Treatise of Civil Policy, Table of contents
The Table of the Contents of the Book.
QUEST. I.
VVHether 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 pr…rſus 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 maketh 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, wor… 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, 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 Sanedrim 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 hold conqueſt 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 negat. 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.
If 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 Offfce 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.
Ʋnpoſſible 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 Fountainepower 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 Ruiers, 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 l…ſſe 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 fountainpower, 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.
Ʋnjuſt 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 not 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. Ʋnder 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 offenſine Warrs. 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 ſubj…ct 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 miſ…d 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.