QUEST. XXXIII. Whether or no the place Rom. 13.1. prove that in no case it is lawfull to resist the King? to QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres? (1)

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 of defensive Wars, is to make 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) Yea 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. Ferne 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) by the higher power Rom. 13. is the King principally in respect of dignity understood; but not solely and onely, as if inferiour Judges were not higher powers. 1. I say in a free Monarchie: For no man can say, that where there is not a King, but onely Aristocracie, and government by States, as in Holland, that there the people are obliged to obey the King; and yet this Text, I hope, can reach the consciences of all Holland, that there every soul[gap] must be subject to the higher powers, and yet not a subject in Holland is to be subject to any King: for non entis nulla sunt 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 if he can) for though some Judges be sent by the King, and have from him authority to judge, yet this doth no more prove that inferiour Judges are unproperly Judges, and onely such by analogie, & not essentially; Then it will prove a Citizen is not essentially a Citizen, nor a Church-officer essentially a Church-officer, nor a sonne not essentially a living creature, because the former have authority from the Incorporation of Citizens, and of Church-officers, and the latter hath his life by generation from his father, as Gods instrument. For though the Citizen and the Church-officers may be judged by their severall Incorporations that made them, yet are they also essentially Citizens and Church-officers, as those who made them such.

2. Assert. There is no reason to restrain the higher powers to Monarchs onely, or yet principally, as if they onely were essentially powers ordained of God, 1. Because he calleth them [gap], 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

[gap]nd 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 concret[gap], 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, de facto, 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 de facto, is the practise of creating all Magistrates of Cities in both Kingdomes. 7. Augustin. expos. Prop. 72. on Epist. Rom. Irenaeus 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, Pis[gap]ator, Rollocu. Marlorat. So do Popish Writers, Aquinas, Lyra, Hugo Cardinal.

Carthus. Pirerius, Toletus, Cornel. à Lapide, 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 [gap], 1 Tim. 2.2. But these are not Kings, but in the Text contradivided from [gap], Kings, and they can be no other then [gap], Principalities and powers. 2. The reason of the Apostle proveth clearely, that [gap] cannot meane Kings onely, for Paul addeth of that same [gap], 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. [gap]. More reason that Paul expound Paul: Now 1 Tim. 2.2. [gap], 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 peopl[gap], who made him King at Hebron. 2. The inferiour Magistrat[gap]s 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 thankfull 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. [gap] must be referred to the Antecedent [gap] and this, There is no power, [gap] 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, ([gap]) but by faith onely. Then [gap], must be a perfect exclusive, else their strong hold for Iustification is overthrowne. Answ. [gap], hath a neerer Antecedent, which is [gap], it is alone without [gap]. And this Grammer is not so good as Beza's, which hee rejected. 2. [gap], 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 booke of Ioshua; and therefore God killed not Og immediately.

God hath an infinite, eminent, transcendent 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, [gap]ade many men poore. 3. [gap], is not such an exclusive Particle when we ascribe it to God, as when we ascribe it to two created c[gap]uses, 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 s[gap]ct. 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 ha[gap]h 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 command[gap]th. These are contradictory; I am not put off that opinion since I was at Schools, Species subjicibilis qua subjicibilis non est praedicabilis.

4. [gap]f Nero make fathers rulers over their mothers and children, and command them, by his publique sword of justice, to kill their own[gap] children and mothers; if a Senate of such fathers disobey, and if with the sword they defend their own children and mothers, which some other Do[gap]gs as Judges are to kill, in the name and commandement of Nero: Then they resisting Neroes bastard-commandment, by [gap]his doct[gap]ine 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 Ferne 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? (1)

WHat reasons have already been discussed, I touch not.

Obj. 1. Arnisaeus de authorit princ[gap]p. c. 2. num. 2. If we are to obey our parents, not if they be good,

but simply whether they be good or ill (so Iust. saith of the King, Quamvis legum contemptor, quamvis impius, tamen pater §. si vero in ff. vos. 12.) then must we submit to wicked Kings.

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 in fiction 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 essentially 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 peopl[gap] 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 gave 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 did it.

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. [gap]xcepteth none. See 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 [gap], nasi signifieth 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. [gap] 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 fight with the six[gap]h, for all resistance is against the judge, as a man exce[gap]ding 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 th[gap] [gap] is cleare, rebellion is forbidden, not resistance, so the hebrew, [gap] 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 will or desireth, as a Prince, by his royall, that is, his legall will, by which he is lex animata, a breathing law; we shall owne that as truth, and it is nothing against us. But if the meaning be, that 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 foure[gap]core 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 God, when Hellespontus had cast downe his bridges, command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea, and that it should be cast in fetters? And our Royalists will have these mad fooles, doing these acts of blasphemous insolencie against heaven, to be honoured as Kings, and to act those acts by a regall power. But heare, flatterers, a Royall power is the good gift of God, a lawfull and just power. A King acting and speaking as a King, speaketh and acteth Law and Justice. A power to blaspheme is not a lawfull power; they did and spake thes[gap] things with a humane and a sinfull will, if therefore this be the Royali[gap]ts meaning, as Kings, 1. They are absolute, and so the limited and elected King is no King. 2. The King as King is above Gods Law, put on him by God, Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill. 4. It were unlawfull to say to the King of Cyrus, What sayest thou? Thou art 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) wicked, and to Princes, (Ye are) ungodly? Ergo, You may not resist 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 in[gap]eriour, should not be resisted, for [gap] signifieth all that, and it signifieth liberall, 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, [gap] Beliel, a word of reproach, signifying extreme wickednesse. And you may not say to a man of place, [gap] 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 [gap] is a word of extreme reproach, comming from [gap] sine, non, and [gap] profuit, Iud. 19.22. a most naughtie and a lewd man, or from [gap] jugum, a lawlesse man, who hath cast off all yokes of Gods or Mans Law. So then the meaning is, It is unlawfull to reproach earthly Princes and men of place, farre more is it unlawfull to reproach the Judge of the whole earth with injustice. And what then? We may not reproach the King, as Shimei cursed King 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 Israel.

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 Ki[gap]g 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, Iul. 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 Brita[gap]ne.

Obj. 11. Ferne, sect. 9.56. If the Senate and people of Rome, who a little before had the supreme Government over the th[gap]n Emperors, that of Subjects had made them Lords, might not resist their Emperours, much lesse can the peopl[gap] 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 th[gap]ugh the Senate had made them absolute, I deny that therefore they cannot be resisted. T[gap]e unlawfull resistance condemned by Paul Rom. 13. is not upon the ground of Absol[gap]tenesse, which is in the Court of God nothing, being never ordained of God, but upon reasons of conscience, b[gap]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 death, and