Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 14
QUEST. XIIII. Whether or no the people make a Perſon their King conditionally, or abſolutely? and whether there be ſuch a thing as a Covenant tying the King no leſſe then his ſubjects?
THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill, there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects, becauſe there be no ſuch equality (ſay Royaliſts) betwixtThe King under a naturall, but no civil obligation to the people, ſay Royaliſts. the King and his people, as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court, to either necesſitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people, or to tye him to any puniſhment, if he faile, yet (ſay they) he is under naturall obligation …n Gods Court to keepe his Oath, but he is comptible only to God, if he violate his Oath.
Aſſer. 1. There is an Oath betwixt the King and his people, laying on, by reciprocation of bands, mutuall civill obligation upon the King to the people, and the people to the King, 2 Sam. 5. 3. So …ll the Elders of Iſrael came to the King to Hebron, and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anuoynted David King over Iſrael, 1 Chron. 11. 3. And David made a covenant with them before the Lord, and they annoynted David King over Iſrael, according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel, 2 Chron. 23. 2. And they went about in Iudah and gathered the Levites out of all the Cities of Iudah, and the chiefe of the fathers of Iſrael, and they c…me to Ieruſalem. 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the King Ioaſh in the houſe of God, 2 King. 11. 17. and Jehoiada made a covenant betwixt the Lord and the King, and the people that they ſhould be the Lords people, between the King alſo and his people, Eccleſ. 8. 2. I counſell thee to keepe the Kings commandement, and that in regard of the Oath of God; then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the King and the people. 2. That was not a covenant that did tye the King to God onelyonly, and not to the people, 1. becauſe the covenant betwixt the King and the people is clearly differenced from the Kings covenant with the Lord, 2 King. 11. 17. 2. there were no neceſſity that this covenant ſhould be made publickly before the people, if the King did not in the covenant tye and oblige himſelfe to the people; nor needed it be made ſolemnly before the Lord is the Houſe of God. 3. It is expreſly a covenant, that was between Ioaſh the King and his people, and David made a covenant at his Coronation with the Princes and Elders of Iſrael; therefore the people give the Crown to David Covenant-wiſe, and upon condition that he ſhould performe ſuch and ſuch duties to them; and this is cleare by all Covenants in the Word of God, even the Covenant between God and man is ſo mutuall; I will be your God, and yee ſhall be my people. The covenant is ſo mutuall, that if the people breake the covenant, God is looſed from his part of the covenant, Zach. 11. v. 10. 2. The covenant giveth to the beleever a ſort of action of Law, and jus quoddam, to plead with God, in reſpect of his fidelity to ſtand to that covenant that bindeth him by reaſon of his fidelity, Eſay 43. 26. Eſ. 63. 16. Daniel 9. 4, 5. and farre more a covenant giveth ground of a civill action and claime to a people and the free eſtates againſt a King, ſeduced by wicked counſell to make war againſt the Land, whereas he did ſweare by the moſt high God, that he ſhould be a father and protector of the Church of God. 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man, yea all ſolemne promiſes bring the covenante…s under a Law, and a claime before men, if the Oath of God be broken as the Covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech, Gen. 21. 27. Ionathan and David, I Sam. 18. 3. the ſpies profeſſe to Rahab in the covenant that they made with him, Ioſh. 2. v. 20. And if thou utter this our buſineſſe (ſay they) we will be quit of thine Oath, which thou haſt made us to ſwear. There be no mutuall contract made upon certain conditions, but if the conditions be not fulfilled, the party injured is looſed from the contract. Barclay ſaith, That this covenant obligeth the If the condition without the which one of the parties would never have entered in covenant, be not performed, that perſon is looſed from the covenant. Arniſ. de authorit. prin. …. …. n. 6. 7.King to God, but not the King to the people. Anſ. It is a vaine thing to ſay that the people and the King make a covenant, and that David made a covenant with the Elders and Princes of Iſrael; for if he be obliged to God only, and not to the people by a covenant made with the people, it is not made with the people at all, nay, it is no more made with the people of Iſrael, nor with the Chaldeans, for it bindeth David no more to Iſrael, nor to Chaldea, as a covenant made with men. Arniſaeus ſaith, when two parties contract, if one performe the duty, the other is acquitted. Sect. Ex hujuſmod ubi vult juſt. de duob. reis, l. 3. F. becauſe every one of them are obliged fully. Sect. 1. Iuſt. cod. to God, to whom the Oath is made (for that is his meaning) and if either the people performe what is ſworne to the Lord, or the King, yet one of the parties remaineth ſtill under obligation, and neither doth the peoples obedience exempt the King from puniſhment, if he faile, nor the Kings obedience exempt the people, if they faile, but every one beareth the puniſhment of his owne ſin; and there is no mutuall power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promiſed duty, becauſe that belongeth to the Pretor or Magiſtrate, before whom the contract was made. The King hath juriſdiction over the people, if they violate their Oath, but the people hath no power over the Prince, and the ground that Arniſaeus layeth downe is that, 1. The King is not a party contracting with the people, as if there were mutuall obligations betwixt the King and the people, and a mutuall coactive power▪ on either ſide. 2. That the care of Religion belongeth not to the people, for that hath no warrant in the Word (ſaith he) 2. We read not that the people was to command and compell the Prieſts and the King to reforme Religion and aboliſh Idolatry, as it muſt follow, if the covenant be mutuall. 3. Iehoiada, 2 King. 11. obligeth himſelfe and the King, and the people, by a like law to ſerve God, and here be not two parts, but three; the high Prieſt, the King, the People, if this example prove any thing. 4. Both King and people ſhall finde the revenging hand of God againſt them, if they faile in the breach of their Oath; but with this difference, and every one of the two, King and people by the Oath ſtand obliged to God, the King for himſelfe, and the people for themſelves, but with this difference, the King oweth to God proper and due obedience as any of the ſubjects, and alſo to governe the people according to Gods true religion, Deut. 17. 2 Chro. 29. and in this the Kings obligation differeth from the peoples obligation, the people, as they would be ſaved muſt ſerve God, and the King for the ſame cauſe, 1 Sam. 12. But beſides this, the King is obliged to rule and governe the people, and keepe them in obedience to God; but the people is not obliged to governe the King, and keepe him in obedience to God, for then the people ſhould have as great power of juriſdiction over the King, as the King hath oover the people, which is againſt the Word of God, and the examples of the Kings of Iudah; but this commeth not from any promiſe or covenant that the King hath made with the people, but from a peculiar obligation whereby he is obliged to God as a man, not as a King.
This is the myſtery of the buſineſſe, but I oppoſe this in theſe The people & Princes in their place are obliged to maintain Religion and Iuſtice, no leſſe then the King.Aſſertions.
1. Aſſert. As the King is obliged to God for the maintenance of true Religion, ſo are the people and Princes no leſſe in their place obliged to maintaine true Religion, for 1. the people are rebuked becauſe they burnt Incenſe in all high places, 2 King. 17. 11. 2 Chron. 33. 17. Hoſ. 4. 13. And the reaſon why the high places are not taken away, 2 Chro. 20. 33. is given, for as yet the people had not prepared their heart unto the God of their fathers; but you will reply, elicite acts of maintenance of true Religion are commanded to the people, and that the places prove; but the queſtion is De actibus imperatis, of commanded acts of Religion, ſure none but the Magiſtrate is to command others to worſhip God according to his Word. I anſwer, in ordinary only, Magiſtrates (not the King only) but all the Princes of the Land, and Iudges are to maintaine Religion by their commandements, Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chro. 1. 2. Deut. 16. 19. Eccleſ. 5. 8. Hab. 1. 4. Mic. 3. 9. Zach. 7. 9. Hoſ. 5. 10. 11. and to take care of Religion; but when the Iudges decline from Gods way, and corrupt the Law, we finde the people puniſhed and rebuked for it, Ier. 15. 4. And I will cauſe them to be removed to all Kingdomes of the earth, becauſe of Manaſſeh the ſonne of Hezekiah King of Iudah, for that which he did in Ieruſalem, 1 Sam. 12. 24. only feare the Lord—25. But if yee doe ſtill wickedly, yee ſhall be conſumed, both yee and your King. And this caſe … grant is extraordinary, yet ſo as Iunius Brutus proveth well and ſtrongly, that Religion is not given only to the King, that he only ſhould keep… it, but to all the inferiour Iudges and people alſo in their kind; but becauſe the eſtates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion,In ſo far as the King preſſeth a falſe Religion on the people, catenus, in ſo far they are underſtood not to have a Kingly power. and preſſe a falſe and Idolatrous worſhip upon them, therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion, but preſſeth upon the people a falſe and Idolatrous Religion, in that they are not under the King, but are preſumed to have no King eatenus ſo farre, and are preſumed to have the power in themſelves, as if they had not appointed any King at all: as if we preſume the body had given to the right hand a power to ward off ſtrokes, and to defend the body, if the right hand ſhould by a Palſie, or ſome other diſeaſe become impotent, and be withered up; when ill is comming on the body, it is preſumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand, and to the reſt of the body to defend it ſelfe, in this caſe as if the body had no right hand, and had never communicated any power to the right hand at all. So if an incorporation accuſed of Treaſon, and in danger of the ſentence of death▪ ſhall appoint a Lawyer to Advocate their cauſe, and to give in their juſt defences to the Iudge; if their Advocate be ſtricken with dumbneſſe, becauſe they have loſed their legall and repreſentative tongue, none can ſay that this incorporation hath looſed the tongues that Nature hath given them, ſo as by Natures law they may not plead in their own juſt & lawfull defence, as if they had never appointed the foreſaid lawyer to plead for them. The King, as a man, is not more obliged to the publick and regall defence of the true Religion, then any other man of the land; but he is made by God and the people King, for the Church and people of God's ſake, that he may defend true Religion, for the behalfe and ſalvation of all. If therefore he defend not Religion for the ſalvation of the ſoules of all in his publick and royall way, it is preſumed as undeniable, that the people of God, who by the law of nature are to care for their own ſoule, are to defend in their way, true Religion, which ſo nearly concerneth them and their eternall happineſſe.
2 Aſſert. When the covenant is betwixt God, on the one part, and the King, Prieſts, and people on the other part, it is true, if the one performe for his part to God, the whole duty, the other is acquitted; as if two men be indebted to one man ten thouſand pounds, if the one pay the whole ſumme, the other is acquitted: but the King and People are not ſo, contracting parties in covenant with God, as that they are both indebted to God for one and the ſame ſum of compleat obedience, ſo as if the King pay the whole ſumme of obedience to God, the people is acquitted; and if the People pay the whole ſumme, the King is acquitted: for every one ſtandeth obliged to God for himſelfe; for the people muſt doe all that is their part, in acquitting the King from his Royall duty, that they may free him and themſelves both from puniſhment, if he diſobey the King of Kings: Nor doth the Kings obedience acquit the people from their duty. And Arniſaeus dreamed, if he believed that we make King and People this way partie contractors in covenant with God. Nor can two co-partners in covenant with God, ſo mutually compell one another to doe their duty; for we hold, that the covenant is made betwixt the King and the People, betwixt mortall men; but they both bind themſelves before God to each other. But, ſaith Arniſaeus, It belongeth to a Pretor or Ruler, who is above both King and People, to The covenant between King and People giveth a coactive power to each other.compell each of them; the King to performe his part of the covenant to the people, and the people to performe their part of the covenant to the King. Now there is no Ruler but God, above both King and People. But let me anſwer: The conſequence is not needfull, no more then when the King of Iudah and the King of Iſrael make a covenant to perform mutuall duties one to another: no more then it is neceſſarie that there ſhould be a King and ſuperior Ruler above the King of Iſrael and the King of Iudah, who ſhould compell each one to doe a duty to his fellow King; for the King and People are each of them above, and below others in divers reſpects: The People, becauſe they create the man King, they are ſo above the King, and have a virtuall power to compell him to doe his duty: and the King, as King, hath an authoritative power above the People, becauſe Royaltie is formally in him, and originally and virtually only in the People; therefore may he compell them to their duty, as we ſhall heare anon; and therefore there is no need of an earthly Ruler higher then both, to compell both.
3 Aſſert. We ſhall hereafter prove the power of the people above the King, God willing. And ſo it is falſe that there is not mutuall coactive power on each ſide.
4 Aſſert. The obligation of the King in the covenant, flowethThe covenant bindeth the King, as King, not as he is a man only. from the peculiar obligation nationall betwixt the King and the Eſtates, and it bindeth the King, as King, and not ſimply as he is a man. 1. Becauſe it is a covenant betwixt the people and David, not as he is the ſonne of Jeſſe, for then it ſhould oblige Eliab, or any other of Davids brethren; yea, it ſhould oblige any man, if it oblige David as a man: but it obligeth David as a King, or as he is to be their King, becauſe it is the ſpecifice act of a King, that he is obliged unto, to wit, to governe the people in Righteouſneſſe and Religion with his Royall power. And ſo it is falſe that Arniſaeus ſaith, that the King, as a man, is obliged to God by this covenant, not as a King. 2. He ſaith, by covenant the King is bound to God as a Man, not as a King. But ſo the man will have the King, as King, under no law of God, and ſo he muſt either be above God, as King, or coequall with God; which are manifeſt blaſphemies: for I thought ever, the Royaliſts had not denyed, but the King, as King, had been obliged to keep his oath to his ſubjects, in relation to God, and in regard of naturall obligation; ſo as he …mneth before God, if he breake his covenant with his people: though they deny that he is obliged toThe covenant tyeth the King to the People politically as well as to God naturally or religiouſly. keep his covenant in relation to his Subjects, and in regard of politique or civill obligation to men. Sure I am, this the Royaliſts conſtantly teach. 3. He would have this covenant ſo made with men, as it obligeth not the King to men, but to God. But the contrary is true. Beſide the King and the Peoples covenant with the Lord, King Joaſh made another covenant with the People, and Jehoiada the Prieſt was only a witneſſe, or one who in Gods name performed the rite of annointing, otherwiſe he was a ſubject on the peoples ſide, obliged to keep allegiance to Joaſh, as to his Soveraigne and Maſter. But certainly, who ever maketh a covenant with the people, promiſing to governe them according to Gods word, and upon that condition and theſe termes receiveth a throne and crown from the people, he is obliged to what he promiſeth to the people, Omnis promittens facit alteri, cui promiſſio facta eſt, jus in promittent…m; Who ever maketh a promiſe to another, giveth to that other a ſort of right or juriſdiction to challenge the promiſe. The covenant betwixt David and Iſrael were a ſhadow, if it tye the people to allegiance to David as their King, and if it tye not David as King to govern them in righteouſneſſe; but leave David looſe to the people, and only tye him to God; then it is a covenant betwixt David and God only: But the Text ſaith, It is a covenant betwixt the King and the People, 2 King. 11. 17. 2 Sam. 5. 3.
Hence our ſecond Argument. He who is made a miniſter of God, 2 Arg.not ſimply, but for the good of the ſubject; and ſo he take heed to walk in Gods law as a King, and governe according to Gods will, he is in ſo far only made King by God, as he fulfilleth the condition; and in ſo far as he is a miniſter for evill to the ſubject, and ruleth not according to that which the book of the Law commandeth him as King, in ſo far he is not by God appointed King and Ruler, and ſo muſt be made a King by God conditionally: But ſo hath God made Kings and Rulers, Rom. 13. 4. 2 Chron. 6. 16. Pſ. 89. 30, 31. 2 Sam. 7. 12. 1 Chron. 28. 7, 8, 9. This argument is not brought to prove that Jeroboam or Saul leave off to be Kings, when they faile in ſome part of the condition; or as if they were not Gods Vicegerents to be obeyed in things lawfull, after they have gone on in wicked courſes: For, the People conſenting to make Saul King, they give him the Crown, pro hac vice, at his entry, abſolutely: there is no condition required in him before they make him King, but only that he covenant with them to rule according to Gods law: The conditions to be performed, are conſequent, and poſterior to his actuall coronation, and his ſitting on the Throne. But the argument preſuppoſing that which the Lords word teacheth, to wit, that the Lord and the people giveth a crown by one and the ſame action; for God formally maketh David a King by the Princes and Elders of Iſraels chooſing of him to be their King at Hebron; and therefore ſeeing the people maketh him a King covenant-wiſe, and conditionally, ſo he rule according to Gods Law, and the people reſigning their power to him for their ſafety, and for a peaceable and godly life under him, and not to deſtroy them, and tyrannize over them; it is certain God giveth a King that ſame way, by that ſame very act of the people; and if the King tyrannize, I cannot ſay it is beſide the intention of God making a King, not yet beſide his intention as a juſt puniſher of their tranſgreſſions; for to me as I conceive, nothing either good or evill falleth out beſide the intention of him, who doeth all things according to the pleaſure of his Will; if then the people make a King as a King conditionally for their fafety, and not for their deſtruction (for as a King he ſaveth, as a man he deſtroyeth, and not as a King and Father) and if God by the peoples free election make a King, God maketh him a King conditionally, and ſo by covenant; and therefore when God promiſeth 2 Sam. 7. 12. 1 Chron. 28. 7, 8, 9. to Davids ſeed, and to Solomon a Throne, he promiſeth not a Throne to them immediatly, as he raiſed up Prophets and Apoſtles, without any mediate action and conſent of the people, but he promiſeth a Throne to them by the mediate conſent, election, and covenant of the people; which condition and covenant he expreſſeth in the very words of the people, covenantHow the covenant is conditionall, and what breach diſſolveth the▪ covenant. with the King, ſo they walke as Kings in the Law of the Lord, and take heed to Gods Commandements and Statutes to doe them▪ Obj. But then Solomon falling in love with many outlandiſh women, and ſo not walking according to Gods Law, loſeth all royall dignity and Kingly power, and the people is not to acknowledge him as King, ſince the Kingly power was conferred upon him, rather then Adonijah, upon ſuch a condition, which condition not being performed by him, it is preſumed that neither God, nor the people under God, as Gods inſtruments in making King, conferred any royall power on him. Anſ. It doth not follow, that Solomon falling in love with ſtrange women doth loſe Royall dignity, either in the Court of Heaven, or before men; becauſe the conditions of the covenant upon which God by the people made him King muſt be exponed by the Law, Deut. 17. now that cannot beare, that any one act contrary to the Royall Office, yea that any one or two acts of Tyranny doth denude a man of the Royall dignity that God and the people gave him, for ſo David committing two acts of tyranny, one of taking his owne faithfull ſubjects wife from him, and another in killing himſelfe, ſhould denude himſelfe of all the Kingly power that he had, and that therefore the people after his Adultery and Murther were not to reknowledge David as their King, which is moſt abſurd; for as one ſingle act of unchaſtity is indeed againſt the matrimoniall covenant, and yet doth not make the woman no wife at all, ſo it muſt be ſuch a breach of the Royall Covenant, as maketh the King no King, that anulleth the Royall Covenant, and denudeth the Prince of his Royall authority and power, that muſt be interpreted a breach of the Oath of God, becauſe it muſt be ſuch a breach upon ſuppoſition, whereof the people would not have given the Crowne, but upon ſuppoſition of his deſtructiveneſſe to the Common-wealth, they would never have given to him the Crowne.
Obj. 2. Yet at leaſt it will follow, that Saul after he is rejected of God for diſobedience, in not deſtroying the Amalekites, as Samuel ſpeaketh to him, 1 Sam. 15. is no longer to be acknowledged King by the people, at leaſt after he committeth ſuch acts of tyranny, as are 1. Sam. 8. 12, 13, 14, 15. &c. and after he had killed the Prieſts of the Lord, and perſecuted innocent David without cauſe, he was no longer either in the Court of Heaven, or the Court of men to be acknowledged as King, ſeeing he had manifeſtly violated the royall covenant made with the people, 1 Sam. 11. v. 14, 15. and yet after thoſe breaches David acknowledgeth him to be his Prince, and the Lords annoynted. Anſ. The Prophet Samuel his threatning, 1 Sam. 17. is it not exponed of actuall unkinging and rejecting of Saul at the preſent; for after that, Samuel both honoured him as King before the people, and prayed for him, and mourned to God on his behalfe as King, 1 Sam. 16. 1. 2. but the threatning was to have effect in Gods time, when he ſhould bring David to the Throne, as was propheſied, upon occaſion of leſſe ſinne, even his ſacrificing and not waiting the time appointed, as God had commanded, 1 Sam. 13. v. 13, 14.
2. The people and Davids acknowledgment of Saul to be theOne or two tyrannous acts deprive not a King of his Royall right. Lords annoynted, and a King, after he had committed ſuch acts of Tyranny as ſeeme deſtructive of the Royall Covenant, and inconſiſtent therewith, cannot prove that Saul was not made King by the Lord, and the people, conditionally, and that for the peoples good and ſafety, and not for their deſtruction; and it doth well prove that thoſe acts of blood and tyranny committed by Saul, were not done by him as King, or from the principle of Royall power given to him by God and the people. 2. That in theſe acts they were not to acknowledge him as King. 3. That theſe acts of blood were contrary to the covenant that Saul did ſweare at his inauguration, and contrary to the conditions that Saul in the covenant tooke on him to perform at the making of the Royall covenant. 4. They prove not but the States who made Saul King, might lawfully dethrone him, and annoint David their King. But David had reaſon to hold him for his Prince, and the Lords Anointed, ſo long as the people recalled not their grant of Royall dignity, as David or any man is obliged to honour him as King whom the people maketh King, though he were a bloodier and more tyrannous man then Saul. Any Tyrant ſtandeth in titulo, ſo long as the People and Eſtates who made him King, have not recalled their grant; ſo as neither David, nor any ſingle man, though ſix hundred with him, may unking him, or detract obedience from him as King; So, many acts of diſloyaltie, and breaches of lawes in the Subjects, though they be contrary to this Covenant that the States make with their Prince, doth not make them to be no Subjects: and the Covenant mutuall ſtandeth thus.
3 Arg. If the people as Gods inſtruments, beſtow the benefitThe covenant between King and people conditionall. of a Crown on their King, upon condition that he will rule them according to Gods word; then is the King made King by the people conditionally: but the former is true; Ergo, ſo is the latter. The aſſumption is proved thus: becauſe to be a King, is to be an adopted father, tutor, a Politick ſervant and Royall watchman of the State; and the Royall honour, and Royall maintenance given to him, is a reward of his labours, and a Kingly hire. And this is the Apoſtles argument, Rom. 13. 6. For this cauſe pay you tribute alſo; (there is the wages) for they are Gods miniſters, attending continually upon this very thing; There is the worke. Qui non implet conditionem à ſe promiſſam, cadit benefi…io. It is confirmed thus. The people either maketh the man their Prince conditionally, that he rule according to Law; or abſolutely, ſo that he rule according to will or luſt: or, 3. without any vocall tranſactions at all, but only brevi manu, ſay, Reigne thou over us, and, (God ſave the King.) And ſo there be no conditions ſpoken on either ſide; Or, 4. The King is obliged to God for the condition which he promiſeth by oath to performe toward the people; but he is to make no reckoning to the people, whether he performe his promiſe or no; for the people being inferiour to him, and he, ſolo Deo minor, only next and immediate to God, the people can have no jus, no law over him by vertue of any covenant. But the firſt ſtanding, we have what we ſeeke; The ſecond is contrary to Scripture. He is not Deut. 17. 15, 16. made abſolutely a King to rule according to his will and luſt; for, [Reigne thou over us] ſhould have this meaning; Come thou and play the Tyrant over us, and let thy luſt and will be a law to us: which is againſt naturall ſenſe: nor can the ſenſe and meaning be according to the third, That the people without any expreſſe, vocall, and poſitive covenant, give a Throne to their King to rule as he pleaſeth; becauſe, 1. it is a vain thing for the Prelate and other Mancipia Aulae, Courtbellies, to ſay Scotland and England muſt produce a written authentick covenant betwixt the firſt King and their People, becauſe, ſay they, its the Lawes word, De non apparentibus & non exiſtentibus eadem lex; that covenant which appeareth not, it is not. For in poſitive covenants that is true, and in ſuch contracts as are made accordingThough there be no poſitive written covecant (which yet we grant not) yet there is a naturall, tacite, and implicite covenant betwixt the King and ths people. to the Civill or Municipall lawes, or the ſecondary law of Nations: But the generall covenant of nature is preſuppoſed in making a King, where there is no vocall or written covenant, if there be no conditions betwixt a Chriſtian King and his people, then thoſe things which are juſt and right according to the law of God, and the rule of God in moulding the firſt King, are underſtood to regulate both King and People, as if they had been written: and here we produce our written covenant, Deut. 17. 15. Joſh. 1. 8, 9. 2▪ Chr. 31▪ 32. 1. Becauſe this is as much againſt the King as the people, and more; for if the firſt King cannot bring forth his written and authentick tables to prove that the Crown was given to him and his heires, and his ſucceſſors abſolutely and without any conditions, ſo as his will ſhall be a law, ca lit cauſa, he loſeth his cauſe (ſay they) The King is in poſſeſſion of the Royall power abſolutely, without any condition, and you muſt put him from his poſſeſſion by a law. I anſwer, this is moſt falſe; 1. Though he were in mala fide, and in unjuſt poſſeſſion, the law of Nature will warrant the people to repeal their right, and plead for it, in a matter which concerneth their heads, lives, and ſoules▪ 2. The Parliaments of both Kingdomes ſtanding in poſſeſſion of a nomothetick power to make lawes, proveth cleerely that the King is in no poſſeſſion of any Royall dignitie conferred abſolutely and without any condition upon him: and therefore it is the Kings part by law to put the Eſtates out of poſſeſſion. And ſo though there were no written covenant, the ſtanding law and practice of many hundreth acts of Parliament, is equivalent to a written covenant.
2. When the people appointeth any to be their King, the voyce of Nature exponeth their deed, though there be no vocall or written covenant; For that fact of making a King, is a morall lawfull act warranted by the word of God, Deut. 17. 15, 16. Rom. 13. 1. 2. and the law of Nature: and therefore they having made ſuch a man their King, they have given him power to be their father, feeder, healer, protector; and ſo muſt only have made him King conditionally, ſo he be a father, a feeder, and tutor. Now if this deed of making a King, muſt be exponed to be an inveſting with an abſolute, and not a conditionall power; this fact ſhall be contrary to Scripture, and to the law of Nature: for if they have given him Royall powerIf the King be made King abſolutely, he is made ſuch an one contrary to the word of God and nature of his office. abſolutely, and without any condition, they muſt have given to him power to be a father, protector, tutor, and to be a tyrant, a murtherer, a bloody lyon to waſte and deſtroy the people of God.
3. The Law permitteth the beſtower of a benefit to interpret his own mind in the beſtowing of a benefit, even as a King and State muſt expone their own Commiſſion given to their Ambaſſadour, ſo muſt the Eſtates expone whether they beſtowed the Crown upon the firſt King conditionally or abſolutely.
For the 4th. if it ſtand, then muſt the people give to their firſt elected King a power to waſt and deſtroy themſelves, ſo as they may never controle it, but only leave it to God and the King to reckon together, but ſo the condition is a Chimera (We give you a Throne, upon condition you ſwear by him who made heaven and earth, that you will govern us according to Gods Law; and you ſhall be anſwerable to God only, not to us, whether you keep the covenant you make with us▪ or violate it;) but how a covenant can be made with the people, and the King obliged to God, not to the people, I conceive not. 2. This preſuppoſeth that the King as King cannot doe any ſin, or commit any act of tyranny againſt the people, but againſt God only; becauſe if he be obliged to God only as a King by vertue of his covenant: How can he faile againſt an obligation where there is no obligation? but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people, and indeed ſo doe our good men expound that Pſal. 51. Againſt thee, thee only have I ſinned, not againſt Ʋriah; for if he ſinned not as King againſt Ʋriah, whoſe life he was obliged to conſerve as a King, he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conſerve his life. Where there is no ſin, there is no obligation not to ſin, and where there is no obligation not to ſin, there is no ſin: By this the King as King is looſed from all duties of the ſecond Table, being once made a King, he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himſelfe, for he is above all his neighbours, and above all mankind, and only leſſe then God.
4. Arg. If the people be ſo given to the King, that they areThe people are not given to the Kings keeping ſo as they be his owne, as ſheep or mony are given. committed to him as a pledge, oppignorated in his hand, as a pupill to a Tutor, as a diſtreſſed man to a Patron, as a flocke to a Shepheard; and ſo as they remaine the Lords Church, his people, his flocke, his portion, his inheritance, his vineyard, his redeemedones, then they cannot be given to the King as Oxen and Sheepe, that are freely gifted to a man; or as a gift or ſumme of gold or ſilver, that the man to whom they are given may uſe, ſo that he cannot commit a fault againſt the oxen, ſheepe, gold or mony, that is given to him, how ever he ſhall diſpoſe of them.
But the people are given to the King to be tutored and protected of him, ſo as they remaine the people of God, and in covenant with him, and if the people were the goods of fortune (as Heathens ſay) he could no more ſinne againſt the people then a man can ſin againſt his gold; now though a man by adoring gold, or by laviſh profuſion and waſting of gold may ſin againſt God, yet not againſt gold; nor can he be in any covenant with gold, or under any obligation of either duty or ſin to gold, or to liveleſſe and reaſonleſſe creatures properly, therefore he may ſin in the uſe of them, and yet not ſin againſt them, but againſt God. Hence of neceſſity the King muſt be under obligation to the Lords people in another manner, then that he ſhould only anſwer to God, for the loſſe of men, as if men were worldly goods under his hand, and as if being a King he were now by this Royall Authority priviledged from the beſt▪halfe of the law of nature, to wit, from acts of mercy, and truth, and covenant keeping with his brethren.The King could not buy or ſell, borrow or contract debt if his covenant with men did not bind him.
5. Arg. If a King becauſe a King were priviledged from all covenant obligation to his ſubjects, then could no Law of men lawfully reach him for any contract violated by him, then he could not be a debtor to his ſubjects, if he borrowed mony from them, and it were utterly unlawfull either to crave him mony, or to ſue him at Law for debts, yet our Civill Lawes of Scotland tyeth the King to pay his debts, as any other man; yea and King Solomons traffiquing, and buying and ſelling betwixt him and his owne ſubjects would ſeeme unlawfull; for how can a King buy and ſell with his ſubjects if he be under no covenant obligation to men, but to God only. Yea then a King could not marry a wife, for he could not come under a covenant to keepe his body to her only, nor if he committed adultery, could he ſin againſt his wife, becauſe being immediate unto God, and above all obligation to men, he could ſin againſt no covenant made with men, but only againſt God.
6. If that was a lawfull covenant made by Aſa, and the States ofThe covenant ſworn by Aſa and all Iudah, 2 Chron. 15. obligeth the King. Iudah, 2 Chron. 15. 13. That whoſoever would not ſeeke the Lord God of their fathers, ſhould be put to death, whether ſmall or great, whether man or woman: this obligeth the King for ought I ſee, and the Princes, and the people, but it was a lawfull covenant, ergo the King is under a covenant to the Princes and Iudges, as they are to him; it is replyed, If a Maſter of a Schoole ſhould make a law, whoever Barclay.ſhall goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty obtained of the Maſter, ſhall be whipped, it will not oblige the Schoole-maſter that he ſhall be whipped, if he goe out at the Schoole doores without liberty; ſo neither doth this Law oblige the King the ſupreame Law-giver. Anſ. Suppoſe that the Schollars have no leſſe hand and authority magiſteriall in making the law, then the Schoole-maſter, as the Princes of Iudah had a collaterall power with King Aſa about that law; it would follow, that the Schoole-maſter is under the ſame law. 2. Suppoſe going out at Schoole doores were that way a morall neglect of ſtudying in the Maſter, as it is in the Scholars, as the not ſeeking of God is as hainous a ſinne in King Aſa, and no leſſe deſerving death then it is in the people; then ſhould the Law oblige Schoolmaſter and Scholler both without exception. 3. The Schoolemaſter is clearely above all lawes of diſcipline which he impoſeth on his Scholars, but none can ſay that King Aſa was clearely above that law of ſeeking of the Lord God of his fathers. Diodorus Siculus, l. 17. ſaith, the Kings of Perſia were under an oath, and that they might not change the Lawes; and ſo were the Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia. The Kings of Sparta, which Ariſtotle calleth juſt Kings, renew their oath every monethmonth. Romulus ſo covenanted with the Senate and People. Carolus V. Auſtriacus, ſweareth he ſhall not change the Lawes, without the conſent of the Electors, nor make new lawes, nor diſpoſe or impledge any thing that belongeth to the Empire. So read we, Spec. Saxon. l. 3. Act. 54. and Xenophon Cyriped. l. 8. ſaith,Alber. Gentilis in diſput. Regal. l. 2. c. 12. l. 3. c. 14; 15. 16. Hug. Grotius de jure belli, & poc. l. 2. c. 11, 12, 13. Arniſaeus d… authorit. princip. c. 1. n. 7. 8. 10. Haenon. diſp. 2. there was a covenant between Cyrus and the Perſians. The nobles are crowned when they crown their King, and exact a ſpeciall Oath of the King. So doth England, Polonia, Spaine, Arragonia, &c. Alberi. Gentilis. Hug. Grotius, prove that Kings are really bound to performe Oathes and contracts to their people; but notwithſtanding there be ſuch a covenant, it followeth not from this, ſaith Arniſaeus, that if the Prince breake his covenant and rule tyrannically, the people ſhall be free, and the contract or covenant nothing. Anſ. The covenant may be materially broken, while the King remaineth King, and the ſubjects remaine ſubjects, but when it is both materially and formally declared by the States to be broken, the people muſt be free from their Allegiance; but of this more hereafter.
Arg. 7. If a Maſter bind himſelfe by an Oath to his ſervant, he ſhall not receive ſuch a benefit of ſuch a point of ſervice; if he violate the Oath, his Oath muſt give his ſervant Law and right, both to challenge his Maſter, and he is freed from that point of ſervice; an Army appointeth ſuch a one their Leader and Captaine, but they refuſe to doe it, except he ſweare he ſhall not betray them to the enemy, he doth betray them, then muſt the ſouldiers be looſed from that contract; if one be appointed Pilate of a ſhip, and not but by an Oath, if he ſell the Paſſengers to the Turke, they may challenge the Pilate of his Oath; and it is cleare that 1. the eſtates ſhould refuſe to give the Crown, to him who would refuſe to governe them according to Gods Law, but ſhould profeſſe that he would make his owne will a Law, therefore the intention of the Oath is clearely conditionall. 2. When the King ſweareth the Oath, he is but King in fieri, and ſo not as King above the States of Kingdomes, now his being King doth not put him in a caſe above all civill obligation of a King to his ſubjects, becauſe the matter of the Oath is, that he ſhall be under them ſo farre, in regard of the Oath of God.
Arg. 8. If the Oath of God made to the people doe not bind him to the people to governe according to Law, and not according to his will and luſt, it ſhould be unlawfull for any to ſweare ſuch an Oath, for if a power above law agree eſſentially to a King as a King, as Royaliſts hold, he who ſweareth ſuch a Oath, ſhould both ſweare to be a King to ſuch a people, and ſhould ſweare to be no King in reſpect by his Oath he ſhould renounce that which is eſſentiall to a King.
Arniſaeus objecteth; Ex particularibus non poteſt colligi concluſio univerſalis, ſome few of the Kings, as David & Ioaſh, made a covenant with the people; it followeth not that this was a univerſall law. Anſ. Yea, the covenant is Deut. 17. and muſt be a rule to all; if ſo juſt a man as David was limited by a covenant, then all the reſt alſo.