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
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
the wretched Popish ceremonies are from God But we teach no such thing let Maxwell free his Master Bellarmine and other Iesuites with whom he sideth in Romish Doctrine we are free of this Bellarmine saith that politick power in generall is warranted by a Divine law but the particular formes of politick power he meaneth Monarchie with the first is not by Divine right but de jure â—entium by the law of nations and sloweth immediately from humane election as all things saith he that appertein to the law of Nations So Monarchie to Bellarmine is but an humane invention as Mr. Maxwell his Surplice is and D. Ferne sect 3. p. 13. saith with Bellarmine 3. A King is said to be from God by particular designation as he appointed Saul by name for the crown of Israel Of this hereafter 4. The Kingly or Royall office is from God by divine institution and not by naked approbation for first we may well prove Aarons Priesthood to be of divine institution because God doth appoint the Priests qualification from his familie bodily perfections and his charge And we take the Pastor to be by divine law and Gods institution because the Holy Ghost 1 Tim. 3.1 2 3 4. describeth his qualification so may we say that the Royall power is by divine institution because God mouldeth him 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 c. Rom. 2 13. There is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God 3. That power must be ordained of God as his own ordinance to which we owe subjection for conscience and not only for feare of punishment but every power is such Rom. 13.4 To resist the Kingly power is to resist God 5. He is the Minister of God for our good 6. He beareth the sword of God to take vengeance upon ill-doers 7. The Lord expresly saith 1 Pet. 2.17 Feare God honour the King v. 13. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreme 14. or unto governours as unto those that are sent by him c. Tit. 3. Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers and so the fift Commandement layeth obedience to the King on us no lesse then to our parents Whence I conceive that power to be of God to which by the morall law of God we owe perpetuall subjection and obedience 8. Kings and all Magistrates are Gods and Gods deputies and lieutenants upon earth Ps. 82.1.6 7. Exod. 22.8 Exod. 4.16 and therefore their Office must be a lawfull ordinance of God 9. By their Office they are feeders of the Lords people Ps. 78.70.71.72 the shields of the earth Ps. 47.9 nursing fathers of the Church Ps. 49.23 Captaines over â—he Lords people 1 Sam. 9.19.10 It is a great Iudgâ—ment of God when a land wanteth the benefit of such ordinances of God Esay 3 1 2.3.6 7.11 The execution of their office is an act of the just Lord of heâ—vâ—n aâ—d earth not onely by permission but according to Gods revealed Will in his Word their judgement is not the judgement of men but of the Lord 2 Chron. 19.6 and their Throne is the Throne of God 1 Chron. 19.21.12 Hierom saith to punish murtherers and sacrilegious persons is not bloud-shed but the ministery and service of good Lawes So if the King be a living law by Office and the law put in execution which God hath commanded then as the Morall Law is by divine institution so must the Officer of God be who is Custos vindex legis divinae the keeper preserver and avenger of Gods Law and Basilius this is the Princes Office Vt opem serat virtuti malitiam vero impugnet when Paulinus Treverensis Lucifer Metropolitane of Sardinia Dionysius Mediolanensis and other Bishops were commanded by Constantine to write against Athanasius they answered Regnum non ipsius esse sed dâ—i aquo acceperit the Kingdom was Gods not his as Athanasius saith Optatus Milevitanus helpeth us in the cause where he saith with Paul VVe are to pray for heathen Kings The genuine end of the Magistrate saith Epiphanius is ut ad bonum ordinem universitatis mundi omnia ex deo bene disponantur atque administrentur But some object if the Kingly Power be of divine institution then shall any other government be unlawfull and contrary to a divine institution and so we condemne Aristocracy and Democracy as unlawfull Ans. This consequence were good if Aristocracy and Democracy were not also of divine institution as all my arguments prove for I judge they are not Governments different in nature if we speake Morally and Theologically onely they differ politically and positivelâ— nor is Aristocracy any thing but diffused and inlarged Monarchy and Monarchy is nothing but contracted Aristocracy even as it is the same hand when the thumb and the foure fingers are folded together and when all the five fingers are dilated and stretched out and where ever God appointed a King he never appointed him absolute and a sole independent Angell but joyned alwaies with him Iudges who were no lesse to judge according to the Law of God 2 Chron. 19.6 then the King Deut. 17. v. 15. And in an obligation morall of judging righteously the conscience of the Monarch and the conscience of the inferiour Iudges are equally with an immediate subjection under the King of Kings for there is here a co-ordination of consciences and no subordination for it is not in the power of the inferiour Iudge to judge Quoad specificationem as the King commandeth him because the judgement is neither the Kings nor any mortall mans but the Lords 2 Chronicles 19.6 7. Hence all the three formes are from God but let no man say if they be all indifferent and equally of God societies and Kingdomes are left in the dark and know not which of the three they shall pitch upon because God hath given to them no speciall direction for one rather than for another But this is easily answered that a republick appoint Rulers to governe them is not an action indifferent but a Morall action because to set no Rulers over themselves I conceive were a breach of the fift Commandement which commandeth government to be one or other 2. It is not in mens free will that they have government or no government because it is not in their free will to obey or not to obey the acts of the Court of nature which is Gods Court and this Court enacteth that societies suffer not mankind to perish which must necessarily follow if they appoint no government also it is proved else where that no Morall acts in their exercises and use are left indifferent to us so then the aptitude and temper of every Common-wealth to Monarchy rather then to Democracy or Aristocracy is Gods Warrant and nearest
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 â—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 Iâ— 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 aâ— 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. â—
to make any thing in its kinde passive really active and collative of positive acts and effects All know no man can give what he hath not an old Philosopher would laugh at him who would say that a matter perfected and actuated by union with a forme could at pleasure shake off its forme and marrie it selfe to another they may as well say every wife hath power to resume her freedome and marrie another as that any such power active is in the Communitie or any power to cast off Monarchie Ans. The P. Prelate might have thanked Spalato for this Argument but he doth not so much as cite him for feare his theft be deprehended but Spalato hath it set downe with stronger nerves then the Prelates head was able to copie out of him But Iac. de Almain and Navarrus with the Parision Doctors said in the Concell of Paris that politick power is immediatly from God but first from the community but so that the community apply their power to this oâ— that Government not of liberty but by naturall necessity but Spalâ—to and the Plagiarie Prelate doe both looke beside the booke The question is not now concerning the vis rectiva the power of governing in the people but concerning the power of government for these two diâ—fer much the former is a power of ruling and Monarchicall commanding of themselves this power is not formally in the people but only vertually and no reason can say that a vertuall power is idle because it cannot be actuated by that same subject that it is in for then it should not be a vertuall but a formall power Doe not Philosophers say such a Hearb vertually maketh hot and can the sottish Prelate say this vertuall power is idle and in vaine given of God because it doth not formally heate your hand when you touch it 2. The P. Prelate who is excommunicated for Popery Socinianisme Arminianisme and is now turned Apostate to Christ and his Church must have changed his faith not we and be reasonlesly ignorant to presse that axiome that the power is idle that cannot be reduced to acts for a generative power is given to living and sensitive creatures this power is not idle though it be not reduced in act by all and every individuall sensitive creature A power of seeing is given to all who naturally doe or ought to see yet it is not an idle power because divers are blind seeing it is put forth in action in divers of the kind so this power in the community is not idle because it is not put forth in acts in the people in which it is vertually and is put forth in action in some of them whom they choose to be their Governours nor is it reasonable to say that it should be put forth in action by all the people as if all should be Kings and Governours But the question is not of the power of governing in the people but of the power of Government that is of the power of making Governours and Kings and the community doth put forth in act this power as a free voluntary and active power for 1. a Community transplanted to India or any place of the world not before inhabited have a perfect liberty to choose either a Monarchy or a Democracy or an Aristocracy for though nature incline them to Government in generall yet are they not naturally determinated to any one of those three more than another 2. Israel did of their free will choose the change of government and would have a King as the Nations had ergo they had free will and so an active power so to doe and not a a passive inclination only to be governed such as Spalato saith agreeth to the first matter 3 Royalists teach that a people under Democracy or Aristocracy have liberty to choose a King and the Romanes did this ergo they had an active power to do it ergo the Prelates simile crookes the matter at its pleasurâ— cannot shake off its forme nor the wife cast off her husband being once married but Barclaius Grotius Arnisaeus Blackwood and all the Royalists teach that the people under any of these two formes of Democracy or Aristocracy may resume their power and cast off these formes and choose a Monarch and if Monarchy be the best government as Royalists say they may chose the best and is this but a passive capacity to be governed 2. Of ten men fit for a Kingdome they may designe one and put the Crowne on his head and refuse the other nine and Israel crowned Solomon and refused Adâ—niah Is this not a voluntary action proceeding from a free active elective power It will puzzle the pretended Prelate to deny this that which the community doth freely they doe not from such a passive capacity as is in the first matter in regard of the forme 3. It is true that people through corruption of nature are averse to submit to Governours for conscience sake and as to the Lord because the naturall man remaining in the state of nature can doe nothing that is truely good but it is false that men have no active Morall power to submit to superiours but only a passive capacity to be governed he quite contradicteth himselfe for he said before c. 4. pag. 49. that there is an innate feare and reverence in the hearts of all men naturally even in Heathen toward their Severaign yea as we have a naturall morall active power to love our Parents and superiours though it be not Evangelically or legally in Gods Court good and so to obey their commandements only we are averse to penall Lawes of superiours but this proveth no way that we have only by nature a passive capacity to government for Heathens have by instinct of nature both made Lawes morally good submitted to them set Kings and Iudges over them which clearely proveth that men have an active power of Government by nature 4. yea what difference maketh the Prelate betwixt men and beasts for beasts have a capacity to be governed even Lyons and Tigers but here is the matter if men have any naturall power of Government the P. Prelate would have it with his brethren Iesuites and Arminians to be not naturall but done by the helpe of universall grace for so doe they confound nature and grace But it is certaine our power to submit to Rulers and Kings as to rectors and guides and fathers is naturall to submit to Tyrants in doing ills of sinne is naturall but in suffering ills of punishment it s not naturall 5. No man can give that which he hath not is true but that people have no power to make their Governours is that which is in question and denyed by us 6. This argument doth prove that people hath no power to appoint Aristocraticall Rulers more then Kings and sothe Aristocraticall and Democraticall Rulers are all inviolable and sacred as the King 2. by this the people may not resume their freedome if
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
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 9â—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 â— 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
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 â—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 Musiâ—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
rise up and defend themselves Obj. 7. Here the Prelate borrowing from Grotius Barclay Arnisaus or it s possible he be not so farre travelled for Doct. Ferne hath the same Soveraignty weakned in Aristocracy cannot doe its worke and is in the next place to Anarchy and confusion When Zedekiah was over Lorded by his Nobles he could neither save himselfe nor the people nor the Prophet the servant of God Ieremiah nor could David punish Ioab when he was over-awed by that power he himselfe had put in his hand To weaken the head is to distemper the whole body if any good Prince or his Royall Antecessors be cheated of their sacred right by fraud or force he may at his fittest opportunity resume it What a sinne is it to rob God or the King of their due Ans. Aristocracy is no lesse an ordinance of God then Royalty for Rom. 13.1 and 1 Tim. 2.1 All in Authority are to be acknowledged as Gods Vice-gerents the Senate the Consuls as well as the Emperour And so one ordinance of God cannot weaken another nor can any but by a lawlesse Animall say Aristocracy bordereth with confusion but he must say Order and Light are sister Germanes to confusion and darknesse 2 Though Zedekiah a man voyd of God were over-awed with his Nobles and so could not help Ieremiah it followeth not that because Kings may not do this and this good therefore they are to be invested with power to doe all ill if they doe all the good that they have power to doe they 'l finde way to helpe the oppressed Jeremiahes and because power to doe both good and evill is given by the Divell to our Scottish Witches it s a poore consequent that the States should give to the King power absolute to be a Tyrant 3. A State must give a King more power then ordinary especially to execute Laws which requireth singular wisdom when a Prince cannot alwayes have his great Councell about with him to advise him But 1. That is power borrowed and by loan and not properly his own and therefore it is no sacriledge in the States to resume what the King hath by a fiduciary Title and borrowed from them 2. This power was given to do good not evill David had power over Joab to punish him for his murther but he executed it not upon carnall fears and abused his power to kill innocent Vriah which power neither God nor the States gave him But how proveth he the States took power from David or that Ioab took power from David to put to death a murtherer that I see not 3. If Princes power to do good be taken from them they may resume it when God giveth opportunity But this is to the Prelate Perjury that the people by Oath give away their power to their King and resume it when he abuseth it to Tyranny But it is no perjurie in the King to resume a taken away power which if it be his own is yet lis sub judice a great controversie Quod in Cajo licet in Nevio non licet So he teacheth the King That Perjurie and Sacriledge is lawfull to him If Princes power to do ill and cut the whole Land off as one neck which was the wicked desire of Caligula be taken from them by the States I am sure 1. This power was never theirs and never the peoples and you cannot take the Princes power from him which was never his power 2. I am also sure the Prince should never resume an unjust power though he were cheated of it P. Prelate It is a poor shift to acknowledge no more for the Royall Prerogative then the Municipall Law hath determined as some smatterers in the Law say They cannot distinguish betwixt a Statute Declarative and a Statute Constitutive but the Statutes of a Kingdom do declare onely what is the Prerogative Royall but do not constitute or make it God Almightie hath by himself constituted it It is laughter to say the Decalogue was not a Law till God wrote it Answ. Here a profound Lawyer calleth all smatters in the Law who cannot say that non ens a Prerogative Royall that is a power contrary to God and mans Law to kill and destroy the innocent came not immediately down from Heaven but I professe my self no Lawyer but do maintain against the Prelate that no Municipall Law can constitute a power to do ill nor can any Law either justly constitute or declare such a fancie as a Prerogative Royall so far is it from being like the Decalogue that is a Law before it be written that this Prerogative is neither Law before it be written nor after Court Placebo's have written for it for it must be eternall as the Decalogue if it have any blood from so noble a house 2. In what Scripture hath God Almightie spoken of a fancied Prerogative Royall P. Prelate Prerogative resteth not in its naturall seat but in the King God saith Reddite not Date render to Kings that which is Kings not give to Kings it shall never be well with us if his annointed and his Church be wronged Answ. The Prelate may remember a Countrey Proverb He and his Prelates called the Church the scum of men not the Church are like the Tinkers dogs they like good company they must be ranked with the King And 2. Here a false Prophet It shall never be well with the Land while Arbitrary power and Popery be erected saith he in good sense P. â—â—elate The King hath his right from God and cannot make it away to the people Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars Kings persons their Charge their Right their Authority their Prerogative are by Scriptures Fathers Iurists Sacred inseparable Ordinances inherent in their Crowns they cannot be made away and when they are given to inferiour Judges it is not ad minuendam majestatem sed solicitudinem to lessen Soveraign Majesty but to ease them Answ. The King hath his right from God What then not from the people I read in Scripture The people made the King Never That the King made the people 2. All these are inseparably in the Crown but he stealeth in Prerogative Royall in the clause which is now in question Render to Caesar all Caesars And therefore saith he Render to him a Prerogative that is an absolute power to pardon and sell the blood of thousands Is power of blood either the Kings or inherent inseparably in his Crown Alas I fear Prelates have made blood an inseparable accident of his Throne 3. When Kings by that publike power given to them at their Coronation maketh inferiour Iudges they give them power to judge for the Lord not for men Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 Now they cannot both make away a power and keep it also for the inferiour Iudges conscience hangeth not at the Kings girdle he hath no lesse power to judge in his sphere then the King hath in his sphere though the Orb and circle
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
devoure living men when there is a controversie between the King and the Estates of Parliament who shall expone the Law and render its native meaning say Royalists not the Estates of Parliament for they are Subjects not Iudges to the King and only Counsellers and advisers of the King The King therefore must be the only judiciall and finall expositor As for Lawyers said Strafford the Law is not inclosed in a Lawyers Cap. But I remember this was one of the Articles laid to the charge of Richard the Second that he said The Law was in his head and breast And indeed it must follow if the King by the plenitude of absolute power be the only supreme uncontrollable Expositor of the Law that is not Law which is written in the Acts of Parliament but that is the Law which is in the Kings breast and head which Iosephus lib. 19. Antiq. c. 2. objected to Caius And all justice and injustice should be finally and peremptorily resolved on the Kings will and absolute pleasure 6. The King either is to expone the Law by the Law it selfe or by his Absolute power loosed from all Law he exponeth it or according to the advise of his Great Senate If the first be said he is nothing more then other Iudges If the second be said he must be omnipotent and more If the third be said he is not absolute if the Senate be only Advisers and he yet the only Iudiciall expositor The King often professeth his ignorance of the Lawes and he must then both be absolute above the Law and ignorant of the Law and 2. the sole and finall Iudiciall exponer of the Law And by this all Parliaments and their power of making Lawes and of judging iâ— cryed down They object Prov. 16.10 A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King His mouth transgresseth not in judgement ergo he only can expone the Law Ans. 1. Lavater saith and I see no reason on the contrary by a King he meaneth all Magistrates 2. Aben Ezra and Isidorus read the words imperatively The Tigurine version They are Oracles which proceed from his lips let not therefore his mouth transgresse in judgement Vatabulus When he is in his prophecies he lyeth not Iansenius Non facile errabit in judicando Mich. Iermine If he pray Calvine If he read in the booke of the Law as God commandeth him Deut. 17. But why stand we on the place He speaketh of good Kings saith Cornel à Lapide Otherwise Ieroboam Achab Manasseh erred in judgement And except as Mercerus exponeth it We understand him to speake of Kings according to their office not their facts and practice we make them Popes and men who cannot give out grievous and unjust sentences on the Throne against both the Word and experience Object 2. Sometimes all is cast upon ouâ— mans voice why may not the King be this one man Answ. The Antecedent is false the last Voter in a Senate is not the sole Iudge else why should others give suffrages with him 2. This were to take away inferiour Iudges contrary to Gods Word Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 7. Rom. 13.1 2 3. QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Subjects and Estates for their own just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull A Ruisaeus perverteth the question he saith The question is Whether or no the Subjects may according to their power judge the King and dethrone him that is Whether or no is it lawfull for the Subjects in any case to take arms against their lawfull Prince if he degenerate and shall wickedly use his lawfull power The state of the question is much perverted for these be different questions Whether the Kingdom may dethrone a wicked and Tyrannous Prince And whether may the Kingdom take up arms against the man who is the King in their own innocent defence For the former is an Act offensive and of punishing the latter is an Act of Defence 2. The present question is not of Subjects onely but of the Estates and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom I utterly deny these as they are Iudges to be subjects to the King for the question is Whether is the King or the representative Kingdom greatest and which of them be subject one to another I affirm Amongst Iudges as Iudges not one is the Commander or Superiour and the other the commanded or subject Indeed one higher Iudge may correct and punish a Iudge not as a Iudge but as an erring man 3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act of War as concerning the power of naturall Defence upon supposition That the King be not now turned an habituall Tyrant but that upon some acts of mis-information he come in arms against his Subjects 2. Arnisaeus maketh two sort of Kings Some Kings integra Majestatis of intire power and Soveraignty some Kings by pactions or voluntary agreement between King and people But I judge this a vain distinction For the limited Prince so he be limited to a power onely of doing just and right by this is not a Prince integrae Majestatis of entire Royall Majestie whereby he may do both good and also play the Tyrant but a power to do ill being no wayes essentiall yea repugnant to the absolute Majestie of the King of Kings cannot be an essentiall part of the Majestie of a lawfull King and therefore the Prince limited by voluntary and positive paction onely to rule according to law and equity is the good lawfull and entire Prince if he have not power to do every thing just and good in that regard onely he is not an intire and compleat Prince So the man will have it lawfull to resist the limited Prince not the absolute Prince by the contrary it is more lawfull to me to resist the absolute Prince then the limited in as much as we may with safer consciences resist the Tyrant and the Lyon then the just Prince and the Lamb. Nor can I assent to Cunnerus de officio princip Christia c. 5. 17. Who holdeth that these voluntary pactions betwixt King and people in which the power of the Prince is diminished cannot stand because their power is given to them by Gods Word which cannot be taken from them by any voluntary paction lawfully and from the same ground Winzetus in vâ—lit contr Buchan p. 32. will have it unlawfull to resist Kings because God hath made them unresistable I answer If God by a divine institution make Kings absolute and above all Laws which is a blasphemous supposition the holy Lord can give to no man a power to sin for God hath not himself any such power then the Covenant betwixt the King and people cannot lawfully remove and take away what God by institution has given but because God Deut. 17. hath limited the first lawfull King the mould of all the rest the people ought also to limit him by a voluntary Covenant and because the
man to self-defâ—nce 7. The Law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a magistrate or any other unjust violence from a ruler is twice injustice 1. He doth unjustly as a man 2. As a member of the common-wealth 3. He committeth a speciall kind of sin of injustice against his office but it is absurd to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of nature and not from the greater If the Pope saith Fer. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 24. n. 24 25. command to take away benefices from the just owner these who are to execute his commandement are not to obey but to write back that that mandat came not from his holinesse but from the avarice of his Officers but if the Pope still continue and presse the same unjust Mandat the same should be written againe to him and though there be none above the Pope yet there is naturall self-defence patent for all Defensio vitae nece aria est à jure naturali profluit L. ut vim ff de just jure 16. Nam quod quisque ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure fecisse videatur C. jus naturale 1. distinc l. 1. ff de vi vi armata l. injuriarum ff de injuria C. significasti 2. de hom l. scientiam sect qui non aliter ff ad leg Aquil. C. si vero 1. de sent excom l. sed etsi ff ad leg Aquil. etiamsi sequatur homicidium Vasquez l. 1. c. 17. n. 5. etiam occidere licet ob defensionem rerum Vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt in C. signisicasti Garcias Fortunius Comment in l. ut vim ff de instit jur n. 3. defendere se est juris naturae gentium A jure civili fuit additum moderamen inculpatae tutelae Iac. Novel defens n. 101. Occidens Principem vel alium Tyrannidem exercentem à poena homicidii excusatur Grotius de jure belli pacit l. 2. c. 1. n. 3. Si corpus impetatur vi presente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabili tunc bellum est licitum etiam cum interfectione periculum inferentis ratio natura quemque sibi commendat Barcl advers Monar l. 3. c. 8. est jus cuilibet se tenendi adversus immanem sevitiam But what ground saith the Royalist is there to take Arms against a King Ielousies and suspitions are not enough Ans. The King sent first an Armie to Scotland and blocked us up by sea before we took Armes 2. Papists were armed in England they have professed themselves in their Religion of Trent to â—e so much the holyer that they root out Protestants 3. The King declared we had broken loyalty to him since the last Parliament 4. He dâ—clared both Kingdoms Rebels 5. Attempted in his Emissaries to destroy the Parliament 6. And to bring in a forraigne enemie And the Law saith An imminent danger which is a sufficient warrant to take up Armes is not strokes but either the terrour of Armour or threatning Glossator in d. l. 1. C. Vnde vi ait non esse verbera expectanda sed vel terrorem armorum sufficere vel minas hoc esse imminens periculum L. Sed si quemcunque in princ ff ad leg Aquil. l. 3. quod qui armati ff de vi vi armata is qui aggressorem C. ad legem C. ad legem Corneli In most hainous sinnes conatus the endeavour and aime etiamsi effectus non sequatur puniri debet is punishable Bartoln in l. Si quis non dicam rapere The King hath aimed at the destruction of his Subjects through the power of wicked counsellors and we are to consider not the intenton of the workes but the nature and intention of the work Papists are in armes their religion the Conspiracy of Trent their conscience if they have any their malice against the covenant of Scotland which abjureth their Religion to the full their ceremonies their Prelates lead and necessitate them to root out the name of Protestant Religion yea and to stab a King who is a Protestant Nor is our King remaining a Protestant and adhering to his oath made at his Coronation in both kingdomes Lord of his own person master of himself nor able as King to be a King over Protestant subjects if the Papists now in armes under his standard shall prevail The King hath been compâ—lled to go against his own oath and the Lawes which he did swear to maintaine The Pope sendeth to his popish armies both dispensations bulls mandats incouragements The King hath made a cessation with the bloody Irish and hath put arms in the hands of Papists Now he being under the oath of God tied to maintain the Protestant Religion he hath a metaphysically subtle pearcing faith of miracles who beleeveth armed Papists and Prelates shall defend Protestants their Religion and these who have abjured Prelats as the lawful sons of the Pope that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as the law saith Quilibet in dubio praesumitur bonus L. merito praesumi L. non omnes § à Barbaris de re milit Charity beleeveth not ill So Charity is not a foole to beleeve all things So saith the Law Semel malus semper praesumitur malus in eodem genere C. semel malus de jure gentium in 6. Once wicked is alwayes wicked in that kind Marius Salamonius I. C. in L. ut vim atque injuriam ff de just jure We are not to wait on strokes the terrour of armour omnium consensu by consent of all is sufficient n. 3. If I see saith he the enemy take an arrow out of the Quiver before he bend the bow it is lawfull to prevent him with a blow cunctatio est periculosa The Kings comming with armed men to demand the Five Members into the House of Commons is very symbolicall and Warre was printed on that fact he that runneth may reade His comming to Hull with an Armie saith not he had no errand there but aske what it was in the clock See Novellus that learned Venetian Lawyer in a Treatise for defence he maketh continuatam rixam a continued upbraiding a sufficient ground of violent defence He citeth Doctores Comniter in L. ut vim ff de just jure Yea he saith Drunkennesse defens n. 44. Error n. 46. Madnesse n. 49 50. Ignorance n. 51 52. Impudence n. 54. Necessity n. 56. Lasciviousnesse 58. Continuall reproaches 59. The fervour of anger 64. Threatning 66. Feare of imminent danger 67. Iust grief doe excuse a man from homicide and that in these he ought to be more mildly punished Quia obnubilatum mancum est consilium Reason in these being lame and clogged Ambros. l. 1. offic Qui non repellit injuriam à socio cum potest tam est in vitio quam ille quifacit And as Nature so the Law saith When the losses are such as can never be repaired as Death
make unmake Parliaments and all Parliamentary power what more absurd Obj. 1. Symmons Loyall Subj Pag. 57. These phrases 2. Sam. 9.1 When Kings goe forth to warre and Luk. 14.31 What King going forth to warre speak to my conscience that both offensive and defensive warre are in the Kings hand Answ. It is not much to other men what is spoken to any mans conscience by Phrase and customes for by this no States where there be no Kings but government by the best or the people as in Holland or in other Nations can have power of war for what time of yeare shall Kings goe to war who are not Kings and because Christ saith A certaine housholder delivered talents to his servants will this infer to any conscience that none but a housholder may take usurie And when he saith If the good man of the house knew at what houre the thiefe would come he would watch shall it follow the sonne or servant may not watch the house but onely the good man Obj. 2. Ferne pag. 95. The naturall Bodie cannot move but upon naturall Principles and so neither can the Politique Bodie move in Warre but upon Politique reasons from the Prince which must direct by Law Answ. This may well be retorted the Politique Head cannot then move but upon politique reasons and so the King cannot move to wars but by the Law and that is by consent of Parliament and no Law can principle the head to destroy the members 2. If an Armie of cut-throats rise to destroy the Kingdome because the King is in lacking in his place to doe his duty how can the other Judges the States and Paâ—liament be accessorie to murther committed by them in not raising armies to suppresse such robbers Shall the inferiour Judges be guilty of innocent blood because the King will not doe his duty 3. The politique body ceaseth no more to renounce the principles of sinlesse nature in self-defence because it is a politique body and subject to a King then it can leave off to sleep eat and drink and there is more need of politique principles to the one then the other 4. The Parliaments and Estates of both Kingdoms move in these wars by the Kings Lawes and are a formall politique body in themselves Obj. 2. The ground of the present wars against the King saith D. Ferne sect 4. pag. 13. is false to wit that the Parliament is coordinate with the King but so the King shall not be supreme the Parliaments consent is required to an act of supremacie but not to a denyall of that act And there can no more saith Arnisaeus de jure majestatis c. 3. in quo consistat essen majest c. 3. n. 1. and c. 2. an jur majest separ c. n. 2. be two equall and coordinate supreme powers then there can be two supreme Gods and multitudo deorum est nullitas deorum many gods infer no gods Ans. 1. If we consider the fountaine-power the King is subordinate to the Parliament and not coordinate for the constituent is above that which is constituted If we regard the derived and executive power in Parliamentarie acts they make but a totall and compleat soveraigne power yet so as the soveraigne power of the Parliament being habitually and underived a prime and fountaine power for I doe not here separate people and Parliament is perfect without the King for all Parliamentarie acts as is cleare in that the Parliament make Kings 2. Make Lawes raise Armies when either the King is minor captived tyrannous or dead but Royall power Parliamentarie without the Parliament is null because it is essentially but a part of the Parliament and can work nothing separated from the Parliament no more then a hand cut off from the body can write and so here we see two supremes coordinate Amongst infinite things there cannot be two because it involveth a contradiction that an infinite thing can be created for then should it be finite but a royall power is essentially a derived and created power and supreme secundum quid onely in relation to single men but not in relation to the Communitie it is alwayes a creature of the communitie with leave of the Royalist 2. It is false that to an act of Parliamentarie supremacie the consent of the King is required for it is repugnant that there can be any Parliamentarie judiciall act without the Parliament but there may be without the King 3. More false it is that the King hath a negative voice in Parliament then he shall be sole Judge and the Parliament the Kings Creator and Constituent shall be a cypher Obj. 3. Arnesaeus de jur Maj. de potest armorum c. 5. n. 4. The People is mad and furious therefore supreme Majestie cannot be secured and Rebels suppressed and publike Peace kept if the power of Armour be not in the Kings hand only Answ. To denude the people of Armour because they may abuse the Prince is to expose them to violence and oppression unjustly for one King may easilier abuse armour then all the people one man may more easily fail then a Community 2. The safety of the people is far to be preferred before the safety of one man though he were two Emperours one in the East another in the West because the Emperour is ordained of God for the good and safety of the people 1 Tim. 2.2 3. There can be no inferiour Judges to bear the sword as God requireth Rom. 13 4. Deut. 1.15 16. 2 Chron. 19.6 7. and the King must be sole Judge if he onely have the sword and all armour monopolized to himselfe Obj. 4. The causes of Warre saith M. Simmons sect 4. pag. 9. should not be made knowne to the Subjects who are to look more to the lawfull call to Warre from the Prince then to the cause of the War Answ. The Parliament and all the Judges and Nobles are Subjects to Royalists if they should make war and shed blood upon blind obedience to the King not inquiring either in causes of Law or faâ—t they must resigne their consciences to the King 2. The King cannot make unlawfull warre to be lawfull by any authority Royall excâ—pt he could raze out the sixt Commandement therefore Subjâ—cts must look more to the causes of Warre then to the authority of the King and this were a faire way to make Parliaments of both Kingdomes set up Popery by the sword and root out the Reformed Religion upon the Kings Authority as the lawfull call to warre not looking to the causes of warre QUEST XXXVII Whether or no it be lawfull that the Estates of Scotland help their oppressed brethren the Parliament and Protestants in England against Papists and Prelates now in Armes against them and killing them and â—ndevouring the establishment of Poperie though the King of Scotland should inhibit them MArianus saith one iâ— obliged to help his brother non vinculo efficace not with any efficacious band because in these
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 wâ—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 oppressâ— the people such as the law of a bill of divorcement as Arnisaeus Barcklay and other Royalists say then must God have given a Law to every King to play the Tyrant because of the hardnesse of the Kings heart but we would gladly see some word of God for this The Law of a bill of Divorcement is a meere positive Law permitted in a particular exigent when a husband out of levity of heart and affection cannot love his wife therefore God by a Law permitted him out of indulgence to put her away that both he might have a seed the want whereof because of the blessed seed to be borne of woman was a reproach in Israel and though this was an affliction to some particular women yet the intent of the Law and the soul thereof was a publique benefit to the Common-wealth of Israel of which sort of Lawes I judge the
hard usage permitted by God to his people in the Master toward the servant and the people of God toward the stranger of whom they might 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 immutaâ—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 scelâ—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 assertâ—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 saiâ—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 â—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 wâ—tchman appâ—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 â—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 usâ—s not forbidden by the Law of God and man but I may not lay my corne field wast that it shall neither bear grassâ— nor corne the King may hinder that because it is a hurt to the publique but the King as Lord and Soveraigne hath no such dominion over Naboths viâ—eyard Hâ—w the King is lord of all goods ratione jurisdictionis tuitionis sâ— 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 justitiâ— 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 râ—quâ—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 infâ—riour that is not de facto required coaction for the performance therâ—â—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 consâ—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 yâ—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
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 aliâ—no largiri beneficit debito rem sihi acquirerâ— 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 eâ— praecepto neque etiam quae ex permissu est quatenus liberat à â—cecato sed quatenus paenis legalibus eximit operantem (c) Barclaius contra Monarcho l. 2. p. 56 57. The power office of the King badly diâ—â—erenced by Barclay (d) Barclaius l. 3. c. 2. (e) Arr. Mon. Haec erit ratio Regis (f) 70. Interpret Vatabul judica 〈◊〉 judicium consuetudinem â— 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. inâ— mundat p. 195. (l) Junius annot in 1 Sam. 2.13 (m) Diodatus annot 1 Sam. 8.3 (n) Glossâ— interlinearis (o) Lyra in locum hic accipitur jus large sumptum quoâ— reputatur jus propter malum abusum Nam illa quae dicuntur hic de jure Regis magis contingunt pâ—r Tyranidem (p) Tostatuâ— 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 dâ— incongrua prert p. 110. Osiander he setteth not down the Office of the King what he ought to be but what manâ—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. â— 19. Brentius homil 27. in 1 Sam. 8. Mos regis non de jure sed de vulgatâ consuctudinâ— 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. â— 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 â—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 givâ— 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 Mâ—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. â— 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. conâ— Monarâ—bo c. 11 pag. 27. 7. Rep. Sacr.
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
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 helpâ—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 possâ—ssion of the land at the commandement of Moses and Joshua 4. So Saul and Israel hâ—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 Ammonitâ—â— 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 lippâ—-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 iâ— 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
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 Sozâ—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 â— 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 Saâ—derus de visibili Monarchia l. 3. c. 3. Turrâ—re in sum de Eccles. l. 2. c. 2. prove that the government of the Church is by an absolutâ— Monarch and Pope because that is the best government which