Lex Rex, Table of contents
The Table of the Contents of the Book.
QUEST. I. WHether Government be by a divine Law?
Affirmed, Pag. 1.
How Government is from God, Ibid.
Civill Power in the Root, immediately from God, Pag. 2,
QUEST. II. Whether or no Goverment be warranted by the Law of nature?
Affirmed, Ibid.
Civil societie naturall in radice, in the root, voluntary, in modo, in the manner, Ibid.
Power of Government, and Power of Government, by such and such Magistrates, different, Pag. 2, 3.
Civil subjection not formally from natures Law, Pag. 3.
Our consent to Laws penal, not antecedently naturall, Ibid.
Government by such Rulers, a secondary Law of nature, Ibid.
Family Government and politike, different, Ibid.
Government by Rulers, a secondary Law of nature; Family Government, and Civil, different, Pag. 4.
Civil Government by consequent, naturall, Pag. 5.
QUEST. III. Whether Royall Power, and definite Forms of Government be from God?
Affirmed, Ibid.
That Kings are from God, understood in a fourfold sense, Pag. 5, 6.
The Royall Power hath warrant from divine institution, Pag. 6.
The three forms of Government, not different in spece and nature, P. 8.
How every form is from God, Ibid.
How Government is an ordinance of man, 1 Pet. 2.13. Pag. 8, 9.
QUEST. IV. Whether or no, the King be onelyonly and immediately from God, and not from the people? Prius distinguitur, posterius prorsus Negatur, pag. 5.
How the King is from God, how from the people, Ibid.
Royall Power three wayes in the people, P. 6, 10.
How Royall Power is radically in the people, P. 7.
The people mak…th the King, Ibid.
How any form of Government is from God, P. 8.
How Government is a humane ordinance, 1 Pet. 2.3. P. 8, 9.
The people creat the King, P. 10, 11.
Making a King, and choosing a King, not to be distinguished, P. 12▪ 13.
David not a King formally, because anointed by God, P. 14, 15.
QUEST. V. Whether or no, the P. P. proveth, that Soveraignty is immediately from God, not from the people? p. 16.
Kings made by the people, though the Office, in abstracto, were immediately from God, P. 16.
The people have a reall action, more then approbation in making a King, P. 19,
Kinging of a person ascribed to the people, P. 20.
Kings in a speciall manner, are from God, but it followeth not: Ergo, not from the people, P. 21.
The place, Prov. 8.15. proveth not, but Kings are made by the people. P. 22, 23.
Nebuchadnezzar and other heathen Kings, had no just Title before God, to the Kingdom of Judah, and divers other subdued Kingdoms, P. 26, 27.
QUEST. VI. Whether or no, the King be so allanerly from both in regard of Soveraignty and Designation of his person, as he is no wayes from the people, but onelyonly by meer approbation? Negatur, pag. 28, 29.
The Forms of Government, not from God by an act of naked Providence, but by his approving will, Ibid.
Soveraignty not from the people by sole approbation, P. 29, 30.
Though God have peculiar acts of providence in creating Kings, it followeth not hence, that the people maketh not Kings, P. 31.
The P. Prelate, exponeth prophecies true onelyonly of David, Solomon, and Iesus Christ, as true of prophane heathen Kings, P. 34, 35.
The P. P. maketh all the heathen Kings to be Princes, anointed with the holy Oyl of saving grace, Ibid.
QUEST. VII. Whether the P. Prelate conclude, that neither constitution, nor designation of Kings is from the people? Negatur, P. 38, 39.
The excellency of Kings, maketh them not of Gods onelyonly Constitution and Designation, Ibid.
How Soveraigntie is in the people, how not, P. 43.
A Communitie doth not surrender their right and libertie to their Rulers; so much as their power active, to do, and passive, to suffer violence, P. 44, 45.
Gods loosing of the bonds of Kings, by the mediation of the peoples despising him, proveth against the P. P. That the Lord taketh away, and giveth Royall Majestie mediately, not immediately, P. 45, 46.
The subordination of people to Kings and Rulers, both naturall and voluntary; the subordination of beasts and creatures to man meerly naturall, P. 46, 47.
The place, Gen. 9.5. He that shedeth man's blood, &c. discussed, P. 47, 48.
QUEST. VIII. Whether or no, the P. Prelate proveth, by force of reason, That the people cannot be capable of any power of Goverment? Negatur, pag. 49, 50.
In any communitie there is an active and passive power to Government, P. 50.
Popular Government is not that wherein all the whole people are Governours, P. 53, 54.
People by nature are equally indifferent to all the three Governments, and are under not any one by nature, P. 53.
The P. Prelate, denyeth the Pope his father to be the Antichrist, Ibid.
The bad successe of Kings chosen by people, proveth nothing against us, duplicate page duplicate page because Kings chosen by God, had bad successe through their own wickednesse, P. 54, 55.
The P. Prelate condemneth King Charls his ratifying, Parl. 2. An. 1641. The whole proceedings of Scotland in this present Reformation, P. 56.
That there be any supreme Judges, is an eminent act of divine providence, which hindereth not, but that the King is made by the people, P. 57.
The people not patients in making a King, as is water in the Sacrament of Baptisme, in the Act of production of grace, P. 58.
QUEST. IX. Whether or no, Soveraigntie is so in and from the people, that they may resume their power in time of extreme necessity? Negatur. pag. 58.
How the people is the subject of Soveraignty, Ibid.
No Tyrannicall power is from God, P. 59.
People cannot alienate the naturall power of self-defence, Ibid.
The power of Parliaments, P. 60.
The Parliament hath more power then the King, Ibid.
Judges and Kings differ, P. 61.
People may resume their power, not because they are infallible, but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves, as one man may do, P. 63.
That the San…drim punished not David, Bathsheba, Joab, is but a fact, not a law, P. 63, 64.
There is a subordination of Creatures naturall, Government must be naturall; and yet this, or that form, is voluntary, P. 65, 66, 67.
QUEST. X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to Divine Unction? Negatur. pag. 68.
Impugned by eight Arguments. Ibid.
Royalty not transmitted from father to sonne. ibid.
A family may be chosen to a Crown as a single person is chosen, but the tye is conditionall in both. pag. 68.69.
The Throne by speciall promise made to David and his seed, by God, Psal. 89. no ground to make birth, In foro Dei, a just title to the crowne. pag. 69 70.
A Title by conquest to a Throne must be unlawfull, if birth be Gods lawfull title. pag. 70.
Royalists who held conqu…st to be a just title to the Crown, teach manifest treason against King Charles, and his Royall Heires. ibid.
Only, Bona fortunae, not honour or Royalty properly transmittable from father to sonne. pag. 71.
Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people, to submit to a conquerour as their lawfull King. pag. 72.
Naked birth is inferiour to that very divine unction, that made no man a King without the peoples election. pag. 73.
If a Kingdome were by birth the King might sell it. pag. 74.
The Crown is the Patrimony of the Kingdome, not of him who is King, or of his father pag. 72, 73, 76.
Birth a typicall designement to the Crowne in Israel. pag. 74.
The choise of a family to the Crowne resolveth upon the free election of the people, as on the fountaine-cause. pag. 76.
Election of a family to the Crown lawfull. pag. 77.
QUEST. XI. Whether or no, he be more principally a King, who is a King by birth, or he who is a King by the free election of the people? Affir. posterius, pag. 79.
The Elective King commeth nearer to the first King. Deut. 17. pag. 80.
If the people may limit the King, they give him the power. ibid.
A Community have not power formally to punish themselves. pag. 81.
The Hereditary and the elective Prince in divers considerations better, or worse, each one then another. pag. 82.
QUEST. XII. Whether or no a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole Title of Conquest. Negatur. pag. 82.
7. Argu. for the nega… ▪ a twofold right of conquest. ibid.
Conquest turned in an after-consent of the people, becommeth a just title. pag. 83.
Conquest not a signification to us of Gods approving will. pag. 84.
Meere violent domineering contrary to the acts of governing. ibid.
Violence hath nothing in it of a King. ibid.
A bloody Conquerour not a blessing, per se, as a King is, pag. 85.
Strength as prevailing is not Law or reason. pag. 86
Fathers cannot dispone of the liberty of posterity not borne. ibid.
A father as a father hath not power of life and death. pag. 87.
Israels and Davids Conquests of the Canaanites, Edomites, Ammonites not lawfull, because conquest, but upon a Divine title of Gods promise. pag. 88.89.
QUEST. XIII. Whether or no Royall Dignity have its spring from Nature, and how that is true (every man is borne free) and how servitude is contrary to nature; Affir. 89.
Seven sorts of superiority and inferiority. pag. 89, 90.
Power of life and death from a positive Law. ibid.
A Dominion antecedent and consequent. 90.
Kings and subjects no naturall order. ibid.
A man is borne, consequenter, in politick relation. pag. 91.
Slavery not naturall from four reasons. ibid.
Every man borne free in regard of civill subjection (not in regard of naturall, such as of children, and wife to Parents and Husband) proved by seven Arguments. pag. 91, 92, 93.
Politique Government how necessary, how naturall. pag. 94.
That Parents should inslave their children, not naturall. pag. 95.
QUEST. XIV. Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally, or absolutely; and whether the King be tyed by any such covenant? pag. 96.
The King under a naturall, but no civill obligation to the people, as Royalists teach. ibid.
The Covenant civilly tyeth the King, proved by Scriptures and reasons, by 8. Argu. ibid. & sequent.
Jf the condition without which one of the parties would never have entered in Covenant, be not performed, that party is loosed from the Covenant. pag. 97.
The people and Princes are obliged in their places for Iustice and Religion, no lesse then the King. pag. 98.
In so farre as the King presseth a false Religion on the people, eatenus, in so farre they are understood not to have a King. pag. 99.
The Covenant giveth a mutuall coactive power to King and people, to compell each other, though there be not one in earth higher then both to compell each of them. pag. 100.
The Covenant bindeth the King as King, not as he is a man onelyonly. pag. 101.
One or two Tyrannous acts deprive not the King of his Royall right. pag. 104.
Though there were no positive written Covenant (which yet we grant not) yet there is a naturall, tacit, implicit Covenant tying the King, by the nature of his Office. pag. 106
If the King be made King absolutely, it is contrary to Scripture, and the nature of his Office. pag. 107.
The people given to the King as a pledge, not as if they became his owne to dispose of at his absolute will. pag. 108.
The King could not buy, sell, borrow, if no Covenant should tye him to men. ibid.
The Covenant sworne by Iudah, 2 Chro. 15. tyed the King. pag. 109.
QUEST. XV. Whether the King be univocally or only Analogically and by proportion a father, pag. 111
Adam not King of the whole earth, because a father. ibid.
The King a Father Metaphorically and improperly, proved by eight Arguments. ibid. & sequent.
QUEST XVI. Whether or no a despoticall or masterly dominion agree to the King, because he is King. Negatur. pag. 116
The King hath no masterly dominion over the Subjects, as if they were his servants. Proved by 4. Arguments. pag. 116.
The King not over men as reasonable creatures to domineere. pag. 117.
The King cannot give away his Kingdome or his people, as if they were his proper goods. ibid.
A violent surrender of liberty tyeth not. pag. 119
A surrender of ignorance is in so farre, unvoluntary, as it oblige not. ibid.
The goods of the subjects not the Kings, proved by 8. Argu. pag. 120.
All the goods of the subjects are the Kings in a four-fold sence· pag. 121·
QVEST. XVII. Whether or no, the Prince have properly the fiduciary or ministeriall power of a Tutor, Husband, Patron, Minister, Head, Master of a Family, not of a lord or dominator.
Affirmed, p. 124.
The King a Tutor rather then a Father, as these are distinguished, ibid.
A free Communitie not properly, and in all respects, a minor and pupill, p. 125.
The Kings power not properly maritall and husbandly. ibid.
The King a Patron, and Servant. pag. 126.
The Royall power only from God, Immediatione simplicis constitutionis, & solum solitudine causae primae, but not Immediatione applicationis dignitatis ad personam. pag. 126.
The King the Servant of the people both objectively, and subjectively. pag. 127.
The Lord and the people by one and the same act according to the Physicall relation maketh the King. ibid.
The King head of the people Metaphorically only, not essentially, not univocally by 6. Argu. pag. 128.
His power fiduciary only. pag. 129.
QVEST. XVIII. What is the Law or manner of the King, 1 Sam. 8, 9, 11. the place discussed fully. pag. 130.
The Power and the Office badly differenced by Barclay. pag. 130.
What is foreign the manner of the King, by the harmony of Interpretors ancient and moderne, Protestants and Papists. pag. 131, 132, 133.
Crying out, 1 Sam. 8. not necessarily a remedy of tyranny, nor a praying with faith and patience, pag. 135, 136.
Resisting of Kings that are tyrannous and patience not inconsistent. ibid.
The Law of the King not a permissive Law, as was the Law of Devorcement. pag. 136, 137.
The Law of the King, 1 Sam. 12.23, 24. not a Law of tyranny, pag. 138, 139.
QVEST. XIX. Whether or no the King be in Dignity and Power above the people? Neg. Impugned by 10. Argu. p. 139.
In what consideration the King is above the people, and the people above the King. pag. 139, 140.
A meane as a meane inferiour to the end, how its true. ibid.
The King inferiour to the people. ibid.
The Church because the Church is of more excellency then the King, because King. pag. 140, 141.
The people being those to whom the King is given, worthier then the gift. pag. 141.
And the people immortall, the King mortall. pag. 142.
The King a meane only, not both the efficient or Author of the Kingdome and a meane. Two necessary distinctions of a meane. pag. 143,
If sin had never been there should have been no King. pag. 142.
The King is to give his life for his people. ibid.
The consistent cause more excellent then the effect. pag. 143, 144, 145.
The people then the King. pag. 144, 145.
Vnpossible people can limit Royall Power, but they must give Royall Power also. ibid.
The people have an action in making a King, proved by foure Arguments. ibid.
Though it were granted that God immediately made Kings, yet it is no consequent God only, and not the people, can unmake him. pag. 146.
The people appointing a King over themselves, retaine the Fountaine-power of making a King. pag. 147, 148, 149.
The meane inferiour to the end, and the King as King is a meane. pag. 149, 150, 153.
The King as a meane, and also as a man inferiour to the people, pag. 150.
To sweare non-selfe-preservation, and to sweare selfe-murther, all one. pag. 151.
The people cannot make away their power. 1. Their whole power, nor 2. irrevocably to the King. pag. 152.
The people may resume the power they give to the Commissioners of Parliament, when it is abused, p. 152,
The Tables in Scotland lawfull, when the ordinary judicaturies are corrupt, p. 153.
Quod efficit tale id ipsum magis tale, discussed, the fountain-power in the people, the derived onelyonly in the King, p. 153, 154, 155.
The King is a fiduciary, a life-renter, not a lord or heritor, p. 155, 156.
How soveraigntie is in the people, p. 156, 157.
Power of life and death, how in a Community, ibid.
A Communitie voide of Rulers, is yet, and may be a politike body, p. 157.
Iudges gods Analogically, p. 158.
QUEST. XX. Whether Inferiour Judges be essentially the immediate Vicegerents of God, as Kings, not differing in essence and nature from Kings. Affirmatur, Proved by twelve Arguments. pag. 159.
Inferiour Iudges the immediate Vicars of God, no lesse then the King, ibid.
The consciences of inferiour Iudges, immediately subordinate to God, not to the King, either mediately or immediately, p. 160.
How the inferiour Iudge is the deputy of the King? p. 161, 162.
He may put to death murtherers, as having Gods sword committed to him, no lesse then the King, even though the King command the contrary; for he is not to execute judgement, and to relieve the oppressed, conditionally, if a mortall King give him leave; but whether the King will or no, he is to obey the King of Kings, p. 160, 161.
Inferiour Iudges are ministri regni, non ministri regis, p. 162, 163.
The King doth not make Iudges as he is a man, by an act of private good will; but as he is a King, by an act of Royall Iustice, and by a power that he hath from the people, who made himself supreme Iudge, p. 163, 164, 165.
The Kings making of inferiour Iudges hindereth not, but they are as essentially Iudges as the King, who maketh them, not by fountain-power, but by power borrowed from the people, p. 165, 166.
The Iudges in Israel, and the Kings, differ not essentially, p. 167.
Aristocracy as naturall as Monarchie, and as warrantable, p. 168, 169.
Inferiour Iudges depend some way on the King, in fieri, but not, in facto esse, p. 169, 170.
The Parliament not Iudges by derivation from the King, p. 170.
The King cannot make, nor unmake Iudges, ibid.
No heritable Iudges, ibid.
Inferiour Iudges more necessary then a King, p. 171, 172.
QUEST. XXI. What power the People, and States of Parliament, hath over the King, and in the State? p. 172.
The Elders appointed by God, to be Iudges, p. 173.
Parliaments may conveen, and judge without the King, p. 173, 174.
Parliaments are essentially Iudges, and so their consciences neither dependeth on the King, quoad specificationem, that is, That they should give out this sentence, not this, nec quoad exercitium, That they should not in the morning execute judgement, p. 174, 175.
Vnjust judging, and no judging at all, are sins in the States, p. 175.
The Parliament coordinate Iudges with the King, not advisers onelyonly, By eleven Arguments. p. 176, 177,
Inferior Iudges not the Kings Messengers or Legates, but publike Governours, p. 176.
The Jews Monarchie mixt, p. 178.
A Power executive of Laws more in the King, a Power legislative more in the Parliament, p. 178, 179.
QUEST. XXII. Whether the power of the King as King, be absolute, or dependent, and limited by Gods first mould and patern of a King? Negatur, Prius, Affirmatur, Posterius, p. 179.
The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk, p. 180.
The King not absolute in his power, proved by nine Arguments, p. 181.182, 183, seq.
Why the King is a living Law, p. 184.
Power to do ill, not from God, ibid.
Royalists say, power to do ill is not from God, but power to do ill as punishable by man, is from God, p. 186.
A King, actu primo, is a plague, and the people slaves, if the King by Gods institution be absolute, p. 187.
Absolutenesse of Royaltie against Iustice, Peace, Reason, Law, p. 189.
Against the Kings relation of a brother, p. 190.
A Damsel forced, may resist the King, ibid.
The goodnesse of an absolute Prince hindereth not, but he is, actu primo, a Tyrant, p. 189.
QUEST. XXIII. Whether the King hath a Prerogative Royall above Laws? Negatur, p. 192.
Prerogative taken two wayes, ibid.
Prerogative above Laws, a Garland proper to infinite Majestie, ibid.
A threefold dispensation, 1. Of power, 2. Of justice, 3. Of Grace, p. 194.
Acts of meer grace, may be acts of blood, p. 195.
An oath to the King of Babylon, tyed not the people of Judah to all that absolute power could command, ibid.
The absolute Prince, is as absolute in acts of crueltie, as in acts of grace, p. 196.
Servants are not, 1 Pet. 2.18, 19. interdited of self-defence, p. 199, 200.
The Parliament materially onelyonly, not formally, hath the King for their Lord, p. 202.
Reason not a sufficient restraint to keep a Prince from Acts of tyranny, ibid.
Princes have sufficient power to do good, though they have not absolute to do evil. p. 203.
A power to shed innocent blood, can be no part of any Royall power given of God, p. 204.
The King, because he is a publike person, wanteth many priviledges that subjects have, p. 205, 206.
QUEST. XXIV. What relation the King hath to the Law? p. 207.
Humane Laws considered as reasonable, or as penal, ibid.
The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power, p. 208.
Whether the King be above Parliaments, as their Iudge? p. 208, p. 209, 210, 211.
Subordination of the King to the Parliament, and coordination both consistent, p. 210, 211.
Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other, and they cannot any one of them, be in its prevalency, conveniently without the mixture of the other two, p. 211, 212.
The King as a King cannot erre, as he erreth in so far, he is not the remedie of oppression and Anarchie, intended by God and nature, p. 212.
In the court of necessitie, the people may judge the King, p. 213.
Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernable, p. 213, 214.
Its more requisite, that the whole people, Church, and Religion, be secured, then one man, p. 215.
If there be any restraint by Law on the King, it must be physicall; for a morall restraint is upon all men, p. 214, 215.
To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute, is an oath eatenus, in so far unlawfull, and not obligatory, p. 215.
QUEST. XXV. Whether the supreme Law, the safetie of the people, be above the King? Affirmed, p. 218.
The safetie of the people to be preferred to the King, for the King is no… to seek himself, but the good of the people, p. 218, 219.
Royalists make no Kings, but Tyrants, p. 222.
How the safetie of the King is the safetie of the people, p. 223.
A King for the safetie of the people, may break through the Letter and paper of a Law, p. 227.
The Kings prerogative above Law and Reason, not comparable to the blood that has been shed in Ireland and England, p. 225, 226, 228.
The power of Dictators prove not a Prerogative above Law, p. 229, 230.
QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law? p. 230, 231.
The Law above the King in four things, 1. In constitution, 2. Direction, 3. Limitation, 4. Coaction, p. 231.
In what sense the King may do all things, p. 231, 232.
The King under the moralitie of Laws. 2. VnderUnder Fundamentall Laws, not under punishment to be inflicted by himself, nor because of the eminency of his place, but for the physicall incongruity thereof, p. 232, 233.
If, and how the King may punish himself? p. 233.
That the King transgressing in a hainous manner, is under the Coaction of Law, proved by seven Arguments, p. 234, 235, seq.
The Coronation of a King, who is supposed to be a just Prince, yet proveth after a Tyrant, is conditionall, and from ignorance, and so unvoluntary; and in so far, not obligatory in Law, p. 234, 235.
Royalists confesse, a Tyrant in exercise may be dethroned, p. 235, 236.
How the people is the seat of the power of Soveraigntie, p. 239, 240.
The place, Psal. 51. Against thee onelyonly have I sinned, &c. discussed, p. 241, 242.
Israels not rising in arms against Pharaoh, examined, p. 245, 246, 247, 248, 249.
And Judahs not working their own deliverance under Cyrus, p. 248, 249.
A Covenant without the Kings concurrence lawfull, p. 249, 250, 251.
QUEST. XXVII. Whether or no, the King be the sole, supreme and finall Interpreter of the Law? Negatur, p. 252.
He is not the supreme and peremptor Interpreter, p. 254.
Nor is his will the sense of the Law, p. 252, 253.
Nor is he the sole, and onelyonly judiciall Interpreter of the Law, p. 253, 254, 255, seq.
QUEST. XXVIII. Whether or no Wars raised by the Estates and Subjects for their owne just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull? Affir. p. 257.
The state of the question. P. 257, 258,
If Kings be absolute, a superiour Iudge may punish an inferiour Iudge, not as a Iudge, but an erring man. ibid.
By Divine institution, all Covenants to restraine their power must be unlawfull. p. 258, 259.
Resistance in some cases lawfull, p. 260, 261, 262.
Six Arguments for the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars, in this Quest. 260. seq.
Many others follow, Quest. 29. and 30. seq.
QUEST. XXIX. Whether in the case of defensive War, the distinction of the Person of the King as a man, who may, and can commit hostile acts of tyranny against his subjects, and of the Office and Royall Power that he hath from God and the people, can have place? Affirmatur. p. 265.
The Kings Person in concreto, and his Office in abstracto, or which is all one, the King using his Power lawfully, to be distinguished, Rom. 13 ▪ p. 265.
To command unjustly maketh not a higher power. p. 265.266.
The person may be resisted, and yet the Office cannot be resisted, prooved by fourteene Arguments. p. 265, 266. seq.
Contrary Objections of Royalists, and of the P. Prelate answered, p. 270, 271. seq.
What we meane by the person and Office in abstracto in this dispute, we doe not exclude the person in concreto altogether, but only the person as abusing his power, we may kill a person as a man, and love him as a sonne, father, wife, according to Scripture, p. 272, 273, 274.
We obey the King for the Law, and not the Law for the King, p. 275, 276.
The loosing of habituall and actuall Royalty different, p. 276.
Ioh. 19.10. Pilates power of crucifying Christ, no Law-power given to him of God, its proved against Royalists by six Arguments, p. 280.
QVEST. XXX. Whether or no passive obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement? Neg. What a meane resistance is? that flying is resistance? p. 313.
The place 1 Pet. 2.18. discussed, ibid.
Patient bearing of injuries, and resistance of injuries compatible in one and the same subject, ibid.
Christs non-resistance hath many things rare and extraordinary, and so is no leading rule to us, p. 315.
Suffering is either commanded to us comparatively only, that we rather choose to suffer then deny the truth: or the manner only is commanded, that we suffer with patience, p. 317, 318. & sequent.
The Physicall act of taking avvay the life, or of offending, vvhen commanded by the Lavv of self defence, is no murther, p. 321.
We have a greater dominion over our goods and members, (except in case of mutilation, vvhichwhich is a little death) then over our life, p. 321.
To kill is not of the nature of self defence, but accidentall thereunto, ibid.
Defensive vvar cannot be vvithout offending, p. 323.
The nature of defensive and offensiue Warr…. p. 324, 325.
Flying is resistance, p. 325, 326.
QUEST. XXXI. Whether selfe-defence by opposing violence to unjust violence be lawfull, by the Law of God, and Nature? Affirm. p. 326, 327.
Self-defence in man naturall, but Modus, the way must be rationall and just. p. 327.
The method of selfe-defence. ibid.
Violent re-offending in selfe-defence the last remedy. p. 328.
Its Physically unpossible for a Nation to fly in the case of persecution for Religion, and so they may resist in their owne self-defence. p. 328.
Tutela vitae proxima, and remota. p. 329.
In a remote posture of selfe-defence, we are not to take us to re-offending, as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping, or in the Cave, for the same cause, ibid.
David would not kill Saul, because he was the Lords Anoynted, p. 330.
The King not Lord of chastity, name, conscience, and so may be resisted, p. 331.
By universall and particular nature, selfe-defence lawfull, proved by divers Arguments, p. 330.
And made good by the testimony of Iurists, p. 331.
The love of our selves the measure of the love of our neighbour, and inforceth selfe-defence, p. 332.
Nature maketh a private man his owne Iudge and Magistrate when the Magistrate is absent, and violence is offered to his life, as the Law saith, p. 334, 335.
Selfe-defence how lawfull it is, p. 333, 334, 335.
What presumption is from the Kings carriage to the two Kingdomes, are in Law sufficient grounds of defensive warrs, p. 336, 337.
Offensive and defensive warrs differ in the event and intentions of men, but not in nature and spece, nor Physically. p. 336, 337, 338.
Davids case in not killing Saul, nor his men, no rule to us, not in our lawfull defence, to kill the Kings Emissaries, the cases farre different, p. 338, 339.
QUEST. XXXII. Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warrrs can be proved from the Scripture, from the examples of David, the peoples rescuing Ionathan, Elisha, and the 80. valiant Priests who resisted Vzziah? Affirm. p. 340.
David warrantably raised an Army of men to defend himselfe against the unjust violence of his Prince Saul, p. 340, 341, 342.
Davids not invading Saul, and his men, who did not aime at Arbitrary Government, at subversion of Lawes, Religion, and extirpation of those that worshipped the God of Israel and opposed Idolatry, but only pursuing one single person, farre unlike to our case in Scotland and England now, p. 342.343.
Davids example not extraordinary, p. 343, 344.
Elisha's resistance proveth defensive warrs to be warrantable, p. 344, 345
Resistance made to King Vzziah by eighty valiant Priests proveth the same, p. 346, 347, 348.
The peoples rescuing Ionathan proveth the same, p. 348, 349.
Libnah's revolt proveth this, p. 349.
The City of Abel defended themselves against Ioab King Davids Generall, when he came to destroy a City for one wicked conspirator, Sheba his sake, p. 349, 350.
QUEST. XXXIII. Whether or no Rom. 13.1. make any thing against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs? Neg. p. 350.
The King not only understood, Rom. 13. p. 351.352.
And the place Rom. 13. discussed. p. 352, 353, 354.
QUEST. XXXIV. Whether Royalists prove by cogent reasons, the unlawfulnesse of defensive warrs. p. 355.
Objections of Royalists answered, p. 355, 356, 357. seq.
The place Exod. 22.28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods, &c. answered, p. 357.
And Eccles. 10.20. p. 358.
The place Eccles. 8.3, 4. Where the word of a King is, &c. answered. p. 357, 358.
The place Iob 34.18. answered, p. 359.
And, Act. 23.3. God shall smite thee thou whited wall, &c. p. 359, 360, 361.
The Emperours in Pauls time not absolute by their Law, p. 361.
That objection that we have no practise for defensive resistance, and that the Prophets never complaine of the omission of the duty of resistance of Princes answered, p. 163, 164, 165.
The Prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance, when they cry against the Iudges, because they execute not judgements for the oppressed. p. 365, 366. seq.
Iudahs subjection to Nebuchadnezar a conquering Tyrant, no warrant for us to subject our selves to tyrannous acts. p. 363, 364, 365.
Christs subjection to Caesar nothing against defensive warrs, p. 365, 366.
QUEST. XXXV. Whether the sufferings of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church Militant be against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs. p. 369, 370.
Tertullian neither ours nor theirs in the question of defensive warrs, p. 370, 371, 372.
QUEST. XXXVI. Whether the King have the power of warre only? Negatur. p. 372, 373.
Inferiour Iudges have the power of the sword no lesse then the King. p. 372, 373.
The people tyed to acts of charity, and to defend themselves, the Church, and their posterity against a forraigne enemy, though the King forbid. p. 373, 374.
Flying unlawfull to the States of Scotland and England now, Gods Law tying them to defend their Country. p. 374.
Parliamentary Power a fountain-power above the King, p. 376, 377.
QUEST. XXXVII. Whether the Estates of Scotland are to help their Brethren the protestants in England against Cavaliers? Affirmatur, proved by 13. Arg. p. 378. seq.
Helping of neighbour Nations lawfull, divers opinions concerning the point. p. 378, 379.
The Law of Aegypt against those that helped not the oppressed, p. 380.
QVEST. XXXVIII. Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments. Affir. p. 384.
Whether Monarchy be the best of Governments hath divers considerations, in which each one may be lesse or more convenient. p. 384, 385.
Absolute Monarchy is the worst of Governments. p. 385.
Better want power to doe ill as have it, ibid.
A mixture sweetest of all Governments, p. 387.
Neither King nor Parliament have a voyce against Law and reason, ibid.
QUEST. XXXIX. Whether or no, any Prerogative at all above the Law be due to the King? Or if jura majestatis be any such Prerogative? Negatur, p. 389.
A threefold supreme power, ibid.
What be jura regalia, p. 390, 391.
Kings confer not honours from their plenitude of absolute power, but according to the strait line and rule of Law, justice, and good deserving, ibid.
The Law of the King, 1 Sam. 8.9, 11. p. 392, 393.
Difference of Kings and Judges, ibid.
The Law of the King, 1 Sam. 8.9, 11. No permissive Law such as the Law of divorce, p. 394.
What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subjects, p. 395, 396, 397.
QUEST. XL. Whether or no, the people have any power over the King, either by his Oath, Covenant, or any other way? Affirmed, p. 398, 399.
The people have power over the King, by reason of his Covenant and Promise, ibid.
Covenants and promises violated, infer Coaction, de jure, by Law, though not de facto, p. 399, 400.
Mutuall punishments may be, where there is no relation of superioritie and inferioritie, p. 399, 400, 401.
Three Covenants made by Arnisaeus, ibid.
The King not King while he swear the oath, and be accepted as King by the people. ibid.
The oath of the Kings of France, ibid.
Hu. Grotius, setteth down seven cases, in which the people may accuse, punish, or dethrone the King, p. 403, 404.
The Prince a noble Vassal of the Kingdom, upon four grounds, p. 405.
The covenant had an oath annexed to it, ibid.
The Prince is but as a private man in a contract. p. 406.
How the Royall power is immediately from God, and yet conferred upon the King by the people, p. 407, 408, 409.
QUEST. XLI. Whether doth the P. P. with reason ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites, in the Question of lawfull defence? Negatur, p. 410, 411, 412.
That Soveraignty is originally and radically in the people, as in the Fountain, was taught by Fathers, ancient Doctors, sound Divines, Lawyers, before there was a Jesuite, or a Prelate whelped, in rerum natura, p. 413.
The P. P. holdeth the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, p. 414, 415.
Iesuites tenets concerning Kings, p. 415, 416, 417.
The King not the peoples Deputie by our doctrine; it is onelyonly the calumnie of the P. Prelate, p. 417, 418.
The P. P. will have power to act the bloodiest tyrannies on earth, upon the Church of Christ, the essentiall power of a King, ibid.
QUEST. XLII. Whether all Christian Kings are dependent from Christ, and may be called his Vicegerents, Negatur, p. 422.
Why God as God, hath a man a Vicegerent under him, but not as Mediator, p. 422, 423.
The King not head of the Church, ibid.
The King a sub-mediator, and an under redeemer, and a sub-priest to offer sacrifices to God for us, if he be a Vicegerent, p. 423.
The King no mixt person, ibid.
Prelates deny Kings to be subject to the Gospel, p. 426, 427.
By no Prerogative Royall, may the King prescribe religious observances, and humane ceremonies in Gods worship, p. 424, 425.
The P. P. giveth to the King a power Arbitrary, supreme and independent to govern the Church, p. 429, 430.
Reciprocation of subjections of the King, to the Church, & of the Church to the King, in divers kindes, to wit of Ecclesiasticall and civill subjection, are no more absurd, then for Aarons Priest to teach, instruct and rebuke Moses, if he turne a tyrannous Achab, and Moses to punish Aaron, if he turn an obstinate Idolator, p. 430, 4…3
QVEST. XLIII. Whether the King of Scotland be an absolute Prince, having prerogatives above Laws and Parliaments? Negatur. p. 433, 434.
The King of Scotland subject to Parliaments by the fundamentall Lawes, Acts, and constant practises of Parliaments, ancient and late in Scotland, p. 433, 434, 435, 436. seq.
The King of Scotlands Oath at his Coronation, p. 434.
A pretended absolute povver given to K. Iames 6. upon respect of personall indowments, no ground of absolutenesse to the King of Scotland, p. 435, 436.
By Lawes and constant practises the Kings of Scotland subject to Lawes and Parliaments, proved by the fundamentall Law of elective Princes, and out of the most partiall Historicians, and our Acts of Parliament of Scotland, p. 439, 440.
Coronation oath, ibid.
And again at the Coronation of K. James the 6. that oath sworn; and again, 1 Par. K. Jam. 6. ibid. & seq. p. 452, 453.
How the King is supreme Iudge in all causes, p. 437.
The power of the Parliaments of Scotland, ibid.
The confession of the faith of the Church of Scotland, authorized by divers Acts of Parliament, doth evidently hold forth to all the reformed Churches, the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars, when the supreme Magistrate is misled by wicked Counsell, p. 440, 441, 442.
The same proved from the Confessions of Faith in other reformed Churches, ibid.
The place, Rom. 13. exponed in our Confession of Faith, p. 441, 442, 443.
The Confession not onelyonly Saxonick, exhibited to the Councell of Trent, but also of Helvetia, France, England, Bohemia, prove the same, p. 444, 445.
William Laud, and other Prelates, enemies to Parliaments, to States, and to the Fundamentall Laws of the three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, p. 446, 447, 448.
The Parliament of Scotland doth regulate, limit, and set bounds to the Kings power, p. 448, 449,
Fergus the first King, not a Conquerour, p. 449.
The King of Scotland below Parliaments, considerable by them, hath no negative voice, p. 450, 451, seq.
QUEST. XLIV. Generall results of the former doctrine in some few Corrolaries, in 22 Questions. p. 454, 455.
Concerning Monarchy, compared with other forms, p. 454.
How Royaltie is an issue of nature, p. 454, 455.
And how Magistrates as Magistrates be naturall, p. 455.
How absolutenesse is not a Ray of Gods Majestie, ibid.
And resistance not unlawfull, because Christ and his Apostles used it not in some cases, p. 456, 457.
Coronation is no ceremony, p. 457.
Men may limit the power that they gave not, p. 457, 458.
The Common-wealth, not a pupill or minor properly, p. 459.
Subjects not more obnoxious to a King, then Clients, Vassals, Children, to their Superiours, p. 459, 460.
If subjection passive be naturall, p. 461.
Whether King Uzziah was dethroned, p. 461, 462.
Idiots and children not compleat Kings, children are Kings in destination onelyonly, p. 462.
Deniall of passive subjection in things unlawfull, not dishonourable to the King, more then deniall of active obedience in the same things, p. 463.
The King may not make away, or sell any part of his Dominions, p. 463, 464.
People may in some cases conveen without the King, p. 464.
How, and in what meaning, subjects are to pay the Kings debts, p. 465.
Subsidies the Kingdoms due, rather then the Kings, p. 465, 466.
How the Seas, Ports, Forts, Castles, Militia, Magazeen, are the Kings, and how they are the Kingdoms, p. 466.