A Hind Let Loose, Part 3 · Head 2 (3 of 5)

A Hind Let Loose · Part 3 · Head 2 (3 of 5)

p. 3546. Though this Necessary conditional compact, which must alwayes be in the constitution of Lawfu… Rulers, be not alwayes express & explicite, so that a written Authentick Copy of it cannot be always produced; yet it is alwise to be understood implicitely at least transacted, in the Rulers admission to the Government, wherein the Law of God must regulate both parties; and when he is made Ruler, it must natively be understood that it is upon terms to be a Father, feeder, & Protector, and not a Tyrant, Murderer, & Destroyer. All Princes are so far pactional, that they are obliged, by the high & absolute Soveraign from whom they derive their Authority, to reign for the Peace & profit of the people: this is fixed unalterably by the Laws of the Supreme Legislator, and solemnly engaged unto at the Coronation: and whosoever declines or destroyes this fundamental condition, he degrades & deposes himself. It is also not only the Universal practice, but necessary for the Constitution & Conservation of all Common-wealths, to have fundamental Laws & Provisions about Government, both for the upholding & transmitting & transfering it as occasion calls, and preventing & punishing violations thereof, that there be no invasion or intrusion upon the Government, and if there be any entrance upon it not according to the Constitution, that p. 355it be illegitimated, and the Nations Liberties always secured. This doeth infer & regulate a conditional compact with all that are advanced to the Government, albeit it should not be expressed. For it is undenyable that in the erection of all Governours, the grand Interests of the Community must be seen to by Legal Securities for Religion & Liberty, which is the end & use of fundamental Laws. Now how these have been unhinged & infringed, by the introduction & present establishment by Law of that Monster of the prerogative, enacted in Parliament Anno 1661. the Apologetick Relation doth abundantly demonstrate, Sect. 10. Concerning the Kings Civil Supremacy, enhancing all the Absoluteness that ever the Great Turk could arrogate, and yet far short of what hath been Usurped since, and impudently proclaimed to the world, especially by him who now domineers, in his Challenges of Soveraign Authority, prerogative Royal, & Absolute Power, which all are to obey without reserve, whereby the whole basis of our Constitution, and Bulwark of our Religion, Laws, & Liberties, is enervated, and we have security of no Law but the Kings lust. Hence I argue, Those Princes, that, contrary to their virtual compact (at least) at their coming to the Crown, have overturned all fundamental Laws, cannot be ouned: But our Princes have contrary to their virtual compact (at least) at their coming to the Crown overturned all fundamental Laws: Ergo they cannot be ouned. The Major is plain: for they that overturn fundamental Laws are no Magistrats; thereby all the ends of Government being subverted, and the subverter cannot be ouned as a Father or friend, but an open enemy to the Common-wealth, nor looked upon as Magistrats doing their duty, but as Tyrants seeking themselves with the destruction of the Common-wealth.: And in this case the compact, the ground of the Constitution, being violated, they fall from their right, and the people are Liberated from their obligation, and they being no Magistrats the people are no subjects, for the relation is mutual, and so is the obligation Ius populi chap. 9. pag. 183. The Minor is manifest, both from the matter of fact, and the p. 356Mischiefs framed into Laws, by the Soveraign Authority, Prerogative Royal, & Absolute Power foresaid: whereby what remains of our fundamental Constitutions, either in Religious or Civil Settlements, unsubverted as yet, may be subverted when this Absolute Monarch pleases. Which Absolute Authority we cannot in conscience oune, for these Reasons, taken both from Reason & Scripture. First its against Reason. 1. A power contrare to Nature cannot be ouned: Absolute power is such: for that which takes away, and makes the people to give away, their Natural power of preserving their lives & Liberties, and sets a man above all rule & Law, is contrare to Nature; such is Absolute power, making people resign that which is not in their power to resign, an absolute power to destroy & Tyrannize. 2. A power contrare to the first rise of its Constitution cannot be ouned: Absolute power is such: for, The first rise of the Constitution is a peoples seting a Soveraign over them, giving him Authority to administer justice over them; But it were against this, to set one over them with a power to rage at randome, and rule as he lists: Its proven before, a King hath no power but what the people gave him, but they never gave, never could give an absolute power to destroy themselves. 3. That power which is against the ends of Government cannot be ouned: Absolute power is such: for, that which will make a peoples condition worse then before the Constitution, and that mean which they intended for a blessing to turn a plague & scourage to them, and all the subjects to be formal slaves at the Princes devotion, must needs be contrare to the ends of Government: But Absolute power is such: for, against the exorbitance thereof no means would be left to prevent its obstructing all the fountains of Justice, and commanding Laws & Lawyers to speak, not justice righteousness & reason, but the lust & pleasure of one man, and turning all into Anarchy & confusion: Certainly it could never be the intention either of the work or workers, at the Constitution of Government, to set up a power to enslave the people, to be a Curse to them; but their ends was to get comfort, safety, & Liberty, under the shadow p. 357of Government. 4. That power which invalidates, and is inconsistent with the Kings compact with the people, cannot be ouned: Absolute Power is such: for, the tenor of that is alwise to secure Laws & Liberties, to rule according to Law; but to be Absolute invalidates & is inconsistent with that: That which were an engagment into Contradictories cannot consist with that compact; but to engage to be absolute, and yet to rule by Law, is an engagment into Contradictories, which no people could admit for a security: Its inconsistent with this compact, to give the King Absolute Power to overturn Religion & Liberty, and to assume it which was never given, were to invalidate this compact, and to make himself no King; but to restore unto the people the power they conferred upon him, for the defence of Religion & Liberty. 5▪ That power which is not from God, nor of God, cannot be ouned: But Absolute Power is not of God; because it is a power to Tyrannize & Sin, which if it were of God He should be the Author of Sin; for if the Moral Power be of God, so must the acts be; but the acts of Absolute Power, being Lawless, cannot be from God: Ergo neither the Moral Power to commit these acts. 6. That Ruler who cannot be Gods Minister for the peoples good cannot be ouned: (for that is the formal reason of our consfiencious subjection to Rulers Rom. 13. 4, 5.) But Absolute Soveraigns are such as cannot be Gods Ministers for the peoples good; for if they be Gods Ministers for good, they must administer justice, preserve peace, rule by Law, take directions from their Master; and if so, they cannot be absolute. 7. A Tyrant in actu signato & exercito cannot be ouned: But an Absolute Prince is such; being a power that may play the Tyrant if he pleases, and jure as King: And so if Kings be actu primo Tyrants, then people are actu primo Slaves; and so Royal Power cannot be a blessing to them: yea a Lawless breaker of all bonds, promises, & Oaths, cannot be ouned as Lawful Power: But Absolute Power is such: for, it cannot be limited by these Obligations, at least people cannot have any seurity by them. 8. A Lawless Power is not to be ouned: An Absolute Power is a Lawless p. 358power: Ergo not to be ouned. The Major is plain. Cicero sayes Lib. 2. de officio Eadem constituendarum Legum causa fuit, quae Regum The reason of making Lawes was the same, as of the creation of Kings. And Buchanan de jure Regni very excellently; when the lust of Kings was in stead of Laws, and being vested with an infinite & immoderate power, they did not contain themselves within bounds—the insolency of Kings made Laws to be desired; for this cause Laws were made by the people, and Kings constrained to make use, not of their Licencious wills in judgment, but of that right & priviledge which the people had conferred upon them, being taught by many experiences, that it was better that their Liberty should be concredited to Laws, than to Kings; better to have the Law which is a dumb King, than a King who is not a speaking Law. If then Laws be necessary for the making of Kings, and more necessary than Kings, And the same cause requirs both, then a King without Laws is not to be ouned. Rex must be Lex loquens; a King must be a speaking & living Law, reducing the Law to practice: So much then as a King hath of Law, so much he hath of a King; and he who hath nothing of the Law, hath nothing of a King. Magna Charta of England saith, the King can do nothing but by Law, and no obedience is due to him but by Law. Buchanan rehearses the words of the most famous Emperours, Theodosius & Valentinianus to this effect, Digna vox Majestate regnantis, legibus se alligatum Principem fateri; & revero Imperio majus ost, submittere legibus Principatum. It is, say they, a word worthy of the Majestie of a King, to confess he is a tyed Prince to the Laws, and indeed it is more to submit a Principality to the Laws, than to enjoy an Empire. But now that an absolute power must be a Lawless power, is also evident; for thats a Lawless power that makes all Laws void, needless & useless: but such is absolute power: for, it cannot be confined to the observance of Laws. 9. That power which is destructive to the peoples Liberties cannot be ouned: Absolute power is such: for, such a Licencious freedom as is absolute, cannot consist with the peoples Liberties; for these he may infringe p. 359when he pleases: Now these, in their oun Nature, and in all respects, being preferable to the Kings prerogative, And it being no prerogative which is not consistent with, yea in its oun nature adapted to, the precious Interests of Religion & Liberty, when the Kings Absolute Authority is stated in contradictory terms to these, we cannot oune that Authority: for now he hath another Authority than could be given him for the preservation of these Interests, in the preservation whereof he can only have an Authority to be ouned, seeing he claimes a power to destroy them if he please. 10. If we should oune Absolute Authority; then we should oune a Royal prerogative in the King to make & dispense with Laws: Now that cannot be ouned: for, it would infer that the King had a Masterly Dominion over his subjects, to make Lawes, & inflict Penalties without their consent. And plain it is, they that make Kings must have a Coordinate power to make Laws also; but the people in their Representatives make Kings, as is proven. Next a prerogative to dispense with Laws, except such Laws as are in their oun nature dispensable, without prejudice to any Law of God or Liberties of men, cannot be ouned: for any power to dispense with Reason & Law, not grounded on any other reason but meer will & absolute pleasure, is a brutish power. It cannot be jus Coronae, a right annexed to the Crown, to do so: for a King as a King illud tantum potest quod jure potest can do nothing but what he may do by Law. Nay this is not only a Brutish power, but a Blasphemous power, making him a Kind of God on earth illimited, that can do what he pleases: And to dispute it further, were to dispute whether God hath made all under him slaves by their oun consent; Or whether he may encroach on the prerogative of God, or not. By this prerogative, he arrogates a power to dispense with the Laws of God also, in pardoning Murtherers &c. which no man hath power to do: the Law of God being so peremptorly indispensable Gen. 9. 6. whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed. Numb. 35. 30. 31. Who so killeth any person, the murderer shall he put to death—more over ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, p. 360but he shall be surely put to death. These pardons are acts of blood to the Community. If the Judgment be Gods, as it is Deut. 1. 17. and not for man but for the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6. then no King can arrogate a power to dispense with it, no more then an inferior Judge can dispense with the Kings Laws: for the King is but a Minister, bearing the Sword not in vain, but as a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil Rom. 13. 4. They are but bastard Kings who give out sentances out of their oun mouth, contrary to Gods mind. And if he may do acts of grace by Prerogative above Law, then may he also do acts of Justice (so pretended) by the same Prerogative; and so may murder Innocents, as well as pardon Murderers, he may condemn the just as well as justify the wicked, both which are alike abomination to the Lord Pro. 17. 15. This power cannot be ouned in any man. 11. To oune Absolute power, were to recognosce the King as the proper & sole Interpreter of the Law. This Buchanan shews to be very absurd: Cum regi Legum interpretationem &c.when yow grant the interpretation of Laws to a King; yow give him such a Licence, that the Law should not speak what the Lawgiver meaneth but what is for the Interpreters Interest; so that he may turn it to all actions, as a Lesbian rule, for his oun advantage; And so what he pleases the Laws shall speak, and what he will not it shall not speak. Now the Kings absolute pleasure, can no more be the sense of the Law, than it can be the Law it self: He is King by Law, but he is not King of Law: No mortal can make a sense to a Law, contrare to the Law; for it involves a Contradiction; the true meaning is only the Law. This also would take away the use of all Laws; for they could not declare what were just & unjust, but as the King pleased; their genuine sense could not be the rule. 12. If we oune the Law to be above the King, then we cannot oune the King to be absolute: But the former is true: For, he must be under it several wayes: (1) under its Directive power; that will not be denyed. (2) under its Constitutive power: he is not a King by Nature, but by Constitution & Law: therefore the Law is above the King; p. 361because its only from the Law that there is a King, and that such a man and not another is King, and that the King must be so & so qualified, and they that made him a King may also unmake him by the same Law. (3) under its Limiting & Restrictive power, as a man he cannot be absolute, nor as a King by Law. (4) under its Coactive power. A Law maker, said King Iames the 6. should not be a Law breaker: but if he turn an overturner of the fundamental Laws, that Law or Covenant that made him King, doth oblige to unmake him. Whatever power he hath it is only a borrowed, fiduciary power, as the Nations Publick servant: and that which was lent him in Pledge or paun, may be reclaimed, when abused by him. Especially if he turn parricide, Kill his brother, murder his nobles, burn Cities, then he may & ought to be punished by Law. Otherwise, God should have provided better for the safety of the part, than of the whole, though that part be but a mean for the safety of the whole: for if he turn Tyrant in his absoluteness, the people must be destroyed, if they may not repress him; thus he is secured, and the whole exposed to ruine. Yea, if he be a man as well as a King, he must be under rule of Law; and when he transgresses, either his transgressions are punishable by men, or they are not transgressions with men, See many Arguments to this purpose in Lex Rex Quest. 14. 19. 22. 23. 24. 26. 27. But Secondly I prove it by Scripture 1. Even as King he is regulated by Law, not to multiply horses, nor wives, nor money, but to keep the words of the Law, and not lift up himself above his brethren, Deut. 17. 16, 17, 19, 20. he must observe to do according to the Law, and not turn from it to the right hand or to the left Iosh. 1. 7. Ergo he must not be absolute. 2. He is certainly under that Law, Math. 7. 12. what so ever ye would that men should do to yow do ye even so to them: which is the universal fundamental Law. If then he would have us keeping in our line of subordination to him, he must keep his line, and so cannot be absolute. 3. What is Gods dwe & peculiar Prerogative, can be ouned in no Mortal: But Absolute power is Gods due & peculiar Prerogative. He alone does whatsoever pleaseth Him Psal. 115. 3. He alone p. 362worketh alle things after the Counsel of His oun will Eph. 1. 11. Acts or Commands founded upon the sole pleasure of the Agent, are proper to God. Its Gods will and not the Creatures, that can make things good or just. Its Blasphemy therefore to ascribe absolute power to any Creature. 4. That which the spirit of God condemned as a point of Tyranny in Nebuchadnezzar, that is no prerogative to be ouned: but the Spirit of God condemned this in him, proceeding from absolute power, that whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, whom he would he set up, and whom he would he put doun, And his heart was lifted up Dan. 5. 19. 20. 5. That which God condemns & threatens in Tyrants in the Word in General, cannot be ouned: but Absolute power, God condemns & thereatens in the word in general; that they turned Iudgement into Gall, and said, have we not taken to us horns by our oun strength? Amos. 6. 12. 13. 6. The Word of God speaks nothing of the Kings Absolute prerogative, to make Laws as he will. It is plain the Kings of Iudah had it not; but the Sanhedrin had a great part of the Nomothetick power, and of the punitive power in a special manner: the Princes & people had it by Ieremahs acknowledgment Ier. 26. 14. And Zedekiah confesses to them; the King is not he that can do any thing against yow Ier. 38. 5. 7. we find the King in Scripture had not an absolute power, to expone or execute the Law as he would: Saul made a Law 1 Sam. 14. 2…. Cursed be the man that eats any food until evening. But expening it, & thinking to execute it after a Tyrannical manner, he was justly resisted by the people, who would not let him kill innocent Ionathan. 8. Nor had he the sole power of Interpreting it: for inferior Judges were Interpreters, who are no less essential Judges than the King, who are set to Judge for the Lord, and not for the King 2 Cron. 19. 6. and therefore they were to expone it according to their oun conscience, and not the Kings. They were to speak righteousness & Iudge uprightly Psal. 58. 1. hence called Gods, as well as Kings Psal. 82. 1. There was no essential Difference between a King of Gods approving and a Judge; there being but one Law to both Deut. 17. 9. he was subject p. 363to judgment as well as others: for being but a brother, even while on the throne, who was not to lift up his heart above his brethren, Deut. 17. ult. When his Cause was to be judged, his person though never so great was not to be respected; nor were they to be afrayed of the face of man, for the judgment was Gods Deut. 1. 17. therefore the Judges were to give out sentence in judgment, as if the Lord were to give it out: There was no exception of Kings there. Yea, we find according to common Law, they judged & punished offending Kings, as shall be made appear. 10. If they were under Church Censures, then they were not absolute: but we find Kings were under Church Censures; not only rebuked sharply to their face, of which we have many instances; but also subjected to Church discipline, as Uzziah shut up for his Leprosie. And certainly at all times this must be extended to all: for the King is either a brother, or not: If not, then he should not be King, according to the Scripture Deut. 17. 15. then also he is not a Christian, nor can he say the Lords Prayer: If he be, then if a brother offend, he is subject to the Church Math. 18. there is no exceptions of Kings there. The Objection from Eccles, 8. 3. 4. —he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the word of a King is there is power, and who may say unto him, what doest thow? is of no significancy here. For. 1. This Argument will enforce absolute obedience, if the power be to be taken absolutely▪ for it is obedience that is there commanded: and so we must not only oune the absolute Authority, but obey it without reserve, which never any yet had the impudence to plead for, until Iames the unjust claimed it in a Scots Proclaimation: but we answer, It is better to obey God than man, 2. If he may do whatsoever pleases him, then he may turn Priest, then he may kill whom he pleases, & take possession; and yet for Saules Usurpation Samuel could say more than what doest thow? even to tell him, he had done foolishly, and his Kingdom should not continue 1 Sam. 13. 13. 14. And for Ahabs Tyranny, El…ah could tell him, the dogs shall lick thy blood even thine 1 King. 21. 19. And Ezekiel, thow profane wicked-Prince of Israel Ezek. 21. 25. 3. The meaning is then only this; that a righteous King, his just p. 364power may not be controlled; he is armed with power that may not be resisted, for he beareth not the Sword in vain, and therefore we must not stand in an evil matter against them I conlude then this Argument, with the words of an Ingenious Author, upon this same subject, both in Thesi & Hypothesi: whosoever shall offer to rule Arbitrarly, does immediatly cease to be King de jure. seeing by the fundamental, Common & Statute-Laws of the Realme, we know none for Supreme Magistrate & Governour but a limited Prince, and one who stands circumscribed & bounded in his power & Prerogative. Ill effects of animosities. Pag. 17.

7. From what is said this is the result, that it is essentially necessary to a Moral power & Authority, to have a right & title, without which we can oune none, but as a Tyrant sine Titulo. For what is Authority, but a right to rule? if then it have not a right, it is not Authority. This will be undeniable, if we consider, that as Private dominon, or Property, consists in a right to enjoy; So Publick dominion, in a right to rule. Some things indeed are exposed to the common & arbitrary use of every man, and also at the begining, by reason of the fewness of mankind, Dominion was not reduced to distinct Property; yet now, upon the Multiplication of Occupants, of necessity it must be stated by peculiar appropriation, from the Law of Nature, and by the Grant of the Supreme King, who hath given the earth to the Children of men Psal. 115. 16, not to be catched up as the food of beasts, which the stronger seise, and the weaker get only what the other leave them, but divided by right as an Inheritance, by Him who separated the Sons of Adam and set the bounds of the People Deut. 32. 8. Especially Publick Dominion cannot be without a foundation for its relation to the subjected, and must be so tied up, that it may be said, this man is to command and these are to obey. I shew that Authority is from God both by Institution & Constitution; so that the Subjects are given to understand, such an one is singled out by God to sustain this Authority, by prescribing a rule for mens entry into the Authoritative relation, whereby He communicates that p. 365power to them which is not in others, and which otherwise would not be in them. Hence it is that Orderly admittance that must give the right, and upon mens having or not having such an entrance to it depends the reality or nullity of the power they challenge. Where therefore there is no Lawful Investure, there is no Moral power to be ouned; otherwise Iohn of Leyden his Authority might have been ouned: the unlawfulness of such a power consists in the very tenore it self, and if we take away the use or holding of it, we take away the very being of it: it is not then the abuse of a power Lawfully to be used, but the very use of it is unlawful. But in the Usurpation of this Man, or Monster rather that is now mounted the Throne, there is no Lawful investure in the way God hath appointed, as is shewed above. Ergo there is no Moral power to be ouned. To clear this alitle further, it will be necessary to remove the ordinary Prentences, pleaded for a Title to warrant the ouning of such as are in power. Which are three chiefly viz. Possession, Conquest, and Hereditary Succession. The first must be touched more particularly, because it hath been the originate error, & spring of all the stupid mistakes about Government, and is the pitiful plea of many even Malecontents, why this Mans Authority is to be ouned, asserting that a person attaining & occupying the place of power (by whatsoever means) is to be ouned as the Magistrate. But this can give no right: for. 1. If Providence cannot signify Gods approbative ordination, it can give no right; for without that there can be no right: But Providence cannot signify His approbative Ordination: because that, without the warrant of His Word, cannot signify either allowance or dissallowance, it is so various, being often the same to Courses directly contrary, and oftentimes contrary to the same Course: sometimes favouring it, sometimes crossing it, whether it be good or bad: And the same Common Providence may proceed from far different Purposes, to one in Mercy, to another in Judgment; And most frequently very disproportionable to mens wayes: Providence places sometimes wickedness in the place of Iudgment, and iniquity in the place of righteousness p. 366Eccless. 3. 16. that is not by allowance. By Providence it happens to the just according to the work of the wicked, and to the wicked according to the work of the righteous Eccless. 8. 14. No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them, all things come alike to all, there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked Eccel. 9. 1. It were a great debasing of the Lords anointed to give him no other warrant then sin hath in the world, or the falling of a Sparrow. 2. Either every Providential Possession, in every ease, gives a title: Or God hath Declared it as a Law, that it shall be so in this particular matter of Authority only. The first cannot be said: for, that would justify all robbery: Nor the second, for where is that Law found? Nay it were impious to alledge it; for it would say, there is no unjust Possessor or Disorderly occupant, but if he were once in the Possession, he were right enough: And then Usurpation would be no sin. 3. If none of the Causes of Magistracy be required to the producing of this Possessory power, then it cannot give or have any right; for without the true Causes it cannot be the true effect, and so can have no true right to be ouned: But none of the Causes of Magistracy are required to the production of this; neither the Institution of God, for this might have been if Magistracy had never been instituted; Nor the Constitution of men, for this may usurp without that. 4. That which must follow upon the right, and be Legitimated by it, cannot be ouned as the right, nor can it give the title: But the Possession of the power, or the Possessory exercise thereof, must follow upon its right, and be legitimated by it. Ergo—A man must first be in the relation of a Ruler, before he can rule; and men must first be in the relation of subjects, before they obey. The Commands of Publick Justice, to whom are they given but to Magistrats? They must then be Magistrats, before they can be ouned as the Ministers of Justice: he must be a Magistrate before he can have the power of the Sword, he cannot by the power of the Sword make himself Magistrate. 5. That which would make every one in the Possession of the Magistracy, a Tyrant, can not be ouned: But a Possessory occupation p. 367giving right, would make every one in Possession of the Magistracy a Tyrant, can not be ouned: But a Possessory occupation giving right, would make every one in Possession a Tyrant; for, that which enervats & takes away that necessary Distinction between the Kings personal Capacity & his Legal Capacity, his natural & his moral power, will make every King a Tyrant (seeing it makes every thing that he can do as a man, to be Legally done as a King) But a Possessory occupation giving right, would enervate & take away that distinction: for how can these be distinguished in a meer Possessory power? the mans Possession is all his legal power; and if Possession give a right, his power will give legality. 6. What sort or size of Possession can be ouned to give a right? Either it must be partial or plenary possession: Not partial, for then others may be equally entitled to the Government, in competition with that partial possessor, having also a part of it: Not plenary, for them every interruption or Usurpation on a part, would make a dissolution of the Government. 7. Hence would follow infinite absurdities: this would give equal warrant in case of vacancy to all men to step to, & stickle for the throne, and expose the Common wealth as a booty to all aspiring spirits; for they needed no more to make them Soveraigns, and lay a tye of subjection upon the consciences of people, but to get into possession: And in case of Competition, it would leave people still in suspense & uncertainties whom to oune, for they behoved to be subject only to the Uppermost, which could not be known until the Controversy be decided: It would cassate & make void all preobligations, Cautions, & restrictions from God about the Government: it would Cancel and make vain all other titles of any, or Constitutions, or provisions, or Oaths of Allegiance: yea to what purpose were Laws, or pactions made about ordering the Government, if possession gave right, & laid an obligation on all to oune it? yea then it were sinful to make any such provisions, to fence in & limit the determination of providence, if providential possession may authorize every intruesive acquisition to be ouned: Then also in case of competition p. 368of two equal pretenders to the Government, there would be no place left for arbitrations: If this were true, that he is the power that is in possession, the difference were at an end; no man could plead for his oun right then: In this also it is inconsistent with it self, condemning all resistence against the present occupant, yet justifying every resistence that is but successful to give possession. 8. That which would oblige us to oune the Devil & the Pope, cannot be a ground to oune any man: But if this were true, that possession gave right, it would oblige us to oune the Devil & the pope. Satan we find claiming to himself the possession of the worlds Kingdoms Luk. 4. 6. which as to many of them is in some respect true, for he is called the God of this world, and the Prince of this world Iohn. 14. 30. 2 Cor. 4. 4. Are men therefore obliged to oune his authority? or shall they deny his, and acknowledge his lievtenant, who bears his name, and by whom all his orders are execute, I mean the man that Tyranizes over the people of God? for he is the Devil that casts some into prison Revel. 2. 10. Again the Pope, his Captain-General, layes claim to a Temporal power & Ecclesiastick both, over all the Nations, and possesses it over many; and again, under the Conduct of his vassal the Duke of York, is attempting to recover the possession of Britain: Shall he therefore be ouned? This Cursed Principle disposes men for Poperie, and contributes to strengthen Poperie & Tyrannie both on the stage, to the vacating of all the promises of their dispossession. 9. That which would justify a Damnable sin, and make it a ground of a duty, cannot be ouned: But this fancy of ouning every power in possession would justify a damnable sin, and make it the ground of a duty: for, Resistence to the powers ordained of God is a damnable sin Rom, 13. 2. but the Resisters having success in providence may come to the possession of the power, by expelling the just occupant; and by this opinion that possession would be ground for the duty of subjection for Conscience sake. 10. If a self-created dignity be null and not to be ouned, then a meer possessory is not to be ouned: But the former is ttue: as Christ saith, Iohn. S. 54. If I honour myself my honor is nothing. 11. That p. 369which God hath disallowed cannot be ouned: But God hath expresly disallowed possession without right Ezek. 21. 27. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it until He come whose right it is, Hos. 8. 4. They have set up Kings & not by me. Math. 26. 52. All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword; by this the Usurper of the Sword is differenced from the true ouner. 12. Many Scripture examples confut this; shewing that the possession may be in one, and the power with right in another. David was the Magistrate, and yet Absalom possessed the place 2 Sam. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. chap. Shebah also made a revolt and Usurped the possession in a great part, and yet David was King 2 Sam. 20. 2. Adonijah got the start in respect of possession, exalting himself, saying, I will be King: yet the Kingdom was Solomons from the Lord. 1 King. 1. ch. The house of Ahaziah had not power to keep still the Kingdom 2 Chron. 22. 9. and Athaliah took the possession of it, yet the people set up Ioash 23. 3. Next we have many examples of such who have invaded the possessor, Witness Iehoram & Iehoshaphat their expedition against Mesba King of Moah, Elisha being in the expedition 2 King. 3. 4, 5. Hence we see the first pretence removed. The Second is no better; which Augustine calls Magnum Latrocinium a Great Robberie; I mean conquest; or a power of the Sword gotten by the Sword: which that it can give no right to be ouned, I prove. 1. That which can give no signification of Gods approving will, cannot give a Title to be ouned: But meer conquest can give no signification of Gods approving will, as is just now proven about possession: for then the Lord should have approven all the unjust conquests that have been in the world. 2. Either conquest as conquest must be ouned, as a just Title to the Crown; and so the Ammonites, Moabites, Philistims &c. prevailing over Gods people for a time; must have reigned by right: or as a just conquest, in this case conquest is only a mean to the conquerours seising & holding that power, which the State of the war entitled him unto, And this ingress into Authority over the conquered is not grounded on conquest but on justice, and not at all privative but Inclusive of the consent of the people; and then it may be ouned; but without a p. 370compact, upon conditions of securing Religion & Liberty, the posterity cannot be subjected without their consent: for, what ever just quarrel the conquerour had with the present Generation, he could hauehave none with the Posterity, the Father can have no power to resign the Liberty of the Children. 3. A King as King, and by virtue of his Royal Office, must be ouned to be a Father, Tutor, Protector, Shepherd, & Patron of the people: But a mere conquerour without consent cannot be ouned as such. Can he be a Father & Patron to us against our will, by the sole power of the sword? a Father to these that are unwilling to be Sons? an head over such as will not be members? and a defender through violence? 4. A King as such is a special gift of God, and blessing not a judgement: But a conquerour as such is not a blessing but a judgement, his native end being not Peace but fire & sword. 5. That which hath nothing of a King in it, can not be ouned to make a King: But conquest hath nothing of a King in it; for it hath nothing but violence & force, nothing out what the bloodyest villain that was never a King may have, nothing of Gods approving & regulating Will, nothing of Institution or constitution; and a plain repugnancy to the Ordination of God, for God hath said, thow shalt not kill; conquest sayes, I will kill, and Prosper, & reign. 6. A Lawful Call to a Lawful Office may not be resisted: But a Call to conquest, which is nothing but ambition or revenge, ought to be resisted; because not of Gods preceptive will, otherwise He should be the Author of sin. 7. That power which we must oune to be the Ordinance o… God, must not be resisted Rom. 13. 2. But conquest may be resisted in defence of our King & Country: Therefore it must no be ouned to be the Ordinance of God. 8. That which God condemns in His Word cannot be ouned: But Dominion by the sword God condemns in His Word Ezek. 33. 26. ye stand upon your sword—and shall possess the Land, Amos 6. 13. ye rejoice in a thing of naught which say, have we not taken horns to us by our oun strength. Habhak. 2. 5, 6—Wo to him that encreaseth that which is not his, how long &c. 9. We have many examples of invading Conquerours: as Abraham p. 371for the rescue of Lot pursued the Conquering Kings unto Dan. Gen. 14. 14. Ionathan smote a Garison of the Conqueering Philistims 1 Sam. 13. 3. The Lord ouning & authorizing them so to do. The people did often shake off the yoke of their Conquerours in the history of the Judges: But this they might not do to their Lawful Rulers. What is objected from the Lords people Conquering Canaan &c. is no Argument for conquest: for He, to whom belongs the earth and its fullness, disponed to Israel the Land of Canaan for their Inheritance, and ordained that they should get the possession thereof by conquest: It followeth not, therefore that Kings now, wanting any word of promise or divine Grant to any Lands, may ascend to the Thrones of other Kingdoms than their oun, by no better title than the bloody sword. See Lex Rex Quest 12. The Third pretence, of Hereditary Succession remaines to be removed: which may be thus disproven. 1. This clashes with the former, though commonly asserted by Royalists. For either Conquest gives a right, or it does not: If it does, then it looses all allegiance to the heirs of the Crown dispossessed thereby: If it does not give a right, then no Hereditary Succession founded upon conquest can have any right, being founded upon that which hath no right: And this will shake the most part of Hereditary Successions that are now in the world. 2. If Hereditary Succession have no right, but the peoples consent; then of it self it can give none to a man that hath not that consent: But the former is true. For, it is demanded, how doth the Son or Brother succeed? by what right? It must either be by divine promise; Or by the Fathers will; Or it must come by propogation from the first Ruler, by a right of the Primogeniture: But none of these can be. For the first, we have no immediate Divine Constitution tying the Crown to such a race, as in Davids Covenant: It will be easily granted, they fetched not their Charter from Heaven immediatly, as David had it, a man of many peculiar prerogatives, to whose line the promise was astricted of the Coming of Messias, and Iacobs Prophesie that the Scepter should not depart from Iudah until His coming Gen. 49. 10. was restricted to his p. 372family afterwards: Wherefore he could say, The Lord God of Israel chose me befor all the house of my father to be King over Israel for ever, for He hath chosen Iudah to be the Ruler, and of the house of Iudah the house of my father, and among the sons of my father He liked me to make me▪ King over Israel, and of all my Sons He hath chosen Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 4. 5. All Kings cannot say this; neither could Saul say it, though immediatly called of God as well as David: yet this same Promise to David was Conditional, if His Children should keep the Lords wayes 2 Chron. 6. 16. Next it cannot be said this comes from the will of the father; for according to the Scripture, no King can make a King, though a King may appoint & design his son for succession, as David did Solomon, but the people make him. The father is some way a Cause why his son succeedeth, but he is not the Cause of the Royaltie conferred upon him by line: for the question will recur, who made him a King? and his father? & grand father? till we come up to the first father. Then, who made him a King? not himself: therefore it must be refounded upon the peoples choise & constitution: And who appointed the lineal succession, and tyed the Crown to the line, but they? It is then at the best, the Patrimony of the people, by the fundamental Law of the Kingdom, conferred upon the successor by consent. And generally it is granted, even where the succession is lineal, he that comes to inherit, Doth it not jure hereditario but vi legis, he does not succeed by heritage but by the force of Law; the Son then hath not his Kingdom from his father but by Law, which the people made & stand to, as long as it may consist with the reasons of publick advantage, upon which they condiscended to establish such a family over them. Neither can it be said, It is by a right of Primogeniture propogated from the first Ruler; for this must either be Adam the first of the world; or Fergus v. G. the first of this Kingdom. It could not come from Adam as a Monarch & father of all: For that behoved to be, either by order of Nature, or his volun…ary assignment: It could not be transferred by order of Nature; for besides the difficulty to find out Adams successor, in the universal Monarchy, and the absurdity of fixing it on Cain p. 373(who was a Cursed vagabond, afraied of every man, and could not be an universal Monarch yet Adams first born) It will be asked, how this passed from him unto others? whether it went by father-hood to all the Sons, fathers to their Posterity? which would multiply as many Common wealths, as there have been fathers since: Or if it went by Primogeniture only to the first born, that he alone could claim the power which would infer the necessity of an universal Monarchy, without multiplication of Common-wealths. If it was by his voluntary assignment, to whom & in what proportion he pleased; then the universal Monarchy died with himself, and so could not be conveyed at all: for, either he behoved to give each son a share, to be conveyed dounwards to their children in that proportion; or whole & solide to one: So also the former dilemma recurs, for if the first be said, it will make as many litle Kingdoms as there have been sons of Adam; if the second, the world should be but still one Kingdom. But however it be, this could never be the way that God appointed, either for raising a Magistratical power where it is wanting, or deriving a right to any in being; Considering the multiplication, division, confusion, & Extinction of families that have been. If it be from Fergus the first of this line; then either it comes from him as a King, or as a Father: not the first, for the reason above hinted: nor as a father; for a father may defraud his son of the heritage, a King cannot deprive his son of the Crown; a father may divide his heritage, a King cannot divide the Kingdom among his sons; It must then be at length refounded on the peoples Consent 3. If even where lineal succession is Constituted by Law, for eviting the inconveniences of frequent elections, people are not tied to admit every first born of that line; then that birth righr, where there is no more, cannot make a King: But the former is true; for they are tied only conditionally, so he be qualified, and have a head to sit at the helme, and not a fool or monster, neither are they free to admit Murderers or Idolaters by the Laws of God and of the Land: It is not birth then, but their admission being so qualified, that makes Kings. Hence. 4. That which takes away p. 374the peoples birth-right, given them of God to provide for their liberties in the fitest Government, that is not to be ouned: But to make birth alone a tile to the Crown, takes away the peoples birth-right given them of God of providing for their liberties in the fitest Government, and fetters their choise to one destructive to these. Certainly where God hath not bound the conscience, men may not bind themselves nor their posterity: But God hath never fettered men to a choise of a Government or Governing line, which contrary to the intention of the Oath may prove destructive to the ends thereof. Nor can the fathers leave in legacy by Oath, any chains to fetter the after wits of posterity to a choise destructive to Religion & liberty. Israel was bound by Covenant not to destroy the Gibeonites; but if they had risen to cut off Isael, who can doubt but they were loosed from that obligation? for to preserve Cut-throats was contrary to the intention of the Oath: so when either Monarchy, or the succeeding Monarch, proves destructive to the ends of Government, the Choice, Law, or Oath of our fathers, cannot bind us. 5. If we are tied to the hereditary succession, not for the right the successor hath by birth, but for our Covenanted allegiance to them whose successor he is; then cannot his birth-right be the ground of our Allegiance, And consequently hereditary succession cannot make a King: But the former is true; for in hereditary Crowns, the first family being chosen by the suffrages of the people, for that Cause the hereditary Prince comes to the Throne, becanse his first father, and in him the whole line, was chosen: The hereditary successor hath no priviledge or prerogative, but from him who was chosen King. Therefore the obligation to the son, being no greater than the obligation to the father, which is the ground of that, if the father then was ouned only because he was chosen & qualified for Government, the Son cannot be ouned for any other Cause, but as chosen in him, and also qualified and admitted with Consent. We cannot choose the father as qualified, and tye our selves to the Successors, be what they will. 6. If a King be not born heir of a Kingdom, then is he not King by birth; p. 375But he is not born heir of a Kindom: for, a mean cannot be born to inherit the end, the King is but a mean for the Kingdoms preservation. If the Kingdom be his by birth as an inheritance, why may he not upon necessary occasions sell his inheritance? but if he sell it, then all confess he is no more King. 7. If that which makes a King cannot be transmitted from father to son; then succession by birth cannot make a King: But the former is true. The Royal faculty of Governing cannot be transmitted: Solomon asked it from God, he had it not from his father: nor can he be born to the honour of a King, because not born with either the gift or honour to be a Iudge. God maketh high & low, not birth. Nor can the Call & Constitution of a King according to the will of God be transferred from father to son, for that cannot be in Gods way without the intervening Consent of the people, that cannot make him a born King. 8. If no Dominion can come by Nature, as is proven before, then can no man be a born King: Nature & birth cannot give them a Scepter in their hand; nor Kingly Majestie they must have that alone from God & the people, and may only expect honour from their oun good Government: Kings (as Plutarch sayes) must be like dogs that are best hunters, not these who are born of best dogs. 9. The peculiar Prerogative of Iesus Christ must not be ascribed to any other: But this is His peculiar Prerogative, to be a born King of whom it might be truely faid, Where is He that is born King of the Iewes? And for this end was He born, who came out of the womb with a Crown on His Head, which no Creature can bear. 10. In Scripture we find that a King was to be so & so qualified, not a stranger, but a reader of Gods Word &c. Deut. 17. 15. &c. he was not qualified by naked birth. Hence, if all the qualifications requisite in an heir cannot make a King qualified according to the Institution of God, then his being heir cannot make him King: But the first is true; an heir may be an heir without these qualifications. 11. We find in the Scripture, the people were to make the Kings by that Law Deut. 17. thow shalt choose him whom the Lord chooseth: yea neither Saul nor David were Kings, till the p. 376people met to make them: Therefore birth never made them Kings, even though the Kingdom was tied to Davids line. That was only a Typical designment by special Promise, because Christ was to come of that line; it was therefore established in Davids family for Typical reasons, that cannot be now alledged. 12. We find in the disposal of Government among brethren, this birth-order was not seldom inverted; as when Iacoh was preferred before Esaw, Iudah before all the elder sons of Iacob. Ephraim before Manasseh, Solomon before Adonijah. Hence if this Gentleman now regnant, have no better pretences than these now confuted, we cannot recognosce his right to reign: yea though this last were valid, yet he cannot plead it, it being expressly provided in our Laws against the succession of a Papist. But there is one Grand Objection against all this. The Jewes and other Nations are commanded to bring their necks under the yoke of the King of Babilon and to serve him, and yet he had no other right to these Kingdom, then the Lords Providential disposal, because the Lord had given all these Lands into his hand, Ier. 27. 6, 7, 12. Ans. 1. He was indeed an unjust Usurper, and had no right but the Lord providential gif…; which sometimes makes the tabernacles of Robbers prosper into whose hand God bringeth abundantly Iob. 12. 6. and gives Iacoh sometimes for a spoil and Israel to the Robbers Isai. 42. 24. and giveth power to the Beast to continue forty & two Moneths, and to have power over all kindreds & tongues & Nations Revel. 13. 5, 7. His Tyranny also was very great extensively, in respect of his oppressions & usurpations by Conquest: but it was not so great intensively, as our Robbers & Spoilers may be charged with; he was never such a Perverter of all the ends of Government, nor a treachrous overturner of all Conditions, he was never a Persecuter of the Iewish Religion, he never oppressed them upon that account, nor endeavoured its extirpation, he never enacted such mischiefs by Law. The Lord only made use of him to bring about the holy ends of the Glory of His Justice & Wisdom, in which respect alone he is called His Servant, as else where His …od & hammer, having given p. 377him a charge against an Hypocritical Nation to trample them doun in His holy Providence, and accordingly there was no resistence could prevail, they must be trampled upon, no help for it; but no subjection was required, acknowledging his Magistratical right by divine Ordinance, but only a submissive stooping to the holy disposal of divine Providence; no ouning was exacted either of the equity of that power, or of fealtie to the administrator. 2. This behoved to be a particular Command, by Positive Revelation given at that time, not binding to others in the like Condition; which I refer to the judgment of the objectors: put the case, and make it run paralel, If the King of England were in league with the King of France, and breaking that league should provoke that aspiring Prince, growing potent by many Conquests, to discover his designs, make preparations, and give out threatenings for the Conquest of England & all Brittain; were the people of England bound to surrender themselves as Servants & tributaries to him, for 70 years or for ever, under pain of destruction, if they should not? This were one of the most ridiculous inferences, that ever was pleaded: nay it would make all refusal of subjection to invaders unlawful. 3. I will draw an Argument from this to confirm my Plea: for these Commands of subjection to Babilon, were not delivered until after the King of Iudah had surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar, and entered into Covenant with him to be subject to him 2. King. 24. chap. in keeping which Covenant the Kingdom might have stood, and after he had Rebelled against him and broken that Covenant, when lo he had given his hand; after which he could not prosper, or escape, or be delivered, Ezek. 17. 14, 15, 18, 2 Chron. 36. 13. Then the Commandment came, that they should disoune their oune King Zedekiah, now forefeiting his right by breach of Covenant, and be subject to Nebuchadnezzar. Whence I argue, If people are commanded to disoune their Covenant-breaking Rulers, and subject themselves to Conquerours; then I have all I plead for: But the former is true, by the truth of this objection: Ergo also the Latter. There is a 2 Obj. from Rom. 13. 1. let every soul be subject to the higher p. 378powers, the powers that be are ordained of God: yet the Roman Emperour, to which they were to be subject, was an usurper. Ans. 1. It cannot be proven that the Apostle intendeth here the Roman Emperour as the higher power: There were at this time several Competitions for the Empire, about which Christians might have their oun scruples whom to oune; the Apostle does not determine their litigations, nor interest himself in parties, but gives the General Standart of Gods Ordinance they had to go by. And the best Expositors of the place do alle…ge, the question & doubt of Christians then, was not so much in whom the Supremacy was? as whether Christians were at all bound to obey Civil power, especially Pagan? which the Apostle resolves, in giving general directions to Christians, to obey the ordinance of Magistracy, conforme to its original, and as it respects the end for which he had & would set it up, but no respect is there had to Tyrants. 2. It cannot be proven that the Supreme power then in being was usurpative: there being then a Supreme Senate, which was a Lawful power; nor that Nero was then an usurper, who came in by choise & consent, and with the good liking of the people. 3. The Text means of Lawful powers, not unlawful force, that are ordained of God by His Preceptive will not meerly by His Providential disposal, and of consciencious subjection to Magistracy, not to Tyranny, describing & characterizing the powers there, by such qualifications as Tyrants & Usurpers are not capable of. But I mind to improve this Text more fully hereafter, to prove the quite contrary to what is here objected.

8. From the Right of Magistracy, flowes the Magistratical Relation; which is necessary to have a bottom, before we can build the relative duties thereof. This brings it under the fifth Commandment, which is the Rule of all relative duties between Inferiours & Superiours, requiring honour to be given to Fathers, Masters, Husbands &c. and to rightful Magistrates, who are under such political relations, as do infer the same duties; and prohibiting not only the omission of these duties, but also the committing of p. 379contrary sins; which may be done, not only by contrary acts, as dishonouring & rebelling against Fathers, Magistrats &c. but also by performing them to contrary objects, as by giving the Fathers due to the Fathers opposite, and the Magistrats due to Tyrants who are their opposites. Certainly this Command prescribing honour, doth regulate to whom it should be given; And must be understood in a consistency with that duty, and Character of one that hath a mind to be an inhabitant of the Lords holy Hill Psal. 15. 4. in whose eyes a vile person is contemned but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. So that we sin against the fifth Command, when we honour them that we are obliged to contemn by another Command. Hence I argue, If ouning or honouring of Tyrants be a breach of the fifth Command; then we cannot oune their Authority: But the former is true: Ergo the latter. I prove the Assumption. A honouring the vile to whom no honour is due, and who stand under no relation of Fathers as Fathers, is a breach of the fifth Command: But the ouning of Tyrants Authority is a honouring the vile to whom no honour is due, and who stand under no relation of Fathers, and is yet a honouring them as Fathers: Ergo the ouning of Tyrants Authority is a breach of the fifth Command. The Major is clear: for if the honouring of these to whom no honour is due, were not a breach of the fifth Command; that precept conld neither be kept at all, nor broken at all. It could not be kept at all: for, either it must oblige us to honour all indefinitely, as Fathers, and other relations, which cannot be: or else it must leave us still in suspence & ignorance, who shall be the object of our honour; and then it can never be kept: or finally it must astrict our honouring to such definite relations, to whom it is due; & then our transgression of that restriction, shall be a breach of it. Next if it were not so, it could not be broken at all: for if prostituting & abusing honour be not a sin, we cannot sin in the matter of honour at all; for if the abuse of honour be not a sin, then dishonour also is not a sin, for that is but an abuse of the duty, which is a sin as well as the omission of it. And what should make the taking away of honour from the proper object to be sin, p. 380and the giving it to a wrong object to be no sin? Moreover if this Command do not restrict honour to the proper object; we shall never know who is the object: how shall we know who is our Father, or what we owe to him, if we may give another his due? The Minor also is manifest: for if Tyrants be vile, then no honour is due to them, according to that Psal. 15. 4. And yet it is a honouring them as Fathers if they be ouned as Magistrats; for Magistrats are in a politick sense Fathers: But certain it is that Tyrants are vile, as the Epithets & Characters they get in Scripture prove. But because, in contradiction to this, it may be said; though Fathers be never so wicked, yet they are to be honoured because they are still Fathers, And though Masters be never so vile and froward, yet they are to be subjected unto 1 Pet. 2. 18-20. and so of other relations, to whom honour is due by this Command, therefore though Tyrants be never so vile they are to be ouned under these relations, because they are the higher Powers in place of Eminency, to whom the Apostle Paul commands to yeeld subjection Rom. 13. and Peter to give submission & honour 1 Pet. 2. 13, 17. Therefore it must be considered, that as the relative duty of honouring the relations to whom it is due, must not interfere with the moral duty of contemning the vile, who are not under these relations; So this general Moral of contemning the vile, must not ca…sate the obligation of relative duties, but must be understood with a Consistency therewith, without any prejudice to the duty it self. We must contemn all the vile that are not under a relation to be honoured, and these also that are in that relation in so far as they are vile. But now Tyrants do not come under these Relations at all that are to be honoured by this Command. As for the higher Powers that Paul speaks of Rom. 13. they are not those which are higher in fo…ce, but higher in Power, not in potentia but in potestate, not in a Celsitude of prevalency but in a precellency of dignity, not in the pomp & pride of their prosperity & possession of the place, but by the virtue & value of their office, being ordained of God not to be resisted, the Ministers of God for good, terrors to evil doers, to whom honour is due, those are p. 381not Tyrants but Magistrats. Hence it is a word of the same root which is rendered Authority, or an Authorized Power 1 Tim. 2. 2. And from the same word also comes that supreme to whom Peter commands subjection & honour 1 Pet. 2. 13. Now these he speaks of have the Legal Constitution of the people, being the ordinance of man to be subjected to for the Lords sake. and who sends other inferior Magistrats for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well, who are to be honoured as Kings or Lawful Magistrats: this cannot be said of Tyrants. But more particularly, to evince that Tyrants & Usurpers are not to be honoured according to this Command, and that it is a breach of it so to do; let us go through all these Relations of Superiority that come under the obligation of this Command, and we shall find Tyrants & Usurpers excluded out of all. First, they cannot come under the Parental relation: We are indeed to esteem Kings as Fathers, though not properly but by way of some Analogy, because it is their office to care for the people, and to be their Counsellers, and to defend them, as Fathers do for Children: but Roaring Lyons & Ranging Bears, as wicked Rulers are, Prov. 28. 15. cannot be Fathers. But Kings cannot properly be ouned under this Relation, far less Tyrants (with whom the Analogy of Fathers cannot consist) there being so many notable disparities betwixt Kings & Fathers. 1. A Father may be a Father to one Child; but a King cannot be a King or Politick Father to one only, but his Correlate must be a Community; a Tyrant can be a Father to none at all in a Politick sense. 2. A Father is a Father by Generation to all coming out of his loyns; a King not so, he doth not beget them, nor doth their relation flow from that; a Tyrant is a destroyer not a Procreator of people. 3. A Father is the cause of the Natural being of his Children; A King only of the Politick well being of his subjects; but Tyrants are he cause of the ill being of both. 4. A Father once a Father, as long as his Children live, retains still the relation, thô he turn mad and never so wicked; A King turning mad may be served as Nebuchadnezzar was, at least p. 382all will grant in some cases the subjects may shake off th… King; and if in any case, it is when he turns Tyrant. 5. A Fathers relation never ceases, whither soeuer his Children go; but subjects may change their relation to a King, by coming under another King in another Kingdom; a Tyrant will force all lovers of freedom to leave the Kingdom where he Domineers. 6. A Fathers relation never changes, he can neither change his children nor they change their Father; but a King may naturalize new subjects, and subjects may also change their Soveraign, Royalists will grant a State or Common-wealth way make a King, and there is great reason sometimes that a Monarchy be turned into a Common-wealth; but a Tyrant changes those that are under him, expells the natives, brings in forreigners, and all good Patriots do pant for a Change of him every day. 7. A Father hath no power of life & death over his Children; a King hath it over his subjects according to Law; a Tyrant Usurps it over the innocent against Law. 8. A Father is not a Father by consent of his Childeren; as a King is by consent of his subjects; a Tyrant is neither a Father with it nor without it. 9. A Father is not made by the Children; as a King is by his subjects as was shewed; a Tyrant is neither a Natural, nor by compact, but a self created power. 10. A Father is not chosen conditionally upon compact, as a King is by the free suffrages of the Community; A Tyrant in this Differs from a King that he is not chosen, and in Tyranny from a Father. 11. Children wanting a Father cannot choose whom they will to be their Father; as subjects wanting a King may choose whom they will, and what form they please; but though they can, yet if they be rational, they will never choose a Tyrant, nor a Tyrannical form of Government. 12. Children cannot restrict their Fathers power to what degrees they please; as subjects may limit their Kings, at their first erection; but a Tyrant though he ought yet he will not be limited, and if he might he should be restrained. 13. Children cannot set bounds how long they will have their Fathers to continue; Subjects may condescend upon the time, in making Laws how long such an one shall be their p. 383Soveraign, ad vitam or ad culpam, according as the fundamental Law is made at first; Tyrants ought every day to be repressed, that they should not continue at all. Yet giving and not granting, that a King were to be ouned under the relation of a Father; though every man be bound to oune & mantain his Fathers parental Authority, yet let the case be put, that the Father turns a Robber, murderer, an avowed enemy to God and the country, is his person & Authority in that case to be ouned, to the dishonour of God, and hurt & hazard of the country? or ought he not rather to be delivered up even by the Son to Justice? Much more then will it follow, that a King who turns the more dangerous because the more powerfull Robber, & Legal Murderer, and enemy to God & the country, cannot be ouned; seeing the relation betwixt Father & Son is stronger & stricter, as having another Original, than can be betwixt King & subjects, and stands unremoved as long as he is Father, though turning such they ought to contribute (in moral duty, to which their relative duty must cede) that he should no more be a Father, nor no more a living man, when dead by Law. Secondly, They cannot come under the herile or Masterly relation, though Analogically also sometimes they are stiled so, and subjects are called Servants, by reason of their subjection, and because it is the Office of Kings to command & subjects to obey, in this there is some Analogy. But Kings cannot properly be ouned under this relation, as Masters over either persons or goods of subjects, far less Tyrans, yea Kings assuming a Masterly power turn Tyrants. Now that the Magistratical relation is not that of a Master, is clear from many disparities & absurdities, whether we consider the state of hired Servants or Slaves. For hired Servants, the difference is vast betwixt them & subjects. 1. The hired Servant gets reward for his service, by compact; the subjects none, but rather gives the Royal reward of Tribute to the King for his service; the Tyrant exacts it to maintain his Tyranny. 2. The hired Servant is maintained by his Master; the subjects maintain the King; the Tyrant Robbes it from them by force. 3. The hired Servant bargains only for a p. 384time, and then may leave him; the subject cannot give up his Covenanted allegiance, at that rate and for these reasons as the servant may his service; a Tyrant wil make nor keep no such bargain. 4. The hired Servant must have his Masters profit mainly before his eyes, and his oun only secundarly; but the Magistrates power is primarly ordinated to the publick good of the Community▪ and only consequentially to the good of himself. 5. The Master hath a greater power over the hired Servant, to make & give out Lawes to him, which if they be Lawful he must obey; than the King hath over the Nation, to which he is not the sole Lawgiver, as is shewed. 6. The hired Servant his subjection is Mercenary & servile; but the subjects subjection is civil, free, voluntary, liberal, & …oving to a Lawful King. Again for Slaves, the difference between them & subjects is great. 1. Slavery being against Nature, rational people would never choose that life if they could help it; but they gladly choose Government, & Governours. 2. Slavery would make their condition worse then when they had no Government, for Liberty is alwise preferable; Neither could people have acted rationally in seting up Government, if to be free of oppression of others they had given themselves up to slavery, under a Master who may do what he pleases with them. 3. All Slaves are either taken in war, or bought with money, or born in the house where their parents were slaves, as Abraham & Solomon had of that sort; But subjects are neither captives, nor bought, nor born slaves. 4. Slavery is not Natural, but a penal fruit of sin, and would never have been if sin had not been; But Government is not so, but Natural & necessary. 5. Slaves are not their Masters brethren; subjects are the Kings brethren; over whom he must not lift up himself Deut. 17. 20. 6. Masters might purchase and sell their slaves, Abimelech took sheep & men servants & gave them unto Abraham Gen. 20. 14. Iacob had maid servants & men servants & Asses Gen. 30. 43. no otherwise than other goods, Solomon got to himself servants and maidens, & servants born in his house Eccles. 2. 7. a King cannot do so with his subjects. 7. Princes have not this power to make p. 385the people slaves, neither from God, nor from the people: From God they have none, but to feed and to lead them 2 Sam. 5. 2. to rule them so as to feed them 1 Chron. 11. 2. Psal. 78. 71, 72. From the people they have no power to make slaves, they can give none such. 8. Slavery is a Curse: It was Canaans Curse to be a servant of servants Gen. 9. 25. but to have Magistrats is a promised blessing Ier. 17. 27. 9. To be free of Slavery is a blessing, as the redemption from Egypts bondage is every where called, and the year of redemption was a Iubile of joy, so the freedom of release every seven years a great priviledge Ier 34. 9. but to be free of Government is a judgment Isai. 3. 4, 5. its threatened, Israel shall abide without a King & without a Prince Hos. 3. 4. In the Next place they cannot be ouned as Masters or Proprietors over the goods of the subjects; th… in the case of necessity, the King may make use of all goods in common, for the good of the Kingdom: For 1. The introduction of Kings cannot overturn natures foundation; by the Law of Nature property was given to man, Kings cannot rescind that. 2. A man had goods ere ever there was a King; a King was made only to preserve property, therefore he cannot take it away. 3. It cannot be supposed that rational people would choose a King at all, if he had power to turn a greater Robber to preserve them from lesser Robberies & oppressions: would rational men give up themselves for a prey to one, that they might be safe from becoming a prey to others? 4. Then their case should be worse by erecting of Government, if the Prince were proprietor of their goods, for they had the property themselves before. 5. Then Government should not be a blessing but a curse, and the Magistrate could not be a Minister for good. 6. Kingdoms then should be among bona fortunae, the goods of fortune, which the King might sell & dispone as he pleased. 7. His place then should not be a function, but a possession. 8. People could not then, by their removes or otherwise, change their Soveraigns. 9. Then no man might dispose of his oun goods without the Kings consent, by buying or selling, or giving almes, nay nor pay tribute, for they cannot do these things except p. 386they have of their oun. 10. This is the very Character of a Tyrant, as described 1 Sam. 8. 11. he will take your sons &c. Zeph. 3. 3. her Princes are roaring Lyons, her Iudges are evening Wolves. 11. All the threatenings & rebukes of oppression condemn this, Isai. 3. 14. 15. Ezek. 45. 9. Mic. 3. 2, 3. Ahab condemned, for taking Naboths vineyard. 12. Pharaoh had not all the Land of Egypt, till he bought it Gen. 42. 20. So the Land became Pharaohs not otherwise. Yet giving and not granting that he were really a Master in all these respects; Notwithstanding if he turn to pursue me for my life, because of my fidelity to my Master & his both, & will withdraw me from the service of the Supreme Universal Master, I may Lawfully withdraw my self from his, and disoune him for one, when I cannot serve two Masters. Sure he cannot be Master of the conscience. Thirdly, They cannot come under the conjugal relation, though there may be some proportion between that and subjection to a Lawful Ruler, because of the Mutual Covenant transacted betwixt them; but the Tyrant & Usurper cannot pretend to this, who refuse all Covenants. Yet hence it cannot be inferred, that because the wife may not put away her husband. Or renounce him, as he may do her in the case of Adultery, therefore the people cannot disoune the King in the case of the violation of the Royal Covenant. For the Kings power is not at all properly a husbands power. 1. The wife by nature is the weaker vessel; but the Kingdom is not weaker than the King. 2. The wife is given as an help to the man; but here the man is given as an help to the Common-wealth. 3. The wife cannot limit the husbands power; as subjects may limit their Soveraigns. 4. The wife cannot prescribe the time of her continuing under him; as subjects may do with their Soveraigns. 5. The wife cannot change her husband; as a Kingdom can do their Government 6. The husband hath not power of life & death; but the Soveraign hath it over Malefactors. Yet giving and not granting, his power were properly Marital; if the case be put, that the man do habitually break the Marriage Covenant, or take another wife, and turn also Cruel & intollerable in compelling his oun p. 387wife to wickedness; and put the case also, that she should not get a Legal divorce procured, who can doubt but she might disoune him, and leave him? for this case is excepted out of that Command 1 Cor. 7. 10. let not the wife depart from her husband, meaning for mere difference in Religion, or other lesser causes; but Adulterie doth annual the Marriage relation, See Pool Synopsis Critic. in Locum. So when a Prince breaks the Royal Covenant and turns Tyrant, or without any Covenant committs a rape upon the Common-wealth, that pretended relation may & must be disouned. Hence we see, there is no relation can bring a King or Ruler under the object of the duty of the fifth Command, except it be that of a fiduciary Patron or Trustee and Publick Servant: for we cannot oune him properly either to be a Father, or a Master, or a husband. Therefore what can remain, but that he must be a fiduciary Servant? Wherefore if he shall either treacherously break his trust, or presumptously refuse to be entrusted, upon terms & conditions to secure & be accountable for (before God & man) Religion & Liberty, we cannot oune his usurped Authority. That Metaphore which the learned Buchanan uses, de Iure Regni, of a Publick & Politick Phisician, is not a relation different from this of a fiduciary Servant; when he elegantly represents him as entrusted with the preservation & restauration of the health of the politick body, and endued with shill & experience of the Laws of his Craft. If then he be orderly called unto this charge, and qualified for it, and discharges his duty faithfully, he deserves, and we are obliged to give him the deference of an honoured Physician: But if he abuse his Calling and not observe the rules thereof, and in stead of curing go about wilfully to kill the body he is entrusted with, he is no more to be ouned for a Physician but for a Murderer.

9. If we inquire further into the nature of this Relation between a King (whose Authority is to be ouned) and his subjects; we can oune it only as it is Reciprocal in respect of Superiority & Inferiority, that is, whereby in some respects the King is Superior to the people, and in some respects the people is Superior to him. The King is Superior p. 388& Supreme as he is called 1 Pet. 2. 13. in respect of formal Soveraignty, and executive Authority, and Majestick Royal dignity, resulting from the peoples devolving upon him that Power, and constituting him in that relation over themselves, whereby he is higher in place & power than they, and in respect of his Charge & conduct is worth ten thousands of the people 2 Sam. 18. 3. and there is no formally regal Tribunal higher than his; And though he be Minor universis yet he is Major singulis, greater than any one, or all the people distributively taken; And though he be a Royal Vassal of the Kingdom, & Princely Servant of the people; yet he is not their deputy, because he is really their Soveraign, to whom they have made over their Power of governing & protecting themselves irrevocably, except in the case of Tyranny; and in acts of Justice, he is not countable to any, and does not depend on the people as a deputy. But on the other hand, the people is superior to the King, in respect of their fountain power of Soveraignty, that remains radically & virtually in them, in that they make him their Royal Servant, and him rather than another and limit him to the Laws for their oun good & advantage, and though they give to him a Politick Power for their oun safety; yet they keep a Natural Power which they cannot give away, but must resume it in case of Tyranny; And though they cannot retract the power of Justice to govern righteously, yet it is not so irrevocably given away to him, but that when he abuseth his power to the destruction of his subjects, they may wrest a sword out of a mad mans hand, though it be his oun sword and he hath a just power to use it for good, but all fiduciary power abused may be repealed. They have not indeed Soveraignity or power of life & death formally; yet in respect they may constitute a Magistrate with Laws, which if they violate they must be in hazard of their lives, they have this power eminently & virtually. Hence in respect that the Kings Power is and can be only fiducial, by way of trust reposed upon him, he is not so superior to the people, but he may & ought to be accountable to them in case of Tyranny; which is evident from what is said, and now I intend to make it further appear. p. 389But first I form the Argument thus; We can oune no King that is not accountable to the people: Ergo we cannot oune this King. To clear the Connexion of the antecedent & consequent, I adde; Either he is accountable to the people, or he is not: If he be accountible to all then he is renouncible by a part, when the Collective body either wil not, or cannot exact an account from him, when the Community is defective as to their part, it is the interest of a part, that would but cannot do their duty, to give no account to such as they can get no account from for his Maleversations, This is all we crave: If he be not accountable, then we cannot oune him, because all Kings are accountable: for these reasons. 1. The Inferior is accountable to the Superior: the King is inferior, the people superior: Ergo the King is accountable to the people. The proposition is plain; if the Kings superiority make the people accountable to him, in case of transgressing the Laws; then, why should not the peoples superiority make the King accountable to them, in case of transgressing the Laws? especially seeing the King is inferior to the Laws: because the Law restrains him, and from the Law he hath that whereby he is King; the Law is inferior to the people, because they are as it were its parent, and way make or unmake it upon occasion: and seeing the Law is more powerful than the King, and the people more powerful than the Law, we may see before which we may call the King to answer in Judgment, Buchan Iure Regni apud Scot. That the King is inferior to the people is clear on many accounts: for these things which are institute for others sake, are inferior to those for whose sake they are required or sought; a horse is inferior to them that use him for victory; A King is only a mean for the peoples good; A Captain is less then the Army, a King is but a Captain over the Lords Inheritance 1 Sam. 10. 1. He is but the Minister of God for their good Rom. 13. 4. Those who are before the King, and may be a people without him, must be superior to him who is a posteriour and cannot be a King without them: let the King be considered either Materially as a Mortal man, he is then but a part inferior to the whole; or formally under p. 390the reduplication as a King, he is no more but a Royal Servant, obliged to spend his life for the people, to save them out of the hand of their enemies 2 Sam. 19▪ 9. A part is inferior to the whole, the King is but a part of the Kingdom: A Gift is inferior to them to whom it is given, a King is but a gift given of God for the peoples good: That which is Mortal & but accidental, is inferior to that which is eternal & cannot perish Politically; a King is but mortal, and it is but accidental to Government that there be a succession of Kings; but the people is eternal, one generation passeth away & another generation cometh Eccles. 1. 4. especially the people of God, the portion of the Lords inheritance, is superior to any King, and their ruine of greater moment than all the Kings of the world; for if the Lord for their sake smite great Kings, & slay famous Kings, as Sihon & Og Psal. 137. 17-20. if he give kings & famous kingdoms for their ransome Isai. 43. 3, 4. then His people must be so much superior than kings, by how much His Justice is active to destroy the one, and His Mercy to save the other. All this proves the people to be superior in dignity, And therefore even in that respect its frivolous to say, the king cannot be accountable to them, because so much superior in Glory & Pomp; for they are superior every way in excellency; And though it were not so, yet Judges may be inferior in rank considered as men, but they are superior in Law over the greatest as they are Judges, to whom far greater than they are accountable. The low & mean condition of them to whom belongs the power of Judgment does not diminish its dignity: when the king then is Judged by the people, the Judgment is of as great dignity as if it were done by a superior king; for the Judgment is the sentence of the Law, 2. They are superior in power: because every constituent cause is superior to the effect, the people is the constituent cause, the king is the effect, and hath all his Royaltie from them, by the Conveyance God hath appointed; so that they need not fe…ch it from Heaven, God gives it by the people, by whom also his power is limited and, it need be, diminished from what they gave his Ancestors: Hence, if the people constitute p. 391& limit the power they give the King, then they may call him to an account, and judge him for the abuse of it: But the first is true as is proven above: Ergo—The Major is undenyable, for sure, they may judge their oun Creature, and call him to an account for the power they gave him, when he abuses it, though there be no Tribunal formally Regal above him, yet in the case of Tyranny and violating his Trust there is a Tribunal virtual eminently above him, in them that made him & reposed that Trust upon him, as is said. 3. The fountain power is superior to the power derived: The people, though they constitute a King above them, yet retain the fountain power, he only hath the derived power: Certainly the people must retain more power eminently, than they could give to the King, for they gave it, and he receives it, with limitations, if he turn mad or uncapable they may put Curators & Tutors over him; if he be taken captive, they may appoint another to exercise the power, if he die then they may constitute another, with more or less power; So then if they give a way all their power, as a slave selleth his Liberty, and retain no fountain power or radical right, they could not make use of it to produce any of these acts: They set a King above them only with an executive power for their good, but the radical power remains in the people, as in an immortal spring, which they communicate by succession to this or that Mortal man, in the manner & measure they think expedient; for otherwise if they gave all their power away, what shall they reserve to make a new King, if this man die? What if the Royal line surcease, there be no Prophets now sent to make Kings: And if they have power in these cases, why not in the case of Tyranny? 4. If the King be accountable by Law, for any act of Tyranny done against one man, then much more is he accountable for many against the whole state: But the former is true; a private man may go to Law before the ordinary Judges for wronging his inheritance, and the King is made accountable for the wrong done by him. Now shall the Laws be like Spiders webs, which hold flies, but let bigger beasts pass through? Shall Sentence be past for petty wrongs against a man, and p. 392none for Tyrannizing over Religion, Laws, & Liberties of the Kingdom? Shall none be past against parricide or fratricide, for killing his Brother, Murdering the Nobles, and burning Cities? Shall pettie Thieves be hanged for stealing a Sheep, and does the Laws of God or man give impunity, for robbing a whole Country of the nearest & dearest Interests they have to Crowned heads for the fancied Character of Royalty, which thereby is forfeited? 5. If there be Judges appointed of God independently, to give out & execute the Judgment of the Lord on all offenders, without exception of the highest; then the King also must be subject to that Judgment: But there are Judges appointed of God independently, to give out & execute the Judgment of the Lord on all offenders, without exception of the highest. Two things must be here proved; first, that in giving Judgment they do not depend on the King, but are the immediate vicars of God: Secondly that the King is not excepted from, but subject to, their Judgment, in case he be Criminal. First they cannot depend upon the King, because they are more necessary then the King; and it is not left to the Kings pleasure whether there be Judges or not. There may be Judges without a King, but there can be no King without Judges, nor no Justice but Confusion; no man can bear the peoples burden alone Numb. 11. 14, 17, If they depended on the King, their Power would die with the King; the streams must dry up with the fountain: but that cannot be, for they are not Ministri regis but regni, they are not Ministers of the King but of the Kingdom, whose honour & promotion, though by the Kings external call, yet comes from God, as all honour & promotion does Psal. 75. 7, The King cannot make Judges whom he will by his absolute Power, he must be tied to that Law Deut. 1. 13. To take wise men & understanding & known: Neither can he make them dura ite beneplacito: for if these qualifications remain, there is no allowance given for their removal. They are Gods & the Children of the Mos… High, appointed to defend the poor & fatherless, as well as he, Psal. 82. 3, 6. They are ordained of God for the punishment of evil doers, in which they must not be resisted, p. 393as well as he Rom. 13. 1, 2. by me (saith the Lord) rule ... all the Iudges of the earth Prov. 8. 16. To them we must be subject for Conscience sake, as being the Ministers of God for good; they must be obeyed for the Lords sake, as well as the King; though they are sent of him, yet they Judge not for man but for the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6. hence they sit in his room, and are to act as if he were on the bench: the King cannot say, the Judgment is mine, because it is the Lords: neither can he limit their sentance (as he might, if they were nothing but his deputies) because the Judgment is not his: nor are their Consciences subordinate to him, but to the Lord immediatly; otherwise if they were his deputies, depending on him; then they could neither be admonished, nor condemned for unjust Judgment, because their sentence should neither be righteous nor unrighteous, but as the King makes it; And all directions to them were capable of this exception, do not so or so except the King command yow, crush not the poor, oppress not the fatherless, except the King command yow: yea then they could not execute any Judgment, but with the Kings Licence, and so could not be rebuked for their not executing Judgment. Now all this is contrary to Scripture, which makes the sentence of the Judges undeclinable when just Deut. 17. 11. the Lords indignation is kindled, when He looks for Iudgment & behold oppression, for righteousness & behold a Cry Isai. 5. 7. neither will it excuse the Judges to say, the king would have it so; for even they that are subservient, to write grievousness, to turn aside the needy from Iudgment &c. are under the wo, as well as they that prescribe it Isai. 10. 1, 2. The Lord is displeased when Iudgment is turned away back ward, and Justice stands a far of—and when there is no Iudgment, what ever be the Cause of it Isai. 59. 14, 15. The Lord threatens He will be avenged on the Nation, when a man is not found to execute Iudgment Ier. 5. 1, 9. And promises if they will execute Judgment & righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, He will give them righteous Magistrats Ier. 22. 3, 4. but if they do not, He will send desolation ibid. He rebukes those that turn Judgment p. 394to wormwood and leave of righteousness in the earth Amos. 5. 7. He resents it when the Law is slacked and Judgment doth not go forth freely without overawing or overruling restraint Habb. 1. 4. Can these Scriptures consist with the Judges dependence on the kings pleasure, in the exercise & execution of their Power? Therefore if they would avoid the Lords displeasure, they are to give Judgment, though the King should countermand it. Secondly, that the King is not excepted from their Judgment, is also evident from the General Commands Gen. 9. 6. whoso sheddeth mans blood …y man shall his blood be shed: there is no exception of Kings or Dukes here, and we must not distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not. Numb. 35. 30, 31. whoso killeth any person the murderer shall be put to death, by the mouth of witnesses—ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a Murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall be surely put to death. What should hinder then Justice to be awarded upon a Murdering King? Shall it be for want of witnesses? It will be easy to adduce thousands: Or shall this be satisfaction for his life, that he is a Crowned King? the Law saith there shall no satisfaction be taken. The Lord speaketh to under Judges Levit. 19. 15. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, thow shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the Mighty. If Kings be not among the Mighty, how shall they be classed? Deut. 1. 17. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but yow shall hear the small as well as the great, yow shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is Gods: if then no mans face can outdare the Law & Judgment of God, then the Kings Majestick face must not do it, but as to the demerit of blood he must be subject as well as another. Its no Argument to say, the Sanhedrin did not punish David for his Murther & Adulterie. Ergo now it is not Lawful to punish a King for the same: a reason a non facto is not relevant. David did not punish Ioab for his Murder, but Authorized it, as also he did Bathsheba's Adulterie; will that prove that Murders connived at, or commanded by the King, shall not be punished? or that Whores of State are not to be called to an account? Neither will it prove that a Murdering king should not be punished, that p. 395David was not punished: because he got both the sin pardoned, and his life granted from the Lord, saying to him, by the mouth of the Prophet Nathan, Thow shalt not die: But as for the demerit of that fact, he himself pronounced the sentence out of his oun mouth 2 Sam. 12. 15. As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die. So every king condemned by the Law, is condemned by his oun mouth; for the Law is the voice of the king: why then do we so much weary our selves concerning a Judge? seeing we have the kings oun Confession, that is the Law. Buchanan. de jure regni. And there needs be no other difficultie, to find a Tribunal for a Murdering king, than to find one for a Murderer; for a Judgment must acknowledge but one name, to wit of the Crime; if a king then be guilty of Murder, he hath no more the name of a king but of a Murderer, when brought to Judgment; for he is not Judged for his kingship, but for his Murther; as when a Gentleman is Judged for Robbery, he is not hanged, neither is he spared, because he is a Gentleman, but because he is a Robber. See Buchanan. ubi supra. 6. If the Peoples Representatives be superior to the king in Judgment, and may execute Judgment without him, and against his will, then they may also seek account of him, for if he hath no Power but from them, and no Power without them to act as king (no more than the eye or hand hath Power to act without the body) then his Power must be inferior, fiduciary, & accountable to them: But the former is true, The Peoples Representatives are superior to the king in Judgment, and may execute Judgment without him, and against his will. In Scripture we find the Power of the Elders and heads of the People was very great, and in many cases superior to the king: which the Learned Dr Owen demonstrates in his Preliminary Exercitations on the Epist. to the Heb. and proves out of the Rabbins, that the kings of the Iewes might have been called to an account, & punished for transgressing of the Law. But in the Scripture we find. (1) They had a Power of Judgment with the Supreme Magistrate, in matters of Religion, Justice & Government. Hamor & Shechem would not make p. 396a Covenant with Iacobs Sons, without the consent of the men of the Citie Gen. 34. 20. David behoved to consult with the Captains of thousands, & every Leader, if it seemed good to them to bring again the Ark of God. 1. Chron. 13. 1, 2, 3. So also Solomon could not do it without them 1 King. 8. 1. Ahab could not make peace with Benhadad against the consent of the People 1 King. 20. 8. The men of Ephraim complain that Iephthah▪ the Supreme Magistrate, had gone to War against the Children of Ammon without them, and threatened to burn his house with fire, which he only excuses by the Law of necessity Iudg. 12. 1, 2, 3. The Seventy Elders are appointed by God, not to be the Advisers only & helpers of Moses, but to bear a part of the burden of ruling & governing the People, that Moses might be eased Numb. 11. 14, 17. Moses upon his sole pleasure had not power to restrain them, in the exercise of Judgment given of God. They were not the Magistrats depending deputies, but in the act of Judging they were independent, and their Consciences as immediatly subjected to God as the Superior Magistrate, who was to adde his approbative suffrage to their actings, but not his directive nor imperative suffrage of absolute pleasure, but only according to the Law; he might command them to do their duty, but he could do nothing without them. (2) They had Power, not derived from the Prince at all, even a Power of life & death. The rebellious Son was to be brought to the Elders of the Citie, who had Power to stone him Deut. 21. 18, 24. They had Power to punish Adulterie with death Deut. 22. 21. They had Power to cognosce, whom to admit into and whom to seclude from the Cities of refuge: So that if the King had commanded to take the life of an innocent man, they were not to deliver him Iosh. 20. per tot. But besides the Elders of Cities, there were the Elders and heads of the People, who had judicial Power to cognosce on all Criminal Matters, even when Ioshua was Judge in Israel we find they assumed this Power, to judge of that matter of the two tribes & the half Iosh. 22. 30. And they had Power to make Kings, as Saul & David, as was shewed: and it must needs follow, they had Power p. 397to unmake them in case of Tyranny. (3) They had Power to conveen, even without the indiction of the Ruler, as in that Iosh. 22. they convene without him: and without advice or knowledge of Samuel, the Ruler, they conveen to ask a King 1 Sam. 8. And without any head or superior, they convene & make David King, notwithstanding of Isbosheths hereditary right. Without & against Tyrannous Athaliah her consent, they convene & make Ioash King, and cared not for her Treason, Treason 2 King. 11. But now the king alone challenges the Prerogative-power of calling & dessolving Parliaments as he pleases, and condemns all meetings of Estates without his warrant, which is purely Tyrannical: for in cases of necessity, by the very Law of nature, they may & must convene. The Power is given to the king only by a positive Law, for orders sake; but otherwise, they have an intrinsical Power to assemble themselves. All the forecited Commands, Admonitions, & Certifications, to execute Iudgement, must necessarly involve & imply & Power to convene, without which they could not be in a Capacity for it: Not only unjust Judgement, but no I…dgement, in a time when Truth is fallen in the streets & equity cannot enter, is charged as the sin of the State; therefore they must convene to prevent this sin, and the wrath of God for it: God hath committed the keeping of the Common-wealth, not to the king only, but also to the peoples Representatives & heads. And if the king have Power to break up all Conventions of this nature, then he hath Power to hinder Judgement to proceed, which the Lord Commands: And this would be an excuse, when God threatens vengeance for it, we could not execute Iudgement, because ehe King forbad us. Yet many of these forementioned reproofs, threatenings, & certifications were given, in the time of Tyrannous & Idolatrous kings, who no doubt would inhibite & discharge the doing of their duty; yet we see, that was no excuse, but the Lord denounces wrath for the omission. (4) They had Power to execute Judgement, against the will of the Prince. Samuel killed Agag against Sauls will, but according to the Command of God 1 Sam. 15. 32. Against Ahabs will & mind Elijah caused kill the p. 398Priests of Baal, according to Gods express Law 1 King. 18. 40. It is true it was extraordinary, but no otherwise than it is this day, when there is no Magistrate that will execute the Judgment of the Lord; then they who have Power to make the Magistrate may & ought to execute it, when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect. So the Princes of Iudah had power, against the kings will, to put Ieremiah to death, which the king supposes, when he directs him what to say to them Ier. 38. 25. They had really such a Power, though in Ieremiahs case it would have been wickedly perverted, See Lex Rex Q. 19. 20. (5) They had a power to execute Judgement upon the king himself: as in the case of Amaziah & Uzziah, as shall be cleared afterwards. I conclude with repeating the Argument: If the king be accountable, whensoever this Account shall be taken, we are confident our disouning him for the present will be justified, and all will be obliged to imitate it: If he be not, then we cannot oune his Authority, that so presumptously exalts himself above the People.