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? to 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. (1)

QUEST. XVII. Whether or not the Prince have properly a fiduciarie, and ministeriall power of a Tutor, Husband, Patron, Minister, head, father of a family, not of a Lord or dominator?

THat the power of the King is fiduciarie, that is given to him immediatly by God in trust, Royallists deny not; but we hold that the trust is put upon the King by the people. 2. We deny that the people give themselves to the King as a gift, for what is freely given cannot be taken againe▪ but they gave themselves to the King as a pawne; and if the pawne be abused, or not used in that manner as it was conditionated to be used, the party in whose hand the pawne is intrusted, faileth in his trust.

1. Assertion. The King is more properly a Tutor then a Father, 1. Indigencie is the originall of Tutors, the Parents dye; what then shall become of the Orphan and his inheritance? he cannot guide it himselfe; therefore nature devised a Tutor to supply the place of a father, and to governe the Tutor; but with this consideration, the father is Lord of the inheritance, and if he be distressed, may sell it, that it shall never come to the sonne, and the father for the bad deserving of his sonne may dis-inherite him; but the Tutor being but a borrowed father, cannot sell the inheritance of the pupill, nor can he for the pupills bad deserving, by any dominion of Justice over the pupill, take away the inheritance from him, and give it to his owne son; so a Community of it selfe, because of sin, is a naked society that can but destroy it selfe, and every one eate the flesh of his brother, therefore God hath appointed a King or governour, who shall take care of that community, rule them in peace, and save all from reciprocation of mutuall acts of violence, yet so, as because a trust is put on the Ruler of a community, which is not his heritage, he cannot dispose of it as he pleaseth, because he is not the proper owner of the inheritance.

2. The Pupill when he commeth to age, may call his Tutor to an accompt for his administration; I doe not acknowledge that as a truth, which Arnisaeus saith, De authoritate. prin. c. 3. n. 5. The Common-wealth is alwaies minor, and under Tutory, because it alway hath need of a curator and governour, and can never put away its governour, bu[gap] the pupill may grow to age and wisedome, so as he may be without all Tutors, and can guide himselfe, and so may call in question

his Tutor, and the pupill cannot be his Iudge, but must stand to the sentence of a superiour Iudge, and so the people cannot judge or punish their Prince, God must be Iudge betwixt them both.

But this is 1. a begging of the question, every comparison halteth, no community but it is Major in this, that it can appoint its owne Tutors, and though it cannot be without all Rulers, yet it may well be without this or that Prince and Ruler, and therefore may resume its power, which it gave conditionally to the Ruler for its owne safety and good, and in so farre as this condition is violated, and power turned to the destruction of the Common-wealth, it is to be esteemed as not given; and though the people be not a politique Iudge in their owne cause, yet in case of manifest oppression, nature can teach them to oppose defensive violence against offensive: a community in its politique body is also above any Ruler, and may judge what is manifestly destructive to it selfe.

Obj. The Pupill hath not power to appoint his owne Tutor, nor doth he give power to him, so neither doth the people give it to the King. Ans. The Pupill hath not indeed a formall power to make a Tutor, but he hath vertually a legall power in his father, who appointeth a Tutor for his sonne, and the people have vertually all Royall power in them, as in a sort of immortall and eternall fountain, and may create to themselves many Kings.

Asser. 2. The Kings power is not properly and univocally a Maritall and husbandly power, but only Analogically, 1. The Wife by nature is the weaker Vessell, and inferiour to the man, but the Kingdom, as shall be demonstrated is superiour to the King. 2. The Wife is given as an helpe to the man, but by the contrary the man here is given as an helpe and father to the Common-wealth, which is presumed to be the wife. 3. Maritall and husbandly power is naturall, though it be not naturall, but from free election that Peter is Ana's Husband, and should have been, though man had never sinned: but Royall Power is a politick constitution, and the world might have subsisted, though Aristocracy or Democracy had been the only and perpetuall governments. So let the Prelate glory in his borrowed Logick, he had it from Barclay. It is not in the power of the Wife to repudiat her Husband, though never so wicked, she is tyed to him for ever, and may not give to him a bill of Divorcement, as by Law the Husband might give to her; if therefore the people sweare loyalty to him, they must keep, though to their hurt. Ps. 15. Ans. There's

nothing here said, except Barclay and the Plagiarie prove, that the Kings Power is properly a Husbands power, which they cannot prove, but from a Simile that crooketh; but a King elected upon conditions, that if he sell his people, he shall lose his Crown, is as essentially a King, as Adam was Evahs Husband, and yet by grant of parties, the people may devorce from such a King, and dethrone him, if he sell his people; but a Wife may never devorce from her Husband, as the Argument saith. And this poore Argument the Prelate stole from Dr. Ferne, part 2. Sec. 3. pag. 10, 11. 2. The keeping of Covenant though to our hu[gap]t, is a penall hurt, and losse of goods, not a morall hurt, and losse of Religion.

Assert. 3. The King is more properly a sort of Patron, to defend the people, and therefore hath no power given either by God or man to hurt the people, and a Minister or publick and honourable servant, Rom. 13.4. for he is the Minister of God to thee for good; he is the Common-wealths servant objectively, because all the Kings service, as he is King, is for the good, safety, peace and salvation of the people, and in this he is a servant. 2. He is the servant of the people Representatively, in that the people hath impawned in his hand all their power to doe Royall service. Obj. He is the servant of God, ergo he is not the peoples Servant, but their soveraigne Lord. Ans. It followeth not, because all the service the King as King performeth to God, they are acts of Royalty, and acts of Royall service, as terminated on the people; or acts of their Soveraigne Lord, and this proveth that to be their Soveraigne, is to be their servant, and watch-man.

Object. 2. God maketh a King only, and the Kingly power is in him only, not in the people. Ans. The Royall power is only from God, immediatly, Immediatione simplicis constitutionis, & solum a Deo solitudine primae causae, by the immediation of simple constitution, none but God appointed there should be Kings; but 2. Royall power is not in God, nor only from God; immediatione applicationis regia dignitatis ad personam, nec a Deo solum, solitudine causae applicantis dignitatem, huic, non illi, in respect of the applying of Royall dignity to this person, not to this.

Object. 3. Though Royall power were given to the people, it is not given to the people, as if it were the Royal power of the people, and not the Royall power of God, neither is it any other waies bestowed on the people but as on a beame, a channell, an instrument, by which it is derived

to others, and so the King is not the minister or servant of the people.

Ans. It is not in the people as in the principall cause; Sure all Royall power that way is only in God; but it is in the people as in the instrument: and when the people maketh David their King at Hebron, in that same very act, God by the people using their free suffrages and consent, maketh David King at Hebron: so God only giveth raine, and none of the vanities and supposed gods of the Gentiles can give raine, Ier. 14 22. and yet the Clouds also give raine, as nature, as an organ and vessell out of which God powreth down raine upon the dry earth▪ Amos 9.6. and every instrument under God, that is properly an instrument▪ is a sort of Vicarious cause in Gods room, and so the people as in Gods roome, applyeth Royall power to David, not to any of Sauls sonnes, and appointeth David to be their Royall Servant to governe, and in that to serve God, and to doe that, which a Communitie now in the state of sinne cannot formally doe themselves: and so I see not how it is a service to the people, not only objectively, because the Kings Royall service tendeth to the good, and peace, and safety of the people; but also subjectively, in regard he hath his power and Royall authoritie which he exerciseth as King, from the people under God, as Gods instruments: and therefore the King and Parliament give out Lawes and Statutes in the name of the whole people of the Land. And they are but flatterers, and belye the Holy Ghost, who teach that the people doe not make the King; for Israel made Saul King at Mizpeh, and Israel made David King at Hebron.

Object. 3. Israel made David King, that is, Israel designed Davids person to be King, and Israel consented to Gods act of making David King, but they did not make David King.

Ans. I say not that Israel made the Royall dignitie of Kings: God, Deut. 17. instituted that himselfe: bu[gap] the Royalist must give us an act of God going before an act of the peoples making David King at Hebron, by which David of no King is made formally a King: and then another act of the People, approving only and consenting to that act of God, whereby David is made formally of no King to be a King. This Royalists shall never instruct, for there be only two acts of God here; 1. Gods act of annointing David by the hand of Samuel; and 2. Gods act of making David King at Hebron: and a third they shall never give. But the former is not that by which David was essentially and formally changed from the state

of a private subject, and no King, into the state of a publike Judge and supreme Lord and King, for (as I have proved) after this act of annointing of David King, he was designed only and set apart to be King in the Lords fit time; and after this annointing, he was no more formally a King then Doeg or Nabal were Kings, but a subject who called Saul the Lords annointed and King, and obeyed Saul as another subj[gap]ct doth his King: but it is certaine God by no other act made David King at Hebron, then by Israels act of free electing him to be King and leader of the Lords people, as God by no other act sendeth down rain on the earth, but by Gods melting the clouds, and causing raine to fall on the earth: and therefore to say Israel made David King at Hebron, that is, Israel approved only and consented to a prior act of Gods making David King, is all one as to say Saul prophecied, that is, Saul consented to a prior act of the Spirit of God who prophecied: and Peter preached, Act. 2. that is, Peter approved and consented to the Holy Ghosts act of preaching. Which to say, is childish.

Assert. 4. The King is an head of the Commonwealth only metaphorically, by a borrowed speech, in a politique sense, because he ruleth, commandeth, directeth the whole politique body in all their operations and functions. But he is not univocally and essentially the head of the Commonwealth. 1. The same very life in number that is in the head, is in the members: there be divers distinct soules and lives in the King, and in his Subjects. 2. The head naturall is not made an head by the free election and consent of armes, shoulders, leggs, toes, fingers, &c. The King is made King only by the free election of his people. 3. The naturall head, so long as the person liveth, is ever the head, and cannot cease to be a head while it is seated on the shoulders: The King, if he sell his people, their persons and soules, may leave off to be a King and Head. 4. The head and members live together, and dye together: the King & the people are not so; the King may dye, and the People live. 5. The naturall head cannot destroy the members, and preserve it selfe: but King Nero may waste and destroy his people. 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, for, 1. (as Tholossa saith well 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 one 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 1. the thing put in trust is not his own proper either heritage or gift, so as he may dispose of it as he pleaseth, as men dispose of their goods or heritage. But the King may not dispose of men as men, as he pleaseth; nor 2. of Lawes as he pleaseth; nor 3. of governing men, killing or keeping alive, punishing and rewarding, as he pleaseth.

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 berray 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. (1)

THis place, 1 Sam. 8, 9. and v. 11. The law or manner of the King is alleadged to prove both the 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. 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. 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 Gods law, as he is commanded, Deut. 17. and this is the very office or officiall power which the 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 tyrannize over Gods people: but this is accidentall to a King, and the character of a Tyrant, and is not from God: and so the Law of the King in this place must be the Tyranny of the King, which is our very mind. 2. Barclay. Reges sine dominatione ne concipi quidem possunt.—Iudices dominationem in populum minimè habebant. Hence it is cleare that Barclay saith, that the 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 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 [gap] the word cannot inforce us to expone [gap] a law; our English rendreth, Shew them the manner of the King.

Arri. Montanus turneth it ratio Regis.

I grant the Seventy render it, [gap]. The Chalde Paraphrase saith, Statutum regis.

Hieronimus translateth it jus regis; so Calvin: but I am sure the Hebrew both in words and sense beareth a consuetude; yea, and the word [gap] signifieth not alwayes a law, as Josh. 6.14. They compassed the citie [gap] seven times. 70. [gap]. 2 King. 17.26. They know not the manner of the God of the Land, Vers. 33. They served their own gods, after the manner of the Heathen. [gap] It cannot be according to the Law or right of the Heathen, except [gap], be taken in an evill part. 70. [gap]. Vers. 34. Vntill this day they do after these manners, 1 Kings 18.28. Baals Priests cut themselves with Knives [gap] after their manner, 70. [gap], Gen. 40.13. Thou shalt give the cup to Pharaoh, according as thou wast wont to do. [gap], 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, [gap]. 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. [gap] This was a wicked custome, not a law, and the 70. turneth it, [gap]; and therefore [gap] is not alwayes taken in a good meaning: so P. Martyr, He meaneth here of an usurped law, saith he; Calvin

Non jus a deo prescriptum, sed tyranidem. He speaketh not of Gods law here (saith he) but of tyranny.

And Rivetus, [gap] signifieth not ever jus, law. Sed aliquando morem sive modum & rationem agendi, The custome and manner of doing, so Junius and Tremellius.

Diodatus exponeth jus; This law, namely (saith he) that which is now grown to a common custome, by the consent of nations, and Gods toleration.

The interline glosse (to speak of Papists) exactionem & dominationem; The extortion and domination of King Saul is here meant.

Lyra exponeth it tyranny. Tostatus Abulens. He meaneth here of Kings indefinitely, who oppressed the people with taxes and tributes, as Solomon and others.

Cornelius a lapide: This was an unjust law.

Cajetanus

calleth it, tyranny.

Hugo Cardinal, nameth them, exactiones & servitutes, exactions and slaveries: And Serrarius, he speaketh not here, Quid Reges jure possint, What they may do by right and law; Sed quid audeant, What they will be bold to do, and what they tyrannically decern against all Laws of nature and humanitie. And so speaketh Tho. Aquinas: So also Mendoza, saith he, speaketh of the law of Tyrants: and amongst the fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus saith on this place, Non humanum pollicetur dominum, sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum, He promiseth not a humane Prince, but threatneth to give them an insolent Tyrant; and the like also saith Beda. And an excellent Lawyer, Pet. Rebuffus saith, Etiam loquitur de Tyranno qui non erat a Deo electus. And that he speaketh of Sauls Tyrannicall usurpation, and not of the law prescribed by God, Deut. 17. I prove, 1. He speaketh of such a power, as is answerable to the Acts here spoken of; but the Acts here spoken of, are Acts of meere tyranny, Vers. 11. And this will be the manner of your King, that shall reign over you, he will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his Chariots: Now to make slaves of their sons, was an Act of Tyranny. 2. To take their fields and vineyards, and oliveyards from them, and give them to his servants, was no better then Ahabs taking Naboths vineyard from him, which by Gods law he might not lawfully sell, except in the case of extreme povertie, and then in the yeer of Jubilee, he might redeem his own inheritance. 3. Verse 15, 16. To put the people of God to bondage and make them servants, was to deal with them, as the Tyrant Pharaoh did. 4. He speaketh of such a law, the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord, because of their King: but the execution of the just Law of the King, Deut. 17. is a blessing, and not a bondage which should make the people cry out of the bitternesse of their spirit. 5. It is clear here, that God is by his Prophet, not instructing the King in his duty, but as Rabbi Levi Ben. Gersom saith, Terrifying them from their purpose of seeking a King, and foretelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrannous King; But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable Acts of favour, that a good King by his good Government was to do for his people, Deut. 17.

15, 16. But he speaketh of contrary facts here; and that he is disswading them from suiting a King, is clear from the Text. 1. Because he saith, Give them their will; but yet protest against their unlawfull course. 2. He biddeth the Prophet lay before them the tyranny, and oppression of their King; which tyranny Saul exercised in his time, as the story sheweth. 3. Because how uneffectuall Samuels exhortation was, is set down, Verse 19. Neverthelesse, they would not obey the voice of Samuel, but said, Nay, but we will have a King over us; if Samuel had not been dehorting them from a King, 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 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 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, yet to vindicate the place; I s[gap]y, there is not one word of any lawfull remedy in the Text, onely it is said, [gap], Et cl[gap]matis 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, [gap] clamare faciunt, Isai. 15.4. And Heshbon shall cry. [gap] 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 [gap], Deut. 22.24. You shall stone the maide [gap], because she cryed not [gap]; 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 prayers 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 fury 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 in 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.