QUEST. XIX. Whether or no the King be in Dignity and power above the people? (4) to 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? (1)

QUEST. XIX. Whether or no the King be in Dignity and power above the people? (4)

all as equall, endowed with natures and native libertie, hath no power of life and death, because all are 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, [gap] 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 [gap] jarshignur, condemnarint, Joh. 10.35. [gap], He called them Gods. Exod. 4.16. Thou shalt be to Aaron [gap] 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? (1)

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 intensivè 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 the room of God, and exercise the judgement of God, are essentially Iudges, and the Deputies of God, as well as the King: but inferiour Iudges are such. Ergo, The proposition is clear, the formall reason, why the King is univocally and essentially a Iudge is, because the Kings throne is the Lords throne, 1 Chron. 29.23. And 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, [gap], 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 all the inferiour Iudges in Israel, were but the deputies of the King, and not immediately subordinate to God, as his deputies, then could neither inferiour Iudges be admonished, nor condemned in Gods word for unjust judgement, because their sentence should be neither righteous, nor unrighteous judgement, but in so far, as the King should approve it, or disapprove it; and indeed, that 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,

and the Emperour another thing, you contemn not the power, but you choose to obey the highest: Peter saith, He will have us one way to be subject to the King, as to the supreme, sine ulla exceptione, without any exception, but to these who are sent by the King, as having their power from the King.

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 is with the same degree of reverence and submission; for we owe more submission of spirit to the King, then to the Consul; but magis & minus non variant speciem, more or lesse varieth not the natures of things: but if the meaning be that we are not to obey the inferiour Iudge commanding things lawfull, if the King command the contrary, this is utterly denyed: But saith 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 King; but being once made a Iudge 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, and Rom. 13 5. We must be subject to all powers that are of God, not onely for wrath, but for conscience.

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 commandments, is the resisting of Gods Ordinance, and a breach of the fifth Commandment, as is disobedience to parents, and not to give him tribute, and fear, and honour, is the same transgression, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

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 wisedome 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 who are appointed Iudges under 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. [gap] rasce, [gap] 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 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 [gap]me 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 Church, where he was baptized. 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 execution 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. 23.2, 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 Symmon[gap], The King is by the Grace of God,