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? (2) 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? (3)

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? (2)

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 from a private condi[gap]ion to be inferiour Iudges, as Royall Dignity is a free gift of God, 1 Sam. 2.7. The Lord bringeth low, and lifteth up, Ps. 757. God putteth 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 Majo[gap] honos are to be considered.

9. Arg. Those powers which d[gap]ffer gradually, and per magis & minus, by more and lesse only, differ not in nature and spece, and constitute not Kings and inferiour Iudges different univocally. But the power of Kings and inferiour Iudges are such, therefore Kings and 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. 3. both are the Ministers of God for good. 2. Though the King send and give a call to the inferiour Iudge, that doth no more make the inferiour Iudges powers in nature and spece different, then Ministers of the Word called by Ministers of the Word, have Offices different in nature. Timotheus Office to be Preacher of the Word differeth not in specie, from the Office of the Presbytery, which layed hands on him, though their Office by extension, be more then Timothies Office. 3. The peoples power is put forth in

those same acts, when they choose one to be their King and supreame Governour, and when they set up an Aristocraticall Government, and choose many, or more then one, to be their Governours; for the formall object of one or many Governours is Iustice and Religion, as they are to be advanced. 2. The forme and manner of their opperation is▪ brachio seculari, by a coactive power, and by the sword. 3. The formall acts of King and many Iudges in Aristocracy, are these same, the defending of the poore and needy from violence, the conservation of a Community in a peaceable and a godly life, 1 Tim. 2. 2 Iob 29.12, 13. Esay 1.17. 4. These same Lawes of God that regulateth the King in all His Acts of Royall Government, and tyeth and obligeth his conscience, as the Lords Deputy to execute Iudgement for God, and not in the stead of men, in Gods Court of Heaven, doth in like manner tye, and oblige the conscience of Aristocraticall Iudges, and all inferiour Iudges, as is cleare and evident by these places, 1 Tim. 2.2. not only Kings, but all in authority [gap] are obliged to procure that their subjects leade a quiet and peaceable life, in all godlinesse and honesty. All in conscience are obliged, Deut. 1.16. to judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with them. 17. Neither are they to respect persons in judgement, but are to heare the small as well as the great, nor to be affraid of the face of men, the judgement administred by all, is Gods. 2. Chro. 19.6. All are obliged to feare God, Deut. 17.19.20. to keepe the words of the Law, not to be lifted up in heart above their brethren, Esay 1.17. Ier. 22.2, 3. Let any man show me a difference according to Gods Word, but in the extention that what the King is to doe as a King in all the Kingdome, and whole Dominions, (if God give to him many) as he gave to David and Solomon, and Ioshua, that the inferiour Iudges are to doe in such and such Circuits, and limited places, and I quit the cause, so as the inferiour Iudges are little Kings, and the King a great and delated Iudge, as a compressed hand or fist, and the hand stretched out in fingers and thumbe, are one hand, so here. 4. God owneth inferiour Iudges as a congregation of Gods, Ps. 82.1.2. for that God sitteth in a congregation or Senate of Kings or Monarches I shall not beleeve, till I see Royalists shew to me a Common-wealth of Monarches convening in one Iudicature; all are equally called Gods, Ioh. 10.35. Exod. 22.8. if for any cause, but because all Iudges even inferiour are the immediate Deputies of the King of

Kings, and their sentence in Iudgement as the sentence of the Iudge of all the earth, I shall be informed by the P. Prelate when he shall answer my reasons, if his interdicted Lordship may cast an eye to a poore Presbyter below, and as wisedome is that by which Kings raigne, Prov. 8.15. so also v. 16. by which Princes Rule, and Nobles, even all the Iudges of the earth; all that is said against this is: That the King hath a Prerogative Royall, by which he is differenced from all Iudges in Israel, called jus regis [gap] for (saith Barclay) The King as King essentially hath a Domination and power above all, so as none can c[gap]nsure him, or punish him but God, because [gap]here be no thrones above his, but the throne of God. The Iudges of Israel, [gap] 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 no[gap], 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 from Monarchie. Had the Lords of the Philistims, have the States of Holland no power but from a Monarchie? Name the Monarch. Have the Venetians any power from a King? Indeed our Prelate saith from Augustine, Confess. lib. 3. cap. 8. Generale pactum est societatis humanae, 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 rather to Royall Government, then to any other. That the 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 we[gap]e 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 actu secundo, they depend upon the presence of the Sun, but for 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

powers from God, the Deputies of the Lord of Hoasts having their power from God, then are they essentially Iudges; yea and if the estates in their prime representators, and leaders, have power in the death of the King, to choose and make another King, then are they not Iudges and Rulers by derivation and participation, or unproperly, but the King is rather the Ruler by derivation and participation, then these who are called inferiour Iudges. Now if these Iudges depend in their Sentences upon the immediat will of him who is supposed to be the only Iudge, when this only Iudge dyeth, they should cease to be Iudges: for 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 Iudges, and constitute them, but only by a power from the people; and if the Lord have no lesse immediate influence in making inferiour Iudges, then in making Kings, then is there no ground that the King should be sole Iudge, and the inferiour Iudge only Iudge by derivation from him, and essentially his Deputy, and not the immediate Deputy of God. But the former is true, ergo so is the latter. And first that the Kings absolute Will maketh not inferiour Iudges, is cleare, from 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 is from God, and neither from the East, nor the West. That our Nobles are borne Lords of Parliament, and Iudges by blood, is a positive Law. 3. It seemeth to me from Esay 3.1, 2, 3, 4. that the inferiour Iudge is made by consent of the people, nor can it be called a wronging of the King, that all cities and Burroughs of Scotland

and England, have power to choose their owne 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.

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? (3)

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. 11.11. 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.