Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 24
QUEST. XXIV. What power hath the King in relation to the Law, and the people? And how a King and a Tyrant differ?
Mr. Symmons ſaith, That Authoritie is rooted rather in the Prince,Loyall ſubjects belief, Sect. 6. p. 19. then in the Law; for as the King giveth Being to the inferiour Iudge, ſo he doth to the Law it ſelf, making▪ it authorizable; for propter quod unum-quodque tale, id ipſum magis tale, and therefore the King is greater then the Law: others ſay, That the King is the Fountain of the Law, and the ſole and onelyonly Law-giver.
Aſſert. 1. The Law hath a twofold conſideration, 1. Secundum Barcl. l. 4. c. 23. p. 325.eſſe paenale, in relation to the puniſhment to be inflicted by man▪ 2. Secundum eſſe legis, as it is a thing legally good in it ſelf: In the former notion, it is this way true, Humane Laws take life and being,Humane Laws as penall, take life from Law makers: as reaſonable, they have life from the eternall Law of God. inway to be puniſhed, or rewarded by men, from the will of Princes and Law-givers, and ſo Symmons ſaith true, Becauſe men cannot puniſh or reward Laws, but where they are made; and the will of Rulers putteth a ſort of ſtamp on a Law, that it bringeth the Commonwealth under guiltineſſe, if they break this Law. But this maketh not the King greater then the Law; for therefore do Rulers put the ſtamp of relation to puniſhment on the Law, becauſe there is intrinſecall worth in the Law, Prior to the Act of the will of Lawgivers, for which it meriteth to be inacted; and therefore, becauſeThe King not greater then the Law. it is authorizable as good and juſt, the King puteth on it this ſtamp of a Politique Law. God formeth Being, and morall Aptitude to the end in all Laws, to wit, the ſafetie of the people; and the Kings will is neither the meaſure, nor the cauſe of the goodneſſe of things.
2. If the King be he who maketh the Law good and juſt, becauſe he is more ſuch himſelf, then as the Law cannot crook, and erre, nor ſin; neither can the King ſin, nor break a Law. This is blaſphemy, Every man is a lyer; a Law which deſerveth the name of a Law, cannot lie.
3. His ground is, That there is ſuch majeſty in Kings, that their No neceſsitie that an unjuſt will of a King be either done by us, or on us.will muſt be done either in us, or on us: A great untruth. Achabs will muſt neither be done of Elias, for he commandeth things unjuſt; nor yet on Elias, for Elias fled, and lawfully we may ſlie Tyrants: and ſo Achabs will in killing Elias was not done on him,
Aſſert. 2. Nor can it be made good, that the King only hathThe King hath no Nomothetick power, his alone. power of making Lawes; becauſe his power were then abſolute, to inflict penalties on Subjects, without any conſent of theirs; and that were a dominion of Maſters, who command what they pleaſe, and under what paine they pleaſe. And the people conſenting to be ruled by ſuch a man, they tacitely conſent to penaltie of laws, becauſe naturall reaſon ſaith, An ill-doer ſhould be puniſhed. Florianus in l. inde. Vaſquez, l. 2. c. 55. n. 3. Therefore they muſt have ſome power in making theſe lawes.
2. Jer. 26. It is cleare, The Princes judge with the people: A nomothetick power differeth gradually only from a judiciall power, both being collarerall meanes to the end of Government, the peoples ſafetie. But Parliaments judge, ergo, they have a nomothetick power with the King.
3. The Parliament giveth all ſupremacie to the King; ergo, to prevent Tyrannie, it muſt keep a coordinate power with the King, in the higheſt acts.
4. If the Kingly line be interrupted, if the King be a Childe, or a Captive, they make Lawes, who make Kings; Ergo, this nomothetick power recurreth into the States, as to the firſt ſubject.
Obj. The King is the fountaine of the law, and Subjects cannotSymmons, Loyall Subject, Sect. 5. pag. 8. make Lawes to themſelves, more then they can puniſh themſelves. He is only the Supreme.
Anſw. The People being the fountaine of the King, muſt rather be the fountaine of Lawes. 2. It is falſe, that no man maketh lawes to himſelfe. Thoſe who teach others, teach themſelves alſo, 1 Tim. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. though Teaching be an act of authoritie. But they agree to the penaltie of the Law ſecondarily only; and ſo doth the King, who, as a father, doth not will evill of puniſhment to his children, but by a conſequent will. 3. The King is the only Supreme, in the power miniſteriall of executing lawes: but this is a derived power, ſo as no one man is above him; but in the fountaine-power of Royaltie, the States are above him.
5. The Civil law is cleare, that the laws of the Emperor have force only from this fountaine, becauſe the People have transferred their power to the King. Lib. 1. digeſt. tit. 4. de conſtit. Princip. leg. 1. ſic Ʋlpian. Quod Principi placuit, (loquitur de Principe formaliter, qua Princeps eſt, non qua eſt homo) legis habet vigorem, utpote cum lege Regia, quae de imperio ejus lata eſt. populus …i, & in eum, omne ſuum imperium & poteſtatem conferat. Yea, the Emperour himſelfe may be conveened before the Prince Elector. Aurea Bulla Carol. 4. Imper. c. 5. The King of France may be conveened before the Senate of Paris. The States may reſiſt a Tyrant, as Boſſius ſaith, de Principe, & privileg. ejus, n. 55. Paris de puteo, in tract. ſyno. tit. de exceſſ. Reg. c. 3. Divines acknowledge that Elias rebuked the halting of Iſrael betwixt God and Baal, that their Princes permitted Baals Prieſts to converſe with the King. And is not this the ſinne of the Land, that they ſuffer their King to worſhip Idols? and therefore the Land is puniſhed for the ſinnes of Manaſſeh, as Knox obſerveth in his Diſpute with Lethington, where he proveth that the States of Scotland ſhould not permit the Queen of Scotland to have her abominable Maſſe: Hiſt. of Scotland, l. 4. p. 379. edit. an. 1644. Surely the power or Sea-Prerogative of a ſleepie or mad Pilot to ſplit thePrerogative Royall, warranteth not the Prince to deſtroy himſelfe; nor is the people to permit him to cooperat for deſtruction to themſelves. ſhip on a rock, as I conceive, is limited by the Paſſengers. Suppoſe a father, in a diſtemper, would ſet his own houſe on fire, and burne himſelfe, and his ten ſonnes; I conceive, his Fatherly prerogative, which neither God nor Nature gave, ſhould not be looked to in this; but they may binde him. Yea, Althuſius, polit. c. 39. n. 60. anſwering that, That in Democracie the people cannot both command and obey; ſaith, It is true, ſecundum idem, ad idem, & eodem tempore: But the people may (ſaith he) chooſe Magiſtrates by ſucceſſion. Yea, I ſay, 1. they may change Rulers yearely, to remove envie: A yearely King were more dangerous, the King being almoſt above envie; Men incline more to flatter then to envie Kings. 2. Ariſtotle ſaith, polit. l. 4. c. 4. l. 6. c. 2. The people may give their judgement of the wiſeſt.
Obj. Williams B. of Oſſorie, Vindic. Reg. [A Looking-glaſſe for Rebels] ſaith, p. 64. To ſay the King is better than any one, doth not prove him to be better then two: and if his ſupremacie be no more, then any other may challenge as much: for the Prince is ſingulis major: A Lord is above all Knights; a Knight above all Eſquires: and ſo the People have placed a King under them, not above them.
Anſ. The reaſon is not alike: for all the Knights united cannotThe King inferiour to the People. make one Lord; and all the Eſquires united, cannot make one Knight; but all the People united, made David King at Hebron. 2. The King is above the people, by eminencie of derived authoritie, as a Watchman; and in actuall ſupremacie; and he is inferior to them in fountaine-power, as the effect to the cauſe.
Object. 2. The Parliament (ſaith Williams) may not commandParliaments ſupplicate not the King, ex debito. the King: Why then make they ſupplications to him, if their Vote be a Law?
Anſ. They ſupplicate, ex decentia, of decencie and conveniencie for his place; as a Citie doth ſupplicate a Lord Major: but they ſupplicate not ex debito, of obligation, as beggars ſeeke almes: then ſhould they be cyphers. 2. When a Subject oppreſſed, ſupplicateth his Soveraigne for juſtice; the King is obliged by office to give juſtice: And to heare the oppreſſed, is not an act of grace and merciemercy, as to give almes, though it ſhould proceed from merciemercy in the Prince, Pſal. 72. 13. but an act of Royall debt.
3. The P. Prelate objecteth: The moſt you claime to Parliaments,Sac. ſanct. maj. …. …. p. 103, 104 is a coordinate power, which in law and reaſon run in equall tearmes, In Law, par in parem non habet imperium; an equall cannot judge an equall, much leſſe may an inferiour uſurpeto judge a ſuperiour. Our Lord knew, gratiâ viſionis, the woman taken in adulterie, to be guilty; bat he would not ſcntence her: to teach us, not improbably, not to be both Judge and Witneſſe. The Parliament are Judges, accuſers, and witneſſes againſt the King in their owne cauſe, againſt the Imperiall lawes.
Anſ. 1. The Parliament is coordinate ordinarily with the King,Subordination of the King to the Parliament, and coordinatiō, both conſiſtent. in the power of making Lawes: but the coordination on the Kings part, is by derivation; on the Parliaments part, originaliter & fontaliter, as in the fountaine. 2. In ordinarie there is coordination: but if the King turne Tyrant, the Eſtates are to uſe their fountainepower. And that of the Law, Par in parem, &c. is no better from his Pen, that ſtealeth all he hath, then from Barclaius, Grotius, Arniſaeus, Blackwood, &c. It is cold and ſowre. We hold the Parliament that made the King at Hebron, to be above their own creature the King. Barclaius ſaith more acurately, l. 5, cont. Monarch. p. 129. It is abſurd, that the People ſhould both be ſubject to the King, and command the King alſo.
Anſ. It is not abſurd, that a Father naturall, as a private man, ſhould be ſubject to his Sonne; even that Jeſſe, and his elder brother, the Lord of all the reſt, be ſubject to David their King. Royaliſts ſay, Our late Queen, being ſupreme Magiſtrate, might by Law have put to death her own husband, for adulterie or murther.
2. The Parliament ſhould not be both Accuſer, Iudge, and Witneſſe in their own cauſe. 1. It is the Cauſe of Religion, of God, of Proteſtants, and of the whole people. 2. The oppreſſed accuſe: there is no need of witneſſes in raiſing armes againſt the Subjects. 3. The P. Prelate could not object this, if againſt the Imperiall laws the King were both Partie and Iudge in his own cauſe, and in theſe acts of arbitrarie power, which he hath done, through bad counſell, in wronging Fundamentall lawes, raiſing armes againſt his ſubjects, bringing in forraigne enemies into both his Kingdomes, &c. Now this is properly the cauſe of the King, as he is a man; and his owne cauſe, not the cauſe of God, and by no Law of nature, reaſon, or Imperiall Statutes can he be both Iudge and party.
4. If the King be ſole ſupreame Iudge without any fellow ſharers in power, 1. He is not obliged by Law to follow Counſell, or hold Parliaments; for Counſell is not Command. 2. It is unpoſſible to limit him even in the exerciſes of his power, which yet Dr. Ferne ſaith cannot be ſaid: for if any of his power be retrinched, God is robbed, ſaith Maxwell. 3. He may by Law play the Tyrant, gratis.
Ferne objecteth. §. 7. pag. 26. The King is a fundamentall withDo. p. 3. Sect. 4. pag. 2…. the Eſtates, now foundations are not to be ſtirred or removed.
Anſ. The King as King inſpired with Law is a fundamentall, and his power is not to be ſtirred, but as a man waſting his people, he is a deſtruction to the houſe, and community, and not a fundamentall in that notion.
Some object, The three Eſtates as men, and looking to their owne ends, not to Law, and the publick good, are not fundamentalls, and are to be judged by the King.
Anſ. By the people, and the conſcience of the people they are to be judged.
Obj. But the people alſo doe judge as corrupt men, and not as the people, and a Politique Body, providing for their owne ſafety.
Anſ. I grant all, when God will bring a vengeance on Jeruſalem, Prince and people both are hardened to their owne deſtruction. Now God hath made all the three, in every Government where there is Democracy, there is ſome choſen ones reſembling an Ariſtocracy, and ſome one for order preſiding in Democraticall courts, reſembling a King. In Ariſtocracy as in Holland, there is ſomewhat of Democracy, the people have their Commiſſioners, and one Duke or Generall, as the… Prince of Orange is ſome …mbrage of Royalty, and in Monarchy there are the three Eſtates of Parliament, and theſe containe the three Eſtates, and ſo ſomewhat of the three formes of Government, and there is no one Government juſt that hath not ſome of all three; powre and abſolute Monarchy is Tyranny, unmixed Democracy, is confuſion, untempered Ariſtocracy is factious Dominion, and a limited Monarchy hath from Democracy reſpect to publick good without confuſion. From Ariſtocracy ſafetyTemperament of all the three in a limited Monarchy. in multitude of Counſells without factious emulation, and ſo a barre laid on Tyranny, by the joynt powers of many; and from Soveraignty union of many children in one father: and all the three thus contempered have their owne ſweet fruits through Gods bleſſing, and their owne diſeaſes by accident, and through mens corruption; and neither reaſon nor Scripture ſhall warrant any one in its rigid purity without mixture: And God having choſen the beſt government to bring men fallen in ſinne to happineſſe, muſt warrant in any one a mixture of all three, as in mixt bodies the foure Elements are reduced to a fit temper reſulting of all the foure, where the acrimony of all the foure firſt qualities is broken, and the good of all combined in one.
The King as the King is an unerring and living Law, and by grantBurel. Ad verfus Monarchomachous l. 1. pag. 24. A King as King how excellent a head of the people, how contrary to a Tyrant. of Barclay, of old was one of excellent parts, and noble through vertue and goodneſſe; and the goodneſſe of a father as a father, of a tutor as a tutor, of a head as a head, of a husband as a husband doe agree to the King as the King, ſo as King he is the Law it ſelfe, commanding, governing, ſaving. 2. His Will as King, or his Royall Will is reaſon, conſcience, Law. 3. This Will is politickly preſent (when his perſon is abſent) in all Parliaments, Courts, and inferiour Iudicatures. 4. The King as King cannot doe wrong or violence to any. 5. Amongſt the Romanes the name King and Tyrant were common to one thing. 1. Becauſe de facto, ſome of their Kings were Tyrants, in reſpect of their Dominion, rather then Kings. 2. Becauſe he who was a Tyrant De facto, ſhould have been, and was a King too de jure. 6. It is not lawfull to either diſobey or reſiſt a King as a King, no more then it is lawfull to diſobey a good Law. 7. What violence, what unjuſtice, and exceſſe of paſſion the King mixeth in, with his Acts of Government, are meerely accidentall to a King as King! for becauſe men by their owne innate goodneſſe▪ will not, yea Morally cannot doe that which is lawfull, and juſt one to another, and doe naturally, ſince the fall of man, violence one to another; therefore, if there had not been ſin, there ſhould not have been need of a King, more then there ſhould have beene need of a Tutor to defend the child, whoſe father is not dead, or of a Phyſitian to cure ſickneſſe where there is health; for remove ſinne, and there is neither death nor ſickneſſe, but becauſe ſinne is entered into the world, God deviſed, as a remedy of violenceThe King as an erring man no remedy againſt confuſions, and oppreſſions of Anarchy. and unjuſtice, a living, rationall breathing Law called a King, a Iudge, a Father: now the aberrations, violence, and oppreſſion of this thing which is the living, rationall, breathing Law is no Medium, no meane intended by God, and nature to remove violence. How ſhall violence remove violence? Therefore an unjuſt King, as unjuſt, is not that genuine ordinance of God, appointed to remove unjuſtice, but accidentall to a King. So we may reſiſt the unjuſtice of the King, and not reſiſt the King. 8, If then any caſt off the nature of a King, and become habitually a Tyrant, in ſo farre he is not from God, nor any ordinance which God doth owne: If the Office of a Tyrant (to ſpeake ſo) be contrary to a Kings Offices, it is not from God, and ſo neither is the power from God. 9. Yea Lawes (which are no leſſe from God, then the Kings are) when they begin to be hurtfull, Ceſſant materialiter, they leave off to be Lawes; becauſe they oblige Non ſecundum vim verborum, ſed in vim ſenſus, not according to the force of words, but according to ſenſe, …. Non figura literarum F. de actione & obligatione, l. ita ſtipulatus. But who (ſaith the Royaliſts) ſhall be judge betwixt the King and the people, when the people alledge that the King is a Tyrant.
Anſ. There is a Court of neceſſity, no leſſe then a Court ofA Court of necesſity, and a Court of Iuſtice. Juſtice; and 2. The fundamentall Lawes muſt then ſpeake, and it is with the people in this extremity, as if they had no Ruler.
Obj. 1. But if the Law be doubtſome, as all humane, all Civill, all municipall Lawes may endure great diſpute, the peremptory perſon exponing, the Law muſt be the ſupreame Iudge. This cannot be the people, ergo, it muſt be the King.
Anſ. 1. As the Scriptures in all fundamentalls are cleare, andHumane Laws not ſo obſcure as Tyranny is legible. expone themſelves, and Actu primo condemne Hercſies, ſo all Lawes of men in their fundamentals, which are the Law of Nature, and of Nations are cleare. And 2. Tyranny is more viſible and intelligible then Hereſie, and its ſoone decerned. If a King bring in upon his native ſubjects twenty thouſand Turks armed, and the King lead them. It is evident, they come not to make a friendly viſite to ſalute the Kingdom, and depart in peace: the people have a naturall throne of policie in their conſcience to give warning, and materially ſentence againſt the King, as a Tyrant, and ſo by nature are to defend themſelves: Where Tyranny is more obſcure, and the thred ſmall, that it eſcape the eye of men, the King keepeth poſſeſſion; but I deny that Tyranny can be obſcure long.
Object. 2. Doct. Ferne. A King may not, or cannot eaſily alterFerne, part. 3. ſect. 5. pag. 39. the frame of fundamentall Laws, he may make ſome actuall invaſion, in ſome tranſient, and not fixed acts; and it is ſafer to bear theſe, then to raiſe a civill Warre of the Body, againſt the Head.
Anſw. 1. If the King as King, may alter any one wholeſome Law,It is ridiculous to ſay, a King canno… be ſo void of reaſon, as to deſtroy his people. by that ſame reaſon he may alter all. 2. You give ſhort wings to an Arbitrary Prince, if he cannot over flie all Laws to the ſubverſion of the Fundamentalls of a State, if you make him as you do. 1. One who hath the ſole Legiſlative power, who allanerly by himſelf, maketh Laws, and his Parliament and Councell are onelyonly to give him advice, which by Law he may as eaſily reject, as they can ſpeak words to him. He may in one tranſient act (and it is but one) cancell all Laws made againſt idlolatry and Popery, and command, through bad Counſell, in all his Dominions; the Pope to be acknowledged as Chriſts Vicar, and all his doctrine to be eſtabliſhed as the Catholike true Religion. It is but one tranſient act to ſeal a pardon to the ſhedding of the blood of two hundred thouſand, killed by Papiſts. 2. You make him a King, who may not be reſiſted in any caſe; and though he ſubvert all Fundamentall Laws, he is countable to God onelyonly, his people have no remedy, but prayers, or flight.
Object. 3. Ferne▪ Limitations and mixtures in MonarchiesPart. 3. ſect. 5. pag. 39. do not imply a forceable reſtraining power in ſubjects, for the preventing of the diſſolution of the State, but onelyonly a legall reſtraining power; and if ſuch a reſtraining power be in the ſubjects, by reſervation, then it muſt be expreſſed in the conſtitution of the Government, and in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people: but ſuch a condition … unlawfull, which will not have the Soveraign power ſecured, is unprofitable for King, and people; a ſeminary for ſeditions and jealouſies.
Anſw. I underſtand not a difference betwixt forceable reſtraining and legall reſtraining: For he muſt mean by (legall) mans Law, becauſe he ſaith, It is a Law in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch, and his people. Now if this be not forceable, and phyſicall, it isIf there be a civill reſtraint from mans Law, laid upon the King, it muſt be forceable. onelyonly Morall in the conſcience of the King, and a Cypher, and a meer vanitie, for God, not the people putteth a reſtraint of conſcience on the King, that he may not oppreſſe his poor ſubjects; but he ſhall ſin againſt God, that is a poor reſtraint: the goodneſſe of the King a ſinfull man inclined from the womb to all ſin, and ſo to Tyranny, is no reſtraint. 2. There's no neceſſitie, that the reſerve be expreſſed in the Covenant between King, and people, more then in contract of marriage between a husband and a wife, beſide her joynter; you ſhould ſet down this clauſe in the contract, that if the husband attempt to kill the wife, or the wife the husband, in that caſe it ſhall be lawfull to either of them to part companies: For Doct. Ferne ſaith, That perſonall defence is lawfull in the people, if the Kings aſſault be 1. Suddain. 2. Without colour of Law. 3. Inevitable: Yet the reſerve of this power of defence, is not neceſſarily to be expreſſed in the contract, betwixt King and people. Exigences of the Law of nature cannot be ſet down in poſitive Covenants, they are preſuppoſed. 3. He ſaith, A reſervation of power, whereby ſoveraigntie is not ſecured, is unlawfull. Lend me this Argument: The giving away of a power of defence, and a making the King abſolute, is unlawfull, becauſe by it the people is not ſecured; but one man hath thereby the ſword of God putIts more requiſite, the people, religion, and Church, be ſecured, then one man. in his hand, whereby ex officio, he may as King cut the throats of thouſands, and be countable to none therefore, but to God onelyonly: now if the non-ſecuring of the King, make a condition unlawfull, the non-ſecuring of a Kingdom and Church, yea, of the true religion (which are infinitely in worth above one ſingle man) may far more make the condition unlawfull. 4. A legall reſtraint on a King, is no more unprofitable, and a ſeminary of jealouſies between King and people, then a legall reſtraint upon people; for the King out of a non-reſtraint, as out of ſeed, may more eaſily educe tyranny, and ſubverſion of religion: If outlandiſh women tempt even a Solomon to idolatry, as people may educe ſedition out of a legall restraint laid upon a King, to ſay nothing, that Tyranny is a more dangerous ſin, then ſedition; by how much more the lives of many, and true religion, are to be preferred to the ſafetie of one, and a falſe peace.
Object. 4. An abſolute Monarch i… free from all forceable reſtraint,D. Ferne, p. 3. ſect. 5. pag. 40. and ſo far, as he is abſolute from all legall reſtraint of poſitive Laws: now in a limited Monarch there is onelyonly ſought a legall reſtraint, and limitation cannot infer a forceable reſtraint, for an abſolute Monarch is limited alſo, not by civill compact, but by the Law of nature and nations, which he cannot juſtly tranſgreſſe; if therefore an abſolute Monarch being exorbitant, may not be reſiſted, becauſe he tranſgreſſeth the Law of nature; how ſhall we think a limited Monarch may be reſiſted, for tranſgreſſing the bounds ſet by civill agreement.
Anſw. A legall reſtraint on the people, is a forceable reſtraint: For if Law be not backed with force, it is onelyonly a Law of rewarding weldoing, which is no reſtraint, but an incouragement to do evil. If then there be a legall reſtraint upon the King, without any force, it is no reſtraint, but onelyonly ſuch a requeſt as this, Be a juſt Prince, and we will give your Majeſtie two Subſidies in one yeer. 2. I utterly deny, that God ever ordained ſuch an irrationall creature, as an abſolute Monarch. If a people unjuſtly, and againſt natures dictates make away, irrevocably, their own libertie, and the libertie of their poſteritie, which is not their's to diſpoſe off, and ſet over themſelves, as baſe ſlaves, a ſinning creature with abſolute power, he is their King, but not as he is abſolute, and that he may not be forceably reſiſted; notwithſtanding, the ſubjects did ſwear to his abſoluteTo ſwear to an abſolute Prince, as abſolute, is an oath Eatenus, in ſo far, not obligatory. power (which oath in the point of abſoluteneſſe, is unlawfull, and ſo not obligatory) I utterly deny. 3. An abſolute Monarch (ſaith he) is limited, but by Law of nature: That is, Maſter Doctor, he is not limited as a Monarch, not as an abſolute Monarch, but as a ſon of Adam, he is under the limites of the Law of nature, which he ſhould have been under, though he had never been a King, all his dayes, but a ſlave. But what then? Therefore he cannot be reſiſted. Yes, Doctor, by your own grant he can be reſiſted: If he invade an innocent ſubject (ſay you) 1. Suddenly. 2. Without colour of Law. 3. Inevitably: And that becauſe he tranſgreſſeth the Law of nature. 4. You ſay, a limited Monarch can leſſe be reſiſted for tranſgreſſing the bounds ſet by civill agreement. But, 1. What if the thus limited Monarch tranſgreſſe the Law of nature, and ſubvert Fundamentall Lawes, he is then, you ſeem to ſay, to be reſiſted; it is not for ſimple tranſgreſſion of a civill agreement, that he is to be reſiſted. 2. The limited Monarch is as eſſentially the Lords anointed, and the power ordained of God, as the abſolute Monarch. Now reſiſtance by all your grounds, is unlawfull, becauſe of Gods power and place conferred upon him, not becauſe of mens poſitive covenant made with him.
To finde out the eſſentiall difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant:Difference betwixt a Tyrant in act, and a Tyrant in habit. We are to obſerve, that it is one thing to ſin againſt a man, another thing againſt a State. David killing Vriah, committed an act of murther: But on this ſuppoſition, that David is not puniſhed for that murther, he did not ſo ſin againſt the State, and Catholike good of the State, that he turneth Tyrant, and ceaſeth to be a lawfull King. A Tyrant is he who habitually ſinneth againſt the Catholike good of the Subjects and State, and ſubverteth Law. Such a one ſhould not be, as Jaſon, of whom it is ſaid by Aeneas Epiſt. 45.Silvius, Graviter ferebat, ſi non regnaret, quaſi neſciret eſſe privatus. When ſuch as are monſtrous Tyrants, are not taken away by the Eſtates, God purſueth them in wrath. Domitian was killed byThe tragicall end of many Tyrannous Princes. his own Family, his wife knowing of it. Aurelianus was killed with a thunder-bolt. Darius was drowned in a River. Diocleſian fearing death, poyſoned himſelf. Salerius died eaten with Worms: The end of Herod, and Antiochus. Maxentius was ſwallowed up in a ſtanding River. Iulian died, being ſtricken through with a Dart thrown at him by a man, or an Angel, it is not known. Valens the Arian was burnt with fire in a little Village by the Gothes. Anaſtaſius the Eutychian Emperour, was ſtricken by God with thunder. Gundericus Vandalus, when he roſe againſt the Church of God, being apprehended by the Divell, died. Some time the State have taken order with Tyrants. The Empire was taken from Vitellius, Heliogabalus, Maximinus, Didius, Iulianus: So was the two Childerici of France ſerved: So were alſo Sigebertus, Dagabertus, and Lodowick the 11. of France. Chriſtiernus of Denmark, Mary of Scotland, who killed her husband, and raiſed Forces againſt the Kingdom: So was Henricus Valeſius of Pol, for fleeing the Kingdom. Sigiſmundus of Pol, for violating his faith to the States.