Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 26
QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or no?
VVE may conſider the queſtion of the Laws ſupremacie overThe Law above the King in four conſiderations. the King, either in the ſupremacie of conſtitution of the King, 2. or of direction, or 3. of limitation, or 4. of coaction and puniſhing. Thoſe who maintain this, [The King is not ſubject to the Law] if their meaning be [The King as King is not ſubject to The meaning of this [The King is not ſubject to the Law.] The Law above the King in ſupremacy of conſtitutionthe Laws direction] They ſay nothing; for the King as the King is a living Law; then they ſay [The Law is not ſubject to the Laws direction] a very improper ſpeech; or, The King as King, is not ſubject to the coaction of the Law; that is true, for he who is a living Law, as ſuch, cannot puniſh himſelf, as the Law ſaith.
1. Aſſert. The Law hath a ſupremacy of conſtitution above the King;
1. Becauſe the King by nature is not King, as is proved; Ergo, he muſt be King by a politique conſtitution and Law, and ſo the Law in that conſideration is above the King, becauſe it is from a civil Law, that there is a King, rather then any other kinde of Governour.
2. It is by Law, that amongſt many hundred men, this man is King, not this man; and becauſe, by the which a thing is conſtituted, by the ſame thing it is, or may be diſſolved; therefore,
3. As a Community finding ſuch and ſuch qualifications as the Law requireth to be in a King, in this man, not in this man; therefore upon Law-ground,
5. They make him a King, and upon Law-grounds and juſt demerit, they may unmake him again; for, what men voluntarily doe upon condition, the condition being removed, they may undoe again.
2. Aſſert. It is denyed by none; but the King is under the directive power of the Law, though many liberate the King from the coactive power of a civil Law. But I ſee not what direction a civil Law can give to the King, if he be above all obedience, or diſobedience to a Law, ſeeing all Law-direction is in ordine ad obedientiam, in order to obey; except thus far, that the light that is in the civil Law, is a morall or naturall guide to conduct a King in his walking; but this is the morality of the Law which inlightneth and informeth, not any obligation that aweth the King; and ſo the King is under Gods and Natures Law, this is nothing to the purpoſe.
3. Aſſert. The King is under the Law, in regard of ſome coercive limitation:
1. Becauſe there is no abſolute power given to him to do what he liſteth, as a man. And becauſe,
2. God, in making Saul a King, doth not by any Royall ſtamp give him a power to ſin, or to play the Tyrant; for which cauſe IIn what ſenſe the King may do all things. expone theſe of the Law, Omnia ſunt poſſibilia Regi, Imperator omnia poteſt. Baldus in §. F. de no. for▪ fidel. in F. & in prima conſtitut. C. col. 2. Chaſſanaeus in Catalog. gloriae mundi. par. 5. conſiderat. 24. & tanta eſt ejus celſitudo, ut non poſſet ei imponi lex in regno ſuo. Curt. in conſol. 65. col. 6. ad. F. Petrus Rebuff. Notab. 3. repet. l. unicae. C. de ſentent. quae pro eo quod nu. 17. pag. 363. All theſe go no otherwiſe but thus, The King can do all things which by Law he can do, and that holdeth him: id poſſumus quod jure poſſumus. And therefore the King cannot be above the Covenant and Law made betwixt him and his people, at his Coronation-oath; for then the Covenant and Oath ſhould binde him onelyonly, by a naturall obligation, as he is a man, not by a civil or politique obligation, as he is a King.
So then, 1. it were ſufficient that the King ſhould ſwear that Oath in his Cabinet-chamber, and it is but a mocking of an Oath, that he ſwear it to the people.
2. That Oath given by the Repreſentative-Kingdom, ſhould alſo oblige the Subjects naturally, in foro Dei, not politically, in foro humano, upon the ſame reaſon.
3. He may be reſiſted as a man.
4. Aſſert. The fourth caſe is, if the King be under the obliging politique coaction of civil Laws, for that he in foro Dei, be under the morality of civil Laws, ſo as he cannot contraveen any Law in that notion, but he muſt ſin againſt God, is granted on all hands, Deut. 17. 20. Ioſh. 1. 8. 1 Sam. 12. 15. That the King binde himſelf to the ſame Law that he doth binde others, is decent, and obligeth the King as he is a man;
1. Becauſe, Matth. 7. 12. It is ſaid to be the Law and the Prophets, All things, whatſoever ye would men ſhould do unto you, do ye even ſo to them.
2. It is the Law, Jmperator L. 4. dignae vox. C. de lege & tit. Quod quiſque juris in alium ſtatuit, eodem & ipſe utatur. Iulius Caeſar commanded the youth who had defloured the Emperours daughter, to be ſcourged, above that which the Law allowed. The youth ſaid to the Emperour, Dixiſti legem Caeſar; You appointedPlutarch in Apotheg. l. 4. the Law, Caeſar. The Emperor was ſo offended with himſelf, that he had failed againſt the Law, that for the whole day he refuſed to taſte meat.
Aſſert. 5. The King cannot but he ſubject to the coactive power of Fundamentall Laws: Becauſe this is a Fundamentall Law, that theThe King under the fundamentall Laws. free Eſtates lay upon the King, that all the power that they give to the King as King, is for the good and ſafety of the people; and ſo what he doth to the hurt of his ſubjects, he doth it not as King.
2. The Law ſaith, Qui habet poteſtatem conſtituendi etiam & jus adimendi. l. nemo. 37. l. 21. de reg. jure. Thoſe who have power to make, have power to unmake Kings.
3. What ever the King doth as King, that he doth by a power borrowed from, (or by a fiduciary power which is his by truſt) the Eſtates, who made him King. He muſt then be nothing but an eminent ſervant of the State, in the puniſhing of others. If therefore he be unpuniſhable, it is not ſo much becauſe his Royall power is above all Law-coaction, as becauſe one & the ſame man cannot be both the puniſher and the puniſhed, and this is a Phyſicall incongruity rather then a Morall abſurdity. So the Law of God layeth a duty on the inferiour Magiſtrate, to uſe the ſword againſt the murtherer, and that by vertue of his Office, but I much doubt if for that, he is to uſe the ſword againſt himſelfe in the caſe of Murther, for this is a truth I purpoſe to make good; that ſuffering as ſuffering accordingWhether the King be puniſhable, or be to he puniſhed. Two divers queſtions. Magiſtratus ipſe eſt judex & executor contra ſcipſum, in propria cauſa, propter excellentiam ſui officii, l. ſe pater familia…. & l. & boc Tiberius Caeſar F. De Hered. hoc. juſt. to the ſubſtance and eſſence of paſſion, is not commanded by any Law of God or nature to the ſufferer, but only the manner of ſuffering: I doubt if it be not, by the Law of Nature, lawfull even to the ill doer who hath deſerved death by Gods Law, to fly from the ſword of the lawfull Magiſtrate; only the manner of ſuffering with patience is commanded of God. I know the Law ſaith here, That the Magiſtrate is both Iudge, and the Executor of the ſentence againſt himſelfe, in his owne cauſe, for the excellency of his Office. Therefore theſe are to be diſtinguiſhed, whether the King Ratione demeriti & jure, by Law be puniſhable, or if the King can actually be puniſhed corporally by a Law of man, he remaining King; and ſince he muſt be a puniſher himſelfe, and that by vertue of his Office. In matters of goods the King may be both Iudge and puniſher of himſelfe, as our Law provideth that any ſubject may plead his owne heritage from the King before the inferiour Iudges, and if the King be a violent poſſeſſour, and in Mala fide for many yeares, by Law he is obliged upon a Decree of the Lords, to execute the ſentence againſt himſelfe, Ex officio, and to reſtore the Lands, and repay the dammage to the juſt owner, and this the King is to doe againſt himſelfe, ex officio. I grant here the King as King puniſheth himſelfe as an unjuſt man, but becauſe bodily ſuffering is meere violence to nature, I doubt if the King ex officio, is to doe or inflict any bodily puniſhment on himſelfe: Nemo potest a ſeipſo cogi. l. ille a quo. 13. §.The King above ſome Lawes.
Aſſert. 6. There be ſome Lawes made in favour of the King as King, as to pay tribute. The King muſt be above this Law as King. True, but if a Noble man of a great rent be elected King, I know not, if he can be free from paying to himſelfe as King, tribute, ſeeing this is not allowed to the King by a Divine Law, Rom. 13. 6. as a reward of his worke; and Chriſt expreſly maketh tribute a thing due to Caeſar as a King, Matth. 22. v. 21. There be ſome ſolemnities of the Law from which the King may be free, Prickman. D. c. 3. n. 78. and he relateth what they are, they are not Lawes, but ſome circumſtances belonging to Lawes, and Prickman anſwereth to many places alledged out of the Lawyers, to prove the King to be above the Law, Maldorus in 12. Art. 4, 5, 9, 96. will have the The King above Lawes that concerne ſubjects as ſubjects.Prince under that Law, which concerneth all the Common-wealth equally in regard of the matter, and that by the Law of nature, but he will not have him ſubject to theſe Lawes which concerneth the ſubjects as ſubjects, as to pay tribute. He citeth Franciſc. a Vict. Covarruvia, and Turrecremata. He alſo will have the Prince under poſitive Lawes, ſuch as not to tranſport victualls, not becauſe the Law bindeth him as a Law. But becauſe the making of the Law bindeth him, Tanquam conditio ſine qua non, even as he who teacheth another that he ſhould not ſteale, he ſhould not ſteale himſelfe, Rom. 2. But the truth is, this is but a branch of the Law of Nature, that I ſhould not commit Adultery, and Theft, and Sacriledge, and ſuch ſinnes as nature condemneth, if I ſhall condemne them in others, and doth not prove that the King is under the coactive power of Civill Lawes.
Ʋlpianus, l. 31. F. de regibus ſaith, The Prince is looſed from Some Lawyers and Schoolemen free the King from the Law.Lawes, Bodine de Repub. l. 7. c. 8. Nemo imperat ſibi, No man commandeth himſelfe. Tholoſanus ſaith, Ipſius eſt dare, non accipere leges. The Prince giveth Lawes, but receiveth none, De Rep. l. 7. c. 20. Donellus Lib. 1. Comment. c. 17. diſtinguiſheth betwixt a Law, and a Royall Law proper to the King. Trentlerus Volum. 1. 79. 80. ſaith, The Prince is freed from Laws; and that he obeyeth Laws, de honeſtate, non de neceſſitate, Ʋpon honeſty, not of necesſity. Thomas P. Reaſons to prove that the King is under the Law. That a King hath no ſuperiour but God, a falſe ground to liberate the the King from the coaction of Law.1. q. 96. Art. 5. and with him Soto, Gregorius de Valentia, and other Schoole-men, ſubject the King to the directive power of the Law, and liberate him of the coactive power of the Law.
Aſſert. 7. If a King turne a Paricide, a Lyon, and a waſter and deſtroyer of the people, as a man he is ſubject to the Coactive power of the Lawes of the Land. If any Law ſhould hinder that a Tyrant ſhould not be puniſhed by Law, it muſt be, becauſe he hath not a ſuperiour but God; for Royaliſts build all upon this, but this ground is falſe: becauſe the Eſtates of the Kingdome who gave him the Crowne, are above him, and they may take away what they gave him; as the Law of Nature and God ſaith, If they had knowne he would turne Tyrant, they would never have given him the ſword: and ſo how much ignorance is in the contract they made with the King, as little of will is in it, and ſo it is not every way willing, but being conditionall is ſuppoſed to be againſt their will. 2. They gave the power to him only for their good, and that they make the King, is cleare, 2 Chron. 23. 11. 1 Sam. 10. 17, 24. Deut. 17. 14, 15, 16, 17. 2 King. 11. v. 12. 1 King. 16. 21. 2 King. 10. 5. Iud. 9. 6. 2. 2 Chron. 26. 18. foureſcore valiant men of the Prieſts withſtood Ʋzziah in a corporall violence, and thruſt him out, and cut him off from the houſe of the Lord. And,
2. If the Princes place doe not put him above the Lawes ofArgum. 2. Church-Diſcipline, (Matth. 18. for Chriſt excepteth none, and how can men except?) and if the rod of Chriſts lips ſmite the earth, and ſtay the wicked, Eſay 11. 4. and the Prophets Elias, Nathan, Ieremiah, Eſaiah, &c. Iohn Baptiſt, Ieſus Chriſt, and his Apoſtles have uſed this rod of cenſure and rebuke, as ſervants under God, againſt Kings, this is a ſort of ſpirituall coaction of Lawes put in execution by men, and by due proportion corporall coaction being the ſame ordinance of God, though of another nature, muſt have the like power over all, whom the Law of God hath not excepted, but Gods Law excepteth none at all.
3. It is preſumed that God hath not provided better for the ſafetyArgum. 3. of the part, then of the whole, eſpecially when he maketh the part a meane for the ſafety of the whole.
But if God have provided that the King, who is a part of the Common-wealth, ſhall be free of all puniſhment, though he be a habituall deſtroyer of the whole Kingdome, ſeeing God hath given him to be a Father, Tutor, Saviour, Defender thereof, and deſtinated him as a meane for their ſafety, then muſt God have worſe, not better provided, for the ſafety of the whole, then of the part. The Propoſition is cleare in that God, Rom. 13. 4. 1 Tim. 2. 2. hath ordained the Ruler, and given to him the ſword to defend the whole Kingdome and City; but we read no where, that the Lord hath given the ſword to the whole Kingdome, to defend one man a King, though a Ruler come going on in a Tyrannicall way of deſtroying all his ſubjects.
The aſſumption is evident: for then the King, turning Tyrant, might ſet an Army of Turkes, Jewes, cruell Papiſts, to deſtroy the Church A Tyrant in exerciſe, may be puniſhed by the confeſſion of our adverſaries, Winzetus, Barclat. Hag. Grotius.of God, without all feare of Law or puniſhment. Yea, this is contrary to the doctrine of Royaliſts: for, Winzetus▪ adverſus Buchananum, p. 275. ſaith of Nero, that he ſeeking to deſtroy the Senate and people of Rome, and ſeeking to make new lawes for himſelfe, excidit jure Regni, loſt right to the Kingdome. And Barclai…s adverſ. Monarcho-Machous, l. 3. c. ult. p. 212, 213. ſaith, A Tyrant, ſuch as Caligula, ſpoliare ſe jure Regni, ſpoileth himſelfe of the right to theBut how this can conſiſt with the doctrine of Royaliſts, I ſee not: to wit, Once a father, alway a father; once a King, ever a King. None can puniſh a King, ſave God Almighty, ſay they. Crown. And in that ſame place: Regem, ſi regnum ſuum alienae ditioni manciparit, regno cadere: If the King ſell his Kingdome, he loſeth the title to the Crown. Grotius de jure belli & pacis, l. 1. c. 4. n. 7, Si Rex hoſtili animo in totius populi exitium feratur, amittit regnum: If he turne Enemie to the Kingdome, for their deſtruction, he loſeth his Kingdome, becauſe (ſaith he) Voluntas imperandi, & voluntas perdendi, ſimul conſiſtere non poſſunt: A will or minde to governe, and to deſtroy, cannot conſiſt together in one. Now if this be true, that a King turning Tyrant, loſeth title to the Crown; this is either a falling from his Royall title only in Gods court; or it is a loſing of it before men, and in the court of his Subjects. If the former be ſaid, 1. He is no King, having before God loſt his Royall title: and yet the people is to obey him as the Miniſter of God, and a power from God, when as he is no ſuch thing. 2. In vaine doe theſe Authors provide remedies to ſave the people from a Tyrannous waſter of the people, if they ſpeake of a Tyrant who is no King in Gods court only, and yet remaineth a King to the people in regard of the Law: for the places ſpeake of Remedies that God hath provided againſt Tyrants cum titulo, ſuch as are lawfull Kings, but turn Tyrants. Now by this they provide no remedie at all, if only in Gods court, and not in Mans court alſo, a Tyrant loſe his title. As for Tyrants ſine titulo, ſuch as uſurpe the throne, and have no juſt claime to it: Barclaius adver. Monarcho-Ma. l. 4. c. 10. p. 268. ſaith, Any private man may kill him, as a publike enemie of the State: but if he loſe his title to the Crown in the court of Men, then is there, 1. a Court on Earth to judge the King, and ſo he is under the coactive power of a Law. 2. Then a King may be reſiſted, and yet thoſe who reſiſt them, doe not incurre damnation; the contrary where of Royaliſts endeavour to prove from Rom. 13. 3. Then the people may un-king one who was a King. But 4. I would know who taketh that foreign, from him, whereby he is a King, that beame of Divine majeſtie? Not the people; becauſe Royaliſts ſay, they neither can give, nor take away Royall dignitie, and ſo they cannot un-king him.
4. The more Will be in the conſent▪ (ſaith Ferd. Vaſquez, l. 1. c. 41.)Arg. 4. The King under the ſtricteſt obligation of Law. the obligation is the ſtricter. So▪ doubled words (ſaith the Law, l. 1. §. 13. n. 13.) oblige more ſtrictly. And all lawes of Kings, who are rationall fathers, and ſo lead us by Lawes, as by rationall meanes to peace and externall happineſſe; are contracts of King and People. Omnis lex ſponſio & contractus Reip. §. 1. Iuſt. de ver. relig. Now the King at his Coronation-covenant with the people, giveth a moſt intenſe conſent, an Oath, to be a keeper and preſerver of all good Laws: and ſo hardly he can be freed from the ſtricteſt obligation that Law can impoſe: And if he keep Lawes by office, he is a meane to preſerve Lawes; and no meane can bee ſuperior and above the end, but inferior thereunto.
5. Bodine proveth, de Rep. l. 2. c. 5. p. 221. that Emperors at firſtArg. 5. A King remaineth a man, and a ſociall creature. were but Princes of the Commonwealth: and that Soveraigntie remained ſtill in the Senate and people. Marius Salomonius, a learned Romane Civilian, wrote ſixe bookes de Principatu, to refute the ſupremacie of Emperors above the State. Ferd. Vaſq. illuſt. queſt. part. 1. l. 1. n. 21. proveth, that the Prince, by Royall dignitie, leaveth not off to be a Citizen, a member of the Politique body; and not a King, but a Keeper of Lawes.
Hence, 6. The Prince remaineth, even being a Prince, a ſociall creature, a Man, as well as a King; one who muſt buy, ſell, promiſe, contract, diſpoſe: Ergo, he is not Regula regulans, but under rule of law: for impoſſible it is, if the King can, in a politicall way, live as a member of ſocietie, and doe and performe acts of policie, and ſo performe them, as he may by his office, buy, and not pay; promiſe, and vow, and ſweare to men, and not performe, nor be obliged to men to render a reckoning of his Oath, and kill and deſtroy, and yet in Curia politicae ſocietatis, in the Court of humane policie, be free: and that he may give inheritances, as juſt rewards of vertue and well-doing, and take them away againe. Yea, ſeeing theſe ſinnes that are not puniſhable before men, are not ſinnes before men: If all the ſinnes and oppreſſions of a Prince be ſo above the puniſhment that men can inflict, they are not ſinnes before men, by which meanes the King is looſed from all guiltineſſe of the ſinnes againſt the Second Table: for, the ratio formalis, the formall reaſon, why the Iudge, by warrant from God, condemneth, in the Court of men, the guilty man, is, becauſe he hath ſinned againſt humane ſocietie, either through the ſcandall of blaſphemie, or through other heynous ſinnes he hath defiled the Land. Now this is incident to the King, as well as to ſome other ſinfull man.
To theſe, and the like, heare what the excommunicated PrelateSac. ſanc. Mai. c. 15. p. 146, 147. hath to ſay; 1. They ſay (he meaneth the Jeſuites) Every ſocietie of men is a perfect Republick, and ſo muſt have within it ſelfe a power to preſerve it ſelfe from ruine, and by that to puniſh a Tyrant. He anſwereth, A ſocietie without a Head, is a diſorderly rout, not a Politique body; and ſo cannot have this power.
Anſ. 1. The Pope giveth to every Societie, Politick power to make away a Tyrant, or hereticall King, and to un-king him, by his brethren the Jeſuites way. And obſerve, how Papiſts (of which number I could eaſily prove the P. Prelate to be, by the Popiſh doctrine that he delivered, while the iniquitie of time, and dominion of Prelates in Scotland, advanced him, againſt all worth of true learning and holineſſe, to be a Preacher in Edinborough) and Ieſuites agree, as the builders of Babylon. It is the purpoſe of God to deſtroy Babylon.
2. This anſwer ſhall inferre, that the Ariſtocraticall Governors of any free State, and that the Duke of Venice, and the Senate there, is above all Law, and cannot be reſiſted, becauſe without their Heads they are a diſorderly Rout.
3. A Politicall ſocietie, as by Natures inſtinct, they may appoint a Head, or Heads to themſelves: ſo alſo if their Head, or Heads become ravenous Wolves, the God of Nature hath not left a perfect Societie remedileſſe; but they may both reſiſt, and puniſh the Head or Heads, to whom they gave all the power that they have, for their good, not for their deſtruction.
4. They are as orderly a body Politique, to unmake a Tyrannous Commander, as they were to make a juſt Governonr. The Prelate ſaith, It is alike to conceive a Politique body without a Governour, as to conceive the naturall body without a Head. He meaneth, None of them can be conceivable. I am not of his minde. When Saul was dead, Iſrael was a perfect Politique body: and the Prelate, if he be not very obtuſe in his head, (as this hungry peece ſtollen from others, ſheweth him to be) may conceive a viſible Politicall ſocietie performing a Politicall action, 2 Sam. 5. 1, 2, 3. making David King at a viſible and conceivable place, at Hebron; and making a Covenant with him. And that they wanted not all Governors, is nothing to make them Chymera's unconceivable: For when ſo many families before Nimrod, were governed only by fathers of families, and they agreed to make either a King, or other Governors, a Head, or Heads over themſelves: though the ſeverall families had government, yet theſe conſociated families had no government; and yet ſo conceivable a Politique body, as if Maxwell would have compeared amongſt them, and called them a diſorderly rout, or an unconceivable Chymera, they ſhould have made the Prelate know, that Chymera's can knock down Prelates. Neither is a King the life of a Politique body, as the ſoule is of the naturall body: The body createth not the ſoule: but Iſrael created Saul King; and when he was dead, they made David King, and ſo, under God, many Kings, as they ſucceeded, till the Meſſiah came. No naturall body can make ſoules to it ſelfe by ſucceſſion; Nor can Seas create new Prelates alwayes.
P. Prelate. Jeſuites and Puritans differ infinitely; We are hopefull God ſhall caſt down this Babel. The Ieſuites, for ought I know, ſeat the ſuperintendent power in the Communitie: Some Sectaries follow them, and warrant any individuall perſon to make away a King in caſe of defects, and the worke is to be rewarded as when one killeth a ravenous Wolfe. Some will have it in a collective body, but how? not met together by warrant, or writ of Soveraigne Authoritie, but when fancie of reforming Church and State calleth them. Some will have the power in the Nobles and Peeres; ſome in the three Eſtates aſſembled by the Kings Writ; ſome in the inferior Iudges. I know not where this power to curbe Soveraigntie is, but in Almighty God.
Anſ. 1. Ieſuites and Puritans differ infinitely: true. Jeſuites deny the Pope to be Antichriſt, hold all Arminian doctrine, Chriſts locall deſcenſion to hell: all which the Prelate did preach. We deny all this.
2. We hope alſo the Lord ſhall deſtroy the Jeſuites Babel; the …uburbs whereof, and more, are the Popiſh Prelates in Scotland and England.In what conſiderations the people is the ſubject of all politike power.
3. The Jeſuites, for ought he knoweth, place all ſuperintendent power in the Communitie. The Prelate knoweth not all his brethren the Ieſuites wayes: but it is ignorance, not want of good will. For Bellarmine, Beucanus, Suarez, Gregor, de Valentia, and others his deare fellowes ſay, That all ſuperintendent power of policy, in ordine ad ſpiritualia is in the man, whoſe foot Maxwell would kiſſe for a Cardinals Ha….
4. If theſe be all the differences, it is not much, the Community is the remote and laſt ſubject, the repreſentative body the neareſt ſubject, the Nobles a partiall ſubject; the Iudges as Iudges ſent by the King, are ſo in the game, that when an Arbitrary Prince at his pleaſure ſetteth them up, and at command that they judge for men, and not for the Lord, and accordingly obey, they are by this power to be puniſhed, and others put in their place.
5. A true cauſe of convening Parliaments the prelate maketh a Fancie at this time; it is as if the theeves and robbers ſhould ſay a Iuſtice Court were a fancie; but if the Prelate might compeare before the Parliament of Scotland (to which he is an out-law, like his father, 2 Theſſ: 2. 4.) ſuch a fancie I conceive ſhould hang him, and that deſervedly.
P. Prelate. The ſubject of this ſuperintending power muſt be ſecuredSac. Mai. p. 147, 148. from errour, in judgement and practiſe, and the community and States then ſhould be infallible.
Anſ. The conſequence is nought, no more then the King the abſolute independent is infallible. 2. It is ſure the people are in leſſe hazard of Tyranny and ſelfe deſtruction, then the King is to ſubvert Lawes, and make himſelfe abſolute, and for that cauſe there muſt be a ſuperintendent power above the King; and God Almighty alſo muſt be above all.
P. Prelate. The Parliament may erre, then God hath left the ſtate remedileſſe except the King remedy it.
Anſ. There's no conſequence here, except the King be impeccable. 2. Poſteriour Parliaments may correct the former. 3. A State is not remedileſſe, becauſe Gods remedies, in ſinfull mens hands may miſcarry. But the queſtion is now, whether God hath given power to one man to deſtroy men, ſubvert Lawes, and Religion, without any power above him to coerce, reſtraine or puniſh.
P. Prelate. If when the Parliament erreth, the remedy is left to theC. 15. p. 148. Wiſedome of God, why not when the King erreth?
Anſ. Neither is Antecedent true, nor the conſequence valid, for the ſounder part may reſiſt; and it is eaſier to one to deſtroy many, having a power abſolute, which God never gave him, then for many to deſtroy themſelves. Then if the King Ʋzzah intrude himſelfe and ſacrifice, the Prieſts doe ſin in remedying thereof.
P. Prelate. Why might not the people of Iſraell, Peers or SanedrimStollen from Arniſaus D… authorit. Prin. c. 4. num, 5. pag. 73. have convened before them, judged, and puniſhed David, for his Adultery and Murther? Romaniſts and new Statiſts acknowledge no caſe lawfull, but Hereſie, Apoſtacy, or Tyranny; and tyranny they ſay muſt be univerſall, 2. Manifeſt as the Sunne. 3. And with obſtinacy, and invincible by prayers; as is recorded of Nero, whoſe wiſh was rather a tranſported paſſion, then a fixed reſolution, this cannot fall in the attempts of any but a Mad-man. Now this cannot be proved of our King; but though we grant in the foreſaid caſe, that the community may reſume their power, and rectifie what is amiſſe, which we canno grant, but this will follow by their doctrine in every caſe of male adminiſtration.
Anſ. The Prelate draweth me to ſpeake of the caſe of the KingsIf David in his Murthering Vriah and his Adultery ſinned againſt none but God. unjuſt Murther, confeſſed Pſ. 51. to which I anſwer▪ He taketh it for confeſſed, that it had been treaſon in the Sanedrin and States of Iſrael to have taken on them to judge and puniſh David for his Adultery and his Murther; but he giveth no reaſon for this, nor any word of God; and truely though I will not preſume to goe before others in this, Gods Law, Gen. 9. 6. compared with Num. 35. 30. 31. ſeemeth to ſay againſt them.
Nor can I thinke that Gods Law, or his Deputy the Iudges areArg. 6. to accept the perſons of the great, becauſe they are great, Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chro. 19. 6, 7. and we ſay, We cannot diſtinguiſh where the Law diſtinguiſheth not, The Lord ſpeaketh to under Iudges, Levit. 19. 15. Thou ſhalt not reſpect the perſon of the poore, nor honour the perſon of the mighty, or of the Prince, for we know what theſe names foreign and foreign meaneth. I grant, it is not Gods meaning that the King ſhould draw the ſword againſt himſelfe, but yet it followeth not, that if we ſpeake of the demerit of blood, that the Law of God accepteth any Iudge, great or ſmall, & if the Eſtate be above the King, as I conceive they are, though it be a humane politicke conſtitution, that the King be free of al coaction of Law, becauſe it conduceth for the peace of the Common-wealth, yet if we make a matter of conſcience, for my part I ſee no exception that God makethit, if men make, I craveThe place Pſa. 51. Againſt hee only have I ſinned, Diſcuſſed. leave to ſay, A facto ad jus non ſequitur. And I eaſily yeeld that in every caſe the Eſtates may coerce the King, if we make it a caſe of conſcience. And for the place Pſ. 51. 4. Againſt thee only have I ſinned. foreign flatterers alleadge it to be a place that proveth that the King is above all earthly Tribunals, and all Lawes, and that there was not on earth any who might puniſh King David; and ſo they cite Clemens Alexandria. Strom. l. 4. Arnobi. Pſal. 50. Dydimus, Hieronim. But Calvine on the place giveth the meaning that moſt of the Fathers give. Domine, etiam ſi me totus mundus abſolvat, mihi tamen pluſquam ſatis eſt, quod te ſolum judicem ſentio. It is true, Beda, Euthymius, Ambroſius, Apol. David, c. 4. &. c. 10. do all acknowledge from the place, De facto, there was none above David to judge him, and ſo doth Auguſtine, Baſilius, Theodoret ſay, and Chryſoſtomus, and Cyrillus, and Hyeronim. Epiſt. 22. Ambroſe Sermo. 16. in Pſal. 118. Gregorius, and Auguſti. Ioan. 8. ſaith, he meaneth no man durſt judge or puniſh him, but God only. Lorinus the Ieſuit obſerveth eleven interpretatiōs of the Fathers all to this ſenſe, ſince Lyra, ſaith he, ſinned only againſt God, becauſe God only could pardon him; Hugo Cardinalis, becauſe God only could waſh him, which he asketh in the Text. And Lorin. Solo Deo conſcio peccavi. But the ſimple meaning is, Againſt thee only have I ſinned, as my eye witneſſe and imediate beholder; and therfore he addeth, and have done this evill in thy ſight. 2. Againſt thee only, as my Iudge, that thou maiſt be juſtified when thou judgeſt, as cleare from all unrighteouſneſſe, when thou Againſt thee only, &c. cannot exclude men, as if David had ſinned againſt no mortall men on earth, as Royaliſts would teach.ſhalt ſend the ſword on my houſe. 3. Againſt thee, O Lord only, who canſt waſh me, and pardon me, v. 1, 2. And if this (thee only) exclude all together, Ʋriah, Bathſheba, and the Law of the Iudges, as if he had ſinned againſt none of theſe in their kind, then is the King becauſe a King free, not only from a puniſhing Law of man, but from the duties of the ſecond Table ſimply, and ſo a King cannot be under the beſt and largeſt halfe of the Law, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelfe. 2. He ſhall not need to ſay, Forgive us our ſinnes, as we forgive them that ſin againſt us; for there is no reaſon from the nature of ſin, and the nature of the Law of God, why we can ſay more the ſubjects and ſonnes ſin againſt the King and Father, then to ſay the Father and King ſin againſt the ſonnes and ſubjects. 3. By this, the King killing his Father Ieſſe, ſhould ſin againſt God, but not breake the fiſt Command, nor ſinne againſt his father. 4. God ſhould in vaine forbid fathers to provoke their children to wrath.
1. And Kings to doe unjuſtice to their ſubjects, becauſe by this the ſuperiour cannot ſinne againſt the inferiour, for as much as Kings can ſin againſt none, but thoſe who have power to judge and puniſh them; but God only, and no inferiours, and no ſubjects have power to puniſh the Kings, therefore Kings can ſin againſt none of their ſubjects, and where there is no ſin, how can there be a Law? neither Major or Minor can be denyed by Royaliſts.
2. We acknowledge Tyranny muſt only unking a Prince. The Prelate denyeth it, but he is a green Statiſt. Barclay, Grotius, Winzetus, as I have proved granteth it.
3. He will excuſe Nero as of infirmity, wiſhing all Rome to have one necke, that he may cut it off. And is that charitable of Kings, that they will not be ſo mad as to deſtroy their owne Kingdome? But when Stories teach us there have been more Tyrants then Kings, the Kings are more obliged to him for flattery, then for State-wit, except we ſay that all Kings who cate the people of God, as they doe bread, owe him little, for making them all madde and franticke.
4. But let them be Nero's, and madde, and worſe, there is no coercing of them, but all muſt give their neckes to the ſword, if the poore Prelate be heard; and yet Kings cannot be ſo madde as to deſtroy their ſubjects. Mary of England was that madde, the Romiſh Princes who have given, Revel. 17. 13. their power and ſtrength to the beaſt, and doe make warre with the Lambe; and Kings inſpired with the ſpirit of the beaſt, and drunke with the wine of the Cup of Babells fornications, are ſo madde, and the ten Emperours are ſo madde, who waſted their faithfulleſt ſubjects.
P. Prelate. If there be ſuch a power in the Peeres, reſumable in the exigent of neceſſity, as the laſt neceſſary remedy for ſafety of Church and State, God and nature not being deficient in things neceſſary, it muſt be proved out of the Scripture, and not taken on truſt, for Affirmanti incumbit probatio.
Anſ. Mr. Biſhop, what better is your Affirmanti incumbit, &c, then mine? for you are the affirmer. I can prove a power in the King, limited onelyonly to feed, governe, and ſave the people; and you affirme that God hath given to the King, not only a power officiall and Royall to ſave, but alſo to deſtroy and cut off, ſo as no man may ſay, Why doeſt thou this? Shall we take this upon the word of an excommunicated Prelate? Profer tabulas, Iohn P. P. I beleeve you not, Royall power is Deut. 17. 18. Rom. 3. 14. I am ſure there is there a power given to the King to doe good, and that from God: Let John P. P. prove a power to doe ill, given of God to the King.
2. We ſhall quickly prove that the States may repreſſe this power, and puniſh the Tyrant, not the King: when he ſhall prove that a Tyrannous power is an Ordinance of God, and ſo may not be reſiſted. For the law of Nature teacheth, If I give my ſword to my fellow to defend me from the murtherer, if he ſhall fall to, and murther me with my own ſword, I may (if I have ſtrength) take my ſword from him.
Prelate. It is infidelitie, to thinke that God cannot helpe us; and impatience, that we will not wait on God. When a King oppreſſeth us, it is againſt Gods wiſdome, that he hath not provided another meane for our ſafetie, than intruſion on Gods right. 2. It is againſt Gods power, 3. his Holineſſe, 4. Chriſtian Religion, that we neceſſitate God to ſo weake a meane, to make uſe of ſinne: and we caſt the aſperſion of Treaſon on Religion, and deterre Kings to profeſſe Reformed Catholike Religion. 5. We are not to juſtle God out of his right.
Anſ. I ſee nothing but what D. Ferne, Grotius, Barclay, Blackwood have ſaid before, with ſome colour of proving the conſequence. The P. Prelate giveth us other mens arguments, but without bones, All were good, if the States coercing and curbing a power which God never gave to the King, were a ſinne, and an act of impatience, and unbelief: And, if it were proper to God only, by his immediate hand, to coerce Tyrannie.
2. He calleth it not Proteſtant Religion, either here, or elſewhere; but cautelouſly giveth a name that will agree to the Roman Catholique Religion: For the Dominicans, Franciſcans, and the Pariſian Doctors and Schoolemen, following Occham, Gerſon, Almain, and other Papiſts, call themſelves Reformed Catholiques. 2. He layeth this for a ground, in 3 or 4 pages, where theſe ſame Arguments are againe and againe repeated in terminis, as his ſecond Reaſon, p. 149. was handled ad nauſeam, p. 148. his 3. Reaſon is repeated in his 6. Reaſon, p. 151. He layeth (I ſay) down this ground, which is the begged Concluſion, and maketh the Concluſion the Aſſumption, in 8 raw and often repeated Arguments: to wit, That the Parliaments coercing and reſtraining of Arbitrarie power, is rebellion, and reſiſting the Ordinance of God. But he dare not looke the place Rom. 13. on the face: other Royaliſts have done it with bad ſucceſſe. This I deſire to be weighed, …d I retort the Prelates argument▪ But it is indeed the triviall Argument of all Royaliſts, eſpecially of Barclay, obvious in his 3. Booke. If Arbitrarie and Tyrannicall power above any Law that the lawfull Magiſtrate commandeth under the paine of death, (Thou ſhalt not murther one man) (Thou ſhalt not take away the vineyard of one Naboth violently) be lawfull and warrantable by Gods word; then an Arbitrarie power above all Divine lawes, is given to the keeping of the Civill Magiſtrate. And it is no leſſe lawfull Arbitrarie, or rather Tyrannicall power, for David to kill all his Subjects, and to plunder all Jeruſalem, (as I beleeve, Prelates, and Malignants, and Papiſts would ſerve the three Kingdomes, if the King ſhould command them) then to kill one Ʋriah, or for Achab to ſpoile one Naboth. The eſſence of ſinne muſt agree alike to all, though the degrees varie.
Of Gods remedie againſt Arbitrary power, hereafter, in the Queſtion of Reſiſtance: but the confuſed ingine of the Prelate bringeth it in here, where there is no place for it.
His 7. Argument is: Before God would authorize Rebellion, and give a bad preſident thereof for ever, he would rather worke extraordinary and wonderfull miracles, and therefore would not authorize the people to deliver themſelves from under Pharaoh, but made Moſes … Prince, to bring them out of Egypt with a ſtretched-out arme: nor did the Lord deliver his people by the wiſdome o… Moſes, or ſtrength of the people, or any act that way of theirs, but by his own immediate hand and power.
Anſ. I reduce the Prelates confuſed words to a few: for I ſpeake not of his Popiſh tearme of Saint Steven, and others the like▪ becauſe all that he hath ſaid in a book of 149 pages, might have been ſaid in three ſheets of paper. But, I pray you, what is this Argument to the Queſtion in hand, which is, Whether the King be ſo above all Lawes, as People and Peeres, in the caſe of Arbitrarie power, may reſume their power, and puniſh a Tyrant? The P. Prelate draweth in the Queſtion of Reſiſtance by the haire. Iſraels not riſing in armes againſt K. Pharaoh, proveth nothing againſt the power of a Free Kingdome againſt a Tyrant.
1. Moſes, who wrought miracles deſtructive to Pharaoh, might pray a vengeance againſt Pharaoh, God having revealed to Moſes, that Pharaoh was a Reprobate▪ But may Miniſters and Nobles pray ſo againſt King Charles? God forbid.
2. Pharaoh had not his Crown from Iſrael.
3. Pharaoh had not ſworne to defend Iſrael, nor became he their King upon condition he ſhould maintaine and profeſſe the Religion of the God of Iſrael: Therefore Iſrael could not, as free Eſtates, challenge him in their ſupreme Court of Parliament, of breach of oath▪ and upon no termes could they un-king Pharaoh; He held not his Crown of them.
4. Pharaoh was never circumciſed, nor within the Covenant of the God of Iſrdel, in profeſſion.
5. Iſrael had their lands by the meere gift of the King. I hope the King of Britaine ſtandeth to Scotland and England in a fourefold contrary relation.
All Divines know, that Pharaoh his Princes, and the Egyptians, were his Peeres and People, …nd that Iſrael were not his native Subjects, but a number of ſtrangers, who by the lawes of the King and Princes, by the meanes of Joſeph, had gotten the land of Goſhen for their dwelling, and libertie to ſerve the God of Abraham, to whom they prayed in their bondage, Exod. 2. 23, 24. and they were not to ſerve the Gods of Egypt, nor were of the Kings Religion: And therefore his Argument is thus: A number of poore exiled ſtrangers under King Pharaoh, who were not Pharaohs Princes and Peeres, could not reſtraine the Tyrannie of King Pharaoh: Ergo, the three Eſtates in a free Kingdome may not reſtraine the Arbitrarie power of a King.
2. The Prelate muſt prove that God gave a Royall and Kingly power to King Pharaoh, due to him by vertue of his Kingly calling, (according as Royaliſts expone 1 Sam. 8. 9, 11.) to kill all the male children of Iſrael, to make ſlaves of themſelves, and compell them to worke in brick and clay, while their lives were a burden to them: And that if a Romiſh Catholique, Mary of England, ſhould kill all the male Children of Proteſtants, by the hands of Papiſts, at the Queenes commandement, and make bondſlaves of all the Peeres, Iudges, and three Eſtates, who made her a free Princeſſe: yet notwithſtanding that Mary had ſworne to maintaine the Proteſtant Religion; they were to ſuffer, and not to defend themſelves. But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Iſrael, ſo as they could not controll it; then God giveth to a King a Royall power by office to ſinne: only the Royaliſt ſaveth God from being the author of ſinne, in this, that God gave the power to ſinne, but yet with this limitation, that the Subjects ſhould not reſiſt this power. 2. He muſt prove that Iſrael was to give their Male-children to Pharaohs Butchers, for to hide them, was to reſiſt a Royall power, and to diſobey a Royall power given of God, is to diſobey God. 3. The Subjects may not reſiſt the Kings Butchers coming to kill them, and their Male-children, For to reſiſt the ſervant of the King in that, wherein he is a ſervant, is to reſiſt the King, 1 Sam. 8. 7. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Rom. 13. 1. 4. He muſt prove that upon the ſuppoſition, That Iſrael had been as ſtrong as Pharaoh and his people; that without Gods ſpeciall commandment (they then wanting the written Word) they ſhould have ſought with Pharaoh; and that we now for all wars, muſt have a word from Heaven, as if we had not Gods perfit▪ Will in his Word, as at that time Iſrael behoved to have in all wars, Judg. 18. 5. 1 Sam. 14. 37. Eſa. 30. 2. Iere. 38. 37. 1 King. 22. 5. 1 Sam. 30. 5. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 23. 2. 2 Sam. 16. 23. 1 Chron. 10. 14. But becauſe God gave not them an anſwer to fight againſt Pharaoh, therefore we have no warrant now to fight againſt a forraign Nation, invading us; the conſequence is null, and therefore this is a vain Argument, The Prophets never reprove the people for not performing the duty of defenſive wars againſt Tyrannous Kings. Ergo▪ There is no ſuch dutie enjoyned by any Law of God to us; For the Prophets never rebuke the people for non-performing the dutie of offenſive wars againſt their enemies; but where God gave a ſpeciall command, and reſponce, from his own Oracle, that they ſhould fight: And if God was pleaſed never to command the people to riſe againſt a Tyrannous King, they did not ſin where they had no commandment of God: but I hope we have now a more ſure word of prophecie to inform us. 5. The Prelate conjectureth Moſes his miraeles, and the deliverance of the people, by dividing the Red Sea, was to forbid, and condemn, defenſive wars of people againſt their King; but he hath neither Scripture, nor Reaſons to do it. The end of theſe miracles, was to Seal to Pharaoh the Truth of Gods calling of Moſes and Aaron, to deliver the people, as is clear, Exod. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Chap. 7. verſ. 8, 9, 10. And that the Lord might get to himſelf a name on all the earth, Rom. 9▪ 17. Exod. 9. 16. and 13. 13, 14. and 15. 1, 2, 3. & ſeq. But of the Prelates conjecturall end, the Scripture is ſilent, and we cannot take an excommunicated mans word. What I ſaid of Pharaoh, who had no… …is Crown from Iſrael, that I ſay of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Kings of Perſia, keeping the people of God captive.
P. Prelate. So in the Book of the Judges, when the people were deliveredSac. ſanct. maj. pag. 153. over to the hand of their enemies, becauſe of their ſins; he never warranted the ordinary Iudges, or Communitie, to be their ownGods delivering his people by Iudges, and by Cyrus nothing againſt the power of a free people. deliverers, but when they repented, God raiſed up a Iudge. The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon, God effected it by Cyrus, immediately and totally. Is not this a reall proof, God will not have inferiour Iudges, to rectifie what is amiſſe; but we muſt waite in patience till God provide lawfull means, ſome Soveraign power immediately ſent by himſelf, in which courſe of his ordinary providence, he will not be deficient.
Anſw. All this is beſide the queſtion, and proveth nothing leſſe, then that Peers and Communitie, may not reſume their power to curbe an Arbitrary power: For in the firſt caſe, there is neither Arbitrary, nor lawfull ſupreme Iudge. 2. If the firſt prove any thing, it proveth, That it was rebellion in the inferiour Iudges, and Communitie of Iſrael, to fight againſt forraign Kings, not ſet over them by God; and that offenſive wars againſt any Kings whatſoever, becauſe they are Kings, though ſtrangers, are unlawfull. Let Socinians and Anabaptiſts conſider, if the P. Prelate help not them in this, and may prove all wars to be unlawfull. 3. He is ſo Malignant to all inferiour Iudges, as if they were not powers ſent of God, and to all Governours, that are not Kings, and ſo upholders of Prelates, and of himſelf as he conceiveth, that by his arguing, he will have all deliverance by Kings onelyonly, the onelyonly lawfull means in ordinary providen…: and ſo Ariſtocracy and Democracy except in Gods extraordinary providence, and by ſome divine diſpenſation muſt be extraordinary, and ordinarily unlawfull: 2. The Acts of a State, when a King is dead, and they chooſe another, ſhall be an Anticipating of Gods providence. 3. If the King be a childe, a captive, or diſtracted, and the Kingdom oppreſſed with Malignants, they are to waite, while God immediately from Heaven, create a King to them, as he did Saul long ago. But have we now Kings immediately ſent as Saul was? 1. How is the ſpirit of Prophecie and Government infuſed in them, as in King Saul? Or are they by propheticall inſpiration, anointed as David was: I conceive their calling to the throne on Gods part, do differ as much from the calling of Saul and David, in ſome reſpect, as the calling of ordinary Paſtors, who muſt be gifted by induſtry and learning, and called by the Church, and the calling of Apoſtles. 4. God would deliver his people from Babylon, by moving the heart of Cyrus immediately, the people having no hand in it, not ſo much as ſupplicating Cyrus. Ergo, The People and Peers who made the King, cannot curb his Tyrannicall power, if he make captives and ſlaves of them, as the Kings of Chaldea made ſlaves of the people of Iſrael. What? Becauſe God uſeth another mean. Ergo, This mean is not lawfull. It followeth in no ſort; If we muſt uſe no means, but what the captive people did under Cyrus▪ we may not lawfully flie, nor ſupplicate, for the people did neither.
P. Prelate. You read of no Covenant in Scripture made without the King, Exod. 34. Moſes King of Ieſurum: neither Tables nor Parliament framed it. Joſhua another, Ioſh. 24. and Aſa, 2 Chron. 15. and 2 Chron. 34. and Ezra 10. The Covenant of Iehojada in the non-age of Ioaſh, was the High Prieſts Act, as the Kings Governour. There is a covenant with Hell, made without the King, and a falſe Covenant, Hoſ. 10. 3, 4.
Anſw. We argue this negatively; This is neither commanded, nor practiſed, nor warranted by promiſe. Ergo, It is not lawfull. But this is not practiſed in Scripture: Ergo, It is not lawfull. It followeth it. Shew me in Scripture the killing of a Goaring On who killed a man; the not making battlements on an houſe; the putting to death of a man lying with a Beaſt; the killing of ſeducing Prophets, who tempted the people to go a whoring, and ſerve another God, then Jehovah: I mean, a god made by the hand of the Baker, ſuch a one as the excommunicated Prelate is known to be, who hath Preached this Idolatry in three Kingdoms, yet Deut. 13. This is written, and all the former Laws are divine Precepts; ſhall the Precept make them all unlawfull, becauſe they are not practiſed by ſome in Scripture? By this? I ask, Where read yee, that the people entered in a Covenant with God, not to worſhip the Golden Image, and the King; and theſe who pretend they are the Prieſts of Iehovah, the Church-men and Pelates refuſed to enter in Covenant with God? By this argument, the King and Prelates in non-practiſing with us, wanting the precedent of a like practice in Scripture, are in the fault. 2. This is nothing to prove the concluſion in queſtion. 3. All theſe places prove it is the Kings dutie, when the people under him, and their fathers, have corrupted the worſhip of God, to renew a Covenant with God, and to cauſe the people to do the like, as Moſes, Aſa, Iehoſhaphat did. 4. IfThat the people may ſwear a Covenant for Reformation, of Religion, without the King, is pro…ed. the King refuſe to do his dutie, where is it written, That the people ought alſo to omit their dutie, and to love to have it ſo, becauſe the Rulers corrupt their wayes, Ierem. 5. 31? To renew a Covenant with God, is a point of ſervice due to God, that the people are obliged unto; whether the King command it, or no. What if the King command not his people to ſerve God; or, What if he forbid Daniel to pray to God? Shall the people in that caſe ſerve the King of Kings, onelyonly at the nod, and Royall command of an earthly King? Clear this from Scripture. 5. Ezra 5. had no commandment in particular from Artaxerxes King of Perſia, or from Darius, but a Generall, that Ezr. 7. 23. Whatſoever is commanded by the God of Heaven, let it be diligently done far the houſe of the God of Heaven: But, the Tables in Scotland, and the two Parliaments of England and Scotland, who renewed the Covenant, and entered in Covenant not againſt the King (as the P. P. ſaith) but to reſtore Religion to its ancient Puritie, have this expreſſe Law from King James and King Charles both, in many Acts of Parliament, that Religion be kept pure. Now as Artaxerxes knew nothing of the Covenant, and was unwilling to ſubſcribe it, and yet gave to Ezra and the Princes a warrant in generall, to do all that the God of Heaven required to be done, for the Religion, and houſe of the God of Heaven, and ſo a generall warrant, for a Covenant without the King; and yet Ezra, and the people, in ſwearing that Covenant, failed in no dutie againſt their King: to whom, by the fifth Commandment, they were no leſſe ſubject then we are to our King, juſt ſo we are, and ſo have not failed; but they ſay, The King hath committed to no Lievtenant and Deputie under him, to do what they pleaſe in Religion, without his Royall conſent in particular, and the direction of his Clergy, ſeeing he is of that ſame Religion with his people; whereas Artaxerxes was of another Religion, then were the Iews, and their Governour. Anſw. Nor can our King take on himſelf, to do what he pleaſeth, and what the Prelates (amongſt whom theſe who ruled all, are known before the World and the Sun, to be of another Religion, then we are) pleaſeth in particular. But ſee what Religion and Worſhip the Lord our God, and the Law of the Land (which is the Kings revealed will) alloweth to us, that we may ſwear, though the King ſhould not ſwear it; otherwayes, we are to be of no Religion, but of the Kings, and to ſwear no Covenant, but the Kings, which is to joyn with Papiſts againſt Proteſtants. 6. The ſtrangers of Ephraim and Manaſſeh, and out of Simeon fell out of Iſrael in abundance to Aſa, when they ſaw that the Lord his God was with him, 2 Chron. 15. 9, 10. And ſware that Covenant without their own Kings conſent, their own King being againſt it; If a people may ſwear a Religious Covenant, without their King, who is averſe thereunto, far more may the Nobles, Peers, and Eſtates of Parliament do it without their King: And here is an example of a practiſe, which the P. Prelate requireth. 7. That Jehojadah was Governour and Vice-Roy, during the nonage of Joaſh, and that by this Royall Authoritie, the Covenant was ſworn, is a dream, to the end he may make the Pope, and the Arch-Prelate, now Vice-Royes and Kings, when the throne varieth. The Nobles were Authors of the making of that Covenant, no leſſe then Iehojadah was; yea, and the People of the Land, when the King was but a childe, went unto the houſe of Baal, and brake down his Images, &c. Here is a Reformation made without the King by the people. 8. Grave Expoſitors ſay, That the Covenant with death and hell, Eſay 28. was the Kings Covenant with Egypt. 9. And the Covenant, Hoſ. 10. is by none exponed of a Covenant made without the King. I heard ſay, this Prelate Preaching on this Text before the King, exponed it ſo, But he ſpake words (as the Text is) falſly. The P. Prelate, to the end of the Chapter, giveth inſtance of the illſucceſſe of Popular Reformation, becauſe the people cauſed Aaron to make a Golden Calf, and they revolted from Rehoboam to Ieroboam, and made two Golden Calves, and they conſpired with Abſolom againſt David. Anſw. If the firſt example make good any thing, neither the High-Prieſt, as was Aaron, nor the P. Prelate, who claimeth to be deſcended of Aarons houſe, ſhould have any hand in Reformation at all, for Aaron erred in that; and to argue from the peoples ſins, to deny their power, is no better then to prove Achab, Ieroboam, and many Kings in Iſrael and Judah, committed Idolatry. Ergo, They had no Royall power at all. In the reſt of the Chapter, for a whole Page, he ſingeth over again his Mattens in a circle, and giveth us the ſame Arguments we heard before; of which you have theſe three notes. 1. They are ſtoln, and not his own. 2. Repeated again and again to fill the field. 3. All hang on a falſe ſuppoſition, and a begging of the queſtion: That the people without the King, have no power at all.