both a father because a King and a Tyrant and cruell and lyon-hearted oppressour of these whom he hath conquered for God hath given him Royall power by this example to put these to whom he is a father and defender by office to torment and also to be a torturer of them by office by bringing their backs under such Instruments of crueltie as saws and harrows of iron and axes of iron QUEST XIII Whether or no Royall dignitie have its spring from nature and how that is true every man is born free and how servitude is contrary to nature I Conceive it to be evident that Royall dignity is not immediately and without the intervention of the peoples consent given by God to any one person 2. That conquest and violence is no just title to a Crown Now the question is If Royalty flow from nature if Royalty be not a thing meerly naturall neither can subjection to Royall power be meerly naturall but the former is rather civill then naturall and the question of the same nature is Whether subjection or servitude be naturall I conceive that there be divers subjections to these that are above us some way naturall and therefore I rank them in order thus 1. There is a subjection in respect of naturall being as the effect to the cause so though Adam had never sinned this morality of the fifth command should have stood in vigour that the son by nature without any positive Law should have been subject to the father because from him he hath his being as from a second cause But I much doubt if the relation of a father as a father doth necessarily infer a Royall or Kingly authority of the father over the son or by natures Law that the father hath power of life and death over or above his children and the reasons I give are 1. Because power of life and death is by a positive Law presupposing sin and the fall of man and if Adam standing in innocency could lawfully kill his son though the son should be a Malefactor without any positive Law of God I much doubt 2. I judge that the power Royall and the fatherly power of a father over his children shall be found to be different and the one is founded on the Law of nature the other to wit Royall power on a meere positive Law The 2. degree or order of subjection naturall is a subjection in respect of gifts or age so Aristotle 1 Polit. cap. 3. saith that some are by nature servants his meaning is good that some gifts of nature as wisedom naturall or aptitude to govern hath made some men of gold fitter to command and some of iron and clay fitter to be servants and slaves But I judge this title to make a King by birth seeing Saul whom God by supervenient gifts made a King seemeth to ow small thanks to the womb or nature that he was a King for his crueltie to the Lords Priests speaketh nothing but naturall basenesse It s possible Plato had a good meaning Dialog 3. de legib who made six orders here 1. That fathers command their sons 2. The noble the ignoble 3. The elder the younger 4. The masters the servants 5. The stronger the weaker 6. The wiser the ignorant 3. Aquinas 22. q. 57. art 3. Driedo de libert Christ l. 1. pag. 8. following Aristotle polit l. 7. c. 14. hold though man had never sinned there should have been a sort of dominion of the more gifted and wiser above the lesse wise and weaker not antecedent from nature properly but consequent for the utilitie and good of the weaker in so far as it is good for the weaker to be guided by the stronger which cannot be denyed to have some ground in nature but there is no ground for Kings by nature here 1. Because even these who plead that the mothers womb must be the best title for a Crown and make it equivalent to Royall unction are to be corrected in memory thus That it is meerly accidentall and not naturall for such a son to be born a King because the free consent of the people making choice of the first father of that Line to be their King and in him making choice of the first born of the family is meerly accidentall to father and son and so cannot be naturall 2. Because Royall gifts to reign are not holden by either us or our adversaries to be the specifice essence of a King for if the people Crown a person their King say we if the womb bring him forth to be a King say the opponents he is essentially a King and to be obeyed as the Lords annointed though nature be very Parca sparing and a niggard in bestowing Royall gifts Yea though he be an idiot say some if he be the first born of a King he is by just title a King but must have Curators and Tutors to guide him in the exercise of that Royall right that he hath from the womb But Buchanan saith well He who cannot govern himself shall never govern others 1 Assert de facto As a man commeth into the world a member of a politick societie he is by consequence borne subject to the laws of that societie but this maketh him not from the wombe and by nature subject to a King as by nature he is subject to his Father who begat him no more then by nature a Lyon is borne subject to another King-Lyon for it is by accident that he is borne of parents under subjection to a Monarch or to either Democraticall or Aristocraticall governours for Cain and Abel were borne under none of these formes of Government properly and if he had been borne in a new planted Colonie in a wildernesse where no government were yet established he should be under no such Government 2 Assert Slavery of servants to Lords or Masters such as were of old amongst the Iews is not naturall but against nature 1. Because slaverie is malum naturae a penall evill and contrary to nature and a punishment of sinne 2. Slaverie should not have been in the world if man had never sinned no more then there could have been buying and selling of men which is a miserable consequent of sin and a sort of death when men are put to the toyling paines of the hireling who longeth for the shadow and under iron harrowes and sawes and to hew wood and draw water continually 3. The originall of servitude was when men were taken in warre to eschew a greater evill even death the captives were willing to undergoe a lesse evill slaverie S. Servitus 1. de jur Pers 4. A man being created according to Gods image he is res sacrae a sacred thing and can no more by natures law be sold and bought then a religious and sacred thing dedicated to God S. 1. Instit do invtil scrupl l. inter Stipulantem S. Sacram. F. de verber Obligat 3 Assert Every man by
Schoolemaster is clearely above all lawes of discipline which he imposeth on his Scholars but none can say that King Asa was clearely above that law of seeking of the Lord God of his fathers Diodorus Siculus l. 17. saith the Kings of Persia were under an oath and that they might not change the Lawes and so were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia The Kings of Sparta which Aristotle calleth just Kings renew their oath every moneth Romulus so covenanted with the Senate and People Carolus V. Austriacus sweareth he shall not change the Lawes without the consent of the Electors nor make new lawes nor dispose or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire So read we Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped l. 8. saith there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Persians The nobles are crowned when they crown their King and exact a speciall Oath of the King So doth England Polonia Spaine Arragonia c. Alberi Gentilis Hug. Grotius prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people but notwithstanding there be such a covenant it followeth not from this saith Arnisaeus that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically the people shall be free and the contract or covenant nothing Ans The covenant may be materially broken while the King remaineth King and the subjects remaine subjects but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken the people must be free from their Allegiance but of this more hereafter Arg. 7. If a Master bind himselfe by an Oath to his servant he shall not receive such a benefit of such a point of service if he violate the Oath his Oath must give his servant Law and right both to challenge his Master and he is freed from that point of service an Army appointeth such a one their Leader and Captaine but they refuse to doe it except he sweare he shall not betray them to the enemy he doth betray them then must the souldiers be loosed from that contract if one be appointed Pilate of a ship and not but by an Oath if he sell the Passengers to the Turke they may challenge the Pilate of his Oath and it is cleare that 1. the estates should refuse to give the Crown to him who would refuse to governe them according to Gods Law but should professe that he would make his owne will a Law therefore the intention of the Oath is clearely conditionall 2. When the King sweareth the Oath he is but King in fieri and so not as King above the States of Kingdomes now his being King doth not put him in a case above all civill obligation of a King to his subjects because the matter of the Oath is that he shall be under them so farre in regard of the Oath of God Arg. 8. If the Oath of God made to the people doe not bind him to the people to governe according to Law and not according to his will and lust it should be unlawfull for any to sweare such an Oath for if a power above law agree essentially to a King as a King as Royalists hold he who sweareth such a Oath should both sweare to be a King to such a people and should sweare to be no King in respect by his Oath he should renounce that which is essentiall to a King Arnisaeus objecteth Ex particularibus non potest colligi conclusio universalis some few of the Kings as David Ioash made a covenant with the people it followeth not that this was a universall law Ans Yea the covenant is Deut. 17. and must be a rule to all if so just a man as David was limited by a covenant then all the rest also QUEST XV. Whether or no the King be Vnivocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father IT is true Aristotle Polit. l. 3. c. 11. saith That the Kingly power is a fatherly power and Iustin Novell 12. c. 2. Pater quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius sit tamen pater est But I doe not beleeve that as Royalists say that the Kingly power is essentially and univocally that same with a paternall or fatherly power or that Adam as a father was as a father and King and that suppose Adam should live in Noahs daies that by divine institution and without consent of the Kingdomes and communities on earth Adam hoc ipso and for no other reason but because he was a father should also be the universall King and Monarch of the whole world or suppose Adam were living to this day that all Kings that hath been since and now are held their Crownes of him and had no more Kingly power then inferiour Iudges in Scotland have under our soveraigne King Charles for so all that hath been and now are lawfull Kings should be unjust usurpers for if fatherly power be the first and native power of commanding it is against nature that a Monarch who is not my father by generation should take that power from me and be a King over both me and my children But I assert that though the Word warrant us to esteem Kings fathers Esa 49. 23. Jud. 5. 7. Gen. 20. v. 2. yet are not they essentially and formally fathers by generation Num. c. 11. v. 12. Have I conceived all this people have I begotten them and yet are they but fathers metaphorically 1. By office because they should care for them as fathers doe for children and so come under the name of fathers in the fifth Commandement and therefore rigorous and cruell Rulers are Leopards and Lyons and Wolves Ezech. 22. 27. Zeph. 3. 3. If then tyrannous Judges be not essentially and formally Leopards and Lyons but only metaphorically neither can Kings be formally fathers 2. Not only Kings but all Iudges are fathers in defending their subjects from violence and the sword and fighting the Lords battells for them and counselling them If therefore Royalists argue rightly A King is essentially a father and fatherly power and royall power are of the same essence and nature As therefore he who is once a father is ever a father and his children cannot take up armes against him to resist him for that is unnaturall repugnant to the 5. Commandement So he who is once a King is evermore a King and it is repugnant to the fifth Commandement to resist him with armes It is answered that the Argument presupposeth that Royall power and Fatherly power is one and the same in nature whereas they differ in nature and are only one by analogie and proportion for so Pastors of the Word are called fathers 1 Cor. 4. 15. it will not follow that once a Pastor evermore a Pastor and that if therefore Pastors turne wolves and by hereticall doctrine corrupt the flock they cannot be cast out of the Church 3. A father as a father hath not power of life and death over his sonnes because Rom. 13. by divine institution the
Maxwell the Prelate should he love him as the Pursevant of Craile Maxwell his father loved him I conceive not hath the adopted sonne his life his being the figure bodily the manners of the sonne in whose place he is adopted or doth he naturally resemble the father as the naturall sonne doth The Prelate did not read this Law in any approved Iurist though he did steale the argument from Arnisaeus and stole the citations of Homer and Aristotle out of him with a little Metathesis A naturall sonne is not made a sonne by the consent of Parents but he is a sonne by generation so must the adopted sonne be adopted without the free consent and grace of the father adopting so here the King commeth in the place of a naturall father but I conceive the Law saith not that the elected King is a King without consent of the subjects as the naturall father is a father without consent of his sonnes 2. Nor is it a Law true as once a father alwaies a father so once an elected King alwaies a King though he sell his subjects being induced thereunto by wicked Counsellors 3. If the King have no priviledges but what the naturall father hath in whose place he commeth then as the naturall father in a free Kingdome hath not power of life and death over his sonnes neither hath the King power of life and death over his subjects this is no Law 4. This maxime should prove good if the King were essentially a father by generation and naturall propagation but he is onely a father Metaphorically and by a borrowed speech A father non generando sed politicè alendo tuendo regendo therefore an elected Prince commeth not in the full possession of all the naturall power and rights of a naturall father 2. The P. Prelate speaketh disgracefully of the Church of God calling it a disorderly community as if he himselfe were borne of Kings where as God calleth the King their Shepheard and the people Gods flocke inheritance and people and they are not a disorderly body by nature but by sin in which sense the Prelate may call King Priest and people a company of Heires of Gods wrath except he be an Arminian still as once he was 3. If we are in ordinary providence now because we have not Samuels and Prophets to anoynt Kings to hold the designation of a person to be King to be the manifestation of Gods Will called voluntas â—igni is Treason for if Scotland and England should designe Maxwell in the place of King Charles our native Soveraigne an odious comparison Maxwell should be lawfull King for what is done by Gods Will called by our Divines they have it not from Schoolemen as the Prelate ignorantly saith his signified will which is our rule is done lawfully there can be no greater treason put in print then this QUEST XVI Whether or no a despotiticall and masterly dominion of men and things agree to the King because he is King I May here dispute whether the King be Lord having a masterly dominion both over men and things But I first discusse shortly his dominion over his subjects It is agreed on by Divines that servitude is a penall fruit of sinne and against nature Institut de jure personarum Sect. 1. F. de statu hominum l. libertas Because all men are borne by nature of equall condition 1 Assert The King hath no proper masterly or herile dominion over his subjects his dominion is rather fiduciary and ministeriall than masterly 1. Because Royall Empire is essentially to feed rule defend and to governe in Peace and Godlinesse 1 Tim. 2. 2. as the father doth his children Ps 78. 71. He brought him to feed Jacob his people and Israel his inheritance Esa 55. 4. I gave him for a leader and commander to the people 2 Sam. 5. 2. Thou shalt feed my people Israel 2 Sam. 5. 2. 1 Chron 11. 2. 1 Chron 17. 6. And so it is for the good of the people and to bring those over whom he is a feeder and ruler to such a happy end and as saith Althusius polit c. 1. n. 13. and Marius Salomonius de princ â— 2. it is to take care of the good of those over whom the Ruler is set and conservare est rem illaesam servare to keep a thing safe But to be a Master and to have a masterly and herile power over slaves and servants is to make use of servants for the owners benefit not for the good of the slave L. 2. de leg L. Servus de servit expert Danae polit l. 1. Tolossan de Rep. l. 1. c. 1. n. 15 16. therefore are servants bought and sold as goods jure belli F. de statu hominum l. servorum 2. Not to be under Governors and Magistrates is a judgement of God Esa 3. 6 7. Esa 3. 1. Hos 3. 4. Iudg. 19. 1 2. But not to be under a master as slaves are is a blessing seeing freedome is a blessing of God Ioh. 8. 33. Exod. 21. 2. v. 26 27. Deut. 15. 12. so he that killeth Goliah 1 Sam. 17. 25. his fathers house shall be free in Israel Ier. 34. 9. Act. 22. 28. 1 Cor. 9. 19. Gal. 4. 26. 31. Therefore the power of a King cannot be an herile and masterly power for then to be under a Kingly power should both be a blessing and a curse and just punishment of sinne 3. Subjects are called the servants of the King 1 Sam. 15. 2. 2 Chron. 13. 7. 1 King 12. 7. Exod. 10. 1 â— Exod 9. 20. but they are not slaves because Deut. 17. 20. they are his brethren That the Kings heare be not lifted up against his brethren And his sonnes Esa 49. 23. And the Lord gave his people a King as a blessing 1 King 10. 9. Hos 1. 11. Esa 1. 26. Ier. 17. 25. And brought them out of the house of bondage Exod. 20. v. 2. as out of a place of miserie And therefore to be the Kings servants in the places cited is some other thing then to be he Kings slaves 4. The Master might in some cases sell the servant for money yea for his own gain he might doe it Nehem. 5. 8. Eccles 2. 7. 1 King 2. 32. Gâ—n 9 25. Gen. 26 14. 2 King 4. 1. Gen. 20. 14. and might give away his servants and the servants were the proper goods and riches of the master Eccles 2. 7. Gen. 30. 43. Gen. 20. 14. Job 1. 3. 15. But the King may not sell his Kingdome or Subjects or give them away for money or any other way for Royalists grant that King to be a Tyrant and worthy to be dethroned who shall sell his people for the King may not delapidate the rents of the Crown and give them away to the hurt and prejudice of his successors L. ult Sect. sed nostr C. Comment de lege l. petâ— 69. Sect. fratrom de lege 2. l. 32. ulâ—imo D. T. and
regard the Church doth not so much as instrumentally conferre those abilities they may be said to come from God immediatly in relation to the Church who calleth the man to the ministery yea Royalists as our excommunicated Prelate learned from Spalato say that God at the naked presence of the Churches call doth immediatly infuse that from Heaven by which the man is now in Holy Orders and a Pastor whereas he was not so before and yet Prelates cannot deny but they can unmake Ministers and have practised this in their unhallowed Courts and therefore though God immediatly without any action of the people make Kings this is a weake reason to prove they cannot unmake them As for their undeleble character that Prelates cannot take from a Minister it is nothing if the Church may unmake a Minister though his character goe to prison with him we seeke no more but to anull the reason God immediatly maketh Kings and Pastors ergo no power on earth can unmake them this consequence is as weake as water 2. The other cause is because God hath erected no Tribunall on earth higher then the Kings Tribunall ergo no power on earth can unmake a King the Antecedent and consequence is both denyed and is a begging of the question for the Tribunall that made the King is above the King 2. Though there be no Tribunall formally regall and Kingly above the King yet is there a Tribunall vertuall eminently above him in the case of tyranny for the States and Princes have a Tribunall above him 3. To this the constituent cause is of more power and dignity then the effect and so the people is above the King The P. Prelate borrowed an answer from Arnisaeus and Barclay and other Royalists and saith If we knew any thing in Law or were ruled by reason Every constituent saith Arnisaeus and Barclay more accurately then the P. Prelate had a head to transcribe their words where the constituent hath resigned all his power in the hand of the Prince whom he constitutes is of more worth and power then he in whose hand they resigne the power so the proposition is false The servant who hath constituted his Master Lord of his liberty is not worthier then his Master whom he hath made his Lord and to whom he hath given himselfe as a slave for after he hath resigned his liberty he cannot repent he must keepe covenant though to his hurt yea such a servant is not only not above his Master but he cannot move his foot without his Master The Governour of Britaine saith Arnisaeus being despised by King Philip resigned himselfe as Vassall to King Edward of England but did not for that make himselfe superiour to King Edward indeed he who constituteth another under him as a Legat is superiour but the people doe constitute a King above themselves not a King under themselves and therefore the people are not by this made the Kings superiour but his inferiour Ans 1. It is false that the people doth or can by the Law of nature resigne their whole liberty in the hand of a King 1. they cannot resigne to others that which they have not in themselves Nemo potest dare quod non habet but the people hath not an absolute power in themselves to destroy themselves or to exercise those tyrannous acts spoken of 1 Sam. 8. 11 12 13 14 15 c. for neither God nor Natures Law hath given any such power 2. He who constituteth himselfe a slave is supposed to be compelled to that unnaturall fact of alienation of that liberty which he hath from his Maker from the wombe by violence constraint or extreame necessity and so is inferiour to all free men but the people doth not make themselves slaves when they constitute a King over themselves because God giving to a people a King the best and excellentest Governour on earth giveth a blessing and speciall fafour Esay 1. 26. Hosea 1. v. 11. Esay 3. 6 7. Ps 79. 70 71 72. but to lay upon his people the state of slaverie in which they renounce their whole libertie is a curse of God Gen. 9. 25. Gen. 27. 29. Deut. 28. 32. 36. But the people having their liberty to make any of ten or twenty their King and to advance one from a private state to an honorable throne whereas it was in their libertie to advance another and to give him Royall power of ten degrees whereas they might give him power of twelve degrees and of eight or sixe must be in excellencie and worth above the man whom they constitute King and invest with such honour as Honour in the fountain and honos participans originans must be more excellent and pure then the derived honour in the King which is honos participâ—tus originatus 2. If the servant give his libertie to his master ergo he had that libertie in him and in that act libertie must be in a more excellent way in the servant as in the Fountaine then it is in the master and so this libertie must be purer in the people then in the King and therefore in that both the servant is above the master and the People worthier then the King and when the people give themselves conditionally and Covenant-wise to the King as to a Publique servant and Patron and Tutour as the Governour of Britaine out of his humour gave himselfe to King Edward there is even here a note of superioritie Every giver of a benefit as a giver is superior to him to whom the gift is given though after the servant hath given away his gift of libertie by which he was superiour he cannot be a superior because by his gift he hath made himselfe inferior 3. The People constituteth a King above themselves I distinguish supra se above themselves according to the fountaine power of Royaltie that is false for the fountaine-power remaineth most eminently in the people 1. because they give it to the King ad modum recipientis and with limitations ergo it is unlimited in the people and bounded and limited in the King and so lesse in the King then in the people 2. If the King turne distracted and an ill spirit from the Lord come upon Saul so as reason be taken from a Nebuchadnezzar it is certaine the people may put Curators and Tutors over him who hath the Royall power 3. If the King be absent and taken captive the People may give the Royall power to one or to some few to exercise it as custodes regni And 4. if he die and the Crown goe by election they may create another with more or lesse power all which evinceth that they never constituted over themselves a King in regard of fountaine-power for if they give away the fountaine as a slave selleth his libertie they could not make use of it Indeed they set a King above them quoad potestatem legum executivam in regard of a power of executing lawes and
reason in the Text will prove that the Man who is the King in so far as he doth these things that are against his office may be resisted and that in these we are not to be subject but only we are to be subject to his power and Royall authoririe in abstracto in so farre as according to his office he is not a terrour to good workes but to evill 6. The lawfull Ruler is the minister of God or the servant of God for Good to the Commonwealth And to resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and using the power that he hath from his Master is to resist the Lord his Master v. 4. But the man who is the King commanding unjust things and killing the innocent in these acts is not the minister of God for the Good of the Commonwealth he serveth himselfe and Papists and Prelates for the destruction of Religion Lawes and Commonwealth therefore the Man may be resisted by this Text when the office and power cannot be resisted 7. The Ruler as the Ruler and the nature and intrinsecall end of the office is that he beare Gods sword as an avenger to execute wrath on him that doth evill v. 4. and so cannot be resisted without sinne But the man who is the Ruler and commandeth things unlawfull and killeth the innocent carieth the Papists and Prelates sword to execute not the righteous judgement of the Lord upon the ill-doer but his own private revenge upon him that doth well Ergo the Man may be resisted the Office may not be resisted and they must be two different things 8. We must needs be subject to the Royall office for conscience v. 5. by reason of the fifth Commandement But we must not needs be subject to the man who is King if he command things unlawfull for D. Ferne warranteth us to resist if the Ruler invade us sodainly 2. Without colour of Law or Reason 3. Vnavoydably And Winzetus and Barclay and Grotius as before I cited give us leave to resist a King turning a cruell Tyrant But Paul Rom. 13. forbiddeth us to resist the Power in Abstracto Ergo it must be the Man in concreto that we must resist 9. Those we may not resist to whom we owe tribute as a reward of the onerous worke on which they as Ministers of God doe attend continually But we owe not tribute to the King as a man for then should we be addebted tribute to all men but as a King to whom the wages of tribute is due as to a Princely workman a King as a King ergo the Man and the King are different 10. We owe fear and honour as due to be rendred to the man who is King because he is a King not because he is a man for it is the highest feare and honour due to any mortall man which is due to the King as King 11. The Man and the inferiour Judge are different and we cannot by this Text resist the inferiour Iudge as a Iudge but we resist the ordinance of God as the Text proveth But Cavaliers resist the inferior Iudges as men and have killed divers members of both Houses of Parliament but they will not say that they killed them as Judges but as Rebels If therefore to be a Rebell as a wicked Man and to be a Iudge are differenced thus then to be a Man and to commit some acts of Tyrannie and to be the supreme Iudge and King are two different things 12. Mr. Knox Hist of Scotland l. 2. The Congregation in a letter to the Nobilitie say There is great difference betwixt the Authoritie which is Gods Ordinance and the Persons of those who are placed in authoritie The Authoritie and Gods ordinances can never doe wrong for it commandeth that Vice and wicked men be punished and Vertue with vertuous men and just be maintained But the corrupt Person placed in this Authoritie may offend and most commonly doe contrary to this Authoritie and is then the corruption of Man to be followed by reason that it is clothed with the name of Authoritie And they give instance in Pharaoh and Saul who were lawfall Kings and yet corrupt Men. And certainly the Man and the Divine authoritie differ as the Subject and the Accident as that which is under a Law and can offend God and that which is neither capable of Law nor sinne 13. The King as King is a just creature and by office a living and breathing Law His Will as he is King is nothing but a just Law But the King as a sinfull man is not a just creature but one who can sinne and play the Tyrant and his Will as a private sinfull man is a private Will and may be resisted So the Law saith The King as King can doe no wrong but the King as a Man may doe a wrong While as then the Parliaments of both Kingdomes resist the Kings private will as a Man and fight against his illegall Cut-throats sent out by him to destroy his native subjects they fight for him as a King and obey his publick Legall will which is his Royall will de jure and while he is absent from his Parliaments as a man he is Legally and in his Law-Power present and so the Parliaments are as Legall as if he were personally present with them Let me answer Royalists The P. Prelate saith it is Solomons word By me Kings raign Kings in concreto with their Soveraignty he saith not By me Royalty or Soveraignty raigneth And elsewhere he saith that Barclay saith Paul writing to the Romans keepeth the Roman usuall diction in this who expresse by Powers in abstracto the persons authorized by Power and it is the soriptures Dialect By him were created thrones Dominions Principalities that is Angels to say Angels in abstracto were created 2 Pet. 2. 10. They speak ill of dignities Iud. 8. dispise dominion That is they speak ill of Cajus Caligula Nero our Levites rail against the Lords Anoynted the best of Kings in the world Nero Rom. 13. 4. in concreto beareth not the sword in vain Arnisaeus saith it better then the Prelate he is a witlesse theef Rom. 13. 4. the Royall Power in abstracto doth not bear the sword but the Person not the Power but the Prince himself beareth the sword And the Prelate poor man following Doctor Fern saith It s absurd to pursue the Kings Person with a canon-bullet at Edge-hill and preserve his authority at London or elsewhere So saith Fern 16. sect 10. pag. 64. The concret Powers here are purposed as objects of our obedience which cannot be directed but upon power in some person for it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the powers that are are of God now Power cannot be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existent but in some person and Pag. 69. saith Fern can Power in the abstract have praise Or is tribute payed to the Power in the abstract Yea the Power is the reason why
but to God But the contrary is true Beside the King and the Peoples covenant with the Lord King Joash made another covenant with the People and Jehoiada the Priest was only a witnesse or one who in Gods name performed the rite of annointing otherwise he was a subject on the peoples side obliged to keep allegiance to Joash as to his Soveraigne and Master But certainly who ever maketh a covenant with the people promising to governe them according to Gods word and upon that condition and these termes receiveth a throne and crown from the people he is obliged to what he promiseth to the people Omnis promittens facit alteri cui promissio facta est jus in promittentâ—m Who ever maketh a promise to another giveth to that other a sort of right or jurisdiction to challenge the promise The covenant betwixt David and Israel were a shadow if it tye the people to allegiance to David as their King and if it tye not David as King to govern them in righteousnesse but leave David loose to the people and only tye him to God then it is a covenant betwixt David and God only But the Text saith It is a covenant betwixt the King and the People 2 King 11. 17. 2 Sam. 5. 3. Hence our second Argument He who is made a minister of God not simply but for the good of the subject and so he take heed to walk in Gods law as a King and governe according to Gods will he is in so far only made King by God as he fulfilleth the condition and in so far as he is a minister for evill to the subject and ruleth not according to that which the book of the Law commandeth him as King in so far he is not by God appointed King and Ruler and so must be made a King by God conditionally But so hath God made Kings and Rulers Rom. 13. 4. 2 Chron. 6. 16. Ps 89. 30 31. 2 Sam. 7. 12. 1 Chron. 28. 7 8 9. This argument is not brought to prove that Jeroboam or Saul leave off to be Kings when they faile in some part of the condition or as if they were not Gods Vicegerents to be obeyed in things lawfull after they have gone on in wicked courses For the People consenting to make Saul King they give him the Crown pro hac vice at his entry absolutely there is no condition required in him before they make him King but only that he covenant with them to rule according to Gods law The conditions to be performed are consequent and posterior to his actuall coronation and his sitting on the Throne But the argument presupposing that which the Lords word teacheth to wit that the Lord and the people giveth a crown by one and the same action for God formally maketh David a King by the Princes and Elders of Israels choosing of him to be their King at Hebron and therefore seeing the people maketh him a King covenant-wise and conditionally so he rule according to Gods Law and the people resigning their power to him for their safety and for a peaceable and godly life under him and not to destroy them and tyrannize over them it is certain God giveth a King that same way by that same very act of the people and if the King tyrannize I cannot say it is beside the intention of God making a King not yet beside his intention as a just punisher of their transgressions for to me as I conceive nothing either good or evill falleth out beside the intention of him who doeth all things according to the pleasure of his Will if then the people make a King as a King conditionally for their fafety and not for their destruction for as a King he saveth as a man he destroyeth and not as a King and Father and if God by the peoples free election make a King God maketh him a King conditionally and so by covenant and therefore when God promiseth 2 Sam. 7. 12. 1 Chron. 28. 7 8 9. to Davids seed and to Solomon a Throne he promiseth not a Throne to them immediatly as he raised up Prophets and Apostles without any mediate action and consent of the people but he promiseth a Throne to them by the mediate consent election and covenant of the people which condition and covenant he expresseth in the very words of the people covenant with the King so they walke as Kings in the Law of the Lord and take heed to Gods Commandements and Statutes to doe them Obj. But then Solomon falling in love with many outlandish women and so not walking according to Gods Law loseth all royall dignity and Kingly power and the people is not to acknowledge him as King since the Kingly power was conferred upon him rather then Adonijah upon such a condition which condition not being performed by him it is presumed that neither God nor the people under God as Gods instruments in making King conferred any royall power on him Ans It doth not follow that Solomon falling in love with strange women doth lose Royall dignity either in the Court of Heaven or before men because the conditions of the covenant upon which God by the people made him King must be exponed by the Law Deut. 17. now that cannot beare that any one act contrary to the Royall Office yea that any one or two acts of Tyranny doth denude a man of the Royall dignity that God and the people gave him for so David committing two acts of tyranny one of taking his owne faithfull subjects wife from him and another in killing himselfe should denude himselfe of all the Kingly power that he had and that therefore the people after his Adultery and Murther were not to reknowledge David as their King which is most absurd for as one single act of unchastity is indeed against the matrimoniall covenant and yet doth not make the woman no wife at all so it must be such a breach of the Royall Covenant as maketh the King no King that anulleth the Royall Covenant and denudeth the Prince of his Royall authority and power that must be interpreted a breach of the Oath of God because it must be such a breach upon supposition whereof the people would not have given the Crowne but upon supposition of his destructivenesse to the Common-wealth they would never have given to him the Crowne Obj. 2. Yet at least it will follow that Saul after he is rejected of God for disobedience in not destroying the Amalekites as Samuel speaketh to him 1 Sam. 15. is no longer to be acknowledged King by the people at least after he committeth such acts of tyranny as are 1. Sam. 8. 12 13 14 15. c. and after he had killed the Priests of the Lord and persecuted innocent David without cause he was no longer either in the Court of Heaven or the Court of men to be acknowledged as King seeing he had manifestly violated the royall covenant made with the people 1 Sam.
is to resist the Ordinance of God as Royalists say from Rom. 13. 1 2 3. And we know to resist Gods ordinances and Gods Deputy formaliter as his Deputy is to resist God himselfe 1 Sam. 8. 7. Mat. 10. 40. as if God were doing personally these Acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these Acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to thinke or say that when a King is drinking the blood of innocents and wasting the Church of God that God if he were personally present would commit these same acts of Tyranny God would avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King as his lawfull Deputy and Vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poore Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of Tyranny he is not Gods formall Vicegerent but only in good and lawfull acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his Royall Person Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lords Deputy though not as the Lords Deputy what absurd is there in that more then to disobey him refusing active obedience to him who is the Lords Deputy but not as the Lords Deputy but as a man commanding beside his Masters Warrant 5. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now Gods end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding safetie preservation the peaceable and quiet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2. 2. Esa 49. 23. Psal 79. 71. But God should crosse his own end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressors and wasters in his holy Mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a thousand thousand Protestants for their Religion in an ordinary Providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say The King will not be so cruell I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possibly in his power to be so cruell 2. We owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the nature and genuine intrinsecall end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistance made by any mortall man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemie to Gods ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no barre upon the illimited power of a man inclined to sinne and abuse his power to so much crueltie Some may say the same absurditie doth follow if the King should turne Papist and the Parliament all were Papists in that case there might be so many Martyrs for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power then more then now and yet in that case the King and Parliament should be Iudges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in Peace and Godlinesse But I answer If God gave a lawfull officiall power to King and Parliament to worke the same crueltie upon millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawfull for them by armes to defend themselves I should then think that King and Parliament were both ex officio by vertue of their office and actu primo Iudges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and Butchers Which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted Providence of God 6. If the Estates of a Kingdome give the power to a King it is their own power in the fountaine and if they give it for their own good they have power to judge when it it used against themselves and for their evill and so power to limit and resist the power that they gave Now that they may take away this power is cleare in Athaliahs case It is true she was a Tyrant without a Title and had not the right of Heaven to the Crown yet she had in Mens Court a title For supposing all the seed Royall to be killed and the peoples Consent we cannot say That for these sixe yeares or thereabout she was no Magistrate 2. That there were none on the Throne of David at this time 3. That she was not to be obeyed as Gods Deputie But grant that she was no Magistrate yet when Iehoash is brought forth to be crowned it was a controversie to the States to whom the Crown should belong 1. Athaliah was in possession 2. Iehoash himselfe being but seven yeares old could not be Iudge 3. It might be doubted if Ioash was the true sonne of Ahaziah and if he was not killed with the rest of the blood Royall Two great Adversaries say with us Hugo Grotius de jur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. He saith He dare not condemne this if the lesser part of the People and every one of them indifferently should defend themselves against a Tyrant ultimo necessitatis praesidio The case of Scotland when we were blocked up by Sea and Land with Armes The case of England when the King induced by Prelates first attempted to bring an Army to cut off the Parliament and then gathered an Army and fortified Yorke and invaded Hull to make the Militia his own sure is considerable Barclay saith The People hath jus se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiem Advers Monarchomach l. 3. c. 8. A power to defend themselves against prodigious crueltie The case of England and Ireland now invaded by the bloody Rebels of Ireland is also worthy of consideration I could cite hoasts more QUEST XXIX Whether in the case of Defensive warre the distinction of the person of the King as a man who can commit acts of hostile Tyrannie against his Subjects and of the Office and Royall power that he hath from God and the People as a King can have place BEfore I can proceed to other Scripture-proofes for the lawfulnesse of Resistance this Distinction rejected by Royalists must be cleered This is an evident and sensible distinction The King in concreto the Man who is King And the King in abstracto the Royall office of the King The ground of this distinction we desire to be considered from Rom. 13. we affirme with Buchanan that Paul Rom. 13 speaketh of the office and duty of good Magistrates and that the text speaketh nothing of an absolute King nothing of a Tyrant and the Royalists distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not against the Law l. pret 10. gl Bart. de pub in Rem and therefore we move the question here Whether or no to resist the illegall and Tyrannicall will
put us to flee even all Protestants and their seed and the weak and sick whom we are obliged to defend as our selves both by the Law of nature and grace I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God to dwell there but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestantâ— their seed aged sick sucking children should flee out of England Scotland Ireland and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists Prelates and bloody Irish and Atheists and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land violent re-offending is their second mean next to supplications and declarations c. and flight is not required of them as of a private man Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation violent and unjust invasion of a private man which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book or rather the idolatry of the Masse therein intended was unavoidable it was unpossible for the Protestants their old and sick their women and sucking children to flee over sea or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book Althusius saith well Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee but the estates if they flee they do not their duty to commit a country religion and all to a Lion Let not any oâ—ject we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy Psal 2. 8 9. Isa 49. 1. it is true if the way be our own sinfull way nor let any object a Colony went to New-England and fled the persecution Answer True but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication there was no more reason that one Colony should go to New-England then it is necessary by a divine law obligatory that the wholâ— Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine are to leave their native country religion to one man to popish Idolators Atheists willing to worship idols with them and whethere then shall the Gospel be which we are obliged to defend with our lives 2. There is Tutela vitae proxima remota A meer and immediat defence of our life and a remote or mediat defence when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life we are not to use violent re-offending David might have killed Saul whâ—n he was sleeping and when he cut off the lap of his garment but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed because he is the Lords Annoited as it is unlawfull to kill a man because he is the Image of God Gen. 96. except in case of necessity The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector thought his malefices do not put him in that case that he hath not now the image of God now prudency and light of grace determineth When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation it is not left to our pleasure In a remote posture of self-defence we are not to â—se violet re-offending David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence the unjust invasion then was not actuall not inavoidable not a necessary mean in human prudence for self-preservation for King Saul was then in a habituall not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes Elders and judges of Israel or of a whole community and Church Saul did but seek the life of one man David and that not for religion or a nationall pretended offence and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul it is no lesse unlawfull to threatten a King then to put hands on him and rather kill or be killed by Sauls emissaries Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissaries for he hath armies in two kingdomes and now in three kingdomes by sea and land night and day in actuall pursuit not of one David but of the estates and a Christian community in England and Scotland and that for Religious Lawes and Liberties for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant between Arbitrary or Tyranicall government and law-government and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes and by the Law of God and nature we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the three Kingdoms to actuall killing rather then we be killed and suffer Lawes and Religion to be undone But saith the Royalist Davids argument God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Annoynted my Master the King concludeth universally that the King in his most Tyrannous acts still remaining the Lords Anoynted cannot be resisted Ans 1. David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person But this argument 2. is inconsequent for a King invading in his own Royall person the innocent subject 1. Suddainly 2. Without colour of Law and reason 3. Unavoidably may be personally resisted and that with opposing a violence bodily yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge for he remaineth one endued with Gods image and keepeth stil the nature of a man under all the murthers that he doth but it followeth no wayes that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty of a Divine image that his life cannot be taken and certainly if to be a man endued with Gods image Gen. 6. 9 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different to be a King and an ill doer may be distinguished The grounds of self-defence are these A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King if he force the one to adultery and incest and the other to Sodomy Though Court-flatterers should say the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death yet no man ever said that the King is Lord of chastity faith and oath that the wife hath made to her husband 2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature for which cause heavie bodies ascend aerie and light bodies descend If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe
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. Vinde vi ait non esse verbera expectanda sed vel terrorem armorum sufficere vel minas hoc esse imminâ—ns 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. adlegem C. adlegem Corneli In most hainous sinnes conatus the endeavour and aime etiamsi effectus non sequatur puniridebet 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 convenant 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 compelled 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 at que 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 Quinon repellit injuriam à socio cum potest tam est in vitio quam ille qui facit And as Nature so the Law saith When the losses are such as can never be repaired as Death Mutilation lesse of Chastity Quoniam facta infecta fieri nequeunt things of that kinde once done can never be undone we are to prevent the enemy l. Zonat. tract defens par 3. l. in bello § factae de capit notat Gloss in l. si quis provocatione If the King send an Irish Rebell to cast me over a bridge and drowne me in a water I am not to do nothing while the Kings emissary first cast me over and then in the next room I am to defend my self but nature and the law of self-defence warranteth me if I know certainly his ayme to horse him first over the bridge and then consult how to defend my selfe at my own leasure Royalists object that David in his defence never invaded and persecuted Saul yea when he came upon Saul and his men sleeping hee would not kill any but the Scottish and Parliaments Forces not onely defend but invade offend kill and plunder and this is cleerely an offensive not a defensive warre Answ There is no defensive warre different in spece and nature from an offensive warre if we speake physically they differ onely in the event and intention of the heart and it is most cleare that the affection and intention doth make one and the same action of taking away the life either homicide or no homicide If a man out of hatred deliberately take away his brothers life he is a murtherer eatenus but if that same man had taken away that same brothers life by the flying off of an Axe head off the staffe while he was hewing timber he neither hating him before nor intending to hurt his brother he is no murtherer by Gods expresse Law Deut. 4. 42. Deut. 19 4. Ioshua 20. 5. 2. The cause betweene the King and the two Parliaments and betweene Saul and David are so different in this as it is much for us Royalists say David might if he had seene offending to conduce for selfe-preservation have invaded Sauls men and say they the case was extraordinary and bindeth not us to selfe-defence and thus they must say for offensive weapons such as Goliahs sword and an hoast of armed men cannot by any rationall men be assumed and David had the wisdome of God but to offend if providence should so dispose and so what was lawfull to David is lawfull to us in self-defence he might offend lawfully and so may we 2. If Saul and the Philistims ayming as under an oath to set up Dagon in the land of Israel should invade David and the Princes and Elders of Israel who made him King and if David with an hoast of armed men he and the Princes of Israel should come in that case upon Saul and the Philistims sleeping if in that case David might not lawfully
it would create more enemies not help his Cause 3. To David to kill Saul sleeping and the people who out of a mis-informed conscience came out many of them to help their lawfull Prince against a Traitor as was supposed seeking to kill their King and to usurp the throne had not been wisdome nor justice because to kill the enemie in a just self-defence must be when the enemie actually doth invade and the life of the defendant cannot be otherwise saved A sleeping enemie is not in the act of unjust pursuit of the innocent but if an Armie of Papists Philistims were in the fields sleeping pursuing not one single David onely for a supposed personall wrong to the King but lying in the fields and campe against the whole Kingdome and Religion labouring to introduce arbitary Government Popery Idolatry and to destroy Lawes and Liberties and Parliaments then David were obliged to kill these murtherers in their sleep If any say The case is all one in a naturall self-defence what ever be the cause and who ever be the enemy because the self-defender is not to offend except the unjust Invader be in actuall pursuit now Armies in their sleep are not in actuall pursuit Answ When one man with a multitude invadeth one man that one man may pursue as he seeth most conducible for self-defence Now the Law saith Threatnings and terror of Armour maketh imminent danger and the case of pursuit in self-defence lawfull if therefore an Armie of Irish Rebels and Spanyards were sleeping in their Camp and our King in a deep sleep in the midst of them and these Rebels actually in the Camp besieging the Parliament and the Citie of London most unjustly to take away Parliament Laws and Liberties of Religion it should follow that Generall Essex ought not to kill the Kings Majesty in his sleep for he is the Lords Anointed but 1. will it follow that Generall Essex may not kill the Irish Rebels sleeping about the King and that he may not rescue the Kings Person out of the hands of the Papists and Rebels ensnaring the King and leading him on to Popery and to employ his Authority to defend Popery and trample upon Protestant Parliaments and Lawes Certainly from this example this cannot be concluded For Armies in actuall pursuit of a whole Parliament Kingdome Lawes and Religion though sleeping in the Camp because in actuall pursuit may be invaded and killed though sleeping And David useth no argument from conscience why hee might not kill Sauls Armie I conceive he had not Armes to doe that and should have created more enemies to himselfe and hazard his owne life and the life of all his men if he had of purpose killed so many sleeping men yea the inexpedience of that for a private wrong to kill Gods mis-led people should have made all Israel enemies to David But David useth an Argument from Conscience onely to prove it was not lawfull for him to stretch forth his hand against the King and for my part so long as he remaineth King and is not dethroned by those who made him King at Hebron to put hands on his person I judge utterly unlawfull one man sleeping cannot be in actuall pursuit of another man so that the self-defender may lawfully kill him in his sleep but the case is farre otherwise in lawfull wars the Israelites might lawfully kill the Philistims encamping about Jerusalem to destroy it and Religion and the Church of God though they were all sleeping even though we suppose King Saul had brought them in by his Authority though he were sleeping in the midst of the uncircumcised Armies and it is evident that an hoast of armed enemies though sleeping by the law of self-defence may be killed left they awake and kill us whereas one single man and that a King cannot be killed 2. I think certainly David had not done unwisely but hazarded his owne life and all his mens if he and Ahimelâ—ch and Abishai should have killed an host of their enemies sleeping that had been a work as impossible to three so hazard some to all his men D. Ferne as Arnisaeus did before him saith The example of David was extraordinary because he was anointed and designed by God as successor to Saul and so he must use an extraordinary way of guarding himselfe Arnisaeus citeth Alberic Gentilis that David was now exempted from amongst the number of Subjects Answ There were not two Kings in Israel now both David and Saul 2. David acknowledgeth his subjection in naming Saul the Lords Anointed his Master Lord King and therefore David was yet a subject 3. If David would have proved his title to the Crowne by extraordinary wayes he who killed Goliah extraordinarily might have killed Saul by a miracle but David goeth a most ordinary way to work for self-defence and his comming to the Kingdom was through persecution want eating shew-bread in case of necessity defending himself with Goliahs sword 4. How was any thing extraordinary and above a Law seeing David might have killed his enemie Saul and according to Gods Law he spared him and hee argueth from a morall duty he is the Lords annoynted therefore I will not kill him was this extraoardinary above a law then according to Gods law he might have killed him Royalists cannot say so what ground to say one of Davids acts in his deportment toward Saul was extraordinary and not all was it extraordinary that David flâ—d no or that David consulted the oracle of God what to do when Saul was coming against him 5. in an ordinary fact something may be extraordinary as the dead sleep from the Lord upon Saul and his men 1. Sam. 26. and yet the fact according to its substance ordinary 6. Nor is this extraordinary that a distressed man being an excellent warriour as David was may use the help of six hundred men who by the law of charity are to help to deliver the innocent from death yea all Israel were obliged to defend him who killed Goliah 7. Royalists make Davids act of not putting hands on the Lords annointed an ordinary morall reason against resistance but his putting on of armour they will have extraordinary and this is I confesse a short way to an adversary to cull out something that is for his cause and make it ordinary and something that is against his cause must be extraordinary 8. These men by the law of nature were obliged to joyne in armes with David ergo the non-helping of an oppressed man must be Gods ordinary law a blasphemous tenet 9. If David by an extraordinary spirit killed not King Saul then the Jesuits way of killing must be Gods ordinary Law 2. David certainly intended to keep Keilah against King Saul for the Lord would not have answered David in an unlawfull fact for that were all one as if God should teach David how to play the Traitor to his King for if God had answered They will not deliver
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 lippe-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 nor 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 § Siuxor 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 is 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 Aâ—gels 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
King by this reason they cannot 3. The King in all respects is not a Tutor every comparison in something beareth a Leg for the Common-wealth in their owne persons doe choose a King 2. Complaine of a King 3. Resist an Vzziah 4. Tye their elective Prince to a Law a Pupill cannot choose his Tutor either his dying Father or the living Law doth that service for him he cannot resist his Tutor he cannot tye his Tutor to a Law nor limit him when first he chooseth him Pupillo non licet postulare Tutorem suspecti quamdiu sub tutela est manet impubes l. Pietatis 6. in fin C. de susp Tutor l. impuberem 7. § Impuberes Iust eod Quest 13. Whether or no are subjects more obnoxious to a King then Clients to Patrons and servants to Masters because the Patron cannot be the Clients Judge but some superiour Magistrate must judge both and the slave had no refuge against his Master but only flight And the King doth conferre infinite greater benefits on the subjects then the Master doth on the slave because he exposeth his life pleasure ease credit and all for the safety of his subjects Ans It s denyed for to draw the case to Fathers and Lords in respect of Children and Vassals the reason why Sons Clients Vassals can neither formally judge nor judicially punish Fathers Patrons Lords and Masters though never so Tyrannous is a Morall impotency or a politicall incongruity because these relations of Patron and Client Fathers and Children are supposed to be in a Community in which are Rulers and Iudges above the Father and Sonne the Patron and the Client but there is no Physicall incongruity that the politique inferiour punish the superiour if we suppone there were no Iudges on the earth and no relation but Patron and Client and because for the father to destroy the children is a troubling of the harmony of Nature and the highest degree of violence therefore one violence of selfe defence and that most just though contrary to nature must be a remedy against anoâ—her violence but in a Kingdome there is no politicall Ruler above both King and People and therefore though Nature have not formally appointed the politicall relation of a King rather then many Governours and subjects yet hath Nature appointed a Court and Tribunall of necâ—ssity in which the people may by innocent violence represse the unjust violence of an injuring Prince so as the people injured in the matter of selfe defence may be their owne Iudge 2. I wonder that any should teach That oppressed slaves had of old no refuge against the tyranny of Masters but only flight for 1. The Law expresly saith That they might not only fly but also change Masters which we all know was a great dammage to the Master to whom the servant was as good as mony in his purse 2. I have demonstrated before by the Law of Nature and out of divers learned Iurists that all inferiours may defend themselves by opposing violence against unjust violence to say nothing that unanswerably I have proved that the Kingdome is superiour to the King 3. It is true Qui plus dat plus obligat as the Scripture saith Luke 7. He that giveth a greater benefit layeth a foundation of a greater obligation But 1. If benefit be compared with benefit it is disputable if a King give a greater benefit then an earthly father to whom under God the sonne is debtor for life and being if we regard the compensation of eminency of honour and riches that the People puteth upon the King but I utterly deny that a power to act Tyrannous acts is any benefit or obligation that the People in reason can lay upon their Prince as a compensation or hire for his great paines he taketh in his Royall Watch-Tower I Iudge it no benefit but a great hurt dammage and an ill of nature both to King and people that the people should give to their Prince any power to destroy themselves and therefore that people doth reverence and honour the Prince most who lay strongest chaines and Iron fetters on him that he cannot tyrannize Quest 14. But are not Subjects more subject to their Prince seeing the subjection is naturall as we see Bees and Cranes to obey him then servants to their Lord. C. in Apib. 7. 9. 1. ex Hiero. 4. ad Rustic Monach. Plin. n. 17. For Jurists teach that servitude is beside or against nature l. 5. de stat homi § 2. just jur pers c. 3. § sicut Nov. 89. quib med nat off sui Ans There is no question in active subjection to Princes and Fathers commanding in the Lord we shall grant as high a measure as you desire But the question is if either active subjection to ill and unjust mandates or passive subjection to penall inflictions of Tyrannie and abused power be naturall or most naturall or if Subjects doe renounce naturall subjection to their Prince when they oppose violence to unjust violence This is to beg the question And for the Commonwealth of Bâ—es and Cranes and Crown and Scepter amongst them Give me leave to doubt of it To be subject to Kings is a Divine morall Law of God but not properly naturall to be subject to coaction of the Sword Government and subjection to Parents is naturall But that a King is juris naturae strictim I must crave leave to doubt I hold him to be a Divine morall Ordinance to which in conscience we are to submit in the Lord. Quest 15. Whether was King Uzzah dethroned by the People Ans Though we should say he was not formally unkinged and dethroned yet if the Royall power consist in an indivisible point as some Royalists say and if Vzzah was removed to a private house and could not reigne being a Leper Certainly much Royall power was taken from him 'T is true Arnisaeus saith he neither could be compelled to resigne his power nor was he compelled to resigne his Royall authoritie but he willingly resigned actuall government and remained King as Tutors and Curators are put upon Kings that are mad stupid and Children who yet governe all by the authoritie of lawfull Kings But that Vzzah did not denude himselfe of the Royall power voluntarily is cleare The reason 2 Chro. 26. 21. why he dwelt in an house apart and did not actually reigne is because he was a Leper for He was cut off saith the Text from the house of the Lord and Jotham his sonne was over the Kings house judging the people of the Land Whereby it is cleare by the expresse law of God he being a Leper and so not by Law to enter into the Congregation he was cut off from the house of the Lord and he being a patient is said to be cut off from the Lords house Whether then Vzzah turned necessitie to a vertue I know not It is evident that Gods Law removed the actuall exercise of