Lex
,
Rex
.
QUEST.
I.
In
what
sense
Government
is
from
God
?
I
Reduce
all
that
I
am
to
speak
of
the
power
of
Kings
,
to
the
Author
or
efficient
.
2.
The
matter
or
subject
.
3.
The
form
or
power
.
4.
The
end
and
fruit
of
their
Government
;
And
5.
to
some
cases
of
resistance
.
Henc
;
Quest.
I.
Whether
Government
be
warranted
by
a
divine
Law
?
The
question
is
,
either
of
Government
in
generall
,
or
of
the
particular
species
of
Government
;
such
as
are
Government
by
one
only
,
called
Monarchy
;
the
Government
by
some
chief
leading
men
,
named
Aristocracie
;
the
Government
by
the
people
,
going
under
the
name
of
Democracie
.
2.
We
cannot
but
put
difference
betwixt
the
institution
of
the
Office
,
to
wit
,
Government
,
and
the
designation
of
person
,
or
persons
to
the
Office
.
3.
What
is
warranted
by
the
direction
of
natures
light
,
is
warranted
by
the
Law
of
nature
,
and
consequently
by
a
divine
Law
;
for
who
can
deny
the
Law
of
nature
to
be
a
divine
Law
?
That
power
of
Government
in
generall
must
be
from
God
:
I
Rom.
13.
5.
Wherefore
we
must
be
subject
not
onely
for
wrath
(
or
civill
punishment
)
but
for
conscience
sake
,
1
Pet.
2.
13.
Submit
your selves
to
every
ordinance
of
man
for
the
Lords
sake
,
whether
it
be
to
the
King
as
Supreme
,
&c.
▪
Now
God
onely
by
a
divine
Law
can
lay
a
band
of
subjection
on
the
conscience
,
tying
men
to
guilt
,
and
punishment
,
if
they
transgr●sse
.
2.
Conclus
.
All
civill
power
is
immediately
from
God
in
its
root
.
[
a
](A92147-e12610-b)
a
Aristot
.
polit.
l.
1.
c.
2.
Aristotle
.
2.
God
and
nature
intendeth
the
policie
and
peace
of
mankinde
,
then
must
God
and
nature
have
given
to
mankinde
,
a
power
to
compasse
this
end
;
and
this
must
be
a
power
of
Government
.
I
see
not
then
why
John
Prelate
,
Master
Maxwel
the
excommunicate
P.
of
Rosse
,
who
speaketh
in
the
name
[
b
](A92147-e12660-b)
b
Sacro
sanc.
reg.
majestas
,
c.
1.
p.
1.
of
I.
A●magh
,
had
reason
to
say
,
That
he
feared
that
we
fancied
,
that
the
Government
of
Superiours
was
onely
for
the
more
perfit
,
but
have
no
Authoritie
over
or
above
the
perfit
,
Nec
Rex
,
nec
Lex
,
justo
posita
.
He
might
have
imputed
this
to
the
Brasilians
,
who
teach
,
That
every
single
man
hath
the
power
of
the
sword
to
revenge
his
own
injuries
,
as
[
c
](A92147-e12700-b)
c
Molina
to
.
●
.
de
justit
.
disp.
22.
Molina
saith
.
QUEST.
II.
Whether
or
not
,
Government
be
warranted
by
the
Law
of
nature
.
AS
domestick
societie
is
by
natures
instinct
,
so
is
civill
societie
naturall
,
in
radice
,
in
the
root
,
and
voluntary
,
in
modo
,
in
the
manner
of
coalescing
.
Politick
power
of
Government
,
agreeth
not
to
man
,
singly
,
as
one
man
,
except
in
that
root
of
reasonable
nature
;
but
supposing
that
men
be
combined
in
societies
,
or
that
one
family
cannot
contain
a
societie
,
it
is
naturall
,
that
they
joyn
in
a
civill
societie
,
though
the
manner
of
Union
in
a
politick
body
;
as
[
d
](A92147-e12780-b)
d
Bodin
.
de
rep.
l.
1.
c.
6.
Bodine
saith
,
be
voluntary
,
Gen.
10.
10.
Gen.
15.
7.
and
[
e
](A92147-e12810-b)
e
Suarez
to
.
1.
delegib
.
l.
3.
c.
3.
Suarez
saith
,
That
a
power
of
making
Laws
,
is
given
by
God
as
a
property
flowing
from
nature
,
Qui
dat
formam
,
dat
consequentia
ad
formam
,
Not
by
any
speciall
action
or
grant
,
different
from
creation
,
nor
will
he
have
it
to
result
from
nature
,
while
men
be
united
into
one
politick
body
:
which
Union
being
made
,
that
power
followeth
without
any
new
action
of
the
will
,
We
are
to
distinguish
betwixt
a
power
of
Government
,
and
a
[
f
](A92147-e12870-b)
f
Vasquez
illust.
quaest.
l.
1.
c.
41.
num.
28
,
29.
Ferdinandus
Vasquius
said
well
,
That
Princedom
,
Empire
,
Kingdom
,
or
Iurisdiction
hath
its
rise
from
a
positive
and
secundary
law
of
Nations
,
and
not
from
the
law
of
pure
Nature
.
[
g
](A92147-e12900-b)
g
L.
2.
in
princ
.
F.
de
inst.
&
jur.
&
in
princ
.
Inst.
Cod.
tit
.
c.
jus
nat.
1.
disp.
The
Law
saith
,
there
is
no
law
of
Nature
agreeing
to
all
living
creatures
for
superiority
;
for
by
no
reason
in
Nature
,
hath
a
Boar
dominion
over
a
Boar
,
a
Lyon
over
a
Lyon
,
a
Dragon
over
a
Dragon
,
a
Bull
over
a
Bull
:
And
if
all
Men
be
born
equally
free
(
as
I
hope
to
prove
)
there
is
no
reason
in
Nature
,
why
one
Man
should
be
King
and
Lord
over
another
;
therefore
while
I
be
otherwise
taught
by
the
forecasten
Prelate
Maxwell
,
I
conceive
all
jurisdiction
of
Man
over
Man
,
to
be
as
it
were
Artificiall
and
Positive
,
and
that
it
inferreth
some
servitude
,
whereof
Nature
from
the
womb
hath
freed
us
,
if
you
except
that
subjection
of
children
to
parents
,
and
the
wife
to
the
husband
;
and
the
[
h
](A92147-e12920-b)
h
Dominium
est
jus
quoddam
.
l.
sin
.
ad
med.
C.
de
long
.
temp.
prest
.
l.
qui
usum
fert
.
Civil
subjection
formally
not
natures
Law
.
Law
saith
,
De
jure
gentium
secundarius
est
omnis
principatus
.
2.
This
also
the
Scripture
proveth
,
while
as
the
exalting
of
Saul
or
David
above
their
Brethren
to
be
Kings
,
and
Captains
of
the
Lords
people
,
is
ascribed
,
not
to
Nature
,
(
for
King
and
Beggar
spring
of
one
clay-mettall
)
but
to
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
speciei
non
sequitur
negatio
generis
,
non
est
homo
,
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
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
[
a
](A92147-e13220-b)
a
Ad
Tannerus
,
m.
12.
tom.
2.
disp.
5.
de
peccatis
,
q.
5.
dub.
1.
num.
22.
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
[
b
](A92147-e13240-b)
b
Sotus
4.
de
justit
.
q.
4
▪
ar.
1.
Sotus
,
[
c
](A92147-e13260-b)
c
Lod.
Molina
,
to
.
1.
de
just.
disp.
22.
Molina
,
and
[
d
](A92147-e13280-b)
d
Victoria
in
relect.
de
potest
.
civil
.
q.
4.
art.
●
.
Family
Government
and
civil
different
.
Victoria
.
By
what
reason
a
Family
hath
a
power
of
Government
,
and
of
punishing
Malefactors
,
that
same
power
must
be
in
a
societie
o●
men
,
Suppose
that
soci●tie
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
[
e
](A92147-e13370-b)
e
G●●●rruvias
,
tr.
2.
pract.
quest.
1.
n
2
,
3
,
4
Govarruvias
,
[
f
](A92147-e13390-b)
f
Soto
lo●
.
●●t
.
Soto
,
[
g
](A92147-e13410-b)
g
Suarez
de
Reg.
lib.
3.
c.
4.
n.
1
,
2.
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
[
h
](A92147-e13480-b)
h
Barclaius
con
.
Monarchoma
,
l.
3.
c.
2.
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
the
wretched
Popish
ceremonies
are
from
God
.
But
we
teach
no
such
thing
:
let
[
i
](A92147-e13660-b)
i
Sacrosan
.
reg.
maj.
the
sacred
and
royall
prerogative
of
Christian
Kings
c.
1.
q.
1.
p.
6
,
7.
Maxwell
free
his
Master
[
k
](A92147-e13680-b)
k
Bellarm.
de
locis
,
l.
5.
c.
6.
not
.
5.
Politica
universè
considerata
est
de
jure
divino
,
in
particulari
considerata
est
de
jure
gentium
.
Bellarmine
and
other
Iesuites
,
with
whom
he
sideth
in
Romish
Doctrine
:
we
are
free
of
this
.
Bellarmine
saith
that
politick
power
in
generall
is
warranted
by
a
Divine
law
;
but
the
particular
formes
of
politick
power
,
he
meaneth
Monarchie
,
with
the
first
,
is
not
by
Divine
right
,
but
de
jure
gentium
,
by
the
law
of
nations
,
and
floweth
immediately
from
humane
election
,
as
all
things
,
saith
he
,
that
appertein
to
the
law
of
Nations
.
So
Monarchie
to
Bellarmine
is
but
an
humane
invention
,
as
Mr.
Maxwell
his
Surplice
is
:
and
D.
Ferne
,
sect.
3.
p.
13.
saith
with
Bellarmine
.
3.
A
King
is
said
to
be
from
God
,
by
particular
designation
,
as
he
appointed
Saul
by
name
for
the
crown
of
Israel
.
Of
this
hereafter
.
4.
The
Kingly
or
Royall
office
is
from
God
by
divine
institution
Aarons
Priesthood
to
be
of
divine
institution
,
because
God
doth
appoint
the
Priests
qualification
from
his
familie
,
bodily
perfections
,
and
his
charge
.
And
we
take
the
Pastor
to
be
by
divine
law
and
Gods
institution
,
because
the
Holy
Ghost
,
1
Tim.
3.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
describeth
his
qualification
,
so
may
we
say
that
the
Royall
power
is
by
divine
institution
,
because
God
mouldeth
him
,
Deut.
17.
15.
Thou
shalt
in
any
wise
set
him
King
over
thee
,
whom
the
Lord
thy
God
shall
choose
,
one
from
amongst
thy
brethren
,
&c.
Rom.
2
13.
There
is
no
power
but
of
God
,
the
powers
that
be
,
are
ordained
of
God
.
3.
That
power
must
be
ordained
of
God
as
his
own
ordinance
,
to
which
we
owe
subjection
,
for
conscience
,
and
not
only
for
feare
of
punishment
:
but
every
power
is
such
,
Rom.
13.
4.
To
resist
the
Kingly
power
,
is
to
resist
God
.
5.
He
is
the
Minister
of
God
for
our
good
.
6.
He
beareth
the
sword
of
God
to
take
vengeance
upon
ill-doers
.
7.
The
Lord
expresly
saith
,
1
Pet.
2.
17.
Feare
God
,
honour
the
King
,
v.
13.
Submit
your selves
to
every
ordinance
of
man
for
the
Lords
sake
,
whether
it
be
to
the
King
as
supreme
,
14.
or
unto
governours
,
as
unto
those
that
are
sent
by
him
,
&c.
Tit.
3.
Put
them
in
mind
to
be
subject
to
principalities
and
powers
:
and
so
the
fift
Commandement
layeth
obedience
to
the
King
on
us
,
no
lesse
then
to
our
parents
.
Whence
I
conceive
that
power
to
be
of
God
,
to
which
by
the
morall
law
of
God
,
we
owe
perpetuall
subjection
and
obedience
.
8.
Kings
and
all
Magistrates
are
Gods
,
and
Gods
deputies
and
lieutenants
upon
earth
,
Ps.
82.
1.
6
,
7.
Exod.
22.
8.
Exod.
4.
16.
and
therefore
their
Office
must
be
a
lawfull
ordinance
of
God
.
9.
By
their
Office
they
are
feeders
of
the
Lords
people
,
Ps.
78.
70.
71.
72.
the
shields
of
the
earth
,
Ps.
47.
9.
nursing
fathers
of
the
Church
,
Ps.
49.
23.
Captaines
over
the
Lords
people
▪
1
Sam.
9.
19.
10.
It
is
a
great
Iudgement
of
God
,
when
a
Land
wanteth
the
benefit
of
such
ordinances
of
God
,
Esay
3.
1
,
2.
3.
6
,
7.
11.
The
execution
of
their
office
is
an
act
of
the
just
Lord
of
heaven
and
earth
,
not
onely
by
permission
,
but
according
to
Gods
revealed
Will
in
his
Word
;
their
judgement
is
not
the
judgement
of
men
,
but
of
the
Lord
,
2
Chron.
19.
6.
and
their
Throne
is
the
Throne
of
God
,
1
Chron.
19.
21.
12.
[
a
](A92147-e14110-b)
a
Hi●romy
in
L.
4.
Comment.
in
I●rem
.
Hi●rom
saith
,
to
punish
murtherers
and
sacrilegious
persons
is
not
bloud-shed
,
but
the
ministery
and
service
of
good
Lawes
.
So
if
the
King
be
a
living
law
by
Office
,
and
the
law
put
in
execution
which
God
hath
commanded
,
then
as
the
Morall
Law
is
by
divine
institution
,
so
must
the
Officer
of
God
be
,
who
is
Custos
&
vindex
legis
divinae
,
the
keeper
,
preserver
,
and
avenger
of
Gods
Law
,
and
[
b
](A92147-e14160-b)
b
Basilius
Epist.
125.
Basilius
,
this
is
the
Princes
Office
,
Vt
opem
●erat
virtuti
,
malitiam
vero
impugnet
,
when
Paulinus
Treverensis
,
Lucifer
Metropolitane
of
Sardinia
,
Dionysius
Mediolanensis
,
and
other
Bishops
,
were
commanded
by
Constantine
to
write
against
Athanasius
,
they
answered
,
Regnum
non
ipsius
esse
,
sed
dei
,
aquo
acceperit
,
the
Kingdom
was
Gods
,
not
his
;
as
[
c
](A92147-e14240-b)
c
Athanasius
Epist.
ad
solita
.
Athanasius
saith
:
[
d
](A92147-e14280-b)
d
Optat.
Melevitanus
.
Lib.
3.
Optatus
Milevitanus
helpeth
us
in
the
cause
where
he
saith
with
Paul
,
We
are
to
pray
for
heathen
Kings
.
The
genuine
end
of
the
Magistrate
saith
[
e
](A92147-e14310-b)
e
Epiphanius
▪
●
.
1.
tom
.
3.
Heres.
40.
Epiphanius
,
is
ut
ad
bonum
ordinem
universitatis
mundi
omnia
ex
deo
bene
disponantur
atque
administrentur
.
But
some
object
,
if
the
Kingly
Power
be
of
divine
institution
,
then
shall
any
other
government
be
unlawfull
and
contrary
to
a
divine
institution
,
and
so
we
condemne
Aristocracy
,
and
Democracy
as
unlawfull
.
Ans.
This
consequence
were
good
,
if
Aristocracy
and
Democracy
were
not
also
of
divine
institution
,
as
all
my
arguments
prove
;
for
I
judge
they
are
not
Governments
different
in
nature
,
if
we
speake
Morally
and
Theologically
,
onely
they
differ
politically
and
positively
;
nor
is
Aristocracy
any
thing
but
diffused
and
inlarged
Monarchy
,
and
Monarchy
is
nothing
but
contracted
Aristocracy
,
even
as
it
is
the
same
hand
,
when
the
thumb
and
the
foure
fingers
are
folded
together
,
and
when
all
the
five
fingers
are
dilated
,
and
stretched
out
,
and
where
ever
God
appointed
a
King
,
he
never
appointed
him
absolute
,
and
a
sole
independent
Angell
,
but
joyned
alwaies
with
him
Iudges
,
who
were
no
lesse
to
judge
according
to
the
Law
of
God
,
2
Chron.
19.
6.
then
the
King
,
Deut.
17.
v.
15.
And
in
an
obligation
morall
of
judging
righteously
,
the
conscience
of
the
Monarch
,
and
the
conscience
of
the
inferiour
Iudges
are
equally
,
with
an
immediate
subjection
under
the
King
of
Kings
,
for
there
is
here
a
co-ordination
of
consciences
,
and
no
subordination
,
for
it
is
not
in
the
power
of
the
inferiour
Iudge
to
judge
,
Quoad
specificationem
,
as
the
King
commandeth
him
,
because
the
judgement
is
neither
the
Kings
,
nor
any
mortall
mans
,
but
the
Lords
,
2
Chronicles
19.
6
,
7.
Hence
all
the
three
formes
are
from
God
,
but
let
no
man
say
,
if
they
be
all
indifferent
and
equally
of
God
,
societies
and
Kingdomes
are
left
in
the
dark
,
and
know
not
which
of
the
three
they
shall
pitch
upon
,
because
God
hath
given
to
them
no
speciall
direction
,
for
one
rather
than
for
another
.
But
this
is
easily
answered
,
that
a
republick
appoint
Rulers
to
governe
them
,
is
not
an
action
indifferent
,
But
some
say
,
that
Peter
calleth
any
form
of
Government
,
an
humane
Ordinance
,
1
Pet.
2.
13.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Therefore
Monarchy
[
f
](A92147-e14570-b)
f
Rivetus
in
d●eal
.
Mand.
5.
pa.
194.
Rivetus
,
It
is
called
an
Ordinance
of
man
,
not
because
it
is
an
invention
of
man
,
and
not
an
Ordinance
of
God
,
but
respectu
subjecti
;
[
g
](A92147-e14590-b)
g
Pisc
.
in
loc
▪
Piscator
,
Not
because
man
is
the
efficient
cause
of
Magistracie
,
but
because
they
are
men
who
are
Magistrates
.
[
h
](A92147-e14610-b)
h
Diodat
.
annot.
Diodatus
,
Obey
Princes
and
Magistrates
,
or
Governours
made
by
men
,
or
amongst
men
.
[
i
](A92147-e14630-b)
i
Oecumenius
Quod
hominum
dispositione
consistit
,
&
humanis
suffragii●
creatur
.
Oecumenius
,
an
humane
constitution
,
because
it
is
made
by
an
humane
disposition
,
and
created
by
humane
suffrages
.
[
k
](A92147-e14660-b)
k
Dydimus
.
Dydimus
,
presides
presidents
made
by
men
.
[
l
](A92147-e14680-b)
l
Cajetan
,
officium
regiminis
,
quia
humanis
suffragiis
creatur
.
Cajetanus
,
[
m
](A92147-e14700-b)
m
Estius
in
loc.
Estius
,
Every
creature
of
God
(
as
Preach
the
Gospel
to
every
creature
)
in
authority
.
But
I
take
the
word
every
creature
of
man
,
to
be
put
1.
Emphatically
,
to
commend
the
worth
of
obedience
to
Magistrates
,
though
but
men
,
when
we
do
it
for
the
Lords
sake
:
Therefore
[
n
](A92147-e14740-b)
n
Betrandus
tom
.
4.
Bib.
Betrandus
Cardinalis
Edn●●sis
saith
,
he
speaketh
so
for
the
more
necessity
of
merit
;
and
[
o
](A92147-e14760-b)
o
Gloss.
ordinar.
Glossa
Ordinaria
saith
,
Be
subject
to
all
powers
,
Etiam
ex
infidelibus
&
incredulis
,
Even
of
infidels
and
unbeleevers
.
[
p
](A92147-e14790-b)
p
Lyranus
.
Lyranus
,
For
though
they
be
men
,
the
image
of
God
shineth
in
them
;
and
the
Syriack
▪
as
[
q
](A92147-e14810-b)
q
Syriak
.
Lorinus
saith
,
leadeth
us
thereunto
,
[
r
](A92147-e14830-b)
r
Lorin
.
in
l●
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Lechullechum
benai
anasa
.
Obey
all
the
children
of
men
that
are
in
authority
.
2.
It
is
an
Ordinance
of
men
,
not
effectively
;
as
if
it
were
an
invention
,
and
a
dream
of
men
:
But
2.
subjectively
,
because
exercised
by
man
.
3.
Objectively
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
the
good
of
men
,
and
for
the
externall
mans
peace
and
safety
especially
;
Whereas
Church-Officers
are
for
the
spirituall
good
of
mens
souls
.
And
[
s
](A92147-e14900-b)
s
Durandus
lib.
de
orig.
juris
Durandus
saith
well
,
Civill
power
according
to
its
institution
is
of
God
,
and
according
to
its
acquisition
,
and
way
of
use
,
it
s
of
man
.
And
we
may
thus
farre
call
the
forms
of
Magistrates
,
an
humane
Ordinance
,
That
some
Magistrates
are
ordained
to
care
for
mens
lives
,
and
matters
criminall
,
of
life
and
death
,
and
some
for
mens
Lands
and
estates
;
some
for
commodities
by
Sea
,
and
some
by
Land
;
and
Magistrates
according
to
these
Determinations
or
humane
Ordinances
.
QUEST.
IIII.
Whether
the
king
be
only
and
imediatly
from
God
,
&
not
from
the
people
.
THat
this
question
may
be
the
clearer
,
we
are
to
set
down
these
Considerations
.
1.
The
question
is
,
Whether
the
Kingly
Office
it self
come
from
2.
The
Royall
power
is
three
wayes
in
the
people
;
1.
Radically
one
King
,
and
so
both
above
and
superiour
,
and
below
and
inferiour
to
themselves
,
which
we
cannot
say
:
therefore
this
power
must
have
been
virtually
in
them
,
because
neither
man
,
nor
communitie
of
men
can
give
that
which
they
neither
have
formally
,
nor
virtually
in
them
.
3.
Royalists
cannot
deny
,
but
Cities
have
power
to
choose
and
create
inferiour
Magistrates
,
ergo
,
many
Cities
united
have
power
to
create
an
higher
Ruler
;
for
Royall
power
is
but
the
united
and
superlative
power
of
inferiour
Judges
,
in
one
greater
Judge
,
whom
they
call
a
King
.
2
Conclus
.
The
power
of
creating
a
man
a
King
,
is
from
the
people
,
1.
Because
those
who
may
create
this
man
a
King
,
rather
then
this
man
,
they
have
power
to
appoint
a
King
.
For
a
comparative
action
doth
positively
inferre
an
action
,
if
a
man
have
a
power
to
marry
this
woman
,
not
that
woman
;
we
may
strongly
conclude
,
ergo
he
hath
power
to
marry
,
now
,
1
King
.
16.
The
people
made
Omri
King
,
and
not
Zimri
;
and
his
sonne
Achab
,
rather
then
Tibni
the
sonne
of
Sinath
.
Nor
can
it
be
replyed
this
was
no
lawfull
power
that
the
people
used
,
for
that
cannot
elude
the
argument
,
for
,
1
King
.
1.
the
people
made
Salomon
King
,
and
not
Adonijah
,
though
Adonijah
was
the
elder
brother
;
thev
say
,
God
did
extraordinarily
both
make
the
Office
,
and
●es●gne
Salomon
to
be
King
,
the
people
had
no
hand
in
it
,
but
approved
Gods
fact
.
Answer
.
This
is
that
we
say
,
God
by
the
people
,
by
Nathan
the
Propher
,
and
the
servants
of
David
,
and
the
states
crying
,
(
God
save
King
Salomon
)
made
Salomon
King
;
and
here
is
a
reall
action
of
the
people
.
God
is
the
first
Agentin
all
acts
of
the
Creature
,
where
a
people
maketh
choise
of
a
man
to
be
their
King
,
the
States
doe
no
other
thing
under
God
but
create
this
man
,
rather
then
another
;
and
we
cannot
here
find
two
actions
,
one
of
God
,
another
of
the
people
;
but
in
one
,
and
the
same
action
;
God
by
the
peoples
free
suffrages
&
voices
createth
such
a
man
King
,
passing
by
many
thousands
,
and
the
people
are
not
patientes
in
the
action
,
because
by
the
authoritat●ve
choise
of
the
States
,
the
man
is
made
of
a
private
man
,
and
no
King
,
a
publick
person
,
and
a
crowned
King
,
2
Sam.
16.
18
▪
Hushai
said
to
Absolom
,
nay
but
whom
the
Lord
and
this
people
,
and
all
the
men
of
Israel
choose
,
his
will
I
be
,
and
with
him
will
I
abide
,
Iudg.
8.
22.
The
men
of
Israel
said
to
Gideon
,
Rule
thou
over
us
,
Iudg.
9.
6.
The
men
of
Se●hem
made
Abimeleth
King
,
Iudg.
11.
8.
11.
2
King
.
14.
21
:
The
people
made
Azariah
King
,
1
Sam.
12.
1.
2
Chron.
23.
3.
2.
If
God
doth
regulate
his
people
in
making
such
a
man
King
,
King
.
Ergo
the
people
have
a
power
to
make
such
a
man
King
,
not
such
a
man
King
.
The
Proposition
is
cleare
,
because
Gods
Law
doth
not
regulate
a
non-ens
,
a
meere
nothing
,
or
an
unlawfull
power
;
nor
can
Gods
holy
Law
regulate
an
unlawfull
power
,
or
an
unlawfull
action
,
but
quite
abolish
it
,
and
interdict
it
;
the
Lord
setteth
not
downe
rules
and
waies
how
men
should
not
commit
Treason
,
but
the
Lord
commandeth
loyalty
,
and
simply
interdicteth
men
of
treason
▪
2.
If
people
have
then
more
power
to
create
a
King
over
themselves
,
then
they
had
to
make
Prophets
,
then
God
forbidding
them
to
choose
such
a
man
for
their
King
,
should
say
as
much
to
his
people
;
as
if
he
would
say
,
I
command
you
to
make
Esaiah
&
Ieremiah
Prophets
over
you
,
but
not
these
and
these
men
.
This
certainly
should
prove
that
not
God
onely
,
but
the
people
also
with
God
made
Prophets
;
I
leave
this
to
the
consideration
of
the
godly
.
The
Prophets
were
immediatly
called
of
God
,
to
be
Prophets
,
whether
the
people
consented
that
they
should
be
Prophets
,
or
not
.
Therefore
God
immediatly
,
and
onely
sent
the
Prophets
,
not
the
people
;
but
though
God
extraordinarily
designed
some
men
to
be
Kings
,
and
annoynted
them
by
his
Prophets
,
yet
were
they
never
actually
installed
Kings
,
till
the
people
made
them
Kings
.
I
prove
the
assumption
,
Deut.
17.
—
14.
When
thou
shalt
say
,
I
will
set
a
King
over
me
,
like
all
the
nations
round
about
me
.
15.
Thou
shalt
in
any
wise
set
him
King
over
thee
,
whom
the
Lord
thy
God
shall
choose
,
one
from
amongst
thy
brethren
shalt
tho●
set
King
over
thee
,
thou
maist
not
set
a
stranger
over
thee
,
which
is
not
thy
brother
.
Should
not
this
be
an
unjust
charge
to
the
people
,
if
God
onely
,
without
any
action
of
the
people
,
should
immediatly
set
a
King
over
them
?
Might
not
the
people
reply
,
We
have
no
power
at
all
to
set
a
King
over
our selves
,
no
more
then
we
have
power
to
make
Esaiah
a
Prophet
,
who
saw
the
visions
of
God
,
to
what
end
then
should
God
mocke
us
,
and
say
,
make
a
brother
,
and
not
a
stranger
King
over
you
?
3.
Expresly
Scripture
saith
,
that
the
people
made
the
King
,
though
under
God
,
Iudg.
9.
6.
The
men
of
Sechem
made
Abimelech
King
,
1
Sam.
11.
15.
And
all
the
people
went
to
Gilgall
,
and
there
they
made
Saul
King
before
the
Lord
,
2
King
.
10.
5.
We
will
not
make
any
King
.
This
had
been
an
irrationall
speech
to
Iehu
,
if
both
Iehu
and
the
people
held
the
Royalists
Tenet
,
that
the
people
had
no
power
to
make
a
King
,
nor
any
active
or
causative
influence
therein
;
but
that
God
immediatly
made
the
King
,
1
Chron.
12.
38.
All
these
came
with
a
perfect
heart
to
make
David
King
in
Hebron
;
and
all
the
rest
were
of
one
heart
to
make
David
King
;
on
the
words
[
a
](A92147-e15990-b)
a
Lavater
com
.
in
Part
12
▪
38.
Hodie
quo
que
in
liberis
urbibus
,
&
gencibus
,
magistratus
secundum
dei
verbum
,
Exod.
18.
&
Deut.
1.
cligendi
sunt
,
non
ex
affecti●us
.
Lavater
saith
,
the
same
way
are
Magistrates
now
to
be
chosen
;
now
this
day
God
by
an
immediate
Oracle
from
Heaven
appointeth
the
Office
of
a
King
;
but
I
am
sure
he
doth
not
immediatly
designe
the
man
,
but
doth
onely
mark
him
out
to
the
people
,
as
one
who
hath
the
most
royall
indowments
,
and
the
due
qualifications
required
in
a
lawfull
Magistrate
,
by
the
Word
of
God
,
Exod.
18.
21.
Men
of
truth
,
hating
covetousnesse
,
&c.
Deut.
1.
16
,
17.
men
who
will
judge
causes
betwixt
their
brethren
righteously
,
without
respect
of
persons
,
1
Sam.
10.
21.
Saul
was
chosen
out
of
the
Tribes
according
to
the
Law
of
God
,
Deut.
17.
they
might
not
choose
a
stranger
,
and
Abulensis
,
Serrarius
,
C●rnelius
a
lapide
,
Sancheiz
,
and
other
Popish
Writers
think
that
Saul
was
not
onely
anoynted
with
Oyle
,
first
privately
by
Samuel
,
1
Sam.
10.
1
,
2.
but
also
at
two
other
times
before
the
people
,
once
at
Mizpeh
,
and
another
time
at
Gilgal
by
a
Parliament
,
and
a
Convention
of
the
States
,
and
Samuel
judged
the
voices
of
the
people
so
essentiall
to
make
a
King
,
that
Samuel
doth
not
acknowledge
him
as
formall
King
,
1
Sam.
10.
7
,
8
,
17
,
18
,
19.
though
he
honoured
him
,
because
he
was
to
be
King
,
1.
Sam.
9
23
,
24.
while
the
Tribes
of
Israel
and
Parliament
were
gathered
together
to
make
him
King
according
to
Gods
Law
,
Deut
,
17.
as
is
evident
.
For
Samuel
,
v.
20.
caused
all
the
Tribes
of
Israel
to
stand
before
the
Lord
,
and
the
Tribe
of
Benjamin
was
taken
;
the
Law
provided
one
of
their
owne
,
not
a
stranger
to
raigne
over
them
;
and
because
some
of
the
States
of
Parliament
did
not
choose
him
,
but
being
children
of
Belial
,
de
spised
him
in
their
heart
,
v.
27.
therefore
after
King
Saul
,
by
that
victory
over
the
Ammonites
,
had
conquered
the
affections
of
all
the
people
fully
,
v.
10
,
11.
Samuel
would
have
his
coronation
&
election
by
the
Estates
of
Parliament
renewed
,
at
Gilgall
,
by
all
the
people
,
v.
14
,
15.
to
establish
him
King
.
2.
The
Lord
by
Lots
found
out
the
Tribe
of
Benjamin
.
3.
The
Lord
found
out
the
man
,
by
name
,
Saul
the
sonne
of
Kish
,
when
he
did
hide
himselfe
amongst
the
stuffe
,
that
the
people
might
doe
their
part
in
creating
of
the
King
,
whereas
Samuel
had
annoynted
him
before
;
but
the
Text
saith
expresly
that
the
people
made
Saul
King
,
and
Calvin
,
Martyr
,
Lavater
,
and
Popish
Writers
,
as
Serrarius
,
Mendoza
,
Sancheiz
,
Cornelius
a
Lapide
,
Lyranus
,
Hugo
Cardinalis
,
Carthusius
,
Sanctius
,
doe
all
hence
conclude
that
the
people
under
God
,
make
the
King
.
I
see
no
reason
why
[
b
](A92147-e16380-b)
b
Barclaius
,
l.
3.
cout
.
Monar●homach
.
8.
c.
3.
Barclaius
should
here
distinguish
a
power
of
choosing
a
King
,
which
he
granteth
the
people
hath
,
and
a
power
of
makinga
King
,
which
he
saith
is
only
proper
to
God
.
Answ.
Choosing
of
a
King
,
is
either
a
comparative
crowning
of
this
man
,
not
this
Eliab
;
Solomon
,
not
Adoniah
.
The
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
the
●●roick
spirit
of
a
Royall
facultie
of
governing
,
is
,
I
grant
,
from
God
only
,
not
from
the
people
:
but
I
suppose
that
maketh
not
a
King
;
for
then
many
sitting
on
the
throne
this
day
,
should
be
no
Kings
;
and
many
private
persons
should
be
Kings
.
If
he
meane
by
the
peoples
choosiag
,
nothing
but
the
peoples
approbative
consent
,
posterior
to
Gods
act
of
creating
a
King
;
let
them
shew
us
an
act
of
God
making
Kings
,
and
establishing
royall
power
in
such
a
familie
,
rather
then
in
such
a
familie
;
which
is
prior
to
the
peoples
consent
,
distinct
from
the
peoples
consent
,
I
believe
there
is
none
at
all
.
4.
Arg.
Hence
I
argue
▪
if
there
be
no
calling
or
title
on
earth
to
tie
the
Crown
to
such
a
Familie
and
Person
,
but
the
suffrages
of
the
people
;
then
have
the
line
of
such
a
familie
,
and
the
persons
now
,
no
calling
of
God
,
no
right
to
the
crown
,
but
only
by
the
suffrages
of
the
people
,
except
we
say
that
there
be
no
lawfull
Kings
on
earth
now
,
when
Propheticall
unction
and
designation
to
Crowns
are
ceased
,
contrary
to
expresse
Scripture
,
Rom.
13.
1
,
2
,
3.
1
Pet.
2.
13
,
14
,
15
,
16
,
17.
But
there
is
no
title
on
earth
now
to
tye
crownes
to
families
,
to
persons
,
but
onely
the
suffrages
of
the
people
:
for
,
1.
Conquest
without
the
consent
of
the
people
,
is
but
royall
latrocinie
,
as
we
shall
see
.
2.
There
is
no
propheticall
and
immediate
calling
to
Kingdomes
now
.
3.
The
Lords
giving
of
Regall
parts
is
somewhat
;
but
I
hope
Royallists
will
not
deny
but
a
child
young
in
yeares
and
judgment
,
may
be
a
lawfull
King
.
3.
Mr.
Maxwell
his
appointing
of
the
Kingly
office
,
doth
no
more
make
one
man
a
lawfull
King
,
then
another
:
for
this
were
a
wide
consequence
.
God
hath
appointed
that
Kings
should
be
;
ergo
,
Iohn
a
Stiles
is
a
King
;
yea
,
ergo
,
David
is
a
King
:
It
followeth
not
.
Therefore
it
remaineth
only
,
that
the
suffrages
of
the
people
of
God
is
that
just
title
and
divine
calling
that
Kings
have
now
to
their
crownes
.
I
presuppose
they
have
gifts
to
governe
from
God
.
5.
If
the
Lords
immediate
designation
of
David
,
and
his
annointing
King
at
Hebron
.
And
Salom●n
,
though
by
God
designed
and
ordained
to
be
King
,
yet
was
never
King
,
till
the
people
made
him
King
,
1
King
.
1.
ergo
,
there
floweth
something
from
the
power
of
the
people
,
by
which
he
who
is
no
King
,
now
becommeth
a
King
,
formally
,
and
by
Gods
lawfull
call
;
whereas
before
the
man
was
no
King
,
but
as
touching
all
royall
power
a
meere
private
man
.
And
I
am
sure
birth
must
be
lesse
then
Gods
designation
to
a
crowne
,
as
is
cleere
.
Adoniah
was
elder
then
Salomon
,
yet
God
will
have
Salomon
,
the
younger
by
birth
,
to
be
King
,
and
not
Adoniah
.
And
so
Mr.
Symons
and
other
Court-Prophets
must
prevaricate
,
who
will
have
birth
without
the
peoples
election
to
make
a
king
,
and
the
peoples
voyces
but
a
ceremonie
.
6.
I
thinke
Royalists
cannot
deny
but
a
people
ruled
by
Aristocraticall
Magistrates
,
may
elect
a
King
,
and
a
King
so
elected
is
formally
made
a
lawfull
King
by
the
peoples
election
,
for
of
six
apt
and
gifted
to
reigne
,
what
maketh
one
a
King
,
and
not
the
other
five
?
Certainly
God
disposing
the
people
to
choose
this
man
,
and
not
another
man
,
it
cannot
be
said
but
God
giveth
the
Kingly
power
immediately
,
and
by
him
Kings
raigne
,
that
is
true
.
The
Office
is
immediately
from
God
,
but
now
the
question
is
,
what
is
that
which
formally
applyeth
the
Office
and
Royall
Power
to
this
Person
,
rather
then
to
the
other
five
as
meet
.
Nothing
can
here
be
dreamed
of
,
but
God
inclining
the
hearts
of
the
States
to
choose
this
man
,
and
not
this
men
.
QUEST.
V.
Whether
or
no
P.
P.
the
Author
of
Sac.
San.
Regum
Majestas
,
called
the
sacred
and
Royall
Prerogative
of
Kings
,
proveth
that
God
is
the
immediate
Author
of
Soveraignty
,
and
that
the
King
is
no
creature
of
the
peoples
making
?
COnsider
first
that
the
excommunicated
Prelate
saith
,
cap.
2.
p.
19.
Kings
are
not
immediatly
from
God
,
as
by
any
speciall
Ordinance
sent
from
Heaven
by
the
ministery
of
Angels
and
Prophets
,
there
were
but
some
few
such
;
as
Moses
,
Saul
,
David
,
&c.
yet
something
may
immediatly
proceed
from
God
,
and
be
his
speciall
worke
without
a
revelation
or
manifestation
extraordinary
from
Heaven
,
so
the
designation
to
a
sacred
function
is
from
the
Church
,
and
from
man
;
yet
the
power
of
Word
,
Sacraments
binding
and
loosing
,
is
immediatly
from
Jesus
Christ
.
The
Apostle
Matthias
was
from
Christs
immediate
constitution
,
and
yet
he
was
designed
by
men
,
Act.
1.
The
soule
is
by
creation
and
infusion
,
without
any
speciall
ordinance
from
Heaven
,
though
nature
begeteth
the
body
,
and
disposeth
the
matter
,
and
prepareth
it
as
fit
to
be
conjoyned
with
the
soule
,
so
as
the
father
is
said
to
beget
the
sonne
.
Ans.
1.
The
unchurched
Prelate
striveth
to
make
us
hatefull
by
the
title
of
the
Chapter
,
That
God
is
(
by
his
title
)
the
immediate
Author
of
Soveraingty
;
and
who
denyeth
that
?
Not
those
,
who
teach
that
the
person
who
is
King
,
is
created
King
by
the
people
,
no
more
then
those
who
deny
that
men
are
now
called
to
be
Pastors
,
and
Deacons
immediately
,
and
by
a
voice
from
Heaven
,
or
by
the
ministery
of
Angells
and
Prophets
,
because
the
Office
of
Pastors
and
Deacons
is
immediately
from
God
.
2.
When
he
hath
proved
that
God
is
the
immediate
Author
of
Soveraingty
.
What
then
?
shall
it
follow
that
the
soveraigne
in
concreto
may
not
be
resisted
?
and
that
he
is
above
all
Law
;
and
that
there
is
no
armour
against
his
violence
but
prayers
and
teares
.
So
God
is
the
immediate
Author
of
the
Pastors
,
of
the
Apostles
Office
,
ergo
,
it
is
unlawfull
to
resist
a
Pastor
,
though
he
turne
robber
?
ergo
,
the
Pastor
is
above
all
the
Kings
Lawes
?
this
is
the
Iesuite
and
all
made
,
ergo
,
there
is
no
Armour
against
the
robbing
Prelate
but
prayer
and
teares
.
2.
He
saith
in
his
Title
,
that
the
King
is
no
Creature
of
the
peoples
making
.
If
he
meane
the
King
in
abstracto
,
that
is
,
the
royall
dignity
,
whom
speaketh
he
against
?
Not
against
us
,
but
against
his
owne
father
Bellarmine
,
who
saith
[
a
](A92147-e17750-b)
a
Bellarmine
l.
5.
c.
6.
not
5.
De
Laicis
.
that
Soveraignty
hath
no
warrant
by
any
divine
Law
.
If
he
meane
that
the
man
who
is
King
is
not
created
and
elected
King
by
the
people
,
he
contradicteth
himself
and
all
the
Court
Doctors
.
3.
It
is
false
that
Saul
and
David
,
their
originall
of
Royalty
was
onely
from
God
by
a
speciall
Ordinance
sent
from
Heaven
;
for
their
office
is
,
Deut.
17.
14.
from
the
written
Word
of
God
,
as
the
killing
of
Idolaters
,
v.
3
,
7.
as
the
Office
of
the
Priests
and
Levites
,
8
,
9
,
10.
and
this
is
no
extraordinary
Ordinance
from
Heaven
,
more
than
that
is
from
Heaven
which
is
warranted
by
the
Word
of
God
.
If
he
meane
that
these
men
,
Saul
,
and
David
,
were
created
Kings
by
the
onely
extraordinary
revelation
of
God
from
Heaven
,
it
is
a
lye
;
for
beside
the
Propheticall
anoynting
of
them
,
they
were
made
Kings
by
the
people
,
as
the
word
saith
expresly
;
except
we
say
that
David
sinned
in
not
setting
himselfe
downe
on
the
Throne
,
when
Samuel
anoynted
him
first
King
;
and
so
he
should
have
made
away
his
Master
King
Saul
out
of
the
world
;
and
there
were
not
a
few
called
to
the
Throne
,
by
the
people
;
but
many
,
yea
all
the
Kings
of
Israel
and
Iudah
.
4.
The
Prelate
contendeth
that
a
King
is
designed
to
his
royall
dignity
,
immediatly
from
God
,
without
an
extraordinary
revelation
from
Heaven
,
as
the
man
is
designed
to
be
a
Pastor
by
men
;
and
yet
the
power
of
Preaching
is
immediatly
from
God
,
&c.
but
he
proveth
nothing
,
except
he
prove
that
all
Pastors
are
called
to
be
Pastors
immediatly
;
and
that
God
calleth
and
designeth
to
the
Throne
such
a
person
immediatly
,
as
he
hath
immediatly
instituted
by
the
power
of
Preaching
,
and
the
Apostleship
,
and
hath
immediatly
infused
the
soule
in
the
body
,
by
an
act
of
Creation
;
and
we
cannot
conceive
how
God
in
our
daies
,
when
there
are
no
extraordinary
revelations
,
doth
immediatly
create
this
man
a
King
,
and
immediatly
tie
the
crown
to
this
family
rather
then
to
this
;
this
he
doth
by
the
people
now
,
without
any
Propheticall
Vnction
;
and
by
this
medium
,
to
wit
,
by
the
free
choice
of
the
people
.
He
needeth
not
bring
the
example
of
Matthias
more
than
of
any
ordinary
Pastor
,
and
yet
an
ordinary
Pastor
is
not
immediatly
called
of
God
,
because
the
Office
of
an
ordinary
Pastor
is
from
God
immediatly
,
and
also
the
man
is
made
Pastor
by
the
Church
.
The
P.
Prelate
saith
,
a
thing
is
immediatly
from
God
three
waies
.
Moses
,
Saul
,
David
.
Such
were
the
Apostles
.
2.
When
the
collation
of
the
power
to
such
a
person
is
immediatly
from
God
,
though
some
act
of
man
be
antecedent
;
as
Matthias
was
an
Apostle
.
A
baptized
man
obtaineth
remission
and
regeneration
,
yet
aspersion
of
water
cannot
produce
these
excellent
effects
.
A
King
giveth
power
to
a
favourite
to
make
a
Lord
or
a
Baron
,
yet
who
is
so
stupid
as
to
averre
the
honour
of
a
Lord
commeth
immediatly
from
the
favourite
,
and
not
from
the
King
.
3.
When
a
man
hath
by
some
ordinary
humane
right
,
a
full
and
just
right
,
and
the
approbation
and
confirmation
of
this
right
is
immediatly
from
God
.
The
first
way
,
Soveraignty
is
not
from
God
.
The
second
way
,
Soveraignty
is
conferred
on
Kings
immediatly
,
though
some
created
act
of
Election
,
succesion
,
conquests
intervene
,
the
interposed
act
containeth
not
in
it
power
to
conferre
Soveraignty
;
as
in
Baptisme
,
Regeneration
,
if
there
be
nothing
repugnant
in
the
suscipient
,
is
conferred
,
not
by
water
,
but
immediatly
by
God
.
In
sacred
Orders
designation
is
from
men
,
power
to
supernatur
all
acts
from
God
:
election
,
succession
,
conquests
remotely
and
improperly
constitute
a
King
.
To
say
in
the
third
sence
that
soveraignty
is
immediatly
from
God
,
by
approbation
or
confirmation
onely
,
is
against
Scripture
,
Prov.
8.
15.
Psa.
82.
8.
Ioh.
19.
then
the
people
say
;
you
are
Gods
,
your
power
is
from
below
.
And
Pauls
,
(
ordained
of
God
)
is
(
approved
and
confirmed
onely
of
God
)
the
power
of
designation
,
or
application
of
the
person
to
royalty
is
from
man
;
the
power
of
conferring
royall
power
,
or
of
applying
the
person
to
royall
power
is
from
God
.
A
mans
hand
may
apply
a
faggot
to
the
fire
,
the
fire
onely
maketh
the
faggot
to
burne
.
Ans.
1.
Apostles
both
according
to
their
Office
,
and
the
designation
of
their
person
to
the
Office
were
immediatly
and
onely
from
God
,
without
any
act
of
the
people
,
and
therefore
are
badly
coupled
with
the
royall
power
of
David
and
King
Saul
,
who
were
not
formally
made
Kings
,
but
by
the
people
at
Mizpeh
and
Hebron
,
2.
The
second
way
God
giveth
Royall
Power
by
moving
the
peoples
hearts
to
confer
royall
power
,
and
this
is
virtually
in
the
people
,
formally
from
God
.
Water
hath
no
influence
to
produce
grace
,
Gods
institution
and
promise
doth
it
;
except
you
dream
with
your
Iesuites
,
of
opus
operatum
,
that
water
sprinkled
,
by
the
doing
of
the
deed
conferreth
grace
,
nisi
ponatur
obex
,
what
can
the
child
doe
,
or
one
child
more
then
another
baptized
child
,
to
hinder
the
flux
of
remission
of
sins
,
if
you
meane
not
that
Baptisme
worketh
as
Physick
on
a
sick
man
,
except
strength
of
humours
hinder
?
and
therefore
this
comparison
is
not
alike
.
The
people
cannot
produce
so
noble
an
effect
as
royalty
,
a
beame
of
God
.
True
,
formally
they
cannot
,
but
virtually
it
is
in
a
society
of
reasonable
men
,
in
whom
are
left
beames
of
authoritative
Majesty
,
which
by
a
divine
institution
they
can
give
,
Deut.
17.
14.
to
this
man
,
to
David
,
not
to
Eliab
;
and
I
could
well
say
the
Favorite
made
the
Lord
,
and
placed
honour
in
the
man
whom
he
made
Lord
,
by
a
borrowed
power
from
his
Prince
;
and
yet
the
honour
of
a
Lord
is
principally
from
the
King
.
3.
It
is
true
,
theelection
of
the
people
conteineth
not
formally
Royall
dignitie
,
but
the
Word
saith
,
they
made
Saul
,
they
made
David
King
:
so
virtually
election
must
conteine
it
.
Samuels
oyle
maketh
not
David
King
,
he
is
a
subject
after
he
is
anointed
;
the
peoples
election
at
Hebron
maketh
him
King
;
2.
differenceth
him
from
his
brethren
;
3.
putteth
him
in
Royall
state
;
yet
God
is
the
principall
agent
.
What
immediate
action
God
hath
here
,
is
said
and
dreamed
of
,
no
man
can
divine
,
except
Prophet
P.
Prelate
.
The
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Royall
authoritie
is
given
organically
by
that
act
by
which
he
is
made
King
:
another
act
is
a
night-dreame
,
but
by
the
act
of
election
David
is
made
of
no
King
,
a
King
.
The
collation
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Royall
gifts
,
is
immediately
from
God
:
but
that
formally
maketh
not
a
King
,
if
Solomon
saw
right
,
servants
riding
on
horses
,
Princes
going
on
foot
.
4.
Judge
of
the
Prelates
subtiltie
,
I
dare
say
,
not
his
own
,
he
The
applying
of
the
person
to
Royall
authoritie
,
is
from
the
people
;
but
the
applying
of
Royall
authoritie
to
the
person
of
the
King
,
is
immediately
and
only
from
God
:
as
the
hand
putteth
the
faggot
to
the
fire
,
but
the
fire
maketh
it
burne
.
To
apply
the
subject
to
the
accident
,
is
it
any
thing
else
but
to
apply
the
accident
to
the
subject
?
Royall
authoritie
is
an
accident
,
the
person
of
the
King
the
subject
:
the
applying
of
the
faggot
to
the
fire
,
and
the
applying
of
the
fire
to
the
faggot
,
are
all
one
,
to
any
not
forsaken
of
common
sense
.
When
the
people
applyeth
the
person
to
the
royall
authoritie
,
they
but
put
the
person
in
the
state
of
royall
authoritie
;
and
this
is
to
make
an
union
betwixt
the
Man
and
royall
authoritie
;
and
this
is
to
apply
royall
authoritie
to
the
person
.
5.
The
third
sense
is
the
Prelates
dreame
,
not
a
Tenet
of
ours
;
we
never
said
that
soveraigntie
in
the
King
is
immediately
from
God
by
approbation
or
confirmation
only
,
as
if
the
people
first
made
the
King
,
and
God
did
only
by
a
posterior
and
latter
act
say
Amen
to
the
deed
done
,
and
subscribe
,
as
Recorder
,
to
what
the
people
doth
:
so
the
people
should
deale
kingdomes
and
crownes
at
their
pleasure
,
and
God
behoved
to
ratifie
and
make
good
their
fact
.
When
God
doth
apply
the
person
to
royall
power
,
what
?
is
this
a
different
action
from
the
peoples
applying
the
person
to
royall
dignitie
?
It
is
not
imaginable
:
but
the
people
by
creating
a
king
,
applyeth
the
person
to
royall
dignitie
;
and
God
by
the
peoples
act
of
constituting
the
man
king
,
doth
by
the
mediation
of
this
act
convey
royall
authoritie
to
the
man
,
as
the
Church
by
sending
a
man
,
and
ordaining
him
to
bee
a
Pastor
,
doth
not
by
that
,
as
Gods
instruments
,
infuse
supernaturall
powers
of
preaching
:
these
powers
supernaturall
may
be
,
and
often
are
in
him
before
he
be
in
orders
;
and
sometimes
God
infuseth
a
supernaturall
power
of
government
in
a
man
,
when
he
is
not
yet
a
king
,
as
the
Lord
turned
Saul
into
another
man
,
1
Sam.
10.
5.
6.
neither
at
that
point
of
time
when
Samuel
anointed
him
,
but
after
that
,
v.
5.
After
that
thou
shalt
come
to
the
hill
of
God
,
6.
the
spirit
of
the
Lord
shall
come
upon
thee
,
and
thou
shalt
prophecie
with
them
,
and
shalt
be
turned
into
another
man
.
Nor
yet
at
that
time
when
he
is
formally
made
King
by
the
people
;
for
Saul
was
not
King
formally
,
because
of
Samuels
anointing
,
nor
yet
was
he
King
because
another
spirit
was
infused
into
him
,
v.
5
,
6.
for
he
was
yet
a
privat
man
,
till
the
States
of
Israel
chose
him
King
at
Mizpeh
.
And
the
word
of
God
useth
words
of
action
to
expresse
the
peoples
power
,
Iudg.
9.
6.
And
all
the
men
of
Sechem
gathered
together
,
and
all
the
men
of
Millo
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
regnare
fecerunt
,
they
caused
him
to
be
King
.
The
same
is
they
caused
Saul
to
reigne
,
2
K.
10.
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
We
shall
not
King
any
man
,
1
Chron.
12.
38.
They
came
to
Hebron
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
King
David
over
all
Israel
,
Deut.
17.
three
times
the
making
of
a
King
is
given
to
the
people
.
7.
When
thou
shalt
say
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
I
shall
set
a
King
over
me
:
if
it
were
not
their
power
to
make
a
King
,
no
law
could
be
imposed
on
them
not
to
make
a
stranger
their
King
,
1
King
.
12.
20.
all
the
congregation
Kinged
Jeroboam
,
or
made
him
King
over
all
Israel
,
2
King
.
They
Kinged
Joash
,
or
made
Ioash
to
reigne
.
6.
The
people
are
to
say
,
You
are
Gods
,
and
your
power
is
below
,
saith
the
Prelate
:
what
then
?
ergo
,
their
power
is
not
from
God
also
:
It
followeth
not
,
subordinata
non
pugnant
.
The
Scripture
saith
both
,
the
Lord
exalted
David
to
be
King
,
and
,
All
power
is
from
God
:
and
so
the
power
of
a
L.
Major
of
a
Citie
:
and
the
people
made
David
L.
Major
.
It
is
the
Anabaptists
argument
;
God
writeth
his
law
in
our
heart
,
and
teacheth
his
own
children
,
ergo
,
bookes
,
and
the
ministerie
of
men
are
needlesse
:
So
all
Sciences
and
lawfull
arts
are
from
God
:
ergo
,
Sciences
applied
to
men
,
are
not
from
mens
free
will
,
industrie
and
studies
.
The
Prelate
extolleth
the
King
,
when
he
will
have
his
Royaltie
from
God
,
the
way
that
John
Stiles
is
the
husband
of
such
a
woman
.
P.
Prelate
.
Kings
are
of
God
,
they
are
Gods
,
children
of
the
most
High
,
his
servants
,
publike
Ministers
,
their
sword
and
judgement
Gods
.
This
he
hath
said
of
their
royaltie
in
abstracto
,
and
in
concreto
;
their
power
,
person
,
charge
,
are
all
of
divine
extract
,
and
so
their
authoritie
and
person
are
both
sacred
and
inviolable
.
Answ.
So
are
all
the
congregation
of
the
Iudges
,
Psal.
82.
v.
1.
6.
all
of
them
Gods
:
for
he
speaketh
not
there
of
a
congregation
of
Kings
.
So
are
Apostles
,
Deut.
1.
17.
2.
Chro.
19.
6.
Hence
by
the
Prelates
Logick
,
the
persons
of
Prelates
,
Majors
,
Bailiffes
,
Constables
,
Pastors
,
are
sacred
and
inviolable
above
all
lawes
,
as
are
Kings
.
Is
this
an
extolling
of
Kings
?
2.
But
where
are
Kings
persons
,
as
men
,
said
to
be
of
God
,
as
the
Royaltie
in
abstract●
i●
?
The
Prelate
seeth
beside
his
booke
,
Psal.
82.
7.
But
ye
shall
die
as
men
.
P.
Prelate
.
We
begin
with
the
Law
,
in
which
as
God
by
himself
prescribed
the
essentialls
,
substantialls
,
&
ceremonies
of
his
pietie
&
worship
,
gave
order
for
justice
&
pietie
,
Deut.
17.
14
15.
the
King
is
here
originally
&
immediately
from
God
,
and
independent
from
all
others
,
(
set
over
them
)
Them
,
is
collective
,
that
is
,
all
&
every
one
.
Scripture
knoweth
not
this
State
principle
;
Rex
est
singulis
major
,
universis
minor
.
The
person
is
expressed
in
concreto
,
whom
the
Lord
thy
God
shall
choose
.
This
peremptorie
precept
dischargeth
the
people
,
all
,
and
every
one
,
diffusively
,
representatively
,
or
in
any
imaginable
capacity
to
attempt
the
appointing
of
a
King
,
but
to
leave
it
entirely
and
totally
to
God
Almighty
.
Answ.
Begin
with
the
Law
,
but
end
not
with
Traditions
.
If
God
by
himselfe
prescribed
the
essentialls
of
pietie
and
worship
,
the
other
part
of
your
distinction
is
,
that
God
not
by
himself
,
but
by
his
Prelates
,
appointed
the
whole
Romish
Rites
,
as
accidentalls
of
pietie
.
This
is
the
Iesuites
doctrine
.
2.
This
place
is
so
far
from
proving
the
King
to
be
independent
,
and
that
it
totally
is
Gods
to
appoint
a
King
,
that
it
expresly
giveth
the
people
power
to
appoint
a
King
:
for
the
setting
of
a
King
over
themselves
,
such
a
one
,
and
not
such
a
one
,
makes
the
people
to
appoint
the
King
,
and
the
King
to
be
lesse
and
dependent
on
the
people
,
seeing
God
intendeth
the
King
for
the
peoples
good
,
and
not
the
people
for
the
Kings
good
.
This
text
shameth
the
Prelate
,
who
also
confessed
,
P.
22.
That
remotely
and
unproperly
succession
,
election
,
and
conquest
maketh
the
King
,
and
so
its
lawfull
for
men
remotely
and
improperly
to
invade
Gods
chaire
.
P.
Prelate
:
Jesuites
and
Puritans
say
,
it
was
a
priviledge
of
the
Jews
that
God
chose
their
King
.
So
Suarez
,
Soto
,
Navarra
.
Answ.
1.
The
Jesuites
are
the
Prelates
brethren
,
they
are
under
one
Banner
,
we
are
in
contrary
Camps
to
Iesuites
.
2.
The
Prelate
said
himself
,
Pag.
19.
Moses
,
Saul
,
and
David
,
were
by
extraordinary
revelation
from
God
;
sure
I
am
,
Kings
are
not
so
now
.
The
Jews
had
this
priviledge
,
that
no
nation
had
.
1.
God
named
some
Kings
to
them
,
as
Saul
,
David
,
he
doth
not
so
now
.
2.
God
did
tie
Royaltie
to
Davids
house
by
a
Covenant
,
till
Christ
should
come
,
he
doth
not
so
now
.
Yet
we
stand
to
Deut.
17.
P.
Prelate
.
Prov.
8.
15.
By
me
Kings
reign
.
If
the
people
had
Adonijah
.
Solomon
saith
not
of
himself
,
but
indefinitely
(
By
me
)
as
by
the
Author
,
efficient
,
and
constituent
,
Kings
reign
.
(
Per
)
is
by
Christ
,
not
by
the
people
,
not
by
the
high
Priest
,
State
,
or
Presbytery
,
not
Per
me
iratum
,
by
me
in
my
anger
,
as
some
Sectaries
say
.
Pauls
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
an
Ordinance
by
high
Authoritie
not
revocable
:
So
Sinesius
useth
the
word
,
Aristotle
,
Lucilius
,
Appian
,
Plutarch
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
me
,
and
by
me
,
as
Doctor
Andrews
.
Kings
indefinitely
,
all
Kings
:
none
may
distinguish
where
the
Law
distinguisheth
not
,
they
reign
in
concreto
:
that
same
power
that
maketh
Kings
,
must
unmake
them
.
Ans.
1.
The
Prelate
cannot
restrict
this
to
Kings
only
,
it
extendeth
to
Parliaments
also
.
Solomon
addeth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
Consules
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
all
the
Sirs
,
and
Princes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
Magnificents
,
and
Nobles
,
and
more
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
all
the
Iudges
of
the
earth
,
they
reign
,
rule
,
and
decree
justice
by
Christ
.
Here
then
Majors
,
Sheriffs
,
Provosts
,
Constables
,
are
by
the
Prelate
extolled
as
persons
,
sacred
,
irresistible
:
Then
,
1.
the
Iudges
of
England
rule
not
by
the
King
of
Britain
,
as
their
Author
,
efficient
,
constituent
,
but
by
Iesus
Christ
immediately
,
nor
doth
the
Commissary
rule
by
the
Prelate
.
2.
All
these
,
and
their
power
,
and
persons
,
rule
independently
,
and
immediately
by
Iesus
Christ
.
3.
All
inferiour
Iudges
are
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
Ordinances
of
God
not
revocable
.
Ergo
,
The
King
cannot
deprive
any
Iudge
under
him
;
he
cannot
declare
the
Parliament
no
Parliament
;
once
a
Iudge
and
alwayes
,
and
irrevocably
a
judge
.
This
Prelates
poor
pleading
for
Kings
deserves
no
wages
.
Lavater
intelligit
superiores
&
inferiores
Magistratus
,
non
est
potestas
nisi
a
deo
,
Vatablus
confiliarios
.
2.
If
the
people
had
absolute
right
,
to
choose
Kings
by
the
Law
of
Israel
,
they
might
have
chosen
another
,
then
either
Adonijah
,
or
Solomon
,
but
the
Lord
expressely
,
Deut.
17.
14.
put
an
expresse
Law
on
them
,
that
they
should
make
no
King
,
but
him
whom
the
Lord
should
chuse
:
Now
the
Lord
did
either
by
his
immediately
inspired
Propher
,
anoint
the
man
,
as
he
anointed
David
,
Saul
,
Iehu
,
&c.
or
then
he
restricted
,
by
a
revealed
promise
,
the
Royall
power
to
a
family
,
and
to
the
eldest
by
birth
:
and
therefore
the
Lord
first
chose
the
man
,
and
then
the
people
made
him
King
:
birth
was
not
their
rule
,
as
is
clear
,
in
that
they
made
Solomon
their
King
,
not
Adonijah
the
elder
;
and
this
proveth
,
that
God
did
both
ordain
Kingly
Government
to
the
Kingdom
of
Israel
,
and
chose
the
man
,
either
in
his
person
,
or
tied
it
to
the
first
born
of
the
Line
.
Now
we
have
no
Scripture
,
nor
Law
of
God
,
to
tie
Royall
dignitie
to
one
man
,
or
to
one
family
;
produce
a
warrant
for
it
in
the
Word
,
for
that
must
be
a
priviledge
of
the
Iews
,
for
which
we
have
no
Word
of
God
,
but
we
have
no
immediately
inspired
Samuels
,
to
say
,
Make
David
,
or
this
man
King
;
and
no
Word
of
God
to
say
,
Let
the
first
born
of
this
family
,
rather
then
another
family
sit
upon
the
throne
;
Therefore
the
people
must
make
such
a
man
King
,
following
the
rule
of
Gods
Word
,
Deut.
17.
14.
and
other
rules
shewing
what
sort
of
men
Iudges
must
be
,
as
Deut
1.
16
,
17
,
18.
2
Chro.
19.
6
,
7.
3.
It
is
true
,
Kings
in
a
speciall
manner
reign
by
Christ
.
Ergo
,
Not
by
the
peoples
free
election
.
The
P.
Prelate
argueth
like
himself
:
By
this
Text
,
a
Major
of
a
Citie
,
by
the
Lord
,
decreeth
justice
:
Ergo
,
He
is
not
made
a
Major
of
the
Citie
,
by
the
people
of
the
Citie
.
It
followeth
not
,
4.
None
of
us
teach
that
Kings
reign
by
Gods
anger
.
We
judge
a
King
a
great
mercy
of
God
to
Church
,
or
State
:
But
the
Text
saith
not
,
By
the
Lord
,
Kings
and
Iudges
do
not
onely
reign
and
decree
justice
,
but
also
murther
Protestants
,
by
raising
against
them
an
Army
of
Papists
.
And
the
word
,
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Powers
,
doth
in
no
Greek
Author
signifie
,
irrevocable
powers
;
for
Vzziah
was
a
lawfull
King
,
and
yet
2
Chron.
26.
lawfully
put
from
the
throne
,
and
cut
off
from
the
house
of
the
Lord
:
And
Interpreters
on
this
place
,
deny
that
the
place
is
to
be
understood
of
Tyrants
:
so
the
Chaldee
Paraphrase
turns
it
well
,
Potentes
virga
justitiae
:
so
Lavater
,
and
Di●datus
,
That
all
Kings
,
and
Iudges
,
Laws
,
derivari
a
lege
aeterna
,
are
derived
from
the
eternall
Law
.
The
Prelate
eating
his
tongue
for
anger
,
striveth
to
prove
,
That
all
power
,
and
so
Royall
power
,
is
of
God
:
but
what
can
he
make
of
it
?
we
beleeve
it
,
though
he
say
Sectaries
prove
,
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
That
a
man
is
justified
by
faith
onely
:
so
there
is
no
power
joyn
Paul
and
Solomon
together
,
and
say
,
That
Soveraigntie
is
from
God
,
of
God
,
by
God
,
as
Gods
appointment
irrevocable
.
Then
shall
it
never
follow
:
it
is
unseparable
from
the
person
,
except
you
make
the
King
a
man
immortall
:
as
God
onely
can
remove
the
Crown
;
it
is
true
,
but
God
onely
can
put
an
unworthy
,
and
an
excommunicated
Prelate
from
Office
and
Benefice
,
but
how
?
Doth
that
prove
,
that
men
and
the
Church
may
not
also
in
their
place
,
remove
an
unworthy
Church-man
,
when
the
Church
following
Gods
Word
,
delivereth
to
Satan
?
Christ
onely
as
head
of
the
Church
,
excommunicateth
scandalous
men
:
Ergo
,
The
Church
cannot
do
it
,
and
yet
the
Argument
is
as
good
the
one
way
,
as
the
other
;
for
all
the
Churches
on
earth
cannot
make
a
Minister
properly
,
they
but
design
him
to
the
Ministery
whom
God
hath
gifted
and
called
:
But
shall
we
conclude
,
ergo
,
no
Church
on
earth
;
but
God
onely
,
by
an
immediate
action
from
Heaven
,
can
deprive
a
Minister
?
how
then
durst
Prelates
excommunicate
,
unmake
,
and
imprison
so
many
Ministers
in
the
three
Kingdoms
:
But
the
truth
is
,
take
this
one
Argument
from
the
Prelate
,
and
all
that
is
in
his
Book
,
falleth
to
the
ground
,
to
wit
,
Soveraigntie
is
from
God
onely
.
A
King
is
a
creature
of
Gods
making
onely
;
and
what
then
?
Ergo
,
Soveraigntie
cannot
be
taken
from
him
:
So
God
onely
made
Aarons
house
Priests
.
2.
Solomon
had
no
Law
to
depose
Abiathar
from
the
Priest-hood
.
Possibly
the
Prelate
will
grant
all
;
the
place
,
Rom.
13.
which
he
saith
hath
tortured
us
,
I
refer
to
a
fitter
place
,
it
will
be
found
to
torture
Court
Parasites
.
I
goe
on
with
the
Prelate
,
c.
3.
Sacred
Soveraignty
is
to
be
preserved
,
and
Kings
are
to
be
prayed
for
,
that
we
may
lead
a
godly
life
,
1
Tim.
3.
What
then
?
1.
All
in
authority
are
to
be
prayed
for
,
even
Parliaments
,
by
that
text
Pastors
are
to
be
prayed
for
,
and
without
them
sound
religion
cannot
well
subsist
.
2.
Is
this
questioned
,
but
Kings
should
be
prayed
for
;
or
are
we
wanting
in
this
duty
?
but
it
followeth
not
that
all
dignities
to
be
prayed
for
are
immediatly
from
God
,
not
from
men
.
Prelate
,
Prov.
8.
Solomon
speaketh
first
of
the
establishment
of
Government
,
before
he
speake
of
the
workes
of
Creation
,
ergo
better
not
be
at
all
,
as
be
without
government
.
And
God
fixed
government
in
the
person
of
Adam
before
Evah
,
or
any
else
came
into
the
world
;
and
how
shall
government
be
,
and
we
enjoy
the
fruits
of
it
,
except
we
preserve
the
Kings
sacred
Authority
inviolable
?
Ans.
Moses
,
Gen.
1.
speaketh
of
Creation
before
he
speaketh
of
Kings
,
and
Moses
speaketh
,
Gen.
3.
of
Adams
sins
before
he
speakes
of
redemption
through
the
blessed
seed
;
ergo
better
never
be
redeemed
at
all
,
as
to
to
be
without
sin
.
2.
If
God
made
Adam
a
governour
before
he
made
Evah
,
and
any
of
Mankind
,
he
was
made
a
father
and
a
husband
before
he
had
either
sonne
or
wise
.
Is
this
the
Prelates
Logick
?
he
may
prove
that
two
eggs
on
his
fathers
Table
are
three
this
way
.
3.
There
is
no
government
where
soveraignty
is
not
keptinviolable
.
It
is
true
,
where
there
is
a
King
,
soveraignty
must
be
inviolable
,
What
then
?
Arbitrary
government
is
not
soveraignty
.
4.
He
intimateth
Aristocracy
,
and
Democracy
,
and
the
power
of
Parliaments
,
which
maketh
Kings
to
be
nothing
but
Anarchie
;
for
he
speaketh
here
of
no
government
,
but
Monarchy
,
P.
Prelate
,
there
is
need
of
grace
to
obey
the
King
,
Ps.
18.
43.
Ps.
144.
2.
It
is
God
who
subdueth
the
people
under
David
.
2.
Rebellion
against
the
King
i●
rebellion
against
God
.
Pet.
2.
17.
Prov
,
24.
12.
Ergo
Kings
have
a
neare
alliance
with
God
.
Ans.
1.
There
is
much
grace
in
Papists
and
Prelates
then
,
who
use
to
write
and
Preach
against
grace
.
2.
Lorinus
your
brother
Iesuite
will
with
good
warrant
of
the
texts
inferre
,
that
the
King
may
make
a
conquest
of
his
own
Kingdomes
of
Scotland
and
England
by
the
sword
,
as
David
subdued
the
Heathen
.
3.
Arbitrary
governing
hath
no
alliance
with
God
;
a
rebell
to
God
,
his
Country
and
an
Apostate
hath
no
reason
to
terme
lawfull
defence
against
cut-throat
Irish
,
rebellion
.
4.
There
is
need
of
much
grace
to
obey
Pastors
,
inferiour
Iudges
,
masters
,
Col.
3.
22
,
23.
ergo
their
power
is
from
God
immediatly
,
and
no
more
from
men
then
the
King
is
created
King
by
the
people
,
according
to
the
way
of
Royalists
.
P.
Prelate
.
God
saith
of
Pharaoh
,
Exo.
9.
7.
I
have
raised
thee
up
.
Elisha
from
God
constituted
the
King
of
Syria
,
2
King
8.
13.
Pharaoh
,
Abimelech
,
Hiram
,
Hazael
,
Hadad
,
are
no
lesse
honoured
with
the
compellation
of
Kings
,
then
David
,
Saul
,
&c.
Ier.
29.
9.
Nebuchadnezer
is
honoured
to
be
called
by
way
of
excellency
Gods
servant
,
which
God
giveth
to
David
,
a
King
according
to
his
owne
heart
;
and
Esay
45.
1
,
2.
Thus
saith
the
Lord
to
his
anoynted
Cyrus
,
and
God
nameth
him
neere
a
hundreth
yeare
before
he
was
borne
,
Esay
44.
28.
He
is
my
shepheard
,
Daniel
2.
19
,
20.
17.
24.
God
giveth
Kingdomes
to
whom
he
will
,
Dan.
5.
8.
and
p.
37.
Empires
,
Kingdomes
,
Royalties
are
not
disposed
of
by
the
composed
contracts
of
men
,
but
by
the
immediate
hand
and
worke
of
God
,
Hos.
13.
11.
I
gave
them
a
King
in
my
anger
,
I
tooke
him
away
in
my
wrath
:
Iob
,
He
places
Kings
in
the
throne
,
&c.
Ans.
Here
is
a
whole
Chapter
of
seven
pages
for
one
raw
argument
ten
times
before
repeated
,
1.
to
Exod.
9.
7.
I
have
raised
up
Pharaoh
,
Paul
expoundeth
it
,
Rom.
9.
to
prove
that
King
Pharaoh
was
a
vessell
of
wrath
fitted
for
destruction
,
by
Gods
absolute
Will
;
and
the
Prelate
following
Arminius
,
with
treasonable
charity
,
applyeth
this
to
our
King
.
Can
this
man
pray
for
the
King
?
2.
Elisha
anoynted
but
constituted
not
Hazael
King
,
and
foretold
he
should
be
King
;
and
if
he
be
a
King
of
Gods
making
,
who
slew
his
sicke
Prince
,
and
invaded
the
Throne
by
innocent
bloud
,
judge
you
.
I
would
not
take
Kings
of
the
Prelates
making
.
3.
If
God
give
to
Nebuchadnezer
the
same
still
of
the
servant
of
God
,
given
to
David
,
Ps.
18.
1.
&
116.
16.
and
to
Moses
,
Ios.
1
,
2.
all
Kings
,
because
Kings
are
men
according
to
Gods
heart
.
Why
is
not
royalty
then
founded
on
grace
?
Nebuchadnezer
was
not
otherwise
his
servant
,
then
he
was
the
hammer
of
the
earth
,
and
a
tyrannous
conquerour
of
the
Lords
people
,
and
all
the
Heathen
Kings
are
called
Kings
.
But
how
came
they
to
their
Thrones
for
the
most
part
?
as
David
and
Hezekiah
?
but
God
anointed
them
not
by
his
Prophets
;
they
came
to
their
Kingdomes
by
the
peoples
election
,
or
by
blood
and
rapine
;
the
latter
way
is
no
ground
to
you
to
deny
Athaliah
to
be
a
lawfull
Princesse
,
she
and
Abimelech
were
lawfull
Princes
,
and
their
soveraignty
as
immediatly
and
independently
from
God
,
as
the
soveraignty
of
many
heathen
Kings
.
See
then
how
justly
Athaliah
was
killed
as
a
bloody
usurper
of
the
throne
;
&
this
would
licence
your
brethren
the
Iesuites
to
stab
heathen
Kings
,
whom
you
will
have
as
well
Kings
as
the
Lords
anointed
,
though
Nebuchadnezer
&
many
of
them
made
their
way
to
the
Throne
,
against
all
Law
of
God
and
man
,
through
a
bloudy
patent
.
4.
Cyrus
is
Gods
anointed
and
his
Shepheard
too
,
ergo
his
Arbitrary
government
is
a
soveraignty
immediatly
depending
on
God
,
and
above
all
Law
;
it
is
a
wicked
consequence
.
5.
God
named
him
neare
a
hundreth
yeare
ere
he
was
borne
,
God
named
and
designed
Judas
very
individually
,
and
named
the
Asse
that
Christ
should
ride
on
to
Ierusalem
,
Zach.
9.
9.
some
moe
hundred
yeares
then
one
.
What
,
will
the
Prelate
make
them
independent
Kings
for
that
?
6.
God
giveth
Kingdomes
to
whom
he
will
.
What
then
?
this
will
prove
Kingdomes
to
be
as
independent
and
immediatly
from
God
,
as
Kings
are
;
for
as
God
giveth
Kings
to
Kingdomes
,
so
he
giveth
Kingdomes
to
Kings
,
and
no
doubt
he
giveth
Kingdoms
to
whom
he
will
;
so
he
giveth
Prophets
,
Apostles
,
Pastors
to
whom
he
will
;
and
he
giveth
tyrannous
conquests
to
whom
he
will
:
and
it
is
Nebuchadnezer
,
to
whom
Daniel
speaketh
that
,
from
the
Lord
,
and
he
had
no
just
title
to
many
Kingdomes
,
especially
to
the
Kingdome
of
Iudah
,
which
yet
God
the
King
of
Kings
gave
to
him
,
because
it
was
his
good
pleasure
;
and
if
God
had
not
commanded
them
by
the
mouth
of
his
Prophet
Ieremiah
,
might
they
not
have
risen
,
and
with
the
sword
have
vindicated
themselves
and
their
own
liberty
,
no
lesse
then
they
lawfully
by
the
sword
vindicated
themselves
from
under
Moab
,
Iudges
3.
from
under
Iabin
,
Iaakin
King
of
Canaan
,
who
twenty
yeares
mightily
oppressed
the
children
of
Israel
,
Iudges
.
4.
?
now
this
P.
Prelate
by
all
these
instances
making
Heathen
Kings
to
be
Kings
by
as
good
a
title
as
David
and
Hezekiah
,
condemneth
the
people
of
God
as
rebells
,
if
being
subdued
and
conquered
by
the
Turke
,
and
Spanish
King
,
they
should
by
the
sword
recover
their
owne
liberty
,
and
that
Israel
,
and
the
saviours
which
God
raised
to
them
,
had
not
warrant
from
the
law
of
nature
to
vindicate
themselves
to
liberty
,
which
was
taken
from
them
violently
and
unjustly
by
the
sword
;
but
from
all
this
it
shall
well
follow
that
the
tyranny
of
bloudy
conquerours
is
immediatly
and
only
dependent
from
God
,
no
lesse
then
lawfull
soveraignty
;
for
Nebuchadnezers
soveraignty
over
the
people
of
God
,
and
many
other
Kingdomes
also
was
revenged
of
God
as
tyranny
,
Ier.
50.
6.
7.
and
therefore
the
vengeance
of
the
Lord
,
and
the
vengeance
of
his
Temple
came
upon
him
and
his
land
,
Ier.
50.
16
,
17.
18.
28
,
29.
30.
It
is
true
,
the
people
of
God
were
commanded
of
God
to
submit
to
the
King
of
Babylon
,
to
serve
him
,
and
to
pray
for
him
,
and
to
doe
on
the
contrary
was
rebellion
;
but
this
was
not
because
the
King
of
Babylon
was
their
King
,
and
because
the
King
of
Babylon
had
a
command
of
God
,
so
to
bring
under
his
yoak
the
people
of
God
.
So
Christ
had
a
Commandement
to
suffer
the
death
of
the
Crosse
,
Iohn
.
10.
18.
but
had
Herod
and
Pilate
any
warrant
to
crucifie
him
?
none
at
all
.
7.
He
saith
,
Royalties
even
of
Heathen
Kings
are
not
disposed
of
by
the
composed
Contracts
of
men
,
but
by
the
immediate
hand
and
worke
of
God
.
But
the
Contracts
of
men
to
give
a
Kingdome
to
a
person
,
which
a
Heathen
community
may
lawfully
doe
,
and
so
by
contract
dispose
of
a
Kingdom
,
is
not
opposite
to
the
immediate
hand
of
God
,
appointing
Royalty
and
Monarchy
at
his
owne
blessed
liberty
.
Lastly
he
saith
,
God
tooke
away
Saul
in
his
wrath
;
but
I
pray
you
did
God
onely
doe
it
?
then
had
Saul
because
a
King
,
a
Patent
Royall
from
God
to
kill
himselfe
,
for
so
God
tooke
him
away
;
and
we
are
rebells
by
this
,
if
we
suffer
not
the
King
to
kill
himselfe
.
Well
pleaded
.
QUEST.
VI.
Whether
the
King
be
so
from
God
onely
both
in
regard
of
his
Soveraignty
,
and
of
the
designation
of
his
person
to
the
Crown
,
as
that
he
is
no
waies
from
the
people
,
but
by
meere
approbation
?
Dr.
Ferne
,
a
man
much
for
Monarchy
saith
,
Though
Monarchy
hath
its
excellency
,
being
first
set
up
of
God
,
in
Moses
,
yet
neither
Monarchy
,
Aristocracy
,
nor
any
other
forme
,
is
jure
divino
,
but
we
say
(
saith
he
)
the
power
it selfe
,
or
that
sufficiency
of
authority
to
governe
,
that
is
in
a
Monarchy
,
or
Aristocracy
,
abstractly
considered
from
the
qualification
of
other
formes
,
is
a
flux
and
constitution
subordinate
to
that
providence
;
an
ordinance
of
that
Dixi
,
or
silent
word
by
which
the
world
was
made
,
and
shall
be
governed
under
God
.
This
is
a
Iudges
Aristocraticall
should
be
,
Rom.
13.
3.
Deut.
17.
14.
1
Pet.
2.
17.
Prov.
24.
21.
Prov.
15.
16.
3.
If
the
power
of
Monarchy
and
Aristocracy
abstracted
from
the
formes
be
from
God
,
then
it
is
no
more
lawfull
to
resist
Aristocraticall
Government
,
and
our
Lords
of
Parliament
,
or
Iudges
,
then
it
is
lawfull
to
resist
Kings
.
But
heare
the
Prelates
reasons
to
prove
that
the
King
is
from
the
people
by
approbation
only
.
P.
Prelate
.
The
people
,
Deut.
17.
is
said
to
set
a
King
over
them
only
,
as
1
Cor.
6.
The
Saints
are
said
to
judge
the
world
,
that
is
,
by
consenting
to
Christs
Iudgement
.
So
the
people
doe
not
make
a
King
by
transferring
on
him
soveraignty
,
but
by
accepting
,
acknowledging
,
reverencing
him
as
King
,
whom
God
hath
both
constituted
and
designed
King
.
Answ.
This
is
said
,
but
not
a
word
proved
:
for
the
Queen
of
Sheba
,
and
Hiram
acknowledged
,
reverenced
and
obeyed
Princes
of
Israell
did
.
2.
Reverence
and
obedience
of
the
people
is
relative
to
the
Kings
lawes
,
but
the
peoples
making
of
a
King
is
not
relative
to
the
laws
of
a
King
;
for
then
he
should
be
a
King
giving
laws
,
and
commanding
the
people
,
as
King
,
before
the
people
make
him
King
.
3.
If
the
peoples
approving
and
consenting
that
an
elected
King
be
their
King
,
presupposeth
that
he
is
a
King
designed
,
and
constituted
by
God
,
before
the
people
approve
him
as
King
;
Let
the
P.
Prelate
give
us
an
act
of
God
now
designing
a
man
King
:
for
there
are
no
immediate
voyces
from
heaven
,
saying
to
a
people
,
This
is
your
King
,
before
the
people
elect
one
of
sixe
to
be
their
King
.
And
this
infallibly
proveth
that
God
designeth
one
of
sixe
to
be
a
King
,
to
a
people
who
had
no
King
before
,
by
no
other
act
but
by
determining
the
hearts
of
the
States
to
elect
and
designe
this
man
King
,
and
passe
any
of
the
other
five
.
4.
When
God
,
Deut.
17.
forbiddeth
them
to
choose
a
stranger
,
he
presupposeth
they
may
choose
a
stranger
:
for
Gods
law
now
given
to
man
in
the
state
of
sinne
,
presupposeth
he
hath
corruption
of
nature
to
doe
contrary
to
Gods
law
:
Now
if
God
did
hold
forth
,
that
their
setting
a
King
over
them
,
was
but
the
peoples
approving
the
man
whom
God
shall
both
constitute
and
designe
to
be
King
,
then
he
should
presuppose
that
God
was
to
designe
a
stranger
to
be
the
lawfull
King
of
Israel
;
and
the
people
should
be
interdicted
to
approve
and
consent
,
that
the
man
should
be
King
whom
God
should
choose
:
for
it
was
unpossible
that
the
people
should
make
a
stranger
King
,
(
God
is
the
only
immediate
King-creator
)
the
people
should
only
approve
and
consent
that
a
stranger
should
be
King
;
yet
upon
supposall
that
God
first
constituted
and
designed
the
stranger
King
,
it
was
not
in
the
peoples
power
that
the
King
should
be
a
Brother
rather
then
a
stranger
;
for
if
the
people
have
no
power
to
make
a
King
,
but
doe
only
approve
him
,
or
consent
to
him
,
when
he
is
both
made
and
designed
of
God
to
be
King
,
it
is
not
in
their
power
that
he
be
either
brother
or
stranger
,
and
so
God
commandeth
what
is
simply
impossible
.
2.
Consider
the
sense
of
the
command
by
the
Prelates
vaine
Logick
:
I
Iehovah
,
as
I
only
create
the
world
of
nothing
,
so
I
only
constitute
and
designe
a
man
,
whether
Iew
,
or
Nebuchadnezzar
a
stranger
to
be
your
King
;
yet
I
inhibit
you
under
the
pain
of
my
curse
,
that
you
set
any
King
over
your selves
,
but
only
a
brother
.
What
is
this
,
but
I
inhibite
you
to
be
creators
by
omnipotent
power
?
5.
To
these
adde
the
reasons
I
produced
before
,
that
the
people
by
no
shadow
of
reason
can
be
commanded
to
make
such
a
man
King
,
not
such
a
man
,
if
they
only
consent
to
the
man
made
King
,
but
have
no
action
in
the
making
of
the
King
.
P.
Prelate
.
All
the
acts
reall
and
imaginable
,
which
are
necessary
for
the
making
of
Kings
,
are
ascribed
to
God
:
Take
the
first
King
as
a
ruling
case
,
1
Sam.
12.
13.
Behold
the
King
whom
you
have
chosen
and
desired
,
and
behold
the
Lord
hath
set
a
King
over
you
.
This
election
of
the
people
can
be
no
other
but
their
admittance
or
acceptance
of
the
King
whom
God
hath
chosen
and
constituted
,
as
the
words
,
whom
ye
have
chosen
,
imply
,
1
Sam.
9.
17.
1
Sam.
10.
1.
You
have
Sauls
election
and
constitution
,
where
Samuel
as
Priest
and
Prophet
anointeth
him
,
doing
reverence
and
obeysance
to
him
,
and
ascribing
to
God
,
that
he
did
appoint
him
supreame
and
Soveraigne
over
his
inheritance
.
And
the
same
expression
is
,
1
Sam.
12.
13.
The
Lord
hath
set
a
King
over
you
:
which
is
Psal.
2.
6.
I
have
set
my
King
upon
my
holy
hill
of
Zion
.
Neither
man
nor
Angel
hath
any
share
in
any
act
of
constituting
Christ
King
,
Deut.
17.
The
Lord
vindicateth
as
proper
and
peculiar
to
himselfe
,
the
designation
of
the
person
.
It
was
not
arbitrary
to
the
people
to
admit
or
reject
Saul
so
designed
;
it
pleased
God
to
consummate
the
worke
by
the
acceptation
,
consent
and
approbation
of
the
people
▪
ut
suaviore
modo
,
that
by
a
smoother
way
he
might
incourage
Saul
to
undergoe
the
hard
charge
,
and
make
his
people
the
more
heartily●
,
without
grumbling
and
scruple
,
reverence
and
obey
him
.
The
peoples
admittance
possibly
added
something
to
the
solemnitie
,
to
the
pompe
,
but
nothing
to
the
essentiall
and
reall
constitution
or
necessitie
;
it
only
puts
the
subjects
in
mala
fide
,
if
they
should
contraveen
,
as
the
intimation
of
a
Law
,
the
coronation
of
an
hereditary
King
,
the
inthronization
of
a
Bishop
.
And
,
1
King
.
3.
7.
Thou
hast
made
thy
servant
King
,
1
Sam.
16.
1.
I
have
provided
me
a
King
,
Psal.
18.
50.
He
is
Gods
King
,
Psal.
89.
19.
I
have
exalted
one
chosen
out
of
the
people
,
v.
20.
He
anointeth
them
,
27.
adopteth
them
.
I
will
make
him
my
first
borne
,
Psal.
82.
6.
the
first
borne
is
above
every
brother
severally
,
and
above
all
,
though
a
thousand
joyntly
.
Answ.
1.
By
this
reason
,
inferiour
Iudges
are
no
lesse
immediate
Deputies
of
God
,
and
so
irresistible
,
then
the
Kings
,
because
God
took
off
the
spirit
that
was
on
Moses
,
and
immediately
powred
it
upon
the
seventy
Elders
,
who
were
Iudges
inferiour
to
Moses
,
Num.
11.
14.
15.
16.
Answ.
2.
This
P.
P.
cannot
make
a
Syllogisme
:
If
all
the
acts
necessary
to
make
a
King
,
be
given
to
God
,
none
to
the
people
;
then
God
both
constituteth
and
designeth
the
King
.
But
the
former
the
Scripture
saith
,
ergo
,
if
all
the
acts
be
given
to
God
,
as
to
the
prime
King-mak●r
,
and
disposer
of
Kings
and
Kingdoms
,
and
none
to
the
people
in
that
notion
,
then
God
both
constituteth
and
designeth
a
King
.
Both
major
and
minor
is
false
.
The
major
is
as
false
as
the
very
P.
Prelate
himselfe
.
All
the
acts
necessary
for
war-making
,
are
in
an
eminent
manner
given
to
God
,
as
1.
the
Lord
fighteth
for
his
people
.
2.
The
Lord
scattered
the
enemies
.
3.
The
Lord
slew
Og
King
of
Bashan
.
4.
The
battell
is
the
Lords
.
5.
The
victorie
the
Lords
;
ergo
,
Israel
never
fought
a
battell
.
So
Deut.
32.
The
Lord
alone
led
his
people
;
the
Lord
led
them
in
the
wildernesse
;
their
bow
and
their
sword
gave
them
not
the
land
:
God
wrought
all
their
workes
for
them
,
Esa
26.
12.
ergo
,
Moses
led
them
not
;
ergo
,
the
people
went
not
on
their
own
leggs
through
the
wildernesse
;
ergo
,
the
people
never
shot
an
arrow
,
never
drew
a
sword
.
It
followeth
not
.
1.
God
did
all
these
as
the
first
,
eminent
,
principall
and
efficacious
pre-determinator
of
the
creature
,
(
though
this
Arminian
and
Popish
Prelate
mind
not
so
to
honour
God
.
)
2.
The
assumption
is
also
false
;
for
the
people
made
Saul
and
David
Kings
;
and
it
were
Sam.
9.
17.
1
Sam.
10.
1.
we
have
not
Saul
elected
and
constituted
king
,
and
Samuel
did
obeysance
to
him
and
kissed
him
,
for
the
honor
Royall
which
God
was
to
put
upon
him
:
for
before
this
propheticall
unction
,
1
Sam.
9.
22.
he
made
him
sit
in
the
chiefe
place
,
and
honored
him
as
king
,
when
as
yet
Samuel
was
materially
King
,
and
the
Lords
Vicegerent
in
Israel
.
If
then
the
Prelate
conclude
any
thing
from
Samuel
his
doing
reverence
and
obeysance
to
him
as
King
,
it
shall
follow
that
Saul
was
formally
King
,
before
Samuel
,
1
Sam.
10.
1.
anointed
him
,
and
kissd
him
;
and
that
must
be
before
he
he
was
formally
King
,
otherwise
he
was
in
Gods
appointment
King
,
before
ever
he
saw
Samuels
face
;
and
it
is
true
,
he
ascribeth
honour
to
him
,
as
to
one
appointed
by
God
to
be
supreame
Soveraigne
,
for
that
which
he
should
be
,
not
for
that
which
he
was
,
as
c.
9.
22.
he
set
him
in
the
chiefest
place
,
and
therefore
it
is
false
,
that
we
have
Sauls
election
and
constitution
to
be
King
,
1
Sam.
10.
for
after
that
time
the
people
are
rebuked
for
seeking
a
King
,
and
that
with
a
purpose
to
disswade
them
from
it
,
as
a
sinfull
desire
,
and
he
is
chosen
by
Lots
after
that
,
and
made
King
,
&
after
Samuels
anoynting
of
him
,
he
was
a
private
,
man
,
and
did
hide
himselfe
amongst
the
stuffe
,
v.
22.
3.
The
Prelate
if
of
ignorance
,
or
wilfully
I
know
not
,
saith
,
the
expression
and
phrase
is
the
same
,
1
Sam.
12.
13.
and
Ps.
2.
6.
which
is
false
;
for
1
Sam.
12.
13.
it
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
behold
the
Lord
hath
given
you
a
King
,
such
is
the
expression
,
Hos.
13.
11.
I
gave
them
a
King
in
my
wrath
;
but
that
expression
is
not
Psal.
2.
6.
but
this
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
I
have
established
him
my
King
;
and
though
it
were
the
same
expression
,
it
followeth
not
that
the
people
have
not
hand
any
other
way
in
appointing
Christ
their
head
;
(
though
that
phrase
also
be
in
the
word
,
Hos.
1.
v.
11.
)
then
by
consenting
,
kissed
the
calves
,
Hos.
13.
2.
for
the
same
Hebrew
word
is
used
in
all
the
three
places
,
and
yet
it
is
certaine
the
first
kissing
is
spirituall
,
the
second
a
kisse
of
honour
,
and
the
third
an
Idolatrous
kissing
.
4.
The
anoynting
of
Saul
cannot
be
a
leading
rule
to
the
making
of
all
Kings
to
the
worlds
end
;
for
the
P.
Prelate
forgetting
himselfe
said
,
that
onely
some
few
,
as
Moses
,
Saul
,
and
David
,
&c.
by
extraordinary
manifestation
from
Heaven
were
made
Kings
,
pa.
19.
5.
he
saith
it
was
not
Arbitrary
for
the
people
to
admit
,
or
reject
Saul
so
designed
.
What
meaneth
he
?
it
was
not
morally
arbitrary
,
because
they
were
under
a
law
,
Deut.
17.
14
,
15.
to
make
him
King
,
whom
the
Lord
should
choose
.
That
is
true
,
but
was
it
not
arbitrary
to
them
to
breake
a
law
Physically
?
I
think
he
who
is
a
professed
Arminian
will
not
side
with
Manicheans
and
Fatalists
so
,
but
the
P.
Prelate
must
prove
it
was
not
Arbitrary
,
either
Morally
or
Physically
to
them
not
to
accept
Saul
as
their
King
,
because
they
had
no
action
at
all
in
the
making
of
a
King
,
God
did
it
all
,
both
by
constituting
and
designing
the
King
,
why
then
did
God
,
Deut.
17.
give
a
Law
to
them
to
make
such
a
man
King
,
not
such
a
man
,
if
it
was
not
in
their
free
wil
to
have
any
action
or
hand
in
the
making
of
a
King
at
all
?
but
that
some
sonnes
of
Belial
would
not
accept
him
as
their
King
,
is
expresly
said
,
1
Sam.
10.
27.
and
how
did
Israel
conspirc
with
Absolom
,
to
unking
and
dethrone
David
,
whom
the
Lord
had
made
King
?
If
the
Prelate
meane
it
was
not
Arbitrary
to
them
physically
to
reject
Saul
,
he
speaketh
wonders
,
the
sonnes
of
Belial
did
reject
him
;
ergo
they
had
physicall
power
to
doe
it
:
If
he
meane
it
was
not
arbitrary
,
that
is
,
it
was
not
lawfull
to
them
to
reject
him
,
that
is
true
;
but
doth
it
follow
they
had
no
hand
nor
action
in
making
Saul
King
,
because
it
was
not
lawfull
for
them
to
make
a
King
in
a
●infull
way
,
and
to
refuse
him
whom
God
chose
to
be
King
?
then
see
what
I
inferre
.
1.
Then
they
had
no
hand
in
obeying
him
as
King
,
because
they
sinne
in
obeying
unlawfull
commandements
against
Gods
Law
;
and
so
they
had
no
hand
in
approving
and
consenting
he
should
be
King
,
the
contrary
whereof
the
P.
Prelate
saith
.
2.
So
might
the
P.
Prelate
prove
men
are
patientes
,
and
have
no
action
in
violating
all
the
Commandements
of
God
,
because
it
is
not
lawfull
to
them
to
violate
any
one
Commandement
.
(6)
The
Lord
Deut.
17.
vindicates
this
as
proper
and
peculiar
to
himselfe
to
choose
the
person
,
and
to
choose
Saul
.
What
then
?
ergo
now
the
people
choosing
a
King
have
no
power
to
choose
or
name
a
man
,
because
God
anoynted
Saul
and
David
by
immediate
manifestation
of
his
Will
to
Samuel
;
this
consequence
is
nothing
,
&
also
it
followeth
in
no
wise
,
that
therefore
the
people
made
not
Saul
King
.
7.
That
the
peoples
approbation
of
a
King
is
not
necessary
▪
is
Bellarmines
and
Papists
saying
,
and
that
the
people
chose
their
Ministers
in
the
Apostolick
Church
,
not
by
a
necessity
of
a
divine
Commandement
,
but
to
conciliate
love
betwixt
Pastor
and
people
.
Papists
hold
that
if
the
Pope
make
a
p●pish
King
the
head
and
King
of
Britaine
against
the
peoples
will
,
yet
is
he
their
King
.
8.
David
was
then
King
all
the
time
that
Saul
presecuted
him
;
he
sinned
truely
in
not
discharging
the
duty
of
a
King
,
onely
because
he
wanted
a
ceremony
,
the
peoples
approbation
,
which
the
Prelate
saith
is
required
to
the
solemnity
and
pompe
,
not
to
the
necessity
and
truth
,
and
essence
of
a
formall
King
.
So
the
Kings
Coronation
Oath
,
and
the
peoples
Oath
must
be
Ceremonies
;
and
because
the
Prelate
is
perjured
himselfe
,
therefore
perjury
is
but
a
ceremony
also
.
9.
The
enthronization
of
Bishops
is
like
the
Kinging
of
the
Pope
;
the
Apostles
must
spare
Thrones
,
while
they
come
to
Heaven
,
Luk.
22.
29
,
30.
the
P.
Prelates
with
their
head
the
Pope
must
be
enthroned
.
10.
The
hereditary
King
he
maketh
a
King
before
his
Coronation
,
and
his
Acts
are
as
valid
before
as
after
his
Coronation
;
it
might
cost
him
his
head
to
say
that
the
Prince
of
Wales
is
now
no
lesse
King
of
Britaine
,
and
his
Acts
,
Acts
of
Kingly
Royalty
,
no
lesse
I
will
make
him
my
first
borne
,
&c.
Psalm
89.
26
,
27.
which
is
true
of
Solomon
as
the
Type
,
2
Sam
,
7.
1
Chro.
17.
22.
2
Sam.
7.
12.
and
fulfilled
of
Christ
,
and
by
the
Holy
Ghost
spoken
of
him
,
Heb.
1.
5
,
6.
is
blasphemous
;
for
God
said
not
to
Nero
,
Iulian
,
Dioclesian
,
Belshazer
,
Evilmerodach
,
who
were
lawfull
Kings
.
I
will
make
him
my
first
borne
;
and
that
any
of
these
blasphemous
Idolatrous
Princes
should
cry
to
God
,
he
is
my
Father
,
my
God
,
&c.
is
Divinity
well
beseeming
an
excommunicated
Prelate
.
Of
the
Kings
dignity
above
the
Kingdome
I
speake
not
now
;
the
Prelate
pulled
it
in
by
the
haire
,
but
hereafter
we
shall
heare
of
it
.
P.
Prelate
.
God
onely
anoynted
David
,
1
Sam.
16.
4.
the
men
of
Bethleem
,
yea
Samuel
knew
it
not
before
.
God
saith
,
with
mine
holy
oyle
have
I
anoynted
him
,
Ps.
89.
91.
1.
He
is
the
Lords
anoynted
The
oyle
is
Gods
,
not
from
the
Apothecaries
shop
,
nor
the
Priests
Viall
;
this
oyle
descended
from
the
Holy
Ghost
▪
who
is
no
lesse
the
true
Olive
,
then
Christ
is
the
true
Vine
;
yet
not
the
oyle
of
saving
grace
,
as
some
Fantasticks
say
,
but
holy
,
1.
From
the
Author
God
.
2.
From
influence
in
the
person
,
it
maketh
the
Person
of
the
King
sacred
.
3.
From
influence
on
his
charge
,
his
function
and
power
is
sacred
.
Ans.
1.
The
Prelate
said
before
Davids
anoynting
was
extraordinary
;
here
he
draweth
this
anoynting
to
all
Kings
.
2.
Let
David
be
formally
both
constituted
and
designed
King
divers
yeares
before
the
States
made
him
King
at
Hebron
,
and
then
1.
Saul
was
not
King
,
the
Prelate
Saul
his
King
,
his
Master
,
and
himselfe
a
subject
3.
This
oyle
was
no
doubt
Gods
Oyle
,
and
the
Prelate
will
have
it
the
Holy
Ghosts
,
yet
he
denieth
that
saving
grace
,
yea
(
p.
2.
c.
1
)
he
denyeth
that
any
supernaturall
gift
should
be
the
foundation
of
Royall
dignity
,
and
that
it
is
a
pernitious
tenent
.
So
to
me
he
would
have
the
Oyle
from
Heaven
,
and
not
from
Heaven
.
4.
This
holy
oyle
wherewith
David
was
annointed
,
Psalme
89.
20.
to
[
a
](A92147-e23550-b)
a
Aug.
in
locum
,
unxi
m●num
fort●m
,
servum
obedienten●
ideo
in
co
posui
adjutorium
.
Augustine
,
is
the
oyle
of
saving
grace
:
His
own
deare
brethren
the
Papists
say
so
,
and
especially
[
b
](A92147-e23570-b)
b
Lyra.
Gratia
est
babitualis
,
qui●
stat
pugil
contra
di●bolum
.
Lyranus
,
[
c
](A92147-e23590-b)
c
Gloss.
ord●●
.
&
Glossa
ordinaria
,
[
d
](A92147-e23610-b)
d
Hugo
Cardinalis
,
Olco
laetitiae
qu●
prae
consortibu●
unctus
fuit
Christus
,
Ps.
45.
Hugo
Cardinal
,
[
e
](A92147-e23630-b)
e
Bellarm.
●●
.
his
beloved
Bellarmine
,
[
f
](A92147-e23650-b)
f
Lorinus
.
and
Lorinus
,
Calvin
,
Musculus
,
Marlorat
.
If
these
be
Fanaticks
(
as
I
think
they
are
to
the
Prelate
)
yet
the
Text
is
evident
,
that
this
oyle
of
God
was
the
oyle
of
saving
grace
,
bestowed
on
David
,
as
on
a
speciall
type
of
Christ
,
who
received
the
spirit
above
measure
,
and
was
the
anointed
of
God
,
Ps.
45.
7.
whereby
all
his
garments
smell
of
myrrhe
,
aloes
,
and
cassia
,
ver.
8.
and
his
name
Messiah
is
as
an
oyntment
powred
out
,
Cant.
1.
2.
This
anointed
shall
be
head
of
his
enemies
.
3.
His
dominion
shall
be
from
the
sea
to
the
rivers
,
v.
25.
4.
He
is
in
the
covenant
of
grace
,
v.
26.
5.
He
is
higher
then
the
Kings
of
the
earth
.
6.
The
grace
of
perseverance
is
promised
to
his
seed
,
v.
28
,
29
,
30.
7.
His
kingdome
is
eternall
,
as
the
dayes
of
Heaven
,
vers.
35.
36.
8.
If
the
Prelate
will
look
under
himselfe
to
[
g
](A92147-e23780-b)
g
Theodatus
.
Diodatus
,
and
[
h
](A92147-e23800-b)
h
Ainsworth
,
annot.
Ainsworth
,
they
say
,
this
holy
oyle
was
powred
on
David
by
Samuel
,
and
on
Christ
was
powred
the
Holy
Ghost
,
and
that
by
[
i
](A92147-e23840-b)
i
1
Sam.
16
1.
13
,
4
Luk.
4.
18.
21.
10.
3.
34.
warrant
of
Scripture
,
and
[
k
](A92147-e23850-b)
k
Iunius
●●not
.
in
loe
.
Junius
,
and
[
l
](A92147-e23870-b)
l
Mollerus
com
.
ibid.
Mollerus
saith
with
them
.
Now
the
Prelate
taketh
the
Court
way
,
to
powre
this
oyle
of
grace
on
many
drie
Princes
,
who
without
all
doubt
are
Kings
essentially
no
lesse
then
David
.
He
must
see
better
then
the
man
who
finding
Pontius
Pilate
in
the
Creed
,
said
,
he
behoved
to
be
a
good
man
:
so
because
he
hath
found
Nero
the
tyrant
,
Julian
the
apostate
,
Nebuchadnezzar
,
Evil-Merodach
,
Hazael
,
Hagag
,
all
the
Kings
of
Spaine
,
and
I
doubt
not
,
the
Great
Turke
,
in
the
89
Psalm
,
v.
19
,
20.
so
all
these
Kings
are
anointed
with
the
oyle
of
grace
,
and
all
these
must
make
their
enemies
necks
their
footstoole
;
all
these
be
higher
then
the
Kings
of
the
Earth
,
and
are
hard
and
fast
in
the
covenant
of
grace
,
&c.
P.
Prelate
.
All
the
royall
ensignes
and
acts
of
Kings
are
ascribed
to
God
.
The
Crown
is
of
God
,
Esa.
62.
3.
Psal.
21.
3.
in
the
Emperours
coyne
was
an
hand
putting
a
crowne
on
their
head
:
the
Heathen
said
they
were
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
holding
their
Crownes
from
God
▪
Psal.
18.
39.
Thou
hast
girt
me
with
strength
(
the
sword
is
the
embleme
of
strength
)
unto
battell
.
See
Iud.
7.
17.
their
scepter
,
Gods
scepter
.
Exod.
4.
20
,
17
,
9.
we
read
of
two
rods
,
Moses
and
Aarons
;
Aarons
rod
budded
;
God
made
both
the
rods
;
Their
judgement
is
the
Lords
.
2
Chron.
19.
6.
their
throne
is
Gods
,
1
Chron.
19.
21.
The
Fathers
called
them
,
sacra
vestigia
,
sacra
majestas
;
their
commandements
,
Divalis
jussio
.
The
Law
saith
,
all
their
goods
are
res
sacrae
.
,
Ergo
,
our
new
Statists
disgrace
Kings
,
if
they
blaspheme
not
God
,
in
making
them
the
derivatives
of
the
people
,
the
basest
extract
of
the
basest
of
irrationall
creatures
,
the
Multitude
,
the
Communaltie
.
Answ.
This
is
all
one
Argument
from
the
Prelates
beginning
of
Kings
are
from
God
;
but
therefore
they
are
not
from
men
,
and
mens
consent
:
It
followeth
not
.
From
a
most
speciall
and
eminent
act
of
Gods
providence
,
Christ
came
into
the
world
,
and
tooke
on
him
our
nature
:
ergo
,
he
came
not
of
Davids
loynes
.
It
is
a
vaine
consequence
.
There
could
not
be
a
more
eminent
act
then
this
,
Psal.
40.
A
body
thou
hast
given
me
;
Ergo
,
he
came
not
of
Davids
house
,
and
from
Adam
by
naturall
generation
,
and
was
not
a
man
like
us
in
all
things
except
sinne
.
It
is
tyrannicall
and
domineering
Logick
.
Many
things
are
ascribed
to
God
only
,
by
reason
of
a
speciall
and
admirable
act
of
providence
:
as
the
saving
of
the
world
by
Christ
,
the
giving
of
Canaan
to
Israel
,
the
bringing
his
people
out
of
Egypt
,
and
from
Chaldea
,
the
sending
of
the
Gospel
to
both
Iew
&
Gentile
,
&c.
But
shall
we
say
,
that
God
did
none
of
these
things
by
the
ministerie
of
men
,
and
weake
and
fraile
men
?
2.
How
proveth
the
Prelate
that
all
royall
ensignes
are
ascribed
to
God
,
because
Esa.
62.
the
Church
universall
shall
be
as
a
crown
of
glorie
,
and
a
royall
diadem
in
the
hand
of
the
Lord
;
ergo
,
baculus
in
angulo
,
the
Church
shall
be
as
a
seale
on
the
heart
of
Christ
.
what
then
?
Hieronymus
,
Procopius
,
Cyrillus
,
with
good
reason
render
the
meaning
thus
:
Thou
O
Zion
,
and
Church
,
shalt
be
to
me
a
royall
Priesthood
,
and
a
holy
people
.
For
that
he
speaketh
of
his
owne
Kingdome
and
Church
,
is
most
evident
,
v.
1.
2.
For
Zions
sake
I
will
not
hold
my
peace
,
&c.
3.
God
put
a
crown
of
pure
gold
on
Davids
head
,
Psal.
21.
3.
therefore
Iulian
,
Nero
,
and
no
elective
Kings
,
are
made
and
designed
to
be
Kings
by
the
people
:
He
shall
never
prove
this
consequence
.
The
[
a
](A92147-e24380-b)
a
Chald.
par.
Chaldee
paraphrase
applyeth
it
to
the
reigne
of
King
Messiah
.
[
b
](A92147-e24400-b)
b
Diodat
.
an
.
Diodatus
he
speaketh
of
the
kingdome
of
Christ
.
[
c
](A92147-e24420-b)
c
Ainsworth
.
Athanasius
,
Eusebius
,
Origen
.
Augustine
▪
Dydimus
.
Ainsworth
maketh
this
crowne
a
signe
of
Christs
victorie
.
Athanasius
,
Eusebius
,
Origen
,
Augustine
,
Dydimus
,
expound
it
of
Christ
and
his
kingdome
.
The
Prelate
extendeth
it
to
all
Kings
,
as
the
blasphemous
Rabbines
,
especially
Ra.
Salomon
,
deny
that
he
speaketh
of
Christ
here
:
but
what
more
reason
is
there
to
expound
this
of
the
crownes
of
all
Kings
given
by
God
(
I
deny
not
)
to
Nero
,
Julian
,
&c.
then
to
expound
the
foregoing
and
following
verses
as
applyed
to
all
Kings
?
Did
Julian
rejoyce
in
Gods
salvation
?
did
God
grant
Nero
his
hearts
desire
?
did
God
grant
(
as
it
is
,
v.
4.
)
life
eternall
to
Heathen
Kings
,
as
Kings
?
which
words
all
Interpreters
expound
of
the
eternitie
of
Davids
throne
,
till
Christ
come
,
and
of
victorie
and
life
eternall
purchased
by
Christ
,
as
[
d
](A92147-e24560-b)
d
Ainsw
.
an
.
in
v.
5.
Ainsworth
with
good
reason
expounds
it
.
And
what
though
God
give
David
a
Crown
;
ergo
,
not
by
second
causes
,
and
by
bowing
all
Israels
heart
to
come
in
sinceritie
to
Hebron
to
make
David
King
,
1
King
.
12.
38.
God
gave
corne
and
wine
to
Israel
,
Hos.
2.
shall
the
Prelate
and
the
Anabaptist
inferre
;
Ergo
,
he
giveth
it
not
by
plowing
,
sowing
,
and
the
art
of
the
husbahd-man
?
3.
The
Heathen
acknowledged
a
Divinitie
in
Kings
;
but
he
is
blind
who
readeth
them
,
and
seeth
not
in
their
writings
,
that
they
teach
that
the
people
maketh
Kings
.
4.
God
girt
David
with
strength
,
while
he
was
a
private
man
,
and
persecuted
by
Saul
,
and
fought
with
Goliah
,
as
the
title
of
the
same
beareth
;
and
he
made
him
a
valiant
man
of
warre
to
breake
bowes
of
steele
;
ergo
,
he
giveth
the
sword
to
Kings
,
as
Kings
,
and
they
receive
no
sword
from
the
people
.
This
is
poore
Logick
.
5.
The
P.
Prelate
sendeth
us
Judg.
7.
17.
to
the
singular
and
extraordinarie
power
of
God
with
Gideon
:
and
I
say
,
that
same
power
behoved
to
be
in
Oreb
and
Zeba
,
v.
27.
for
they
were
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Princes
,
and
such
as
the
Prelate
from
Pro.
8.
15.
saith
,
have
no
royall
power
from
the
people
.
6.
Moses
and
Aaron
their
two
rods
were
miraculous
.
This
will
prove
that
Priests
are
also
Gods
,
and
their
persons
srcred
.
I
see
not
(
except
the
Prelate
would
be
at
worshipping
of
Reliques
)
what
more
royall
Divinitie
is
in
Moses
his
rod
,
because
he
wrought
miracles
by
his
rod
,
then
there
is
in
Elias
his
staffe
,
in
Peters
napkin
,
in
Pauls
shadow
.
This
is
like
the
strong
symbolicall
Theologie
of
his
fathers
the
Jesuites
,
which
is
not
argumentative
,
except
he
say
that
Moses
as
King
of
Jesurum
wrought
miracles
;
and
why
should
not
Nero
,
Caligula
,
Pharoah
,
and
all
Kings
rods
then
dry
up
the
red
sea
,
and
work
miracles
?
7.
We
give
all
the
stiles
to
Kings
that
the
Fathets
gave
,
and
yet
we
thinke
not
,
when
David
commandeth
to
kill
Vriah
,
and
a
King
commandeth
to
murther
his
innocent
subjects
in
England
and
Scotland
,
that
that
is
Divalis
jussio
,
the
command
of
a
God
;
and
that
this
is
a
good
consequence
,
What
ever
the
King
commandeth
,
though
it
were
to
kill
his
loyallest
Subjects
,
is
the
commandement
of
God
,
Ergo
,
the
King
is
not
made
King
by
the
people
.
8.
Ergo
,
(
saith
he
)
these
new
Statists
disgrace
the
King
.
If
a
most
New
Statist
sprung
out
of
a
poore
pursevant
of
Kraill
,
from
the
dunghill
to
the
Court
,
could
have
made
himselfe
an
old
Statist
,
and
more
expert
in
state
affaires
,
then
all
the
Nobles
and
soundest
Lawyers
in
Scotland
and
England
,
this
might
have
more
weight
.
9.
Therefore
the
King
(
saith
P.
P.
)
is
not
the
extract
of
the
basest
of
rationall
creatures
.
He
meaneth
,
fex
populi
▪
his
owne
house
and
linage
;
but
God
calleth
them
his
owne
people
,
a
royall
Priesthood
,
a
chosen
generation
,
and
,
ps.
78.
71.
will
warrant
us
to
say
the
people
is
much
worthier
before
God
,
then
one
man
,
seeing
God
choose
David
for
Iacob
his
people
,
and
Israel
his
inheritance
,
that
he
might
feede
them
,
Iohn
P.
P.
his
fathers
suffrage
in
making
a
King
will
never
be
sought
.
We
make
not
the
multitude
,
but
the
three
Estates
including
the
Nobles
and
Gentry
to
be
as
rationall
creatures
,
as
any
Apostate
Prelate
in
the
three
Kingdomes
.
QUEST.
VII
.
Whether
or
no
the
P.
Prelate
the
aforesaid
Auth●r
doth
by
force
of
reason
evince
,
that
neither
constitution
nor
designation
of
the
King
is
from
the
people
?
THe
P.
Prelate
aymeth
(
but
it
is
an
empty
ayme
)
to
prove
that
the
people
are
wholly
excluded
.
I
answer
only
Arguments
not
pitched
on
before
,
as
the
Prelate
saith
.
P.
Prelate
.
1.
To
whom
can
it
be
more
proper
to
give
the
rule
over
men
,
then
to
him
who
is
the
onely
King
truely
and
properly
of
the
whole
world
?
2.
God
is
the
immediate
Author
of
all
rule
and
power
that
is
amongst
all
his
creatures
,
above
or
below
.
3.
Man
before
the
fall
received
dominion
,
and
empire
over
all
the
creatures
below
immediatly
,
as
Gen.
1.
28.
Gen.
9.
2.
ergo
we
cannot
deny
that
the
most
noble
government
(
to
wit
Monarchy
)
must
be
immediatly
from
God
,
without
any
Contract
or
compact
of
men
.
Ans.
The
first
reason
concludeth
not
what
is
in
question
;
for
God
only
giveth
rule
and
power
to
one
man
over
another
;
ergo
he
giveth
it
immediatly
,
it
followeth
not
.
2.
It
shall
as
well
prove
that
God
doth
immediatly
constitute
all
Iudges
,
and
therefore
it
shall
be
unlawfull
for
a
city
to
appoint
a
Major
,
or
a
shire
a
Iustice
of
peace
.
3.
The
second
argument
is
inconsequent
also
,
because
God
in
creation
is
the
immediat
Author
of
P.
P.
They
who
execute
the
judgement
of
God
,
must
needs
have
the
power
to
judge
from
God
.
But
Kings
are
Deputies
in
the
exercises
of
the
Iudgements
of
God
,
ergo
,
the
proposition
is
proved
.
How
is
it
imaginable
that
God
reconcileth
the
world
by
Ministers
,
and
saveth
man
by
them
,
1
●or.
5.
1
Tim.
4.
16.
except
they
receive
a
power
so
to
doe
from
God
?
the
assumption
is
,
Deut.
1.
17.
1
Chro.
19.
6.
Let
none
say
Moses
and
Iehosaphat
speake
of
inferiour
Iudges
,
for
that
which
the
King
doth
to
others
,
he
doth
by
himselfe
;
also
5.
The
execution
of
the
Kingly
power
is
from
God
,
for
the
King
is
the
Servant
,
Angell
,
Legat
,
Minister
of
God
,
Rom.
13.
6
,
7.
God
properly
and
primarily
is
King
,
and
King
of
Kings
and
Lord
of
Lords
,
1.
Tim.
6.
15.
Rev.
1.
5.
21.
27.
29.
20.
all
Kings
related
to
him
,
are
Kings
equivocally
,
and
in
resemblance
,
and
he
the
only
King
.
Ans.
That
which
is
in
question
is
never
concluded
;
to
wit
,
that
the
King
is
both
immediatly
constituted
and
designed
King
,
by
God
onely
,
and
not
by
the
mediation
of
the
people
▪
for
when
God
reconcileth
and
saveth
men
by
Pastors
,
he
saveth
them
by
the
intervening
action
of
men
,
so
he
scourgeth
his
people
by
men
,
as
by
his
sword
,
Psal.
17.
14.
and
hand
,
staffe
,
and
rod
,
Esay
10
▪
5.
his
hammer
.
Doth
it
follow
that
God
onely
doth
immediatly
scourge
his
people
,
and
that
wicked
men
have
no
more
hand
and
action
in
scourging
his
people
,
then
the
Prelate
saith
the
people
have
an
hand
in
making
a
King
?
and
that
is
no
hand
at
all
,
by
the
Prelates
way
.
2.
We
may
borrow
the
Prelates
argument
:
inferiour
Iudges
execute
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
,
and
not
the
judgement
of
the
King
;
ergo
,
by
the
Prelates
argument
,
God
doth
only
by
immediate
power
execute
judgement
in
them
,
and
the
inferiour
Iudges
are
not
Gods
ministers
executing
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
.
But
the
Conclusion
is
against
all
truth
,
and
so
must
the
Prelates
argument
be
.
And
that
inferiour
Iudges
are
the
immediate
substitutes
and
deputies
of
God
,
is
hence
proved
,
and
shall
be
hereafter
made
good
,
if
God
will
.
3.
God
is
properly
King
of
Kings
,
so
is
God
properly
causa
causarum
,
the
cause
of
causes
,
the
life
of
lifes
,
the
joy
of
joyes
.
What
,
shall
it
then
follow
,
that
he
worketh
nothing
in
the
creatures
by
their
mediation
,
as
causes
?
Because
God
is
light
of
lights
,
doth
he
not
enlighten
the
earth
and
aire
by
the
mediation
of
the
Sun
?
then
God
communicateth
not
life
mediately
by
generation
,
he
causeth
not
his
Saints
to
rejoyce
with
joy
unspeakable
and
glorious
,
by
the
intervening
mediation
of
the
Word
.
These
are
vaine
consequences
.
Soueraignty
,
and
all
power
and
virtue
is
in
God
infinitely
:
And
what
vertue
and
power
of
action
is
in
the
creatures
,
as
they
are
compared
with
God
,
are
in
the
creatures
equivocally
and
in
resemblance
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
opinion
,
rather
then
really
.
Hence
it
must
follow
,
1.
that
second
causes
worke
none
at
all
,
no
more
then
the
people
hath
a
hand
or
action
in
making
the
King
,
and
that
is
no
hand
at
all
,
as
the
Prelate
saith
,
And
God
only
and
immediately
worketh
all
workes
in
the
creatures
,
because
both
the
power
of
working
and
actuall
working
commeth
from
God
,
and
the
creatures
in
all
their
working
,
are
Gods
instruments
:
and
if
the
Prelate
argue
so
frequently
from
power
given
of
God
,
to
prove
that
actuall
reigning
is
from
God
immediately
,
Deut.
8.
18.
The
Lord
giveth
the
power
,
to
get
wealth
:
will
it
follow
that
Israel
getteth
no
riches
at
all
,
or
that
God
doth
not
mediately
by
them
and
their
in
dustrie
get
them
?
I
thinke
not
.
P.
Prelate
.
6.
To
whom
can
it
be
due
to
give
the
Kingly
office
,
but
to
him
only
who
is
able
to
give
the
indument
and
abilitie
for
the
office
?
now
God
only
and
immediately
giveth
abilitie
to
be
a
King
,
as
the
Sacramentall
anointing
proveth
,
Josh.
3.
10.
Othniel
is
the
first
Judge
after
Joshua
;
and
it
is
said
,
And
the
Spirit
of
the
Lord
came
upon
him
,
and
and
he
judged
Israel
;
the
like
is
said
of
Saul
and
David
.
Ans.
God
gave
royall
indowments
immediatly
,
ergo
he
immediatly
now
maketh
the
King
.
It
followeth
not
,
for
the
species
of
government
is
not
that
which
formally
constituteth
a
King
,
for
then
Nero
,
Caligula
,
Iulian
should
not
have
been
Kings
,
and
those
who
come
to
the
Crowne
by
conquest
and
blood
,
are
essentially
Kings
,
as
the
Prelate
saith
;
but
be
all
these
Othniels
,
upon
whom
the
spirit
of
the
Lord
commeth
?
then
they
are
not
essentially
Kings
who
are
babes
and
children
,
and
foolish
and
destitute
of
the
royall
endowments
,
but
it
is
one
thing
to
have
a
royall
gift
,
and
another
thing
to
be
formally
called
to
the
Kingdome
,
David
had
royall
gifts
after
Samuel
anoynted
him
,
but
if
you
make
him
King
,
before
Sauls
death
,
Saul
was
both
a
traytor
all
the
time
that
he
persecuted
David
,
and
so
no
King
,
and
also
King
and
Gods
anoynted
,
as
David
acknowledgeth
him
;
and
therefore
that
spirit
that
came
on
David
,
and
Saul
,
maketh
nothing
against
the
peoples
election
of
a
King
,
as
the
Spirit
of
God
is
given
to
Pastors
under
the
new
Testament
,
as
Christ
promised
;
but
it
will
not
follow
that
the
designation
of
the
man
who
is
to
be
Pastor
,
should
not
be
from
the
Church
and
from
men
,
as
the
Prelate
denyeth
that
either
the
constitution
or
designation
of
the
King
is
from
the
people
,
but
from
God
onely
.
2.
I
beleeve
the
infusion
of
the
spirit
of
God
upon
the
Iudges
will
not
prove
that
Kings
are
now
both
constituted
and
designed
of
God
solely
,
onely
,
and
immediatly
;
for
the
Iudges
were
indeed
immediatly
and
for
the
most
part
extraordinarily
raised
up
of
God
,
and
God
indeed
in
the
time
of
the
Iewes
was
the
King
of
Israel
in
another
manner
then
he
was
the
King
of
all
the
nations
,
and
is
the
King
of
Christian
Realmes
now
,
and
therefore
the
peoples
despising
of
Samuel
,
was
a
refusing
that
God
should
reigne
over
them
,
because
God
in
the
Iudges
revealed
himselfe
even
in
matters
of
Policy
,
as
what
should
be
done
to
the
man
that
gathered
sticks
on
the
Sabbath
day
,
and
the
like
,
as
he
doth
not
now
to
Kings
.
P.
Prelate
.
Soveraigntie
is
a
ray
of
divine
glory
and
majestie
:
but
this
cannot
be
found
in
people
,
whether
you
consider
them
joyntly
,
or
singly
;
if
you
consider
them
singly
,
it
cannot
be
in
every
individuall
man
;
for
Sectaries
say
,
That
all
are
born
equall
with
a
like
freedom
:
and
if
it
be
not
in
the
people
singly
,
it
cannot
be
in
them
joyntly
;
for
all
the
contribution
in
this
compact
and
contract
which
they
fancie
to
be
humane
composition
,
and
voluntary
constitution
,
is
onely
,
by
a
surrender
of
the
native
right
that
every
one
had
in
himself
;
from
whence
then
can
this
majestie
and
authoritie
be
derived
?
Again
,
where
the
obligation
amongst
equals
is
by
contract
and
compact
,
violation
of
the
faith
,
plighted
in
the
contract
,
cannot
in
proper
termes
,
be
called
disobedience
,
or
contempt
of
authoritie
▪
it
is
no
more
but
a
receding
from
,
and
a
violation
of
that
which
was
promised
,
as
it
may
be
in
States
or
Counties
confederate
.
Nature
,
reason
,
conscience
,
scripture
,
teach
,
That
disobedience
to
Soveraign
power
is
not
onely
a
violation
of
Truth
,
breach
of
Covenant
,
but
also
high
disobedience
and
contempt
,
as
is
clear
,
1
Sam.
10.
26.
So
when
Saul
,
Chap.
11.
sent
a
yoak
of
Oxen
,
hewed
in
pieces
,
to
all
the
Tribes
,
the
fear
of
the
Lord
fell
on
the
people
,
and
they
came
out
with
one
consent
,
1
Sam.
11.
17.
so
Job
11.
18.
He
looseth
the
bonds
of
Kings
,
that
is
,
he
looseth
their
authoritie
,
and
bringeth
them
in
contempt
;
and
he
girdeth
there
loyns
with
a
girdle
,
that
is
,
he
strengthneth
their
authoritie
,
and
maketh
the
people
to
reverence
them
.
Heathens
observe
,
that
there
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
some
divine
thing
in
Kings
.
Prophane
Histories
say
,
that
this
was
so
eminent
in
Alexander
the
great
,
that
it
was
a
terrour
to
his
enemies
,
and
a
powerfull
Loadstone
to
draw
men
to
compose
the
most
seditious
Counsels
,
and
cause
his
most
experienced
Commanders
,
embrace
,
and
obey
his
counsel
,
and
command
.
Some
stories
write
,
that
upon
some
great
exigence
,
there
was
some
resplendent
majestic
in
the
eyes
of
Scipio
.
This
kept
Pharoah
from
lifting
his
hand
against
Moses
,
who
charged
him
so
boldly
with
his
sins
.
When
Moses
did
speak
with
God
,
face
to
face
in
the
Mount
,
this
resplendent
glory
of
Majestie
so
awed
the
people
,
that
they
durst
not
behold
his
glory
,
Exod.
34.
This
repressed
the
fury
of
the
people
enraged
against
Gideon
from
destroying
their
idol
,
Judg.
6.
And
the
fear
of
man
is
naturally
upon
all
living
creatures
below
,
Gen.
9.
So
what
can
this
reverence
,
which
is
innate
in
the
hearts
of
all
subjects
toward
their
Soveraigns
be
,
but
the
Ordinance
unrepealable
of
God
,
and
the
naturall
effect
of
that
majestie
of
Princes
,
with
which
they
are
endowed
with
from
above
?
Ans.
1.
I
never
heard
any
shadow
of
reason
while
now
,
and
yet
M.
Antonius
de
Dominis
Archiepisc
.
Spalatensis
,
and
I
may
say
confidently
,
this
Plagiarius
hath
not
one
line
in
his
booke
which
is
not
stollen
;
and
for
the
present
Spalato
his
argument
is
but
spilt
,
and
the
nerves
cut
from
it
,
while
it
is
both
bleeding
and
famed
.
Let
the
Reader
compare
them
,
and
I
pawn
my
credit
he
hath
ignorantly
clipped
Spalato
:
But
I
answer
,
1.
Soveraigntie
is
a
beam
and
ray
(
as
Spalato
saith
)
of
divine
majestie
,
and
is
not
either
formally
or
virtually
in
the
people
.
So
he
.
It
is
false
,
that
it
is
not
virtually
in
the
people
:
for
there
be
two
things
in
the
Iudge
,
either
inferior
or
supream
(
for
the
argument
holdeth
in
the
majestie
of
a
Parliament
,
as
we
shall
hear
)
1.
The
gift
or
grace
of
Governing
(
the
Arminian
Prelate
will
offend
at
this
.
)
2.
The
Authority
of
governing
:
1.
The
gift
is
supernaturall
,
and
is
not
in
man
naturally
,
and
so
not
in
the
King
;
for
he
is
physically
but
a
mortall
man
,
and
this
is
a
gift
received
;
for
Salomon
asked
it
by
prayer
from
God
.
There
is
a
capacitie
passive
in
all
individuall
men
for
it
:
as
for
the
officiall
authoritie
it self
,
it
is
virtually
in
all
,
in
whom
any
of
gods
image
is
remaining
,
since
the
fall
,
as
is
clear
;
as
may
be
gathered
from
,
Gen.
1.
28.
yea
,
the
Father
,
the
Master
,
the
Judge
,
have
it
by
Gods
institution
in
some
measure
,
over
son
,
servant
,
and
subject
,
though
it
be
more
in
the
supreme
Ruler
▪
and
for
our
purpose
,
it
is
not
requisite
that
authoritative
majestie
should
be
in
all
.
(
What
is
in
the
Father
and
Husband
,
I
hope
to
clear
)
I
mean
,
it
needeth
not
to
be
formally
in
all
,
and
so
all
are
born
alike
and
equall
:
But
he
who
is
a
Papist
,
a
Socinian
,
an
Arminian
,
and
therefore
delivered
to
Satan
by
his
mother
Church
,
must
be
the
Sectarie
,
for
we
are
where
this
Prelate
left
us
,
maintainers
of
the
Protestant
Religion
,
continued
in
the
Confession
of
Faith
,
and
Nationall
Covenant
of
Scotland
,
when
this
Demas
forsook
us
,
and
embraced
the
World
.
2.
Though
not
on
single
man
in
Israel
be
a
Judge
,
or
King
by
nature
,
nor
have
in
them
formally
any
ray
of
Royaltie
,
or
of
Magistraticall
Authoritie
;
yet
it
followeth
not
,
that
Israel
Parliamentarily
convened
,
hath
no
such
authoritie
,
as
to
make
Saul
King
in
Hebron
,
1
Sam.
10.
24
,
25.
1
Chro.
11.
1
,
2.
Chap.
12.
38
,
39.
One
man
alone
hath
not
the
Keyes
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
(
as
the
Prelate
dreameth
)
But
it
followeth
not
,
that
many
convened
in
a
Church
way
,
hath
not
this
power
,
Matth.
18.
17.
1
Cor.
5.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
One
man
hath
not
strength
to
fight
against
an
Army
of
ten
thousand
:
doth
it
follow
?
Ergo
,
An
Army
of
twenty
thousand
hath
not
strength
to
fight
against
these
ten
thousand
:
So
one
Paul
cannot
Synodically
determine
the
question
,
Acts
15.
It
followeth
not
;
Ergo
,
The
Apostles
,
and
Elders
,
and
Brethren
,
convened
from
divers
Churches
,
hath
not
power
to
determine
it
in
a
lawfull
Synod
:
And
therefore
,
from
a
disjoyned
and
scattered
power
,
no
man
can
argue
to
a
united
power
:
So
not
any
one
man
is
an
inferiour
Ruler
,
or
hath
the
rayes
and
beams
of
a
number
of
Aristocraticall
Rulers
:
but
it
followeth
not
.
Ergo
,
All
these
men
combined
in
a
Citie
,
or
Societie
,
have
not
power
in
a
joynt
Politicall
body
,
to
chose
Inferiour
or
Aristocraticall
Rulers
.
3.
The
P.
Prelates
reason
is
nothing
.
All
the
Contribution
(
saith
he
)
in
the
compact
body
to
make
a
King
,
is
onely
by
a
surrender
of
the
native
right
of
every
single
man
,
(
the
whole
being
onely
a
voluntary
constitution
.
)
How
then
can
there
be
any
majestie
derived
from
them
?
I
answer
.
Very
well
.
For
the
surrender
is
so
voluntary
,
that
it
is
also
naturall
,
and
founded
on
the
Law
of
nature
,
That
men
must
have
Governours
,
either
many
,
or
one
supreme
Ruler
:
And
it
is
voluntary
,
and
dependeth
on
a
positive
institution
of
God
,
Whether
the
Government
be
by
one
supreme
Ruler
,
as
in
a
Monarchie
,
or
in
many
,
as
in
an
Aristocracie
,
according
as
the
necessitie
and
temper
of
the
Common-wealth
do
most
require
.
This
Constitution
is
so
voluntary
,
as
it
hath
below
it
,
the
Law
of
nature
for
its
generall
foundation
;
and
above
it
,
the
supervenient
institution
of
God
,
ordaining
,
That
there
should
be
such
Magistrates
,
both
Kings
,
and
other
Iudges
,
because
without
such
,
all
humane
societies
should
be
dissolved
.
4.
Individuall
persons
in
creating
a
Magistrate
,
doth
Violation
of
faith
plighted
in
a
contract
amongst
equals
,
cannot
be
called
disobedience
,
but
disobedience
to
the
authoritie
of
the
Soveraign
is
not
onely
breach
of
Covenant
;
but
high
disobedience
and
contempt
.
But
violation
of
faith
amongst
equals
,
as
equals
,
is
not
properly
disobedience
;
for
disobedience
is
betwixt
a
superiour
and
an
inferiour
:
but
violation
of
faith
amongst
equals
,
when
they
make
one
of
their
equals
their
Iudge
and
Ruler
,
is
not
onely
violation
of
truth
,
but
also
disobedience
.
All
Israel
and
Saul
while
he
is
a
private
man
seeking
his
fathers
Asses
,
are
equals
by
Covenant
obliged
one
to
another
;
and
so
any
injury
done
by
Israel
to
Saul
in
that
case
,
is
not
disobedience
,
but
onely
violation
of
●aith
;
but
when
all
Israel
maketh
Saul
their
King
,
and
sweareth
to
him
obedience
,
he
is
not
now
their
equall
,
and
an
injury
done
to
him
now
,
is
both
a
violation
of
their
faith
,
and
high
disobedience
also
.
Suppose
a
Citie
of
Aldermen
,
all
equall
amongst
themselves
indignitie
and
place
,
take
one
of
their
number
,
and
make
him
their
Major
and
Provost
;
a
wrong
done
to
him
now
,
is
not
onely
against
the
rules
of
fraternitie
,
but
disobedience
to
one
placed
by
God
in
authoritie
over
them
.
6.
1
Sam.
11.
7.
The
fear
of
the
Lord
fell
on
the
people
,
and
they
came
out
with
one
consent
to
obey
Saul
.
Ergo
,
God
hath
placed
authority
in
Kings
,
which
is
not
in
people
:
It
is
true
,
because
God
hath
transferred
the
scattered
authorities
that
are
in
all
the
people
,
in
one
Masse
;
and
by
vertue
of
his
own
Ordinance
,
hath
placed
them
in
one
man
who
is
King
.
What
followeth
?
Ergo
,
God
conferreth
this
authoritie
immediately
upon
the
King
,
without
the
mediation
of
any
action
of
the
people
;
yea
,
the
contrary
rather
P.
P.
that
the
Lord
taketh
and
giveth
Royall
Majesty
mediately
.
followeth
.
7.
God
looseth
the
bond
of
Kings
;
that
is
,
when
God
is
to
cast
off
Kings
,
he
causeth
them
to
lose
all
authoritie
,
and
maketh
them
come
in
contempt
with
the
people
.
But
what
doth
this
prove
?
That
God
taketh
away
the
majestie
and
authority
of
Kings
immediately
;
And
therefore
God
gave
to
Kings
this
authoritie
Immediately
,
without
the
peoples
conveiance
?
Yea
,
I
take
the
Prelates
weapon
from
him
.
God
doth
not
take
the
authority
of
the
King
from
him
immediately
,
but
mediately
by
the
people
their
hating
and
dispising
him
,
when
they
●ee
his
wickednesse
,
as
the
people
see
Nero
a
Monster
,
a
prodigeous
blood-sucker
;
upon
this
,
all
the
people
contemn
him
,
and
dispise
him
,
and
so
the
majesty
is
taken
from
Nero
,
and
all
his
Mandates
and
Laws
,
when
they
see
him
trample
upon
all
Laws
divine
and
humane
;
and
that
mediately
by
the
peoples
heart
,
dispising
of
his
majestie
,
and
so
they
repeat
and
take
again
that
aw-some
authoritie
,
that
they
once
gave
him
:
And
this
proveth
,
that
God
gave
him
the
authoritie
mediately
,
by
the
consent
of
man
.
8.
Nor
speaketh
he
of
Kings
onely
,
but
Vers.
21.
He
powreth
contempt
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
super
munificos
.
Pineda
.
Aria
.
Mont.
super
Principes
.
Upon
Nobles
and
great
men
.
And
this
place
may
prove
,
That
no
Iudges
of
the
earth
are
made
by
men
.
9.
The
Heathen
say
,
That
there
is
some
divinity
in
Princes
,
as
in
Alexander
the
great
,
toward
his
enemies
,
and
Scipio
:
But
this
will
prove
,
That
Princes
and
Kings
have
a
Superiority
over
those
who
are
not
their
native
Subjects
;
for
something
of
God
is
in
them
,
in
relation
to
all
men
,
that
are
not
their
Subjects
.
If
this
be
a
ground
,
strong
and
good
,
because
God
onely
,
and
independently
from
men
,
taketh
away
this
majestie
;
as
God
onely
,
and
independently
giveth
it
,
then
a
King
is
sacred
to
all
men
,
subjects
,
or
not
subjects
;
then
it
is
unlawfull
to
make
war
against
any
forraign
King
and
Prince
,
for
in
invading
him
,
or
resisting
him
,
you
resist
that
divine
majestie
of
God
,
that
is
in
him
;
then
you
may
not
lawfully
flee
from
a
tyrant
,
no
more
then
you
may
lawfully
flie
from
God
.
10.
Scipio
was
not
a
King
.
Ergo
,
This
divine
majestie
is
in
all
Iudges
of
the
earth
,
in
a
more
or
lesse
measure
.
Ergo
,
God
onely
and
immediately
,
may
take
this
spark
of
divine
majestie
from
inferiour
Iudges
:
It
followeth
not
.
And
Kings
certainly
cannot
infuse
any
sparkle
of
a
divine
majestie
,
on
any
inferiour
Iudges
;
for
God
onely
,
immediately
infuseth
it
in
men
.
Ergo
,
It
is
unlawfull
for
Kings
to
take
this
divinitie
from
Iudges
,
for
they
resist
God
,
who
resist
Parliaments
,
no
lesse
then
those
who
resist
Kings
.
Scipio
hath
divinity
in
him
,
as
well
as
Cesar
,
and
that
immediately
from
God
,
and
not
from
any
King
.
10.
Moses
was
not
a
King
when
he
went
to
Pharaoh
,
for
he
had
not
as
yet
a
people
;
Pharaoh
was
the
King
,
and
because
Pharaoh
was
a
King
,
the
Divines
of
Oxford
must
say
,
His
Majestie
must
not
,
in
words
of
rebuke
,
be
resisted
,
more
then
by
deeds
.
11.
Moses
his
face
did
shine
as
a
Prophet
receiving
the
Law
from
God
,
not
as
a
King
:
and
is
this
Sunshine
of
Heaven
upon
the
face
of
Nero
,
and
Julian
?
It
must
be
,
if
it
be
a
beam
of
Royall
Majestie
,
if
this
pratler
say
right
,
but
2
Cor.
3.
7.
this
was
a
majestie
typicall
,
which
did
adumbrate
the
glory
of
the
Law
of
God
,
and
is
far
from
being
a
royaltie
due
to
all
Heathen
Kings
.
12.
I
would
our
King
would
evidence
such
a
Majestie
in
breaking
the
Images
and
Idols
of
his
Queen
,
and
of
Papists
about
him
.
13.
The
fear
of
Noah
,
and
the
regenerated
,
who
are
in
Covenant
with
the
Beasts
of
the
field
,
Job
.
5.
23.
is
upon
the
Beasts
of
the
earth
,
not
by
any
approbation
only
,
as
the
people
maketh
Kings
,
by
the
Prelates
way
;
nor
yet
by
free
consent
,
as
the
people
freely
transfer
their
power
to
him
,
who
is
King
.
The
creatures
inferiour
to
man
,
have
by
no
act
of
freewill
,
chosen
man
to
be
their
Ruler
,
and
transferred
their
power
to
him
,
because
they
are
by
nature
inferiour
to
man
,
and
God
by
nature
hath
subjected
P.
Prelate
.
This
seemeth
,
or
rather
is
an
unanswerable
Argument
,
The
P.
Prelate
taketh
the
paines
to
prove
out
of
the
text
that
a
Magistracy
is
established
in
the
text
.
Ans.
1.
Let
us
consider
this
unanswerable
Argument
,
1.
It
is
grounded
upon
a
lye
,
and
a
conjecture
never
taught
by
any
but
himselfe
;
to
wit
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
,
or
in
,
or
through
man
,
must
signifie
a
Magistrate
.
2.
and
a
King
onely
.
3.
This
King
was
Noah
,
never
interpreter
;
nay
not
common
sence
can
say
,
that
no
Magistrate
is
here
understood
but
a
King
;
the
consequence
is
vaine
,
his
blood
shall
be
shed
by
man
,
ergo
by
a
Magistrate
,
it
followeth
not
,
ergo
by
a
King
,
it
followeth
not
:
there
was
not
a
King
in
the
world
yet
as
;
some
make
Belus
the
father
of
Ninus
the
first
King
,
and
the
builder
of
Babylon
,
this
Ninus
is
thought
the
first
builder
of
the
City
,
after
called
Ninivie
,
and
the
first
King
of
the
Assyrians
,
so
saith
[
a
](A92147-e27300-b)
a
Quint.
Curtius
,
l.
5.
Quintus
Curtius
and
others
;
but
grave
Authors
beleeve
that
Nimrod
was
no
other
then
Belus
the
father
of
Ninus
,
so
saith
[
b
](A92147-e27350-b)
b
Aug.
de
civ
.
Dei
,
l.
16.
c.
17.
Augustin
,
[
c
](A92147-e27390-b)
c
Euseb.
in
exo.
Cronic
.
Hierome
,
[
d
](A92147-e27410-b)
d
Hieron
.
in
c.
2.
Hos.
Eusebius
,
[
e
](A92147-e27430-b)
e
Euseb.
l.
9.
de
prepar
.
Evan.
c.
3.
Hieronym
.
And
[
f
](A92147-e27450-b)
f
Clemens
recog.
l.
4.
Eusebius
maketh
him
the
first
founder
of
Babylon
:
So
saith
[
g
](A92147-e27480-b)
g
Pirerius
in
Gen.
c.
10.
v.
8
,
9.
disp.
3.
n.
67.
Illud
quoque
mihi
fit
percredibile
,
Nimrod
fuisse
eundem
,
atque
enim
quem
alii
appellant
Belum
patrem
Nini
.
Clemens
,
[
i
](A92147-e27500-b)
i
Euseb.
prolog
l.
1.
Chron.
Pirerius
;
and
Iosephus
saith
the
same
.
1.
their
times
,
2.
their
cruell
natures
are
the
same
.
[
k
](A92147-e27530-b)
k
Paul
Orosius
.
l.
1.
de
Ormesta
mundi
.
Calvin
saith
,
Noah
yet
lived
while
Nimrod
lived
:
and
the
Scripture
saith
,
Nimrod
began
to
reigne
,
and
be
powerfull
on
the
Earth
.
And
Babel
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
beginning
of
his
kingdome
.
No
writer
,
Moses
nor
any
other
can
shew
us
a
King
before
Nimrod
.
So
[
l
](A92147-e27630-b)
l
Hieron
.
in
traditio
Hebrei
in
Gen.
Eusebius
,
[
m
](A92147-e27650-b)
m
Tostat
.
Abulens
.
in
Gen.
c.
10.
9.
6.
Paul
.
Orosius
,
[
n
](A92147-e27670-b)
n
Calvin
com
.
Hieronym
.
[
o
](A92147-e27690-b)
o
Iosephus
in
c.
10.
Ge.
Iosephus
say
that
he
was
the
first
King
.
And
[
p
](A92147-e27710-b)
p
Luth.
cò
.
ib.
Tostatus
Abulens
.
and
our
own
[
q
](A92147-e27730-b)
q
Musculus
.
Calvin
,
[
r
](A92147-e27750-b)
r
Ainsw
.
com
.
Luther
,
[
s
](A92147-e27770-b)
s
Morlar
.
Musculus
on
the
place
,
and
[
t
](A92147-e27790-b)
t
Pircrius
in
Gen.
c.
9.
v.
3
,
4.
n.
37.
Vatablus
hath
divers
interpretations
;
In
homine
,
id
est
,
in
conspectu
omnium
&
publicè
,
aut
in
homine
,
i.
e.
hominibus
testificantibus
.
alii
▪
in
homine
,
i.
e.
propter
hominem
,
qui●
occidit
hominem
,
jussu
magistratus
.
Cajotan
expoundeth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
contra
hominem
,
in
despight
of
man
.
Ainsworth
,
make
him
the
first
King
,
and
the
founder
of
Babylon
.
How
Noah
was
a
King
,
or
there
was
any
Monarchicall
government
in
the
world
then
,
the
Prelate
hath
alone
dreamed
it
:
There
was
but
Familie-government
before
this
.
2.
And
if
there
bee
a
Magistracie
heere
established
by
God
,
there
is
no
warrant
to
say
it
is
onely
a
Monarchie
:
For
if
the
Holy
Ghost
intendeth
a
policie
:
it
is
a
policie
to
be
established
to
the
worlds
end
,
and
not
to
bee
limited
(
as
the
P.
Prelate
doth
)
to
Noahs
He
shall
perish
by
the
sword
,
who
taketh
the
sword
,
Matth.
26.
52.
So
the
Netherlands
have
no
lawfull
Magistrate
,
who
have
power
of
life
and
death
,
because
their
Government
is
Aristocraticall
,
and
they
have
no
King
.
So
all
acts
of
taking
away
the
lives
of
ill-doers
,
shall
be
acts
of
homicide
in
Holland
:
how
absurd
?
3.
Nor
doe
I
see
how
the
place
in
the
native
scope
doth
establish
a
Magistracie
.
(s)
Calvin
saith
not
so
:
&
Interpreters
deduce
by
consequence
the
power
of
the
Magistrate
from
this
place
.
But
the
Text
is
generall
:
He
who
killeth
man
,
shall
be
killed
by
man
:
either
he
shall
fall
into
the
Magistrates
hand
,
or
into
the
hand
of
some
Murtherer
:
so
Calvin
,
(t)
Marlorat
.
And
he
speaketh
(
saith
(w)
Pirerius
)
not
of
the
fact
and
event
it selfe
,
but
of
the
deserving
of
murtherers
;
and
it
's
certaine
,
all
murtherers
fall
not
into
the
Magistrates
hands
;
but
he
saith
,
by
Gods
and
ma●s
QUEST.
VIII
.
Whether
the
Prelate
proveth
by
force
of
reason
,
that
the
people
cannot
be
capable
of
any
power
of
Government
?
P.
Prelate
.
God
and
nature
giveth
no
power
in
vain
,
and
which
may
not
be
reduced
into
action
;
but
an
active
power
,
or
a
power
of
actuall
governing
,
was
never
acted
by
the
Communitie
;
therefore
this
power
cannot
be
seated
in
the
Communitie
as
in
the
prime
and
proper
subject
;
and
it
cannot
be
in
every
individuall
person
of
a
Communitie
,
because
Government
intrinsecally
and
essentially
includeth
a
specified
distinction
of
Governours
,
and
some
to
be
governed
;
and
to
speak
properly
,
there
can
no
other
power
be
conceived
in
the
Communitie
naturally
and
properly
,
but
only
potestas
passiva
regiminis
,
a
capacitie
or
susceptabilitie
to
be
governed
,
by
one
or
by
moe
,
just
as
the
first
matter
desireth
a
forme
.
This
obligeth
all
,
by
the
dictate
of
Natures
law
,
to
submit
to
actuall
government
:
and
as
it
is
in
every
individuall
person
,
it
is
not
meerly
and
properly
voluntary
,
because
howsoever
nature
dictates
,
that
government
is
necessary
for
the
safety
of
the
society
,
yet
every
singular
person
,
by
corruption
and
selfe-love
,
hath
a
naturall
aversenesse
and
repugnancie
to
submit
to
any
;
every
man
would
be
a
King
himselfe
:
This
universall
desire
,
app●titus
universalis
aut
naturalis
,
or
universall
propension
to
Government
,
is
like
the
act
of
the
understanding
assenting
to
the
first
undeniable
principles
of
truth
,
and
to
the
wills
generall
propension
to
happines
in
generall
,
which
propension
is
not
a
free
act
,
except
our
new
Statists
,
as
they
have
changed
their
faith
,
so
they
overturne
true
reason
,
it
will
puzzle
them
infinitely
to
make
any
thing
in
its
kinde
passive
,
really
active
and
collative
of
positive
acts
and
effects
.
All
know
,
no
man
can
give
what
he
hath
not
:
an
old
Philosopher
would
laugh
at
him
who
would
say
,
that
a
matter
perfected
and
actuated
by
union
,
with
a
forme
,
could
at
pleasure
shake
off
its
forme
,
and
marrie
it selfe
to
another
:
they
may
as
well
say
,
every
wife
hath
power
to
resume
her
freedome
,
and
marrie
another
,
as
that
any
such
power
active
is
in
the
Communitie
,
or
any
power
to
cast
off
Monarchie
.
Ans.
The
P.
Prelate
might
have
thanked
Spalato
for
this
Argument
,
but
he
doth
not
so
much
as
cite
him
,
for
feare
his
theft
be
deprehended
,
but
Spalato
hath
it
set
downe
with
stronger
nerves
,
then
the
Prelates
head
was
able
to
copie
out
of
him
.
But
[
a
](A92147-e28200-b)
a
M.
Anto.
de
domini
.
Arch.
Spalatens
.
l.
6.
c.
2.
n.
5.
6.
〈…〉
potius
heb●t
●
na●●ra
,
non
t●m
vim
active
rectivam
aut
gubernativam
,
quam
inclinationem
passive
re
gibilem
(
ut
ita
loquar
)
&
gubernabilem
,
qua
volens
&
libens
sese
submittit
rectoribus
&c.
Iac
▪
de
Almain
,
and
[
b
](A92147-e28220-b)
b
Almain
.
de
potest
.
&
La.
1
q.
1.
c.
1.
6.
&
q.
2.
3
,
5.
Navarrus
,
with
the
Parision
Doctors
said
in
the
Concell
of
Paris
,
that
politick
power
is
immediately
from
God
,
but
first
from
the
community
;
but
so
,
that
the
community
apply
their
power
to
this
o●
that
Government
,
not
of
liberty
,
but
by
naturall
necessity
,
but
Spalato
and
the
Plagiarie
Prelate
doe
both
looke
beside
the
booke
.
The
question
is
not
now
concerning
the
vis
rectiva
the
power
of
governing
in
the
people
,
but
concerning
the
power
of
government
,
for
these
two
dister
much
,
the
former
is
a
power
of
ruling
and
Monarchicall
commanding
of
themselves
,
this
power
is
not
formally
in
the
people
,
but
only
vertually
;
and
no
reason
can
say
,
that
a
vertuall
power
is
idle
,
because
it
cannot
be
actuated
by
that
same
subject
that
it
is
in
,
for
then
it
should
not
be
a
vertuall
,
but
a
formall
power
.
Doe
not
Philosophers
say
such
a
Hearb
vertually
maketh
hot
▪
and
can
the
sottish
Prelate
say
,
this
vertuall
power
is
idle
,
and
●…vaine
given
of
God
,
because
it
doth
not
formally
P.
Prelate
who
Nem.
don
▪
iud.
not.
3.
n.
85.
In
any
community
there
are
active
and
passive
power
to
government
.
is
excommunicated
for
Popery
,
Socinianisme
,
Arminianisme
,
and
is
now
turned
Apostate
to
Christ
,
and
his
Church
must
have
changed
his
faith
▪
not
we
,
and
be
reasonlesly
ignorant
to
presse
that
axiome
,
that
the
power
is
idle
that
cannot
be
reduced
to
acts
;
for
a
generative
power
is
given
to
living
and
sensitive
creatures
,
this
power
is
not
idle
though
it
be
not
reduced
in
act
,
by
all
and
every
individuall
sensitive
creature
.
A
power
of
seeing
is
given
to
all
who
naturally
doe
,
or
ought
to
see
,
yet
it
is
not
an
idle
power
,
because
divers
are
blind
,
seeing
it
is
put
forth
in
action
in
divers
of
the
kind
;
so
this
power
in
the
community
is
not
idle
,
because
it
is
not
put
forth
in
acts
in
the
people
,
in
which
it
is
vertually
,
and
is
put
forth
in
action
in
some
of
them
,
whom
they
choose
to
be
their
Governours
;
nor
is
it
reasonable
to
say
that
it
should
be
put
forth
in
action
by
all
the
people
,
as
if
all
should
be
Kings
and
Governours
.
But
the
question
is
not
of
the
power
of
governing
in
the
people
,
but
of
the
power
of
Government
,
that
is
,
of
the
power
of
making
Governours
and
Kings
,
and
the
community
doth
put
forth
in
act
this
power
,
as
a
free
,
voluntary
,
and
active
power
,
for
1.
a
Community
transplanted
to
India
or
any
place
of
the
world
,
not
before
inhabited
have
a
perfect
liberty
to
choose
either
a
Monarchy
,
or
a
Democracy
,
or
an
Aristocracy
;
for
though
nature
incline
them
to
Government
in
generall
,
yet
are
they
not
naturally
determinated
to
any
one
of
those
three
,
more
than
another
.
2.
Israel
did
of
their
free
will
choose
the
change
of
government
,
and
would
have
a
King
,
as
the
Nations
had
,
ergo
they
had
free
will
,
and
so
an
active
power
so
to
doe
,
and
not
a
a
passive
inclination
only
to
be
governed
,
such
as
Spalato
saith
agreeth
to
the
first
matter
,
3
,
Royalists
teach
that
a
people
under
Democracy
,
or
Aristocracy
have
liberty
to
choose
a
King
,
and
the
Romanes
did
this
,
ergo
they
had
an
active
power
to
do
it
,
ergo
the
Prelates
simile
crookes
,
the
matter
at
its
pleasure
cannot
shake
off
its
forme
,
nor
the
wife
cast
off
her
husband
being
once
married
;
but
Barclaius
,
Grotius
,
Arnisaens
,
Blackwood
,
and
all
the
Royalists
teach
that
the
people
under
any
of
these
two
formes
of
Democracy
or
Aristocracy
,
may
resume
their
power
,
and
cast
off
these
formes
and
choose
a
Monarch
,
and
if
Monarchy
be
the
best
government
as
Royalists
say
,
they
may
chose
the
best
,
and
is
this
but
a
passive
capacity
to
be
governed
?
2.
Of
ten
men
fit
for
a
Kingdome
they
may
designe
one
,
and
put
the
Crowne
on
his
head
,
and
refuse
the
other
nine
,
and
Israel
crowned
Solomon
and
refused
Adoniah
.
Is
this
not
a
voluntary
action
,
proceeding
from
a
free
active
,
elective
power
?
It
will
puzzle
the
pretended
Prelate
to
deny
this
,
that
which
the
community
doth
freely
,
they
doe
not
from
such
a
passive
capacity
,
as
is
in
the
first
matter
,
in
regard
of
the
forme
.
3.
It
is
true
that
people
through
corruption
of
nature
are
averse
to
submit
to
Governours
,
for
conscience
sake
,
and
as
to
the
Lord
,
because
the
naturall
man
remaining
in
the
state
of
nature
can
doe
nothing
that
is
truely
good
,
but
it
is
false
that
men
have
no
active
Morall
power
to
submit
to
superiours
,
but
only
a
passive
capacity
to
be
governed
,
he
quite
contradicteth
himselfe
,
for
he
said
before
,
c.
4.
pag.
49.
that
there
is
an
innate
feare
and
reverence
in
the
hearts
of
all
men
naturally
,
even
in
Heathen
toward
their
Severaign
;
yea
as
we
have
a
naturall
morall
active
power
to
love
our
Parents
and
superiours
(
though
it
be
not
Evangelically
,
or
legally
in
Gods
Court
,
good
)
and
so
to
obey
their
commandements
,
only
we
are
averse
to
penall
Lawes
of
superiours
;
but
this
proveth
no
way
,
that
we
have
only
by
nature
,
a
passive
capacity
to
government
;
for
Heathens
have
by
instinct
of
nature
both
made
Lawes
morally
good
,
submitted
to
them
,
set
Kings
and
Iudges
over
them
;
which
clearely
proveth
that
men
have
an
active
power
of
Government
by
nature
.
4.
yea
,
what
difference
maketh
the
Prelate
betwixt
men
and
beasts
,
for
beasts
have
a
capacity
to
be
governed
,
even
Lyons
and
Tigers
;
but
here
is
the
matter
,
if
men
have
any
naturall
power
of
Government
,
the
P.
Prelate
would
have
it
with
his
brethren
Iesuites
and
Arminians
to
be
not
naturall
,
but
done
by
the
helpe
of
universall
grace
,
for
so
doe
they
confound
nature
and
grace
.
But
it
is
certaine
our
power
to
submit
to
Rulers
and
Kings
as
to
rectors
,
and
guides
and
fathers
,
is
naturall
,
to
submit
to
Tyrants
in
doing
ills
of
sinne
,
is
naturall
,
but
in
suffering
ills
of
punishment
it
s
not
naturall
.
5.
No
man
can
give
that
which
he
hath
not
,
is
true
,
but
that
people
have
no
power
to
make
their
Governours
,
is
that
which
is
in
question
,
and
denyed
by
us
.
6.
This
argument
doth
prove
that
people
hath
no
power
to
appoint
Aristocraticall
Rulers
more
then
Kings
,
and
so
the
Aristocraticall
and
Democraticall
Rulers
are
all
inviolable
and
sacred
,
as
the
King
.
2.
by
this
the
people
may
not
resume
their
freedome
if
they
turne
tyrants
and
oppressors
;
this
the
Prelate
shall
deny
,
for
he
averreth
,
p.
96.
out
of
Augustine
,
that
the
people
may
without
sin
change
a
corrupt
Democracy
into
a
Monarchy
.
P.
Prelate
.
If
Soveraignty
be
originally
inherent
in
the
people
,
then
Ans.
The
P.
Prelate
might
thanke
Spalato
for
this
Argument
also
,
Rom.
13.
1
,
2
,
3.
Deut.
17.
14.
Prov.
8.
15
,
16.
1
Pet.
2.
13
,
14.
Psal.
2.
10
,
11
,
&c.
2.
Power
of
chosing
any
form
of
Government
,
is
in
the
people
:
Ergo
,
There
is
no
Government
lawfull
,
but
popular
Government
;
it
followeth
no
wayes
,
but
presupposeth
that
power
to
chose
any
form
of
Government
,
must
be
formally
actuall
Government
,
which
is
most
false
,
yea
,
they
be
contrary
,
as
the
prevalency
or
power
,
and
the
act
are
contrary
,
so
these
two
are
contrary
,
or
opposite
;
neither
is
Soveraigntie
,
nor
any
Government
formally
inherent
in
either
the
Communitie
,
by
nature
,
nor
in
any
one
particular
man
,
by
nature
;
and
that
every
man
is
born
free
,
so
as
no
man
,
rather
then
his
brother
,
is
born
a
King
and
make
voyd
and
null
their
Fathers
election
of
a
King
,
and
chose
another
King
,
because
the
lawfull
Covenant
of
the
Fathers
in
point
of
Government
,
if
it
be
not
broken
,
tieth
the
children
;
but
it
cannot
deprive
them
of
their
lawfull
libertie
naturally
inherent
in
them
to
chose
the
fittest
man
to
be
King
:
But
of
this
hereafter
more
fully
.
4.
Spalato
addeth
,
(
the
Prelate
is
not
a
faithfull
theef
)
If
the
Communitie
by
the
Law
of
nature
,
have
power
of
all
forms
of
Government
,
and
so
should
be
,
by
nature
,
under
popular
Government
,
and
yet
should
refuse
a
Monarchy
,
and
an
Aristocracie
;
yet
Augustine
addeth
,
If
the
people
should
preferre
their
own
private
gain
to
the
publike
good
,
and
sell
the
Common-wealth
,
then
some
good
man
might
take
their
libertie
from
them
,
and
against
their
will
er●ct
a
Monarchie
,
or
an
Aristocracie
:
But
1.
the
Prelate
and
Augustine
,
supposeth
the
people
to
be
under
Popular
Government
;
this
is
not
our
case
,
for
Spalato
and
the
Prelate
presupposeth
by
our
grounds
,
that
the
people
by
nature
,
must
be
under
Popular
Government
;
Augustine
dreameth
no
such
thing
,
and
we
deny
that
by
nature
,
they
are
under
any
form
of
Government
.
2.
Augustine
in
a
case
most
considerable
,
thinketh
one
good
,
and
potent
man
,
may
take
the
corrupt
peoples
power
of
giving
Honours
,
and
making
Rulers
from
them
,
and
give
it
to
some
good
men
,
few
,
or
many
,
or
to
one
;
then
Augustine
layeth
done
as
a
ground
,
that
which
Spalato
and
the
Prelate
denieth
,
That
the
people
hath
power
to
appoint
their
own
Rulers
;
otherwayes
,
how
could
one
good
man
take
that
power
from
them
?
And
the
Prelates
fifth
Argument
,
is
but
a
Branch
of
the
fourth
Argument
,
and
is
answered
already
.
P.
Prelate
,
Chap.
11.
He
would
prove
,
That
Kings
of
the
peoples
making
,
are
not
blessed
of
God
.
The
first
creature
of
the
peoples
making
,
was
Abimelech
,
Iudg.
9.
22.
who
reigned
onely
three
yeers
,
well
neer
Anti-Christs
time
of
endurance
;
he
came
to
it
by
blood
,
and
an
evil
spirit
rose
betwixt
him
,
and
the
men
of
Sechem
,
and
he
made
a
miserable
end
.
The
next
was
Ieroboam
,
who
had
this
Motto
,
He
made
Israel
to
sin
,
the
people
made
him
King
,
and
he
made
the
same
pretence
of
a
glorious
Reformation
,
that
our
Reformers
now
make
,
new
Calves
,
new
Altars
,
new
Feasts
are
erected
;
they
banish
the
Levites
,
and
take
in
the
scum
and
drosse
of
the
vulgar
,
&c.
3.
Every
action
of
Christ
,
is
our
instruction
;
Christ
was
truely
a
born
King
,
notwithstanding
,
when
the
people
would
make
him
a
King
,
he
disclaimed
it
,
he
would
not
be
an
arbiter
betwixt
two
brethren
differing
.
Answ.
I
am
not
to
follow
the
Prelates
order
every
way
,
though
God
willing
,
I
shall
reach
him
in
the
fore-going
Chapters
.
Nor
purpose
I
to
answer
his
treasonable
railing
against
his
own
Nation
,
and
the
Iudges
of
the
Land
,
whom
God
hath
set
over
this
seditious
excommunicated
Apostate
.
He
layeth
to
us
frequently
the
Iesuites
P.
Prelate
holdeth
the
Pope
not
to
be
the
Antichrist
,
but
that
as
Papists
say
,
the
Antichrist
shal
be
one
single
man
.
Tenets
,
when
as
he
is
known
himself
to
be
a
Papist
:
In
this
Argument
he
faith
,
Abim●lech
did
reigne
onely
three
yeers
,
well
neer
Anti-Christs
reign
:
Is
not
this
the
basis
,
and
the
mother
principle
of
Popery
,
That
the
Pope
is
not
the
Antichrist
?
for
the
Pope
hath
continued
many
ages
.
1.
He
is
not
an
individuall
man
,
but
a
race
of
men
,
but
the
Antichrist
,
saith
Belarmine
,
Stapleton
,
Becanus
,
and
the
nation
of
Iesuites
,
and
Poplings
,
shall
be
one
inviduall
man
,
a
born
Iaw
,
and
shall
reign
onely
three
yeers
and
a
half
.
But
1.
The
Argument
from
successe
,
proveth
nothing
,
except
the
Prelate
prove
as
the
people
were
removed
to
all
the
Kingdoms
of
the
earth
,
for
the
sins
of
Manass●h
,
Iere.
15.
4.
Was
therefore
Manasseh
not
lawfully
called
to
the
Crown
?
2.
For
his
instance
of
Kings
unlawfully
called
to
the
Crown
,
he
bringeth
us
,
whole
two
,
and
telleth
us
,
that
he
doubteth
as
many
learned
men
do
,
Whether
Ieroboam
was
a
King
by
permission
onely
,
or
by
a
commission
from
God
.
3.
Abimelech
was
cursed
,
because
he
wanted
Gods
calling
to
the
throne
,
for
then
Israel
had
no
King
,
but
Iudges
extraordinarily
raised
up
by
God
,
and
God
did
not
raise
him
at
all
,
only
he
came
to
the
throne
by
blood
,
and
carnall
reasons
moving
the
men
of
Sechem
to
advance
him
:
The
Argument
presupposeth
,
that
the
whole
lawfull
calling
of
a
King
,
is
the
voices
of
the
people
;
This
we
never
taught
,
though
the
Prelate
make
conquest
a
just
title
to
a
Crown
,
and
it
is
but
a
title
of
blood
and
rapine
.
4.
Abimelech
was
not
the
first
King
,
but
onely
a
Iudge
;
all
our
Divines
with
the
Word
of
God
maketh
Saul
the
first
King
.
5.
For
Ieroboam
he
had
Gods
Word
and
Promise
to
be
King
,
1
King
.
11.
34
,
35
,
37
,
38.
But
in
my
weak
judgement
he
waited
not
Gods
time
,
and
way
of
coming
to
the
Crown
;
but
that
his
coming
to
the
throne
was
unlawfull
,
because
he
came
by
the
peoples
election
,
is
in
question
.
5.
That
the
peoples
Reformation
,
and
their
making
a
new
King
,
was
P.
Prelate
condemneth
King
Charles
his
ratifying
in
Parliament
,
2.
An.
1641.
the
proceedings
of
Scotland
in
this
present
Reformation
.
like
the
Kingdom
of
Scotlands
Reformation
,
and
the
Parliament
of
Englands
way
now
,
is
a
traiterous
calumny
.
For
1.
It
condemneth
the
King
,
who
hath
in
Parliament
declared
all
their
proceedings
to
be
legall
.
Rehoboam
never
declared
Ieroboams
Coronation
to
be
lawfull
,
but
contrary
to
Gods
Word
made
war
against
Israel
.
2.
It
is
false
that
Israel
pretended
Religion
in
that
change
,
the
cause
was
the
rough
answer
given
to
the
supplication
of
the
Estates
,
complaining
of
their
oppression
,
they
were
under
in
Solomons
reign
.
3.
Religion
is
still
subjected
to
policie
by
Prelates
and
Caveliers
,
not
by
us
in
Scotland
,
who
sought
nothing
but
Reformation
of
Religion
,
of
Laws
,
so
far
as
they
serve
Religion
,
as
our
Supplications
,
Declarations
,
and
the
event
proveth
.
4.
We
have
no
new
Calves
,
new
Altars
,
new
Feasts
,
but
professe
,
and
really
do
hazard
life
and
estate
,
to
put
away
the
Prelates
Calves
,
Images
,
Tree-worship
,
Altar-worship
,
Saints
Feast-dayes
,
Idolatry
,
Masses
;
and
nothing
is
said
here
but
Jesuites
,
and
Cananites
,
and
Baalites
,
might
say
,
(
though
salsly
)
against
the
Reformation
of
Iosiah
:
Trueth
and
purity
of
worship
this
yeer
,
is
new
in
relation
to
Idolatry
the
last
yeer
,
but
it
is
simpliciter
older
.
5.
We
have
not
put
away
the
Lords
Priests
,
and
Levites
,
and
taken
in
the
scum
of
the
vulgar
,
but
have
put
away
Baals
Priests
,
such
as
excommunicated
Prelate
Maxwel
,
and
other
Apostates
,
and
resumed
the
faithfull
servants
of
God
,
who
were
deprived
and
banished
,
for
standing
to
the
Protestant
Faith
sworn
too
,
by
the
Prelates
themselves
.
6.
Every
action
of
Christ
,
such
as
his
walking
on
the
Sea
,
is
not
our
instruction
in
that
sense
,
that
Christs
refusing
a
Kingdom
,
is
directly
our
instruction
:
And
did
Christ
refuse
to
be
a
King
,
because
the
people
would
have
made
him
a
King
?
that
is
,
non
causa
pro
causa
;
he
refused
it
,
because
his
Kingdom
was
not
in
this
world
,
and
he
came
to
suffer
for
men
,
not
to
reign
over
man
.
7.
The
Prelate
and
others
who
were
Lords
of
Session
,
and
would
be
Iudges
of
mens
Inheritances
,
and
would
usurpe
the
sword
by
being
Lords
of
Counsell
,
and
Parliament
,
have
refused
to
be
instructed
by
every
Action
of
Christ
,
who
would
not
judge
betwixt
brother
and
brother
.
P.
Prelate
.
Jephtah
came
to
be
a
Iudge
by
Covenant
,
betwixt
him
and
the
Gileadites
;
here
you
have
an
interposed
Act
of
man
,
yet
the
Lord
himself
in
authorizing
him
as
Iudge
,
vindicateth
it
no
lesse
to
himself
,
then
when
extraordinarily
he
authorized
Gideon
and
Samuel
,
1
Sam.
12.
11.
Ergo
,
whatsoever
act
of
man
interveeneth
,
it
contributeth
nothing
to
Royall
Authority
,
it
cannot
weaken
or
repeal
it
.
Answ.
It
was
as
extraordinary
that
Jepthah
a
bastard
,
and
the
sonne
of
an
harlot
,
should
be
Iudge
,
as
that
Gideon
should
be
Iudge
.
God
vindicateth
to
himselfe
,
that
he
giveth
his
people
favour
in
the
Psal.
65.
9
,
10.
God
maketh
corne
to
grow
;
therefore
clouds
,
and
earth
,
and
sun
,
and
summer
,
and
husbandry
contributeth
nothing
to
the
growing
of
corne
.
But
this
is
but
that
which
he
said
before
.
We
grant
that
this
is
an
eminent
and
singular
act
of
Gods
speciall
providence
,
that
he
moveth
and
boweth
the
wills
of
a
great
multitude
to
promote
such
a
man
,
who
by
nature
commeth
no
more
out
of
the
wombe
a
crowned
King
,
then
the
poorest
shepherd
in
the
land
:
and
it
is
an
act
of
grace
to
endue
him
with
heroick
and
royall
parts
for
the
government
.
But
what
is
all
this
?
doth
it
exclude
the
peoples
consent
?
in
no
wayes
.
So
the
works
of
supernaturall
grace
,
as
to
love
Christ
above
all
things
,
to
beleeve
in
Christ
in
a
singular
manner
,
are
ascribed
to
the
rich
grace
of
God
:
but
can
the
Prelate
say
,
that
the
understanding
and
will
in
these
acts
are
meere
patients
,
and
contribute
no
more
then
the
people
contributeth
to
Royall
authority
in
the
King
,
and
that
is
just
nothing
,
by
the
Prelates
way
?
And
we
utterly
deny
,
that
as
water
in
baptisme
hath
no
action
at
all
in
the
working
of
remission
of
sinnes
,
so
the
people
royall
authoritie
,
which
by
Gods
speciall
providence
,
is
united
in
one
King
,
and
as
it
were
over-gilded
and
lustered
with
Princely
grace
and
royall
endowments
,
is
diffused
in
the
people
,
for
the
people
hath
an
after-approbative
consent
in
making
a
King
,
as
Royalists
confesse
,
water
hath
no
such
action
in
producing
grace
.
QUEST.
IX
.
Whether
or
no
Soveraigntie
is
so
from
the
people
,
that
it
remaineth
in
them
in
some
part
,
so
as
they
may
in
case
of
necessitie
resume
it
?
THe
Prelate
will
have
it
Babylonish
confusion
,
that
we
are
divided
in
opinion
.
Jesuites
(
saith
he
)
place
all
Soveraigntie
in
the
communitie
.
Of
the
Sectaries
;
some
warrant
any
one
subject
to
make
away
his
King
,
and
that
such
a
worke
is
no
lesse
to
be
rewarded
then
when
one
killeth
a
wolfe
:
Some
say
,
this
power
is
in
the
whole
Communitie
:
some
will
have
it
in
the
collective
body
,
not
conveened
by
warrant
or
writ
of
Soveraignty
,
but
when
necessitie
(
which
is
often
fancied
)
of
reforming
State
and
Church
,
calleth
them
together
.
Some
in
the
Nobles
,
and
Peeres
,
some
in
the
three
Estates
assembled
by
the
Kings
writ
,
some
▪
in
the
inferour
Iudges
.
I
answer
:
If
the
Prelate
were
not
a
Iesuite
himselfe
,
he
would
not
bid
his
brethren
take
the
mote
out
of
their
eye
:
but
there
is
nothing
Tyranny
being
a
worke
of
Sathan
,
is
not
from
God
,
because
sinne
either
habituall
or
actuall
,
is
not
from
God
,
the
power
that
is
,
must
be
from
God
;
the
Magistrate
as
Magistrate
,
is
good
,
in
nature
of
office
,
and
the
intrinsecall
end
of
his
office
,
Rom.
13.
4.
for
he
is
the
Minister
of
God
for
thy
good
;
and
therefore
a
power
ethicall
,
politick
,
or
morall
,
to
oppresse
,
is
not
from
God
,
and
is
not
a
power
,
but
a
licentious
deviation
of
a
power
,
and
is
no
more
from
God
,
but
from
sinfull
nature
,
and
the
old
serpent
,
then
a
license
to
sinne
:
God
in
Christ
giveth
pardons
of
sinne
;
but
the
Pope
,
not
God
,
giveth
dispensations
to
sinne
.
2.
To
this
adde
,
If
for
nature
to
defend
it selfe
be
lawfull
,
no
Communitie
,
without
sin
,
hath
power
to
alienate
and
give
away
this
power
:
for
as
no
power
given
to
man
to
murther
his
brother
,
is
of
God
,
so
no
power
to
suffer
his
brother
to
be
murthered
,
is
of
God
;
and
no
power
to
suffer
himselfe
(
à
fortiori
)
far
lesse
can
be
from
God
.
Here
I
speake
not
of
physicall
power
,
for
if
free
will
be
the
creature
of
God
,
a
physicall
power
to
acts
which
in
relation
to
Gods
law
are
sinfull
,
must
be
from
God
.
But
I
now
follow
the
P.
Prelate
.
Some
of
the
adversaries
,
as
Buchanan
,
Sac.
Reg.
Maj.
The
sacred
and
royall
prerogative
of
Kings
c.
9.
p.
101.
102.
say
that
the
Parliament
hath
no
power
to
make
a
law
,
but
only
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
without
the
approbation
of
the
Communitie
.
Others
,
as
the
the
Observator
,
say
,
that
the
right
of
the
Gentry
and
Communalty
is
intirely
in
the
Knights
and
Burgesses
of
the
House
of
Commons
,
and
will
have
their
Orders
irrevocable
.
If
then
the
common
Answ.
The
ignorant
man
should
have
thanked
Barclaius
for
this
Argument
,
and
yet
Barclaius
need
not
thanke
him
,
for
it
hath
not
the
nerves
that
Barclaius
gave
it
.
But
I
answer
,
1.
if
the
Parliament
should
have
been
corrupted
by
fair
hopes
(
as
in
our
age
we
have
seene
the
like
)
the
people
did
well
to
resist
the
Prelates
obtruding
the
Masse
Booke
,
when
the
Lords
of
the
Counsell
pressed
it
against
all
Law
of
God
and
man
,
upon
the
Kingdome
of
Scotland
,
and
therefore
it
is
denyed
that
the
Acts
of
Parliament
are
irrevocable
,
the
observator
said
they
were
irrevocable
by
the
King
,
he
being
but
one
man
,
the
P.
Prelate
wrongeth
him
,
for
he
said
onely
,
by
his
Royall
Office
to
all
good
Lawes
,
and
neither
King
nor
people
may
oppose
them
.
Buchanan
said
Acts
of
Parliament
are
not
Lawes
obliging
the
people
till
they
be
promulgated
,
and
the
peoples
silence
when
they
are
promulgated
is
their
approbation
,
and
maketh
them
obligatory
Lawes
to
them
;
but
if
the
people
speak
against
unjust
Lawes
,
they
are
not
Lawes
at
all
,
and
Buchannan
knew
the
power
of
the
Scottish
Parliament
,
better
then
this
ignorant
Statist
.
2.
There
is
not
like
reason
to
grant
so
much
to
the
King
,
as
to
Parliaments
,
because
certainly
Parliaments
who
make
Kings
under
God
,
or
above
any
one
man
,
and
they
must
have
more
authority
and
wisedome
then
any
one
King
,
except
Solomon
(
as
base
flatterers
tyrannicall
Lawes
,
the
power
of
all
the
Parliament
was
never
given
to
the
King
,
by
God
,
the
Parliament
are
as
essentially
Iudges
as
the
King
,
and
therefore
the
Kings
deed
may
well
be
revoked
,
because
he
acteth
nothing
as
King
;
but
united
with
his
great
or
lesser
Councell
,
no
more
then
the
eye
can
see
,
being
separated
from
the
body
.
The
Peeres
and
Members
of
Parliament
have
more
then
the
King
,
because
they
have
both
their
owne
power
,
being
parts
and
speciall
Members
of
the
people
,
and
also
they
have
their
high
places
in
Parliament
,
either
from
the
peoples
expresse
,
or
tacite
consent
.
3.
We
allow
no
Arbitrary
power
to
the
Parliament
,
because
their
just
Lawes
are
irrevocable
,
for
the
irrevocable
power
of
making
just
Lawes
doth
argue
a
legall
,
not
an
irreovocable
Arbitrary
power
;
nor
is
there
any
arbitrary
power
in
the
people
,
or
in
any
mortall
man
,
but
of
the
Covenant
betwixt
King
and
people
hereafter
.
P.
Prelate
,
If
Soveraigne
power
be
habitually
in
the
community
so
,
as
they
may
resume
it
at
their
pleasure
,
then
nothing
is
given
to
the
King
but
an
empty
title
,
for
at
the
same
instant
he
receiveth
Empire
and
Soveraignty
,
and
layeth
downe
the
power
to
rule
or
determine
in
matters
which
concerne
either
private
or
publick
good
,
and
so
he
is
both
a
King
and
a
Subject
.
Ans.
This
naked
consequence
the
Prelate
sayeth
,
and
proveth
not
,
and
we
deny
it
,
and
give
this
reason
,
the
King
receiveth
Royall
power
with
the
States
to
make
good
Lawes
,
and
2.
power
by
his
royalty
to
execute
those
Lawes
,
and
this
power
the
community
hath
devolved
in
the
hands
of
the
King
,
and
States
of
Parliament
,
but
the
community
keepeth
to
themselves
a
power
to
resist
tyranny
,
and
to
coerce
it
,
and
eatenus
in
so
far
is
Saul
subject
,
that
David
is
not
to
compeare
before
him
,
nor
to
lay
downe
Goliahes
sword
,
nor
disband
his
Army
of
defence
,
though
the
King
should
command
him
so
to
doe
.
P.
Prelate
.
By
all
Polititians
,
Kings
,
and
enferiour
Magistrates
Ans.
Whether
the
King
and
the
under
Magistrate
differ
essentially
,
P.
Prelate
saith
all
Polititians
grant
it
,
but
he
saith
untruth
;
he
bringeth
Moses
,
and
the
Iudges
,
their
power
to
prove
the
power
of
Kings
;
and
so
either
the
Iudges
of
Israel
and
the
Kings
differ
not
essentially
,
or
then
the
Prelate
must
correct
the
spirit
of
God
tearming
one
booke
of
Scripture
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Kings
,
and
another
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Iudges
,
and
make
the
booke
of
Kings
the
booke
of
Iudges
.
2.
The
Magistrates
condition
is
not
better
then
the
Kings
,
because
the
Magistrate
is
to
judge
by
an
knowne
Statute
and
Law
,
and
the
King
not
so
.
God
moulded
the
first
King
,
Deut.
17.
18.
when
he
sitteth
judging
on
his
Throne
,
to
looke
to
a
written
Coppy
of
the
Law
of
God
,
as
his
rule
.
Now
a
power
to
follow
Gods
Law
is
better
then
a
power
to
follow
mans
sinfull
will
:
so
the
Prelate
putteth
the
King
in
a
worse
condition
then
the
Magistrate
,
not
we
,
who
will
have
the
King
to
judge
according
to
just
statutes
and
lawes
.
3.
Whether
the
King
be
censurable
and
deposable
by
the
multitude
,
he
cannot
determine
out
of
our
writings
.
4.
The
communities
law
is
the
law
of
nature
,
not
their
arbitrary
lust
.
5.
The
Prelates
treasonable
raylings
,
I
cannot
follow
;
he
first
saith
,
that
we
agree
not
ten
of
us
to
a
positive
faith
,
and
that
our
faith
is
negative
,
but
his
faith
is
Privative
,
Popish
,
Socinian
,
Arminian
,
Pelagian
and
worse
,
for
he
was
once
of
that
same
faith
that
we
are
of
.
2.
Our
Confession
of
Faith
is
positive
,
as
the
confession
of
all
the
reformed
Churches
,
but
I
judge
he
thinketh
the
Protestant
Faith
of
all
the
reformed
Churches
but
negative
.
3.
The
incommodities
of
Government
before
our
reformation
were
not
fancied
,
but
printed
by
Authority
,
all
the
body
of
Popery
was
printed
,
and
avowed
as
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
and
England
,
as
the
learned
Author
,
and
my
much
respected
brother
evidenceth
in
his
Ludensium
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
The
Canterburian
selfe
conviction
.
4.
The
Parliament
of
England
was
never
yet
found
guilty
of
Treason
.
5.
The
good
Counsellers
of
great
States-men
,
that
Parliaments
of
both
Kingdomes
would
take
from
the
Kings
Majesty
,
are
a
faction
of
perjured
Papists
,
Prelates
,
Iesuites
,
Irish
cut-throates
,
Strafords
,
and
Apostate
subverters
of
all
Lawes
divine
,
humane
,
of
God
,
of
Church
,
of
State
.
P.
Prelate
.
In
whom
so
ever
this
power
of
Government
be
,
it
is
the
onely
remedy
to
supply
all
defects
,
and
to
set
right
what
ever
is
disjoynted
in
Church
and
State
,
and
the
subject
of
this
super-intending
power
must
be
free
from
all
errour
in
Iudgement
and
Practice
,
and
so
we
have
a
Pope
in
temporalibus
;
and
if
the
Parliament
erre
,
the
people
must
take
order
with
them
,
else
God
hath
left
Church
and
State
remedilesse
.
Ans.
This
is
stollen
from
Barolaius
also
;
1.
but
the
same
Barclaius
Si
Rex
regnum
suum
alien●
ditioni
manciparit
,
regno
cadit
.
If
the
King
shall
sell
his
Kingdome
,
or
inslave
it
to
a
forraigne
power
,
he
falleth
from
all
right
to
his
Kingdome
:
but
who
shall
execute
any
such
Law
against
him
,
not
the
people
,
not
the
Peeres
,
not
the
Parliament
;
for
this
Mancipium
ventris
&
aulae
,
this
slave
saith
,
p.
147.
I
know
no
power
in
any
to
punish
or
curbe
Soveraignty
,
but
in
Almighty
God
.
2.
We
see
no
super-intending
power
on
earth
in
King
or
people
infallible
,
nor
is
the
last
power
of
taking
order
with
a
Prince
who
inslaveth
his
Kingdome
to
a
forraigne
power
Extremis
morbis
extrema
remedia
in
an
extraordinary
exigent
,
when
Achab
and
Iezabell
did
undoe
the
Church
of
God
,
and
Tyrannize
▪
over
both
the
bodies
and
consciences
of
Priest
,
Prophet
,
and
people
,
Elias
procured
the
convention
of
the
States
,
and
Elias
with
the
peoples
helpe
killed
all
Baals
Priests
,
the
King
looking
on
,
and
no
question
,
against
his
heart
.
In
this
case
I
thinke
it
s
more
then
evident
that
the
people
resumed
their
power
.
4.
We
teach
not
that
people
should
supply
all
defects
in
Government
,
nor
that
they
should
use
their
power
when
any
thing
is
done
amisse
by
the
King
,
no
more
then
the
King
is
to
cut
off
the
whole
people
of
God
,
when
they
refuse
an
Idolatrous
service
obtruded
upon
them
against
all
Law
;
the
people
is
to
suffer
much
before
they
resume
their
power
,
but
this
Court
slave
will
have
the
people
to
doe
what
he
did
not
himselfe
,
for
when
King
and
Parliament
summoned
him
,
was
he
not
obliged
to
appeare
?
Non-compearance
when
lawfull
,
royall
,
and
Parliamentory
power
summoneth
,
is
no
lesse
resistance
,
then
taking
of
Forts
and
Castles
.
P.
Prelate
.
Then
this
super-intending
power
in
people
,
may
call
a
King
to
accompt
,
and
punish
him
for
any
misdemeanour
,
or
act
of
injustice
.
Why
might
not
the
people
of
Israels
Peeres
,
or
Sanedrin
have
convented
David
before
them
,
judged
and
punished
him
for
his
▪
Adultery
with
Bathsheba
,
and
his
murther
of
Uriah
;
but
it
is
holden
by
all
,
that
Tyranny
should
be
an
intended
universall
,
totall
,
manifest
destruction
of
the
whole
Common-wealth
,
which
cannot
fall
in
the
thoughts
of
any
but
a
mad
man
.
What
is
recorded
in
the
Story
of
Nero
his
wish
in
this
kind
,
may
be
rather
judged
the
expression
of
transported
passion
,
then
a
fixed
resolution
.
Ans.
The
P.
Prelate
contrary
to
the
scope
of
his
booke
,
which
is
all
for
the
subject
and
seat
of
Soveraigne
power
,
against
all
order
hath
plunged
himselfe
in
the
deep
of
Defensive
armes
,
and
yet
hath
no
new
thing
.
1.
Our
law
of
Scotland
will
warrant
any
subject
,
if
the
King
take
from
him
his
heritage
,
or
invade
his
possession
against
Law
,
to
resist
the
invaders
,
and
to
summon
the
Kings
intruders
before
the
Lords
of
Session
for
that
act
of
injustice
:
Is
this
against
Gods
Word
,
or
Conscience
?
2.
The
Sancdrim
did
not
punish
David
;
Ergo
,
it
is
not
lawfull
to
challenge
a
King
for
any
one
act
of
injustice
:
from
the
practice
of
the
Sanedrim
,
to
conclude
a
thing
lawfull
or
unlawfull
,
is
logick
;
we
may
resist
.
3.
By
the
P.
Prelates
doctrine
,
the
law
might
not
put
Bathshebah
to
death
,
nor
yet
Joab
the
neerest
agent
of
the
murthering
David
,
Bathsheha
,
Ioab
,
proveth
nothing
in
law
,
as
a
fact
or
non
fact
is
not
law
.
of
innocent
Vriah
,
because
Bathshebaes
adulterie
was
the
Kings
adulterie
,
she
did
it
in
obedience
to
King
David
:
Joabs
murther
was
Royall
murther
,
as
the
murther
of
all
the
Cavaliers
;
for
he
had
the
Kings
hand-writing
for
it
.
Murther
is
Murther
,
and
the
murtherer
is
to
dye
,
though
the
King
by
a
secret
Let
alone
,
a
private
and
illegall
warrant
command
it
.
Ergo
,
the
Sanedrim
might
have
taken
Bathshebaes
life
,
and
Joabs
head
also
:
and
consequently
the
Parliament
of
England
,
if
they
be
Judges
(
as
I
conceive
God
and
the
Law
of
that
ancient
and
renowned
Kingdome
maketh
them
)
may
take
the
head
of
many
Joabs
and
Jermines
,
for
murther
;
●or
the
command
of
a
King
cannot
legitimate
murther
.
4.
David
himselfe
,
as
King
,
speaketh
more
for
us
then
for
the
Prelate
,
2
Sam.
12.
7.
And
Davids
anger
was
greatly
kindled
against
the
man
,
(
the
man
was
himselfe
,
v.
7.
Thou
art
the
man
)
and
he
said
to
Nathan
,
as
the
Lord
liveth
,
the
man
that
hath
done
this
,
shall
surely
dye
.
5.
Every
act
of
injustice
doth
not
un-King
a
Prince
before
God
,
as
every
act
of
uncleannesse
doth
not
make
a
wife
no
wife
before
God
.
6.
The
Prelate
excuseth
Nero
,
and
would
not
have
him
resisted
,
if
all
Rome
were
one
neck
,
that
he
might
cut
it
off
with
one
stroke
(
I
read
it
of
Caligula
;
If
the
Prelate
see
more
in
Historie
then
I
doe
,
I
yield
.
)
7.
He
saith
,
the
thoughts
of
totall
eversion
of
a
Kingdome
,
must
only
fall
on
a
mad
man
.
The
King
of
Britaine
was
not
mad
,
when
he
declared
the
Scots
Traytors
,
because
they
resisted
the
service
of
the
Masse
;
and
raised
an
Army
of
Prelaticall
cut-throats
to
destroy
them
,
if
all
the
Kingdome
should
resist
Idolatry
,
(
as
all
are
obliged
.
)
The
King
sleeped
upon
this
Prelaticall
resolution
many
moneths
:
passions
in
servor
have
not
a
dayes
raigne
upon
a
man
.
And
this
was
not
so
cleare
as
the
sun
,
but
it
was
as
cleare
as
written
printed
Proclamations
,
and
the
pressing
of
Souldiers
,
and
the
visible
marching
of
Cut-throats
,
and
the
blocking
of
Scotland
up
by
sea
and
land
could
be
visible
to
men
having
five
senses
.
Covaruv
.
a
▪
great
Lawyer
,
saith
,
1.
that
all
Civill
power
is
penes
Covarruvias
,
tom.
2.
pract.
quest.
de
jurisd.
Castellan
.
Reip.
c.
1.
n.
4.
faith
,
Hereditary
Kings
are
also
made
hereditary
by
the
tacit
consent
of
the
people
,
and
so
by
law
and
consuetude
.
Spalato
.
Let
us
grant
(
saith
he
)
that
a
societie
shall
refuse
to
have
a
Governour
over
them
,
shall
they
be
for
that
free
?
in
no
sort
:
but
And
the
P.
Prelate
saith
,
God
is
no
lesse
the
author
Sa.
sa
.
maj
.
The
sacred
and
royall
prerogative
of
Kings
c.
7.
p.
82
,
83
,
84.
of
Order
,
then
he
is
the
author
of
Being
;
for
the
Lord
who
createth
all
,
conserveth
all
;
and
without
government
all
humane
societies
should
be
dissolved
and
goe
to
ruine
:
Then
government
must
be
naturall
,
and
not
depend
upon
a
voluntary
&
arbitrary
constitution
of
men
.
In
nature
,
the
liveles
creatures
inferior
give
a
tacit
consent
&
silent
obedience
to
their
superiour
,
and
the
superiour
have
a
powerfull
influence
on
the
inferiour
.
In
the
subordination
of
creatures
,
we
ascend
from
one
superior
to
another
,
till
at
last
we
come
to
one
supreme
,
which
by
the
way
pleadeth
for
the
excellencie
of
Monarchie
.
Amongst
Angels
there
is
an
order
:
how
can
it
then
be
supposed
that
God
hath
left
it
to
the
simple
consent
of
man
to
establish
a
heraldrie
of
sub
&
supra
,
of
one
above
another
,
which
neither
nature
nor
the
Gospel
doth
warrant
?
To
leave
it
thus
arbitrary
,
that
upon
this
supposed
principle
,
Mankind
may
be
without
government
at
all
,
is
vain
;
which
paradox
cannot
be
maintained
.
In
nature
God
hath
established
a
superiority
inherent
in
superior
creatures
,
which
is
no
ways
derived
from
the
inferior
by
communication
,
in
what
proportion
it
will
,
and
resumeable
upon
such
exigents
as
the
inferior
listeth
:
therefore
neither
hath
God
left
to
the
multitude
,
the
communitie
,
the
collective
,
the
representative
or
virtuall
body
,
to
derive
from
it selfe
,
and
communicate
s●veraigntie
,
whether
in
one
or
few
,
or
more
,
in
that
measure
and
proportion
pleaseth
them
,
which
they
resume
at
pleasure
.
Answ.
1.
To
answer
Spalato
:
No
societie
hath
liberty
to
be
without
all
government
,
for
God
hath
given
to
every
societie
(
saith
[
a
](A92147-e32400-b)
a
Covarr
.
to
.
4
pract.
quest.
c.
1.
●
.
2.
Covarruvias
)
a
faculty
of
preserving
themselves
,
and
warding
off
violence
and
injuries
;
and
this
they
could
not
doe
,
except
they
gave
their
power
to
one
or
many
Rulers
.
But
all
that
the
Prelate
buildeth
on
this
false
supposition
,
which
is
his
fiction
and
calumnie
,
not
our
doctrine
,
to
wit
,
that
it
is
voluntary
to
man
to
be
without
all
government
,
because
it
is
voluntarie
to
them
to
give
away
their
power
to
on●
or
moc
Rulers
,
is
a
meere
non-consequence
.
1.
We
teach
that
Government
is
naturall
,
not
voluntary
;
but
the
way
and
manner
of
Government
is
voluntarie
:
All
societies
should
be
quickly
ruined
,
if
there
were
no
Government
:
but
it
followeth
not
therefore
,
God
hath
made
some
Kings
,
and
that
immediately
,
without
the
interveening
consent
of
the
people
,
and
ergo
,
it
is
not
arbitrary
to
the
people
to
choose
one
supreme
Ruler
,
and
to
erect
a
Monarchie
,
or
to
choose
moe
Rulers
,
and
to
erect
an
Aristocracie
.
It
followeth
no
way
.
It
is
naturall
to
men
to
expresse
their
minde
by
humane
voyces
;
Is
not
speaking
of
this
or
that
language
,
Greeke
rather
then
Latine
,
(
as
Aristotle
saith
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
humane
institution
?
It
is
naturall
for
men
to
eat
;
ergo
,
election
of
this
or
that
meat
is
not
in
their
choise
.
What
reason
is
in
this
consequence
?
and
so
it
s
a
poore
consequence
also
;
Power
of
Soveraigntie
is
in
the
people
naturally
;
ergo
it
is
not
in
their
power
to
give
it
out
in
that
measure
that
pleaseth
them
,
and
to
resume
it
at
pleasure
.
It
followeth
no
way
.
Because
the
inherencie
of
Soveraigntie
is
naturall
,
and
not
arbitary
,
ergo
,
the
alienation
and
giving
out
of
the
power
to
one
,
not
to
three
,
thus
much
,
not
thus
much
,
conditionally
,
not
absolutely
and
irrevocably
,
must
be
also
arbitrary
.
It
is
as
if
you
should
say
,
a
father
having
six
children
,
naturally
loveth
them
all
,
ergo
,
he
hath
not
freedome
of
will
in
expressing
his
affection
to
give
so
much
of
his
goods
to
this
sonne
,
and
that
conditionally
,
if
he
use
these
goods
well
;
and
not
more
or
lesse
of
his
goods
,
at
his
pleasure
.
2.
There
is
a
naturall
subordination
in
nature
,
in
creatures
superior
and
inferior
,
without
any
freedome
The
deniall
of
the
positive
degree
,
is
a
deniall
of
the
comparative
and
superlative
,
and
so
they
cannot
resume
any
power
:
But
the
designing
of
such
a
man
,
or
such
men
to
be
Kings
or
Rulers
,
is
a
rationall
voluntary
action
,
not
an
action
of
nature
,
such
as
is
Gods
act
of
creating
an
Angell
a
nobler
creature
then
a
man
,
and
the
creating
of
man
a
more
excellent
creature
then
a
beast
:
and
for
this
cause
the
argument
is
vaine
and
foolish
:
for
inferior
creatures
are
inferior
to
the
more
noble
and
superior
by
nature
,
not
by
voluntary
designation
,
or
,
as
Royalists
say
,
by
naked
approbation
,
which
yet
must
be
an
arbitrary
and
voluntary
action
.
3.
The
P.
Prelate
commendeth
order
,
while
we
come
to
the
most
supreme
:
hence
he
commendeth
Monarchie
above
all
governments
,
because
it
is
Gods
government
.
I
am
not
against
it
,
that
Monarchie
well
tempered
is
the
best
government
,
though
the
question
to
me
is
most
problematick
;
but
because
God
is
a
Monarch
,
who
cannot
erre
or
deny
himselfe
,
therefore
that
sinfull
Man
be
a
Monarch
,
is
miserable
logick
:
and
he
must
argue
solidly
forsooth
by
this
,
because
there
is
order
(
as
he
saith
)
amongst
Angels
,
will
he
make
a
Monarch
and
a
King-Angell
?
His
argument
,
if
it
have
any
weight
in
it
,
driveth
at
that
,
even
that
there
be
crowned
Kings
amongst
the
Angels
.
QUEST.
X.
Whether
or
not
Royall
birth
be
equivalent
to
divine
unction
?
SYmmons
holdeth
,
that
Birth
is
as
good
a
title
to
the
Crowne
,
as
Edward
Symmons
,
in
his
loyall
subjects
beleefe
,
sect.
3.
p.
16.
Royaltie
not
transmittable
from
father
to
sonne
.
Vpon
what
tearme
a
people
chooseth
a
Familie
to
reigne
over
them
by
succession
.
any
given
of
God
.
How
this
question
can
be
cleered
,
I
see
not
,
except
we
dispute
that
,
Whether
or
not
Kingdomes
be
proper
patrimonies
derived
from
the
father
to
the
sonne
?
2.
I
take
,
there
is
a
large
difference
betwixt
a
thing
transmittable
by
birth
from
the
father
to
the
sonne
,
and
a
thing
not
transmittable
.
3.
I
conceive
,
as
a
person
is
chosen
to
be
a
King
over
a
people
,
so
a
familie
or
house
may
be
chosen
,
and
a
Kingdome
at
first
choosing
a
person
to
be
their
King
,
may
also
tye
themselves
to
choose
the
first
borne
of
his
body
:
but
as
they
transferre
their
power
to
the
father
,
1.
for
their
owne
safetie
and
peace
,
(
not
if
he
use
the
power
they
give
him
,
to
their
destruction
)
the
same
way
they
tye
themselves
to
his
first
borne
,
as
to
their
King
.
2.
As
they
chose
the
father
not
as
a
man
,
but
a
man
gifted
with
Royall
grace
,
and
a
Princely
facultie
for
government
;
so
they
can
but
tye
themselves
to
his
first
borne
,
as
to
one
graced
with
a
facultie
of
governing
:
and
if
his
first
borne
shall
be
borne
an
idiot
and
a
foole
,
they
are
not
obliged
to
make
him
King
;
for
the
obligation
to
the
sonne
can
be
no
greater
then
the
obligation
to
the
father
,
which
first
obligation
is
the
ground
,
measure
and
cause
of
all
posterior
obligations
.
If
Tutors
be
appointed
to
governe
such
an
one
,
the
Tutors
have
the
Royall
power
,
not
the
Idiot
;
nor
can
he
governe
others
,
who
cannot
governe
himselfe
.
That
Kings
goe
not
as
heritage
from
the
father
to
the
sonne
,
I
prove
;
1.
God
,
Deut.
17.
could
not
command
them
to
choose
such
a
one
for
the
King
,
and
such
a
one
who
sitting
on
his
throne
shall
follow
the
direction
of
God
speaking
in
his
word
,
if
birth
were
that
which
gave
him
Gods
title
and
right
to
the
Crowne
;
for
that
were
as
much
as
such
a
man
should
be
heire
to
his
fathers
inheritance
,
and
the
sonne
not
heire
to
his
fathers
crown
,
except
he
were
such
a
man
:
But
God
in
all
the
Law
morall
or
judiciall
,
never
required
that
the
heire
should
be
thus
and
thus
qualified
,
else
he
should
not
be
heire
:
but
he
requireth
that
a
man
,
and
so
that
a
familie
should
be
thus
and
thus
qualified
,
else
they
should
not
be
Kings
:
and
I
confirme
it
thus
:
The
first
King
of
divine
institution
must
be
the
rule
,
paterne
and
measure
of
all
the
rest
of
the
Kings
,
as
Christ
maketh
the
first
Mariage
,
Mat.
19.
8.
a
paterne
to
all
others
,
and
Paul
reduceth
the
right
administration
of
the
Supper
to
Christs
first
institution
,
1
Cor.
11.
23.
now
the
first
King
,
Deut.
17.
14
,
15.
is
not
a
man
qualified
by
naked
birth
,
for
then
the
Lord
in
describing
the
manner
of
the
King
and
his
due
qualifications
,
should
seeke
no
other
but
this
;
You
shall
choose
onely
the
first
borne
,
or
the
lawfull
sonne
of
the
former
King
.
But
seeing
the
King
of
Gods
first
moulding
is
a
King
by
election
,
and
what
God
did
after
by
promises
and
free
grace
give
Thou
shalt
choose
him
King
,
whom
the
Lord
shall
choose
.
And
if
it
had
not
been
the
peoples
power
to
create
their
own
Kings
,
how
doth
God
after
he
had
designed
Saul
their
King
,
yet
expresly
1
Sam.
10.
inspire
Samuel
17.
to
call
the
people
before
the
Lord
at
Mizpeh
,
to
make
Saul
King
?
and
how
doth
the
Lord
v.
22.
expresly
shew
to
Samuel
,
and
the
people
,
the
man
that
they
might
make
him
King
?
and
because
all
consented
not
that
Saul
should
be
King
,
God
will
have
his
Coronation
renewed
,
v.
14.
Then
said
Samuel
to
the
people
,
Come
,
and
let
us
goe
to
Gilgall
,
and
renew
the
Kingdome
there
.
15.
And
all
the
people
went
to
Gilgall
,
and
there
they
made
Saul
King
before
the
Lord
in
Gilgall
.
And
how
is
it
that
David
anoynted
by
God
is
yet
no
King
,
but
a
private
subject
,
while
all
Israel
make
him
King
at
Hebron
?
3.
If
royall
birth
be
equivolent
to
royall
unction
,
and
the
best
title
,
M.
Symmons
,
Loyall
Subjects
beliefe
,
Sect.
3.
p.
16.
and
if
birth
speake
and
declare
to
us
the
Lords
appointment
and
Will
,
that
the
first
born
of
a
King
should
be
King
,
as
M.
Symmons
and
others
say
;
then
is
all
title
by
conquest
,
where
the
former
King
standeth
,
in
title
to
the
Crowne
,
and
hath
an
Heire
,
unlawfull
.
But
the
latter
is
against
all
the
nation
of
the
Royalists
,
for
Arnisaeus
,
Barclay
,
Grotius
,
Io.
Roffensis
Episco
.
the
Bishop
of
Spalato
,
Dr.
Ferne
,
M.
Symmons
,
the
excommunicate
Prelat
,
if
his
poore
learning
may
bring
him
▪
in
the
roll
,
teach
that
conquest
is
a
lawfull
title
to
a
Crowne
.
I
prove
the
Proposition
,
1.
because
if
birth
speake
Gods
revealed
Will
,
that
the
Heire
of
a
King
is
the
lawfull
King
,
then
conquest
cannot
speake
the
contradicent
Will
of
God
,
that
he
is
no
lawfull
God
the
King
of
Kings
who
immediately
maketh
Kings
,
may
,
and
doth
transferre
Kingdomes
to
whom
he
will
,
and
when
he
putteth
the
sword
in
Nebuchadnezers
hand
,
to
conquer
the
King
and
Kingdome
of
Iudah
,
then
Zedikiah
or
his
sonne
is
not
King
of
Iudah
,
but
Nebuchadnezer
is
King
,
and
God
being
above
his
Law
,
speaketh
in
that
case
his
Will
by
conquests
,
as
before
he
spake
his
Will
by
birth
;
this
is
all
can
be
said
.
Ans.
They
answer
black
treason
in
saying
so
,
for
if
Ieremiah
from
the
Lord
had
not
commanded
expresly
,
that
both
the
King
and
Kingdome
of
Judah
should
submit
to
the
King
of
Babylon
,
and
serve
him
,
and
pray
for
him
,
as
their
lawfull
King
,
it
had
been
as
lawfull
to
them
to
rebell
against
that
Tyrant
,
as
it
was
for
them
to
fight
against
the
Philistimes
,
and
the
King
of
Ammon
;
but
if
birth
be
the
just
and
lawfull
title
,
in
foro
Dei
,
in
Gods
Court
,
and
the
only
thing
that
evidenceth
Gods
Will
without
any
election
of
the
people
,
that
the
first
borne
of
such
a
King
is
their
lawfull
King
,
then
conquests
cannot
now
speake
a
contrardictory
Will
of
God
;
for
the
question
is
not
whether
or
not
,
God
giveth
power
to
Tyrants
to
conquer
Kingdomes
from
the
just
Heires
of
Kings
,
which
did
raigne
lawfully
before
their
sword
made
an
empty
Throne
;
But
whether
conquest
now
,
when
Jeremiahs
are
not
sent
immediatly
from
God
to
command
?
for
example
;
Britaine
to
submit
to
a
violent
intruder
,
who
hath
expelled
the
lawfull
Heires
of
the
royall
Line
of
the
King
of
Britaine
,
whether
I
say
doth
conquest
in
such
a
violent
way
,
speake
that
it
is
Gods
revealed
Will
,
called
Voluntas
signi
,
the
will
that
is
to
rule
us
,
in
all
our
Morall
duties
to
cast
off
the
just
Heires
of
the
blood
Royall
,
and
to
sweare
homage
to
a
conquerour
,
and
so
as
that
conquerour
now
hath
as
just
right
,
as
the
King
of
Britaine
had
by
birth
▪
This
cannot
be
taken
off
by
the
wit
of
any
,
who
1.
maintaine
that
conquest
is
a
lawfull
title
to
a
Crowne
,
and
2.
that
royall
birth
without
the
people
election
speaketh
Gods
regulating
Will
in
his
Word
,
that
the
first
borne
of
a
King
is
a
lawfull
King
by
birth
;
for
God
now
a
daies
doth
not
say
the
contrary
of
what
he
revealed
in
his
Word
.
If
birth
be
Gods
regulating
Will
,
that
the
Heire
of
the
King
is
in
Gods
Court
a
King
,
no
act
of
the
conquerour
can
anull
that
Word
of
God
to
us
,
and
the
people
may
not
lawfully
,
though
they
were
ten
times
subdued
,
sweare
homage
and
allegiance
to
a
conquerour
,
against
the
due
right
of
birth
,
which
by
Royalists
Doctrine
revealeth
to
us
the
plaine
contradictory
Will
of
God
.
It
is
,
I
grant
,
often
Gods
Decree
revealed
by
the
event
,
that
a
conquerour
be
on
the
Throne
,
but
this
Will
is
not
our
rule
,
and
the
people
are
to
sweare
no
Oath
of
Allegiance
contrary
to
Gods
Voluntas
signi
,
which
is
his
revealed
Will
in
his
Word
regulating
us
.
4.
Things
transferrible
and
communicable
by
birth
from
father
Blessed
art
thou
O
Land
,
when
thy
King
is
the
sonne
of
Nobles
,
Eccles.
10.
17.
this
honour
springing
from
vertue
,
is
not
borne
with
any
man
,
no●
is
any
man
borne
with
either
the
gift
,
or
honour
to
be
a
Iudge
;
God
maketh
high
and
low
,
not
birth
.
Nobles
are
borne
to
great
estates
,
if
judging
be
heritage
to
any
,
it
is
a
municipall
positive
law
.
I
now
speake
in
point
of
conscience
.
3.
The
externall
lawfull
title
,
before
men
come
to
a
Crowne
must
be
Gods
Will
,
revealed
by
such
an
externall
signe
,
as
by
Gods
appointment
and
warrant
is
to
regulate
our
will
,
but
according
to
Scripture
nothing
regulateth
our
will
,
and
leadeth
the
people
now
that
they
cannot
erre
,
following
Gods
rule
in
making
a
King
,
but
the
free
suffrages
of
the
States
choosing
a
man
whom
they
conceive
God
hath
endued
with
these
royall
gifts
required
in
the
King
whom
God
holdeth
forth
to
them
in
his
Word
,
Deut.
17.
now
there
be
but
these
to
regulate
the
people
,
or
to
be
a
rule
to
any
man
to
ascend
lawfully
(
in
foro
Dei
)
in
Gods
Court
to
the
Throne
;
1.
Gods
immediate
designation
of
a
man
by
Propheticall
and
Divinely
Spanish
King
should
invade
this
Iland
,
and
as
Nebuchadnezer
did
,
deface
the
Temple
,
and
instruments
and
meanes
of
Gods
Worship
,
and
abolish
the
true
worship
of
God
,
it
should
be
unlawfull
to
resist
him
,
after
he
had
once
conquered
the
Iland
,
neither
Gods
Word
,
nor
the
Law
of
nature
could
permit
this
;
I
suppose
even
by
grant
of
adversaries
,
now
no
act
of
violence
done
to
a
people
,
though
in
Gods
Court
they
have
deserved
it
,
can
be
a
testification
to
us
of
Gods
regulating
Will
;
except
it
have
some
warrant
from
the
Law
and
testimony
,
it
is
no
rule
to
our
conscience
to
acknowledge
him
a
lawfull
Magistrate
,
whose
sole
law
to
the
Throne
is
an
act
of
the
bloody
instrument
of
divine
wrath
,
I
meane
the
sword
.
That
therefore
Iudah
was
to
submit
,
according
to
Gods
Word
,
to
Nebuchadnezer
,
whose
conscience
and
best
warranted
calling
to
the
Kingdome
of
Judah
was
his
bloody
sword
,
even
if
we
suppose
Ieremiah
had
not
commanded
them
to
submit
to
the
King
of
Babylon
,
I
thinke
cannot
be
said
.
3.
Naked
birth
cannot
be
this
externall
signification
of
Gods
regulating
Will
to
warrant
the
conscience
of
any
to
ascend
to
the
Throne
,
for
the
Authors
of
this
opinion
make
royall
birth
equivalent
to
divine
unction
,
for
David
anoynted
by
Samuel
,
and
so
anoynted
by
God
,
is
not
King
,
Saul
remained
the
Lords
anoynted
many
yeares
,
not
David
,
even
anoynted
by
God
;
the
peoples
making
him
King
at
Hebron
founded
upon
divine
unction
,
was
not
the
only
externall
lawfull
calling
that
we
read
of
,
that
David
had
to
the
Throne
,
then
royall
birth
,
because
it
is
but
equivalent
only
to
divine
unction
,
not
superiour
to
divine
unction
,
it
cannot
have
more
force
to
make
a
King
,
then
divine
unction
.
And
if
birth
was
equivalent
to
divine
unction
,
what
needed
Ioash
who
had
royall
birth
,
be
made
King
by
the
people
?
and
what
needed
Saul
and
David
,
who
had
more
then
royall
birth
,
even
divine
unction
,
be
made
Kings
by
the
people
?
and
Saul
having
the
vocall
and
infallible
testimony
of
a
Prophet
,
needed
not
the
peoples
election
,
the
one
at
Mizpeh
and
Gilgall
,
and
the
other
at
Hebron
.
5.
If
royall
birth
be
as
just
a
title
to
the
Crowne
as
divine
unction
,
and
so
,
as
the
peoples
election
is
no
title
at
all
;
then
is
it
unlawfull
that
there
should
be
a
King
by
election
in
the
world
now
:
but
the
latter
is
absurd
,
so
is
the
former
.
I
prove
the
Proposition
,
because
where
conquerours
are
wanting
,
and
there
is
no
King
for
the
present
,
but
the
people
governing
,
and
so
much
confusion
aboundeth
,
they
cannot
lawfully
appoint
a
King
,
for
his
lawfull
title
before
God
must
either
be
conquest
,
which
to
me
is
no
title
,
(
and
here
,
and
in
this
case
there
is
no
conquest
)
or
if
the
title
must
be
a
Propheticall
word
immediatly
inspired
by
God
,
but
this
is
now
ceased
;
or
thirdly
the
title
must
be
royal
birth
,
but
here
there
is
no
royall
birth
,
because
the
government
is
popular
;
except
you
imagine
that
the
society
is
obliged
in
conscience
to
goe
and
seek
the
sonne
of
a
forraine
King
to
be
their
King
.
But
I
hope
that
such
a
royall
birth
should
not
be
a
just
title
before
God
to
make
him
King
of
that
society
,
to
which
he
had
no
relation
at
all
,
but
is
a
meere
stranger
.
Hence
in
this
case
no
title
could
be
given
to
any
man
to
make
him
King
,
but
onely
the
peoples
election
;
which
is
that
which
we
say
.
And
it
is
most
unreasonable
that
a
people
under
popular
Government
cannot
lawfully
choose
a
King
to
themselves
,
seeing
a
King
is
a
lawfull
Magistrate
,
and
warranted
by
Gods
Word
,
because
they
have
not
a
King
of
royall
birth
to
sit
upon
the
throne
.
Mr.
Symmons
saith
that
birth
is
the
best
title
to
the
Crowne
,
because
after
the
first
of
the
family
had
been
anoynted
,
unction
was
no
more
used
in
that
family
,
(
unlesse
there
arose
a
strife
about
the
Kingdome
,
as
betwixt
Solomon
and
Adonijah
,
Ioash
and
Athalia
)
the
eldest
sonne
of
the
pred●cessor
was
afterward
the
chosen
of
the
Lord
,
his
birth-right
spake
the
Lords
appointment
,
as
plainly
as
his
fathers
unction
.
Ans.
It
is
a
conjecture
that
unction
was
not
used
in
the
family
,
after
the
first
unction
,
except
the
contest
was
betwixt
two
Brethren
,
that
is
said
,
not
proved
,
for
a
King
.
23.
30.
when
good
Iosiah
was
killed
,
and
there
was
no
contest
concerning
the
Throne
of
that
beloved
Prince
,
the
people
of
the
Land
took
Iehoahaz
his
son
and
anointed
him
,
and
made
him
King
in
his
fathers
stead
;
and
the
Priests
were
anointed
,
Levit.
6.
22.
yea
,
all
the
Priests
were
anointed
,
Num.
3.
8.
yet
read
we
not
in
the
History
,
where
this
or
this
▪
man
was
anointed
.
2.
In
that
Adonijah
,
Solomons
elder
Brother
was
not
King
,
it
is
clear
,
That
Gods
anointing
,
and
the
peoples
electing
,
de
facto
did
design
the
man
,
because
of
Gods
speciall
promises
to
Davids
house
;
but
how
doth
a
typicall
discent
made
to
David
,
and
some
others
by
Gods
speciall
promise
,
prove
,
that
birth
is
the
birth-right
,
and
lawfull
call
of
God
to
a
Crown
in
all
after
ages
?
For
as
gifts
to
reign
,
goeth
not
by
birth
,
so
neither
doth
Gods
title
to
a
Crown
go
.
M.
Symons
.
A
Prince
once
possessed
of
a
Kingdome
coming
to
him
by
inheritance
,
can
never
,
by
any
,
upon
any
occasion
be
dispossessed
thereof
,
without
horrible
impietie
,
and
unjustice
.
Royall
unction
was
an
indeloble
Character
of
old
,
Saul
remained
the
Lords
anointed
till
the
last
gaspe
;
David
durst
not
take
the
right
of
Government
actually
into
him
,
although
he
had
it
in
reversion
,
being
already
anointed
thereunto
,
and
had
received
the
spirit
thereof
.
Answ.
That
is
the
question
,
If
a
Prince
once
a
Prince
by
inheritance
,
cannot
be
dispossessed
thereof
without
unjustice
:
For
if
a
Kingdom
be
his
by
birth
,
as
an
inheritance
transmitted
from
the
father
to
the
son
,
I
see
not
but
any
man
upon
necessary
occasions
,
Hug.
Grotius
with
reason
will
say
,
he
may
be
dispossessed
and
dethroned
,
and
take
up
his
indeleble
Character
then
.
2.
A
Kingdom
is
not
the
Princes
own
so
,
as
it
is
unjustice
to
take
it
from
him
,
as
to
take
a
mans
purse
from
him
;
the
Lords
Church
(
in
a
Christian
Kingdom
)
is
Gods
heritage
,
and
the
King
onely
a
shepheard
,
and
the
sheep
in
the
court
of
conscience
,
are
not
his
.
3.
Royall
unction
is
not
an
indeleble
Character
;
for
neither
Saul
nor
David
were
all
their
dayes
Kings
thereby
,
but
lived
many
dayes
private
men
after
divine
unction
,
while
the
people
anointed
them
Kings
,
except
you
say
,
1.
That
there
were
two
Kings
at
once
in
Israel
.
2.
And
that
Saul
killing
David
,
should
have
killed
his
own
Lord
,
and
his
anointed
.
4.
If
David
durst
not
take
the
right
of
Government
actually
on
him
,
then
divine
unction
made
him
not
King
,
but
onely
designed
him
to
be
King
:
the
peoples
election
must
make
the
King
.
M.
Symons
addeth
,
He
that
is
born
a
King
and
a
Prince
,
can
Answ.
It
is
proper
onely
to
Jesus
Christ
to
be
born
a
King
,
sure
I
am
,
No
man
bringeth
out
of
the
womb
with
him
a
Scepter
,
and
a
Crown
on
his
head
.
Divine
unction
giveth
a
right
infallibly
to
a
Crown
;
but
birth
doth
not
so
,
for
one
may
be
born
here
to
a
Crown
,
as
was
hopefull
Prince
Henry
,
and
yet
never
live
to
be
King
.
The
eldest
son
of
a
King
,
if
he
attempt
to
kill
his
father
,
as
Absolom
did
,
and
raise
forces
against
the
lawfull
Prince
,
I
conceive
he
may
be
killed
in
battell
,
without
any
unjustice
.
2.
If
in
his
fathers
time
he
be
the
Lords
anointed
,
there
be
two
Kings
,
and
the
heir
may
have
a
son
,
and
so
there
shall
be
three
Kings
,
possibly
four
;
all
Kings
by
divine
right
.
The
Prelate
of
Rochester
saith
,
The
people
and
nobles
give
no
right
Answ.
This
is
said
,
not
proved
.
A
man
born
for
an
inheritance
,
is
by
birth
an
heir
,
because
he
is
not
born
for
these
Lands
,
as
a
mean
for
the
end
,
but
by
the
contrary
,
these
Lands
are
for
the
heir
as
the
mean
for
the
end
:
But
the
King
is
for
his
Kingdom
,
as
a
mean
for
the
end
,
as
the
watch-man
for
the
Citie
,
the
living
Law
for
peace
,
and
safetie
to
Gods
people
;
and
therefore
is
not
heres
hominum
,
An
heir
of
men
,
but
men
are
rather
heredes
regis
,
heirs
of
the
King
.
Arnisaeus
.
Many
Kingdoms
(
saith
he
)
are
purchased
by
just
war
,
Answ.
We
read
in
the
Word
of
God
,
That
the
people
made
Solomon
King
,
not
that
David
,
or
any
King
can
leave
in
his
Testament
,
a
Kingdom
to
his
son
.
2.
He
saith
,
The
son
hath
not
the
right
of
reigning
,
as
the
patrimony
of
the
people
,
but
as
a
proprietie
,
given
by
the
Law
of
the
Kingdom
,
by
his
parents
:
Now
this
is
all
one
,
as
if
he
said
,
The
son
hath
not
the
right
of
the
Kingdom
,
as
the
patrimony
of
the
people
,
but
as
the
patrimony
of
the
people
,
which
is
good
non-sense
;
For
the
proprietie
of
reigning
,
given
from
father
to
son
,
by
the
Law
of
the
Kingdom
,
is
nothing
but
a
right
to
reign
,
given
by
the
Law
of
the
people
,
and
the
very
gift
and
patrimony
of
the
people
,
for
Lex
regni
,
This
Law
of
the
Kingdom
is
the
Law
of
the
people
,
tying
the
Crown
to
such
a
Royall
Family
;
and
this
Law
of
the
people
is
prior
and
ancienter
then
the
King
,
or
the
right
of
reigning
in
the
King
,
or
which
the
King
is
supposed
to
have
from
his
Royall
father
,
because
it
made
the
first
father
,
the
first
King
of
the
Royall
Line
.
For
I
demand
,
How
doth
the
son
succeed
to
his
fathers
Crown
,
and
Throne
?
Not
by
any
promise
of
a
divine
Covenant
,
that
the
Lord
maketh
to
the
father
,
as
he
promised
,
that
Davids
seed
should
sit
on
his
throne
,
till
the
Messiah
should
come
:
this
,
as
I
conceive
,
is
vanished
with
the
Common-wealth
of
the
Iews
,
nor
can
we
now
finde
any
immediate
divine
constitution
,
tying
the
Crown
now
to
such
a
race
:
nor
can
we
say
,
this
cometh
from
the
will
of
the
father
King
,
making
his
son
King
:
For
1.
there
is
no
Scripture
can
warrant
us
to
say
,
The
King
maketh
a
King
,
but
the
Scripture
holdeth
forth
,
that
the
people
made
Saul
,
and
David
,
Kings
.
2.
This
may
prove
,
That
the
father
is
some
way
a
cause
,
why
this
son
succeedeth
King
;
but
he
is
not
the
cause
of
the
Royaltie
conferred
upon
the
whole
Line
;
because
the
question
is
,
Who
made
the
first
father
a
King
?
Not
himself
;
nor
doth
God
now
immediately
by
Prophets
anoint
men
to
be
Kings
,
then
need
force
,
the
people
choose
the
first
man
,
then
must
the
peoples
election
of
a
King
,
be
prior
and
more
ancient
then
the
birth-law
to
a
Crown
:
And
election
must
be
a
better
right
then
birth
.
2.
The
question
is
,
Whence
cometh
it
that
not
onely
the
first
father
should
be
chosen
King
;
but
also
whence
is
that
,
whereas
it
is
in
the
peoples
freewill
to
make
the
succession
of
Kings
go
by
free
election
,
as
it
is
in
Denmark
and
Pol
;
yet
the
people
doth
freely
choose
,
not
only
the
first
man
to
be
King
,
but
also
the
whole
race
of
the
first
born
of
this
mans
Family
to
be
Kings
.
All
here
must
be
resolved
in
the
free
will
of
the
Communitie
;
now
since
we
have
no
immediate
and
propheticall
enthroning
of
men
:
it
is
evident
,
That
the
lineall
deduction
of
the
Crown
from
father
to
son
,
through
the
whole
line
,
is
from
the
people
,
not
from
the
parent
.
Hence
I
adde
this
,
as
my
sixth
Argument
,
That
which
taketh
It
is
objected
:
That
parents
may
binde
their
after
Generations
,
to
choose
one
of
such
a
line
;
But
by
this
Argument
,
their
naturall
birth-right
of
a
free
choice
,
to
elect
the
best
and
fittest
,
is
abridged
and
clipped
,
and
so
the
posterity
shall
not
be
tyed
to
a
King
of
the
Royall
Line
,
to
which
the
Ancestors
did
swear
.
See
for
this
,
the
learned
Author
,
Answ.
Frequent
elections
of
a
King
,
at
the
death
of
every
Prince
Fearing
God
,
hating
covetousnesse
,
and
to
Moses
his
King
,
Deut.
17.
one
who
shall
read
in
the
Book
of
the
Law
,
and
it
would
seem
now
,
that
gracious
morals
are
to
us
insteed
of
Gods
immediate
designation
.
3.
The
genuine
and
intrinsecall
end
of
making
Kings
,
is
not
simply
governing
,
but
governing
the
best
way
in
peace
,
honesty
,
and
godlinesse
,
1.
Tim.
2.
Ergo
,
These
are
to
be
made
Kings
,
who
may
most
expeditely
procure
this
end
:
neither
is
it
my
purpose
to
make
him
no
King
,
who
is
not
a
gracious
man
,
onely
here
I
compare
title
with
title
.
7.
Argument
.
Where
God
hath
not
bound
the
conscience
,
men
may
not
binde
themselves
,
or
the
consciences
of
the
posterity
.
But
God
hath
not
bound
any
nation
irrevocably
,
and
unalterably
to
a
Royall
Line
,
or
to
one
kinde
of
Government
.
Ergo
,
No
nation
can
binde
their
conscience
,
and
the
conscience
of
the
posterity
,
either
to
one
Royall
Line
,
or
irrevocably
and
unalterably
to
Monarchy
.
The
proposition
is
clear
.
1.
No
Nation
is
tyed
,
jure
divine
,
by
the
tie
of
a
divine
Law
to
a
Monarchy
,
rather
then
to
another
Government
.
The
Parisian
Doctors
prove
,
That
the
precept
of
having
a
Pope
is
affirmative
,
and
so
tyeth
not
the
Church
,
ad
semper
,
for
ever
;
and
so
the
Church
is
the
body
of
Christ
without
the
Pope
;
and
all
oaths
to
things
of
their
nature
indifferent
,
and
to
things
,
the
contrary
whereof
is
lawfull
,
and
may
be
expedient
and
necessary
,
lay
on
a
tie
onely
conditionally
,
in
so
far
,
as
they
conduce
to
the
end
.
If
the
Gibeonites
had
risen
in
Joshuaes
dayes
,
to
cut
off
the
people
of
God
,
I
think
no
wise
man
can
think
,
that
Joshua
and
the
people
were
tyed
by
the
oath
of
God
,
not
to
cut
off
the
Gibeonites
in
that
case
:
For
to
preserve
them
a
live
as
enemies
,
was
against
the
intent
of
the
oath
▪
which
was
to
preserve
them
alive
,
as
friends
demanding
,
and
supplicating
peace
,
and
submitting
.
The
assumption
is
clear
If
a
Nation
seeth
that
Aristocraticall
Government
is
better
then
Monarchy
,
hic
&
nunc
:
That
the
sequels
of
such
a
Monarchy
is
bloody
,
destructive
,
tyrannous
,
that
the
Monarchy
compelleth
the
free
subjects
to
Turcisme
,
to
grosse
Idolatry
,
they
cannot
by
the
divine
bond
of
any
oath
captive
their
naturall
freedom
,
which
is
to
choose
a
Government
,
and
Governours
,
for
their
safetie
,
for
a
peaceable
and
godly
life
;
or
fetter
and
chain
the
wisdom
of
the
posterity
unalterably
to
a
Government
,
or
a
Royall
Line
,
which
hic
&
nunc
,
contrary
to
the
intention
of
their
oath
,
proveth
destructive
,
and
bloody
.
And
in
this
case
,
even
the
King
,
though
tyed
by
an
oath
to
govern
,
is
obliged
to
the
practices
of
the
Emperour
Otho
.
And
as
Speed
saith
,
of
Richard
the
second
,
to
resign
the
Crown
,
for
the
To
these
adde
;
8.
That
1.
an
heritor
may
defraud
his
first
borne
of
his
heritage
,
because
of
his
dominion
he
hath
over
his
heritage
:
A
King
cannot
defraud
his
first-borne
of
the
Crown
.
2.
An
heritor
may
divide
his
heritage
equally
amongst
his
twelve
sonnes
:
A
King
cannot
divide
his
Royall
Dominions
in
twelve
parts
,
and
give
a
part
to
every
sonne
;
for
so
he
might
turne
a
Monarchie
into
an
Aristocracie
,
and
put
twelve
men
in
the
place
of
one
King
.
3.
Any
heritor
taken
captive
,
may
lawfully
oppignorate
,
yea
and
give
all
his
inheritance
as
a
ransome
for
his
liberty
;
for
a
man
is
better
then
his
inheritance
:
but
no
King
may
give
his
Subjects
as
a
price
or
ransome
.
Yet
I
shall
not
be
against
the
succession
of
Kings
by
birth
,
with
good
limitations
;
and
shall
agree
,
that
through
the
corruption
of
mans
nature
,
it
may
be
in
so
far
profitable
,
as
it
is
peaceable
,
and
preventeth
bloody
tumults
,
which
are
the
bane
of
humane
societies
.
Consider
further
for
this
,
Aegid
.
Romanus
,
l.
3.
de
reg.
princi
.
cap.
5.
Turrecremat
.
and
Joan.
de
terra
Reubea
,
1
tract
.
contr.
Rebelles
,
ar.
1.
●on
.
4.
Yet
Aristotle
the
flower
of
Natures
wit
,
l.
3.
polit.
c.
10.
preferreth
Election
to
Succession
;
He
preferreth
Carthage
to
Sparta
,
though
their
Kings
came
of
Hercules
.
Plutarch
in
Scylla
,
saith
,
he
would
have
Kings
as
dogs
,
that
is
,
best
hunters
,
not
those
who
are
borne
of
best
dogs
.
Tacitus
,
lib.
1.
Nasci
&
generari
à
Principibus
,
fortuitum
,
nec
ultra
aestimantur
.
QUEST.
XI
.
Whether
or
no
he
be
more
principally
a
King
,
who
is
a
King
by
birth
,
or
he
who
is
a
King
by
the
free
election
and
suffrages
of
the
people
?
WIthout
deteining
the
Reader
,
I
desire
liberty
to
assert
,
that
,
1
Assert
.
Where
God
establisheth
a
Kingdome
by
Birth
,
that
government
,
hic
&
nunc
,
is
best
:
and
because
God
principally
distributeth
Crownes
,
when
God
establisheth
the
Royall
line
of
David
to
reigne
,
he
is
not
principally
a
King
,
who
commeth
neerest
and
most
immediately
to
the
fountaine
of
Royaltie
,
which
is
Gods
immediate
will
;
but
God
established
,
his
&
nunc
,
for
typicall
reasons
(
with
reverence
of
the
learned
)
a
King
by
birth
.
2
Assert
.
But
to
speake
of
them
,
ex
natura
rei
,
and
according
magis
univoce
&
per
se
)
then
an
hereditarie
Prince
;
1.
Because
in
hereditary
Crownes
,
the
first
familie
being
chosen
by
the
free
suffrages
of
the
people
,
for
that
cause
ultimatè
,
the
hereditary
Prince
commeth
to
the
throne
,
because
his
first
father
,
and
in
him
the
whole
line
of
the
familie
was
chosen
to
the
Crowne
,
and
,
propter
quod
unumquodque
tale
,
id
ipsum
magis
tale
.
2.
The
first
King
ordained
by
Gods
positive
law
,
must
be
the
measure
of
all
Kings
,
and
more
principally
the
King
,
then
he
who
is
such
by
derivation
.
But
the
first
King
is
a
King
by
election
,
not
by
birth
,
Deut.
17.
15.
Thou
shalt
in
any
wise
set
(
him
)
King
over
thee
,
whom
the
Lord
thy
God
shall
choose
,
(
One
)
from
amongst
thy
brethren
shalt
thou
set
over
thee
.
If
the
free
will
of
the
people
be
not
the
neerest
cause
of
the
first
moulded
King
,
God
could
have
made
no
positive
law
to
choose
such
a
man
,
not
such
a
man
;
for
all
positive
lawes
presuppose
free
election
.
3.
The
Law
saith
,
Surrogatum
fruitur
privilegiis
ejus
,
in
cujus
locum
surrogatur
:
He
who
is
substituted
in
the
place
of
another
,
enjoyeth
the
priviledges
of
him
in
whose
place
be
succeedeth
.
But
the
hereditary
King
hath
Royall
priviledges
from
him
who
is
chosen
King
.
Salomon
hath
the
Royall
priviledges
of
David
his
father
,
and
is
therefore
King
by
birth
,
because
his
father
David
was
King
by
election
.
And
this
I
say
,
not
because
I
think
sole
birth
is
a
just
title
to
the
Crown
,
but
because
it
designeth
him
who
indeed
virtually
was
chosen
,
when
the
first
King
of
the
race
was
chosen
.
4.
Because
there
is
no
dominion
of
either
Royalty
,
or
any
other
way
by
nature
,
no
more
then
an
Eagle
is
born
King
of
Eagles
,
a
Lyon
,
King
of
Lyons
;
neither
is
a
man
by
nature
,
born
King
of
men
:
and
therefore
,
he
who
is
made
King
by
suffrages
of
the
people
,
must
be
more
principally
King
,
then
he
who
hath
no
title
,
but
the
womb
of
his
mother
.
Doct.
Fern
is
so
farre
with
us
to
father
Royaltie
upon
the
peoples
as
on
the
formall
cause
▪
that
he
saith
,
If
to
design
the
person
,
and
to
procure
limitation
of
the
power
in
the
exercise
of
it
,
be
to
give
the
power
;
we
grant
the
power
is
from
the
people
,
but
(
saith
he
)
you
will
have
the
power
originally
from
themselves
;
in
another
sense
,
for
you
say
,
they
reserve
power
to
depose
and
displace
the
Magistrate
,
sometime
they
make
the
Monarch
supreme
,
and
then
they
devest
themselves
of
all
power
,
and
keep
none
to
themselves
,
but
before
established
Government
,
they
have
no
politique
power
,
whereby
they
may
lay
a
command
on
others
,
but
onely
a
naturall
power
of
private
resistance
,
which
they
cannot
use
against
the
Magistrate
.
Ans.
But
to
take
off
those
by
the
way
,
1.
If
the
King
may
choose
A.
B.
an
Ambassadour
,
and
limit
him
in
his
power
,
and
say
,
Doe
this
,
and
say
this
to
the
forraigne
State
you
goe
to
,
but
no
more
;
halfe
a
wit
will
say
the
King
createth
the
Ambassadour
,
and
the
Ambassadours
power
is
originally
from
the
King
;
and
we
prove
the
power
of
the
Lyon
is
originally
from
God
,
and
of
the
Sea
,
and
the
fire
is
originally
from
God
,
because
God
limiteth
the
Lyon
in
the
exercises
of
its
power
,
that
it
shall
not
devoure
Daniel
,
and
limiteth
the
Sea
,
as
Ieremiah
saith
,
when
as
he
will
have
its
proud
Waves
to
come
thither
,
and
no
farther
,
and
will
have
the
fire
to
burne
those
who
throwe
the
three
Children
into
the
fiery
furnace
,
and
yet
not
to
burne
the
three
Children
,
for
this
is
as
if
Doctor
Ferne
said
,
the
power
of
the
King
of
six
degrees
,
rather
then
his
power
of
five
is
from
the
people
,
therefore
the
power
of
the
King
is
not
from
the
people
,
yea
the
contrary
is
true
.
2.
That
the
people
can
make
a
King
supreame
,
that
is
,
Absolute
,
and
so
resigne
natures
birth-right
;
that
is
,
a
power
to
defend
themselves
is
not
lawfull
,
for
if
the
people
have
not
absolute
power
to
destroy
themselves
,
they
cannot
resigne
such
a
power
to
their
Prince
.
3.
It
is
false
that
a
community
,
before
they
be
established
with
formall
Rulers
,
have
no
politicke
power
,
for
consider
them
as
men
onely
,
and
not
as
associated
,
they
have
indeed
no
politicke
power
;
but
before
Magistrates
be
established
,
they
may
convene
and
associate
themselves
in
a
body
,
and
appoint
Magistrates
;
and
this
they
cannot
doe
if
they
had
no
politicke
power
at
all
.
4.
They
have
virtually
a
power
to
lay
on
Commandements
,
in
that
they
have
power
to
appoint
to
themselves
Rulers
,
who
may
lay
commandements
on
others
.
5.
A
community
hath
not
formally
power
to
punish
themselves
,
for
to
punish
is
to
inflict
Malum
disconveniens
naturae
,
an
evill
contrary
to
nature
;
but
in
appointing
Barclay
cont.
Monarcham
▪
c.
2
,
p.
5
▪
6.
birth
is
agreeable
to
nature
;
it
is
not
against
nature
,
but
it
is
no
more
naturall
,
then
for
a
Lyon
to
be
borne
a
King
of
Lyons
.
Obj.
Most
of
the
best
Divines
approve
an
hereditary
Monarch
,
rather
then
a
Monarch
by
election
.
Ans.
So
doe
I
in
some
cases
,
in
respect
of
Empire
simply
it
is
not
better
,
in
respect
of
Empire
now
under
mans
fall
in
sin
;
I
grant
it
to
be
better
in
some
respect
.
So
Salust
In
Iugurth
.
Natura
mortalium
imperij
avida
.
Tacitus
,
Hist.
Thol
.
ozan
,
De
Rep.
l.
7.
c.
4.
QUEST.
XII
.
Whether
or
not
a
Kingdome
may
lawfully
be
purchased
by
the
sole
title
of
conquest
?
THe
Prelate
averreth
confidently
that
a
Title
to
a
Kingdome
a
conquered
Kingdome
is
but
c●ntinuata
injuria
,
a
continued
robbery
.
A
right
of
conquest
is
twofold
;
1.
When
there
is
no
just
cause
.
2.
When
there
is
just
reason
1.
Assertion
.
A
people
may
be
by
Gods
speciall
Commandement
,
subject
to
a
conquering
Nebuchadnezer
,
and
a
Caesar
,
as
to
their
King
,
as
was
Iudah
commanded
by
the
Prophet
Ieremiah
to
submit
unto
the
yoake
of
the
King
of
Babylon
,
and
to
pray
for
him
,
and
the
people
of
the
Iewes
were
to
give
to
Caesar
the
things
of
Caesar
;
and
yet
both
those
were
unjust
conquerours
:
for
those
Tyrants
had
no
command
of
God
to
oppresse
and
raigne
over
the
Lords
people
,
yet
were
they
to
obey
those
Kings
,
so
the
passive
subjection
was
just
and
commanded
of
God
,
and
the
active
unjust
and
tyranous
,
and
forbidden
of
God
.
2.
Assert
.
This
title
by
conquest
through
the
peoples
after
consent
may
be
turned
into
a
just
title
,
as
it
s
like
the
case
was
with
the
Iewes
in
Caesars
time
,
for
which
cause
our
Saviour
commanded
to
obey
Caesar
,
and
to
pay
tribute
unto
him
;
as
Dr.
Ferne
confesseth
.
3.
Assert
.
Meere
conquest
by
the
sword
without
the
consent
of
the
people
,
is
no
just
title
to
the
Crowne
;
1.
Because
the
lawfull
title
that
Gods
Word
holdeth
forth
to
us
,
beside
the
Lords
choosing
and
calling
of
a
man
to
the
Crowne
,
is
the
peoples
election
,
Deut.
17.
15.
all
that
had
any
lawfull
calling
to
the
Crowne
in
Gods
Word
,
Saul
,
David
,
Solomon
,
&c.
were
called
by
the
people
,
and
the
first
lawfull
calling
is
to
us
a
rule
and
paterne
to
all
lawfull
callings
.
2.
A
King
as
a
King
,
and
by
vertue
of
his
Royall
Office
is
the
Father
of
Defender
,
Protector
,
a
Shield
,
a
Leader
,
a
Shepheard
,
an
Husband
,
a
Patron
,
a
Watchman
,
a
Keeper
of
the
people
Murther
thou
,
and
prosper
and
raigne
)
and
by
the
act
of
violating
the
sixt
Commandement
,
God
should
declare
his
approving
Will
,
to
wit
,
his
lawfull
call
to
a
Throne
.
4.
There
be
none
under
a
Law
of
God
who
may
resist
is
not
lawfull
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
the
Divine
impulsion
stirring
up
a
man
to
make
a
bloody
conquest
,
that
the
ire
and
just
indignation
of
God
in
Iustice
may
be
declared
on
a
wicked
Nation
,
is
an
extraordinary
impulsion
of
God
,
who
is
above
a
Law
,
and
therefore
no
man
may
resist
it
.
Ans.
then
all
bloody
Conquerors
must
have
some
extraordinary
revelation
from
Heaven
to
warrant
their
yeelding
of
obedience
to
such
an
extraordinary
impulsion
.
And
if
it
be
so
,
They
must
shew
a
lawfull
and
immediate
extraordinary
impulsion
now
;
but
it
is
certaine
,
the
sinnes
of
the
people
conquered
,
and
their
most
equall
and
just
demerit
,
before
God
,
cannot
be
a
just
plea
to
legitimate
the
Conquest
:
for
though
the
people
of
God
deserved
vastation
and
captivitie
by
the
Heathen
,
in
regard
of
their
sinnes
,
before
the
throne
of
Divine
Iustice
,
yet
the
Heathen
grievously
sinned
in
conquering
them
,
Zach.
1.
15.
And
I
am
very
sore
displeased
with
the
Heathen
that
are
at
ease
:
for
I
was
but
a
little
displeased
,
and
they
helped
forward
the
affliction
.
So
though
Iudah
deserved
to
be
made
captives
,
and
a
conquered
people
,
because
of
their
idolatry
,
and
other
sinnes
,
as
Ieremiah
had
prophecied
;
yet
God
was
highly
displeased
at
Babylon
for
their
unjust
and
bloody
Coneuest
,
Jer.
50.
17
,
18
,
33
,
34.
c.
51.
35.
The
violence
done
to
me
and
to
my
flesh
,
be
upon
Babylon
,
shall
the
inhabitants
of
Zion
say
;
and
my
blood
upon
the
inhabitants
of
Chaldea
,
shall
Jerusalem
say
.
And
that
any
other
extraordinary
impulsion
to
be
as
lawfull
a
call
to
the
Throne
as
the
peoples
free
election
,
we
know
not
from
Gods
word
,
and
we
have
but
the
naked
word
of
our
Adversaries
,
that
William
the
Conquerour
,
without
the
peoples
consent
,
made
himselfe
by
blood
,
the
lawfull
King
of
England
,
and
also
of
all
their
posteritie
;
And
that
King
Fergus
conquered
Scotland
.
5.
A
King
is
a
speciall
gift
of
God
,
given
to
feed
and
defend
the
people
p●●
se
a
King
.
of
God
,
that
they
may
lead
a
godly
and
peaceable
life
under
him
,
Isal.
78.
v.
71
,
72.
1
Tim.
2.
2.
as
it
is
a
judgement
of
God
,
that
Israel's
without
a
King
for
many
dayes
,
Hos.
3.
4.
and
that
there
is
no
Iu●ge
,
no
King
,
to
put
evill
doers
to
shame
,
Iudg.
19.
1.
but
if
a
King
be
given
of
God
,
as
a
King
by
the
acts
of
a
bloody
Conquest
to
be
avenged
on
the
sinfull
land
over
which
he
is
made
a
King
,
he
cannot
be
given
,
actu
primo
,
as
a
speciall
gift
and
blessing
of
God
to
feed
,
but
to
murther
and
to
destroy
;
for
the
genuine
end
of
a
Conqueror
,
as
a
Conqueror
,
is
not
peace
,
but
fire
and
sword
.
If
God
chang●
his
heart
to
be
of
a
bloody
Vastator
,
a
father
,
Prince
,
and
feeder
of
the
people
,
ex
officio
,
now
he
is
not
a
violent
Conquerour
and
he
came
to
that
meeknes
by
contraries
,
which
is
the
proper
worke
of
the
omnipotent
God
,
and
not
proper
to
man
,
who
as
he
cannot
worke
miracles
,
so
neither
can
he
lawfully
worke
by
contraries
:
and
so
if
Conquest
be
a
lawfull
title
to
a
Crown
,
and
an
ordinary
calling
,
as
the
opponents
presume
;
every
bloody
Conquerour
must
be
changed
into
a
loving
father
,
Prince
and
feeder
;
and
if
God
call
him
,
none
should
oppose
him
,
but
the
whole
Land
should
dethrone
their
own
native
Soveraigne
(
whom
they
are
obliged
before
the
Lord
to
defend
)
and
submit
to
the
bloody
invasion
of
a
strange
Lord
,
presumed
to
be
a
just
Conqueror
,
as
if
he
were
lawfully
called
to
the
Throne
both
by
birth
and
the
voyces
of
the
people
.
And
truly
they
deserve
no
wages
,
who
thus
defend
the
Kings
Prerogative
royall
:
for
if
the
sword
be
a
lawfull
title
to
the
crown
,
suppose
the
two
Generals
of
both
Kingdomes
should
conquer
the
most
and
the
chiefest
of
the
Kingdome
now
when
they
have
so
many
forces
in
the
field
,
by
this
wicked
reason
the
one
should
have
a
lawfull
call
of
God
to
be
King
of
England
,
and
the
other
to
be
King
of
Scotland
;
which
is
absurd
.
6.
Either
conquest
,
as
conquest
,
is
a
just
title
to
Ammonites
,
Zidonians
,
Canaanites
,
Edomites
,
&c.
subduing
Gods
people
for
a
time
,
have
just
title
King
of
Israel
,
not
David
;
and
so
strength
actually
prevailing
,
should
be
Gods
lawfull
call
to
a
Crown
.
But
strength
,
as
strength
victoriou●
,
is
not
law
,
nor
reason
:
it
were
then
reason
that
Herod
behead
Jo●●
Baptist
,
and
the
Roman
Emperors
kill
the
witnesses
of
Christ
Ieus
.
If
Conquest
,
as
just
,
be
the
title
and
lawfull
claime
before
Gods
court
,
to
a
Crown
;
then
certainly
a
stronger
King
for
pregna●t
nationall
injuries
,
may
lawfully
subdue
and
reigne
over
an
in●ocent
posteritie
not
yet
borne
.
But
what
word
of
God
can
,
1.
wa●rant
a
posteritie
not
borne
,
and
so
accessarie
to
no
offence
against
t●e
Conquerour
(
but
only
sin
originall
)
to
be
under
a
Conquerou●
against
their
will
,
and
who
hath
no
right
to
reigne
over
them
,
but
the
bloody
sword
?
for
so
Conquest
,
as
Conquest
,
not
as
just
,
maketh
him
King
over
the
posteritity
.
But
2.
the
fathers
may
ingage
the
surrender
themselvos
as
loyall
subject
▪
to
the
man
who
justly
and
deservedly
made
the
fathers
vassals
by
the
title
of
the
sword
of
justice
.
I
answer
,
the
fathers
may
indeed
dis●ose
of
the
inheritance
of
their
children
,
because
that
inheritance
belongeth
to
the
father
as
well
ar
to
the
sonne
;
but
because
the
liberty
of
the
sonne
being
borne
with
the
sonne
,
(
all
men
being
bo●ne
free
from
all
Civill
subjection
)
the
father
hath
no
more
power
to
resigne
the
libertie
of
his
children
,
then
their
lives
;
and
the
father
,
as
a
father
hath
not
power
of
the
life
of
his
child
,
as
a
Magistrate
he
Hugo
G●otius
de
iute
belli
&
pacis
l.
2.
c.
4.
n.
10.
may
have
power
,
and
as
something
more
then
a
father
,
he
may
have
power
of
life
and
death
.
I
heare
not
what
Grotius
saith
,
Those
who
are
not
borne
have
no
accidents
,
and
so
no
rights
,
Non
entis
nulla
sunt
accidentia
;
then
Children
not
borne
have
neither
right
,
nor
liberty
,
and
so
no
injury
(
may
some
say
)
can
be
done
to
Children
not
borne
,
though
the
fathers
should
give
away
their
liberty
to
the
conquerour
,
those
who
are
not
capable
of
Law
,
are
not
capable
of
injury
contrary
to
Law
.
Ans.
There
is
a
virtuall
alienation
of
rights
and
lives
of
children
not
borne
unlawfull
,
because
the
children
are
not
borne
;
to
say
that
children
not
borne
,
are
not
capable
of
law
and
injuries
virtuall
,
which
become
reall
in
time
might
say
,
Adam
did
not
an
injury
to
his
posterity
by
his
first
sin
,
which
is
contrary
to
Gods
Word
:
so
those
who
vowed
yearely
to
give
seven
innocent
children
to
the
Minotaure
to
be
devoured
,
and
to
kill
their
children
not
borne
to
bloody
Molech
,
did
no
acts
of
bloody
injury
to
their
children
;
nor
can
any
say
then
that
fathers
cannot
tye
themselves
and
their
posterity
to
a
King
by
succession
,
but
I
say
,
To
be
tyed
to
a
lawfull
King
is
no
making
away
of
liberty
,
but
a
resigning
of
a
power
to
be
justly
governed
,
protected
and
awed
from
active
and
passive
violence
.
7.
No
lawfull
King
may
be
dethroned
,
nor
lawfull
Kingdome
It
is
objected
,
that
the
people
of
God
by
their
sword
conquered
seven
nations
of
the
Canaanites
,
David
conquered
the
Ammonites
for
the
disgrace
done
to
his
Embassadours
.
So
God
gave
Egypt
to
Nebuchadnezar
for
his
hire
,
in
his
service
done
against
Iudah
;
had
David
no
right
●ver
the
Ammonites
and
Moabites
but
by
expecting
their
consent
?
yee
will
say
,
A
right
to
their
lands
,
goods
and
lives
,
but
not
to
challenge
their
morall
subjection
,
well
,
we
doubt
not
but
such
conquerours
will
challenge
and
obtain
their
morall
consent
;
but
if
the
people
refuse
their
consent
,
is
there
no
way
?
for
providence
giveth
no
right
.
So
D.
Ferne
,
so
Arnisaeus
de
authoritat
.
Pri●cip
.
c.
1.
n.
1
●
Arnisaeus
.
Ans.
A
facto
ad
jus
non
valet
consequentia
,
God
,
to
whom
belongeth
the
world
and
the
fulnesse
thereof
,
disponed
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
the
Land
of
Canaan
for
their
inheritance
,
and
ordained
that
they
should
use
their
bow
and
their
sword
,
for
the
actuall
possession
thereof
;
and
the
like
divine
right
,
had
David
to
the
Canaanites
,
Amonites
,
and
Edomites
,
do
not
prove
conquest
to
be
a
good
title
to
a
Crown
.
Edomites
and
Ammonites
,
though
the
occasion
of
Davids
taking
possession
of
these
Kingdoms
by
his
sword
,
did
arise
from
particular
and
occasionall
exigences
and
injuries
;
but
it
followeth
in
no
sort
,
That
therefore
Kings
now
wanting
any
word
of
promise
,
and
so
of
divine
right
to
any
Lands
,
may
ascend
to
the
Throns
of
other
Kingdoms
then
their
own
,
by
no
better
title
then
the
bloody
sword
.
That
Gods
will
was
the
chief
patent
here
,
is
clear
,
in
that
God
forbad
his
people
to
conquer
Edom
or
Esau's
possession
,
when
as
he
gave
them
command
to
conquer
the
Ammorites
.
I
doubt
not
to
say
,
if
Joshua
and
David
had
had
no
better
title
,
then
their
bloody
sword
,
though
provoked
by
injuries
,
they
could
have
had
no
right
to
any
kingly
power
over
these
Kingdoms
:
and
if
onely
successe
by
the
sword
,
be
a
right
of
providence
,
it
is
no
right
of
precept
.
Gods
providence
,
as
providence
without
precept
or
promise
,
can
conclude
a
thing
is
done
,
or
may
be
done
,
but
cannot
conclude
a
thing
is
lawfully
,
and
warrantably
done
,
else
you
might
say
the
selling
of
Joseph
,
the
crucifying
of
Christ
,
the
spoiling
of
Job
were
lawfully
done
.
2.
Though
Conquerors
extort
consent
,
and
oath
of
Loyaltie
;
yet
that
maketh
not
over
a
Royall
right
to
the
Conquerour
,
to
be
King
over
their
posterity
without
their
consent
.
3.
Though
the
Children
of
Ammon
did
a
high
injury
to
David
,
yet
no
injury
can
be
recompensed
in
justice
with
the
pressure
of
the
constrained
subjection
of
Loyaltie
to
a
violent
Lord
;
if
David
had
not
had
an
higher
warrant
from
God
then
an
injury
done
to
his
messengers
,
he
could
not
have
conquered
them
.
But
1.
The
Ammonites
were
the
declared
enemies
of
the
Church
of
God
,
and
raised
forces
against
David
,
when
they
themselves
were
the
injurer's
and
offenders
;
and
if
Davids
Conquest
will
prove
a
lawfull
title
by
the
sword
to
all
Conquerours
,
then
may
all
Conquerours
lawfully
do
to
the
conquered
people
,
as
David
did
;
that
is
,
they
may
put
them
under
saws
,
and
under
harrows
of
iron
,
and
under
axes
of
iron
,
and
cause
them
passe
through
the
Brick-kilne
.
But
I
beseech
you
,
will
Royalists
say
,
that
Conquerours
who
make
themselves
Kings
by
their
sword
,
and
so
make
themselves
fathers
,
heads
,
defenders
,
and
feeders
of
the
people
may
use
the
extreamest
Tyranny
in
the
world
,
such
as
David
us●d
against
the
children
of
Ammon
,
which
he
could
not
have
done
,
by
the
naked
title
of
sword-conquest
,
if
God
had
not
laid
a
Commandment
of
an
higher
nature
on
him
to
serve
Gods
enemies
so
?
I
shall
then
say
,
if
a
conquering
King
be
a
lawfull
King
,
because
a
Conquerour
,
then
hath
God
made
such
a
lawfull
King
,
both
a
father
,
because
a
King
,
and
a
Tyrant
,
and
cruell
,
and
lyon-hearted
oppressour
of
these
whom
he
hath
conquered
;
for
God
hath
given
him
Royall
power
by
this
example
,
to
put
these
,
to
whom
he
is
a
saws
and
harrows
of
iron
,
and
axes
of
iron
.
QUEST.
XIII
.
Whether
or
no
Royall
dignitie
have
its
spring
from
nature
,
and
how
that
is
true
(
every
man
is
born
free
)
and
how
servitude
is
contrary
to
nature
?
I
Conceive
it
to
be
evident
that
Royall
dignity
is
not
immediately
,
and
without
the
intervention
of
the
peoples
consent
given
by
God
to
any
one
person
.
2.
That
conquest
and
violence
,
is
no
just
title
to
a
Crown
.
Now
the
question
is
,
If
Royalty
flow
from
nature
,
if
Royalty
be
not
a
thing
meerly
naturall
,
neither
can
subjection
to
Royall
power
be
meerly
naturall
;
but
the
former
is
rather
civill
,
then
naturall
:
and
the
question
of
the
same
nature
is
,
Whether
subjection
or
servitude
be
naturall
?
I
conceive
,
that
there
be
divers
subjections
to
these
that
are
above
Aristotle
,
1
Polit.
cap.
3.
saith
,
that
some
are
by
nature
servants
:
his
meaning
is
good
,
that
some
gifts
of
nature
,
as
wisedom
naturall
,
or
aptitude
to
govern
,
hath
made
some
men
of
gold
,
fitter
to
command
,
and
some
of
iron
,
and
clay
,
fitter
to
be
servants
and
slaves
.
But
I
judge
this
title
to
make
a
King
by
birth
,
seeing
Saul
whom
God
by
supervenient
gifts
made
a
King
,
seemeth
to
ow
small
thanks
to
the
womb
,
or
nature
,
that
he
was
a
King
,
for
his
crueltie
to
the
Lords
Priests
speaketh
nothing
but
naturall
basenesse
.
It
s
possible
Plato
had
a
good
meaning
,
Dialog.
3.
de
legib
.
who
made
six
orders
here
.
1.
That
fathers
command
their
sons
.
2.
The
noble
the
ignoble
.
3.
The
elder
the
younger
.
4.
The
masters
the
servants
.
5.
The
stronger
the
weaker
.
6.
The
wiser
the
ignorant
.
3.
Aquinas
22.
q.
57.
art.
3.
Driedo
de
libert.
Christ
.
l.
1.
pag.
8.
following
Aristotle
,
polit.
l.
7.
c.
14.
hold
,
though
man
had
never
sinned
,
there
should
have
been
a
sort
say
some
,
if
he
be
the
first
born
of
a
King
,
he
is
by
just
title
a
King
,
but
must
have
Curators
and
Tutors
to
guide
him
,
in
the
exercise
of
that
Royall
right
that
he
hath
from
the
womb
.
But
Buchanan
saith
well
▪
He
who
cannot
govern
himself
,
shall
never
govern
A
man
is
born
consequenter
,
in
a
politique
●●lation
.
others
.
1
Assert
.
de
facto
,
As
a
man
commeth
into
the
world
a
member
of
a
politick
societie
,
he
is
by
consequence
borne
subject
to
the
laws
of
that
societie
;
but
this
maketh
him
not
from
the
wombe
and
by
nature
subject
to
a
King
,
as
by
nature
he
is
subject
to
his
Father
who
begat
him
;
no
more
then
by
nature
a
Lyon
is
borne
subject
to
another
King-Lyon
;
for
it
is
by
accident
that
he
is
borne
of
parents
under
subjection
to
a
Monarch
,
or
to
either
Democraticall
or
Aristocraticall
governours
,
for
Cain
and
Abel
were
borne
under
none
of
these
formes
of
Government
properly
:
and
if
he
had
been
borne
in
a
new
planted
Colonie
in
a
wildernesse
,
where
no
government
were
yet
established
,
he
should
be
under
no
such
Government
.
2
Assert
.
Slavery
of
servants
to
Lords
or
Masters
,
such
as
were
hireling
,
who
longeth
for
the
shadow
,
and
under
iron
harrowes
and
sawes
,
and
to
hew
wood
,
and
draw
water
continually
.
3.
The
originall
of
servitude
was
,
when
men
were
taken
in
warre
,
to
eschew
a
greater
evill
,
even
death
,
the
captives
were
willing
to
undergoe
a
lesse
evill
,
slaverie
.
S.
Servitus
,
1.
de
jur
.
Pers.
4.
A
man
being
created
according
to
Gods
image
,
he
is
res
sacrae
,
a
sacred
thing
,
and
can
no
more
by
natures
law
be
sold
and
bought
,
then
a
religious
and
sacred
thing
dedicated
to
God
.
S.
1.
Instit.
do
invtil
.
scrupl
.
l.
inter
Stipulantem
.
S.
Sacram.
F.
de
verber
.
Obligat
.
3
Assert
.
Every
man
by
nature
is
a
freeman
borne
,
that
is
,
by
nature
L.
Si
quis
sit
fugitivus
F.
de
edil
.
edict
.
in
S.
penult.
vel
fin
.
especially
to
be
under
penall
lawes
now
in
the
state
of
sinne
.
The
learned
Senator
Ferdinandus
Vasquez
saith
,
l.
2.
c.
82.
n.
15.
Every
subject
is
to
lay
down
his
life
for
the
Prince
:
now
no
man
is
borne
under
subjection
to
penall
lawes
or
dying
for
his
Prince
.
3.
Man
by
nature
is
borne
free
,
and
as
free
as
Eagle
,
King
of
Horses
,
Bullocks
,
Eagles
;
nor
is
there
any
subjection
here
,
except
that
the
young
Lyon
is
subject
to
the
old
,
every
soul
to
its
damme
,
and
by
that
same
law
of
nature
no
man
is
borne
King
of
men
,
nor
any
man
subject
to
man
in
a
civill
subjection
by
nature
,
(
I
speake
not
of
naturall
subjection
of
children
to
parents
)
and
therefore
Ferdi.
Vasquez
.
illustr.
quest.
l.
2.
c.
82.
n.
6.
said
that
Kingdomes
and
Empires
were
brought
in
,
not
by
Natures
law
,
but
by
the
law
of
Nations
:
he
expoundeth
himself
elsewhere
to
speak
of
the
law
of
nature
secondary
,
otherwise
the
primarie
law
of
Nations
is
indeed
the
law
of
Nature
,
as
appropriated
to
man
.
If
any
reply
,
that
the
freedome
naturall
of
beasts
and
birds
who
never
sinned
,
cannot
be
one
with
the
naturall
freedome
of
man
who
are
now
under
sin
,
and
so
under
bondage
for
sin
:
my
answer
is
,
That
the
subjection
of
the
miserie
of
man
by
nature
,
because
of
sinne
,
is
more
then
the
subjection
of
beasts
,
comparing
spece
and
kind
of
beasts
and
birds
with
mankind
,
but
comparing
individuals
of
the
same
kinde
amongst
themselves
,
a
Lyon
with
Lyon
,
Eagle
with
Eagle
,
and
so
Man
with
Man
;
in
which
respect
,
because
he
who
is
supposed
to
be
the
man
borne
free
from
subjection
politike
,
even
the
King
borne
a
King
,
is
under
the
same
state
of
sin
,
and
so
by
reason
of
sinne
,
of
which
he
hath
a
share
equally
with
all
other
men
by
nature
,
he
must
be
,
by
nature
,
borne
under
as
great
subjection
penall
for
sinne
(
except
the
King
be
borne
voyd
of
sinne
)
as
other
men
;
Ergo
,
he
is
not
borne
freer
by
nature
then
other
men
,
except
he
Sam.
12.
7
,
8.
Psal.
75.
6.
Dan.
4.
32.
and
therefore
all
must
be
borne
Kings
,
if
any
one
man
be
by
nature
a
King
borne
,
and
another
a
borne
subject
.
But
if
some
be
by
Gods
grace
made
Kings
above
others
,
they
are
not
so
by
nature
;
for
things
which
agree
to
man
by
nature
,
agree
to
all
men
equally
;
but
all
men
equally
are
not
borne
Kings
,
as
is
evident
;
and
all
men
are
not
equally
borne
by
nature
under
politique
subjection
to
Kings
,
as
the
Adversaries
grant
;
because
those
who
are
by
nature
Kings
,
cannot
be
also
by
nature
subjects
.
5.
If
men
be
not
by
nature
free
from
Omnes
sumus
naturâ
liberi
,
nullius
ditioni
subjecti
.
l.
Manu●iss
.
F.
de
just.
&
jur.
S.
jus
autem
gentium
,
Ius
.
de
jur
.
nat.
We
are
all
by
nature
free
.
and
D.
L.
ex
h●c
jure
cum
simil
.
6.
Politicians
in
radice
,
in
the
root
,
and
voluntary
and
free
,
in
modo
,
in
the
manner
of
their
union
:
and
the
Scripture
cleareth
to
us
,
that
a
King
is
made
by
the
free
consent
of
the
people
,
Deut.
17.
15.
and
so
not
by
nature
.
7.
What
is
from
the
wombe
,
and
de
facto
,
there
was
not
a
King
,
till
Nimrods
time
,
the
world
being
governed
by
families
,
and
till
Moses
his
time
we
find
no
institution
for
Kings
,
Gen.
7.
and
the
numerous
multiplication
of
mankind
did
occasion
Monarchies
,
otherwise
Fatherly
government
being
the
first
,
and
measure
of
the
rest
,
must
be
the
best
;
for
it
is
better
that
my
father
governe
me
,
then
that
a
stranger
governe
me
;
and
therefore
the
Lord
forbad
his
people
to
set
a
stranger
over
themselves
to
be
their
King
.
The
P.
Prelate
contendeth
for
the
contrary
.
Every
Sac.
sanct.
Reg.
ma.
c.
12.
p.
12
▪
man
(
saith
he
)
is
borne
subject
to
his
father
,
of
whom
immediately
he
hath
his
existence
in
nature
:
and
if
his
Father
be
the
subject
of
another
,
he
is
borne
the
subject
of
his
fathers
superiour
.
Answ.
But
the
consequence
is
weake
,
every
man
is
borne
under
naturall
subjection
to
his
father
,
ergo
he
is
borne
naturally
under
civill
subjection
to
his
fathers
superiour
or
King
,
it
followeth
not
;
yea
because
his
father
was
borne
only
by
nature
subject
to
his
owne
father
,
ergo
he
was
subject
to
a
Prince
or
King
only
by
accident
,
and
by
the
free
constitution
of
men
who
freely
choose
politick
government
,
whereas
there
is
no
government
naturall
,
but
fatherly
or
martiall
,
and
therefore
the
contradictory
consequence
is
true
.
P.
Prelat
.
Obj.
2.
Every
man
by
nature
hath
immunity
and
liberty
from
despoticall
and
herill
Empire
,
and
so
may
dispose
of
his
owne
at
will
,
and
cannot
inslave
himselfe
without
his
owne
free
will
;
but
God
hath
laid
and
cannot
inslave
himselfe
without
his
owne
free
will
;
but
God
hath
laid
a
necessity
on
all
men
to
be
under
government
,
and
nature
also
laid
this
necessity
on
him
,
therefore
this
soveraignty
cannot
protect
us
in
righteousnesse
and
honesty
,
except
it
be
intirely
indowed
with
soveraigne
power
to
preserve
it selfe
,
and
protect
us
.
Ans.
The
Prelate
here
deserteth
his
owne
consequence
,
which
is
strong
against
himselfe
,
for
if
a
man
be
naturally
subject
to
his
fathers
superiour
,
as
he
said
before
,
why
is
not
the
sonne
of
a
slave
naturally
subiect
to
his
fathers
superiour
&
master
?
2.
As
a
man
may
not
make
away
his
liberty
without
his
own
consent
,
so
can
he
not
without
his
owne
consent
give
his
liberty
to
be
subject
to
penall
Lawes
,
under
a
Prince
without
his
owne
consent
,
either
in
his
fathers
or
in
the
representative
society
in
which
he
liveth
.
3.
God
and
nature
hath
laid
a
necessity
on
all
men
to
be
under
government
,
a
naturall
necessity
from
the
wombe
to
be
under
some
government
,
to
wit
,
a
paternall
government
,
that
is
true
;
but
under
this
government
politique
,
and
namely
under
soveraignty
,
it
is
false
;
and
that
is
but
said
,
for
why
is
he
naturally
under
soveraignty
rather
then
Aristocracy
?
I
beleeve
any
of
the
three
formes
are
freely
chosen
by
any
society
4.
It
is
false
that
one
cannot
defend
the
people
,
except
he
have
intire
power
,
that
is
to
say
,
he
cannot
doe
good
,
except
he
have
a
vast
power
to
doe
both
good
and
ill
.
Obj.
3.
It
is
accidentall
to
any
to
render
himselfe
a
slave
,
being
occasioned
by
force
or
extreame
indigence
,
but
to
submit
to
Government
congrnous
to
the
condition
of
man
,
and
is
necessary
for
his
happy
being
,
and
naturall
,
and
necessary
by
the
inviolable
Ordinance
of
God
and
nature
.
Ans.
If
the
father
be
a
slave
,
it
is
naturall
and
not
accidentall
,
by
the
Prelates
Logick
,
to
be
a
slave
.
2.
it
is
also
accidentall
to
be
under
Soveraignty
,
and
sure
not
naturall
,
for
then
Aristocracy
and
Democracy
must
be
unnaturall
,
and
so
unlawfull
congruous
to
the
condition
of
man
be
all
one
with
naturall
man
(
which
he
must
say
if
he
speake
sense
)
to
beleeve
in
God
,
to
be
an
excellent
Mathematician
,
to
swim
in
deepe
waters
,
being
congruous
to
the
nature
of
man
,
must
be
naturall
.
4.
Man
by
nature
is
under
government
Paternall
,
not
Politique
properly
,
but
by
the
free
consent
of
his
will
.
Obj.
4.
Luke
11.
5.
Christ
himselfe
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
subject
to
P.
Prelate
.
Sac.
sanct.
Mai.
p.
126.
his
Parents
,
the
word
that
is
used
,
Rom.
13.
ergo
none
is
exempted
from
subjection
to
lawfull
government
,
Ans.
We
never
said
,
that
any
was
exempted
from
lawfull
goverment
;
the
Prelate
and
his
fellow
Iesuites
teach
that
the
Clergy
is
exempted
from
the
lawes
of
the
civill
Magistrate
,
not
we
;
but
because
Christ
was
subject
to
his
Parents
,
and
the
same
word
is
used
,
Luk.
11.
that
is
,
Rom.
13.
it
will
not
follow
therefore
,
men
are
by
nature
subject
to
Kings
,
because
they
are
by
nature
subject
to
parents
.
Obj.
5.
The
father
had
power
over
the
children
by
the
Law
of
God
and
nature
to
redeeme
himselfe
from
debt
,
or
any
distressed
condition
,
by
inslaving
his
children
begotten
of
his
owne
body
,
if
this
power
was
not
by
the
right
of
nature
,
and
by
the
Warrant
of
God
,
I
can
see
no
other
,
for
it
could
not
be
by
mutuall
and
voluntary
contract
of
children
and
fathers
,
P.
Prelate
can
see
no
Law
but
the
law
of
nature
here
,
but
it
is
because
he
is
blind
or
will
not
see
;
his
reason
is
,
it
was
not
by
mutuall
and
voluntary
contract
of
children
and
fathers
,
ergo
it
was
by
the
law
of
nature
;
so
he
that
cursed
his
father
was
to
dye
by
Gods
Law
.
This
law
was
not
made
by
mutuall
consent
betwixt
the
Father
and
the
Sonne
,
ergo
it
was
a
law
of
inature
,
the
Prelate
will
see
no
better
.
Nature
will
teach
a
man
to
inslave
himselfe
to
redeeme
himselfe
from
death
,
but
that
it
is
a
Dictate
of
nature
that
a
man
should
inslave
his
sonne
,
I
conceive
not
.
3.
What
can
this
prove
,
but
that
if
the
sonne
may
by
the
law
of
nature
,
be
inslaved
for
the
father
,
but
that
the
sonne
of
a
slave
is
by
nature
under
subjection
to
slavery
,
&
that
by
natures
law
,
the
contrary
whereof
he
spake
in
the
page
preceding
,
and
in
this
same
page
.
As
for
the
Argument
of
the
Prelate
to
answer
Suarez
,
who
laboureth
to
prove
Monarchy
not
to
be
naturall
,
but
of
free
consent
,
because
it
is
various
in
sundry
nations
,
it
is
the
Iesuites
Argument
,
not
ours
▪
I
owne
it
not
.
Let
Iesuites
plead
for
Iesuites
.
QUEST.
XIIII
.
Whether
or
no
the
people
make
a
Person
their
King
conditionally
,
or
absolutely
?
and
whether
there
be
such
a
thing
as
a
Covenant
tying
the
King
no
lesse
then
his
subjects
?
THere
is
a
Covenant
Naturall
and
a
Covenant
Politick
and
Civill
,
there
is
no
politick
or
civill
covenant
betwixt
the
King
and
his
Subjects
,
because
there
be
no
such
equality
(
say
Royalists
)
betwixt
Asser
.
1.
There
is
an
Oath
betwixt
the
King
and
his
people
,
laying
on
,
by
reciprocation
of
bands
,
mutuall
civill
obligation
upon
the
King
to
the
people
,
and
the
people
to
the
King
,
2
Sam.
5.
3.
So
●ll
the
Elders
of
Israel
came
to
the
King
to
Hebron
,
and
King
David
made
a
Covenant
with
them
in
Hebron
before
the
Lord
,
and
they
anuoynted
David
King
over
Israel
,
1
Chron.
11.
3.
And
David
made
a
covenant
with
them
before
the
Lord
,
and
they
annoynted
David
King
over
Israel
,
according
to
the
Word
of
the
Lord
by
Samuel
,
2
Chron.
23.
2.
And
they
went
about
in
Iudah
and
gathered
the
Levites
out
of
all
the
Cities
of
Iudah
,
and
the
chiefe
of
the
fathers
of
Israel
,
and
they
c●me
to
Ierusalem
.
3.
And
all
the
congregation
made
a
covenant
with
the
King
Ioash
in
the
house
of
God
,
2
King
.
11.
17.
and
Jehoiada
made
a
covenant
betwixt
the
Lord
and
the
King
,
and
the
people
that
they
should
be
the
Lords
people
,
between
the
King
also
and
his
people
,
Eccles.
8.
2.
I
counsell
thee
to
keepe
the
Kings
commandement
,
and
that
in
regard
of
the
Oath
of
God
;
then
it
is
evident
there
was
a
covenant
betwixt
the
King
and
the
people
.
2.
That
was
not
a
covenant
that
did
tye
the
King
to
God
onely
,
and
not
to
the
people
,
1.
because
the
covenant
betwixt
the
King
and
the
people
is
clearly
differenced
from
the
Kings
covenant
with
the
Lord
,
2
King
.
11.
17.
2.
there
were
no
necessity
that
this
covenant
should
be
made
publickly
before
the
people
,
if
the
King
did
not
in
the
covenant
tye
and
oblige
himselfe
to
the
people
;
nor
needed
it
be
made
solemnly
before
the
Lord
is
the
House
of
God
.
3.
It
is
expresly
a
covenant
,
that
was
between
Ioash
the
King
and
his
people
,
and
David
made
a
covenant
at
his
Coronation
with
the
Princes
and
Elders
of
Israel
;
therefore
the
people
give
the
Crown
to
David
Covenant-wise
,
and
upon
condition
that
he
should
performe
such
and
such
duties
to
them
;
and
this
is
cleare
by
all
Covenants
in
the
Word
of
God
,
even
the
Covenant
between
God
and
man
is
so
mutuall
;
I
will
be
your
God
,
and
yee
shall
be
my
people
.
The
covenant
is
so
mutuall
,
that
if
the
people
breake
the
covenant
,
God
is
loosed
from
his
part
of
the
covenant
,
Zach.
11.
v.
10.
2.
The
covenant
giveth
to
the
beleever
a
sort
of
action
of
Law
,
and
jus
quoddam
,
to
plead
with
God
,
in
respect
of
his
fidelity
to
stand
to
that
covenant
that
bindeth
him
by
reason
of
his
fidelity
,
Esay
43.
26.
Es.
63.
16.
Daniel
9.
4
,
5.
and
farre
more
a
covenant
giveth
ground
of
a
civill
action
and
claime
to
a
people
and
the
free
estates
against
a
King
,
seduced
by
wicked
counsell
to
make
war
against
the
Land
,
whereas
he
did
sweare
by
the
most
high
God
,
that
he
should
be
a
father
and
protector
of
the
Church
of
God
.
2.
All
covenants
and
contracts
between
man
and
man
,
yea
all
solemne
promises
bring
the
covenante●s
under
a
Law
,
and
a
claime
before
men
,
if
the
Oath
of
God
be
broken
as
the
Covenant
betwixt
Abraham
and
Abimelech
,
Gen.
21.
27.
Ionathan
and
David
,
I
Sam.
18.
3.
the
spies
professe
to
Rahab
in
the
covenant
that
they
made
with
him
,
Iosh.
2.
v.
20.
And
if
thou
utter
this
our
businesse
(
say
they
)
we
will
be
quit
of
thine
Oath
,
which
thou
hast
made
us
to
swear
.
There
be
no
mutuall
contract
made
upon
certain
conditions
,
but
if
the
conditions
be
not
fulfilled
,
the
party
injured
is
loosed
from
the
contract
.
Barclay
saith
,
That
this
covenant
obligeth
the
Arnis
.
de
authorit.
prin.
●
.
●
.
n.
6.
7.
King
to
God
,
but
not
the
King
to
the
people
.
Ans.
It
is
a
vaine
thing
to
say
that
the
people
and
the
King
make
a
covenant
,
and
that
David
made
a
covenant
with
the
Elders
and
Princes
of
Israel
;
for
if
he
be
obliged
to
God
only
,
and
not
to
the
people
by
a
covenant
made
with
the
people
,
it
is
not
made
with
the
people
at
all
,
nay
,
it
is
no
more
made
with
the
people
of
Israel
,
nor
with
the
Chaldeans
,
for
it
bindeth
David
no
more
to
Israel
,
nor
to
Chaldea
,
as
a
covenant
made
with
men
.
Arnisaeus
saith
,
when
two
parties
contract
,
if
one
performe
the
duty
,
the
other
is
acquitted
.
Sect.
Ex
hujusmod
ubi
vult
just.
de
duob
.
reis
,
l.
3.
F.
because
every
one
of
them
are
obliged
fully
.
Sect.
1.
Iust.
cod
.
to
God
,
to
whom
the
Oath
is
made
(
for
that
is
his
meaning
)
and
if
either
the
people
performe
what
is
sworne
to
the
Lord
,
or
the
King
,
yet
one
of
the
parties
remaineth
still
under
obligation
,
and
neither
doth
the
peoples
obedience
exempt
the
King
from
punishment
,
if
he
faile
,
nor
the
Kings
obedience
exempt
the
people
,
if
they
faile
,
but
every
one
beareth
the
punishment
of
his
owne
sin
;
and
there
is
no
mutuall
power
in
the
parties
to
compell
one
another
to
performe
the
promised
duty
,
because
that
belongeth
to
the
Pretor
or
Magistrate
,
before
whom
the
contract
was
made
.
The
King
hath
jurisdiction
over
the
people
,
if
they
violate
their
Oath
,
but
the
people
hath
no
power
over
the
Prince
,
and
the
ground
that
Arnisaeus
layeth
downe
is
that
,
1.
The
King
is
not
a
party
contracting
with
the
people
,
as
if
there
were
mutuall
obligations
betwixt
the
King
and
the
people
,
and
a
mutuall
coactive
power
▪
on
either
side
.
2.
That
the
care
of
Religion
belongeth
not
to
the
people
,
for
that
hath
no
warrant
in
the
Word
(
saith
he
)
2.
We
read
not
that
the
people
was
to
command
and
compell
the
Priests
and
the
King
to
reforme
Religion
and
abolish
Idolatry
,
as
it
must
follow
,
if
the
covenant
be
mutuall
.
3.
Iehoiada
,
2
King
.
11.
obligeth
himselfe
and
the
King
,
and
the
people
,
by
a
like
law
to
serve
God
,
and
here
be
not
two
parts
,
but
three
;
the
high
Priest
,
the
King
,
the
People
,
if
this
example
prove
any
thing
.
4.
Both
King
and
people
shall
finde
the
revenging
hand
of
God
against
them
,
if
they
faile
in
the
breach
of
their
Oath
;
but
with
this
difference
,
and
every
one
of
the
two
,
King
and
people
by
the
Oath
stand
obliged
to
God
,
the
King
for
himselfe
,
and
the
people
for
themselves
,
but
with
this
difference
,
the
King
oweth
to
God
proper
and
due
obedience
as
any
of
the
subjects
,
and
also
to
governe
the
people
according
to
Gods
true
religion
,
Deut.
17.
2
Chro.
29.
and
in
this
the
Kings
obligation
differeth
from
the
peoples
obligation
,
the
people
,
as
they
would
be
saved
must
serve
God
,
and
the
King
for
the
same
cause
,
1
Sam.
12.
But
besides
this
,
the
King
is
obliged
to
rule
and
governe
the
people
,
and
keepe
them
in
obedience
to
God
;
but
the
people
is
not
obliged
to
governe
the
King
,
and
keepe
him
in
obedience
to
God
,
for
then
the
people
should
have
as
great
power
of
jurisdiction
over
the
King
,
as
the
King
hath
o-over
the
people
,
which
is
against
the
Word
of
God
,
and
the
examples
of
the
Kings
of
Iudah
;
but
this
commeth
not
from
any
promise
or
covenant
that
the
King
hath
made
with
the
people
,
but
from
a
peculiar
obligation
whereby
he
is
obliged
to
God
as
a
man
,
not
as
a
King
.
This
is
the
mystery
of
the
businesse
,
but
I
oppose
this
in
these
1.
Assert
.
As
the
King
is
obliged
to
God
for
the
maintenance
of
true
Religion
,
so
are
the
people
and
Princes
no
lesse
in
their
place
obliged
to
maintaine
true
Religion
,
for
1.
the
people
are
rebuked
because
they
burnt
Incense
in
all
high
places
,
2
King
.
17.
11.
2
Chron.
33.
17.
Hos.
4.
13.
And
the
reason
why
the
high
places
are
not
taken
away
,
2
Chro.
20.
33.
is
given
,
for
as
yet
the
people
had
not
prepared
their
heart
unto
the
God
of
their
fathers
;
but
you
will
reply
,
elicite
acts
of
maintenance
of
true
Religion
are
commanded
to
the
people
,
and
that
the
places
prove
;
but
the
question
is
De
actibus
imperatis
,
of
commanded
acts
of
Religion
,
sure
none
but
the
Magistrate
is
to
command
others
to
worship
God
according
to
his
Word
.
I
answer
,
in
ordinary
only
,
Magistrates
(
not
the
King
only
)
but
all
the
Princes
of
the
Land
,
and
Iudges
are
to
maintaine
Religion
by
their
commandements
,
Deut.
1.
16.
2
Chro.
1.
2.
Deut.
16.
19.
Eccles.
5.
8.
Hab.
1.
4.
Mic.
3.
9.
Zach.
7.
9.
Hos.
5.
10.
11.
and
to
take
care
of
Religion
;
but
when
the
Iudges
decline
from
Gods
way
,
and
corrupt
the
Law
,
we
finde
the
people
punished
and
rebuked
for
it
,
Ier.
15.
4.
And
I
will
cause
them
to
be
removed
to
all
Kingdomes
of
the
earth
,
because
of
Manasseh
the
sonne
of
Hezekiah
King
of
Iudah
,
for
that
which
he
did
in
Ierusalem
,
1
Sam.
12.
24.
only
feare
the
Lord
—
25.
But
if
yee
doe
still
wickedly
,
yee
shall
be
consumed
,
both
yee
and
your
King
.
And
this
case
●
grant
is
extraordinary
,
yet
so
as
Iunius
Brutus
proveth
well
and
strongly
,
that
Religion
is
not
given
only
to
the
King
,
that
he
only
should
keep●
it
,
but
to
all
the
inferiour
Iudges
and
people
also
in
their
kind
;
but
because
the
estates
never
gave
the
King
power
to
corrupt
Religion
,
2
Assert
.
When
the
covenant
is
betwixt
God
,
on
the
one
part
,
and
the
King
,
Priests
,
and
people
on
the
other
part
,
it
is
true
,
if
the
one
performe
for
his
part
to
God
,
the
whole
duty
,
the
other
is
acquitted
;
as
if
two
men
be
indebted
to
one
man
ten
thousand
pounds
,
if
the
one
pay
the
whole
summe
,
the
other
is
acquitted
:
but
the
King
and
People
are
not
so
,
contracting
parties
in
covenant
with
God
,
as
that
they
are
both
indebted
to
God
for
one
and
the
same
sum
of
compleat
obedience
,
so
as
if
the
King
pay
the
whole
summe
of
obedience
to
God
,
the
people
is
acquitted
;
and
if
the
People
pay
the
whole
summe
,
the
King
is
acquitted
:
for
every
one
standeth
obliged
to
God
for
himselfe
;
for
the
people
must
doe
all
that
is
their
part
,
in
acquitting
the
King
from
his
Royall
duty
,
that
they
may
free
him
and
themselves
both
from
punishment
,
if
he
disobey
the
King
of
Kings
:
Nor
doth
the
Kings
obedience
acquit
the
people
from
their
duty
.
And
Arnisaeus
dreamed
,
if
he
believed
that
we
make
King
and
People
this
way
partie
contractors
in
covenant
with
God
.
Nor
can
two
co-partners
in
covenant
with
God
,
so
mutually
compell
one
another
to
doe
their
duty
;
for
we
hold
,
that
the
covenant
is
made
betwixt
the
King
and
the
People
,
betwixt
mortall
men
;
but
they
both
bind
themselves
before
God
to
each
other
.
But
,
saith
Arnisaeus
,
It
belongeth
to
a
Pretor
or
Ruler
,
who
is
above
both
King
and
People
,
to
compell
each
of
them
;
the
King
to
performe
his
part
of
the
covenant
to
the
people
,
and
the
people
to
performe
their
part
of
the
covenant
to
the
King
.
Now
there
is
no
Ruler
but
God
,
above
both
King
and
People
.
But
let
me
answer
:
The
consequence
is
not
needfull
,
no
more
then
when
the
King
of
Iudah
and
the
King
of
Israel
make
a
covenant
to
perform
mutuall
duties
one
to
another
:
no
more
then
it
is
necessarie
that
there
should
be
a
King
and
superior
Ruler
above
the
King
of
Israel
and
the
King
of
Iudah
,
who
should
compell
each
one
to
doe
a
duty
to
his
fellow
King
;
for
the
King
and
People
are
each
of
them
above
,
and
below
others
in
divers
respects
:
The
People
,
because
they
create
the
man
King
,
they
are
so
above
the
King
,
and
have
a
virtuall
power
to
compell
him
to
doe
his
duty
:
and
the
King
,
as
King
,
hath
an
authoritative
power
above
the
People
,
because
Royaltie
is
formally
in
him
,
and
originally
and
virtually
only
in
the
People
;
therefore
may
he
compell
them
to
their
duty
,
as
we
shall
heare
anon
;
and
therefore
there
is
no
need
of
an
earthly
Ruler
higher
then
both
,
to
compell
both
.
3
Assert
.
We
shall
hereafter
prove
the
power
of
the
people
above
the
King
,
God
willing
.
And
so
it
is
false
that
there
is
not
mutuall
coactive
power
on
each
side
.
4
Assert
.
The
obligation
of
the
King
in
the
covenant
,
floweth
Righteousnesse
and
Religion
with
his
Royall
power
.
And
so
it
is
false
that
Arnisaeus
saith
,
that
the
King
,
as
a
man
,
is
obliged
to
God
by
this
covenant
,
not
as
a
King
.
2.
He
saith
,
by
covenant
the
King
is
bound
to
God
as
a
Man
,
not
as
a
King
.
But
so
the
man
will
have
the
King
,
as
King
,
under
no
law
of
God
,
and
so
he
must
either
be
above
God
,
as
King
,
or
coequall
with
God
;
which
are
manifest
blasphemies
:
for
I
thought
ever
,
the
Royalists
had
not
denyed
,
but
the
King
,
as
King
,
had
been
obliged
to
keep
his
oath
to
his
subjects
,
in
relation
to
God
,
and
in
regard
of
naturall
obligation
;
so
as
he
●mneth
before
God
,
if
he
breake
his
covenant
with
his
people
:
though
they
deny
that
he
is
obliged
to
Hence
our
second
Argument
.
He
who
is
made
a
minister
of
God
,
Gods
Vicegerents
to
be
obeyed
in
things
lawfull
,
after
they
have
gone
on
in
wicked
courses
:
For
,
the
People
consenting
to
make
Saul
King
,
they
give
him
the
Crown
,
pro
hac
vice
,
at
his
entry
,
absolutely
:
there
is
no
condition
required
in
him
before
they
make
him
King
,
but
only
that
he
covenant
with
them
to
rule
according
to
Gods
law
:
The
conditions
to
be
performed
,
are
consequent
,
and
posterior
to
his
actuall
coronation
,
and
his
sitting
on
the
Throne
.
But
the
argument
presupposing
that
which
the
Lords
word
teacheth
,
to
wit
,
that
the
Lord
and
the
people
giveth
a
crown
by
one
and
the
same
action
;
for
God
formally
maketh
David
a
King
by
the
Princes
and
Elders
of
Israels
choosing
of
him
to
be
their
King
at
Hebron
;
and
therefore
seeing
the
people
maketh
him
a
King
covenant-wise
,
and
conditionally
,
so
he
rule
according
to
Gods
Law
,
and
the
people
resigning
their
power
to
him
for
their
safety
,
and
for
a
peaceable
and
godly
life
under
him
,
and
not
to
destroy
them
,
and
tyrannize
over
them
;
it
is
certain
God
giveth
a
King
that
same
way
,
by
that
same
very
act
of
the
people
;
and
if
the
King
tyrannize
,
I
cannot
say
it
is
beside
the
intention
of
God
making
a
King
,
not
yet
beside
his
intention
as
a
just
punisher
of
their
transgressions
;
for
to
me
as
I
conceive
,
nothing
either
good
or
evill
falleth
out
beside
the
intention
of
him
,
who
doeth
all
things
according
to
the
pleasure
of
his
Will
;
if
then
the
people
make
a
King
as
a
King
conditionally
for
their
fafety
,
and
not
for
their
destruction
(
for
as
a
King
he
saveth
,
as
a
man
he
destroyeth
,
and
not
as
a
King
and
Father
)
and
if
God
by
the
peoples
free
election
make
a
King
,
God
maketh
him
a
King
conditionally
,
and
so
by
covenant
;
and
therefore
when
God
promiseth
2
Sam.
7.
12.
1
Chron.
28.
7
,
8
,
9.
to
Davids
seed
,
and
to
Solomon
a
Throne
,
he
promiseth
not
a
Throne
to
them
immediatly
,
as
he
raised
up
Prophets
and
Apostles
,
without
any
mediate
action
and
consent
of
the
people
,
but
he
promiseth
a
Throne
to
them
by
the
mediate
consent
,
election
,
and
covenant
of
the
people
;
which
condition
and
covenant
he
expresseth
in
the
very
words
of
the
people
,
covenant
so
they
walke
as
Kings
in
the
Law
of
the
Lord
,
and
take
heed
to
Gods
Commandements
and
Statutes
to
doe
them
▪
Obj.
But
then
Solomon
falling
in
love
with
many
outlandish
women
,
and
so
not
walking
according
to
Gods
Law
,
loseth
all
royall
dignity
and
Kingly
power
,
and
the
people
is
not
to
acknowledge
him
as
King
,
since
the
Kingly
power
was
conferred
upon
him
,
rather
then
Adonijah
,
upon
such
a
condition
,
which
condition
not
being
performed
by
him
,
it
is
presumed
that
neither
God
,
nor
the
people
under
God
,
as
Gods
instruments
in
making
King
,
conferred
any
royall
power
on
him
.
Ans.
It
doth
not
follow
,
that
Solomon
falling
in
love
with
strange
women
doth
lose
Royall
dignity
,
either
in
the
Court
of
Heaven
,
or
before
men
;
because
the
conditions
of
the
covenant
upon
which
God
by
the
people
made
him
King
must
be
exponed
by
the
Law
,
Deut.
17.
now
that
cannot
beare
,
that
any
one
act
contrary
to
the
Royall
Office
,
yea
that
any
one
or
two
acts
of
Tyranny
doth
denude
a
man
of
the
Royall
dignity
that
God
and
the
people
gave
him
,
for
so
David
committing
two
acts
of
tyranny
,
one
of
taking
his
owne
faithfull
subjects
wife
from
him
,
and
another
in
killing
himselfe
,
should
denude
himselfe
of
all
the
Kingly
power
that
he
had
,
and
that
therefore
the
people
after
his
Adultery
and
Murther
were
not
to
reknowledge
David
as
their
King
,
which
is
most
absurd
;
for
as
one
single
act
of
unchastity
is
indeed
against
the
matrimoniall
covenant
,
and
yet
doth
not
make
the
woman
no
wife
at
all
,
so
it
must
be
such
a
breach
of
the
Royall
Covenant
,
as
maketh
the
King
no
King
,
that
anulleth
the
Royall
Covenant
,
and
denudeth
the
Prince
of
his
Royall
authority
and
power
,
that
must
be
interpreted
a
breach
of
the
Oath
of
God
,
because
it
must
be
such
a
breach
upon
supposition
,
whereof
the
people
would
not
have
given
the
Crowne
,
but
upon
supposition
of
his
destructivenesse
to
the
Common-wealth
,
they
would
never
have
given
to
him
the
Crowne
.
Obj.
2.
Yet
at
least
it
will
follow
,
that
Saul
after
he
is
rejected
of
God
for
disobedience
,
in
not
destroying
the
Amalekites
,
as
Samuel
speaketh
to
him
,
1
Sam.
15.
is
no
longer
to
be
acknowledged
King
by
the
people
,
at
least
after
he
committeth
such
acts
of
tyranny
,
as
are
1.
Sam.
8.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15.
&c.
and
after
he
had
killed
the
Priests
of
the
Lord
,
and
persecuted
innocent
David
without
cause
,
he
was
no
longer
either
in
the
Court
of
Heaven
,
or
the
Court
of
men
to
be
acknowledged
as
King
,
seeing
he
had
manifestly
violated
the
royall
covenant
made
with
the
people
,
1
Sam.
11.
v.
14
,
15.
and
yet
after
those
breaches
David
acknowledgeth
him
to
be
his
Prince
,
and
the
Lords
annoynted
.
Ans.
The
Prophet
Samuel
his
threatning
,
1
Sam.
17.
is
it
not
exponed
of
actuall
unkinging
and
rejecting
of
Saul
at
the
present
;
for
after
that
,
Samuel
both
honoured
him
as
King
before
the
people
,
and
prayed
for
him
,
and
mourned
to
God
on
his
behalfe
as
King
,
1
Sam.
16.
1.
2.
but
the
threatning
was
to
have
effect
in
Gods
time
,
when
he
should
bring
David
to
the
Throne
,
as
was
prophesied
,
upon
occasion
of
lesse
sinne
,
even
his
sacrificing
and
not
waiting
the
time
appointed
,
as
God
had
commanded
,
1
Sam.
13.
v.
13
,
14.
2.
The
people
and
Davids
acknowledgment
of
Saul
to
be
the
Royall
dignity
,
as
David
or
any
man
is
obliged
to
honour
him
as
King
whom
the
people
maketh
King
,
though
he
were
a
bloodier
and
more
tyrannous
man
then
Saul
.
Any
Tyrant
standeth
in
titulo
,
so
long
as
the
People
and
Estates
who
made
him
King
,
have
not
recalled
their
grant
;
so
as
neither
David
,
nor
any
single
man
,
though
six
hundred
with
him
,
may
unking
him
,
or
detract
obedience
from
him
as
King
;
So
,
many
acts
of
disloyaltie
,
and
breaches
of
lawes
in
the
Subjects
,
though
they
be
contrary
to
this
Covenant
that
the
States
make
with
their
Prince
,
doth
not
make
them
to
be
no
Subjects
:
and
the
Covenant
mutuall
standeth
thus
.
3
Arg.
If
the
people
as
Gods
instruments
,
bestow
the
benefit
Gods
word
;
then
is
the
King
made
King
by
the
people
conditionally
:
but
the
former
is
true
;
Ergo
,
so
is
the
latter
.
The
assumption
is
proved
thus
:
because
to
be
a
King
,
is
to
be
an
adopted
father
,
tutor
,
a
Politick
servant
and
Royall
watchman
of
the
State
;
and
the
Royall
honour
,
and
Royall
maintenance
given
to
him
,
is
a
reward
of
his
labours
,
and
a
Kingly
hire
.
And
this
is
the
Apostles
argument
,
Rom.
13.
6.
For
this
cause
pay
you
tribute
also
;
(
there
is
the
wages
)
for
they
are
Gods
ministers
,
attending
continually
upon
this
very
thing
;
There
is
the
worke
.
Qui
non
implet
conditionem
à
se
promissam
,
cadit
benefi●io
.
It
is
confirmed
thus
.
The
people
either
maketh
the
man
their
Prince
conditionally
,
that
he
rule
according
to
Law
;
or
absolutely
,
so
that
he
rule
according
to
will
or
lust
:
or
,
3.
without
any
vocall
transactions
at
all
,
but
only
brevi
manu
,
say
,
Reigne
thou
over
us
,
and
,
(
God
save
the
King
.
)
And
so
there
be
no
conditions
spoken
on
either
side
;
Or
,
4.
The
King
is
obliged
to
God
for
the
condition
which
he
promiseth
by
oath
to
performe
toward
the
people
;
but
he
is
to
make
no
reckoning
to
the
people
,
whether
he
performe
his
promise
or
no
;
for
the
people
being
inferiour
to
him
,
and
he
,
solo
Deo
minor
,
only
next
and
immediate
to
God
,
the
people
can
have
no
jus
,
no
law
over
him
by
vertue
of
any
covenant
.
But
the
first
standing
,
we
have
what
we
seeke
;
The
second
is
contrary
to
Scripture
.
He
is
not
Deut.
17.
15
,
16.
made
absolutely
a
King
to
rule
according
to
his
will
and
lust
;
for
,
[
Reigne
thou
over
us
]
should
have
this
meaning
;
Come
thou
and
play
the
Tyrant
over
us
,
and
let
thy
lust
and
will
be
a
law
to
us
:
which
is
against
naturall
sense
:
nor
can
the
sense
and
meaning
be
according
to
the
third
,
That
the
people
without
any
expresse
,
vocall
,
and
positive
covenant
,
give
a
Throne
to
their
King
to
rule
as
he
pleaseth
;
because
,
1.
it
is
a
vain
thing
for
the
Prelate
and
other
Mancipia
Aulae
,
Court-bellies
,
to
say
Scotland
and
England
must
produce
a
written
authentick
covenant
betwixt
the
first
King
and
their
People
,
because
,
say
they
,
it
s
the
Lawes
word
,
De
non
apparentibus
&
non
existentibus
eadem
lex
;
that
covenant
which
appeareth
not
,
it
is
not
.
For
in
positive
covenants
that
is
true
,
and
in
such
contracts
as
are
made
according
ca
lit
causa
,
he
loseth
his
cause
(
say
they
)
The
King
is
in
possession
of
the
Royall
power
absolutely
,
without
any
condition
,
and
you
must
put
him
from
his
possession
by
a
law
.
I
answer
,
this
is
most
false
;
1.
Though
he
were
in
mala
fide
,
and
in
unjust
possession
,
the
law
of
Nature
will
warrant
the
people
to
repeal
their
right
,
and
plead
for
it
,
in
a
matter
which
concerneth
their
heads
,
lives
,
and
soules
▪
2.
The
Parliaments
of
both
Kingdomes
standing
in
possession
of
a
nomothetick
power
to
make
lawes
,
proveth
cleerely
that
the
King
is
in
no
possession
of
any
Royall
dignitie
conferred
absolutely
and
without
any
condition
upon
him
:
and
therefore
it
is
the
Kings
part
by
law
to
put
the
Estates
out
of
possession
.
And
so
though
there
were
no
written
covenant
,
the
standing
law
and
practice
of
many
hundreth
acts
of
Parliament
,
is
equivalent
to
a
written
covenant
.
2.
When
the
people
appointeth
any
to
be
their
King
,
the
voyce
of
Nature
exponeth
their
deed
,
though
there
be
no
vocall
or
written
covenant
;
For
that
fact
of
making
a
King
,
is
a
morall
lawfull
act
warranted
by
the
word
of
God
,
Deut.
17.
15
,
16.
Rom.
13.
1.
2.
and
the
law
of
Nature
:
and
therefore
they
having
made
such
a
man
their
King
,
they
have
given
him
power
to
be
their
father
,
feeder
,
healer
,
protector
;
and
so
must
only
have
made
him
King
conditionally
,
so
he
be
a
father
,
a
feeder
,
and
tutor
.
Now
if
this
deed
of
making
a
King
,
must
be
exponed
to
be
an
investing
with
an
absolute
,
and
not
a
conditionall
power
;
this
fact
shall
be
contrary
to
Scripture
,
and
to
the
law
of
Nature
:
for
if
they
have
given
him
Royall
power
3.
The
Law
permitteth
the
bestower
of
a
benefit
to
interpret
his
own
mind
in
the
bestowing
of
a
benefit
,
even
as
a
King
and
State
must
expone
their
own
Commission
given
to
their
Ambassadour
,
so
must
the
Estates
expone
whether
they
bestowed
the
Crown
upon
the
first
King
conditionally
or
absolutely
.
For
the
4th
.
if
it
stand
,
then
must
the
people
give
to
their
first
elected
King
a
power
to
wast
and
destroy
themselves
,
so
as
they
may
never
controle
it
,
but
only
leave
it
to
God
and
the
King
to
reckon
together
,
but
so
the
condition
is
a
Chimera
(
We
give
you
a
Throne
,
upon
condition
you
swear
by
him
who
made
heaven
and
earth
,
that
you
will
govern
us
according
to
Gods
Law
;
and
you
shall
be
answerable
to
God
only
,
not
to
us
,
whether
you
keep
the
covenant
you
make
with
us
▪
or
violate
it
;
)
but
how
a
covenant
can
be
made
with
the
people
,
and
the
King
obliged
to
God
,
not
to
the
people
,
I
conceive
not
.
2.
This
presupposeth
that
the
King
as
King
cannot
doe
any
sin
,
or
commit
any
act
of
tyranny
against
the
people
,
but
against
God
only
;
because
if
he
be
obliged
to
God
only
as
a
King
by
vertue
of
his
covenant
:
How
can
he
faile
against
an
obligation
where
there
is
no
obligation
?
but
as
a
King
he
owe
no
obligation
of
duty
to
the
people
,
and
indeed
so
doe
our
good
men
expound
that
Psal.
51.
Against
thee
,
thee
only
have
I
sinned
,
not
against
Vriah
;
for
if
he
sinned
not
as
King
against
Vriah
,
whose
life
he
was
obliged
to
conserve
as
a
King
,
he
was
not
obliged
as
a
King
by
any
royall
duty
to
conserve
his
life
.
Where
there
is
no
sin
,
there
is
no
obligation
not
to
sin
,
and
where
there
is
no
obligation
not
to
sin
,
there
is
no
sin
:
By
this
the
King
as
King
is
loosed
from
all
duties
of
the
second
Table
,
being
once
made
a
King
,
he
is
above
all
obligation
to
love
his
neighbour
as
himselfe
,
for
he
is
above
all
his
neighbours
,
and
above
all
mankind
,
and
only
lesse
then
God
.
4.
Arg.
If
the
people
be
so
given
to
the
King
,
that
they
are
Lords
Church
,
his
people
,
his
flocke
,
his
portion
,
his
inheritance
,
his
vineyard
,
his
redeemedones
,
then
they
cannot
be
given
to
the
King
as
Oxen
and
Sheepe
,
that
are
freely
gifted
to
a
man
;
or
as
a
gift
or
summe
of
gold
or
silver
,
that
the
man
to
whom
they
are
given
may
use
,
so
that
he
cannot
commit
a
fault
against
the
oxen
,
sheepe
,
gold
or
mony
,
that
is
given
to
him
,
how
ever
he
shall
dispose
of
them
.
But
the
people
are
given
to
the
King
to
be
tutored
and
protected
of
him
,
so
as
they
remaine
the
people
of
God
,
and
in
covenant
with
him
,
and
if
the
people
were
the
goods
of
fortune
(
as
Heathens
say
)
he
could
no
more
sinne
against
the
people
then
a
man
can
sin
against
his
gold
;
now
though
a
man
by
adoring
gold
,
or
by
lavish
profusion
and
wasting
of
gold
may
sin
against
God
,
yet
not
against
gold
;
nor
can
he
be
in
any
covenant
with
gold
,
or
under
any
obligation
of
either
duty
or
sin
to
gold
,
or
to
livelesse
and
reasonlesse
creatures
properly
,
therefore
he
may
sin
in
the
use
of
them
,
and
yet
not
sin
against
them
,
but
against
God
.
Hence
of
necessity
the
King
must
be
under
obligation
to
the
Lords
people
in
another
manner
,
then
that
he
should
only
answer
to
God
,
for
the
losse
of
men
,
as
if
men
were
worldly
goods
under
his
hand
,
and
as
if
being
a
King
he
were
now
by
this
Royall
Authority
priviledged
from
the
best
▪
halfe
of
the
law
of
nature
,
to
wit
,
from
acts
of
mercy
,
and
truth
,
and
covenant
keeping
with
his
brethren
.
5.
Arg.
If
a
King
because
a
King
were
priviledged
from
all
covenant
obligation
to
his
subjects
,
then
could
no
Law
of
men
lawfully
reach
him
for
any
contract
violated
by
him
,
then
he
could
not
be
a
debtor
to
his
subjects
,
if
he
borrowed
mony
from
them
,
and
it
were
utterly
unlawfull
either
to
crave
him
mony
,
or
to
sue
him
at
Law
for
debts
,
yet
our
Civill
Lawes
of
Scotland
tyeth
the
King
to
pay
his
debts
,
as
any
other
man
;
yea
and
King
Solomons
traffiquing
,
and
buying
and
selling
betwixt
him
and
his
owne
subjects
would
seeme
unlawfull
;
for
how
can
a
King
buy
and
sell
with
his
subjects
if
he
be
under
no
covenant
obligation
to
men
,
but
to
God
only
.
Yea
then
a
King
could
not
marry
a
wife
,
for
he
could
not
come
under
a
covenant
to
keepe
his
body
to
her
only
,
nor
if
he
committed
adultery
,
could
he
sin
against
his
wife
,
because
being
immediate
unto
God
,
and
above
all
obligation
to
men
,
he
could
sin
against
no
covenant
made
with
men
,
but
only
against
God
.
6.
If
that
was
a
lawfull
covenant
made
by
Asa
,
and
the
States
of
That
whosoever
would
not
seeke
the
Lord
God
of
their
fathers
,
should
be
put
to
death
,
whether
small
or
great
,
whether
man
or
woman
:
this
obligeth
the
King
for
ought
I
see
,
and
the
Princes
,
and
the
people
,
but
it
was
a
lawfull
covenant
,
ergo
the
King
is
under
a
covenant
to
the
Princes
and
Iudges
,
as
they
are
to
him
;
it
is
replyed
,
If
a
Master
of
a
Schoole
should
make
a
law
,
whoever
shall
goe
out
at
the
Schoole
doores
without
liberty
obtained
of
the
Master
,
shall
be
whipped
,
it
will
not
oblige
the
Schoole-master
that
he
shall
be
whipped
,
if
he
goe
out
at
the
Schoole
doores
without
liberty
;
so
neither
doth
this
Law
oblige
the
King
the
supreame
Law-giver
.
Ans
.
Suppose
that
the
Schollars
have
no
lesse
hand
and
authority
magisteriall
in
making
the
law
,
then
the
Schoole-master
,
as
the
Princes
of
Iudah
had
a
collaterall
power
with
King
Asa
about
that
law
;
it
would
follow
,
that
the
Schoole-master
is
under
the
same
law
.
2.
Suppose
going
out
at
Schoole
doores
were
that
way
a
morall
neglect
of
studying
in
the
Master
,
as
it
is
in
the
Scholars
,
as
the
not
seeking
of
God
is
as
hainous
a
sinne
in
King
Asa
,
and
no
lesse
deserving
death
then
it
is
in
the
people
;
then
should
the
Law
oblige
Schoolmaster
and
Scholler
both
without
exception
.
3.
The
Schoolemaster
is
clearely
above
all
lawes
of
discipline
which
he
imposeth
on
his
Scholars
,
but
none
can
say
that
King
Asa
was
clearely
above
that
law
of
seeking
of
the
Lord
God
of
his
fathers
.
Diodorus
Siculus
,
l.
17.
saith
,
the
Kings
of
Persia
were
under
an
oath
,
and
that
they
might
not
change
the
Lawes
;
and
so
were
the
Kings
of
Egypt
and
Ethiopia
.
The
Kings
of
Sparta
,
which
Aristotle
calleth
just
Kings
,
renew
their
oath
every
moneth
.
Romulus
so
covenanted
with
the
Senate
and
People
.
Carolus
V.
Austriacus
,
sweareth
he
shall
not
change
the
Lawes
,
without
the
consent
of
the
Electors
,
nor
make
new
lawes
,
nor
dispose
or
impledge
any
thing
that
belongeth
to
the
Empire
.
So
read
we
,
Spec.
Saxon.
l.
3.
Act.
54.
and
Xenophon
Cyriped
.
l.
8.
saith
,
Alber.
Gentilis
in
disput.
Regal
.
l.
2.
c.
12.
l.
3.
c.
14
;
15.
16.
Hug.
Grotius
de
jure
belli
,
&
poc
.
l.
2.
c.
11
,
12
,
13.
Arnisaeus
d●
authorit
.
princip.
c.
1.
n.
7.
8.
10.
Haenon
.
disp.
2.
there
was
a
covenant
between
Cyrus
and
the
Persians
.
The
nobles
are
crowned
when
they
crown
their
King
,
and
exact
a
speciall
Oath
of
the
King
.
So
doth
England
,
Polonia
,
Spaine
,
Arragonia
,
&c.
Alberi
.
Gentilis
.
Hug.
Grotius
,
prove
that
Kings
are
really
bound
to
performe
Oathes
and
contracts
to
their
people
;
but
notwithstanding
there
be
such
a
covenant
,
it
followeth
not
from
this
,
saith
Arnisaeus
,
that
if
the
Prince
breake
his
covenant
and
rule
tyrannically
,
the
people
shall
be
free
,
and
the
contract
or
covenant
nothing
.
Ans.
The
covenant
may
be
materially
broken
,
while
the
King
remaineth
King
,
and
the
subjects
remaine
subjects
,
but
when
it
is
both
materially
and
formally
declared
by
the
States
to
be
broken
,
the
people
must
be
free
from
their
Allegiance
;
but
of
this
more
hereafter
.
Arg.
7.
If
a
Master
bind
himselfe
by
an
Oath
to
his
servant
,
he
shall
not
receive
such
a
benefit
of
such
a
point
of
service
;
if
he
violate
the
Oath
,
his
Oath
must
give
his
servant
Law
and
right
,
both
to
challenge
his
Master
,
and
he
is
freed
from
that
point
of
service
;
an
Army
appointeth
such
a
one
their
Leader
and
Captaine
,
but
they
refuse
to
doe
it
,
except
he
sweare
he
shall
not
betray
them
to
the
enemy
,
he
doth
betray
them
,
then
must
the
souldiers
be
loosed
from
that
contract
;
if
one
be
appointed
Pilate
of
a
ship
,
and
not
but
by
an
Oath
,
if
he
sell
the
Passengers
to
the
Turke
,
they
may
challenge
the
Pilate
of
his
Oath
;
and
it
is
cleare
that
1.
the
estates
should
refuse
to
give
the
Crown
,
to
him
who
would
refuse
to
governe
them
according
to
Gods
Law
,
but
should
professe
that
he
would
make
his
owne
will
a
Law
,
therefore
the
intention
of
the
Oath
is
clearely
conditionall
.
2.
When
the
King
sweareth
the
Oath
,
he
is
but
King
in
fieri
,
and
so
not
as
King
above
the
States
of
Kingdomes
,
now
his
being
King
doth
not
put
him
in
a
case
above
all
civill
obligation
of
a
King
to
his
subjects
,
because
the
matter
of
the
Oath
is
,
that
he
shall
be
under
them
so
farre
,
in
regard
of
the
Oath
of
God
.
Arg.
8.
If
the
Oath
of
God
made
to
the
people
doe
not
bind
him
to
the
people
to
governe
according
to
Law
,
and
not
according
to
his
will
and
lust
,
it
should
be
unlawfull
for
any
to
sweare
such
an
Oath
,
for
if
a
power
above
law
agree
essentially
to
a
King
as
a
King
,
as
Royalists
hold
,
he
who
sweareth
such
a
Oath
,
should
both
sweare
to
be
a
King
to
such
a
people
,
and
should
sweare
to
be
no
King
in
respect
by
his
Oath
he
should
renounce
that
which
is
essentiall
to
a
King
.
Arnisaeus
objecteth
;
Ex
particularibus
non
potest
colligi
conclusio
universalis
,
some
few
of
the
Kings
,
as
David
&
Ioash
,
made
a
covenant
with
the
people
;
it
followeth
not
that
this
was
a
universall
law
.
Ans.
Yea
,
the
covenant
is
Deut.
17.
and
must
be
a
rule
to
all
;
if
so
just
a
man
as
David
was
limited
by
a
covenant
,
then
all
the
rest
also
.
QUEST.
XV.
Whether
or
no
the
King
be
Vnivocally
,
or
only
Analogically
,
and
by
proportion
a
father
?
IT
is
true
,
Aristotle
Polit.
l.
3.
c.
11.
saith
,
That
the
Kingly
power
Ioan.
Roffens
.
de
potest
.
pap●
.
l.
2.
c.
5.
Adam
suppose
he
had
lived
till
now
should
not
have
bin
King
of
the
whole
earth
because
●
father
.
is
a
fatherly
power
;
and
Iustin
.
Novell
12.
c.
2.
Pater
quamvis
legum
contemptor
,
quamvis
impius
sit
,
tamen
pater
est
.
But
I
doe
not
beleeve
that
,
as
Royalists
say
,
that
the
Kingly
power
is
essentially
and
univocally
that
same
with
a
paternall
or
fatherly
power
;
or
that
Adam
as
a
father
,
was
as
a
father
and
King
,
and
that
suppose
Adam
should
live
in
Noahs
daies
,
that
by
divine
institution
and
without
consent
of
the
Kingdomes
and
communities
on
earth
,
Adam
hoc
ipso
,
and
for
no
other
reason
but
because
he
was
a
father
,
should
also
be
the
universall
King
,
and
Monarch
of
the
whole
world
;
or
suppose
Adam
were
living
to
this
day
;
that
all
Kings
that
hath
been
since
,
and
now
are
,
held
their
Crownes
of
him
,
and
had
no
more
Kingly
power
then
inferiour
Iudges
in
Scotland
have
under
our
soveraigne
King
Charles
,
for
so
all
that
hath
been
,
and
now
are
lawfull
Kings
should
be
unjust
usurpers
;
for
if
fatherly
power
be
the
first
and
native
power
of
commanding
,
it
is
against
nature
that
a
Monarch
who
is
not
my
father
by
generation
,
should
take
that
power
from
me
,
and
be
a
King
over
both
me
and
my
children
.
But
I
assert
,
that
though
the
Word
warrant
us
to
esteem
Kings
Esa.
49.
23.
Jud.
5.
7.
Gen.
20.
v.
2.
yet
are
not
they
essentially
and
formally
fathers
by
generation
,
Num.
c.
11.
v.
12.
Have
I
conceived
all
this
people
?
have
I
begotten
them
?
and
yet
are
they
but
fathers
metaphorically
;
1.
By
office
,
because
they
should
care
for
them
as
fathers
doe
for
children
,
and
so
come
under
the
name
of
fathers
in
the
fifth
Commandement
;
and
therefore
rigorous
and
cruell
Rulers
are
Leopards
and
Lyons
,
and
Wolves
,
Ezech.
22.
27.
Zeph.
3.
3.
If
then
tyrannous
Judges
be
not
essentially
and
formally
Leopards
and
Lyons
,
but
only
metaphorically
,
neither
can
Kings
be
formally
fathers
.
2.
Not
only
Kings
,
but
all
Iudges
are
fathers
in
defending
their
subjects
from
violence
and
the
sword
,
and
fighting
the
Lords
battells
for
them
,
and
counselling
them
.
If
therefore
Royalists
argue
rightly
,
A
King
is
essentially
a
father
,
and
,
fatherly
power
and
royall
power
are
of
the
same
essence
and
nature
;
As
therefore
he
who
is
once
a
father
,
is
ever
a
father
,
and
his
children
cannot
take
up
armes
against
him
to
resist
him
,
for
that
is
unnaturall
,
&
repugnant
to
the
5.
Commandement
:
So
he
who
is
once
a
King
,
is
evermore
a
King
,
and
it
is
repugnant
to
the
fifth
Commandement
to
resist
him
with
armes
.
It
is
answered
,
that
the
Argument
presupposeth
that
Royall
power
,
and
Fatherly
power
is
one
and
the
same
in
nature
,
whereas
they
differ
in
nature
,
and
are
only
one
by
analogie
and
proportion
:
for
so
Pastors
of
the
Word
are
called
fathers
,
1
Cor.
4.
15.
it
will
not
follow
,
that
once
a
Pastor
,
evermore
a
Pastor
;
and
that
if
therefore
Pastors
turne
wolves
,
and
by
hereticall
doctrine
corrupt
the
flock
,
they
cannot
be
cast
out
of
the
Church
.
3.
A
father
,
as
a
father
,
hath
D.
Ferne
saith
,
Monarchie
is
not
jure
divino
,
(
I
am
not
nor
yet
from
the
law
of
Nature
,
but
,
ductu
naturae
,
by
the
guidance
of
nature
.
Sure
it
is
from
a
supervenient
commandement
of
God
,
added
to
the
first
law
of
nature
,
establishing
Fatherly
power
.
5.
Children
having
their
life
and
first
breathings
of
nature
from
their
parents
,
must
be
in
a
more
intire
relation
from
their
father
,
then
from
their
Prince
:
Subjects
have
not
their
Being
naturall
,
but
their
civill
,
politique
and
peaceable
well-being
from
their
Prince
.
6.
A
father
is
a
father
by
generation
,
and
giving
the
being
of
nature
to
children
,
and
is
a
naturall
head
and
root
,
without
the
free
consent
and
suffrages
of
his
children
,
and
is
essentially
a
father
to
one
childe
,
as
Adam
was
to
one
Cain
:
but
a
Prince
is
a
Prince
by
the
free
suffrages
of
a
community
,
and
cannot
be
a
King
to
one
only
,
and
he
is
the
politique
head
of
a
civill
Corporation
.
7.
A
father
,
so
long
as
his
children
liveth
can
never
leave
off
to
be
a
father
,
though
he
were
mad
,
and
surious
,
though
he
be
the
most
wicked
man
on
earth
.
Qui
genuit
filium
non
potest
non
genuisse
filium
,
what
is
once
past
cannot
by
any
power
be
not
passed
,
a
father
is
a
father
for
ever
.
But
by
confession
of
Royalists
,
as
Barclay
,
Hug.
Grotius
,
and
Arnisaeus
and
others
grant
,
if
a
King
sell
his
subjects
by
sea
or
land
to
other
nations
,
if
he
turne
a
furious
Nero
,
he
may
be
dethroned
,
and
the
power
that
created
the
King
under
such
expresse
conditions
,
as
if
the
King
violate
them
by
his
owne
consent
,
he
shall
be
put
from
the
Throne
,
may
cease
to
be
a
King
,
and
if
a
stronger
King
conquer
a
King
and
his
subjects
,
Royalists
●ay
the
conquerour
is
a
lawfull
King
;
and
so
the
conquered
King
must
also
lawfully
come
downe
from
his
Throne
,
and
turne
a
lawfull
captive
sitting
in
the
dust
.
8.
Learned
Polititians
,
as
Bartholomeus
Romulus
,
Defens
.
part.
1.
num.
153.
Ioannes
de
Anania
in
c.
fin
.
de
his
qui
fil
.
occid
.
teach
that
the
father
is
not
obliged
to
reveale
the
conspiracy
of
his
son
against
his
Prince
,
nor
is
he
more
to
accuse
his
son
,
then
to
accuse
himselfe
;
because
the
father
loveth
the
sonne
better
then
himselfe
.
D.
Listi
quidem
.
Sect.
Fin.
quod
.
met
.
caus
.
&
D.
L.
fin
.
c.
de
cura
furiosi
,
and
certainly
a
father
had
rather
dye
in
his
own
person
as
choose
to
dye
in
his
sonnes
,
in
whom
he
affecteth
a
sort
of
immortality
,
In
specie
,
quando
non
potest
in
individuo
:
but
a
King
doth
not
love
his
subjects
with
a
naturall
or
fatherly
love
thus
;
and
if
the
affections
differ
,
the
power
which
secondeth
the
affection
,
for
the
conservation
either
of
being
,
or
well
being
,
must
also
differ
proportionally
.
The
P.
Prelate
objecteth
against
us
thus
,
stealing
word
by
word
Exod.
20.
5.
Honour
thy
father
;
then
as
a
naturall
father
receiveth
not
Paternall
right
,
power
,
or
authority
from
his
sonnes
,
but
hath
this
from
God
,
and
the
ordinance
of
nature
,
nor
can
the
King
have
his
right
from
the
community
.
2.
The
maxime
of
the
Law
is
,
Surrogatus
gaudet
privilegiis
ejus
cui
surrogatur
,
&
qui
succedit
●n
locum
,
succedit
in
jus
.
The
person
surrogated
,
hath
all
the
Priviledges
that
he
hath
,
in
whose
place
he
succeedeth
,
he
who
succeedeth
to
the
place
,
succeedeth
to
the
right
;
the
adopted
sonne
,
or
the
bastard
who
is
legittimated
,
and
commeth
in
the
place
of
the
lawfull
borne
sonne
,
commeth
also
in
the
priviledges
of
the
lawfull
borne
sonne
;
a
Prince
elected
commeth
to
the
full
possession
of
the
Majesty
of
a
naturall
Prince
and
Father
,
for
Modu●
acquirendi
non
tollit
naturale
jus
possidendi
(
saith
Arnisaeus
,
more
fully
then
the
poore
Plagiarius
)
the
manner
of
acquiring
any
thing
taketh
not
away
the
naturall
possession
,
for
how
ever
things
be
acquired
,
if
the
title
be
just
,
possession
is
the
Law
of
Nations
;
then
when
the
King
is
chosen
in
place
of
the
father
,
as
the
father
hath
a
divine
right
by
nature
,
so
must
the
King
have
that
same
:
and
seeing
the
right
proprietor
(
saith
the
Pamphleting
Prelate
)
had
his
right
by
God
,
by
nature
,
how
can
it
be
,
but
howsoever
the
designation
of
the
person
is
from
the
disordered
community
,
yet
the
collation
of
the
power
is
from
God
immediatly
,
and
from
his
sacred
and
inviolable
ordinance
.
And
what
can
be
said
against
the
way
by
which
any
one
elected
obtained
his
right
,
for
seeing
God
doth
not
now
send
Samuells
or
Elisha's
to
anoynt
or
declare
Kings
,
we
are
in
his
ordinary
providence
to
conceive
the
designation
of
the
person
is
the
manifestation
of
Gods
Will
,
called
Voluntas
signi
,
as
the
Schooles
speake
,
just
so
as
when
the
Church
designeth
one
to
sacred
orders
.
Ans.
1.
He
that
is
surrogated
in
the
place
of
another
,
due
to
him
,
by
a
positive
Law
of
man
,
he
hath
Law
to
all
the
priviledges
that
he
hath
in
whose
place
he
is
surrogated
,
that
is
true
.
He
who
is
made
Assignee
to
an
Obligation
for
a
summe
of
money
,
hath
all
the
rights
that
the
principall
party
to
whom
the
Bond
or
Obligation
was
mad●
,
he
who
commeth
in
the
place
of
a
Major
of
a
City
,
of
a
Captaine
in
an
Army
,
of
a
Pilot
in
a
ship
,
of
a
Pope
,
hath
all
the
priviledges
and
Rights
that
his
predecessors
had
by
Law
.
Jus
succedit
juri
,
persona
jure
predita
personae
jure
preditae
.
So
the
Law
,
so
far
as
my
reading
can
reach
,
who
professe
my selfe
a
Divine
;
but
that
he
who
succeedeth
to
the
place
of
a
father
,
by
nature
,
should
injoy
all
the
naturall
Rights
and
Priviledges
of
the
person
to
whom
he
succeedeth
;
I
beleeve
the
Law
never
dreamed
it
,
for
then
the
adopted
sonne
comming
in
place
of
the
naturall
sonne
,
hath
right
to
the
naturall
affection
of
the
father
;
if
any
should
adopt
Maxwell
the
Prelate
,
should
he
love
him
as
the
Pursevant
of
Craile
,
Maxwell
his
father
loved
him
?
I
conceive
not
;
hath
the
adopted
sonne
his
life
,
his
being
,
the
figure
bodily
,
the
manners
of
the
sonne
in
whose
place
he
is
adopted
?
or
doth
he
naturally
resemble
the
father
as
the
naturall
sonne
doth
?
The
Prelate
did
not
read
this
Law
in
any
approved
Iurist
,
though
he
did
steale
the
argument
from
Arnisaeus
,
and
stole
the
citations
of
Homer
and
Aristotle
out
of
him
,
with
a
little
Metathesis
:
A
naturall
sonne
is
not
made
a
sonne
by
the
consent
of
Parents
,
but
he
is
a
sonne
by
generation
,
so
must
the
adopted
sonne
be
adopted
Homer
.
Odys
.
1.
he
might
have
said
,
see
Arnisaeus
loe
.
tit
.
without
the
free
consent
and
grace
of
the
father
adopting
:
so
here
the
King
commeth
in
the
place
of
a
naturall
father
,
but
I
conceive
the
Law
saith
not
that
the
elected
King
is
a
King
without
consent
of
the
subjects
,
as
the
naturall
father
is
a
father
without
consent
of
his
sonnes
.
2.
Nor
is
it
a
Law
true
,
as
once
a
father
alwaies
a
father
,
so
once
an
elected
King
,
alwaies
a
King
,
though
he
sell
his
subjects
,
being
induced
thereunto
by
wicked
Counsellors
.
3.
If
the
King
have
no
priviledges
,
but
what
the
naturall
father
hath
in
whose
place
he
commeth
,
then
as
the
naturall
father
in
a
free
Kingdome
hath
not
power
of
life
and
death
over
his
sonnes
,
neither
hath
the
King
power
of
life
and
death
over
his
subjects
,
this
is
no
Law
.
4.
This
maxime
should
prove
good
,
if
the
King
were
essentially
a
father
,
by
generation
and
naturall
propagation
,
but
he
is
onely
a
father
Metaphorically
,
and
by
a
borrowed
speech
.
A
father
non
generando
,
sed
politicè
alendo
,
tuendo
,
regendo
,
therefore
an
elected
Prince
commeth
not
in
the
full
possession
of
all
the
naturall
power
and
rights
of
a
naturall
father
.
2.
The
P.
Prelate
speaketh
disgracefully
of
the
Church
of
God
,
calling
it
a
disorderly
community
,
as
if
he
himselfe
were
borne
of
Kings
,
where
as
God
calleth
the
King
their
Shepheard
,
and
the
people
,
Gods
flocke
,
inheritance
and
people
;
and
they
are
not
a
disorderly
body
by
nature
,
but
by
sin
;
in
which
sense
the
Prelate
may
call
King
,
Priest
and
people
,
a
company
of
Heires
of
Gods
wrath
,
except
he
be
an
Arminian
still
,
as
once
he
was
.
3.
If
we
are
in
ordinary
providence
now
,
because
we
have
not
Samuels
,
and
Prophets
to
anoynt
Kings
,
to
hold
the
designation
of
a
person
to
be
King
,
to
be
the
manifestation
of
Gods
Will
,
called
voluntas
●igni
,
is
Treason
,
for
if
Scotland
and
England
should
designe
Maxwell
in
the
place
of
King
Charles
our
native
Soveraigne
(
an
odious
comparison
)
Maxwell
should
be
lawfull
King
for
what
is
done
by
Gods
Will
,
called
by
our
Divines
(
they
have
it
not
from
Schoolemen
,
as
the
Prelate
ignorantly
saith
)
his
signified
will
which
is
our
rule
,
is
done
lawfully
,
there
can
be
no
greater
treason
put
in
print
then
this
.
QUEST.
XVI
.
Whether
or
no
a
despotiticall
and
masterly
dominion
of
men
and
things
,
agree
to
the
King
,
because
he
is
King
.
I
May
here
dispute
whether
the
King
be
Lord
,
having
a
masterly
dominion
both
over
men
and
things
.
But
I
first
discusse
shortly
his
dominion
over
his
subjects
.
It
is
agreed
on
by
Divines
,
that
servitude
is
a
penall
fruit
of
sinne
,
and
against
nature
.
Institut.
de
jure
personarum
,
Sect.
1.
&
F.
de
statu
hominum
.
l.
libertas
;
Because
all
men
▪
are
borne
by
nature
of
equall
condition
.
1
Assert
.
The
King
hath
no
proper
,
masterly
,
or
herile
dominion
1.
Because
Royall
Empire
is
essentially
to
feed
▪
rule
,
defend
,
and
to
governe
in
Peace
and
Godlinesse
,
1
Tim.
2.
2.
as
the
father
doth
his
children
,
Ps.
78.
71.
He
brought
him
to
feed
Jacob
his
people
,
and
Israel
his
inheritance
,
Esa
▪
55.
4.
I
gave
him
for
a
leader
and
commander
to
the
people
,
2
Sam.
5.
2.
Thou
shalt
feed
my
people
Israel
,
2
Sam.
5.
2.
1
Chron
11.
2.
1
Chron
▪
17.
6.
And
so
it
is
,
for
the
good
of
the
people
,
and
to
bring
those
,
over
whom
he
is
a
feeder
and
ruler
,
to
such
a
happy
end
;
and
,
as
saith
Althusius
,
polit.
c.
1.
n.
13.
and
Marius
Salomonius
,
de
princ
.
●
.
2.
it
is
to
take
care
of
the
good
of
those
over
whom
the
Ruler
is
set
,
and
,
conservare
est
,
rem
illaesam
servare
,
to
keep
a
thing
safe
.
But
to
be
a
Master
,
and
to
have
a
masterly
and
herile
power
over
slaves
and
servants
,
is
to
make
use
of
servants
for
the
owners
benefit
,
not
for
the
good
of
the
slave
,
L.
2.
de
leg
.
L.
Servus
de
servit
.
expert
.
Danae
polit.
l.
1.
Tolossan
.
de
Rep.
l.
1.
c.
1.
n.
15
,
16.
therefore
are
servants
bought
and
sold
as
goods
,
jure
belli
.
F.
de
statu
hominum
,
l.
&
servorum
.
2.
Not
to
be
under
Governors
and
Magistrates
,
is
a
judgement
of
God
,
Esa.
3.
6
7.
Esa.
3.
1.
Hos
,
3.
4.
Iudg.
19.
1
,
2.
But
not
to
be
under
Ioh.
8.
33.
Exod.
21.
2.
v.
26
,
27.
Deut.
15.
12.
so
he
that
killeth
Goliah
,
1
Sam.
17.
25.
his
fathers
house
shall
be
free
in
Israel
,
Ier.
34.
9.
Act.
22.
28.
1
Cor.
9.
19.
Gal.
4.
26.
31.
Therefore
the
power
of
a
King
cannot
be
an
herile
and
masterly
power
;
for
then
to
be
under
a
Kingly
power
,
should
both
be
a
blessing
,
and
a
curse
and
just
punishment
of
sinne
.
3.
Subjects
are
called
the
servants
of
the
King
,
1
Sam.
15.
2.
2
Chron.
13.
7.
1
King
.
12.
7.
Exod.
10.
1
,
●
.
Exod
▪
9.
20.
but
they
are
not
slaves
,
because
,
Deut.
17.
20.
they
are
his
brethren
:
That
the
Kings
heare
be
not
lifted
up
against
his
brethren
.
And
his
sonnes
,
Esa.
49.
23.
And
the
Lord
gave
his
people
a
King
as
a
blessing
,
1
King
.
10.
9.
Hos.
1.
11.
Esa.
1.
26.
Ier.
17.
25.
And
brought
them
out
of
the
house
of
bondage
,
Exod.
20.
v.
2.
as
out
of
a
place
of
miserie
.
And
therefore
to
be
the
Kings
servants
,
in
the
places
cited
,
is
some
other
thing
then
to
be
he
Kings
slaves
.
4.
The
Master
might
in
some
cases
sell
the
servant
for
money
,
yea
for
his
own
gain
he
might
doe
it
,
Nehem.
5.
8.
Eccles.
2.
7.
1
King
.
2.
32.
G●n
9
25.
Gen.
26
▪
14.
2
King
.
4.
1.
Gen.
20.
14.
and
might
give
away
his
servants
;
and
the
servants
were
the
proper
goods
and
riches
of
the
master
,
Eccles.
2.
7.
Gen.
30.
43.
Gen.
20.
14.
Job
.
1.
3.
15.
But
the
King
may
not
sell
his
Kingdome
or
Subjects
,
or
give
them
away
for
money
,
or
any
other
way
;
for
Royalists
grant
that
King
to
be
a
Tyrant
,
and
worthy
to
be
dethroned
,
who
shall
sell
his
people
:
for
the
King
may
not
delapidate
the
rents
of
the
Crown
,
and
give
them
away
to
the
hurt
and
prejudice
of
his
successors
,
L.
ult.
Sect.
sed
nostr.
C.
Comment.
de
lege
,
l.
pet●
.
69.
Sect.
fratrom
de
lege
,
2.
l.
32.
ul●imo
.
D.
T.
and
farre
lesse
can
he
lawfully
sell
men
,
and
give
away
a
whole
Kingdome
to
the
hurt
of
his
successours
,
for
that
were
to
make
merchandize
of
the
living
Temples
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
And
Arnisaus
,
de
authorit.
Princip.
c.
3.
n.
7.
saith
,
Servitude
is
praeter
naturam
,
beside
nature
;
he
might
have
said
,
contrary
to
nature
,
l.
5.
de
stat
▪
homin.
Sect.
2.
Iust.
de
jur
.
perso
.
c.
3.
&
Novel.
89.
but
the
subjection
of
subjects
is
so
consonant
to
nature
,
that
it
is
seen
in
Bees
and
Cranes
.
Therefore
a
dominion
is
defined
a
facultie
of
using
of
things
to
what
uses
you
will
.
Now
a
man
hath
not
this
way
an
absolute
dominion
over
his
beasts
,
to
dispose
of
them
at
his
will
;
for
a
good
man
hath
mercy
on
the
life
of
his
beast
,
Prov.
12.
10.
nor
hath
he
dominion
over
his
goods
to
use
them
as
he
will
,
because
he
may
not
use
them
to
the
dammage
of
the
Commonwealth
,
he
may
not
use
them
to
the
dishonour
of
God
;
and
so
God
and
the
Magistrate
hath
laid
some
bound
on
his
dominion
.
And
because
the
King
being
made
a
King
,
leaveth
not
off
to
be
a
reasonable
creature
,
he
must
be
under
a
Law
,
and
so
his
will
and
lust
cannot
be
the
rule
of
his
power
The
Prelate
objecteth
out
of
Spalato
,
Arnisaeus
,
and
Hug.
Grotius
,
hath
the
same
de
jur
.
bel
.
&
pacis
,
l.
1.
c.
3.
(
for
in
his
booke
there
is
not
one
line
which
is
his
own
,
except
his
raylings
)
1.
All
government
and
superioritie
in
Rulers
is
not
primely
and
only
for
the
Subjects
good
:
for
some
are
by
God
and
Nature
appointed
for
the
mutuall
and
inseperable
good
of
the
superiour
and
inferiour
,
as
in
the
government
of
husband
and
wife
,
or
father
and
sonne
;
and
in
herili
dominio
,
in
the
government
of
a
Lord
and
his
servant
,
the
good
and
benefit
of
the
servant
is
but
secondary
and
consecutively
intended
,
it
is
not
the
principall
end
,
but
the
externall
and
advent●tious
,
as
the
gaine
that
commeth
to
a
Physitian
,
is
not
the
proper
and
internall
end
of
his
art
,
but
followeth
only
from
his
practice
of
Medicine
.
Ans.
The
Prelates
logick
tendeth
to
this
;
some
government
tendeth
to
the
mutuall
good
of
the
superior
and
inferior
,
but
Royall
Government
is
some
government
,
ergo
nothing
followeth
from
a
major
proposition
,
Ex
particulari
affirmante
,
in
prima
figura
.
Or
of
two
particular
propositions
.
2.
If
it
be
thus
formed
,
every
maritall
government
,
and
every
government
of
the
Lord
and
servant
is
for
the
mutuall
good
of
the
superiour
and
inferiour
:
But
Royall
Government
is
such
,
ergo
&c.
the
assumption
is
false
,
and
cannot
be
proved
,
as
I
shall
anon
cleare
.
2.
Obj.
Solomon
disposed
of
Cabul
,
and
gave
it
to
Hiram
,
ergo
a
conquered
Kingdome
is
for
the
good
of
the
conquerour
especially
.
Ans.
Solomons
speciall
giving
away
some
Titles
to
the
King
of
Tyre
,
being
a
speciall
fact
of
a
Prophet
as
well
as
a
King
,
cannot
warrant
the
King
of
England
to
sell
England
to
a
forraine
Prince
,
because
William
made
England
his
owne
by
conquest
;
which
also
is
a
most
false
supposition
:
and
this
he
stole
from
Hugo
Grotius
,
who
condemneth
selling
of
Kingdomes
.
3
Object
.
A
man
may
render
himselfe
totally
under
the
power
of
a
Master
,
without
any
conditions
:
and
why
may
not
the
body
of
a
people
doe
the
like
?
even
to
have
peace
and
safety
,
surrender
themselves
fully
to
the
power
of
a
King
?
A
lord
of
great
Mannours
may
admit
no
man
to
live
in
his
Lands
,
but
upon
a
condition
of
a
full
surrender
of
Answ.
What
compelled
people
may
do
to
redeem
their
lives
with
losse
of
liberty
,
is
nothing
to
the
point
;
such
a
violent
Conquerour
who
will
be
a
father
and
a
husband
to
a
people
,
against
their
will
,
is
not
their
lawfull
King
;
and
that
they
may
sell
the
liberty
of
their
posteritie
,
not
yet
born
,
is
utterly
denied
as
unlawfull
;
yea
,
a
violentated
father
to
me
is
a
father
,
and
not
a
father
,
and
the
posteritie
may
vindicate
their
own
liberty
given
away
unjustly
,
before
they
were
born
:
Qua
omne
regnum
vi
partum
potest
vi
dissolvi
.
Object
.
4.
But
(
saith
Doct.
Fern
)
these
which
are
ours
,
and
given
awa●
to
another
,
in
which
there
redoundeth
to
God
by
donation
a
speciall
interest
,
as
in
things
devoted
to
holy
uses
,
though
after
they
be
abused
,
yet
we
cannot
recall
them
.
Ergo
,
If
the
people
be
once
forced
to
give
away
their
liberty
,
they
cannot
recall
it
;
far
lesse
,
if
they
willingly
resign
it
to
their
Prince
.
Answ.
This
is
not
true
,
when
the
power
is
given
for
the
conservation
of
the
Kingdom
,
and
is
abused
for
the
destruction
thereof
,
for
a
power
to
destruction
was
never
given
,
nor
can
it
by
rationall
nature
be
given
.
2.
Mortifications
given
to
religious
uses
by
a
positive
law
,
may
be
recalled
by
a
more
divine
and
stronger
law
of
nature
,
such
as
is
this
:
I
will
have
mercy
and
not
sacrifice
.
Suppose
David
of
his
own
proper
heritage
,
had
given
the
Shew-bread
to
the
Priests
,
yet
when
David
and
his
men
are
famishing
,
he
may
take
it
back
from
them
against
their
will
.
Suppose
Christ
man
had
bought
the
Corns
,
and
dedicated
them
to
the
Altar
,
yet
might
he
and
his
Disciples
eat
the
Ears
of
Corn
in
their
hunger
.
The
vessels
of
silver
dedicated
to
the
Church
,
may
be
taken
and
bestowed
on
wounded
Souldiers
.
2.
A
people
free
may
not
,
and
ought
not
totally
surrender
their
liberty
to
a
Prince
,
confiding
on
his
goodnesse
;
1.
Because
liberty
is
a
condition
of
nature
,
that
all
rouring
Lyon
,
they
should
not
have
resigned
their
liberty
into
his
hand
;
and
therefore
the
surrender
was
tacitely
conditionall
to
the
King
as
meek
,
or
whom
they
beleeved
to
be
meek
,
and
not
to
a
tyrannous
Lord
;
and
therefore
,
when
the
contract
is
made
for
the
utilitie
of
the
one
party
,
the
law
saith
their
place
is
for
after
wits
,
that
men
may
change
their
minde
,
and
resume
their
liberty
,
though
if
they
had
given
away
their
liberty
for
money
,
they
cannot
recall
it
;
and
if
violence
made
the
surrender
of
liberty
,
here
is
slavery
,
and
slaves
taken
in
war
so
soon
as
they
can
escape
,
and
return
to
their
own
,
they
are
free
.
D.
Sect.
item
.
e●
Justit
.
de
rerum
divin
.
l.
nihil
.
F.
de
capt
.
l.
3.
So
the
learned
Ferdin
.
Vasquez
illustri
.
l.
2.
c.
82.
●
.
15.
saith
,
The
bird
that
was
taken
,
and
hath
escaped
,
is
free
;
nature
in
a
forced
people
,
so
soon
as
they
can
escape
from
a
violent
Conqueror
maketh
them
a
free
people
:
and
si
solo
tempore
(
saith
Ferd.
Vasquez
,
l.
2.
c.
82.
n.
6.
)
justificatur
subjectio
,
solo
tempore
facilius
justificabitur
liberatio
.
Assert
.
20.
All
the
Goods
of
the
Subjects
belongeth
not
to
the
meum
&
tuum
,
mine
and
thine
:
and
the
decalogue
forbidding
theft
,
and
coveting
the
wife
of
another
man
,
(
yet
is
she
the
wife
of
Peter
,
not
of
Thomas
by
free
election
,
not
by
an
act
of
natures
law
)
doth
evidence
to
us
,
that
the
division
of
things
is
so
far
forth
,
(
men
now
being
in
the
state
of
sin
)
of
the
law
of
nature
,
that
it
hath
evident
ground
in
the
Law
of
nations
;
and
thus
farre
naturall
,
that
the
heat
that
I
have
from
my
own
coat
and
cloak
,
and
the
nourishment
from
my
own
meat
,
are
physically
incommunicable
to
any
[
*
](A92147-e46790-b)
*
Quod
jure
gentium
dicitur
.
F.
de
justi
tia
&
jure
.
l.
ex
hee
.
Quod
partim
jure
civili
.
Iusti
.
de
rerum
divisio
.
sect.
singulorum
.
.
But
I
hasten
to
prove
the
Proposition
:
If
1.
I
have
leave
to
premit
,
that
in
time
of
necessitie
all
things
are
common
by
Gods
Law
:
A
man
travelling
,
might
eat
Grapes
in
his
neighbours
vineyard
,
though
he
was
not
licenced
to
carry
any
away
.
I
doubt
if
David
wanting
money
,
was
necessitated
to
pay
money
for
the
Shew-bread
,
or
for
Goliahs
sword
,
supposing
these
to
be
the
very
Goods
of
private
men
,
and
ordinarily
to
be
bought
and
sold
:
natures
Law
in
extremity
,
for
self
preservation
,
hath
rather
a
Prerogative
Royall
above
all
Laws
of
Nations
,
and
all
civill
Laws
then
any
mortall
King
;
and
therefore
by
the
civill
Law
,
all
are
the
Kings
,
in
case
of
extreme
necessity
;
in
this
meaning
,
any
one
man
is
obliged
to
give
all
he
hath
for
the
good
of
the
Common-wealth
,
and
so
far
the
good
of
the
King
,
in
as
farre
as
he
is
head
and
father
of
the
Common-wealth
[
*
](A92147-e46820-b)
*
L.
item
si
verberatum
.
F.
de
rei
vindicat
.
Ias
.
plene
m.
l.
Barbarius
.
F.
de
o●fici
.
praetor
.
all
the
goods
of
the
people
are
the
Kings
in
a
fourfold
notion
,
but
not
in
propriety
.
.
2.
All
things
are
the
Kings
,
in
regard
of
his
publike
power
,
to
defend
all
men
,
and
their
Goods
from
unjust
violence
.
3.
All
are
the
Kings
in
regard
of
his
Act
of
conservation
of
Goods
,
for
the
use
of
the
just
owner
.
4.
All
are
the
Kings
in
regard
of
a
legall
limitation
,
in
case
of
a
dammage
,
offered
to
the
Common-wealth
,
justice
requireth
confiscation
of
Goods
for
a
fault
;
but
confiscated
Goods
are
to
help
the
interessed
Common-wealth
,
and
the
King
,
not
as
a
man
(
to
bestow
them
on
his
children
)
but
as
a
King
;
to
this
we
may
referre
these
called
bona
cadu●a
&
inventa
,
things
losed
by
Shipwrack
,
or
any
other
providence
,
Vlpian
.
tit.
19.
t.
c.
de
bonis
vacantibus
.
C.
de
Thesauro
.
And
the
Reasons
why
private
men
are
just
Lords
and
proprietors
of
their
own
Goods
,
are
,
1.
Because
by
order
of
nature
,
division
of
Goods
cometh
neerer
to
natures
law
,
and
necessity
,
then
any
King
or
Magistrate
in
the
world
;
for
because
it
is
agreeable
to
nature
,
that
every
man
be
warmed
by
his
own
fleece
,
nourished
by
his
own
meat
;
therefore
to
conserve
every
mans
Goods
to
the
just
owner
,
and
to
preserve
a
communitie
from
the
violence
of
rapine
and
theft
,
a
Magistrate
and
King
was
devised
.
So
it
is
clear
,
men
are
just
owners
of
their
own
Goods
,
by
all
good
order
,
both
of
nature
and
time
,
before
there
be
any
such
thing
as
a
King
or
Magistrate
.
Now
if
it
be
good
that
every
man
enjoy
his
own
Goods
,
as
just
proprietor
thereof
for
his
own
use
,
before
there
be
a
King
,
who
can
be
proprietor
of
his
Goods
,
and
a
King
being
given
of
God
for
a
blessing
,
not
for
any
mans
hurt
and
losse
;
the
King
cometh
in
to
preserve
a
mans
Goods
,
but
not
to
be
lord
and
owner
thereof
himself
,
nor
to
take
from
any
man
Gods
right
to
his
own
Goods
.
2.
When
God
created
man
at
the
beginning
,
he
made
all
the
meum
&
tuum
,
mine
and
thine
,
as
proper
to
every
particular
man
,
and
the
introduction
of
Kings
cannot
overturn
natures
foundation
;
neither
civility
,
nor
grace
destroyeth
,
but
perfiteth
nature
:
and
if
a
man
be
not
born
a
King
,
because
he
is
a
man
,
he
cannot
be
born
the
possessour
of
my
Goods
.
3.
What
is
a
Character
,
and
note
of
a
Tyrant
,
and
an
oppressing
Thus
saith
the
Lord
,
Let
it
suffice
you
,
O
Princes
of
Israel
:
remove
violence
and
spoil
,
and
execute
judgement
and
justice
,
take
away
your
exactions
from
my
people
,
saith
the
Lord
,
Vers.
10.
Ye
shall
have
just
ballances
,
and
a
just
Ephah
,
and
a
just
bath
.
If
all
be
the
Kings
,
he
is
not
capable
of
extortion
and
rapine
,
Micah
3.
2.
God
complaineth
of
the
violence
of
Kings
:
Is
it
not
for
you
to
know
judgement
?
Vers.
3.
Who
eat
the
flesh
of
my
people
,
and
flea
their
skins
from
off
them
,
and
they
break
their
bones
,
and
chop
them
in
pieces
,
as
for
the
pot
,
and
as
flesh
within
the
chaldron
,
Isai
.
3.
The
answer
of
Hybreas
to
a
extorting
Prince
Autonius
.
Argum.
4.
Species
enim
furti
est
de
alieuo
largiri
,
&
beneficii
debitorem
sihi
acquirere
,
L.
si
pignore
,
sect.
de
furt
.
14.
Zeph.
3.
3.
and
was
it
not
an
act
of
tyranny
in
King
Achab
,
to
take
the
vineyard
of
Naboth
,
and
in
King
Saul
?
1
Sam.
8.
14.
to
take
the
people
of
Gods
fields
and
vineyards
,
and
olive-yards
,
and
give
them
to
their
servants
?
Was
it
a
just
fault
that
Hybreas
objected
to
Antonius
,
exacting
two
tributes
in
one
yeer
,
that
he
said
,
If
thou
must
have
two
tributes
in
one
yeer
,
then
make
for
us
two
Summers
and
two
Harvests
,
in
one
yeer
?
This
cannot
be
just
;
if
all
be
the
Kings
,
the
King
taketh
but
his
own
.
4.
Subjects
under
a
Monarch
could
not
give
alms
,
nor
exercise
works
of
charity
;
for
charity
must
be
my
own
,
Isai.
58.
7.
Is
it
not
to
deal
thy
bread
to
the
hungry
?
&c.
Eccles.
11.
1.
Cast
thy
bread
into
the
waters
;
and
the
Law
saith
,
It
is
theft
to
give
of
another
mans
to
the
poor
:
yea
,
the
distinction
of
poor
and
rich
,
should
have
no
place
under
a
Monarchie
,
he
onely
should
be
rich
.
5.
When
Paul
commandeth
us
to
pay
tribute
to
Princes
,
Rom.
13.
because
they
are
the
Ministers
of
God
,
he
layeth
this
ground
,
That
the
King
hath
not
all
,
but
that
the
subjects
are
to
give
to
him
of
their
goods
.
6.
It
is
the
Kings
place
,
by
justice
to
preserve
every
man
in
his
7.
Even
Pharaoh
could
not
make
all
the
victuall
of
the
land
his
L.
actius
,
C.
de
servit
.
&
aqua
.
&
Joan.
And.
m.
C.
F.
de
ind
.
&
hosti
.
in
C.
minus
de
jur
.
8.
If
the
subjects
had
no
proprietie
in
their
own
goods
,
but
all
F.
de
Noxali
.
act.
l.
2.
F.
ad
legem
aquil
.
When
he
maketh
any
Covenant
,
he
is
not
obliged
civilly
to
keep
it
,
because
the
condition
of
a
servant
,
he
not
being
sui
juris
,
is
compared
to
the
state
of
a
beast
,
though
he
be
obliged
by
a
naturall
obligation
,
being
a
rationall
Creature
,
in
regard
of
the
law
of
nature
,
L.
naturaliter
,
L.
si
id
quod
,
L.
interdum
,
F.
de
cond.
indebit
.
cum
aliis
.
2.
The
subject
could
not
by
Solomon
be
forbidden
to
be
suretie
for
his
friend
;
as
King
Solomon
doth
counsell
,
Prov.
6.
1
,
2
,
3.
he
could
not
be
condemned
to
bring
on
himself
poverty
by
sluggishnesse
,
as
Prov.
6.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9
,
10.
nor
were
he
to
honour
the
Lord
with
his
riches
,
as
Prov.
3.
9.
nor
to
keep
his
Covenant
,
though
to
his
losse
,
Psal.
15.
4.
nor
could
he
be
mercifull
and
lend
,
Psal.
37.
26.
nor
had
he
power
to
borrow
;
nor
could
he
be
guiltie
in
not
paying
all
again
,
Psal.
37.
21.
For
subjects
under
a
Monarch
,
can
neither
perform
a
duty
,
nor
fail
in
a
duty
,
in
the
matter
of
Goods
;
If
all
be
the
Kings
,
what
power
or
dominion
hath
the
subject
in
disposing
of
his
Princes
Goods
?
See
more
in
Petr.
Rebuffus
,
tract
.
congruae
portionis
,
num.
225.
pag.
109
,
110.
Sed
quoad
dominiumrerum
,
&c.
QUEST.
XVII
.
Whether
or
not
the
Prince
have
properly
a
fiduciarie
,
and
ministeriall
power
of
a
Tutor
,
Husband
,
Patron
,
Minister
,
head
,
father
of
a
family
,
not
of
a
Lord
or
dominator
?
THat
the
power
of
the
King
is
fiduciarie
,
that
is
given
to
him
1.
Assertion
.
The
King
is
more
properly
a
Tutor
then
a
Father
,
every
one
eate
the
flesh
of
his
brother
,
therefore
God
hath
appointed
a
King
or
governour
,
who
shall
take
care
of
that
community
,
rule
them
in
peace
,
and
save
all
from
reciprocation
of
mutuall
acts
of
violence
,
yet
so
,
as
because
a
trust
is
put
on
the
Ruler
of
a
community
,
which
is
not
his
heritage
,
he
cannot
dispose
of
it
as
he
pleaseth
,
because
he
is
not
the
proper
owner
of
the
inheritance
.
2.
The
Pupill
when
he
commeth
to
age
,
may
call
his
Tutor
to
an
accompt
for
his
administration
;
I
doe
not
acknowledge
that
as
a
truth
,
which
Arnisaeus
saith
,
De
authoritate
.
prin.
c.
3.
n.
5.
The
Common-wealth
is
alwaies
minor
,
and
under
Tutory
,
because
it
alway
hath
need
of
a
curator
and
governour
,
and
can
never
put
away
its
governour
,
but
the
pupill
may
grow
to
age
and
wisedome
,
so
as
he
may
be
without
all
Tu●ors
,
and
can
guide
himselfe
,
and
so
may
call
in
question
his
Tutor
,
and
the
pupill
cannot
be
his
Iudge
;
but
must
stand
to
the
sentence
of
a
superiour
Iudge
,
and
so
the
people
cannot
judge
or
punish
their
Prince
,
God
must
be
Iudge
betwixt
them
both
.
But
this
is
1.
a
begging
of
the
question
,
every
comparison
halteth
,
no
community
but
it
is
Major
in
this
,
that
it
can
appoint
its
owne
Obj.
The
Pupill
hath
not
power
to
appoint
his
owne
Tutor
,
nor
doth
he
give
power
to
him
,
so
neither
doth
the
people
give
it
to
the
King
.
Ans.
The
Pupill
hath
not
indeed
a
formall
power
to
make
a
Tutor
,
but
he
hath
vertually
a
legall
power
in
his
father
,
who
appointeth
a
Tutor
for
his
sonne
,
and
the
people
have
vertually
all
Royall
power
in
them
,
as
in
a
sort
of
immortall
and
eternall
fountain
,
and
may
create
to
themselves
many
Kings
.
Asser
.
2.
The
Kings
power
is
not
properly
and
univocally
a
Maritall
Royall
Power
is
a
politick
constitution
,
and
the
world
might
have
subsisted
,
though
Aristocracy
or
Democracy
had
been
the
only
and
perpetuall
governments
.
So
let
the
Prelate
glory
in
his
borrowed
Logick
,
he
had
it
from
Barclay
.
It
is
not
in
the
power
of
the
Wife
to
repudiat
her
Husband
,
though
never
so
wicked
,
she
is
tyed
to
him
for
ever
,
and
may
not
give
to
him
a
bill
of
Divorcement
,
as
by
Law
the
Husband
might
give
to
her
;
if
therefore
the
people
sweare
loyalty
to
him
,
they
must
keep
,
though
to
their
hurt
.
Ps.
15.
Aas
.
There
's
nothing
here
said
,
except
Barclay
and
the
Plagiarie
prove
,
that
the
Kings
Power
is
properly
a
Husbands
power
,
which
they
cannot
prove
,
but
from
a
Simile
that
crooketh
;
but
a
King
elected
upon
conditions
,
that
if
he
sell
his
people
,
he
shall
lose
his
Crown
,
is
as
essentially
a
King
,
as
Adam
was
Evahs
Husband
,
and
yet
by
grant
of
parties
,
the
people
may
devorce
from
such
a
King
,
and
dethrone
him
,
if
he
sell
his
people
;
but
a
Wife
may
never
devorce
from
her
Husband
,
as
the
Argument
saith
.
And
this
poore
Argument
the
Prelate
stole
from
Dr.
Ferne
,
part
2.
Sec.
3.
pag.
10
,
11.
2.
The
keeping
of
Covenant
though
to
our
hu●t
,
is
a
penall
hurt
,
and
losse
of
goods
,
not
a
morall
hurt
,
and
losse
of
Religion
.
Assert
.
3.
The
King
is
more
properly
a
sort
of
Patron
,
to
defend
God
to
thee
for
good
;
he
is
the
Common-wealths
servant
objectively
,
because
all
the
Kings
Obj.
He
is
the
servant
of
God
,
ergo
he
is
not
the
peoples
Servant
,
but
their
soveraigne
Lord
.
Ans.
It
followeth
not
,
because
all
the
service
the
King
as
King
performeth
to
God
,
they
are
acts
of
Royalty
,
and
acts
of
Royall
service
,
as
terminated
on
the
people
;
or
acts
of
their
Soveraigne
Lord
,
and
this
proveth
that
to
be
their
Soveraigne
,
is
to
be
their
servant
,
and
watch-man
.
Object
.
2.
God
maketh
a
King
only
,
and
the
Kingly
power
is
in
him
only
,
not
in
the
people
.
Ans.
The
Royall
power
is
only
from
God
,
immediatly
,
Immediatione
simplicis
constitutionis
,
&
solum
a
Deo
solitudine
primae
causae
,
by
the
immediation
of
simple
constitution
,
none
but
God
appointed
there
should
be
▪
Kings
;
but
2.
Royall
power
is
not
in
God
,
nor
only
from
God
;
immediatione
applicationis
regiae
dignitatis
ad
personam
,
nec
a
Deo
solum
,
solitudine
▪
causae
applicantis
dignitatem
,
huic
,
non
illi
,
in
respect
of
the
applying
of
Royall
dignity
to
this
person
,
not
to
this
.
Object
.
3.
Though
Royall
power
were
given
to
the
people
,
it
is
not
given
to
the
people
,
as
if
it
were
the
Royal
power
of
the
people
,
and
not
the
Royall
power
of
God
,
neither
is
it
any
other
waies
bestowed
on
the
people
but
as
on
a
beame
,
a
channell
,
an
instrument
,
by
which
it
is
derived
to
others
,
and
so
the
King
is
not
the
minister
or
servant
of
the
people
.
Ans.
It
is
not
in
the
people
as
in
the
principall
cause
;
Sure
all
Royall
power
that
way
is
only
in
God
;
but
it
is
in
the
people
as
in
the
instrument
:
and
when
the
people
maketh
David
their
King
at
Hebron
,
in
that
same
very
act
,
God
by
the
people
using
their
free
suffrages
and
consent
,
maketh
David
King
at
Hebron
:
so
God
only
giveth
raine
,
and
none
of
the
vanities
and
supposed
gods
of
the
Gentiles
can
give
raine
,
Ier.
14.
22.
and
yet
the
Clouds
also
give
raine
,
as
nature
,
as
an
organ
and
vessell
out
of
which
God
powreth
down
raine
upon
the
dry
earth
,
Amos
9.
5.
and
every
instrument
under
God
,
that
is
properly
an
instrument
▪
is
a
sort
of
Vicarious
cause
in
Gods
room
,
and
so
Holy
Ghost
,
who
teach
that
the
people
doe
not
make
the
King
;
for
Israel
made
Saul
King
at
Mizpeh
,
and
Israel
made
David
King
at
Hebron
.
Object
.
3.
Israel
made
David
King
,
that
is
,
Israel
designed
Davids
person
to
be
King
,
and
Israel
consented
to
Gods
act
of
making
David
King
,
but
they
did
not
make
David
King
.
Ans.
I
say
not
that
Israel
made
the
Royall
dignitie
of
Kings
:
David
King
at
Hebron
,
by
which
David
of
no
King
is
made
formally
a
King
:
and
then
another
act
of
the
People
,
approving
only
and
consenting
to
that
act
of
God
,
whereby
David
is
made
formally
of
no
King
to
be
a
King
.
This
Royalists
shall
never
instruct
,
for
there
be
only
two
acts
of
God
here
;
1.
Gods
act
of
annointing
David
by
the
hand
of
Samuel
;
and
2.
Gods
act
of
making
David
King
at
Hebron
:
and
a
third
they
shall
never
give
.
But
the
former
is
not
that
by
which
David
was
essentially
and
formally
changed
from
the
state
of
a
private
subject
,
and
no
King
,
into
the
state
of
a
publike
Judge
and
supreme
Lord
and
King
,
for
(
as
I
have
proved
)
after
this
act
of
annointing
of
David
King
,
he
was
designed
only
and
set
apart
to
be
King
in
the
Lords
●it
time
;
and
after
this
annointing
,
he
was
no
more
formally
a
King
then
Doeg
or
Nabal
were
Kings
,
but
a
subject
who
called
Saul
the
Lords
anointed
and
King
,
and
obeyed
Saul
as
another
subject
doth
his
King
:
but
it
is
certaine
God
by
no
other
act
made
David
King
at
Hebron
,
then
by
Israels
act
of
free
electing
him
to
be
King
and
leader
of
the
Lords
people
,
as
God
by
no
other
act
sendeth
down
rain
on
the
earth
,
but
by
Gods
melting
the
clouds
,
and
causing
raine
to
fall
on
the
earth
:
and
therefore
to
say
Israel
made
David
King
at
Hebron
,
that
is
,
Israel
approved
only
and
consented
to
a
prior
act
of
Gods
making
David
King
,
is
all
one
as
to
say
Saul
prophecied
,
that
is
,
Saul
consented
to
a
prior
act
of
the
Spirit
of
God
who
prophecied
:
and
Peter
preached
,
Act.
2.
that
is
,
Peter
approved
and
consented
to
the
Holy
Ghosts
act
of
preaching
.
Which
to
say
,
is
childish
.
Assert
.
4.
The
King
is
an
head
of
the
Commonwealth
only
metaphorically
,
King
Nero
may
waste
and
destroy
his
people
.
D.
Ferne
,
M.
Simmons
,
the
P.
Prelate
,
when
they
draw
arguments
from
the
head
,
do
but
dream
,
as
the
members
should
not
resist
the
head
.
Naturall
members
should
not
,
or
cannot
resist
the
head
,
though
the
hand
may
pull
a
tooth
out
of
the
head
,
which
is
no
small
violence
to
the
head
.
But
the
members
of
a
Politique
body
may
resist
the
Politique
head
.
2.
This
or
that
King
is
not
the
adequate
and
totall
Politique
head
of
the
Common-wealth
:
and
therefore
though
you
cut
off
a
Politique
head
,
there
's
nothing
done
against
nature
.
If
you
cut
off
all
Kings
of
the
Royall
line
,
and
all
Governors
Aristocraticall
,
both
King
and
Parliament
,
this
were
against
nature
;
And
a
Common-wealth
which
would
cut
off
all
Governors
,
and
all
Heads
,
should
goe
against
nature
,
and
run
to
ruine
quickly
.
I
conceive
a
societie
of
reasonable
men
cannot
want
Governours
.
6.
The
naturall
head
communicateth
life
,
sense
,
and
motion
to
the
members
,
and
is
the
seat
of
externall
and
internall
senses
:
the
King
is
not
so
.
Hence
Assert
.
5.
the
King
is
not
properly
the
head
of
a
family
,
de
Rep.
l.
5.
c.
5.
)
Nature
hath
one
intention
in
making
the
thumbe
,
another
intention
in
making
the
whole
hand
,
another
in
forming
the
body
:
so
there
is
on●
intention
of
the
God
of
nature
in
governing
of
one
man
,
another
in
governing
a
Familie
,
another
in
governing
a
Citie
:
nor
is
the
thumbe
King
of
all
the
members
:
so
domestick
government
is
not
Monarchicall
properly
.
1.
The
mother
hath
a
parentall
power
as
the
father
hath
,
Prov.
4.
5.
&
10.
3.
&
31.
17.
so
the
5.
Command
saith
,
Honour
thy
father
and
thy
mother
.
2.
Domestick
government
is
naturall
,
Monarchicall
politique
.
3.
Domestick
is
necessary
,
Monarchicall
is
not
necessary
,
other
governments
may
be
as
well
as
it
.
4.
Domestick
is
universall
,
Monarchicall
not
so
.
5.
Domesticall
hath
its
rise
from
naturall
instinct
without
any
farther
instruction
:
a
Monarchicall
government
is
not
,
but
from
election
,
choosing
one
Government
,
not
another
.
Hence
that
is
a
fiduciarie
power
,
or
a
power
of
trust
,
wherein
2.
My
life
and
Religion
,
and
so
my
Soule
,
in
some
cases
,
are
committed
to
the
King
as
to
a
publick
Watchman
,
even
as
the
flock
to
the
feeder
,
the
Citie
to
the
Watchmen
:
And
he
may
betray
it
to
the
Enemy
.
Ergo
,
he
hath
the
trust
of
Life
and
Religion
,
and
hath
both
tables
of
the
Law
in
his
custodie
,
ex
officio
,
to
see
that
other
men
then
himselfe
keep
the
Law
:
But
the
Law
is
not
the
Kings
own
,
but
given
to
him
in
trust
.
3.
He
who
receiveth
a
Kingdom
conditionally
,
may
be
dethroned
if
he
sell
it
,
or
put
it
away
to
any
other
is
a
fiduciarie
Patron
,
and
hath
it
only
in
trust
.
So
Hottoman
,
quest.
ill
.
1.
Ferdinand
.
Vasquez
,
illust.
quest.
l.
1.
c.
4.
Althusius
polit.
c.
24.
n.
35.
so
saith
the
law
of
every
Factor
or
Deputy
,
l.
40.
l.
63.
procur
.
l.
16.
C.
dict
.
1.
Antigonus
dixit
Regnum
esse
nobilem
servitutem
.
Tyberius
Caesar
called
the
Senate
,
Dominum
suum
,
his
Lord.
Suetonius
in
vita
Tiberii
,
c.
29.
QUEST.
XVIII
.
What
is
the
law
of
the
King
,
and
his
Power
?
1
Sam.
8.
11.
This
will
be
the
manner
of
the
King
who
shall
reigne
over
you
,
&c.
THis
place
,
1
Sam.
8
,
9.
and
v.
11.
The
law
or
manner
of
the
King
absolute
power
of
Kings
,
and
2.
the
unlawfulnesse
of
resistance
:
therefore
I
crave
leave
here
to
vindicate
the
place
,
and
to
make
it
evident
to
all
,
that
the
place
speaketh
for
no
such
matter
.
1.
[
a
](A92147-e49830-b)
a
Grotius
de
ju
.
bel
.
&
pacis
,
l.
1.
c.
4.
n.
3.
Hug.
Grotius
argueth
thus
:
that
by
this
place
,
the
people
oppressed
with
injuries
of
a
Tyrannous
King
,
have
nothing
left
them
but
prayers
and
cries
to
God
;
and
therefore
there
is
no
ground
for
violent
resisting
.
[
b
](A92147-e49900-b)
b
Barclaius
contra
Monarchom
.
l.
2.
p.
64.
Potostatem
intelligit
non
●a●
quae
competit
ex
praecepto
,
neque
etiam
quae
ex
permissu
est
,
quatenus
liberat
à
peccato
,
sed
quatenus
paenis
legalibus
●ximit
operantem
.
Barclay
will
have
us
to
distinguish
inter
officium
Regis
,
&
potestatem
,
between
the
Kings
office
,
and
the
Kings
power
:
And
he
will
have
the
Lord
here
speaking
,
not
of
the
Kings
office
,
what
he
ought
to
doe
before
God
,
but
what
power
a
King
hath
beside
and
above
the
power
of
Judges
,
to
tyrannize
over
the
people
,
so
as
the
people
hath
no
power
to
resist
it
.
He
will
have
the
Office
of
the
King
spoken
of
Deut.
17.
and
the
Power
of
the
King
,
1
Sam.
8
▪
and
that
power
which
the
People
was
to
obey
and
submit
unto
,
without
resisting
.
But
I
answer
,
1.
It
is
a
vaine
thing
to
distinguish
betwixt
the
office
and
the
power
;
for
the
power
is
either
a
power
to
rule
according
to
King
of
Kings
hath
given
to
all
Kings
under
him
:
and
this
is
a
power
of
the
Royall
office
of
a
King
,
to
governe
for
the
Lord
his
maker
;
or
this
is
a
power
to
doe
ill
,
and
Iudges
of
Israel
,
and
the
Kings
are
different
in
essence
and
nature
;
so
that
domination
is
so
essentiall
to
a
King
,
that
you
cannot
conceive
a
King
,
but
he
must
have
domination
,
whereas
the
Iudges
of
Israel
had
no
domination
over
the
people
.
Hence
I
argue
that
,
whereby
a
King
is
essentially
distinguished
from
a
Iudge
,
that
must
be
from
God
;
but
by
domination
,
which
is
a
power
to
oppresse
the
subject
,
a
King
is
essentially
distinguished
from
a
Iudge
of
Israel
.
Ergo
,
Domination
and
a
power
to
do
Acts
of
Tyranny
,
as
they
are
expressed
,
Verse
11
,
12
,
13.
and
to
oppresse
a
subject
,
is
from
God
,
and
so
must
be
a
lawfull
power
;
but
the
conclusion
is
absurd
,
the
assumption
is
the
doctrine
of
Barclay
:
The
major
proposition
I
prove
.
1.
Because
both
the
Iudge
and
the
King
was
from
God
,
for
God
gave
Moses
a
lawfull
calling
to
be
a
Iudge
,
so
did
he
to
Eli
,
to
Samuel
,
and
Deut.
17.
15.
the
King
is
a
lawfull
Ordinance
of
God
:
If
then
the
Judge
and
the
King
,
be
both
lawfull
Ordinances
,
and
if
they
differ
essentially
,
as
Barclay
saith
;
then
that
specifice
forme
which
distinguisheth
the
one
from
the
other
,
to
wit
,
Domination
and
a
power
to
destroy
the
subject
,
must
be
from
God
,
which
is
blasphemous
;
for
God
can
give
no
morall
power
to
do
wickedly
;
for
that
is
licence
,
and
a
power
to
sin
against
a
Law
of
God
,
which
is
absolutely
inconsistent
with
the
holinesse
of
God
;
for
so
the
Lord
might
deny
himself
,
and
dispence
with
sin
(
God
avert
such
blasphemies
.
)
Now
if
the
kingly
power
be
from
God
,
That
which
essentially
and
specifically
constituteth
a
King
,
must
be
from
God
,
as
the
Office
it self
is
from
God
:
And
[
d
](A92147-e50290-b)
d
Barclaius
,
l.
3
▪
c.
2.
Barclay
saith
expressely
,
That
the
kingly
power
is
from
God
,
and
that
same
which
is
the
specifice
form
,
that
constituteth
a
King
,
must
be
that
which
essentially
separateth
the
King
from
the
Iudge
,
if
they
be
essentially
different
,
as
Barclay
dreameth
.
Hence
have
we
this
jus
Regis
,
this
Manner
or
Law
of
the
King
,
to
tyrannize
and
oppresse
,
to
be
a
power
from
God
,
and
so
a
lawfull
power
;
by
which
you
shall
have
this
result
of
Barclayes
interpretation
,
That
God
made
a
Tyrant
as
well
as
a
King
.
3.
By
this
difference
that
Barclay
putteth
betwixt
the
King
and
the
Judge
,
the
Judge
might
be
resisted
;
for
he
had
not
this
power
of
domination
,
that
Saul
hath
,
contrary
to
Rom.
13.
2.
Exod.
22.
28.
and
20
,
12.
But
let
us
try
the
Text
first
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
word
cannot
inforce
us
to
expone
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
law
;
our
English
rendreth
,
Shew
them
the
manner
of
the
King
.
[
e
](A92147-e50520-b)
e
Arr.
Mon.
Haec
erit
ratio
Regis
.
Arri.
Montanus
turneth
it
ratio
Regis
.
I
grant
the
Seventy
render
it
,
[
f
](A92147-e50560-b)
f
70.
Interpret
.
Vatabul
.
judica
●is
judicium
&
consuetudinem
,
i.
mores
&
ib.
bis
moribus
&
hac
consuetudine
utentur
erga
vos
reges
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
Chalde
Paraphrase
saith
,
Statutum
regis
.
[
g
](A92147-e50600-b)
g
Chald.
Para.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
70.
Interp.
70.
Interp.
Hieronimus
translateth
it
jus
regis
;
so
Calvin
:
but
I
am
sure
the
Hebrew
both
in
words
and
sense
beareth
a
consuetude
;
yea
,
and
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
not
alwayes
a
law
,
as
Josh.
6.
14.
They
compassed
the
citi●
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
seven
times
.
70.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
2
King
.
17.
26.
They
know
not
the
manner
of
the
God
of
the
Land
,
Vers.
33.
They
served
their
●●n
gods
,
after
the
manner
of
the
Heathen
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
It
cannot
be
according
to
the
Law
or
right
of
the
Heathen
,
except
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
be
taken
in
an
evill
part
.
70.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Vers.
34.
Vntill
this
day
they
do
after
these
manners
,
1
Kings
18.
28.
Baals
Priests
cut
themselves
with
Knives
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
after
their
manner
.
70.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Gen.
40.
13.
Thou
shalt
give
the
cup
to
Pharaoh
,
according
as
thou
wast
wont
to
do
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Exod.
21.
19.
He
shall
deal
with
her
after
the
manner
of
daughters
,
1
Sam.
27.
11.
And
David
saved
neither
man
nor
woman
alive
,
to
bring
(
tydings
)
to
Gath
,
saying
,
So
did
David
,
and
so
will
his
manner
be
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
It
cannot
be
,
they
meaned
that
it
was
Davids
law
,
right
,
or
priviledge
to
spare
none
alive
,
1
Sam.
2.
13.
And
the
Priests
custome
with
the
people
was
,
&c.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
This
was
a
wicked
custome
,
not
a
law
,
and
the
70.
turneth
it
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
and
therefore
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
not
alwayes
taken
in
a
good
meaning
:
so
[
h
](A92147-e51030-b)
h
P.
Martyr
.
coment
.
1
Sam.
8.
verum
jus
regium
describit
in
Deut.
apud
Samuelem
autem
usurpatum
.
P.
Martyr
,
He
meaneth
here
of
an
usurped
law
,
saith
he
;
Calvin
[
l
](A92147-e51070-b)
l
Calvin
.
conc.
1
Sam.
8.
Non
jus
a
deo
prescriptum
,
sed
tyranidem
.
He
speaketh
not
of
Gods
,
law
here
(
saith
he
)
but
of
tyranny
.
[
k
](A92147-e51110-b)
k
Andr.
Rivetus
in
decal
.
●
.
20.
in●
.
mundat
.
p.
195.
And
Rivetus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
not
ever
jus
,
law
.
Sed
aliquando
morem
sive
modum
&
rationem
agendi
,
The
custome
and
manner
of
doing
,
so
Junius
[
l
](A92147-e51190-b)
l
Junius
annot.
in
1
Sam.
2
13.
and
Tremellius
.
[
m
](A92147-e51220-b)
m
Diodatus
annot.
1
Sam.
8.
3.
Diodatus
exponeth
jus
;
This
law
,
namely
(
saith
he
)
that
which
is
now
grown
to
a
common
custome
,
by
the
consent
of
nations
,
and
Gods
toleration
.
[
n
](A92147-e51280-b)
n
Glossa
interlinearis
.
The
interline
glosse
(
to
speak
of
Papists
)
exactionem
&
dominationem
;
The
extortion
and
domination
of
King
Saul
is
here
meant
.
[
o
](A92147-e51330-b)
o
Lyra
in
locum
,
hic
accipitur
jus
large
sumptum
quod
reputatur
jus
propter
malum
abusum
.
Nam
illa
quae
dieuntur
hic
de
jure
.
Reg
is
,
magis
contingunt
per
Tyranidem
.
Lyra
exponeth
it
tyranny
.
[
p
](A92147-e51360-b)
p
Tostatus
Abulens
.
in
1
Reg.
8.
q.
17.
deq.
21.
Tostatus
Abulens
.
He
meaneth
here
of
Kings
indefinitely
,
who
oppressed
the
people
with
taxes
and
tributes
,
as
Solomon
and
others
.
[
q
](A92147-e51430-b)
q
Cornelius
a
Lapid
.
in
locum
.
Cornelius
a
lapide
:
This
was
an
unjust
law
.
[
r
](A92147-e51450-b)
r
Cajetan
.
in
locum
.
Cajetanus
▪
calleth
it
,
tyranny
.
[
s
](A92147-e51480-b)
s
Hugo
Cardinal
.
in
loc.
Hugo
Cardinal
,
nameth
them
,
exactiones
&
servitutes
,
exactions
and
slaveries
:
And
[
t
](A92147-e51510-b)
t
Serrarius
in
locum
.
Serrarius
,
he
speaketh
not
here
,
Quid
Reges
jure
possint
,
What
they
may
do
by
right
and
law
;
Sed
quid
audeant
,
What
they
will
be
bold
to
do
,
and
what
they
tyrannically
decern
against
all
Laws
of
nature
and
humanitie
.
And
so
[
u
](A92147-e51540-b)
u
Thom.
Aquin
.
l.
3.
de
Regni
Princip.
c.
11.
speaketh
Tho.
Aquinas
:
[
x
](A92147-e51560-b)
x
Mendoza
,
jus
Tyrannorum
.
So
also
Mendoza
,
saith
he
,
speaketh
of
the
law
of
Tyrants
:
and
[
y
](A92147-e51590-b)
y
Clemens
Alexand.
pag.
26.
amongst
the
fathers
,
Clemens
Alexandrinus
saith
on
this
place
,
Non
humanum
pollicetur
dominum
,
sed
insolentem
daturum
minatur
tyrannum
,
He
promiseth
not
a
humane
Prince
,
but
threatneth
to
give
them
an
insolent
Tyrant
;
and
the
like
also
saith
[
z
](A92147-e51620-b)
z
Beda
,
l.
2.
expo
.
in
Samuel
.
Beda
.
And
an
excellent
[
a
](A92147-e51640-b)
a
Petrus
Rebuffus
tract
.
de
incongrua
.
prert
.
p.
110.
Osiander
,
he
setteth
not
down
the
Office
of
the
King
,
what
he
ought
to
be
,
but
what
manner
of
King
they
should
have
.
Pelican
.
that
ruled
by
will
,
not
by
law
.
Willet
.
Such
as
decline
to
Tyranny
.
Borhaius
,
Tyrants
,
not
Kings
.
Lawyer
,
Pet.
Rebuffus
saith
,
Etiam
loquitur
de
Tyranno
qui
non
erat
a
Deo
electus
.
And
that
he
speaketh
of
Sauls
Tyrannicall
usurpation
,
and
not
of
the
law
prescribed
by
God
,
Deut.
17.
I
prove
,
1.
He
speaketh
of
such
a
power
,
as
is
answerable
to
the
Acts
here
spoken
of
;
but
the
Acts
here
spoken
of
,
are
Acts
of
meere
tyranny
,
Vers.
11.
And
this
will
be
the
manner
of
your
King
,
that
shall
reign
over
you
,
he
will
take
your
sons
,
and
appoint
them
for
himself
,
for
his
Chariots
,
and
to
be
his
horsemen
,
and
some
shall
run
before
his
Chariots
:
Now
to
make
slaves
of
their
sons
,
was
an
Act
of
Tyranny
.
2.
To
take
their
fields
and
vineyards
,
and
oliveyards
from
them
,
and
give
them
to
his
servants
,
was
no
better
then
Ahabs
taking
Naboths
vineyard
from
him
,
which
by
Gods
law
he
might
not
lawfully
sell
,
except
in
the
case
of
extreme
povertie
,
and
then
in
the
yeer
of
Jubilee
,
he
might
redeem
his
own
inheritance
.
3.
Verse
15
,
16.
To
put
the
people
of
God
to
bondage
,
and
make
them
servants
,
was
to
deal
with
them
,
as
the
Tyrant
Pharaoh
did
.
4.
He
speaketh
of
such
a
law
,
the
execution
whereof
should
make
them
cry
out
to
the
Lord
,
because
of
their
King
:
but
the
execution
of
the
just
Law
of
the
King
,
Deut.
17.
is
a
blessing
,
and
not
a
bondage
which
should
make
the
people
cry
out
of
the
bitternesse
of
their
spirit
.
5.
It
is
clear
here
,
that
God
is
by
his
Prophet
,
not
instructing
the
King
in
his
duty
,
but
as
[
b
](A92147-e51840-b)
b
Rabb
.
Levi
Ben.
Gersom
.
in
1
Sam.
8.
Pezelius
in
exp
.
leg
.
Mosai
.
l.
4.
c.
8.
Tossan
.
in
not
.
Bibl.
Bosseus
de
Rep.
Christ
.
potest
.
supra
regem
,
c.
2.
n.
103.
Bodin
.
de
Rep.
l.
1.
c.
19.
Breutius
,
homil.
27.
in
1
Sam.
8.
Mos
regis
non
de
jure
,
sed
de
vulga●â
consuetudine
.
Rabbi
Levi
Ben.
Gersom
saith
,
Terrifying
them
from
their
purpose
of
seeking
a
King
,
and
foretelling
the
evil
of
punishment
that
they
should
suffer
under
a
tyrannous
King
;
But
he
speaketh
not
one
word
of
these
necessary
and
comfortable
Acts
of
favour
,
that
a
good
King
by
his
good
Government
was
to
do
for
his
people
,
Deut.
17.
15
,
16.
But
he
speaketh
of
contrary
facts
here
;
and
that
he
is
disswading
them
from
suiting
a
King
,
is
clear
from
the
Text.
1.
Because
he
saith
,
Give
them
their
will
;
but
yet
protest
against
their
unlawfull
course
.
2.
He
biddeth
the
Prophet
lay
before
them
the
tyranny
,
and
oppression
of
their
King
;
which
tyranny
Saul
exercised
in
his
time
,
as
the
story
sheweth
.
3.
Because
how
uneffectuall
Samuels
exhortation
was
,
is
set
down
,
Verse
19.
Neverthelesse
,
they
would
not
obey
the
voice
of
Samuel
,
but
said
,
Nay
,
but
we
will
have
a
King
over
us
;
if
Samuel
had
not
been
dehorting
them
from
a
King
,
how
could
they
be
said
in
this
,
to
refuse
to
heare
the
voice
of
Samuel
?
6.
The
ground
of
Barclay
and
Royalists
,
here
is
weak
,
For
they
say
,
that
the
people
sought
a
King
like
the
Nations
,
and
the
Kings
of
the
Nations
were
all
absolute
,
and
so
Tyrants
;
And
God
granted
their
unlawfull
desire
,
and
gave
them
a
Tyrant
to
reign
over
them
,
such
as
the
Nations
had
.
The
plain
contrary
is
true
,
they
sought
not
a
Tyrant
,
but
one
of
the
speciall
reasons
why
they
sought
a
King
,
was
to
be
freed
of
Tyranny
;
for
1
Sam.
8.
3.
Because
Samuels
sons
turned
aside
after
lucre
,
and
took
bribes
,
and
perverted
judgement
;
therefore
all
the
Elders
of
Israel
gathered
themselves
together
,
and
came
to
Samuel
,
to
Ramah
,
and
their
they
sought
a
King
.
7.
One
could
not
more
clearly
speak
with
the
mouth
of
a
false
Prophet
,
then
the
Author
of
active
and
passive
obedience
doth
,
while
he
Obed.
pag.
24.
will
have
Samuel
here
to
describe
a
King
,
and
to
say
;
yee
have
formerly
committed
one
errour
in
shaking
off
the
yoke
of
God
,
and
seeking
a
King
;
so
now
beware
you
fall
not
in
the
next
errour
,
in
casting
of
the
yoke
of
a
King
,
which
God
at
your
own
desire
hath
laid
on
you
;
for
God
hath
onely
power
,
both
to
make
and
unmake
Kings
;
therefore
prepare
your selves
patientlie
to
suffer
and
bear
.
Answ.
For
if
he
were
exhorting
to
patient
suffering
of
the
yoke
of
a
King
,
he
should
presume
it
were
Gods
revealed
and
regulating
will
,
that
they
should
have
a
King
;
But
the
scope
of
Samuels
Sermon
,
is
to
disswade
them
from
a
King
,
and
they
by
the
contrary
(
Verse
19.
say
they
)
Nay
,
but
we
will
have
a
King
;
and
there
not
one
word
in
the
Text
,
that
may
intimate
patience
under
the
yoke
of
a
King
.
2.
There
is
here
the
description
of
a
Tyrant
,
not
of
a
King
.
3.
Here
is
a
threatning
and
a
prediction
,
not
any
thing
that
smelleth
of
an
exhortation
.
Object
.
But
it
is
evident
,
that
God
teaching
the
people
how
to
behave
D.
Ferne.
3.
p.
Sect.
2.
pag.
10.
themselves
under
the
unjust
oppressions
of
their
King
,
he
sets
down
no
remedy
but
tears
,
crying
to
God
,
prayer
,
and
patience
;
therefore
resistance
is
not
lawfull
.
Answ.
Though
this
be
not
the
place
due
to
the
doctrine
of
Resistance
,
Gerson
in
trinprin●
.
sac
.
adu
.
lat.
par.
4.
Alp.
66.
lit
.
l.
cons
.
8.
Buchan
.
de
jure
regni
.
apud
Scot.
Chasson
.
cat
.
glo
.
mundi
cons.
24.
n.
162.
cons.
35.
Tholoss
.
l.
9.
c.
1.
Rossen
.
De
polus
Rep.
c.
2.
n.
10.
Magdeburg
.
in
trac
.
de
.
off
.
ma.
Crying
to
God
not
the
only
remedy
against
a
tyrant
.
yet
to
vindicate
the
place
;
I
say
,
there
is
not
one
word
of
any
lawfull
remedy
in
the
Text
,
onely
it
is
said
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Et
clamatis
in
illa
die
a
faciebus
regis
vestri
:
It
is
not
necessarily
to
be
exponed
of
praying
to
God
,
Iob
35.
9.
by
reason
of
the
multitude
of
the
oppression
,
They
make
the
oppressed
to
cry
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
clamare
faciunt
,
Isai.
15.
4.
And
Heshbon
shall
cry
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
The
armed
souldiers
of
Moab
shall
cry
out
.
There
is
no
other
word
here
,
then
doth
expresse
the
idolatrous
prayers
of
Moab
,
Isai.
17.
12.
and
Habbak.
2.
11.
The
stone
shall
cry
out
of
the
wall
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Deut.
22.
24.
You
shall
stone
the
maide
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
because
she
cryed
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
but
she
is
not
to
be
stoned
,
because
she
prayed
not
to
God
,
Ps.
18.
4.
Davids
enemies
cryed
,
and
there
was
none
to
save
,
even
to
the
Lord
,
and
he
heard
not
.
2.
Though
it
were
the
Prophets
meaning
,
they
cryed
to
the
Lord
,
yet
it
is
not
the
crying
of
a
people
humbled
,
and
in
faith
speaking
to
God
in
their
troubles
,
Zach.
7.
13.
They
cryed
,
and
I
will
not
heare
,
therefore
Royalists
must
make
crying
to
God
out
of
the
bitternesse
of
affliction
,
without
humiliation
and
faith
,
and
such
prayets
of
sinners
as
God
heareth
not
,
Psal.
18.
41.
Ioh.
9.
31.
Esay
17.
12.
to
be
the
only
remedy
of
a
people
oppressed
by
a
Tyrannous
King
;
now
it
is
certaine
,
God
prescribeth
no
unlawfull
meanes
to
an
oppressed
people
,
under
their
affliction
,
therefore
it
is
cleare
here
,
that
God
speaketh
only
of
evills
of
punishment
,
such
as
is
to
cry
in
trouble
,
and
not
be
heard
of
God
,
and
that
he
prescribeth
here
no
duty
at
all
,
nor
any
remedy
.
3.
All
Protestant
Divines
say
;
Ex
particulari
non
valet
argumentum
negativé
,
from
one
particular
place
,
a
negative
argument
is
not
good
.
This
remedy
is
not
written
in
this
particular
place
,
therefore
it
is
not
written
at
all
in
other
places
of
Scripture
;
so
1
Tim.
1.
19.
The
end
of
excommunication
is
,
that
the
party
excommunicated
may
learne
not
to
blaspheme
,
ergo
the
end
is
not
also
that
the
Church
be
not
infected
,
it
followeth
not
,
the
contrary
is
cleare
,
1
Cor.
5.
v.
6.
D.
Ferne
and
other
Royalists
teach
us
,
that
we
may
supplicate
and
make
prayers
to
a
Tyranous
King
.
2.
We
may
fly
from
a
tyranous
King
:
but
neither
supplicating
the
King
,
nor
flying
from
his
sury
shall
be
lawfull
meanes
left
by
this
Argument
,
because
these
meanes
are
no
more
in
this
text
(
where
Royalists
say
the
spirit
of
God
speaketh
of
purpose
of
the
meanes
to
be
used
against
Tyranny
)
then
violent
resisting
,
is
this
text
.
Barclay
,
Ferne
,
Grotius
,
Arnisaeus
,
the
P.
Prelate
following
them
saith
,
An
ill
King
is
a
punishment
of
God
,
for
the
sins
of
the
people
,
and
there
is
no
remedy
but
patient
suffering
.
Ans.
Truely
it
is
a
silly
Argument
.
The
Assyrians
comming
against
the
people
of
God
,
for
their
sins
,
is
a
punishment
of
God
,
Esa.
10.
5.
12.
13.
But
doth
it
follow
that
it
is
unlawfull
,
for
Israel
to
fight
and
resist
the
Assyrians
,
and
that
they
had
warrant
to
doe
no
other
thing
,
but
lay
downe
Armes
,
and
pray
to
God
,
and
fight
none
at
all
?
Is
there
no
lawfull
resisting
of
ills
of
punishment
,
but
meere
prayers
and
patience
?
The
Amalikites
came
out
against
Israel
for
their
sinnes
,
Senahkerib
against
Ezekiah
,
for
the
sins
of
the
people
.
Asa
his
enemies
fought
against
him
for
his
sins
,
and
the
peoples
sins
;
shall
Moses
and
the
people
,
Hezekiah
,
Asa
,
do
then
nothing
but
pray
and
suffer
?
Is
it
unlawfull
with
the
sword
to
resist
them
?
I
beleeve
not
,
Famine
is
often
a
punishment
of
God
in
a
Land
,
Amos.
4.
7
,
8.
is
it
therefore
in
famine
,
unlawfull
to
till
the
earth
,
and
seeke
bread
by
our
industry
and
are
we
to
doe
nothing
but
to
pray
for
daily
bread
?
It
is
a
vaine
Argument
.
Observe
therefore
the
wickednesse
of
Barclay
,
contra
Monarch
.
l.
2.
p.
56.
for
he
would
prove
,
that
a
power
of
doing
ill
,
and
that
without
any
punishment
to
be
inflicted
by
man
,
is
from
God
;
because
our
Lawes
punish
not
perjurie
,
but
leaveth
it
to
be
punished
of
God
,
l.
2.
l.
de
Reb.
cred
.
Cujacius
,
l.
2.
obs.
c.
19.
And
the
husband
in
Moses
his
law
,
had
power
to
give
a
bill
of
divorce
to
his
wife
,
and
send
her
away
;
and
the
husband
was
not
to
be
punished
.
And
also
Stewes
and
work-houses
for
harlots
,
and
to
take
usurie
,
are
tolerated
in
many
Christian
Commonwealths
,
and
yet
these
are
all
sorts
of
murthers
,
by
the
confession
of
Heathen
:
Ergo
,
(
saith
Barclaius
)
God
may
give
a
power
for
Tyrannous
acts
to
Kings
,
so
as
they
shall
be
under
no
punishment
to
be
inflicted
by
men
.
Ans.
All
this
is
an
argument
from
fact
.
1.
A
wicked
Magistracie
may
permit
perjurie
and
lying
in
the
Common-wealth
,
and
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
,
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
booke
,
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
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
,
inspride
by
God
to
temper
Monarchy
,
with
a
liberty
befitting
Gods
people
,
and
with
equity
toward
a
Nation
—
to
withstand
the
abuse
of
an
absolute
power
.
2.
Can
any
beleeve
Samuel
would
have
written
a
Law
of
Tyranny
,
and
put
that
booke
in
the
Arke
of
the
Covenant
before
the
Lord
,
to
be
kept
to
the
posterity
,
seeing
he
was
to
teach
both
King
and
people
the
good
and
the
right
way
,
1
Sam.
12.
23
,
24
,
25.
3.
Where
is
the
Law
of
the
Kingdome
called
a
Law
of
punishing
innocent
people
?
4.
To
write
the
duty
of
the
King
in
a
booke
,
and
apply
it
to
the
King
,
is
no
more
superfluous
,
nor
to
teach
the
people
the
good
and
the
right
way
out
of
the
Law
,
and
apply
generalls
to
persons
.
5.
There
is
nothing
in
the
Law
,
1
Sam.
8.
9.
11.
12.
of
the
peoples
patience
,
but
rather
of
their
impatient
crying
ou●
,
God
not
hearing
nor
helping
;
and
nothing
of
that
in
this
booke
,
for
any
thing
that
we
know
,
and
Iosephus
speaketh
of
the
Law
,
1
Sam.
8.
not
of
this
Law
,
1
Sam.
12.
QUEST.
XIX
.
Whether
or
no
the
King
be
in
Dignity
and
power
above
the
people
?
IN
this
grave
question
divers
considerations
are
to
be
pondered
.
1.
There
is
a
Dignity
materiall
in
the
people
scattered
,
they
being
2.
All
these
of
the
people
taken
collectively
having
more
of
God
,
as
being
representations
,
are
according
to
this
materiall
dignity
excellenter
then
the
King
,
because
many
are
excellenter
then
one
,
and
the
King
according
to
the
Magistraticall
and
Royall
Authority
he
hath
,
is
excellenter
then
they
are
,
because
he
partaketh
formally
of
Royalty
,
which
they
have
not
formally
.
3.
A
meane
or
medium
,
as
it
is
such
,
is
lesse
then
the
end
,
though
4.
A
King
and
leader
in
a
military
consideration
,
and
as
a
Governour
and
conserver
of
the
whole
Army
,
is
more
worth
then
ten
thousand
of
the
people
,
2
Sam.
18.
3.
5.
But
simply
and
absolutely
the
people
is
above
,
and
more
excellent
shepheard
to
feede
them
,
Ps.
78.
70
,
71
,
72
,
73.
the
Captaine
and
Leader
of
the
Lords
inheritance
,
1
Sam.
10.
1.
to
defend
them
,
the
Minister
of
God
for
their
good
,
Rom.
13.
4.
2.
The
Pilot
portion
of
the
Lords
inheritance
,
Deut.
32.
9.
the
sheepe
of
his
pasture
,
his
redeemed
ones
,
for
whom
God
gave
his
blood
,
Act.
20.
28.
And
the
killing
of
a
man
is
to
violate
the
Image
of
God
,
Gen.
9.
6.
and
therefore
the
death
and
destruction
of
a
Church
,
and
of
thousand
thousands
of
men
is
a
sadder
and
a
more
heavy
matter
then
the
death
of
a
King
,
who
is
but
one
man
.
4.
A
King
as
a
King
,
or
because
a
King
is
not
the
inheritance
of
God
,
King
of
Kings
,
and
Lord
of
Lords
;
yet
is
it
such
a
fruit
and
beam
of
Gods
greatnesse
,
as
may
consist
with
the
eternall
reprobation
of
the
party
loved
,
so
now
Gods
love
from
whence
he
communicateth
his
Image
,
representing
his
owne
holinesse
,
commeth
nearer
to
his
most
speciall
love
of
election
of
men
to
glory
.
5.
If
God
give
Kings
to
be
a
ransome
for
his
Church
,
and
if
he
b●cause
the
Church
of
more
worth
then
the
King
because
King
.
slay
great
Kings
for
their
sake
,
as
Pharaoh
King
of
Aegypt
,
Esa.
43.
3
and
Sihon
King
of
the
Amorites
,
and
Og
King
of
Bashan
,
Ps.
136.
18
,
19
,
20.
if
he
plead
with
Princes
and
Kings
for
destroying
his
people
,
Esa.
3.
v.
12
,
13
,
14.
if
he
make
Babylon
and
her
King
a
threshing-floore
,
for
the
violence
done
to
the
inhabitants
of
Zion
,
Ier.
51.
33
,
34
,
35.
then
his
people
as
his
people
,
must
be
so
much
dearer
and
more
precious
in
the
Lords
eyes
,
then
Kings
because
they
are
Kings
,
by
how
much
more
his
Justice
is
active
to
destroy
the
one
,
and
his
Mercy
to
save
the
other
.
Neither
is
the
Argument
taken
off
,
by
saying
the
King
must
in
this
question
be
compared
with
his
owne
people
;
not
a
forraigne
King
with
other
forraigne
people
over
whom
he
doth
not
Raigne
,
for
the
Argument
proveth
that
the
people
of
God
are
of
more
worth
then
Kings
as
Kings
;
and
Nebuchadnezer
and
Pharoah
for
the
time
were
Kings
to
the
people
of
God
,
and
forraigne
Kings
are
no
lesse
essentially
Kings
,
then
Kings
native
are
.
6.
Those
who
are
given
of
God
as
gifts
for
the
preservation
of
7.
That
which
is
eternall
,
and
cannot
politically
die
,
yea
which
one
generation
passeth
away
,
and
another
generation
man
who
is
King
,
dyeth
;
but
the
King
never
dyeth
,
because
some
other
,
either
by
birth
or
free
election
,
succeedeth
in
his
roome
.
But
I
answer
,
1.
People
by
a
sort
of
necessity
of
nature
succeedeth
to
People
,
generation
to
generation
,
except
Gods
judgement
,
contrary
to
nature
,
intervene
to
make
Babylon
no
people
,
and
a
land
that
shall
never
be
inhabited
,
(
which
I
both
believe
and
hope
for
,
according
to
Gods
word
of
Prophecie
)
But
a
King
by
a
sort
of
contingencie
succeedeth
to
Kings
:
for
nature
doth
not
ascertaine
us
there
must
be
Kings
to
the
worlds
end
;
because
the
essence
of
Governours
is
kept
safe
in
Aristocracie
and
Democracie
,
though
there
were
no
Kings
.
And
that
Kings
should
Althusius
polit.
c.
38.
n.
114.
saith
,
the
King
in
respect
of
office
is
worthier
then
the
people
;
(
but
this
is
but
an
accidentall
respect
)
but
as
the
King
is
a
man
,
he
is
inferior
to
the
people
.
But
,
8.
he
who
by
office
is
obliged
to
expend
himselfe
,
and
to
the
good
shepherd
,
Ioh.
10.
giveth
his
life
for
his
sheep
.
So
Saul
and
David
both
were
made
Kings
to
fight
the
Lords
battels
,
and
to
expose
their
lives
to
hazard
for
the
safetie
of
the
Church
and
people
of
God
.
But
the
King
by
office
is
obliged
to
expend
his
life
for
the
safety
of
the
people
of
God
;
he
is
obliged
to
fight
the
Lords
battels
for
them
,
to
goe
betwixt
the
Flock
and
death
,
as
Paul
was
willing
to
be
spent
for
the
Church
.
It
may
be
objected
,
Jesus
Christ
gave
himselfe
a
Ransome
for
his
Church
,
and
his
life
for
the
life
of
the
World
,
and
was
a
gift
given
to
the
world
,
Ioh.
3.
16.
&
4.
10.
and
he
was
a
meane
to
save
us
:
And
so
what
arguments
we
have
before
produced
to
prove
that
the
King
must
be
inferior
to
the
people
,
because
Catholike
Church
to
be
glorified
eternally
;
3.
not
his
blessed
Godhead
and
glorie
,
which
,
as
God
,
he
had
with
the
Father
from
eternitie
.
In
that
respect
Christ
hath
the
relation
of
a
servant
,
ransome
,
gift
,
and
some
inferioritie
in
comparison
of
the
Church
of
God
:
and
his
Fathers
glory
,
as
a
meane
,
is
inferior
to
the
end
,
but
Christ
materially
,
in
concreto
:
Christ
is
not
only
a
meane
to
save
his
Church
,
but
as
God
,
(
in
which
consideration
he
was
the
immortall
9.
Those
who
are
before
the
King
▪
and
may
be
a
People
without
a
King
,
must
be
of
more
worth
then
that
which
is
posteriour
,
2.
Asser
.
The
people
in
power
are
superiour
to
the
King
,
1.
because
Iun.
Brutus
,
q.
31.
Bucher
l.
1.
c.
16.
Author
.
Lib.
De
offic.
Magistr.
q.
6.
Henaenius
disp.
2.
n.
6.
Ioan.
Roffensis
Epist.
De
potest
.
pap
.
l.
2.
c.
5.
Spalato
de
Repu
.
Ecclesiast.
l.
6.
c.
2.
n.
31.
but
the
people
is
the
efficient
and
constituent
cause
,
the
King
is
the
effect
,
the
people
is
the
end
;
both
intended
of
God
to
save
the
people
,
to
be
a
healer
and
a
Physician
to
them
,
Esay
3.
v.
7.
and
the
people
appoint
and
create
the
King
out
of
their
indigence
,
to
preserve
themselves
from
mutuall
violence
.
Many
things
are
objected
against
this
,
1.
That
the
efficient
and
constituent
cause
is
God
,
and
the
people
is
only
the
instrumentall
cause
;
and
Spalato
saith
,
that
the
people
doth
indirectly
only
give
Kingly
power
,
because
God
,
at
their
act
of
election
,
ordinarily
giveth
it
.
Ans.
The
Scripture
saith
plainly
,
as
we
heard
before
,
the
people
made
Kings
,
and
if
they
doe
,
as
other
second
causes
produce
their
effects
,
it
is
all
one
that
God
as
the
principall
cause
maketh
Kings
,
else
we
should
not
argue
from
the
cause
to
the
effect
amongst
the
creatures
.
2.
God
by
that
same
action
that
the
people
createth
Kings
,
ergo
they
have
in
them
Royall
power
to
give
to
the
King
;
those
who
limit
power
,
can
take
away
so
many
degrees
of
Royall
power
,
and
those
who
can
take
away
power
,
can
give
power
;
and
it
is
unconceiveable
,
to
say
that
people
Holy
Ghost
should
give
Commandement
Royall
Power
,
for
it
is
every
way
of
the
same
nature
and
kind
,
and
as
I
shall
prove
,
Kings
and
Iudges
differ
not
in
nature
and
spece
,
but
it
is
experienced
that
people
doe
,
by
Aristocraticall
guides
,
governe
themselves
,
&c.
so
then
,
if
God
immediatly
infuse
Royalty
,
when
the
people
chooseth
a
King
,
without
any
action
of
the
people
,
then
must
God
immediatly
infuse
a
beame
of
governing
on
a
Provost
and
a
Bailiffe
,
when
the
people
choose
such
,
and
that
without
any
action
of
the
people
,
because
all
Powers
are
,
in
abstracto
,
from
God
,
Rom.
13.
2.
and
God
as
immediatly
maketh
inferiour
Iudges
,
as
superiour
,
Prov.
8.
16.
and
all
promotion
,
even
to
be
a
Provost
or
Major
,
commeth
from
God
only
,
as
to
be
a
King
,
except
Royalists
say
,
all
promotion
commeth
from
the
East
,
and
from
the
West
,
and
not
from
God
,
except
promotion
to
the
Royall
Throne
,
the
contrary
whereof
is
said
,
Ps.
75.
6
,
7.
1
Sam.
2.
7
,
8.
not
only
Kings
,
but
all
Judges
are
Gods
,
Ps.
82.
1
,
2.
and
therefore
all
must
be
the
same
way
created
and
moulded
of
God
,
except
by
Scripture
Royalists
can
shew
us
a
difference
.
An
English
Prelate
giveth
People
,
who
are
said
to
make
Kings
as
efficients
,
and
Authors
,
cannot
unmake
them
:
the
one
is
,
because
God
as
chief
and
sole
supreame
Moderator
maketh
Kings
,
but
I
say
,
Christ
as
the
chiefe
Moderator
,
and
head
of
the
Church
,
doth
immediatly
conferre
abilities
to
a
man
to
be
a
Preacher
,
and
though
by
industry
the
man
acquire
abilities
,
yet
in
regard
the
Church
doth
not
so
much
as
instrumentally
conferre
those
abilities
,
they
may
be
said
to
come
from
God
immediatly
,
in
relation
to
the
Church
,
who
calleth
the
man
to
the
ministery
,
yea
Royalists
,
as
our
excommunicated
Prelate
learned
Balaam
,
Caiaphas
and
others
,
yet
they
may
lose
that
talent
by
digging
it
in
the
earth
,
and
be
deprived
by
the
Church
.
his
character
goe
to
prison
with
him
:
we
seeke
no
more
but
to
anull
the
reason
.
God
immediatly
maketh
Kings
and
Pastors
,
ergo
no
power
on
earth
can
unmake
them
;
this
consequence
is
as
weake
as
water
.
2.
The
other
cause
is
,
because
God
hath
erected
no
Tribunall
on
earth
higher
then
the
Kings
Tribunall
,
ergo
no
power
on
earth
can
unmake
a
King
;
the
Antecedent
and
consequence
is
both
denyed
,
and
is
a
begging
of
the
question
:
for
the
Tribunall
that
made
the
King
is
above
the
King
.
2.
Though
there
be
no
Tribunall
formally
regall
and
Kingly
above
the
King
,
yet
is
there
a
Tribunall
vertuall
eminently
above
him
in
the
case
of
tyranny
,
for
the
States
and
Princes
have
a
Tribunall
above
him
.
3.
To
this
the
constituent
cause
is
of
more
power
and
dignity
then
borrowed
an
answer
from
Arnisaeus
,
and
Barclay
,
and
other
Royalists
,
and
saith
,
If
we
knew
any
thing
in
Law
,
or
were
ruled
by
reason
;
Every
constituent
(
saith
Arnisaeus
and
Barclay
more
accurately
then
the
P.
Prelate
had
a
head
to
transcribe
their
words
)
where
the
constituent
hath
resigned
all
his
power
in
the
hand
of
the
Prince
whom
he
constitutes
,
is
of
more
worth
,
and
power
,
then
he
in
whose
hand
they
resigne
the
power
:
so
the
proposition
is
false
.
The
servant
who
hath
constituted
his
Master
Lord
of
his
liberty
,
is
not
worthier
then
his
Master
whom
he
hath
made
his
Lord
,
and
to
whom
he
hath
given
himselfe
as
a
slave
;
for
after
he
hath
resigned
his
liberty
he
cannot
repent
,
he
must
keepe
covenant
though
to
his
hurt
:
yea
such
a
servant
is
not
only
not
above
his
Master
,
but
he
cannot
move
his
foot
without
his
Master
.
The
Governour
of
Britaine
(
saith
Arnisaeus
)
being
despised
by
King
Philip
,
resigned
himselfe
as
Vassall
to
King
Edward
of
England
,
but
did
not
for
that
make
himselfe
superiour
to
King
Edward
:
indeed
he
who
constituteth
another
under
him
as
a
Legat
,
is
superiour
;
but
the
people
doe
constitute
a
King
above
themselves
,
not
a
King
under
themselves
,
and
therefore
the
people
are
not
by
this
made
the
Kings
superiour
,
but
his
inferiour
.
Ans.
1.
It
is
false
that
the
people
doth
,
or
can
by
the
Law
of
nature
resigne
their
whole
liberty
in
the
hand
of
a
King
,
1.
they
cannot
resigne
to
others
that
which
they
have
not
in
themselves
,
Nemo
potest
dare
quod
non
habet
,
but
the
people
hath
not
an
absolute
power
in
themselves
to
destroy
themselves
,
or
to
exercise
those
tyrannous
acts
spoken
of
,
1
Sam.
8.
11
,
12
,
13
,
14
,
15
,
&c.
for
neither
God
,
nor
Natures
Law
hath
given
any
such
power
.
2.
He
who
constituteth
himselfe
a
slave
is
supposed
to
be
compelled
to
that
unnaturall
fact
of
alienation
of
that
liberty
,
which
he
hath
from
his
Maker
,
from
the
wombe
,
by
violence
,
constraint
,
or
extreame
necessity
,
and
so
is
inferiour
to
all
free
men
,
but
the
people
doth
not
make
themselves
slaves
when
they
constitute
a
King
over
themselves
,
because
God
giving
to
a
people
a
King
,
the
best
and
excellentest
Governour
on
earth
,
giveth
a
blessing
and
speciall
fafour
,
Esay
1.
26.
Hosea
1.
v.
11.
Esay
3.
6
,
7.
Ps.
79.
70
,
71
,
72.
but
to
lay
upon
his
people
the
state
of
slaverie
,
in
which
they
renounce
their
whole
libertie
,
is
a
curse
of
God
,
Gen.
9.
25.
Gen.
27.
29.
Deut.
28.
32.
36.
But
the
people
having
their
liberty
to
make
any
of
ten
or
twenty
,
their
King
,
and
to
advance
one
from
a
private
state
Governour
of
Britaine
,
out
of
his
humour
,
gave
himselfe
to
King
Edward
;
there
is
even
here
a
note
of
superioritie
;
Every
giver
of
a
benefit
,
as
a
giver
,
is
superior
to
him
to
whom
the
gift
is
given
;
though
after
the
servant
hath
given
away
his
gift
of
libertie
,
by
which
he
was
superiour
,
he
cannot
be
a
superior
,
because
by
his
gift
he
hath
made
himselfe
inferior
.
3.
The
People
constituteth
a
King
above
themselves
,
I
distinguish
,
supra
se
,
above
themselves
,
according
to
the
fountaine
power
of
Royaltie
,
that
is
false
;
for
the
fountaine-power
remaineth
most
eminently
in
the
people
,
1.
because
they
give
it
to
the
King
,
ad
modum
recipientis
,
and
with
limitations
,
ergo
,
it
is
unlimited
in
the
people
,
and
bounded
and
limited
in
the
King
,
and
so
lesse
in
the
King
then
in
the
people
.
2.
If
the
King
turne
distracted
,
and
an
ill
spirit
from
the
Lord
come
upon
Saul
,
so
as
reason
be
taken
from
a
Nebuchadnezzar
,
it
is
certaine
the
people
may
put
Curators
and
Tutors
over
him
,
who
hath
the
Royall
power
.
3.
If
the
King
be
absent
,
and
taken
captive
,
the
People
may
give
the
Royall
power
to
one
,
or
to
some
few
to
exercise
it
as
custodes
regni
.
And
4.
if
he
die
,
and
the
Crown
goe
by
election
,
they
may
create
another
with
more
or
lesse
power
:
all
which
evinceth
,
that
they
never
constituted
over
themselves
a
King
,
in
regard
of
fountaine-power
;
for
if
they
give
away
the
fountaine
,
as
a
slave
selleth
his
libertie
,
they
could
not
make
use
of
it
.
Indeed
they
set
a
King
above
them
,
quoad
potestatem
legum
executivam
,
in
regard
of
a
power
of
executing
lawes
and
actuall
government
,
for
their
good
and
safetie
:
but
this
proveth
only
that
the
King
is
above
the
people
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
some
respect
;
but
the
most
eminent
and
fountaine-power
of
Royaltie
remaineth
in
the
people
,
as
in
an
immortall
spring
,
which
they
communicate
by
succession
to
this
or
they
may
slie
:
but
when
they
made
him
King
,
they
resigned
all
their
power
to
him
,
even
their
power
of
flying
;
for
they
bound
themselves
by
an
oath
(
say
Royalists
)
to
all
passive
and
lawfull
active
obedience
:
and
,
I
suppose
,
to
stand
at
his
Tribunal
,
if
h●
summoned
the
three
Estates
,
upon
Treason
,
to
come
before
him
,
is
conteined
in
the
oath
,
that
Royalists
say
,
bindeth
all
,
and
is
contradictorie
to
flying
.
Arnisaeus
▪
a
more
learned
Iurist
and
Divine
then
the
P.
Prelate
,
answereth
the
other
Maxime
,
The
end
is
worthier
then
the
meane
leading
saith
he
,
which
referre
their
whole
nature
to
the
end
,
and
have
all
their
excellencie
from
the
end
,
and
have
excellencie
from
no
other
thing
but
from
the
end
,
are
lesse
excellent
then
the
end
;
that
is
true
,
such
an
end
as
medicine
is
for
health
.
And
Hugo
Grotius
,
l.
1.
c.
3.
n.
8.
Those
meanes
which
are
only
for
the
end
,
&
for
the
good
of
the
end
,
and
are
not
for
their
own
good
,
also
are
of
lesse
excellencie
,
and
inferior
to
the
end
.
But
so
the
assumption
is
false
.
But
those
meanes
which
beside
their
relation
to
the
end
,
have
an
excellencie
of
nature
in
themselves
,
are
not
alwayes
inferior
to
the
end
.
The
Disciple
,
as
he
is
instituted
,
is
inferior
to
the
Master
;
but
as
he
is
the
sonne
of
a
Prince
,
he
is
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
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
sheep
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
command
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
P.
P.
yieldeth
there
is
a
free
covenant
,
by
which
the
people
resigne
their
power
to
the
King
:
but
whether
Royall
power
,
or
some
other
,
he
dare
not
assert
,
lest
he
destroy
his
own
principles
.
To
sweare
non-selfe-preservation
,
and
to
sweare
self-murther
,
all
one
.
5
Reply
.
Sac.
sanct.
maj.
c.
9.
p.
129.
stollen
from
Barclaius
,
l.
5.
c.
12.
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
from
God
,
if
they
be
just
acts
,
P.
Prelate
commeth
not
home
to
the
mind
of
Buchanan
,
who
knew
the
fundamental
Lawes
of
Scotland
,
&
the
power
of
Parliaments
,
for
his
meaning
was
not
to
deny
a
legislative
power
in
the
Parliament
,
but
when
he
calleth
their
Parliamentary
declarations
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
his
meaning
P.
P.
is
only
that
which
Lawyers
and
Schoole-men
both
say
,
Leges
non
promulgatae
non
habent
vim
legis
actu
completo
obligatoriae
,
Lawes
not
promulgated
doe
not
oblige
the
subject
while
they
be
promulgated
,
but
he
falsifies
Buchannan
,
when
he
saith
,
Parliamentary
Lawes
must
have
the
authoritative
influence
of
the
people
,
before
they
can
be
formall
Lawes
,
or
any
more
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
preparatory
6
Rep.
Barc
.
l.
4.
conc
.
Monarcho
.
c.
11
pag.
27.
notions
.
And
it
was
no
wonder
,
when
the
King
denyed
a
Parliament
,
and
the
supreme
Senate
of
the
secret
Counsell
was
corrupted
,
then
that
the
people
did
set
up
Tables
,
and
extraordinary
judicatures
of
the
three
estates
,
seeing
there
could
not
be
any
other
government
for
the
time
.
6.
Barclay
answereth
to
that
,
The
meane
is
inferiour
to
the
end
,
it
holdeth
not
,
the
Tutor
and
Curator
is
for
the
minor
,
as
for
the
end
,
and
given
for
his
good
;
but
it
followeth
not
that
therefore
the
Tutor
in
the
administration
of
the
minor
or
Pupils
inheritance
is
not
superiour
to
the
minor
.
Ans.
1.
It
followeth
well
that
the
Minor
virtually
,
and
in
the
intention
of
the
Law
is
more
excellent
then
the
Tutor
,
though
the
Tutor
can
exercise
more
excellent
acts
then
the
Pupill
,
by
accident
,
for
defect
of
age
in
the
Minor
,
yet
he
doth
exercise
those
acts
with
subordination
to
the
Minor
,
and
with
correction
,
because
he
is
to
render
an
account
of
his
doings
to
the
Pupill
comming
to
age
:
so
the
Tutor
is
only
more
excellent
,
and
superiour
in
some
respect
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
not
simply
,
and
so
is
the
King
in
some
respect
above
the
people
.
The
P.
Prelate
beggeth
from
the
Royalists
another
of
our
Arguments
,
stolen
out
of
Arnisaeus
de
jure
Majest.
cap.
3.
n.
●
.
pag.
34.
Quod
efficit
tale
,
est
magis
tale
.
That
which
maketh
another
such
,
is
farre
more
such
it selfe
;
if
the
people
give
Royall
Power
to
the
King
,
then
farre
more
is
the
Royall
Power
in
the
people
.
By
this
(
saith
the
Prelate
)
it
shall
follow
if
the
observator
give
all
his
goods
to
me
,
to
make
me
rich
,
the
observator
is
more
rich
;
if
the
people
give
most
part
of
their
goods
to
foment
the
Rebellion
,
then
the
people
are
more
rich
,
having
given
all
they
b●ve
upon
the
Publicke
Faith
.
Ans.
1.
This
greedy
Prelate
was
made
richer
then
ten
poore
Pursevants
,
by
a
Bishopricke
,
it
will
follow
well
;
ergo
the
Bishopricke
is
richer
then
the
Bishop
,
whose
goods
the
curse
of
God
blasteth
.
2.
It
holdeth
in
efficient
causes
,
so
working
in
other
things
as
the
vertue
of
the
effect
remaineth
in
the
cause
,
even
after
the
production
of
the
effect
.
As
the
Sunne
maketh
all
things
light
,
the
Fire
all
things
hot
,
therefore
the
Sun
is
more
light
,
the
Fire
more
hot
;
but
where
the
cause
doth
alienate
and
make
over
,
in
a
corporall
manner
,
that
which
it
hath
to
another
,
as
the
hungry
Prelate
would
have
the
Observators
goods
,
it
holderh
not
;
for
the
effect
may
exhaust
the
vertue
of
the
cause
,
but
the
people
doth
,
as
the
fountaine
,
David
King
at
Hebron
,
and
when
he
is
dead
to
make
Solomon
King
,
and
after
him
,
to
make
Rehoboam
King
:
and
therefore
in
the
people
there
is
more
fountaine
power
of
making
Kings
then
in
David
,
in
Saul
,
in
any
King
of
the
world
;
as
for
the
Prelates
jeere
about
the
peoples
giving
of
their
goods
to
the
good
cause
,
I
hope
it
shall
by
the
blessing
of
God
inrich
them
more
,
whereas
Prelates
by
the
Rebellion
in
Ireland
(
to
which
they
assent
,
when
they
counsell
His
Majesty
to
sell
the
blood
of
some
hundred
thousands
of
innocents
killed
in
Ireland
)
are
brought
from
thousands
a
yeare
,
to
begg
a
morsell
of
bread
.
The
Prelate
answereth
that
Maxime
,
Quod
efsicit
tale
,
id
ipsum
Ans.
1.
The
Prelate
would
make
the
maxime
true
of
a
formall
cause
,
and
this
he
learned
in
the
University
of
St.
Andrewes
,
he
wrongeth
the
University
,
he
rather
learned
it
while
he
kept
the
cause
equivocall
,
and
a
cause
univocall
,
and
in
that
case
the
Maxime
holdeth
not
.
Nor
is
it
necessary
to
make
true
the
maxime
,
that
the
quality
be
inherent
in
the
cause
,
the
same
way
.
For
a
City
maketh
a
Major
,
but
to
be
a
Major
is
one
way
in
the
City
,
and
another
way
in
him
who
is
created
Major
;
and
the
Prelates
Maxime
would
helpe
him
,
if
we
reasoned
thu●
:
The
people
maketh
the
King
,
ergo
the
people
is
more
a
King
,
and
more
formally
a
Soveraigne
then
the
King
.
But
that
is
no
more
our
Argument
,
then
the
simile
that
Maxwell
used
,
as
neere
heart
and
mouth
both
.
Wine
maketh
drunk
the
Prelate
,
ergo
Wine
is
more
drunk
.
But
we
reason
this
,
the
Fountaine-power
of
making
six
Kings
is
in
the
people
,
ergo
there
is
more
fountain-power
of
Royalty
in
the
people
then
in
any
one
King
;
for
we
read
that
Israel
made
Saul
King
,
and
made
David
King
,
and
made
Abimelech
King
;
but
never
that
King
Saul
made
another
King
,
or
that
an
earthly
King
made
another
Absolute
King
.
4.
The
Prelate
will
have
the
Maxime
false
,
where
the
Agent
worketh
by
donation
,
which
yet
holdeth
true
by
his
owne
grant
,
c.
9.
pag.
98.
The
King
giveth
power
to
a
Deputy
,
ergo
there
is
more
power
in
the
King
.
5.
He
supposeth
that
which
is
the
Basis
and
foundation
of
all
the
question
,
that
people
devesteth
themselves
totally
of
their
Fountaiue
power
,
which
is
most
false
.
6.
Either
they
must
devest
themselves
totally
(
saith
he
)
of
their
power
,
or
the
King
hath
power
from
the
people
,
by
way
of
loane
,
which
to
my
thinking
never
any
yet
spake
.
But
the
P.
Prelates
thinking
is
short
,
and
no
rule
to
Divines
and
Lawyers
,
for
to
the
thinking
of
the
learnedst
Jurists
this
power
of
the
King
is
but
fiduciary
,
and
that
is
(
whether
the
Prelate
thinke
it
,
or
thinke
it
not
)
a
sort
of
power
by
trust
,
pawn'd
or
loane
.
Rex
director
is
a
life-renter
,
not
a
Lord
,
or
proprieter
of
his
Kingdome
.
So
Novel.
85.
in
princip.
&c.
18.
Quod
magistratus
sit
nudus
dispensator
&
defensor
jurium
regni
,
non
proprietarius
,
constat
ex
eo
quodnon
posset
alienare
imperium
,
oppida
,
urbes
,
regionésve
,
velres
subditorum
,
bon●ve
regni
.
So
Gregory
,
l.
3.
c.
8.
de
Repub.
per
c.
1.
Sect.
praeterea
,
de
propo
.
feud
.
Hottoman
.
quest.
illust.
1.
Ferdinan
▪
Vasquez
.
l.
1.
c.
4.
Bossius
de
princip.
&
privileg
.
illius
,
n.
290.
The
King
is
only
a
steward
,
and
a
defender
of
the
lawes
of
the
Kingdome
,
not
a
proprietor
,
because
he
hath
not
power
to
make
away
the
Impire
,
Cities
,
Townes
,
Countries
,
and
goods
of
the
Subjects
:
and
,
bona
commissa
Magistratui
,
sunt
subjecta
restitutioni
,
&
in
prejudtcium
successorum
alienari
non
possunt
,
per
l.
ult.
Sect
▪
sed
nost.
C.
Comment.
de
leg
.
l.
peto
69.
fratrem
de
leg.
2.
l.
32.
ult.
d.
t.
All
the
goods
committed
▪
to
any
Magistrate
,
are
under
Restitution
:
for
he
hath
not
power
to
make
them
away
to
the
prejudice
of
his
successors
.
The
Prelates
thoughts
reach
not
the
secrets
of
Jurists
,
and
therefore
he
speaketh
with
a
warrant
;
he
will
say
no
more
then
his
short-travel'd
thoughts
can
reach
;
and
that
is
but
at
the
doore
.
7
▪
Soveraigntie
is
not
in
the
Communitie
(
saith
the
P.
Prelate
.
)
Truly
it
neither
is
,
nor
can
be
,
more
then
ten
,
or
a
thousand
,
or
a
thousand
thousands
,
or
a
whole
Kingdome
can
be
one
man
;
for
Soveraigntie
is
the
abstract
,
the
Soveraigne
is
the
concrete
:
Many
cannot
be
one
King
or
one
Soveraigne
:
a
Soveraigne
must
be
essentially
one
;
and
a
multitude
cannot
be
one
:
but
what
then
?
may
not
the
Soveraigne
power
be
eminently
,
fontaliter
;
originallp
and
radically
in
the
people
?
I
thinke
it
may
,
and
must
be
,
A
King
is
not
an
under-Iudge
,
he
is
not
a
Lord
of
Councell
or
Session
formally
,
because
he
is
more
:
The
people
is
not
King
formally
,
because
the
people
is
eminently
more
then
the
King
;
for
they
make
David
King
,
and
Saul
King
.
And
the
power
to
make
a
Lord
of
Councell
aud
Session
,
is
in
the
King
(
say
Royalists
.
)
8.
A
Communitie
hath
not
power
of
life
and
death
.
A
King
hath
power
of
life
and
death
,
(
saith
the
Prelate
)
What
then
?
ergo
,
a
Communitie
is
not
King
.
I
grant
all
.
But
(
poore
man
!
)
Ergo
,
the
power
of
making
a
King
,
who
hath
power
of
life
and
death
,
is
not
in
the
people
.
It
is
like
Prelates
logick
.
Samuel
is
not
a
King
;
ergo
,
he
cannot
make
David
a
King
.
It
followeth
not
,
by
the
Prelates
ground
.
So
the
King
is
not
an
in
inferiour
Iudge
:
What
?
ergo
,
The
Communitie
conceived
without
government
,
all
as
equall
,
endowed
with
natures
and
native
libertie
,
hath
no
power
of
life
and
death
,
because
all
a●e
borne
free
,
and
so
none
is
borne
with
dominion
and
power
over
his
neighbours
life
.
Yea
but
so
,
Mr.
P.
Prelate
,
a
King
considered
without
government
,
and
as
born
a
free
man
,
hath
not
power
of
any
mans
life
,
more
then
a
Communitie
hath
:
for
King
and
Begger
are
borne
both
alike
free
.
But
a
Communitie
in
this
consideration
,
as
they
come
from
the
wombe
,
have
no
Politique
consideration
at
all
.
If
you
consider
them
as
without
all
policie
,
you
cannot
consider
them
as
invested
with
policie
:
yea
if
you
consider
them
so
as
they
are
by
nature
,
voyd
of
all
policie
,
they
cannot
so
much
as
adde
their
after-consent
and
approbation
to
such
a
man
to
be
their
King
,
whom
God
immediately
from
heaven
maketh
a
King
:
for
to
adde
such
an
after-consent
,
is
an
act
of
government
.
Now
as
they
are
conceived
to
want
all
government
,
they
cannot
performe
any
act
of
government
.
And
this
is
as
much
against
himselfe
,
as
against
us
.
2.
The
power
of
a
part
,
and
the
power
of
the
whole
is
not
alike
,
Royaltie
never
advanceth
the
King
above
the
place
of
a
member
:
And
Lawyers
say
,
The
King
is
above
the
subjects
,
in
sensu
diviso
,
in
a
divisive
sense
he
is
above
this
or
that
subject
:
but
he
is
inferiour
to
all
the
subjects
collectively
taken
,
because
he
is
for
the
whole
Kingdome
,
as
a
meane
for
the
end
.
Object
.
If
this
be
a
good
reason
,
that
he
is
a
meane
for
the
whole
Kingdome
,
as
for
the
end
;
that
he
is
therefore
inferiour
to
the
whole
Kingdome
:
then
is
he
also
inferior
to
any
one
subject
;
for
he
is
a
meane
for
the
safety
of
every
subject
,
as
for
the
whole
Kingdome
.
Answ.
Every
meane
is
inferior
to
its
compleat
,
adequate
and
whole
end
:
and
such
an
end
is
the
whole
Kingdome
in
relation
to
the
King
:
but
every
man
is
not
alwayes
inferiour
to
its
incompleat
,
inadequate
and
partiall
end
.
This
or
that
subject
is
not
adequate
,
but
the
inadequate
and
incompleat
end
in
relation
to
the
King
.
The
Prelate
saith
,
Kings
are
Dii
Elohim
,
Gods
;
and
the
manner
of
their
propagation
is
by
filiation
,
by
adoption
,
sonnes
of
the
most
high
,
and
Gods
first
borne
.
Now
the
first
borne
is
not
above
every
brother
severally
:
but
if
there
were
thousands
,
millions
,
numberlesse
numbers
,
he
is
above
all
in
precedencie
and
power
.
Answ.
Not
only
Kings
,
but
all
inferiour
Iudges
are
Gods
,
Psal.
82.
God
standeth
in
the
congregation
of
the
Gods
,
that
is
not
a
congregation
of
Kings
.
So
Exo.
22.
8.
the
master
of
the
house
shall
be
brought
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
the
Gods
,
or
to
the
Judges
.
And
that
there
were
more
Iudges
then
one
,
is
cleare
by
vers.
9.
and
if
they
shall
condemne
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
jarshignur
,
condemnarint
,
Joh.
10.
35.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
He
called
them
Gods
.
Exod.
4.
16.
Thou
shalt
be
to
Aaron
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
a
God
.
They
are
Gods
analogically
only
.
God
is
infinite
,
not
so
the
King
.
2.
Gods
will
is
a
law
,
not
so
the
Kings
.
3.
God
is
an
end
to
himselfe
,
not
so
the
King
.
The
Iudge
is
but
God
by
office
,
and
representation
,
and
conservation
of
the
people
.
2.
It
is
denyed
that
the
first-borne
is
in
power
before
all
his
brethren
,
though
there
were
millions
.
That
is
but
said
.
One
,
as
one
,
is
inferior
to
a
multitude
:
as
the
first-borne
was
a
Politick
Ruler
to
his
brethren
,
he
was
inferiour
to
them
politically
.
Object
.
3.
The
collective
Vniversitie
of
a
Kingdome
are
subjects
,
sonnes
,
and
the
King
their
father
,
no
lesse
then
this
or
that
subject
is
the
Kings
subject
.
For
the
universitie
of
Subjects
are
either
the
King
,
or
the
King
subjects
:
for
all
the
kingdome
must
be
one
of
these
two
;
but
they
are
not
the
King
,
Ergo
,
they
are
his
subjects
.
Answ.
All
the
Kingdome
in
any
consideration
is
not
either
King
or
Subjects
.
I
give
a
third
:
The
Kingdome
collective
is
neither
properly
King
nor
Subject
:
but
the
Kingdome
embodied
in
a
State
,
having
collaterall
or
coordinate
power
with
the
King
.
Object
.
4.
The
universitie
is
ruled
by
lawes
,
Ergo
,
they
are
inferior
to
the
King
who
ruleth
all
by
law
.
Answ.
The
Universitie
properly
is
no
otherwise
ruled
by
lawes
,
then
the
King
is
ruled
by
lawes
.
The
Universitie
formally
is
the
compleat
Politick
body
,
indued
with
a
nomothetick
facultie
,
which
cannot
use
violence
against
it selfe
,
and
so
is
not
properly
under
a
Law
.
QUEST.
XX.
Whether
or
no
inferiour
Judges
be
univocally
and
essentially
Judges
,
and
the
immediate
Vicars
of
God
,
no
lesse
then
the
King
,
or
if
they
be
onely
the
Deputies
and
Vicars
of
the
King
?
IT
is
certain
that
in
one
and
the
same
Kingdom
,
the
power
of
the
King
is
more
in
extension
,
then
the
power
of
any
inferiour
Iudge
:
but
if
these
powers
of
the
King
,
and
the
inferiour
Iudges
differ
intenfivè
and
in
spece
,
and
nature
,
is
the
question
,
though
it
be
not
all
the
question
.
Assert
.
Inferiour
Iudges
are
no
lesse
essentially
Iudges
,
and
the
immediate
Vicars
of
God
,
then
the
King
.
1.
These
who
judge
in
Solomon
sate
on
the
throne
of
the
Lord
,
as
King
,
instead
of
David
his
father
,
1
King
.
1.
13.
It
is
called
Davids
throne
,
because
the
King
is
the
Deputy
of
Iehovah
,
and
the
judgement
is
the
Lords
:
I
prove
the
assumption
.
Inferiour
Iudges
appointed
by
King
Iehoshaphat
have
this
place
,
2
Chro.
19.
6.
The
King
said
to
the
Iudges
,
Take
heed
what
ye
do
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
for
ye
judge
not
for
man
,
but
for
the
Lord
:
then
they
were
Deputies
in
the
place
of
the
Lord
,
and
not
the
Kings
Deputies
in
the
formall
and
officiall
acts
of
judging
.
7.
Wherefore
now
let
the
fear
of
the
Lord
be
upon
you
,
take
heed
and
do
it
,
for
there
is
no
iniquity
with
the
Lord
our
God
,
nor
respect
of
persons
,
or
taking
of
gifts
.
Hence
I
argue
,
If
the
Holy
Ghost
in
this
good
King
,
forbid
inriour
Judges
wresting
of
judgement
,
respecting
of
persons
,
and
taking
of
gifts
,
because
the
judgement
is
the
Lords
;
and
if
the
Lord
himself
were
on
the
Bench
,
he
would
not
respect
persons
,
nor
take
gifts
;
then
he
presumeth
,
that
inferiour
Iudges
are
in
the
stead
and
place
of
Jehovah
:
and
that
when
these
inferiour
Iudges
should
take
gifts
,
they
make
(
as
it
were
)
the
Lord
,
whose
place
they
represent
,
to
take
gifts
,
and
to
do
iniquitie
,
and
to
respect
persons
:
but
that
the
holy
Lord
cannot
do
.
2.
If
the
inferiour
Iudges
in
the
act
of
judging
,
were
the
Vicars
,
and
Deputies
of
King
Jehoshaphat
,
he
would
have
said
,
Judge
righteous
judgement
;
Why
?
For
the
judgement
is
mine
,
and
if
I
the
King
were
on
the
Bench
,
I
would
not
respect
persons
,
nor
take
gifts
;
and
you
judge
for
me
the
supreme
Judge
,
as
my
Deputies
:
but
the
King
saith
,
They
judge
not
for
man
,
but
for
the
Lord
.
3.
If
by
this
they
were
not
Gods
immediate
Vicars
,
but
the
Vicars
and
Deputies
of
the
King
,
then
being
meer
servants
,
the
King
might
command
them
to
pronounce
such
a
sentence
,
and
not
such
a
sentence
as
I
may
command
my
servant
and
deputy
,
in
so
far
,
as
he
is
a
servant
and
deputie
,
to
say
this
,
and
say
not
this
:
but
the
King
cannot
limit
the
conscience
of
the
inferiour
Iudge
,
because
the
judgement
is
not
the
Kings
,
but
the
Lords
.
4.
The
King
cannot
command
any
other
to
do
that
,
as
King
;
for
the
doing
whereof
,
he
hath
no
power
from
God
himself
,
but
the
King
hath
no
power
from
God
to
pronounce
what
sentence
he
pleaseth
,
because
the
judgement
is
not
his
own
,
but
Gods
:
And
though
inferiour
Iudges
be
sent
of
the
King
,
and
appointed
by
him
to
be
Iudges
,
and
so
have
their
externall
call
from
Gods
deputy
,
the
King
;
yet
because
judging
is
an
act
of
conscience
,
as
one
mans
conscience
cannot
properly
be
a
deputy
for
another
mans
conscience
,
so
neither
can
an
inferior
Iudge
,
as
a
Iudge
,
be
a
deputy
for
a
King
:
therefore
the
inferiour
Iudges
have
designation
to
their
office
from
the
King
;
but
if
they
have
from
the
King
,
that
they
are
Iudges
,
and
be
not
Gods
deputies
,
but
the
Kings
,
they
could
not
be
commanded
to
execute
judgement
for
God
,
but
for
the
King
:
and
Deut.
1.
17.
Moses
appointed
Iudges
,
but
not
as
his
deputies
to
judge
and
give
sentence
,
as
subordinate
to
Moses
:
For
the
judgement
(
saith
he
)
is
the
Lords
,
not
mine
.
6.
If
Royalist
Hugo
Grotius
saith
so
,
That
an
inferiour
Iudge
can
do
nothing
against
the
will
of
the
supreme
Magistrate
,
if
it
be
so
:
When
ever
God
commandeth
inferiour
Iudges
to
execute
righteous
judgement
,
it
must
have
this
sense
,
Respect
not
persons
in
judgement
,
except
the
King
command
you
,
crush
not
the
poor
,
oppresse
not
the
fatherlesse
,
except
the
King
command
you
.
I
understand
not
such
policie
:
Sure
I
am
,
The
Lords
commandments
,
rebukes
,
and
threats
,
oblige
in
conscience
the
inferiour
Iudge
as
the
superiour
,
as
is
manifest
in
these
Scriptures
,
Jerem.
5.
1.
Isai.
1.
17
,
21.
and
5.
7.
and
10.
2.
and
59.
14.
Jere.
22.
3.
Ezek.
18.
8.
Amos
5.
7.
Micah
3.
9.
Habak.
1.
4.
Levit.
19.
15.
Deut.
17.
11.
and
1.
17.
Exod.
23.
2.
Grotius
saith
,
It
is
here
as
in
a
Categorie
:
the
middle
Spece
is
in
respect
of
the
Superiour
a
Spece
,
in
respect
of
the
inferiour
a
Genus
;
so
inferiour
Magistrates
in
relation
to
these
who
are
inferiour
to
them
,
and
under
them
,
they
are
Magistrates
or
publike
persons
,
but
in
relation
to
superiour
Magistrates
,
especially
the
King
,
they
are
private
persons
,
and
not
Magistrates
.
Answ.
Jehoshaphat
esteemed
not
Iudges
appointed
by
himself
private
men
,
2
Chron.
19.
6
,
7.
Yee
judge
not
for
men
,
but
for
the
Lord
.
2.
We
shall
prove
,
that
under
Iudges
are
powers
ordained
of
God
.
3.
In
Scotland
the
King
can
take
no
mans
inheritance
from
him
,
because
he
is
King
:
But
if
any
man
possesse
Lands
belonging
to
the
Crown
,
the
King
by
his
Advocate
must
stand
before
the
Lord-Iudges
of
the
Session
,
and
submit
the
matter
to
the
Laws
of
the
Land
;
and
if
the
King
for
propertie
of
Goods
,
were
not
under
a
Law
,
and
were
not
to
acknowledge
Iudges
as
Iudges
,
I
see
not
how
the
subject
in
either
Kingdoms
have
any
proprietie
.
4.
I
judge
it
blasphemie
to
say
,
That
a
sentence
of
an
inferiour
Iudge
must
be
no
sentence
,
though
never
so
legall
,
nor
just
,
if
it
be
contrary
to
the
Kings
will
,
as
Grotius
saith
.
He
citeth
that
of
Augustine
:
If
the
Consul
command
one
thing
,
Answ.
When
the
Consull
commandeth
a
thing
lawfull
,
and
the
King
that
same
thing
lawfull
,
or
a
thing
not
unlawfull
,
we
are
to
obey
the
King
,
rather
then
the
Consull
:
so
I
expone
Augustine
.
2.
We
are
not
to
obey
the
King
and
the
Consull
the
same
way
,
that
Grotius
,
The
inferiour
Judge
is
but
the
Deputie
of
the
King
,
and
hath
all
his
power
from
him
;
therefore
we
are
to
obey
him
for
the
King
.
Answ.
The
inferiour
Iudge
may
be
called
the
Deputy
of
the
King
,
(
where
it
is
the
Kings
place
to
make
Iudges
)
because
he
hath
his
externall
call
from
the
King
,
and
is
Iudge
,
in
foro
Soli
,
in
the
name
and
authority
of
the
in
foro
poli
,
before
God
,
he
is
as
essentially
a
Iudge
,
and
in
his
officiall
acts
no
lesse
immediately
subjected
to
God
,
then
the
King
himself
.
Argum.
2.
These
powers
to
whom
we
are
to
yield
obedience
,
because
they
are
ordained
of
God
;
these
are
as
essentially
Iudges
,
as
the
supreme
Magistrate
the
King
;
but
inferiour
Iudges
are
such
.
Ergo
,
Inferiour
Iudges
are
as
essentially
Iudges
,
as
the
supreme
Magistrate
.
The
proposition
is
Rom.
13.
1.
For
that
is
the
Apostles
Arguments
;
whence
we
prove
,
Kings
are
to
be
obeyed
,
because
they
are
powers
from
God
:
I
prove
the
assumption
.
Inferiour
Magistrates
are
powers
from
God
,
Deut.
1.
17.
and
19.
6
,
7.
Exod.
22.
7.
Jere.
5.
1.
and
the
Apostle
saith
,
The
powers
that
are
,
are
ordained
of
God
.
3.
Christ
testified
,
that
Pilate
had
power
from
God
as
a
Iudge
(
say
Royalists
)
no
lesse
then
Caesar
the
Emperour
,
Iohn
19.
11.
and
1
Pet.
2.
12.
We
are
commanded
to
obey
the
King
,
and
these
that
are
sent
by
him
,
and
that
for
the
Lords
sake
,
and
for
conscience
to
God
,
4.
These
,
who
are
rebuked
,
because
they
execute
not
just
judgement
,
as
well
as
the
King
,
are
supposed
to
be
essentially
Iudges
,
as
well
as
the
King
;
but
inferiour
Iudges
are
rebuked
,
because
of
this
,
Ierem.
22.
15
,
16
,
17.
Ezek.
45.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
Zeph.
3.
3.
Amos
5.
6
,
7.
Eccles.
3.
16.
Micah
3.
2
,
3
,
4.
Jerem.
5.
31.
Ierem.
5.
1.
5.
He
is
the
Minister
of
God
for
good
,
and
hath
the
sword
not
in
vain
,
but
to
execute
vengeance
on
the
evil
doers
;
no
lesse
then
the
King
,
Rom.
13.
2
,
3
,
4.
He
to
whom
agreeth
,
by
an
Ordinance
of
God
,
the
specifick
acts
of
a
Magistrate
,
he
is
essentially
a
Magistrate
.
6.
The
resisting
of
the
inferiour
Magistrate
in
his
lawfull
commandmen●s
,
7.
These
stiles
of
Gods
,
of
Heads
of
the
people
,
of
Fathers
,
of
Physicians
,
and
healers
of
the
sonnes
of
the
most
High
,
of
such
as
Raign
and
Decree
by
the
wisdome
of
God
,
&c.
that
are
given
to
Kings
,
for
the
which
Royalists
make
Kings
onely
Iudges
,
and
all
inferiour
Iudges
,
but
deputed
,
and
Iudges
by
participation
,
and
at
the
second
hand
,
or
given
to
inferiour
Iudges
,
Exod.
22.
8
,
9.
Ioh.
10.
35.
These
Moses
,
Deut.
1.
16.
are
called
in
Hebrew
or
Chaldee
,
1
Kings
8.
1
,
2.
Chap.
5.
2.
Mic.
3.
1.
Iosh.
23.
2.
Num.
1.
16.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
rasce
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
fathers
,
Act.
7.
2.
Iosh.
14.
1.
c.
19.
51.
1
Chro.
8
,
28.
Healers
,
Esai
.
3.
7.
Gods
,
and
sonnes
of
the
most
High
,
Psal.
82.
1.
2.
6.
7.
Prov
,
8.
16
,
17.
I
much
doubt
,
if
Kings
can
infuse
Godheads
in
their
Subjects
.
I
conceive
they
have
from
the
God
of
Gods
these
gifts
,
whereby
they
are
inhabled
to
be
Iudges
,
and
that
Kings
may
appoint
them
Iudges
,
but
can
do
no
more
,
they
are
no
lesse
essentially
Iudges
then
themselves
.
8.
If
inferiour
Iudges
be
Deputies
of
the
King
,
not
of
God
,
and
have
all
their
authority
from
the
King
,
then
may
the
King
limit
the
practise
of
these
inferiour
Iudges
.
Say
that
an
inferiour
Iudge
hath
condemned
to
death
an
Paricide
,
and
he
be
conveying
him
to
the
place
of
execution
,
the
King
commeth
with
a
force
to
rescue
him
out
of
his
hand
,
if
this
inferiour
Magistrate
beare
Gods
sword
for
the
terrour
of
ill
doers
,
and
to
execute
Gods
vengeance
on
murtherers
,
he
cannot
but
resist
the
King
in
this
,
which
I
judge
to
be
his
Office
:
for
the
inferiour
Iudge
is
to
take
vengeance
on
ill
doers
,
and
to
use
the
coactive
force
of
the
sword
,
by
vertue
of
his
Office
,
to
take
away
this
Paracide
,
now
if
he
be
the
Deputy
of
the
King
,
he
is
not
to
breake
the
jawes
of
the
wicked
,
Iob
29.
17.
not
to
take
vengeance
Sac.
Sanc.
mai
.
c.
4.
pag.
46.
on
evill
doers
,
Rom.
13.
4.
nor
to
execute
judgement
on
the
wicked
,
Ps.
149
,
9.
nor
to
execute
judgment
for
the
fatherlesse
,
De.
10.
18.
except
a
mortall
man
his
Creator
,
the
King
say
,
Amen
.
Now
truly
then
God
,
in
all
Israel
,
was
to
rebuke
no
inferiour
Iudge
for
perverting
judgement
,
As
he
doth
,
Exod.
23.
2.
6.
Mic.
3.
2
,
3
,
4.
Zach.
3.
3.
Numb.
25.
5.
Deut.
1.
16.
For
the
King
onely
is
Lord
of
the
conscience
of
the
inferiour
Iudge
,
who
is
to
give
sentence
,
and
execute
sentence
righteously
upon
condition
,
that
the
King
the
onely
univocall
and
proper
Iudge
,
first
,
decree
the
same
,
as
Royalists
teach
.
Heare
our
Prelate
:
How
is
it
imaginable
that
Kings
can
be
said
to
Iudge
in
Gods
place
,
and
not
receive
the
power
from
God
?
but
Kings
Iudge
in
Gods
place
,
Deut.
1.
17.
2
Chro.
19.
6.
Let
no
man
stumble
,
(
this
is
his
Prolepsis
)
at
this
,
that
Moses
in
the
one
place
,
and
Iehosaphat
in
the
other
speake
to
subordinate
Iudges
under
them
,
this
weakeneth
no
waies
our
Argument
,
for
it
is
a
ruled
case
in
Law
;
Quod
quis
facit
per
alium
,
facit
per
se
;
all
Iudgements
of
inferiour
Iudges
are
in
the
name
,
authority
,
and
by
the
power
of
the
supreme
,
and
are
but
communicatively
,
and
derivatively
from
the
Soveraigne
power
.
Ans.
How
is
it
possible
that
inferiour
Iudges
,
Deut.
1.
17.
2.
Chron.
19.
6.
can
be
said
to
judge
in
Gods
place
,
and
not
receive
the
power
from
God
immediatly
,
without
any
consent
or
covenant
of
men
?
So
the
Prelate
.
But
inferiour
Iudges
judge
in
the
Gods
place
,
as
both
the
P.
Prelate
and
Scripture
teach
,
Deut.
1.
17.
2.
Chro.
19.
6.
Let
the
Prelate
see
to
the
stumbling
conclusion
,
for
so
he
feareth
it
proves
to
his
bad
cause
.
2.
He
saith
the
places
,
Deut.
1.
17.
2
Chro.
19.
6.
prove
that
the
King
judgeth
in
the
Roome
of
God
,
because
their
Deputies
judge
in
the
place
of
God
.
The
Prelate
may
know
,
we
would
deny
this
stumbling
and
lame
consequence
;
for
1.
Moses
and
Iehosaphat
are
not
speaking
to
themselves
,
but
to
other
inferiour
Iudges
,
who
doth
publickly
exhort
them
.
Moses
and
Iehosaphat
are
perswading
the
regulation
of
the
personall
actions
of
other
men
,
who
might
pervert
Iudgement
.
2.
The
Prelate
is
much
upon
his
Law
,
after
he
had
forsworne
the
Gospell
,
and
Religion
of
the
What
the
King
doth
by
another
,
that
he
doth
by
himselfe
;
but
were
Moses
and
Jehosaphat
feared
that
they
should
pervert
Iudgement
in
the
unjust
Sentence
pronounced
by
under
Iudges
,
of
which
Sentence
they
could
not
know
any
thing
?
And
doe
inferiour
Iudges
so
judge
in
the
name
,
authority
,
and
power
of
the
King
,
as
not
in
the
Name
,
Authority
and
Power
of
the
Lord
of
Lords
,
and
King
of
Kings
?
or
is
the
Iudgement
the
Kings
?
no
,
the
Spirit
of
God
saith
no
such
matter
,
the
Iudgement
executed
by
those
inferiour
Iudges
,
is
the
Lords
,
not
a
mortall
Kings
,
ergo
a
mortall
King
may
not
hinder
them
to
execute
Iudgement
.
Obj.
He
cannot
suggest
an
unjust
Sentence
,
and
command
an
inferiour
Iudge
to
give
out
a
sentence
absolvatory
on
cut-throates
,
but
he
may
hinder
the
exocution
of
any
sentence
against
Irish
cut-throates
,
Ans.
It
is
all
one
to
hinder
the
execution
of
a
just
sentence
,
and
to
suggest
or
command
the
inferiour
Iudge
to
pronounce
an
unjust
one
,
for
inferiour
Iudges
by
conscience
of
their
Office
,
are
both
to
judge
righteously
,
and
by
force
and
power
of
the
sword
given
to
them
of
God
,
Rom.
13.
2
,
3
,
4.
to
execute
the
sentence
,
and
so
God
hath
commanded
inferiour
Iudges
to
execute
Iudgement
,
and
hath
forbidden
them
to
wrest
Iudgement
,
to
take
gifts
,
except
the
King
Command
them
so
to
doe
.
Master
Symmont
,
The
King
is
by
the
Grace
of
God
,
the
inferiour
Iudge
is
Iudge
by
the
grace
of
the
King
,
even
as
the
man
is
the
image
of
God
,
and
the
woman
the
mans
image
▪
Ans.
This
distinction
is
neither
true
in
Law
,
nor
conscience
;
not
in
Law
,
for
it
distinguisheth
not
betwixt
Ministros
regis
,
&
ministros
regni
.
The
servants
of
the
King
are
his
domesticks
,
the
Iudges
are
Ministri
regni
,
non
regis
;
the
Ministers
and
Iudges
of
the
Kingdome
,
not
of
the
King
.
The
King
doth
not
show
grace
,
as
he
is
a
man
,
in
making
such
a
man
a
Iudge
,
but
Iustice
as
a
King
,
by
a
Royall
Power
received
from
the
people
,
and
by
an
Act
of
Iustice
,
he
makes
Iudges
of
deserving
men
,
he
should
neither
for
favour
,
nor
bribes
make
any
Iudge
in
the
Land
.
2.
It
is
the
grace
of
God
that
men
are
to
be
advanced
The
Lord
bringeth
low
,
and
lifteth
up
,
Ps.
75.
7.
God
pu●t●th
downe
one
,
and
seteth
up
another
.
Court
flatterers
take
from
God
,
and
give
to
Kings
;
but
to
be
a
Iudge
inferiour
,
is
no
lesse
an
immediate
favour
of
God
,
then
to
be
King
;
though
the
one
be
a
greater
favour
then
the
other
.
Magis
honos
,
and
Majoc
honos
are
to
be
considered
.
9.
Arg.
Those
powers
which
differ
gradually
,
and
per
magis
&
Inferiour
Iudges
differ
not
univocally
.
That
the
powers
are
the
same
in
nature
,
I
prove
1.
by
the
specifice
acts
,
and
formall
object
of
the
power
of
both
,
for
1.
both
are
power
ordained
of
God
,
Rom.
13.
1.
to
resist
either
,
is
to
resist
the
ordinance
of
God
,
v.
2.
both
are
by
Office
a
terrour
to
evill
workes
,
v.
●3
.
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
,
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
The
Iudges
of
Israel
,
and
the
Kings
after
them
,
differed
,
but
not
essentially
.
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
censure
him
,
or
punish
him
but
God
,
because
there
be
no
thrones
above
his
,
but
the
throne
of
God
.
The
Iudges
of
Israel
,
as
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
man
intendeth
,
because
of
the
supreme
absolute
and
illimited
power
that
God
hath
given
him
.
But
this
is
a
begging
of
the
question
,
and
all
one
as
to
say
,
the
King
may
not
be
resisted
,
because
he
may
not
be
resisted
:
for
sanctitie
of
Majestie
,
if
we
beleeve
Royalists
,
includeth
essentially
an
absolute
supremacie
of
power
,
whereby
they
are
above
the
reach
of
all
thrones
,
lawes
,
powers
,
or
resistance
on
Earth
.
But
the
Argument
is
,
Resist
not
,
because
the
Power
is
of
God
.
But
the
inferiour
Magistrates
power
is
of
God
.
2.
Resist
not
,
because
you
resist
Gods
ordinance
,
in
resisting
the
Iudge
:
But
the
inferior
Iudge
is
Gods
ordinance
,
Rom.
13.
1.
Deut.
1.
17.
2
Chro.
19.
6.
3.
Mr.
Symmons
saith
,
all
Iudges
on
earth
are
from
the
Kings
,
as
starres
have
their
light
from
the
Sun
.
I
answer
,
1.
Then
Aristocracie
were
unlawfull
,
for
it
hath
not
its
power
Augustine
,
Confess
.
lib.
3.
cap.
8.
Generale
pactum
est
societatis
humana
,
obedire
Regibus
suis
:
It
is
an
universall
covenant
of
humane
societie
,
and
a
dictate
of
nature
,
that
men
obey
their
Kings
.
I
beg
the
favour
of
Sectaries
(
saith
●he
)
to
shew
as
much
for
Aristocracie
and
Democracie
.
Now
all
other
governments
to
bellies
borne
at
Court
,
are
the
inventions
of
men
.
But
I
can
shew
that
same
warrant
for
the
one
as
for
the
other
,
because
it
is
as
well
the
dictate
of
nature
,
that
People
obey
their
Iudges
and
Rulers
,
as
it
is
that
they
obey
their
Kings
.
And
Austin
speaketh
of
all
Iudges
,
in
that
place
,
though
he
name
Kings
;
for
Kingly
government
is
no
more
of
the
law
of
nature
,
then
Aristocracie
or
Democracie
:
nor
are
any
borne
Iudges
,
or
Subjects
at
all
:
There
is
a
naturall
aptitude
in
all
to
either
of
these
,
for
the
conservation
of
nature
,
and
that
is
all
.
Let
us
see
that
men
naturally
inclining
to
Government
,
incline
P.
Prelate
shall
not
be
able
to
show
.
For
fatherly
government
being
in
two
,
is
not
Kingly
,
but
nearer
to
Aristocracy
;
and
when
many
families
were
on
earth
,
every
one
independent
within
themselves
,
if
a
commune
enemy
should
invade
a
tract
of
Land
governed
by
families
,
I
conceive
,
by
natures
light
they
should
incline
to
defend
themselves
,
and
to
joyne
in
one
politique
body
for
their
owne
safety
,
as
is
most
naturall
;
but
in
that
case
they
having
no
King
,
and
there
were
no
reason
of
many
fathers
all
alike
loving
their
own
families
and
selfe
preservation
,
why
one
should
be
King
over
all
,
rather
then
another
,
except
by
voluntary
compact
;
so
it
is
cleare
that
Nature
is
nearer
to
Aristocracy
before
this
contract
,
then
a
Monarchy
:
and
let
him
shew
us
in
multitudes
of
families
dwelling
together
before
there
was
a
King
,
as
cleare
a
warrant
for
Monarchy
,
as
here
is
for
Aristocracy
,
though
to
me
both
be
lawdable
and
lawfull
ordinances
of
God
,
and
the
difference
meerely
accidentall
,
being
one
and
the
same
power
from
the
Lord
,
Rom.
13.
1.
which
is
in
divers
subjects
in
one
,
as
a
Monarchy
,
in
many
as
in
Aristocracy
,
and
the
one
is
as
naturall
as
the
other
:
and
the
subjects
are
accidentall
to
the
nature
of
the
power
.
2.
The
Starrs
have
no
light
at
all
,
but
in
actuall
aspect
toward
the
Sun
,
and
they
are
not
lightsome
bodies
by
the
free
will
of
the
Sunne
,
and
have
no
immediate
light
from
God
formally
,
but
from
the
Sun
,
so
as
if
there
were
no
Sun
,
there
should
be
no
Starres
.
3.
for
actuall
shining
and
sending
out
of
beames
of
light
actusecundo
,
they
depend
upon
the
presence
of
the
Sun
,
but
for
in
fieri
when
the
constitution
▪
of
the
Kingdome
is
such
,
but
not
in
facto
esse
nor
in
their
essence
.
inferiour
Iudges
though
they
have
their
call
from
the
King
,
yet
have
they
gifts
to
governe
from
no
King
on
earth
,
but
only
from
the
King
of
Kings
.
4.
When
the
King
is
dead
the
Iudges
are
Iudges
,
and
they
depend
not
on
the
King
for
their
second
acts
of
judging
,
and
for
the
actuall
emission
and
putting
forth
their
beames
and
raies
of
justice
,
upon
the
poore
and
needy
,
they
depend
on
no
voluntary
aspect
,
information
or
commandement
of
the
King
,
but
on
that
immediate
subjection
of
their
conscience
to
the
King
of
Kings
.
And
their
Iudgement
which
they
execute
is
the
Lords
immediatly
,
and
not
the
Kings
,
and
so
the
comparison
halteth
.
Arg.
Our
10th
.
Arg.
If
the
King
dying
,
the
Iudges
inferiour
remaine
Expirante
mandatore
expirat
mandatum
,
because
the
Fountaine
Iudge
drying
up
,
the
streames
must
dry
up
.
Now
when
Saul
dyed
,
the
Princes
of
the
Tribes
remaine
by
Gods
institution
Princes
,
and
they
by
Gods
Law
and
Warrant
,
Deut.
17.
choose
David
their
King
.
11.
If
the
King
through
absolute
power
doe
not
send
inferiour
Deut.
1.
15.
Moses
might
not
follow
his
owne
will
in
making
inferiour
Iudges
whom
he
pleased
:
God
tyed
him
to
a
Law
,
v.
13.
that
he
should
take
wise
men
,
known
amongst
the
people
,
and
fearing
God
,
and
hating
covetousnesse
.
And
these
qualifications
were
not
from
Moses
,
but
from
God
;
and
no
lesse
immediatly
from
God
then
the
inward
qualification
of
a
King
,
Deut.
17.
and
therefore
it
is
not
Gods
Law
that
the
King
may
make
inferiour
Iudges
only
,
Durante
beneplacito
,
during
his
absolute
will
;
for
if
these
Divine
qualifications
remaine
in
the
seventy
Elders
,
Moses
at
his
will
could
not
remove
them
from
their
places
.
2.
That
the
King
can
make
heritable
Iudges
more
then
he
can
communicate
faculties
and
parts
of
judging
,
I
doubt
,
riches
are
of
fathers
,
but
not
promotion
,
which
Provests
,
Rulers
,
and
Majors
.
4.
If
it
be
warranted
by
God
,
that
the
lawfull
Call
of
God
to
the
Throne
,
be
the
election
of
the
people
,
the
call
of
inferiour
Iudges
must
also
be
from
the
people
,
mediatly
or
immediatly
:
So
I
see
no
ground
to
say
that
,
the
inferiour
Iudge
is
the
Kings
Vicegerent
,
or
that
he
is
in
respect
of
the
King
,
or
in
relation
to
supreme
Authority
,
only
a
private
man
.
12.
These
Iudges
cannot
but
be
univocally
and
essentially
Iudges
,
no
lesse
then
the
King
,
without
which
in
a
Kingdome
Iustice
is
Physically
unpossible
:
and
Anarchie
and
violence
and
confusion
must
follow
,
if
they
be
wanting
in
the
Kingdome
.
But
without
inferiour
Iudges
,
though
there
be
a
King
,
Iustice
is
Physically
unpossible
,
and
Anarchie
and
confusion
must
follow
,
&c.
Now
this
Argument
is
more
considerable
,
that
without
inferiour
Iudges
,
though
there
be
a
King
in
a
Kingdome
,
Iustice
and
safety
are
unpossible
,
and
if
there
be
inferiour
Iudges
,
though
there
be
no
King
,
as
in
Aristocracy
,
and
when
the
King
is
dead
,
and
another
not
Crowned
,
or
the
King
is
Minor
,
or
absent
,
or
a
captive
in
the
enemies
Land
,
yet
justice
is
possible
,
and
the
Kingdome
preserved
;
the
Medium
of
the
Argument
is
grounded
upon
Gods
Word
,
Num.
11.
14
,
15.
when
Moses
is
unable
alone
to
judge
the
people
,
seventy
Elders
re-joyned
with
him
,
16.
17.
so
were
the
Elders
adjoyned
to
helpe
him
,
Exo.
24.
1.
Deut.
5.
23.
c.
22.
16.
Iosh.
23.
2.
Iudg.
8.
14.
Iudg.
11.
5.
Iudg.
11.
●●
.
1
Sam.
11.
3.
1
King
.
20.
7.
2
King
.
6.
32.
2
Chro.
34.
29.
Ruth
4.
4.
Deut.
19.
12.
Ezech.
8.
1
Lament
.
1.
19.
then
were
the
Elders
of
Moab
thought
they
had
a
King
.
2.
The
end
naturall
of
Iudges
hath
been
indigence
and
weaknesse
,
because
men
could
not
in
a
society
defend
themselves
from
violence
,
therefore
by
the
light
of
nature
they
gave
their
power
to
one
,
or
more
,
and
made
a
Iudge
,
or
Iudges
to
obtaine
the
end
of
selfe
preservation
.
But
Nature
useth
the
most
efficacious
meanes
to
obtaine
its
end
,
but
in
a
great
society
and
Kingdome
the
end
is
more
easily
attained
by
many
Governours
,
then
by
one
only
;
for
where
there
is
but
one
,
he
cannot
minister
Iustice
to
all
,
and
the
farther
that
the
children
are
removed
from
their
father
and
tutor
,
they
are
the
nearer
to
violence
and
unjustice
.
Iustice
should
be
at
as
easie
a
rate
to
the
poore
,
as
a
draught
of
water
▪
Samuel
went
yearely
through
the
Land
to
Bethell
,
Gilgall
,
Mizpeh
,
1
Sam.
7.
16.
and
brought
Iustice
to
the
doores
of
the
poore
.
So
were
our
Kings
of
Scotland
obliged
to
doe
of
old
;
but
now
justice
is
as
deare
as
gold
.
it
is
not
a
good
argument
to
prove
inferior
Iudges
to
be
only
Vicars
and
Deputies
of
the
King
,
because
the
King
may
censure
and
punish
them
when
they
pervert
judgement
.
1.
Because
the
King
,
in
that
,
punisheth
them
not
as
Iudges
,
but
as
men
.
2.
That
might
prove
all
the
Subjects
to
be
Vicars
and
Deputies
of
the
King
▪
,
because
he
can
punish
them
all
,
in
the
case
of
their
breach
of
lawes
.
QUEST.
XXI
.
What
power
the
People
and
States
of
Parliament
have
over
the
King
,
and
in
the
State
?
IT
is
true
,
the
King
is
the
head
of
the
Kingdome
;
but
the
States
of
the
Kingdome
are
as
the
temples
of
the
head
,
and
so
as
essentially
Assert
.
1.
These
Ordines
Regni
,
the
States
,
have
been
in
famous
Nations
:
so
there
were
fathers
of
families
,
and
Princes
of
Tribes
amongst
the
Jewes
:
The
Ephori
amongst
the
Lacedemonians
,
Polyb.
hist.
l.
6.
The
Senate
amongst
the
Romanes
:
The
forum
Superbiense
amongst
the
Arragonians
:
The
Parliaments
,
in
Scotland
,
England
,
France
,
Spaine
.
2
Sam.
3.
17.
Abner
communed
with
the
Elders
of
Israel
,
to
bring
the
King
home
.
And
there
were
Elders
in
Israel
,
both
in
the
time
of
the
Judges
,
and
in
the
time
of
the
Kings
;
who
did
not
only
give
advice
and
counsell
to
the
Judges
and
Kings
,
but
also
were
Iudges
,
no
lesse
then
the
Kings
,
and
Iudges
;
which
I
shall
make
good
by
these
places
:
Deut.
21.
19.
The
rebellious
Son
is
Elders
of
the
Citie
,
who
had
power
of
life
and
death
,
and
caused
to
stone
him
.
Deut.
22.
18.
The
Elders
of
the
Citie
shall
take
that
man
,
and
chastise
him
.
Iosh.
20.
4.
But
beside
the
Elders
of
every
Citie
,
there
were
the
Elders
of
Israel
,
and
the
Princes
,
who
had
also
judiciall
power
of
life
and
death
,
as
the
Iudges
and
King
had
.
Josh.
22.
30.
Even
when
Ioshua
was
Iudge
in
Israel
,
the
Princes
of
the
Congregation
,
and
heads
of
the
Thousands
of
Israel
,
did
judicially
cognosce
whether
the
Children
of
Reuben
,
of
Gad
,
and
of
halfe
the
tribe
of
Manasseh
,
were
apostates
from
God
,
and
the
Religion
of
Israel
.
2
Sam.
5.
3.
All
the
Elders
of
Israel
made
David
King
at
Hebron
:
and
Num.
11.
They
are
appointed
by
God
not
to
be
the
advisers
only
and
helpers
of
Moses
,
but
,
v.
14
,
17.
to
beare
a
part
of
the
burden
of
ruling
and
governing
the
people
,
that
Moses
might
be
eased
.
Jeremiah
is
accused
,
c.
26.
10.
upon
his
life
,
before
the
Princes
,
Iosh.
7
4.
The
Princes
sit
in
judgement
with
Ioshua
,
Iosh.
9.
15.
Ioshua
and
the
Princes
of
the
Congregation
sware
to
the
Gibeonites
,
that
they
would
not
kill
them
.
The
Princes
of
the
house
of
Israel
could
not
be
rebuked
for
oppression
in
judgement
,
Mic.
3.
1
,
2
,
3.
if
they
had
not
had
power
of
judgement
.
So
Zeph.
3.
3.
And
Deut.
1.
17.
2.
Chron.
19.
6
,
7.
They
are
expresly
made
Iudges
in
the
place
of
God
.
And
1
Sam.
8.
2.
without
advise
or
knowledge
of
Samuel
the
supreme
Iudge
,
they
conveene
and
ask
a
King
:
and
without
any
head
or
superior
,
when
there
is
no
King
,
they
conveene
a
Parliament
,
and
make
David
King
at
Hebron
:
And
when
David
is
banished
,
they
conveen
to
bring
him
home
againe
:
when
Tyrannous
Athalia
reigneth
,
they
conveene
and
make
Ioash
King
,
and
that
without
any
King
.
And
Iosh.
22.
there
is
a
Parliament
conveened
,
and
,
for
any
thing
we
can
read
,
without
Ioshua
,
to
take
cognisance
of
a
new
Altar
.
It
had
been
good
that
the
Parliaments
both
of
Scotland
,
and
of
England
,
had
conveened
,
though
the
King
had
not
indicted
and
summoned
a
Parliament
;
without
the
King
,
to
take
order
with
the
wicked
Clergie
,
who
had
made
many
idolatrous
Altars
:
And
the
P.
Prelate
should
have
brought
an
argument
to
prove
it
unlawfull
,
in
foro
Dei
,
to
set
up
the
Tables
and
Conventions
in
our
Kingdome
,
when
the
Prelates
were
bringing
in
the
grossest
idolatrie
into
the
Church
,
a
service
for
adoring
of
Altars
,
of
Bread
,
the
worke
of
the
hand
of
the
Baker
;
a
God
more
corruptible
And
against
Achabs
will
and
minde
,
1
King
18
,
19.
Elias
causeth
to
kill
the
Priests
of
Baal
,
according
to
Gods
expresse
law
.
It
is
true
,
it
was
extraordinary
;
but
no
otherwise
extraordinary
then
it
is
at
this
day
.
When
the
supreme
Magistrate
will
not
execute
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
,
Those
who
made
him
supreme
Magistrate
under
God
,
who
have
,
under
God
,
soveraigne
libertie
to
dispose
of
crownes
and
kingdomes
,
are
to
execute
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
,
when
wicked
men
make
the
law
of
God
of
none
effect
.
1
Sam.
15.
32.
so
Samuel
killed
Hagage
,
whom
the
Lord
expresly
commanded
to
be
killed
;
because
Saul
disobeyed
the
voyce
of
the
Lord
.
I
deny
not
but
there
is
necessitie
of
a
cleere
warrant
that
the
Magistrate
neglect
his
duty
,
either
in
not
conveening
the
States
,
or
not
executing
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
.
3.
I
see
not
how
the
conveening
of
a
Parliament
is
extraordinarie
to
the
States
;
for
none
hath
power
ordinary
when
the
King
is
dead
,
or
when
he
is
distracted
,
or
captive
in
another
land
,
to
conveene
the
Estates
and
Parliament
,
but
they
only
;
and
in
their
defect
,
by
the
law
of
Nature
,
the
people
may
conveene
.
But
,
4.
If
they
be
essentially
Iudges
no
lesse
then
the
King
.
as
I
have
demonstrated
to
the
impartiall
Reader
,
in
the
former
Chapter
;
I
conceive
,
though
the
State
make
a
positive
law
,
for
Orders
cause
,
that
the
King
ordinarily
conveene
Parliaments
;
Yet
,
if
we
dispute
the
matter
in
the
court
of
Conscience
,
the
Estates
have
intrinsecally
(
because
they
are
the
Estates
,
and
essentially
Iudges
of
the
Land
)
ordinary
power
to
conveene
themselves
:
1.
Because
when
Moses
,
by
Gods
rule
,
hath
appointed
seventie
men
to
be
Catholike
Iudges
in
the
Land
,
Moses
upon
his
sole
pleasure
and
will
,
hath
not
power
to
restraine
them
in
the
exercise
of
judgment
given
Execute
judgement
in
the
morning
;
involveth
essentially
a
precept
to
all
the
Physicall
actions
,
without
which
it
is
impossible
to
execute
judgement
:
As
namely
,
if
by
a
divine
precept
the
Iudge
must
execute
judgement
;
ergo
,
he
must
come
to
some
publique
place
,
and
he
must
cause
partie
and
witnesses
come
before
him
,
and
he
must
consider
,
cognosce
,
examine
in
the
place
of
judgement
,
things
,
persons
,
circumstances
:
and
so
God
who
commandeth
positive
acts
of
judgeing
,
commandeth
the
Iudges
locomotive
power
,
and
his
naturall
actions
of
compelling
by
the
sword
the
parties
to
come
before
him
:
even
as
Christ
who
commandeth
his
servants
to
preach
,
commandeth
that
the
Preacher
and
the
People
goe
to
Church
,
and
that
he
stand
or
sit
in
a
place
where
all
may
heare
,
and
that
he
give
himselfe
to
reading
and
meditating
,
before
he
come
to
preach
.
And
if
God
command
one
Iudge
to
come
to
the
place
of
judgement
,
so
doth
he
command
seventie
,
and
so
all
Estates
to
conveen
in
the
place
of
judgement
.
It
is
objected
,
That
the
Estates
are
not
Iudges
ordinary
and
habitually
,
but
only
Iudges
at
some
certaine
occasions
,
when
the
King
,
for
cogent
and
weighty
causes
,
calleth
them
,
and
calleth
them
not
to
judge
,
but
to
give
him
advise
and
counsell
how
to
judge
.
Ans.
1.
They
are
no
lesse
Iudges
habitually
then
the
King
,
when
the
common
affaires
of
the
whole
Kingdome
necessitateth
these
Publique
Watchmen
to
come
together
:
for
even
the
King
judgeth
not
actually
,
but
upon
occasion
.
2.
This
is
to
beg
the
question
,
to
say
that
the
Estates
are
not
Iudges
,
but
when
the
King
calleth
them
,
at
such
and
such
occasions
:
for
the
Elders
,
Princes
and
Heads
of
families
and
Tribes
,
were
Iudges
ordinarie
,
because
they
made
the
King
.
And
2.
the
Kingdome
,
by
God
,
yea
,
and
Church
,
Iustice
and
Religion
,
so
far
as
they
concerne
the
whole
Kingdome
,
are
committed
not
to
the
keeping
of
the
King
only
,
but
to
all
the
Iudges
,
Elders
,
and
Princes
of
the
Land
:
And
they
are
rebuked
as
evening
wolves
,
lyons
,
oppressors
,
Ezech.
22.
27.
Zaca
.
3.
3.
Esa.
3.
14
,
15.
Mic.
3.
1
,
2
,
3.
when
they
oppresse
the
people
in
judgement
,
So
are
they
,
Deut.
1.
15
,
16
,
17.
2
Chron.
19.
6
,
7.
made
Iudges
,
and
therefore
they
are
no
more
to
be
restrained
not
to
conveene
,
by
the
Kings
power
,
(
which
is
in
this
,
accumulative
and
auxiliarie
,
not
privative
)
then
they
can
be
restrained
in
judgement
,
and
in
pronouncing
such
which
are
fallen
in
the
streets
,
calleth
for
them
.
3.
As
God
in
a
law
of
nature
,
hath
given
to
every
man
the
keeping
and
selfe-preservation
of
himselfe
,
and
of
his
brother
;
Ca●n
ought
in
his
place
to
be
the
keeper
of
Abel
his
brother
.
So
hath
God
committed
the
keeping
of
the
Commonwealth
,
by
a
positive
law
,
not
to
the
Num.
11.
14
,
17.
2
Chron.
19.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
1
Chron.
27.
4.
If
the
King
had
such
a
power
as
King
,
and
so
from
God
,
he
should
have
power
to
breake
up
the
meeting
of
all
Courts
of
Parliament
,
Secret
Councell
,
and
all
inferior
Iudicatures
:
And
when
the
Congregation
of
gods
,
as
Ps.
82.
in
the
midst
of
which
the
Lord
standeth
,
were
about
to
pronounce
just
judgement
for
the
oppressed
and
poere
,
they
might
be
hindred
by
the
King
;
and
so
they
should
be
as
just
as
the
King
maketh
them
,
and
might
pervert
judgement
,
and
take
away
the
righteousnesse
of
the
righteous
from
him
,
Esa.
5.
23.
because
the
King
commandeth
:
And
the
cause
of
the
poore
should
not
come
before
the
Iudge
,
when
the
King
so
commandeth
.
And
shall
it
excuse
the
Estates
,
to
say
,
We
could
not
judge
the
cause
of
the
poore
,
nor
crush
the
Priests
of
Baal
,
and
the
idolatrous
Masse-Preltes
,
because
the
King
forbad
us
.
So
might
the
King
breake
up
the
meeting
of
the
Lords
of
Session
,
when
they
were
to
decerne
that
Naboths
vineyard
should
be
restored
to
him
;
and
hinder
the
States
to
represse
Tyranny
:
And
this
were
as
much
as
if
the
States
should
say
,
We
made
this
man
our
King
,
and
with
our
good
will
we
agree
,
he
shall
be
a
Tyrant
.
For
if
God
gave
it
to
him
as
a
King
,
we
are
to
consent
that
he
enjoy
it
.
5.
If
Barclay
and
other
flatterers
have
leave
to
make
the
Parliament
but
Counsellers
and
Advisers
of
the
King
;
and
the
King
to
be
the
only
and
sole
Num.
11.
16.
Deut
,
1.
15
,
16
,
17.
2
Chron.
19.
6.
Rom.
13.
1
,
2.
1
Pet.
2.
13
,
14.
Yea
but
(
say
they
)
the
King
,
when
he
sendeth
an
Ambassadour
,
he
may
tye
him
to
a
written
Commission
;
and
in
so
far
as
he
exceedeth
that
,
he
is
not
an
Ambassadour
:
and
cleare
it
is
,
that
all
inferiour
Iudges
,
1
Pet.
2.
13
,
14.
are
but
sent
by
the
King
,
ergo
,
they
are
so
Iudges
,
as
they
are
but
messengers
,
and
are
to
adhere
to
the
Royall
pleasure
of
the
Prince
that
sent
them
.
Ans.
1.
The
Ambassadour
is
not
to
accept
an
unjust
Ambassage
,
respect
of
their
call
,
not
in
respect
of
the
matter
of
their
Commission
,
for
the
King
may
send
the
Iudge
to
judge
in
generall
according
to
the
Law
,
and
Iustice
and
Religion
,
but
he
cannot
depute
the
sentence
,
and
command
the
conscience
of
the
Judge
to
prononnce
such
a
sentence
,
not
such
,
the
inferiour
Iudge
in
the
act
of
judging
is
as
independent
,
and
his
conscience
as
immediatly
subject
to
God
,
as
the
King
,
therefore
the
King
owes
to
every
sentence
his
approbative
suffrage
as
King
,
but
not
his
either
directive
suffrage
,
nor
his
imperative
suffrage
of
absolute
pleasure
,
6.
If
the
King
should
sell
his
Country
▪
and
bring
in
a
forraigne
Army
,
the
estates
are
to
convene
,
to
take
course
for
the
safety
of
the
Kingdome
.
7.
If
David
exhort
the
Princes
of
Israel
to
helpe
King
Solomon
in
governing
building
the
Temple
,
2
Chron.
32.
3.
Ezechiah
tooke
counsell
with
his
Princes
,
and
his
mighty
men
in
the
matter
of
holding
off
the
Assyrians
,
who
were
to
invade
the
Land
,
if
David
1
Chron.
13.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
consult
with
the
Captaines
of
thousands
,
and
hundreds
to
bring
the
Arke
of
God
to
Kireath
jearim
,
if
Solomon
1
King
.
8.
1.
Assemble
the
Elders
of
Israel
,
and
all
the
Heads
of
the
Tribes
,
and
the
chief
of
the
fathers
to
bring
the
Arke
of
the
Tabernacle
,
to
the
congregation
of
the
Lord
.
And
Achab
gather
together
the
States
of
Israel
,
in
a
matter
that
nearely
concerned
Religion
.
If
the
Elders
and
people
,
1
King
.
20.
8.
counsell
and
decree
,
that
King
Achab
should
hearken
to
Benhadad
King
of
Syria
,
and
if
Ahasuerus
make
no
Decrees
,
but
with
consent
of
his
Princes
,
Ester
,
1.
21.
nor
Darius
any
Act
without
his
Nobles
and
Princes
,
if
Hamor
and
Schechem
,
Genes.
34.
20.
would
not
make
a
Covenant
with
Iacobs
Sons
,
without
the
consent
of
the
men
of
the
City
,
and
Ephron
the
Hittite
would
not
sell
Abraham
a
buriall
place
in
his
Land
without
the
consent
of
the
children
of
Heth
,
Gen.
23.
10.
Then
must
the
estates
have
a
power
of
judging
with
the
King
or
Prince
in
matters
of
Religion
,
Iustice
,
and
Government
,
which
concerne
the
whole
Kingdome
;
but
the
former
is
true
by
the
Records
of
Scripture
,
ergo
,
so
is
the
latter
.
8.
The
men
of
Ephraim
complaine
that
Iephtah
had
gone
to
Ephraim
,
and
the
men
of
Gilead
,
Iud.
12.
1
,
2
,
3.
and
the
men
of
Israel
●iercely
contend
with
the
men
of
Iudah
,
because
they
brought
King
▪
David
home
againe
without
them
,
pleading
that
they
were
therein
dispised
,
2
Sam.
19.
41
,
42
,
43.
which
evinceth
that
the
whole
States
have
hand
in
matters
of
publick
government
,
that
concerne
all
the
Kingdome
;
and
when
there
is
no
King
,
Iudg.
20.
The
chiefe
of
the
people
,
and
of
all
the
Tribes
goe
out
in
battell
,
against
the
children
of
Benjamin
.
9.
These
who
make
the
King
▪
and
so
have
power
to
unmake
him
Elders
and
Princes
made
both
David
and
Saul
Kings
.
10.
There
is
not
any
who
say
that
the
Princes
and
people
,
1
Sam.
11.
The
speciall
ground
of
Royalists
is
to
make
the
King
the
absolute
David
,
Salomon
,
Asa
,
Ezekiah
,
Iehosaphat
,
Achas
convened
Parliaments
,
they
convened
Parliaments
as
Kings
,
and
so
Ex
debito
&
virtute
officii
,
out
of
debt
and
Royall
Obligation
,
and
if
the
King
as
the
King
,
be
Lex
animata
,
a
breathing
and
living
Law
,
the
King
as
King
must
doe
by
obligation
of
Law
,
what
he
doth
as
King
,
and
not
from
spontaneous
and
Arbitrary
grace
.
2.
If
the
Scripture
holds
forth
to
us
a
King
in
Jsrael
,
and
two
Princés
and
Elders
who
made
the
King
,
and
had
power
of
life
and
death
,
as
we
have
seene
;
then
is
there
in
Israel
Monarchy
tempered
with
Aristocracy
;
and
if
there
were
Elders
and
Rulers
in
every
City
,
as
the
Scripture
saith
,
here
was
also
Aristocracy
and
Democracy
.
And
for
the
warrant
of
the
power
of
the
Estates
I
appeale
to
Iurists
,
and
to
approved
Authors
.
Argu.
l.
aliud
.
160.
§
.
1.
De
Iur.
Reg.
l.
22.
Mortuo
de
fidei
.
l.
11.
14.
ad
Mum.
l.
3.
1.
4.
Sigonius
De
Rep.
Iudaeor
.
l.
6.
c.
7.
Cornelius
Bertramo
,
c.
12.
Iunius
Brutus
Vindic.
contra
.
Tyran
.
§
.
2.
Author
Libelli
de
jur
Magistrat
.
in
subd
.
q.
6.
Althus
.
Politic.
c.
18.
Calvin
Institut.
l.
4.
c.
20.
Pareus
Coment
.
in
Rom.
13.
Pet.
Martyr
in
Lib.
Iudic.
c.
3.
Ioan.
Marianus
de
rege
Lib.
1.
c.
7.
Hottoman
de
jure
Antiq.
Regni
Gallici
l.
1.
c.
12.
Buchanan
De
jure
Regni
apud
Scotos
.
Obj.
The
King
after
a
more
noble
way
representeth
the
people
,
then
the
Estates
doth
;
for
the
Princes
and
Commissioners
of
Parliament
have
all
their
power
from
the
people
,
and
the
peoples
power
is
concentricated
in
the
King
.
Ans.
The
Estates
taken
collectively
doe
represent
the
people
both
in
respect
of
Office
,
and
of
persons
,
because
they
stand
Iudges
for
them
;
for
many
represent
many
,
ratione
numeri
&
officii
,
better
then
one
doeth
.
The
King
doth
unproperly
represent
the
people
,
though
the
power
for
actuall
execution
of
Lawes
,
be
more
in
the
King
,
yet
a
legislative
power
is
more
in
the
Estates
.
Neither
will
it
follow
,
that
if
the
Estates
of
a
Kingdome
doe
any
thing
but
counsell
a
King
,
they
must
then
command
him
;
for
a
legall
and
judiciall
advice
hath
influence
in
the
effect
to
make
it
a
Law
,
not
on
the
Kings
Will
,
to
cause
him
give
the
being
of
a
Law
to
that
,
which
without
his
Will
is
no
Law
,
for
this
supponeth
that
he
is
only
Iudge
.
Obj.
What
power
the
people
reserveth
,
they
reserve
it
to
themselves
in
unitate
,
as
united
in
a
Parliament
;
and
therefore
what
they
doe
out
of
a
Parliament
is
tumultous
.
Ans.
I
deny
the
consequence
,
they
reserve
the
power
of
selfe
preservation
out
of
a
Parliament
,
and
a
power
of
convening
in
Parliament
for
that
effect
,
that
they
may
by
Common
Counsell
defend
themselves
.
QUEST.
XXII
.
Whether
the
power
of
the
King
as
King
be
absolute
,
or
dependent
and
limited
by
Gods
first
mould
and
paterne
of
a
King
?
DOctor
Ferne
sheweth
us
it
was
never
his
purpose
to
plead
for
Hills
fall
on
us
,
and
cover
us
,
as
it
is
Revel.
6.
15
,
16.
and
whether
Tophet
be
prepared
for
all
workers
of
iniquity
;
and
certainly
I
justifie
the
Schoole-men
in
that
question
:
Whether
or
no
God
could
have
created
a
rationall
creature
,
such
a
one
as
by
nature
is
impeccable
,
and
not
naturally
capable
of
sinne
before
God
?
if
Royalists
dispute
this
question
of
their
absolute
Monarch
,
they
are
wicked
Divines
.
2.
We
plead
not
at
this
time
(
saith
the
Prelate
stealing
from
Grotius
,
who
spake
it
with
more
sinewes
of
reason
)
for
a
(
masterly
,
or
)
despoticall
,
or
rather
a
slavishing
Soveraignty
,
which
is
Dominium
herile
,
an
absolute
power
,
such
as
the
great
Turke
this
day
exerciseth
over
his
subjects
,
and
the
King
of
Spaine
hath
over
,
and
in
his
territories
without
Europe
:
we
maintain
only
regiam
potestatem
,
quae
fundatur
in
paterna
,
such
royall
fatherly
Soveraignty
as
we
live
under
▪
blessed
be
God
,
and
our
predecessors
.
This
(
saith
he
)
as
it
hath
its
Royall
Prerogative
inherent
to
the
Crowne
naturally
,
and
inseparable
from
it
,
so
it
trencheth
not
upon
the
liberty
of
the
person
,
or
the
property
of
the
goods
of
the
subject
,
but
in
,
and
by
the
lawfull
and
just
acts
of
jurisdiction
.
Ans.
1.
Here
is
another
absolute
power
disclaimed
to
be
in
the
King
,
he
hath
not
such
a
masterly
and
absolute
liberty
as
the
Turke
hath
.
Why
?
Iohn
P.
P.
in
such
a
tender
and
high
point
as
concerneth
soule
and
body
of
subjects
in
three
Christian
Kingdomes
,
you
should
have
taught
us
1.
What
bonds
and
fetters
any
covenant
or
paction
betwixt
the
King
and
people
layeth
upon
the
King
,
why
he
hath
not
as
King
the
power
of
the
great
Turke
.
I
will
tell
you
▪
The
Great
Turke
may
command
any
of
his
subjects
to
leape
into
a
mountaine
of
fire
,
and
burne
himselfe
quick
,
in
conscience
of
obedience
to
his
Law
.
And
what
if
the
subject
disobey
the
Great
Turk
?
if
the
Great
Turke
be
a
lawfull
Prince
,
as
you
will
not
deny
.
And
if
the
King
of
Spaine
should
command
forraine
conquered
slaves
to
doe
the
like
.
By
your
Doctrine
neither
the
one
,
nor
the
other
were
obliged
to
resist
by
violence
,
but
to
pray
,
or
fly
,
which
both
were
to
(
Adore
the
worke
of
mens
hands
in
the
place
of
the
living
God
)
and
this
is
worse
then
the
Turkes
commandement
of
bodily
burning
quick
.
And
what
is
left
to
the
Christian
Subjects
,
in
this
case
,
is
the
very
same
,
and
no
other
then
is
left
to
the
Turkish
and
forraigne
Spanish
subject
;
Either
flee
,
or
make
prayers
▪
There
is
no
more
left
to
us
.
2.
Many
Royalists
maintaine
,
that
England
is
a
conquered
Papists
,
Prelates
and
Atheists
.
3.
All
power
restrained
,
that
it
cannot
arise
from
ten
degrees
P.
Prelate
,
who
mocketh
at
all
the
Statists
and
Lawyers
of
Scotland
.
It
is
not
a
covenant
betwixt
the
King
and
People
,
at
his
Coronation
:
for
though
there
were
any
such
covenant
,
yet
the
breach
of
it
doth
binde
before
God
,
but
not
before
man
:
nor
can
I
see
,
or
any
man
else
,
how
a
law
of
man
can
lay
a
restraint
on
the
Kings
power
of
two
degrees
,
to
cancell
it
within
a
Law
,
more
then
on
a
power
of
ten
,
or
fourteene
degrees
.
If
the
King
of
Spaine
,
the
lawfull
Soveraigne
of
those
over-European
people
,
(
as
Royalists
say
)
have
a
power
of
foureteene
degrees
over
those
conquered
Subjects
,
as
a
King
;
I
see
not
how
he
hath
not
the
like
power
over
his
own
Subjects
of
Spaine
,
to
wit
,
even
of
Foureteen
:
for
what
agreeth
to
a
King
,
as
a
King
,
(
and
Kingly
power
from
God
he
hath
as
King
)
he
hath
it
in
relation
to
all
Subjects
,
except
it
be
taken
from
him
in
relation
to
some
Subjects
,
and
given
by
some
law
of
God
;
or
in
relation
to
some
other
Subjects
.
Now
,
no
man
can
produce
any
such
law
.
4.
The
nature
of
the
goodnesse
and
grace
of
the
Prince
,
cannot
lay
bonds
on
the
King
,
to
cancell
his
power
,
that
he
should
not
usurpe
the
power
of
the
King
of
Spaine
toward
his
over-Europeans
.
1.
Royalists
plead
for
a
power
due
to
the
King
,
as
King
,
and
that
from
God
;
such
as
Saul
had
,
1
Sam.
8.
9
,
11.
1
Sam.
10.
25.
But
this
power
should
be
a
power
of
grace
and
goodnesse
in
the
King
,
as
a
good
man
;
not
in
the
King
,
as
a
King
,
and
due
to
him
by
law
:
And
so
the
King
should
have
his
Legall
power
from
God
,
to
be
a
Tyrant
.
But
if
he
were
not
a
Tyrant
,
but
should
lay
limits
on
his
own
power
,
through
the
goodnesse
of
his
own
nature
;
No
thankes
to
Royalists
that
he
is
not
a
Tyrant
:
For
,
actu
primo
,
and
as
he
is
a
King
,
(
as
they
say
)
he
is
a
Tyrant
,
having
from
God
a
Tyrannous
power
of
ten
degrees
,
as
Saul
had
,
1
Sam.
8.
and
why
not
of
foureteen
degrees
,
as
well
as
the
Great
Turke
,
or
the
King
of
Spaine
?
if
he
use
it
not
,
it
is
his
own
personall
goodnesse
,
not
his
officiall
and
Royall
power
.
4.
The
rastraint
of
Providence
laid
by
God
upon
any
power
to
doe
ill
,
hindreth
only
the
exercise
of
the
power
not
to
breake
forth
in
as
Tyrannous
acts
as
ever
the
King
of
Spaine
,
or
the
great
Turke
can
exercise
toward
any
.
Yea
,
Providence
layeth
Physicall
restraint
,
and
possibly
morall
,
sometimes
,
upon
the
exercise
of
that
power
that
Devils
,
and
the
most
wicked
men
of
the
world
hath
:
but
Royalists
must
shew
us
that
Providence
hath
laid
bounds
on
the
Kings
power
,
and
made
it
fatherlie
,
and
not
masterly
;
so
that
if
it
the
power
exceed
bounds
of
fatherly
power
,
and
passe
over
to
the
dispoticall
and
masterly
power
,
it
may
be
resisted
by
the
Subjects
.
But
that
they
will
not
say
.
4.
This
paternall
and
fatherly
power
that
God
hath
given
to
Kings
,
as
Royalists
teach
,
it
trencheth
not
upon
the
libertie
of
the
Subjects
,
and
propertie
of
their
goods
;
but
in
,
and
by
lawfull
and
just
acts
of
Jurisdiction
(
saith
the
P.
Prelate
:
)
Well
;
Then
it
may
trench
upon
the
libertie
of
soule
and
body
of
the
Subjects
;
but
in
,
and
by
lawfull
and
just
acts
of
of
jurisdiction
:
But
none
are
to
judge
of
these
acts
of
Iurisdiction
,
whether
they
be
just
or
not
just
,
but
the
King
,
the
only
Iudge
of
supreme
and
absolute
authoritie
and
power
.
And
if
the
King
command
the
idolatrous
service
in
the
obtruded
Service-booke
,
it
is
a
lawfull
and
a
just
act
of
jurisdiction
:
For
to
Royalists
,
who
make
the
Kings
power
absolute
,
all
acts
are
so
just
to
the
Subject
,
though
he
command
Idolatrie
and
Turcisme
,
that
we
are
to
suffer
only
,
and
not
to
resist
.
5.
The
Prelate
presumeth
that
Fatherly
power
is
absolute
:
But
so
if
a
father
murther
his
childe
,
he
is
not
comptable
to
the
Magistrate
therefore
;
but
being
absolute
over
his
children
,
only
the
Judge
of
the
World
,
not
any
power
on
earth
can
punish
him
.
6.
We
have
proved
that
the
Kings
power
is
paternall
or
fatherly
only
,
by
analogie
,
and
improperly
.
7.
What
is
this
Prerogative
Royall
,
we
shall
heare
by
and
by
,
8.
There
is
no
restraint
on
Earth
,
laid
upon
this
fatherly
power
of
the
King
,
but
Gods
law
,
which
is
a
morall
restraint
.
If
then
the
King
challenge
as
great
a
power
as
the
Turke
hath
,
he
only
sinneth
against
God
;
but
no
mortall
man
on
earth
may
controll
him
,
as
Royalists
teach
:
and
who
can
know
what
power
it
is
that
Royalists
plead
for
,
whether
a
dispoticall
power
of
Lordly
power
,
or
a
fatherly
power
?
If
it
be
a
power
above
law
,
such
as
none
on
earth
may
resist
it
;
it
is
no
matter
whether
it
be
above
law
of
two
degrees
,
or
of
twenty
,
even
to
the
Great
Turkes
power
.
These
goe
for
Oracles
,
at
Court
▪
Tacitus
.
Principi
summum
rerum
arbitrium
Dii
dederunt
,
subditis
obsequii
gloria
relicta
est
.
Seneca
.
Indigna
digna
habenda
sunt
,
Rex
quae
facit
.
Salustius
.
Impun●
quidvis
facere
,
id
est
,
Regem
esse
.
As
if
to
be
a
King
,
and
to
be
a
God
,
who
cannot
erre
,
were
all
one
.
But
certainly
,
these
Authors
are
taxing
the
Licence
of
Kings
,
and
not
commanding
their
power
.
But
that
God
hath
given
no
absolute
and
unlimited
power
to
a
King
,
above
the
law
,
is
evident
by
this
:
Arg.
1.
He
who
in
his
first
institution
,
is
appointed
of
God
,
by
when
he
sitteth
on
the
throne
,
to
take
heed
to
read
on
a
written
copie
of
Gods
law
,
that
he
may
learne
to
feare
the
Lord
his
God
,
and
keep
all
the
words
of
this
law
,
&c.
He
is
not
of
absolute
power
above
law
.
But
,
Deut.
17.
18
,
19
▪
the
King
,
as
King
,
while
he
sitteth
on
the
Throne
,
is
to
doe
this
;
Ergo
,
the
Assumption
is
cleare
:
for
this
is
the
law
of
the
King
,
as
King
;
and
not
of
a
man
,
as
a
man
.
But
as
he
sitteth
on
the
Throne
,
he
is
to
read
on
the
booke
of
the
Law
:
and
ver.
20.
Because
he
is
King
,
his
heart
is
not
to
be
lifted
up
above
his
brethren
.
And
as
King
,
v.
16.
he
is
not
to
multiply
horses
,
&c.
So
Polititians
make
this
argument
good
:
They
say
,
Rex
est
lex
viva
,
animata
▪
&
loquens
lex
:
The
King
,
as
King
,
is
a
living
,
breathing
,
the
mariage
of
the
brother
with
the
sister
,
lawfull
.
Anaxarchus
said
to
Alexander
,
grieved
in
minde
that
he
had
killed
Clytus
:
Regi
ac
Iovi
Themin
atque
Iustitiam
assidere
:
Iudgement
and
Righteousnesse
did
alway
accompanie
God
and
the
King
in
all
they
doe
.
But
some
to
this
purpose
say
better
;
The
Law
,
rather
then
the
King
,
hath
power
of
life
and
death
.
Arg.
2.
The
power
that
the
King
hath
(
I
speak
not
of
his
gifts
)
peace
and
godlinesse
,
and
save
themselves
from
unjust
violence
,
by
the
benefit
of
Rulers
.
Now
an
absolute
power
above
a
Lawis
a
power
to
doe
ill
,
and
to
destroy
the
people
,
and
this
the
people
have
not
themselves
,
it
being
repugnant
to
nature
,
that
any
should
have
a
naturall
power
in
themselves
to
destroy
themselves
,
or
to
inflict
upon
themselves
an
evill
of
punishment
to
destruction
.
Though
therefore
it
were
given
,
which
yet
is
not
granted
,
that
the
people
had
resigned
all
power
that
they
have
into
their
King
,
yet
if
he
use
a
Tyrannicall
power
against
the
people
for
their
hurt
and
destruction
,
he
useth
a
power
that
the
people
never
gave
him
;
and
against
the
intention
of
nature
:
for
they
invested
a
man
with
power
to
be
their
father
,
and
defender
for
their
good
,
And
he
faileth
against
the
peoples
intention
in
usurping
a●
over
power
to
himselfe
,
which
they
never
gave
,
never
had
,
never
could
give
,
for
they
cannot
give
what
they
never
had
,
and
power
to
destroy
themselves
they
never
had
.
3.
Arg.
All
Royall
Power
,
whereby
a
King
is
a
King
,
and
But
absolute
power
to
Tyranize
over
the
people
,
and
to
destroy
Prov.
8.
15
,
16.
2
Sam.
12.
7.
Daniel
4.
32.
must
also
create
and
give
that
Royall
and
Officiall
power
,
by
which
a
King
is
a
King
,
1.
Because
God
created
man
,
he
must
be
the
Author
of
his
reasonable
soule
;
if
God
be
the
Author
of
things
,
he
must
be
the
Author
of
their
formes
,
by
which
they
are
,
that
which
they
are
.
2.
All
power
is
Gods
.
1
Chro.
29.
11
Matth.
6.
13.
Ps.
62.
11.
Ps.
68.
35.
Dan.
2.
37.
And
that
absolute
power
to
Tyrannize
,
is
not
from
God
.
1.
Because
if
this
Morall
There
is
no
power
in
Rulers
to
doe
ill
,
but
to
helpe
and
defend
the
people
,
as
the
power
of
a
Physi●ian
to
destroy
;
of
a
Pilot
to
cast
away
the
ship
on
a
Rock
,
the
power
of
a
Tutor
to
wast
the
inheritance
of
the
Orphan
,
and
the
power
of
father
and
mother
to
kill
their
children
,
and
of
the
mighty
to
defraud
and
oppresse
,
are
not
powers
from
God
.
So
Ferdinand
Vasquez
illustr.
quest.
l.
1.
c.
26.
c.
45.
Pruckman
d.
c.
3.
§
.
Soluta
potestas
.
Althus
.
pol.
cap.
9.
n.
25.
Barclaim
,
Grotius
,
Doct.
Ferne
,
(
The
P.
Prelates
wit
could
come
up
t̄o
it
)
say
,
That
absolute
power
to
do
ill
,
so
as
no
mortall
man
can
lawfully
resist
it
,
is
from
God
;
and
the
King
hath
this
way
power
from
God
as
no
subject
●an
resist
it
,
but
he
must
resist
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
and
yet
the
power
of
tyranny
is
not
simply
from
God
.
Answ.
The
Law
saith
,
Illud
possumus
quod
jure
possumus
,
Papinus
F.
filius
,
D.
de
cond.
Just.
The
Law
saith
,
It
is
no
power
which
is
not
lawfull
power
.
The
Royalists
say
,
power
of
Tyranny
in
so
farre
as
it
may
be
resisted
,
and
is
punishable
by
men
,
is
not
from
God
;
but
what
is
the
other
part
of
the
distinction
;
it
must
be
,
that
Tyrannicall
power
is
simpliciter
from
God
,
or
in
it self
it
is
from
God
,
but
as
it
is
punishable
or
restrainable
by
subjects
,
it
is
not
from
God
:
now
to
be
punishable
by
subjects
,
is
but
an
accident
and
tyrannicall
power
is
the
subject
,
yea
,
and
it
is
an
separable
accident
;
for
many
Tyrants
are
never
punished
,
and
their
power
is
never
restrained
,
such
a
Tyrant
was
Saul
,
and
many
persecuting
Emperours
:
Now
if
the
Tyrannicall
power
it self
was
from
God
,
the
argument
is
yet
valid
,
and
remaineth
unanswered
;
and
shall
not
this
fall
to
the
ground
as
false
,
which
Arnisaeus
de
autho
.
princ
.
c.
2.
n.
10.
Dum
contra
officium
facit
,
Magistratus
non
est
Magistratus
,
quippe
a
quo
non
injuria
,
sed
jus
nasci
debeat
,
l.
meminerint
.
6.
C.
unde
vi
.
din.
in
C.
quod
quis
,
24.
n.
4
,
5.
—
Et
de
ho●
neminem
dubitare
aut
dissentire
scribit
,
Marant
.
disp.
1.
num.
14.
When
the
Magistrate
doth
by
violence
,
and
without
law
any
thing
,
in
so
farre
doing
against
his
Office
,
he
is
not
a
Magistrate
;
then
say
I
,
that
power
by
which
he
doth
,
is
not
of
God
.
2.
None
doeth
then
resist
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
who
resist
the
King
in
Tyrannous
acts
.
2.
If
the
power
,
as
it
cannot
be
punished
by
the
subject
▪
nor
restrained
,
be
from
God
.
Ergo
,
the
Tyrannicall
power
itself
,
and
without
this
accident
(
that
it
can
be
punished
by
men
)
it
must
be
from
God
also
;
but
the
conclusion
is
absurd
,
and
denied
by
Royalists
.
I
prove
the
connexion
:
For
if
the
King
have
such
a
power
above
all
restraint
,
the
power
itself
,
to
wit
,
King
Davids
power
to
kill
innocent
Vriah
,
and
defloor
Bathshebah
,
without
the
accident
,
of
being
restrained
or
punished
by
men
,
is
either
from
God
,
or
not
from
God
;
if
it
be
from
God
,
it
must
be
a
power
against
the
sixth
and
seventh
Commandment
,
which
God
gave
to
David
,
and
not
to
any
subject
,
and
so
David
lied
when
he
confessed
this
sin
▪
and
this
sin
cannot
be
pardoned
because
it
was
no
sin
;
and
Kings
because
Kings
,
are
under
no
tye
of
duties
of
mercy
and
truth
,
and
justice
to
their
subjects
,
contrary
to
that
which
Gods
Law
requireth
of
all
Judges
,
Deut.
1.
15
,
16
,
17.
and
17.
15
,
16
,
17
,
18
,
19
,
20.
2
Chro.
19.
6
,
7.
Rom.
13.
3
,
4.
If
this
power
be
from
God
,
as
it
is
unrestrainable
and
unpunishable
by
the
subject
,
it
is
not
from
God
at
all
;
for
how
can
God
give
a
power
to
do
ill
,
that
is
unpunishable
by
men
,
and
not
give
that
power
to
do
ill
;
it
is
unconceiveable
:
For
in
this
very
thing
that
God
giveth
to
David
,
a
power
to
murther
the
innocent
,
with
this
respect
,
That
it
shall
be
punishable
by
God
onely
,
and
not
by
men
,
God
m●st
give
it
as
a
sinfull
power
to
do
ill
,
which
must
be
a
power
of
dispensation
to
sin
,
and
so
not
to
be
punished
by
either
God
,
or
man
,
which
is
contrary
to
his
revealed
will
in
his
word
:
If
such
a
power
as
not
restrainable
by
man
,
be
from
God
,
by
way
of
permission
,
as
a
power
to
sin
in
divels
,
and
men
is
,
then
it
is
no
Royall
power
,
nor
any
Ordinance
of
God
,
and
to
resist
this
power
,
is
not
to
resist
the
Ordinance
of
God
.
Argum.
4.
That
power
which
maketh
the
benefit
of
a
King
,
to
Judg.
17.
6.
Every
man
doth
what
seemeth
good
in
his
own
eyes
,
Judg.
18.
1.
and
19.
1.
and
21.
25.
2.
So
it
is
a
part
of
Gods
good
providence
to
provide
a
King
for
his
people
,
1
Sam.
16.
1.
so
2
Sam.
5.
12.
And
David
perceived
that
the
Lord
had
established
him
King
over
Israel
,
and
that
he
had
exalted
his
Kingdom
,
for
his
people
Israels
sake
,
2
Sam.
15.
2
,
3
,
6.
2
Sam.
18.
3.
Rom.
13.
2
,
3
,
4.
If
the
King
be
a
thing
good
in
it self
,
then
can
he
not
actu
primo
,
be
a
curse
and
a
judgement
,
and
essentially
a
bondage
and
slavery
to
the
people
:
also
the
genuine
and
intrinsecall
end
of
a
King
is
the
good
,
Rom.
13.
4.
and
the
good
of
a
quiet
a
peaceable
life
in
all
godlinesse
and
honesty
,
1
Tim.
2.
2.
and
he
is
by
Office
,
custos
utriusque
tabulae
,
whose
genuine
end
is
to
preserve
the
law
from
violence
,
and
to
defend
the
subject
;
he
is
the
peoples
debtor
for
all
happynesse
possible
to
be
procured
by
Gods
sword
,
either
in
peace
or
war
,
at
home
or
abroad
.
For
the
assumption
,
it
is
evident
.
An
absolute
and
Arbitrary
power
is
a
King-law
,
such
as
Royalists
say
God
gave
to
Saul
,
1
Sam.
8.
9
,
11.
and
10.
25.
to
play
the
Tyrant
,
and
this
power
Arbitrary
and
unlimited
above
all
Laws
,
is
that
which
1.
Is
given
of
God
.
2.
Distinguisheth
essentially
the
Kings
of
Israel
from
the
Iudge
,
●aith
Banclay
,
Grotius
,
Arnisaeus
.
3.
A
constitutive
form
of
a
King
,
therefore
it
must
be
actu
primo
a
benefit
,
and
a
blessing
of
God
:
but
if
God
hath
given
any
such
power
absolute
to
a
King
,
as
1.
His
will
must
be
a
law
,
either
to
do
or
suffer
all
the
Tyranny
and
cruelty
of
a
Tyger
,
Leopard
,
or
a
Nero
,
and
a
Julian
,
then
hath
God
given
actu
primo
,
a
power
to
a
King
as
King
,
to
inslave
the
people
and
slock
of
God
,
redeemed
by
the
blood
of
God
,
as
the
slaves
among
the
Romans
and
Iews
,
who
were
so
under
their
masters
,
as
their
bondage
was
a
plague
of
God
,
and
the
lives
of
the
people
of
God
under
Pharaoh
,
who
compelled
them
to
work
in
brick
and
clay
.
2.
Though
he
cut
the
throats
of
the
people
of
God
,
as
the
Lionnesse
Queen
Mary
did
,
and
command
an
Army
of
souldiers
to
come
and
burn
the
Cities
of
the
Land
,
and
kill
man
,
wife
,
and
children
;
yet
in
so
doing
,
he
doth
the
part
of
a
King
,
so
as
you
cannot
resist
him
as
a
man
,
and
obey
him
as
a
King
,
but
must
give
your
necks
to
him
,
upon
this
ground
,
because
this
absolute
power
of
his
is
ordained
of
God
;
and
there
is
no
power
,
even
to
kill
,
and
destroy
the
innocent
,
but
it
is
of
God
,
so
saith
Paul
,
Rom.
13.
If
we
beleeve
Court-Prophets
,
or
rather
Lying-Spirits
,
who
perswade
the
King
of
Britain
,
to
make
war
against
his
three
Dominions
.
Now
it
is
clear
,
that
the
distinction
of
bound
and
free
,
continued
in
Israel
even
under
the
most
tyrannous
Kings
,
2
Kings
4.
1.
yea
,
even
when
the
Iews
were
captives
under
Ahasuerus
,
Esther
7.
4.
And
what
difference
should
there
be
between
the
people
of
God
under
their
own
Kings
,
and
when
they
were
captives
under
Tyrants
,
serving
wood
and
stone
,
and
false
gods
,
as
was
threatned
,
as
a
curse
in
the
Law
,
Deut.
28.
25
,
36
,
64
,
68.
If
their
own
Kings
by
Gods
appointment
have
the
same
absolute
power
over
them
;
and
if
he
be
a
Tyrant
,
actu
primo
,
that
is
,
if
he
be
indued
with
absolute
power
,
and
so
have
power
to
play
the
Tyrant
,
then
must
the
people
of
God
be
actu
primo
,
slaves
,
and
under
absolute
subjection
,
for
they
are
relatives
,
as
lord
and
servant
,
conquerour
and
captive
.
It
is
true
,
they
say
,
Kings
by
office
are
fathers
,
they
cannot
put
forth
in
action
their
power
to
destroy
:
I
answer
,
it
is
their
goodnesse
of
nature
,
that
they
put
not
forth
in
action
,
all
their
absolute
power
to
destroy
,
which
God
hath
given
them
as
Kings
;
and
therefore
thanks
are
due
to
their
goodnesse
,
for
that
they
do
not
actu
secundo
play
the
Tyrant
;
for
Royalists
teach
that
by
vertue
of
their
office
,
God
hath
given
to
them
a
Royall
power
to
destroy
.
Ergo
,
The
Lords
people
are
slaves
under
them
,
though
they
deal
not
with
them
as
slaves
,
but
that
hindereth
not
,
but
the
people
by
condition
are
slaves
:
so
,
many
Conquerours
of
old
,
did
deal
kindely
with
these
slaves
whom
they
took
in
war
,
and
dealt
with
them
as
sons
,
but
as
Conquerours
they
had
power
to
sell
them
,
to
kill
them
,
to
put
them
to
work
in
brick
and
clay
:
so
say
I
here
,
Lord
give
us
a
King
)
should
pray
(
make
us
slaves
,
Lord
,
take
our
Libertie
and
power
from
us
,
and
give
a
power
illimited
and
absolute
to
one
man
,
by
which
he
may
(
if
he
please
)
waste
us
and
destroy
us
,
as
all
the
bloody
Emperours
did
the
people
of
God
.
)
Surely
,
I
see
not
but
they
should
pray
for
a
temptation
,
and
to
be
led
in
temptation
when
they
pray
God
to
give
them
a
King
,
and
therefore
such
a
power
is
a
vain
thing
.
Argum.
5.
A
power
contrary
to
justice
.
2.
To
peace
and
the
L.
15.
filius
de
condit
.
Instit.
cannot
be
a
lawfull
power
,
and
cannot
constitute
a
lawfull
Iudge
;
but
an
absolute
and
unlimited
power
is
such
:
How
can
the
Iudge
be
the
Minister
of
God
for
good
to
the
people
,
Rom.
13.
4
?
If
he
have
such
a
power
as
a
King
given
him
of
God
to
destroy
and
waste
the
people
?
Argum.
6.
An
absolute
power
is
contrary
to
nature
,
and
so
unlawfull
;
Alphonsus
Dux
Ferrariensis
only
an
Astronomer
,
Philippe
of
Macedo
only
a
Musitian
,
and
all
because
they
are
Kings
?
This
our
King
denyeth
when
he
saith
,
Art.
13.
There
is
power
legally
placed
in
the
Parliament
,
more
then
sufficient
to
prevent
and
restraine
the
power
of
Tyranny
.
But
if
they
had
not
power
to
play
the
Lions
,
it
is
not
much
that
Kings
are
Musitians
,
Hunters
,
&c.
7.
God
in
making
a
King
to
preserve
his
people
,
should
give
liberty
8.
If
the
Kings
of
Israel
and
Iudah
were
under
censures
and
Saul
,
Nathan
David
,
Elias
King
Achab.
Ieremiah
is
commanded
to
Prophesie
against
the
Kings
of
Iudah
Ier.
1.
18.
and
the
Prophets
practised
it
,
Ier.
19.
3.
c.
21.
2.
c.
22.
13
,
14
,
15.
Hos.
5.
1.
Kings
are
guilty
before
God
,
because
they
submitted
not
their
Royall
power
and
greatnesse
to
the
rebukes
of
the
Prophets
,
but
persecuted
them
.
2
Deut.
17.
20.
The
King
on
the
Throne
remaineth
a
Brother
,
Psal.
22.
22.
and
so
the
Iudges
or
three
Estates
are
not
to
accept
of
the
Person
of
the
King
,
for
his
greatnesse
,
in
Iudgement
,
Deut.
1.
16
,
17.
and
the
Iudge
is
to
give
out
such
a
sentence
in
Iudgement
as
the
Lord
,
with
whom
there
is
no
iniquity
,
would
give
out
,
if
the
Lord
himselfe
were
sitting
in
Iudgement
;
because
the
Iudge
is
in
the
very
stead
of
God
,
as
his
Lievtenant
,
2
Chron.
19.
6
,
7.
Ps.
82.
1
,
2.
Deut.
1.
17.
And
with
God
there
is
no
respect
of
persons
,
2
Chro.
19.
7.
1
Pet.
1.
17.
Act.
10.
34.
I
doe
not
intend
that
,
any
inferiour
Iudge
sent
by
the
King
,
is
to
judge
the
King
,
but
these
who
gave
him
the
Throne
,
and
made
him
King
are
truely
above
him
,
and
to
judge
him
without
respect
of
persons
,
as
God
would
judge
himselfe
,
if
he
himselfe
were
sitting
in
the
Beanch
.
3.
God
is
the
Author
of
Civill
Lawes
and
Government
,
and
his
Gods
mind
,
that
is
Iustice
,
righteousnesse
,
safety
,
true
Religion
,
but
the
sole
lust
and
pleasure
of
one
man
.
And
2.
this
one
having
absolute
and
irresistible
influence
on
all
the
inferiour
Instruments
of
Iustice
,
may
by
this
power
turne
all
into
Anarchy
,
and
put
the
people
in
a
worse
condition
,
then
if
there
were
no
Iudge
at
all
in
the
Land
.
For
that
of
Polititians
,
that
Tyranny
is
better
then
Anarchy
,
is
to
be
taken
Cum
grano
salis
;
but
I
shall
never
beleeve
,
that
absolute
power
of
one
man
,
which
is
actu
primo
,
Tyranny
is
Gods
sufficient
way
of
peaceable
government
.
Therefore
Barclaius
saith
nothing
for
the
contrary
,
when
he
saith
,
The
Athenians
made
Draco
and
Solon
absolute
Law-givers
,
For
,
a
facto
adjus
non
valet
consequentia
.
What
if
a
roving
people
trusting
Draco
and
Solon
to
be
Kings
above
mortall
men
,
and
to
be
gods
,
gave
them
power
to
make
Lawes
written
,
not
with
Inke
,
but
with
blood
:
Shall
other
Kings
have
from
God
the
like
Tyrannicall
and
bloody
power
from
that
,
to
make
bloody
Lawes
?
Chytreus
,
Lib.
2.
and
Sleidan
citeth
it
.
l.
1.
Sueton.
Sub
paena
periurii
non
tenentur
fidem
sevare
regi
degeneri
.
9.
He
who
is
regulated
by
Law
,
and
sweareth
to
the
three
Estates
QUEST.
XXIII
.
Whother
the
King
hath
any
Royall
prerogative
,
or
a
power
to
dispence
with
Lawes
?
And
some
other-grounds
against
absolute
Monarchie
.
A
Prerogative
Royall
,
I
take
two
wayes
:
1.
Either
to
be
an
act
Assert
.
1.
That
which
Royalists
call
the
Prerogative
Royall
of
Princes
,
is
the
salt
of
Absolute
Power
;
and
it
is
a
supreme
and
highest
power
of
a
King
,
as
a
King
,
to
doe
above
,
without
,
or
contrary
to
a
Law
,
or
Reason
:
which
is
unreasonable
.
1.
When
Gods
word
speaketh
of
the
power
of
Kings
and
Iudges
,
Deut.
17.
15
,
16
,
17.
Deut.
1.
15
,
16
,
17.
and
elsewhere
,
there
is
not
any
footstep
,
or
ground
for
such
a
power
:
and
therefore
(
if
we
speake
according
to
conscience
)
there
is
no
such
thing
in
the
2.
A
Prerogative
Royall
must
be
a
power
of
doing
good
to
the
people
,
and
grounded
upon
some
reason
or
law
:
but
this
is
but
a
branch
of
an
ordinarie
limited
power
,
and
no
prerogative
above
or
beside
law
.
Yea
,
any
power
not
grounded
on
a
reason
different
from
meere
will
or
absolute
pleasure
,
is
an
irrationall
and
brutish
power
;
and
therefore
it
may
well
be
jus
personae
,
the
power
of
the
jus
coronae
,
any
power
annexed
to
the
Crown
:
for
this
holdeth
true
of
all
the
actions
of
a
King
,
as
a
King
.
Illud
potest
Rex
,
&
illud
tantum
quod
jure
potest
.
The
King
,
as
King
,
can
doe
no
more
,
then
that
which
upon
right
and
law
he
may
doe
.
3.
To
dispute
this
question
,
Whether
such
a
Prerogative
agree
4.
That
which
is
the
garland
and
proper
flower
of
the
King
of
eating
of
the
tree
of
knowledge
,
maketh
the
eating
,
sinne
,
and
contrary
to
reason
;
but
there
is
no
reason
in
the
object
:
Gods
will
,
the
act
is
good
and
wise
,
seeing
infinite
wisdome
cannot
be
separated
from
the
perfect
will
of
God
:
but
no
act
of
a
mortall
King
,
having
sole
and
only
will
,
and
neither
law
nor
reason
in
it
,
can
be
a
lawfull
,
a
wise
,
or
a
good
act
.
Assert
.
2.
There
is
something
which
may
be
called
a
Prerogative
2.
There
is
a
dispensation
of
law
and
justice
,
not
flowing
from
The
Third
is
not
unlike
unto
the
Second
,
when
the
King
exponeth
But
there
is
another
dispensation
that
Royalists
doe
plead
for
,
and
that
is
,
a
power
in
the
King
,
ex
mera
gratia
absolutae
potestatis
regalis
;
Out
of
meere
grace
of
absolute
Royall
power
,
to
pardon
crimes
,
which
Gods
law
saith
,
should
be
punished
by
death
.
Now
this
they
call
a
power
of
Grace
;
but
it
is
not
a
power
of
meere
Grace
.
But
,
1.
Though
Princes
may
doe
some
things
of
Grace
,
yet
not
of
meere
Grace
:
because
,
what
Kings
doe
,
as
Kings
,
and
by
vertue
of
their
Royall
office
,
that
they
do
ex
debito
officii
,
by
debt
and
right
meere
grace
,
that
they
doe
as
good
men
,
and
not
as
Kings
:
and
that
they
may
not
doe
.
As
for
example
:
Some
Kings
,
out
of
their
pretended
prerogative
,
have
given
foure
pardons
to
one
man
,
for
foure
murthers
:
Now
this
the
King
might
have
left
undone
without
sinne
;
But
of
meere
grace
he
pardoned
the
murtherer
,
who
killed
foure
men
.
But
the
truth
is
,
the
King
killed
the
three
last
;
because
he
hath
no
power
in
point
of
Conscience
,
to
dispute
with
blood
,
Num.
35.
31.
Gen.
9.
6.
These
pardons
are
acts
of
meere
grace
to
one
man
;
but
acts
of
blood
to
the
Communitie
.
2.
Because
the
Prince
is
the
Minister
of
God
for
the
good
of
the
subject
;
and
therefore
the
Law
saith
,
He
cannot
pardon
,
and
free
the
guilty
,
of
the
punishment
due
to
him
.
Contra
l.
quod
favore
,
F.
de
leg
.
l.
non
ideo
minus
.
F.
de
proc
.
l.
legata
inutiliter
.
F.
de
lega
.
1.
And
the
reason
is
cleare
;
He
is
but
the
minister
of
God
,
a
revenger
to
execute
wrath
upon
him
that
doth
evill
.
And
if
the
Judgement
be
the
Lords
,
not
mans
,
not
the
Kings
,
as
it
is
indeed
,
Deut.
1.
17.
2
Chron.
19.
6.
he
cannot
draw
the
sword
against
the
innocent
,
nor
absolve
the
guiltie
,
King
,
Ps.
97.
1.
Ps.
99.
1.
and
all
men
in
relation
to
him
,
are
meere
ministers
,
servants
,
legates
,
deputies
:
and
in
relation
to
him
equivocally
and
improperly
,
Iudges
or
Kings
,
and
meere
created
King
of
Kings
.
And
looke
as
the
Scribe
,
following
his
own
device
,
and
writing
what
sentence
he
pleaseth
,
is
not
an
officer
of
the
Court
in
that
point
,
nor
the
pen
and
servant
of
the
Iudge
:
so
are
Kings
,
and
all
Iudges
,
but
forged
intruders
,
and
bastard
Kings
and
Iudges
,
in
so
far
as
they
give
out
the
sentences
of
men
,
and
are
not
the
very
mouthes
of
the
King
of
Kings
,
to
pronounce
such
a
sentence
as
the
Almighty
himselfe
would
doe
,
if
he
were
sitting
on
the
Throne
or
Bench.
3.
If
the
King
from
any
supposed
prerogative
Royall
,
may
doe
acts
of
meere
grace
,
without
any
warrant
of
Law
,
because
he
is
above
Law
,
by
office
:
then
also
may
he
doe
acts
of
meere
rigorous
Iustice
,
and
kill
and
destroy
the
innocent
,
out
of
the
same
supposed
Prerogative
;
For
Gods
word
equally
tyeth
him
to
the
place
of
a
Prerogative
Royall
saith
this
;
for
the
word
Prerogative
is
a
supreme
power
absolute
▪
that
is
loosed
from
all
Law
,
and
so
from
all
reason
of
Law
,
and
depending
on
the
Kings
meer
and
naked
pleasure
and
will
;
and
the
word
Royall
or
Kingly
,
is
an
Epithete
of
office
,
and
of
a
Iudge
,
a
created
and
limited
Iudge
,
and
so
it
must
tye
this
supposed
Prerogative
to
Law
,
Reason
,
and
to
that
which
is
debitum
legale
officii
,
and
a
legall
duty
of
an
office
;
and
by
this
our
masters
the
Royalists
make
God
to
frame
a
rationall
creature
,
which
they
call
a
King
,
to
frame
acts
of
Royalty
,
good
and
lawfull
,
upon
his
own
meer
pleasure
,
and
the
super-dominion
of
his
will
,
above
a
Law
and
Reason
.
And
from
this
it
is
that
deluded
Counsellours
,
made
King
James
(
a
man
not
of
shallow
understanding
)
and
King
Charls
,
to
give
pardons
to
such
bloody
murtherers
,
as
James
a
Grant
,
and
to
go
so
far
on
,
by
this
supposed
Prerogative
Royall
,
that
King
Charls
in
Parliament
at
Edinburgh
,
1633.
did
command
an
high
point
of
Religion
,
That
Ministers
should
use
in
officiating
in
Gods
service
,
such
Habits
and
Garments
as
he
pleaseth
;
that
is
,
all
the
Attire
and
Habits
of
the
idolatrous
Masse-Priests
,
that
the
Romish
Priests
of
Baal
useth
in
the
oadest
point
of
idolatry
(
the
adoring
of
Bread
)
that
the
earth
has
;
and
by
this
Prerogative
,
the
King
commanded
the
Service
Book
in
Scotland
,
An.
1637.
without
or
above
Law
and
Reason
.
And
I
desire
any
man
to
satisfie
me
in
this
,
If
the
King
a
Iulian
(
God
avert
,
and
give
the
spirit
of
revelation
to
our
King
)
may
he
not
command
all
the
Alcaron
,
and
the
Religion
of
the
Heathen
and
Indians
?
Royalists
say
,
The
Prerogative
of
Royalty
excludeth
not
reason
,
and
maketh
not
the
King
to
●●
as
a
brute
beast
without
all
reason
;
but
it
giveth
a
power
to
a
King
to
do
by
his
Royall
pleasure
,
not
fettered
to
the
dictates
of
a
Law
;
for
in
things
which
the
King
doth
by
his
Prerogative
Royall
,
he
is
to
follow
the
advice
and
counsell
of
his
wise
counsell
,
though
their
counsell
and
advice
doth
not
binde
the
Royall
will
of
the
King
.
I
answer
,
it
is
to
me
,
and
I
am
sure
to
many
Learneder
,
a
great
question
;
If
the
will
of
any
reasonable
creature
,
even
of
the
damned
angels
,
can
will
,
or
chose
any
thing
which
their
reason
corrupted
,
as
it
is
,
doth
not
dictate
,
hic
&
nunc
to
be
good
.
For
the
object
of
the
will
of
all
men
is
good
,
either
truely
,
or
apparently
good
to
the
doer
;
for
the
devill
could
not
suite
in
marriage
souls
,
except
he
war
in
the
cloths
of
an
Angel
of
light
;
sin
as
sin
cannot
sell
,
or
obtrude
it self
upon
any
,
but
under
the
notion
of
good
.
I
think
it
seemeth
good
to
the
great
Turk
▪
to
command
innocent
men
,
to
cast
themselves
over
a
precipie
two
hundreth
fadom
high
in
the
Sea
,
and
drown
themselves
to
pleasure
him
:
So
the
Turks
reason
(
for
he
is
rationall
,
if
he
be
a
man
)
dictateth
to
his
vast
pleasure
,
that
that
is
good
which
he
commandeth
.
2.
Counsellours
to
the
King
,
who
will
speak
what
will
please
the
Queen
,
are
but
naked
empty
Titles
,
for
they
speak
que
placent
,
non
que
prosunt
;
what
may
please
the
King
whom
they
make
glad
with
their
lies
,
not
what
law
and
reason
dictateth
.
3.
Absolutenesse
of
an
unreasonable
Prerogative
,
doth
not
deny
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
Polanus
in
Daniel
,
c.
5.
19.
Rollocus
,
com
.
16.
ib.
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
legitime
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
Pretogative
out
of
Vlpians
words
,
who
saith
,
That
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
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
,
validly
,
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
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.
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
.
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
)
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
Musitians
,
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
,
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
all
in
one
day
to
his
sword
,
were
they
obliged
by
this
Oath
to
prayers
and
teares
,
and
only
to
suffer
?
and
was
it
against
the
Oath
of
God
to
defend
themselves
by
Armes
?
I
beleeve
the
Oath
did
not
oblige
to
such
absolute
subjection
,
and
though
they
had
taken
Armes
in
their
owne
lawfull
defence
,
according
to
the
Law
of
Nature
,
they
had
not
broken
the
Oath
of
God
.
The
Oath
was
not
a
tye
to
an
absolute
subjection
of
all
and
every
one
,
either
to
worship
Idols
,
or
then
to
fly
,
or
suffer
death
.
Now
the
Service-booke
commanded
in
the
Kings
absolute
authority
all
Scotland
to
commit
grosser
Idolatry
,
in
the
intention
of
the
work
,
if
not
in
the
intention
of
the
Commander
,
then
was
in
Babylon
.
(
We
read
not
that
the
King
of
Babylon
pressed
the
consciences
of
Gods
people
to
Idolatry
)
or
that
all
should
either
fly
the
Kingdome
,
and
leave
their
inheritances
to
Papists
and
Prelates
,
or
then
come
under
the
mercy
of
the
sword
of
Papists
and
Atheists
by
sea
or
land
.
3.
God
may
command
against
the
Law
of
Nature
;
and
Gods
Commandement
maketh
subjection
lawfull
;
so
as
men
may
not
now
,
being
under
that
Law
of
God
,
defend
themselves
.
What
then
?
Ergo
we
owe
subjection
to
absolute
Princes
,
and
their
power
must
be
a
lawfull
power
,
it
no
waies
is
consequent
.
Gods
Commandement
by
Ieremiah
made
the
subjection
of
Iudah
lawfull
,
and
without
that
Commandement
they
might
have
taken
Armes
against
the
King
of
Babylon
,
as
they
did
against
the
Philistines
,
and
Gods
Commandement
maketh
the
Oath
lawfull
.
As
suppone
Ireland
would
all
rise
in
Armes
,
and
come
and
destroy
Scotland
,
the
King
of
Spain
leading
,
then
we
were
by
this
Argument
not
to
resist
.
4.
I●
is
denyed
,
that
the
power
,
Rom.
13.
as
absolute
,
is
Gods
ordinance
.
And
I
deny
utterly
that
Christ
and
his
Apostles
did
sweare
non-resistence
absolute
to
the
Roman
Emperour
.
Obj.
2.
It
sesmeth
,
1
Pet.
2.
18
,
19.
if
well
doing
be
mistaken
by
the
reason
and
judgement
of
an
absolute
Monarch
for
ill
doing
,
and
we
punished
,
yet
the
Magistrates
will
is
the
command
of
a
reasonable
will
,
and
so
to
be
submitted
unto
,
because
such
a
one
suffereth
by
Law
,
where
the
Monarches
Will
is
a
Law
,
and
in
this
case
some
power
must
judge
.
Now
in
an
absolute
Monarchy
all
judgement
resolveth
in
the
Will
of
the
Monarch
,
as
the
supreame
Law
:
and
if
Ancestors
have
submitted
themselves
by
Oath
,
there
is
no
repeale
,
or
redresment
.
Ans.
Who
ever
was
the
Author
of
this
Treatise
,
he
is
a
bad
defender
of
the
defensive
warres
in
England
,
for
all
the
lawfulnesse
of
warres
then
must
depend
,
on
this
.
1.
Whether
England
be
a
conquered
Nation
at
the
beginning
?
2.
If
the
Law-will
of
an
absolute
Monarch
,
or
a
Nero
be
a
reasonable
Will
,
to
which
we
must
submit
in
suffering
ill
,
I
see
not
but
we
must
submit
to
a
reasonable
will
;
if
it
be
reasonable
will
in
doing
ill
,
no
lesse
then
in
suffering
ill
.
3.
Absolute
Will
in
absolute
Monarches
is
no
Iudge
De
jure
,
but
an
unlawfull
and
a
usurping
Iudge
.
4.
1
Pet.
2.
18
,
19.
Servants
are
not
commanded
simply
to
suffer
(
I
can
prove
suffering
formally
not
to
fall
under
any
Law
of
God
,
but
only
patient
suffering
.
I
except
Christ
,
who
was
under
a
peculiar
to
suffer
patiently
.
But
it
doth
not
bind
up
a
servants
hand
,
to
defend
his
owne
life
with
weapons
,
if
his
Master
invade
him
,
without
cause
to
kill
him
:
otherwise
if
God
call
him
to
suffer
,
he
is
to
suffer
in
the
manner
and
way
as
Christ
did
,
not
reviling
,
not
threatning
.
4.
To
be
a
King
and
an
absolute
Master
,
to
me
are
contradictory
;
a
King
essentially
is
a
living
Law
.
An
absolute
man
is
a
creature
,
that
they
call
a
Tyrant
,
and
no
lawfull
King
;
yet
doe
I
not
meane
,
that
any
that
is
a
King
,
and
usurpeth
absolutenesse
,
leaveth
off
to
be
a
King
:
but
in
so
far
as
he
is
absolute
,
he
is
no
more
a
King
,
then
in
so
far
as
he
is
a
Tyrant
.
But
The
Law
is
the
measure
of
the
Kings
Power
.
2.
Parliaments
are
essentially
Lord
Iudges
to
make
Lawes
essentially
,
as
the
King
is
,
ergo
the
King
is
not
above
the
Law
.
3.
Magna
Charta
saith
the
King
,
can
doe
nothing
,
but
by
Lawes
,
and
no
obedience
is
due
to
him
,
but
by
Law
.
4.
Prescription
taketh
away
the
title
of
conquests
.
Obj
3.
The
King
,
not
the
Parliament
is
the
Anoynted
of
God
,
Ans.
The
Parliament
is
as
good
,
even
a
Congregation
of
Gods
.
Psalme
82.
1.
Obj.
4.
The
Parliament
is
the
Court
,
in
their
Acts
,
they
say
,
with
consent
of
our
Soveraigne
Lord
.
Ans.
They
say
not
,
at
the
Commandement
,
and
absolute
pleasure
of
our
Soveraigne
Lord
.
2.
He
is
their
Lord
materially
,
not
as
they
are
formally
a
Parliament
,
for
the
King
made
them
not
a
Parliament
,
but
sure
I
am
,
the
Parliament
had
power
before
he
was
King
,
and
made
him
King
,
1
Sam.
10.
17
,
18.
Obj.
5.
In
an
absolute
Monarchy
there
is
not
a
resignation
of
Ans.
If
reason
be
a
sufficient
restraint
,
and
if
God
hath
laid
no
other
restraint
upon
some
lawfull
King
,
yee
reason
,
Then
is
Migistracy
a
lame
,
a
needlesse
ordinance
of
God
,
for
all
Mankind
hath
reason
to
keepe
themselves
from
injuries
,
and
so
there
is
no
need
of
Iudges
or
Kings
to
defend
them
from
either
doing
or
suffering
injuries
.
But
certainly
this
must
be
admirable
.
If
God
as
Author
of
nature
should
make
the
Lyon
King
of
all
beasts
,
the
Lyon
remaining
a
devouring
beast
,
and
should
ordaine
by
nature
all
the
sheepe
and
Lambs
to
come
and
submit
their
corps
to
him
,
by
instinct
of
nature
,
and
to
be
eaten
at
his
will
,
and
then
say
,
The
nature
of
a
beast
in
a
Lyon
is
a
sufficient
restraint
to
keepe
the
Lyon
from
devouring
Lambs
.
Certainly
a
King
being
a
sinfull
man
,
and
having
no
restraint
on
his
power
,
but
reason
,
he
may
thinke
it
reason
to
allow
rebells
to
kill
,
drowne
,
hang
,
torture
to
death
an
hundred
thousand
Protestants
,
men
,
women
,
infants
in
the
wombe
,
and
sucking
babes
,
as
is
clere
in
Pharaoh
,
Manasseh
and
other
Princes
.
Obj.
6.
There
is
no
Court
or
Iudge
above
the
King
.
ergo
he
is
absolutely
supreame
.
Ans.
The
Antecedent
is
false
.
The
Court
that
made
the
King
of
a
private
man
,
a
King
,
is
above
him
;
and
here
are
limitations
laid
on
him
at
his
Coronation
.
2.
The
States
of
Parliament
are
above
him
,
to
censure
him
.
3.
In
case
of
open
Tyranny
,
though
the
States
had
not
time
to
conveen
in
Parliament
,
if
he
bring
on
his
people
an
hoast
of
Spaniards
or
forraine
Rèbells
,
his
owne
conscience
is
above
him
,
and
the
conscience
of
the
people
farre
more
,
called
conscientia
terrae
,
may
judge
him
in
so
farre
,
as
they
may
rise
up
and
defend
themselves
.
Obj.
7.
Here
the
Prelate
borrowing
from
Grotius
,
Barclay
,
(
or
it
s
possible
he
be
not
so
farre
travelled
)
for
Doct.
Ferne
hath
the
same
.
Soveraignty
weakned
in
Aristocracy
cannot
do●
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
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
●●th
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.
Prelate
.
The
King
hath
his
right
from
God
,
and
cannot
make
it
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
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
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
his
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
,
Sect.
6.
p.
19.
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
,
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
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
slie
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
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
collarerall
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
Answ.
The
People
being
the
fountaine
of
the
King
,
must
rather
be
the
fountaine
of
Lawes
.
2.
It
is
false
,
that
no
man
maketh
lawes
to
himselfe
.
Those
who
teach
others
,
teach
themselves
also
,
1
Tim.
2.
12.
1
Cor.
14.
34.
though
Teaching
be
an
act
of
authoritie
.
But
they
agree
to
the
penaltie
of
the
Law
secondarily
only
;
and
so
doth
the
King
,
who
,
as
a
father
,
doth
not
will
evill
of
punishment
to
his
children
,
but
by
a
consequent
will
.
3.
The
King
is
the
only
Supreme
,
in
the
power
ministeriall
of
executing
lawes
:
but
this
is
a
derived
power
,
so
as
no
one
man
is
above
him
;
but
in
the
fountaine-power
of
Royaltie
,
the
States
are
above
him
.
5.
The
Civil
law
is
cleare
,
that
the
laws
of
the
Emperor
have
force
only
from
this
fountaine
,
because
the
People
have
transferred
their
power
to
the
King
.
Lib.
1.
digest
.
tit.
4.
de
constit
.
Princip.
leg.
1.
sic
Vlpian
.
Quod
Principi
placuit
,
(
loquitur
de
Principe
formaliter
,
qua
Princeps
est
,
non
qua
est
homo
)
legis
habet
vigorem
,
utpote
cum
lege
Regia
,
quae
de
imperio
ejus
lata
est
.
populus
●i
,
&
in
eum
,
omne
suum
imperium
&
potestatem
conferat
.
Yea
,
the
Emperour
himselfe
may
be
conveened
before
the
Prince
Elector
.
Aurea
Bulla
Carol.
4.
Imper.
c.
5.
The
King
of
France
may
be
conveened
before
the
Senate
of
Paris
.
The
States
may
resist
a
Tyrant
,
as
Bossius
saith
,
de
Principe
,
&
privileg
.
ejus
,
n.
55.
Paris
de
puteo
,
in
tract
.
syno
.
tit.
de
excess
.
Reg.
c.
3.
Divines
acknowledge
that
Elias
rebuked
the
halting
of
Israel
betwixt
God
and
Baal
,
that
their
Princes
permitted
Baals
Priests
to
converse
with
the
King
.
And
is
not
this
the
sinne
of
the
Land
,
that
they
suffer
their
King
to
worship
Idols
?
and
therefore
the
Land
is
punished
for
the
sinnes
of
Manasseh
,
as
Knox
observeth
in
his
Dispute
with
Lethington
,
where
he
proveth
that
the
States
of
Scotland
should
not
permit
the
Queen
of
Scotland
to
have
her
abominable
Masse
:
Hist.
of
Scotland
,
l.
4.
p.
379.
edit.
an
.
1644.
Surely
the
power
or
Sea-Prerogative
of
a
sleepie
or
mad
Pilot
to
split
the
Althusius
,
polit.
c.
39.
n.
60.
answering
that
,
That
in
Democracie
the
people
cannot
both
command
and
obey
;
saith
,
It
is
true
,
secundum
idem
,
ad
idem
,
&
eodem
tempore
:
But
the
people
may
(
saith
he
)
choose
Magistrates
by
succession
.
Yea
,
I
say
,
1.
they
may
change
Rulers
yearely
,
to
remove
envie
:
A
yearely
King
were
more
dangerous
,
the
King
being
almost
above
envie
;
Men
incline
more
to
flatter
then
to
envie
Kings
.
2.
Aristotle
saith
,
polit.
l.
4.
c.
4.
l.
6.
c.
2.
The
people
may
give
their
judgement
of
the
wisest
.
Obj.
Williams
B.
of
Ossorie
,
Vindic.
Reg.
[
A
Looking-glasse
for
Rebels
]
saith
,
p.
64.
To
say
the
King
is
better
than
any
one
,
doth
not
prove
him
to
be
better
then
two
:
and
if
his
supremacie
be
no
more
,
then
any
other
may
challenge
as
much
:
for
the
Prince
is
singulis
major
:
A
Lord
is
above
all
Knights
;
a
Knight
above
all
Esquires
:
and
so
the
People
have
placed
a
King
under
them
,
not
above
them
.
Ans.
The
reason
is
not
alike
:
for
all
the
Knights
united
cannot
Object
.
2.
The
Parliament
(
saith
Williams
)
may
not
command
Ans.
They
supplicate
,
ex
decentia
,
of
decencie
and
conveniencie
for
his
place
;
as
a
Citie
doth
supplicate
a
Lord
Major
:
but
they
supplicate
not
ex
debito
,
of
obligation
,
as
beggars
seeke
almes
:
then
should
they
be
cyphers
.
2.
When
a
Subject
oppressed
,
supplicateth
his
Soveraigne
for
justice
;
the
King
is
obliged
by
office
to
give
justice
:
And
to
heare
the
oppressed
,
is
not
an
act
of
grace
and
mercie
,
as
to
give
almes
,
though
it
should
proceed
from
mercie
in
the
Prince
,
Psal.
72.
13.
but
an
act
of
Royall
debt
.
3.
The
P.
Prelate
objecteth
:
The
most
you
claime
to
Parliaments
,
Ans.
1.
The
Parliament
is
coordinate
ordinarily
with
the
King
,
Par
in
parem
,
&c.
is
no
better
from
his
Pen
,
that
stealeth
all
he
hath
,
then
from
Barclaius
,
Grotius
,
Arnisaeus
,
Blackwood
,
&c.
It
is
cold
and
sowre
.
We
hold
the
Parliament
that
made
the
King
at
Hebron
,
to
be
above
their
own
creature
the
King
.
Barclaius
saith
more
acurately
,
l.
5
,
cont.
Monarch
.
p.
129.
It
is
absurd
,
that
the
People
should
both
be
subject
to
the
King
,
and
command
the
King
also
.
Ans.
It
is
not
absurd
,
that
a
Father
naturall
,
as
a
private
man
,
should
be
subject
to
his
Sonne
;
even
that
Jesse
,
and
his
elder
brother
,
the
Lord
of
all
the
rest
,
be
subject
to
David
their
King
.
Royalists
say
,
Our
late
Queen
,
being
supreme
Magistrate
,
might
by
Law
have
put
to
death
her
own
husband
,
for
adulterie
or
murther
.
2.
The
Parliament
should
not
be
both
Accuser
,
Iudge
,
and
Witnesse
in
their
own
cause
.
1.
It
is
the
Cause
of
Religion
,
of
God
,
of
Protestants
,
and
of
the
whole
people
.
2.
The
oppressed
accuse
:
there
is
no
need
of
witnesses
in
raising
armes
against
the
Subjects
.
3.
The
P.
Prelate
could
not
object
this
,
if
against
the
Imperiall
laws
the
King
were
both
Partie
and
Iudge
in
his
own
cause
,
and
in
these
acts
of
arbitrarie
power
,
which
he
hath
done
,
through
bad
counsell
,
in
wronging
Fundamentall
lawes
,
raising
armes
against
his
subjects
,
bringing
in
forraigne
enemies
into
both
his
Kingdomes
,
&c.
Now
this
is
properly
the
cause
of
the
King
,
as
he
is
a
man
;
and
his
owne
cause
,
not
the
cause
of
God
,
and
by
no
Law
of
nature
,
reason
,
or
Imperiall
Statutes
can
he
be
both
Iudge
and
party
.
4.
If
the
King
be
sole
supreame
Iudge
without
any
fellow
sharers
in
power
,
1.
He
is
not
obliged
by
Law
to
follow
Counsell
,
or
hold
Parliaments
;
for
Counsell
is
not
Command
.
2.
It
is
unpossible
to
limit
him
even
in
the
exercises
of
his
power
,
which
yet
Dr.
Ferne
saith
cannot
be
said
:
for
if
any
of
his
power
be
retrinched
,
God
is
robbed
,
saith
Maxwell
.
3.
He
may
by
Law
play
the
Tyrant
,
gratis
.
Ferne
objecteth
.
§.
7.
pag.
26.
The
King
is
a
fundamentall
with
Ans.
The
King
as
King
inspired
with
Law
is
a
fundamentall
,
and
his
power
is
not
to
be
stirred
,
but
as
a
man
wasting
his
people
,
he
is
a
destruction
to
the
house
,
and
community
,
and
not
a
fundamentall
in
that
notion
.
Some
object
,
The
three
Estates
as
men
,
and
looking
to
their
owne
ends
,
not
to
Law
,
and
the
publick
good
,
are
not
fundamentalls
,
and
are
to
be
judged
by
the
King
.
Ans.
By
the
people
,
and
the
conscience
of
the
people
they
are
to
be
judged
.
Obj.
But
the
people
also
doe
judge
as
corrupt
men
,
and
not
as
the
people
,
and
a
Politique
Body
,
providing
for
their
owne
safety
.
Ans.
I
grant
all
,
when
God
will
bring
a
vengeance
on
Jerusalem
,
Prince
and
people
both
are
hardened
to
their
owne
destruction
.
Now
God
hath
made
all
the
three
,
in
every
Government
where
there
is
Democracy
,
there
is
some
chosen
ones
resembling
an
Aristocracy
,
and
some
one
for
order
presiding
in
Democraticall
courts
,
resembling
a
King
.
In
Aristocracy
as
in
Holland
,
there
is
somewhat
of
Democracy
,
the
people
have
their
Commissioners
,
and
one
Duke
or
Generall
,
as
the●
Prince
of
Orange
is
some
●mbrage
of
Royalty
,
and
in
Monarchy
there
are
the
three
Estates
of
Parliament
,
and
these
containe
the
three
Estates
,
and
so
somewhat
of
the
three
formes
of
Government
,
and
there
is
no
one
Government
just
that
hath
not
some
of
all
three
;
powre
and
absolute
Monarchy
is
Tyranny
,
unmixed
Democracy
,
is
confusion
,
untempered
Aristocracy
is
factious
Dominion
,
and
a
limited
Monarchy
hath
from
Democracy
respect
to
publick
good
without
confusion
.
From
Aristocracy
safety
The
King
as
the
King
is
an
unerring
and
living
Law
,
and
by
grant
Burel
.
Ad
verfus
Monarchomachous
l.
1.
pag.
24.
A
King
as
King
how
excellent
a
head
of
the
people
,
how
contrary
to
a
Tyrant
.
of
Barclay
,
of
old
was
one
of
excellent
parts
,
and
noble
through
vertue
and
goodnesse
;
and
the
goodnesse
of
a
father
as
a
father
,
of
a
tutor
as
a
tutor
,
of
a
head
as
a
head
,
of
a
husband
as
a
husband
doe
agree
to
the
King
as
the
King
,
so
as
King
he
is
the
Law
it selfe
,
commanding
,
governing
,
saving
.
2.
His
Will
as
King
,
or
his
Royall
Will
is
reason
,
conscience
,
Law
.
3.
This
Will
is
politickly
present
(
when
his
person
is
absent
)
in
all
Parliaments
,
Courts
,
and
inferiour
Iudicatures
.
4.
The
King
as
King
cannot
doe
wrong
or
violence
to
any
.
5.
Amongst
the
Romanes
the
name
King
and
Tyrant
were
common
to
one
thing
.
1.
Because
de
facto
,
some
of
their
Kings
were
Tyrants
,
in
respect
of
their
Dominion
,
rather
then
Kings
.
2.
Because
he
who
was
a
Tyrant
De
facto
,
should
have
been
,
and
was
a
King
too
de
jure
.
6.
It
is
not
lawfull
to
either
disobey
or
resist
a
King
as
a
King
,
no
more
then
it
is
lawfull
to
disobey
a
good
Law
.
7.
What
violence
,
what
unjustice
,
and
excesse
of
passion
the
King
mixeth
in
,
with
his
Acts
of
Government
,
are
meerely
accidentall
to
a
King
as
King
!
for
because
men
by
their
owne
innate
goodnesse
▪
will
not
,
yea
Morally
cannot
doe
that
which
is
lawfull
,
and
just
one
to
another
,
and
doe
naturally
,
since
the
fall
of
man
,
violence
one
to
another
;
therefore
,
if
there
had
not
been
sin
,
there
should
not
have
been
need
of
a
King
,
more
then
there
should
have
beene
need
of
a
Tutor
to
defend
the
child
,
whose
father
is
not
dead
,
or
of
a
Physitian
to
cure
sicknesse
where
there
is
health
;
for
remove
sinne
,
and
there
is
neither
death
nor
sicknesse
,
but
because
sinne
is
entered
into
the
world
,
God
devised
,
as
a
remedy
of
violence
from
God
,
nor
any
ordinance
which
God
doth
owne
:
If
the
Office
of
a
Tyrant
(
to
speake
so
)
be
contrary
to
a
Kings
Offices
,
it
is
not
from
God
,
and
so
neither
is
the
power
from
God
.
9.
Yea
Lawes
(
which
are
no
lesse
from
God
,
then
the
Kings
are
)
when
they
begin
to
be
hurtfull
,
Cessant
materialiter
,
they
leave
off
to
be
Lawes
;
because
they
oblige
Non
secundum
vim
verborum
,
sed
in
vim
sensus
,
not
according
to
the
force
of
words
,
but
according
to
sense
,
●
.
Non
figura
literarum
F.
de
actione
&
obligatione
,
l.
ita
stipulatus
.
But
who
(
saith
the
Royalists
)
shall
be
judge
betwixt
the
King
and
the
people
,
when
the
people
alledge
that
the
King
is
a
Tyrant
.
Ans.
There
is
a
Court
of
necessity
,
no
lesse
then
a
Court
of
Obj.
1.
But
if
the
Law
be
doubtsome
,
as
all
humane
,
all
Civill
,
all
municipall
Lawes
may
endure
great
dispute
,
the
peremptory
person
exponing
,
the
Law
must
be
the
supreame
Iudge
.
This
cannot
be
the
people
,
ergo
,
it
must
be
the
King
.
Ans.
1.
As
the
Scriptures
in
all
fundamentalls
are
cleare
,
and
Object
.
2.
Doct.
Ferne.
A
King
may
not
,
or
cannot
easily
alter
Answ.
1.
If
the
King
as
King
,
may
alter
any
one
wholesome
Law
,
Catholike
true
Religion
.
It
is
but
one
transient
act
to
seal
a
pardon
to
the
shedding
of
the
blood
of
two
hundred
thousand
,
killed
by
Papists
.
2.
You
make
him
a
King
,
who
may
not
be
resisted
in
any
case
;
and
though
he
subvert
all
Fundamentall
Laws
,
he
is
countable
to
God
onely
,
his
people
have
no
remedy
,
but
prayers
,
or
flight
.
Object
.
3.
Ferne
▪
Limitations
and
mixtures
in
Monarchies
Answ.
I
understand
not
a
difference
betwixt
forceable
restraining
and
legall
restraining
:
For
he
must
mean
by
(
legall
)
mans
Law
,
because
he
saith
,
It
is
a
Law
in
the
Covenant
betwixt
the
Monarch
,
and
his
people
.
Now
if
this
be
not
forceable
,
and
physicall
,
it
is
That
personall
defence
is
lawfull
in
the
people
,
if
the
Kings
assault
be
1.
Suddain
.
2.
Without
colour
of
Law
.
3.
Inevitable
:
Yet
the
reserve
of
this
power
of
defence
,
is
not
necessarily
to
be
expressed
in
the
contract
,
betwixt
King
and
people
.
Exigences
of
the
Law
of
nature
cannot
be
set
down
in
positive
Covenants
,
they
are
presupposed
.
3.
He
saith
,
A
reservation
of
power
,
whereby
soveraigntie
is
not
secured
,
is
unlawfull
.
Lend
me
this
Argument
:
The
giving
away
of
a
power
of
defence
,
and
a
making
the
King
absolute
,
is
unlawfull
,
because
by
it
the
people
is
not
secured
;
but
one
man
hath
thereby
the
sword
of
God
put
Solomon
to
idolatry
,
as
people
may
educe
sedition
out
of
a
legall
restraint
laid
upon
a
King
,
to
say
nothing
,
that
Tyranny
is
a
more
dangerous
sin
,
then
sedition
;
by
how
much
more
the
lives
of
many
,
and
true
religion
,
are
to
be
preferred
to
the
safetie
of
one
,
and
a
false
peace
.
Object
.
4.
An
absolute
Monarch
i●
free
from
all
forceable
restraint
,
Answ.
A
legall
restraint
on
the
people
,
is
a
forceable
restraint
:
For
if
Law
be
not
backed
with
force
,
it
is
onely
a
Law
of
rewarding
weldoing
,
which
is
no
restraint
,
but
an
incouragement
to
do
evil
.
If
then
there
be
a
legall
restraint
upon
the
King
,
without
any
force
,
it
is
no
restraint
,
but
onely
such
a
request
as
this
,
Be
a
just
Prince
,
and
we
will
give
your
Majestie
two
Subsidies
in
one
yeer
.
2.
I
utterly
deny
,
that
God
ever
ordained
such
an
irrationall
creature
,
as
an
absolute
Monarch
.
If
a
people
unjustly
,
and
against
natures
dictates
make
away
,
irrevocably
,
their
own
libertie
,
and
the
libertie
of
their
posteritie
,
which
is
not
their's
to
dispose
off
,
and
set
over
themselves
,
as
base
slaves
,
a
sinning
creature
with
absolute
power
,
he
is
their
King
,
but
not
as
he
is
absolute
,
and
that
he
may
not
be
forceably
resisted
;
notwithstanding
,
the
subjects
did
swear
to
his
absolute
An
absolute
Monarch
(
saith
he
)
is
limited
,
but
by
Law
of
nature
:
That
is
,
Master
Doctor
,
he
is
not
limited
as
a
Monarch
,
not
as
an
absolute
Monarch
,
but
as
a
son
of
Adam
,
he
is
under
the
limites
of
the
Law
of
nature
,
which
he
should
have
been
under
,
though
he
had
never
been
a
King
,
all
his
dayes
,
but
a
slave
.
But
what
then
?
Therefore
he
cannot
be
resisted
.
Yes
,
Doctor
,
by
your
own
grant
he
can
be
resisted
:
If
he
invade
an
innocent
subject
(
say
you
)
1.
Suddenly
.
2.
Without
colour
of
Law
.
3.
Inevitably
:
And
that
because
he
transgresseth
the
Law
of
nature
.
4.
You
say
,
a
limited
Monarch
can
lesse
be
resisted
for
transgressing
the
bounds
set
by
civill
agreement
.
But
,
1.
What
if
the
thus
limited
Monarch
transgresse
the
Law
of
nature
,
and
subvert
Fundamentall
Lawes
,
he
is
then
,
you
seem
to
say
,
to
be
resisted
;
it
is
not
for
simple
transgression
of
a
civill
agreement
,
that
he
is
to
be
resisted
.
2.
The
limited
Monarch
is
as
essentially
the
Lords
anointed
,
and
the
power
ordained
of
God
,
as
the
absolute
Monarch
.
Now
resistance
by
all
your
grounds
,
is
unlawfull
,
because
of
Gods
power
and
place
conferred
upon
him
,
not
because
of
mens
positive
covenant
made
with
him
.
To
finde
out
the
essentiall
difference
betwixt
a
King
and
a
Tyrant
:
Antiochus
.
Maxentius
was
swallowed
up
in
a
standing
River
.
Iulian
died
,
being
stricken
through
with
a
Dart
thrown
at
him
by
a
man
,
or
an
Angel
,
it
is
not
known
.
Valens
the
Arian
was
burnt
with
fire
in
a
little
Village
by
the
Gothes
.
Anastasius
the
Eutychian
Emperour
,
was
stricken
by
God
with
thunder
.
Gundericus
Vandalus
,
when
he
rose
against
the
Church
of
God
,
being
apprehended
by
the
Divell
,
died
.
Some
time
the
State
have
taken
order
with
Tyrants
.
The
Empire
was
taken
from
Vitellius
,
Heliogabalus
,
Maximinus
,
Didius
,
Iulianus
:
So
was
the
two
Childerici
of
France
served
:
So
were
also
Sigebertus
,
Dagabertus
,
and
Lodowick
the
11.
of
France
.
Christiernus
of
Denmark
,
Mary
of
Scotland
,
who
killed
her
husband
,
and
raised
Forces
against
the
Kingdom
:
So
was
Henricus
Valesius
of
Pol
,
for
fleeing
the
Kingdom
.
Sigismundus
of
Pol
,
for
violating
his
faith
to
the
States
.
QUEST.
XXV
.
What
force
the
Supreme
Law
hath
over
the
King
▪
even
that
Law
of
the
Peoples
safetie
,
called
,
Salus
Populi
.
THe
Law
of
the
12.
Tables
,
is
,
Salus
populi
,
Suprema
lex
.
The
safetie
of
the
People
is
the
supreme
and
Cardinall
law
,
to
which
all
Lawes
are
to
stoope
.
And
that
from
these
Reasons
:
1.
Originally
:
Because
,
if
the
People
be
the
first
Author
,
Fountaine
,
The
part
cannot
be
more
excellent
then
the
whole
:
nor
the
effect
above
the
cause
.
2.
Finaliter
.
This
Supreme
law
must
stand
;
for
if
all
Law
,
Policie
,
Magistrates
and
Power
be
referred
to
the
peoples
good
,
as
the
end
,
Rom.
13.
4.
and
to
their
quiet
and
peaceable
life
in
godlinesse
and
honestie
:
then
must
this
Law
stand
,
as
of
more
worth
then
the
King
,
as
the
end
is
of
more
worth
then
the
meanes
leading
to
the
end
;
for
the
end
is
the
measure
and
rule
of
the
goodnesse
of
the
meane
▪
and
,
finis
ultimus
in
influxu
est
potentissimus
.
The
King
is
good
,
because
he
conduceth
much
for
the
safetie
of
the
People
;
Ergo
,
the
safetie
of
the
people
must
be
better
.
3.
By
way
of
limitation
:
Because
no
Law
,
in
its
letter
,
hath
force
,
where
the
safetie
of
the
Subject
is
in
hazard
:
and
if
Law
,
or
King
be
destructive
to
the
people
,
they
are
to
be
abolished
.
This
is
cleare
in
a
Tyrant
,
or
a
wicked
man
.
4.
In
the
desires
of
the
most
holy
:
Moses
,
a
Prince
,
desired
for
the
safetie
of
Gods
people
;
and
rather
then
God
should
destroy
his
people
,
that
his
name
should
be
razed
out
of
the
booke
of
life
.
And
David
saith
,
1
Chron.
21.
17.
Let
thine
hand
,
I
pray
thee
,
O
Lord
my
God
,
be
on
me
,
und
on
my
fathers
house
;
but
not
on
thy
people
,
that
they
should
be
plagued
.
This
being
a
holy
desire
of
these
two
publick
The
Prelate
borroweth
an
answer
to
this
,
(
for
he
hath
none
of
Sac.
sane
.
Maj.
c.
16.
159.
Dr.
Ferne
,
Conscience
not
satisfied
,
Sec.
●
▪
p.
28.
his
own
)
from
D.
Ferne.
The
safetie
of
the
Subjects
is
the
prime
end
of
the
constitution
of
Government
:
but
it
is
not
the
sole
and
adequate
end
of
government
in
Monarchie
;
for
that
is
the
safetie
of
both
King
and
People
.
And
it
beseemeth
the
King
to
proportion
his
lawes
for
their
good
;
and
it
becommeth
the
People
to
proportion
all
their
obedience
,
actions
and
endeavours
,
for
the
safetie
,
honour
,
and
happinesse
of
the
King
.
It
's
impossible
the
people
can
have
safetie
,
when
Soveraigntie
is
weakened
.
Ans.
The
Prelate
would
have
the
other
halfe
of
the
end
,
why
a
King
is
set
over
a
People
,
to
be
the
safetie
and
happinesse
of
the
King
,
as
well
as
the
safetie
of
the
People
.
This
is
new
Logick
indeed
,
feed
the
people
of
God
.
For
if
he
intend
himselfe
,
and
his
own
honour
,
it
is
the
intention
of
the
man
who
is
King
,
and
intentio
operantis
;
but
it
is
not
the
intention
of
the
King
,
as
the
King
,
or
intentio
operis
.
The
King
,
as
a
King
,
is
formally
and
essentially
the
Minister
of
God
for
our
good
,
Rom.
13.
4.
1
Tim.
2.
2.
and
cannot
come
under
any
notion
as
a
King
,
but
as
a
mean
,
not
as
an
end
,
nor
as
that
which
he
is
,
to
seeke
himselfe
.
I
conceive
,
God
did
forbid
this
,
in
the
moulding
of
the
first
King
,
Deut.
17.
18
,
19
,
26.
He
is
a
minister
by
office
,
and
one
who
receiveth
honour
and
wages
for
this
worke
,
that
exofficio
,
he
may
feed
his
people
.
But
the
Prelate
saith
,
the
people
are
to
intend
his
riches
and
honour
.
I
cannot
say
but
the
people
may
intend
to
honour
the
King
:
but
that
is
not
the
question
,
whether
the
people
be
to
referre
the
King
and
his
government
as
a
meane
to
honour
the
King
?
I
conceive
not
.
But
that
end
which
the
people
in
obeying
the
King
in
being
ruled
by
him
,
may
intend
,
is
,
1
Tim.
2.
2.
That
under
him
they
may
lead
a
quiet
and
a
peaceable
life
,
in
all
Godlinesse
and
honestie
.
And
Gods
end
in
giving
a
King
,
is
the
good
and
safetie
of
his
people
.
P.
Prelate
.
To
reason
from
the
one
part
and
end
of
Monarchicall
Quovis
modo
esse
,
etiam
poenale
,
is
better
then
non
esse
:
The
Scripture
saith
the
contrary
;
It
were
better
for
some
never
to
have
been
borne
,
then
to
be
.
Tyranny
is
better
then
no
Government
.
Ans.
1.
He
knowes
not
Sophismes
of
Logick
,
who
calleth
this
Argument
,
à
divisis
:
for
the
Kings
Honour
is
not
the
end
of
the
Kings
Government
:
He
should
seeke
the
safetie
of
State
and
Church
,
not
himself
;
Himselfe
is
a
private
end
,
and
a
step
to
Tyranny
.
2.
The
Prelate
lyeth
,
when
he
maketh
us
to
reason
from
the
safetie
of
the
Subject
to
the
destruction
of
the
King
.
Ferne
,
Barclay
,
Grotius
,
taught
the
hungry
Scholler
to
reason
so
.
Where
read
he
this
?
The
People
must
be
saved
;
That
is
the
Supreme
law
:
Ergo
,
destroy
the
King
.
The
Devill
and
the
Prelate
both
,
shall
not
fasten
this
on
us
.
But
thus
we
reason
:
When
the
man
who
is
the
King
,
endeavoreth
not
the
end
of
his
Royall
place
,
but
,
through
bad
counsell
,
the
subversion
of
Lawes
,
Religion
,
and
bondage
of
the
Kingdome
;
The
free
Estates
are
to
joyne
with
him
for
that
end
of
Safetie
,
according
as
God
hath
made
them
heads
of
Tribes
,
and
Princes
of
the
people
:
And
if
the
King
refuse
to
joyne
with
them
,
and
will
not
doe
his
dutie
;
I
see
not
how
they
are
in
conscience
liberated
,
before
God
,
from
doing
their
part
.
3.
If
the
P.
Prelate
call
resisting
the
King
by
lawfull
defensive
wars
,
the
destruction
of
the
Head
;
He
speaketh
with
the
mouth
of
one
excommunicated
,
and
delivered
up
to
Sathan
.
4.
We
endeavour
nothing
more
then
the
safetie
and
happinesse
of
the
King
,
as
King
:
but
his
happinesse
is
not
to
suffer
him
to
destroy
his
Subjects
,
subvert
Religion
,
arme
Papists
,
who
have
slaughtered
above
two
hundred
thousand
innocent
Protestants
,
only
for
the
profession
of
that
true
Religion
which
the
King
hath
sworne
to
maintaine
.
Not
to
rise
in
armes
to
helpe
the
King
against
these
,
were
to
gratifie
him
as
a
Man
,
but
to
be
accessarie
to
his
soules
destruction
,
as
a
King
.
5.
That
the
Royall
Prerogative
is
the
end
of
a
Monarchie
ordained
by
God
;
neither
Scripture
,
Law
,
nor
Reason
can
admit
.
6.
The
people
are
to
intend
the
safetie
of
other
Iudges
,
as
well
as
the
Kings
.
If
Parliaments
be
destroyed
,
whose
it
is
to
make
Lawes
and
Kings
;
the
People
can
neither
besafe
,
free
to
serve
Christ
,
nor
happy
.
7.
It
is
a
lie
,
that
people
were
necessitated
,
at
the
beginning
,
to
commit
themselves
to
a
King
:
for
we
read
of
no
King
,
while
Nimrod
arose
:
Fathers
of
families
(
who
were
not
Kings
)
and
others
,
did
governe
till
then
.
8.
It
was
not
want
of
wisedome
,
(
for
in
many
,
and
in
the
people
,
there
must
be
more
wisdome
then
in
one
man
:
)
but
rather
corruption
of
nature
,
and
reciprocation
of
injuries
,
that
created
Kings
,
and
other
Iudges
.
9.
The
King
shall
better
compasse
his
end
,
to
wit
,
the
safetie
of
the
people
,
with
limited
power
,
(
placent
mediocria
)
and
with
other
Iudges
added
to
helpe
him
,
Num.
11.
14
,
16.
Deut.
1.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15.
then
to
put
in
one
mans
hand
absolute
power
:
for
a
sinfull
mans
head
cannot
beare
so
much
new
wine
,
such
as
exorbitant
power
is
.
10.
He
is
a
base
flatterer
,
who
saith
,
The
King
cannot
choose
but
earnestly
and
carefully
endeavour
his
own
,
and
the
peoples
happinesse
:
that
is
,
the
King
is
an
Angel
,
and
cannot
sinne
,
and
decline
from
the
duties
of
a
King
.
Of
the
many
Kings
of
Judah
and
Israel
,
how
many
chose
this
?
All
the
good
Kings
that
have
been
,
may
be
written
in
a
gold
ring
.
11.
The
peoples
safetie
dependeth
indeed
on
the
King
,
as
a
King
and
a
happy
Governour
;
but
the
people
shall
never
be
fattened
to
eat
the
winde
of
an
imaginarie
Prerogative
Royall
.
12.
Weake
Government
,
that
is
,
a
King
with
a
limited
power
,
who
hath
more
power
about
his
head
,
nor
within
his
head
;
is
a
strong
King
,
and
farre
from
Anarchy
.
13.
I
know
not
what
he
meaneth
,
but
Arminius
,
his
Masters
That
being
in
the
damned
eternally
tormented
is
no
benefit
,
it
were
better
they
never
had
being
,
then
to
be
eternally
tormented
;
and
this
they
say
to
the
defiance
of
the
Doctrine
of
eternall
Reprobation
,
in
which
we
teach
,
That
though
by
accident
,
and
because
of
the
Damned
their
abuse
of
being
and
life
,
it
were
to
them
better
not
to
be
;
as
is
said
of
Iudas
,
yet
simpliciter
comparing
being
with
non-being
,
and
considering
the
eternity
of
miserable
being
in
relation
to
the
absolute
liberty
of
the
Former
of
all
things
,
who
maketh
use
of
the
sinfull
being
of
Clay-vessells
for
the
illustration
of
the
glory
of
his
Iustice
and
power
,
Rom.
9.
17
,
22.
1
Pet.
2.
8.
Iude
v.
4.
It
is
a
censuring
of
God
,
and
his
unsearchable
Wisedome
,
and
a
condemning
of
the
Almighty
of
cruelty
(
God
avert
blasphemy
of
the
unspotted
and
holy
Majesty
)
who
by
Arminian
grounds
,
keepeth
the
Damned
in
life
,
and
being
to
be
fuell
eternally
for
Tophet
,
to
declare
the
glory
of
his
Iustice
.
But
the
Prelate
behoved
to
goe
out
of
his
way
to
salute
and
gratifie
,
a
proclaimed
enemy
of
free
Grace
Arminius
,
and
hence
he
would
inferre
,
That
the
King
wanting
his
Prerogative
Royall
,
and
fulnesse
of
absolute
power
to
doe
wickedly
,
is
in
a
penall
and
miserable
condition
,
and
that
it
were
better
for
the
King
to
be
a
Tyrant
,
with
absolute
liberty
to
destroy
,
and
save
alive
at
his
pleasure
,
as
is
said
of
a
Tyrant
,
Dan.
5.
v.
19.
then
to
be
no
King
at
all
.
And
here
consider
a
Principle
of
Royalists
Court
faith
.
1.
The
King
is
no
King
,
but
a
lame
and
miserable
Iudge
,
if
he
2.
The
King
cannot
be
happy
,
nor
the
people
safe
;
nor
can
the
King
doe
good
in
saving
the
needy
,
except
he
have
the
uncontrollable
and
unlimited
power
of
a
Tyrant
,
to
crush
the
poore
and
needy
,
and
lay
wast
the
mountaine
of
the
Lords
inheritance
:
such
Court-ravens
,
who
feede
upon
the
soules
of
living
Kings
,
are
more
cruell
then
Ravens
and
Vultures
,
who
are
but
dead
carcasses
.
Williams
B.
of
Ossarie
answereth
to
the
Maxime
,
Salus
populi
,
&c.
And
the
poore
Prelate
following
him
,
spendeth
pages
to
prove
Goods
,
Life
,
Chastity
and
Fame
dependeth
on
the
safety
of
the
King
,
as
the
breath
of
our
nostrills
,
our
Nurse-father
,
our
Head
,
corner-stone
,
and
Judge
,
c.
17.
6.
18.
1.
The
reason
why
all
disorder
was
in
Church
and
State
,
was
not
because
there
was
no
Iudge
,
no
Government
;
none
can
be
so
stupid
as
to
imagine
that
.
But
because
1.
They
wanted
the
excellentest
of
Governments
.
2.
Because
Aristocracy
was
weakened
so
,
as
there
was
no
right
.
No
doubt
Priests
there
were
,
but
Hos.
4.
either
they
would
not
serve
,
or
were
over-awed
,
no
doubt
in
those
daies
they
had
Iudges
,
but
Priests
and
Iudges
were
stoned
by
a
rascally
multitude
,
and
they
were
not
able
to
rule
;
therefore
it
is
most
consonant
to
Scripture
to
say
,
Salus
regis
suprema
populi
salus
.
The
safety
of
the
King
and
his
Prerogative
Royall
is
the
safest
sanctuary
for
the
people
.
So
Hos.
3.
4.
Lament.
2.
9.
Ans.
1.
The
question
is
not
of
the
Wisedome
,
but
of
the
Power
of
the
King
,
if
it
should
be
bounded
by
no
Law
.
2.
The
flatterer
may
know
,
there
be
more
foolish
Kings
in
the
world
then
wise
,
and
that
Kings
misled
with
Idolatrous
Queenes
,
and
by
name
Achab
ruined
himselfe
,
and
his
posterity
and
Kingdome
.
3.
The
salvation
and
happinesse
of
men
standing
in
the
exalting
of
Christs
Throne
and
the
Gospell
,
ergo
every
King
,
and
every
man
will
exalt
the
Throne
,
and
so
let
them
have
an
incontrollable
power
without
constraint
of
Law
,
to
doe
what
they
list
,
and
let
no
bounds
be
set
to
Kings
over
subjects
;
by
this
Argument
their
owne
wisedome
is
a
law
to
leade
them
to
Heaven
.
4.
It
is
not
Absoloms
mad
Male-contents
in
Britane
,
but
there
were
really
no
justice
to
Protestants
,
all
indulgence
to
Papists
,
Popery
,
Arminianisme
,
Idolatry
printed
,
Preached
,
professed
,
rewarded
by
Authority
,
Parliaments
,
and
Church
Assemblies
,
the
Bulwarkes
of
Iustice
and
Religion
were
denyed
,
dissolved
,
crushed
,
&c.
5.
That
by
a
King
he
understandeth
a
Monarch
,
Iudg.
17.
and
that
such
a
one
,
as
Saul
,
of
Absolute
power
,
and
not
a
Iudge
,
cannot
be
proved
,
for
there
were
no
Kings
in
Israel
in
the
Iudges
daies
,
the
Government
not
being
changed
till
neare
the
end
of
Samuels
Government
.
6.
And
that
they
had
no
Iudges
,
he
saith
,
It
is
not
imaginable
,
but
I
rather
beleeve
God
then
the
Prelate
,
Every
one
did
what
was
right
in
his
owne
eyes
,
because
there
was
none
to
put
ill
doers
to
shame
.
Possible
the
Estates
of
Israel
governed
some
way
for
meere
necessity
,
but
wanting
a
supreme
Iudge
which
they
should
have
,
they
were
loose
:
but
this
was
not
because
where
there
is
no
King
,
as
P.
P.
would
insinuate
,
there
was
no
Government
,
as
is
cleare
.
7.
Of
tempered
and
limited
Monarchy
,
I
thinke
as
honourably
as
the
Prelate
,
but
that
absolute
and
unlimited
Monarchy
is
excellenter
then
Aristocracy
,
I
shall
then
beleeve
when
Royalists
shall
prove
such
a
Government
,
in
so
farre
it
is
absolute
,
to
be
of
God
.
8.
That
Aristocracy
was
now
weakened
I
beleeve
not
,
seeing
God
so
highly
commendeth
it
,
and
calleth
it
his
own
reigning
over
his
people
,
1
Sam.
8.
7.
The
weakening
of
it
through
abuse
,
is
not
to
a
purpose
,
more
then
the
abuse
of
Monarchy
.
9.
No
doubt
(
saith
he
)
Hos.
4.
They
were
Priests
and
Iudges
,
Hos.
4.
but
they
were
over-awed
as
they
are
now
.
J
thinke
he
would
say
,
Hos.
3.
4.
otherwise
he
citeth
Scripture
sleeping
.
That
the
Priests
of
Antichrist
be
not
only
over-awed
,
but
out
of
the
earth
;
I
yeeld
,
that
the
King
be
limited
,
not
over-awed
,
I
thinke
Gods
Law
,
and
mans
Law
alloweth
.
10.
The
safety
of
the
King
as
King
,
is
not
only
safety
,
but
a
blessing
to
Church
and
State
,
and
therefore
this
P.
Prelate
and
his
fellowes
deserve
to
be
hanged
before
the
Sun
,
who
have
led
him
on
a
warre
to
destroy
him
,
and
his
Protestant
subjects
.
But
the
safety
and
flourishing
of
a
King
in
the
exercises
of
an
Arbitrary
,
unlimited
power
against
Law
,
and
Religion
,
and
to
the
destruction
of
his
subjects
,
is
not
the
safety
of
the
people
,
nor
the
safety
of
the
Kings
soule
,
which
these
men
,
if
they
be
the
Priests
of
the
Lord
,
should
care
for
.
The
Prelate
commeth
to
refute
the
learned
and
worthy
Observator
.
The
safety
of
the
people
is
the
supreme
Law
,
ergo
the
King
is
bound
in
duty
to
promote
all
and
every
one
of
his
subjects
to
all
happinesse
.
The
Observator
hath
no
such
inference
,
the
King
is
bound
to
promote
some
of
his
subjects
even
as
King
,
to
a
Gallowes
,
especially
Irish
Rebells
,
and
many
bloudy
Malignants
.
But
the
Prelate
will
needs
have
God
rigorous
(
hallowed
be
his
name
)
if
it
be
so
,
for
it
is
unpossible
to
the
tenderest-hearted
father
to
doe
so
:
actuall
promotion
of
all
is
unpossible
,
that
the
King
intend
it
of
all
his
subjects
,
as
good
subjects
,
by
a
Throne
established
on
righteousnesse
and
judgement
,
is
that
which
the
worthy
Observator
meaneth
;
other
things
here
are
answered
.
The
summe
of
his
second
answer
is
,
a
repetition
of
what
he
hath
said
;
I
give
my
word
in
a
Pamphlet
of
one
hundred
ninety
and
foure
pages
,
I
never
saw
more
idle
repetitions
,
of
one
thing
twenty
times
before
said
.
But
page
one
hundred
sixty
and
eight
,
he
saith
,
The
safety
of
the
King
and
his
subjects
in
the
Morall
notion
may
be
esteemed
Morally
the
same
,
no
lesse
then
the
soule
and
the
body
make
one
personall
subsistence
.
Ans.
This
is
strange
Logick
,
the
King
and
his
subjects
are
Ens
por
aggregationem
;
and
the
King
as
King
hath
one
Morall
subsistence
,
and
the
people
another
.
Hath
the
Father
and
the
sonne
,
the
Master
and
the
servant
one
Morall
subsistence
?
but
the
man
speaketh
of
their
well
being
:
and
then
he
must
meane
that
our
Kings
Government
that
was
not
long
agoe
,
and
is
yet
,
to
wit
,
the
Popery
,
Arminianisme
,
Idolatry
,
cutting
of
mens
eares
,
and
noses
,
banishing
,
imprisonment
,
for
speaking
against
Popery
,
arming
of
Papists
to
slay
Protestants
,
pardoning
the
bloud
of
Ireland
,
that
I
feare
,
shall
not
be
soone
taken
away
,
&c.
are
identically
the
same
with
the
life
,
safety
,
and
happinesse
of
Protestants
,
then
life
and
death
,
justice
and
unjustice
,
Idolatry
and
sincere
worship
are
identically
one
,
as
the
soule
of
the
Prelate
and
his
body
are
one
.
The
third
is
but
a
repitition
.
The
Acts
of
Royaltie
(
saith
the
Observator
)
are
Acts
of
dutie
and
obligation
;
Ergo
,
not
acts
of
grace
properly
so
called
.
Ergo
,
We
may
not
thank
the
King
for
a
courtesie
.
This
is
no
consequence
.
What
fathers
do
to
children
,
are
acts
of
naturall
dutie
,
and
of
naturall
grace
;
and
yet
children
owe
gratitude
to
parents
,
and
subjects
to
good
Kings
,
in
a
legall
sense
.
No
,
but
in
way
of
courtesie
onely
.
The
Observator
said
,
The
King
is
not
a
father
to
the
whole
collective
body
,
and
it
s
well
said
,
he
is
son
to
them
,
and
they
his
maker
.
Who
made
the
King
?
Policy
answereth
,
The
State
made
him
,
and
Divinitie
:
God
made
him
.
4.
The
Observator
said
well
:
The
peoples
weaknesse
is
not
the
That
that
perisheth
not
to
the
King
,
which
is
granted
to
the
people
.
The
Prelate
denyeth
.
Because
,
What
the
King
hath
in
trust
from
God
,
the
King
cannot
make
away
to
another
,
nor
can
any
take
it
from
him
,
without
sacriledge
.
Answ.
True
indeed
,
If
the
King
had
Royalty
by
immediate
trust
,
and
infusion
by
God
,
as
Elias
had
the
spirit
of
prophecie
,
that
he
cannot
make
away
:
Royalists
dream
that
God
immediately
from
heaven
,
now
infuseth
facultie
and
right
to
Crowns
,
without
any
word
of
God
.
It
s
enough
to
make
an
Euthysiast
leap
up
to
the
Throne
,
and
kill
Kings
.
Judge
if
these
Fanaticks
be
favourers
of
Kings
:
But
if
the
King
have
Royaltie
mediately
by
the
peoples
free
consent
from
God
,
there
is
no
reason
,
but
people
give
as
much
power
even
by
ounce
weights
(
for
power
is
strong
Wine
,
and
a
great
mocker
)
as
they
know
a
weak
mans
head
will
bear
,
and
no
more
;
power
is
not
an
immediate
inheritance
from
heaven
:
But
a
birth-right
of
the
people
borrowed
from
them
,
they
may
set
it
out
for
their
good
,
and
resume
it
when
a
man
is
drunk
with
it
.
2.
The
man
will
have
it
conscience
on
the
King
to
fight
and
destroy
his
three
Kingdoms
,
for
a
dream
,
his
prerogative
above
Law
.
But
the
truth
is
,
Prelates
do
engage
the
King
,
his
house
,
honour
,
subjects
,
Church
,
for
their
cursed
Mytres
.
The
Prelate
vexeth
the
Reader
with
Repetitions
,
and
saith
,
The
King
must
proportion
his
Government
,
to
the
safety
of
the
people
on
the
one
hand
,
and
to
his
owne
safety
and
power
on
the
other
hand
.
Ans.
What
the
King
doth
as
King
,
he
doth
it
for
the
happinesse
of
his
people
,
the
King
is
a
relative
,
yea
even
his
owne
happinesse
that
he
seeketh
,
he
is
to
referre
to
the
good
of
Gods
people
.
He
saith
farther
,
The
safety
of
the
people
includeth
the
safety
of
the
King
,
because
the
word
populus
is
so
taken
,
which
he
proveth
by
a
raw
sickly
rabble
of
words
,
stollen
out
of
Passerats
Dictioner
.
His
father
the
Schoole-master
may
whip
him
for
frivolous
Etymologies
.
This
supreame
Law
(
saith
the
Prelate
)
is
not
above
the
Law
of
Prerogative
Royall
,
the
highest
Law
,
nor
is
Rex
above
Lex
.
The
Democracie
of
Rome
had
a
supremacie
above
Lawes
,
to
make
and
unmake
Lawes
:
and
will
they
force
this
power
on
a
Monarch
,
to
the
destruction
of
Soveraigntie
?
Answ.
This
,
which
is
stollen
from
Spalato
,
Barclay
,
Grotius
,
and
This
supreme
Law
(
saith
the
Prelate
,
begging
it
from
Spalato
,
Dion
.
Halicarnass
.
shew
us
)
had
power
according
to
his
owne
Arbitrament
,
had
a
soveraigne
Commission
in
peace
and
war
of
life
,
death
,
persons
,
&c.
not
co-ordinate
,
not
subordinate
to
any
.
Ans.
It
is
not
an
Arbitrary
power
,
but
naturally
tyed
and
fettered
to
this
same
supreame
Law
,
Salus
populi
,
the
safety
of
the
people
,
that
a
King
breake
through
,
not
the
Law
,
but
the
letter
of
the
Law
for
the
safety
of
the
people
;
as
the
Chyrurgion
,
not
by
any
1.
There
is
no
such
dinne
and
noise
to
be
made
for
a
King
,
and
his
incommunicable
Prerogative
,
for
though
the
King
were
not
at
all
,
yea
though
he
command
the
contrary
(
as
he
did
when
he
came
against
Scotland
with
an
English
Army
)
the
law
of
Nature
teacheth
all
to
rise
without
the
King
.
2.
That
the
King
command
this
as
King
,
it
is
not
a
particular
positive
Law
;
but
he
doth
it
as
a
man
,
and
a
member
of
the
Kingdom
;
The
law
of
Nature
,
(
which
knoweth
no
dreame
of
such
a
Prerogative
)
forceth
him
to
it
,
as
every
member
is
,
by
Natures
indictment
,
to
care
for
the
whole
.
3.
It
is
poore
hungry
skill
in
this
New
Statist
,
(
for
so
he
nameth
all
Scotland
)
to
say
,
that
any
Lawes
are
made
for
private
interests
,
and
the
good
of
some
individuals
.
Lawes
are
not
Lawes
,
if
they
be
not
made
for
the
safetie
of
the
people
.
4.
It
is
false
,
that
the
King
in
a
publike
danger
is
to
care
for
himselfe
as
a
man
,
with
the
ruine
and
losse
of
any
:
Yea
,
in
a
publike
calamitie
,
a
good
King
,
as
David
,
is
to
desire
he
may
die
,
that
the
Publique
may
bee
saved
,
2
Samuel
,
24.
17.
Ex●dus
32.
32.
It
is
commended
of
all
,
that
the
Emperour
Otho
,
yea
and
Richard
the
2.
of
England
,
as
M.
Speed
saith
,
Hist.
of
England
,
p.
757.
resigned
their
Kingdomes
to
eschew
the
eff●sion
of
blood
.
The
Prelate
adviseth
the
King
to
passe
over
all
lawes
of
Nature
,
and
slay
thousands
of
innocents
,
and
destroy
Church
and
State
of
three
Kingdomes
,
for
a
straw
,
and
supposed
Prerogative
Royall
.
Now
certainly
,
Prerogative
,
and
Absolutenes
to
doe
good
and
ill
,
must
be
inferior
to
a
Law
,
the
end
whereof
is
the
safetie
of
the
People
.
For
David
willeth
the
pestilence
may
take
him
away
,
and
so
his
Prerogative
,
that
the
People
may
be
saved
,
2
Sam.
24.
17.
for
Prerogative
is
cumulative
,
to
doe
good
,
not
privative
to
doe
ill
;
and
so
is
but
a
meane
to
defend
both
the
Law
and
the
People
.
2.
Prerogative
is
either
a
power
to
doe
good
,
or
ill
,
or
both
:
If
the
first
be
said
,
it
must
be
limited
by
the
End
,
and
Law
,
for
which
it
is
ordained
.
A
meane
is
no
farther
a
meane
,
but
in
so
far
as
it
conduceth
to
the
end
;
the
safetie
of
all
.
If
the
second
be
admitted
,
It
is
Licence
and
Tyrannie
,
not
power
from
God
.
If
the
third
be
said
,
both
reasons
plead
against
this
,
that
Prerogative
should
be
the
Kings
end
in
the
present
warres
.
3.
Prerogative
being
a
power
given
by
the
mediation
of
the
people
;
yea
,
suppose
(
which
is
false
)
that
it
were
given
immediately
of
God
;
yet
it
not
a
thing
for
which
the
King
should
raise
war
against
his
Subjects
:
for
God
will
aske
no
more
of
the
King
,
then
he
giveth
to
him
:
The
Lord
reapeth
not
,
where
he
soweth
not
.
If
the
Militia
,
and
other
things
,
be
ordered
hitherto
for
the
holding
off
Irish
and
Spanishe
invasion
by
Sea
,
and
so
for
the
good
of
the
Land
,
seeing
the
King
,
in
his
own
person
,
cannot
make
use
of
the
Militia
;
he
is
to
rejoyce
that
his
Subjects
are
defended
.
The
King
cannot
answer
to
God
for
the
justice
of
warre
on
his
part
:
It
is
not
a
case
of
conscience
that
the
King
should
shed
blood
for
,
to
wit
,
because
the
under-Officers
are
such
men
,
and
not
others
of
his
choosing
;
seeing
the
Kingdome
is
defended
sufficiently
,
except
where
Cavaliers
destroy
it
.
And
to
me
,
this
is
an
unanswerable
argument
,
that
the
Cavaliers
destroy
not
the
Kingdomes
for
this
Prerogative
Royall
,
as
the
principall
ground
;
but
for
a
deeper
designe
,
even
for
that
which
was
working
by
Prelates
and
Malignants
,
before
the
late
troubles
in
both
Kingdomes
.
4.
The
King
is
to
intend
the
safetie
of
his
People
;
and
the
safety
of
the
King
,
as
a
Governour
,
but
not
as
this
King
,
and
this
man
,
Charles
:
that
is
a
selfe
end
:
a
King
David
is
not
to
looke
to
that
:
for
when
the
people
was
seeking
his
life
and
crown
,
he
saith
,
Ps.
3.
8.
Thy
blessing
upon
thy
People
.
He
may
care
for
,
and
intend
that
the
King
and
Government
be
safe
:
for
if
the
Kingdome
be
destroyed
,
there
cannot
be
a
new
Kingdome
and
Church
on
earth
againe
to
serve
God
,
in
that
generation
,
Psal.
89.
47.
but
they
may
easily
have
a
new
King
againe
:
and
so
the
safetie
of
the
one
,
cannot
in
reason
be
intended
,
as
a
collaterall
end
,
with
the
safetie
of
the
other
:
for
there
is
no
imaginable
comparison
betwixt
one
man
,
with
all
his
accidents
of
Prerogative
and
Absolutenesse
,
and
three
Nationall
Churches
and
Kingdomes
▪
Better
the
King
weep
for
a
Childish
tri●le
of
a
Prerogative
,
than
Poperie
be
erected
,
and
three
Kingdomes
be
destroyed
by
Cavaliers
,
for
their
own
ends
.
5.
The
Dictators
power
is
,
1.
a
fact
,
and
proveth
not
a
point
of
P.
Prelate
pleadeth
for
a
constant
absolutenesse
above
Lawes
,
to
the
King
at
all
times
,
and
that
jure
Divino
.
3.
The
Dictator
was
the
Peoples
creature
;
ergo
,
the
Creator
,
the
People
,
had
that
soveraigntie
over
him
.
4.
The
Dictator
was
not
above
a
King
:
but
the
Romanes
ejected
Kings
.
5.
The
Dictators
power
was
not
to
destroy
a
State
:
2.
He
might
be
,
and
was
resisted
.
3.
He
might
be
deposed
.
Prelate
.
The
safetie
of
the
People
is
pretended
as
a
Law
,
that
the
Ans.
No
shadow
for
either
,
in
the
word
of
God
.
Caiaphas
prophecied
,
and
knew
not
what
he
said
.
But
that
the
Iewes
intended
the
salvation
of
the
Elect
,
in
kil●ing
Christ
:
or
that
Saul
intended
a
publick
good
in
sparing
Agag
,
shall
be
the
Prelates
Divinitie
,
not
mine
.
2.
What
,
howbeit
many
should
abuse
this
Law
of
the
peoples
safety
,
to
wrong
good
Kings
,
it
ceaseth
not
therefore
to
be
a
Law
,
and
licenseth
not
ill
Kings
,
to
place
a
Tyrannicall
Prerogative
above
a
just
Dictate
of
nature
.
In
the
last
Chapter
,
the
Prelate
hath
no
reasons
,
onely
he
would
2.
He
must
preach
something
to
himself
,
that
the
King
adore
a
tree-Altar
.
Thus
Kings
must
be
most
reverend
in
their
gestures
,
pag.
182.
3.
The
King
must
hazard
his
sacred
life
and
three
Kingdoms
,
his
Crown
,
Royall
posterity
,
to
preserve
sacred
things
,
that
is
,
Antichristian
Romish
Idols
,
Images
,
Altars
,
Ceremonies
,
Idolatry
,
Popery
.
4.
He
must
upon
the
same
pain
maintain
sacred
persons
,
that
is
,
greasie
Apostate
Prelates
.
The
rest
I
am
weary
to
trouble
the
Reader
withall
,
but
know
ex
ungue
leonem
.
QUEST.
XXVI
.
Whether
the
King
be
above
the
Law
or
no
?
WE
may
consider
the
question
of
the
Laws
supremacie
over
The
King
is
not
subject
to
the
Law
]
if
their
meaning
be
[
The
King
as
King
is
not
subject
to
the
Laws
direction
]
They
say
nothing
;
for
the
King
as
the
King
is
a
living
Law
;
then
they
say
[
The
Law
is
not
subject
to
the
Laws
direction
]
a
very
improper
speech
;
or
,
The
King
as
King
,
is
not
subject
to
the
coaction
of
the
Law
;
that
is
true
,
for
he
who
is
a
living
Law
,
as
such
,
cannot
punish
himself
,
as
the
Law
saith
.
1.
Assert
.
The
Law
hath
a
supremacy
of
constitution
above
the
King
;
1.
Because
the
King
by
nature
is
not
King
,
as
is
proved
;
Ergo
,
he
must
be
King
by
a
politique
constitution
and
Law
,
and
so
the
Law
in
that
consideration
is
above
the
King
,
because
it
is
from
a
civil
Law
,
that
there
is
a
King
,
rather
then
any
other
kinde
of
Governour
.
2.
It
is
by
Law
,
that
amongst
many
hundred
men
,
this
man
is
King
,
not
this
man
;
and
because
,
by
the
which
a
thing
is
constituted
,
by
the
same
thing
it
is
,
or
may
be
dissolved
;
therefore
,
3.
As
a
Community
finding
such
and
such
qualifications
as
the
Law
requireth
to
be
in
a
King
,
in
this
man
,
not
in
this
man
;
therefore
upon
Law-ground
,
5.
They
make
him
a
King
,
and
upon
Law-grounds
and
just
demerit
,
they
may
unmake
him
again
;
for
,
what
men
voluntarily
doe
upon
condition
,
the
condition
being
removed
,
they
may
undoe
again
.
2.
Assert
.
It
is
denyed
by
none
;
but
the
King
is
under
the
directive
power
of
the
Law
,
though
many
liberate
the
King
from
the
coactive
power
of
a
civil
Law
.
But
I
see
not
what
direction
a
civil
Law
can
give
to
the
King
,
if
he
be
above
all
obedience
,
or
disobedience
to
a
Law
,
seeing
all
Law-direction
is
in
ordine
ad
obedientiam
,
in
order
to
obey
;
except
thus
far
,
that
the
light
that
is
in
the
civil
Law
,
is
a
morall
or
naturall
guide
to
conduct
a
King
in
his
walking
;
but
this
is
the
morality
of
the
Law
which
inlightneth
and
informeth
,
not
any
obligation
that
aweth
the
King
;
and
so
the
King
is
under
Gods
and
Natures
Law
,
this
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
3.
Assert
.
The
King
is
under
the
Law
,
in
regard
of
some
coercive
limitation
:
1.
Because
there
is
no
absolute
power
given
to
him
to
do
what
he
listeth
,
as
a
man
.
And
because
,
2.
God
,
in
making
Saul
a
King
,
doth
not
by
any
Royall
stamp
give
him
a
power
to
sin
,
or
to
play
the
Tyrant
;
for
which
cause
I
Omnia
sunt
possibilia
Regi
,
Imperator
omnia
potest
.
Baldus
in
§
.
F.
de
no.
for
▪
fidel.
in
F.
&
in
prima
constitut.
C.
col
.
2.
Chassanaeus
in
Catalog
.
gloriae
mundi
.
par.
5.
considerat
.
24.
&
tanta
est
ejus
celsitudo
,
ut
non
posset
ei
imponi
lex
in
regno
suo
.
Curt.
in
consol.
65.
col.
6.
ad
.
F.
Petrus
Rebuff
.
Notab.
3.
repet
.
l.
unicae
.
C.
de
sentent
.
quae
pro
eo
quod
nu.
17.
pag.
363.
All
these
go
no
otherwise
but
thus
,
The
King
can
do
all
things
which
by
Law
he
can
do
,
and
that
holdeth
him
:
id
possumus
quod
jure
possumus
.
And
therefore
the
King
cannot
be
above
the
Covenant
and
Law
made
betwixt
him
and
his
people
,
at
his
Coronation-oath
;
for
then
the
Covenant
and
Oath
should
binde
him
onely
,
by
a
naturall
obligation
,
as
he
is
a
man
,
not
by
a
civil
or
politique
obligation
,
as
he
is
a
King
.
So
then
,
1.
it
were
sufficient
that
the
King
should
swear
that
Oath
in
his
Cabinet-chamber
,
and
it
is
but
a
mocking
of
an
Oath
,
that
he
swear
it
to
the
people
.
2.
That
Oath
given
by
the
Representative-Kingdom
,
should
also
oblige
the
Subjects
naturally
,
in
foro
Dei
,
not
politically
,
in
foro
humano
,
upon
the
same
reason
.
3.
He
may
be
resisted
as
a
man
.
4.
Assert
.
The
fourth
case
is
,
if
the
King
be
under
the
obliging
politique
coaction
of
civil
Laws
,
for
that
he
in
foro
Dei
,
be
under
the
morality
of
civil
Laws
,
so
as
he
cannot
contraveen
any
Law
in
that
notion
,
but
he
must
sin
against
God
,
is
granted
on
all
hands
,
Deut.
17.
20.
Iosh.
1.
8.
1
Sam.
12.
15.
That
the
King
binde
himself
to
the
same
Law
that
he
doth
binde
others
,
is
decent
,
and
obligeth
the
King
as
he
is
a
man
;
1.
Because
,
Matth.
7.
12.
It
is
said
to
be
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
,
All
things
,
whatsoever
ye
would
men
should
do
unto
you
,
do
ye
even
so
to
them
.
2.
It
is
the
Law
,
Jmperator
L.
4.
dignae
vox
.
C.
de
lege
&
tit
.
Quod
quisque
juris
in
alium
statuit
,
eodem
&
ipse
utatur
.
Iulius
Caesar
commanded
the
youth
who
had
defloured
the
Emperours
daughter
,
to
be
scourged
,
above
that
which
the
Law
allowed
.
The
youth
said
to
the
Emperour
,
Dixisti
legem
Caesar
;
You
appointed
Caesar
.
The
Emperor
was
so
offended
with
himself
,
that
he
had
failed
against
the
Law
,
that
for
the
whole
day
he
refused
to
taste
meat
.
Assert
.
5.
The
King
cannot
but
he
subject
to
the
coactive
power
of
Fundamentall
Laws
:
Because
this
is
a
Fundamentall
Law
,
that
the
for
the
good
and
safety
of
the
people
;
and
so
what
he
doth
to
the
hurt
of
his
subjects
,
he
doth
it
not
as
King
.
2.
The
Law
saith
,
Qui
habet
potestatem
constituendi
etiam
&
jus
adimendi
.
l.
nemo
.
37.
l.
21.
de
reg.
jure
.
Those
who
have
power
to
make
,
have
power
to
unmake
Kings
.
3.
What
ever
the
King
doth
as
King
,
that
he
doth
by
a
power
borrowed
from
,
(
or
by
a
fiduciary
power
which
is
his
by
trust
)
the
Estates
,
who
made
him
King
.
He
must
then
be
nothing
but
an
eminent
servant
of
the
State
,
in
the
punishing
of
others
.
If
therefore
he
be
unpunishable
,
it
is
not
so
much
because
his
Royall
power
is
above
all
Law-coaction
,
as
because
one
&
the
same
man
cannot
be
both
the
punisher
and
the
punished
,
and
this
is
a
Physicall
incongruity
rather
then
a
Morall
absurdity
.
So
the
Law
of
God
layeth
a
duty
on
the
inferiour
Magistrate
,
to
use
the
sword
against
the
murtherer
,
and
that
by
vertue
of
his
Office
,
but
I
much
doubt
if
for
that
,
he
is
to
use
the
sword
against
himselfe
in
the
case
of
Murther
,
for
this
is
a
truth
I
purpose
to
make
good
;
that
suffering
as
suffering
according
Whether
the
King
be
punishable
,
or
be
to
he
punished
.
Two
divers
questions
.
Magistratus
ipse
est
judex
&
executor
contra
scipsum
,
in
propria
causa
,
propter
excellentiam
sui
officii
,
l.
se
pater
familia●
.
&
l.
&
boc
Tiberius
Caesar
F.
De
Hered
.
hoc
.
just
.
to
the
substance
and
essence
of
passion
,
is
not
commanded
by
any
Law
of
God
or
nature
to
the
sufferer
,
but
only
the
manner
of
suffering
:
I
doubt
if
it
be
not
,
by
the
Law
of
Nature
,
lawfull
even
to
the
ill
doer
who
hath
deserved
death
by
Gods
Law
,
to
fly
from
the
sword
of
the
lawfull
Magistrate
;
only
the
manner
of
suffering
with
patience
is
commanded
of
God
.
I
know
the
Law
saith
here
,
That
the
Magistrate
is
both
Iudge
,
and
the
Executor
of
the
sentence
against
himselfe
,
in
his
owne
cause
,
for
the
excellency
of
his
Office
.
Therefore
these
are
to
be
distinguished
,
whether
the
King
Ratione
demeriti
&
jure
,
by
Law
be
punishable
,
or
if
the
King
can
actually
be
punished
corporally
by
a
Law
of
man
,
he
remaining
King
;
and
since
he
must
be
a
punisher
himselfe
,
and
that
by
vertue
of
his
Office
.
In
matters
of
goods
the
King
may
be
both
Iudge
and
punisher
of
himselfe
,
as
our
Law
provideth
that
any
subject
may
plead
his
owne
heritage
from
the
King
before
the
inferiour
Iudges
,
and
if
the
King
be
a
violent
possessour
,
and
in
Mala
fide
for
many
yeares
,
by
Law
he
is
obliged
upon
a
Decree
of
the
Lords
,
to
execute
the
sentence
against
himselfe
,
Ex
officio
,
and
to
restore
the
Lands
,
and
repay
the
dammage
to
the
just
owner
,
and
this
the
King
is
to
doe
against
himselfe
,
ex
officio
.
I
grant
here
the
King
as
King
punisheth
himselfe
as
an
unjust
man
,
but
because
bodily
suffering
is
meere
violence
to
nature
,
I
doubt
if
the
King
ex
officio
,
is
to
doe
or
inflict
any
bodily
punishment
on
himselfe
:
Nemo
potest
a
seipso
cogi
.
l.
ille
a
quo
.
13.
§
.
Assert
.
6.
There
be
some
Lawes
made
in
favour
of
the
King
as
King
,
as
to
pay
tribute
.
The
King
must
be
above
this
Law
as
King
.
True
,
but
if
a
Noble
man
of
a
great
rent
be
elected
King
,
I
know
not
,
if
he
can
be
free
from
paying
to
himselfe
as
King
,
tribute
,
seeing
this
is
not
allowed
to
the
King
by
a
Divine
Law
,
Rom.
13.
6.
as
a
reward
of
his
worke
;
and
Christ
expresly
maketh
tribute
a
thing
due
to
Caesar
as
a
King
,
Matth.
22.
v.
21.
There
be
some
solemnities
of
the
Law
from
which
the
King
may
be
free
,
Prickman
.
D.
c.
3.
n.
78.
and
he
relateth
what
they
are
,
they
are
not
Lawes
,
but
some
circumstances
belonging
to
Lawes
,
and
Prickman
answereth
to
many
places
alledged
out
of
the
Lawyers
,
to
prove
the
King
to
be
above
the
Law
,
Maldorus
in
12.
Art.
4
,
5
,
9
,
96.
will
have
the
Prince
under
that
Law
,
which
concerneth
all
the
Common-wealth
equally
in
regard
of
the
matter
,
and
that
by
the
Law
of
nature
,
but
he
will
not
have
him
subject
to
these
Lawes
which
concerneth
the
subjects
as
subjects
,
as
to
pay
tribute
.
He
citeth
Francisc
.
a
Vict.
Covarruvia
,
and
Turrecremata
.
He
also
will
have
the
Prince
under
positive
Lawes
,
such
as
not
to
transport
victualls
,
not
because
the
Law
bindeth
him
as
a
Law
.
But
because
the
making
of
the
Law
bindeth
him
,
Tanquam
conditio
sine
qua
non
,
even
as
he
who
teacheth
another
that
he
should
not
steale
,
he
should
not
steale
himselfe
,
Rom.
2.
But
the
truth
is
,
this
is
but
a
branch
of
the
Law
of
Nature
,
that
I
should
not
commit
Adultery
,
and
Theft
,
and
Sacriledge
,
and
such
sinnes
as
nature
condemneth
,
if
I
shall
condemne
them
in
others
,
and
doth
not
prove
that
the
King
is
under
the
coactive
power
of
Civill
Lawes
.
Vlpianus
,
l.
31.
F.
de
regibus
saith
,
The
Prince
is
loosed
from
Nemo
imperat
sibi
,
No
man
commandeth
himselfe
.
Tholosanus
saith
,
Ipsius
est
dare
,
non
accipere
leges
.
The
Prince
giveth
Lawes
,
but
receiveth
none
,
De
Rep.
l.
7.
c.
20.
Donellus
Lib.
1.
Comment.
c.
17.
distinguisheth
betwixt
a
Law
,
and
a
Royall
Law
proper
to
the
King
.
Trentlerus
Volum.
1.
79.
80.
saith
,
The
Prince
is
freed
from
Laws
;
and
that
he
obeyeth
Laws
,
de
honestate
,
non
de
necessitate
,
Vpon
honesty
,
not
of
necessity
.
Thomas
P.
Soto
,
Gregorius
de
Valentia
,
and
other
Schoole-men
,
subject
the
King
to
the
directive
power
of
the
Law
,
and
liberate
him
of
the
coactive
power
of
the
Law
.
Assert
.
7.
If
a
King
turne
a
Paricide
,
a
Lyon
,
and
a
waster
and
destroyer
of
the
people
,
as
a
man
he
is
subject
to
the
Coactive
power
of
the
Lawes
of
the
Land
.
If
any
Law
should
hinder
that
a
Tyrant
should
not
be
punished
by
Law
,
it
must
be
,
because
he
hath
not
a
superiour
but
God
;
for
Royalists
build
all
upon
this
,
but
this
ground
is
false
:
because
the
Estates
of
the
Kingdome
who
gave
him
the
Crowne
,
are
above
him
,
and
they
may
take
away
what
they
gave
him
;
as
the
Law
of
Nature
and
God
saith
,
If
they
had
knowne
he
would
turne
Tyrant
,
they
would
never
have
given
him
the
sword
:
and
so
how
much
ignorance
is
in
the
contract
they
made
with
the
King
,
as
little
of
will
is
in
it
,
and
so
it
is
not
every
way
willing
,
but
being
conditionall
is
supposed
to
be
against
their
will
.
2.
They
gave
the
power
to
him
only
for
their
good
,
and
that
they
make
the
King
,
is
cleare
,
2
Chron.
23.
11.
1
Sam.
10.
17
,
24.
Deut.
17.
14
,
15
,
16
,
17.
2
King
.
11.
v.
12.
1
King
.
16.
21.
2
King
.
10.
5.
Iud.
9.
6.
2.
2
Chron.
26.
18.
fourescore
valiant
men
of
the
Priests
withstood
Vzziah
in
a
corporall
violence
,
and
thrust
him
out
,
and
cut
him
off
from
the
house
of
the
Lord
.
And
,
2.
If
the
Princes
place
doe
not
put
him
above
the
Lawes
of
lips
smite
the
earth
,
and
stay
the
wicked
,
Esay
11.
4.
and
the
Prophets
Elias
,
Nathan
,
Ieremiah
,
Esaiah
,
&c.
Iohn
Baptist
,
Iesus
Christ
,
and
his
Apostles
have
used
this
rod
of
censure
and
rebuke
,
as
servants
under
God
,
against
Kings
,
this
is
a
sort
of
spirituall
coaction
of
Lawes
put
in
execution
by
men
,
and
by
due
proportion
corporall
coaction
being
the
same
ordinance
of
God
,
though
of
another
nature
,
must
have
the
like
power
over
all
,
whom
the
Law
of
God
hath
not
excepted
,
but
Gods
Law
excepteth
none
at
all
.
3.
It
is
presumed
that
God
hath
not
provided
better
for
the
safety
But
if
God
have
provided
that
the
King
,
who
is
a
part
of
the
Common-wealth
,
shall
be
free
of
all
punishment
,
though
he
be
a
habituall
destroyer
of
the
whole
Kingdome
,
seeing
God
hath
given
him
to
be
a
Father
,
Tutor
,
Saviour
,
Defender
thereof
,
and
destinated
him
as
a
meane
for
their
safety
,
then
must
God
have
worse
,
not
better
provided
,
for
the
safety
of
the
whole
,
then
of
the
part
.
The
Proposition
is
cleare
in
that
God
,
Rom.
13.
4.
1
Tim.
2.
2.
hath
ordained
the
Ruler
,
and
given
to
him
the
sword
to
defend
the
whole
Kingdome
and
City
;
but
we
read
no
where
,
that
the
Lord
hath
given
the
sword
to
the
whole
Kingdome
,
to
defend
one
man
a
King
,
though
a
Ruler
come
going
on
in
a
Tyrannicall
way
of
destroying
all
his
subjects
.
The
assumption
is
evident
:
for
then
the
King
,
turning
Tyrant
,
might
set
an
Army
of
Turkes
,
Jewes
,
cruell
Papists
,
to
destroy
the
Church
Winzetus
,
Barclat
.
Hag.
Grotius
.
of
God
,
without
all
feare
of
Law
or
punishment
.
Yea
,
this
is
contrary
to
the
doctrine
of
Royalists
:
for
,
Winzetus
▪
adversus
Buchananum
,
p.
275.
saith
of
Nero
,
that
he
seeking
to
destroy
the
Senate
and
people
of
Rome
,
and
seeking
to
make
new
lawes
for
himselfe
,
excidit
jure
Regni
,
lost
right
to
the
Kingdome
.
And
Barclai●s
advers.
Monarcho-Machous
,
l.
3.
c.
ult.
p.
212
,
213.
saith
,
A
Tyrant
,
such
as
Caligula
,
spoliare
se
jure
Regni
,
spoileth
himselfe
of
the
right
to
the
Once
a
father
,
alway
a
father
;
once
a
King
,
ever
a
King
.
None
can
punish
a
King
,
save
God
Almighty
,
say
they
.
Crown
.
And
in
that
same
place
:
Regem
,
si
regnum
suum
alienae
ditioni
manciparit
,
regno
cadere
:
If
the
King
sell
his
Kingdome
,
he
loseth
the
title
to
the
Crown
.
Grotius
de
jure
belli
&
pacis
,
l.
1.
c.
4.
n.
7
,
Si
Rex
hostili
animo
in
totius
populi
exitium
feratur
,
amittit
regnum
:
If
he
turne
Enemie
to
the
Kingdome
,
for
their
destruction
,
he
loseth
his
Kingdome
,
because
(
saith
he
)
Voluntas
imperandi
,
&
voluntas
perdendi
,
simul
consistere
non
possunt
:
A
will
or
minde
to
governe
,
and
to
destroy
,
cannot
consist
together
in
one
.
Now
if
this
be
true
,
that
a
King
turning
Tyrant
,
loseth
title
to
the
Crown
;
this
is
either
a
falling
from
his
Royall
title
only
in
Gods
court
;
or
it
is
a
losing
of
it
before
men
,
and
in
the
court
of
his
Subjects
.
If
the
former
be
said
,
1.
He
is
no
King
,
having
before
God
lost
his
Royall
title
:
and
yet
the
people
is
to
obey
him
as
the
Minister
of
God
,
and
a
power
from
God
,
when
as
he
is
no
such
thing
.
2.
In
vaine
doe
these
Authors
provide
remedies
to
save
the
people
from
a
Tyrannous
waster
of
the
people
,
if
they
speake
of
a
Tyrant
who
is
no
King
in
Gods
court
only
,
and
yet
remaineth
a
King
to
the
people
in
regard
of
the
Law
:
for
the
places
speake
of
Remedies
that
God
hath
provided
against
Tyrants
cum
titulo
,
such
as
are
lawfull
Kings
,
but
turn
Tyrants
.
Now
by
this
they
provide
no
remedie
at
all
,
if
only
in
Gods
court
,
and
not
in
Mans
court
also
,
a
Tyrant
lose
his
title
.
As
for
Tyrants
sine
titulo
,
such
as
usurpe
the
throne
,
and
have
no
just
claime
to
it
:
Barclaius
adver
.
Monarcho-Ma
.
l.
4.
c.
10.
p.
268.
saith
,
Any
private
man
may
kill
him
,
as
a
publike
enemie
of
the
State
:
but
if
he
lose
his
title
to
the
Crown
in
the
court
of
Men
,
then
is
there
,
1.
a
Court
on
Earth
to
judge
the
King
,
and
so
he
is
under
the
coactive
power
of
a
Law
.
2.
Then
a
King
may
be
resisted
,
and
yet
those
who
resist
them
,
doe
not
incurre
damnation
;
the
contrary
where
of
Royalists
endeavour
to
prove
from
Rom.
13.
3.
Then
the
people
may
un-king
one
who
was
a
King
.
But
4.
I
would
know
who
taketh
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
from
him
,
whereby
he
is
a
King
,
that
beame
of
Divine
majestie
?
Not
the
people
;
because
Royalists
say
,
they
neither
can
give
,
nor
take
away
Royall
dignitie
,
and
so
they
cannot
un-king
him
.
4.
The
more
Will
be
in
the
consent
▪
(
saith
Ferd.
Vasquez
,
l.
1.
c.
41.
)
the
obligation
is
the
stricter
.
So
▪
doubled
words
(
saith
the
Law
,
l.
1.
§.
13.
n.
13.
)
oblige
more
strictly
.
And
all
lawes
of
Kings
,
who
are
rationall
fathers
,
and
so
lead
us
by
Lawes
,
as
by
rationall
meanes
to
peace
and
externall
happinesse
;
are
contracts
of
King
and
People
.
Omnis
lex
sponsio
&
contractus
Reip.
§
.
1.
Iust.
de
ver.
relig.
Now
the
King
at
his
Coronation-covenant
with
the
people
,
giveth
a
most
intense
consent
,
an
Oath
,
to
be
a
keeper
and
preserver
of
all
good
Laws
:
and
so
hardly
he
can
be
freed
from
the
strictest
obligation
that
Law
can
impose
:
And
if
he
keep
Lawes
by
office
,
he
is
a
meane
to
preserve
Lawes
;
and
no
meane
can
bee
superior
and
above
the
end
,
but
inferior
thereunto
.
5.
Bodine
proveth
,
de
Rep.
l.
2.
c.
5.
p.
221.
that
Emperors
at
first
Marius
Salomonius
,
a
learned
Romane
Civilian
,
wrote
sixe
bookes
de
Principatu
,
to
refute
the
supremacie
of
Emperors
above
the
State
.
Ferd.
Vasq
.
illust.
quest.
part.
1.
l.
1.
n.
21.
proveth
,
that
the
Prince
,
by
Royall
dignitie
,
leaveth
not
off
to
be
a
Citizen
,
a
member
of
the
Politique
body
;
and
not
a
King
,
but
a
Keeper
of
Lawes
.
Hence
,
6.
The
Prince
remaineth
,
even
being
a
Prince
,
a
sociall
creature
,
a
Man
,
as
well
as
a
King
;
one
who
must
buy
,
sell
,
promise
,
contract
,
dispose
:
Ergo
,
he
is
not
Regula
regulans
,
but
under
rule
of
law
:
for
impossible
it
is
,
if
the
King
can
,
in
a
politicall
way
,
live
as
a
member
of
societie
,
and
doe
and
performe
acts
of
policie
,
and
so
performe
them
,
as
he
may
by
his
office
,
buy
,
and
not
pay
;
promise
,
and
vow
,
and
sweare
to
men
,
and
not
performe
,
nor
be
obliged
to
men
to
render
a
reckoning
of
his
Oath
,
and
kill
and
destroy
,
and
yet
in
Curia
politicae
societatis
,
in
the
Court
of
humane
policie
,
be
free
:
and
that
he
may
give
inheritances
,
as
just
rewards
of
vertue
and
well-doing
,
and
take
them
away
againe
.
Yea
,
seeing
these
sinnes
that
are
not
punishable
before
men
,
are
not
sinnes
before
men
:
If
all
the
sinnes
and
oppressions
of
a
Prince
be
so
above
the
punishment
that
men
can
inflict
,
they
are
not
sinnes
before
men
,
by
which
meanes
the
King
is
loosed
from
all
guiltinesse
of
the
sinnes
against
the
Second
Table
:
for
,
the
ratio
formalis
,
the
formall
reason
,
why
the
Iudge
,
by
warrant
from
God
,
condemneth
,
in
the
Court
of
men
,
the
guilty
man
,
is
,
because
he
hath
sinned
against
humane
societie
,
either
through
the
scandall
of
blasphemie
,
or
through
other
heynous
sinnes
he
hath
defiled
the
Land
.
Now
this
is
incident
to
the
King
,
as
well
as
to
some
other
sinfull
man
.
To
these
,
and
the
like
,
heare
what
the
excommunicated
Prelate
hath
to
say
;
1.
They
say
(
he
meaneth
the
Jesuites
)
Every
societie
of
men
is
a
perfect
Republick
,
and
so
must
have
within
it selfe
a
power
to
preserve
it selfe
from
ruine
,
and
by
that
to
punish
a
Tyrant
.
He
answereth
,
A
societie
without
a
Head
,
is
a
disorderly
rout
,
not
a
Politique
body
;
and
so
cannot
have
this
power
.
Ans.
1.
The
Pope
giveth
to
every
Societie
,
Politick
power
to
make
away
a
Tyrant
,
or
hereticall
King
,
and
to
un-king
him
,
by
his
brethren
the
Jesuites
way
.
And
observe
,
how
Papists
(
of
which
number
I
could
easily
prove
the
P.
Prelate
to
be
,
by
the
Popish
doctrine
that
he
delivered
,
while
the
iniquitie
of
time
,
and
dominion
of
Prelates
in
Scotland
,
advanced
him
,
against
all
worth
of
true
learning
and
holinesse
,
to
be
a
Preacher
in
Edinborough
)
and
Iesuites
agree
,
as
the
builders
of
Babylon
.
It
is
the
purpose
of
God
to
destroy
Babylon
.
2.
This
answer
shall
inferre
,
that
the
Aristocraticall
Governors
of
any
free
State
,
and
that
the
Duke
of
Venice
,
and
the
Senate
there
,
is
above
all
Law
,
and
cannot
be
resisted
,
because
without
their
Heads
they
are
a
disorderly
Rout.
3.
A
Politicall
societie
,
as
by
Natures
instinct
,
they
may
appoint
a
Head
,
or
Heads
to
themselves
:
so
also
if
their
Head
,
or
Heads
become
ravenous
Wolves
,
the
God
of
Nature
hath
not
left
a
perfect
Societie
remedilesse
;
but
they
may
both
resist
,
and
punish
the
Head
or
Heads
,
to
whom
they
gave
all
the
power
that
they
have
,
for
their
good
,
not
for
their
destruction
.
4.
They
are
as
orderly
a
body
Politique
,
to
unmake
a
Tyrannous
Commander
,
as
they
were
to
make
a
just
Governonr
.
The
Prelate
saith
,
It
is
alike
to
conceive
a
Politique
body
without
a
Governour
,
as
to
conceive
the
naturall
body
without
a
Head
.
He
meaneth
,
None
of
them
can
be
conceivable
.
I
am
not
of
his
minde
.
When
Saul
was
dead
,
Israel
was
a
perfect
Politique
body
:
and
the
Prelate
,
if
he
be
not
very
obtuse
in
his
head
,
(
as
this
hungry
peece
stollen
from
others
,
sheweth
him
to
be
)
may
conceive
a
visible
Politicall
societie
performing
a
Politicall
action
,
2
Sam.
5.
1
,
2
,
3.
making
David
King
at
a
visible
and
conceivable
place
,
at
Hebron
;
and
making
a
Covenant
with
him
.
And
that
they
wanted
not
all
Governors
,
is
nothing
to
make
them
Chymera's
unconceivable
:
For
when
so
many
families
before
Nimrod
,
were
governed
only
by
fathers
of
families
,
and
they
agreed
to
make
either
a
King
,
or
other
Governors
,
a
Head
,
or
Heads
over
themselves
:
though
the
severall
families
had
government
,
yet
these
consociated
families
had
no
government
;
and
yet
so
conceivable
a
Politique
body
,
as
if
Maxwell
would
have
compeared
amongst
them
,
and
called
them
a
disorderly
rout
,
or
an
unconceivable
Chymera
,
they
should
have
made
the
Prelate
know
,
that
Chymera's
can
knock
down
Prelates
.
Neither
is
a
King
the
life
of
a
Politique
body
,
as
the
soule
is
of
the
naturall
body
:
The
body
createth
not
the
soule
:
but
Israel
created
Saul
King
;
and
when
he
was
dead
,
they
made
David
King
,
and
so
,
under
God
,
many
Kings
,
as
they
succeeded
,
till
the
Messiah
came
.
No
naturall
body
can
make
soules
to
it selfe
by
succession
;
Nor
can
Seas
create
new
Prelates
alwayes
.
P.
Prelate
.
Jesuites
and
Puritans
differ
infinitely
;
We
are
hopefull
God
shall
cast
down
this
Babel
.
The
Iesuites
,
for
ought
I
know
,
seat
the
superintendent
power
in
the
Communitie
:
Some
Sectaries
follow
them
,
and
warrant
any
individuall
person
to
make
away
a
King
in
case
of
defects
,
and
the
worke
is
to
be
rewarded
as
when
one
killeth
a
ravenous
Wolfe
.
Some
will
have
it
in
a
collective
body
,
but
how
?
not
met
together
by
warrant
,
or
writ
of
Soveraigne
Authoritie
,
but
when
fancie
of
reforming
Church
and
State
calleth
them
.
Some
will
have
the
power
in
the
Nobles
and
Peeres
;
some
in
the
three
Estates
assembled
by
the
Kings
Writ
;
some
in
the
inferior
Iudges
.
I
know
not
where
this
power
to
curbe
Soveraigntie
is
,
but
in
Almighty
God
.
Ans.
1.
Iesuites
and
Puritans
differ
infinitely
:
true
.
Jesuites
deny
the
Pope
to
be
Antichrist
,
hold
all
Arminian
doctrine
,
Christs
locall
descension
to
hell
:
all
which
the
Prelate
did
preach
.
We
deny
all
this
.
2.
We
hope
also
the
Lord
shall
destroy
the
Jesuites
Babel
;
the
●uburbs
whereof
,
and
more
,
are
the
Popish
Prelates
in
Scotland
and
England
.
3.
The
Jesuites
,
for
ought
he
knoweth
,
place
all
superintendent
power
in
the
Communitie
.
The
Prelate
knoweth
not
all
his
brethren
the
Iesuites
wayes
:
but
it
is
ignorance
,
not
want
of
good
will
.
For
Bellarmine
,
Beucanus
,
Suarez
,
Gregor
,
de
Valentia
,
and
others
his
deare
fellowes
say
,
That
all
superintendent
power
of
policy
,
in
ordine
ad
spiritualia
is
in
the
man
,
whose
foot
Maxwell
would
kisse
for
a
Cardinals
Ha●
.
4.
If
these
be
all
the
differences
,
it
is
not
much
,
the
Community
is
the
remote
and
last
subject
,
the
representative
body
the
nearest
subject
,
the
Nobles
a
partiall
subject
;
the
Iudges
as
Iudges
sent
by
the
King
,
are
so
in
the
game
,
that
when
an
Arbitrary
Prince
at
his
pleasure
setteth
them
up
,
and
at
command
that
they
judge
for
men
,
and
not
for
the
Lord
,
and
accordingly
obey
,
they
are
by
this
power
to
be
punished
,
and
others
put
in
their
place
.
5.
A
true
cause
of
convening
Parliaments
the
prelate
maketh
a
Fancie
at
this
time
;
it
is
as
if
the
theeves
and
robbers
should
say
a
Iustice
Court
were
a
fancie
;
but
if
the
Prelate
might
compeare
before
the
Parliament
of
Scotland
(
to
which
he
is
an
out-law
,
like
his
father
,
2
Thess:
2.
4.
)
such
a
fancie
I
conceive
should
hang
him
,
and
that
deservedly
.
P.
Prelate
.
The
subject
of
this
superintending
power
must
be
secured
Ans.
The
consequence
is
nought
,
no
more
then
the
King
the
absolute
independent
is
infallible
.
2.
It
is
sure
the
people
are
in
lesse
hazard
of
Tyranny
and
selfe
destruction
,
then
the
King
is
to
subvert
Lawes
,
and
make
himselfe
absolute
,
and
for
that
cause
there
must
be
a
superintendent
power
above
the
King
;
and
God
Almighty
also
must
be
above
all
.
P.
Prelate
.
The
Parliament
may
erre
,
then
God
hath
left
the
state
remedilesse
except
the
King
remedy
it
.
Ans.
There
's
no
consequence
here
,
except
the
King
be
impeccable
.
2.
Posteriour
Parliaments
may
correct
the
former
.
3.
A
State
is
not
remedilesse
,
because
Gods
remedies
,
in
sinfull
mens
hands
may
miscarry
.
But
the
question
is
now
,
whether
God
hath
given
power
to
one
man
to
destroy
men
,
subvert
Lawes
,
and
Religion
,
without
any
power
above
him
to
coerce
,
restraine
or
punish
.
P.
Prelate
.
If
when
the
Parliament
erreth
,
the
remedy
is
left
to
the
Ans.
Neither
is
Antecedent
true
,
nor
the
consequence
valid
,
for
the
sounder
part
may
resist
;
and
it
is
easier
to
one
to
destroy
many
,
having
a
power
absolute
,
which
God
never
gave
him
,
then
for
many
to
destroy
themselves
.
Then
if
the
King
Vzzah
intrude
himselfe
and
sacrifice
,
the
Priests
doe
sin
in
remedying
thereof
.
P.
Prelate
.
Why
might
not
the
people
of
Israell
,
Peers
or
Sanedrim
Stollen
from
Arnisaus
D●
authorit.
Prin.
c.
4.
num
,
5.
pag.
73.
have
convened
before
them
,
judged
,
and
punished
David
,
for
his
Adultery
and
Murther
?
Romanists
and
new
Statists
acknowledge
no
case
lawfull
,
but
Heresie
,
Apostacy
,
or
Tyranny
;
and
tyranny
they
say
must
be
universall
,
2.
Manifest
as
the
Sunne
.
3.
And
with
obstinacy
,
and
invincible
by
prayers
;
as
is
recorded
of
Nero
,
whose
wish
was
rather
a
transported
passion
,
then
a
fixed
resolution
,
this
cannot
fall
in
the
attempts
of
any
but
a
Mad-man
.
Now
this
cannot
be
proved
of
our
King
;
but
though
we
grant
in
the
foresaid
case
,
that
the
community
may
resume
their
power
,
and
rectifie
what
is
amisse
,
which
we
canno
grant
,
but
this
will
follow
by
their
doctrine
in
every
case
of
male
administration
.
Ans.
The
Prelate
draweth
me
to
speake
of
the
case
of
the
Kings
Nor
can
I
thinke
that
Gods
Law
,
or
his
Deputy
the
Iudges
are
accept
the
persons
of
the
great
,
because
they
are
great
,
Deut.
1.
17.
2
Chro.
19.
6
,
7.
and
we
say
,
We
cannot
distinguish
where
the
Law
distinguisheth
not
,
The
Lord
speaketh
to
under
Iudges
,
Levit.
19.
15.
Thou
shalt
not
respect
the
person
of
the
poore
,
nor
honour
the
person
of
the
mighty
,
or
of
the
Prince
,
for
we
know
what
these
names
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
meaneth
.
I
grant
,
it
is
not
Gods
meaning
that
the
King
should
draw
the
sword
against
himselfe
,
but
yet
it
followeth
not
,
that
if
we
speake
of
the
demerit
of
blood
,
that
the
Law
of
God
accepteth
any
Iudge
,
great
or
small
,
&
if
the
Estate
be
above
the
King
,
as
I
conceive
they
are
,
though
it
be
a
humane
politicke
constitution
,
that
the
King
be
free
of
al
coaction
of
Law
,
because
it
conduceth
for
the
peace
of
the
Common-wealth
,
yet
if
we
make
a
matter
of
conscience
,
for
my
part
I
see
no
exception
that
God
makethit
,
if
men
make
,
I
crave
Against
thee
only
have
I
sinned
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
flatterers
alleadge
it
to
be
a
place
that
proveth
that
the
King
is
above
all
earthly
Tribunals
,
and
all
Lawes
,
and
that
there
was
not
on
earth
any
who
might
punish
King
David
;
and
so
they
cite
Clemens
Alexandria
.
Strom.
l.
4.
Arnobi
.
Psal.
50.
Dydimus
,
Hieronim
.
But
Calvine
on
the
place
giveth
the
meaning
that
most
of
the
Fathers
give
.
Domine
,
etiam
si
me
totus
mundus
absolvat
,
mihi
tamen
plusquam
satis
est
,
quod
te
solum
judicem
sentio
.
It
is
true
,
Beda
,
Euthymius
,
Ambrosius
,
Apol.
David
,
c.
4.
&
.
c.
10.
do
all
acknowledge
from
the
place
,
De
facto
,
there
was
none
above
David
to
judge
him
,
and
so
doth
Augustine
,
Basilius
,
Theodoret
say
,
and
Chrysostomus
,
and
Cyrillus
,
and
Hyeronim
.
Epist.
22.
Ambrose
Sermo.
16.
in
Psal.
118.
Gregorius
,
and
Augusti
.
Ioan.
8.
saith
,
he
meaneth
no
man
durst
judge
or
punish
him
,
but
God
only
.
Lorinus
the
Iesuit
observeth
eleven
interpretatiōs
of
the
Fathers
all
to
this
sense
,
since
Lyra
,
saith
he
,
sinned
only
against
God
,
because
God
only
could
pardon
him
;
Hugo
Cardinalis
,
because
God
only
could
wash
him
,
which
he
asketh
in
the
Text.
And
Lorin
.
Solo
Deo
conscio
peccavi
.
But
the
simple
meaning
is
,
Against
thee
only
have
I
sinned
,
as
my
eye
witnesse
and
imediate
beholder
;
and
therfore
he
addeth
,
and
have
done
this
evill
in
thy
sight
.
2.
Against
thee
only
,
as
my
Iudge
,
that
thou
maist
be
justified
when
thou
judgest
,
as
cleare
from
all
unrighteousnesse
,
when
thou
shalt
send
the
sword
on
my
house
.
3.
Against
thee
,
O
Lord
only
,
who
canst
wash
me
,
and
pardon
me
,
v.
1
,
2.
And
if
this
(
thee
only
)
exclude
all
together
,
Vriah
,
Bathsheba
,
and
the
Law
of
the
Iudges
,
as
if
he
had
sinned
against
none
of
these
in
their
kind
,
then
is
the
King
because
a
King
free
,
not
only
from
a
punishing
Law
of
man
,
but
from
the
duties
of
the
second
Table
simply
,
and
so
a
King
cannot
be
under
the
best
and
largest
halfe
of
the
Law
,
Thou
shalt
love
thy
neighbour
as
thy selfe
.
2.
He
shall
not
need
to
say
,
Forgive
us
our
sinnes
,
as
we
forgive
them
that
sin
against
us
;
for
there
is
no
reason
from
the
nature
of
sin
,
and
the
nature
of
the
Law
of
God
,
why
we
can
say
more
the
subjects
and
sonnes
sin
against
the
King
and
Father
,
then
to
say
the
Father
and
King
sin
against
the
sonnes
and
subjects
.
3.
By
this
,
the
King
killing
his
Father
Iesse
,
should
sin
against
God
,
but
not
breake
the
fist
Command
,
nor
sinne
against
his
father
.
4.
God
should
in
vaine
forbid
fathers
to
provoke
their
children
to
wrath
.
1.
And
Kings
to
doe
unjustice
to
their
subjects
,
because
by
this
the
superiour
cannot
sinne
against
the
inferiour
,
for
as
much
as
Kings
can
sin
against
none
,
but
those
who
have
power
to
judge
and
punish
them
;
but
God
only
,
and
no
inferiours
,
and
no
subjects
have
power
to
punish
the
Kings
,
therefore
Kings
can
sin
against
none
of
their
subjects
,
and
where
there
is
no
sin
,
how
can
there
be
a
Law
?
neither
Major
or
Minor
can
be
denyed
by
Royalists
.
2.
We
acknowledge
Tyranny
must
only
unking
a
Prince
.
The
Prelate
denyeth
it
,
but
he
is
a
green
Statist
.
Barclay
,
Grotius
,
Winzetus
,
as
I
have
proved
granteth
it
.
3.
He
will
excuse
Nero
as
of
infirmity
,
wishing
all
Rome
to
have
one
necke
,
that
he
may
cut
it
off
.
And
is
that
charitable
of
Kings
,
that
they
will
not
be
so
mad
as
to
destroy
their
owne
Kingdome
?
But
when
Stories
teach
us
there
have
been
more
Tyrants
then
Kings
,
the
Kings
are
more
obliged
to
him
for
flattery
,
then
for
State-wit
,
except
we
say
that
all
Kings
who
eate
the
people
of
God
,
as
they
doe
bread
,
owe
him
little
,
for
making
them
all
madde
and
franticke
.
4.
But
let
them
be
Nero's
,
and
madde
,
and
worse
,
there
is
no
coercing
of
them
,
but
all
must
give
their
neckes
to
the
sword
,
if
the
poore
Prelate
be
heard
;
and
yet
Kings
cannot
be
so
madde
as
to
destroy
their
subjects
.
Mary
of
England
was
that
madde
,
the
Romish
Princes
who
have
given
,
Revel.
17.
13.
their
power
and
strength
to
the
beast
,
and
doe
make
warre
with
the
Lambe
;
and
Kings
inspired
with
the
spirit
of
the
beast
,
and
drunke
with
the
wine
of
the
Cup
of
Babells
fornications
,
are
so
madde
,
and
the
ten
Emperours
are
so
madde
,
who
wasted
their
faithfullest
subjects
.
P.
Prelate
.
If
there
be
such
a
power
in
the
Peeres
,
resumable
in
the
exigent
of
necessity
,
as
the
last
necessary
remedy
for
safety
of
Church
and
State
,
God
and
nature
not
being
deficient
in
things
necessary
,
it
must
be
proved
out
of
the
Scripture
,
and
not
taken
on
trust
,
for
Affirmanti
incumbit
probatio
.
Ans.
Mr.
Bishop
,
what
better
is
your
Affirmanti
incumbit
,
&c
,
then
mine
?
for
you
are
the
affirmer
.
I
can
prove
a
power
in
the
King
,
limited
onely
to
feed
,
governe
,
and
save
the
people
;
and
you
affirme
that
God
hath
given
to
the
King
,
not
only
a
power
officiall
and
Royall
to
save
,
but
also
to
destroy
and
cut
off
,
so
as
no
man
may
say
,
Why
doest
thou
this
?
Shall
we
take
this
upon
the
word
of
an
excommunicated
Prelate
?
Profer
tabulas
,
Iohn
P.
P.
I
beleeve
you
not
,
Royall
power
is
Deut.
17.
18.
Rom.
3.
14.
I
am
sure
there
is
there
a
power
given
to
the
King
to
doe
good
,
and
that
from
God
:
Let
John
P.
P.
prove
a
power
to
doe
ill
,
given
of
God
to
the
King
.
2.
We
shall
quickly
prove
that
the
States
may
represse
this
power
,
and
punish
the
Tyrant
,
not
the
King
:
when
he
shall
prove
that
a
Tyrannous
power
is
an
Ordinance
of
God
,
and
so
may
not
be
resisted
.
For
the
law
of
Nature
teacheth
,
If
I
give
my
sword
to
my
fellow
to
defend
me
from
the
murtherer
,
if
he
shall
fall
to
,
and
murther
me
with
my
own
sword
,
I
may
(
if
I
have
strength
)
take
my
sword
from
him
.
Prelate
.
It
is
infidelitie
,
to
thinke
that
God
cannot
helpe
us
;
and
impatience
,
that
we
will
not
wait
on
God
.
When
a
King
oppresseth
us
,
it
is
against
Gods
wisdome
,
that
he
hath
not
provided
another
meane
for
our
safetie
,
than
intrusion
on
Gods
right
.
2.
It
is
against
Gods
power
,
3.
his
Holinesse
,
4.
Christian
Religion
,
that
we
necessitate
God
to
so
weake
a
meane
,
to
make
use
of
sinne
:
and
we
cast
the
aspersion
of
Treason
on
Religion
,
and
deterre
Kings
to
professe
Reformed
Catholike
Religion
.
5.
We
are
not
to
justle
God
out
of
his
right
.
Ans.
I
see
nothing
but
what
D.
Ferne
,
Grotius
,
Barclay
,
Blackwood
have
said
before
,
with
some
colour
of
proving
the
consequence
.
The
P.
Prelate
giveth
us
other
mens
arguments
,
but
without
bones
,
All
were
good
,
if
the
States
coercing
and
curbing
a
power
which
God
never
gave
to
the
King
,
were
a
sinne
,
and
an
act
of
impatience
,
and
unbelief
:
And
,
if
it
were
proper
to
God
only
,
by
his
immediate
hand
,
to
coerce
Tyrannie
.
2.
He
calleth
it
not
Protestant
Religion
,
either
here
,
or
elsewhere
;
but
cautelously
giveth
a
name
that
will
agree
to
the
Roman
Catholique
Religion
:
For
the
Dominicans
,
Franciscans
,
and
the
Parisian
Doctors
and
Schoolemen
,
following
Occham
,
Gerson
,
Almain
,
and
other
Papists
,
call
themselves
Reformed
Catholiques
.
2.
He
layeth
this
for
a
ground
,
in
3
or
4
pages
,
where
these
same
Arguments
are
againe
and
againe
repeated
in
terminis
,
as
his
second
Reason
,
p.
149.
was
handled
ad
nauseam
,
p.
148.
his
3.
Reason
is
repeated
in
his
6.
Reason
,
p.
151.
He
layeth
(
I
say
)
down
this
ground
,
which
is
the
begged
Conclusion
,
and
maketh
the
Conclusion
the
Assumption
,
in
8
raw
and
often
repeated
Arguments
:
to
wit
,
That
the
Parliaments
coercing
and
restraining
of
Arbitrarie
power
,
is
rebellion
,
and
resisting
the
Ordinance
of
God
.
But
he
dare
not
looke
the
place
Rom.
13.
on
the
face
:
other
Royalists
have
done
it
with
bad
successe
.
This
I
desire
to
be
weighed
,
●●d
I
retort
the
Prelates
argument
▪
But
it
is
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
sinne
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
it
.
His
7.
Argument
is
:
Before
God
would
authorize
Rebellion
,
and
give
a
bad
president
thereof
for
ever
,
he
would
rather
worke
extraordinary
and
wonderfull
miracles
,
and
therefore
would
not
authorize
the
people
to
deliver
themselves
from
under
Pharaoh
,
but
made
Moses●
Prince
,
to
bring
them
out
of
Egypt
with
a
stretched-out
arme
:
nor
did
the
Lord
deliver
his
people
by
the
wisdome
o●
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
,
which
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.
Prelate
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
many
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
Isrdel
,
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
fourefold
contrary
relation
.
All
Divines
know
,
that
Pharaoh
his
Princes
,
and
the
Egyptians
,
were
his
Peeres
and
People
,
●nd
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-children
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
sought
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
against
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
Tyrannous
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
miraeles
,
and
the
deliverance
of
the
people
,
by
dividing
the
Red
Sea
,
was
to
forbid
,
and
condemn
,
defensive
wars
of
people
against
their
King
;
but
he
hath
neither
Scripture
,
nor
Reasons
to
do
it
.
The
end
of
these
miracles
,
was
to
Seal
to
Pharaoh
the
Truth
of
Gods
calling
of
Moses
and
Aaron
,
to
deliver
the
people
,
as
is
clear
,
Exod.
4.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
compared
with
Chap.
7.
vers.
8
,
9
,
10.
And
that
the
Lord
might
get
to
himself
a
name
on
all
the
earth
,
Rom.
9
▪
17.
Exod.
9.
16.
and
13.
13
,
14.
and
15.
1
,
2
,
3.
&
seq.
But
of
the
Prelates
conjecturall
end
,
the
Scripture
is
silent
,
and
we
cannot
take
an
excommunicated
mans
word
.
What
I
said
of
Pharaoh
,
who
had
no●●is
Crown
from
Israel
,
that
I
say
of
Nebuchadnezzar
,
and
the
Kings
of
Persia
,
keeping
the
people
of
God
captive
.
P.
Prelate
.
So
in
the
Book
of
the
Judges
,
when
the
people
were
delivered
Answ.
All
this
is
beside
the
question
,
and
proveth
nothing
lesse
,
then
that
Peers
and
Communitie
,
may
not
resume
their
power
to
curbe
an
Arbitrary
power
:
For
in
the
first
case
,
there
is
neither
Arbitrary
,
nor
lawfull
supreme
Iudge
.
2.
If
the
first
prove
any
thing
,
it
proveth
,
That
it
was
rebellion
in
the
inferiour
Iudges
,
and
Communitie
of
Israel
,
to
fight
against
forraign
Kings
,
not
set
over
them
by
God
;
and
that
offensive
wars
against
any
Kings
whatsoever
,
because
they
are
Kings
,
though
strangers
,
are
unlawfull
.
Let
Socinians
and
Anabaptists
consider
,
if
the
P.
Prelate
help
not
them
in
this
,
and
may
prove
all
wars
to
be
unlawfull
.
3.
He
is
so
Malignant
to
all
inferiour
Iudges
,
as
if
they
were
not
powers
sent
of
God
,
and
to
all
Governours
,
that
are
not
Kings
,
and
so
upholders
of
Prelates
,
and
of
himself
as
he
conceiveth
,
that
by
his
arguing
,
he
will
have
all
deliverance
by
Kings
onely
,
the
onely
lawfull
means
in
ordinary
providen●●
:
and
so
Aristocracy
and
Democracy
except
in
Gods
extraordinary
providence
,
and
by
some
divine
dispensation
must
be
extraordinary
,
and
ordinarily
unlawfull
:
2.
The
Acts
of
a
State
,
when
a
King
is
dead
,
and
they
choose
another
,
shall
be
an
Anticipating
of
Gods
providence
.
3.
If
the
King
be
a
childe
,
a
captive
,
or
distracted
,
and
the
Kingdom
oppressed
with
Malignants
,
they
are
to
waite
,
while
God
immediately
from
Heaven
,
create
a
King
to
them
,
as
he
did
Saul
long
ago
.
But
have
we
now
Kings
immediately
sent
as
Saul
was
?
1.
How
is
the
spirit
of
Prophecie
and
Government
infused
in
them
,
as
in
King
Saul
?
Or
are
they
by
propheticall
inspiration
,
anointed
as
David
was
:
I
conceive
their
calling
to
the
throne
on
Gods
part
,
do
differ
as
much
from
the
calling
of
Saul
and
David
,
in
some
respect
,
as
the
calling
of
ordinary
Pastors
,
who
must
be
gifted
by
industry
and
learning
,
and
called
by
the
Church
,
and
the
calling
of
Apostles
.
4.
God
would
deliver
his
people
from
Babylon
,
by
moving
the
heart
of
Cyrus
immediately
,
the
people
having
no
hand
in
it
,
not
so
much
as
supplicating
Cyrus
.
Ergo
,
The
People
and
Peers
who
made
the
King
,
cannot
curb
his
Tyrannicall
power
,
if
he
make
captives
and
slaves
of
them
,
as
the
Kings
of
Chaldea
made
slaves
of
the
people
of
Israel
.
What
?
Because
God
useth
another
mean
.
Ergo
,
This
mean
is
not
lawfull
.
It
followeth
in
no
sort
;
If
we
must
use
no
means
,
but
what
the
captive
people
did
under
Cyrus
▪
we
may
not
lawfully
flie
,
nor
supplicate
,
for
the
people
did
neither
.
P.
Prelate
.
You
read
of
no
Covenant
in
Scripture
made
without
the
King
,
Exod.
34.
Moses
King
of
Iesurum
:
neither
Tables
nor
Parliament
framed
it
.
Joshua
another
,
Iosh.
24.
and
Asa
,
2
Chron.
15.
and
2
Chron.
34.
and
Ezra
10.
The
Covenant
of
Iehojada
in
the
non-age
of
Ioash
,
was
the
High
Priests
Act
,
as
the
Kings
Governour
.
There
is
a
covenant
with
Hell
,
made
without
the
King
,
and
a
false
Covenant
,
Hos.
10.
3
,
4.
Answ.
We
argue
this
negatively
;
This
is
neither
commanded
,
nor
practised
,
nor
warranted
by
promise
.
Ergo
,
It
is
not
lawfull
.
But
this
is
not
practised
in
Scripture
:
Ergo
,
It
is
not
lawfull
.
It
followeth
it
.
Shew
me
in
Scripture
the
killing
of
a
Goaring
On
who
killed
a
man
;
the
not
making
battlements
on
an
house
;
the
putting
to
death
of
a
man
lying
with
a
Beast
;
the
killing
of
seducing
Prophets
,
who
tempted
the
people
to
go
a
whoring
,
and
serve
another
God
,
then
Jehovah
:
I
mean
,
a
god
made
by
the
hand
of
the
Baker
,
such
a
one
as
the
excommunicated
Prelate
is
known
to
be
,
who
hath
Preached
this
Idolatry
in
three
Kingdoms
,
yet
Deut.
13.
This
is
written
,
and
all
the
former
Laws
are
divine
Precepts
;
shall
the
Precept
make
them
all
unlawfull
,
because
they
are
not
practised
by
some
in
Scripture
?
By
this
?
I
ask
,
Where
read
yee
,
that
the
people
entered
in
a
Covenant
with
God
,
not
to
worship
the
Golden
Image
,
and
the
King
;
and
these
who
pretend
they
are
the
Priests
of
Iehovah
,
the
Church-men
and
Pelates
refused
to
enter
in
Covenant
with
God
?
By
this
argument
,
the
King
and
Prelates
in
non-practising
with
us
,
wanting
the
precedent
of
a
like
practice
in
Scripture
,
are
in
the
fault
.
2.
This
is
nothing
to
prove
the
conclusion
in
question
.
3.
All
these
places
prove
it
is
the
Kings
dutie
,
when
the
people
under
him
,
and
their
fathers
,
have
corrupted
the
worship
of
God
,
to
renew
a
Covenant
with
God
,
and
to
cause
the
people
to
do
the
like
,
as
Moses
,
Asa
,
Iehoshaphat
did
.
4.
If
to
love
to
have
it
so
,
because
the
Rulers
corrupt
their
wayes
,
Ierem.
5.
31
?
To
renew
a
Covenant
with
God
,
is
a
point
of
service
due
to
God
,
that
the
people
are
obliged
unto
;
whether
the
King
command
it
,
or
no.
What
if
the
King
command
not
his
people
to
serve
God
;
or
,
What
if
he
forbid
Daniel
to
pray
to
God
?
Shall
the
people
in
that
case
serve
the
King
of
Kings
,
onely
at
the
nod
,
and
Royall
command
of
an
earthly
King
?
Clear
this
from
Scripture
.
5.
Ezra
5.
had
no
commandment
in
particular
from
Artaxerxes
King
of
Persia
,
or
from
Darius
,
but
a
Generall
,
that
Ezr.
7.
23.
Whatsoever
is
commanded
by
the
God
of
Heaven
,
let
it
be
diligently
done
far
the
house
of
the
God
of
Heaven
:
But
,
the
Tables
in
Scotland
,
and
the
two
Parliaments
of
England
and
Scotland
,
who
renewed
the
Covenant
,
and
entered
in
Covenant
not
against
the
King
(
as
the
P.
P.
saith
)
but
to
restore
Religion
to
its
ancient
Puritie
,
have
this
expresse
Law
from
King
James
and
King
Charles
both
,
in
many
Acts
of
Parliament
,
that
Religion
be
kept
pure
.
Now
as
Artaxerxes
knew
nothing
of
the
Covenant
,
and
was
unwilling
to
subscribe
it
,
and
yet
gave
to
Ezra
and
the
Princes
a
warrant
in
generall
,
to
do
all
that
the
God
of
Heaven
required
to
be
done
,
for
the
Religion
,
and
house
of
the
God
of
Heaven
,
and
so
a
generall
warrant
,
for
a
Covenant
without
the
King
;
and
yet
Ezra
,
and
the
people
,
in
swearing
that
Covenant
,
failed
in
no
dutie
against
their
King
:
to
whom
,
by
the
fifth
Commandment
,
they
were
no
lesse
subject
then
we
are
to
our
King
,
just
so
we
are
,
and
so
have
not
failed
;
but
they
say
,
The
King
hath
committed
to
no
Lievtenant
and
Deputie
under
him
,
to
do
what
they
please
in
Religion
,
without
his
Royall
consent
in
particular
,
and
the
direction
of
his
Clergy
,
seeing
he
is
of
that
same
Religion
with
his
people
;
whereas
Artaxerxes
was
of
another
Religion
,
then
were
the
Iews
,
and
their
Governour
.
Answ.
Nor
can
our
King
take
on
himself
,
to
do
what
he
pleaseth
,
and
what
the
Prelates
(
amongst
whom
these
who
ruled
all
,
are
known
before
the
World
and
the
Sun
,
to
be
of
another
Religion
,
then
we
are
)
pleaseth
in
particular
.
But
see
what
Religion
and
Worship
the
Lord
our
God
,
and
the
Law
of
the
Land
(
which
is
the
Kings
revealed
will
)
alloweth
to
us
,
that
we
may
swear
,
though
the
King
should
not
swear
it
;
otherwayes
,
we
are
to
be
of
no
Religion
,
but
of
the
Kings
,
and
to
swear
no
Covenant
,
but
the
Kings
,
which
is
to
joyn
with
Papists
against
Protestants
.
6.
The
strangers
of
Ephraim
and
Manasseh
,
and
out
of
Simeon
fell
out
of
Israel
in
abundance
to
Asa
,
when
they
saw
that
the
Lord
his
God
was
with
him
,
2
Chron.
15.
9
,
10.
And
sware
that
Covenant
without
their
own
Kings
consent
,
their
own
King
being
against
it
;
If
a
people
may
swear
a
Religious
Covenant
,
without
their
King
,
who
is
averse
thereunto
,
far
more
may
the
Nobles
,
Peers
,
and
Estates
of
Parliament
do
it
without
their
King
:
And
here
is
an
example
of
a
practise
,
which
the
P.
Prelate
requireth
.
7.
That
Jehojadah
was
Governour
and
Vice-Roy
,
during
the
nonage
of
Joash
,
and
that
by
this
Royall
Authoritie
,
the
Covenant
was
sworn
,
is
a
dream
,
to
the
end
he
may
make
the
Pope
,
and
the
Arch-Prelate
,
now
Vice-Royes
and
Kings
,
when
the
throne
varieth
.
The
Nobles
were
Authors
of
the
making
of
that
Covenant
,
no
lesse
then
Iehojadah
was
;
yea
,
and
the
People
of
the
Land
,
when
the
King
was
but
a
childe
,
went
unto
the
house
of
Baal
,
and
brake
down
his
Images
,
&c.
Here
is
a
Reformation
made
without
the
King
by
the
people
.
8.
Grave
Expositors
say
,
That
the
Covenant
with
death
and
hell
,
Esay
28.
was
the
Kings
Covenant
with
Egypt
.
9.
And
the
Covenant
,
Hos.
10.
is
by
none
exponed
of
a
Covenant
made
without
the
King
.
I
heard
say
,
this
Prelate
Preaching
on
this
Text
before
the
King
,
exponed
it
so
,
But
he
spake
words
(
as
the
Text
is
)
falsly
.
The
P.
Prelate
,
to
the
end
of
the
Chapter
,
giveth
instance
of
the
ill-successe
of
Popular
Reformation
,
because
the
people
caused
Aaron
to
make
a
Golden
Calf
,
and
they
revolted
from
Rehoboam
to
Ieroboam
,
and
made
two
Golden
Calves
,
and
they
conspired
with
Absolom
against
David
.
Answ.
If
the
first
example
make
good
any
thing
,
neither
the
High-Priest
,
as
was
Aaron
,
nor
the
P.
Prelate
,
who
claimeth
to
be
descended
of
Aarons
house
,
should
have
any
hand
in
Reformation
at
all
,
for
Aaron
erred
in
that
;
and
to
argue
from
the
peoples
sins
,
to
deny
their
power
,
is
no
better
then
to
prove
Achab
,
Ieroboam
,
and
many
Kings
in
Israel
and
Judah
,
committed
Idolatry
.
Ergo
,
They
had
no
Royall
power
at
all
.
In
the
rest
of
the
Chapter
,
for
a
whole
Page
,
he
singeth
over
again
his
Mattens
in
a
circle
,
and
giveth
us
the
same
Arguments
we
heard
before
;
of
which
you
have
these
three
notes
.
1.
They
are
stoln
,
and
not
his
own
.
2.
Repeated
again
and
again
to
fill
the
field
.
3.
All
hang
on
a
false
supposition
,
and
a
begging
of
the
question
:
That
the
people
without
the
King
,
have
no
power
at
all
.
QUEST.
XXVII
.
Whether
or
no
the
King
be
the
sole
supreme
and
finall
interpreter
of
the
Law
?
THis
Question
conduceth
not
a
little
to
the
clearing
of
the
doubts
concerning
the
Kings
absolute
power
,
and
the
supposed
sole
nomothetick
power
in
the
King
.
And
I
thinke
it
not
unlike
to
the
question
,
whether
the
Pope
and
Romish
Church
have
a
sole
and
peremptory
power
of
exponing
Lawes
,
and
the
Word
of
God
?
We
are
to
consider
that
there
is
a
twofold
exposition
of
Lawes
,
one
speculative
in
a
Schoole
way
,
so
exquisite
Iurists
have
a
power
to
expone
For
this
Publicke
,
the
Law
hath
one
fundamentall
rule
,
Salus
populi
,
like
the
King
of
Planets
the
Sunne
,
which
lendeth
Star-light
to
all
Lawes
,
and
by
which
they
are
exponed
;
whatever
interpretation
swarveth
either
from
fundamentall
Lawes
of
policy
,
or
from
the
Law
of
Nature
,
and
the
Law
of
Nations
,
and
especially
from
the
Conscientia
humani
generis
,
the
naturall
conscience
of
all
men
,
to
which
the
oppressed
people
may
appeale
unto
,
when
the
King
exponeth
a
Law
unjustly
,
at
his
owne
pleasure
,
is
the
last
rule
on
earth
,
for
exponing
of
Lawes
.
Nor
ought
Lawes
to
be
made
so
obscure
,
as
an
ordinary
wit
cannot
see
their
connexion
with
fundamentall
truths
of
policy
,
and
the
safety
of
the
people
,
and
therefore
I
see
no
inconvenience
,
to
say
that
,
The
Law
it selfe
is
Norma
&
regula
judicandi
,
the
Rule
and
directory
to
square
the
Iudge
,
and
that
the
Iudge
is
the
publicke
practicall
interpreter
of
the
Law
.
Assert
.
1.
The
King
is
not
the
sole
and
finall
interpreter
of
the
Law
.
1.
Because
then
inferiour
Iudges
should
not
be
interpreters
of
the
Law
,
but
inferiour
Iudges
are
no
lesse
essentially
Iudges
,
then
the
King
.
Deut.
1.
17.
2
Chron.
19.
6.
L
Pet.
2.
14.
Rom.
13.
1
,
2.
and
so
by
Office
must
interpret
the
Law
,
else
they
cannot
give
sentence
according
to
their
conscience
and
equity
,
now
exponing
of
the
Law
judicially
is
an
act
of
judging
,
and
so
a
personall
and
incommunicable
act
,
so
as
I
can
no
more
judge
and
expone
the
Law
according
to
another
mans
conscience
,
then
I
can
beleeve
with
another
mans
soule
,
or
understand
with
another
mans
understanding
,
2.
If
the
Lord
say
not
to
the
King
only
,
but
also
to
other
inferiour
Iudges
,
Be
wise
,
understand
,
and
the
cause
that
you
know
not
,
search
out
;
then
the
King
is
not
the
only
interpreter
of
the
Law
.
But
the
Lord
saith
not
to
the
King
only
,
but
to
other
Iudges
also
,
Be
wise
,
understand
,
and
the
cause
that
you
know
not
search
out
,
ergo
the
King
is
not
the
sole
Law-giver
.
The
Major
is
cleare
from
Ps.
2.
10.
Be
wise
now
therefore
,
O
yee
Kings
,
be
instructed
yee
Iudges
of
the
earth
.
So
are
commands
and
rebukes
for
unjust
judgement
given
to
others
then
to
Kings
,
Ps.
82.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5.
Ps.
58.
1
,
2.
Esay
1.
17
,
23
25
,
26.
Esay
3.
14.
see
Iob.
29.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15.
c.
31.
v.
21.
22.
3
,
The
King
is
either
the
sole
interpreter
of
Law
,
in
respect
,
he
is
to
follow
the
Law
as
his
Rule
,
and
so
he
is
a
ministeriall
interpreter
of
the
Law
,
or
he
is
an
interpreter
of
the
Law
according
to
that
super-dominion
of
absolute
power
,
that
he
hath
above
the
Law
.
If
the
former
be
holden
,
then
it
is
cleare
that
the
King
is
not
the
only
interpreter
,
for
all
Iudges
,
as
they
are
Iudges
,
have
a
ministeriall
power
to
expone
the
Law
by
the
Law
:
but
the
second
is
the
sense
of
Royalists
.
Hence
our
second
Assertion
is
,
That
the
Kings
power
of
exponing
1.
Because
Saul
maketh
a
Law
,
1
Sam.
14.
24.
Cursed
be
the
man
that
tasteth
any
food
till
night
,
that
the
King
may
be
avenged
on
his
enemies
,
the
Law
according
to
the
letter
was
bloudy
,
but
according
the
safety
of
the
innocent
people
,
was
justly
resisted
by
the
people
,
who
violently
hindered
innocent
Jonathan
to
be
killed
.
Whence
it
is
cleare
,
that
the
people
and
Princes
put
on
the
Law
its
true
sense
and
meaning
,
for
Ionathans
tasting
of
a
little
honey
,
though
as
it
was
against
that
sinfull
and
precipitate
circumstance
a
rash
oath
,
yet
it
was
not
against
the
substance
and
true
intent
of
the
Law
,
which
was
the
peoples
speedy
pursuite
of
the
enemy
.
Whence
it
is
cleare
,
that
the
people
including
the
Princes
,
hath
a
ministeriall
power
to
expone
the
Law
aright
,
and
according
to
its
genuine
intent
,
and
that
the
King
as
King
hath
no
absolute
power
to
expone
the
Law
as
he
pleaseth
.
2.
The
Kings
absolute
pleasure
can
no
more
be
the
genuine
sense
Romish
Church
cannot
put
on
the
Scripture
,
Ex
plenitudine
potestatis
,
what
ever
meaning
they
will
,
no
more
then
they
can
,
out
of
absolute
power
,
make
Canonicke
Scripture
.
Now
so
it
is
,
that
the
King
by
his
absolute
power
cannot
make
Law
no
Law
.
1.
Because
he
is
King
by
,
or
according
to
Law
,
but
he
is
not
2.
Because
although
it
have
a
good
meaning
,
which
Vlpian
saith
,
Quod
principi
placet
legis
vigorem
habet
.
The
Will
of
the
Prince
is
the
Law
,
yet
the
meaning
is
not
that
any
thing
is
a
just
Law
,
because
it
is
the
Princes
Will
,
for
its
rule
formally
:
for
it
must
be
good
and
just
before
the
Prince
can
will
it
,
and
then
he
finding
it
so
,
he
puteth
the
stampe
of
a
humane
Law
on
it
.
3.
This
is
the
difference
between
Gods
Will
,
and
the
will
of
the
4.
The
advancing
of
any
man
to
the
Throne
and
Royall
dignitie
,
putteth
not
the
man
above
the
number
of
rationall
men
:
But
no
rationall
man
can
create
,
by
any
act
of
power
,
never
so
transcendent
or
boundlesse
,
a
sense
to
a
Law
,
contrary
to
the
Law
.
Nay
,
give
me
leave
to
doubt
if
Omnipotencie
can
make
a
just
Law
to
have
an
unjust
and
bloody
sense
,
aut
contra
:
because
it
involveth
a
contradiction
;
the
true
meaning
of
a
Law
,
being
the
essentiall
forme
of
the
Law
.
Hence
judge
what
bruitish
,
swinish
flatterers
they
are
,
who
say
,
That
it
is
the
true
meaning
of
the
Law
,
which
the
King
,
the
only
supreme
and
independent
expositor
of
the
Law
,
saith
is
the
true
sense
of
the
Law
.
There
was
once
an
Animal
,
a
Foole
of
the
first
magnitude
,
who
said
,
He
could
demonstrate
by
invincible
reasons
,
that
the
Kings
dung
was
more
nourishing
food
,
then
bread
of
the
floore
of
the
finest
wheat
.
For
my
part
,
I
could
wish
it
were
the
Demonstrators
only
food
for
seven
dayes
;
and
that
should
be
the
best
demonstration
he
could
make
for
his
proofe
.
5.
It
must
follow
,
that
there
can
be
no
necessitie
of
written
laws
Hast
thou
eaten
of
the
tree
whereof
I
commanded
thee
that
thou
shouldest
not
eat
?
But
if
the
Kings
absolute
Will
may
put
on
the
Law
what
sense
he
pleaseth
,
out
of
his
independent
and
irresistable
Supremacie
;
The
Lawes
promulgated
and
written
to
the
Subjects
,
can
declare
nothing
,
what
is
to
be
done
by
the
Subjects
,
as
just
,
and
what
is
to
be
avoyded
as
unjust
:
because
the
Lawes
must
signifie
to
the
Subjects
,
what
is
just
,
and
unjust
,
according
to
their
genuine
sense
.
Now
,
their
genuine
sense
,
according
to
Royalists
,
is
not
only
uncertaine
and
impossible
to
be
known
,
but
also
contradictorious
:
for
the
King
obligeth
us
without
gainsaying
,
to
believe
that
the
just
Law
hath
this
unjust
sense
.
Hence
this
of
flattering
Royalists
,
crueller
to
Kings
,
than
Ravens
,
(
for
these
eat
but
dead
men
,
and
they
devoure
living
men
)
when
there
is
a
controversie
between
the
King
and
the
Estates
of
Parliament
,
who
shall
expone
the
Law
,
and
render
its
native
meaning
?
(
say
Royalists
)
not
the
Estates
of
Parliament
,
for
they
are
Subjects
,
not
Iudges
to
the
King
,
and
only
Counsellers
and
advisers
of
the
King
.
The
King
therefore
must
be
the
only
judiciall
and
finall
expositor
.
As
for
Lawyers
(
said
Strafford
)
the
Law
is
not
inclosed
in
a
Lawyers
Cap.
But
I
remember
this
was
one
of
the
Articles
laid
to
the
chargeb
of
Richard
the
Second
,
that
he
said
,
The
Law
was
in
his
head
and
breast
.
And
indeed
it
must
follow
,
if
the
King
,
by
the
plenitude
of
absolute
power
,
be
the
only
supreme
,
uncontrollable
Expositor
of
the
Law
,
that
is
not
Law
which
is
written
in
the
Acts
of
Parliament
,
but
that
is
the
Law
which
is
in
the
Kings
breast
and
head
:
which
Iosephus
,
lib.
19.
Antiq.
c.
2.
objected
to
Caius
.
And
all
justice
,
and
injustice
should
be
finally
and
peremptorily
resolved
on
the
Kings
will
and
absolute
pleasure
.
6.
The
King
either
is
to
expone
the
Law
by
the
Law
it selfe
;
or
,
They
object
,
Prov.
16.
10.
A
Divine
sentence
is
in
the
lips
of
the
King
,
His
mouth
transgresseth
not
in
judgement
,
ergo
,
he
only
can
expone
the
Law
.
Ans.
1.
Lavater
saith
,
(
and
I
see
no
reason
on
the
contrary
)
by
a
King
,
he
meaneth
all
Magistrates
.
2.
Aben
Ezra
,
and
Isidorus
read
the
words
imperatively
.
The
Tigurine
version
:
They
are
Oracles
which
proceed
from
his
lips
:
let
not
therefore
his
mouth
transgresse
in
judgement
.
Vatabulus
:
When
he
is
in
his
prophecies
,
he
lyeth
not
.
Iansenius
:
Non
facile
errabit
in
judicando
.
Mich.
Iermine
:
If
he
pray
.
Calvine
:
If
he
read
in
the
booke
of
the
Law
,
as
God
commandeth
him
,
Deut.
17.
But
why
stand
we
on
the
place
?
He
speaketh
of
good
Kings
,
saith
Cornel.
a
Lapide
.
Otherwise
,
●eroboam
,
Achab
,
Manasseh
,
erred
in
judgement
.
And
except
,
(
as
Mercerus
exponeth
it
)
We
understand
him
to
speake
of
Kings
according
to
their
office
,
not
their
facts
and
practice
,
we
make
them
Popes
,
and
men
who
cannot
give
out
grievous
and
unjust
sentences
on
the
Throne
:
against
both
the
Word
,
and
experience
.
Object
.
2.
Sometimes
all
is
cast
upon
one
mans
voice
,
why
may
not
the
King
be
this
one
man
?
Answ.
The
Antecedent
is
false
,
the
last
Voter
in
a
Senate
,
is
not
the
sole
Iudge
,
else
why
should
others
give
suffrages
with
him
.
2.
This
were
to
take
away
inferiour
Iudges
,
contrary
to
Gods
Word
,
Deut.
1.
17.
2
Chron.
19.
6
,
7.
Rom.
13.
1
,
2
,
3.
QUEST.
XXVIII
.
Whether
or
no
,
Wars
raised
by
the
Subjects
and
Estates
,
for
their
own
just
defence
against
the
Kings
bloody
Emissaries
,
be
lawfull
?
ARnisaeus
perverteth
the
question
;
he
saith
,
The
question
is
,
Arnisaeus
de
authori
.
Princ.
c.
1.
n.
2.
The
state
of
the
question
concerning
resistance
.
Whether
or
no
,
the
Subjects
may
according
to
their
power
,
judge
the
King
,
and
dethrone
him
;
that
is
,
Whether
or
no
,
is
it
lawfull
for
the
Subjects
in
any
case
,
to
take
arms
against
their
lawfull
Prince
,
if
he
degenerate
,
and
shall
wickedly
use
his
lawfull
power
?
The
state
of
the
question
is
much
perverted
,
for
these
be
different
questions
,
Whether
the
Kingdom
may
dethrone
a
wicked
and
Tyrannous
Prince
?
And
whether
may
the
Kingdom
take
up
arms
against
the
man
who
is
the
King
,
in
their
own
innocent
defence
:
For
the
former
is
an
Act
offensive
,
and
of
punishing
,
the
latter
is
an
Act
of
Defence
.
2.
The
present
question
is
not
of
Subjects
onely
,
but
of
the
Estates
,
and
Parliamentary
Lords
of
a
Kingdom
;
I
utterly
deny
these
as
they
are
Iudges
,
to
be
subjects
to
the
King
;
for
the
question
is
,
Whether
is
the
King
,
or
the
representative
Kingdom
greatest
,
and
which
of
them
be
subject
one
to
another
:
I
affirm
,
Amongst
Iudges
as
Iudges
,
not
one
is
the
Commander
or
Superiour
,
and
the
other
,
the
commanded
or
subject
.
Indeed
,
one
higher
Iudge
may
correct
and
punish
a
Iudge
,
not
as
a
Iudge
,
but
as
an
erring
man
.
3.
The
question
is
not
so
much
concerning
the
authoritative
Act
of
War
,
as
concerning
the
power
of
naturall
Defence
,
upon
supposition
,
That
the
King
be
not
now
turned
an
habituall
Tyrant
,
but
that
upon
some
acts
of
mis-information
,
he
come
in
arms
against
his
Subjects
.
2.
Arnisaeus
maketh
two
sort
of
Kings
,
Some
Kings
integrae
Majestatis
,
of
intire
power
and
Soveraignty
;
some
Kings
by
pactions
or
voluntary
agreement
,
between
King
and
people
.
But
I
judge
this
a
vain
distinction
:
For
the
limited
Prince
,
so
he
be
limited
to
a
power
onely
of
doing
just
and
right
;
by
this
is
not
a
Prince
integrae
Majestatis
of
entire
Royall
Majestie
,
whereby
he
may
do
both
good
,
and
also
play
the
Tyrant
;
but
a
power
to
do
ill
,
being
no
wayes
essentiall
,
yea
,
repugnant
to
the
absolute
Majestie
of
the
King
of
Kings
,
cannot
be
an
essentiall
part
of
the
Majestie
of
a
lawfull
King
;
and
therefore
the
Prince
limited
by
voluntary
and
positive
paction
onely
,
to
rule
according
to
law
and
equity
,
is
the
good
,
lawfull
,
and
entire
Prince
,
if
he
have
not
power
to
do
every
thing
just
and
good
in
that
regard
,
onely
he
is
not
an
intire
and
compleat
Prince
.
So
the
man
will
have
it
lawfull
to
resist
the
limited
Prince
,
not
the
absolute
Prince
;
by
the
contrary
,
it
is
more
lawfull
to
me
to
resist
the
absolute
Prince
,
then
the
limited
,
in
as
much
,
as
we
may
with
safer
consciences
resist
the
Tyrant
,
and
the
Lyon
,
then
the
just
Prince
and
the
Lamb.
Nor
can
I
assent
to
Cunnerus
de
officio
princip.
Christia
.
c.
5.
&
17.
Who
holdeth
,
that
these
voluntary
pactions
betwixt
King
and
people
,
in
which
the
power
of
the
Prince
is
diminished
,
cannot
stand
,
because
their
power
is
given
to
them
by
Gods
Word
,
which
cannot
be
taken
from
them
,
by
any
voluntary
paction
,
lawfully
;
and
from
the
same
ground
,
Winzetus
in
velit
.
contr.
Buchan
.
p.
32.
will
have
it
unlawfull
to
resist
Kings
,
because
God
hath
made
them
unresistable
.
I
answer
,
If
God
by
a
divine
institution
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
,
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
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
.
V●
l.
&
vim.
F.
de
iustit
.
&
jure
,
ubi
plene
per
omnes
.
Vasquez
,
l.
1.
c.
S.
n.
33.
Barcla
.
contra
.
Monaroho
.
l.
4.
c.
10.
pag.
268.
For
the
lawfulnesse
of
resistance
in
the
matter
of
the
Kings
unjust
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
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
,
Be
thou
killed
tortured
,
beheaded
;
but
only
,
be
thou
patient
,
if
God
deliver
thee
to
wicked
mens
hands
,
to
suffer
these
things
.
3.
There
is
not
a
stricter
Obligation
Morall
betwixt
King
and
l.
Minime
35.
De
Relig.
&
sumpt
.
funer
.
If
these
betray
their
trust
committed
to
them
,
they
may
be
resisted
;
if
the
father
turne
distracted
,
and
arise
to
kill
his
sonnes
,
his
sonnes
may
violently
apprehend
him
,
and
bind
his
hands
,
and
spoile
him
of
his
Weapons
:
for
in
that
he
is
not
a
father
,
Vasquez
,
Lib.
1.
Illustr.
question
.
c.
8.
n.
18.
Si
dominus
subditum
enormiter
&
atrociter
oneraret
,
princeps
superior
vassallum
posset
ex
t●●o
e●imere
a
sua
jurisdictione
,
&
etiam
tacente
subdito
&
nihil
petente
.
Quid
papa
in
suis
decis
.
Parliam
.
grat
.
decis
.
62.
si
quis
Baro.
abutentes
dominio
privari
possunt
.
The
servant
may
resist
the
Master
,
if
he
attempt
unjustly
to
kill
him
;
so
may
the
Wife
doe
to
the
Husband
:
if
the
Pilot
should
wilfully
run
the
ship
on
a
Rock
to
destroy
himselfe
and
his
Passengers
,
they
might
violently
thrust
him
from
the
Helme
.
Every
Tyrant
is
a
furious
man
,
and
is
morally
distracted
,
as
Althusius
saith
,
Politi
.
c.
28.
n.
30.
&
seq.
4.
That
which
is
given
as
a
blessing
and
a
favour
,
and
a
Scrine
betweene
Royall
Power
put
forth
in
Acts
either
waies
,
either
in
acts
of
Tyranny
,
or
just
Government
,
is
to
resist
the
Ordinance
of
God
,
as
Royalists
say
,
from
Rom.
13.
1
,
2
,
3.
And
we
know
to
resist
Gods
ordinances
and
Gods
Deputy
,
formaliter
,
as
his
Deputy
,
is
to
resist
God
himselfe
,
1
Sam.
8.
7.
Mat.
10.
40.
as
if
God
were
doing
personally
these
Acts
,
that
the
King
is
doing
,
and
it
importeth
as
much
as
the
King
of
Kings
doth
these
Acts
in
,
and
through
the
Tyrant
.
Now
it
is
blasphemy
to
thinke
or
say
,
that
when
a
King
is
drinking
the
blood
of
innocents
,
and
wasting
the
Church
of
God
,
that
God
,
if
he
were
personally
present
,
would
commit
these
same
acts
of
Tyranny
,
(
God
would
avert
such
blasphemy
)
and
that
God
in
,
and
through
the
King
,
as
his
lawfull
Deputy
,
and
Vicegerent
in
these
acts
of
Tyranny
,
is
wasting
the
poore
Church
of
God
.
If
it
be
said
in
these
sinfull
acts
of
Tyranny
,
he
is
not
Gods
formall
Vicegerent
,
but
only
in
good
and
lawfull
acts
of
Government
,
yet
he
is
not
to
be
resisted
in
these
acts
,
not
because
the
acts
are
just
and
good
,
but
because
of
the
dignity
of
his
Royall
Person
.
Yet
this
must
prove
that
these
who
resist
the
King
in
these
acts
of
Tyranny
,
must
resist
no
ordinance
of
God
,
but
only
that
we
resist
him
,
who
is
the
Lords
Deputy
,
though
not
as
the
Lords
Deputy
;
what
absurd
is
there
in
that
more
then
to
disobey
him
,
refusing
active
obedience
to
him
who
is
the
Lords
Deputy
,
but
not
as
the
Lords
Deputy
,
but
as
a
man
commanding
,
beside
his
Masters
Warrant
?
5.
That
which
is
inconsistent
with
the
care
and
providence
of
Church
,
1
Tim.
2.
2.
Esa.
49.
23.
Psal.
79.
71.
But
God
should
crosse
his
own
end
in
the
same
act
of
giving
a
King
,
if
he
should
provide
a
King
,
who
,
by
office
,
were
to
suppresse
Robbers
,
Murtherers
,
and
all
oppressors
and
wasters
in
his
holy
Mount
:
and
yet
should
give
an
irresistible
power
to
one
crowned
Lyon
,
a
King
,
who
may
kill
a
thousand
thousand
Protestants
for
their
Religion
,
in
an
ordinary
Providence
,
and
they
are
by
an
ordinary
law
of
God
to
give
their
throats
to
his
Emissaries
and
bloody
executioners
.
If
any
say
,
The
King
will
not
be
so
cruell
:
I
beleeve
it
;
because
,
actu
secundo
,
it
is
not
possibly
in
his
power
to
be
so
cruell
.
2.
We
owe
thanks
to
his
good
will
,
that
he
killeth
not
so
many
▪
but
no
thanks
to
the
nature
and
genuine
intrinsecall
end
of
a
King
,
who
hath
power
from
God
to
kill
all
these
,
and
that
without
resistance
made
by
any
mortall
man
.
Yea
,
no
thanks
(
God
avert
blasphemie
)
to
Gods
ordinary
providence
,
which
(
if
Royalists
may
be
beleeved
)
putteth
no
barre
upon
the
illimited
power
of
a
man
inclined
to
sinne
,
and
abuse
his
power
to
so
much
crueltie
.
Some
may
say
,
the
same
absurditie
doth
follow
,
if
the
King
should
turne
Papist
,
and
the
Parliament
all
were
Papists
;
in
that
case
there
might
be
so
many
Martyrs
for
the
truth
put
to
death
:
and
God
should
put
no
bar
of
providence
upon
this
power
,
then
,
more
then
now
:
and
yet
in
that
case
,
the
King
and
Parliament
,
should
be
Iudges
given
of
God
,
actu
primo
,
and
by
vertue
of
their
office
obliged
to
preserve
the
people
in
Peace
and
Godlinesse
.
But
I
answer
:
If
God
gave
a
lawfull
officiall
power
to
King
and
Parliament
to
worke
the
same
crueltie
upon
millions
of
Martyrs
,
and
it
should
be
unlawfull
for
them
by
armes
to
defend
themselves
;
I
should
then
think
that
King
and
Parliament
were
both
ex
officio
,
by
vertue
of
their
office
,
and
actu
primo
,
Iudges
and
Fathers
,
and
also
by
that
same
office
,
Murtherers
and
Butchers
.
Which
were
a
grievous
aspersion
to
the
unspotted
Providence
of
God
.
6.
If
the
Estates
of
a
Kingdome
give
the
power
to
a
King
,
it
is
Two
great
Adversaries
say
with
us
:
Hugo
Grotius
,
de
jur
▪
belli
&
pacis
,
l.
1.
c.
4.
n.
7.
He
saith
,
He
dare
not
condemne
this
,
if
the
lesser
part
of
the
People
,
and
every
one
of
them
indifferently
,
should
defend
themselves
against
a
Tyrant
,
ultimo
necessitatis
praesidio
.
The
case
of
Scotland
,
when
we
were
blocked
up
by
Sea
and
Land
,
with
Armes
:
The
case
of
England
,
when
the
King
,
induced
by
Prelates
,
first
attempted
to
bring
an
Army
to
cut
off
the
Parliament
,
and
then
gathered
an
Army
,
and
fortified
Yorke
,
and
invaded
Hull
,
to
make
the
Militia
his
own
,
sure
is
considerable
.
Barclay
saith
,
The
People
hath
jus
se
tuendi
adversus
immanem
saevitiem
.
Advers.
Monarchomach
.
l.
3.
c.
8.
A
power
to
defend
themselves
against
prodigious
crueltie
.
The
case
of
England
and
Ireland
,
now
invaded
by
the
bloody
Rebels
of
Ireland
,
is
also
worthy
of
consideration
.
I
could
cite
hoasts
more
.
QUEST.
XXIX
.
Whether
,
in
the
case
of
Defensive
warre
,
the
distinction
of
the
person
of
the
King
,
as
a
man
,
who
can
commit
acts
of
hostile
Tyrannie
against
his
Subjects
:
and
of
the
Office
and
Royall
power
that
he
hath
from
God
,
and
the
People
,
as
a
King
;
can
have
place
?
BEfore
I
can
proceed
to
other
Scripture-proofes
for
the
lawfulnesse
in
concreto
and
as
a
King
and
his
office
,
in
abstracto
,
are
very
different
in
this
dispute
.
of
Resistance
;
this
Distinction
,
rejected
by
Royalists
,
must
be
cleered
.
This
is
an
evident
and
sensible
distinction
:
The
King
in
concreto
,
the
Man
who
is
King
;
And
the
King
in
abstracto
,
the
Royall
office
of
the
King
.
The
ground
of
this
distinction
we
desire
to
be
considered
from
,
Rom.
13.
we
affirme
with
Buchanan
,
that
Paul
,
Rom.
13
,
speaketh
of
the
office
and
duty
of
good
Magistrates
,
and
that
the
text
speaketh
nothing
of
an
absolute
King
,
nothing
of
a
Tyrant
;
and
the
Royalists
distinguish
where
the
Law
distinguisheth
not
,
against
the
Law
,
l.
pret
.
10.
gl
.
Bart.
de
pub
.
in
Rem
.
and
therefore
we
move
the
question
here
,
Whether
or
no
to
resist
the
illegall
and
Tyrannicall
will
of
the
man
,
who
is
King
,
be
to
resist
the
King
,
and
the
ordinance
of
God
,
we
say
no
:
Nor
doe
we
deny
the
King
,
abusing
his
power
in
unjust
acts
,
to
remaine
King
,
and
the
Minister
of
God
,
whose
person
for
his
royall
office
,
and
his
Royall
Office
both
are
to
be
honoured
,
reverenced
and
obeyed
.
God
forbid
that
we
should
doe
so
as
the
sonnes
of
Belial
,
imputing
to
us
the
doctrine
of
Anabaptists
,
and
the
doctrine
falsely
imputed
to
Wicliffe
,
That
Dominion
is
founded
upon
supernaturall
grace
,
and
that
a
Magistrate
being
in
the
state
of
mortall
sin
,
cannot
be
a
lawfull
Magistrate
▪
we
teach
no
such
thing
.
The
P.
Prelate
sheweth
us
his
sympathy
with
Papists
,
and
that
he
buildeth
the
Monuments
and
Sepulchres
of
the
slaine
and
murthered
Prophets
▪
when
he
refusing
to
open
his
mouth
in
the
Gates
for
the
righteous
,
professeth
he
will
not
purge
the
Witnesses
of
Christ
,
the
Waldenses
and
Wicliffe
,
and
Husse
of
1.
Assert
.
It
is
evident
from
Rom.
13.
That
all
subjection
and
obedience
to
higher
powers
commanded
there
is
subjection
to
the
power
and
office
of
the
Magistrate
in
abstracto
,
or
(
which
is
all
one
)
to
the
person
using
the
power
lawfully
,
and
that
no
subjection
is
due
by
that
text
,
or
any
Word
of
God
,
to
the
abused
and
Tyrannicall
power
of
the
King
,
which
I
evince
from
the
Text
,
and
from
other
Scriptures
.
1.
Because
the
Text
saith
,
Let
every
soule
be
subject
to
the
higher
powers
.
But
no
powers
commanding
things
unlawfull
,
and
killing
the
innocent
people
of
God
,
can
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
higher
powers
,
but
in
that
lower
powers
.
1.
He
that
commandeth
not
what
God
commandeth
,
and
punisheth
and
killeth
where
God
is
personally
and
immediatly
present
,
would
neither
command
nor
punish
,
is
not
in
these
acts
to
be
subjected
unto
,
and
obeyed
as
a
superiour
power
,
though
in
habit
he
may
remaine
a
superiour
power
,
for
all
habituall
,
all
actuall
superiority
is
a
formall
participation
of
the
power
of
the
most
high
.
2.
Arnisaeus
well
saith
,
That
It
is
against
nature
,
that
better
and
worthier
men
should
be
in
subjection
to
unworthier
,
and
more
wicked
men
:
but
in
this
when
Magistrates
command
wickednesse
,
and
killeth
the
innocent
,
the
non-obeyers
eatenus
in
so
far
,
are
worthier
the
commanders
(
whatever
they
be
in
habite
and
in
office
)
actually
,
or
in
these
wicked
acts
are
unworthier
and
inferiour
,
and
the
non-obeyers
are
in
that
worthier
,
as
being
zealous
adherents
to
Gods
Command
,
and
not
to
mans
will
.
I
desire
not
to
be
mistaken
,
if
we
speake
of
habituall
excellency
,
godly
and
holy
men
as
the
Witnesses
of
Christ
in
things
lawfull
,
are
to
obey
wicked
and
Infidell
Kings
and
Emperours
,
but
in
that
these
wicked
Kings
have
an
excellency
That
he
commandeth
his
subjects
by
violence
,
and
Arnisaeus
Because
one
Tyrannicall
action
doth
no
more
constitute
a
Tyrant
,
then
one
unjust
action
doth
constitute
an
unjust
man
.
But
he
may
condemne
(
as
he
doth
indeed
)
for
this
also
Covarruvias
pract
.
quest.
c.
1.
and
Vasquez
Illustr.
quest.
l.
1.
c.
47.
nu.
1.
12.
for
this
is
essentiall
to
a
Tyrant
,
to
command
and
rule
by
violence
.
If
a
lawfull
Prince
doe
one
,
or
more
acts
of
a
Tyrant
,
he
is
not
a
Tyrant
for
that
,
yet
his
action
in
that
is
Tyrannicall
,
and
he
doth
not
that
as
a
King
,
but
in
that
act
as
a
sinfull
man
,
having
something
of
Tyrannie
in
him
.
2.
The
Powers
,
Rom.
13.
1.
that
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
,
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
office
,
may
be
resisted
;
and
that
in
these
we
are
not
to
be
subject
,
but
only
we
are
to
be
subject
to
his
power
and
Royall
authoririe
,
in
abstracto
,
in
so
farre
as
according
to
his
office
,
he
is
not
a
terrour
to
good
workes
,
but
to
evill
.
6.
The
lawfull
Ruler
is
the
minister
of
God
,
or
the
servant
of
God
,
for
Good
to
the
Commonwealth
:
And
to
resist
the
servant
in
that
wherein
he
is
a
servant
,
and
using
the
power
that
he
hath
from
his
Master
,
is
to
resist
the
Lord
his
Master
,
v.
4.
But
the
man
who
is
the
King
,
commanding
unjust
things
,
and
killing
the
innocent
;
in
these
acts
,
is
not
the
minister
of
God
,
for
the
Good
of
the
Commonwealth
:
he
serveth
himselfe
,
and
Papists
and
Prelates
,
for
the
destruction
of
Religion
,
Lawes
and
Commonwealth
:
therefore
the
Man
may
be
resisted
,
by
this
Text
,
when
the
office
and
power
cannot
be
resisted
.
7.
The
Ruler
,
as
the
Ruler
,
and
the
nature
and
intrinsecall
end
of
the
office
is
,
that
he
beare
Gods
sword
,
as
an
avenger
to
execute
wrath
on
him
that
doth
evill
,
v.
4.
and
so
cannot
be
resisted
without
sinne
.
But
the
man
who
is
the
Ruler
,
and
commandeth
things
unlawfull
,
and
killeth
the
innocent
;
carieth
the
Papists
and
Prelates
sword
,
to
execute
,
not
the
righteous
judgement
of
the
Lord
,
upon
the
ill-doer
;
but
his
own
private
revenge
,
upon
him
that
doth
well
:
Ergo
,
the
Man
may
be
resisted
,
the
Office
may
not
be
resisted
:
and
they
must
be
two
different
things
.
8.
We
must
needs
be
subject
to
the
Royall
office
,
for
conscience
,
v.
5.
by
reason
of
the
fifth
Commandement
.
But
we
must
not
needs
be
subject
to
the
man
who
is
King
,
if
he
command
things
unlawfull
:
for
D.
Ferne
warranteth
us
to
resist
,
if
the
Ruler
invade
us
sodainly
;
2.
Without
colour
of
Law
or
Reason
;
3.
Vnavoydably
.
And
Winzetus
,
and
Barclay
,
and
Grotius
,
as
before
I
cited
,
give
us
leave
to
resist
a
King
,
turning
a
cruell
Tyrant
.
But
Paul
,
Rom.
13.
forbiddeth
us
to
resist
the
Power
,
in
Abstracto
;
Ergo
,
it
must
be
the
Man
,
in
concreto
,
that
we
must
resist
.
9.
Those
we
may
not
resist
,
to
whom
we
owe
tribute
,
as
a
reward
of
the
onerous
worke
,
on
which
they
,
as
Ministers
of
God
,
doe
attend
continually
.
But
we
owe
not
tribute
to
the
King
as
a
man
;
for
then
should
we
be
addebted
tribute
to
all
men
:
but
as
a
King
,
to
whom
the
wages
of
tribute
is
due
,
as
to
a
Princely
workman
,
a
King
as
a
King
:
ergo
,
the
Man
and
the
King
are
different
.
10.
We
owe
fear
and
honour
as
due
,
to
be
rendred
to
the
man
who
is
King
,
because
he
is
a
King
,
not
because
he
is
a
man
;
for
it
is
the
highest
feare
and
honour
due
to
any
mortall
man
,
which
is
due
to
the
King
,
as
King
.
11.
The
Man
,
and
the
inferiour
Judge
are
different
:
and
we
cannot
,
by
this
Text
,
resist
the
inferiour
Iudge
,
as
a
Iudge
,
but
we
resist
the
ordinance
of
God
,
as
the
Text
proveth
.
But
Cavaliers
resist
the
inferior
Iudges
as
men
,
and
have
killed
divers
members
of
both
Houses
of
Parliament
:
but
they
will
not
say
,
that
they
killed
them
as
Judges
,
but
as
Rebels
.
If
therefore
to
be
a
Rebell
,
as
a
wicked
Man
,
and
to
be
a
Iudge
,
are
differenced
thus
:
then
,
to
be
a
Man
,
and
to
commit
some
acts
of
Tyrannie
;
and
to
be
the
supreme
Iudge
and
King
,
are
two
different
things
.
12.
Mr.
Knox
,
Hist.
of
Scotland
,
l.
2.
There
is
great
difference
betwixt
the
Authoritie
,
which
is
Gods
Ordinance
,
and
the
Persons
of
those
who
are
placed
in
authoritie
.
The
Authoritie
,
and
Gods
ordinances
can
never
doe
wrong
;
for
it
commandeth
that
Vice
and
wicked
men
be
punished
,
and
Vertue
,
with
vertuous
men
and
just
.
be
maintained
:
But
the
corrupt
Person
placed
in
this
Authoritie
,
may
offend
,
and
most
commonly
doe
contrary
to
this
Authoritie
:
and
is
then
the
corruption
of
Man
to
be
followed
,
by
reason
that
it
is
clothed
with
the
name
of
Authoritie
?
And
they
give
instance
in
Pharaoh
and
Saul
,
who
were
lawfall
Kings
,
and
yet
corrupt
Men.
And
certainly
,
the
Man
,
and
the
Divine
authoritie
,
differ
as
the
Subject
and
the
Accident
;
as
that
which
is
under
a
Law
,
and
can
offend
God
;
and
that
which
is
neither
capable
of
Law
,
nor
sinne
.
13.
The
King
,
as
King
,
is
a
just
creature
,
and
by
office
a
living
and
breathing
Law
:
His
Will
,
as
he
is
King
,
is
nothing
but
a
just
Law
:
But
the
King
,
as
a
sinfull
man
,
is
not
a
just
creature
,
but
one
who
can
sinne
,
and
play
the
Tyrant
:
and
his
Will
,
as
a
private
sinfull
man
,
is
a
private
Will
,
and
may
be
resisted
.
So
the
Law
saith
,
The
King
,
as
King
,
can
doe
no
wrong
:
but
the
King
,
as
a
Man
,
may
doe
a
wrong
.
While
as
then
the
Parliaments
of
both
Kingdomes
resist
the
Kings
private
will
,
as
a
Man
,
and
fight
against
his
illegall
Cut-throats
,
sent
out
by
him
,
to
destroy
his
native
subjects
,
they
fight
for
him
as
a
King
,
and
obey
his
publick
Legall
will
,
which
is
his
Royall
will
,
de
jure
,
and
while
he
is
absent
from
his
Parliaments
as
a
man
,
he
is
Legally
and
in
his
Law-Power
present
,
and
so
the
Parliaments
are
as
Legall
,
as
if
he
were
personally
present
with
them
.
Let
me
answer
Royalists
.
The
P.
Prelate
saith
it
is
Solomons
By
me
Kings
raign
.
Kings
in
concreto
,
with
their
Soveraignty
,
he
saith
not
,
By
me
Royalty
or
Soveraignty
raigneth
.
And
elsewhere
he
saith
,
that
Barclay
saith
,
Paul
writing
to
the
Romans
,
keepeth
the
Roman
usuall
diction
in
this
,
who
expresse
by
Powers
in
abstracto
,
the
persons
authorized
by
Power
,
and
it
is
the
soriptures
Dialect
;
By
him
were
created
thrones
,
Dominions
,
Principalities
,
that
is
Angels
,
to
say
Angels
,
in
abstracto
,
were
created
,
2
Pet.
2.
10.
They
speak
ill
of
dignities
,
dispise
dominion
.
That
is
,
they
speak
ill
of
Cajus
,
Caligula
,
Nero
;
our
Levites
rail
against
the
Lords
Anoynted
,
the
best
of
Kings
in
the
world
.
Nero
,
Rom.
13.
4.
in
concreto
beareth
not
the
sword
in
vain
.
Arnisaeus
saith
it
better
then
the
Prelate
,
(
he
is
a
witlesse
theef
.
Rom.
13.
4.
the
Royall
Power
in
abstracto
,
doth
not
bear
the
sword
,
but
the
Person
,
not
the
Power
but
the
Prince
himself
beareth
the
sword
.
And
the
Prelate
poor
man
following
Doctor
Fern
pag.
3.
sec.
5.
pag.
30.
Royalists
reasons
that
to
resist
the
man
or
person
is
to
resist
the
King
,
office
or
ordinance
of
God
.
saith
,
It
s
absurd
to
pursue
the
Kings
Person
with
a
canon-bullet
at
Edge-hill
,
and
preserve
his
authority
at
London
,
or
elsewhere
.
So
saith
Fern
16.
sect.
10.
pag.
64.
The
concret
Powers
here
are
purposed
as
objects
of
our
obedience
,
which
cannot
be
directed
,
but
upon
power
in
some
person
,
for
it
is
said
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
powers
that
are
,
are
of
God
,
now
Power
cannot
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
existent
,
but
in
some
person
;
and
Pag.
69.
saith
Fern
,
can
Power
in
the
abstract
have
praise
?
Or
is
tribute
payed
to
the
Power
in
the
abstract
.
Yea
the
Power
is
the
reason
why
we
yeeld
obedience
to
the
person
,
&c.
and
the
Prelate
hath
as
much
learning
as
to
coppy
out
of
Fern
,
and
Barclay
,
Arniseus
,
and
others
these
words
and
the
like
,
but
hath
not
wit
to
adde
the
sinewes
of
these
Authors
reason
,
and
with
all
this
he
can
in
his
Preface
call
it
his
own
,
and
provoke
any
to
answer
him
if
they
dare
,
whereas
while
I
answer
this
excommunicated
Pamphletter
.
I
answer
these
learned
Authors
,
from
which
he
stealeth
all
he
hath
,
and
yet
he
must
perswade
the
King
,
he
is
the
onely
man
can
defend
his
Majesties
Cause
,
and
the
importunity
,
forsooth
,
of
friends
extorted
this
peece
,
as
if
it
were
a
fault
,
that
this
Delphick
Oracle
(
giving
out
railings
,
and
lies
for
responses
)
should
be
silent
.
2.
Not
we
onely
,
but
the
Holy
Ghost
,
in
terminis
,
hath
this
distinction
,
Act.
4.
19.
and
5.
29.
We
ought
to
obey
God
rather
then
men
.
Them
Rulers
(
for
of
Rulers
sitting
in
judgement
is
that
speech
uttered
)
commanding
and
tyrannizing
over
the
Apostles
,
are
men
contradistinguished
from
God
;
and
as
they
command
and
punish
unjustly
,
they
are
but
men
,
otherwise
commanding
for
God
,
they
are
Gods
,
and
more
then
men
.
2.
From
Theophylact
also
,
or
from
Chrysostome
,
on
Rom.
13.
we
have
this
;
The
Apostle
speaketh
not
(
say
they
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
3.
Soveraigntie
or
Royaltie
,
doth
not
properly
reign
or
bear
the
sword
,
or
receive
praise
,
and
this
accident
doth
not
bear
a
sword
;
nor
do
we
think
,
or
Paul
speak
,
Rom.
13.
of
the
abstracted
Jew
of
power
and
Royaltie
,
subsisting
out
of
its
subject
;
nor
dream
we
,
that
the
naked
accident
of
Royall
Authority
,
is
to
be
feared
and
honoured
as
the
Lords
anointed
;
the
person
or
man
who
is
the
King
,
and
beareth
the
Crown
on
his
head
,
and
holdeth
the
scepter
in
his
hand
,
is
to
be
obeyed
;
accidentes
are
not
persons
,
but
they
speak
non-sense
,
and
like
brute
beasts
,
who
deny
that
all
the
kingly
honour
due
to
the
King
,
must
be
due
to
him
as
a
King
,
and
because
of
the
Royall
dignity
that
God
hath
given
to
him
,
and
not
because
he
is
a
man
;
for
a
Pursevants
son
is
a
man
,
and
if
a
Pursevants
son
would
usurpe
the
throne
,
and
take
the
Crown
on
his
head
,
and
the
scepter
in
his
hand
,
and
command
that
all
souls
be
subject
to
such
a
superior
Power
,
because
he
is
a
man
,
the
Lawes
of
Scotland
would
hang
a
man
for
a
lesse
fault
,
we
know
:
and
the
P.
Prelate
was
wont
to
edifie
women
,
and
converted
souls
to
Christ
,
with
such
a
distinction
as
objectum
quod
,
and
objectum
quo
,
in
the
Pulpits
of
Edenburgh
,
and
it
hath
good
use
here
,
we
never
took
abstract
Royalty
to
be
the
King
.
The
Kings
of
Scotland
of
old
were
not
second
notions
,
and
we
exclude
not
the
person
of
the
King
,
yet
we
distinguish
with
leave
of
the
P.
Prelate
betwixt
the
person
in
linea
physica
,
we
must
take
(
physica
)
largly
heer
and
in
linea
morali
,
obedience
,
fear
,
tribute
,
honour
is
due
to
the
person
of
the
King
,
and
to
the
man
who
is
King
,
not
because
of
his
person
,
or
because
he
is
a
man
(
the
P.
Prelate
may
know
in
what
notion
,
we
take
the
name
(
Person
)
but
because
God
by
the
peoples
election
,
hath
exalted
him
to
Royall
dignity
,
and
for
this
cause
ill
doers
are
to
subject
their
throats
and
necks
to
the
sword
of
the
Lords
Annoynteds
executioner
or
hangman
with
patience
,
and
willingly
,
because
in
taking
away
the
head
of
ill
doers
,
for
ill
doing
,
he
is
acting
the
Office
of
the
Lord
,
by
whom
he
Raigneth
;
but
if
he
take
away
their
heads
,
and
send
out
the
long-tusked
Vultures
and
Boares
of
Babylon
,
the
Irish
Rebells
to
execute
his
wrath
,
as
he
is
in
that
act
a
mis-informed
man
,
and
wanteth
the
authority
of
Gods
Law
,
or
mans
Law
,
he
may
be
resisted
with
Armes
.
For
1.
If
Royalists
say
against
this
,
then
if
a
King
turne
an
habituall
Tyrant
,
and
conduce
an
hundred
thousand
Turkes
to
destroy
his
subjects
upon
meere
desire
of
revenge
,
they
are
not
to
resist
,
but
to
Honour
thy
father
and
thy
mother
,
&c.
Let
them
answer
this
,
except
King
David
consider
Iesse
in
one
relation
,
in
abstracto
,
as
his
father
,
whom
he
is
to
obey
,
and
as
he
is
a
wicked
man
,
and
a
perfidious
subject
,
in
another
relation
,
and
except
King
David
say
,
he
is
to
subject
himselfe
to
his
father
as
a
father
,
according
to
the
fifth
Commandement
,
and
that
in
the
act
of
his
fathers
to
know
his
father
and
mother
as
they
are
sinfull
men
,
Deut.
33.
9.
and
yet
to
know
and
honour
them
as
Parents
;
and
how
an
Israelite
is
not
to
pitty
the
wife
that
lyeth
in
his
bosome
,
when
she
inticeth
him
to
goe
a
whooring
after
strange
Gods
,
but
is
to
kill
her
,
Deut.
13.
6
,
7
,
8.
and
yet
the
husband
is
to
love
the
wife
as
Christ
loved
his
Church
,
Eph.
5.
25.
If
the
husband
take
away
his
wives
life
in
some
mountaine
in
the
holy
Land
,
as
Gods
Law
commandeth
,
let
the
Royalists
answer
us
,
where
is
then
the
meritall
love
he
owes
to
her
,
and
that
respect
due
to
her
as
she
is
a
wife
and
a
helper
.
But
let
not
the
Royalist
infer
,
that
I
am
from
these
examples
pleading
for
the
killing
of
Kings
,
for
lawfull
resistance
is
one
thing
,
and
killing
of
Kings
is
another
;
the
one
defensive
and
lawfull
,
the
other
offensive
and
unlawfull
,
so
long
as
he
remaineth
a
King
,
and
the
Lords
Anoynted
:
But
if
he
be
a
murtherer
of
his
father
,
who
doth
counsell
his
father
to
come
to
a
place
of
danger
,
where
he
may
be
killed
,
and
where
the
King
ought
not
to
be
,
as
Abner
was
worthy
of
death
,
who
watched
not
carefully
King
Saul
,
but
slept
when
David
came
to
his
bed
side
,
and
had
opportunity
to
kill
the
King
,
they
are
Traitors
and
murtherers
of
the
King
,
who
either
counselled
his
Majesty
to
come
to
Edge-hill
,
where
the
danger
was
so
grett
,
or
did
not
violently
restraine
him
from
comming
thither
,
seeing
Kings
safety
and
lives
are
as
much
,
yea
more
in
the
disposing
of
the
people
then
in
their
owne
private
will
,
2
Sam.
18.
2
,
3.
for
certainly
the
people
might
have
violently
restrained
King
Saul
from
killing
himselfe
,
and
the
King
was
guilty
of
his
own
death
,
and
sinneth
against
his
Office
and
subjects
,
who
commeth
out
in
person
to
any
such
battles
where
he
may
be
killed
,
and
the
contrary
party
free
of
his
blood
.
And
here
our
Prelate
is
blind
,
if
he
see
not
the
cleare
difference
between
the
Kings
Person
,
and
the
Office
as
he
is
King
,
and
between
his
private
Will
,
and
his
publicke
and
Royall
Will.
3.
The
Angels
may
be
named
Thrones
and
Dominions
in
abstracto
,
and
yet
created
,
in
concreto
,
and
we
may
say
the
Angell
and
his
power
are
both
created
at
once
;
but
David
was
not
both
borne
the
Son
of
Iesse
,
and
a
King
at
once
:
and
the
P.
Prelate
,
by
this
may
prove
it
is
not
lawfull
to
resist
the
Divell
(
for
he
is
of
the
number
of
these
created
Angells
,
Col.
1.
)
as
he
is
a
Divell
,
because
in
▪
resisting
the
Divell
as
a
Divell
,
we
must
resist
an
Angell
of
God
,
and
a
Principality
.
4.
To
speake
ill
of
dignities
,
2
Pet.
2.
and
Iud.
8.
Piscator
insinuateth
is
,
to
speake
evill
of
the
very
Office
of
Rulers
,
as
well
as
of
their
manners
;
and
Theodat
.
saith
,
on
2
Pet.
2.
that
these
Raylers
spake
evill
of
the
place
of
Governours
and
Masters
,
as
unb●seeming
beleevers
.
All
our
Interpreters
,
as
Beza
,
Calvin
,
Luther
,
Bucer
,
Marloratus
from
the
place
saith
,
It
is
a
speciall
reproofe
of
Anabaptists
and
Libertines
,
who
in
that
time
maintained
,
that
we
are
all
free
men
in
Christ
,
and
that
there
should
not
be
Kings
,
Masters
,
nor
any
Magistrates
;
however
the
abstract
is
put
for
the
concrete
,
its
true
,
and
it
saith
we
are
not
to
raile
upon
Nero
,
but
to
say
Nero
was
a
persecutor
of
Christians
,
and
yet
obey
him
commanding
what
is
just
,
are
very
consistent
.
5.
The
persons
are
proposed
,
Rom.
13.
to
be
the
object
of
our
obedience
,
saith
D.
Ferne
,
it
is
very
true
;
but
he
is
ignorant
of
our
mind
in
exponing
the
word
Person
:
we
never
meant
that
feare
,
honour
,
royalty
,
tribute
,
must
be
due
to
the
abstracted
accident
of
Kingly
Authority
,
and
not
to
the
man
who
is
King
.
Nor
is
it
our
meaning
that
Royalty
in
abstracto
is
Crowned
King
,
and
is
anoynted
,
but
that
the
Person
is
crowned
and
anoynted
.
But
againe
by
a
person
we
meane
nothing
lesse
then
the
man
Nero
wasting
Rome
,
burning
,
crucifying
Paul
,
and
torturing
Christians
,
and
that
we
owe
subjection
to
Nero
,
and
to
his
person
in
concreto
as
to
Gods
ordinance
,
Gods
Minister
,
Gods
sword-bearer
in
that
notion
of
a
Person
;
is
that
only
that
we
deny
.
Nay
in
that
Nero
in
concreto
to
us
,
is
no
Power
ordained
of
God
,
no
Minister
of
God
,
but
a
Minister
of
the
Divell
,
and
Sathans
armour-bearer
,
and
therefore
we
owe
not
feare
,
honour
,
subjection
,
and
tribute
to
the
Person
of
Nero.
But
the
is
the
object
of
our
obedience
;
that
feare
,
honour
,
subjection
,
and
tribute
must
be
due
to
the
man
in
concreto
,
to
his
Person
who
is
Prince
;
but
not
because
he
is
a
man
,
or
a
person
simply
,
or
a
sword
▪
bearer
of
Papists
,
but
for
his
office
,
for
that
eminent
place
of
royall
dignity
that
God
hath
conferred
on
his
Person
.
We
know
the
light
of
the
Sun
▪
the
heate
of
fire
,
in
abstracto
,
doe
not
properly
give
light
and
heat
,
but
the
Sun
and
fire
,
in
concreto
;
yet
the
principium
quo
,
ratio
qua
,
the
principles
of
these
operations
in
Sun
and
fire
be
light
&
heate
,
and
we
ascribe
illuminating
of
dark
bodies
,
heating
of
cold
bodies
to
Sun
and
fire
in
concreto
,
yet
not
to
the
subjects
simply
,
but
to
them
as
affected
with
such
accidents
:
so
here
we
honour
and
submit
to
the
man
who
is
King
,
not
because
he
is
a
man
,
that
were
treason
;
not
because
he
useth
his
sword
against
the
Church
,
that
were
impiety
:
but
because
of
his
Royall
Dignity
,
and
because
he
useth
it
for
the
Lord
.
It
is
true
,
Arnisaeus
,
Barclay
,
Ferne
,
say
,
That
Kings
leave
not
off
to
be
Kings
,
when
they
use
their
power
and
sword
against
the
Church
and
Religion
.
And
also
it
is
considerable
,
that
when
the
worst
of
Emperors
bloody
Nero
did
raigne
,
the
Apostle
presseth
the
duty
of
subjection
to
him
,
as
to
a
power
appointed
of
God
,
and
condemneth
the
resisting
of
Nero
,
as
the
resisting
of
an
ordinance
of
God
.
And
certainely
if
the
cause
and
reason
in
point
of
duty
Morall
,
and
of
conscience
before
God
remaine
in
Kings
,
to
wit
,
that
while
they
are
enemies
and
persecutors
as
Nero
was
,
their
Royall
Dignity
given
them
of
God
remaineth
,
then
subjection
upon
that
ground
is
lawfull
,
and
resistance
unlawfull
.
Ans.
It
is
true
so
long
as
Kings
remaine
Kings
,
subjection
is
due
to
them
because
Kings
,
but
that
is
not
the
question
.
But
the
Bathshba
,
Because
I
am
the
Lords
Anoynted
,
it
is
rebellion
in
thee
a
subject
to
oppose
any
bodily
violence
to
my
act
of
forcing
of
thee
,
it
is
unlawfull
to
thee
to
cry
for
helpe
,
for
if
any
shall
offer
violently
to
rescue
thee
from
me
,
he
resisteth
the
ordinance
of
God
.
Subjection
is
due
to
Nero
as
an
Emperour
,
but
not
any
subjection
is
due
to
him
in
the
burning
of
Rome
,
and
torturing
of
Christians
,
except
you
say
that
Nero's
power
abused
in
these
acts
of
cruelty
was
,
1.
A
power
from
God
.
2.
An
ordinance
of
God
.
3.
That
in
these
,
he
was
the
Minister
of
God
for
the
good
of
the
Common-wealth
.
Because
some
beleeved
Christians
were
free
from
the
yoake
of
Magistracy
,
and
that
the
dignity
it selfe
was
unlawfull
.
And
2.
because
,
ch.
12.
he
had
set
downe
the
lawfull
Church
Rulers
,
and
in
this
and
the
following
chapter
the
duties
of
brotherly
love
of
one
toward
another
.
So
here
ch.
13.
he
teacheth
that
all
Magistrates
,
suppose
Heathen
,
are
to
be
obeyed
and
submitted
unto
in
all
things
,
so
far
as
they
are
Ministers
of
God
.
Arnisaeus
objecteth
to
Buchan
.
If
we
are
by
this
place
to
subject
our selves
to
every
power
in
abstracto
,
then
also
to
a
power
contrary
to
the
truth
,
and
to
a
power
of
a
King
exceeding
the
limits
of
a
King
,
for
such
a
power
is
a
power
,
and
we
are
not
to
distinguish
where
the
Law
distinguisheth
not
.
Ans.
The
Law
clearely
distinguisheth
we
are
to
obey
Parents
in
the
Lord
,
and
if
Nero
command
Idolatry
,
this
is
an
excessive
power
;
are
we
obliged
to
obey
,
because
the
Law
distinguisheth
not
?
2.
The
text
saith
,
we
are
to
obey
every
power
,
1.
from
God
,
2.
That
is
Gods
ordinance
,
3.
by
which
the
man
is
a
Minister
of
God
for
good
;
but
an
unjust
and
excessive
power
is
none
ofthese
three
.
3.
The
text
in
words
distinguisheth
not
obedience
active
in
things
wicked
,
and
lawfull
:
yet
we
are
to
distinguish
.
Mr.
Symmons
.
Is
authoritie
subjected
solely
in
the
Kings
Law
,
and
Ans.
If
we
speake
acurately
,
neither
the
Man
solely
,
nor
his
Power
only
is
resisted
:
but
the
Man
clothed
with
lawfull
habituall
power
,
is
resisted
,
in
such
and
such
acts
flowing
from
an
abused
power
.
2.
It
is
an
ignorant
speech
,
to
ask
,
Is
Authoritie
subjected
solely
in
the
Kings
Law
,
and
no
whit
in
his
Person
?
for
the
Authoritie
hath
all
its
power
by
Law
,
not
from
the
Mans
person
;
The
Authoritie
hath
nothing
from
the
Person
,
but
a
naked
inherencie
in
the
Person
,
as
in
the
subject
:
and
the
Person
is
to
be
honored
for
the
Authoritie
,
not
the
Authoritie
for
the
Person
.
3.
Authoritie
is
not
so
separable
from
the
person
,
as
that
for
every
act
of
lawlesse
Will
,
the
King
loseth
his
Royall
authoritie
,
and
ceaseth
to
be
King
:
no
,
but
every
act
of
a
King
,
in
so
far
can
claime
subjection
of
the
inferiour
,
as
the
act
of
commanding
and
ruling
,
hath
law
for
it
;
and
in
so
far
as
it
is
lawlesse
,
the
Person
in
that
act
repugnant
to
Law
,
loseth
all
due
claime
of
actuall
subjection
in
that
act
,
and
in
that
act
,
power
actuall
is
losed
,
as
is
cleare
,
Act.
4.
19.
&
5.
29.
The
Apostles
say
to
Rulers
,
It
is
safer
to
obey
God
than
Men.
What
?
were
not
these
Rulers
lawfull
Magistrates
,
armed
with
power
from
God
?
I
answer
,
habitually
they
were
Rulers
,
and
more
then
men
,
and
to
obey
them
in
things
lawfull
,
is
to
obey
God
:
But
actually
in
these
unlawfull
commandements
,
especially
being
commanded
to
speake
no
more
in
the
name
of
Iesus
;
the
Apostles
doe
acknowledge
them
to
be
no
more
but
Men
:
and
so
their
actuall
authoritie
is
as
separable
from
the
person
,
as
pride
and
folly
from
men
.
Symmons
.
The
distinction
holdeth
good
of
inferior
Magistrates
,
Ans.
1.
If
this
be
true
,
Manasseh
,
a
King
,
did
not
shed
innocent
blood
,
and
use
sorcerie
:
he
did
not
these
great
wickednesses
as
a
man
,
but
as
a
King
.
Salomon
played
the
Apostate
as
a
King
,
not
as
a
man
:
if
so
,
the
man
must
make
the
King
more
infallible
then
the
Pope
;
for
the
Pope
,
as
a
man
,
can
erre
;
as
a
Pope
he
cannot
erre
,
say
Papists
.
But
Prophets
,
in
their
persons
,
were
anoynted
of
God
,
as
Saul
and
David
were
:
then
must
we
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
question
,
if
the
Kings
actual
authority
be
not
as
separable
from
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
in
dependent
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
reveren●
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
Lew
,
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
,
yet
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
,
when
Nero
commandeth
unjust
punishment
,
because
Nero
commanding
so
,
remaineth
Gods
Minister
.
Why
?
But
when
Nero
commandeth
me
to
worship
an
Heathen
God
,
I
am
upon
the
same
ground
to
obey
that
unjust
will
in
doing
ill
:
For
Nero
in
commanding
Idolatry
,
remaineth
the
Lords
Minister
,
his
person
is
sacred
in
the
one
commandment
of
doing
ill
,
as
in
inflicting
ill
of
punishment
.
And
do
I
not
resist
his
person
in
the
one
,
as
in
the
other
?
His
power
and
his
person
are
unseparably
conjoyned
by
God
in
the
one
,
as
in
the
other
,
2.
In
bodily
thrusting
out
of
Vzzah
from
the
Temple
,
these
fourscore
valiant
men
did
resist
the
Kings
person
,
by
bodily
violence
,
as
well
as
his
power
.
3.
If
the
power
of
killing
the
Martyrs
in
Nero
,
was
no
power
ordained
of
God
,
then
the
resisting
of
Nero
,
in
his
taking
away
the
lives
of
the
Martyrs
,
was
but
the
resisting
of
Tyranny
:
And
certainly
,
if
that
power
in
Nero
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
power
ordained
of
God
,
and
not
to
be
resisted
,
as
the
place
,
Rom.
13.
is
alleaged
by
Royalists
,
then
it
must
be
a
lawfull
power
,
and
no
Tyranny
;
and
if
it
cannot
be
resisted
,
because
it
was
a
power
ordained
and
settled
in
him
,
it
is
either
setled
by
God
,
and
so
not
Tyranny
;
except
God
be
the
Author
of
Tyranny
,
or
then
settled
by
the
devill
,
and
so
may
well
be
resisted
;
but
the
Text
speaketh
of
no
power
,
but
of
that
which
is
of
God
.
4.
We
are
not
to
be
subject
to
all
powers
in
concreto
,
by
the
Text
;
for
we
are
not
to
be
subject
to
powers
lawfull
,
yet
commanding
active
obedience
to
things
unlawfull
.
Now
subjection
includeth
active
obedience
of
honour
,
love
,
fear
,
paying
tribute
,
and
therefore
of
need
force
,
some
powers
must
be
excepted
.
5.
Pilates
power
is
meerly
a
power
by
divine
permission
,
not
a
power
ordained
of
God
,
as
are
the
powers
spoken
of
Rom.
13.
Gregori
.
mor.
l.
3.
c.
11.
expresly
saith
,
This
was
Satans
power
given
to
Pilate
,
against
Christ
.
Manibus
Satanae
pro
nostra
redemptione
se
traddit
.
Lyra.
A
Principibus
Romanorum
&
ulterius
permissum
a
Deo
,
qui
est
potestas
,
superior
.
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Diodatus
,
saith
the
same
,
and
that
he
cannot
mean
of
Legall
power
from
Gods
regulating
will
is
evident
;
1.
Because
Pilate
,
John
19.
10.
Knowest
thou
not
,
that
I
have
power
to
crucifie
thee
?
This
was
an
untruth
.
Pilate
had
a
command
to
worship
him
,
and
beleeve
in
him
;
and
whereas
Ferne
saith
,
Sect.
9.
pag.
59.
Pilate
had
power
to
judge
any
accused
before
him
:
It
is
true
,
but
he
being
obliged
to
beleeve
in
Christ
,
he
was
obliged
to
be
perswaded
of
Christs
innocency
;
and
so
neither
to
judge
,
nor
receive
accusation
against
him
:
and
the
power
he
saith
,
he
had
to
crucifie
,
was
a
Law-power
in
Pilates
meaning
,
but
not
in
very
deed
any
Law-power
;
because
a
Law-power
is
from
Gods
regulating
will
in
the
fifth
Commandment
;
but
no
creature
hath
a
lawfull
or
a
Law-power
to
crucifie
Christ
.
2.
A
Law-power
is
for
good
,
Rom.
13.
4.
A
power
to
crucifie
Christ
,
is
for
ill
.
3.
A
Law-power
is
a
terrour
to
ill
works
,
and
a
praise
to
good
.
Pilates
power
to
crucifie
Christ
,
was
the
contrary
.
4.
A
Law-power
is
to
execute
wrath
on
ill-doing
,
a
power
to
crucifie
Christ
is
no
such
.
5.
A
Law-power
conciliateth
honour
,
fear
,
and
veneration
to
the
person
of
the
Iudge
,
a
power
to
crucifie
Christ
,
conciliateth
no
such
thing
,
but
a
disgrace
to
Pilate
.
6.
The
Genuine
Acts
of
a
lawfull
power
,
are
lawfull
Acts
;
for
such
as
is
the
Fountain-power
,
such
are
the
Acts
flowing
therefrom
;
good
Acts
flow
not
from
bad
powers
,
neither
hath
God
given
a
power
to
sin
,
except
by
way
of
permission
.
QUEST.
XXX
.
Whether
or
no
Passive
Obedience
be
a
meane
to
which
we
are
subjected
in
conscience
,
by
vertue
of
a
Divine
Commandement
,
and
what
a
meane
Resistance
is
.
That
Flying
is
Resistance
.
MUch
is
built
,
to
commend
patient
suffering
of
ill
,
and
condemne
all
resistance
of
Superiors
,
by
Royalists
,
on
the
place
1
Pet.
2.
18.
Where
we
are
commanded
,
being
servants
,
to
suffer
buffets
,
not
onely
for
ill
doing
,
of
good
masters
,
but
also
undeservedly
,
and
when
we
doe
well
,
we
are
to
suffer
of
these
masters
that
are
evill
;
and
so
much
more
are
we
patiently
,
without
Resistance
,
to
suffer
of
Kings
.
But
it
is
cleare
,
the
place
is
nothing
against
Resistance
,
as
in
these
Assertions
I
cleare
.
Assertion
1.
Patient
suffering
of
wicked
men
,
and
violent
resisting
are
not
incompatible
,
but
they
may
well
stand
together
:
So
this
consequence
is
the
basis
of
the
argument
,
and
it
is
just
nothing
.
To
wit
,
Servants
are
to
suffer
unjustly
wounds
and
buffeting
of
their
wicked
Masters
,
and
they
are
to
bear
it
patiently
;
Ergo
,
Servants
are
in
conscience
obliged
to
non-resistance
.
Now
Scripture
maketh
this
clear
;
The
Church
of
God
is
to
bear
with
all
patience
,
the
indignation
of
the
Lord
,
because
she
hath
sinned
,
and
to
suffer
of
wicked
enemies
,
which
were
to
be
troden
as
mire
in
the
streets
,
Micah
7.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
but
withall
they
were
not
obliged
to
non-resistance
,
and
not
to
fight
against
these
enemies
,
yea
they
were
obliged
to
fight
against
them
also
.
If
these
were
,
Babilon
,
Iudah
might
have
resisted
and
fought
,
if
God
had
not
given
a
speciall
commandement
of
a
positive
law
,
that
they
should
not
fight
,
if
these
were
the
Assyrians
and
other
enemies
,
or
rather
both
,
the
people
were
to
resist
by
fighting
,
and
yet
to
endure
patiently
the
indignation
of
the
Lord
.
David
did
bear
most
patiently
the
wrong
that
his
own
son
Absolon
and
Achitophel
,
and
the
people
inflicted
on
him
in
pursuing
him
to
take
his
life
and
the
kingdom
from
him
:
as
is
cleare
by
his
gracious
expressious
,
2
Sam.
15.
25
,
26.
chap.
16.
ver.
10
,
11
,
12.
Psal.
3.
1
,
2
,
3.
Yea
he
prayeth
for
a
blessing
on
the
people
,
that
conspired
against
him
.
Psal.
3.
8.
Yet
did
he
lawfully
resist
Absalom
,
and
the
conspiratours
,
and
sent
out
Ioab
and
a
huge
army
in
open
battel
against
them
.
2
Sam.
18.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
&c.
and
fought
against
them
.
And
were
not
the
people
of
God
patient
to
endure
the
violence
done
to
them
in
the
wildernes
,
by
Og
king
of
Bashan
,
Siho●
king
of
Heshbon
,
by
the
Ammorites
,
Moabites
,
&
c
?
I
think
Gods
law
tyeth
all
men
,
especially
his
people
,
to
as
patient
a
suffering
in
wars
,
Deut.
8.
16.
God
then
trying
and
humbling
his
people
,
as
the
servant
is
to
endure
patiently
,
unjustly
inflicted
buffets
,
1
Pet.
2.
18.
And
yet
Gods
people
at
Gods
command
did
resist
these
Kings
and
people
,
and
did
fight
and
kill
them
,
and
possesse
their
land
,
as
the
history
is
cleare
.
See
the
like
Iosh.
11.
ver.
18
,
19.
2.
One
act
of
grace
and
vertue
is
not
contrary
to
another
.
Resistance
is
in
the
Children
of
God
an
innocent
act
of
self-preservation
,
as
is
patient
suffering
,
and
therefore
they
may
well
subsist
in
one
.
And
so
saith
Amasa
by
the
spirit
of
the
Lord
,
1
Chro.
12.
18.
Peace
,
peace
be
unto
thee
,
and
peace
to
thy
helpers
,
for
God
helpeth
thee
.
Now
David
in
that
,
and
all
his
helpers
were
resisters
of
King
Saul
.
3.
The
scope
of
the
place
1
Pet.
2.
is
not
to
forbid
all
violent
resisting
,
when
he
was
reviled
,
reviled
not
again
,
when
he
suffered
he
threatned
not
.
Therefore
the
argument
is
a
falacy
,
ab
eo
quod
docitur
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
ad
illud
quod
dicitur
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Though
therefore
the
master
should
attempt
to
kill
an
innocent
servant
,
and
invade
him
with
a
weapon
of
death
.
1.
Suddenly
.
2.
Without
all
reason
or
cause
.
3.
Vnavoidably
,
Doctor
Ferne
,
part
3.
§
2.
p.
10.
Ferne
in
that
case
doth
free
a
Subject
from
guiltynesse
,
if
he
violently
resist
his
Prince
:
Ergo
the
servant
who
should
violently
resist
his
Master
in
the
aforesaid
case
,
should
,
and
might
patiently
suffer
,
and
violently
resist
,
notwithstanding
any
thing
that
Royalists
can
conclude
on
the
contrary
.
4.
No
Prince
hath
a
Masterly
or
herile
dominion
over
his
subjects
,
but
onely
a
free
,
ingenious
,
paternall
and
tutorly
over-sight
for
the
good
of
the
people
,
Rom.
13.
4.
The
Master
,
especially
in
the
Apostle
Peters
time
,
had
a
dominion
over
servants
,
as
over
their
proper
goods
.
2.
Assertion
.
Neither
suffering
formally
as
suffering
,
and
so
neither
can
non-resisting
passive
fall
under
any
morall
law
of
God
,
except
Ioh.
14.
31.
Ioh.
18.
4
,
5
,
6
,
7.
and
but
upbraided
Peter
,
as
the
Agent
of
Sathan
,
who
would
disswade
him
to
die
,
Mat.
16.
22
,
23.
and
would
fight
for
him
.
And
he
doth
not
fetch
any
argument
against
Peters
drawing
of
his
sword
,
from
the
unlawfulnesse
of
self-defence
,
and
innocent
resistance
,
(
which
he
should
have
done
,
if
Royalists
plead
with
any
colour
of
reason
from
his
example
,
against
the
lawfulnesse
of
Resistance
and
self-defence
)
but
from
the
absolute
power
of
God
.
2.
From
Gods
positive
wil
,
who
commanded
him
to
die
,
Mat.
26.
53
,
54.
if
therefore
Royalists
prove
any
thing
against
the
lawfulnesse
of
resisting
Kings
,
when
they
offer
(
most
unjustly
)
violence
to
the
life
of
Gods
servants
,
from
this
one
meerly
extraordinary
and
rare
example
of
Christ
,
the
like
whereof
was
never
in
the
world
,
they
may
from
the
same
example
prove
it
unlawfull
to
flee
;
for
Christ
would
not
flee
,
Psal.
40.
6
,
7.
Heb.
10.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
Ioh.
14.
31.
Ioh.
18.
4
,
5
,
6
,
7.
2.
They
may
prove
that
people
sought
by
a
Tyrant
to
be
crucifyed
for
the
Cause
of
God
,
or
to
reveale
and
discover
themselves
to
an
Armie
of
men
who
come
to
seek
them
,
Ioh.
13.
1
,
2.
Ioh.
18.
4
,
5
,
6
,
7.
3.
That
Martyrs
are
of
purpose
to
goe
to
the
place
where
they
know
they
shall
be
apprehended
and
put
to
death
,
for
this
Christ
did
,
and
are
willingly
to
offer
themselves
to
the
enemies
Armie
,
for
so
did
Christ
,
Ioh.
14.
3.
Mar.
14.
41
,
42.
Mat.
26.
46
,
47.
and
so
by
his
When
the
Invasion
is
sudden
.
2.
Vnavoidable
.
3.
Without
Ferne
,
part
3.
§.
2.
p.
10.
all
colour
of
Law
and
Reason
.
In
the
two
last
cases
,
Royalists
defend
the
lawfulnes
of
self-defence
.
6.
If
the
example
be
pressed
,
Christ
did
not
this
and
this
,
he
resisted
not
with
violence
to
save
his
owne
life
,
therefore
we
are
to
abstaine
from
resistance
,
and
such
and
such
meanes
of
self-preservation
,
then
because
Christ
appealed
not
from
inferiour
Judges
to
the
Emperour
Caesar
;
who
,
no
doubt
,
would
have
shewne
him
more
favour
,
then
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
did
,
and
because
Christ
conveyed
not
a
humble
supplication
to
his
Soveraigne
and
Father
Caesar
,
then
because
he
proffered
not
a
humble
petition
to
Prince
Pilate
for
his
life
,
he
being
an
innocent
man
,
and
his
cause
just
,
because
he
neither
conduced
an
Orator
to
pleade
his
owne
just
cause
,
nor
did
he
so
plead
for
himselfe
,
and
give
in
word
and
writ
,
all
lawfull
and
possible
defences
for
his
own
safety
,
but
answered
many
things
with
silence
,
to
the
admiration
of
the
Judge
,
Marke
15.
3
,
4.
5.
and
was
thrice
pronounced
by
the
Judge
to
be
innocent
,
Luke
22.
ver.
23.
because
,
I
say
,
Christ
did
not
all
these
for
his
owne
life
,
therefore
it
is
unlawfull
for
Scotland
and
England
to
appeale
to
the
King
,
to
supplicate
,
to
give
in
Appologi●s
,
&c.
I
thinke
Royalists
dare
not
say
so
.
But
if
they
say
,
he
would
not
resist
,
and
yet
might
have
done
all
these
lawfully
,
because
these
be
lawfull
meanes
,
and
resistance
with
the
sword
unlawfull
;
because
,
He
that
taketh
the
sword
,
shall
perish
by
the
sword
.
Let
me
Answer
then
,
1.
They
leave
the
argument
from
Christs
example
,
who
was
thus
farre
subject
to
higher
powers
,
that
he
would
not
resist
,
and
plead
from
the
unlawfulnesse
of
resistance
;
this
is
petitio
principii
.
2.
He
that
taketh
the
sword
without
Gods
warrant
,
which
Peter
had
not
,
but
the
contrary
,
he
was
himselfe
a
Sathan
to
Christ
,
who
would
but
councell
him
not
to
die
;
but
there
is
no
shadow
of
a
word
to
prove
that
violent
resisting
is
unlawfull
,
when
the
King
and
his
Irish
cut-throats
pursue
us
unjustly
;
onely
Christ
saith
,
when
God
may
deliver
extraordinarily
by
his
Angels
,
except
it
be
his
absolute
will
,
that
his
Son
should
drink
the
cup
of
death
,
then
to
take
the
sword
,
when
God
hath
declared
his
will
on
the
contrary
,
is
unlawfull
;
and
that
is
all
:
Though
I
doe
not
question
but
Christs
asking
for
swords
,
and
his
arresting
all
his
enemies
to
the
ground
,
Ioh.
18.
6.
backward
,
is
a
justifying
of
selfe-defence
.
But
hit
herto
it
is
cleare
by
Christs
example
,
that
he
onely
was
commanded
to
suffer
.
Now
the
second
case
in
which
suffering
falleth
under
a
Commandement
,
is
indirectly
and
comparatively
,
when
it
commeth
to
the
election
of
the
witnesse
of
Jesus
,
that
it
is
referred
to
them
,
either
to
deny
the
truth
of
Christ
and
his
name
,
or
then
to
suffer
death
,
the
choise
is
apparently
evident
,
and
this
choise
that
persecuters
referre
us
unto
,
is
to
us
a
Commandement
of
God
,
that
we
must
choose
suffering
for
Christ
,
and
refuse
sinning
against
Christ
:
but
the
supposition
must
stand
,
that
this
alternative
is
unavoydable
,
that
is
not
in
our
power
to
decline
either
suffering
for
Christ
,
or
denying
of
Christ
before
men
;
otherwayes
no
man
is
to
expect
the
reward
of
a
witnesse
of
Iesus
,
who
having
a
lawfull
possible
meanes
of
eschewing
suffering
,
doth
yet
cast
himselfe
into
suffering
needlesly
.
But
I
prove
that
suffering
by
men
of
this
world
,
falleth
not
formally
and
directly
under
any
divine
positive
Law
,
for
the
Law
of
nature
,
what
ever
Arminians
in
their
Declaration
,
or
this
Arminian
excommunicate
think
with
them
,
(
for
Mat.
10
,
28
,
32.
Revel.
2.
13.
Mat.
10.
37.
Mat.
16.
24.
c.
19.
29.
or
then
they
command
not
suffering
according
to
the
substance
of
the
passion
,
but
according
to
the
manner
,
that
we
suffer
willingly
,
feare
,
ver.
18.
and
the
words
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
suffer
with
patience
,
as
2
Tim
,
3.
11.
1
Cor.
10.
13.
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
to
suffer
patiently
,
1
Cor.
13.
7.
Love
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
suffereth
all
things
,
Heb.
12.
17.
if
you
suffer
correction
,
1
Tim.
5.
5.
She
continueth
patiently
in
prayers
,
Heb.
12.
2.
Christ
endured
the
Crosse
(
patiently
)
&
Rom.
15.
5.
Rom.
8.
25.
Luk.
8.
15.
&
21.
29.
the
derivats
hence
signifie
patience
,
so
doe
all
our
Interpreters
,
Beza
,
Calvin
,
Marlorat
,
and
Popish
expositors
,
as
Lorinus
,
Estius
,
Carthusian
,
Lyra
,
Hugo
Cardinalis
expound
it
of
patient
suffering
,
and
the
text
is
clear
,
it
is
suffering
like
Christ
,
without
rendring
evil
for
evil
,
and
reviling
for
reviling
.
3.
Suffering
simply
according
to
substance
of
the
passion
(
I
cannot
say
action
)
is
common
to
good
and
ill
,
and
to
the
wicked
,
yea
to
the
damned
in
hell
,
who
suffer
against
their
will
,
and
that
cannot
be
joyned
according
to
its
substance
as
an
act
of
formall
obedience
and
subjection
to
higher
powers
,
Kings
,
Fathers
,
Masters
,
by
force
of
the
fifth
commandement
,
and
of
the
place
Rom.
13.
1
,
2.
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
minister
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
suffereth
not
punishment
,
for
no
man
is
formally
a
sinner
against
a
morall
law
,
because
he
suffereth
not
the
ill
of
punishment
;
nor
is
he
morally
good
,
or
to
be
commended
,
because
hee
suffereth
ill
of
punishment
,
but
because
he
doth
the
ill
of
sin
.
And
all
evil
of
punishment
u●justly
inflicted
hath
Gods
voluntas
beneplaciti
,
the
instrumentall
and
hidden
decree
of
God
,
which
ordereth
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
subjection
be
not
commanded
,
non-subjection
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
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
nature
,
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
Assert
.
4.
When
the
matter
is
lighter
,
as
in
paying
tribute
,
or
suffering
a
buffet
of
a
rough
master
,
though
un
justly
,
we
are
not
to
use
Cor.
9.
Paul
would
rather
not
take
stipend
,
though
it
was
due
to
him
,
then
hinder
the
course
of
the
Gospel
.
And
the
like
is
1
Cor.
6.
where
the
Corinthians
were
rather
to
suffer
losse
in
their
goods
,
then
to
goe
to
Law
before
Infidel
Judges
,
and
by
the
like
to
prevent
greater
inconveniences
,
and
mutilation
,
and
death
;
the
Christian
servant
hath
that
dominion
over
his
members
,
rather
to
suffer
buffets
,
then
to
ward
off
buffets
with
violent
resistance
.
But
it
is
no
consequent
that
innocent
subjects
should
suffer
death
of
tyrants
,
and
servants
be
killed
by
masters
,
and
yet
that
they
shall
not
be
allowed
by
the
law
of
nature
to
defend
themselves
,
by
re-offending
,
when
onely
self-defence
is
intended
,
because
we
have
not
that
dominion
over
life
and
death
.
And
therefore
as
a
man
is
his
brothers
murtherer
,
who
,
with
froward
Cain
,
will
not
be
his
brothers
keeper
,
and
may
preserve
his
brothers
life
,
without
losse
of
his
owne
life
,
when
his
brother
is
unjustly
preserved
;
so
when
he
may
preserve
his
owne
life
,
and
doth
not
that
which
Natures
Law
alloweth
him
to
doe
,
rather
to
kill
ere
he
be
killed
,
he
is
guilty
of
self-murther
;
because
he
is
deficient
in
the
duty
of
lawfull
self-defence
.
But
I
grant
to
offend
or
kill
is
not
of
the
nature
of
defensive
warre
,
but
accidentall
thereunto
,
and
yet
killing
of
cut-throats
sent
forth
by
the
illegal
commandement
of
the
King
may
be
intended
,
as
a
mean
and
a
lawfull
mean
of
self-defence
.
2.
Of
two
ills
of
punishment
,
we
have
a
comparative
dominion
over
our selves
,
a
man
may
cast
his
goods
in
the
sea
to
redeeme
his
life
.
So
for
to
redeeme
peace
,
we
may
suffer
buffets
,
but
because
death
is
the
greatest
ill
of
punishment
,
God
hath
not
made
it
eligible
to
us
,
when
lawfull
self
defence
is
at
hand
;
But
in
defending
our
own
life
against
Tyrannicall
power
,
though
we
do
it
by
offending
and
killing
,
we
resist
no
ordinance
of
God
,
onely
I
judge
killing
of
the
King
in
self-defence
not
lawfull
,
because
self-defence
must
be
national
,
on
just
causes
.
Let
here
the
reader
judge
,
Barcley
l.
3.
c.
8.
pag.
159.
con
.
Monar
.
If
the
King
(
saith
he
)
shall
vex
the
Common-wealth
or
one
part
thereof
,
with
great
and
intollerable
cruelty
;
what
shall
the
people
do
?
they
have
(
saith
he
)
in
that
case
a
power
to
resist
and
defend
themselves
from
injury
,
but
onely
to
defend
themselves
,
not
to
invade
the
Prince
,
nor
to
resist
the
injury
,
or
to
recede
from
reverence
due
to
the
Prince
.
I
answer
1.
Let
Barclay
or
the
prelate
(
if
he
may
carry
Barclayes
books
)
or
any
,
difference
these
two
,
the
people
may
resist
a
Tyrant
,
but
they
may
not
resist
the
injuries
inflicted
by
a
Tyrants
officers
&
cut-throats
.
I
cannot
imagine
how
to
conciliate
these
two
:
for
to
resist
the
cruelty
of
a
King
,
is
but
to
hold
off
the
injurie
by
resistance
.
2.
If
this
Nero
waste
the
Common-wealth
unsufferably
with
his
cruelty
,
and
remaine
a
lawful
King
,
to
be
honoured
as
a
King
,
who
may
resist
him
,
according
to
Royalists
way
?
but
from
Rom.
13.
they
resist
the
Ordinance
of
God
.
3.
Resisting
is
not
a
meere
suffering
,
nor
is
it
a
morall
resisting
by
alledging
lawes
to
be
broken
by
him
.
We
had
never
a
question
with
Royalists
about
such
resisting
.
2.
Nor
is
this
resisting
non-obedience
to
unjust
commandements
;
that
resisting
was
never
yet
in
question
,
by
any
,
except
the
Papists
,
who
in
good
earnest
,
by
consequent
,
say
,
It
is
better
to
obey
men
,
then
God
.
3.
I●
is
then
resisting
by
bodily
violence
;
but
if
the
King
have
such
an
absolute
power
given
him
by
God
,
as
Royalists
fancie
from
Rom.
13.
1
,
2.
1
Sam.
8.
9
,
11.
I
know
not
how
Subjects
have
any
power
given
them
of
God
,
to
resist
the
power
from
God
,
and
Gods
Ordinance
.
And
if
this
resisting
extend
not
it selfe
to
defensive
wars
,
D.
Ferne
,
p.
3.
sect.
2.
pag.
9.
addeth
,
Personall
defence
is
lawfull
against
sudden
and
illegall
invasion
,
such
as
Elisha
practiced
,
even
if
it
were
against
the
Prince
to
ward
blowes
,
and
to
hold
the
Princes
hand
,
Answ.
If
it
be
naturall
to
one
man
to
defend
himself
against
the
personall
invasion
of
a
Prince
,
then
is
it
naturall
and
warrantable
to
ten
thousand
,
and
to
a
whole
Kingdome
;
and
what
reason
to
defraud
a
Kingdome
of
the
benefit
of
self-defence
,
more
then
one
man
?
Neither
grace
nor
policy
destroyeth
nature
:
and
how
shall
ten
or
twenty
thousand
be
defended
against
Cannons
and
Musquets
that
killeth
afar
off
,
except
they
keepe
Townes
against
the
King
,
which
D.
Ferne
and
others
say
had
beene
treason
in
David
,
if
he
had
kept
Keilah
against
King
Saul
,
except
they
be
armed
to
offend
,
with
weapons
of
the
like
nature
to
kill
rather
then
be
killed
,
as
the
Law
of
nature
teacheth
.
3.
To
hold
the
hands
of
the
Prince
is
no
lesse
resisting
violence
,
then
to
cut
the
lap
of
his
garment
,
which
Royalists
think
unlawfull
,
and
is
an
opposing
of
externall
force
to
Nor
can
we
think
that
resistance
to
a
King
in
holding
his
hands
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
weare
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
yield
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
punish●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
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
warrant
me
to
disobey
a
tyrannous
power
,
commanding
me
to
compeir
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-unj●st
sentence
of
death
.
2.
When
a
murtherer
self-convicted
fleeth
from
the
just
power
of
a
Judge
lawfully
citing
him
,
he
resisteth
the
just
power
ordained
of
God
,
Rom.
3.
Ergo
,
by
the
same
reason
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
malefactor
,
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
flee
.
3.
When
the
King
of
Israel
sendeth
a
Captaine
,
and
fifty
Lictors
to
fetch
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
He
took
Goliahs
sword
,
and
gathered
six
hundred
armed
men
,
and
after
that
made
use
of
an
hoast
.
Now
a
sword
and
armour
are
not
horsing
and
shipping
for
flight
,
but
contrary
to
flight
;
so
re-offending
,
is
Policies
last
refuge
.
A
godly
magistrate
taketh
not
away
the
life
of
a
subject
,
if
other
means
can
compasse
the
end
of
the
Law
;
Sect.
11.
pag.
35.
Self-defence
is
not
to
be
used
,
where
it
cannot
be
without
sinne
.
It
is
certaine
,
Necessity
is
but
a
hungry
plea
for
sinne
,
Luke
14.
18.
but
it
is
also
true
,
re-offending
comparatively
,
that
I
Church
of
God
,
to
dwell
there
,
but
shew
me
a
warrant
in
natures
Law
and
in
Gods
word
that
three
Kingdomes
of
Protestant●
,
their
seed
,
aged
,
sick
,
sucking
children
,
should
flee
out
of
England
,
Scotland
,
Ireland
,
and
leave
Religion
and
the
Land
to
a
King
and
to
Papists
,
Prelates
and
bloody
Irish
,
and
Atheists
:
and
therefore
to
a
Church
and
community
having
Gods
right
and
mans
law
to
the
land
,
violent
re-offending
is
their
second
mean
(
next
to
supplications
and
declarations
,
&c.
)
and
flight
is
not
required
of
them
,
as
of
a
private
man
.
Yea
flight
is
not
necessarily
required
of
a
private
man
,
but
where
it
is
a
possible
mean
of
self-preservation
,
violent
and
unjust
invasion
of
a
private
man
,
which
is
unavoidable
may
be
obviated
with
violent
re-offending
.
Now
the
unjust
invasion
made
on
Scotland
in
1640.
for
refusing
the
Service-book
,
or
rather
the
idolatry
of
the
Masse
,
therein
intended
,
was
unavoidable
,
it
was
unpossible
for
the
Protestants
,
their
old
and
sick
,
their
women
and
sucking
children
to
flee
over
sea
,
or
to
have
shipping
betwixt
the
Kings
bringing
an
army
on
them
at
Duns-law
,
and
the
Prelates
charging
of
the
Ministers
to
receive
the
masse-book
;
Althusius
saith
well
,
Pol.
c.
38.
n.
78.
Though
private
men
may
flee
;
but
the
estates
if
they
flee
,
they
do
not
their
duty
to
commit
a
country
,
religion
and
all
to
a
Lion
.
Let
not
any
o●ject
,
we
may
not
devise
a
way
to
fulfill
the
prophecy
,
Psal.
2.
8
,
9.
Isa.
49.
1.
it
is
true
,
if
the
way
be
our
own
sinfull
way
;
nor
let
any
object
,
a
Colony
went
to
New-England
and
fled
the
persecution
.
Answer
,
True
,
but
if
fleeing
be
the
onely
mean
after
supplication
,
there
was
no
more
reason
that
one
Colony
should
go
to
New-England
,
then
it
is
necessary
&
by
a
divine
law
obligatory
,
that
the
whol●
Protestants
in
the
three
kingdomes
according
to
Royalists
Doctrine
,
are
to
leave
their
native
country
,
&
religion
to
one
man
&
to
popish
Idolators
&
Atheists
willing
to
worship
idols
with
them
,
and
whethere
then
shall
the
Gospel
be
,
which
we
are
obliged
to
defend
with
our
lives
?
2.
There
is
Tutela
vitae
proxima
,
&
remota
.
A
meer
and
immediat
God
,
Gen.
96.
except
in
case
of
necessity
;
The
magistrate
in
case
of
necessity
may
kill
the
malefector
,
thought
his
malefices
do
King
Saul
was
then
in
a
habituall
,
not
in
an
actuall
pursuit
of
the
whole
Princes
,
Elders
and
judges
of
Israel
,
or
of
a
whole
community
and
Church
;
Saul
did
but
seek
the
life
of
one
man
,
David
,
and
that
not
for
religion
,
or
a
nationall
pretended
offence
,
and
therefore
he
could
not
in
conscience
put
hands
on
the
Lords
anoynted
;
but
if
Saul
had
actually
invaded
David
for
his
life
,
David
might
in
that
case
make
use
of
Goliahs
sword
,
(
for
he
took
not
that
weapon
with
him
as
a
Cypher
to
boast
Saul
,
it
is
no
lesse
unlawfull
to
threatten
a
King
then
to
put
hands
on
him
)
and
rather
kill
or
be
killed
by
Sauls
emissaries
:
Because
then
he
should
have
been
in
an
immediate
and
nearest
posture
of
actuall
self-defence
.
Now
the
case
is
farre
otherwayes
between
the
King
,
and
the
two
Parliaments
of
England
,
and
Scotland
,
for
the
King
is
not
1.
Sleeping
in
his
emissaries
,
for
he
hath
armies
in
two
kingdomes
,
and
now
in
three
kingdomes
,
by
sea
and
land
,
night
and
day
in
actuall
pursuit
,
Royalist
,
Davids
argument
,
God
forbid
that
I
stretch
out
my
hand
against
the
Lords
Annoynted
,
my
Master
the
King
,
concludeth
universally
,
that
the
King
in
his
most
Tyrannous
acts
,
still
remaining
the
Lords
Anoynted
,
cannot
be
resisted
.
Ans.
1.
David
speaketh
of
stretching
out
his
hand
against
the
person
of
King
Saul
:
no
man
in
the
three
Kingdomes
,
did
so
much
as
attempt
to
do
violence
to
the
Kings
The
grounds
of
self-defence
are
these
;
A
woman
or
a
young
man
may
violently
oppose
a
King
,
if
he
force
the
one
to
adultery
and
incest
,
and
the
other
to
Sodomy
;
Though
Court-flatterers
should
say
,
the
King
in
regard
of
his
absolutenesse
is
Lord
of
life
and
death
;
yet
no
man
ever
said
,
that
the
King
is
Lord
of
chastity
,
faith
,
and
oath
that
the
wife
hath
made
to
her
husband
.
2.
Particular
nature
yeelds
to
the
good
of
universall
nature
,
for
3.
The
cutting
off
of
a
contagious
member
,
that
by
a
Gangrene
,
would
corrupt
the
whole
body
,
is
well
warranted
by
nature
,
because
the
safety
of
the
whole
is
to
be
preferred
to
the
safety
of
a
part
:
Nor
is
it
much
that
Royalists
say
the
King
being
the
head
,
destroy
him
,
&
the
whole
body
the
Comon-wealth
is
dissolved
;
as
cut
off
a
mans
head
,
&
the
life
of
the
whole
man
is
taken
away
;
Because
,
1.
God
cutteth
off
the
spirits
of
tyrannous
Kings
,
and
yet
the
Common-wealth
the
King
●ever
dieth
,
yet
this
King
can
dye
;
an
immortall
politique
body
,
such
as
the
Common-wealth
,
must
have
an
immortall
head
,
and
that
is
a
King
as
a
King
;
not
this
or
that
man
,
possibly
a
tyrant
,
who
is
for
the
time
(
and
eternall
things
abstract
from
time
)
onely
a
King
.
4.
The
reason
of
Fortunius
Garcias
a
skilfull
Lawyer
in
Spaine
is
considerable
,
Coment
.
in
l.
ut
vim
vi
ff.
de
justit
.
&
jure
.
God
hath
impl●nted
in
every
creature
naturall
inclinations
,
and
motions
to
preserve
it selfe
,
and
we
are
to
love
our self
for
God
,
and
have
a
love
to
preserve
our selves
rather
then
our
neighbour
,
and
Natures
law
teacheth
every
man
to
love
God
best
of
all
,
and
next
our selves
more
then
our
neighbour
;
for
the
Law
saith
,
Thou
shalt
love
thy
neighbour
as
thy selfe
;
then
(
saith
Malderus
com
.
in
12.
q.
26.
tom.
2.
c.
10.
concl
.
2.
)
The
love
of
our selfe
,
is
the
measure
of
the
love
of
our
neighbour
.
But
the
rule
and
the
measure
is
more
perfect
,
simple
,
and
more
principall
then
the
thing
that
is
measured
:
It
is
true
,
I
am
to
love
the
salvation
of
the
Church
,
it
comming
neerer
to
Gods
glory
,
more
then
my
owne
salvation
,
as
the
wishes
of
Moses
and
Paul
do
Proximus
sum
egomet
mihi
.
Ephes.
5.
28
,
29.
He
that
loveth
his
wife
,
loveth
him selfe
;
for
no
man
ever
yet
hated
his
owne
flesh
,
but
nourisheth
it
,
and
cherisheth
it
,
even
as
the
Lord
the
Church
.
As
then
nature
tyeth
the
dam
to
defend
the
young
birds
,
and
the
Lyon
her
whelps
,
and
the
husband
the
wife
,
and
that
by
a
comparative
re-offending
,
rather
then
the
wife
or
children
should
be
killed
;
yea
,
hee
that
is
wanting
to
his
brother
,
(
if
a
robber
unjustly
invade
his
brother
)
and
helpeth
him
not
,
is
a
murtherer
of
his
brother
so
farre
,
Gods
spirituall
law
requiring
both
conservation
of
it
in
our
person
,
and
preservation
in
others
.
The
forced
Damsell
was
commanded
to
cry
for
help
,
and
not
the
Magistrate
onely
,
but
the
neerest
private
man
or
woman
was
to
come
,
by
an
obligation
of
a
divine
Law
of
the
seventh
Commandement
,
to
rescue
the
Damsell
with
violence
;
even
as
a
man
is
to
save
his
enemies
Oxe
or
his
Asse
out
of
a
pit
:
And
if
a
private
man
may
inflict
bodily
punishment
of
two
degrees
,
to
preserve
the
life
and
chastity
of
his
neighbour
,
far
rather
then
suffer
his
life
and
chastity
to
be
taken
away
,
then
he
may
inflict
violence
of
foure
degrees
even
to
killing
,
for
his
life
,
and
much
more
for
his
owne
life
.
So
when
a
Robber
,
with
deadly
weapons
invadeth
an
innocent
traveller
to
kill
him
,
for
his
goods
,
upon
the
supposition
that
if
the
Robber
be
not
killed
,
the
innocent
shall
be
killed
;
Now
the
question
is
,
which
of
the
two
,
by
Gods
morall
Law
and
revealed
will
in
point
of
conscience
,
ought
to
be
killed
by
his
fellow
;
for
we
speake
not
now
of
Gods
eternall
decree
of
permitting
evill
,
according
to
the
which
murtherers
may
crucisie
the
innocent
Lord
of
glory
:
by
no
morall
Law
of
God
,
should
the
●●
just
robber
kill
the
innocent
traveller
,
therefore
in
this
exigence
of
providence
,
the
traveller
should
rather
kill
the
robber
.
If
any
say
,
by
Gods
morall
Law
not
one
should
kill
his
fellow
;
and
it
is
a
sin
against
the
morall
Law
in
either
to
kill
other
;
I
answer
:
If
a
third
shall
come
in
when
the
robber
and
the
innocent
are
invading
each
other
for
his
life
,
all
acknowledge
by
the
sixt
Commandement
,
the
third
may
cut
off
the
robbers
arme
to
save
the
innocent
;
but
by
what
Law
of
God
he
may
cut
off
his
arme
,
he
may
take
his
life
also
to
save
the
other
;
for
it
is
murther
to
wound
unjustly
,
and
to
dismember
a
man
by
private
authority
,
as
it
is
to
take
away
his
life
:
If
therefore
the
third
may
take
away
the
robbers
member
,
then
also
his
life
,
so
hee
doe
it
without
malice
or
appetite
of
revenge
,
and
if
he
may
doe
it
out
of
this
principle
,
Thou
shalt
love
thy
neighbour
as
thy selfe
;
because
a
man
is
obliged
more
to
love
his
owne
flesh
,
then
his
neighbours
,
Ephes.
5.
28.
and
so
more
to
Chemnit.
loc.
com
.
de
vindic
.
q.
3.
alloweth
private
defence
.
1.
When
the
violence
is
suddaine
,
And
the
2.
Violence
manifestly
inevitable
.
3.
When
the
Magistrate
is
absent
and
cannot
help
.
4.
When
moderation
is
kept
as
Lawyers
require
.
1.
That
it
be
done
incontinent
,
if
it
be
done
after
the
injury
,
it
is
revenge
,
not
defence
.
2.
Not
of
Desire
of
revenge
.
3.
With
proportion
of
armor
.
If
the
violent
invader
invade
not
with
deadly
weapons
,
you
must
not
invade
him
with
deadly
weapons
,
and
certainly
the
law
,
Exod.
22.
of
a
mans
defending
his
house
is
clear
.
1.
If
he
come
in
the
night
,
it
is
presumed
he
is
a
robber
.
2.
If
he
be
taken
with
a
weapon
breaking
the
house
,
he
cometh
to
kill
,
a
man
may
defend
himself
,
wife
,
and
children
,
but
he
is
3.
but
to
wound
him
,
and
if
he
die
of
the
wound
,
the
defender
is
free
,
so
the
defender
is
not
to
intend
his
death
,
but
to
save
himself
.
5.
It
were
a
mighty
defect
in
providence
to
man
,
if
dogs
by
nature
may
defend
themselves
against
Wolves
,
Bulls
against
Lyons
,
When
the
King
is
present
in
his
person
,
and
his
invaders
,
he
is
not
absent
,
and
so
though
you
may
rather
kill
a
private
man
,
then
suffer
your self
to
be
killed
,
yet
,
because
prudence
determineth
the
means
of
self-defence
,
you
are
to
expose
your
life
to
hazard
for
justice
of
your
King
,
and
therefore
not
to
do
violence
to
the
life
of
your
King
,
nor
can
the
body
in
any
self-defence
,
fight
against
the
head
,
that
must
be
the
destruction
of
the
whole
.
Ans.
Though
the
King
be
present
as
an
unjust
invader
in
Warres
against
his
innocent
subjects
,
he
is
absent
as
a
King
,
and
a
father
and
defender
,
and
present
as
an
unjust
grassator
,
and
therefore
the
innocent
may
defend
themselves
,
when
the
King
neither
can
,
nor
will
defend
him
.
Nature
maketh
a
man
(
saith
the
law
.
l.
Gener.
c.
de
decur
.
l.
10.
l.
sialius
.
§
.
Bellissimè
ubique
Gloss.
in
vers.
ex
magn.
not
.
per.
illum
.
text
.
ff.
quod
vi
aut
clam
.
l.
ait
praetor
.
§
.
si
debitorem
meum
.
ff.
de
hisque
in
fraud
.
credito
.
)
even
a
privat
man
his
own
judge
,
magistrate
and
defender
,
quando
copiam
judicis
,
qui
sibijus
reddat
,
non
habet
.
When
he
hath
no
judge
,
to
give
him
justice
and
law
.
2.
The
subjects
are
to
give
their
lives
,
for
the
King
,
ad
the
King
,
because
the
safety
of
the
King
as
King
is
the
safety
of
the
common-wealth
.
But
the
King
as
offering
unjust
violence
to
his
innocent
subjects
is
not
King
.
Zoannet
.
part.
3.
defens
.
n.
44.
transgrediens
notoriè
officium
suum
judex
,
agit
velut
privatus
aliquis
,
non
ut
magistratus
.
ff.
de
injur
.
est
bonus
in
simili
in
.
l.
qui
fundum
.
§
.
si
.
tutor
.
ff.
pro
emptore
.
3.
If
the
politick
body
fight
against
this
head
in
particular
,
not
as
head
,
but
as
an
oppressor
of
the
people
.
There
is
no
fear
of
dissolution
,
if
the
body
rise
against
all
magistracy
,
as
magistracy
and
lawes
:
dissolution
of
all
must
follow
,
Parliaments
and
inferiour
jadges
are
heads
.
Num.
1.
16.
Num.
10.
4.
Deut.
1.
15.
Iosh.
22.
21.
Mic.
3.
1.
ver.
9.
11.
1
King
.
8.
1.
1
Chron.
5.
25.
2
Chro.
5.
2.
No
lesle
then
the
King
,
and
it
is
unlawfull
to
offer
violence
to
them
,
though
I
shall
rather
thinke
a
private
man
is
to
suffer
the
King
to
kill
him
,
rather
then
he
kill
the
King
;
because
he
is
to
preferre
the
life
of
a
private
man
,
to
the
life
of
a
publique
man
.
6.
By
the
law
of
nature
a
ruler
is
appointed
to
defend
the
innocent
.
Now
by
nature
an
infant
in
the
wombe
d●fendeth
it self
first
,
before
the
parents
can
defend
it
,
then
when
parents
and
magistrates
are
not
,
(
and
violent
invading
magistrates
are
not
in
that
magistrates
)
nature
hath
commended
every
man
to
self-defence
.
7.
The
Law
of
nature
excepteth
no
violence
,
whether
inflicted
by
a
magistrate
,
or
any
other
unjust
violence
from
a
ruler
is
twice
injustice
.
1.
He
doth
unjustly
as
a
man
.
2.
As
a
member
of
the
common-wealth
.
3.
He
committeth
a
speciall
kind
of
sin
of
injustice
,
against
his
office
,
but
it
is
absurd
to
say
we
may
lawfully
d●fend
our selves
from
smaller
injuries
,
by
the
law
of
nature
;
and
not
from
the
greater
.
If
the
Pope
(
saith
Fer.
Vasquez
.
illust.
quest.
l.
1.
c.
24.
n.
24
,
25.
)
command
to
take
away
benefices
from
the
just
owner
,
these
who
are
to
execute
his
commandement
,
are
not
to
obey
,
but
to
write
back
that
that
mandat
came
not
from
his
holinesse
,
but
from
the
avarice
of
his
Officers
;
but
if
the
Pope
still
continue
and
presse
the
same
unjust
Mandat
,
the
same
should
be
written
againe
to
him
:
and
though
there
be
none
above
the
Pope
,
yet
there
is
naturall
self-defence
patent
for
all
.
Defensio
vitae
nece●aria
est
,
&
à
jure
naturali
profluit
:
L.
ut
vim.
ff.
de
just.
&
jure
16.
Nam
quod
quisque
ob
tutelam
corporis
sui
fecerit
,
jure
fecisse
videatur
.
C●jus
naturale
.
1.
distinc
.
l.
1.
ff.
de
vi
&
vi
armata
.
l.
injuriarum
.
ff.
de
injuria
.
C.
significasti
.
2.
de
hom.
l.
scientiam
.
sect.
qui
non
aliter
ff.
ad
leg
.
Aquil.
C.
si
vero
1.
de
sent.
excom.
&
l.
sed
etsi
ff.
ad
leg
.
Aquil.
etiamsi
sequatur
homicidium
.
Vasquez
.
l.
1.
c.
17.
n.
5.
etiam
occidere
licet
ob
defensionem
rerum
.
Vim
vi
repellere
omnia
jura
permittunt
in
C.
significasti
.
Garcias
Fortunius
Comment.
in
l.
ut
vim.
ff.
de
instit
▪
&
jur.
n.
3.
defendere
se
est
juris
naturae
&
gentium
.
A
jure
civili
fuit
additum
moderamen
inculpatae
tutelae
.
lac.
Novel
.
defens
.
n.
101.
Occidens
Principem
vel
alium
Tyrannidem
exercentem
,
à
paena
homicidii
excusatur
.
Grotius
de
jure
belli
&
pacis
,
l.
2.
c.
1.
n.
3.
Si
corpus
impetatur
vi
presente
,
cum
periculo
vitae
non
aliter
vitabili
,
tune
bellum
est
licitum
etiam
cum
intersectione
periculum
inf●rentis
,
ratio
,
natura
quemque
sibicommendat
.
Barcl
.
advers.
Monar
.
l.
3.
c.
8
▪
est
jus
cuilibet
se
tenendi
adversus
immanem
sevitiam
.
But
what
ground
(
saith
the
Royalist
)
is
there
to
take
Arms
against
a
King
?
Ielousies
and
suspitions
are
not
enough
.
Ans.
The
King
sent
first
an
Armie
to
Scotland
,
and
blocked
us
up
by
sea
,
before
we
took
Armes
.
2.
Papists
were
armed
in
England
,
they
have
professed
themselves
in
their
Religion
of
Trent
to
be
so
much
the
holyer
,
that
they
root
out
Prottstants
.
3.
The
King
An
imminent
danger
,
which
is
a
sufficient
warrant
to
take
up
Armes
,
is
not
strokes
,
but
either
the
terrour
of
Armour
,
or
threatning
.
Glossator
.
in
d.
l.
1.
C.
Vinde
vi
.
ait
non
esse
verbera
expectanda
,
sed
vel
terrorem
armorum
sufficere
,
vel
minas
,
&
hoc
esse
immin●ns
periculum
.
L.
Sed
&
si
quemcunque
in
princ
.
ff.
ad
leg
.
Aquil.
l.
3.
quod
qui
armati
ff.
de
vi
&
vi
armata
is
qui
aggressorem
.
C.
adlegem
C.
adlegem
Corneli
.
In
most
hainous
sinnes
,
conatus
,
the
endeavour
and
aime
(
etiamsi
effectus
non
sequatur
,
puniridebet
)
is
punishable
.
Bartoln
.
in
l.
Si
quis
non
dicam
rapere
.
The
King
hath
aimed
at
the
destruction
of
his
Subjects
,
through
the
power
of
wicked
counsellors
,
and
we
are
to
consider
not
the
intenton
of
the
workes
,
but
the
nature
and
intention
of
the
work
;
Papists
are
in
armes
,
their
religion
,
the
Conspiracy
of
Trent
,
their
conscience
(
if
they
have
any
)
their
malice
against
the
convenant
of
Scotland
which
abjureth
their
Religion
to
the
full
,
their
ceremonies
,
their
Prelates
lead
,
and
necessitate
them
to
root
out
the
name
of
Protestant
,
Religion
,
yea
and
to
stab
a
King
who
is
a
Protestant
.
Nor
is
our
King
remaining
a
Protestant
,
and
adhering
to
his
oath
made
at
his
Coronation
in
both
kingdomes
,
Lord
of
his
own
person
,
master
of
himself
,
nor
able
as
King
to
be
a
King
over
Protestant
subjects
,
if
the
Papists
now
in
armes
under
his
standard
,
shall
prevail
.
The
King
hath
been
compelled
to
go
against
his
own
oath
and
the
Lawes
which
he
did
swear
to
maintaine
:
The
Pope
sendeth
to
his
popish
armies
both
dispensations
,
bulls
,
mandats
,
incouragements
:
The
King
hath
made
a
cessation
with
the
bloody
Irish
,
and
hath
put
arms
in
the
hands
of
Papists
.
Now
he
being
under
the
oath
of
God
,
tied
to
maintain
the
Protestant
Religion
,
he
hath
a
metaphysically
subtle
,
pearcing
faith
of
miracles
,
who
beleeveth
armed
Papists
,
and
Prelates
shall
defend
Protestants
,
their
Religion
,
and
these
who
have
abjured
Prelats
as
the
lawful
sons
of
the
Pope
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
as
the
law
saith
,
Quilibet
in
dubio
praesumitur
bonus
.
L.
merito
praesumi
.
L.
non
omnes
§
à
Barbaris
de
re
milit.
Charity
beleeveth
not
ill
:
So
Charity
is
not
a
foole
to
beleeve
all
things
.
So
saith
the
Law
,
Semel
malus
,
semper
praesumitur
malus
,
in
eodem
genere
.
C.
semel
malus
de
jure
gentium
in
6.
Once
wicked
is
alwayes
wicked
in
that
kind
.
Marius
Salamonius
I.
C.
in
L.
ut
vim
at
que
injuriam
ff.
de
just.
&
jure
.
We
are
not
to
wait
on
strokes
,
the
terrour
of
armour
,
omnium
consensu
,
by
consent
of
all
is
sufficient
.
n.
3.
If
I
see
(
saith
he
)
the
enemy
take
an
arrow
out
of
the
Quiver
,
before
he
bend
the
bow
,
it
is
lawfull
to
prevent
him
with
a
blow
—
cunctatio
est
periculosa
.
The
Kings
comming
with
armed
men
,
to
demand
the
Five
Members
,
into
the
House
of
Commons
,
is
very
symbolicall
,
and
Warre
was
printed
on
that
fact
,
he
that
runneth
may
reade
.
His
comming
to
Hull
with
an
Armie
,
saith
not
he
had
no
errand
there
,
but
aske
what
it
was
in
the
clock
.
See
Novellus
that
learned
Venetian
Lawyer
,
in
a
Treatise
for
defence
,
he
maketh
continuatam
rixam
,
a
continued
upbraiding
a
sufficient
ground
of
violent
defence
.
He
citeth
Doctores
Comniter
.
in
L.
ut
vim.
ff.
de
just.
&
jure
.
Yea
he
saith
,
Drunkennesse
,
defens
.
n.
44.
Error
,
n.
46.
Madnesse
,
n.
49
,
50.
Ignorance
,
n.
51.
52.
Impudence
,
n.
54.
Necessity
,
n.
56.
Lasciviousnesse
,
58.
Continuall
reproaches
,
59.
The
fervour
of
anger
,
64.
Threatning
,
66.
Feare
of
imminent
danger
,
67.
Iust
grief
doe
excuse
a
man
from
homicide
,
and
that
in
these
he
ought
to
be
more
mildly
punished
,
Quia
obnubilatum
&
mancum
est
consilium
,
Reason
in
these
being
lame
and
clogged
.
Ambros
.
l.
1.
offic.
Quinon
repellit
injuriam
à
socio
,
cum
potest
,
tam
est
in
vitio
,
quam
ille
qui
facit
.
And
as
Nature
,
so
the
Law
saith
,
When
the
losses
are
such
as
can
never
be
repaired
,
as
Death
,
Mutilation
,
lesse
of
Chastity
,
Quoniam
facta
infecta
fieri
nequeunt
,
things
of
that
kinde
once
done
,
can
never
be
undone
,
we
are
to
prevent
the
enemy
,
l.
Zonat.
tract
.
defens
.
par.
3.
l.
in
bello
§
.
factae
de
capit
.
notat
.
Gloss.
in
l.
si
quis
provocatione
.
If
the
King
send
an
Irish
Rebell
to
cast
me
over
a
bridge
,
and
drowne
me
in
a
water
,
I
am
not
to
do
nothing
,
while
the
Kings
emissary
first
cast
me
over
,
and
then
in
the
next
room
I
am
to
defend
my self
;
but
nature
and
the
law
of
self-defence
warranteth
me
(
if
I
know
certainly
his
ayme
)
to
horse
him
first
over
the
bridge
,
and
then
consult
how
to
defend
my selfe
at
my
own
leasure
.
Royalists
object
that
David
in
his
defence
never
invaded
and
persecuted
Saul
;
yea
,
when
he
came
upon
Saul
and
his
men
sleeping
,
hee
would
not
kill
any
;
but
the
Scottish
and
Parliaments
Forces
not
onely
defend
,
but
invade
,
offend
,
kill
and
plunder
;
and
this
is
cleerely
an
offensive
,
not
a
defensive
warre
.
Answ.
There
is
no
defensive
warre
different
in
spece
and
nature
Deut.
4.
42.
Deut.
19
4.
Ioshua
20.
5.
2.
The
cause
betweene
the
King
and
the
two
Parliaments
,
and
betweene
Saul
and
David
,
are
so
different
in
this
,
as
it
is
much
for
us
:
Royalists
say
,
David
might
if
he
had
seene
offending
to
conduce
for
selfe-preservation
,
have
invaded
Sauls
men
,
and
say
they
,
the
case
was
extraordinary
,
and
bindeth
not
us
to
selfe-defence
;
and
thus
they
must
say
;
for
offensive
weapons
,
such
as
Goliahs
sword
,
and
an
hoast
of
armed
men
,
cannot
by
any
rationall
men
be
assumed
(
and
David
had
the
wisdome
of
God
)
but
to
offend
,
if
providence
should
so
dispose
;
and
so
what
was
lawfull
to
David
,
is
lawfull
to
us
in
self-defence
,
he
might
offend
lawfully
,
and
so
may
we
.
2.
If
Saul
and
the
Philistims
ayming
(
as
under
an
oath
)
to
set
up
Dagon
in
the
land
of
Israel
,
should
invade
David
,
and
the
Princes
and
Elders
of
Israel
who
made
him
King
;
and
if
David
with
an
hoast
of
armed
men
,
he
and
the
Princes
of
Israel
,
should
come
in
that
case
upon
Saul
and
the
Philistims
sleeping
,
if
in
that
case
David
might
not
lawfully
have
cut
off
the
Philistims
,
and
as
he
defended
in
that
case
Gods
Church
,
and
true
Religion
,
if
he
might
not
then
have
lawfully
killed
(
I
say
)
the
Philistims
,
I
remit
to
the
conscience
of
the
Reader
.
Now
to
us
Papists
and
Prelates
under
the
Kings
banner
,
are
Philistims
,
introducing
the
Idolatry
of
Bread-worship
and
Popery
,
as
hatefull
to
God
,
as
Dagon-worship
.
3.
Saul
intended
no
arbitrary
government
,
nor
to
make
Israel
a
conquered
people
,
nor
yet
to
cut
off
all
that
professed
the
true
worship
of
God
;
nor
came
Saul
against
these
Princes
,
Elders
and
people
who
made
him
King
,
only
Davids
head
would
have
made
Saul
lay
downe
Arms
;
but
Prelates
,
and
Papists
,
and
Malignants
under
the
King
,
intend
to
make
the
Kings
sole
will
a
Law
,
to
destroy
the
Court
of
Parliament
,
which
putteth
Lawes
in
execution
against
their
Idolatry
;
and
their
ayme
is
that
Protestants
be
a
conquered
people
,
and
their
attempt
hath
been
hitherto
to
blow
up
King
and
Parliament
,
to
cut
off
all
Protestants
,
and
they
are
in
Armes
in
divers
parts
of
the
Kingdome
,
against
the
Princes
of
the
Land
,
who
are
no
lesse
Judges
and
deputies
of
the
Lord
,
then
the
King
himselfe
;
and
would
kill
,
and
do
kill
,
plunder
and
spoyle
us
,
if
we
kill
not
them
.
And
the
case
is
every
way
now
betweene
Armies
and
Armies
,
as
betweene
a
single
man
unjustly
invaded
for
his
life
,
and
an
unjust
invader
:
neither
in
a
naturall
action
,
such
as
is
self-defence
,
is
that
of
policy
to
be
urged
;
none
can
be
Judge
in
his
owne
cause
,
when
oppression
is
manifest
;
one
may
be
both
agent
A
where
may
not
sell
her
own
body
for
hire
.
Covar
▪
to
.
1.
par.
2.
●
.
1.
de
furti
&
rapi
restituti
§.
2.
n.
1.
and
patient
,
as
the
fire
and
water
conflicting
;
there
is
no
need
of
a
judge
,
a
community
casts
not
off
nature
;
when
the
judge
is
wanting
,
nature
is
judge
,
actor
,
accused
and
all
.
Lastly
,
no
man
is
Lord
of
his
owne
members
,
of
his
body
,
m.
l.
liber
homo
ff.
ad
leg
.
Aqui.
nor
Lord
of
his
owne
life
,
but
is
to
be
accountable
to
God
for
it
.
QUEST.
XXXII
.
Whether
or
no
the
lawfulnesse
of
defensive
warres
hath
its
warrant
in
Gods
word
,
from
the
example
of
David
,
Elisha
,
the
eighty
Priests
who
resisted
Uzziah
,
&
c
?
DAvid
defended
himselfe
against
King
Saul
,
1.
by
taking
Goliahs
David
a
hoast
like
the
hoast
of
God
,
v.
22.
to
help
against
Saul
,
exceeding
foure
thousand
,
v.
36.
Now
that
this
hoast
came
warrantably
to
help
him
against
Saul
,
I
prove
,
1.
because
it
is
said
,
ver.
1.
Now
these
are
they
that
came
to
David
to
Ziglag
,
while
he
kept
himselfe
close
,
because
of
Saul
the
son
of
Kish
;
and
they
were
amongst
the
mighty
men
,
helpers
of
the
warre
:
and
then
so
many
mighty
Captains
are
reckoned
out
,
v.
16.
There
came
of
the
children
of
Benjamin
and
Iudah
to
the
hold
of
David
,
v.
19.
And
there
fell
some
of
Manasseh
to
David
.
20.
As
he
went
to
Ziglag
there
fell
to
him
of
Manasseh
;
Ke●●h
,
and
Jozabad
,
Jedi●l
and
Michael
,
and
Elihu
,
and
Zilthai
Captaines
of
the
thousands
that
were
of
Manasseh
.
21.
And
they
helped
David
against
the
band
(
of
the
rovers
.
)
22.
At
that
time
day
by
day
there
came
to
David
,
untill
it
was
a
great
hoast
,
like
the
hoast
of
God
.
Now
the
same
expression
that
is
ver.
1.
where
it
is
said
,
they
came
to
help
David
against
Saul
,
which
ver.
1.
is
repeated
,
ver.
16.
ver.
19
,
20
,
21
,
22
,
23.
2.
That
they
wartantably
came
,
is
evident
;
because
,
1.
the
Spirit
of
God
commendeth
them
for
their
valor
and
skill
in
war
,
ver.
2.
ver.
8.
ver.
15.
ver.
21.
which
the
Spirit
of
God
doth
not
in
unlawfull
wars
.
2.
Because
Amasai
,
v.
18.
The
Spirit
of
the
Lord
comming
on
him
,
saith
,
Thine
are
we
,
David
,
and
on
thy
side
,
thou
son
of
Jesse
;
peace
,
peace
unto
thee
,
and
peace
to
thy
helpers
,
for
thy
God
helpeth
thee
.
The
Spirit
of
God
inspireth
no
man
to
pray
peace
,
to
those
who
are
in
an
unlawfull
warre
.
3.
That
they
came
to
Davids
side
onely
to
be
sufferers
,
and
to
flee
with
David
,
and
not
to
pursue
and
offend
,
is
ridiculous
.
1.
It
is
said
,
ver.
1.
They
came
to
David
to
Ziglag
,
while
he
kept
himselfe
close
,
because
of
Saul
the
son
of
Kish
.
And
they
were
amongst
the
mighty
men
,
helpers
of
the
warre
.
It
is
a
scorne
to
say
,
that
their
might
,
and
their
helping
in
warre
,
consisted
in
being
meere
patients
with
David
,
and
such
as
fled
from
Saul
:
for
they
had
beene
on
Sauls
side
before
;
and
to
come
with
armour
to
flee
,
is
a
mocking
of
the
word
of
God
.
2.
It
is
cleare
,
the
scope
of
the
Spirit
of
God
is
to
shew
how
God
helped
his
innocent
servant
David
against
his
persecuting
Prince
and
Master
King
Saul
,
in
moving
so
many
mighty
men
of
warre
to
come
in
such
multitudes
,
all
in
Armes
,
to
help
him
in
warre
.
Now
to
what
end
would
the
Lord
commend
them
,
as
fit
for
Warre
,
men
of
might
,
fit
to
handle
shield
&
buckler
,
whose
faces
are
as
the
faces
of
Lyons
,
as
swift
as
the
Roes
on
the
Mountaines
,
ver.
8.
and
commend
them
as
helpers
of
David
,
if
it
were
unlawfull
for
David
,
and
all
those
mighty
men
,
to
carry
Armes
to
pursue
Saul
and
his
followers
,
and
to
doe
nothing
with
their
armour
but
flee
?
Judge
if
the
Spirit
of
God
in
reason
could
say
,
All
these
men
came
armed
with
bowes
,
ver.
2.
and
could
handle
both
the
right
hand
and
the
left
in
slinging
stones
,
and
shooting
of
arrowes
,
and
that
ver.
22.
all
these
came
to
David
,
being
mighty
men
of
valour
,
and
they
came
as
Captains
over
hundreds
and
thousands
,
&
they
put
to
flight
all
them
of
the
valleyes
,
both
toward
the
East
,
and
toward
the
West
,
ver.
14
,
15.
and
that
David
received
them
,
and
made
them
Captains
of
the
band
,
if
they
did
not
come
in
a
posture
of
warre
,
and
for
hostile
invasion
,
if
need
were
?
For
if
they
came
on●ly
to
suffer
and
to
slee
,
not
to
pursue
,
Bowes
,
Captaines
,
and
Captaines
of
Bands
made
by
David
and
Davids
helpers
in
the
warre
,
came
not
to
help
David
by
flying
,
that
was
a
hurt
to
David
,
not
a
help
.
It
is
true
,
M.
Symmons
sai●h
,
1
Sam.
22.
2.
Those
that
came
out
to
David
,
strengthened
him
,
but
he
strengthened
not
them
;
and
David
might
easily
have
revenged
himselfe
on
the
Ziphites
,
who
did
good
will
to
betray
him
to
the
hands
of
Saul
,
if
his
conscience
had
served
him
.
Answ.
1.
This
would
inferre
that
these
armed
men
came
to
help
David
against
his
conscience
,
and
that
David
was
a
patient
in
the
businesse
,
the
contrary
is
in
the
Text
,
1
Sam.
26.
2.
David
became
a
Captaine
over
them
:
and
1
Chron.
12.
17.
If
ye
come
peaceably
to
help
me
,
my
heart
shall
be
knit
to
you
.
ver.
18.
Then
David
received
them
,
and
made
them
Captains
of
the
band
.
2.
David
might
have
revenged
himselfe
upon
the
Ziphites
:
True
,
but
that
Conscience
hindred
him
,
cannot
be
proved
.
To
pursue
an
enemie
is
an
act
of
a
Councell
of
Warre
;
and
he
saw
it
would
create
more
enemies
,
not
help
his
Cause
.
3.
To
David
to
kill
Saul
sleeping
,
and
the
people
who
out
of
a
mis-informed
conscience
came
out
,
many
of
them
to
help
their
lawfull
Prince
against
a
Traitor
(
as
was
supposed
)
seeking
to
kill
their
King
,
and
to
usurp
the
throne
,
had
not
been
wisdome
nor
justice
,
because
to
kill
the
enemie
in
a
just
self-defence
,
must
be
,
when
the
enemie
actually
doth
invade
,
and
the
life
of
the
defendant
cannot
be
otherwise
saved
.
A
sleeping
enemie
is
not
in
the
act
of
unjust
pursuit
of
the
innocent
;
but
if
an
Armie
of
Papists
,
Philistims
were
in
the
fields
sleeping
,
pursuing
not
one
single
David
onely
for
a
supposed
personall
wrong
to
the
King
,
but
lying
in
the
fields
and
campe
against
the
whole
Kingdome
and
Religion
,
&
If
any
say
,
The
case
is
all
one
in
a
naturall
self-defence
,
what
ever
be
the
cause
,
and
who
ever
be
the
enemy
,
because
the
self-defender
is
not
to
offend
,
except
the
unjust
Invader
be
in
actuall
pursuit
,
now
Armies
in
their
sleep
are
not
in
actuall
pursuit
.
Answ.
When
one
man
with
a
multitude
invadeth
one
man
,
that
one
man
may
pursue
,
as
he
seeth
most
conducible
for
self-defence
.
Now
the
Law
saith
,
Threatnings
and
terror
of
Armour
maketh
imminent
danger
,
and
the
case
of
pursuit
in
self-defence
lawfull
;
if
therefore
an
Armie
of
Irish
Rebels
and
Spanyards
were
sleeping
in
their
Camp
,
and
our
King
in
a
deep
sleep
in
the
midst
of
them
,
and
these
Rebels
actually
in
the
Camp
besieging
the
Parliament
,
and
the
Citie
of
London
,
most
unjustly
to
take
away
Parliament
,
Laws
,
and
Liberties
of
Religion
,
it
should
follow
that
Generall
Essex
ought
not
to
kill
the
Kings
Majesty
in
his
sleep
,
for
he
is
the
Lords
Anointed
,
but
1.
will
it
follow
that
Generall
Essex
may
not
kill
the
Irish
Rebels
sleeping
about
the
King
?
and
that
he
may
not
rescue
the
Kings
Person
out
of
the
hands
of
the
Papists
and
Rebels
,
ensnaring
the
King
,
and
leading
him
on
to
Popery
,
and
to
employ
his
Authority
to
defend
Popery
,
and
trample
upon
Protestant
Parliaments
,
and
Lawes
?
Certainly
from
this
example
this
cannot
be
concluded
.
For
Armies
in
actuall
pursuit
of
a
whole
Parliament
,
Kingdome
,
Lawes
,
and
Religion
,
(
though
sleeping
in
the
Camp
)
because
in
actuall
pursuit
,
may
be
invaded
,
and
killed
,
though
sleeping
.
And
David
useth
no
argument
from
conscience
,
why
hee
might
not
kill
Sauls
Armie
,
(
I
conceive
he
had
not
Armes
to
doe
that
)
and
should
have
created
more
enemies
to
himselfe
,
and
hazard
his
owne
life
,
and
the
life
of
all
his
men
,
if
he
had
of
purpose
killed
so
many
sleeping
men
;
yea
the
inexpedience
of
that
,
for
a
private
wrong
to
kill
Gods
mis-led
people
,
should
have
made
all
Israel
enemies
to
David
.
But
David
useth
an
Argument
from
Conscience
onely
,
to
prove
it
was
not
lawfull
for
him
to
stretch
forth
his
hand
against
the
King
;
and
for
my
part
,
so
long
as
he
remaineth
King
,
and
is
not
dethroned
by
those
who
made
him
King
at
Hebron
,
to
put
hands
on
his
person
,
I
judge
utterly
unlawfull
:
one
man
sleeping
cannot
be
in
actuall
pursuit
of
another
man
;
so
that
the
self-defender
may
lawfully
kill
him
in
his
sleep
;
but
the
case
is
farre
otherwise
in
lawfull
wars
,
the
Israelites
might
lawfully
kill
the
Philistims
encamping
about
Jerusalem
to
destroy
it
,
and
Religion
,
and
the
Church
of
God
,
though
they
were
all
sleeping
;
even
though
we
suppose
King
Saul
had
brought
them
in
by
his
Authority
,
&
though
he
were
sleeping
in
the
midst
of
the
uncircumcised
Armies
;
and
it
is
evident
,
that
an
hoast
of
armed
enemies
,
though
sleeping
,
by
the
law
of
self-defence
may
be
killed
,
left
they
awake
and
kill
us
;
whereas
one
single
man
,
and
that
a
King
,
cannot
be
killed
.
2.
I
think
certainly
,
David
had
not
done
unwisely
,
but
hazarded
his
owne
life
,
and
all
his
mens
,
if
he
,
and
Ahimel●ch
,
and
Abishai
should
have
killed
an
host
of
their
enemies
sleeping
,
that
had
been
a
work
,
as
impossible
to
three
,
so
hazard
some
to
all
his
men
.
D.
Ferne
,
as
Arnisaeus
did
before
him
,
saith
,
The
example
of
David
Arnisaeus
de
authorit.
prin●
▪
c.
2.
n.
15.
Davids
example
not
extraordinary
▪
was
extraordinary
,
because
he
was
anointed
and
designed
by
God
as
successor
to
Saul
,
and
so
he
must
use
an
extraordinary
way
of
guarding
himselfe
.
Arnisaeus
citeth
Alberic
.
Gentilis
,
that
David
was
now
exempted
from
amongst
the
number
of
Subjects
.
Answ.
There
were
not
two
Kings
in
Israel
now
,
both
David
and
Saul
.
2.
David
acknowledgeth
his
subjection
in
naming
Saul
the
Lords
Anointed
,
&
his
Master
,
Lord
&
King
;
and
therefore
David
was
yet
a
subject
.
3.
If
David
would
have
proved
his
title
to
the
Crowne
by
extraordinary
wayes
,
he
who
killed
Goliah
extraordinarily
,
might
have
killed
Saul
by
a
miracle
;
but
David
goeth
a
most
ordinary
way
to
work
,
for
self-defence
,
and
his
comming
to
the
Kingdom
was
through
persecution
,
want
,
eating
shew-bread
in
case
of
necessity
,
defending
himself
with
Goliahs
sword
.
4.
How
was
any
thing
extraordinary
,
and
above
a
Law
,
seeing
David
might
have
killed
his
enemie
Saul
,
and
according
to
Gods
Law
he
spared
him
?
and
hee
argueth
from
a
morall
duty
,
he
is
the
Lords
annoynted
,
therefore
I
will
not
kill
him
?
was
this
extraoardinary
above
a
law
?
then
according
to
Gods
law
he
might
have
killed
him
.
Royalists
cannot
say
so
,
what
ground
to
say
one
of
Davids
acts
in
his
deportment
toward
Saul
was
extraordinary
,
and
not
all
?
was
it
extraordinary
that
David
fl●d
?
no
:
or
that
David
consulted
the
oracle
of
God
,
what
to
do
when
Saul
was
coming
against
him
?
5.
in
an
ordinary
fact
something
may
be
extraordinary
,
as
the
dead
sleep
from
the
Lord
upon
Saul
,
and
his
men
.
1.
Sam.
26.
and
yet
the
fact
according
to
its
substance
ordinary
.
6.
Nor
is
this
extraordinary
,
that
a
distressed
man
,
being
an
excellent
warriour
as
David
was
,
may
use
the
help
of
six
hundred
men
,
who
by
the
law
of
charity
are
to
help
to
deliver
the
innocent
from
death
;
yea
,
all
Israel
were
obliged
to
defend
him
,
who
killed
Goliah
.
7.
Royalists
make
Davids
act
of
not
putting
hands
on
the
Lords
annointed
an
ordinary
morall
reason
against
resistance
,
but
his
putting
on
of
armour
,
they
will
have
extraordinary
,
and
this
is
(
I
confesse
)
a
short
way
to
an
adversary
to
cull
out
something
that
is
for
his
cause
,
and
make
it
ordinary
,
and
something
that
is
against
his
cause
,
must
be
extraordinary
.
8.
These
men
by
the
law
of
nature
were
obliged
to
joyne
in
armes
with
David
,
ergo
the
non-helping
of
an
oppressed
man
,
must
be
Gods
ordinary
law
:
a
blasphemous
tenet
.
9.
If
David
by
an
extraordinary
spirit
killed
not
King
Saul
,
then
the
Jesuits
way
of
killing
must
be
Gods
ordinary
Law
.
2.
David
certainly
intended
to
keep
Keilah
against
King
Saul
,
for
the
Lord
would
not
have
answered
David
in
an
unlawfull
fact
,
for
that
were
all
one
,
as
if
God
should
teach
David
how
to
play
the
Traitor
to
his
King
;
for
if
God
had
answered
,
They
will
not
deliver
thee
up
,
but
they
shall
save
thee
from
the
hand
of
Saul
,
As
David
beleeved
he
might
say
this
,
as
well
as
its
contradicent
,
then
David
behoved
to
keep
the
city
,
for
certainly
Davids
question
pre-supposeth
he
was
to
keep
the
city
.
The
example
of
Elisha
the
Prophet
is
considerable
,
2
Kings
But
Elisha
sate
in
his
house
,
and
the
Elders
with
him
:
And
the
King
sent
a
man
before
him
;
but
ere
the
messengers
came
to
him
,
he
said
to
the
Elders
,
See
now
the
sonne
of
a
murtherer
,
hath
sent
to
take
away
mine
head
.
Here
is
unjust
violence
offered
by
King
Ioram
to
an
innocent
man
.
Elisha
keepeth
the
house
violently
against
the
Kings
Messenger
,
as
we
did
keep
Castles
against
King
Charles
his
unlawfull
messengers
.
Look
(
saith
he
)
when
the
messenger
commeth
,
shut
the
doore
.
2.
There
is
violence
also
commanded
,
and
resistence
to
be
made
,
Hold
him
fast
at
the
doore
.
In
the
Hebrew
it
is
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Arias
Montan.
Claudite
●stium
,
&
opprimetis
eum
in
ostio
:
Violently
presse
him
at
the
doore
:
And
so
the
Chaldee
Paraphrase
,
Ierom.
Ne
sinatis
eum
introire
.
The
LXX
.
Interpreters
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
illidite
eum
in
ostio
,
Presse
him
betwixt
the
doore
and
the
wall
.
It
is
a
word
of
bodily
violence
,
according
to
Vatablus
.
Yea
Theodoret
will
have
King
Ioram
himselfe
holden
at
the
doore
.
And
3.
It
is
no
Answer
that
D.
Ferne
and
other
Royalists
give
,
that
Elisha
made
no
personall
resistance
to
the
King
himselfe
,
but
onely
to
the
Kings
cut-throat
,
sent
to
take
away
his
head
.
Yea
they
say
,
It
is
lawfull
to
resist
the
Kings
cut-throats
.
But
the
text
is
cleere
,
that
the
violent
resistance
is
made
to
the
King
himselfe
also
,
for
he
addeth
,
Is
not
the
sound
of
his
Masters
feet
behinde
him
?
And
by
this
answer
,
it
is
lawfull
to
keep
Townes
with
iron
gates
and
barres
,
and
violently
to
oppose
the
Kings
cut-throats
,
comming
to
take
away
the
heads
of
the
Parliaments
of
both
Kingdomes
,
and
of
Protestants
in
the
three
Kingdomes
.
Some
Royalists
are
so
impudent
,
as
to
say
that
there
was
no
violence
here
,
and
that
Elisha
was
an
extraordinary
man
,
and
that
it
is
not
lawfull
for
us
to
call
a
King
the
son
of
a
murtherer
,
as
the
Prophet
Elisha
did
:
but
Ferne
sect.
2.
pag.
9.
forgetting
himselfe
,
saith
from
hence
,
It
is
lawfull
to
resist
the
Prince
himselfe
,
thus
farre
,
as
to
ward
his
blowes
,
and
hold
his
hands
:
But
let
Ferne
answer
,
if
the
violent
binding
of
the
Princes
hands
,
that
he
shall
not
be
able
to
kill
,
be
a
greater
violence
done
to
his
Royall
person
,
then
Davids
cutting
off
the
lap
of
Sauls
garment
;
for
certainly
,
the
Royall
body
of
a
Prince
is
of
more
worth
then
his
cloathes
.
Now
it
was
a
sinne
,
I
judge
,
that
smote
Davids
conscience
,
that
he
being
a
subject
,
and
not
in
the
act
of
naturall
self-defence
,
did
cut
the
garment
of
the
Lords
Annointed
.
Let
Ferne
see
then
how
he
will
save
his
owne
principles
,
for
certainly
hee
yeeldeth
the
cause
for
me
;
I
judge
that
the
person
of
the
King
,
or
any
Judge
,
who
is
the
Lords
Deputy
,
as
is
the
King
,
is
sacred
,
and
that
remaining
in
that
honourable
case
,
no
subject
can
without
guiltinesse
before
God
,
put
hands
in
his
person
,
the
case
of
naturall
self-defence
being
excepted
:
for
because
the
Royall
dignity
doth
not
advance
a
King
above
the
common
condition
of
men
,
and
the
Throne
maketh
him
not
leave
off
to
bee
a
man
,
and
a
man
that
can
do
wrong
;
and
therefore
as
one
that
doth
manifest
violence
to
the
life
of
a
man
,
though
his
subject
,
he
may
be
resisted
with
bodily
resistance
in
the
case
of
unjust
and
violent
invasion
.
It
is
a
vaine
thing
to
say
,
Who
shall
be
judge
betweene
the
King
and
his
subjects
?
The
subject
cannot
judge
the
King
,
because
none
can
be
judge
in
his
owne
cause
,
and
an
inferiour
or
equall
cannot
judge
a
superiour
or
equall
.
But
I
answer
,
1.
This
is
the
Kings
owne
cause
also
,
and
he
doth
unjust
violence
as
a
man
,
and
not
as
a
King
,
and
so
he
cannot
be
judge
more
then
the
subject
.
2.
Every
one
that
doth
unjust
violence
as
he
is
such
,
is
inferiour
to
the
innocent
,
and
so
ought
to
be
judged
by
some
.
3.
There
is
no
need
of
the
formality
of
a
judge
in
things
evident
to
natures
eye
,
such
as
are
manifestly
unjust
violences
:
Nature
in
acts
naturall
of
self-defence
,
is
judge
,
party
,
accuser
,
witnesse
,
and
all
;
for
it
is
supposed
the
Judge
is
absent
,
when
the
Judge
doth
wrong
.
And
for
the
plea
of
Elisha's
extraordinary
spirit
;
it
is
no
thing
extraordinary
to
Arias
Montan
▪
filii
virtutis
,
Men
of
courage
and
valour
,
for
that
they
resisted
Vzziah
the
King
,
who
would
take
on
him
to
burne
Incense
to
the
Lord
,
against
the
Law
.
M.
Symmons
pag.
34.
sect.
10.
They
withstood
him
not
with
swords
and
weapons
,
but
onely
by
speaking
,
and
one
but
spake
.
I
answer
;
It
was
a
bodily
resistance
:
for
beside
that
,
Viri
fortissimi
,
Most
valiant
men
;
And
it
is
a
speech
in
the
Scripture
,
taken
for
men
valorous
for
warre
;
As
1
Sam.
14.
25.
2
Sam.
17.
10.
1
Chron.
5.
18.
And
so
doth
the
phrase
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Potent
in
valour
.
And
the
phrase
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
2
Sam.
24.
9.
2
Sam.
11.
16.
1
Sam.
31.
12.
and
therefore
all
the
80.
not
onely
by
words
,
but
violently
expelled
the
King
out
of
the
Temple
.
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Arias
Mont.
&
●s●●t●runt
contra
Huzzi-Iahu
.
the
LXX
.
say
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
They
resisted
the
King
,
so
Dan.
11.
17.
The
armies
of
the
south
shall
not
stand
.
Dan.
8.
25.
It
is
a
word
of
violence
.
3.
The
text
saith
ver.
20.
and
,
they
thrust
him
out
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Ar.
Mont.
&
fecerunt
eum
festinare
.
Hyerony
.
festinatò
expulerunt
eum
.
The
LXX
.
say
,
The
Priest
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
so
Vatablus
,
they
cast
him
out
.
And
4.
it
is
said
ver.
21.
he
was
cut
off
from
the
house
of
the
Lord
.
Doctor
Ferne
saith
sect.
4.
pag.
50.
They
are
valiant
men
who
dare
withstand
a
King
in
an
evil
way
,
by
a
home
reproofe
,
and
by
withdrawing
the
holy
things
from
him
,
especially
since
by
the
law
the
leper
was
to
be
put
out
of
the
congregation
.
Ans.
1.
He
contradicteth
the
text
,
it
was
not
a
resistance
by
words
,
for
the
text
saith
they
withstood
him
,
and
they
thrust
him
out
violently
.
2.
He
yeeldeth
the
cause
,
for
to
withdraw
the
holy
things
of
God
,
by
corporall
violence
,
and
violently
to
pull
the
censer
out
of
his
hand
,
that
he
should
not
provoke
Gods
wrath
,
by
offering
incense
to
the
Lord
is
resistance
,
and
the
like
violence
may
,
by
this
example
,
be
used
,
when
the
King
useth
the
sword
and
the
Militia
to
bring
in
an
enemy
to
destroy
the
kingdom
:
it
is
no
lesse
injustice
against
the
second
table
,
that
the
King
useth
the
sword
to
destroy
the
innocent
,
then
to
usurpe
the
c●nsor
against
the
first
table
.
But
Doctor
Ferne
yeeldeth
that
the
censor
may
be
pulled
out
of
his
hand
,
lest
he
provoke
God
to
wrath
.
Ergo
,
by
the
same
very
reason
,
a
fortiore
,
the
Sword
,
the
Castles
,
the
Sea-ports
,
the
Militia
may
be
violently
pulled
out
of
his
hand
,
for
if
there
was
an
expresse
Law
that
the
leper
should
be
put
out
of
the
congregation
,
and
therefore
the
King
also
should
be
subject
to
his
Church-censor
,
then
he
subjecteth
the
King
to
a
punishment
to
be
inflicted
by
the
subjects
,
upon
the
King
,
Ergo
the
King
is
obnoxious
to
the
coactive
power
of
the
law
.
2.
Ergo
,
subjects
may
judge
him
and
punish
him
.
3.
Ergo
he
is
to
be
subject
to
all
Church-censors
,
no
lesse
then
the
people
.
4.
There
is
an
expresse
law
that
the
leper
should
be
put
out
of
the
congregation
.
What
then
?
flattering
court
Divines
say
the
King
is
above
all
these
lawes
,
for
there
is
an
expresse
law
of
God
as
expresse
as
that
ceremoniall
on
touching
lepers
,
and
a
more
binding
law
,
that
the
murtherer
should
die
the
death
.
Will
Royalists
put
no
exception
upon
a
ceremoniall
law
of
expelling
the
leper
,
and
yet
put
an
exception
upon
a
Divine
morall
law
,
concerning
the
punishing
of
murtherers
given
before
the
law
on
Mount
Sinai
.
Gen.
6.
9.
They
so
declare
that
they
accept
the
persons
of
men
.
5.
If
a
leper
King
could
not
actually
sit
upon
the
throne
,
but
must
be
cut
off
from
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
because
of
an
expresse
law
of
God
,
these
being
inconsistent
,
that
a
King
remaining
amongst
Gods
people
,
ruling
and
raigning
,
should
keep
company
with
the
Church
of
God
,
and
yet
be
a
leper
who
was
to
be
cut
off
,
by
a
Divine
law
from
the
Church
,
now
I
perswade
my self
that
far
lesse
can
he
actually
raigne
in
the
full
use
of
the
power
of
the
sword
,
if
he
use
the
sword
to
cut
off
thousands
of
innocent
people
,
because
murthering
the
innocent
and
fatherles
,
and
Royall
governing
in
Righteousnesse
and
Godlinesse
are
more
inconsistent
,
by
Gods
law
,
being
morally
opposite
,
then
remaining
a
governour
of
the
people
,
and
the
disease
of
leprosie
,
are
incompatible
.
6.
I
think
not
much
that
Barcley
saith
cont.
Monar
.
l
5.
c.
11.
Vzziah
remained
King
,
after
he
was
removed
from
the
congregation
for
leprosie
.
1.
Because
that
toucheth
the
question
of
dethroning
Kings
,
this
is
an
argument
brought
for
violent
resisting
of
Kings
,
and
that
the
people
did
resume
all
power
from
Vzziah
,
and
put
it
in
the
hand
of
Iotham
his
son
,
who
was
over
the
Kings
house
,
judging
the
people
of
the
land
.
ver.
21.
And
by
this
same
reason
the
Parliaments
of
both
Kingdomes
may
resume
the
power
once
given
to
the
King
,
when
he
hath
proved
more
unfit
to
governe
morally
,
then
Vzziah
was
ceremonially
,
that
he
ought
not
to
judge
the
people
of
the
land
in
this
case
.
2.
If
the
priests
did
execute
a
ceremoniall
law
upon
King
Vzziah
.
Far
more
may
the
three
estates
of
Scotland
,
and
the
two
houses
of
Parliament
of
England
execute
the
morall
law
of
God
on
their
King
.
If
the
people
may
covenant
by
oath
to
rescue
the
innocent
and
unjustly
condemned
,
from
the
sentence
of
death
notoriously
known
be
to
tyranous
and
cruel
,
then
may
the
people
resist
the
King
in
his
unlawfull
practises
.
But
this
the
people
did
in
the
matter
of
Ionathan
.
M.
Symmons
saith
pag.
32.
and
Doctor
Ferne
§.
9.
49.
That
with
no
violence
,
but
by
prayers
and
teares
the
people
saved
Jonathan
,
as
Peter
was
rescued
out
of
prison
by
the
prayers
of
the
Church
,
King
Saul
might
easily
be
intreated
to
break
a
rash
vow
to
save
the
life
of
his
eldest
son
.
Ans
1.
I
say
not
the
common
people
did
it
,
but
the
people
including
proceres
regni
,
the
Princes
of
the
land
,
and
captaines
of
thousands
.
2.
The
text
hath
not
one
word
or
syllable
of
either
prayers
,
supplications
or
teares
,
but
by
the
contrary
▪
They
bound
themselves
by
an
oath
,
contrary
to
the
oath
of
Saul
▪
1
Sam.
14.
44.
and
swear
.
ver.
45.
God
forbid
,
as
the
Lord
liveth
,
there
shal
not
one
hair
of
his
head
fall
to
the
ground
,
so
the
people
rescued
Chald.
Par.
Manifestum
est
quod
Jonathan
peccavit
perignorantiam
.
P.
Mart.
saith
with
a
doubt
,
Si
ista
seditiose
fecerunt
—
nullo
modo
excusari
possun●
.
Yea
he
saith
,
they
might
suffragiis
,
with
their
suffrages
free
him
.
Jun.
The
people
opposed
a
just
oath
to
Sauls
hypocriticall
oath
.
Osiander
and
Borhaius
justifie
the
people
.
P.
Mar.
Com.
in
2
Reg.
c.
8.
saith
,
Libnah
revoltrd
,
Quia
subditos
nitebatur
cogere
ad
Idololatriam
,
quod
ipsi
libnenses
pati
noluerunt
&
merito
:
principibus
enim
parendum
est
,
verum
usque
ad
aras
:
The
King
would
compell
them
to
Idolatry
,
and
they
justly
r●volt
.
d.
Vatab.
in
no●
.
Impulit
Judaeos
ad
Idololatriam
,
alioqui
●am
pronos
ad
cultum
Idololorum
.
Ionathan
.
The
Church
prayed
not
to
God
for
Peters
deliverance
with
an
oath
,
that
they
must
have
Peter
saved
whether
God
will
or
no.
2.
Though
we
read
of
no
violence
used
by
the
people
,
yet
an
oath
upon
so
reasonable
a
ground
.
1.
without
the
Kings
consent
.
2.
contrary
to
a
standing
law
,
that
they
had
agreed
unto
,
ver.
24.
3.
contradictory
to
the
Kings
sentence
and
unjust
oath
.
4.
spoken
to
the
King
in
his
face
,
all
these
prove
that
the
people
meaned
,
and
that
the
oath
ex
conditione
operis
,
tended
to
a
violent
resisting
of
the
King
in
a
manifestly
unjust
sentence
.
Chrysostom
.
hom.
14.
ad
Pop.
Antioch
.
accuseth
Saul
as
a
murtherer
in
this
sentence
,
and
praiseth
the
people
.
So
Iunius
,
Peter
Martyr
,
(
whom
Royalists
impudently
cite
)
so
Cor.
à
lap
.
Zanch.
Lyra
,
and
Hug.
Cardinalis
say
it
was
Tyranny
in
Saul
,
and
laudable
that
the
people
resisted
Saul
,
and
the
same
is
asserted
by
Iosephus
l.
6.
antiquit.
c.
7.
so
Althus
.
Polyt
.
c.
38.
n.
109.
We
see
also
2
Chron.
21.
10.
That
Libnah
revolted
from
under
Iehoram
,
because
he
had
forsaken
the
Lord
God
of
his
fathers
.
It
hath
no
ground
in
the
text
that
Royalists
say
,
that
the
defection
of
Lybnah
is
not
justified
in
the
text
,
but
the
cause
is
from
the
demerit
of
wicked
Iehoram
,
because
he
made
defection
from
God
,
Libnah
made
defection
from
him
,
as
the
ten
tribes
revolted
from
Rehoboam
for
Solomons
idolatry
,
which
before
the
Lord
procured
this
defection
,
yet
the
ten
tribes
make
defection
for
oppression
.
I
answer
,
where
the
literall
meaning
is
simple
and
obvious
,
we
are
not
to
go
from
it
.
The
text
sheweth
what
cause
moved
Libnah
to
revolt
,
it
was
a
town
of
the
Levites
,
and
we
know
they
were
longer
sound
in
the
truth
then
the
ten
tribes
,
2.
Chron.
13.
8
9
,
10.
Hos.
11.
12.
Lavater
saith
Iehoram
hath
pressed
them
to
idolatry
,
and
therefore
they
revolted
.
Zanch.
Cor.
à
Lap.
saith
,
this
was
the
cause
that
moved
them
to
revolt
,
and
it
is
cleare
ver.
13.
he
caused
Judah
and
the
inhabitants
of
Jerusalem
to
go
a
whoring
from
God
,
and
no
doubt
tempted
Libnah
to
the
like
.
Yea
the
city
of
Abel
2
Sam.
20.
did
well
to
resist
Ioab
,
Davids
Generall
,
for
he
came
to
destroy
a
whole
city
for
a
traitors
sake
,
for
Sheba
,
they
resisted
and
defended
themselves
,
the
wise
woman
calleth
the
city
a
mother
in
Israel
,
and
the
inheritance
of
the
Lord
.
ver.
19.
and
Ioab
professeth
ver.
20.
far
be
it
from
him
to
swallow
up
and
destroy
Abel
.
The
woman
saith
ver.
18.
They
said
of
old
,
they
shall
surely
ask
counsell
at
Abel
,
and
so
they
ended
the
matter
,
that
is
,
QUEST.
XXXIII
.
Whether
or
no
the
place
Rom.
13.
1.
prove
that
in
no
case
it
is
lawfull
to
resist
the
King
?
THe
speciall
ground
of
Royalists
from
Rom.
13.
against
the
lawfulnesse
Paul
,
Rom.
13.
speake
onely
of
Kings
.
Hugo
Grotius
de
jure
belli
&
pac
.
l.
1.
c.
4.
num.
6.
Barclay
cont.
Monarch
.
l.
3.
c.
9.
saith
,
Though
Ambrose
expound
the
place
Rom.
13.
de
solis
Regibus
,
of
Kings
onely
,
(
this
is
false
of
Kings
onely
,
he
doth
not
,
but
of
Kings
principally
)
Y●a
it
followeth
not
that
all
Magistrates
,
by
this
place
,
are
freed
from
all
lawes
,
because
(
saith
he
)
there
is
no
Iudge
above
a
King
on
earth
,
and
therefore
he
cannot
be
punished
;
but
there
is
a
Iudge
above
all
inferiour
Iudges
,
and
therefore
they
must
be
subject
to
Lawes
.
So
D.
Ferno
followeth
him
,
sect.
2.
pag.
10.
and
our
poore
Prelate
must
be
an
accident
to
them
,
Sacr.
San.
Maj.
cap.
2.
pag.
29.
for
his
learning
cannot
subsist
per
se
.
1.
Assert
.
In
a
free
Monarchie
(
such
as
Scotland
is
known
to
be
)
non
●ntis
nulla
●unt
accidentia
.
2.
I
said
the
King
in
a
free
Monarchie
is
here
principally
understood
in
regard
of
dignity
,
but
not
in
regard
of
the
essence
of
a
magistrate
,
because
the
essence
of
a
Magistrate
doth
equally
belong
to
all
inferiour
Magistrates
,
as
to
the
King
,
as
is
already
proved
,
(
let
the
Prelate
answer
2.
Assert
.
There
is
no
reason
to
restrain
the
higher
powers
to
powers
ordained
of
God
,
1.
Because
he
calleth
them
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
higher
powers
.
Now
this
will
include
all
higher
powers
,
as
Piscator
observeth
on
the
place
.
And
certainly
Rome
had
never
two
or
three
Kings
to
which
every
soule
should
be
subject
,
if
Paul
had
intended
that
they
should
have
given
obedience
to
one
Nero
,
as
the
onely
essentiall
Judge
he
would
have
designed
him
by
the
nowne
in
the
singular
number
.
2.
All
the
reasons
that
the
Apostle
bringeth
to
prove
that
subjection
is
due
,
agreeth
to
inferiour
Judges
,
as
well
as
to
Emperours
,
for
they
are
powers
ordained
of
God
,
and
they
beare
the
sword
,
and
we
must
obey
them
for
conscience
sake
,
and
they
are
Gods
deputies
,
and
their
judgement
is
not
the
judgement
of
men
,
but
of
the
Lord
,
2
Chron.
19.
6
,
7.
Deut.
1.
16.
Numb.
11.
16
,
17.
Tribute
and
wages
be
no
lesse
due
to
them
,
as
ministers
and
servants
,
for
their
work
,
then
to
the
King
,
&c.
3.
The
Apostle
could
not
omit
obedience
to
the
good
Civill
Lawes
enacted
by
the
Senate
,
nor
could
he
omit
to
command
subjection
to
Rulers
,
if
the
Romanes
should
change
the
Government
,
and
abolish
Monarchie
,
and
erect
their
ancient
forme
of
Government
before
they
had
Kings
.
5.
This
is
Canonicall
Scripture
,
and
a
cleare
exposition
of
the
first
Commandement
,
and
so
must
reach
the
consciences
of
all
Christian
Republicks
,
where
there
is
no
Monarchie
.
5.
Parallel
places
of
Scripture
prove
this
.
Paul
,
1
Tim.
2.
1
,
2.
will
have
prayers
made
to
God
,
for
Kings
,
and
for
all
that
are
in
authority
,
and
the
intrinsecall
end
of
all
is
,
a
godly
,
honest
,
and
peaceable
life
.
And
1
Pet.
2.
13.
Submit
to
every
ordinance
of
man
for
the
Lords
sake
.
Tit.
3.
1.
It
is
true
,
subjection
to
Nero
,
of
whom
Tertullian
said
,
Apol.
5.
Nihil
nisi
grande
bonum
à
Nerone
damnatum
,
is
commanded
here
,
but
to
Nero
as
such
an
one
as
he
is
obliged
,
de
jure
,
to
be
,
(
whether
you
speak
of
the
office
,
in
abstracto
,
or
of
the
Emperour
,
in
concreto
,
in
this
notion
,
to
me
it
is
all
one
)
but
that
Paul
commandeth
subjection
to
Nero
,
and
that
principally
and
solely
,
as
he
was
such
a
man
,
defacto
,
I
shall
then
beleeve
,
when
Antichristian
Prelats
turn
Pauls
Bishops
,
1
Tim.
2.
which
is
a
miracle
.
6.
Inferiour
Judges
are
not
necessarily
sent
by
the
King
,
by
any
divine
Law
,
but
chosen
by
the
people
,
as
the
King
is
;
and
defacto
,
is
the
practise
of
creating
all
Augustin
.
expos
,
Prop.
72.
on
Epist.
Rom.
lrenaeus
l.
5.
c.
24.
Chrysostom
.
in
Psal.
148.
and
on
the
place
,
Hieron
.
Epist.
53.
advers.
vigilant
.
expound
it
of
Masters
,
Magistrates
;
so
do
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Pareus
,
Piscator
,
Rollocu
.
Marlorat
.
So
do
Popish
Writers
,
Aquinas
,
Lyra
,
Hugo
Cardinal
.
Carthus
.
Pirerius
,
Toletus
,
Cornel.
à
Lapide
,
Prelat
.
Sac.
Sanct.
maj.
c.
2.
pag.
29.
P.
Martyr
.
Varia
sunt
potestatum
g●nera
—
regna
,
Aristoc●atica
,
Politica
,
Tyrannica
,
Oliga●chica
—
Deus
etiam
illorum
author
.
Willet
saith
the
same
,
and
so
Beza
,
so
Tolet.
Haymo
.
Salmeron
,
Estius
,
expound
the
place
;
And
therefore
there
is
no
argument
,
that
Royalists
hence
draw
against
resisting
of
the
King
by
the
Parliaments
;
but
they
do
strongly
conclude
against
the
Cavalliers
unlawfull
warres
against
the
Parliaments
and
Estates
of
two
Kingdomes
:
Here
what
P.
P.
saith
to
the
contrary
.
1.
They
are
called
eminent
powers
.
Ergo
,
Kings
only
.
Answ
.
It
followeth
not
,
for
these
can
be
no
other
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
1
Tim.
2.
2.
But
these
are
not
Kings
,
but
in
the
Text
contradivided
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Kings
,
and
they
can
be
no
other
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Principalities
and
powers
.
2.
The
reason
of
the
Apostle
proveth
clearely
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
▪
cannot
meane
Kings
onely
,
for
Paul
addeth
of
that
same
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
For
there
is
no
power
but
of
God
:
It
must
be
there
is
no
supereminent
Royall
power
,
but
it
is
of
God
,
and
the
powers
Royall
onely
(
so
he
must
meane
)
that
are
,
are
ordained
of
God
.
Now
this
latter
is
manifestly
false
,
for
inferiour
powers
are
of
God
;
The
power
of
the
Roman
Senate
,
of
a
Master
,
of
a
Father
,
are
of
God
.
P.
Prelate
.
Peter
must
expound
Paul
,
and
Pauls
higher
powers
must
be
,
1
Pet.
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
More
reason
that
Paul
expound
Paul
:
Now
1
Tim.
2.
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
All
in
authority
are
not
Kings
.
P.
Prelate
.
(
Are
of
God
)
or
(
ordained
of
God
)
cannot
so
properly
be
understood
of
subordinate
powers
,
for
that
is
not
by
immediate
derivation
from
God
,
but
immediately
from
the
higher
power
the
King
,
and
mediately
from
God
.
Answ.
It
is
most
false
that
King
David
is
so
immediatly
a
King
from
God
,
as
that
he
is
not
also
by
the
mediation
of
the
people
,
who
made
him
King
at
Hebron
.
2.
The
inferiour
Magistrates
are
also
immediate
vicars
and
ministers
of
God
as
the
King
,
for
their
throne
and
judgement
is
not
the
Kings
,
but
the
Lords
,
Deut.
1.
16.
2
Chron.
19.
6.
3.
Though
they
were
mediatly
from
man
,
it
followeth
not
that
they
are
not
so
properly
from
God
,
for
Wisdome
Prov.
8.
saith
as
properly
,
ver.
16.
By
me
Princes
rule
,
and
Nobles
,
even
all
the
Iudges
of
the
earth
,
as
ver.
15.
By
me
Kings
reigne
;
and
promotion
is
as
properly
from
God
,
and
not
from
the
East
,
and
the
West
,
Psal.
75.
6
,
7.
Though
God
promote
Ioseph
by
the
than●full
munificence
of
Pharaoh
,
and
Mordecai
by
Ahasuerus
,
Daniel
by
Darius
,
as
if
he
gave
them
power
and
honour
immediately
from
Heaven
.
Prelat
.
Learned
Interpreters
expound
it
so
.
Answ.
It
is
an
untruth
,
for
none
expound
it
onely
and
principally
of
Kings
.
Produce
one
Interpreter
for
that
conceit
.
Prelat
.
Paul
wrote
this
when
Nero
was
Monarch
.
Answ
.
Then
must
the
Text
be
expounded
of
Nero
only
.
2.
He
wrote
this
when
Nero
played
the
Tyrant
,
and
persecuted
Christians
:
Ergo
,
We
are
not
to
disobey
Nero's
now
.
3.
He
wrote
it
when
the
Senate
of
Rome
had
power
to
declare
Nero
an
enemy
,
not
a
Father
;
as
they
did
.
P.
Prelat
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
must
be
referred
to
the
Antecedent
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
▪
and
this
,
There
is
no
power
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
of
God
;
must
undeniably
inferre
,
there
is
no
supreme
power
but
of
God
;
and
so
Soveraignty
relates
to
God
as
his
immediate
author
;
so
Sectaries
reason
,
Gal.
2.
16.
Not
justified
by
works
,
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
but
by
saith
onely
.
Then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
must
be
a
perfect
exclusive
,
else
their
strong
hold
for
Iustification
is
overthrowne
.
Answ.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
hath
a
neerer
Antecedent
,
which
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
it
is
alone
without
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
And
this
Grammer
is
not
so
good
as
Beza's
,
which
hee
rejected
.
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
will
referre
to
God
alone
,
as
the
onely
cause
,
In
genere
causae
primae
.
God
alone
giveth
raine
:
but
not
for
that
immediatly
,
but
by
the
mediation
of
vapours
and
clouds
.
God
alone
killeth
and
maketh
alive
,
Deut.
32.
39.
That
is
,
excluding
all
strange
gods
,
but
not
immediatly
;
for
by
his
peoples
fighting
,
he
slew
Og
King
of
Bashan
,
and
cast
out
seven
Nations
,
yet
they
used
bow
and
sword
,
as
it
is
in
the
book●
of
Ioshua
;
and
therefore
God
killed
not
Og
immediatly
.
God
hath
an
infinite
,
eminent
,
transeendent
way
of
working
,
so
that
in
his
kinde
he
onely
worketh
his
alone
:
Deus
solus
operatur
solitudine
primae
causae
,
non
solus
solitudine
omnis
causae
,
God
onely
giveth
learning
and
wisdome
,
yet
not
immediatly
alwayes
;
often
he
doth
it
by
teaching
,
and
industry
.
God
onely
maketh
rich
,
yet
the
Prelates
make
themselves
rich
also
with
the
fat
of
the
flock
,
and
God
onely
maketh
poore
;
yet
the
P.
Prelates
Courts
mediately
also
under
God
,
made
many
men
poore
.
3.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
not
such
an
exclusive
Particle
when
we
ascribe
it
to
God
,
as
when
we
ascribe
it
to
two
created
causes
,
workes
,
and
faith
;
and
the
Protestants
forme
of
arguing
▪
Gal.
2.
to
prove
we
are
justified
by
faith
,
he
calleth
our
strong
hold
:
Ergo
,
It
is
not
his
strong
hold
.
In
this
point
then
hee
must
be
a
Papist
,
and
so
he
refuses
to
owne
Protestant
strong
holds
,
for
justification
by
faith
alone
.
D.
Ferne
sect.
2.
pag.
10.
As
many
as
have
soules
must
be
subject
to
the
higher
powers
spoken
of
here
;
but
all
inferiour
Iudges
have
soules
.
Answ.
If
the
word
(
soules
)
be
thus
pressed
,
none
shall
be
understood
by
higher
powers
,
but
the
King
onely
▪
2.
Certainly
,
he
that
commandeth
as
he
commandeth
,
must
be
excepted
,
except
,
because
the
King
hath
a
soule
,
you
must
subject
the
King
to
himself
,
and
to
his
owne
commandements
Royall
;
and
so
to
penall
Lawes
.
3.
Inferiour
Judges
,
as
Judges
by
this
text
,
must
either
be
subject
to
themselves
as
Judges
,
and
by
the
same
reason
,
the
King
must
be
subject
to
himselfe
,
as
he
is
a
Judge
:
Or
Judges
as
men
,
or
as
erring
men
are
to
be
subject
;
which
I
would
grant
,
but
they
are
not
subject
as
Judges
,
no
more
then
one
as
he
commandeth
,
can
also
obey
as
he
commandeth
.
These
are
contradictory
;
I
am
not
put
off
that
opinion
since
I
was
at
Schools
,
Species
subjicibilis
qua
subjicibilis
non
est
praedicabilis
.
4.
If
Nero
make
fathers
rulers
over
their
mothers
and
children
,
and
command
them
,
by
his
publique
sword
of
justice
,
to
kill
their
owne
children
and
mothers
;
if
a
Senate
of
such
fathers
disobey
,
and
if
with
the
sword
they
de●end
their
own
children
and
mothers
,
which
some
other
Doegs
as
Judges
are
to
kill
,
in
the
name
and
commandement
of
Nero
:
Then
they
resisting
Neroes
bastard-commandment
,
by
this
doctrine
resist
the
ordinance
of
God
,
and
resist
the
Minister
of
God
.
I
have
not
a
faith
stretcht
out
so
farre
to
the
Prelates
Court-divinity
.
Yet
Ferne
saith
,
there
was
never
more
cause
to
resist
higher
powers
,
for
their
wicked
Nero
was
Emperour
,
when
he
now
forbideth
resistance
Rom.
13.
under
the
paine
of
damnation
.
I
desire
to
be
informed
,
whether
to
resist
the
Kings
servants
be
to
resist
the
King
.
Doctor
Forne
p.
3.
§.
2.
p.
10.
and
par.
3.
§.
9.
p.
59.
allow
us
in
unavoidable
assaults
,
where
death
is
imminent
,
personall
defence
without
offending
,
as
lawfull
,
whether
the
King
or
his
emissaries
invade
,
without
law
or
reason
.
Well
then
,
the
resisting
then
of
the
Kings
cut-throats
,
though
they
have
a
personall
command
of
the
King
to
kill
the
innocent
,
yet
if
they
want
a
legall
,
is
no
resisting
of
the
King
,
not
as
King
,
and
the
servant
hath
no
more
then
the
Master
giveth
,
but
the
King
in
lawlesse
commandements
gave
nothing
royall
to
his
cut-throates
,
and
so
nothing
legall
.
QUEST.
XXXIIII
.
Whether
Royalists
by
cogent
reasons
do
prove
the
unlawfulnesse
of
defensive
warres
?
WHat
reasons
have
already
been
discussed
,
I
touch
not
.
Ans.
Valeat
totum
,
we
are
to
submit
to
wicked
Kings
,
&
wicked
parents
,
because
Kings
,
and
parents
:
but
when
it
cometh
to
actuall
submission
,
we
are
to
submit
to
neither
but
in
the
Lord
;
the
question
is
not
touching
subjection
to
a
Prince
,
let
him
be
Nero
,
but
if
in
acts
of
Tyranny
we
may
not
deny
subjection
:
there
be
great
odds
betwixt
wicked
rulers
,
and
rulers
commanding
or
punishing
unjustly
.
Obj.
2.
Arnisaeus
c.
3.
n.
9.
We
may
resist
an
inferior
magistrate
.
Ergo
,
we
may
resist
the
supreame
,
it
followeth
not
,
for
an
inferiour
judge
hath
a
Majesty
infiction
onely
,
not
properly
:
treason
is
,
or
can
onely
be
committed
against
the
King
,
the
obligation
to
inferiour
judges
is
onely
for
the
prince
,
the
person
of
none
is
sacred
and
inviolable
but
the
Kings
.
Ans.
We
obey
parents
,
masters
,
kings
,
upon
this
formall
ground
,
because
they
are
Gods
deputies
,
and
set
over
us
,
not
by
man
,
but
by
God
:
So
that
not
onely
are
we
to
obey
them
because
what
they
command
is
good
and
just
(
such
a
sort
of
obedience
an
equall
owes
to
the
counsell
of
either
equall
or
inferiour
)
but
also
by
vertue
of
the
fift
commandement
,
because
of
their
place
of
dignity
:
now
this
Majesty
which
is
the
formall
reason
of
subjection
is
one
and
the
same
in
spece
and
nature
in
King
and
Constable
,
and
onely
different
gradually
in
the
King
and
in
other
judges
,
and
it
is
denyed
that
there
is
any
incommunicable
sanctity
in
the
Kings
person
which
is
not
in
some
degree
in
the
inferiour
judge
,
all
proceedeth
from
this
false
ground
,
that
the
King
and
inferiour
judges
differ
in
nature
,
which
is
denied
:
and
treason
inferiour
may
be
committed
against
an
inferiour
judge
,
and
it
is
a
fiction
that
the
inferiour
judge
doth
not
resemble
God
,
as
the
King
doth
,
yea
there
is
a
sacred
Majesty
in
all
inferiour
judges
,
in
the
aged
,
in
every
superiour
,
wherefore
they
deserve
honour
,
feare
and
reverence
.
Suppose
there
were
no
King
on
earth
,
as
is
cleare
in
Scripture
.
Exod.
20.
12.
Levit.
19.
32.
Esther
1.
20.
Psal.
149.
9.
Prov.
3.
16.
Math.
13.
57.
Heb.
5.
4.
Isa.
3.
3.
Lam.
5.
12.
Mal.
1.
6.
Psal.
8.
5.
and
this
honour
is
but
united
in
a
speciall
manner
in
the
King
,
because
of
his
high
place
.
Obj.
3.
A
King
elected
upon
conditions
may
be
resisted
.
Ans.
He
is
as
●ssentially
a
King
,
as
a
hereditary
,
yea
as
an
absolute
Prince
,
and
no
lesse
the
Lords
annoynted
then
another
prince
,
if
then
one
,
also
another
may
be
resisted
.
Obj.
4.
The
oath
of
God
bindeth
the
subjects
.
Ergo
,
they
must
obey
,
not
resist
.
Ans.
Obedience
and
resistance
are
very
consistent
.
2.
No
doubt
the
people
gave
their
oath
to
Athaliah
,
but
to
her
as
the
onely
heir
of
the
crown
,
they
not
knowing
,
that
Ioash
the
lawfull
heir
was
liveing
,
so
may
conditionall
oaths
(
all
of
this
kinde
are
conditionall
)
in
which
there
is
interpretative
and
virtuall
ignorance
,
be
broken
,
as
the
people
swear
loyalty
to
such
a
man
conceived
to
be
a
father
,
he
after
that
turneth
Tyrant
,
may
they
not
resist
his
Tyranny
?
they
may
.
Also
no
doubt
Israel
g●ve
their
oath
of
loyalty
to
Iabin
,
(
for
when
Nebuchadnezer
subdued
Iudah
he
took
an
oath
of
loyalty
of
their
King
.
)
Yet
many
of
Zabulon
,
Nepthali
,
and
Isachar
,
Barack
leading
them
,
conspired
against
Iabin
.
Obj.
5.
There
is
no
law
to
take
a
Kings
life
,
if
he
turne
a
Nero
,
we
never
read
that
Subjects
didit
.
Ans.
The
treatise
of
unlimited
prerogative
saith
,
p.
7.
We
read
not
that
a
father
killing
his
children
,
was
killed
by
them
,
the
fact
being
abhominable
.
2.
The
law
Gen.
6.
9.
Levit.
24.
16.
excepteth
none
.
Se●
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
nasifignifieth
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
figh●
with
the
sixth
,
for
all
resistance
is
against
the
judge
,
as
a
man
exceeding
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
the
sence
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
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
fourescore
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
What
sayest
thou
?
Thou
are
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
)
●icked
,
and
to
Princes
,
(
Ye
are
)
ungodly
?
Ergo
,
You
may
not
resi●
.
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
inferiour
,
should
not
be
resisted
,
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
all
that
,
and
it
signifieth
liber
all
,
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
David
.
Ergo
,
it
is
unlawfull
to
resist
the
King
in
any
tyrannous
act
:
I
shall
deny
the
consequence
.
Nay
,
as
Pineda
observeth
,
if
the
Royalist
presse
the
words
literally
,
it
shall
not
be
lawfull
for
Prophets
to
reprove
Kings
of
their
sins
.
Christ
called
Herod
a
Fox
,
Elias
Ahab
,
one
that
troubled
Obj.
10.
Act.
23.
Paul
excuseth
himselfe
that
he
called
Ananias
the
High-priest
a
whited
wall
.
Answ.
Rivetus
,
Exo.
22.
learnedly
discussing
the
place
,
thinketh
Paul
,
professing
he
knew
him
not
to
be
the
High-Priest
,
speaketh
ironically
,
that
he
could
not
acknowledge
such
a
man
for
a
Judge
.
Piscator
answereth
,
he
could
not
then
cite
Scripture
,
It
is
written
,
Exod.
&c.
Ans.
But
they
may
well
consist
,
in
that
act
of
smiting
Paul
unjustly
,
he
might
be
reproached
,
otherwise
it
is
not
lawfull
to
reproach
him
;
and
surely
it
is
not
like
that
Paul
was
ignorant
that
he
was
a
Judge
.
Yea
it
is
certain
he
knew
him
to
be
a
Judge
.
1.
He
appeared
before
him
as
a
Judge
,
to
answer
for
himselfe
.
2.
Paul
saith
expresly
he
was
a
Judge
,
ver.
3.
Sittest
thou
to
judge
me
after
the
Law
?
&c.
and
therefore
the
place
is
for
us
,
for
even
according
to
the
mind
of
all
,
the
fault
was
(
if
there
were
any
)
in
calling
him
a
whited
wall
:
and
he
resisted
him
in
judgement
,
when
he
said
,
Commandest
thou
me
to
be
smitten
against
the
Law
?
2.
Though
Royalists
rather
put
a
fault
on
the
Apostle
Paul
now
in
the
act
of
prophecying
judgement
against
Ananias
,
which
after
fell
out
,
then
upon
their
God
the
King
;
yet
the
consequence
amounteth
but
to
this
,
We
may
not
revile
the
High
Priest
,
Ergo
we
may
not
resist
the
King
in
his
illegall
commandments
.
It
followeth
not
.
Yea
it
should
prove
,
if
a
Prelate
come
in
open
war
to
kill
the
innocent
Apostle
Paul
,
the
Apostle
might
fly
or
hold
his
hands
,
but
might
not
re-offend
:
Now
the
Prelate
is
the
High
Priests
successor
,
and
his
base
person
so
is
as
sacred
as
the
person
of
the
Lords
Anointed
,
the
King
.
Hence
the
Cavalliers
had
in
one
of
their
Colours
which
was
taken
by
the
Scots
at
the
battle
of
Marston
,
lul
.
2.
An.
1644.
the
Crowne
and
the
Prelates
Mitre
painted
with
these
words
,
Nolite
tangere
Christos
meos
,
as
if
the
Antichristian
Mitre
were
as
sacred
as
the
lawfull
Crowne
of
the
King
of
Britaine
.
Obj.
11.
Ferne
,
sect.
9.
56.
If
the
Senate
and
people
of
Rome
,
who
a
little
before
had
the
supreme
Government
over
the
then
Emperors
,
that
of
Subjects
had
made
them
Lords
,
might
not
resist
their
Emperours
,
much
lesse
can
the
people
of
England
have
power
of
resistance
,
against
the
succession
of
this
Crowne
,
descending
from
the
Conqueror
,
who
by
force
of
Armes
,
but
in
justice
,
conquered
the
Kingdom
.
Answ.
1.
Though
the
Roman
Emperours
were
absolute
(
of
which
I
much
doubt
)
and
though
the
Senate
had
made
them
absolute
,
I
deny
that
therefore
they
cannot
be
resisted
.
The
unlawfull
resistance
condemned
by
Paul
,
Rom.
13.
is
not
upon
the
ground
of
Absolutenesse
,
which
is
in
the
Court
of
God
nothing
,
being
never
ordained
of
God
,
but
upon
reasons
of
conscience
,
b●cause
the
powers
are
of
God
,
and
ordained
of
God
.
But
some
may
say
,
Volenti
non
fit
injuria
,
If
a
people
totally
resigne
their
power
,
and
swear
non-resistance
to
a
Conqueror
,
by
compact
,
they
cannot
resist
.
I
answer
,
neither
doth
this
follow
,
because
it
is
an
unlawfull
compact
,
and
none
is
obliged
to
what
is
unlawfull
.
For
1.
it
is
no
more
lawfull
for
me
to
resigne
to
another
my
power
of
naturall
self-defence
,
then
I
can
resigne
my
power
to
defend
the
innocent
drawne
to
●eath
,
and
the
wives
,
children
and
posterity
that
God
hath
tyed
me
unto
.
2.
The
people
can
no
more
resigne
power
of
self-defence
,
which
Nature
hath
given
them
,
then
they
can
be
guilty
of
self-murther
,
and
be
wanting
in
the
lawfull
defence
of
Kingdome
and
Religion
.
3.
Though
you
make
one
their
King
with
absolutenesse
of
power
,
yet
when
he
use
that
transcendent
power
,
not
for
the
safety
,
but
for
the
destruction
of
the
State
,
it
is
knowne
they
could
not
resigne
to
another
that
power
which
neither
God
nor
nature
gave
them
,
to
wit
,
a
power
to
destroy
themselves
.
2.
I
much
doubt
if
the
Roman
Emperour
was
absolute
,
when
Paul
wrote
this
▪
Iustinian
saith
so
,
Digest
.
l.
2.
tit.
2.
but
he
is
partiall
in
this
cause
.
Bodine
de
repub
.
l.
2.
c.
5.
pag.
221.
proveth
that
the
Roman
Emperours
were
but
Princes
of
the
Common-wealth
,
and
that
the
Soveraignty
remained
still
in
the
Senate
and
people
.
Marius
Salamon
.
writeth
sixe
Books
,
De
Principatu
,
on
the
contrary
.
How
could
they
make
the●r
Emperours
absolute
?
Livie
saith
,
The
name
of
a
King
was
contrary
to
a
Senate
liberty
.
Florus
,
Nomen
Regis
invidiosum
,
They
instituted
a
yearly
Feast
,
February
23.
called
Regifugium
.
Ciccro
,
as
Augustine
observeth
,
Regem
Romae
post
haec
nec
Dii
▪
nec
homines
esse
patiantur
.
The
Emperours
might
doe
something
de
facto
,
but
Lex
Regia
was
not
before
Vespasians
time
.
Augustus
took
on
him
to
be
Tribune
of
the
people
,
from
ten
yeares
to
t●n
.
Suetonius
and
Tacitus
say
,
The
succeeding
Kings
encroached
by
degrees
upon
the
peoples
liberty
.
For
speedier
execution
of
Law
,
the
Kings
in
time
of
Warre
were
forced
to
doe
many
things
without
the
Senate
,
and
after
the
reigne
of
Emperours
,
though
there
were
no
Plebescita
,
yet
there
were
Senatusconsulta
,
and
one
great
one
is
,
that
the
Senate
declard
Nero
to
be
an
enemie
to
the
State
.
It
is
thought
,
Iulius
Caesar
in
the
warre
against
Pompey
,
subdued
the
Romans
,
and
the
Senate
,
and
they
were
subdued
againe
in
the
battaile
of
Octavius
,
against
Cassius
and
Brutus
.
But
Tacitus
saith
,
that
was
de
facto
,
not
de
jure
,
Anal.
l.
1.
s
.
2.
Rome
ruere
in
servitium
,
Consules
,
Patres
,
Eques
.
Caligula
intended
to
assume
Diadema
,
the
Ensigne
of
a
King
,
but
his
friends
disswaded
him
.
3.
England
is
obliged
to
D.
Ferne
,
who
maketh
them
a
subdued
Nation
.
The
contrary
of
which
is
known
to
the
world
.
Obj.
M.
Simmons
Loyall
Subj
.
Beliefe
,
sect.
6.
pag.
19.
God
is
not
honoured
by
being
resisted
,
no
more
is
the
King
.
Answ.
I
deny
the
consequence
.
Those
who
resist
the
Kings
personall
will
,
and
will
not
suffer
him
to
ruine
his
Crowne
and
posterity
in
following
Papists
,
against
his
Oath
at
the
Coronation
,
do
honour
him
and
his
Throne
and
Race
as
a
King
,
though
for
the
time
they
displease
him
.
2.
Vzziah
was
not
dishonoured
in
that
he
was
resisted
.
3.
Nor
doe
we
honour
the
King
,
when
we
flee
from
him
and
his
Law
.
Yet
that
resistance
is
lawfull
,
according
to
the
way
of
Royalists
;
and
in
truth
also
.
Object
.
12.
Supreme
power
is
not
to
be
resisted
by
subordinate
powers
,
because
they
are
inferiour
to
the
supreme
.
Answ.
The
bloody
Irish
Rebels
then
being
inferiour
to
the
Parliament
,
cannot
resist
the
Parliament
.
2.
Inferiour
Judges
as
Judges
are
immediately
subordinate
to
God
as
the
King
,
and
must
be
guilty
of
blood
before
God
,
if
they
use
nor
the
sword
against
bloody
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
lawl●sse
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
acts
;
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
keeping
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
Angel●
shall
guard
them
,
but
onely
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
,
be
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
Osserie
,
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
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
great
non-consequence
;
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
Ieroboam
fo●
his
Idolatry
;
they
did
that
which
was
a
part
of
their
ordinary
duty
,
according
to
Gods
expresse
Law
,
Deut.
13.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
though
the
facts
of
these
men
be
extraordinary
.
3.
Ahab
and
Iezabel
raised
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
downe
the
Altars
of
God
,
and
slay
his
Prophets
,
so
as
in
the
estimation
of
Elias
,
1
King
.
19.
9
,
10
,
11.
there
was
not
one
man
,
but
they
were
Malignant
Cavalliers
,
and
hath
any
Elias
now
power
with
the
Cavalliers
,
to
exhort
them
to
rise
in
Armes
against
themselves
,
and
to
shew
them
it
is
their
duty
to
make
warre
against
the
King
and
themselves
,
in
the
defence
of
Religion
?
when
the
Prophets
had
much
adoe
to
convince
the
people
,
that
they
sinned
in
joyning
with
the
King
,
what
place
was
there
to
shew
them
their
sin
,
in
not
using
their
owne
lawfull
defence
?
And
in
reason
any
may
judge
it
unreasonable
,
for
Elias
to
exhort
,
of
thousand
thousands
in
Israel
;
poore
seven
thousand
(
of
which
many
no
doubt
were
women
,
aged
,
weake
,
young
)
to
rise
in
Armes
against
Ahab
and
all
Israel
,
except
God
had
given
a
positive
and
extraordinary
Commandement
,
and
with
all
miraculous
courage
and
strength
in
war
against
the
whole
2.
Elias
did
not
onely
flee
,
but
denounced
wrath
against
the
King
,
and
Cavalliers
,
who
joyned
with
them
in
Idolatry
,
and
when
God
gave
oportunity
,
he
shewed
himself
,
and
stirred
the
people
up
to
kill
Baals
Iesuits
and
seduceing
idolatours
,
when
the
Idolatrous
King
refused
to
do
it
,
and
Eliah
with
his
own
hand
took
them
not
,
but
all
Israel
being
gathered
together
,
1
King
.
18.
19.
The
Princes
and
Judges
did
apprehend
them
,
ver.
40.
which
is
a
warrant
,
when
the
King
refuseth
to
draw
the
sword
of
justice
against
armed
Papists
,
that
other
judges
are
to
do
it
.
2.
For
Nebuchadnezzer
,
Ieremiah
from
the
Lord
,
expresly
forbad
to
fight
against
him
,
shew
us
the
like
for
no
defending
our selves
against
bloody
Papists
and
Irish
cut-throats
:
for
that
example
may
as
well
prove
(
if
it
be
a
binding
law
to
us
)
that
our
King
should
not
raise
his
Subjects
,
to
fight
against
a
Spanish
Armado
,
and
a
forraigne
Prince
;
for
before
ever
Nebuchadnezzer
subdued
the
Kingdom
of
Iudah
Ier.
27.
1.
In
the
beginning
of
the
raigne
of
Iehoiakim
,
ver.
12
,
13
,
14.
chap.
36.
chap.
37.
the
King
of
Iudah
is
from
the
Lord
commanded
,
not
to
draw
a
sword
against
the
King
of
Babylon
;
I
hope
this
will
not
tye
us
,
and
our
King
,
not
to
fight
against
forraigne
Princes
,
or
against
the
great
Turk
,
if
they
shall
unjustly
invade
us
and
our
King
,
and
this
example
is
against
the
Kings
resisting
of
a
forraigne
Prince
unjustly
invading
him
,
as
much
,
as
against
us
,
for
Nebuchadnezzar
was
a
Tyrannous
invader
,
and
the
King
of
Iudah
the
Lords
Annoynted
.
3.
The
people
also
conspired
with
Manasseh
,
as
with
Ahab
,
Ier.
15.
4.
4.
Of
Emperours
persecuting
Christians
we
shall
heare
anon
.
5.
Deut.
13.
None
are
excepted
,
by
a
synecdoche
,
the
dearest
are
expressed
,
sonne
,
daughter
,
brother
,
the
friend
that
is
as
thine
own
soul
.
Ergo
,
fathers
also
.
And
husbands
are
to
love
their
lives
.
Ephes.
5.
25.
Yet
to
execute
judgement
on
them
,
without
pitty
,
Deut.
13.
8.
9.
The
father
is
to
love
the
son
,
yet
if
the
son
prophecy
falsely
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
,
to
kill
him
.
Zach.
13.
3.
Hence
love
,
fear
,
reverence
toward
th●
King
may
be
commanded
,
and
defensive
warres
also
.
6.
Christ
fled
from
Herod
,
and
all
his
actions
and
sufferings
are
mysteries
and
instructions
,
saith
the
poor
Prelate
.
1.
Christ
kissed
the
man
that
to
his
knowledge
came
to
betray
him
,
Christ
fled
not
,
but
knowing
where
,
and
when
his
enemy
should
apprehend
him
,
came
willingly
Rivet
.
in
D●cal
.
in
mand
.
6.
pag.
234.
Sheweth
the
reasons
,
why
Christ
condemned
Peter
,
not
because
he
thought
self
defence
unlawfull
,
but
1.
it
had
a
kind
of
revenge
in
it
▪
for
so
,
few
could
not
repel
such
an
army
as
ca●●●
to
take
Christ
.
2.
He
waited
not
on
Christs
answer
.
3.
He
could
have
defended
himself
another
way
.
4.
It
was
contrary
to
Gods
will
revealed
to
Peter
.
to
the
place
.
Ergo
,
we
should
not
flee
.
2.
His
actions
are
so
mysterious
that
Iohn
P.
P.
in
imitation
of
Christs
fourty
dayes
fast
,
will
fast
from
flesh
in
lent
,
and
the
Prelate
must
walk
on
the
sea
,
and
work
miracles
,
if
all
Christs
actions
be
our
instructions
.
7.
He
might
with
more
then
twelve
Legions
of
Angels
defend
himself
,
but
he
would
not
,
not
because
resistance
was
unlawfull
,
no
shadow
for
that
in
the
text
,
but
because
it
was
Gods
will
,
that
he
should
drink
the
cup
his
Father
gave
him
,
&
because
to
take
the
sword
without
Gods
warrant
,
subjecteth
the
usurper
of
Gods
place
to
perish
with
the
sword
.
Peter
had
Gods
revealed
wil
,
that
Christ
behoved
to
suffer
,
Math.
26.
52
,
53.
Math.
16.
21
,
22
,
23.
&
Gods
positive
command
that
Christ
should
die
for
sinners
,
Iohn
10.
24.
may
well
restraine
an
act
of
lawfull
self-preservation
,
hic
&
nunc
,
and
such
an
act
as
Christ
lawfully
used
,
at
another
time
,
Luk.
4.
29
▪
30.
Ioh.
11.
7
,
8.
we
give
no
new
creed
,
but
this
apostate
hath
forsaken
his
old
creed
,
&
the
religion
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
in
which
he
was
Baptised
.
9.
Nor
do
we
expunge
out
of
the
Creed
Christs
descension
into
hell
,
&
the
communion
of
Saints
,
as
the
apostate
saith
,
but
the
Popish
locall
descension
of
Christ
,
&
the
Popish
advancing
of
the
Churches
power
above
the
Scriptures
,
&
the
intercession
&
prayers
to
the
saints
,
or
of
the
saints
for
us
,
we
deny
,
&
this
Prelate
,
though
he
did
swear
the
doctrine
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
preached
expresly
all
these
&
many
other
poynts
of
Popery
in
the
Pulpits
of
Edenburgh
.
10.
We
beleeve
that
Christ
suffered
under
Pontius
Pilat
,
but
that
Pilat
had
any
legal
power
to
condemne
Christ
,
(
but
onely
a
power
by
a
permissive
Decree
,
Act.
4.
27
,
28.
Such
as
Devils
had
by
Gods
permission
,
Luke
.
22.
53.
)
we
utterly
deny
.
11.
The
Prelat
saith
it
is
his
resolution
,
for
our
sin
of
naturall
selfe
defence
,
to
dissolve
in
tears
,
because
his
Bishopricke
(
I
conceive
)
by
which
he
was
wont
to
dissolve
in
cups
,
(
being
drunk
on
the
Lords
day
,
after
he
(
with
other
Prelates
)
had
been
at
the
Lords
Supper
,
while
the
Chamber
▪
wherein
they
were
,
was
dissolved
in
vomitting
,
)
was
taken
from
him
.
12.
The
prophets
cry
against
all
sins
,
but
never
against
the
sin
of
non-resistance
,
and
yet
they
had
very
Tyrannous
and
Idolatrous
Kings
.
1.
This
is
but
a
weak
argument
.
1.
The
Prophets
cry
not
out
against
all
sins
,
they
cry
not
out
against
men-stealers
,
and
killers
of
father
and
mother
in
expresse
tearmes
,
yet
do
they
by
consequence
condemne
all
these
sins
,
and
so
do
they
condemne
non-resistance
in
wars
,
by
consequence
,
when
they
cry
out
Ier.
5.
31.
The
Prophets
prophesie
falsly
,
and
the
Priests
beare
rule
by
their
meanes
,
and
my
people
love
to
have
it
so
.
And
when
they
complaine
,
Ezek.
22.
26
,
27
,
28.
That
the
Prophets
and
Priests
violate
the
Law
,
her
Princes
are
like
wolves
ravening
the
prey
,
to
shed
blood
,
and
the
people
use
oppression
,
and
exercise
robbery
,
and
vexe
the
poore
.
And
when
they
say
,
Ier.
22.
2.
not
to
the
King
onely
,
but
also
to
his
servants
,
and
the
people
that
enter
in
by
the
gates
,
3.
Execute
judgement
and
righteousnesse
,
and
deliver
the
spoiled
out
of
the
hand
of
the
oppressour
.
I
pray
you
,
who
are
the
oppressors
?
I
answer
,
The
murthering
Judges
,
Esa.
1.
21.
And
Esa.
3.
12.
As
for
my
people
,
children
are
their
oppressors
,
and
women
rule
over
them
:
And
ver.
14
,
15.
The
ancients
of
the
people
grind
the
faces
of
the
poore
:
and
when
they
are
not
valiant
for
the
truth
upon
the
earth
.
And
Prov.
24.
11.
the
Lord
shal
render
to
th●se
men
according
to
their
works
,
which
forbeare
to
help
men
that
are
drawn
to
death
,
and
those
that
be
ready
to
be
slaine
,
if
they
shift
the
businesse
,
and
say
,
Behold
,
we
know
not
,
doth
not
he
that
pondereth
the
heart
,
consider
it
?
When
therefore
the
Lords
Prophets
complaine
that
the
people
execute
not
judgement
,
relieve
not
the
oppressed
,
help
not
and
rescue
not
those
that
are
drawn
to
death
unjustly
by
the
King
,
or
his
murthering
Judges
,
they
expresly
cry
out
against
the
sin
of
non-resistance
.
2.
The
Prophets
cannot
expresly
and
formally
cry
out
against
the
Judges
for
non-resisting
the
King
,
when
they
joyne
as
ravening
wolves
with
the
King
in
these
same
acts
of
oppression
,
even
as
the
Judge
cannot
formally
impannell
24●
men
sent
out
to
guard
the
travellers
from
an
arch
robber
,
if
these
men
joyne
with
the
robber
,
and
rob
the
travellers
,
and
become
cut-throats
as
the
arch
robber
is
,
he
cannot
accuse
them
for
their
omission
in
not
guarding
the
innocent
travellers
,
but
for
a
more
hainous
crime
,
that
not
onely
they
omitted
what
was
their
duty
,
in
that
they
did
not
rescue
the
oppressed
out
of
the
hands
of
the
wicked
,
but
because
they
did
rob
and
murther
,
and
so
the
lesser
sinne
is
swallowed
up
in
the
greater
.
The
under-Judges
are
watchmen
,
and
a
guard
to
the
Church
of
God
;
if
the
King
turn
a
bosome
robb●r
,
their
part
is
,
Ier.
22.
3.
to
deliver
the
spoiled
out
of
the
hand
of
the
oppressour
,
to
watch
against
domestick
and
forraine
enemies
,
and
to
defend
the
flock
from
wolves
,
Ezek.
23.
2
,
3
,
4.
Ier.
50.
6.
to
let
the
oppressed
goe
free
,
and
to
break
every
yoak
,
Esay
58.
6.
to
break
the
jawes
of
the
wicked
,
and
pluck
the
spoile
out
of
his
●e●th
,
Job
29.
17.
Now
if
these
Judges
turne
Lyons
,
and
ravening
Wolves
,
to
prey
upon
the
flock
,
and
joyne
with
the
King
,
as
alwayes
they
did
when
the
King
was
an
oppressor
,
his
Princes
made
him
glad
with
their
lies
,
and
joyned
with
him
,
and
the
people
with
both
.
Ier.
1.
18.
Ier.
5.
1.
Ier.
9.
1.
Mic.
7.
1.
Ezek.
22.
24
,
25
,
26
,
27
,
28
,
29
,
30
,
31.
Ier.
15.
1
,
2
,
3.
It
is
no
wonder
if
the
Prophets
condemne
and
cry
out
against
the
hugest
and
most
bloody
crime
of
positive
oppression
formally
and
expresly
,
and
in
that
their
negative
murthers
in
not
releeving
the
oppressed
must
also
be
cryed
out
against
.
13.
The
whole
Land
cannot
formally
be
accused
for
non-resistance
,
when
the
whole
Land
are
oppressors
,
for
then
they
should
be
accused
for
not
resisting
themselves
.
14.
The
King
ought
to
resist
the
inferiour
judges
in
their
oppression
of
the
people
,
by
the
confession
of
Royalists
,
then
this
argument
cometh
with
the
like
force
of
strength
on
themselves
,
let
them
shew
us
practice
,
precept
or
QUEST.
XXXV
.
Whether
or
no
the
suffering
of
the
Martyrs
in
the
Primitive
Church
militate
against
the
lawfulnesse
of
defensive
wars
?
ROyalists
think
they
burden
our
Cause
much
with
hatred
,
when
they
bring
the
Fathers
and
ancient
Martyrs
against
us
.
So
the
P.
Prelate
extracted
out
of
other
Authors
,
testimonies
for
this
,
and
Sacr.
san●●
.
6.
pag.
74
,
75
,
76.
The
Doctors
of
Aberdeene
in
their
Duplyes
.
from
I.
Armagh
,
in
a
Sermon
on
Rom.
1.
3.
pag.
20
,
21.
So
the
Do.
of
Aberdeene
.
The
Prelat
proveth
from
Clem.
Alexand.
l.
7.
c.
17.
That
the
King
is
constituted
by
the
Lord
.
So
Ignatius
.
Answ.
1.
Except
he
prove
from
these
Fathers
that
the
King
is
from
God
onely
and
immediately
,
he
proveth
nothing
.
Obj.
2.
Iren.
l.
5.
adv.
haer.
c.
20.
proveth
that
God
giveth
Kingdomes
,
and
that
the
devill
lied
,
Luk.
4.
and
we
make
the
people
to
make
Kings
,
and
so
to
be
the
children
of
the
Devill
.
Answ.
If
we
denyed
God
to
dispose
of
Kingdomes
,
this
man
might
alledge
the
Church
of
God
in
England
and
Scotland
,
to
be
the
sons
of
Satan
.
But
Gods
Word
,
Deut.
17.
18.
and
many
other
places
make
the
people
to
make
Kings
,
and
yet
not
devils
.
But
to
say
that
Prelates
should
crowne
Kings
,
and
with
their
foule
fingers
anoint
him
;
and
that
as
the
Popes
substitutes
,
is
to
make
him
that
is
the
sonne
of
perdition
,
a
Donor
of
Kingdoms
,
also
to
make
a
man
with
his
bloodie
sword
to
ascend
to
a
throne
,
is
to
deny
God
to
be
the
disposer
of
Kingdoms
,
and
Prelats
teach
both
these
.
Obj.
3.
Tertul.
Apol.
c.
30.
Inde
est
Imperator
,
unde
&
homo
,
antequam
imperator
,
inde
potestas
illi
,
unde
&
spiritus
:
God
is
no
lesse
the
Creator
of
Soveraigntie
,
then
of
the
soul
of
man
.
Answ.
God
onely
maketh
Kings
,
by
his
absolute
soveraignty
,
as
he
onely
maketh
high
and
low
,
and
so
onely
he
maketh
Mayors
,
Provosts
,
Bailiffes
,
for
there
is
no
power
but
of
him
,
Rom.
13.
Ergo
▪
Provosts
and
Bailiffes
are
not
from
men
.
The
Reader
shall
not
be
troubled
with
the
rest
of
the
testimonies
of
this
poore
Plagiarie
,
for
they
prove
what
never
man
denyed
,
but
Prelats
and
Royalists
,
to
wit
,
that
Kings
are
not
from
Gods
approving
and
regulating
will
;
which
they
oppose
,
when
they
say
,
Sole
Conquest
is
a
just
title
to
the
Crowne
.
But
they
deserve
rather
an
answer
which
Grotius
,
Barclay
,
Arnisaeus
,
and
Spalato
alledge
,
as
Obj.
1.
Cyprian
Epist.
1.
Non
est
fas
Christianis
,
armis
,
ac
vituori
se
adversus
impetum
persecutorum
,
Christians
cannot
by
violence
defend
themselves
against
persecutors
.
Answ.
If
these
words
be
pressed
literally
,
it
were
not
lawfull
to
defend
our selfe
against
murtherers
;
but
Cyprian
is
expresly
condemning
in
that
place
,
the
seditious
tumults
of
people
against
the
lawfull
Magistrate
.
Obj.
2.
The
Ancients
say
he
was
justly
punished
who
did
rend
and
teare
the
Edict
of
Dioclesian
and
Maximinus
,
Euseb.
l.
7.
Hist.
Eccles.
c.
5.
Answ.
To
rend
an
Edict
is
no
act
of
naturall
self-defence
,
but
a
breach
of
a
positive
commandment
of
the
Emperors
,
and
could
not
be
lawfully
done
,
especially
by
a
private
man
.
Object
.
3.
Cyprian
Epist.
56.
Incumbamus
gemitibus
assiduis
&
deprecationibus
crebris
,
haec
enim
sunt
munimenta
spiritualia
&
tela
divina
quae
protegunt
:
And
Russinus
,
l.
2.
c.
6.
Ambrosius
adversus
reginae
(
Iustinae
Arianae
)
furorem
non
se
manu
defensabat
aut
telo
,
sed
jejuniis
continuatisque
vigiliis
sub
altari
positus
.
Answ.
It
is
true
,
Cyprian
reputed
prayers
his
armour
,
but
not
his
onely
armour
.
Though
Ambrose
,
de
facto
,
used
no
other
against
Iustina
;
the
places
say
nothing
against
the
lawfulnesse
of
selfe-defence
.
Ambrose
speaketh
of
that
armour
and
these
meanes
of
defence
,
that
are
proper
to
Pastors
,
and
these
are
prayers
and
teares
,
not
the
sword
;
because
Pastors
carry
the
Arke
,
that
is
their
charge
,
not
the
sword
,
that
is
the
Magistrates
place
.
Object
.
4.
Tertullian
Apolog.
c.
37.
saith
expresly
,
that
the
Christians
might
for
strength
and
number
have
defended
themselves
against
their
persecutors
,
but
thought
it
unlawfull
.
Quando
vel
una
nox
pauculis
faculis
largitatem
ul●ionis
po
et
operari
,
si
malum
malo
dispungi
penes
nos
liceret
,
sed
absit
ut
igni
humano
vindicetur
divina
secta
,
aut
doleat
pati
,
in
quo
probetur
.
Si
enim
hostes
extraneos
,
non
tantum
vindices
occultos
agere
vellemus
,
deesset
nobis
vis
numerorum
&
copiarum
?
Answ.
I
will
not
goe
about
to
say
that
Tertullian
thought
it
lawfull
to
raise
Armes
against
the
Emperour
;
I
ingeniously
confesse
Tertullian
was
in
that
errour
.
But
,
1.
something
of
the
man
.
2.
Of
in
vit.
Tertul.
inter
Apocrypha
numeratur
—
excommunicatus
.
3.
It
was
Tertullians
error
in
a
fact
,
not
in
a
question
,
that
he
believed
Christians
were
so
numerous
,
as
that
they
might
have
fought
with
the
Emperours
.
4.
M.
Pryn
doth
judiciously
observe
,
3.
part
.
soveraigne
power
of
Parl.
pag.
139
,
140.
He
not
onely
thought
it
unlawfull
to
resist
,
but
also
to
flee
,
and
therefore
wrote
a
booke
de
fuga
,
and
therefore
as
some
men
are
excessive
in
doing
for
Christ
,
so
also
in
suffering
for
Christ
;
Hence
I
inferre
,
that
Tertullian
is
neither
ours
,
nor
theirs
in
this
point
;
and
we
can
cite
Tertullian
against
them
also
,
I
am
sumus
ergo
pares
.
Yea
Fox
in
his
Monum
.
saith
,
Christians
ranne
to
the
stakes
to
be
burnt
,
when
they
were
neither
condemned
,
nor
cited
.
4.
What
if
wee
cite
Theodoret
,
fol.
98.
De
provid
.
Who
about
that
time
say
that
evill
men
reigne
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
through
the
cowardlinesse
of
the
subjects
;
as
the
Prelate
saith
of
Tertullian
,
I
turne
it
,
If
Theodoret
were
King
of
Persia
their
owne
King
,
sent
to
Theodosius
to
help
them
against
him
.
2.
For
the
man
.
Tertullian
in
the
place
cited
,
saith
,
The
Christians
were
strangers
under
the
Emperour
.
Externi
sumus
,
and
therefore
they
had
no
Laws
of
their
owne
,
but
were
under
the
Civill
Laws
of
Heathen
,
till
Constantines
time
;
and
they
had
sworne
to
Iulian
as
his
souldiers
,
and
therefore
might
have
,
and
no
doubt
had
,
scruples
of
conscience
to
resist
the
Emperour
.
2.
It
is
knowne
Iulian
had
huge
numbers
of
Heathen
in
his
Armie
,
and
to
resist
had
beene
great
danger
.
3.
Wanting
Leaders
and
Commanders
,
(
many
prime
men
doubting
of
the
lawfulnesse
thereof
)
though
they
had
beene
equall
in
number
,
yet
number
is
not
all
in
warre
,
skill
in
valorous
Commanders
is
required
.
4.
What
if
all
Christians
were
not
of
Tertullians
minde
.
5.
If
I
would
go
to
humane
testimonies
,
which
I
judge
not
satisfactory
to
the
conscience
,
I
might
cite
many
;
The
practice
of
France
,
of
Holland
:
The
Divines
in
Luthers
time
,
as
Sleidan
.
8.
c.
8.
22.
resolved
resistance
to
be
lawfull
.
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Pareus
;
the
German
Divines
,
Bucanus
,
and
an
hoast
might
be
produced
.
QUEST.
XXXVI
.
Whether
the
power
of
Warre
be
onely
in
the
King
?
IT
is
not
hard
to
determine
this
question
:
The
Sword
in
a
constitute
Common-wealth
is
given
to
the
Judge
supreme
,
or
subordinate
,
Rom.
13.
4.
He
beareth
not
the
sword
in
vaine
,
in
the
Empire
;
the
use
of
Armour
is
restricted
to
the
Emperour
by
a
positive
Law
;
so
the
Law
saith
,
Armorum
officia
nisi
jussu
Principis
sunt
interdicta
,
lib.
de
Cod.
de
Lege
.
1.
Imperat
Valentinian
.
nulli
,
nobis
inconsultis
,
usus
armorum
tribuatur
,
ad
1.
Jul.
Mai.
l.
3.
Warre
is
a
species
,
and
a
particular
,
the
sword
is
a
generall
.
Assert
.
1.
The
power
of
the
sword
by
Gods
Law
is
not
proper
&
untill
he
stand
before
the
Congregation
in
judgement
,
ver.
24.
Then
the
Congregation
shall
judge
betweene
the
slayer
and
the
avenger
of
blood
,
Deut.
22.
18.
The
Elders
of
the
City
shall
take
that
man
and
chastise
him
.
21.
The
men
of
the
Citie
shall
stone
her
with
stones
,
Deu.
17.
5.
Deu.
19.
12
,
13.
v.
18
,
19
,
20
,
21.
Deu.
21.
19.
Then
shall
his
father
and
his
mother
bring
him
to
the
Elders
of
his
City
.
21.
And
the
men
of
the
City
shall
stone
him
with
stones
.
1
King
.
21.
11.
The
Elders
and
Nobles
that
were
inhabitants
in
his
City
stoned
Naboth
.
3.
Inferiour
Judges
are
condemned
as
murtherers
,
who
have
shed
innocent
blood
,
Esay
1.
21.
Psal.
94.
5.
6.
Ier.
22.
3.
Ezek.
22.
12.
ver.
27.
Hosea
6.
8.
Zephan.
3.
1
,
2
,
3.
Ergo
,
they
must
have
the
power
of
the
sword
,
hence
upon
the
same
grounds
.
Assert
.
2.
That
the
King
onely
hath
the
power
of
warre
,
and
raising
Armies
must
be
but
a
positive
civill
Law
.
For
,
1.
by
divine
right
,
if
the
inferiour
Judges
have
the
sword
given
to
them
of
God
,
then
have
they
also
power
of
Warre
,
and
raising
Armies
.
2.
All
power
of
warre
that
the
King
hath
is
cumulative
,
not
privative
,
and
not
distructive
,
but
given
for
the
safety
of
the
Kingdome
,
as
therefore
the
King
cannot
take
from
one
particular
man
the
power
of
the
sword
for
naturall
self-preservation
,
because
it
is
the
birth-right
of
life
;
neither
can
the
King
take
from
a
community
and
Kingdome
a
power
of
rising
in
Armes
for
their
owne
defence
:
If
an
Armie
of
Turks
shall
suddenly
invade
the
Land
,
and
the
Kings
consent
expresse
cannot
be
had
(
for
it
is
essentially
involved
in
the
office
of
the
King
as
King
,
that
all
the
power
of
the
sword
that
he
hath
,
be
for
their
safety
)
or
if
the
King
should
as
a
man
refuse
his
consent
,
and
interdict
and
discharge
the
Land
to
rise
in
Armes
,
yet
they
have
his
Royall
consent
,
though
they
want
his
personall
consent
,
in
respect
that
his
office
obligeth
him
to
command
them
to
rise
in
Armes
.
2.
Because
no
King
,
no
Civill
power
can
take
away
Natures
birth-right
in
asinine
patience
,
and
offer
their
throats
to
cut-throats
but
may
flee
,
yet
two
things
hindereth
a
flight
.
1.
They
are
obliged
by
vertue
of
the
first
Commandement
to
re-man
,
and
with
their
sword
defend
the
Cities
of
the
Lord
,
and
the
King
.
2
Sam.
10.
12.
1
Chron.
19.
13.
for
if
to
defend
our
Country
and
children
,
and
the
Church
of
God
from
unjust
invaders
and
cut-throats
by
the
sword
,
be
an
act
of
charity
,
that
God
and
the
Law
of
Nature
requireth
of
a
people
,
as
is
evident
,
Prov.
24.
11.
and
if
the
fift
Commandement
oblige
the
Land
to
defend
their
aged
Parents
and
young
children
from
these
invaders
,
and
if
the
sixt
Commandement
lay
on
us
the
like
bond
,
all
the
Land
are
to
act
works
of
mercy
and
charity
,
though
the
King
unjustly
command
the
contrary
;
except
Royalists
say
,
that
we
are
not
to
performe
the
duties
of
the
second
Table
commanded
by
God
,
if
an
earthly
King
forbid
us
;
and
if
we
exercise
not
acts
of
mercy
toward
our
brethren
,
when
their
life
is
in
hazard
,
to
save
them
,
wee
are
murtherers
,
and
so
men
may
murther
their
neighbour
,
if
the
obeying
men
,
rather
then
God
.
So
Althusius
Polit.
c.
25.
n.
9.
Halicarnas
.
l.
4.
Antiq.
Rom.
Aristo
.
Pol.
l.
3.
c.
3.
3.
David
tooke
Goliahs
sword
,
and
became
a
Captaine
,
a
Captaine
to
an
hoast
of
armed
men
in
the
battaile
,
and
fought
the
battailes
of
the
Lord
,
1
Sam.
25.
28.
(
and
this
Abigal
by
the
spirit
of
prophecy
,
as
I
take
it
,
saith
,
ver.
29
,
30
,
31.
)
1
Sam.
22.
2.
1
Chron.
12.
1.
2.
3.
17.
18.
21.
22.
not
onely
without
Sauls
consent
,
but
against
King
Saul
as
he
was
a
man
,
but
not
against
him
as
hee
was
King
of
Israel
.
4.
If
there
be
no
King
,
or
the
King
be
minor
,
or
an
usurper
,
as
Athalia
be
on
the
Throne
,
the
Kingdome
may
lawfully
The
children
of
Israel
,
foure
hundred
thousand
footemen
that
drew
sword
went
out
to
warre
against
the
children
of
Benjamin
.
Iudah
had
the
power
of
the
sword
when
Iosiah
was
but
eight
yeares
old
,
in
the
beginning
of
his
reigne
,
2
King
.
22.
1
,
2.
and
before
Iehoash
was
crowned
King
,
and
while
he
was
minor
,
2
King
.
11.
there
were
Captaines
of
hundreds
in
armes
raised
by
Iehoiada
and
the
people
of
Iudah
to
defend
the
young
King
.
It
cannot
be
said
,
that
this
is
more
extraordinary
,
then
that
it
is
extraordinary
for
Kings
to
die
,
and
in
the
interregnum
,
warres
,
in
an
ordinary
providence
,
may
fall
out
in
these
Kingdoms
,
where
Kings
goe
by
election
;
and
for
Kings
to
fall
to
be
Minors
,
Captives
,
Tyrannous
.
And
I
shall
be
of
that
opinion
that
Mr
Symmons
,
who
holdeth
,
That
Royall
birth
is
equivalent
to
divine
unction
,
must
also
hold
,
that
election
is
not
equivalent
to
divine
unction
;
for
both
election
and
birth
cannot
be
of
the
same
validity
,
the
one
being
naturall
,
the
other
a
matter
of
free
choise
,
which
shall
infer
that
Kings
by
election
are
lesse
properly
,
and
analogically
onely
Kings
;
and
so
Saul
was
not
properly
a
King
,
for
he
was
King
by
election
;
but
I
conceive
that
rather
Kings
by
birth
must
be
lesse
properly
Kings
,
because
the
first
King
by
Gods
institution
,
being
the
mould
of
all
the
rest
,
was
by
election
.
Deut.
17.
18.
19.
20.
5.
If
the
estates
create
the
King
,
and
make
this
man
King
,
not
this
King
summoneth
a
Parliament
,
and
giveth
them
power
to
be
a
Parliament
,
and
to
advise
and
counsell
him
;
and
in
the
meane
time
Scripture
saith
,
Deut
▪
17.
18
,
19
,
20.
1
Sam.
10
20
,
21
,
22
,
23
,
24
,
25.
2
Sam.
5.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
that
the
Parliament
createth
the
King
,
heir's
admirable
reciprocation
of
creation
in
policie
,
and
shall
God
make
the
mother
to
destroy
the
daughter
?
The
Parliamentarie
power
that
giveth
Crown
,
Militia
,
sword
and
all
to
the
King
,
must
give
power
to
the
King
to
use
sword
and
war
for
the
destruction
of
the
Kingdome
,
and
to
annull
all
the
power
of
Parliaments
,
to
make
,
unmake
Parliaments
,
and
all
Parliamentary
power
;
what
more
absurd
?
Obj.
1.
Symmons
Loyall
Subj
.
Pag.
57.
These
phrases
,
2
Sam.
9.
1.
When
Kings
goe
forth
to
warre
,
and
Luk.
14.
31.
What
King
going
forth
to
warre
?
speak
to
my
conscience
,
that
both
offensive
and
defensive
warre
are
in
the
Kings
hand
.
Answ.
It
is
not
much
to
other
men
what
is
spoken
to
any
mans
conscience
by
Phrase
and
customes
;
for
by
this
no
States
where
there
be
no
Kings
,
but
government
by
the
best
,
or
the
people
,
as
in
Holland
,
or
in
other
Nations
,
can
have
power
of
war
,
for
what
time
of
yeare
shall
Kings
goe
to
war
who
are
not
Kings
?
and
because
Christ
saith
,
A
certaine
housholder
delivered
talents
to
his
servants
,
will
this
infer
to
any
conscience
,
that
none
but
a
housholder
may
take
usurie
?
And
when
he
saith
,
If
the
good
man
of
the
house
knew
at
what
houre
the
thiefe
would
come
,
he
would
watch
;
shall
it
follow
,
the
sonne
or
servant
may
not
watch
the
house
,
but
onely
the
good
man
?
Obj.
2.
Ferne
,
pag.
95.
The
naturall
Bodie
cannot
move
,
but
upon
naturall
Principles
;
and
so
neither
can
the
Politique
Bodie
move
in
Warre
,
but
upon
Politique
reasons
from
the
Prince
,
which
must
direct
by
Law
.
Answ.
This
may
well
be
retorted
,
the
Politique
Head
cannot
then
move
,
but
upon
politique
reasons
;
and
so
the
King
cannot
move
to
wars
,
but
by
the
Law
,
and
that
is
by
consent
of
Parliament
,
and
no
Law
can
principle
the
head
to
destroy
the
members
.
2.
If
an
Armie
of
cut-throats
rise
to
destroy
the
Kingdome
,
because
the
King
is
in
lacking
,
in
his
place
,
to
doe
his
duty
,
how
can
the
other
Judges
,
the
States
and
Parliament
,
be
accessorie
to
murther
committed
by
them
,
in
not
raising
armies
to
suppresse
such
robbers
?
Shall
the
inferiour
Judges
be
guilty
of
innocent
blood
,
because
the
King
will
not
doe
his
duty
?
3.
The
politique
body
ceaseth
no
more
to
renounce
the
principles
of
sinlesse
nature
,
in
self-defence
,
because
it
is
a
politique
body
,
and
subject
to
a
King
,
then
it
can
leave
off
to
sleep
,
eat
and
drink
;
and
there
is
more
need
of
politique
principles
to
the
one
,
then
the
other
.
4.
The
Parliaments
and
Estates
of
both
Kingdoms
move
in
these
wars
by
the
Kings
Lawes
,
and
are
a
formall
politique
body
in
themselves
.
Obj.
2.
The
ground
of
the
present
wars
against
the
King
(
saith
D.
Ferne
,
sect.
4.
pag.
13.
)
is
false
,
to
wit
,
that
the
Parliament
is
coordinate
with
the
King
,
but
so
the
King
shall
not
be
supreme
,
the
Parliaments
consent
is
required
to
an
act
of
supremacie
,
but
not
to
a
denyall
of
that
act
.
And
there
can
no
more
(
saith
Arnisaeus
de
jure
majestatis
,
c.
3.
in
quo
consistat
essen.
majest.
c.
3.
n.
1.
and
c.
2.
anjur
.
majest.
separ
.
&c.
n.
2.
)
be
two
equall
and
coordinate
supreme
powers
,
then
there
can
be
two
supreme
Gods
,
and
multitudo
deorum
est
nullitas
deorum
,
many
gods
infer
no
gods
.
Ans.
1.
If
we
consider
the
fountaine-power
,
the
King
is
subordinate
Obj.
3.
Arnesaeus
de
jur
.
Maj.
de
potest
.
armorum
,
c.
5.
n.
4.
The
People
is
mad
and
furious
,
therefore
supreme
Majestie
cannot
be
secured
,
and
Rebels
suppressed
,
and
publike
Peace
kept
,
if
the
power
of
Armour
be
not
in
the
Kings
hand
only
.
Answ.
To
denude
the
people
of
Armour
,
because
they
may
abuse
the
Prince
,
is
to
expose
them
to
violence
and
oppression
,
unjustly
;
for
one
King
may
easilier
abuse
armour
,
then
all
the
people
;
one
man
may
more
easily
fail
,
then
a
Community
.
2.
The
safety
of
the
people
is
far
to
be
preferred
before
the
safety
of
one
man
,
though
he
were
two
Emperours
,
one
in
the
East
,
another
in
the
West
,
because
the
Emperour
is
ordained
of
God
,
for
the
good
and
safety
of
the
people
,
1
Tim.
2.
2.
3.
There
can
be
no
inferiour
Judges
to
bear
the
sword
,
as
God
requireth
,
Rom.
13
4.
Deut.
1.
15
,
16.
2
Chron.
19.
6
,
7.
and
the
King
must
be
sole
Judge
,
if
he
onely
have
the
sword
,
and
all
armour
monopolized
to
himselfe
.
Obj.
4.
The
causes
of
Warre
(
saith
M.
Simmons
,
sect.
4.
pag.
9.
)
Answ.
The
Parliament
and
all
the
Judges
and
Nobles
are
Subjects
QUEST.
XXXVII
.
Whether
or
no
it
be
lawfull
that
the
Estates
of
Scotland
help
their
oppressed
brethren
the
Parliament
and
Protestants
in
England
against
Papists
and
Prelates
now
in
Armes
against
them
,
and
killing
them
,
and
●ndevouring
the
establishment
of
Poperie
,
though
the
King
of
Scotland
should
inhibit
them
?
MArianus
saith
,
one
is
obliged
to
help
his
brother
,
non
vincul●
non
est
actio
a●t
poena
,
one
may
not
have
action
of
law
against
his
brother
,
who
refuseth
to
help
him
;
yet
(
saith
he
)
as
man
he
is
obliged
to
man
nexu
civilis
societatis
,
by
the
bond
of
humane
society
.
Others
say
,
one
nation
may
indirectly
defend
a
neighbour
nation
3.
Some
say
it
is
lawfull
,
but
not
alwayes
expedient
,
in
which
opinion
there
is
this
much
truth
,
that
if
the
neighbor
nation
have
an
evil
cause
,
neque
licet
,
neque
expedit
,
it
is
neither
lawfull
,
nor
expedient
.
But
what
is
lawful
in
the
case
of
necessity
so
extreame
,
as
is
the
losse
Thou
shalt
not
murther
.
)
4.
Others
think
it
lawfull
in
the
case
that
my
brother
seek
my
help
only
,
other
wayes
I
have
no
calling
thereunto
:
to
which
opinion
,
I
cannot
universally
subscribe
,
it
is
holden
both
by
reason
,
and
the
soundest
divines
,
that
to
rebuke
my
brother
of
sinne
is
(
actus
misericordiae
,
&
charitatis
,
)
an
act
of
mercy
and
charity
to
his
soul
,
Thes.
5.
14.
Col.
4.
17.
Math.
18.
15.
Nor
can
I
think
in
reason
,
that
my
duty
of
love
to
my
brother
,
doth
not
oblige
me
but
upon
dependency
on
his
free
consent
,
but
as
I
am
to
help
my
neighbours
oxe
out
of
a
ditch
,
though
my
neighbour
know
not
,
and
so
I
have
onely
his
implicit
and
virtuall
consent
,
so
is
the
case
here
.
I
go
not
farther
in
this
case
of
conscience
,
if
a
neighbour
nation
be
jealous
of
our
help
,
and
in
an
hostile
way
should
oppose
us
in
helping
,
(
which
blessed
be
the
Lord
,
the
honourable
houses
of
the
Parliament
of
England
hath
not
done
,
though
Malignant
spirits
tempted
them
to
such
a
course
,
)
what
in
that
case
we
should
owe
to
the
afflicted
members
of
Christs
body
,
is
a
case
may
be
determined
easily
.
The
fift
and
last
opinion
is
of
those
who
think
if
the
King
command
Papists
and
Prelates
to
rise
against
the
Parliament
and
our
dear
brethren
in
England
in
warres
,
that
we
are
obliged
in
conscience
,
and
by
our
oath
and
covenant
,
to
help
our
native
Prince
against
them
,
to
which
opinion
with
hands
and
feet
I
should
accord
,
if
our
Kings
cause
were
just
and
lawfull
,
but
from
this
it
followeth
that
we
must
thus
far
judge
of
the
cause
,
as
concerneth
our
consciences
in
the
matter
of
our
necessary
duty
,
leaving
the
judiciall
cognizance
to
the
honourable
Parliament
of
England
.
But
because
I
cannot
returne
to
all
these
opinions
particularly
,
I
see
no
reason
but
the
Civil
Law
of
a
Kingdom
doth
oblige
any
Citizen
to
help
an
innocent
man
against
a
murthering
robber
,
&
that
he
may
be
judicially
accused
as
a
murtherer
who
faileth
in
his
duty
,
&
that
Solon
said
well
,
beatam
remp
.
esse
illam
,
in
quâ
quisque
injuriam
alterius
suam
estimet
.
It
is
a
blessed
society
in
which
every
man
is
to
repute
an
injury
done
against
a
brother
,
〈…〉
injury
done
against
himself
.
As
the
Egyptians
had
a
good
law
,
by
which
,
he
was
accused
upon
his
head
,
who
helped
not
one
that
suffered
wrong
;
and
if
he
was
not
able
to
help
,
he
was
holden
to
accuse
the
injurer
,
if
not
,
his
punishment
was
whips
,
or
Assert
.
We
are
obliged
,
by
many
bands
,
to
expose
our
lives
,
goods
,
children
,
&c.
in
this
cause
of
religion
and
of
the
unjust
oppression
of
enemies
,
for
the
safety
and
defence
of
our
deare
brethren
and
true
religion
in
England
.
1.
Prov.
24.
11.
If
thou
forbear
to
deliver
them
,
that
are
drawn
to
death
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
taken
as
captives
to
be
killed
,
and
those
that
are
ready
to
be
slaine
.
12.
If
thou
say
,
behold
we
know
it
not
,
doth
not
he
that
pondereth
the
heart
consider
it
?
and
he
that
keepeth
thy
soul
,
doth
he
not
know
it
?
and
shall
he
not
render
to
every
man
,
according
to
his
work
?
Master
Iermin
on
the
place
,
is
too
narrow
,
who
commenting
on
the
place
,
restricteth
all
to
these
two
,
that
the
priest
should
deliver
,
by
interceding
for
the
innocent
,
I
will
take
away
,
and
none
shall
rescue
.
1
Sam.
17.
35.
I
rescued
the
lambs
out
of
his
mouth
,
out
of
the
Lyons
mouth
,
which
behoved
to
be
done
with
great
violence
.
2
King
.
18.
34.
They
have
not
delivered
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Samaria
out
of
my
hand
.
So
Cornel.
à
Lapide
,
Charitas
suad●●
,
ut
vi
&
armis
eruamus
injuste
ductos
ad
mortem
.
Ambros
.
lib.
1.
offic.
c.
36.
citeth
this
same
text
,
and
commendeth
Moses
who
killed
the
Egyptian
in
defending
a
Hebrew
man
.
2.
It
is
an
act
of
Charity
and
so
to
be
done
,
though
the
judge
forbid
it
,
when
the
innocent
is
unjustly
put
to
death
.
Object
.
But
in
so
doing
private
men
may
offer
violence
to
the
lawfull
magistrate
,
when
he
unjustly
putteth
an
innocent
man
to
death
,
and
rescue
him
out
of
the
hands
of
the
magistrate
,
and
this
were
to
bring
in
anarchy
and
confusion
,
for
if
it
be
an
act
of
charity
to
deliver
the
innocent
out
of
the
hand
of
the
Magistrate
,
it
is
homicide
to
a
private
man
not
to
do
it
,
for
our
obedience
to
the
law
of
nature
tyeth
us
absolutely
,
though
the
Magistrate
forbid
these
acts
,
for
it
is
known
,
that
I
must
obey
God
rather
then
man
.
Answ.
The
law
of
nature
tyeth
us
to
obedience
in
acts
of
charity
,
yet
not
to
performe
these
acts
after
any
way
and
manner
,
in
a
meere
naturall
way
,
impetu
naturae
,
but
I
am
to
performe
acts
of
naturall
charity
in
a
rationall
and
prudent
way
,
and
in
looking
to
Gods
law
,
else
if
my
brother
or
father
were
justly
condemned
to
die
,
I
might
violently
deliver
him
out
of
the
Magistrates
hand
,
but
by
the
contrary
,
my
hand
should
be
first
on
him
,
without
naturall
compassion
.
As
if
my
brother
or
my
wife
have
been
a
blasphemer
of
God
,
Deut.
13.
6
,
7
,
8.
and
therefore
am
I
to
do
acts
naturall
,
as
a
wise
man
observing
(
as
Solomon
saith
Eccles.
8.
5.
)
both
time
and
judgement
.
Now
it
were
no
wisdom
for
one
private
man
to
hazard
his
own
life
,
by
attempting
to
rescue
an
innocent
brother
,
because
he
hath
not
strength
to
do
it
,
and
the
law
of
nature
obligeth
me
not
to
acts
of
charity
,
when
I
in
all
reason
,
see
them
unpossible
,
but
a
multitude
who
had
strength
did
well
to
rescue
innocent
Ionathan
out
of
the
hands
of
the
King
,
that
he
should
not
be
put
to
death
:
yet
one
man
was
not
tyed
by
the
law
of
nature
to
rescue
Ionathan
,
if
the
King
and
Prince
had
condemned
him
,
though
unjustly
.
2.
The
hoast
of
men
that
helped
David
against
King
Saul
,
1
Sam.
22.
2.
entered
in
a
lawfull
war
,
and
1
Chron.
12.
18.
Amasa
by
the
spirit
of
the
Lord
blesseth
his
helpers
,
peace
,
peace
be
unto
thee
,
and
peace
be
to
thy
helpers
,
for
thy
God
helpeth
the.
Ergo
,
Peace
must
be
to
the
Parliament
of
England
,
and
to
their
helpers
their
brethren
of
Scotland
.
3.
Numb.
32.
1.
2.
3.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Iosh.
1.
12.
13.
14.
The
children
of
Gad
,
and
of
Reuben
,
and
the
half
tribe
of
Manasseh
,
though
their
inheritance
fell
to
be
in
this
side
of
Iordan
,
yet
they
were
to
goe
over
the
river
armed
to
fight
for
their
brethren
,
while
they
had
also
possession
of
the
land
,
at
the
commandement
of
Moses
and
Joshua
.
4.
So
Saul
and
Israel
helped
the
men
of
Iabesh
Gilead
conjoyned
in
blood
with
them
,
against
Nahash
the
Ammonite
,
and
his
unjust
conditions
in
plucking
out
their
right
eyes
,
1
Sam.
11.
5.
Iephtha
Iudg.
12.
2.
justly
rebuketh
the
men
of
Ephraim
because
they
would
not
help
him
and
his
people
,
against
the
Ammonites
.
6.
If
the
communion
of
Saints
be
any
bound
,
that
England
and
we
have
one
Lord
,
one
faith
,
one
Baptisme
,
one
head
and
Saviour
Iesus
Christ
,
then
are
we
obliged
to
help
our
bleeding
sister
Church
,
against
these
same
common
enemies
Papists
and
Prelates
,
but
the
former
is
undenyably
true
,
for
1.
We
send
help
to
the
Rotchel
,
if
there
had
not
been
a
secret
betraying
of
our
brethren
,
we
send
help
to
the
recovery
of
the
Palatinate
,
and
the
aide
of
the
confederat
Princes
against
Babels
strength
and
power
,
and
that
lawfully
,
but
we
did
it
at
great
leisure
and
coldly
.
Q.
Elizabeth
helped
Holland
against
the
King
of
Spain
.
And
beside
the
union
in
Religion
.
1.
We
sayle
in
one
ship
together
,
being
in
one
Iland
,
under
one
King
;
and
now
by
the
mercy
of
God
,
have
sworne
one
Covenant
,
and
so
must
stand
or
fall
together
.
7.
We
are
obliged
by
the
union
betwixt
the
Kingdomes
concluded
to
be
by
the
Convention
of
the
Estates
of
Scotland
,
An.
1585.
at
the
desire
of
the
Generall
Assembly
,
1583.
to
joyne
forces
together
at
home
,
and
enter
in
League
with
Protestant
Princes
,
and
Estates
abroad
,
to
maintaine
the
Protestant
Religion
,
against
the
bloody
confederacy
of
Trent
;
and
accordingly
this
League
betweene
the
two
Crownes
was
subscribed
at
Berwick
,
An.
1586.
and
the
same
renewed
,
An.
1587
,
1588.
as
also
the
confession
of
Faith
subscribed
,
when
the
Spanish
Armado
was
on
our
coasts
.
8.
The
Law
of
God
,
commanding
that
we
love
our
neighbour
as
our selfe
,
and
therefore
to
defend
one
another
against
unjust
violence
.
l.
ut
vim.
ff.
de
just.
&
jur.
obligeth
us
to
the
same
,
except
we
thinke
God
can
be
pleased
with
lippe-love
in
word
onely
,
which
the
Spirit
of
God
condemneth
,
1
Ioh.
2.
9
,
10.
cap.
3.
16.
and
the
summe
of
Law
and
Prophets
,
is
that
as
we
would
nor
men
should
refuse
to
help
us
,
when
we
are
unjustly
oppressed
,
so
neither
would
we
so
serve
our
afflicted
brethren
.
l.
in
facto
ff.
de
cond.
&
demonstr.
§
Siuxor
.
Iustit
.
de
nupt.
9.
Every
man
is
a
keeper
of
his
brothers
life
,
there
is
a
voluntary
homicide
,
when
a
man
refuseth
food
or
physick
necessary
for
his
owne
life
,
and
refuseth
food
to
his
dying
brother
;
and
men
are
not
borne
for
themselves
.
And
when
the
King
defendeth
not
subjects
against
their
enemies
,
all
fellow-subjects
,
by
the
law
of
Nature
,
of
Nations
,
the
Civill
,
and
cannon
Law
,
have
a
naturall
priviledge
to
defend
one
another
,
and
are
mutuall
Magistrates
to
one
another
,
when
there
be
no
other
Magistrates
.
If
an
Army
of
Turks
or
Pagans
would
come
upon
Britaine
,
if
the
King
were
dead
,
as
he
is
civilly
dead
in
this
juncture
of
time
,
when
he
refuseth
to
helpe
his
subjects
,
one
part
of
Britaine
would
help
another
:
As
Iehoshaphat
King
of
Iudah
did
right
in
helping
Ahab
and
Israel
,
so
the
Lord
had
approved
of
the
warre
.
If
the
left
hand
be
wounded
,
and
the
left
eye
put
out
,
nature
teacheth
that
the
whole
burden
of
naturall
acts
is
devolved
on
the
other
hand
and
eye
,
and
;
so
are
they
obliged
to
helpe
one
another
.
10.
As
we
are
to
beare
one
anothers
burthens
,
and
to
help
our
enemies
,
to
compassionate
strangers
;
so
far
more
these
,
who
make
one
body
of
Christ
with
us
.
11.
Meroz
is
under
a
curse
,
who
helpeth
not
the
Lord
,
one
part
of
a
Church
another
.
A
woe
lieth
on
them
that
are
at
ease
in
Zion
,
and
helpeth
not
afflicted
Ioseph
,
so
farre
as
they
are
able
.
12.
The
law
of
Gratitude
obligeth
us
to
this
:
England
sent
an
Armie
to
free
both
our
soules
and
bodies
from
the
bondage
of
Popery
,
and
the
fury
of
the
French
,
upon
which
occasion
a
Parliament
at
Leith
,
Anno
1560.
established
Peace
and
Religion
,
and
then
after
they
helped
us
against
a
faction
of
Papists
,
in
our
owne
bosome
;
for
which
we
take
Gods
name
in
a
prayer
,
seeking
grace
never
to
forget
that
kindnesse
.
13.
When
Papists
in
Armes
,
had
undone
England
(
if
God
give
them
victory
)
they
should
next
fall
on
us
,
and
it
should
not
be
in
the
Kings
power
to
resist
them
.
When
our
enemies
within
two
dayes
journey
are
in
Armes
,
and
have
the
person
of
our
King
,
and
his
judgement
,
and
so
the
breathing
Law
of
the
two
Kingdomes
under
their
power
,
we
should
but
sleepe
to
be
killed
in
our
nest
,
if
we
did
not
arise
and
fight
for
King
,
Church
,
Countrey
,
and
Brethren
.
Object
.
By
these
and
the
like
grounds
,
when
the
Kings
Royall
Person
and
life
is
in
danger
,
he
may
use
Papists
as
subjects
,
not
as
Papists
in
his
owne
naturall
self-defence
.
Answ.
Hell
and
the
Devill
cannot
say
,
that
a
thought
was
in
any
heart
,
against
the
Kings
person
:
He
sleeped
in
Scotland
safe
,
and
at
Westminster
in
his
owne
Palace
,
when
the
Estates
of
both
Kingdomes
,
would
not
so
much
as
take
the
water-pot
from
his
bed-side
,
and
his
Speare
;
and
Satan
instilled
this
traiterous
lye
,
first
in
Prelates
,
then
in
Papists
.
2.
The
King
professeth
his
maintenance
of
the
true
Protestant
Religion
,
in
his
Declarations
,
since
he
tooke
Armes
;
but
if
Saul
had
put
Armes
in
the
hands
of
Baals
Priests
,
and
in
an
Armie
of
Sidonians
,
Philistims
,
Ammonites
,
professing
their
quarrell
against
Israel
was
not
to
defend
the
King
,
but
their
Dagon
and
false
gods
;
cleere
it
were
,
Sauls
Armie
should
not
stand
in
relation
of
helpers
of
the
Kings
,
but
of
advancers
of
their
owne
Religion
.
Now
Irish
Papists
and
English
in
Armes
,
presse
the
King
to
cancell
all
Lawes
against
Popery
,
and
make
Laws
for
the
free
liberty
of
Masse
,
and
the
full
power
of
Papists
,
then
the
King
must
use
Papists
as
Papists
in
these
warres
.
QUEST.
XXXVIII
.
Whether
Monarchy
be
the
best
of
governments
?
NOthing
more
unwillingly
doe
I
write
then
one
word
of
this
question
.
It
is
a
darke
way
;
circumstances
in
falne
nature
may
make
things
best
to
be
,
hic
&
nunc
,
evill
:
Though
to
me
it
is
probable
,
that
Monarchy
in
it selfe
,
2.
Monarchy
,
de
jure
,
that
is
,
lawfull
and
limited
Monarchy
is
best
;
even
now
in
a
Kingdome
,
under
the
fall
of
sin
,
if
other
circumstances
be
considered
.
But
observe
I
pray
you
,
1.
That
M.
Symmons
,
and
this
poore
Prelate
,
Loyall
subjects
beliefe
.
sect.
4.
pag.
7.
Sacr.
sanct.
Reg.
maj.
c.
2.
pag.
26.
27.
do
so
extoll
Monarchy
,
that
there
is
not
a
government
save
Monarchy
onely
,
all
other
governments
are
deviations
;
and
therefore
M.
Symmons
saith
,
pag.
8.
If
I
should
affect
another
government
then
Monarchy
,
I
should
neither
feare
God
,
nor
the
King
,
but
associate
my selfe
with
the
seditious
:
and
so
the
question
of
Monarchy
is
,
1.
Which
is
the
choisest
government
in
it selfe
;
or
,
which
is
the
choisest
government
in
policie
,
and
in
the
condition
of
man
falne
in
the
state
of
sinne
.
2.
Which
is
the
best
government
,
that
is
,
the
most
profitable
,
or
the
Assert
.
1.
An
absolute
and
unlimited
Monarchy
is
not
onely
not
Petty
Prelat
,
and
all
Royalists
.
My
reasons
be
these
,
1.
Because
it
is
an
unlawfull
Ordinance
,
and
God
never
ordained
it
;
and
I
cannot
ascribe
the
superlative
degree
to
any
thing
,
of
which
I
deny
the
positive
:
Absolute
government
in
a
sinfull
and
peccable
man
is
a
wicked
government
,
and
not
a
power
from
God
,
for
God
never
gave
a
power
to
sin
.
Plenitudo
potestatis
ad
malum
&
injuriam
non
extenditur
.
Sozenus
Iunior
cons
.
65.
in
causa
occurrenti
,
l.
2.
Ferdinand
.
Loazes
in
suo
cons.
pro
March
.
de
Velez
.
pag.
54.
n.
65.
And
so
that
learned
Senator
Ferdin
.
Vasquez
.
pag.
1.
lib.
1.
cap.
5.
n.
17.
2.
It
was
better
for
the
State
that
Epiminondas
could
not
King
Adam
,
are
inclined
to
sin
and
injustice
,
and
so
had
need
to
be
guided
by
a
Law
,
even
because
they
are
Kings
,
so
they
remaine
men
.
Omnipotency
in
one
that
can
sin
,
is
a
cursed
power
.
With
reason
all
our
Divines
say
,
the
state
of
saving
grace
in
the
second
Adam
,
where
there
is
non
posse
deficere
,
they
cannot
fall
away
from
God
,
is
better
then
the
first
Adam
,
where
there
was
posse
non
deficere
,
a
power
not
to
fall
away
;
and
that
our
free-will
is
better
in
our
countrey
in
Heaven
,
where
we
cannot
sin
,
then
in
the
way
to
our
countrey
on
earth
,
where
we
have
a
power
to
sin
,
and
so
Gods
people
is
in
a
better
case
,
Hos.
2.
6
,
7.
Where
her
power
to
overtake
her
lovers
is
closed
up
with
an
hedge
of
thornes
that
she
cannot
finde
her
paths
;
then
the
condition
of
Ephraim
,
of
whom
God
saith
,
Hos.
4.
17.
Ephraim
is
joyned
to
Idols
,
let
him
alone
.
So
cannot
that
be
a
good
government
when
the
supreme
power
is
in
a
sinfull
man
,
as
inclinable
to
injustice
by
nature
as
any
man
,
and
more
inclinable
to
injustice
by
the
condition
of
his
place
then
any
:
and
yet
by
office
he
is
one
that
can
doe
no
injustice
against
his
subjects
;
he
is
a
King
,
and
so
may
destroy
Vriah
,
kill
his
subjects
,
but
cannot
sinne
;
and
this
is
to
flattering
Royalists
the
best
government
in
the
world
.
As
if
an
unchained
Lion
were
the
best
governour
,
because
unchained
,
to
all
the
beasts
,
sheepe
and
lambs
and
all
others
,
which
with
his
teeth
and
pawes
he
may
reach
,
and
that
by
vertue
of
an
ordinance
of
God
.
3.
What
is
on
man
under
no
restraint
,
but
made
a
God
on
earth
,
and
so
drunk
with
the
graunder
of
a
sinning-God
,
here
under
the
Moone
and
Clouds
?
who
may
heare
good
counsell
,
from
men
of
his
owne
choosing
,
yet
is
under
no
restraint
of
Law
to
follow
it
,
being
the
supreme
power
absolute
,
high
,
mighty
,
and
an
impeccable
god
on
earth
:
Certainly
this
man
may
more
easily
erre
,
and
break
out
in
violent
acts
of
injustice
,
then
a
number
of
Rulers
,
grave
,
wise
,
under
a
Law
.
One
being
a
sinfull
man
,
shall
sooner
sin
and
turne
a
Nero
(
when
he
may
goe
to
hell
,
and
leade
thousands
to
hell
with
him
gratis
)
then
a
multitude
of
sinfull
men
,
who
have
lesse
power
to
doe
against
Law
:
and
a
tyrannous
killing
of
innocents
,
and
a
subversion
of
Lawes
,
Liberties
and
Religion
,
by
one
who
may
by
office
,
and
without
resistance
of
mortall
men
,
doe
all
ill
,
is
more
dangerous
and
hurtfull
,
then
division
and
fraction
incident
to
Aristocracy
.
4.
Caesar
is
great
,
but
Law
and
reason
is
greater
:
by
an
absolute
Monarchy
all
things
are
ruled
by
will
and
pleasure
above
Law
;
then
this
government
cannot
be
so
good
,
as
Law
and
Reason
in
a
government
by
the
best
,
or
by
many
.
5.
Under
absolute
Monarchy
a
free
people
is
,
actu
primo
,
and
in
themselves
inslaved
,
because
though
the
Monarch
so
absolute
should
kill
all
,
hee
cannot
be
controlled
;
there
is
no
more
but
flight
,
prayers
and
teares
remaining
,
and
what
greater
power
hath
a
Tyrant
?
none
at
all
,
so
may
we
say
.
An
absolute
Monarch
is
,
actu
primo
,
a
sleeping
Lion
,
and
a
Tyrant
is
a
waking
and
a
devouring
Lion
,
and
they
differ
in
accidents
onely
.
6.
This
is
the
Papists
way
,
Bellarmine
de
Pontif.
l.
1.
c.
1.
and
Sanderus
de
visibili
Monarchia
,
l.
3.
c.
3.
Turrere
in
sum
.
de
Eccles.
l.
2.
c.
2.
prove
that
the
government
of
the
Church
is
by
an
absolute
Monarch
and
Pope
,
because
that
is
the
best
government
,
which
yet
is
in
question
.
So
Royalists
prove
Common-wealths
must
be
best
governed
by
absolute
Monarchs
,
because
that
is
the
best
government
,
but
the
Law
saith
,
it
is
contrary
to
nature
,
even
though
people
should
paction
to
make
a
King
absolute
:
Conventio
procuratoria
ad
dilapidandum
&
dissipandum
juri
naturali
contraria
nulla
est
,
l.
filius
15.
de
cond.
lust
.
l.
Nepos
.
procul
125.
de
verb.
signif.
l.
188.
d.
tit
.
Assert
.
2.
Monarchy
in
its
latitude
as
heaven
and
earth
and
all
the
hoast
therein
are
Citizens
,
is
the
best
government
absolutely
,
because
Gods
immediate
government
must
be
best
,
but
that
other
governments
are
good
or
best
so
farre
as
they
come
neere
to
this
,
must
prove
that
there
is
a
Monarchy
in
Angels
,
if
there
be
a
government
,
and
a
Monarchy
amongst
Fishes
,
Beasts
,
Birds
,
&c.
and
that
,
if
Adam
had
never
sinned
there
should
be
one
Monarchy
amongst
all
mankinde
.
I
professe
I
have
no
eye
to
see
what
Government
could
be
in
that
State
,
but
paternall
,
or
maritall
;
and
by
this
reason
there
should
be
one
Catholique
Emperour
over
all
the
Kings
of
the
earth
;
A
position
holden
by
some
Papists
,
and
Interpreters
of
the
cannon
Law
,
which
maketh
all
the
Princes
of
the
earth
to
be
usurpers
,
except
these
who
acknowledge
a
Catholique
dominion
of
the
whole
earth
in
the
Emperour
,
to
whom
they
submit
themselves
as
Vassals
.
If
Kings
were
Gods
and
could
not
sin
,
and
just
as
Solomon
in
the
beginning
of
his
reigne
,
and
as
David
,
I
could
say
Monarchy
so
limited
must
be
better
then
Aristocracy
,
or
Democracy
.
1.
Because
it
is
farthest
from
injustice
,
neerest
to
peace
and
godlinesse
;
m.
l.
3.
§
.
aparet
.
ff.
de
administrat
.
tutor
.
l.
2.
§
.
novissime
.
ff.
de
Orig.
jur
.
Aristot
.
pol.
l.
8.
c.
10.
Bodin
.
de
Rep.
l.
6.
c.
4.
2.
Because
God
ordained
this
government
in
his
people
.
3.
By
experience
it
is
knowne
to
be
lesse
obnoxious
to
change
,
except
that
some
think
the
Venetian
Common-wealth
best
;
but
with
reverence
,
I
see
small
difference
betweene
a
King
,
and
the
Duke
of
Venice
.
Assert
.
3.
Every
government
hath
some
thing
wherein
it
is
best
.
Assert
.
4.
A
limited
and
mixed
Monarchy
,
such
as
is
in
Scotland
and
England
,
seeme
to
me
the
best
government
,
when
Parliaments
with
the
King
,
have
the
good
of
all
the
three
.
This
government
hath
,
1.
glory
,
order
,
unitie
from
a
Monarch
,
from
the
government
of
the
most
and
wisest
it
hath
safety
of
counsell
,
stability
,
strength
;
from
the
influence
of
the
Commons
,
it
hath
liberty
,
priviledges
.
promptitude
of
obedience
.
Object
.
1.
There
is
more
power
,
terrour
,
and
love
in
one
,
then
in
many
.
Answ.
Not
more
power
,
2.
terrour
cometh
from
sin
,
and
so
to
nature
fallen
in
sin
,
in
circumstances
a
Monarchy
is
best
.
Object
.
2.
It
is
more
convenient
to
nature
,
that
one
should
be
Lord
then
many
.
Answ.
To
sinlesse
nature
,
true
,
as
in
a
father
to
many
children
.
Object.
3
Monarchies
for
invention
of
counsels
,
execution
,
concealing
of
secrets
,
is
above
any
other
government
.
Answ.
That
is
in
some
particulars
,
because
sin
hath
brought
darknesse
on
us
;
so
are
we
all
dull
of
invention
,
slow
in
execution
,
and
by
reason
of
the
falsnesse
of
men
,
silence
is
needlesse
,
but
this
is
the
accidentary
state
of
nature
,
&
otherways
there
is
safety
in
a
multitude
of
counsellers
:
one
commanding
all
without
following
counsell
trusteth
in
his
own
heart
,
and
is
a
foole
.
Object
.
4.
A
Monarch
is
above
envy
,
because
he
hath
no
equall
.
Answ.
Grant
all
;
in
many
things
a
Monarchy
is
more
excellent
,
but
that
is
nothing
to
an
absolute
Monarchy
,
for
whom
Royalists
contend
.
Object
.
5.
In
a
multitude
there
be
more
fooles
then
wise
men
,
and
a
multitude
of
vices
,
and
little
vertue
is
in
many
.
Answ.
Meere
multitude
cannot
governe
in
either
Democracy
or
Aristocracy
,
for
then
all
should
be
rulers
,
and
none
ruled
,
but
many
eyes
see
more
th●n
one
,
by
accident
one
may
see
more
then
hundreds
,
but
accidents
are
not
rules
.
Object
.
6.
Monarchy
is
most
perfect
,
because
most
opposite
to
Anarchy
,
and
most
agreeable
to
nature
,
as
is
evident
in
Plants
,
Birds
,
Bees
.
Answ.
Government
of
sinlesse
nature
void
of
reason
,
as
in
birds
,
bees
,
is
weak
to
conclude
politique
civil
government
amongst
men
in
sin
,
and
especially
absolute
government
,
a
King-Bee
is
not
absolute
,
nor
a
King-Eagle
,
if
either
destroy
its
fellowes
,
by
nature
all
rise
and
destroy
their
King
.
2.
A
King-Bee
doth
not
act
by
counsell
borrowed
from
fellow
Bees
as
a
King
must
do
,
and
communication
of
counsels
lesseneth
absolutenesse
of
a
man
.
2.
I
see
not
how
a
Monarchy
is
more
opposite
to
Anarchy
and
confusion
,
then
other
governments
,
a
Monarch
as
one
,
is
more
opposite
to
a
multitude
,
as
many
;
but
there
is
no
lesse
order
in
Aristocracy
then
in
Monarchy
:
for
a
government
essentially
includeth
order
of
commanding
and
subjection
.
Now
one
is
not
,
for
absolutenesse
,
more
contrary
to
Anarchy
then
many
,
for
that
one
now
who
can
easily
slip
from
a
King
to
a
Tyrant
,
cannot
have
a
negative
voice
in
acts
of
justice
,
for
then
should
he
have
a
legall
power
to
oppose
justice
,
and
so
for
his
absolutenesse
he
should
be
most
contrary
to
order
of
justice
,
and
a
Monarch
because
absolute
,
should
be
a
door-neighbour
to
disorder
and
confusion
.
Object
.
But
the
Parliament
hath
no
power
to
deny
their
voices
to
things
just
,
or
to
crosse
the
law
of
God
,
more
then
the
King
.
Answ.
It
is
true
,
neither
of
them
hath
a
negative
voice
against
law
and
reason
,
but
if
the
Monarch
by
his
exorbitant
power
may
deny
justice
,
he
may
by
that
same
legall
power
do
all
injustice
;
and
so
there
is
no
absolutenesse
in
either
.
Object
.
Who
should
then
punish
and
coerce
the
Parliament
in
the
case
of
exorbitance
?
Answ.
Posterior
Parliaments
.
Object
.
Posterior
Parliaments
and
people
both
may
erre
.
Answ.
All
is
true
,
God
must
remedy
that
onely
.
QUEST.
XXXIX
.
Whether
or
no
any
Prerogative
at
all
above
the
law
be
due
to
the
King
?
or
if
jura
Majestatis
be
any
such
Prerogative
Royall
?
I
Conceive
Kings
are
conceived
to
have
a
threefold
supreme
power
.
Strictly
absolute
,
to
do
what
they
please
,
their
will
being
simply
a
law
;
this
is
Tyranicall
,
some
Kings
have
it
,
de
facto
,
ex
consuetudine
,
but
by
a
divine
law
none
have
it
;
I
doubt
if
any
have
it
by
a
human
positive
law
,
except
the
great
Turk
,
and
the
King
of
Spaine
over
his
conquest
without
the
borders
of
Europe
,
and
some
few
other
conquerours
.
There
is
another
2.
power
limited
to
Gods
law
,
the
due
proper
right
of
Kings
,
Deut.
17.
18.
19.
20.
There
is
3.
a
potest
as
intermedia
,
a
middle
power
,
not
so
vast
as
that
which
is
absolute
and
tyrannicall
,
which
yet
is
some
way
humane
:
this
I
take
Iurists
call
jus
regium
,
lex
regia
,
jura
Regalia
regis
,
Cicero
Royall
priviledges
are
such
common
and
high
dignities
,
as
no
one
particular
magistrate
can
have
,
seeing
they
are
common
to
all
the
kingdom
,
as
that
Cesar
only
should
coyne
money
in
his
own
name
.
Hence
the
penny
given
to
Christ
,
because
it
had
Cesars
image
and
superscription
.
Math.
22.
20
,
21.
Infer
by
way
of
argumentation
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
give
therefore
tribute
to
Cesar
,
as
his
due
,
so
the
Magazine
and
Armory
for
the
safety
of
the
Kingdom
is
in
the
Kings
hand
,
the
King
hath
the
like
of
these
priviledges
,
because
he
is
the
common
,
supreame
,
publick
officer
and
Minister
of
God
for
the
good
of
the
whole
Kingdom
,
and
amongst
these
Royall
priviledges
,
I
reckon
that
power
that
is
given
to
the
King
,
when
he
is
made
King
,
to
do
many
things
without
warrant
of
the
letter
of
the
law
,
without
the
expresse
consent
of
his
counsell
,
which
he
cannot
alwayes
carry
about
with
him
,
as
the
law
saith
.
The
King
shall
not
raise
armes
without
consent
of
the
Parliament
,
but
if
an
army
of
Irish
,
or
Danes
,
or
Spanyards
should
suddenly
land
in
Scotland
,
he
hath
power
without
a
formally
conveened
Parliament
,
to
command
them
all
to
rise
in
armes
against
these
invaders
,
and
defend
themselves
,
this
power
no
inferiour
Magistrate
hath
as
he
is
,
but
such
a
Magistrate
.
And
in
many
such
exigences
,
when
the
necessity
of
justice
or
grace
requireth
an
extemporall
exposition
of
Lawes
,
Prorenat●
,
for
present
necessary
execution
,
some
say
onely
the
Emperour
,
others
all
Kings
have
these
priviledges
.
I
am
of
the
minde
of
Arnisaeus
,
that
these
priviledges
are
not
rewards
he
createth
Marquesses
,
Dukes
,
&c.
and
Nobles
,
constituteth
Magistrates
,
not
because
of
His
Royall
Dignity
,
but
by
reason
of
his
absolute
power
,
for
many
Princes
have
supreame
power
,
and
cannot
make
Nobles
,
and
therefore
to
him
they
are
jura
majestatis
,
non
jura
potestatis
.
But
1.
The
King
,
suppose
a
limited
King
,
may
and
ought
to
make
nobles
,
for
he
may
conferre
honours
as
a
reward
of
An
excellent
spirit
was
in
him
:
and
in
Justice
the
King
could
nobilitate
none
,
rather
then
Daniel
,
except
he
should
fail
against
the
rule
of
conferring
honours
.
It
is
acknowledged
by
all
,
that
honos
est
proemium
virtutis
,
honour
is
founded
upon
vertue
,
and
therefore
Darius
did
not
this
out
of
his
absolute
Majesty
,
but
as
King
.
2.
All
Kings
as
Kings
,
and
by
a
Divine
Law
of
God
,
and
so
by
no
absolutenesse
of
Majesty
,
are
to
make
men
of
wisdome
,
fearing
God
,
hating
covetousnesse
,
Judges
under
them
,
Deut.
1.
13.
2
Chro.
19.
6
,
7.
Psal.
101.
6
,
7
,
8.
3.
If
we
suppose
a
King
to
be
limited
as
Gods
King
is
Deut.
17.
18
,
19
,
20.
Yet
is
it
his
part
to
confer
honours
upon
the
worthiest
.
Now
if
he
have
no
absolutenesse
of
Majesty
,
he
cannot
confer
honours
out
of
a
principle
that
is
none
at
all
,
unum
quodque
sicut
est
,
ita
operatur
,
and
if
the
people
confer
honours
,
then
must
Royalists
grant
that
there
is
an
absolute
Majesty
in
the
people
,
why
then
may
they
not
derive
Majesty
to
a
King
?
and
why
then
do
Royalists
talk
to
us
of
Gods
immediate
creating
of
Kings
,
without
any
interveening
action
of
the
people
?
4.
By
this
absolutnesse
of
Majesty
,
Kings
may
play
the
Tyrant
as
Samuel
1
Sam.
8.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12
,
13
,
14.
foretelleth
Saul
would
do
.
But
I
cannot
beleeve
that
Kngs
have
the
same
very
officiall
absolute
power
,
from
whence
they
do
both
acts
of
grace
,
goodnesse
and
justice
,
such
as
are
to
expone
Laws
extemporally
in
extraordinary
cases
,
to
confer
honours
upon
good
and
excellent
men
of
grace
to
pardon
offenders
upon
good
grounds
,
and
also-doe
acts
of
extreme
Tyrannie
:
For
out
of
the
same
fountaine
doth
not
proceed
both
sweet
water
and
bitter
.
Then
by
this
absolutenesse
,
Kings
cannot
doe
acts
of
goodnesse
,
justice
and
grace
,
and
so
they
must
doe
good
as
Kings
,
and
they
must
doe
acts
of
tyrannie
,
as
men
,
not
from
absolutenesse
of
majesty
.
5.
Inferiour
Magistrates
,
in
whom
there
is
no
absolutenesse
of
Majesty
,
according
to
Royalists
,
way
,
may
expound
laws
also
extemporally
,
and
doe
acts
of
justice
,
without
formalities
of
civill
or
municipall
laws
,
so
they
keep
the
genuine
intent
of
the
Law
,
as
they
may
pardon
one
that
goeth
up
to
the
wall
of
a
City
,
and
discovereth
the
approach
of
the
enemie
,
when
the
watchmen
are
sleeping
,
though
the
Law
be
,
That
any
ascending
to
the
wall
of
the
Citie
shall
die
.
Also
the
inferiour
Judge
may
make
Judges
and
Deputies
under
himselfe
.
6.
This
Distinction
is
neither
grounded
upon
Reason
or
Lawes
,
nor
on
any
Word
of
God
.
Not
the
former
,
as
is
proved
before
,
for
there
is
no
absolute
power
in
a
King
to
do
above
,
or
against
law
;
all
the
officiall
power
that
a
King
hath
,
is
a
Royall
power
to
do
good
,
for
the
safety
and
good
of
his
subjects
,
and
that
according
to
law
and
reason
,
and
there
is
no
other
power
given
to
a
King
as
a
King
,
and
for
Scripture
Arnisaeus
,
ibid.
alledgeth
1
Sam.
8.
The
manner
or
law
of
the
King
.
ver.
9.
11.
And
he
saith
,
it
cannot
be
the
custome
and
manner
of
the
King
,
but
must
be
the
law
of
absolute
Majesty
.
1.
Because
it
was
the
manner
of
inferiour
judges
,
as
Tyberius
said
of
his
judges
,
to
flea
the
people
,
when
they
were
commanded
to
shear
them
onely
.
2.
Samuels
sons
who
wrested
judgment
and
perverted
the
law
,
had
this
manner
and
custome
to
oppresse
the
people
,
as
did
the
sons
of
Eli
:
and
therefore
without
reason
is
it
called
the
law
of
Kings
,
jus
regum
,
if
it
was
the
law
of
the
judges
,
for
if
all
this
law
be
Tyrannicall
and
but
an
abuse
of
Kingly
power
,
the
same
law
may
agree
to
all
other
Magistrates
,
who
by
the
same
unjust
power
may
abuse
their
power
,
but
Samuel
(
as
Brentius
observeth
homi
.
27.
in
1
Sam.
in
princ
.
)
doth
meane
here
a
greater
license
then
Kings
can
challenge
,
if
at
any
time
they
would
make
use
of
their
plenitude
of
absolute
power
,
and
therefore
,
nomine
juris
,
by
the
word
[
law
]
here
he
understandeth
a
power
granted
by
law
,
jure
,
or
right
to
the
King
,
but
pernitious
to
the
people
,
which
Gregory
calleth
jus
regium
Tyrannorum
,
the
Royall
law
of
Tyrants
.
—
So
Seneca
1
de
clem
.
c.
11.
hoc
interest
inter
regem
&
Tyrannum
,
Species
ipsa
fortunae
ac
licentiae
par
est
,
nisi
quod
Tyranni
ex
volutate
saeviunt
,
Reges
non
nisi
ex
causa
&
necessitate
?
quid
ergo
?
non
Reges
quoque
accidere
solent
?
sed
quoties
fieri
publica
utilitas
persuadet
,
Tirannis
saevitia
cordi
est
.
A
Tyran
(
saith
Arnisaeus
)
in
this
differeth
from
a
King
,
Qui
ne
ea
quidem
vult
,
quae
sibi
licent
,
that
a
King
will
not
do
these
things
which
are
lawfull
;
a
Tyran
doth
quae
libet
,
what
he
pleaseth
to
do
.
Answ.
Arnisaeus
bewrayeth
his
ignorance
in
the
Scriptures
,
for
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
a
custome
,
and
a
wicked
custome
,
as
by
It
is
the
manner
of
inferiour
judges
,
as
we
see
in
the
sons
of
Eli
,
and
Samuel
,
to
pervert
judgment
,
as
well
as
King
Saul
did
,
but
the
King
may
more
oppresse
,
and
his
Tyranny
hath
more
colour
,
and
is
more
catholick
then
the
oppression
of
inferiour
judges
,
it
is
not
Samuels
purpose
thus
to
distinguish
the
judges
of
Israel
and
the
kings
,
in
that
the
judges
had
no
power
granted
them
of
God
to
oppresse
,
because
the
people
might
judge
their
judges
and
resist
them
,
and
there
was
power
given
of
God
to
the
king
,
so
far
to
play
the
Tyrant
,
that
no
man
could
resist
him
,
or
say
,
what
dost
thou
?
the
text
will
not
beare
any
such
difference
,
for
it
was
as
unlawfull
to
resist
Moses
,
Ioshua
,
Samuel
,
as
Royalists
prove
from
the
judgement
of
God
that
came
upon
Core
,
Dathan
and
Abiram
,
as
to
resist
King
Saul
and
King
David
,
Royalists
doubt
not
to
make
Moses
a
King
.
It
was
also
no
lesse
sin
to
resist
Samuels
sons
,
or
to
do
violence
to
their
persons
,
as
judging
for
the
Lord
,
and
sent
by
the
supreme
judge
their
father
Samuel
,
then
it
was
sin
to
resist
many
inferiour
Judges
that
were
Lyons
,
and
even
Wolves
under
the
Kings
of
Israel
and
Iudah
,
so
they
judged
for
the
Lord
,
and
as
sent
by
the
Supreme
Magistrate
;
But
the
difference
was
in
this
,
that
judges
were
extraordinarily
raised
up
of
God
out
of
any
tribe
,
as
he
pleased
,
and
were
beleevers
,
Heb.
11.
32.
Saved
by
faith
,
and
so
used
not
their
power
to
oppresse
the
people
,
though
inferiour
judges
,
as
the
sons
of
Eli
and
of
Samuel
perverted
judgment
,
2.
They
were
hereditary
,
judges
not
so
.
3.
They
were
made
and
chosen
by
the
people
,
Deut.
17.
14.
15.
1
Sam.
10.
17
,
18
,
19
,
20.
2
Sam.
5.
1
,
2
,
3.
as
were
the
Kings
of
the
nations
,
and
the
first
King
(
though
a
King
be
the
lawfull
ordinance
of
God
)
was
sought
from
God
in
a
sinfull
imitation
of
the
nations
,
1
Sam.
8.
19
,
20.
and
therefore
were
not
of
Gods
peculiar
election
,
as
the
judges
,
and
so
they
were
wicked
men
,
and
many
of
them
,
yea
all
for
the
most
part
,
did
evil
in
the
sight
of
the
Lord
,
and
their
law
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
their
manner
and
custome
was
to
oppresse
the
people
,
and
so
were
their
inferiour
judges
little
Tyrants
,
and
lesser
Lyons
,
Leopards
,
evening
Wolves
.
Ezech.
22.
27.
Mic.
3.
1
,
2
,
3.
Esa.
3.
14
,
15.
And
the
Kings
and
inferiour
judges
are
onely
distinguished
,
de
facto
,
that
the
King
was
a
more
Catholick
oppressour
,
and
the
old
Lyon
,
and
so
had
more
art
and
power
to
catch
the
prey
then
the
inferiour
judges
who
were
but
whelps
,
and
had
lesse
power
,
but
all
were
oppressors
(
some
few
excepted
,
and
Samuel
speaketh
of
that
which
Saul
was
to
be
,
de
facto
,
not
de
jure
,
and
the
most
part
of
the
Kings
after
him
)
and
this
Tyranny
is
well
called
jus
regis
,
the
manner
of
the
King
,
and
not
the
manner
of
the
judges
,
because
it
had
not
been
the
practice
,
custome
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
the
beleeving
judges
,
before
Sauls
Reigne
,
and
while
God
was
his
peoples
King
,
1
Sam.
8.
7.
to
oppresse
.
3.
We
grant
that
all
other
inferiour
judges
after
the
people
cast
off
Gods
government
,
and
in
imitation
of
the
nations
,
would
have
a
King
,
were
also
lesser
Tyrants
,
as
the
King
was
a
greater
Tyrant
,
and
that
was
a
punishment
of
their
rejecting
God
and
Samuel
to
be
their
King
and
judge
.
4.
How
shall
Arnisaeus
prove
that
this
manner
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
the
King
was
potestas
concessa
,
a
power
granted
,
I
hope
,
granted
of
God
;
and
not
an
abuse
of
Kingly
power
,
for
then
he
and
Royalists
must
say
,
that
all
the
acts
of
Tyranny
ascribed
to
King
Saul
,
1
Sam.
8.
11
,
12
,
13
,
14.
by
reason
of
which
they
did
cry
out
,
and
complaine
to
God
because
of
their
oppression
,
was
no
abuse
of
power
given
to
Saul
.
Ergo
,
it
was
an
use
and
a
lawfull
use
of
power
given
of
God
to
their
King
,
for
there
is
no
medium
or
mids
betwixt
a
lawfull
power
used
in
morall
acts
,
and
a
lawfull
power
abused
,
and
indeed
Arnisaeus
so
distinguisheth
a
King
and
a
Tyrant
,
that
he
maketh
them
all
one
in
nature
and
spece
.
He
saith
,
a
Tyrant
doth
quod
licet
,
that
which
by
Law
he
may
do
,
and
a
King
doth
not
these
things
,
quae
licent
,
which
by
Law
he
may
do
,
but
so
to
me
it
is
clear
,
a
Tyrant
acting
as
a
Tyrant
,
must
act
according
to
this
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
law
of
the
King
,
and
that
which
is
lawfull
,
and
a
King
acting
as
a
King
and
not
doing
these
things
that
are
lawfull
,
must
sin
against
his
office
,
and
the
power
that
God
hath
given
to
him
,
which
were
to
commend
and
praise
the
Tyrant
,
and
to
condemne
and
dispraise
the
King
.
3.
If
this
Law
of
the
King
be
a
permissive
Law
of
God
,
which
the
king
may
out
of
his
absolute
enesse
,
put
inexecution
to
oppress●
the
people
,
such
as
the
law
of
a
bill
of
divorcement
,
as
Arnisaeus
,
Barcklay
,
and
other
Royalists
say
,
then
must
God
have
given
a
Law
to
every
King
to
play
the
Tyrant
,
because
of
the
hardnesse
of
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
immutable
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
,
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
scelere
,
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
contrary
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
●lockes
.
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
asserteth
the
Kings
Royall
Dominion
over
persons
and
things
,
that
must
be
the
Law
of
Gods
approving
,
not
his
permiting
evil
,
but
this
is
such
a
Law
as
Arnisaeus
saith
.
2.
The
text
speaketh
of
no
Law
or
lawful
power
,
or
of
any
absolutenesse
of
King
Saul
;
but
of
his
wicked
custome
,
and
his
rapine
and
Tyranny
,
He
will
take
your
sons
,
your
daughters
,
your
fields
,
and
your
vineyards
from
you
.
Saul
took
not
these
through
any
power
of
dominion
by
Law
,
but
by
meere
Tyranny
.
3.
I
have
before
cleared
that
the
subjects
have
a
propriety
,
and
an
use
also
,
else
how
could
we
be
obliged
by
vertue
of
the
fift
commandement
to
pay
tribute
to
the
King
,
Rom.
13.
7.
for
that
which
we
pay
,
was
as
much
the
Kings
before
we
payed
,
as
when
we
have
paied
it
.
4.
Arnisaeus
saith
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
bath
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
a
faculty
to
use
a
thing
as
you
please
,
except
you
be
hindered
by
force
,
or
by
Law
.
Iustin
.
tit.
c.
de
legibus
in
l.
digna
vox
.
&c.
So
have
I
a
dominion
over
my
own
garments
,
house
,
money
,
to
use
them
for
uses
not
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
God
,
and
man
,
but
I
may
not
lay
my
corne
field
wast
that
it
shall
neither
bear
grass●
nor
corne
,
the
King
may
hinder
that
,
because
it
is
a
hurt
to
the
publique
:
but
the
King
as
Lord
and
Soveraigne
hath
no
such
dominion
over
Naboths
vi●eyard
.
How
the
King
is
lord
of
all
goods
,
ratione
jurisdictionis
,
&
tuitionis
se
.
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
justitia
&
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
de
facto
,
required
coaction
for
the
performance
thereof
,
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
●
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
consociation
;
(
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
Israel
,
2
Sam.
5.
1
,
2
,
3.
and
between
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
,
●●●ugh
both
be
independent
,
yet
hath
the
wronged
nation
a
coactive
power
,
de
jure
(
by
accident
,
because
they
are
weaker
,
they
want
strength
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
the
words
of
thy
mouth
,
&
art
taken
with
the
words
of
thy
mouth
.
But
whence
is
it
that
a
man
free
is
now
snared
as
a
beast
in
a
gin
or
trap
?
Certainly
Solomon
saith
it
is
by
a
word
and
striking
of
hands
,
by
a
word
of
promise
and
covenant
.
Now
the
Creditor
hath
coactive
power
,
though
he
be
an
equall
or
an
inferiour
to
the
man
who
is
surety
,
even
by
Law
to
force
him
to
pay
,
and
the
Judge
is
obliged
to
give
his
coactive
power
to
the
Creditor
,
that
he
may
force
the
surety
to
pay
.
Hence
it
is
cleare
that
a
Covenant
maketh
a
free
man
under
the
coactive
power
of
law
to
an
equall
and
to
weaker
,
and
the
stronger
is
by
the
law
of
fraternity
to
help
the
weaker
,
with
his
coactive
power
,
to
cause
the
superiour
fulfill
his
covenant
.
If
then
the
King
(
giving
,
and
not
granting
,
he
were
superiour
to
his
whole
Kingdome
)
come
under
a
covenant
to
them
,
to
seek
their
good
,
not
his
owne
,
to
defend
true
Protestant
Religion
,
they
have
power
to
compell
him
to
keep
his
covenant
,
and
Scotland
(
if
the
King
be
stronger
then
England
,
and
break
his
covenant
to
them
)
is
obliged
by
Gods
law
,
Prov.
24.
11.
to
adde
their
forces
and
coactive
power
to
help
their
brethren
of
England
.
3.
The
Law
shall
warrant
to
loose
the
vassal
from
the
Lord
,
when
the
Lord
hath
broken
his
covenant
.
Hippolitus
in
l.
Si
quis
viduam
col.
5.
&
dixit
de
quest.
l.
Si
quis
major
.
41.
&
161.
Bartol.
n.
41.
The
Magdeburgens
.
in
libel
.
de
offic.
magistrat
.
Imperatores
&
reges
esse
primarios
vasallos
imperii
,
&
regni
,
&
proinde
si
feloniam
contra
imperium
aut
regnum
committant
,
fewdo
privari
,
proinde
ut
alios
vasallos
.
Arnisaeus
q.
6.
An
princeps
qui
jurat
subditis
,
&c.
n.
2.
saith
,
This
occasioneth
confusion
and
sedition
.
The
Egyptians
(
saith
he
)
cast
off
P●olomeus
,
because
he
affected
too
much
the
name
of
a
King
of
the
Romans
his
own
friend
,
Dion
.
l.
9.
The
States
punished
Archidanius
because
he
married
a
wife
of
a
low
stature
,
Plutarch
.
in
Ages
.
in
pris
.
The
ancient
Burgundions
thought
it
cause
enough
to
expell
their
King
,
if
matters
went
not
well
in
the
State
,
Marcel
.
l.
27.
The
Goths
in
Spain
gave
no
other
cause
of
expelling
their
King
,
nisi
quod
sibi
displiceret
,
because
he
displeased
them
.
Aimon
.
l.
2.
c.
20.
l.
4.
c.
35.
Ans.
All
these
are
not
to
be
excused
in
people
,
but
neither
every
abuse
of
power
in
a
King
exautorateth
a
King
,
nor
every
abuse
in
people
,
can
make
null
their
power
.
Arnisaeus
maketh
three
kinds
of
oathes
:
the
first
is
,
when
the
King
and
he
denyeth
that
this
is
an
oath
of
fidelitie
,
or
by
paction
or
covenant
made
to
the
Pope
or
Clergie
,
he
saith
it
is
onely
on
oath
of
protection
,
nor
doth
the
King
receive
the
Crown
from
the
Pope
or
Clergie
.
Answ.
1.
Arnisaeus
divideth
oathes
that
are
to
be
conjoyned
,
we
read
not
that
Kings
sweare
to
defend
Religion
in
one
oath
,
and
to
administrate
judgement
and
justice
in
another
:
for
David
made
not
two
Covenants
,
but
onely
one
with
all
Israel
.
2.
The
King
was
not
King
while
he
did
swear
this
oath
,
and
therefore
it
must
be
a
pactionall
oath
between
him
and
the
Kingdom
,
and
it
is
true
the
King
receiveth
not
a
Crown
from
the
Church
,
yet
David
received
a
Crowne
from
the
Church
,
for
this
end
,
to
feed
the
Lords
people
,
and
so
conditionally
.
Papir
Masse
l.
3.
Chron.
Gal.
saith
,
The
king
Deut.
17.
ver.
17
,
18.
2
Sam.
5.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
2
Kings
11.
17
,
18.
Arnisaeus
maketh
a
second
oath
of
absolute
Kings
,
who
sweare
they
shall
raigne
according
to
equitie
and
justice
;
and
he
saith
,
There
is
no
need
of
this
oath
,
a
promise
is
enough
,
for
an
oath
encreaseth
not
the
obligation
.
L.
fin
.
de
non
num.
pec
.
Onelie
it
addeth
the
bound
of
Religion
,
for
there
is
no
use
of
an
oath
,
where
there
is
no
paction
of
law
against
him
that
sweareth
,
if
he
violate
his
oath
.
There
followeth
onelie
the
punishment
of
Perjurie
.
And
the
word
of
a
Prince
is
as
good
as
his
oath
,
onelie
he
condescendeth
to
sweare
to
please
the
people
,
out
of
indulgence
,
not
out
of
necessitie
.
And
the
King
doth
not
therefore
sweare
because
he
is
made
King
,
but
because
he
is
made
King
he
sweareth
.
And
he
is
not
King
because
he
is
crowned
,
but
he
is
crowned
because
he
is
King
.
Where
the
Crowne
goeth
by
succession
,
the
King
never
dieth
;
and
he
is
King
by
nature
before
he
be
crowned
.
Answ.
1.
This
oath
is
the
very
first
oath
spoken
of
before
,
included
in
the
covenant
that
the
King
maketh
with
the
people
,
2
Sam
▪
5.
2
,
3
,
4.
For
absolute
Princes
,
by
Arnisaeus
his
grant
,
doth
swear
to
do
the
duties
of
a
King
,
as
Bodinus
maketh
the
oath
of
France
,
de
Rep.
l.
1.
c.
8.
Iuro
ego
,
per
deum
,
ac
promitto
me
justè
regnaturum
judicium
,
equitatem
,
ac
misericordiam
facturum
.
And
papir
.
Mass
.
l.
3.
Chron.
hath
the
same
expresly
in
the
particulars
.
And
by
this
a
King
sweareth
he
shall
not
be
absolute
,
and
if
he
swear
this
oath
,
he
bindeth
himself
not
to
governe
by
the
Law
of
the
King
,
whereby
he
may
play
the
Tyrant
as
Saul
did
,
1
Sam.
8.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12
,
&c.
As
all
Royalists
expound
the
place
.
2.
It
is
but
a
poor
evasion
to
distinguish
betwixt
the
Kings
promise
that
an
oath
adeth
nothing
to
a
contract
and
promise
,
but
onely
it
laies
on
a
religious
tie
before
God
,
yet
so
as
consequently
,
if
the
contractor
violate
both
promise
and
oath
,
he
cometh
under
the
guilt
of
perjury
,
which
a
law
of
men
may
punish
.
Now
that
a
covenant
bringeth
the
King
under
a
politique
obligation
,
as
well
as
an
oath
is
already
proved
,
and
farther
confirmed
by
Gal.
3.
15.
Though
it
be
a
mans
testament
or
covenant
,
no
man
disanulleth
and
addeth
thereunto
;
No
man
even
by
mans
law
can
anull
a
confirmed
covenant
,
and
therefore
the
man
that
made
the
covenant
bringeth
himself
under
law
to
fulfill
his
own
covenant
;
and
so
must
the
King
put
himself
under
mens
law
,
by
a
covenant
at
his
Coronation
.
Yea
and
David
is
reputed
by
Royallists
,
an
absolute
Prince
,
yet
he
cometh
under
a
covenant
before
he
be
made
King
.
3.
It
is
but
a
weak
reason
to
say
,
that
an
oath
is
needlesse
,
where
no
action
of
law
can
be
against
the
King
who
sweareth
,
if
it
have
any
strength
of
reason
.
I
retort
it
,
a
legall
and
solemne
promise
then
is
needlesse
also
,
for
there
is
no
action
of
law
against
a
King
(
as
Royalists
teach
)
if
he
violate
his
promise
.
So
then
King
David
needlesly
made
a
Covenant
with
the
people
at
his
Coronation
;
for
though
David
should
turne
as
bloody
an
enemie
to
the
Church
as
Nero
or
Iulian
,
the
people
have
no
Law-action
against
David
;
and
why
then
did
Ieremiah
seek
an
oath
of
the
King
of
Iudah
,
that
he
would
not
kill
him
,
nor
deliver
him
into
the
hands
of
his
enemies
?
and
why
did
David
seek
an
oath
of
Ionathan
?
It
is
not
like
Ieremiah
and
David
could
have
law-action
against
a
King
and
a
Kings
son
,
if
they
should
violate
the
oath
of
God
.
And
farther
,
it
is
a
begging
of
the
question
,
to
say
that
the
States
can
have
no
action
against
the
king
,
if
he
should
violate
his
oath
.
Hugo
Grotius
putteth
seven
cases
in
1.
They
may
punish
the
King
to
death
,
for
matters
capitall
,
if
so
it
2.
He
may
be
punished
as
a
private
man
.
3.
If
the
King
make
away
a
Kingdome
given
to
him
by
succession
,
his
act
is
null
,
and
he
may
be
resisted
,
because
the
Kingdome
is
a
life-rent
onely
to
him
.
Yea
saith
Barclay
,
He
loseth
the
Crown
.
4.
He
loseth
his
Kingdom
,
if
with
a
hostile
mind
he
se●k
the
destruction
of
the
Kingdome
.
5.
If
such
a
clause
be
put
in
,
that
if
he
commit
felonie
,
or
doe
such
oppressions
,
the
Subjects
shall
be
loosed
from
the
bonds
of
subjection
;
then
the
King
failing
thus
,
turneth
a
private
man
.
6.
If
the
King
have
the
one
halfe
or
part
of
the
Kingdome
,
and
the
people
or
Senate
the
other
halfe
;
if
the
King
prey
upon
that
half
which
is
not
his
owne
,
he
may
violently
be
resisted
,
for
in
so
farre
he
hath
not
the
Empire
.
7.
If
when
the
Crowne
was
given
,
this
be
declared
,
that
in
some
cases
he
may
be
resisted
;
then
some
naturall
liberty
is
free
from
the
Kings
power
,
and
reserved
in
the
peoples
hand
.
It
is
then
reason
that
the
King
sweare
an
oath
.
4.
That
the
Kings
oath
is
but
a
ceremonie
to
please
the
people
,
and
that
because
he
is
king
,
and
king
by
birth
;
therefore
he
sweareth
,
and
is
crowned
,
is
in
question
,
and
denyed
.
No
man
is
borne
a
king
,
as
no
man
is
borne
a
subject
,
and
because
the
people
maketh
him
King
,
therefore
he
is
to
swear
.
The
councel
of
Toledo
saith
,
non
antea
conscendat
regiam
sedem
quam
iuret
.
2
An
oath
is
a
religious
obligation
,
no
arbitrary
ceremony
.
3.
He
may
swear
in
his
cabinet
chamber
,
not
covenanting
with
the
people
,
as
David
and
Iehoash
did
.
4.
So
he
Object
.
Arnisaeus
saith
,
a
contract
cannot
be
dissolved
in
law
,
but
by
consent
of
two
parties
contracting
,
because
both
are
obliged
.
l.
ab
emptione
58.
in
pr.
de
pact
.
l.
3.
de
rescind
.
vend
.
l.
80.
de
solu
.
Therefore
if
the
subjects
go
from
the
covenant
,
that
they
have
made
to
be
loyall
to
the
King
,
they
ought
to
be
punished
.
Answ.
A
contract
,
the
conditions
whereof
are
violated
,
by
neither
side
,
cannot
be
dissolved
,
but
by
the
joynt
consent
of
both
;
and
in
buying
and
selling
,
and
in
all
contracts
unviolated
,
the
sole
wil
of
neither
side
can
violate
the
contract
,
of
this
speaketh
the
law
.
But
I
ask
the
Royalist
,
if
the
contract
betwixt
the
spies
sent
to
view
Iericho
and
Rahab
the
harlot
,
had
not
been
null
,
and
the
spies
free
from
any
obligation
,
if
Rahab
had
neglected
to
keep
within
doors
,
when
Iericho
was
taken
,
though
Rahab
and
the
spies
had
never
consented
expresly
to
break
the
covenant
?
We
h●ld
that
the
law
saith
with
us
,
that
vassals
lose
their
farme
,
if
they
pay
not
what
is
due
:
Now
what
are
Kings
but
vassals
to
the
State
,
who
if
they
turne
Tyrants
,
fall
Arnisaeus
saith
in
the
councell
of
Toledo
4.
c.
74.
The
subjects
ask
from
the
King
,
that
Kings
would
be
meek
and
just
,
not
upon
the
ground
of
a
voluntarie
Contract
and
Paction
,
but
because
God
shall
rejoice
in
King
and
People
,
by
so
doing
.
Answ.
These
two
do
no
more
fight
one
with
another
,
then
that
two
Marchants
should
keep
faith
one
to
another
,
both
because
God
hath
said
he
shall
dwell
in
Gods
mountaine
who
sweareth
and
covenanteth
,
and
standeth
to
his
oath
&
covenant
,
though
to
his
losse
&
hurt
,
Psa.
15.
and
also
,
because
they
made
their
covenant
and
contract
thus
and
thus
.
Arnisaeus
.
16.
Every
Prince
is
subject
to
God
,
but
not
as
a
vassal
:
for
a
Master
may
commit
felonie
,
and
lose
the
proprietie
of
his
farme
;
can
God
do
so
?
The
Master
cannot
take
the
farme
from
the
vassal
without
an
expresse
cause
legally
deduced
,
but
cannot
God
take
what
he
hath
given
,
but
by
a
law-Processe
?
a
vassall
can
intitle
to
himself
a
farme
against
the
Masters
will
,
as
some
jurists
say
,
but
can
a
Prince
intitle
a
kingdom
to
himself
,
against
the
God
of
heavens
will
?
though
we
grant
the
comparison
,
yet
the
subjects
have
no
law
over
the
Kings
,
because
the
coercive
power
of
the
vassal
is
in
the
Lord
of
the
mannor
,
the
punishing
of
Kings
belongeth
to
God
.
Answ.
We
compare
not
the
lord
of
a
mannor
and
the
Lord
of
Heaven
together
,
all
these
dissimilitudes
we
grant
,
but
as
the
King
is
Gods
vassal
,
so
is
he
a
noble
and
Princely
vassal
to
the
Estates
of
a
kingdom
,
because
they
make
him
.
2.
They
make
him
rather
then
another
their
noble
▪
servant
.
3.
They
make
him
for
themselves
,
and
their
own
Godly
,
quiet
,
and
honest
life
.
4.
They
,
in
their
first
election
,
limit
him
to
such
a
way
,
to
governe
by
law
,
and
give
to
him
so
much
power
for
their
good
,
no
more
,
in
these
four
acts
they
are
above
the
Prince
,
and
so
have
a
coercive
power
over
him
.
Arnisaeus
n.
9.
It
is
to
make
the
Princes
▪
fidelity
doubtfull
to
put
him
to
an
oath
.
Lawyers
say
there
is
no
need
of
an
oath
,
when
a
person
is
of
approved
fidelitie
.
Answ.
Then
we
are
not
to
seek
an
oath
of
an
inferiour
Magistrate
,
of
a
Commander
in
wars
,
of
a
pastor
,
it
is
presumed
these
are
of
approved
fidelity
,
and
it
maketh
their
integritie
obnoxious
to
slanders
,
to
put
them
to
an
oath
.
2.
David
was
of
more
approved
fidelity
then
any
King
now
adayes
,
and
to
put
him
to
a
covenant
seemed
to
call
his
fidelity
in
question
;
Ionathan
sought
an
oath
of
David
to
deal
kindly
with
his
seed
,
when
he
came
to
the
throne
,
Ieremiah
sought
an
oath
of
the
King
of
Iudah
,
did
they
put
any
note
of
false-hood
on
them
therefore
?
Arnisaeus
.
You
cannot
prove
that
ever
any
King
gave
an
oath
to
their
subjects
in
Scriptures
.
Answ.
What
more
unbeseeming
Kings
is
it
to
swear
to
do
their
duty
,
then
to
promise
covenant
wayes
to
do
the
same
?
and
a
covenant
you
cannot
deny
.
2.
In
a
covenant
for
religious
duties
there
was
alwayes
an
oath
.
2
Chro.
15.
12
,
13
,
14.
hence
the
right
of
cuting
a
calf
,
and
swearing
in
a
covenant
Ier.
34.
18.
3.
There
is
an
oath
that
the
people
giveth
to
the
King
to
obey
him
,
Eccles.
8.
2.
and
a
covenant
2
Sam.
5.
1
,
2
,
3.
mutuall
between
the
king
and
people
,
I
leave
it
to
the
juditious
,
if
the
people
swear
to
the
king
obedience
in
a
covenant
mutuall
,
and
he
swear
not
to
them
.
Arnisaeus
sheweth
to
us
a
third
sort
of
oath
that
limited
Princes
do
swear
,
this
oath
in
Denmarke
,
Suecia
,
Polonia
,
Hungaria
,
is
sworne
by
the
kings
,
who
may
do
nothing
without
consent
of
the
Senat
,
and
according
to
order
of
Law
,
this
is
but
the
other
two
oathes
specified
,
and
a
Prince
cannot
contraveen
his
own
contract
,
the
law
saith
in
that
the
Prince
is
but
as
a
private
man
,
in
l.
digna
vox
C
▪
de
ll.
Rom.
cons.
426.
n.
17.
And
it
is
known
that
the
Emperour
is
constituted
and
created
by
the
Princes
Electors
,
subject
to
them
,
and
by
Law
may
be
dethroned
by
them
.
The
B.
of
Rochester
saith
from
Barclay
,
none
can
denude
a
King
of
But
God
onely
and
the
people
gave
the
King
his
power
.
Ergo
,
God
with
the
people
having
an
expresse
commandement
from
God
,
must
denude
the
King
of
power
.
Answ.
1.
This
shall
prove
that
God
onely
by
an
immediat
action
,
or
some
having
an
expresse
commandement
from
him
,
can
deprive
a
preacher
for
scandals
,
Christ
onely
,
or
those
who
have
an
expresse
commandement
from
him
can
excommunicate
,
God
only
or
the
magistrate
with
him
can
take
away
the
life
of
man
;
and
Numb
,
11.
14
,
15
,
16.
No
inferiour
Magistrates
,
who
also
have
their
power
from
God
immediatly
,
Rom.
13.
1.
If
we
speak
of
the
immediation
of
the
office
,
can
devide
inferiour
judges
of
their
power
.
God
only
by
the
husbandmans
paines
maketh
a
fruitfull
vineyard
,
Ergo
,
the
husbandman
cannot
make
his
vineyard
grow
over
with
nettles
and
briars
.
2.
The
argument
must
run
thus
,
else
the
assumption
shall
be
false
.
God
onely
by
the
action
of
the
people
,
as
his
instrument
,
and
by
no
other
action
make
a
lawfull
King
.
God
onely
by
the
action
of
the
people
as
his
instrument
can
make
a
King
,
God
onely
by
the
action
of
the
people
as
his
instrument
can
dethrone
a
King
,
for
as
the
people
making
a
King
,
are
in
that
doing
what
God
doth
before
them
,
and
what
God
doth
by
them
in
that
very
act
,
so
the
people
unmaking
a
King
,
doth
that
which
God
doth
before
the
people
,
both
the
one
and
the
other
according
to
Gods
rule
obligeth
,
Deut.
17.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
The
Prelate
,
whose
tribe
seldom
saith
truth
,
addeth
,
As
a
fatherly
M.
Anton.
de
domini
.
l.
6.
c.
2.
n
23.
23.
doth
more
subtilly
illustrate
the
matter
,
if
the
King
should
confer
honour
on
a
subject
,
by
the
hand
of
a
servant
,
who
had
not
power
or
freedom
to
confer
that
honour
,
or
not
to
confer
it
,
but
by
necessity
of
the
Kings
commandment
must
confer
it
,
nothing
should
hinder
us
to
say
,
that
such
a
subject
had
his
honour
immediately
from
the
King
:
so
the
earth
is
immediately
illuminated
by
the
sun
,
although
light
be
received
in
the
earth
,
but
by
the
interveening
mediation
of
many
inferiour
bodies
and
elements
,
because
by
no
other
thing
,
but
by
the
sun
only
,
is
the
light
as
an
efficient
cause
in
a
nearest
capacity
to
give
light
,
so
the
Royall
power
in
whomsoever
it
be
is
immediatly
from
God
onely
,
though
it
be
applyed
by
men
to
this
,
or
this
person
,
because
from
God
onely
,
and
from
no
other
the
Kingly
power
is
formally
and
effectively
that
which
it
is
,
and
worketh
that
which
it
worketh
,
and
if
you
ask
by
what
cause
is
the
tree
immediatly
turned
in
fire
,
none
sound
in
reason
would
say
,
it
is
made
fire
,
not
by
the
fire
,
but
by
him
that
laid
the
tree
on
the
fire
.
Iohn
P.
P.
would
have
stollen
this
argument
also
,
if
he
had
been
capable
thereof
.
Ans.
1.
A
fatherly
power
is
in
a
father
,
not
before
he
have
a
child
,
but
indeed
before
his
children
by
an
act
of
their
free-wil
consent
that
he
be
their
father
,
yea
&
whether
the
children
consent
or
no
,
from
a
physical
act
of
generation
he
must
be
the
father
;
&
let
the
father
be
the
most
wicked
man
&
lethim
be
made
by
no
moral
requisite
,
is
he
made
a
father
,
nor
can
heever
leave
off
physically
to
be
a
father
,
he
may
leave
off
morally
to
do
the
duty
of
a
father
,
&
so
be
non
pater
officio
,
but
he
cannot
but
be
pater
naturae
generantis
vi
.
So
there
never
is
nor
can
be
any
need
,
that
childrens
fre
consent
interveen
▪
to
make
Kish
the
Father
of
Saul
because
he
is
by
nature
a
father
,
to
make
Saul
a
King
&
a
moral
father
by
analogy
and
improperly
,
a
father
by
ruling
,
governing
,
that
there
is
a
Kingly
power
to
governe
many
families
in
the
same
father
,
before
these
many
families
can
transfer
their
power
to
make
him
King
.
Put
Royallists
to
their
Logick
,
they
have
not
found
out
a
medium
to
make
good
,
that
there
is
a
formall
Kingly
power
,
whereby
Saul
is
King
and
father
morally
over
all
Israel
before
Israel
chose
him
and
made
him
,
as
Kish
was
Sauls
father
formally
,
and
had
a
fatherly
power
to
be
his
father
,
before
Saul
had
the
use
of
free-will
to
consent
,
that
he
should
be
his
father
.
Royalists
are
here
at
a
stand
;
The
man
may
have
Royall
gifts
before
the
people
make
him
King
,
but
this
is
not
(
regia
potestas
)
a
Royall
power
,
by
which
the
man
is
formally
King
.
Many
have
more
Royal
gifts
then
the
man
that
beareth
the
Crown
,
yet
are
never
Kings
,
nor
is
there
formally
,
(
regia
potestas
)
kingly
power
in
them
.
In
this
meaning
Petrarcha
said
,
Plures
sunt
reges
quam
regna
.
3.
He
saith
,
The
people
doth
not
confer
royall
power
,
but
onely
consent
to
the
person
of
the
man
,
or
choise
of
his
person
.
This
is
non-sense
,
for
the
peoples
choosing
of
David
at
Hebron
to
be
King
,
and
their
refusing
of
Sauls
seed
to
be
King
,
what
was
it
but
an
act
of
God
,
by
the
free
suffrages
of
the
people
,
conferring
royall
power
on
David
,
and
making
him
King
?
whereas
in
former
times
,
David
even
anointed
by
Samuel
at
Bethleem
,
1
Sam.
16.
was
onely
a
private
man
,
the
subject
of
King
Saul
,
and
never
tearmed
by
the
Spirit
of
God
,
a
King
;
nor
was
he
King
,
till
God
,
by
the
peoples
consent
,
made
him
King
at
Hebron
;
for
Samuel
neither
honoured
him
as
King
,
nor
bowed
to
him
as
King
,
nor
did
the
people
say
,
God
save
King
David
,
but
after
this
David
acknowledged
Saul
as
his
Master
,
and
King
.
Let
Royalists
shew
us
any
act
of
God
making
David
King
,
save
this
act
of
the
people
making
him
formally
King
at
Hebron
,
and
therefore
the
people
as
Gods
instrument
transferred
the
power
,
and
God
by
them
in
the
same
act
transferred
the
power
,
and
in
the
same
they
chose
the
person
;
the
Royalists
affirm
these
to
be
different
actions
;
affirmanti
incumbit
probatio
.
4.
This
power
is
the
peoples
radically
,
naturally
,
as
the
Bees
(
as
some
think
)
have
a
power
naturall
to
choose
a
King-Bee
,
so
hath
a
communitie
a
power
naturally
,
to
defend
and
protect
themselves
;
and
God
hath
revealed
in
Deut.
17.
14
,
15.
the
way
of
regulating
the
act
of
choosing
Governours
and
Kings
,
which
is
a
speciall
mean
of
defending
and
protecting
themselves
;
and
the
people
is
as
principally
the
subject
and
fountain
of
Royall
power
,
as
a
fountain
is
of
water
.
I
shall
not
contend
,
if
you
call
a
Fountain
Gods
Instrument
to
give
water
,
as
all
creatures
are
his
Instruments
.
5.
For
Spalato's
comparison
,
he
is
far
out
,
for
the
people
choosing
one
of
ten
to
be
their
King
,
have
freewill
to
choose
any
,
and
are
under
a
Law
,
Deut.
17.
14
,
15.
In
the
manner
of
their
choosing
,
and
thought
,
they
erre
and
make
a
sinfull
choice
;
yet
the
man
is
King
,
and
Gods
King
,
whom
they
make
King
;
but
if
the
King
command
a
servant
to
make
A.
B.
a
Knight
,
if
the
servant
make
C.
D.
a
Knight
,
I
shall
not
think
C.
D.
is
a
valid
Knight
at
all
;
and
indeed
,
the
honour
is
immediately
here
from
the
King
,
because
the
Kings
servant
by
no
innate
power
maketh
the
Knight
,
but
Nations
by
a
radicall
and
naturall
and
innate
power
maketh
this
man
a
King
,
not
this
man
:
and
I
conceive
,
the
man
chosen
by
the
people
,
oweth
thanks
,
and
gratefull
service
to
the
people
,
who
rejected
others
,
that
they
had
power
to
choose
,
and
made
him
King
.
6.
The
light
immediately
and
formally
,
is
light
from
the
Sun
,
and
so
is
the
Office
of
a
King
,
immediately
instituted
of
God
,
Deut.
17.
14.
Whether
the
institution
be
naturall
,
or
positive
,
it
is
no
matter
.
2.
The
man
is
not
King
,
because
of
Royall
indowments
,
though
we
should
say
these
were
immediately
from
God
,
to
which
instruction
and
education
may
also
conferre
not
a
little
;
but
he
is
formally
King
,
ratione
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
regard
of
the
formall
essence
of
a
King
,
not
immediately
from
God
,
as
the
light
is
from
the
Sun
,
but
by
the
mediation
of
the
free
consent
of
the
people
,
2
Sam.
5.
1
,
2
,
3.
nor
is
the
people
in
making
a
King
,
as
the
man
who
onely
casteth
Wood
in
the
fire
;
the
Wood
is
not
made
fire
formally
,
but
by
the
fire
,
not
by
the
approach
of
fire
to
Wood
,
or
of
Wood
to
fire
;
for
the
people
do
not
apply
the
Royaltie
,
which
is
immediately
in
,
and
from
God
to
the
person
:
explicate
such
an
application
;
for
to
me
it
is
a
Fiction
unconceiveable
,
because
the
people
hath
the
Royaltie
radically
in
themselves
,
as
in
the
Fountain
and
Cause
,
and
conferreth
it
on
the
man
who
is
made
King
;
yea
,
the
people
by
making
David
King
,
confer
the
Royall
power
on
the
King
:
this
is
so
true
,
that
Royalists
forgetting
themselves
,
inculcate
frequently
in
asserting
their
absolute
Monarch
from
Vlpian
,
but
misunderstood
,
that
the
people
have
resigned
all
their
power
,
libertie
,
right
of
life
,
death
,
goods
,
chastitie
,
a
potency
of
rapine
,
homicides
,
unjust
wars
,
&c.
upon
a
creature
called
an
absolute
Prince
,
even
,
saith
Grotius
,
as
a
man
may
make
himself
a
slave
,
by
selling
his
liberty
to
a
master
.
Now
if
the
people
make
away
this
power
to
the
King
,
and
this
be
Hu.
Grotius
.
Ergo
,
people
may
give
more
,
or
lesse
,
half
or
whole
,
limited
or
absolute
Royall
power
to
the
Prince
;
but
if
this
power
were
immediately
in
God
,
and
from
God
;
how
could
the
people
have
the
husbanding
of
it
,
at
their
need
to
expend
it
out
in
ounce
weights
,
or
pound
weights
,
as
they
please
?
And
that
the
people
may
be
Taverners
of
it
,
to
sell
,
or
give
it
,
is
taught
by
Grotius
de
jur
.
bel
&
pac
.
l.
1.
c.
4.
Barclai
.
advers.
Monarch
.
l.
4.
c.
6.
Arnisae
.
cap.
6.
de
majest.
an
princeps
qui
jurat
subditis
,
&c.
n.
10.
n.
se
Aventiun
.
Anal.
l.
3.
Chytreus
,
l.
23.
l.
28.
Saxon
Sleid.
lib.
1.
in
fi
;
yet
Arnisaeus
is
not
ashamed
to
cite
Arist.
po.
c.
12.
l.
3.
That
he
is
not
a
true
and
absolute
King
,
who
ruleth
by
Laws
:
The
point
black
contrary
of
which
Aristotle
saith
.
QUEST.
XLI
.
Whether
doth
the
P.
Prelate
upon
good
grounds
,
ascribe
to
us
the
doctrine
of
Jesuites
in
these
Questions
of
lawfull
defensive
Wars
?
THe
P.
Prelate
without
all
ground
,
will
have
us
all
Iesuites
in
this
point
;
but
if
we
make
good
,
that
this
Truth
was
in
Scripture
before
a
Iesuite
was
in
the
earth
,
he
falleth
from
his
Cause
.
P.
Prelate
.
The
Begardi
saith
,
There
was
no
Government
,
no
Law
Core
,
Dathan
,
&c.
Ans.
This
Calumniator
in
the
next
words
belieth
himself
,
when
he
saith
,
We
presuppose
,
that
these
with
whom
we
are
to
enter
in
Lists
,
do
willingly
grant
,
That
Government
is
not
onely
lawfull
and
just
,
but
necessary
both
for
Church
and
Common-wealth
:
then
we
fancie
no
such
thing
as
he
imputeth
to
us
.
P.
Prelate
.
Some
said
,
that
the
right
of
Dominion
is
founded
on
grace
;
whether
the
Waldenses
and
Hus
,
held
any
such
Tenet
,
I
cannot
now
insist
to
prove
,
or
disprove
.
Gerson
and
others
held
,
that
there
must
be
a
new
Title
and
Right
to
what
men
possesse
:
Too
many
too
confidently
hold
these
,
or
the
like
.
Answ.
1.
That
Dominion
is
founded
upon
Grace
,
as
its
essentiall
Pillar
;
so
as
wicked
men
be
no
Magistrates
,
because
they
are
in
mortall
sin
,
was
falsly
imputed
to
ancient
Protestants
,
the
Waldenses
,
Wickcliff
,
and
Hus
,
by
Papists
;
and
this
day
by
Jesuites
,
Suarez
,
Bellarmine
,
Becan
.
The
P.
Prelate
will
leave
them
under
this
Calumny
,
that
he
may
offend
Papists
and
Iesuites
as
little
as
he
can
,
but
he
would
lay
it
on
us
;
but
if
the
P.
Prelate
think
,
that
Dominion
is
not
founded
on
Grace
,
de
jure
,
that
Rulers
should
have
that
spirit
that
God
put
on
the
seventy
Elders
for
their
Calling
,
and
that
they
ought
not
to
be
men
fearing
God
,
and
hating
covetousnesse
,
as
Gerson
and
others
did
,
he
belieth
the
Scripture
.
2.
It
is
no
errour
of
Gerson
,
that
beleevers
have
a
spirituall
Right
to
their
civill
possessions
,
but
by
Scripture
,
1
Cor.
4.
21.
Revel.
21.
7.
P.
Prelate
.
The
Jesuites
are
ashamed
of
the
errour
of
Casuists
,
who
hold
that
,
directum
imperium
,
the
direct
and
primary
power
,
Supreme
,
Civill
,
and
Ecclesiasticall
,
is
in
the
Pope
;
and
therefore
,
they
give
an
indirect
directive
,
and
coercive
power
to
him
,
over
Kings
and
States
,
in
ordine
ad
spiritualia
:
So
may
he
King
and
un-King
Princes
at
his
pleasure
.
Our
Presbyterians
,
if
they
run
not
fully
this
way
,
are
very
neer
to
it
.
Answ.
The
Windy
man
would
seem
versed
in
School-men
,
he
should
have
named
some
Gasuists
,
who
hold
any
like
thing
.
2.
The
Presbyterians
must
be
Popes
,
because
they
subject
Kings
to
the
Gospel
,
and
Christs
Scepter
in
Church
Censures
,
and
think
Christian
Kings
may
be
rebuked
for
blasphemy
,
blood-shed
,
&c.
Whereas
Prelates
,
in
ordine
ad
diabolica
,
murther
souls
of
Kings
.
2.
Prelates
do
King
Princes
.
An
P.
Arch-Prelate
,
when
P.
Arch-Bishop
Spotwood
had
,
when
he
proffered
to
the
King
,
the
Oath
that
the
Popish
Kings
sweareth
to
maintain
,
the
professed
Religion
(
not
one
word
of
the
true
Protestant
Religion
)
and
will
carefully
root
out
all
Hereticks
,
and
enemies
(
that
is
Protestants
as
they
expone
it
,
)
to
the
true
Worship
of
God
,
that
shall
be
convicted
by
the
true
Church
of
God
of
the
foresaid
crimes
.
And
when
the
Prelates
professed
,
they
held
not
their
Prelacies
of
the
King
,
but
of
the
Pope
indeed
:
Who
are
then
nearest
to
the
Popes
power
,
in
ordine
ad
spiritualia
?
3.
How
will
this
black
mouthed
Calumniator
,
make
Presbyterians
to
dethrone
Kings
?
He
hath
written
a
Pamphlet
of
the
inconsistency
of
Monarchie
and
Presbyterian
Government
,
consisting
of
lies
,
invented
Calumnies
of
his
Church
,
in
which
he
was
baptized
.
But
the
truth
is
,
all
his
Arguments
prove
the
inconsistencie
of
Monarchs
and
Parliaments
,
and
transform
any
King
in
a
most
absolute
Tyrant
;
for
which
Treason
he
deserveth
to
suffer
as
a
Traytor
.
P.
Prelate
.
Q.
1.
c.
1.
The
Puritan
saith
,
That
all
power
Civill
,
is
radically
and
originally
seated
in
the
Communitie
;
he
here
joyneth
hands
with
the
Jesuite
.
Answ.
In
six
pages
he
repeateth
the
same
things
.
1.
Is
this
such
an
Heresie
,
that
a
Colonie
casted
into
America
by
the
Tyranny
of
P.
Prelates
,
have
power
to
choose
their
own
Governours
;
all
Israel
was
Hereticall
in
this
,
for
David
could
not
be
their
King
,
though
designed
and
anointed
by
God
,
1
Sam.
16.
till
the
people
,
●
Sam.
5.
put
forth
in
act
,
this
power
,
and
made
David
King
in
Hebron
.
2.
Let
the
Prelate
make
a
Syllogisme
,
it
is
but
ex
utraque
affirmante
in
secunda
figura
,
Logick
like
the
bellies
of
the
Court
,
in
which
men
of
their
own
way
is
disgraced
and
cast
out
of
Grace
and
Court
,
because
in
this
controversie
of
the
King
with
his
two
Parlia●ents
,
they
are
like
Erasmus
in
Gods
matters
,
who
said
,
Lutherum
nec
accuso
,
nec
defendo
.
1.
He
is
discourted
who
ever
he
be
,
who
is
in
shape
like
a
Puritan
,
and
not
fire
and
sword
against
Religion
and
his
Countrey
,
and
Oath
and
Covenant
with
God
,
and
so
it
is
this
.
The
Iesuite
teacheth
,
that
power
of
Government
is
in
the
Communitie
originally
.
The
Puritan
teacheth
,
that
power
of
Government
is
in
the
Communitie
originally
.
Ergo
,
The
Puritan
is
a
Iesuite
.
But
so
the
Puritan
is
a
Iesuite
,
because
he
and
the
Iesuite
teacheth
,
that
there
is
on
God
,
and
three
persons
;
And
if
the
Prelate
like
this
reasoning
,
we
shall
make
himself
and
the
Prelates
,
and
Court-Divines
,
Iesuites
upon
surer
grounds
.
Jesuites
teach
,
The
Pope
is
not
the
Antichrist
.
2.
Christ
locally
discended
to
Hell
,
to
free
some
out
of
that
prison
.
3.
It
was
sin
to
separate
from
Babylonish
Rome
.
4.
We
are
justified
by
works
.
5.
The
merit
of
fasting
is
not
to
be
condemned
.
6.
The
Masse
is
no
idolatry
.
7.
The
Church
is
the
judge
of
controversies
.
8.
All
the
Arminian
points
are
safer
to
be
beleeved
,
then
the
contrary
;
yea
,
and
all
the
substantials
of
Popery
are
true
,
and
Catholick
doctrine
to
be
preached
and
Printed
:
The
Prelates
and
Court-Divines
,
and
this
Prelate
conspireth
,
in
all
these
with
the
Iesuites
,
as
is
learnedly
and
invincibly
proved
in
the
Treatise
,
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
Canterburian
self-conviction
:
to
which
no
man
of
the
Prelaticall
and
Romish
Faction
durst
ever
make
answer
for
their
hearts
:
and
see
then
who
are
Iesuites
.
3.
This
doctrine
was
taught
by
Lawyers
,
Protestants
,
yeilded
to
by
Papists
before
any
Iesuite
was
whelped
in
rerum
naturâ
.
Never
learned
man
wrote
of
policy
,
till
of
late
;
but
he
held
power
of
Government
,
by
the
light
of
nature
must
be
radically
and
originally
,
in
a
Communitie
:
the
P.
Prelate
saith
,
Iesuites
are
not
the
father
of
this
opinion
,
Cap.
1.
pag.
12.
How
then
can
the
Liar
say
,
that
the
Puritan
conspireth
with
the
Iesuite
?
Suarez
the
Iesuite
de
primat
.
sum
.
pontifi
.
l.
3.
c.
2.
n.
10.
Non
est
novum
,
aut
a
Cardinali
Bellarmino
inventum
.
The
Iesuite
Tannerus
will
not
have
their
Family
the
mother
of
this
opinion
,
Tom.
2.
disp.
5.
de
leg
.
q.
5.
in
12.
q.
95
,
96.
Dubi
.
1.
n.
7.
Sine
dubio
communis
omnium
Theologorum
&
Iurisperitorum
sententia
,
&c.
The
Iesuite
Tolet
,
in
Rom.
13.
taketh
it
for
a
ground
,
That
the
Civill
powers
are
from
God
,
by
the
naturall
mediation
of
men
,
and
Civill
Societies
.
4.
Iesuites
teach
,
That
there
is
no
lawfull
Christian
society
truely
politick
that
hath
a
neer
and
formall
power
,
to
choose
and
ordain
their
own
Magistrates
,
but
that
which
acknowledgeth
subjection
,
and
the
due
regulation
of
their
creating
of
Magistrates
,
to
be
due
and
proper
to
the
Pope
of
Rome
.
We
acknowledge
no
wayes
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
for
a
lawfull
Bishop
and
Pastor
at
all
:
But
this
Popish
Prelate
doth
acknowledge
him
,
for
he
hath
these
words
,
Cap.
5.
pag.
58.
It
is
high
presumption
in
the
Pope
,
to
challenge
to
himself
,
the
Title
or
Right
of
Christs
universall
Vicar
on
earth
,
by
Divine
right
.
The
Pope
,
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
hath
no
more
by
Divine
right
,
(
what
he
may
have
by
positive
Ecclesiasticall
right
,
is
not
pertinent
for
us
now
to
examine
and
discusse
)
no
higher
priviledge
(
except
it
be
in
extent
)
then
the
meanest
Bishop
of
the
world
in
his
Diocesse
.
And
amongst
all
proofes
,
he
passing
by
Scriptures
,
which
should
prove
,
or
improve
a
Divine
right
,
he
will
content
himselfe
with
one
proofe
of
Cyprian
,
de
unitat
.
Eccles.
And
endeth
with
these
words
:
Would
God
,
both
sides
,
in
this
,
and
other
controversies
,
would
submit
to
the
judgement
of
the
holy
Fathers
.
Hence
the
P.
Prelate
,
in
his
4.
Article
,
(
the
other
two
I
shall
touch
anon
)
maketh
Puritans
grosser
then
Jesuites
,
in
dethroning
Kings
;
because
,
if
the
King
be
deficient
,
the
People
may
resume
their
power
,
and
governe
for
him
,
and
so
dethrone
the
King
.
But
Bellarmine
,
l.
3.
q.
de
laic
.
holdeth
,
the
people
cannot
dethrone
the
King
,
It
is
presumption
in
the
Pope
to
challenge
to
himselfe
,
that
he
is
Christs
Vniversall
Vicar
on
Earth
by
Divine
right
.
Why
saith
he
not
,
by
no
right
at
all
,
but
only
he
is
not
Christs
Vicar
by
Divine
right
:
for
it
is
evident
that
Papists
make
him
Christs
Vicar
,
only
by
Ecclesiasticall
right
;
for
they
professe
,
succession
of
Popes
to
this
day
,
cannot
be
proved
but
by
Tradition
,
not
by
Scripture
.
2.
The
Popes
supremacie
,
by
Papists
,
is
expresly
reckoned
amongst
unwritten
Traditions
,
and
so
there
is
no
necessitie
that
the
right
of
it
be
proved
from
Scripture
.
3.
The
Prelate
expresly
saith
,
He
will
not
discusse
the
Ecclesiasticall
right
that
the
Pope
hath
to
be
Christs
Vicar
.
And
by
that
he
clearly
insinuateth
,
that
he
hath
a
right
to
be
Christs
Vicar
,
beside
a
Scripturall
and
Divine
right
:
only
,
for
offending
Papists
,
he
will
not
discusse
it
.
4.
He
hath
no
higher
priviledge
(
saith
he
)
then
other
Bishops
,
except
in
extent
,
by
Divine
right
.
Now
other
Bishops
,
as
officers
in
nature
different
from
Presbyters
,
(
for
of
such
the
P.
Prelate
must
speak
in
his
own
dialect
)
have
their
office
by
Divine
right
:
and
this
the
Prelates
words
must
include
,
else
he
saith
non-sense
to
the
matter
in
hand
.
And
in
extent
the
Pope
hath
by
Divine
right
more
then
other
Bishops
have
.
Now
what
is
the
Pope
of
Rome
his
extent
?
All
knowes
it
is
the
whole
Catholike
visible
Church
on
earth
.
If
then
all
Bishops
be
particular
Ambassadours
in
Christs
stead
,
2
Cor.
5.
20.
and
so
Legates
and
Deputies
of
Christ
;
He
who
by
Divine
right
is
a
Bishop
in
extent
over
the
whole
world
,
is
as
like
one
that
calleth
himselfe
the
universall
Vicar
of
Christ
,
as
one
egge
is
like
another
.
2.
The
doctrine
taught
by
this
Prelate
,
so
Popish
,
&
hints
,
yea
are
more
then
evidences
of
grosse
Poperie
in
this
book
,
and
his
other
Pamphlet
against
Presbyteries
;
And
his
desire
that
the
Controversie
concerning
the
Popes
supremacie
,
and
others
,
were
determined
with
submission
to
the
judgement
of
the
Fathers
:
doe
cry
,
that
he
is
but
a
rotten
Papist
.
For
why
will
he
submit
all
other
controversies
to
the
judgement
of
the
Fathers
?
Why
not
to
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
?
Can
Fathers
decide
Controversies
better
then
the
Word
of
God
?
A
reason
cannot
be
dreamed
of
,
why
the
Fathers
should
be
Iudges
,
and
not
the
Scriptures
,
except
that
Scriptures
are
obscure
.
2.
Their
authoritie
and
light
cannot
determine
and
judge
controversies
,
except
in
so
far
as
they
have
authoritie
from
Fathers
and
the
Church
:
and
we
know
this
to
be
proprium
4
to
modo
,
proper
to
Jesuites
and
Papists
,
to
cry
Fathers
,
Fathers
,
in
all
controversies
,
though
the
Fathers
be
more
for
us
,
then
for
them
,
except
two
things
;
1.
What
Fathers
speake
for
us
,
are
corrupted
by
them
:
2.
What
were
but
errors
in
Fathers
,
when
children
adde
contumacie
to
error
,
becomes
the
heresies
of
the
sonnes
.
And
it
is
most
false
,
that
we
joyne
with
Jesuites
.
1.
We
teach
no
in
e●ercitio
,
then
Grotius
,
Barclay
,
Winzetus
,
in
the
matter
of
deposing
Kings
.
And
in
this
,
Royalists
conspire
with
Jesuites
.
2.
We
deny
that
the
Pope
may
loose
Subjects
from
the
oath
of
Fidelitie
,
when
a
King
turneth
Hereticall
;
3.
That
People
at
the
Popes
commandement
,
are
to
dethrone
Kings
,
for
Heresie
.
So
doe
the
Prelates
,
and
their
fellowes
the
Papists
teach
.
So
Gregorie
the
7.
practised
:
so
Aquinas
taught
,
22
q.
12.
ar.
2.
Antonin
.
sum
,
par.
3.
t.
22.
c.
3.
§
.
7.
Thou
hast
put
all
things
under
the
Popes
feet
▪
oves
,
id
est
,
Christianos
;
boves
,
Iudaeos
&
Hereticos
;
pecora
,
Paganos
.
So
Navar.
l.
1.
c.
13.
Pagans
have
no
jurisdiction
.
Iaco.
Symanca
,
de
Catho
.
Instit.
tit.
45.
n.
25.
Catholica
uxor
heretico
viro
debitum
reddere
non
tenetur
.
Item
.
Constat
Haeretieum
privatum
esse
omni
dominio
,
naturali
,
civili
,
politico
,
naturali
quod
habet
in
filios
,
nam
propter
haeresin
patris
efficiuntur
filii
sui
iuris
,
civili
,
quod
habet
in
servos
,
ab
eo
enim
servi
liberantur
,
politico
,
quod
rerum
domini
habent
in
subditos
,
ita
Bannes
22.
q.
12.
art.
10.
Gregor.
de
valent
.
22.
dis.
1.
q.
12.
p.
2.
lod
.
Mol.
to
.
1.
De
just.
&
jur.
tract.
2.
dis.
29.
v.
3.
2.
Papists
hold
that
Generatio
clerici
est
corruptio
subditi
,
Church-men
are
not
subjects
under
the
Kings
Law
.
It
is
a
Canonicall
priviledge
of
the
Clergy
,
that
they
are
not
subject
to
the
Kings
Civill
Lawes
.
Now
this
Prelate
and
his
fellowes
made
the
King
sweare
,
at
his
Coronation
,
to
maintaine
all
Canonicall
Priviledges
of
the
Prelaticall
Clergy
,
the
very
Oath
and
words
sworne
by
all
the
Popish
Kings
.
P.
Prelate
.
Power
is
given
by
the
multitude
to
the
King
immediatly
,
and
by
God
mediately
,
not
so
much
by
collation
,
as
by
approbation
,
how
the
Iesuite
and
Puritane
walke
all
along
in
equall
pace
.
See
Bellarmine
l.
1.
de
liac
.
c.
6.
Zuarez
cont.
sect.
Angl.
l.
3.
c.
3.
Ans.
It
is
a
Calumnie
,
that
we
teach
that
the
power
of
the
King
is
from
God
mediatly
,
by
meere
approbation
;
indeed
a
fellow
of
his
,
a
Papist
writing
against
the
Kings
Supremacy
,
Anthony
Capell
Cont.
1.
c.
5.
saith
,
Saul
was
made
King
,
and
others
also
by
Gods
Deo
invito
&
irato
,
God
being
angry
,
that
is
not
our
Doctrine
;
but
with
what
reall
efficiencie
God
hath
made
men
,
and
communities
,
rationall
and
sociall
men
,
with
the
same
hath
he
made
them
by
instinct
of
nature
,
by
the
mediation
of
reason
,
to
create
a
King
;
and
Bellarmine
and
Suarez
say
,
Not
God
maketh
Kings
by
approbation
only
.
P.
Prelate
.
The
people
may
change
Monarchy
into
Aristocracy
or
Democracy
,
or
Aristocracy
into
Monarchy
;
for
ought
I
know
,
they
differ
not
in
this
neither
.
Ans.
The
P.
Prelate
knoweth
not
all
things
,
the
two
Iesuites
,
Bellarmine
and
Suarez
are
produced
only
,
as
if
they
were
all
Iesuites
;
and
Suarez
saith
,
De
prim
.
po.
l.
3.
n.
4.
Donationem
absolutam
semel
valide
factam
revocari
non
posse
,
neque
in
totum
,
neque
ex
parce
,
maxime
quando
onerosa
fuit
.
If
the
people
once
give
their
power
to
the
King
,
they
cannot
resume
it
without
cause
,
and
laying
downe
the
grounds
of
Suarez
and
other
Iesuites
,
that
our
Religion
is
Heresie
,
they
doe
soundly
collect
this
consequence
,
That
no
King
can
be
Lord
of
the
consciences
of
their
subjects
,
to
compell
them
to
an
Hereticall
Religion
.
We
teach
that
the
King
of
Spaine
hath
no
power
over
the
consciences
of
Protestant
Subjects
,
to
force
them
to
Idolatry
,
and
that
their
soules
are
not
his
subjects
,
but
only
their
persons
,
and
in
the
Lord
.
2.
It
is
no
great
crime
,
that
if
a
King
degenerate
in
a
Tyranny
,
or
if
the
Royall
Line
faile
,
that
we
thinke
the
people
have
liberty
to
change
Monarchy
into
Aristocracy
,
aut
contra
.
Iesuites
deny
that
the
people
can
make
this
change
without
the
Popes
consent
.
We
judge
neither
the
great
Bishop
the
Pope
,
nor
the
little
Popes
ought
to
have
hand
in
making
Kings
.
P.
Prelate
.
They
say
the
power
is
derived
to
the
King
from
the
people
,
Cumulativè
,
or
Communicativé
,
non
Privativé
by
way
of
communication
,
not
by
way
of
privation
,
so
as
the
people
denude
not
themselves
of
this
soveraignty
.
As
the
King
maketh
a
Lieutenant
in
Ireland
,
not
to
denude
himselfe
of
his
Royall
power
,
but
to
put
him
in
trust
for
his
service
.
If
this
be
their
mind
,
the
King
is
in
a
poore
case
.
The
principal
authority
is
in
the
Deligate
,
and
so
the
people
is
still
Iudge
,
and
the
King
their
Deputy
.
Ans.
The
P.
Prelate
taketh
on
him
to
write
he
knoweth
not
what
,
this
is
not
our
opinion
.
The
King
is
King
,
and
hath
the
peoples
power
not
as
their
Deputy
.
1.
Because
the
people
is
not
principall
Iudge
,
and
the
King
subordinate
.
The
King
in
the
executive
power
of
Lawes
,
is
really
a
Soveraigne
above
the
people
,
a
Deputy
is
not
so
.
2.
The
people
have
irrevocably
made
over
to
the
King
,
their
power
of
governing
,
defending
,
and
protecting
themselves
,
I
except
the
power
of
selfe
preservation
,
which
people
can
no
more
make
away
,
it
being
sinlesse
natures
birth-right
then
the
liberty
of
eating
,
drinking
,
sleeping
;
and
this
the
people
cannot
resume
,
except
in
case
of
the
Kings
Tyranny
,
there
is
no
power
by
the
King
so
irrevocably
resigned
to
his
Servant
or
Deputy
,
but
he
may
use
it
himselfe
.
3.
A
Delegate
is
comptable
for
all
he
doth
to
those
that
put
him
in
trust
,
whether
he
doe
ill
or
well
.
The
King
in
acts
of
Iustice
is
not
comptable
to
any
,
for
if
his
acts
be
not
lyable
to
high
suspitions
of
Tyranny
,
no
man
may
say
to
him
What
dost
thou
?
onely
in
acts
of
unjustice
,
and
those
so
tyrannous
,
that
they
be
inconsistent
with
the
habituall
fiduciary
repose
and
trust
put
on
him
,
he
is
to
render
accounts
to
the
Parliament
,
which
representeth
the
people
.
4.
A
Delegate
in
esse
,
in
fieri
,
both
that
he
may
be
a
Delegate
,
and
that
he
may
continue
a
Delegate
,
whether
he
doe
ill
or
well
,
dependeth
on
his
pleasure
who
delegateth
him
;
but
though
a
King
depend
in
fieri
,
in
regard
of
his
call
to
the
Crowne
,
upon
the
suffrages
of
his
people
,
yet
that
he
may
be
continued
King
,
he
dependeth
not
on
the
people
simply
,
but
only
in
case
of
Tyrannicall
administration
,
and
in
this
sense
Suarez
and
Bellarmine
spake
with
no
more
honesty
,
then
we
doe
,
but
with
more
then
Prelates
doe
,
for
they
professe
any
Emissary
of
Hell
may
stab
a
Protestant
King
.
We
know
the
Prelates
professe
the
contrary
,
but
their
judgement
is
the
same
with
Iesuites
in
all
points
;
and
since
they
will
have
the
Pope
Christs
Vicar
,
by
such
a
Divine
right
as
they
themselves
are
Bishops
,
and
have
the
King
under
Oath
to
maintaine
the
Clergie
,
Bishops
,
and
all
their
Canonicall
priviledges
,
amongst
which
the
Bishops
of
Rome
his
indirect
power
in
ordine
ad
spiritualia
,
and
to
dethrone
Kings
who
turne
Heritickes
,
is
one
principall
right
.
I
see
not
how
Prelates
are
not
as
deepe
in
treason
against
Kings
as
the
Pope
himselfe
,
and
therefore
P.
Prelate
,
take
the
beame
out
of
your
owne
eye
.
The
P.
Prelate
taketh
unlearned
paines
,
to
prove
that
Gerson
,
Occam
,
Iac.
de
almaine
,
Parisian
Doctors
maintained
these
same
grounds
anent
the
peoples
power
over
Kings
in
the
case
of
Tyranny
,
and
that
before
Luther
and
Calvine
was
in
the
world
,
and
this
is
to
give
himselfe
the
lye
,
that
Luther
,
Calvin
,
and
we
have
not
this
Doctrine
from
Iesuites
,
and
what
is
Calvines
mind
,
is
evident
,
Instit
,
l.
4.
c.
all
that
the
estates
may
coerce
,
and
reduce
in
order
a
Knox
of
blessed
memory
,
Buchanan
,
Iunius
Brutus
,
B●uchier
,
Rossaeus
,
Althusius
,
and
Luther
,
in
scripto
ad
pastorem
,
to
7.
German
.
fol.
386.
bringeth
two
examples
for
resistance
;
the
people
resisted
Saul
,
when
he
was
willing
to
kill
Ionathan
his
sonne
,
and
Ahikam
and
other
Princes
rescued
Ieremiah
out
of
the
hands
of
the
King
of
Iudah
:
and
Gerardus
citeth
many
Divines
,
who
second
Luther
in
this
,
as
Bugenliagius
,
Iustus
Ionas
,
Nicholas
Ambsderffius
,
George
Spalatinus
,
Iustus
Menius
,
Christopher
Hofmanus
.
It
is
knowne
what
is
the
mind
of
Protestant
Divines
,
as
Beza
,
Pareus
,
Melancthon
,
Bucanus
,
Polanus
Chamer
,
all
the
Divines
of
France
,
of
Germany
,
of
Holland
.
No
wonder
then
Prelates
were
upon
the
plot
of
betraying
the
City
of
Rochel
,
and
of
the
Protestant
Church
there
,
when
they
then
will
have
the
Protestants
of
France
,
for
their
defensive
warres
to
be
Rebels
,
and
siders
with
Iesuites
,
when
in
these
warres
Iesuites
sought
their
blood
and
ruine
.
The
P.
Prelate
having
shewn
his
mind
concerning
the
deposing
of
Childericke
by
the
Pope
(
of
which
I
say
nothing
,
but
the
Pope
was
an
Antichristian
Usurper
,
and
the
poore
man
never
fit
to
beare
a
Crowne
)
he
goeth
on
to
set
downe
an
opinion
of
some
mute
Authors
,
he
might
devise
a
thousand
opinions
that
way
,
to
make
men
beleeve
he
had
been
in
a
wood
of
learned
mens
secrets
,
and
that
never
man
saw
the
bottome
of
the
controversie
,
while
he
,
seeing
the
escapes
of
many
Pens
(
as
supercilious
Bubo
praiseth
)
was
forced
to
appeare
a
Star
new
risen
in
the
firmament
of
Pursevants
,
and
reveale
all
dreames
,
and
teach
all
the
New-Statists
,
the
Gam●liels
,
Buchanan
,
Iunius
Brutus
,
and
a
world
who
were
all
sleeping
,
while
this
Lucifer
the
sonne
of
the
night
did
appeare
,
this
new
way
of
Lawes
,
Divinity
and
casuists
Theologie
.
They
hold
(
saith
P.
P.
)
Soveraigne
power
is
primarily
and
naturally
Ans.
1.
Who
speaketh
so
the
P.
Prelate
cannot
name
.
That
Soveraigne
power
is
primarily
and
naturally
in
the
multitude
.
Vertually
(
it
may
be
)
Soveraignty
is
in
the
multitude
,
but
primarily
and
naturally
,
as
heat
is
in
the
fire
,
light
in
the
Sun
;
I
thinke
the
P.
Prelate
dreamed
it
,
no
man
said
it
but
himselfe
:
for
what
attribute
is
naturally
in
a
Subject
,
I
conceive
may
directly
and
naturally
be
predicated
thereof
.
Now
the
P.
Prelate
hath
taught
us
of
a
very
naturall
predication
.
(
Our
Dreadful
and
Soveraign
Lord
the
multitude
commandeth
this
and
this
.
)
2.
This
is
no
more
a
reason
for
a
Monarchy
,
then
for
a
Democracy
,
for
we
can
reape
the
fruites
of
no
government
,
except
we
submit
to
it
.
3.
We
must
submit
in
Monarchy
(
saith
he
)
to
some
possible
and
accidentall
inconveniences
.
Here
be
soft
words
,
but
is
subversion
of
Religion
,
Lawes
,
and
Liberties
of
Church
and
State
,
introducing
of
Popery
,
Arminianisme
,
of
Idolatry
,
Altar-worship
,
the
Masse
proved
by
a
learned
Treatise
,
The
Canterburian
selfe
conviction
,
printed
the
3.
edit.
an
1641.
never
answered
,
couched
under
the
name
of
inconveniency
?
The
pardoning
of
the
innocent
blood
of
hundreds
of
thousand
Protestants
in
Ireland
,
the
killing
of
many
thousands
,
Nobles
,
Barons
,
Commons
,
by
the
hands
of
Papists
in
Armes
against
the
Law
of
the
Land
,
the
making
of
England
a
field
of
blood
,
the
obtruding
of
an
Idolatrous
Service-Booke
,
with
Armies
of
men
,
by
Sea
and
Land
,
to
blocke
up
the
Kingdome
of
Scotland
.
are
all
these
inconveniences
only
?
4.
Are
they
only
possible
and
accidentall
?
but
make
a
Monarch
absolute
,
as
the
P.
Prelate
doth
,
and
tyranny
is
as
necessary
and
as
much
intended
by
a
sinfull
man
,
inclined
to
make
a
God
of
himselfe
,
as
it
is
naturall
to
men
to
sinne
,
when
they
are
tempted
,
and
to
be
drunken
and
giddy
with
honour
and
greatnesse
;
witnesse
the
Kings
of
Israel
and
Iudah
,
though
de
jure
they
were
not
absolute
.
Is
it
accidentall
to
Nero
,
Iulian
,
to
the
ten
hornes
that
grew
out
of
the
womans
head
,
who
sate
upon
the
scarlet
colloured
beast
,
to
make
warre
against
the
Lambe
,
and
his
followers
,
especially
the
spirit
of
Sathan
being
in
them
?
P.
Prelate
,
They
inferre
,
1.
They
cannot
without
violation
of
a
Divine
ordinance
,
and
breach
of
faith
resume
the
authority
,
they
have
placed
in
the
King
.
2.
It
▪
were
high
sin
to
rob
authority
of
its
essentials
.
3.
This
ordinance
is
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
hath
urgent
reasons
.
Ans.
1.
These
namelesse
Authors
cannot
inferre
that
an
Oath
is
broken
,
which
is
made
conditionally
;
all
authority
given
by
the
people
to
the
King
is
conditionall
,
that
he
use
it
for
the
safety
of
the
people
,
if
it
be
used
for
their
distruction
,
they
breake
no
faith
to
resume
it
,
for
they
never
made
faith
to
give
up
their
power
to
the
King
upon
such
tearmes
,
and
so
they
cannot
be
said
to
resume
what
they
never
gave
.
2.
So
the
P.
Prelate
maketh
power
to
act
all
the
former
mischiefes
,
the
essentialls
of
a
King
▪
Balaam
he
is
not
worthy
his
wages
,
for
Prophecying
thus
,
that
▪
the
Kings
essentialls
is
a
power
of
blood
,
and
destructive
to
people
,
Law
,
Religion
and
liberties
of
Church
and
State
,
for
otherwise
we
teach
not
,
that
people
may
resume
from
the
King
Authority
and
power
to
disarme
Papists
,
to
roote
out
the
bloody
Irish
,
and
in
justice
serve
them
,
as
they
have
served
us
.
3.
This
ordinance
of
the
people
giving
lawfull
power
to
a
King
,
for
the
governing
of
the
people
in
peace
and
godlinesse
,
is
Gods
good
pleasure
,
and
hath
just
reasons
and
causes
.
But
that
the
people
make
over
a
power
to
one
man
,
to
act
all
the
inconveniences
above
named
,
I
mean
the
bloody
and
destructive
inconveniences
,
hath
nothing
of
God
,
or
reason
in
it
.
P.
Prelate
.
The
reasons
of
this
opinion
are
,
1.
If
Power
soveraigne
were
not
in
one
,
he
could
not
have
strength
enough
to
act
all
necessary
parts
and
acts
of
government
.
2.
Nor
to
prevent
divisions
which
attend
multitudes
,
or
many
indowed
with
equall
power
;
and
the
Authors
say
,
They
must
part
with
their
native
right
entirely
,
for
a
greater
good
,
and
to
prevent
greater
evills
.
3.
To
resume
any
part
of
this
power
,
of
which
the
people
have
totally
devested
themselves
,
or
to
limit
it
,
is
to
disable
Soveraignty
from
government
,
loose
the
sinewes
of
all
society
,
&c
▪
Ans.
1.
I
know
none
for
this
opinion
,
but
the
P.
Prelate
himselfe
.
an
essentiall
part
of
the
power
of
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
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
,
suteth
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
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.
1
10.
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
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
Antichristian
Prelates
,
unwashed
Priests
to
offer
sacrifices
,
and
Popish
Deacons
,
are
no
more
admitted
by
Christ
to
enter
into
his
sanctuary
as
governours
,
then
the
Leaper
into
the
Campe
of
old
,
and
the
Moabite
and
Ammonite
were
to
enter
into
the
congregation
of
the
Lord
,
Deut.
23.
3.
therefore
we
have
excommunicated
this
P.
Prelate
,
and
such
Moabites
out
of
the
Lords
house
.
2.
What
be
the
things
that
doe
not
primely
concerne
salvation
,
the
P.
Prelate
knoweth
,
to
wit
,
Images
in
the
Church
,
Altar
worship
,
Antichristian
Ceremonies
,
which
primely
concerne
damnation
.
3.
I
understand
not
what
the
P.
Prelate
meaneth
,
that
the
King
preserveth
externall
Government
in
order
and
decency
,
in
Scotland
,
in
our
Parliament
,
1633.
the
prescribed
Surplice
,
and
he
commanded
the
Service-booke
,
and
the
Masse-worship
.
The
Prelate
degradeth
the
King
here
,
to
make
him
onely
keep
,
or
preserve
the
Prelates
Masse-Clothes
:
they
intended
indeed
to
make
the
King
but
the
Popes
servant
,
for
all
they
say
and
do
for
him
now
.
4.
If
the
King
be
vicegerent
of
Christ
in
prescribing
Laws
for
the
externall
ordering
of
the
worship
,
and
all
their
decent
symbolicall
Ceremonies
:
What
more
doth
the
Pope
,
and
the
Prelate
in
that
kinde
?
He
may
,
with
as
good
warrant
Preach
and
Administrate
the
Sacraments
.
P.
Prelate
.
Kings
have
the
sign
of
the
Crosse
on
their
Crowns
.
Answ.
Ergo
,
Baculus
est
in
angulo
.
Prelates
have
put
a
crosse
in
the
Kings
heart
,
and
crossed
Crown
and
Throne
to
,
Really
.
Some
Knights
,
some
Ships
,
some
Cities
and
Burroughes
,
do
carry
a
crosse
;
are
they
made
Christs
vice-gerents
of
late
?
By
what
antiquity
doth
the
Crosse
signifie
Christ
?
Of
old
it
was
a
badge
of
Christians
,
no
Religious
Ceremony
;
and
is
this
all
.
The
King
is
the
vicegerent
of
Christians
.
The
Prelates
we
know
,
adore
the
Crosse
with
Religious
worship
:
so
must
they
adore
the
Crown
.
P.
Prelate
.
Grant
that
the
Pope
were
the
Vicar
of
Christ
in
spirituall
things
,
it
followeth
not
:
Ergo
,
Kings
Crowns
are
subject
to
the
Pope
;
for
Papists
teach
,
that
all
power
that
was
in
Christ
,
as
man
,
as
power
to
work
miracles
,
to
institute
Sacraments
,
was
not
transmitted
to
Peter
and
his
successors
.
Answ.
This
is
a
base
consequence
,
Make
the
Pope
head
of
the
Church
:
the
King
,
if
he
be
a
mixed
person
,
that
is
,
half
a
Church-man
,
and
Christs
Vice-gerent
;
both
he
and
Prelates
must
be
members
of
the
head
.
Papists
teach
,
that
all
in
Christ
as
man
,
cannot
be
transmitted
to
Peter
,
but
a
Ministeriall
Catholike
Headship
(
say
Bucanus
and
his
fellows
)
was
transmitted
from
Christ
as
man
,
and
visible
head
,
to
Peter
and
the
Pope
.
P.
Prelate
.
I
wish
the
Pope
,
who
claimeth
so
neer
alliance
with
Answ.
The
same
was
the
wish
of
Gerson
,
Occam
,
the
Doctors
of
Paris
,
the
fathers
of
the
Councels
of
Constance
and
Basil
;
yet
all
make
him
head
of
the
Church
.
2.
The
Excommunicate
Prelate
is
turned
Chaplain
to
Preach
to
the
Pope
:
the
Soul-rest
that
Protestants
wish
to
the
Pope
is
,
That
the
Lord
would
destroy
him
by
the
Spirit
of
his
mouth
,
2
Thes.
2.
8.
But
P.
Prelates
,
This
wish
is
a
Reformation
of
accidents
,
with
the
safety
of
the
subject
,
the
Pope
,
and
is
as
good
as
a
wish
,
That
the
Devill
remaining
a
Devill
,
may
finde
rest
for
his
soul
,
all
we
are
to
pray
for
;
as
having
place
in
the
Church
,
are
supposed
members
of
the
Church
.
The
Prelate
would
not
pray
so
for
the
Presbytery
,
by
which
he
was
ordained
a
Pastour
,
1
Tim.
4.
14.
though
he
be
now
an
Apostate
:
It
is
gratitude
to
pray
for
his
lucky
father
the
Pope
.
What
ever
the
Prelate
wish
,
we
pray
for
,
and
beleeve
,
that
desolation
shall
be
his
Soul-rest
,
and
that
the
vengeance
of
the
Lord
,
and
of
his
Temple
,
shall
fall
upon
him
,
and
the
Prelates
his
sons
.
P.
Prelate
.
That
which
they
purpose
,
by
denying
Kings
to
be
Christs
Vice-gerents
,
is
to
set
up
a
Soveraignty
Ecclesiasticall
in
Presbyteries
,
to
constrain
Kings
,
repeal
his
Laws
,
correct
his
Satutes
,
reverse
his
Judgements
,
to
cite
,
convent
,
and
censure
Kings
;
and
if
there
be
not
power
to
execute
,
what
Presbyteries
decrees
,
they
may
call
and
command
the
help
of
the
people
,
in
whom
is
the
underived
Majestie
;
and
promise
,
and
swear
,
and
covenant
to
defend
their
fancies
,
against
all
mortall
men
,
with
their
Goods
,
Lands
,
Fortunes
,
to
admit
no
divisive
motion
;
and
this
Soveraign
Association
maketh
every
private
man
an
armed
Magistrate
.
Answ.
You
see
the
Excommunicate
Apostats
tusles
against
the
1.
We
deny
the
King
to
be
the
head
of
the
Church
.
2.
We
assert
,
that
in
the
Pastors
,
Doctors
,
and
Elders
of
the
Church
,
there
is
a
Ministeriall
power
,
as
servants
under
Christ
,
in
his
authority
,
and
name
,
to
rebuke
and
censure
Kings
;
that
there
is
revenge
in
the
Gospel
against
all
disobedience
,
2
Cor.
2.
6.
and
10.
6.
The
rod
of
God
,
1
Cor.
4.
21.
The
rod
of
Christs
lips
,
Isai.
11.
4.
The
Scepter
and
Sword
of
Christ
,
Revel.
1.
16.
and
19.
15.
The
Keyes
of
his
Kingdom
,
to
binde
and
loose
,
open
and
shut
,
Matth.
18.
17.
18.
and
16.
19.
1
Cor.
5.
1
,
2
,
3.
2
Thes.
3.
14
,
15.
1
Tim.
1.
19.
and
5.
22.
and
5.
17.
And
that
this
power
is
committed
to
the
Officers
of
Christs
house
,
call
them
as
you
will
.
3.
For
reversing
of
Laws
made
for
the
establishing
of
Popery
,
P.
Prelates
imprisoned
,
and
silenced
the
Ministers
of
Christ
,
who
preached
against
the
publike
sins
,
the
blood
,
oppressions
,
unjustice
,
open
swearing
,
and
blasphemy
of
the
holy
Name
of
God
,
the
countenancing
of
Idolaters
,
&c.
in
King
and
Court
.
4.
They
never
sought
the
help
of
the
people
,
against
the
most
unjust
standing
Law
of
authority
.
5.
They
did
never
swear
and
covenant
,
to
defend
their
own
fancies
,
For
the
Confession
and
Covenant
of
the
Protestant
Religion
,
translated
in
Latin
to
all
the
Protestants
in
Europe
and
America
,
being
termed
a
fancie
,
is
a
clear
evidence
,
That
this
P.
Prelate
was
justly
excommunicated
for
Popery
.
6.
This
Covenant
was
sworm
by
King
James
,
and
his
house
,
by
the
whole
Land
,
by
the
Prelates
themselves
.
And
to
this
fancy
,
this
P.
Prelate
by
the
Law
of
our
Land
was
obliged
to
swear
,
when
he
received
degrees
in
the
Universitie
.
7.
There
is
reason
our
Covenant
should
provide
against
divisive
motions
.
The
Prelates
moved
the
King
to
command
all
the
Land
to
swear
our
Covenant
,
in
the
Prelaticall
sense
,
against
the
intent
thereof
,
and
onely
to
devide
,
and
so
command
.
Iudge
what
Religion
Prelates
are
of
,
who
will
have
the
Name
of
God
prophaned
by
a
whole
Nation
,
by
swearing
fancies
.
8.
Of
making
private
men
Magistrates
,
in
defending
themselves
against
cut-throats
.
Enough
already
:
Let
the
P.
Prelate
answer
if
he
can
.
P.
Prelate
.
Let
no
man
imagine
me
to
priviledge
a
King
from
the
Answ.
Uzzah
did
not
burn
Incense
,
ex
vi
ordinis
,
as
if
he
had
been
a
Priest
,
but
because
he
was
a
King
,
and
Gods
anointed
.
Prelates
sit
not
in
Councell
and
Parliament
,
ex
vi
ordinis
,
as
temporall
Lords
.
The
Pope
is
no
temporall
Monarch
,
ex
vi
ordinis
;
yet
all
are
intruders
.
So
the
P.
P.
will
licence
Kings
to
administer
Sacraments
,
so
they
doe
it
not
Ex
vi
ordinis
.
P.
P.
Men
in
sacred
Orders
in
things
intrinsecally
spirituall
,
have
immediatly
a
directive
and
authoritative
power
,
in
order
,
to
all
whatsoever
,
although
ministeriall
only
,
as
related
to
Christ
;
but
that
giveth
them
no
coercive
civill
power
over
the
Prince
,
perse
,
or
per
accidens
,
directly
or
indirectly
,
that
either
the
one
way
or
the
other
,
any
or
many
in
sacred
Order
,
Pope
,
or
Presbytery
,
can
cite
and
censure
Kings
,
assocîate
,
Covenant
or
sweare
to
resist
him
,
and
force
him
to
submit
to
the
Scepter
of
Christ
.
This
power
over
man
God
Almighty
useth
not
,
much
lesse
hath
he
given
it
to
man
,
Ps.
110.
His
people
are
a
willing
people
,
Suadenda
non
cogenda
religio
.
Ans.
1.
Pastors
have
a
ministeriall
power
(
saith
he
)
in
spirituall
things
,
but
in
order
to
Christ
,
ergo
in
order
to
others
it
is
not
ministeriall
,
but
Lordly
.
So
here
a
Lordly
power
Pastors
have
over
Kings
,
by
the
P.
P.
way
.
We
teach
it
is
ministeriall
in
relation
to
all
,
because
Ministers
can
make
no
Lawes
as
Kings
can
doe
,
but
only
as
Heralds
,
declare
Christs
Lawes
.
2.
None
of
us
give
any
coercive
Civill
power
to
the
Church
,
over
either
Kings
,
or
any
other
,
it
is
Ecclesiasticall
;
a
power
to
rebuke
and
censure
was
never
civill
.
3.
A
religious
Covenant
to
swear
to
resist
,
that
is
,
to
defend
our selves
is
one
thing
,
and
a
lawfull
Oath
,
as
is
cleare
in
those
of
Israel
,
that
did
sweare
Asa's
Covenant
,
without
the
authority
of
their
owne
King
,
2
Chron.
15.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
and
to
sweare
to
force
the
King
to
submit
to
Christs
Scepter
is
another
thing
;
the
Presbytery
never
did
sweare
or
covenant
any
such
thing
:
nor
doe
we
take
Sacrament
upon
it
,
to
force
the
King
.
Prelates
have
made
the
King
sweare
,
and
take
his
Sacrament
upon
it
,
that
he
shall
roote
out
Puritanes
,
that
is
Protestants
,
whereas
he
did
sweare
athis
Coronation
to
roote
out
Heretickes
;
that
is
,
(
if
Prelates
were
not
traiterous
in
administring
the
Oath
)
Arminians
and
Papists
,
such
as
this
P.
P.
is
knowne
to
be
;
but
I
hold
that
the
Estates
of
Scotland
have
power
to
punish
the
King
,
if
he
labour
to
subvert
Religion
and
Lawes
.
4.
If
this
Argument
,
that
Religion
is
to
be
perswaded
,
not
forced
,
which
.
P.
P.
useth
,
be
good
,
it
will
make
much
against
the
King
for
the
King
then
can
force
no
man
to
the
externall
profession
,
and
use
of
the
ordinances
of
God
,
and
not
only
Kings
,
but
all
the
people
should
be
willing
.
P.
Prelate
.
Though
the
King
may
not
preach
,
&c.
yet
the
exercise
Ans.
If
yee
give
the
King
power
of
the
exercises
of
Word
and
P.
Prelate
maketh
the
King
a
Church-man
.
Sacraments
in
his
Kingdome
,
this
is
deprivation
of
Ministers
in
his
Kingdome
(
for
sure
he
cannot
hinder
them
in
another
Kingdome
)
you
may
make
him
to
give
a
Ministeriall
calling
,
if
he
may
take
it
away
.
By
what
word
of
God
can
the
King
close
the
mouth
of
the
man
of
God
,
whom
Christ
hath
commanded
to
speake
in
his
name
?
2.
If
the
King
may
externally
governe
the
Church
,
why
may
he
not
excommunicate
,
for
this
is
one
of
the
speciall
acts
of
Church
Government
,
especially
seeing
he
is
a
mixed
person
,
that
is
halfe
a
Church-man
,
and
if
he
may
prescribe
Arbitrary
teaching
Ceremonies
,
Surplice
to
instruct
men
in
the
duties
of
holinesse
required
of
Pastors
,
I
see
not
,
but
he
may
teach
the
Word
.
3.
Dr.
Ferne
and
other
P.
Prelate
giveth
an
Arbitrary
power
of
government
,
in
Christs-Church
to
the
King
.
Royalists
deny
Arbitrary
Government
to
the
King
in
the
State
,
and
with
reason
,
because
it
is
Tyranny
over
the
people
,
but
Prelates
are
not
ashamed
of
commanding
a
thing
Arbitrary
and
indifferent
in
Gods
Worship
,
shall
not
Arbitrary
Government
in
the
Church
be
tyranny
over
the
conscience
?
But
(
say
they
,
)
Church-men
teacheth
the
King
what
is
decent
and
orderly
in
Gods
Worship
,
and
he
commandeth
it
.
Ans.
Solomon
by
no
teaching
of
Church-men
deposed
Abiathar
▪
David
by
no
teaching
of
Church-men
appointed
the
forme
of
the
Temple
.
2.
Hath
God
given
a
Prerogative
Royall
to
Kings
,
whereby
they
may
governe
the
Church
,
and
as
Kings
they
shall
not
know
how
to
use
it
,
but
in
so
farre
,
as
they
are
taught
by
Church
▪
men
?
3.
Certainely
we
shall
once
be
informed
by
Gods
Word
,
what
is
this
Prerogative
,
if
according
to
it
,
all
the
externall
worship
of
God
may
be
ordered
.
Lawyers
and
Royalists
teach
,
that
it
is
an
absolutenesse
of
power
,
to
doe
above
,
or
against
a
Law
,
as
they
say
from
1
Sam.
8.
v.
9.
11.
and
whereby
the
King
may
oppresse
,
and
no
man
What
dost
thou
?
Now
,
Good
P.
Prelate
,
if
by
a
plenitude
of
tyranny
the
King
prescribe
what
he
will
in
the
externall
worship
and
government
of
Gods
House
,
who
can
rebuke
the
King
,
though
he
command
all
the
Antichristian
Ceremonies
of
Rome
,
and
of
Turkey
,
yea
and
the
sacrificing
of
children
to
Molech
?
(
for
absolutenesse
Royall
will
amount
to
shedding
of
innocent
blood
)
for
if
any
oppose
the
King
,
or
say
,
Sir
,
What
doe
you
?
he
opposeth
the
Prerogative
Royall
,
and
that
is
highest
Rebellion
,
saith
our
P.
Prelate
.
5.
I
see
not
how
the
King
is
a
mixt
person
,
because
he
is
Defender
of
the
Faith
,
as
the
Pope
named
the
King
of
England
,
Henry
the
eighth
:
he
defendeth
it
by
his
Sword
,
as
he
is
a
Nurse-father
,
not
by
the
sword
that
commeth
out
of
his
mouth
.
6.
I
would
know
how
Iulian
,
Nebuchadnezzar
,
Og
,
and
Sihon
,
were
mixed
persons
,
and
did
all
in
the
externall
government
of
the
Church
;
and
that
by
their
office
,
as
they
were
Kings
.
7.
All
the
instances
that
Augustine
bringeth
to
prove
that
the
King
is
a
mixt
person
,
proveth
nothing
but
Civill
acts
in
Kings
;
as
Hezekiah
cast
down
the
high
places
,
the
King
of
Nineve
compelled
to
obey
the
Prophet
Ionah
;
Darius
cast
Daniels
enemies
to
the
Lyons
.
P.
Prelate
.
If
you
make
two
Soveraignes
,
and
two
Independents
,
there
is
no
more
peace
in
the
State
,
then
in
Rebeckahs
wombe
,
while
Jacob
and
Esau
strove
for
the
prerogative
.
Ans.
1.
What
need
Israel
strive
,
when
Moses
and
Aaron
are
two
Independents
?
If
Aaron
make
a
golden
Calfe
,
may
not
Moses
punish
him
?
If
Moses
turne
an
Achab
,
and
sell
himselfe
to
doe
wickedly
,
ought
not
80
valiant
Priests
and
Aarons
both
rebuke
,
censure
,
and
resist
?
2.
p.
65.
The
P.
P.
said
,
Let
no
man
imagine
we
priviledge
the
King
from
the
direction
and
power
of
the
Church
,
so
he
be
no
intruding
Vzzah
.
I
pray
,
P.
P.
what
is
this
Church
power
?
Is
it
not
supreme
in
its
kinde
of
Church
power
?
or
is
it
subordinate
to
the
King
?
If
it
be
supreme
,
see
how
P.
P.
maketh
two
Supremes
,
and
two
Soveraignes
.
Object
.
Not
in
the
same
cause
;
that
is
impossible
.
If
the
King
say
Masse
,
shall
the
Church
judge
and
censure
the
King
for
intrusion
?
and
because
the
King
is
also
Soveraigne
and
Supreme
in
his
kinde
,
he
may
judge
and
punish
the
Church
for
their
act
of
judging
and
censuring
the
King
;
it
being
an
intrusion
on
his
prerogative
,
that
any
should
judge
the
highest
Judge
.
Ans.
The
one
is
not
subiect
to
the
other
,
but
in
the
case
of
male-administration
:
the
innocent
,
as
innocent
,
is
subject
to
no
higher
punishing
;
he
may
be
subject
to
a
higher
,
as
accusing
,
citing
,
&c.
Now
the
Royalist
must
give
instance
in
the
same
cause
,
where
the
Church
faileth
against
the
King
and
his
Civill
law
;
and
the
King
in
the
same
cause
faileth
against
the
Church-canon
;
and
then
it
shall
be
easie
to
answer
.
P.
Prelate
.
Religion
is
the
bottome
of
all
happinesse
,
if
you
make
the
Cic.
in
Ver.
Omnes
Religione
moventur
:
Superstition
is
furious
,
and
maddeth
people
,
that
they
spare
neither
Crown
nor
Mitre
.
Ans.
Cold
and
dry
is
the
P.
P.
when
he
spendeth
foure
pages
in
declamation
for
the
excellencie
of
Religion
;
The
madnesse
of
Superstition
,
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
1.
The
King
hath
a
chiefe
hand
in
Church
affaires
,
when
he
is
a
Nurse-father
,
and
beareth
the
Royall
sword
to
defend
both
the
Tables
of
the
Law
,
though
he
doe
not
spin
and
weave
Surplices
,
and
other
base
Masse-cloaths
,
to
Prelates
,
and
such
Priests
of
Baal
:
They
dishonour
his
Majestie
,
who
bring
his
Prerogative
so
low
.
2.
The
King
doth
not
execute
with
blind
obedience
,
with
us
,
King
of
Iudah
,
and
Nebuchadnezzar
are
servants
to
Ieremiah
and
Daniel
,
because
they
are
to
obey
the
Word
of
the
Lord
in
their
mouth
.
Let
them
shew
a
reason
of
this
,
why
they
are
servants
in
executing
Gods
will
in
Discipline
,
and
in
punishing
what
the
Holy
Ghost
by
his
Apostles
and
Elders
decree
,
when
any
contemne
the
Decree
concerning
the
abstinence
from
blood
,
things
strangled
,
&c.
Act.
15.
rather
then
when
they
punish
murther
,
idolatrie
,
blasphemie
,
which
are
condemned
in
the
Word
preached
by
Pastors
of
Christ
:
and
farther
,
this
objection
would
have
some
more
colour
(
realitie
it
hath
not
)
if
Kings
were
only
to
execute
what
the
Church
ministerially
in
Christs
name
,
commandeth
to
be
done
in
Synods
:
but
Kings
may
,
and
doe
command
Synods
to
conveen
,
and
doe
their
duty
,
and
command
many
duties
never
Synodically
decreed
;
as
they
are
to
cast
out
of
their
Court
apostare
Prelates
,
sleeping
many
yeares
in
the
Devils
armes
,
and
are
to
command
Trencher-Divines
,
neglecting
their
flock
,
and
lying
at
Court
,
attending
the
falling
of
a
dead
Bishop
,
as
Ravens
doe
an
old
dying
horse
;
To
goe
and
attend
the
flock
,
and
not
the
Court
,
as
this
P.
P.
did
.
3.
A
King
hath
greater
outward
glory
,
and
may
doe
much
more
service
to
Christ
in
respect
of
extension
,
and
is
excellenter
then
the
Pastor
,
who
yet
,
in
regard
of
intension
,
is
busied
about
nobler
things
,
to
wit
,
the
Soule
,
the
Gospel
,
Eternitie
,
than
the
King
.
4.
Superstition
maddeth
men
;
but
it
followeth
not
,
that
true
Religion
may
not
set
them
on
work
to
defend
soule
and
body
against
Tyrannie
of
the
Crown
,
and
Antichristian
Mitres
.
P.
Prelate
.
The
Kingdome
had
peace
,
and
plentie
in
Prelates
time
.
Ans.
A
belly-argument
.
We
had
plenty
,
when
we
sacrificed
to
the
Queen
of
Heaven
.
2.
If
the
Traveller
contend
to
have
his
purse
againe
,
shall
the
Robber
say
,
Robberie
was
blessed
with
peace
?
The
rest
,
to
the
end
,
are
lies
,
and
answered
already
.
Only
his
invectives
against
ruling
Elders
,
falsly
called
Lay-Elders
,
are
not
to
purpose
.
Parliament-Priests
,
and
Lay
and
Court-Pastors
,
are
Lay-Prophets
.
2.
That
Presbyteries
▪
meddle
with
Civill
businesse
,
is
a
slander
;
3.
Something
he
saith
of
Popes
usurping
over
Kings
;
but
only
of
one
of
his
fathers
,
a
great
uncleane
spirit
,
Gregorie
the
Great
:
But
if
he
had
refuted
him
by
Gods
Word
,
he
should
have
thrown
stones
at
his
own
Tribe
;
for
Prelates
,
like
him
,
doe
,
ex
officio
,
trample
upon
the
neck
of
Kings
.
4.
His
testimonies
of
one
Councell
,
and
one
Father
,
for
all
Antiquitie
,
proveth
nothing
.
Athanasius
said
,
God
hath
given
Davids
Throne
to
Kings
:
What
,
to
be
Head
of
the
Church
?
No
,
to
be
the
Minister
of
God
,
without
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
tutour
the
Church
.
And
because
Kings
reigne
by
Christ
,
as
the
Councell
of
Arimin
saith
;
therefore
it
may
follow
,
a
Baily
is
also
Head
of
the
Church
.
It
is
taken
from
Prov.
8.
and
answered
.
5.
That
Presbyteries
have
usurped
upon
Kings
,
more
then
Popes
,
since
Hildebrand
,
is
a
lie
:
all
stories
are
full
of
the
usurpation
of
Prelates
,
his
own
tribe
;
The
Pope
is
but
a
swelled
fat
Prelate
;
and
what
he
saith
of
Popes
,
he
saith
of
his
own
house
.
6.
The
Ministers
of
Christ
in
Scotland
,
had
never
a
contest
with
King
Iames
,
but
for
his
sinnes
,
and
his
conniving
with
Papists
,
and
his
introducing
Bishops
,
the
usher
of
the
Pope
.
QUEST.
XLIII
.
Whether
the
King
of
Scotland
be
an
absolute
Prince
,
having
Prerogatives
above
Parliament
and
Laws
?
The
Negative
is
asserted
by
the
Lawes
of
Scotland
,
the
Kings
Oath
of
Coronation
,
the
Confession
of
Faith
&c.
THe
negative
part
of
this
,
I
hold
,
in
these
Assertions
.
Assert
.
1.
The
Kings
of
Scotland
have
not
any
Prerogative
acted
in
Parliament
,
under
paine
of
disobedience
;
then
must
the
King
governe
by
no
other
Lawes
,
and
so
by
no
Prerogative
above
Law
.
But
the
former
is
an
evident
truth
,
by
our
Acts
of
Parliament
;
ergo
,
so
is
the
latter
.
The
Proposition
is
confirmed
;
1.
Because
what
ever
Law
enjoyneth
passive
obedience
no
way
but
by
Lawes
;
that
must
injoyne
also
the
King
actively
to
command
no
other
way
but
by
Law
:
for
to
be
governed
by
Law
,
essentially
includeth
,
to
be
governed
by
the
Supreme
Governour
,
only
by
Law
.
2.
An
act
of
Regall
governing
,
is
an
act
of
Law
,
and
essentially
an
act
of
Law
;
an
act
of
absolute
Prerogative
is
no
act
of
Law
,
but
an
act
above
Law
,
or
of
pleasure
loosed
from
Law
;
and
so
they
are
opposed
as
acts
of
Law
,
and
non-acts
of
Law
.
If
the
Subjects
,
by
command
of
the
King
and
Parliament
,
cannot
be
governed
but
by
Law
;
How
can
the
King
but
be
under
his
own
,
and
the
Parliaments
Law
,
to
governe
only
by
Law
?
I
prove
the
Assumption
from
Parl.
3.
of
K.
Iames
the
1.
Act
48.
Ordaines
,
That
all
and
sundry
the
Kings
Lieges
be
governed
under
the
Kings
Laws
and
Statutes
of
the
Realme
allanerly
,
and
under
no
particular
Lawes
,
or
speciall
Priviledges
,
nor
by
any
Lawes
of
other
Countries
or
Realmes
.
Priviledges
doe
exclude
Lawes
:
Absolute
pleasure
of
the
King
,
as
a
Man
,
and
the
Law
of
the
King
as
King
,
are
opposed
by
way
of
contradiction
:
and
so
in
Parl.
6.
K.
James
4.
Act.
79.
and
ratified
Parl.
8.
K.
Iames
6.
Act.
131.
2.
The
King
,
at
his
Coronation
,
1
Par.
K.
James
6.
Act.
8.
sweareth
to
maintaine
the
true
Kirk
of
God
,
and
Religion
now
presently
professed
,
in
puritie
;
And
to
rule
the
People
according
to
the
Lawes
and
Constitutions
received
in
the
Realme
;
causing
Justice
and
equitie
to
be
ministred
without
partialitie
.
This
did
King
Charles
sweare
at
his
Coronation
,
and
ratified
Parl.
7.
K.
Iam.
6.
Act.
99.
Hence
he
who
by
the
Oath
of
God
is
limited
to
governe
by
Law
,
can
have
no
Prerogative
above
the
Law
.
If
then
the
King
change
the
Religion
,
Confession
of
Faith
,
authorised
by
many
Parliaments
,
especially
by
Parliament
,
1
K.
Charles
,
An.
1633.
He
goeth
against
his
Oath
3.
The
Kings
Royall
Prerogative
,
or
rather
Supremacie
,
enacted
Parl.
8.
K.
James
6.
Act.
129.
and
Parl.
18.
Act.
1.
and
Parl.
21.
Act.
1.
K.
Iames
,
and
1
Parl.
K.
Charles
,
Act.
3.
cannot
,
1.
be
contrary
to
the
Oath
that
K.
Charles
did
sweare
at
his
Coronation
,
which
bringeth
down
the
Prerogative
,
to
governing
according
to
the
standing
Lawes
of
the
Realme
.
2.
It
cannot
be
contrary
to
these
former
Parliaments
and
Acts
,
declaring
that
the
Lieges
are
to
be
governed
by
the
Lawes
of
the
Realme
,
and
by
no
particular
Lawes
and
speciall
Priviledges
:
(
but
absolute
Prerogative
is
a
speciall
Priviledge
above
,
or
without
Law
)
which
Acts
stand
unrepealed
to
this
day
:
and
these
Acts
of
Parliaments
stand
ratified
,
An.
1633.
the
1
Parl.
K.
Charles
.
3.
Parl.
8.
K.
Iames
6.
in
the
first
three
Acts
thereof
,
the
Kings
Supremacie
,
and
the
power
and
authoritie
of
Parliaments
,
are
equally
ratified
,
under
the
same
paine
:
Their
jurisdictions
,
power
and
judgements
in
Spirituall
or
Temporall
causes
,
not
ratified
by
His
Majestie
,
and
the
three
Estates
conveened
in
Parliament
,
are
discharged
.
But
the
Absolute
Prerogative
of
the
King
above
Law
,
Equity
,
and
Iustice
,
was
never
ratified
in
any
Parliament
of
Scotland
to
this
day
.
4.
Parliam
.
12.
K.
Iames
6.
Act.
114.
All
former
Acts
in
favour
of
the
true
Church
and
Religion
,
being
ratified
,
Their
power
of
making
Constitutions
concerning
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Order
and
Decency
;
the
Priviledges
that
God
hath
given
to
spirituall
Office-bearers
,
as
well
of
Doctrine
and
Discipline
,
in
matters
of
Heresie
,
Excommunication
,
Collation
,
Deprivation
,
and
such
like
,
warranted
by
the
Word
of
God
,
and
also
to
Assembles
and
Presbyteries
,
are
ratified
.
Now
in
that
Parliament
,
in
Acts
so
contiguous
,
we
are
not
to
think
,
That
the
King
and
three
Estates
,
would
make
Acts
for
establishing
the
Churches
power
in
all
the
former
heads
of
Government
;
in
which
,
Royalists
say
,
The
soul
of
the
Kings
Absolute
Prerogative
doth
consist
:
And
therefore
it
must
be
the
true
intent
of
our
Parliament
,
to
give
the
King
a
Supremacy
and
a
Prerogative
Royall
(
which
we
also
give
)
but
without
any
Absolutenesse
of
boundlesse
and
transcendent
power
above
Law
;
and
not
to
obtrude
a
Service-Book
,
and
all
the
Superstitious
Rites
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
without
Gods
Word
,
upon
us
.
5.
The
former
Act
of
Parliament
ratifieth
the
true
Religion
,
according
to
the
Word
of
God
,
then
could
it
never
have
been
the
intent
of
our
Parliament
,
to
ratifie
an
Absolute
supremacy
,
according
to
which
,
a
King
might
govern
his
people
,
as
a
Tyrannous
Lion
,
contrary
to
Deut.
17.
18
,
19
,
20.
And
't
is
true
:
The
18.
P.
of
King
James
6.
Act.
1.
and
Act.
2.
upon
personall
qualifications
,
giveth
a
Royall
Prerogative
to
King
James
over
all
causes
,
persons
,
and
estates
,
within
His
Majesties
Dominion
;
whom
they
humbly
acknowledge
,
to
be
Soveraign
Monarch
,
Absolute
Prince
,
Judge
,
and
Governour
over
all
Estates
,
Persons
,
and
Causes
.
These
two
Acts
,
for
my
part
I
acknowledge
,
spoken
rather
in
Court-expressions
,
then
in
Law-termes
.
1.
Because
personall
vertues
cannot
advance
a
limited
Prince
(
such
as
the
Kings
of
Scotland
,
Post
hominum
memoriam
,
ever
were
)
to
be
an
Absolute
Prince
:
Personall
graces
make
not
David
absolutely
supreme
Judge
over
all
persons
and
causes
;
nor
can
King
James
,
advanced
to
be
King
of
England
,
be
for
that
,
made
more
King
of
Scotland
,
and
more
supreme
Iudge
,
then
he
was
,
while
he
was
onely
King
of
Scotland
.
A
wicked
Prince
is
as
essentially
supreme
Iudge
,
as
a
godly
King
.
2.
If
this
Parliamentary
figure
of
speech
which
is
to
be
imputed
to
the
times
,
exalted
King
James
to
be
Absolute
in
Scotland
,
for
his
personall
indowments
,
there
was
no
ground
to
put
the
same
on
King
Charls
.
Personall
vertues
are
not
alway
Hereditary
,
though
to
me
the
present
King
be
the
best
.
3.
There
is
not
any
Absolutenesse
above
Law
in
the
Act.
1.
The
Parliament
must
be
more
absolute
themselves
.
King
James
6.
had
been
divers
yeers
before
this
18.
Parl.
King
of
Scotland
;
then
if
they
gave
him
by
Law
an
Absolutenesse
,
which
he
had
not
before
,
then
they
were
more
Absolute
.
These
who
can
adde
Absolutenesse
,
must
have
it
in
themselves
,
Nemo
dat
quod
non
habet
,
if
it
be
said
,
King
James
had
that
before
the
Act
,
the
Parliament
legally
declared
it
to
be
his
power
,
which
before
the
Declaration
,
was
his
power
.
I
answer
,
All
he
had
before
this
Declaration
was
,
to
govern
the
people
according
to
Law
and
Conscience
,
and
no
more
;
and
if
they
declare
no
other
Prerogative
Royall
to
be
due
to
him
,
there
is
an
end
,
we
grant
all
.
But
then
this
which
they
call
Prerogative
Royall
is
no
more
,
then
,
a
power
to
govern
according
to
Law
,
and
so
you
adde
nothing
to
King
James
,
upon
the
ground
of
his
personall
vertues
,
onely
you
make
an
oration
to
his
praise
in
the
Acts
of
Parliament
.
4.
If
this
Absolutenesse
of
Prerogative
,
be
given
to
the
King
,
the
subjects
swearing
obedience
,
swear
,
That
he
hath
power
from
themselves
,
to
destroy
themselves
:
this
is
neither
a
lawfull
oath
,
nor
though
they
should
swear
it
,
doth
it
oblige
them
.
6.
A
Supreme
Iudge
,
is
a
supreme
father
of
all
his
children
,
and
all
their
causes
;
and
to
be
a
supreme
Father
,
cannot
be
contrary
to
a
supreme
Iudge
:
but
contrary
it
must
be
,
if
this
supremacy
make
over
to
the
Prince
,
a
power
of
devouring
as
a
Lyon
,
and
that
by
a
regall
priviledge
,
and
by
office
,
whereas
he
should
be
a
father
to
save
;
or
if
a
Iudge
kill
an
ill-doer
,
though
that
be
an
act
destructive
to
one
man
,
yet
is
it
an
act
of
a
father
to
the
Common-wealth
.
An
act
of
supreme
and
absolute
Royaltie
is
often
an
act
of
destruction
to
one
particular
man
,
and
to
the
whole
Common-wealth
.
For
example
,
when
the
King
out
of
his
Absolute
Prerogative
,
pardoneth
a
murtherer
,
and
he
killeth
another
innocent
man
,
and
out
of
the
same
ground
,
the
King
pardoneth
him
again
,
and
so
till
he
kill
twenty
(
for
by
what
reason
the
Prerogative
giveth
one
pardon
,
he
may
give
twenty
,
there
is
a
like
reason
above
Law
for
all
.
)
This
act
of
Absolute
Royaltie
,
is
such
an
act
of
murther
,
as
if
a
shepherd
would
keep
a
Woolf
in
the
fold
with
the
sheep
,
he
were
guilty
of
the
losse
of
these
sheep
.
Now
an
act
of
destroying
,
cannot
be
an
act
of
judging
,
far
lesse
of
a
supreme
Iudge
,
but
of
a
supreme
Murtherer
;
7.
Whereas
he
is
called
Absolute
Prince
,
and
Supreme
Judge
,
in
all
Causes
,
Ecclesiasticall
and
Civill
.
It
is
to
be
considered
,
1.
That
the
Estates
professe
in
these
acts
,
not
to
give
any
of
freedom
,
from
Law
,
or
Prerogative
above
Law
;
whereunto
as
unto
the
norma
,
regula
,
ac
mensura
potestatis
suae
,
ac
subjectionis
meae
,
He
is
tyed
by
the
Fundamentall
Law
,
and
his
own
Oath
,
but
in
opposition
to
all
forraign
Iurisdiction
or
principalitie
above
him
,
as
is
evident
,
by
the
Oath
of
Supremacie
set
down
,
for
acknowledging
of
his
power
in
the
first
Act
of
Parliament
21.
K.
Iam.
6.
3.
They
are
but
the
same
expressions
,
giving
onely
the
same
power
before
acknowledged
in
the
129.
Act.
Parl.
8.
K.
Iam.
6.
And
that
onely
over
Persons
or
Estates
,
considered
Separatim
,
and
over
Causes
;
but
neither
at
all
over
the
Laws
,
nor
over
the
Estates
,
taken
Conjunctim
,
and
as
convened
in
Parliament
,
as
is
clear
,
both
by
the
two
immediately
subsequent
Acts
of
that
Parliament
8.
K.
Iam.
6.
Establishing
the
Authority
of
Parliaments
,
equally
with
the
Kings
,
and
discharging
all
Iurisdictions
(
albeit
granted
by
the
King
)
without
their
Warrant
;
as
also
by
the
Narrative
Depositive
words
,
and
certification
of
the
Act
it self
:
otherwayes
,
the
Estates
convened
in
Parliament
,
might
by
vertue
of
that
Act
,
be
summoned
before
,
and
censured
by
the
Kings
Majestie
or
His
Councell
a
Iudicatory
substitute
be
,
subordinate
to
,
and
censurable
by
themselves
,
which
were
contrary
to
sense
and
reason
.
4.
The
very
termes
of
Supreme
Iudge
,
and
in
all
Causes
,
according
to
the
nature
of
Correlates
,
presupposeth
Courts
,
and
judiciall
Proceedings
and
Laws
,
as
the
ground
work
and
rule
of
all
,
not
a
freedom
from
them
.
5.
The
sixth
Act
of
the
twenty
Parliament
,
K.
Iac.
6.
Cleerly
interpreteth
what
is
meant
by
the
Kings
Iurisdiction
in
all
Spirituall
and
Ecclesiastick
Causes
:
to
wit
,
to
be
onely
in
the
Consistoriall
Causes
of
Matrimony
,
Testaments
,
Bastardy
▪
Adulteries
,
abusively
called
Spirituall
Causes
,
because
handled
in
Commissary
Courts
,
wherin
the
King
appoints
the
Commissary
,
his
Deputies
,
and
makes
the
Lords
of
the
Session
his
great
Consistory
in
all
Ecclesiasticall
Causes
,
with
reservation
of
his
Supremacy
and
Prerogative
therein
.
7.
Supreame
Iudge
in
all
causes
,
cannot
be
taken
Quoad
actus
elicitos
,
as
if
the
King
were
to
judge
between
two
Sea-men
,
or
two
Husband-men
,
or
two
Trades-men
,
in
that
which
is
proper
to
their
Art
;
or
between
two
Painters
:
certainly
the
King
is
not
to
Iudge
which
of
the
two
draweth
the
fairest
Picture
,
but
which
of
the
two
wasteth
most
gold
on
his
Picture
,
and
so
doth
interest
most
of
the
Common-wealth
.
So
the
King
cannot
judge
in
all
Ecclesiasticall
Causes
,
that
is
,
he
cannot
,
Quoad
actos
elicitos
,
prescribe
this
Worship
:
for
example
,
the
Masse
,
not
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
Therefore
the
King
hath
but
Actus
imperatos
,
some
Royall
Politicall
Acts
about
the
Worship
of
God
to
command
God
to
be
Worshipped
according
to
his
Word
,
to
punish
the
superstitions
or
neglectors
of
Divine
Worship
;
therefore
cannot
the
King
be
sole
Iudge
in
matters
that
belong
to
the
Colledge
of
Iudges
by
the
Lawes
of
Scotland
,
the
Lords
of
Session
onely
may
judge
these
maters
.
K.
Iames
,
1.
Parl.
2.
Act.
45.
K.
Iames
3.
Par.
8.
Act.
62.
K.
Iames
3.
Par.
4.
Act.
105.
K.
I.
1.
Parl.
6.
Act.
83.
K.
I.
1.
Par.
6
Act.
86.
K.
I.
5.
Par.
7.
Act.
104.
and
that
only
according
to
Law
,
without
any
remedy
of
appellation
to
King
or
the
Parliament
,
Act
62
,
and
63.
Par.
14.
K.
I.
2.
And
the
King
is
by
Act
of
Parliament
inhibited
to
send
any
private
letter
to
stay
the
Acts
of
Iustice
;
or
if
any
such
letter
be
procured
,
the
Iudges
are
not
to
acknowledge
it
,
as
the
Kings
Will
,
for
they
are
to
proceed
unpartially
according
to
Iustice
,
and
are
to
make
the
Law
,
which
is
the
King
and
Parliaments
publick
revealed
will
,
their
rule
,
King
I.
5.
Parl.
5.
Act.
68.
K.
Ia.
6.
Part.
8.
Act.
139.
and
K.
I.
6.
Par.
6.
Act.
92.
most
lawfull
.
Nor
may
the
Lords
suspend
the
course
of
Iustice
,
or
the
sentence
or
execution
of
Decrees
upon
the
Kings
private
letter
.
King
I.
6.
Parl.
11.
Act
79.
and
K.
Iam.
6.
Par.
11.
Act
47.
and
so
if
the
Kings
Will
or
desire
,
as
he
is
a
man
,
be
opposite
to
his
Law
,
and
his
Will
as
King
,
it
is
not
to
be
regarded
.
This
is
a
strong
Argument
,
that
the
Parliaments
never
made
the
King
supreame
Iudge
,
Quoad
actus
elicitos
,
in
all
causes
,
nay
not
if
the
King
have
a
Cause
of
his
owne
that
concerneth
Lands
of
the
Crowne
;
farre
lesse
can
the
King
have
a
will
of
Prerogative
above
the
Law
by
our
Lawes
of
Scotland
:
And
therefore
,
when
in
the
eighth
Parliament
King
Ia.
6.
the
Kings
Royall
Power
is
established
in
the
first
Act
,
the
very
next
act
immediatly
subjoyned
thereunto
declareth
the
authority
of
thesupreame
Court
of
Parliament
continued
past
all
memory
of
man
unto
this
day
,
and
constitute
of
the
free
voices
of
the
three
estates
of
this
ancient
Kingdome
,
which
in
the
Parliament
1606.
is
called
,
The
ancient
and
fundamentall
policy
of
this
Kingdome
;
and
so
fundamentall
,
as
if
it
should
be
innovate
,
such
confusion
would
ensue
,
as
it
could
no
more
be
a
free
Monarchy
,
as
is
exprest
in
the
Parliaments
printed
Commission
,
1604.
by
whom
the
same
under
God
hath
been
upholden
,
rebellious
and
traiterous
subjects
punished
,
the
good
and
faithfull
preserved
and
maintained
,
and
the
Lawes
and
Acts
of
Parliament
(
by
which
all
men
are
governed
)
made
and
established
,
and
appointeth
the
Honour
,
Authority
,
and
Dignity
of
the
Estates
of
Parliament
to
stand
in
their
owne
integrity
,
according
to
the
ancient
and
laudable
custome
by
past
,
without
alteration
or
diminution
,
and
therefore
dischargeth
any
to
presume
or
take
in
hand
,
To
impugne
the
dignity
,
and
the
authority
of
the
said
Estates
,
or
to
seeke
,
or
procure
the
innovation
,
or
diminution
of
their
power
or
authority
under
the
paine
of
Treason
:
and
therefore
in
the
next
Act
,
they
discharge
all
Iurisdictions
,
or
Judicatories
(
albeit
appointed
by
the
Kings
Majesty
,
as
the
High
Commission
was
,
)
without
their
Warrant
and
approbation
;
and
that
as
contrary
to
the
fundamentall
Laws
,
above
titled
,
48.
Act.
Parl.
3.
K.
Ia.
1.
and
Act.
79.
Parl.
6.
King
Ia.
4.
whereby
the
Lieges
should
only
be
ruled
by
the
Lawes
or
Acts
,
past
in
the
Parliament
of
this
Kingdome
.
Now
what
was
the
ancient
Dignity
,
Authority
,
and
power
of
the
Parliaments
of
Scotland
,
which
is
to
stand
without
diminution
,
that
will
be
easily
and
best
known
from
the
subsequent
passages
,
or
Historians
,
which
can
also
be
very
easily
verified
,
by
the
old
Registers
,
whensoever
they
should
be
produced
;
In
the
meane
time
remember
that
in
Parliament
and
by
Act
of
Parl.
K.
Ia.
6.
for
observing
the
due
order
of
Parliament
,
promiseth
,
never
to
doe
,
or
command
any
thing
,
which
may
directly
or
indirectly
prejudge
the
libertie
of
free
reasoning
or
voting
of
Parliament
.
K.
Ia.
6.
Parl.
11.
Act.
40.
And
withall
,
to
evidence
the
freedome
of
the
Parliament
of
Scotland
,
from
that
absolute
unlimited
Prerogative
of
the
Prince
;
and
their
libertie
to
resist
his
breaking
of
Covenant
with
them
,
or
Treaties
with
forraigne
Nations
;
Ye
shall
consider
,
1.
That
the
Kings
of
Scotland
are
obliged
,
before
they
be
inaugurate
,
to
sweare
and
make
their
faithfull
Covenant
to
the
true
Kirk
of
God
,
that
they
shall
maintaine
,
defend
,
and
set
forward
the
true
Religion
confessed
and
established
within
this
Realme
;
even
as
they
are
obliged
and
astricted
by
the
Law
of
God
,
as
well
in
Deuteronomie
,
as
in
the
11
chap.
of
the
2.
book
of
the
Kings
;
and
as
they
crave
obedience
of
their
subjects
.
So
that
the
bond
and
contract
shall
be
mutuall
and
reciprocall
,
in
all
time
comming
,
between
the
Prince
and
the
People
,
according
to
the
Word
of
God
;
as
is
fully
exprest
in
the
Register
of
the
convention
of
Estates
,
Iuly
1567.
2.
That
important
Acts
and
Sentences
at
home
,
(
whereof
one
is
printed
,
112
Act.
Parl.
14.
K.
Ia.
3.
)
and
in
Treaties
with
Forraigne
Princes
,
the
Estates
of
Parliament
did
append
their
severall
Seales
Grotius
,
Barclaius
,
and
A●nisaeus
,
is
an
undeniable
argument
of
a
limited
Prince
,
as
well
as
the
stile
of
our
Parliament
,
that
the
Estates
with
the
King
,
ordaine
,
ratifie
,
rescind
,
&c.
)
as
also
they
were
obliged
,
in
case
of
the
Kings
breaking
these
Treaties
,
to
resist
him
therein
,
even
by
armes
,
and
that
without
any
breach
of
their
allegiance
,
or
of
his
Prerogative
;
as
is
yet
extant
in
the
records
of
our
old
Treaties
with
England
and
France
,
&c.
But
to
goe
on
,
and
leave
some
high
mysteries
unto
a
rejoynder
.
And
to
the
end
I
may
make
good
,
that
nothing
is
here
taught
,
in
this
Treatise
,
but
the
very
Doctrine
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
I
desire
that
the
Reader
may
take
notice
of
the
larger
Confession
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
printed
with
the
Syntagme
and
body
of
the
Confessions
,
at
Geneva
,
anno
MDCXII
.
and
authorized
by
King
Iames
the
6.
and
the
three
Estates
in
Parliament
;
and
printed
in
our
Acts
of
Parliament
,
Parl.
15.
K.
Iames
6.
An.
1567.
Amongst
good
works
of
the
Second
Table
,
saith
our
Confession
,
art.
14.
are
these
:
To
honour
Father
,
Mother
,
Princes
,
Rulers
,
and
superiour
Powers
:
To
love
them
,
to
support
them
,
yea
to
obey
their
Charge
,
(
not
repugning
to
the
commandement
of
God
)
to
save
the
lives
of
innocents
,
to
represse
Tyrannie
,
to
defend
the
oppressed
,
to
keep
our
bodies
cleane
and
holy
,
&c.
The
contrary
whereof
is
,
To
disobey
or
resist
any
that
God
hath
placed
in
Authoritie
,
(
while
they
passe
not
over
the
bounds
of
their
office
)
to
murther
,
or
to
consent
thereunto
,
to
beare
hatred
,
or
to
let
innocent
blood
be
shed
,
if
we
may
withstand
it
,
&c.
Now
the
Confession
citeth
in
the
margin
,
Ephes.
6.
1.
7.
and
Ezek.
22.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
&c.
where
it
is
evident
,
by
the
name
of
Father
and
Mother
,
all
inferious
Iudges
as
well
as
the
King
,
and
especially
the
Princes
,
Rulers
,
and
Lords
of
Parliament
are
understood
.
2.
Ezek.
22.
The
bloody
City
is
to
be
judged
,
because
they
releeved
not
the
oppressed
out
of
the
hand
of
bloody
Princes
,
v.
6.
who
every
one
of
them
were
to
their
power
to
shed
innocent
blood
.
3.
To
resist
superiour
powers
,
and
so
the
Estates
of
Parliament
,
as
the
Cavalters
of
Scotland
doe
,
is
resistance
forbidden
,
Romans
1●
.
1.
the
place
is
also
cited
in
the
confession
.
And
the
Confession
exponeth
the
place
,
Romans
13.
according
to
the
interpretation
of
all
sound
Expositers
;
as
is
evident
in
these
words
,
Art.
24.
And
therefore
we
confesse
and
avouch
,
that
such
as
resist
the
supreame
power
,
doing
that
thing
which
appertaineth
to
his
charge
,
doe
resist
Gods
ordinance
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
guiltlesse
.
And
further
we
affirme
,
that
whosoever
denyeth
unto
them
aide
,
their
counsell
and
comfort
,
while
as
the
Princes
and
Rulers
vigilantly
travell
in
execution
of
their
Office
,
that
the
same
men
deny
their
helpe
,
support
and
counsell
to
God
,
who
by
the
presence
of
his
Lieutenant
craves
it
of
them
.
From
which
words
we
have
cleare
:
1.
That
to
resist
the
King
or
Parliament
,
is
to
resist
them
,
while
as
they
are
doing
the
thing
that
appertaineth
to
their
charge
,
and
while
they
vigilantly
travell
in
the
execution
of
their
office
.
But
while
King
and
Parliament
doe
acts
of
Tyranny
against
Gods
Law
,
and
all
good
Lawes
of
men
,
they
doe
not
the
things
that
appertaine
to
their
charge
and
the
execution
of
their
Office
;
ergo
by
our
confession
,
to
resist
them
in
Tyrannicall
acts
is
,
not
to
resist
the
ordinance
of
God
.
2.
To
resist
Princes
and
Rulers
,
and
so
inferious
Iudges
,
and
to
deny
them
counsell
and
comfort
,
is
to
deny
helpe
,
counsell
,
and
comfort
to
God
.
Let
then
Cavaliers
,
and
such
as
refuse
to
helpe
the
Princes
of
the
Land
against
Papists
,
Prelates
,
and
Malignants
know
,
that
they
resist
Gods
ordinance
,
which
rebellion
they
unjustly
impute
to
us
.
3.
Whereas
it
is
added
in
our
Confession
,
that
God
by
the
presence
of
his
Lieutenant
craveth
support
and
counsell
of
the
people
.
It
is
not
so
to
be
taken
,
as
if
then
only
we
are
to
ayde
and
helpe
inferiour
Iudges
and
Parliaments
,
when
the
King
personally
requireth
it
,
and
not
other
waies
.
1.
Because
the
King
requireth
helpe
,
when
by
his
Office
he
is
obliged
to
require
our
helpe
and
counsell
against
Papists
and
Malignants
,
though
as
misled
,
he
should
command
the
contrary
:
so
if
the
Law
require
our
helpe
,
the
King
requireth
it
ex
officio
.
2.
This
should
expresly
contradict
our
confession
,
if
none
were
obliged
to
give
helpe
and
counsell
to
the
Parliament
and
Estates
,
except
the
King
in
his
own
person
should
require
it
,
because
Art.
14.
it
is
expresly
said
,
That
to
save
the
lives
of
innocents
,
or
represse
Tyranny
,
to
defend
the
oppressed
,
—
not
to
suffer
innocent
blood
to
be
shed
;
or
workes
pleasing
to
God
,
which
he
rewardeth
.
Now
we
are
not
to
thinke
in
reason
,
if
the
King
shall
be
induced
by
wicked
Counsell
,
to
doe
tyrannicall
workes
,
and
to
raise
Papists
in
Armes
against
Protestants
,
that
God
doth
by
him
as
by
his
Lieutenant
,
require
our
helpe
,
comfort
and
counsell
,
in
assisting
the
King
in
acts
of
Tyranny
,
and
in
oppression
,
and
in
shedding
innocent
blood
;
yea
our
confession
tyeth
us
to
deny
helpe
and
comfort
to
the
King
in
these
wicked
acts
,
and
therefore
our
helpe
must
be
in
the
things
that
pertaineth
to
his
Royall
Office
,
and
duty
only
;
otherwise
we
are
to
represse
all
tyranny
,
art
14.
4
To
save
the
lives
of
innocents
,
to
represse
Tyranny
,
to
defend
the
oppressed
,
are
by
our
confession
good
workes
,
well
pleasing
to
God
,
and
so
is
this
a
good
worke
,
not
to
suffer
innocent
blood
to
be
shed
,
if
we
●ay
withstand
it
.
Hence
it
is
cleare
as
the
Sunne
,
that
our
confession
according
to
the
Word
of
God
,
to
which
King
Charles
did
sweare
at
his
Coronation
,
doth
oblige
and
tye
us
in
the
presence
of
God
,
and
his
holy
Angels
to
rise
in
Armes
,
to
save
the
innocent
,
to
represse
Tyranny
,
to
defend
the
oppressed
.
When
the
King
induced
by
ill
counsell
sent
Armies
by
Sea
and
Land
,
to
kill
and
destroy
the
whole
Kingdome
who
should
refuse
such
a
Service-booke
,
as
they
could
not
in
conscience
receive
,
except
they
would
disobey
God
,
renounce
the
confession
of
Faith
,
which
the
King
and
they
had
sworne
unto
,
and
prove
perfidious
Apostates
to
Christ
and
his
Church
,
what
could
we
doe
,
and
that
the
same
Confession
,
considering
our
bonds
to
our
deare
Brethren
in
England
,
layeth
bonds
on
us
,
to
this
as
a
good
worke
also
,
not
to
suffer
their
innocent
blood
to
be
shed
,
but
to
defend
them
;
when
they
against
all
Law
of
God
,
of
men
,
of
State
,
of
Nations
,
are
destroyed
and
killed
.
For
my
part
,
I
judge
,
it
had
been
a
guiltinesse
of
blood
upon
Scotland
,
if
we
had
not
helped
them
,
and
risen
in
Armes
to
defend
our selves
,
and
our
innocent
brethren
against
bloody
Cavaliers
.
Adde
to
this
what
is
in
the
24.
Article
of
the
same
Confession
.
We
confesse
—
whosoever
goeth
about
to
take
away
,
or
to
confound
the
whole
state
of
Civill
Polity
▪
now
lon●
established
;
we
affirme
the
same
men
,
not
only
to
be
enemies
to
mankind
,
but
also
wickedly
to
fight
against
Gods
Will
.
But
these
who
have
taken
Armes
against
the
Estates
of
Scotland
,
and
the
Princes
and
Rulers
of
the
Land
,
have
laboured
to
take
away
Parliaments
,
and
the
fundamentall
Lawes
of
this
Kingdome
,
ergo
&c.
The
Confession
addeth
,
16.
We
farther
confesse
and
acknowledge
,
that
such
persons
as
are
placed
in
authority
,
are
to
be
loved
,
honoured
,
feared
,
and
holden
in
most
reverent
estimation
;
because
that
they
are
Lieutenants
of
God
,
in
whose
Sessions
God
himselfe
doth
sit
and
Iudge
:
yea
even
the
Iudges
and
Princes
themselves
,
to
whom
by
God
is
given
the
sword
,
to
the
praise
and
defence
of
good
men
,
and
to
revenge
and
punish
all
open
malefactors
.
Ergo
the
Parliament
,
and
Princes
,
and
Rulers
of
the
Land
are
Gods
Lieutenants
on
earth
,
no
lesse
then
the
King
by
our
Confession
of
Faith
,
and
those
who
resist
them
,
resist
the
ordinance
of
God
.
Royalists
say
,
They
are
but
the
Deputies
of
the
King
,
and
when
they
doe
contrary
to
his
Royall
Will
,
they
may
be
resisted
,
yea
and
killed
,
for
in
so
farre
they
are
private
men
,
though
they
are
to
be
honoured
as
Iudges
,
when
they
act
according
to
the
Kings
Will
whose
Deputies
they
are
▪
But
I
answer
▪
1.
It
is
a
wonder
that
inferiour
Judges
should
be
formally
Iudges
,
in
so
far
as
they
act
conforme
to
the
will
of
a
mortall
King
,
and
not
in
so
far
as
they
act
conforme
to
the
will
of
the
King
of
Kings
,
seeing
the
judgement
they
execute
is
the
King
of
Kings
,
and
not
the
Iudgement
of
a
mortall
King
,
2
Chro.
19.
6.
2.
Royalists
cannot
indure
the
former
distinction
as
it
is
applyed
to
the
King
,
but
they
receive
it
with
both
hands
,
as
it
is
applyed
to
inferiour
Iudges
;
and
yet
certaine
it
is
,
that
it
is
as
ordinary
for
a
King
being
a
sinfull
man
,
to
act
sometimes
as
the
Lieutenant
of
God
,
and
sometimes
as
an
erring
and
misinformed
man
,
no
lesse
then
the
inferiour
Iudge
acteth
sometimes
according
to
the
Kings
will
and
Law
,
and
sometimes
according
to
his
owne
private
way
;
and
if
we
are
to
obey
the
inferiour
Iudge
as
the
Deputy
of
the
King
,
what
shall
become
of
his
Person
,
when
Cavaliers
may
kill
him
at
some
Edge-hill
?
for
so
they
mock
this
distinction
,
as
applyed
to
the
King
in
regard
of
his
Person
,
and
of
his
Royall
Office
;
and
for
this
point
our
Confession
citeth
in
the
Margin
.
Rom.
13.
7.
1
Pet.
2.
17.
Psal.
82.
1.
which
places
doe
clearely
prove
:
1.
That
inferiour
Magistrates
are
:
1.
Gods
ordinances
.
2.
Gods
on
earth
,
Psal.
82.
3.
Such
as
beare
the
Lords
sword
.
4.
That
they
are
not
only
(
as
the
Confession
saith
)
appointed
for
Civill
policie
,
but
also
for
maintenance
of
true
Religion
,
and
for
suppressing
of
idolatrie
and
superstition
.
Then
it
is
evident
,
to
resist
inferior
Magistrates
,
is
to
resist
God
himselfe
,
and
to
labour
to
throw
the
sword
out
of
Gods
hands
.
5
,
Our
Confession
useth
the
same
Scriptures
cited
by
Junius
Brutus
,
to
wit
,
Ezek.
22.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6
,
7.
and
Ier.
22.
3.
where
we
are
,
no
lesse
then
the
Iewes
,
commanded
to
execute
judgement
and
righteousnesse
,
and
deliver
the
spoyled
out
of
the
hands
of
the
oppressour
.
For
both
the
Law
of
God
,
and
the
Civill
Law
saith
,
Qui
non
impedit
homicidium
,
quum
potest
,
is
homicidii
reus
est
.
I
will
cast
in
a
word
of
other
Confessions
,
lest
we
seeme
to
be
Iesuites
alone
.
The
Confession
of
Helvetia
saith
,
c.
30.
de
Magistratu
.
—
Viduas
,
pupillos
,
afflictos
asserat
:
Every
Magistrate
is
to
defend
the
widow
,
the
orphan
,
and
the
oppressed
.
The
French
Confession
saith
,
art.
40.
Affirmamus
ergo
parendumesse
Legibus
&
Statutis
,
solvenda
Tributa
,
subjectionis
denique
jugum
voluntariè
tolerandum
,
etiamsi
infideles
fuerint
Magistratus
,
dummodo
Dei
summum
imperium
integrum
&
illibatum
maneat
.
So
cleare
it
is
,
that
all
active
obedience
,
is
due
to
all
Magistrates
,
and
that
that
yoake
of
passive
obedience
is
to
be
tolerated
,
but
conditionally
,
with
a
dummodo
,
so
as
the
Magistrate
violate
not
the
supreme
commandement
of
the
King
of
Kings
.
And
P.
Prelate
can
say
,
The
Confessions
of
Scotland
,
Helvetia
,
France
,
and
all
the
Reformed
Churches
,
are
Jesuiticall
:
when
as
it
was
the
doctrine
of
the
Waldenses
,
Protestants
,
and
Luther
,
Calvin
and
others
,
while
as
there
was
no
Iesuite
on
earth
.
The
37.
Art.
of
the
Church
of
Englands
Confession
,
is
so
far
from
erecting
an
absolute
power
in
the
King
,
that
they
expresly
bring
down
the
Royall
Prerogative
from
the
high
seat
and
transcendent
superlative
power
above
the
Law
;
and
expone
the
Prerogative
to
be
nothing
but
meere
Law-power
.
We
only
(
say
they
)
ascribe
that
Prerogative
to
the
King
,
which
the
Scripture
doth
ascribe
to
all
Godly
Princes
,
that
is
,
that
they
cause
all
committed
to
their
trust
,
whether
Ecclesiasticall
or
Civill
persons
,
doe
their
duty
;
and
punish
with
the
Civill
sword
,
all
disobedient
offenders
.
In
syntag.
Confess
.
And
this
they
say
in
answer
to
some
,
who
beleeved
,
the
Church
of
England
made
the
King
the
Head
of
the
Church
.
The
Prelates
Convocation
must
be
Iesuites
to
this
P.
P.
also
.
So
the
36.
Article
of
the
Belgick
Confession
,
saith
of
all
Magistrates
,
no
lesse
then
of
a
King
,
(
We
know
,
for
Tyrannie
of
Soule
and
Body
,
they
justly
revolted
from
their
King
.
)
Idcirco
Magistratus
ipsos
gladio
armavit
,
ut
malos
quidem
plectant
paenis
,
probos
vero
tueantur
.
Horum
porro
est
,
non
modo
de
Civili
politia
conservanda
esse
solioit●s
,
verum
etiam
dare
operam
ut
sacrum
Ministerium
conservetur
,
omnis
Idololatria
&
adulterinus
Dei
cultus
è
medio
tollatur
,
regnum
Antichristi
diruatur
,
&c.
Then
all
Magistrates
,
though
inferiour
,
must
doe
their
duty
,
that
the
Law
of
God
hath
laid
on
them
,
though
the
King
forbid
them
.
But
by
the
Belgick
Confession
,
and
the
Scripture
,
it
is
their
duty
to
relieve
the
oppressed
,
to
use
the
sword
against
murthering
Papists
,
and
Irish
Rebels
,
and
destroying
Cavaliers
.
For
,
shall
it
be
a
good
plea
in
the
day
of
Christ
,
to
say
,
Lord
Iesus
,
we
would
have
used
thy
sword
against
bloody
Murtherers
,
if
thy
Anoynted
,
the
King
,
had
not
commanded
us
to
obey
a
mortall
King
rather
than
the
King
of
ages
;
and
to
execute
no
judgement
for
the
oppressed
,
because
he
judged
them
faithfull
Catholike
subjects
.
Let
all
Oxford
,
and
Cavalier
Doctors
in
the
three
Kingdomes
,
satisfie
the
consciences
of
men
in
this
,
that
inferior
Iudges
are
to
obey
a
Diviue
Law
,
with
a
proviso
,
that
the
King
command
them
so
to
doe
;
and
otherwise
they
are
to
obey
Men
rather
then
God
.
This
is
evidently
holden
forth
in
the
Argentine
Confession
,
exhibited
by
foure
Cities
to
the
Emperour
Charles
the
Fifth
,
An.
M.
D.
XXX
.
in
the
same
very
cause
of
innocent
Defence
,
that
we
are
now
in
,
in
the
three
Kingdomes
of
Scotland
,
England
,
and
Ireland
.
The
Saxonick
Confession
,
exhibited
to
the
Councell
of
Trent
,
An.
M.
D.
LI.
art.
23
▪
maketh
the
Magistrates
office
essentially
to
consist
in
keeping
of
the
two
Tables
of
Gods
Law
:
and
so
what
can
follow
hence
,
but
in
so
far
as
he
defendeth
Murtherers
:
or
if
he
be
a
King
,
and
shall
with
the
sword
,
or
Armies
,
impede
inferior
Magistrates
(
for
the
Confession
speaketh
of
all
)
to
defend
Gods
law
,
and
true
Religion
,
against
Papists
,
Murtherers
,
and
bloody
Cavaliers
;
and
hinder
them
to
execute
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
against
evill
doers
:
He
is
not
,
in
that
,
a
Magistrate
;
and
the
denying
of
obedience
active
or
passive
to
him
,
in
that
,
is
no
resistance
to
the
Ordinance
of
God
:
but
by
the
contrary
,
the
King
himselfe
must
resist
the
ordinance
of
God
.
The
Confession
of
Bohemia
is
clear
,
art.
16.
Qui
publico
munere
magistratuque
funguntur
,
quemcunque
gradū
teneant
,
se
non
suum
,
sed
Dei
opus
agere
sciant
.
Hence
all
inferior
,
or
the
supreme
Magistrate
,
what
ever
be
their
place
,
they
doe
not
their
own
work
,
nor
the
work
of
the
King
,
but
the
work
of
God
,
in
the
use
of
the
sword
,
Ergo
,
they
are
to
use
the
sword
against
bloody
Cavaliers
,
as
doing
Gods
worke
:
suppose
the
King
should
forbid
them
to
doe
Gods
worke
.
And
it
saith
of
all
Magistrates
:
Sunt
autem
Magistratuum
partes
ac
munus
,
omnibus
ex
aequo
jus
dicere
,
in
communem
omnium
usum
,
sine
personarum
acceptatione
,
pacem
ac
tranquilitatem
publicam
tueri
ac
procurare
de
malis
ac
facinorosis
,
hanc
inter
turbantibus
poenas
sumere
,
aliosque
omnes
ab
eorum
vi
&
injuria
vindicare
.
Now
this
Confession
was
the
faith
of
the
Barons
and
Nobles
of
Bohemia
,
who
were
Magistrates
,
and
exhibited
to
the
Emperor
,
An.
1535.
in
the
cause
not
unlike
unto
ours
now
:
and
the
Emperor
was
their
Soveraigne
:
yet
they
professe
they
are
obliged
in
conscience
to
defend
all
under
them
from
all
violence
and
injuries
,
that
the
Emperor
,
or
any
other
could
bring
on
them
;
and
that
this
is
their
office
before
God
,
which
they
are
obliged
to
performe
as
a
worke
of
God
:
and
the
Christian
Magistrate
is
not
to
doe
that
worke
,
which
is
not
his
own
,
but
Gods
,
upon
condition
that
the
King
shall
not
inhibite
him
.
What
if
the
King
shall
inhibite
Parliaments
,
Princes
and
Rulers
,
to
relieve
the
oppressed
,
to
defend
the
Orphan
,
the
Widow
,
the
Stranger
,
from
unjust
violence
?
Shall
they
obey
man
rather
than
God
?
To
say
no
more
of
this
:
Prelates
,
in
Scotland
,
did
what
they
could
to
hinder
his
Majestie
to
indict
a
Parliament
.
2.
When
it
was
indicted
,
to
have
its
freedome
destroyed
by
prelimitations
.
3.
When
it
was
sitting
,
their
care
was
to
divide
,
impede
,
and
anull
the
course
of
Iustice
.
4.
All
in
the
P.
Prelates
booke
tendeth
to
abolish
Parliaments
,
and
to
enervate
their
power
.
5.
There
were
many
wayes
used
to
break
up
Parliaments
in
England
;
And
to
command
Iudges
not
to
judge
at
all
,
but
to
interrupt
the
course
of
Iustice
,
is
all
one
as
to
command
unrighteous
judgement
,
Ier.
22.
v.
3.
6.
Many
wayes
have
been
used
by
Cavaliers
,
to
cut
off
Parliaments
,
and
the
present
Parliament
in
England
.
The
paper
found
in
William
Lauds
Studie
,
touching
feares
and
W.
Laud
and
other
Prelates
enemies
to
Parliaments
.
hopes
of
the
Parliament
of
England
,
evidenceth
that
Cavaliers
hate
the
Supreme
seat
of
Iustice
,
and
would
it
were
not
in
the
World
;
which
is
the
highest
rebellion
and
resistance
made
against
superior
Powers
.
1.
He
feareth
,
this
Parliament
shall
begin
where
the
last
left
.
Ans.
What
ever
ungrate
Courtier
had
hand
in
the
death
of
King
Iames
,
deserved
to
come
under
Tryall
.
2.
He
feareth
they
sacrifice
some
man
.
Ans.
If
Parliaments
have
not
power
to
cut
off
Rebels
,
and
corrupt
Iudges
,
the
root
of
their
being
is
undone
.
2.
If
they
be
lawfull
Courts
,
none
needeth
feare
them
,
but
the
guilty
.
3.
He
feareth
their
Consultations
be
long
,
and
the
supply
must
be
present
.
Ans.
Then
Cavaliers
intend
Parliaments
for
Subsidies
to
the
King
,
to
foment
,
and
promote
the
warre
against
Scotland
,
not
for
Iustice
.
2.
He
that
feareth
long
and
serious
consultations
,
to
rip
up
and
launce
the
wounds
of
Church
and
State
,
is
affraid
that
the
wounds
be
cured
.
4.
He
feareth
they
deny
Subsidies
,
which
are
due
by
the
Law
of
God
,
Nature
,
and
Nations
,
whereas
Parliaments
have
but
their
deliberation
and
consent
for
the
manner
of
giving
,
otherwise
this
is
to
sell
Subsidies
,
not
to
give
them
.
Ans.
Tribute
,
and
the
standing
Revenues
of
the
King
,
are
due
by
the
Law
of
God
and
Nations
;
but
Subsidies
are
occasionall
Rents
,
given
upon
occasion
of
Warre
,
or
some
extraordinary
necessity
;
and
they
are
not
given
to
the
King
as
Tribute
,
and
standing
Revenues
,
which
the
King
may
bestow
for
his
House
,
Family
,
and
Royall
Honour
,
but
they
are
given
by
the
Kingdome
,
rather
to
the
Kingdome
,
then
to
the
King
for
the
present
warre
,
or
some
other
necessity
of
the
Kingdome
,
and
therefore
are
not
due
to
the
King
as
King
,
by
any
Law
of
Nature
or
Nations
,
and
so
should
not
be
given
but
by
deliberation
and
judiciall
sentence
of
the
States
;
and
they
are
not
sold
to
the
King
,
but
given
out
by
the
Kingdome
,
by
Statute
of
Parliament
,
to
be
bestowed
on
the
Kingdome
,
and
the
King
should
sell
no
Acts
of
Justice
for
Subsidies
.
5.
He
dare
not
speake
of
the
consequences
,
if
the
King
grant
Bills
of
Grace
,
and
part
with
the
flowers
of
the
Crowne
.
Ans.
He
dare
not
say
,
The
people
shall
vindicate
their
liberty
by
selling
Subsidies
,
to
buy
branches
of
the
Prerogative
Royall
,
and
diminishing
the
Kings
fancied
absolutenesse
:
so
would
Prelates
have
the
King
absolute
,
that
they
may
ride
over
the
soules
,
purses
,
persons
,
estates
,
and
Religion
of
men
upon
the
horse
of
pretended
absolutenesse
.
6.
He
feareth
the
Parliament
sall
upon
Church
businesse
;
but
1.
The
Church
is
too
weake
already
▪
if
it
had
more
power
,
the
King
might
have
more
,
both
obedience
and
service
.
2.
The
Houses
can
be
no
competent
Iudges
in
point
of
Doctrine
.
3.
For
the
King
,
Clergy
,
and
Convocation
are
Iudges
in
all
causes
Ecclesiasticall
.
Ans.
1.
This
striketh
at
the
root
of
all
Parliamentary
power
,
1.
The
P.
P.
giveth
them
but
a
poore
deliberative
power
in
Subsides
,
and
that
is
,
to
make
the
Kings
Will
a
Law
,
in
taking
all
the
subjects
goods
from
them
,
to
foment
warre
against
the
subjects
.
2.
He
taketh
all
jurisdiction
from
them
over
Persons
,
though
they
were
as
black
Traitors
as
breathe
.
3.
And
spoileth
them
of
all
power
in
Church
matters
,
to
make
all
Iudges
,
yea
and
the
King
himselfe
yield
blind
obedience
to
the
Pope
and
Prelate
,
and
their
illuminated
Clergie
.
Sure
I
am
,
P.
Maxwell
imputeth
this
,
but
most
unjustly
,
to
Presbyteries
.
What
essentiall
and
fundamentall
priviledges
are
left
to
Parliaments
?
David
,
and
the
Parliament
of
Israel
are
impertinent
Iudges
in
the
matter
of
bringing
home
the
Ark
of
God
.
And
for
the
Churches
weaknesse
,
that
is
,
the
weaknesse
of
the
damned
Prelates
,
shall
this
be
the
Kings
weaknesse
?
Yes
,
the
P.
P.
must
make
it
true
,
No
Bishop
,
no
King
.
7.
He
feareth
,
factious
spirits
will
take
heart
to
themselves
,
if
the
King
yield
to
them
without
any
submission
of
theirs
.
Ans.
The
Princes
and
Iudges
of
the
Land
are
a
company
of
factious
men
,
and
so
no
Parliament
,
no
Court
,
but
at
best
some
good
advisers
of
a
King
to
breake
up
the
Parliament
,
because
they
refuse
Subsidies
,
that
he
may
by
a
lawlesse
way
extort
Subsidies
.
8.
He
desireth
the
Parliament
may
sit
a
short
time
,
that
they
may
not
well
understand
one
another
.
Ans.
He
loveth
short
,
or
no
justice
from
the
Parliament
,
he
feareth
they
reforme
Gods
house
,
and
execute
justice
on
men
like
himselfe
.
But
I
returne
to
the
Scotish
Parliament
.
Assert
.
2.
The
Parliament
is
to
regulate
the
power
of
the
King
.
Murtherers
be
judged
by
the
Iustice
generall
only
.
And
in
severall
Acts
the
King
is
inhibited
to
grant
pardons
to
malefactors
.
K.
Ia.
6.
Act.
75.
P.
11.
It
is
to
be
considered
,
that
King
Iames
in
his
Baslicon
Doron
,
layeth
down
an
unsound
ground
,
that
Fergus
the
first
father
of
107
Kings
of
Scotland
,
conquered
this
Kingdom
.
The
contrary
whereof
is
asserted
by
Fordome
,
Major
,
Boethius
,
Buchannan
,
Hollanshed
;
who
run
all
upon
this
Principle
,
That
the
Estates
of
the
Kingdome
did
1.
Choose
a
Monarchie
,
and
freely
,
and
no
other
Government
.
2.
That
they
freely
elected
Fergus
to
be
their
King
.
3.
King
Fergus
Fergus
King
,
therefore
a
Parliament
must
be
before
the
King
;
yea
and
after
the
death
of
King
Fergus
,
Philarchi
coeunt
conci●ne
advocatâ
,
the
Estates
convened
without
any
King
,
and
made
that
fundamentall
Law
Regni
electivi
,
That
when
the
Kings
Children
were
minores
,
any
of
the
Fergusian
Race
might
be
chosen
to
Reigne
:
and
this
indured
to
the
daies
of
Kennethus
:
and
Redotha
,
Re●
.
7.
resigneth
and
maketh
over
the
Philarchi
&
Tribuum
Gubernatores
ordained
Therius
the
8.
King
.
Buchanan
,
l.
4.
Rer.
Scot.
calleth
him
Reutha
,
and
said
he
did
this
,
Populo
egrè
permittente
,
then
the
Royall
Power
recurred
to
the
fountaine
.
Therius
the
8.
a
wicked
man
,
filled
the
Kingdome
with
Roberies
fearing
that
the
Parliament
should
punish
him
,
fled
to
the
Britaines
,
and
thereupon
the
Parliament
choose
Connanus
to
be
Protex
,
and
protector
of
the
Kingdome
.
Finnanus
R.
10.
Decreed
;
Ne
quid
Reges
,
quod
majoris
esset
momenti
,
nisi
de
publici
consilii
authoritate
juberent
,
&
ne
domestico
consilio
remp
.
administrarent
,
regia
publicaque
negotia
non
sine
patrum
consultatione
ductuque
tractarentur
,
nec
bellum
pacem
aut
faedera
reges
per
se
patrum
,
Tribuumve
,
Rectorum
injussu
facerent
,
demerentue
.
Then
it
is
cleare
,
that
Parliaments
were
consortes
imperii
,
and
had
Authority
with
,
and
above
the
King
.
When
a
Law
is
made
that
the
Kings
should
doe
nothing
,
Injussu
rectorum
tribuum
,
without
commandement
of
the
Parliament
,
a
Cabinet
Counsell
was
not
lawfull
to
the
Kings
of
Scotland
.
So
Durstus
Rex
XI
.
sweareth
to
the
Parliament
,
Se
nihil
nisi
de
primorum
consilio
acturum
.
That
he
shall
doe
nothing
but
by
counsell
of
the
Rulers
and
Heads
of
the
Kingdome
.
The
Parliament
rejecting
the
lawfull
sonne
of
Corbredus
the
20
,
King
,
because
he
was
young
,
created
Dardanus
the
sonne
of
Metellanus
King
,
which
is
a
great
argument
of
the
power
of
the
Scottish
Parliament
of
old
for
elective
,
rather
then
hereditary
Kings
.
Corbredus
secundus
,
called
Galdus
,
the
21
,
King
,
at
his
Coronation
Se
majorum
consiliis
acquieturum
,
That
he
should
be
ruled
by
the
Parliament
;
and
it
is
said
,
Leges
quasdam
tollere
non
potuit
,
adversante
multitudine
.
Lactatus
R.
22.
is
censured
by
a
Parliament
,
Quod
spreto
majorum
consilio
,
He
appointed
base
men
to
publick
Offices
.
Mogaldus
R.
23.
Ad
consilia
seniorum
omnia
ex
prisco
more
rev●cavit
,
did
all
by
the
Parliament
,
as
the
ancient
custome
was
.
Conarus
24.
K.
was
cast
in
Prison
by
the
Parliament
,
Quod
non
expectato
decreto
patrum
,
quod
summae
erat
potestatis
,
privatis
consiliis
administrasset
,
Because
he
did
the
weightiest
businesse
that
concerned
the
Kingdome
,
by
private
advice
,
without
the
judiciall
Ordinance
of
Parliament
,
that
was
of
greatest
authority
.
Where
is
the
negative
voice
of
the
King
here
?
Ethodius
2.
the
sonne
of
Ethodius
the
1.
the
28.
King
.
(
The
Parliament
passing
by
his
son
of
the
first
Bed
,
because
he
was
a
child
,
had
Nathalocus
the
30.
K.
corrupting
the
Nobles
with
buds
and
faire
promises
,
obtained
the
Crowne
.
Romachus
,
Fethelmachus
,
and
Angusianus
,
or
as
Buchanan
calleth
him
Aenneannus
,
contended
for
the
Crowne
,
the
Parliament
convened
to
judge
the
matter
,
was
dissolved
by
tumult
,
and
Rommachus
chosen
King
,
doing
all
,
Non
adhibito
,
de
more
,
consilio
majorum
,
was
censured
by
the
Parliament
.
Fergus
the
2.
was
created
King
by
the
States
,
De
more
.
Constantine
43.
K.
a
most
wicked
man
,
was
punished
by
the
States
.
Aidanus
49.
K.
by
the
counsell
of
Sanctus
Columba
,
governed
all
in
peace
,
by
three
Parliaments
every
yeare
.
Ferchardus
52.
K.
and
Ferchardus
2.
the
54.
King
,
were
both
censured
by
Parliaments
.
Eugenius
62.
K.
a
wicked
Prince
,
was
put
to
death
by
the
Parliament
,
Omnibus
in
ejus
exitium
,
consentientibus
.
Eugenius
7.
the
59.
K.
was
judicially
accused
,
and
absolved
by
the
States
,
of
killing
his
Wife
Spondana
.
Donaldus
the
70.
K.
is
censured
by
a
Parliament
which
convened
Pro
salute
Reipublicae
,
for
the
good
of
the
Land
.
So
Ethus
the
72.
K.
Ne
unius
culpâ
,
regnum
periret
.
Gregorius
the
73.
K.
sweareth
to
maintaine
Kirk
and
State
in
their
liberties
;
the
Oath
is
ordained
to
be
sworne
by
all
Kings
at
their
Coronation
.
The
Estates
complaine
of
Duffus
78.
K.
because
contemning
the
counsell
of
the
Nobles
,
Sacrificulorum
consiliis
abduceretur
,
and
that
neither
the
Nobility
must
depart
the
Kingdome
,
or
another
King
must
be
made
.
Culenus
the
79.
King
,
was
summoned
before
the
Estates
,
so
before
him
Constantine
the
3.
the
75.
K.
did
by
Oath
resigne
the
Kingdome
to
the
States
,
and
entered
in
a
Monastery
at
Saint
Andrewes
.
Kenethus
the
70.
K.
procured
almost
,
per
vim
,
saith
Buchanan
,
Power
of
Parliaments
.
After
this
Grimus
,
and
then
Macbethus
,
R.
85.
is
rebuked
for
to
sweare
to
maintaine
the
community
of
the
Kingdome
.
When
Maccolumbus
the
92.
King
would
have
admitted
a
Treaty
to
the
hurt
of
the
Kingdome
;
the
Nobles
said
,
Non
jus
esse
Regi
,
the
King
had
no
right
to
take
any
thing
from
the
Kingdome
,
Nisi
omnibus
Ordinibus
consentientibus
.
In
the
time
of
Alexander
the
94.
K.
is
ordained
,
Acta
regis
oporteri
confirmari
decreto
ordinum
regni
,
quia
ordinibus
regni
non
consultis
,
aut
adversantibus
,
nihil
quod
ad
totius
regnistatum
attinet
,
Regi
agere
liceret
.
So
all
our
Historians
observe
,
by
which
it
is
cleare
,
that
the
Parliament
,
not
the
King
hath
a
negative
voyce
.
The
States
answer
to
K.
Edwards
Legates
concerning
Balzees
conditions
in
his
contest
with
Bruce
is
,
That
these
conditions
were
made
a
solo
Rege
,
by
the
King
only
,
without
the
estates
of
the
Kingdome
,
and
therefore
they
did
not
oblige
the
Kingdome
.
In
Robert
the
Bruce
his
Raigne
,
the
K.
97.
the
succession
to
the
Robert
the
100.
K.
in
a
Parliament
at
Scoone
moved
the
States
,
to
appoint
the
Earle
of
Carick
his
eldest
sonne
,
of
the
second
Mariage
to
the
Crowne
,
passing
his
children
of
the
first
Mariage
;
and
when
he
would
have
made
a
Treatie
,
he
was
told
,
That
he
could
not
inducias
facere
nisi
ex
sententia
conventus
publici
;
he
could
not
make
Truces
but
with
the
consent
of
the
Estates
of
Parliament
.
K.
James
the
1.
could
not
doe
any
thing
in
his
Oath
in
England
.
The
Parliaments
approbation
of
the
Battell
at
Stirling
against
King
Iames
the
3.
is
set
downe
in
the
printed
Acts
,
because
he
had
not
the
consent
of
the
States
.
To
come
to
our
first
Reformation
,
Queene
Regent
breaking
her
promise
to
the
States
,
said
,
Faith
of
promise
should
not
be
sought
from
Princes
;
the
States
answered
,
That
they
then
were
not
obliged
to
obey
,
and
suspended
her
government
as
inconsistent
with
the
duty
of
Princes
,
by
the
Articles
of
pacification
at
Leith
,
Anno
1560.
Iunii
16.
No
peace
or
warre
can
be
without
the
States
.
In
the
Parliament
thereafter
,
Anno
1560.
the
Nobility
say
frequently
to
the
Queene
,
Regum
Scotorum
limitatum
esse
imperium
,
nec
unquam
adunius
libidinem
,
sed
ad
legum
praescriptum
&
nobilitatis
consensum
regisolitum
.
So
it
is
declared
,
Parliament
at
Stirling
,
1578.
and
Parl.
1567
,
concerning
Queene
Mary
,
I
need
not
insist
here
.
K.
James
the
6.
Anno
1567.
Iul.
21.
was
Crowned
,
the
Earle
of
Morton
and
Humne
,
jurarunt
pro
co
,
&
ejus
nomine
,
in
leges
,
eum
doctrinam
&
ritus
religionis
,
quae
tum
docebantur
,
publice
quoad
posset
,
servaturum
,
&
contrarios
oppugnaturum
.
Buch.
Rer.
Scot.
Hist.
l.
18.
The
three
Estates
revoke
all
alienations
made
by
the
King
without
consent
of
the
Parliament
.
Parliam
.
K.
Iames
,
2.
cap.
2.
K.
Iames
,
4
,
5
,
6.
Three
Parliaments
of
K.
Iames
the
2.
are
holden
without
any
mention
of
the
King
,
as
Anno
1437.
Anno
1438.
Anno
1440.
and
the
5.
and
6.
Act
of
Parl.
1440.
the
Estates
ordaine
the
King
to
doe
such
and
such
things
,
to
ride
through
the
country
for
doing
of
Iustice
.
And
Parl.
1.
K.
Iames
1.
Act.
23.
the
Estates
ordained
the
King
to
mend
his
money
.
But
shew
any
Parliament
where
ever
the
King
doth
prescribe
Lawes
to
the
States
,
or
censure
the
States
.
In
the
1.
Parl.
of
K.
Iames
the
6.
the
Confession
of
Faith
being
ratified
,
in
Acts
made
by
the
three
Estates
,
that
the
Kings
must
sweare
at
their
Coronation
.
In
the
presence
of
the
eternall
God
,
that
they
shall
maintaine
the
true
Religion
,
right
Preaching
,
and
administration
of
the
Sacraments
now
received
and
preached
within
this
Realme
:
and
shall
abolish
and
gain-stand
all
false
Religions
contrary
to
the
same
:
and
shall
rule
the
people
committed
to
their
charge
,
according
to
the
will
of
God
,
laudable
Lawes
and
Constitutions
of
the
Realme
,
&c.
The
1.
Parl.
of
K.
Iames
the
6.
1567.
approveth
the
Acts
,
Parl.
1560.
conceived
only
in
name
of
the
States
,
without
the
King
and
Queen
,
who
had
deserted
the
same
.
So
saith
the
Act
,
2.
5.
4.
20.
28.
And
so
this
Parliament
,
wanting
the
King
and
Queenes
authoritie
,
is
confirmed
,
Parl.
1572.
Act.
51.
K.
Ia.
6.
and
Parl.
1581.
Act.
1.
and
Parl.
1581.
Act.
115.
in
which
it
is
declared
,
That
they
have
been
Common
lawes
from
their
first
Date
:
and
all
are
ratified
,
Parl.
1587.
and
Parl.
1592.
Act.
1.
and
stand
ratified
to
this
day
,
by
K.
Charles
his
Parliament
,
An.
1633.
The
Act
of
the
Assemblie
,
1566.
commendeth
that
Parliament
,
1560.
as
the
most
lawfull
and
free
Parliament
that
ever
was
in
the
Kingdome
.
Yea
,
even
Parl.
1641.
King
Charles
himselfe
being
present
,
an
Act
was
passed
upon
the
occasion
of
the
Kings
illegall
imprisoning
of
the
Laird
of
Langtoune
,
That
the
King
hath
no
power
to
imprison
any
Member
of
the
Parliament
,
without
consent
of
the
Parliament
:
Which
Act
,
to
the
great
prejudice
of
the
libertie
of
the
Subject
,
should
not
have
been
left
unprinted
:
for
,
by
what
Law
the
King
may
imprison
one
Member
of
the
Parliament
,
by
that
same
reason
he
may
imprison
two
,
and
twenty
,
and
a
hundreth
:
and
so
may
he
clap
up
the
whole
Free
Estates
;
and
where
shall
then
the
highest
Court
of
the
Kingdome
be
?
All
Polititians
say
,
The
King
is
a
limited
Prince
,
not
absolute
;
where
the
King
giveth
out
Lawes
,
not
in
his
own
name
,
but
in
the
name
of
himselfe
,
and
the
Estates
judicially
conveened
.
Pag.
33.
of
the
old
Acts
of
Parliament
,
Members
are
summoned
to
treat
and
conclude
.
The
duty
of
Parliaments
,
and
their
power
,
according
to
the
Laws
of
Scotland
,
may
be
seen
in
the
Historie
of
Knox
,
now
printed
at
London
,
An.
1643.
in
the
Nobles
proceeding
with
the
Queen
,
who
killed
her
Husband
,
and
maried
Bodwell
,
and
was
arraigned
in
Parliament
,
and
by
a
great
part
condemned
to
death
,
by
many
,
to
perpetuall
imprisonment
.
King
Charles
received
not
Crown
,
Sword
,
and
Scepter
,
while
first
he
did
sweare
the
Oath
,
that
King
Iames
his
Father
did
sweare
.
2.
He
was
not
crowned
,
till
one
of
every
one
of
the
three
Estates
came
and
offered
to
him
the
Crown
.
3.
With
an
expresse
condition
of
his
duty
,
before
he
be
crowned
.
After
,
King
Charles
said
,
I
will
by
Gods
assistance
bestow
my
life
for
your
defence
,
wishing
to
live
no
longer
,
then
that
I
may
see
this
Kingdome
flourish
in
happinesse
.
Thereafter
the
King
shewing
himselfe
on
a
Stage
to
the
people
,
the
P.
Archbishop
said
;
Sir
,
I
doe
present
unto
you
,
King
Charles
,
the
right
descended
inheritor
,
the
Crown
,
and
dignitie
of
this
Realme
;
appointed
by
the
Peeres
of
the
Kingdome
:
And
,
Are
ye
not
willing
to
have
him
for
your
King
,
and
become
subject
to
him
?
The
King
turning
himselfe
on
the
stage
,
to
be
seen
of
the
People
,
They
declare
their
willingnesse
,
by
crying
,
God
save
King
Charles
!
Let
the
King
live
!
QUEST.
XLIV
.
Generall
results
of
the
former
Doctrine
,
in
some
few
Corollaries
,
or
straying
Questions
,
fallen
off
the
Road-way
:
answered
briefly
.
QUest.
1.
Whether
all
Governments
be
but
broken
Governments
,
and
deviations
from
Monarchie
?
]
Answ.
It
is
denyed
;
There
is
no
lesse
somewhat
of
Gods
authoritie
in
Government
,
by
many
,
or
some
of
the
choisest
of
the
People
,
than
in
Monarchie
:
nor
can
we
judge
any
Ordinance
of
Man
unlawfull
:
for
we
are
to
be
subject
to
all
,
for
the
Lords
sake
,
1
Pet.
2.
13.
Tit.
3.
1.
1
Tim.
2.
1
,
2
,
3.
2.
Though
Monarchie
should
seeme
the
rule
of
all
other
Governments
,
in
regard
of
resemblance
of
the
supreme
Monarch
of
all
:
Yet
is
it
not
the
morall
rule
,
from
which
,
if
other
Governments
shall
erre
,
they
are
to
be
judged
sinfull
deviations
.
Quest.
2.
Whether
is
Royaltie
an
immediate
issue
and
spring
of
Nature
?
]
Quest.
3.
Whether
Magistrates
,
as
Magistrates
,
be
naturall
?
]
Answ.
Nature
is
considered
,
as
whole
and
sinlesse
,
or
as
fallen
and
broken
.
In
the
former
consideration
,
that
either
man
should
stand
in
need
of
any
,
to
compell
him
with
the
sword
to
doe
his
duty
,
and
not
oppresse
;
was
no
more
naturall
to
man
,
than
to
stand
in
need
of
Lictors
and
Hangmen
,
or
Physitians
for
the
body
,
which
in
this
state
was
not
in
a
capacitie
of
sicknesse
or
death
:
And
so
Government
by
Parents
and
Husbands
was
only
naturall
,
in
the
latter
consideration
.
Magistrates
as
Magistrates
,
are
two
wayes
considered
;
1.
According
to
the
knowledge
of
such
an
Ordinance
;
2.
According
to
the
actuall
erection
of
the
practice
of
the
office
of
Magistrates
.
In
the
former
notion
,
I
humbly
conceive
,
that
by
Natures
light
,
Man
,
now
fallen
and
broken
,
even
under
all
the
fractions
of
the
powers
and
faculties
of
the
soule
,
doth
know
,
that
promises
of
reward
,
feare
of
punishment
,
and
the
coactive
power
of
the
Sword
,
as
Plato
said
,
are
naturall
meanes
to
move
us
,
and
wings
to
promote
obedience
,
and
to
doe
our
duty
.
And
that
Government
by
Magistrates
is
naturall
:
But
,
in
the
second
relation
,
it
is
hard
to
determine
,
that
Kings
,
rather
then
other
Governours
,
are
more
naturall
.
Quest.
4.
Whether
Nature
hath
determined
,
that
there
should
be
one
supreme
Ruler
a
King
,
or
many
Rulers
in
a
free
Commnitie
?
Answ.
It
is
denyed
.
Quest.
6.
Whether
every
free
Commonwealth
hath
not
in
it
a
supremacie
of
Majestie
,
which
it
may
formally
place
in
one
,
or
many
?
]
Answ.
It
is
affirmed
.
Quest.
6.
Whether
absolute
and
unlimited
power
of
Royaltie
,
be
a
ray
and
beame
of
Divine
Majestie
,
immediately
derived
from
God
?
]
Answ.
Not
at
all
:
Such
a
creature
is
not
in
the
world
of
Gods
creation
:
Royalists
,
and
flatterers
of
Kings
,
are
parents
to
this
prodigious
birth
.
There
is
no
shadow
of
power
,
to
doe
ill
,
in
God
:
An
absolute
power
is
,
essentially
,
a
power
to
do
without
or
above
Law
,
and
a
power
to
doe
ill
,
to
destroy
:
and
so
it
cannot
come
from
God
,
as
a
Morall
power
,
by
institution
;
though
it
come
from
God
by
a
flux
of
permissive
providence
:
but
so
things
unlawfull
and
sinfull
come
from
God
.
Quest.
7.
Whether
the
King
may
,
in
his
actions
,
intend
his
owne
Prerogative
and
Absolutenes
?
]
Answ.
He
can
neither
intend
it
as
his
nearest
end
,
nor
as
his
remote
end
.
Not
the
former
:
for
if
he
fight
,
and
destroy
his
People
for
a
Prerogative
,
he
destroyeth
his
People
,
that
he
may
have
a
power
to
destroy
them
,
which
must
be
meere
Tyranny
,
nor
can
it
be
his
remote
end
;
for
granting
that
his
supposed
absolute
Prerogative
were
lawfull
,
he
is
to
referre
all
lawfull
Power
,
and
all
his
actions
to
a
more
noble
end
,
to
wit
,
to
the
safetie
and
good
of
the
People
.
Quest.
8.
Doe
not
they
that
resist
the
Parliaments
power
,
resist
the
Parliament
?
And
they
that
resist
the
Kings
power
,
resist
the
King
?
God
hath
joyned
King
and
Power
:
who
dare
seperate
them
?
]
Answ.
If
the
Parliament
abuse
their
power
,
we
may
resist
their
Loyall
Convert
]
betwixt
the
Kings
power
,
and
the
Kings
will
.
2.
The
Resisters
doe
not
separate
King
and
Power
;
but
the
King
himselfe
doth
separate
his
lawfull
Power
from
his
Will
,
if
he
worke
and
act
Tyrannie
,
out
of
this
principle
,
Will
,
Passion
,
Lust
;
not
out
of
the
Royall
principle
of
Kingly
power
:
So
far
we
may
resist
the
one
,
and
not
the
other
.
Quest.
9.
Why
,
if
God
might
work
a
miracle
in
the
three
Childrens
resistance
active
;
why
doth
he
evidence
omnipotencie
in
the
passive
obedience
of
these
Witnesses
?
The
Kingdome
of
Iudah
was
Christs
birthright
,
as
man
,
and
Davids
sonne
:
why
did
he
not
,
by
legions
of
Men
&
Angels
,
rather
vindicate
his
own
flesh
and
blood
,
than
triumph
by
non-resistance
,
and
the
omnipotencie
of
glorie
to
shine
in
his
meere
suffering
?
]
Ans.
Who
art
thou
that
disputest
with
God
?
He
that
killeth
with
the
jaw-bone
of
an
Asse
,
thousands
;
only
three
hundred
,
should
no
more
put
the
three
Children
to
an
unlawfull
fact
in
the
one
,
if
they
had
by
three
men
killed
Nebuchadnezzar
and
all
his
Subjects
,
than
in
the
other
.
But
nothing
is
said
against
us
in
a
Sophisme
à
non-causa
pro
causa
;
except
it
be
proved
,
God
would
neither
deliver
his
three
Children
,
nor
Christ
from
death
,
and
the
Iewes
from
bondage
,
by
miraculous
resistance
,
because
resistance
is
unlawfull
.
What
?
patient
suffring
is
lawfull
;
Ergo
resistance
is
unlawfull
.
It
is
a
poor
consequent
,
and
a
begging
of
the
question
,
both
must
be
lawfull
to
us
.
And
so
we
hold
,
of
ten
lawfull
meanes
fit
to
compasse
Gods
blessed
end
,
he
may
choose
one
,
and
let
goe
nine
:
shall
any
inferre
,
ergo
,
These
other
nine
meanes
are
unlawfull
,
because
God
chose
a
mean
,
d●fferent
from
those
nine
,
and
refused
them
,
So
may
I
answer
by
retortion
.
The
three
hundred
sinned
in
resisting
Midian
,
and
defeating
them
:
Why
?
Because
it
should
be
more
honour
to
God
,
if
they
had
,
by
suffering
patiently
the
sword
of
Midian
,
glorified
God
in
Martyrdome
.
So
Christ
and
the
Apostles
,
who
could
have
wrought
miracles
,
might
have
wrought
Reformation
by
the
sword
,
and
destroyed
Kings
and
Emperors
,
the
opposers
of
the
Lambe
:
and
they
did
reforme
by
suffering
;
Ergo
,
the
sword
is
unlawfull
in
Reformation
.
It
followeth
not
.
The
meane
Christ
used
,
is
lawfull
;
Ergo
,
all
other
meanes
that
he
used
not
,
are
unlawfull
,
It
is
vaine
Logick
.
Quest.
10.
Whether
is
the
Coronation
of
a
King
any
other
thing
but
a
Ceremonie
?
]
Ans.
In
the
Coronation
there
is
,
and
may
be
,
the
in
concreto
,
is
more
then
a
Ceremonie
.
Ceremonie
of
a
shout
and
an
Acclamation
,
and
the
reaching
of
a
Scepter
in
his
right
hand
who
is
made
King
;
and
the
like
:
But
the
Coronation
in
concreto
,
according
to
the
substance
of
the
act
,
is
no
Ceremonie
,
nor
any
accidentall
ingredient
in
the
constitution
of
a
King
;
1.
Because
Israel
should
have
performed
a
meere
ceremoniall
action
on
Saul
,
when
they
made
him
King
,
which
we
cannot
say
:
for
as
the
Peoples
act
of
Coronation
is
distinctive
,
so
is
it
constitutive
;
it
distinguished
Saul
from
all
Israel
,
and
did
constitute
him
in
a
new
relation
,
that
he
was
changed
from
no
King
,
to
be
a
King
.
2.
The
people
cannot
by
a
Ceremonie
make
a
King
;
they
must
really
put
some
honour
on
him
,
that
was
not
on
him
before
.
Now
this
Ceremonie
which
Royalists
doe
fancie
Coronation
to
be
,
is
only
fymbolicall
and
declarative
,
not
really
dative
,
it
placeth
nothing
in
the
King
.
Quest.
11.
Whether
may
Subjects
limit
the
power
that
they
gave
not
to
the
King
,
it
being
the
immediate
result
(
without
intervening
of
Law
,
or
any
act
of
man
)
issuing
from
God
only
?
]
Ans.
Though
we
Iudaizing
;
Royalists
deny
not
,
but
they
teach
,
That
the
80.
Priests
that
restrained
Vzziah
his
power
,
from
burning
incense
to
the
Lord
,
gave
no
Royall
power
to
Vzziah
▪
Doe
not
subjects
by
flight
lay
restraint
upon
a
Kings
power
,
that
he
kill
not
the
subjects
without
cause
?
yet
they
teach
,
That
subjects
gave
no
power
to
the
King
;
certainly
this
is
a
proofe
of
the
immense
power
of
the
King
of
Kings
,
that
none
can
fly
from
his
pursuing
hand
,
Ps.
139.
1
,
2
,
3.
Amos
9.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
whereas
men
may
fly
from
earthly
Kings
.
Nebuchadnezzar
,
(
as
Royalists
teach
)
might
justly
conquer
some
Kingdomes
,
for
conquest
is
a
just
title
to
the
Crowne
,
(
say
they
)
now
the
Conquerour
then
justly
not
only
limiteth
the
Royall
Power
of
the
conquered
King
,
but
wholly
removeth
his
Royalty
and
unkingeth
him
,
yet
we
know
,
the
conquerour
gave
no
Royall
power
to
the
conquered
King
.
Ioshua
and
David
tooke
away
Royall
power
which
they
never
gave
,
and
therefore
this
is
no
good
reason
,
The
people
gave
not
to
the
King
Royall
Power
,
ergo
,
they
could
not
lawfully
limit
it
,
and
take
it
away
.
2.
We
cannot
admit
that
God
giveth
Royall
power
immediatly
,
without
the
intervention
of
any
Act
of
Law
,
for
it
is
an
Act
of
Law
,
that
Deut.
17.
the
people
chooseth
such
a
King
,
not
such
a
King
,
that
the
people
by
a
legall
covenant
make
Saul
,
David
,
and
Joash
Kings
,
and
that
God
exerciseth
any
politicall
action
of
making
a
King
,
over
such
subjects
,
upon
such
a
condition
,
is
absurd
,
and
inconceivable
;
for
how
can
God
make
Saul
and
David
Kings
of
Jsrael
,
upon
this
politicall
and
legall
condition
,
that
they
rule
in
Iustice
and
Judgement
,
but
there
must
intervene
a
politicall
action
,
and
so
they
are
not
made
Kings
immediatly
.
If
God
feed
Moses
,
by
bread
,
and
Manna
,
the
Lords
act
of
feeding
is
mediate
,
by
the
mediation
of
second
causes
;
if
he
feed
Moses
40.
dayes
without
eating
any
thing
,
the
act
of
feeding
is
immediate
.
If
God
made
David
King
,
as
he
made
him
a
Prophet
,
I
should
thinke
God
immediatly
made
him
King
;
for
God
asked
consent
of
no
man
,
of
no
people
,
no
not
of
David
himselfe
,
before
he
infused
on
him
the
Spirit
of
Prophecy
;
but
he
made
him
formally
King
,
by
the
politicall
and
legall
Covenant
betwixt
him
and
the
people
.
I
shall
not
thinke
that
a
Covenant
and
Oath
of
God
is
a
Ceremony
,
especially
a
Law-covenant
,
or
a
politicall
paction
between
David
and
the
people
,
the
contents
whereof
behoved
to
be
De
materia
gravi
&
onerosa
,
concerning
a
great
part
of
obedience
to
the
fifth
Commandement
of
Gods
Morall
Law
,
the
duties
Morall
concerning
Religion
,
and
Mercy
,
and
Justice
,
to
be
performed
reciprocally
,
between
King
and
people
.
Oathes
(
I
hope
)
are
more
then
Ceremonies
.
Quest.
12.
Whether
or
no
is
not
the
Common-wealth
ever
a
Pupill
,
never
growing
to
age
,
as
a
minor
under
nonage
doth
come
not
to
need
a
Tutor
,
but
the
Common-wealth
being
still
in
need
of
a
Tutor
,
a
Governour
,
or
King
,
must
alwaies
be
a
Tutor
,
and
so
the
Kingdome
can
never
come
to
that
condition
,
as
to
accuse
the
King
,
it
alwaies
being
minor
?
]
Ans.
1.
Then
can
they
never
accuse
inferiour
Iudges
,
for
a
Kingdome
is
perpetually
in
such
a
nonage
,
as
it
cannot
want
them
,
when
sometime
it
wanteth
a
King
.
2.
Can
the
Common-wealth
under
Democracy
and
Aristocracy
being
perpetually
under
nonage
,
ever
then
quarrell
at
these
Governments
,
and
never
seeke
a
King
?
by
this
reason
they
cannot
.
3.
The
King
in
all
respects
is
not
a
Tutor
,
every
comparison
in
something
beareth
a
Leg
;
for
the
Common-wealth
,
in
their
owne
persons
doe
choose
a
King
.
2.
Complaine
of
a
King
.
3.
Resist
an
Vzziah
.
4.
Tye
their
elective
Prince
to
a
Law
;
a
Pupill
cannot
choose
his
Tutor
,
either
his
dying
Father
,
or
the
living
Law
doth
that
service
for
him
;
he
cannot
resist
his
Tutor
,
he
cannot
tye
his
Tutor
to
a
Law
,
nor
limit
him
,
when
first
he
chooseth
him
.
Pupillo
non
licet
postulare
Tutorem
suspecti
,
quamdiu
sub
tutela
est
,
&
manet
impubes
.
l.
Pietatis
6.
in
fin
.
C.
de
susp
.
Tutor
.
l.
impuberem
.
7.
&
§
.
Impuberes
.
Iust.
eod.
Quest.
13.
Whether
or
no
are
subjects
more
obnoxious
to
a
King
then
Clients
to
Patrons
,
and
servants
to
Masters
,
because
the
Patron
cannot
be
the
Clients
Judge
?
but
some
superiour
Magistrate
must
judge
both
,
and
the
slave
had
no
refuge
against
his
Master
,
but
only
flight
.
And
the
King
doth
conferre
infinite
greater
benefits
on
the
subjects
,
then
the
Master
doth
on
the
slave
,
because
he
exposeth
his
life
,
pleasure
,
ease
,
credit
,
and
all
for
the
safety
of
his
subjects
?
]
Ans.
It
s
denyed
;
for
to
draw
the
case
to
Fathers
,
and
Lords
in
respect
of
Children
and
Vassals
;
the
reason
why
Sons
,
Clients
,
Vassals
can
neither
formally
judge
,
nor
judicially
punish
Fathers
,
Patrons
,
Lords
and
Masters
,
though
never
so
Tyrannous
,
is
a
Morall
impotency
,
or
a
politicall
incongruity
,
because
these
relations
of
Patron
and
Client
,
Fathers
and
Children
are
supposed
to
be
in
a
Community
,
in
which
are
Rulers
and
Iudges
,
above
the
Father
and
Sonne
,
the
Patron
and
the
Client
;
but
there
is
no
Physicall
incongruity
that
the
politique
inferiour
punish
the
superiour
,
if
we
suppone
there
were
no
Iudges
on
the
earth
,
and
no
relation
,
but
Patron
and
Client
;
and
because
,
for
the
father
to
destroy
the
children
,
is
a
troubling
of
the
harmony
of
Nature
,
and
the
highest
degree
of
violence
,
therefore
one
violence
of
selfe
defence
,
and
that
most
just
,
though
contrary
to
nature
,
must
be
a
remedy
against
ano●her
violence
:
but
in
a
Kingdome
there
is
no
politicall
Ruler
above
both
King
and
People
;
and
therefore
though
Nature
have
not
formally
appointed
the
politicall
relation
of
a
King
,
rather
then
many
Governours
,
and
subjects
,
yet
hath
Nature
appointed
a
Court
and
Tribunall
of
nec●ssity
,
in
which
the
people
may
by
innocent
violence
,
represse
the
unjust
violence
of
an
injuring
Prince
;
so
as
the
people
injured
in
the
matter
of
selfe
defence
,
may
be
their
owne
Iudge
.
2.
I
wonder
that
any
should
teach
,
That
oppressed
slaves
had
of
old
no
refuge
against
the
tyranny
of
Masters
,
but
only
flight
:
for
1.
The
Law
expresly
saith
,
That
they
might
not
only
fly
,
but
also
change
Masters
,
which
we
all
know
was
a
great
dammage
to
the
Master
,
to
whom
the
servant
was
as
good
as
mony
in
his
purse
.
2.
I
have
demonstrated
the
Kingdome
is
superiour
to
the
King
.
3.
It
is
true
,
Qui
plus
dat
,
plus
obligat
,
as
the
Scripture
saith
,
Luke
7.
He
that
giveth
a
greater
benefit
,
layeth
a
foundation
of
a
greater
obligation
.
But
1.
If
benefit
be
compared
with
benefit
,
it
is
disputable
;
if
a
King
give
a
greater
benefit
then
an
earthly
father
,
to
whom
under
God
the
sonne
is
debtor
for
life
and
being
,
if
we
regard
the
compensation
of
eminency
of
honour
and
riches
,
that
the
People
puteth
upon
the
King
;
but
I
utterly
deny
that
a
power
to
act
Tyrannous
acts
,
is
any
benefit
or
obligation
,
that
the
People
in
reason
can
lay
upon
their
Prince
,
as
a
compensation
or
hire
for
his
great
paines
,
he
taketh
in
his
Royall
Watch-Tower
:
I
Iudge
it
no
benefit
,
but
a
great
hurt
,
dammage
,
and
an
ill
of
nature
,
both
to
King
and
people
,
that
the
people
should
give
to
their
Prince
any
power
to
destroy
themselves
,
and
therefore
that
people
doth
reverence
and
honour
the
Prince
most
,
who
lay
strongest
chaines
and
Iron
fetters
on
him
,
that
he
cannot
tyrannize
.
Quest.
14.
But
are
not
Subjects
more
subject
to
their
Prince
(
seeing
the
subjection
is
naturall
,
as
we
see
Bees
and
Cranes
)
to
obey
him
,
then
servants
to
their
Lord
.
C.
in
Apib.
7.
9.
1.
ex
Hiero.
4.
ad
Rustic
.
Monach.
Plin.
n.
17.
For
Jurists
teach
,
that
servitude
is
beside
or
against
nature
.
l.
5.
de
stat.
homi
.
§.
2.
just
,
&
jur.
pers.
c.
3.
§
.
&
sicut
Nov.
89.
quib
.
med.
nat.
off
.
sui
.
Ans.
There
is
no
question
,
in
active
subjection
to
Princes
and
Commonwealth
of
B●es
and
Cranes
,
and
Crown
and
Scepter
amongst
them
,
Give
me
leave
to
doubt
of
it
.
To
be
subject
to
Kings
,
is
a
Divine
morall
Law
of
God
;
but
not
properly
naturall
to
be
subject
to
coaction
of
the
Sword
.
Government
and
subjection
to
Parents
,
is
naturall
:
But
that
a
King
is
juris
naturae
strictim
,
I
must
crave
leave
to
doubt
.
I
hold
him
to
be
a
Divine
morall
Ordinance
,
to
which
,
in
conscience
,
we
are
to
submit
in
the
Lord
.
Quest.
15.
Whether
was
King
Uzzah
dethroned
by
the
People
?
]
He
was
cut
off
(
saith
the
Text
)
from
the
house
of
the
Lord
;
and
Jotham
his
sonne
was
over
the
Kings
house
,
judging
the
people
of
the
Land
.
Whereby
it
is
cleare
by
the
expresse
law
of
God
,
he
being
a
Leper
,
and
so
not
,
by
Law
,
to
enter
into
the
Congregation
,
he
was
cut
off
from
the
house
of
the
Lord
:
and
he
being
a
patient
,
is
said
to
be
cut
off
from
the
Lords
house
.
Whether
then
Vzzah
turned
necessitie
to
a
vertue
,
I
know
not
:
It
is
evident
that
Gods
Law
removed
the
actuall
exercise
of
his
power
.
If
we
obteine
this
,
which
Gods
Word
doth
give
us
,
we
have
enough
for
our
purpose
,
though
Vzzah
kept
the
naked
title
of
a
King
,
as
indeed
he
tooke
but
up
roome
in
the
Catalogue
of
Kings
.
Now
if
,
by
Law
,
he
was
cut
off
from
actuall
governing
;
Whether
he
was
willing
,
or
not
willing
to
denude
himselfe
of
Reigning
,
it
is
all
one
.
And
to
say
,
that
furious
men
,
ideots
,
stupid
men
,
and
Children
,
who
must
doe
all
Royall
acts
by
Curators
and
Tutors
,
are
Kings
jure
,
with
correction
,
is
petitio
principii
:
for
then
hath
God
infused
immediately
from
heaven
,
(
as
Royalists
teach
us
)
a
Royall
power
to
governe
a
Kingdome
,
on
those
,
who
are
as
capable
of
Royaltie
,
as
blocks
.
I
conceive
that
the
Lord
,
Deut.
17.
14
,
15
,
16
,
17.
commandeth
the
people
,
to
make
no
blocks
Kings
:
and
,
that
the
Lord
hath
not
done
that
himselfe
in
a
binding
Law
to
us
,
which
we
have
no
commandement
from
him
to
doe
.
I
conceive
that
God
made
Josiah
and
Joash
Kings
typicall
,
and
in
destination
,
for
his
promise
sake
to
David
,
while
they
were
Children
,
as
well
as
he
made
them
Kings
;
but
not
actu
completo
ratione
officii
,
to
be
a
rule
to
us
now
,
to
make
a
Childe
of
sixe
yeares
of
age
,
a
King
by
office
.
I
conceive
,
Children
are
to
us
,
only
Kings
in
destination
and
appointment
:
And
for
Idiots
and
Fooles
,
I
shall
not
believe
,
(
let
Royalists
breake
their
faith
upon
so
rocky
and
stony
a
point
,
at
their
pleasure
)
that
God
hath
made
them
Governors
of
others
,
by
Royall
office
,
who
can
scarce
number
their
own
fingers
;
Or
that
God
tyeth
a
people
to
acknowledge
stupid
blocks
for
Royall
Governours
of
a
Kingdome
,
who
cannot
governe
themselves
.
But
far
be
it
from
me
to
argue
with
Bellarmine
;
From
Quest.
16.
Whether
or
no
,
as
the
deniall
of
active
obedience
in
things
unlawfull
,
is
not
dishonourable
to
the
King
as
King
,
he
being
obliged
to
command
in
the
Lord
only
,
so
the
deniall
of
passive
subjection
to
the
King
using
unjust
violence
,
be
also
no
dishonouring
of
the
King
?
]
Ans.
As
the
King
is
under
Gods
Law
both
in
commanding
,
or
in
exacting
active
obedience
,
so
is
he
under
the
same
regulating
Law
of
God
,
in
punishing
or
demanding
of
us
,
passive
subjection
,
and
as
he
Elias
,
Christ
,
and
other
of
the
witnesses
of
our
Lord
have
done
;
and
therefore
what
Royalists
say
here
is
a
great
untruth
,
namely
,
That
in
things
lawfull
we
must
be
subject
actively
,
in
things
unlawfull
,
passively
.
For
as
we
are
in
Loyall
Conv●rt
,
page
10.
things
lawfull
to
be
subject
actively
,
so
there
is
no
duty
in
point
of
conscience
,
laying
on
us
to
be
subject
passively
,
because
I
may
lawfully
fly
,
and
so
lawfully
deny
passive
subjection
to
the
Kings
will
,
punishing
unjustly
.
Quest.
17.
Whether
may
the
Prince
make
away
any
part
of
his
Dominions
,
as
an
Iland
,
or
a
Kingdome
,
for
the
safety
of
the
whole
kingdomes
he
bath
:
as
if
goods
be
like
to
sinke
an
over
▪
burthened
Ship
,
the
Sea-men
cast
away
a
part
of
the
Goods
in
the
Sea
,
to
save
the
lives
of
the
whole
Passengers
:
and
if
three
thousand
Passengers
being
in
one
Ship
,
and
the
Ship
in
a
storme
like
to
be
loosed
,
it
would
seeme
that
a
thousand
may
be
cast
over-board
,
to
save
the
lives
of
the
whole
Passengers
?
]
Ans.
The
Kingdome
being
not
the
Kings
proper
Heritage
,
Quest.
18.
Whether
or
no
,
the
convening
of
the
subjects
without
the
Kings
will
,
be
unlawfull
?
]
Answ.
The
convention
of
men
of
it self
,
is
an
indifferent
thing
,
and
taketh
its
specification
from
its
causes
,
and
manner
of
convening
,
though
some
convention
of
the
Subjects
without
the
King
,
be
forbidden
;
yet
Ratio
Legis
est
anima
Legis
,
The
reason
and
intent
of
the
Law
,
is
the
soul
of
the
Law
.
Convention
of
the
Subjects
in
a
tumultuary
way
,
for
a
seditious
end
,
to
make
war
without
warrant
of
Law
,
is
forbidden
;
but
not
when
Religion
,
Laws
,
Liberties
,
Invasion
of
forraign
Enemies
,
necessitateth
the
Subjects
to
conveen
,
though
the
King
and
ordinary
Iudicatures
,
going
a
corrupt
way
to
pervert
Iudgement
,
shall
refuse
to
consent
to
their
conventions
:
Upon
which
ground
,
no
convention
of
Tables
at
Edinburgh
,
or
any
other
place
,
An.
1637.
1638.
1639.
can
be
judged
there
unlawfull
;
for
if
these
be
unlawfull
,
because
they
are
convention
of
the
Leagues
,
without
expresse
Act
of
Parliament
,
then
the
convention
of
the
Leagues
to
quench
a
house
on
fire
,
and
the
convention
of
a
Countrey
,
to
pursue
a
Wolf
entered
in
the
Land
,
to
destroy
women
and
children
,
which
are
warranted
by
the
Law
of
nature
,
should
be
lawlesse
,
or
against
Acts
of
Parliament
.
Quest.
19.
Whether
the
Subjects
be
obliged
to
pay
the
debts
of
the
King
?
]
Answ.
These
debts
which
the
King
contracteth
as
King
,
in
Throno
Regali
,
the
people
are
to
pay
;
For
the
Law
of
nature
,
and
the
divine
Law
doth
prove
,
That
to
every
servant
and
Minister
,
wages
is
due
,
Rom.
13.
5
,
6.
compared
with
Vers.
4.
and
1
Cor.
9.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
1
Tim.
5.
18.
If
the
Prince
be
taken
in
a
war
,
for
the
defence
of
the
people
,
it
is
just
that
he
be
redeemed
by
them
:
So
the
Law
saith
,
Tit.
F.
&
C.
de
negotiis
gestis
,
&
F.
&
C.
Manda
.
But
when
Fer.
Vasquius
illust.
quest.
l.
1.
c.
7.
n.
6.
Vicesimo
tertio
apparet
,
&c.
—
saith
,
If
the
Prince
was
not
doing
the
businesse
of
the
publike
,
and
did
make
war
without
advice
,
and
consent
of
the
people
,
then
are
they
not
to
redeem
him
.
Now
certain
it
is
,
when
the
King
raiseth
war
,
not
onely
against
his
Oath
,
and
saith
,
God
do
so
●o
me
and
mine
,
if
I
intend
any
thing
but
peace
,
yet
maketh
war
,
and
also
raiseth
war
without
consent
of
the
Parliament
,
and
a
Parliament
at
that
time
convocated
by
his
own
Royall
Writ
,
and
not
raised
,
and
dissolved
at
all
,
but
still
sitting
formally
a
Parliament
;
if
he
borrow
money
from
his
own
Subjects
,
and
from
forraign
Princ●s
,
to
raise
war
against
his
Subjects
and
Parliament
,
then
the
A.
B.
borrowing
money
formally
,
that
thereby
he
may
buy
a
Whore
,
shall
be
obliged
to
repay
it
to
C.
D.
under
the
reduplication
of
debt
;
or
if
the
borrower
be
obliged
to
pay
what
the
lender
hath
unjustly
lent
.
I
dare
not
pray
to
God
,
That
all
our
Kings
debts
may
be
payed
;
I
have
scarce
faith
so
to
do
.
Quest.
20.
Whether
Subsidies
be
due
to
the
King
as
King
?
]
Answ.
and
for
conscience
sake
,
Rom.
13.
5
,
6.
never
of
a
Subsidie
or
taxation
to
the
Kings
of
Israel
and
Judah
,
at
any
convention
of
the
States
.
Augustus
Caesar
his
taxing
of
all
the
World
,
Luk.
2.
for
the
maintenance
of
Wars
,
cannot
be
the
proper
rent
of
Augustus
,
as
Emperour
,
but
the
rent
of
the
Romane
Empire
:
and
it
is
but
the
fact
of
a
man
.
Charitative
subsidies
to
the
King
,
of
indulgence
;
because
,
through
bad
husbanding
of
the
Kings
rents
,
he
hath
contracted
debts
:
I
judge
no
better
than
Royall
and
Princely
begging
.
Yet
lawfull
they
are
,
as
I
owe
charitie
to
my
brother
,
so
to
my
father
,
so
to
my
Politique
father
the
King
.
See
Ferd.
Vasq
.
illust.
quest.
l.
1.
c.
8.
who
desireth
that
Superiors
,
under
the
name
of
Charitie
,
hid
not
rapine
:
and
citeth
Cieer
,
gravely
saying
,
offic.
l.
1.
Nulla
generi
humano
&
justitiae
major
pestis
est
,
quam
eorum
,
qui
dum
maximè
fallunt
,
id
agunt
,
ut
boni
viri
esse
videantur
,
&c.
Quest.
21.
Whether
the
Seas
,
Floods
,
Road-wayes
,
Castles
,
Ports
publike
Magazine
,
Militia
,
Armour
,
Forts
and
Strengths
be
the
Kings
?
]
Ans.
All
these
may
be
understood
to
be
the
Kings
,
in
divers
quoad
custodiam
,
&
publicam
possessionem
,
as
a
pawn
is
the
mans
in
whose
hand
the
pawn
is
laid
down
.
2.
They
are
the
Kings
,
quoad
jurisdictionem
cumulativam
,
non
privativam
;
The
King
is
to
direct
,
and
Royally
to
command
,
that
the
Castles
,
Forts
,
Ports
,
Strengths
,
Armour
,
Magazine
,
Militia
,
be
imployed
for
the
safetie
of
the
Kingdome
.
All
the
Wayes
,
Bridges
,
the
publike
Road-wayes
,
are
the
Kings
,
in
so
far
as
he
,
as
a
publike
and
Royall
watchman
,
is
to
secure
the
Subjects
from
Robbers
,
and
to
cognosce
of
unknown
Murthers
,
by
himselfe
and
the
inferior
Iudges
:
yet
may
not
the
King
imploy
any
of
these
against
the
Kingdome
.
3.
They
are
the
Kings
,
as
he
is
King
,
quoad
officialem
,
&
Regalem
,
&
publicam
proprietatem
:
for
he
hath
a
Royall
and
Princely
propriety
to
all
these
,
as
his
own
,
in
so
far
as
he
useth
them
according
to
Law
:
And
thus
they
are
,
4.
The
Kings
also
,
quoad
usum
,
in
regard
of
officiall
use
.
But
they
are
the
Kingdomes
,
quoad
fructum
,
in
regard
of
the
effect
and
fruit
.
2.
They
are
the
Kingdomes
,
sinaliter
,
being
destinated
for
the
safetie
and
securitie
of
the
Kingdome
.
3.
They
are
the
Kingdomes
,
quoad
proprietatem
propriam
,
&
legalem
stricté
sumptam
;
according
to
the
proper
and
legall
proprietie
;
And
are
not
the
Kings
proper
heritage
,
as
he
is
a
Man
:
1.
Because
he
may
not
sell
these
Forts
,
Strengths
,
Ports
,
Magazine
,
Bridges
,
&c.
to
a
stranger
,
or
a
Forraigne
Prince
.
2.
When
the
King
is
dead
,
and
his
Heires
and
Royall
line
interrupted
,
these
all
re●aine
proper
to
the
Kingdome
;
yet
so
,
as
the
State
cannot
,
as
they
are
Men
,
make
them
away
,
or
sell
them
,
more
then
the
King
:
for
no
Publike
persons
,
yea
the
Multitude
cannot
make
away
the
securitie
,
safetie
,
and
that
which
necessarily
conduceth
to
the
securitie
of
the
Posteritie
.
The
Lord
build
his
owne
Zion
,
and
appoint
Salvation
for
walls
and
bulwarks
.
FINIS
.