were to their power to shed innocent blood 3. To resist superiour powers and so the Estates of Parliament as the Cavaliers of Scotland doe is resistance forbidden Romans 13.1 the place is also cited in the confession And the Confession exponeth the place Romans 13. according to the interpretation of all sound Expositers as is evident in these words Art 24. And therefore we confesse and avouch that such as resist the supreame power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge doe resist Gods ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltlesse And further we affirme that whosoever denyeth unto them aide their counsell and comfort while as the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their Office that the same men deny their helpe support and counsell to God who by the presence of his Lieutenant craves it of them From which words we have cleare 1. That to resist the King or Parliament is to resist them while as they are doing the thing that appertaineth to their charge and while they vigilantly travell in the execution of their office But while King and Parliament doe acts of Tyranny against Gods Law and all good Lawes of men they doe not the things

cast in a word of other Confessions lest we seeme to be Iesuites alone The Confession of Helvetia saith c. 30. de Magistratu Viduas pupillos afflictos asserat Every Magistrate is to defend the widow the orphan and the oppressed The French Confession saith art 40. Affirmamus ergo parendumesse Legibus Statutis solvenda Tributa subjectionis denique jugum voluntariè tolerandum etiamsi infideles fuerint Magistratus dummodo Dei summum imperium integrum illibatum maneat So cleare it is that all active obedience is due to all Magistrates and that that yoake of passive obedience is to be tolerated but conditionally with a dummodo so as the Magistrate violate not the supreme commandement of the King of Kings And we know accordingly Protestants of that Church have taken defensive armes against their King But our P. Prelate can say The Confessions of Scotland Helvetia France and all the Reformed Churches are Jesuiticall when as it was the doctrine of the Waldenses Protestants and Luther Calvin and others while as there was no Iesuite on earth The 37. Art of the Church of Englands Confession is so far from erecting an absolute power in the King that they expresly bring down the Royall Prerogative from the high seat and transcendent superlative power above the Law and expone the Prerogative to be nothing but meere Law-power We only say they ascribe that Prerogative to the King which the Scripture doth ascribe to all Godly Princes that is that they cause all committed to their trust whether Ecclesiasticall or Civill persons doe their duty and punish with the Civill sword all disobedient offenders In syntag Confess And this they say in answer to some who beleeved the Church of England made the King the Head of the Church The Prelates Convocation must be Iesuites to this P. P. also So the 36. Article of the Belgick Confession saith of all Magistrates no lesse then of a King We know for Tyrannie of Soule and Body they justly revolted from their King Idcirco Magistratus ipsos gladio armavit ut malos quidem plectant paenis probos vero tueantur Horum porro est non modo de Civili politia conservanda esse solicitos verum etiam dare operam ut sacrum Ministerium conservetur omnis Idololatria adulterinus Dei cultus è medio tollatur regnum Antichristi diruatur c. Then all Magistrates though inferiour must doe their duty that the Law of God hath laid on them though the King forbid them But by the Belgick Confession and the Scripture it is their duty to relieve the oppressed to use the sword against murthering Papists and Irish Rebels and destroying Cavaliers For shall it be a good plea in the day of Christ to say Lord Iesus we would have used thy sword against bloody Murtherers if thy Anoynted the King had not commanded us to obey a mortall King rather than the King of ages and to execute no judgement for the oppressed because he judged them faithfull Catholike subjects Let all Oxford and Cavalier Doctors in the three Kingdomes satisfie the consciences of men in this that inferior Iudges are to obey a Divine Law with a proviso that the King command them so to doe and otherwise they are to obey Men rather then God This is evidently holden forth in the Argentine Confession exhibited by foure Cities to the Emperour Charles the Fifth An. M.D.XXX. in the same very cause of innocent Defence that we are now in in the three Kingdomes of Scotland England and Ireland The Saxonick Confession exhibited to the Councell of Trent An. M.D.LI. art 23 maketh the Magistrates office essentially to consist in keeping of the two Tables of Gods Law and so what can follow hence but in so far as he defendeth Murtherers or if he be a King and shall with the sword or Armies impede inferior Magistrates for the Confession speaketh of all to defend Gods law and true Religion against Papists Murtherers and bloody Cavaliers and hinder them to execute the judgement of the Lord against evill doers He is not in that a Magistrate and the denying of obedience active or passive to him in that is no resistance to the Ordinance of God but by the contrary the King himselfe must resist the ordinance of God The Confession of Bohemia is clear art 16. Qui publico munere magistratuque funguntur quemcunquegradū teneant se non suum sed Dei opus agere sciant Hence all inferior or the supreme Magistrate what ever be their place they doe not their own work nor the work of the King but the work of God in the use of the sword Ergo they are to use the sword against bloody Cavaliers as doing Gods worke suppose the King should forbid them to doe Gods worke And it saith of all Magistrates Sunt autem Magistratuum partes ac munus omnibus ex aequo jus dicere in communem omnium usum sine personarum acceptatione pacem ac tranquilitatem publicam tueri ac procurare de malis ac facinorosis hanc inter turbantibus poenas sumere aliosque omnes ab eorum vi injuria vindicare Now this Confession was the faith of the Barons and Nobles of Bohemia who were Magistrates and exhibited to the Emperor An. 1535. in the cause not unlike unto ours now and the Emperor was their Soveraigne yet they professe they are obliged in conscience to defend all under them from all violence and injuries that the Emperor or any other could bring on them and that this is their office before God which they are obliged to performe as a worke of God and the Christian Magistrate is not to doe that worke which is not his own but Gods upon condition that the King shall not inhibite him What if the King shall inhibite Parliaments Princes and Rulers to relieve the oppressed to defend the Orphan the Widow the Stranger from unjust violence Shall they obey man rather than God To say no more of this Prelates in Scotland did what they could to hinder his Majestie to indict a Parliament 2. When it was indicted to have its freedome destroyed by prelimitations 3. When it was sitting their care was to divide impede and anull the course of Iustice. 4. All in the P. Prelates booke tendeth to abolish Parliaments and to enervate their power 5. There were many wayes used to break up Parliaments in England And to command Iudges not to judge at all but to interrupt the course of Iustice is all one as to command unrighteous judgement Ier. 22. v. 3. 6. Many wayes have been used by Cavaliers to cut off Parliaments and the present Parliament in England The paper found in William Lauds Studie touching feares and hopes of the Parliament of England evidenceth that Cavaliers hate the Supreme seat of Iustice and would it were not in the World which is the highest rebellion and resistance made against superior Powers 1. He feareth this Parliament shall begin

absolute power is essentially a power to do without or above Law and a power to doe ill to destroy and so it cannot come from God as a Morall power by institution though it come from God by a flux of permissive providence but so things unlawfull and sinfull come from God Quest. 7. Whether the King may in his actions intend his owne Prerogative and Absolutenes Answ. He can neither intend it as his nearest end nor as his remote end Not the former for if he fight and destroy his People for a Prerogative he destroyeth his People that he may have a power to destroy them which must be meere Tyranny nor can it be his remote end for granting that his supposed absolute Prerogative were lawfull he is to referre all lawfull Power and all his actions to a more noble end to wit to the safetie and good of the People Quest. 8. Doe not they that resist the Parliaments power resist the Parliament And they that resist the Kings power resist the King God hath joyned King and Power who dare seperate them Answ. If the Parliament abuse their power we may resist their abused power and not their power Parliamentarie Mr. Bridges doth well distinguish in his Annot. on the Loyall Convert betwixt the Kings power and the Kings will 2. The Resisters doe not separate King and Power but the King himselfe doth separate his lawfull Power from his Will if he worke and act Tyrannie out of this principle Will Passion Lust not out of the Royall principle of Kingly power So far we may resist the one and not the other Quest. 9. Why if God might work a miracle in the three Childrens resistance active why doth he evidence omnipotencie in the passive obedience of these Witnesses The Kingdome of Iudah was Christs birthright as man and Davids sonne why did he not by legions of Men Angels rather vindicate his own flesh and blood than triumph by non-resistance and the omnipotencie of glorie to shine in his meere suffering Ans. Who art thou that disputest with God He that killeth with the jaw-bone of an Asse thousands and he that destroyed the numberlesse Midianites by only three hundred should no more put the three Children to an unlawfull fact in the one if they had by three men killed Nebuchadnezzar and all his Subjects than in the other But nothing is said against us in a Sophisme à non-causa pro causa except it be proved God would neither deliver his three Children nor Christ from death and the Iewes from bondage by miraculous resistance because resistance is unlawfull What patient suffring is lawfull Ergo resistance is unlawfull It is a poor consequent and a begging of the question both must be lawfull to us And so we hold of ten lawfull meanes fit to compasse Gods blessed end he may choose one and let goe nine shall any inferre ergo These other nine meanes are unlawfull because God chose a mean d●fferent from those nin● and refused them So may I answer by retortion The three hundred sinned in resisting Midian and defeating them Why Because it should be more honour to God if they had by suffering patiently the sword of Midian glorified God in Martyrdome So Christ and the Apostles who could have wrought miracles might have wrought Reformation by the sword and destroyed Kings and Emperors the opposers of the Lambe and they did reforme by suffering Ergo the sword is unlawfull in Reformation It followeth not The meane Christ used is lawfull Ergo all other meanes that he used not are unlawfull It is vaine Logick Quest. 10. Whether is the Coronation of a King any other thing but a Ceremonie Ans. In the Coronation there is and may be the Ceremonie of a shout and an Acclamation and the reaching of a Scepter in his right hand who is made King and the like But the Coronation in concreto according to the substance of the act is no Ceremonie nor any accidentall ingredient in the constitution of a King 1. Because Israel should have performed a meere ceremoniall action on Saul when they made him King which we cannot say for as the Peoples act of Coronation is distinctive so is it constitutive it distinguished Saul from all Israel and did constitute him in a new relation that he was changed from no King to be a King 2. The people cannot by a Ceremonie make a King they must really put some honour on him that was not on him before Now this Ceremonie which Royalists doe fancie Coronation to be is only symbolicall and declarative not really dative it placeth nothing in the King Quest. 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King it being the immediate result without intervening of Law or any act of man issuing from God only Ans. Though we should give which in reason we cannot grant that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God without any act of man Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle without any act of men yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power that he abuse it not to Iudaizing Royalists deny not but they teach That the 80. Priests that restrained Vzziah his power from burning incense to the Lord gave no Royall power to Vzziah Doe not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power that he kill not the subjects without cause yet they teach That subjects gave no power to the King certainly this is a proofe of the immense power of the King of Kings that none can fly from his pursuing hand Ps. 139.1 2 3. Amos 9.1 2 3 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings Nebuchadnezzar as Royalists teach might justly conquer some Kingdomes for conquest is a just title to the Crowne say they now the Conquerour then justly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him yet we know the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King Ioshua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave and therefore this is no good reason The people gave not to the King Royall Power ergo they could not lawfully limit it and take it away 2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly without the intervention of any Act of Law for it is an Act of Law that Deut. 17. the people chooseth such a King not such a King that the people by a legall covenant make Saul David and Joash Kings and that God exerciseth any politicall action of making a King over such subjects upon such a condition is absurd and inconceivable for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jsrael upon this politicall and legall condition that they rule in Iustice and Judgement but there must intervene a politicall action and so they are not made Kings immediatly If God feed Moses by bread and Manna

the Lords act of feeding is mediate by the mediation of second causes if he feed Moses 40. dayes without eating any thing the act of feeding is immediate If God made David King as he made him a Prophet I should thinke God immediatly made him King for God asked consent of no man of no people no not of David himselfe before he infused on him the Spirit of Prophecy but he made him formally King by the politicall and legall Covenant betwixt him and the people I shall not thinke that a Covenant and Oath of God is a Ceremony especially a Law-covenant or a politicall paction between David and the people the contents whereof behoved to be De materia gravi onerosa concerning a great part of obedience to the fifth Commandement of Gods Morall Law the duties Morall concerning Religion and Mercy and Justice to be performed reciprocally between King and people Oathes I hope are more then Ceremonies Quest. 12. Whether or no is not the Common-wealth ever a Pupill never growing to age as a minor under nonage doth come not to need a Tutor but the Common-wealth being still in need of a Tutor a Governour or King must alwaies be a Tutor and so the Kingdome can never come to that condition as to accuse the King it alwaies being minor Ans. 1. Then can they never accuse inferiour Iudges for a Kingdome is perpetually in such a nonage as it cannot want them when sometime it wanteth a King 2. Can the Common-wealth under Democracy and Aristocracy being perpetually under nonage ever then quarrell at these Governments and never seeke a King by this reason they cannot 3. The King in all respects is not a Tutor every comparison in something beareth a Leg for the Common-wealth in their owne persons doe choose a King 2. Complaine of a King 3. Resist an Vzziah 4. Tye their elective Prince to a Law a Pupill cannot choose his Tutor either his dying Father or the living Law doth that service for him he cannot resist his Tutor he cannot tye his Tutor to a Law nor limit him when first he chooseth him Pupillo non licet postulare Tutorem suspecti quamdiu sub tutela est manet impubes l. Pietatis 6. in fin C. de susp Tutor l. impuberem 7. § Impuberes Iust. eod Quest. 13. Whether or no are subjects more obnoxious to a King then Clients to Patrons and servants to Masters because the Patron cannot be the Clients Judge but some superiour Magistrate must judge both and the slave had no refuge against his Master but only flight And the King doth conferre infinite greater benefits on the subjects then the Master doth on the slave because he exposeth his life pleasure ease credit and all for the safety of his subjects Ans. It s denyed for to draw the case to Fathers and Lords in respect of Children and Vassals the reason why Sons Clients Vassals can neither formally judge nor judicially punish Fathers Patrons Lords and Masters though never so Tyrannous is a Morall impotency or a politicall incongruity because these relations of Patron and Client Fathers and Children are supposed to be in a Community in which are Rulers and Iudges above the Father and Sonne the Patron and the Client but there is no Physicall incongruity that the politique inferiour punish the superiour if we suppone there were no Iudges on the earth and no relation but Patron and Client and because for the father to destroy the children is a troubling of the harmony of Nature and the highest degree of violence therefore one violence of selfe defence and that most j●st though contrary to nature must be a remedy against another violence but in a Kingdome there is no politicall Ruler above both King and People and therefore though Nature have not formally appointed the politicall relation of a King rather then many Governours and subjects yet hath Nature appointed a Court and Tribunall of necessity in which the people may by innocent violence represse the unjust violence of an injuring Prince so as the people injured in the matter of selfe defence may be their owne Iudge 2. I wonder that any should teach That oppressed slaves had of old no refuge against the tyranny of Masters but only flight for 1. The Law expresly saith That they might not only fly but also change Masters which we all know was a great dammage to the Master to whom the servant was as good as mony in his purse 2. I have demonstrated before by the Law of Nature and out of divers learned Iurists that all inferiours may defend themselves by opposing violence against unjust violence to say nothing that unanswerably I have proved that the Kingdome is superiour to the King 3. It is true Qui plus dat plus obligat as the Scripture saith Luke 7. He that giveth a greater benefit layeth a foundation of a greater obligation But 1. If benefit be compared with benefit it is disputable if a King give a greater benefit then an earthly father to whom under God the sonne is debtor for life and being if we regard the compensation of eminency of honour and riches that the People puteth upon the King but I utterly deny that a power to act Tyrannous acts is any benefit or obligation that the People in reason can lay upon their Prince as a compensation or hire for his great paines he taketh in his Royall Watch-Tower I Iudge it no benefit but a great hurt dammage and an ill of nature both to King and people that the people should give to their Prince any power to destroy themselves and therefore that people doth reverence and honour the Prince most who lay strongest chaines and Iron fetters on him that he cannot tyrannize Quest. 14. But are not Subjects more subject to their Prince seeing the subjection is naturall as we see Bees and Cranes to obey him then servants to their Lord. C. in Apib. 7.9.1 ex Hiero. 4. ad Rustic Monarch Plin. n. 17. For Jurists teach that servitude is beside or against nature l. 5. de stat homi § 2. just jur pers c. 3. § sicut Nov. 89. quib med nat eff sui Ans. There is no question in active subjection to Princes and Fathers commanding in the Lord we shall grant as high a measure as you desire But the question is if either active subjection to ill and unjust mandates or passive subjection to penall inflictions of Tyrannie and abused power be naturall or most naturall or if Subjects doe renounce naturall subjection to their Prince when they oppose violence to unjust violence This is to beg the question And for the Commonwealth of Bees and Cranes and Crown and Scepter amongst them Give me leave to doubt of it To be subject to Kings is a Divine morall Law of God but not properly naturall to be subject to coaction of the Sword Government and subjection to Parents is naturall But that a King is juris

King maketh away part of his Dominion The Lord is here to be waited on in his good Providence and events are to be committed to him but far lesse can it be imaginably lawfull for a King to make away a part of his Dominions without their consent that he may have help from a forraign Prince to destroy the rest This were to make merchandize of the lives of men Quest. 18. Whether or no the convening of the subjects without the Kings will be unlawfull Answ. The convention of men of it self is an indifferent thing and taketh its specification from its causes and manner of convening though some convention of the Subjects without the King be forbidden yet Ratio Legis est anima Legis The reason and intent of the Law is the soul of the Law Convention of the Subjects in a tumultuary way for a seditious end to make war without warrant of Law is forbidden but not when Religion Laws Liberties Invasion of forraign Enemies necessitateth the Subjects to conveen though the King and ordinary Iudicatures going a corrupt way to pervert Iudgement shall refuse to consent to their conventions Upon which ground no convention of Tables at Edinburgh or any other place An. 1637. 1638. 1639. can be judged there unlawfull for if these be unlawfull because they are convention of the Leagues without expresse Act of Parliament then the convention of the Leagues to quench a house on fire and the convention of a Countrey to pursue a Wolf entered in the Land to destroy women and children which are warranted by the Law of nature should be lawlesse or against Acts of Parliament Quest. 19. Whether the Subjects be obliged to pay the debts of the King Answ. These debts which the King contracteth as King in Throno Regali the people are to pay For the Law of nature and the divine Law doth prove That to every servant and Minister wages is due Rom. 13.5 6. compared with Vers. 4. and 1 Cor. 9.9 10 11 12. 1 Tim. 5.18 If the Prince be taken in a war for the defence of the people it is just that he be redeemed by them So the Law saith Tit. F. C. de negotiis gestis F. C. Manda But when Fer. Vasquius illust quest l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. Vicesimo tertio apparet c. saith If the Prince was not doing the businesse of the publike and did make war without advice and consent of the people then are they not to redeem him Now certain it is when the King raiseth war not onely against his Oath and saith God do so to me and mine if I intend any thing but peace yet maketh war and also raiseth war without consent of the Parliament and a Parliament at that time convocated by his own Royall Writ and not raised and dissolved at all but still sitting formally a Parliament if he borrow money from his own Subjects and from forraign Princes to raise war against his Subjects and Parliament then the people are not obliged to pay his debts 1. Because they are obliged to the King only as a King and not as an enemy But in so raising war he cannot be considered as a King 2. Though if the people agree with him and still acknowledge him King it is unpossible Physicè he can be their King and they not pay his debts yet they sin not but may ex decentia non ex debito legali pay his debts yet are they not obliged by any Law of God or man to pay his debts but though it be true by all Law the King be obliged to pay his debt except we say that all the peoples goods are the Kings a compendious way I confesse to pay all that any voluptuous H●liogabolus shall contract yet it may easily be proved That what his subjects and forraign Princes lent him to the raising of an unjust war are not properly debts but expences unjustly given out under the reduplication of formall enemies to the Countrey and so not payable by the Subjects and this is evident by Law because one may give most unjustly moneys to his neighbour under the notion of loan which yet hath nothing of the essence of loan and debt but is meer delapidation and cannot properly be debt by Gods Law for the Law regulateth a man in borrowing and lending as in other politike actions if I out of desire of revenge should lend moneys to a robber to buy powder and fewel to burn an innocent Citie or to buy armour to kill innocent men I deny that that is legally debt I dispute not whether A. B. borrowing money formally that thereby he may buy a Whore shall be obliged to repay it to C. D. under the reduplication of debt or if the borrower be obliged to pay what the lender hath unjustly lent I dare not pray to God That all our Kings debts may be payed I have scarce faith so to do Quest. 20. Whether Subsidies be due to the King as King Answ. There is a twofold Subsidie one Debitum of debt another Charitativum By way of charitie a Subsidie of debt is rather the Kingdoms due for their necessitie then the Kings due as a part of his rent we read of Custome due to the King as King and for conscience sake Rom. 13.5 6. never of a Subsidie or taxation to the Kings of Israel and Judah at any convention of the States Augustus Caesar his taxing of all the World Luk. 2. for the maintenance of Wars cannot be the proper rent of Augustus as Emperour but the rent of the Romane Empire and it is but the fact of a man Charitative subsidies to the King of indulgence because through bad husbanding of the Kings rents he hath contracted debts I judge no better than Royall and Princely begging Yet lawfull they are as I owe charitie to my brother so to my father so to my Politique father the King See Ferd. Vasq. illust quest l. 1. c. 8. who desireth that Superiors under the name of Charitie hid not rapine and citeth Cleer gravely saying offic l. 1. Nulla generi humano justitiae major pestis est quam eorum qui dum maximè fallunt id agunt ut boni viri esse videantur c. Quest. 21. Whether the Seas Floods Road-wayes Castles Ports publike Magazine Militia Armour Forts and Strengths be the Kings Ans. All these may be understood to be the Kings in divers notions 1. They are the Kings quoad custodiam publicam possessionem as a pawn is the mans in whose hand the pawn is laid down 2. They are the Kings quoad jurisdictionem cumulativam non privativam The King is to direct and Royally to command that the Castles Forts Ports Strengths Armour Magazine Militia be imployed for the safetie of the Kingdome All the Wayes Bridges the publike Road-wayes are the Kings in so far as he as a publike and Royall watchman is to secure the Subjects from Robbers and to cognosce of unknown

prator all the goods of the people are the Kings in a fourfold notion but not in propriety Subjects are propriators of their own Goods Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. The answer of Hybreas to a extorting Prince Antonius Argum. 4. Species enim furti est de ali●no largiri beneficit debito rem sihi acquirer● L. si pignore sect de furt Argum. 5. Argum. 6. Argum. 7. Argum. 8. The Kings power fiduciarie The King a Tutor Difference between a father and a Tutor A free Community no pupill or minor The Kings power not properly Maritall or husbandly The King a Patron rather then a Lord. The King an honourable servant Royall power only from God and only from the people in divers respects The King the servant of the people both objectively subjectively By one and the same act the Lord of Heaven and the People make the King according to the physicall realitie of the act The King head of the Communitie only metaphorically The King but metaphorically only Lord of the familie The King not heire nor proprietor of the Kingdome The place 1 Sam. 8 9 11. discussed (a) Grotius de ju bel pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 3. (b) Barclaius contra Monar chom l. 2. p. 64. Potestatem intelligit non cam quae competit e● praecepto neque etiam quae ex permissu est quatenus liberat à ●cecato sed quatenus paenis legalibus eximit operantem (c) Barclaius contra Monarcho l. 2. p. 56 57. The power office of the King badly di●●erenced by Barclay (d) Barclaius l. 3. c. 2. (e) Arr. Mon. Haec erit ratio Regis (f) 70. Interpret Vatabul judica 〈◊〉 judicium consuetudinem ● more 's ib. his moribus hac consuetudine utentur erga vos reges g Chald Para. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 70. Interp. 70. Interp. (h) P. Martyr coment 1 Sam. 8. verum jus regium describit in Deut. apud Samuelem autem usurpatum (i) Calvin conc 1 Sam. 8. (k) Andr. Rivetus in decal c. 20. in● mundat p. 195. (l) Junius annot in 1 Sam. 2.13 (m) Diodatus annot 1 Sam. 8.3 (n) Gloss● interlinearis (o) Lyra in locum hic accipitur jus large sumptum quo● reputatur jus propter malum abusum Nam illa quae dicuntur hic de jure Regis magis contingunt p●r Tyranidem (p) Tostatu● Abulens in 1 Reg. 8. q. 17. deq. 21. (q) Cornelius a Lapid in locum (r) Cajetan in locum (s) Hugo Cardinal in loc (t) Serrarius in locum (u) Thom. Aquin l. 3. de Regni Princip c. 11. (x) Mendoza jus Tyrannorum (y) Clemens Alexand. pag. 26. (z) Beda l. 2 expo in Samuel (a) Petrus Robuffus tract d● incongrua prert p. 110. Osiander he setteth not down the Office of the King what he ought to be but what man●ner of King they should have Pelican that ruled by will not by law Willet Such as decline to Tyranny Borhaius Tyrants not Kings (b) Rabb Levi Ben. Gersom in 1 Sam. 8. Pezelius in exp leg Mosai l. 4. c. 8. Tossan in not Bibl. Bosseus de Rep. Christ. potest supra regem c. 2. n. 103. Bodin de Rep. l. 1. ● 19. Brentius homil 27. in 1 Sam. 8. Mos regis non de jure sed de vulgatâ consuctudin● Doct. Ferne p. 2. sect pag. 55. Active and passive Obed. pag. 24. D. Ferne. 3. p. Sect. 2. pag. 10. Learned Authors teach that Gods Law Deut. 17. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a manner of the King 1 Sam. 8 9 are opposite one to another so Gerson in trinprinc sac adu lat par 4. Alp. 66. lit l. cons. 8. Buchan de jure regni apud Scot. Chasson cat glo mundi cons. 24. n. 162. cons. 35. Tholoss l. 9. c. 1. Rossen De polus Rep. c. 2. n. 10. Magdeburg in trac de off ma. Crying to God not the only remedy against a tyrant Ferne par 3. pag. 95. Resisting of tyrants and patience not inconsistent The Law of the King not a permissive law as was the law of devorcement Mal. 2. The law of the King written in a booke 1 Sam. 11. not the law of Tyranny In what considerations the King is worthier then the people and the people worthier then the King A meane as a meane inferiour to the end A King inferiour to the people Argum. ● Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Argum. 5. The Church because the Church of more worth then the King because King Argum. 6. Argum. 7. People in the spece immortall King not so If sinne had never been there should have been no need of Kings Arg. 8. The King is to expend his life for the people and so inferior ●o them A meane is considered reduplicatively and formally as a meane and materially as the thing which is the mean in this latter sense the mean may be of more worth then the end but not so in the former sense A meane may be considered as a meane only and as more then a meane The people may be without the King but not the King without the people 10. Argum. The people worthier as the constituent cause then the King who is the effect Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Vnpossible that people can limit Royall power but they must giv● Royall power Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Except 2. Ioan. Rossens De potest pap l. 2. c. 5. Though God immediately create Kings without the people yet can the people unmake Kings Though God should immediately give a talent and gift for Prophecying as he gave to Balaam Caiaphas and others yet they may lose that talent by digging it in the earth and be deprived by the Church Except 3. Sacr. sanc M●jes c. 9. p. 98.99 Arnisaus De authorit princip cap. 1. n. 1. The people putting a King above themselves retaine the fountain-power and so are superior to the King Ulpian l. 1. ad Sc. Tupil Populus omne suum imperium potestatem confert in Regem Bartolus ad l. hostes 24. f. de capt host Arnis c. ● n. 10. The King as King a meane and inferior to the people The King both as a man and as a King inferior to the people Except 4. Sacr. sanct maj c. 9. p. 98. Observe here that the P. P. yieldeth there is a free covenant by which the people resigne their power to the King but whether Royall power or some other he dare not assert lest he destroy his own principles To sweare non-selfe-preservation and to sweare self-murther all one 5 Reply Sac. sanct maj c. 9. p. 129. stollen from Barclaius l. 5. c. 12. The people cannot make away their power to the King irrevocably The people may resume the power they gave to Commissioners of Parliament when they abuse that power Buchanan not understood by the P. P. Tables lawfull when the secret Counsell is corrupted and Parliaments are denyed 6 Rep. Barc l. 4. con● Monar●bo c. 11 pag. 27. 7. Rep. Sacr.

sanc Ma● c. 13. p. 130. stolen out of Arnisaeus d● jure Majest cap. 3. n. 1. pag. 34. Quod ●fficit tale c. holdeth when the agent maketh not away all its vertue by alienation 8. Rep. Sacr. sanc Mai. pag. 131. Propter quod unumquodque c. not understood by the P. P. The King hath Soveraignty by loane and in trust Soveraigntie how in the Communitie how not Power of life and death how in the Communitie A Communitie of it selfe wanting Rulers is a Politique body and how Sacr. sanc maj c. 4. p. 43. The propagation of Kings is by filiation saith the P.P. A speech that hath neither sense nor reason Filiation is later then propagation one must be propagated ere he be a sonne Kings and inferior Iudges Gods analogically Inferiour Iudges no lesse Gods immediate Vicars then the King The conscience of the inferiour Iudge is immediately subordinate to God not to the King either mediately or immedia●ely Grotius de jure Belli 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 4. Nam ●●nis faculeas gubernandi in Magistratibus summae potestati ita subjicitur ut qui●quid con●ra voluntatem summi imperantis faciant id dosectum sit ca facultate ac proinde de pro actu privato ●abendum Grotius ibi species intermedia si genus respicias est species si speciem infra positam est genus ita magistratus illi inferiorum quidem ratione habita sunt publicae personae at supper ores si considerentur sunt privati Grot. 16. Inferiour Iudges truely Iudges in relation to the King The 〈◊〉 judge how the Deputy of the King Inferiour Iudges powers ordained of God Rebuked for perverting judgement They are the Ministers of God To resist them is to resist God They are Gods By this the Parliament of both Kingdomes ought to put to death cut-rhroat Cavaliers ●aising warre against the subject though the King commands the contrary Sac. Sanc. mai c. 4. pag. 46. How the King judgeth by inferiour Iudges Simmons loyall subjects beleif Sect. 1. pag. 3. The honour of an inferiour Iudge commeth neither from East nor from West more then from the King Argu. 9. Power of Kings and of inferiour Iudges dister gradually not specifically The specifick acts and formall object of Kings and inferiour Iudges are the same The same obligation of cons●ienc● that lyeth on the King in all things lyeth on the inferiour Iudge Inferiores Iudices sunt impropriè Vicarii Regis quoad missionem externam ad officium sed immediati Dei vicarii quoad officium in quod missi sunt Barcl l. 2. contr Monarchom p. 56 57. Arnisaeus de authorit Princ. c. 3. n. 9. Marant disp 1. Zoan tract 3. de desens Mynsing obs 18. cent 5. Symmons sect 1 p. 2. The Iudges of Israel and the Kings after them differed but not essentially Sacr. sanct maj 6.7 p. 81 82. Nature is as neare to Aristocracy as to Monarchy for the wife cannot be under the husband as a subject under a Monarch slie by the fift Commandement hath a joynt headship with the husband Iudges inferiour depend on the King in fieri when the constitution of the Kingdome is such but not in facto esse nor in their essence Arg. 10. Inferiou● Iudges after the King is dead as also the States of Parliament remain Iudges Arg. 11. God not the absolute Pr●nce maketh the inferiour Iudges No heritable Iudges according to Gods Word Inferiour Iudges more necessary in a large Kingdom then the K●ng and so Aristocracy in that more sutable to the naturall end of government then Monarchy Principes sunt capitis tempora Rex ●ertex Elders of a land joyntly in Parliament must have as much if not more vi● uni●a sortior then when they are divided in severall tribes cities shires but divided they are as essentially Iudges as the King The whole must have more power in extension then the part Jer. 38.25 they had power against the Kings will to put Ieremiah to death Ieremiah saith Doe whatsoever soemeth good to you v. 10. The power of conveening Parliaments in the Estates without the King Ps. 122.2 3. Why are thrones set for judgement for all the tribes if only the King judge Tables in Scotland lawfull The inferiour Iudges are not subject in their conscience to the King in their acts of judgement either quoad ●●●cifi●ationem to give unjust sentences at his will nor quo ad 〈◊〉 to execute or not execute judgement for the oppressed Vnjust judgeing and no judging at all are sinnes in the States Junius Brut. q. 2. p. 51. vin l. contr Tyran The Parliament Iudges not advisers only Ieferiour Iudges not the Legats or Servants or Messengers of the King Publick Government belongeth to the States and Elders as to the King Arg. 8. Arg. 9. Arg 10. Arg. 11. Ferne par 3. Defence Sect. 3. pag. pag. 12 The question is not if the King be so absolute as he is freed from all Morall restraint comming from Gods Law Sacr. sanc Maj. 〈◊〉 14 p. 163. No resisting of the most Turkish Tyran by the Royalists way An absolute King more absolute then the Great Turke by Royalists way No law at all by Royalists way to impede a King from a super-inundation of overflowing Tyranny 1 Arg. against Absolu●en●slo of Kings Why the King ● breathing Law three reasons 2. Argument against an absolute King The People have no absolute power over themselves and so cannot make over any such power to the King Arg. 3. Against an absolute Prince Power Tyrannicall is not from God Barclaius 〈…〉 l. 2. pag. 62. That ●●●sion 〈…〉 mortall ●an may resist ●s from God Argum. 4. Against an absolute Prince A King as a King must be a plague if God be the Creator of an absolute Prince The goodnesse of an absolute Prince in not putting forth his power in actuall destroying of the people hindereth not the power to be actu primo Tyrannicall Argum. 5. Against absolute Princes An absolute Prince against justice peace reason law c. Argum. 6. Against an absolute Prince It is against nature Arg. 7. Against an absolute Prince contrary to the fift Commandement Arg. 8. Against an absolute Prince The King remaineth a brother when he is King and may be rebuked may not take his neighbours vineyard from him A Damsell forced by the King may violently resist No sufficient meanes against all cruelties and unjust violences i● an absolute Prince be from God all go● to confusion Barclaius cont Monarch l. ● pag. 76 77. 9. Argument 〈◊〉 an ab●●lu●e P●●nce The 〈…〉 express● upon which the P●●n●e receive●h the crown ●ight with all absolute power Prerogative taken two wayes No Prerogative Royall in the Scripture Jus personae jus coronae The question touching Prerogative Royall vaine Prerogative Royall of Royalists Gods due Acts founded upon the sole pleasure of the Agent proper to God A threefold dispensation A dispensation 1. of sole pleasure 2. of ●ustice 3. of grace A twofold exponing

the Text Rom. 13. in regard of dignity but not only in regard of ●ss●nce Onely Nero cannot be understood Rom. 13.1 Vata● Homines intelligit publica autho●itate p●●editus The P. Prelats poo●e reas●n ●estraining the Text to Kings answered Prelat 〈◊〉 Sanct. ma● c. 2. pag. 29. P. Marty● 〈…〉 potestatum g●n●ra regna Aristocrat●●a Politi●a Tyrannica Oligar●hi●a Deus etiam illorum author Willet saith the same and so Beza so Tolet. Haymo Reasons against the lawfulnesse of resistance made to unjust violence answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He●●d l. 7. de Xe●xe Vulgar version and Lyra turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Apostate Luk. 15.32 Prelat Sac. sanc maj c. 5. n. 6. The objection that G●ds Prophets never 〈◊〉 non-resistance as a murtherous omission and that God● people in Scripture never pract●s●d resista●c● a●d God n●v●r c●mma●de● it ●●lly ●nsw●red Nota. 〈…〉 6. 〈◊〉 234. Sheweth the reasons why Christ ●●ndemned 〈◊〉 n●t because he thought felt de●e●ce unlawfull 〈◊〉 1. it had a kind of revenge in it ●or so ●ew could not repel such an army as ca●e to take Christ. 2. He waited n●t on Christs answer 3. He could have defended himself ●noth●r way 4. It was contrary to Gods will reve●led to Pet●● The Prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance when they cry against the peoples not executeing judgement for the oppressed and not relieving those that were crushed in the gate There is no warrant in the word by precept or practice that the King and Cavalliers should rise and oppose Princes and States in a hostile w●y for their conscience Sacr. sance 6. pag. 74 75 76. The Doctors of Aberdeene in their Duplyes T●●tull●an in an errour The ancient Chr●sti●ns did rise in Armes against persecuting Emperours Inferiour Judges have the 〈◊〉 of the sword aswell as the King The people tyed to acts of Charity and to defend themselves the Church and their posterity against a forreigne Army though the King forbid We must defend with the sw●rd ●he Church of God whether the King will or no ●xcept it be said the King may c●mma●d murther and discharge us 〈◊〉 the dut●es 〈◊〉 the second Table Examples of lawfull warres without the Ki●g If the Parliament make the King and give to him the sword the King cannot make the Parliament nor use the sword to their destruction Parliamentary power a fountaine power above the King 〈…〉 Beliefe Cause● o● war make law●ull war not the s●le pleasure 〈◊〉 the Ki●g 〈…〉 6. n. 18. It is necessary and la●full for t●e States of Scotland to help their brethren in England Cases ●n which we are to help our brethren according to divers opinions We are to help our brethren though they desire us not Solons testimony 〈◊〉 of the ●g●ptians ●gainst those that helped not the oppressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ad 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ad 〈◊〉 Acts of charity 〈◊〉 help●ng our bre●hren against u●just oppressions of lig● us whether the King c●mma●d th●m or forbid 〈◊〉 Loyall sub●ect●●eliefe sect 4. ●ag 7. Sacr. Sanct. Reg. ma● c. 2. ●ag 26.27 The question ●oncerning the ●xcellency of Monarchy a●ove other ●●rmes vari●us ●ccording to ●ivers conside●●tions An absolute Monarchy the baddest of governments Epiminondas his watchfulnesse A power to sin worse then a power of non-sinning Monarchy in it selfe considered is the best government Every forme in some construction best A mixed Monarchy best Tolossan de Rep. l. 13. c. 12. Pa●●l cont Mona●ch l. 〈…〉 Symm●ns L●yall Subj unb●liefe § 4. pag 7. A threefold supreame power What be jura regalia or ju●● majestatis An●isaeus d● ju●i 6. mat c. 1. n 3. pag. 15● 158. Kings con●●r honours a● rewards of vertue as they p●nish ●ldoers not because they are absolute but according to law The law of the King 1 Sam 8.9.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Father consideration of the place 1 Sam. 8.9.11 Difference of Kings and Judges The law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 no permissive law of God as was the law of a bill of divorcement God cannot make a permissive law tending to the destruction of a whole national Church and Kingdome What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subject The peoples power over the King by reason of the Coronation covenant Mutuall pun●shments may be w●ere there be no mutuall relations of superiority and inferiority A promise layeth a politique obligation on the promiser and giveth law to him to whom the promise is made to presse performance or punish violation when the promises are betwixt man and man Three kindes of oathes or covenants ●●de by Kings as Arnisaeus thinketh The King not King while he first swear the oath It is an evasion onely to distingu●sh between the Kings promis●s and his oath Grotius de jur bel pac l. 1. c. 4. Barclai l. 4. c. 6. A King cannot swear to be a just King because he is already King Bartol in l. 1. n. 4. de his qu● not ●nfam Arnisae cap. 6. An princeps qui tura● subditis c. Io. Ross. de potest pa. lib. 2. c. 20. B. Rochester 16 A difference betwixt a father and a King A people may give Royall power to the King by limitation and measure but people can give no gift which is solely and immediately from God by measure they cannot measure God Sacr. san reg maj c. 1. pag. 1 2. An. 1633. Coronation of King Charls in Scotland L. 3. desens sid Orth. c. 3. n. 2 3. The P. Prelate is a Papist Iesuites tenents concerning Kings Tract contra primatum Regis Angliae Calvin Iust. l. 4. c. 4. Sac. sanc Mai. c. 1. p. 17 18. Soveraigne power in the King but not power of Tyrannie The King not the Vicegerent of Christ as mediator The King not the head of the Church The Prelates reason proveth all creatures to be the vicegerents of Christ as Mediator 2 Reas. p. 58. The King no mix●● person or half Clergie man in the externall government of the Church as the P. P. dreameth 1 Parl. King Charles an 1633. The P. Prelate prayeth for the Pope The power of Presbyteries Ministeriall P. Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel and Discipline of Christ Pag. 65. The Ministeriall power of Page 65. The P. Prelate maketh the King a Church-man The P. Prelate giveth an Arbitrary power of government in Christs-Church to the King Prelates extend a lawlesse prerogative to the government of the Church Two Supremes under Christ one in the Church another in the State are not absurd P. 66 67 68. The King no● the servant of the Church Ruling Elders not Lay-men The King of Scotland not above Laws and Parliaments proved from our acts of Parliament The King of Scotland's oath at his Coronation How the King is supreme Iudge in all Causes The Estates of Parliament do append their collaterall Seales with the Great Seal in Treaties with forraigne Princes Angl. Conf. art 37. civili●●er●c●nt ●●er●c●nt W. Laud and other Prelates enemies to Parliaments The Parliaments of Scotland doe regulate limit and set bounds to the Kings power Fergus the first King of Scotland no Conquerour but a freely elected Prince A fundamentall Law of elective Kings in Scotland The Parliaments of Scotland chosed Kings ●he Oath of ●aldus the 21. ●ing of Scot●●nd Kings of Scot●and censured ●nd punished ●y the Parlia●ent Kings of Scotland of old had no negative voyce Buchan Res. Scot. l. 7. Coronation Oath Parliament● of Scotland by Law are to decide who should raigne How Royaltie is the first and naturall Government Many Rulers over a great multitude more naturall than one To resist the Will is not to resist the Power Pag. 9. It is no good consequence Christ and the Apostles used not violent resistance to spread the Gospel ergo such resistance is unlawfull The Coronation of the King in concreto is more then a Ceremonie Men may limit the Power that they gave not Arnisaeus de authorit princi c. 3. n. 6. Subiects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients Vassals Children Servi indignè ●abiti consugi●ndi ad statuas dominum ●●utandi copiam ●abent l. 2. De ●is qui sunt sui Item C. De lat Hered toll Arnisaeus De authori princi●um in popul ● 3. n. 7. Subjects in active obedience must subject to a Kings lawfull commandement but in things unlawfull they are not naturally subject in passive subjection Whether King Vzzah was dethroned Arnisaeus de jure Pontif. Rom. in Regna Princ. c. 5. n. 30. Bellarm. de paenit l. 3. c. 2. Deniall of passive obedience in things unjust not dishonourable to the King more then deniall of active obedience in these same things Loyall Convert page 10. The King may not make away a part of his owne Dominions Ferdinan Vasquius illustr quest l. 1. c. 3. n. 8. juri alieno quisquam nec in minima parte obesse potest l. id quod nostru F. de reg jur l. jur natu cod titul l. How subjects are obliged to pay the Kings debts Subsidies the Kingdoms due rather then the Kings In how many divers notions the Seas Forts Castles Militia Road-wayes are the Kings and how more properly they are the Kingdomes

they turne tyrants and oppressors this the Prelate shall deny for he averreth p. 96. out of Augustine that the people may without sin change a corrupt Democracy into a Monarchy P. Prelate If Soveraignty be originally inherent in the people then Democracy or Government by the people were the best Government because it commeth nearest to the fountaine and streame of the first and radicall power in the people yea and all other formes of government were unlawfull and if Soveraignty be natively inherent in the multitude it must be proper to every individuall of the community which is against that false Maxime of theirs Quisque nascitur liber every one by nature is borne a free man and the posterity of those who first contracted with their elected King are not bound to that Couenant but upon their native rest and liberty may appoint another King without breach of covenant The posterity of Ioshua and the Elders in their time who contracted with the Gibeonites to incorporate them though in a serving condition might have made their fathers government nothing Ans. The P. Prelate might thanke Spalato for this Argument also for it is stollen but he never once nameth his name lest his theift should be deprehended so are his other Arguments stollen from Spalato but the Prelate weakeneth them and it is seene stollen goods are not blessed Spalato saith then by the law of nature every Common-wealth should be governed by the people and by the law of nature the people should be under the badest Government but this consequence is nothing for community of many families is formally and of themselves under no government but may choose any of the three for popular government is not that wherein all the people are Rulers for this is confusion no government because all are Rulers and none are governed and ruled but in popular government many are chosen out of the people to rule and that this is the worst government is said gratis without warrant and if Monarchy be the best of it selfe yet when men are in the state of sin in some other respects it hath many inconveniences 2. I see not how Democracie is best because neerest to the multitudes power of making a King for if all the three depend upon the free will of the people all are alike a far off and alike neer hand to the peoples free choice according as they see most conducible for the safety and protection of the Common-wealth And seeing the forms of Government are no more naturall then politick Incorporations of Cities yea then of Shires But from a positive institution of God who erecteth this form rather then this not immediately now but mediately by the free will of men not one cometh formally and ex naturâ rei neerer to the fountain then another except that materially Democracie may come neerer to the peoples power then Monarchie but the excellencie of it above Monarchie is not hence concluded for by this reason the number of four should be more excellent then the number of five of ten of an hundreth of a thousand or of millions because four cometh neer to the number of three which Aristotle calleth the first persit number cui additur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which yet formally all doe alike share in the nature and essence of number 2. It is denied that it followeth from this antecedent The people have power to chose their own Governours Ergo All Governments except Democracie or Government by the people must be sinfull and unlawfull 1. Because Government by Kings is of Divine institution and of other Iudges also as is evident by Gods Word Rom. 13.1 2 3. Deut. 17.14 Prov. 8.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Psal. 2.10 11 c. 2. Power of chosing any form of Government is in the people Ergo There is no Government lawfull but popular Government it followeth no wayes but presupposeth that power to chose any form of Government must be formally actuall Government which is most false yea they be contrary as the prevalency or power and the act are contrary so these two are contrary or opposite neither is Soveraigntie nor any Government formally inherent in either the Communitie by nature nor in any one particular man by nature and that every man is born free so as no man rather then his brother is born a King and Ruler I hope God willing to make good so as the Prelate shall never answer on the contrary 3. It followeth not that the Posteritie living when their Fathers made a Covenant with their first elected King may without any breach of Covenant on the Kings part make voyd and null their Fathers election of a King and chose another King because the lawfull Covenant of the Fathers in point of Government if it be not broken tieth the children but it cannot deprive them of their lawfull libertie naturally inherent in them to chose the fittest man to be King But of this hereafter more fully 4. Spalato addeth the Prelate is not a faithfull theef If the Communitie by the Law of nature have power of all forms of Government and so should be by nature under popular Government and yet should refuse a Monarchy and an Aristocracie yet Augustine addeth If the people should preferre their own private gain to the publike good and sell the Common-wealth then some good man might take their libertie from them and against their will erect a Monarchie or an Aristocracie But 1. the Prelate and Augustine supposeth the people to be under Popular Government this is not our case for Spalato and the Prelate presupposeth by our grounds that the people by nature must be under Popular Government Augustine dreameth no such thing and we deny that by nature they are under any form of Government 2. Augustine in a case most considerable thinketh one good and potent man may take the corrupt peoples power of giving Honours and making Rulers from them and give it to some good men few or many or to one then Augustine layeth done as a ground that which Spalato and the Prelate denieth That the people hath power to appoint their own Rulers otherwayes how could one good man take that power from them And the Prelates fifth Argument is but a Branch of the fourth Argument and is answered already P. Prelate Chap. 11. He would prove That Kings of the peoples making are not blessed of God The first creature of the peoples making was Abimelech Iudg. 9.22 who reigned onely three yeers well neer Anti-Christs time of endurance he came to it by blood and an evil spirit rose betwixt him and the men of Sechem and he made a miserable end The ne●● was Ieroboam who had this Motto He made Israel to sin the people made him King and he made the same pretence of a glorious Reformation that our Reformers now make new Calves new Altars new Feasts are erected they banish the Levites and take in the scum and drosse of the

body but as they transferre their power to the father 1. for their owne safetie and peace not if he use the power they give him to their destruction the same way they tye themselves to his first borne as to their King 2. As they chose the father not as a man but a man gifted with Royall grace and a Princely facultie for government so they can but tye themselves to his first borne as to one graced with a facultie of governing and if his first borne shall be borne an idiot and a foole they are not obliged to make him King for the obligation to the sonne can be no greater then the obligation to the father which first obligation is the ground measure and cause of all posterior obligations If Tutors be appointed to governe such an one the Tutors have the Royall power not the Idiot nor can he governe others who cannot governe himselfe That Kings goe not as heritage from the father to the sonne I prove 1. God Deut. 17. could not command them to choose such a one for the King and such a one who sitting on his throne shall follow the direction of God speaking in his word if birth were that which gave him Gods title and right to the Crowne for that were as much as such a man should be heire to his fathers inheritance and the sonne not heire to his fathers crown except he were such a man But God in all the Law morall or judiciall never required that the heire should be thus and thus qualified else he should not be heire but he requireth that a man and so that a familie should be thus and thus qualified else they should not be Kings and I confirme it thus The first King of divine institution must be the rule paterne and measure of all the rest of the Kings as Christ maketh the first Mariage Mat. 19.8 a paterne to all others and Paul reduceth the right administration of the Supper to Christs first institution 1 Cor. 11.23 now the first King Deut. 17.14 15. is not a man qualified by naked birth for then the Lord in describing the manner of the King and his due qualifications should seeke no other but this You shall choose onely the first borne or the lawfull sonne of the former King But seeing the King of Gods first moulding is a King by election and what God did after by promises and free grace give to David and his seed even a throne till the Mesiah should come and did promise to some Kings if they would walke in his Commandements that their sonnes and sonnes sonne should sit upon the Throne in my judgement is not an obliging Law that sole birth should be as just a title in foro Dei for I now dispute the question in point of conscience as royall unction 2. If by divine institution God have impawned in the peoples hand a subordinate power to the most High who giveth Kingdomes to whom he will to make and create Kings then is not sole birth a just title to the Crowne But the former is true both by precept Deut. 17.1 and God expresly saith Thou shalt choose him King whom the Lord shall choose And if it had not been the peoples power to create their own Kings how doth God after he had designed Saul their King yet expresly 1 Sam. 10. inspire Samuel 17. to call the people before the Lord at Mizpeh to make Saul King and how doth the Lord v. 22. expresly shew to Samuel and the people the man that they might make him King and because all consented not that Saul should be King God will have his Coronation renewed v. 14. Then said Samuel to the people Come and let us goe to Gilgall and renew the Kingdome there 15. And all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gilgall And how is it that David anoynted by God is yet no King but a private subject while all Israel make him King at Hebron 3. If royall birth be equivolent to royall unction and the best title and if birth speake and declare to us the Lords appointment and Will that the first born of a King should be King as M. Symmons and others say then is all title by conquest where the former King standeth in title to the Crowne and hath an Heire unlawfull But the latter is against all the nation of the Royalists for Arnisaeus Barclay Grotius Io. Roffensis Episco the Bishop of Spalato Dr. Ferne M. Symmons the excommunicate Prelat if his poore learning may bring him in the roll teach that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne I prove the Proposition 1. because if birth speake Gods revealed Will that the Heire of a King is the lawfull King then conquest cannot speake the contradicent Will of God that he is no lawfull King but the conquerour is the lawfull King Gods revealed Will should be contradictory to himselfe and birth should speake it is Gods Will that the Heire of the former King be King and the conquest being also Gods revealed Will should also speake that that Heire should not be King 2. If birth speake and reveale Gods Will that the Heire be King it is unlawfull for a conquered people to give their consent that a conquerour be their King For their consent being contrary to Gods revealed Will which is that birth is the just title must be an unlawfull consent If Royalists say God the King of Kings who immediately maketh Kings may and doth transferre Kingdomes to whom he will and when he putteth the sword in Nebuchadnezers hand to conquer the King and Kingdome of Iudah then Zedikiah or his sonne is not King of Iudah but Nebuchadnezer is King and God being above his Law speaketh in that case his Will by conquests as before he spake his Will by birth this is all can be said Ans. They answer black treason in saying so for if Ieremiah from the Lord had not commanded expresly that both the King and Kingdome of Judah should submit to the King of Babylon and serve him and pray for him as their lawfull King it had been as lawfull to them to rebell against that Tyrant as it was for them to fight against the Philistimes and the King of Ammon but if birth be the just and lawfull title in foro Dei in Gods Court and the only thing that evidenceth Gods Will without any election of the people that the first borne of such a King is their lawfull King then conquests cannot now speake a contrardictory Will of God for the question is not whether or not God giveth power to Tyrants to conquer Kingdomes from the just Heires of Kings which did raigne lawfully before their sword made an empty Throne But whether conquest now when Jeremiahs are not sent immediatly from God to command for example Britaine to submit to a violent intruder who hath expelled the lawfull Heires of the royall Line of the King of

Britaine whether I say doth conquest in such a violent way speake that it is Gods revealed Will called Voluntas signi the will that is to rule us in all our Morall duties to cast off the just Heires of the blood Royall and to sweare homage to a conquerour and so as that conquerour now hath as just right as the King of Britaine had by birth This cannot be taken off by the wit of any who 1. maintaine that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne and 2. that royall birth without the peoples election speaketh Gods regulating Will in his Word that the first borne of a King is a lawfull King by birth for God now a daies doth not say the contrary of what he revealed in his Word If birth be Gods regulating Will that the Heire of the King is in Gods Court a King no act of the conquerour can anull that Word of God to us and the people may not lawfully though they were ten times subdued sweare homage and allegiance to a conquerour against the due right of birth which by Royalists Doctrine revealeth to us the plaine contradictory Will of God It is I grant often Gods Decree revealed by the event that a conquerour be on the Throne but this Will is not our rule and the people are to sweare no Oath of Allegiance contrary to Gods Voluntas signi which is his revealed Will in his Word regulating us 4. Things transferrible and communicable by birth from father to sonne are onely in Law those which Heathen call bona fortunae riches as lands houses monies and heritages and so saith the Law also These things which essentially include gifts of the mind and honour property so called I meane honour founded on vertue as Aristotle with good reason maketh honour praeminum virtutis cannot be communicated by birth from the father to the sonne for royall dignity includeth these three constituent parts essentially of which none can be communicable by birth 1. The royall faculty of governing which is a speciall gift of God above nature is from God Solomon asked it from God and had it not by generation from his father David 2. The royall honour to be set above the people because of this royall vertue is not from the wombe for then Gods spirit would not have said Blessed are thou O Land when thy King is the sonne of Nobles Eccles. 10.17 this honour springing from vertue is not borne with any man nor is any man borne with either the gift or honour to be a Iudge God maketh high and low not birth Nobles are borne to great estates if judging be heritage to any it is a municipall positive law I now speake in point of conscience 3. The externall lawfull title before men come to a Crowne must be Gods Will revealed by such an externall signe as by Gods appointment and warrant is to regulate our will but according to Scripture nothing regulateth our will and leadeth the people now that they cannot erre following Gods rule in making a King but the free suffrages of the States choosing a man whom they conceive God hath endued with these royall gifts required in the King whom God holdeth forth to them in his Word Deut. 17. now there be but these to regulate the people or to be a rule to any man to ascend lawfully in foro Dei in Gods Court to the Throne 1. Gods immediate designation of a man by Propheticall and Divinely inspired unction as Samuel annoynted Saul and David this we are not to expect now nor can Royalists say it 2. Conquest seeing it is an act of violence and Gods revenging Justice for the sinnes of a people cannot give in Gods Court such a just title to the Throne as the people are to submit their consciences unto except God reveale his regulating will by some immediate voice from Heaven as he commanded Iudah to submit to Nebuchadnezer as to their King by the mouth of Ieremiah now this is not a rule to us for then if the Spanish King should invade this Iland and as Nebuchadnezer did deface the Temple and instruments and meanes of Gods Worship and abolish the true worship of God it should be unlawfull to resist him after he had once conquered the Iland neither Gods Word nor the Law of nature could permit this I suppose even by grant of adversaries now no act of violence done to a people though in Gods Court they have deserved it can be a testification to us of Gods regulating Will except it have some warrant from the Law and testimony it is no rule to our conscience to acknowledge him a lawfull Magistrate whose sole law to the Throne is an act of the bloody instrument of divine wrath I meane the sword That therefore Iudah was to submit according to Gods Word to Nebuchadnezer whose conscience and best warranted calling to the Kingdome of Judah was his bloody sword even if we suppose Ieremiah had not commanded them to submit to the King of Babylon I thinke cannot be said 3. Naked birth cannot be this externall signification of Gods regulating Will to warrant the conscience of any to ascend to the Throne for the Authors of this opinion make royall birth equivalent to divine unction for David anoynted by Samuel and so anoynted by God is not King Saul remained the Lords anoynted many yeares not David even anoynted by God the peoples making him King at Hebron founded upon divine unction was not the only externall lawfull calling that we read of that David had to the Throne then royall birth because it is but equivalent only to divine unction not superiour to divine unction it cannot have more force to make a King then divine unction And if birth was equivalent to divine unction what needed Ioash who had royall birth be made King by the people and what needed Saul and David who had more then royall birth even divine unction be made Kings by the people and Saul having the vocall and infallible testimony of a Prophet needed not the peoples election the one at Mizpeh and Gilgall and the other at Hebron 5. If royall birth be as just a title to the Crowne as divine unction and so as the peoples election is no title at all then is it unlawfull that there should be a King by election in the world now but the latter is absurd so is the former I prove the Proposition because where conquerours are wanting and there is no King for the present but the people governing and so much confusion aboundeth they cannot lawfully appoint a King for his lawfull title before God must either be conquest which to me is no title and here and in this case there is no conquest or if the title must be a Propheticall word immediatly inspired by God but this is now ceased or thirdly the title must be royal birth but here there is no royall birth because the government is popular except you imagine that

for then Aristocracy and Democracy must be unnaturall and so unlawfull Governments 3. If to be congruous to the condition of man be all one with naturall man which he must say if he speake sense to beleeve in God to be an excellent Mathematician to swim in deepe waters being congruous to the nature of man must be naturall 4. Man by nature is under government Paternall not Politique properly but by the free consent of his will Obj. 4. Luke 11.5 Christ himselfe was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to his Parents the word that is used Rom. 13. ergo none is exempted from subjection to lawfull government Ans. We never said that any was exempted from lawfull goverment the Prelate and his fellow Iesuites teach that the Clergy is exempted from the lawes of the civill Magistrate not we but because Christ was subject to his Parents and the same word is used Luk. 11. that is Rom. 13. it will not follow therefore men are by nature subject to Kings because they are by nature subject to parents Obj. 5. The father had power over the children by the Law of God and nature to redeeme himselfe from debt or any distressed condition by inslaving his children begotten of his owne body if this power was not by the right of nature and by the Warrant of God I can see no other for it could not be by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers Ans. 1. Shew a law of nature that the father might inslave his children by a Divine positive law presupposing sin the father might doe that and yet I thinke that may be questioned whether it was not a permission rather then a law as was the Bill of devorce but a law of nature it was not 2. The P. Prelate can see no Law but the law of nature here but it is because he is blind or will not see his reason is it was not by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers ergo it was by the law of nature so he that cursed his father was to dye by Gods Law This law was not made by mutuall consent betwixt the Father and the Sonne ergo it was a law of inature the Prelate will see no better Nature will teach a man to inslave hmselfe to redeeme himselfe from death but that it is a Dictate of nature that a man should inslave his sonne I conceive not 3. What can this prove but that if the sonne may by the law of nature be inslaved for the father but that the sonne of a slave is by nature under subjection to slavery that by natures law the contrary whereof he spake in the page preceding and in this same page As for the Argument of the Prelate to answer Suarez who laboureth to prove Monarchy not to be naturall but of free consent because it is various in sundry nations it is the Iesuites Argument not ours I owne it not Let Iesuites plead for Iesuites QUEST XIIII Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally or absolutely and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects because there be no such equality say Royalists betwixt the King and his people as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court to either necessitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people or to tye him to any punishment if he faile yet say they he is under naturall obligation in Gods Court to keepe his Oath but he is comptible only to God if he violate his Oath Asser. 1. There is an Oath betwixt the King and his people laying on by reciprocation of bands mutuall civill obligation upon the King to the people and the people to the King 2 Sam. 5.3 So all the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel 1 Chron. 11.3 And David made a covenant with them before the Lord and they annoynted David King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel 2 Chron. 23.2 And they went about in Iudah and gathered the Levites out of all the Cities of Iudah and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel and they came to Ierusalem 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the King Ioash in the house of God 2 King 11.17 and Jehoiada made a covenant betwixt the Lord and the King and the people that they should be the Lords people between the King also and his people Eccles. 8.2 I counsell thee to keepe the Kings commandement and that in regard of the Oath of God then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the King and the people 2. That was not a covenant that did tye the King to God onely and not to the people 1. because the covenant betwixt the King and the people is clearly differenced from the Kings covenant with the Lord 2 King 11.17 2. there were no necessity that this covenant should be made publickly before the people if the King did not in the covenant tye and oblige himselfe to the people nor needed it be made solemnly before the Lord is the House of God 3. It is expresly a covenant that was between Ioash the King and his people and David made a covenant at his Coronation with the Princes and Elders of Israel therefore the people give the Crown to David Covenant-wise and upon condition that he should performe such and such duties to them and this is cleare by all Covenants in the Word of God even the Covenant between God and man is so mutuall I will be your God and yee shall be my people The covenant is so mutuall that if the people breake the covenant God is loosed from his part of the covenant Zach. 11. v. 10.2 The covenant giveth to the beleever a sort of action of Law and jus quoddam to plead with God in respect of his fidelity to stand to that covenant that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity Esay 43.26 Es. 63.16 Daniel 9.4 5. and farre more a covenant giveth ground of a civill action and claime to a people and the free estates against a King seduced by wicked counsell to make war against the Land whereas he did sweare by the most high God that he should be a father and protector of the Church of God 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man yea all solemne promises bring the covenanters under a Law and a claime before men if the Oath of God be broken as the Covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech Gen. 21.27 Ionathan and David 1 Sam. 18.3 the spies professe to Rahab in the covenant that they made with him Iosh. 2. v. 20. And if thou utter this our businesse

Counsell and Law also for none more absolute de facto I cannot say de jure then the Kings of Babylon and Persia for Daniel saith of one of them Dan. 5.19 Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set up and whom he would he put down and yet these same Kings did nothing but by advice of their Princes and Counsellors yea so as they could not alter a decree and law as is clear Ester 1.14 15 16 17 21. Yea Darius de facto an absolute Prince was not able to deliver Daniel because the Law was passed that he should be cast into the Lions den Dan. 6.14 15 16. 4. That which the spirit of God condemneth as a point of Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar that is no lawfull Prerogative Royall but the spirit of God condemneth this as Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar That he slew whom he would he kept alive whom he would he set up whom he would he put down this is too God-like Deut. 32.39 So Polanus Rollocus on the place say he did these things Vers. 19. Ex abusu legitimae potestatis for Nebuchadnezzars will in matters of death and life was his Law and he did what pleased himself above all Law beside and contrary to it and our flatterers of Kings draw the Kings Prerogative out of Vlpians words who saith ●hat is a Law which seemeth good to the Prince but Vlpian was far from making the Princes will a rule of good and ill for he saith the contrary That the Law ruleth the just Prince 5. It is considerable here that Sanches defineth the absolute power of Kings to be a plenitude and fulnesse of power subject to no necessity and bounded with rules of no publick Law and so did Baldus before him but all Politicians condemn that of Caligula as Suetonius saith which he spake to Alexander the Great Remember that thou maist do all things and that thou hast a power to do to al men what thou pleasest And Lawyers say that this is Tyranny Chilon one of the seven wise of Greece as Rodigi saith better Princes are like gods because they onely can do that which is just And this power being meerly Tyrannicall can be no ground of a Royall Prerogative There is another power saith Sanches absolute by which a Prince dispenseth without a cause in a humane law and this power saith he may be defended but he saith What the King doth by this absolute power he doth it validè but not jure by Law but by valid acts the Iesuite must mean Royall Acts but no acts void of Law and Reason say we can be Royall Acts for Royall Acts are acts performed by a King as a King and by a Law and so cannot be Acts above or beside a Law It is true a King may dispence with the breach of an humane Law as a humane Law that is If the Law be death to any who goeth up on the Walls of the Citie the King may pardon any who going up discovereth the enemies approach and saveth the Citie But 1. The inferiour Iudge according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that benigne interpretation that the soul and intent of the Law requireth may do this as well as the King 2. All acts of independent Prerogative are above a Law and acts of free-will having no cause or ground in the Law otherwayes it is not founded upon absolute power but on power ruled by Law and Reason but to pardon a breach of the letter of the Law of man by exponing it according to the true intent of the Law and benignly is an act of legall obligation and so of the ordinary power of all Iudges and if either King or Iudge kill a man for the violation of the Letter of the Law when the intent of the Law contradicteth the rigid sentence he is guilty of innocent blood If that learned Ferdin Vasquez be consulted he is against this distinction of a power ordinary and extraordinary in men and certainly if you give to a King a Prerogative above a Law it is a power to do evill as well as good but there is no lawfull power to do evill and Doct. Ferne is plunged in a contradiction by this for he saith Sect. 9. pag. 58. I ask when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure Was that power ordained by God No. But an illegall will and Tyranny But Pag. 61. The power though abused to execute such a wicked commandment is an Ordinance of God It is objected 1. For the lawfulnesse of an absolute Monarchy The Easterne Persian and Turkes Monarchy maketh absolute Monarchy lawfull for it is an Oath to a lawfull obligatory thing and judgment Ezech. 17.16 18. is denounced against Iudah for breaking the Oath of the King of Babylon and it is called the Oath of God and doubtlesse was an Oath of absolute subjection and the power Rom. 13. was absolute and yet the Apostle calleth it an Ordinance of God The soveraignty of Masters over servanes was absolute and the Apostle exhorteth not to renounce that title as to ridged but exhorteth to moderation in the use of it Ans. That the Persian Monarchy was absolute is but a facto ad jus and no rule of a lawfull Monarchy but that it was absolute I beleeve not Darius who was an absolute Prince as many think but I thinke not would gladly have delivered Daniel from the power of a Law and Dan. 6.14 And he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him and he laboured till the going downe of the Sun to deliver him and was so sorrowfull that he could not breake through a Law that he interdicted himselfe of all pleasures of Musi●ians and if ever he had used the absolutenesse of a Prerogative Royall I conceive he would have done it in this yet he could not prevaile But in things not established by Law I conceive Darius was absolute as to me is cleare Daniel 6. v. 24. but absolute not by a Divine Law but De facto quod transierat in jus humanum by fact which was now become a lrw 2. It was Gods Oath and God tyed Iudah to absolute subjection ergo people may tye themselves It followeth not exeept you could make good this inference God is absolute ergo the King of Babylon may lawfully be absolute this is a blasphemous consequence 2. That Iudah was to sweare the Oath of absolute subjection in the latitude of the absolutenesse of the Kings of Chaldea I would see proved their absolutenesse by the Chaldean Lawes was to command murther Idolatry Daniel 3.4 5. and to make wicked Lawes Dan. 6. v. 7 8. I beleeve Ieremiah commanded not absolute subjection in this sence But the contrary Ier. 10. v. 11. They were to sweare the Oath in the point of suffering but what if the King of Chaldea had commanded them all the whole holy Seed men women and children out of his Royall power to give their neckes

these men according to their works which forbeare to help men that are drawn to death and those that be ready to be slaine if they shift the businesse and say Behold we know not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it When therefore the Lords Prophets complaine that the people execute not judgement relieve not the oppressed help not and rescue not those that are drawn to death unjustly by the King or his murthering Judges they expresly cry out against the sin of non-resistance 2. The Prophets cannot expresly and formally cry out against the Judges for non-resisting the King when they joyne as ●avening wolves with the King in these same acts of oppression even as the Judge cannot formally impannell 24 men sent out to guard the travellers from an arch robber if these men joyne with the robber and rob the travellers and become cut-throats as the arch robber is he cannot accuse them for their omission in not guarding the innocent travellers but for a more hainous crime that not onely they omitted what was their duty in that they did not rescue the oppressed out of the hands of the wicked but because they did rob and murther and so the lesser sinne is swallowed up in the greater The under-Judges are watchmen and a guard to the Church of God if the King turn a bosome robber their part is Ier. 22.3 to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour to watch against domestick and forraine enemies and to defend the flock from wolves Ezek. 23.2 3 4. Ier. 50.6 to let the oppressed goe free and to break every yoak Esay 58.6 to break the jawes of the wicked and pluck the spoile out of his teeth Job 29.17 Now if these Judges turne Lyons and ravening Wolves to prey upon the flock and joyne with the King as alwayes they did when the King was an oppressor his Princes made him glad with their lies and joyned with him and the people with both Ier. 1.18 Ier. 5.1 Ier. 9.1 Mic. 7.1 Ezek. 22.24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31. Ier. 15.1 2 3. It is no wonder if the Prophets condemne and cry out against the hugest and most bloody crime of positive oppression formally and expresly and in that their negative murthers in not releeving the oppressed must also be cryed out against 13. The whole Land cannot formally be accused for non-resistance when the whole Land are oppressors for then they should be accused for not resisting themselves 14. The King ought to resist the inferiour judges in their oppression of the people by the confession of Royalists then this argument cometh with the like force of strength on themselves let them shew us practice precept or promise in the Word where the King raised an Armie for defence of Religion against Princes and people who were subverting Religion and we shall make use of that same place of Scripture to prove that the Estates and people who are above the King as I have proved and made the King may and ought to resist the King with the like force of Scripturall truth in the like case 16. Royalists desire the like president of practice and precept for defensive warres but I answer let them shew us a practice where any King of Israel or Judah raised an Armie of Malignants of Phylistims Sydonians Ammonites against the Princes of Israel and Judah conveened in an Assemblie to take course for bringing home the captived Arke of God and vindicating the Lawes of the Land and raised an Armie contrary to the knowledge of the Elders Princes and Judges to set up Dagon or tollerate the worship of the Sydonian gods and yet Princes Elders Judges and the whole people were obliged all to flee out of Gods land or then onely to weep and request that the King would not destroy souls and bodies of them and their innocent posterities because they could not in conscience imbrace the worship of Dagon and the Sydonian gods when the Royalist can parallel this with a precedent we can answer there was as smal apparency of precedency in Scripture except you flee to the law of nature that 80 Priests the Subjects of King Vzziah should put in execution a penall Law against the Lords Annoynted and that the inferiours and subjects should resist the Superiour and that these Priests with the Princes of the land should remove the King from actuall government all his dayes and crown his son at least make the father their Prince and superiour as Royalists say as good as a Cypher Is not this a punishment inflicted by inferiours upon a superiour according to the way of Royalists Now it is clear a worshipping of bread and the Masse commanded and against law obtruded upon Scotland by influence of the counsell of known Papists is to us and in it self as abominable as the worshiping of Dagon or the Sydonian Gods and when the Kingdom of Scotland did but conveen supplicat and protest against that obtruded Idolatry they were first declared rebels by the King and then an army raised against them by Prelates and Malignants inspired with the spirit of Anti-christ to destroy the whole land if they should not submit soul and conscience to that wicked service QUEST XXXV Whether or no the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church militate against the lawfulnesse of defensive wars ROyalists think they burden our Cause much with hatred when they bring the Fathers and ancient Martyrs against us So the P. Prelate extracted out of other Authors testimonies for this and from I. Armagh in a Sermon on Rom. 13. pag. 20 21. So the Do. of Aberdeene The Prelat proveth from Clem. Alexand. l. 7. c. 17. That the King is constituted by the Lord. So Ignatius Answ. 1. Except he prove from these Fathers that the King is from God onely and immediately he proveth nothing Obj. 2. Iren. l. 5. adv haer c. 20. proveth that God giveth Kingdomes and that the devill lied Luk. 4. and we make the people to make Kings and so to be the children of the Devill Answ. If we denyed God to dispose of Kingdomes this man might alledge the Church of God in England and Scotland to be the sons of Satan But Gods Word Deut. 17.18 and many other places make the people to make Kings and yet not devils But to say that Prelates should crowne Kings and with their foule fingers anoint him and that as the Popes substitutes is to make him that is the sonne of perdition a Donor of Kingdoms also to make a man with his bloodie sword to ascend to a throne is to deny God to be the disposer of Kingdoms and Prelats teach both these Obj. 3. Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Inde est Imperator unde homo antequam imperator inde potestas illi unde spiritus God is no lesse the Creator of Soveraigntie then of the soul of man Answ. God onely maketh Kings by his absolute soveraignty as he onely maketh high and low and

Ergo they must have the power of the sword hence upon the same grounds Assert 2. That the King onely hath the power of warre and raising Armies must be but a positive civill Law For 1. by divine right if the inferiour Judges have the sword given to them of God then have they also power of Warre and raising Armies 2. All power of warre that the King hath is cumulative not privative and not distructive but given for the safety of the Kingdome as therefore the King cannot take from one particular man the power of the sword for naturall self-preservation because it is the birth-right of life neither can the King take from a community and Kingdome a power of rising in Armes for their owne defence If an Armie of Turks shall suddenly invade the Land and the Kings consent expresse cannot be had for it is essentially involved in the office of the King as King that all the power of the swo●d that he hath be for their safety or if the King should as a man refuse his consent and interdict and discharge the Land to rise in Armes yet they have his Royall consent though they want his personall consent in respect that his office obligeth him to command them to rise in Armes 2. Because no King no Civill power can take away Natures birth-right of self-defence from any man or a community of men 2. Because if a King should sell his Kingdome and invite a bloody Conquerour to come in with an Armie of men to destroy his people impose upon their conscience an Idolatrous Religion they may lawfully rise against that Armie without the Kings consent for though Royalists say they need not come in asinine patience and offer their throats to cut-throats but may flee yet two things hindereth a flight 1. They are obliged by vertue of the first Commandement to re-man and with their sword defend the Cities of the Lord and the King 2 Sam. 10.12 1 Chron. 19.13 for if to defend our Country and children and the Church of God from unjust invaders and cut-throats by the sword be an act of charity that God and the Law of Nature requireth of a people as is evident Prov. 24.11 and if the fift Commandement oblige the Land to defend their aged Parents and young children from these invaders and i● the sixt Commandement lay on us the like bond all the Land are to act works of mercy and charity though the King unjustly command the contrary except Royalists say that we are not to performe the duties of the second Table commanded by God if an earthly King forbid us and if we exercise not acts of mercy toward our brethren when their life is in hazard to save them wee are murtherers and so men may murther their neighbour if the King command them so to doe this is like the Court-faith 2. The Kin●s power of warres is for the safety of his people if he deny his conse●t to their raising of Armes till they be destroyed he playeth the Tyrant not the King and the law of Nature will necessi●ate them either to defend themselves seeing slight of all in that case is harder then death else they must be guilty of self-murther Now the Kings commandement of not rising in Armes at best is positive and against the nature of his Office and it ●loweth then from him as from a man and so must be farre inferiour to the naturall Commandement of God which commandeth self-preservation if wee would not be guilty of self-murther and of obeying men rather then God So Althusius Polit. c. 25. n. 9. Halicarnas l. 4. Antiq. Rom. Aristo Pol. l. 3. c. 3. 3. David tooke Goliahs sword and became a Captaine a Captaine to an hoast of armed men in the battaile and fought the battailes of the Lord 1 Sam. 25.28 and this Abigal by the spirit of prophecy as I take it saith ver 29 30 31. 1 Sam. 22.2 1 Chron. 12.1.2.3.17.18.21.22 not onely without Sauls consent but against King Saul as he was a man but not against him as hee was King of Israel 4. If there be no King or the King be minor or an usurper as Athalia be on the Throne the Kingdome may lawfully make war without the King as Iudges cap. 20. The children of Israel foure hundred thousand footemen that drew sword went out to warre against the children of Benjamin Iudah had the power of the sword when Iosiah was but eight yeares old in the beginning of his reigne 2 King 22.1 2. and before Iehoash was crowned King and while he was minor 2 King 11. there were Captaines of hundreds in armes raised by Iehoiada and the people of Iudah to defend the young King It cannot be said that this is more extraordinary then that it is extraordinary for Kings to die and in the interregnum warres in an ordinary providence may fall out in these Kingdoms where Kings goe by election and for Kings to fall to be Minors Captives Tyrannous And I shall be of that opinion that Mr Symmons who holdeth That Royall birth is equivalent to divine unction must also hold that election is not equivalent to divine unction for both election and birth cannot be of the same validity the one being naturall the other a matter of free choise which shall infer that Kings by election are lesse properly and analogically onely Kings and so Saul was not properly a King for he was King by election but I conceive that rather Kings by birth must be lesse properly Kings because the first King by Gods institution being the mould of all the rest was by election Deut. 17.18.19.20 5. If the estates create the King and make this man King not this man as is clear Deut. 17.18 and 2 Chron. 5.1 2 3 4. they give to him the power of the Sword and the power of War and the Militia and I shall judge it strange and reasonlesse that the power given to the King by the Parliament or estates of a free Kingdom such as Scotland as acknowledged to be by all should create regulate limit abridge yea and anull that power that created it self hath God ordained a Parliamentary power to create a Royal power of the sword and war to be placed in the King the Parliaments creature for the safety of Parliament and Kingdome which yet is destructive of it selfe D. Ferne saith that the King summoneth a Parliament and giveth them power to be a Parliament and to advise and counsell him and in the meane time Scripture saith Deut. 17.18 19 20. 1 Sam. 10 20 21 22 23 24 25. 2 Sam. 5.1 2 3 4. that the Parliament createth the King heir's admirable reciprocation of creation in policie and shall God make the mother to destroy the daughter The Parliamentarie power that giveth Crown Militia sword and all to the King must give power to the King to use sword and war for the destruction of the Kingdome and to annull all the power of Parliaments to

saith he non est actio aut poena one may not have action of law against his brother who refuseth to help him yet saith he as man he is obliged to man nexu civilis societatis by the bond of humane society Others say one nation may indirectly defend a neighbour nation against a common enemie because it is a self-defence and it is presumed that a forraigne enemie having overcome the neighbour nation shall invade that nation it selfe who denyeth help and succour to the neighbour nation this is a self-opinion and to me it looketh not like the spirit●a●l law of God 3. Some say it is lawfull but not alwayes expedient in which opinion there is this much truth that if the neighbor nation have an evil cause neque licet neque expedit it is neither lawfull nor expedient But what is lawful in the case of necessity so extreame as is the losse of a brothers life or of a nation must be expedient because necessity of non-sinning maketh any lawfull thing expedient As to help my brother in fire or water requiring my present and speedy help though to the losse of my goods must be as expedient as a negative commandement Thou shalt not murther 4. Others think it lawfull in the case that my brother seek my help only other wayes I have no calling thereunto to which opinion I cannot universally subscribe it is holden both by reason and the soundest divines that to rebuke my brother of sinne is actus misericordiae charitatis an act of mercy and charity to his soul yet I hold I am obliged to rebuke him by Gods law Levit. 19.17 otherwise I hate him 1 Thes. 5.14 Col. 4.17 Math. 18 15. Nor can I think in reason that my duty of love to my brother doth not oblige me but upon dependency on his free consent but as I am to help my neighbours oxe out of a ditch though my neighbour know not and so I have onely his implicit and virtuall consent so is the case here I go not farther in this case of conscience if a neighbour nation be jealous of our help and in an hostile way should oppose us in helping which blessed be the Lord the honourable houses of the Parliament of England hath not done though Malignant spirits tempted them to such a course what in that case we should owe to the afflicted members of Christs body is a case may be determined easily The fift and last opinion is of those who think if the King command Papists and Prelates to rise against the Parliament and our dear brethren in England in warres that we are obliged in conscience and by our oath and covenant to help our native Prince against them to which opinion with hands and feet I should accord if our Kings cause were just and lawfull but from this it followeth that we must thus far judge of the cause as concerneth our consciences in the matter of our necessary duty leaving the judiciall cognizance to the honourable Parliament of England But because I cannot returne to all these opinions particularly I see no reason but the Civil Law of a Kingdom doth oblige any Citizen to help an innocent man against a murthering robber that he may be judicially accused as a murtherer who faileth in his duty that Solon said well beatam remp esse illam in quâ quisque injuriam alterius suam estimet It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother as an injury done against himself As the Egyptians had a good law by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that suffered wrong and if he was not able to help he was holden to accuse the injurer if not his punishment was whips or three dayes hunger it may be upon this ground it was that Moses slew the Egyptian Ambrose commendeth him for so doing Assert We are obliged by many bands to expose our lives goods children c. in this cause of religion and of the unjust oppression of enemies for the safety and defence of our deare brethren and true religion in England 1. Prov. 24.11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken as captives to be killed and those that are ready to be slaine 12. If thou say behold we know it not doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it and he that keepeth thy soul doth he not know it and shall he not render to every man according to his work Master Iermin on the pl●ce is too narrow who co●menting on the place restricteth all to these two that the priest should deliver by interceding for the innoc●nt and the King by pardoning only But 1. to deliver is a word of violence as 1 Sam. 30.18 David by the sword rescued his wives Hos. 5 14. I will take away and none shall rescue 1 Sam. 17.35 I rescued the lambs out of his mouth out of the Lyons mouth which behov●d to be done with great violence 2 King 18.34 They have not delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samaria out of my hand So Cornel. à Lapid● Charitas suad●t ut vi armis eruamus injuste ductos ad mortem Am●ros lib. 1. offic c. 36. citeth this same text and commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man 2. It is an act of Charity and so to be done though the judge forbid it when th● innocent is unjustly put to death Object But in so doing private men may offer violence to the lawfull magistrate when he unjustly putteth an innocent man to death and rescue him out of the hands of the magistrate and this were to bring in anarchy and confusion for if it be an act of charity to deliver the innocent out of the hand of the Magistrate it is homicide to a private man not to do it for our obedience to the law of nature tyeth us absolutely though the Magistrate forbid these acts for it is known that I must obey God rather then man Answ. The law of nature tyeth us to obedience in acts of charity yet not to perf●rme these acts after any way and manner in a meere naturall way impetu naturae but I am to performe acts of naturall charity in a rationall and prudent way and in looking to Gods law else if my brother or father were justly condemned to die I might violently deliver him out of the Magistrates hand but by the contrary my hand should be first on him without naturall compassion As if my brother or my wife have been a blasphemer of God Deut. 13.6 7 8. and therefore am I to do acts naturall as a wise man observing as Solomon saith Eccles. 8.5 both time and judgement Now it were no wisdom for one private man to hazard his own life by attempting to rescue an innocent brother because he hath not strength to do it and the law of nature

doe I write then one word of this question It is a darke way circumstances in falne nature may make things best to be hic nunc evill Though to me it is probable that Monarchy in it selfe 2. Monarchy de jure that is lawfull and limited Monarchy is best even now in a Kingdome under the fall of sin if other circumstances be considered But observe I pray you 1. That M. Symmons and this poore Prelate do so extoll Monarchy that there is not a government save Monarchy onely all other governments are deviations and therefore M. Symmons saith pag. 8. If I should affect another government then Monarchy I should neither feare God nor the King but associate my selfe with the seditious and so the question of Monarchy is 1. Which is the choisest government in it selfe or which is the choisest government in policie and in the condition of man falne in the state of sinne 2. Which is the best government that is the most profitable or the most pleasant or the most honest For wee know that there bee these three kinds of good things things usefull and profitable bona utilia things pleasant jucunda things honest honesta and the question may be of every one of the three 3. The question may be which of these governments be most agreeable to nature that is either to nature in it selfe as it agreeth communiter to all natures of elements birds beasts Angels Men to lead them as a governour doth to their last end or which government is most agreeable to men to sinfull men to sinfull men of this or this Nation for some Nations are more ambitious some more factious some are better ruled by one some better ruled by many some by most and by the people 4. The question may be in regard of the facility or difficulty of loving fearing obeying and serving and so it may be thought easier to love feare and obey one Monarch then many Rulers in respect that our Lord saith it is difficult to serve two Masters and possibly more difficult to serve twenty or an hundred 5. The question may be in regard of the power of commanding or of the justice and equity of commanding hence from this last I shall set downe the first Thesis Assert 1. An absolute and unlimited Monarchy is not onely not the best forme of Government but it is the worst and this is against our Petty Prelat and all Royalists My reasons be these 1. Because it is an unlawfull Ordinance and God never ordained it and I cannot ascribe the superlative degree to any thing of which I deny the positive Absolute government in a sinfull and peccable man is a wicked government and not a power from God for God never gave a power to sin Plenitudo potestatis ad malum injuriam non extenditur Soz●nus Iunior cons. 65. in causa occurrenti l. 2. Ferdinand Loazes in suo cons. pro March de Velez pag. 54. n. 65. And so that learned Senator Ferdin Vasquez pag. 1. lib. 1. cap. 5. n. 17. 2. It was better for the State that Epiminondas could not sleepe then that he could sleepe when the people was dancing because said he I wake that you may have leave to sleepe and be secure for he was upon deepe cogitations how to doe good to the Common-wealth when the people were upon their pleasures Because all Kings since the fall of the Father King Adam are inclined to sin and injustice and so had need to be guided by a Law even because they are Kings so they remaine men Omnipotency in one that can sin is a cursed power With reason all our Divines say the state of saving grace in the second Adam where there is non posse deficere they cannot fall a way from God is better then the state of the first Adam where there was posse non deficere a power not to fall away and that our free-will is better in our countrey in Heaven where we cannot sin then in the way to our countrey on earth where we have a power to sin and so Gods people is in ● better case Hos. 2.6 7. Where her power to overtake her lovers is closed up with an hedge of thornes that she cannot finde her paths then the condition of Ephraim of whom God saith Hos. 4.17 Ephraim is joyned to Idols let him alone So cannot that be a good government when the supreme power is in a sinfull man as inclinable to injustice by nature as any man and more inclinable to injustice by the condition of his place then any and yet by office he is one that can doe no injustice against his subjects he is a King and so may destroy Vriah kill his subjects but cannot sinne and this is to flattering Royalists the best government in the world As if an unchained Lion were the best governour because unchained to all the beasts sheepe and lambs and all others which with his teeth and pawes he may reach and that by vertue of an ordinance of God 3. What is on man under no restraint but made a God on earth and so drunk with the graunder of a sinning-God here under the Moone and Clouds who may heare good counsell from men of his owne choosing yet is under no restraint of Law to follow it being the supreme power absolute high mighty and an impeccable god on earth Certainly this man may more easily erre and break out in violent acts of injustice then a number of Rulers grave wise under a Law One being a sinfull man shall sooner sin and turne a Nero when he may goe to hell and leade thousands to hell with him gratis then a multitude of sinfull men who have lesse power to doe against Law and a tyrannous killing of innocents and a subversion of Lawes Liberties and Religion by one who may by office and without resistance of mortall men doe all ill is more dangerous and hurtfull then division and fraction incident to Aristocracy 4. Caesar is great but Law and reason is greater by an absolute Monarchy all things are ruled by will and pleasure above Law then this government cannot be so good as Law and Reason in a government by the best or by many 5. Under absolute Monarchy a free people is actu primo and in themselves inslaved because though the Monarch so absolute should kill all hee cannot be controlled there is no more but flight prayers and teares remaining and what greater power hath a Tyrant none at all so may we say An absolute Monarch is actu primo a sleeping Lion and a Tyrant is a waking and a devouring Lion and they differ in accidents onely 6. This is the Papists way Bellarmine de Pontif. l. 1. c. 1. and Sa●derus de visibili Monarchia l. 3. c. 3. Turr●re in sum de Eccles. l. 2. c. 2. prove that the government of the Church is by an absolut● Monarch and Pope because that is the best government which

that appertaine to their charge and the execution of their Office ergo by our confession to resist them in Tyrannicall acts is not to resist the ordinance of God 2. To resist Princes and Rulers and so inferiour Iudges and to deny them counsell and comfort is to deny helpe counsell and comfort to God Let then Cavaliers and such as refuse to helpe the Princes of the Land against Papists Prelates and Malignants know that they resist Gods ordinance which rebellion they unjustly impute to us 3. Whereas it is added in our Confession that God by the presence of his Lieutenant craveth support and counsell of the people It is not so to be taken as if then only we are to ayde and helpe inferiour Iudges and Parliaments when the King personally requireth it and not other waies 1. Because the King requireth helpe when by his Office he is obliged to require our helpe and counsell against Papists and Malignants though as misled he should command the contrary so if the Law require our helpe the King requireth it ex officio 2. This should expresly contradict our confession if none were obliged to give helpe and counsell to the Parliament and Estates except the King in his own person should require it because Art 14. it is expresly said That to save the lives of innocents or represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed not to suffer innocent blood to be shed or workes pleasing to God which he rewardeth Now we are not to thinke in reason if the King shall be induced by wicked Counsell to doe tyrannicall workes and to raise Papists in Armes against Protestants that God doth by him as by his Lieutenant require our helpe comfort and counsell in assisting the King in acts of Tyranny and in oppression and in shedding innocent blood yea our confession tyeth us to deny helpe and comfort to the King in these wicked acts and therefore our helpe must be in the things that pertaineth to his Royall Office and duty only otherwise we are to represse all tyranny art 14. 4 To save the lives of innocents to represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed are by our confession good workes well pleasing to God and so is this a good worke not to suffer innocent blood to be shed if we may withstand it Hence it is cleare as the Sunne that our confession according to the Word of God to which King Charles did sweare at his Coronation doth oblige and tye us in the presence of God and his holy Angels to rise in Armes to save the innocent to represse Tyranny to defend the oppressed When the King induced by ill counsell sent Armies by Sea and Land to kill and destroy the whole Kingdome who should refuse such a Service-booke as they could not in conscience receive except they would disobey God renounce the confession of Faith which the King and they had sworne unto and prove perfidious Apostates to Christ and his Church what could we doe and that the same Confession considering our bonds to our deare Brethren in England layeth bonds on us to this as a good worke also not to suffer their innocent blood to be shed but to defend them when they against all Law of God of men to State of Nations are destroyed and killed For my part I judge it had been a guiltinesse of blood upon Scotland if we had not helped them and risen in Armes to defend our selves and our innocent brethren against bloody Cavaliers Adde to this what is in the 24. Article of the same Confession We confesse whosoever goeth about to take away or to confound the whole state of Civill Polity now long established we affirme the same men not only to be enemies to mankind but also wickedly to fight against Gods Will. But these who have taken Armes against the Estates of Scotland and the Princes and Rulers of the Land have laboured to take away Parliaments and the fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdome ergo c. The Confession addeth 16. We farther confesse and acknowledge that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved honoured feared and holden in most reverent estimation because that they are Lieutenants of God in whose Sessions God himselfe doth sit and Iudge yea even the Iudges and Princes themselves to whom by God is given the sword to the praise and defence of good men and to revenge and punish all open malefactors Ergo the Parliament and Princes and Rulers of the Land are Gods Lieutenants on earth no lesse then the King by our Confession of Faith and those who resist them resist the ordinance of God Royalists say They are but the Deputies of the King and when they doe contrary to his Royall Will they may be resisted yea and killed for in so farre they are private men though they are to be honoured as Iudges when they act according to the Kings Will whose Deputies they are But I answer 1. It is a wonder that inferiour Judges should be formally Iudges in so far as they act conforme to the will of a mortall King and not in so far as they act conforme to the will of the King of Kings seeing the judgement they execute is the King of Kings and not the Iudgement of a mortall King 2 Chro. 19.6 2. Royalists cannot indure the former distinction as it is applyed to the King but they receive it with both hands as it is applyed to inferiour Iudges and yet certaine it is that it is as ordinary for a King being a sinfull man to act sometimes as the Lieutenant of God and sometimes as an erring and misinformed man no lesse then the inferiour Iudge acteth sometimes according to the Kings will and Law and sometimes according to his owne private way and if we are to obey the inferiour Iudge as the Deputy of the King what shall become of his Person when Cavaliers may kill him at some Edge-hill for so they mock this distinction as applyed to the King in regard of his Person and of his Royall Office and for this point our Confession citeth in the Margin Rom. 13.7 1 Pet. 2.17 Psal. 82.1 which places doe clearely prove 1. That inferiour Magistrates are 1. Gods ordinances 2. Gods on earth Psal. 82. 3. Such as beare the Lords sword 4. That they are not only as the Confession saith appointed for Civill policie but also for maintenance of true Religion and for suppressing of idolatrie and superstition Then it is evident to resist inferior Magistrates is to resist God himselfe and to labour to throw the sword out of Gods hands 5 Our Confession useth the same Scriptures cited by Junius Brutus to wit Ezek. 22.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. and Ier. 22.3 where we are no lesse then the Iewes commanded to execute judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoyled out of the hands of the oppressour For both the Law of God and the Civill Law saith Qui non impedit homicidium quum potest is homicidii reus est I will

beleeve certainly that he would breake his oath he hath no illimited and absolute power from God or the People for faedus conditionatum aut promissio conditionalis mutua facit jus alteri in alterum A mutuall conditionall Covenant giveth law and power over one to another But from that which hath been said The King sweareth to the three-Estates to be regulated by Law He accepteth the Crowne upon the tenor of a mutuall covenant c. for if he should as King sweare to be King that is one who hath absolute power above a Law and also to be regulated by a Law he should sweare things contradictorie that is that he should be their King having absolute power over them and according to that power to rule them and he should sweare not to be their King and to rule them not according to absolute power but according to Law If therefore this absolute power be essentiall to a King as a King no King can lawfully take the oath to governe according to Law for then he should sweare not to reigne as King and not be their King For how could he be their King wanting that which God hath made essentiall to a King as a King QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath any Royall prerogative or a power to dispence with Lawes And some other grounds against absolute Monarchie A Prerogative Royall I take two wayes 1. Either to be an act of meere will and pleasure above or beside Reason or Law Or an act of dispensation beside or against the letter of the Law Assert 1. That which Royalists call the Prerogative Royall of Princes is the salt of Absolute Power and it is a supreme and highest power of a King as a King to doe above without or contrary to a Law or Reason which is unreasonable 1. When Gods word speaketh of the power of Kings and Iudges Deut. 17.15 16 17. Deut. 1.15 16 17. and elsewhere there is not any footstep or ground for such a power and therefore if we speake according to conscience there is no such thing in the world And because Royalists cannot give us any warrant it is to be rejected 2. A Prerogative Royall must be a power of doing good to the people and grounded upon some reason or law but this is but a branch of an ordinarie limited power and no prerogative above or beside law Yea any power not grounded on a reason different from meere will or absolute pleasure is an irrationall and brutish power and therefore it may well be jus personae the power of the man who is King it cannot be jus coronae any power annexed to the Crown for this holdeth true of all the actions of a King as a King Illud potest Rex illud tantum quod jur● potest The King as King can doe no more then that which upon right and law he may doe 3. To dispute this question Whether such a Prerogative agree to any King as King is to dispute whether God hath made all under a Monarch slaves by their own consent which is a vaine question 2. Those who hold such a Prerogative must say the King is so absolute and illimited a God on earth that either by law or his sole pleasure beside law he may regularly and rationally move all wheeles in Policie and his uncontrolled will shall be the axeltree on which all the wheeles are turned 4. That which is the garland and proper flower of the King of Kings as he is absolute above his creatures and not tyed to any law without himselfe that regulateth his will That must be given to no mortall man or King except we would communicate that which is Gods proper due to a sinfull man which must be idolatrie But to doe Royall acts out of an absolute power above Law and Reason is such a power as agreeth to God as is evident in positive lawes and in acts of Gods meere pleasure where we see no reason without the Almightie for the one side rather than for the other as Gods forbidding the eating of the tree of knowledge maketh the eating sinne and contrary to reason but there is no reason in the object for if God should command eating of that tree not to eat should be also sinne So Gods choosing Peter to glory and his refusing Judas is a good and a wise act but not good or wise from the object of the act but from the sole wise pleasure of God because if God had chosen Judas to glory and rejected Peter that act had been no lesse a good and a wise act then the former For when there is no law in the object but only Gods will the act i● good and wise seeing infinite wisdome cannot be separated from the perfect will of God but no act of a mortall King having sole and only will and neither law nor reason in it can be a lawfull a wise or a good act Assert 2. There is something which may be called a Prerogative by way of dispensation There is a threefold dispensation one of power another of justice and a third of grace A dispensation of power is when the will of the Law-giver maketh that act to be no sinne which without that will would have been sinne As if Gods commanding Will had not interveened the Israelites borrowing the eare-rings and jewels of the Egyptians and not restoring them had been a breach of the 8 Commandement and in this sense no King hath a Prerogative to dispence with a Law 2. There is a dispensation of law and justice not flowing from any Prerogative but from the true intent of the Law And thus the King yea the inferiour Judge is not to take the life of a man whom the letter of the Law would condemne because the Justice of the Law is the intent and life of the Law and where nothing is done against the intent of the Law there is no breach of any Law The Third is not unlike unto the Second when the King exponeth the Law by Grace and this is twofold 1. Either when he exponeth it of his wisdome and mercifull nature inclined to mercy and justice yet according to the just intent native sense and scope of the Law considering the occasion circumstances of the fact and comparing both with the Law and this dispensation of grace I grant to the King As when the tribute is great and the man poor the King may dispense with the custome 2. The Law saith In a doubtfull case the Prince may dispense because it is presumed the Law can have no sense against the principall sense and intent of the Law But there is another dispensation that Royalists doe plead for and that is a power in the King ex mera gratia absolutae potestatis regalis Out of meere grace of absolute Royall power to pardon crimes which Gods law saith should be punished by death Now this they call a power of Grace but it is