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-fountaine-power of Royaltie the States are above him 5. The Civil law is cleare that the laws of the Emperor have force
lawfull power of a King to do good is not by divine Institution placed in an indivisible point It is not a sin for the people to take some power even of doing good from the King that he solely and by himself shall not have power to pardon an involuntary homicide without advice and the judiciall suffrages of the Councell of the Kingdom least he insteed of this give pardons to Robbers to abominable Murtherers and in so doing the people robbeth not the King of the power that God gave him as King nor ought the King to contend for a sole power in himself of ministring justice to all for God layeth not upon Kings burdens unpossible and God by Institution hath denied to the King all power of doing all good because it is his Will that other Iudges be sharers with the King in that power Num. 14.16 Deut. 1.14 15 16 17. 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 2 3 4. And therefore the Duke of Venice to me cometh neerest to the King moulded by God Deut. 17. in respect of power de jure of any King I know in Europe And in point of conscience the inferiour Iudge discerning a murtherer and bloody man to die may in foro conscientiae despise the Kings unjust pardon and resist the Kings force by his sword and coactive power that God hath given him and put to death the bloody murtherer and he sinneth if he do not this for to me it is clear The King cannot judge so justly and understandingly of a murtherer in Scotland as a Iudge to whom God hath committed the sword in Scotland Nor hath the Lord laid that unpossible burden on a King to judge so of a murther four hundreth miles removed from the King as the Iudge nearer to him as is clear by Num. 14.16 1 Sam. 7.15 16 17. The King should go from place to place and judge and whereas it is unpossible to him to go thorow three Kingdoms he should appoint faithfull Iudges who may not be resisted no not by the King 2. The question is If the King command A. B. to kill his father his pastour the man neither being cited nor convicted of any fault may lawfully be resisted 3. Queritur If in that case in which the King is captived imprisoned and not sui juris and awed or over-awed by bloody Papists and so is forced to command a barbarous and unjust War and if being distracted Physically or Morally through wicked Counsell he command that which no father in his sober wits would command even against Law and Conscience That the sons should yeild obedience and subjection to him in maintaining with lives and goods a bloody Religion and bloody Papists If in that case the King may not be resisted in his person because the power lawfull and the sinfull person cannot be separated We hold the King using contrary to the oath of God and his Royall Office violence in killing against Law and Conscience his Subjects by bloody Emissaries may be resisted by defensive Wars at the commandment of the Estates of the Kingdom But before I produce Arguments to prove the lawfulnesse of resistance a little of the case of resistance 1. Doct. Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39. granteth resistance by force to the King to be lawfull 1. When the assault is sudden 2. Without colour of a Law and Reason 3. Inevitable But if Nero burn Rome he hath a colour of Law and Reason yea if all Rome and his mother in whose Womb he lay were one neck A man who will with reason go mad hath colour of Reason and so of Law to invade and kill the innocent 2. Arnisaeus saith If the Magistrate proceed extra-judicialiter without order of Law by violence the Laws giveth every private man power to resist if the danger be irrecoverable yea though it be recoverable L. prohibitum C. de jur fisc l. quemadmodum 39. § Magistratus ad l. Aquil. l. nec Magistratibus 32. de injur Because while the Magistrate doth against his office he is not a Magistrate for Law and right not injury should come from the Magistrate L. meminerint 6. C. unde vi Yea if the Magistrate proceed judicially and the losse be irrecoverable Jurists say That a private man hath the same Law to resist Marantius dis 1. n. 35. And in a recoverable losse they say every man is holden to resist si evidenter constet de iniquitate If the iniquity be known to all D. D. Iason n. 19. dec n. 26. ad l. ut vim de just jur 3. I would think it not fit easily to resist the Kings unjust Exactors of custome or tribute 1. Because Christ payed tribute to Tiberius Caesar an unjust usurper though he was free from that by Gods Law least he should offend 2. Because we have a greater dominion over Goods then over our Lives and Bodies and it is better to yield in a matter of Goods then to come to Arms for of sinlesse evils we may choose the least 4. A Tyrant without a Title may be resisted by any private man Quia licet vim vi repellere Because we may repell violence by violence yea he may be killed Vt l. vim F. de iustit jure ubi plene per omnes Vasquez l. 1. c. 8. n. 33. Barcla contra Monarcho l. 4 c. 10. pag. 268. For the lawfulnesse of resistance in the matter of the Kings unjust invasion of life and Religion we offer these Arguments 1. That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects and is only set over the people on these conditions and not absolutely cannot tye the people to subjection without resistance when the power is abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and the subjects But all power of the Law is thus obliged Rom. 13.4 Deut. 17. vers 18 19 20. 2 Chron. 19.6 Ps. 132.11 12. Ps. 89.30 31. 2 Sam. 7.12 Ier. 17.24 25. and hath and may be abused by Kings to the destruction of Lawes Religion and Subjects The Proposition is cleare for the powers that tye us to subjection only are of God 2. Because to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God 3. Because they are not a terrour to good workes but to evill 4. Because they are Gods Ministers for our good but abused powers are not of God but of men or not ordinances of God they are a terrour to good workes not to evill they are not Gods Ministers for our good 2. That power which is contrary to Law and is evill and Tyrannicall can tye none to subjection but is a meere Tyrannicall power and unlawfull and if it tye not to subjection it may lawfully be resisted But the power of the King abused to the destruction of Lawes Religion and subjects is a power contrary to Law evill and Tyrannicall and tyeth no man to subjection wickednesse by no imaginable reason can oblige any man Obligation to
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
is a King by an act of Royall Iustice and by a power that he hath from the people who made himself supreme Iudge p. 163 164 165. The Kings making of inferiour Iudges hindereth not but they are as essentially Iudges as the King who maketh them not by fountain-power but by power borrowed from the people p. 165 166. The Iudges in Israel and the Kings differ not essentially p. 167. Aristocracy as naturall as Monarchie and as warrantable p. 168 169. Inferiour Iudges depend some way on the King in fieri but not in facto esse p. 169 170. The Parliament not Iudges by derivation from the King p. 170. The King cannot make nor unmake Iudges ibid. No heritable Iudges ibid. Inferiour Iudges more necessary then a King p. 171 172. QUEST XXI What power the People and States of Parliament hath over the King and in the State p. 172. The Elders appointed by God to be Iudges p. 173. Parliaments may conveen and judge without the King p. 173 174. Parliaments are essentially Iudges and so their consciences neither dependeth on the King quoad specificationem that is That they should give out this sentence not this nec quoad exercitium That they should not in the morning execute judgement p. 174 175. Vnjust judging and no judging at all are sins in the States p. 175. The Parliament coordinate Iudges with the King not advisers onely By eleven Arguments p. 176 177 Inferior Iudges not the Kings Messengers or Legates but publike Governours p. 176. The Jews Monarchie mixt p. 178. A Power executive of Laws more in the King a Power legislative more in the Parliament p. 178 179. QUEST XXII Whether the power of the King as King be absolute or dependent and limited by Gods first mould and patern of a King Negatur Prius Affirmatur Posterius p. 179. The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk p. 180. The King not absolute in his power proved by nine Arguments p. 181.182 183 seq Why the King is a living Law p. 184. Power to do ill not from God ibid. Royalists say power to do ill is not from God but power to do ill as punishable by man is from God p. 186. A King actu primo is a plague and the people slaves if the King by Gods institution be absolute p. 187. Absolutenesse of Royaltie against Iustice Peace Reason Law p. 189. Against the Kings relation of a brother p. 190. A Damsel forced may resist the King ibid. The goodnesse of an absolute Prince hindereth not but he is actu primo a Tyrant p. 189. QUEST XXIII Whether the King hath a Prerogative Royall above Laws Negatur p. 192. Prerogative taken two wayes ibid. Prerogative above Laws a Garland proper to infinite Majestie ibid. A threefold dispensation 1. Of power 2. Of justice 3. Of Grace p. 194. Acts of meer grace may be acts of blood p. 195. An oath to the King of Babylon tyed not the people of Judah to all that absolute power could command ibid. The absolute Prince is as absolute in acts of crueltie as in acts of grace p. 196. Servants are not 1 Pet. 2.18 19. interdited of self-defence p. 199 200. The Parliament materially onely not formally hath the King for their Lord p. 202. Reason not a sufficient restraint to keep a Prince from Acts of tyranny ibid. Princes have sufficient power to do good though they have not absolute to do evil p. 203. A power to shed innocent blood can be no part of any Royall power given of God p. 204. The King because he is a publike person wanteth many priviledges that subjects have p. 205 206. QUEST XXIV What relation the King hath to the Law p. 207. Humane Laws considered as reasonable or as penal ibid. The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power p. 208. Whether the King be above Parliaments as their Iudge p. 208 p. 209 210 211. Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordination both consistent p. 210 211. Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other and they cannot any one of them be in its prevalency conveniently without the mixture of the other two p. 211 212. The King as a King cannot erre as he erreth in so far he is not the remedie of oppression and Anarchie intended by God and nature p. 212. In the court of necessitie the people may judge the King p. 213. Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernable p. 213 214. It s more requisite that the whole people Church and Religion be secured then one man p. 215. If there be any restraint by Law on the King it must be physicall for a morall restraint is upon all men p. 214 215. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath eatenus in so far unlawfull and not obligatory p. 215. QUEST XXV Whether the supreme Law the safetie of the people be above the King Affirmed p. 218. The safetie of the people to be preferred to the King for the King is noâ— to seek himself but the good of the people p. 218 219. Royalists make no Kings but Tyrants p. 222. How the safetie of the King is the safetie of the people p. 223. A King for the safetie of the people may break through the Letter and paper of a Law p. 227. The Kings prerogative above Law and Reason not comparable to the blood that has been shed in Ireland and England p. 225 226 228. The power of Dictators prove not a Prerogative above Law p. 229 230. QUEST XXVI Whether the King be above the Law p. 230 231. The Law above the King in four things 1. In constitution 2. Direction 3. Limitation 4. Coaction p. 231. In what sense the King may do all things p. 231 232. The King under the moralitie of Laws 2. Vnder Fundamentall Laws not under punishment to be inflicted by himself nor because of the eminency of his place but for the physicall incongruity thereof p. 232 233. If and how the King may punish himself p. 233. That the King transgressing in a hainous manner is under the Coaction of Law proved by seven Arguments p. 234 235 seq The Coronation of a King who is supposed to be a just Prince yet proveth after a Tyrant is conditionall and from ignorance and so unvoluntary and in so far not obligatory in Law p. 234 235. Royalists confesse a Tyrant in exercise may be dethroned p. 235 236. How the people is the seat of the power of Soveraigntie p. 239 240. The place Psal. 51. Against thee onely have I sinned c. discussed p. 241 242. Israels not rising in arms against Pharaoh examined p. 245 246 247 248 249. And Judahs not working their own deliverance under Cyrus p. 248 249. A Covenant without the Kings concurrence lawfull p. 249 250 251. QUEST XXVII Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall Interpreter of the Law Negatur p. 252. He is not the supreme and peremptor
an act of Divine bounty and grace above Nature so Psal. 78.70 71. He took David from following the Ewes and made him King and feeder of his people 1 Sam. 13.13 There is no cause why Royallists should deny Government to be naturall but to be altogether from God and that the Kingly power is immediatly and only from God because it is not naturall to us to subject to Government but against Nature and against the hair for us to resign our liberty to a King or any Ruler or Rulers for this is much for us and proveth not but Government is naturall it concludeth that a power of Government tali modo by Magistracy is not naturall but this is but a Sophisme a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod est dictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this speciall of Government by resignation of our liberty is not naturall Ergo power of Government is not naturall it followeth not a negatione spâ—ciei non sequitur negatio generis non est homo ergo non est animal And by the same reason I may by an antecedent will agree to a Magistrate and a Law that I may be ruled in a politick Society and by a consequent will onely yea and conditionally onely agree to the penalty and punishment of the Law and it is most true no man by the instinct of Nature giveth consent to Penall Laws as Penall for Nature doth not teach a man nor incline his spirit to yeeld that his life shall be taken away by the sword and his blood shed except in this remote ground a man hath a disposition that a veine be cutt by the Physitian or a Member of his body cut off rather then the whole body and life perish by some contagious disease but here reason in cold blood not a naturall disposition is the neerest prevalent cause and disposer of the businesse When therefore a communitie by natures instinct and guidance incline to Government and to defend themselves from violence they do not by that instinct formally agree to Government by Magistrates and when a naturall conscience giveth a deliberate consent to good Laws as to this He that doth violence to the life of a man by man shall his blood be shed Gen. 9.6 He doth tacitely consent that his own blood shall be shed but this he consenteth unto consequently tacitely and conditionally If he shall do violence to the life of his brother Yet so as this consent proceedeth not from a disposition every way purely naturall I grant reason may be necessitated to assent to the conclusion being as it were forced by the prevalent power of the evidence of an insuperable and invincible light in the premises yet from naturall affections there resulteth an act of self-love for self-preservation So David shall condemn another rich man who hath many Lambs and robbeth his poor brother of his one Lamb and yet not condemn himself though he be most deep in that fault 1 Sam. 12.5 6. yet all this doth not hinder but Government even by Rulers hath its ground in a secondary Law of nature which Lawyers call secundariò jus naturale or jus gentium secundarium a secondary Law of nature which is granted by Plato and denied by none of sound judgement in a sound sense and that is this Licet vim virepellere It is lawfull to repeal violence by violence and this is a speciall act of the Magistrate 2. But there is no reason why we may not defend by good reasons that politick Societies Rulers Cities and Incorporations have their rise and spring from the secundary Law of nature 1. Because by Natures Law Family-Government hath its warrant and Adam though there had never been any positive Law had a power of governing his own family and punishing malefactors but as Tannerus saith well and as I shall prove God willing this was not properly a Royall or Monarchicall power and I judge by the reasoning of Sotus Molina and Victoria By what reason a Family hath a power of Government and of punishing Malefactors that same power must be in a societie of men Suppose that societie were not made up of Families but of single persons for the power of punishing ill-doers doth not reside in one single man of a familie or in them all as they are single private persons but as they are in a familie But this argument holdeth not but by proportion for paternall government or a fatherly power of parents over their families and a politick power of a Magistrate over many families are powers different in nature the one being warranted by natures law even in its species the other being in its spece and kind warranted by a positive law and in the generall only warranted by a law of nature 2. If we once lay the supposition that God hath immediately by the law of nature appointed there should be a Government and mediately defined by the dictate of naturall light in a communitie that there shall be one or many Rulers to governe the Communitie then the Scriptures arguments may well be drawn out of the school of nature as 1. The powers that are be of God therefore natures light teacheth that we should be subject to these powers 2. It is against natures light to resist the ordinance of God 3. Not to feare him to whom God hath committed the sword for the terror of evill doers 4. Not to honour the publike rewarder of well-doing 5. Not to pay tribute to him for his worke Therefore I see not but Govarruvias Soto Suarez have rightly said that power of Government is immediately from God and this or this definite power is mediately from God proceeding from God by the mediation of the consent of a Communitie which resigneth their power to one or moe Rulers and to me Barclaius saith the same quamvis populus potentiae largitor videatur c. QUEST III. Whether Royall Power and definite forms of Government be from God THe King may be said to be from God and his word in these seveall notions 1. By way of permission Ier. 43.10 Say to them thus saith the Lord of hoasts the God of Israel Behold I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon my servant and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid and he shall spread his royall pavilion over them And thus God made him a Catholick King and gave him all Nations to serve him Jer. 27.6 7 8. though he was but an unjust Tyrant and his sword the best title to those crownes 2. The King is said to be from God by way of naked approbation God giving to a people power to appoint what Government they shall thinke good but instituting none in speciall in his Word This way some make Kingly power to be from God in the generall but in the particular to be an invention of men negatively lawfull and not repugnant to the Word as
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
above the Master But by this reason the shepherd should be inferior to bruit beasts to sheep And the master of the familie is for the familie and referreth all that he hath for the entertaining of the familie but it followeth not therefore the familie is above him The forme is for the action therefore the action is more excellent then the forme and an accident then the subject or substance And Grotius saith Every government is not for the good of another but some for its own good as the government of a master over the servant and the husband over the wife Ans. I take the answer thus Those who are meere meanes and only meanes referred to the end they are inferior to the end but the King as King hath all his officiall and relative goodnesse in the world as relative to the end All that you can imagine to be in a King as a King is all relative to the safety and good of the people Rom. 13.4 He is a minister for thy good He should not as King make himselfe or his own gaine and honour his end I grant the King as a man shall dye as another man and so he may secondarily intend his own good and what excellencie he hath as a man is the excellencie of one mortall man and cannot make him amount in dignitie and in the absolute consideration of the excellencie of a man to be above many men and a whole Kingdome for the moe good things there be the better they are so the good things be multiplicable as a hundred men are better then one Otherwise if the good be such as cannot be multiplied as one God the multiplication maketh them worse as many Gods are inferiour to one God Now if Royalists can shew us any more in the King then these two we shall be obliged to them and in both he is inferiour to the whole The Prelate and his followers would have the Maxime to lose credit for then say they the shepherd should be inferior to the sheep But in this the Maxime faileth indeed 1. Because the shepherd is a reasonable man and the sheep bruit beasts and so must be excellenter then all the flocks of the world Now as he is a reasonable man he is not a shepherd nor in that relation referred to the shâ—ep and their preservation as a mean to the end but he is a shepherd by accident for the unrulinesse of the creatures for mans sinne withdrawing themselves from that naturall dominion that man had over the creatures before the fall of man in that relation of a meane to the end and so by accident is this officiall relation put on him and according to that officiall relation and by accident man is put to be a servant to the bruitish creature and a meane to so base an end But all this proveth him through mans sinne and by accident to be under the officiall relation of a meane to baser creatures then himselfe as to the end but not as a reasonable man But the King as King is an officiall and Royall meane to this end that the people may lead a godly and peaceable life under him And this officiall relation being an accident is of lesse worth then the whole people as they are to be governed And I grant the Kings sonne in relation to blood and birth is more excellent then his Teachers but as he is taught he is inferiour to his Teacher but in both considerations the King is inferior to the people for though he coÌ„mand the people and so have an executive power of law above them yet have they a fountain power above him because they made him King and in Gods intention he is given as King for their good according to that Thou shalt feed my people Israel that I gave him for a leader of my people 4. Saith the P. Prelate The constituent cause is excellenter then the effect constituted where the constitution is voluntary and dependeth upon the free act of the will as when the King maketh a Vice-Roy or a Iudge durante beneplacito during his free will but not when a man maketh over his right to another for then there should be neither faith nor truth in covenants if people might make over their power to their King and retract and take back what they have once given Ans. This is a begging of the question for it is denyed that the people can absolutely make away their whole power to the King It dependeth on the people that they be not destroyed They give to the King a politique power for their own safetie and they keepe a naturall power to themselves which they must conserve and cannot give away and they doe not breake their covenant when they put in act that naturall power to conserve themselves for though the people should give away that power and sweare though the King should kill them all they should not resist nor defend their own lives yet that being an oath against the sixth Command which enjoyneth naturall selfe-preservation it should not oblige the conscience for it should be intrinsecally sinfull and it 's all one to sweare to non-self-preservation as to sweare to selfe-murther 5. If the people saith the Prelate begging the answer from Barclay the constituent be more excellent then the effect and so the people above the King because they constitute him King Then the Counties and Corporations may make voyd all the Commissions given to the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons and send others in their place and repeal their Orders therefore Buchanan saith that Orders and Lawes in Parliament were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preparatorie consultationis and had not the force of a Law till the people give their consent and have their influence authoritative upon the Statutes and Acts of Parliament But the observator holdeth that the legislative power is whole and intire in the Parliament But when the Scots were preferring Petitions and Declarations they put all power in the collective body and kept their distinct tables Ans. There is no consequence here the Counties and Incorporations that send Commissioners to Parliament may make voyd their Commissions and anull their Acts because they constitute them Commissioners if they be unjust acts they may disobey them and so disanull them but it is presumed God hath given no morall power to doe ill nor can the Counties and Corporations give any such power to evill for they have not any such fâ—om God if they be just acts they are to obey them and cannot retract Commissions to make just Orders Illud tantum possumus quod â—ure possumus and therefore as power to governe justly is irrevocably committed by the three estâ—tes who made the King to the King so is that same power committed by the Shires and Corporations to their Commissioners to decree in Parliament what is just and good irrevocably and to take any jâ—st power from the King which
to resist either is to resist the ordinance of God v. 2. both are by Office a terrour to evill workes v. 3. 3. both are the Ministers of God for good 2. Though the King send and give a call to the inferiour Iudge that doth no more make the inferiour Iudges powers in nature and spece different then Ministers of the Word called by Ministers of the Word have Offices different in nature Timotheus Office to be Preacher of the Word differeth not in specie from the Office of the Presbytery which layed hands on him though their Office by extension be more then Timothies Office 3. The peoples power is put forth in those same acts when they choose one to be their King and supreame Governour and when they set up an Aristocraticall Government and choose many or more then one to be their Governours for the formall object of one or many Governours is Iustice and Religion as they are to be advanced 2. The forme and manner of their opperation is brachio seculari by a coactive power and by the sword 3. The formall acts of King and many Iudges in Aristocracy are these same the defending of the poore and needy from violence the conservation of a Community in a peaceable and a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2 Iob 29.12 13. Esay 1.17 4. These same Lawes of God that regulateth the King in all His Acts of Royall Government and tyeth and obligeth his conscience as the Lords Deputy to execute Iudgement for God and not in the stead of men in Gods Court of Heaven doth in like manner tye and oblige the conscience of Aristocraticall Iudges and all inferiour Iudges as is cleare and evident by these places 1 Tim. 2.2 not only Kings but all in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are obliged to procure that their subjects leade a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty All in conscience are obliged Deut. 1.16 to judge righteously between every man and his brother and the stranger that is with them 17. Neither are they to respect persons in judgement but are to heare the small as well as the great nor to be affraid of the face of men the judgement administred by all is Gods 2. Chro. 19.6 All are obliged to feare God Deut. 17.19.20 to keepe the words of the Law not to be lifted up in heart above their brethren Esay 1.17 Ier. 22.2 3. Let any man show me a difference according to Gods Word but in the extention that what the King is to doe as a King in all the Kingdome and whole Dominions if God give to him many as he gave to David and Solomon and Ioshua that the inferiour Iudges are to doe in such and such Circuits and limited places and I quit the cause so as the inferiour Iudges are little Kings and the King a great and delated Iudge as a compressed hand or fist and the hand stretched out in fingers and thumbe are one hand so here 4. God owneth inferiour Iudges as a congregation of Gods Ps. 82.1.2 for that God sitteth in a congregation or Senate of Kings or Monarches I shall not beleeve till I see Royalists shew to me a Common-wealth of Monarches convening in one Iudicature all are equally called Gods Ioh. 10.35 Exod. 22.8 if for any cause but because all Iudges even inferiour are the immediate Deputies of the King of Kings and their sentence in Iudgement as the sentence of the Iudge of all the earth I shall be informed by the P. Prelate when he shall answer my reasons if his interdicted Lordship may cast an eye to a poore Presbyter below and as wisedome is that by which Kings raigne Prov. 8.15 so also v. 16. by which Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the earth all that is said against this is That the King hath a Prerogative Royall by which he is differenced from all Iudges in Israel called jus regis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for saith Barclay The King as King essentially hath a Domination and power above all so as none can câ—nsure him or punish him but God because â—here be no thrones above his but the throne of God The Iudges of Israel 〈◊〉 Samuel Gedeon c. had no domination the dominion was in Gods hand 2. Wee may resist an inferior Iudge saith Arnisaeus otherwise there were no appeale from him and the wrong we suffer were irreparable as saith Marantius And all the Iudges of the earth saith Edw. Symmons are from God more remotely namely mediante Rege by the mediation of the Supreame even as the lesser starres have their light from God by the mediation of the Sun To the first I answer There was a difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and their Iudges no question but if it be an essentiall difference it is a question for 1. The Iudges were raised up in an extraordinary manner out of any Tribe to defend the people and vindicate their libertie God remaining their King the King by the Lords appointment was tyed after Saul to the Royall tribe of Judah till the Messiahs comming God tooke his own blessed libertie to set up a succession in the ten tribes 2. The Iudges were not by succession from father to sonne the Kings were as I conceive for the typicall eternitie of the Messiahs throne presignified to stand from generation to generation 3. Whether the Iudges were appointed by the election of the people or no some doubt because Iepthah was so made Iudge but I thinke it was not a law in Israel that it should be so but the first mould of a King Deut. 17. is by election But that God gave power of domineering that is of Tyrannizing to a King so as he cannot be resisted which he gave not to a Iudge I thinke no Scripture can make good For by what Scripture can Royalists warrant to us that the people might rise in armes to defend themselves against Moses Gideon Eli Samuel and other Iudges if they should have tyrannized over the people and that it is unlawfull to resist the most Tyrannous King in Israel and Iudah Yet Barclay and others must say this if they be true to that principle of Tyranny That the jus Regis the law or manner of the King 1 Sam. 8.9 11. 1 Sam. 10.25 doth essentially difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and the Iudges of Israel but we thinke God gave never any power of Tyranny to either Iudge or King of Israel and domination in that sense was by God given to none of them 2. Arnisaeus hath as little for him to say the inferior Magistrate may be resisted because we may appeale from him but the King cannot be resisted quia sanctitas Majestatis id non permittit the sanctitie of Royall majestie will not permit us to resist the King Ans. That is not Pauls argument to prove it unlawfull to resist Kings as Kings and doing their office because of the sanctitie of their Majestie that is as the
indeed the triviall Argument of all Royalists especially of Barclay obvious in his 3. Booke If Arbitrarie and Tyrannicall power above any Law that the lawfull Magistrate commandeth under the paine of death Thou shalt not murther one man Thou shalt not take away the vineyard of one Naboth violently be lawfull and warrantable by Gods word then an Arbitrarie power above all Divine lawes is given to the keeping of the Civill Magistrate And it is no lesse lawfull Arbitrarie or rather Tyrannicall power for David to kill all his Subjects and to plunder all Jerusalem as I beleeve Prelates and Malignants and Papists would serve the three Kingdomes if the King should command them then to kill one Vriah or for Achab to spoile one Naboth The essence of â—inne must agree alike to all though the degrees varie Of Gods remedie against Arbitrary power hereafter in the Question of Resistance but the confused ingine of the Prelate bringeth it in here where there is no place for iâ— His 7. Argument is Before God would authorize Rebellion and give a bad president thereof for ever he would rather worke extraordinary and wondâ—rfull miracles and therefore would not authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Moses a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a strâ—tched-out armâ— nor did the Lord deliver his people by the wisdome of Moses or strength of the people or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and power Ans. I reduce the Prelates confused words to a few for I speake not of his Popish tearme of Saint Steven and others the like because all that he hath said in a book of 149 pages might have been said in three sheets of paper But I pray you what is this Argument to the Question in hand wâ—â—ch is Whether the King be so above all Lawes as People and Peeres in the case of Arbitrarie power may resume their power and punish a Tyrant The P. Prâ—late draweth in the Question of Resistance by the haire Israels not rising in armes against K. Pharaoh proveth nothing against the power of a Free Kingdome against a Tyrant 1. Moses who wrought miracles destructive to Pharaoh might pray a vengeance against Pharaoh God having revealed to Moses that Pharaoh was a Reprobate But may Ministers and Nobles pray so against King Charles God forbid 2. Pharaoh had not his Crown from Israel 3. Pharaoh had not sworne to defend Israel nor became he their King upon condition he should maintaine and professe the Religion of the God of Israel Therefore Israel could not as free Estates challenge him in their supreme Court of Parliament of breach of oath and upon no termes could they un-king Pharaoh He held not his Crown of them 4. Pharaoh was never circumcised nor within the Covenant of the God of Isrâ—el in profession 5. Israel had their lands by the meere gift of the King I hope the King of Britaine standeth to Scotland and England in a foure-fold contrary relation All Divines know that Pharaoh his Princes and the Egyptians were his Peeres and People and that Israel were not his native Subjects but a number of strangers who by the lawes of the King and Princes by the meanes of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and libertie to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their bondage Exod. 2.23 24. and they were not to serve the Gods of Egypt nor were of the Kings Religion And therefore his Argument is thus A number of poore exiled strangers under King Pharaoh who were not Pharaohs Princes and Peeres could not restraine the Tyrannie of King Pharaoh Ergo the three Estates in a free Kingdome may not restraine the Arbitrarie power of a King 2. The Prelate must prove that God gave a Royall and Kingly power to King Pharaoh due to him by vertue of his Kingly calling according as Royalists expone 1 Sam. 8.9 11. to kill all the male children of Israel to make slaves of themselves and compell them to worke in brick and clay while their lives were a burden to them And that if a Romish Catholique Mary of England should kill all the male Children of Protestants by the hands of Papists at the Queenes commandement and make bondslaves of all the Peeres Iudges and three Estates who made her a free Princesse yet notwithstanding that Mary had sworne to maintaine the Protestant Religion they were to suffer and not to defend themselves But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Israel so as they could not controll it then God giveth to a King a Royall power by office to sinne only the Royalist saveth God from being the author of sinne in this that God gave the power to sinne but yet with this limitation that the Subjects should not resist this power 2. He must prove that Israel was to give their Male-childâ—en to Pharaohs Butchers for to hide them was to resist a Royall power and to disobey a Royall power given of God is to disobey God 3. The Subjects may not resist the Kings Butchers coming to kill them and their Male-children For to resist the servant of the King in that wherein he is a servant is to resist the King 1 Sam. 8.7 1 Pet. 2.14 Rom. 13.1 4. He must prove that upon the supposition That Israel had been as strong as Pharaoh and his people that without Gods speciall commandment they then wanting the written Word they should have fought with Pharaoh and that we now for all wars must have a word from Heaven as if we had not Gods perfit Will in his Word as at that time Israel behoved to have in all wars Judg. 18.5 1 Sam. 14.37 Esa. 30.2 Iere. 38.37 1 King 22.5 1 Sam. 30.5 Iudg. 20.27 1 Sam. 23.2 2 Sam. 16.23 1 Chron. 10.14 But because God gave not them an answer to fight against Pharaoh therefore we have no warrant now to fight agâ—inst a forraign Nation invading us the consequence is null and therefore this is a vain Argument The Prophets never reprove the people for not performing the duty of defensive wars against Tyraâ—nous Kings Ergo There is no such dutie enjoyned by any Law of God to us For the Prophets never rebuke the people for non-performing the dutie of offensive wars against their enemies but where God gave a speciall command and responce from his own Oracle that they should fight And if God was pleased never to command the people to rise against a Tyrannous King they did not sin where they had no commandment of God but I hope we have now a more sure word of prophecie to inform us 5. The Prelate conjectureth Moses his miraâ—les and the deliverance of the people by dividing the Red Sea was to forbid and condemn defensive wars of people against their King but he hath neither Scripture nor Reasons to do it The end of these miracles was to Seal to Pharaoh the Truth of Gods calling of Moses and
that act as a sinfull man having something of Tyrannie in him 2. The Powers Rom. 13.1 that are are ordained of God as their author and efficient But Kings commanding unjust things and killing the innocent in these acts are but men and sinfull men and the power by which they doe these acts a sinfull and an usurped power and so far they are not powers ordained of God according to his revealed Will which must rule us Now the authoritie and officiall power in abstracto is ordained of God as the Text saith and other Scriptures doe evidence And this Polititians doe cleare while they distinguish betwixt jus Personae and jus Coronae the power of the Person and the power of the Crown and Royall office They must then be two different things 3. He that resisteth the power that is the officiall power and the King as King and commanding in the Lord resisteth the Ordinance of God and Gods lawfull constitution v. 2. But he who resisteth the Man who is the King commanding that which is against God and killing the innocent resisteth no ordinance of God but an ordinance of Sin and Sathan for a man commanding unjustly and ruling Tyrannically hath in that no power from God 4. They that resist the power and Royall office of the King in things just and right shall receive to themselves damnation ver 3. but they that resist that is refuse for Conscience to obey the man who is the King and choose to obey God rather then men as all the Martyrs did shall receive to themselves salvation And the 80 valiant men the Priests who used bodily violence against King Vzzahs person and thrust him out of the house of the Lord from offering incense to the Lord which belonged to the Priest only received not damnation to themselves but salvation in doing Gods will and in resisting the Kings wicked will Arg. 5. The lawfull Ruler as a Ruler and in respect of his office is not to be resisted because he is not a terrour to good workes but to evill and no man who doth Good is to be afraid of the Office or the Power but to expect praise and a reward of the same v. 3. But the man who is a King may command an idolatrous and superstitious Worship send an Army of Cut-throats against them because they refuse that Worship and may reward Papists Prelates and other corrupt men and may advance them to places of State and Honour because they kneele to a Tree-Altar pray to the East adore the letters and sound of the word Jesus teach and write Arminianisme And may imprison deprive confine cut the eares and rip the noses and burne the faces of those who speake and preach and write the truth of God and may send Armies of Cut-throats Irish Rebels and other Papists and malignant Atheists to destroy and murther the Iudges of the Land and innocent defenders of the Reformed Religion c. The Man I say in these acts is a terrour to Good workes an incouragement to Evill And those that doe Good are to be afraid of the King and to expect no praise but punishment and vexation from him Ergo this 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 offiâ—e 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 authoriâ—ie 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 â—onscience 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
say Nathan and Samuel erred not as men because their persons were sacred and anointed and they erred not as Prophets sure Ergo they erred not all A King as a King is an holy Ordinance of God and so cannot doe injustice Ergo they must doe acts of Iustice as men 2. The inferior Iudge is a Power from God 2. To resist him is to resist an ordinance of God 3. He is not a terrour to good workes but to evill 4. He is the minister of God for good 5. He is Gods Sword-bearer his officiall power to rule may by as good right come by birth as the Crown and the Kings person is sacred only for his office and is annointed only for his office For then the Chaldeans dishonored not inferior Iudges Lam. 5.12 when they hanged the Prince honored not the faces of Elders It is in questiō if the Kings actual authority be not as separable frō him as the actuall authority of the Iudge Symmons p. 24. The King himselfe may use this distinction As a Christian he may forgive any that offendeth against his person but as a Iudge he must punish in regard of his office Ans. Well then Flatterers will grant the distinction when the King doth good and pardoneth the blood of Protestants shed by bloody Rebels But when the King doth acts of injustice he is neither man nor King but some independent absolute God Symmons p. 27. Gods Word tyeth me to every one of his personall commandements as well as his legall commandements nor doe I obey the Kings law because it is established or because of its known penaltie nor yet the King himselfe because he ruleth according to Law But I obey the Kings law because I obey the King and I obey the King because I obey God I obey the King and his Law because I obey God and his Law Better obey the Command for a reverent regard to the Prince then for a penaltie Ans. It is hard to answer a sick man It is blasphemie to seek this distinction of Person and Office in the King of Kings because by Person in a mortall King we understand a Man that can sinne 1. I am not obliged to obey his personall commandement except I were his domestick nor his unlawfull personall commandements because they are sinfull 2. It is false that you obey the Kings Law because you obey the King for then you say but this I obey the King because I obey the King The truth is Obedience is not formally terminated on the person of the King Obedience is relative to a precept and it is Men-service to obey a Law not because it is good and just but upon this formall motive because it is the will of a mortall man to command it And Reverence Love Feare being acts of the Affection are not terminated on a Law but properly on the Person of the Iudge and they are modifications or laudable qualifications of acts of obedience not motives not the formall reason why I obey but the manner how I obey And the Apostle maketh expresly Rom. 13 4. feare of punishment a motive of obedience while he saith He beareth not the sword in vaine Ergo Be subject to the King And this hindreth not personall resistance to unjust commandements Symmons p. 27 28 29. You say To obey the Princes Personall commandement against his Legall will is to obey himselfe against himselfe So say I To obey his Legall will against his Personall will is to obey himselfe against himselfe for I take his Person to be himselfe Ans. To obey the Kings personall will when it is sinfull as we now suppose against his legall will is a sinne and a disobedience to God and the King also seeing the Law is the Kings will as King but to obey his Legall will against his sinfull personall will as it must be sinfull if contrary to a just Law is obedience to the King as King and so obedience to God 2. You take the Kings person to be himself but you take quid pro quo for his person here you must take not Physically for his suppost of soul and body but morally it is the King as a sinning man doing his worst will against the Law which is his just and best will and the rule of the Subjects and the Kings personall will is so far just and to regulate the Subjects in so far as it agreeth with his legall Will or his Law and this will can sinne and therefore may be crossed without breach of the fifth Commandement but his Legall Will cannot be crossed without disobedience both to God and the King Symmons p. 28. The Kings Personall will doth not alwayes presuppone passion and if it be attended with passion yet we must beare it for conscience sake Ans. We are to obey the Kings Personall will when the thing commanded is not sinne but his Subjects as Subjects have little to do with his personall will in that notion It concerneth his domestick servant and is the Kings will as he is the master of servants not as he is King in relation to Subjects but we speak of the Kings personall will as repugnant to Law and contrary to the Kings will as King and so contrary to the fifth Commandment and this is attended often not onely with Passion but also with prejudice and we owe no subjection to prejudice and Passions or to Actions commanded by these misordered powers because they are not from God nor his Ordinances but from men and the flesh and we owe no subjection to the flesh Doct. Ferne Sect. 9. pag. 58. The distinction of personall and legall will hath place in evill actions but not in resistance where we cannot sever the person and the dignitie or authority because we cannot resist the power but we must resist the person who hath the power Saul had lawfully the command of Arms but that power he useth unjustly against innocent David I ask when these Emperours took away lives and goods at their pleasure was that a power ordained of God No but an Illegall will a Tyranny but they might not resist nay but they cannot resist for that power and soveraigntie imployed to compasse these illegall commandments was ordained and settled in them When Pilate condemned our Saviour it was an illegall will ye◠our Saviour acknowledgeth in it Pilates power that was given him from above Answ. 1. Here we have the distinction denyed by Royalists granted by D. Fern but if when the King commands us to do wickednesse we may resist that personall will and when he commandeth us to suffer unjustly we cannot resist his will but we must resist also his Royall person What Is it not still the King and his person sacred as his power is sacred when he commandeth the subjects to do unjustly as when he commandeth them to suffer unjustly It were fearfull to say when Kings command any one act of idolatry they are no longer Kings if for conscience I am to suffer unjustly
obedience is no where commanded but onely modus rei the manner of suffering and the occasion of the commandement here it is thought that the Iewes converted under this pretext that they were Gods people beleeved that they should not be subject to the Romans A certaine Galilean made the Galileans beleeve that they should not pay tribute to Strangers and that they should call none Lord but the God of heaven as Ioseph saith Antiq. Iudaic. l. 20. c. 2. and De bell Iudaic. l. 7. c. 29. yea and Hieron Com. in 3. Tit. saith At this time the sect of the Galileans were on foot It is like the Jews were thought to be Galileans and that their liberty purchased in Christ could not consist with the order of master and servant King and subject And to remove this Paul establisheth Magistracie and commandeth obedience in the Lord and he is more to prove the office of the Magistrate to be of God then any other thing and to shew what is his due then to establish absolutenesse in Nero to be of God yea to me every word in the Text speaketh limitednesse of Princes and cryeth downe absolutenesse 1. No power of God 2. No ordinance of God 3. Who is a terror to evill but a praise to good works 4. No miniâ—ter of God for good c. can be a power to which we submit our selves on earth as next unto God without controlment 5. That passive obedience falleth formally under no commandement of God I prove thus All obedience lyable to a divine commandement doth commend morally the performer of obedience as having a will conformed to Gods morall Law and deformity betwixt the will of him who performeth not obedience involveth the non-obedient in wrath and guiltinesse But non-passive subjection to the sword of the Judge doth not morally commend him that suffâ—reth not punishmâ—nt for no man is formally a sinner against a morall law because he suffereth not the ill of puâ—ishment nor is he morally good or to be commended becâ—use hee suffereth ill of punishment but beâ—ause he doth the ill â—f sin And all evil of punishment uâ—justly inflicted hath Gods volunâ—as beneplaciti the instrumenâ—all and hidden dâ—cree oâ— God which orderâ—th both good and ill Ephes. 1.11 for its rule and cause and hath not Gods will of approbation called voluntas signi for its rule both is contrary to that will I am sure Epiphanius li. 1. tom 3. heres 40. Basilius in Psal. 32. Nazianzen Orat. ad subd imperat Hilar. li. ad Constant. August citeth these words and saith the same If then passive subjâ—ction be not commanded non subjâ—ction passive cannot be forbidden and this text Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2. cannot a whit help the bad cause of Royalists All then must be reduced to some action of resisting arguments for passive subjection though there were ship-fulls of them they cannot help us Assert 3. By the place 1 Pet. 2. The servant unjustly buffeted is not to buffet his master again but to bear patiently as Christ did who when he was reviled did not revile again Not because the place condemneth resistance for self-defence but because buffeting again is formally re-offending not defending defending is properly a warding of a blow or stroak if my neighbour come to kill me and I can by no means save my life by flight I may defend my self and all Divines say I may rather kill ere I be killed because I am nearer by the law of naturâ— and dearer to my self and my own life then to my brother but if I kill him out of malice or hatred the act of defending by the unlawfull manner of doing becometh an act of offending and murther whence the mind of the blood-shedder will vary the nature of the action from whence this corolarie doth naturally issue that the physicall action of taking away the life maketh not murther nor homicide and so the physical action of offending my neighbour is not murther Abraham may kill his son he for whom the cities of refuge were ordained and did kill his brother yet not hating him he was not by Gods law judged a murtherer And 2. It necessarily hence followeth that an act which is physically an act of offending my brother yea even to the taking away of his life is often morally and legally an act of lawfull self-defence an offending of another necessitated from the sole invention of self-defence is no more but an act of innocent self defence if David with his men had killed any of Sauls men in a set battel David and his men onely intending self defence the war â—n Davids part was meere defensive for physicall actions of killing indifferent of themselves yet impâ—rated by a principle of naturall self-defence and clothed with this formall end of self-defence or according to the substance of the action the act is of self-defence If therefore one shall wound me deadly and I know it is my death after that to kill the killer of my selfe I being onely a private man must be no act of self-defence but of homicide because it cannot be imperated by a sinlesse dictate of a naturall conscience for this end of self-defence after I know I am killed Any mean not used for preventing death must be an act of revenge not of self-defence for it is physically unsuâ—able for the intended end of self-defence And so for a servant buffeted to buffet againe is of the same nature the second buffet not being a conducible meane to ward the first buffet but a meane to procure heavier stroakes and possibly killing it cannot be an act of self defence for an act of self defence must be an act destinated ex natura rei onely for defence and if it be known to be an act of sole offending without any known necessary relation of a mean to self-defence as the end it cannot be properly an act of self-defence Assert 4. When the matter is lighter as in paying tribute or suffering a buffet of a rough master though unjustly we are not to use any act of re-offending For though I be not absolute Lord of my owne goods and so may not at my sole pleasure give tribute and expend monies to the hurting of my children where I am not by Gods Law or Mans Law obliged to pay tribute and though I be not an absolute Lord of my members to expose face and cheeks and back to stripes and whips at my owne meere will yet have we a comparative dominion given to us of God in matters of goods and disposing of our members I think I may except the case of mutilation which is a little death for buffets because Christ no doubt to teach us the like would rather give of his goods and pay tribute where it is not due then that this scandall lay on the way of Christ that Christ was no loyall subject to lawfull Emperors and Kings And 1 Cor. 9. Paul would rather not take stipend though it was
naturall meane of selfe-preservation Nature hath appoynted innocent and offending violence against unjust violence as a meanes of selfe-preservation Goliahs sword is no naturall meanes to hold Sauls hands for a sword hath no fingers and if Saul 1. suddainly 2. without colour of Law or reason 3. inevitably should make personall invasion on David to kill him Dr. Ferne saith he may resist but resisting is essentially a reaction of violence shew us Scripture or reason for violent holding a Kings hands in an unjust personall invasion without any other reaction of offence Walter Torrils killed King W. Rufus as he was shooting at a Deere the Earle of Suffolk killed Henrie the 8. at Tilting there is no treasonable intention here and so no homicide Defensive wars are offensive ex eventu effectu not ex causa or ex intentione But it may be asked if no passive subjection at all be commanded as due to Superiours Rom. 13. Answ. None properly so called that is purely passive onely we are for feare of the sword to doe our duety 2. We are to suffer ill of punishment of Tyrants ex hypothesi that they inflict that ill on us some other way and in some other notion then we are to suffer ill of equals for we are to suffer of equals not for any paternall authority that they have over us as certainly wee are to suffer ill inflicted by Superiours I demand of Royalists if Tyrants inflicting evill of punishment upon Subjects unjustly be powers ordained of God 2. If to resist a power in Tyrannicall acts be to resist God 3. Since wee are not to yiâ—ld active obedience to all the commandements of Superiours whether they be good or ill by vertue of this place Rom. 13. how is it that we may not deny passive subjection to all the Acts of violence exercised whether of injustice whether in these Acts of violence wherein the Prince in actu ex cito and formally punisheth not in Gods stead or in these wherein he punishâ—th Tyrannically in no formall or actuall subordination to God we owe passive subjection I desire an answer to these Assert 5. Flying from the tyranny of abused Authority is a plaine resisting of Rulers in their unlawfull oppression and perverting of judgement All Royalists grant it lawfull and ground it upon the Law of Nature that those that are persecuted by tyrannous Princes may flee and it is evident from Christs Commandment If they persecute you in one City flee to another Mat. 10.23 and by Mat. 23.34 Christ fled from the fury of the Jewes till his houre was come Elias Vriah Ier. 26.20 Ioseph and Mary fled the Martyres did hide themselves in caves and dens of the earth Heb. 11.37 38. Paul was let downe through a window in a basket at Damascus this certainly is resistance For looke what legall power God hath given to a tyrannous Ruler remaining a power ordained of God to summon legally and set before his tribunall the servants of God that he may kill them and murther them unjustly that same legall power he hath to murther them For if it be a legall power to kill the innocent and such a power as they are obliged in conscience to submit unto they are obliged in conscience to submit to the legall power of citing for it is one and the same power Now if resistance to the one power be unlawfull resistance to the other must be unlawfull also and if the law of self-defence or command of Christ warâ—ant me to disobey a tyrannous power commanding me to compeiâ— to receive the sentence of death that same Law farre more shall warrant me to resist and deny passive subjection in submitting to the un-unjâ—st sentence of death 2. When a murtherer self-convicted sleeth from the just power of a Judge lawfully citing him he resisteth the just power ordained of God Rom. 3. Ergo by the same â—eason if we flee from a tyrannous power we resist that tyrannous power and so by Royalists ground we resist the ordinance of God by flying Now to be disobedient to a just power summoning a maâ—â—factor is to hinder that lawfull power to be put forth in lawfull Acts for the Judge cannot purge the land of blood if the murtherer slee 3. When the King of Israel sendeth a Captaine and fifty â—ictors to fâ—tch Elisha these come instructed with legall power from the King if I may lay fetters on their power by flight upon the ground of self-preservation the same warrant shall allow me to oppose harmelesse violence for my owne safety 4. Royalists hold it unlawfull to keepe a strong hold against the King though the Fort be not the Kings house and though that David should not have offended if he had kept Keilah against Saul Dr. Ferne and Royalists say it had beene unlawfull resistance What more resistance is made to Royall power by wals interposed then by Seas and miles of earth interposed Both are physicall resistance and violent in their kinde QUEST XXXI Whether or no self-defence against any unjust violence offered to the life be warranted by Gods Law and the Law of Nature and Nations SElfe-preservation in all creatures in which is nature is in the creatures sutable to their nature The Bull defendeth it selfe by its hornes the Eagle by her clawes and bill it will not follow that a Lambe will defend it selfe against a Wolfe any other way then by flying So men and Christian men doe naturally defend themselves but the manner of self-defence in a rationall creature is rationall and not alwayes meerely naturall therefore a politique communitie being a combination of many natures as neither grace farre lesse can policy destroy nature then must these many natures be allowed of God to use a naturall self-defence If the King bring in an Army of forraigners then a politique community must defend it selfe in a rationall way Why Self-defence is naturall to Man and â—aâ—urall to a Lamb but not the same way A Lamb or a Dove naturally defend themselves against beasts of another kinde onely by flight not by re-action and re-offending But it followeth not that a man defendeth himselfe from his enemy only by flight If a robber invade me to take away my life and my purse I may defend my sâ—lfe by re-action for reason and grace both may determine the way of self-preservation Hence Royalists say a private man against his Prince hath no way to defend himselfe but by flight Ergo a community hath no other way to defend themsâ—lvâ—s but by flight 1. The antecedent is false Dr. Ferne alloweth to a private man supplications and denying of Subsidies and Tribute to the Prince when he imployeth Tribute to the destruction of the Common-wealth which by the way is a cleere resistance and an active resistance made against the King Rom. 13.6 7. and against a Commandement of God except Royalists grant tyrannous powers may be resisted 2. The consequence is naught for a private man may defend himselfe
Levit. 24.16 â—xcepteth none See Deut. 13.6 the dearest that nature knoweth are not excepted Obj. 6. Vengeance pursued Core Dathan and Abiram who resisted Moses Ans. From resisting of a lawfull magistrate in a thing lawfull it followeth not it must be unlawfull to resist Kings in Tyrannous acts Obj. 7. Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of the people Exod. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thought nor the rich in thy bed-chamber Ans. 1. The word Elohim signifieth all judges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasi signifieth one lifted up above the people saith Rivetus in loc whether a monarch or many rulers All cursing of any is unlawfull even of a private man Rom. 12.14 Ergo we may not resist a private man by this the other text readeth contemne not the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in scientiâ tuâ Aria Mon. or in thy conscience or thought and it may prove resisting any rich man to be unlawfull Nothing in word or deed tending to the dishonour of the King may be done now to resist him in self-defence being a commandment of God in the law of nature cannot fight with another commandment to honour the King no more then the fift commandement can fight with the sixâ—h for all resistance is against the judge as a man exceâ—ding the limits of his office in that wherein he is resisted not as a judge Obj. 8. Eccles. 8.3.4 Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him what dost thou Ergo the King cannot be resisted Ans. 1. Tremel saith well that the scope is that a man go not from the Kings lawfull command in passion and rebellion Vatab. If thou go from the King in disgrace strive to be reconciled to him quickly Cajetan Vse not Kings too familiarly by comming too quickly to them or going too hastily from them Plutarch Cum rege agendum ut cum rogo neither too neere this fire nor too farre off Those have smarted who have been too great in their favour Ahasuerus slew Haman Alexander so served Clitus and Tiberius Sejanus and Nero Seneca But th◠〈◊〉 is cleare rebellion is forbidden not resistance so the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stand not in an evil matter or in a rebellion And he dehorteth from rebellion against the King by an argument taken from his power 3. For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him 4. Where the word of a King is there is power And who may say unto him What doest thou The meaning is in way of justice he is armed with power that cannot be resisted other wayes Samuel said to King Saul 1 Sam. 13.13 Thou hast done foolishly Eliah said more to Ahab then What hast thou done And the Prophets were to rebuke sinne in Kings 2 King 3.14 Ier. 1.28 Chap. 22.3 Hos. 5.1 2. And though Solomon here give them a power he speaketh of Kings as they are de facto but de jure they are under a Law Deut. 17.18 If the meaning be as Royalists dreame he doth whatsoever hee will or desireth as a Prince by his royall that is his legall will by which he is lex animata a breathing law we shall owne that as truth and it is nothing against us But if the meaning be that De jure as King he doth whatsoever he will by the absolute supremacie of Royall will above all law and reason then Ioram should by law as King take Elisha's head away and Elisha resisted God in saying What doth the King and he sinned in commanding to deal rougbly with the Kings messenger and hold him at the doore then the foureâ—core valiant Priests who said to King Vzziah What dost thou resisted him in burning incense which he desired to doe sinned Then Pharaoh who said Ezech. 29.3 The river Nilus is mine I have made it for my selfe and the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28.2 I am God I sit in the seat of God should not be controlled by the Prophets and no man should say to them What sayest thou Did Cyrus as a King with a Royall power from God and jure regio be angry at the river Gyndes because it drowned one of his horses and punish it by dividing it in 130. Channels Sen. l. 3. de ira c. 21. And did Xerxes jure regio by a Royall power given of God when Hellespontus had cast downe his bridges command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea and that it should be cast in fetters And our Royalists will have these mad fooles doing these acts of blasphemous insolencie against heaven to be honoured as Kings and to act those acts by a regall power But heare flatterers a Royall power is the good gift of God a lawfull and just power A King acting and speaking as a King speaketh and acteth Law and Justice A power to blaspheme is not a lawfull power they did and spake thesâ— things with a humane and a sinfull will if therefore this be the Royaliâ—ts meaning as Kings 1. They are absolute and so the limited and elected King is no King 2. The King as King is above Gods Law put on him by God Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill 4. It were unlawfull to say to the King of Cyrus What sayest thou Thou art not God according to this vaine sense of Royalists Obj. 9. Elihu saith Iob 34.18 Is it fit to say to a King Thou art wicked and to Princes Ye are ungodly Ergo You may not resist Kings Ans. 1. This Text no more proveth that Kings should not be resisted then it proveth that rich men or liberall men or other Judges inâ—eriour should not be resisted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth all that and it signifieth liberall Isa. 32.5 And ver 8. the same word is 2. Deodat and Calvin say the meaning is Learne from the respect that is due to earthly princes the reverence due to the Soveraign Lord Mal. 1.8 for it is not convenient to reproach earthly Kings and and to say to a Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beliel a word of reproach signifying extreme wickednesse And you may not say to a man of place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an extreamly wicked man so are the words taken as signifying most vile and wicked men 1 Sam. 2.12 1 Sam. 10.27 2 Sam. 24.6 Psal. 1.1 6. Psal. 11.5 Psal. 12.8 Prov. 16.4 Psa. 146.9 and in infinite places For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word of extreme reproach comming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine non and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profuit Iud. 19.22 a most naughtie and a lewd man or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jugum a lawlesse man who hath cast off all yokes of Gods or Mans Law So then the meaning is It is unlawfull to reproach earthly Princes and men of place farre more is it unlawfull to reproach the Judge of the whole earth with injustice And what then We may
Cavalliers and Irish cut-throats except you say inferiour Judges are not obliged to execute judgement but at the Kings commandment Object As the Irish Rebels are armed with the Kings power they are superiour to the Parliament Answ. So an Armie of Turks and Spaniards armed with the Kings power and comming against the two Kingdomes at the Kings commandement though they be but Lictors in a lawlesse cause are superiour to the highest Courts of Parliament in the two Kingdomes But the King and the Law gave power to the Parliament first to resist Rebels now he giveth power to Rebels to resist the Parliament here must be contradictory wils and contradictory powers in the King Which of them is the Kings will and his power the former is legall and Parliamentary Then because Law is not contrary to Law the latter cannot be legall also nor can it be from God and to resist it then is not to resist God Object 13. If resistance bee restrained to legall commandements What shall we say to these arguments that Paul forbiddeth resistance under these tyrannous governours and that from the end of their government which is for good and which their subjects did in some sort enjoy under them Answ. 1. This proveth nothing but that we are to cooperate with these governours though tyrannous by subjecting to their Laws so farre as they come up to this end the morall good and peace of their government but Paul no where commandeth absolute subjection to tyrannous governours in tyrannous actâ— which is still the question Object 14. Hee that hath the supreme trust next to God should have the greatest security to his person and power but if resistance be lawfull he hath a poore security Answ. He that hath the greatest trust should have the greatest security to his person and power in the â—â—eping his power and using it according to his trust for its owne native end for justice peace and godlinesse God alloweth security to no man nor that his Angels shall guard them but onâ—ly when they are in their wayes and the service of God else There is no peace to the wicked 2. It is denyed that one man having the greatest trust should have the greatest security the Church and people of God for whose safety he hath the trust as a meanes for the end should have a greater security the City ought to have greater security then the watchers the Armie then the leaders The good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheepe 3. A power to doe ill without resistance is not security Object 15. If God appoint Ministers to preach then the sheep cannot seeke safety elsewhere Ergo. Answ. The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband but not if she feare he will kill her in the bed The obedience of positive duties that subjects owe to Princes cannot loose them from Natures law of self-preservation nor from Gods Law of defending Religion against Papists in Armes nor are the sheep obliged to intrust themselves but to a saving shepherd Object 16. If self-defence and that by taking up Armes against the King he an unlawfull duty how is it that you have no practise no precept no promise for it in all the word of God 1. You have no practise Ahab sold himselfe to do evill he was an Idolater and killed the Prophets and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse stirred him up to great wickednesse Elias had as great power with the people as you have yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church Arnisaeus de autho Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled Nebuchadnezer Ahab Manassah Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters the people never raised an Armie against them B. Williams of Ossorie p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother son daughter wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods kill them not a word of the father Children are to love Fathers not to kill them Christ saith John P.P. in the cradle taught by practise to flee from Herod and all Christs acts and sufferings are full of mysteries and our instructions Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him but would rather worke a miracle in curing Malchus eare as use the sword against Caesar If Sectaries give us a new Creed it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell and the communion of Saints to raze out this He suffered under Pontius Pilate My resolution is for this sin of yours to dissolve in teares and Prayers and with my Master say daylie and hourely Father forgive them c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans because they refused him lodging 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry blasphemy murther adultery c. and all sins never against the sin of neglect and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word Answ. It is a grâ—at non-consâ—quence this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word Ergo. It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith Shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she inticed him to follow strange Gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13.6 when a man lying with a beast is put to death Yet it is a Law Exod. 22.19 infinite more Lawes are the practise of which we finde not in Scripture 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry and if Iehu out of sincerity and for the zeale of God had done what God commanded he should have beene rewarded for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu that he should kill Ahab yet there was an expresse Law for it that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death Deut. 13.6 and there is no exception of King or Father in the Law and to except father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeale of God Deut. 33.9 And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King and in killing King Nabad and smiting all the house of Iereboam for his Idolatry they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty according to Gods expresse Law Deut. 13.6 7 8 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary 3. Ahab and Iezabelâ—aisâ—d â—aisâ—d not an Armie of Idolaters Malignants such as are Papists Prelates and Cavalliers against the three Estates to destroy Parliaments Lawes and Religion and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry to forsake the Covenant throw dowwe the Altars of God and slay his Prophets so as in the estimation of Elias 1 King 19.9 10 11. there was not one man but they were Malignant Cavalliers and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves and to shew them it is their duty
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
a King As if weaknesse were essentiall to strength and a King could not be powerfull as a King to doe good and save and protect except he had power also as a Tyrant to doe evill and to destroy and waste his people This power is weaknesse and no part of the image of the greatnesse of the King of Kings whom a King representeth 2. The second Reason condemneth Democracie and Aristocracie as unlawfull and maketh Monarchie the only Physick to cure these as if there were no Government an ordinance of God save only absolute Monarchie which indeed is no ordinance of God at all but contrary to the nature of a lawfull King Deut. 17.3 3. That people must part with their native right totally to make an absolute Monarch is as if the whole members of the Body would part with their whole nutritive power to cause the Milt to swell which would be the destruction of the Body 4. The people cannot divest themselves of power of defensive Warres more then they can part with Nature and put themselves in a condition inferior to a slave who if his master who hath power to sell him invade him unjustly to take away his life may oppose violence to unjust violence And the other Consequences are null QUEST XLII Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vicegerents THe P. Prelate taketh on him to prove the truth of this but the question is not pertinent it belongeth to another head to the Kings power in Church matters I therefore only examine what he saith and follow him P. Prelate Sectaries have found a Quere of late that Kings are Gods not Christs Lieutenants on earth Romanists and Puritans erect two Soveraignes in every State The Jesuite in the Pope the Puritan in the Presbyterie Ans. We give a reason why God hath a Lieutenant as God Because Kings are Gods bearing the sword of vengeance against seditious and bloody Prelates and other ill-doers But Christ God-Man the Mediator and Head of the body the Church hath neither Pope nor King to be head under him The sword is communicable to men but the Headship of Christ is communicable to no King nor to any created shoulders 2. The Iesuite maketh the Pope a King and so this P. Prelate maketh him in extent the Bishop of Bishops and so King as I have proved But we place no Soveraigntie in Presbyteries but a meere ministeriall power of servants who doe not take on them to make Lawes and Religious Ceremonies as Prelates doe who indeed make themselves Kings and Law-givers in Gods house P. Prelate We speake of Christ as Head of the Church Some think that Christ was King by his Resurrection jure acquisito by a new title Right of merit I think he was a King from his conception Ans. You declare hereby that the King is a ministeriall Head of the Church under the head Christ. All our Divines disputing against the Popes headship say No mortall man hath shoulders for so glorious a head You give the King such shoulders But why are not the Kings euen Nero Iulian Nebuchadnezzar Belshazer Vicegerents of Christ as Mediator as Priest as Redeemer as Prophet as Advocate presenting our prayers to God his Father What action I pray you have Christian Kings by office under Christ in dying and rising from the dead for us in sending down the Holy Ghost preparing mansions for us Now it is as proper and incommunicably reciprocall with the Mediator to be the only Head of the body the Church Col. 1.18 as to be the only Redeemer and Advocate of his Church 2. That Christ was King from his conception as Man borne of the Virgin Mary â—uteth well with Papists who will have Christ as Man the visible Head of the Church that so as Christ-man is now in heaven he may have a visible Pope to be Head in all Ecclesiasticall matters And that is the reason why this P. Prelate maketh him head of the Church by an Ecclesiasticall right as we heard and so he followeth Becanus the Iesuite in this and others his fellowes P. Prelate 1. Proofe If Kings reigne by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per in and through Christ as the Wisdome of God and the Mediator then are Kings the Vicegerents of Christ as Mediator But the former is said Prov. 8.15 16. as D. Andrewes of blessed memorie Ans. 1. Denies the major All beleevers living the life of God ingrafted in Christ as branches in the tree Ioh. 15.1.2 should by the same reason be Vicegerents of the Mediator so should the Angels to whom Christ is a head Col. 2.10 be his Vicegerents and all the Iudges and Constables on earth should be under-Mediators for they live and act in Christ yea all the Creatures in the Mediator are made new Rev. 21.5 Rom. 8.20 21 22. 2. D. Andrewes name is a curse on the earth his writings prove him to be a Popish Apostate P. Prelate 2. Christ is not only King of his Church but in order to his Church King over the Kings and Kingdomes of the earth Ps. 2.5.8 3. Math. 21.18 To him is given all power in heaven and earth ergo all Soveraigntie over Kings Ans. 1. If all these be Christs vicegerents over whom he hath obtained power then because the Father hath given him power over all flesh to give them life eternall Ioh. 17.1.2 then are all beleevers his Vicegerents yea and all the damned men and Devils and Death and Hell are his Vicegerents for Christ as Mediator hath all power given to him as King of the Church and so power Kingly over all his enemies to reigne while he make them his footstoole Ps. 110.1.2 to break them with a rod of iron Ps. 2.9 1 Cor. 15.24 25 26 27. Revel 1.18.20 v. 10 11 12 13 14 15. And by that same reason the P. Prelates 4. and 5. Argument fall to the ground He is heire of all things ergo all things are his Vicegerents What more vaine He is Prince of the Kings of the earth and King of Oggs of Kings of his Enemies ergo Sea and Land are his Vicegerents P. Prelate Kings are nurse-fathers of the Church ergo they hold their crowns of Christ 3. Divines say that by men in sacred Orders Christ doth rule his Church mediately in those things which primely concerne salvation and that by Kings their scepter and power he doth protect his Church and what concerneth externall pompe order and decencie Then in this latter sense Kings are no lesse the immediate Vicegerents of Christ than Bishops Priests and Deacons in the former Ans. Because Kings hold their Crownes of Christ as Mediator and Redeemer it followeth by as good consequence Kings are submediators and under-Priests and Redeemers as Vicegerents Christ as King hath no visible Royall Vicegerents under him 2. Men in holy Orders sprinkled with one of the Papists five blessed Sacraments such as Antichristian Prelates unwashed Priests to offer sacrifices and Popish
of the Law by grace In re dubia possunt dispensare Principes quia nullus sensus presumitur qui vincat principolem l. â— Sect. initium ib. Kings as Kings cannot doe things of meere grace because they must doe all ex debito officii by necessitie of their office Rom. 13.4 Prov. 17.15 Kings equivocally Kings The King may â—s well do acts of mâ—er cruelty from his supposâ—d Prerogative as acts of meer grace to one man out of the same fountain If Prerogative may ovâ—r-leap Law in one why not in twenty No Tyrant câ—n do any the most cruell act but under the notion of apprehended good Pretended Prerogative Royal of Royalists Tyranny Polanus in Daniel c. 5.19 Rollocus com 16. ib. The Saâ—ches de matr tom 1. l. 2. dis 15. n. 3. est arbitrii plenitudo nulli neâ—â—â—sitati subjecta ruliiusque publicâ— juriâ— regalis limita 〈◊〉 Baldus l. 2. n. 40. C. de servit aqua Suetoâ—i in Caligu cap. 29. memento tibi omnia in omneâ— licere Coelius Rodigi l. 8. Lect. Antiq c. 1. Vasquez illust quest l. 1. c. 26. n. 2. A contradiction in Ferne. Treaties of Monarchicall Government c. 2. pag. 6 7. The King of Persia not absolute The Oâ—th of Iudah to the King of Babylon tyed them not to renounce naturall selfe preservation Servants are not by 1 Pet. 2.18 19. interdited of selfe-defence Declar. at New Market Mar. 9. 1641. Magna Charcâ— against an absolute Prince How the King is Lord of the Parliamenâ— Monarch Governa part 2. c. 1. pag. 31. Sac. sanc Mai. c. 14. p. 144. Princes are not to be invested with power to all Tyranny upon this pretence that they cannot do good except they have also absolute power to do evil Sac. Maj. pag. 145. Sacr. sanc Maj. c. 16. p. 170 171. A power to shed innocent blood is no part of a true Prerogative The King because of the publikenesse of his office inferiour to subjects and other Iudges in many priviledges Loyall subjects belief Sect. 6. p. 19. Barcl l. 4. c. 23. p. 325. Humane Laws as penall take life from Law makers as reasonable they have life from the eternall Law of God The King not greater then the Law No necessitie that an unjust will of a King be either done by us or on us The King hath no Nomothetick power his alone Symmons Loyall Subject Sect. 5. pag. 8. Prerogative Royall warranteth not the Prince to destroy himselfe nor is the people to permit him to cooperat for destruction to themselves The King inferiour to the People Parliaments supplicate not the King ex debito Sac. sanct maj â— 9 p. 103 104 Subordination of the King to the Parliament and coordinatioÌ„ both consistent Do. p. 3. Sect. 4. pag. 27. Temperament of all the three in a limited Monarchy Barcl Ad verfus Monarchomachous l. 1. pag. 24. A King as King how excellent a head of the people how contrary to a Tyrant The King as an erring man no remedy against confusions and oppressions of Anarchy A Court of necessity and a Court of Iustice. Humane Laws not so obscure as Tyranny is legible Ferne part 3. sect 5. pag. 39. It is ridiculous to say a King cannot be so void of reason as to destroy his people Part. 3. sect 5. pag. 39. If there be a civill restraint from mans Law laid upon the King it must be forceable It s more requisite the people religion and Church be secured then one man D. Ferne p. 3. sect 5. pag. 40. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute is an oath Eatenus in so far not obligatory Difference betwixt a Tyrant in act and a Tyrant in habit Epist. 45. The tragicall end of many Tyrannous Princes â—easons why â—he Peoples â—â—fetie is the â—overaignes â—aw 〈◊〉 good Prince 〈◊〉 to postpone 〈◊〉 own safetie 〈◊〉 the safetie 〈◊〉 the people Sac. sane Maâ— c. 16.159 Dr. Ferne Conscience 〈◊〉 satisfied Sec. p. 28. The King in his governmeâ—â— is to seeke 〈◊〉 safetie of the people not himselfe â—â—c sanc maj 〈◊〉 160. 〈◊〉 Armini Declar. Remonstrant in â—uod dordraâ— The Royalists principles drive at this to make none Kings but only rank Tyrants Vâ—â—dix regum pag. 65. Sac. sanc Mai. 16. pag. 161 162 163. Sacr. san Mâ—i pag. 165. The subjects may gratifie the King for doing what he is obliged to doe by his office Sac. sacr Maâ— pag. 170. Page 172. Symmons hath the same very thing in his Loyall Subjec â—nbelief p. 39. Page 175. The safetie of the people far above the King Page 176. A King may though we should deny all Prerogative breake through the letter of a Law for the safety of the whole Land The Kings supposed Prerogative nothing in comparison of the lives and blood of so many thousands as are killed in England and Ireland The power of the Dictator no plea for a Prerogative above Law Pag. 177. Sac. saâ—â— maj cap. 16. The Law above the King in four considerations The meaning of this The King is not subject to the Law The Law above the King in supremacy of constitution In what sense the King mâ—y do all things Plutarch in Apothâ—g l. 4. The King under the fundamentall Laws Whether the King be punishable or be to he punished Two divers questions Magistratus ipse est judex execùtor contra sâ—ipsum in prâ—pria causa propter excellentiam sut officii l. sâ— pater familias l. hoc Tiberius Caesar F. De Hereâ— â—oc just The King above sâ—me Lawes The King â—bove Lawes that conâ—erne subjâ—cts as subjects Some Lawyers and Schoole-men free the King from the Law Reasons to prove that the King is under the Law Thâ—t a King hath no superiour but God a false ground to liberate the the King from the coaction of Law Argum. 2. Argum. 3. A Tyrant in â—xercise may be puniâ—â—â—d by th◠〈…〉 But how this câ—n 〈◊〉 wâ—th thâ— dâ—ctrine oâ— Râ—yalâ—â—ts I see not to wit Once a father alway a father once a King ever a King None can punish a King 〈◊〉 Goâ— Almighty say they Arg. 4. The Kâ—ng under the strictâ—st obligation of Lâ—w. Arg. 5. A King remaineth a man and a sociall creature 〈…〉 Mai. 〈…〉 1â—6 14â— In what considerations the people is the subject of all politike power Sac. Mai. p. 147 148. C. 15. p. 148. Stollen from Arnisaeus De authorit Prin. c. 4. num 5. pag. 73 If David in his Murthering Vriah and his Adultery sinned against none but God Arg. 6. The place Psa. 51. Against hee only have I sinned Discussed Against thee only c. cannot excluâ—e men as if David had sinned against no mortall men on earth as Royalists would teach Sac. sanct maj pag. 153. Gods delivering his people by Iudges and by Cyrus nothing agâ—inst the power of a free people That the people may swear a Covenant for Reformation of Religion without the King is proved A twofold exposition of Lawes A Rule to expone Lawes The