QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or no? (3) to QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or no? (4)

QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or no? (3)

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 ex[gap]gent 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 [gap] 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, Alma[gap], 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, and 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 [gap]inne must agree alike to all, though the degrees varie.

Of Gods remedie against Arbitrary power, hereafter, in the Question of Resistance: but the confused ingine of the Prelate bringeth it in here, where there is no place for i[gap].

His 7. Argument is: Before God would authorize Rebellion, and give a bad president thereof for ever, he would rather worke extraordinary and wond[gap]rfull miracles, and therefore would not authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh, but made Moses a Prince, to bring them out of Egypt with a str[gap]tched-out arm[gap]: nor did the Lord deliver his people by the wisdome of Moses, or strength of the people, or any act that way of theirs, but by his own immediate hand and power.

Ans. I reduce the Prelates confused words to a few: for I speake not of his Popish tearme of Saint Steven, and others the like: because all that he hath said in a book of 149 pages, might have been said in three sheets of paper. But, I pray you, what is this Argument to the Question in hand, w[gap]ch is, Whether the King be so above all Lawes, as People and Peeres, in the case of Arbitrarie power, may resume their power, and punish a Tyrant? The P. Pr[gap]late draweth in the Question of Resistance by the haire. Israels not rising in armes against K. Pharaoh, proveth nothing against the power of a Free Kingdome against a Tyrant.

1. Moses, who wrought miracles destructive to Pharaoh, might pray a vengeance against Pharaoh, God having revealed to Moses, that Pharaoh was a Reprobate▪ But may Ministers and Nobles pray so against King Charles? God forbid.

2. Pharaoh had not his Crown from Israel.

3. Pharaoh had not sworne to defend Israel, nor became he their King upon condition he should maintaine and professe the Religion of the God of Israel: Therefore Israel could not, as free Estates, challenge him in their supreme Court of Parliament, of breach of oath: and upon no termes could they un-king Pharaoh; He held not his Crown of them.

4. Pharaoh was never circumcised, nor within the Covenant of the God of Isr[gap]el, in profession.

5. Israel had their lands by the meere gift of the King. I hope the King of Britaine standeth to Scotland and England in a foure-fold contrary relation.

All Divines know, that Pharaoh his Princes, and the Egyptians, were his Peeres and People; and that Israel were not his native Subjects, but a number of strangers, who by the lawes of the King and Princes, by the meanes of Joseph, had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling, and libertie to serve the God of Abraham, to whom they prayed in their bondage, Exod. 2.23, 24. and they were not to serve the Gods of Egypt, nor were of the Kings Religion: And therefore his Argument is thus: A number of poore exiled strangers under King Pharaoh, who were not Pharaohs Princes and Peeres, could not restraine the Tyrannie of King Pharaoh: Ergo, the three Estates in a free Kingdome may not restraine the Arbitrarie power of a King.

2. The Prelate must prove that God gave a Royall and Kingly power to King Pharaoh, due to him by vertue of his Kingly calling, (according as Royalists expone 1 Sam. 8.9, 11.) to kill all the male children of Israel, to make slaves of themselves, and compell them to worke in brick and clay, while their lives were a burden to them: And that if a Romish Catholique, Mary of England, should kill all the male Children of Protestants, by the hands of Papists, at the Queenes commandement, and make bondslaves of all the Peeres, Iudges, and three Estates, who made her a free Princesse: yet notwithstanding that Mary had sworne to maintaine the Protestant Religion; they were to suffer, and not to defend themselves. But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Israel, so as they could not controll it; then God giveth to a King a Royall power by office to sinne: only the Royalist saveth God from being the author of sinne, in this, that God gave the power to sinne, but yet with this limitation, that the Subjects should not resist this power. 2. He must prove

that Israel was to give their Male-child[gap]en to Pharaohs Butchers, for to hide them, was to resist a Royall power, and to disobey a Royall power given of God, is to disobey God. 3. The Subjects may not resist the Kings Butchers coming to kill them, and their Male-children, For to resist the servant of the King in that, wherein he is a servant, is to resist the King, 1 Sam. 8.7. 1 Pet. 2.14. Rom. 13.1. 4. He must prove that upon the supposition, That Israel had been as strong as Pharaoh and his people; that without Gods speciall commandment (they then wanting the written Word) they should have fought with Pharaoh; and that we now for all wars, must have a word from Heaven, as if we had not Gods perfit Will in his Word, as at that time Israel behoved to have in all wars, Judg. 18.5. 1 Sam. 14.37. Esa. 30.2. Iere. 38.37. 1 King. 22.5. 1 Sam. 30.5. Iudg. 20.27. 1 Sam. 23.2. 2 Sam. 16.23. 1 Chron. 10.14. But because God gave not them an answer to fight against Pharaoh, therefore we have no warrant now to fight ag[gap]inst a forraign Nation, invading us; the consequence is null, and therefore this is a vain Argument, The Prophets never reprove the people for not performing the duty of defensive wars against Tyra[gap] nous Kings. Ergo▪ There is no such dutie enjoyned by any Law of God to us; For the Prophets never rebuke the people for non-performing the dutie of offensive wars against their enemies; but where God gave a speciall command, and responce, from his own Oracle, that they should fight: And if God was pleased never to command the people to rise against a Tyrannous King, they did not sin where they had no commandment of God: but I hope we have now a more sure word of prophecie to inform us. 5. The Prelate conjectureth Moses his mira[gap]les, and the deliverance of the people, by dividing the Red Sea, was to forbid, and condemn, defensive wars of people against their King; but he hath neither Scripture, nor Reasons to do it. The end of these miracles, was to Seal to Pharaoh the Truth of Gods calling of Moses and 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 not his Crown from Israel, that I say of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Kings of Persia, keeping th[gap] people of God captive.

P. Prelate. So in the Book of the Judge[gap], when the people were delivered over to the hand of their enemies, because of their sins; h[gap] never warranted the ordinary Iudges, or Communitie, to be their own deliverers,

but when they repented, God raised up [gap] Iudge. The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon, God effected it by Cyrus, immediately and totally. Is not this a reall proof, God will not have inferiour Iudges, to rectifie what is amisse; but we must waite in patience till God provide lawfull means, some Soveraign power immediately sent by himself, in which course of his ordinary providence, he will not be deficient.

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 providence: and so Aristocracy and Democracy except in Gods extraordinary providence, and by some divine dispensation must be extraordinary, and ordinarily unlawfulh 2. The Acts of a State, when a King is dead, and they choos[gap] 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 Cyru[gap], 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, an[gap] a false Covenant, Hos. 10.3, 4.

QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or no? (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 Ox 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[gap] 4. If the King refuse to do his dutie, where is it written. That the people ought also to omit their dutie, and 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 ch. 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 for 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 non-age 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.