Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 51
QUEST. XLI. Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds, aſcribe to us the doctrine of Jeſuites in theſe Queſtions of lawfull defenſive Wars?
THe P. Prelate without all ground, will have us all Ieſuites in this point; but if we make good, that this Truth was in Scripture before a Ieſuite was in the earth, he falleth from his Cauſe.
P. Prelate. The Begardi ſaith, There was no Government, no LawSacr. ſan. reg. maj. c. 1. pag. 1, 2. given to the juſt. It feareth me, this age fancieth to it ſelf, ſome ſuch thing, and have learned of Core, Dathan, &c.
Anſ. This Calumniator in the next words belieth himſelf, when he ſaith, We preſuppoſe, that theſe with whom we are to enter in Liſts, do willingly grant, That Government is not onelyonly lawfull and juſt, but neceſſary both for Church and Common-wealth: then we fancie no ſuch thing as he imputeth to us.
P. Prelate. Some ſaid, that the right of Dominion is founded on grace; whether the Waldenſes and Hus, held any ſuch Tenet, I cannot now inſiſt to prove, or diſprove. Gerſon and others held, that there muſt be a new Title and Right to what men poſſeſſe: Too many too confidently hold theſe, or the like.
Anſw. 1. That Dominion is founded upon Grace, as its eſſentiall Pillar; ſo as wicked men be no Magiſtrates, becauſe they are in mortall ſin, was falſly imputed to ancient Proteſtants, the Waldenſes, Wickcliff, and Hus, by Papiſts; and this day by Jeſuites, Suarez, Bellarmine, Becan. The P. Prelate will leave them under this Calumny, that he may offend Papiſts and Ieſuites as little as he can, but he would lay it on us; but if the P. Prelate think, that Dominion is not founded on Grace, de jure, that Rulers ſhould have that ſpirit that God put on the ſeventy Elders for their Calling, and that they ought not to be men fearing God, and hating covetouſneſſe, as Gerſon and others did, he belieth the Scripture.
2. It is no errour of Gerſon, that beleevers have a ſpirituall Right to their civill poſſeſſions, but by Scripture, 1 Cor. 4. 21. Revel. 21. 7.
P. Prelate. The Jeſuites are aſhamed of the errour of Caſuiſts, who hold that, directum imperium, the direct and primary power, Supreme, Civill, and Eccleſiaſticall, is in the Pope; and therefore, they give an indirect directive, and coercive power to him, over Kings and States, in ordine ad ſpiritualia: So may he King and un-King Princes at his pleaſure. Our Presbyterians, if they run not fully this way, are very neer to it.
Anſw. The Windy man would ſeem verſed in School-men, he ſhould have named ſome Gaſuiſts, who hold any like thing.
2. The Presbyterians muſt be Popes, becauſe they ſubject Kings to the Goſpel, and Chriſts Scepter in Church Cenſures, and think Chriſtian Kings may be rebuked for blaſphemy, blood-ſhed, &c. Whereas Prelates, in ordine ad diabolica, murther ſouls of Kings. 2. Prelates do King Princes. An P. Arch-Prelate, whenAn. 1633. Coronation of King Charls in Scotland. our King was crowned, put the Crown on King Charls Head, the Sword and Scepter in his hand, anointed him in his hands, Crown, ſhoulders, arms, with ſacred Oyl: The King muſt kiſſe the Archbiſhop, and Biſhops; is not this to King Princes, in ordine ad ſpiritualia: And theſe that Kingeth may unking, and judge what relation the P. Arch-Biſhop Spotwood had, when he proffered to the King, the Oath that the Popiſh Kings ſweareth to maintain, the profeſſed Religion (not one word of the true Proteſtant Religion) and will carefully root out all Hereticks, and enemies (that is Proteſtants as they expone it,) to the true Worſhip of God, that ſhall be convicted by the true Church of God of the foreſaid crimes. And when the Prelates profeſſed, they held not their Prelacies of the King, but of the Pope indeed: Who are then neareſt to the Popes power, in ordine ad ſpiritualia? 3. How will this black mouthed Calumniator, make Presbyterians to dethrone Kings? He hath written a Pamphlet of the inconſiſtency of Monarchie and Presbyterian Government, conſiſting of lies, invented Calumnies of his Church, in which he was baptized. But the truth is, all his Arguments prove the inconſiſtencie of Monarchs and Parliaments, and transform any King in a moſt abſolute Tyrant; for which Treaſon he deſerveth to ſuffer as a Traytor.
P. Prelate. Q. 1. c. 1. The Puritan ſaith, That all power Civill, is radically and originally ſeated in the Communitie; he here joyneth hands with the Jeſuite.
Anſw. In ſix pages he repeateth the ſame things. 1. Is this ſuch an Hereſie, that a Colonie caſted into America by the Tyranny of P. Prelates, have power to chooſe their own Governours; all Iſrael was Hereticall in this, for David could not be their King, though deſigned and anointed by God, 1 Sam. 16. till the people, … Sam. 5. put forth in act, this power, and made David King in Hebron. 2. Let the Prelate make a Syllogiſme, it is but ex utraque affirmante in ſecunda figura, Logick like the bellies of the Court, in which men of their own way is diſgraced and caſt out of Grace and Court, becauſe in this controverſie of the King with his two Parlia…ents, they are like Eraſmus in Gods matters, who ſaid, Lutherum nec accuſo, nec defendo. 1. He is diſcourted who ever he be, who is in ſhape like a Puritan, and not fire and ſword againſt Religion and his Countrey, and Oath and Covenant with God, and ſo it is this. The Ieſuite teacheth, that power of Government is in the Communitie originally. The Puritan teacheth, that power of Government is in the Communitie originally. Ergo, The Puritan is a Ieſuite. But ſo the Puritan is a Ieſuite, becauſe he and the Ieſuite teacheth, that there is on God, and three perſons; And if the Prelate like this reaſoning, we ſhall make himſelf and the Prelates, and Court-Divines, Ieſuites upon ſurer grounds.
Jeſuites teach, The Pope is not the Antichriſt. 2. Chriſt locally diſcended to Hell, to free ſome out of that priſon. 3. It was ſin to ſeparate from Babyloniſh Rome. 4. We are juſtified by works. 5. The merit of faſting is not to be condemned. 6. The Maſſe is no idolatry. 7. The Church is the judge of controverſies. 8. All the Arminian points are ſafer to be beleeved, then the contrary; yea, and all the ſubſtantials of Popery are true, and Catholick doctrine to be preached and Printed: The Prelates and Court-Divines, and this Prelate conſpireth, in all theſe with the Ieſuites, as is learnedly and invincibly proved in the Treatiſe, called foreign the Canterburian ſelf-conviction: to which no man of the Prelaticall and Romiſh Faction durſt ever make anſwer for their hearts: and ſee then who are Ieſuites. 3. This doctrine was taught by Lawyers, Proteſtants, yeilded to by Papiſts before any Ieſuite was whelped in rerum naturâ. Never learned man wrote of policy, till of late; but he held power of Government, by the light of nature muſt be radically and originally, in a Communitie: the P. Prelate ſaith, Ieſuites are not the father of this opinion, Cap. 1. pag. 12. How then can the Liar ſay, that the Puritan conſpireth with the Ieſuite? Suarez the Ieſuite de primat. ſum. pontifi. l. 3. c. 2. n. 10. Non eſt novum, aut a Cardinali Bellarmino inventum. The Ieſuite Tannerus will not have their Family the mother of this opinion, Tom. 2. diſp. 5. de leg. q. 5. in 12. q. 95, 96. Dubi. 1. n. 7. Sine dubio communis omnium Theologorum & Iuriſperitorum ſententia, &c. The Ieſuite Tolet, in Rom. 13. taketh it for a ground, That the Civill powers are from God, by the naturall mediation of men, and Civill Societies. 4. Ieſuites teach, That there is no lawfull Chriſtian ſociety truely politick that hath a neer and formall power, to chooſe and ordain their own Magiſtrates, but that which acknowledgeth ſubjection, and the due regulation of their creating of Magiſtrates, to be due and proper to the Pope of Rome. We acknowledge no wayes the Biſhop of Rome, for a lawfull Biſhop and Paſtor at all: But this Popiſh Prelate doth acknowledge him, for he hath theſe words, Cap. 5. pag. 58. It is high preſumption in the Pope, to challenge to himſelf, the Title or Right of Chriſts univerſall Vicar on earth, by Divine right. The Pope, the Biſhop of Rome, hath no more by Divine right, (what he may have by poſitive Eccleſiaſticall right, is not pertinent for us now to examine and diſcuſſe) no higher priviledge (except it be in extent) then the meaneſt Biſhop of the world in his Dioceſſe. And amongſt all proofes, he paſſing by Scriptures, which ſhould prove, or improve a Divine right, he will content himſelfe with one proofe of Cyprian, de unitat. Eccleſ. And endeth with theſe words: Would God, both ſides, in this, and other controverſies, would ſubmit to the judgement of the holy Fathers.
Hence the P. Prelate, in his 4. Article, (the other two I ſhall touch anon) maketh Puritans groſſer then Jeſuites, in dethroning Kings; becauſe, if the King be deficient, the People may reſume their power, and governe for him, and ſo dethrone the King. But Bellarmine, l. 3. q. de laic. holdeth, the people cannot dethrone the King, L. 3. defenſ. fid. Orth. c. 3. n. 2, 3.but, in certis caſibus, in ſome caſes, that is, (as Suarez ſaith) ſi Rex ſua poteſtate iu manifeſtam (Civitatis ceu Regni) perniciem abutatur. But I will demonſtrate, that if Papiſts hold that the Pope may dethrone Kings, this Prelate is of their mind: for, 1. the words I cited, make good that he is for the Popes Supremacie; (now it is a joynt or lith of his ſupremacie, to King and un-King Princes.) 2. They make good that he is a Papiſt: for, 1. It is preſumption in the Pope to challenge to himſelfe, that he is Chriſts Ʋniverſall Vicar on The P. Prelate is a Papiſt.Earth by Divine right. Why ſaith he not, by no right at all, but only he is not Chriſts Vicar by Divine right: for it is evident that Papiſts make him Chriſts Vicar, only by Eccleſiaſticall right; for they profeſſe, ſucceſſion of Popes to this day, cannot be proved but by Tradition, not by Scripture.
2. The Popes ſupremacie, by Papiſts, is expreſly reckoned amongſt unwritten Traditions, and ſo there is no neceſſitie that the right of it be proved from Scripture.
3. The Prelate expreſly ſaith, He will not diſcuſſe the Eccleſiaſticall right that the Pope hath to be Chriſts Vicar. And by that he clearly inſinuateth, that he hath a right to be Chriſts Vicar, beſide a Scripturall and Divine right: only, for offending Papiſts, he will not diſcuſſe it.
4. He hath no higher priviledge (ſaith he) then other Biſhops, except in extent, by Divine right. Now other Biſhops, as officers in nature different from Presbyters, (for of ſuch the P. Prelate muſt ſpeak in his own dialect) have their office by Divine right: and this the Prelates words muſt include, elſe he ſaith non-ſenſe to the matter in hand. And in extent the Pope hath by Divine right more then other Biſhops have. Now what is the Pope of Rome his extent? All knowes it is the whole Catholike viſible Church on earth. If then all Biſhops be particular Ambaſſadours in Chriſts ſtead, 2 Cor. 5. 20. and ſo Legates and Deputies of Chriſt; He who by Divine right is a Biſhop in extent over the whole world, is as like one that calleth himſelfe the univerſall Vicar of Chriſt, as one egge is like another. 2. The doctrine taught by this Prelate, ſo Popiſh, & hints, yea are more then evidences of groſſe Poperie in this book, and his other Pamphlet againſt Presbyteries; And his deſire that the Controverſie concerning the Popes ſupremacie, and others, were determined with ſubmiſſion to the judgement of the Fathers: doe cry, that he is but a rotten Papiſt. For why will he ſubmit all other controverſies to the judgement of the Fathers? Why not to the Prophets and Apoſtles? Can Fathers decide Controverſies better then the Word of God? A reaſon cannot be dreamed of, why the Fathers ſhould be Iudges, and not the Scriptures, except that Scriptures are obſcure. 2. Their authoritie and light cannot determine and judge controverſies, except in ſo far as they have authoritie from Fathers and the Church: and we know this to be proprium 4to modo, proper to Jeſuites and Papiſts, to cry Fathers, Fathers, in all controverſies, though the Fathers be more for us, then for them, except two things; 1. What Fathers ſpeake for us, are corrupted by them: 2. What were but errors in Fathers, when children adde contumacie to error, becomes the hereſies of the ſonnes.
And it is moſt falſe, that we joyne with Jeſuites. 1. We teach noIeſuites tenents concerning Kings. more againſt Tyrants, in e…ercitio, then Grotius, Barclay, Winzetus, in the matter of depoſing Kings. And in this, Royaliſts conſpire with Jeſuites. 2. We deny that the Pope may looſe Subjects from the oath of Fidelitie, when a King turneth Hereticall; 3. That People at the Popes commandement, are to dethrone Kings, for Hereſie. So doe the Prelates, and their fellowes the Papiſts teach. So Gregorie the 7. practiſed: ſo Aquinas taught, 22 q. 12. ar. 2. Antonin. ſum, par. 3. t. 22. c. 3. §. 7. Thou haſt put all things under the Popes feet▪ oves, id eſt, Chriſtianos; boves, Iudaeos & Hereticos; pecora, Paganos. So Navar. l. 1. c. 13. Pagans have no juriſdiction. Iaco. Symanca, de Catho. Inſtit. tit. 45. n. 25. Catholica uxor heretico viro debitum reddere non tenetur. Item. Conſtat Haeretieum privatum eſſe omni dominio, naturali, civili, politico, naturali quod habet in filios, nam propter haereſin patris efficiuntur filii ſui iuris, civili, quod habet in ſervos, ab eo enim ſervi liberantur, politico, quod rerum domini habent in ſubditos, ita Bannes 22. q. 12. art. 10. Gregor. de valent. 22. diſ. 1. q. 12. p. 2. lod. Mol. to. 1. De juſt. & jur. tract. 2. diſ. 29. v. 3. 2. Papiſts hold that Generatio clerici eſt corruptio ſubditi, Churchmen are not ſubjects under the Kings Law. It is a Canonicall priviledge of the Clergy, that they are not ſubject to the Kings Civill Lawes. Now this Prelate and his fellowes made the King ſweare, at his Coronation, to maintaine all Canonicall Priviledges of the Prelaticall Clergy, the very Oath and words ſworne by all the Popiſh Kings.
P. Prelate. Power is given by the multitude to the King immediatly, and by God mediately, not ſo much by collation, as by approbation, how the Ieſuite and Puritane walke all along in equall pace. See Bellarmine l. 1. de liac. c. 6. Zuarez cont. ſect. Angl. l. 3. c. 3.
Anſ. It is a Calumnie, that we teach that the power of the King is from God mediatly, by meere approbation; indeed a fellow of his, a Papiſt writing againſt the Kings Supremacy, Anthony Capell Cont. 1. c. 5. ſaith, Saul was made King, and others alſo by Gods Tract. contra primatum Regis Angliae.permiſſion, and Deo invito & irato, God being angry, that is not our Doctrine; but with what reall efficiencie God hath made men, and communities, rationall and ſociall men, with the ſame hath he made them by inſtinct of nature, by the mediation of reaſon, to create a King; and Bellarmine and Suarez ſay, Not God maketh Kings by approbation only.
P. Prelate. The people may change Monarchy into Ariſtocracy or Democracy, or Ariſtocracy into Monarchy; for ought I know, they differ not in this neither.
Anſ. The P. Prelate knoweth not all things, the two Ieſuites, Bellarmine and Suarez are produced only, as if they were all Ieſuites; and Suarez ſaith, De prim. po. l. 3. n. 4. Donationem abſolutam ſemel valide factam revocari non poſſe, neque in totum, neque ex parce, maxime quando oneroſa fuit. If the people once give their power to the King, they cannot reſume it without cauſe, and laying downe the grounds of Suarez and other Ieſuites, that our Religion is Hereſie, they doe ſoundly collect this conſequence, That no King can be Lord of the conſciences of their ſubjects, to compell them to an Hereticall Religion. We teach that the King of Spaine hath no power over the conſciences of Proteſtant Subjects, to force them to Idolatry, and that their ſoules are not his ſubjects, but only their perſons, and in the Lord. 2. It is no great crime, that if a King degenerate in a Tyranny, or if the Royall Line faile, that we thinke the people have liberty to change Monarchy into Ariſtocracy, aut contra. Ieſuites deny that the people can make this change without the Popes conſent. We judge neither the great Biſhop the Pope, nor the little Popes ought to have hand in making Kings.
P. Prelate. They ſay the power is derived to the King from the people, Cumulativè, or Communicativé, non Privativé by way of communication, not by way of privation, ſo as the people denude not themſelves of this ſoveraignty. As the King maketh a Lieutenant in Ireland, not to denude himſelfe of his Royall power, but to put him in truſt for his ſervice. If this be their mind, the King is in a poore caſe. The principal authority is in the Deligate, and ſo the people is ſtill Iudge, and the King their Deputy.
Anſ. The P. Prelate taketh on him to write he knoweth not what, this is not our opinion. The King is King, and hath the peoples power not as their Deputy.
1. Becauſe the people is not principall Iudge, and the King ſubordinate. The King in the executive power of Lawes, is really a Soveraigne above the people, a Deputy is not ſo.
2. The people have irrevocably made over to the King, their power of governing, defending, and protecting themſelves, I except the power of ſelfe preſervation, which people can no more make away, it being ſinleſſe natures birth-right then the liberty of eating, drinking, ſleeping; and this the people cannot reſume, except in caſe of the Kings Tyranny, there is no power by the King ſo irrevocably reſigned to his Servant or Deputy, but he may uſe it himſelfe.
3. A Delegate is comptable for all he doth to thoſe that put him in truſt, whether he doe ill or well. The King in acts of Iuſtice is not comptable to any, for if his acts be not lyable to high ſuſpitions of Tyranny, no man may ſay to him What doſt thou? onelyonly in acts of unjuſtice, and thoſe ſo tyrannous, that they be inconſiſtent with the habituall fiduciary repoſe and truſt put on him, he is to render accounts to the Parliament, which repreſenteth the people.
4. A Delegate in eſſe, in fieri, both that he may be a Delegate, and that he may continue a Delegate, whether he doe ill or well, dependeth on his pleaſure who delegateth him; but though a King depend in fieri, in regard of his call to the Crowne, upon the ſuffrages of his people, yet that he may be continued King, he dependeth not on the people ſimply, but only in caſe of Tyrannicall adminiſtration, and in this ſenſe Suarez and Bellarmine ſpake with no more honeſty, then we doe, but with more then Prelates doe, for they profeſſe any Emiſſary of Hell may ſtab a Proteſtant King. We know the Prelates profeſſe the contrary, but their judgement is the ſame with Ieſuites in all points; and ſince they will have the Pope Chriſts Vicar, by ſuch a Divine right as they themſelves are Biſhops, and have the King under Oath to maintaine the Clergie, Biſhops, and all their Canonicall priviledges, amongſt which the Biſhops of Rome his indirect power in ordine ad ſpiritualia, and to dethrone Kings who turne Heritickes, is one principall right. I ſee not how Prelates are not as deepe in treaſon againſt Kings as the Pope himſelfe, and therefore P. Prelate, take the beame out of your owne eye.
The P. Prelate taketh unlearned paines, to prove that Gerſon, Occam, Iac. de almaine, Pariſian Doctors maintained theſe ſame grounds anent the peoples power over Kings in the caſe of Tyranny, and that before Luther and Calvine was in the world, and this is to give himſelfe the lye, that Luther, Calvin, and we have not this Doctrine from Ieſuites, and what is Calvines mind, is evident, Inſtit, l. 4. c. all that the eſtates may coerce, and reduce in order aCalvin Iuſt. l. 4. c. 4. Tyrant, elſe they are deficient in their truſt that God hath given them over the Common-wealth and Church; and this is the Doctrine for which Royaliſts cry out againſt Maſter Knox of bleſſed memory, Buchanan, Iunius Brutus, B…uchier, Roſſaeus, Althuſius, and Luther, in ſcripto ad paſtorem, to 7. German. fol. 386. bringeth two examples for reſiſtance; the people reſiſted Saul, when he was willing to kill Ionathan his ſonne, and Ahikam and other Princes reſcued Ieremiah out of the hands of the King of Iudah: and Gerardus citeth many Divines, who ſecond Luther in this, as Bugenliagius, Iuſtus Ionas, Nicholas Ambſderffius, George Spalatinus, Iuſtus Menius, Chriſtopher Hofmanus. It is knowne what is the mind of Proteſtant Divines, as Beza, Pareus, Melancthon, Bucanus, Polanus Chamer, all the Divines of France, of Germany, of Holland. No wonder then Prelates were upon the plot of betraying the City of Rochel, and of the Proteſtant Church there, when they then will have the Proteſtants of France, for their defenſive warres to be Rebels, and ſiders with Ieſuites, when in theſe warres Ieſuites ſought their blood and ruine.
The P. Prelate having ſhewn his mind concerning the depoſing of Childericke by the Pope (of which I ſay nothing, but the Pope was an Antichriſtian Uſurper, and the poore man never fit to beare a Crowne) he goeth on to ſet downe an opinion of ſome mute Authors, he might deviſe a thouſand opinions that way, to make men beleeve he had been in a wood of learned mens ſecrets, and that never man ſaw the bottome of the controverſie, while he, ſeeing the eſcapes of many Pens (as ſupercilious Bubo praiſeth) was forced to appeare a Star new riſen in the firmament of Purſevants, and reveale all dreames, and teach all the New-Statiſts, the Gam…liels, Buchanan, Iunius Brutus, and a world who were all ſleeping, while this Lucifer the ſonne of the night did appeare, this new way of Lawes, Divinity and caſuiſts Theologie.
They hold (ſaith P. P.) Soveraigne power is primarily and naturallySac. ſanc. Mai. c. 1. p. 17, 18. in the multitude, from it derived to the King, immediatly from God. The reaſon of which order is, becauſe we cannot reape the fruites of government, unleſſe by compact we ſubmit to ſome poſſible and accidentall inconveniences.
Anſ. 1. Who ſpeaketh ſo the P. Prelate cannot name. That Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude. Vertually (it may be) Soveraignty is in the multitude, but primarily and naturally, as heat is in the fire, light in the Sun; I thinke the P. Prelate dreamed it, no man ſaid it but himſelfe: for what attribute is naturally in a Subject, I conceive may directly and naturally be predicated thereof. Now the P. Prelate hath taught us of a very naturall predication. (Our Dreadful and Soveraign Lord the multitude commandeth this and this.)
2. This is no more a reaſon for a Monarchy, then for a Democracy, for we can reape the fruites of no government, except we ſubmit to it.
3. We muſt ſubmit in Monarchy (ſaith he) to ſome poſſible and accidentall inconveniences. Here be ſoft words, but is ſubverſion of Religion, Lawes, and Liberties of Church and State, introducing of Popery, Arminianiſme, of Idolatry, Altar-worſhip, the Maſſe proved by a learned Treatiſe, The Canterburian ſelfe conviction, printed the 3. edit. an 1641. never anſwered, couched under the name of inconveniency? The pardoning of the innocent blood of hundreds of thouſand Proteſtants in Ireland, the killing of many thouſands, Nobles, Barons, Commons, by the hands of Papiſts in Armes againſt the Law of the Land, the making of England a field of blood, the obtruding of an Idolatrous Service-Booke, with Armies of men, by Sea and Land, to blocke up the Kingdome of Scotland. are all theſe inconveniences only?
4. Are they only posſible and accidentall? but make a Monarch abſolute, as the P. Prelate doth, and tyranny is as neceſſary and as much intended by a ſinfull man, inclined to make a God of himſelfe, as it is naturall to men to ſinne, when they are tempted, and to be drunken and giddy with honour and greatneſſe; witneſſe the Kings of Iſrael and Iudah, though de jure they were not abſolute. Is it accidentall to Nero, Iulian, to the ten hornes that grew out of the womans head, who ſate upon the ſcarlet colloured beaſt, to make warre againſt the Lambe, and his followers, eſpecially the ſpirit of Sathan being in them?
P. Prelate, They inferre, 1. They cannot without violation of a Divine ordinance, and breach of faith reſume the authority, they have placed in the King. 2. It▪ were high ſin to rob authority of its eſſentials. 3. This ordinance is not foreign but foreign, and hath urgent reaſons.
Anſ. 1. Theſe nameleſſe Authors cannot inferre that an Oath is broken, which is made conditionally; all authority given by the people to the King is conditionall, that he uſe it for the ſafety of the people, if it be uſed for their diſtruction, they breake no faith to reſume it, for they never made faith to give up their power to the King upon ſuch tearmes, and ſo they cannot be ſaid to reſume what they never gave.
2. So the P. Prelate maketh power to act all the former miſchiefes, the eſſentialls of a King▪ Balaam he is not worthy his wages, for Prophecying thus, that▪ the Kings eſſentialls is a power of blood, and deſtructive to people, Law, Religion and liberties of Church and State, for otherwiſe we teach not, that people may reſume from the King Authority and power to diſarme Papiſts, to roote out the bloody Iriſh, and in juſtice ſerve them, as they have ſerved us.
3. This ordinance of the people giving lawfull power to a King, for the governing of the people in peace and godlineſſe, is Gods good pleaſure, and hath juſt reaſons and cauſes. But that the people make over a power to one man, to act all the inconveniences above named, I mean the bloody and deſtructive inconveniences, hath nothing of God, or reaſon in it.
P. Prelate. The reaſons of this opinion are, 1. If Power ſoveraigne were not in one, he could not have ſtrength enough to act all neceſſary parts and acts of government. 2. Nor to prevent diviſions which attend multitudes, or many indowed with equall power; and the Authors ſay, They muſt part with their native right entirely, for a greater good, and to prevent greater evills. 3. To reſume any part of this power, of which the people have totally deveſted themſelves, or to limit it, is to diſable Soveraignty from government, looſe the ſinewes of all ſociety, &c▪
Anſ. 1. I know none for this opinion, but the P. Prelate himſelfe.Soveraigne power in the King, but not power of Tyrannie. The firſt Reaſon may be made rhyme, but never reaſon: for though there be not abſolute power to good and ill, there may be ſtrength of limited power in abundance in the King, and ſufficient for all acts of juſt Government, and the adequate end of Government, which is, ſalus populi, the ſafetie of the people. But the Royaliſt will have ſtrength to be a Tyrant, and act all the Tyrannicall and bloody inconveniences of which we ſpake, an eſſentiall part of the power of a King; As if weakneſſe were eſſentiall to ſtrength; and a King could not be powerfull as a King, to doe good, and ſave and protect, except he had power alſo as a Tyrant to doe evill, and to deſtroy and waſte his people. This power is weakneſſe, and no part of the image of the greatneſſe of the King of Kings, whom a King repreſenteth.
2. The ſecond Reaſon condemneth Democracie and Ariſtocracie; as unlawfull, and maketh Monarchie the only Phyſick to cure theſe; as if there were no Government an ordinance of God, ſave only abſolute Monarchie, which indeed is no ordinance of God at all, but contrary to the nature of a lawfull King, Deut. 17. 3.
3. That people muſt part with their native right totally, to make an abſolute Monarch; is, as if the whole members of the Body would part with their whole nutritive power, to cauſe the Milt to ſwell; which would be the deſtruction of the Body.
4. The people cannot diveſt themſelves of power of defenſive Warres, more then they can part with Nature, and put themſelves in a condition inferior to a ſlave, who, if his maſter, who hath power to ſell him, invade him unjuſtly, to take away his life, may oppoſe violence to unjuſt violence. And the other Conſequences are null.