The glorious name of God, The Lord of Hosts opened in two sermons, at Michaels Cornhill, London, vindicating the Commission from this Lord of Hosts, to subjects, in some case, to take up arms : with a post-script, briefly answering a late treatise by Henry Ferne, D.D. / by Jer. Burroughes.

SECT. IV.

THis Sect. is about the power of people to re-assume what power they have conferred upon Magistrates, although Gods power, yet conferred by them. He argues thus, If the power be Gods, then people cannot re-assume.

If the King gives power to an inferior Magistrate, the power that this Magi∣strate * 1.1 hath is likewise from God, for so the Scripture sayes, Rom. 13. All power is from God: may not this power be re-assumed therefore? Let none put this off, with saying, But people are not above Kings, as Kings are above inferior Magi∣strates, for that is nothing to the argument. The argument that he makes is this, If the power be of God, it cannot be re-assumed: Now the answer is, That the power of inferiour Magistrates is of God, and yet it may be re-assumed, therefore his consequence is not good.

Further, a servant by stipulation makes a man his Master, who was not before: Now the power of the Master is Gods, may he therefore never be deprived of that power? Servants must serve Christ in serving their Masters, as truely as Subjects must obey God in obeying their Prince. Pastors and Teachers have a ruling and a ministeriall power, and this power is Gods, may it therefore never be taken away from them.

His second Argument is, We cannot recall what is once given, as in things de∣voted.

1. That can never be proved, that a thing devoted to a religious use, can never lawfully be imployed to no other. This is a groundlesse conceit, because he brings no proofs for it, Eadem facilitate rejicitur, qua asseritur. But this that we speake of is a civill thing. And for Kings, that the power they have may not be taken a∣way, he gives that reason, Because the Lords hand and his oyle is upon them.

So the Lords hand and oyle is upon Captains and other Magistrates. Ioshua and * 1.2 Zerubbabel are called The anointed ones. Prophets, Priests have Gods hand and oyle upon them, and cannot the power for no cause be taken from these? And yet how confidently doth the man conclude, This will not a true informed conscience dare to doe. Certainly notwithstanding all the information in this argument, he may doe it.

But he proceeds. How can conscience be satisfied, that this their argument groun∣ded upon election and derivation of power can have place in this Kingdome, when as the Crown descends by inheritance, and hath often been setled by Conquest.

1. There is no body here that yet hath attempted to take any power away from * 1.3 the King that Law hath given him.

2. Howsoever, the point of inheritance or conquest cannot hinder; For first, none inherits but that which his Progenitors had, & his Progenitors had no more originally then by consent was given them: therefore the difference between Kings by inheritance, and Kings by election, in this case is not much. And for Conquest, that onely settles former right, or makes way to some farther agreement, to adde to, what was former. The right comes not from power to conquer, or act of conque∣ring, but from some agreement, precedent, or consequent.

He further argues, It is probable indeed that Kings were at first by choice here, as elsewhere; but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistance, or think that first election will give power against Princes that do not claime by it?

1. Is it but a remote probabilitie that Kings were here first by election? I de∣mand, what first invested such a Family with Regall power, more then another? * 1.4 It must be either God from heaven designing it, as David, or men appointing it,

or taken by force: there is no quartum. It was not the first, and to say the third is the right, is an extream wrong to the King If meer force can give right, then who∣soever is most forcible hath right; it must therefore be something else: what can that be but the consent of people to such a family? which is in effect all one with elect on. You may give it what name you will, it is not therefore a remote pro∣balilitie, but a neere certainty, that even here Kings were at first either by choice, or by that which in effect is all one.

The Doctor sayes, that Kings of England doe not claime their right by election.

It may be they use not that word; but if the Doctor shall presume to dispute * 1.5 their claime for them, and think to get a better and surer claime then the agree∣ment of people, that the Regall power shall be in such a family, surely he will have no thanks for his labour. Let him take heed of this. Although he is pleased to call Election a slender plea, yet I beleeve he cannot bring a stronger.

He is at his place in Rom. 13. againe, with the absolute Monarchy of Romane Emperours.

This hath been answered againe and againe.

The next thing he discusses is the covenant the King enters into, and the oath he takes. And here he tels us our Kings are Kings before they enter into the Cove∣nant, or take this Oath.

Although they be Kings before they personally do covenant or sweare, yet their * 1.6 right comes in by their Progenitors, who had their right conferred upon them by some agreement or other: so that they have covenanted in them.

But this clause in the covenant or oath is not expressed, that in case he will not discharge his trust, it shall be law full to resist.

We doe not stand so much upon the oath that every King takes, as upon the ori∣ginall agreement between people and King, whereby this power was conferred first upon such a family, and for that wee say that no more power was conferred then was done by vertue of that agreement; and why there should not be the same rea∣son in the Covenant between a Countrey and a Family in matters of so high a na∣ture, as there is in other Covenants amongst men, let the Doctor shew, or any for him.

The Doctor confesseth, Page 16. line 21. That Lawes are for the restraint of the power of Princes.

But at length after the discussion of the businesse, he tels you that to argue any forfeiture of power by breaking his covenant, is an inconsequent argument. You must beleeve him, because he sayes so: If his bare word will not satisfie you, you are like to have nothing else.

Yet we would have him and all know, that we do not think that every breach of promise, and not performance of covenant in every thing, makes a forfeiture: this indeed were a dangerous consequent. But the question is, Whether no breach of Covenant may possibly in any case make a forfeiture? We confesse our selves not willing to dispute this too farre.

He presently seemes to grant that there may be some force in the argument in States elective and pactionall, but not in this Kingdome.

If the ground of all power that one man hath over another in Civill Govern∣ment, be some kinde of election, explicite or implicite, or some kind of agreement * 1.7 at the first, let the Doctor shew how this Kingdome is freed.

But what if the King will not keepe to his agreement, may the Subject doe no∣thing? The Dr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Yes, they may use faire means by Petitions, and they may ••ery him Subsidies and ayds.

To what purpose are Subsidies and ayds denyed, if the King hath power to take * 1.8 our estates when he pleaseth, and there must be no resistance?

Though this he sayes may seeme unreasonable to people, and very impolitique to the States-man, yet plain Scripture and reason forbids it.

But this Scripture and reason lies hid from us as yet, we have examined them as they have come, and we have found plain mistakes in the alledging them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ans.
• * 1.2

  Ans.
• * 1.3

  Ans.
• * 1.4

  Ans.
• * 1.5

  Ans.
• * 1.6

  Ans.
• * 1.7

  Ans.
• * 1.8

  Ans.