Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 22
QUEST. XXII. Whether the power of the King as King be abſolute, or dependent and limited by Gods firſt mould and paterne of a King?
DOctor Ferne ſheweth us it was never his purpoſe to plead forFerne par. 3. Defence. Sect. 3. pag. pag. 1…. abſoluteneſſe of an Arbitrary commandement, free from all Morall reſtraint laid on the power by Gods Law; but only he ſtriveth for a power in the King that cannot be reſiſted by the ſubject. But truely we never diſputed with Royaliſts of any abſolute power in the King, free from Morall ſubjection to Gods Law 1. Becauſe any bond that Gods Law impoſeth on the King, it commeth wholly from God, and the nature of a Divine Law, and not from any voluntaryThe queſtion is not, if the King be ſo abſolute as he is freed from all Morall reſtraint comming from Gods Law. contract, or covenant, either expreſſe, or tacito, betwixt the King and the people who made him King, for if he faile againſt ſuch a covenant, though he ſhould exceed the cruelty of a King, or a man, and become a Lion and a Nero, a Mother-killer, he ſhould in all his inhumanity and breach of covenant be countable to God, not to any man on earth. 2. To diſpute with Royaliſts, if Gods Law lay any Morall reſtraint upon the King, nor to diſpute whether the King be a rationall man, or no; and whether he can ſin againſt God, and ſhall cry in the day of Gods wrath (if he be a wicked Prince) Hills fall on us, and cover us, as it is Revel. 6. 15, 16. and whether Tophet be prepared for all workers of iniquity; and certainly I juſtifie the Schoole-men in that queſtion: Whether or no God could have created a rationall creature, ſuch a one as by nature is impeccable, and not naturally capable of ſinne before God? if Royaliſts diſpute this queſtion of their abſolute Monarch, they are wicked Divines.
2. We plead not at this time (ſaith the Prelate ſtealing from Grotius,Sacr. ſanc. Maj. cap. 14. p. 1…3. Barclaius, Arniſaeus, who ſpake it with more ſinewes of reaſon) for a (maſterly, or) deſpoticall, or rather a ſlaviſhing Soveraignty, which is Dominium herile, an abſolute power, ſuch as the great Turke this day exerciſeth over his ſubjects, and the King of Spaine hath over, and in his territories without Europe: we maintain only regiam poteſtatem, quae fundatur in paterna, ſuch royall fatherly Soveraignty as we live under▪ bleſſed be God, and our predeceſſors. This (ſaith he) as it hath its Royall Prerogative inherent to the Crowne naturally, and inſeparable from it, ſo it trencheth not upon the liberty of the perſon, or the property of the goods of the ſubject, but in, and by the lawfull and juſt acts of juriſdiction.
Anſ. 1. Here is another abſolute power diſclaimed to be in the King, he hath not ſuch a maſterly and abſolute liberty as the Turke hath. Why? Iohn P. P. in ſuch a tender and high point as concerneth ſoule and body of ſubjects in three Chriſtian Kingdomes, you ſhould have taught us 1. What bonds and fetters any covenant or paction betwixt the King and people layeth upon the King, why he hath not as King the power of the great Turke. I will tell you▪ The Great Turke may command any of his ſubjects to leape into a mountaine of fire, and burne himſelfe quick, in conſcience of obedience to his Law. And what if the ſubject diſobey the Great Turk? if the Great Turke be a lawfull Prince, as you will not deny. And if the King of Spaine ſhould command forraine conquered ſlaves to doe the like. By your Doctrine neither the one, nor the other were obliged to reſiſt by violence, but to pray, or fly, which both were toNo reſiſting of the moſt Turkiſh Tyran by the Royaliſts way. ſpeake to ſtones, and were like the man, who in caſe of ſhip-wrack, made his devotion of praying to the waves of the ſea, not to enter the place of his b…d and drowne him. But a Chriſtian King hath not this power; Why, and a Chriſtian King (by Royaliſts doctrine) hath a greater power then the Turke (if greater can be) he hath power to command his ſubjects to caſt themſelves into Hellfire; that is, to preſſe on them a ſervice wherein it is written: (Adore the worke of mens hands in the place of the living God) and this is worſe then the Turkes commandement of bodily burning quick. And what is left to the Chriſtian Subjects, in this caſe, is the very ſame, and no other then is left to the Turkiſh and forraigne Spaniſh ſubject; Either flee, or make prayers▪ There is no more left to us. 2. Many Royaliſts maintaine, that England is a conqueredAn abſolute King more abſolute then the Great Turke, by Royaliſts way. Nation. Why then, ſee what power, by law of Conqueſt, the King of Spaine hath over his ſlaves, the ſame muſt the King of England have over his ſubjects. For, to Royaliſts, a title by Conqueſt to a Crown, is as lawfull as a title by birth or election. For lawfulneſſe, in relation to Gods law, is placed in an indiviſible point, if we regard the eſſence of lawfulneſſe: And therefore there is nothing left to England, but that all Proteſtants who take the oath of a Proteſtant King, to defend the true Proteſtant Religion, ſhould, after prayers, conveyed to the King through the fingers of Prelates and Papiſts; leave the Kingdome empty to Papiſts, Prelates and Atheiſts.
3. All power reſtrained, that it cannot ariſe from ten degreesNo law at all, by Royaliſts way, to impede a King from a ſuperinundation of overflowing Tyrann… ▪ to foureteen, from the Kingly power of Saul, 1 Sam. 8. 9, 11. to the Kingly power of the Great Turke, to fourteen; 1. muſt either be reſtrained by Gods law; 2. or by Mans law; or 3. by the innate goodnes and grace of the Prince; or 4. by the providence of God. A reſtraint from Gods law is vaine: for it is no queſtion between us and Royaliſts, but God hath laid a morall reſtraint on Kings, and all men, that they have not morall power to ſinne againſt God. 2. Is the reſtraint laid on by mans law? What law of man? 1. The Royaliſt ſaith, 1. The King, as King, is above all law of man. Then (ſay I) no law of man can hinder the Kings power of ten, to ariſe to the Turkiſh power of foureteen. 2. All law of man, as it is mans law, is ſeconded either with Eccleſiaſticall and ſpirituall coaction, ſuch as Excommunication; ▪or with Civill and temporall coaction, ſuch as is the Sword, if it be violated. But Royaliſts deny, that either the ſword of the Church in Excommunication, or the Civill ſword, ſhould be drawn againſt the King. 3. This law of man ſhould be produced by this profound Iuriſt, the P. Prelate, who mocketh at all the Statiſts and Lawyers of Scotland. It is not a covenant betwixt the King and People, at his Coronation: for though there were any ſuch covenant, yet the breach of it doth binde before God, but not before man: nor can I ſee, or any man elſe, how a law of man can lay a reſtraint on the Kings power of two degrees, to cancell it within a Law, more then on a power of ten, or fourteene degrees. If the King of Spaine, the lawfull Soveraigne of thoſe over-European people, (as Royaliſts ſay) have a power of foureteene degrees over thoſe conquered Subjects, as a King; I ſee not how he hath not the like power over his own Subjects of Spaine, to wit, even of Foureteen: for what agreeth to a King, as a King, (and Kingly power from God he hath as King) he hath it in relation to all Subjects, except it be taken from him in relation to ſome Subjects, and given by ſome law of God; or in relation to ſome other Subjects. Now, no man can produce any ſuch law. 4. The nature of the goodneſſe and grace of the Prince, cannot lay bonds on the King, to cancell his power, that he ſhould not uſurpe the power of the King of Spaine toward his over-Europeans. 1. Royaliſts plead for a power due to the King, as King, and that from God; ſuch as Saul had, 1 Sam. 8. 9, 11. 1 Sam. 10. 25. But this power ſhould be a power of grace and goodneſſe in the King, as a good man; not in the King, as a King, and due to him by law: And ſo the King ſhould have his Legall power from God, to be a Tyrant. But if he were not a Tyrant, but ſhould lay limits on his own power, through the goodneſſe of his own nature; No thankes to Royaliſts that he is not a Tyrant: For, actu primo, and as he is a King, (as they ſay) he is a Tyrant, having from God a Tyrannous power of ten degrees, as Saul had, 1 Sam. 8. and why not of foureteen degrees, as well as the Great Turke, or the King of Spaine? if he uſe it not, it is his own perſonall goodneſſe, not his officiall and Royall power. 4. The raſtraint of Providence laid by God upon any power to doe ill, hindreth only the exerciſe of the power not to breake forth in as Tyrannous acts as ever the King of Spaine, or the great Turke can exerciſe toward any. Yea, Providence layeth Phyſicall reſtraint, and poſſibly morall, ſometimes, upon the exerciſe of that power that Devils, and the moſt wicked men of the world hath: but Royaliſts muſt ſhew us that Providence hath laid bounds on the Kings power, and made it fatherlie, and not maſterly; ſo that if it the power exceed bounds of fatherly power, and paſſe over to the diſpoticall and maſterly power, it may be reſiſted by the Subjects. But that they will not ſay. 4. This paternall and fatherly power that God hath given to Kings, as Royaliſts teach, it trencheth not upon the libertie of the Subjects, and propertie of their goods; but in, and by lawfull and juſt acts of Juriſdiction (ſaith the P. Prelate:) Well; Then it may trench upon the libertie of ſoule and body of the Subjects; but in, and by lawfull and juſt acts of of juriſdiction: But none are to judge of theſe acts of Iuriſdiction, whether they be juſt or not juſt, but the King, the only Iudge of ſupreme and abſolute authoritie and power. And if the King command the idolatrous ſervice in the obtruded Service-booke, it is a lawfull and a juſt act of juriſdiction: For to Royaliſts, who make the Kings power abſolute, all acts are ſo juſt to the Subject, though he command Idolatrie and Turciſme, that we are to ſuffer only, and not to reſiſt. 5. The Prelate preſumeth that Fatherly power is abſolute: But ſo if a father murther his childe, he is not comptable to the Magiſtrate therefore; but being abſolute over his children, only the Judge of the World, not any power on earth can puniſh him. 6. We have proved that the Kings power is paternall or fatherly only, by analogie, and improperly. 7. What is this Prerogative Royall, we ſhall heare by and by, 8. There is no reſtraint on Earth, laid upon this fatherly power of the King, but Gods law, which is a morall reſtraint. If then the King challenge as great a power as the Turke hath, he only ſinneth againſt God; but no mortall man on earth may controll him, as Royaliſts teach: and who can know what power it is that Royaliſts plead for, whether a diſpoticall power of Lordly power, or a fatherly power? If it be a power above law, ſuch as none on earth may reſiſt it; it is no matter whether it be above law of two degrees, or of twenty, even to the Great Turkes power.
Theſe goe for Oracles, at Court▪ Tacitus. Principi ſummum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt, ſubditis obſequii gloria relicta eſt. Seneca. Indigna digna habenda ſunt, Rex quae facit. Saluſtius. Impun… quidvis facere, id eſt, Regem eſſe. As if to be a King, and to be a God, who cannot erre, were all one. But certainly, theſe Authors are taxing the Licence of Kings, and not commanding their power.
But that God hath given no abſolute and unlimited power to a King, above the law, is evident by this:
Arg. 1. He who in his firſt inſtitution, is appointed of God, by1 Arg. againſt Abſoluteneſſe of Kings. office, even when he ſitteth on the throne, to take heed to read on a written copie of Gods law, that he may learne to feare the Lord his God, and keep all the words of this law, &c. He is not of abſolute power above law. But, Deut. 17. 18, 19▪ the King, as King, while he ſitteth on the Throne, is to doe this; Ergo, the Aſſumption is cleare: for this is the law of the King, as King; and not of a man, as a man. But as he ſitteth on the Throne, he is to read on the booke of the Law: and ver. 20. Becauſe he is King, his heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren. And as King, v. 16. he is not to multiply horſes, &c. So Polititians make this argument good: They ſay, Rex eſt lex viva, animata▪ & loquens lex: The King, as King, is a living, breathing,Why the King a breathing Law? three reaſons. and ſpeaking Law. And there be three reaſons of this: 1. If all were innocent perſons, and could doe no violence one to another; the Law would rule all, and all men would put the Law in execution, agendo ſponte, by doing right of their own accord; and there ſhould be no need of a King to compell men to do right. But now, becauſe men are, by nature, averſe to good lawes, therefore there was need of a Ruler, who by office ſhould reduce the Law into practice: and ſo is the King the Law reduced in practice. 2. The Law is ratio ſive mens, the reaſon or minde, free from all perturbations of anger, luſt, hatred, and cannot be tempted to ill; and the King, as a man, may be tempted by his own paſſions; and therefore as King, he commeth by office out of himſelfe to reaſon and law; and ſo much as he hath of Law, ſo much of a King; and in his remoteſt diſtance from Law and Reaſon, he is a Tyrant. 3. Abſtracta concretis ſunt puriora & perfectiora. Iuſtice is perfecter then a juſt man, Whitenes perfecter then the white wall: ſo the neerer the King comes to a Law, for the which he is a King, the neerer to a King; Propter quod unumquodque tale, id ipſum magis tale. Therefore Kings throwing lawes to themſelves, as men, whereas they ſhould have conformed themſelves to the Law, have erred. Cambyſes the ſonne of Cyrus, becauſe he loved his own ſiſter, would have the mariage of the brother with the ſiſter, lawfull. Anaxarchus ſaid to Alexander, grieved in minde that he had killed Clytus: Regi ac Iovi Themin atque Iuſtitiam aſſidere: Iudgement and Righteouſneſſe did alway accompanie God and the King in all they doe. But ſome to this purpoſe ſay better; The Law, rather then the King, hath power of life and death.
Arg. 2. The power that the King hath (I ſpeak not of his gifts)2. Argument againſt an abſolute King: The People have no abſolute power over themſelves, and ſo cannot make over any ſuch power to the King. he hath it from the people, who maketh him King, as I proved before: but the people have neither formally nor virtually any power abſolute to give the King, all the power they have, is a legall and naturall power to guide themſelves in peace and godlineſſe, and ſave themſelves from unjuſt violence, by the benefit of Rulers. Now an abſolute power above a Lawis a power to doe ill, and to deſtroy the people, and this the people have not themſelves, it being repugnant to nature, that any ſhould have a naturall power in themſelves to deſtroy themſelves, or to inflict upon themſelves an evill of puniſhment to deſtruction. Though therefore it were given, which yet is not granted, that the people had reſigned all power that they have into their King, yet if he uſe a Tyrannicall power againſt the people for their hurt and deſtruction, he uſeth a power that the people never gave him; and againſt the intention of nature: for they inveſted a man with power to be their father, and defender for their good, And he faileth againſt the peoples intention in uſurping a… over power to himſelfe, which they never gave, never had, never could give, for they cannot give what they never had, and power to deſtroy themſelves they never had.
3. Arg. All Royall Power, whereby a King is a King, andArg. 3. differenced from a private man, armed with no power of the ſword, is from God.
But abſolute power to Tyranize over the people, and to deſtroyAgainſt an abſolute Prince. them, is not a power from God: Ergo there is not any ſuch royall power abſolute. The propoſition is evident, becauſe that God who maketh Kings, and diſpoſeth of Crownes, Prov. 8. 15, 16. 2 Sam. 12. 7. Daniel 4. 32. muſt alſo create and give that Royall and Officiall power, by which a King is a King, 1. Becauſe God created man, he muſt be the Author of his reaſonable ſoule; if God be the Author of things, he muſt be the Author of their formes, by which they are, that which they are. 2. All power is Gods. 1 Chro. 29. 11 Matth. 6. 13. Pſ. 62. 11. Pſ. 68. 35. Dan. 2. 37. And that abſolute power to Tyrannize, is not from God. 1. Becauſe if this MorallPower Tyrannicall is not from God. power to ſinne be from God, it being formally wickedneſſe, God muſt be the Author of ſinne. 2. What ever Morall power is from God, the exerciſes of that power, and the acts thereof muſt be from God, and ſo theſe acts muſt be Morally good and juſt; for if the Morall power be of God, as the Author, ſo muſt the acts be. Now the acts of a Tyrannicall power are acts of ſinfull unjuſtice and oppreſſion, and cannot be from God. 3. Polititians ſay, There is no power in Rulers to doe ill, but to helpe and defend the people, as the power of a Phyſi…ian to deſtroy; of a Pilot to caſt away the ſhip on a Rock, the power of a Tutor to waſt the inheritance of the Orphan, and the power of father and mother to kill their children, and of the mighty to defraud and oppreſſe, are not powers from God. So Ferdinand Vaſquez illuſtr. queſt. l. 1. c. 26. c. 45. Pruckman d. c. 3. §. Soluta poteſtas. Althuſ. pol. cap. 9. n. 25.
Barclaim, Grotius, Doct. Ferne, (The P. Prelates wit could come Barclaius contr. Monarcho. l. 2. pag. 62.up t̄o it) ſay, That abſolute power to do ill, ſo as no mortall man can lawfully reſiſt it, is from God; and the King hath this way power from God as no ſubject …an reſiſt it, but he muſt reſiſt the Ordinance of God, and yet the power of tyranny is not ſimply from God.
Anſw. The Law ſaith, Illud poſſumus quod jure poſſumus, Papinus That evaſion removed, Tyrannicall power is not from God, but a power to do ill, ſo as no mortall man may reſiſt, is from God.F. filius, D. de cond. Juſt. The Law ſaith, It is no power which is not lawfull power. The Royaliſts ſay, power of Tyranny in ſo farre as it may be reſiſted, and is puniſhable by men, is not from God; but what is the other part of the diſtinction; it muſt be, that Tyrannicall power is ſimpliciter from God, or in it ſelf it is from God, but as it is puniſhable or reſtrainable by ſubjects, it is not from God: now to be puniſhable by ſubjects, is but an accident and tyrannicall power is the ſubject, yea, and it is an ſeparable accident; for many Tyrants are never puniſhed, and their power is never reſtrained, ſuch a Tyrant was Saul, and many perſecuting Emperours: Now if the Tyrannicall power it ſelf was from God, the argument is yet valid, and remaineth unanſwered; and ſhall not this fall to the ground as falſe, which Arniſaeus de autho. princ. c. 2. n. 10. Dum contra officium facit, Magiſtratus non eſt Magiſtratus, quippe a quo non injuria, ſed jus naſci debeat, l. meminerint. 6. C. unde vi. din. in C. quod quis, 24. n. 4, 5.—Et de ho… neminem dubitare aut diſſentire ſcribit, Marant. diſp. 1. num. 14. When the Magiſtrate doth by violence, and without law any thing, in ſo farre doing againſt his Office, he is not a Magiſtrate; then ſay I, that power by which he doth, is not of God. 2. None doeth then reſiſt the Ordinance of God, who reſiſt the King in Tyrannous acts. 2. If the power, as it cannot be puniſhed by the ſubject▪ nor reſtrained, be from God. Ergo, the Tyrannicall power itſelf, and without this accident (that it can be puniſhed by men) it muſt be from God alſo; but the concluſion is abſurd, and denied by Royaliſts. I prove the connexion: For if the King have ſuch a power above all reſtraint, the power itſelf, to wit, King Davids power to kill innocent Ʋriah, and defloor Bathſhebah, without the accident, of being reſtrained or puniſhed by men, is either from God, or not from God; if it be from God, it muſt be a power againſt the ſixth and ſeventh Commandment, which God gave to David, and not to any ſubject, and ſo David lied when he confeſſed this ſin▪ and this ſin cannot be pardoned becauſe it was no ſin; and Kings becauſe Kings, are under no tye of duties of mercy and truth, and juſtice to their ſubjects, contrary to that which Gods Law requireth of all Judges, Deut. 1. 15, 16, 17. and 17. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 2 Chro. 19. 6, 7. Rom. 13. 3, 4. If this power be from God, as it is unreſtrainable and unpuniſhable by the ſubject, it is not from God at all; for how can God give a power to do ill, that is unpuniſhable by men, and not give that power to do ill; it is unconceiveable: For in this very thing that God giveth to David, a power to murther the innocent, with this reſpect, That it ſhall be puniſhable by God onelyonly, and not by men, God m…ſt give it as a ſinfull power to do ill, which muſt be a power of diſpenſation to ſin, and ſo not to be puniſhed by either God, or man, which is contrary to his revealed will in his word: If ſuch a power as not reſtrainable by man, be from God, by way of permiſſion, as a power to ſin in divels, and men is, then it is no Royall power, nor any Ordinance of God, and to reſiſt this power, is not to reſiſt the Ordinance of God.
Argum. 4. That power which maketh the benefit of a King, toArgum. 4. Againſt an abſolute Prince. A King as a King muſt be a plague, i… God be the Creator of an abſolute Prince. be no benefit, but a judgement of God, as a making all the people ſlaves, ſuch as were ſlaves amongſt the Romans and Jews, is not to be aſſerted by any Chriſtian: but an abſolute power to do ill, and to Tyrannize, which is ſuppoſed to be an eſſentiall and conſtitutive of Kings, to difference them from all Judges, maketh the benefit of a King no benefit, but a judgement of God, as making all the people ſlaves. That the major may be clear, It is evident to have a King, is a bleſſing of God, becauſe to have no King is a judgement, Judg. 17. 6. Every man doth what ſeemeth good in his own eyes, Judg. 18. 1. and 19. 1. and 21. 25. 2. So it is a part of Gods good providence to provide a King for his people, 1 Sam. 16. 1. ſo 2 Sam. 5. 12. And David perceived that the Lord had eſtabliſhed him King over Iſrael, and that he had exalted his Kingdom, for his people Iſraels ſake, 2 Sam. 15. 2, 3, 6. 2 Sam. 18. 3. Rom. 13. 2, 3, 4. If the King be a thing good in it ſelf, then can he not actu primo, be a curſe and a judgement, and eſſentially a bondage and ſlavery to the people: alſo the genuine and intrinſecall end of a King is the good, Rom. 13. 4. and the good of a quiet a peaceable life in all godlineſſe and honeſty, 1 Tim. 2. 2. and he is by Office, cuſtos utriuſque tabulae, whoſe genuine end is to preſerve the law from violence, and to defend the ſubject; he is the peoples debtor for all happyneſſe poſſible to be procured by Gods ſword, either in peace or war, at home or abroad. For the aſſumption, it is evident. An abſolute and Arbitrary power is a King-law, ſuch as Royaliſts ſay God gave to Saul, 1 Sam. 8. 9, 11. and 10. 25. to play the Tyrant, and this power Arbitrary and unlimited above all Laws, is that which 1. Is given of God. 2. Diſtinguiſheth eſſentially the Kings of Iſrael from the Iudge, …aith Banclay, Grotius, Arniſaeus. 3. A conſtitutive form of a King, therefore it muſt be actu primo a benefit, and a bleſſing of God: but if God hath given any ſuch power abſolute to a King, as 1. His will muſt be a law, either to do or ſuffer all the Tyranny and cruelty of a Tyger, Leopard, or a Nero, and a Julian, then hath God given actu primo, a power to a King as King, to inſlave the people and ſlock of God, redeemed by the blood of God, as the ſlaves among the Romans and Iews, who were ſo under their maſters, as their bondage was a plague of God, and the lives of the people of God under Pharaoh, who compelled them to work in brick and clay. 2. Though he cut the throats of the people of God, as the Lionneſſe Queen Mary did, and command an Army of ſouldiers to come and burn the Cities of the Land, and kill man, wife, and children; yet in ſo doing, he doth the part of a King, ſo as you cannot reſiſt him as a man, and obey him as a King, but muſt give your necks to him, upon this ground, becauſe this abſolute power of his is ordained of God; and there is no power, even to kill, and deſtroy the innocent, but it is of God, ſo ſaith Paul, Rom. 13. If we beleeve Court-Prophets, or rather Lying-Spirits, who perſwade the King of Britain, to make war againſt his three Dominions. Now it is clear, that the diſtinction of bound and free, continued in Iſrael even under the moſt tyrannous Kings, 2 Kings 4. 1. yea, even when the Iews were captives under Ahaſuerus, Eſther 7. 4. And what difference ſhould there be between the people of God under their own Kings, and when they were captives under Tyrants, ſerving wood and ſtone, and falſe gods, as was threatned, as a curſe in the Law, Deut. 28. 25, 36, 64, 68. If their own Kings by Gods appointment have the ſame abſolute power over them; and if he be a Tyrant, actu primo, that is, if he be indued with abſolute power, and ſo have power to play the Tyrant, then muſt the people of God be actu primo, ſlaves, and under abſolute ſubjection, for they are relatives, as lord and ſervant, conquerour and captive. It is true, they ſay, Kings by office are fathers, they cannot put forth in action their power to deſtroy: I anſwer, it is their goodneſſe of nature, that they put not forth in action, all their abſolute power to deſtroy, which God hath given them as Kings; and therefore thanks are due to their goodneſſe, for that they do not actu ſecundo play the Tyrant; for Royaliſts teach that by vertue of their office, God hath given to them a Royall power to deſtroy. Ergo, The Lords people are ſlaves under them, though they deal not with them as ſlaves, but that hindereth not, but the people by condition are ſlaves: ſo, many Conquerours of old, did deal kindely with theſe ſlaves whom they took in war, and dealt with them as ſons, but as Conquerours they had power to ſell them, to kill them, to put them to work in brick and clay: ſo ſay I here,The goodneſſe of an abſolute Prince in not putting forth his power in actuall deſtroying of the people, hindereth not the power to be actu primo, Tyrannicall. Royall power and a King, cannot be a bleſſing, and actu primo a favour of God to the people; for the which they are to pray, when they want a King, that they may have one, or to praiſe God when they have one. But a King muſt be a curſe and a judgement, if he be ſuch a creature as eſſentially, and in the intention and nature of the thing it ſelf, hath by office a Royall power to deſtroy, and that from God; for then the people praying (Lord give us a King) ſhould pray (make us ſlaves, Lord, take our Libertie and power from us, and give a power illimited and abſolute to one man, by which he may (if he pleaſe) waſte us and deſtroy us, as all the bloody Emperours did the people of God.) Surely, I ſee not but they ſhould pray for a temptation, and to be led in temptation when they pray God to give them a King, and therefore ſuch a power is a vain thing.
Argum. 5. A power contrary to juſtice. 2. To peace and theArgum. 5. Againſt abſolute Princes. An abſolute Prince againſt juſtice, peace, reaſon, law, &c. good of the people. 3. That looketh to no law as a rule, and ſo is unreaſonable, and forbidden by the Law of God, and the Civill Law, L. 15. filius de condit. Inſtit. cannot be a lawfull power, and cannot conſtitute a lawfull Iudge; but an abſolute and unlimited power is ſuch: How can the Iudge be the Miniſter of God for good to the people, Rom. 13. 4? If he have ſuch a power as a King given him of God to deſtroy and waſte the people?
Argum. 6. An abſolute power is contrary to nature, and ſo unlawfull;Argum. 6. Againſt an abſolute Prince. for it maketh the people give away the naturall power of defending their life againſt illegall and cruell violence, and maketh a man who hath need to be ruled and lawed by nature, above all rule and law; and one who by nature can ſin againſt his brethren,It is againſt▪ nature. ſuch a one as cannot ſin againſt any, but God onelyonly, and maketh him a Lion and an unſociall man. What a man is Nero, whoſe life is poeſie & paintry, Domitian only an Archer. Valentinian only a Painter, Charles the 9th. of France only an Hunter, Alphonſus Dux Ferrarienſis only an Aſtronomer, Philippe of Macedo only a Muſitian, and all becauſe they are Kings? This our King denyeth when he ſaith, Art. 13. There is power legally placed in the Parliament, more then ſufficient to prevent and reſtraine the power of Tyranny. But if they had not power to play the Lions, it is not much that Kings are Muſitians, Hunters, &c.
7. God in making a King to preſerve his people, ſhould give libertyArg. 7. Againſt an abſolute Prince, contrary to the fift Commandement. without all politick reſtraint, for one man to deſtroy many; which is contrary to Gods end in the fift Commandement, if one have abſolute power to deſtroy ſoules and bodies of many thouſands.
8. If the Kings of Iſrael and Iudah were under cenſures andArg. 8. Againſt an abſolute Prince. The King remaineth a brother when he is King, and may be rebuked, may not take his neighbours vineyard from him. rebukes of the Prophets, and ſinned againſt God and the people in rejecting theſe rebukes, and in perſecuting the Prophets, and were under this Law not to take their neighbours wife, or his Vineyard from him againſt his will, and the inferiour Iudges were to accept the perſons of none in Iudgement, ſmall or great; and if the King yet remaine a brother, notwithſtanding he be a King, then is his power not above any Law nor abſolute: for what reaſon? 1. He ſhould be under one Law of God to be executed by men, and not under another Law? Royaliſts are to ſhew a difference from Gods Word. 2. His neighbours, brother, or ſubjects may by violence keepe back their Vineyards, and chaſtity from the King: Naboth may by force keepe his owne Vineyard from Achab; by the Lawes of Scotland, if a ſubject obtaine a Decree of the King of violent poſſeſſion of the Heritages of a ſubject, he hath by Law, power to caſt out, force, apprehend and deliver to priſon theſe who are Tenants, brooking theſe Lands by the Kings perſonall Commandement.A Damſell forced by the King may violently reſiſt. If a King ſhould force a Damſell, ſhe may violently reſiſt, and by violence, and bodily oppoſing of violence to violence, defend her owne chaſtity. Now that the Prophets have rebuked Kings is evident. Samuel rebuked Saul, Nathan David, Elias King Achab. Ieremiah is commanded to Propheſie againſt the Kings of Iudah Ier. 1. 18. and the Prophets practiſed it, Ier. 19. 3. c. 21. 2. c. 22. 13, 14, 15. Hoſ. 5. 1. Kings are guilty before God, becauſe they ſubmitted not their Royall power and greatneſſe to the rebukes of the Prophets, but perſecuted them.
2 Deut. 17. 20. The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother, Pſal. 22. 22. and ſo the Iudges or three Eſtates are not to accept of the Perſon of the King, for his greatneſſe, in Iudgement, Deut. 1. 16, 17. and the Iudge is to give out ſuch a ſentence in Iudgement as the Lord, with whom there is no iniquity, would give out, if the Lord himſelfe were ſitting in Iudgement; becauſe the Iudge is in the very ſtead of God, as his Lievtenant, 2 Chron. 19. 6, 7. Pſ. 82. 1, 2. Deut. 1. 17. And with God there is no reſpect of perſons, 2 Chro. 19. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Act. 10. 34. I doe not intend that, any inferiour Iudge ſent by the King, is to judge the King, but theſe who gave him the Throne, and made him King are truely above him, and to judge him without reſpect of perſons, as God would judge himſelfe, if he himſelfe were ſitting in the Beanch.
3. God is the Author of Civill Lawes and Government, and hisNo ſufficient meanes againſt all cruelties and unjuſt violences, if an abſolute Prince be from God, all goe to confuſion. intention is therein the externall peace and quiet life, and godlineſſe of his Church and people, and that all Iudges according to their places be Nurſe-fathers to the Church, Eſay 49. 23. Now God muſt have appointed ſufficient meanes for this end; but there is no ſufficient meanes at all, but a meere Anarchy and confuſion, if to one man an abſolute and unlimited power be given of God, whereby at his pleaſure he may obſtruct the fountaines of Iuſtice, and command Lawyers and Lawes to ſpeake not Gods mind, that is Iuſtice, righteouſneſſe, ſafety, true Religion, but the ſole luſt and pleaſure of one man. And 2. this one having abſolute and irreſiſtible influence on all the inferiour Inſtruments of Iuſtice, may by this power turne all into Anarchy, and put the people in a worſe condition, then if there were no Iudge at all in the Land. For that of Polititians, that Tyranny is better then Anarchy, is to be taken Cum grano ſalis; but I ſhall never beleeve, that abſolute power of one man, which is actu primo, Tyranny is Gods ſufficient way of peaceable government. Therefore Barclaius ſaith nothing for the contrary, when he ſaith,Barclaius cont, Monarch. l. 2▪ pag. 76, 77. The Athenians made Draco and Solon abſolute Law-givers, For, a facto adjus non valet conſequentia. What if a roving people truſting Draco and Solon to be Kings above mortall men, and to be gods, gave them power to make Lawes written, not with Inke, but with blood: Shall other Kings have from God the like Tyrannicall and bloody power from that, to make bloody Lawes? Chytreus, Lib. 2. and Sleidan citeth it. l. 1. Sueton. Sub paena periurii non tenentur fidem ſevare regi degeneri.
9. He who is regulated by Law, and ſweareth to the three Eſtates9. Argument againſt an abſolute Prince. The conditions tacite or expreſſe, upon which the Prince receiveth the crown fight with all abſolute power. to be regulated by Law, and accepteth the Crown Covenantwiſe, and ſo as the Eſtates would refuſe to make him their King, if either he ſhould refuſe to ſweare, or if they did beleeve certainly that he would breake his oath; he hath no illimited and abſolute power from God or the People: for, faedus conditionatum, aut premiſſio conditionalis mutua, facit jus alteri in alterum: A mutuall conditionall Covenant giveth law and power over one to another. But from that which hath been ſaid; The King ſweareth to the three Eſtates, to be regulated by Law; He accepteth the Crowne upon the tenor of a mutuall covenant, &c. for if he ſhould, as King, ſweare to be King, that is, one who hath abſolute power above a Law; and alſo to be regulated by a Law: he ſhould ſweare things contradictorie, that is, that he ſhould be their King, having abſolute power over them, and according to that power to rule them: and he ſhould ſweare, not to be their King, and to rule them, not according to abſolute power, but according to Law. If therefore this abſolute power be eſſentiall to a King, as a King; no King can lawfully take the oath to governe according to Law: for then he ſhould ſweare not to reigne as King, and not be their King; For how could he be their King, wanting that which God hath made eſſentiall to a King, as a King?